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

34–418 PDF 2007

PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE: A HISTORIC AND

PERSONAL REFLECTION ON AMERICAN IMMIGRATION

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

MARCH 30, 2007

Serial No. 110–15

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 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

[Vacant] 

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 JADDOU, Chief Counsel 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 30, 2007

OPENING REMARK 

Page 

Ms. Cynthia Garrett, Superintendent of Ellis Island ........................................... 1

OPENING STATEMENT 

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

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 ........................................... 7

The Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Illinois, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 9

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 ........................................... 11

The Honorable Linda Sa ́nchez, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ................................................ 13

WITNESSES 

Mr. David V. Aguilar, Chief, Office of Border Patrol, Department of Homeland 

Security 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 16

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 19

Mr. Igor V. Timofeyev, Director of Immigration Policy and Special Advisor 

for Refugee and Asylum Affairs, Policy Directorate, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 23

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 25

Mr. Daniel J. Tichenor, Ph.D., Associate Professor in the Department of 

Political Science, Rutgers University 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 41

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 43

Mr. Dowell Myers, Ph.D., Professor of Urban Planning and Demography, 

University of Southern California 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 58

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 60

Mr. Dan Siciliano, Executive Director of the Program in Law, Economics, 

and Business, Stanford Law School 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 69

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 71

Mr. Bruce DeCell, member of the 9/11 Victims for a Secure America (reading 

the prepared statement of Michael W. Cutler, former Senior Special Agent 

of the INS, Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies) 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 78

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 81

Page

IV

Mr. Jack Martin, Special Projects Director, Federation for American Immigration Reform 

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

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 87

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 ........................................................................................................................ 4

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Illinois, and Member, Subcommittee on 

Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International 

Law ........................................................................................................................ 10

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 ....... 12

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on 

Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International 

Law ........................................................................................................................ 15

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Michael Chertoff, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security .......................................................................... 102

(1)

PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE: A HISTORIC 

AND PERSONAL REFLECTION ON AMERICAN IMMIGRATION 

FRIDAY, MARCH 30, 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 11 a.m., in the 

Ellis Island Immigration Museum, Statute of Liberty and Ellis Island National Monuments, Ellis Island, New York, the Honorable 

Zoe Lofgren (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Gutierrez, Jackson Lee, 

Sa ́nchez, and King. 

Staff Present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel; Andrea Loving, Minority Counsel; Benjamin Staub, Professional Staff Member. 

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

Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law will 

come to order. 

Before we begin, I would like to extend our appreciation and 

gratitude to Ms. Cynthia Garrett, the Superintendent of Ellis Island, for allowing us to use this wonderful and especially meaningful place for our first hearing on comprehensive immigration reform. Ms. Garrett would like to say a few words before we commence with the hearing. 

Ms. GARRETT. Thank you, Members of Congress and honored 

guests. Good morning and welcome to the Statute of Liberty National Monument and Ellis Island. On behalf of the National Park 

Service, thank you for bringing your Subcommittee’s hearing to 

this historic venue. What better place to reflect on American immigration. Between 1892, when the Ellis Island Immigration Station 

opened its doors and 1954 when it was closed, over 12 million people started their new lives on this small island in New York Harbor. Twelve million people, that’s a number to reflect on. 

During its peak years of operation, over 70 percent of immigrants 

to this country were processed here. If you haven’t already done so, 

look at the magnificent space around us. The Great Hall, as this 

room is called for somewhat obvious reasons, is where the immigrants were registered and processed. One of the remarkable 

things you will find at this national park is that the sense of history here is very real. 

2

Imagine how an immigrant might have felt sitting on these 

benches, anxious to begin a whole new life, speaking very little 

English, waiting to be processed, quite possibly with all their 

worldly possessions in a sack at their feet. Imagine the sounds 

echoing through the Great Hall. Hundreds of voices in dozens of 

languages. And think about what brought people here, the conditions they were leaving, and their dreams for the future. 

As the preeminent symbol of the story of immigration, Ellis Island plays a pivotal role in our culture. It brings a very human face 

to our history. The Immigration Station’s main building was restored and reopened to the public as a museum in 1990. Since that 

time, we’ve had over 25 million visitors. The National Park Service 

uses the power of this very special place to engage people in dialogue about the story of immigration and the cultural richness of 

the United States, about the continuing debates on immigration 

policy, and on the contribution of immigrants to our society. 

After the hearing, I invite you to explore this wonderful museum 

to feel the exhilaration, the fear, and the hope of the men, women, 

and children who landed here unsure of what turns life might take. 

Listen carefully, you can still hear their voices. 

Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very, very much. And I am honored to 

call to order the Subcommittee for our very first hearing on the role 

of immigration in American society. Since this is a congressional 

hearing, we would ask that people take a moment and turn off 

your cell phones or turn it on vibrate so that we don’t have that 

interruption. 

Through this hall and through those doors, our Government admitted millions of brave, energetic people to our great Nation. After 

leaving this island, those many optimistic millions joined our communities and participated in the great kaleidoscope of life in America. In this Great Hall, capable officers inspected those who passed 

through here. They controlled the flow and they made the process 

orderly. This room is a visible vestige of a controlled, orderly and 

fair immigration system; in this room today, sit many, many people, each of whom is a testament to those times. 

As I look around this hall, and as I consider my own family’s history, I see the magnificence of America. I see the picture of America, a place where there is a constant reinvigoration of the American character, a place where the values of hard work, optimism, 

bravery, resilience, and risk-taking, have forged an exceptional Nation. Immigrants have always been part of that process of reinvigoration. 

I was fortunate to have known and loved one of those immigrants, my grandfather. Carl Robert Lofgren was a man of 

unbounded enthusiasm. Nearly 100 years ago, when he was 16 

years old, he boarded a ship in Sweden. He spoke not a word of 

English and he didn’t have any money, but what he did have was 

fearless optimism. Before he died, he told me that when he boarded 

the ship, he believed that when he got to America he would make 

so much money that he would be able to buy a large ranch and become the cowboy he wanted to be. But when his ship landed in 

Boston, he stepped off the boat, a legal immigrant. Armed only 

with his dreams, his work ethic, his optimism, and visions of AmerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:03 Jul 12, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\033007\34418.000 HJUD1 PsN: 34418
3

ica forged from reading Westerns written in Swedish, he made his 

way by train to Oakland, California. The starting was hard, the 

trip long and demanding. His entry, like that of millions of others, 

was simple, orderly, and legal. And as you might guess, my grandfather did not find the streets of Oakland paved with gold. 

Undaunted, he rolled with the punches. He met his wife, my 

grandmother. He started a family. He worked hard. Out of curiosity, I went to ellisisland.org and typed in my last name. And just 

over a 30-year period, starting in 1892, there were 120 Lofgrens 

who did come through these gates, and that was just the Lofgrens 

whose first names began with A. That shouldn’t be too much of a 

surprise, for most immigrants at that time, this small island in 

New York Harbor, in the shadow of Lady Liberty, was their first 

stop on a long and determined journey to the land of opportunity. 

And today, 40 percent of Americans can trace their roots to an ancestor who was among those who landed here. 

Each of us here has our own family’s immigration story. I’ve told 

you mine. 

Today, we’re in a grand debate about the role of immigration in 

American society, but most of us agree that the immigration that 

is symbolized by Ellis Island is a process that worked. There were 

challenges to be sure, but by and large, it was a process that 

worked. And that’s what we need now, and that’s why we’re here. 

It’s not because people around the world still yearn for the hope 

that has always defined America, it’s because America needs them 

in a continual process of renewal. 

We are a Nation of immigrants. It is these very people and those 

who came before them who gave life to our Nation’s enduring 

promise. That’s our history. That’s our present. And it will be our 

future. But by no means is it a given. Not if we ignore what are 

legitimate and sincere concerns. From 1892 to 1954, more than 12 

million immigrants entered the United States through Ellis Island. 

Today, we have close to the same number of illegal immigrants already in the country. If they come forward, work hard, accept responsibility, and the judgment of the Nation for breaking the law, 

will we provide them—not with a free ride—but with a fair and 

well thought out way to contribute to our country legally? Will we 

do the same for those who enter our country legally and decide 

they want to stay and keep contributing? Will we enforce the law 

and will we secure our borders, making sure that they are not negligently porous, but necessarily protected? Will we always remain 

mindful and sympathetic to the hardworking Americans who have 

a real fear of losing their jobs to those who are willing to work for 

less? 

Will we hold accountable employers who remain willing to hire 

undocumented workers to the detriment of American workers and 

will we demand that those working here assimilate and contribute? 

We can and we must reform our immigration system in a comprehensive way, to promote a safer, more secure, prosperous America. We can and must leave here dedicating ourselves to building 

a rational, reasonable, workable immigration system. A comprehensive system. A system that allows us to control our borders, to protect our citizens, and a system that allows America’s economy to 

continue to expand while making certain that our workers get what 

4

at the very least they deserve so very much, a fair shake. A process 

that works, that’s our responsibility. 

[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


ZL-1.eps
5


ZL-2.eps
6


ZL-3.eps
7

Ms. LOFGREN. I now would like to recognize our distinguished 

Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, and that is Mr. Steve King 

of Iowa, for his opening statement. 

Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. I can’t thank you enough 

for holding this hearing here at Ellis Island. As I’ve mentioned at 

the conclusion of our tour, I can’t imagine learning enough from 

the witnesses here today to eclipse what I’ve learned in this tour, 

but it will be a very complimentary educational process for this 

panel and hopefully for the people that are here. 

This island is a place of significant historical value and not only 

for America, but for my family in particular. My grandmother, 

Frieda Katrina Johanna Harm entered the United States through 

here at Ellis Island March 26, 1894. She was 4 years old. She and 

her family emigrated from the port town of Kiel is part of 

Schleswig-Holstein in Germany on a ship named the New York. 

And interestingly and coincidentally, I today represent the United 

States Congress, the cities in Iowa, they’re named Schleswig and 

Holstein. A grandson reflecting back here in Ellis Island about how 

meaningful it is to be here and have this sense of history for our 

Nation. 

My ancestors made a new life in America just like the millions 

of other individuals who have done so throughout the years. However, the idea that Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty stand for 

the premise that the United States should welcome every person 

in the world who wants to come here is historically inaccurate. In 

fact, the Statue of Liberty was given to our country by France in 

1886, not as a symbol of our willingness to accept immigrants, but 

to celebrate the friendship that developed between the United 

States and the French during the Revolutionary War. I question 

some of the architecture that they brought to Washington, D.C., 

but they still were the friends of liberty. 

And the famous Emma Lazarus’ poem, ‘‘The New Colossus’’ often 

cited as proof that the Statue of Liberty is a beacon for open borders was not an original part of the statue. It was only added in 

the early 1900’s. 

No country can effectively allow unrestricted immigration. Even 

here at Ellis Island, approximately 250,000 prospective immigrations were turned away because they didn’t meet the immigration 

standards at the time. We must have an immigration and naturalization policy designed to enhance the economic, the social, and 

the cultural well being of the United States of America. Every Nation must have that kind of a policy. 

The United States already has the most generous immigration 

policy in the world. Over one million immigrants are legally admitted into the United States every year. And that’s very close to the 

numbers that we saw as we went through this tour on an annual 

basis. 

According to the Department of Homeland Security 2005 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, between 1820 and the year 2000 

nearly 66 million immigrants came to the United States, legally; 12 

million of those came here through Ellis Island in its years of operation between 1892 and 1954. So roughly 66 million is the cumulative total of all legal immigration throughout this country’s 200-

8

year history. And last year, the Senate passed legislation that 

would have added that many immigrants in just 20 years. Unfortunately, it seems that any comprehensive, and I put that in quotes, 

‘‘comprehensive immigration reform bill,’’ as we see in this Congress, will have the same unmanageable results. The realities of today’s immigration policies are not the same as those at any other 

time in America’s history. 

For instance, in years past, once an immigrant came to the 

United States, he or she was expected to fully assimilate by learning English, foregoing past allegiances and accepting the principles 

of our Constitution. Legally, those principles remain today. Immigrants also have relatively little contact with their home countries 

because of the difficulty of traveling long distance and communication, and so they assimilated more quickly in those years. 

Now immigrants come and go with relative ease. They communicate by phone and email with friends and relatives in their home 

countries. We’re glad about that. But they are not expected as 

much to learn English. Instead, it’s the immigrants who demand 

American citizens change their culture and language. While it’s 

true that the United States has often had generally welcoming immigration policies, our country has rarely had no restrictions. As 

far back as 1798, Congress passed the Alien Enemies Act which allowed hostile aliens to be apprehended, restrained and secured and 

removed from the country during times of war, or threatened by a 

foreign nation. It would be a time like this actually. 

And in 1802, the Naturalization Act established that an immigrant must be a U.S. resident for 5 years before they can become 

a citizen. Between the 1920’s and the 1960’s, we had relatively little immigration which gave time to assimilate earlier immigrants. 

And it was a calculated policy debated in the United States Congress. Unfortunately, in the last several decades, the Federal Government has not taken seriously its role to enforce its own immigration laws. As a result, it’s estimated there are between 12 and 

20 million illegal immigrants in the country today. And not all of 

those illegal immigrants contribute positively to American society. 

For instance, we are all aware as we sit at Ellis Island here today 

that right across the river is the site of the World Trade Center, 

perhaps the most significant symbol of the failings of America’s immigration laws and policies where 19 foreign terrorists murdered 

over 3,000 innocent Americans. 

Criminal aliens are coming to the United States in record numbers. According to an April 2005 GAO study, nearly 28 percent of 

all State and Federal prisoners are criminal aliens. And further 

statistical analysis show that 4518 murders were committed by 

criminal aliens in America in 2004 alone. That means 25 people 

were killed by criminal aliens in the United States each day if you 

add the numbers that include the victims of negligent homicide 

which is about 13 a day. Some of the victims of criminal aliens include Adrienne Shelley, the actress who was murdered by 19-yearold Diego Belco here in New York last November; or Houston Police 

Officer, Rodney Johnson, who was murdered execution style by 

Juan Leonardo Quinterro, who snuck back into the United States 

after being deported to Mexico in 1999. These victims were AmerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:03 Jul 12, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\033007\34418.000 HJUD1 PsN: 34418
9

ican citizens who deserved to be protected by their government’s 

policies, including its immigration policies. 

So as we sit here today at Ellis Island we must keep in mind our 

obligation to put forth and maintain a responsible immigration policy that assures what is best for America. But I would like to just 

close with this, Madam Chair, and that is that I know of no one 

who is opposed to legal immigration. And there’s a certain vitality 

that comes with immigration. We got the vitality from the donor 

countries across the world and you can see it here. They had the 

most to gain and the least to lose. They took the risk and they 

came here and the vitality of civilization after civilization contributed to American exceptionalism. And I’m looking forward to this 

dialogue that we have and I’m looking forward to continuing on the 

path of enhancing American exceptionalism. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. King. And now I’d like to recognize the other Members for their opening 5-minute statements. Let 

me first recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Congressman Luis 

Gutierrez. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. First, I’d like to say thank you very much, 

Chairwoman Lofgren, for putting together this exceptional hearing—I can’t think of a better way to begin what I know are going 

to be many hearings under your leadership. 

And thank you, Ranking Member King. 

And I would like to extend my thanks to all of those that are 

coming to testify before us here this morning. It is particularly significant that the hearing is being held at Ellis Island, in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty and the first beacon of freedom seen 

by countless immigrants seeking the American dream. 

I hope that today’s hearing will foster a greater understanding 

of the need for comprehensive immigration reform and propel a demand for a reform that respects the history of welcoming immigrants seeking the American dream and building a better future. 

You know Dr. Martin Luther King said that ‘‘the arc of the moral 

universe is long, but it bends toward justice.’’ for the millions of 

hardworking immigrants in this country who toiled deep in the 

shadows of our society, where mistreatment and abuse run far too 

rampant, we must continue to ensure that the arc bends their way. 

We must continue to ensure that they, too, can realize their hopes 

and aspirations, and that they, too, can have a real shot at the 

American dream. I’m talking about the humble mother who has 

dreams, who leaves her home and her children before dawn each 

morning to wait for a bus in the harsh chill of the Chicago winter 

so that she can take care of someone else’s kids, but who knows 

this work will provide money for school supplies and doctors’ visits 

and access to opportunities for her children she never thought possible for herself. 

I’m talking about the modest dreams of the migrant worker who 

has bloodied and blistered hands and aching muscles, who spends 

12 hours a day in pesticide-ridden fields so his son can 1 day realize his dream of going to college. 

It is the same immigrant experience, the same pursuit of the 

American dream that has been the inspiration and motivation for 

immigrants generation after generation in our country. And it is 

10

our responsibility. It is our solemn obligation to ensure that America stays true to its rich heritage of welcoming those who seek a 

better life, that we as a Nation stay true to the eloquent and powerful words etched in the base of the Statue of Liberty which read: 

‘‘I lift my lamp beside the golden door.’’

