IU *•.' c>

)

INS AND THE BUDGETARY IMPACT OF

IMPLEMENTING THE IMMIGRATION

REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986

HEA|

BEFOB

COMMITTEE Otf

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE

ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 30, 1987

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget

Serial No. 100-2

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

73-436 WASHINGTON : 1987

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congi•ional Sales Office

U.S. Oovernment Printing Office. Washington. DC 20402
<yr:

.-i :* i!>.

"'\

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

' WILLIAM" H.

THOMAS S. FOLEY, Washington

MIKE LOWRY, Washington

BUTLER DERRICK, South Carolina

GEORGE MILLER, California

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana

HOWARD WOLPE, Michigan

MARTIN FROST, Texas

VIC FAZIO, California

MARTY RUSSO, Illinois

ED JENKINS, Georgia

MARVIN LEATH, Texas

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

BARBARA BOXER, California

BUDDY MACKAY, Florida

JIM SLATTERY, Kansas

CHESTER G. ATKINS, Massachusetts

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

FRANK J. GUARINI, New Jersey

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

MIKE ESPY, Mississippi

STEVEN L. PRUITT, Executive Director

MARTHA H. PHILLIPS, Minority Staff Director

MARTIN D. BURSTEIN, Director of Publications

GRAY III, Pennsylvania

DELBERT L. LATTA, Ohio

WILLIS D. GRADISON, JR., Ohio

CONNIE MACK, Florida

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

DENNY SMITH, Oregon

BEAU BOULTER, Texas

MICKEY EDWARDS, Oklahoma

WILLIAM M. THOMAS, California

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky

DON SUNDQUIST, Tennessee

NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut

RICHARD K. ARMEY, Texas

JACK BUECHNER, Missouri

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

(II)
CONTENTS

P»ge

Statement of:

Carrasco, Gilbert Paul, director, Immigration Services, U.S. Catholic Conference .'. 20

Leiden, Warren R., executive director, American Immigration Lawyers

Association i. 26

Lungren, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California 7

Murray, Joseph B., chairman, North Texas Coalition on Immigration 29

Schumer, Hon. Charles E , a Representative in Congress from the State of

New York 5

Stein, Daniel, director, Immigration Reform Law Institute 36

Yazdgerdi, Simin, director of Government relations, Federation for American immigration Reform 33

Additional material submitted for the record by:

Schumer, Hon. Charles E• material entitled INS Budget Request Reduced

by OMB • 43

Prepared statements submitted by:

Carraso, Gilbert Paul 45

Leiden, Warren R 59

Murray, Joseph B 70

Stein, Daniel 82

Yazdgerdi, Simin 74

(in)

INS AND THE BUDGETARY IMPACT OF IMPLEMENTING THE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND

CONTROL ACT OF 1986 •;

THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1987

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m., in room

210, Cannon House Office Building (Hon. William H. Gray III,

Chairman), Hon. Martin Frost presiding.

Mr. FROST. We are going to begin the hearing at this point. I am

pleased that the House Budget Committee has been convened today

to explore the budgetary implications of the legalization program

authorized under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

As you know, next Tuesday marks the beginning of the single

largest amnesty program for illegal aliens that has ever been conducted by any one nation. May 5 is a landmark date in our Nation's history for on this day every man, woman and child, estimated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to be 3.9 million

individuals, who can provide documented evidence that they have

been residing within our borders since January 1, 1982, is eligible

to make application for temporary legal status which can lead

eventually to full U.S. citizenship.

But the legalization program set to begin next Tuesday is only

one part of this landmark immigration reform enacted by the Congress last year. Beginning June 1, the Immigration and Naturalization Service will initiate an employer sanctions program to enforce

the provisions of IRCA which expressly prohibit the hiring and employment of an alien who is unauthorized to work in the United

States.

Employer sanctions in combination with increased enforcement

capabilities of the U.S. Border Patrol on our Nation's borders are

designed to restore integrity to the immigration process in the

United States and to stem the ever-growing tide of illegal immigrants into this country.

The Congress struggled for 6 long years to craft legislation designed to control immigration into our country. The debate was

fierce and emotions ran high. But the Congress did finally achieve

a consensus and sent the Immigration Reform and Control Act to

the President in the fall of 1986.

And to insure that the program would work, the Congress included in the legislation supplemental authorizations of $422 million

(1)
for fiscal year 1987 and $419 million for fiscal year 1988 for INS

enforcement and other services.

The conference agreement specifically states that the conferees

were aware that at least $184 million was to be expended on enhanced enforcement efforts and that the conferees agreed to the

need for sufficient funding to ensure a 50-percent increase in

Border Patrol personnel.

The conference agreement also provided the authority to the INS

to collect fees from legalization applicants that were to be set at a

level sufficient to cover the costs of processing the applications.

But some questions remain if the fees collected were to be included as part of the $422 million authorization or if they were to be

used to supplement the dollar amount authorized in this landmark

legislation.

Congress understood that to make this law work that an efficient

legalization program and an effective enforcement program had to

be adequately funded.

Two weeks ago, during the Easter district work period, I sponsored a seminar in my congressional district in Dallas to provide

information about both legalization and employer sanctions.

During that seminar, I came to realize that while the INS has been

working diligently to prepare the way for both the legalization program and the employer sanctions program, it was clear that INS

was simply not ready to deal with the enormous task at hand.

For example, for an area that stretches from southern Oklahoma

on the north, to Waco on the south, to Texarkana on the east, and

Abilene on the west, there is one office established to take applications and conduct initial applicant interviews.

Considering the number of individuals who live in the north

Texas area, as well as the enormity of the size of this area, I found

it difficult to understand how INS could reasonably believe that applications could be taken and processed in an orderly fashion when

only one office with limited personnel was available to do the job.

So when I returned to Washington, I began looking at the dollars

available to make this program work. What I found was alarming.

While Congress had authorized a total of $422 million for this fiscal

?

r

ear's activities, the Administration had requested only $137.8 milion in this fiscal year 1987 supplemental request. Of that amount,

$122.8 million was to be used for improved enforcement.

In addition, the Administration has taken the position that funds

for the legalization program were to come solely from the fees

charged to legalization applicants for an estimated total of $125

million. Total spending authority requested by the Administration

was $263 million or slightly more than half of the total authorized

by Congress.

In addition, I determined that the INS has made a budget request for 354 additional Border Patrol positions for this fiscal year

which OMB cut to 135. Witnesses today will testify that INS

wanted 350 additional investigators just to work on amnesty fraud,

in addition to 340 employer sanctions investigators, but no fraud

investigators are included in the Administration's budget request.

Quite frankly, INS recognized the enormity of the task when formulating their budget request, but it is obvious that OMB does not

take the scope of this undertaking seriously. If OMB had, I find it
3

inconceivable that budget requests of this importance would have

been so cavalierly slashed.

The Administration's request was included in the fiscal year 1987

supplemental which we voted on last week, but it should be remembered that an amendment was agreed to which reduced appropriations 21 percent across the board which roughly reduced the

$137 million appropriation to $108 million.

An important point to remember is that the $108 million that

now remains in the House passed supplemental is the money intended to be used for enforcement. Included in that amount is the

money to be used to investigate instances of fraud.

I am truly concerned that with such a small appropriation, INS

will be unable to devote the manpower and time necessary to thoroughly review each and every application and its supporting documentation, and may as a result inadvertently let otherwise nonqualified applicants pass what should be a rigorous test. In fact, the

level of budget commitment could lead to wholesale rubber stamping of applications.

The Administration's request for fiscal year 1988 appears somewhat improved, but the numbers still raise serious questions regarding the level of commitment of an effective legalization and enforcement program on the part of OMB.

The Act authorized $419 million for the next fiscal year, and the

Administration has requested $338 million. But for Border Patrol

and other investigations, the Administration has recommended $78

million less than what has been authorized. And while the Administration has allocated $144 million to the legalization program,

they assume that this entire amount will be derived from the fees

charged to applicants.

Both the Office of Management and Budget and the Immigration

and Naturalization Service were invited here today to present their

views of the budgetary needs of the INS in the coming months. Regretfully, both agencies declined to appear to present the Administration's position. Therefore, we will be unable to hear all sides of

the story today.

But I feel confident that our witnesses can give us a better understanding of the enormity of the problem we will be facing beginning next Tuesday, and will underscore my belief that much of the

problem comes directly from the fact that insufficient funds are

available to ensure that the processing of legalization applications

proceeds smoothly, that adequate personnel are available to investigate these applications for evidence of fraud, and to ensure that

employer sanctions are forcefully enforced.

I am deeply concerned that INS despite their heroic efforts to

begin implementing this law next Tuesday is in fact ill-prepared,

and that the potential for chaos is very real.

With that, I would like to recognize the other Members of the

panel who are here today. And also then our first witness will be a

member of this Committee as well as a member of the Judiciary

Committee that worked very long and hard on this legislation,

Charles Schumer. Other Members of the Budget Committee are

here today. Congressman Vic Fazio from California.

Mr. FAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to briefly express appreciation to you for having called this hearing. This Com-
mittee is familiar with a number of budget driven decisions by

OMB that fly directly in the face of congressional intent.

This is probably the most egregious decision that we have seen

this year. It certainly ranks with the reluctance on the part of the

Administration to fully implement our drug enforcement programs

which were recently upgraded at the end of the last Congress.

California has over 50 percent of the undocumented workers in

the country. Certainly you in Texas and those of us on the Pacific

Coast understand this problem in very personal terms. I also appreciate the fact that we have a number of people here today as witnesses who can help us.

It is tragic, however, at least as I last understood it, that the

people here today do not represent the Administration's point of

view. The Administration is unwilling at this point to resolve some

of the internal differences that have caused them to be in such disarray, and unwilling to come to Congress and admit the fiasco that

is about to occur under their watch. Thank you very much.

Mr. FROST. Congressman Chet Atkins from Massachusetts.

Mr. ATKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to echo the

previous speaker's respect and appreciation for you in holding this

hearing. I know that in Massachusetts, which is not a State which

is normally viewed as having a large problem with illegal aliens, as

people begin to confront the law and the impact of it, they are realizing that it is going to have a huge effect on the State's economy.

There is mass confusion among a much larger illegal population

than anybody had ever anticipated in the State.

And right at this point, there is not any clear signal coming out

of anyplace in the Administration, and it is clear that people are

not willing to provide the resources to implement the law as it was

intended. And from what I see, on a very small scale in Massachusetts, it looks like enormous chaos is about to descend on a lot of

people who are going to have a great deal of difficulty in coping

with that situation.

Again, I have tremendous regrets that the Administration is not

even sending anybody here to represent their position or to explain

how they plan to deal with this problem. Thank you.

Mr. FROST. Nancy Johnson from Connecticut, do you wish to

make a statement at this point?

Mrs. JOHNSON. NO, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FROST. Butler Derrick from South Carolina.

Mr. DERRICK. NO, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FROST. At this point, our first witness is a member of our

own Committee, Charles Schumer from New York. Mr. Schumer, I

would ask that you go down to the witness table.

Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FROST. Yes.

Mr. DERRICK. I first would like to thank you for holding these

hearings, and say that I look forward to hearing from our first witness, who I hear is an expert on immigration reform.

Mr. FROST. We will call our first witness who is shy and retiring

at this time. Our first witness today is Hon. Charles Schumer from

the State of New York, a member of the Budget Committee and a

member of the Judiciary Committee who played a central role in

the fashioning of this legislation during the last Congress.
5

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chairman, and I thank my distinguished colleagues on the Committee. And I particularly thank

you, Mr. Frost, for holding these hearings. I think that this, how

we are going to fund the immigration law that we passed last year

is a very, very important issue. And it is as timely as could be. Because as you know, in a few days, May 5, the amnesty provisions

start taking effect.

A few weeks later, June 1, the employer sanctions provisions will

start taking effect. And we have, as has been stated a real mess on

our hands in the sense that the Administration wants to have its

cake and eat it too.

On the one hand, they took a lot of credit, and deservedly so, for

passing an immigration reform law. It was a law long overdue, and

it was a law that was a long time in coming, and certain members

of the Administration worked very hard to pass it.

And then a few short months after it passed, we found the very

same Administration choking the law by not giving it the funding

that the law needed, just rudimentary funding to make it work.

And that seems to me to be a bit two-faced. You cannot take the

credit for passing a law, and fail to live up to the responsibilities of

funding the law.

The Administration ought to say once and for all whether they

want this law and whether they are willing to pay for it, or if they

want to undo it, because that in effect is what they are doing.

In my view, Mr. Chairman, because of the severe underfunding

of the immigration bill, Congress' efforts to enact this law are in

grave danger of being undone.

I have obtained figures from a source in the Justice Department

which show how OMB has sabotaged INS' attempts to secure adequate funding for all of the bill's major components. And I have a

sheet here, Mr. Chairman, that with your and the Committee's permission I would like to insert into the record.

Mr. FROST. Without objection, it will be inserted into the record.

[The document referred to may be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. SCHUMER. The sheet shows that INS requests to the Administration for implementing the law have been smashed or have

been slashed. I guess smashed might be an appropriate word. The

primary purpose of the law, to control illegal immigration, is in

jeopardy because the Administration has severely underfunded

both the Border Patrol and investigative positions to enforce sanctions.

Congress mandated a 50-percent increase in Border Control by

the end of fiscal year 1988. But the Administration's budget may

result in no net increase in Border Patrol agents. While 630 positions are supposed to be added by fiscal year 1988, this will barely

keep pace with normal attrition.

So again we may have no net increase in Border Patrol. Our first

line of defense against illegal immigration will continue to be riddled with holes.
Employer sanctions. The new weapon against illegal immigration

is also underfunded significantly. This means that the magnet that

now draws literally millions of poor people, a magnet that would

draw anyone searching for a better life, across our border, will be

as strong as ever.

There are only 340 new investigators added after OMB's cuts.

That means each will be responsible for investigating about 9,000

employers. Now how one individual can investigate 9,000 employers is beyond me.

If there are 200 work days in the year, which I guess is approximately right, a little math shows they have a lot of employers to

investigate every day. This means that they will not check up on

any of them in the course of the year.

And these very same investigators must also ferret out the fraud

in the legalization applications. With the INS planning for 3.9 million applications, we can be certain that these cuts will allow many

fraudulent applications to slip through.

The legalization program, something very near and dear to my

heart, was intended as a generous act to those who put down roots

in the United States. And it is also in danger, because of the way

that the Administration is funding it.

There have been, as the Chairman stated in this opening statement, no up front appropriation for it. What INS has been doing is

borrowing money from its fourth quarter appropriation, a system

that can only yield inadequate funding. And if the fee money sufficient to repay this does not come in, the INS will have to get an

emergency supplemental or shut down some operations.

The Chairman mentioned the problems in Texas. I represent the

Borough of Brooklyn. I know that you may not be aware of that,

but I do. And we have estimated 700,000 illegal aliens in Brooklyn.

We do not have an office in Brooklyn. And that is going to greatly get in the way. 700,000 estimated illegal aliens in Brooklyn. Not

all of them would qualify for legalization, but a good portion would,

and no office. In Chicago, INS did not put a legalization center in

the Hispanic community.

The reimbursement to voluntary agencies which will assist applicants for legalization, and they are as important, if not more important, than the INS offices, is only $15 per application. And as a

result, many agencies that would be best suited to do the legalization program are not participating.

For instance, the National Council of La Raza has said that half

of their affiliates who wanted to participate could not because of

inadequate reimbursement. And the fewer of these agencies participating, the less likely legalization will work as expected, and the

greater number of those who will continue to live in limbo in

America, to their detriment and to the detriment of our society.

Other problems related to underfunding. Outreach efforts aimed

at informing people about the new law are budgeted at only $11

million, not adequate to do the job.

INS had originally planned in February to start with a $25 million outreach. And the lack of outreach has resulted in misinformation and adverse action by employers. New York State has documented 63 cases of people who would have been eligible for legal-
ization being terminated by employers who did not understand the

law.

Although the legalization program begins in less than 1 week,

there are still no final regulations. Voluntary agencies which will

assist applicants still have questions about the requirements for legalization. In fact, these voluntary agencies were only designated a

couple of weeks ago, and this means that they have had almost no

time to gear up.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the law that we have worked for 6

years to achieve is in danger of being rendered null and void by an

Administration funding plan that is clearly inadequate. The Administration that claimed credit for the birth of this child is now in

a sense, a very real sense, starving it to death.

I thank the Chairman, and I thank the Committee.

Mr. FROST. At this point, I would like to recognize our colleague,

Hon. Dan Lungren from California, also a Member who was actively involved in the creation of this law, and worked very hard on

some of its key provisions. Mr. Lungren, if you would proceed, and

then we would ask questions to both.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN LUNGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I may have a slightly different perspective than

that presented by my colleague from New York. One of the things

that disturbs me is that throughout our consideration of immigration reform in the 9 years that I have been in Congress, 8 years

serving on the immigration panel, and 4 years being the ranking

Republican on that panel, and two times being the Republican

manager of the bill on the panel, and all times trying to drag the

Congress toward implementation of the law, that hyperbole and excessive rhetoric have marred our journey.

I think that one of the things that we ought to keep clearly in

mind is that this is a comprehensive reform of the immigration law

which really does not have a precedent, and that there are to be

expected difficulties when you start it up.

I would suggest that if you compare this law with other radical

reforms of the law of a comprehensive nature in other areas that

this probably has less problems than we have experienced in the

past. And that in sum, it is a guessing game as to how many people

are going to come forward to apply, how much it is going to cost us

to do these things, and exactly how well we are going to implement

it.

Having said all of that, I find that much of the criticism levied at

the Administration and the INS in this regard to be misguided. In

the first instance, some have suggested that the Administration is

somehow out on a lark by saying that they are not going to ask

Congress for certain sums of money for the implementation of the

legalization program, but are rather going to try to pay for that

program through the receipt of fees paid on behalf of those people

who are to be the beneficiaries of that program.

And some have suggested that this is outside the law, that they

are flaunting the law, and they are not doing what they are sup-
8

posed to. Well, I would just suggest that this Committee and the

entire Congress look at page 92 of the conference report which actually produced the legislation.

Page 92 says this:

The conference substitute requires the Attorney General to prescribe a fee schedule for the filing of applications under the legalization program. It is the understanding of the conferees that the fee level should be sufficient to cover the costs of

processing applications, and should be comparable to those charged for aliens seeking entry into the United States as immigrants.

If you would look at the final decision made by the Administration in that regard, the fees are not only comparable to those

charged to those who are seeking entry into the United States as

immigrants, that is those who have followed the regular procedure

and have not broken the law, but in fact they get a break compared to those people. So the Administration is right on line with

respect to that.

As I understand it at the present time, the Administration has

come forward with a plan for legalization of $125 million in 1987

and $140 million in 1988. I can give you the details if you wish, but

I assume that you have that.

That has to do with offices that have been rented, leased space,

equipment, salaries and benefits, FBI fingerprints, administrative

costs, computer center, detention costs, adjudication, training, electronic data, records people, intelligence for fraud documentation,

construction, for the lease of office space, field people, attorneys,

administrative expense, et cetera.

Instead of coming to the Congress and asking for that money up

front, that money which is to be paid by the fees, they have an arrangement with the OMB to have a line of credit for that money to

be reimbursed to OMB during the course of the year as they receive those funds.

And it seems to me that a Budget Committee concerned about a

budget in which we are looking at areas to cut everywhere we can

ought to applaud the Administration rather than criticize the Administration for this.

I am privileged this year to serve on the Select Permanent Committee on Intelligence. It is a very interesting Committee. We do a

lot of work, and we read a lot. The only drawback for a politician is

that you cannot talk about it.

I can say, however, that we have spent about 2 months going line

by line and item by item in the entire intelligence community. And

we have cut, and cut, and cut, and cut in the intelligence community which goes to the very question of the survival of the United

States.

Mr. FROST. If I may interrupt you at this point. There is a vote

pending, and it is the intention of the Chair to continue the hearings. Any Members who feel that they need to go and cast their

vote, please be excused at this time. But I will continue the hearing

straight through.

