U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

77–276 DTP 2002

S. HRG. 107–249

IMMIGRATION POLICY: AN OVERVIEW

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 4, 2001

Serial No. J–107–12

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

JON KYL, Arizona

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

SHARON PROST, Chief Counsel

MAKAN DELRAHIM, Staff Director

BRUCE COHEN, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas, Chairman

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa

JON KYL, Arizona

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

JAMES ROWLAND, Majority Chief Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Page

Brownback, Hon. Sam, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas ....................... 1

DeWine, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ................................ 71

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .................... 3

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 70

WITNESSES

Dickson, Elizabeth C., Manager, Immigration Services, Ingersoll-Rand Company, and Chair, Subcommittee on Immigration, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Woodcliff Lake, NJ ................................................................................... 62

Kenney, Jennifer, Director, Global Deployment Shared Services,

PricewaterhouseCoopers, Chicago, IL ................................................................ 38

Leiden, Warren R., Berry, Appleman and Leiden, on behalf of the American

Immigration Lawyers Association, San Francisco, CA ..................................... 6

Moore, Stephen, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute, Washington, DC ....................... 16

Mun ̃ oz, Cecilia, Vice President, Office of Research, Advocacy and Legislation,

National Council of La Raza, Washington, DC ................................................. 44

Narasaki, Karen K., President and Executive Director, National Asian Pacific

American Legal Consortium, Washington, DC .................................................. 51

(1)

IMMIGRATION POLICY: AN OVERVIEW

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 2001

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., in room

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam Brownback,

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK, A U.S.

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS

Present: Senators Brownback and Durbin.

Chairman BROWNBACK. I will call the hearing to order. Thank

you all for being here today. I want to welcome all of you to this

hearing on Immigration Policy: An Overview.

This will be, I hope, an informative hearing for members of the

Subcommittee and members of the Senate, in general, for information, a number of whom I hope will be coming to the hearing today.

I would like to make a few opening remarks. Then if any members show up before we go into the panel discussion, I will turn to

them for opening remarks, and if not we will proceed on to the

panel. I understand one of our panel witnesses is still in transit

from the airport, but will be here shortly.

America is a nation of immigrants. That is what Ronald Reagan

reminded us of in his first address to the Nation. President Reagan

saw a vision and always envisioned America as a shining city on

a hill, and in his mind it was a city that teemed with people of all

kinds living in peace and in harmony. Then he said, ‘‘And if this

city has walls, the walls have doors, and the doors are open to

those with the energy and the will and the heart to get in. That

is the way I saw it, that is the way I see it.’’ And that is the way

I see it, too.

America’s greatest strength remains in its openness to new ideas

and new people. That openness explains why the United States is

powerful, influential, and growing. Nicolas Eberstadt, a demographer at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote recently that

‘‘America’s demographic prospects would seem to support, or even

enhance, U.S. global influence in the years ahead.’’ The reason? Immigration. He points out that while other developed countries will,

on balance, shrink by 15 percent between now and 2050, the

United States will grow by 40 percent, remaining the third largest

country in the world, behind India and China.

2

But more than numbers, legal immigration brings energy, vitality and innovation. An Alexis de Tocqueville Institution study by

Phil Peters showed that immigrants create or co-invent one in five

U.S. patents. Twelve percent of the Inc. 500, America’s fastest

growing private companies, were started by immigrant entrepreneurs.

To harness the energy and vitality of immigrants, we need to improve our current immigration system. As the new Chairman of

this Subcommittee, I look forward to working with my distinguished ranking member, Senator Kennedy, with Senator Durbin

and others, many of whom have had years of experience on these

important issues, as well as all of my colleagues on both sides of

the aisle on this important topic.

As chairman, I will work with the administration and my colleagues on legislation to produce fundamental reform of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the INS. Such reform is sorely

needed. I want to thank, in particular, Senator Feinstein for her

leadership on addressing immigration processing backlogs in last

year’s H–1B legislation.

I might just note parenthetically that in my own State office

work, constituent services work back home, the INS is the second

leading problem set of cases that I deal with, and not in a pleasant

way frequently. It is very difficult, time-consuming, problematic

issues that they raise and that we have to deal with. So I am looking forward to that change in the way INS does work.

I think all of us realize that there is more work ahead. To address the inordinate delays at INS, I support President Bush’s proposal to require INS to process immigration and naturalization applications within 180 days and temporary visas within 30 days. I

hope that once those deadlines are achieved we can work to get the

Department of Labor and INS process applications in even less

time.

There is work to do in other areas as well. Some estimate that

nearly half of the labor in American agriculture may not be working legally in the United States. If that is indeed the case, then

something is broken. Growers, farm workers, Republicans and

Democrats have been working, and should keep working toward

legislation that meets the needs of farmers, farm workers, and the

American economy.

In an area of particular interest to me, we must also look at the

need to attract more people to rural areas of our country, particularly in rural areas that are depopulating, and to help residents of

rural areas find the medical personnel that they need to receive

proper health care.

I plan to work closely with the administration in three important

foreign policy areas. First, I am heartened by the recent meeting

between President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox. This

morning, Senator Kennedy and I met with the Foreign Minister of

Mexico on the issue of establishing a more orderly migration process between the United States and Mexico.

Second, under the prior administration, U.S. refugee admissions

fell by 40 percent from the last year of President George Bush’s administration. I will press the new administration to reverse that

unfortunate trend to ensure that America is providing a safe haven

3

for victims of persecution in line with our tradition as a generous,

compassionate nation.

Third, I look forward to working with the administration to implement fully the sex trafficking bill that Congress passed last year

to deal with the victimization of women around the world.

At the turn of the century, critics said that Italians and East Europeans would never become Americans. Today, the same arguments are made against Latinos, Asians, and other immigrants.

Behind the rhetoric, the critics’ arguments boil down to this: Immigrants aren’t good enough to join us and America is not strong

enough to absorb them. History teaches us that nothing could be

more wrong.

When the Pilgrims set out for America, they sought a land where

they could work hard, pray in peace, and enjoy the fruits of their

labors. Nearly 400 years later, the same can be said of today’s immigrants. America will prosper with policies that encourage legal

and orderly migration, and provide timely service to those who play

by the rules and seek to join us as fellow Americans. America is

best when we appeal to the hope in men’s hearts rather than the

fear in men’s eyes.

These are the sorts of policy tones and issues that I hope to raise

in this Subcommittee during the 2 years chairing this Subcommittee, and possibly more in the future. This is the first of many hearings that we will hold on topics regarding immigration as we hope

to move major legislation, some of which I have identified here.

I look forward to working with many of you who are here today

and interested in this topic, and certainly with the panelists who

are here and certainly with the members who are on the dais or

are soon to be here.

Let me, before we proceed to the panel, ask Senator Durbin if he

has any opening comments that he would like to make.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am glad

to be with you at the first meeting of this important Subcommittee.

I think immigration has always been a timely topic in America. It

is certainly timely in the year 2001.

A few steps away from this hearing room is my office in the

Dirksen Building and I have on display there a number of things

that mean a lot to me personally, but I think one of the most valued objects in that office is my mother’s naturalization certificate.

She came to this country at the age of 2 from Lithuania. Her mother brought her over with her brother and sister.

It is interesting to note that my grandmother only spoke a few

words of English and never really learned the language. My mother

spoke Lithuanian and English, and I can’t speak very many words

in Lithuanian. I think that is the story of American immigration

and what happens to successive generations.

It always has meant a lot to me that at one time in the history

of the United States that my family had an opportunity to come

here, and I like to think that our family, my brothers and I and

all of our kids and grandkids, have paid back that favor from a Nation that opened its arms to people to come from overseas.

4

In my office in Chicago, I would say that 75 percent of our case

work relates to immigration; it is overwhelming. There are times

when I am on the phone to the INS calling every possible level to

try to get them to blast through and either make a decision or

make the right decision, and some of these cases are heart-breaking. The laws that we have written out here are not in touch with

reality in terms of many of the people who are here in the United

States who are making a great contribution and can make a great

contribution.

In the last session of Congress, I was the sponsor of something

known as the NACARA Parity Act—some of you who know this

subject are familiar with it—to create an equal opportunity for

Central American and Haitian nationals in the United States to

adjust their status. We give that opportunity to some, to those who

come from Cuba and Nicaragua. We don’t offer it to others. We

ought to have a consistent ethic when it comes to this question.

If we are going to have compassion for victims of totalitarianism,

does it make that much of a difference whether their oppressor is

Cuban or Nicaraguan or Haitian or Guatemalan? Think of it in

terms of the victims who are coming here and asking for a chance

to be part of America.

The defeat of our legislation last year does not discourage me. I

think there is a lot more that we can do. I think we need to address questions or due process in immigration, and I know the

panel will address them. Two laws we enacted in 1996 have had

serious negative consequences for a lot of innocent people.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility

Act and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act certainly have high-sounding names, and I think that is why a number of people voted for them, but unfortunately their consequences

are not that inspiring—mandatory detention of people when detention makes absolutely no sense at all, retroactive application of

grounds of removal, an overly broad definition of aggravated felony,

the effective elimination of administrative and judicial review for

immigrants in removal proceedings.

Last year, the House of Representatives passed bipartisan legislation that started to undo some of the inequities in this law, but

it never moved in the Senate. I hope that with the help of this Subcommittee, Chairman Brownback, Senator Kennedy, and others,

we can make a change.

I also have to tell you that the backlogs in adjudication at INS

are just heart-breaking when you look at the actual consequences

on a lot of families. We just can’t allow these cases to stack up and

ignore the pain that we are causing to a lot of people who are doing

their best to follow the laws in our country. I know Senator Feinstein is proposing to spend some more money in this area, in INS

services, and I certainly support her on the appropriations committees.

Another area of difficulty is the inadequacy of immigration preference systems to meet the needs of our constituents and their

loved ones. Too few numbers are available in the family preference

system to permit U.S. citizens and permanent residents to reunite

with their loved ones in a timely manner. I think we should address that.

5

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I have been deeply troubled by reports I

have received of children, some of them high school valedictorians,

who were brought to the United States by their parents or others

through no choice of their own as babies and infants, have lived all

of their lives in the United States, but who are undocumented and

cannot continue their lives or education once they graduate from

high school. Indeed, instead of being able to continue their education, they face deportation.

I know this one personally: a young lady who is a high school

senior in the city of Chicago who is considered a musical prodigy

who wanted an opportunity to apply to Juliard and was offered a

scholarship so long as she completed the application, and came to

realize for the first time in her life she was not a legal citizen in

the United States. Her recourse: go to Korea, where she has never

been, and live her life there. I believe our Nation can do better

than this.

I hope the Subcommittee will work with me to address these

questions, and I hope that we will have a positive attitude toward

immigration. I believe we should say with pride that America is a

Nation of immigrants. As I travel across my State, and certainly

in the city of Chicago I meet some of the most inspiring stories you

can imagine, particularly when I talk to cab drivers.

I always ask cab drivers in Chicago, ‘‘where are you from?’’ Well,

most of them are from Nigeria, but those who are not are from all

over the world, people with medical degrees and engineering degrees who are hacking cabs for a chance to be part of America, who

listen to Public Radio night and day just like they did back home,

who really know more about politics than most people who can

vote, and many of them can’t, who just want a part of this dream.

That is what this Subcommittee is all about.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you for the eloquent statement.

Our first panel consists of Warren Leiden and Stephen Moore.

Warren is a partner in a San Francisco law firm that does corporate immigration law. He has been involved in the immigration

field since 1980. Mr. Leiden is a member of the Board of Governors

of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and is a recognized expert on employment-based and other immigration matters.

Our next witness on this panel is Stephen Moore, an old friend

of mine, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. He is an economist

with a special focus on immigration. He is the author of two recent

studies on the fiscal impact of immigration, the most recent being

‘‘A Fiscal Portrait of the Newest American.’’ He has coauthored a

book on the same subject, called Still an Open Door: U.S. Immigration Policy and the American Economy.

Gentlemen, thank you for being here. This is the first hearing

that I have hosted and chaired as Subcommittee chairman. It is a

scene-setter hearing and I hope you will oblige us with your testimony of being kind of a scene-setter for what the immigration picture is in America and what you hope it will be.

Mr. Leiden?

6

STATEMENT OF WARREN R. LEIDEN, BERRY, APPLEMAN AND

LEIDEN, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

Mr. LEIDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I want to thank you for the opportunity

to participate today in this overview of immigration policy.

U.S. immigration policy is unique in that it is based on written

law and statutory criteria, different than any other country in the

world. It is highly regulated, it has strict numerical limits, and it

has bright-line rules, some of which are very unforgiving.

There are three main types of immigration: family sponsored,

employment-based, and refugee and asylum protection. While all

three remain relevant as the main pillars of our immigration policy, the structure of each of these is out of date, and I would suggest overly restrictive.

We need modernization in our immigration policies, and I think

you can see this in the fact that in every one of the three areas

it is overly complicated, we have substantial backlogs, and they are

subject to a patchwork of restrictions that were imposed over the

last 20 years that sometimes are contradictory. All three areas will

need a review of numerical limitations and they are ripe for

streamlining and simplification.

Family sponsored immigration provides for the immigration of

the spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, as well as the adult children and siblings of U.S.

citizens only. Let me use an example of a situation very common

in family immigration.

The spouse and minor child of the lawful permanent resident has

a quota limit now. This is the spouse of a lawful permanent resident. The quota limit requires a wait of at least 4 years before they

can file their adjustment application. So it poses so many families

with the terrible choice of do you obey the immigration law or do

you keep your family together?

Even after they finally reach the point where they can file their

green card application, the adjustment process, the final stage to

get the green card, is taking more than a year or more than 2

years. You get an employment authorization card at that point, but

it is only granted for 1 year, so almost everyone has to file a renewal and then file a renewal. It is a good example of an area

where we don’t have a policy that is matching the reality.

By definition, these children are under 21, but if they are close

to 21 there is a race for the approval because if they final approval

isn’t granted before the child turns 21, they drop out of that category and they go to a new category with a much longer wait. The

INS has done a lot to try to expedite these cases, but they do slip

through the cracks. I have seen them in my own office. Good intentions, but if you don’t have the approval by the 21st birthday, you

are just out of luck and there is no way to get around it. In each

and every one of the family categories, there is a substantial backlog, ranging from as little as a year to as much as 10 years and

more.

On the employment-based side, employment-based immigration

covers persons of extraordinary ability who can actually petition for

7

themselves, as well as employer-sponsored cases for managers, executive, professionals, skilled workers, and other essential workers.

For professional-level people and above, they can come and begin

work on a non-immigrant visa, such as an H–1 or an L–1 visa.

However, skilled workers and other essential workers don’t have

any similar non-immigrant visa, other than very short-term visas

for seasonal work or agricultural work. It is a big problem in employment-based law for skilled workers and their employers, and

for other essential workers.

Labor certification has been substantially streamlined by the

Labor Department. However, there are tens of thousands of cases

that have been backlogged and awaiting adjudication for 3, 4 and

5 years. The employment-based petition, which is the second stage

of an employment-based case, the petition to the Immigration Service, is not adjudicated on a first-in/first-out basis, so that you will

have some cases that are approved in 90 days, some that have been

sitting for 18 months unapproved.

Now, in most cases those two workers tend to be sitting right

next to each other, so that they are very aware of the disparity between their cases. This causes, of course, anxiety. It lowers morale.

And they also have the age-out problem. If they have minor children, again, who are approaching 21 years old, they could lose their

ability of their child to stay with the family when they turn 21.

There, the adjustment is the same as for the family side; it is taking more than a year or two, and the same problems with the employment authorization document.

We only see backlogs at present on the employment-based side

in India and China; that is, persons born in India, persons born in

China. And laws passed last year are beginning to alleviate that,

at least temporarily, but this is somewhat of an illusion. If the Immigration Service were adjudicating cases at the rate that they are

receiving them, our estimate is that they would run out of visas in

all the employment-based categories and we would see backlogs for

every single nationality in employment-based. So there is something waiting out there to happen.

In the asylum area, I just want to say a few words. We do need

to come to grips with the 1996 restrictions. The expedited removal

provisions that provide for exclusion without a hearing and the

mandatory detention requirements do allow for special treatment

for asylum seekers if they are properly identified.

Unfortunately, things being what they are, there have been numerous cases where individuals had to stay in detention for

months, if not years, at a time before their case was approved and

they are recognized as a bona fide refugee. You have to think that

people were sent him to persecution, or worse, because of the failures of the expedited removal procedures.

There is also a 1-year time limit on asylum applications, meaning that no matter how good your claim, if you don’t come forward

within a year of admission to make your asylum claim, you won’t

get protection in the United States. This is particularly troubling

for people who have experienced torture, who have seen grisly

scenes or murder happen to their family members. Frankly, a lot

of refugees don’t want to revisit those issues for a long time, so it

takes a lot to come forward. Putting that arbitrary 1-year limit on

8

it unfortunately again denies protection to people who really deserve it.

Finally, we only have 10,000 slots for permanent residents for

asylum seekers who have been granted asylum. There is a growing

backlog now because the Immigration Service and the immigration

judges are approving more than 5,000 cases a year. So every year,

the backlog gets longer, the backlog gets longer.

Again, these don’t seem to be taken on a first-in/first-out basis

either, so that persons granted asylum 4 or 5 years ago really don’t

know when they are going to get permanent residence. They have

work authorizations, they can remain in the country lawfully, but

they don’t know when they can begin their citizenship track and

they are subject to the other disabilities that persons who don’t

have lawful permanent residence yet are subject to.

There are just a myriad of restrictions, catches, and disqualifications that are contained in the law. I am not going to detail them,

although I have attached to my testimony a series of administrative actions for improvements that the agencies could actually go

forward with without statutory action, and I would think that your

Subcommittee would do well to encourage the agencies to do so.

In concluding, I want to say that it appears that we are going

to have forced on us a reexamination of the legal immigration limit,

the levels, as well as the categories, because of the lengthy family

quota backlogs, because employment-based immigration will soon

run out of visas and start having backlogs, and finally because the

H–1B cap which was increased last year will run out in 2003, only

less than 3 years from now.

All those things put us on a course to review legal immigration.

This will also be an opportunity to really look at how we can

streamline and simplify the overall policy to really modernize it

and make it worthy of America in the 21st century. The American

Immigration Lawyers Association and others are eager to work

with you and the Subcommittee to accomplish this and it will be

very good work for us all.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I am happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement and an attachment of Mr. Leiden follow:]

STATEMENT OF WARREN R. LEIDEN, BERRY, APPLEMAN & LEIDEN LLP, ON BEHALF

OF THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:

My name is Warren R. Leiden, and I am a partner in the San Francisco office

of Berry, Appleman & Leiden LLP, a national law firm concentrating in corporate

immigration law. I appear today as an observer and participant in the development

of U.S. immigration policy for over twenty years and on behalf of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). AILA is the national bar association of over

6,000 attorneys and law professors who represent the entire spectrum of applicants

for immigration adjudications.

I appreciate this opportunity to present our views on current U.S. immigration

policy and I hope to provide some useful guidance on issues and concerns worthy

of the committee’s attention.

9

OVERVIEW OF U.S. IMMIGRATION ADJUDICATIONS PROGRAMS

VALUES EMBODIED IN U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY

U.S. immigration policy is based on a number of values that relate to the core

social and economic principles on which our nation was founded. These values are

complementary and interweave to create the rich fabric that is beneficial to all

Americans. Among the most important values are——

• The unification of American families;

• Employment related immigration to keep America strong in a global economy;

• Asylum protection for refugees fleeing persecution;

• Naturalization based on allegiance to the principles contained in our Constitution

and laws;

• Immigration policy that is implemented through a well-regulated system based on

law, with fair, uniform, and predictable requirements.

Based on these values, U.S. immigration policy is built of three main pillars—

family-sponsored immigration, employment-based immigration, and protection for

refugees and asylum seekers. These three areas continue to have primary relevance

in the new century, but all three have policy structures that are overly restricted

and out of date. Despite the significant efforts of many good people in government

service, each of these three areas has become overly complicated, substantially backlogged, and unnecessarily hampered by a patchwork of rigid limitations and sometimes-contradictory restrictions.

The current situation calls out for change in the direction of modernizing our immigration policy, both in terms of numerical limits and in the direction of streamlining and simplifying, to the benefit of all Americans.

FAMILY UNIFICATION THROUGH FAMILY-SPONSORED IMMIGRATION

The goal of family unification and re-unification has long been a primary value

in U.S. immigration policy. Respect for ‘‘the family’’ is deeply embedded in our national character, and families are recognized as our most important and primary social unit.

Current law and policy gives special attention to the unification of the immediate

relatives (spouses and minor children) of U.S. citizens. No fixed quota limits their

numbers, and thus they are eligible for immediate immigration, although processing

delays has made this much slower than ‘‘immediate immigration’’ might suggest.

Family-sponsored immigration also includes the spouses and children of lawful

permanent residents (‘‘green card’’ holders) and the adult children and siblings of

U.S. citizens. However, each of these categories is subject to a preference quota that

limits and delays immigration. All of the family-sponsored preference categories are

back-logged at least two years, and some are back-logged ten years or more—these

are not processing delays, this is the waiting time before processing can begin.

Most family-sponsored immigration is accomplished in two steps: first the U.S. citizen or permanent resident files a petition to qualify the spouse or child, and then

(when the quota number is reached) the spouse or child files an application with

the INS or an overseas U.S. consulate to obtain immigrant status.

U.S. citizen spouses and minor children are permitted to file the petition and application concurrently, since there is no wait for the quota, but the spouses and children of lawful permanent residents must wait for a quota number, with the current

minimum wait of over four years. For the immediate families of lawful permanent

residents this raises the terrible choice of whether to obey the immigration laws and

separate their family for several years or keep their family intact in violation of the

law. Adult children and siblings of U.S. citizens are also subject to quotas, which

vary from two to well over ten years.

Preference quotas for family immigration haven’t been increased since 1990, although the demand for family unification has grown. Congress would do well to reconsider whether there should be a quota at all on the immediate family of lawful

permanent residents and to consider generally right-sizing the family immigration

quotas to better meet demand and promote unification.

These preference category quotas are complicated by additional ‘‘per-country’’ limits, which are based on the birthplace of the immigrant. A legacy of the ‘‘national

origin’’ quotas that were abolished in 1965, the per-country limits extend some of

the preference category quotas to twice as long a wait. While waiting for the quota

to file their application for permanent residence, some minor child ‘‘age-out’’ when

they turn 21 years old, which shifts them to preference categories with much longer

waiting periods. For instance, if a child of lawful permanent resident ages-out of the

minor child category, the quota wait increases by almost three years.

10

The age-out problem can also arise after the green card application has been filed.

Approval of such adjustment of status applications can take two years or more due

to processing delays, and if the minor child turns 21 before the application is approved, he or she loses out and has to get back in line in a different preference category. To its credit, the INS has instituted special handling procedures that catch

many of these cases, but all it takes is one slip-up and the application becomes void.

