U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

79–881 PDF 2013

SEPARATION OF NUCLEAR FAMILIES UNDER

U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 14, 2013

Serial No. 113–9

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

KEITH ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR.,

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman 

TED POE, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 14, 2013

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security .......................................................................................................... 1

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

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and 

Border Security .................................................................................................... 3

WITNESSES 

Randall Emery, President, American Families United 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 5

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7

Mathi Mugilan Paguth Arivalan, Lawful Permanent Resident 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 21

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 22

Demetrios G. Papademetriou, Ph.D., President, Migration Policy Institute 

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

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 25

Clarissa Martinez-De-Castro, Director, Immigration and Civic Engagement, 

National Council of La Raza 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 29

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 31

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security ................................................................. 47

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 114

APPENDIX

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security ....................................................................... 117

Prepared Statement of the United Auto Workers ................................................. 119

Prepared Statement of MinKwon Center for Community Action ........................ 121

(1)

SEPARATION OF NUCLEAR FAMILIES UNDER 

U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW 

THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2013

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:50 p.m., in room 

2237, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Trey Gowdy (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gowdy, Goodlatte, King, Amodei, Labrador, Holding, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Gutierrez, and Garcia. 

Staff present: (Majority) Andrea Loving, Counsel; Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel; Graham Owens, Clerk; 

and (Minority) Tom Jawetz, Counsel. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security will come to order. This is a hearing on the separation of nuclear families under U.S. immigration law. Unfortunately because 

of a meeting that the minority Members will be having with the 

President, we will stand in recess until 3:45. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. GOWDY. On behalf of all of us, thank you again for your indulgence. We will begin. 

This is the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security. 

We will now proceed with the hearing on the separation of nuclear 

families under U.S. immigration law. And again, on behalf of all 

of us, thank you for being here. 

I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Family is the fundamental unit of society. Family is where we go 

to multiply joy and mitigate grief and share all of the emotions in 

between. 

A brief moment of personal indulgence. My mother-in-law fell on 

Monday and broke her hip, and even though there are wonderful 

nurses and doctors at the hospital, it will be family that stays with 

her around the clock. It will be family that will take my daughter 

to school. It will be family that will do the grocery shopping for her, 

and clean the house, and cut the grass. 

We all claim to support pro-family agendas, and we analyze tax 

policy, and health care policy, and virtually all of the forms of policy against the backdrop of whether or not it incents or disincentivizes family. So it is appropriate that we also analyze our imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:42 Jun 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\031413\79881.000 HJUD1 PsN: 79881
2

migration policy, whether it is friendly to this thing we call family, 

the fundamental unit of our culture and society. 

We have heard the statistics about U.S. green card backlogs and 

the time it takes for individuals trying to come to the U.S. legally. 

In fact, under the current process, if you have applied for a green 

card on the basis of being a brother or sister of an adult U.S. citizen, the wait could be nearly 25 years. 

Members of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform now 

believe there to be a wait for spouses and unmarried minor children, but they do not necessarily share the same view about other 

family members. In its 1997 report, the Commission stated the natural interest in the entry of nuclear family members outweighs 

that of more extended family members. 

The Commission also addressed the wait time for the spouse and 

unmarried minor children of lawful permanent residents, stating 

that no spouse or minor child should have to wait more than 1 year 

to be reunited with a U.S. petitioner. But the current green card 

wait time for the spouse and unmarried minor children of an LPR 

is actually around two and a half years, and there around 220,000 

people waiting. So why is there a wait? 

When Congress created the kind of green card system in the Immigration Act of 1965, limits were placed on the number of green 

cards available for certain classes of people each year. For instance, 

each year’s family-sponsored green card limit for spouses and children of lawful permanent residents in the U.S. is 114,200, plus any 

unused green cards from the category allotted for unmarried adult 

children of U.S. citizens. 

This preference category known as family-based second preference is further divided into 2A preference for spouses and unmarried children of LPRs and 2B preferences for unmarried adult children of LPRs. So if the number of green cards available in any 

given year for the family-based 2A preference category is less than 

the number of people who apply for a green card in that category, 

a backlog is created. 

At this point, the top five countries with the highest family-based 

2A preference waiting list totals are: Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Haiti, and the Philippines, with the rest of the countries 

making up the remaining 32 percent. 

Another reason for the wait is the conscious congressional decision not to allow immediate green cards for the family-based 2A 

preference category in order to help prevent marriage fraud. Since 

these marriages occur after the LPR has become an LPR, there is 

a real threat that if green cards were immediately available, marriage fraud would become more prevalent. Ideas differ as to how 

to reduce the green card wait time for the family-based 2A preference, and I am sure we will hear some of those differing views 

from our witnesses today. 

Some individuals believe spouses and unmarried children of 

LPRs should be considered the same as immediate relatives of U.S. 

citizens and, thus, receive a green card immediately. Some believe 

the current situation is fine and that a few years’ wait time is a 

fair price for the benefit of a U.S. green card, which then leads to 

citizenship. And still yet, others believe that the correct answer lies 

3

somewhere in between. So I look forward to today’s witness testimony to learn more about this issue and possible remedies. 

And at this point, I would recognize the gentlelady from California, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very 

sorry to hear about your mother-in-law, but I know that you will 

all take good care of her. 

I also would like to note that this is the fifth hearing this Congress that we have had focusing on our broken immigration system, and I think each hearing has been productive and provided 

useful information. And today is a critical hearing to focus in on 

the important issue of the separation of families under U.S. immigration law. 

As you know, family reunification has been really the bedrock of 

the American immigration system, at least since 1965 when the 

law as we currently know it was framed, although there have been 

some changes since. I think the focus on the family was not an accident on the part of Congress. As you have noticed, it is families 

that support us. It is family that are most dear to us. Really it is 

families that make the Nation work more than any other abstraction. 

As you have mentioned, under the immigration laws, the parents, spouses, and minor children are U.S. citizens. They are immediate relatives under the law and can join their family here. But 

the system further limits immigration to 7 percent per country, and 

I would note that that also leads to very odd results in some ways 

because you have the same number of visas allocated to Iceland 

with a population of 350,000 as you do to the population of India, 

with 1.2 billion. And so there are anomalies that are caused by 

that. 

Now, we have seen some improvements in the amount of time 

that spouses and minor children are separated. But I still think 

what does America gain if a husband and wife are separated, or 

if children are separated from a parent? I do not think that is what 

the Congress intended when we crafted these laws originally, and 

I do not think those separations really serve any valid purpose for 

the country. 

During a prior hearing, one of the Members of the full Judiciary 

Committee mentioned an adult son or daughter as chain migration. 

I want to note again I do not consider my son or daughter remote 

from me. I think that the sons and daughters of moms and dads 

are about as nuclear family as you can get. And it is not you, but 

I just wanted to restate my concern in that way. 

I think also our problems have been aggravated by changes that 

we made in the law in 1996, and I will just give you one example. 

In the ’96 Act, we established something called the 3 in 10-year 

bar. I said at the time that it would just create more unlawful immigration, and I would like to say how unsatisfactory are the 

words ‘‘I told you so.’’

You can imagine that if you are out of status for 6 months, that 

you have to leave the United States, leave your American citizen 

spouse for as much as 3 years. If you are out of status for a year, 

you have to leave for 10 years. Now, if you leave for 10 years when 

your child is 5, by the time you get back, your child will be grown. 

4

And so, what has happened is that people have declined to ruin 

their families in that way. 

The Migration Policy Institute has done some studies on that, 

and it is a significant proportion of the undocumented population, 

that were it not for the mistakes we made in the ’96 Act, they 

would be lawfully present here. They would have been able to qualify under the Act. 

So I think this is a very important hearing. I look forward to 

working with you, Mr. Chairman, in making our system work better and serve America better than it does. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from California. 

Now, we will introduce the witnesses. I will introduce you en 

banc, and then recognize you individually. Many of you have testified before. The light system means what it traditionally means in 

life: green, go, yellow, see if you can wrap up within the next 30, 

45 seconds, and then red, go ahead and wrap up as quickly as you 

can. 

I will start by introducing Mr. Randell Emery. Mr. Emery is the 

president of American Families United. He co-founded the organization in 2006 and first took an interest in legislative immigration 

issues when his application for his wife’s green card was delayed 

by more than 3 years. 

Mr. Emery is employed by a global professional services firm and 

holds a bachelor of science in management information systems 

from the Pennsylvania State University. 

Mr. Mathi Paguth Arivalan—and if I mispronounced that, and I 

am 100 percent certain I did, I apologize—is a legal permanent 

resident currently working as a software consultant for Newsmax. 

He was born in India and currently resides in Delray Beach, Florida. 

He is a graduate of the University of Madras and came to the 

United States legally in 2005 to work on his inter-company transfer 

visa, which is an L-1 visa, and received his permanent resident status in 2009. He was married a month ago to a Malaysian citizen, 

and who is currently awaiting her green card to join him in the 

United States. 

Mr. Demetrios Papademetriou—I may have added a syllable in 

there, and for that I apologize. Well, there is a first for everything—is a native of Greece. He is president and co-founder of the 

Migration Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank dedicated exclusively to the study of international migration. He is also 

president of the Migration Policy Institute, Europe. 

He received a Ph.D. in political science, international relations, 

and comparative public policy for Europe from the University of 

Maryland in 1976. 

And last, but certainly not least, is Ms. Clarissa Martinez-DeCastro. She is the director of Civic Engagement and Immigration 

at the National Council of La Raza. Ms. Martinez oversees the organization’s work to advance NCCR immigration policies, as well 

as efforts to expand Latino policy advocacy in electoral participation. 

She is a naturalized United States citizen, a graduate of Occidental College and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. 

5

Welcome to all of you. 

Mr. Emery, we will recognize you first and then go from your 

right to left, my left to right, for your opening statements. 

Mr. Emery. 

TESTIMONY OF RANDALL EMERY, PRESIDENT,

AMERICAN FAMILIES UNITED 

Mr. EMERY. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member 

Lofgren, and all the members of the panel. My name is Randall 

Emery. I am president and co-founder of American Families 

United. We are the premier grass roots organization advocating for 

nuclear families and immigration reform. 

AmericanFamiliesUnited.org was founded by U.S. citizens in 

2006 because our rights as U.S. citizens, as husbands and wives, 

mothers and fathers, are not respected by U.S. immigration law. 

We created American Families United because we could not find 

another voice working on our very specific issues. As U.S. citizens, 

we immediately make common cause with lawful permanent residents who face indefensible delays in uniting with their spouses 

and kids. 

It is often said that our immigration laws are broken, but not 

why. It is simple: our laws contradict our values. 

Today’s hearing is on the separation of nuclear families. Let me 

give a brief history of the F2A backlog that spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents. 

We hear all the time about illegal immigration, but it has been 

nearly a quarter century since Congress last increased legal immigration. In 1990, if someone got a green card today and got married 

tomorrow, the minimum wait was 1 year. Congress thought that 

was too long. The House version of the 1990 act would have made 

nuclear families of legal permanent residents a numerically unlimited category. 

Speaking on behalf of American Families United, we are proud 

of Governor Romney for proposing to return to this idea in his 2012 

campaign. We are very encouraged of news reports that Senator 

Rubio has also proposed making the F2A category into immediate 

relatives under the law. 

In 1995, the Jordan Commission asked the State Department for 

a formal count. How many people are we talking about? The official 

estimate was 1.1 million with more than 800,000 in the U.S. and 

another 300,000 waiting abroad facing a minimum wait of 3 years. 

The Jordan Commission found that this contradicted our national 

interests in warmly welcoming new Americans. But others said the 

backlog would go away on its own. It has not. 

From 1990 to about 2006, the length of the time legal immigrants who marry, as Mat here did, increased from a year to nearly 

8 years. How could the total number of people waiting have been 

declining when the time they must wait increased? But after about 

2006, something weird happened with priority dates. They moved 

rapidly forward. A delay that had been 7 or 8 years is now 2 years 

and 4 months. It is still far too long, yet it is not the whole story. 

A shorter waiting time does not mean fewer people are waiting. 

It means something much worse. People we should have welcomed 

were pushed into the shadows. The State Department’s annual 

6

waiting list says there are now 220,000 husbands and wives, parents and kids in this line, but that does not include hundreds of 

thousands of applications for nuclear family immigration held at 

USCIS. 

We want the Committee to see the iceberg below the surface. 

These are some of the stories shared with us. An engineer from 

Russia, whose wife was in a car accident. He took ‘‘for better or for 

worse, in sickness and in health’’ seriously, and literally tried to 

commute between Oklahoma and the hospital in Kazakhstan. She 

was out of the United States so long that his marriage vows cost 

him his green card. 

An elevator mechanic from Jamaica, he married a foreign student from Trinidad. They had a baby. She stopped going to school. 

By the time they found out the law required her to wait outside 

the country, she was already facing a 3-year ban. Then she learned 

her mother was dying, so this wife of a legal immigrant and mother 

of a U.S. citizen could accept exile from her husband, the father of 

their child, or she could never see her mother again, who would 

never meet her granddaughter. 

And take my own story. I am a U.S. citizen. My wife is here legally. We got married. We were interviewed for a green card and 

told to come back in a few months while they did the background 

check. We did what we were told, but they had not finished the 

background check. So some people would want to arrest, deport, 

and exile her for 10 years because of their bureaucratic delay. 

Let us be clear. One of the best things Congress could do about 

illegal immigrants is to stop making more of them. 

American Families United has met with dozens of U.S. representatives and senators in their offices. I want to particularly 

thank Congresswoman Lofgren and especially Mr. Gutierrez, as 

well as Mr. Amodei and Judge Poe, for meeting with us on Valentine’s Day. 

We support comprehensively fixing our immigration laws. Legalization means waivers of inadmissibility for millions of people, but 

new laws must reflect old values: marriage, family. We urge this 

Committee to recognize that nuclear families of legal permanent 

residents are immediate relatives. We also urge due process waiver 

reform because the families of U.S. citizens should be treated at 

least as generously as anybody else in comprehensive immigration 

legislation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Emery follows:]

7


Emery-1.eps

Testimony of Randan Emery 

President, American Families United 

To a hearing on 

The Separation of Nuclear Families under U.S. Immigration Law 

Thursday 3/14/2013 -1:30 p.m. 

2237 Rayburn House Office Building 

Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security 

- 1 -
8


Emery-2.eps

Thank you Chairman Gowdy, ranking member Lofgren, and all the 

members of the panel. My name is Randall Emery. I am a US citizen. 

I am president and co-founder of American Families United. We are 

the premier grassroots organization advocating for nuclear families 

in US immigration reform. 

American Families United was founded by US citizens in 2006 

because our rights as US citizens - as husbands and wives, mothers 

and fathers - are not respected by US immigration law. We could not 

find another voice working on the specific oversights in US 

immigration law that threatened our right as US citizens to live with 

our families in our country. 

We immediately made common cause with legal permanent 

residents - and are here today - because our values demand no less. 

These are people who got their green cards and then got marriedand were shocked by the indefensible delays they face in living 

together as nuclear families in the country that claims to welcome 

them as legal permanent immigrants. 

It is often said that our immigration laws are broken, but not why. 

It's simple: our laws contradict our values. 

On the one hand, we welcome legal immigrants as permanent 

residents and urge them to become US citizens - so that "they" 

become "us". On the other hand, our laws block some of the most 

basic human values for both legal immigrants and US citizensmarriage and family. 

Today's hearing is on the separation of nuclear families under US 

immigration law. Let me take a moment to give a brief history of the 

F2A backlog, the spouses and minor children of legal permanent 

residents. 

- 2-
9


Emery-3.eps

It has been nearly a quarter century since the Congress last increased 

legal immigration, even though the country's population has grown 

by a quarter and our economy is nearly 60% larger. America is a 

positive sum proposition. Isn't that why we get married and have 

children? 

In 1990, if someone got a green card today and got married 

tomorrow, the minimum wait was one year. The House of 

Representatives passed a version of the Immigration Act of 1990 that 

would have made this category numerically unlimited, although the 

Senate would only agree to a substantial increase. 

Speaking on behalf of American Families United, we are proud of 

Governor Romney for proposing to return to this idea in his 2012 

campaign, and we were very encouraged at news reports that 

Senator Rubio has also proposed making the F2A category into 

Immediate Relatives under the law. 

In 1995, the bipartisan US Commission on Immigration Reform 

examined this issue. Known as the Jordan Commission, they were 

the first to ask the State Department for a formal count: how many 

people are we talking about? 

At that time, the official estimate was 1.1 million, with more than 

800,000 in the US and another 300,0000 waiting abroad, facing a 

minimum wait of 3 years. The Jordan Commission found both those 

numbers contrary to our national interest in warmly welcoming new 

Americans, and recommended that Congress recognize that the 

unification of nuclear families should have priority. 

But others said at the time that this backlog was merely temporary 

and would go away on its own. 

- 3-
10


Emery-4.eps

By the end of the 1990s, it was clear that the separation of nuclear 

families had become a permanent feature of US immigration policy. 

The State Deparhnent has explained that their 1997 estimate of more 

than a million was very low, for two reasons: 

First, they had not properly counted the numbers of nuclear 

family members waiting in the United States, since the then-INS 

does not count applications until a visa is nearly available. 

Neither does the users now. 

Second, the delay is so long that families often increase while 

waiting - that is, a husband might visit his wife, who was 

counted as one person waiting but when her priority date finally 

arrives, the family has children. This is particularly true for 

Mexico. 

For many years, the only way to see the scale of human misery 

created by this failure of our laws was to watch the priority dates - or 

the way we in American Families United have seen it, with people 

like Mat, here, who come to us for help and join our cause. We want 

to show the Committee most of the iceberg is below the surface. 

In December 2000, the minimum worldwide wait for the spouse of a 

legal permanent resident was 4 years and 5 months. For Mexico, it 

was 6 years and two months. That was when Congress passed the 

LIFE Act, which created the V visa that allowed spouses and minor 

children of legal permanent residents to wait for their green cards in 

the US - but only up until the date of enachnent. American Families 

United supported last year's STEM bill, which would have revived 

the V visa. But it is important to realize that the LIFE Act did not 

solve the problem. 

-4-
11


Emery-5.eps

The worldwide wait for the nuclear families of legal immigrants 

peaked in July 2006 at 6 years and nine months. For Mexico, it 

peaked in July 2003 at 7 years and 8 months. 

How could the total number of people waiting have been declining, 

when the time they must wait increased? 

Over the next few years - from 2003 to 201 0 - something happened, 

which you can see in the dry charts of the priority dates, but which 

we at American Families United heard directly from the people 

affected. Literally hundreds of thousands of people who should have 

been welcomed as American families were pushed into the shadows 

or forced to leave their new country: exiled - or outlawed. 

Month by month, the State Department moved the priority dates 

forward, in order to bring in that month's portion of annual 

immigration in this category. By July 2010, the delay that had been 

nearly 7 years worldwide, had become just two years. For Mexico, 

what had been a nearly 8 year delay had ostensibly declined to a little 

more than 3. 

Today, the State Department's Visa Bulletin pegs both Mexico and 

the worldwide wait in this category the same: 2 years, 5 months. 

That's the delay Mat is facing. It's far, far too long. Yet it's not the 

whole story. 

It is not true that a shorter waiting time means fewer people are 

waiting. It means something much worse. 

Since 2010, the State Department has published an annual Waiting 

List. Last November, they officially counted 220,313 people waiting 

in this category. 

- 5-
12


Emery-6.eps

But it has to be said clearly: this is misleading, because the State 

Department count does not include hundreds of thousands of 

applications for nuclear family immigration held at users. There is 

no consolidated count for nuclear family unification. 

Outside of the comprehensive immigration debate, there is no 

discussion of how many of the undocumented population has been 

eligible for legal immigration for many years. So it isn't so much that 

they violate the value of the rule of law. Instead, our immigration 

laws fail the test of American values. 

So let me briefly show the Committee the human face of these 

numbers through stories shared with us. 

Consider the example of an engineer from Russia, who was working 

in Oklahoma. He married his sweetheart from back home, who was 

working in Kazakhstan. At the time, the minimum time they had to 

wait fluctuated each month between 5 and 6 years. But then she was 

hit by a car. Many of her bones were broken. He literally tried to 

commute between Kazakhstan and Oklahoma, to continue his career 

while obeying that part about "for better, for worse, in sickness and 

in health". But he spent so much time at her bedside that he lost his 

permanent residence status in the US - and America lost that guy, 

someone who flew halfway around the world three times a month to 

try to keep his commitment to his new country as well as his new 

bride. 

Just one more example, of many: an elevator repairman, a skilled 

mechanic from Jamaica, owns his own business. He married a 

foreign student from Trinidad. They had a baby - so she was the 

mother of a US citizen, and the wife of a legal permanent resident. 

But as often happens, it never occurred to her that US immigration 

law does not respect those fundamental values. She learned that her 

mother in Trinidad was dying - so she faced the di lemma: she could 

- 6-
13


Emery-7.eps

bring the only granddaughter to her dying mother, and be exiled 

from her husband, raise that little girl apart from her father for ten 

years - or she could remain in the US, never see her mother again, 

and be permanently outlawed. 

Now, some might ask: why can't these people just wait to become US 

citizens? 

There are two things to say to that. First, America welcomes legal 

immigrants. That's why they are legal, after all. 

It defies our national interest to tell a new American that they cannot 

marry, cannot really start a new life in the United States, until they 

become a US citizen. What national interest could it possibly serve, 

to tell husbands and wives that they must sleep in separate countries 

for five years? 

Second, even naturalization does not help in many thousands of 

cases. We know - that's why American Families United was founded 

by US citizens whose spouses have been caught by the fish hooks 

and bear traps that litter US immigration law and policy. We know 

that nuclear families are often forced apart because our immigration 

laws are like death penalty trials with traffic court rules of evidence, 

with catastrophic consequences to US citizen families. 

That's why on Valentine's Day - which happened to be Mat's 

wedding day - AFU members met with 53 Congressional offices, 

including personal meetings with 5 US Senators and, in fact, we have 

met with several members of this Committee: with ranking Member 

Lofgren, in her California office; with Congressman Gutierrez - thank 

you again for your public support, Congressman Poe, Congressman 

Amodei, and others here in DC; and with the staff of Congressman 

Gowdy, Congressman Holding, and Congressman Garcia. 

-7-
14


Emery-8.eps

As those of you who met with us recall, we have a very specific ask 

for due process waiver reform: that US citizens' families be treated at 

least as generously as anybody else in comprehensive immigration 

reform. 

American Families United's full legislative agenda is on our website, 

AmericanFamilies United.org. 

For this Committee hearing, let me emphasize just two parts: 

immediate relative status for the nuclear families of legal permanent 

residents, and - please, do not forget - due process waiver reform, so 

that the families of US citizens are at least not treated worse than 

others in comprehensive reform legislation. 

Thank you. 

- 8-
15


Emery-9.eps

Supporting Material: 

From the Executive Summary of Legal Immigration: Setting 

Priorities, the 1995 Report of the bipartisan US Commission on 

Immigration Reform http://www.utexas.edll/lbj/uscir/reports.html 

(Page XV) 

By the end of this fiscal year, 824,000 spouses and minor children of aliens legalized 

under IRCA will be waiting for visas. The number of new applications has fallen to 

only a handful for this group. However, since the filing of applications by the 

legalization beneficiaries, a backlog of 279,000 (or about 80,000 per year) spouses 

and minor children of other LPRs has developed. Under our current system, it 

would take more than a decade to clear the backlog. even with substantial 

naturalization. In the meantime, when an LPR sponsors a spouse and/or minor 

child, that individual goes to the end of the waiting list of 1.1 million. 

History of the F2A backlog, the spouses and minor children of legal 

permanent residents: 

Minimum wait (summarized from the State Department Visa Bulletin 

Archives) 

December 1995 

hUp://dosfan.lib.uic.cdu/ERC/visa bulletin/9's·12bullctin.html 

Worldwide August 92; Mexico February 92 

Worldwide: 4 years, 5 months 

Mexico: 4 years, 10 months 

December 1999 

http://dosfan.lib.lIic.edli/ERC/visa bullctin/9912bllllctin.html 

Worldwide September 1995; Mexico June 1994 

- 9-
16


Emery-10.eps

Worldwide: 4 years, 3 months 

Mexico: 5 years, 7 months 

December 2000 (when LIFE Act created the V Visa): 

Worldwide: July 96; Mexico October 94. 

Worldwide: 4 years, 5 months 

Mexico: 6 years, 2 months 

July 2001 

Worldwide September 96; Mexico October 94 

Worldwide: 4 years, 9 months 

Mexico: 6 years, 3 months 

July 2002 

Worldwide April 97; Mexico November 94 

Worldwide: 5 years, 2 months 

Mexico: 7 years, 8 months 

July 2003 

Worldwide: May 98; Mexico December 95 

Worldwide: 5 years, 2 months 

Mexico: 7 years, 8 months 

July 2004 

Worldwide: March 2000; Mexico August 97 

- 10-
17


Emery-11.eps

Worldwide: 4 years, 3 months 

Mexico: 6 years, 11 months 

July 2005 

Worldwide: May 2001; Mexico May 98 

Worldwide: 4 years, 2 months 

Mexico: 7 years, 2 months 

July 2006 

Worldwide: September 99; Mexico September 99 

Worldwide: 6 years, 9 months 

Mexico: 6 years, 9 months 

July 2007 

Worldwide June 02; Mexico August 01 

Worldwide: 5 years, 1 month 

Mexico: 6 years, 11 months 

July 2008 

Worldwide: August 03; Mexico UNAVAILABLE 

Worldwide: 4 years, 11 months 

Mexico: Unavailable 

- 11 -
18


Emery-12.eps

July 2009 

Worldwide: December 04; Mexico June 02 

Worldwide: 4 years, 8 months 

Mexico: 7 years, 1 month 

July 2010 

Worldwide July 08; Mexico June 07 

Worldwide: 2 years 

Mexico: 3 years, 1 month 

July 2011 

Worldwide: March 08; Mexico February 08 

Worldwide: 3 years, 3 months 

Mexico: 3 years, 4 months 

July 2012 

Worldwide: February 2010; Mexico February 2010 

Worldwide: 2 years, 4 months 

Mexico 2 years, 4 months 

March 2013: 

Worldwide: November 2010; Mexico November 2010. 

Worldwide: 2 years, 5 months 

Mexico: 2 years, 5 months 

- 12-
19


Emery-13.eps

American Families United 

www,arneris,'1nfarnjliesuniled,o(l', 

c/o Morrison Public Affairs Group 

b.a.m@att.net 

301-263-1142 

Inadmissibility Waivers Based on Family and Community Equities. Current waiver 

provisions for the various grounds of inadmissibili ty vary widely in standards and 

applicability. Most create bright lines between eligibility and ineligibility which fail to 

account for the widely varying facts of each case. We propose an overall waiver section 

applicable to all grounds of inadmissibility that arc not based on prospective conduct. 

The provision creates a balancing test of positive and negative factors to be applied in 

each case, Central to these factors are the strength of family and community ties 

compared to the seriousness of the misconduct involved. 