In the coming months, we face the difficult and very real challenges in our effort to achieve comprehensive immigration reform, 

but in the end I am confident we will get there. We have no other 

choice. Because I am confident in the will and the spirit of the people who are passionate about this issue, I’m confident in the compassion of the American people, and I’m confident in our ability to 

do what is right and what is necessary to secure our border, safeguard our families and strengthen our economy. 

Again, I wish to thank the panelists and I wish to thank the 

Chairwoman for convening this wonderful hearing here on Ellis Island. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gutierrez follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, A REPRESENTATIVE

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

Thank you Chairwoman Lofgren and Ranking Member King for holding this very 

important hearing on historic and personal reflections on the past, present and future of American immigration. 

I would also like to extend my gratitude to the witnesses testifying before us 

today. 

It is particularly significant that this hearing is being held at Ellis Island, in the 

shadow of the Statue of Liberty, the first beacon of freedom seen by countless immigrants seeking the American dream. 

I hope that today’s hearing will foster a greater demand for comprehensive immigration reform and propel a demand for a reform that respects this history of welcoming immigrants seeking the American dream and to build a better America. 

Dr. Martin Luther King said that ‘‘The arc of the moral universe is long, but it 

bends toward justice.’’

For the millions of hardworking immigrants in this country who toil deep in the 

shadows of our society, where mistreatment and abuse run far too rampant, we 

must continue to ensure that the arc bends their way. 

We must continue to ensure that they too can realize their hopes and aspirations—and that they too can have a real shot at the American Dream. 

I am talking about the humble dreams of the young mother, who leaves her 

home—and her children—before dawn each morning to wait for a bus in the harsh 

chill of a Chicago winter, so she can go take care of someone else’s kids, but who 

knows this work will provide money for school supplies and doctors’ visits and the 

access to opportunities for her children she never thought possible. 

I am talking about the modest dreams of the migrant worker, with bloodied, blistered hands and aching muscles, who spends 12 hour days in pesticide-ridden fields, 

so his son can one day realize his dream of going to college. 

It is that same immigrant experience—that same pursuit of the American 

Dream—that has been the inspiration and motivation for immigrants—generation 

after generation—in our country. 

And it is our responsibility. It is our solemn obligation to ensure that America 

stays true to its rich heritage of welcoming those who seek a better life. 

That we—as a nation—stay true to the eloquent and powerful words etched in the 

base of the Statue of Liberty, which read, ‘‘I lift my lamp beside the golden door!′′

In the coming months, we face difficult and very real challenges in our efforts to 

achieve real comprehensive immigration reform and to ensure that the golden door 

is not slammed shut on those who embody the entrepreneurial spirit, the drive, the 

integrity and the work ethic that has allowed our nation to flourish. 

But in the end, I am confident we will get there. 

Because I am confident in the will and the spirit of the people who are passionate 

about this issue. 

I am confident in the compassion of the American people. 

11

And I am confident in our ability to do what is right and what is necessary to 

secure our border, safeguard our families, and strengthen our economy. 

I again extend my thanks to the panelists for appearing before us today, and I 

look forward to hearing your perspectives on the history and personal stories of 

American immigration. Thank you.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Gutierrez. I’d now like to recognize our colleague from Texas, the gentlelady, Congresswoman 

Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Good morning and thank you very much, 

Madam Chair, and I would like to add, as others have, my appreciation for the wisdom of holding this very vital hearing at Ellis Island. Let me thank the National Park Service for their hospitality 

and also their instruction this morning. 

I’m reminded, having visited Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty as a little girl, how moving it was to understand the pinnings 

and underpinnings, if you will, of what this country stood for. Even 

more moving was to recite in class, ‘‘We hold these truths to be self 

evident, that all men are created equal . . . with certain inalienable rights . . . life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’’

Interestingly enough, one might describe the writers of that language as immigrants. Coming to this Nation for economic opportunity, fleeing persecution. Isn’t it interesting that today now in 

the 21st century, we have immigrants who are coming for the very 

same reason? And so I want to, in the backdrop of Ellis Island, 

make it very clear: as you look at the faces of the members of this 

panel, this Subcommittee on Immigration, how much we reflect the 

diversity of America. 

We are very serious, by coming to this place, very serious in having this Congress complete its assignment on comprehensive immigration reform in 2007. I want to thank the members of this panel 

for each of their individual perspectives. I thank the Ranking Member for his leadership on these issues. But it is interesting to note 

that the history reflected in Ellis Island showed a public action by 

the Federal Government in 1892, to put forward an immigration 

station costing then $500,000. 

I wonder why they did that, and I would almost imagine that 

they did so, so that in some way they would know who was coming 

into this country. That is what comprehensive immigration reform 

is all about, knowing who is coming and knowing who is here. I believe that’s a wise move for this Nation. As a Member of the Homeland Security Committee, for all of those and particularly this great 

and wonderful State and city, that reflects the tragedy of 9/11. 

Even with that backdrop, as we express over and over again our 

shock and our sadness of that day, how important it is to be able 

to know who is in America. So comprehensive immigration reform 

is also a means of security and securing the homeland. 

Ellis Island opened for business as an immigration station in 

1892 and during the next 50 years, more than 12 million people 

came through the island on their way to a new life in the United 

States. Ellis Island also was used as a detention center for aliens 

who were inadmissable and could not be returned to their own 

countries. And during World War II, it was used as a detention 

center for enemy aliens. Immigrant processing at Ellis Island continued until the end of 1954. 

12

I give you that brief history because it reflects on where we are 

today. No one is suggesting that we should have a system that does 

not have included in it border security, that we shouldn’t have detention facilities, that we don’t have a means of selecting out or isolating enemy aliens. But what we do say is that we can do it all, 

and the reason I know that is because in the 1960’s and thereafter, 

this great Nation was able to send someone to the moon. We’re 

proud of that because I represent the Johnson Space Center. 

And then I think we know what is good about immigration because we know the names of Irving Berlin, the composer; Arthur 

Murray, the dancer; opera singer Enrico Caruso; comedian Bob 

Hope, and maybe my own constituent Yao Ming of the Houston 

Rockets. 

So there are good things about this process of immigration. So 

even though Ellis Island has been called the island of tears, we 

know that there were hardworking people here who processed immigrants, who gave them an opportunity and gave them a chance. 

Let me conclude by simply adding to the historical perspective, 

because I’m always reminded of my grandparents, who came by 

way of Jamaica to Panama to South Carolina and then to New 

York. Hard-working laborers who raised four sons and who loved 

this country. I’m reminded of the pictures as I walk through this 

place of Inez Geraldine, who came from Jamaica, British West Indies in 1923; of Muriel Marjorie, a little girl who came from Trinidad, Tobago, and the name of Rose Lyddie. 

Finally, I would say to you that if you think that this is new, be 

reminded that each time we go up and down on our immigration 

policies, and I quickly say to you remember the National Origin Act 

of 1924. It limited immigration to the Western Hemisphere, put 

quotas on Asians and Eastern and South Europeans. The Immigration Act of 1965 restored that again, and then allowed people to reunite with their family. And then there was the 1980 Refugee Act 

after the fall of Saigon. And finally, the 1986 Immigration Bill, 

which many people think gave amnesty to 2.7 million. It did allow 

people to come who had been here for a period of years, not like 

the legislation we are talking about, which provides penalties and 

an order for which people might become documented. 

I close, Madam Chairperson, by simply saying nothing has 

changed. People come fleeing persecution. People come for economic 

reasons, and therefore nothing should change here in the United 

States Congress. Change should be for the better, and that is comprehensive immigration reform. The same pathway that our ancestors came—we too, are America, and America is a Nation that can 

do it all. I yield back. 

[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

The subject of this hearing is, ‘‘Past, Present, and Future: A Historic and Personal 

Reflection on American Immigration.’’ This is a very appropriate topic for the beginning of a year in which we will be engaging in major immigration reform, and there 

is no better venue for such a hearing than Ellis Island. 

The island was purchased by the colonial governors of Nieuw Amsterdam (later 

New York) from Native Americans on July 12, 1630. It initially was called, ‘‘Little 

Oyster Island’’ because of its abundant supply of oysters. It was purchased by SamVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:03 Jul 12, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\033007\34418.000 HJUD1 PsN: 34418
13

uel Ellis around the time of the American Revolution; his heirs sold it to the State 

of New York in 1808 for $10,000. 

Although Ellis Island’s position in the harbor made it useful for military purposes, 

it was never needed for national defense. In 1890, it was selected by the House 

Committee on Immigration as the site for an immigration station for the Port of 

New York. 

The immigration station was constructed of Georgia pine with slate roofs. The 

main building was two stories high, about 400 feet long and 150 feet wide. Fourstory peaked towers marked the corners of the building. There were baggage rooms 

on the ground level, and there was a great inspection hall above them. Smaller 

buildings included a dormitory for detainees, a small hospital, a restaurant, kitchens, a baggage station, an electric plant, and a bathhouse. When the Immigration 

Station officially opened on January 1, 1892, its final cost had reached approximately $500,000. 

Ellis Island opened for business as an immigration station in 1892. During the 

next 50 years, more than 12 million people came through the island on their way 

to a new life in the United States. Ellis Island also was used as a detention center 

for aliens who were inadmissible but could not be returned to their own countries; 

and during World War II, it was used as a detention center for enemy aliens. Immigrant processing at Ellis Island continued until the end of 1954. 

On May 11, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson officially proclaimed Ellis Island as 

part of the Statue of Liberty National Monument. The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island 

Foundation was established to raise $230 million for the restoration of these national monuments. More than 20 million Americans have made contributions to the 

Foundation. 

Annie Moore was the first person to arrive at Ellis Island. She was followed by 

millions of hard working immigrants who established a life for themselves and their 

families in United States. The diversity and richness of their contributions to the 

United States is apparent even in a short list of immigrants who have achieved success in their chosen fields: Author Rudyard Kipling; Composer Irving Berlin; Dancer 

Arthur Murray; Opera Singer Enrico Caruso; Actor and Olympian Johnny 

Weissmuller; Comedian W.C. Fields; Comedian Bob Hope; Psychiatrist Carl Jung; 

Psychiatrist Sigmund Freud; Actor, Director, and Comedian Charles Chaplin; U.S. 

President Woodrow Wilson; Magician Harry Houdini; U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt; King of the Rhumba Javier Cugat; Master Cellist Pablo Casals; U.S. President Herbert Hoover; Pioneering Entertainer Walt Disney; Actor Bela Lugosi, Professor and Nobel Prize Winner Albert Einstein; Composer Cole Porter; Novelist F. 

Scott Fitzgerald; Song Writer and Composer George M. Cohan; U.S. President William Taft; Comedian and Actor Maurice Chevalier; Author Joseph Conrad; Composer George Gershwin; and Master Violinist Jascha Heifetz.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. I would like now to recognize our final 

Committee Member, Representative Linda Sa ́nchez, Congresswoman from Southern California. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and all of you 

who are in attendance. Thank you for taking such an interest in 

this issue. As we learned earlier today on our tour, Ellis Island became the first Federal immigration station in 1890. And over the 

course of 62 years, between 1892 and 1954, over 12 million immigrants entered the United States through this very station. During 

this time, political instability, deteriorating economic conditions in 

Europe, and religious discrimination sparked one of the largest 

waves of immigrants in history. 

These immigrants came from places like Ireland, Germany, and 

Eastern Europe. According to historians, only 2 percent of those 

who arrived at Ellis Island were turned away. Immigrants were excluded for two main reasons. Either they had a dangerous, contagious disease or an immigration inspector concluded that they 

were likely to become a public charge. 

The criterion for being likely to become a public charge was a 

person who had less than ten dollars, about $216 in today’s money. 

Imagine that—the only requirements being $216 and having reaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:03 Jul 12, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\033007\34418.000 HJUD1 PsN: 34418
14

sonably good health. That’s certainly a very different standard from 

the standard that we use today. 

The immigrants that were admitted found work where they 

could. The unskilled male workers ended up in steel mills and coal 

mines, while the unskilled female workers cleaned houses. Things 

have not changed much in 100 years, except that now instead of 

mills and mines, they go to work in fields, restaurants, meat packing houses, and the homes of the affluent. 

These early immigrants frequently faced discrimination. Businesses in New York would post signs reading ‘‘No Irish Need 

Apply’’. Today, immigrants looking for work face everything from 

recruitment by firms seeking to exploit cheap labor to discrimination, substandard working conditions, and joblessness based purely 

on their race or ethnicity. 

But despite these challenges, is it any wonder why this country 

is a magnet for individuals seeking a better life? We are the 

wealthiest Nation in the history of the world, largely due to the 

hard work of immigrants. President John F. Kennedy said ‘‘everywhere immigrants have enriched and strengthened the fabric of 

American life.’’ He was absolutely correct. Immigrants have helped 

build everything from the steel industry to Hollywood. 

Just as in the early 1900’s, when immigrants came to the U.S. 

and contributed to the foundation and fabric of this proud country, 

we stand here today in the early years of a new millennium to bear 

witness and support the desire of a new generation of immigrants 

to contribute to that storied foundation and fabric that is America. 

Today, immigrants come from every continent except Antarctica. 

But the commitment, the desire, the hopes, and the dreams are the 

same today as they were when millions came through these gates 

a hundred years ago. As some of you may know, I am the youngest 

daughter of immigrants who came to this country with very little 

money and not knowing the language, much like many of the immigrants that passed through these gates a century ago. 

With hard work, the love and support of family and friends, and 

a little good luck, my parents managed to send every one of my six 

brothers and sisters and I to college. And like the children of immigrants from a century ago, my brothers and sisters and I have succeeded as engineers, entrepreneurs, and public servants. 

Although Maria and Ignacio Sa ́nchez were the first immigrants, 

make that the first couple really, ever to have two daughters serve 

in the United States Congress, throughout American history there 

have been people who have immigrated to this country and made 

substantial impacts. Just to name a few, Madeleine Albright, Michael J. Fox, Harry Belafonte, Albert Einstein, and one of my personal favorites, Fernando Valenzuela of the Los Angeles Dodgers. 

All of these people are a testament to what immigrants contribute to our country. While our system has not always been perfect, there was a time when it was fair, orderly, and humane. Unfortunately, our current immigration system is none of those. I 

don’t think anybody would disagree that it is broken. 

It is time for us to get back to where we embraced the fact that 

we are all descendants of immigrants. Everyone here is either an 

immigrant themselves or knows someone who shares this common 

15

legacy. And we should continue to foster that legacy with sensitivity and rationality far into the future. 

If you look closely enough into the eyes of an immigrant today, 

whether from China or Mexico or Kenya, you will see the same 

hopes and spirit that burned so brightly in the eyes of your immigrant ancestors, whether they came from Ireland, Germany, England, or somewhere else. 

I want to thank the Chairwoman for choosing this historic site 

to hold this hearing, and for taking a lead on what is one of the 

most important issues of the 21st century, and I yield back the remainder of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sa ́nchez follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

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

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member King. 

As we learned earlier today, Ellis Island became the first Federal immigration 

station in 1890. Over the course of 62 years, between 1892 and 1954, over twelve 

million immigrants entered the United States through this very station. 

During this time, political instability, deteriorating economic conditions in Europe 

and religious discrimination sparked one of the largest waves of immigrants in history. These immigrants came from places like Ireland, Germany, and Eastern Europe. 

According to historians, only two percent of those who arrived at Ellis Island were 

turned away. Immigrants were excluded for two main reasons: either they had a 

dangerous contagious disease or if an immigration inspector concluded that they 

were likely to become a public charge. The criterion for ‘‘being likely to become a 

public charge’’ was a person who had less than $10—about $216 today. 

Imagine that: the only requirements being $216 and had having reasonably good 

health. That’s certainly a different standard than today. 

The immigrants that were admitted found work where they could. The unskilled 

male workers ended up in steel mills and coal mines while the unskilled female 

workers cleaned houses. Things have not changed much in 100 years, except that 

now instead of mills and mines, they go to work in fields, restaurants, meat packing 

houses and the homes of the affluent. 

These early immigrants frequently faced discrimination. Businesses in New York 

would post signs reading ‘‘No Irish Need Apply.’’ Today, immigrants looking for 

work face everything from recruitment by firms seeking to exploit cheap labor to 

discrimination, substandard working conditions and joblessness based purely on 

their race. 

But despite these challenges, is it any wonder why this country is a magnet for 

individuals seeking a better life? We are the wealthiest nation in the history of the 

world—largely due to the hard work of immigrants. President John F. Kennedy said 

‘‘Everywhere immigrants have enriched and strengthened the fabric of American 

life.’’ He was absolutely correct. Immigrants have helped build everything from the 

steel industry to Hollywood. 