Mr. LUNGREN. I might say that those who are somewhat wondering why the Administration's numbers, that is in terms of their

1987 request and their 1988 request, are different than the authorization that we established in the bill, I might say that we tried to

come up with some figures.
If you were to ask me how exactly we came up with those figures

to place them in our conference report for authorization, I will

have to tell you quite frankly that they were guesstimates at that

time. And so I cannot tell you that the numbers that we were talking about in our bill are more effective, or more current, or more

advisable than what the Administration has come up with at the

present time.

The suggestion that has been made that somehow we are so late

in coming up with the regulations, I do not think is an appropriate

one for this reason. The Administration came forward with promulgation of initial regulations with the expectation in the announcement that they were going to publish them, and that they were

going to actually consider the comments as made.

And I think that some people know that the way that things

happen in Washington is that often initial regulations are put out

for comment, but the comment is not seriously taken. I can tell you

that the INS has taken seriously these comments, because I have

been involved in some of the give and take concerning that.

They have made changes with respect to the fee structure, for instance. They have made changes with respect to the type of evidence that will be taken in the legalization and so forth.

So I would just say that with respect to the request for funding

that the Administration has made, since it is somewhat of a guesstimate on everybody's part, perhaps what we ought to do is go with

their recommendations, see if in fact they are working, try and

work them as best they can.

And if at some point we find out that we have more people

coming forward than we had anticipated, if we see at that point in

time that we need a supplemental, the Administration has given

every indication in the past that they would feel compelled to come

forward with the recommendation for supplemental funding.

I just find it very difficult to believe that the Administration

somehow is attempting not to make this law work. I do not see that

with respect to the people that I have worked with over the last 8

years, and I do not see that with respect to the folks on the line.

And I have been there talking with the people on the line in the

area of Los Angeles, which is if not the most impacted area, it will

be one of the most impacted areas.

It is not perfect, Mr. Chairman. There are difficulties, Mr. Chairman. There are some groups who will not work with it for one

reason or another. But by and large, I think that they have done a

fairly good job in a very difficult circumstance. And I think that we

ought to be assisting, rather than tossing hand grenades at this

particular time.

I would be happy to answer any particulars that you have with

respect to the budget as is presented, if that is your wish.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Lungren, of course, you realize this Committee

takes its job seriously and that in the event that an additional supplemental comes forward, the Budget Committee will be asked by

the Appropriations Committee to waive the Budget Act to accommodate that additional supplemental, because in fact it will be over

the budget figure from last year.
10

And we are very concerned about how the law is being implemented, and what the likely consequences are and what we may be

facing in the next few months.

Also, of course, this Committee did include language in our

report that accompanied the budget resolution passed by the House

suggesting full funding for the act. This Committee is going to

monitor that. That budget resolution has yet to be finally approved. It has to be voted on by the Senate. There will be a conference committee. A number of us on this Committee will be members of the conference committee, and we intend to speak vigorously in favor of full funding for the act, because of our concerns not

just for our own States, but for the entire program on a national

basis.

Let me ask you a couple questions if I may.

Mr. Schumer testified, and I mentioned in my opening statement

that less than the full amount of investigators necessary has been

requested by the Administration. That in fact you have a number,

perhaps half of what many people feel is necessary to investigate

fraud; that you have basically the same people who will be investigating amnesty fraud as well as employer sanctions fraud.

Does that concern you that we do not have enough people who

are going to be monitoring this?

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I might say with respect to

employers sanctions. The employer sanction program is being

phased in over a period of time as opposed to the legalization program

Mr. FROST. Starts on June 1.

Mr. LUNGREN [continuing]. Coming on line immediately. And I

am of the belief that in terms•how can I say this. I think there

will be a period of time in which we will be less than fully able to

come down as hard as ultimately we will on the employers sanctions, because there will be a period of time during which we have

to complete the education process.

I believe that that will be a natural thing, whether it is planned

or not. But I think in fact it is appropriate. Even though we

planned a phased implementation of the employers' sanction program and even though we believe that the education would begin

from the day the President signed the bill, and I think we have

done a lot in that regard, I do think it is going to be•there is going

to be some time before employers are going to fully understand

how that is to be implemented, and I think that will be reflected in

some ways in the approach by the INS.

On the other hand, we have a short time frame with respect to

the legalization program. I mean, we have a definite life span that

has been given to it. And if I were to be asked by the INS, and with

respect to any influence I have with them, I would concentrate on

making sure that works because if we do not have it work within

that period of time, it is going to be gone.

Mr. FROST. But do we have enough, are we going to have enough

fraud investigators to make sure that the legalization program is

conducted properly? That is really the issue.

Mr. LUNGREN. I have to give you an honest answer. I think the

INS would have to give you the honest answer. We do not know.

And I will tell you this; because we do not know how many people
11

we have got out there. We do not know how many people are going

to apply.

If we have misjudged the number of people who are going to

apply by a factor of three, the answer to your question would be

absolutely no, we do not have enough. But we do not know that.

And I think what the administration is doing is acting on the conservative side with respect to funding requests because we do not

know.

I guess the other side would be to act liberally in a sense on the

funding side, to have more than enough to take care of whatever

the need is. I guess that goes to your philosophy and goes to whether you can get that kind of funding in the budget process.

Mr. FROST. Well, you can suggest that the conservative point of

view would be to make sure that there is not fraud.

Mr. LUNGREN. Absolutely.

Mr. FROST. That there is not fraud in the amnesty applications.

Mr. LUNGREN. Absolutely.

Mr. FROST. It is a concern of many of us that the INS will not be

properly staffed to ensure that fraud does not occur.

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, this is a continuing difficulty we

have had with the INS over a long period of time. That is, that

Congress has not seen fit to give them the respect in terms of funding that is necessary; that is, the requests that they have made

over the years. That has changed in the last couple of years such

that the budget request from the INS has grown I believe since

1982, from $440 million to over $1 billion in 1988, about a 140-percent increase.

This is being superimposed over a tremendous growth by the

INS, the largest single growth they have had in their lifetime. We

increased by 1,000 positions the INS personnel fiscal year•1 year

previous. And, of course, it took more than 1 year for us to full

come on board with that 1,000.

I also have a concern about throwing more money and more

manpower than they can adequately use as well. And I know the

Chairman understands this in the area of defense and everything

else.

And so it is a guesstimate and your Committee is going to have

to work as well as our Committee has in trying to come up with

the best guesstimate under the circumstances.

I would just say that I have not found any suggestion that the

INS has underplayed their responsibility or has attempted to come

up with a plan that is not going to work. And believe me, I have

been on them for the last 8 years.

In California, for instance, Los Angeles, we have had a problem

with respect to people being able to legalize themselves through

the regular process; that is, actual citizenship. And when I started,

I think the wait was something like 42 or 48 months from the time

you qualified for citizenship in the United States to be able to actually get the date by which you could become a citizen. And that has

come down to somewhere less than 4 months now.

So they could be wrong, Mr. Chairman, if that is what your question is.

Mr. FROST. The question is really not that INS is not wrong; that

OMB refused to go along with INS request for the amount of
12

money they needed for investigators. And the problem is not Congress, and it is not the INS, because Congress has been willing to

go along with exactly what INS requested this year.

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FROST. But OMB prevented INS from requesting the full

amount that they felt they needed to implement the

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, if there would be one area I would

depart from what the INS has requested and allow more flexibility

it would be the area of fraud investigators. If you have information

which would lead you to believe that they need more in that, I

would not fight you on that. I would probably support you on that

because I think that is extremely important.

The whole system will collapse in terms of a lack of credibility if

it is seen by the American public as riddled with fraud. I have no

doubts about that. That is one area where if flexibility is needed, I

certainly would support flexibility.

Mr. FROST. Let me ask you one other question and then I want to

direct some questions to our colleague, Mr. Schumer.

If we should find that the offices that have been set up, and

there are approximately 100 of these storefront offices around the

country.

Mr. LUNGREN. 107, right.

Mr. FROST. 107 offices, and everyone who applies must appear

there in person at some point in the process. Even if they go to a

nonprofit organization first to help complete their application, ultimately they have got to appear in person at one of these 107 offices.

If we find in the next few months, or even sooner than that, that

these 107 offices simply cannot handle the volume of work and the

ones in Texas are set up to handle approximately 200 people a day.

If we find that these offices cannot handle the volume, would you

suggest that the fees be increased or that Congress make up the

difference to staff these offices with additional direct appropriation?

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would say to you that if we

are overwhelmed by them, I would suggest we have got more

people coming forward than we planned for, and I assume that

each of them paying the fee will increase the funds that are available to the system.

So, I am not sure you would need to have a direct appropriation

visited upon the Congress at that time.

Mr. FROST. We may find ourselves with an emergency situation

and the collection of that fee may be uneven, and also

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, I think we have to make it work.

Mr. FROST [continuing]. INS right now is borrowing against other

funds. I mean we may find ourselves with a real emergency situation.

Mr. LUNGREN. We obviously have to make it work. But, Mr.

Chairman, I would fight as strongly as I possibly could on the floor

and everywhere if that were used as a means by which we disconnected the idea of the fee paid by the beneficiary of this generous

gift by the American public, most generous gift they can give, the

right to citizenship, and paying for the system itself.
13

If what you are saying is as a short-gap measure we would have

an emergency appropriation to take care of that, certainly I would

support that. But I would not say that that ought to be done in lieu

of the idea that ultimately the system is to be paid for by the fees.

Because, Mr. Chairman, I fought for legalization. I got a large

number of people to support legalization who otherwise would not.

And I made representations to them with respect to the program,

and one of the representations I made was that fees would pay for

the program.

And I think for us to go back on that is to say to Members who

voted in good faith for this bill we didn't mean what we said, we

got you, I am not willing to do that.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Schumer, would you care to comment on the fee

question, and also the question of the shortage of investigator for

fraud; the fact that INS made a request that OMB turned down

and we now find ourselves in a situation where we are not going to

have adequate personnel to prevent fraud under this new law?

Mr. SCHUMER. On the fees, my views are similar to Mr. Lungren's in this sense. I think that, first of all, he is certainly correct,

the conferees believed the fees would pay for the cost of legalization. There is no doubt about that.

And, second, I think some of the groups who criticized the high

level are really mistaken. $185 per person, or even if it were a little

higher, and I hope it would not be, is not much of a price to pay for

the gold card of American citizenship. And almost all of these families are working families. They are not people who do not have the

means. If they were, they would not even be eligible for legalization because of the public charge provision.

The difficulty in the fees is not ultimately where the money

comes from, but rather, is there enough money up front to get the

program as full blown as possible. Then if you have to raise it a

little later, so be it.

But I think the greater danger is not how much the fee is, but

rather, is it available. The fact that there are no offices open in so

many important places, the fact that there has not been enough

outreach to potential applicants and the QDEs is the real danger

on the legalization side.

And I would say that INS has been pretty good. I do not agree

with them 100 percent, but they have certainly taken several steps,

many significant steps, in the direction of those of us who want legalization to work. They have tried to have as few bureaucratic

roadblocks and other problems in the way as possible. They still

have a few steps to take, but they have been very good on that.

The real problem is the money. And somehow or other OMB gets

to dictate this issue. This clearly affects the fraud issue. I believe I

mentioned in my testimony how few new enforcement agents there

would be on that end of it. My colleague from California admitted

or stated that in the conference report, the idea was that legalization would be paid for by the fees. Similarly, on the enforcement

and fraud sides we fought very long and hard for the dollar

amount in the bill. There were Administration people in on the negotiations, in on the number. That number was in the bill, and

that was the number that INS requested of DOJ, and it got

slashed.
14

So, just as the same kind of dereliction of congressional mandate

might be visited upon those who did not want the fees to pay for

legalization, it is now being visited upon us, those of us, all of us

who voted for the bill under the understanding there would be so

much money available.

So I think the fraud area is one of the key areas where there are

not enough people to do the job. And just as you said and as Mr.

Lungren said, if this program starts being suspect as riddled with

holes, that it does not work, a fundamentally good program could

go down the drain simply because it would not be carried out.

And I would submit that the costs of hiring the extra investigators and the extra people is minimal compared to the savings of a

program that works.

Mr. FROST. The Chair recognizes Mr. Fazio.

Mr. FAZIO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to be

asking the question Mr. Schumer just responded to.

Do you believe that the inadequate number of personnel and the

current level of funding to conduct these investigations in regard to

potential fraud will underline public confidence in the program

and will lead to perhaps further punitive legislative action?

Mr. SCHUMER. Well, I am very worried about that, Mr. Fazio.

And I would also say this. In their own statements, INS has said

they are going to focus on the•I think they said either the Fortune 500 companies or the largest 5,000 companies in the country. I

do not recall.

It is my guess that a large, large percentage of those undocumented workers who are working illegally are in the much smaller

industries. INS needs more personnel to inspect these companies

and they do not have it. And you are going to start seeing newspaper articles 6 months after this thing goes into effect, that will say,

here we are at a little clothing factory in New York, or a farm in

California, or whatever, and we still have the same number of illegals as before. And then those of us who supported legalization are

going to really get it, because it wasn't an evenhanded approach.

Mr. FAZIO. I could not agree with you more. The problem is not

going to be a major corporation putting its reputation in jeopardy

or its stockholders in jeopardy. It is going to be someone who is

looking to cut corners around the margins.

Mr. Lungren, would you want to comment?

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, I think we have to differentiate between the

two parts of the program. The one is the legalization, the one is the

employers sanctions. As I said in the absence of some of you, I believe that we are making a guesstimate with respect to the question of the number of people that are going to come forward with

legalization. Maybe the INS has guessed wrong, and maybe we will

need more people that are in the area of fraud in that program,

because that's a 1-year program. I do not know, and I would certainly support requests for supplemental if that is necessary.

If what you are talking about is enforcement of the employer

sanctions, we have to take a little bit of history which is that we

added 1,000 Border Patrol agents, that is the enforcement side of

the INS, 1 year ago, in fiscal year. It took about 2 years to bring all

those people on board, but it was the largest single increase in the

history of the Border Patrol in the INS on the enforcement side.
15

Second, there is no expectation, and there never was any expectation that the INS will have sufficient personnel to check every

single employer. It is just like any other type thing. Any more than

the IRS checks every single person for fraud who brings in a tax

return.

I do not think we have evidence to suggest at this point in time

that we have insufficient people to enforce the employer sanction

part of it.

And, frankly, if I were on an oversight committee right now, I

would concentrate more on whether we have sufficient people on

the legalization program side, because that is the short term one.

That is the 1-year program. That is the one that is either going to

make it or not going to make it.

The employer sanction program is going to be with us probably

forever. We are slowly phasing it in. And even though as of June of

this year there will be a requirement that the employer sanctions

are actually in effect, I would suggest that under normal circumstances you are still going to have a phase in a sense there because

you are still going to have employers understanding what it is, and

making sure that the documentation, that is, the form that they

get from the INS is filled out properly and so forth.

And so I think you will see more flexibility in the early years of

the employers sanctions than you will see later.

I wish I could give you a definitive answer. It is just we do not

know how many people are out there on the legalization side. And

the INS' guess is as good as my guess or as good as the gentleman

from New York's guess. We do not know.

The suggestion that we are not doing anything flies in the face

of•in my area in Los Angeles, it is my understanding we have already got 300,000 people that have preregistered applications.

Something has to be in place for that to have taken place already.

Mr. SCHUMER. If I just might make one other point to the gentleman from California s question.

I understand that we do not know, and I have would have faith

in INS' guess as to how many people they needed. The fact of the

matter is, on investigations, INS requested that there be 1,003 positions, and they were cut by, as I understand it, 27 percent. And I

think INS was being pretty tough on it.

So, it is not INS. I think INS, as I have mentioned, has approached this whole thing in good faith. It is what OMB is allowed

to do to it after there was a three-cornered agreement, House,

Senate and President, as to how much would be spent on this.

Mr. FROST. If I could at this point recognize a few Members if

they have any brief opening comments who have come in since the

hearing began.

Mr. Armey from Texas.

Mr. ARMEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to apologize for my schedule being so full of

conflicts that I will not be able to spend as much time here as I

would like. I will be reading the transcripts closely, though.

I also want to thank Mr. Frost for organizing this hearing. His

district is next to mine. We know and share many of the same

problems. I think it is quite timely to have hearings at this time.

We have just passed major immigration reform legislation. The
16

time has come now for implementation, something equally important as the legislation itself. And I must say, given the magnitude

of the task that faces the INS, at least in our district, we have been

very impressed with the extent to which the agency has been able

to respond, make reassignments, increase their productivity, and

actually respond to the problem.

At the same time I make that observation and commend the

agency for its response, I do see that it is quite clear the time is

now to make an assessment of the problem and our ability to

handle it, and see what needs to be done.

So I commend the Chairman and Mr. Frost for holding this hearing. I will be looking at the transcripts. My district staff will continue to work closely with the INS, and we intend to do everything

we can to see that the law is fulfilled and that we do so with as

little difficulty as possible.

Thank you.

Mr. FROST. Mr. MacKay, who came in after we started, did you

have any opening comments? Mr. Fazio.

Mr. FAZIO. I will just wrap up because we have a lot of people we

want to hear. I simply wanted to say that my feedback from grassroots California is that farmworkers who want to stay in farm

work are paying $500 to $700 to attorneys, and those ripoffs are occurring because there is so much confusion out there. People do not

understand what their responsibilities are and what they are supposed to do, and they place themselves in the hands of people who

claim they can help them.

The farmers in my district, in most cases, do not have attorneys

and accountants immediately available to them, and are also concerned. We see far more people held up at the border who would

like to come back where they have been going 15 to 20 years to

work, because of confusion on the part of the INS as to who should

or should not be let in to comply.

I think you are both aware of the confusion we have had between the SAW Program and the H2 Program. There is a good deal

of chaos in California right now. We have cropping and are ready

to go. Many crops will soon be harvested.

I would ask just briefly if both of you feel there should be some

delay in implementation of the law if we cannot work out some of

the problems that the regulations, which have been so late in

coming down, are presenting?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SCHUMER. Yes, my general view is you have to look at it

from both sides. On amnesty, where there has not been very

much•legalization, we are supposed to call it.

On legalization, where there has not been enough start up time,

rather than delay the program it might be a good idea as it wends

its way through, to extend the deadline a little further along.

On sanctions, as you know, the first 6 months are a warning

Seriod. And I think, again, we would have to make a judgment,

une 1 sanctions start. Six months after that is December 1.

Around October, whether there should be some modest delay in implementation. But I do not think right now would be the time, although it is something we should seriously consider when the time

comes on the two respective areas.
17

Mr. LUNGREN. I would not suggest that we delay. It is a very fragilebill that got through the Congress•well, I could use some

words•barely got through the Congress. I think some of the votes

there belie the truth in terms of the support that was there. And I

think any legislation to require a delay would run into real trouble, and I would not want to subject the legalization program more

the•well, the legalization program. I am confident the employer

sanction program would continue, and I think there is a symmetry

there that we do not want to disturb.

If we find that there is a need to extend it, we can always extend

it, although I do take exception to the statements not that much

has been done. I have been part of the programs and I have seen

what they have done, and I have seen the organization involved.

One thing you pointed out is absolutely clear and we ought to

continue to make it clear in the public record. There are some rip

off artists out there who are taking advantage of people. These are

the worst type of people we can have. They are not better, in fact

in some case they are worse than the coyotes who have been dealing in human cargo and making themselves rich on it. Unfortunately, some of them have professional degrees after their name,

and they are fooling a lot of people out there.

And the one thing we have tried to say and I said it, and I know

the director of INS out in our area said it, is that people should not

be going to anybody who guarantees them that they are going to

get citizenship, who charge them $500 or $1,000. The designated

outside organizations are the ones they probably ought to go to

first and foremost. And in most case, those are available in California.

Mr. FAZIO. Well, let me just say, and I will conclude, Mr. Chairman, I think the agricultural organizations have been doing a

better job of informing the public, both farmworkers and farmers,

than the INS. I still feel there is a lack of information available at

the grassroots to the average person involved in the implementation of this law. And I think that comes back to a budgetary issue.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Derrick. Oh, I am sorry, Mrs. Johnson.

Mrs. JOHNSON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I also have a conflict

and so will not be able to stay the entire length of the hearing. I do

commend you for calling this hearing because this was an enormously controversial bill as we all know, and very, very important.

