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

35–242 PDF 2007

ROLE OF FAMILY-BASED IMMIGRATION IN THE

U.S. IMMIGRATION SYSTEM

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 8, 2007

Serial No. 110–26

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 8, 2007

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Phil Gingrey, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Georgia 

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

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 11

Ms. Harriet Duleep, Ph.D., Research Professor of Public Policy, Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy, The College of William and Mary 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 12

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 15

Mr. Bill Ong Hing, Professor of Law and Asian American Studies, University 

of California-Davis 

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

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 24

Mr. Stuart Anderson, Executive Director, National Foundation for American 

Policy 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 35

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 37

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

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

Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International 

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

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 

Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International 

Law ........................................................................................................................ 5

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

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

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

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

‘‘Chain Migration Under Current U.S. Law: The Potential Impact of a Single 

Employment-Based Immigrant’’ Chart produced by NumbersUSA, submitted to the record by the Honorable Phil Gingrey, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Georgia ............................................................... 72

Page

IV

‘‘Review and Outlook: Immigration Spring,’’ an editorial in the Wall Street 

Journal, May 2, 2007 ........................................................................................... 76

Prepared Statement of Members of American Families United and United 

Families, on Family Immigration ....................................................................... 78

Prepared Statement on Interfaith Family Immigration by American Friends 

Service Committee, et al. ..................................................................................... 111

Prepared Statement of Leslye Orloff, Director and Associate Vice President 

of the Immigrant Women Program at Legal Momentum, also representing 

the National Network to End Violence Against Immigrant Women ............... 113

Letter from the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service to the Honorable 

Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ................................................ 118

Prepared Statement of Karen K. Narasaki, President & Executive Director, 

Asian American Justice Center on ‘‘The Importance of Family-Based Immigration to American Society and the Economy’’ ................................................ 120

‘‘Admissions of Lawful Permanent Residents (all categories) 2001–2005’’ compiled by the Congressional Research Service, submitted to the record by 

the Honorable Steve King, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ............. 129

‘‘Family-Based Admissions 2006,’’ published by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, submitted to the record by the Honorable Steve King, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border 

Security, and International Law ......................................................................... 131

Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Phil Gingrey, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia ..................................... 132

Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from Harriet Duleep, Ph.D., Research 

Professor of Public Policy, Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy, 

The College of William and Mary ....................................................................... 135

Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from Bill Ong Hing, Professor of Law 

and Asian American Studies, University of California-Davis .......................... 137

Response to Post-Hearing Question from Stuart Anderson, Executive Director, 

National Foundation for American Policy .......................................................... 138

(1)

ROLE OF FAMILY-BASED IMMIGRATION IN 

THE U.S. IMMIGRATION SYSTEM 

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 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, Delahunt, Sa ́nchez, Conyers, King, Gallegly, Goodlatte, Lungren, and Gohmert. 

Staff present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Majority 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 eighth hearing on comprehensive immigration reform. 

At our hearings on comprehensive immigration reform, many of 

our witnesses, both majority and minority, have stated that our immigration system should serve the interests of the Nation, and we 

agree with that. 

Some, including the Bush administration, have suggested that 

family-based immigration, as it is currently codified in the immigration law, does not benefit the Nation. 

They assume that family immigrants do not serve the Nation because such immigrants come to the United States because of their 

family ties rather than a demonstrated capacity to contribute economically to our country. 

They argue that we should eliminate most forms of family-based 

immigration and replace it with an immigration system that focuses solely on the economic needs of our Nation, either through 

an enhanced employment-based preference system or a point system. 

Under our current immigration system, 39 percent of immigrants 

become legal permanent residents based on their status as unmarried minor children, spouses, or parents of U.S. citizens. 

2

Another 19 percent become legal permanent residents based 

upon their status as adult sons and daughters or siblings of U.S. 

citizens, or spouses and unmarried children of legal permanent 

residents. 

To help us determine whether family-based immigration has, in 

fact, served the interest of our Nation, today we will examine the 

role that family-based immigrants have played in our economy and 

society, particularly since the 1965 Immigration Act, which emphasized the importance of family reunification as a bedrock principle 

of our immigration system. 

A review of scholarly research by labor economists and sociologists shows that family immigrants make important and unique 

contributions to the U.S. economy and society. 

The research shows that family-based immigrants provide the 

United States with flexible workers who are willing and able to 

learn new skills to meet the needs of the U.S. labor market. 

In addition, research indicates that family-based immigrants contribute to the development of small and large businesses that 

would not have been created without their presence in the United 

States. 

Our witnesses today will also help us to understand the role that 

families play in fueling the economic prosperity of the U.S. citizen 

and legal permanent resident family members who sponsor their 

immigrant petitions. 

Not only is it an American value and a pro-family value to keep 

U.S. citizen and legal permanent resident families together, it is in 

the economic interest of the United States. 

Thank you again to our distinguished witnesses for being here 

today to help us sort through a complex and very important issue 

for the American economy and our society. 

I would now recognize our distinguished Ranking Member, minority Member, Steve King, for his opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

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

IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL

LAW

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

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

immigration reform. 

At our hearings on comprehensive immigration reform, many of our witnesses, 

both majority and minority, have rightly stated that our immigration system should 

serve the interests of the nation. 

Some, including the Bush Administration, have suggested that family-based immigration, as it is currently codified in the immigration law, does not benefit the 

nation. They assume that family immigrants do not serve the nation because such 

immigrants come to the United States because of their family ties, rather than a 

demonstrated capacity to contribute economically to our country. They argue that 

we should eliminate most forms of family-based immigration and replace it with an 

immigration system that focuses solely upon the economic needs of our nation, either through an enhanced employment-based preference system or a points system. 

Under our current immigration system, 39% of immigrants become legal permanent residents based upon their status as unmarried minor children, spouses, or 

parents of U.S. citizens. Another 19% become legal permanent residents based upon 

their status as adult sons and daughters or siblings of U.S. citizens, or spouses and 

unmarried children of legal permanent residents. 

To help us determine whether family-based immigration has in fact served the interests of our nation, today we will examine the role that family-based immigrants 

3

have played in our economy and society, particularly since the 1965 Immigration 

Act which emphasized the importance of family reunification as a bedrock principle 

of our immigration system. 

A review of scholarly research by labor economists and sociologists shows that 

family immigrants make important and unique contributions to the U.S. economy 

and society. The research shows that family-based immigrants provide the United 

States with flexible workers who are willing and able to learn new skills to meet 

the needs of the U.S. labor market. In addition, research indicates that family-based 

immigrants contribute to the development of small and large businesses that would 

not have been created without their presence in the U.S. 

Our witnesses today will also help us to understand the role that families play 

in fueling the economic prosperity of the U.S. citizen and legal permanent resident 

family members who sponsor their immigration petitions. 

Not only is it an American value and a pro-family value to keep U.S. citizen and 

legal permanent resident families together, it is in the economic interest of the 

United States. 

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

sort through a complex and very important issue for the American economy and our 

society.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair, and also Chairman Conyers, and I appreciate you holding this hearing. 

And I thank all the witnesses for being willing to be here and, 

you know, present yourselves before this process that we have. 

As we address our expansive family-based policy, I am mindful 

of the fact that many of us in this room are the descendants of immigrants who came to these shores with little or nothing besides 

their skills and enthusiasm. 

With much hard work and perseverance, they contributed greatly 

to the building of this country. We are their success stories. 

I also point out that all nations are nations of immigrants, and 

the same stories exist in many of the other countries, although we 

have a certain spirit here that is exclusive, I believe, to the experience of the rest of the world. 

But because we cannot admit all who desire to make America 

their home, we must make difficult choices. Last year, the United 

States granted permanent residence to 1,122,000 aliens, the highest level since 1907. 

And if you will remember, 1907, just last month was the centennial anniversary of the highest day at Ellis Island, where 11,747 

immigrants were processed through there on that day last month 

on the 17th of April. 

The vast majority of the American people have consistently said 

that they don’t want higher immigration levels. 

In 1965, legislation was passed with the laudable goal of eliminating national origin discrimination from our immigration policy. 

The 1965 act made family reunification the cornerstone of our immigration policy. It remains so to this day. 

In addition to promoting the unity of the nuclear family, the 

1965 act also extended immigration benefits to other categories of 

family members, including the sons and daughters of United States 

citizens who, either because of age or marriage, are no longer dependents. 

The adult siblings of the United States citizens and the unmarried adult sons and daughters of unlawful permanent residents 

were also included. 

In testimony before the Senate Immigration Subcommittee on 

February 10th, 1965, Myra C. Hacker from the New Jersey CoaliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:14 Aug 21, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\050807\35242.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35242
4

tion urged that, ‘‘the hidden mathematics of the bill should be 

made clear to the public so that they may tell their Congressmen 

how they feel about providing jobs, schools, homes, security against 

want, citizen education, et cetera for an indeterminately enormous 

number of aliens.’’ That was 1965. 

But at the same hearing, Senator Kennedy reassured the Committee that immigration levels after the 1965 bill would remain 

substantially the same. 

There isn’t any basis to defend that statement of Senator Kennedy’s today, but he is advocating strongly to do the same thing 

again in 2007 that he was part of in 1965, same rationale, and I 

will predict the same result if he gets his way. 

What happened was that an exponentially increasing wave of 

chain migration was set in motion. Through the 1970’s and 1980’s, 

the prior average of 230,000 new immigrants per year more than 

doubled, to in excess of 500,000. 

Now, in the 21st century, we are admitting more than a million 

new immigrants a year—as I said, 1,122,000 last year—and that 

is legal. 

During these decades, immigration contributed a majority of 

total U.S. population growth, and more than half of the infrastructure and schools that were built were built to accommodate immigrants. 

After extensive study of our family-based immigration scheme, 

the Barbara Jordan-led U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform 

concluded in 1995 that it was time to shift our priorities, and they 

recommended that they focus on uniting the nuclear families and 

attracting skilled workers. 

The commission advised unless there is a compelling national interest to do otherwise, immigrants should be chosen on the basis 

of the skills they contribute to the U.S. economy. 

I agree with Barbara Jordan that reuniting a nuclear family with 

a sponsor who played by the rules and came here the right way is 

such a compelling national interest, and I agree that bringing in 

their adult children and siblings is not. 

In fact, of the entire pie chart of our immigration, we have testimony in prior hearings that demonstrates that as much as 89 percent and perhaps as much as 93 percent of our legal immigration 

is based on humanitarian reasons, and as little as 7 percent to 11 

percent is based upon skills or merit. 

NumbersUSA estimates that the admission of a single lawful 

permanent resident under our current law can hypothetically lead 

to the eventual immigration of hundreds of relatives. This lengthy 

chain of migration cannot be justified. 

While nuclear families should be united, we need to eliminate 

other family preference categories and refocus our priorities on 

those who possess the education and skills we need to be competitive in a global economy. 

We should not reserve so many of our immigrant visas for aliens 

whose only attribute is that they happen to be related to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. 

Last year, 46,923 non-dependent sons and daughters were admitted along with 63,255 siblings. Another 120,000 slots were given to 

the parents of United States citizens. This means that 232,619 of 

5

the 803,000 family-based immigrants in 2006 were not spouses or 

minor children. 

I also submit that if the sibling and adult children categories are 

eliminated, then justification for an unlimited parent category also 

diminishes. 

I recognize that we have good witnesses before this panel, and 

I also recognize that the Honorable Dr. Congressman Gingrey is 

here to talk about the family reunification that has been part of the 

history and make a recommendation on what he sees would be best 

in the future. 

So I will ask unanimous consent to introduce the rest of my testimony into the record so that we may be able to get forward with 

the testimony of the witnesses. 

And I would yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF 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

Madame Chairwoman, as we address our expansive family-based policy, I am 

mindful of the fact that many of us in this room are the descendants of immigrants 

who came to these shores with little or nothing besides their skills and enthusiasm. 

With much hard work and perseverance they contributed greatly to the building of 

this country. We are their success stories. 

However, because we cannot admit all who desire to make America their home, 

we must make difficult choices. Last year, we granted permanent residence to close 

to 1.3 million aliens, the highest level since 1907. The vast majority of the American 

people have consistently said that they don’t want higher immigration levels. 

In 1965, legislation was passed with the laudable goal of eliminating national origin discrimination from our immigration policy. The 1965 Act made family unification the cornerstone of our immigration policy. It remains so to this day. 

In addition to promoting the unity of the nuclear family, the 1965 Act also extended immigration benefits to other categories of family members, including the 

sons and daughters of United States citizens who (either because of age or marriage) are no longer dependents, the adult siblings of United States citizens, and the 

unmarried adult sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents. 

In testimony before the Senate immigration subcommittee on February 10, 1965, 

Myra C. Hacker from the New Jersey Coalition, urged that the ‘‘hidden mathematics of the bill should be made clear to the public so that they may tell their Congressman how they feel about providing jobs, schools, homes, security against want, 

citizen education . . . for an indeterminately enormous number of aliens.’’

At the same hearing, Senator Kennedy reassured the committee that immigration 

levels after the 1965 bill would remain substantially the same. 

What happened was that an exponentially increasing wave of chain migration was 

set in motion. Through the 70s and 80s, the prior average of 230,000 new immigrants per year more than doubled to in excess of 500,000. Now, in the 21st Century, we are admitting more than a million new immigrants a year. During these 

decades, immigration contributed a majority of total U.S. population growth, and 

more than half of the infrastructure and schools that were built were built to accommodate immigrants. 

After extensive study of our family-based immigration scheme, the Barbara Jordan-led U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform concluded in 1995 that it was time 

to shift our priorities, and recommended that they focus on uniting the nuclear families and attracting skilled workers. The Commission advised: ‘‘unless there is a 

compelling national interest to do otherwise, immigrants should be chosen on the 

basis of the skills they contribute to the U.S. economy.’’ I agree with Barbara Jordan 

that reuniting a nuclear family member with a sponsor who played by the rules and 

came here the right way is such a compelling national interest-and I agree that 

bringing in their adult children and siblings is not. 

Numbers USA estimates that the admission of a single lawful permanent resident 

under our current law can hypothetically lead to the eventual immigration of hundreds of relatives. 

6

This lengthy chain of migration cannot be justified. While nuclear families should 

be united, we need to eliminate other family preference categories and refocus our 

priorities on those who possess the education and skills we need to be competitive 

in a global economy. We should not reserve so many of our immigrant visas for 

aliens whose only attribute is that they happen to be related to a U.S. citizen or 

permanent resident. 

Last year, 46,923 non-dependent sons and daughters were admitted, along with 

63,255 siblings. Another 120,441 slots were given to the parents of United States 

citizens. This means that 232,619 of the 803,335 family-based immigrants in 2006 

were not spouses or minor children. I also submit that if the sibling and adult children categories are eliminated, then justification for an unlimited parent category 

also diminishes, as it becomes less likely that an aging parent who remains in the 

home country will be without a son, daughter, or adult grandchild there to care for 

him or her. 

Access to, and improvements in, telecommunications and travel have changed the 

way people from all economic sectors remain close to their families. The world is 

smaller. Many of us in this hearing room have made our own difficult choices about 

education, work, or other life opportunities that require us to live far from our parents, adult children, and siblings; yet we maintain a close relationship with them 

through e-mail, phone calls, and visits. It is not unreasonable to expect aliens who 

are not part of the nuclear family of a citizen or a lawful permanent resident, and 

who do not qualify for a skills-based visa, to do the same. In today’s world, keeping 

in touch with a sibling who lives on the other coast of the USA is little different 

than keeping in touch with a sibling in England or Malaysia. 

There is a backlog of over three million aliens who have been approved for familypreference visas, almost half of whom are the brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens. 

This backlog will only grow in the future, with individuals sometimes waiting decades for green cards. Unless we are going to drastically increase legal immigration, 

this is an untenable situation. It creates a sense of entitlement and only encourages 

illegal immigration.

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection. 

I would now be pleased to recognize the Chairman of the full 

Committee, Congressman Conyers, Chairman Conyers, for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren and this dynamic 

Subcommittee that is working so hard. 

I join in welcoming Dr. Gingrey, with whom I have the pleasure 

of working on a number of issues and seeing him regularly, and the 

witnesses, too, the other witnesses. 

This is an important part of forming a new immigration reform. 

What do we do with the family-based immigration system? We 

have three options. 

One, we can abandon our system. It would ignore the realities 

of people’s lives and the values of the country. 

Two, we could maintain it without change. But the problem there 

is that there are tremendous backlogs that have split families 

apart under the current system. And I think we owe a responsibility to deal with it. 

Or three, we could improve the family-based immigration system, 

using comprehensive reform to remove those impediments to immigration so that people could come to the United States and join 

their families through a wide variety of programs. 

Now, we all know that. We are a Nation of immigrants. So this 

isn’t some new theory that is being developed. We want to build 

on and improve where we are. 