Furthermore, these special handling procedures take additional resources that can

further delay the processing of other cases. A simple change in the law could eliminate this problem entirely, but the present situation is very unforgiving.

Yet another problem arises after the ‘‘green card’’ application is filed. This is because the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) is granted for only one year,

despite the fact that the process will take more than one or two years. Moreover,

there is no credit for timely filing of the renewal, if the immigrant doesn’t have the

new EAD in hand, they can’t lawfully work. As a result, pending green card applicants must file to renew their employment authorization almost every six to nine

months. The solution here is simple—grant EADs to adjustment applicants for the

duration of their adjudication or at least two years, and provide a 240 day grace

period if the renewal is filed on time. This would take all the time pressure off the

INS and the applicants, and would relieve some real hardship.

Still another area needing review is the inability of immediate relatives to immigrate with their minor children. Although an adult U.S. citizen may sponsor his or

her parents, their minor children (the siblings of the U.S. citizen) cannot immigrate

with them, with the consequence that families may be separated for years. Such a

situation suggests the need for a change in the law.

Other initiatives central to family reunification also call for legislative action. A

key to family unification is the permanent restoration of Section 245(i). Section

245(i), which has been extended to April 30, 2001, allows certain groups of eligible

people to obtain their immigrant visas in the United States, so long as eligibility

criteria are satisfied. A permanent restoration would allow immigrants on the brink

of becoming permanent residents to remain in the U.S. while the INS processes

their applications. The restoration of Section 245(i) would allow families to stay together and provide revenue to the INS. Without 245(i), for example, people can face

the possibility of up to a 10-year separation from their families due to the bars to

reentry.

These bars to reentry were enacted in 1996. People who have been unlawfully

present in the U.S. for six months or longer are barred from reentering the U.S.

for three years or ten years. Now with five years of actual experience with the bars

in effect, we can conclude the bars have not fulfilled their intended purpose of serving as a deterrent to people overstaying their visas. Rather they have become simply

an unforgiving punishment that does not fit the violation and whose main result

is to divide and separate families, and force people underground. The law provides

only very limited waivers and exceptions to the three and ten year bars, and no

waiver for the permanent bar until after ten years. Repeal or substantial revision

of these bars should take place in addition to a permanent restoration of Section

245(i).

Under the 1996 laws, new grounds of inadmissibility were created and waivers

were severely restricted. Some of the permanent bars to admission allow for no review and no waiver, regardless of any mitigating facts. The general policy of creating broad grounds of inadmissibility with no opportunity for relief needs to be reconsidered. The agencies need the authority to exercise discretion to take into account

actual circumstances including innocent intent, family ties in the United States, or

other humanitarian considerations.

The affidavit of support is another provision of the 1996 immigration laws that

needs to be reformed to promote family reunification. All family members sponsoring relatives for immigration must complete a legally binding affidavit of support.

In many cases, overly strict interpretations of the requirements have needlessly limited the ability of families to be reunited. It is important to restore broad discretion

in affidavit of support requirements to INS and consular officials. The INS and consulates need the discretion to consider broader evidence in meeting the threshold

public charge minimum requirements, including job offers of applicants. In addition,

the INS needs to reconsider the age and residency requirement in the affidavit of

support. Furthermore, the present requirements place an unfair burden on a widowbeneficiary of a restored spousal petition after the death of the petitioner. In such

a case, the adjustment or immigrant visa application could be denied because the

petitioner is no longer able to sign the affidavit of support. The law should be

changed so that in a case involving the death or mental incapacity of the petitioner,

an alternative affiant may be considered.

11

EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION

Employment-based immigration has historically served several goals. In the increasingly global economy, it helps keep America competitive by attracting some of

the best and the brightest, and international personnel are essential to developing

products that will appeal to other countries and societies. Employment-based immigration also permits the supplementation of the U.S. workforce at many levels, with

protections for the U.S. labor market, its opportunities, wages, and working conditions.

Employment-based immigration is comprised of two types—limited nonimmigrant

stays and employment-based permanent residence.

EMPLOYMENT-BASED NONIMMIGRANTS

For professionals, multinational managers and executives, and certain other occupations, there are a number of nonimmigrant categories that permit lawful stays

and employment in the U.S. The H–1B program for ‘‘specialty occupations′′ is the

most widely used and best known. The subject of legislation in 1998 and 2000, the

H–1B program has the agencies struggling to keep it workable for employers in the

real world.

The H–1B process begins with the submission of a Labor Condition Attestation

(LCA) to the Labor Department, by which the employer promises to meet certain

wage, working conditions, employment, and notice standards. The Labor Department is required by statute to ‘‘approve’’ the LCA within seven days. The employer

then files a petition with the INS, which cannot be approved without the approved

LCA. For employees new to the H–1B program, employment cannot begin until the

petition is approved by INS.

Unfortunately, in attempting to comply with the new laws, the Labor Department

doubled the length of the LCA form in January, and has had great difficulty making

its automated receipt and approval process work. The regular time for routine LCA

approval grew to three to four weeks in February, but for some weeks, up to eighty

percent of the LCAs had to be re-filed due to government operations problems. Add

to this the INS processing time of two to three months, and the entire H–1B processing time grows to three to four months. Needless to say, employers have great

difficulty in keeping up with their business needs when new personnel cannot begin

work for three or four months.

The H–1B program was also the subject of massive and controversial ‘‘interim

final’’ regulations that were published in December 2000 and effective on January

19, 2001. Employers were dismayed that some of the most difficult new requirements for ‘‘non-dependent’’ employers were never published as proposed regulations

for public comment before becoming effective, or appeared to far exceed the spirit

and the letter of the statutory law. Equally troubling was the imposition of complicated new requirements that will require substantial changes in the way that

business is done and records are kept, by large national corporations and small

businesses alike, without any education period or guidance from the Labor Department to help employers come into compliance.

Similar problems with Labor Department H–1B regulations necessitated corrective legislation in 1991 and a federal court injunction in 1997. While many had

hoped that these extreme remedies would not be necessary after the 2000 legislation, it does not appear that the lessons of the past have yet been learned. The public was granted an extension of the comment period to April 19, 2001, and it is

hoped that the Department will now take measures that will obviate the need for

litigation or corrective legislation.

The 2000 Act that increased H–1B nonimmigrant numbers will expire in 2003,

in the middle of the next Congress. Unless extended, the expiration of 2000 Act will

allow the H–1B cap to revert to its 1990 level, which is less than half of current

usage. Thus, it will not be long before the committee will need to address a continuation of the H–1B program that was refined in 2000.

A common complaint of nonimmigrants and their employers is that nonimmigrant

spouses are not granted work authorization as an incidence of their dependent visa.

This is particularly true for intra-company transferees, many of whom have spouses

who were employed prior to their transfer to the U.S., but who now cannot accept

any type of employment unless they separately qualify for a principal nonimmigrant

work visa. In the modern era, in which both spouses of a family often expect to

work, this is a policy that needs to be rectified for each relevant nonimmigrant category.

Employees who qualify can stay lawfully in the U.S. and work as nonimmigrants

while completing the employment-based permanent residence (‘‘green card’’) process.

At the professional and managerial level, almost all beneficiaries (employees) are in

12

fact lawfully employed as nonimmigrants by the petitioning employer during the

green card process, because they can qualify for H, L, E, or other nonimmigrant

visas. It is necessary to employ the nonimmigrant visas because the permanent residence process can take several years to accomplish. Unfortunately, there is no lawful nonimmigrant work status for skilled or other essential workers (other than for

seasonal work such as at resorts), and thus they do not have a legitimate way of

being employed in the U.S. during the lengthy green card process. This is a serious

problem that undermines the integrity of the employment-based immigrant program

and deserves close attention from the committee.

EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE

Current immigration laws provide for several categories of employment-based immigrants, including persons of ‘‘extraordinary ability’’ and those petitioned by a U.S.

employer for employment as a researcher, manager, executive, professional, skilled

or other essential worker.

In most cases, the employment-based immigrant process has three steps: labor

certification, immigrant petition, and adjustment of status application (or immigrant

visa application to a U.S. consulate overseas).

Labor certification is the Department of Labor’s approval of the employer’s labor

market test as a condition to petitioning for an immigrant employee. The employer

applies by precisely reporting the job, wages offered, job requirements, recruitment

efforts, and the results of recruitment. Since the introduction of streamlined procedures in 1996, the labor certification program has seen tremendous improvements;

petitions can take as little as two or three months for ‘‘historically certifiable’’ occupations. On the other hand, applications that are not eligible for the streamlined

procedures remain unapproved for two years or more.

Critics of employment-based immigration deride the labor certification process, although they suggest no workable alternative. Supporters of the program would prefer a system that reflected employers’ real world practices rather than the artificial,

after-the-fact labor market test that is now required. In overhauling the labor certification program, it is possible that an attestation process could be the path to a

more workable and effective approach.

Upon the approval of the labor certification, the employer files the employmentbased immigrant petition with the INS. Although virtually pro forma in many cases,

the INS has an uneven record on petition approvals. Among similar petitions, some

are approved in two or three months, some remain unadjudicated 18 months later

or more. The public has a very difficult time understanding these anomalies, and

employers have urged the INS to adopt a ‘‘first in, first out’’ approach to processing

immigrant petitions.

Once the immigrant petition is approved, the employee may file the adjustment

application, assuming that the quota eligibility is reached. Adjudication of adjustment applications, the end of the green card process, has been a serious problem

for the INS. After a virtual freeze on adjustment adjudications in 1999 and 2000,

applications are once again being adjudicated. However, waits of two years for the

decision are not uncommon.

Due to the low adjudication levels at INS, the number of employment-based immigrant visas issued has been far below the current quota levels set in 1990. At the

same time, the immigration of persons born in China and India was delayed by up

to two or three years due to the per-country limits, despite the fact that tens of

thousands of employment-based visas were going unused. This particular problem

was addressed in the 2000 Act, and we are already beginning to see some relief for

China and India born applicants.

The availability of employment-based immigrant visas is not expected to last. The

1990 immigrant visa levels simply don’t match the levels of employment-based nonimmigrants and their dependents. Put simply, if INS were approving employmentbased green cards at the rate that applications are being filed, we would have backlogs for all nationalities, not just India and China. Once the INS picks up the pace

of adjudications, we will run out of employment-based immigrant numbers. This inevitability will need to be addressed in the near future, perhaps in this Congress,

if the INS is able to improve its adjudication volume.

When the principal immigrant files the adjustment of status application, it is normally accompanied by concurrent applications for the EAD and travel permission

(advance parole). The INS is required by regulation to provide the EAD within 90

days, and it is usually made available at just that point. Unfortunately, as with

family-sponsored cases, the EAD is only granted for one year, although the adjustment process almost always takes longer. And since there is no grace period while

INS adjudicates the renewal, applicants are obligated to file the renewal almost six

13

months before the expiration. As a result, applicants must file for renewal of their

EAD only months after the first EAD is approved. As noted above, this situation

could be remedied easily by changing the EAD duration or allowing for a grace period.

DIVERSITY VISA LOTTERY PROGRAM

Our immigration law also provides for a visa lottery that allots 55,000 visas per

year to nationals of countries with low ‘‘sending’’ levels (of immigrants to the U.S.)

that are located in ‘‘low sending’’ regions. The program is promoted to encourage diversity in legal immigration.

ASYLUM FROM PERSECUTION

America has long stood as a beacon and haven to refugees seeking protection from

persecution in other countries. Americans have respected this principle since the

earliest days of our nation, and the obligation to protect refugees has been codified

in international law through treaties and protocols. Our current asylum laws were

enacted in 1980, and substantially restricted in 1996.

Generally, persons fleeing persecution apply for asylum at a port of entry upon

arrival or after they have been in the U.S. for a period of time. One year after a

grant of asylum by the INS or an Immigration Judge, the individual is permitted

to apply for adjustment to permanent residence. Numerous studies have examined

and confirmed the difficulty that many refugees have coming forward to speak about

their persecution, particularly if they have been subject to torture or witnessed grisly acts or killings.

When Congress enacted the provisions for ‘‘expedited removal’’ (exclusion without

hearing) at the ports of entry and the requirement of mandatory detention, there

was an attempt to permit asylum seekers to avoid expedited removal and detention.

Regrettably, the well-intentioned protection procedures have not been adequate to

prevent the incarceration of bona fide refugees who, sometimes after many months

on incarceration, are finally recognized as worthy of asylum protection. For individuals who make it into the U.S. and are not incarcerated, there remains the new provision that requires that the asylum application must be filed within one year of

entry, or it will not be entertained, regardless of the merits of the asylum claim.

The 1996 law also lowered the number of asylum grantees who could be granted

permanent residence to 5000 persons per year. Since approvals of asylum applications are much higher than this, the backlog of asylees seeking permanent residence

grows larger every year. Without permanent residence, these refugees have not yet

really been accepted in American society, and they are not permitted to begin acquiring the required years of residence to qualify for naturalization.

The draconian provisions enacted in 1996 were a reflection of certain perceptions

of the time, but experience has shown that these restrictions have caused more

hardship to refugees and done more harm to our national principles than the perceived problems they were supposed to address. Now five years later, the committee

would do well to review the effectiveness and the harm caused by these provisions

and make recommendations for their amendment or elimination.

NATURALIZATION

Another value long held by Americans is that newcomers who subscribe to our

principles and the U.S. Constitution should be able to become citizens without great

difficulty. This approach is in sharp contrast to many other countries that look only

to the parents to determine citizenship (‘‘blood’’) or that have very lengthy, difficult

and subjective naturalization procedures.

A major focus of the INS in the past decade, naturalization is very popular among

permanent residents and the numbers of naturalized citizens has increased significantly. These increased numbers are in spite of the fact that naturalization is ‘‘hard

to get started’’ (according to many would-be applicants) and takes a significant

amount of time to complete.

AGENCIES ADJUDICATING IMMIGRATION PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS

In its ideal form, the U.S. immigration process is a system of laws and objective

requirements, in contrast to so many countries where immigration procedures are

unwritten and qualifying criteria are uncertain or largely subjective.

Unfortunately, the actual practice can lag far behind these important ideals. Although great strides have been made in some areas, the responsible government

agencies have not yet achieved the uniformity, predictability, or timeliness that the

public expects and deserves in the adjudication of applications and petitions. The

14

adjudication of immigration benefits is ultimately a ‘‘service′′ enterprise, but not all

levels of agency management understand this. All too often, the outcome of an the

application hinges on the particular region it is filed in and the particular examiner

who processes the case. This is particularly noticeable to national employers who

petition for similar cases around the country and are forced daily to comply with

‘‘special’’ rules for each jurisdiction, although nation-wide law is being applied. Similarly, employers and their attorneys are too often dismayed by approvals and denials of almost identical petitions without an explanation.

Last year’s legislation set out a number of guidelines for processing times that,

if followed, would bring great improvements. In addition, the legislation authorized

appropriations to supplement the funds already received from application fees of the

examinations fee account. As the committee knows, immigration enforcement activities are supported by appropriations, while all INS adjudications are funded solely

by user fees. Some appropriations for the adjudications function, if targeted and

properly monitored, could provide the resources to the INS to develop the infrastructure needed to make substantial productivity gains in the future.

It is also likely that the committee will address the separation of the enforcement

and adjudication functions of the INS. While all sides appear to agree that the functions need to be separated, it is important to recognize that the separation functions

will need coordination and need to be accountable to a high level, single office with

the authority to make decisions that are binding on both functions. While considering INS reorganization, Congress needs to ensure that adequate congressional appropriations are made available to adjudications to improve customer service and

to offset the costs of those adjudications for which no fee is charged or from which

funds are diverted.

There are several different proposals on this subject, and the language of the bill

introduced last Congress in the Senate by the former chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee would make a good starting point for consideration.

Attached at the end is a brief list of recommended INS administration actions

that would accomplish significant improvements for family and business petitioners

and their immigrant beneficiaries, that could take place prior to any reorganization

and that, in fact, would help ensure that any reorganization of the INS is successful.

CONCLUSION

U.S. immigration policy based admissions on three main pillars: family unification, employment, and protection of refugees. Our policies and laws in all three

areas have become out of date as to numbers and purposes, and overly restricted

by patchwork of accumulated amendments and rigid rules. The fact that all three

areas are needlessly complicated and substantially backlogged points clearly to the

need for streamlining and simplification to produce modern policies and procedures

that will work long into the 21st Century.

Interested members of the public and their organizations are eager to work with

the committee to develop up-to-date and smarter immigration policy and practices.

Through its oversight responsibility, the committee needs to help guide the agencies

to succeed in providing timely, predictable, affordable, and accurate adjudications.

Through legislation, the committee will need to review our out-of-date quota limits

for immigrant and nonimmigrant categories and raise them to meet America’s interests in the 21st Century. In addition, the committee will need to look to new solutions and new categories to provide for lawful regulation of entry and work authorization for those our country needs.

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify on this important subject.

WARREN R. LEIDEN

Attachment

RECOMMENDED INS ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

The following actions can be taken by INS without statutory change, and would

provide significant improvements to both efficiency for the agency and outcomes for

the public.

• Re-institute concurrent filings of employment-based immigrant petitions and adjustments of status. Prior to the advent of the INS Service Centers, all adjustment of status applications and immigrant visas petitions were filed at local district offices. When INS instituted the Service Centers, the agency initially

transferred all processing of immigrant visa petitions to the service centers, but

continued to require that adjustment of status applications be filed at the local

offices. This requirement meant that employment-based immigrants had to wait

until the Service Center had approved their immigrant visa petition until they

15

could file for adjustment of status at the local office, adding many months to

the process, and delaying the time when they could file for employment authorization. For individuals whose nonimmigrant status was expiring, or children of

applicants who were approaching 21, this delay often meant losing eligibility for

adjustment and work authorization. Now that the INS has moved adjustment

of status processing to the Service Centers as well, there is no need to continue

to require separate filing of the petition and adjustment applications. Concurrent filing would eliminate the hardship caused to immigrants and their families from the delays and backlogs in processing immigrant visa petitions, preserve their work authorization and the eligibility of dependent children who

might otherwise ‘‘age out.’’ • Lengthen the validity period of Employment Authorization Documents and combine them with Advance Parole. Current INS regulations allow applicants for

adjustment of status to apply for work authorization. Regulations also prohibit

adjustment applicants from traveling abroad without first obtaining permission

from the INS (called Advance Parole). The vast majority of adjustment applicants apply for both of these documents concurrently with their adjustment applications. INS policy is to issue work authorization and advance parole only for

one year. If the adjustment applications take longer than one year to process

(which is the normal case), the applicant must reapply for both documents and

pay additional fees. These applications further aggravate the INS workload, and

are a nuisance for applicants. INS should provide work authorization and advance parole through the anticipated duration of the adjustment processing, and

should combine these documents into one to minimize processing and backlog. • Allow individuals to travel outside the U.S. while extension or changes of status

requests are pending. Current INS policy and regulations are extremely ambiguous with regard to the status of applications for extension or change of status

if the individual must travel abroad while the case is pending. In some circumstances the INS considers the petition ‘‘abandoned’’ and in others will process the case to conclusion, but require the individual to wait outside of the U.S.

until the approval is issued, or file an additional application after entry to have

the decision ‘‘apply’’ in their case. To avoid unnecessarily duplicative filings

upon return to the U.S. of these individuals, INS should determine that such

cases may continue while the beneficiary is temporarily abroad, and should

state categorically that any decision reached after the return of the individual

to change or extend their status is binding, regardless of any intervening departure. • Reduce the proliferation of resource-intensive Requests for Evidence (RFEs). INS

adjudicators are given wide latitude in interpreting the eligibility standards for

immigrant and nonimmigrant visa categories, resulting in an increasing number of requests for evidence. INS customers receive wildly inconsistent adjudications and RFEs requesting documentation unrelated to any known standards in

statute or regulation. In addition, each of these RFEs requires the examiner to

take extra time to articulate the request, a supervisor’s review, and resources

to print and mail. It also requires additional time and resources to process and

review the responses from the applicants/petitioners, a waste of valuable resources. By developing and publicizing clearly articulated standards for eligibility, the Service would improve consistency and reduce its workload.

• Enforce a policy of not revisiting decisions already made in the absence of fraud

or changed law or facts. Currently, INS adjudicators are issuing RFEs and denials on such matters as extensions of status where there has been no change in

the previously approved circumstances, wasting INS and public resources.

• Provide for the issuance of EADs to fiance ́es with approval of the fiance ́e petition.

INS regulations provide that K–1 fiance ́es of U.S. citizens who enter the U.S.

to get married are authorized to work incident to their status. However, the

Service requires these individuals to file a separate application for an Employment Authorization Document after they arrive, and wait up to 90 days for

issuance of the card (K–1 status requires the couple to be married within 90

days of entry). To avoid needless duplication of adjudications, the INS should

automatically issue an employment authorization document with the petition

approval, so the individual may commence work immediately upon entry.

• Enable foreign student advisors to authorize optional practical training. Foreign

students in F–1 status are eligible for two primary types of ‘‘practical training’’

work authorization: curricular practical training (which involves an established

training program that is part of the curriculum) and optional practical training

(which is not directly part of the curriculum and which can be undertaken during studies or for one year after graduation). Currently, the foreign student advisor at the institution may authorize curricular practical training by endorsing

16

the student’s documents. However, the student must apply to INS for an Employment Authorization Document to engage in optional practical training. Enabling foreign student advisors to authorize optional practical training would

avoid the needless processing of routinely approved applications. • Develop standardized and accurate processing time reports and make them available on the web. Currently, each of the four INS Service Centers has its own

format for reporting its processing times for different petitions and applications,

and this information is not generally available to the public on the INS web

site. In addition, the processing times do not reflect the actual time between the

date the Center receives a case and the date the applicant/petitioner receives

a decision. The Centers do not report their ‘‘front log,’’ the delay between the

date a case is physically received and the date it is entered into their computer

database, nor the delays between the date a decision is made and the date that

decision is actually mailed. In addition, the Centers do not report the oldest

date of any cases pending, rather the average date that the ‘‘majority’’ of cases

pending were filed.

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. Leiden, and I apologize

for mispronouncing your name at the outset. I look forward to some

questions and discussion, and thank you for sharing your expertise.

You have been involved in this field for a long time. As I dig into

it, I notice the complexity of it is great, so I appreciate your simplifying some of it for us.

Mr. Moore, it is delightful to have you here in the Committee

room ready to testify, and we look forward to hearing your comments.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN MOORE, SENIOR FELLOW, CATO

INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Senator Brownback. It is a pleasure and

a privilege to testify on this important subject. I am an economist

and I thought I would talk a little bit about the economic consequences of immigration.

I apologize for being late. My immigrant cab driver got lost. I am

only joking, actually, but I did have an immigrant cab driver.

Senator Durbin, I am a fellow Chicagoan, so I know what you

speak of when you talk about the immigrant neighborhoods in Chicago. It is one of the real rich traditions of that great city.