But I would like to point out as a preface to my question that the

problems that INS is facing are specifically the problems that we

created by legislating from the heart. Now I voted for it. I thought

we ought to have an amnesty program. But we certainly knew, and

one of the reasons it was so controversial was because we did know

that it is difficult to require illegal immigrants whose lives have

been governed by the necessity to obscure their presence in our society, and particularly to obscure any employment they might be

involved in in our society, to require those same people whose lives

have been governed by the necessity for secretness, to now come

forward with proof and evidence of not only their residence, but

their employment.

So we knew that we were setting up a very difficult law. And in

fact, the process of writing regulations has revealed the contradictions within the legislation and the complexities of the mandate.
18

We knew it would be messy. It is messy, and I think our job is to

support INS, both financially, but also with the resources of our offices. And I am very pleased to say that in my district, within their

existing capabilities, my INS office is doing a conference with me

for our local Chamber of Commerce on the issue of employer sanctions. They have had some very indepth workshops for their own

people that they have allowed my staff members to go to, because

we have a very big caseload in my particular district of immigration problems.

And so they are out there doing some very fine work and I commend them for it.

Second, the funding history of this bill ought to be on the record.

We passed the original Immigration Reform Act only 1 day before

or 1 day after the continuing resolution. I think it was 1 day before

the continuing resolution. But we were unable to provide adequate

funding in that, and consequently, knew we would be dependent on

the supplemental to fund this program.

And as we discuss funding, I think it is terribly important that

we be straight with the American public and not blame the funding problems on INS, OMB and the President as much as we might

like to say they have asked us for too little money. Because not

only did the supplemental come in with only their request and no

increase, and if we had felt strongly about an increase, we should

have done it then, but we cut it on the floor, and we cut it as a

result of an amendment by a Democratic colleague on the Budget

Committee. And in my estimation, it was a responsible amendment, and I voted for the amendment.

But let us give INS credit for being required to implement an extremely difficult law at a time when our budget is under enormous

pressure and not only INS but every other agency in this Government is trying to do a decent job with very little money.

But the funding problems are not INS' and OMB's. They are this

Congress' and we just did it to them last week. So I want to be certain that there is a recognition of the joint responsibility that we

carry as Members of Congress and that this is not just the Administration underfunding something that we think is important. It is

all of us struggling to do what we believe is right for the Nation

under very constrained resources.

I am pleased to report that in terms of the investigation issue, I

have already seen, frankly, the closure of a couple of small shops in

my district that I did not realize until this time were completely

dependent on illegal immigrant labor, and the employers, seeing

the handwriting on the wall, decided to go into some other business.

So I would not short sell the impact of the self-enforcement effort

that is going to take place in the business community. We regulate

the business community in so many areas, environmentally and so

on. They are well aware the Government does finally come around.

And while I think investigation is important and we should be

having this hearing to see the precise nature of the situation, I

very much regret that INS is not here today, and that OMB is not

here today. And as the details of the problems merge in the next 6

months, I think it will be necessary to come back to this issue as a

Budget Committee to evaluate where we are.
19

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FROST. Thank you. And let me reiterate that INS and OMB

were invited and declined to appear at this point, and I assume

that they will be invited again at a later date.

Mrs. JOHNSON. Thank you. I do think that the reason that they

declined was because of the implications that all of the problems

were INS and OMB driven. And they are clearly not driven by

OMB's decisions any more than they are by ours. In fact, at this

point, they are more driven by ours than theirs. I hope that next

time they will feel that they can come in a forthright manner.

Mr. FROST. I agree with you. I hope that they will appear and

that they will answer all of our questions. Mr. Derrick.

Mr. DERRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, think that it is

regrettable that INS and OMB did not feel that they should be

here this morning, and I hope that they will reconsider.

Mr. Lungren and Mr. Schumer, I thank you both for your participation being here this morning. Being a member of the Rules

Committee, I had an opportunity to observe the very fragile negotiations that went on on this bill.

And I think that it would be safe to say that we would not have

an immigration bill had it not been for Mr. Schumer's active participation in those negotiations.

I do not really have a question other than I am just amazed if I

heard you right that you estimated that there were as many as

700,000 illegal aliens or immigrants in your district?

Mr. SCHUMER. Brooklyn is 4V2 districts.

Mr. DERRICK. I did not realize that it was quite that high.

Mr. SCHUMER. It is not primarily Hispanics. It is people from the

Caribbean, Barbados, Trinidad.

Mr. DERRICK. That still means that probably maybe

Mr. SCHUMER. Are you saying that that explains my election to

the House of Representatives?

Mr. LUNGREN. NO, it explains one out of four congressional districts in the census.

Mr. DERRICK. That explains a lot about you, but I just will not go

into it right now. But you know, that means that one out of every

four or five persons in your district almost are in this category.

Mr. SCHUMER. In one of the districts which has the greatest concentration, I think one out of two. And most of them are uncounted. You know, they were not counted in the census. The Census

Bureau counts by mailing as opposed to going door to door. And of

course, almost none of these people send it back. Then the Census

Bureau does estimates by knocking on a few doors.

There is a huge undercount. You see neighborhoods filled with

people. And then you look at the census tract, and it says that the

population went down by one-half from 1970 to 1980.

Mr. DERRICK. And there has been no preparation there that you

are aware?

Mr. SCHUMER. There has been some. Again the churches are

doing their best, the Catholic Church; parts of the community, Haitians are Catholic, so they are much better off than a lot of the

people from some of the other islands that are not Catholic. Because the Protestant churches, of course, are not hierarchically or-
20

ganized. A few are, but most are not. They are store front churches, and they are not plugged in yet.

And what I have been urging INS to do is open up an office in

Brooklyn. You see, INS claims that they could all take the subway

to Manhattan, but that is not the point. This office should be visiting these storefront churches letting the pastors know about the

program.

Because frankly, if you have, as Mrs. Johnson said, been living in

the shadows for a long time, the last person that you are going to

go to to ask if you are going to be legalized is the INS. Because if

you are right, you are legalized; and if you are wrong, you are out

of here. But if go to your pastor or someone that you trust, it is

much better. So that is what I have been urging them to do, and so

far they have not been able to do it.

Mr. DERRICK. Thank you very much.

Mr. FROST. I thank you both for you excellent testimony. We will

proceed to the next panel at this point. I would ask that the next

group of witnesses, Gilbert Carrasco, Warren Leiden, and Joseph

Murray come up to the table.

I would request the witnesses who are here to summarize their

statements, and their full statements will be made part of the

record.

And at this point, I would recognize Gilbert Carrasco, Migration

and Refugee Services, U.S. Catholic Conference.

STATEMENT OF GILBERT PAUL CARRASCO, DIRECTOR,

IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S. CATHOLIC CONFERENCE

Mr. CARRASCO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the U.S.

Catholic Conference, I would like to commend and thank you and

the Members of the Committee for calling this hearing and inviting

our participation.

We have several concerns. And to summarize my testimony, I

will address five major ones: First, the inadequacy of the Administration's funding request; second, prioritization of expenditures;

third, the burden of application fees on applicants; fourth, the

impact of the lack of funding on the voluntary agencies. And lastly,

public education.

Referring to the funding request, as you pointed out, the funding

request of $137.8 million, Mr. Chairman, is inadequate to the task

and far short of what the authorization of $422 million for the 1987

year provided.

The appropriations are not only inadequate to the task at hand

and less than Congress anticipated would be provided for the implementation of the Reform Act as a whole, but they are far different from the balanced approach that the INS has said would be

taken to implement the Immigration Reform Act of 1986.

Second, the prioritization of the INS clearly is on the side of enforcement. Their 1987 revised budget provides for enforcement in a

total amount of $452,823,000 or 62 percent of the overall requirement of $731,969,000.

In comparison, the figure for citizenship and benefits on this critical personnel line item is only 8 percent of the overall requirement or $59,678,000.
21

The impact of this has been experienced for many years by

people who want to go through normal legal channels. On any

given day, you can go into San Jose and Los Angeles CA and

Miami, FL and see long lines of people queuing up to wait at the

Immigration Service offices early in the morning and even the

night before.

The import of this is that if we make it very difficult and provide

minimal resources for people to immigrate legally to this country, I

think that it is going to continue to be the case that people are

going simply to avoid the process and try to come into the country

illegally.

The funding of the legal immigration channels will become even

more critical after legalization when the lawful temporary residents who apply for status under the current program have to

adjust to lawful permanent resident status.

And it is imperative, in our view, that the prioritization of the

Immigration Service with respect to funding requests be substantially realigned.

Perhaps the most telling impact of the funding request in terms

of priorities is that there is a zero funding request for legalization

itself.

The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, points out that

there is conference language that states that there was an intention of the conferees to have some of the legalization costs covered

by the application fees.

However, there are many items in the budget with respect to legalization that form the basis for the legalization fee that are clearly outside the scope of the processing of applications.

For example, the legalization budget includes the line item of

construction and engineering. And for fiscal year 1987, that line

item amounts to $27,300,000, and for 1988 it is $20,019,000.

Under section 201(cXD of the Immigration Reform and Control

Act, there is a provision that states and I quote:

The Attorney General is authorized to expend from the appropriation provided for

the administration and enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act such

amounts as may be necessary for the leasing or acquisition of property in the fulfillment of the legalization program.

In other words, that line item could clearly have been addressed

through the regular appropriation for the immigration reform initiative, and not through the legalization budget. And so that should

not have formed the basis or part of the basis for the legalization

application fee.

Another line item that forms the basis for the application fee is

the detention and deportation costs that are included in the legalization budget. As the law provides, the application for legalization

should not result in enforcement against the denied legalization applicant.

The application is confidential, and the Attorney General is proscribed and, indeed, is subject to criminal liability if that information is divulged and used for enforcement purposes, with the one

exception being fraud.

These items are $556,000 for 1987 and $1,981,000 for 1988. It

seems to us that the detention and deportation costs associated

with the application process are not part of the costs of processing
22

applications as the conference report provides, and should not

therefore be included in the legalization budget.

I think that it is important to explain the practical impact of the

legalization fee on the applicants themselves. I would like just to

explore with you for a moment a typical family. Let us call it a

hypothetical family. Let us say that this typical family is comprised of five persons: Two parents, two children, and one elderly

grandparent.

The basic family unit application fee proposed by the INS would

be $420 plus an additional $185 for the elderly grandparent.

Beyond this, all five members of the family would have to obtain a

medical examination, and that must be obtained in the proposed

regulations through a selected civil surgeon designated by the INS,

even though the statute does not provide that it must be obtained

from such a physician.

This is going to cost somewhere between $60 and $75 per family

member in all likelihood. Beyond that, if there are any waivers

that must be obtained by any members of the family, there is an

additional fee imposed by the INS of $35 per waiver.

Let us assume for purposes of this hypothetical that we have one

waiver for one family member in the context of this hypothetical,

which is not an unlikely eventuality.

Even before you factor in the costs of legal assistance, time off

work, notarization, copying, telephone, postage, and other costs associated with the application process, this family would have spent

over $1,000 to apply for legalization.

Now consider further, if you will that the median family income

of Hispanic families in the United States in 1984 was $11,650. Assuming that our hypothetical family's annual income is $13,900,

this would mean that nearly 10 percent of their annual income

would have to be devoted to application for legalization.

This practical impact does not seem to be consistent with the

program's implementation in a liberal and generous fashion, as

was the intent of Congress as stated in the House Report 99-682,

part 1, at page 72.

It seems to me that the practical impact should countervail the

approach of the INS and the Administration that the entire program's cost must be borne by the applicants themselves.

Further, it is appropriate to compare these application fees to

other fees for comparable procedures that are closely akin to the

legalization process.

The Immigration Service points to the entry of immigrants from

abroad as the comparable procedure. They say that an application

for filing an 1-130 petition from abroad costs $35, an application for

an immigrant visa costs $125, and issuance of an immigrant visa is

assessed a $25 charge, all adding up to $185.

However, application for legal status from abroad involves two

agencies, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Department of State. A fair comparison rather would be an approach

that would consider the registry fee, which applies to a process that

is very similar to a legalization application.

Registry merely requires that one establish continuous residence

since 1972 in this country. The fee for that procedure is $50. Com-
23

parable also is the adjustment of status petition for a person applying from within this country. The fee for that process is $85.

Further, the legislative history, I think, undermines the position

of the Immigration Service in terms of having the entire program

funded through application fees.

The Senate bill provided a minimum fee of $100 per applicant,

and the House bill established a maximum fee of $75 for individuals and $175 per family.

Furthermore, the Immigration Service argues that the value of

the benefit received, that is this generous gift of citizenship, as Mr.

Lungren put it, is the applicable criterion for assessing the fee.

If that is the correct rationale, we should pay a fortune for a

driver's license, in my view. It seems to me that the impact on the

person applying is not the relevant criterion for assessing a fee.

Equally inappropriate is the reference to the payment of coyotes,

or smugglers, for entry into this country as a consideration in assessing the amount of the fee. The fact that an undocumented

person invested his life savings to cross the border and into the

country is not really what should be the criterion for the U.S. Government to determine what to assess as an application fee.

The impact on the voluntary agencies of the lack of funding for

legalization has been substantial. Indeed the Immigration and Naturalization Service has not compensated voluntary agencies at all

for substantial efforts that we have undertaken on their behalf.

For example, over the previous 2 weeks and during this week,

our staff, 14 of our best lawyers and so forth, are out in the field

training both INS personnel and qualified designated entities.

We are also providing facilities for this training. The compensation that INS has given us for those efforts has been zero. The

American Council for Nationalities Service, another voluntary

agency, reports that they have invested $75,000 to $80,000 for their

participation in that effort, and they have also contributed substantial personnel and resources for those training sessions.

The per capita level of compensation, as you know, is $15 for

direct service providers and $16 for affiliates with National coordinating agencies. This certainly is not going to cover the cost of the

program.

The per capita reimbursement is broken down by the $15 for

channeling to the affiliates of the National coordinating agencies,

and the $1 additional is for the Administration of the program at

the national level.

The $1 of the $16 provided to the National coordinating agencies

comes to about 6.25 percent for administration. Your typical administration costs in any program such as this runs in the neighborhood of 20 percent. If that were the case, we would be channeling $15 of the total amount to the affiliates in the field, and we

would be receiving $3 for the administration of the program.

We have received some criticism for arguing, on the one hand,

that the INS application fee should be lower but on the other, that

we should be able to charge a reasonable fee for provision of the

services, given the minimal per capita reimbursement that we are

receiving from the Immigration Service.

I think that it is important to note, however, that the application

fee of the INS is not a waivable fee. On the other hand, the legal
24

fees that are being assessed by us and other voluntary agencies,

which are limited to $75•or $100 if photographs and fingerprints

are also provided•are waivable. Indeed we have a sliding scale

that has a zero to $75 recommended fee, and that is based on the

assets and income of the individuals involved.

Turning to the public education aspects of the program, misinformation is virtually everywhere. Indeed, in today's Washington Post

on page 1, we see an inaccurate statement with regard to employers who are covered based on the number of employees that they

have on staff and the applicability of the employer sanction provisions.

The article states that only employers with four or more employees are covered by the employer sanctions provisions when, in fact,

the actual number is any number of employees.

That is typical and that is rampant throughout the country. We

have a real problem with public education. According to the law,

the past 5 months should have been the public education period

that prefaced the effective date of the employer sanctions provisions. And, heretofore, we have had virtually no public education

other than the few INS meetings in the field.

Only this month did we see an award of the public education

contract and that award is far less in our view than what is required to implement the public education effort successfully. The

amount of that grant was $10,750,000, about one-third of what we

would consider to be appropriate for the public education effort.

The impact of the lack of public education is very real. We see a

stark example insofar as some people as of May 5 are going to lose

substantial rights because there has been no public education.

I am referring now to the requirement that one must apply for

naturalization within 6 months of eligibility if they are to protect

their rights under the discrimination provisions of the law, regardless of whether they have a present claim of discrimination.

Now what that means is if a person who was eligible for naturalization, that is, to apply for citizenship, as of the date of the enactment of this law, November 6, 1986, does not apply for naturalization by May 5, next Tuesday, he or she will be forever barred from

filing a claim of discrimination under the new Immigration Reform

and Control Act as long as such person remains in lawful permanent resident status.

That is a fact that I have discussed with several people, and very

few have been aware of that, including Immigration and Naturalization Service officials at the highest levels.

Furthermore, there has been very little public education with respect to employer sanctions, as I pointed out earlier, and with respect to the legalization program.

The lack of public education, of course, results in people going to

unscrupulous individuals, as has been pointed out earlier today.

Certainly, the lack of funding and the lack of offices of voluntary

agencies and INS offices has an impact on the provision of services

and assistance to potential legalization applicants.

So, I think that we have a real problem that is inadequately addressed at this point. And I would not suggest that we delay the

commencement of the application period, but I would strongly endorse the suggestion of Congressman Lungren with respect to his
25

suggestion that it may be important to extend the end of the application period.

And certainly, the ability to do that would be consistent with the

functioning of the special agricultural workers program, which extends to November 30, 1988. So that would facilitate the extension

of the legalization application period.

With respect to that issue, just one note of substance on this implementation effort. We have a real problem in that the regulations as proposed only provide that the self-certification process for

employer sanctions will be applicable through September 1, 1987.

That is, if a person is given an 1-9 by an employer and is asked

to produce documents, the person can simply state under penalty

of perjury that he or she is going to be applying for legalization

and considers himself eligible. That is sufficient for the employer

and protects the employer from liability through September 1.

In effect, however, what this does is move the end of the application period back from May 4, 1988, to September 1, 1987, and establishes an unnecessary crunch for both the voluntary agencies and

the Immigration Service, because of the many people who are

being asked presently and certainly will be asked at that time for

documents immediately.

Last, just a couple of issues related to implementation and funding. We have recently been requested by the Social Security Administration to participate in the facilitation of obtaining Social Security cards through the legalization process.

Of course, this is yet another form. It is yet another process that

we would be asked to undertake in the context of an extremely

limited budget and a time frame that requires us to process a tremendous volume of applications in a very short period.

We have suggested to the Social Security Administration that it

would be helpful to our clients to provide such a service. But unless

there was some vehicle for funding that effort, we simply would

not be in a position to undertake that additional responsibility.

The final budgetary consideration that I might mention is the

problem with the Office of Special Counsel for unfair immigrationrelated employment practices. It is our understanding that there is

no intention on behalf of the Department of Justice to fund regional offices that would accept complaints for allegations of employment discrimination prohibited by the Immigration Reform and

Control Act.

It is our position that if there is going to be a real commitment

to that law, it is going to be essential to establish such regional offices as is provided in the statute.

If any of the Members of the Committee have any questions, I

would be happy to answer them at this time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carrasco may be found at the

end of the hearing.]

Mr. FAZIO [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Carrasco, for your very

thoughtful testimony. We'll now let the other witnesses give their

testimony and then ask questions to all three of you.

At this point I would like to call on Warren Leiden, who is the

executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association who I, by the way, mean in no way to slander in terms of comments I made earlier. I know you have been doing some pro bono
26

work in order to avoid this kind of problem that does periodically

pop up.

STATEMENT OF WARREN R. LEIDEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. LEIDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity both to testify and I want to commend the Committee for

holding these implementation oversight hearings on the very eve of

the commencement of the legalization program.

I think many of us who have been active in the formation and

the birth of this bill feel somewhat like the parents of the bride or

the groom just before the wedding day. I hope most of the invitations got out. We hope the caterer is on time and the anxiety is

understood.

Of course, this is a much more serious subject than a wedding

between merely two people because it involves virtually the entire

population of the United States and very important issues of national policy.

I want to commend the House for its support for full funding as

requested on both in this fiscal year supplemental as well as the

1988 fiscal year budget. We regret with many that more money

was not requested by the Administration and in large part because

additional money I think, as we all know, allows things to happen

more quickly. Time is money as I think the Federal Express Corp.,

has adequately proved in the last decade, and the ability to spend

more money would have allowed some of the weaknesses that may

occur next week or for the next couple of weeks to have been avoided.

In addition to that, and I must commend the Immigration Service and many others in Government service for their hard work

over the last period. I think that it is important to note that in addition to working very hard, it is critical that the folks both in the

private sector as well as in Government service work smart. And I

think that the money that has been appropriated and that will be

appropriated in the supplemental must not only be an adequate

amount, but must be used in a sufficient and smart, if you will,

fashion.