Just as in the early 1900’s when immigrants came to the U.S. and contributed 

to the foundation and fabric that is this proud country, we stand here today in the 

early years of a new millennium to bear witness, and support the desire of a new 

generation of immigrants to contribute to that storied foundation and fabric that is 

America. 

Today immigrants come from every continent (except Antarctica), but the commitment, the desire, the hopes, and the dreams are the same as they were when millions came through these gates 100 years ago. 

As some of you may know, I’m the youngest daughter of immigrants who came 

to this country with very little money and not knowing the language—much like 

many of the immigrants that passed through these gates a century ago. 

With hard work, the love and support of family and friends, and some good luck, 

my parents managed to send every one of my six brothers and sisters to college. 

And like the children of immigrants from a century ago, my brothers and sisters 

and I have succeeded as engineers, entrepreneurs, and public servants. 

Although, Maria and Ignacio Sμnchez were the first immigrants, make that the 

first couple, ever to have two daughters elected to Congress. 

16

Throughout American history, there have been people who have immigrated to 

this country and made substantial impacts. Just to name a few: Madeleine Albright, 

Michael J. Fox, Harry Belafonte, Albert Einstein and one of my personal favorites, 

Fernando Valenzuela of the Los Angeles Dodgers. 

All of these people are a testament to what immigrants can contribute to our 

country. 

While our system has not always been perfect, there was a time when it was fair, 

orderly, and humane. Unfortunately, our current immigration system is none of 

those. It is broken. 

It’s time for us to get back to where we embrace the fact that we are all descendents of immigrants. 

Everyone here is either an immigrant themselves or knows someone who shares 

this common legacy. And we should continue to foster that legacy, with sensitivity 

and rationality, far into the future. 

If you look closely enough into the eyes of an immigrant today—whether from 

China, or Mexico, or Kenya, you will see the same hopes and spirit that burned so 

brightly in the eyes of your immigrant ancestors whether they came from Ireland, 

Germany, England, or elsewhere. 

I thank the Chairwoman for choosing this historic site to hold this hearing and 

for taking the lead on what is one of the most important issues of the 21st Century. 

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, and thanks to all the Members for being pretty close to 5 minutes, we all did very well. Without objection, all Members’ opening statements will be placed into 

the record, and also without objection, the Chair will be authorized 

to declare a recess of the hearing at any time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We have two distinguished panels of witnesses 

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

first panel this morning includes David V. Aguilar, who is the 

Chief of the Office of Border Patrol in the Department of Homeland 

Security. Mr. Aguilar has served for 26 years in the Border Patrol, 

and is the Nation’s highest ranking Border Patrol officer. 

We are also pleased that Igor V. Timofeyev, who is the Director 

of Immigration Policy and a Special Advisor for Refugee and Asylum Affairs in the Policy Directorate of the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, will join us. Mr. Timofeyev, himself a refugee 

from Russia, previously served as Associate Legal Counsel for the 

President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former 

Yugoslavia and as Clerk at the U.S. Supreme Court. Quite an impressive resume. 

Each of your written statements will be made part of the record 

in its entirety, and so I would ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within the time, there 

is a timing light at your table. When 1 minute remains, the light 

will switch from green to yellow, to red, and then start to blink incessantly when your time is up. As you’ve noticed, I don’t have a 

heavy gavel, but we do hope that you try and stay within the time. 

And so, Mr. Aguilar, we are so delighted that you are able to join 

us here this morning. Would you please begin? 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID V. AGUILAR, CHIEF, OFFICE OF 

BORDER PATROL, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. AGUILAR. Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member King and 

Members of the Committee, it is an extreme honor for me to be 

here before you today at this historic American landmark to testify 

about the United States Border Patrol. The men and women, that 

day in and day out, protect this great country and the challenges 

17

that we face as we ride the rivers, the mountains, and the deserts 

of this great country. 

It is especially humbling to do so on this ground that has served 

this country and so many families as a gateway to a new life and 

the dream of living as Americans. The men and women of the 

United States Border Patrol have the duty and responsibility of 

protecting our Nation’s borders. Today we speak about comprehensive immigration reform. Today, I will restrict my comments to border security and border enforcement, a critically important part of 

comprehensive immigration reform. 

Our priority mission is homeland security. Nothing less than protecting our country from those who would enter illegally between 

the ports of entry in order to bring us harm. And we continue, of 

course, vigorously to enforce our traditional missions of preventing 

the illegal entry of people, smuggling of people, narcotics, and other 

contraband into our country. 

Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Committee, this country 

has a responsibility to its history, its origins, it heritage, and its 

people. The men and women of the United States Border Patrol are 

very thankful to you, and all the Members of Congress and your 

colleagues who have worked diligently to provide DHS, Customs 

and Border Protection of the United States Border Patrol, with the 

absolutely essential resources to gain control of our borders. 

There is much that has been done and is being done by many 

throughout our country today to protect our rich heritage, heritage 

of being an accepting people, a welcoming society, and a country of 

laws. Today, our Nation faces tremendous immigration debates. 

These debates should be vigorous. These debates should be spirited. Americans recognize the value and the benefits that legal immigration has brought to this country. 

But Americans also recognize the detriment that chaotic levels of 

illegal immigration and an unmanaged, uncontrolled border, brings 

to our country. In today’s world, we must secure our borders and 

we must manage immigration as a we facilitate legal travel and 

trade. Last year, the United States Border Patrol apprehended over 

1.1 million people coming across our borders illegally. We apprehended over 1.3 million pounds of narcotics coming across our borders illegally. Over 108,000, other than Mexicans coming across our 

borders, and over 152,000 illegal aliens with criminal histories attempting to re-enter the United States after having been deported. 

Approximately 98 percent of this activity occurred on our Nation’s southern border with Mexico. The Border Patrol carries forth 

its responsibilities of patrolling and protecting America’s 6,000 

miles of border between the ports of entry by following an all 

threats strategy. Our resources are deployed on a risk management 

basis that takes into account vulnerabilities, risks, and threats. We 

employ an enforcement model along our borders that balances what 

we refer to as a right mix of resources. The resource mix is comprised of personnel, technology, and infrastructure, along with the 

means to rapidly respond to any incursion that occurs and that we 

detect. 

In November of 2005, the Secretary announced the secure border 

initiative, of which increased border enforcement is an absolutely 

critical part of a comprehensive immigration reform. Today, the 

18

Border Patrol has over 12,700 Border Patrol Agents along our Nation’s borders with Mexico and Canada, a 30 percent increase since 

2001. 

We have ended what has previously been known as catch and release, of other than Mexican aliens that crossed our borders in the 

past. We have implemented expedited removal of other than Mexicans, which streamlines but ensures safeguards of immigrant 

rights while we remove these people that have no relief to immigration laws. We have implemented Operation Jump Start. Operation Jump Start is the support of up to 6,000 National Guard personnel along our Nation’s southern border with Mexico that help 

build border infrastructure, perform administrative functions, help 

manage our fleet, and especially act as our eyes and ears on the 

border with Mexico. 

Today, we are building fences, roads, installing border barriers, 

and lighting at locations that will increase our enforcement capabilities and efficiencies. I am very pleased to report the accomplishments of these on-going initiatives and others that are happening. 

Today, we have a very significant and sustained reduction of flow 

across our Nation’s border with Mexico, approximately a 30 percent 

reduction of that flow. 

Other than Mexican, apprehensions are down by about 51 percent. Narcotics apprehensions are actually up by 27 percent. This 

is a good thing. A reduced flow of illegal alien activity across our 

southern border with Mexico gives us the ability to concentrate on 

threats that exist besides illegal immigration. 

While it is correct that many of our resources are being applied 

and directed toward the southern border, this does not in any way 

reflect us ignoring our northern border. It is vast. It is remote in 

very many areas. And it is an area that does not have any worthy 

activity levels of the southern border. It is an area where we enjoy 

exceptional relationships with our Canadian law enforcement partners in an area that lends itself to partnerships with the communities, farmers, and ranchers on both sides of the borders. 

We are working very hard with our Canadian and Mexican counterparts to ensure that we do everything we can to protect our borders. 

Madam Chairwoman, I just want to say the following because I 

think it is absolutely important. There are many today that have 

asked whether the resourcing and enhancements of the United 

States Border Patrol are, in fact, important to homeland security. 

The answer is definitely yes. 

Some people would believe that Border Patrol enforcement capabilities are being increased solely for the purposes of stopping illegal immigration between the ports of entry. The fact of the matter 

is that an unmanaged, uncontrolled border is an unsafe border. Not 

an unsafe border just for our border communities, but an unsafe 

border for our country. 

The high activity levels that our southern border is experiencing 

creates opportunities for those that would come into this country 

to bring us harm. An unmanaged border is easily exploited by 

criminal organizations that seek to bring drugs to our schools, our 

streets and our neighborhoods. 

19

We have a responsibility, a responsibility to our forefathers, to 

our children, to our children’s children to secure our borders. In 

order to remain an accepting society, a welcoming people, and a society of laws, we must secure our borders. 

And in closing, while immigration inspectors worked these hallways and offices back in the early days of our country, our Border 

Patrol forefathers, who were known as the Mounted Guard, patrolled the borders of our country on horseback on the northern 

and southern borders of Mexico and Canada. Their collective responsibilities were important to this country. They defended our 

country by defending our borders. They kept out disease, animals, 

criminals and others our society did not deem welcome. Our responsibilities today as their successors, are much greater. 

The threats to our Nation are deadlier and the results of failure 

would be catastrophic. Our mission has not changed. Our resolve 

has actually strengthened. 

I close, Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Committee, Ranking Member King, by saying that it is very proper for this hearing 

to be held here in the very ground where so many millions of individuals legally took their first steps of American ground toward 

their dream. Ellis Island represents America’s front door, America’s 

golden door. We must keep it that way. 

Our mission, our responsibility is to protect and ensure that 

America remains a welcoming country. To do so, we must secure 

our borders. 

Madam Chairwoman, I stand ready to answer any questions that 

you might have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aguilar follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID V. AGUILAR

CHAIRWOMAN LOFGREN, RANKING MEMBER KING, AND DISTINGUISHED SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS, it is my honor to appear before you at 

this historical American landmark today to discuss American Immigration its history and its promise. My name is David Aguilar, and I am the Chief of the U.S. 

Border Patrol a component of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP). It is my privilege to testify about the United 

States Border Patrol, the job that our men and women perform day in and day out 

in protecting this great country and our people, the challenges that we face and the 

achievements that have been made along our country’s borders. It is especially humbling to do so on this ground that has served this country and so many American 

families as a gateway to a new life and the dream of living as Americans. Immigration has been one of the wellsprings of our great democracy’s vitality and together 

with our written Constitution and the institutions and documents that support it, 

constitute the framework of our nation’s greatness. 

The role of federal immigration at the Ellis Island Station started on January 1, 

1892 during the administration of President Benjamin Harrison. Congress created 

this station in reaction to a great wave of new immigration, itself made possible by 

late 19th century changes in transportation technology. The mass of new immigration brought with it threats of epidemic disease, organized crime, and radical ideology. The Nation’s response was to create a legal procedure through which lawful 

immigrants could be screened, and to introduce stations like this one as gateways 

for that lawful procession. From 1892 to 1924, Ellis Island was the Nation’s first 

line of defense, and the two agencies charged with processing immigrants at Ellis 

Island were the United States Public Health Service and the Bureau of Immigration 

(later to become known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service—INS). 

Since then we’ve seen great changes in the sources of immigration and means of 

transportation, but little change in the nature of the threats. Ellis Island worked 

to prevent the spread of Trachoma, while we work to prevent the spread of SARS 

or avian flu. And while Ellis Island deported individuals attempting to undermine 

20

our great democracy, we now seek to detect and prevent any terrorist threat to our 

national security. Unlike Ellis Island, however, which processed 70 percent of arriving immigrants—all of whom arrived on steamships—we cannot concentrate all our 

efforts in one place. Today there are hundreds of Ports of Entry—air, sea and land. 

To better equip the Nation to focus on its now more diverse immigration mission, 

on March 1, 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service was divided into 3 

separate agencies within the Department of Homeland Security: Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

I would like to give you a brief review of our agency and mission. CBP, as the 

guardian of the Nation’s borders, safeguards the homeland—foremost, by protecting 

the American public against terrorists and the instruments of terror, while at the 

same time enforcing the laws of the United States and fostering the Nation’s economic security through lawful travel and trade. Since 1924, the Border Patrol has 

grown from a handful of mounted agents patrolling desolate areas along U.S. borders between the Ports of Entry, to today’s highly-trained, dynamic work force of 

almost 13,000 men and women supported by sophisticated technology, vehicles, aircraft, and other equipment. Contributing to accomplishing our priority mission is 

the Border Patrol’s time-honored duty of interdicting illegal aliens and narcotics and 

those who attempt to smuggle them across our borders. We cannot protect against 

the entry of terrorists and the instruments of terror without also reducing the clutter that is caused by illegal migration across our borders. 

To most effectively secure our border, we must reform our immigration system to 

relieve this pressure. We need comprehensive immigration reform that supports border security, establishes a robust interior enforcement program, and develops a temporary worker program. The Administration is dedicated to comprehensive reform 

of America’s immigration laws by supporting border security, while maintaining the 

Nation’s tradition of welcoming immigrants who enter the country legally. For immigration reform to succeed, it must be based on five pillars: 1) strengthening security at the borders; 2) substantially increasing enforcement in the interior to remove 

those who are here illegally, and to prevent employers from deliberately or inadvertently hiring illegal immigrants; 3) implementing a Temporary Worker Program to 

provide a legal channel for employers to hire foreign workers to do jobs Americans 

are unwilling to do; 4) addressing the millions of illegal immigrants already in the 

country; and 5) helping new immigrants assimilate into American society. The Administration’s plan will deter and apprehend migrants attempting to enter the country illegally and decrease crime rates along the border. The plan also will serve the 

needs of the economy by allowing employers to hire legal foreign workers on a temporary basis when no American is willing to take the job, bring illegal immigrants 

out of the shadows without providing amnesty, and restore public confidence in the 

Federal Government’s ability to enforce immigration laws. As immigration reform 

legislation is considered, it is crucial to heed the lessons of past reform efforts and 

avoid repeating their mistakes. All policies for comprehensive reform must be workable. In 1986 an opportunity was missed by not crafting a law that was workable. 

We should not repeat that mistake. 

The only way good legislation will be passed is by working together to craft a solution that all Americans can support and is worthy of our great tradition as a nation 

of laws and a nation of immigrants. At its base, comprehensive immigration reform 

should strive to end illegal immigration, control our borders, and have a system that 

is at once workable and enforceable while meeting the actual economic needs of our 

country through humane and just legal immigration. 

The Border Patrol’s national strategy is an ‘‘all threats’’ strategy with anti-terrorism as our main priority. Comprehensive immigration reform will serve to sharpen the focus of this priority. Our strategy is a risk-management approach to deploy 

our resources. The strategy recognizes that border awareness and cooperation with 

our law enforcement partners are critical. Partnerships with the Department of the 

Interior; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Drug Enforcement Administration; 

Federal Bureau of Investigation; State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies; 

and State Homeland Security offices play a vital role in sharing and disseminating 

information and tactical intelligence that assists our ability to rapidly respond to 

an identified threat or intrusion, which is essential to mission success. 

Recognizing that we cannot control our borders by merely enforcing the law at the 

‘‘line,’’ our strategy incorporates a ‘‘defense in depth’’ component, to include transportation checks away from the physical border. Traffic checkpoints are critical to 

our enforcement efforts, for they deny major routes of egress from the borders to 

smugglers intent on delivering people, drugs, and other contraband into the interior 

of the United States. Permanent traffic checkpoints allow the Border Patrol to esVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:03 Jul 12, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\033007\34418.000 HJUD1 PsN: 34418
21

tablish an important second layer of defense and help deter illegal entries through 

improved enforcement. 

The Border Patrol has a clear strategic goal: to establish and maintain effective 

control of the border of the United States. Effective control is defined in the Border 

Patrol’s strategy as the ability to detect, respond, and interdict border penetrations. 

In order to establish effective control in a given geographical area, we must be able 

to consistently:

• Detect an illegal entry;

• Identify/Classify the entry and determine the level of threat involved;

• Respond to the entry; and

• Bring the event to a satisfactory law enforcement resolution.

Gaining, maintaining, and expanding a strong enforcement posture with sufficient 

flexibility to address potential exigent enforcement challenges is critical in bringing 

effective control to the borders. Guidance at the national level for planning and implementation ensures resources are initially targeted to gain and maintain effective 

control in the most vulnerable, highest-risk border areas, and then to expand this 

level of border control to all Border Patrol Sectors. 

