U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

35–450 PDF 2007

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: BECOMING AMERICANS—U.S. IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, 

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 16, 2007

Serial No. 110–27

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH GIBSON, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES,

BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas

UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Chief Counsel 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 16, 2007

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

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

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

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

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

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

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 4

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 6

WITNESSES 

Mr. Gary Gerstle, Ph.D., Professor of History, Vanderbilt University 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 9

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 12

Mr. Rube ́n G. Rumbaut, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, University of California, Irvine 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 21

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23

Mr. Donald Kerwin, Executive Director, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, 

Inc. 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 50

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 51

Mr. John Fonte, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 55

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 57

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 ........................................................................................................................ 3

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

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

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 7

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 ....... 7

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Letter from a Majority of the Minority Members of the Subcommittee on 

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

requesting a Minority day of hearing to the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ................................................................................. 86

Page

IV

Letter from Gary Gerstle, Ph.D., Professor of History, Vanderbilt University 

to the Honorable Steve King, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ............. 87

Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from Gary Gerstle, Ph.D., Professor 

of History, Vanderbilt University ....................................................................... 90

Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from Rube ́n G. Rumbaut, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, University of California, Irvine .......................................... 94

Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from Donald Kerwin, Executive Director, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. ................................................. 108

Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from John Fonte, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, 

Hudson Institute .................................................................................................. 111

(1)

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: BECOMING AMERICANS—U.S. IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 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 9:37 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe Lofgren 

(Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Gutierrez, Berman, Jackson 

Lee, Waters, Sa ́nchez, Ellison, Conyers, King, Goodlatte, and 

Gohmert. 

Staff present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Najority Chief Counsel; J. 

Traci Hong, Majority Counsel; George Fishman, Minority Counsel; 

and Benjamin Staub, Professional Staff Member. 

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

Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law will 

come to order. 

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

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

We started our series of hearings at Ellis Island, where we examined the need for comprehensive immigration reform to secure our 

borders, to address economic and demographic concerns, and we reviewed our Nation’s rich immigrant history. 

We studied immigration reform from 1986 and 1996 in an effort 

to avoid the mistakes of the past. We have considered the problems 

with and proposed solutions for our current employment and work 

site verification systems. 

In light of recent proposals by the White House to eliminate family priorities in immigration and replace it with a completely new 

and untested point system, we studied the contributions of family 

immigrants to America and various immigration point systems 

used around the world. 

The genius of America has always been our strength as a society. 

People from all over the world come to America to become Americans with us. 

When a new citizen raises her hand to become an American at 

her citizenship ceremony, she pledges her future to America. She 

2

promises to defend our country and our Constitution. And she immediately inherits a grand history of her new country from George 

Washington to today. 

Today, some fear that America has lost this exceptional status, 

and some contend that, unlike immigrants from other generations, 

immigrants today are not assimilating fast enough or at all. 

One clear and objective sign of assimilation is the process by 

which immigrants master the English language. The census and 

various academic studies and research show that immigrants and 

their descendants are learning English at a rate comparable to the 

past waves of immigrants. 

According to the 2005 American Community Survey conducted by 

the U.S. Census Bureau, 82 percent of immigrants 24 and older report that they speak English well or very well. Younger immigrants fare even better. Ninety-five percent of immigrants from 18 

to 23 report speaking English well or very well. By the third generation, most grandchildren of immigrants can, in fact, speak only 

English, even in heavily Spanish-speaking areas of the country 

such as Southern California. 

Our first witness, Professor Gerstle, explains that the Southern 

and Eastern Europeans who immigrated to the United States a 

century ago and are now held up as model immigrants were once 

depicted much as immigrants of today: unable and unwilling to assimilate. Yet, the professor explains, these European immigrants 

did well in joining American society. 

He finds that these so-called new immigrants of then successfully 

integrated into the United States, despite such hostility, because of 

three factors: the ability of immigrants to participate in American 

democracy, the natural transition from immigrants to their children, with the ability of immigrants to achieve economic security. 

He states that the, ‘‘ability of immigrants to participate in politics and to feel as though their votes made a difference was crucial 

to their engagement with and integration into America.’’

He also notes that an, ‘‘immigrant population that finds itself unable to move out of poverty or to gain the confidence that it can 

provide a decent life for their children is far more likely to descend 

into alienation than to embrace America.’’

What we can learn from this historical account is that including 

immigrants in mainstream American society and the economy is 

the quickest way to assimilation and integration. 

If creating new Americans is the goal of our immigration policy, 

then we should ensure that comprehensive immigration reform reflects that objective. 

Purely temporary worker programs with little opportunity for 

those who contribute to our economy to become full members of the 

country that they have helped to build run contrary to the goal of 

Americanism and assimilation, because such programs relegate 

people to a life in a permanent underclass. 

Furthermore, under purely temporary worker programs, there is 

little incentive and little time to learn English if, after 2 years or 

3 years of full-time work in the U.S., the only choice is returning 

home to a non-English-speaking country. 

As we develop comprehensive immigration reform, we must not 

forget that mandating and facilitating the process for immigrants 

3

to learn English is important but not sufficient in achieving the 

goal of assimilation and allowing new immigrants to become Americans. 

The opportunity to become fully participating members of our 

polity, our civic society, and our economy is a key to, as Professor 

Gerstle so pointedly discusses in his written testimony, allowing 

new immigrants to become our new Americans. 

I would now recognize the Ranking Member for his opening 

statement. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

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

IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL

LAW

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

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

immigration reform. 

We started our series of hearings at Ellis Island where we examined the need for 

comprehensive immigration reform to secure our borders, to address economic and 

demographic concerns, and we reviewed our nation’s rich immigrant history. We 

have studied immigration reform from 1986 and 1996 in an effort to avoid the mistakes of the past. We’ve considered the problems with and proposed solutions for 

our current employment and worksite verification system. In light of recent proposals by the White House to eliminate family priorities in immigration and replace 

it with a completely new and untested point system, we studied the contributions 

of family immigrants to America and various immigration point systems used 

around the world. 

Today we turn our attention to the integration of immigrants in our society. Some 

contend that unlike immigrants from other generations, immigrants today are not 

assimilating fast enough. 

One clear and objective sign of assimilation is the process by which immigrants 

master the English language. The Census and various academic studies and research show that immigrants and their descendants are learning English at a rate 

comparable to past waves of immigrants. According to the 2005 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, 82% of immigrants 24 and older 

report that they speak English well or very well. Younger immigrants fare even better. 95% of immigrants from 18 to 23 report speaking English well or very well. By 

the third generation, most grandchildren of immigrants can in fact speak only 

English, even in heavily Spanish-speaking areas of the country, such as Southern 

California. 

More importantly, our first witness, Professor Gerstle, explains that the southern 

and eastern Europeans who immigrated to the United States a century ago and are 

now held up as model immigrants, were once depicted much as immigrants of 

today—unable and unwilling to assimilate. 

Yet, Professor Gerstle explains, these European immigrants did well in joining 

American society. He finds that these ‘‘new immigrants’’ successfully integrated into 

the United States despite such hostility because of three factors: 1) the ability of 

immigrants to participate in American Democracy, 2) natural transition from immigrants to their children; and 3) ability of immigrants to achieve economic security. 

He states that ‘‘[t]he ability of immigrants to participate in politics and to feel as 

though their votes made a difference was crucial to their engagement with and integration into America.’’ He also notes that ‘‘[a]n immigrant population that finds 

itself unable to move out of poverty or to gain the confidence that it can provide 

a decent life for their children is far more likely to descend into alienation than to 

embrace America.’’

What we can learn from this historical account is that including immigrants in 

mainstream American society and the economy is the quickest way to assimilation 

and integration. 

If assimilation is a goal of our immigration policy, then we should ensure that 

comprehensive immigration reform reflects that objective. Purely temporary worker 

programs with little opportunity for those who contribute to our economy to become 

full members of the country that they’ve helped to build run contrary to the goal 

of assimilation, because such programs relegate people to a life in a permanent 

underclass. Furthermore, under purely temporary worker programs, there is little 

4

incentive and little time to learn English if, after two or three years of full-time 

work in the U.S., the only choice is returning home to a non-English-speaking country. 

As we develop comprehensive immigration reform with an eye towards assimilation, we must not forget that mandating and facilitating the process for immigrants 

to learn English is important, but it is certainly not sufficient to accomplish assimilation. It is the opportunity to become fully participating members of our polity and 

our economy that is the key to successful immigrant assimilation, as Professor 

Gerstle so poignantly discusses in his written testimony.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

As I expressed to the witnesses this morning, I appreciate you 

being here and committing your time to the knowledge base of this 

Congress, this panel, and the American people. 

However, nothing in these hearings will replace hearings on national legislation when we can actually examine the language and 

have input on the impact of that language on the American life 

with that policy that might come from specific language. 

But facing us on the back wall of this hearing room, we are looking at our national seal. And on the seal is our Nation’s motto, ‘‘E 

Pluribus Unum.’’ And that means, of course, out of many, one. 

This motto was proposed by a Committee appointed by Congress 

on July 4, 1776. And on that Committee were John Adams, Ben 

Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson. 

Lest there be any doubt about what meaning was intended by 

our founders in choosing that phrase, ‘‘E Pluribus Unum,’’ I point 

out that the design they proposed for the seal was not the eagle 

originally as you see today, but rather a shield containing the six 

symbols for ‘‘the countries from which these states have been peopled.’’

The patriotic assimilation of new immigrants has been a primary 

objective of our immigration policy since our Nation’s birth. 

Washington recommended that assimilation into the mainstream 

of American life and values be encouraged so that immigrants and 

native-born Americans would soon become one people. 

Only within the last generation or so have the terms assimilation 

and Americanization given way to cultural pluralism and 

multiculturalism. 

The title of this hearing uses the word ‘‘integration,’’ a term that 

is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as the bringing of 

people of different racial or ethnic groups into an unrestricted and 

equal association as in a society or organization or, alternatively, 

mostly we understand it to mean desegregation. 

That term, however, does not capture the spirit of Americans. In 

a public speech after the publication of the 1995 report by the U.S. 

Commission on Immigration Reform, Barbara Jordan declared that 

the term Americanization earned a bad reputation when it was stolen by racists and xenophobes in the 1920’s. But it is our word, and 

we are taking it back, according to Barbara Jordan. 

She explained, ‘‘When using the term Americanization, the commission means the cultivation of a shared commitment to the 

American values of liberty, democracy and equal opportunity, 

something that is possible regardless of the nationality or religious 

background of immigrants and their children. We view Americanization positively as the inclusion of all who wish to embrace the 

civic culture which holds our Nation together.’’

5

I agree with her on this policy. We need to refocus our priorities 

on helping those who are here legally now and help them embrace 

our new country by emphasizing the rapid learning of our common 

language of English by instilling core American values, the deals 

of our constitutional republic and by ensuring that immigrants’ loyalty to America and not to the country from which they came is 

achieved. 

There are tens of thousands of people who have marched in the 

streets of America under thousands of flags of foreign countries, 

chanting for another nation—this doesn’t give me confidence that 

we have established the Americanization or the assimilation that 

we need to hold this country together under one cultural foundation. 

Teddy Roosevelt spoke to it powerfully in a number of his 

writings and statements. 

But I would skip forward and say that, on a different subject, the 

minority requested a hearing for last week because we were denied 

the opportunity to present a witness of our choice from the previous week. 

What transpired was the use of the hearing process to demean 

the efforts of Mr. Willard Fair, one of our volunteer witnesses as 

well. He is the President and CEO of Urban League of Greater 

Miami, and he has worked for 40 years to help the lives of AfricanAmericans and increase their employment. 

He was not allowed to answer or respond to the questions that 

were peppered at him, and I believe that we need to treat you all 

with that level of respect and deference. And I insist that we do 

so. 

But when I asked for unanimous consent for Mr. Fair to respond 

to those questions, there was an objection, and that is something 

that I hope does not happen again with any of the witnesses. I 

want to hear it from you myself. 

And so with that, I would say also that there was a rebuttal to 

the Rector study, and I hope that we can have a panel here to 

allow Mr. Rector to be able to face his accusers. I read the rebuttal. 

I didn’t find any facts in that rebuttal. 

But what I do have here is a request for a minority hearing, 

Madam Chair, and I would ask unanimous consent that the letter 

be introduced into the record, and hopefully we can move forward 

with the proper edification of this panel and the people of this 

country as they observe our process here. 

