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

35–604 PDF 2007

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

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 23, 2007

Serial No. 110–39

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 23, 2007

Page 

OPENING REMARKS 

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

OPENING STATEMENT 

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 ........................................... 1

WITNESSES 

Mr. Stanley Renshon, Professor, City University of New York Graduate Center 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 3

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 6

Mr. Roger Clegg, Center for Equal Opportunity 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 39

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 42

Mr. Tim Schultz, Director, Government Relations, U.S. English 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 63

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 64

Mr. Mark Seavey, Director of the National Legislative Commission, The 

American Legion 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 66

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 68

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

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 ........................................................................................................................ 85

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 ....... 86

(1)

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

WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 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 5:45 p.m., in Room 

2226, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe Lofgren 

(Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Jackson Lee, King, Goodlatte, 

and Gohmert. 

Staff Present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel; Andrea Loving, Minority Counsel; George Fishman, Minority Chief 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. This is a continuation of our hearing from last 

Wednesday scheduled at the request of our minority Members pursuant to clause 2(J)(1) of House Rule XI so as to provide additional 

perspectives on the topic of that hearing. Our witnesses today have 

been chosen by the minority, and we look forward to hearing their 

testimony. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Steve King, for 

his opening statement. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding this 

hearing today, and I thank the witnesses for being here to testify. 

The title of this hearing is integration; to me, that means assimilation. I found in one of our previous hearings there were witnesses 

on the other side that weren’t quite pleased with that expression, 

assimilation. 

I would reflect back when I was first elected to Congress, I held 

a meeting in my office with a group of minority leaders in my largest city, there were 14 of them, and as I listened to each, and I 

brought them in because I wanted to open the dialogue, all around 

that table of 14 it was a continual demand upon the taxpayers for 

benefits, and finally I asked what are you going to do. Well, we pay 

taxes, and you have to listen to us. Well, everyone who consumes 

in America pays taxes of some kind. 

And so then I said I am going to ask you to respond instantaneously to one word I am going to use, everyone get up on the front 

2

of the chair and be ready when I say the word, because I don’t have 

time to listen to all 14 of you give me your opinion. They all got 

ready, and I said, ‘‘Assimilation.’’ They sat back, put their hands 

up, gave every expression of rejection you can imagine, all 14, and 

they said that means we have to give up our culture, you are trying 

to take away our culture, force us to accept your culture. And I said 

what you have done by your body language and by your spontaneous responses, you have rejected American culture by that response to the word ‘‘assimilation.’’

Assimilation is the foundation of American culture, and the other 

cultures in the world, the other nations in the world would dream 

to have the kind of success that we have had here. I look across 

at the Israelis who, in 1954, adopted Hebrew as their official language. And I asked them why did you do that, they said we saw 

the model of successful assimilation in the United States. We wanted a language that identified us as a people so they resurrected a 

2,000-year-old language so that they could identify themselves as 

Israelis. No matter where they come from in the world, they speak 

the same language, they make sure that they do, and they put 

them through the assimilation process when they arrive in Israel, 

whether it is Africa or Asia or wherever it is. 

So when I look through, I sat down myself and went through the 

World Book Encyclopedia because that was the only document that 

I could find that actually identified whether a country had an official language or not. 

I opened up the Almanac, went to every flag there, and then I 

went to the World Book Encyclopedia. There in that research it 

doesn’t always concur with some of the other research, and every 

single country had at least one official language except the United 

States. 

I will say tying ourselves together with one language, one common form of communication, currency has been the strongest, most 

powerful bond known to humanity all throughout history, from Qin 

Shi Huang, the first emperor in China, who in 245 B.C. determined 

he was going to bind all the Chinese together by hiring scribes to 

draft the Chinese language and unify them for 10,000 years. He is 

a fourth of the way along. We need to tie ourselves together, we 

need to have a successful immigration and assimilation program. 

If you call it integration, let’s make sure we are really talking 

about the blending of all cultures together under one overall form, 

one form of common culture that binds us together, then we have 

some cultures underneath that we respect. 

So if we move down this path correctly, we can have a strong Nation and if we move this pathway by dividing ourselves, then we 

will collapse as a Nation. That would be the viewpoint that I bring 

to this, and I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses, and 

I thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back the balance of my time 

should there be any. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. We now turn our attention to the minority witnesses to provide their perspective. In the interest of proceeding to our witnesses I will place my opening statement into the 

record, and without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 

recess of the hearing. 

3

I would like to introduce Dr. Stanley Renshon, Professor and Coordinator of the Interdisciplinary Program in the Psychology of Social and Political Behavior at the City of New York Graduate Center. He received his doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania, 

completed a post-doctoral fellowship in Psychology and Politics at 

Yale University, and did additional graduate work and psychoanalytic training at the Training and Research Institute for SelfPsychology at Long Island University, and the International Society of Political Psychology elected him as its President during the 

2003–2004 academic year. 

I would also like to introduce Tim Schultz, Director of Government Relations and Staff Counsel for U.S. English. Mr. Schultz has 

worked for 4 years with U.S. English, focusing on legislation. He 

holds his bachelor’s degree from Kansas State University and law 

degree from Georgetown. 

We would also like to welcome Mark Seavey, Director of the National Legislative Commission at the American Legion. He served 

in Afghanistan for over a year as an infantry squad leader in the 

3rd Battalion, for which we are very grateful, and he is a graduate 

of the Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina. 

And finally, we would like to welcome Roger Clegg, President 

and General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity. Prior to 

beginning his work at the Center 10 years ago, Mr. Clegg served 

as Vice President and General Counsel to the National Legal Center for the Public and as Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the 

Justice Department. He earned his bachelor’s degree from Rice 

University and his law degree from Yale University. 

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

in its entirety. We ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 

minutes. When you have 1 minute left, the yellow light will go on; 

and when the red light flashes, it means time is up. It always come 

faster than you think. 

I would ask that you try and live within those time limits. We 

are expecting a series of votes, and if we are prompt, we can actually keep you from sitting here for an hour while we vote. 