On the subject of public education, the Immigration Service has

been very cooperative with our organization and many others, including Members of Congress in seminars. Our organization has

conducted, with cooperation of the Immigration Service, dozens of

seminars. In fact at this very moment we are having a 2-day seminar in Houston, TX, and it involves members of the bar, representatives of the qualified designated entities, as well as from the Immigration Service.

The critical reason for public education is, as was pointed out

earlier, that it is not going to be possible for an investigator of the

Immigration Service to be present every time an individual is

hired, or to investigate the employment records of every single employer in the United States. But rather education and knowledge is

a very important aspect of preventing fraud and encouraging compliance with both the employer sanctions as well as the related aspects of the legalization program.
27

It is important that the undocumented come out of the shadows

and take advantage of this opportunity and those who are not eligible for legalization find the means by which to either leave the

United States or, through some other lawful remedy, to become full

participating members of our society.

Public education would encourage employers to cooperate not

only with the employer sanctions program, but also with helping to

adequately document legalization claims; thereby alleviating the

temptation to engage in fraud in trying to prove ones legalization

case.

The Immigration Bar is very familiar with aliens who come from

a different culture where fraud, bribes and other illegal acts are

part of the society, thinking that they are helping themselves by

engaging in fraud•unnecessary fraud that really would not have

any effect on their eligibility•only to then be barred forever from

admission to the United States.

In addition to deterring fraud, a smart public education program,

beginning right now, would deter the scams and the rip offs that

have been mentioned before, the visa consultants, the immigration

consultants, the so-called notarios, and even some lawyers who

would prey on the vulnerability of these applicants by promising

this or guaranteeing that.

I must take some exception with those who would set a certain

amount and say if you charge less than this, you are a honest

person; if you charge more, that you are unscrupulous. The Federal

Trade Commission watches very closely discussions about legal

fees, and I am not unaccustomed to discussing them. The important thing is that people who seek assistance with legalization be

told to avoid the ripoffs and the scams, who are going to encourage

fraud and encourage people to engage in the use of fraudulent documents and rather, to seek assistance only at a voluntary agency

that is accredited by the Immigration Service, a qualified designated entity, or a licensed attorney.

With regard to preparedness for next week, first impressions in

any program are very important, and I fear that, to the degree that

we in the private sector and our colleagues in the Government

service are not prepared to begin the legalization program, we will

create some bad first impressions this could engender delay in the

actual success of the legalization program, in overcoming the skepticism that some will naturally have. To the degree the Immigration Service is viewed as not being up to the job, as someone said,

incompetent to complete the job, it is going to undermine people's

confidence, or fear, or whatever they feel that will encourage compliance with the law and the assuaging of fraud.

Just to give you some indication of what we see now in the field,

regrettably, a number of the 107 legalization offices will not be prepared because of a lack of office equipment, personnel, telephone

service, et cetera. Those who have moved or have had to change

location in the last year or two, I am sure are very sympathetic to

what the Immigration Service is going through. Everything is

always delayed, things always come late. But the first impression is

a critical one.

I think the Service can cure this by providing accurate information in each locality as to when things will get started. And if there
28

needs to be a 2-week delay at an office, then let us get that word

out that they will start in 2 weeks.

This is particularly critical for those who are subject to the 30-

day rule, those who have been apprehended since November 6 and

will be automatically ineligible for legalization if they are unable

to apply in the first 30 days.

Another problem, and this is a question of whether money has

been well spent, is the availability of forms for legalization. It was

only a week and a half ago that the forms were made available at

one site that we could locate. That's a GPO warehouse in Laurel,

MD. We have been sending couriers out every day bringing back

packs and packs of forms, and then expressing them all around the

country to practicing lawyers. We have sent out over 30,000 forms

in the last week, and have pending requests for 30,000 more that

we can't fulfill because the GPO warehouse has now run out. These

are simply the basic application forms.

Medical examination forms, that will be required of all applicants at the time they apply, are not yet available anywhere, and

we regret this greatly. We are prepared to start up our send out

service again tomorrow if the forms are then available, but we

regret this delay, and we fear this will undermine confidence in the

program both among the applicant class, as well as among the general public.

I want to just mention in closing the impact of the new law on

ongoing immigration functions, both the adjudication of immigration benefits as well as the enforcement of our immigration laws.

Beyond the obvious first steps of legalization and employer sanctions, there are many other new responsibilities the Immigration

Service will have to fulfill. The hundreds of thousands, perhaps

millions of aliens who qualify for legalization will now, when they

want to leave the country and visit family and their homeland

need to seek permission from the Immigration Service.

It is a bad habit that many of these people have in leaving the

country•avoiding detection as they cross the border and then

come back. These folks will now all need advance parole•will all

need to get permission to return and leave, and if the Immigration

Service cannot properly provide that permission to leave and

return, it is going to be tempting for them to fall back into the old

habit of going across the border illegally.

In addition, many parts of the country's economic life and businesses depend on aliens, specialized persons, corporate executives,

high tech engineers and others to come into the United States to

work on projects on which many production jobs depend. If these

folks are delayed in their arrival into the United States to work on

projects because of the impact of the new legislation, or the inability to use the money that is provided, it would indeed be unfortunate.

Finally, on the question of investigations and enforcement, there

is the issue not only the adequacy of the number of investigators,

but also the adequacy of training and supervision of ongoing operations. It would be a sad thing indeed if the Immigration Service or

any Government agency was forced to choose between an adequate

number of investigators or the proper conduct of enforcement. And

I hope that, when looking at the fiscal year 1988 budget and how it
29

is in fact spent, this Committee will ensure that there is adequate

training and supervision, precisely because many of the enforcement and investigation activities will be in a new area. It will be in

a new arena, and the officers will be working with new subjects of

their enforcement actions.

I might add that the program developed for legalization, which

depends on all final adjudications of legalization applications being

adjudged at one of four regional processing centers, will lend itself

to detection of document fraud, particularly where there are third

parties providing masses of fraudulent documents. Under the regional adjudication program that currently exists in the Immigration Service, those kinds of patterns come up and are identified

very quickly, in a fashion that single adjudications at this office

might not have been caught.

Finally, while the investigators and the examiners of the Immigration Service will detect fraud, much of the final making of the

case, if you will, and the prosecution, will be done by the Federal

Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. attorney's offices around the

country. So that in looking at the adequacy of the investigations,

you have to look both to INS investigators and examiners, who are

the front line to detect and to suspect fraud in these types of cases,

and, for prosecution and building these cases, the U.S. attorney's

office.

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Leiden may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

Mr. FROST. At this point I would like to call on Joseph B.

Murray, chairman of the North Texas Coalition on Immigration.

Mr. Murray, if you would summarize your remarks.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH B. MURRAY, CHAIRMAN, NORTH TEXAS

COALITION ON IMMIGRATION

Mr. MURRAY. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank

you for the invitation to appear before you today to express some of

our concerns, and to also say that I am in full agreement with the

previous two speakers' statements.

I think to start off we have to address the issue of the actual legislation itself and its intent. I think there was not as much concern

at the grassroots level when we read the legislation and we saw the

appropriations that were made in that bill. We, up until about 3

weeks ago, felt confident that the INS was working under those

guidelines.

We only found out 3 weeks ago by an INS representative that

indeed the appropriations that were recommended by the Congress

were not being followed through.

As you know, Texas has an estimated 750,000 to 1 million possible applicants, and that's a conservative estimate. Out of the 200

QDEs that were just released nationwide, Texas has only received

35 of those QDEs. There has been absolutely no public education

done in the Dallas/Fort Worth area or in the north Texas area,

that I know of.

I understand that as of 2 weeks ago there was a contract made

with a company to provide educational activity in this area, and I
30

think $10 million is far too short for the magnitude of this problem. I think if we are going to reach the people that we genuinely

intend to help, we have to reach the minority communities that are

being most impacted by this legislation, and the only way to do

that is to include in the media minority electronic media and minority press. I do not think that has been done.

I think, indeed, the disinformation that has been going on

throughout the country about this program could be a lesson for

the Russians to follow. I do not say that was a conscious effort or

unconscious effort. I just raise that has a concern here. It seems to

me in order to help these people we have to let them know this

program exists.

The other concern that we have is the $15 or $16 reimbursement

fee that the INS has with social service organizations and church

groups for processing these applications. I think that that is totally

inadequate given the responsibilities of the processing that these

organizations and groups are going to be asked to do. In other

words, they are doing the INS's job for them and I think $50 would

be more in keeping with those responsibilities.

The issue again of the QDEs in Texas, we in the Dallas/Fort

Worth area, I believe we have somewhere in the neighborhood of

12 to 13 QDEs. The southern part of Texas where the major Hispanic population is located at has no QDEs with the exception of

the diocese of Brownsville who had originally intended not to be a

QDE but because there was no movement on the INS' part decided

to become registered as a QDE just recently.

I would encourage the INS to initiate a second cycle of applications for qualified designated entities. I think that 200 Nationwide

out of the originally intended 400 are far short of the goal that we

need to reach to get this job accomplished. I think I have summarized my points and I bring this from a grassroots level. There is a

lot of confusion out there. We have people•I have interviewed

people that are coming in. They do not know what base documents

are going to be required in their file. Do they provide birth certificates, marriage certificates, passports? Is it their responsibility to

get these forms translated?

I think the fee of $185 that the INS has recommended is also out

of the ball park. I think considering the fees that these people are

going to have to pay at every step of the process is going to possibly

be in the range, total fees in the range of $1,200 to $1,500.

I think the only individuals that will benefit from this confusion

out in our communities are indeed going to be the unscrupulous

elements.

Thank you for your attention.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Murray may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

Mr. FROST. We do have two other witnesses that need to be

heard. I do want to ask one or two questions.

Mr. Carrasco, what is your•if you could briefly state, do you feel

that the QDEs are prepared to implement this program? I know

that the Catholic Conference has been very much involved in this.

As we approach May 5, where do you feel that the agencies•the

organizations that you are dealing with, how adequately prepared

are they come May 5?
31

Mr. CARRASCO. Well, in our system, I think that we are generally

as prepared as we could be, given the circumstances. Surely the

fact that 4 business days before the program commences we do not

have final regulations impacts on our ability to train properly. But

I think that I can safely state that we are probably more prepared

than anyone else out there.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Leiden, I believe you gave a figure in terms of the

number of offices that can be opened. What was that number, 107

offices?

Mr. LEIDEN. Well, I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I did not have an

actual number of how many. I just know that, regrettably, a significant portion will not be fully opened on Tuesday. And my seat-ofthe-pants guess, based on recent reports from our members over

the last couple of days, would be dozens of offices would not be

fully open or prepared to receive applications and provide interviews on Tuesday.

Mr. FROST. All right. Mr. Leiden, you were talking about the

availability of forms from the Government Printing Office. You

said that there were initially 30,000. Did I hear you correctly, and

that they have now run out?

Mr. LEIDEN. Well, I am not sure how many they actually had at

the GPO warehouse. We managed to get our hands on over 30,000

of them, if you will, and I am sure other folks got them as well. I

now have pending requests for another 30,000 forms that I cannot

fill because the GPO is out of forms. And when we ask, When will

you have new forms? They say well, call back next week. There is

really not a definite date on which we'll receive the medical exam

forms, which are also required of every applicant, none are available yet.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Carrasco, have you encountered a similar situation, difficulty in getting the forms?

Mr. CARRASCO. Well, we have not been as concerned with forms,

Mr. Chairman, because we have computerized our system and we

are going to be generating our own forms through the system. So I

have not gotten any reports from the field that there is a shortage

of forms.

But I expect for those affiliates who have not computerized, we

may very well get some requests, but thus far none, to my knowledge.

Mr. FROST. DO any of you have any specific recommendations in

terms of the extension of the period of time if we find that the 1

year is adequate to process all the applications for legalization?

Mr. LEIDEN. I think we may have a good sense of that, Mr. Chairman, come December. About 6 months into the program we should

have a good sense of how many applications have been made at

that point. By then, most places will be able to really track how

many interviews are scheduled and how many individuals are to

come forward.

I would think before the end of this first session Congress will

have some good sense of whether 2 extra months or 4 extra months

might be necessary, if any at all.

Mr. CARRASCO. I would concur with that, as I mentioned earlier.

One of the aspects related to the crunch is, perhaps, the number of

immigration legalization offices themselves. In some areas I think

.
32

that there is a problem in that regard. For example, in the entire

State of Maryland there is one INS legalization office, in Baltimore. And, of course, the people in Silver Spring have to travel all

the way up to Baltimore to apply. In the entire State of Michigan

there is one legalization office, in the city of Detroit. And in the

second largest city in Michigan, Grand Rapids, on the western side

of the State, there is going to be a tremendous number of special

agricultural workers who are going to be applying. So that is a

problem.

A third example is Wisconsin. There is one office in the entire

State. I think the impact of this dearth of offices for areas such as

Texas, as you mentioned, is that people are going to have to travel

hundreds of miles to submit their applications for legalization.

From our standpoint, to the extent that our affiliates have opted

out of the qualified designated entity process and are not going to

participate in the program as a result of lack of funding, that also

translates into hundreds of miles that applicants may have to

travel to obtain legal assistance.

As I understand it, there is nothing between Brownsville and El

Paso along the border at this time. So it is going to be very difficult

for some people to apply, just as a matter of logistics.

Mr. FROST. If we find that the existing offices, 107 offices when

they are fully opened are not able to handle the flow, not able to

handle the volume, do you all have any recommendations as what

we ought to be considering?

Mr. MURRAY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think you should be considering getting the city governments involved in this in some way. I

mean you have the funding, if you can get access to it, to reimburse the cities, and I think that that would be a logical step.

Mr. LEIDEN. In addition, the cities could be employed to provide

facilities for details of immigration officers coming into a city. I

was in a seminar in Charleston, SC, on Friday and I learned that

there are no legalization offices in the State of South Carolina. Individuals in that State must either go to Charlotte, NC, or Atlanta,

GA.

There will be some traveling recreational vehicles with legalization officers or the special agricultural worker adjudicators, on

board. But a cooperation of the State and local governments in providing facilities, so that INS officers can come in for 1 week here

and a week there, need not greatly increase the cost of the program but will provide much better coverage and availability for individuals.

Mr. FROST. All right. I want to thank all of you for testifying. We

will now have our final panel, and if the final two witnesses could

come forward.

Appearing on behalf of the Federation for American Immigration Reform will be Simin Yazdgerdi I think.

Ms. YAZDGERDI. Yazdgerdi.

Mr. FROST. Yazdgerdi. I'm close; right?

And Daniel Stein of the Immigration Reform Law Institute.

Simin Yazdgerdi, if you would begin.

Ms. YAZDGERDI. OK. Thank you.

Mr. FROST. And if you would, summarize your testimony.
33

STATEMENT OF SIMIN YAZDGERDI, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT

RELATIONS, FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION

REFORM

Ms. YAZDGERDI. Yes. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Budget

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you

today to testify about the Immigration Service and its responsibilities under the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

My name is Simin Yazdgerdi, and I am director of Government

Relations for FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration

Reform.

And as a little background, FAIR is a national nonprofit organization working to educate the American public about the need to

reform U.S. immigration policy to reflect the realities of the 1980's.

And we believe that every immigrant should be a legal immigrant,

that the Unites States should set a comprehensive ceiling on legal

immigration in accordance with the demographic, natural resource

and economic needs of the United States. We also believe that immigration to the United States should not harm America's poor

and disadvantaged and that U.S. immigration policy should not

favor or discriminate on the basis of race, religion or national

origin.

We have been a leading proponent of immigration reform legislation since 1978 when we were founded, and despite our opposition

to the enormous amnesty program, we supported the new immigration law that passed the 99th Congress last fall.

After years of study and debate, Congress decided that the best

way to control illegal immigration was to make it illegal for employers to hire illegal aliens, thereby turning off the job magnet

drawing them to the United States. This concept called employer

sanctions is the cornerstone of immigration reform and the essential enforcement element of the Immigration Reform and Control

Act of 1986.

The immigration bill also created a massive new amnesty program for illegal aliens who can prove that they have continuously

resided in the United States since January 1, 1982. The amnesty

program, as you know, is scheduled to begin next Tuesday, May 5.

FAIR is deeply concerned about how the amnesty program will

function, and we want to make certain that only those individuals

who are truly eligible will be legalized. In order to maintain the

integrity of the amnesty program, the INS will need adequate resources to carefully screen all amnesty applications for fraud. And

that is the main thrust of my testimony this morning. FAIR believes that there is not enough funding in the INS budget or investigators to weed out amnesty fraud. And that is a very important

point of this whole program.

Before I discuss FAIR's concerns about the amnesty program, I

would like to just describe briefly the tremendous responsibilities

that face the INS at this time. With passage of the Immigration

Act the INS' work load has been vastly expanded to include enforcing employer sanctions, increasing border enforcement, administering the legalization program for a potential 3.9 million applicants

and administering the special agricultural worker program. These
34

new responsibilities are in addition to an already staggering INS

work load.

With a staff smaller than the New York City Police Department,

the INS must patrol 2,000 miles of land border with Mexico, over

3,750 miles of land border with Canada, admit or deny 328 million

persons at our ports of entry each year, keep naturalization records

and records on permanent resident aliens, extend visas held by foreign visitors, develop secure documents for alien identification, control and deport criminal aliens and investigate thousands of violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Not a small task.

The funding levels Congress provided the INS in the past have

not kept pace with the skyrocketing work load. And as a result, the

INS has slipped further and further behind in its efforts to protect

our borders. These unprotected borders were the major reason that

Congress passed the immigration law last year.

Unfortunately the funding situation is getting bleaker. The Administration has not asked Congress for enough funds for the INS

for either the current or the next fiscal years, nor has Congress in

its supplemental appropriations for this fiscal year made up the

budget shortfalls.

Congress last year overwhelmingly passed the Morehead Amendment requiring a 50-percent increase in the Border Patrol. And the

budget that is currently in the supplemental would not even give

the INS enough to keep up with personnel attrition. Moreover, if

INS gets all the supplemental funds for new investigators that they

have requested, they will still have only as many investigators on

line as they had in 1975. So, clearly by no means•there has been

no increase.

Mr. Chairman, the problems facing the INS can be stated quite

simply. They do not have the money to properly carry out the enormous task Congress has mandated. For 1987, $422 million in supplemental funds for the INS was authorized under the act. The INS

asked the Administration for that amount. However, the OMB cut

that request to $137 million, and last week the House of Representatives cut the INS budget again by 21 percent, lowering it to $108

million; $108 million is only one-quarter of the original authorized

funding levels.

And returning to your specific concern about the amnesty program, it was designed to provide legal status to those individuals

who have long established roots in the United States. And a grant

of amnesty that will lead to eventual citizenship is not to be taken

lightly.

Unfortunately, it seems that the Administration is taking this

program lightly. If you look at the budget figures, Mr. Chairman,

you will see that there is no funding at all requested for investigations into amnesty fraud. These investigations are needed for ferreting out fraudulent applications. And unfortunately, the only investigators assigned to amnesty fraud will be the same 340 investigators assigned to employer sanctions investigations. These investigators, these 340, will be spread very thin.

If 3.9 million aliens apply for amnesty, even a 10-percent fraud

rate would mean 390,000 fraudulent applications. I recently spoke

to the INS regional office in San Pedro, and was informed that the

San Diego INS district office arrested someone last month trying to
35

sell false rent receipts to use on amnesty applications. The regional

office also told me there are reports of vendors selling entire packets of fraudulent documents containing false employment records,

rent receipts, utility bills, et cetera; in short, all the documentary

proof needed to establish a solid claim to amnesty. And the word

on the street is that such packets promising a fast track to amnesty are selling for a few hundred dollars.

The INS wanted an additional 350 investigators just to work on

amnesty fraud in addition to the new investigators for employer

sanctions. That is the number which INS believed necessary to root

out amnesty fraud. But those 350 additional men never made it

into the budget requests. As I just mentioned, no new amnesty

fraud investigators will be funded under this budget.

The INS has structured the amnesty program to be self-funding,

paid for entirely through fees charged to amnesty applicants. However, the fee structure does not include funds for investigating amnesty fraud. FAIR believes that the cost of providing amnesty

should be borne by the applicants receiving the benefits, and not

the American taxpayer. The problem, however, is that the fee of

$185 covers only processing costs but does not include the costs of

new investigators to investigate fraud on the amnesty applications.

