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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

57–633 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–560 

THE UNITING AMERICAN FAMILIES ACT: ADDRESSING INEQUALITY IN FEDERAL IMMIGRATION 

LAW 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 3, 2009 

Serial No. J–111–27 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MATT MINER, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 76 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 85 

Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New York ............ 24 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama .......................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Beck, Roy, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, NumberUSA Education & 

Research Foundation, Arlington, Virginia ......................................................... 15 

Bond, Julian, Chairman, National Board of Directors, National Association 

for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Washington, D.C. ............. 11 

Nadler, Hon. Jerrold, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 4 

Nugent, Christopher, Co-Chair, Committee on the Rights of Immigrants, Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, American Bar Association, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 13 

Speier, Hon. Jackie, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ..................................................................................................................... 6 

Stewart, Gordon, London, England ........................................................................ 9 

Tan, Shirley, Pacifica, California ........................................................................... 7 

Vaughan, Jessica M., Director, Policy Studies, Center for Immigration Studies, Center for Immigration Studies, Franklin, Massachusetts ....................... 18 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), Charles H. Kuck, President, Washington, DC, statement ....................................................................... 28 

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Eden Prairie, Minnesota, statement ................................................................................................. 30 

American Civil Liberties Union, Caroline Fredrickson, Director, and Joanne 

Line, Legislative Counsel, Washington, DC, statement ................................... 31 

American Council on International Personnel (ACIP), Rebecca K. Peters, Director and Counsel for Legislative Affairs, Washington, DC, statement ........ 35 

Beck, Roy, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, NumberUSA Education & 

Research Foundation, Arlington, Virginia, statement ...................................... 37 

Bond, Julian, Chairman, National Board of Directors, National Association 

for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Washington, D.C., statement ...................................................................................................................... 43 

Bragar, Robert, Amsterdam, Netherlands, statement .......................................... 48 

Calvillo, Angela, Clerk of the Board, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, 

San Francisco, California, statement ................................................................. 49 

Carey, Rea, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action 

Fund, Washington, DC, statement ..................................................................... 53 

Checkoway, Robert, International Vice Chair, Democrats Abroad, Washington, DC, statement .......................................................................................... 55 

Concerned Women for America’s (CWA), Wendy Wright, President, Washington, DC, statement .......................................................................................... 56 

CSI Consulting & Investigations, John N. Sampson, Aurora, Colorado, statement ...................................................................................................................... 57 

Page

IV 

Council for Global Equality, Mark Bromley, Chair, and Julie Dorf, Senior 

Advisor, and Ambassador Michael Guest, Retired Senior Advisor, Washington, DC, joint statement ................................................................................. 59 

Chrisler, Jennifer, Executive Director, Boston, Massachusetts, statement ........ 61 

Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly, Alton, Illinois, statement .................................... 63 

Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................................... 66 

Focus on the Family, Tom Minnery, Senior Vice President, Government and 

Public Policy, Colorado Springs, Colorado, statement ...................................... 78 

Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), Washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 80 

Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 82 

Kindler, Jeffrey B., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Pfizer Inc., New 

York, New York, statement ................................................................................. 84 

Love exiles Foundation, Martha McDevitt-Pugh, Chair, Robert Bragar, Board 

Member, Robert Checkoway, Board Member, and Lin McDevitt-Pugh, Board 

Member, Amsterdam, Netherlands, statement ................................................. 87 

Maxwell, Michael J., former Head, Security and Integrity, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Washington, DC, statement .......................... 89 

National Center for Lesbian Rights, Kate Kendell, ESQ., Executive Director, 

San Francisco, California, statement ................................................................. 96 

National Immigrant Justice Center, Mary Meg McCathy, Executive Director, 

Chicago, Illinois, statement ................................................................................. 99 

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, New York, New York, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 100 

Nugent, Christopher, Co-Chair, Committee on the Rights of Immigrants, Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, American Bar Association, 

Washington, D.C., statement .............................................................................. 102 

Perkins, Tony, President, Family Research Council, Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................................... 107 

People for the American Way, Marge Baker, Executive Vice President for 

Policy and Program Planning, Washington, DC, statement ............................. 110 

Quinn, Christine C., Council Speaker, New York, New York, statement ........... 112 

Sampson, John, retired, Department of Homeland Security, washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 115 

Schulman, Yisroel, Esq., Presidet and Attorney-in-charge, New York Legal, 

Assistance Group, New York, New York, statement ......................................... 117 

Solmonese, Joe, President, Human Rights Campaign, Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................................... 120 

Stewart, Gordon, London, England, statement ..................................................... 126 

Stonewall Young Democrats, Shawn Amsler, President, Los Angeles, California, statement .................................................................................................. 128 

Tan, Shirley, Pacifica, California, statement ........................................................ 129 

Tiven, Rachel B., Esq., Executive Director, Immigration Equality, New York, 

New York, statement ........................................................................................... 132 

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, Adam G. Gerhardstein, 

Director, Washington, DC, statement ................................................................ 142 

Vaughan, Jessica M., Director, Policy Studies, Center for Immigration Studies, Center for Immigration Studies, Franklin, Massachusetts, statement .... 143 

(1) 

THE UNITING AMERICAN FAMILIES ACT: ADDRESSING INEQUALITY IN FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW 

TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Schumer, Specter, and Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning. We have a number of things 

going on in the Judiciary Committee, so I apologize for the delay. 

But I am delighted to see Congressman Nadler and Congresswoman Speier here, and I apologize to them and the other witnesses that we have been delayed. 

You know, for too long, gay and lesbian American citizens whose 

partners are foreign nationals have been denied the ability to sponsor their loved ones for lawful permanent residency. Under current 

immigration law, many citizens have been forced to choose between 

their country and their loved ones. No American should face that 

kind of a choice. The preservation of family unity is at the core of 

our immigration legal system, and this American value has to 

apply to all families. 

During the past several years, Americans have increasingly come 

to reject the notion that their fellow Americans who are gay or lesbian should not have loving relationships. My own State of 

Vermont has been at the forefront of this. Federal policy should encourage—let me emphasize that—Federal policy should encourage 

rather than restrict our opportunity as Americans to sustain the 

relationships that fulfill our lives. 

Today, we will hear testimony on the Uniting American Families 

Act, a bill I introduced last Congress. Our bill will allow the committed partners of Americans the opportunity to immigrate. What 

we consider today with this legislation is an issue of fairness under 

Federal law. It is time for the United States to join 19 other nations, many of which are our closest allies, in providing our gay 

and lesbian citizens this benefit under our immigration laws. 

There is no place for discrimination in our Federal law. I note 

that traditional civil rights leaders like Congressman John Lewis 

2 

and Julian Bond, the Chairman of the National Association for the 

Advancement of Colored People, have said unequivocally that the 

issue of gay rights is an issue of civil rights. To quote Chairman 

Bond: ‘‘Gay and lesbian rights are not special rights in any way. 

It isn’t ‘special’ to be free from discrimination. It is an ordinary, 

universal entitlement of citizenship.’’ 

Some have expressed concern that if Federal immigration law 

were to recognize committed same-sex partnerships for purposes of 

immigration benefits, opportunities for fraud would increase. That 

has always been an issue, and I am confident that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will have no more difficulty discovering fraudulent arrangements between same-sex couples than heterosexual couples. They have to make that decision all the time. 

Our immigration agencies are well trained and highly experienced 

in this regard. I have little doubt that when this legislation is enacted, the immigration agency will safeguard against fraud and 

abuse in same-sex partnerships just as it does for heterosexual couples. 

The benefits this legislation seeks to provide are not contingent 

upon the definition of marriage. I believe that is an issue best left 

to the States. Former Vice President Cheney and I are often 

thought about because of our brief conversation a couple years ago 

on the floor of the Senate, which I will not put into the record. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. But this week, he said much the same thing 

I have about States being able to decide whether their law would 

recognize gay marriages. 

Again, in Vermont—if I might just digress for a moment and just 

tell you one story. When we were considering our civil union law 

in Vermont, the then-retired Senator, no longer alive, Senator Bob 

Stafford—and I think, Congressman, you remember Senator Stafford. A wonderful man, almost the stereotype of a New England 

Republican, very tall, straight, had been a Governor, had been a 

Congressman, a World War II hero. He came to a public hearing 

to talk about it, and he said that 57 years before then, he had met 

a young woman in Bellows Falls, Vermont, and they got married. 

He said, ‘‘Everything I have ever done in life—Attorney General, 

Congressman, Governor, Senator, the times I was at war—I was 

able to do better because of her love and her support.’’ And we were 

all wondering just where this was going. And he said, ‘‘If we have 

two people who love each other, what difference does it make if 

they are the same sex or not? What difference does it make? If they 

love each other and support each other and make each other better, 

isn’t that what we should want? ’’ 

There were several other people who were going to speak at the 

meeting. We all just stood up and said, ‘‘Me, too. Go ahead.’’ 

You know, I know what a wonderful marriage the Staffords had. 