So let me begin, Mr. Renshon, with you. 

TESTIMONY OF STANLEY RENSHON, PROFESSOR, CITY 

UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK GRADUATE CENTER 

Mr. RENSHON. Thank you very much. Is the mike on? Can you 

hear? Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If you could move it a little bit closer. 

Mr. RENSHON. Madam majority Chairman and minority Members and members of the group, thank you for having me here 

again today. I am honored to discuss something that is very important to America’s long-term national security and civic well-being. 

Part of my work is on the psychology of immigration and American national identity and some of the results of that are published 

in a book called The Fifty Percent American. The focus of that book 

and the foundation of my remarks here today is that a core but neglected issue facing the American immigration policy is our ability 

to integrate tens of millions of new immigrants into the American 

national community. That ability turns largely on our success in 

helping immigrants form and develop emotional bonds with this 

4

country. Governments certainly can’t mandate attachments, but 

they can facilitate or impede them. 

I understand national attachment to include warmth and affection for and appreciation of, a justifiable but not excessive pride in, 

and a commitment and a responsibility to the United States, its institutions and way of life and its citizens. The success of American 

democracy and its cultural and political institutions have always 

depended on these kinds of emotional attachments. 

Yet the degree of attachments, emotional attachments, that immigrants feel toward their new country is rarely discussed and almost never directly measured. Instead, we rely on surrogate measures like whether they say they speak English or whether they own 

property. Caution is in order for both of those because self-reports 

are, after all, only self-reports and owning a house is not the same 

thing as loving your country. 

There is in our country today an attachment gap. That gap is the 

result of centrifugal forces that have buffeted the emotional attachments of the American national community by immigrants and 

Americans alike over the past four decades. Domestically some 

multiculturalists have sought to substitute ethnic and racial attachments for national ones, while international cosmopolitans, in 

quotes, seek to transcend what they see as narrow and suspect nationalist connections to the American national community. 

It is having an effect. To give you one statistic out of many in 

my book, in 2002 the Pew Center asked a large sample of Hispanics what terms they used to describe themselves. They found 

about 88 percent identified themselves from their country of origin, 

that is either Mexican or Cuban or Latino or Hispanic. They were 

much less likely to use the term ‘‘American.’’ Surprisingly, this was 

true even if they were American citizens. They were more likely to 

identify with their country of origin. 

This is no longer confined just to ethnic groups. I just read yesterday a recent Pew poll on Muslim Americans. An estimated 2.5 

million Muslims, 47 percent of whom think of themselves as Muslims first and not Americans. 

Globalization and technology have allowed foreign governments 

to maintain and foster the attachments of their immigrant nationals to their, quote, unquote, home country. My favorite illustration 

of this is the temporary protected status granted to El Salvadorans 

in March 2001 because earthquakes had devastated their country. 

It was extended for 1 year and set to expire. At that point almost 

Seven hundred and fifty thousand Salvadorans living in this 

country got a recorded message from their President urging them 

to urge our Government to continue on with the temporary protected status. 

We are in the midst now of a long delayed and much needed national debate regarding immigration. In my view, any new immigration bill should be crafted with a sharp focus to this question, 

what should we ask of immigrants who want to become Americans? 

My answer to that is really straightforward. We should prefer 

those who come here to invest in this country as well as in their 

own ambitions. We should prefer those who invest more in learning 

our language, culture and politics than they do in retaining their 

attachments to the countries of their origin. We should prefer peoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:54 Sep 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\052307\35604.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35604
5

ple who work hard to realize their own ambitions and opportunities 

but reinvest some of that gain back into the American community. 

That said, what practically can the government do to help this 

process along? First, and I would really urge this one, I guess I will 

say this and that will be that, we need to understand that becoming an American is a process that begins when people first contemplate coming here and ends only when they and their children 

feel more attached to this country rather than any other. 

I have some other comments about how we might do that. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Renshon follows:]

6

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STANLEY A. RENSHON


SAR-1.eps
7


SAR-2.eps
8


SAR-3.eps
9


SAR-4.eps
10


SAR-5.eps
11


SAR-6.eps
12


SAR-7.eps
13


SAR-8.eps
14


SAR-9.eps
15


SAR-10.eps
16


SAR-11.eps
17


SAR-12.eps
18


SAR-13.eps
19


SAR-14.eps
20


SAR-15.eps
21


SAR-16.eps
22


SAR-17.eps
23


SAR-18.eps
24


SAR-19.eps
25


SAR-20.eps
26


SAR-21.eps
27


SAR-22.eps
28


SAR-23.eps
29


SAR-24.eps
30


SAR-25.eps
31


SAR-26.eps
32


SAR-27.eps
33


SAR-28.eps
34


SAR-29.eps
35


SAR-30.eps
36


SAR-31.eps
37


SAR-32.eps
38


SAR-33.eps
39

Ms. LOFGREN. All of which will be in the record. 

Mr. RENSHON. I will defer. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I wonder if we should try—well, we have got 15 

minutes to get there to vote and we have 35 minutes of votes and 

15 minutes of testimony so there is really—unless you want to abbreviate the testimony. I would defer to the judgment of the Ranking Member. We will have to return. 

Mr. KING. From my view, as much time as they have invested, 

I would like to hear their testimony. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Alright. We shall return at the end of our voting. 

This hearing is recessed. Please return promptly after the votes so 

that we can conclude. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. LOFGREN. The hearing will come back to order and as Mr. 

Schultz is not here at the moment, we will move to—Mr. Seavey 

is not here. We will go to Mr. Clegg in the hopes that the other 

witnesses will be here in time to testify. You are recognized for 5 

minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF ROGER CLEGG,

CENTER FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 

Mr. CLEGG. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for inviting me to testify today. I am especially glad that you are holding 

hearings at this time on the issue of assimilation. The current debate over immigration has not given assimilation the attention that 

it deserves. 