I think that what is going on in this issue is that what has really

emerged over the last 15 or 20 years is a consensus among economists on immigration that you don’t see on most other issues that

you all deal with everyday. On budget and tax issues, there is so

much contradictory evidence from economists about what is good

for our economy, and on labor issues, and so on.

I don’t think that is so on immigration. I think today we really

do have a pretty solid consensus now that immigrants are, on balance, good for the economy. Now, that is not to say there aren’t

some costs associated with immigration, but I think that if you look

at the studies by groups ranging from the Cato Institute, to the

Urban Institute, to Hoover, to the National Research Council, all

of these groups are coming out with the same kinds of direction,

which is that the impact is positive, not negative. That is the big

picture.

Now, you asked, Senator, since this is your first hearing, for just

a bit of a scene-setting, and I thought I would just spend my few

minutes doing that. And if I may, I would just ask if my written

testimony could be submitted for the record and then I thought I

would just talk about some of the highlights.

17

Chairman BROWNBACK. It will be in the record.

Mr. MOORE. What I thought would be most helpful, because I

really believe a picture is worth a thousand words, is if you have

a copy of my testimony, I thought I would just go through some of

the charts that we have at the back of the testimony. There are 9

or 10 charts, and if you have that, I thought I would just quickly

go through some of the demographic and economic impact data.

Chart 1 shows you basically something that is just the total

number of immigrants that come to this country throughout history, starting in the early 1800’s. As this chart shows, we are now

in what I call the third great wave of immigration to this country.

The first great wave was in the middle of the 19th century. The

second great wave was the Ellis Island immigrants who came

around 1900, and as you can see, there is a big spike in that period

between about 1900 and 1920.

Since around the mid–1970’s, we have been experiencing a third

great wave, and the number of immigrants who are coming in

today in absolute numbers is roughly the same numbers that came

in around 1900. So this is a fairly high number in terms of absolute

numbers.

If you try to look at both legal and illegal immigration together,

the estimates are that we let about 1 million foreign-born into the

country per year. That is the absolute number, but if you look at

Graph 2, what you will see is that really the best way of measuring

the impact of immigration on our society and our economy is how

many immigrants are we letting in relative to how many people are

already in the country.

There, you can see that actually we are fairly low with respect

to immigration today. We let about 4 immigrants in per year, per

1,000 native residents of the country. That is substantially lower

than many previous periods in history, although it is true that

since around 1950 that number has been rising to some extent.

Finally, on Figure 3, this just shows you what percentage of

Americans here today are foreign-born, how much of a country of

immigrants are we today. This number has also been rising since

about 1970. We are now, I think, according to the 2000 Census

data, at about 9 to 10 percent of Americans now being foreign-born.

That is substantially higher than, for example, in 1970, but the historical average is about 10 to 11 percent. So we are actually slightly lower a Nation of foreign-born today than we have been throughout our history.

So the point here is just that I don’t think the numbers are out

of control. They are higher than they have been in some of the past

decades, but in terms of an historical perspective, we are not really

very high with respect to our numbers.

Now, if you look at the last 20 years, as I said before, the numbers have been rising. We have allowed somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 million immigrants into the United States over the

last 20 years, and that is a fairly large number of people.

The interesting thing is that that period of fairly high levels of

immigration have also corresponded with a period of fairly high

economic prosperity. These have been prosperous times, except for

the last 3 or 4 months, for Americans. In fact, if you look at the

statistics of what people thought would be the impact of immigraVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:30 Feb 21, 2002 Jkt 077276 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\HEARINGS\77276.TXT SJUD4 PsN: SJUD4
18

tion, people were concerned, for example, that if we let in a lot of

immigrants, it would increase poverty, it would increase unemployment of natives, and so on.

The next series of chart just show that actually over this period,

for example, poverty rates especially for black Americans have fallen, even though immigration has been relatively high. If you look

at Figures 5 and 6, it shows that real median family income has

continued to rise even as immigration has been relatively high. Interestingly enough, a lot of the immigrant opponents argue that

immigration is bad for black Americans. But the truth is that this

period has actually been a period of relative income growth for African-Americans. The unemployment rate in this era has fallen

dramatically, even though we have had a number of immigrants

come in. In fact, for black Americans the unemployment rate has

fallen by half in the last 20 years.

If you look at Figure 8, this is one of the most important points

of our study, and that is that the impact of immigration on taxes

and public services is one of the most important economic consequences of immigration.

What we find is that immigrants actually have a fairly positive

impact on the Federal deficit situation, and the reason is that immigrants tend to come to the United States when they are young,

and that means that we get the benefit of their working years. Oftentimes, average immigrants come to the United States between

the ages of 18 and 30, and that means that for their working lives

we get the benefit of their labor, whereas in many cases they were

educated by the sending country. That is a huge net positive impact of immigration.

The other part of this is that very few immigrants come to the

United States when they are over the age of 65, and that means

when you look at the major Federal program in the country, which

of course is Social Security, you get a real large one-generation net

benefit from immigrants, because what happens is the immigrants

come in at, say, age 25 and they work for 40 years, paying payroll

taxes during those years.

Now, of course, when they retire they will get Social Security,

but their children will be paying in, paying for their benefits. So

you get this kind of one-generation net benefit from immigrants,

and it is an important fiscal benefit.

In fact, just skipping ahead, because I see my time is up and I

will close this out, but if you look at Table 11, what it shows is that

only about 3 percent of immigrants who come to the United States

are over the age of 65. That means very few are collecting Social

Security. By the way, even those who do arrive over the age of 65

are not eligible for Social Security because they didn’t pay into the

program.

But if you look at Table 12—and this is kind of the crux of the

matter—if you look at the Social Security actuary numbers, what

they show is that immigrants are an incredibly important benefit

to the financial solvency of both the Social Security and Medicare

systems. We just basically used the Social Security Administration

actuary numbers to calculate what that net benefit is to Americans,

and over the next 50 years the net benefit of allowing about

800,000 to 1 million immigrants per year, which is sort of the curVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:30 Feb 21, 2002 Jkt 077276 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\HEARINGS\77276.TXT SJUD4 PsN: SJUD4
19

rent policy, will lead to a net benefit of about $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion to the Social Security system.

So I think I will just conclude this by saying I think the evidence

is fairly solid that immigrants don’t cost native Americans. They

benefit our economy, and I would hope that we stick with the policy

that we have right now because we have kind of inadvertently

stumbled upon an immigration policy that works pretty well for the

immigrants and native-born Americans as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]

STEPHEN MOORE, SENIOR FELLOW IN ECONOMICS, CATO INSTITUTE

Thank you Senator Brownback for the privilege of being asked to testify before

your Committee on the impact of immigrants on the U.S. economy.

I am very pleased that despite the partisan battles over economic issues that the

Senate finds itself embroiled in on an almost daily basis, a consensus seems to have

emerged in the Congress that immigrants are—as they have been throughout most

of our history—beneficial to our economy and assets to our society in other ways

as well. This favorable attitude regarding immigration on Capitol Hill is evidenced

by the pro-immigrant legislation that has passed the House and Senate in recent

years and the wise rejection of many anti-immigration measures.

This pro-immigration environment that has emerged on Capitol Hill reflects the

growing consensus within the economics profession that immigrants are on balance

economic assets, not liabilities. To be sure, economists still argue about the size of

the benefit of immigration to the U.S. economy, but almost all of the best research

indicates that the direction of the impact is on balance positive. There is also lively

debate about whether some groups of Americans—the lowest skilled Americans,

blacks, earlier arriving immigrants, for example—are adversely impacted by immigration. But even here, I am pleased to report that more and more of the research

findings seems to suggest that the extent to which low income Americans are hurt

by the presence of immigrants has been exaggerated.

Let us start with the big picture. The past 20 years has been a period of fairly

high levels of immigration, particularly in absolute numbers. See Figure 1. Over the

past 20 years, the United States has legally admitted roughly 15 million immigrants

and refugees. We now admit almost 4 new immigrants per year for every 1000

Americans, which is higher than in the past 50 years, but about half the historical

average. See Figure 2. Still, the percentage of Americans that are foreign born has

risen from about 6% in the 1970s to almost 10% today. See Figure 3.

At earlier times in our nation’s history, as many as 15% of Americans were foreign born. So although our current levels of immigration are by no means unprecedented, it is true, nonetheless, that for the past 25 years, the U.S. has been quite

generous in immigrant admissions and that we are now in the midst of a new great

wave of immigration to these shores not experienced since the great wave of Europeans who arrived through Ellis Island at the turn of the last century.

If immigrants were economically harmful, we would certainly expect to see visible

signs of the damage to the economy by now. In fact, 20 years ago, many advocates

of lower level of immigration, or even in some extreme cases, a moratorium on immigration, argued that continued high levels of immigration would lead to such economic problems as: (1) increased unemployment for native born workers; (2) higher

poverty rates of native born Americans; (3) lower incomes for American workers; (4)

increased economic problems for minority workers; (5) a huge surge in welfare dependency; and (6) lower overall rates of economic growth.

But it didn’t happen. None of these claims have been evidenced in the U.S economy.

Now it is undeniable that when immigrants come to the United States, the labor

force competition may very well cause some American born workers to lose their

jobs (in the short term) through displacement; they may cause some wage rates to

fall or not rise as fast as they might have otherwise, and some immigrants do take

advantage of the welfare system. The relevant policy question is whether we have

observed these impacts on an economy-wide level. And here there is little debate.

High levels of immigration have corresponded with improvement in each of these

areas, not with the problems getting worse. For example:

• UNEMPLOYMENT—In the period 1978–82 the U.S. unemployment rate was between 6 and 8%. Today, the U.S. unemployment rate is between 4 and 5%. The

U.S. economy has shown a remarkable ability to absorb new workers into the

20

economy—both natives and immigrants—without causing job losses. Between

1980 and 2000 the U.S. became a job creation machine, with some 35 million

more Americans employed today than 20 years ago. The U.S. has created more

new jobs in the past 20 years than all of Japan and Europe combined since

1980. In fact, despite the fact that the U.S. takes in nearly as many immigrants

in a year as does all of Japan and Europe combined, it is the U.S.—the nation

of immigrants—that now has the lowest unemployment rate in the industrialized world. • POVERTY—The poverty rate for Americans has fallen over the past 20 years for

all races. The latest poverty rate statistics indicate that poverty is lower than

at anytime since the mid 1970s. See Figure 4. A recent study by the Center of

Immigration Studies reports that since 1980 the rate of poverty among immigrants has risen. Of course, if the overall level of poverty has fallen during this

period, it means that the reduction in poverty for native born Americans has

been all the more impressive. In sum, there is no evidence that immigrants increase poverty among natives, in fact the evidence suggests the opposite effect. • WELFARE USE—There is no evidence that immigration has led to higher rates

of welfare dependency. Since 1993, welfare caseloads have fallen by an astonishing 50% across the nation. In fact, welfare usage of the foreign born has fallen

faster than for native-born Americans. • INCOMES—Median family income in the U.S. has risen over the period 1981– 1998 from $39,000 to $45,800 or by roughly 16 percent, according to recent Census Bureau data. With inflation properly measured, median family income has

risen since 1981 by closer to 25 percent. Again, wage suppression does not appear to have occurred in this period of high immigration. See Figure 5. • IMPACT ON MINORITIES—There is still in America far too wide an income gap

between the races. But over the past 20 years of high levels of immigration, the

income gap has actually shrunk, not widened. See Figure 6. The income gap between blacks and white and between men and women has narrowed to its lowest level in recorded history. From 1981 to from 60 percent of 69 percent—the

highest ever recorded. For women, the gap narrowed from 89 percent to 94 percent. The black unemployment rate has fallen much faster then the white unemployment rate, as has the black poverty rate. See Figure 7. In sum, we have

had record immigration and we have had record economic improvements for

blacks.

What can we conclude about the impact of immigration on the U.S. economy since

1980? Over the past 20 years the U.S.

What can we conclude about the impact of immigration on the U.S. economy since 1980? Over the past 20 years the U.S. economy has experienced a $10 to $15 trillion

increase in net wealth, according the Federal Reserve Board data, the GDP has

grown by nearly 80 percent (after inflation), and the inflation rate has fallen to

nearly zero. The National Bureau of Economic Research recently described the past

18 years as the longest and strongest period of sustained prosperity in the U.S. in

this century. If immigrants are somehow a ‘‘cost’’ to the U.S. economy, that cost has

been virtually invisible. The experience of the past two decades puts a huge burden

on the shoulders of those who contend that immigrants are economically burdensome. But I believe a stronger case can be made. Immigrants have contributed directly

to America’s unprecedented economic expansion of the past two decades. Moreover,

I believe the demographic evidence suggests that it will be in America’s self-interest

to continue admitting immigrants over at least the next 20 years.

In 1998 I completed a study jointly published by the Cato Institute on the economic and fiscal impact of immigrants to the United States. The study was entitled

‘‘A Fiscal Portrait of the Newest Americans.’’ I would like to insert the study in the

record. But allow me to now relate to you the major conclusions based on our own

research findings and corroborated by several dozen prestigious economic studies

published in major economic journals.

(1) Immigrants and their children increase economic growth. In the most comprehensive study ever conducted on immigration, the National Research Council of the

National Academy of Sciences found that immigrants inflate the incomes of

U.S.-born workers by at least $10 billion each year. This estimate is highly conservative because it does not include the impact of immigrant-owned businesses

or the impact of high-skilled immigrants on overall productivity. Still, the NRC

estimates that the typical immigrant and his or her children pay an estimated

$80,000 more in taxes that they will receive in local, state and federal benefits

over their lifetimes.

(2) Immigrants pay their own way when it comes to services used and taxes paid.

Immigrants use many government services—particularly at the state and local

21

levels—but they are also pay a lot in taxes. Conservatively estimated, in 1998

immigrant households paid an estimated $133 billion in direct taxes to federal,

state and local governments. Adding the tax receipts paid by immigrant businesses brings the total annual tax contributions of immigrants to about $162

billion for 1998. In any given year, immigrants may use more in services than

they pay in taxes, but over their lifetimes, immigrants are a fiscal bargain to

native taxpayers. As their earnings rise over time, immigrant taxes exceed the

benefits received. See Figure 8.

(3) Not all immigrants make the same tax payments or impose the same costs. The

best predictors of immigrant success and thus their tax payments are their skill levels, education attainment, and ability to speak English. In general, low-skilled, loweducated immigrants and non-English speaking immigrants use more government

services and pay less in taxes than those with high skills.

(4) Immigrants have a rapid rate of economic assimilation after they arrive in the

U.S. As noted above, one of the most important economic characteristics of immigrants is that their earnings rise over time in the U.S. Hence, during their first

years after arrival in the U.S. earnings are low and immigrants typically are net

drains on the public coffers. But over time—usually after 10–15 years in the U.S—

they turn into net contributors. This economic assimilation pattern varies by ethnicity and country of origin, but is still evident today as it was 30 years ago when

researchers first began to study the rate of economic success by immigrants over

time. We also this economic assimilation when it comes to poverty rates, unemployment, and home ownership. Figure 9 and 10.

(5) The age profile of immigrants is a huge demographic bonus to native-born

Americans. Most immigrants arrive in the United States in the prime of their working years. For example, more than 75 percent of immigrants who come to the U.S.

are above the age of 18 upon arrival. This means that there are roughly 17.5 million

immigrants in the U.S. today whose educational and rearing costs were borne by

the citizens of the sending country, not American taxpayers. The total discounted

present value windfall to the United States of obtaining this human capital at no

expense to American taxpayers is roughly $1.43 trillion. Immigration can be thought

of as an enormous $1.4 trillion transfer of wealth from the rest of the world to the

United States Immigration is a form of reverse foreign aid.

(6) Immigrants are huge net contributors to the Social Security and Medicare programs. Only 3 percent of immigrants enter the U.S. over the age of 65, whereas 12

percent of Americans are over 65—and that percentage will grow to 15% within 20

years. Based on the calculations of the actuaries at the Social Security Administration, this study estimates the total value to the Social Security system from current

levels of immigration. I find that the total net benefit (taxes paid over benefits received) to the Social Security system in 1998 dollars from continuing current levels

of immigration is nearly $500 billion from 1998–2022 and nearly $2.0 trillion

through 2072. Continuing immigration is an essential component to solving the long

term financing problem of the Social Security system.

(7) Immigrant entrepreneurs are a major source of new jobs and vitality in the

American economy. Most immigrant businesses—like most businesses started by

American-born entrepreneurs—are not highly successful or large employers. But

many of America’s largest and most profitable businesses in today were started by

immigrants Immigrants who entered the U.S. as refugees, economic immigrants, or

family-sponsored immigrants are now at the helm of some of the nation’s leading

and rapidly growing technology businesses: Hungarian-born Andrew S. Grove, recently retired as Chairman and CEO of Intel; Algerian-born Eric Benhamou, heads

3Com Corp; Iranian-born brothers Farzad and Farid Dibachi founded and heads

Diba, Inc.; and Uganda-born Ajay Shah, is the chief executive of Smart Modules

Technologies. The Table shows the income and employment generated by 10 highly

successful immigrant firms. These 10 firms alone generated $28 billion in revenues

and employed 75,000 American workers in 1997. The tax revenues paid in 1997 by

the companies directly and their employees was at least $3 billion.

IMMIGRATION AND THE DEMOGRAPHIC CRISIS IN DEVELOPED NATIONS

One of the greatest unheralded economic challenges facing the industrialized nations is the demographic bubble due to unprecedented low birth rates. Economists

are just starting to confront the huge economic challenge that the population implosion represents to the developed nations of the world. The birth rates in nations like

Japan, Germany, France, Spain, and Italy are well below replacement level fertility.

The U.S. is just slightly below replacement level fertility. Some industrialized nations, including Japan, Germany, France, Spain, and Italy, are significantly below

22

replacement level fertility and could experience a severe graying of their workforces.

See Figure 14. The U.S., by contrast has a demographic safety value: immigration.

This aging of workforces around the world could have profoundly negative impacts

on the economies of many of America’s major competitors. Consider, for example,

the level of unfounded liabilities in pension programs around the world. As bad as

our Social Security liability problem is, it is dwarfed by the huge levels of red ink

in the European nations. Immigration will allow the U.S. to smooth out the bumps

in our demographic wave in productive ways that most of our competitor nations

will not or cannot allow. Our immigrant heritage allows us to bring in productive

immigrant workers, who will, help pay the cost of the retirement benefits of everyone sitting in this hearing room.

POLICY CONCLUSIONS

The U.S. legal immigration system works remarkably well, given that it has been

crafted in a piecemeal way over many years. Most immigrants who come to the U.S.

today are economic contributors on net. The system of family and employer sponsored immigration is effective in getting high quality immigrants to come to the U.S.

and absorbing them rapidly into the labor force and the culture. Immigrant workers

have brought a flexibility and a work ethic to the U.S. labor market that is sorely

absent in many of our major competitor nations.

It is noteworthy that it was not so many years ago that anti-immigration groups

would point glowingly to Japan as an example of a nation that prospers without immigration. Japan is now entering its second decade of depression. Part of the problem in Japan has been economic policy mistakes. But some of its economic maladies

are a result of low birth rates and Also, the aging of the workforce in Japan is a

horrendous demographic crisis in that nation. The absence of immigrants in Japan

has already come to haunt this once formidable economic powerhouse.

It would be economically advantageous to the U.S. to admit more—perhaps twice

as many—highly skilled immigrants each year. This is not to say that low skilled

immigrants are undesirable. But the economic benefits to natives of immigrants

with high skill and education levels is higher than of immigrants with low skill and

education levels. It is also true that younger working age immigrants are more beneficial than older immigrants.

It is worth emphasizing that many of the immigrants who have made the largest

contributions in our society in recent times came to the U.S. without the characteristics that often presage success. The initial starting place of an immigrant is not

always predictive of future success on these shores. Andrew Grove, co-founder of

Intel, came to the America as a refugee and a family that had no money, no skills,

and no special prospects for greatness. No economist would have likely predicted the

greatness he achieved. Social scientists have begun to try to build profiles of immigrant success—by examining skill levels, education, ethnicity, and so on. Such studies are not always very predictive of economic success in the U.S.

It is in America’s economic self-interest—and in the interests of immigrants themselves—that we keep the golden gates open to newcomers from every region of the

world. The net gains to U.S. workers and retirees are in the trillions of dollars.

Given the coming retirement of some 75 million baby boomers, we need the young

and energetic immigrants now more than ever before and therefore we need Congress to keep the Golden Gates open.

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you. I am just flipping ahead to

your charts, and I didn’t mean for you to have to cutoff too quick.

We will run the clock at 7 minutes here, Dick, if that is OK, and

we can bounce back and forth.

Your Chart 15—does that show what happens in countries that

don’t have the level of immigration that the United States has?

34

Mr. MOORE. What this shows is the long-term pension deficits of

many of our industrialized competitors. What it shows is that although we obviously have a problem with our long-term Social Security solvency, other countries have a much more severe problems,

and that is a result of two factors, Senator.

One is that these other countries have very low birth rates. In

fact, if you look at Table 14, which is the one preceding it, it just

shows you that there are now 50 countries in the world today that

actually have fertility rates that are below replacement level, and

these are most of the industrialized countries. Japan France, Italy,

Germany, and Spain have fertility rates that are, I would argue,

of almost crisis levels in terms of how low their fertility rates are.

The United States doesn’t face that same problem, and the reason is our birth rate has not fallen as much as other countries has.

But the other is that we have this incredible advantage. We have

what I call a demographic safety valve, and that safety valve is

that we can sort of smooth out this demographic problem from the

huge baby-boom generation by letting in young immigrants. Japan

and Italy and Spain don’t have that ability because they are not

countries that accept many immigrants.

Chairman BROWNBACK. By economist’s standards, are we at an

optimal immigration level, then, when you look at all of these factors? Is that discussed by economists much?

Mr. MOORE. It is really difficult to say.

Chairman BROWNBACK. I kind of hate to look at it from a numbers perspective because they are people that we are talking about.

Mr. MOORE. It is very difficult to say, and I would not hazard

to guess what the optimal number is. What I will say is the policy

that we have right now seems to be—we are able to absorb this

number that has come in. It is not causing social problems. The

economy has proven well able to absorb these numbers of immigrants.

For example, if you look at unemployment rates, although we

have been the country among industrialized countries that has let

in more immigrants than all of the other industrialized countries

combined, guess what? We have half the unemployment rate of

most of these other countries. So our economy has shown an incredible resilience in terms of absorbing these immigrants.

If you asked me what my optimal policy would be, I would think

we could let more immigrants in, but I am pretty happy with the

policy we have right now, too.

Chairman BROWNBACK. Is it safe to say that most economists

agree that there is not a connection between immigration levels

and unemployment rates?