Crucial to effectively accomplishing our mission is SBInet. Through SBInet, the 

technological component of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), CBP will continue to 

assess, develop, and deploy the appropriate mix of technology, personnel, and infrastructure to gain, maintain, and expand coverage of the border in an effort to use 

our resources in the most efficient fashion. SBInet’s expansion of a 21st century system of cameras, biometrics, sensors, air assets, improved communications systems, 

and innovative technology will provide the force multiplier that the Border Patrol 

needs to perform its mission in the safest and most effective manner. 

The proper mix of personnel, technology, and infrastructure will vary with differing border environments and enforcement challenges. The Border Patrol operates 

in three basic geographical environments: urban, rural, and remote. Each of these 

environments requires a different mix of resources. 

In an urban environment, enforcement personnel generally have only minutes, or 

sometimes seconds, to identify an illegal entry and to bring the situation to resolution. This dynamic is a result of the fact that significant infrastructure exists to facilitate an illegal entrant’s approach to the border and entry and to permit the violator to escape within moments of effecting the entry by blending in with the legitimate traffic in the community. Typically, smugglers and potential illegal entrants 

prefer urban areas due to the available infrastructure. 

In urban areas, the deployment mix will lean heavily on SBInet-provided tactical 

infrastructure, such as lights and fences, supported by sufficient personnel to quickly respond to intrusions. The deployment tends to be of high visibility in that a potential intruder actually sees the barriers, lights, detection capability, and patrols 

occurring on or near the immediate border. The goal of deployment in an urban area 

is to deter and/or divert potential illegal traffic into areas where the routes of egress 

are not immediately accessible and enforcement personnel have a greater tactical 

advantage. 

In a rural environment, response time to an incursion can be greater, as the time 

from the point of entry to assimilation into the local infrastructure may be minutes 

or hours, exposing the violator for a longer period of time and allowing for a more 

calculated enforcement response. Deployment in a rural area will be less dependent 

upon such things as pedestrian fences and stadium lighting and more dependent 

upon SBInet solution sets involving detection technology, rapid access, and barriers 

designed to limit the speed and carrying capability of the violators. 

In remote terrain it may take a violator hours or even days to transit from the 

point of entry to a location where the entry may be considered successful. This allows for a significantly more deliberate response capability geared toward fully exploiting the terrain and environmental advantages. Deployments in remote areas 

will lean very heavily on detection technology and will include infrastructure geared 

toward gaining access to permit enforcement personnel to confront and resolve the 

event at a time and location that are most tactically and strategically advantageous. 

Other infrastructure/facilities that may be employed in a remote area include remote operating bases to provide for full enforcement coverage in areas that are difficult to access on a shift-to-shift basis. 

While it is key that the right combination of personnel, infrastructure, and technology be deployed, it must be coupled with improved rapid response capability and 

organizational mobility. Each of these components is inter-dependent and is critical 

to the success of the CBP strategy. Operation Jump Start has provided a valuable 

beginning to more rapidly achieving the goal of border security. 6,000 National 

22

Guard members have been deployed to the Southwest border to support of the President’s initiative to secure the border. 

We are fully engaged with the DHS Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate in 

our efforts to identify, develop and acquire technology to help us gain enhanced 

awareness and control of our borders. Our participation in S&T’s Integrated Process 

Team on Border Security, for example, will help us use S&T resources to develop 

technology that will better secure our borders. Systems with the technological ability to predict, detect, and identify illegal entries and other criminal activity, but 

lacking the capacity for a rapid response or reaction, cannot complete the enforcement mission. Conversely, enforcement personnel with inadequate intelligence or 

poor technological support to provide situational awareness, access, and adequate 

transportation or equipment necessary to conduct enforcement activity are much 

less likely to be effective in today’s dynamic border environment. 

There is no stretch of border in the United States that can be considered completely inaccessible or lacking in the potential to provide an entry point for a terrorist or terrorist weapon. Therefore, securing every mile of diverse terrain is an important and complex task that cannot be resolved by a single solution, such as installing fence alone. To secure each unique mile of the border requires a balance 

of technology, infrastructure and personnel that maximizes the government’s return 

on investment and is tailored to each specific environment. Some of the components 

included by the Border Patrol and SBInet in evaluating tactical infrastructure needs 

are border access (the existence of all-weather roads), border barriers (vehicle and 

pedestrian), and the lack of non-intrusive inspections equipment at checkpoint facilities. 

The hiring and training of agents present both a challenge and an opportunity 

for the Border Patrol. CBP expects all training directed at achieving the President’s 

target of 18,300 Border Patrol agents on board by December 31, 2008, to be conducted at the Border Patrol Academy in Artesia, New Mexico. CBP and the Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) have agreed upon a plan to train a minimum of 3,600 new trainees in fiscal year 2007, 4,350 trainees in fiscal year 2008, 

and 850 trainees in the first quarter of fiscal year 2009. The Academy has increased 

the number of permanent instructors, detailed instructors, and rehired annuitants 

to meet the increased training load. Advanced Instructor Training to ensure that instructors have appropriate technical and teaching skills is being conducted at the 

FLETC facility in Charleston, South Carolina. 

In the task of achieving border security, we partner with other DHS components 

and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and the Government 

of Mexico, bringing together resources and fused intelligence into a geographical 

area that has been heavily impacted by illicit smuggling activity. Our efforts include 

building on partnerships with the Government of Mexico to create a safer and more 

secure border through the Border Safety Initiative, Expedited Removal, and Interior 

Repatriation programs. In doing so, we continue to have a significant positive effect 

on fighting terrorism, illegal migration, and crime in that border area. 

On the Northern border, the vastness and remoteness of the area and the unique 

socio-economic ties between the U.S. and Canada are significant factors in implementing the Border Patrol’s national strategy. Severe weather conditions on the 

Northern border during winter intensify the need to expand ‘‘force-multiplying’’ 

technology to meet our enforcement needs. The number of actual illegal border penetrations along the U.S.-Canada border is small in comparison to the daily arrests 

along the U.S.-Mexico border. The threat along the Northern border results from the 

fact that over ninety percent of Canada’s population of 30 million lives within one 

hundred miles of the U.S.-Canada border. It is most likely that potential threats to 

U.S. security posed by individuals or organizations present in Canada would also 

be located near the border. While manpower on the U.S.-Canada border has significantly increased since 9/11, the Border Patrol’s ability to detect, respond to, and 

interdict illegal cross-border penetrations there remains limited. Continued testing, 

acquisition, and deployment of sensing and monitoring platforms will be key to the 

Border Patrol’s ability to effectively address the Northern border threat situation. 

Nationally, the Border Patrol is tasked with a very complex, sensitive, and difficult job, which historically has presented immense challenges. We face those challenges every day with vigilance, dedication to service, and integrity as we work to 

strengthen national security and protect America and its citizens. I would like to 

thank both Chairwoman Lofgren, and the members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to present this testimony today at this historic location and for your support of CBP and DHS. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may 

have at this time.

23

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Chief. And now we will ask 

Mr. Timofeyev to make his 5-minute statement. 

TESTIMONY OF IGOR V. TIMOFEYEV, DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION POLICY AND SPECIAL ADVISOR FOR REFUGEE AND 

ASYLUM AFFAIRS, POLICY DIRECTORATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. Madam Chairman, Representative King, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you inviting me to testify before 

you today about the role of immigration in the development of 

American society. I am especially honored that my first appearance 

before your Committee, indeed before any congressional Committee, is taking place at this symbolic location, the Ellis Island 

Immigration Museum. 

As an immigrant myself, and as someone whose ancestors have 

passed through the halls of this building, I have an immediate appreciation of the seminal role that the Ellis Island played in immigration history of the United States. The challenge that the Ellis 

Island Station was built to meet is the same challenge we confront 

today, to find a way to encourage and promote legal immigration 

into the United States that benefits our country and ensures security, while also guarding against illegal migration by achieving effective control of the border and improving the enforcement of immigration laws in the interior. 

To meet this challenge, the Department of Homeland Security is 

committed to realizing the President’s vision of immigration reform. Today, I would like to share with you some of my views on 

the history of immigration, on important initiatives the Department of Homeland Security is undertaking, and on some of the 

principles we should keep in mind as we work to reform our immigration system. 

Throughout our country’s history, a hallmark of American immigration has been an emphasis on integration and inclusiveness. 

Today, our country is receiving numbers of new immigrants and 

faces new challenges in upholding this ideal. 

With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the 

Federal Government is reinvigorating its efforts to be directly involved in integration initiatives, and alongside community-based 

organizations, faith-based groups, and educational establishments. 

Notably, President Bush recently created the Task Force on New 

Americans, an inter-agency group designed to enhance efforts to 

proactively integrate new immigrants and encourage assimilation. 

The primary efforts of a task force are directed at promoting instruction in English language and U.S. civics and history as ways 

to equip immigrants with the means they need to succeed. 

I also would like to discuss a specific facet of immigration, namely the refuge that the United States has provided from its inception 

to individuals fleeing persecution. Since its founding, refugees have 

come to, and have been welcomed, in the United States in ever-increasing numbers. 

Today, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a component 

of our Department, houses both a newly-minted Refugee Corps and 

a well- established Asylum Corps. These are corps of professional 

officers who receive special training in international human rights 

24

law, conditions in countries or origin, and other relevant national 

and international refugee law. Officers from these corps adjudicate 

tens of thousands of asylum and refugee applications every year, 

thereby enabling refugees and asylum seekers from all corners of 

the world to receive the protection of the U.S. Government and resettle in communities across the United States to begin their lives 

anew. 

To meet today’s challenges in the area of immigration, we need 

Congress to enact immigration reform legislation that would be 

both effective and workable. Two areas that will be of crucial importance to immigration reform legislation are worksite enforcement and programs for temporary guest workers and for undocumented workers already in the United States. 

Improvements in worksite enforcement are central to effective 

immigration reform. By closing the existing loopholes that allow illegal aliens to find jobs, we will remove the main economic incentives that draws illegal immigration to our country. In this respect, 

we should make it mandatory for employers to use electronic employment verification system. This is a system that would enable 

employers to confirm quickly and accurately that the new employees are United States citizens or worker-authorized non-citizens. 

Two equally important components of immigration reform are 

the creation of a lawful, orderly mechanism to enable foreign workers to enter the United States on a temporary basis to fill jobs for 

which U.S. workers cannot be found and the development of a plan 

to bring millions of illegal immigrants working in the shadows of 

our economy under the rule of American law. The temporary worker program should have a built-in flexibility to periodically adjust 

the number of guest worker visas issued based on the United 

States’ economic needs at a particular time. This program would be 

a part of the overall effort to ensure that our immigration system 

is well geared to serve the economic needs of our society. 

We should also allow undocumented workers who are already in 

the United States to come out of the shadows, pay their debt to society, and obtain legal status. Once these individuals have achieved 

full reconciliation with the law, they should not be precluded from 

beginning the process of legally integrating themselves into the 

American polity. 

We are working today on a difficult, but vitally important task, 

of creating a workable, common-sense immigration policy for America. This policy should enhance our security, strengthen our economy, and honor both the rule of law and our heritage as a Nation 

of immigrants. I thank you for the opportunity to share some of my 

thoughts on this subject, I look forward to working with you on this 

task, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Timofeyev follows:]

25

PREPARED STATEMENT OF IGOR V. TIMOFEYEV


IVT0001.eps
26


IVT0002.eps
27


IVT0003.eps
28


IVT0004.eps
29


IVT0005.eps
30


IVT0006.eps
31

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Timofeyev. We now 

have an opportunity to provide questions to these witnesses, each 

of us, for a maximum of 5 minutes, and I will begin. 

I would first note to both of the witnesses that their full written 

testimony will be part of the record. I would like to ask you, Chief 

Aguilar, in your written testimony, you stated and I quote, ‘‘to most 

effectively secure our border, we must reform our immigration system to relieve the pressure’’ caused by illegal immigration. 

From your perspective, how would comprehensive immigration 

reform assist you and your officers in the important job of securing 

our borders? 

Mr. AGUILAR. A well-designed and comprehensive immigration 

reform program that works will mitigate the flow across our borders, both north and south, will allow our enforcement officers to 

concentrate on the threats coming at this country from the perspective of people wishing to do us harm. 

Today, unfortunately, the high levels of illegal immigration 

across our southern border are quite chaotic. They create opportunities for terrorists or people associated with terrorism to mix in 

with that elevated flow, so it would mitigate the flow. It would be 

a tremendous force multiplier for the men and women of the Border Patrol to continue protecting this country. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So recently we had testimony from a U.S. Attorney who mentioned, and I really never thought about it, but that 

there have been prosecutions of smugglers instead of what you describe as the nannies coming across the border. If I’m hearing you 

correctly, it would be a lot better to get the nannies and the husbands and wives of people who are here in a different situation so 

that you could concentrate on people who are set upon doing bad 

things. Would that be a correct summary of what you just said? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, ma’am. The flow that we deal with today is 

very diverse. Fortunately, a lot of that flow is a very docile flow, 

but mixed in with high number of people are also criminals, the 

narcotics smugglers and everybody else that we should be focusing 

on, so by reducing that flow of diversity that is looking to come into 

this country for other than criminal activities, would be a tremendous force multiplier for us. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Now in your written testimony, you noted that the 

Border Patrol’s national strategy, and you just mentioned in your 

oral testimony as well, was an all threats strategy. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And obviously, not only do I serve on the Judiciary 

Committee, I serve on the Homeland Security Committee, and terrorism is an important element of what we are paying attention to 

and what we need to pay attention to. You mentioned in the testimony that comprehensive immigration reform would serve to 

sharpen the focus of the terrorism mandate that you have. Could 

you elaborate on that? Is it really the same issue as the other 

criminal activity where you get the kind of good people who haven’t 

fallen into our immigration system, but they’re not terrorists, 

they’re not crooks, sort of out of the way. Is that the theory? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, ma’am. As you stated, getting the people that 

are not wishing to bring harm to this country off through a regulated system into this country, it will allow us to focus our efforts 

32

not only through the illegal incursions that will occur, but through 

the focused efforts between Canada and Mexico and intelligence, 

and work very closely with them, with us on, that will allow us to 

focus and to pinpoint where the threats, vulnerabilities and risks 

which are specific to terrorism and anything having to do with the 

terrorist nexus. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Now I want to follow up. You touched on it briefly 

on the—I hate the phrase, catch and release, because it reminds 

me of going fishing with my dad, and it’s not that. But where people are detained and then previously were given a ticket to show 

up and then they didn’t. It’s sort of a very high failure to appear 

rate. 

Has that ended? Is your testimony that that’s no longer happening? 

Mr. AGUILAR. The practice that we had, unfortunately, of catch 

and release, related to the apprehension of people from other countries other than Mexico, coming into this country, being apprehended and due to a lack of housing capabilities, bed space and 

things of this nature, we used to serve them with a document, release them on their own recognizance and then they would not 

show up for their deportation removal hearing. That practice has, 

in fact, ended. 

Today, as we speak, upwards of 95 percent of all of those other 

than Mexicans are, in fact, being housed and removed from this 

country effectively. The important piece of this is that in the past, 

when we were releasing them, that in itself was creating further 

draw into this country by actually housing them, jailing them, removing them, that has now caused deterrence which has caused a 

50 percent drop. 

Ms. LOFGREN. My time has expired. So I will now turn to the 

Ranking Member, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I thank both you gentlemen for your testimony today and in particular, Chief Aguilar, 

I know what kind of a job you had ahead of you. We’ve been to the 

border together and——

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KING. And it has helped my expanding perspective of how 

big that problem is. 

I turn my first question to Mr. Timofeyev, and I see here, I didn’t 

anticipate your testimony today, so I haven’t had an opportunity to 

read through it, just the verbal, but you’re here representing the 

Department of Homeland Security, is that correct? 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. That is correct. 

Mr. KING. And then as you speak, this would be the Administration’s policy here today? 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. I certainly do not intend to contradict the Administration’s policy. 

Mr. KING. I hope that when you speak, we can count on that as 

being the voice of the Administration’s policy. Would that be correct? 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. I will do my best to do that. 

Mr. KING. Thank you very much. And so as—in your testimony 

your talked about the—I’ll use the term, the regularization of 

illegals, let them pay a fine and then get them into a system. Now 

33

the Administration has taken the position that they’re opposed to 

amnesty, so I’d ask you to define amnesty, if you could, for this 

panel, please? 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. Well, I think it is absolutely true. The Administration and the President have been very clear that they do oppose 

an amnesty for people who are undocumented workers, or people 

who are here illegally. 

So I would say that I’m not sure if I want to define amnesty and 

give a dictionary definition. I think the importance is that, as we 

work toward crafting the necessary elements of immigration reform, we ensure that what we do does not actually represent amnesty. 

Mr. KING. And if I might, there’s been discussion out of the 

White House about paying a fine of $1500 or $2000, learning 

English as if that were a penalty, and I take that out of the equation because I think that’s something that’s an asset, not a penalty. 