This is a very pivotal issue that is before us in this Congress. 

There is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. We had better 

get it right. We can learn from history. We can learn from facts. 

And as the Chair stated last week, we are entitled to our own 

opinions. We are not entitled to our own facts. The facts are in the 

Rector study. They do not include national interest or national defense in his conclusions. They are only there so that you can draw 

your own calculation if you choose, but not in Rector’s conclusions. 

I look forward to hearing from him, and I hope that we can have 

that kind of a hearing in the future. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection, the letter will be made a part 

of the record and dealt with according to the rules. 

6

[The letter referred to is inserted in the Appendix.] 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would now recognize the Chairman of the full 

Committee, Mr. John Conyers, for his statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, and good morning, Madam Chairperson and Members of the Committee and our very important witnesses here. 

This, to me—and I congratulate you, Ms. Lofgren—is a philosophical inquiry that we are making today. Are new immigrant 

groups any different from old immigrant groups? That is a great 

subject to kick around on a Wednesday morning. 

And I am so happy to hear that the Ranking Subcommittee 

Member, Steve King, tell me that we need to refocus our energies 

on those who are doing their best to make it here, because that 

means he has come a little distance from an assertion that I remember him making that we have gotten so messed up in the immigration issue that even legal immigration is unworkable. And I 

am happy to know that that is a direction that he is moving in. 

Now, are the new wave of immigrants different from the ones 

that came from Germany in 1751, or Ireland in 1856, or from 

China in 1882, or from Italy in 1896, or from Mexico in 1956, and 

now, of course, the Latino groups from Latin America? 

And what I am thinking is that this discussion becomes critical 

to our understanding of what our job is about: reform, major reform, of the immigration law, because it is very easy to get caught 

in a time warp. 

That is to say what we are looking at now—and some might say, 

‘‘This is different, Conyers, don’t you get it? This isn’t the 18th century or the 19th century or the 20th century. This is different. And 

if you don’t understand that, we are not going to be able to get anywhere.’’

And so this discussion amongst us and with our witnesses becomes important because it attempts to pull another layer off the 

onion that gets us to the importance of what it is we are going to 

do legislatively. 

We have been given another week by the Senate. I think that is 

critical. I was very nervous when I came in to ask what finally happened late last night. 

But it just occurred to me that the first person killed in Iraq was 

Lance Corporal Jose Antonio Gutierrez, an illegal immigrant, if you 

please, who was undocumented. Our country gave him a chance, a 

home, a career in the military, and he was just one of millions who 

have embraced America’s promise of freedom and opportunity. 

And so, yes, I say, time and time again, we have worried about 

whether some people can assimilate satisfactorily into this so-called 

American melting pot. And time and time again, these fears have 

proven to be completely unfounded. 

So I look forward to all of the witnesses, including the minority’s 

witness as well, to join us in this discussion this morning. And I 

thank you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

7

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

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

JUDICIARY

At an earlier hearing before this Subcommittee, one of the witnesses remarked 

that while America is a nation of immigrants, it is also a nation that loves to discuss immigration policy. 

Time and time again, Americans have fretted about whether the next new group 

of immigrants would ever assimilate into American society and American values—

the so-called American Melting Pot. But, time and time again, these fears have been 

proven to be completely unfounded. 

In the current debate on immigration, for example, conservative commentator 

Selwyn Duke just yesterday inveighed against any immigration (legal or not). He 

warned, ‘‘[R]eplace our population with a Mexican or Moslem one and you no longer 

have a western civilization, you no longer have America. You have Mexico North 

or Iran West.’’

As we have heard in other hearings before this Subcommittee, however, nothing 

can be further from the truth. immigrants create jobs, fill niches in our economy, 

and display American values of family and patriotism. We find immigrants and 

their children in all aspects of American life, at church, in 4-H clubs or girl scouts, 

and in college. These contributions should be praised, not denigrated. 

I would point out that the first American killed in Iraq, Lance Corporal Jose Antonio Gutierrez, was an immigrant. Corporal Guitierrez first arrived in the United 

States as an undocumented immigrant. America gave him a chance—a home, a career in the military, and something in which to believe. Corporal Gutierrez was one 

of the millions of immigrants who have embraced America’s promise of freedom and 

opportunity. 

So too did immigrants and children of immigrants in the Asian and Hispanic communities served with distinction in World War II and other conflicts. Nevertheless, 

they have had to constantly fight for recognition of their sacrifice. The Hispanic 

Caucus has worked to draw our attention to this issue, and I join them in lauding 

the contributions of immigrant servicemembers to this country. 

And if immigrants to our nation retain their heritage and bring it into the American experience, so much the better for our national culture. 

We owe it to Corporal Guteirrez, and to all of those who will come after him, to 

devise an immigration system that is controlled, orderly, and fair. Just imagine all 

of the great things they will do for America.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

Noting that we have witnesses to hear from, without objection, 

all Members of the Committee are invited to submit their statements for the record. 

[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 IMMI- GRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Today we continue these series of hearings dealing with comprehensive immigration reform. This subcommittee previously dealt with the shortfalls of the 1986 and 

1996 immigration reforms, the difficulties employers face with employment 

verification and ways to improve the employment verification system. On Tuesday 

May 1, 2007 we explored the point system that the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand utilize, and on May 3, 2007 the focus of the discussion was 

on the U.S. economy, U.S. workers and immigration reform. Last week we took a 

look at another controversial aspect of the immigration debate, family based immigration. Today we continue the vital task of eliminating the myths and seeking the 

truth. Today’s hearing deals with probably the most crucial aspect underlying the 

immigration debate, an immigrant’s ability to integrate, and assimilate into American society. 

Let me start by quoting my predecessor the late great Barbara Jordan: ‘‘We are 

a nation of immigrants, dedicated to the rule of law. That is our history—and it is 

our challenge to ourselves. It is literally a matter of who we are as a nation and 

who we become as a people.’’

Allow me to talk about our nation’s history. I find that quote particularly interesting in light of the recent celebration of the 400 year anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown. Yes we are talking about a different time period, but imagine 

if that first group of individuals was met with the hostility and disregard for deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:37 Aug 21, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\051607\35450.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35450
8

cency that today’s immigrant population faces. Imagine if these folks were demonized, and disparaged by a wide network of Native Americans, in the same manner 

that we demonize the current documented and undocumented population. 

It was not to long ago that we held a field hearing underneath the shadow of the 

Statue of Liberty at Ellis Island. I remind my colleagues of the famous inscription 

on that monument of freedom, hope, and inspiration that many immigrants saw as 

they pulled into Ellis Island full of hopes and dreams, ‘‘Give me your tired, your 

poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your 

teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I left my lamp beside 

the golden door.’’ Now we want to close this door because of the lies and the hysteria 

created by a few in the Nativist and Restrictionist camps. 

There is an old saying, if you do not learn your history you are doomed to repeat 

it. There was a time when our nation had the same reservations about Italian and 

Irish immigrants that came to this country at the start of the 20th century. Fast 

forward to 2007 and one of the leading candidates for the Republican nomination 

for President, Rudy Guliani is the descendant of Italian immigrants, and Bill 

O’Reily an individual well respected by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 

is the descendant of Irish immigrants, and no one would argue that they have had 

any problems assimilating into our society. In fact they represent the natural progression to full fledged Americans that occurs when the children of immigrants have 

kids and their kids have kids. I look down the aisle and I see Rep. Luis Gutierrez, 

Member of Congress and the child of immigrants. I look behind me and I have a 

staffer Ted Hutchinson, an attorney and the child of immigrants. Therefore it 

should be quite evident that immigrants have a long successful history of assimilation and achievement in this nation. 

Let me take a moment to describe how my immigration legislation, H.R. 750, the 

‘‘Save America Comprehensive Immigration Reform’’ addresses this issue of integration and assimilation. Save mandates that immigrants earn their legalization by 1) 

successfully completing a course on reading, writing, and speaking ordinary English 

words, and 2) showing that he has accepted the values and cultural life of the 

United States. Save also requires the completion of 40 community service hours. For 

children Save requires that school age kids are successfully pursuing an education. 

These are the values that make are nation great education, community service, and 

the acceptance of our system of democracy. With these requirements we can all be 

ensured that those who seek a better opportunity here in the United States will embrace this country as their own. 

Likewise embracing the ideals and value systems of the United States is something that all immigrants have exemplified from Ellis Island to the sandy beaches 

of Key West, Florida. Are we no longer the melting pot? When the pilgrims came 

they did not leave their culture behind so you can not expect any group of immigrants, Latino, European, or African to leave their culture behind either. This mixture of cultures is what defines cities like New York, Los Angeles, Miami, and Chicago, and makes this nation wonderful. However no groups of immigrants come to 

this country as a collective whole with the purpose of disregarding the value system 

that they seek to be a part of. That does not make any sense, that is not true, and 

it is simply un-American.

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of 

the hearing at any time. 

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses here today to help 

us consider the important issues before us. 

I would like to extend a warm welcome to Dr. Gary Gerstle, a 

Professor of History at Vanderbilt University. Dr. Gerstle’s research has focused on the nexus between immigration, race, and 

nationhood. His co-authored college textbook, Liberty, Equality, 

Power: A History of the American People, will soon enter its fifth 

edition. He comes to Vanderbilt after teaching at the University of 

Maryland, the University of Pennsylvania, and the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences in Paris. In addition to his 

teaching and research responsibilities, he serves on the editorial 

board of the Journal of American History. He earned his doctorate 

degree in history from Harvard University. 

We will next hear from Dr. Rube ́n G. Rumbaut, Professor of Sociology at the University of California, my home State, at Irvine. A 

9

native of Havana, Cuba, Dr. Rumbaut has conducted world-renowned research on immigration, including his current work on the 

landmark Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study, which 

began in 1991, and the large-scale study of immigration and 

intergenerational mobility in metropolitan Los Angeles. He was a 

fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences 

at Stanford, my alma mater, and the founding chair of the Section 

on International Migration of the American Sociological Association, and a member of the Committee on Population in the National Academy of Sciences. He received his bachelor’s degree from 

Washington University in St. Louis, a master’s degree from San 

Diego State University, and a master’s and doctoral degree from 

Brandeis University. 

I am pleased to next welcome Donald Kerwin, the executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc, or CLINIC, 

since 1993. CLINIC, a public interest legal corporation and a subsidiary of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, supports a national network of 161 charitable legal programs for immigrants, from more than 260 locations across the Nation. Prior to 

his work at CLINIC, Mr. Kerwin practiced law as an associate with 

the Washington law firm of Patton Boggs. He serves as an advisor 

to the conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration, a 

member of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Immigration, and a fellow at the Migration Policy Institute. He earned 

his bachelor’s degree from Georgetown University and his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School. 

Finally, we are pleased to welcome the minority’s witness, Dr. 

John Fonte, the Director of the Center for American Common Culture and Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute here in Washington. In addition to his work at the Hudson Institute, Dr. Fonte 

has worked as a senior researcher at the U.S. Department of Education and a program administrator at the National Endowment 

for the Humanities. He holds a bachelor’s and master’s degree from 

the University of Arizona and his Ph.D. in world history from the 

University of Chicago. 

Each of you has written statements, which I have read with 

great interest, and they will all be made part of the record in their 

entirety. I would ask that each of you summarize your testimony 

in 5 minutes or less, and to stay within that time you can see there 

is a little machine on the desk. 

When the light turns yellow, it means that you have 1 minute. 

And when it turns red—this always surprises witnesses because 

the time flies—it means that 5 minutes are actually up, and we 

would ask that you summarize your last sentence so that we can 

hear from all the witnesses and then also get to questions. 

So if we would begin, Dr. Gerstle? 

TESTIMONY OF GARY GERSTLE, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF 

HISTORY, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY 

Mr. GERSTLE. I wish to thank you for the invitation to appear before your Committee today. 

Since its founding, the United States has arguably integrated 

more immigrants, both in absolute and relative terms, than any 

other nation. 

10

1 In a May 22, 2007, letter to the Honorable Steve King, Gary Gerstle revised his prediction 

for how many immigrants would have to be admitted a year for the next decade in order for 

the immigrant density of the early 21st century to match the immigrant density of the early 

20th century. Gerstle said the correct number is one million. The rationale for the revision was 

presented in substantial detail in the letter of May 22, 2007, a copy of which was filed with 

the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman. 