Mr. MOORE. Yes. I think there is a fairly strong consensus among

economists that there is a very weak relationship between immigration and unemployment. In fact, all these studies find almost no

relationship. There is some controversy about whether immigrants

cause lower wages in some certain occupations. I mean, we were

talking about cab drivers. There is some argument that is made

that when you let in a number of immigrants in, say, Chicago, they

may be holding down the wage rate for what cab drivers might

make. But those wage limitations are only found in some few speVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:30 Feb 21, 2002 Jkt 077276 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\HEARINGS\77276.TXT SJUD4 PsN: SJUD4
35

cific industries and you don’t find it economy-wide or even citywide.

Chairman BROWNBACK. Mr. Leiden, I was disappointed to see the

figure that the number of refugees that we have allowed into

America over the past several years has declined by 40 percent.

Now, I don’t know if you have looked at these figures or numbers,

or if you have any thoughts as to why is that number down. I have

had different people explain and give different reasons to me, but

that was a striking number to me as a new member of this Committee to see.

What is your take of why that number has decreased so substantially in recent years?

Mr. LEIDEN. Well, I am not sure I can explain the past history,

although it is disturbing, as well, to me knowing how many displaced persons, how many refugees there are around the world. My

understanding is that the refugee admissions number is set close

to the beginning of the fiscal year, and I think it is something that

the Committee really should be looking closely at.

Chairman BROWNBACK. As a person who has been on the Foreign

Relations Committee who has traveled to a number of very difficult

spots in the world, it is not that there is a shortage of refugees.

I have been in dire situations and circumstances where the United

States is doing quite a bit to try to help as far as feeding assistance

and health care assistance. We have got some wonderful NGO’s out

there that are really shouldering much of that difficulty, but we

could also do a lot more, I think, in trying to resolve some of these

conflicts, a lot of the plight, but also taking more refugees ourselves. I was startled by that number, so it is something I want to

look at more.

Senator Durbin?

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I find myself

agreeing with the Cato Institute— Chairman BROWNBACK. The hearing is adjourned.

[Laughter.]

Senator DURBIN. I am reminded of Sister Mary Casimir, who

used to exhort me to examine my conscience from time to time.

Mr. Moore, let me say that I do accept your premise and I think

you are right, and I like the information you have given us here

about our Nation’s ability to absorb new numbers, but let me take

it the next step in pure economic terms.

If I read the paper correctly, in the last 10 years we have seen

a 60-percent increase in the Hispanic population in the United

States. In our home State of Illinois, the number is 69 percent— a dramatic influx of Hispanics into the United States, into Illinois

and many other States.

At the same time, the New York Times reported about 2 weeks

ago that when it came to school drop-outs, the drop-out rate among

white students was about 8 percent, among African-Americans

about 12 percent, among Hispanics 30 percent, 31 percent for

Latinos. Now, in purely economic terms, not whether it tugs at

your heart at not, but in purely economic terms how can we let this

continue, to allow this mass of humanity to come to the United

States and not be educated? A substantial portion of them are really condemned to be an under-class in our society.

36

Your Table 9 notes that when it comes to income and poverty

and home ownership, these new immigrants are not doing quite as

well as those before them. So in the purest economic sense, should

we not be investing in this important part of our economy, as you

have identified it?

Mr. MOORE. Senator, let me start by referring to that Table 9

that you referred to because I think you may be misreading the

point that I was trying to make there.

The point that this chart is meant to make, Senator, is that immigrants have what we as economists call an economic assimilation

rate; that is to say, when immigrants first come into the United

States, generally they have earnings that are lower than Americans do. What happens is that immigrants have this very rapid

rate—these are on balance, not all immigrants, but on balance immigrants tend to climb the economic ladder of success at a fairly

steep rate of ascent.

So what this is meant to show is that if you look at the new immigrants that are coming in today—for example, if you look at, let’s

just say, people who are making over $50,000, you can see that

only 3 percent of new immigrants are making more than $50,000.

But what is showing is that the longer period that immigrants are

in the United States, the more they become like Americans, and in

some cases surpass Americans.

We don’t have any evidence of this, but it is my belief that if I

am here 20 years from now and you are here 20 years from now,

these 1990 to 1996 immigrants will be just like those who came in

the 1970’s; they will also have climbed the economic ladder. So that

was the point I was trying to make with that.

Senator DURBIN. I see your point, but if you will go back to my

earlier statistic about school drop-outs.

Mr. MOORE. Well, first of all, I agree it is incredibly troubling,

and it is true that the more education immigrants have and the

more skills they have, the better they are for the U.S. economy. So

I think I agree with your premise that it is troubling, and I think

that the solution needs to be we have to put a big emphasis as a

society on educating those immigrant children because if you are

talking about as we move into this new information age society 30

percent of Latino kids without, let’s say, a high school education,

they are not going to make the kind of earnings that are going to

make them major contributors to the United States and they are

not going to be able to advance themselves. So I think what we

have to do then is concentrate on how do we get those immigrant

kids educated.

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Leiden, let me ask you about your testimony and the chairman’s question. As I read your testimony, one

of the reasons for the downturn in the number of refugees is we

capped it in 1996 and said 5,000 is all we are going to take.

Mr. LEIDEN. Well, that is for asylum seekers; that is, persons

who apply for refuge once they are in the United States. We capped

the number who can get permanent residence. So there are tens of

thousands of persons who have been granted and recognized as

bona fide refugees who have asylum status, but they can’t get the

permanent residence.

37

That is distinguished from the overseas refugee programs which

I believe the Chairman was referring to, where there has been a

drop-off. And it is a decision for us. There are plenty of people waiting at the gate. It is a decision for our country to say how many

people will we let in. As I said before, I can’t explain exactly why

the decision was made last year as it was.

Senator DURBIN. At the risk of touching a hot button here, we

have at various times in our history decided that if you have been

in the United States ‘‘x’’ years, documented or undocumented, you

will have a chance to become legal. I believe if you watch the caseload in my office you understand that. Families have been created,

homes have been built, jobs are being served everyday, taxes are

being paid, kids have graduated from school. They are legal in everything but the paper documentation in terms of what they are

doing. They are good, positive members of our society, but every

time we get close to this issue, people say amnesty for illegals, and

that is usually the end of the conversation.

I would like to ask each of you if you could comment on that element historically in our immigration policy, where we are today

and what you think we should do.

Mr. LEIDEN. Well, as you know, there was the legalization program in 1986 that legalized the status of simply the principal, not

their dependents, if they had been in the United States since before

January 1 of 1982. Some of the immigration that we have seen and

the backlogs that we see in the family categories now are because

only one parent was legalized and got permanent residence and

then their spouse—some of their children are U.S. citizens and

some are waiting for their family based petitions to come forward.

There has been for a long time in the law a provision called the

registry provision. There was initially a date—I believe it was in

the 1930’s—that persons who could establish that they were in the

United States since before that date would qualify for permanent

residence. It remained at that early date, frankly, until the 1980’s,

but that helped people who didn’t have birth records, didn’t have

arrival records. A lot of displaced persons came here after the Second World War.

That registry date was advanced in—I think in the 1990 Act it

was advanced to 1972. Now, that is a long time from now back to

1972, but it is a way for a very long-term resident to qualify for

permanent residence, whether they have been undocumented or in

unlawful status, in a non-immigrant status or something. That is

something that we have had in the law since before 1952 and it

is something to look at.

I am aware of cases, as you mentioned, of the high school graduate whose parents call my office and say, my daughter wants to

go to college, and frankly the options are very bleak.

Mr. MOORE. Are you asking me about the amnesty?

Senator DURBIN. Yes.

Mr. MOORE. I am not trying to duck your question, but it is a

really tough policy issue because on the one hand you mentioned

this Korean woman in your opening statement. She is not going to

go back to Korea, she is going to be in the United States. We ought

to legalize her because there is no way that someone like that is

going back to Korea, nor should she go back to Korea.

38

So these people who have been in the United States for 10 or 15

years and have been working and contributing, a strong case can

be made that we should make them legal citizens. On the other

hand, it is true that if we keep legalizing immigrants who came in

illegally, that is going to perhaps encourage illegal immigration. So

it is a tough issue.

I am not sure what the right answer is, but I do think that there

is a strong case, on balance, for letting people who have been here

for 15 years who aren’t leaving to have legal status.

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you.

I want to thank the panel for your presentation, and I look forward to accessing your knowledge greatly as we move forward in

this Subcommittee. Thank you very much.

We will call up our second panel. It consists of Jennifer Kenney,

who is the Director of Global Deployment Shared Services for

PricewaterhouseCoopers. Her primary role is oversight of the firm’s

U.S. immigration function. In addition to immigration, Jennifer is

International Mobility Project Manager for the global firm in her

work.

Next will be Cecilia Mun ̆ oz, Vice President for the Office of Research, Advocacy and Legislation for the National Council of La

Raza. She supervises all legislative and advocacy activities conducted by NCLR covering a variety of issues of importance to

Latinos.

Karen Narasaki is one of the Nation’s leading experts on Asian

immigration. She is President and Executive Director of the National Asian Pacific American Consortium, a nationally recognized

voice on civil rights and immigration issues of particular concern

to Asian Pacific Americans.

Finally, our last panelist will be Elizabeth Dickson. She is Chair

of the Immigration Subcommittee for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and is Manager of Immigration Services for Ingersoll-Rand,

a leading diversified industrial equipment and components manufacturer. She has been working in this field for some period of time.

Ladies, we are delighted to have you all here with us today, and

I think we will go in the order that I introduced you. I look forward

to a short statement. If you would like, we can put your entire

statement in the record and then we would like to have a good discussion if we can. We will run the clock at 7 minutes. It is not governing, but if you could keep it within that timeframe, it would be

appreciated.

Ms. Kenney?

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER KENNEY, DIRECTOR, GLOBAL

DEPLOYMENT SHARED SERVICES, PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

Ms. KENNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

Subcommittee. As you said, I am Jennifer Kenney and I work at

PricewaterhouseCoopers. I am the Director of Immigration Services, and I also manage our global international mobility programs

and initiatives. I too work out of the Chicago office. My primary

role involves immigration, as I have said.

39

PricewaterhouseCoopers is one of the largest professional services firms in the world. At PwC, our people are our business. Drawing on the talents of more than 160,000 people in 150 countries,

PwC provides audit, tax, finance, and a full range of other business

advisory services to our clients, who are leading global, national

and local organizations.

Many of our clients are Fortune 100 companies. In what we call

our Global 200, 105 of these clients are U.S. corporations with overseas operations. Of the remaining 95 in the Global 200, 85 are

international firms with operations in the United States.

To service our clients and remain competitive, our firm employs

and often cross-trains highly skilled accounting, tax, technology,

and finance professionals with experience in multiple markets and

territories. PwC is one of the largest international deployers of resources, with currently over 5,000 staff and partners working outside their home countries.

PwC utilizes U.S. employment-based non-immigrant visas to

temporarily transfer skilled professionals from overseas, hire U.S.-

educated foreign students, and fill positions where sufficient numbers of quality U.S. workers are just simply not available. Today,

our firm employs in the U.S. over 2,000 foreign nationals. This represents approximately 4 percent of our workforce.

Of those numbers, 56 percent are what are called H–1B foreign

nationals or specialty occupation foreign nationals. Forty-one percent are L–1 intra-company transferees from another PwC office.

This is our largest growing number of immigrants. Three percent

are Trade NAFTA from Canada or Mexico.

The benefits of the non-immigrant visa program to our firm and

our people are great. Our multinational clients benefit from our enhanced global capabilities and our firm is able to maintain our

global competitiveness. International assignees increase their technical and managerial skills, and are able to transfer their knowledge back to their home countries. U.S. staff also benefit from the

experience of working side by side with foreign nationals, thus increasing their own skill base.

Unfortunately, as other panelists have mentioned already, the

fundamental process of moving people across borders is very slow

and very closely. Antiquated immigration rules and procedures

make international mobility very difficult for my firm and others.

In the U.S. and other countries, it often can take months to cut

through all the red tape before a temporary international assignment can begin, making it very difficult for employers to staff their

jobs and plan ahead.

For example, the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century

Act which recently increased the cap for our H–1 non-immigrant

visas also called for the elimination of the current backlog in INS

cases and a decrease in the INS processing times. As commendable

as this piece of legislation is, the INS and the Department of Labor

are still unable to keep up with the volume and catch up on the

backlog.

Currently, service center processing times for H–1B approval notices can take between 3 and 4 months. This is up 60 days, well

above the 30 days proposed. Contributing to the delay is the Department of Labor’s increased turnaround time of up to 6 weeks to

40

just approve a labor condition application. As a result, our audit

and tax practices recently had to turn away many previously

scheduled foreign nationals who were not available to work during

our very busy tax season, and as a result our company suffered.

In a related matter, the portability provision allows H–1B employees to start work with a new employer in the U.S. and, if necessary, travel outside the U.S. upon filing a petition with the INS

rather than wait the 3 to 4 months for petition approval. This is

encouraging to employers like PwC, who often require employees to

travel outside the U.S. on business.

While the spirit of the legislation is again helpful, the implementation is inherently flawed. In the absence of guidance in the field,

the INS freely admits that many ports of entry still may be operating under old regulations. So despite the new law, an approval notice may still be required to reenter the United States through certain ports of entry. This lack of consistency within the INS to enforce new legislation is frustrating and costly to many employers.

Until the INS gets up to speed, PwC is now forced to advise our

pending H–1B new hires to remain in the U.S. until INS approval

is actually received, which again could take 3 to 4 months. Such

delays are extremely incompatible with the realities of the global

market in which we compete, where rapid deployment of staff is a

business necessity.

To facilitate processing of non-immigrant visas, PwC supports

the implementation of established user program, one similar to the

current L–1 blanket program that works very successfully for our

firm which requires only 14 days to process an L–1 intra-company

transferee. Such a program would streamline processing and decrease turnaround times for high-volume non-immigrant visa employers with a proven track record like our firm. Such a plan would

reduce paperwork and free up INS and Department of Labor resources to work on more complicated cases.

To reduce deployment times, PwC also supports the proposed June 2001 implementation of the new $1,000 INS fee to expedite

processing. The fees generated from this program might be used to

enhance INS information systems to better manage the heavy caseload. In the long term, the INS must invest in building its electronic filing capabilities and bring its operations finally into the

21st century. As a start, electronic signatures on employmentbased immigration filings should be implemented as soon as possible to save time and eliminate costly barriers.

Another important issue to our firm is the employment of

spouses for our L–1 intra-company transferees. This is currently

prohibited in the United States. Inability to obtain spousal work

authorization is one of the main reasons our L–1 transferees either

end an assignment early or refuse an assignment with our firm

and leave for other firms or other countries within our network.

Because of this, PwC endorsed last year the Spousal Equity Act,

introduced in the last Congress, which would grant work authorization for spouses of L–1 immigrant visa-holders.

The hurdles that businesses face in deploying staff also act as

significant non-tariff barriers to global competitiveness. Impaired

mobility inhibits trade and investment across our borders. It is also

detrimental to the health of local economies, economies that would

41

otherwise benefit from the financial and technological resources

that typically accompany these types of transfers.

In conclusion, at my firm we like to think of ourselves as the premier and unique professional services organization, but when it

comes to some of the issues that I have mentioned here today regarding immigration, we are in no way unique. Many of my counterparts have the same issues that we do. Congress needs to make

resolving these challenges a priority. Otherwise, we will all fall

short of the promise of what a global marketplace can do to boost

our economy.

Thank you very much for allowing me to testify, and I look forward to any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kenney follows:]

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER KENNEY, DIRECTOR, GLOBAL DEPLOYMENT SHARED

SERVICES, PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to testify today. I am Jennifer Kenney, Director of Global Deployment Shared Services at PricewaterhouseCoopers. My primary role is oversight of the firm’s U.S. Immigration function. In addition, I am an international human resources project manager who works on such initiatives as orientation programs for international assignees, employee satisfaction surveys, external and internal web site development and

other Global Deployment information systems.

PricewaterhouseCoopers is the world’s largest professional services organization.

At PwC, our people are our product. Drawing on the talents of more than 160,000

people in 150 countries, PricewaterhouseCoopers provides financial audits and a full

range of business advisory services to leading global, national and local companies

and to public institutions. These advisory services include accounting and tax advice; management, information technology and human resource consulting; financial

advisory services including mergers & acquisitions, business recovery, project finance and litigation support; business process outsourcing services; and legal services through a global network of affiliated law firms.

Before I address our foreign national employment program, I would like to briefly

summarize initiatives we currently sponsor in our U.S. firm to upgrade the skills

of our current and potential American workforce and to recruit under-represented

minority groups. The education of the U.S. workforce in our ever-expanding, knowledge-based economy is of critical importance to our firm and our economy. Last

year, our firm invested over three million dollars in high school and college internships, scholarships and mentor programs. Through our INROADS National Internship program, PwC employs over 150 summer interns who are minority finance, accounting and management students from selected colleges and universities across

the country. Our Minority Scholars Program awards 40, $5,000 scholarships each

year to accounting and finance students. In addition, PwC awards between 15 and

20, $1,500 scholarships to distinguished business students who are members of the

National Association of Hispanic CPAs. PwC also sponsors high school mentorship

programs in over 4,000 high schools. These mentorship programs are designed to

generate student interest in careers in finance, accounting and technology. Finally,

PwC staff and partners are actively involved in community youth development programs such as Junior Achievement and Big Brother/Big Sister chapters in underdeveloped neighborhoods.

Each year PwC invests millions of dollars to train our U.S. workforce. Our extensive learning and education program includes on-the-job training, self-paced computer-based learning, and technical, managerial and diversity training programs.

Each of our lines of service develop curriculum to meet the needs of their particular

business. For example, our management consulting practice provides entry-level

technology solutions training to new hires through its intensive 12-week ASCENT

program. Through ASCENT, consultants develop IT skills in various programming

languages, databases and operating systems. ASCENT students also develop necessary problem-solving and consulting skills and learn to operate effectively in

cross-cultural and cross-functional work teams. Other internal, trainer-lead programs for staff include: Strategic Change Management, New World Networking, eBusiness, Ethics, Leadership, Working Across Cultures, SAP, Audit Training, and

Microsoft Suite and Lotus Notes software training.

42

Many of PricewaterhouseCoopers’ clients are Fortune 100 companies. In what we

call our ‘‘Global 200’’ portfolio, 105 clients are U.S. corporations with overseas operations. Of the remaining 95 clients in the Global 200, 85 are international firms

with operations in the United States. The majority of our clients trade on U.S. Capital Markets and Exchanges (i.e., NASDAQ, NYSE, etc.). Due to these activities our

clients fall under SEC regulations and U.S. financial reporting standards which require our global workforce to be knowledgeable in U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). To ensure quality in our financial reporting services our firm

employs (and often cross-trains) highly skilled accountants and tax professionals

with experience in multiple markets and territories.

Given our global client base, PricewaterhouseCoopers is one of the largest international deployers of resources with over 5,000 staff and partners currently working

outside their home country in a PwC affiliated office. In the U.S., PwC utilizes nonimmigrant visas to temporarily transfer highly skilled international personnel, hire

U.S.-educated foreign students, and to fill positions where sufficient numbers of

qualified U.S. workers are simply not available. Today our U.S. firm employs over

2,000 foreign nationals, representing a little over four percent of our total U.S.

workforce of 46,000 individuals. Approximately 56% of these foreign nationals hold

H–1B ‘‘Specialty Occupation’’ nonimmigrant visas, 41% hold L–1 ‘‘Intracompany

Transferee’’ visas and 3% hold TN (Trade NAFTA) visas. On average 21% of our

nonimmigrant visa holders seek permanent residence in the U.S. through employment with PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The benefits of the nonimmigrant visa program to our firm and our people are

great. Our multinational clients benefit from our enhanced global capabilities and

our firm is able to maintain our global competitiveness. Foreign nationals increase

their technical and managerial skills and are able to transfer their knowledge to

their home country. U.S. staff also benefit from the experience of working side-byside with foreign nationals on multinational engagements, thus increasing their own

skill base.

Our firm does not have identical skill sets in each of our markets, therefore we

must tap the skills wherever they happen to reside to assemble the best team to

service our clients. Rapid mobility of staff into and out of the U.S. is required when

setting up a new office, for specialized knowledge in operations here and abroad, for

professional training of the workforce, and to expose staff to a client’s global operations.

The fundamental process of moving people across borders to get them where they

are needed is often painful, slow, arduous and costly. This is because antiquated immigration rules and procedures—which vary widely by country—make it extraordinarily difficult for multinational firms to move people across borders on short notice.

In the U.S. and other countries it often can take months to clear all the bureaucratic hurdles before a temporary international assignment can begin. Deployment

costs have risen significantly. Given the complicated patchwork of international procedures that we must overcome every day, no amount of money will ensure that

we’ll be able to place, and therefore effectively utilize, our people in the U.S. or overseas on a timely basis.

In the United States, current INS and Department of Labor (DOL) processing

delays make it extremely difficult for employers and potential employees to plan

ahead. Employers have deadlines, contracts and workload to contend with, while potential employees must often leave other positions, sell their homes and relocate

their families, and factor in tax implications of their move. Even those foreign nationals already in the U.S. may be entangled in these delays as they are unable to

travel outside the U.S. while petitions are pending with the INS.

For example, the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act recently increased the cap on H–1B nonimmigrant visas and calls for the elimination

of the current backlog in cases and a decrease in processing times. As commendable

as this piece of legislation is, the INS and DOL are still unable to keep up with

the volume of petitions. Currently, Service Center processing times for H–1B approval notices can take three to four months. Contributing to the delay is the DOL’s

increased turnaround time of between three and six weeks for approval of H–1B

Labor Condition Applications (LCAs). As a result our audit and tax practices recently had to turn away many previously scheduled foreign nationals because they

would have arrived in the States to work after our tax busy season due to the exorbitant H–1B delays. Not only did these PwC foreign nationals miss a tremendous

professional opportunity, but it put great stress on our ability to timely and effectively complete our financial audits. Some of these staff members chose to work in

other countries with less restrictive immigration processes.

43

In a related matter, the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century

Act’s portability provision allows H–1B employees transferring to another U.S. firm

to start work with a new employer immediately upon filing of a petition. Under this

new legislation, the employee does not have to wait for the H–1B petition to be approved before traveling for business or personal reasons outside the U.S. This legislation is encouraging to employers like PwC who often require employees to travel

outside the U.S. on business. While the spirit of the legislation is helpful, the implementation is flawed. In the absence of guidance in the field, the INS has stated that

for the time being, each port of entry will determine the admissibility of an applicant for H–1B status which means that an approved petition may, in fact, be necessary to return to the U.S. from a visit abroad. As a precaution, PwC is currently

advising new H–1B employees to remain in the U.S. until their petition is approved,

which again, could take three to four months. This is incompatible with the realities

of the global market in which we compete.

