U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–114 PDF 2007

AN EXAMINATION OF POINT SYSTEMS AS A

METHOD FOR SELECTING IMMIGRANTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, 

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 1, 2007

Serial No. 110–20

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH GIBSON, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES,

BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas

UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Chief Counsel 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 1, 2007

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 1

The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 3

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Jeff Sessions, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 6

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 9

Ms. Clare Feikert, LL.M., Foreign Law Specialist for the United Kingdom, 

Law Library of Congress 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 26

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 28

Mr. Stephen Clarke, LL.M., Senior Foreign Law Specialist, Law Library 

of Congress 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 43

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 45

Ms. Lisa White, LL.M., Foreign Law Specialist for Australia and New Zealand, Law Library of Congress 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 56

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 58

Mr. Demetrios G. Papademetriou, Ph.D., President, Migration Policy Institute 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 76

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 79

Mr. Howard Greenberg, Partner, Greenberg Turner 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 85

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 88

Mr. Lance Kaplan, Partner, Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen, and Loewy 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 98

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 100

Mr. Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 109

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 111

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on 

Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International 

Law ........................................................................................................................ 2

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on 

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 4

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ....... 5

Page

IV

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Questions submitted to each of the Law Library of Congress witnesses by 

the Honorable Steve King, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ............. 133

Memorandum accompanying answers to post-hearing questions posed by the 

Honorable Steve King, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, received 

from Rubens Medina, Law Librarian of Congress ............................................ 134

Answers to post-hearing questions posed by the Honorable Steve King, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border 

Security, and International Law, received from Rubens Medina, Law Librarian of Congress .............................................................................................. 135

Questions submitted to each of the Law Library of Congress witnesses by 

the Honorable Keith Ellison, Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ............................ 140

Memorandum accompanying answers to post-hearing questions posed by the 

Honorable Keith Ellison, Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, received from Stephen F. Clarke, Senior Foreign Law Specialist, Law Library of Congress ..... 141

Answers to post-hearing questions posed by the Honorable Keith Ellison, 

Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, received from Stephen F. Clarke, Senior 

Foreign Law Specialist, Law Library of Congress ............................................ 142

Heritage Special Report entitled ‘‘The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households 

to the U.S. Taxpayer,’’ by Robert Rector, Christine Kim, and Shanea Watkins, Ph.D., published by The Heritage Foundation, submitted by the Honorable Steve King, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ............................ 164

Letter from the Alliance of Filipinos for Immigrant Rights and Empowerment 

(AFIRE), et al. to the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman, Subcommittee 

on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International 

Law ........................................................................................................................ 220

(1)

AN EXAMINATION OF POINT SYSTEMS AS A 

METHOD FOR SELECTING IMMIGRANTS 

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:08 p.m., in Room 

2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe Lofgren 

(Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Berman, Jackson Lee, Waters, 

Delahunt, Ellison and King. 

Staff Present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel; R. Blake 

Chisam, Majority Counsel; Benjamin Staub, Professional Staff 

Member; and George Fishman, Minority Counsel. 

Ms. LOFGREN. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law will 

come to order. 

I would like to welcome the Immigration Subcommittee Members, our witnesses, and members of the public. We are here today 

for the Subcommittee’s sixth hearing on comprehensive immigration reform. 

In our first five hearings, we examined the need for comprehensive immigration to secure our borders, to address economic and 

demographic concerns, and for historical reasons. We have examined immigration reform in 1986 and 1996 in an effort to avoid the 

mistakes of the past. Last week, we considered the problems with 

and proposed solutions for our current employment and work site 

verification system. 

Today, we are turning our attention to immigration point systems. You might have noticed some talk over the past couple of 

months about selecting immigrants using what’s known as a ‘‘point 

system,’’ such as those used by Canada and Australia. Some have 

suggested replacing many parts of our current immigration law 

with a point system. 

In the United States, we have had three overarching criteria by 

which we select immigrants: family ties, economic need, and international humanitarian obligations and priorities. We have woven 

these principles into our immigration preference system, and they 

are woven into the fabric of our society. 

Whatever our process, we must remain true to these cherished 

principles of American society. The question is, can a point system 

capture these principles and help us implement them in practice? 

2

I look forward to the testimony today to help us learn more about 

point systems so that we may determine whether it is right for the 

United States. 

It should be noted that immigration point systems have been 

considered and rejected by Congress as far back as 1981 and again 

in the late 1980’s, even after lengthy hearings and debate. Have 

things changed since the 1980’s? Are there new facts to be considered? New issues? These are all questions I will have for our witnesses today. 

I very much look forward to the objective descriptions of point 

systems used by Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Britain, presented by the Library of Congress. They will provide the background we need to conduct our own analysis of point systems and 

allow us to compare them to the current immigration system. And, 

as pointed out by the Library, they are not allowed to take a position on these items, only to provide technical information. 

I look forward to expert opinions on point systems from witnesses who have studied, practiced and/or advocated for point systems and, in some cases, compared them to the current U.S. System. With today’s overview and analysis, I hope we can reach a 

conclusion on whether the U.S. should also turn to an immigration 

point system while moving away from a preference system built 

upon family ties, economic need, and humanitarian concerns. 

So thank you again to our distinguished witnesses for being here 

today to help us sort through what is a complex and very important issue; and I would now recognize our distinguished Ranking 

minority Member, Congressman Steve King, for his opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL

LAW

I would like to welcome the Immigration Subcommittee Members, our witnesses, 

and members of the public to the Subcommittee’s sixth hearing on comprehensive 

immigration reform. 

In our first five hearings, we examined the need for comprehensive immigration 

to secure our borders, to address economic and demographic concerns, and for historical reasons. We have examined immigration reform in 1986 and 1996 in an effort to avoid the mistakes of the past. Last week we considered the problems with 

and proposed solutions for our current employment and worksite verification system. 

Today we are turning our attention to immigration point systems. You might have 

noticed some talk over the past couple of months about selecting immigrants using 

what’s known as a ‘‘point system,’’ such as those used by Canada and Australia. 

Some have suggested replacing many parts of our current immigration law with a 

point system. 

In the United States, we have three overarching criteria by which we select immigrants—family ties, economic need, and international humanitarian obligations and 

priorities. 

We have woven these principles into our immigration preference system because 

they are woven into the fabric of our society. 

Whatever our process, we must remain true to these cherished principles of American society. The question is—can a ‘‘point system’’ capture these principles and help 

us implement them in practice? 

I look forward to the testimony today to help us learn more about point systems 

so that we may determine whether it is right for the United States. 

3

It should be noted that immigration point systems have been considered and rejected by Congress as far back as 1981 and again in the late 1980’s, even after 

lengthy hearings and debate. 

Have things changed since the 1980’s? Are there new facts to be considered? New 

issues? 

These are all questions I will have for our witnesses today. I very much look forward to the objective descriptions of point systems used by Australia, Canada, New 

Zealand, and Britain, presented by the Library of Congress. This will provide the 

background we need to conduct our own analysis of point systems and allow us to 

compare them to the current U.S. immigration system. 

I also look forward to expert opinions on point systems from witnesses who have 

studied, practiced and/or advocated for point systems and in some cases compared 

them to the current U.S. system. 

With today’s overview and analysis, I hope to reach a conclusion on whether the 

U.S. should also turn to an immigration point system while moving away from a 

preference system built upon family ties, economic need, and humanitarian concerns. 

Thank you again to our distinguished witnesses for being here today to help us 

sort through what is a complex and very important issue.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair; and thanks for holding this 

hearing. I’m glad the Immigration Subcommittee is taking an aggressive approach to the hearings on the complex issue of comprehensive immigration reform. 

As you all know, this subject is like a labyrinth. One issue leads 

to another, which leads yet to another. It’s difficult to find the end. 

So I look forward to many more hearings in order to flesh out the 

topics involved with any comprehensive immigration reform bill. 

Today’s topic has a long pedigree. In fact, the full Committee 

Ranking Member, Mr. Smith of Texas, explored immigration point 

systems when he chaired the Immigration Subcommittee in the 

late 1990’s. I’m pleased the point systems are being discussed as 

an option as we work to seek an immigration system that benefits 

21st century America. 

The most important concern when discussing any changes to 

U.S. immigration policy should be what is in America’s national interest. Unfortunately, many people seem to have the best interest 

of other nations and other citizens in mind. 

So a system that requires foreign nationals be allocated points 

for certain skills and attributes seems like a promising idea. In 

fact, in recent years, democratic industrialized countries around 

the world have been instituting immigration point systems. In your 

remarks, you mentioned those of Canada and the skills that they 

identify; and one of the things that was interesting is the emphasis 

that Canada put on language skills, including French and English, 

their two official languages. 

And Australia also has a point system and identifies a skilled 

work force, language proficiency; and also there’s the focus on age 

and particularly youth, people who have years to contribute to the 

economy, rather than just a few years to tap into the Social Security benefits. 

The United Kingdom as well. One of the things that I would like 

to point out that caught my attention would be they own a system 

that will give the country a, quote—and this is Liam Byrne, the 

United Kingdom Immigration Minister. They want a system that 

will give the country, quote, the best way of letting in only those 

people who have something to offer Britain, closed quote. 

4

The U.K. System requires a potential immigrant to get at least 

80 points based on age, aptitude and experience, et cetera. I looked 

through these lists, and they are very high standards; and to the 

extent that, once you get past a certain age, it’s really a detriment 

to try to apply and be accepted through these systems and to put 

that in an economic equation and define that. 

But these kind of point systems that focus on the social aspects 

and the family reunification plans seem to work as a detriment to 

our economic interests; and I’m interested in promoting an immigration policy that enhances the economic, the social and the cultural well-being of the United States of America. I think that is an 

important principle for us to adhere to. 

I look forward to the testimony and very much welcome Senator 

Sessions from Alabama and appreciate the fact that he’s here 

today. And I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. King. 

Mr. Conyers is apparently on his way, and so we will reserve his 

opening statement. And if Mr. Smith arrives, of course, we will also 

reserve his opening statement. 

In the interest of proceeding through our witnesses and mindful 

of their schedules, I would ask that other Members who arrive submit their opening statements for the record. Without objection, all 

opening statements will be placed into the record; and, without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the hearing 

at any time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY

Today, we examine the notion of a ‘‘point system’’ as a possible feature of immigration reform. This system attempts to quantify the skills of potential immigrants 

in comparison to the perceived need of the admitting nation. 

Other English-speaking countries have used point systems to decide who may immigrate. In the United States, on the other hand, our employment and family-based 

immigration systems respond not only to economic needs, but to humanitarian 

needs as well. 

At least three areas of possible concern leap out when looking at a point system. 

First, a point system could result in an inflexible bureaucratic nightmare. Under 

this system, occupations are rated and given points on the basis of the Government’s prediction of what jobs are needed. Frankly, this starts to a lot like the inflexible systems used by HMOs that take medical decisions away from patients and 

put them in the hands of bureaucrats. 

In the United States, we should trust employers to determine what their needs 

are based on the changing market, rather than publishing and ranking every category of job and assigning them priority. Such an expansion of the Labor Department’s responsibility to classify and rank jobs—as contemplated by this proposal—

would create a large and expensive bureaucracy while we would still not have 

enough labor inspectors out in the field to prevent worker exploitation. 

Second, it appears this system has not worked well in Canada. People admitted 

under this program in Canada often fail to obtain employment in their areas of expertise. An immigration system that rewards family ties or employer sponsorship 

seems to make underemployment or isolation less likely. 

Third, a point system could foster discrimination and return us to the old days 

in which Northern Europeans were welcomed but African, Asians and Latin Americans were told that they ‘‘need not apply.’’ If a point system is just a method of selecting the most educated, disparities in education systems will leave out much of 

the developing world. English language requirements can have a discriminatory effect. Instead of this approach, we should be encouraging talented immigrants to 

come to our shores and help them learn English here, which could then serve as 

a threshold for a more permanent stay. 

5

Breaking the stranglehold of the old quota system has greatly benefitted our Nation. Increased numbers of immigrants from the developing world and their entrepreneurial spirit contributed to American’s economic growth. Some of those people 

came with developed skills. Others built their skills in American universities. But 

many came with just a dream and a stubborn will to succeed. 

A point system that results in de facto exclusion is inconsistent with our future 

needs and our lasting values. The country has always thrived on the experience and 

determination of such immigrants. A controlled, orderly, and fair system can harness this energy for the benefit of all. 

I welcome all of our distinguished panelists and I look very much forward to their 

testimony.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Today marks the fifth hearing in a series of hearings dealing with comprehensive 

immigration reform. This subcommittee previously dealt with the shortfalls of the 

1986 and 1996 immigration reforms, and most recently the difficulty that employers 

encountered when they attempted to verify that potential foreign employees have 

work authorization. At last Thursday’s hearing on April 26, 2007 we looked at ways 

to improve the employment verification system. 

Any honest discussion about comprehensive immigration reform must include the 

methods utilized by other nations around the globe. This hearing will focus on a 

point system, like the ones used by our friends in the United Kingdom, Australia, 

and Canada. Point systems have been considered in the past by both the House and 

the Senate, however a point system has consistently been rejected. 

Currently the United States has an immigration preference system that is broken 

down into two categories, family based immigration and employment based immigration. 

FAMILY BASED IMMIGRATION

The opportunity to migrate to the United States based on familial status depends 

on four factors. First, the immigration status of the sponsoring relative, (i.e.—is the 

sponsor a United States citizen, or a lawful permanent resident?). Second, what is 

the nature of the relationship? Obviously the closer the relationship the better. 

Third, what is the migrant’s country of chargeability, or where is the migrant from? 

Fourth, what is the existing and anticipated backlog (if any) of approved aliens in 

the relevant category for the country of chargeability. Certain family based categories are never subject to backlog because there are never subject to limitations. 