Now, while an employment-based system might respond to shortterm economic needs, it really undermines the core humanitarian 

value of family unification. 

7

A family-based immigration system isn’t just feel good, or doing 

the right thing or being nice. It has long been a central tenet of 

our Nation’s immigration policy, recognizing immigrants are first 

and foremost people who are not just motivated because of economic concerns but also by a desire to take care of their families. 

And by harnessing that motivation, we can harness all that is good 

about immigration. 

And as my friend, the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, 

Steve King, has frequently asserted, the family is the backbone of 

this Nation. Couldn’t agree with you more, Mr. Ranking Member. 

Immigrant families have strengthened the country immeasurably, 

and we should support them. 

The 1965 immigration law, now, rejected previous quota systems 

that had long discriminated against people of color and persons 

from the developing world. It was a dismal part of our policy. And 

so instead, we have moved to a system that supports family unification. 

Now, what do families provide? Stability and values. The benefit 

of an immigrant who is in the United States with his wife and children is a stable, contributing member of the community. 

The parents who have their children living with them can better 

inculcate them with American values in a supportive environment. 

And they provide the entrepreneurial spirit needed to stimulate 

economic growth in our communities. 

And as we will undoubtedly hear from this excellent panel today, 

family-based immigration promotes, among other positive developments, it stimulates the establishment of small businesses. These 

immigrants often find niches in American economic systems that 

have not been filled or could not be filled because of lack of skills, 

language, or lack of access to capital. 

Now, these small businesses revitalize our urban and rural communities, and my hometown is an example of this, where, in southeastern Michigan, we went from 383 small Hispanic businesses in 

2002 to 955. It is just one example of some of the benefits of familybased immigration. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

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

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

JUDICIARY

Over the course of the National debate on immigration reform, some have suggested that we should abandon our traditional reliance on a family-based immigration system and replace it with one that is solely based on the needs of employers. 

We seem to have three options. We could abandon our system, but we would then 

ignore the realities of people’s lives and the values of our country. We could maintain it without change, but there are tremendous backlogs that split families apart 

under the current system. Or we could improve it, using comprehensive reform to 

remove impediments to immigration so that people could come to the United States 

and join their families through a wide variety of programs. 

While an employment-based system may respond to short-term economic needs, 

it could undermine the core humanitarian value of family unification. A familybased immigration system is not just a ‘‘feel-good’’ policy. It has long been the central tenant of our Nation’s immigration policy recognizing that immigrants are first 

and foremost people who are motivated not only because of economic concerns, but 

by a desire to take care of their families. 

8

1Press Release, ‘‘King Hosts Conference on Civic Involvement for Iowa Faith Community,’’

August 17, 2006 http://www.house.gov/list/press/ia05lking/PRFaithandFreedomConference 

081706.html 

By harnessing that motivation, we can harness all that is good about immigration. 

As my colleague, the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, has himself stated, the 

family is the ‘‘backbone of this nation.’’ 1

I agree with Mr. King wholeheartedly. Immigrant families have strengthened this 

country immeasurably, and we should support them. The 1965 Immigration Law rejected previous quota systems that discriminated against people of color and persons 

from the developing world. Instead, we moved to a system that supports family unification instead. 

What do families provide? Stability and values. Let me mention just a few.

An immigrant who is in the United States with his wife and children is a stable, contributing member of the community.

The parents, who have their children living with them, can better inculcate 

them with American values in a supportive environment.

And, they provide the entrepreneurial spirit needed to stimulate economic 

growth in our communities.

As we will undoubtedly hear from our witnesses today, family-based immigration 

promotes, among other positive developments, stimulates the establishment of small 

businesses. These immigrants often find niches that American businesses have not 

filled or could not fill because of lack of skills, language, or lack of access to capital. 

These small businesses, in turn, revitalize our urban and rural communities by providing jobs and encouraging development of other resources. 

My hometown is an example of this. Every five years, the Census Bureau releases 

in-depth economic studies. For example, Southeastern Michigan in 2002 experienced 

an increase from 383 to 955 Hispanic-owned businesses in the City of Detroit alone.

While many of these businesses were single-proprietor or family-run with no paid 

employees, 146 of these small businesses accounted for 1,268 jobs in Detroit. 

This is just one example of the kind of economic engine that family-based immigration can be. As people put down roots and become part of the American fabric, 

all of us benefit. Families win; America wins.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Chairman Conyers. 

In the interest of proceeding to our witnesses, and mindful of our 

schedules, I would ask that other Members submit their statements for the record within 5 legislative days. And, without objection, all opening statements will be placed in the record. 

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 am pleased, first, to introduce Dr. Harriet Duleep, a Research 

Professor of Public Policy for the Thomas Jefferson Program in 

Public Policy at the College of William and Mary. Dr. Duleep additionally serves as a Research Fellow at the Institute for the Study 

of Labor in Bonn, Germany and the Deputy Editor for the publication Demography. Prior to joining the faculty of William and Mary, 

Dr. Duleep worked as an Economist at the Social Security Administration and, between 1985 and 1992, served as a Senior Economist 

and Acting Director of the Research Office of the U.S. Commission 

on Civil Rights. She holds her bachelor’s degree from the University of Michigan and her Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology. 

We are also joined today by Bill Ong Hing, a professor of Law 

and Asian American studies at the University of California-Davis. 

Professor Hing teaches an array of subjects at Davis; among them, 

courses in immigration policy and judicial processes. And he directs 

the law school’s clinical program. A renowned author, Professor 

9

Hing additionally volunteers as a general counsel for the Immigration Legal Resource Center in San Francisco. He sits on the board 

of directors for the Asian Law Caucus, the Migration Policy Institute, and the National Advisory Council of the Asian-American 

Justice Center. Professor Hing served as co-counsel in the precedent-setting 1987 Supreme Court asylum case, INS v. CardozaFonseca. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of 

California-Berkeley and his law degree from the University of San 

Francisco. 

Next, I am pleased to welcome Stuart Anderson, the executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy. From 2001 

to 2003, Mr. Anderson served as the Executive Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning and additionally as Counselor to the 

Commissioner at the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. 

Mr. Anderson is no stranger to the halls of Congress. He spent 

nearly 5 years on Capitol Hill working for the Senate’s Immigration Subcommittee, first under Senator Spencer Abraham and then 

as Staff Director under Senator Sam Brownback. He also worked 

as the Director of Trade and Immigration Studies at the Cato Institute here in Washington. He graduated with a bachelor’s degree 

from Drew University and a master’s from Georgetown University. 

And finally, I would like to extend a warm welcome to a familiar 

face, Congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia’s 11th Congressional 

District. Dr. Gingrey was elected to the House in 2002 after 4 years 

in the Georgia State Senate. He holds his bachelor’s degree from 

Georgia Tech and his medical degree from the Medical College of 

Georgia. Dr. Gingrey practiced medicine for 26 years as an OBGYN and delivered more than 5,200 babies. He and his wife, Billie, 

have four children and five grandchildren. 

As Congressman Gingrey knows, each of the written statements 

will be made part of the record in its entirety. And I would ask 

that the witnesses summarize their testimony in 5 minutes or less. 

These little machines turn yellow when you have 1 minute to go. 

And when your time is up, they turn red. And we would ask at that 

point that you summarize and cease so the next witness can begin. 

We will now proceed to question our witnesses and to hear from 

our witnesses. And at the request of the minority and in deference 

to our colleague, we would ask that Congressman Gingrey begin 

the testimony. 

Congressman? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE PHIL GINGREY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chairwoman, thank you so much. And I 

appreciate the deference in allowing me to go first. 

Ranking Member King, Committee Chairman Mr. Conyers, and 

other Subcommittee Members, friends all, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the role of the family in the immigration process. 

And as Chairwoman Lofgren stated, my full comments will be 

submitted for the record, and I will just summarize. 

The Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers, was just talking about how important family unification is, how important famiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:14 Aug 21, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\050807\35242.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35242
10

lies are to our society. And I agree with him completely on that, 

no question about it. 

People do come here not only to support themselves but to support their families. And I think we can do that, and I think the bill 

that I have introduced in this 110th Congress, H.R. 938, the Nuclear Family Priority Act, does just that. 

But I think that the problem that we have gotten into—and I 

really believe that this started in 1965, and the 1965 act that put 

an emphasis on family reunification—in the first 200 years of our 

country, we averaged about 250,000 immigrants per year into the 

United States. 

And as Ranking Member King pointed out in his opening remarks, in the last number, I guess in 2006, that had ballooned to 

over a million, 1,100,000-plus. And that is, I think, in large part 

because of this emphasis after 1965 that maybe overemphasized or 

maybe even over-interpreted the real definition of family reunification. 

And under the current policy, a single person that comes into 

this country legally, either by virtue of an asylum, or a refugee, or 

a legal permanent resident with a green card who comes in because 

they have been in the queue for a long time—they have a particular job skill. Not only can they help themselves, but they can 

also help our great country. 

But when they come, then when they achieve citizenship, they 

are allowed to bring family members, but it is not just the nuclear 

family. It is not just their spouse and their dependent children 

from their home country. 

It is not just their parents and maybe their spouse’s parents, but 

it includes adult brothers and sisters, siblings. It includes aunts 

and uncles and cousins, and whatever the legal term, Mr. Chairman, is—per stirpes—I think that is used a lot. I don’t know how 

far out that goes. 

But I do know that as a result of that, one person, one person 

who is in this country legally, who deserves that opportunity to be 

here in one of these three categories that I mentioned, over a period of as short as 15 years, they can literally bring in an additional 273 people, and all these aunts and uncles and cousins and 

thirds and whatever—273 people, Madam Chairwoman, who may 

have great job skills, but they may not. 

And statistics, I think, pretty much bear this out, that many, 

many don’t. In fact, many have very little education and become 

high school dropouts when they come into this country and are not 

productive and don’t have any particular job skills. 

So when you think about the fact that we have a huge problem 

in this country, and that is called 12 million—‘‘undocumented’’ is 

a euphemism. ‘‘Illegal’’ is the actual fact. 

I know Mr. Gutierrez is working very hard trying to solve that 

problem along with our colleague Jeff Flake in their STRIVE Act, 

and a lot of people in both chambers are working very hard to try 

to deal with that. 

But I think that we can achieve the goal and really the spirit of 

the law as the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers, said 

in regard to the value of families with going back and doing what, 

really, we intended to do way back when this country welcomed our 

11

immigrant population and to say that, yes, bring your families, but 

let’s restrict it to the nuclear family. 

And instead of 273 people that one individual can bring in over 

the course of 15 years, we reduce that down to 37 in the extreme, 

and this would, in the extreme, mean that each one of those that 

were eligible to come, wanted to come, were still alive, and they 

came. 

I see that magic red light went off quicker than I thought it 

would, but that has got something to do with this Southern drawl 

and slow way of talking. And I will yield back. I have no further 

time, but I really look forward your questions, Madam Chairwoman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gingrey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PHIL GINGREY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Madame Chairwoman, Ranking Member King, and members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the role of family in the immigration process, specifically the problem of chain migration. I introduced legislation 

last year after learning about some of the severe problems of our current system 

of legal immigration that frankly put more emphasis on genealogy than skill, 

English proficiency, and overall contribution to the United States. 

While our borders still need security, our border patrol agents still need support, 

and, dare I say, we still need to find a solution to the 12 million illegal aliens currently residing in the United States, an often overlooked problem is our flawed system of legal immigration and how it may contribute to illegal immigration, drive 

population growth—especially our poor population—and add to our assimilation 

problems. Furthermore, this flawed system adds to our nation’s financial problems 

considering that Family-based immigrants tend to be the most impoverished and on 

average have the lowest skill levels and earning potential. 

What is even more distressing is that most of these legal immigrants are admitted 

entirely because of their familial relation to other legal immigrants. This problem 

is called Chain Migration and it is one of the fundamental reasons why our businesses have problems sponsoring legal immigrants, why our federal caseworkers 

have problems with paperwork backlogs, and why our system has become so frustrating that individuals outside the United States would rather risk immigrating 

here illegally than wait forever in line. For example, one immigrant may qualify for 

an immediate visa as an adult brother or sister of a naturalized U.S. citizen, yet 

depending on the country of application it could be 10 to 40 years or more before 

that visa is available under regular skill-based circumstances. As a result, a third 

of current legal immigrants told a ‘‘new immigrant’’ survey that they first came here 

as illegal aliens until their visa came up and they then went home to process the 

paperwork. 

From 1776 to 1976 our immigration tradition allowed an average of 250,000 foreign workers and dependants every year. However, the 1965 immigration preference 

system, and subsequent modifications, including the 1990 Immigration Act, expanded immigration levels far beyond traditional levels, mostly by prioritizing extended family members. Our immigration system is obviously out of kilter when one 

immigrant can yield upwards of 273 other legal immigrants in as short as 15 years, 

assuming the average birthrate of the developing world. It is hard to believe one 

immigrant of skill or humanitarian need could yield so many dependants under our 

laws of family reunification, yet the only limits on our current ‘‘chain’’ system are 

age and death. Assuming everyone in an immigrant’s family wants to immigrate to 

the United States and they are all alive, this 273 number is a real possibly. It may 

not be the norm, but even a fraction of that is a real problem. 

The chain migration categories actually encourage more illegal immigration by 

creating a sense of entitlement to come to the United States. Once an extended family member applies for an immigrant visa and then is put in the visa waiting list 

because the categories are oversubscribed, the applicant is more likely to decide to 

come here illegally to await the visa. Receipt of the immigrant visa becomes a technicality, rather than a prerequisite to entering the United States. 

Furthermore, these numbers do not account for children who become citizens 

through birthright interpretation of our 14th Amendment, which can further complicate the problem. In this case, don’t just do the math, but do the multiplication. 

12

For example, in the City of Gainesville in Hall County, Georgia, growth in the foreign-born population is actually surpassing the natural increase. This is an extraordinary rate of immigration. The average level of legal immigration into the U.S. 

since 1990 is over 1,000,000 a year. This is equivalent to importing the entire population of Dallas, Texas—or Atlanta, Augusta, and Savannah, Georgia combined. 

This translates into backlogs, an overwhelming immigration bureaucracy, and immigration employees incentivized to cut corners and put volume over scrutiny. Instead, 

we need to restore our traditional system and levels of immigration with emphasis 

on skill, English proficiency, and the nuclear family. 

The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, a bipartisan body chaired by the 

late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, recognized and documented the harms caused 

by chain migration in the 1990s. The commission found that America’s national interests would be best served by the elimination of extended family-based immigration categories as well as the visa lottery; and it urged that nuclear family members—spouses and minor children—become the sole family-based priority. In other 

words, one of the top priorities for immigration reform is to restore emphasis on nuclear families and away from the adult children, uncles, aunts, cousins, and distant 

relatives of the original immigrant without regard to job skills or the needs of our 

country. 

To quote the commission report: A properly regulated system of legal immigration 

is in the national interest of the United States. Such a system enhances the benefits 

of immigration while protecting against potential harms. Unless there is a compelling national interest to do otherwise, immigrants should be chosen on the basis of 

the skills they contribute to the U.S. economy. The Commission believes that admission of nuclear family members and refugees provide such a compelling national interest. Reunification of adult children and siblings of adult citizens solely because 

of their family relationship is not as compelling. 

With this in mind and in response to our growing immigration problem, both legal 

and illegal, I have introduced H.R. 938, the Nuclear Family Priority Act. With passage of my legislation, we can reduce a chain of 273—or more—to a chain of 37. 

That’s an 87 % decrease in our current system of immigration. The formula is simple: the original legal immigrant can only bring his or her spouse, dependant children, and parents. Our system of family reunification will still remain generous and 

open, but with enough restraint to keep the system fair and balanced for everyone. 

I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you and I would be happy to take 

any questions from the Committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Congressman. Perhaps we should give 

additional time to witnesses from the South, but we haven’t taken 

up that rule yet. [Laughter.] 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Dr. Duleep? 

TESTIMONY OF HARRIET DULEEP, Ph.D., RESEARCH PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC POLICY, THOMAS JEFFERSON PROGRAM 

IN PUBLIC POLICY, THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY 

Ms. DULEEP. As has already been stated by our Chairwoman and 

also indicated by Representative King, a widely shared perspective 

is that desirable immigrants are those who rapidly adjust to the 

U.S. labor market. 

From this perspective, employment-based immigrants are the 

clear winners. Employment-based immigrants enter the U.S. to fill 

specific jobs as expressed by an employer’s willingness to participate in the labor certification process. 

By the very nature of their admission, these immigrants have 

specific skills that are immediately valued in the U.S. labor market. 

Upon their entry, their earnings are similar to those of U.S. natives of similar schooling and experience, and their earnings 

growth profiles also resemble those of U.S. natives. 