Unfortunately, inordinate delays like this have become the norm and the timing

couldn’t be worse. In today’s global economy, the need for specialized knowledge and

expertise that can be deployed anywhere, anytime has never been greater. Accordingly, PricewaterhouseCoopers supports the implementation of Established User

Programs, similar to L–1 Blanket programs, that would streamline processing and

decrease turnaround times for high volume nonimmigrant visa employers with a

proven track record. Implementation of such programs would reduce paperwork and

free up INS and DOL resources to work on other cases. The United Kingdom has

implemented such a program for its corporate clients with great success.

PwC also supports the proposed June 2001 implementation of an INS $1,000 fee

to expedite processing. Due to high volume and data management issues, however,

this ‘‘fast track’’ service will not be available for H–1B visas in the near future. Fees

generated from this new program might be used to enhance INS information systems to better manage the heavy caseload and data. In the long-term the INS must

invest in building its electronic filing capabilities to bring its operations into the

21st century. As a start, electronic signatures on employment-based immigration filings should be implemented as soon as possible to save time and eliminate courier

and other related expenses.

The vast majority of U.S. and international executives have spouses who are

working professionals. Some countries, including the U.S., maintain laws that prohibit spouses from working in the host country. The inability of a spouse to secure

employment in the host country results in both a loss of dual income and career

enhancement opportunities. While PwC provides visits home, cultural awareness

briefings, language training, and nominal financial support—this does not make up

for an involuntary career break which may mean setting aside career goals as well

as relinquishing contacts, networks, and benefits.

Inability to obtain spousal work authorization is one of the main reasons our L–

1 international transferees refuse, or prematurely terminate an assignment—and

this is exceedingly costly for both the company and clients. PricewaterhouseCoopers

wholeheartedly endorsed the ‘‘Spousal Equity Act’’ introduced in the last Congress

which would permit the negotiation of agreements to grant work authorization for

spouses of L–1 nonimmigrant visa holders. We will work towards reintroduction and

passage of similar legislation with this Congress.

The hurdles that businesses face in deploying staff also act as significant non-tariff barriers to competitiveness. Despite the World Trade Organization’s inability to

formally launch a broad round of negotiations in Seattle, discussions on the services

negotiations have begun, and the world will continue to search for new ways to expand international trade and fuel global economic expansion. Services are at the

heart of the new economy. Any effort to improve the efficiency and the dynamism

of the service sector will contribute to global economic growth. Not only do certain

sectors, such as telecommunications, transportation, financial, distribution, professional and information services, play a key role in a country’s infrastructure, but

the new manufacturing economy also benefits from innovative and efficient services

crucial to production, such as product design and engineering, marketing and distribution, outsourcing, and globalization strategies.

Whatever progress that can be made in reducing trade barriers will be mitigated,

however, if business isn’t able to move people in a timely and efficient manner to

support the sale of products and services around the globe. Until deployment procedures are expedited around the world, business will not be able to adequately support the movement of goods and services. And everyone will continue to suffer. Impaired mobility inhibits trade and investment across borders. It’s also detrimental

to the health of local economies—economies that would otherwise benefit from the

financial and technological resources that typically accompany employee transfers.

44

The demands of global trade are such that response time is critical to servicing

of goods and the delivery of services. If we don’t fix the problem now, it becomes

that much more difficult in the future. PricewaterhouseCoopers has been working

both in the U.S. and in Europe to ensure that liberalization for temporary entry of

service professionals is on the agenda of trade negotiators. It is imperative that the

U.S. and our trading partners make more meaningful commitments to establish a

rapid deployment capability that provides for transparency, predictability, harmonization and speed in moving our business personnel around the world to service a

global economy.

In conclusion, at PricewaterhouseCoopers we like to differentiate ourselves as the

premier and unique professional services firm. However, when it comes to immigration, the challenges we face are in no way unique, nor are they easily remedied. My

counterparts at both like-size firms and smaller organizations deal with many of the

same issues I mention here today. Congress needs to make resolving these challenges a priority, otherwise we all will fall short of the promise of what a global

marketplace can do to boost our economy.

Thank you again for the opportunity to present my firm’s views at today’s hearing. I look forward to your questions.

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you, and I appreciate your

thoughts, particularly your specific items that hopefully we will

have a chance to address.

Ms. Mun ̃ oz, thank you for joining us.

STATEMENT OF CECILIA MUN ̃ OZ, VICE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF

RESEARCH, ADVOCACY AND LEGISLATION, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ms. MUN ̃ OZ. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to be here, and

I want to thank you especially for the tone that you set both with

the nature of this hearing and the nature of your opening comments. I couldn’t help as you were speaking but contrast that with

the last time I testified, which was less than a year ago before the

other body, where the witness who spoke before me had a number

of complaints about immigrants and Latinos, the most colorful of

which was his impression that we all keep goats in our backyards.

This is a much different tone, a much different attitude, and we

appreciate that more than I can say.

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you for noticing it.

[Laughter.]

Ms. MUN ̃ OZ. The numbers that are coming out of the 2000 Census are a good illustration of why the immigration issue is so important to the Nation’s Latinos.

Chairman BROWNBACK. Aren’t they astounding?

Ms. MUN ̃ OZ. They are astounding.

Chairman BROWNBACK. I open up the paper almost everyday just

to look at a different set of them, and I just think this is amazing.

It is beautiful what is taking place, but it really is striking. I don’t

mean to interrupt you, but it is so impressive to see.

Ms. MUN ̃ OZ. And for us it is part of the American story. It is a

continuation of our history, and what this is is a phenomenon that

has been true of this country as long as we have been a country.

And to be part of that and to have that trend continuing and to

have our community be a big piece of that is an extraordinary

thing. And we are mindful of that as an historic moment, but as

one of many historic moments that have been about demographic

change.

That has been what makes us great as a Nation, and immigration is obviously a very important part of that. We think that is

45

what makes us strong. As we know, immigrants are transformed

by the experience of becoming Americans. We also know that

America itself is transformed and reinvigorated and enriched in so

many ways by the presence of immigrants.

We clearly do well by doing the right thing; that is, by having

a policy strategy that is about reuniting families and protecting refugees and providing for specific labor needs. This benefits not just

the immigrants that we are talking about, but it benefits all of us

as a whole.

Indeed, while the basic framework of our legal immigration policy is the right one, it is also true that the way in which we implement our immigration laws is far out of step with the reality that

immigrants come and work and are an asset to this country in a

number of ways. And they deserve to be treated with respect and

a commitment to equity, and under our current laws that is not

happening and that needs to change.

Across the country, legal residents and U.S. citizens face the separation of their families, inappropriate detention and deportation,

major damage to due process of law, and distinctly unequal treatment under the law. I would hope that this Subcommittee would

turn its attention to the major ways in which immigration policy

reflects an attitude that commits a grave injustice to our Nation’s

immigrants and to their many contributions to this Nation.

I want to outline just four areas that I know are either coming

up in the policy debate or really should come up in the policy debate. I should say that this could have been a lot longer and I have

tried to take it easy on you in this first statement.

We know that reform of the INS is going to be an issue. You

highlighted it. It is important to highlight it. We also note that

President Bush made it a campaign issue, and we are glad for that.

For us, the bottom line is accountability. You described the need

for accountability and for swift and efficient processing of naturalization petitions and family petitions and the other kinds of applications before the INS.

We would also apply the same standard to the way INS conducts

its enforcement. There are far too many of us who, because we are

walking down the street or driving down the road and happen to

look like we might be Mexican, are pulled over, stopped, harassed,

detained by local law enforcement as well as by the INS, and often

in collaboration. The way INS enforcement is conducted has for

decades been an extraordinary disservice to our commitment to justice and equity in this country. It feels like it is aimed against Hispanic Americans.

Any debate and discussion on reform of the INS needs also to

focus on the question of accountability, standards for enforcement,

and making sure that the INS is doing its job well and efficiently

and thoroughly. We support law enforcement, we support border

enforcement, but the way that we do is important, and it needs to

be consistent with our laws and values.

We also note that today there are bilateral discussions between

the Mexican and U.S. Governments particularly around the question of guest workers and migration. We welcome the discussion.

We think it is very constructive to have a bilateral discussion, and

we take the position that any legislation related to temporary labor

46

particularly in agriculture, or the service sector for that matter,

needs to recognize the circumstances in which particularly farm

workers live and work in the United States. These are conditions

which more resemble the 19th century than they resemble what

they should.

We believe that this discussion needs to start to put farm workers on equal footing with other American workers with respect to

wages and labor rights. In particular, we have argued that any legislation affecting farm labor in the U.S., including this guest worker discussion, be consistent with a couple of fundamental principles

before being considered by this Subcommittee.

First, any policy aimed at this sector must improve substantially

the labor protections available to farm workers and the enforcement of these protections. It is unreasonable that farm workers live

and work in conditions in the United States under a set of standards which are far lower than that expected by every other part of

the U.S. workforce.

We also think legislative reforms need to recognize that a substantial part of the existing agricultural workforce lives and works

in the United States without the benefit of immigration status. It

is in the long-term best interests of the country, the industry, and

the workers themselves to provide individuals with an opportunity

to adjust their status and reunite with their families.

Thirdly, I just want to highlight that there are a number of ways

in which we need to revisit the laws which were enacted in 1996.

There is a long list of excesses still present in the law which do

nothing to forward the cause of immigration control and do extraordinary harm to immigrant families and to the Nation’s commitment to equal justice.

This includes unnecessary barriers to the reunification of families caused by a number of different policies, including the failure

to fully extend section 245(i) and the creation of arbitrary financial

requirements for the reunification of families. It also includes the

injustice of court-stripping which has deprived innumerable immigrant families of their rights and the automatic deportation of illegal residents who committed minor offenses of10 years ago and

have already repaid their debt to society.

There are a variety of provisions in the law which undermine the

confidentiality of immigrants and their families, and cause people

to fear law enforcement and other public officials. There is a very

long list here and we believe that as part of our commitment to justice and fair treatment for these folks who are contributing so

much, we really need to take a look at the most punitive, most excessive aspects of the 1996 law, reopen them, and address them.

I also want to again underscore the question of immigration enforcement. I talked about racial profiling already and the way that

immigration enforcement is conducted. This has as profound impact on Hispanic Americans at the border, but also in the interior.

Many of the calls that we get about racial profiling or harassment at the hands of INS come from Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Arkansas, Tennessee, come from parts of the country that we didn’t

use to hear from before. We are also concerned about the INS’ increased use of verification systems, sometimes in collaboration with

47

the Social Security Administration in a way that is affecting industries and also affecting workers and their families.

We have noted—in fact, we have worked with you in the past on

this issue—that there are high error rates in these data bases, and

people’s ability to work and stay with their families are being jeopardized by faulty data and by the use of verification systems which

are really putting people in harm’s way. We believe these policies

need to be reconsidered.

I just want to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that the Subcommittee has an extraordinary opportunity right now to honor the

many contributions that immigrants make energizing our economy

and revitalizing our communities. We appreciate that you are viewing these folks as people and parts of families rather than numbers, and we urge you to lead the charge in restoring fairness to

our laws.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mun ̃ oz follows:]

STATEMENT OF CECILIA MUN ̃ OZ, VICE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF RESEARCH, ADVOCACY

AND LEGISLATION, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA, WASHINGTON, DC 20036

I. INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony on behalf

of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the largest national constituency-based

Latino civil rights organization. NCLR is an umbrella organization for more than

250 affiliates—community-based institutions that provide a wide range of services

to more than 3.5 million Latinos each year. NCLR has long been involved in the

public policy debate on immigration; for us this is a civil rights issue of fundamental

importance. Immigration policy is a priority for us not because so many Latinos are

immigrants—indeed many of our fellow Americans are surprised to learn that the

majority of Latinos are native-born U.S. citizens—but rather because immigration

policies tend to affect us all, whether or not we were born here.

The initial reports emerging from the 2000 Census illustrate why the immigration

issue is so important to Hispanic Americans. While many of us come from communities that became American by conquest, the fastest growing segments of the

Latino community are either immigrants themselves or the products of immigration.

The extraordinary growth of our community, which is emerging as a force throughout the U.S., demonstrates the power of the immigration phenomenon and the ways

in which the classic American story is being repeated all over the country. One of

the many reasons for our strength as a nation is this repeating process, through

which immigrants are transformed by the experience of becoming Americans, and

America itself is also transformed, enriched, and reinvigorated by the presence of

immigrants.

Few Americans doubt that our tradition as a nation of immigrants is one of America’s defining characteristics; the diversity this fosters is a big part of what makes

our country unique. There is ample evidence supporting the notion that this continues to be true; immigrants who choose to make their lives here enrich the United

States economically, socially, and culturally. Immigrants contribute about $10 billion to the U.S. economy each year. If you account for the impact of immigrantowned businesses, this figure is likely to be far higher. A vast array of observers,

including key business leaders, the AFL–CIO, and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, have pointed to immigration as a key element in the nation’s recent economic

growth—the hard work of immigrants has been essential to creating the unprecedented prosperity that America enjoys.

But it is also part of the American story that the very processes of immigration

and demographic change are sometimes greeted negatively. Even as immigrants

have enriched the nation, they have also been attacked for not seeming educated

enough, skilled enough, or ‘‘American’’ enough to belong here. There are anti-immigrant organizations and movements working today to raise concerns about current

waves of immigration. At their best, these organized movements provoke discussion

and debate; at their worst, they promote hatred and bigotry. These movements have

often shaped the nation’s policies toward immigrants, from the exclusionary laws

that dominated American policy until the middle of the 20th century to the most reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:30 Feb 21, 2002 Jkt 077276 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\HEARINGS\77276.TXT SJUD4 PsN: SJUD4
48

cent major immigration reform enacted in 1996, which reflects significant anti-immigrant sentiment.

The U.S. clearly does well by doing the right thing—our policy strategy of reuniting families, protecting refugees, and providing for specific labor needs appears to

benefit not simply the immigrants themselves, but America as a whole. Indeed,

while the basic framework of our legal immigration policy is the right one, the way

in which we implement our immigration laws is far out of step with the reality that

immigrants are an asset to the U.S. and who should be treated with respect and

a commitment to equity. Our most recent set of immigration reforms was drafted

at the height of a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment; the impact of these reforms

on many hard-working immigrants and their families has been devastating. Across

the country, legal residents and U.S. citizens face the separation of their families,

inappropriate detention and deportation, major damage to due process of law, and

distinctly unequal treatment under the law. Indeed, immigrants are subjected to a

set of policies that are unthinkable for other Americans—our nation’s commitment

to equal justice has been severely undercut by recent changes in immigration law.

In addition, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has long been notorious in immigrant communities for its poor treatment of the individuals and families

it is meant to serve. I would hope that this Subcommittee would turn its attention

to these major ways in which immigration policy reflects an attitude that commits

a grave injustice to our nation’s immigrants and their many contributions to the nation.

II. REFORM OF THE INS

During the recent presidential campaign, then-candidate George W. Bush made

a public commitment to implement substantial reforms of the INS in order to improve its effectiveness and responsiveness to the communities it serves. NCLR, like

the vast majority of Latinos, welcomes this commitment and is looking forward to

working with President Bush’s Administration and the Subcommittee to realize this

particular vision. The Latino community has an enormous interest and stake in the

reform of the INS. However, the issue is not simply reforming the agency, but doing

it in a way which promotes equity and accountability. If last year’s legislation on

reform of INS serves as a guide to this year’s debate, NCLR would be comfortable

with the approach in last year’s Senate bill. However, if the House bill provides the

framework, we would be forced to oppose.

NCLR agrees with President Bush that one of the principal priorities for INS reorganization is to improve its accountability for fair and speedy adjudication of the

numerous petitions that come before it: for family visas, political asylum, citizenship, and other important processes. We have long complained that a mentality of

enforcement has been too visible in the administration of these processes; while

most INS personnel do their jobs well, there are too many who still believe that

their responsibility is to look for ways to ‘‘get’’ people as they go through routine

processes like naturalization and visa processing. As a result, our community fears

any contact with the INS; even those who have no reason to fear a naturalization

interview believe that the adjudicator might find some excuse to deny their petition,

or worse. Enough people have found themselves detained or ensnared in complicated

bureaucratic processes to make these fears warranted.

In addition, backlogs processing continues to plague the system. Recent efforts to

speed up naturalization processing have had a positive impact, but only at the expense of slowing down the adjudication of other important petitions. It is unreasonable for an agency of the size and scope of INS to send teams of adjudicators from

backlog to backlog, reducing one set of problems while another one builds. This

clearly indicates the need for adequate resources, appropriate training, and a longterm strategy to ensure that the agency can fulfill its mission. There are still far

too many problems that result in extraordinary delays for thousands of people; lost

applications are commonplace, as is poor treatment of those who come to inquire

about the status of their applications.

NCLR believes that accountability for the way INS conducts its enforcement activities is an equally important goal for the reorganization of INS. We have opposed

legislation to reform the agency in the past because we believed that it would reduce

accountability on the enforcement side and increase the kinds of abuse that affect

far too many Latinos. Immigration enforcement often runs afoul of the civil rights

of Hispanic Americans, including U.S. citizens and legal residents who are mistaken

for immigrants because of their ethnic appearance. In border communities, generations of Latinos have complained about being asked to prove that they belong in

their own neighborhoods; these practices are increasingly evident in the interior of

the U.S. INS increasingly enlists other agencies in its enforcement strategies, inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:30 Feb 21, 2002 Jkt 077276 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\HEARINGS\77276.TXT SJUD4 PsN: SJUD4
49

cluding the Social Security Administration and local police forces, in a way that is

both highly invasive and abusive. Part of the discussion on reform of the INS must

include the establishment of law enforcement standards that protect the rights of

those who come into contact with INS and accountability for the way the entire enforcement operation is conducted.

III. FARMWORKERS AND GUESTWORKERS

The debate on agricultural labor and guestworkers has already emerged as a

major issue this year. NCLR has a long history in this debate; we are extremely

concerned about the treatment of farmworkers in the U.S., which we have repeatedly expressed to this Subcommittee. NCLR strongly believes that any policy debate

on agricultural labor must start from the perspective that the status quo is unacceptable; it is unreasonable for the nation’s farm laborers to continue to live and

work in conditions that resemble the 19th century more than they do the modern

workplace. For this reason, we have strongly opposed legislation that has been introduced in the last several Congresses to expand the existing H–2A temporary

worker program and reduce its labor protections.

The context in which this debate takes place is important; there is ample evidence

to suggest that the major claim of the agricultural industry—that they have a labor

shortage and must therefore import temporary workers—is unsubstantiated. A variety of recent reports, including by the U.S. General Accounting Office, have documented a surplus of agricultural labor. The GAO analyzed unemployment data in

the 20 major agricultural-production counties in the United States and found that

most have double-digit unemployment rates. Nor is there an impending shortage.

Additionally, employers have not sought to stabilize the labor market. Farmworkers’ wages have declined in real terms during the last decade, and poverty

rates have increased during the last few years, according to the Department of

Labor. If there were a labor shortage, we would have seen employers increasing

wage rates and offering other inducements. Rampant violations of minimum and

other labor protections persist, according to recent studies.

There are strong indications that labor-intensive agribusiness can afford to pay

a living wage. Agricultural productivity has increased substantially. The value of

production of fruits, vegetables, and horticulture—labor-intensive crops—grew by

52% to $15.1 billion between 1986 and 1995. Exports of these products nearly quadrupled between FY 1986 and FY 1997, reaching $10.6 billion. Farmworkers did not

share in that increase.

NCLR takes the position that any legislation related to temporary labor in agriculture or the service sector must recognize these circumstances and begin to address them in a way which puts farm laborers finally on equal footing with other

American workers with respect to wages and labor rights. In particular, we have

argued that any consideration of legislation affecting farm labor in the U.S., including the guestworker discussion, be consistent with several fundamental principles

before being considered by this Subcommittee. First, any policy aimed at this sector

must improve substantially the labor protections available to farmworkers and the

enforcement of such protections. It is unreasonable that this sector functions under

a set of labor standards far below the rest of the U.S. workforce. Any change in the

law must result in substantial improvements in wages and working conditions for

farmworkers. Similarly, legislative reforms must recognize that a substantial part

of the existing agricultural workforce lives and works in the U.S. without the benefit

of legal immigration status. It is in the long-term best interests of the country, the

industry, and the workers themselves, to provide individuals with an opportunity

to adjust their status and reunite with their families. NCLR believes that any reforms that simply expand the guestworker structure without significant improvements in labor standards and access to adjustment are incomplete, and likely to perpetuate the unacceptable conditions in which farmworkers live and work.

IV. REVISIT THE 1996 LAW

There is no greater evidence of the disconnect between the important and wellrecognized role that immigrants play in the economy and society of the U.S. and

their treatment under the law than the laws passed in 1996, which have had a devastating impact on immigrant families and their basic rights. In particular, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reform Act (PRWORA) enacted that

year have become potent symbols of an ugly anti-immigrant era whose legacy is the

atrocious treatment of immigrants and their families. While there have been modest

reforms to remedy some of the ugliest provisions in these laws, there are still subVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:30 Feb 21, 2002 Jkt 077276 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\HEARINGS\77276.TXT SJUD4 PsN: SJUD4
50

stantial reforms necessary to prevent the needless hardships endured by immigrant

families which continue to shock their neighbors and communities.

There is a long list of excesses still present in the law which do nothing to forward

the cause of immigration control, and do great harm to immigrant families and the

nation’s commitment to equal justice. In particular, NCLR hopes that this Congress

will address:

• The unnecessary barriers to the reunification of families caused by several different provisions, including the failure to permanently extend section 245i, and the

creation of arbitrary financial restrictions

• The injustice of ‘‘court stripping,’’ which has prevented judges from offering leniency, and which has denied thousands of immigrants access to legal status for

which they are eligible

• The automatic deportation of legal residents who committed minor offenses

years ago and have since paid their debt to society

• A variety of provisions that undermine the confidentiality of immigrants and

their families, and undermine their confidence in law enforcement and other public

officials

• The lack of parity in the treatment of all of the refugees from the Cold War,

particularly those from Central America who have made their homes in our communities for more than a decade

• The continuing impact of welfare reform, particularly on the health and nutritional status of legal immigrant children

NCLR strongly believes that it is in the best interest of the nation to rededicate

itself to fair and equal treatment under the law. These policies, which tear families

apart and undermine our nation’s commitment to equal justice under the law, are

more than a disservice to hard-working immigrants and their families; they undermine the commitment to fairness and equity that all Americans value.

V. ENFORCEMENT ISSUES AND PRACTICES

NCLR has grave concerns about the way in that immigration enforcement is conducted. While we, like most Hispanic Americans, agree that the nation has a right

to enforce its laws and control its borders, the manner in which we engage in these

efforts must be consistent with our laws and values. Unfortunately, immigration enforcement has for many decades been conducted in a way that undermines the

rights that Americans hold most dear. Hispanic Americans, immigrant and native,

continue to suffer abuse in the name of immigration enforcement.