My wife and I have been married 47 years, trying to emulate the 

same. 

Now, just last month, President Obama and Secretary of State 

Clinton announced a new policy to provide domestic benefits to the 

men and women in our foreign service who are in same-sex domestic partnerships. President Obama and Secretary Clinton acknowledged what many American corporations already recognize, many 

3 

of our largest corporations: The happiness and the stability of their 

employees in their personal lives is essential to success and productivity in their professional lives. And I applaud that. 

There is more work to be done. You know, it was not long ago 

that homosexuality barred an immigrant from entry into the 

United States. It is time to take that constraint off the committed 

same-sex partners of American citizens. 

I hope we are going to be returning to the question of comprehensive immigration reform. This is just one of the issues to be 

faced. Senator Schumer, who chairs our Immigration Subcommittee, has begun a series of hearings to prepare us for that, 

and I hope today’s hearing will help. And, again, I welcome our 

new Ranking Member—not that new anymore. He has had a baptism of fire in the last few days. Senator Sessions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

your courtesy on so many things, actually. You have been very 

helpful to me as I have tried to get my feet on the ground, and you 

have the experience on this Committee that is almost unprecedented, and I value your counsel and your courtesy very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I have looked at this legislation and have given 

it some review, and I have a number of concerns that would prevent me from supporting it. I think it does amount to a redefinition 

of marriage, contrary to what the Congress has explicitly stated. I 

do think, as you made reference, that establishing a lawful system 

of immigration for this country that respects and affirms our great 

heritage of the rule of law is important, and we must do it in a 

way that actually works. I believe this bill would make that more 

difficult. 

It seems that we would be creating a special preference and benefit for a category of immigrants based on a relationship that is not 

recognized by Federal law and overwhelmingly by most States. By 

creating a new and a legally tenuous, I suggest, definition of ‘‘permanent partnership,’’ we would be expanding the avenue for fraud 

and abuse for an unlimited number, perhaps, of people who may 

not even fit into the idea that the drafters have in mind with this 

legislation. 

I think for the first time ever, this legislation would create a Federal recognition of same-sex marriage which is not the current law. 

It would reverse current law. In 1996, Congress overwhelmingly 

passed the Defense of Marriage Act 85–14. President Clinton 

signed it into law. It included a provision which expressly defined 

the word ‘‘marriage’’ as ‘‘only a legal union between one man and 

one woman as husband and wife.’’ 

So 29 States, as this debate has continued, have now enacted 

constitutional amendments that bar the formal recognition of gay 

marriage, and others have passed statutory bars to that effect. 

I would just say that, of course, individuals can carry themselves 

out publicly as a partnership as they desire. The question is: Do 

you get the same legal benefits that you might get in certain circumstances, such as the immigration benefit to bring your spouse 

to the country? I think that would be a policy that we should not 

4 

adopt and would be against the settled will of the American people 

and the settled will to date of the U.S. Congress. 

There is a real potential for fraud with this legislation. I remember many years ago prosecuting cases as a United States Attorney 

involving marriage fraud. Recently, Senator Specter and I—well, 2 

or 3 years ago now—took a trip to South America, and the consulate official there who approves immigration visas talked about 

how difficult marriage fraud cases are, how many they see, and it 

is a major loophole, he told us, in our system. Many cases of spousal immigration fraud arise when a citizen or a legal permanent 

resident brings their spouse to the United States, and so the permanent partner standard that would not be a recognized union in 

the country perhaps from which that person comes now could provide an additional avenue for abuse of the marriage preference for 

immigration into our country. 

So, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things that concern me 

about the legislation. I think it is not something that Congress 

would be inclined to pass. But I value the hearing. I look forward 

to the testimony of our Congressman and Congresswoman and discussion of the issue as we go forward. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. As you may gather, there is somewhat of a split on the panel. But I am glad we are having the hearing, and, again, I appreciate Senator Sessions’ being willing to be 

here for the hearing, too. 

Representative Jerrold Nadler is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, 

and Civil Liberties. He represent New York’s 8th Congressional 

District, first elected to the House of Representatives in 1992, after 

serving for 16 years in the New York State Assembly. He is the 

lead cosponsor of H.R. 1024, the House version of this. 

Congressman, it is always good to see you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JERROLD NADLER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Representative NADLER. Good to see you, Senator. 

Good morning, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions. 

Thank you very much for holding this important hearing on the 

Uniting American Families Act and for inviting me to testify. 

As the sponsor of this legislation in the House, I appreciate the 

opportunity to testify today and to offer my thanks to Chairman 

Leahy for sponsoring the Uniting American Families Act in the 

Senate and for being such a tremendous champion of the issue. I 

know the Committee is on a tight time schedule so I will be brief. 

I have always found that among the worst kinds of injustice are 

those in which the law acts, perhaps unintentionally, in a gratuitously cruel manner; that is to say, it harms individuals for no 

purpose at all. Sometimes the law must harm people unavoidably. 

But to harm people for no purpose at all is out of bounds. It is this 

kind of injustice, this kind of gratuitous cruelty that the Uniting 

American Families Act would correct. 

I first introduced the Uniting American Families Act 9 years ago 

after hearing from constituents and others about the pain that immigration laws are inflicting on their lives. Just because they were 

5 

gay or lesbian, these Americans were not allowed to sponsor their 

partners for immigration purposes. What this unequal policy 

means is that tens of thousands of gay and lesbian Americans face 

a terrible choice between leaving the country to be with the person 

they love or remaining here in the United States and separating 

from their partner. Or given the law in the other country, it is entirely possible that the two partners may find it impossible to be 

together in either country. This runs directly counter not only to 

the goal of family unity, which is supposed to be the bedrock of 

American immigration policy; it runs directly counter to any consideration of plain humanity and to any consideration of not being 

purposelessly and gratuitously cruel to the people involved. 

We can right this wrong by passing the Uniting American Families Act. It is very simple. It would give same-sex couples the same 

immigration benefits as opposite-sex couples. And I must differ 

here with Senator Sessions. This is not part properly of the debate 

over same-sex couples marriage. That is a separate debate. I happen to support same-sex marriage, but it is a completely separate 

debate. This simply says that for immigration purposes we are not 

going to single out these couples and say, ‘‘You cannot sponsor your 

partner. You cannot get married because you are the same sex, and 

you cannot sponsor your partner. And, therefore, you must remain 

separate and apart, perhaps a continent apart.’’ 

That is cruel. This legislation is not intended to legalize gay marriage. It is not intended to deal with that issue at all. It is intended 

to alleviate a gratuitous and purposeless cruelty in the law for 

about 36,000 people. 

Same-sex couples would have to prove the bona fide nature of 

their relationships just as opposite-sex couples do, or face the same 

harsh penalties for fraud. So the argument that this would increase 

the odds of fraud—the odds of fraud would be exactly the same as 

under the current law. It would not be decreased. That is a question of enforcement. It would not be increased. 

Our unequal immigration laws presently wreak havoc on the 

lives of thousands of bi-national couples and families across the 

country. It does not have to be that say, and in a just country, it 

should not be that way. We can end this injustice and stop this 

gratuitous cruelty by passing the Uniting American Families Act. 

When Congress considers, I hope later this session, a comprehensive immigration bill, this bill certainly should be made part of it. 

I will do my best to ensure that this is the case on the House side. 

Thank you again, Senator Leahy, for your leadership on this 

basic issue of fairness, for holding this hearing, and for providing 

me with the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nadler appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Congressman, and I know you 

have got a million things going on over in the other body, and I 

appreciate your being here. 

Representative NADLER. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Congresswoman Speier, Jackie Speier, represents California’s 12th Congressional District. Representative 

Speier worked with Senator Feinstein to introduce a private bill in 

the Senate to enable Ms. Shirley Tan, one of today’s witnesses, to 

6 

obtain lawful permanent residency. And I understand, Congresswoman, you are going to be introducing Ms. Tan. Is that correct? 

Representative SPEIER. That is correct. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE SPEIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Representative SPEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Sessions. Thank you for holding this hearing on the Uniting American Families Act, which seeks to fix a fundamental injustice that rips children from the arms of their parents and, sadly, 

suggests that our constitutional guarantee of equal protection 

under the law is often quite unequal. I commend Congressman 

Nadler and Chairman Leahy for introducing twin bills on this 

issue. 

I thank you also for allowing me to introduce my constituent, 

Shirley Tan from the scenic and hard-working city of Pacifica, California, where, when God and sunshine conspire to lift the fog, you 

can see the beautiful Pacific Ocean that Shirley and so many of my 

constituents crossed from her native Philippines to enjoy. 

I only recently met Shirley and her family. That is because they 

are not political people. They are a family. They go to church. They 

have involvement in their local school. Shirley and her partner of 

23 years, Jay Mercado, are not activists trying to change the world 

by marching and shouting from the rooftops. They are parents, like 

most of us, who hope to change the world by quietly raising confident, studious, and generous children. 