And Congress believed that deterring fraud on these applications

was an integral part of the amnesty process. And they are not•

investigators are not funded from the $185. And if you are going to

look at it that way, the $185 per applicant fee is probably not

enough then.

The question of fees and resources is not an idle concern. If the

INS is not given the resources to thoroughly investigate and weed

out fraudulent amnesty claims, the service will soon find itself inundated with questionable amnesty applications.

Another danger is that with the INS relying on its fourth quarter budget, it is now spending from its fourth quarter enforcement

funds in order to start the program of immigration reform now, if

they do not recover this money through those fees, the INS will be

forced to cut enforcement this summer just as employer sanctions

is beginning. And FAIR does not want to see this happen. And I'm

sure the Committee does not want to see this happen, to see enforcement activities shut down just as employer sanctions are supposed to be coming effective. But that is what will happen if the

supplemental appropriations are neither sufficient nor timely

enough to reimburse the INS advance spending before the fourth

quarter.

Many observers note that the crucial period for employer sanctions is at the very beginning. And we must impress upon employers and illegal aliens that employer sanctions will be vigorously enforced. If on the other hand, we lose that psychological deterrent in

the beginning, and illegal aliens believe that they can still easily

get jobs in the United States, we will have to spend far more in the

future for employer sanctions enforcement. The investment in

early enforcement will reduce future expenditures many times

over. And I know this is a tough budget year, and we must all consider the impact of additional spending on the deficit. But carrying

out the provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act is a

costly proposition. But failing to implement the new law by provid-
ing enough funds for enforcement will be even more expensive in

the future. If we allow possibly hundreds of thousands of ineligible

aliens to fraudulently receive amnesty, we will also spend millions

of dollars to provide social benefits to those aliens and their relatives later.

As an illustration, if you just take one illegal alien who fraudulently receives amnesty, not only will that alien's State and local

governments receive funding from the Federal Government based

on the alien's legalization of status, but the alien can petition for

his relatives. Those relatives through a process known as Chain Migration may later petition for their relatives, and so on. We know

of a story where one immigrant brought 69 relatives into the

United States in 10 years.

In closing I would like to quote from article that appeared yesterday, April 29, in the Christian Science Monitor. A ranking immigration official who asked that his name be withheld in the story

stated about the amnesty program: "We may just have to rubber

stamp thousands of applications." Another immigration official, an

intelligence officer with the INS, said: "I don't have enough time

right now to check what is already coming into this office. I'm supposed to examine passports for forgeries and photo substitutions,

alterations. And I don't have time. I'm rubber stamping them out

of this office." And rubber stamping is just what we would like to

avoid in this amnesty program.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

(The prepared statement of Ms. Yazdgerdi may be found at the

end of the hearing.]

Mr. FROST. The next witness is Daniel Stein, Immigration

Reform Law Institute. Mr. Stein.

STATEMENT OF DANIEL STEIN, DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION

REFORM LAW INSTITUTE

Mr. STEIN. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief and summarize my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee today to address INS budgetary resources and the implementation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

I am the director of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a

nonprofit law firm, public interest law firm, working on behalf of

improved immigration law enforcement.

Mr. Chairman, the professionalism and competence of the Immigration Service is above question. It has remained diligent in all of

its duties as Congress over the last 10 years has steadily increased

its responsibilities without substantially increasing its funding. The

simple truth of the matter is that their funding has not kept pace

with their increased responsibilities.

The consequence is that the immigration adjudications' function

has deteriorated substantially to the extent now that many observers, including the GAO, estimate that as many as 30 to 40 percent

of all petitions filed on behalf of relatives for immigration benefits

are fraudulent. Last year Congress passed the Marriage Fraud

Amendment's Act of 1986 to try to counter this tremendous

amount of marriage fraud. And that requires all aliens obtaining
37

immigration benefits through a marriage to prove two years later

that the marriage is still viable.

By requiring the INS to do followup investigations on all of these

marriages, you are going to substantially increase the work load of

INS investigators substantially. Yet, there are no authorizations in

that particular bill for additional investigators.

To add to the burden, Congress has now asked the Immigration

Service to embark on perhaps its most ambitious undertaking to

date. At a time when our national legislature has asked the Immigration Service to embark on an aggressive program to penalize

employers of illegal aliens, Congress now expects that same agency

to process millions of amnesty applications. My understanding is

that the Immigration Service operates on the working assumption

that it will process 3.9 million applications over a 12-month period,

plus an additional 250,000 tier one SAW or Schumer agricultural

workers over an 18-month period.

Congress has asked the INS to process nearly 5 million adjustment of status applications over an 18-month period. That is a program in magnitude that is unprecedented in scope in the history of

immigration to this country exceeding substantially any year ever

in the history of this country, including the Ellis Island period. Yet

a similar fraud rate could also pervade this process as the Immigration Service tries to cope with it.

The problem, of course, is that Congress must appropriate the

money necessary to implement these ambitious projects. Modest

budgetary supplement for fiscal year 1987 of $137.8 million to implement the ERCA, which has now been further reduced in the

House I understand, is really inadequate for the task at hand were

it now even available.

My requests were for some 340 new investigators, which would

be added to cover both the marriage fraud bill, the employer sanctions bills provisions and the amnesty provisions. And undoubtedly,

the adjudications function will further deteriorate in view of the

fact that these processes have not occurred.

In discussing with people that I know in the Immigration Service, I understand that they are not getting their ADP equipment

until tomorrow, 5 days before the program begins. They say they

are going to get their legalization centers open if that's the last

thing they have to do. If they have to use a pencil to take these

things down, they are going get started.

Yet, at the same time they want to set a positive tone for this

program. Surely we want every alien, who is eligible for the program and is entitled, to get amnesty benefits, at the same time we

do not want to set a bad precedent by further undermining the

system.

Consider, if you will, the local legalization center is going to be

processing some 25 to 30 applications a day. In an 8-hour day each

processor may spend up to 15 minutes per applicant. He or she

must examine the documents for completeness, swear in the applicant, conduct and interview and issue work authorization. But at

this stage of the adjudication, the office is only going to be sure

that an alien has alleged predicate facts sufficient to constitute

prima facie eligibility.
38

At the regional processing facility, 36 or so examiners must

handle an expected 4,000 applications a day. Current estimates are

that some 3,600 will simply be entered directly into the ADP

system. Unless they computerize cross-check, enforcement agency

records triggers a further investigation, the application will be approved. Only about 400 to 600 a day will be spot-checked for fraud

at each center.

Further, I can find no additional evidence in the INS authorizations or requests for appropriations for any additional enforcement

manpower to followup on fraud investigations directly related to

the amnesty application process.

In concluding, Mr. Chairman, the major purpose of this bill, as I

see it, is to foster respect for the immigration law of today and in

the future. It is not a foregone conclusion that amnesty applications must be rushed through summarily. According to the INS'

own internal procedures, aliens who are statutorily eligible, based

on the documents submitted with their applications, will be given

conditional approval and authorization to work during the pendency of the application. There is no reason, therefore, why the adjudications process necessarily must be rushed.

The amnesty program characterized by massive fraud will not

accomplish the overriding congressional purposes of this bill, which

is to try to avoid this problem in the future years, which is a massive large underclass of illegal aliens in our population. What we

want to do is try to clean the slate and establish a positive tone for

immigration enforcement in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to appear today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stein may be found at the end of

the hearing.]

Mr. FROST. I would like to ask both of you. In your judgment,

how much more money should Congress be appropriating for the

program at this point? What is really needed?

Ms. YAZDGERDI. Well, as I stated in my testimony, the INS had

wanted 350 additional investigators for fraud. And I also know that

they wanted between 75 and 80 investigators for the search warrant requirement to be investigators that obtain the search warrants and go into open fields after they get the warrant. And neither the 350 investigators nor the 75 or 80 investigators made it

into the budget at all. So, if you totaled up•that would come out

to about 430 investigators. And each investigators I believe costs

the INS about $50,000 to train and put on line. You just have to do

the arithmetic there. So, we are talking like $25 million maybe for

more investigators.

Mr. FROST. What else do we need to do? What else do we need to

be looking?

Ms. YAZDGERDI. Well, they also•as I mentioned briefly in my

testimony, they are supposed to have a 50-percent increase in the

Border Patrol. And we have studied very carefully the budget

charts. And let me just say that they are not going to•they might

not even have an increase in the Border Patrol because they are

running 9 border classes this year and 14 next year. And that will

probably keep the Border Patrol static. That will just probably

make up for attrition. In 1985 they were able to run 24 classes in a
39

single year. And now they are only saying that they can run 9 this

year and 14, less than what they ran in 1 year combined.

So, the costs•what we believe is that the Congress should appropriate as near to the authorized levels that the INS requested. I

mean, Congressman Schumer recently released at an oversight

hearing a chart showing what the INS had requested and how the

Department of Justice cut that request further, and then how OMB

even slashed it much further. So, you can get pretty much an approximation of how much the INS would need based on what they

submitted originally. So, that would be near the $422 million authorized level.

Mr. STEIN. Mr. Chairman, I agree wholeheartedly with what

Simon has said. I can only say though I believe the original authorized levels were determined on the basis of the nearest best guess

of what kind of manpower would be required without cannibalizing

the existing functions within the agency.

For whatever internal political reasons now within the Administration that the requests have been substantially lower since then,

I can only say that all evidence suggests to me from talking to

people within the agency who are candid enough to discuss it, that

other adjudications and examination and service and inspection

functions in particular are suffering substantially now to move all

these people into the amnesty program. I would say the authorized

level would be optimal.

Mr. FROST. What is your opinion, either one of you, as to whether

the fees being charged for processing the amnesty applications•

the income from that should have been added on top of the authorized figure or should have been included in the authorized figure.

Of course, the Immigration Service has taken the position citing

conference committee language, and Mr. Lungren did before this

Committee, that the fees generated should be a part of that authorized figure rather than being an add-on to it.

Ms. YAZDGERDI. Well, the problem is that the OMB is forcing the

INS to borrow from their fourth quarter enforcement budget. They

are not allowing them to borrow against the fees to be received.

And that prevents•there is no safety net there for under the INS.

If they are unable to recover those fees, enforcement programs are

Soing to have to be stopped because they will not have•they will

ave already used up their enforcement money from having spent

it on the fourth quarter.

So, I also mentioned in my testimony that the $185, while we

think that the amnesty applicants should pay for the cost of processing the applications, our arithmetic shows that really the processing of the applications would add up to more than $185 per applicant if you factored in the need for additional fraud investigators.

Mr. FROST. Well, my question really though is the authorized

figure was $422 million for fiscal year 1987. Should we be adding

the income from the fees on top of that, or is it proper to do as the

Administration is, to say that that $422 million authorized includes

the income from the fees?

Mr. STEIN. I would say looking at the conference language and

the original language in the bill and the authorization that the

intent was for the user fees, in terms of paying for the program,
40

was simply to cover the direct hands-on administrative costs of

processing, not to cover the overall infrastructure required to investigate applications, certain kinds of clerical work in the central

office

Mr. FROST. Furniture, computers.

Mr. STEIN. Furniture, moving records back and forth between

agencies, any more than my utility bill covers the entire pro rata

infrastructure cost of setting up a utility.

So, I believe that the user fees go on top of the $422 million to

the extent that the direct clerical and examiners are involved, as

well as the examiners in the regional adjudications center costs.

But below that, no. The authorized level would cover that.

Mr. FROST. What is going to be the practical effect if we have a

flood of applicants in the next several months and yet the fees generated from that flood of applicants is not sufficient to really run

the program adequately?

For example, if the offices in my State are set up to handle 200

people a day•from what my conversations with the Immigration

Service, that appears to be their objective is to handle 200 people a

day at each of these nine offices throughout the State of Texas.

What happens if we find that those offices are incapable of handling the number of people, if 500 people a day show up, or 1,000

people a day show up. Is the answer just to increase the fees? Are

you going to have money then, or will you have enough fee income

generated from all these people showing up that you can then open

new offices or you can add additional people at those offices? What

is the solution going to be?

Ms. YAZDGERDI. Well, I would just reiterate again what I quoted

from the Christian Science Monitor. When you have such a massive amount of people coming forward, the INS is just going to

under tremendous pressure to just process these people through

and just rubber stamp. And that is what is going to happen. And

that is what we are concerned about because then that just opens

the flood gates for fraud. I mean, if word gets out that it's so easy

to just get through because they are just rubber stamping applications, that's just going to be an incentive for more people to come

forward with fraudulent claims.

Mr. STEIN. I can only say to the, Mr. Chairman, that I believe

thatit would depend on where the backlog and problems are created. If the problem happens right up front, and the initial interviewers and the amnesty process get backlogged with their interviews such that applicants have to wait and extended period of

time before they receive their conditional approval and work authorization, I think there will be tremendous public pressure and

media attention to the fact that these individuals are just waiting

in legal limbo.

If the problem occurs farther up the line in the regional adjudication center, and there is a lag time in the final adjudication of

the adjustment to temporary resident status, then most of the applicants are not going to be especially concerned, I would think because they have already got their conditional work authorization

and are arguably residing under color of law such that the lag time

may stretch out, but there isn't going to be that great public pressure to move them through.
41

But of course, there is the down side•and this is very logical•

that if they find themselves simply backlogged in the adjudication

center, they are just going to cease the spot- checks and just be entering the applications into the computer and just streamline the

process to the detriment of the inspections or adjudications function.

Mr. FROST. SO, you are saying that it depends on, if I understand

you correctly, where the problem occurs. And if, for example, the

centers suddenly started handling 500 a day rather than 200 as

projected, the problem is not there. The problem is when the verifications are made.

Should we be concerned if, in fact, the volume increases very

substantially at these centers? What should we be doing?

Mr. STEIN. It depends on how the INS responds to the overload.

If they decide to simply waive the interview at the initial period,

and just so long as the documents represent or allege the predicate

facts necessary to make a claim, go ahead and conditionally approve it, that would be the logical response to being overwhelmed

because the pressure comes right up front where they want to get

their conditional work authorization and a form that says that

they are work-authorized for some period of time. And the INS, of

course, claims the discretion to authorize work authorization. If

they get backlogged, they could authorize amnesty applicants to

work longer than what the regulations say they could.

Mr. FROST. DO they have the authority to waive that initial interview?

Mr. STEIN. Right off-hand I can't give you a direct answer to that

question, but they can probably•they probably could shuffle the

interview to a later point in the process if they wanted to. I don't

think there is anything in the statute that would preclude that.

Mr. FROST. If I understand the way the procedure works, that the

applicants could appear before a QDE. The QDE then submits the

form to the storefront processing office. And they then schedule

them for an interview at that point. And you are saying that what

we may have happen is they go to the QDE, complete all the paperwork. That is mailed in to one of these processing centers, and then

the person is never seen face to face by the Immigration Service?

Mr. STEIN. Or it could be in name simply postponed for some extraordinary period of time. It is hard to know where the additional

processors are going to come from, for example, if they have underestimated their prospective work load by 50 percent, which is certainly possible. There is simply no way to know. The process is

going to evolve and develop as the designated entities get familiar

with the system, they are going to start refining their requirements in terms of how they fashion the applications to accommodate what they perceive as the INS' work load and demands. It is

really too early to give any kind of definitive answer about that

frankly.

Mr. FROST. Well, it will be interesting to see how this entire process operates.

I appreciate and thank you for your testimony.

Mr. Schumer, a member of the Committee who testified earlier,

has informed me that the 700,000 number that he referred to earlier is the estimate for the illegal aliens in New York City, not just
42

in Brooklyn. Brooklyn is estimated to be the home of approximately 225,000 illegal aliens. And as he stated, not all of these individuals will be eligible for legalization.

I do thank you, and thank all the witnesses. This is a matter of

ongoing concern for the Budget Committee. We are going to be following the situation very closely. We wanted to have the hearings

today because the legalization process formally opens next Tuesday; the employer sanctions warning period formally opens June 1.

We will be monitoring this as it develops, and we expect that we

will hearing from the Immigration Service, from the Administration, regarding the amount of funding within the next few months.

Thank you very much.

[Additional material for the record follows:]
43

INS BUDGET REQUEST SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED BY OMB

(Presented by Hon. Charles E. Schumer)

The Immigration Control and Reform Act (IRCA) passed by the last Congress

included a substamtial additional authorization for the INS: $422 million In

fiscal year 1987 and $419 million in fiscal year 1988. This money was

intended to assist INS in carrying out existing programs and to help pay for

its new responsibilities under IRCA. Although the INS requested the

Department of Justice (DOJ) to seek the full amount in its budget submission

to OMB, DOJ failed to do so. Subsequently, OMB further reduced the INS

request. Thus, the budget the Administration ultimately presented to

Congress represents a substantial reduction in funding from what the INS

determined it would need to fulfill its mandate.

The following table illustrates the cuts from the original INS

request. "Positions" refer to actually funded positions not authorized

positions.
44

Detention

Border Investl- Anti- and IntelHPatrol nations Smuggling Deportation gence Other Total

FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY

1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1968 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

INS to DOJ

Positions 354 1,299 381 1,003 30 78 179 557 31 47 643 1.530 1,618 4,514

Dollars.. 78.2 90.9 46.2 41.1 2.5 4.0 18.4 52.6 2.3 3.1274.4 227.2 422.0 419.0

DOJ TO 0MB

Positions 185 1,194 100 903 17 72 64 529 17 46 306 1,400 689 4,144

Dollars.. 44.8 72.9 27.4 43.3 1.9 3.8 15.8 48.9 1.3 3.0 214.9 239.8 306.1 411.8

0MB

Positions 135 630 95 737 15 62 58 434 17 46 285 1,087 605 2,996

Dollars.. 25.6 41.2 26.1 37.4 1.6 3.2 13.4 40.0 1.3 3.0 195.1 213.6 263.1 338.5

Percent

OHB cut

from INS

Request

Positions 62 52 75 27 50 21 68 22 45 2 56 29 63 33

Dollars.. 67 55 44 9 36 20 27 24 43 3 29 6 38 19

30 78 179 557 31

2.5 4.0 18.4 52.6 2.3

17 72 64 529 17

1.9 3.8 15.8 48.9 1.3

15 62 58 434 17

1.6 3.2 13.4 40.0 1.3
45

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GILBERT PAUL CARRASCO

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

On behalf of the National Office of Migration and Refugee

Services of the United States Catholic Conference, I want to

express my appreciation to you for holding this hearing and for

inviting our participation. Throughout the process of

implementation since the Immigration Reform and Control Act was

enacted on November 6, 1986, the U.S. Catholic Conference has

been deeply involved in planning to meet the demands associated

with legalization and in providing the Immigration and

Naturalization Service with our thoughts on how to effectuate the

intent of Congress in this historic, monumental, and humanitarian

effort.

Because the lives of so many industrious and hard-working

people hinge on the success of this program, we feel compelled to

share with you our concerns. Although we recognize the magnitude

of the task with which the Immigration Service is faced, we,

nonetheless, offer criticism of a constructive nature to

facilitate improvement that indubitably could benefit the

Service, those whom the law intends that it serve, and the

American people.

I. Inadequacy of Administration Funding Request

Section 111 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of

1986 provides for an increased authorization for INS of $422

million for fiscal year 1987 and of $419 million for fiscal year

1988, respectively, over the $593 million appropriated under the

Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 1987. It would seem
46

apparent that Congress designated such funding levels because

they were deemed necessary to implement this legislation.

We perceive, however, a seeming lack of commitment to the

ends of this new Taw in the Administration's request for far less

than Congress contemplated would be necessary. For fiscal year

1987 INS submitted a supplemental request of only $138 million

for immigration reform initiatives, and the 1988 budget request

totals $838,828,000.

These funding levels have dubious justification. The

request for less than the amount authorized for fiscal year 1987

is justified with the post hoc rationale that the funds do not

now have to cover a full year. Yet the obligations of the new

law have existed since the beginning of this year and, indeed,

INS has borrowed funds from fourth quarter salaries and expenses

accounts pending action on the supplemental request.

Moreover, much less has been done over the past five months

than the law mandates. The position of the INS is that the

requested funds are as much as the agency can absorb and spend

prudently in two years. If the timetables set by Congress are to

be met, however, swift and effective implementation is

essential. In our view, the funding levels proposed by INS are

inadequate to implement the Immigration Reform and Control Act,

and substantial revision of priorities is necessary to effectuate

the balance in the law that Congress sought to achieve with its

enactment.