The border between the United States and Mexico is an obvious focus of concern;

the number of border enforcement personnel has increased dramatically in recent

years. NCLR has long been concerned about the lack of adequate standards and

training in the conduct of enforcement personnel. As large numbers of new officers

are added, these concerns about their preparation are growing. In addition, along

with many observers in the international and human rights communities, NCLR is

alarmed at the number of deaths at the border. For many years, we have argued

that an effective and humanely implemented deterrent at the U.S.-Mexico border is

a key element of an immigration control strategy. It has since become clear that the

cost for our current deterrence strategy is excessively high; over 600 people have

died attempting to cross our border since it was implemented in the mid-1990s. This

is an unacceptable and tragic outcome, which more than justifies a re-evaluation of

the nation’s strategy at the border.

NCLR is also highly concerned about the strategies being deployed by INS in the

nation’s interior. We have formally protested the strategy of creating ‘‘Quick Response Teams’’ (QRTs) in communities with emerging Latino populations. Our analysis of the response to this initiative suggests that a major result of this policy is

the harassment of Latinos and others whose ethnic appearance suggests to law enforcement officers that they might be immigrants. The presence of INS in these communities often leads to improper collaborative efforts between INS and local police,

who regularly stop Latino drivers and pedestrians and demand proof of immigration

status. NCLR receives reports from all over the country of abuse at the hands of

local police who have either come to believe on their own or have been persuaded

by INS that their jobs should include immigration enforcement. Not only is this improper under the law, it seriously jeopardizes the public safety by destroying

Latinos’ confidence in their local law enforcement agencies. When entire communities begin to believe that the police are a source of harassment rather than protection, it becomes difficult to enforce the law and protect the public. NCLR strongly

believes that these arrangements do little to advance immigration enforcement, and

they do great harm to the larger community, not to mention to the fundamental

51

rights of those of us whose only ‘‘infraction’’ is the fact that to others we look ‘‘foreign.’’ In addition, INS continues to use invasive verification procedures as a key enforcement strategy in a way that is undercutting immigrant communities and entire

industries. For example, in 1999 through Operation Vanguard, INS compelled the

entire meatpacking industry in Nebraska to turn over its employment records for

verification. INS then attempted to verify these workers through its own databases,

which are known to have substantial error rates, and those of the SSA, which are

also inadequate to demonstrate the workers’ eligibility to work legally in the U.S.

The result of this operation was massive displacement of workers, including those

who were legal residents, but who mistakenly turned up as potential problems in

the data match. These immigrants, who are legally here but who also fear any contact with the INS, left their jobs rather than attempt to clarify their records. NCLR

has long argued that INS verification schemes are unlikely to have an impact on

illegal migration, but will clearly undermine the rights of workers caught up in

problems as a result of faulty data. We believe that the use of verification systems

as a tool in immigration enforcement must be re-evaluated.

VI. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, NCLR believes that this Subcommittee has a tremendous responsibility and a great opportunity in the 107th Congress. Immigrants

throughout the United States, whose populations are more diverse than ever, and

whose presence is felt throughout the nation, know well that they are not afforded

the respect they deserve under our immigration laws. Neither they nor NCLR argue

for a massive liberalization of immigration law, nor for great expansions in the

number of immigrants who come to the U.S. But we do argue for family reunification, due process of law, protection for those fleeing persecution, equal treatment,

and respect. Immigrants know well that their hard work and commitment to their

chosen country is part of a long and extraordinary tradition that has made America

great. We diminish that greatness when we allow excessively harsh, unjust, and inhumane laws to remain on the books. This Subcommittee has an opportunity to

honor the many contributions that immigrants make in energizing our economy and

revitalizing our communities. We urge you to lead the charge in restoring fairness

to our laws.

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you, and thank you for the admonition at the end. I intend to do that.

Ms. Narasaki, it is delightful to see you again and I look forward

to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF KAREN K. NARASAKI, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN

LEGAL CONSORTIUM, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ms. NARASAKI. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I couldn’t ask for

a better birthday gift.

Chairman BROWNBACK. Happy birthday. I won’t sing.

Ms. NARASAKI. We appreciate your inviting us to testify on the

subject of Asian immigration and to offer our views on work that

we hope we can accomplish together with this Congress this year.

We do have extensive written testimony which we are asking to

be submitted into the record.

Chairman BROWNBACK. Without objection.

Ms. NARASAKI. Before I formally begin, I would also like to take

the opportunity to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership

in the 1996 battles to retain the family based visa categories. Your

work was of profound importance to our community and to the Nation.

We share your belief, as you so recently and eloquently stated,

that America’s greatest strength remains its openness to new ideas

and to new people. That is why we are committed to fair, generous,

and non-discriminatory immigration policies.

52

Immigration policy is particularly important to the Asian community because one-third of the immigration to the U.S. over the

last three decades has really been from Asia. Although we are only

4 percent of the Nation’s population, we are one-quarter of the Nation’s foreign-born.

Many Asian immigrants are fleeing persecution and seeking freedom for themselves and their families. Others are seeking a place

where they can fully apply their talents, whether it is in arts, athletics, science, or business. Still others seek to reunite with their

parents, their children, or their brothers and sisters, and to contribute to each other’s and their family’s well-being.

That is why we believe it is critical that our immigration system

maintain a balance between the employment, family, and refugee

asylum-based immigration categories. We want to particularly

focus on family based immigration because it has been the cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy.

Well over 90 percent of the Asian community has arrived

through the family based categories. Immigrants who entered the

U.S. as adult kids or as brothers and sisters include countless individuals who have contributed to our Nation’s life and economy, and

who have served honorably in our armed forces.

From small businesses to high-tech companies, Asian immigrant

entrepreneurs have been a critical element in the revitalization of

many urban communities across the country. Many of them were

sponsored into this country by their siblings or parents who emigrated earlier and became citizens.

Also, family visa policies have a direct impact on the power of

America to continue to attract the world’s most talented personnel

to compete in the global market. The ability of immigrants, refugees and asylees to become emotionally and economically stable

and socially integrated into society increases when their family

members are able to join them.

For example, take the case of Ming Liu, a design engineer for a

U.S. telephone and electronic equipment company from China. He

was more than meeting his employer’s expectations, but he became

a much better worker after his wife and child were able to join him

in Fremont after a long 2-year wait. His productivity skyrocketed

and his boss noted that Liu not only was a better worker, but became more open socially at work. And it allowed him to subsequently create an innovative concept that helped the company to

change direction and increase sales. Liu said that the arrival of his

family allowed him to breath again.

In Asian immigrant families, adult children often work together

to take care of aging parents. Grandparents take care of grandchildren while the parents work. Brothers and sisters pool their resources to send nieces and nephews to college, to open family businesses, and to buy homes. Their children often work in these businesses.

Unfortunately, historical exclusion and a failure to address growing family backlogs has resulted in an inordinately long wait for

most of these families, waiting as spouses, siblings, and children.

Close to half of the family backlogs are of individuals from Asian

countries, and many have been waiting 10 to 20 years to rejoin

their families here in the U.S.

53

Because of the per-country caps and limited family quotas, American citizens petitioning for adult unmarried children from the

Philippines face a wait longer than that of those for legal permanent residents, which means that the Filipinos in our community

have a disincentive from becoming citizens. The waiting times are

so long that children may become 21 years of age while their parents wait to reunite with their parent or sibling. The families often

are faced with an incredibly decision of moving and leaving an

adult child behind to wait in an even longer line. If petitioners become citizens and the adult children marry in the meantime, they

are put in yet another long line, some of them waiting as long as

7 years.

Last year, Congress took the first step in addressing the growing

issue. The new V visa category allows spouses and minor children

of permanent residents who have been waiting at least 3 years to

enter and obtain work authorization. However, this is only a partial relief to a much larger problem.

The current waiting times for family visas, we believe, undermines the entire immigration system, and we are urging the Subcommittee to hold hearings on the issue and develop a solution that

will help us to reunite these families in a more efficient and fair

way.

We have also supported employment-based immigration when it

meets a strongly articulated need for our economy, an employer’s

need to create a longer-term solution, and it provides a means of

adjustment. This option, we believe, is critical for making sure that

employees who invest their talents here are able to put down roots

if they choose.

Consequently, we supported the legislation to raise the caps on

the H–1B visas, over half of which have been issued to immigrants

from Asia. A recent Department of Labor interim rule, however, is

frustrating Congressional intent to allow these workers to move

quickly from one company to another. We urge this Subcommittee

to look into this issue and work with INS and the Department of

Labor to make sure that they are working in concert with the legislation.

There are a number of other issues that I would like to get to.

On asylum seekers and refugees, there is a lot of unfinished business with refugees from Southeast Asia, particularly those who

were allowed in as public interest parolees under Attorney General

Edwin Meese’s orders in the late 1980’s. They still have been unable to regularize and become permanent residents.

Legislation was passed last year, but the INS has as yet failed

to take any action to put forward guidelines for how these people

are allowed to adjust under the new legislation, and, in fact, have

instructed their filed offices to reject any applications that are

being filed.

Finally, on adjustment of status, we share Senator Durbin’s concern about the continuing plight of undocumented immigrants, particularly those who have strong roots in our community. We hope

the Subcommittee will examine this difficult issue and the various

approaches by which we can solve this current problem.

There are a number of issues that we would like to address, and

I look forward to working with this Subcommittee to address them.

54

1 Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans in the 1990s, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,

p. 7 (1992). 2 U.S. Dept. of State, Paper Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States 1924 (1939),

Vol.2, p. 339. See Higham, American Immigration Policy in Historical Perspective, 21 Law and

Contemp. Probls. 213, 227 (1956). 3 Act of Feb. 5, 1917, 39 Stat. 874.

4This quota limited non-European immigration. For example, Great Britain with two percent

of the world’s population had 43% of the quota. National Lawyers Guild, Immigration Law and

Defense, p.2–4. 5 At the time, only immigrants from Asia were ineligible for citizenship solely on the basis

of race. See Ozawa v. U.S., 260 U.S. 178 (1922). 6 Ch. 344, 57 Stat. 600 (1943).

7 Id.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Narasaki follows:]

STATEMENT OF KAREN K. NARASAKI, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CONSORTIUM

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting me be able to offer the following testimony on behalf of

The National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium. The National Asian Pacific

American Legal Consortium (‘‘NAPALC ’’) is a nonprofit organization whose mission

is to advance and protect the legal and civil rights of Asian Pacific Americans across

the country. Immigration policy is particularly important to NAPALC because of the

large percentage of immigrants in the Asian-American community and the long history of racially discriminatory treatment of Asian and Pacific Islanders by our country’s immigration laws.

NAPALC and its Affiliates, the Asian-American Legal Defense and Education

Fund in New York, the Asian Law Caucus in San Francisco, and the Asian Pacific

American legal Center of Southern California, collectively have over 75 years of experience in providing direct legal services, community education, and advocacy on

immigration law and immigrant rights issues.

NAPALC pursues fair, generous and nondiscriminatory immigration policies. We

believe that history has proven that the United States has thrived economically and

socially because it is a nation of immigrants. We collect data and educate policy

makers as to the impact of various proposals. We also monitor implementation of

immigration laws by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and provide technical assistance and education materials about changes in the immigration laws of

most relevance to the Asian Pacific American community.

I. THE HISTORY OF ASIAN IMMIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES

A. HISTORICAL EXCLUSION

The history of this country’s immigration laws has been fraught with racial bias.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 which prohibited the immigration of Chinese laborers, epitomizes the early record on immigration from Asia1 1907, anti-Asian sentiment culminated in the Gentleman’s Agreement limiting Japanese immigration,2

Asian immigration was further restricted by the Immigration Act of 1917 which

banned immigration from almost all countries in the Asia-Pacific region 3; the Quota

Law of 1921 which limited the annual immigration of a given nationality to three

percent of the number of such persons residing in the United States as of 1910 4;

and the National Origins Act of 1924, which banned immigration of persons who

were ineligible for citizenship,5 decade later, the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934

placed a quota of 50 Filipino immigrants per year.

It has been just over a generation since the Chinese Exclusion Act and its draft:

April 41’’ Testimony before the Senate Immigration Subcommittee progeny were repealed in 1943.6 Yet after the repeal, discriminatory quotas were nevertheless set

using formulas giving special preference to immigration from Europe. Until 1965,

for example, the German annual quota was almost 26,000 and the Irish almost

18,000 while the annual quota from China was 105, for Japan was 185, the Philippines was 100 and the Pacific Islands was 100.7

The intensity of the discrimination against immigrants from Asia is reflected in

the fact that they were ineligible to become naturalized citizens for over 160 years.

A 1790 law allowed only ‘‘free white persons’’ to become citizens. Even after the law

was changed to include African Americans, similar legislation to include Asian

55

8P. Chew, William and Mary Law Review, Asian Americans: The ’Reticent ‘‘Minority and

Their Paradoxes, p.13 (1995). 9See Ozawa v. U.S., 260 U.S. 178 (1922); U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 197 (1923);

and In re Ah Yup, 1 F. Cas. 223 (Cir. Ct. D. Cal. 1878). 10 H. Kim, Ed., Asian American History, Asian Americans and American Immigration Law by

T. Knoll, pp.52–3 (1986). 11 H. Kim, Ed., Asian Americans and the Supreme Court, Asian Americans and Present U.S.

Immigration Policies, A Legacy of Exclusion, by W. Tamayo, p. 1112–1113 (1992). 12 Id. At pp. 1120–1121; Sec. 405 of the Immigration Act of 1990, Nov. 19, 1990, Pub. L. No.

101–649, 104 Stat. 4978. 13 Hing, Bill Ong. Easing the Backlogs for Family Immigration: Doing the Right Thing. 14 Id.

Americans was rejected.8 The Supreme Court upheld the laws making Asian immigrants ineligible for citizenship.9 The last of these laws were not repealed until

1952.10

B. IMMIGRATION REFORMS

Congress sought to eliminate most of the racial barriers imbedded in the immigration system with the passage of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965.

Unfortunately the Act did not address the effect of earlier biases. In fact, the 20,000

per country limit, imposed without any connection to size of originating country or

demand, resulted in extremely long waiting lists for Asian immigrant.11

The Immigration Act of 1990 also failed to address the tremendous backlogs that

already existed for countries like Mexico, India, the Philippines, South Korea, China

and Hong Kong. Instead, the problem was exacerbated with the reduction in number of visas available for adult sons and daughters of United States citizens. At the

time the backlog consisted primarily of children of Filipino veterans who are allowed

to naturalize under the Act because of their service to this country in fighting as

a part of United States Armed Forces in World War II. Despite this fact, the quota

was cut in half and other family categories were reduced, causing the backlog to

increase by close to 70 percent.12

As a result, although Asians have constituted over 30 percent of the country’s immigration for the past two decades, the community still makes up less than 4 percent of the United States population. Most recent numbers indicate that well over

1.6 million Asian immigrants were still waiting in backlogs for entry visas to reunite with their families. Over 45.7 percent of immigrants waiting to join their loved

ones in the United States are from Asian countries. Thus any additional restrictions

or reduction in the overall numbers, particularly in the family preference categories,

will have an inordinate impact on Asian Pacific American families.

II. FAMILY REUNIFICATION AS THE FOUNDATION OF OUR IMMIGRATION SYSTEM

Family-based immigration has rightly been the cornerstone of United States Immigration policy for decades. Well over 90 percent of Asian immigration comes

through the kinship categories.13 Families are the backbone of our country and their

unity promotes the stability, health, and productivity of family members contributing to the economic and social welfare of the United States.

Immigrants who have entered the United States through the family reunification

process as adult children, or brothers and sisters of United States citizens include

countless individuals who have contributed to the productivity of our workforce,

filled economic needs and served honorably in our Armed Forces. In addition, family

reunification policies have direct impact on the ability of American businesses to attract skilled international personnel to compete in the global market. In large part

the success of recruitment efforts depends on the ability of employees to consolidate

their family members in the United States. The ability of refugees and asylees to

become emotionally and economically stable and socially integrated into society also

increases when their family members are able to join them, decreasing emotional

distress and expanding the pool of resources that can be shared.

For example, take the case of Ming Liu, a design engineer for a United States

telephone and electronic equipment company from China. Liu was more than meeting his employer’s expectations and his boss was pleased with his hard work. But

he became a much better worker after his wife and child rejoined him in Fremont,

California after a two-year immigration process. Liu’s productivity skyrocketed and

his boss noted that Liu not only was a better worker, but that he opened up at work

socially as well. Liu ultimately came up with a new and innovative concept that

helped the company change direction and increase sales. Liu’s own words were that

the arrival of his family allowed him to ‘‘breathe again.’’ 14

56

15Ghosh, Shubha. ‘‘Understanding Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Theoretical and Empirical

Issues,’’ Reframing the Immigration Debate. Edited by Bill Ong Hing and Ronald Lee: LEAP

Asian Pacific American Public Policy Institute and the UCLA Asian American Studies Center

1996. 16The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, The Truth About Immigrant ‘‘Quality, ‘‘at p.12 (April

1995). 17Park, Edward Jang-Woo. ‘‘Asians Matter: Asian American Entrepreneurs in the Silicon Valley High Technology Industry.’’ Reframing the Immigration Debate. Edited by Bill Ong Hing and

Ronald Lee: LEAP Asian Pacific American Public Policy Institute and the UCLA Asian American Studies Center: 1996. 18 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, ‘‘Legal Immigration, Fiscal

Year 1998,’’ July 1999. 19 Id. 20Ghosh at 131. 21Securities Industry Association. Asian American Markets. Available at http://www.sia.con/

diversity/html/asian-american.html.

22Park at 157.

Even beyond the obvious psychological benefit of reuniting immigrants with their

families, and the inherent value of close knit family in our own traditions, studies

have shown that the policy has a marked impact on the country’s entrepreneurship.

A recent study found ‘‘indeed, the impressive figures on Asian Pacific entrepreneurs. . .have resulted from the current mostly family-based, immigration system.’’ 15

In Asian Pacific American families, adult children often work together to take

care of aging parents and brother and sisters pool resources to send nieces and

nephews to college, open family businesses, buy homes or take care of each other

in times of distress.

Arguments by some anti-immigrant proponents have suggested that cuts in family

immigration are justified by lower immigrant quality. But these propositions overlook the facts. According to a study by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, the education levels of immigrants have been improving not declining. Mean numbers of

years of schooling have continuously increased; the proportion of new immigrants

with less than an eighth-grade education has be steadily declining and the population with a college degree or more has actually risen.16 terms of labor markets,

analysts note that where immigrants have moved in, the unemployment rate has

actually dropped.17

III. CONTRIBUTIONS OF ASIAN IMMIGRANTS

As mentioned earlier, over 90 percent of Asians immigrate to this country through

the family categories. The people who come in as spouses, adult children, and siblings are generally in prime of their working lives. The median age of a legal immigrant is 29 years old.18 And over 59 percent of new immigrants fall within the ages

of 15 and 44 years of age.19 This youth translates into a strong incentive and ability

to create and produce, and it manifests itself in our nation’s economy and community.

A. SMALL BUSINESS OWNERSHIP

Asian immigrants have dramatically increased their presence in small business.

Some academics suggest this is a means to overcoming language and other barriers

to the mainstream economy, whereas others have focused on explaining why AsianAmericans might fare better in the changing economic environment of the United

States. Regardless of the reasons, Asian Pacific Americans have increased their

presence in this sector tremendously. Between 1982 and 1987 there was an 89.3

percent increase in Asian-owned businesses.20 The number of Asian-owned businesses in the United States grew 180 percent between 1987 and 1997, and during

the same period there was a 463 percent increase in Asian-American business sales

and receipt.21 The importance of these numbers is in the understanding that the

value of these undertakings is transferred to the communities, not simply to the immigrant entrepreneurs themselves:

Asian immigrant entrepreneurship, especially in ethnic enclave economies, has injected long-neglected inner-cities and sleepy suburban communities with much

needed capital investment, neighborhood revitalization, and increased commercial activity. . .These sociologists point out that a substantial percentage of

benefits, such as job creation, business services, linkages to international capital

and markets, and generation of sales and property tax revenues, go beyond ethnic boundaries and enrich the broader public.22

57

23Linda Griego, ‘‘Rebuilding L.A.’s Urban Communities,’’ Final Report of RLA, Milken Institute, 1997. 24 Id. 25 25. Yang, Jeff & Yang, Nelson. aNote. A. Magazine, January 31, 2001. 26 Erasmus, Melanie. ‘‘Immigrant Entrepreneurs in the High Tech Industry,’’ Reframing the

Immigration Debate Edited by Bill Ong Hing and Ronald Lee: LEAP Asian Pacific American

Public Policy Institute and the UCLA Asian American Studies Center: 1996.

B. THE REVITALIZATION OF THE LOS ANGELES TOY INDUSTRY

Asian immigrants, like immigrants in general, have moved in to revive business

in long-neglected urban areas. For instance when they moved in to transform the

previously dilapidated area in Los Angeles and helped pick up a now thriving industry, Los Angeles became the main thoroughfare for the toy industry. More than 60

percent of the toys now sold in United States retail store distributed from the California city, making it the nation’s top toy distribution center.23 The district was developed by a handful of Asian immigrants who transformed a derelict downtown

neighborhood into a successful business district that employs more than 6,000 people and generates estimated total revenues of $500 million annually.24

C. SILICON VALLEY AND THE HIGH-TECH INDUSTRY

The high tech industry in Silicon Valley is another good example of what Asian

immigrants can bring the country. The Valley is home to the world’s leading technology firms, and is a well-suited example since observers note that: ‘‘much of the

industry’s transformation into its contemporary form coincided with massive Asian

Pacific immigration into the United States and California.’’ Asian Pacific Americans

provide nearly half the area’s manufacturing labor force, and 25 percent of the total

workforce. According to to Public Policy Institute of California, one out of every four

Silicon Valley CEOs is Asian.25 In individual firms they may range from 20 percent

to 80 percent of the company’s engineers. One computer industry analyst put it this

way: ‘‘The United States would not be remotely dominant in high-technology industries without immigrants. We are now utterly dominant in all key information domains. And at every high-tech company in America, the crucial players, half of them

or more, are immigrants.’’ 26

IV. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE 107TH CONGRESS.

1. FAMILY-BASED IMMIGRATION: CLEARING THE BACKLOGS.

The unreasonably long family backlogs continue to obstruct the reunification of

families. As of January 1997, the last period for which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (‘‘INS ’’) released a report, over 3.5 million spouses, children,

brothers and sisters were waiting to reunite with their relatives in the United

States. Of this number, over 1 million are spouses and minor children waiting to

reunite with legal permanent residents in the United States, more than 500,000 are

adult children of legal permanent residents waiting to reunite with their legal permanent resident parents, and over 400,000 are adult children are waiting to be with

their citizen parents. 1.5 million are the brothers and sisters waiting to reunite with

their citizen siblings. The situation disproportionately impacts Asian Americans,

since 1.6 million of the 3.5 million people waiting, 45.7 percent, are from Asian

countries.