Those categories are 1) immediate relatives, 2) returning U.S. permanent residents, 

and 3) applicants for reacquisition of citizenship, 4) refugees and asylees, 5) aliens 

obtaining registry, 6) children born to immediate relatives after visa issuance, and 

7) children born to permanent residents while temporarily abroad. 

FAMILY BASED IMMIGRATION SUBJECT TO BACKLOGS

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows for 480,000 family preference 

entrants per year, however only 226,000 are allowed. The order of preference is as 

follows: 

First preference goes to unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens. Second 

preference goes to spouses, and minor children of lawful permanent residents. Also, 

unmarried sons and daughters of lawful 

permanent residents. Third preference goes to married sons and daughters of U.S. 

citizens, and their spouses and children. Fourth preference goes to brothers and sisters of United States citizens, and their spouses and children, provided the U.S. citizens are at least 21 years of age. The attempt to keep families together in theory 

is good, however in practice we all know that this is not the case. The number of 

applicants is great, and our resources are few. 

EMPLOYMENT BASED IMMIGRATION

Employment based immigration is broken down into five tiers: 1) Priority workers, 2) Advanced Degree Professionals and Exceptional Ability Aliens, 3) Skilled 

Workers, Professionals and Other Workers, 4) ‘‘Special immigrants,’’ including religious workers, and 5) Employment creation immigrants. 

6

The first tier applies to individuals with ‘‘extraordinary ability’’ in the sciences, 

arts, education, business, or athletics; outstanding professors and researchers; certain multinational executives and managers; the spouse and child of the aforementioned. 

The second tier applies to individuals holding advanced degrees in their profession, or employees with exceptional ability whose services are sought by an employer in the United States. 

The third tier applies to skilled workers, and professionals with baccalaureate degrees. The fourth tier applies to special immigrants like religious workers. The final 

tier applies to migrants who have an entreprenureial spirit and have invested at 

least 1 million, but at times as low as $500,000 in ‘‘targeted employment areas.’’ 

They must also create no less than ten jobs for American citizens. 

This is the current method in the United States. Quite frankly members of the 

tech industry will tell you that there are not enough visas to meet our needs. A 

practical problem is the fact that the aliens immediate family members (i.e.—spouse 

and children) count against the number of employment based visas that are issued. 

Thus the problem may not be in the system, but rather how the system works. Nevertheless, an examination of our international neighbors methods is worth looking 

at. 

UNITED KINGDOM, CANADA, AND AUSTRALIA

All three nations utilize a points system to admit skilled workers. In fact skilled 

workers represent the majority of immigrants in that country, whereas the majority 

of immigrants to the United States are unskilled workers. Generally speaking, 

points are awarded on the basis of education, work experience, language proficiency, 

arranged employment, achievement in the applicant’s field, age, and occupational 

demand. The UK has made a conscious effort to seek out individuals with MBA’s, 

and Canada’s goal is to recruit a majority of highly skilled immigrants every year. 

In conclusion a point system could help, but I advise that any point system we 

implement be uniform, and practical because in the end the United States is the 

winner.

Ms. LOFGREN. We have three distinguished panels of witnesses 

here today to help us consider the important issues before us. 

I would like first like to introduce Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a Member of the Senate’s Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security. Prior to 

his election to the Senate in 1996, Senator Sessions served as both 

Alabama’s Attorney General and the United States Attorney for 

Alabama’s Southern District. He holds his bachelor’s degree from 

Huntington College in Montgomery and his law degree from the 

University of Alabama. 

Welcome, Senator Sessions, to the House Immigration Subcommittee. 

We have—unlike the Senate, we have a 5-minute rule here, but 

we will be very generous in the enforcement of such with our Senate colleague. But we would ask that you summarize your testimony so that we might have an opportunity for questions. Thank 

you so much for coming over to our side of the Capitol. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JEFF SESSIONS,

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chairman; and you are wise 

to have a 5-minute rule, especially when Senators show up. We are 

used to talking on too much. 

Maybe I can just sum up, and I’ll offer my full statement for the 

record, how I see this question and how I believe we should consider it. And I want to thank you and Mr. King for both of you inviting me, because I do believe we are talking about something that 

is very important. 

7

I believe it was Professor Borjas in his book Heaven’s Door that 

said, in effect, if your goal for immigration is to serve the national 

interest, let me know, I can help you achieve that. Another witness 

at one of our Committees said almost the same thing. 

Now, Mr. King said immigration should serve, according to the 

Brits and, in his view, the United States, the national interest. So 

I think that is a given. 

Second, we had in 2000 11 million people apply for the 50,000 

lottery slots. Now that gives you some indication of the truth, 

which is we can’t accept everybody that wants to come to America. 

It is a door, Heaven’s Door, as Professor Borjas, himself a Cuban 

refugee, now at the Kennedy School at Harvard, says about the 

subject. 

So if we can’t accept everybody, then we have to ask ourselves, 

how should we deal and decide among those who would like to 

come? What is a fair basis? What is a just basis? What is a basis 

consistent with our heritage? It’s a different kind of world than 

we’ve had in the past with these large numbers out there. 

So I guess first I would say that skilled—and I think you’ll hear 

from the panels as we go along that immigrants with higher education levels and higher skills enjoy and benefit from the American 

experience more than those who do not. Likewise, people who come 

to our country with even some education, but particularly those 

with advanced degrees and higher education and higher skills, pay 

far more in taxes to the Government than they will ever take out 

from the Government. So those are important factors if we consider 

what is in our national interest. 

Some have suggested that we can do immigration in large numbers, even unskilled, and that that will solve our Medicare and our 

Social Security long-term systemic problems. I believe you’ll be 

hearing from Mr. Rector at the Heritage Foundation, and his numbers conclude just the opposite. In fact, they will make both of 

those unsound systems even more unsound. 

But if the immigrants who come are high skilled, who are likely 

to be high income, who pay large amounts in taxes, that could in 

fact positively affect that. And since it’s a zero sum gain when an 

individual becomes a citizen and has a right to bring their elderly 

parents, for example, we have to remember that they are denying 

some young person somewhere in the world who maybe has worked 

hard to learn English, worked hard and gotten some advanced degree. They don’t have a chance unless they have a relative. 

I think about two young people that might be living in Honduras. 

One is a valedictorian who took English in high school, took advantage of radio or television to learn English and speak it well, maybe 

has a year or so of technical school. That individual would have no 

chance of coming and would be competitively at a total disadvantage to a high school dropout who happened to be the brother of 

someone who is a citizen of the United States. So this is the system 

we have today. 

Among those two, who should be the one that would have the 

best opportunity to succeed and would have the best opportunity to 

contribute to the American system? So I think that is a factor as 

we evaluate this. 

8

I am also concerned that by having a disproportionate number of 

low-wage, low-skilled workers come in, that, in fact, wages for 

lower-skilled workers have not increased and, in fact, in some 

areas have decreased factored for inflation. 

So it’s clear you bring in—in my area of the country, if you flooded the country with a lot of cotton, our farmers wouldn’t hesitate 

to complain that their cotton prices will go down because they have 

more foreign competition. The same is true with labor. Extensive 

large amounts of low-skilled, low-wage labor does pull down the 

wage rates of United States workers; and, in fact, Professor Borjas 

and others have made that point quite clear in testimony before 

the Senate. 

So, Madam Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to be 

here. In the course of this, I met the Canadian leader of the point 

system. We’ve studied the Australian system. We believe it has 

much to commend it. In fact, it can help us in extraordinary ways 

to fairly select from those millions that want to come in ways that 

will benefit the United States and provide the best opportunity for 

those to succeed here. 

I’m glad that you’re looking at it. It makes so much common 

sense to me. I believe the American people need to understand that 

you will still be able to bring wives and children when we say 

chain migration should be curtailed. But the elderly parents or 

brothers and sisters would not get a huge advantage as they have 

today to come in just because they have a relative here. 

My time is up. Thank you very much. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Senator, and also for being 

so unsenatorial like in your terseness. We appreciate it. 

Mr. SESSIONS. I failed to do one thing and put a chart up for you. 

If you will give me 1 minute to do that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Of course. 

Mr. SESSIONS. This shows what the United States system does. 

We give out 1.1 million green cards. According to the numbers, we 

have 58 percent of those basically family based. That means they 

did not have to establish any skill to come into the country. 

Canada with their point system—and, in fact, the Parliament in 

Canada directed the Immigration Department to achieve a 60 percent merit-based, and they let them do it how they chose, and they 

have about a 60 percent skill-based entry. And Australia, likewise, 

has 62 percent skill-based entry. 

Canada definitely kept the humanitarian refugee slots. Australia 

has a little less refugee slots. So I would contend that we can keep 

our humanitarian slots, we can keep spouses and children slots, 

but that we ought to make a major movement to identify those people that can be so beneficial to our economy and give them priority 

over those with less potential. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Do you have another slide? 

Mr. SESSIONS. No, that is it. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. Thank you very, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sessions follows:]

9

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JEFF SESSIONS,

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA


JS0001.eps
10


JS0002.eps
11


JS0003.eps
12


JS0004.eps
13


JS0005.eps
14

ATTACHMENT


JS0006.eps
15


JS0007.eps
16

Ms. LOFGREN. In reading through the testimony that will be offered here today, one of the things that struck me was how you establish the employment side. We are just looking at the point system here today, and it’s fine to look at it. Most of the other countries that use it don’t use the point system for the family. They’re 

just looking for the economic-based employment. And in some of 

those countries underemployment or unemployment has actually 

been a product of the point system, because the people they’ve admitted based on their education may or may not have a job; they 

may or may not have the credentials. And it struck me that the 

marketplace might be a better sorter of who’s going to contribute 

to our economy than just a Government point system. What’s your 

thoughts on that, Senator? 

Mr. SESSIONS. I think the economy does play a big role. But in 

certain areas the demand for low-skilled workers could be very—

low-wage workers could be very, very, very substantial; and that 

may not be in the best national interest. 

So I think Canada, for example, gives skill points for bricklayers. 

It gives skill points for drywall workers. So you can give points for 

skills for something less than college. Although in the long run I 

think statistics will show that a person with education can adjust 

to the flow, they’re more flexible, they’re more able to adjust and 

land on their feet, even if for a temporary period they have difficulties. So I would tend to not diminish the value of education, but 

I do think you could set a skill base set that included more than 

just academic skills. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I agree with that. We do have in our current 

system, for extraordinary individuals, there’s no requirement that 

they have an offer of employment. We just make the assumption 

that at that level they’re going to be good for the country. 

But, for example, in Canada you might have someone with an 

M.O., but because of credentialing they’re driving a cab instead. 

They haven’t been licensed to practice. And having a job would 

make sure the skilled people, not the extraordinary people, were 

actually able to contribute in a way that was envisioned. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Australia does emphasize that occupational connection much more, and points are given for a guaranteed job in 

an area that they’ve certified and needs work. In fact, if—some districts of Canada are overpopulated, and in Australia I think they 

give more points if you are going into an area that needs more 

workers. 

Ms. LOFGREN. New Zealand does that as well. 

In terms of the under-Ph.D.-level skill level, let’s say—I mean, 

there’s skilled trades, there’s locksmiths, plumbers. Those are jobs 

where really there’s a skill set that is required, but it may not be 

book learning in the same way. Australia gives points for that and 

seeks them out. Do you envision that being part of a system that 

would serve American interests as well? 

Mr. SESSIONS. I do. 

Madam Chairman, it’s a little bit—I’m a little ambivalent about 

one thing. Canada just simply told the Immigration Department to 

do it. Our history has been for Congress to write the law and set 

the—even down to minute numbers. Perhaps we need to look for 

some sort of balance where the Labor Department or the ComVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:57 Aug 01, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\050107\35114.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35114
17

merce Department rates certain industries as needing more workers and skills are needed and adjust those, have the flexibility to 

adjust them on a year-to-year basis. Probably this Congress will 

want to be more involved than they have been in Canada. But, 

likewise, I do think we should give some flexibility to the relevant 

department to decide national needs. 

Ms. LOFGREN. It’s interesting that you say that, because that is 

something I’ve observed as well. I mean, the Congress deciding 

where the shortage is doesn’t really work. We don’t meet often 

enough, and it just hasn’t worked out. But Schedule A, which is 

supposed to identify the shortages in the Department of Labor, 

that hasn’t been updated either. That is still the case with some 

of the medical professions, but we had some extreme shortages, 

and they never really updated that. So I’m wondering if we should 

look at—if we are going to delegate that with some guidelines, 

maybe we need to look at some new criteria to make that happen? 

I’m wondering if you’ve given some thought to that. 

Mr. SESSIONS. I have not given detailed thought to it, but that 

is my general impression. 

I would mention one thing. I think the talking points that the 

Administration got to the press, that they’ve put out there, one 

thing that we shouldn’t forget in this mix and that is it creates 

what I expect and hope would be a real temporary worker program. 

So this could be agricultural workers, this could be other lowskilled workers who come for, in my view, a year or less without 

their family and can come back and forth as many times as they 

would like, something like that. So this would help—but they 

wouldn’t be shut out of applying for citizenship. 

So if they wanted to become a citizen, they could be coming for 

5 years, maybe getting a junior college degree or college degree. 

Then they could apply for the permanent track also and perhaps 

have a chance to come on in as a citizen if they would be meritorious. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I know my time is up, but if I can just follow up 

on that point. One of the things we’ve thought about is—I mean, 

there are many issues here. One is our labor needs. One is, if you 

take a look at our demographic needs, our birth rate is not sufficient to meet our job production rate, just as Western Europe and 

Russia and other developed economies—well, I don’t know how developed Russia is, but certainly Western Europe and Japan are facing that same problem. 

So we’ve thought about, rather than trying to micromanage it, 

use market forces to let people make some determinations themselves, since the history of migration in the Western Hemisphere 

is largely circular, not permanent. But rather than the U.S. Government playing Big Brother, you just let the market play more of 

a role than we’ve done in the past. It sounds like you’ve given some 

thought to that. 