If, however, our goal was to devise a policy to attract immigrants 

who had a high propensity to invest in human capital—that is, who 

13

are willing to engage in a lot of training and schooling—then family-based immigration might be a better bet. 

A key characteristic of recent predominantly family-based immigrants is a high propensity to invest in human capital. This can be 

seen in their earnings profiles. Earnings growth is a sign that 

human capital investment is taking place. 

Family immigrants have very low initial earnings, but they also 

have extremely high earnings growth. In fact, their earnings 

growth exceeds that of employment-based immigrants and of U.S. 

natives. 

So it is the case that they start low, but they also have very high 

earnings growth. 

We also find that immigrant earnings patterns that are characterized by low initial earnings and high earnings growth are associated with high rates of schooling, high rates of training, and high 

rates of occupational change. 

Now, one reason the high earnings growth is important is that 

it attenuates concerns about the economic assimilation of these immigrants. Yes, they start low, but watch what happens over time. 

However, a high propensity to invest in human capital yields 

benefits to the U.S. economy beyond immigrants’ own earnings 

growth. 

When demand shifts require new skills to be learned, immigrants who initially lack specific skills will be more likely to pursue 

the new opportunities than will natives or immigrants with highly 

transferable skills. 

Employment-based immigrants are already earning what we 

would expect them to earn on the basis of their schooling and education, so they would be unlikely to take a huge pay cut in order 

to pursue another line of training or another type of career. 

Yet policies that bring in immigrants lacking immediately transferable skills, such as family-based admission policies, may promote new business formation and new directions in existing businesses by providing a labor supply that is both willing and able to 

invest in new skills. 

Thus, family-based admission policies, which bring in immigrant 

lacking immediately transferable skills, increase the supply of flexible human capital. 

A labor supply that is willing and able to invest in new skills facilitates innovation and accompanying entrepreneurship. Tailoring 

immigration to labor shortages is theoretically appealing, but it is 

extremely difficult to practice. 

Yet precisely because they lack specific skills that are immediately valued by the U.S. labor market, family-based immigrants 

meet labor market needs in an ongoing flexible fashion that contributes to a vibrant economy, which has been characteristic of the 

U.S. 

Family-based policies, as opposed to policies to fill short-run skill 

needs, also nurture immigrant entrepreneurship. Empirically, my 

co-author Mark Regets and I find a high correlation between sibling admissions and immigrant entrepreneurship. 

Moreover, there is evidence that immigrant communities that are 

fostered by kinship admissions lead to the development of businesses that would not otherwise exist. 

14

Because of their high propensity to invest in human capital and 

their effect on immigrant entrepreneurship, family-based immigrants pursue or foster employment opportunities that are distinct 

from the employment opportunities of U.S. natives. 

This suggests that family-based immigrants may compete less 

with U.S. workers than employment-based immigrants. And there 

is some empirical evidence on this. 

In a study that was done by Elaine Sorensen of the Urban Institute, she finds that immigrants admitted on the basis of occupational skills have a small negative effect on the earnings of White 

native males. 

In contrast, family preference immigrants have a positive effect 

on native White earnings and employment and a positive effect on 

native Black earnings. 

Family admissions also fosters permanence. Permanence promotes human capital investment. Why invest in human capital investment if you are not going to stay here? 

So another way that permanence is productive is that historically 

groups that were permanently attached to the U.S. showed greater 

intergenerational educational progress than groups that were less 

detached. 

From the perspective of increasing intergenerational educational 

growth, policies that encourage permanent immigration, such as 

kinship admissions, should be encouraged. 

To conclude, beyond the obvious humanitarian benefits of reuniting families, there may be potential economic advantages to familybased immigration. 

Family-based immigrants and, more generally, immigrants that 

do not have skills that are immediately valued by the U.S. labor 

market may benefit the U.S. economy by providing a flexible source 

of human capital, by developing new areas of businesses——

Ms. LOFGREN. We need to wrap up, Dr. Duleep. 

Ms. DULEEP. Yes—and by promoting permanence, and finally by 

tempering immigrant-native employment competition. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Duleep follows:]

15

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HARRIET DULEEP


HD0002.eps
16


HD0003.eps
17


HD0004.eps
18


HD0005.eps
19


HD0006.eps
20


HD0007.eps
21


HD0008.eps
22


HD0009.eps
23

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Professor Hing? 

TESTIMONY OF BILL ONG HING, PROFESSOR OF LAW AND 

ASIAN AMERICAN STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIADAVIS 

Mr. HING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The history of preferring relatives or kinship categories actually 

goes way beyond before 1965. In fact, part of the national origins 

quota system, the preference was for families. In 1921, siblings, 

parents, wives, children were all part of the preferences in 1921. 

So when the 1965 act eliminated the national origins quota system, it really continued the family preference in our immigration 

laws. So I do want to emphasize that in the historical context. 

And I also want to address the allegation of chain migration 

today and some of the racial implications behind the proposals to 

eliminate family categories and some of the benefits. 

So after 1965, Asians, for example, were not expected to benefit 

from the 1965 immigration act because, in fact, family would favor 

people who are here in large numbers, and there were not a large 

number of Asian-Americans in the United States in 1965. 

So slowly, the employment categories and eventually, yes, the 

family categories were used over time. 

So today, as we know, 90 percent of the immigrants that come 

into the United States are family-oriented. And it is rather curious 

that the attack on families began at a time in the 1980’s when 

Latinos and Asians benefit the most from these categories. 

So the complaint of being nepotistic, of being vertical as opposed 

to horizontal, are not new. And I was privileged in 1979 and 1980 

to be part of the staff advisory group of the Federal Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy when, in fact, the family 

issue was raised again. 

And one of the members of the select commission, Arizona Democratic Senator Dennis DeConcini, responded in this manner: ‘‘Proposals have been offered to eliminate these family preferences. It 

is felt by some to be too generous as it refers to horizontal rather 

than vertical. But to deny that brothers and sisters are an integral 

part of the family is to impose upon many ethnic groups a narrow 

concept of family and one that especially discriminates against 

Italian-Americans. We also should stress the rights of U.S. citizens 

by allowing them to bring their families to America. This view 

should precede the technical notion that we need certain types of 

specialists and skilled workers.’’

The select commission itself concluded the reunification of families should remain one of the foremost goals of immigration, not 

only because it is a humane policy, but because bringing families 

back together contributes to the economic and social welfare of the 

U.S. 

Benefits from the unification of immediate relatives are especially true because family unity promotes stability, health and productivity of family members. 

We need not place family reunification in opposition to economic 

and employment visas. There is not an inherent tension, as some 

24

have claimed. There is only a tension if we place them in opposition to each other. 

If instead we view the two systems as complementary ways of 

achieving and reflecting our goals and values as a society, then we 

don’t have a problem. 

In other words, if for the sake of argument we use immigration 

to help our economy to promote the social welfare of the country 

and to promote social family values, then family and employment 

categories together can meet those goals. 

One of the things that I do want to emphasize is the allegation 

of chain migration. And if chain migration were as hysterical as 

some claim, then we would see hundreds and hundreds of people 

flowing in from one category. 

But in fact, if you look at the history of how family immigration 

was used, there are times in different nations’ and nationalities’ 

histories where family reunification is completed. 

That is why when it came shortly after the 1965 act that European immigration began to ebb. Those decisions are made, even 

today, in Asian immigration categories. 

If you look at the facts, Korean immigration numbers have declined. Chinese immigration numbers have declined. The demand, 

believe it or not, for Filipino immigration has declined. 

Those hard decisions of when families remain, and which ones 

stay, and which ones go back are made over a period of time, and 

the chain migration that is alleged ends, because families make 

those choices. 

So finally, I would say that this is a Nation of immigrants, but 

this is a Nation that loves to debate immigration policy, as we 

know, but when it comes to families, there shouldn’t be a debate, 

because this is about family values that we all believe in. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hing follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BILL ONG HING

INTRODUCTION

The current family-based immigration system should be retained, its numbers 

should be expanded, and a re-orientation of the manner of family visas should be 

instituted so that backlogs are reduced. Why?

• Family reunification promotes strong family values for our nation.

• Family immigration has been the backbone of economic contributions made 

by immigrants in the last century.

• Reunification with family members gives new Americans a sense of completeness and peace of mind, contributing not only to the economic but also the 

social welfare of the United States. Society benefits from the reunification of 

immediate families, especially because family unity promotes the stability, 

health and productivity of family members.

• Family immigrants generally are working age who immediately become productive taxpayers who immediately begin supporting institutions like the Social Security system.

• Immigrant families often pool their resource to start small businesses that 

provide new jobs for native workers.

• We risk sending a strong anti-family message if we reduce rather than expand family immigration opportunities.

• The attack on family immigration categories sends a wrong message to communities of color—Asian and Latinos—who rely on the family categories to 

complete family reunification and stabilize their families.

25

1Testimony of Barry R. Chiswick before the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the 

United States, S. Hrg. 99–1070, May 22, 1986, p. 236. Of course this statement was factually 

incorrect; even under the system at the time, prospective immigrants with skills needed by an 

employer could qualify for a labor employment category.

• Our families make us whole. Our families define us and human beings. Our 

families are at the center of our most treasured values. Our families make 

the nation strong.

Promoting family reunification has been a major feature of immigration policy for 

decades. Prior to 1965, permitting spouses of U.S. citizens, relatives of lawful permanent residents, and even siblings of U.S. citizens to immigrate were important 

aspects of the immigration selection system. After the elimination of the racist national origins quota system in the 1965 reforms, family reunification became the cornerstone of the immigration admission system. 

Like his predecessors, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, President John 

Kennedy assailed the national origins quota system for its exclusionary impact on 

prospective immigrants from southern and eastern Europe and Asia. Although 

President Kennedy’s reform goals (ultimately pushed through by President Lyndon 

Johnson after Kennedy’s assassination) initially envisioned a first-come, first-served 

egalitarian system, the reform effort evolved into a category-oriented proposal that 

was enacted. The 1965 immigration amendments allowed twenty thousand immigrant visas for every country not in the Western Hemisphere. Of the 170,000 immigrant visas set aside for Eastern Hemisphere immigrants, about 80 percent were 

specified for ‘‘preference’’ relatives of citizens and lawful permanent residents, and 

an unlimited number was available to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. The unlimited immediate relative category included spouses, parents of adult citizens, and 

minor, unmarried children of citizens. The family preference categories were established for adult, unmarried sons and daughters of citizens (first preference), spouses 

and unmarried children of lawful permanent resident aliens (second preference), 

married children of citizens, and siblings of citizens (fifth preference). Third and 

sixth preferences were established for employment-based immigration. 

As Asian and Latin immigrants began to dominate the family-based immigration 

system, somehow the emphasis on family reunification made less sense to some policy makers. Since the early 1980s, attacking family reunification categories—especially the sibling category—has become a popular sport played every few years. 

Often the complaint is based on arguments like, ‘‘shouldn’t we be bringing in skilled 

immigrants,’’ or ‘‘wouldn’t a point system’’ be better, or a system based on family 

relationships is ‘‘nepotistic,’’ or in the case of the sibling category, brothers and sisters ‘‘aren’t part of the nuclear family’’ or the category represents ‘‘vertical as opposed to horizontal immigration.’’

By 1976, a worldwide preference system (which included Western Hemisphere) 

quota of 270,000 was in place that continued to reserve 80 percent for kinship provisions, and the category of immediate relatives of the United States citizens remained numerically unlimited. The effects of this priority were demonstrated vividly 

in the subsequent flow of Asian immigration, even though nations such as those in 

Africa and Asia, with low rates of immigration prior to 1965, were handicapped. In 

other words, the nations with large numbers of descendents in the United States 

were expected to benefit from a kinship-based system, and in 1965, less than a million Asian Americans resided in the country. Although the kinship priority meant 

that Asians were beginning on an unequal footing, at least Asians were on par numerically, in terms of the per country quotas. Gradually, by using the family categories to the extent they could be used and the labor employment route, Asians 

built a family base from which to use the kinship categories more and more. By the 

late 1980s, virtually 90 percent of all immigration to the United States—including 

Asian immigration—was through the kinship categories. And by the 1990s, the vast 

majority of these immigrants were from Asia and Latin America. 

ATTACKING FAMILIES

Once Asian and Latin immigrants began to dominate the family immigration categories, the kinship system was assailed. Consider the following attack in 1986:

Nowhere else in public policy do we say not ‘‘who are you and what are your 

characteristics?’’ but ask rather, as we do in immigration, ‘‘who are you related 

to?’’ Current policy says: ‘‘if you have the right relatives, we will give you a visa; 

if you don’t have the right relatives, well, it is just too bad.’’ 1

Arguing that the system was nepotistic or that the country would be better off 

with a skills-based system became popular. The following like-minded statement 

26

2Martin, Philip, Illegal Immigration and the Colonization of the American Labor Market, Center for Immigration Studies, 1986, at 45. (emphasis added) 3 Annelise Anderson, Illegal Aliens and Employer Sanctions: Solving the Wrong Problem, Hoover Essays in Public Policy, The Hoover Institution, Stanford, Ca., 1986, at 21. 4SCIRP 1981d:48.

5 U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 19a: 19, 170.

also from the mid-1980s about undocumented migration reveals the racial nature 

of the complaint:

If the immigration status quo persists, the United States will develop a more 

unequal society with troublesome separations. For example, some projections indicate that the California work force will be mostly immigrants or their descendants by 2010. These working immigrants, mostly nonwhite will be supporting mostly white pensioners with their payroll contributions. Is American 

society resilient enough to handle the resulting tensions. 

. . .

The American economy will have more jobs and businesses if illegal alien workers are allowed to enter freely and work in the United States. But the number 

of jobs and businesses alone is not an accurate measure of the soundness of economic development or quality of life. Tolerating heavy illegal immigration introduces distortions into the economy that are difficult to remedy, while imposing 

environmental and social costs that must be borne by the society as a whole.2

Apparently, this perception of a good ‘‘quality of life’’ without ‘‘environmental and 

social costs’’ is one with minimal tension from the presence of ‘‘nonwhite’’ ‘‘immigrants or their descendants.’’ As an observer at the time recognized, ‘‘It may be fair 

to conclude that the problem masquerading as illegal immigration is simply today’s 

version of a continuing American—in fact, human—condition, namely xenophobia.’’ 3

As in the Asian exclusionary era, the complaints were not simply about the economy; they were about keeping people out who did not fit the right image. 

From the early 1980s to 1996, the leading voice attacking family immigration, especially the sibling category, was Republican Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming. 

Simpson had been a member of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee 

Policy that issued a report in 1981 calling for major changes in the immigration 

laws. After IRCA was enacted in 1986 to address issue of undocumented migration 

through employer sanctions and legalization, Simpson turned his attention to legal 

immigration categories. At the time, although 20 percent of preference categories 

were available to labor employment immigrants (54,000), when the unrestricted immediate relative immigration categories were added to the total number of immigrants each year, less than 10 percent of immigrants who were entering each year 

were doing so on the basis of job skills. 

In fact, soon after the Select Commission report, Senator Simpson proposed the 

elimination of the sibling immigration category. At the core of what became a long 

crusade, Simpson’s complaint was that brothers and sisters are not important relatives for immigration purposes; that in U.S. culture, the sibling relationship is simply not close enough to justify providing an immigration preference. He ignored the 

many experts who testified in hearings before the Select Commission stressing the 

importance of family reunification over employment-based visas, including the sibling category. Demographer Charles Keely testified that:

We, as a nation, cannot only accept, but are enriched in countless ways, by traditions which honor the family and stress close ties not only within the nuclear 

family of spouses and children but also among generations and among brothers 

and sisters. Attacks on family reunification beyond the immediate family as a 

form of nepotism are empty posturing.4

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the League of United 

Latin American Citizens, the U.S.-Asia Institute, and others testified in favor of retaining the category. One organization opposing Simpson’s proposal, The American 

Committee on Italian Migration, noted:

For Italians and for many other ethnic groups, brothers and sisters, whether 

or not they are married, are an integral part of the family reunion concept. 

Elimination of this preference category would violate a sacrosanct human right 

of an American citizen to live with his family according to his own traditional 

life style.5

Arizona Democratic Senator Dennis DeConcini, also a member of the Select Commission, added his voice to the debate:

27

6 Address in 1978 to the American Committee on Italian Migration, reported in Immigration 

Update National Symposium, New York, 1980. 7SCIRP 1981a: 119.

8Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy Report (SCIRP): 1981b: 357.