In the years between the 1820’s and 1920’s, an estimated 35 million immigrants came to the United States. Approximately 40 million to 50 million more came between the 1920’s and the 2000’s, 

with most of those coming after 1965. 

The immigrants who came in the first wave are thought to have 

been enormously successful in integrating themselves into American society. 

We are here today because many Americans doubt the ability or 

willingness of the immigrants of the second wave, especially those 

who have come since 1965, to replicate the success of that earlier 

wave. 

I am here to offer you the benefit of my historical knowledge regarding these earlier immigrants and to draw conclusions about 

what their experience means for today’s immigrants. 

My main points are as follows. First, that the integration process 

of earlier immigrants, especially the 20-plus million who came from 

Eastern and Southern Europe in the years from 1880 to 1920, has 

been mythologized as quick, easy, and unproblematic. 

In fact, these immigrants were widely regarded then as many 

immigrants are regarded today, as radically different in culture 

and values from Americans and as lacking the desire and ability 

to integrate themselves into American society. 

Their integration would ultimately be an outstanding success, 

but it took about 50 years. It required a generational transition in 

these immigrant communities, and engagement on the part of 

these immigrants with American democracy, and an opportunity 

for them to achieve economic security for themselves and their families. 

My second point: are there too many immigrants present in 

American society today even to contemplate a successful campaign 

to integrate them all? My answer to that is no. Immigrant density 

was greater 100 years ago than it is today. 

Twenty-four million came into a society in 1900 that numbered 

only 76 million people. To match that immigrant density today, we 

would have to admit four times as many immigrants a year and 

sustain that for a decade.1

Third point: there is greater diversity culturally and economically 

among today’s immigrants than those who came 100 years ago. 

However, for the majority of today’s immigrants who are poor 

and non-White, the distance of their values and cultural traditions 

from mainstream America is no greater than what separated native-born Americans and immigrants 100 years ago. 

That we integrated the last wave should give us confidence that 

we can integrate this wave, too. 

Fourth point: that confidence must be grounded in a realistic and 

robust sense of what successful immigrant incorporation requires. 

Immigrant incorporation requires two generations in time and a 

generational transition within immigrant families and communities 

11

during that time so that the power of the first generation recedes 

and the power of the second generation comes to the fore. 

Successful immigrant integration also requires immigrant engagement with American democracy, becoming citizens and active 

participants in American politics. And it also requires the achievement of economic security. 

The institutions that were once so important in the early 20th 

century in bringing immigrants into politics and aiding their quest 

for economic security—political parties and the labor movement— 

are no longer as well positioned to continue performing that role. 

Either these institutions must find ways to broaden their involvement with immigrants, or other institutions such as the 

Catholic Church must step forward to take their place. 

Fifth point, and my final point, engaging immigrants in American democracy and broadening the access of the immigrant poor 

to economic opportunity and security will, in the short term, yield 

as much contention as it will yield comity. 

But if done right, it will work to bind together the foreign-born 

and immigrant-born into one American Nation and demonstrate 

yet again the remarkable ability of America to take in people from 

very different parts of the world, to make them into Americans, 

and in the process to reinvigorate the power of American ideals and 

the promise of American life for all who have had the good fortune 

to make themselves a home on U.S. soil. 

We should try to make this happen again. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerstle follows:]

12

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GARY GERSTLE


GG-1.eps
13


GG-2.eps
14


GG-3.eps
15


GG-4.eps
16


GG-5.eps
17


GG-6.eps
18


GG-7.eps
19


GG-8.eps
20


GG-9.eps
21

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Doctor. 

Dr. Rumbaut? 

TESTIMONY OF RUBE ́ N G. RUMBAUT, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF 

SOCIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE 

Mr. RUMBAUT. Chairwoman Lofgren, Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member King and Members of the Judiciary Committee and 

the Immigration Subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear at this hearing. 

I could never have imagined when I arrived in this country on 

the eve of my 12th birthday, speaking no English at all, that one 

day 46 years later I would be speaking to a congressional Committee, in English, about the fate of immigrant languages in the 

U.S. and of immigrants’ acquisition of English. But life, like history, is full of surprises and often unfolds like a telenovela on a 

Spanish-language T.V. channel in L.A. 

I use that metaphor deliberately because two summers ago, in 

the Nielsen ratings of the 10-most-watched T.V. programs in the 

huge television market of greater Los Angeles, where I live and 

work, nine of the top 10 prime time programs were telenovelas, 

broadcast in Spanish, by KMEX, the Univision channel. It was ‘‘La 

Madrastra’’ Tuesday, ‘‘La Madrastra’’ Wednesday, ‘‘La Madrastra’’ 

Monday, ‘‘Apuesta Por Un Amor’’ Tuesday, and number nine was 

‘‘CSI’’, and then ‘‘La Madrastra’’ Friday, which, you know, came in 

last. 

Such anecdotes would seem to support the concerns that have 

been expressed by some that immigrant integration today, and especially their linguistic assimilation, in areas of geographic concentration is being slowed or even reversed to the point of threatening the predominance of English in the United States, above all, 

among Spanish-speaking Latin Americans, most notably Mexicans 

in Southern California and Cubans in South Florida. 

However, as the evidence from the census itself, from the American Community Survey that was just cited by Chairwoman 

Lofgren, and from every major national and regional study shows, 

compellingly and incontrovertibly, including cross-sectional and 

longitudinal surveys carried out in Los Angeles and San Diego and 

Miami, the process of linguistic assimilation to English today is occurring perhaps more quickly than ever in U.S. history. 

I have summarized that evidence in detail in my written statement, including an analysis of the determinants of English fluency, 

et cetera, so I need not repeat it here, except to highlight a few 

main points. 

First, the evidence documents a pattern of very rapid language 

transition from the first to the second and third generations, a 

switch to English that is completed before the third generation for 

most immigrant groups, and by or before the third generation even 

for those of Mexican origin in Los Angeles and of Cuban origin in 

Miami. 

The power of assimilative forces is nowhere clearer than in the 

linguistic switch across the generations. 

But in addition to that, secondly, longitudinal studies, such as 

our own Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study, which have 

followed a large sample of children of immigrants representing 77 

22

different nationalities for more than 10 years in San Diego and 

Miami have documented the extraordinarily rapid switch to 

English in degrees of proficiency, preference and use for all groups. 

Tables 6 and 7 in my written statement have specific information 

in that regard. 

But just to give you a taste of it, by early adulthood, by their 

mid-20’s, over 93 percent of the Mexicans in San Diego and 98 percent of the Cubans in Miami preferred English over Spanish. And 

for some of the other groups, it was 100 percent. 

And third, we carried out an analysis of what we call linguistic 

life expectancies for all the main immigrant groups concentrated in 

Southern California from San Diego on the Mexican border to Los 

Angeles and demonstrated the generational point at which language death occurs. 

Even for Mexican Spanish in Los Angeles, one of the largest 

Spanish-speaking cities in the world, where the adult immigrant 

parents may be watching ‘‘La Madrastra’’ on T.V. in one room, but 

their kids are watching ‘‘CSI’’ and ‘‘American Idol’’ in the room next 

door in English. Indeed, the parents may talk to them in Spanish 

but they will answer back in English. 

Additional point: English proficiency has always been a key to socioeconomic mobility for immigrants and to their full participation 

in their adopted society. 

The last person you need to tell that to is an immigrant, who 

came to the United States precisely with that in mind. Today is no 

different in that respect. 

In fact, the United States has been described as a language 

graveyard because of its historical ability to absorb millions of immigrants, as Professor Gerstle mentioned, and to extinguish their 

mother tongues within a few generations. And Spanish appears to 

offer no threat to this reputation, unfortunately. 

English has never been seriously threatened as the dominant 

language of the United States. And with nearly 250 million English 

monolinguals in the U.S. today, it is certainly not threatened today, 

not even in Southern California. 

For that matter, English has become firmly established throughout the world as the premier international language of commerce, 

diplomacy, education, journalism, technology, the Internet, and 

mass culture. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Dr. Rumbaut, your light is on. If you could wrap 

up, that would be——

Mr. RUMBAUT. What is endangered instead is the survivability of 

the non-English languages that immigrants bring with them to the 

United States, and whether the loss of such assets is desirable or 

not is, of course, another matter. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rumbaut follows:]

23

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RUBE ́ N G. RUMBAUT


RGR-2.eps
24


RGR-3.eps
25


RGR-4.eps
26


RGR-5.eps
27


RGR-6.eps
28


RGR-7.eps
29


RGR-8.eps
30


RGR-9.eps
31


RGR-10.eps
32


RGR-11.eps
33


RGR-12.eps
34


RGR-13.eps
35


RGR-14.eps
36


RGR-15.eps
37


RGR-16.eps
38


RGR-17.eps
39


RGR-18.eps
40


RGR-19.eps
41


RGR-20.eps
42


RGR-21.eps
43


RGR-22.eps
44


RGR-23.eps
45


RGR-24.eps
46


RGR-25.eps
47


RGR-26.eps
48


RGR-27.eps
49


RGR-28.eps
50

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kerwin? 

TESTIMONY OF DONALD KERWIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC. 

Mr. KERWIN. Madam Chairwoman, Chairman Conyers, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on the importance of citizenship 

in immigrant integration. 

There are more than 11 million lawful permanent residents in 

the United States who are eligible or who will soon be eligible to 

apply for citizenship. As you know, citizenship confers important 

rights and responsibilities. It is a precondition for full membership 

in our society. 

In our experience, the naturalization process is also a focal point 

for a range of integration activities. These include English classes, 

citizenship classes, home ownership seminars, and provision of 

public health information. 

Earlier this year, my agency released a report titled ‘‘A More 

Perfect Union: A National Citizenship Plan.’’ The report is based 

on more than 100 interviews and the best thinking of an advisory 

group of 22 experts on this issue. 

It details the resources, partnerships, and commitments that 

would be necessary to achieve the following goals. First, to create 

a federally led citizenship initiative that could play a central role 

in what we hope will be an emerging national immigrant integration policy. 

Second, to increase naturalization numbers and rates so that 

more immigrants can contribute fully to our Nation. 

Third, to make the naturalization process more meaningful by 

deepening the knowledge and commitment of immigrants to our 

Nation’s history, political institutions, and democratic ideals. 

Fourth, to increase opportunities for citizenship by expanding 

English-as-a-second-language and citizenship instruction. 

Fifth, to address barriers to citizenship like proposed fee increases and security clearances that can drag on for 3 years or 4 

years. 

Sixth, to build stronger bonds between the native-born and naturalized. 

And seventh, to forge strong public-private partnerships in support of all of these goals. 

Our plan details how a wide range of stakeholders—faith communities; Federal, State and local government; business; labor; 

civic organizations and others—can promote citizenship. 

While it includes hundreds of recommendations, I have included 

just 13 key proposals in my written testimony. For example, we 

propose that charitable agencies expand their citizenship services, 

particularly by offering more group naturalization processing sessions. 

My agency now funds and supports naturalization sessions in 21 

communities, a number that we hope to increase, some of those 

communities represented by you. 

51

Many other networks, like the New American Initiative in Illinois, have also mobilized to do this work. These sessions, at modest 

cost, allow large numbers of immigrants to apply to naturalize. 

They also help to prepare charitable agencies for the massive 

amounts of work they will need to assume if comprehensive immigration reform legislation is to pass and be successful. 

We also recommend that the Office of Citizenship be funded sufficiently so that it can coordinate a national citizenship program 

and can support the work of community-based organizations. 

Federal leadership and coordination will be essential to a national citizenship drive. The Office of Citizenship, which has a $3 

million budget and does not currently have grant-making authority, needs to be strengthened if it is to play this role. 

We support increased funding for ESL and citizenship classes. 

Lack of proficiency in English and the shortage of such classes represent a major barrier to citizenship. 

In addition, federally funded ESL classes do not typically cover 

civics or citizenship issues. 

We also support the efforts of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to develop a more meaningful citizenship test, and we 

particularly support more meaningful preparation for this test. 

Of course, we also hope that the revised test does not preclude 

worthy immigrants from taking this important step. 

While immigration is a volatile issue, we have found broad and 

deep support for citizenship. We worry that the national debate 

over how many and what types of immigrants to accept may overshadow the many contributions that immigrants make to our Nation. 

We also worry that this debate may obscure our need to promote 

immigrant integration and attachment to our Nation’s core principles. 