Legislative Language 

SEC. XXX. WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBITY Section 212 of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (8 U.s.c. 1182) is amended by inserting the following subsection (c)-

"(c)(l) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security 

or the Attorney General shall waive the effect of the following statutory provisions 

unless it is found that tIle balance of favorable and unfavorable factors on the totality of 

the evidence weighs against granting the waiver: 

"(i) Anyone or more grounds of inadmissibility (including any requirement of 

permission to reapply for admission and any application for relief from removal) set 

forth in subsections (a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9), and (a)(lO)(except 

subparagraph (A)) to permit an alien to receive an immigrant visa or be adjusted to the 

stahlS of lawful permanent resident; or 

"(ii) Anyone or more grounds of removability set fortll in section 237, except subsection 

(a)(4). 

"(2) Favorable factors shall include: 

"(i) The amount of time that 11as passed since the events or conduct that is the basis of 

the inadmissibility; 

"(ii) The extent of rehabilitation and remorse demonstrated by the alien since such 

events or conduct; 

"(iii) The duration of legal residence in the United States; 

"(iv) The presence of family members entitled to live legally in the United States; 

- 13-
20


Emery-14.eps

"(v) The provision of economic and social support to family members entitled to live 

legally in the United States; 

"(vi) Property owned by the alien in the United States for personal or business use; 

"(vii) Social, economic or cultural contributions made by the alien to his community in 

the United States or abroad; 

"(viii) Honorable service in tIle armed forces of the United States or of an ally of the 

United States; 

"(ix) The extent of any hardship that would be suffered by the alien or any person 

entitled to live legally in the United States due to the alien's inadmissibility; and 

"(x) Any specific benefit that would accrue to the government or citizens of the United 

States by permitting the alien to become a lawful permanent resident. 

"(3) Unfavorable factors shall include: 

"(i) The seriousness of the conduct that is the basis of the inadmissibility; 

"(ii) Commission of serious crimes or significant immigration violations in addition to 

the conduct that is the basis of the inadmissibility; 

"(iii) Specific harm caused to the national interest of the United States by conduct of the 

alien; 

"(iv) Any specific detriment that would accrue to the government or citizens of the 

United States by permitting the alien to become a lawful permanent resident. 

"(4) The absence of one or more favorable factors shall not be construed as a negative 

factor and a single favorable factor can provide sufficient basis to grant a waiver. 

"(5) Permitting spouses and minor children to live together in the United States if one of 

the spouses is a citizen or lawful permanent resident is a specific benefit to the 

government and citizens of the United States and shall be given conclusive weight in 

favor of granting waivers in the absence of unusually serious negative factors." 

### 

- 14-
21

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Arivalan. 

TESTIMONY OF MATHI MUGILAN PAGUTH ARIVALAN,

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT 

Mr. ARIVALAN. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member 

Lofgren, and all the Members of this distinguished Committee. My 

name is Mathi Magulin Paguth Arivalan. I am a legal permanent 

resident of the United States. I hope to become a United States citizen one day. 

I was born in India. I am a Tamil. That means I am a member 

of one of the oldest continuous nationalities on earth, as venerable 

as the ancient Hebrews, older than the Romans, nearly as old as 

the Egyptians, who built the pyramids. Tamils are scattered across 

most of South Asia: India, Malaysia, and, most painfully, Sri 

Lanka. It is exciting to me as a legal immigrant of this country to 

think that I am bringing one of the world’s oldest people to one of 

the world’s youngest nations. 

I am also married. I hope you do not mind if I exercise one of 

the prerogatives enshrined in the Bill of Right. I want to petition 

the government for a redress of grievances. 

I came to the United States on an L visa in 2005 as a software 

consultant. I got my green card in 2009. These days I work for 

Newsmax, which I expect most of you are familiar with. I am wellknown in the Tamil community, which is worldwide. It was 

through my work in human rights, particularly after the genocide 

against Tamils in Sri Lanka, that I met Bhavaneswari. She is also 

a Tamil, born and raised in Malaysia. We fell in love. We got married on February 14th. Of course you all recognize that is a marvelous bit of multiculturalism. I did not grow up celebrating Valentine’s Day, but I think it will also be our wedding anniversary. 

What I have to tell this Committee that I was shocked to discover when I was about to file a petition to bring Bhavaneswari to 

America, my new country, as my new wife, that the minimum wait 

in this category is more than 2 years. I understand that this delay 

has been as long as 8 years for some people. 

Let me explain why that shocked me. After all, I have been 

working legally in this country for about 8 years. I know many professionals who work here on various visas—L1, H1B. They can 

bring their wives to the United States almost immediately. But I 

have made a commitment to the United States by becoming a legal 

permanent resident. As a Tamil, I cannot say that that there is any 

other nation on earth that is truly my home, but is that not America’s story that this is a land where those who are not at home anywhere can make one? 

So I was shocked to find that because I made a commitment to 

America, my wife must wait in another country for years. If I was 

just a temporary worker, my wife would not have been 12,000 

miles away. 

I did what any red-blooded American would do. I went on the 

Web and used Google. I found AmericanFamiliesUnited.org and realized that my problem was not unique. It was, in fact, a feature 

of U.S. immigration law. I cannot believe that was the intent of 

Congress. This organization was formed to fix it, so I joined. 

22

All I know is what I see in the media, but we are very hopeful 

that Congress will comprehensively reform immigration laws to reflect the very values that attracted me to this country. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Arivalan follows:]

Prepared Statement of Mathi Mugilan Paguth Arivalan,

Lawful Permanent Resident 

Thank you Chairman Gowdy, ranking Member Lofgren, and all the members of 

this distinguished Committee. My name is Mathi Mugilan Paguth Arivalan. I am 

a legal permanent resident of the United States. I hope to become a US citizen one 

day. 

I was born in India. I am a Tamil. That means I am a member of one of the oldest 

continuous nationalities on earth—as venerable as the ancient Hebrews, older than 

the Romans, nearly as old as the Egyptians who built the Pyramids. Tamils are 

scattered across much of South Asia—India, Malaysia, and, most painfully, Sri 

Lanka. 

It is exciting to me, as a legal immigrant to this country, to think that I am bringing one of the world’s oldest peoples to one of the world’s youngest nations. 

I am also married. I hope you don’t mind if I exercise one of the prerogatives enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

I came to the United States on an L visa in 2005, as a software consultant. I got 

my green card in 2009. These days, I work for Newsmax, which I expect most of 

you are familiar with. 

I am well-known in the Tamil community, which is worldwide. It was through my 

work in human rights, particularly after the genocide against Tamils in Sri Lanka, 

that I met Bhavaneswari. She is also a Tamil, born and raised in Malaysia. 

We fell in love—and we got married on February 14th. Of course you all recognize 

that is a marvelous bit of multiculturalism. I did not grow up celebrating Valentine’s Day, but I think I like that it will also be our wedding anniversary. 

But I have to tell this Committee that I was shocked to discover, when I filed a 

petition to bring Bhavaneswari to America, my new country, as my new wife, that 

the minimum wait in this category is more than two years. I understand that this 

delay has been as long as 8 years for some people. 

Let me explain why that shocked me. After all, I have been working legally in 

the United States for 8 years. I know many professionals who work here on various 

visas: L–1, H–1B. They can bring their wives to the United States almost immediately. 

But I have made a commitment to the United States by becoming a legal permanent resident. As a Tamil, I cannot say that there is any nation on earth that is 

truly my home—and isn’t that America’s story, that this is the land where those 

who are not at home anywhere, can make one? 

So I was shocked to find that because I had made a commitment to America, 

my wife must wait in another country for years. If I was just a temporary worker, 

my wife would not be 12,000 miles away. 

I did what any redblooded American would do—I went on the Web, and used 

Google. I found AmericanFamiliesUnited.org—and realized that my problem was not 

unique. It is in fact a feature of US immigration law. I cannot believe that was the 

intent of Congress. This organization was founded to fix it. I joined. 

All I know is what I see in the media, but we are very hopeful that Congress will 

comprehensively reform immigration laws to reflect the values that attracted me to 

this country. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Papademetriou. I will get it in another 6 or 7 weeks. 

23

TESTIMONY OF DEMETRIOS G. PAPADEMETRIOU, Ph.D., 

PRESIDENT, MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. I have to keep coming back. That is the 

only way to do it. 

Mr. Chairman, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Labrador, it is a 

pleasure to testify before you on this particular issue. I think that 

following the statements of the Chairman and the Ranking Member, it is clear that we all agree that how a country approached immigration and how it treats its immigrants is a powerful statement 

to the world about the values and the principles on which it stands. 

And indeed when it comes to family, our commitment to families 

is very deep. From the total number of legal permanent residents, 

people who come to the United States, about two-thirds of all visas 

go to families of U.S. citizens. And if you add all of the family 

members that accompany to join others throughout the immigration system, the total proportion goes up to 80 percent. So 80 percent of the total number of the 1.1 roughly visas that we issue each 

year essentially goes to family members. 

And you have all suggested and seem to agree that indeed that 

is extremely important. And you have also talked about the second 

preference, the backlogs. The first of the 2 second preference subcategories, 2A, gets about 77 percent of the about 115,000 visas 

that are available in the category. The 2 big categories, which is 

the unmarried adult children 2A is spouses and unmarried minor 

children. The 2 big categories gets the remainder, about 23 percent. 

So it is not, you know, unusual that the delays, the backlogs that 

have been created are distributed unequally—a little over 200,000 

for the 2A and about 500,000 for the 2B. And the average waiting 

times is a little over between 2 and a two and a half years for 2A, 

about 8 years for 2B. And for the Filipinos and the Mexicans, on 

the 2B the Filipinos would be 11 years and Mexicans 20 years. We 

can all do that math. 

These numbers, of course, come from the National Visa Center 

of the Department of State, and these are the people waiting 

abroad, and they have filed a petition. They qualify under the law, 

and they are waiting in line. 

There is another number, which is not known, some people suggest a very large number—I make no judgments in this because we 

have not studied at the Migration Policy Institute—where people 

apply for adjustment of status from within the United States under 

Section 245(i) of the INA. 

Last year, 12,000 people actually joined, you know, the ranks of 

green card holders for this particular route. It is a significant number, but much smaller than the number for all of the other visas. 

Now, I know that we all believe deeply within us that there is 

a great deal of exceptionalism within our country, and indeed there 

is. But I do want us to all know that among advanced industrial 

democracies, all the European countries—Canada, Australia, and 

what have you, New Zealand—we are the only ones who have either numerical limits or waiting lists for spouses and minor children of green card holders, the only ones. Even if you were to take 

the example of Germany, which is not exactly, you know, at least 

until very recently, a place that is very friendly to immigration, 

spouses and minor children can join their loved ones, their spouse, 

24

or their parent without any delays, except administrative delays. 

And these tend to be very, very short, from 28 days to about 3 

months, with the exception of Canada where the delays can go as 

far as 30 months. 

So what I have tried to suggest in this brief review is that we 

need to do something about this particular change; otherwise, we 

are going to not only keep families separate, but also we are going 

to contribute to this population that is in the United States illegally. 

I have 2 suggestions for you to consider. The first one is to create 

a second category within the immediate relatives category. You can 

call it IR2. And the second one is to revisit the V visa, which is 

the temporary visa. And we can do that relatively easily. Congress 

can do and undo whatever it wishes, and we can take care of the 

problem. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Papademetriou follows:]

25


DGP-1.eps

Testimony of 

Demt~trios G. Papademeuiou 

President 

MigTation Policy Institute 

The Sep8ntion oENucie,flr Fllmilies under U,S. Immigntion Lllw 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security 

Committee on the Judiciary 

U,S. H ouse of Rcpresentativcs 

Washington, D.C. 

March 14, 20U 
26


DGP-2.eps

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am Demetrias Papademetriou and I am President of the Migration Policy Institute, an 

independent, non-partisan think tank in Washington that analyzes U.S. and international migration 

trends and policies. MPI, which I co-faundee' in 2001, grew out of the International l:vIigratioll 

Policy Program at the Carnegie Endov""nent for International Peace. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on "The Separation of Nudear Families under the 

U.S. Immigration Law." Because this heating focuses narrowly on one particular facet of the legal 

immigration system, I will be brief. 

How a country approaches immigration and how it treats its immigrants is a powerful statement to 

the world about its values and d,e principles by which it stands. Out country's commitment to 

American families is reflected in the emphasis U.S. immigration law places on the (re)uniftcation of 

families. In fact, about two-thirds of all permanent inunigration visas ate allocated directly to family 

l11embcrs r.hrough the fatnily unification system; tbis nunlber increases to about 80 percent if you 

include the fanuly members of inunigrants admitted for employment, as refugees, or for other 

purposes. 

Tbe way in which the United States allocates family visas is very complex. As you undoubtedly 

know, there are six calegories for non-citizens applying for lawful permanent residence through the 

family-based channel. The Second Preference, which is the category reserved for the close family 

lnernbcrs of lawful permanent residents (LPRs), is the focus of today's hearing and thus the focus of 

my remarks. 

The Second Preference category allocates about 115,000 visas to the spouses and unmarried children 

of LPRs, and is broken down into [\va sub-classes: 2A and 2B. About 77 percent of Second 

Preference visas go to the spouses and minor (under age 21) unmarried children of lawful 

permanent residems in the 2/\ sub-class, while the rem"inder goes to the unmarried adult children of 

this class of immigrants (designated 2B). The category's numericalli1l1itations have created a waiting 

lisl ("backlog") of about 700,000 persons, divided the following way: the 2;\ category accounts for 

slightly more than 200,000 persons; the 2B category for nearly 500,000. 
27


DGP-3.eps

'lhe 700,000 figw:c is a (close) approximation of the likely total number of those waiting on visa lists 

because of the way petitions "XC counted. The numbers we all use come from the State 

Department's National Visa Center, which reports the total number of applications the State 

Dcpar!111cnt has received and has placed on the appropriate visa waiting Ests. There is a second way 

in which applicants can apply for an immigrant visa. Applications for adjustments of status under 

the Immigration and Nationality Acts Section 245 (which allows a lawfully present individual to adjust 

statns from within the United States), are processed by U,S. Citizenship and Imnllgration Services 

(LJSC]S) and ate not part of the total thads reported by the State Department For the Second 

Preference, the number of adjustments of status ptocessed by USCIS is a fraction of those 

processed by the State Department (fewer d,an 12,000 in fiscal 2011) but the pool of applications 

that are with useIS is thought to be much larger than that. 

These nutnbets translate into average waiting times of somewhat marc than two years for the 2A 

class. That means that a spouse or unmarried minor cmld of a l}S permanent resident with a petition 

for a 2A visa will like£v have to wait a little morc than two yeats, (rhe J'casoll tllat this io a "likely" 

waiting tinle is because as LPRs become US, citizens, they and their spouses and minor children 

become exempt from numerical limitations,) Waiting times for the 2B class ate much longer, at 

tovghty eight yeal's; applicants from the two heaviest users of the family immigration system·-

Mexico and the Philippines---currently have to wait 20 and 11 years respectively to rem"jte with their 

lawful permanent resident spouse or parent who is already in the United States, 

I have been a student of the US, h<nmigratioll system for several decades; my Inst1tuIc and I also 

study inunigration systems around the world, p,uticularly those tllat are more nimble in adjusting 

thei!: immigration policies than we are. The United States is unique in the length of the wc.iting time 

it imposes to reunite permanent residents v;<ith their spouses and minor children, 

As tlus brief review of the Second Preference backlog makes clear, our comnutment to (re)unifying 

lhe nuclear families of green card holders is almost a false promise in that h keeps nudear families 

apart fot substantial periods of time, This is not only how flot to keep commitments; it is also a 

powerful incentive to break in1.migration laws, The needed fix is rather simple: decide to adjust the 

relevant parts of the immigration fonnuIa by focusing on the fundamental principle behind that part 

of the system-keejJillg the c/ose,rt member.r offamiiieJ' (rpouse.r and minot' children) together. 
28


DGP-4.eps

The proposed adjustment can take one of tvm forms, 

1, Nuclear families of LPRs (2A) could be moved into the Immediate Relative (1R) 

category of the immigration system, Unlike U.S. citizens, who can reunify with spouses, 

minor children, and parents, lawful permanent residents could only reunify with spouses 

and U11mal'ricd children. In effect, we would have avo IR categories, IR-A, and IR-B. 

2, An altcmative would be to change some of the conditions of the "V" non-immigrant 

visa. That visa targets precisely the population that the subject of this hearing: Spouses 

and unmarried children of lawful permanent residents. The V visa was part of the L:~aI 

Immigratioll Fatmly Eqllity Act in 2000. To qualify for the visa requires that one meet" .ix 

critel~a. Three among them are relevant to this discussion: (a) the petitioner must have 

filed a petition before December 20, 2000, the law's enactment date; (b) the petition's 

priority date must be at least three years old; and (c) the priority date must not be 

current. Amending the visa to remove these three requirements would allow the spouses 

and unmarried children under the age of 21 of LPRs to enter and stay legally in the 

United States with the tight to work while waiting for their priority date to become 

current or for the principal to become a citizen. Of comse, other things will also have to 

be dealt with (such as protecting children who "age out" or many in the interim), but 

these should be easy to do once d,e decision to anchor the change on the fundamental 

principle of family unity is made. 

To summarize, either adjustment option you choose to follow will advance the fundamental 

principle that this brief testimony proposes that you embed at d,C core of the U.S. immigration 

system: (re)unifying the closest family members of both U.S. citizens and green card holders. It is a 

good principle to stand on as you consider changes to U.S. immigration laws. 

I thank you. Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify and would be pleased to answer any 

qtlcstions. 
29

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. Martinez. 

TESTIMONY OF CLARISSA MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO, DIRECTOR, 

IMMIGRATION AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA 

Ms. MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy and 

Ranking Member Lofgren, Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to be with you today. 

Given that my fellow witnesses have done a great job, I think I 

am going to try to concentrate on adding some context of how why 

this issue is so important and how we are looking at it. 

First, as a way of background, let me say NCLR is the largest 

national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the 

country with a network of nearly 300 community-based organizations who serve millions of Americans annually. These are groups 

who are in the trenches and seen the results of what is happening 

with inaction in the immigration system. 

Without a doubt, immigration is a galvanizing issue for the Nation’s Hispanic community, 75 percent of whom are United States 

citizens. The toxic rhetoric in the debate has affected us all regardless of immigration status, and that is why I believe Latino voters 

responded the way they did in the last election in a way that I believe also has created an opportunity to try to get to a solution. 

Our community is very engaged in watching this debate very 

closely, and it matters not just to the voters today, but the average 

900,000 Latino citizens who are going to be turning 18 every year 

between now and 2028. 

We believe that immigration to the United States should be orderly and legal. And as part of the opportunity that Congress has 

right now to get immigration reform right, we believe that we 

should have a system that, number one, restores the rule of law by 

creating a path to legality and citizenship while also combining 

smart enforcement meshers that respect rights and increase security. 

Number two, a system that preserves the rule of law through 

functioning legal immigration channels that uphold the unity of all 

families and respond to the needs of employers and the American 

workforce. And number three, and not least, is a system that 

strengthens the fabric of the country by promoting immigrant integration. Family-based immigration is something that is important 

in all of these 3 categories. 

We understand that the various components of the immigration 

system are designed to work in tandem. Therefore, once we restore 

the rule of law, our ability to preserve it will rest on whether or 

not we have a functioning legal immigration system that does not 

create incentives to go around it. The cornerstones of that system 

have been family and employment-based migration. And while 

some see these as competing categories, the reality is that they are 

highly complementary and intertwined in both advanced national 

goals of strengthening family values and achieving global economic 

competitiveness. 

Keeping families strong is a fundamental value of American life. 

It also promotes the economic stability of immigrants in their inteVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:42 Jun 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\031413\79881.000 HJUD1 PsN: 79881
30

gration into our country, which is a goal we have as a Nation. In 

every wave of immigrants that have to America, the family unit 

has been critical both to the survival of immigrants in a strange 

land also to their success in adapting and contributing to their 

newly-adopted country. 

We would be undermining ourselves if we walked away from 

family unity as a guiding principle for our immigration policy. And 

close relatives are able to make vital contributions to the U.S. economy as workers and as entrepreneurs, and have helped revitalize 

many cities and revitalize and re-energize U.S. small business culture. Put plainly, family-based immigration is an economic and social imperative. And to fully reap its rewards, we must address the 

problems causing the unnecessary separation of families. 

Problem number 1, due to a lack of available visas, there is about 

4.3 million relatives of U.S. citizens waiting outside to reunite. 

LGBT families, problem number 2, are completely excluded. Problem number 3, hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens and lawful 

permanent residents have been separated from family members 

due to the increase in deportations. 

We can solve these problems, and we definitely need to look at 

broadening the lanes. Modern families are complicated and diverse, 

and we must have an immigration system for the 21st century that 

reflects those complexities and includes a mix of permanent and 

temporary family and business. 

I urge the Subcommittee to think in terms of both/and as opposed either/or, and in so doing, to remember the principles that 

should guide us: to restore the rule of law, to preserve it, and to 

advance immigrant immigration. And we need both family and employment-based immigration to achieve that. It is a challenge, but 

I think it is something that is doable, and definitely this body has 

the power to do something about it. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Martinez-De-Castro follows:]

31


CMDC-1.eps

STROL\'G FAIII ILIES; AN ECONO;\IIC ANI) SOCIt\L 

IMPER,\TI VE FOR SUCCESSFUL ("IMIGRATION RHOR,\I 

''The Separ.)tion or Nuclear fal1 l1l ~-; undcr U.S. Immigration Law" 

Submin<d !<> 

SuI"""run,""" on tmm'[!l"ot"'" and Bnrde" Stcurlt. 

tJ S. Commin ... "" rheJudk,"')' 

AA"",tod bt C~ri ... ;\Iarlll''''.·o.-C •• w 0.,..., .... Immrgroli"", ,lid Ci.'1e F.nl!i~em ... ' 

N.,;"".I Coo""il oft, Ih, .. 

March 14. :Oll 

_v_ .. ,._ 

" .. ' ......... _""" ... W .......... DC" .. _ • 

.............. 
32


CMDC-2.eps

2 

Chainnan Gowdy and Ranking Member Lofgren, thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

the subcommittee today and provide testimony on behalf of the National Council of La Raza 

(NCLR). NCLR is the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the 

United States, an American institution recognized in the book Forcesfor Good as one of the 

highest-impact nonprofits in the nation. We represent some 300 Affiliates-local, communitybased organizations in 41 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico-that provide 

education, health care, housing, workforce development, and other services to millions of 

Americans, including immigrants, annually. 

NCLR has a long history of fighting for sensible immigration laws, evidenced through our work 

in the Hispanic community, in the states and in Washington, DC. Most of our Affiliates teach 

English, provide health care services, promote financial literacy, and otherwise ease the 

integration of immigrants into the mainstream. We support and complement the work of our 

Atliliates in communities by advocating for public policies here in Washington and increasingly 

at the state level. 

NCLR contributed to shaping the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, the Immigration 

Act of 1990 to preserve family-based immigration, and the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central 

American Relief Act (NACARA), and we led four successful efforts to restore safety net systems 

that promote immigrant integration. We have worked with Presidents Reagan, both Bushes, and 

Clinton, to achieve the best results possible for our community and for the country. We know 

that working with both parties is the only way to get things done. We thank the Congressional 

Hispanic Caucus for their leadership on this issue, as well as other members of Congress 

working to achieve immigration refonn this year. It is clear that everyone, not just the Hispanic 

community and not just immigrants, has a stake in and stands to benefit from having a wellfunctioning and fair immigration policies 

As the recent election clearly demonstrated, the issue of immigration is a galvanizing one for the 

nation's Hispanic community. There is a precious opportunity to address it humanely and 

responsibly. Toxic rhetoric in public discourse on this issue has affected us deeply, regardless of 

immigration status, and we see getting this debate on the right course as a matter offundamental 

respect for the presence and role of Latinos in the U.S. Latino voters generated the gamechanging moment for immigration last November, creating an opening to finally achieve the 

solution our country longs for. And the Latino community's role is growing. An average of 

878,000 Latino citizens will tum 18 each year between 2011 and 2028. Our community is 

engaged and watching this debate closely. 

Congress has a unique, historic opportunity to pass immigration reform this year Not only does 

tixing our broken immigration system benetit immigrants themselves, but it is in the interest of 

our country. Immigration to the United States should be orderly and legal, promote economic 

growth and family unity, and reflect our nation's values. The moral, economic and political 

imperatives for action are aligned, and Congress has an opportunity and a responsibility to 

deliver immigration reform that: 

Restores the rule of law by creating a path to legalization and a roadmap to citizenship for 

the II million aspiring Americans, as well as smart enforcement that improves safety and 

NCLR 

NA.Tlfi~ALClllmtltSftARAlA 
33


CMDC-3.eps

3 

security, supports legal immigration channels, prevents discrimination and respects due 

process; 

Preserves the rule of law by restoring integrity and confidence in workable legal 

immigration channels that uphold the principle offamily unity for all America's families, and 

strengthen our economy by responding to employment needs while upholding wages, labor 

rights, and protections for the American workforce; 

Strengthens the fabric of America by adopting proactive measures that advance the 

successful integration of new immigrants. 

The Family Immigration System is Outdated 

The various components of our immigration system are designed to work in tandem, and we 

welcome the current Congressional debate to fix this system from top to bottom. As part of this 

debate, it is essential that we acknowledge that once we restore the rule oflaw, our ability to 

preserve it will rest on having a functioning legal immigration system that does not create 

incentives to go around it. To this day, that system has been largely based on family- and 

employment-based immigration, and both have generally served our country well. While some 

may choose to see these as competing categories, the reality is that they are highly 

complementary and speak to national goals of strenb>thening family values and achieving global 

economic competitiveness. 

The US. has been successful as a nation of immigrants because we allow and encourage those 

who come to our shores to fully participate in American life. By encouraging citizenship and 

civic participation, we strengthen immigrants' connection to the nation and strengthen our 

common social bonds. Our country has recognized that family unitication must be a core 

principle of our immigration policy. Keeping families together is a fundamental value and 

interest, and we must maintain our historic commitment to keeping families strong and united. 

We must address the unnecessary separation of families who are kept apart by extraordinarily 

long wait times for certain family visas, who are excluded from the system, like bi-national 

same-sex couples, or who are torn apart by current enforcement policies. 

Currently, US. citizens and Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) are able to sponsor close 

relatives, provided they meet certain eligibility requirements, demonstrate they can support 

themselves, and legally commit to support the family member they are seeking to bring to the 

U.S. Due to the inadequate numbers of visas allocated for family unification, 4.3 million 

relatives of US. citizens and legal permanent residents are stuck waiting outside the US. for 

visas to become available; many waiting years or even decades. For example, US. citizen 

parents who petition for their adult child from Mexico must wait almost twenty years to be 

reunited. In that time, it is nearly impossible for the son or daughter to visit the United States, 

resulting in decades of family separation. For LPRs, the only opportunity for reunification is 

with immediate family, meaning spouses, minor children, and unmarried sons and daughters. 