But if $2000, would you presume or would you take the position 

that that would substitute for the penalty for unlawful entry into 

the United States and then that would not be an amnesty, paying 

a fine would substitute for the penalty? 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. Representative King, I think there are lots of 

discussions going on. I know that certainly, Secretary Chertoff has 

been meeting with lots of Members, both in the House, in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, I know with many Members of this 

Subcommittee, so I don’t want to discuss particular——

Mr. KING. Excuse me, I can cut to the chase on that point and 

that is if it’s $2,000 or $1,500 or $100 or $10 or $1, it really is a 

price for having a penalty absolved and so I wanted to make sure 

that we had that part in the record and I appreciate your testimony. And time going along here, with Chief Aguilar, I wanted to 

explore a little bit with you, too. I honestly have difficulty understanding how we can regularize people in 12 million or 20 million 

or whatever that number is and presume that that’s going to take 

the load off of you. And you had significant dialogue with the Chair 

here, but say if it’s 12 million people and that’s the number, how 

do you do background checks on people that don’t really have a 

legal existence in their home country and aren’t you then giving 

them the card that would allow them to come in and out of the 

United States at will? And won’t they have less scrutiny, rather 

than more scrutiny on them if they happen to be carrying contraband? 

Mr. AGUILAR. By funneling legal people through the ports of 

entry, it gives us the opportunity as a country to do what we did 

with this very location here, to actually follow them through an inspection point and make sure that they are admissible and for purposes of contraband, also review what they’re bringing into this 

country. That’s the first thing. So bringing them through the legal 

ports of entry. 

Representative King, I have been asked many, many times this 

similar question. I don’t know what the answer is as to how we 

take care of those 12 million people, but the answer that I have 

had on a constant basis is the following, that I believe as an American, forget that I’m the Chief of the Border Patrol, is that we need 

34

to do what is right for the 300 million Americans today and the 

millions to come. 

We cannot allow the 12, the 14, the 18 million that are out there 

today to impact on the future of this country. I don’t know what 

the design is. But I do know that we need something in place to 

be able to inspect, to regulate, to modify, the situation that we 

have right now across our borders. 

Mr. KING. And I thank you, Chief. And I think this does illustrate how difficult it is when we’ve got so many hypotheticals in 

this comprehensive immigration proposal that it’s impossible to divine what alternatives we might have to take down the road or 

year or two or five. And you’ll know that that’s why I think that 

enforcement first is the thing we have to do in order to get some 

clarity on the rest. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Absolutely. 

Mr. KING. And I point out that we’re spending now $8 billion on 

the southern border. That’s $4 million a mile and we’re getting $65 

billion worth of illegal drugs coming across that border. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KING. On an annual basis. And so your job is very, very difficult. And I appreciate the work that you do and I yield back to 

the Gentlelady. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. Next I’d like to invite Congressman Gutierrez to ask his 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much. First, I’d just like to state 

that it never ceases to amaze me that people will first of all complain or make allegations that the new immigrants that come to 

this country because they can communicate so readily with their 

countries of origin, don’t want to learn English; and then when 

there are others who say we’re going to make it a requirement that 

they learn English, they somehow cast that aside as something 

that you should do. Either we should or we shouldn’t. And I think 

everybody on both sides of the aisle should say that people should 

learn English. I mean it should a basic, fundamental requirement. 

But I would just like to ask either of the two, is it a requirement 

to become a permanent resident of the United States today in our 

laws to pass an English and a civics test? 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. It is a requirement, indeed, not to become a 

legal or permanent resident, but to naturalize. There, it is a requirement. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So it is part of the legalization process of the undocumented, we change the rules and advance learning English 

and taking a civics class is that indeed not a change in the law in 

order to require these people to do something different because of 

their status of undocumented in this country? The only ones that 

have to pass one is to become a citizen, am I correct? 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. That is sp currently. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. That is currently the law. 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. That is currently the law. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So when people propose that people we have 

changed the law, we have advanced that issue and I think that’s 

a very, very important aspect of what we do in comprehensive imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:03 Jul 12, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\033007\34418.000 HJUD1 PsN: 34418
35

migration reform and we should all just say good, we agree. That 

is something substantially that we agree on. 

I would like to say that I think that most people will learn 

English. My parents only spoke Spanish. I’m sure, I know that 

Congresswoman Sa ́nchez’ parents only spoke Spanish. I think Congresswoman Sa ́nchez is incredibly articulate and passionate with 

her command of the English language. Many times I put on the TV 

set and I watch highly elected officials of the United States of 

America, of cities and States, that were born here and I find a richer command of the King’s English from those that come from immigrant backgrounds than from those that have spent many decades 

here in this country. 

I would like to go to Mr. Aguilar. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. You—I went back and read your testimony because I think what you do is so important and I wanted to thank 

you and all the men and women in the Border Patrol. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Thank you. Appreciate it. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. You said you caught how many people last year 

trying to enter illegally? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Last year, between the ports of entry was just over 

1.1 million. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And how many people that you inspected had 

criminal records of that 1.1 million? 

Mr. AGUILAR. About 152,000. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. About 152,000. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So a little over, close to 10 percent, maybe right 

around 9 to 10 percent. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And the other 90 percent crossed that border 

with the intention of what, Mr. Aguilar? 

Mr. AGUILAR. The vast majority of that clutter, that chaos that 

we have on the southwest border currently are people looking to 

come into this country for the purpose of seeking employment. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Do you know how many visas are issued annually for people to come to this country in the low-skill category? 

Mr. AGUILAR. In the low-skill category, I’m going to have to look 

to my partner here. He’s the expert in those areas. 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. I believe that it’s around 5,000. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. It’s around 5,000. So we have 900,000 people 

ready to come to this country, crossing the border illegally into the 

United States to come to look for some form of work and I think 

I know what kind of form of work because every time I sit down 

at a wonderful gala and I’ve got my suit on and my tie and I look 

around the room and I see people of my social, economic class, and 

then I see people who have the same last name that I do and speak 

the same language that my parents brought here, serving the 

plates. I think I know what kind of work they come to do. So comprehensive immigration reform has to include a mechanism, Mr. 

Aguilar, as a border enforcement agent, do you believe that would 

allow people to come to this country legally seeking those new job 

opportunities? 

36

Mr. AGUILAR. I agree with that statement. Yes, sir. To regulate 

the flow that is currently occurring into this country, moving it 

from between the ports of entry to the ports of entry the people, 

the 90 some percent seeking economic betterment, if you will, the 

problem with that elevated flow is those preying on them that create the criminal organizations, the smugglers, the dopers that create chaos. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And we want to help you keep them out. I would 

like to ask the Chairwoman because I was following up on your 

line of questioning, maybe we could have established what the Department of Labor, our Department of Labor, indicates the creation 

of low-skill, low-wage jobs are every year in our economy and compare that to the 5,000 visas, what we create and how many visas 

we actually have. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Gutierrez, this is the first of many hearings, 

and I’m sure that is one of the issues that we will get into at subsequent hearings. I would now like to invite the gentlelady from 

Texas to ask her 5 minutes of questions. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much and I 

started out my remarks this morning emphasizing the fact that we 

have the mandate, the absolute no choice to engage in this Congress, comprehensive immigration reform. And I also noted that as 

I traveled through this wonderful historic building with a great 

sense of emotion that the stories on the walls indicated whether 

the Irish came in the 1800’s, the late 1800’s, the mid-1800’s or others in the early 1900’s and others who came continually in the 20th 

century, there was an economic basis for many of those who came 

and maybe some fleeing political persecution. 

So Mr. Timofeyev, I would simply encourage you not to step 

away from what I read in your testimony. It is a valid statement, 

either immigrants who are here undocumented, can stay beneath 

the shadows, or as you specifically say they can come out of the 

shadows, pay their debt to society, and obtain some form of legal 

status which is what is now the charge and the challenge of the 

United States Congress. 

My question to you, one of the failing processes of our now years 

past, not being able to get this right, is an active viable executive, 

whether it is the Department of Homeland Security which I sit on 

the Subcommittee or the full Committee, or the President of the 

United States. And so the message is the President has to be engaged and my understanding is you read this last part, am I to 

take from this sentence that you’ve at least been allowed by the 

Administration to say come out of the shadows, pay their debt to 

society, and obtain legal status. Is that accurate? 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. That is quite accurate. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That means now we have a partner in what 

we have been calling and I’m not akin to names, I’ll take any name 

you call it, but we’ve been calling comprehensive immigration reform. We have a partner, is that my understanding? 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. I think both the President, and certainly the Department of Homeland Security, have been always very explicit 

that this is one of the parts of the President’s vision of immigration 

reform. 

37

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And if you would for me, and certainly I know 

that you would say I can speak for myself and I can, I’ll get the 

phone number and call up in just a moment, but would you for me 

carry back the message to the President of the United States that 

his activism on changing the policies constructively to reflect the 

diversity of America is imperative now? I’d appreciate if that message could be carried back. 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. Sure. And I would just say that the President 

has certainly been very active on this issue and so has Secretary 

Chertoff. I will be happy to carry back that message. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. We thank you so very much. Chief, might I 

probe you as my colleagues have probed, because one of the interesting points that you have made is the massiveness of the work 

that you have on that border. Sometimes we are jaded by your single focus. 

Let me just ask a logistical question. Over the sessions I’ve carried legislation dealing with equipment and I’m going to ask this 

question because I know that if you got equipment last year, some 

other equipment have aged out. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. In the course of you securing the borders, can 

you use more power boats, laptops, night goggles, technology that 

can help you be more effective in the securing of the border in the 

21st century? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Absolutely. Yes, ma’am. And I’m happy to report 

that we are getting a lot of that equipment, literally as we speak. 

The hiring of the agents that is occurring now, 2500 this year, 3000 

next year, and 500 by the year after that, commonly referred to as 

a modular cost that equips all of our agents with that. The SBInet 

contract that was let in September also, $1.2 billion, in order to get 

us the technology to do our jobs, absolutely. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me, because my time is short, just say 

that I assume that as new personnel are coming in, more equipment and more sophisticated equipment might be needed. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So we should be vigilant on those issues? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Absolutely. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me point you again to the question of 

what you do on the border. My understanding, I serve on the Subcommittee on Crime on Judiciary, as well, worked on these issues 

of drug interdiction and drug smuggling. My understanding is that 

you have really been challenged with respect to drug cartels and 

drug violence on the border. And I think it is very important to distinguish and highlight that work versus what I believe you answered my colleague, Congressman Gutierrez, to say that you have 

a docile economic seeking group of individuals that are coming, different from the violence of drug individuals or drug cartels and others. May I yield to you for the answer on that? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, ma’am. And I’m very glad that you asked that 

question because just as an example. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And you should not mix apples and oranges. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Absolutely. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Illegal immigrants or undocumented individuals either whether here—well, let me just say that by and large 

38

coming across, your numbers suggest by and large economic, even 

though we know there’s some mixture in there. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But go ahead, let me yield to you. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes. Absolutely. That’s a very important part of 

what I need to communicate—what the men and women of the Border Patrol are doing. 

As an example, on the 23rd of March, I received the invitation 

to come here and testify. Since that day, we have had 17 assaults 

against our Border Patrol officers. We have apprehended 52,000 

pounds of narcotics; 1100 pounds of cocaine. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Those are assaults by drug actors, if you will. 

Mr. AGUILAR. And smugglers, yes, ma’am. A total of over 400 assaults against our officers this past year. So it is a very dangerous 

job. It is a very critical job to this country and the portion of illegal 

immigration is the portion that creates that clutter that has to be 

mitigated. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I will just simply say that I 

wanted that clearly on the record because whenever there is violence at the border, whether northern or southern border, we seem 

to have one pool of population that we seem to blame. There are 

other challenges at the border. I look forward to working with the 

Chief on these challenges, and my understanding of his testimony 

is it would help him if we had comprehensive immigration reform 

to separate out those populations for him to be able to do his job. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. And our final Member is Congresswoman Sa ́nchez for her 5 minutes of questions. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Madam Chair. My first question is for 

Mr. Aguilar. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. When discussing the situation at the border, you 

observed that securing every mile of diverse terrain is an important and complex task that cannot be resolved by a single solution 

such as installing a fence alone. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Now lately in Congress, the fence idea has gained 

a lot of traction and for many people it’s become the solution in 

their mind. If we just build a fence that’s big enough and long 

enough and thick enough, that’s going to be the solution to our immigration problem. 

I want you to discuss for us some of the potential downfalls of 

building a fence along the border and also perhaps elaborate on 

some other solutions that might make our border less porous, that 

might work a little bit better than a fence. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Okay. It would usually take me about an hour and 

a half to 2 hours to cover this——

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. If you could do it in a few minutes——

Mr. AGUILAR. I’ll condense this very quickly. A fence will be utilized where it makes sense and where it makes sense is going to 

be very specific to the terrain that we’re going to be addressing. We 

have three environments in which operate in the United States 

Border Patrol; an urban environment, downtown San Diego, a 

fence makes sense. In a rural or remote environment, it might and 

39

it might not. The challenges that a fence brings with it is the ability to defend that fence. I have often used the analogy of what happens when a tree falls in the forest, does anybody hear it? What 

happens when somebody crosses a fence in a wide open space, or 

rural or remote area that we can’t defend? So what we need is a 

combination of infrastructure, technology and personnel that will 

give us the following capabilities. One, is to detect an illegal incursion. Two, is to deter it, if at all possible. Three, is to respond. And 

four, is to bring resolution, a proper law enforcement resolution to 

that incursion. We do that by technology, personnel and some infrastructure. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I appreciate your answer. Mr. Timofeyev, one of 

the reasons that so many people in the past were able to immigrate 

to this country legally, and in particular I’m referring to what we 

learned about Ellis Island today, is because of the efficiency of the 

system in which they process people. And in fact, we learned that 

passengers in first class weren’t even really inspected when they 

got here. They were just allowed to enter the country and they 

didn’t need to be processed. 

About 80 percent of the case work that I get in my District office 

is some kind of immigration-related case work, and we found that 

sometimes people wait 10, 15, 20 years or more to reunite with 

their families. So I’m interested in knowing in your opinion how we 

could rectify that wait time and make it a little more efficient so 

that our system is a little more humane. 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. I certainly think we should do everything we can 

to have an efficient processing and inspecting system and these are 

somewhat different issues, in fact. 

And I actually think we’ve always been careful to inspect everyone. I think actually the first class passengers, if I remember my 

history lessons correctly, were usually inspected right on the boat, 

so they were treated a little bit preferentially than people like my 

great grandfather, who came in the third class, who had to be processed here on the island. 

I think that CIS, Citizenship and Immigration Services, has certainly done a lot to make sure that the backlog of applications they 

had in recent years is being cleared, that they processed all the applications where individuals were entitled to get the visa benefit at 

that time. 

I think with respect to the family, a lot of family-based applications for green cards for people to come here, I think the question 

often is the question of how many visa slots are allotted to those 

people. So it is not just a processing question, though that is a part 

of it, but it’s also a question of how our system is structured. Our 

system today is structured, I think, so that about 60 percent of people who come to become legal residents do so on the basis of connections. So it’s a sizeable portion. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. And just very quickly, last question that I have 

time for, I’m particularly interested in some of the comments that 

you had about the temporary worker program. We’ve had them in 

the past, the Bracero Program and that program lacked meaningful 

enforcement of wage and labor condition protections and that led 

to unsafe and unsanitary working conditions and allegations of extremely poor wages. 

40

After looking at the history of that system, I’m interested in 

knowing what you believe would be the necessary components of a 

guest worker program to help ensure that workers both foreign and 

American workers are protected? 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. I’m not sure I have an exactly answer for you 

today. I think—I certainly agree that we should—the questions of 

wage differential, worker conditions and protections for American 

workers, those are important questions. And we should make sure 

that, however the program is structured, that we guard against potential exploitation. 

I mean this is a very large question on which really our Department, the Department of Labor and I think this Committee, other 

Members of Congress have to engage in a lot of discussions to see 

what can we learn from history, what are the appropriate moving 

parts of the immigration reform in that particular structure. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. And we thank the two of 

you very much for your being here with us this morning, not only 

for the testimony, but the opportunity to take a look at this magnificent place and to start our discussions with that weight of 

American history behind us. So thank you both very much. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. TIMOFEYEV. Thank you very much. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We will now hear from our panel of distinguished 

speakers. First we will hear from Daniel J. Tichenor, Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Rutgers University. 

Aside from his position at Rutgers, Professor Tichenor is an External Faculty Research Fellow at the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California, San Diego. He has 

also served as a visiting research scholar the Center for the Study 

of Democratic Politics at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson 

School of International and Public Affairs. 

Our next witness is Dowell Myers, a Professor of Urban Planning 

and Demography, at the University of Southern California, where 

he serves as Director of the Population Dynamics Research Group. 