Americans need not all eat the same food, listen to the same 

music, or dance the same dances, but assimilation does mean that 

we must all aim to have certain things in common. America has 

always been a multiracial and multiethnic society, but it is not and 

should not be multicultural. You can come to America from any 

country and become an American, but that means accepting some 

degree of assimilation. It is not diversity that we celebrate most 

but what we hold in common: E pluribus unum.

Accordingly, it makes sense to set out some rules essential for a 

multiracial, multiethnic America, rules that all Americans should 

follow wherever they or their ancestors came from. 

In fact, these 10 rules apply to all of us, native and immigrant 

alike. Let me just run through them quickly. 

One, don’t disparage anyone else’s race or national origin. If we 

are to be one Nation, we cannot criticize one another’s skin color 

and ancestors. 

Two, respect women. Just as we do not tolerate a lack of respect 

based on race or ancestry, we also demand respect regardless of 

sex. Some cultures, foreign and domestic, put down women. That 

is not acceptable. If you come from a country or a culture where 

women are second-class citizens, you must leave that behind. 

Three, learn to speak English. This doesn’t mean that you can’t 

learn other languages, too, or keep up a native language, but you 

and your children must learn English, standard English, as quickly 

as you can, and if you expect to be accepted, you should avoid 

speaking another language when you are with people who don’t understand it. We have to be able to communicate with one another. 

40

Four, don’t be rude. Some people apparently view it as unmanly 

or uncool to be polite. Too bad. Customers, coworkers, fellow students, strangers all expect to be treated courteously, and rightly so. 

Five, don’t break the law. If you want to participate in this republic, if you want a say in making the rules and electing those 

who make them, you have to follow the laws yourself. That means 

among other things that you can’t use illegal drugs, which is just 

as well since there is no surer way to stay at the bottom of the 

heap or to find yourself there in a hurry. 

Six, don’t have children out of wedlock. Moral issues aside, illegitimacy is a social disaster for women and children alike. Here 

again, it is a sure way to stay poor and raise poor children. I 

should note that the pathology of illegitimacy is more widespread 

among some native-born groups than among some immigrants. 

Seven, don’t demand anything because of your race or ethnicity. 

You have the right not be discriminated against because of these 

factors, and it follows that you also cannot demand discrimination 

in your favor. The sooner you can stop thinking of yourself first as 

a member of a particular demographic subset, and instead as 

human being and an American, the better. 

Eight, working hard in school and on the job and saving money 

are not ‘‘acting White.’’ Bill Cosby is right; America owes her success to a strong work ethic and to parents instilling that ethic in 

their children. Here again, this is an area where some immigrant 

groups have much to teach some nonimmigrant groups. 

Nine, don’t hold historical grudges. There is not a single group 

in the United States that has not been discriminated against at one 

time or another. But we are all in the same boat now, and we all 

have to live and work together. Your great, great grandfather may 

have tried to kill or enslave mine, but we are a forward-looking 

country and so we cannot afford to dwell in the past. 

Finally, number ten, be proud of being an American. You can 

hardly expect to be liked and accepted by other Americans if you 

don’t love America. This is not a perfect country and it does not 

have a perfect history—and there are lots of other countries that 

have good qualities—but there is no country better than the United 

States. If you disagree, then why are you here? Be a patriot. 

Now obviously not all of these 10 items are suitable for Federal 

legislation, but in my written statement I have mentioned a number of things that Congress should and shouldn’t do to encourage 

rather than discourage successful assimilation. 

In conclusion, let me just emphasize some of the most important, 

which should be included in the immigration legislation you are 

now debating. 

First, you should declare English to be the official language of 

the United States. Make clear that Federal law does not require 

foreign languages to be used, and create incentives for the provision of English instruction. 

Second, you should make clear that no immigrant ought to be 

discriminated against or given a preference on account of his or her 

race, color, or national origin. 

Third, greater civic literacy should be encouraged both in the 

naturalization process and, again, in instruction provided by public 

and private entities besides the Federal Government. 

41

Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for inviting me to 

testify today. I look forward to trying to answer any further questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Clegg follows:]

42

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROGER CLEGG


RC-2.eps
43


RC-3.eps
44


RC-4.eps
45


RC-5.eps
46


RC-6.eps
47


RC-7.eps
48


RC-8.eps
49


RC-9.eps
50


RC-10.eps
51


RC-11.eps
52


RC-12.eps
53


RC-13.eps
54


RC-14.eps
55


RC-15.eps
56


RC-16.eps
57


RC-17.eps
58


RC-18.eps
59


RC-19.eps
60


RC-20.eps
61


RC-21.eps
62


RC-22.eps
63

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. Mr. Schultz, you are now recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF TIM SCHULTZ, DIRECTOR,

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, U.S. ENGLISH 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for the opportunity to testify regarding the issues of language and assimilation. 

U.S. English is a grassroots organization based in Washington, DC 

and we were founded by Senator S.I. Hayakawa, a former Senator 

from California, in 1983 and he himself was an immigrant. Our organization focuses on public policy issues related to language and 

national identity, particularly English as the official language laws. 

I thank the Committee for its wisdom in exploring the topic of 

assimilation. Regardless of where you come down, I think it is fair 

to say that there has been a lot of discussion in this town about 

the contours of immigration policy and much less thought going 

into what I call immigrant policy. That is what is our policy toward 

immigrants once they actually arrive here. 

Your former colleague, the late Barbara Jordan, wrote a 1997 

New York Times Op. Ed advocating what she called the Americanization ideal. Of course Barbara Jordan was a well known Democratic legislator. 

I suggest two facts should guide our thinking about the Americanization ideal. First, English language learning is a crucial element of Americanization, and second, we face a language challenge 

in the United States that won’t solve itself. Since 1906, some capacity in English has been a formal legal requirement for naturalization but as Professor Renshon already mentioned, before the swearing in ceremony there is a process by which an immigrant comes 

to self-identify as an American. 