But while LPRs have been vetted, and accepted as permanent residents in our country, they often 

have to wait two years or more to reunite with a spouse or child. 

NCLR 

NA.Tlfi~ALClllmtltSftARAlA 
34


CMDC-4.eps

4 

Faced with extraordinary wait periods, Latino families are disproportionately affected by 

separation due to our broken immigration system. Mexico is the country with the highest 

number of individuals in the family-sponsored waiting list. Unmarried sons and daughters of 

U.S. citizens in Mexico, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Cuba, and Colombia make up 47.4% 

of the individuals in that category's waiting list. The spouses and children of LPRs in Mexico, 

the Dominican Republic, and Cuba make up 57.7% of the waiting list in that category. 

Not only do the long wait periods create untenable situations for families, it also should disabuse 

anyone of the notion that the family immigration system enables "chain migration," the 

misconception that family members petition endlessly for each other resulting in exponential 

growth in overall immigration. The reality is that the typical immigrant sponsors two family 

members, and that is after they have achieved legal permanent residency or, as is required for 

most of these categories, citizenship, a process that involves an average wait of at least five years 

but that for most immigrants takes much longer. 

The Economic Benefits of Family Immigration 

Keeping families together and strong is a core principle and a fundamental value of American 

life. It also promotes the economic stability of immigrants and their integration into our country, 

and we must continue our historic commitment to this idea. In every religion, in every culture, in 

every wave of immigrants that have come to this country, the family unit has been critical both to 

the survival of immigrants in a strange land, and to their success in adapting and contributing to 

their newly adopted nation. We would be undermining ourselves as a nation if we walked away 

from family unity as a guiding principle for our immigration policy. These close relatives are 

able to make vital contributions to the U.S. economy as productive workers and entrepreneurs 

Family-based immigrants have a higher occupational mobility than employment-based 

immigrants and are able to t111 gaps in our economy. Immigrant families are also more likely to 

start small- and medium-sized businesses as they benefit from family networks and pooled 

resources. Research shows that immigrant families work together not only to accelerate the 

integration of new immigrants, but they also form businesses together. Prior testimony from 

conservative policy organizations notes "a large majority of immigrant-owned businesses in the 

United States are individual proprietorships relying heavily on family labor," and family based 

immigration has contributed to reenergizing small business culture in the U.S1 Immigrantowned family businesses are a driving force behind revitalization in cities across our country and 

spur job growth in nearly every major metropolis. This is why a number of mayors and local 

elected officials have praised the economic impact of immigrant families on their communities 

and expressed interest in programs that attract immigrants to revitalize cities. New York Mayor 

Michael Bloomberg, who we just honored in our national awards ceremony, and Chicago Mayor 

Rahm Emanuel both agree that immigrants and their families strengthen cities, strengthen 

neighborhoods, and improve the quality of life for all of us. 

Immigrants who enter the U.S. through the family based immigration system have an advantage 

in that families act as a resource for integration. Families have served as powerful integrating 

1 Testimony of Stnml Anderson, on behalf of the National Foundation for American Policy. before the 

House Subconnnittee on Innnigration. Citizenship. Refugees, Border Security. and International Law, May 2007 

NCLR 

NA.Tlfi~ALClllmtltSftARAlA 
35


CMDC-5.eps

5 

institutions; serving as resources for employment, access to credit, and as a one stop shop for 

support and infonnation for newcomers. This allows immigrants to integrate into our society 

and become productive taxpayers more quickly. 

Current Immigration Laws Separate Families 

Despite the many compelling reasons for ensuring that families are united, our current 

immigration system separates mixed status families-that is, families made up of US. citizens or 

Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) who are the spouses, children, parents, and siblings of 

undocumented immigrants. 

The rapid increase in deportations over the last four years is having a devastating effect on 

families. Our deportation policies literally destroy families and force US. citizens into public 

assistance, foster care, or exile from the United States. Hundreds of thousands of U S. citizens 

and lawful permanent residents have been separated from family members. For example, 

between July 1,2010 and September 31, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

deported 204,810 parents of U.S citizens. 

Tn mixed status families, many have tried to adjust their immigration status, and have spent 

fortunes in immigration fees and lawyers' fees, but have failed. As one US. citizen married to 

an undocumented immigrant stated, "People who don't have undocumented family members 

don't believe me when 1 tell them he can't get papers,,2 It is commonly believed that if a US. 

citizen marries an immigrant, the foreign-born spouse is quickly or even instantly granted U. S 

citizenship. The reality is that for most people who entered without a visa, or who overstayed a 

visa, it is very difficult and often impossible to obtain legal status Anyone who has been in the 

US. for more than six months out of legal status is barred trom reentry for three years, and those 

who have been out of status for one year or more are barred trom reentering for ten years, due to 

provisions in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 

(IIRIRA). 

So when you hear on talk radio, "why don't these people go out and come back the right way?," 

the answer is that, because of TTRTRA, we have created an incredible disincentive for those with 

legal claims to adjust their status, to get legal, because they would face exile from their families, 

and therefore push them to remain in the undocumented underground. 

This puts many families who seek to adjust the status of their loved one through legal channels in 

a terrible catch-22. They must leave the United States in order to apply for an immigrant visa at 

a US. consulate, but once they depart the US. for that visa, they may be barred trom reentering 

for as long as ten years. At NCLR, we know of countless stories of US. citizens and permanent 

residents who are separated from their spouses because of the three- and ten-year bars to reentry. 

2 Rojas. Leslie Berestein, "Why it's so hard to obtain legal status. even through marriage and ramily." KPCC 'Ihe 

Mulldmerican. Southem Caliromia Public Radio, November 25.21111. 

llttjl:L!wwvl'.g;gf. OIgiD lQgs,i l}UlltimlJ<Osj<;-1IlLfIlJJL 1l!2~/77 I~Lvyl1yjti:SO ·cliffkllll:clQ::91llililk \",ill-51Qli)§:e.ml:J.i 

(accessed March 12. 2013). 
36


CMDC-6.eps

6 

For many of these spouses, they never imagined that by trying to follow the rule oflaw their 

family would be ripped apart. 

Take the case of Elizabeth, an American citizen from Cleveland, Ohio. Elizabeth served in the 

National Guard and the Marine Corps. She served in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring 

Freedom. After she left the Marines, Elizabeth fell in love and married Marcos. The very same 

day Elizabeth and Marcos celebrated the news that they had a second child on the way, Marcos 

was stopped on his way to work. Marcos was undocumented. He was deported a month later. 

Elizabeth was left behind, without the family's breadwinner, pregnant and with a small child. 

That was three years ago. She is someone who takes pride in following the rules, in going 

through the system and following available processes. She has done exhaustive research and 

gotten legal assistance. As she tells it, "we want to do it the right way, but every door has been 

slammed in our face." Marcos has been declined a consular interview until 2020. Elizabeth has 

even considered moving to Mexico, so the children can be with both mom and dad, but this is her 

country. She is fighting to keep her family afloat, bring it back together. She traveled to DC last 

week and walked the halls of Congress, for the first time ever, with many other family members 

that share similarly devastating stories. 

This forced separation offamilies has increased exponentially as a result of current enforcement 

policies. By nearly every standard, more is being done than ever before to enforce immigration 

laws. Measured in terms of dollars, not only are we spending more on immigration enforcement 

than at any time in history, but the federal government today spends more on enforcing 

immigration laws than on all other categories of federal law enforcement combined. Measured 

in qualitative terms, never before has our country used a broader array of enforcement strategies 

than we do today. 

The way in which these policies are being carried out is destroying the fabric of immigrant 

communities across the nation. And the magnitude of that devastation goes beyond immigrant 

communities, as the lives and fate of immigrants are fundamentally intervlioven with those of 

citizens, as Elizabeth's story illustrates. Most undocumented immigrants are long-term US. 

residents; two-thirds have lived here for a decade or more. They work hard, pay taxes, and 

otherwise abide by our laws. They provide for u.s. citizen spouses and children; they are our 

fellow churchgoers and children's playmates. Some of them came to this country as children, 

and this is the only country they know and consider home. The interests of our country are best 

served by allowing these long-term residents to come forward, pass a background check, pay 

taxes, learn English, and earn the ability to apply for citizenship just like every other group of 

immigrants before them. An immigration bill must not create a permanent subclass of 

individuals who are expected to support the rest of us in our pursuit of the American Dream 

without having access to it themselves. 

The Solution 

Our visa policies have to conform with reality, so that in ten years' time, we are not back here 

talking about legalizing another population of undocumented immigrants who, like those today, 

had no option to come in legally, and came illegally instead. This is the key difference between 

NCLR 

NA.Tlfi~ALClllmtltSftARAlA 
37


CMDC-7.eps

7 

the immigration debate in 2013 and the immigration debate in 1986. Back then, we legalized a 

portion of the undocumented, myself included, and put in place a new regime of workplace 

enforcement that did not on its own curtail illegal immigration. A key missing aspect of the 

1986 legislation is that it did not fix the underlying legal immigration system, resulting in a 

continuing mismatch between the supply of immigration visas, and the demand for legal 

immigration as detennined by families and our vibrant economy. You have a chance to do it 

right this time, and the decisions you make in the coming weeks and months are very important. 

Tn order for our visa policies to comport with and effectively regulate reality, they have to be 

both generous and flexible. 

We know from the history of people coming to this country that some people will come for jobs 

intending to go home some day. Some people will come with their families, intending to make 

this their permanent new home. Some who come permanently will decide to leave. Some who 

come temporarily will decide to stay. And factors like love, families, children, and careers, 

inevitably make matters complex. We have to have an immigration system in the 21 st Century 

that reflects those complexities and includes channels that address a mix of permanent and 

temporary, of family and business, of education and marriage channels, and that does not lock 

individuals out of legal status or citizenship, if they play by the rules. 

NCLR supports employment-based immigration because done right it can help strengthen our 

economy. But we must be careful not to pursue improvements in this area by undermining 

family immigration or denying the powerful role the latter plays in the social and economic 

integration of immigrants in our country. Let's remember the principles that should guide us-to 

restore the rule oflaw, preserve the rule of law, and strengthen the fabric of America. This can 

only be accomplished with a functioning family immigration system, working in complement 

with our employment-based immigration system. 

T would urge this Subcommittee to think in tenns of both/and, rather than either/or. Undue 

restrictions on employment-based legal immigration have the potential to rob the American 

economy of talent that can create jobs and improve our national well-being, and could lead to 

unintended consequences, like off-shoring of jobs or incentives to work around the limits of our 

legal immigration system. But you must also realize that undue restrictions on family 

immigration have the exact same potential, in addition to keeping families separated, or 

encouraging them to break the law because they have no other choice, and slowing the 

integration and success of immigrants in our country. 

For example, creating a visa program for graduates in Science, Technology, Engineering and 

Math (STEM) fields is a good idea that both parties embrace. But if we are reducing other legal 

immigration channels in order to create a new one, we are forcing ourselves into a trap, a false 

choice. We are not for unlimited immigration, we are not for open borders, we are not for 

immigration on demand. But as with any sensible regulation of an aspect of the American 

economy, that regulatory regime has to be based in reality and responsive to the market forces of 

supply and demand. lfwe are going to end illegal immigration, which should be our shared goal, 

then we must have a flexible, dynamic, and multi-pronged legal immigration system that creates 

incentives to follow the rules rather than incentives to go around the system. 

NCLR 

NA.Tlfi~ALClllmtltSftARAlA 
38


CMDC-8.eps

8 

We should also realize that in 2013, many states and many countries recognize the reality that 

some couples, some families, and some long-term committed relationships involve same-sex 

couples. If our immigration laws exclude same-sex couples, we are forcing people who can 

contribute to our country to leave, or creating incentives for reunification outside our legal 

system rather than within the structure of sensible laws. 

My husband's great grandfather came from Russia as part of a family unit in the 1880s. Another 

great grandfather came as a young man from Canada seeking business opportunities. My parents 

came in the early 80s, but eventually went back. I stayed, was able to get an education, became a 

citizen, married, and have made my life here. My family and my husband's family include 

PhDs, factory workers, and office workers; gay and straight people; different religious 

denominations and political orientations-just like every other American family. We need a 

legal immigration system as varied and colorful as my modem family, in order to do the job or 

regulating immigration in 21 ,t Century America. Is a huge challenge, but failure is not an option. 

NCLR 

NA.Tlfi~ALClllmtltSftARAlA 
39

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, ma’am. 

The Chair would now recognize Mr. King for his 5 minutes’ 

worth of questions. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the testimony 

here of the witnesses. And I was just reflecting on restore the rule 

of law, Ms. Martinez, and I recall being a bit astonished listening 

to a hearing in the Ag Committee a few years ago when one of your 

colleagues from your organization testified that we had people that 

were getting overweight because they had food anxiety. And if we 

just give them more food stamps, they would not eat as much and 

tend to lose weight, and that would solve the obesity problem. But 

when I hear a discussion about restoring the rule of law by suspending the rule of law, it is awfully hard for me to wrap my mind 

around that rationale. 

So I would ask you instead a pointed question, and that is, do 

you have any estimation or any position in your organization on 

what you think the population of the United States should be in 

a generation or two or three? Do you have any position on that? 

And the second question is, do you have a position on how many 

legal immigrants should be brought into the United States each 

year? 

Ms. MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO. Well, I am not a demographer, so I 

think I would be hard pressed to say what the population of our 

country should be. What I do——

Mr. KING. Is that something you have considered, though? Is 

that part of the discussion matter or is it just outside the zone of 

what you focus on as an organization? 

Ms. MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO. In the context of immigration, obviously unless we are going to start regulating how many children 

Americans can have, the issue of how large or country should be, 

I think it is a whole other discussion. 

Mr. KING. We are not going to down there. Okay. I do not think 

we are going to get that answer. And you do not have a position 

on where about 1.2 million immigrants are brought into the United 

States. Do you believe that number should increase or decrease? 

Ms. MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO. So on the issue of immigration specifically, there are about, as you said, a million immigrants that are 

coming into our country both from the employment system and the 

family system. That is 0.3 percent of the current American population. 

So I think that we have the ability to actually broaden those 

lanes a little bit in a way that responds to the needs of the economy and the needs of our families. 

Mr. KING. So you would see the number perhaps going up. 

Ms. MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO. I am sorry? 

Mr. KING. You see the number perhaps going up at greater than 

1.2 million, but marginally. Do I hear that answer right? 

Ms. MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO. I think that it should go up. 

Mr. KING. Okay, I hear that. Now, are you familiar with Milton 

Friedman’s argument that, and he used a shorter phrase of this, 

and you have not used this, but an open borders policy. We understand what that vernacular means in our society today. But Milton 

Friedman’s statement that an open borders policy is not compatible 

with the welfare state. Are you familiar with that argument? 

40

And you have made the argument that the demands of labor 

should direct, at least to a significant degree, the flow of traffic 

across our borders into the United States. And you have made a 

cast that there are 4.3 million people that are waiting in line outside the United States. I think that is important. 

But do you agree with Milton Friedman that a welfare state and 

an open borders policy are incompatible? 

Ms. MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO. I am not familiar with the full argument. What I would say is that our organization does not support 

open borders, nor do we think that Congress will ever get to support something like that. So in a way, I do not think that it is necessary to go down that road because that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about——

Mr. KING. But it is. We do have a welfare state here, and it looks 

like our President is seeking to guarantee a middle class standard 

of living for anyone who might be inside the United States of 

America. And we have 80 different means test of welfare programs 

here in the United States. 

I do not know how you better define a welfare state than that. 

I just did not think it was arguable that this is a welfare state, but 

do you understand that it is incompatible to have an open borders 

policy and a welfare state at the same time? 

Ms. MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO. We do not have an open borders policy, and my argument does not support one. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. And I would ask then, Mr. Emery, do you 

have a position on these questions that I have asked, primarily 

whether the number of illegal immigrants should go up or down? 

Mr. EMERY. No, sir. We do not have a position on how Congress 

should prioritize the numbers or how big they should be. But we 

think that our laws should respect our values. And we ask the 

question does anybody here think that our current laws do that 

now? So that is why we are advocating that the legal permanent 

residents be uncapped, and also that in the context of comprehensive reform, that there is due process waiver reform for U.S. citizens so that U.S. citizens are treated at least as well as anybody 

else. 

Mr. KING. Can you explain to me Ms. Martinez’s position that we 

can restore the rule of law by exempting people from it? 

Mr. EMERY. I am sorry. No, I do not know that I can speak for 

her. 

Mr. KING. It is not really a rhetorical question. It is something 

that this Congress needs to understand. There seems to be people 

in this Congress that can take the position that they respect, and 

defend, and protect the rule of law. And one of the ways we are 

going to do that is to suspend the rule of law for a certain class 

of people. 

I heard testimony here that once we restore the rule of law. We 

have the rule of law. It has been eroded by a lack of enforcement. 

But let me make another point that I would ask you to comment 

on, and that is that each of the times that I hear from witnesses 

on this subject matter, there is an advocacy for expanding one or 

more of the visa categories. And each time that advocacy takes 

place, there seems to be a disregard for the overall number of 

Americans that might come into the United States, what is that 

41

proper number, the 4.3 million or more, and I actually think it is 

more, that are waiting in line outside the United States. That is 

the back of the line. 

How many people would come here if we had a policy that could 

process them more quickly than Mr.—I did not follow your last 

name. I do not have my glasses on, but the gentleman said. 

So my question back to you then is, do you have a position on 

that total number of legal immigrants or do you at least understand that the advocacy we are hearing here is a peace of the jigsaw puzzle that only views opening up certain visa categories without regard to the overall number. 

Mr. GOWDY. You can answer the question. 

Mr. EMERY. As I said, we do not have a specific position on that, 

but for us it is really about values. And we do not see that the 

moral argument for Mat to have his wife here is less for a resident 

than for a citizen. Again, it is up to Congress to set these priorities 

and to deal with them. Our concern is really this most basic fundamental value of husbands and wives and moms and dads being 

with their kids. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you to the gentleman from Iowa. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentlelady from California, 

the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am wondering, Mr. Papademetriou, sometimes people talk 

about chain migration, and there may be a myth out there that 

someone here can petition for their grandparents, and their aunts, 

and their uncles, and their cousins. Can you tell us who can petition for a relative? 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. Yes, a U.S. citizen. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And who they can petition for? 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. Right. A U.S. citizen can petition for their 

immediate relatives defined as minor children under 21, spouses, 

and parents. And this is numerically unlimited. And then they can 

petition for their unmarried adult children. This is numerically limited. There are only about 23,000 or so visas that we dedicate to 

that. They can petition for their married adult children. That is the 

3rd preference, and that is, again, around 23,000 or so visas. And 

they can petition for their siblings. That is the 4th preference, and 

that is about 6,500, 6,600 visas. 

The reason I keep saying ‘‘about’’ is because as you all know, you 

know, if one category does not use the few numbers, they move 

them. They move this way and they also move the other way. 

And, of course, today’s topic, which is the 2nd preference, and 

this is the spouses and unmarried minor children, category 2A, the 

2nd preference. And spouses—I am sorry—and unmarried adult 

children, which is 2B. That is it. Everybody is somebody’s uncle, so, 

you know——

Ms. LOFGREN. But no cousins, no grandparents. 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. No cousins——

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. No aunts, and no uncles. 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU [continuing]. Or things like that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you for clarifying that. You know, Congress 

makes the laws. We made some mistakes in ’96 when we amended 

42

the act, in my judgment. And now we have a chance to remedy 

some of the mistakes that we have learned about since that time. 

One of the things that I think is important is that if we have a 

system, that it be honest, and that it work. And looking at the 

question of 4th preference, I recently asked about the backlog in 

4th preference and was told that if you petitioned for your brother 

or sister who lived in Mexico, that it would be 150 years until a 

visa number became available. Now, that strikes me as kind of a 

fraud to tell people, you know, when you are 150 years, because I 

do not think any of us are going to get there, that there is a 60-

year wait when it comes to someone born in the Philippines. 

I mean, is that a viable situation to have 150-year wait? 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. I think waits for more than 10 years, and 

if we can actually wait that long, do not make any particular sense 

because they basically violate, you know, a number of principles. 

And I do not know, you know. The reason that you are using this 

very high number is because of the per country limits, et cetera, 

et cetera. 

But if you put those things aside, the Filipino would have to wait 

about 25 years on average again, but there will still be those extremes. Same thing with the Mexican. 

So fundamentally, if somebody has to wait for these kinds of 

years, it makes no sense for us to have anything like that, you 

know, in legislation. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. It just does not work, yeah. 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. So, you know, you are going to have to 

come up with something else, you know, either by, you know, fundamentally, you know, reducing the number of years or, again, 

these laws. You are lawmakers. You can make them and unmake 

them, you know. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. And at the end of the day, you know, these 

are going to be things on which you can agree. And ultimately, 

laws are not made in a vacuum. They are going to be made, you 

know, with the full understanding of what really is the best toward 

the society. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. You know, a lot of times, I come from 

Silicon Valley. And people advocate for high-skilled immigration, 

people with their Ph.Ds. And I agree with that. I mean, the 

geniuses that come in and are graduating from Stamford every 

year in the sciences is just awesome. But I think it is easy to assume that some of our most famous high-skilled immigrants, actually they came as children. I mean, you think about Sergei Brin, 

the co-founder of Google, he came to the United States with his 

parents when he was 6, and I met his mother, who is a lovely 

woman. They still live in the Bay area. Or Pierre Omadar, who is—

I can never pronounce his name, but he came as a child. He was 

born in Paris. Or Jerry Yang, who founded Yahoo!, who actually 

grew up in East San Jose. He came when he was 10 years old. 

So when we think about the balance that is necessary, I do not 

think we need to fight each other because, you know, innovators 

come in various routes. They come because they went to a school 

at a great university, but they also came with their parents. And 

43

sometimes I say this, but I thank Sergei and his family, that 

Google is in Mountain View instead of Moscow, where he was born. 

So I am hopeful, Mr. Chairman, that we will make progress. 

These are difficult and important questions that we face. I am 

mindful of Mr. King’s question. You know, two and a half million 

die in America every year, too, so we need to take a look at the 

entire demographic picture and the fact that we are not in the demographic dead spiral that Russia is in, that Japan is in, and the 

like. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. 

Labrador. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Emery, one suggested legislative fix for the F2A preference 

category is to allow spouses and minor children of legal permanent 

residents to be treated as immediate relatives. Do you think that 

might encourage fraud? 

Mr. EMERY. Well, I guess I would have to think about how does 

it work for the skilled workers now. I mean, I am not expert on 

that area, but do we find a whole lot of fraud with people who come 

in H1B visas? If we do, I have not heard about it. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But we find a lot of fraud in people coming here 

even on immediately relative visas. So the question is, because I 

do not disagree with your policy prescription. I actually think it is 

a good prescription. But we have to think prospectively about future flow of immigration, what it is going to encourage. When we 

change our law, you do it so you can encourage certain behavior 

and also discourage certain behavior. 

So if we know that in the immediate relative category there is 

a substantial amount of fraud, is that something that we should be 

thinking about when we are changing these categories? 

Mr. EMERY. Well, I can only speak from experience. And, you 

know, my experience is that people are married and fight against 

incredible odds to be together. And it is a real testament to marriage. That is the personal experience I have. 

Mr. LABRADOR. That is great. Thank you. Thank you. 

Ms. Martinez, same question to you, because, again, I do not disagree with the policy prescription. I actually think it is a good idea 

to change the category. But as you are thinking about changing the 

law, you have to think about all the consequences of that change. 

Do you think it would encourage fraud, and if it does or does not 

encourage fraud, what do we do to make sure that we do not have 

more fraud in the immigration system? 

Ms. MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO. I am not sure that the change in the 

law itself would encourage more fraud. I think as with any program, and as you know as lawmakers, there are very entrepreneurial people out there that may try to find a way around things. 

But, you know, we can pose the same question as a program like 

Medicare. We know there is fraud in the Medicare program. That 

does not mean we do away with the program. We try to figure out 

what mechanisms we can put in place to make sure that we prevent those very entrepreneurial creating people from gaming the 

system while making sure that the incentives are maximized. And 

44

I agree completely with your framing about law creates incentives 

to do one thing or another. 

And so I believe that really the case in front of you all here, we 

are not really talking about more immigration or less immigration. 

We are talking about putting a system in place that is going to regulate the immigration that is happening and that is in our best interests to make sure that it is going through legal channels, where 

people are being vetted, where people are being counted, where we 

know where they are going. 

And so an expansion in the program or reclassifying some of 

these categories would actually create the incentives for people to 

go through the system, which is what we want. And then we can 

concentrate on those very entrepreneurial people who want to try 

to game it. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So if we are going to increase the number of immigrants, which we would if we changed the F2A category, and 

again, I agree with the policy, are there any categories in a familybased system that maybe we should be thinking about not having 

anymore? 

Ms. MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO. That is a very difficult question, and 

the reason I say that is because if you are a person whose only 

family in the world is a brother or a sister, that is your immediate 

family. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But if you are a person whose only family is a 

brother or sister, why did you leave your brother or your sister? 

Ms. MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO. Well, it happens, right? It happens. I 

can speak to that experience. 

Mr. LABRADOR. There are a lot of examples, but I think if we are 

going to be increasing the number of visas, which I think we should 

for some categories, I think at some point we also have to make 

the policy decision of what is in the national interests for the 

United States, because our immigration policy is not for the interests of the individual. 

Ms. MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO. That is right. 

Mr. LABRADOR. It is the national interests of the United States. 

Do you agree with that? 

Ms. MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO. I agree that it should be in the national interest, and I think the national interest here is that each 

of the different programs that we have, and I agree that we need 

to figure out how to simplify because things are extremely complicated. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Yes. 

Ms. MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO. But each of the programs we have 

has the goal of encouraging people or giving people hope to stand 

in a line that might have a chance to go through. And so to the 

extent that we make arbitrary decisions that take those things 

away, we are also creating incentives for people to go around them. 

Mr. LABRADOR. I do not think it is an arbitrary decision to determine what is in the national interest, which family members are 

in the national interest. We do not allow uncles. We do not allow 

aunts. So at some point we have to make a policy decision here in 

Congress. 

Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Idaho. 

45

The Chair would now recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. 

Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the Chairman and the Ranking 

Member, but also the courtesy of my friend, Mr. Gutierrez, and to 

all of the colleagues that are here. 

Mr. Chairman, let me acknowledge the importance of these hearings, and thank you and your staff, along with Ms. Lofgren, for ensuring that we have a very, very solid record on some of the important work that this Congress has to do. And I want to thank the 

witnesses. 

And as I was being briefed by staff, I want to make sure that 

it is very clear in this immigration story, this immigration journey, 

that they view America as the land of opportunity. And I believe 

that when we speak of our country as we live in it, none of us will 

ever describe our Nation as a welfare state. We describe it as a 

place where can finish education to the public system, that we can 

get a higher education, the best education for reasonable resources 

expended. We view it as a place that you can move from poverty 

to opportunity. And that story is larger than us. It goes all around 

the world. 