9Stewart Kwoh, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 14, 1989. 10The compromise included portions of S. 3055 sponsored by Simpson, which would speed deportations of criminal aliens. Section 501 expanded the definition of ‘‘aggravated felony’’ to include illicit trafficking in any controlled substance, money laundering, and any crime of violence 

with a 5 year imprisonment imposed. The bill also included both federal and state crimes. Aliens 

Continued

Proposals have been offered to eliminate the [sibling] preference. It is felt by 

some to be too generous, as it refers to horizontal rather than a vertical family 

concept. . . . But to deny that brothers and sisters are an integral part of the 

family is to impose upon many ethnic groups a narrow concept of family and 

one that especially discriminated against the Italian-Americans. We also should 

stress the rights of U.S. citizens by allowing them to bring their families to 

America. This view should precede the technical notion that we need certain 

types of specialist and skilled workers.6

In fact, the Select Commission overwhelmingly endorsed the policy of keeping 

brothers and sisters as a preference category.7 Proposals to eliminate family categories created by the 1965 amendments were to be rejected. 

The reunification of families should remain one of the foremost goals of immigration not only because it is a humane policy, but because bringing families 

back together contributes to the economic and social welfare of the United 

States. Society benefits from the reunification of immediate families, especially 

because family unity promotes the stability, health and productivity of family 

members.8

Simpson did not relent and in the late 1980s at a time when legal immigration 

continued to be dominated by Asians and Latinos even after ‘‘diversity programs’’ 

were being implemented to aid non-Asian and non-Mexican immigrants, he wanted 

the family immigration numbers reduced or at least managed. S. 358 was approved 

by the Senate in July 1989, which would establish a ceiling of 630,000 legal immigrants for three years. Of the total, 480,000 would be reserved for all types of family 

immigration and 150,000 would be set aside for immigrants without family connections but with skills or job related assets. Yet after numerous markups and hearings, the House of Representative passed Congressman Bruce Morrison’s H.R. 4300, 

a rather different bill, on Oct. 3, 1990. The bill actually would reduce family immigration more dramatically—thereby reducing the number of Asian and Latino family immigrants, providing 185,000 family-based visas and 95,000 employment-based 

visas annually. 

The bill was attacked for its wholesale elimination of temporary work visas for 

professionals. The concern was that the spigot actually might be closed on foreign 

workers. Also, the possible elimination of H-1 nonimmigrant status for certain professions outraged immigration lawyers, who called it a ‘‘must-kill’’ provision. Another one of Morrison’s more controversial suggestions was to tax employers who 

use alien employees. One early proposal required businesses to pay 15 percent of 

an alien’s salary into a federal trust fund used to train U.S. workers. As introduced, 

the bill would impose a flat user fee dependent on the size of the company. After 

furious negotiations, especially with fellow Democratic Congressman Howard Berman from Los Angeles, Morrison agreed to drop proposals that would have reduced 

the number of family based visas, persuaded by Berman who argued: ‘‘To cut back 

on the ability of new Americans to be with their family members betrays the core 

American value and tradition of emphasizing the integrity of the family.’’ 9

As passed, H.R. 4300 would increase the number of legal immigrants to 775,000 

a year from the prior 540,000. It would also speed the process of uniting families, 

attract more skilled workers and create a new diversity category for immigrants 

from countries whose nationals have largely been excluded in the past. After passing the bill, the House changed the bill number to S. 358 to enable it to go to a 

joint House-Senate conference. However, many were opposed to the more liberal 

House bill and negotiated to cap legal immigration and place new measures to control illegal immigration, including tougher provisions against criminal aliens. The 

House conferees insisted on a sunset cap in the bill and wanted extra visas to go 

to relatives rather than to skilled workers. But Senator Simpson refused to agree. 

Enacted on Oct. 26, 1990, the compromise bill would allow 700,000 immigrants 

from 1992–94 and 675,000 annually in subsequent years.10 For the time being, proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:14 Aug 21, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\050807\35242.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35242
28

convicted of aggravated felonies would have expedited deportation hearings and would not be 

released from custody while in deportation proceedings. 67 IR. 1229–31. 11 136 Cong. Rec. S17,109 (daily ed. Oct. 26, 1990) (statement of Sen. Simpson). 12Memorandum from Doris Meissner, Nov. 30, 2005 (emphasis added).

posals to cut back on family immigration were defeated, and the Immigration Act 

of 1990 had responded to lobbying efforts by American businesses. The Act was a 

significant, and to some a revolutionary, revision of the focus of U.S. immigration 

law. After passage of the Act, although the main thrust of immigration law continued to be family immigration, highly-skilled immigrations would be deliberately encouraged to resettle in the United States more than ever before. In the long run, 

the number of employment based visas would nearly triple from 54,000 to 140,000 

per year. 

While the Asian- and Latino-dominated family categories were not reduced in 

1990, an overall numerical cap was installed. Furthermore, in the words of Senator 

Simpson, through the new employment categories and expanded diversity programs, 

‘‘we [now] open the front door wider to skilled workers of a more diverse range of 

nationalities.’’ 11

Up to his retirement in 1996, Senator Simpson fought to eliminate the sibling category. On the eve of the 1996 Presidential election, Congress reached a compromise 

on immigration reform relating to deportation, asylum, and procedural issues. Until 

the late spring of 1996, however, the chance that the immigration legislation would 

include revisions to legal immigration categories was real. Senator Simpson again 

took aim at the siblings-of-U.S.-citizens category and the category available to unmarried, adult sons and daughters of lawful resident aliens (category ‘‘2B’’). The efforts ultimately were not successful, and the 1996 legislation did not reduce family 

immigration. 

THE FALSE CHOICE BETWEEN FAMILY AND EMPLOYMENT VISAS

As comprehensive immigration reform is debated today, some commentators once 

again seek to place the family immigration categories on the negotiating table. This 

attack on family immigration is a variation on the wouldn’t-it-better-to-chose-immigrants-based-on-skills theme, by positioning family visas in opposition to employment-based visas:

There is an inherent tension in the immigration system between job and familybased admissions. In allocating visas between family and employment criteria, 

the goal of family reunification cannot be entirely reconciled with the problem 

of visas as a scare resource. The answers here are either to accept persistent 

family migration backlogs or limit the scope of family migration to nuclear, instead of extended, family relationships.12

Inherent tension? Of course there is only an ‘‘inherent tension’’ between employment and family-based visas if we choose to accept the premise that visas are a 

‘‘scarce resource,’’ or if we insist on pitting the two types of visas as oppositional. 

If instead we view the two systems as complementary ways of achieving and reflecting our goals and values as a society, then we don’t have a problem of ‘‘tension.’’ 

In other words, if, for the sake of argument, we use immigration to help our economy, to promote the social welfare of the country, and to promote family values, 

then family and employment categories together can meet those goals. 

The Labor Force Picture 

Another problem with placing employment visas in opposition to family visas is 

the implication that family immigration represents the soft side of immigration 

while employment immigration is more about being tough and strategic. The 

wrongheadedness of that suggestion is that family immigration has served our country well even from a purely economic perspective. The country needs workers with 

all levels of skill, and family immigration provides many of the needed workers. 

A concern that the current system raises for some policymakers is related to the 

belief that the vast majority of immigrants who enter in kinship categories are 

working class or low-skilled. They wonder whether this is good for the country. Interestingly enough, immigrants who enter in the sibling category actually are generally high skilled. But beyond that oversight by the complainants, what we know 

about the country and its general need for workers in the short and long terms is 

instructive. 

The truth is that we need immigrant workers of all skill levels today, and we will 

need them in the future. As of 2004, 21 million immigrants were in the U.S. labor 

force, representing 14.5 percent of the total labor force. A majority of the immigrant 

workforce is Mexican or from other Latin countries; foreign-born Asians are oneVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:14 Aug 21, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\050807\35242.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35242
29

quarter of the immigrant workforce. Roughly 6.3 million (30 percent of all foreignborn workers) are undocumented workers. This represents about 4.3 percent of the 

total U.S. labor force. 

In the last few years, the employment of immigrants actually grew while that of 

native workers was stagnant. This trend is expected to continue because without 

immigrants, demographers project that the number of workers between the ages of 

25 and 54 over the next few decades will decline. This suggests a strong demand 

for immigrants in a broad variety of industries. Immigrants represent 20 to 22 percent of farm and non-farm laborers. Mexican-born workers are much more likely 

than native workers to be found in food preparation, building and grounds maintenance, construction, and production jobs. The 2001–2003 recessionary period also 

represented a restructuring period; immigrants were favored in the declining manufacturing industry, as well as in the leisure/hospitality and construction areas. Professional business services also hired a large number of immigrants, likely due to 

increased global competition. 

Most projections of future immigration suggest that foreign-born workers will play 

a significant role in the growth and skill composition of the U.S. labor force. The 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects that the labor force will grow 12 percent 

(17.4 million) between 2002 and 2012, reaching a total of 162.3 million. 

Given projections of slow growth of the native workforce, the levels of immigration 

used in BLS and other projections imply that immigrants will remain significant 

drivers of labor force growth. The BLS’ most recent projections assume that total 

immigration, both legal and unauthorized, will continue to bring between 900,000 

and 1.3 million people to the country each year until 2012. Barring truly restrictionist policy, it is likely that immigrants will continue to comprise a significant 

supply of workers under any legislation that is passed. In fact, immigrants have 

been an important source of labor source growth in the recent past, making up 48.6 

percent of the total labor force increase between 1996 and 2000, and as much as 

60 percent of the increase from 2000 to 2004. 

These projections imply that an immigrant workforce of 19 million is projected to 

grow to 25 million by 2010, 29 million by 2020, and to 31 million by 2030. Likewise 

the share of immigrants in the total labor force is predicted to climb from 13 percent 

in 2000 to 18 percent by 2030, and then remain little changed through 2050. After 

2030, the projections indicate little further growth of the immigrant workforce, 

while much of the ongoing growth of the native workforce is implicitly being driven 

by the children of immigrants or the second generation. 

Calculations by the Urban Institute suggest that if no immigrants entered the 

country after 2000, the labor force would be nearly 10 million workers smaller by 

2015 than if immigration follows current projections. By 2050, the difference between the size of the labor force with immigration and without would be 45 million. 

The skill levels demanded by occupations projected to grow over the next several 

years parallel the educational profile of the labor force, suggesting ongoing demand 

along the skill spectrum. Every two years, the BLS publishes projections about the 

future size and shape of the U.S. labor force, and the number of net jobs that will 

be created or lost in each occupation. The latest projections are for the years 2002 

to 2012, and they forecast a slowing in the rate at which the total labor force is 

growing. However, there is substantial variation in the fortunes of various occupational workforces. 

Tomorrow’s economy will generate demand for jobs that are different from today’s 

and the skills that workers need will likewise change. The BLS separates out 15 

occupations that are projected to have the largest numerical growth and another 15 

that are projected to experience the fastest rate of growth. Immigrants make up a 

significant share of the labor force in many large and fast-growth occupations. Important, the BLS further classifies occupations by the degree of skill required for 

the job, showing that there will be a demand for both low and high-skilled immigrant workers. 

For the forecast large-growth occupations, 11 out of the 15 require only short- or 

moderate-term on-the-job training, suggesting lower-skilled immigrants could contribute to meeting the demand for these types of jobs. According to the 2000 Census 

data, immigrants were overrepresented in 4 of these occupations. Immigrants made 

up 20 percent of janitors and building cleaners, 17 percent of nursing, psychiatric, 

and home health aides, 13 percent of waiters and waitresses, and 13 percent of 

cashiers. On the high skill end, 3 large growth occupations—general and operations 

managers, other teachers and instructors, and postsecondary teachers—require a 

bachelor’s degree or higher and immigrants are especially well poised to contribute 

to these. 

Immigrants are also found in jobs that are expected to be important in serving 

tomorrow’s aging population. Seniors are expected to increasingly generate demand 

30

for medical, home care, and other services, many of which require workers with only 

on-the-job training. According to analysis of BLS data, 8 of 15 occupations projected 

to grow most rapidly and several of the occupations projected to have largest absolute growth are medical support occupations including medical records technicians, 

nursing and home health aides, registered nurses, occupational therapist assistants 

and aides, personal and home care aides, and the like. 

In summary, forecasts of occupational growth suggest that there is likely to be 

continued strong growth in occupations requiring better educated workers. There 

will also be a substantial growth of jobs requiring little training and in which immigrants are already well represented. Educational forecasts suggest that throughout 

the next decade, immigrants are likely to play an important role in restructuring 

the U.S. labor force. 

The aging of the baby boomer generation will slow labor force growth, increase 

the burden of older, retired persons on younger workers, and create a potential drag 

on productivity growth. Between 2002 and 2012, persons aged 55 and older are estimated to grow an average of 4.9 percent per year, or nearly quadruple the growth 

rate of the overall labor force. The number of workers aged 25–54, in contrast, will 

grow by only 5.1 million workers, or at a rate of 0.5 percent per year. These demographic trends slow the rate of growth of the total prime-age labor force. 

The aging of the population will change the dependency ratio—the number of nonworking dependents compared to economically active workers. That ratio is expected 

to rise as the baby boomer generation enters retirement and as U.S. fertility rates 

remain low, leaving a greater number of elderly to be supported by each worker. 

The decreasing number of taxpaying workers supporting each retiree will strain 

public assistance programs for the elderly including Social Security and Medicare. 

An infusion of young taxpaying immigrants can help address future shortfalls in 

these programs. 

While the evidence suggests that greater immigration could aid elderly assistance 

programs, it should not be expected to solve the problem. Increased immigration can 

temporarily lessen the Social Security and Medicare burden on native workers, but 

in the longer-run, permanent immigrants will also age into retirement. Further, immigrants are only 12 percent of the U.S. population and current rates of immigration add about 1 million immigrants yearly to an existing base of about 34 million. 

Immigration also may boost productivity, because immigrant workers tend to be 

younger and therefore generally more productive than older workers, but it is unclear how greatly immigration would need to be expanded to significantly enhance 

productivity. A National Academy of Sciences report in 1997 concluded that immigrants generate a small but positive boost to the gross national product by generating increased returns to capital that are greater than their adverse wage impacts. 

Some evidence suggests that innovation thrives when human capital is agglomerated in areas with many specialists and skilled migrants. The booming economy 

of the late 1990s was fueled by historic productivity gains, one-third of which came 

from information technology (IT), and foreign workers fueled one-quarter of the IT 

labor force growth. Also, immigrants started about one-third of Silicon Valley’s hightech start ups. 

Potential problems created by the aging of the U.S. labor force cannot simply and 

entirely be solved by more immigration, but budget and productivity shortfalls at 

least will generate demand for generous numbers of skilled immigrant workers. 

Some might argue that strategies other than immigration could be used to meet 

the country’s coming economic needs. For example, the need for high-skilled labor 

could be met in ways other than increasing the numbers of high-skilled immigrants 

allowed into the country. High technology jobs could be outsourced to rising centers 

of technological expertise such as Bangalore or other growing hot spots around the 

world. Or the United States could devote greater resources to raising the skill level 

of residents, retraining workers from sunset industries and improving the teaching 

of skills most relevant to the future economy of the country’s youth. 

Given the dynamic nature of the economy, the uncertainty of any attempts to predict the needs of tomorrow’s economy, and the limited control any government can 

exert over demographic changes, it is difficult to say with any certainty how immigration can or should be used to meet the needs of the country’s coming labor markets. However, it is quite clear that immigration has been an important source of 

labor force growth in the past, and that the skills required of the occupations important to the future, in both technology and healthcare industries, will likely match 

reasonably well with the skill profiles of immigrants today and the projected skill 

profiles of future immigrants. Immigrants currently play a large role in several of 

the occupations expected to have most growth both in terms of the rate of growth 

or growth in numbers of workers, and can therefore be expected to contribute to 

meeting the future demand of these industries. Immigration is not the only answer 

31

to the country’s future economic needs, but it could, and likely will, play an important part in a more comprehensive solution. 

The Competition Charge 

Immigrant workers have long contributed to the power behind the motor of the 

U.S. economy. However, concerns that immigrants compete with native workers to 

the latter’s detriment still abound in the public mind. A review of the literature 

about immigration’s impact on native wages and job displacement is a starting place 

to resolve this question. But before doing so, any serious observer has to acknowledge that immigrants affect the economy in ways that are not reflected by wage and 

job displacement studies. Immigrant entrepreneurship may create jobs; immigrants 

are increasingly associated with further openings to trade and other forms of exchange; high-skilled immigrants innovate in key sectors of the economy; immigrants 

make tax contributions and receive public services; the presence of significant numbers of immigrants in a sector helps make that sector’s products and services cheaper—and thus more affordable by all consumers; and immigrant workers both 

produce and, in turn, consume goods and services—thus having much wider ripple 

economic effects, including creating jobs. 