I did a home visit a couple of months ago, spent an hour and a 

half with the family, flipped through family albums, 23 years of 

family albums, talked to their sons, who were cheerful, and fearing 

of losing their Mom. They are just an all-American family. 

Shirley and Jay both sing in their church choir, and their twin 

boys got straight A’s and are active at school, both playing on the 

junior high school basketball teams. This family would be no different than the thousands of other families in my district with one 

or more foreign-born parents were it not for the fact that, through 

no fault of their own, they are victims of an anomaly in U.S. law 

that tears families apart based solely on the gender of the person 

that a citizen or legal resident happens to fall in love with. 

I want to thank my good friend Senator Dianne Feinstein, who 

introduced a private bill for Shirley. She has a 2-year reprieve. 

That is not good enough in our America that offers equal protection 

under the laws. 

Shirley Tan and her family are exemplary members of our community who, after being thrust these few months into the public 

spotlight, have handled themselves with grace and dignity. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me now to introduce Ms. 

Tan to tell her compelling story. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Congresswoman, and thank you, 

Congressman Nadler. I am sure we will be talking a lot as the 

summer goes on. 

Chairman LEAHY. I would ask you to please come and sit down, 

Ms. Tan, and Gordon Stewart, and my friend Julian Bond, who is 

7 

here; Christopher Nugent, Roy Beck, and Jessica Vaughan. I do not 

know if those things have the names on the back of them or not. 

Congresswoman, did you want to say anything more about Ms. 

Tan? I think you covered it pretty well, especially the—I am thinking of those family photos, the albums and all. Thank you. 

Shirley Tan, as has already been said, is from Pacifica, California. I have been there a number of times. It is a beautiful area. 

She lives with her partner, Jay Mercado. She has been there for 

23 years. Together they have 12- year-old twin sons, Joriene and 

Jashley. Are these your sons here? Okay. Hi, guys. In the family 

archives someday, they will go back and they will see that you 

were at this hearing. That is why I wanted to make sure your 

names were mentioned. 

Ms. Tan came to the United States—and I am sorry I have to 

bring this up—from the Philippines after she had been brutally attacked by an assailant who also murdered her mother and sister. 

She is the primary caretaker for her elderly mother-in-law. She is 

a volunteer in her children’s school and a eucharistic minister at 

her local Catholic Church. Ms. Tan, please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY TAN, PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA 

Ms. TAN. Chairman Leahy, members of the Committee, thank 

you for your invitation to appear before you this morning. My name 

is Shirley Tan, and I am a 43-year-old mother and housewife from 

Pacifica, California. I am grateful for the opportunity to share my 

story with you and grateful, too, for Chairman Leahy’s leadership 

on an issue that is so critically important to my family and the 

tens of thousands of others across the country. 

I am honored to be here today with my 12-year-old twins, 

Jashley and Joriene, and my partner of 23 years, Jay Mercado. I 

met Jay when, as a graduation present, my father brought me to 

the United States. Our relationship continued even after I returned 

to the Philippines following the expiration of my 6-month visa. 

When I returned to the Philippines, I learned that the man who 

had, 10 years before, brutally murdered my mother and sister, and 

almost killed me as well, was released from prison. Without anywhere else to go, I decided to go to Jay where I would be safe. 

In 1995, I hired an attorney to apply for asylum and legalize my 

stay in the United States. When my application was denied, my attorney appealed the decision. 

I did not know it, but my appeal had also been denied. All the 

while, Jay and I went about building our life together. I gave birth 

to Jashley and Joriene, the biggest joy in our lives and became a 

full-time Mom. 

Our family has always been like every American family, and I 

am so proud of Jay and the twins. The boys attended Catholic 

school through sixth grade and are now in Cabrillo School. I am a 

Eucharistic minister at Good Shepherd Church, where Jay and I 

both sing in the Sunday Mass choir. 

We have never felt discriminated against in our community. Our 

friends, mostly heterosexual couples, call us the ‘‘model family’’ and 

even said we are their role models. We try to mirror the best family 

values, and we attribute the fact that our children are so well adjusted to the love, security, and consistency that we, as parents, 

8 

have been able to provide. Jashley and Joriene’s classmates at 

school know they have two Moms, and it has never been an issue. 

Our lives, I can say without any doubt, were almost perfect until 

the morning of January 28, 2009. That morning, at 6:30 a.m., Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents showed up at my door. 

The agents showed me a piece of paper, which—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Ms. Tan, if we can hold a moment. I think 

your son, understandably, is upset. If he would like to go in this 

back room—if you would like to go in the back room, please—if you 

would like to go with your mother in the back room, you can. 

Please. It is all right. 

I have a grandson the same age. 

All right. I just wanted you to know, young man, your mother is 

a very brave woman. You should be very proud of her. 

Go ahead. Go ahead, Ms. Tan. 

Ms. TAN. The agent showed me a piece of paper which was a 

2002 deportation letter, which I informed them I had never seen. 

Before I knew it, I was handcuffed and taken away, like a criminal, 

as Jay’s frail mother watched in hysterics. I was put into a van 

with two men in yellow jumpsuits and chains and searched like a 

criminal, in a way I have only seen on television and in the movies. 

All the while my family was first and foremost the center of everything on my mind. 

How would Jay work and take care of the kids if I was not there? 

Who would continue to take care of Jay’s ailing mother, the 

mother I had come to love, if I was not there? 

Who would be there for my family if I was not there? 

In an instant, my family, my American family, was being ripped 

away from me. 

And when I did return home, I had an ankle monitoring bracelet. 

I went to great lengths to hide it from my children. 

I have a partner who is a U.S. citizen, and two beautiful children 

who are also U.S. citizens, but none of them can petition for me 

to remain in the United States with them. 

Passage of the Uniting American Families Act, UAFA, will not 

only benefit me, but the thousands of people who are also in the 

same situation as I am. 

After 23 years building our life together, Jay and I know that our 

family is still at great risk of separation. We have a home together. 

Jay has a great job. We have a mortgage, a pension, friends and 

a community. We have everything together, and it would be impossible to re-establish elsewhere. We have followed the law, respected 

the judicial system, and simply want to keep our family together. 

For my children, and couples and families like ours, it is critically important that we end discrimination in U.S. immigration 

law. 

Chairman Leahy and members of the Committee, it is a great 

privilege to be here with you today. I was honored to receive your 

invitation. 

I humbly ask for your support of the Uniting American Families 

Act which would allow me to remain with my family and to strive 

for citizenship in this wonderful country that has been so good to 

me and my partner and such a blessed home to our children. 

Thank you. 

9 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tan appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Ms. Tan. 

Our next witness is Gordon Stewart. He is a director and team 

leader with Pfizer Pharmaceutical. He has been with the company 

for 14 years, I believe. Originally from my home State of Vermont, 

Mr. Stewart now lives in London—I will mention as a result of our 

current immigration law and the inability of his partner of 9 years 

to obtain a U.S. visa. Mr. Stewart was forced to sell his home in 

the United States and relocate to London to keep his family intact. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. 

Chairman LEAHY. Please go ahead, and make sure your microphone is on. Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF GORDON STEWART, LONDON, ENGLAND 

Mr. STEWART. Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions, 

I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am 

an American citizen living abroad simply due to the fact that our 

country’s immigration laws have forced me to leave the United 

States in order to be with my partner, Renato, the person I love. 

I am here today because, like so many other Americans in similar situations, I believe it is imperative that we fix our broken immigration system, and specifically that it is long past time we treat 

lesbian and gay Americans and our families equally under the law. 

I traveled to be with you today from London where I work for 

Pfizer. 

I am fortunate to have worked for Pfizer more than 14 years. 

Pfizer is a company that recognizes domestic partnership. Unfortunately, the U.S. Government does not recognize Renato, my partner 

of more than 9 years. Renato lived with me in the U.S. as a fulltime student, studying English and pre-Law. He was corporate 

counsel for a multinational in Sao Paolo before coming to New 

York. In June 2003, while enrolled as a student, he returned to 

Brazil for what we thought would be a routine second renewal of 

his student visa. The renewal was rejected, and he has never been 

able to return to our home in the U.S. For weeks, I left his things 

exactly as they were the day he left, hoping that soon he would be 

able to come home. 

Renato wanted to live and study in the United States. He was 

a volunteer in our community. Yet, because the immigration laws 

did not recognize him as my family member, nothing I could do 

would bring him back to our home. 

So to be with Renato, I commuted to Brazil from New York every 

other weekend for more than a year and a half. This commuting 

took a huge toll on me emotionally, physically, and financially. 

Eventually, I was fortunate to find a position with Pfizer in the 

United Kingdom. The U.K. Government has recognized us as dependent partners, not a married couple, and we both have the right 

to live and work in the U.K. While we are grateful for this solution, 

it means separation from our family and friends and puts significant limitations on our career. 

The United States’ discriminatory immigration laws have also affected my extended family of five siblings and nine nieces and 

10 

nephews, and I am happy that my nephew from Vermont is with 

us today in the audience. If I want to be with my family—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Do you want to mention him just so that it can 

be part of the record? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. His name is Chester Martin, and he is seated 

here. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you. 