That is why people may leave a beloved family member behind. 

I hear the stories every day. It is not a celebratory case when 

someone has an opportunity to come to the United States, but not 

their family. They sacrifice because of what they believe the values 

of this Nation are all about. 

Mr. Papademetriou, you had a sentence that I think is really the 

statement. How a country approaches immigration and how it 

treats its immigrants is a powerful statement to the world abut its 

values and the principles upon which it stands. 

I have a short period of time. I just want to ask you. Is America 

overwhelmed with immigrants? 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. No, it is not overwhelmed by immigrants. 

And we take far fewer immigrants on per capita basis that many 

other countries do. For instance, Canada takes 3 times as many 

immigrants per Canadian more so than we do. Australia does likewise. 

So the issue is not more or fewer. The issue is a system that 

makes sense, as Ms. Lofgren said, that has clear rules, that those 

rules can be understood by everyone, and that it does not ask people to do things that will be completely unnatural in the regular 

course of their lives. And separating spouses from minor children 

is unnatural. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me follow that up with Ms. Martinez, who 

said the same thing. If we have a system that establishes the rules, 

do you believe both advocates and those who seek in this country 

will follow the rules in most part? 

Ms. MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO. I think if the rules are clear and fair, 

people have an incentive to do that. Even if you think about the 

current population in our country who is undocumented, when you 

think about people who were willing to risk their lives, literally 

and not figuratively, to come here for either the opportunity of a 

job or to reunite with a loved one. And many times, having to 

spend not only their life savings, but the life savings of their home 

network or families to be able to pay a smuggler. 

46

If there was a real line that people believed in, whether it was 

employment based or family based, to be able to wait and come 

here, I think that when you put in the balance the risks to your 

life and the life savings of a community, then it creates an incentive to come in legally. But that is why it is so important that our 

legal immigration system work properly. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And it should respond to this crisis of separating our families. 

Let me ask both Mr. Emery and Paguth. I am trying to see. In 

a hearing that I had in my district, I was told the story of a father 

who was placed on a plan and literally told to sell—let me temper 

that down—to give away his American-born children. And you are 

speaking of a legal status of a legal permanent resident and the 

numbers being such that you cannot have your wife. And so to fix 

that, I think our witnesses are talking, is the adding of those numbers so that you have a fair, legal process. 

Mr. Emery, can both of you speak to that very quickly? 

Mr. EMERY. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The tearing apart of families? 

Mr. EMERY. Yes, we see it all the time. And again, it is not just 

the permanent residents. It is U.S. citizens, too. And that is why 

we are advocating for exactly what you are saying, for permanent 

residents to be able to bring their spouses here without any delay, 

and also for U.S. citizens to have process waiver reform so that 

they are treated at least as well as other groups in immigration reform. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Can the gentleman answer quickly, please? 

Mr. ARIVALAN. I agree with Mr. Emery. I am here because I did 

not want to my marriage to fail. Two years plus visa processing 

time of 6 months to a year is a long time for any marriage. It is 

a huge hardship on any marriage. And it would have a negative 

effect on any relationship for that matter. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This 

gentleman I think is a legal permanent resident because he wants 

to be a citizen. A work permit would allow him to have his wife. 

This is a process that we need to fix. 

And I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member very much. I 

yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I am going to briefly yield to the gentlelady from 

California before we go to the gentleman from Nevada. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just like to ask unanimous consent to 

place into the record 17 statements from various religious and civil 

rights groups. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:]

47


79881A1-1.eps

Principles for Children in Immigration Reform 

As our nation's leaders move forward with the important task of refonning the federal immigration 

system it is critical that they consider the specific needs of children and yonth. Children of immigrants 

currently comprise I in 4 of all children in the U.S. and represent the fastest growing segment ofthe chill 

population. TI,e number of unaccompanied ill1111igrant children entering the U.S. has also reached record 

setting numbers in recent years, with more than 14,000 children coming into the custody of the Office of 

Refugee Resettlement in fiscal year 2012. 

Despite the signiticant impact of immigration policy on children's lives, children have historically been 

disregarded and often intentionally excluded in U.S. immigration policy decisions. Even the youngest 

children have few special protections under current immigration law and their best interests are often 

considered irrelevant in critical decisions regarding their own or a parent's ability to enter or stay in the 

United States. Furthermore, complicated laws dete1111ining immigrant eligibility for fedcrally funded 

services have created significant barriers for children in immigrant families. As a result, both children 

who are immigrants themselves as well as U.S. citizen children with immigrant parents continue to face 

high rates offanlily separation, emotional trauma, economic instability, poor educational outcomes, and 

limited access to critical services and programs 

TI,e consistent failure of immigration policies to consider children's well-being, protect children's rights. 

and promote family unity has had devastating outcomes. The Department of Homeland Security reports 

that 205,000 parents of U.S. citizen children were deported in the 26 months between July 2010 and 

September 2012. It is estimated that 5,100 children are in the U.S. child welfare system due to a parent's 

immigration detention or deportation, and thousands of U.S. citizen children have moved abroad with 

their deported parents. Currently, 5.5 million children in the U.S. live in mixed-legal status families and 

are at risk of being separated from a parent at any time, and I million undocumented children under the 

age of I S face limited access to a higher education and only temporary legal means to join the workforce 

Unaccompanied immigrant children are a particularly vulnerable segment of the child population. These 

children cross our borders every day seeking refuge, safety, and protection, and often reunification with 

tamily members. In addition to facing harm in their 0\\11 countries, they also endure dangerous joumeys 

where they arc subject to violence, abuse, exploitation, and the high risk of becoming victims of 

trafficking. Once entering the U.S. these children encounter a new set of risks as they confront our 

complex laws and systems. Unaccompanied illlllligrant children are subject to the same harsh conditions 

as adults in border patrol stations, face immigration courts alone without guaranteed legal representation. 

have to defend against removal by proving eligibility for f01111S of relief designed almost exclusively for 

adults and which require the same burden of proof adults must meet, and are often repatriated or released 

without assessment oftheir safety and irrespective oftheir best interests. 

TI,e fact is that America's future prosperity will depend on our ability to ensure that all children have a 

fair shot at achieving their full potential. As the youngest and most vulnerable members of our society, 

children are the most deserving of protection lmder the law, and every child should have access to the 

services and resources they need to grow and thrive. Thus, any long-term solution to our immigration 

system must take iuto account the unique needs of childreu and protect and promote their 

fundamental rights and overall well-being. 
48


79881A1-2.eps

As advocates for children, we urge Congress and the Administration to incorporate the following 

principles in immigration refolln: 

A direct, clear, and reasonable pathway to citizenship. Any pathway to citizenship must be 

open, affordable, safe, and accessible to children in need of status, including beneficiaries of 

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), undocumented children under the age of21, 

and unaccompanied immigrant children, 

Protection and promotion of children's fundamental rights. Our inmligration system must 

uphold children's constitutional rights and ensure equal access to critical public services. 

programs, and economic supports for children and their iamilies. TI,e protection of fundamental 

rights also includes ensuring all children receive legal representation before all immigration 

authorities and, for all unaccompanied children, the appointment of an independent child 

advocate from the moment of detention throughout the course of any immigration or other relate, 

court proceedings. 

Ensure that enforcement efforts have appropriate protections for children. In all 

enforcement actions, including those along the border, the best interests ofthe child should be a 

primary consideration and children must be given the beneiit ofthe doubt during any 

investigation, inquiry or detention. There should be appropriate and accountable training 

policies and protocols for interacting with and screening children that reflects a humanitarian ane 

protection-oriented approach, prohibits the use of force with children, and creates reasonable ane 

safe conditions for children while in or released from the custody of all allns ofthe federal 

government. 

Keep families together. All policies regarding admissibility. enforcement. detention, and 

deportation of children and their parents must duly consider the best interests of children, 

including enabling immigration judges to exercise discretion in admission and removal decisiom 

based on the hardship to US. citizen and lawful permanent resident children. The immigration 

system must be updated by resolving current backlogs and ensuring family-based immigration 

channels are adequate for future migration without lengthy family separation. 

Endorsing Organizations 

National and International 

Alianza por los Derechos Ninas Ninos y Adolescentes 

Alliance for a Just Society 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 

American Federation of Teachers (AFT) 

American Immigration Council 

Americans for Immigrant Justice, fOllnerly Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center 

America's Promise Alliance 

Asian & Pacific Islander hlstitute on Domestic Violence 
49


79881A1-3.eps

Asian American Justice Center (AAJC), member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice 

ASIS TA Immigration Assistance 

Association for Childhood Education Tntemational 

Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs (AFOP) 

Ayuda 

Breakthrough 

Capital Area hllllligrants' Rights Coalition 

Casa Esperanza 

Catholic Legal hllmigration Network, mc. (CLINIC) 

Center for Gender & Refligee Studies 

Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) 

Center for the Vulnerable Child 

Children's Defense Fund (CDF) 

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) Refugee and Immigration Ministries 

Church World Service 

Clergy and Laity United for Economic J llsticc 

Concemed Educators Allied for a Safe Environment (CEASE) 

Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute (CCAI) 

Departmcnt of Anthropology, Georgetown University 

Emory Child Rights Project 

First Focus 

Foster Care to Success Foundation 

Foster Family-based Treatment Association 

Franciscan Action Network 

Franciscan Federation 

Franciscan Friars 

Franciscan Friars. TOR 

Franciscan Sisters 

Franciscan Sistcrs of Litt1c Falls Leadership 

Franciscan Sistcrs ofthc Atoncmcnt (mtcmational) 

Franciscans for Justice 

Futurcs Without Violcncc 

HAIS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) 

Healthy Teen Network 

Hoyas for Immigrant Rights 

Immigration Equality 

Immigrant Legal Rcsource Center 

IMUMT (mstituto para las Mujeres enla Migraci6n) 

mtemational Detention Coalition 

Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) 

Leadership Team ofthe Felician Sisters of North America 

Lcgal Scrvices for Children 

LULAC Council 7226 

Lutheran lllmigration and Refligee Service 
50


79881A1-4.eps

Lutheran Social Services of New England 

Main Street Alliance 

MomsRising.org 

NAFSA: Association of international Educators 

NAKASEC 

National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPA WF) 

National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth (NAEHCY) 

National Center for Adoption Law & Policy 

National Domestic Workers Alliance (NDWA) 

National Education Association (NEAl 

National hnmigrant Justice Center 

National hllmigration Law Center (NILC) 

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health 

National Latino Children's Institute 

OneAmerica 

Providcntial Support Scrvicc 

Sin Fronteras (hlternational) 

Sisters of Saint Francis of Perpetual Adoration (international) 

Sisters of St. Francis (Intemational) 

Southern Poverty Law Center 

Tahirih Justice Center 

TESOL International Association 

The Advocates for Human Rights 

TI,C Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking (CAST) 

TI,e Episcopal Network for Economic Justice 

The Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights 

U.S. Committee for Refugees and inlllligrants 

United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society 

Unitcd Mcthodist Womcn 

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) 

United We Dream 

Women's Refugee Commission 

Youth Law Center 

State and Local Organizations 

Arizona 

Children's Action Alliance 

Coalicion de Derechos H'llllanos 

Kino Border hlitiative 

No More Deaths 

Somos Amcrical\Vc Arc Amcrica Coalition 

TI,C Florence hllmigrant & Refugee Rights Proj ect 

University of Arizona Center for Latin American Studies 
51


79881A1-5.eps

Arkansas 

Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families 

California 

Asian Pacific American Legal Center, a member ofthe Asian American Center for Advancing Justice 

California Immigrant Policy Center 

California Pan-Etlmic Health Network 

California Primary Care Association 

Children's Defense Fund 

Children's Hospital Oakland 

Children Now 

CLUE Santa Barbara 

Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Traft'icking 

Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project, Catholic Charities of Los Angeles, Inc. 

Families & Criminal Justice (fonnerly the Center for Children of lilcarcerated Parents) 

Immigration Center For Women and Children 

Kids in Common, a progranl of Planned Parenthood Mar Monte (California and Nevada) 

Latino Health Alliance 

Modoc Child Care Council 

Public Counse! 

Southwestern Law School Immigration Clinic 

TI,e Children's Partnership 

United Advocates for Children and Families 

University of California Davis School of Law Immigration Clinic 

Colorado 

Immigrant Legal Center of Boulder County 

Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network 

Servicios de La Raza 

Sisters of St. Francis 

Delaware 

Delaware Family Voices 

Florida 

TI,e Center on Children & Families, University of Florida Levin College of La,v 

UNO Immigration Ministry 

Georgia 

Georgia Rural Urban Summit 

T11inois 
52


79881A1-6.eps

Center for the Human Rights of Children, Loyola University Chicago 

Chicago Legal Advocacy for hlcarcerated Mothers 

Franciscan Sisters of Chicago 

lllinois Coalition for humigrant and Refugee Rights 

Indiana 

Justice & Peace Ofiice for Oldenburg Franciscans 

Iowa 

Iowa Justice For Our Neighbors 

Luther College Office for Campus Ministries 

Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Ames 

Lonisiana 

Jesuit Social Research Institute, Loyola University New Orleans 

Maine 

Maine Children's Alliance 

University of Maine School of Law, Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic (Refugee and Human Rights Clinic) 

Maryland 

Advocates for Children and Youth 

Grossman Law_ LLC 

Massachusetts 

Applied Developmental & Educational Psychology Department, Boston College Lynch School of 

Education 

Center for Human Rights and hltemational Justice, Boston College 

Immigrant Integration Lab_ Boston College 

Migration and Human Rights Project Boston College 

Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project 

Michigan 

Casa Latina 

CMSJ Consulting L3C 

Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights 

Minnesota 

Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota 

Interfaith Coalition on Immigration 

Law Office of Allison Anastos 

Sisters of St. Francis_ Rochester 

Montana 
53


79881A1-7.eps

Sisters of S1. Francis. Savmmah 

Nebraska 

Center for Legal Immigration Assistmlce 

Nebraska Families Collaborative 

New Mexico 

For Families LLC 

New Mexico Children Youth mld Fmnilies Department 

New Mexico Fomm for Youth in Community 

New Mexico Voices for Children 

Pegasus Legal Services for Children 

New Jersey 

Advocates for Children of New Jersey 

Americml Friends Service Committee 

Family Voices NJ 

IRATE & First Friends New Jersey 

Missionary Sisters of the Immaculate Conception 

Refonned Church of Highlmld Park. NJ 

Rutgers School of Law - Camden 

Statewide Parent Advocacy Network 

Stockton College 

New York 

Catholic Charities 

Coalition for Asiml AmericaJl Children & Fmnilies 

Feerick Center for Social Justice (Fordhllill University Law School) 

Legal Aid Society (NYC) 

Maya Media Corp. 

Northern MaJlhatten Coalition for lmmigfllilt Rights 

TI,e Door's Legal Services Center 

North Carolina 

Action for Children NC 

North Carolina ImmigraJlt Rights Project 

Ohio 

Church of Our Saviour Episcopal/La Iglesia de Nuestro Salvador 

FraJlciscaJl Sisters ofthe Poor 

Sisters of S1. Francis. Sylvmlia 

Oklahoma 

University of Tulsa College of Law Legal Clinic 
54


79881A1-8.eps

Oregon 

Immigration Counseling Service (TCS) 

Pennsylvania 

Advocacy Committee ofthe Sisters ofSt. Francis of Philadelphia 

Advocacy for Justice and Peace Committee ofthe Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia 

HIAS Pennsylvania 

Pennsylvania Council of Churches 

Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia 

Sisters of St. Joseph Welcome Center 

Rhode Island 

Family Voices Rhode Island 

Rhode Island KIDS COUNT 

South Carolina 

South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center 

South Carolina Department of Social Services 

Tennessee 

Franciscan Friars 

Texas 

Altematives Centre for Behavioral Health 

American Gateways 

Cabrini Center for Inmligrant Legal Assistnace of the Archdiocese of Galveston (Houston) 

Center for Public Policy Priorities 

Diocesan Migrant & Refugee Services. Inc. (DMRS) 

Dominican Sisters of Houston 

Fabens ISD 

Human Rights hlitiative of North Texas 

Paso Del Norte Civil Rights Project 

Texans Care for Children 

Utah 

Voices for Utah Children 

Virginia 

Voices for Virginia's Children 

Washington 

Children's Alliance 

Episcopal Church 
55


79881A1-9.eps

OneAmerica 

PAVE 

Stop the Checkpoints 

Washington Department of Corrections 

Wisconsin 

Capuchin Justice & Peace Office, Milwaukee 

Wisconsin Council on Children and Families 
56


79881A2-1.eps

~'-""""oW1'" 

408<dIirJ9l\PIK. 

s.. .. I>O\l 

_ \'Mo, IiY 100(15 

m71Hoo.I 

WIsnInglon. OC OU\c. 

;~A ... II\II 

s..lIll~ 

~.DC2orJ1,l5 

202.3"-0002-

Tn linulllY nbmill d to U.S. Iioun Subcommillu on immigration and Bordu Sunrity 

Ilcprillg: "Thf Stpara lioll of .sudur I' miljf~ u"d~r U.s. I"u"igrlliion I..w ~ 

Thuuday 1~h 14.201) 

tllt m~nl of Rathel B. Tiwn, Esq •• EUi:lIIi.'t OirfttOr, Immigl'1ltion qu~liry 

Immigratiun Equality is! natlOTlal Otganil~tioo that woO:s to end di~rimination in U S immigration 

law. 10 reduce tile ne!!aJ;\'t impact of that law on the lives ofleM>ian. gay. bise~ual , tl1lD$gender 

j"lGBT'") and HIY·lJ<lSitivf people. and to hdp oblain asylum for thuse IJCl1i«lucd in th";r home 

country based on theinexual orienlation, tmnsgender identiry Of mY·status Immigmlion Equality 

wa~ fonnd~ in 1994 a. the lesbian and Gay Immi8f$tiQ:l Ri ghts n.~ f"wce Since then we h~ve 

J!fown to hea fully 5taITod organization with ofti ces in New "cd and Wlt5hington, D.C. We Ire Ihe 

only natiOllal organization de<!ic31ed exclusively IU immignlioo issu~ fOf the l GST and H1Y·posiliv(' 

communities "'lore than Ji,OOO activists. altOf1ltys, faith leaders, and OIher cunsliluents sub'loCrib ... to 

hnmi!!,alioo Equality'~ em.il. and acrion lIlerts. IIfId our wdJsite hB$ over 380.000 unique ,·isitor.1'!"" 

year The legal staff fidds Over J.700 inquiries. year fTllm individuals thrOl1g}lOut the ~n1"~ U S and 

abroad vi. lelephone. emllil and in·PCfSOn coo5ull3lions 

We appla ud the lloose Sutx;on!lllillre 011 Im",ignttiOl' and Border Security fOf"convelling Ihis hearing 

today Family unily has b.:en allh~ h~an of U S immigratioolaw for more than haifa cemury and we 

be lieve thaI il should remft'n stlhe hean of Comprehensive Immigmlion Rcfonn ("ClR") Under Ihe 

ru1fenl family prel~renre mm li ()ll S¥itern. many famil ¥ members have 10 wait yeau or even 

decades for th~ir priority dales 10 becQrne curr"nt $<Ith3tthe¥ can join their Ameriean family m .. mbers 

in the Un ited Slatcs_ We support clforts 10 reduce thi a uncoosciOllabl e backlug that heps families apan 

Under the currenl immigration s~Slcm . LGBT families are syslemaliclllly excluded No malter how lOll!! 

a same·sex ,oop1c has heen together. rCSJirdlcss of whether Ihey are rlUsln& children together. and even 

if lhey ard legally married, these families are completely mut 001 of the U.S immigralion wstem. No 

immigntlioo ,-efoo" can be oollsidt'le<i compreheMive iril lea~o:s oulthis elllire class of families 

Cllt M"SI Incl"de the Uniting Am.riesl1 Famili~s Att 

Allhoot9> Immigration E~uaJily ,",orl.:$ on mlny iSS\.le5 affecling Ihe LGBT immigrant (;<)mmunily, no 

issue is more cenll1lllO our tII;ss;oe, Ihan ending the discrim;'lation thai yay ~nd lewian b;n~l;ooal 

c'OUples face. Becaul'e thef"t' is nu r«:O!ll1ilion of the central rdationship in the lives oflGBT 

Americans. Ihey are faced ",ilh a heart·rending choice thaI rIO one should h"'e to make ' separation from 
57


79881A2-2.eps

the person they love or exile from their own country. Inclusion of the Uniting American Families Act 

CUAF A")l within CIR would provide a pathway to legalization to LGBT families 

Family unification is central to American immigration policy because Congress has recognized that the 

fundamental fabric of our society is family. Family-based immigration accounts for roughly 65% of all 

legal immigration to the United States.' Family ties transcend borders, and in recognition of this core 

value, the American immigration system gives special preference for the spouses of American citizens 

to obtain lawful permanent resident status without any limit on the number of visas available 

annually. Lesbian and gay citizens are completely excluded from this benefit. 

An analysis of data from the 2000 Decennial Census estimated that approximately 36,000 same-sex 

binational couples live in the United States] This number is miniscule compared to overall immigration 

levels: in 2011, a total of 1,062,040 individuals obtained lawful permanent resident status in the United 

States'" Thus, if every permanent partner currently in the U. S. were granted lawful permanent residence 

in the US., these applications would account for .03% of all grants of lawful permanent residence 

The couples reported in the census are, on average, in their late 30s, with around one-third of the 

individuals holding college degrees 5 The average income level is $40,359 for male couples and just 

over $28,000 for females. Each of these statistics represents a real family, with real fears and real 

dreams, the most tlmdamental of which is to remain together. 

One of the striking features of the statistical analysis performed of the 2000 census is how many samesex binational couples are raising children together. Almost 16,000 of the couples counted in the census 

- 46% of all same-sex binational couples - report children in the household'" Among female couples, 

the figure is even more striking, 58% offemale binational households include children. The vast 

majority of children in these households are U.S. citizens7 Behind each of these statistics is a real 

family, with real children who have grown up knowing two loving parents. In each of these households, 

there is daily uncertainty about whether the family can remain together, or whether they will have to 

move abroad to new schools, new friends, and even a new language. 

Every day Immigration Equality hears from lesbian and gay couples who tell us painful tales of trying to 

maintain their families despite almost impossible odds. For example: 

Adi ravy and Tzila revy are a loving, married couple, lil'ing in Rrooklyn, New York. Adi is a 

Us. citizen and Tzila a citizen '!fl\1'ael. The couple mel in 20 I 0 and recently married in 

Bruuklyn, New Yurk. Adi has sl(fferedfi-um chrollic kidney disease since the age uf 

seventeel/. l'zila is Adi '.I' primmy suurce uf care and emutiunal suppurt, alld she entered the 

Us. on a visitor's visa in order to care fiJI' her Wife while Adi receives life-saving treatment 

fi'om a respecled expert in her illness. Because their marriage is unrecognized by Ihe federal 

guvernment, IIU uther visa 1I'as available tu l'zila. 

2 
58


79881A2-3.eps

Adi 's health has conlinued 10 deleriorale and she has been placed on Ihe kidney lramp/alli 

!ist. Tzila extended her visitor visa to remain at Adi 's side, bllt as the end of Tzila 's authorized 

stay approached, Adi and l'zila were lefi without a permanent solution for theirfamily. in 

November 20 f 2, the couple submilled a spousalpelition/i)r a green card. III January 20 f 3, Ihe 

jamily's request was denied because Adi and Tzila'sjiwlily lies are nol recogllized under US. 

immixration Iml'. Adifears that she alld her wife cuuld be torn apart. She fears beinx left alone 

toface her chronic health issues without her primw)' c:arexiver and emotional support. Without 

a lasling immigration solulion, Ihisjilmily will conlinue to/ace a li/efilled with uncerlainly and 

jear. 8 

While Adi and Tzila continue to live with the daily uncertainty and stress of whether they can remain 

together or not, other same-sex couples are even less fortunate. 

ilJchard j)ennis, a u.s. c:itize71, and his partner .lair izquierdo, a citizen of Peru, !il'ed toxether in 

Nell! Jerseyfor.five years. lhey celebrated a civillinion in 2008, bllt because under our 

immigration laws, Ihe LWo are legal strangers, Richard could do nothing 10 keep Immigralion 

and Cusloms EnfiJrcemenlfi"om enforcing an old removal order based on a denied asylum 

application. Although Jail' had no criminal record. and wanted nothing more thclII to be with his 

long-term parmer }Ijchard, ill j)ecember 2010, he was removed to Peru. He has sillce applied 

jiJr humanitarian parole 10 relurtl 10 Ihe Us. b11llhal application has been denied. The couple 

does nol believe it would be sa/ejiw them 10 live openly as a/amily in Peru. Unlillhe laws in Ihe 

U.S. change, this lovlllgfamilyfaces permanent separatIOn. 

The lack of recognition of same-sex relationships affects not only the individual family, but the larger 

community as well. In many instances, large companies are unable to retain talented workers who are 

forced to leave the United States to maintain their relationships. That is why a growing number of 

businesses have endorsed the Uniting American Families Act. On January 1,2013, a diverse group of 

businesses signed onto a letter to the House and Senate supporting passage of UAF A or CLR that 

includes UAFA stating: 

"We have each worked to help American employees whose families are split apart because they 

cannot sponsor their committed, permanent partners for immigration benefits. We have lost 

productivity when those families are separated; we have borne the costs of transferring and 

retraining talented employees so they may live abroad with their loved ones; and we have missed 

opportunities to bring the best and the brightest to the United States when their sexual orientation 

means they cannot bring their family with them." 10 

The coalition includes over 30 businesses, such as American Airlines, Dow Chemical, Intel, Nike, and 

Goldman Sachs. To these companies it is clear that respecting relationships across international 

boundaries is not only the right thing to do, it also makes economic sense and helps to recruit and retain 

the most talented employees in their companies. There are currently at least two dozen countries that 
59


79881A2-4.eps

allow their citizens to sponsor long-tenn, same-sex partners for immigration benefits." 

No Comprehensive hnmigration Reform can be truly comprehensive ifit leaves out thousands ofLGBT 

families. We urge the House to include UAFA language in any CTR bill. 

Conclusion 

We applaud the House for convening this hearing and for considering needed refonns to the family 

unification system. Too many individuals in the United States - lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and 

straight - cannot fully access the American dream because of our antiquated immigration system. For 

LGBT families with young children, undocumented youth, and asylum seekers, it is time to pass 

rational, humane, comprehensi)'e immigration reform that fully respects the unique needs and 

contributions of LGBT immigrants. 

1 U AF A ,vould add "pemlanent partner" as a categOTY of "immediate relative" to the TN A. "PenwJnent partner" is defined as 

any person 19 or older \vho is 

1. Tn a committed. intimate reim]onship wilh an adult U.S. cill/en or legal pennanent resident 18 years or older in 

\vhich both parties intend a lifelong commitment; 

2. Financially interdependent with that olherpersoll; 

3. Not married to, or in a permanent partnership \vitil, anyone other than that other person: 

-1.. Unable to contract ,,,ith that person a llmrriage cognizable under the Immigration and Nationality Act and 

j. Not a first second, or third degree blood relation Oftl1.:1t other individual 

As with current marriage-based petitions. pemlanent partners ,vould be required to prove the bona fides of their relationships 

and would be subject to strict criminal sanctions and rines for committing fraud. 