Most economic competition discussions generally focus on the short- and mediumterm impacts of immigration. When immigrant workers enter a labor market, there 

may be initial pains to accommodate them, and in response to those difficulties, the 

labor market may adjust, perhaps by creating more jobs that immigrants and/or natives could fill, or inducing natives to move. However, in the long-term, the impact 

of an immigrant cohort depends on the degree to which immigrants assimilate into 

U.S. society (i.e., become like native workers in terms of the skills they have). If 

they, or perhaps more importantly their children, assimilate economically, a given 

immigrant cohort will tend to make the economy larger without putting downward 

pressure on natives’ wages. Also, keep in mind the possibility that immigrant employment often complements that of native workers. 

Immigrants are an important and growing part of the U.S. labor force. Estimates 

indicate that one of every two new workers in the 1990s was foreign-born. As a result of these flows, from 1990 to 2002, the immigrant share of the workforce rose 

from 9.4 to 14 percent. Immigrants are also disproportionately low-wage workers, 

comprising 20 percent of the low-wage population, though they also make up much 

higher proportions in several high-skill occupations and sectors. 

In 1997, the National Research Council concluded that immigration had a small 

effect on the wages of native workers. Evidence showed that immigration reduced 

the wages of competing natives by only 1 or 2 percent. Effects were also weak for 

native black workers, a group often assumed to be in competition with immigrant 

workers. Earlier immigrant cohorts were more significantly affected: they could expect 2 to 4 or more percent wage decline for every 10 percent increase in the number of immigrant workers. The report also noted that immigration, as a whole, resulted in a net benefit to the economy of between $1 and $10 billion annually, a 

small but still significant positive impact. Certain groups within the economy, such 

as those with capital or high-level skills or those consuming immigrants’ goods or 

services, benefited from immigration, even if low-skilled natives stood to lose in the 

process. 

While there is still general agreement that some native groups, particularly the 

high-skilled or those with capital, benefit from overall immigration flows, since 

1997, the assertion that immigrants do not significantly affect natives’ wages is now 

more broadly contested. Many studies continue to find no effect or only weak negative effects of immigration on low-skilled workers or workers in general. Others suggest that newly arriving immigrants do not have a statistically significant impact, 

but the degree to which immigrants substitute for natives increases with time spent 

in the United States. Still others contend that the negative wage effects are larger, 

perhaps on the order of a 3 or 4 percent wage decline for competing workers for 

every 10 percent increase in immigrants with similar skills. Other the other hand, 

some research found that immigration actually had a slightly positive and statistically significant effect on all natives’ self-employment earnings. 

Findings now are contested regarding immigrants’ wage effects for highly-skilled 

native workers. Some researchers estimate that immigration during the last two 

decades depressed wages by 4.9 percent for native college graduates. In contrast, 

others have found that high-skilled immigrants actually raise native wages, for example that a 10 percent increase in high-skilled immigrants raised native skilled 

workers’ earnings by 2.6 percent. 

In essence, the literature indicates that the impact of immigration on native workers is an issue that is still up for debate, perhaps now more than ever. Some researchers have found divergent, large negative, small negative to non-existent, and 

32

13Family Values, Betrayed, NY TIMES, Editorial, May 4, 2007. 

positive impacts from immigration on native relative wages, even among the most 

vulnerable populations. Furthermore, most research has found some job displacement or native exclusion within given sectors or cities as a result of immigration, 

but the criticism that many of these studies have looked where they would expect 

to find impacts is a valid one to keep in mind when viewing this literature convergence. Certainly, immigration’s impact on the most vulnerable native workers is increasingly contested ground, which makes predicting future impacts doubly difficult. 

In the end, whether or not immigrants actually depress wages or displace some 

workers may be only one consideration within a larger policymaking context. 

Whether the effects are slightly negative, somewhat positive, or tend toward zero, 

they may be far outweighed by other effects that immigrants have on the United 

States. Over and over again, we hear the claim that immigrants definitely take jobs 

away from native workers or that native wages are severely depressed by immigrant 

workers. But the empirical data supplies no smoking gun for those claims, and in 

fact, the opposite may be true. 

Without an empirical foundation for attacking the entry of immigrants with low 

job skills, some critics of the current system simply argue that there is a better way 

of doing things. They are not satisfied that immigration fills needed job shortages 

and aids economic growth as a result of the entry of ambitious, hard-working family 

immigrants and their children, many of whom are professionals as well as unskilled 

workers with a propensity for saving and investment. 

THE BENEFITS OF FAMILY IMMIGRATION

The economic data on today’s kinship immigrants are favorable for the country. 

The entry of even low-skilled immigrants leads to faster economic growth by increasing the size of the market, thereby boosting productivity, investment, and technological practice. Technological advances are made by immigrants who are neither 

well-educated nor well-paid as well as by white collar immigrants. Moreover, many 

kinship-based immigrants open new businesses that employ natives as well as other 

immigrants; this is important since small businesses are now the most important 

source of new jobs in the country. The current system results in designers, business 

leaders, investors, and Silicon Valley-type engineers. And much of the flexibility 

available to American entrepreneurs in experimenting with risky labor-intensive 

business ventures is afforded by the presence of low-wage immigrant workers. In 

short, kinship immigrants contribute greatly to this country’s vitality and growth. 

They are the ‘‘moms, pops, sons and daughters who open groceries and restaurants, 

who rebuild desolate neighborhoods and inspire America with their work ethic and 

commitment to one another.’’ 13

Beyond the obvious economic benefits of the current system, a thorough consideration of the benefits of the family-based immigration system must include the psychic values of such a system. The psychic value of family reunification is generally 

overlooked by empiricists perhaps due to difficulty in making exact calculations. Yet 

the inability to make such a calculation is no reason to facilely cast aside the concept or ignore the possibilities. 

Perhaps as a first step in getting a sense of the unquantifiable psychic values of 

family reunification, we could begin by thinking of our own families and what each 

one of our loved ones means to us. How less productive would we be without one 

or more of them? How less productive would we be, having to constantly be concerned about their sustenance, safety, or general well being? How more productive 

are we when we know that we can come home at the end of the day and enjoy their 

company or share our days’ events with them? 

Ask Ming Liu, a design engineer for a U.S. telephone and electronics equipment 

company from China. Liu was doing fine, better than his boss expected, and always 

had his nose to the grindstone. But he became an even better worker after his wife 

and child rejoined him following a two-year immigration process. Liu’s productivity 

skyrocketed. His boss observed Liu’s personality opening up after his family arrived, 

and Liu came up with a completely new, innovative concept that helped the company change direction and increase sales. In Liu’s words, after his family immigrated, he could ‘‘breathe again.’’

Or ask Osvaldo Fernandez, a former pitcher for the San Francisco Giants. He had 

defected from the Cuban national baseball team, leaving his wife and child back in 

Cuba. After a mediocre first half of the 1996 season, his wife and child were allowed 

to leave Cuba and join Fernandez in the United States. Overnight, his pitching performance radically improved. He attributed this turnaround to reunification with his 

wife and child. 

33

Consider the Ayalde sisters. Corazon became a U.S. citizen several years after she 

immigrated to the United States as a registered nurse to work in a public hospital 

devoted to caring for senior citizens. When her sister Cerissa, who had remained 

in the citizen, became widowed without children, they longed to be reunited—especially after Cerissa became ill. Corazon filed a sibling petition, and after years of 

waiting, Cerissa’s visa was granted. Corazon felt her ‘‘heart being lifted to heaven’’ 

as the sisters reunited to live their lives together once again. I think of the Ayalde 

sisters often in the context of my own mother’s inability to successfully petition for 

her sister’s immigration out of mainland China to be reunited. First there was the 

paperwork for the application, complicated by the difficulty in obtaining documents 

from China. Then there were the backlogs in the sibling category, and finally the 

hurdles of getting travel documents out of China in the 1970s. When my mother 

received word that her sister had passed away, the tears she shed were only a fraction of the pain she had endured being separated from her sister for decades. 

The truth is that the family promotes productivity after resettlement in the 

United States through the promotion of labor force activity and job mobility that is 

certainly as important—perhaps more important—than the particular skills with 

which individuals arrive. Family and household structures are primary factors in 

promoting high economic achievement, for example, in the formation of immigrant 

businesses that have revitalized many urban neighborhoods and economic sectors. 

Those who would eliminate family categories contend that family separation is a 

fact of life (sometimes harsh) that we can get over or live with. Yes, most of us live 

without someone whom we love dearly either because of that person’s death, or because the person lives across the country. Yes, we can get over this separation and 

perhaps become as productive as ever. Yet to take this ability to recover and place 

it in the context of immigration and say to someone who wants to reunify with a 

brother, sister, son, or daughter, ‘‘No, your relative cannot join you; you cannot reunify with this person on a permanent basis,’’ is cruel. It visits the burden and challenge of recovery on the person unnecessarily. It prevents voluntary choice by adults 

who are capable of making life-affecting decisions relating to very private family 

matters. As such it can affect life-long circumstances that the individuals involved 

should have controlled. 

CONCLUSION

I once had a friendly debate over lunch with a retired federal immigration judge 

about the sibling category. He could not understand the need for the category because, after all, he loves his sister just as much even though she lives in New York 

rather than next door in San Francisco. On further discussion, he acknowledged 

that he might feel differently if she was living in a different country where visa requirements made simple visits complicated. Family separation across national 

boundaries must be viewed differently from separation within the same country. 

The opponents of the current system that favors many family categories contend 

that unending chain migration has resulted from this system. They present a picture of a single immigrant who enters, who then brings in a spouse, then each 

spouse brings in siblings who bring in their spouses and children, and each adult 

brings in parents who can petition for their siblings or other children, and the cycle 

goes on and on. Certainly for a period of time, family categories result in the arrival 

of certain relatives. However, the purveyors of the image of limitless relatives forget 

that throughout the course of immigration history to the United States, these socalled family chains are invariably broken. Thus, although virtually limitless numbers of western Europeans have been permitted to immigrate to the United States 

throughout the past two hundred years, at a given point, decisions are made—some 

slowly—by families about who is willing or wants to come to the new country and 

who does not. As a result, immigration numbers from western European countries 

have dramatically fallen off. For example, hundreds of thousands of immigrants 

from the United Kingdom, Germany, and Ireland immigrated to the United States 

in each decade of the first part of the twentieth century. The figures continued to 

be substantial for Germans and British nationals through 1970, but then the figures 

diminished significantly after that. 

In reality, the proponents of the chain migration image are simply engaging in 

scare tactics that have serious racial overtones. Their proposal to cut off family categories comes at a time when three in four immigrants are Latino or Asian. Perhaps 

most reprehensible is the fallacy upon which these attacks are being made. In fact, 

the picture of ever-expanding immigration fueled by chain migration is a fabrication. Consider individual countries: the number of Koreans who entered in 1988 was 

34,000, but by 1993, the figure was reduced by half, and in 2004 fewer than 20,000 

34

14Final Report of Select Commission at 112. 15Final Report of Select Commission at 103. 

Koreans immigrated. The number of Filipinos who immigrated in 1990 was over 

71,000, but by 1993 the figure was about 63,000, and around 50,000 by 2004. 

In further twisted reasoning, supporters of family category reductions argue that 

since the categories are backlogged many years (especially the sibling category), 

they should be eliminated because they are useless and do not achieve any family 

values. However, they categories certainly are not useless for those who have waited 

their turn and who are now immigrating. And if there is real sympathy for those 

on the waiting list, then providing extra visa numbers for awhile to clear the backlog is in order. In fact, that was the recommendation of the bi-partisan Select Commission more than a quarter century ago. Clearing the backlogs is not novel; in 

1962, for example, extra visas were made available to clear backlogs for Italian and 

Greek immigrants. Reducing backlogs are more consistent with the broad goals of 

immigration policy and democratic values of best practices in governance. Immigration policy helps define the United States in the eyes of the world, and relative 

openness sends a positive message about American values and also creates important linkages and opportunities for exchange. 

Easing the worldwide backlogs by providing favored treatment for Mexican immigrants is also worthy of consideration. Expanded legal access for Mexican immigrants has a great capacity to reduce unauthorized flows to the United States by 

addressing the greatest source of migration demand. Expanding the number of legal 

immigrant visas to Mexicans or taking Mexican migration out of the worldwide 

quota would increase the number of available worldwide visas to other countries, 

thereby reducing backlogs per se. At a time in world history when we need to continue thinking regionally, such a gesture of goodwill and understanding to our contiguous neighbor and ally is important, giving the need for greater economic and security cooperation between historically-linked societies. 

As to the attack on the sibling category in particular, for many citizens and residents of the United States, including those of Asian or Latin descent, the argument 

that brothers and sisters are a family relationship of limited importance is puzzling. 

The backlog in the sibling category is evidence itself that brothers and sisters are 

important to many families. Many U.S. citizens have filed immigration petitions for 

siblings rather than for their own parents. Parents, the older generation, are often 

deeply entrenched in the country of birth, more comfortable in their native surroundings, and reluctant to emigrate and face adjustments to a new society as seniors. On the other hand, contemporary siblings are more adventurous and eager to 

emigrate. Being of the same generation as the citizen sibling, they, more than the 

parent, often have a closer relationship because they tend to share the same goals, 

interests, and values. Siblings are among the easiest immigrants to resettle, and 

generally become immediate contributors to the economy. 

The importance of the sibling category has been long recognized in U.S. immigration laws. Section 2(d) of the first quota act of 1921 stipulated that ‘‘preference shall 

be given as far as possible to wives, parents, brothers, sisters, and children under 

eighteen years’’ of U.S. citizens. Preference for brothers and sisters was included 

after World War II because siblings were in many cases the only surviving members 

of families. Thus, this preference for siblings was continued in the basic nationality 

act of 1952. Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens were placed in the same category 

of importance as sons and daughters of citizens. And, of course, in the 1965 amendments, Congress signed the sibling preference the highest percentage of visas—24 

percent. 

The Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy defended the family 

reunification system in its 1981 report:

The reunification of families serves the national interest not only through the 

humaneness of the policy itself, but also through the promotion of the public 

order and well-being of the nation. Psychologically and socially, the reunion of 

family members with their close relatives promotes the health and welfare of 

the United States.14

After all, the system resulted in the entry of ‘‘ambitious, hard-working immigrants 

and their children’’ who provided a disproportionate number of skilled workers with 

a propensity for saving and investment.15

In an era of promoting family values, proposals to eliminate family immigration 

categories seem odd. What values do such proposals impart? What’s the message? 

That brothers and sisters are not important? Or (in the case of the proposal to limit 

children of lawful permanent residents) that once children reach a certain age, the 

parent-child bond needs not remain strong? Eliminating such categories instituVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:14 Aug 21, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\050807\35242.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35242
35

tionalizes concepts that are antithetical to the nurturing of family ties, that ignore 

the strong family bonds in most families, and that should be promoted among all 

families. Indeed, the proposals send a strong anti-family message. 

There is a reason that the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights highlights the unity of the family as the ‘‘foundation of freedom, justice and 

peace in the world.’’ Our families make us whole. Our families define us and human 

beings. Our families are at the center of our most treasured values. Our families 

make the nation strong.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Mr. Anderson? 

TESTIMONY OF STUART ANDERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR AMERICAN POLICY 

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

The Bush administration has circulated a document that proposes ending the ability of U.S. citizens to sponsor their children 

for immigration if those sons or daughters have reached the age of 

21. 

One way to look at this is at the personal level. I think most 

Members of Congress would agree they would have a difficult time 

barring the door to their 22-year-old daughter while welcoming the 

immigration of their 19-year-old son. 

Under the draft proposal Americans would also be prohibited 

from sponsoring a brother or sister for immigration, and it also 

would place restrictions on the admission of parents of U.S. citizens. 

In essence, as part of a deal to appeal to critics who say we 

should not reward illegal immigrants, we would prohibit Americans 

from sponsoring their own children or other close family members 

for legal immigration. 

This should be rejected as a policy option. Some argue that family wait times are too long. This is true. However, the fact that 

there are long wait times simply means that Congress hasn’t raised 

the limits in a very long time. 

The answer is not to eliminate categories and guarantee that 

Americans never have a chance to reunite with certain loved ones. 

The appropriate solution is to raise the quotas, as the Senate did 

last year in their bill. 

It is alleged that eliminating family categories would reduce 

‘‘chain migration.’’ However, chain migration is a relatively meaningless term because it merely describes what has happened 

throughout the country’s history. Some family members have come, 

they have succeeded, and then they sponsored other family members. 

Let’s suppose one immigrant arrives and takes 6 years to become 

a citizen. They sponsor a sibling, with an 11-year to 20-year wait. 

Then that sibling sponsors an adult child with a 6-year to 14-year 

wait. 

The time between the arrival of the first immigrant and the third 

immigrant would be between 29 years and 46 years, depending on 

the country, not the continuous onslaught that critics allege. 

And all the immigrants would immigrate under legal quotas that 

have been established already by Congress. 