II. Prioritization of Expenditures

As has historically been the case, the INS continues to

- 3
47

earmark the great majority of its resources for enforcement

purposes, at the expense of those functions that assist those who

wish to obtain legal status through normal channels. For

example, after including the 1967 supplemental appropriation for

salaries and expenses proposed by INS, their 1987 revised budget

estimate for enforcement totals $452,823,000, or 62% of their

overall requirement of $731,969,000. In comparison, the figure

for citizenship and benefits in this critical personnel line item

is only $59,678,000, or 8% of the overall requirement.

For the INS to continue along this path of such minimal

funding and staffing legal immigration channels is counterproductive. Not only does such prioritization result in the

endless lines of people in front of INS offices who, in many

cities such as San Jose and Los Angeles, California and Miami,

Florida, arrive on the previous night to get a place in line, it

also indirectly serves to encourage illegal immigration.

Substantially more funding must be designated for

citizenship and benefits in future years as those who become

lawful temporary residents through the legalization program

undertake to adjust to lawful permanent residence 18 months

later. Such prioritization would be even more necessary if INS

were to request qualified designated entities to assist in this

second stage of adjustment.

One of the most troublesome aspects of the INS 1967 revised

budget estimate is the $12 million designated for detention of

Mariel Cubans. If this request is intended to fund construction

of yet another immigration prison, we would strongly oppose such

- 4
48

funding.

As recently as last year INS opened its largest detention

facility, which is located in Oakdale, Louisiana. This facility

has been vacated by all those non-Cubans who were previously

incarcerated there. Because INS itself has concluded that the

number of Mariel Cubans now in custody - i.e., approximately 1000

- will not rise through the end of 1987, we know of no reason why

they could not all be housed in the Oakdale Facility.

Detention spending by INS has increased by 400% over the

past six years. More immigration prisons are unnecessary,

particularly given the expectation of the INS that employer

sanctions and other provisions of this new law will result in a

lesser incidence of illegal immigration and, thereby, of

detention.

Perhaps the most telling imbalance in the budget proposals

of the INS is the zero funding of legalization. We share the

concern that has been expressed by many Members of Congress that

it is inappropriate to place the entire financial burden of this

program squarely on the backs of the eligible population.

Moreover, even if one assumes that the INS is correct in

setting an application fee sufficient to cover the costs of

processing applications, inclusion of some items in the budget

that formed the basis for the fee appear inappropriate. For

example, the INS states that the construction and engineering

line item in the legalization budgets for fiscal years 1987

($27,300,000) and 1988 ($20,019,000) largely supports the leasing

and furnishing of legalization offices and for increased space

5 -
49

requirements in other than legalization offices. However,

Section 201(c)(1) of the new statute provides that "the Attorney

General is authorized to expend from the appropriation provided

for the administration and enforcement of the Immigration and

Nationality Act, such amounts as may be necessary for the leasing

or acquisition of property in the fulfillment of...the

legalization program". Thus, not only is there a specific

statutory provision enabling funds to be used for these costly

items that are not obtained from application fees, such expenses

should not be construed as costs of processing applications. On

this basis alone, the amount of the application fee should be

reduced.

Furthermore, detention and deportation costs are included in

the legalization budgets - $556,000 for fiscal year 1987 and

$1,981,000 for fiscal year 1988. Legalization applications,

however, are confidential, and the Attorney General is subject to

criminal liability for using any information contained in such

applications for any purpose other than adjudication, with one

exception - fraud in the application itself. Even in the context

of fraud, however, detention and deportation would not appear to

be within the meaning of the "costs of processing applications"

even if it were assumed that such reference by the conferees

established the basis for the amount of an application fee.

Any appropriation should include funds for the legalization

program. Funding the program entirely through application fees

places a disproportionate and undue burden on those whom Congress

intended to benefit by the law.

- 6
50

III. Burden of Application Fees on Applicants

I think it would be helpful to the Committee if we put the

application fee proposed by INS in the context of a realistic

hypothetical situation. Let's assume that all members of a

family of five apply for legalization. Let's assume further that

such family is comprised of the parents of two children and an

elderly grandparent - not an uncommon situation among immigrant

populations.

The proposed fee schedule would require the parents and

children to pay the family rate of $420, plus an additional $185

for the grandparent. Medical examinations would have to be

obtained for all five persons, and such examinations, according

to the regulations, must be obtained from a "selected civil

surgeon" designated by INS, at a likely cost of between $60 and

$75 per family member.

If it is assumed that at least one family member will need

to file for a waiver of excludability, a procedure.that will not

be uncommon in the legalization application process, INS would

charge an additional fee for this of $35. So, even before the

factors of costs of legal assistance, time off work,

notarizations, copying, telephone, postage, and other costs

associated with the legalization application process are

considered, this family would have already spent over $1000 to

apply.

Consider further that the median annual income of Hispanic

families in the United States, both documented and undocumented,

in 1984 was $11,650. Assuming that our hypothetical family's

- 7 -
51

income is $13,900 and that their monthly income after taxes is

$1,000, they would have to come up with close to 10% of their

annual income to obtain the statutory entitlement of

legalization. I ask the Members of this Committee whether this

scenario is consistent with this program's implementation in "a

liberal and generous fashion" as referenced in the 1986 Report of

the House Committee on the Judiciary, No. 99-682, Part 1, at page

72.

The Immigration Service argues that this fee is comparable

to those charged persons seeking entry into the United States as

immigrants. I submit, however, that fees charged to applicants

for permanent residence who are abroad is an inappropriate

measure by which to establish legalization fees. Such

application includes the filing of an 1-130 petition, which costs

$35, an application for an immigrant visa, which is $125, and

issuance of an immigrant visa, which is assessed a $25 charge.

This figure of $185, therefore, involves a two-stage process and

involves not one, but two, agencies • the INS and the State

Department.

A fair comparison would be one that views comparable

procedures and then assesses a fee at a level comparable to those

for such procedures. The registry fee of $50 or the fee for an

adjustment of status petition in this country, which is $85, are

apposite comparisons.

Furthermore, such figures are comparable to those referenced

in the respective bills that led to enactment of this law. The

Senate bill provided a minimum fee of $100 per applicant and the

8 -
52

House bill established a maximum fee of $75 for individuals and

$175 for families.

Finally, the INS rationale that the fee should reflect the

value of the benefit received is, indeed, a spurious one. We do

not pay a fortune for a driver's license simply because it has

tremendous impact on the degree of mobility in our lives.

Equally inappropriate is INS' reference to the amount of

money someone may have had to pay to obtain assistance in

entering the country. The fact that an undocumented person may

have turned over his life's savings to someone for such

assistance is entirely irrelevant to the issue of the level at

which the application fee should be set.

We do not believe that this program should be entirely

funded out of application fees but, rather, that appropriations

should earmark substantial monies to fund it adequately. We

would hope that this principle is considered for the subsequent

stage of adjustment to lawful permanent resident status as well.

IV. Impact of Lack of Funding on Voluntary Agencies

Private, non-profit agencies are being required, because of

inadequate funding, to carry a heavy financial burden in

implementing the legalization program. The present level of per

capita compensation, $15 for direct service providers and $16 for

national coordinating agencies with local affiliates, is clearly

insufficient to cover the costs of the program, particularly for

agencies whose capacity must be developed or expanded to serve

clients adequately.

In many parts of the country, there simply is not present

9 -
53

capacity. Effectuating such capacity involves staffing,

training, systems development, and management.

Most voluntary agencies have serious cash flow problems that

are hindering sufficient preparation. Today, four business days

prior to commencement of the application period, a cooperative

agreement has not been entered with INS and, to my knowledge, no

advance funds have been distributed to any of the putative

qualified designated entities.

The Cooperative Agreement provides that qualified designated

entities may charge counseling fees limited to a maximum of $75

(or $100 if photographs and fingerprints are included). There

are those who have voiced criticism t*t our request to establish

this maximum at a reasonable level while we, at the same time,

advocate for a lowering of the INS application fee.

It should be borne in mind, however, that the INS fee may

not be waived. The voluntary agencies, on the other hand, show

due regard for the financial circumstances of their clients. The

U.S. Catholic Conference, for example, has recommended to its

affiliates that they adopt a model sliding scale based on income

and assets. The fee is zero to $75 and includes provisions for

additional family members.

Moreover, in assessing fees, the qualified designated

entities are passing along yet another cost to the applicant, a

cost that we believe Congress intended the INS to bear. Our

concern with funding is directly related to our concern for

quality control and the provision of competent service to our

clients. What we anticipated was going to be a relatively simple

- 10
54

procedure has turned out to be a very complex one full of legal

obstacles and technicalities, many of which are reflected in

regulations that we believe are clearly extra-statutory. The

extent and quality of the services the voluntary agencies are

able to provide are correlative to the adequacy of resources.

We and other voluntary agencies have provided INS with

countless hours of staff time to train INS and qualified

designated entity personnel. The U.S. Catholic Conference alone

has contributed literally months of person-hours of our best

lawyers to this nation-wide effort. Our affiliates have also

arranged for facilities and dissemination of notices for this

training. Another national voluntary agency, the American

Council for Nationalities Service, reports that the cost of their

contribution to this effort totals $75 - 80,000. Without this

assistance, INS training would not exist or would, at least, be

seriously curtailed. Vet the contributing agencies have not been

compensated at all for this valuable expertise and assistance.

The per capita reimbursement amounts, $15 for local

voluntary agencies unless they are coordinated by a national

agency, in which case the reimbursement is augmented by a dollar

for national administration, are far less than what is needed to

implement this program. From the perspective of the national

coordinating agencies, the dollar that goes to them, which is

If* 6.25% of the total reimbursement, is.consistent with general

principles of administration. If INS were to follow such

principles, such amount would much more closely approximate our

actual costs. This would equate to 20% for national

11 -
55

administration in addition to the base per capita reimbursement,

that is, $15 would go to the local affiliates with three

additional dollars being designated for the national agency to

administer the program.

As a result of the lack of adequate INS funding for this

program, many voluntary agencies, and even some of our

affiliates, have decided not to participate as qualified

designated entities. The practical impact of non-participation

in the legalization program, at least in our system, is that

there is no available assistance in that diocese^. Consequently,

if an applicant who lives in such a diocese wishes to apply, it

means traveling to the nearest diocese with a program. In many

cases, this translates to hundreds of miles.

Because of insufficient funding one of the dioceses has

ceased intake after pre-registering 10,000 applicants. It is,

therefore, necessary for the remainder of the 100,000 potentially

eligible applicants in that area of California to attempt to find

service elsewhere.

In such circumstances, these people become vulnerable to the

exploitation of fly-by-night immigration consultants, of whom we

are hearing more as May 5 approaches. In other cases, the only

alternative is to seek the assistance of the private bar, some

members of which are charging in the thousands for legal

assistance.

Due to the considerable complexity of the eligibility and

documentation requirements, one would be ill-advised to attempt

to file application without qualified assistance. These factors

12
56

have also driven up the budgets of voluntary agencies, many of

which are cognizant of the need to hire lawyers and accredited

representatives to maintain quality control and obviate liability

for negligent acts, occurrences, or omissions. We have also.'felt

compelled to advise our affiliates to ascertain the sufficiency

of their insurance coverage for such liability, another expense

of considerable magnitude in the context of operations that are

sometimes run on a shoestring budget.

V. Public Education

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 specifically

refers to public education, and its authors recognized that

dissemination of information is not only critical to the success

of employer sanctions and legalization, it is essential to

protect rights that are in jeopardy due to prevalent confusion

regarding its provisions. Heretofore, other than some local INS

public meetings, there has been virtually no public education

conducted by the government.

Indeed, it was not until earlier this month, some five

months after enactment, that a contract for public education was

finally entered. Four business days prior to the beginning of

the legalization period and a month before the effective date of

employer sanctions, misinformation is everywhere. Indeed, even

in a recent editorial of the Washington Post, the applicable date

relating to employer sanctions was incorrectly stated. This only

serves to underscore the point that the six month public

education period provided in the employer sanctions provision of

the statute has not yet effectively begun.

13 -
57

This shortfall in public education is a classic case of too

little too late. The contract for this purpose is limited to

$10,750,000 in funds, about one-third of what we consider to be

necessary to educate virtually every person in the United States

regarding this new law, whether they be English-speaking or

otherwise.

Contrary to what some would have you believe, the impact of

this shortcoming is real. Indeed, it is the rare exception that

I speak with someone about some provisions of this law,

provisions that are absolutely essential to the protection of

rights, who knows the implications of failing to act within a

certain time frame. I have at times been appalled when the

people with whom I am speaking about such provisions are not only

ignorant of their requirements but who are INS officials,

including those at the highest levels of the agency.

One example of the total absence of public education is the

total unawareness of people who are currently lawful permanent

residents and eligible to apply for naturalization, that they

must do so within six months of becoming so eligible to preserve

their right to pursue a claim of discrimination under the unfair

immigration-related employment provisions of the statute, even if

such claim has not yet arisen. For those hundreds of thousands

of such persons who were so situated when this law was enacted on

November 6, 1986, they have until next week to file their

application for naturalization or they lose these valuable

protections forever. He, as voluntary agencies, have done our

best to facilitate the educational process but, clearly, the

- 14
58

magnitude of the effort is tremendous and well beyond the

resources available for that important purpose.

VI. Other Issues Related to Implementation:

Earlier this week I and representatives of several other

non-profit organizations met at INS with the Deputy Commissioner

of the Social Security Administration and several other of its

officials. Qualified designated entities have been requested to

assist SSA in its effort to facilitate application for social

security cards through the legalization application process.

We, of course, recognize the benefit to our clients if this

could be achieved expeditiously, particularly with the advent of

employer sanctions, but our system, as I have previously

described, is already pressed to its maximum capability. Yet

another form, another explanation, in short, another

responsibility would threaten to overload the system beyond the

point of return unless additional resources were available to

perform such a function.

Lastly, we would simply note that it does not appear that

the Department of Justice intends to establish regional offices

of the Special Counsel for Unfair Immigration-Related Employment

Practices. We view more localized access for such purposes to be

an important subject for budgetary consideration.

I would like to thank you again for this opportunity to

express our views and concerns to the Committee, Mr. Chairman,

and I would be happy to respond to any questions that any of the

Members of the Committee may have.

- 15 -
59

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

AN AFFHIATtO ORGANIZATION OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

STATEMENT OF

WARREN R. LEIDEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

before the

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

CONCERNING

THE BUDGET REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY

FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF

THE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986

(PUBLIC LAW 99-603)

April 30, 1987
60

STATEMENT OF

WARREN R. LEIDEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I wish to thank

you on behalf of the American Immigration Lawyers Association for the opportunity to appear before you today to

provide testimony on the budget requirements necessary for

implementation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of

1986 (Pub.L. 99-603).

The American Immigration Lawyers Association is the

national bar association of attorneys practicing in the

field of immigration law. AlLA's 2400 members are organized

into 29 local chapters across the country. Founded in 1946,

AILA is an Affiliated Organization of the American Bar

Association and is represented in the ABA House of Delegates

and its Coordinating Committee on Immigration Law.

My name is Warren R. Leiden, and I have had the

privilege of serving AILA as its Executive Director since

1982. AILA National Office is located here in Washington,

DC.

As the committee is well aware, the closing days of the

99th Congress saw the enactment of the Immigration Reform

and Control Act of 1986, the most comprehensive reform of

our nation's immigration laws in decades. The main principles of this law were: that unlawful immigration could be

better controlled by the imposition of sanctions on employers of undocumented aliens; that a streamlined legalization

program was the most effective, pragmatic solution to the

practical problem of the growing subclass of undocumented

aliens who have come to reside in a number of urban and

rural areas; and that special arrangements were necessary

for those portions of the agricultural industry that had

come to rely on undocumented workers for their main source

of labor.

Recognizing the monumental changes this law would bring

about. Congress established a six month period for public

education and preparation for the implementation of these

new laws. It is fitting that this committee should meet now

in its oversight capacity to review the adequacy of funding

and preparedness of this the eve of implementation.

In our opinion, this next year will be a critical one

in laying the foundation for the long-term success of its

legislation. The success of these measures depends in large

part on subjective and human factors, such as the willingness of the undocumented population to come forward and seek

legalization, the willingness of United States employers to
61

voluntarily comply with the requirements of employer

sanctions, and the acceptance and support of the general

public for these new opportunities and obligations. Most

significantly, the initial preparedness and approach of the

government agencies, as well as the private sector, in

carrying out the requirements of the law will create

attitudes and perceptions with which we must all live for

some time to come.

It is a well known fact that the Immigration Service

was, in the past, inadequately funded to accomplish its dual

mission of enforcement of violations and adjudication of

benefits of the U.S. immigration law. Representatives of

our Association have testified on numerous occasions in

support of additional funding for both missions of the

Immigration Service. It may be, in fact, that many of the

problems that led to the need for the Immigration Reform and

Control Act were the result of the inadequate funding or

attention to INS in earlier years.

We commend the House of Representatives for its support

for funding the full amount authorized for the INS in fiscal

year 1988. And, while we were disappointed that the

Administration's request for supplemental funds in fiscal

year 1987 fell far short of the amount authorized and

necessary, we believe the members of the House have shown

their commitment to providing adequate supplemental funds in

this year. As the committee is well aware, the Immigration

Service has been obliged to borrow against its third and

fourth quarter funding in order to prepare for implementation of this legislation • a situation that could cause a

grinding halt this summer unless supplemental funds are duly

appropriated.

I am sure it is also well known to the members of this

committee that it is rarely sufficient to throw money at a

national problem in order to provide its solution. While we

commend both our colleagues in government service and in the

private sector for their hard work and efforts above and

beyond the call of duty over the last six months, we note

the old adage that it is more important to "work smart" than

it is to "work hard."

It is precisely on the subject of whether the agencies

charged with the administration of the immigration laws have

"worked smart" and have used their public funds to their

most beneficial effect that we wish to shed some light on

with the committee today.

Public Education

I think it is fair to say that many in Congress and in

the public and private sector now realize that the six month

education period of the Immigration Reform and Control Act
62

was indeed a short time in which to accomplish so many

objectives of information sharing and education. The goals

of this prelude were that employers and employees would be

adequately educated as to the requirements of the new

verification program and that undocumented aliens would be

advised of their eligibility for legalization (and to eschew

fraud or other illegalities).

while officers of the Immigration Service have worked

overtime to participate in and conduct public forums and

conferences, we now realize that there is no substitution

for the massive public education campaign that is only now

getting underway under the special contract provided for in

the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association greatly

appreciates the cooperation of the Immigration Service in

participating in our seven national continuing legal

education seminars in January and February and in our

upcoming seminars in May and June. Through these conferences, government officers and immigration law experts were

able to examine and discuss the requirements of the new laws

in great detail, and I am confident that the benefit of

these seminars will reach hundreds of thousands of employers

and employees. Regrettably, the impact of these efforts,

while important in establishing a core of experts on the new

law, necessarily falls far short of the need to get adequate

information to the literally millions of employers and

workers, U.S. citizens and aliens alike, who will be

affected by the new law. As with many other social and

legal initiatives, adequate understanding of both the

reasoning and the requirements of the new changes would go a

long way toward alleviating the average person's fear and

skepticism.

Not only does the new law depend on employers' voluntary cooperation with the verification requirements, but

many applicants for legalization or Seasonal Agricultural

Workers (SAW) status will need assistance from their

employers in establishing eligibility, in order to escape

from the shadowy subclass of the undocumented. This is

especially true for the so-called SAW workers, whose main

factor of eligibility is that they worked in certain

agricultural occupations for at least 90 days. We must

regretfully acknowledge that many such workers were employed

on a sub-legal basis, in which wage and hour laws may have

been violated and required tax payments were neither

withheld nor paid to the appropriate authorities. One can

easily imagine the reluctance of such unscrupulous employers

to now admit the employment of these aliens so that they may

qualify for the intended benefits. Congress recognized this

problem in by establishing strict confidentiality rules with

regard to the information contained in or supporting such

applications.

-3-
63

While many believe that the criminal penalties for

violations of these confidentiality protections are the best

possible means to reassure such employers, it is perhaps a

healthy aspect of our national character that we have a

healthy skepticism for the promises of government. Only an

adequately funded, effectively run public education campaign

will ensure that the undocumented subclass is legalized to

the full extent intended by Congress and that valuable,

credible evidence, which in many cases can only be provided

by an alien's employer, will be made available without

hesitation or reluctance.