:: Tn 2011 family-based innnigration accounted for 688J)S9 gmnts of Im\,fl1l pennanent resident status, Department of 

Homeland Security, Arumal Flow Report, April 2012, Table 2. at 3available at 

htlp://\Hv\v.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assels/stalistics/publicatiolls/lpr _fr _20 ll.pdf 

J Family, Um·alued: Discriminatioll Denial, and the Fate of Binational Same-Sex Couples Under U.S. Lmv, joint report by 

Human Rights Watch and Tml1ligrationEquality, 2006, at 17, 3 ayailable at 

hi tp://"'w\v.hn\.org/en/reports/2006/0S/O I/family -unva 1 ued 

1 Department of Homeland Security, Al1llual Flow Report. March 2009. available at 

hi tp:II\HV\V .dhs.go\' Ixlibrary/assets/statist ics/publications/lpr _ fr _ 200S.pdf . 

5 Famil!, Umalued, al 17(). 

t; Jd. 

Jet. In female binational households. 87% of the children were U.S. citizens: in male households. 83% were U.S. citizens 

~ /..,'ee Erica PcarsoR "Newly\ycd lesbians fmm Brooklyn hopc fcds dccidc on grecn-card bid aftcr Supremc Court weighs in 

4 
60


79881A2-5.eps

on DOMA," NY Daily Ne\ys, December 12. 2012 available at htt11ib~YQLIJI(]~lrtL~]:-,~QlnLI~YI'~:YQI!91~;;!J.Rm·:,;ollpk_-:: 

~_'llU!l[;-::dQtIl£t=d~s~Lsi9rt:{ml~~-J L?J S(i93 

9 ,Set" Mara Gay. -'Gay Couple Separated by Deportation Fight for Legal Status.·' January 5. 201L 

JJ.upj~\~Y~~YdlQ]JX\~.!,,~OJIV:W 11m 1..~Qj/g;1.L~oJ[I!Y-=~n1:1mt-e_d .. :l]}'_~q~npIlf1tkm-J~r;hL::Cor~kg~l!~Sla!~lf',: . 

jl I Ayailable at htlQ:mJJiJ.lligI]~Jii't.llCiln~1..~1GtmniJlli.d-,.Q.Ig{ima~~·nl!£iJLe}i,'iCP,--,'1litiQ.1Lsi~1~lnl~jjclldf . 

II These eonntries include Anstmlia, Belgium, Bm/.lL Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Genlk'l1lY, Tceland. TsraeL the 

Netherlands, Ne\y Zealand. Norway. Portugal, South Africa, Spain Sweden Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. See 

Family. Unvalued. 
61


79881A3-1.eps

A 

FIRST FOCUS 

Il la ___ • _000 ' --..OClO(lOl 

.. m.s1Wl' • ''lO'l.Ul' CI6l', 

_ CAM'.,ON 101 UlllDIIN ____ • _________________________ _ 

FIRST FOCUS CAM PAIGN FOR CH ILDREN 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

SUBCOM MITTEE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY AND BORDER SECURITY: 

"THE SEPARATION OF NUCl.EA.R FAMILI ES UNDER U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW" 

r.brch 1.4 ,2013 

0.., ...... " { :I1wII}. R""""~ \ 1,,,,I><c l"fgrt>1,.n;J M"."Lo,'B"r,hc !'<Jh<.'",",ilk~ '" Immll\f'_ l'"bct ."" !\'nlI. ... $o:wnl)'. rl'.n~ )' " for ~"' 'JIP"'"""''J~ ..... 1.o"It Ih, .. ""<~ • ..,,, '"' ,n. "nr~ ,·f.1>< Un"t'Il ~I.t<:t 

Im""'!l'""'OOI .,.'''''' • '" ..... .1.,., f.unll"". 

'111" F, .. , !'",,,.C,"'f''''I7' f< ... (.tu\<Im, .. " "''''"''''' d"'I<t"1I·'~''''''''''T ~,","I<>I' ,k,Iic.o,,,1 '" ""'''''K 

"hlkltcn """ ~"'"" .. " 1""''''1)' '" l<d ... .oII"-'.cy _ ..1<1 blodg<t <k""..,.". 0 .... "'l:""''''''''''' " .,"tOw,"""cl '" ..... ,"''1: 

,h .. """ fl.""", ""'''''gr''''''''' 1">"""" 1"""1<1'" duM ,,'cl l~ """R by <"""""!I ,I", ,-,mil"" . ... f "'Il" 'hor ""d ,h.<,:ill 

d"lJn:" )U,'C ""'Of'P'l"I""'IY ru Itw. hellthr:.oo 1U.~1iJl bfcIIl th. u"'~ Stotes. 

\IIho...gl1 <l"~ uf """"g""" C'UrI\["U" I ", ~ ~II.;~,lo.lrm '" ,I", U.s."n.I~'" 'he' r .. reo, gr\"'-"'K ",'W""n' vf 

u,.. "hold 1'<if'UI.o,,,,,,,' ",,,,...,.,t U.s. ommtgr> 1»1\ !,ow "r,," W""'" rl", U'"'i"" ",,,..t; "nil nghtJ "f dulJrm :.or\tl 

1"''''010. ("'" I"'"",n ... ", f ... <biIJ"", .n """,od 1cJ!i>I ' '''w, '.1""Ioes. In ( ..... 1, (",,,,I .. ,,, I, "'. I>tct, ....... ",«1 f<oo. )'<'" .... 

" .. ,,,, ... du~ In:.or, ..."<I.,,OId (>m"~.h ""d If'J'''''V'''''''''r<lt'm '''l\I,1I "'I""~ ~1"\jl J:l"'''' rc ... ","1· .In<! 

""IC<'U''''~''l>i "'",01,.1 iii .. , (.11 ,n C<~""'~ ; . ...... bto, ""<<tOt ,,( dtiIJ ... ", Im,",lI""'~' cn''''''''''''''''' f'I',IC~,,", ~J"" 

,oI;u"",,", .. ,"<i '" ,,:'" r.",,!Ieo "I"'n" .CC<', .... ... ""'l>""mh .... '" "'""" y ...... k.,·"'I': hur.Jn.~1s uf ............. " L$, 

,luIdr"n '0 ... If", .4$ d """it of .. ,f"",.".."" dfon.! ... (:o.w= """"to i.........".J on ''''''''I;''"l1On .dunn, " ~ 

""nc.oI .h.>t h<,.Ih ,h" ,,,,,¥.n,,,, 'rs''''''' "" ,,'eU '" ,mmtgnt.,., ""I~rn"", pr:"-~,e,,. he """"",'<I \Q f""ttlt""I' 

f>miJ) "M)" ondd';l.l"e" "",~ 

The F.ih,rc <If Im,nig"'ion Lo", '0 Valur Cltild ... n 

1'_fr-1NoHtI '-'-~ U""'.", 

'Jk""",", t.lmtlr-1useJ '''''''w,''''''' ')1'"m,d1o;w, v,s. e""",n • ..,d Itg.oI r""'''''U'nt "",,,I.,,, .. w rclJ("",ro.-

'm~' ,',..,. 'or«'m", r.molf mcmI_~ ~ m< I ... d,~.,.fvr(.mtlr·l>;m" "",,"W'.,>(>n """'" f"""ltQ=t 

"'Jj, .. I."" It< 2Il) eJtS f ...... I"'"" ...... nbo" ~, ~l\" .• , .... ll.S. "I;\J"" ch,kI"", f,,,,,",, .... " 1-"1;<" ... ",,,,* In 

f.mul) -Iuo«l omnw"OO<L \ d,,]d·P-"=' ",bUOftlh'r " pno'JnnmJ '" F.unil)'.r..IO«l ""'",,","(}It, I ... ()nIf ,f th~ 

f""'''' iu> log;>l ""'rogr,,, ..... '''''''$ ->nd " .,...., ... oung "" l>duIf (>/ th«. chdd ,\ l' .'i. o,b''''' elu]d c:mnot file ~ 

lit"""" r,,.. ,""",ornk""""en,,,ll'''''''' '" oh,;un lowfi~ ''''''''11'"''""".",n .. ",'nl rl,~d,:kj .. "OCt 21-,... .... ..,1,1. 
62


79881A3-2.eps

FTRST FOClTS C-\i\fPA.TCK FOR crnrDRFJ< ST-\TFi\fE'\JT FOR TTTE RFCORD 

HEARINC UKTTTF SFP-\R.-\TTO'\J UF '\Jn~LF ,\R FA,i\fTUES i\f:\RCTT 14,2013 

and thus no longer ,1 child. This is ~llso the case for child asylces and refugees: \Vhllc adult asylces ,md refugees can 

petlt10n for status for their spouses ;md children, child asylces and rcfiJgees cannot petlt10n for status for their 

parcnts. 

LJ7aiz)(f) ?/11IadmiYJibdi[r 

~ ,Tn in C:1SL'S \vhen a~ in-1m 

w~'~;r::~;:!:;;!i~;f~f1'~:'~:::ji~~~: thc~r child. \\'aiYCei l'xlst to ""~L'''~" 6"n"~u" 1n Wl1,CIl" pctCen":1l benetici:,-,ry Utl estAblisb b;I:-CS:ilP f() ;dulr es citizen 

SpU1J'leS :tnd parents.' HmVeYl'r, "tTfutu; m:-[ke lurdship tn 

lrrelcv,l11t in the~lc 1 Thi.., exdu:,~()n of LX l·irtzen hards'ntp cx:cnds iC' the 

.1Lhnir"'.istr,I~J;n'~; r:~",v ~tate ·stde \"';:;a \voliver policy .. 'Inc: 

with a "pr(Y\~isi()nal ,YaiYer" tc: the J- :)r 10- yt·..tr unh'.\"dlil pre:'enn" b~/()r;; Jep;'1:~llg rLe L'fU"Cc ,""c, 

thetrw:-llver if t;le indlvKh.u] c,m c.tcrnr;no.tLltl' h.l1:"dshlp to ,1 L.S. clt;zen o.POUS(\ ;:arent orchrlci 

L.S. cltJZnl dnldrell vndcr qf 21 f:rom co,rsreicTatiol" llldcc tIl' "'arciship "aic 

despite r~le fa~'· ~h,lt re~~t';trch ha~ the lWIst likely to experience ~'C,-ere ]\)[1gterm irnp;lc~s T0 tl-leir teo:momic and f:oci·11 'i'i-ell-being as ,1 result of sep.lr?lt10n from a p?crent.G 

Can"d!atiollJ" 0/ Kerl10mi 

_\dditlOnally, undocumentcd parents who face deportatlOn often cannot rCCC1\T a cancellatton of rcmoval evcn if 

that deportaTIon 'ivould separate them from their U.S. citizen child. \\"hen seeking a cancdhtlOn of remoyaL an 

individual must pro\"C: "exceptional and cxtremcl), unusual hardship"- to a U.S. Clti/:c11 spouse, parent or child. If 

that h:-trdship IS to children, it must be "Subst~lntl:-tlly different from, or beyond th,lt'ivhich ,vould nom·ully be 

expected from the deportltion of an alien 'ivith close [unily members here."8 It is not enough to proye hardship to 

a child to stop (I parent's deportation; that lnrJship must be "\yorse than it "\yould be for (ltly other citizen. This 

means that under current lml111gration la\V, children arc expected and reqUlred to suffer vastly more than other 

individuals. Immigration policy is unlike most of our other !a,\YS in this '\Yay.1\lost law recognizes the unique needs 

of childrtn and is deslgntd to prottet childrtn, but ltntnigratlOn b'iY t:1k:tS d distinctly difftrent dppro:1ch and 

requires children tCl sutTer m(lre than (lther imllylduals. 

f!l:l!l:llgmtioll 1-!.·;!Ionx;J!lellt c:w rU!I:Ii[y Separutiol! 

Promoting family unity '\vithin immigration reform ;uso requires that immigration enforcement policies be 

reformed to cnsure that protcctions arc 11l placc to prc\ ent the separation of families as \VeIl as thc inappropriate 

tErt111nation of pilrentill rights of detained or dEported parEllts \\ ah childrEll ill the U.S. child welElrE systEm. 

\ccordl1lg to the Departmellt of Homela11d Securit), nearly 2()S,OOO parents of U.s. citi/-en children wcrc deported 

in the 26 months behveen July 1. 2010 and September 31. 2012.0 ~\s ,1 result, thousands of U.S. Citizen children 

h,lW mOVEd ,lbroad to be with deportEd parents, ,md an Estim,lted SJOO childrEn are in tlw l~.S. child welElrE 

systcm. lI

! The conflicttng poliClcs as \\:dl as a bel of coord.11lation bct\vccn the ImtlllgratlOn cnforcement and the 

child 'i.vclf;u-e systems means that children 111 foster care are at mcreased nsk of bemg perrmmently separated from 

thClr dctained or deported pare11ts. 

Prioritizing Children and Keeping Families Together in the U.S. Immigration System 
63


79881A3-3.eps

FTRST FOClTS C-\i\fPA.TCK FOR crnrDRFJ< ST-\TFi\fE'\JT FOR TTTE RFCORD 

HEARINC UKTTTF SFP-\R.-\TTO'\J UF '\Jn~LF ,\R FA,i\fTUES i\f:\RCTT 14,2013 

Recognizmg the need for immigration reform to consider the interest of children, hrst l"ocus co-led tlrl effort to 

deYcl()p endorsed by oyer 200 ()rg:mizal1()ns. 

ThE principle on Eunil} 

"Immigration reform should .. rkleep t:unilies together. Decisions reg~l1'ding admissibility, enforcement, detention, 

and deportanon of chIldrEn and theIr parents must dul) consider the best interests of children. TmmlgTilt10n Judges 

should be allm.ved to exercise discret10n in admission and removal decisions based on the hardship to L.S. citizen 

and la\vfully permanent children, \vhile current backlogs should be resolved and f8mily-b8sed immigi8tion channels 

should be made tldeCjuate for future rmgratiC111 \\lthollt lengthy Emlily sep'lratioll." 

Specifically, the First rocus ~ampaign for Children recommends the follo\ving felinily-focused prOl.-islOns be 

included in immignlt10n reform: 

• Ensure that imtmgmtlOn judges arc able to consider hardship to L.S. citizen children m deClsions regardmg 

a parent's admissibility, detent1on, or removal by reforming la,vs regarding cancellations of removal and 

\\-ai,,-ers of inadmlssibiltty. (TIR ..J-OO, 113th Congress) 

• Refonn immigration enforcement policies to preyent the detention of Flrents "whenever possible ;l1ld in 

cases when a parent must be detained or remm' Ed, Ensure thtH parents ,we gTilntEd due process rights and 

,lre able to makE dEcisions regarding their chtld's Cilre. (S '1399_ 1 '12dl CongrEss; HR 2607_ 112d1 Congress) 

• Fnsure that chIld welt~lfe agencIEs have protocols tn pbce to promote thE reunitlcation of system-in\'oh,ed 

childrEn with parents \\"ho are lrl\'ohed in immigration proceedtngs. (HR 6128, tl2th Congress) 

Conclusion 

\\';'-e belie,,-e that the immigration system as \vell as immigration enforcement policies must be refonned to better 

altgn with -\merican" alues of protectmg the best interests of our chIldrEn. \Yithollt these changes, chIldrEn in 

immigrant families 'iVill continue to be treated as collateral damage under current LriVs that disregard their needs 

and deny their b8sic nghts. Instead of allo\\Ting for and encourag111g these adverse outcomes for children, our 

fEderal immigration b\\'s should protect and ad\'ancE the 11ltErEsts of our n,ltion's children. 

Th;mk you again for the opportunity to submit this statement. Should you hmT any further quest10ns, please 

contact \Y'endy Cen-antes, Vice President of Immigration ;md Child Rights Policy 8t )y~t}d;::.;;\!:.{}t1;;;ltfc~cJ.!5,gff. 

'\ct §212(a)(9)(G)(\). 8 1I.S.c. §1182(a)(9)(8)(\")(2006) 

"jbid 
64


79881A3-4.eps

FTRST FOClTS C-\i\fPA.TCK FOR crnrDRFJ< ST-\TFi\fE'\JT FOR TTTE RFCORD 

HEARINC UKTTTF SFP-\R.-\TTO'\J UF '\Jn~LF ,\R FA,i\fTUES i\f:\RCTT 14,2013 

Dec. 56, 65(HT' ~()1I1). A.vilJlaule 
65


79881A4-1.eps

Teslimony 

Of 

Most Reverend Jose H. Gomez. 

Archbishop of Los Angeles 

Chaimlan. U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops 

Before lhe 

House Subcommit1ee on Immigralion and Border Security 

on 

March 14, 2013 
66


79881A4-2.eps

I am Archbishop Jose Gomez, Archbishop of Los Angeles, CA, and chairman of the U.S. 

Conference of Catholic Bishops' (USCCB) Committee on Migration. I testify today on behalf 

of the Committee of Migration on the Catholic Church's perspective on the immigration needs of 

spouses and children oflawful permanent residents (LPR). 

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to give a statement today on this important 

topic. I would like to thank Chairman Trey Gowdy and Ranking Minority Member Zoe Lofgren 

for holding this hearing on an issue that is of such vital importance to our nation. 

We are hopeful that today's hearing helps to ensure a process that will result in the enactment of 

comprehensive immigration reform that incorporates family-based immigration law principles. 

Our nation cannot wait any longer to repair our broken immigration system, which does not 

accommodate the migration realities we face in our nation today, or respect the basic human 

rights of migrants. 

In order to achieve real reform, the Obama Administration and Congress must work together on 

a comprehensive package that would provide a path to citizenship for undocumented migrants 

and their families in the U. S., provide legal means for migrants to enter our nation to work and 

support their families, and reform the system whereby immigrants come to the United States to 

reunite with close family members. 

Mr. Chairman, in January 2003, the U.S. and Mexican Catholic bishops issued a historic joint 

pastoral letter on the issue of migration entitled Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey 

of Hope. Among its many recommendations, it outlines the elements which the bishops of both 

nations believe are necessary to reform U.S. and Mexican immigration policy in a 

comprehensive and just manner. 

My testimony today will focus on many of the recommendations contained in the U.S.-Mexican 

bishops' joint letter. 

Specifically, my testimony recommends that Congress-

• Maintain the current family preference categories at adequate levels, including 3'" and 41h 

preferences to allow family members to unite within a reasonable period of time. 

• Reduce backlogs and waiting times in the family preference system so families can be 

reunited by moving the 2A category into immediate relatives, increasing per-country 

caps, and maintaining and using unused visas each year. 

• Maintain the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program. 
67


79881A4-3.eps

I. Catholic Social Teaching and Migration 

The Catholic Church is an immigrant church. More than one-third of Catholics in the United 

States are of Hispanic origin. The Church in the United States is also made up of more than 58 

ethnic groups from throughout the world, including Asia, Africa, the Near East, and Latin 

America. 

The Catholic Church has a long history of involvement in the immigration issue, both in the 

advocacy arena and in welcoming and assimilating waves of immigrants and refugees who have 

helped build our nation throughout her history. Many Catholic immigration programs were 

involved in the implementation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) in the 1980s 

and continue to work with immigrants today. In fact, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops 

(USCCB) was a national coordinating agency for the implementation ofIRCA We have a 

strong working relationship with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and with US 

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that would be largely responsible for 

implementing any new legalization and temporary worker programs. In 1988, the United States 

Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) established the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, 

Inc. (CLINIC) to support a rapidly growing network of community-based immigration programs. 

CLINIC's network now consists of over 212 members serving immigrants and their families in 

over 300 offices. 

The Church's work in assisting migrants stems from the belief that every person is created in 

God's image. In the Old Testament, God calls upon his people to care for the alien because of 

their own alien experience: "So, you, too, must befriend the alien, for you were once aliens 

yourselves in the land of Egypt" (Deut. 1017-19) In the New Testament, the image of the 

migrant is grounded in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. In his own life and work, Jesus 

identified himself with newcomers and with other marginalized persons in a special way: "I was 

a stranger and you welcomed me." (M!. 25:35) Jesus himself was an itinerant preacher without 

a home of his own as well as a refugee fleeing the terror of Herod. 

(M! 215) 

In modem times, popes over the last 100 years have developed the Church's teaching on 

migration. Pope Pius XlI reatlirmed the Church's commitment to caring for pilgrims, aliens, 

exiles, and migrants of every kind, affirming that all peoples have the right to conditions worthy 

of human life and, if these conditions are not present, the right to migrate.' Pope John Paul II 

states that there is a need to balance the rights of nations to control their borders with basic 

human rights, including the right to work "Interdependence must be transformed into solidarity 

based upon the principle that the goods of creation are meant for al1."2 In his pastoral statement, 

Ecc/esia in America, John Paul II reaffirmed the rights of migrants and their families and the 

need for respecting human dignity, "even in cases of non-legal immigration d 

1 Pope Pius XII, f.~ysul Familia (On Jhe Spiriiual Care (~f.Higranl,\), September, 1952. 

2 Pope Jolm Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, (On Social Concem) No. 39. 

1 Pope Jolm Paul II, Ecc1esia in America (The Church in America), January 22, 1999, no. 65. 

2 
68


79881A4-4.eps

In an address to the faithful on June 5, 2005, His Holiness Benedict XVI referenced migration 

and migrant families; ". my thoughts go to those who are far from their homeland and often 

also from their families; I hope that they will always meet receptive friends and hearts on their 

path who are capable of supporting them in the difficulties of the day." 

During his visit to the United States in April 2008, His Holiness Benedict XVI chose migration 

and immigration as one theme of his visit, citing the importance of keeping families together and 

addressing the issue not only nationally, but regionally and globally as well: "The fundamental 

solution is that there would no longer exist the need to emigrate because there would be in one's 

own country sufficient work, a sutllcient social fabric, such that no one has to emigrate. Besides 

this, short-term measures: It is very important to help the families above all." (Interview with 

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI on his flight to America, April 15,2008.) 

In our joint pastoral letter, the US and Mexican Catholic bishops further define Church teaching 

on migration, calling for nations to work toward a "globalization of solidarity." "It is now time 

to harmonize policies on the movement of people, particularly in a way that respects the human 

dignity of the migrant and recognizes the social consequences of globalization."" 

The U.S. and Mexican bishops also point out why we speak on the migration issue. As pastors, 

we witness the consequences of a failed immigration system every day in the eyes of migrants 

who come to our parish doors in search for assistance. We are shepherds to communities, both 

along the border and in the interior of the nation, which are impacted by immigration. 

For these reasons, the Catholic Church holds a strong interest in the welfare of immigrants and 

how our nation welcomes newcomers from all lands. The current immigration system, which 

can lead to family separation is morally unacceptable and must be refonned. 

It Policy Recommendations 

Mr. Chairman, the US Catholic bishops believe that any comprehensive immigration reform bill 

should be centered on family-based immigration principles. Family reunitication, upon which 

much of the U.S immigration system has been based for decades, should remain the cornerstone 

of US. immigration policy. Immigrant families contribute to our nation and help tonn new 

generations of Americans. Even while many migrants come to the United States to find 

employment, many come as families. In my testimony, I attempt to spell out in more detail our 

recommendations in this regard, as well as point out the family immigration policy provisions 

the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) would oppose in any immigration refonn 

bill. 

A. Retain Existing Family Preferences at Adequate Levels 

Mr.Chairman, the US. bishops strongly feel that the current structure of the family-based 

immigration system should be maintained. We understand that the subcommittee could consider 

eliminating certain categories, such as the third and fourth preference--adult married children 

4 S'trangers -,-Vo Longer: Together on the Journey afHope. A Pastoral Letter Concerning 1\figration fi'om 

the Catholic Bishops ojJ1exico and the United States, " January 23. 2003, n. 57. 
69


79881A4-5.eps

and brothers and sisters of U.S. ctttzens. For the sake offamily unity the USCCB asks that you 

maintain the third and fourth family-based preference, as married adult children and siblings are 

part of the family unit and are an important group in any family-based immigration reform effort 

The wait times for these particular categories are extremely long: for example, siblings of 

Filipino descent faces an almost twenty-four year wait to be reunited with a U.S Citizen sibling, 

and a married adult child of Mexican descent faces a twenty-year wait to be reunited with their 

U.S Citizen parent.' Siblings and married adult children are important parts of the family unit. 

Additionally, as I will explain, we ask that you eliminate the backlog in this category as well. 

Mr. Chairman, we are opposed to the inclusion of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) in 

comprehensive immigration reform legislation, which would add another category to the 

structure for persons in same-sex relationships. USCCB feels that this should not be part of the 

family-immigration debate. The addition of this category would erode the unique meaning of 

marriage by allocating spousal immigration benefits to persons in same-sex relationships. The 

inclusion of this provision would unnecessarily introduce controversy into an already divisive 

debate. We should not jeopardize the success of comprehensive immigration reform by using it 

as a vehicle to advance an issue that is already the source of polarizing debate in the states and in 

the courts. 

Mr. Chairman, we also oppose the introduction of a point system as a replacement for, or as a 

supplement to, the family-based system. During the 2007 immigration reform debate, the U.S. 

Senate strongly considered replacing the family-based immigration system with a "point" 

system, which would have allocated visas to applicants based on the number of points they 

scored on different criteria. This idea was based on the Canadian model, which currently 

employs that system. 

We oppose the imposition of such a point system, which we fear would place higher value on 

highly-educated and skilled immigrants than on family ties. We reject the premise that the 

family-based system has historically not worked in the best interest of this nation. Indeed, there 

is evidence that immigrant families represent the backbone of communities in this nation, 

especially in urban areas. They have started and maintained family businesses, from restaurants 

to dry cleaning stores and from auto mechanic businesses to pastry shops. Immigrant families 

also take care of each other and ensure that all members of the family are provided for, as well as 

contribute their talents to the strengthening of local neighborhoods. 

Family reunification has been the cornerstone of the U.S. immigration system since the inception 

of our republic. 11 would be foolhardy to abandon this system, as the family unit, based on the 

union of a husband and a wife and their children, represents the core of our society and culture. 

B. Reducing Existing Backlogs in Fami(v Categories 

The U.S. family-based immigration system, which helps keep families together, is in urgent need 

ofrefonll. The current visa quota system, last revised by Congress in 1990, established 

statutory ceilings for family immigration that are now inadequate to meet the needs of immigrant 

families wishing to reunite in a timely manner. The result has been waiting times on average of 

'Department of State, Visa Bulletin for January 2013, Number 52. Volume IX 

4 
70


79881A4-6.eps

eight years for adult children to be able to reunite with their U.S. Citizen parents, and the wait is 

currently twenty years for or more for the adult children of Mexican descent to reunite with their 

US Citizen parents" These "backlogs" create obstacles that force families to live for years apart 

without the ability to legally live with their loved ones. Such lengthy waiting times are 

unacceptable and actually provide unintentional incentive for some migrants to come to the 

United States illegally. Substantial changes must be made to the U.S. family-based immigration 

system so that it will meet the goal offacilitating, rather than hindering, family unity. Failure to 

address this problem will lead to renewed backlogs which once again will lead to illegal 

immigration and visa overstays. Eliminating the backlogs to individuals currently waiting will 

help to continue to promote family unity and family-based immigration principles and will also 

help prepare the way for implementing comprehensive immigration reform. 