Mr. SESSIONS. I think something like that can work. I just believe that the bill as written in the Senate last year was defective 

in that the temporary guest worker program allowed an individual 

to come, to bring their family, their wife and children, for 3 years 

and, if they were still working, get an automatic 3 years and automatic 3 years on down the line. And, in effect, after a decade or 

18

so, they’re entrenched here; and if that job is not here, then we 

have an illegal person that we are not able to—morally, it’s just 

very painful to try to remove someone like that. 

So I think we are fooling ourselves if we go that route. We should 

have a genuine temporary worker program that is temporary and 

a permanent system of immigration that is based on merit and 

skill. 

Ms. LOFGREN. My time has expired, and I would like to recognize 

the Ranking Member for his 5 minutes plus. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator Sessions, looking over your chart here and the United 

States showing 22 percent in the skill employment based in the 

blue, and my notes show that that’s about a little short of 250,000 

people annually. But 54 percent of those were used for spouses and 

dependent children. So I make a point that a portion of those skill 

based, by my statistics, and actually also a majority of them were 

also family reunification type of visas, and so that 22 percent gets 

slipped down to 10 percent. Would you concede that point or criticize it? 

Mr. SESSIONS. You know, I actually would. 

One of the quotes I have in my handout, I believe, is it Professor 

Chiswick or one of the professors that testified, his number was 7 

percent actually on skill-based. This is a number that has sort of 

been used. But it does include, I believe, children and spouses. Certainly children wouldn’t likely be skilled, and spouses may or may 

not be. So I think that overstates the number. 

Mr. KING. So when I look at that chart, I slice that piece in half 

in my mind’s eye; and you add that number up then to 11 or maybe 

even another 17 percent altogether. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. King, I think the reason we use that number 

is because that is the way Canada and Australia do, so we are comparing apples to apples when we are looking at the charts. But, in 

truth, many of those in that 22 percent are likely to be unskilled. 

Mr. KING. If I will take the 7 percent of Professor Chiswick that 

is in your document, that takes us to 75 percent of that chart 

would be blue. So I just wanted to emphasize that point. I appreciate the position you’ve taken on this. 

Of the categories that are most often used, and among them are 

education, job skills and language skills, et cetera, what would you 

rank as the most important criteria? 

Mr. SESSIONS. I think since we have millions each year that want 

to come here that we are not able to accept, I think it would be 

perfectly responsible and reasonable to ask that they have language skills before they come. Because English is an international 

language. Almost any country in the world you could have developed those skills. So I think that is very important. 

But I believe the statistics do show that even with a few years 

of college a person is most likely to be quite successful in the 

United States. So education seems to—now, if you take a specific 

skill, that could be very valuable, too. But then again a decade 

from now and the technology changes and that person’s skills are 

not so much needed. 

Mr. KING. As I look at these charts from the various countries 

and look at the categories that are there, I didn’t know what I was 

19

going to see. I expected something fairly basic that I’m looking at 

here. I expected something perhaps more sophisticated. Maybe behind that there are the other kind of spreadsheets that would take 

in some subfactors, so to speak. 

But I would wonder if you’ve given any thought to the idea that 

we could put a cap on our overall immigration and say this would 

be a fixed number for a year, if we can agree on what that number 

is, no matter what the circumstances, we not exceed that, and 

then, when we turn that slice of blue pie into something significantly bigger than that, be able to define that to the extent that 

we could pick the profile of those who would be a net contributor 

to our economy and also pay a little consideration to their ability 

to fit into the culture in some way. Would you think that we could 

be sophisticated enough that we could give a score system in that 

and be able to make it a net positive and identify it scientifically 

and use that, Congress set the cap rather than business make the 

demand, and then the highest priority would be those who contribute the most? 

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes, yes, and I guess with some caution. I do believe that we should spend some time as a Congress asking those 

more detailed questions, and I believe we can draft a legislation 

that includes an emphasis on areas that are likely to be successful. 

I also am of the belief that immigration is ultimately in the national interest. Therefore, just to say a willing worker and a willing 

employer, as the President has said a number of times, does not 

strike me as good policy. In other words, we would almost be saying the Government has no interest. As long as there’s an employer 

and employee, they get to decide. And that is sort of what’s been 

happening through illegality and other things. So I don’t think that 

is acceptable. 

But I do believe we could write some standards, and we could 

also give governmental agencies a cap number and allow them to 

adjust in there for changing economic circumstances or historical 

changes in the economy. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Senator. 

I want to make sure that I’m clear on how these pieces fit in this 

jigsaw puzzle. I’ll say there are a lot of hypotheticals in immigration policy, and that is one of the reasons it’s very complicated. 

But, as I understand this, you would look at the unskilled labor, 

an acknowledgement that we need some of that in certain areas, 

and those would be the temporary workers, but they wouldn’t be 

precluded from working to get their education and skills up to 

where they could qualify to be a net benefit to society; and, while 

all that is going on, focus your real immigration that had a path 

to citizenship on those that could make a distribution to the economy? 

Mr. SESSIONS. That is a good summary of it, Mr. King. I think 

that would be good for America. I think that is something other nations have proven and like what they’re doing, nations that have 

similar economies to ours. So I think that is the way we should go. 

I know it’s complicated. I’ve been very disappointed, actually, and 

somewhat surprised we’ve had so little discussion of this in recent 

years. In fact, a bill that hit the Senate floor last year had no reference to these ideas at all. 

20

I was not able to get a point-based hearing in Judiciary, but I’m 

on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and we 

did have one hearing in that Committee on the point system, which 

I thought was good because we had some excellent witnesses. So 

I think we should pursue this. I think we have the possibility of 

doing something we could be very proud of. 

Mr. KING. Senator, I want to thank you for your testimony today. 

You’ve given me some things to think about, too. And that is what 

these hearings are about, to help rearrange our thought process so 

we can come to a conclusion that is good for the country. Thank 

you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. King. 

Senator, are you able to stay for additional questions? 

Mr. SESSIONS. I could. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Then I would recognize Mr. Delahunt from Massachusetts. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Senator, welcome to the House of Commons. 

Mr. SESSIONS. It’s good to be here. I almost said among the commoners, but I knew better. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. We respect and appreciate the House of Lords. 

And I apologize. I had another hearing going on, and I’m just walking in at the tail end. 

You know, the skill component of a point system, I guess much 

would depend on the eye of the beholder in terms of what constitutes skills. What’s your definition? 

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, we know education makes a difference. We 

know language skills make a difference. I note that the Canadian 

system gives skill points for bricklayers. It gives skill points for 

drywall workers. So I think as we analyze our economy that those 

could be given skill points, too. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. So the concept of skill, however, for determination, the definition of skill would depend on the economic needs of 

the country at a particular point in time? 

Mr. SESSIONS. I think so. To me, you want to select the people 

who are most likely to benefit from this great American experience, 

the people who are likely to flourish the best; and how you do that 

is very difficult. My inclination, as I said with the Chairman, would 

be that perhaps Congress, since we are in the habit of micromanaging immigration more than they do in Canada, we might have 

some basic standards that we set. But I believe we should give an 

independent agency, our Cabinet, Commerce, Labor, some input in 

deciding how many numbers you may need in bricklaying and how 

many you may need in computer workers. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. But this wouldn’t—you know, this would not exclude, for example, refugees or asylum seekers? 

Mr. SESSIONS. No. My view would be, as Canada and Australia 

have—the green represents 16 percent in Canada is humanitarian, 

9 percent in Australia, so we would set a number probably consistent with our 16 percent heritage of humanitarian. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is all the questions I have. Thank you, Senator. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Mr. Ellison. 

21

Mr. ELLISON. Good afternoon, Senator. How are you? 

Just a few questions. I notice that on the pie charts you have 

there that the family-based piece is a large proportion of American’s immigration. The other ones are much smaller. How would 

the fourteenth amendment’s language saying that people are citizens in the States in which they are born, essentially making a 

child born to immigrants a citizen, how would that impact a system 

in which we de-emphasize family-based decisionmaking in immigration? Do you think it would? 

First of all, do you think it would; and, if so, how? 

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I’ve tried to read the case law on being born 

in America. It’s maybe not conclusive but appears to suggest that 

birth does give you citizenship. 

On family, you don’t have a constitutional right to come here. 

And on the family question I believe that spouses and children 

should be able to come. But the question is aging parents or brothers and sisters, and there’s a zero sum gain, Congressman. So for 

every, say, aging parent that comes, that is a slot denied to the 

young valedictorian in Honduras who speaks English but doesn’t 

have a relative here. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Senator. 

I guess a part of what was inside of my question was what is this 

family—58 percent family made up of? Is it siblings, as you pointed 

out, or aging parents? What is the driver behind that? 

Mr. SESSIONS. That 58 percent of family includes—and correct 

me if I’m wrong, counsel—does that include spouses and children 

or just brothers, sisters and parents? 

VOICE. All of them. 

Mr. SESSIONS. It includes all of them. 

Mr. ELLISON. Does your able counsel have any idea on what percentage is what in terms of families? 

Mr. SESSIONS. We do have the numbers. I’ve seen somebody float 

the numbers. 

In other words, if you eliminated 50,000, the 4 percent lottery 

slots, and you eliminated the non-nuclear family, you would free up 

quite a number of slots. That would move us probably above 50 

percent with just those changes, above 50 percent being skill-based. 

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. Well, I’m sorry I missed your testimony. 

There’s a lot of things going on around here. 

But another question is I think earlier in your testimony—I 

could be wrong, maybe I got this wrong, but it sounded like you 

said that part of the criteria we should apply in immigration reform is fairly selecting from immigrants who come. Do you remember using that terminology? 

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes. I believe that since everyone is not allowed 

to come—and we had 11 million people in 2000 apply for the 

50,000 lottery slots; it gives you some indication of the number—

that we should have an objective, fair system to select from those 

who would want to apply to come here. 

Mr. ELLISON. Would you mind elaborating on how you would define fair? 

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I think it would be fair that we consider 

what is in our national interest first. 

22

Second, you would ask, is this person—does this person possess 

skills that are likely to allow them to flourish in America and enjoy 

the greatest benefits from coming to America? 

I think we ought to also consider the impact it might have on 

wages of hard-working Americans who may be overcompeted by a 

flood of labor in their particular skill set. 

So all those would be factors that I think we should consider. 

Mr. ELLISON. Would you consider fair to also include reaching for 

diversity of nations that people could come from? Would your calculus of fair also mean, for example, that if we are going to get a 

lot of people from, say, Liechtenstein, maybe we should also have 

some people come from Lesotho? Would that kind of fairness enter 

into your calculation? 

Mr. SESSIONS. It would be difficult to start trying that. We used 

to do that, give preference to nations who had a historic flow of immigrants here, as I understand it, maybe before the ’60 bill or 

somewhere along there. But I think our view now is to be open to 

the whole world and allow people an equal chance to apply. But, 

as we are, it’s recent relatives, people that are alive. Just because 

your grandfather came into the United States and now deceased, 

it wouldn’t help you at all. But if you had a brother under the current law, that would help you. So it accelerates itself to some degree, and the family connection does. 

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Does the gentleman yield back? 

I would just note before calling on my colleague, Ms. Waters, 

that if you add up the 50,000 for the lottery and the 65,000 and 

23,000 for the other two categories, it’s about 138,000. So that 

would actually not put us in the other 50 percent. 

Mr. SESSIONS. How far would that go? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I went to law school so I wouldn’t have to 

do math in my head. 

Mr. SESSIONS. And, also, we’ve got to look at the overall number. 

Most of the legislation we are seeing has a big increase, not just 

comprehensive reform on who comes but also increases. So I think 

the increases might also, if that occurs, should be considered. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We are going to have another hearing on that 

whole subject. 

Mr. SESSIONS. I think that is a fundamental question: How 

many? 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is a very important question. 

Ms. Waters, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman; and I 

would like to thank the Senator for his presence here. 

I came here today focused on several conversations that I had 

this weekend as I traveled around. All of the conversations that are 

being brought to my attention, and including that which I’m seeing 

in the news media, happens to be about the family and separation 

of the family; and I’m increasingly getting worried about this. 

There was one presentation on one of the channels where a reporter interviewed a little boy and asked him about what kind of 

choice was he going to make, was he going to stay here in the 

United States or was he going to be back with his mother, who is 

going to be deported? What would he like to do? And I thought it 

23

was just such an unfair question to ask a 7- or 8-year-old boy, and 

I’m worried about family separation and division. 

I come from a history of people who understand the devastation 

of family separation. Slaves were separated, children were sold off 

from their parents, sent to different parts of the world, and on and 

on and on. So it’s something that many African Americans pay very 

close attention to and don’t want to be part of separating mothers 

and fathers from their children and even grandmothers and grandfathers. 

So you may have talked about this already and I didn’t hear it, 

but I’m wondering what your response is to this potentially devastating occurrence as we look at immigration reform. 

Mr. SESSIONS. I think you raise an important question. We did 

discuss that some earlier. 

In my view, a person allowed into our country under our system 

like Canada’s, their system allows the wife or husband and children to come. We might have a circumstance that I think you may 

be talking about where a child is born here as a citizen and the 

mother may not be. I think we’ll just have to wrestle with that. To 

me, that is not a huge number. We should make a just decision 

about what’s fair and just under those circumstances. I don’t think 

that is a big enough number to put us in a position where we 

couldn’t reach an agreement on how that ought to be handled. 

Ms. WATERS. In defining what—the family that could be considered to stay, based on the child or children that are born here, 

whether that would include mother, father and others perhaps? 

Mr. SESSIONS. Right. I think that is just a question we’ll have to 

wrestle with. 

There are some circumstances where a person deliberately came 

into the country illegally to have a child here. Maybe you would not 

want to reward that. But somebody who has been here for a number of years and has a child, you may want to have a different 

standard and say they can stay with their child. It would just 

something I think we would have to wrestle with. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. 