Moreover, it is even more important that the class of

aliens eligible for legalization break the bad habits that

were previously necessary to avoid detection and apprehension by law enforcement authorities. The private sector has

a substantial responsibility to join government agencies in

counseling and warning such aliens against the use of

fraudulent documents or other false means to qualify for

legalization or otherwise remain in the U.S.

The immigration bar is all too familiar with the sad

cases of aliens who commit entirely unnecessary fraud, out

of a mistaken belief that it will improve their eligibility

for benefits, only to be forever barred from admission to

the United States. Never, in our opinion, has it been so

important to counsel a large group of individuals against

the use of fraud or falsehoods to gain a benefit that is

admittedly of the highest value.

Public education funds must also be wisely spent to

ensure that aliens are not deluded by the false claims of

the rip-offs and scam artists who will prey on their

vulnerability to separate them from their money and encourage them to commit fraud. We have urged the Immigration

and Naturalization Service to include in its public education campaigns the clear message that only a licensed

attorney, a Qualified Designated Entity, or an accredited

voluntary agency may properly receive fees to advise and

represent an alien before the Immigration Service or the

Executive Office for Immigration Review. Offers of assistance, or worse, promises or guarantees by visa consultants,

immigration consultants, or "notarios," will only lead in

unsuspecting aliens down the wrong path, and these selfappointed experts should be shunned by all quarters.

Preparations for Operations

If the legislative goal of bringing out from the

shadows the fear-fulled subclass of undocumented aliens in

the United States is to be achieved, it will be necessary to

overcome the doubt and skepticism that many aliens will have

for the legalization program.
64

Because of its limited one-year duration, it is

important, in our view, that the INS legalization offices be

as prepared as possible to prevent the perception of chaos

and incompetence that may discourage many eligible aliens

from applying.

As this committee is well aware, the attitudes of many

toward the legalization program, as well as employer

sanctions, will be formed in the first months of their

implementation. We now understand that a number of INS

offices will not be in a position to receive applications

for legalization or interview applicants until some time

later in the month of May. We hope that every effort will

be made in these states and localities to get the word out

and provide adequate information as to the rescheduled

opening date.

Those who have, for example, waited in ignorance for

information regarding a delayed or cancelled air flight know

well that a little bit of accurate information goes a long

way toward inspiring confidence in the operating entity.

While it is understandable that all of the logistics could

not be accomplished in the short period permitted, the

Immigration Service now has the opportunity to avoid further

problems by making every effort to get the word out as to

when the facilities will be up and running in each of the

107 locations.

We also note, with similar regret, that the final

regulations which will decide who is eligible for legalization and who is not, as well as how that eligibility must be

established, are not scheduled to be published until May 1,

only two business days prior to the start of the legalization application period.

While we are confident of the ability of the experienced immigration bar to make final adjustments in each of

its cases to reflect the final regulations published on that

date, we must acknowledge the tremendous strain these late

regulations will impose on the Qualified Designated Entities

and others who will rely greatly on newly trained counselors

to provide assistance and advice. I am proud to report to

the committee that our association has established a

national pro bono project through which the experienced

immigration bar will provide training and mentor assistance

to Qualified Designated Entity and voluntary agency counselors, but it is a great disappointment that we have not had

final rules and regulations with which to work for a longer

time than will now be possible. We fear this will result in

the private sector having to use the next month or so to

adequately educate many of the counselors and advisors who

will be providing assistance to legalization applicants

through the Qualified Designated Entities.

-5-
65

There will, of course, be differences of opinion over

the final policy judgments reflected in the regulations as

they are published. I expect that some of these differences

will be resolved through litigation and need not be addressed by this committee today. Beyond these policy disagreements, however, is the issue of how the final regulations

will be interpreted and applied by Immigration Service

officers at the local and regional levels.

We have urged the Immigration Service in emphasize to

its field officers, through its Central Office and senior

management, the statute's purpose that the greatest number

of undocumented aliens be granted legalization within the

requirements of adequate protections against fraud. As is

common in the adjudication of any sort of benefits, there

can be an attitude that the benefit should be granted only

if there is no basis on which it may be denied, we hope

that through its leadership and internal policy memoranda

that the message be relayed that legalization applications

should be denied only if the applicant is clearly ineligible

or has committed fraud in making the application.

Overzealous scrutiny or the desire to deny at the local

and regional levels will not only require much more sophisticated representation for legalization applicants from the

private sector but could also result in a bogging down of

the adjudications process, such that the ability to provide

temporary residence and work authorization, as well as the

capacity to detect fraud, may be undermined.

On a final point regarding preparedness for the

beginning of these programs, we must report an unfortunate

circumstance regarding the availability of application forms

for the legalization program. As the committee may know,

the Immigration Service is greatly discouraging the use of

copies of the official application forms, medical examination forms, waiver request forms, and fingerprint forms, by

applicants for legalization. Although an exception has been

made in the case of the largest national Qualified Designated Entity, other Qualified Designated Entities, voluntary

agencies, and licensed attorneys will be relying on the

government's supply of official legalization forms. To our

knowledge, copies of the basic application form were first

made available through the General Printing Office warehouse

in Laurel, Maryland, on Friday, April 17. Because these

forms have not been available in quantity at federal

bookstores or through any other source up until today, our

Association has undertaken to send packages of forms to

practitioners around the country by express delivery. As of

April 28, we had sent out an estimated 30,000 forms to

immigration lawyers around the country, and only because the

GPO warehouse ran out of its supply of forms were we unable

to fulfill pending requests for some 25,000 additional

forms.

-6-
Although at least this limited supply of basic application forms was available, we have been unable to secure any

medical examination forms, which will be required of all

applicants at the time of filing. We have been advised that

these forms may be made available on May 1, and we will plan

to conduct a similar special delivery program beginning on

that date. I think we must all agree, however, that this

lack of availability of forms will not only impede the

commencement of the legalization program but will also

engender a negative impression of the preparedness and

competence of the Immigration Service to conduct this

program.

While we do not agree with those who point to these

logistical and administrative weaknesses as evidence of the

Immigration Service's insincerity in implementing the

legalization program, these adverse opinions can only be

countered by the INS' ability to overcome these problems.

Impact on Ongoing Immigration Adjudications

Reflecting a similar problem in the private sector, the

Immigration Service employs only a finite number of immigration law experts who might now implement not only the

legalization program but also the employer sanctions,

seasonal agricultural worker, and new H-2A program, as well

as the other new immigration law provisions adopted at the

end of the 99th Congress. Even though the legislation

provided for the temporary recalling of former Service

officers, there is necessarily a shortage of competent,

experienced officers.

It is therefore a new mission of the agency that it

must recruit and train additional personnel, not only to

implement the new legislation, but to fill (and "back-fill")

those positions made vacant by personnel transfers to the

new programs, as well as through normal attrition. For some

time, we must expect some personnel vacancies in both new

and ongoing enforcement and adjudications positions.

we hope that in areas, such as the Southern Region,

which has experienced in the past some problems in accomplishing its ongoing workload, special attention will have

to be given to both promptly filling and providing training

to the new officers.

The ability of the Immigration Service to accomplish

this substantial expansion of its workforce will have a

significant impact not only on enforcement at the border and

in the interior of the United States, but also on inspections at international airports and on adjudications of

immigration benefits for both nonimmigrants and fully

qualifying lawful permanent residents under current law.

The new burdens on the Immigration Service will be manifold

-7-
67

and greatly exceed the easily anticipated requirements of

legalization, employer sanctions and the new farmworker

provisions. For instance, heretofore undocumented aliens

will now need INS permission in order to leave the country

for brief visits and the demand for "advance parole" by

newly legalized temporary residents will be substantial.

If delays become too great, the temptation to just duck

across the border may become irresistible.

In the past, lawful nonimmigrants whose initial one or

two year stay was nearing expiration did not need to worry

when their timely-filed extension application could not be

adjudicated by the Immigration Service for months after the

fact. With the imposition of employer sanctions, however,

the necessity of accurate and timely work authorization

cannot be questioned. In these cases, it is not enough to

merely keep up with past practice; the Service must be able

to provide either continued work authorization in very short

order or an alternative remedy, such as a "bridge" work

authorization, to cover the gap from its receipt of a timely

filed extension request to the time an affirmative adjudication can be provided to the alien. In parts of the

country where new technologies, entrepreneurial industries,

and foreign investment have produced significant business

demand for nonimmigration experts and special personnel, the

INS" ability to permit such employers to conform with the

law will be critical.

While there may be a temptation to simply overlook or

officially excuse such technical violations due to the

Service's inability to more promptly adjudicate these

applications, I think we must all agree that this would not

be a positive way to begin the employer sanctions program.

In conclusion on this subject, we hope that Congress

will give its adequate attention to the agency's ability to

continue its ongoing missions and to resume normal processing standards as soon as possible after the May 5 and June 1

starts legalization, employer sanctions and the agricultural

programs. Citizens and aliens alike must be able to expect

that they will receive the due process guaranteed by the

Fifth Amendment, and, while some rough spots are to be

anticipated, the Service should be encouraged employ its new

financial resources wisely in order to come back up to speed

as soon as possible.

Investigations and Law Enforcement

Before closing, I would like to present some brief

observations in regard to the use of appropriated funds for

investigations and immigration law enforcement. In particular, we urge this committee and the Justice Department to

insure that adequate attention is given to initial training

-8-
68

and ongoing guidance and monitoring of the many new enforcement officer positions to be filled over the next few years.

Immigration Service investigators, many newly hired,

will soon be called on the conduct investigations and

enforcement operations in circumstances with which they may

not be entirely familiar. Given the concern of United

States businesses and employers over the burdens and

obligations of the employer sanctions provisions, it is

particularly important that these enforcement officers,

particularly those new to the Job or to the immigration

field, receive adequate training both as to the substance of

the law as well as to appropriate technique. It is equally

important that mechanisms be in place for ongoing supervision and monitoring of investigations and enforcement

activities by the senior levels of the Immigration Service

and Department of Justice.

We note in particular the special problems of those

undocumented aliens seeking to qualify as special agricultural workers. While many such applicants can expect

assistance from their labor organization or employer, there

will undoubtedly be some employers whose fear of prosecution

for past labor law or tax violations will cause them to deny

any knowledge or employment of former workers who could now

be eligible for SAW status. Because of the overall numbers

involved, it can be expected there will be numerous cases in

which SAW applicants, who must establish agricultural

employment as a basic eligibility criteria, will find their

statements challenged or denied by their former employers.

Due to the need to deter and prosecute fraud, as well

as the authority to pierce the confidentiality protections

in the case of fraud, special sensitivity and skill will be

needed by government officers in investigating such cases.

This may be even more problematic for workers whose SAW

eligibility is based on employment by an economic rival of

their new prospective employer. There is, in our opinion,

no simple answer to this complicated issue, other than the

need for continuing recognition of the importance of

training and ongoing guidance and supervision.

Concerns have been raised over the use of fraudulent

documents to prove eligibility for legalization by unscrupulous applicants. While this is indeed an area for appropriate attention, it can be noted that the centralized

regional processing facilities, at which all final decisions

regarding legalization applications will be made, will be

well suited to discovering patterns of document and other

third-party-provided fraud in connection with the legalization program.

-9-
69

Conclusion

In conclusion, we must express some regret that more

could not have been accomplished by both the government

agencies and the private sector during the past six months

in order to prepare for the commencement of the legalization

and employer sanctions program of the Immigration Reform and

Control Act.

Now that the start-dates are upon us, our renewed

attention to how to best utilize and manage the financial

resources provided for the implementation of this program is

highly warranted. I hope that the experiences and concerns

of the immigration bar are of some value to this committee

in it oversight of the implementation of these new laws, and

I thank you again for this opportunity to provide testimony.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association and the

immigration bar would welcome any inquires the committee may

have, now or in the future.

SR121

-10-
70

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH B. MURRAY

Good morning Mr. Chairman,

I would like to thank you for this opportunity to address

your committee. My name js Joe Murray. Presently I am

Chairman of the North Texas Immigration Coalition. The

Coalition is a voluntary federation of social service agencies,

church groups, attorneys and individuals who's purpose is

to uphold, defend, and advocate for the rights of immigrants

in the North Texas vicinity.

Presently it is estimated that between 2 to 3.9 million

applicants will be applying nation wide. Texas will have

between 750,000 to 1 million applicants.

One key to the amnesty process is a network of church groups

and other agencies. They will advise aliens on the law and

how to document residencies, and help them prepare applications.

These organizations include churches and counseling groups

operating independently; and designated groups call Qualified

Designated Entities, or Q.D.E.'s selected by the l.N.S. to help

in the legalization process. Many of the Q.D.E.'s were only

selected this past week. Many groups have been counseling

aliens for months, and will continue to aid them regardless

of whether they recieve qualifying status. The delay in

designation, which adds more processing responsibilities

and only brings a government reimbursement fee of $15.00

or S16.00 per application. Considering the processing re7hti fte

sponsibilities put on the shoulders of the Q.D.E.'s is 1
71

Page Two

Statement

inadequate, a fee of $50.00 per applicant would be more in

line with these responsibilities.

Some of the questions social service organizations and church

groups face are: Do we hire staff? Do we print Forms? Do

we start training programs for personnel? No one seems to

know.

There have been logistical problems such as. The Dallas/Ft worth

I.N.S. Regional Office is not scheduled to open until May 4.

The location of this office did not include mass transit

considerations, this now becomes a major hinderance for applicants.

We understand that a contract for a national advertising

campaign to inform aliens about the amnest program was only

awarded two weeks ago. As of yet, this campaign has not

reached the Dallas/Ft Wort area. In order for this campaign

to be successful it must include the electronic and printed

media of the minority communities that will be most affected

by this legislation.

In the Dallas/Ft Wort area the I.N.S. has not sponsored any

community education forums for either aliens or employers
72

Page Three

Statement

If the Amnesty Program is going to be successful, advance

notice and education will be key factors in the number of

aliens who apply for leglization. Based on my community

expierence, the I.N.S. has defaulted in it's responsibility

to educate the public about the legalization program. I

can only wonder about the sincerity of the I.N.S. when I

see that InSouth Texas with the exception of the Brownsville

Diocese no Q.D.E.'s were selected. South Texas has the

largest population of Hispanics. If the I.N.S. has not

reached out to select Q.D.E.'s in south Texas how can we

believe that their public education campaign will reach

people who are eligible to apply under this program.

The uncertanties and poor communication so close to the

start of the program have intensified uncertanties about

legal representation which have been present since the

law was passed. These uncertanties can only intensify

the personal anguish of the people we are trying to help,

and make th<unscrupulous elements of our communities richer.

Finally, if the Legalization legislation as it left the

Congrees had been acted on and this includes the appropriations portion of the bill we would not be in our present

state of disorganization and confussion. If the I.N.S. is

going to implement all the steps necessary for a successful
73

Page Four

Statement

program they are in need of what congress appropriated. I

believe it was the intent of congress that this bill represent the National interests of the United States and also it's

humane values.
74

STATEMENT OP

SIHIN YAZDGERDI

FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM (FAIR)

MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, THANK YOO FOR THE

OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE YOO TODAY TO TESTIFY ABOOT THE

IMMIGRATION SERVICE AND ITS RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE IMMIGRATION

REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986.

MY NAME IS SIHIN YAZDGERDI. I AM DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT

RELATIONS FOR FAIR, THE FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM.

FAIR IS A NATIONAL NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION WORKING TO EDDCATE THE

AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT THE NEED TO REFORM U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY TO

REFLECT THE REALITIES OF THE 1980'S. PAIR BELIEVES:

THAT EVERY IMMIGRANT SHOULD BE A LEGAL IMMIGRANT;

THAT THE U.S. SHOULD SET A COMPREHENSIVE CEILING ON LEGAL

IMMIGRATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH TBE DEMOGRAPHIC, NATURAL RESOURCE AND

ECONOMIC NEEDS OF TBE UNITED STATES;

THAT IMMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT HARM AMERICA'S

POOR AND DISADVANTAGED; AND,

THAT U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY SHOULD NOT FAVOR OR DISCRIMINATE ON

THE BASIS OP RACE, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN.

PAIR HAS BEEN A LEADING PROPONENT OF IMMIGRATION REFORM

LEGISLATION SINCE 1978. DESPITE OUR OPPOSITION TO THE ENORMOUS AMNESTY

PROGRAM, WE SUPPORTED THE NEW IMMIGRATION LAW THAT PASSED THE 99TH

CONGRESS LAST FALL. THE PRINCIPAL PURPOSE OP THIS LEGISLATION IS TO

CONTROL THE FLOW OP ILLEGAL ALIENS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES. IT IS

ESSENTIAL THAT OUR NATION REGAIN CONTROL OP IT8 BORDERS.
75

HE BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS MOST CONTINUE TO LEAD THE KAY TOWARD

IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL BY PROVIDING SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO

IMPLEMENT THE NEW ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS IT CREATED LAST YEAR.

AFTER YEARS OF STUDY AND DEBATE, CONGRESS DECIDED THAT THE BEST

NAY TO CONTROL ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION WAS TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR

EMPLOYERS TO HIRE ILLEGAL ALIENS, THEREBY TURNING OFF THE JOB MAGNET

DRAWING THEM TO THE UNITED STATES. THIS CONCEPT, CALLED EMPLOYER

SANCTIONS, IS THE CORNERSTONE OF IMMIGRATION REFORM AND THE ESSENTIAL

ENFORCEMENT ELEMENT OF THE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986.

THE IMMIGRATION BILL ALSO CREATED A MASSIVE NEW AMNESTY PROGRAM FOR

ILLEGAL ALIENS WHO CAN PROVE THAT THEY HAVE CONTINUOUSLY RESIDED IN

THE UNITED STATES SINCE JANUARY 1, 1982. THE AMNESTY PROGRAM IS

SCHEDULED TO BEGIN ON MAY S, 1987, NEXT TUESDAY.

FAIR IS DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THE AMNESTY PROGRAM WILL

FUNCTION AND WANTS TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT ONLY THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE

TRULY ELIGIBLE WILL BE LEGALIZED. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE

AMNESTY PROGRAM, THE INS WILL NEED ADEQUATE RESOURCES TO CAREFULLY

SCREEN ALL AMNESTY APPLICATIONS FOR FRAUD. THE MAIN THRUST OP MY

TESTIMONY, THEREFORE, IS THE CRUCIAL NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO

PREVENT AMNESTY FRAUD.

BEFORE I DISCUSS FAIR'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE AMNESTY PROGRAM. I WOULD

LIKE TO DESCRIBE TBE TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITIES THAT FACE THE INS AT

THIS TIME. WITH PASSAGE OF THE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT, TBE

INS' WORKLOAD HAS BEEN VASTLY EXPANDED TO INCLUDE:

ENFORCING EMPLOYER SANCTIONS,

INCREASING BORDER ENFORCEMENT,
76

ADMINISTERING THE LEGALIZATION PROGRAM FOR A POTENTIAL 3.9

MILLION APPLICANTS, AND

ADMINISTERING THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROGRAM.

THESE NEW RESPONSIBILITIES ARE IN ADDITION TO AN ALREADY STAGGERING

INS WORKLOAD. WITH A STAFF SMALLER THAN THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE

DEPARTMENT, THE INS MOST PATROL 2,000 MILES OF LAND BORDER WITH MEXICO,

OVER 3,750 MILES OF LAND BORDER WITH CANADA, ADMIT OR DENY 328 MILLION

PERSONS AT OUR PORTS OF ENTRY EACH YEAR, KEEP NATURALIZATION RECORDS AND

RECORDS ON PERMANENT RESIDENT ALIENS, EXTEND VISAS HELD BY FOREIGN

VISITORS, DEVELOP SECDRE DOCUMENTS FOR ALIEN IDENTIFICATION, CONTROL AND

DEPORT CRIMINAL ALIENS, AND INVESTIGATE THODSANDS OF VIOLATIONS OP THE

IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

THE FUNDING LEVELS CONGRESS PROVIDED THE INS IN THE PAST HAVE NOT

KEPT PACE WITH THE SKYROCKETING WORKLOAD. AS A RESDLT, THE INS HAS

SLIPPED FURTHER AND FURTHER BEHIND IN ITS EFFORTS TO PROTECT OUR

BORDERS. THESE UNPROTECTED BORDERS WERE THE MAJOR REASON THAT

CONGRESS PASSED THE IMMIGRATION LAW LAST YEAR.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE FUNDING SITUATION IS GETTING BLEAKER. THE

ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT ASKED CONGRESS FOR ENOUGH FUNDS FOR THE INS FOR

EITHER THE CURRENT OR THE NEXT FISCAL YEARS. NOR HAS CONGRESS, IN ITS

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR, MADE UP THE

BUDGET SHORTFALLS.