While approximately 58 percent of U.S. legal immigration in 

2005 was family-based, more than half of family immigration was 

36

the spouses and children of U.S. citizens, which almost no one has 

proposed eliminating. 

Of total U.S. legal immigration in 2005, married and unmarried 

adult children of U.S. citizens accounted for only 2 percent each, 

and siblings of U.S. citizens accounted for only 6 percent. 

In place of certain family categories, the Administration and others have discussed instituting a Canadian-style point system, 

which would only admit immigrants who receive enough points 

based on education and other criteria. 

Some say a rationale for a point system is to improve the skill 

level of immigrants. In reality, according to the New Immigrant 

Survey and the Pew Hispanic Center, the typical legal immigrant 

already has a higher education level than the typical native. So the 

rationale for eliminating the family category simply isn’t there. 

Family members immigrating to support their U.S. relatives and 

caring for children and running family-owned businesses are more 

likely to benefit the United States economically than unattached 

individuals who achieve a certain number of points based on criteria designed by Government bureaucrats. 

John Tu, president and CEO of California-based Kingston Technology, immigrated to America from Taiwan after being sponsored 

by his sister. When he sold his company, he gave $100 million to 

his employees, about $100,000 to $300,000 each, using the philosophy to treat employees and customers based on Asian family values of trust and loyalty. 

Jerry Yang, co-founder of Yahoo, one of America’s top companies, 

came to the country at the age of 10. He says Yahoo would not be 

an American company today if the United States had not welcomed 

him and his family 30 years ago. 

U.S. employers want to recruit and hire specific skilled individuals, not skilled people in general. The most effective policy to promote skilled immigration is to exempt from the current quotas employer-sponsored immigrants with a master’s degree or higher. 

In addition, Congress can raise the quotas for H-1B temporary 

visas and green cards and eliminate per-country limits for employment-based immigration. 

This is the package of reforms the Senate approved last year 

when it passed Senator John Cornyn’s skill bill as part of the larger immigration bill, and Congress can simply return to those key 

reforms made in that bill rather than engage in wholesale reform 

of the immigration system. 

Denying U.S. citizens the ability to sponsor adult children, parents or siblings is both unnecessary and politically divisive. The bill 

the Senate passed last year raised quotas for both family and employment-based immigration, and Congress can do so again this 

year. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]

37

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STUART ANDERSON


SA0001.eps
38


SA0002.eps
39


SA0003.eps
40


SA0004.eps
41


SA0005.eps
42


SA0006.eps
43


SA0007.eps
44


SA0008.eps
45


SA0009.eps
46


SA0010.eps
47


SA0011.eps
48


SA0012.eps
49


SA0013.eps
50


SA0014.eps
51

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Thanks to all of you for your testimony. 

We will begin our questioning now, and I will start off on that 

point. 

I would like to ask you, Mr. Anderson, if you could comment. 

Congressman Gingrey has described a situation where aunts and 

cousins immigrate, ending up with 273 people per employment immigrant. Can you comment on that? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. I think the example that I gave is more typical of what would happen even under sort of a tight situation, in 

which it would take 29 years to perhaps 50 years, depending on the 

country, for even getting from the first to the third immigrant. 

So again, I am sure Dr. Gingrey, put the numbers out there in 

good faith. I am just not sure how you would get numbers of that 

magnitude. 

And also, any numbers you would have would have to come in 

under the quotas that Congress has already legislated. 

So I think that the whole idea of chain immigration, not specifically the example the Congressman gave, is meant to conjure up 

these hordes of people, you know, coming into the country one after 

another, when what you are really talking about is many, many 

years from going from one to the second to even the third family 

member. 

If, as Mr. Hing talked about, even if there is a decision made 

to——

Ms. LOFGREN. So that couldn’t—well, I mean, it could happen 

over time, but Congress currently is controlling that through controlling the numbers per category per year. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Right. There are some particular categories. And 

again, I just think the term, you know, gets to be a little misleading. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Hing, you have testified about the history of 

this whole situation. The Department of Labor has actually told us, 

and we have received testimony today, that immigrants have a 

much higher rate of entrepreneurship than native-born Americans, 

and that a large majority, they say, of immigrant-owned businesses 

in the U.S. are individual proprietorships and family proprietorships. 

I am wondering whether, if we were to accept the immigration 

proposal to dramatically reduce the impact or permission of familybased immigration, would this have an impact on the small-business development in the United States, in your professional judgment? 

Mr. HING. Absolutely, Madam Chair. The people that would be 

prevented from coming in are those that are starting small businesses. And as all of you know, most of the employment creation 

in the United States is done at the hands of small-business owners. 

And so, those that we would be preventing from coming in are 

the moms and pops, and sons and daughters, and brothers and sisters who actually represent the spirit of entrepreneurship, who go 

into dilapidated neighborhoods and demonstrate the work ethic 

that all of us are very proud of. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Congressman Gingrey, we do appreciate your willingness to spend time with us. I know all of us have very busy 

52

schedules, and it is a great gift to us that you would take time out 

of your schedule to be here. 

In looking at your testimony, I see that it would basically eliminate the ability of United States citizens to petition for their adult 

children and siblings. 

And I guess all of us bring to our legislative task our own personal history. I have a 22-year-old son in addition to a 25-year-old 

daughter. I am wondering how eliminating my ability as a U.S. citizen to bring my 22-year-old son here is consistent with our sense 

of family values in America. 

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chair, in regard to limiting your ability to 

do that, certainly your adult, 21-, 22-, 35-year-old brother or sister, 

who may be from your native country and still there—an opportunity to be in the queue to come into this country as a legal permanent resident—and they have that opportunity. And they still 

have that opportunity. 

I want to respond to the gentleman, Mr. Anderson. He talked 

about these hordes of people that Congressman Gingrey referred to, 

and I want to, for the record, just—and I will be glad to give Mr. 

Anderson a copy of this. 

This is the hordes of people, Mr. Anderson, under the chain migration policy that now exists and how the 273 in the extreme, over 

a 15-year period, get here. Many of them may have great skills, but 

a lot of them have very little skills. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, if you will give that to Mr. Anderson, I am 

sure he would appreciate looking at it. Somebody may ask him 

about that. 

And I see my time has expired. I would just say that, in my judgment, turning 21 is not a valid criteria for separating parents from 

their children. But that is just my opinion. 

The Ranking Member is now recognized for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

First, I would reflect with Congressman Gingrey, 5,200 babies, 

that would be a baby a week for a century, so you must have been 

busy some of those weeks. And that is quite an impact on society, 

and I compliment you for that. 

I would ask you if you could make some more expansive comments on the 273. It is my understanding that that actually could 

be significantly larger, but the spreadsheet just didn’t accommodate going beyond this to other generations. 

And also, the cultural question of—I mean, I look across at my 

family, at many of the families that I know, my relation—we are 

scattered all over the country and other places in the world. And 

we stay in contact through e-mail and a lot of other ways, and we 

travel and have family reunions to get together. That is the American family. The American family is dispersed. 

And so, isn’t it reasonable to expect that people that arrive here 

as immigrants, who would assimilate into this culture, might adopt 

those same kind of dispersed family values, that we cherish our 

families, but we also take on our responsibilities and make career 

decisions accordingly? 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, of course, many of the people that come into 

this country are Asian immigrants, are immigrants from south of 

53

the border, are Latino immigrants, have great family values, there 

is no question about that. They also tend to have large families. 

And again, my feeling, my bill that I have introduced, H.R. 938, 

the Nuclear Family Priority Act, honors that philosophy. And I 

don’t disagree with my co-panelists on that. 

But again, I mean, if you look at these numbers in the extreme, 

and the fact that we already have 12 million illegal here, and if 

each one of them could, by this family reunification policy since 

1965, in the extreme, bring in an additional 273—and it does, in 

fact—Mr. Anderson mentioned that it counts against the quota system. 

Absolutely, so that people waiting in line to come here, skillbased applicants, are pushed further and further behind in the 

queue and may never get to this country to bring their skills here. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Dr. Gingrey. 

I would then turn to Mr. Hing, and you made a statement that 

there are racial implications behind getting rid of some of the family reunification. 

And if we would look across the history of immigration in this 

country, there have always been, of course, racial implications, because people come—and I think we really mean not so much racial 

implications as we do national origin implications or perhaps ethnic implications. 

But as people come from different places, obviously, they bring 

with them a certain label that their geographic source has established with and for them and on them. 

But would it be possible to discuss the kind of policies that are 

being advocated here—the reduction in the amount of family reunification, for example—could one do that without having racial implications? And how do I do that? 

Mr. HING. Well, the way you do it is by indicating that you are 

not going to eliminate categories that have the substantial effect on 

particular racial groups. 

Mr. KING. But won’t that allegation always be made? If we 

change categories, adjust categories or eliminate them, aren’t there 

always implications that the allegation can be made by persons 

such as yourself continually throughout this debate? Or could you 

help us find a way not to? 

Mr. HING. Sure. I will be happy to. The way you do it is by having a first-come, first-served system. And if you are willing to go 

that way, then I think the——

Mr. KING. Okay, but I am interested in putting it on merit so 

that we can have young, skilled, trained people that are going to 

contribute to this economy for a long time. Now, can we do that 

without racial implications? 

Mr. HING. Sure, we can. We can look at it in two different systems, the way we have now—with all due respect to Dr. Gingrey, 

when he stated that labor immigrants are put at the back of the 

line because family—it is two different systems. The 140,000 visas 

for the labor and economics are a completely different system. They 

are handled autonomously. 

So yes, you can handle the labor issue and the employment issue 

separately, as it already is structured, and handle the family system separately, as it is handled today. 

54

Mr. KING. Can I ask you to just present a document to this Committee that would outline those thoughts on that? I think that is 

going to be really instructive for us, because there is friction there. 

And if there is good, clear policy we can do with avoiding that 

friction, I think that would be very constructive. 

Mr. HING. Yes. There is no reason to put those two issues in opposition. 

Mr. KING. Okay. Thank you. I am watching the yellow light here. 

Another question I wanted to ask you is that pretty much the 

statement has been made here by yourself and a number of others 

about all who come here—I will say this: All who work in this economy contribute to the GDP. Would you concede that statement? 

Mr. HING. Sure. 

Mr. KING. And then the follow-up to that is—because every time 

someone pays a dollar it gets added. And I agree with that. But 

is there such a thing as nonessential work in this economy? 

Does it get to the point where some people work so cheaply that 

people who would otherwise not have someone weed their garden 

or mow their lawn or trim their trees or wash their windows, 

things that they would do themselves, how large a sector might 

that be? How large is the nonessential sector of this economy? 

Mr. HING. I think that everyone who is paid a minimum wage 

contributes to the GDP. There is no debating that. 

Mr. KING. Would you concede there is a nonessential sector? 

Mr. HING. It depends on how you define it. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Hing. 

Madam Chair, I would yield back. 

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

I turn now to our colleague, Mr. Luis Gutierrez, for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

I guess we are going to have to have at least somewhat of a discussion of the concept of family and how people view family. 

And I would just like to ask Congressman Gingrey, I have a relative expectation that I live in Chicago, and that my parents are 

in Chicago, and that my children are going to be around, and so 

I decide to live there. This is a decision that I make. And I think 

I am pretty reflective of a lot of immigrant communities that tend 

to live together and tend to think of even their jobs and where they 

are going to go. 

Do you see anything fundamentally wrong with that? 

Mr. GINGREY. I don’t think there is anything fundamentally 

wrong with it. I would say that taken to the extreme that it hurts 

our assimilation into our society, and I think it has the potential 

for hurting that community and that family. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I don’t understand how it would hurt our assimilation. My parents only spoke Spanish. I only spoke English. The 

fact that I was their child actually helped them assimilate. 

I am actually different than they are, and my children are different than I am. We share some commonalities, but we are actually different, in that I had to send my daughter to a special school 

so she would learn Spanish, given that neither my wife nor I speak 

Spanish in our household, yet both of her parents spoke Spanish 

and both of mine did. 

55

But we have continued to live together. Actually, we have a very 

rich bilingual tradition. 

And I checked with my daughter, and she told me it was rather 

expensive at the university to take Spanish classes and that all her 

friends who come from non-Hispanic families are taking Spanish 

classes because they say it is the great thing for the globalization 

of our economy and our hemispheric traditions in terms of our 

economy here. 

Because Mr. King said that it was bad, that it would stifle our 

economy. I really haven’t seen it stifle our economy. 

In Chicago, the second-largest tax stream of city tax dollars after 

Michigan Avenue, the Magnificent Mile, is 26th Street in the immigrant community, only followed by the Koreans on Lawrence Avenue. 

So if anything, there are large streams of monies coming to the 

city of Chicago from those immigrant communities. And part of the 

basis is they live there because their family is there. They have a 

great tradition of families. 

And so I don’t quite grasp this thing, this notion, almost as 

though it is good that people scatter across America. A lot of times, 

people don’t want to scatter across America. A lot of times, people 

think it is important that they live together. 

I mean, we don’t live in the same neighborhood, but we live in 

the same city, and the proximity of one to another really gives us 

a great deal of stability, gives us a lot of stability, because we have 

obviously a community that we all live in. 

And I would just like to follow up on Chairwoman Lofgren’s point 

about her children, and I think that in America, Mr. Gingrey, as 

we look at America, more and more, we find that our children are 

coming back to live—not me, but children are coming—it is just 

happening across America. 

And it is not just anecdotal evidence that my friends still have 

27-year-olds and 28-year-olds and 29-year-olds coming back to live 

with them. The fact is the concept of family even in America is 

changing. 

When I left home at 19, I left home. It was a different time. My 

19-year-old isn’t me when I was 19 years old, nor do I want her 

to be. It is a different time. 

I expect that my kids are going to be around a lot longer than 

I was with my parents, and that, indeed, I was with them longer 

than they were with theirs. It is progress, in many senses, that 

they stick around longer. 

So even if we look at America—that is, those of us like you and 

I that were born here in this country and are native-born citizens, 

we find that our children stay with us well beyond 21 years of age. 

And there isn’t some kind of—how would I say it?—automatic, 

or—I am trying to think of the word, Congressman Gingrey, but 

some kind of automatic cutoff when they are 21 years of age. They 

continue to be our children. 

I have looked at your chart, and I have to tell you that in my 

practice as being a Member of Congress and having a huge immigrant community, it take 100 years before you got to the end of 

that chart. I am serious. 

56

It just would take—people come here. They become permanent 

residents. It takes 5 years as a permanent resident before they can 

become a citizen. 

The backlogs are between a year to 2 years, so your expectation, 

even if you did it, would probably be about 7 years. And then you 

have to stay there. And then it takes 5 years to become a citizen 

of the United States. 

I mean, it takes a while. Do you know what the waiting period 

is on your chart for an American citizen sibling in the Philippines, 

for my brother, a brother or a sister? It is 24 years. For Mexico, 

for a brother or sister, it is about 14 years, 15 years. 

So even if you carried this thing out, given the caps that we currently have—and I practiced this a lot in the office, because I was 

sharing with Mr. Berman, people came up to me when I first got 

elected to Congress and they said, ‘‘Well, I would like to apply for 

my brother.’’ And I said, ‘‘Well, do it now. In 13 years, their visa 

will be available for them.’’

I see them now, and they regret the fact they didn’t apply for 

their brother. I mean, it is so long—I am sorry, my time—it is so 

long, Mr. Gingrey, I assure you that people don’t apply for their 

siblings under this chart because they have no realistic expectation 

that it is going to happen in the scheme of things in a prudent 

amount of time. 

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

And I appreciate the witnesses here today. 

One comment that was made earlier about, you know, the United 

States separating the family—and just in fairness, it would seem 

that whoever it is that decides to leave a family in another country 

and come to this country would be the one that make the decision 

to consciously separate the family. 

I know in this day and time it is good to apparently politically 

beat up on the United States, but I would think that, to be fair, 

whoever decides to leave the family and the home makes that first 

decision. 

Now, one of the things the Chairwoman had started was a hearing on the immigration service, and I think it is doing an atrocious 

job of getting applications through their service. 

And that is something I hope we continue to have hearings on, 

because that is so grossly unfair. Any Member of Congress that assists people with visas and opportunities to come into this country 

knows we are talking years. 

And my friend, Mr. Gutierrez, makes a good point. I mean, we 

are talking years from so many places. 

But, Dr. Gingrey, you—and I apologize for being late. You had 

mentioned, or someone had referred to your mentioning 273 as a 

chain migration, and knowing you, I know you don’t just toss out 

information lightly. 

Could you give a basis for getting to that number? 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Gohmert, yes, I would be happy to, Representative Gohmert. These numbers come from Dr. Robert Rector and 

NumbersUSA. 