Professor Myers is an advisor to the U.S. Census Bureau and has 

authored the most widely referenced work on census analysis. He 

recently published a book with the Russell Sage Foundation titled 

Immigrants and Boomers—I’m one—Forging a New Social Contract 

for the Future of America. 

Next we have Dan Siciliano, Executive Director of the Program 

in Law, Economics, and Business, at Stanford Law School; a former 

Truman Scholar, Professor Siciliano has taught and researched at 

Stanford’s Hoover Institute and conducted macro economic policy 

analysis at the U.S. Congressional Budget Office in Washington, 

D.C. He is also a research fellow with the Immigration Policy Center. 

Our fourth witness is Mr. Jack Martin, Director of Special 

Projects at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, as 

Washington-based national immigration reform organization. Mr. 

Martin formerly served as a Foreign Service Officer in the U.S. Department of State and on U.S. delegations to the U.N. General Assembly. 

41

Mr. Bruce DeCell is a member of the 9/11 Victims for a Secure 

America. His son-in-law was killed while in a meeting on the 92nd 

flood of the World Trade Center on 9/11. He is reading the testimony of our witness, Michael Cutler, who fell ill this morning. Mr. 

Cutler is a former INS Agent and current Fellow for the Center of 

Immigration Studies. So Mr. DeCell will be reading his abbreviated 

testimony and we do appreciate your filling in. 

So, as before, the written statements, the entire written statements, will become part of the record and I will note that there’s 

already been demand from some of our colleagues in Congress for 

the witness statements. 

So if we could start with you, Dr. Tichenor. 

TESTIMONY OF DANIEL J. TICHENOR, Ph.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY 

Mr. TICHENOR. Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. 

My name is Dan Tichenor and I am a Research Professor at the 

Eagleton Institute of Politics and an Associate Professor of Political 

Science at Rutgers University. 

I have researched and written extensively on our Nation’s immigrant past and the development of our immigration policies over 

time. I am delighted to provide some historical perspective on contemporary immigration reform. As one of our most beloved historians, David McCulloch, aptly observed, ‘‘a Nation that forgets its 

past can function no better than an individual with amnesia.’’

Let me begin by highlighting that the American people and their 

leaders have been debating about immigrant admissions and rights 

since the earliest days of our Republic. It is a debate that defies 

the standard partisan divides of our politics, reflecting four ideological traditions that are captured in my written statement. 

In today’s often contentious political environment, I think it is 

useful to appreciate that each of these durable ideological perspectives on immigration is driven by a concern for the national interest. Alexander Hamilton soberly pointed to the value of immigrant 

labor for national growth and prosperity. Henry Cabot Lodge emphasized the importance of national security and sovereignty. Frederick Douglass urged us to achieve greater economic and social justice for our least- advantaged citizens when we think about immigration. And Jane Addams and John F. Kennedy reminded us of 

the universality of our republican experiment, noting that our democracy not only survived but grew stronger and more vibrant 

with new immigrants. 

At a time when opposing viewpoints are too easily denounced 

and vilified, I think we would benefit from recognizing the well 

meaning and patriotic reasons for many of our disagreements over 

immigration. I also want to underscore that our past reveals that 

each wave of ‘‘new’’ immigrants has been scorned by critics as incapable of successfully joining our ranks only later to be distinguished among our most loyal and accomplished citizens. We see 

an historic pattern of xenophobic reactions to groups such as Irish 

Catholics, who were associated with Papal conspiracies; the Chinese, whose religious and racial dissimilarity inspired brutal excluVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:03 Jul 12, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\033007\34418.000 HJUD1 PsN: 34418
42

sion; and Southern and Eastern Europeans, who were deemed too 

radical, criminal and intellectually inferior to admit. 

We have tended for some time to celebrate our immigrant heritage while dreading the immigrant present. As early as 1751, Benjamin Franklin fumed that Germans were ‘‘swarming’’ into Pennsylvania neighborhoods without regard for our laws, customs, and 

shared values. These newcomers were so culturally and linguistically different from his English brethren that he was convinced 

that Germans would never assimilate like previous settlers—noting 

that they would ‘‘Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them.’’

As the descent of German immigrants, I’m happy to report that 

while my family probably eats more sausages and potatoes than 

the Surgeon General recommends, we are otherwise well assimilated. Our Nation’s nativist past should remind us that anxieties 

about the latest newcomers have often proven to be overwrought 

and unfounded. 

Finally, the origins and development of our illegal immigration 

dilemma highlight a series of compromises over time that fed the 

Nation’s appetite for cheap labor, while creating a vulnerable shadow population and undermining the rule of law. Deals were struck 

among policymakers in the 1920’s, for instance, whereby national 

origins quotas all but closed overseas, immigration from Europe 

and Asia while legal and unauthorized Mexican labor was encouraged to flow easily across our southern border. 

At the same time, as Ellis Island and other stations gave way to 

draconian consular inspection overseas with tragic consequences 

for Jewish refugees in World War II, Mexican labor flows overwhelmed an underfunded and undermanned Border Patrol. Later 

mass deportation campaigns proved to be capricious and ineffective. As the late President Ford’s Domestic Counsel Committee concluded 30 years ago, ‘‘mass deportation is both inhumane and impractical,’’ requiring police state tactics ‘‘abhorrent to the American 

conscience.’’

We finally enacted employer sanctions one decade later, but they 

never stood a chance of working. America’s checkered illegal immigration history underscores why our generation must make tough 

choices to fix the system, recognizing the practical and ethical reasons for giving work place enforcement real teeth and for giving 

undocumented immigrants an opportunity to earn legal status. I 

look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tichenor follows:]

43

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL J. TICHENOR


DJT0001.eps
44


DJT0002.eps
45


DJT0003.eps
46


DJT0004.eps
47


DJT0005.eps
48


DJT0006.eps
49


DJT0007.eps
50


DJT0008.eps
51


DJT0009.eps
52


DJT0010.eps
53


DJT0011.eps
54


DJT0012.eps
55


DJT0013.eps
56


DJT0014.eps
57


DJT0015.eps
58

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Myers. 

TESTIMONY OF DOWELL MYERS, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF URBAN 

PLANNING AND DEMOGRAPHY, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MYERS. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. It really gives me great pleasure to appear before you 

today and I thank you for the opportunity. My name is Dowell 

Myers. I’m a demographer and professor at the University of 

Southern California. I hope Madam Chair won’t hold that against 

me. It’s the wrong part of California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We’ve got someone from Stanford sitting next to 

you, so it’s all right. 

Mr. MYERS. It all evens out. Over the last decade, my research 

group has conducted a number of studies about immigration and 

immigrant well-being in America. I’m pleased to report that a number of these findings have now been summarized in a book just released this month, a great accomplishment for me, a book called 

Immigrants and Boomers. I will try to highlight some of the main 

points in that book into my testimony today. 

So I really have just four points to make in my oral statements. 

First, the social changes we find underway in the United States are 

part of a global demographic transition. They’re not unique to the 

United States alone. Throughout the whole developed world birth 

rates have fallen, far below the replacement level and populations 

are rapidly aging. Not only is there a surging number of older people to be supported, but at the same time for lack of sufficient 

young people, labor force growth is slowing down markedly. It is 

this overall demographic transition that is one of the main reasons 

why immigrants are being drawn into so many countries. 

Now the second point I want to make is about how this aging 

problem impacts the United States specifically. Now the good news 

here is that we are in much better shape than are all the European 

nations or Japan. Our birth rates are higher and our aging is slower. Hear that, aging is slower. It’s great to be an American. Nonetheless, we do face a dramatic crisis because of our Baby Boom 

generation which you all have heard so much about already, I 

know. But it’s really no exaggeration here. There are 76 million 

Americans who are rapidly aging led by, by coincidence, Presidents 

Bush and Clinton, who were both born in the first year of the Baby 

Boom, 1946. They’re leading the charge. 

Now beginning right after the year 2010, 3 years from now, this 

tidal wave of older Americans will cross age 65. And the ratio of 

all those aged 65 and older compared to all those who are prime 

working age which I call 25 to 64, will rise dramatically. In fact, 

the ratio of elderly will grow by 30 percent for two decades in a 

row, totalling a 60 percent increase by the Year 2030. This has, as 

you might imagine, tremendous consequences for Social Security, 

Medicare and other old age support systems that fund the services 

entitled by our elderly. This crisis starting in 3 years is one of double decades of 30 percent growth. So what does this have to do with 

immigration? 

59

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, my major point today 

is that immigration plays an important role in moderating the impact of these growing elderly numbers. Certainly immigration cannot stop the aging of America, but it can help to blunt the impact 

of the growing elderly ratio we must absorb. My calculations suggest that without immigration, the impact of the rising elderly 

ratio would be about 20 to 25 percent more severe. 

My final point is just how much immigrants can benefit us by 

their economic mobility after they arrive and as they settle in 

longer. Too often we judge immigrants only when they’re newcomers, not after they have been here. The longer immigrants reside in the United States, the higher is their economic status. Let 

me just describe one fact that I think illustrates the magnitude of 

the point that I’m making here. Homeownership is widely regarded 

to be the American dream and a prime indicator of entry into the 

middle class. My studies have shown a pervasive pattern of strong 

upward mobility into homeownership by immigrants, including 

those living in California, New York, Texas, Florida and the whole 

of the United States. 

Let’s talk about Latino immigrants, who are not always the most 

advantaged when they first arrive. The stunning fact is that after 

they have lived in this country for more than 20 years, more than 

55 percent have become homeowners. After 30 years, the figure 

grows even higher. It is clear from these data that Latino immigrants are climbing into the ranks of the middle class. They can 

help us close the gap caused by so many retiring Baby Boomers. 

Madam Chair, let me just close my remarks by reiterating that 

immigrants and the aging of the Baby Boom are closely related. 

One can help address the problems and challenges posed by the 

other. 

Thank you for receiving this testimony today here on Ellis Island. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Myers follows:]

60

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOWELL MYERS


DM0001.eps
61


DM0002.eps
62


DM0003.eps
63


DM0004.eps
64


DM0005.eps
65


DM0006.eps
66


DM0007.eps
67


DM0008.eps
68


DM0009.eps
69

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Dr. Myers. 

Mr. Siciliano. 

TESTIMONY OF DAN SICILIANO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF 

THE PROGRAM IN LAW, ECONOMICS, AND BUSINESS, STANFORD LAW SCHOOL 

Mr. SICILIANO. Madam Chair, and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name 

is Dan Siciliano and I am the Executive Director of the Program 

in Law, Economics and Business at Stanford Law School. I’m also 

the Senior Research Fellow for the Immigration Policy Center that 

is a nonpartisan think tank for these matters. 

I’ve submitted written testimony with detailed analysis outlining 

various economic principles and for the interest of brevity and to 

try to make some things that are sometimes confusing a little less 

confusing, I have four main points which I’ve categorized. 

First, a discussion about a storm, a demographic storm which I 

will make more brief because Dr. Myers covered it so well; a war, 

which is really a war for talent; an experiment which is underway; 

and then an opportunity that I think lawmakers face now. 

First, we have a looming super storm, a demographic storm with 

tremendous economic consequences which I’ll expand on in a second. We also have a quiet and profoundly impactful war for talent, 

entrepreneurial spirit, drive and the spirit to strive and succeed 

that is going on for people who we need to ensure our Nation’s 

dominance over this next century. 

We also have an experiment that has been underway for almost 

40 years, one that has already run most of its course and tests the 

premise that immigration, both skilled and unskilled, is good for an 

economy, generally good for workers and businesses alike. That experiment is called California. And it’s been underway for 40 years. 

And California is one of the most successful and vibrant States of 

our Nation and in the world, and yet it has experienced over these 

40 years, both at the skilled and unskilled levels, levels of immigration that are sometimes two to three times in excess of the national 

average. 

And then finally, we have an opportunity. The economy is something hard to understand. We pretend sometimes that know a lot 

more than we actually end up knowing, but we can observe one 

thing and that is that the economy is consistently telling us that 

there is a divide between what we say we want to do about immigration and what the economy needs in terms of immigration at 

both levels, the unskilled and the highly skilled. And I think we 

are well served to listen to that. 

To summarize the issue about the storm which I’ll make briefer, 

productivity growth we know is peaking. We wish it wasn’t, but it 

happens to be peaking at this time, more in the 2 to 2.5 percent 

annual range instead of the 3.5 or 4 percent we experienced before. 

Labor participation rates in our country at about 66 percent or 

more are among the highest in the industrialized nations and are 

also probably peaking. Retirement looms for tens of millions and 

our native-born work force grows gracefully older and better education, which is a testament to success in other areas of our public 

policy, but presents a tremendous challenge. 

70

This means that between 2002 and 2012, we will generate at our 

trend rate of 3 percent GDP growth, about 14.6 percent more jobs. 

Our population rate of growth for workers will be at about 11.7 

percent across that same time frame, even accounting for all types 

of immigration. This will leave millions of jobs lacking and impair 

the economy and over time either adjust that trend growth rate 

down or create dysfunction inside the economy which could result 

in other issues. 

We are at war over talent and talented people, not just smart 

people with double Ph.D.s coming from other places to populate our 

research labs, although that’s a very important part of it, but also 

people who have the chutzpa, the desire to show up with $200 

something in their pocket and do whatever they can to become successful. And that talent battle is one that is always waging. There’s 

no easy solution as to how to win it, but we do know from an economist’s viewpoint, the issue of national security, for example, from 

an economist’s viewpoint is one as much of who we let in and who 

we manage to keep and whose interest we capture and whose children we excite, as it is as much who we keep out, because over 

time, the vibrancy of our economy is essential to our national security. 

And then finally, the experiment which is California. It’s clear 

from the studies of the likes of Giovanni Peri and others that taking even the historical Borjas data set we know that 9 out of 10 

U.S. born native workers benefitted from 1990 to 2006 to the tune 

of between 2 and 3 percent total wage growth because of immigration. One out of 10 did not. Those were high school dropouts and 

others in the same demographic category, but most everyone benefitted. We know that in California the story with the backdrop of 

more immigration is even stronger and more profound. And so we 

can discern from this that done correctly immigration benefits the 

average worker. 

Finally, and in summary I think that we must listen to the economy, acknowledge that it has been vibrant and successful and ask 

what part of that has been very important and one part was acknowledging the need for skilled and unskilled labor and to normalize what our laws say by allowing more people in to address 

that need and ensure continued economic growth. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Siciliano follows:]

71

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAN SICILIANO


DS0001.eps
72


DS0002.eps
73


DS0003.eps
74


DS0004.eps
75


DS0005.eps
76


DS0006.eps
77


DS0007.eps
78

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DeCell, thank you for coming today. 

TESTIMONY OF BRUCE DeCELL, MEMBER OF THE 9/11 VICTIMS 

FOR A SECURE AMERICA (READING THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. CUTLER, FORMER SENIOR SPECIAL 

AGENT OF THE INS, FELLOW AT THE CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES) 

Mr. DECELL. Thank you very much. 

‘‘Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, Members of Congress, ladies and gentlemen; it is an honor and a privilege to’’—I’m 

sorry—‘‘it is an honor and a privilege to appear before this subcommittee. It is especially fitting to conduct a hearing about the 

past, present and future of immigration at this important historical 

location, Ellis Island. According to the Ellis Island Museum, from 

1892 until 1954, this historic facility processed nearly 12 million 

aliens seeking to begin their lives anew in our land of freedom and 

opportunity.’’ Being that I’m reading this for my, he says, ‘‘My 

mother, in fact, was one of those who first set foot on American soil 

when she stepped off the ocean liner that brought her to the 

United States a few short years before the onslaught of the Holocaust that caused the death and suffering of so many millions of 

innocent people. My grandmother, for whom I was named, was one 

of the 6 million who was killed for no reason other than the fact 

that she was a Jew. My father was born in the United States but 

his parents and most of his siblings arrived at Ellis Island in 1908 

from Russia seeking the freedom and economic opportunity that 

were not possible in their homeland. 

‘‘The United States was indeed built by immigrants and New 

York City is perhaps one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the 

entire United States of America. New York is not only an extremely diverse city; it is a city that celebrates its diversity with 

a great deal of passion. During the summer months there is rarely 

a weekend when there isn’t a parade, street fair or food festival 

that celebrates the many different cultures, ethnicities and religions. Our nation is greatly enriched by this diversity, living up to 

its motto, E Pluribus Unum, ‘From one, many. From many, one.’ 

I am nearly as proud of being a New Yorker as I am of being a 

citizen of the United States. 