Classify Spouses and Children of LPRs as Immediate Relatives. Currently, the spouses and 

minor children oflegal permanent residents (LPRs) are classified in family-based 

category/preference 2A. For individuals to legally immigrate to the United States under this 

category, the current wait is two and halfyears7 The wait time for the immediate family 

members of legally permanent residents is very difficult for families with minor children as it 

forces separated spouses to act as de facto single parents. The separation of immediate nuclear 

families is destructive to the family unit and creates family tension, pain and isolation. This 

particular type offamily separation has also been mentioned extensively as an obstacle that is 

currently keeping high skilled workers from working and settling down permanently in the 

United States 8 Due to the particularly close and important relationship between spouses and 

between parent and child, we advocate for a reclassification of spouses and minor children of 

LPRs to "immediate relative" status. This reclassification will enable a much quicker reduction 

of the backlog for this category and also will help to promote family unity as well as incentivize 

LPRs to remain and work in the United States. We believe that the visas in this category could 

be used, or "spill down" to other categories in the family-based system. 

Increase the per-country limits on annual visa quotas in this category. The current percountry limits for annual visas places a strict limit on the numbers that may come from certain 

countries, especially from emerging-market countries such as China, India, Mexico and the 

Philippines. Currently, iflegal permanent residents (LPRs) happen to be one from one of the 

above mentioned countries, they automatically and unfairly are subject to waits of nine to 

twenty-one years to be reunited with their adult children'" The USCCB believes in the sanctity 

of the family and the right of families to be together, regardless of which country family 

members originate. For this reason the USCCB advocates for an increase in the per-country 

limits on annual visa quotas in this category. 

6 Department of State. Visa Bulletin for Jmnmrv 2013. Number 52, Volume IX 

'Department of State. Visa Bulletin for Jammrv 2013. Number 52, Volume IX 

S Sec Hearing on the U.S. Immigration System Committee of the House Judiciary 

Tuesday, February 5. 2013. testimony afDI. Puneet Arord. Immigration Voice 

9 Department of State, Visa Bulletin for January 2013, Number 52. Volume IX 

5 
71


79881A4-7.eps

Recapture unused visas and roll-over the remaining unused visas into the next year. 

We ask that you examine recapturing the current visas that go unused and proposed that these 

annual unused and unclaimed family-based and employment-based visas should be re-utilized 

and a mechanism should be created and put in place that b'llarantees that future unused visas are 

not wasted. 

C Maintain the Dh'ersity Immigrant Visa Program 

We ask that you continue to operate the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program. The Di versity 

Immigrant Visa Program provides lawful permanent residence to immigrants from what are 

designated low-admission countries. Structured as a lottery system, the Program has a statutory 

annual numerical limitation of 55,000 visaslO for applicants from countries with low rates of 

immigration to the United States." Citizens from any country emigrating more than 50,000 

immigrants to the United States in the preceding five years are ineligible to receive benefits 

under the program." The Program offers many benefits to the United States and intended 

benetlciaries, such as cultural exchange and the furthering of the US.'s foreign policy interests. 

Additionally, the Program gives individuals hope for reunification with family in the United 

States. To this point, the USCCB has witnessed many instancesl3 where individuals have 

petitioned to come to the United States on family-based visas but have faced up to twenty year 

waits, particularly if they are the siblings or extended relatives of U.S. Citizens. Some 

individuals were able to apply for Diversity Visas and after many attempts were united with 

family members in the United States. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, we ask that you maintain 

the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program. 

III. Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the issue offamily-based 

immigration reform with particular focus on spouses and minor children ofLPRs. Now is the 

time to finally enact such reforms, and we must do it right. 

10 In 1997, Congress passed The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief 

Act (NACARA) which provides that up to 5,000 of diversity visas allocated each fiscal 

year be made available for use under the NACARA program. The reduction to 50,000 of 

available visas began with DV-2000. 

11 Pub. L. No. 101-649, § 131. 

12 Individuals from countries with more than 50,000 immigrants in the employment or 

family-based visa categories in the prior five years are not eligible. In FY 2011, 

individuals from the following countries were ineligible: Brazil, Canada, China, 

Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, 

Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, South Korea, United Kingdom, and 

Vietnam. 

13 Ambassador Johnny Young, Exccutive DircctororMigration Rdugec Services (MRS) orthe USCCB 

has testified about his personal experiences ,,,ith individuals \vho have been able to reunite ,vith their U.S. 

Citi:l.Cll rciati\,cs through the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program. Sec Ambassador Young Testimony on 

Diversity 11l1ll1i,grant Visa Program before the House Judiciary SubCOllunittee on Immigration Policy and 

Enforcement, AprilS_ 2011 (attached) 

6 
72


79881A4-8.eps

Mr. Chairman, we urge you and the committee to consider our recommendations as you consider 

the myriad issues in this vital area. We are hopeful that, as our public officials debate this issue, 

that migrants, regardless of their legal status, are not made scapegoats for the challenges we face 

as a nation. Rhetoric that attacks the human rights and dignity of the migrant are not becoming 

of a nation of immigrants. Neither are xenophobic and anti-immigrant attitudes, which only 

serve to lessen us as a nation. 

Mr. Chairman, the US. Catholic bishops strongly believe that family-base immigration reform 

should be a top priority within the comprehensive immigration reform debate for Congress and 

the Administration and should be enacted this year. We look forward to working with you and 

the administration in the days and months ahead to fashion an immigration system that upholds 

the valuable contributions of immigrants and reaffirms the United States as a nation of 

immigrants. Thank you for your consideration of our views. 

7 
73


79881A5-1.eps

March 13,2013 

An Open Letter to President Obama and to All Members of Congress 

We, the undersigned immigrants' rights, civil rights, and faith-based organizations, write to 

strongly urge you to protect and stren6>then the family-based immigration system as you develop 

immigration reform legislation. We believe that all families belong together, regardless of 

immigration status. Family is a cornerstone of American values but our broken system often 

hurts families by keeping loved ones apart for years through red tape, bureaucracy, and harsh 

enforcement tactics. 

As of November 2012, nearly 4.3 million loved ones are waiting in the family visa backlogs. 

Mexico has the largest backlog with more than 1.3 million close family members in line. Family 

members from Asian countries - the top four being the Philippines, India, Vietnam and mainland 

China - also face devastatingly long wait times, with more than 1.8 million loved ones combined 

waiting abroad for the chance to reunite. Some family members have been waiting years, even 

decades, to be reunited with their family in America. Forcing families to live apart for years and 

even decades is simply un-American. Imagine living apart from your spouse, daughter, son, or 

brother and sister for years, decades even. 

Strengthening the current family-based immigration system is good for our economy and is 

commonsense policy for the United States. A robust family-based immigration has significant 

economic benefits, especially for long-term economic growth of the United States. Family-based 

immigrants foster innovation and development of new businesses, particularly small and 

medium-sized businesses that would not otherw'ise exist, creating jobs for American workers and 

raising revenues for our recovering economy. Families also provide support and care for young 

children and the elderly, allowing others to focus on building the businesses and contributing to 

American society 

Our American values have been and should continue to be rooted in a strong family-based 

system. We strongly oppose any etTorts to further limit the definition of family and believe U.S. 

citizens deserve to be able to continue to sponsor their siblings and married children for legal 

permanent residence. Our country has had a long history of reuniting families, who are looking 

for new and prosperous opportunities in the U.S. An immigration system that truly reflects our 

nation's values must be inclusive by recognizing that strong families create a much-needed 

foundation for our communities and our economy to grow and succeed. 

We urge you to support commonsense solutions to improve and strengthen our family-based 

immigration system to help reunite American family members. 

Sincerely, 

Arab American Institute 

Asian American Institute, member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice 

Asian American Justice Center, member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice 

ASISTA Immigration Assistance 
74


79881A5-2.eps

American Immigration Council 

American Immigration Lawyers Association 

American Jewish Committee 

Asian Law Caucus, member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice 

Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO 

Asian Pacific American Legal Center, member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice 

Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations 

America's Voice Educational Fund 

Asian & Pacific Islander American HeaJth Forum (APIAHF) 

BPSOS 

Border Action Network 

Casa de Esperanza: National Latin@ Network 

Center for Community Change 

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) 

Causa, Oregon's Immigrant Rights Organization 

Church World Service 

First Focus Campaign for Children 

HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) 

Hmong National Development 

lllinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights 

Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota 

Immigrant LegaJ Resource Center (ILRC) 

Japanese American Citizens League 

Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) 

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights 

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service 

League of United Latin American Citizens 

NAPAFASA 

National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) 

National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum 

National CAPACD 

National Council of La Raza (NCLR) 

NALEO Educational Fund 

National Immigration Forum 

National Immigration Law Center 

National Korean American Service & Education Consortium (NAKASEC) 

National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance 

OneAmerica 

OCA- Asian Pacific American Advocates 

PICO National Network 

Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (pClJN) 

Sojourners 

South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) 

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC) 

Service Employees International Union 

Southern Poverty Law Center 
75


79881A5-3.eps

The Center for AP A Women 

The Episcopal Church 

The National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA) 

United Auto Workers 

United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) 

United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society 

United We Dream 

U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) 

Women's Refugee Commission 
76


79881A6-1.eps

I OOillTlOHlIR IIlJILINE IHMIGILOO' Blum OF WS AND 

March 13, 2013 

The Honorable Trey Gowcty 

Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Chairman 

2138 Rayburn Hoose ~1Ce Building 

Washington, 0( IOS15 

The Hooorable Zoe Lofgren 

R.ankino Member of Subcommittee on imml{jration and 80rder security 

1401 Longworth Hoose 0'f1Ce Building 

Washingtoo, DC 20515 

Re: Heating of the U.S, HOIl5e of Rl!presentat~ Judiciary Subcommittee on I mmigration 

and Border security: ftThe separation of Nuclear f amlHes under U.S. Immigration Laww 

The Coalition for Humar.e Imrnigr.lnt Rights cJ Los MQele.<i (CHIRLA) is a re;l1OIIa1 organiZiitioo whose 

miss'oon is to ad~arw::e the human and civil riqhts of immigrants and refugees In Los An9e1es. CHIRlA 

adYOOltes 00 behalf cJ tIIis community through jX)Iicy & a!tvocacy, OI'ganlllll\l, education and community 

building. On bellalf r:I: CHIRLA, I am writing to express our views on the uptomlng hearing on 

immiqration to be held 011 Marth 13 ill the House of RetyeSel1tativeS Judiciary Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security: "'The 5eparatioo of Nuclear Families under U.s. Immigration Law," 

We believe that immigration reform must 1o<:Iude a drrl!ct road map to full citi2enship for the 11 million 

people who aspire to be titlzens ane! that family unity must ~ a cornerstone ~ o;och refOOf!. Curr~t1y, 

our broken immigration system is hurting families by keeping loved ooes apart for years through red 

tJpe, burmocratV and draconian enforcement tactlc:s. 

Clne ~ t1Ie shortcomings or our Immigratloo System Is the outdated natlorlal origins quota w1th.ln the 

family visa system, which has not beeI1 updated for more. than two decades., For several yeilr5 now, the 

number of visas available by law each vear Is tess than the number of prospective Immi~rants Qetting in 

line to wait fer a visa, thereby exacemating an already harmful situation fer American families A recent 

report by the Natiorlal Asian American Survey Indicates that of tile f"PIe countries with the loogest 

baclO::lg5 for ~Isas, four ar1! In Asia. 

In addition to the inadeQuate VISa numbers that keeps familoes separated, ther1! ar1! ~al barners witl1in 

the turrent Immigration law tI1i1t prevent families from migrating through legal channels. Prominent 

examples, of these 1eO .. 1 barriers are what are known as the th.ree-year, ten year, and permanent bars. 

These proh ~t anyone who leaves the country after Ml'ing been here a minimum of 5i~ month.s without 

permission from re-entering the country for three years; those here for twelve months or more. are proolbited from re--entering the country for 1m years whi le certain individuals with molt.iple boo:Ier 

crossings are perman.ently barred from enby. This is regardll'!'>5 of whether they have Qualified for an 

immigrant visa through family or employer SPOnsorship Further, the Defense of Marnage Act (DOMA), 

which denies federal benefrts and protect:lons to legally married same~ COUples, acts as a barrer to 

family reuoif"1CiI1ioo and an individual's ability to SpOnSOr a sa~ SjXlUSe or partner for ~al res.k1ency 

anti eventual citizenship, 
77


79881A6-2.eps

OOillTlON FtlR IIlJIIm IHMIGILOO' RlGm OF WS AND 

Famll~ who are l115idlnQ In the U.S are also fearful ~ being !lE'parated due to the current draconian 

enforcement tactics that have resulted in mo<l': than 1.5 mWioo deportations since 2008. A signifICant 

number of Immigrants who were depoitl!d are parents of U.S. bom cI'oildren, it is estlmiIted that from Jut>,' 

2010 through September 2013 nearly 23% of all deportations were issued for parents With citizen 

children. 

We ur(je all the members of this subcommittee to brin!! forttl constructiVe ideas to this hearil1g to affect 

~ a POSitiVe way the current d&ourse on thE' debate on immigration reform. CHIRlA 15 committed III 

working with Membeis of Conoress towards rllling 001 Immigrant system with common sense solutions. 

We stronotv believe lIlal an immigration refOfTll proposal must guarantee that the prtIlciple of family unity 

Is engrained in all aSpects (/ Immigration law. To that end, we. urge the following principles to be 

embodied in any immigration reform proposal: 

~ (),oerhaul the current famUy visa system to reduce tile dreadful waiting period a!lll elCistlr'lJl 

badoo9S of ram~v-spoo5O(ed visas to fadlttilte a speedy reonlfocatloo for all families, 

... Ehmi nate discrimination i(l the current family VI501I system. Family \lisa system must not 

discriminate by race, country of oriqln, gender, sexual orientation, religious atrLlidtion, aqe, heillth 

or economic status. 

Invest re50UITes nd staff In U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to clear ~ existing 

baocklog or family visas and create a modern, cost-errective, and efficierlt ;m~gra ion process. 

" SafeQuard the intere5t!;; r:I children by immt'diateiy reuniting them with their p;!renlS arid 

guardians previooslv deported. 

If you hal'l! any (luesOOols, please contact lUta Medina at rmedina@lch1r1a.oro or Jo5I!ph Vi llela al 

lville!a@cbjrla,oro· 

Sincerely. 

Joseph V~leJa 

Director of Policy & AdI'OCMY 
78


79881A7-1.eps

AILA N.Jtiooal OHII;e 

SWIe 300 

1331 G Street. NW 

WashlrlQtoo, DC 

2000$-.]142 

Tel' 202.507.7600 : 202.183.78S3 

www.aila.ary 

--._-

t~ttl1l~ 1 Df tbt "muitl" In,,"iGrftlio n t.l wyt rs Auocia lioll 

S~ bmi ... d 10 th~ 

Commiuer Oil Ihr Jlldi i~ ry of Ih. U.S. 11 0111. of Rflln's.IIu lin ·, ~ll(o"""ill« 

o n (,umi!!r, ' ion Mnd Sordtr SN urit)' 

Hu ring un h 1". lIlU 

Th~ parlUi " of .... uelrur hmilie>; "ndtr U.S. Immigration ~ 

'The Ammcan Immigration Lawyers A.ooo.:ialioo lAlLA) submll$the followillg 

l<'Slim\»1y to Ih. Comminte on the Judicial)' AIL,\;s the national association of 

immigr1ltion laW)'crs ~-slabl;shed to promote jusliee~od advocate for fair and 

rtUOIlable immigr.nion law and jlI'lIlC)' AILA has ovrr 12.000 attorney and law 

professor m~mbtrs, 

f l mily unHic&lioo has Ilways be~'!1 the comers on~ of the U Siegal imrnigr1ltion 

$ySlem. K~ing f.,nilies SlrtNIg and united is a core national "lllueand inlcre>;l, 

Onder our tunent 01./1 dated system. unreasonable _nd unnece:lSllry backlogs have 

kept famil,es !i<pantted for years A properly ,,'orking family41ased immigration 

.ysten, is fO\lnd~lioO\aJ 10 ~nSllre Ihnt finure gcncmtioni of illlnlj!Vllnt families 

cOnlinuc their track record \Ie SUCct:8S in building up .... merica. 

F'Atnily41as;cd immigntdoo ii nm only about ~cepinl! close- falll,ly mClnbeu rogcrber 

Wh~n it wor~s proper1y. il funhers America's economic and social imt'1l:Sts while 

.dvaneing fundamenraJ American value._ Often times. inunigranr. whu..m~e 

Ihowgh 'he family_based >1)'_""''' have employable .kills or are business innovaror~ 

thcm>cl ve!I. M\lre!fvcr. ~ludie!i have 511m~n that ,105e family relationships facilj ~rc 

L1l1reprelll,urship bec.u>c family Olt"lbe1'5 CIIl' suppan i" caring for c~ildref\ and 

working in ramily-c:'wrn....J businessc:o 

Unfonunately. the current immigration SYSlell1 has kept families separated and 

uncenain aboollh";r furureihrol'.05it backlOW' ""d delays, A popuillf misc""t~'Prion 

IIboutthe immigTlllion system is that family member~ who woold like 10 imm!lP1Inl 

can ~ill1ply gel into a line to obtain a visa. and then get tlt eir gre.m card in a 

rearonable period o:fti",c. Apan flQnl immediale relatives of U.S_ citizm'<. dO'lc 

family members of-U S dtllens and letal permanent residents"re forced to naVigale 

txtremely long o;klays in the visa applicalicm process due 10 the insufficiency (>fllle 

"umb~ror viSllS a,,~jlable per yeO! - numb."., "hieh wen::iet by ('OI'gr~ in lQ<)() 

For-example. a U.S_ citizen pHrent typically h., to wait about5e\'en years to brin!! an 

adult child, .Imost :!(J year.; (or th<>se comins from 1\.Ie.~ko Brorhrr5 and si,\t~rs of 

U S ci i~ens typically w~;1 about !2 )'ears. alm<JS1 Z4 years r", those coo';ng fru'" 

the Philippines. Th~:Se IOrtg d~lays CI~ate un~er1alnty and b"r~ns for families as th~r 

weigh moving forward in the,r lives with the n\pacllif~ deciiions wi!! h~, e 00 rh~;r 

applicali()fl In the c~ofN (5\."I; Appendi ~ C.:ie Exalllpl~ fll). aile! waiting ror ~ 

yean on her p;m:nt>,' petition for Iocr. she decidod 10 1'.1<1 married. "hieb \'oided the 

p..'1ition She now h1>$ to wait 8t lea,l 8 deOlde lojoin them 
79


79881A7-2.eps

Creating a rational, orderly, effective system that comports with 21 st century realities are 

essential for America. The US. has long benefited from family-based immigration to strengthen 

economic resources, enhance the cultural melting pot, and bolster democracy, all which needs to 

continue as we embrace new challenges and competition 

Moving forward in reform, it is essential not to undermine one of the most important sources of 

immigrant strength and vitality - their broad-based families. Our family-based immigration 

system should work to reunite loved ones and provide stability to families. It should also reflect 

our values of fairness and inclusion, and reflect the realities of close ties and relationships that 

exist among family members beyond spouses and minor children. The ties that hold together 

siblings or elderly parents and adult children cannot be dismissed. Siblings and adult sons and 

daughters are in some cases, the closest family tie to a US. citizen or lawful permanent resident. 

In the case of Susan (See Case Example #2), the bacldog in visas available to siblings keep 

Susan and her brother, her closest remaining family tie, separated, a separation felt more 

poignantly in the last 6 years with the deaths of parents and a grandparent. The current familybased system is insufficient to meet the needs offamilies and requires improvements such as the 

expansion of family categories and the addition of visa numbers. 

Proposals to strip away support by eliminating or restricting family-based immigration would 

tear apart existing family structures and foster social isolation and disconnection, rather than 

acculturation. Yet, some proposals call for limitations in the family-based visa categories in 

order to increase employment visa categories This approach is premised on the faulty 

assumption that American can only absorb a fixed number of immigrants at a given time when in 

fact, our nation's needs are constantly changes - sometimes expanding and other times 

contracting. Adult children and siblings have been shown to have a direct impact on immigrant 

entrepreneurship. They help build family-owned businesses. They also provide critical care for 

elderly parents and minor children 

The social and economic benefits that family-based immigration has provided America are 

numerous. And, because of the immeasurable value added to our communities by immigrants 

with existing family ties, the benefits of family-based immigration cannot be measured in 

comparison to the benefits of employment-based immigration. America benefits the most when 

the family- and employment-based systems are each working effectively. And a well-functioning 

family-based system strengthens the employment-based system by allowing workers to maintain 

their family unit in the U.S. Less family-friendly policies may dissuade high-skilled immigrants, 

who also have families, from choosing to invest in America's economy with their talents and 

resources. Our immigration system must be flexible and capable of meeting the needs of both 

American businesses and families. 

Other critically needed improvements in the system include: 

Re-classifying the children and spouses of lawful permanent residents as "immediate 

relatives" allowing them to immediately qualify for a visa 

Recapturing unused family-based and employment-based visas that were authorized but 

not allocated due to bureaucratic delay. 

Increasing the per country limits offamily visas from 7% to at least 15% to help ease 

family green card backlogs 

Allowing same-sex partners to reunite 

Allowing orphans, widows and widowers to immigrate despite death of a petitioner. 
80


79881A7-3.eps

Appenrlix- Case Examples 

Case Example #1 N 

N is the daughter ofM and J, from Thailand. After immigrating to the US in the 1990's based on 

M's skill as a traditional Thai chef, M and J opened their own Thai restaurant. In 2002, they filed 

a petition for their adult daughter, N, to immigrate and join them. N was over the age of 21 when 

M and J immigrated initially, and therefore, could not accompany them to the U.S. for M's job. 

By the time the petition on N's behalf was approved in 2005, the "priority date" in the category 

for an unmarried daughter of a lawful pennanent resident was backlogged to 1995. M and J 

considered naturalizing, but between the demands of running their own restaurant and the high 

cost of the application fees, did not do so until 2010. 

In 2009, however, N decided to get married. As a married daughter of permanent residents, her 

parent's immigrant petitions became immediately void, and she lost her place in the immigrant 

visa quota bacldog, losing 5 years of priority 

M and J have now become US citizens and have re-filed immigrant petitions for their married 

daughter, but their priority date of January 2013 is in a category that is backlogged to July of 

2002, meaning that it will be at least a decade or more before their daughter canjoin them. 

Case Example #2 Susan 

Susan, came to the US. on a student visa in August 1988 She completed a graduate degree and 

was sponsored for an H-IB visa and later, a green card by a corporation. She became a 

permanent resident in 1993, worked, and paid taxes. In 1998, Susan made a commitment to the 

United States, took the oath of allegiance, and became a naturalized citizen. After Susan became 

a citizen, she filed a petition for her mother Susan's mother was later diagnosed with breast 

cancer and died in 2007 

In February 2006, Susan filed a sibling petition (I-nO) for her brother Tim. Though their stepfather was deceased and their mother was fighting cancer, Susan's brother was a detennined 

university student. Susan was working long hours in the U.S. and trying to provide support to 

her brother and her mother from afar. The family determined that it would be best for Susan and 

her brother to be together. As of April 2013, green cards are available to brothers and sisters of 

U.S. citizens who began the process in April of2001, five years before Susan began the process 

for her brother. To date, a visa has not been made available and, during the almost decade-long 

wait, Susan's brother finished a bachelor's degree 

Susan and her brother are very close, and given the age difference between them, Susan has 

always helped to take care of him. Once she settled in the U.S., Susan would visit her family 

every year. She called her family weekly and wrote to her brother frequently. Each school year, 

she bought him a new supply of clothes, books, and educational toys. When Susan's brother was 

12 years old, he traveled to the U.S. to spend Christmas with her. The following year, he spent 

the summer with his sister. He has made many visits to the U.S. since that time. In the past six 

years, Susan and her brother have experienced three deaths of parents and a grandparent -it has 

been a difficult time for them to be apart They maintain contact through weekly calls, either via 

regular phone lines, Skype, or F acebook. 
81


79881A8-1.eps

ASIAN AM ERICAN 

JUSTICE CENTER 

Mt:.MiUROf 

"'~IAN I\Ivll)tILI\N crNnl~ 

rUR AOVANc:lNCi I\lnu.- , 

Wrill~TI ll ,"~nl of MeeMoQII 

Presid:enl grul ~eculiVl': Direttor 

Aliiu, II1 ~r n Justice Cenler, 

A MCIIlI}er of the A8 i:m American Center for "lI in g J U$lice 

lIouse ClJlnmiUce (I ll Ih" Judiriliry 

ubfDlll miU ~c nn ImmigMltiOIl yot! Bu .... ler S"'t LlrilY 

Hearing un: "The Sellanllion ufN uclur F~milir$ Under U.S. Inllnigralion Llw" 

Mllrch 14,2\11 3 

Today 'hI." Hou5C SlIbcollllllilice on Immigration and Border Security will hold a hearing tilled 

"The Scp;tmtion of Nuclear FnmiJies Under O.S. Immigrntion Law.~ On behalf of lhe Asiun 

A.Jllerican Ju.slj"" Ceol" r (AAJC) lind lbc other affillale members' of the Asian American Center 

fM Adv~tlcing Justice. 8 non-profit. non-partisan affiliation representing lhe Asian American lind 

J'aci fic Islander (AAYI) eO!nn)Unity on civil and human ri~hlS issues. we thank you for holding 

this imJl!lrtant hl'llring. We urge you to use lod:lY's hl:llring to focus on pusitive cummonSCl1!1e 

solutions for our broken inlmigratiOIl system so that J'itmiJies are kepI together!U)d tiM fnmily 

lllunificatiol1 remaios a tradition in Allterica's immigr.uion system, 

Families arc the h3ekbonc. of our country IOnd their unity promotes the smbility. health. and 

productivity of family members contributing \() the economic and sodal wclflll't: of the United 

States as 3 whole.. In addition, the ability tQ reunite with family members is important to 

allrru:ting nnd retaining the mostlalen.ted and hardest working immigrants the world has 10 offer. 

Our current immigratioo system is built on the Americw! v31ues of family by llliowing 0 family 

member who is D United Slales citizen or permanent TCSi dent to SPOil sur their close loved ones!\l 

come to the U.S. Qualifying rclationships ure grouped into tWO moin categories - immediate 

relatives and other close family members. Cnm:mly. under Ihe law. spouses, unmarricd minor 

children. and parents of U.S, citizens are conside red ~immediate relali\'es." Olher close fwnily 

members of citizens and legal permaucnt residents (also calk'll "green card holders" ur "LPRs") 

lire also allowed to immigmte. Thes<: indude unmurried adult children of citizens. spouses and 

unmarried children of pcnnaltent "!sidellts. married adult childn.~! of citizcns. and brothers and 

sisters of cit;Y.l:IlS. 