Two years ago, the Pew Hispanic Center conducted a study about 

civic attitudes of Hispanics in America, which demonstrates a very 

tight link between English and Americanization. Professor Renshon 

has already mentioned some of these numbers about national identity, but I think it is even more interesting to note that Pew found 

among Hispanics living in households where little or no English is 

spoken, only 3 percent self-identify as Americans. 68 percent selfidentify first or only with their native country. But conversely, 

among Hispanics in English-dominant households, 51 percent selfidentify first or only as Americans. In other words, those who 

speak English are 17 times more likely to self-identify as Americans than those who don’t. 

Now I have no reason to believe that this would be different for 

any other group of immigrants. I think it has to do with a fairly 

universal process of becoming an American. For an immigrant who 

does not speak English, civic engagement with a vast majority of 

one’s fellow Americans is simply impossible. Our common civic culture presupposes a common language, which is why Alexis de 

Toqueville observed that the tie of language is perhaps the strongest and most durable that can unite mankind. 

Now let me suggest that in the United States that tie which we 

have historically had is facing some unprecedented challenges. 

Three years ago a Pulitzer prize winning Los Angeles Times reporter named Hector Tobar did a 2-year Toquevillian experiment 

64

crisscrossing the country reporting on the civic morass of Latino 

immigrants. His book is called Translation Nation. 

And he argued that in today’s United States, living an Englishoptional existence is increasingly common and increasingly accepted. Now Tobar’s subtitle is, quote, Defining a New American Identity in the Spanish-Speaking United States. He generally thinks 

that an English optional United States is a welcome development. 

Now I disagree with that. But his diagnosis of the social trend deserves great weight. 

We also have some hard numbers to back up Tobar’s anecdotes. 

The 2000 census found that there are over 2 million people born 

in the United States, citizens of the United States, who can’t speak 

English well enough to hold a basic conversation. The Pew Hispanic Center did a separate survey of Mexican migrants in 2005 

and found that among those residing in the United States for 6 to 

10 years, 45 percent still did not speak English. 

They also found that for those residing in the United States for 

15 or more years, that same number, 45 percent still did not speak 

English. Now the lesson I think is clear, that if immigrants are not 

on the road to learning English relatively quickly upon arrival, 

probably limited English proficiency is going to be terminal. Because the grandchildren of immigrants would usually learn English 

by growing up in America, I don’t believe the English language 

itself is under any, quote, unquote, threat, but our national aspiration that has historically been that all immigrants will seek to become Americans, if half of immigrants or even 10 percent are 

locked out of that process, we would be removing part of the foundation that has allowed our Nation of immigrants to be successful. 

Public policy has a role to play in closing the English acquisition 

gap. It includes increasing opportunities to learn English and the 

avoidance of policies that promote an English optional existence 

and the insistence that, as Congresswoman Jordan wrote, the immigrant has mutual obligations to the United States. 

I would like to close just by repeating Congresswoman Jordan’s 

words in that New York Times Op. Ed. She said that Americanization has ‘‘earned a bad reputation in the 1920’s when it was temporarily stolen by racists and xenophobes.’’ But she said, ‘‘It is our 

word, and we are taking it back.’’ If we are to reclaim Americanization in policy as well as in spirit, a hard but cool headed look 

at our policies surrounding English and assimilation is long overdue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schultz follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIM SCHULTZ

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify regarding the issues of 

language and assimilation. 

My name is Tim Schultz, and I am Director of Government Relations for U.S. 

English, Inc., a grassroots organization based in Washington, DC. U.S. English was 

founded in 1983 by Senator S.I. Hayakawa, who was himself an immigrant. Our organization focuses on public policy issues that involve language and national identity, particularly official English laws. 

I thank the committee for its wisdom in exploring the topic of assimilation. Regardless of where you come down on the various immigration proposals before Congress, I think it’s fair to say that a number of people are doing a great amount of 

thinking about the contours of immigration policy. Much less thought is going into 

what I’d call ‘‘immigrant policy’’: that is, what is our policy toward immigrants once 

65

they arrive? Your former colleague, the late Barbara Jordan, wrote a 1997 New 

York Times Op-Ed calling it ‘‘The Americanization Ideal.’’

I suggest two facts should guide our thinking here: First, English language learning is the crucial element of Americanization. Second, we face a language challenge 

in the United States that won’t solve itself. 

Since 1906, the demonstrable capacity to speak English has been a formal legal 

requirement for naturalization. We know that. But before the swearing in ceremony, 

there’s a process by which an immigrant comes to self identify as an American. Two 

years ago, the Pew Hispanic Center did a remarkably detailed study about civic attitudes of Hispanics in America, which contains perhaps the best data to date on the 

link between English and Americanization. 

Pew found that among Hispanics living in what they called ‘‘Spanish dominant 

Households’’—where little to no English is spoken—only 3 percent self-identify as 

‘‘Americans.’’ 68 percent self-identify first or only with their native country. Among 

Hispanics in English-dominant households, 51 percent self identify first or only as 

Americans. In other words, those who speak English are 17 times more likely to self 

identify as Americans than those who don’t. Those who don’t speak English are 22 

times more likely to identify primarily with their home country than with the 

United States. I have no reason to believe this would be different with any other 

group of immigrants, by the way. I think it has to do with a fairly universal process 

of becoming an American. 

It has been said that the First Amendment is ‘‘First’’ in the Bill of Rights because 

the freedom to speak is the right that enables all of the others. All of our rights 

as Americans flow from this first freedom. But for an immigrant who does not speak 

English, civic engagement with one’s fellow Americans is impossible. Our common 

civic culture presupposes a common language. Alexis de Tocqueville, the preeminent 

observer of American civic culture, wrote ‘‘The tie of language is perhaps the strongest and most durable that can unite mankind.’’

Well now, let me suggest that in the United States, that tie is facing some challenges. 