We believe that a national citizenship plan would represent a 

step in the right direction, and we pledge our gifts and resources 

to this important goal. 

We thank you for taking on this issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kerwin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD KERWIN

Madam Chairwoman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, my name 

is Donald Kerwin and I am the Executive Director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC). I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today 

on the role of citizenship in immigrant integration. 

CLINIC, a subsidiary of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), supports a national network of 161 charitable legal programs for immigrants. These 

programs represent roughly 400,000 low-income immigrants each year, including 

lawful permanent residents who wish to become U.S. citizens. Over the last decade, 

CLINIC has directed programs that have assisted more than 80,000 immigrants to 

obtain citizenship. We now fund and support group naturalization processing events 

in 21 communities, including in communities represented by several Members on 

the Judiciary Committee. We hope to expand this number in the upcoming weeks. 

Earlier this year, CLINIC published a report titled A More Perfect Union: A National Citizenship Plan which can be found at http://www.cliniclegal.org/DNP/

citzplan.html. The report reflects extensive research, more than 100 interviews with 

immigration service and policy experts, and the best thinking of a 22-person advisory committee. It attempts to set forth the resources, activities, and partnerships 

that would be required to carry out a national citizenship plan. The report will form 

the basis of this testimony. 

52

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION

The strength and vitality of our nation will increasingly depend on the contributions of its 37 million foreign-born residents. We cannot afford to assume that the 

integration of a population of this magnitude and diversity will occur automatically 

or easily. As President Bush recognized in creating the Task Force on New Americans, integration will require sound policies, contributions from all the key sectors 

in society, and a coordinated strategy. Citizenship should play a central role in an 

immigrant integration strategy for four main reasons. 

First, citizenship represents a pre-condition to the full membership of immigrants 

in our nation. Its benefits include the right to vote and to hold public office, timely 

family reunification, and enhanced employment and educational opportunities. It allows immigrants to contribute more fully to the good of our nation. 

Second, the naturalization process represents a focal point for immigrant integration activities. Most importantly, it provides the occasion to educate immigrants on 

U.S. history, civic values and political institutions. This effort must go beyond preparing immigrants for the civics test. Naturalization—culminating in the oath of allegiance at the swearing-in ceremony—should lead immigrants to become better informed about the Constitution, fully committed to our democratic ideals, engaged in 

the political process, and represented in the political system. In a nation united by 

a common creed, this goal could not be more important. Citizenship programs also 

provide services as diverse as English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) instruction, citizenship classes, home-ownership seminars, and medical information. These activities contribute to greater proficiency in English, closer community ties, and integration into a wider circle of people and institutions. 

Third, a national citizenship plan would address an immense need. According to 

the Pew Hispanic Center, 8.5 million U.S. residents were eligible to naturalize in 

2005 based on their years as lawful permanent residents, with an additional 2.8 

million soon to be eligible (Passel, 2007, pp. 7–8). A national citizenship initiative 

would benefit millions of immigrants and their families. 

Fourth, citizenship offers a unique opportunity for collaboration between different 

sectors of society. CLINIC developed A More Perfect Union: A National Citizenship 

Plan based on the input of experts with different competencies and perspectives. Although immigration can be a volatile issue, CLINIC has found wide and bi-partisan 

support for citizenship. Our plan details how key ‘‘stakeholders’’—government at all 

levels, schools, faith communities, business, labor unions, civic organizations, and 

others—can contribute to a coordinated citizenship program. Of course, these institutions have historically served as vehicles for immigrant integration. 

Immigrants also value citizenship. Fully 90 percent view citizenship as something 

‘‘necessary and practical’’ or ‘‘a dream come true’’ (Farkas, Duffett and Johnson, 

2003, p. 29). This should come as no surprise. The vast majority of immigrants want 

what most of the rest of us do in life: to pursue a livelihood, to support their families, to contribute to their nation, to live in security and to practice their faith. 

While naturalization rates and numbers have increased in recent years, only 53 

percent of those admitted as lawful permanent residents 11 to 20 years ago have 

naturalized (Passel, 2007, p. 15). Any citizenship plan would need to address why 

millions fail to apply to naturalize when they become eligible. Lack of proficiency 

in English represents the most common reason. Fifty-five (55) percent of immigrants 

who are otherwise eligible to naturalize and 67 percent of those who will soon be 

eligible have limited English proficiency (Passel, 2007, p. 11). In many communities, 

waiting lists for English classes stretch several months. Yet these programs represent the only structured way for many low-income immigrants to learn English. 

Other barriers to citizenship include lack of knowledge about the legal requirements and benefits of naturalization, a paucity of professional assistance to guide 

immigrants through this process, the inability to afford the application fee (a problem that will increase if proposed fee increases go into effect), and application processing problems. As an example of the latter, FBI Director Mueller reported security 

delays of more than one year in 44,843 naturalization cases as of May 2006. While 

we support strong security clearance procedures, CLINIC’s network of charitable 

programs handles many naturalization cases that have been pending for three and 

even four years. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Despite the widely acknowledged benefits of citizenship, the United States does 

surprisingly little to promote the naturalization process. A More Perfect Union: A 

National Citizenship Plan calls for a national mobilization in support of citizenship, 

identifying the roles of government, immigrant service agencies, and other sectors 

53

of society. It describes a program that could serve as the linchpin of an emerging 

U.S. immigrant integration strategy. A few key recommendations follow. 

First, immigration service providers should significantly expand their naturalization work, offering group workshops and related services. These events should be 

sponsored and supervised by charitable organizations with immigration attorneys or 

with staff ‘‘accredited’’ by the Board of Immigration Appeals. In addition, they 

should use trained volunteers and follow stringent quality control standards for eligibility screening and application review. 

CLINIC and other immigrant-service networks have significantly increased their 

commitment to naturalization services in recent months, both as a good in itself and 

as a way to prepare to implement immigration reform legislation. These workshops 

require charitable programs to rent space, to conduct community outreach, to serve 

large numbers of people, and to recruit and train volunteers (including pro bono attorneys). This work anticipates what they will need to do in order to ensure the success of comprehensive immigration reform legislation. 

Second, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service’s (USCIS’s) Office of Citizenship (OoC) should receive sufficient federal funding to coordinate a national citizenship program. At present, OoC’s annual budget of roughly $3 million and its lack 

of grant-making authority significantly limit its activities. Similarly, USCIS should 

not be required to support its operations entirely on fee revenue. Adequate funding 

would allow USCIS to forego onerous fee increases that will deny access to citizenship to many immigrants. It would also help USCIS to reduce its backlogs, update 

its technology, and improve its customer services. USCIS should also be given greater access to fee-account revenue so that it can respond to sudden increases in applications. 

Third, charitable agencies need additional resources to expand their significant 

work in this area. Of course, this need will increase dramatically if comprehensive 

immigration reform legislation passes. Federal support should be provided to networks of direct service providers that are engaged in naturalization outreach, intake, application assistance, ESL classes, citizenship instruction, and test preparation. Non-profit organizations that are ‘‘recognized’’ by the Board of Immigration Appeals or supervised by an attorney should be the preferred anchors in local collaborative programs. Charitable service agencies, including those in CLINIC’s network, 

stand ready to partner with the federal government on a national citizenship effort, 

as well as on implementation of comprehensive immigration reform legislation. 

Fourth, the federal government should help to coordinate, increase, and sustain 

the citizenship work now being performed by others; it should not supplant existing 

efforts. State, local, philanthropic, and corporate interests should partner with the 

federal government—perhaps matching federal dollars—to expand naturalization 

services, including English language instruction. The Office of Citizenship should 

track funding from these sources and issue an annual report that publicizes the 

achievements of a national program. 

Fifth, a national citizenship program should bring together the leadership, resources, and talents of the nation’s public and private sectors. It should also engage 

the native-born, naturalized, and future citizens in the program’s design and implementation. A national program should ensure that lawful permanent residents enjoy 

access to citizenship, regardless of their socio-economic status or ethnic background. 

It should make a special effort to reach those who naturalize at the lowest rates. 

However, it should also assure that sufficient services be provided to those who can 

self-file and who need less information and assistance. 

Sixth, the Office of Citizenship’s budget should come chiefly from public funds; its 

dependence on USCIS application fees should be reduced. The OoC should steer corporate and foundation funding to charitable agencies; it should not compete for 

sparse private funding. The OoC should hire community liaison officers for each 

USCIS district to coordinate local initiatives, to conduct outreach, to share successful program models, and otherwise to build partnerships with charitable agencies. 

Seventh, the Office of Citizenship should initiate a process to identify the research 

and demographic data that will be needed to conduct a national citizenship program. This data should be used to develop outreach strategies, to design media campaigns, to allocate funding, to build service capacity, to strengthen ESL and citizenship instruction, and to provide benchmarks and tools for evaluation. Similarly, immigration experts should convene a national citizenship conference to share new research, knowledge, program models, and best practices. It will be crucially important that any national citizenship program have a methodologically sound evaluation component. Program evaluation should document not only numbers of new citizens, but significant community interventions and steps contributing to citizenship. 

Protocols and controls should be developed to restrict government and grantee access to confidential information. 

54

Eighth, USCIS should explain naturalization eligibility requirements in its approval notice for lawful permanent residence. In addition, the USCIS should make 

the OoC’s guide titled Welcome to the United States, A Guide for New Immigrants

available to all immigrants and refugees. USCIS should notify immigrants when 

they become eligible to apply for citizenship. It should refer applicants that fail the 

citizenship test to ESL and citizenship courses. In addition, the Office of Citizenship 

should partner with charitable agencies and networks to provide outreach on citizenship to immigrant communities. Appropriate content should be developed by experts in media messaging and by immigration advocates. Outreach should highlight 

naturalization requirements, as well as the benefits, rights, and responsibilities of 

citizenship. 

Ninth, naturalization oath ceremonies should be the defining moment of the citizenship process and a key feature of a national citizenship program. USCIS should 

direct its district offices to offer same-day oath ceremonies if possible. The Office of 

Citizenship should expand its efforts to organize high-profile naturalization ceremonies, including those on days of national significance. Court- and USCIS-administered ceremonies should be open to the public and to service organizations. All oath 

ceremonies should conclude with voter registration. Local boards of election should 

oversee voter registration activities and encourage civic organizations to provide this 

service. 

Tenth, ESL and citizenship instruction should be expanded through adult basic 

education classes and community-based organizations. Classes should be available 

at different English language levels, including short-term, high-impact instruction 

for advanced students and long-term, tailored instruction for students with low literacy. Standards should be established for both professional and volunteer instructors. Instructors should refer legal questions to immigration attorneys or accredited 

non-attorneys. ESL and citizenship curricula should cover the naturalization test 

and interview, but include broader content that fosters an informed and engaged 

citizenry. 

Eleventh, USCIS should expand the availability of citizenship application fee 

waivers for low-income immigrants. It should liberalize its fee waiver policy, create 

a fee waiver application form to standardize the application process, explain the 

availability of waivers and the application process in its informational materials, establish an application filing discount for poor working families who wish to apply 

for citizenship together, and offer an option of paying the application fee in two installments. 

Twelfth, USCIS should continue its efforts—which it began in earnest in 2002—

to develop a more meaningful citizenship test. The revised test should adhere to the 

current legal requirements for level of difficulty and use of discretion, include consequential material on U.S. history and civics presented at a basic English level, 

and be able to accommodate applicants with special needs. It should not adversely 

impact vulnerable applicants or those who are members of specific ethnic, national 

or language groups. 

Thirteenth, USCIS should train and monitor its officers to ensure proper implementation of the redesigned citizenship test. In addition, the Office of Citizenship 

should partner with nonprofit organizations to create: (1) a curriculum and study 

guide at basic and advanced English levels for use in preparing applicants for the 

citizenship test; (2) a teacher’s guide; and (3) multi-modal citizenship promotion materials. It should also establish a clearinghouse of citizenship materials, fund training and technical assistance for ESL and citizenship teachers, and promote standards in citizenship education. 

CONCLUSION

These recommendations form the basis of the more detailed analysis provided in 

A More Perfect Union: A National Citizenship Plan. CLINIC’s network is fully committed to the integration of our nation’s immigrants and their families. A national 

citizenship plan would make an indispensable contribution to this goal. It would 

also serve our nation’s interest. We thank you for your leadership on this issue and 

encourage you to move ahead on this important issue. 