I yield to Mr. Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I have one final question. 

Senator, I appreciated your observation about flexibility in terms 

of economic needs as far as the skill sets are concerned. Then I 

heard you speak about the number, and I think that is a key question. What is the number at the end of the day? 

When I listen to the demographics of those who are demographers—however you say it—demographers, thank you. As you extrapolate down the road, you know, our labor force very well will 

mirror what is occurring in Europe now, which is a significant decline in terms of population and an inadequate labor force. Would 

you consider a number that would not have to come back to Congress for approval time and time again and put the Senate and the 

House through an arduous task of examination but allow a builtin flexibility to meet our labor needs? 

For example, I remember President Fox saying by the year 2020 

there will be no more immigration from Mexico because they will 

need by that time the entire number of people that are immiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:57 Aug 01, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\050107\35114.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35114
24

grating from Mexico into the United States to meet their own economic needs. 

Mr. SESSIONS. I recall Professor Borjas at Harvard, himself a 

Cuban refugee, his book which is authoritative at the Kennedy 

School——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Those are all good credentials. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Good credentials. I thought you would recognize 

that. He wrote a number of years ago—and this really struck me. 

We had about 1.1 million. He wrote that, in his opinion, the economy of the United States would be best served with 500,000 a year. 

So I’m not sure what that number ought to be. Most people 

think—you know, the conventional wisdom is, the Wall Street Journal, it probably ought to be more than 1.1 million. But exactly 

what that number is, I think we deserve to spend some time in 

Congress—we have a responsibility in Congress to dig into it and 

try to ask that. And I’m glad, Madam Chairman, you’re going to 

be able to do that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Berman of California. 

Are you running out of time? 

Mr. SESSIONS. I’m running out of a bit of time, but if someone 

has a question or two I would be delighted to try to respond. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Berman says he has just one question. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

If Congress decided to shift the fundamental nature of its legal 

immigration system to a point-based system, essentially to expand 

the blue universe through a point system that recognized a lot of 

different things but put some special premium on education and 

skills and job openings and things like that, would you—as part of 

that—would you be prepared to support a comprehensive approach, 

which also included a way by which people who are now in this 

country out of status, illegally, however you want to—bad documents, however you want to phrase it, would be able to adjust their 

status? 

Mr. SESSIONS. I like the talking points that the President and his 

Cabinet—at least his Cabinet members showed to me as a framework that could come close, could get my support, perhaps. And it 

has a real temporary worker program where people come temporarily without their families. They could also apply for permanent 

citizenship. It has a permanent citizenship with some sort of point 

system. 

Now, this is just an outline talking points. It has a much better 

enforcement at the border. It has a workplace enforcement that 

could actually work. 

Mr. BERMAN. Employee verification. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Employee verification. I believe we can fix that. If 

we tell businesses precisely what to do, they’ll comply, most of 

them. 

And then you have the people that are here illegally, and it’s my 

view that there has to be some compassionate resolution of that 

and that people who have been here a long time with children who 

are in school, it wouldn’t be right to try to remove all of those. So 

we would come up with a humanitarian way to deal with that. 

My general view is that persons who got the benefit of that legalization should not get every single benefit that goes to someone 

25

who came legally and waited in line. So, to me, that is an outline 

that could reach a bipartisan consensus. 

But, as I told the reporter a while ago, I do intend to read the 

fine print on whatever they put out, because oftentimes the framework sounds good, as you know, Congressman, and the fine print 

doesn’t quite get there. 

Mr. BERMAN. I think that is a hopeful sign for the ability of this 

place to do something this year. 

Mr. SESSIONS. And, basically, that is what I said in my speeches 

last year as a framework for a settlement. So I can’t be anything 

but somewhat pleased at the way the discussion is heading this 

year. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Senator, you’ve been here for an hour. We appreciate your generosity of time, and we are looking forward to working with you in trying to—you know, we may not see things 100 

percent, but if we work together in good faith, I’m hopeful we can 

come to a system that works for our country. 

Mr. SESSIONS. I believe we need reform. The whole system is broken, so comprehensive reform is certainly needed, and how we get 

there is the question. Thank you so much. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

And I’m sorry, Ms. Jackson Lee, the Senator ran out of time before we got to your last question. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We are now going to move to our second panel. 

The second panel should come forward. 

I’m pleased to introduce Clare Feikert, the United Kingdom Foreign Law Specialist at the Law Library at the U.S. Congress. Prior 

to her work with the Library of Congress, Ms. Feikert served as a 

law clerk for the Head Solicitor of Police at the Sherwood Lodge 

Police Headquarters in England and as a clerk at the Center for 

Democracy and Human Rights here in Washington. She holds a 

bachelor’s degree with honors from the University of Lincoln in 

England and an LL.M. in International Legal Studies from American University, Washington College of Law. 

We are also pleased to have Stephen Clarke with us, the Senior 

Foreign Law Specialist for the Law Library of Congress. Mr. 

Clarke has conducted research with the Law Library since 1979 

and has guest lectured at Georgetown University Law Center, 

Duke University, and the Center For Legislative Exchange in Ottawa. Mr. Clarke earned his bachelor’s degree from the University 

of Illinois, his LL.B. from Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, and 

LL.M. from Georgetown University Law Center. 

And, finally, I would like to welcome Lisa White, the Foreign 

Law Specialist for the Law Library on Australia, New Zealand and 

Pacific common law jurisdictions. Ms. White came to the Law Library last year after having practiced law at Deacons law firm in 

Canberra, Australia. Before her practice, Ms. White worked for the 

National Museum of Australia and the Australian Department of 

Defense as a policy advisor. Ms. White graduated with a B.A. from 

the College of Fine Arts and an LL.B. from the University of South 

Wales in Sydney; a graduate diploma in legal practice in the College of Law in Sydney; and, finally, an LL.M. from the University 

of Melbourne. 

26

As you know, your entire written statements will be made part 

of our record; and we would ask each of you to summarize your testimony in about 5 minutes. 

We understand that the Library serves as a technical resource to 

us here in Congress. We will not be trying to force you into giving 

us policy advice. But just reading your resumes reinforces what a 

resource we have in the Library of Congress. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So if we can begin with you, Ms. Feikert. 

TESTIMONY OF CLARE FEIKERT, LL.M., FOREIGN LAW SPECIALIST FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM, LAW LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Ms. FEIKERT. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. 

I would like to give a brief overview of the use of points based 

migration in the United Kingdom. Currently, the United Kingdom 

only has one points-based immigration system, the Highly Skilled 

Migrant Program. This was established in 2002 as a pilot scheme 

and ran for 1 year. It was decided it was a success and formally 

incorporated into the immigration system at the U.K. in 2003. It’s 

been cited as one of the most dramatic developments in recent commercial immigration law. 

It allows highly skilled migrants to enter the country without the 

need for a work permit, business plan, the requirement to invest 

money or create jobs without a specific job offer. It allows migrants 

to enter the U.K. to seek work or self-employment opportunities. 

The rules for the Highly Skilled Migrant Program were amended 

in December, 2006, and now require applicants to score 75 points 

or more based on various criteria that have evolved to ensure that 

the system selects the migrants most likely to be successful in the 

labor market of the U.K. Applicants must also to intend make the 

U.K. Their main home, be able to maintain themselves and any dependents without recourse to public funds and, where appropriate, 

obtain a visa in order to lawfully enter the country. 

Points are currently awarded in four areas: educational qualifications, past earnings, an age assessment—younger people obtain 

more points to even out work experience and earnings—and previous experience in the U.K. From December, 2006, a mandatory 

English language requirement was introduced, as it was found that 

people needed to speak English in order to most benefit the labor 

market in the U.K. Applicants must have an international English 

language testing certificate at the level 6 or above to meet these 

requirements. Additional guidance on the implementation of these 

criteria are due to be published by the Government in May, 2007. 

The duration of stay under the Highly Skilled Migrant Program 

is initially granted for a period of 2 years, although this can be extended upon application. When applying to extend the duration of 

stay, the applicant must show that they continue to meet the criteria that they initially had to meet in order to obtain entry initially and again show that they have the mandatory English language requirement. 

If the applicant qualifies for this 3-year extension, they are then 

able to later apply for a British citizenship. They would then meet 

27

the 5-year requirement of lawful residence in the U.K. to then 

apply for British citizenship. 

The Highly Skilled Migrant Program has been considered successful by the Government in attracting top-class workers from 

around the globe to contribute to the UK’s economy and to fill skill 

gaps in the UK’s labor market. 

In its first year of operation, the program attracted 1,100 successful applicants. In 2006, this number increased to over 47,000. 

The December, 2006, part of the amendment to the criteria was to 

actually increase the points requirement on applicants that were 

attempting to come into the U.K. under this program. 

The system is relatively flexible and can be easily altered to meet 

the skill needs and requirements of the day. For example, there’s 

currently an MBA provision that would award a migrant with an 

MBA from certain schools the full 75 points that are required in 

order to let them enter into the country using that, provided, of 

course, they obtain a visa. 

There are also—obviously, with any migration program, there 

are some abuses of the system that, if the Government had failed 

to address, would have led to public loss of confidence in this program as well as a loss of confidence from those that the U.K. 

Would have wished to apply under it. 

The application criteria, as I noted, were revised in light of this. 

It was considered by many that the initial criteria were too subjective, leading to speculative applications, people not showing that 

they were meeting the points, and the criteria themselves were difficult for case workers to consistently and objectively implement. 

The Government believed that this uncertainty had led to a refusal 

rate of 56 percent of decisions made in 2005. 

As the system is also entirely self-funding through fees, these 

cost the migrants each an application fee of $600, totaling nearly 

$14 million in fees alone, which could also act a deterrent for the 

people that the U.K. were truly trying to attract to come into the 

country. 

The Government altered the criteria in December, 2006, in an attempt to resolve this and prevent the uncertainty and prevent speculative, as well as some possibly fraudulent, applications. 

I would like to thank you again for inviting me to testify here 

today and thank you for your time and attention. I would be more 

than happy to address any questions you might have. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Feikert follows:]

28

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CLARE FEIKERT


CF0001.eps
29


CF0002.eps
30


CF0003.eps
31


CF0004.eps
32


CF0005.eps
33


CF0006.eps
34


CF0007.eps
35


CF0008.eps
36


CF0009.eps
37


CF0010.eps
38


CF0011.eps
39


CF0012.eps
40


CF0013.eps
41


CF0014.eps
42

ATTACHMENT


CF0015.eps
43

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Clarke. 

TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN CLARKE, LL.M., SENIOR FOREIGN 

LAW SPECIALIST, LAW LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

In 2006, Canada granted permanent residence to approximately 

250,000 persons. These immigrants were accepted in several different categories. There were economic immigrants, family class 

members, business immigrants and persons who had been nominated by one of the 10 provinces. Refugees are also counted in the 

figure, because refugees whose claims are recognized are eventually 

given permanent residence. 

Of the different categories, by far the largest is economic immigrants, which is mostly composed of skilled workers and independent workers and their dependents. This group accounts for 

over 50 percent of Canada’s immigrants. 

Other family class immigrants account for less than one-third of 

Canada’s immigrants; and, as I think Senator Sessions very effectively pointed out, this is probably the major difference between 

Canadian and American immigration policies. 

In Canada, skilled workers are assessed using a point system. 

The point system is not used for other classes of immigrants. Canada actually has had a point system for many years. However, 

prior to 2002, the system was weighted in such a manner that in 

order for an independent immigrant to receive an immigrant visa 

it was virtually necessary for him or her to have a job offer for a 

position that there was no Canadian ready, willing, and able to fill. 

There was a job certification process. 

However, in 2002, Canada changed its immigration philosophy 

after finding that persons demonstrating specialized knowledge and 

initiative were the types of persons who were most likely to succeed 

in joining Canadian society. Therefore, the point system was revamped to de-emphasize job offers, although that still remains one 

consideration. 

So, under the current system, there are now six selection factors. 

The maximum number of points that a person can accumulate is 

an even 100, and the current pass mark is 67, which is somewhat 

lower than it was several years ago. 

The selection criteria and the maximum number of points that 

can be earned in each of the categories are as follows: For education, a person can earn up to 25 points—that would normally be 

for someone with a postgraduate degree—for language ability a 

person can earn up to 24 points, 16 for fluency in either French or 

English and an additional 8 for fluency in the other official language. 

For experience in a qualified field or position, you can earn up 

to 21 points. Experience—the maximum points for experience are 

earned with 4 or more years of work in an approved classification 

position. 

For age, persons between the ages of 21 and 49 can earn up to 

10 points or are awarded up to 10 points. Persons who have arranged employment can earn another 10 points. And then finally 

there is sort of a catch-all category, which is called adaptability, for 

44

which a person can be awarded a final 10 points, and for that category, remote, family relations are a consideration. 

One of the majors advantages of the new system is that it is relatively transparent. Prospective applicants can go on line and conduct a self-assessment of their chances of meeting the pass mark. 

The system is also very flexible. The Department of Citizenship 

and Immigration can raise or lower the pass mark to keep the 

number of new immigrants close to the large target figures established by the Government. 

Canada doesn’t have country or hemispheric quotas, but it does 

establish annual targets based primarily upon its labor needs. 

Major sources of complaints, as was mentioned by Madam Chairman, are that not all new immigrants are able to find immediate 

employment in their chosen field, often because their foreign credentials are not fully accepted. There is some evidence that this 

problem has been growing even though the Canadian economy has 

been very strong in recent years. 