Three years ago, a Pulitzer Prize winning Los Angeles Times reporter named Hector Tobar did a 2 year long Toquevillian-experiment, crisscrossing the country reporting on the civic mores of Latino immigrants in the United States. Tobar’s resulting book, ‘‘Translation Nation’’ argued that in today’s United States, living an 

English-optional existence is increasingly common and increasingly accepted. Now, 

Tobar’s subtitle is ‘‘Defining a New American Identity in the Spanish Speaking 

United States.’’ He generally thinks that an English optional United States is acceptable. I disagree. But his diagnosis of the social trend deserves great weight. 

We also have some hard numbers to back up Tobar’s anecdotes. 

The 2000 Census found that there are over 2 million people born in the United 

States—citizens of the United States—who can’t speak English well enough to hold 

a basic conversation. 

The Pew Hispanic Center did a separate survey of Mexican migrants in 2006, and 

found that among those residing in the United States for 6–10 years, 45 percent still 

did not speak English. Pew also found that among those residing in the U.S. for 

15 or more years, an identical 45 percent still do not speak English. In other words, 

if an immigrant does not start on the path to English upon arrival, chances are high 

that that person will never learn it. 

And let me repeat: I use Latino immigrants as an example because they are the 

most numerous and we have the largest and best data. Remember too, a majority 

of Latino immigrants DO learn English, so the suggestion that they can’t or 

shouldn’t is ridiculous. 

Because the grandchildren of immigrants will usually learn English by growing 

up in America, I don’t believe that the English language is under ‘‘threat.’’ But our 

national aspiration has historically been that immigrants—yes, first generation immigrants—seek to become Americans. If half of immigrants—or even ten percent—

are locked out of that process, we would be removing part of the foundation that 

has allowed our nation of immigrants to be successful. 

I’m not here today testifying about particular legislation, but we should agree that 

public policy has a role to play in closing the English acquisition gap. It includes 

increasing opportunity—more desks for more people who want to learn English. But 

it also includes the avoidance of policies that promote an English optional existence, 

and the hard headed insistence that, as Congresswoman Jordan wrote, the immigrant has mutual obligations. 

In Jordan’s words, 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.’’ If we are to reclaim Americanization in policy as well as in spirit, 

66

a hard but cool-headed look at our policies surrounding English and assimilation is 

long overdue.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Schultz. Mr. Seavey, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MARK SEAVEY, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL 

LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION 

Mr. SEAVEY. Thank you, ma’am. Madam Chairwoman, Mr. King, 

on behalf of the nearly 3 million members of the American Legion, 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 

this vitally important issue. The Preamble to the Constitution of 

the American Legion states that we associate ourselves together for 

the following purposes, to uphold and defend the Constitution of 

the United States, to maintain law and order, and to foster and 

perpetuate a 100 percent Americanism. 

These words are recited in unison at American Legion meetings 

and represent a continuing contract of service to benefit America, 

and it is this commitment by legionnaires that is the fuel for action 

on immigration, both legal and illegal. The American Legion has 

been a leader in mentoring candidates for U.S. citizenship dating 

back to the beginning of our organization. Working closely with the 

U.S. Federal courts, the American Legion has conducted naturalization services throughout the country, teaching immigrants 

how to become proficient in the English language and about lessons 

in U.S. history and about government. 

The American Legion helped the new citizens become contributing members of our society. But the security, economy, and social 

fabric of the United States of America is seriously threatened by 

individuals who come to this country with no interest in assimilating into our culture and, in failing to do so, divide America into 

ethnic, racial, or cultural enclaves. The American Legion has long 

opposed any great influx of immigrants but instead has encouraged 

a path of moderation, embracing a concept that immigration should 

be regulated so that immigrants could be readily absorbed into the 

general population. 

Assimilation was important to both the government and the 

American Legion in the ’20’s and ’30’s, but it lost some of its luster 

in recent years as America directed its attention to the illegal migrant population and homeland security issues. 

But assimilation into our society by new citizens remains important to the welfare of the United States. The failure of this country 

to absorb new immigrants into its society divides the Nation and 

promotes racial and cultural biases. Immigration into the United 

States should be based on a two-way contract, that being a commitment by the United States to treat the new immigrants with respect and provide them with the rights and privileges guaranteed 

to all citizens by the rule of law; nothing more, nothing less. The 

immigrants must also pledge their loyalty and allegiance to the 

United States, and that allegiance must take precedence over and 

above any ties that they may have to their native country. 

Candidates for citizenship express that allegiance in a naturalization ceremony when they are asked to take an oath, an oath 

of renunciation and allegiance. This oath has various elements that 

are important to the American Legion, and we have solidified our 

67

beliefs on these in Resolution 356, which I have put into my testimony. But essentially those elements are renunciation of all allegiances to foreign states or sovereignties; support foreign defense 

of the United States Constitution; to bear truth, faith, and and allegiance to the U.S., to bear arms, perform noncombat service or 

perform work of national importance; and they take that oath without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. 

The American Legion believes strongly in maintaining the sanctity of this oath and supports language in the oath that is prescribed by the Congress of the United States for purposes as outlined in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Legion also calls 

upon Congress to reject dual allegiance in principle and restrict 

and narrow its application in process. 

The American Legion is not opposed to legal immigration. There 

are, however, provisos to that statement. As a resolution-based organization, the American Legion has voiced its position on patriotic 

assimilation of new Americans in many of our resolutions. For instance, the American Legion has voiced longstanding opposition to 

any great influx of legal immigrants and has called for immigration 

quotas which should be set on a moderate and regulated scale in 

numbers that enable them to be readily absorbed into the culture 

and life stream of the United States. 

We have also worked with the Hudson Institute to make the intellectual and moral case for a substantially strong and ceremonially rich citizen naturalization process. The partnership jointly 

supports the position that candidates for U.S. citizenship possess a 

level of proficiency with the English language and an understanding of our country’s history and its government. The American Legion believes that this naturalization ceremony should be 

made mandatory and conducted in a U.S. district court and, as everyone else here, we also support English as the official language 

of the United States. 