If I want to be with my family for important family occasions, I 

have to travel alone and leave Renato in London. In August, I will 

attend my niece’s wedding in California. It will be a big family reunion, but my partner will not be able to join us. Renato cannot 

even get a tourist visa to the U.S. Imagine what that means. 

Recently, when my sister was diagnosed with cancer, Renato 

could not travel with me to visit her, and I could not spend as 

much time with her as I wanted because I live and work in London. That is the reality of our life together. 

Last year, I reluctantly and very sadly sold our family farm in 

Goshen, Vermont, because I cannot travel there with Renato. Our 

family had the farm from when I was 6 years old, and our parents 

both died and are buried on the property. Imagine what it is like 

to own a property that you cannot visit with your partner. It is impossible to maintain a 19th-century farmhouse from the other side 

of the Atlantic. That is the reality of American immigration law for 

couples like us. 

I am deeply disappointed that my country has treated Renato 

this way, and I am furious that we cannot live together in the U.S. 

Despite the fact that I am a citizen, a tax-paying, law-abiding, and 

voting citizen, I feel discrimination from my Government. 

The U.K. has allowed both Renato and me to move there based 

on my temporary transfer from Pfizer. The U.K. recognizes permanent partners for immigration purposes as do 18 other countries. 

The U.S. should do the same. 

The decision to move to the U.K. was the best decision I could 

have made at that time. But I would like to be able to come home 

to my country, the country that I love. I should have the right to 

come with my partner to visit or to live, but we cannot. That is the 

reality of U.S. immigration law. 

Thousands of other lesbian and gay families are separated like 

we are. Unlike us, however, they have not had the support of a 

wonderful company like Pfizer to help find a solution to this impossible situation. The Uniting American Families Act needs to be 

passed now. I hope today’s hearing will be a step in that direction. 

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Senator Leahy for 

the strong stand he has taken on supporting families like mine. Let 

me also thank the Committee for taking the time to listen to my 

story. I am the voice of many wonderful Americans who have been 

forced to make the difficult choice between family and partner and 

country and partner. 

Allow me to add that my company, Pfizer, has earned, the top 

rating of 100 percent for five consecutive years in the Corporate 

Equality Index, an annual ranking published by the Human Rights 

Campaign Foundation that evaluates businesses on their treatment 

of LGBT employees, investors, and customers. Pfizer Chairman and 

11 

CEO Jeff Kindler has said Pfizer supports its LGBT colleagues because ‘‘doing better in recruitment and retention, in understanding 

diverse markets, and in making Pfizer a better place to work does 

ultimately drive up our value.’’ However, he said we mainly ‘‘support our LGBT colleagues because it is the right thing to do.’’ 

America should also support its LGBT citizens and families because it is indeed the right thing to do. 

Again, thank you, Chairman Leahy. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you very much. I know the area 

where your farm is in Goshen, one of the prettiest parts of a very 

pretty State. 

I would also note for the record, we have talked several times 

about other countries that have already done what my legislation 

would propose doing. The countries are Canada, Australia, the 

United Kingdom, Israel, Brazil, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, 

France, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, 

South Africa, and Sweden. 

Our next witness is Julian—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I would note, I think in almost 

every one of those countries they have far more controls than this 

legislation would propose. But we can talk about that later. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Yes. Julian Bond, our next witness, has been 

Chairman of the National Board of Directors of the NAACP since 

1998. He was first elected to public office in 1965. He served four 

terms in the Georgia House of Representatives, which was a cataclysmic change—I might add parenthetically, I think Mr. Bond 

knows even more how cataclysmic it was—for Georgia and six 

terms in the State Senate, which was ultimately very much to the 

value of his State. 

In addition to his role as Chairman of the NAACP, he is a member of the board for People for the American Way, the Southern 

Poverty Law Center, the Council for a Livable World, serves on the 

Advisory Board of the Harvard Business School Initiative on Social 

Enterprise, among others. He holds 25 honorary degrees, is a distinguished professor at American University, a professor of history 

at the University of Virginia, and a graduate of Morehouse College. 

Mr. Bond, I am delighted you are here. Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF JULIAN BOND, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL BOARD 

OF DIRECTORS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP), WASHINGTON, 

D.C. 

Mr. BOND. Thank you, sir. I would like to begin by thanking 

Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions for holding this 

hearing and for your strong and steadfast support of families of all 

types. 

The preservation and strengthening of the family unit has long 

been a rallying point for the NAACP, and I am happy to say my 

middle son, Michael, joins me here. 

Chairman LEAHY. Now you are in the family archives, too. 

12 

Mr. BOND. Family sponsorship accounts for more than 85 percent 

of legal immigration to the United States. But a backlog of visas— 

experienced in many immigration categories, but especially for 

family members—currently separates immigrants from spouses and 

their young children for over 5 years and separates elderly parents, 

adult children, and siblings for as many as 23 years. The current 

family-based immigration system has not been updated in 20 years. 

There are currently 5.8 million people in the family immigration 

backlog waiting unconscionable periods of time to reunite with 

their loved ones. 

It is for this reason that the NAACP strongly supports legislation 

in the Senate that would fix our Nation’s immigration laws to 

again make family reunification a highly functioning element of 

our national immigration policy. Specifically, the NAACP supports 

the Reuniting Families Act, Senate bill 1085, introduced by Senator Menendez of New Jersey, and the Uniting American Families 

Act, Senate 424, which has been introduced by the Chairman of 

this Committee, Mr. Leahy. 

In the House of Representatives, the NAACP supports legislation 

to be introduced tomorrow by Congressman Mike Honda, also to be 

called the ‘‘Reuniting American Families Act,’’ which incorporates 

both S. 1085 and S. 424. I would hasten to add that we support 

the provisions in the Uniting American Families Act because the 

NAACP strongly believes that the definition of ‘‘family’’ is not restrictive and can and should include non-traditional family units. 

We do not believe that immigration law, or any laws or policies for 

that matter, should discriminate against gay and lesbian families 

or family members. 

Too much of our national debate over immigration has focused on 

enforcement and undocumented workers. The NAACP feels strongly that genuine reform must include provisions to fix an antiquated 

system with the result being the reinvigoration of one of the most 

compelling goals of the American immigration laws: the reunification of American families. 

Given all the benefits socially, economically, and morally of ensuring that effective family reunification is an integral part of our 

Nation’s policy, there can be no question that the NAACP supports 

an overhaul of current law to ensure that the family preferences 

policies are functioning well and without discrimination. 

The NAACP would also like to stress that the definition of ‘‘family’’ should not be interpreted so stringently as to omit people who 

are in a loving, committed relationship but happen to be of the 

same gender. 

It was, in fact, the Immigration Act of 1965 that put family unification at the core of our Nation’s policy, replacing the old ‘‘Quota 

Acts’’ of the 1920s. The 1965 Act made huge strides in eradicating 

the old, racist policies that put a premium on people from Northern 

and Western Europe and made it next to impossible for people of 

color to immigrate to the United States. 

We clearly need to update our immigration policies to more efficiently promote family unification, and in the spirit of promoting 

civil rights that was the guiding force behind the 1965 law, we 

should include families of all different races and ethnicities, including families with gay and lesbian members. It is because we supVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:21 Aug 12, 2010 Jkt 057633 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\57633.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
13 

port the civil rights protections of all people and because we are opposed to discrimination based on any criteria that we support inclusion of the Uniting American Families Act in any comprehensive 

immigration reform. This legislation will ensure that gay and lesbian couples and families are treated just like other families who 

are bi-national. The inclusion of the Uniting American Families Act 

in comprehensive reform would ensure the continuation of an expansion of civil rights to people who have historically been left out 

and mistreated by American immigration policies. 

In closing, let me reiterate the NAACP’s strong belief in the benefits of strong, united families. As such, we support the inclusion 

of modifications to the existing family reunification policies in our 

Nation’s immigration laws to facilitate more families being brought 

together faster and with less hassle. 

Again, I would like to thank the Chairman for holding this important hearing and for your support of all kinds of families. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bond appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Bond. 

Our next witness is Christopher Nugent, who is Co-Chair of the 

Committee on the Rights of Immigrants of the Section of Individual 

Rights and Responsibilities of the American Bar Association. He 

currently is senior pro bono counsel with the Community Services 

Team of Holland and Knight. He works there specifically on immigration and public policy-related cases. Mr. Nugent has over 20 

years of experience in the field of immigration policy. He is the recipient of numerous awards for his work. He is a graduate of Sarah 

Lawrence University, holds a law degree from the City University 

of New York. 