There is no easy answer to this situation, but it is well to remember that the current system was redesigned to give persons, who 

might otherwise have had little or no chance of obtaining a job 

offer in Canada, a chance to immigrate to the country. The system 

was never intended to guarantee all persons immediate employment in their chosen fields. Besides, many professions are licensed 

by provincial bodies; the Federal Government cannot order the 

provinces to accept foreign credentials. The most they can do is to 

assist new immigrants in obtaining the training or experience they 

need to act in their profession and to work with provincial organizations. And recently, the Government did set aside some money 

to assist in that endeavor. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Could you summarize? 

Mr. CLARKE. I will conclude. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Clarke follows:]

45

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN CLARKE


SC0001.eps
46


SC0002.eps
47


SC0003.eps
48


SC0004.eps
49


SC0005.eps
50


SC0006.eps
51


SC0007.eps
52


SC0008.eps
53


SC0009.eps
54


SC0010.eps
55


SC0011.eps
56

Ms. LOFGREN. Ms. White. 

TESTIMONY OF LISA WHITE, LL.M., FOREIGN LAW SPECIALIST 

FOR AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND, LAW LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Ms. WHITE. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Australia’s immigration program is global and nondiscriminatory. It is divided into a migration program and a humanitarian 

program, both of which are further divided into streams and categories of visas. 

Currently——

Ms. LOFGREN. Would you move the mike a little bit closer to you. 

Ms. WHITE. Currently Australia’s migration program is focused 

on skilled migration and has been so focused since the late 1970’s 

and early 1980’s. Immigration to Australia is administered by the 

Federal Department of Immigration and Citizenship. 

Australia utilizes a point-based system in relation to some of its 

skilled migrant visas. The most common visas that utilize the point 

system are those of the independent, skilled migrants which includes students studying in Australia, Australian-sponsored skilled 

migrants, and state or territory-sponsored skilled migrants. The 

point system is not utilized for family reunions, humanitarian visas 

nor in relation to employer-sponsored visas. 

Generally, skilled migrants have excellent labor participation 

rates within Australia, and certainly at least one study I have seen 

has suggested that the key criteria in relation to that are skills recognition and, primarily, English language skills. 

Under the point system, an applicant must meet initial criteria 

of age and language skills, and then their application is awarded 

points in relation to specified categories, primarily: qualifications; 

age: relevant work experience, whether or not their occupation is 

in demand in Australia; and English language skills. Additional 

points may be awarded for a qualified spouse, Australian qualifications, capital investment, other language skills (other community 

language skills) and Australian work experience. 

Under the point system, each visa has a pass mark, being the 

number of points necessary to obtain a visa, and a pool mark, being 

the number of points necessary to remain in the pool of applicants, 

should there not be sufficient pass-level applicants or should the 

pass mark be revised. 

Under the current immigration procedure in place in Australia, 

an applicant’s qualifications are assessed for recognition in Australia prior to the applicant’s arriving in Australia. In that case, 

you are not awarded the points for certain occupations until you 

offer proof that your qualifications have been assessed as being recognized in Australia. This does avoid underemployment of skilled 

migrants. 

The skilled stream of Australia’s Migration Program is intended 

to enhance Australia’s economy by allowing skilled people access to 

Australia’s workforce. The benefits of the points system is it allows 

the Australian Government to systematically and objectively select 

the skilled migrants most likely to contribute to the objectives of 

the skilled migration program. 

57

It also further allows the Australian Government to regulate the 

number of skilled migrants by varying the points requirement according to planning levels set by the Australian Government. Thus, 

for example, to encourage skilled migration to regional and rural 

Australia, the applicants who are seeking to live and work in rural 

and regional Australia are able to enter it with a lower pass mark. 

Criticism of the point system and emphasis on skill migration in 

general are, firstly, suggestions that students are deliberately targeting educational courses that will maximize their points in relation to a visa application to Australia, that it is easy for applicants 

to be awarded additional points in relation to fraudulent claims of 

work experience; and that, secondly, an emphasis on skilled migration and subsequent reduction of places allocated to family-based 

migration may result in hardship to members of the Australian 

community. 

The New Zealand immigration program permits persons to migrate to New Zealand or, if currently within New Zealand, to obtain permanent residence. New Zealand’s permanent migration 

program is divided into: skilled/business; family sponsored; and 

international humanitarian streams under which there are also 

specific categories. 

Currently, New Zealand’s immigration program prioritizes skillbased migration, and it has emphasized skill-based migration since 

1987. 

New Zealand’s immigration system is administered by Immigration New Zealand, which is part of the Department of Labor. 

New Zealand utilizes the point system to select skilled migrants 

for the skilled migrant category visas. These visas grant permanent 

residence to a skilled migrant with no requirement of a job offer 

or current employment in New Zealand. The general objective of 

the New Zealand skilled migrant category is to provide New Zealand residency to persons with transferable skills to fulfill identified needs within the New Zealand economy. 

Genuinely skilled migrants have excellent labor market participation rates within New Zealand. Skilled migrants are awarded 

points on the basis of: qualifications; work experience; age; employment; whether their occupation is in demand in New Zealand; and 

whether they have any familiar relations in New Zealand. Thus, 

under the New Zealand system, applicants must satisfy basic criteria; they must be aged below 55 years, be of good health and 

character and have a reasonable understanding of English. 

They must also score above a minimum point threshold after 

which they may submit an expression of interest to live and work 

in New Zealand. Essentially, it is an interest in residency within 

New Zealand. Once an expression of interest is submitted, it is assessed by Immigration New Zealand, who may invite the applicants 

to apply for residency; the assessment by Immigration New Zealand is essentially by the number of points obtained by the applicant. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Could you summarize? 

Ms. WHITE. I can. That is fine. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. White follows:]

58

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LISA WHITE


LWB0001.eps
59


LWB0002.eps
60


LWB0003.eps
61


LWB0004.eps
62


LWB0005.eps
63


LWB0006.eps
64


LWB0007.eps
65


LWB0008.eps
66


LWB0009.eps
67

Ms. LOFGREN. It has been very helpful—since I read all of the 

testimony over the weekend, it has been very helpful to have this 

testimony. 

I have a couple of questions before we turn to the other Members 

of the Committee. 

In these jurisdictions, how do they treat family immigrants and 

how does that differ from the way we treat family immigrants here 

in the United States? 

Each of you, quickly. 

Ms. FEIKERT. In the United Kingdom, family reunification, per 

se, is limited to spouses and it also now encompasses unmarried 

same-sex partners, unmarried partners, and civil partners, as well 

as traditional relationships, and extends down to children under 

18. 

There is a provision for children over the age of 18 if it can be 

shown they are dependent upon their parents still, and if their parents will be able to provide for them without recourse to public 

funds to join them. 

As well, there is a provision for parents of the people over—

under the work permit or however they happen to be in England, 

but it must be shown that the parents are dependent upon the people in the UK and have no other means of being able to take care 

of themselves in their home countries. 

Mr. CLARKE. The Canadian system is fairly similar. It does not 

extend to extended relatives such as siblings or aunts, uncles, people in other degrees of relationship. So that is how Canada basically limits family class reunification. 

Ms. WHITE. Essentially, in Australia, it is worked out on the 

basis of caps. Numbers for spouses and independent children are 

not capped, but other family relatives may be, that is, their numbers may be capped. But it is possible to bring in age-dependent 

relatives. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Now I—you mentioned, in Australia, that it was 

a concern of the government that for students—that they might be 

skewing their studies to maximize their points; and I thought, why 

would that be a problem? I mean, if you need engineers and people 

study engineering, wouldn’t that actually meet the needs of the 

system? 

Ms. WHITE. This has been raised as an issue by independent 

studies, not actually a government study. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I see. 

Ms. WHITE. I guess the concern was not so much that the students were taking those courses, per se, but they were taking other 

courses that still qualified for the points, but may not have been 

as useful. 

I believe there were also some concerns raised about the quality 

of some of the courses taken by the students and whether they 

were actually coming out graduating and being able to participate 

in the workforce. There was concern that skilled migrants who 

were students, coming in by that visa, that their participation rate 

in the labor market was lower than the general participation rate 

of graduates; and that is a problem. 

68

Ms. LOFGREN. Given the—that we have another panel, I am 

going to stop my questioning now and turn to Mr. King for his 

questions. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

First, I have to compliment this panel on their excellent command of the English language. 

And it occurs to me that at least the point systems that are out 

there that we are analyzing here today, and the ones I am aware 

of, come from English-speaking countries. And some would refer to 

that as Anglosphere. 

But I will ask the question, starting with Ms. Feikert, is that a 

coincidence, do you think? 

Ms. FEIKERT. That it is from an English-speaking country? I 

don’t think that I could possibly answer that question. 

I do know that it is—one of the reasons that I believe that the 

scheme was introduced, the government stated was there is a 

change in demographics. There are skills in the labor markets that 

aren’t being met by labor within the UK. They look to different 

countries to see how their models were attracting skilled migrants 

and based it off of the Australian model. 

It turns out that the majority of people that are being attracted 

into the country under the highly skilled migrant program are from 

India and from non-English-speaking countries. 

Mr. KING. I think you have taken Ms. White off the hook for that 

question. 

Ms. FEIKERT. I am sorry. 

Mr. KING. Then—but I will go to Ms. White and ask her this 

question then: In either Australian or New Zealand, either, are 

there points awarded for work experience that was gained in violation of temporary visas, people who are illegally working, with either country? Do they get merit for that, demerit for that? How is 

that handled? 

Ms. WHITE. Off the top of my head, I am not entirely certain, but 

as a general rule, under both migration systems, that counts 

against an applicant, working in violation of a visa. So if that was 

found out, it might be—I would have to probably take that on notice. 

I think there might be some room around that if you weren’t 

aware you were working in violation of your visa, or if it was one 

of those technical things and it was on one visa and it was expired 

and it was a couple of weeks of work for the same employer. But 

I would have to take that on notice. 

Mr. KING. I would go ahead and submit that question for the 

record for an answer later so you can give it the opportunity to be 

confident of that. 

If either of the other two witnesses are confident in where that 

stands, as to whether there is merit or demerit for working in the 

country illegally, or do you prefer to answer that in writing? 

Ms. FEIKERT. I would prefer to answer it in writing. 

Mr. CLARKE. I also prefer to answer it in writing. 

Mr. KING. Then I go back to Ms. White, and again, in your written testimony, it shows that immigrants that are admitted under 

the independent skills, points-based program have the highest 

earnings out of all skilled migrants. 

69

So what do you think about the independent applicants that 

seem to be performing better than those that are sponsored by employers? What is the reason for that? 

Ms. WHITE. That is not necessarily the outcome. I believe that 

figure is of the independent-skilled, and not necessarily better than 

the employer-sponsored, although it may actually be depending on 

the employer. 

I think it has a lot to do with the skills and criteria of the people 

who are coming. Just the nature of the system means they are incredibly high-caliber, as a general rule, applicants, and they have 

to be very confident of their ability to earn a job within Australia 

before they—I mean, Australia is physically a long, long way away 

from most other places. 

So, as a general rule, people who come are just very confident of 

their skills and they are very high caliber; and they are able to 

earn that level. 

Mr. KING. Another, for fun, I notice that I believe the Australians 

and the British both call it a ‘‘scheme.’’ that is not a coincidence 

either. 

Ms. WHITE. I am sorry? 

Mr. KING. It is just a little aside, the different way we use language. The plans and strategy policies you put together are commonly referred to as ‘‘schemes,’’ and when we do that here, there 

is a different connotation here. 

But then I would go then to Ms. Feikert again, a series of questions about the reference to fraud in your testimony and how pervasive that has been. I see that you require original documents 

rather than copies. Can you explain that a little bit? 

Ms. FEIKERT. That’s correct. 

The issuance of fraudulent documentation during visa applications and work permits is a fairly pervasive problem throughout 

the entire immigration system. 

One issue with the highly-skilled migrant program was that on 

the basis of just speculative applications, people weren’t sure 

whether they would meet the criteria. They would submit a large 

number of documents in order to try and prove that they would 

meet these criteria. This was overwhelming the caseworkers, and 

oftentimes within there, there were some fraudulent documents. 

Given the volume and the difference between all of the documents 

that were being submitted, that was becoming increasingly difficult 

to determine whether they were genuine or fraudulent. 

So to counter this problem, they have introduced a requirement 

in that original documentation must be submitted, and that it 

should be—for some requirements, it should be off of a specified list 

of documents that they already—or they can easily verify. 

But I do know from other research, as well, that this is an issue 

in other areas of visa issues and work permits and various categories such as that. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Ms. Feikert. 

And not having time, I would love to go into the history of Australia immigration, Ms. White. But, instead, I will yield back to the 

Chair and thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Noting that they were not high skilled, they 

turned out okay. Their ancestors did. 

70

Ms. Jackson Lee for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the witnesses and thank the 

Chairwoman and the Ranking Member for the series of hearings 

that we are having. I know that the witnesses from the foreign 

law—the foreign law specialists of the Law Library of Congress will 

be sharing some technical responses, but I believe, as I have been 

listening to you, you might be able to answer some of the questions 

that I am going to ask. 

Before I do that, I do want to note that this is a day that many, 

many citizens who happen to be of immigrant background are raising their voices regarding the need for this Congress to move forward on immigration reform; and I believe this Committee is moving expeditiously. 

I am somewhat frustrated—and this is my own view—by what 

seems to be a fishing expedition that the Administration seems to 

be on. We have started out with a framework that dealt with comprehensive immigration reform that included border security, a 

worker program. Some used the term ‘‘temporary.’’ I like the term 

‘‘worker program’’ because it involves a number of aspects of work, 

whether it be agricultural or otherwise. 

And then the family reunification issue was a very important 

component; and, of course, access to legalization certainly included 

concepts, no criminal background, learning English, paying fines 

and fees. 

There is another element that I think has to be included, is the 

confidence of Americans that, one, we are concerned about their 

economic stability and their value to this Nation; and so some of 

us are gathering around the thought of ensuring that there is a 

component about job retention, job creation, and an emphasis on 

moving forward, with looking to Americans for positions before we 

go to the immigrant structure. 