‘‘However, as we celebrate the lawful immigration of people from 

all over the world who enter our nation in accordance with our 

laws, to share the ‘American Dream’ I believe it is critically important that we distinguish between those aliens who enter our nation 

lawfully and those who enter our country in violation of law. Not 

long ago I sat in an auditorium at a college on Long Island, watching a series of panel discussions as I awaited my turn to participate 

in a discussion about immigration. I heard one of the speakers 

make a disturbing point. She said that in the old days immigrants 

came through Ellis Island, today they come across the Mexican border. That simple statement illustrated that the debate about immigration often loses sight of reality. Ellis Island was not simply a 

terminal where aliens arrived and then waited to catch a ride to 

some town in the United States. Ellis Island was a facility that 

provided immigration inspectors, public health officials and others 

79

the opportunity to screen those aliens who were seeking to enter 

the United States to enjoy a better life, a better way of life than 

was possible in their native countries. Simply arriving here was no 

guarantee of being admitted to the United States. Ellis Island was, 

in effect, America’s waiting room. 

‘‘If there was a doubt that the arriving alien might harbor a dangerous communicable disease, that person was kept here as long as 

necessary, until public health officials could determine if that applicant for admission posed a health risk to our citizens. Similarly, 

Ellis Island provided law enforcement officials with adequate time 

to identify those who might be fleeing criminal prosecution in their 

homelands. In those days there were no computers that could assist with this vital issue. 

‘‘Today when aliens run our nation’s borders without being inspected, the potential exists that these aliens may carry disease. 

These aliens may be fugitives from justice in their home countries 

who have extensive criminal backgrounds. In this perilous era, the 

potential also exists that these aliens may be involved directly or 

indirectly with terrorism. This is not a matter of xenophobia; it is 

a matter of common sense. Our nation needs to know who is entering or seeking to enter our country. At present it has been estimated that there are from 12 million to twenty million illegal 

aliens in our country whose true identities are unknown and ultimately unknowable. Because they are undocumented, we cannot be 

certain of when they entered the United States and in fact, we cannot even be certain as to their true nationalities. The President has 

called for legalizing illegal aliens which would require our beleaguered adjudications officers at USCIS to suddenly have to confront many millions of applications for amnesty filed by aliens 

whose identities can not be verified. I fear that terrorists and 

criminals would seize this opportunity to acquire official identity 

documents in fictitious names in conjunction with such a guest 

worker amnesty program and use those documents as breeder documents to create new identities for themselves, obtaining driver’s 

licenses, Social Security cards and other such documents. They 

could then use these officially issued documents to embed themselves in our country and also circumvent the various terror watch 

lists and so-called no fly lists. 

‘‘I started out by telling you how proud I am to be a New Yorker. 

On September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked but the 

focal point for much of the destruction was the iconic World Trade 

Center complex that would have been easily visible from this island 

on which we are now conducting this hearing. Our nation needs to 

balance its desire to open its doors to legitimate visitors and immigrants with the need to protect our nation and our citizens from 

those who would come here and do us harm. 

‘‘Virtually all homes and apartments come equipped with a front 

door that has a peephole and a door bell. This is provided so that 

the responsible homeowner may determine whether or not to open 

his door to the stranger who shows up on his doorstep. For the 

United States, Ellis Island provided that peephole. Today millions 

of aliens enter our nation in accordance with law through many 

ports of entry. Many come for a temporary visit to engage in commerce, tourism, education or to visit a friend or family member. 

80

These visitors are inspected by an inspector of CBP who can attempt to determine the intentions of aliens seeking entry into the 

United States. It is a daunting job with a serious responsibility. I 

speak from experience because for the first 4 years of my career 

with the INS I worked as an immigration inspector at John F. Kennedy International Airport located not far from here. 

‘‘Other aliens enter our country as immigrants, seeking to reside 

in the United States permanently, contributing to the vibrant tapestry that comprises the United States of America. 

‘‘Of course, this inspection process is not without its failings and, 

indeed, it is estimated that perhaps as many as 40 percent of the 

illegal alien population of the United States did not run our nation’s borders but were admitted through the inspections process 

and then, in one way or another, violated the terms of their admission into the United States, either by overstaying the temporary 

period for which a nonimmigrant alien was admitted, accepting——

’’

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. DeCell, you’re about 6 minutes over. I wonder 

if you could summarize or leap to the end. It’s hard when you’re 

reading someone else’s testimony, I know. 

Mr. DECELL. I’m sorry. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That’s all right. 

Mr. DECELL. In summary, what it boils down to is that it sounds 

nice to let everybody come into our country, but there are people 

out there who are going to do us harm and before we open up our 

doors, we have to secure our borders and make sure that the people 

are here that we know who they are and their documents are 

verified. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cutler follows:]

81

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. CUTLER


MWC0001.eps
82


MWC0002.eps
83


MWC0003.eps
84


MWC0004.eps
85

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much and for filling in at the last 

minute. 

Mr. Martin, we’re going to expect you to stay within the 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF JACK MARTIN, SPECIAL PROJECTS DIRECTOR, 

FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM 

Mr. MARTIN. Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, Members of the Committee, this site here at Ellis Island is important 

in reminding us of our immigration history. Actually, we should remember that during a period of the development of our country, we 

didn’t have an immigration policy. We had open borders. I think 

that it’s also worthwhile remembering that during part of our history, the States actually recruited for immigrants, sending missions 

abroad to attract immigrants to this country. But the country 

changes and the needs of the country change. And immigration policy is a discretionary policy. It is set by our policy makers presumably to be in the national interest. And what is to be the best benefit of the country. 

The fact is that Ellis Island was a screening station. It was not 

intended to simply admit everyone, but rather to admit those people who by our policy we considered would be a benefit to the country and to exclude those who would—were not admissible under 

our laws. Our immigration policy has changed over time. The most 

recent reminder was this morning in reading in the Washington 

Post the Administration is apparently considering as part of its 

comprehensive immigration policy eliminating sibling reunification. 

We have to remember that the Jordan Commission in the mid1990’s recommended a significant reduction in legal immigration as 

well as new controls against illegal immigration. One of those recommendations was doing away with extended family reunification. 

Another was eliminating unskilled immigration. Yes, the number is 

only 5,000, but we have more people in this country that are unemployed, under employed, seeking their first jobs than we have people illegally working in this country. We have to consider those 

people as well. 

My other major point that I would like to make is that it is important in any analysis of the effects of immigration on the United 

States to make a very clear distinction between those people who 

are admitted into the country legally pursuant to our immigration 

policies that have been designed in the national interest and those 

people who have come into the country outside of those immigration laws basically to suit their own interests whether it’s economic 

advantage of taking advantage of gullibility of the American people. 

In particular, I would like to suggest that any study that lumps 

together legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, whether assessing education, assessing economic impact, assessing impact on 

crime rates, basically does a disservice to people who are legally 

admitted because those people have been subjected to screening. 

They’re screened, for example, for previous criminal activities or 

the likelihood of engaging in criminal activities. I’ve done so myself 

as a consular officer abroad. I know how that works. Whereas those 

people who come into the country illegally are not screened. And 

86

they are much more likely to be attracted into some type of criminal activity, whether they came in for that purpose or not. And I 

don’t mean to say that all people in the country illegally are involved in criminal activities. That certainly is not true. But my own 

studies have found that the incidents of criminal activities by those 

people who are in the country illegally is higher than those of the 

general public. And I would suggest that you can derive from that 

a conclusion that it is not irrational for a country or a community 

to want to screen out people who have come into the country not 

subject to our criteria of admission. 

And I know that there are communities across the country that 

have become increasingly concerned with regard to the settlement 

of people illegally residing in this country, not only because of the 

fact that they have seen association with crimes, but other fiscal 

impacts and other impacts that are harmful to their communities. 

And they, of course, are looking to the U.S. Congress to offer relief 

from this situation which has not been forthcoming thus far. But 

I think that if we take an accurate focus on how the United States 

has changed over time, what the economic needs of the country 

have changed over time, what those needs are at the present time, 

we will come to a more intelligent decision with regard to designing 

an immigration policy for the future. 

And lastly, I would simply note that during the period of time 

that we had restrictive immigration between 1914 and 1965, I don’t 

know of any study that suggests that the United States was 

harmed economically, or militarily, or industrially. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]

87

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACK MARTIN


JM0001.eps
88


JM0002.eps
89


JM0003.eps
90


JM0004.eps
91

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. Your time has expired. And we will 

now go to questions for the witnesses, noting that their full testimony is a part of the record and an important part it is. 

I will begin, and I’d like to talk first to Dr. Myers. Your entire 

testimony is very interesting to me and I plan to share it with the 

Administration and others who are looking at this. You mentioned 

that we face two decades of 30 percent increases in what you call 

the elderly burden, in other words, people like well, I was born in 

1947, not the oldest Baby Boomer, but close to it, that basically I’m 

going to be looking to the younger people to work and pay my Social Security and in the sense that I hear you right, you’re saying 

if we don’t make sure we have an adequate flow of immigration 

when I’m in the nursing home, there’s going to be no one to help 

me out with my dribble on the chin. Is that about right? 

Mr. MYERS. Not quite. Certainly you need help in a nursing 

home, but you’re going to need help with a lot more than that. I 

was reflecting that here we are on Ellis Island. I’m looking at my 

data. It’s in a chart, Figure 1 in my testimony. And back in 1900, 

the heyday of Ellis Island’s admissions, there was one senior, aged 

65 and older for every 10 workers, aged 25 to 64. And then in the 

most recent decades, last three or four decades, it’s been about 2.5 

senior for every 10 workers. And coming up here in the next 10 

years, and the next 20 years, we’re going to 4 seniors for 10 workers. And that really alters the nature of America. We used to have 

just a lot of people at the bottom supporting the top. And now we’re 

going to have a lot more people at the top expecting support from 

the bottom and it’s going to really press us to deliver all the services that seniors need, not just nursing home attendants. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And because of our birth rate, immigration can 

help ameliorate that phenomena. 

Mr. MYERS. It won’t solve the aging problem, but it can definitely 

make a contribution in maybe a quarter of solving the problem. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask Mr. Siciliano, we appreciate your coming out as well all the way from California, you cite the work of 

the economist Giovanni Peri and many of us are from California. 

His study found no evidence that immigrants worsened the employment of native-born workers with similar educational experiences, 

and in fact, his study showed that between 1990 and 2004, immigration actually led to a 4-percent real wage increase for average 

native-born workers. Now people are worried about the impact of 

immigration on the wage rates of Americans. How could he find—

what’s going on here? 

Mr. SICILIANO. Thank you. I think it’s important to note that in 

the last five or 6 years our demographic and econometric tools, the 

way we look at data and how we analyze and how we isolate factors has improved tremendously and Dr. Peri is kind of leading 

that front. 

The reason, the difference, the way he concludes this fact that, 

in fact, wages are going up because of immigrants is by isolating 

the behavior of how small and medium size businesses invest capital. Obviously, it takes labor and capital to run a business and 

when you have constraints in both you have to make decisions. It 

turns out that our old models which kind of held capital as fixed 

and then we just fluctuated the labor and looked to see what would 

92

happen, were not the appropriate approach. In fact, we know in the 

real world what happens is small and medium size businesses, 

when they’re faced with different opportunities for hiring different 

levels of skilled labor, alter their capital mix and optimize. The 

classic example is the same restaurant, same table, same cutlery 

has a dinner session, but can’t do lunch because it can’t find the 

right qualified people. With the right qualified people it adds lunch. 

That capital is more efficiently deployed and that business owner 

might then open another restaurant across town. Everyone grows 

and benefits and that’s the insight from Giovanni Peri’s work 

which supports that conclusion. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Dr. Tichenor, your full testimony is wonderful and 

so—I learned so much reading it. As a matter of fact, it filled in 

some gaps in my own family history. Lots of times people say well, 

we’re for immigration, but we want it to be the way it used to be. 

I hear that all the time, and many of us do in our districts. My 

grandmother actually was stuck with her mother and younger 

brother in Sweden for 13 years while her father earned enough 

money to send them second class. What—explain how the immigration worked at that time in terms of first class, second class? What 

was the rejection rate at Ellis Island and put a little context in how 

was it the legal way then? 

Mr. TICHENOR. What’s interesting is that we had different tiers 

of admission. So that, for instance, if you came over on a steamship 

and you were riding in first class, you, in fact, didn’t come through 

Ellis Island. You would actually have one of our agents who would 

come and inspect the passage information from the captain of the 

ship and you would go on your way. And it was, in fact, those who 

were in steerage class, who would then be funnelled through like 

my grandparents were funnelled through Ellis Island. We have 

from the very beginning a kind of a first class entry and a second 

class entry system. And if we add the undocumented experience 

today, I guess we have a third version. 

So one of the things that’s quite striking is that when Ellis Island and other inspection stations and key ports of entry were in 

operation, the focus was on individual issues of whether we wanted 

to exclude someone for basically individual reasons, whether it was 

for health problems or clear signs of criminality and so forth. It 

was the great exception, in fact, to exclude someone under those 

conditions. And what became unfortunate is that our shameful national origins quota system that was enacted in 1924 created a system where we focused on groups and that’s really where we went 

wrong. One of the effects of that was that families were separated. 

Those who came in, in the earlier part of this century, after the 

quotas were in place, the flow slowed to a trickle and as a result 

many families were separated for decades and it was very tragic. 

Ms. LOFGREN. My time has expired, so I will turn now to Mr. 

King, the Ranking Member. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to thank all the witnesses for their testimony and say it’s a rare opportunity to have. 

I understand the security position the two witnesses have delivered 

here. So we’re an opportunity to have in addition an historian, a 

demographer and an economist in front of me and try to put this 

93

together in 5 minutes to figure out how to solve this intractable 

problem. 

So I’m going to ask macro questions here and hopefully it’s going 

to bring some illustrations. First of all, you mentioned, Mr. 

Tichenor, a xenophobic reaction and you talked about Franklin saying they will have Germanized us before we Americanize them. I’m 

going to ask a hypothetical then. Let’s just say the Isle of Atlantis 

emerged and there were a billion people on the Isle of Atlantis and 

we decided we’re going to take them all in in one fell swoop in a 

given year. They have a different language, a different culture, a 

different religion and they refuse to assimilate. Does it affect our 

culture? 

Mr. TICHENOR. Oh absolutely. One of the punch lines for Ben 

Franklin was that, in fact, the Germans did help Germanize the 

United States as much as they were affected by the English population. So there was a blending. I’m sorry, you wanted——

Mr. KING. My point will be then is culture a part of this debate, 

this immigration debate, and is there is a missing component to 

the American culture that we should be reaching out, trying to fill? 

Is there a void like we might have an economic void that’s in our 

culture, or would you conclude we have a fairly complete culture? 

What’s missing? 

Mr. TICHENOR. I don’t think we’re missing anything in our culture. I would say that we’ve always been a Nation becoming and 

so as such we’ve always added extra layers to it and if anything, 

those who are the biggest critics over time, of a new wave of immigrants bringing in a new culture that they find threatening, it’s 

that they’ve been impatient with how long it takes, in fact, for newcomers to assimilate. 

Mr. KING. So we’ll conclude then that it is, that it can be 

overdone, that there is a pace that would be an appropriate pace. 

We just probably don’t know that. 

Mr. TICHENOR. I think that’s correct, yes. 

Mr. KING. And I thank you. And then Dr. Myers, the demography, the question I would have on the macro scale would be, I 

know you’re familiar with the kind of chart that shows a different 

generation, the sizes of the generations, kind of like stacked checkers, one bigger, one smaller and we are Baby Boomers, pretty good 

sized checkers here. And so what is the optimum configuration of 

the generations of a society so that the younger generations can 

sustain the older generations? Is there a way to do this with a static population and get it right or are we always going to have to go 

for growth in order to meet it and at the bottom of this question 

is who is going to take care of the retirement of the millions of people whom you have proposed to bring in here to pay for the retirement of the people like the Chair and myself. 

Mr. MYERS. That’s some very good reasoning you have there. It’s 

called a population pyramid and traditionally it’s a pyramid shape, 

but the way it’s evolving in Europe and North America is to more 

of a cylinder. But temporarily, we have a problem. Because we had 

so many kids in the Baby Boom——

Ms. LOFGREN. Could you pull the microphone a little bit closer? 

Thank you. 

94

Mr. MYERS. Sorry, I didn’t realize. We have a problem in that we 

had so many kids during the Baby Boom that now they’re moving 

up into the elderly ranks, so where it should be tapered, it’s bulging at the top. Our problem is the next 20 years, sir. We have to 

get past the next two decades and absorb this bulge. 

Mr. KING. But what’s optimum? 

Mr. MYERS. Optimum would be, I think if it was not top heavy, 

it was a little larger at the bottom, but you can’t have optimum because whoever is in one age group moves up. So if you have two 

few kids, they move up and become two few workers. If you have 

too many kids, then you have too many workers. 

Mr. KING. So if you exceed your growth, then you’re locked in to 

having to continue to exceed your growth in order to adapt, unless 

you would have the kind of prosperity that will allow the senior 

people to take better care of themselves economically. 

Mr. MYERS. In the long run, it will smooth out, but we have to 

get past the next 20 years. So all I’m saying is that this crunch 

that we’re facing needs to be softened. 