Mr. Nugent, please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER NUGENT, CO-CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF IMMIGRANTS, SECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, AMERICAN BAR 

ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, and thank you, 

Ranking Member Senator Sessions. It is a privilege and an honor 

for me to appear before you. I am appearing today at the request 

of Tommy Wells Jr., the President of the American Bar Association, 

who was unable to attend the hearing. On behalf of the American 

Bar Association and its over 400,000 members, I would like to 

thank you for this exceptional opportunity to express the ABA’s 

strong support for the Uniting American Families Act, which we 

hope will be integrated into any comprehensive immigration reform 

legislation. 

As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA has a 

strong interest in ensuring that our immigration laws are both fair 

and effective, as well as supporting efforts to combat legal discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, nationality, 

and sexual orientation. 

In the particular area of immigration, the ABA has adopted numerous policy recommendations concerning the administration of 

our system of legal immigration. Central among these recVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:21 Aug 12, 2010 Jkt 057633 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\57633.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
14 

ommendations is the core principle that the basis upon which foreign nationals should be able to seek permanent resident status 

should be both humane and equitable and should reflect the historic emphasis on both family reunification and the economic and 

cultural interests of the United States. 

The ABA has also adopted numerous policy recommendations 

that oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation. We recognize the importance of providing committed gay and lesbian couples and their families with basic legal protections to help those 

families stay together. 

Family unification is an express and central goal of immigration 

policy in the United States and has been for more than 50 years. 

Currently, however, this principle fails the families of U.S. citizens 

and permanent residents whose same-sex partners are foreign nationals. U.S. policy allows foreign spouses and fiance ́(e)s to immigrate and live with their U.S. partners, but it discriminates against 

gay and lesbian U.S. citizens and permanent residents by prohibiting them from sponsoring their partners for permanent residence 

in the U.S. As a result, as we have heard today, thousands of lesbian and gay bi-national couples and their children are being kept 

apart, driven abroad into virtual exile, or forced to live in fear of 

being separated, detained, or deported. 

This policy damages not only those families, but the United 

States society generally. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, there 

are 35,820 same-sex bi-national couples that live together in the 

United States. But due to current law and policy, they are prevented from immigrating to the United States, and many bi-national couples are forced to leave this country, depriving our Nation 

of the economic, cultural, social, and other contributions that these 

individuals could have made here. 

Gay and lesbian partners are ineligible to access immigration opportunities, regardless of the depth of their love and the permanency of their commitment to one another. 

The Uniting American Families Act would not repeal or affect 

the Defense of Marriage Act in any material way. Rather, the Act 

simply seeks to provide a viable mechanism by which permanent 

partners of gay and lesbian U.S. citizens and permanent residents 

have access to valid immigration status on an equivalent basis to 

married straight couples. 

Moreover, gay and lesbian couples would be subject to exactly the 

same rigorous documentation criteria that are imposed upon heterosexual spouses, including productions of documents like joint 

leases, mortgages, joint bank accounts, family photos, and the like. 

The petitioning American partner also would be required to sign a 

bind Affidavit of Support, which is a contract that would obligate 

him or her to financially support the beneficiary for 10 years in the 

United States. 

In addition, the current penalties, which are 5 years imprisonment or a $250,000 fine—for marriage fraud under the Immigration Nationality Act and the U.S. Code would apply with equal 

force and vigor to gay and lesbian couples. Accordingly, for these 

reasons, the Act would not increase the opportunity for marriage 

fraud. 

15 

In maintaining the current immigration restrictions that discriminate against same-sex couples, the United States’ policy is in 

direct contradiction with many of our closest allies, including the 

United Kingdom, Australia, and Israel, which facilitate and embrace immigration benefits for same-sex partners. 

In conclusion, central to this Nation’s long history of immigration 

law and policy is to ensure that Americans and their loved ones are 

able to stay together in the United States. The current failure to 

recognize gay and lesbian permanent partnerships for immigration 

purposes is gratuitously cruel and unnecessary. Critical protections, as provided in the Uniting American Families Act, should be 

afforded and enacted to help gay and lesbian partners maintain 

their commitment to one another on an equal basis with differentsex spouses. 

I thank you for your consideration of my testimony, and I look 

forward to your questions. Thank you, Chairman Leahy. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nugent appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Nugent, and thank 

you for the emphasis on the kind of scrutiny that would be given 

to anybody making this kind of an application. As I understand, it 

is the same scrutiny as somebody who is a heterosexual couple, 

married couple, that would face the same kind of scrutiny. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. NUGENT. Exactly. It would be the same exacting scrutiny 

and very vigorous documentation requirements and the threat of 

civil and criminal penalties. And as your bill, Chairman Leahy, 

states, it states that part of the bill is to penalize immigration 

fraud in connection with permanent partnerships. So that is integrated and central to your bill. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Roy Beck is the founder and CEO of NumbersUSA, a grassroots 

organization dedicated to immigration reduction. Prior to joining 

the organization, Mr. Beck worked as a journalist for over 30 years. 

He is the recipient of numerous awards for reporting on religion 

and politics and is a graduate of the University of Missouri School 

of Journalism. 

Mr. Beck, glad to have you here, sir. 

STATEMENT OF ROY BECK, FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, NUMBERSUSA EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 

Mr. BECK. Thank you very much. I thank the Committee for the 

opportunity for NumbersUSA to testify about S. 424. 

The key issue for us is that S. 424 creates a new, unlimited category of immigration, but it does not include any offsets of reducing 

green cards in other categories. 

NumbersUSA was founded as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization in 1996 to carry out the immigration recommendations of two 

Clinton-era national commissions. We now have 900,000 on-line activist members who support that mission. We believe that all immigration bills should be reviewed in light of the principles of those 

two commissions. 

16 

First, President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development 

recommended that annual green card numbers be cut low enough 

to allow for U.S. population stabilization. Environmental sustainability in this country was seen by the Commission as impossible 

if Congress continued to force massive U.S. population growth 

through immigration. 

The second was the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration 

Reform that was chaired by the late Barbara Jordan. It recommended deep cuts in immigration to remove the economic injustice that current immigration causes and imposes on the most vulnerable members of our community. NumbersUSA examines every 

immigration proposal on the basis of how it would advance or impede the numerical recommendations of the two Clinton-era commissions. These commissions recognized that immigration policy 

has been assembled piecemeal without thought to how the total 

number of green cards affects the overall national community. 

These Commissions recognized that our immigration policy has 

been assembled piecemeal, without thought about how the total 

number of green cards affects the overall national community. 

Thus, a bill like S. 424 will tend to be examined entirely outside 

its environmental consequences, even though we are in a time of 

grave environmental concerns. It will tend to be examined outside 

its economic impact despite our 9-percent unemployment rate. But 

nearly every adult who is permanently added to the U.S. population through immigration legislation would be a potential competitor to unemployed and underemployed American workers. Every 

new immigrant increases the total U.S. carbon footprint and ecological footprint. 

Every piece of our complex policy caters to a particular special 

interest. Now, special does not mean illegitimate. It just means it 

is special. It is not the national interest overall. But the combined 

effect of all of these pieces on our Nation’s immigration policy has 

a profound consequence on the entire national community in terms 

of the public infrastructure deficit, economic disparities, and stewardship over our natural resources. 

I hope the Judiciary Committee will consider all those implications every time it looks at immigration legislation in the Congress. 

I noted in my written testimony that in many ways immigration 

ought to come up before the Environment, Energy, Health Services 

because it is the primary driver of population growth in this country, which has profound effects on all of those committees’ work. 

All of the long-term population growth in the United States since 

1972 has been due to Federal immigration policies. 

In 1972, Americans chose to reduce the U.S. fertility rate to 

below the replacement level of 2.1. It has been just below that ever 

since. Yet the 1990s saw the biggest population boom in our history—larger even than the 1950s baby boom. This decade is very 

similar. 

There is only one reason for this gigantic population boom that 

defies all of the environmental hopes and dreams that were back 

in the 1960s and 1970s when I first began reporting on the environmental movement, and they are opposite the trends recommended by President Clinton’s Sustainability Commission. That 

reason is that Congress has repeatedly overridden the American 

17 

people’s choice of a stabilizing future and instead forced massive 

population growth through increases in green cards. 

I am not aware that Congress has ever stated that it wanted to 

increase the population. I am not aware that Congress has ever 

said that the American people prefer to have an extra 130 million 

people the Census Bureau says that immigration will cause over 

the next 50 years or 40 years. But this is the result of making decisions on green cards piecemeal instead of looking at the overall 

consequences and the overall numbers. 

Until the first Earth Day in 1970, immigration averaged about 

250,000 a year, and that was about what it was in the 1950s and 

1960s. But a succession of immigration decisions by Congress have 

raised the 250,000 green cards to a million-a-year level by 1990, 

and it has been there ever since. 

In order to meet the Sustainability Commission’s recommendations of moving toward a stabilized U.S. population, green card 

numbers would have to be cut back at least 75 percent. Like nearly 

all sustainability issues, the setting of green card numbers is not 

primarily for those of us who are living in the next decade. They 

are for our children and grandchildren later this century, and they 

are for the generations to come that will be in this country. 