But certainly to begin talking about points to me offers an allaround-the-world, all-around-the-thought processes. What can we 

do next? A fishing expedition, a point process, that to me demeans 

individuals who are coming as laborers, who have come in years 

past and then rose up the, if you will, both the intellectual and economic ladder. 

We are reminded that many came from European countries in 

the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, and I am not sure what level of 

degree they were, but they went into, if you will, unskilled labor 

work, and they moved up the economic ladder. 

I would think one of the harshest examples, and I think some 

will think it is harsh, but my ancestry, slave history, was not about 

points. It was about who could work the hardest and the longest 

in the hot sun. And many of us have suffered from that history, 

but we have pulled ourselves up by the bootstraps that we are looking for, the boots we are looking for. We keep trying to go up the 

ladder. 

So I am disturbed about a discussion on a point system, and I 

have a letter here to the Chairwoman that lists a number of organizations that are likewise disturbed. I think they are not disturbed about—I wouldn’t represent their position to be we don’t 

want to have reform that is strong and that has a basis to it that 

71

has border security, but what we don’t like now is the labeling that 

seems to go on. 

May I pose a question, Mr. Clarke, simply in other countries, if 

they had a point system—and I might be open to a point system 

that also has family reunification—do they have balance, other balanced aspects, family reunification as well as maybe a point system 

so that we don’t discard the opportunity for hard-working, tax-paying individuals who are here to be able to bring their families? 

And my second point is, many of us are gathering around the 

idea that I just mentioned: show Americans that you want to retain 

jobs for them. You want them to have first opportunity for those 

jobs. You want to create job training. A lot of our minority communities are sensitive about losing their jobs. 

Are those ideas seen in any other countries, or would you give 

some thought to an idea where you tell Americans their jobs are 

not in jeopardy or their ability to retain their job as well as a system that has points and family reunification? 

Mr. CLARKE. Those are two very controversial questions. 

First, as to does Canada have family reunification, yes, it most 

definitely does. But, generally, economic immigrants outnumber 

family reunification by about two to one. That gives us almost the 

reverse in the United States. So that is a major difference between 

our two countries. 

As to the other point as to whether there is an emphasis on 

skilled workers, if I understand your question correctly, perhaps it 

threatens persons in this country who have trained, worked their 

way up into skilled positions themselves, whether it threatens 

them being able to hold on to that, I guess the Canadian experience is that that has not happened, that the people that have come 

in with high knowledge and high level of experience have been able 

to become successfully integrated into the economy without displacing Canadian workers. 

But I think your question is well put and probably needs further 

investigation and a longer history since we are only talking about 

the fifth year of the current program. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. 

To the young lady that was talking with us about the point system and the immigration system in the U.K., where are most of 

your immigrants coming from? 

Ms. FEIKERT. Under the points program or generally? 

Ms. WATERS. Generally. 

Ms. FEIKERT. Generally, I don’t think that I could specifically 

give you where most of the immigrants are coming from off the top 

of my head. I could definitely get back in touch with you. 

For the U.K., I could say it does exclude any countries of the——

Ms. WATERS. I’m sorry. I can’t hear you. 

Ms. FEIKERT. I can say that wherever the countries where the 

immigrants would most likely would come from, it would not include members of the European Union or the European economic 

area. Off the top of my head, though, I am afraid I couldn’t say. 

Ms. WATERS. Do you have a large African population? 

72

Ms. FEIKERT. Not really African population. It is more from Pakistan. 

Ms. WATERS. Arab League population? 

Ms. FEIKERT. Not a considerable Arab League population. It 

would be more—predominantly, the minorities are more predominantly from Pakistan and India currently. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentlelady yield? 

You actually do list the numbers on page 8. 

Ms. FEIKERT. This is for entry under the highly skilled migrant 

program. 

Ms. WATERS. And those immigrants from Pakistan and India and 

other places are basically through the point system? 

Mr. FEIKERT. They could enter into the country through any system. 

Under the point system——

Ms. WATERS. Do you have a lot of undocumented from those 

areas? 

Ms. FEIKERT. The undocumented workers the U.K. have only just 

recently been stated. They have recently just given how many undocumented workers there are in the U.K., and they did not break 

down demographic-wise. 

Ms. WATERS. You recently had some unrest in the U.K.; and we 

were focused by the media on large numbers of, it appeared, Arab 

background and African background. Were these documented or 

undocumented? They were fighting about jobs. They were making 

a lot of noise about jobs. 

Ms. FEIKERT. I think the one that you might be referring to may 

have been the Bradford riots, and these were—I think these were 

initially documented people that had then gone out of status. And 

I do remember there being a backlash against the government because the people that stepped forward as witnesses to some of 

these events were then linked, prosecuted and deported because 

they had moved out of status. So it was a mixture. 

Ms. WATERS. So there are some people who came in legally, they 

were documented, and then they lost their jobs? 

Ms. FEIKERT. No. They were—depending upon the visa that they 

would enter under, possibly they entered under a temporary visa 

worker where they would be legal in the U.K. for a period of 12 

months. But then one issue that the U.K. Government is facing in 

terms of immigrants is that there is no departure check. So once 

somebody is in the U.K. They can remain there——

Ms. WATERS. Do you have a sizable number of immigrants who 

are coming in as temporary workers? 

Ms. FEIKERT. Off the top of my head, I can’t pull the figures. I’m 

sorry. But I can definitely get back to you with those numbers. 

Ms. WATERS. But you think maybe the temporary worker numbers are sizable? 

Ms. FEIKERT. There are over 50 different categories of work permits that people can enter into the U.K.; and with temporary workers, I think there are 15 different workers. 

Ms. WATERS. What kinds of temporary work do they generally 

do? 

Ms. FEIKERT. There is a working holiday-maker scheme for people of the Commonwealth which is a cultural exchange. There is a 

73

seasonal agriculture worker scheme for unskilled people—a sect of 

base-skilled working scheme for unskilled people who work in the 

hospitality sector, and there are some schemes that literally just 

one or two people would apply under every year. 

Ms. WATERS. So you may be in a situation similar to the one in 

the United States where we need agricultural workers and we need 

workers for low-paying jobs, entry level jobs, to support the economy. 

Ms. FEIKERT. That is correct. 

Ms. WATERS. But these people don’t come in. It is very hard for 

them to get legal status, permanent legal status. 

Ms. FEIKERT. That is correct. 

Ms. WATERS. But if you are highly skilled with the point system, 

you are most likely—for example, if you are an attorney—I saw one 

of the cases here that you were asked to respond to—most likely 

you would be allowed to get in. 

Ms. FEIKERT. That is correct. That is correct. Skilled people and 

as well people that have specific job offers, they are more than likely going to be able to obtain a work permit and then a visa for 

entry into the U.K. 

Ms. WATERS. So you have to have temporary workers, though, in 

order to support the economy. 

Ms. FEIKERT. That is correct. 

One negative aspect that the Government is saying that is coming from the temporary workers is that they have recently mentioned that one of the reasons that these temporary workers are 

needed is because the pay is so low and people in England just 

don’t want these low-paying jobs. And then one member of Parliament from the U.K. said the reason they are low paying is because everybody is coming in from overseas to have these jobs, and 

it is depreciating the salary. 

But that is just a possibly political statement. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mr. ELLISON. I was curious about the same topic. It is interesting, so I will pick up there. Can you describe the temporary program in the U.K.? 

Ms. FEIKERT. I would refer to probably the most popular temporary worker scheme, which is the seasonal agricultural worker 

scheme. That is where members from—if I can just actually refer 

to some notes——

Mr. ELLISON. Just seasonal agricultural. 

So how are the lengths of stay? Are they all the same? Is there 

a unified time period? 

Ms. FEIKERT. The seasonal workers are allowed to stay for a 12-

month period of time under which they must return. I think there 

is possibly a Category for extension for these workers, but I do not 

believe they can remain for longer than 2 years. 

Mr. ELLISON. But 12 months and then can reapply and get another year? 

Ms. FEIKERT. Possibly. 

Mr. ELLISON. What are their rights as temporary workers? Are 

they allowed to form unions? 

74

Ms. FEIKERT. I would have to get back to you in terms of whether 

they are able to form unions or not. I believe that they pretty much 

have the same rights. 

Mr. ELLISON. I don’t want you to speculate. If you don’t know, 

you could just say that, and you can get back to us. 

I would also like you to let me know what percentage of them 

are in unions if they do have the right to organization. 

Does the U.K. have enshrined within its law the right to organization? Is it a statutorily granted or a constitutional right? 

Ms. FEIKERT. The U.K. Does not have a constitution. 

Mr. ELLISON. You have the Magna Carta, right? But I mean do 

you have a statutory right to organization within the U.K.? 

Ms. FEIKERT. I would have to get back to you on that one as well. 

Mr. ELLISON. Could you, please? 

Ms. FEIKERT. Certainly. 

Mr. ELLISON. What is the average wage of one of those temporary workers as compared to the general wage? 

Ms. FEIKERT. It would have to be in the minimum wage require- ment, which is currently in the U.K. $10 or $11 per hour. 

Mr. ELLISON. So they have the right to demand the minimum 

wage. 

Ms. FEIKERT. That is across the board. They have to pay people 

the minimum wage. 

Mr. ELLISON. That is good. That is good. 

And are these workers allowed to leave the employ of a given 

employer and go to another employer if they should so choose? 

Ms. FEIKERT. For the seasonal agricultural workers, I would 

have to, again, I am sorry, get back to you on that. 

Mr. ELLISON. Could you look into that? 

One of the things I am really concerned about if we have a seasonal worker program and somebody comes to work for X Company. and they don’t like their conditions but their status somehow 

prohibits them from going anywhere else, that would be a real 

problem for me. So I would be grateful if you could let me know 

what even grand—well, the U.K. Does about that. 

What is the rate of injury for workers in the program? Is it higher than the general population? Is it lower than the general population? 

Ms. FEIKERT. I would again have to get back to you on that, and 

I would also have to take into account they are doing manual labor 

and look at the statistics for categories of manual labor to get a 

better——

Mr. ELLISON. I would really love to know that. 

I guess you can tell where my questions are going. I want to 

know if the temporary workers in England are taken advantage of 

or not. I am not insisting that they would be. I am not claiming. 

I don’t know. I am hoping you can shed some light on that. 

I am curious to know about New Zealand as well. Do you have 

a temporary workers program? 

Ms. WHITE. I would have to get back to you on the exact outcome 

of the temporary workers program in New Zealand. I believe it 

might be similar to the one in Australia. Australia has a temporary—that is skilled again. It is generally skilled workers coming 

in. 

75

Mr. ELLISON. Do you have a temporary agricultural program 

similar to what has been described by the earlier witness? 

Ms. WHITE. No. Australia has not currently gone down that path, 

but it is investigating it, and the latest Government report on it 

looks at agricultural workers, but they would be considering limiting it to the Pacific Island. 

Mr. ELLISON. But at this point there is no existing agricultural 

temporary worker program? 

Ms. WHITE. That is correct. There is not. 

Mr. ELLISON. Is there a temporary program for people who do 

factory work? 

Ms. WHITE. You would have to define ‘‘factory work.’’ There are 

programs by which you can bring in temporary workers into Australia where there is a skilled shortage of those workers, and that 

could include some form of factory work. Generally, those programs 

look at if you have some skill, even if it is manual skill, fabric 

dyeers; machinists are an excellent example. 

Mr. ELLISON. And given that you are not really sure about the 

program, it might be hard to answer this question, but I am also 

interested in whether there is a right to organize into a union if 

you are a temporary worker, whether you have the right to claim 

the minimum wage, what your rates of injury are, if they are different from other workers. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Is that directed to all four countries represented? 

Mr. ELLISON. Yes, ma’am. Actually, it is. And I would be very 

grateful to get some response from each. 

Thank you, Ms. White. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Thank you very much, panel. You have been very, very helpful, 

very enlightening. 

Without objection, Members of the Subcommittee will have 5 legislative days to submit additional questions which we will forward 

and ask you to answer as promptly as you are able to be made part 

of the record. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We would now ask our third panel to come forward. 

I am pleased first to introduce Dr. Demetrios Papademetriou—

I didn’t, hopefully, mess that up too badly—co-founder and President of the Migration Policy Institute. Dr. Papademetriou holds a 

Ph.D. in comparative public policy and international relations and 

has taught courses at the Universities of Maryland, Duke, American, and the New School for Social Research. 

A prolific writer, he co-directs the Transatlantic Task Force on 

Immigration and has held an array of senior policy and research 

positions, including Director of Immigration Policy and Research at 

the U.S. Department of Labor, Chair of the Secretary of Labor’s 

Immigration Policy Task Force, and Executive Director of the 

International Migration Review. 

I would also like to welcome Howard Greenberg, a partner in the 

Canadian law firm of Greenberg Turner. Mr. Greenberg chairs the 

Citizenship and Immigration Law Specialization Committee of the 

Law Society of Upper Canada and in this capacity certifies Canadian attorneys practicing immigration law. 

76

He co-edits the Immigration Law Reporter, the leading case reporting publication. He has chaired the Canadian Bar Association’s 

National Immigration Section and the Nationality and Immigration 

Committee of the International Bar Association. Mr. Greenberg 

also teaches on the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa. 

We are also pleased to have Lance Kaplan with us, a partner 

with Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy and a graduate of the 

University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg and California Western School of Law in San Diego. 

Mr. Kaplan brings an extensive resume of international practice 

to our panel. He has participated on numerous Government liaison 

committees and formally directed his firm’s global immigration 

services for a Big Four accounting firm. 

Finally, we have Robert Rector, a Senior Research Fellow with 

the Heritage Foundation in Washington. 

Mr. Rector’s research is focused on the U.S. welfare system; and 

he has authored a number of works on the subject, including America’s Failed $5.4 Trillion War on Poverty. Mr. Rector earned his 

bachelor’s degree from the College of William and Mary and a master’s from John Hopkins University. 