WORK CITED

Jeffrey Chenoweth and Laura Burdick, A More Perfect Union: A National Citizenship Plan (Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., Jan. 2007), available at 

http://www.cliniclegal.org/DNP/citzplan.html. 

Steve Farkas, Ann Duffett and Jean Johnson, Now That I’m Here: What America’s 

Immigrants Have to Say about Life in the U.S. Today (Public Agenda, 2003), 29. 

55

Jeffrey Passel, Growing Share of Immigrants Choosing Naturalization (Pew Hispanic Center, Mar. 28, 2007), 7–8, available at http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=74).

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Kerwin. 

And Dr. Fonte? 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN FONTE, Ph.D., SENIOR FELLOW,

HUDSON INSTITUTE 

Mr. FONTE. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren and Ranking Member King. 

What do we mean by integration? Let’s start by using a more 

vigorous term, assimilation. There are different types of assimilation: linguistic, economic, civic, patriotic. 

Linguistic assimilation means the immigrant learns English. 

Economic assimilation means the immigrant does well materially. 

Civic integration means the immigrant is integrated into our political system, votes and has some involvement in civic affairs. 

These forms of assimilation are necessary but not sufficient. We 

were reminded again with the Fort Dix conspiracy that there are 

naturalized citizens, permanent residents and illegal immigrants 

living in our country who speak English, are gainfully employed 

and would like to kill as many Americans as possible. 

The type of assimilation that matters most is patriotic assimilation, political loyalty, and emotional attachment to the United 

States. 

This was accomplished in the days of Ellis Island because America’s leaders, including Democrat Woodrow Wilson and Republican 

Theodore Roosevelt, believed that immigrants should be Americanized. 

They were self-confident leaders. They didn’t use weasel words 

like ‘‘integration.’’ They talked openly about Americanization. 

July 4, 1915, President Woodrow Wilson declared National Americanization Day. The President and his cabinet addressed naturalization ceremonies around the Nation. 

The most powerful speech was delivered by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in which Brandeis declared Americanization 

meant that the newcomer should possess the national consciousness of an American. 

In the 1990’s, the late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan called for 

revival of Americanization and a new Americanization movement. 

Yesterday, I was at a conference where Henry Cisneros said the 

best term is ‘‘Americanization.’’ Unfortunately, for decades, we 

have implemented anti-Americanization policies—multilingual ballots, bilingual education and Executive Order 13166. This hurts assimilation. 

Traditionally, the greatest indicator of assimilation is intermarriage between immigrants and the native-born. 

A major new study published in the American Sociological Review found a big decline in interethnic marriage. The author declared, ‘‘These declines are a significant departure from past trends 

and reflect the growth in the immigrant population,’’ in which 

Latinos are marrying Latinos, Asians marrying Latinos—and the 

paths are reversed, so the 1970’s and 1980’s and 1990’s were reversed. 

56

The Pew Hispanic Survey found that 7 months after 9/11, only 

34 percent of American citizens of Latino origin consider their primary identification as American first. On the other hand, 42 percent identified with their parents’ country, Mexico, El Salvador, so 

on—24 percent, ethnic identity first. 

Professor Rumbaut’s excellent work on the children of immigrants showed that after 4 years of American high school, self-identification with America and as hyphenated Americans went down. 

Identification with parents and birth country went up. 

An article in the Chicago Tribune Friday, April 6 about the person in charge of the New Americans Office is, I think, very revealing. 

The State official declared, ‘‘The nation-state concept is changing, 

where you don’t have to say I am Mexican or I am American. You 

can be a good Mexican citizen and a good American citizen, and it 

is not a conflict of interest. Sovereignty is flexible.’’

Well, a very different view was given by the President of the 

United States 100 years ago in 1907. President Theodore Roosevelt 

said, ‘‘If the immigrant comes here in good faith, assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on exact equality with everyone else. 

But this is predicated upon that person becoming an American and 

nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. 

We have room for but one loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.’’

So we are presented with two very different views of the oath of 

allegiance and what this means in the Chicago Tribune article of 

2007 and Theodore Roosevelt in 1907. We will have to choose. 

What should we do today? 

Well, it makes no sense to enact comprehensive immigration reform which means a slow-motion amnesty, a massive increase in 

low-skilled immigration, further exacerbating our assimilation 

problem. 

What we need first is comprehensive assimilation reform for 

those immigrants who are here legally. 

One, first we should dismantle the anti-assimilation regime of 

foreign language ballots, voting in foreign countries by dual nationals, bilingual education and Executive Order 13166. 

Second, we should follow Barbara Jordan and Henry Cisneros’s 

lead and call for Americanization, not integration. 

Third, we should enforce the oath of allegiance. 

I have six or seven points. They are in the written statement. I 

can take questions on that. 

We need comprehensive assimilation reform first. Comprehensive 

immigration reform is not comprehensive. That is the problem. It 

is basically not comprehensive. It doesn’t deal with assimilation. 

Comprehensive immigration reform is primarily about the special 

interest needs of particular businesses, not the interests of the 

American people as a whole. It ignores assimilation and puts the 

market over the Nation. 

But Americans must remember, we are a Nation of citizens before we are a market of consumers. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fonte follows:]

57

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN FONTE


JF-1.eps
58


JF-2.eps
59


JF-3.eps
60


JF-4.eps
61


JF-5.eps
62

————

*Mr. Fonte’s statement records the date of the ‘‘Chicago Tribune article’’ as appearing on April 

7. The correct date that the article appeared is April 6.


JF-6.eps
63


JF-7.eps
64


JF-8.eps
65


JF-9.eps
66

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Dr. Fonte. 

We will now begin questioning by Members of the Committee, 

and I will start off. We have just 5 minutes apiece. 

I would like to ask Dr. Rumbaut′′ Dr. Fonte just mentioned you 

and a study that you did about the affiliation of teenagers and 

their loyalty to the United States. Have you done any additional 

longitudinal studies on that subject? 

Mr. RUMBAUT. Yes. Dr. Fonte was referring to data from the second wave of interviews from our CILS study, which were published 

in a book called Legacies that he was referring to. 

We have continued to follow that sample of thousands of young 

people into their mid-20’s, and we have continued to ask questions 

about language, about identity, about some of the issues that he 

has been talking about. 

I would make a couple of comments in response to that. First, 

when you ask young people when they are 17 years old and 18 

years ago what their identity is, and they are in high school and 

so on, their sense of self, their self definitions, their identities and 

so on reflect the context of an adolescent culture in high school, 

their peers and so on. 

In the United States, that is heavily weighted to racial notions 

of racial identities which are made in the USA. 

A lot of kids are using the national origin of their parents as a 

response to what their racial identity is, and they are not talking 

really about national identity or patriotic identities, but how they 

fit in the particular subculture of the high school where they happen to be at. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Does that change after graduation? 

Mr. RUMBAUT. It changes. By their mid-20’s, we saw a complete 

reversal back to patterns that had been seen at the time one baseline survey, so that dissipates. 

Second, some of the most striking responses to a national identity that we observed in 1995, which is what Dr. Fonte was referring to, was among Mexicans in Southern California. 

We went into the field immediately after the passage of Prop 187 

in California and it was in reaction to that, what we call reactive 

ethnicity, that an assertion of a national identity as Mexican was 

made even by U.S.-born Mexican-Americans because of perceived 

discrimination and prejudice against their nationality as a whole. 

That again dissipates. When we asked the same question to 

Mexicans in Florida at the same time that Prop 187 was passed in 

California, we saw an assimilative pattern among Mexicans in 

Florida, but we didn’t see that among those that were responding 

to conditions of discrimination and prejudice. 

So a lot of what this debate about identities entails is a response 

to what the larger context in which they are assimilating—it is 

composed of. 

Assimilation has never been about simply individual acculturation on the part of an immigrant. It has always entailed an absence 

of prejudice and discrimination on the part of the whole society. It 

takes two to assimilate. It takes two to tango. 

It was Robert Park 100 years ago, one of the leading sociologists 

of assimilation in the country at the University of Chicago at the 

67

time, who said that the most acculturated American at the time 

was the American Negro. 

He said the American Negro is an English-only-speaking Protestant. And yet, he was the least assimilated in this society——

Ms. LOFGREN. Because of discrimination. 

Mr. RUMBAUT [continuing]. Not because of a lack of acculturation 

but because of the caste restrictions that were imposed on him by 

the host country. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I found your study on language absolutely fascinating, because it matches so much what I find at home, where 

my colleagues who are second generation are pulling their hair out 

because their kids are monolingual English and cannot speak to 

their grandparents. 

And you really identified the death of foreign languages in the 

United States, which I think adds some other issues that—it would 

be nice if we had more people who could speak another language. 

But do you see any chance that English will stop being the common language of the United States from your studies? 

Mr. RUMBAUT. Absolutely not. In fact, you talk about what you 

see at home. My wife, who is of Mexican origin, and I have been 

trying to raise a bilingual child. If there is anyone committed to bilingualism in the United States and sees the benefits of it, it is me. 

It was my wife and me against Michigan. And now we moved to 

Southern California and we thought he would be in a context 

where he is bilingual. We talk to him in Spanish, and he answers 

only in English. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. My time is almost up. 

I would like to ask Dr. Gerstle, is there a preset number where 

America should say, ‘‘We can’t accept any more immigrants because they would not become American because there are too many 

of them,’’ in your judgment? 

Mr. GERSTLE. I don’t think there is a preset number. I made the 

point in my statement today and in the longer statement that immigration density was far greater 100 years ago than it is today. 

Ms. LOFGREN. My time has expired, and I am going to try and 

be good about that. 

Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

First, I would note that although when the process kicked off 

some time yesterday afternoon, by the time the testimony reached 

me, the chickens had gone to roost, so I didn’t have an opportunity 

to read thoroughly through all the testimony. I have scanned most 

of it. 

Dr. Rumbaut, I understand that you have a lot of material here, 

and I appreciate that input, and hopefully I can review it after this 

hearing. 

I would like to turn first to Dr. Gerstle and your statement about 

the numbers of immigrants and the percentage and the concentration. 

If I recall, and I do, the U.S. census reports, the first ones we 

got on immigration were in 1820, and you go to that year yourself 

when you tabulate those numbers. 

And I have done back to those PDF files and reviewed—and they 

are a little hard to see, but they are on the computer and you can 

68

find them on the Internet—and totaled those numbers from 1820 

until the year 2000, which would be our last census. 

And there, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, we have 66.1 

million immigrants in that number. That doesn’t match up with 

the numbers in your testimony. Can you explain that discrepancy? 

Mr. GERSTLE. Well, calculating the total number of immigrants 

who have come to this country turns out to be rather difficult because one has to account not only for those who came and stayed 

but for the very significant numbers who came and went home, so 

I think——

Mr. KING. Where do your numbers come from, though, please? 

Mr. GERSTLE. They come from the census materials. 

Mr. KING. Then why don’t we match? 

Mr. GERSTLE. Well, because there are instances in the past 

where those who have come have sometimes gone home, and sometimes those who came have also gone unrecorded and have been 

undocumented. 

Mr. KING. But do you use some other information to add to that 

number? Because when I look at those numbers, they are finite 

numbers, so I don’t see any latitude there to expand that number 

or subtract from it. 

Mr. GERSTLE. I can get those—I don’t have that data with me 

today, but——

Mr. KING. I would appreciate it if you would——

Mr. GERSTLE [continuing]. I can get those for you. 

Mr. KING [continuing]. For the benefit of this Committee. And 

then I look at today, we are 11 percent immigrants, and that includes 35 million, 12 million of which are counted as illegal. And 

a lot of us believe that number is greater. That takes us up to 11 

percent. 

And if you go to the high water mark, the immigrant number 

concentration in the population is 14 percent roughly a century 

ago. 

So I am having trouble understanding the statement that we 

would have to multiply our current immigration number by a factor 

of four to meet the concentration level at the high water mark. 

Mr. GERSTLE. Well, I was referring to those who are coming in 

annually at the height of that immigration period, where the numbers approached or exceeded a million a year. 

And a few years ago, the numbers coming into the United States 

were calculated to have reached that level. And that was advertised at the time as being the all-time high. 

My point there is those million a year coming into the United 

States now are coming into a society of approximately 300 million 

people. 

Mr. KING. That would be the legal ones. 