Mr. KING. And I understand that. Mr. Siciliano, then—and I read 

through your testimony with great interest. It’s detailed and I appreciate the thought you put into it. My question comes back to it 

seems as though as you extrapolate this and use your dynamic 

model that there isn’t a place where you have demonstrated in 

your testimony, at least, where you hit the law of diminishing returns. Where is that? Let’s go to the billion people from the Isle 

of Atlantis who had come over here and work for a dollar an hour 

and consume $15 an hour. Where do you cross that line and can 

you produce for this Committee a matrix of how we could set up 

the optimum economic impact on America’s economy by identifying 

the very best demographic of immigrants? 

Mr. SICILIANO. I think it’s hard to understand where that point 

comes. And you’re right, you can’t just extrapolate this argument 

to an infinite level. One thing we know with certainty is that if we 

look backwards and we say let’s take a snapshot of the last 16 

years. We have 1990 to 2006 data which is very, very good. And 

let’s ask the question how many immigrants impacted the work 

force and the answer, depending on how you counted both documented and undocumented, ranges from 800,000 to 1.4 million a 

year. And then we ask the question how did the economy do during 

that time? And the answer turns out to be really, really well, all 

things considered. We have deep resiliency and growing wages. 

And so one thing we can say with fairly high certainty without 

knowing what the upper bound is is to say that the mid-bound 

which is relatively safe and maybe even necessary is in the range 

of what we’ve experienced historically in the last 16 years and 

hence we need to alter the—if we all agree with the premise that 

all immigration should be legal and planned and deliberate and 

screened, then we need to alter what we’re doing now to accommodate that historical trend. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Siciliano. And a very quick question 

then back to Dr. Tichenor. When General Winfield Scott was in 

Mexico and we signed the Treaty of Hidalgo in I believe 1848, why 

didn’t the United States when they were in the middle of Manifest 

95

Destiny just stay there? There must be a historical reason for that 

and I don’t know the answer. 

Mr. TICHENOR. I don’t know. We can find out for you. 

Mr. KING. I look forward to that and I thank the gentlelady, and 

yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. King. We’ll now go to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Yes. The microphones. Well, thank you all for 

your wonderful testimony this afternoon. I’m going to go back to 

Dr. Tichenor. So if I were to say that in the 1840’s, 1850’s, if we 

were in Boston, there might be news accounts about these immigrants that were coming to the United States that were hungry, 

not very well educated and apart from that could corrode or undermine our American way of life because they were Catholic and not 

White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Would that be correct? 

Mr. TICHENOR. That’s absolutely right. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And if it were the turn of the century, we were 

here in New York, we might even pick up the venerable New York 

Times and find someone accusing the Italian immigrants of coming 

here and undermining our society because somehow they had a 

suspect criminal element to them. Would that be correct? 

Mr. TICHENOR. Right on target. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay, so if they were wrong about the Irish and 

they were wrong about the Italian immigrants as has been evidenced in the history of the United States, tell me how they won’t 

be wrong making those same arguments about today’s immigrants? 

Mr. TICHENOR. We’re obviously on the same wave length, as you 

know, from my testimony on this. And we make these mistakes all 

the time and one of the best funded, but poorly researched studies 

was the Dillingham Commission Reports which occurred in 1911. 

You can go to the library and find 40 plus volumes there. It spent 

a record amount of money to investigate the question of these new 

immigrants. And they were focused particularly on Southern and 

Eastern Europeans at the time. And we carted out, I hate to say, 

our best social scientists and scholars on the issue, and we got it 

wrong. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And indeed, the history of America is replete 

with even political parties in and of themselves and political parties taking up the issues of immigration as a focal point of what 

they believe in and stand for and asking people to vote for them 

based on their immigration policy. 

Mr. TICHENOR. Yes, that’s right. And on occasion, parties decided 

to go in an anti-immigrant direction. The Whig Party, for instance, 

in 1844 with Henry Clay, and decided afterwards that they had 

gotten whipped badly by these new immigrants who had become 

assimilated into the political system quickly. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. It’s interesting because the Pew Research Group 

yesterday indicated to us that last year more people applied in unprecedented numbers, statistically speaking, unprecedented, for 

American citizens, that’s legal, permanent residents. And I always 

tend to think that maybe that’s come around again since let me 

see, in January, February and March of last year, the hits on the 

U.S. citizenship for petitions, let me see, for applications to become 

American citizens, just off the charts. I don’t know maybe, we 

96

passed some very repressive legislation, anti-immigrant legislation, 

but I don’t think it was their New Year’s resolution from that immigrant community. So that’s happened before. 

Mr. TICHENOR. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I mean in terms of immigrants playing a key, 

and changing the political dynamics in this country. 

I’d like to now go to Mr. Siciliano. I want to get this right. You’re 

saying that the productivity of Americans workers is at an all-time 

high, that is, the people that are working are producing really well. 

They’re very productive. And that those that can work are able to 

work, our labor participation, that is those that can work, have 

ample opportunity to—we’ve got lots of people working and very 

low unemployment in terms of them. But then we have this older 

population of people as we have. So I guess what you’re saying is 

that workers that we’ve got working are working real well and 

most people who can and are able to work are working and our 

economy continues to expand at who’s going to do that work? 

Mr. SICILIANO. It looks like our short-run constraint is likely to 

be people to be labor. Because though our productivity does continue to advance, we become more productive every year and it is 

the source of our great wealth among other things. It isn’t going 

to be four or 5 percent gains. It’s going to be 2 percent, maybe 1.8 

percent and that means you have to turn and find more people to 

produce the economic gains that we have and to work on the jobs. 

And the participation rates, we don’t have the ability to have 

women join the work force or have others join the work force. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let me ask you a question, so we know we need 

to secure our borders, and I know that we are going to find fundamental agreement among all the Members of the House of Representatives, we know we’re going to do that. I think America, the 

tradition of immigration has always been based on the unity of 

families, so I don’t think we’re going to change that or there might 

be some attempt to change that, but in the end economic security 

is also a basic fundamental part of our immigration policy, and if 

we don’t deal with new workers and having those workers, do we 

put at risk our economic security of this country? 

Mr. SICILIANO. Economic security is arguably, in my opinion, the 

foundation of democratic stability and national security. Without 

economic security, everything starts to fall apart. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you all so so much. I’m going to read all 

the other stuff that you put out in the books to read. Thank you. 

Mr. SICILIANO. Thanks. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Gutierrez. We now turn to the 

gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, again, and thank all of the gentlemen for their testimony and might I offer to Mr. Cutler my best 

wishes. We’ve worked together in the past. So thank you so very 

much. 

The history of this building that we’re in is, I think, complemented by the individual stories that you’ve heard most of the 

members, I believe all of the members of the panel, recount their 

immigrant histories, their grandparents, and I might note that you 

sense that we said it with a sense of pride. I think that is the 

downfall of the undermining of our basic values that we have deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:03 Jul 12, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\033007\34418.000 HJUD1 PsN: 34418
97

monized immigration, immigrants. We have labeled them and 

therefore it clouds the political process of getting to the right solution. For example, I always try to put on the record that immigration and in this city of such great history of the moment, dealing 

with 9/11, I still try to make clear that immigration does not 

equate to terrorism. And my good friend indicated that I don’t 

think you could find one partisan divide on the question of securing 

the homeland, both the northern and southern border. There is no 

doubt. 

So once we get that on the table, and I don’t see anyone here 

shaking their head saying no, I don’t think we want to secure the 

homeland. We want these borders to be secure. Part of that is a 

system that works, that deals both with legal immigrants, because 

we don’t need to reflect on 9/11 where some were statused or had 

visas and also those who may not be documented. Let’s look at the 

holistic issue that we’re confronting. 

Let me quickly then raise these questions with you and try to get 

this sense. First, Dr. Tichenor, and because of my opening remarks 

I beg of your indulgence for quick answers. We’ve been erratic in 

the United States Congress. We started probably way back in the 

1800’s and before, but 1924, I cited in my opening remarks we then 

said you know what, I don’t want these Eastern Europeans, I don’t 

want to these Asians, let me just stick with the Western Hemisphere. Then we came back in 1965 and said okay, we’ve got an 

overload, let’s go back to two hemispheres and then we’ll let family 

members in. Would consistency and structure help us be more 

adaptable? Because what I’m asking you is we’ve been moved by 

politics, by emotion, by someone is taking my job, would we now 

need to look to this concept of comprehensiveness so that it can be 

a breathing law that grows with America? 

Mr. TICHENOR. I think absolutely and to give one quick example, 

one of the sources for undocumented immigration are the huge 

backlogs in terms of reunited families. And so——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Not that we have that policy as a suggestion 

by the Administration, we’ll cut down on reuniting families, but let 

me not interrupt. Go right ahead. 

Mr. TICHENOR. The quick point is simply that decoupling these 

aspects of our immigration policy between cracking down on porous 

borders and on undocumented immigration from legal immigration 

preferences is I think one of those examples of inefficiency. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I want to just emphasize that we had a 

1924 bill that shut down on the Europeans and Asians and we 

went back to 1965, we changed it again. And we went to 1986 and 

we got something that everybody calls amnesty, and it’s a bitter 

taste in some of our Members and others that have different perspective. But coming now, Dr. Myers, full circle, let it be clear that 

those of us who are looking at comprehensive now are starting out 

with English even before the citizenship track. I think that should 

be well noted. And I just—your demographics, and I want to just 

raise this quick question about the fact of more foreign doctors and 

nurses which have become a source, a needed source, but can’t we 

parallel that, and Mr. Siciliano, would you comment, too, because 

I see the yellow light on. Can’t we parallel the need for foreign 

nurses and doctors in this instance? I think that’s been proven that 

98

our numbers have gone down, with the idea of investing in American workers by way of training and otherwise, so that immigration 

does not equate to my job being lost because there’s certainly a 

dearth of professions or trained persons in a lot of the areas that 

immigrants are in, besides the unskilled, nurses, doctors, because 

you have the professionals saying I’m losing my job. How do we 

match the engine of immigration with making sure Americans have 

jobs and retain jobs? 

Mr. MYERS. Well, we have this shortage of workers that’s coming 

up because of the retirements. And we have some neglected youth 

who we could train up. And I think as part of this package, it 

would be good to think about how do we invest in the youth we 

have here today now, because the more they can fill those jobs, you 

wouldn’t need to have, import so many doctors, perhaps. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Nurses. 

Mr. SICILIANO. I think that’s exactly right. It’s a 20-year plan 

and we need to have a plan for Year 0 through 20 and we need 

to begin investments so that after Year 20, it starts to pay off. And 

I think it really does have to be a comprehensive approach, and it’s 

not a displacement. It is complementary, an augmentation. If people can’t be taken care of and be made healthy and if health care 

becomes too expensive, that offsets other pieces of the economy, so 

we have to take care of that now, not just in 20 years. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And so training American workers is also a 

component of the economic——

Mr. SICILIANO. It’s not mutually exclusive. In fact, you almost, at 

a certain level with the nursing shortage, have to make sure you 

have immigrants available so that you have sufficient training 

staff. Our shortage has become so critical that you almost can’t secure the next generation of nurses. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentle lady’s time has expired. And we will go 

to our last questioner, the gentlelady from California, Ms. Sa ́nchez. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all of 

the witnesses. I don’t know when I’ve been so excited about the information that I’ve received from a congressional panel, so I have 

to say you’ve all done an excellent job. 

I want to start my questions with Mr. Siciliano. Lower-skilled 

immigrant workers tend to be over-represented in certain industries, agriculture, for example, landscaping, textile, etcetera. I’m interested in knowing if you could tell us what would be the economic 

impact if we restricted immigrant labor in those industries? 

Mr. SICILIANO. I think a lot of people wonder if the impact would 

be that wages would simply go up, right, because people wouldn’t 

be available, so they’d have to pay more wages and you would get 

higher wages in those industries. We know from empirical evidence 

that that probably isn’t the case. The bottom line is many industries would become non-viable and after initial spike in inflation related to those industries, the industries themselves would probably 

go away. People would simply not be able to access landscapers, 

and the like. 

The long run is a little more complex, but in the short run I 

think it would collapse those industries. 

99

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. One of the arguments that is often used against 

immigrants coming to this country is that they take American jobs 

away from American workers, and something that I am familiar 

with, both with experiences my family has had and constituents 

that I represent, is that folks that are in the country in undocumented status often work for the lowest wages and in the most 

dangerous or inhumane working conditions. How would this country—what would the economy look like if people who are currently 

working in an undocumented status could get their citizenship and 

would pay taxes on their wages and the underground economy 

didn’t exist? If we could clean that up through getting these folks 

into a legal, viable work program? 

Mr. SICILIANO. That’s a hard question, but I think one thing that 

can be said is that we’d be benefitted by the fact that there are 

people in the economy, particularly undocumented workers who are 

sometimes taken advantage of and where wage and hour rules are 

not applied correctly, where OSHA rules are not applied correctly. 

By bringing those people into the regular economy, we can enforce 

that more aggressively and any worker who takes advantage and 

violates these now should be stopped and punished. I think everyone generally agrees with that, but this would make that easier. 

And in the long run it would also make it easier for the children 

of these immigrants, and this is important, to continue what we 

refer to as the virtuous cycle of climbing up the economic and social 

ladder of the United States. Right now, the underground economy 

such as it is may make that harder which I think a dangerous 

trend which should be interrupted. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Okay, Dr. Myers, this sort of dovetails very nice 

into that last point. In your written testimony, you state that immigration has a role to play with respect to the aging Baby Boomer 

crisis, but you also state that those who are already settled and becoming incorporated into our communities can provide even more 

assistance. I’m intrigued to know what you mean by this and comparatively speaking, compared to other countries, how has America 

fared in trying to integrated immigrants and allow them to rise up 

the economic ladder? 

Mr. MYERS. Let me just take that last question first, if I may. 

I don’t know any other country on the planet where some of the 

poorest immigrants that they bring to the country can become 

home owners after 20 years. The fact that over half of Latino immigrants in California, a high priced State, become home owners is 

astounding. It’s not possible in Germany or France or any of those 

other countries. 

The beauty of immigration is that immigrants don’t remain constant. They’re not frozen in time. And as they settle in, they develop this power, this upward mobility that invigorates our whole 

economy. The housing market in California is notorious for its high 

prices and you wonder how do immigrants survive in that. They 

buy at the bottom of the market and it’s through their energies 

that they push up the market from the bottom and the person in 

Beverly Hills then has the high priced house supported by the infrastructure of all these small owners at the bottom. It’s that energy of immigrants who are settling in and incorporating and 

they’re working their way up the ladder that pushes up the econVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:03 Jul 12, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\033007\34418.000 HJUD1 PsN: 34418
100

omy from the bottom. And I think that we shouldn’t think about 

immigrants coming in new and all of a sudden playing that role. 

It’s when they get settled on the ground or their children and then 

they come up from the bottom that that’s the real advantage. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Okay, I have one last question. I wonder if you 

could speak to the changing settlement patterns of new immigrants. Do they generally help rejuvenate communities with 

shrinking populations, or do they simply push out native born 

workers out of those communities? 

Mr. MYERS. Well, there are a class of Americans who wish they 

had some immigrants coming to their town. But immigrants really 

only go where there’s job opportunities that are growing. For example, in Texas, Houston is the mecca for immigration, not San Antonio, which has the most Mexican-Americans, but it doesn’t have the 

job growth. And so immigrants gravitate to where the new openings are, not where existing workers are they’re pushing aside. 

They really a growth oriented. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, thank you very, very much. I would like to 

thank all of the witnesses for their testimony today. Without objection, Members will have five legislative days to submit any additional written questions for you which we will forward and ask that 

you answer as promptly as you can to be made part of the record 

and without objection, the record will remain open for five legislative days for the submission of other additional materials. 

I would just like to close by thanking not just the witnesses for 

truly exceptionally fine testimony, but for members of the public 

who have sat here with us, to listen. You are sitting on the benches 

that the immigrants sat on waiting to be called when they were 

here at Ellis Island. We thank you for listening and participating 

in that way. I’d like to thank also the Park Service and the Border 

Patrol for their wonderful participation. 

I’d like to thank the staff of the Committee on both sides of the 

aisle for their hard work in making this hearing possible at such 

a wonderful and historic place and I would like to thank the Members of the Committee for coming up here this morning from Washington, so that we could help illuminate the numerous issues that 

concern us in our wonderful country, both in the past, in the 

present, so that we can create a future for America that’s as vibrant and exciting and prosperous as our wonderful history has 

been. So with that, this hearing is adjourned with thanks to all. 

[Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the hearing was concluded.] 

(101)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

102

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY


MC0001.eps
103


MC0002.eps
104


MC0003.eps
105


MC0004.eps
106


MC0005.eps
107


MC0006.eps
108


MC0007.eps
109


MC0008.eps
110

Æ


MC0009.eps