CUm'lltly. the annual ceiling for fami.ly-ba.scd imlnigr.ltilln is 480.000 individuals per )'car. This 

nUlnbt!r is divided into immediate rdatives of U,S. eili;r.cns as well as the clu~ fltn!ily mcmbt!rs 

in the lour dUTerell! fami ly prefcrt:ncl:S list~'(1 above. There is also p c~p on how mUIlY pe()ple are 

, hi odd'l;"" 10 A ... JC. tho othe, "",",be .. or the .... '311 "'""",oon Conte, IDt AdvolIC;"£Ju.,ic.",,, ...... n Au,e,kan 

In.tiM. in Chiugo. A,i.,. LIIw eo"" .... in s.,,, !'""",io"n •• ,'" A'''n Pacific Anlefican t"'gat CI."nicr in !.os Ango!c!;. 
82


79881A8-2.eps

allowed into the United States from anyone country. A combination of these visa ceilings as 

wdl as the per-country cap often contributes to long waits for the average immigrant [amily. 

As of November 2012, nearly 4.3 million close family members were waiting in the family visa 

backlogs. Latino and Asian American families arc most impacted by these long backlogs. O[the 

nearly 4.3 million family members in the backlogs, more than 1.3 million are from Mexico 

alone. Other countries including the Dominican Republic and El Salvador also have 

significantly large numbers of family members waiting to join loved ones in the U.S. Some 

family members have been waiting years, even decades, to be reunited with their family in 

America. Forcing families to live apart for years and even decades is simply unAmerican. Imagine living apart from your husband or wife or daughter or son for years, decades 

even. These lengthy separations are heart -breaking and strain familial ties. 

Asian American Families Are Disproportionately Impacted By Our Broken System 

The family immigration system is a critical part of our immigration system and a very important 

issue to the Asian American community. U.S. immigration policy has directly impacted our 

community dating back to 1882 when Congress explicitly prohibited Chinese Americans from 

settling in the U.S. It would take Congress another 80 years before fully repealing these 

exclusionary laws. As a result, approximately 60% of Asian Americans m'e foreign born, the 

highest proportion of any racial group nationwide. 

Our curTent system dispropOltionatcly hanns Asiml Americml families, resulting in massive 

backlogs mld heartache. While Asian Americans make up a growing population of 6% in the 

lJ .S., they sponsor more than one third of all family-based immigrants. Of the almost 4.3 million 

close family members of U.S. citizens mld legal permanent residents waiting Lo be reunited with 

their loved ones, over 1.8 million m'e AAPI. Of the (op five countries with the largest backlogs, 

which include potential active members to our society including high-skilled mld low-wage 

workers, four are Asian nations - the Philippines, India, Vietnam, and China. 

Immigrants like Mm;chris Arce fTom the Philippines, now a naturalized U.S. citizen, know 

firsthand the impact of the broken family system. Ms. Arce was separated from her parents mld 

yowlger siblings for six yem's while she wailed for her visa to be processed. She later married 

and lived an ocean away from her husband for seven years for the same rcason. Due to the 

difficulty in obtaining a visa, Marichris' husband missed the bilth of their first child and only 

saw his daughter for six weeks each year for the first four years oflheir daughter's lifc. 

Family-Based Immigration Benefits American Communities and Businesses 

Protecting and strengthening the current family-based immigration system is economically sound 

policy for the U.S. Family-based immigration has signilicant economic benefits, especially [or 

long-tenn economic growLh. Family-based immigrants foster innovation and development of 

new businesses, particularly small and medium-sized businesses that would not otherwise exist, 

creating jobs for American workers. 

2 
83


79881A8-3.eps

Family membcrs help to take care of young children and elderly parcnts so that other family 

mcmbers can focus on working and building businesses. Brothers and sisters support each 

other's dreams, help each other find jobs and provide both emotional and financial support and 

care for each other's families. Improving our family-based immigration system will malce the 

U.S. even more attractive to employment-based immigrants who may want the flexibility to 

bring loved oncs to the U.S. once they are established here. Workers who have the support and 

encouragement of their family members are more likely to be productive and successful as they 

strive to integrate into our communities. Lengthy family separations arc strcss/hl and take a 

personal toll on workers. It forccs many immigrant workers who are separated fi'om their 

finnilies to send money overseas rather than being able to invest all of it in their local 

communitics. 

America has always recognized that family members play an important role in helping 

immigrants build commlmities. Fanlily mcmbers help new Americans integrate into our 

commlmities and become part of our national fabric. They provide an important safety net, not 

just for the immigrants but also for the U.S. citizen relatives. They take care of one another in 

times of economic, physical or emotional hardship. 

Immigration Is Not A Zero-Sum Gllme 

Our current family-based immigration system has not been reiclImed in over twenty years, and 

now we have an outdated system that docs not reflect our current reality. Some havc proposed 

drastically changing the current family-based immigration system. But any proposed reforms 

should reflect our values as a nation and ensure diversity, inclusion and the protection of simple 

human rights. While the backlogs are tndy a problem in that they separate and keep families 

apart, one simple solution is to raise the number of available visas to meet the demand of 

immigrants and their fmnilies waiting in the United States. 

Eliminating the family immigration categories or limiting the scope of families will only create 

greater strain on families and leave people with no legal means to reunite with their loved ones. 

Americans should not have to choose between living and working in the U.S. with no family 

support and living in a country that offers little to no opportunities for families. Brothers and 

sisters, along with children of all ages are an inextricable part of any fmnily. Denying this 

imposes upon many immigrants an wlaceeptably narrow concept of family, and dowuplays the 

valuable contributions made by all family members. Any policy that would permanently keep 

parents from children and brothel'S and sisters from each other goes against our identity as a 

nation, which has always recognized the importance of family unity. All fanlilies, including 

LGBT families, should bc given thc opportunity to work and live togcther to aehievc the 

American dream. 

The current proccss for family sponsorship is a long and rigorous onc, and hardly an open door. 

Researchers have found that, on average, an inunigrant will bring in 2.1 additional immigrants? 

One of the limitations on the ability of immigrants to bring in family, in addition to the strict 

2 See e.g, Bin Yu, "Immigration Multiplier: A New Method of Measuring the Immigration Process," Population 

Association of America, 2006 Meeting. hUD:/lpaal006.princcLofu:Ju/download.asp:>. ?SUblllissionld 6 I 643 
84


79881A8-4.eps

quota assigucd eaeh category, is that our laws require the spousor of a family member to sign an 

affidavit of support guaranteeing they will take care of the family member being brought in. 

Sponsors must also prove they have enough income to cover that pledge. This provides a limit on 

sponsorship and a strong incentive [or the sponsors to help ensure the family member they are 

bring in will integrate and be self-sufficient. Opponents of immigration often claim, mistakenly, 

that each immigrant can bring in extended family members, such as cousin, uncles, and aunts. 

That simply is not true. 

As we see in our own communities across the nation, family-based immigrants contribute greatly 

to the U.S. economy by developing areas and businesses that would not otllerwise be developed. 

Arguments made for high-skilled immigrants at the expense of family-based immigrants do not 

take into account that "[m]any of the immigrants we associate with financial success and 

entrepreneurial spirit actually immigrated to the U.S. through their family relationships, not their 

skills. For example, Sergey Brin, the founder of Googlc, moved to the U.S. with his 

mathematician parents when he was six years old. Similarly, Pien'e Omidyar, the founder of 

eBay, was bom in Paris to Iranian parents and arrived in the U.S. as a young child. Jerry Yang, 

founder of Yahoo, came to the U.S. at age 10 with his family.,,3 These arc just a few examples. 

According to a report by the Partnership for New American Economy, over forty percent of the 

2010 Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants. Any 

proposal that aims to dismantle the family immigration system in the name of the U.S. economy 

does not understand the actual needs of American businesses, small and large. 

Commonsense Policy Solutions 

Our American values demand a stTong family-based system. Since our country's founding, entire 

families would immigrate to the U.S. in search for 0ppOitunity. forcing families to live apart for 

years and even decades is simply un-American. An inunib'Tation system that truly reflects our 

nation's values must recognize that strong families, including LGBT families, create a muchneeded foundation for our communities and our economy to grow and prosper. 

We urge the Subcommittee to c011Sider positive solutions such as those contained in H.R. 717, 

the Reuniting Families Act, which was recently introduced by Representative Mike Honda and 

61 cosponsors, and has long been supp01ted in the Senate. The bill contains commonsense 

re[on11S that are needed to help Americans reunite with their loved ones but at the sanle time 

preserves and enhances the current family-based system. 

We look forward to working with (he Subcommittee as it develops and moves immigration 

reform legislation through Congress. 

Thank you. 

3 RehootiJ1K the American Dream, 'l1w Role (?f immigration in a 21s1 Century Economy, Immigration Policy Center, 

Retrieved March 12,2011, from hltn:/.\v\\·w.iIlHTli(lrutionpolicy.oro/siic,..,/uc!~nJ111filcs/docs!fPC 

_Rebooting the. l:\.merica_n Dream 1 lOBIt.pdf 

4 
85


79881A9-1.eps

Written STaTement of Antonio M. Ginalta 

Atlvoca(y Di rector, US Pragram 

Humiln Rights Watch 

" 

the US Heuse ef Representatives, Committee on the Judicia,,!. 

Subcommit1ee on Immigration and Berder Security 

HearinK on: The Separation of Nuclear Families under US ImmiKration Law 

Mardi 14. l013 
86


79881A9-2.eps

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcomm ittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement 

on today's hearing on the separation of nuclear families under US immigration law. Human Rights 

Watch is an independent organization dedicated to promoting and protecting human rights 

around the globe. We have been reporting on abuses in the US immigration system, including 

violations of the right to family unity, for over 20 years. On February 1, we issued a briefing paper 

entitled, _",=c.~~''-~.'''''''_'~'='C''C='."''_~~''"''===.'''',:_=''''''=''-''.'_''''"""c,"""".,~cc=:="-"~ 

t~oDlii'::" which we wish to submit for the record.' Our testimony will discuss a number of the 

recommendations that are developed in greater detail in the briefing paper, and which we think 

should guide any effort to reform our current, deeply flawed, immigration system. 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "[tlhe family is the natural and fundamental 

group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.'" Family unification has 

rightly been at the heart of discussions about US immigration policy for over 50 years. A 

commission appointed by Congress to study immigration policies in 1981 concluded, 

"Reunification of families serves the national interest not only through the humaneness of the 

policy itself, but also through the promotion of the public order and well-being of the nation. 

Psychologically and socially, the reunion of fam ily members ... promotes the health and welfare of 

the United States."3 

Yet for years, the current US immigration system has split up countless families and left others to 

live under the constant threat of separation. 

The United States is home to 40 million immigrants~l1 million of whom are unauthorized.' Nearly 

17 million people live in families in which at least one member is an unauthorized 

'''Within Reach" can also be downloaded at http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/02/01/us-immigration-reform-shaulduphold·rights. 

'Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted December 10,1948, G.A. Res. 217A(lII), U.N. Doc. A/810 at 71 (1948), 

ort.16(3), 

J US Select Committee on Immigration and Refugee Policy, "U.S. Immigration Policy and the National Interest," 1981, p. 

112, quoted in Chris Duenas, "Coming to America: The Immigration Obstacle Facing Binational Same-Sex 

Couples," Southern California Law Review, vol. 1'3 (2000), pp. 811-841. 

"Pew Hispanic Center, "Unauthorized Immigrant Population: National and State Trends, 2010," February 1, 2011, 

http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133,pdf (accessed January 8,2013). The Pew Hispanic Center updated its 

estimate of the unauthorized immigrant population more recently to 11.1 million in 2011. Pew Hispanic Center. 
87


79881A9-3.eps

immigrant.' Despite these family relationships, most unauthorized immigrants have no realistic 

way to gain legal status under existing law, Some of these immigrants have valid applications for 

legal status filed by their US citizen or permanent resident family mem bers, but low numerical 

limits for family visas and processing inefficiencies have led to a massive backlog, An adult son or 

daughter from Mexico, for example, may wait almost 20 years after a petition is filed by a US 

citizen parent. This backlog creates tremendous pressure throughout the immigration system, 

leading to increased illegal immigration and visa overstays. 

Others are ineligible to apply for legal status, despite their family relationships, because of the 

length of time they have been in the US without status or because of the way in which they entered 

the country. Even spouses of US citizens, if they entered unlawfully, cannot gain legal status 

without leaving the country-and that can trigger alO-year bar to returning. A common 

misconception is that having a US citizen child can enable an unauthorized immigrant to 

immediately gain legal status. A US citizen can apply for a parent to gain permanent resident 

status only once he or she turns 21, and even then a parent who has been in the US without status 

for over a year will have to leave the country and wait 10 years to apply for legal status. A recent 

change in administrative policy will allow some relatives (excluding parents of US citizens) to 

apply for a waiver of the la-year bar, which requires proof of extreme hardship to a US citizen 

relative, before leaving the country. But this change only gives people the option of applying for 

the waiver in advance and is limited to a srnall number of unauthorized immigrant Family 

members. It does not eliminate the general bar most relatives face to gaining legal status. 

Moreover, some immigrants are completely barred from getting a visa through their US citizen 

spouse or partner due to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which excludes lesbian and gay 

couples from the US government's definition of "spouse.'" Thousands of US citizens and their 

foreign same-sex spouses or partners face enormous hardships, separation, and even exile 

because this discriminatory policy deprives these couples of the basic right of family unity. This 

policy not only separates loving partners from one another, it also splits parents from children 

(many of whom are US citizens). Data from the 2000 census showed that almost 16,000 

"Unauthorized Immigri::lnt~: 11.1 Million in 2011," December 6,2012, 

http:/ jwww.pewhispanic.orgj2012/ 12/a6/unauthorized-immigrants-11-1-miHion-in-2011 (accessed January 8, 2013). 

; Ibid. 

G Human Rights Watch, Family Unvulued: Discrimination, Deniill, and the Fate of Binational Same-Sex Couples Under 

u.s. law, May 2, 2006, hltp://www.hrw.org/reportS/2006/oS/01/family·unvalued-o. 

3 
88


79881A9-4.eps

binational, same-sex couples (46 percent of the total) reported having children in their 

householdJ Each of these households represents a real family, whose lives are made difficult and 

uncertain by discriminatory US immigration policy. 

This policy violates the basic human rights of freedom from discrimination and respect for family 

life. To disregard same·sex relationships for immigration purposes sends a message, as the South 

African Constitutional Court put it, "that gays and lesbians lack the inherent humanity to have 

their families and family lives in such same-sex relationships respected or protected .... The impact 

constitutes a crass, blunt, cruel and serious invasion of their dignity.'" 

Under current imm igration law, most unauthorized immigrants with US citizen family members are 

under a constant threat of deportation. in most cases, immigration judges are not even 

empowered to take family unity into account. Non·permanent residents who have resided in the 

US for 10 years, have good moral character, and can demonstrate a US citizen or permanent 

resident spouse, child, or parent, would suffer "exceptional and unusual hardship" in the event of 

deportation are eligible to apply for "cancellation of removal" and receive permanent resident 

status. But such cancellation is capped at only 4,000 per year and the "exceptional and unusual 

hardship" standard, instituted in the 1996 amendments, is meant to encompass hardship that is 

substantially beyond what would normally result from family separation. Even under the existing 

standard, grant rates vary widely across the country, and Congress has severely lim ited judicial 

review of these decisions, which would help maintain greater consistency. 

The limits of existing law are evident in the fact that in just the past two years, the US government 

has carried out over 200,000 deportations of people who said they had US citizen children. 9 These 

parents have almost no way to return legally. immigrants can be barred from the US for 10 years, or 

for life, if they leave after having been in the country for at least a year without autilorization. 

7Ibid., p. 176. 

8 National Coalition for Gav and Lesbian Equalitv Clnd others v Ministry of Home Affairs and Others, Constitutional Court 

of South Africa, CCT lOi99, at 54 acd 42. 

') Seth Freed Wessler, "Nearly 20SK Deportations of Parents of US Citizens in Just OverTwQ Years,"C%rfines, December 

17. 2012, http://co!orlines.comj archives!2o 12/12/us_deports_more_tha n_2ook_parents.html (accessed January 22, 

2013). 

4 
89


79881A9-5.eps

Immigration law is particularly harsh on people who face deportation after criminal convictions, 

even for lawful permanent residents convicted of minor or old offenses. Amendments that went 

into effect in 1996 stripped immigration judges of much of the discretion they once had to balance 

family unity against the seriousness of the crime. As a result, many lawful permanent residents, 

after serving whatever sentence is imposed by the criminal justice system, feel they are further 

punished with exile. If they return without permission to the US, they are often charged with the 

federal crime of ilIega: reentry, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. 

Recommendations: 

Adjust the country quotas and number of family-based preference visas available to reduce 

the current backlog. 

Allow non-citizens eligible for a family visa to apply for adjustment without having to leave the 

country and triggering unlawful presence bars, and expand the waiver provisions to allow 

waiver of the unlawful presence bars if a person can prove extreme hardship to a US citizen 

child. 

End the discrimination against binational same-sex couples and ensure that they receive the 

same recognition and treatment afforded to binational opposite-sex couples in US immigration 

policies providing for family unification. 

o In particular, allow foreign, same-sex permanent partners or spouses of US citizens to 

be recognized as "spouses" under US immigration law. 

Restore and expand the power of judges to consider family unity in any removal decision by 

removing the cap on cancellation of removal for non-permanent residents and by returning to 

the pre-1996 standard of "extreme hardship" to the non-citizen or to the non-citizen's spouse, 

parent, or child. 

Restore discretion to immigration judges to weigh evidence of rehabilitation, family ties, and 

other equities against a crim inal conviction in deciding whether to deport lawful permanent 

residents. 

Allow for judicial review of decisions involving waivers based on hardShip to families. 

Create avenues for immigrants who are currently inadmissible to apply for permission to gain 

legal status if they have lawfully present family in the US and can currently demonstrate good 

moral character. 

Ensure that unauthorized immigrants who under existing law may be barred from the United 

States, such as for immigration offenses or criminal convictions, are given the opportunity to 

5 
90


79881A9-6.eps

overcome these bars and apply for legalization if they are able to offer evidence of current 

good moral character, long residence in the United States, Family ties, military service, and 

similar factors in their favor. 

6 
91


79881A10-1.eps

Statements from members of the Interfaith Immigration Coalition for the 

House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and 

Border Security Hearing: "The Separation ofNuc1ear Families Under 

U.S. Immigration Law" 

March 14,2013 

Statements submitted from: 

1. American Friends Service Committee 

2. American Jewish Committee (AJC) 

3. Church World Service 

4. Disciples of Christ 

5. The Episcopal Church 

6. Franciscan Action Network 

7. Friends Conmrittee on National Legislation 

8. Lutheran llmrrigration and Refugee Service 

9. Sojoumers 

lO.The United Methodist Church 
92


79881A10-2.eps

* Amet'lcan Friends 

Service Committee 

"""'~Cln Ff1end. Servlc. Commll .... talernonl fori"" Cong .... IO/UII R..,Ofd 

pert.lnlng 10 tho !lou ... 01 Re"'""""'llves Judlclal)l Committee -

tn-vnlllralion an<! Border s.wrll~ SubcommlnN 

Thursday, March 14. lOll 

Th •. Am .. iu~ .... ocI. _ COf'''''''''' (.l,FSt;f l<'n "m .. " 1lO~, 010 I';,M,._ <>rp.-",1001 rr<><md<6 ;n QIo,oi,., b<I;..f in ,110 Gl&oIIv.O<I WOIlh 01 .... v _ . M'iC ",,,,,Id,,,, d;'Kl I 'o!f>i<M ~ ."1...: ... 1/1 

...... "'UIIil .. '!lI "'_,.nt>." 011,., .~ wiln odvo<M'/ "'d """"""",.1 ~ U".....-, , .. u.~ W. ~;, .. 'IV 'UI>-' ""m'c'''''' , N! '"' __ !(o" . net th@ir« ••• "",""_to,,,,""''''''''''"'''''"', 10 -" out ...... ;~ ,1>01< "'LIe< .. ' "''''Y 10 . 1I1.m ,,,-."", .. r"... .ntI _. on<!." <00 ....... '0 "'''H"""ib'''''''''' ,,, 

'."0>1 .... , 

Ou'~"'"I"'" policy tKO •• ""."<lOI ...... ~ crw_'" uSC'. h~o'" ........ " OJ' J~lI.-"",.o 

.","".,,"" .nd '" t ... ...,' .... of tilt COM"'''''''' orIlII_ w .... _lIlY """"'<It<!, W .......... ,n", "" .. ~. 0' lH "'m",,,1<><1 s><>~,_ld W II«! "''''oct''''' 01 , ...... " 'i&tI"''''' ._1 _"n;,.,. rot "<'U<I~~ 'h" ..... " '" '"" tor,.., "'"Of"""'" '.",iIIo<> 0" ,_""",I!;"', 1fIo"" .. ......,.',,"'" pol"", .... , 

"'<'fi~I'" Ill<- ........ 11 ",po~ anO .aluabl~,"" of I .... ~ ,0<>1>'1 """POri!,,. ,~ontfI< l'Oft 01 """""am and 

",I".", bmU,.... 

roo .... , ~oo'O>J"'.\.~ ~ millon _. 1&0.0 'n mlo.~ _I' ........... I ... ,,",, 1Il0l , .. ho<k U,S, boon ,"'I<I"n ..... ""'"''''''~od , ... "'1' ....... T~.o,e 1_.1;"" .. r ... 01 ""'1-""" w ... , .. "'" _ ...... 1 ~ ""'~"""'" 

..... 'hOI ""~ !.mT\y unln 0,,"", Tho 1"'"''"''''''' , .. ~ .... 'n''''''' I' ....... "" on _1e1~ ,' ........ .,.\ ''''1 .,!>!I,.,III' co'" I~ """,bet 01 "' ... "",Job!< .O<~ .. " Wllboul "".,G 10""";' 01 r..,,' ......... fl<.100ll .. 

"'''~M ., ........... M ..... I,," "'!~"'IIOIO<'/ 'ON"'O ~Q'Oo .. ,~. ,~. of ' '''' ""~nted 110II1II., ..... .. 

mo""''''m,."nu- "!><,<,,Ul' _n -! ... ttIt~ tom<lie< bflol'eo~I"'II t"/ ,. ",b"' ... o~k""'" .... ~_ 

,"0,_ '. _1Oni 1:omiI>' ..... ,.lk>n.I ... l<'lIu. to I ......... 

AFSC """" t~ ... _ ... rooIq- ' .. ''''t''''''',." .... " .......... odd~k'''oj """, •• or ....... iN- 1"'.""~0"ll_'1t,.- "" ....... oi'"".""'."" •• .,...lI" ."" _"'"II Ol_d' .. o\so oppGo";""'l 

MftIIIIOI(IoI>oj ,"",."".f """''''"010 10 "" (, ""lied 1'O1 ~ ","" f""'~ ... 1>I' .. ,"" ... "". In~ cap Oft V,. 

, ••• 1 ""m~' n! .. ml!y. .......... , .... 1 ... 1., 

(~"' ..... tw,.., _Ioe"" '" ,"''''IJ'OI'''11, ...o..jlo'l; ",onibll..,,, .. ' ' 01<".,.,.10 tho! I.LI. b.o> ... .., V''''' 

'''''''~ nl$1''''' ~"I ,tl"" •• I •• ,,,,.,,,, . .... ~'B~._ ,00000....,.ru. for '"""""nI_""",~ 

", ... do ,ho __ be.,.,;" to '""".~""'" """"',. th.[ .. ~ .. oil ..... [0 ... '<1 ...... ,. 1 • .,\Mn: 

_ .~Ik.do"'IQ ot flIod r,,,,,, ... ~ In, l/,S. 10 In.II.,..,III .... , "01 ...,. .. ,ed doe 10 <o<o~, 

11'0« ..... '''''''teme.n. End ~'. <k'~."t"", . ..... d_-,.t",~ 0' """'Isr_" 

AFSC utp< t~. Committ .. '" • • • " 1'I>1on.,.. 1o", .. litiF ,nO ." ,",,0_' ...., It,,,, .. ,.~,,,, ""lItl .. ,not , •• poet 

l~' "0 ...... ~~ "', .0<1 __ , .-omit ""PO""""V "'.~ It! "0' tomm""~." TI,~. "'" '.' ,n;, _o"i,V'o 

'u"""""'''_w 
93


79881A10-3.eps

.s ltn'tDI .. r 

Hichsnl T. Follin. t~ . 

_.- -_.- _0$000

_ 100 ... 0-_ 

.~,.,..,.-

,--

--

Olrtflof of Na'io t aud ll'1:i~l 'i vt Arrairs 

Offk~ IIf GO""rnmcnl and nl~rnHtillnll AiT3'1"$ 

Amerinn f" h C""Hn,ltff (j\JC) 

Submillnl nil bt hMlf of AJC 10 

Th~ 1t1ll~" ludid .ry 

Su com milt ~ on Imml~ ill n and Ilordtr St,cu";I>, 

Ilra ringo" 

The S<'fIMrllioll or Nudear Familit'$ UII~ r U.S. l",migr ion I. . ..... 

T: (2U2) 7115-5463, : (202) 659·98% 

e-mail: ft>Llilllj')j _js.ort 
94


79881A10-4.eps

Ale Statement on 

COlnprei1ellsive hntnigraiiOll Refonn 

Since its tOlmding in 1906, AJC has been outspoken in support offai. and generou'S innnigratlon 

policies. As American Jews, we recall hO\lI" our parents and grandparents made their way to this country 

seeking a better life. and know that \ve have prospered in and contributed to this countf)'-_ That s.ame 

opportunity should be aVllitablc fhr others, Cnmprchen:;.ive imn'Jlgra110n reform wHl strengjh~n 

America's global compt:~titiveness as well as allow hard~working immigrants an opportunity to succeed in 

the lJnit~d Stares~ fol' themselves and for future generations ·--and, at the same titne, promote respect for 

the rule of law and plOtect our national s.ecurity. 

III advocating for laIr, ellective and humane immigration policies. AJe' acts in accord with the 

American Jewis.h comnmnit .. /s longstttnding interest in, nnd commitment to, a United State'S immigration 

and refilgee policy that represents our n..'ltion's best traditiQn~. According to Jewish tradition, "strangersj

, 

ure 10 be welcomed and valued, 8!:o we \vcre once "stranger:-:; in the land of Egypt.'l The T l1rtlh tells us' 

''The Irvith you shall be'to you as thC' natives among you, and you shaH love them 

as for)'ou .. vel'e strangers in the hmd of Egypt'· (Leyitit:us 19:.33~.14). 