Mr. GERSTLE. Yes, whereas those coming in——

Mr. KING. Excuse me, Dr. Gerstle. I do have to measure my time 

a little bit. But I appreciate your testimony and your answers. 

And I would like to turn, if I could, to Mr. Kerwin, and in your 

testimony, your statement here that there is a real concentrated interest in naturalization—and if I look at the naturalization numbers—I go back to 1970 of those—and according to the USCIS, they 

69

show that immigrants who were admitted prior to 1970 naturalized 

at a rate of 82 percent. 

Those from 1970 to 1979 naturalized at a rate of 66 percent, and 

from 1980 to 1989, 45 percent. You see the trend. From 1900 to the 

year 2000, it fell to 13 percent. 

So how can U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services have a 

number that shows a dramatic decline over a period of 30 years 

from 82 percent to 13 percent—how can that comport with your 

statement that there is an interest in naturalization? 

Mr. KERWIN. Well, as I understand it, the most recent study by 

Pew Hispanic Center shows that there has actually been an increase in naturalization among lawful immigrants, legal permanent 

residents. It is not——

Mr. KING. Would you allow there is a lot of room for improvement? 

Mr. KERWIN. Oh, absolutely. And that is the point of our study. 

And what we would like to do is we would like to take the entities 

that were involved and key in integrating immigrants in the past 

and get them together—the Federal Government, churches, charitable agencies, civic associations——

Mr. KING. Let me say, if I might, Mr. Kerwin, you make a lot 

of good points in your testimony. 

Mr. KERWIN. Thank you. 

Mr. KING. And I could take issue with some parts of it, but there 

are a lot of good points that I think we all need to review. 

And I would like to quickly, if I could, turn to Dr. Fonte, and you 

referenced intermarriage, and I would ask this question. 

The reduction in the amount of intermarriages that we have, 

interracial intermarriage—could that be—and what are your 

thoughts on it—being the result of the effects of multiculturalism 

that might tend to isolate young Americans in those ethnic enclaves rather than being further assimilated into the broader society where they would have contact with people of different areas 

of the society? 

Mr. FONTE. Yes, I think that is part of it, and the research from 

a Ohio State University professor said the main point was we are 

bringing in large numbers of unskilled immigrants with low education, and people usually marry within their group in this particular category, so Latinos are marrying Latinos, and Asians are 

marrying Asians. 

So this is a complete reversal in the 1990’s from what we saw 

in the 1970’s and 1980’s. So it has something to do with numbers, 

and as you suggest, large numbers of unskilled folks are marrying 

each other. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Dr. Fonte. 

I would yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

The Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers, is recognized. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

This is a great discussion we are having. And if we could only 

find a way to get around the 5-minute rule, because there is so 

much. I have been looking very carefully, Dr. Fonte, to find something that you and I agree upon. We have got to have a starting 

point here. 

70

And I may have it when you say that multiethnicity and ethnic 

subcultures have enriched America and have been part of our past 

since Colonial days. 

Now, that is a good starting point, isn’t it? 

Mr. FONTE. We agree. 

Mr. CONYERS. But the executive orders—intermarriage—it was 

against the law until 1967 when a Supreme Court case made it 

legal for couples to decide to cross the line. The Clinton executive 

order didn’t bother me that much. 

But let’s get to what seems to be the heart of the matter in a 

couple minutes. English-language-only laws—that is what seems to 

be bugging a lot of people in the Congress and outside, too. 

Now, would English-language-only laws help promote immigrants into Americanization? There, I used your term. 

Mr. FONTE. And Barbara Jordan’s term. 

Mr. CONYERS. Who wants to try that? 

Dr. Rumbaut? 

Mr. RUMBAUT. I would argue that exactly the opposite would 

happen. Much as you saw with the instance of identity expressions 

and so on, the moment you try to coerce and to impose a rule on 

someone and tell them what you can and you cannot speak, you are 

going to engender a reaction to that. 

The best way to Americanize, in Barbara Jordan’s sense, is to 

treat the process of assimilation or Americanization as a seduction. 

People will become American because they desire to. They don’t 

become American or speak English because they are told to, or because they are required to. 

All that would do is end up driving a wedge in immigrant families, between parents and children, and it would end up creating 

far more unintended but serious problems than you are trying to 

achieve. 

Besides, there is no need for it when you look at the evidence 

that you have in front of you. There is no need to require people 

to speak a language when they are all moving toward it at historic 

speeds. 

Mr. CONYERS. Dr. Gerstle, answer that, and talk with me about 

the impression I have had since the mid-1960’s that innumerable 

swearing-in ceremonies of people becoming naturalized citizens—

where the pride and the patriotism, the loyalty, the excitement, the 

dedication is so overpowering—I mean, you take that away, and 

then they have—in Detroit, you have—right outside the swearingin ceremony, you can register to vote, right on the spot, as soon as 

you are given the oath. 

Talk to me about that and the previous question with the time 

I have left. 

Mr. GERSTLE. I second what Dr. Rumbaut said. We are struggling with this issue in Nashville, Tennessee, now, where an 

English-only ordinance was put forward by the city council, attracted hundreds of people to meetings. It was ultimately passed 

by the council and then vetoed by the mayor—splits among Democrats and Republicans in that place. 

And I think the feeling was, and it is a feeling that I agree with, 

that it would be more of a barrier to integration and involving people in America than it would be a benefit. 

71

Historically, there were efforts in the 1920’s to have English-only 

laws. There were efforts to banish private schools where any language was taught other than English. 

There was an effort to impose on public schools complete teaching of English every period of the day. The teaching of foreign languages was curtailed. 

Several of these were thrown out by the courts. It did have this 

effect. It did mobilize the immigrant community and made them realize the importance of participating in politics, naturalizing, engaging American democracy, learning it, participating in it. And 

that, I believe, is their most important school. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate your 

holding this hearing. It is, I agree with the Chairman, very interesting. 

Dr. Gerstle, I was very interested in your testimony regarding 

the capacity of our country to assimilate. And I am not sure that 

I disagree with you, but I am very concerned that it is not happening. 

The evidence cited by the gentleman from Iowa regarding the 

dramatic downward trends of permanent residents applying for 

citizenship from 80 percent in the 1960’s down to 13 percent in the 

last decade is very disturbing. 

What do you attribute that to? Why are we failing to assimilate? 

Mr. GERSTLE. The first thing I would say is that this country 

went through a really tough period in the 1960’s and 1970’s, where 

all kinds of people became very anti-American, native-born and foreign-born alike. 

And this had to do with frustration over civil rights, a frustration 

over the Vietnam War. The origins of multiculturalism are as an 

anti-American creed—one’s ethnicity, one’s ethnic identity, is preferable to one’s American identity. 

So I think the decline in loyalty and belief in America happened 

across the board, and it happened among immigrants and the native-born. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. During that decade, 82 percent of permanent 

residents who became eligible for citizenship during that decade 

applied for citizenship. In the 1980’s, when you didn’t have that, 

it was dramatically down. 

In the 1990’s, the so-called Clinton era, it was plummeting. And 

I don’t know what it has been for the last decade, but those figures 

would seem to rebut, not support, your contention that——

Mr. GERSTLE. Well, I would be very interested to see—I don’t 

have them handy—what the figures are for the last couple years, 

and to see if they have ticked upward in that regard. 

A couple things are important. First, I think length of residence 

of time is very important in terms of naturalization. If we look at 

the historical period, we find very low rates of naturalization 

among European groups for very long periods of time. 

In fact, if you look at the census and naturalization figures in 

1920, you would find only a quarter of many of these Eastern and 

Southern European populations having naturalized, and many of 

72

those people had been there 20 years or 25 years. The 1920’s and 

1930’s are the big decades of naturalization. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. All right. We will take a look at that. 

Let me ask you about another subject, dual citizenship. As you 

may know, the Supreme Court ruled a number of years ago that 

you couldn’t deprive an individual of their citizenship in another 

country. They could maintain that even upon swearing allegiance 

to the United States. 

Do you think that is a good thing or a bad thing? Does that help 

assimilation? Is it good that somebody is voting for elected officials 

in another country elsewhere in the world as well as participating 

in the United States? 

Mr. GERSTLE. I think it is a worldwide phenomenon that most 

countries are moving toward this and reflects, I think, the degree 

to which people move around the world and are comfortable with 

that. I think it would be difficult to resist that. 

I would say that the most——

Mr. GOODLATTE. Is it dual citizenship or is it no citizenship if effectively people are choosing in such low numbers to affiliate themselves with the United States? 

Mr. GERSTLE. I don’t think it is no citizenship. I think citizenship 

and integration—and I am very comfortable using the word Americanization. Assimilation is a more problematic term that maybe we 

can talk about later. 

But these happen through institutions and through the engagement of immigrants in the practice of American politics. 

If we find ways to do that, to bring them into American politics, 

give them a sense of a stake in the political system through their 

representatives, mobilize them in this way, that will lead to a deepening attachment to America and appreciation for this country’s 

heritage of freedom. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I hope you are right. 

Let me ask Dr. Fonte, would an official English language be 

helpful in promoting that assimilation? 

Mr. FONTE. I think that that would be fine as a statement of E 

Pluribus Unum. I think there is no reason we shouldn’t all be voting in English. That gives the signal that we are all in this together. 

It hurts the immigrant and the ethnic group if the immigrant is 

only following the election—you could do this—following the foreign-language venue, but you wouldn’t have a full range of the debates. You wouldn’t have all the arguments out there. So it hurts 

the immigrant more than anyone else, I would think. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. What about the issue of dual citizenship? 

Mr. FONTE. I think dual allegiance is a problem. If someone is 

voting and holding office, running for office in a foreign country—

Felix Frankfurter, one of our great Supreme Court justices, says 

this shows allegiance to a foreign power incompatible with allegiance to the United States. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Could we retest that in the Supreme Court? 

Mr. FONTE. What we could do is pass legislation. Earl Warren, 

who favored this decision, said you couldn’t lose your citizenship, 

but he said there could be laws against voting in a foreign country, 

serving in a foreign government. 

73

So it could be made simply against the law by legislation, and 

not—someone wouldn’t lose their citizenship, but they are unlikely 

to do it if it is against the law. 

So measures could be taken. I think they should be taken, because this is going to be a major problem for us and in the past. 

We had a person elected to the Mexican Congress last—in 2004 

who is an American citizen, and his loyalty now is obviously to the 

Mexican Congress. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Dr. Fonte, if you could wrap up. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The gentleman, Mr. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much. 

I want to thank all of the panel. I hope that the Ranking Member does find time to read Dr. Rumbaut’s documentation that he 

sent before the Committee. 

I think it is very important that the one time that we do have 

somebody from the Latino community come before this Committee 

that we at least read the testimony that he or she has submitted, 

given that most of the ire and focus has been on the Latino community and Latino immigrants, as though they were the only immigrants to the United States of America, when, indeed, we know 

that 40 percent of the undocumented never crossed that border. 

They came here through a legal fashion—and that there are, indeed, millions of undocumented immigrants. 

We watched LegalizeTheIrish.org come here before the Congress, 

and the Polish community, and the Ukranian community, the Filipino community, from so many different other nations, enriching 

this great Nation. So I hope that we would take time. 

I would like to also say to Dr. Rumbaut, thank you so much for 

coming and giving the personal testimony, and I just want to share 

with you, the only reason my daughters speak Spanish is because 

we enrolled them in Spanish immersion classes from kindergarten 

to eighth grade. 

And I thank the public school system of Chicago for having those 

classes, because if it were up to me and my wife, who are bilingual 

but only speak English at home and rarely watch Univision or 

Telemundo—unless, of course, we want news that is relevant to our 

community in the evening, and we want to find out what really 

happened in our neighborhood and in our life—well, we put them 

on. But this is the experience. 

I would hope that Members of the Committee would just take 

some time to visit immigrant communities and walk among the immigrant community, and they would find that if you want to pass 

English-only, that is fine. 

It is a waste of time, a waste of money, to enforce it, because obviously—my parents didn’t come here as immigrants. They came 

here as migrants from Puerto Rico, but they were monolingual. 

They only spoke Spanish. 

And as we look at assimilation, I think we also have to look at 

segregation, the kind of society that we live in. 

The fact is I became more assimilated as I grew older, because 

economic and social possibilities were afforded to me that were not 

afforded to me as a youth. 

74

I grew up in a Puerto Rican neighborhood. Most everyone I knew 

was Puerto Rican—my parents, my family, the church I went to on 

Sunday, where my parents worked almost every—I mean, that is 

part of American society. 