57

Dr. Rector is a fellow at The Heritage Foundation and has published a white paper, and I think soon in book form, on the fiscal 

cost of low-skilled households to the United States taxpayer. That 

is where these numbers come from. 

I don’t have any reason to believe that the hordes of people that 

Mr. Anderson say do not exist indeed do exist. 

And I will be glad to share this with all the Members of the Committee and with my colleagues——

Mr. GOHMERT. Is that part of the record? 

Mr. GINGREY. That is part of the record. It is. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. GINGREY. And I also want to say, in regard to Dr. Duleep—

I am sorry, I probably mispronounced—Dr. Duleep, I am sorry—in 

regard to that—but talking about the fact that the immigrant families are the ones that are the small-business men and women that 

create the businesses, and that, in fact, family reunification policy 

of bringing people in this country is probably better economically 

for this country than to bring in skilled workers, who are waiting 

in the queue and sometimes never get here because of all the others that come before them in the queue by virtue of family reunification based not at all on their skill level—the statistics that Dr. 

Rector has presented shows that so many of these—probably not 

the family of Representative Gutierrez, but so many of these that 

come under family reunification are either already high school 

dropouts or will become high school dropouts. 

And even if they are working in this country and at a decent 

wage, and paying all of their taxes, which many are, they are probably on average, particularly the high school dropout category, paying about $10,000, $11,000 worth of State, local and Federal taxes 

and receiving about $30,000 worth of benefits. 

So when we start talking about GDP and contribution to this 

economy, those are the numbers that you have to——

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, my time is about out, and I appreciate that. 

I would just like to point out—and I know it is not good to generalize with respect to national origin or races, but my experience 

with Hispanics in Texas, in east Texas, has been that they give me 

new hope. 

I have seen over the last 40 years a tremendous breakdown in 

the family, in people’s belief in the God that was cited by our 

founders, and I find extremely hard-working ethic, intense loyalty 

to families and intense loyalty to God, and I think those are three 

things that have made America great. So I am hopeful that that 

will be the strengthening of America by that kind of influx. 

But I am very concerned that we are encouraging a small element to come in, have children in our hospital, and then start a 

chain migration of those who are not the most hard-working people. And any facts that anyone has to support what we can do to 

help our neighbors to the south to promote a good, strong middle 

class I think would be the thing to do. 

But I appreciate you all’s testimony. 

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

Mr. Berman, the gentleman from California? 

58

Mr. BERMAN. Dr. Gingrey, an illegal immigrant arrives here on 

May 8, 2007. Can you tell me the year that the 273rd member of 

his family gets here? 

Mr. GINGREY. Representative Berman, if these statistics are accurate, and I feel that they are, then that year would be 2023. 

Mr. BERMAN. That is nonsense. I mean, it is impossible. There 

is nothing I have read in what you have passed out that would lead 

me to that conclusion. But let’s leave it at that. 

I do want to repeat one point, because you said it several times 

now, notwithstanding Professor Hing’s point. The people coming 

here under labor petitions do not—we authorize a certain number 

of those visas every year. They are not dependent on what the 

backlog is or what the petitions are for family-based immigration. 

They are in a separate line. The country quotas may have impacts, 

but the line is a separate line from the family-based immigration. 

But I would like to ask—I appreciate very much the testimony. 

Several of you have had a chance—I don’t know about chain migration, but certainly there has been a chain of immigration reform 

proposals, and at least two of you on the panel I have worked with 

for a very long time on these issues. 

But I would like you to think a little bit outside the box. Accepting what you say about the benefits, the values, the economic studies regarding legal immigrants—I think we have had some mixup 

here between profiles of people who came here illegally and legal 

immigrants in some earlier comments. 

But what is going on right now is that we are being told there 

is a tradeoff here, for those of us who think the present situation 

with illegal immigration is really a national crisis, and we have to 

deal with it. 

And part of dealing with it is finding a way to change the status 

that the only realistic and the only sensible policy is to deal with 

status adjustment for the 12 million or however many it—that we 

are going to have to deal with this whole issue of the existing legal 

immigration system, the ‘‘problem of chain migration.’’

Can you, off the top of your heads, or given the thought you have 

already given to this, create a system of points that deals with 

skills and education and family relationships in such a fashion that 

still maintains many of the strengths of the family-based system of 

immigration, but turns it into a context of a point system that 

might give us something to work with as we are faced with a choice 

of either thinking about revising legal immigration or walking 

away one more time with the problem of dealing with, in a sensible, comprehensive fashion, the issue of comprehensive immigration reform? 

Do any of you have any thoughts of fundamental adjustments 

that could be made in the present legal structure of immigration 

and a conversion to a point system that could be less devastating 

to the strengths of the current system? And would you share them 

with us? 

Ms. DULEEP. One idea would be to follow part of the path of Canada, which is they have essentially done away with these occupational skills categories where you are filling specific gaps, and to 

reward education per se. 

59

I feel a little bit uncomfortable with what is more valuable to the 

U.S., a highly educated or a poorly educated person. Do we need 

another highly educated doctor or is it useful to the economy to 

have somebody who helps take care of my children so that I can 

work? 

But given the concern about education levels, that would be an 

alternative path. 

And actually, with Canada, if you compare the Canadian system 

with the U.S. system, before they made this change, they had a 

system that was heavily based on occupational skills, and we could 

find no effect on education levels between comparing the U.S. and 

Canada. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired, so if each Member could very quickly answer. We are making up for cell phone 

time here. 

Mr. HING. Well, we actually sort of have a point system right 

now. That is one way of looking at it, is that we actually give extra 

points to certain relatives and extra points to people with certain 

job skills. 

So if you are going to define it as a point system, then I would 

retain a very similar structure in terms of how much credit you get 

for certain kinds of relatives. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Right. I would say, again, yes, you would have 

to give a lot of points for the family. Ironically, then you would actually have this competition between family and employment. 

What I would say is that businesses, you know, U.S. high-tech 

companies and others, are not clamoring in any way, are not asking to have this type of point system. I mean, they want to be able 

to hire specific skilled people. I mean, so it is really not clear to 

me that it is economically beneficial, really, in any way to just have 

a lot of moderately or above-average-skilled people who are individually coming into the country seeking jobs. 

Companies want to hire specific skilled people. So if anyone is in 

favor of helping on this, and they are concerned about skilled immigrants, they should be in favor of what Senator Cornyn and others 

have talked about in terms of, you know, increasing the employment-based quotas on their own. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Congressman Gingrey? 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, just to try to answer it quickly, I want to 

refer back to the comments Mr. Berman made in regard to counting against a quota system. In the family reunification, spouses 

and dependent children do not count. 

But when we get into—and I agree, Mr. Berman, this is the extreme situation. And you say it would never happen. But in 1986, 

when we had 4 million amnesty program, we never thought that 

25 years later we would have 12 million that came in illegally, and 

that is what can happen in the extreme as well. 

Mr. BERMAN. But chain migration is a criticism of the legal immigration system. It is not about the issue of illegal immigrants. 

Comprehensive immigration reform is trying to fix that. 

I have more than exceeded my time. 

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

Mr. Gallegly? 

60

Mr. GALLEGLY. I am sorry. I just walked in, and I will defer to 

the next in line. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much. 

I don’t think this is an easy issue or an easy question or series 

of questions to answer, frankly. And I started working on this issue 

back in 1979, shortly after we went to the new vision of our overall 

immigration policy. 

But let me just ask this. I happen to be one who has supported 

family unification as a major element of immigration policy. But I 

don’t think, really, that is the question. The question here is, how 

far do you extend family preference? 

And I am sorry I was not here to hear all of your testimony, but 

I would just like to ask each of you this. What is inconsistent with 

believing in family reunification in terms of nuclear family but 

making a decision that family preference immigration, as we see it, 

I would say other than spouses, ought not to be limited? 

I mean, it seems to me when I hear from people, they seem to 

sense that, yes, it makes sense to have immediate family, but as 

they see it, extended family in terms of family preference is going 

out too far. 

And I would just like the four of you to respond to that, please, 

because that is what I hear from people, and that is the sense I 

have. 

And when I look at what has been suggested of the negotiations 

with the Senate, what the Administration is talking about, they 

are talking about making changes in the area of family preference 

as opposed to immediate relatives. 

Ms. DULEEP. Well, I would remind everybody of the point that 

Dr. Hing made, that, in a sense, when we look historically, there 

were not restrictions. And why are these restrictions being brought 

up now? That is one thing to keep in mind. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Can I just respond to that? I mean, look, we have 

millions of people who want to come to the United States. So when 

we make one judgment here that is positive for somebody, that is 

necessarily a negative judgment for somebody else in terms of who 

all gets in. 

So I suppose one of the questions is should the family preference 

beyond immediate relatives be the overriding principle behind our 

immigration policy when we have got to realize yes, those folks are 

getting in, but that presumably means other folks are further down 

the line. 

Ms. DULEEP. Well, two things. One, siblings, for instance, do 

have an economic advantage. The effect of siblings on immigrant 

self-employment is larger than any other variable, including education. 

Secondly, as we have been trying to state, there doesn’t need to 

be a conflict between these two, but there can be unintended consequences. One of the interesting findings we found from our research is that people come in on the basis of occupational skills and 

people who come in as siblings have a positive effect on education. 

And what is happening is that people come in on occupational 

skills and bring in their siblings. If you make the U.S. unattractive 

61

in terms of that people cannot have their families here, you may 

have an inadvertent effect that was unanticipated. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I didn’t say can’t have their families here. We are 

talking about extended families. 

Ms. DULEEP. No, but you mean siblings, for instance. 

Mr. HING. Yes. I think, Congressman, this is partially a debate 

over what the nuclear family is, and, you know, I and many other 

people include it to define children that are above the age of 21 and 

brothers and sisters. 

I had a debate with an immigration judge that you may know 

in San Francisco that retired a few years ago, Monroe Kroll, over 

this very issue. And after our conversation, he realized, ‘‘You know 

what? I see what you are talking about, because I like my sister. 

She lives in New York. But if she lived across an international 

boundary, I would feel differently.’’

And so that is partly what the debate is. And I think that we 

ought to resolve it in favor of, not an expansion, but recognizing 

nuclear family to include siblings and adult sons and daughters. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, in the work done by Dr. Duleep, you found 

that Canadian immigrants are younger and more language proficient than their U.S. counterparts. Then you go on to say these 

advantages do not translate into superior earnings power. 

What about language proficiency? Is that irrelevant to overall 

impact of immigration? 

Ms. DULEEP. It appeared to be irrelevant comparing Canada with 

the U.S. We also found that English language proficiency—over 

time the earnings profiles are very high. So somebody will have an 

initial disadvantage, but that disadvantage disappears over time. 

Mr. ANDERSON. I would say that—what Mr. Hing has talked 

about. There is a little bit of a cultural issue here, where I think 

a lot of ethnic families do consider their brothers and sisters and 

certainly children over 21 a real integral part of their families, as 

well as their parents. 

I also say the numbers really aren’t that large. When you are 

looking at the married and unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens, you are only talking about 2 percent each of the whole U.S. 

legal immigration system. And for siblings, it is only 6 percent. 

And again, it is not really mutually exclusive to increase employment-based immigration. In fact, I hope everyone who has been 

criticizing family immigration will come out strongly in favor of 

employment-based immigration, since that seems to be the implicit 

argument. 

And again, companies are interested in hiring specific skilled 

people. I am actually a little concerned. I don’t really understand 

why the Administration has decided to come out, or at least in theory may be coming out, favoring, really, a much more bureaucratic 

approach rather than something that is more family-based or employment centered. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We don’t want to cut off Congressman Gingrey for 

a quick response. 

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chair, thank you so much. I really appreciate that. 

I just want to point out that my youngest child, my adult child, 

lives in New York. She could just as easily live in France or in 

62

Mexico. I would see her just as often. She is just as much an integral part of my family. She doesn’t have to live in this country necessarily to be there. 

The doctor at the beginning said, why did we bring up these restrictions now? What is the big problem? Well, I will tell you. The 

fact is that we had 250,000 immigrants in 1976. We have 1,100,000 

in 2006. That is the problem. 

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

And I would note that sometimes I feel the same way about my 

22-year-old and how often I see him. 

But I would recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson 

Lee, for her 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairwoman very much, and we 

are building blocks in terms of the hearings that we are having, 

and I am appreciative of this one as we pursue this question of 

family reunification. 

And I do want to acknowledge the work of the Honorable Barbara Jordan, one of the predecessors of my particular district, the 

18th Congressional District of Texas. And I got to know Congresswoman Jordan, and I know that this report that she did in a series 

of reports with the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform was 

certainly one that she exhibited a great deal of commitment and a 

great deal of passion and a great deal of hard work. And I think 

it is important as we quote from her and utilize some of her works. 

There is some points of this I agree with and some I do not. But 

I do think it is important that she started out by making it known 

that we are a Nation of immigrants committed to the rule of law 

and, as well, that the commission that she chaired believed that 

legal immigration has strengthened the country and that it continues to do so. 

We here today are trying to find a way to construct an effective 

legal immigration system to work with those who have come to this 

Nation for a variety of reasons. Some of them include economic, but 

also come for reasons of fleeing persecution and also fleeing from 

the devastation of countries that they have come from. 

As I read her report, the commission was sympathetic to that. 

They had a variety of proposals that included concerns about visa 

overstaying, concerns about how you do employer verification. But 

at the same time, I think it is important to note there was a sense 

of compassion. 

This commission rejected the concept of amnesty, and I am very 

glad to say that no matter how our opponents try to construct the 

majority’s position—and when I say the majority, the majority on 

both sides of the aisle that form the majority who want comprehensive immigration reform—it is not amnesty. 

So we build upon that to say that if we are to put a legal construct in place, then are we to penalize the legal system against 

those who would engage in that system to be able to reunite with 

their families? 

That is the real question before us. And I do want to put before 

us a New York Times editorial, May 4, 2007, that had a quote from 

the President when he was running for office, George W. Bush running for President, and he would always give an answer—or here 

63

is a particular quote that was given: ‘‘Family values do not stop at 

the Rio Grande.’’

And I realize that as my good friend Congressman Gingrey, Dr. 

Gingrey, has indicated, all of us could get on airplanes and visit 

relatives, wherever they might be. 

But the points have been made that family reunification is not 

easy. It has not been a pathway of celebration and blooms, and file 

one today and you are in tomorrow. It is a tedious, long effort. 

I remember going to Chicago with Chairman Hyde at a point 

where we had literally collapsed in terms of the overworking of the 

immigration system. People who were attempting to achieve status 

legally were surrounding immigration offices, around and around 

and around and around. It got to a point where the Chairman of 

the full Judiciary Committee at that time did a hearing to confront 

the crisis that we were facing. 

So I guess, Dr. Duleep, you mentioned the word ‘‘historical,’’ that 

we did not have a history of denying family. Could you just very 

quickly recount that history for us, very quickly? 

Ms. DULEEP. Well, we did have a history of denying families from 

particular regions, starting in the early 1920’s. The national origins 

act was one where people who could come in was based on the percentage distribution of the population by various demographic 

groups, so——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So when did we change? 

Ms. DULEEP. Well, then we got rid of that in 1965. We got rid 

of that to go to more of a family admissions——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And you believe the basis of moving or changing was that we found that that harsh process was not effective or 

was not humane? Or what was the basis of changing it? 

Ms. DULEEP. I think that it was not humane and that——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So we made a considered decision based upon 

past history. 

Ms. DULEEP. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Dr. Gingrey, I notice that your—is this your 

bill, the nuclear family bill? 

Mr. GINGREY. Yes, it is. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And it limits to the immediate family, and I 

guess my question to you would be would this be forever and ever, 

or would it be until the time that we get a construct in place that 

we have a legal immigration process? 

Because I think to deny and put the structure of a nuclear family, which many of us don’t come from, would be a serious concern. 

So are you putting a sunset on this, or is this forever and ever and 

ever? 

Mr. GINGREY. Congresswoman Jackson Lee, there is no sunset on 

this, in response to your question. 

But let me just say—and this is quoting from your predecessor, 

the late and great Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, and she says 

it is urged that nuclear family members, spouses and minor children, become the sole family-based priority. Those are the words of 

Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. And I could go on and quote the 

commission. But no, there is no sunset. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. My time is up. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s——

64

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If I may just finish—one sentence, Madam 

Chair. As I started out, let me say that there are many things that 

the Honorable Barbara Jordan has mentioned. Many of them I 

agree with. 

Others, I believe, in time have changed, and we are now looking 

to answer her concerns, which is a legal construct that is humane 

and is legal for the immigrants that are here in this country. 

I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Before calling on my colleague from California, I will note that 

there are currently limitations on unmarried sons or daughters to 

23,400 visas a year. So that is the number a year. 