I want to just finish then by saying that, in a nutshell, our concern about S. 424 is that it represents another piecemeal congressional act that would increase the numbers of green cards each 

year with no regard for the resulting increase in population pressures. 

Without a reduction in immigration and population growth, it 

will be close to impossible to meet carbon goals, energy goals, infrastructure goals without a fundamental slashing of the American 

standard of living. 

If Congress would take a bill like S. 424 and create offsets at the 

same time, our organization does not have a position on how these 

green cards are passed out. But we do believe that the direction of 

green cards must be moving toward the quarter million level from 

the million level. Thus, a bill such as S. 424 that adds green cards 

should cut, we think, at least three green cards in other categories 

in order to move in the right direction. By adding green cards without reducing others, passing S. 424 would be irresponsible to the 

environment, to future generations, and to the most economically 

vulnerable members of our national community. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beck appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Beck. 

Incidentally, you talk about doing this in a comprehensive fashion. Did you support President Bush’s comprehensive immigration 

plan? 

Mr. BECK. No. No, because it added lots of green cards. 

Chairman LEAHY. Okay. I did support President Bush on that 

one. 

Mr. BECK. I know. 

Chairman LEAHY. But it did not go anywhere. 

The next witness is Jessica Vaughan. She is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies. Ms. Vaughan is 

18 

a former State Department consular officer, has extensive experience with visas, immigration benefits, and immigration law enforcement. She holds a bachelor’s degree in international studies 

from Washington College, a master’s degree in government from 

Georgetown University. Again, your whole statement will be placed 

in the record, but please go ahead, Ms. Vaughan. 

STATEMENT OF JESSICA M. VAUGHAN, DIRECTOR, POLICY 

STUDIES, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES, FRANKLIN, 

MASSACHUSETTS 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Thank you all very much for the opportunity to 

be here today to discuss this bill. And just for the record, I am a 

former Vermonter, also, another one on the panel. 

Chairman LEAHY. Whereabouts? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Randolph. 

Chairman LEAHY. Randolph. That is very pretty. Not that far 

from Montpelier, where I was born. Thank you. 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Thank you. 

First off, I want to say that I fully understand the goal of this 

legislation and the difficulties that some aspects of current law 

present, particularly for same-sex couples. But looking at this from 

the perspective of the administration of the law, and as somebody 

who has adjudicated some of these cases, and after discussing it 

with others who know the current process very well, I do see a 

number of problems with the bill. 

It is addressing the issue from the wrong direction, I believe, and 

as a result would create major new problems for officials who adjudicate immigration benefits applications and for the many individuals who are involved in those applications. 

Immigration law specifies exactly which types of relationships 

can qualify for visas, green cards, and other benefits, and in most 

cases they do refer to marriage or employment or another close 

family tie that can be established through official documentation 

that is verifiable. Right now, Federal law defines ‘‘marriage’’ as between a man and a woman, and immigration law and all other 

areas of Federal law are subject to that definition. 

If the goal is to give same-sex long-term partners equal access to 

immigration benefits, then the target really should be the Defense 

Of Marriage Act, not the Immigration and Nationality Act. If that 

law were changed, then this bill would not be necessary, and the 

change would apply to all other areas of Federal law, whether it 

is Social Security benefits or veterans benefits or what have you. 

I do not see a good reason to single out immigration law for that 

kind of a change. 

Then also from a practical standpoint, this bill is really just unworkable and would create havoc in our legal immigration system. 

First of all, there is the problem of official documentation. In most 

places, there is no mechanism to recognize or document permanent 

partnerships. And our whole immigration system is dependent on 

documents that can be verified. 

Eligibility is established by presenting documents that prove that 

the sponsor and applicant have a qualifying relationship, whether 

it is marriage, parent-child, employer-employee, or sibling. And adjudicators review these documents to determine the eligibility of 

19 

the people before them. For marriage-based applications, that is a 

marriage certificate. There is no investigation at that point, at the 

point of reviewing the petition. That may happen later if they are 

applying overseas, but usually it does not occur because about half 

of applications occur from within the United States. So usually 

there is no interview. 

It is already hard enough with all the different kinds of marriage 

certificates here and the prevalence of fraudulent documents in so 

many countries overseas to verify even the legitimate marriages. 

So what happens when consular officers and USCIS adjudicators 

have to try to evaluate a permanent partnership, which is a relationship that does not officially exist in most places? I found about 

10 States, plus the District of Columbia, that allow same-sex marriage or civil unions or domestic partnerships, and those presumably would be able to provide some kind of documentation. But I 

only found about 21 foreign countries that have these kinds of partnerships, mostly in Europe—— 

Chairman LEAHY. How many? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Twenty-one that I could find. 

Chairman LEAHY. And Israel and South Africa. 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Israel recognizes other countries’. It does not have 

it itself, apparently, according to the sources I saw. 

Chairman LEAHY. South Africa, too. 

Ms. VAUGHAN. South Africa, yes. Most of them are in Europe. 

But people from these countries only make up about 6 percent of 

legal immigration to the United States. So there is really a very 

small number of people who would be able to provide some kind 

of official documentation of their partnership. And I do think it is 

unreasonable to try to expect consular officers or USCIS adjudicators to try to do additional investigations to verify the authenticity 

of most of the rest of the other applications they would be getting 

under this legislation. It just is not feasible with the resources that 

they have today. 

So this bill, by creating a relationship that is difficult to document is going to introduce new opportunities for fraud in a program that is already a magnet for misrepresentation and abuse of 

the system. 

It is important to remember that this is going to create—it is 

going to help a lot of people. It has the potential to help a lot of 

people. But it will also create thousands of new victims of marriage 

fraud as well. Marriage is by far the most common route for foreign 

nationals now. I counted that last year more than 400,000 people 

obtained green cards as a result of marriage to either a U.S. citizen 

or a permanent resident, or someone else who qualified for a green 

card. And that is about 40 percent of total legal immigration to the 

United States. So it is a lot of people who come in through this 

route. And while most of these marriages are legitimate, still marriage fraud is one of the most common ways for otherwise unqualified people—many of whom are illegal aliens—to obtain green 

cards. 

We published a report last year on marriage fraud and documented all the different types of it, whether it is mail-order brides 

or cash for vows or exploitative relationships or what we call ‘‘heart 

20 

breakers,’’ and all of these methods are sure to be used in the context of permanent partnerships. 

Chairman LEAHY. Ms. Vaughan, we will put your full statement 

in the record. I want others to have time. I have to be at another 

thing. I know Senator Sessions will have questions and Senator 

Specter will. I will turn the gavel over to either Senator Specter or 

Senator Schumer if he comes. I do apologize. You make a very good 

point on the question of fraud, and as Mr. Nugent pointed out, we 

are trying to put the same law in, and we do not want to put extra 

work on overworked consular officers, but we all have to work 

hard. And we will put in the same fraud protections in there for 

this as we do for other married couples, because the point you 

make is a very good one. We should try to be able to root out fraud. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Vaughan appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I am also going to put in the record 34 statements in support of this from organizations across the country. Mr. 

Stewart, it includes Pfizer. 

Ms. Tan, thank you for coming today. I know part of this has 

been difficult for Jashley and Joriene, but you can be very proud 

of them. 

Ms. TAN. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. They look like very nice young men, and they 

should be proud of both their parents, and they should know that 

there are people who want to help them. 

I could not help but think that the family you have and the contribution to your community are things the Federal Government 

should protect. You work actively in your community, in your local 

Catholic Church, and other areas. And both your story and Mr. 

Stewart’s story remind us that when we discuss this policy, there 

are real people involved. I just slipped Mr. Stewart a note saying 

that our family has had the same farmhouse for 50 years in Middlesex, and I know how—Middlesex is not that much different than 

Goshen. 

So we know that what you want to do is provide your family with 

a good education, provide them with their welfare. How about others in your community? How do they feel? Do you receive support 

within the community from people on this? 

Ms. TAN. Yes, I—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Press the button so your microphone will be 

on. If the little red light comes on, it is on. Go ahead. 

Ms. TAN. My whole community in Pacifica gave me their utmost 

support. The congregation, the Church of Good Shepherd, my parish priest, the pastor, he wrote a very nice letter to Senator Dianne 

Feinstein in support of my plight. And all of the community leaders, they are extending their sympathy, and my friends, the school 

community where my sons attend the Cabrillo School, they were 

extending their support and sympathy in this time of our life. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Stewart, you are now working for Pfizer in England. You are 

paying your taxes in England. If this would work, you would be in 

the United States. You would be a taxpayer not only in my State 

but wherever Pfizer had you. Is that correct? 

21 

Mr. STEWART. I am actually under the earned income exclusion. 

I also pay taxes in the U.S. as a U.S. citizen living abroad. So I, 

in fact, pay a heavy tax burden in the U.S. as well. 