Everyone else has ended with a quote, and I would be remiss if 

I didn’t also do that, but mine is from nearly a hundred years ago. 

In 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt said, ‘‘In the first place, we 

should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith 

becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be 

treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage 

to discriminate against any such man because of creed, of birth 

place or origin. But this is predicated upon the person becoming in 

every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can 

be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have 

room but for one flag, the American flag. We have room but for but 

one language here, and that is the English language, and we have 

room but for one sole loyalty, and that is a loyalty to the American 

public.’’

One hundred years ago, and the words of Teddy Roosevelt are 

still appropriate today, and at the American Legion we urge that 

no one in Congress forget them. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Seavey follows:]

68

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK SEAVEY


MS-1.eps
69


MS-2.eps
70


MS-3.eps
71


MS-4.eps
72


MS-5.eps
73


MS-6.eps
74


MS-7.eps
75


MS-8.eps
76


MS-9.eps
77


MS-10.eps
78

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Seavey. We thank all the witnesses for their testimony. I would turn now to the Ranking Member, Mr. King, for his 5 minutes of questioning. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask that Mr. Goodlatte be 

recognized in my stead in deference to his schedule. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I thank the 

Ranking Member for his courtesy. 

We at the last hearing had considerable testimony about the 

issue of assimilation and I raised the question, and I think the 

Ranking Member as well, with regard to dual citizenship. I would 

like to ask each of you to comment on that, too. I am disturbed by 

the Supreme Court decision that we are confronted with, which is 

now 40 years old but which has I think caused a growth in the 

number of people who have essentially retained dual citizenship, 

even upon becoming a citizen of the United States. 

So my question is two-fold. First of all, do you believe that dual 

citizenship further complicates the further process of assimilation 

among immigrants to the United States and, secondly, if you agree 

with that, what can and should the Congress do today to ensure 

that those who seek to become U.S. citizens do not retain allegiances to other nations in light of that Supreme Court decision? 

I will start with you, Mr. Renshon. 

Mr. RENSHON. Thank you. As it happens, I wrote a book on that 

very subject called The Fifty Percent American, and as a psychoanalyst as well as a political scientist, I think you have to distinguish between the emotional level and the practical level. 

Frankly speaking, people have lots of different attachments and 

that is really a matter of human nature, and I don’t think we can 

legislate it one way or the other. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. It does bother me that some people may have 

the ability to vote, run for office and so on in another country at 

the same time that they are exercising those same rights here. 

Mr. RENSHON. That bothers me as well, and I think it should be 

specifically outlawed. The reason for that is what you want to do 

in the United States is to tilt people toward an American identity, 

and the way that you do that is by casting their circumstance as 

such that they don’t keep looking back over their shoulder at the 

country they used to belong to. 

One way in which that is done is by paying attention to the politics back there, to voting back there, to perhaps having people visit 

and take money back to their home countries and so forth. As far 

as I understand it, it should be a relatively simple matter for Congress to declare its views that people should not be allowed to vote 

in a foreign election, they should not be allowed to serve in an 

army in a foreign country, they should not be allowed to either run 

for office abroad or advise foreign governments abroad in a particular way. 

There is another element of this as well which I take up in my 

book, which is you have now a number of Americans who could or 

maybe do hold dual citizenship who are in our governmental organizations. They may be members of State legislatures, they may be 

members of the judiciary, they may be——

Mr. GOODLATTE. Do you think we could restrict that? 

79

Mr. RENSHON. I think we should have a norm in which it becomes very clear that people who are in positions of leadership or 

authority should not be carrying passports or otherwise being associated with countries elsewhere. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I appreciate your answer. Let me allow the others to answer as well. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Congressman, my answer is I think that the fact 

that dual citizenship is more of a reality for the last 40 years, regardless of the wisdom of that Supreme Court decision, shows that 

there is potential complication in people transferring their allegiance to the United States. We don’t want citizenship to be just 

merely a transaction like getting a driver’s license. It is not something like you get like a visa card or something like that, it is also 

part of an emotional, as the professor noted, an emotional transference of your identity to the United States when you become a 

naturalized citizen here, and the ability for people to do that 50 

percent or even 33 percent I think complicates that. 

I think we have to kind of recognize that is, as a Supreme Court 

decision, not something Congress can overrule but points us to the 

fact that we are in a different era now and we face different challenges in Americanization than we faced at the beginning of the 

century. I think people who think Americanization is just going to 

happen automatically with no problems, I think they are failing to 

recognize there are a substantial number of factors, including that 

one, that complicate the Americanization process and make it less 

automatic than maybe would have happened at the beginning of 

the century. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Seavey. 

Mr. SEAVEY. I am not sure I have a great deal to add more than 

they have already, but the American Legion has passed a resolution specifically on this topic and we would like to see a little more 

teeth given to the oath of renunciation. If you give an oath, there 

should be something that actually holds you to it. As far as we are 

concerned, that is something that you all could give some teeth to, 

the exact form of that. 

But the oath of renunciation, specifically I think that perhaps 

when they give the oath of renunciation, if it really doesn’t have 

any bearing, there is probably no point to it in the first place if you 

can’t hold someone to it. I think there is probably some constitutional route that you can take to give it some teeth without violating the Supreme Court decision. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I agree. I like some of the ideas expressed by 

Mr. Renshon as well. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. We do appreciate your patience with us. I appreciate your being here and your thoughtfulness in your comments 

and the research that you obviously have all done. I would like to 

follow up on the topic that you were just discussing, the consequences of voting, running for office in another country, or voting 

in another country; that is, getting a passport in another country. 

There are apparently a litany of things that can be listed as truly 

requiring dual masters, and I do believe the teaching that persons 

80

cannot serve two masters; one is going to end up getting shorter 

devotion. 