It is an unfortunate part of American society that segregation exists, but if we are going to deal with this ‘‘assimilation,’’ I think we 

should also look at the underlying bias and prejudice that sometimes raises its ugly head, unfortunately, in our great American society that stops people from becoming assimilated into American 

society. 

As you become older—well, my kids are now going to college. 

And my grandson—we are going to have a real big problem with 

the grandson. Unfortunately, it is going to be a tough battle. 

Mr. RUMBAUT. As they say in Brooklyn, ‘‘Fuggetaboutit.’’

Mr. GUTIERREZ. ‘‘Fuggetaboutit.’’ We are going to have a tough 

problem. And I shared this with my colleagues on the other side 

to say fear not, my parents only spoke Spanish. 

I obviously have some English proficiency that has allowed me 

to come here to the Congress of the United States. It may not be 

as great as Members on the other side of the aisle, but I try each 

and every day. 

And my daughters—I assure you, we have spent an inordinate 

amount of money. I do it because I want to maintain that rich cultural history and linguistic history. But I also do it because I want 

to make sure the job opportunities and economic opportunities are 

available to them as things are posted in the newspaper, bilingual 

preferred, by a large American national corporation, so that American citizens can produce goods and distribute those goods throughout the world, and we can become a more prosperous Nation. 

People do buy goods because they are advertised in another language. And as Dr. Rumbaut knows, Univision isn’t entirely owned 

by Latinos, much less Telemundo, which is owned by G.E. and 

NBC. I mean, so these corporations are not just Latino corporations. 

I would like to say to all of the witnesses thank you so much, 

and I would hope that we would simply read the literature, because 

instead of English-only, I wish we could all get together, because 

I could join my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. 

Let’s fund English classes. Let’s fund them and let’s open up centers, and you will find that they will be filled to capacity. People 

want to learn English in this country. 

They aren’t given the ability to learn English, number one. Well, 

part of the reason is the segregation, and the other is access to 

educational opportunities. 

I thank the witnesses. 

And I want to thank the gentlelady from California, our Chairwoman, for putting this wonderful panel together. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

And I do appreciate my colleague’s comments about English 

classes. You probably have a very good idea there. 

One of my closest friends in Tyler, Texas, said, you know, his 

parents, both of them, came from Mexico, and speaking English 

75

was a struggle, but they opened two restaurants that are two of 

our best in Tyler. And they made clear that their children were to 

learn English, that if they were going to reach their potential in 

this country they needed to speak good English. And they speak 

probably better than I. 

But it does seem that some well-meaning people encourage and 

want to allow people to continue to speak Spanish, which to me is 

almost a form of discrimination, because that would prevent individuals from reaching their potential. 

And my friend, Mr. Ramirez, at home has been a city councilman 

and a county commissioner, and that wouldn’t have happened had 

he not spoken such excellent English and been able to communicate ideas so effectively. 

But I go back to some of those things that were said here, and 

I admire greatly, Dr. Rumbaut, your testimonial. My great-grandfather came over in the late 1700’s, didn’t speak English, but he 

did two things. He learned to speak English and he worked his tail 

off. 

And within 25 years, he built one of the nicest homes in Cuero, 

Texas. It is still there with a historic marker on it. 

I am curious, just as a hypothetical, if something tragic happened and all of us in this room were wiped out—although there 

are those that might say if I were wiped out it wouldn’t be all that 

tragic, but for the rest it might be—this is being recorded. 

Dr. Rumbaut, where would you want your loved ones to have 

your remains placed, whether cremation or burial? Where would 

you want them to place you? You have moved around. You have 

seen the best of all kinds of places. What do you think? 

Mr. RUMBAUT. I can tell you that my brother is here. I have a 

sister in Texas that has an urn containing the ashes of my father. 

And we are waiting for the politically appropriate moment in 

which, at his request, to take his ashes to Cienfuegos, which is a 

city in Cuba where he was born and where he first saw the sea, 

and so on. On the other hand, his name was Rube ́n Dario 

Rumbaut. 

My son is named Rube ́n Dario Rumbaut after my father. He was 

born in Michigan. He is a Detroit Pistons fan, a Detroit Red Wings 

fan. He is a Detroit Tigers fan. We are in Anaheim now, but he 

doesn’t follow the Angels. He doesn’t follow the Ducks. He is, ‘‘The 

Red Wings, go, Red Wings,’’ and so on. 

He knows that his grandfather came from Cuba and so on, but 

he would have no attachment to that whatsoever. He would not 

want to be buried there. If anything, he would want to go back to 

Detroit. 

We all form our own attachments in the context of our lives. 

There is no plot out there that says that immigrants want to go 

back and that they are fifth columns——

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay, but I take it from your answer you hadn’t 

made that decision yet yourself. 

And I appreciate the discussion of other individuals. 

Mr. RUMBAUT. Unimportant. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Where you would want——

76

Mr. RUMBAUT. It is unimportant, what happens to me. What is 

important is what I do with my life. It is as I told Mr. Conyers, 

‘‘Aspire to inspire before you expire’’——

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. So that is what you want your loved ones 

to know. 

If you go back to my question, it was—but you say it doesn’t matter. 

Mr. RUMBAUT. It will be in the United States. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Well, there we go. We got to the answer 

eventually. Thank you. 

But you know, I appreciate—Dr. Gerstle, you had indicated 

about immigration in the last century or so—how many of the individuals back 100 years ago—I know my great-grandfather would be 

in this group. 

He put his stake down in Texas, and despite nearly all of his 

family being in Europe, he had no intention of going back there. 

Do you know how many in those days asked to be buried or had 

their remains sent back to their country of origin? 

Mr. GERSTLE. No, I don’t think we have that kind of data. In 

fact, it is tremendously hard simply to find out who went back and 

how many. 

We have historians looking at ship registers to find out when 

they came, and then other ship registers in the subsequent 5 years, 

10 years, 15 years to find out when they went back. So it is incredibly hard to do that. 

Not every group who came here looked to go back. It is just 

among the majority of Eastern and Southern Europeans who came 

for the first 10 years or 15 years, probably a majority were thinking of going back. Some went back and some didn’t make it. 

Mr. GOHMERT. In conclusion, if I could—as a history major and 

a fan of history, I can’t help but wonder—as nations throughout 

world history rose and fell, often they were becoming more fractured from more widespread de-assimilation. And I can’t help but 

wonder if there weren’t experts back in those days saying, ‘‘It is not 

happening, and if it is, it is a good thing,’’ so——

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentlelady from Texas? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairwoman, and I certainly 

thank the indulgence of the Ranking Member. 

I thank the witnesses for their very thoughtful testimony. The 

lack of questions to any of you does not reflect the importance of 

your testimony. 

But this is a very emotional roller coaster that we are on. It is 

a chicken and egg, Dr. Rumbaut, frankly. If we don’t have comprehensive immigration reform, we never get to where our colleagues are wanting us to go. 

Many of us have legislative initiatives that really speak to some 

of their concerns, if we could get out of the start gate. 

Our language in the Save America Comprehensive Immigration 

bill that I have, the STRIVE Act—all talk about—in the earned access to legalization talks about an English requirement, talks 

about—in particular, my bill talks about community service. And 

in fact, it has the word Americanization, words that we are not 

really running away from, and words that you are speaking to. 

77

So, first of all, I would like you to just say yes or no. These are 

elements that populations would not run away from if we had comprehensive immigration reform—that people are not running away 

from learning English. They are not running away from—if you 

wanted to do community service, our Chairman of the full Committee already said the first person that lost their life in Iraq was 

an undocumented person. 

When I traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan, and I see the array—

the potpourri of faces that represent the United States that are 

American, I have never seen any diminishing of patriotism among 

those young Hispanic soldiers, young Asian soldiers, young AfricanAmerican soldiers. 

So I guess just a yes or no, do you think the immigrant community, if a comprehensive immigration reform bill—would run away 

from the concept of English, Americanization, community service? 

Mr. RUMBAUT. Absolutely not. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And let me probe you a little bit more, because this is an important question. And I wish the honorable Barbara Jordan that preceded me some few years back was here to 

speak for herself, because one thing that I knew her as in life was 

a person who grew, who looked at the landscape and would not 

stand for denying due process or fairness to anyone. 

So she is not here to speak for herself, and the word ‘‘Americanization’’ and all of her language—I guess they don’t remember the 

words in this Committee that said, ‘‘We, the people,’’ will not be denied constitutional rights. 

But moving forward, I raised teenagers. I raised them in an integrated high school, so call it, in Houston, Texas. There was the 

Latino-Hispanic table, the African-American table, the Caucasian 

table, the Asian table. And if anybody saw the movie Freedom 

Writers, that really captures what our young people are going 

through. And they achieve this identity. 

If you remember the Black Power movement, if you remember 

the movement where I was in in college, all of us were going back 

to Africa, and we were citizens, but we were all going back. We 

were going to the motherland. 

There is this emotional draw to your ethnicity. But I tell you, as 

somewhat of an adult over 21, the tragedy of 9/11—I didn’t see one 

dry eye, no matter what color you were. 

I don’t know why we are struggling and caught in the quagmire 

of people’s identity, when identities give pride, are valuable for 

America. So could you just respond to this—I think you did talk 

about it—teenagers’ identity? 

It is completely different from rejecting becoming Americanized, 

completely different. 

And if there are other panelists—Mr. Kerwin, you want to speak, 

too, and Dr. Fonte—completely different from this concept of never 

learning English and never becoming American. 

I will start with you, Dr. Rumbaut. 

Mr. RUMBAUT. I would say very briefly——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you remember the Black Power movement 

and all of us—many of us of my culture going to the motherland? 

Mr. RUMBAUT. I was marching——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. We still do want to go. 

78

Mr. RUMBAUT. I understand completely. I remember Barbara 

Jordan very, very well. You resemble her in many ways. And I 

would say simply, very briefly, that part of the problem is framing 

all these issues in either/or terms. 

There is no contradiction in being proud of one’s heritage and 

being proud of one’s roots, in wanting to go back to Africa at the 

time that you were—the golden days—and at the same time being 

an American citizen concerned with the best interests of this country and wanting to give it all, including, as you mentioned and as 

Chairman Conyers mentioned, even one’s very life. 

There is simply no contradiction between the two, and we need 

to frame it in larger terms. So let me just stop there. I mean, I 

could say many other things, but there are other members of the 

panel who want to respond. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Go ahead, Dr. Kerwin, please. 

Mr. KERWIN. Just to repeat, I think that it is absolutely true that 

the foreign-born want to learn English. The average wait for ESL 

classes by professionally credentialed people is now 6 months. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It is a crisis. 

Mr. KERWIN. It is a crisis, yes. And I don’t think people dispute 

the need for patriotic assimilation. You know, there may be some 

out there that do, but I think in general it is understood that that 

is necessary. 

It is also true what you say, that legal status is crucial to integration. There is no doubt about that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank you. 

Sorry, Dr. Fonte. 

Mr. FONTE. Was I supposed to speak, or——

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, the gentlelady’s time is expired. 

Mr. FONTE. Okay. 

Ms. LOFGREN. But without objection, we will extend her time for 

1 minute so Dr. Fonte can respond. 

Mr. FONTE. Okay. As I said to Chairman Conyers, we agree that 

ethnic subcultures have always been an important part of American life. 

But the key factor in immigration is when the new citizen takes 

the oath of allegiance—I absolutely and entirely renounce all allegiance to my foreign state or country, and so on. 

In other words, it is a political transfer of allegiance. Someone 

is transferring political allegiance from the birth nation to the 

United States. So that is either/or. You are either loyal to the 

United States, as Theodore Roosevelt said, and no other country. 

That is different from pride in ethnicity, which we all have. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Reclaiming my time, just 1 minute, I have 

never seen the two mixed together, apples and oranges, taking the 

oath and a denial of your culture being—let me just say this—taking the oath and having to reject your culture and having your culture being non-patriotic. 

I don’t think that makes sense at all. They take the oath and 

they still believe in singing the songs and understanding their culture. Believe me, they are still Americans. That is what America 

is——

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

79

The gentlelady from California? 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I do have questions, but I have a few comments first, because I 

have been listening very intently to the conversation and to your 

testimony. 