Yes, if I were able to—— 

Chairman LEAHY. But your skills would be used here in the 

United States. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. The headquarters of Pfizer are in New York, 

and the policy of Pfizer to send people abroad or move them around 

the global organization is so that they can add the most value to 

the company. And, obviously, at a certain point, my skills could be 

best used back in headquarters, I believe. And I believe that is why 

we have the support of our CEO and chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Bond, you—and I do not mean to embarrass you; it becomes 

almost a cliche. You are an icon in the civil rights movement and 

are recognized by all of us in that regard. I listened to your statement, the benefits of family unity and all. Would you say your 

statement could apply very well to Mr. Stewart and Ms. Tan. 

Mr. BOND. Absolutely. We think we are all united in wanting the 

same thing, and the arguments you have heard from personal stories are so compelling, it is hard to see how someone could turn 

away. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

You know, Mr. Nadler used the words ‘‘gratuitous harm.’’ I do 

not think that is the fair definition of where we are. It seems that 

the U.S. Government and most governments in the world have defined marriage as between a man and a woman. They give preferences in several different areas—joint tax returns or other advantages of being in that relationship that has been approved by the 

State. The State does not order that people cannot live together if 

they are same-sex couples and cannot share all kinds of responsibilities and activities together. It does not prohibit that. But it 

does not give that special status. And you think about maybe 

brothers and sisters live together a long time and are close, just 

roommates or partners or friends in business or other activities. 

They are not given preferences either. So at some point, the law 

has to draw lines. Our Congress has voted not long ago overwhelmingly that marriage should be defined as between a man and a 

woman. So that is kind of where we are, and most nations, I think, 

in the world would agree with that. 

I do note that this legislation has caused some concern among 

the pro-immigration forces. The U.S. Conference of Catholic 

Bishops, who support immigration and family unification issues in 

a pretty strong way, recently wrote that the reunification bill would 

‘‘erode the institution of marriage and family by according marriage-like immigration benefits to same-sex relationships, a position that is contrary to the very nature of marriage, which predates the church and the State.’’ 

Also, Mr. Samuel Rodriguez, head of the National Hispanic 

Christian Leadership Conference, called it ‘‘a slap in the face to 

those of us who fought for years for immigration reforms,’’ adding 

22 

that it would divide the very broad and strong coalition we have 

built on behalf of comprehensive reform. 

Well, I just say that to say that there are some differences here 

of a significant nature on this question. 

Mr. Nugent, just briefly, our research tells us that the countries 

that have this kind of immigration policy, at least in some form, 

all have more restrictions and requirements of proof than this bill 

would have. If you know that answer I would like your response. 

If not, perhaps the ABA would take a moment to check and see 

how well other countries have written their law to eliminate as 

much fraud as possible. 

Mr. NUGENT. Yes, I would prefer that the ABA submit their response in writing, but I—— 

Senator SESSIONS. You think the ABA had all that information 

when they passed the resolution adopting this? 

Mr. NUGENT. To my knowledge, they surveyed all the other countries in terms of their requirements. 

Senator SESSIONS. Who votes for the ABA to make such a resolution? I am a member. I do not recall knowing that you were voting 

on it. 

Mr. NUGENT. It was at last year’s meeting. 

Senator SESSIONS. So just the delegates who showed up at the 

national meeting voted. 

Mr. NUGENT. People can vote. 

Senator SESSIONS. Every delegate that showed—was it the entire 

ABA Conference or some committee? 

Mr. NUGENT. No, it is through the House of Delegates, so the delegates votes. 

Senator SESSIONS. The delegates, not the ABA members and—— 

Mr. NUGENT. The delegates represent their constituents. 

Senator SESSIONS. How many is that? 

Mr. NUGENT. I do not have the exact number of the ABA delegates. I think it is around 500. 

Senator SESSIONS. All right. Ms. Vaughan, with regard to this 

fraud issue, you have done a good bit of work on that, and I saw 

in your statement already that it is a big problem. As I indicated, 

when Senator Specter and I were in the Caribbean, we were talking to a consulate official, and I am not sure if Senator Specter was 

in that conference, but we got into a long discussion about this. He 

said this was the No. 1 fraud issue he faced. When they caught 

people flatly committing fraudulent documents, nobody prosecuted 

it. There was no ability to do anything about it. And it was just 

a constant abuse of the system. And he thought it was the most 

abused part of the system. 

How would you respond to that? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Oh, I would agree, absolutely, that marriage fraud 

is the single most difficult problem in immigrant visas because 

there are so many applications that depend on marriage and documenting marriage. It is just ripe for it. There are so many different 

kinds of it. And so that is why it is critically important to be able 

to verify that the relationships are valid, and that is why we have 

a provision in the law that makes the green card conditional for 2 

years. And then the couple has to come back to establish that they 

are still married. 

23 

But even so, you know, the motivation—— 

Senator SESSIONS. They have to come back and show—does this 

bill require that? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. My understanding is that it imposes the same 

standards on permanent partners as it does on marriage cases. But 

the problem is that—well, for one thing, marriage itself is an institution that brings with it legal entanglements, and we think that 

having—that the prospect of marriage is something that actually 

does deter some people who might be tempted to engage in marriage fraud for cash or for whatever reason, because they think it 

is kind of a benign crime, because of the legal entanglements—in 

other words, the spouse has access to your bank account, to your 

home, and so on, and you have to demonstrate the bona fides of 

the relationship. And so permanent partnerships have no such 

legal standing. 

Senator SESSIONS. In the United States in particular. 

Ms. VAUGHAN. In the United States in particular, and in many 

other countries in the world. So what is to stop—you know, I can 

imagine somebody who would be tempted to perpetrate this kind 

of fraud would just say, well, what do I have to lose by establishing 

a permanent partnership? Nothing. If we are to end the partnership, I lose nothing. I gain from, you know, however many thousands of dollars I make for establishing this fraudulent partnership, and there is no risk to me as an individual. 

Senator SESSIONS. How about the situation—isn’t it true that if 

you have a spouse in Colombia, let us say, that spouse would go 

to the U.S. consulate on Colombia and would present a marriage 

certificate or some document that virtually every nation in the 

world provides for people who are actually in a heterosexual marriage relationship, right? But that kind of documentation is not 

available in most countries in the world where 94 percent of the 

people who used the marriage relationship to come to the United 

States as a preference, that would not be available. And so the consulate official has now got a real complex decisionmaking requirement before they can determine whether or not that is—what kind 

of relationship it is. Wouldn’t that complicate their lives significantly? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Oh, absolutely. It is hard enough with marriage 

certificates, but at least those you can verify by calling the country’s Department of Vital Statistics or, you know, there are lots of 

other ways to discover that the government of that country has recognized this relationship. 

With permanent partnerships, they do not exist in most other 

countries of the world, so there would be no way that the adjudicating officer could have any confidence that this was a legitimate, 

officially recognized relationship. That is very problematic. 

Senator SESSIONS. There are other possible partnership relationships that could be implicated by this statute that would require 

even further and more complex analysis. I think the clarity of the 

preference, the benefit—the clarity of the benefit provided to a traditional marriage relationship provides some help in keeping integrity in the system and its being abused. To go beyond that I think 

would really open up the system to very grave consequences. 

24 

Chairman Specter, I would just offer for the record a number of 

letters and comments. John Sampson, a 27-year veteran of immigration enforcement with INS and its successor, U.S. Customs Enforcement, ICE, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, 

Concerned Women of American Eagle Forum have submitted the 

letters that they would like to be made a part of the record. We 

would offer that. 

Senator SPECTER [presiding]. Without objection, they will be 

made a part of the record. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Senator Schumer. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize to 

you and to the witnesses for being here late. We had a discussion 

on the health care bill in the Finance Committee. That is coming 

up. I had to be there. I am just going to read an opening statement, 

because I am supportive of Senator Leahy’s bill, and then you get 

on with other questions. 

Now, about a month ago, I chaired a hearing of the Immigration 

Subcommittee regarding the prospects for comprehensive immigration reform. It was a great hearing. As you know, Mr. Chairman, 

I am Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, and we are 

going to make a very strong attempt to try to get comprehensive 

immigration reform this year that I think can unite rather than divide people, because most Americans are both pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration. And this bill will be very tough 

on each. 

At the hearing, Pastor Joel Hunter—he is one of America’s most 

knowledgeable and influential conservative religious leaders. He is 

pastor of a huge church and has an amazing following and is a 

wonderful person. His testimony on immigration, you know, 

brought tears to the eyes of many people, and he reminded us that 

‘‘Our broken immigration system produces both broken and crooked 

people and tempts many to predatory practices’’—something I know 

that all the witnesses, including Ms. Vaughan just talking about it, 

are worried about. 

Well, I urge my colleagues to read his testimony from last month, 

both in testimony as it applies to this bill, but as it applies to comprehensive immigration reform. And Pastor Hunter counseled us 

that, in order to fix this broken system, we must adopt an immigration system that deems each person is valuable, prioritizes the 

family, and provides compassion for those most in need. And that 

is why I am a sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act. 