The system not only has implications for those families, but is beginning to break

down the current system of family-based immigration. For Filipino Americans, the

waiting time for citizens petitioning for adult unmarried children is longer than for

that of legal permanent residents, which means that there is a disincentive for immigrants from the Philippines to naturalize and become citizens. The waiting time

for citizens from the Philippines is now 12 years versus 2 years for other countries.

The waiting time is now so long that many children will become 21 years of age

while their parents wait to unite with their parents or siblings. The families must

then make the hard decision of leaving behind their adult children to be put at the

end of an even longer line for adult children. That waiting time is now 4 years for

spouses and minor children from most countries versus 7 years for adult children

of legal permanent residents.

The adult children of many United States citizens face a cruel choice. If they want

to marry before being able to immigrate to reunite with their parents, they will

move to the back of an even longer line for adult married children. The waiting time

is now 13 years for adult married children of citizens originally from the Philippines

versus 5 years for unmarried adult children from most other countries. The waiting

58

27 Yang, Jeff & Yang, Nelson. ‘‘aNote.’’ A. Magazine, January 31, 2001.

time for brothers and sisters ranges from 12 years for most countries to 21 years

for siblings from the Philippines because of the per country immigration caps.

Last year Congress began to acknowledge the predicament of permanent legal

residents in bringing their spouses and children to be with them. The ‘‘V’’ visa created by the ‘‘Legal Immigrant and Family Equity Act of 2000’’ is a new nonimmigrant visa category for spouses and children of permanent residents who have

been waiting at least 3 years for their green card. The ‘‘V’’ visa allows them to enter

the United States and obtain work authorization while waiting for their application

determination.

While a good first step, the relief provided by this visa is limited, as it issues only

temporary relief to a problem that is actually much more pervasive. The ‘‘V’’ visa

program is valid for only 3 years. Further, the spouse is only eligible after they have

waited three long years to be with their legal permanent resident husband or wife.

Working out a thoughtful solution to the backlog problem is crucial to solving the

challenges of the current immigration system. The family backlog seriously undermines the values and successes of immigrant families. NAPALC urges the Subcommittee to hold hearings on the issue and develop a solution that will help reunite families in a more timely and humane schedule.

2. EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION

NAPALC supports employment-based immigration if it meets a strongly articulated need by our economy, employers invest in increasing the ability of Americans

to fulfill their needs in the long term, and the system provides a means of adjustment for the worker, so that if the visa holder so desires he or she may eventually

adjust to permanent residency. Currently over half of all H1–B visas for high-tech

workers are being issued to Asian immigrant.27 The 106th Congress passed the

American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 106–313) in October 2000.

NAPALC supported that legislation, and worked with members of Congress and the

Clinton Administration to ensure that the system would function effectively for both

companies and their recruits. The bill was signed into law and increased the cap

on H–1B visas to 195,000 for the next three fiscal years. It also increased the ability

of H–1B professionals to change employers once they are in the United States, increased the fee employers must pay to educate and train United States workers in

technology occupations to $1000, and made changes to prevent INS delays from

hurting H–1B professionals who are applying for green cards. This option is critical

to ensuring that those who invest their talents in this country are able to put down

roots in their adopted country, if they so choose.

A recent United States Department of Labor (‘‘DOL ’’) Interim Rule, however, has

had the effect of frustrating Congressional intent of providing these workers with

the ability to move quickly to a new employer when new employer files a Labor Condition Application to the INS and the INS then sends a notice of receipt. The DOL

Rule prevents the H1–B visa holder from changing employers until the Department

of Labor certifies the Labor Condition Application and returns it to the new employer. The intent was to allow H1–B employees to begin work for the new employer

once the INS received copies of the filed application. The Department of Labor Rule

now puts the visa holders in the same vulnerable position that the ‘‘portability’’ provision had been trying to avoid, and essentially usurps the intent of this provision.

We ask that the Subcommittee investigate the effects of this recent rule, and support efforts to revise the regulation.

3. ASYLEE AND REFUGEE ISSUES

The United States has a long tradition of taking in those persons who flee their

country in the face of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, social group,

political opinion, or armed conflict. NAPALC believes that our nation is particularly

obligated though, to the Southeast-Asian refugees who face persecution in their

home countries for supporting the United States Armed Forces during the Vietnam

War.

The Fiscal Year 2001 Foreign Operations, Export, Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, signed by the President in November, included an

amendment that will allow certain persons from Southeast Asia, who have been in

the United States in a temporary status since the early 1990’s, to become permanent residents. While many Southeast-Asians have been resettled here as refugees,

some (most with family members already in the United States) were admitted as

‘‘Public Interest Parolees.’’ Because parolees, unlike refugees, cannot adjust to permanent residence after a year in the United States these individuals are in limbo

59

until an immigrant visa becomes available through a family sponsor. This is a process that can take many years depending on the category of family visa for which

the person is eligible. The new law allows them to adjust their status without waiting for their family immigrant visa to become available.

There are, however, approximately 15,000 to 20,000 potential beneficiaries of this

law. The provision passed last session mandates a ceiling of 5,000 persons who will

be able to adjust to permanent residence under this provision of law. Congress appears to have contemplated revisiting this issue as the ceiling was applied in the

last hours of passing the bill.

Regulations specifying the application procedure have not yet been published, and

the INS issued instructions to their field office in January to return any paperwork

thus far received. NAPALC is concerned both with the amount of time that it is taking the INS to issue regulations and with the restrictive cap that was placed at the

last minute on this provision. We urge the Subcommittee to review this issue and

support legislation increasing the number of visas available under this adjustment

provision to match the number of individuals who would remain vulnerable and unable to adjust to permanent citizenship within a reasonable amount of time without

this law. We also urge the Subcommittee to press the INS to develop regulations

that fit the intent of Congress to favorably resolve this long outstanding issue as

quickly as possible.

4. INS SERVICES

The INS continues to be one of the most dysfunctional federal agencies. Problems

at the agency, complex legislation and inadequate appropriations for INS services

consistently result in poor service and unreasonable waiting periods for even consumer-paid services. NAPALC is very concerned about backlogs in INS processing

of citizenship and other applications. The agency often is unable to produce regulation and set up produce regulations and procedures on a timely basis even where

new legislation provides extremely short deadlines. Existing services fall behind as

INS is forced to shift priorities to address outrageous backlogs in various programs

or process new programs.

a. Citizenship

Given the changes in the immigration laws in 1996, the need for addressing the

large numbers of legal immigrants waiting in line to be naturalized becomes all the

more critical to address. The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA) and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) left these immigrants particularly vulnerable as their access to

basic judicial review and certain government services was severely curtailed. It is

thus all the more imperative that the INS’s services be improved. Application fees

have increased dramatically in recent years without a commensurate increase in the

INS’s ability to process and adjudicate these cases in an efficient manner.

Based on surveys NAPALC has collected from community-based organizations

across the country that serve Asian Pacific American clients, our conclusion is that

INS has clearly failed in its function and mission to deliver adequate services to its

customers. For instance, a Denver, Colorado community group reported to us that

processing green card and citizenship applications was taking INS about 2 years.

A St. Paul, Minnesota community organization reported to us that it was taking an

average of 1 and 1⁄2 for INS to process a naturalization application, which makes

it difficult for many of their elderly clients to retain what they have learned for the

civics test.

Finally, we applaud the efforts of the Congress in the 1061’’ Session in addressing

the barriers faced by the Among Community, who allied themselves with the United

States Armed Forces during the Vietnam War. By passing Among Citizenship Act

of 2000 in May of 2000, Congress allowed certain individuals to waive the English

fluency requirement and take a modified Civics examination for their naturalization

process. The Among population numbers in the 200,000 range, and the Among Citizenship Act waives the requirements for up to 45,000 individuals who meet the conditions of the law.

To be eligible, Among veterans must have served with a special guerrilla unit or

irregular forces operating from Laos in support of the United States Armed Forces

any time between February 28, 1961, and September 18, 1978. Applicants have a

period of 18 months to file for citizenship. However, reports as late as September

200 in indicated that the INS was still turning eligible people away, claiming no

60

28Doyle, Michael. ‘‘Among Citizenship Problems Arise: New Law’s Limitations Stir Controversy and Confusion.’’ Sacramento Bee, September 13, 2000.

knowledge of the law.28 Thus we anticipate the period of time in which Among Veterans can apply for the waiver will probably need to be extended. We urge the Subcommittee to solicit a report from the INS as to their progress and the number of

people that have been processed through the provisions of this law, and to hold a

hearing where the subcommittee invites input from members of the Among community who can report directly on their experiences in applying for the waiver with

the INS.

b. INS Reorganization

Customers experience INS as a large, confusing, inaccessible bureaucracy. It is

difficult, if not impossible for them to gain access to workers and information. Communications between INS and clients are often one-way. Unless INS sends a letter

or makes a phone call to the client, it is virtually impossible for the client to initiate

communications with INS if they need assistance or questions answered. There is

an overall lack of responsiveness to applicants, particularly those who do not have

community organizations or elected officials working on their behalf. Consistent reports have been received from all parts of the country that INS workers often treat

customers with lack of respect and hostility, particularly those who do not speak

English well, are elderly, have disabilities, or are low-income. Notices are generally

not provided in Asian Languages and customers are expected to bring their own

translations, when necessary. Feedback received from the community clearly indicates an overall lack of understanding and concern for the unique cultural and linguistic needs of clients by many INS workers.

National policies established at headquarters are often not adequately communicated to staff at the local level, which has resulted in inconsistent and erroneous

implementation of laws and policies by local INS employees. Local workers also

sometimes take the initiative in instituting extreme actions which have not come

from any national directive and which clearly violate the law, particularly around

enforcement. Also, there are problems with inconsistent and inaccurate information

being given to clients.

In response to increased inefficiencies, problems and failings within INS, particularly around the processing of naturalization applications, several proposals have

been introduced. How INS is ultimately reorganized will have a tremendous impact

on the ability of immigrants to naturalize, as well as on their ability to seek out

a range of services related to their applications for green cards, work authorization,

and family sponsorship.

We support the general premise around which all of the proposals are based, that

INS is indeed an agency plagued by inefficiencies, failings and problems, and is in

desperate need of change to drastically improve its ability to fulfill its functions in

both areas of services and enforcement. We feel however, that the ultimate proposal

must recognize that adequate funding must be ensured to improve the overall delivery of services, particularly in the area of naturalization and green card processing,

and that these services are not sacrificed in any reorganization proposals.

A complete separation of services and enforcement into two separate and distinct

agencies could leave services without adequate funding, accountability and comprehensive and consistent policy development. However, the two functions might be

clearly separated into divisions if they remain under the roof of one agency. Clear

separation of functions between services and enforcement will lead to greater improvements in both areas by strengthening chains of command, improving communications and accountability, enhancing training and skill development, and streamlining procedures. Any plan to reorganize INS must be the result of a well thoughtout process. Legislation should not be supported if it does not include adequate appropriations. We are thus opposed to a proposal, H.R. 2528 (‘‘Immigration Reorganization and Improvement Act ’’), introduced last session in the United States House

of Representatives by Representatives Rogers, Reyes and Smith. This proposal separated the enforcement and service aspects, but failed to provide the reorganized

agency with an agency head that would have significant authority. The bill neglected to provide a coordinating mechanism and similarly included no means to resolving conflicting policy between the two service and enforcement branches. The

bill also failed to cover the costs of reorganization and did not provide any means

to assuring that the current state of inadequate service levels, would at all improve.

In contrast, the Senate Bill on the same subject, 5.1563, (‘‘INS Reform and Border

Security Act ’’) addressed many of these questions. We urge the Subcommittee to

hold hearings, make a comprehensive study that includes a realistic assessment of

the costs, and seeks input from a wide range of stakeholders.

61

5. RESTORATION OF BASIC DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS

NAPALC also remains deeply concerned with the basic due process rights that

were eroded in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility

Act of 1996 (17RAIRA) and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

(AEDPA). The effects of the 1996 laws are devastating and far-reaching. AEDPA

and IIRAIRA were enacted to curtail illegal immigration and to keep criminal aliens

from entering and remaining in the United States. Their enactment however, has

had tremendous impact on the lives and families of those detained. Often times, the

detained immigrants are the primary income-earners for their households, causing

families to suffer both emotional trauma and financial hardship. 75 percent of children in the United States are from families with at least one non-citizen parent,

and thus could be gravely impacted by the 1996 laws if their non-citizen parent

were ever found deportable.

With its large non-citizen immigrant population, the Asian-American community

is particularly susceptible to the harsh provisions of the 1996 laws. Over 40 percent

of Korean, Asian-Indian, and Vietnamese communities are not yet citizens. And well

over half of Cambodian, Laotian, Among, and Thai communities are not yet-naturalized immigrants.

Some of the laws’ more extreme provisions mandate the detention and deportation

of legal immigrants who may have committed crimes in their past, however minor

and however long ago. The far-reaching effects of these laws have been to tear longtime legal permanent residents away from their jobs, businesses, families, and

United States citizen children for minor offenses they committed decades prior to

the enactment of the 1996 laws. Legal immigrants have been stripped of their ability to demonstrate to a judge the changed circumstances of their lives, and the hardship that deportation would create for themselves and their families. Ironically,

some of the very individuals and their children who were admitted to the United

States as refugees from Southeast Asia are now being threatened with return to the

very regimes that persecuted them. For immigrants that cannot be repatriated to

home countries such as Laos and Vietnam for political reasons, the laws have effectively resulted in life sentences behind bars, unable to provide for their families or

contribute to their community.

The 1996 laws changed the standards for what makes a legal permanent resident

deportable. It expanded the definition of an aggravated felony, a deportable offense,

to over 30 crimes including some which are considered only misdemeanors under

state law. The new definition also includes crimes where the conviction was expunged or the sentence was completely suspended. The INS applied this new definition retroactively to crimes committed even before the 1996 law, regardless of how

far back the crime was committed.

In addition, the 1996 laws took away the right of legal immigrants to prove to

the immigration judge that they have been rehabilitated, that they have lived in the

United States for a long time, and that their departure would create hardship for

themselves or their family members. Individuals no longer have the ability to demonstrate to a judge the circumstances of their home country that might place them

in jeopardy if they were to go back. This is particularly problematic for those individuals who fled repressive regimes and entered the United States as refugees. Immigration judges no longer have the discretion to grant immigrants relief from deportation.

The 1996 laws require the INS to detain certain immigrants while they await

their deportation hearing, stripping immigrants of their right to a bond hearing. In

the past, an individual who could show that she or he was not a flight risk or threat

to public safety was released on bond.

As the 5th anniversary of these laws approaches, the 1996 laws toll on the immigrant communities continues. NAPALC urges the committee to restore the constitutional guarantee of judicial review, restore basic fairness by repealing the retroactive application of the 1996 laws and establish a fair definition of crimes that lead

to detention deportation. A limited bill, supported by Representative Lamar Smith

that would have just begun to ameliorate the harsh injustices upon permanent legal

residents passed unanimously in the United States House of Representatives last

year (H.R. 5062). Senator Kennedy and Senator Graham introduced a more comprehensive proposal (S. 3120). We urge the Subcommittee to hold hearings on this

issue and to act on legislation that would ameliorate the provisions that are overly

harsh and violate our country’s sense of fairness and commitment to due process.

6. INS ENFORCEMENT

NAPALC supports both the business and labor coalitions which have called for

the repeal of employer sanctions. We believe the sanctions should be repealed as a

62

29 Bensman, Todd. ‘‘INS Targeted Indians and Pakistanis in Dallas Sweep,’’ Dallas Morning

News. October 29, 2000.

failed policy, which has resulted in the discriminatory practices by employers

against minority employees.

Reports indicate that in certain districts the INS has been targeting minority

business owners for enforcement actions.29 Last year the INS targeted Asian-Indian

computer software engineers working at an Air Force base in San Antonio Texas.

Forty computer software engineers were arrested and detained along with their

family members for alleged violations of their visas, but were later all released without further action. In Dallas, Texas, a report emerged that INS officers had targeted

Asian business-owners by photocopying yellow pages listings of Indian and Pakistani restaurants. NAPALC and its affiliates find such practices raise concerns of

grave violations of the civil rights of these businessmen. We urge the Subcommittee

to review the issue of enforcement by the INS and consider legislation that would

repeal employer sanctions.

7. FINDING A MEANS OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE GROWING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS

NAPALC remains concerned with the need to find a broad-based means of adjustment, particularly in light of the initial numbers emerging from Census 2000 which

indicate a higher than anticipated level of undocumented immigrants. The INS has

tried many means and approaches to block the flow of immigrants who enter the

country without legal documents, or overstay their permission to reside here. But

it is apparent that the people who have wanted desperately to enter this country,

have been able to continue to enter and remain. It is in the nation’s own interest

to provide them with a means to adjust, so that they can step out of the shadows

and become contributing members of our communities and participating in the welfare of the nation as a whole.

We believe that an increase in the number of adjustment of status opportunities

and a reform of the employment-based categories, combined with a reduction in the

family backlog, will produce a wide distribution of available workers and will

present an immediate infusion of labor which economists such as Federal Reserve

Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has indicated we need. One potential means of addressing the issue would be to adopt a rolling registry date, which would act as a

statute of limitations. Such a provision would acknowledge the contributions these

individuals have made to our economy as well as the roots that they have grounded

with their years in the United States. We urge the Subcommittee to explore solutions to this problem by holding hearings and closely examining proposals that are

currently being introduced in Congress.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving NAPALC

the opportunity to make these recommendations. We look forward to working with

you.

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you very much.

Finally, Ms. Dickson, thank you very much for joining the Subcommittee. We look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH C. DICKSON, MANAGER, IMMIGRATION SERVICES, INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, AND CHAIR,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, WOODCLIFF LAKE, NEW JERSEY

Ms. DICKSON. Thank you for having me. I am Elizabeth Dickson

and I manage the immigration function for Ingersoll-Rand Company, and for the past year I have also been the Chair of the U.S.

Chamber of Commerce Subcommittee on Immigration. I really appreciate the opportunity to share some of my experiences with a

large manufacturing company dealing with finding workers that we

need.

I am actually the point of contact for human resource managers

throughout the United States when they have tried to fill a position with a U.S. worker and cannot find a worker for it and then

come to me saying we need to bring somebody in. Frequently, I

have to turn around and say to them, I am sorry, we can’t bring

63

them in, because there are very limited categories and ability to

bring in people unless they are highly skilled professionals.

This tight labor market that we have now has really got companies like Ingersoll-Rand scrambling for much-needed workers. Ingersoll-Rand is a Fortune 200 company. We employ over 50,000

people worldwide and we have 30,000 employees in the United

States. Last year, our annual sales were $8.6 billion.

We have always prided ourselves on being an American manufacturing company, and we have manufacturing facilities located in 21

States in the United States. Forty percent of our revenues come

from export business, and we have really tried to keep the work in

the United States as much as possible.

However, we have had a lot of difficulty identifying and retaining

U.S. workers across a large spectrum of skill levels. My testimony

goes into greater detail, but I would like to just highlight for you

some of the worker shortages that we have experienced.

Chairman BROWNBACK. Please.

Ms. DICKSON. Welders are one of the semi-skilled employees that

are not considered professionals. It is a skill set that involves a certain amount of training to be able to perform the job competently.

We have a large need for these types of workers in the rotary drill

manufacturing and the road machinery division, and we have recruited through many means in the United States, using employment agencies, going to shipyards, military installations where we

thought we could find these types of workers, to no avail. When we

did identify skilled welders in Mexico, we were unable to bring

them into the country because there really was not an appropriate

and easy visa category we could use for them.

Right now, my Air Solutions Group is having a real shortage of

service technicians, and again we have employees who are service

technicians at our I-R Canada facility who could come into the

United States and be able to perform this work at customer sites.

Because the equipment is manufactured in the United States,

these workers would require work permits to come in. Even under

Trade NAFTA, a service technician is not able to work independently at a customer site unless they are under the supervision of

an engineer. So, again, we cannot fulfill the needs of our customers

right now when we can see a solution that would not be too difficult.

Some of the other difficulties that manufacturing companies such

as ours have are tool and dye workers and precision machinists.

Both of those occupations have been shortage occupations for

many, many years. We are having difficulty finding electricians.

Electricians are very similar to welders. They are not professionals,

but it is a skilled occupation that requires a certain amount of

training and apprenticeship. Again, we have sometimes been able

to identify electricians in other countries and been unable to bring

them in.

Obviously, a big manufacturing company such as Ingersoll-Rand

is very dependent on engineers. Engineering is one of the fields

that we find that the INS and the Department of Labor don’t even

understand how complex engineering skills are now, and that there

are a variety of different engineers that are very, very specialized.

64

Metrologists are very specialized quality control engineers. Only

five universities in the United States even train metrologists and

have these programs. When my recruiters go out and try to hire

these people, they find that almost everyone in the class is a foreign national.

We had a 20-month search for a robotics engineer at our Baxter

Springs, Kansas, facility. Metallurgical engineers have been shortage occupations for many years. Our Thermo King climate control

area had a 13-month search for a plastics engineer. We finally

found someone from Canada.

I think during the H–1B debate the IT shortages were clearly defined to everybody, but this is an area that is not going to go away.

And it is not only professional programmers and software engineers who are covered under the H–1B program, but also the technicians and people that are in the help desk function and the technical support function that we would like to see.

With the information technology area, too, we do seem to see a

skills gap. When we are really looking for programmers and software engineers who have Web-based application, Oracle experience, and stuff like that, our schools in America are just starting

to teach that. A lot of these applications have been developed in

India and other countries and those are the people we are trying

to get. If we can only bring them in for very short periods of time

as a non-immigrant, then you are going to have a turnover in that

high-tech area which is very costly to business.

I think we have seen that we continue to need workers of all skill

levels. Through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and in coalition

with a lot of other businesses and trade associations, we are looking to solve these worker shortages at all levels. That is why we

have supported some of the programs that have been presented

through the Essential Workers Immigration Coalition to try to find

a workable solution for the shortage of workers who have less than

a bachelor’s degree, and in my testimony I included some information from that.

Like my colleague from PricewaterhouseCoopers, spousal work

authorization is something that the Chamber of Commerce supports. We too see real difficulty transferring people when there are

dual-career couples, and there are certainly other countries that

Americans can go to, the UK, and the spouses can work. It is hard

to explain to somebody from Britain that their spouse cannot work

in the United States. The lack of sufficient immigrant visas is certainly another area of concern for us.

As far as the agencies go, we are really concerned with the increasing processing times at both the Department of Labor and the

Immigration and Naturalization Service. I think Warren spoke

about that, and also the processing times are very, very difficult to

contend with.

Another area that I have found to be very troublesome is the lack

of regulations. Congress passes certain laws and they become effective, and we may wait 3 or 4 years down the road to actually get

regulations to implement it. This is very confusing for companies

who are really trying to abide by the letter of the law and we don’t

have regulations.

65

In truth, the agencies sometimes disagree on how these laws are

going to be interpreted. The Department of Labor will say one

thing about certified LCAs and the INS will say another. So I think

going down the road, it would be wonderful if the Subcommittee

could look at these agencies working more closely together, and

also having some accountability for getting regulations out in a

timely fashion, as well as processing times.