I want to tell you a story. It is about two immigrants that came 

from Mexico, probably would have been considered without skill, 

one who worked himself from a factory shop floor to being a successful small business owner, the other who raised seven children 

who all went to college and then, in her mid 40’s, went back to 

school to get her GED, her A.A. and her B.A., her teaching credential, and still teaches today in the public school system. 

Of the seven children that they raised, all of them went to college, two of them are now serving in Congress, and we are the first 

women of any relation to serve in Congress. I am talking about my 

family and my parents here. 

So you can call it integration, or assimilation, or Americanization, or any other thing you want to call it, but it is an American 

success story that begins with immigrants. 

Dr. Fonte, I take great issue with your assertion that Englishonly laws with respect to elections are necessary. My mother, who 

came to this country and became a teacher—she is a public school 

teacher. 

She teaches other people’s children English, sometimes finds it 

easier to understand the nuances of complex ballot initiatives if 

they are provided in the first language that she ever learned, Spanish. 

This does not mean she is not fluent in English, because she is, 

she teaches it. But she is a more informed voter sometimes when 

she receives those materials in her native language. 

So I don’t think that takes anything away from her loyalty to 

this country, her love of this country, her desire to continue teaching English in this country. 

And I really, really take issue with the idea that if we make 

English-only laws for voting that that is somehow going to create 

a more informed citizen or a more desirous citizen for voting, because my mother already has that desire. 

Dr. Rumbaut, you mentioned telenovelas. I am a big fan of 

telenovelas. But even our telenovelas have been linguistically assimilated, because I used to watch ‘‘Betty La Fea’’ in Spanish, and 

we now have the English counterpart, ‘‘Ugly Betty,’’ which is a 

huge, successful show. In fact, America Ferrera, who stars in that 

telenovela, the U.S. version, won a Golden Globe for her performance. 

But I do want to get down to some of the questions. 

Professor Rumbaut, I know that you have been studying immigrant integration and linguistic assimilation for approximately 30 

years. Based on your research, do you believe that there is a danger that English is going to stop being the common language of the 

United States? Is there a real threat of that? 

Mr. RUMBAUT. No. Well, as I mentioned, no. If anything, English 

is the official language of the Milky Way Galaxy already. And its 

headquarters are right here in the United States, and with 250 

80

million English monolinguals, it has absolutely nothing to worry 

about. 

However, as I mentioned, something that I think one might 

worry about is the fate of the immigrant languages that immigrants bring free of charge to the United States. This is a human 

capital asset in a global economy. It is a national asset. 

It is even a national security asset. The Iraq Study Group mentioned that only six out of 1,000 American embassy personnel in 

Iraq are fluent in Arabic. 

There is no contradiction in trying to be bilingual, and at the 

same time, as your mother, at being fluent in English. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I understand that, and I think it is interesting 

that in this country we don’t want bilingual education, yet we require 4 years of a foreign language in order to get into college. I 

think that is a contradiction that I have never quite been able to 

understand. 

I am interested in knowing a little bit more about how linguistic 

assimilation occurs. You mentioned that the way to encourage it is 

not to force somebody to speak in English only, but can you talk 

a little bit about linguistic assimilation? 

Mr. RUMBAUT. Yes. Far and away, the number one determinant 

of becoming fluent in English and the acquisition of English fluency among immigrants is age at arrival. 

There is a biology and a neurology of language acquisition. That 

is why children pick it up so quickly. That is why if you learn it 

after puberty, you may be able to learn English, but not without 

a telltale accent. And the older you are at arrival, the thicker your 

accent. You will sound like Desi Arnaz, you know. 

So that alone will ensure the acquisition of English and speaking 

it and so on like a native. With the media, the pressure of peers 

and so on, that is going to take its way, and English is going to 

triumph no matter what. 

If you arrive here, as an elderly person, however, there is no 

way, no matter how interested you are in learning English, that 

you will be able to command it, let alone speak it like a native. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. May I ask the Chairwoman for unanimous consent 

for an additional 30 seconds to ask a very simple yes or no question? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. 

And, Professor Rumbaut, last question. Is there any reason to believe that the immigrants that we have seen of today—the last couple of decades—are any less desirous of learning English than were 

the immigrants of the 1920’s and 1930’s? 

Mr. RUMBAUT. If anything, I would say that immigration is the 

sincerest form of flattery. 

Mr. GERSTLE. Can I add something brief to that? I want to emphasize how important longitudinal studies are of the sort that Dr. 

Rumbaut is doing. 

If you look at a population at any point in time, it may appear 

to you that everyone is speaking Spanish or some other language. 

But if you break that population down for age and generation, you 

get a very different picture. 

81

In 1918 or 1915 or 1910, if you got an impression walking down 

the street of any major American city in the Northeast, Midwest 

or West Coast, you might be overwhelmed by the degree to which 

people did not seem to be able to speak English. 

But if you were to do the kind of longitudinal study that Dr. 

Rumbaut and his colleagues are doing for the present moment, you 

would see a similar kind of progress. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired, and we will 

grant an additional 30 seconds so Dr. Fonte can——

Mr. FONTE. Just a word about 1918 and 1920. One thing we are 

forgetting is one of the reasons there was a great success in the immigration was there was a cutoff bill in 1924 that—I wouldn’t have 

been for it; it kept my relatives literally out of the country. 

But there was an immigration cutoff bill in 1924, so we basically 

had a pause from 1924 to 1965. We had low numbers of immigration that certainly helped the Americanization and assimilation 

process. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Ellison? 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

My question, Dr. Fonte, is this. What year was the highest year 

of immigration in American recorded history? It is not a trick question. 

Mr. FONTE. It was around, I think, the early 20th century. 

Mr. ELLISON. And in that year, what percentage of people living 

in America spoke a language other than English as their first language? 

Mr. FONTE. There was a very large percentage who did not speak 

English. 

Mr. ELLISON. And America did okay, didn’t it? 

Mr. FONTE. Did okay, yes. I just said the immigration cutoff of 

1924 had a lot to do with it. 

Mr. ELLISON. Right. 

Well, I mean, what do you think about that, Dr. Rumbaut? Was 

1924 a year that sort of saved Americanism due to immigration? 

Mr. RUMBAUT. Well, in the first place, the 1924 laws were not 

fully implemented until 1929. That is when the market crashed. It 

was the Great Depression that was most responsible for not letting 

people come into this country. 

You can pass all sorts of immigration laws, and undocumented 

immigration might follow because of the demand by the American 

economy, et cetera. 

If the issue is about language, however, then the passing of a law 

in 1924 is not what determined whether Italian-Americans became 

fluent in English or not. 

What determined that, first and foremost, as I said, is age at arrival and generation. The second generation—at best, their Italian 

would be Italianish, like Spanglish. It would be that kind of a 

version. 

And the grandchildren of them, regardless of whether you passed 

a law or not, they would be speaking English only, because of the 

assimilative forces in American society with respect to language 

and the issue that I mentioned before about the biology of language 

acquisition, the schools, the pressure from peers, the media and all 

of that. 

82

Mr. ELLISON. Dr. Gerstle? 

Mr. GERSTLE. I agree with that. I think the cessation of immigration in 1924 in terms of the Eastern and Southern Europeans—it 

did not affect any peoples from the Western Hemisphere, so we 

should be very clear about that, who continued to come in large 

numbers, unless they were not allowed to come by other means. 

I think it was a factor only in terms of accelerating the transition 

demographically from the first to the second generation. And it also 

reminds us that the present day can never be precisely like the 

past. 

There are other elements of that history that are also different. 

The World War I army—even more importantly, the World War II 

army, which took 16 million young men and a few women out of 

their homes everywhere across America, put them together with 

each other in a way that was also probably important in terms of 

their Americanization and integration. 

My point is that we are unlikely to reproduce a 16-million-person 

conscription army in 2007, 2008 or 2009, but we have to think hard 

about those institutions that will perform the kind of service that 

these other institutions did 30 years, 40 years, 50 years ago. 

Mr. ELLISON. You know, just an observation. I mean, part of 

what we seem to be debating today is what does it mean to be an 

American, and what impact does language have on that identity. 

And you know, I think that the fact that we have at least a 

chance to have those assets that Dr. Rumbaut talked about, which 

is the multiplicity of languages that people bring here when they 

immigrate, is—doesn’t diminish American identity, and actually 

may add to it. 

And if American identity means anything, hopefully it means a 

respect for law, a respect for the first amendment to allow people 

to express themselves. 

So I mean, we are the only country that I know of that is bound 

together by a Constitution as opposed to long tradition, history, 

and culture. And maybe that is what we need to be focusing on, 

and maybe you don’t need to speak English to do that. 

So, I mean, the founders of this country, did they say that we 

needed to speak English? And did they consider it? 

Dr. Rumbaut, do you know if Washington and Jefferson and 

Franklin thought about the need to have a national language? 

Mr. RUMBAUT. Actually, Thomas Jefferson spoke fluent Spanish, 

and——

Mr. FONTE. I have written on this. The founders definitely support English and a common culture. They have written on it extensively. 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, why didn’t they put it in the Constitution? I 

mean, they could have but they didn’t. 

Mr. FONTE. Yes, it wasn’t necessary to put it in the Constitution. 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, why not? I mean, they knew that——

Mr. FONTE. They wanted a minimal constitution, limited government. 

Mr. ELLISON. But, Doctor, they put the things in there that needed to be there. Why didn’t they put English? 

Would anybody else like to venture a view? No? 

Mr. RUMBAUT. There is no need to do so. 

83

Mr. ELLISON. Maybe they considered it and rejected it because 

they thought that English was not a sine qua non of American 

identity. Perhaps that is true. 

Mr. GERSTLE. I think they also did feel, though, that the freedom 

of the new world would be so intoxicating that people would want 

to learn English. 

Mr. FONTE. Congressman King just quoted a letter from George 

Washington to John Adams in which he said he wants—the immigrants should be assimilated to our ways, our customs, our way of 

life, and we would become one people. Obviously, knowing English 

would be part of that. 

Mr. ELLISON. They didn’t put it in the Constitution. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

And we have come to the conclusion of this hearing. I want to 

thank all the witnesses for their testimony today. 

And without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional written questions to you, which we will forward. 

And we ask that you answer as promptly as you can so that we 

can make your answers part of the record. 

Without objection, the record will remain open for 5 legislative 

days for the submission of any other materials. 

You know, Dr. Rumbaut, you mentioned as you started your testimony, what a country, really, that you came here as a young 

man, never expecting to be a witness here before the Congress. 

Ms. Hong, the counsel for the Subcommittee, wrote me a little 

note saying she came as an immigrant at age 12, never dreaming 

that she would be the counsel to the Immigration Subcommittee in 

the United States Congress. 

So we have much to be proud of in our wonderful country, and 

your testimony has been very helpful to us today. 

I would like to extend an invitation to everyone here today to attend our next hearing on comprehensive immigration reform. We 

will have one tomorrow afternoon at 3 p.m. in this very same room 

during which we will explore the impacts of immigration on State 

and local communities. 

Then on Friday morning at 9 a.m., we will focus again on comprehensive immigration reform as it relates to the future of undocumented students and reform. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(85)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

86

LETTER FROM A MAJORITY OF THE MINORITY MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON

IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL

LAW REQUESTING A MINORITY DAY OF HEARING TO THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, 

CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER

SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW


4.eps
87

LETTER FROM GARY GERSTLE, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY TO THE HONORABLE STEVE KING, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW


5-1.eps
88


5-2.eps
89


5-3.eps
90

RESPONSES TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM GARY GERSTLE, PH.D., PROFESSOR

OF HISTORY, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY


7-1.eps
91


7-2.eps
92


7-3.eps
93


7-4.eps
94

RESPONSES TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM RUBE ́ N G. RUMBAUT, PH.D., 

PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE


8-1.eps
95


8-2.eps
96


8-3.eps
97


8-4.eps
98


8-5.eps
99


8-6.eps
100


8-7.eps
101


8-8.eps
102


8-9.eps
103


8-10.eps
104


8-11.eps
105


8-12.eps
106


8-13.eps
107


8-14.eps
108

RESPONSES TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM DONALD KERWIN, EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC.


9-1.eps
109


9-2.eps
110


9-3.eps
111

RESPONSES TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM JOHN FONTE, PH.D., SENIOR

FELLOW, HUDSON INSTITUTE


10-1.eps
112


10-2.eps
113


10-3.eps
114


10-4.eps
115

Æ


10-5.eps