For those who oppose this act, citing concerns of fraud, I counter 

with what our immigration officials themselves tell me. They say 

that what truly engenders fraud is the current broken system 

which lamentably places bi-national same-sex couples in the dilemma of either being torn apart from their loved ones or breaking 

the law. Ms. Tan has testified about that. 

25 

For those who question the morality of permitting same-sex partners to obtain immigration benefits, I believe we should value the 

sanctity of preserving the family structure in whatever form it may 

take and in providing compassion for all Americans who yearn to 

live with their family. 

This Act incorporates the same principles that I believe should 

govern comprehensive immigration reform. It is tough on fraud and 

law breakers. It encourages people to abide by the law, requires 

people to prove they are really in a permanent partnership prior 

to receiving an immigration benefit. And, best of all, it fixes an aspect of our broken immigration system in order to discourage illegal immigration and encourage legal immigration. 

The time has come for us to help people like Ms. Tan and to 

make the promise of America real for this sympathetic segment to 

the American population who is adversely and irrationally affected 

by our current immigration law. 

The division I guess I would have with Jeff, my colleague Senator Sessions, is this: Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the 

good. No law is going to be perfect. But this law will encourage 

people to abide by the law rather than break it, because we know 

that love is one of the most strong forces that God has created, and 

people are going to figure out ways to keep that love intact, and 

sometimes it leads them to break the law, which is wrong. Why not 

have the law understand that and make a process that is more 

law-abiding rather than less? 

That is, I guess, what I would say, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for both calling on me and chairing the hearing. I thank all 

of the witnesses for their patience. And I thank Senator Leahy for 

introducing this bill. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Schumer. 

The trend nationally has been to recognize relationships between 

people of the same sex. There have been five States now which 

have given full marriage equality to members of the same sex. 

Other States have sanctioned civil unions. Still other States have 

sanctioned domestic partnerships. Some States have recognized 

same-sex marriage performed in other States. And some States 

have limited relationship recognition laws. 

Where there has been such a significant trend to giving at least 

recognition to civil unions, I believe it is entirely consistent to accord people that opportunity on immigration so that if you have a 

same-sex union to give equal standing as really a civil rights issue. 

Not necessary to get into the issue as to whether it would be constitutionally protected with the different status of an undocumented immigrant, for example. But I think Senator Leahy’s legislation goes in the right direction, and I support it. 

The issue of same-sex marriage has changed very materially 

since the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1997. At that 

time, there was a very substantial vote, 86–14, and I was among 

the 86. Former President Clinton has made an interesting comment about same-sex marriage when asked about his own judgment on it. I think it is accurate to say that he remarked that his 

views were evolving, which may be a fair statement. As to what is 

happening nationally remains to be seen. But it is my hope that 

26 

an issue like this will not prove to be so controversial that it derails our efforts to have comprehensive immigration reform. 

In 2006, this Committee passed out a comprehensive immigration reform bill. It passed the Senate. There was a bill which 

passed the House, and the House would not go to conference, really 

largely along political lines. Their bill was not comprehensive. It 

only dealt with the law and employer verification. The political calculation boomeranged, and the House went down to substantial defeat, and the Senate, by one vote, changed control. 

In 2007, the Committee did not take up the issue, and there was 

an ad hoc committee, and a bill was taken to the floor and was not 

successful. The issue of citizenship was a major concern, which I 

think led to the bill’s defeat. But on the chronology, the comprehensive bill provided that the undocumented immigrants, estimated at 

12 million—nobody knows for sure how many; it could be as many 

as 20 million—would come at the end of the line, which had a process of about 13 years. So the citizenship was very far distant. 

I introduced a discussion bill in July of 2007 which made a couple of changes. One was on the family reunification issue which 

was considered in the ad hoc deliberations, and I think not wisely 

decided, without hearings and without the customary markup. And 

my bill provided that the fugitive status would be changed to try 

to bring people out of the so-called shadows to be in a position to 

be identified so that we could deport the criminal element. That is 

doable. You cannot deport 12 million people. Get the people out of 

the so-called shadows so they pay taxes and have standing in society. 

The hearing has run late, and I do not propose to ask very many 

questions. We do not often have a person of the stature of Mr. Julian Bond. Mr. Bond, would you care to give a reaction to a proposal which would seek to remove a major impediment to political 

success by leaving immigration to another date? It is going to be 

delayed 13 years in any event. A lot can happen in 13 years. But 

if we did not have in immigration citizenship as an immediate consequence, I think it might alter a lot of attitudes and remove a 

major impediment to comprehensive reform. What do you think? 

Mr. BOND. Thank you, Senator. It may well allow for some time 

for consideration of other issues. But as you said about the question of same-sex marriage, the trend in this country is changing, 

as witnessed by the several States that have legalized and other 

States that have provided some kind of domestic partnership or 

something. 

I think the likelihood is also true about immigration as a general 

topic and what we ought to do about it. And although we put it off 

for 13 years, I would hate to think we would put it off for another 

13, or even one 1 or 2. 

I think we have a President who wants to do a lot of things as 

quickly as he can, and I am glad that he is, because I think for 

too long we have put things aside and waited for a more proper 

moment. 

Senator SPECTER. I did not quite follow your view as to my suggestion that we make the immediate change on eliminating the fugitive status. 

27 

Mr. BOND. Oh, I am sorry. I thought you were talking about delaying the prospects of immigration discussion of the general larger 

question. I misunderstood you. 

Senator SPECTER. Oh, no. I am not proposing delaying it. I am 

proposing since citizenship is not realistic for the undocumented 12 

million for a long period of time, because even under the legislation 

which the Senate passed, comprehensive, people were satisfied they 

would put them at the end of the line, I do not think you can put 

them at the beginning of the line. But if you made a change and 

just removed the fugitive status, I think there would be a tremendous difference in the way we treat the undocumented immigrants. 

Mr. BOND. I think so, Senator. I am sorry. I completely misunderstood the question you were asking. But I think so. 

Senator SPECTER. Would you be willing to go along with deferring the citizenship question and try to move ahead with comprehensive reform by just removing the fugitive status? 

Mr. BOND. Senator, I am speaking here today on behalf of a 

small ‘‘d’’ democratic organization which makes decisions slowly, 

and I am not in a position to say, yes, we would, or we would not. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, would you care to give a personal opinion, having disclaimed your representative status? 

Mr. BOND. No, probably not. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. Okay. Fair enough. You have the right to remain silent. 

Mr. BOND. Thank you. 

Senator SPECTER. Nothing you say will be used against you. 

Thank you all very much for coming, and that concludes our 

hearing. 

One additional item. Senator Sessions requested that the record 

be kept open for a week, and we will honor that request. 

[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.] 

28 


57633.001
29 


57633.002
30 


57633.003
31 


57633.004
32 


57633.005
33 


57633.006
34 


57633.007
35 


57633.008
36 


57633.009
37 


57633.010
38 


57633.011
39 


57633.012
40 


57633.013
41 


57633.014
42 


57633.015
43 


57633.016
44 


57633.017
45 


57633.018
46 


57633.019
47 


57633.020
48 


57633.021
49 


57633.022
50 


57633.023
51 


57633.024
52 


57633.025
53 


57633.026
54 


57633.027
55 


57633.028
56 


57633.030
57 


57633.031
58 


57633.032
59 


57633.033
60 


57633.034
61 


57633.035
62 


57633.036
63 


57633.029
64 


57633.037
65 


57633.038
66 


57633.039
67 


57633.040
68 


57633.041
69 


57633.042
70 


57633.043
71 


57633.044
72 


57633.045
73 


57633.046
74 


57633.047
75 


57633.048
76 


57633.049
77 


57633.050
78 


57633.051
79 


57633.052
80 


57633.053
81 


57633.054
82 


57633.055
83 


57633.056
84 


57633.057
85 


57633.058
86 


57633.059
87 


57633.060
88 


57633.061
89 


57633.062
90 


57633.063
91 


57633.064
92 


57633.065
93 


57633.066
94 


57633.067
95 


57633.068
96 


57633.069
97 


57633.070
98 


57633.071
99 


57633.072
100 


57633.073
101 


57633.074
102 


57633.075
103 


57633.076
104 


57633.077
105 


57633.078
106 


57633.079
107 


57633.080
108 


57633.081
109 


57633.082
110 


57633.083
111 


57633.084
112 


57633.085
113 


57633.086
114 


57633.087
115 


57633.088
116 


57633.089
117 


57633.090
118 


57633.091
119 


57633.092
120 


57633.093
121 


57633.094
122 


57633.095
123 


57633.096
124 


57633.097
125 


57633.098
126 


57633.099
127 


57633.100
128 


57633.101
129 


57633.102
130 


57633.103
131 


57633.104
132 


57633.105
133 


57633.106
134 


57633.107
135 


57633.108
136 


57633.109
137 


57633.110
138 


57633.111
139 


57633.112
140 


57633.113
141 


57633.114
142 


57633.115
143 


57633.116
144 


57633.117
145 


57633.118
146 


57633.119
147 


57633.120
148 

Æ 


57633.121