But as I understand it, the 1967 Supreme Court case basically 

said you cannot involuntarily terminate American citizenship and 

if that is the case, it does seem as though there may be room for 

legislation that would do as has been suggested, putting teeth in 

that. Perhaps requiring an oath both orally, in writing, with whatever translation is needed to make sure they understand even 

though they speak some English, make sure they understand exactly what is being signed, that indicates that if they do one of 

these itemized things, commit one of these acts, then they are voluntarily relinquishing their American citizenship. It does seem 

quite offensive that someone could hold office in a foreign country, 

that the office which they ran, convincing voters there that they 

had those voters’ interests at heart, yet still hold American citizenship. Clearly you can’t love and serve honorably both of them. So 

that would be in the legal community what we would call a conflict 

of interest, clearly. 

So I would like to get your comments on what might be done to 

provide the teeth that we were talking about and what your 

thoughts are about possibly having that as part of the naturalization oath. 

Start with you, Mr. Renshon. 

Mr. RENSHON. I probably will stand a step apart from your perspective. I think the whole idea of taking away citizenship because 

people have attachments is likely to run into a buzz saw and wind 

up in the courts, and I have no idea how the courts would rule on 

that. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But to elaborate, even if they commit an act such 

as getting a passport in a foreign country or running for office in 

a foreign country? 

Mr. RENSHON. I find those things very unsettling and almost as 

an American reprehensible in some respects. I think the way to approach it is to establish a norm very early on with regard to the 

expectations there. For example, when people apply for a green 

card or apply to come to the United States, I might have them sign 

something at the time which acknowledges that they will, if they 

are permitted to come here, do none of the following things, or affirmatively do certain things. 

I would reinforce that along the way, maybe have it yet again at 

the naturalization process. I would have people hand in their passports when they get American citizenship. It would be in my view 

just that simple. I think that that is a real issue, the issue that 

you raise, but I think if we approach it in an overall way to try 

to ask ourselves at each step of the immigration process, from the 

time that people want to come here to the time that their children 

are here what can we do step by step along the way to help cement 

attachment to the American system, I think that overall process if 

you look at it that way might be a better way to go. 

Mr. GOHMERT. If I can get quick responses from everybody else. 

Mr. CLEGG. Well, I agree that it is a problem. I agree that it is 

not only a problem in itself, but also that it is evidence of a symptom as well that needs to be treated—that the underlying cause, 

the reasons why people would want to maintain dual citizenship, 

81

is a problem. I don’t understand, I am not as familiar with, the Supreme Court decision, but as you describe it, all the Supreme Court 

was doing was to put a limit on one kind of penalty that you all 

can place on individuals who maintain dual citizenship or do other 

things that are perceived as being disloyal, and while you can’t 

strip people of citizenship, there are other things, other kinds of 

punishment that you could propose. 

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

Mr. CLEGG. Finally, the last thing is to put pressure on the foreign countries that are allowing dual citizenship. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Does the gentlelady from Texas wish to be recognized? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Just briefly, Madam Chair. I won’t ask any 

questions. I do want to thank the gentlemen for their testimony 

and what I have seen of Mr. Renshon’s testimony just requires a 

very abbreviated response. I come from Texas and we are very 

proud of what could be called a bifurcated history. We know that 

we have a large population of first, second, and third generation 

Mexican Americans, people who have a strong heritage as relates 

to Mexico because of the geographics of that area. 

I raise some concern about your reference to a Pew study that 

indicates in Texas, we refer to them as Hispanics, 88 percent of 

Hispanics identify themselves as Hispanics. I would venture to say 

100 percent of African Americans identify themselves as African 

American or Black, but they also recognize that they are American. 

So I know this is about Americanization. I think all of us are 

committed to making sure that our allegiance is to one flag, our 

pride is in America and what she represents and that is unity and 

certainly a belief in her values. But this testimony strikes me as 

very much uninformed about people’s identity, and I would hope 

that you would do some further study so that you could understand 

fully when people express the fact that they are Hispanic, that it 

doesn’t mean they deny a love for the country in which they are 

in. Many of us are hyphenated Americans but we are Americans 

and we believe in what America represents, Italian Americans, 

Irish Americans. And I think that you will find that the next generations of individuals have all of the attachment to America, all 

of the culture of America, all of the language of America. Maybe 

you will support English as a second language, more of those classes, because there is standing room only to be had in those classes. 

In any event, Madam Chair, I just want to speak for those who 

did not speak for themselves. I haven’t met a group of immigrants 

who are not excited about the opportunity to be here and excited 

about being an American. The more we work together, I think the 

more we will achieve what the gentlemen are testifying to. But I 

really don’t see that as a rising problem. I frankly think it is a tribute to America as a democracy and the freedom that it exudes that 

we can express ourselves, yet express our commitment to this country. 

With that, I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. RENSHON. May I respond to that, please? 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady yields back, and I recognize Mr. 

King. He may want to recognize you further. 

82

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. Maybe we can return back 

to Mr. Renshon toward the end. I have something I would like to 

address to Mr. Seavey and the American Legion testimony that you 

have. 

It occurs to me that down in the Mississippi River bottom, at 

Keokuk, IA, there is a big stone there, a boulder about the size of 

a Volkswagon, and that is the site of a Federal hospital that was 

formed during the Civil War so that the wounded soldiers could be 

brought up aboard riverboats there on the Mississippi River and 

could be brought into that Federal hospital. 

There is also a Federal cemetery there where the graves of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of brave Americans who gave their 

lives to free the slaves are buried. There at the Mississippi River 

bottom—and I regret the gentlelady from Texas has left and is not 

able to hear this—on a brass plate on that boulder is ‘‘DAR,’’ 

Daughters of the American Republic, ‘‘one country, one flag, one 

language.’’ that was the clarion call then, during and post the Civil 

War, and that sTems to be somewhat the message that you have 

delivered here today in your testimony. 

I will just ask if you would care to reflect upon that and the 

meaning of that in the American Legion principles. 

Mr. SEAVEY. I think it is obvious. If you look at the demographics 

of voters and things of that nature, the demographic that votes the 

most are veterans. I think, if you look at any sort of civic thing that 

goes on, it is veterans. And I know that—I just got out of the Army 

about a year ago, and I cannot even tell you how many times we 

all told each other there are no Hispanic American soldiers or African American soldiers or anything else. We are all green, I think. 