Each of your written statements will be made part of the record 

in its entirety, and I would like to ask that each of you summarize 

your testimony in about 5 minutes. 

As you have noted from the prior witnesses, we have this handy 

dandy little box. When it turns yellow, the light, it means there is 

about a minute to go; and when the light turns red, it means that 

the 5 minutes are up. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So if we may begin with Dr. Papademetriou. 

Welcome, and thank for your patience and thanks for being here. 

TESTIMONY OF DEMETRIOS G. PAPADEMETRIOU, Ph.D., 

PRESIDENT, MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. It is good to see you again, and thank you very much for 

honoring us last week at the fourth annual legal conference that 

we cosponsored with a couple of other organizations. 

What I would like to do today briefly is talk a little bit about 

across points systems, because most of the things that we have 

heard today are very specific to each country. 

Secondly, I would like to answer the question of whether we 

should be relying on points systems; and, if we should decide that 

we should, exactly how should we be doing this. And I will make 

some overall judgements, if you will allow me, on the basis of about 

a couple of decades of looking at point systems. 

I would like to start by making a sort of a direct statement that 

points systems are essentially human capital accrual mechanisms. 

This is for countries that feel that either their educational or training systems somehow are not capable to fill needs in the economy, 

and they reach out to the rest of the world in order to bring in specialized talent to do that. 

Secondly, that the things that define good points systems are 

flexibility and constant adjustments. That is why you have heard 

from the other witnesses that other countries keep adjusting them 

in 2002, ’03, ’04, ’05. Because, ultimately, any advantage that 

77

points system has is that, through research and evaluation, you 

can always try to do a little better. And that is another one of the 

hallmark issues about such systems. 

And all point systems, as we have heard, have four or five criteria that are common to all of them: age, education, occupation 

work experience, language. But what is more interesting than that 

is that there are five or six other categories, other criteria that different systems try to use in order to, in a sense, put forward some 

of the priorities that a specific country has at a specific point in 

time. And this includes employer nomination or job offers, previews 

or proposed earnings, etc. Increasingly as of late, in some systems 

you can meet all of the points pass marks simply by earning or 

having earned in the past $80,000 or $120,000 or what have you. 

Prior work experience or education in the country in which you are 

trying to immigrate to and the presence of close relatives also 

count toward points totals. Everybody more or less gets some 

points for having some close relatives in the country; and, increasingly, particularly for places like Canada and Australia that are 

trying to populate parts of the country that are depopulated, they 

may give extra points or extra consideration to people who are willing to commit to settling in a specific part of the country. 

So these are the kinds of things that pretty much the various 

systems have. 

So why are points systems so popular? Why are we having sort 

of the conversation that we are having in this country? 

Well, I think that we need to go back to the history of points systems. You know, a lot of the countries that have them decided to 

move into that direction because they were trying to avoid the ups 

and downs of too many or too few immigrants. Think of our own 

experience with H-1B visas. Any number that you can actually pick 

is not a number that the market will really have picked. It is a 

number that is imposed by an outside body, in this case, of course, 

the U.S. Congress. Well, some of those countries wanted to avoid 

this; and, at the same time, they wanted to add to the overall 

human capital of the country constantly and systematically; and 

that is what they decided to do. 

Also, these are countries that, in a sense, are continuing to grow 

and intend to continue to grow through immigration. So they want 

to improve overall economic outcomes by relying on an awful lot of 

talent from the outside. The assumption nowadays is that you cannot have too much human capital, rather than that you have to 

meet specific shortages or specific demand on the part of employers 

in order to meet your economic growth requirements. 

And, of course, very frequently, they have had weak universities 

when they started with the points systems or universities that 

were not particularly full service ones. So they were not producing 

enough engineers, enough of this, enough of that. 

Again, none of these conditions, it seems to me, really pertain to 

the United States. 

But points systems have also been politically useful. They give 

you a sense in most instances—well, I won’t make a judgment; I 

will wait for you to ask me—a sense that these are objective measurements, you know, that somehow the Government is in charge, 

78

rather than employers or family members who have, in a sense, 

their own special interests. 

When you do that, you are beginning to put the bureaucracy in 

charge of all kinds of things your economy needs. Because, ultimately, you have to make a judgment on the part of the Government as to what the economy needs, which, you know, probably has 

some problems in a society like ours. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Could we ask that you summarize? 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. The two or three ways that I think, if we 

want to accommodate a point system, we have to do so is very perhaps narrowly. We have the EB1 a visa. It takes a long time. It 

takes a lot of paperwork. We could simplify this by giving points 

to individuals who could qualify for that visa. 

There are many States in the United States that need people or 

need special qualifications. Perhaps we could give an opportunity 

to those States to add some points to the system and have some 

immigrants go there. 

And there are two more specific ways, and I will finish on that. 

If we indeed cannot agree on what the requirements should be for 

people to gain legal status, and we wanted to have a diaphanous, 

transparent, simple system, we can impose a point system on that. 

And, finally, temporary migration. There were several questions 

today about temporary workers who could have a point system that 

would allow temporary workers after meeting certain requirements 

to convert their status into that of permanent immigrants. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Papademetriou follows:]

79

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEMETRIOS G. PAPADEMETRIOU


DGP0001.eps
80


DGP0002.eps
81


DGP0003.eps
82


DGP0004.eps
83


DGP0005.eps
84


DGP0006.eps
85

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Greenberg. 

TESTIMONY OF HOWARD GREENBERG, PARTNER, 

GREENBERG TURNER 

Mr. GREENBERG. Madam Chair, thank you very much for inviting 

me today. 

The conversation has been quite stimulating, and it is my pleasure to bring a Canadian context to this discussion. So let me do so 

in the following way. I am going to deviate from my written presentation and actually respond to the language I am hearing today. 

First of all, what is a point system? A point system is a mechanism of selecting between a group of people. 

Mr. GREENBERG. It is as arbitrary as you want to make it. It has 

factors that reflect your national interest, your economy, your political agenda. So a point system is a tool only, just like a lottery is 

a tool for allowing a large number of people to come in. 

So let’s understand what the point system is in a larger context, 

and I think I’ll try to take you through the Canadian context a bit. 

And I’m going to discuss—my discussion will have four aspects to 

it for the 5 minutes. 

Number 1 is a little bit of structure of Canada. And the 

groupings we let people in, number 2. Why the Canadian system 

is broken is number 3. And the lessons that you could learn from 

our system is number 4. 

In terms of structure, on or about November 1 of each calendar 

year, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tables before 

Parliament an immigration plan. An immigration plan tells the Immigration Department how many bodies to deliver in the next year 

and in what categories those bodies should be delivered. 

So I am very intrigued by your discussion about what Congress 

does and what the Department does. In our system you tell the Department pretty well what the game plan is and they go ahead and 

implement that. They are not micromanaged by Parliament each 

day. It is done on 1 day and that is it for the next year. 

Number 2, the groupings do not compete with one another. The 

government sets its priorities by, first of all, determining the volume of the immigrants that will come to Canada—for argument’s 

sake, 265,000 on the high end—and then divides up that grouping 

appropriately. So there will be a certain number of groupings that 

are in that family class that are selected for whatever political reasons those might be. And there are a certain number that are in 

a range in the economic class, but they do not compete. And if you 

don’t get one, it is not like you get more of the other. 

So the nice thing about that discussion that I have heard here 

today is that if you decide to increase the economic class, it doesn’t 

have to be to the detriment of another class. It all depends on what 

the global sum is that you start with. If you create enough capacity 

in the system, everybody can win. It just means how large of a system do you want to create. 

And I should tell you, that debate is ongoing now in Canada, 

both in the forefront and the background, because there is some 

suggestion by the economists, some economists, one economist, that 

we should be moving to 1 percent of our population, which will be 

300,000. So we are eeking our way up for that 1 percent. Nobody 

86

understands the rationale to the 1 percent, but it is easy to calculate, and so we now know where the finish line is. 

So I have had a chance to discuss structure with you. Within the 

structure you have the groupings. Now, understand, within one of 

the groupings you have economic, and—I’m sorry, that is the blue 

that has disappeared on the chart. And then you say to yourself, 

well, how many are you taking in that blue grouping? And if you’re 

talking, like we are about, according to my paper, about 140 to 

158,000 in that grouping, you got to say to yourself, well, we don’t 

have a lot of money to do this; so what kind of instrument can we 

use, what kind of blunt instrument can we use that we can sift 

these people through where we don’t have to touch 158,000 people 

and interview them and expend a huge amount of money? And the 

answer is, why not just get a point system? So we started with a 

point system. 

We would run them all through the point system like flour 

through a sifter. But what did we find out about the previous point 

systems, that arbitrary system of selecting people? We found out 

that the criteria was not objective enough. It was too subjective. 

We had visa officers looking into people’s eyes trying to figure out 

if they were personally suitable to come to Canada, and then say, 

I don’t think so, I’m giving 2 points out of 10. Court challenges all 

over the place that decisions were too arbitrary. Language testing 

by a visa officer saying, say that to me again in English so I can 

hear how you say that; read me from a book. 

So when we got to the point of June 2002 when the new legislation came into effect, the answer was let’s overhaul this thing and 

do a comprehensive immigration change. And we did. We were 

where you are now. And so if you sat in a small room with some 

of the decision makers like I did, and we had some focus discussions about what are we really doing here, they would say, look, 

our number one principle is we want to make this so objective that 

we don’t have discrepancy amongst visa officers in the world. They 

don’t like you in China, you fail; they like you in Hong Kong, you 

pass. Same guy being assessed. They don’t want that. So let’s see 

if we can make it more objective. 

But how about that language test? Well, there is this international language test, ILs. We’ll choose a pass point to 7 for maximum points. You write the test. Everyone writes the same one in 

the world. Great. 

What about the rest of the criteria? Well, I don’t know, we kind 

of make up something, like your spouse has education, we’ll give 

you 5 more points; you got a job in Canada, you get 10 points. In 

other words, let’s just throw together a whole combination. Great. 

Now what happens? Let’s create a pass rate. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Greenberg, we need to have you——

Mr. GREENBERG. Okay. Start a pass rate of 70. We move down 

to 67 points at the end of the day, pass rate. Why? It is arbitrary. 

And that is the tool that was used and that is the tool that is used. 

Here is the problem with the system. If you are coming in 

through the system and you are coming in through employmentbased jobs, you are getting your credit, you have a job offer, you 

are getting off the plane and you are hitting the ground running, 

great. 

87

If you are getting off that plane and you don’t have a job offer 

in your hand, even though you have made a sufficient number of 

points, your point of assimilating into Canadian society is delayed 

considerably, if not permanently hampered. You are unemployed 

for months on end, and if you do get employment, you don’t get employment in the standard that you left your country at. You come 

off the plane as an engineer, but you never practice as an engineer. 

So that is the breakage in the system, is that you don’t come 

back into the system where you left your own country. And that is 

why the emphasis in my paper is an employment-based system. 

That is why I think you kind of got it right with the H visas. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Greenburg follows:]

88

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HOWARD GREENBERG


HG0001.eps
89


HG0002.eps
90


HG0003.eps
91


HG0004.eps
92


HG0005.eps
93


HG0006.eps
94


HG0007.eps
95


HG0008.eps
96


HG0009.eps
97


HG0010.eps
98

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Kaplan. 

TESTIMONY OF LANCE KAPLAN, PARTNER, FRAGOMEN,

DEL REY, BERNSEN, AND LOEWY 

Mr. KAPLAN. Madam Chairwoman, Members of the distinguished 

Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I 

won’t repeat what I have previously indicated in my written testimony, nor will I repeat the factors which are inherent in most of 

the countries’ points-based systems. But I will focus some of my remarks today in relation to Australia specifically. 

The most important issue to note from a comparison of other 

countries’ immigration systems is the realization that other countries who compete against us for global leadership and innovation 

are more aggressively harmonizing their immigration policies with 

their economic needs. 

In this knowledge-based economy, the key to success of any venture is having the right talent in the right place at the right time. 

The priorities that we have established within our immigration system have caused doors to be closed to such talent, albeit sometimes 

unintentionally. 

The question to consider for us is whether a points-based system 

will help us secure this much-needed talent within our vibrant 

economy. The concept of assigning points to immigrants first arose 

as a way for most countries to increase population by attracting industrious people into their workforce. In essence, a point-based immigration system allows the government to socially engineer its demographic. It is well accepted that Australia is considered to have 

a very effective points-based system and allocates points according 

to the age, skill-level, English language, and whether the occupation is in demand. And of course, there are other factors which 

have been mentioned here today. 

But whether a points-based system is appropriate for the United 

States requires careful consideration of the following issues: 

First, it must be flexible and respond to market changes. And 

would such a system work as well in our form of Government as 

it does under a Parliamentary structure where the government of 

the day establishes and implements policy in a more expedient 

manner? We cannot be responsive to market changes if we have to 

go through a legislative process each time we have to amend a list 

of jobs or adjust a pass mark. 

Second, even if Congress were to use its authority to delegate immigration policy to either the USCIS or the Department of Labor 

or the Department of State, is the rulemaking process necessarily 

more nimble or responsive to market demands? In 1990 Congress 

authorized the Department of Labor to place a list of shortage occupations on Schedule A. For the past 17 years, even though the 

structure of our economy has gone through many changes, and we 

have been through many business cycles, Schedule A has remained 

static. By contrast, Australia reviews its lists every 6 months. 

Third, what outcome do we as a Nation want to achieve with a 

points-based system that is not accomplished in the current system? A point-based system is one way to socially engineer a demographic when an influx of immigrants is needed to boost the country’s workforce. The United States, as my colleague mentioned earVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:57 Aug 01, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\050107\35114.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35114
99

lier, is not in that situation. What we need are qualified people to 

fill skill or labor gaps. And as such, a point-based system must be 

sufficiently flexible to identify particular needs of U.S. Employees 

and not just generalized credentials. 