And I was just telling Mr. King that if you have an unmarried 

son or daughter, to visit a U.S. citizen, 99 times out of 100 they 

will not get a visitor’s visa as an unmarried child because of the 

intent to reside burden. 

But I would call on Ms. Waters for her 5 minutes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I first 

want to thank you for the intensive work that you are doing to help 

us get to immigration reform. And I appreciate all of the hearings 

that you are holding. 

I was particularly interested in this one, not so much from the 

examination of the White House proposal. I am still focused on 

those undocumented elderly mothers, fathers, grandmothers and 

grandfathers that are in the United States now who are increasingly feeling at risk. 

And I am worried about the separation of these parents and 

grandparents from their children and grandchildren with the emphasis on deportation that we see all around the country. And we 

will get to that. 

I don’t have a lot to say about this White House proposal except 

that I just disagree with it. I am from a huge family. I have 12 

brothers and sisters. And I have strong family values. 

We don’t run around politicizing them and using them as a way 

to get elected to office. We are just people who have strong family 

values. And we don’t consider unmarried 21-year-olds so adult that 

somehow they don’t need us and that they are on their own. 

And no, our family values have not changed because of technology. No, many of our family members would not be able to pick 

up and run to another country to see our so-called adult children. 

And so I just think that the Bush administration proposal certainly undermines family values, and it is harsh. 

In addition to the elimination of so-called unmarried adult children of both the USCs and the LPRs, this business of requiring 

new applicants from all of those currently waiting in the backlog 

with an additional fee of $500 per person—some of these people 

have been waiting in line for years. 

Why would we do that to them? That is so unkind. And to nullify 

the applications of those who applied after 2004, 2007, people who 

have been waiting in line even for just 3 years or 2 years, knowing 

how long it takes, as it has been described here today, where people have been waiting 10 years, 12 years, 13 years, 14 years, 15 

years, this is the most unkind, non-family-valued proposal that 

could ever be produced. 

65

And I am hoping that it will be soundly rejected by this Congress, because I don’t think that anybody who holds family values 

dear could support something like this. 

Now, having said that, I look forward to some protections for the 

longtime residents who happen to be undocumented. 

And to my colleague from Texas who said that the folks who left 

are the ones who should be accused of not having the strong family 

values, I would just say that you know——

Mr. GOHMERT. Would the gentlelady yield? That is not what I 

said. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, okay, I am sorry. Maybe I mischaracterized 

what you said. You said don’t blame it on the United States, blame 

it on those who separated from their families and came here. Is 

that correctly stated? 

Mr. GOHMERT. I said that is who separated from the family. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. They separated. Don’t blame it on——

Mr. GOHMERT. But I certainly didn’t say that——

Ms. WATERS. Okay. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady controls the time. 

Ms. WATERS. Yes. I am modifying, because I want to be sure that 

I understood what you said. You said don’t blame it on the United 

States, they are the ones who separated from their families. 

And of course, we don’t have to rehash the fact that people do 

seek a better way of life, that poverty will do that, that hunger will 

do that. People who are watching their babies die from lack of medicine, lack of food, et cetera, yes, they will seek a better way of life. 

And unfortunately, many of them did that, and many of them 

have been here now for 35 years and 40 years, 50 years. They have 

children who were born here. And I am worried about the deportation and the separation of families. 

And why, again, do I worry about this so much? Aside from having strong family vales, I am an African-American woman who 

comes from slaves, where families were separated for economic reasons, where children were sold off, where relatives were sent to different parts of the world. And so I feel very strongly about this. 

And I want to thank the Chairlady for her sensitivity and her 

focus on this. 

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

The gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Dr. Duleep, when we grant an alien the privilege of immigrating 

to this country, do you believe that there is an inherent obligation 

to eventually allow their entire family, extended family, to immigrate? 

Ms. DULEEP. No, I think a country can decide immigration policy. 

And I think that is what is being debated here today. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. No, I just want to get your assessment. Do you 

think that that, granting that privilege, we, as a Nation, in your 

opinion, have an obligation to allow eventually the entire family to 

immigrate? 

Ms. DULEEP. I don’t have a problem with that. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. So you would support that thesis. 

Ms. DULEEP. Yes. 

66

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay. 

Dr. Gingrey, you know, we heard a lot of numbers bounce 

around, as we always do, and there is that hypothetical 273 number. Let’s forget about the 273 number just for a minute. 

And there is a lot of talk about amnesty. There is a lot of talk 

about comprehensive immigration reform, another code word for 

amnesty. 

Whatever we call it, if we allow 12 million to 20 million, depending on what the real numbers are—and none of us really know. But 

let’s say that we accept the fact that somewhere between 12 million 

and 20 million people have no legal right to be in this country. 

And we are not going to do a blanket amnesty, but we are going 

to find a way to allow them all to stay and find some form of legal 

status, eventually. 

Let’s say we forget about the 273 number. But hypothetically, I 

think it would be very realistic that once they get that status that 

they would have probably, in the most conservative way, a minimum of probably two per individual that have gained status that 

would have a family member that would qualify for reunification 

or sponsorship or whatever. Is that fair? 

Mr. GINGREY. Yes, that is fair. And really, as I pointed out earlier in talking to Mr. Berman, yes, this is the extreme. This is the 

extreme situation. But this is Murphy’s Law. And we all know 

Murphy’s Law. The extreme can happen. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. But the 273 is extreme. I think that two, which 

would be one-one-hundredth that, would be very conservative. Is 

that a fair assessment? 

Mr. GINGREY. It is. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Now, if we take the most conservative number of 

12 million that are here now, and not even talk about the 20 million, instead of 12 million coming in under a new form of immigration reform status, comprehensive, amnesty, whatever word you 

want to use, that 12 million translates to a conservative minimum 

of 36 million. 

How do we deal with that? How do we reconcile that? 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, without question, Mr. Gallegly, amnesty plus 

family reunification as we now interpret it would, as you point out, 

lead to a minimum of an increase of 12 million to 30-something 

million. And I think your math is accurate. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I would yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Gallegly. 

I had a lingering question for Mr. Anderson. And it had to do 

with a statement that I heard in your testimony about immigrants 

being slightly better educated than native-born Americans. And I 

think that has been historically true for over a century. 

But I would ask you, if we provided amnesty or legalized the 12 

million to 20 million that are here, if you would still be able to 

make that statement, just speaking about that group of immigrants—would you then take the position that the illegals that are 

here are slightly better educated than the native-born American? 

Mr. ANDERSON. No. That is not the case. I mean, I do think that 

what Dr. Duleep talked about, that once people—and I think there 

has been studies on this, that once people gain legal status, they 

67

tend to have a much greater incentive to invest in their own skills, 

because they are going to be here for the long term. 

So I think you would see——

Mr. KING. Let me ask you, then——

Mr. ANDERSON [continuing]. You would see some of those skill 

levels increase. 

Mr. KING. With that point in mind, have you studied the Rector 

study that studies the households that are headed up by high 

school dropouts? 

And I know there is a distinction now between legal and illegal 

and a slightly different impact, but Mr. Gingrey referenced that. 

Have you studied that——

Mr. ANDERSON. I have looked at it. I haven’t studied it, so I don’t 

want to comment on whether it is right or wrong. 

Mr. KING. Has anyone else on the panel taken a look at that 

study? 

Ms. DULEEP. I have read it. 

Mr. KING. And do you have any rebuttal you would like to offer 

the panel? 

Ms. DULEEP. Well, I think the problem of poorly educated immigrants can be a problem, but I think that is particularly a problem 

where you have groups where they don’t have permanence here, 

where there is a lot of going back and forth. 

So I think to address that issue that people who come here legally or illegally—that permanent communities should be encouraged. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Dr. Duleep. 

I would yield back to——

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

The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the Chair for the time. 

As I listen and hear the various perspectives here, you know, the 

definition of a nuclear family and the kind of change that is being 

proposed by Dr. Gingrey—it could conceivably have an impact on 

highly skilled immigrants. 

I would, you know, put forth to all of you—and you, too, Phil—

that determinations to come to this country, particularly if you are 

a highly skilled worker, could very well be impacted by denying an 

individual the capacity to bring his or her adult children to this 

country. 

I mean, am I making it up? Should we be concerned about that? 

I mean, you know, time after time this Committee has made decisions based on H-1Bs, high-tech, where American corporations 

have been aggressively and actively soliciting specialized skills. 

I think I, for one, if I had restrictions on who could come with 

me and who could resettle in this country, I would very well consider opting for employment elsewhere that is available. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Delahunt, if I could respond to that, the commission, the Jordan commission—and I quote from that report: ‘‘A 

properly regulated system of legal immigration is in the national 

interest of the United States. Such a system enhances the benefits 

of immigration while protecting against potential harm.’’

68

Unless there is a compelling national interest to do otherwise, 

immigrants should be chosen on the basis of the skills that they 

contribute to the United States economy. 

The commission believes that admission of nuclear family members—spouses, dependent children—and refugees provide such a 

compelling national interest. Reunification of adult children and 

siblings of adult citizens solely because of their family relationship 

is not as compelling. 

In response to your question, I would say, Mr. Delahunt, that 

you are much more likely to get a skilled worker, who you know 

their skills when they apply, than just take a potluck from a family 

reunification, some of whom may be skilled but many of whom may 

not be skilled at all. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. With all due respect to my friend and colleague 

from Georgia, I know that if I had any skills at all, and I was living 

elsewhere, and I had a family where the children were of a majority age, and because in the bill that you put forth you denied me 

the opportunity to bring my family, I would say, ‘‘Forget it.’’ I think 

we put ourselves in a position where we lose something. 

Would any of the other panelists wish to comment? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. I am not sure we want to set our immigration system up to encourage the immigration of somewhat skilled 

people who don’t care about their families. I mean, that is kind of 

what we are getting at here. 

I mean, what we really want to—I mean, I just go back to this 

again, that all this talk about skilled immigration—the business 

community, employers, are not in favor of establishing some new 

sort of point system or anything like that. They want to have an 

expansion of the current system. They don’t want to have a divisive 

fight over family immigration. 

And they also believe that, you know, when executives come 

here, if their children are over 21, they aren’t going to get them 

here, and you are not going to get some of the foreign investment 

that might take place if people know that their children aren’t 

going to be able to——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Reclaiming my time and going back to my friend 

from Georgia, you indicated 250,000, I think it was in 1975, and 

a million now. But these are all legal immigrants, is that correct? 

Mr. GINGREY. Correct. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. So your problem is you think the numbers coming into this country in terms of legal immigrants are of an order 

of magnitude that, you know, we don’t need in this country. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, correct. And I think the policy of this family 

reunification is basically a come one, come all. 

My friend Mr. Anderson just said that the employers are not for 

us restricting this to skilled workers. Maybe not. Maybe a few of 

the miscreant employers would love to see more and more unskilled workers come so they could pay them low wages. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, again, reclaiming my time, I just wonder 

where our economy would be if we had stayed at that 250,000 figure as opposed a million legal workers or legal immigrants coming 

into this country now and adding to the GDP. 

Professor Hing? I mean, I think that is the debate we are having. 

69

Mr. HING. Well, Congressman, you hit the nail right on the head, 

because people would make those decisions to not come, and they 

wouldn’t contribute. 

There is a reason why the preamble to the Universal Declaration 

of Human Rights highlights the unity of family as the foundation 

of freedom, justice and peace of the world. It is because our families make us whole and our families define us as human beings. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. No, but with all due respect, though, I am talking about the economic impact. If over the last 25 years or 30 

years, we did not have the numbers of legal—not illegal or undocumented, the legal—immigrants coming into this country to provide 

an adequate workforce, what would have happened? Can you speculate in terms of our national economy? 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. We will ask Mr. 

Hing to briefly respond. 

Mr. HING. Right. The number of jobs that have been created, top 

to bottom, construction workers to high-tech, would have been decreased and the amount of investment would have been decreased 

in the United States. 

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

And all time is expired. I would like to thank all the witnesses 

for their testimony today. 

And, 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 to be made 

part of the record. 

And, without objection, the record will remain open for 5 legislative days for the submission of any other additional materials. 

Our hearing today has helped to illuminate numerous issues concerning family and immigration reform. This discussion will be 

very helpful to us as we move forward on comprehensive immigration reform this year. 

We have learned in this hearing that family immigrants are part 

of the entrepreneurial picture of the United States and that the 

current immigration system actually tracks family as separate 

from employment-based immigration. 

We know that as we move forward there may be a discussion on 

whether to merge those two lists in a point system so that family 

immigration and employment immigration would instead be in 

competition with each other for visas, and that is something that 

this Committee and the Congress must consider very carefully. 

I would like to note also that this, as our eighth hearing, has 

shed much light. And I am actually very optimistic that the information that we have learned here will head us to a bipartisan comprehensive approach to the issues that face us, that make sure that 

our country continues to prosper economically and culturally and 

socially. 

I would like to extend an invitation to everyone here to attend 

our next hearings on immigration reform. The minority at our last 

hearing requested under the rules an additional hearing, which 

will be held tomorrow in this room at 9 a.m. 

We will have two hearings next week, Tuesday, May 15th, at 

9:30 in the morning and again at 2 in the afternoon. We will exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:14 Aug 21, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\050807\35242.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35242
70

plore the future of undocumented students and additionally the integration of immigrants into American communities. 

And with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(71)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

72

‘‘CHAIN MIGRATION UNDER CURRENT U.S. LAW: THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF A SINGLE

EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANT’’ CHART PRODUCED BY NUMBERSUSA, SUBMITTED

TO THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE PHIL GINGREY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA


4-1.eps
73


4-2.eps
74


4-3.eps
75


4-4.eps
76

‘‘REVIEW AND OUTLOOK: IMMIGRATION SPRING,’’ AN EDITORIAL IN THE

WALL STREET JOURNAL, MAY 2, 2007


5-1.eps
77


5-2.eps
78

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MEMBERS OF AMERICAN FAMILIES UNITED AND

UNITEFAMILIES, ON FAMILY IMMIGRATION


6-1.eps
79


6-2.eps
80


6-3.eps
81


6-4.eps
82


6-5.eps
83


6-6.eps
84


6-7.eps
85


6-8.eps
86


6-9.eps
87


6-10.eps
88


6-11.eps
89


6-12.eps
90


6-13.eps
91


6-14.eps
92


6-15.eps
93


6-16.eps
94


6-17.eps
95


6-18.eps
96


6-19.eps
97


6-20.eps
98


6-21.eps
99


6-22.eps
100


6-23.eps
101


6-24.eps
102


6-25.eps
103


6-26.eps
104


6-27.eps
105


6-28.eps
106


6-29.eps
107


6-30.eps
108


6-31.eps
109


6-32.eps
110


6-33.eps
111

PREPARED STATEMENT ON INTERFAITH FAMILY IMMIGRATION BY

AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE, ET AL.


7-1.eps
112


7-2.eps
113

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LESLYE ORLOFF, DIRECTOR AND ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE IMMIGRANT WOMEN PROGRAM AT LEGAL MOMENTUM, ALSO REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL NETWORK TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST IMMIGRANT

WOMEN


8-1.eps
114


8-2.eps
115


8-3.eps
116


8-4.eps
117


8-5.eps
118

LETTER FROM THE LUTHERAN IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE SERVICE TO THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, 

REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW


9-1.eps
119


9-2.eps
120

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAREN K. NARASAKI, PRESIDENT & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ASIAN AMERICAN JUSTICE CENTER ON ‘‘THE IMPORTANCE OF FAMILY-BASED IMMIGRATION TO AMERICAN SOCIETY AND THE ECONOMY’’


10-1.eps
121


10-2.eps
122


10-3.eps
123


10-4.eps
124


10-5.eps
125


10-6.eps
126


10-7.eps
127


10-8.eps
128


10-9.eps
129

‘‘ADMISSIONS OF LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS (ALL CATEGORIES) 2001–2005’’ COMPILED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, SUBMITTED TO THE RECORD BY

THE HONORABLE STEVE KING, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW


11-1.eps
130


11-2.eps
131

‘‘FAMILY-BASED ADMISSIONS 2006,’’ PUBLISHED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, SUBMITTED TO THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE STEVE KING, 

RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, 

BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW


12.eps
132

RESPONSES TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM THE HONORABLE PHIL GINGREY,

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA


15-1.eps
133


15-2.eps
134


15-3.eps
135

RESPONSES TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM HARRIET DULEEP, PH.D., RESEARCH

PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC POLICY, THOMAS JEFFERSON PROGRAM IN PUBLIC POLICY, 

THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY


16-1.eps
136


16-2.eps
137

RESPONSES TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM BILL ONG HING, PROFESSOR OF LAW

AND ASIAN AMERICAN STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-DAVIS


17.eps
138

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTION FROM STUART ANDERSON, EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR AMERICAN POLICY

Æ


18.eps