Chairman BROWNBACK. Ms. Dickson, if I could cut in here, I

have been buzzed for a vote. I need to leave shortly and I would

like to ask a couple of questions here, if we have caught most of

your comments.

Ms. DICKSON. Yes, definitely.

Chairman BROWNBACK. I appreciate that greatly, and we will

take all of your full statements into the record.

[The prepared statement and an attachment of Ms. Dickson follow:]

STATMENT OF ELIZABETH C. DICKSON, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, good morning. Thank you for the

opportunity to testify today before the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary

Committee on the subject of Immigration Law in 21 st Century. I am Elizabeth.

Dickson, a Human Resource Specialist and a member of the Global Mobility Services Team for Ingersoll-Rand Company. I am also Chair of the US Chamber of Commerce Subcommittee on Immigration. My testimony today reflects my direct experience with Ingersoll-Rand’s ability to find vitally needed workers. I hope that I will

be able to share with you some of the numerous policies and procedural issues that

a company like Ingersoll-Rand needs to contend with when hiring foreign nationals

and complying with employer sanctions law.

Ingersoll-Rand is a Fortune 200 company with about 50,000 direct employees

worldwide, including 30,000 domestic employees. The company is a major diversified

industrial equipment and components manufacturer serving the global growth markets of Climate Control, Industrial Productivity, Infrastructure Development and

Security and Safety. Its international headquarters are based in Woodcliff Lake,

New Jersey and in 2000 the company had annual sales in excess of $8.7 billion. Ingersoll-Rand Company operates manufacturing plants in over 21 countries around

the world and markets its products and services, along with its subsidiaries,

through a broad network of distributors, dealers and independent sales and service/

repair organizations. In 2000, the company had annual sales in excess of $8.7billion.

As you have heard from the distinguished panelists today, immigration is a complex and politically charged issue. The tight labor market over the past several

years has produced unemployment rates at a 30 year low. The economy has been

creating an abundant number of jobs at all levels to keep business like ours scrambling for employees. Immigration needs to be addressed as an alternate source of

workers in the U.S. If immigration policies and procedures and not revitalized, the

consequences may result in a further down turn in the economy and to companies

seeking more often to move outside the boundaries of the U.S. borders. Companies

like Ingersoll-Rand live this reality on a daily basis and when Human Resource

Managers cannot fill key positions, they are forced to look outside the US to hire

or outsource the work.

Ingersoll-Rand prides itself on being an American company that strives to keep

the majority of its manufacturing operation within the U.S. borders. We have manufacturing plants in 24 states and 120 facilities located throughout the United States.

Over 40% of our profits are tied to export sales. Unfortunately, market forces and

the unavailability of U.S. workers have created a problem of identifying and retaining U.S. workers across the spectrum of skill levels. Let me give you some examples:

1. Welders in Texas - The company manufactures a broad line of industrial machinery and equipment. The Rotary Drill Division based in Garland, Texas, is engaged in the design manufacture, and sale of rotary drill products with industrial,

mining, and water well drilling applications. The division has annual sales in excess

of $150 million. This Division has been looking for welders for major projects for

some time. Welders are semi-skilled employees that are not considered professionals. It is a skill set that involves specific training however in order to perform

the job competently and safely. The company has recruited for welding positions

66

across the U.S. They have recruited at military installations, shipyards and through

employment services. Ingersoll-Rand even has its own training schools for welders

at the Road Machinery & Rotary Drill Divisions and has been unable to identify

sufficient persons to attend this type of training to fill our needs. When the company

did identify competent welders in Mexico, the process of obtaining even temporary

work visas was too time-consuming and onerous to be considered a viable option.

2. Technicians for the Air Solutions Group’s service and repair business are also

in short supply. We have identified skilled technicians at our I-R Canada operations

who have the product knowledge and technical experience to service I-R compressors

in the US, however as the products they would be servicing are manufactured in

the US, not Canada, they would require work permits and there is no appropriate

visa category to allow such skilled technicians to travel intermittently to the US to

perform service on US-manufactured machinery.

3. Experienced tool and die workers, with knowledge in stamping technology and

machining are scarce. Our manufacturing plants in the Detroit area continue to experience difficulty-finding electricians for their manufacturing operations, with the

automotive industry being primary competitors for such skilled workers. Electricians again require a number of years of training and apprenticeship to be a competent worker but are not considered professionals. The Human Resources Manager

had identified some available electricians from Canada but there is no way to obtain

appropriate work visas for such as skill without time-consuming and expensive process that smaller division cannot afford.

4. As the company continues to expand it quality initiatives, Metrologists have become a professional occupation in very short supply. There are only about five universities in the US with Masters programs specializing in metrology and almost all

the students enrolled in such programs are foreign nationals. Human Resource

Managers advise me that they simply cannot find Americans to fill such positions.

Our Waterject Cutting Systems business in Baxter Springs, Kansas and Farmington

Hills, Michigan spent 20 months searching extensively using advertisements and

professional recruiters to find an engineer experienced in industrial robotics and

pressurized product development before finally hiring a qualified individual from

Canada. Metallurgical Engineers have been an identified shortage occupation for

years in the United States and are key contributors to machinery development

projects for our mining and drilling products. Thermo King conducted a 13 month

search for a qualified Plastics Engineer for their product development team.

5. Information Technology shortages runs the gamut from the highly-experienced

professional programmers and software engineers down to the technicians that support ‘‘help desk’’ functions. There appears to be a ‘‘skills gap’’ in the United States

as well, with the most advanced programmers and engineers coming from India,

China and some of the Soviet-Block countries. When we recruit for particular skills

such as Oracle database, UNIX and C++ programming or experienced programmers

with web-based applications, few Americans qualify. Foreign nationals can only

work as nonimmigrants in the US for a short period of time resulting in continuous

turnover of certain key technology positions. Situations like this drive projects overseas, resulting in a loss of U.S. jobs and a decrease in U.S. spin-off revenue. This

situation exemplifies not only the need for workers across the spectrum of skill levels.

Through the media and other sources the business community hears the mantra,

‘‘train U.S. workers; invest in the domestic workforce.’’ We at Ingersoll-Rand and

my members at the US Chamber do just this and more. We have training centers

at almost all our manufacturing facilities—designed to improve technical manufacturing skills and meet our employees’ personal needs; we collaborate with community colleges and vocational technical schools—providing certificate and college degree programs and sponsor distance learning on-site; we have a tuition reimbursement program for employees pursuing bachelor’s and advanced degrees; we provide

many corporate on-site training programs; and we encourage cultural exchanges

from our facilities abroad in order to enhance diversity and awareness.

Ingersoll-Rand remains a major contributor to US colleges and universities as

well as national organizations such as the International Road Education Foundation, the National Hispanic Scholarship Fund, the National Urban League, the National Alliance for Business, and the US Chamber of Commerce Spirit of Enterprise

Campaign, to name a few.

Employers currently need and will continue to need workers of all skill levels.

Through the US Chamber of Commerce and in coalition with businesses and trade

associations across the spectrum, we seek a solution to the worker shortages at all

levels. Specifically through the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition we are

working toward a workable solution to the shortage of workers with less than a

bachelors degree. Current law does not provide a viable vehicle to bring needed forVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:30 Feb 21, 2002 Jkt 077276 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\HEARINGS\77276.TXT SJUD4 PsN: SJUD4
67

eign workers into the US. From manufacturing facilities to nursing homes to restaurants and hotels, we are in dire need for employees, but are precluded from

bringing them in through the existing H–2B temporary visa program. I have included some materials from the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition for your

reference.

The Chamber is also concerned with the policy issues surrounding spousal work

authorization, and is working in coalition for several countries to reform US work

authorization for spouses of certain intra-company transfers. Another policy issue of

concern to our committee is the lack of sufficient immigrant visa numbers for those

lawful immigrants that wish to convert to permanent residence. We will be addressing this issue through the EWIC coalition and other organizations.

With respect to the immigration process and procedures for processing applications, we are very concerned with the increasing processing times at both the Department of Labor and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Nonimmigrant

visa petitions routinely take more than 4 months to process. The agencies need to

have tightened oversight and need to be made accountable for missed adjudication

time lines. The agencies administering immigration policies need to work with each

other and need to coordinate strategies to execute new law. For example, on January 19, 2001, the Interim Final regulations were issued to implement to the changes

in immigration laws that were enacted in 1998. The regulations, contained in over

500 pages, are onerous and not timely. In fact the new Secretary of Labor has extending the period for comment until the end of this month. The US Chamber requested this extension and we are preparing comments on the proposed regulations.

Over three years ago the documents acceptable for I–9 Employment Eligibility Verification were changed by law but employers are still waiting for revised regulations

and a new I–9 Form to be issued by the Department of Labor. Two laws that were

enacted in October of 2000, have very little guidance from either agency. This

causes chaos at the service centers and the borders.

Reform of the agencies is key. We are encouraged that the subcommittee is exploring all of the procedural and policy issues surrounding immigration law, and hope

that some constructive solutions can be can be identified.

Thank you for allowing me to testify. I look forward to any questions you may

have.

STATEMENT OF ESSENTIAL WORKER

fIMMIGRATION COALITION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

MISSION STATEMENT

The Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC) is a coalition of business,

trad associations, and other organizations from across the industry spectrum concerned with the shortage of both skilled and lesser skilled (‘‘essential worker’’) labor.

While all sectors of the economy have benefited from the extended period of economic growth, one significant impediment to continued growth is the shortage of essential workers With unemployment rates in some areas approahing zero and with

continuing vigorous welfare -to-work, school-to-work, and other recruitment efforts,

businesses are now finding themselves with no applicants of any kind for numerous

job upenings. Reliance on market forces has proven to be unsuccessful. There simply

are not enough people to meet the demand of our stong economy.

The shortage of workers is of such magnitude that some of our industries refer

to it as one of the most important business issues. Many firms are curtailing expansion plans because of a lack of available, qualified workers. Indeed, the Federal Reserve Board has noted many times the widespread shortage of essential workers

throughout the united states and its impact on our economy. We believe that part

of the solution involves allowing companies to hire foreign workers to fill the essential worker shortages. When companies can not fill jobs with U.S. workers, hiring

foreign nationals should be a viable alternative.EWIC supports policies that facilitate the employment of essential workers by U.S. companies and organizations current immigration law and recent tightening of federal immigration policy have

greatly curtained this potential source of workers. Comgress must take action to address the problems associated with the unprecedented job growth, low unemployment and corresponding inability to find domestic workers to meet the needs of

American employers. Failure to do so risks American prosperity an dleadership in

the global economy.

68

REFORM AGENDA

The Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC) is a coalition of businesses,

trade associations, and other organizations from across the industry spectrum concerned with the shortage of both semi-skilled and unskilled (‘‘essential worker’’)

labor. This document lays out EWIC’s principles for essential worker immigration

reform.

NEW LEGAL IMMIGRATION PROGRAMS BASED ON U.S. WORKER SHORTAGE

• Short-term: an effective H–2B-like program

• Long-term: an employment-based permanent residence for essential workers

through an application process that is straightforward and quickly completed

REGULARIZATION OF CERTAIN UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS CURRENTLY IN THE U.S.

• Establish a one-time mechanism to allow undocumented workers in the U.S. to

convert to a legal status—a conditional employment-based status leading to permanent status

• Regularization initiatives should be matched to employability, although not necessarily a particular employer:

• the worker should document actual or prospective employment to qualify

• the employer documenting actual employment should be forgiven for any employer sanctions violation

WORKABLE IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM

• Employer sanctions repeal (Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986)

• Employer sanctions repeal should be paired with an updated legal immigration

system to reduce undocumented immigration

MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING WORKER PROTECTIONS

• A new immigration system should not result in any diminution or expansion of

current worker protections

MEMBERS (AS OF JANUARY 8, 2001)

American Health Care Association

American Hotel & Motel Assocation

American Immigration Lawyers

Association

American Meat Institute

American Road & Transportation

Builders Association

American Nursery & Landscape

Association

Associated Builders and Contractors

Associated General Contractors

Building Service Contractors Association

International

The Brickman Group, Ltd.

Carlson Hotels Worldwide and Radisson

Calson Restaurants Worldwide and TGI

Friday’s

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store

Harborside Helathcare Corporation

Ingersoll-Rand

International Association of Amusement

Parks and Attractions

International Mass Retail Association

Manufactured Housing Institute

Nath Companies

National Assoication for Home Care

National Association of Chain Drug

Stores

National Association of Home Builders

national Association of RV Parks &

Campgrounds

National Council of Chain Restaurants

National Retail Federation

National Restaurant Association

National Roofing Contractors Association

National Tooling & Machining

Association

National School Transportation

Association Outdoor Amusement

Business Association

Outdoor Amusement Business

Association

Resort Recreation & Tourism

Management

Truckload Carriers Association

US Chamber of Commerce

Walt Disney World Co.

Chairman BROWNBACK. First, Ms. Mun ̃ oz, on the problems that

you are hearing from my State, I would appreciate if you can—and

keep the confidentiality, but I would like to know what sorts of

things you are seeing. You noted some of the profiling that you are

hearing about. That is a cause of concern for me and so I would

like to personally know about that.

69

Ms. MUN ̃ OZ. Absolutely.

Chairman BROWNBACK. Ms. Dickson, I appreciated your comments about the nature of particular skill levels like welding. I

took 4 years of welding in high school and still wasn’t very good

at it. I think this is an important item particularly for the manufacturing sector, and it is tough to be able to do it.

Ms. DICKSON. We actually have our own welding schools and we

still can’t fill the need.

Chairman BROWNBACK. Ms. Narasaki, you were not able to address the refugee issue, even though you noted its impact in Asia.

Do you have thoughts as to why we have lowered that number that

we are taking in so much that you could highlight in 30 seconds?

Ms. NARASAKI. Well, as you know, the limit is set each year by

the administration, and I have to say we were very disappointed

in President Clinton’s decision to cut the levels over the last 2

years. As people have noted, there certainly is enough supply, and

the United States relative to other countries really isn’t doing its

full share in terms of taking those refugees in.

The refugee program from Southeast Asia has been winding

down. There are concerns at least for some of the countries that it

has been a little bit premature and that there are some people who

really do have credible fears of persecution, but who have been

forcibly returned to their countries. So we hope that is something

that this Subcommittee will look into further.

Chairman BROWNBACK. Well, we will, and I look forward to your

more in-depth comments on this because I think we clearly can do

better and we need to do better, even if it is shifting from different

parts of the world, but we need to do more.

Let me just say, in conclusion, thank you very much and I am

sorry I am having to rush, but we have got the tail-end of this vote.

For a scene-setter hearing, you laid out a lot of work that I think

could take a long period of time, but I appreciate your specificity

with it, and I know as well your hearts to help us to move it on

through.

None of these are particularly easy issues, even though they are

very important issues and they directly impact people across the

country. So I am looking forward to working with you to move

these through the overall process. I think we have got a good time

to be able to do a number of these issues. I think if we can be careful and thoughtful and energetic about it, we can move these on

forward.

I will solicit yours and others’ advice on how we do that. I have

been around long enough to have hit my head up against enough

brick walls to figure out there frequently is another way than just

hitting the wall straight on, and I will need your expertise and

thoughts on how to do that.

Finally, I hope we all continue to put forward the positive message of what this is all about. This is good, this is who we are, this

is who we will be in the future, and if we can continue to put it

forward in that framework and not ‘‘we/they’’ or ‘‘the last one in,

close the door’’ philosophy, we are better people if we do it that

way.

We have a statement from Senator Leahy which we will insert

into the record at this point.

70

[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

VERMONT

I would like to congratulate Senator Brownback for becoming the new Chairman

of this subcommittee, and thank him for holding such a positive hearing to open his

tenure. I am confident that we will be able to work together on many issues that

have gone unresolved for too long, and I am hopeful that immigration policy can

be an area of bipartisan cooperation in the 107th Congress. I also commend and congratulate Senator Kennedy for his decision to continue his long service to this Committee and to the Nation as the Ranking Member of the subcommittee.

The varied witnesses on today’s panels demonstrate that those who have pitted

business and family immigration against each other have presented a false choice.

With the commitment of our new Chairman and our dedicated Ranking Member,

we can address both issues in a comprehensive way. Before hearing from these distinguished witnesses, I would like briefly to discuss a few of the immigration issues

that I believe should be priorities in this Congress.

Five years have now passed since Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Taken together, these bills contained a series of provisions that have

seriously harmed our historic commitment to both refugees and to due process.

Along with many of our colleagues, particularly Senator Kennedy, I have worked

during the ensuing Congresses to correct the mistakes that a deeply partisan Congress made in 1996. With an evenly divided Senate and a Chairman who shares a

strong commitment to refugees, I hope this Congress will be different.

First, I look forward to working with Senator Brownback again in this Congress

on the Refugee Protection Act. That bill, which I introduced with his cosponsorship

and strong support in the 106th Congress, would restrict the use of expedited removal, the process under which aliens arriving in the United States can be returned

immediately to their native lands at the say-so of a low-level INS officer. Expedited

removal was the subject of a major debate in this chamber in 1996, and the Senate

voted to use it only during immigration emergencies. This Senate-passed restriction

was removed in what was probably the most partisan conference committee I have

ever witnessed. The Refugee Protection Act was modeled closely on that 1996

amendment, and I am working with Senator Brownback on a Refugee Protection Act

for the 107th Congress, which we hope to introduce next month.

The use of expedited removal calls the United States’ commitment to refugees into

serious question. We now have a system where we are removing people who arrive

here either without proper documentation or with proper documentation that an

INS officer simply suspects is invalid. This policy ignores the fact that people fleeing

despotic regimes are quite often unable to obtain travel documents before they go:

They must move quickly and cannot depend upon the government that is persecuting them to provide them with the proper paperwork for departure. In the limited

time that expedited removal has been in operation, we already have received reliable reports that valid asylum seekers have been kicked out of our country without

the opportunity to convince an immigration judge that they faced persecution in

their native lands. To provide just one example, a Kosovar Albanian was summarily

removed from the United States after the civil war in Kosovo had already made the

front pages of America’s newspapers. I believe we must address this issue this year,

and I know that Senator Brownback feels the same way.

Second, I hope that this subcommittee will examine the serious due process concerns that remain unresolved from the passage of the 1996 legislation. Congress expanded the pool of people who could be deported, denied those people the chance

for due process before deportation, and made these changes retroactive, so that legal

permanent residents who had committed offenses so minor that they did not even

serve jail time suddenly faced removal from the United States. This new legal regime has created numerous horror stories, including the removal of noncitizen veterans of the American armed forces for minor crimes committed well before 1996. In

the last Congress, I introduced a bill that would have guaranteed due process rights

for veterans, a bill that was supported by the American Legion and other veterans’

groups, and I plan to introduce similar legislation this year. In addition, I was a

proud cosponsor of Senator Kennedy’s Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act, which

would have restored a broad range of due process rights to immigrants. I look forward to supporting similar legislation this year, and I hope that the Chairman will

be willing to hold hearings on this important issue.

Third, this subcommittee should consider the proposals that were included in the

Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act in the 106th Congress. Despite the best efforts

71

of many Senators, the majority would not allow a vote on that bill, either freestanding or as an amendment to other legislation. These proposals—to treat people who

fled right-wing dictatorships the same way we treat people who fled left-wing dictatorships, to update the date of registry to allow people who have been living and

working in the United States for 15 years or more to apply for permanent residency,

and to protect families by restoring the law that allowed people eligible for green

cards to apply from within the United States—deserve serious examination, and I

hope this subcommittee can take on that task.

Finally, we need to pay close attention to the immigration needs of American employers. I supported increasing the number of H–1B visas last year because I was

convinced that the information technology industry and other businesses needed

flexibility to continue their growth. I am very interested in hearing what immigration measures today’s witnesses believe would be helpful to ensure that our economy

remains healthy.

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you all very much. I apologize for

rushing out, but I am sure we will see you at future hearings.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[A submission for the record follows:]

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD

Statement of Hon. Mike DeWine, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio

Thank you, Chairman Brownback and Ranking Democrat Kennedy, for holding

this important hearing today to examine the state of our immigration policy. This

hearing is timely and necessary. In fact, just today, Secretary of State Powell and

Attorney General Ashcroft are meeting with a high level Mexican delegation to talk

openly about immigration policy. I am hopeful that this meeting will be one of many

future discussions on U.S.—Mexican immigration.

As you all know, the immigration process impacts not only American economic

competitiveness and diplomatic relations, but more importantly, it directly affects

families and children. Tragically, families are often split up because of deficiencies

and delays in the immigration and naturalization process.

In the 106th Congress, to help address one such problem, I cosponsored Senator

Nickles’ bill, the ‘‘Adopted Orphans Citizenship Act,’’ which amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to enable children adopted from foreign countries to attain

U.S. citizenship more easily. This bill became law in October 2000. I hope we can

do much more to improve our immigration system this year.

Today, we will hear testimony on the merits of family-based and employmentbased criteria in determining immigration and citizenship status. Family reunification the cornerstone of America’s immigration policy and must remain so. However,

in an increasingly global economy, America’s future competitiveness requires us to

take a look at how immigration can make our economy stronger.

While a discussion of immigration policy goals is important, I’d like to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to call the Subcommittee’s attention to the process that implements these policies. I am speaking of the operations of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). It appears that although the INS consistently has received

more money from Congress year after year, services have not improved. Management and personnel problems in the INS, coupled with a growing numbers of immigrant applications, are leading to backlogs all around the country.

Let me give a few examples from my home state of Ohio. This time last year, my

casework office had 67 pending immigration cases. This year, due to the backlog at

the INS, we have 147. In Cleveland, the INS office takes about 18 months to process

a naturalization case, much longer than the INS’s goal of 8–12 months.

For some applicants, this delay can cost them their jobs, which also presents a

problem for their American employers. Worse still, extensive delays threaten applicants’ ability to even remain in this country.

Our friend and former Senate colleague—and now Secretary of Energy—Spence

Abraham—noted when he was Chairman of this Subcommittee, that we have come

to a point where we need to consider fundamental reform of the INS. This Subcommittee has started that process. We’ve begun to carefully examine ways to improve efficiency in the INS, including ways to restructure the INS with respect to

services and law enforcement. As a result, the INS has made minor changes. However, no agreement on a complete and viable solution has been reached. I am hopeful that we will continue to work on proposals that will improve the functioning of

72

the INS, which ultimately, will be to the benefit of those immigrants who come to

our country legally.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, we are a nation of immigrants—immigrants who

came to these shores in pursuit of freedom, hope, and opportunity. As the Subcommittee on Immigration, we have a mandate to ensure that the proper development and execution of a fair immigration policy—one that looks out for the welfare

of both American citizens and immigration applicants. As a new member of this

Subcommittee, I look forward to working with our new Chairman, as well as a

former Chairman, Senator Kennedy, to move our immigration policies in a positive

direction.

Æ