One way to achieve this flexibility is to provide greater point 

value for prearranged employment or advanced education and experience. But it is unclear what results such a system would 

produce that differs from the current American system of employee-sponsored preference categories. Therefore, it must be clear 

as what we have achieved through this points-based system that 

cannot be achieved by removing from our system the obstacles of 

arbitrary quotas and processing delays. That is a really important 

point. 

It is also important to note that the points-based system is an 

avenue to address one component of an entry program into the 

country. But it cannot and should not be viewed in isolation or to 

the exclusion of any other component of a well-contemplated, 

broader immigration program. 

The political administrator of economic structures of the U.S. 

economy are different from those of other countries currently administering a points test as part of the immigration programs. We 

have the fundamentals of a good system that addresses the economic needs of the United States. However, I believe that we need 

to sharpen the economic focus and significantly improve the procedural elements within our current existing program. And this will 

improve our ability to not only compete for, but actually bring in 

and absorb, skilled workers so that we can continue to reap the 

benefits of immigration. 

I also wanted to mention two important points. Most other countries, when they have a points-based system, use the points-based 

system for permanent residents primarily. When we have this discussion it is important to note that we have a temporary need for 

immigrants, we have a permanent need for immigrants, we have 

a permanent need for immigrants that are going to come in under 

the employment-based program and under a family-based program 

in a points-based system. In whichever way we ultimately decide 

to implement it, if we actually do, we would benefit greatly from 

fixing our current system, which would form the basis of the 

points-based system going forward, as well as potentially respond 

to the issues which the Senator——

Ms. LOFGREN. We are going to ask you to wrap up so we can 

hear from Mr. Rector. 

Mr. KAPLAN. Sure. 

—which the Senator referenced in relation to the illegal immigration provisions. And with that, I will conclude, and thank you for 

the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kaplan follows:]

100

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LANCE KAPLAN


LK0001.eps
101


LK0002.eps
102


LK0003.eps
103


LK0004.eps
104


LK0005.eps
105


LK0006.eps
106


LK0007.eps
107


LK0008.eps
108


LK0009.eps
109

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Rector. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT RECTOR, SENIOR RESEARCH 

FELLOW, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION 

Mr. RECTOR. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here 

today. I am going to talk to you today about research I have done 

over the last 6 months concerning the fiscal costs of low-skill immigrants into the United States. By low-skill immigrants I mean individuals that do not have a high school degree. 

Over the last 20 years or so, the United States has imported 

about 11 million people without a high school degree through both 

the legal and illegal immigration channels. If we look at illegal immigrants, 50 or 60 percent of them do not have a high school degree. Even if we look at legal immigrants, about 25 percent do not 

have a high school degree. Overall, about a third of all adult immigrants do not have a high school degree. You could compare that 

to around 9 percent for the native-born population. 

Most people think that historically we have always had this pattern of bringing in individuals that are much lower skilled than the 

nonimmigrant population, but that is not true. Historically, in fact, 

immigrants were slightly more skilled than the native-born population. And what we have done in the last 20 years is an anomaly. 

Altogether there are about 4-1/2 half million immigrant households 

headed by high school dropouts. They are about 5 percent of our 

U.S. population. 

Now, those households, looking at Census Bureau data and data 

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other Government sources, 

in fact receive about $30,000 a year in Government benefits. That 

includes Social Security, Medicare, 60 different means-tested welfare programs, public education costs, as well as costs like fire departments, police and highways, things that have to expand as you 

add additional people into the population. Those same households on average pay about $10,500 in taxes. 

And my study examines over 30 different types of taxes. These 

households pay very little in income tax, but they pay a significant 

amount of Social Security tax, very large amounts of consumption 

tax, sales tax, property tax, pay a substantial amount of State lottery costs and things like that. But, overall, there you have a gap 

for each of those households of about 19- to $20,000 a year of benefits that they receive that they do not pay for; that someone else 

has to pay for. As some people have said, that is equivalent to purchasing them a convertible automobile each and every year. 

If this type of individual comes into the United States or brings 

a family with him and remains for the course of his life, the net 

cost to the U.S. taxpayer, benefits minus taxes paid in, is about 

$1.2 million over his lifetime. If you take all of these low-skilled 

immigrant households in any given year, the net cost to the taxpayer is around $90 billion. 

I also find very significantly that there is virtually no difference 

in the fiscal cost of high school dropout native-born households 

when compared to high school dropout immigrant households. They 

both cost a bundle. If you were to ask the average citizen, hey, we 

had 10 million native-born high school dropouts that came from 

Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, everyone would realize, hey, that 

110

doesn’t sound like a very good idea. But somehow in this debate, 

if the high school dropout is coming from Mexico or Guatemala, 

well, that is very different. In reality it is not very different. Both 

of those types of individuals are very costly to the taxpayer. 

Moreover, you will see in my written research that these households are a net burden on the taxpayer at every stage of their life 

cycle. From the moment they enter the country until the point that 

they die, these households on average cost significantly more in 

terms of benefits received than they pay in in taxes. And on average it is about $3 of benefits for every dollar of taxes paid in. 

The irony that we are looking at here is that the United States 

has a very generous system of support for disadvantaged Americans. It gives it to working disadvantaged Americans and those 

that don’t work. We transfer about $1-1/2 trillion out of the upper 

middle class in taxes to provide benefits for those who have less advantages. 

The problem is that that system is justified, and that is also a 

system that we can afford. However, if you try to apply that same 

standard of generosity to a very large inflow of very poorly educated immigrants from abroad, this imposes enormous fiscal costs 

that the Nation really cannot afford. I would say that my estimates 

show that these low-skill immigrant households over the next 10 

years alone will cost the taxpayers nearly a trillion dollars. 

I believe that as a national policy what we have inadvertently 

done is that we actually have an immigration system, through both 

legal and illegal immigration, that is forming a sort of welfare outreach where we are bringing welfare recipients in from abroad at 

huge costs to the taxpayer. 

Since there are probably a billion people that would like to come 

and live in the United States, I think as a general rule we should 

set our immigration policy so that those who come in will be a net 

gain to the U.S. taxpayer, not a net loss. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rector follows:]

111

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT RECTOR


RR0001.eps
112


RR0002.eps
113


RR0003.eps
114


RR0004.eps
115


RR0005.eps
116


RR0006.eps
117


RR0007.eps
118


RR0008.eps
119


RR0009.eps
120


RR0010.eps
121


RR0011.eps
122


RR0012.eps
123


RR0013.eps
124


RR0014.eps
125


RR0015.eps
126


RR0016.eps
127


RR0017.eps
128


RR0018.eps
129


RR0019.eps
130

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Rector, all those bells mean that we have 

votes on the floor. And all you have been here since 2:00. Your testimony has been terrific. What the Ranking Member and I have 

agreed to is that—there are four of us here—we will limit ourselves 

to 1 minute that includes both our question and the answer. And 

then we will not ask you to wait because it is going to be 40 minutes of voting. 

And so I would just like to ask Dr. Papademetriou, your suggestion was the first I have heard that if we, looking at a new worker 

provision, as has been discussed by the White House in sum, that 

if there were a temporary program, that there is a need for stability. 

I think Mr. Ellison had some questions about sort of creating an 

underclass that you might use some point system to convert or 

allow people who want to apply to convert to a permanent system. 

That is the first I have heard of that. Can you explain any more 

in 25 seconds? 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. Yes. Suppose that people come and work 

here for 3 years. At the end of those 3 years they could try to become permanent residents. It would be a point-like system. It c 

give points for some additional education, some greater knowledge 

of the language, of course not breaking the rules, et cetera, et 

cetera. Those people who would want to try to pass that screen and 

become LPRs can do so. 

Ms. LOFGREN. My time is expired. I am going ask Mr. King for 

his 1 minute. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. For a lightening round I 

will go directly then to Mr. Rector and ask you a question I am confident you don’t expect. And that is: Has the open borders lobby responded to your study and, if so, how? 

Mr. RECTOR. No. I think they are very afraid of this type of data. 

I would say that what my findings are are essentially the same 

findings the National Academy of Sciences has had 10 years ago, 

which are low-skill immigrants are a huge burden on the U.S. taxpayer. We have tried to bury that piece of information in the debate. 

Mr. KING. In other words, they are ignoring this study rather 

than trying to come up with some alternative numbers? There are 

no other numbers available out there that one could discuss alongside these to identify the distinctions between the rationale? 

Mr. RECTOR. There is no study that I am aware of that shows 

that low-scale immigrants pay more in taxes than they take out in 

benefits. It would be implausible to have such a study; although in 

my study we lay out all hundred equations. Very simply, anyone 

who doesn’t like the way I did the tobacco excise tax can go in and 

do it their way. But the fact of the matter is I think the numbers 

kind of speak for themselves. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Rector. I ask unanimous consent that 

your study be introduced into the record. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection. 

Mr. Berman, 1 minute. 

Mr. BERMAN. I won’t get into who the open borders lobby is. I 

haven’t met them yet. 

131

Taxes versus benefits, Mr. Rector. Where do you put the value—

one of the reasons income taxes is low is because wages for this 

population is pretty low. Where do you put the value of industries 

that would not be here but for the—basically the population of people who hasn’t graduated high school? 

Let’s just take agriculture. How do you value the enhanced value 

of having that part of the economy in perishable fruits and vegetables, seasonable agricultural industry, how do you value the costs 

in terms of economic security of not having such an industry in this 

country and having to import all of that? Where does that come 

into your equation? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Berman——

Mr. BERMAN. Now, there is my minute. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think we are going to have to get the answer in 

writing. 

Mr. BERMAN. I think this format, unfortunately, because there is 

no alternative, doesn’t lead to an answer. 

Mr. RECTOR. I would be happy to give you that answer in writing, Congressman. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would ask unanimous consent that a letter from 

a number of organizations about this hearing be submitted into the 

record. 

I would thank the witnesses not only for being here, but for your 

written testimony which was excellent, and note that the record is 

open for 5 legislative days. We may send you questions in writing 

that we would ask that you answer as promptly as possible. 

We will have our next hearing on Thursday: The U.S. Economy, 

U.S. Workers, and Immigration Reform. It will be held May 3, as 

I said, at 3 p.m., and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(133)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO EACH OF THE LAW LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WITNESSES BY

THE HONORABLE STEVE KING, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW


4-1.eps
134

MEMORANDUM ACCOMPANYING ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS POSED BY THE

HONORABLE STEVE KING, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW, RECEIVED

FROM RUBENS MEDINA, LAW LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS


4-2.eps
135

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS POSED BY THE HONORABLE STEVE KING, 

RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, 

BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW, RECEIVED FROM RUBENS MEDINA, 

LAW LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS


4-3.eps
136


4-4.eps
137


4-5.eps
138


4-6.eps
139


4-7.eps
140

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO EACH OF THE LAW LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WITNESSES BY

THE HONORABLE KEITH ELLISON, MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW


7-1.eps
141

MEMORANDUM ACCOMPANYING ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS POSED BY THE

HONORABLE KEITH ELLISON, MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW, RECEIVED FROM

STEPHEN F. CLARKE, SENIOR FOREIGN LAW SPECIALIST, LAW LIBRARY OF CONGRESS


7-2.eps
142

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS POSED BY THE HONORABLE KEITH ELLISON, 

MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW, RECEIVED FROM STEPHEN F. CLARKE, SENIOR

FOREIGN LAW SPECIALIST, LAW LIBRARY OF CONGRESS


7-3.eps
143


7-4.eps
144


7-5.eps
145


7-6.eps
146


7-7.eps
147


7-8.eps
148


7-9.eps
149


7-10.eps
150


7-11.eps
151


7-12.eps
152


7-13.eps
153


7-14.eps
154


7-15.eps
155


7-16.eps
156


7-17.eps
157


7-18.eps
158


7-19.eps
159


7-20.eps
160


7-21.eps
161


7-22.eps
162


7-23.eps
163


7-24.eps
164

HERITAGE SPECIAL REPORT ENTITLED ‘‘THE FISCAL COST OF LOW-SKILL HOUSEHOLDS

TO THE U.S. TAXPAYER,’’ BY ROBERT RECTOR, CHRISTINE KIM, AND SHANEA WATKINS, PH.D., PUBLISHED BY THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE STEVE KING, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW


10-1.eps
165


10-3.eps
166


10-4.eps
167


10-5.eps
168


10-6.eps
169


10-7.eps
170


10-8.eps
171


10-9.eps
172


10-10.eps
173


10-11.eps
174


10-12.eps
175


10-13.eps
176


10-14.eps
177


10-15.eps
178


10-16.eps
179


10-17.eps
180


10-18.eps
181


10-19.eps
182


10-20.eps
183


10-21.eps
184


10-22.eps
185


10-23.eps
186


10-24.eps
187


10-25.eps
188


10-26.eps
189


10-27.eps
190


10-28.eps
191


10-29.eps
192


10-30.eps
193


10-31.eps
194


10-32.eps
195


10-33.eps
196


10-34.eps
197


10-35.eps
198


10-36.eps
199


10-37.eps
200


10-38.eps
201


10-39.eps
202


10-40.eps
203


10-41.eps
204


10-42.eps
205


10-43.eps
206


10-44.eps
207


10-45.eps
208


10-46.eps
209


10-47.eps
210


10-48.eps
211


10-49.eps
212


10-50.eps
213


10-51.eps
214


10-52.eps
215


10-53.eps
216


10-54.eps
217


10-55.eps
218


10-56.eps
219


10-57.eps
220

LETTER FROM THE ALLIANCE OF FILIPINOS FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS AND EMPOWERMENT (AFIRE), ET AL. TO THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND

INTERNATIONAL LAW


11-1.eps
221

Æ


11-2.eps