CONGRESS, WHICH LAST YEAR OVERWHELMINGLY PASSED THE HOORHEAD

AMENDMENT TO THE IMMIGRATION ACT REQUIRING A FIFTY PERCENT INCREASE IN

THE BORDER PATROL, HAS NOT EVEN GIVEN THE INS IN THIS YEAR'S

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ENOUGH MONEY TO KEEP UP WITH NORMAL
77

PERSONNEL ATTRITION. MOREOVER, EVEN IP THE INS GETS ALL THE

SUPPLEMENTAL PONDS REQUESTED FOR NEK INVESTIGATORS, THE INS KILL STILL

HAVE ONLY AS MANY INVESTIGATORS ON THE JOB AS IT HAD IN 1975.

MR. CHAIRMAN, THE PROBLEMS PACING THE INS CAN BE STATED QDITE

SIMPLY: THEY DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO PROPERLY CARRY OUT THE ENORMOUS

TASKS CONGRESS HAS MANDATED. POR 1987, S422 MILLION IN SUPPLEMENTAL

FUNDS POR THE INS WAS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE ACT. THE INS ASKED THE

ADMINISTRATION POR THAT AMOUNT. HOWEVER, THE OMB CUT THAT REQUEST TO

5137 MILLION. AND LAST KEEK THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES CUT THE INS

BUDGET AGAIN BY 21 PERCENT, LOWERING IT TO $108 MILLION. $108 MILLION

IS ONLY ONE-QUARTER OP THE ORIGINAL AUTHORIZED FUNDING LEVELS.

RETURNING TO YOUR SPECIFIC CONCERN, MR. CHAIRMAN, THE AMNESTY

PROGRAM WAS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE LEGAL STATUS TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO

HAVE LONG, ESTABLISHED ROOTS IN THE UNITED STATES. A GRANT OF AMNESTY

THAT WILL LEAD TO EVENTUAL CITIZENSHIP IS NOT TO BE TAKEN LIGHTLY.

UNFORTUNATELY, IT SEEMS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS TAKING THIS

PROGRAM LIGHTLY. IP YOU LOOK AT THE BUDGET FIGURES, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU

WILL SEE THAT THERE IS NO FUNDING AT ALL REQUESTED FOR INVESTIGATIONS

INTO AMNESTY FRAUD. THESE INVESTIGATIONS ARE NEEDED FOR PERRETING OUT

FRAUDULENT APPLICATIONS. UNFORTUNATELY, THE ONLY INVESTIGATORS

ASSIGNED TO AMNESTY FRAUD WILL BE THE SAME 340 INVESTIGATORS ASSIGNED

TO EMPLOYER SANCTIONS INVESTIGATIONS.

IF 3.9 MILLION ALIENS APPLY FOR AMNESTY, EVEN A TEN PERCENT FRAUD

RATE WOULD MEAN 390,000 FRAUDULENT APPLICATIONS. I RECENTLY SPOKE TO

TBE INS REGIONAL OFFICE IN SAN PEDRO, AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE SAN

DIEGO INS DISTRICT OPFICE ARRESTED SOMEONE LAST MONTH TRYING TO SELL

FALSE RENT RECEIPTS TO USE ON AMNESTY APPLICATIONS. THE REGIONAL
78

OPFICE ALSO TOLD HE THERE ARE REPORTS OP VEHJORS SELLING ENTIRE

PACKETS OP FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS CONTAINING FALSE EMPLOYMENT RECORDS,

RENT RECEIPTS, UTILITY BILLS, ETC. • IN SHORT, ALL THE DOCUMENTARY

PROOF NEEDED TO ESTABLISH A SOLID CLAIM TO AMNESTY. THE 'WORD ON THE

STREET" IS THAT SUCK PACKETS PROMISING A FAST TRACK TO AMNESTY ARE

SELLING FOR A FEW HUNDRED DOLLARS.

THE INS WANTED AN ADDITIONAL 350 INVESTIGATORS JUST TO WORK ON

AMNESTY FRAUD (IN ADDITION TO THE NEW INVESTIGATORS FOR EMPLOYER

SANCTIONS). THAT'S THE NUMBER WHICH INS BELIEVED NECESSARY TO ROOT OUT

AMNESTY FRAUD. BUT THOSE ADDITIONAL 350 INVESTIGATORS NEVER MADE IT

INTO THE BUDGET REQUEST. AS I JUST MENTIONED, NO NEW AMNESTY FRAUD

INVESTIGATORS WILL BE PUNDED UNDER THIS BUDGET.

THE INS HAS STRUCTURED THE AMNESTY PROGRAM TO BE SELF FUNDING •

PAID FOR ENTIRELY THROUGH FEES CHARGED TO AMNESTY APPLICANTS.

HOWEVER, THE FEE STRUCTURE DOES NOT INCLUDE FUNDS POR INVESTIGATING

AMNESTY FRAUD.

MAKING THE PROGRAM SELF-FUNDING IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT CONGRESS

INTENDED WHEN IT PASSED THE AMNESTY LAW. LET ME QUOTE FROM THE

CONFERENCE REPORT ON THE BILL:

'IT IS THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONFEREES THAT THE FEE LEVEL

SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE COSTS OF PROCESSING APPLICATIONS

AND SHOULD BE COMPARABLE TO THOSE CHARGED FOR ALIENS SEEKING ENTRY

TO THE UNITED STATES AS IMMIGRANTS.*

B.R. RBPT. 99-1000, P. 92.

PAIR BELIEVES TBAT THE COST OF PROVIDING AMNESTY SHOULD BE
79

BORNE BY THE APPLICANTS RECEIVING THE BENEFIT AND NOT THE AMERICAN

TAXPAYER. THE PROBLEM, HOWEVER, IS THAT TBE FEE OF S185 COVERS ONLY

'PROCESSING COSTS" WHICH DO NOT INCLUDE INVESTIGATORS OF AMNESTY FRAUD

OR ABUSE. THIS DEFINITION OF 'COSTS OF PROCESSING APPLICATIONS" IS

TOO RESTRICTIVE, SINCE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE AMNESTY PROCESS IS THE

VERIFICATION OF APPLICANTS' STATEMENTS AND THE INVESTIGATION OF FRAUD.

SINCE NO FUNDING HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR AMNESTY FRAUD, $185 PER

APPLICANT IS NOT ENOUGH.

THIS QUESTION OF FEES AND RESOURCES IS NOT AN IDLE CONCERN. IF

TBE INS IS NOT GIVEN THE RESOURCES TO THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATE AND HEED

OUT FRAUDULENT AMNESTY CLAIMS FROM THE OUTSET, TBE SERVICE WILL SOON

FIND ITSELF INUNDATED WITH QUESTIONABLE AMNESTY APPLICATIONS.

IN ADDITION, BY RELYING ON ITS ABILITY TO RAISE NECESSARY FUNDS

FROM FEE RECEIPTS, TBE INS BAS SPENT MUCH OF ITS FOURTH QUARTER 1987

ENFORCEMENT MONEY. INS HOPES THAT CONGRESS WILL GIVE IT ENOUGH IN TBE

SUPPLEMENTAL TO REPAY THAT MONEY. IF CONGRESS DOES NOT GIVE THE INS

ENOUGH MONEY TO REPAY TBE AMOUNTS IT HAS DRAWN ON, TBE INS WILL BE

FORCED TO CUT ENFORCEMENT TBIS SUMMER, JUST AS EMPLOYER SANCTIONS IS

STARTING.

FAIR DOES NOT WANT, AND I AM SURE THAT TBIS COMMITTEE AGREES, TBE

IBS TO STOP ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES JUST AS EMPLOYER SANCTIONS ARE

BECOMING EFFECTIVE. BUT THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF THE SUPPLEMENTAL

APPROPRIATIONS ARE NEITHER SUFFICIENT NOR TIMELY ENOUGH TO REIMBURSE

INS ADVANCED SPENDING BEFORE THE FOURTH QUARTER.

TBIS WOULD BE A BUDGETARY DISASTER, MR. CHAIRMAN. MANY OBSERVERS

NOTE THAT THE CRUCIAL PERIOD FOR EMPLOYER SANCTIONS IS AT TBE VERY

BEGINNING. WE MOST IMPRESS UPON EMPLOYERS AND ILLEGAL ALIENS THAT
80

EMPLOYER SANCTIONS WILL BE VIGOROUSLY ENFORCED. IP, OB THE OTHER

BAND, MB LOSE TEAT PSYCHOLOGICAL DETERRENT III THE BEGINNING, AND

ILLEGAL ALIENS BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN STILL EASILY GET JOBS IN THE

UNITED STATES, HE WILL HAVE TO SPEND PAR MORE IN THE FUTURE FOR

EMPLOYER SANCTIONS ENFORCEMENT. THE INVESTMENT IN EARLY ENFORCEMENT

WILL REDUCE FUTURE EXPENDITURES MANY TIMES OVER.

IN THIS FISCAL ENVIRONMENT, WE MOST ALL CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF

ADDITIONAL SPENDING ON THE DEFICIT. CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF

TEE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT IS A COSTLY PROPOSITION.

HOWEVER, FAILING TO IMPLEMENT THE NEW LAW BY PROVIDING ENOUGH PONDS

FOR ENFORCEMENT WILL BE EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE IN THE FUTURE. IF WE

ALLOW HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INELIGIBLE ALIENS TO FRAUDULENTLY

RECEIVE AMNESTY, WE WILL ALSO SPEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO PROVIDE

SOCIAL BENEFITS TO THOSE ALIENS AND THEIR RELATIVES LATER.

AS AN ILLUSTRATION, LET'S TAKE ONE ILLEGAL ALIEN WHO FRAUDULENTLY

RECEIVES AMNESTY. NOT ONLY WILL THAT ALIEN'S STATE AND LOCAL

GOVERNMENTS RECEIVE PONDING FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BASED ON THE

ALIEN'S LEGALIZATION OF STATUS, BUT THE ALIEN CAN PETITION FOR HIS

RELATIVES. THOSE RELATIVES, THROUGH A PROCESS KNOWN AS 'CHAIN

MIGRATION*, MAY LATER PETITION FOR THEIR RELATIVES, AND SO ON. ONE

RECENT IMMIGRANT BROUGHT 69 RELATIVES INTO THE UNITED STATES IN TEN

YEARS. THOSE NEW IMMIGRANTS WILL ALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES.

IN CLOSING, I'D LIKE TO QUOTE FROM AN ARTICLE THAT APPEARED

YESTERDAY (APRIL 29, 1987) IN THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR. A

RANKING IMMIGRATION OFFICIAL WHO ASKED THAT HIS NAME BE WITHHELD IN

THE STORY STATED ABOUT THE AMNESTY PROGRAM) *WE HAY JUST HAVE TO

ROBBER-STAMP THOUSANDS OF APPLICATIONS.* ANOTHER INS INTELLIGENCE
81

OFFICER IN THE SAME ARTICLE STATED: 'I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME RIGHT

NOW TO CHECK WHAT IS ALREADY COMING INTO THIS OFFICE. I'M SUPPOSED TO

EXAMINE PASSPORTS FOR FORGERIES AMD PHOTO SUBSTITUTIONS, ALTERATIONS,

AND I DON'T HAVE TIME. I'M RUBBER-STAMPING THEM OUT OF THIS OFFICE.*

MR. CHAIRMAN, NO ONE WANTS AN AMNESTY PROGRAM THAT MILL BE

RIDDLED WITH FRAUD. IT IS DP TO CONGRESS TO MAKE SDRE THAT THE INS

HAS ENOUGH RESOURCES TO ADMINISTER A SOUND AMNESTY PROGRAM, WITH

FRAUD KEPT TO A MINIMUM.

THANK YOO AGAIN FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY.
82

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL STEIN

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:

I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the

Committee concerning INS budgetary resources and implementation

of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. My name i3

Daniel Stein, and I am Director of the Immigration Reform Law

Institute (IRLI), a non-profit, public interest law firm, working

on behalf of improved immigration law enforcement.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 is perhaps

one of the most far-reaching immigration reform measures yet

passed by a Congress. As everyone knows, the bill for the first

time makes it illegal for employers to hire aliens unauthorized

to work, and grants an "amnesty" for potentially several million

aliens residing unlawfully in the United States.

At the time the Act was signed into law, it had been well

established that the Immigration Service was indeed overworked

and undermanned. The professionalism and competence of most of

the Immigration and Naturalization Service is above question. It

has remained diligent in its duties as Congress has steadily

increased its responsibilities without substantially increasing

funding. The simple truth of the matter is that the Immigration

Service's funding has not maintained pace with its

responsibilities. The consequence? The integrity of the

benefits adjudication system has suffered. Studies by the

Immigration Service suggest that perhaps 30% to 40% of all

applications submitted on behalf of relatives are fraudulent.

The problem of marriage fraud to obtain immigration benefits is

so great that last year Congress also passed the Immigration
Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986, which require all aliens

obtaining benefits through marriage to prove after two years that

the marriage is still viable (with certain exceptions).

Importantly however, by requiring the INS to do follow-up

investigations two years later, the Immigration Marriage Fraud

Amendments of 1936 will increase the work-load of INS

investigators substantially. And yet there are no authorizations

in that bill for additional investigators.

To add to the burden. Congress has now asked the Immigration

Service to embark on perhaps its most ambitious undertaking to

date. At a time when the National Legislature has asked the

Immigration Service to embark on an aggressive program to

penalize employers who hire illegal aliens. Congress also expects

that same agency to process untold millions of amnesty

applications. My understanding is that the Immigration Service

operates on the working assumption that it expects to process

some 3.9 million applications over a twelve month period, and an

additional 850,000 tier I SAW workers over an eighteen month

period. Congress has asked the INS to process nearly 5 million

adjustment applications over an eighteen month period. The

program is unprecedended in scope • exceeding even the ambitions

Ellis Island period. But a similar fraud rate could mean as many

as a million fraudulent applications submitted and, perhaps,

proved.

Please note also that each alien who receives the amnesty

may in turn petition relatives, the number delimited only by

family size. The family preference petitions will in turn

generate enormous backlogs in years to come, which will further
84

pressure the system in unmanageable ways. In the meantime, the

Immigration Service is already under pressure to approve as many

applications as possible. Litigation brought on the west coast

has sought to enjoin a substantial amount of the Immigration

Service's enforcement activities, premised solely on the

potential eligibility for amnesty. See Catholic Social Services

v. Meese. CIV-S-86-1343-LKK (April 3, 1987). This case, like

many others sure to be brought in the future, is calculated to

pressure the Immigration Service to approve as many applications

as possible. In the face of this pressure, it is not suprising,

therefore, that the Immigration Service will resolve questionable

cases in favor of the applicant. [Discussed more below.]

The problem, of course, is that Congress oust appropriate

the money necessary to implement its projects. The modest

budgetary supplement for FY-87 of $137.8 million to implement the

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which has been

further reduced in the House, is inadequate for the task at hand,

were it now available. My understanding is that this was further

in the House on Thursday. Earlier statements from the

Immigration Service suggested that some 340 new investigators

would be added to cover both the marriage fraud bill, employer

sanctions, and the amnesty. Undoubtedly this minimal increase

will now be further reduced substantially below those originally

estimated for the originally-authorized levels. As a result, the

integrity of the investigations and adjudication function surely

will deteriorate.

Immigration specialist, Edwin Harwood, of the Hoover

Institution, noted in a recent book. In Liberty's Shadow, that the
85

investigator function in the Immigration Service is a difficult

Although the complexity of the provisions and

guidelines relating the certain [Immigration and

Nationality Act] benefits (relative petitions,

temporary worker visas, and the like) explains the

intricacy of some fraud investigations, easily the

investigator's main problem is simply finding

sufficient evidence at a reasonable cost in terms of

time and effort to establish the basis for denial. In

theory the proof of burden falls on the alien and

petitioner, but examiners cannot arbitrarily decide

that a benefit claim is fraudulent. And in all but the

most blatant cases, the bona fides of eligibility have

to be checked out. The difficulty and cost of doing so

must be balanced against the return anticipated from

the investigation. (At 146.)

After analyzing each of the problems associated with

immigration investigations, all of the evidentiary problems

associated with immigration investigations, Harwood concludes as

follows:

Although adequate guarantee of fair and impartial

administrative hearings is an important part of our

Constitutional heritage, these add to the burdens of

law enforcement. They also create equity problems to

the extent that aliens who play by the rules are

penalized by those who manage to get to the United

States, build immigration equities, and capture visas

for themselves and their relatives. If we as a society

want expeditious and equitable enforcement, we must

either provide the resources required, or trim back

alien due process rights. We cannot have it both

ways. (At 158.)

Mr. Chairman, I am not for diminishing the due process

rights of aliens at administrative hearings, nor am I for

diminishing the due process rights of aliens seeking to receive a

fair and impartial adjudication of their application. I am

however, interested in ensuring that the amnesty does not serve

to completely undermine the integrity of the Immigration
86

Service's adjudications function. The investigator staff of the

Immigration Service was completely overburdened when last year's

laws were passed. Now it is being asked to accomplish a

Herculean task with a modest increase in resources. Something

has to give. As a result, I fear that the amnesty program will

lack integrity in that only those cases where there is manifest

fraud or some other glaring deficiency on the face of the

application will there be a conditional denial, and follow-up

investigation.

Consider, if you will, that at the local Legalization

Center, each processor will handle some 25-30 applications per

day. In an eight hour day, the processor may spend up to 15

minutes with each applicant. Be or she must examine the

docments for completeness, swear in the applicant, conduct an

interview and issue work authorization. At this stage of the

adjudication, the officer will only be able to insure that the

alien has alleged predicate facts sufficient to constitute a

prima facie case of eligibility. At the Regional Processing

Facility, the 36 examiners must handle an expected 4,000

applications per day; current estimates are that some 3,600 will

simply be entered into the ADP system, and unless a computerized

cross check with enforcement agency records triggers an

investigation, the application will be approved. Only about 400

to 600 a day will be examined for fraud at each center.

Further, I can find no evidence that the INS has the additional

enforcement manpower to follow up on fraud in the applications

process.

Mr. Chairman, the major purpose of the Immigration Reform
87

and Control Act of 1986 was, as the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals recently reaffirmed, a law "to control our borders and

enable the INS to target its enforcement resources." And yet the

net effect of the Act thus far appears to be an Immigration

Service rushing to meet an avalanche of applications,

cannibalizing its existing service functions in borrowing from

future appropriations.

It is not a foregone conclusion that amnesty applications

must be rushed through. According to the Immigration Service's

own internal procedures, aliens who are statutory eligible based

on the documents submitted with the application will be granted

conditional approval and the authorization to work during the

pendency of the application. As a result, there is no reason why

the adjudications function should be rushed. In the past when

under pressure/ the natural institutional response of the

Immigration Service has been to "streamline" the adjudications

process (i.e., scrutinize the facts underlying the application

less carefully). It is not surprising, therefore, that in the

context of this amnesty program the Immigration Service is

sending out signals to the effect that it is "particularly eager

to comply with the spirit of approval encouraged by Congress in

enacting the legalization provisions." There is no reason why

this need be the case this time. The Immigration Service needs

to maintain the integrity of the amnesty adjudications process.

And this means more investigators.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 will be a

success only if it succeeds in fostering respect for the

immigration law today and in the future. An amnesty program
characterized by massive fraud will not accomplish that

objective. Proponents for the illegal alien population want aore

resources for the Immigration Service so that their amnesty

applications will be processed quickly. We are interested in

more resources in order that amnesty applications be scrutinized

to ensure eligibility. In either case, the cure is the same:

the Immigration and Naturalization Service needs the adequate

manpower to do the job.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to appear

before the committee.

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

O