For us in the military, there is no segregating in the military. 

We had 10 guys living in a hut that was about 10 feet by about 

40 feet, and so you are forced to assimilate; and culturally speaking, I think that even within the squads that we had, you take on 

a sort of culture that is an amalgam of everyone in it. 

I think that, as a whole, veterans view citizenship differently because they have actually been on the front lines, and they see these 

things. 

From my own personal feeling, I was an election monitor in Afghanistan, and I saw the trouble that the people went through over 

there to vote, and I saw the ethnic difficulties and the religious difficulties. So any time that we, as veterans, can help someone come 

and enjoy all of the benefits that America has to offer, we certainly 

leap at it. 

So I certainly concur with that. I think that there is nothing to 

be gained from having separate little enclaves, or I think that, you 

know, the melting pot perhaps has gotten off track here, but certainly the American Legion feels that we can right the ship if we 

slow down the——

Mr. KING. There is no necessity for enclaves in the barracks. 

There is no necessity for enclaves in America. 

Mr. SEAVEY. Exactly. 

Mr. KING. I thank Mr. Seavey. 

I will turn now to Mr. Renshon, and I appreciate your presentation, and I appreciate everyone’s testimony. 

83

I reflect back in last week’s testimony, where there was a witness who testified that intermarriage between ethnicities or races 

has been in a significant decline over the last several decades, 

three or four decades. And I do not know what those numbers are, 

but I can tell you what they are with naturalization statistics as 

produced by USCIS, Citizenship Immigration Services. 

That is, in 1970, the naturalization rate was 84 percent, and it 

dramatically dropped off at each census from 1970 to 1980 to 1990 

to the year 2000, where that 84 percent naturalization rate had 

slid out at the year 2000 at 13 percent. Now, I will submit that 

intermarriage rates and naturalization rates are two empirical indicators of assimilation or Americanization integration if we want 

to use that rather inaccurate term, I believe. 

Do you know of any empirical measures of assimilation, or would 

you just simply care to comment upon those statistics that I have 

delivered to you? 

Mr. RENSHON. Well, the first I am not familiar with. I was under 

the impression that intermarriage rates were rising. 

Mr. KING. It was a surprise to me, too. 

Mr. RENSHON. Yes. So I would be interested to see that and to 

take a look at it. 

The second is really discouraging and dismal because naturalization is a very important part of the Americanization process, and 

when people do not take advantage of the opportunity to become 

citizens, that is saying something about us. And it is also saying 

something about them and a relationship that I find very disturbing. 

Mr. KING. Would you concur that those two are the two empirical 

indicators we have and are both going wrong; and if they are both 

going the wrong direction, we do not have any kind of sign that it 

is going the opposite way? 

I would ask Mr. Seavey also to answer if I have got time. 

Mr. RENSHON. Well, you know, people use education and people 

use home ownership as indicators, and as I said in my comments, 

they are suspect indicators. Language is another. 

Mr. KING. Could I just get a brief answer? Again, I know you 

spoke about assimilation. I would appreciate it if you could answer 

in a few seconds. 

Mr. SEAVEY. Sure. 

The one caveat that I would raise, Representative King, is that 

I think that among Hispanics, in particular, there is actually good 

evidence that second and third generation Hispanics are doing a 

very good job of assimilating. 

That is not to say that, you know, there is not room for improvement, but that is the one caveat that I would raise in this area. 

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

I would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony today. I 

have not made an opening statement, but I would just observe that 

there is actually not as big an argument as some would think on 

some of these questions. 

Listening to you, I am reminded of meeting with a group of Vietnamese, who were in the Vietnamese army, who fled the Communist government, who came to San Jose in the 1970’s. I was 

with the Red Cross, volunteering to help get them settled. 

84

I remember I had been teaching immigration law, and I remember telling these really very brave men that their children would 

not be Vietnamese in America. In America, they would be Vietnamese Americans, but their grandchildren would be Americans of 

Vietnamese descent. They scoffed at that, but it has turned out to 

be true. 

We have a rapid Americanization in our country. It is one of our 

great strengths. 

I appreciate your testimony today. Without objection, Members 

will have 5 legislative days to submit any additional written questions for you, which we will forward and ask that you answer as 

promptly as you can. Without objection, the record will remain 

open for 5 legislative days for the submission of other additional 

materials. 

Because we are operating under the 5-minute rule and all time 

has expired, we must now adjourn our hearing. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 7:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(85)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

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

Pursuant to House Rule XI clause 2(j)(1), the minority in the Subcommittee is entitled,

[U]pon request to the chairman by a majority of them before the completion of 

the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to 

that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.

Last week, the Subcommittee held a hearing on ‘‘Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Becoming Americans—U.S. Immigrant Integration.’’ At the request of the 

Ranking Member and a majority of the minority on this Subcommittee, today the 

Immigration Subcommittee is holding a minority hearing to continue the discussion 

on the effects of immigrants on the nation’s economy. 

As we learned last week, Southern and Eastern Europeans who immigrated to the 

United States a century ago and who are now held up as model immigrants, were 

once depicted much as immigrants of today—as being unable and unwilling to assimilate. 

Our witnesses last week explained that these European immigrants did well in 

joining American society. Professor Gerstle explained 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) the ability of immigrants 

to achieve economic security. He noted 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 noted 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 have learned from this historical account is that including immigrants 

in mainstream American society and the economy is the quickest way to assimilation and integration. 

Assimilation should be a goal of any rational immigration policy. And we must 

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 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 toward assimilation, we must not forget that mandating and facilitating the process for immigrants 

to learn English is essential, but it is certainly not sufficient by itself to ensure 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 discussed last week. 

Now we turn our attention to the minority witnesses to provide their perspective.

86

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 decency 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-tossed to me, I lift 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 

87

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

it is simply un-American.

Æ