Ale aft1nns our commitment to the pa,,;sagL~ of a common-sense comprehensive immigration 

n:fi)rtn bUt thtlt serves. ow' nation'" intt':rests and uphol&; our C c.mstitutiQtI. in j}wviding a holistic 

appr{Jtlch to mfollnjng our immigration 5yst""1U, this bill should inclt1d~: a p1.ith to legahztltiol1 and 

evelJUlal earned citizenship for immi,gnmts already in the ·U,S.; adjus.tment of quotas for filture t10\II,."$ of 

immigrnm-s, ittduding hig.h and Iow~skmed employment visas~ facilitation and SUllPO!1 

integn.Hion~ smart and humane enforcement mcat'urcs that bolster our national 

detention policies. due proc~s prntectinns. and special prot~ctio!\ foor asylum seekers, refugees and 

vulnerable populations: and~ critically important, it is imp.:rmive that this bill include reionns that f-ayor 

reuniting families. 

Family is the cornerstone of American SOCtct:!r\ Allowing immigrant families to more easily reunite 

with their loved ones strengthens our economy and promotes a stmng: social fabric in Ollr cOlluTIunities, 

Promoting famHy unity il1ccntiyiz(:':s intcgrati(lll and economic development, as Hunili(...'!\ provide strong 

foundations for lea1l1ing Englisb, purchasing a horne, pUfsning.iob opportunities, starting a bllsines,,,, 

preparing children for college, and strengthening till;! fouudation of our communities, \Vhtlu fnmme~ are 

togdher, the money they earn tllelS the V,S, econom.y thnmgli (axes, 11lvestments. and the purchasing of 

goods and services. Because of the strong economic and social vniue. of family unity. enhancement of 

the fi·unHy inHuignlHt \,l~a cah!b"Ory mus.t be a prioJity ofiuunigrfttlon reform, 

Right now. many immigrant families remain separated fer years >-sometimes even decades ~ 

bl!C3USe of bureaucratic visa delays. It is cssential1hat-along with Ollwrmeasures directed at repairing 

our broken immigration systcm,,·-we refonn the immigration system to expedite the visa process in 

favor of tluuily reunitication. TI1is include::: rnl'lking familyMbased visas more accessible, reducing dle 

current backlog of t'hmily-based 'o'isas, incre~sing the per~c(Jnntly IH.nnerfcallimitatioll tiJf fatUUy~ 

sponsorlm. immigrants f1:om 7 percent to 15 percent of admissions, and generaUy reorienting the vi:;;a 

system to pdoritlz~ ftuniiy unity. These j);:fOl'ms would help ema.ire that irmnlgrant families. r·eunite more 

quickly and protect t'flmilies from being se:pamted. thus pn .. nnoting famHysrabil.it)' and t{Jsterlng 

economic gro\\'th. Further, we must ensure that frul1Hy~based visas are UQt placed il1l.:O!rtpetition with 

other visa categories. an approach that would bt:: inimical to the goal of family t.Hlity and kl better 

lllllctioning itnmigration system. 
95


79881A10-5.eps

A,TC Statement on 2 

COlTIpre-h~nsive hnmigration RenJnl1 

In S\Iln, AJC caHs upon our elected offidals to enact immigration refonn legislatiDu that provides an 

opportunity for hard~\Vllrklng immigrants \\'110 ilrc already contributing w thIs country to com¢ out of the 

shadows. regularize their status upon satisfaction of rca~ol1abl'\! clitcria and, over time, pursue an option 

to bt':,cume lawful permanent residents and eventually United States citizens; refoflus ~)ur family~based 

immigration system to signiiicrmtly reduce waiting times for sepnrated famiHes who currently "yart many yearn to be reullited: establishes ne\v lega! Irvenues for 'l.vorkers and thdr famines who \vlsh to 

migrate KI the o.s, to enter ourcoutltry and wurk in a safe, legal, and orderly mauocr with their rights 

fullY protected; reduces the use of dt~tentkm tor immigrants, especially vulnerahle groups and those 

seeking a:;yil.lm; and enMU'e~ that burder pmte.ction pohcies an.": CDn~lstent with humanitarian values and 

\vith the need to treat aU indlyiduals with respect, while allowing the authorities to carry nut the critical 

tSE-Ik of identifYing aud preventing entry of lern;:)fists and dangerous cnrniti(:l.l~, thereby oolsterlJlg our 

natiunal ~t.!curity, 

As a tru:th~bascd organization, we caB aH~ntion to tbt.": mOfill dj.m~l1sions ofpubJic policy and pursue 

policies that uphold th~ human dignity ofcach person, all nfwhoIn are made h '(se/lJm e/ohil1L in the 

irnage ofG-d. We e_ngage the immigratio!115:Sut': with th~ go.al of fashioning-an immigration S-YSt<:t11 that 

facHitates legal status and family unity lU the interest of serving the inherent dignity and fights of every 

individu.'lL even as it enhan~es Out llatiotl(ll security and promotes I'eBpett for the ru1e ofIaw. It I:; our 

coHectivc prayt.~ that the iegistati'l/e process- 'will produce a just immi.gration system of WIlich our nation 

of immigrants- can he proud, 

J\JC appreciates the 0PIXlltunUy to submit this statement and 'vekom~ yOUi' questions and 

comments. 
96


79881A10-6.eps

(f) 

cwo 

CII"rc~ World s..y,"" oI .~,. ,, .... ''''' eong,_ """',d ","oInmv 1<>,,.. _ ....... dld..., Comm"'M Itt .. 1IIg ..... ,..,Ut..,.y . .... "'~ ~, :IG 3 

.... CooQr ... ...-• .."."'_II" OheU.s. __ JYl""".~Wor1cl_(CWS),&67. 

_ ""' __ OIga_. 0J'gM aII_ 'O_IOgM~"" '""'" """'iCI'dM ,"""""1118, ~hAr>ll""ilVUlllt1 """~. _llDc!llU'flO/llp lor _"'mIgr_ T"" CWS...-.. J7 _ .. \ani <IO!11OI1IlnaIkItts"""!IS ref\.9M _menl ""'" ... eros.!tIt <:OI>'I!tV .....",..,.,.,....,.,..,.,""~"*"~InU>!l>Hroow~ 1'1.0<1""""' ..... ........,.0;0<0 rrtrrm flOI <rl!' ~~ io rho rv<""" lOw ID Im_ .... """'01"", in'unilP"'l>nlIl'Ifn ar.l 

1iU1 ... I>Jt .... -..... _ • "'" S<DIIIl!lJi<lllIO do "" our """"'"1_ ...... """'"~. 

'''''''9'_ oetOotn .. "" ~"'I.<e ''''';,0 . _ Is I!UgtalIO tne __ """"""""'"'" 01 "'""'III''''.''' ~Io" [.....:liDo ...... ~.,....... ~ ,_.,. ~ by\'lu 

boWogs, wn 10 ... ....",.,. • ...., "" Clfl'0n 10 -.."<1 SlllWS, .... "'''"9'1Il00 .,. .... , by llliinU ID , ..... """ .. 

• ~ ..... V. """" ......... floQol """". TO"''''''' "'" ",....,.t>a..:l ~ . WO "'VI' 0 :"19'_ 10' 

,_ >OOKl"" .'*'111...., ",,"1<11 lon\II)I .... """""_ ea_""III><IUH, ",*"", l*e"IS ...... ~) 

I. ...,... .... '.""rb;U ... _."""'-"""I\ "_a')'_ IOcIO., .... "'II """~". 

J ~.~_IOr""'"'''''''''''''''''~ 4. _ .... 1>IIt"""""'l' oap ""'" 7 porCO'll! 10 15 """' ... ., '11<1",," b;ocI<loQs 5 _VN"""' .... ___ ... u ...... "*m._'_(LPFIi) .. I<1>_ .. 

'oIaI.,., 01'<1 , • . ~ II'-.... ~ .......... 110"" 10 ,.. _ .>.4ting lamII\' call>g<>rlOl 

•. "... ID !hit is. OI'amlly """ig<'''''' 0IIl0'P'" p."m..- partnIIIS <II U.s. C<titel\S _ LPRs 

To IrlIV Itt ............ lioo O\'<\Om, ... m ..... ....,..,.,. _rod ",SI>O'I<IIO "'" "'''''''''' ",,",!NO c;aunIt)I 

_Imm;g._, ..., "'" ............... Y....,.. wan! 10 immlgratl 10 .... i.JfIdOd Slal_ r .... er ........ , I""", .. __ "'" UnI1O<I ~ _ ....... _01\1 1mI> ...... tr>I_ oI~_ 1",,11\<' onIfy...., 

DeO!>O<T>IIl ~ Those OW p,~ra!118 111(1 o»jOIo'Io(Il~ \/1;)1_ orir1 ~MUI ont M01IIOt 

Fll!!liY "'''1 1i!>Urs- rNgta,,,,,,, .. 1._ P""'CIIlTfO<Ig _lO!II; 101 _"""l E'G .... , i'"'<tIIOIrIiI1 

"""'., ~)otI """"",,,*In. "''''''G. """","", P'-"'I! _ 10, tUIoVt,."" COIIIrlI>J""'.I 10 ..,.,.....,.Iin

__ , W",,"I_ ... IO\JOti'IOf, .... !IICM'/ I""Y-" 1 ... 10 .... U.S oa>nom'/tw.xq.w ... ., ."a .... .....--,gC1goo$ ..... _. A '1)'.,_01 ""' ...... ~ _ _ "' .. , "'.",C1..- .... ""'''1'1._._"""" ..... 5715 __ """""'", U.S. 

IjfOSS _'"' PloGIICI, ~HI\IIg I<IGI ,1>&1 to. _10 0CQ<I<I<'Ai0~' 

ViSa t>a<.I<lC>g'!<><CO ll'!'l. 10 watmor. INn "'" yeatS 10 Do _ """ P"Ieio""""",, Of """'" <"*1._ U.s. C~ 10 WfiI .. 1oo1g ..... 1"'1 10 Do""",,",, .. In 1toeI< -. .. bn>Ihet CWS '-"QOI ~ 

"' ... ...,."'_ ........ ·9' ... ''''_ ..... ''" '''' .... '''' .. ~......,m.'''_ w .... """"""""' .. Y """"""" " ' ...... 1 ~I .. pooopouIs tna1 claim a , ..... _ DIO_ "'~ ancI.~ _ 

CWS Is """""",od .. ~ ...... "'" membOr.1II "'" __ Soooo!* to......,. ~'''''''' """"" IIiIII 

""" 'HI' 1..-logeoNI ."" """'''''' . PO""""Y 10 Otllte_ to< ".,,,,,,, ....... .., """"111'1011. SI>CI1 ~1 """ __ rI< _' __ ... W._IO """"' .... """'V.""".y""'"' __ I"'''''''''''''"''''y tnGtorlN _O '''''com_~I_ W."'90 ... ..-.C1I11O_J~ConI ..... 1O" _ _ lI'Iiogoll 

.tsr;t;w"MnS 

'"""' ... _ .... _"'._-- ' ...... 0011",..... 7 e 'rw ... 
97


79881A10-7.eps

':I Christiao Chulch (DiscIple!! of Christ) ~ ,. "'. """" ••• ..,.., . . .. c ....... 

frqm Chriul9t! CIIwd! rDiKip~i p(Chrlnl !Wuqu & Immlwgtlon Mln!s!rln 

Th~ O"j<ll'~ 00"",,, (~ieiPI.' 01 eM<I) 11 on ;"""I,rant den"""natklo, of 

'''l>1"o •• ml!ely 100,000 rnembe<"s and '],500 tonC'qltloM. Bot!! from I ~nl on the 

""'.r;".n Iront~, " w .. r""nded <>fl \~. pr;",,;pl .. thit an ore ... !come oJ 1M 1.b~ of Chfl.~ 

ond Ind"" ••• 1"le "umbe, of '''''II'.lId"". wl!~ f""lenetlllion "''''''leIn •. T~rDIJlhcu! OUt 

~j.!ory, O<scipl ... "" •• IUd Sptiifl< ml"l<ttl .. ol _lmmeto im""I.l nl1 .om'nl to tho Unl,,.d 

St. t,.. and (onoda, ...... 1tt. "' .. bflon uorrled oUt by <"'Wei"ilon., ,qlaM, ond ,._., 

mTnl'IfIe •• 

..... d.nom(not]on, ... te<O(nl,. t~ .t In"" "'IlkIn ..... plaved_ mojo, ,ole", !ne 

d_lopmen! 01 DUf coun,'; .. _rod In t/>f! adV'oc''''''n' 01 " ." ... """",r.., 1>1<1 ... 'e<:oInl •• 1/1. 

OI!."II~ 0/ !~. Unl!t'd 5!lle. om.'.ulrem tne diveroltV 01 kslmml"onll. .PHledlv. "'" 

G."""" ...... mDu.., """. ""ll«d u""" o;«ipI ... "' ..... tH!" and m.,Ist,I •• fa I~n.ct from 1 flith 

Plrw«tM! iOI1d ... 1!~ InlenllonalilY on cu"eM l",m!i,.11on Issue, ond 10 -.dvocole i",mll'oti"" 

refOfm teclslitJon thil 11 )UI~ IWmine Ind cOI'l>Iaulonlte"jlesolution on "fiith lind OUr New 

Nellnbon,' 2007 ,I 11\1, Iror:I~ d ... wPPOr1 il In!. lim. lor Imm'llr.Uo" reform lloal p,ierll" .. 

flmll'l .. n~v .nd c,elln 1 ""lh .... V 10 ,,,n tlli'e<U~lp, 

P,,,,ideql of ~l<lpln Ilome MI";on" Reo.. Or, ~"".I<I 1. Oeu ... tom",e~I' II>ot ' ils 

01( .. 11 .... tommln ... to God', ~q 10 w~"'" I"" .Ulnle, Ind to "'Omolt 1I1e ... ""Ien ..... "" 

weN ~n. of I.m~j ... OI,d"l", lude" IncI ._rti"l bod ... h ...... I", \'<'." u lled upon OUt" 

polllkilleod ... 10 """'" I>eyon<j .... , C\j,re", 'ViI.m INI demonl'''' 01>, nellhbon, GMde. ". 

aprn'l one,,,,,,he,,."" ae ... tolM <Moren "'1 ' •• "ns """" ,n." 'o",rlr ... W. '"e,olore 

welcon!. In opponunilY to ochie ..... i",mllfltion relo,m Inl! I. "'" only comP'. ""Mjve InG 

011'1""'", bul ""'" <OIIrJ.II"1 .'-~h .... ' I>&.\< vII ..... " I iu'Ii< •• nd CCK'l'lpa .. ion,· 

R.". 0.. 510.,,,,, SI."loy, 0i,1CtO, af Oi>Cipl .. ""'u,,,,, o.nd Imml .... U"" Min"",*,. 

IV"'" 'flmlly un~'11, nol oniv I "0,10II111s",". bUl • person,llnd eloUrch Is,,,,, II _0. In 

"u, Gli~ """"'- Ind '" .... , """,,elolions, we COtI,IIMIy e<lGOIInle, Imml"I"" w""~ 1>&'."" lod <hlid'en, lor! I",O<II>O"..,".nd ,poll",". """,, _ 'om "1>0" from ono .""' h .. lor ......... 
98


79881A10-8.eps

Such separation causes wrenching pain, and diminishes families' abilities to focus upon 

education, progress, and contributions to our society." Family unity chaHenges impact both 

refuge~s and immigrJJlits, as we. see each category oftsn waiting years and as long as decades 

for family members, and even spouses, to gain permission to join their parents, spouse, or 

other relatives. 

In response, we urge Congress consider humane legislation that ~ncreases the numbers 

of family based visas, and insures that famiti@s long suffering from separation will be reunited. 

Immigration reform legislation must raise the per country visa limits from 7 to 15 percent of 

total adrnissionsln order to reduce wait times. reclassify spouses and mirlOF ch~ldren of lamul 

permanent residents as immedia1e relatives, remove the bar for spouses, children, or parents 

of u.s. citiz-ens and LPRs, admit surviving family members of decease·d family petitioners, and 

remove anv cap on the total number of famify-based viS2is. Further, visas lost to bureaucratic 

delays must be recovered to reduce the current backlogs. 

Our 5Jrayers- are with Congress during this time of hearings and legis!ati~'e developments. Please 

know that we .. and our church communities, support you In Y0I..H work. Please fee! free to contact IJS 

further through: Refugee & Immigration Ministries of the Christian Church (Disciples of Chri::-t), ReI.". Of. 

Sharon Stanley, Rlr..,·, Director, $stanJev@dhrn.disdples.org,or202·957-7826. Or. you may reach our 

Immigration L€ga! Counsel, Mrs. Tana Uu-Beers, at:gna@dhrfJ,.jiscipE~qrg; or 317-2B9-1407. 
99


79881A10-9.eps

.. TA r. Episcopal 

Cli t' llt:H 

TESTL' O~\' OF ALE.XA.,\1.tER D. IGARTE..'\' A>'\'II KATIE COS WA \' 0 :-': 

B[llALF OF THE EMSC'OPAL c m ."RCH' 

Wf III.tuI: Rtpre!.eulau\·e GoI\"~·. CII.,uIIU", O[lbe HOlls. J"di<l;uy Sub«lnuulliee 0\1 

~'U'"[ZI"""" Iud B<,nu..1· s~"riIY. IItI,l R"IU;j" " ~l\~ "I>;.,. Lofl"aI r<'l til<" "VP'UIiUUIY ~ . ul"",", 

llu, ",,;IUH{lUjI. \\'t ",01"""", ~U> 1""m11!'< "Il,,' s"" ..... ,;o., ofl',,<I"4I fa,uil'c> \IIltkr u.S. 

tuUIli[Zlllli<lII Lt,, :'!IIlII ",,1110 \'0](:': "'" /J"<lli~ ' UfIII'l<"l f .... ,Il~ pt\l1""'iuu of f"oniJ~' willy. Ilk' 

/"lsW 'O £,mlly r .. u.ufio."o~ . ",leI;w moll ... ", "j.w of fomlly UI ~11 inllui~li"" polloi .... Ilk' 

1:1',><""".1 Chwch bn.t..fU ."g.'I'..d iu 11>0 m,,,i" lycfwdcom,nl' i!WlI'!,,""" ""d len,l'fl'S fN 

''''" .. lhou A ~""" . w.l~'nl' witb ~~'@ff" '001"'''"1>'''''1'." t"'y~", ~~II .... w h .... '" ""I 

toUlIl"mil;«>' lIllel b .. riu,dltity "';'. _ '0 II~ b,w"," Uul'll<;IIiou;MlI ""bO.', lO..ru!O'""", 

1.""5. 

Roolf'd III oltt ,uKlnslaodJl1l!- of lbe Cbmuan iulJ>C'[3li," 10 w~lcoUle Iltt ln\t ~tr," tile 

Ep';(:<lI'al Cb,U"d,'i lujt.llt;' "",·.ruu'g bod) .. Iht Qt ...... 1 C"auVtllIlOI1. Itili J>MStd ulUlu"l. 

le<o\mioo. ffilUtm~ II", 't@II,oflllllilyuWI)" .• lId,b,' niW' ff"w li""' D I ... Dufy.w.tlt<>ul 'll .... "" 

IkI.y. III M'uu,,'" ~012 II., o.JIuu.i,u"", let flUllily IIui() [oJ!" . lI ll.S. 'i/.<'l")l["j u!",1 

P~n".p~,,' 1k.Kh-'~ $ (LI'R) w~s $'r<'l1$'It'ued ~w" fh,'b..r IIIII)ui!l' """Iuh{t<t 0011. fo"" 

Uu<'qu.,IIlU1uigl"t'ou LAw." 'I\lOlI!!!' "'Icitb '~e Clnud, ~~~ to .upwlll<,S'!OIal'OIl 11.'1 ,,,,,,Jd 

expaud 0111 "";Q""" .... /ini,;u.u off.",;lytuld..· uu"U~"hOD lnw .o iudllde ~ "" II....,.." 

! ...... """.,'" ItMl""'" ~"d $110\1."'" of IJ i; <III""'''' And 1.PlU. Th .. "",,111"0" .11"" ""nu"", .. t "lit 

<I",,_s artd C<>"!'fl'~>lious IU "l'l<'W~ f>(IVVCIICy un l>fl ... lf of (",,;h.~ .00 utdr\"ld",,1$ Qf xII 

~~\",I ",lntl.Uons w\'o ~~ r""11!~ unwlUI,td mon" . tl<!]"'""""" '" 'q""'11''''' dn. loonr ,.,u","{ 

U'UlUl""~li~n laws. "11 •• ,. ~~ l1li el1,u'attd 11. 31)(1 bUla'k.,,,.l. "'H~-,"," couple. "",chu~ "' lilt 

UlUl<ld Stale, lodiI) . ' '''',. IltiUI S'l'oofw m .... m;"ut~ <wWt".'. We bo]U:,·. ,ltal Ilto..,~ 

r.",jb .. ~ .hA'. II .... ~.IU. ,isi" ,,, di[ll,ity .,,,j r.i, I,ca~, .... ,~ ~ 01 1""1 r.mill .. ·. or .... 11"....,r"," <k"",,·c 

10 1»,'" 'hou .,.,n. ~ •• f .. ,,'I} " ... "Ojpn .... -.l ~,.J 1'1""'<1<"<1 by .... ".1",,,", uuu.i!,r~I '''' l.,, ~. 

"',ro,, ~.1t "am.nl ""'~,~ m .. ,\l)e" of Old <"OI.'gr"g"110b3 .".;10111 "bU'Wy 10 .-..wnle ~ruJ!.n . ",e 

wible .. rla,lylhe r.)}t;lI •• dJ<!~ M,elo"r,,,,hor, fOf ramn,,,,, ton~""'I .. rnIM. "" "'011"" ,b. 

~"" ''' u off.nll!jj' ~[;tVI ' INt" K~U18 f.nuli ... ""n OnObjt.l> 1"""-eour"JY~~f1". t(~ 

1I)o,g. ojt.$> rtdiolTthlu'(I" (If mm,ly "1$;00 1<> ,h. ""1'10)'"'''' S;"le,,~ f.,h .... '(I ,....,.'L"' • • \'tQ5 

loo;t [0 b>U"~"'w:rn!ic deloly. Nl~ f~;I' u~ !O r~le 01. UWlll!T.'11OII dalll!! &3l ~-ux j)/ttlDl'l'$ 

Iwn" lIN- U.S. ~'\(\I1lY. f"":'lUr~ 0lIl cOtlUnUlci"~. and !loUt., IUe lejt.aOyof f.orml)· 

mU1U!'I""OU II~" l....,.d.r"«<1 "'. n. ,tO<). F."uli.,·I"".., al ... " )'> ~'~!11; lb. fO,".:t..liu" r", 

>b0l'!:' IlU""'''U~' . "ud lito 101,- Ir..:y ptay u, "".1I1lI1! beallhy uldi,·;duols .00 aidiug i1llo!!lAli"" 

.boo,ld "'" [,. dwtiImhc"<l 01 ,ti ... garded. Forw!)" n"'rut... I"'~) .,11 •• 0011 ...... u,"'I"".,e_ pm ... ,. Job 

' AlHan<lo, D. ~u"",art.., I. ""' DI ... ..." 01 Govamma.,.lI.al......,., and KW. C"""'1" ""' 

!mml9r;'lto" and !l.atuo;M o1l<~ . ".,)'St lor tho ~pl l_aI OM<II,. mu," ... Ilo",,1 "'IVTo,," 

dOflOII'II"OlIOll Da.t<lI" ""' U"~.." Silt .. WIt" """""'IS I~ IS 0\11., oov '~gn n,llOI> o. 

J. lIy:he NUmb.~ Immlliro~ c" Eq ... '~ h:!p' /!jmm",J:I"p_"onrv org' .. boutl 

." -. \ , , 
100


79881A10-10.eps

I' H); 

Episcopal 

CUUftCn 

""", .. rtlO'~''''' .. ,,' ,h.;, ow," ""'n""'''-'. 111><1 .. "",ri""", II )' ..,.,;"11),. _ 'p;"n",lIy "' 

""u """","""'ItS 

w. brl,,, .. ,h,,, "'. "",h .. ,u ",.w of ro",ill' III ""J'f< •• lIy ""I"'l"'''' '" ,I .. ""'''OX' of", ..... " oo·s 

.",,,, ... m"n1'o w~l001I1'"~ ....... ,"'1110,'11 n fu$ .... n""",, oj',Io. \1ok-focr "Old p<flO<<1~i"" 

' .. fll@~'" ~ .. ,. fooed DI']I<;' COIIU" "" of 0"""", '""OY "'f"l!"" r.o .. ;".,. Ilu 1101 ti' WI ".dil;""" 

,I<flll,ho<l Qr"o""Ie .. ~ f.IU"ili... Rdlll!"'< 6,,0111., ba,'. 00 ... <"JlO'O""""" 110: 10;.0 of. """'''~. 

110< I",. "f I""n,l>. ",,<1 ....,.u.,..!ouB """""', .... If"", oL,IJr.,,!IIld jll1II>Ikl,ildlru, n.... dl\'1J.J 

c..ni~ .. 111 ]MI1Joubr ,..,ul,1 fa<. 1'"'""""'''' k1''''''oku if IIUI "",,,,,,'s Ikf"'I,oo of ('Wlly "'<I. '" 

\II' lI/IIToW<'ll Oi fllll.llly 01'.,00'" .. limuJOI«! For <i\ '~ ~ "'I~ ,w. ''''.111«1 In lb .. tluit«l 

S .... " • • ibl",* (If • Ol.OmM adulT <Iuld ..... dd "" ,I>< ouly ,"""' ..... S f.uwJy .... Ult>!i ",,,b wl'I"U 

'!>ty< ... '....,.;I., y., IhlS •• ""ifoc.ri",, "pd"..-QlU cun"," .)"01"'" "<>II1d '"~.~. 1lI <....,. ",bon- a p;~!JlIIl Ie&""", j Iu, '" 11ft duld !IlId tlo:" <blkI J." I <wid eflu. "" 110, Own 

(d,,,,,,· •• ;,,, ,,f. ,10", .. " ",,), ,Iuo, ",;,i.1 "'~'~'I JJn",klliid _lid ,,01 q, .. lil)' Fa, ",".Ilr",.""", 

"""I",'~ iIt 1 .... 111....". wp>rn'ioo 

01. "'IOII!!",'",,' ')'81"" ,""". Il<' ~forllwd ,~ "It" D lit" and b",,~ .. ')'>."" .10 .. <U.n-mo 

WI .. ' .... ' ~ ,,'100 """ ubGt~ UI>jl<O .. OOl OJ do.,o '" llIInU"~ IlK><o! ,,100 '" • ., l~u .. "'" 

5)~' .. n ,",,,1<>'1'''''''''' ,bOIl' "'1k" c ....... "Ml "" •• IYI'.;,I, '" ,.,u"fi.~""" ""ri, III ... In"M <II .... '" 

1.",,1 <'UjlI~)'!I,.ut . Th. Ep .... """1 Cb..-"b ~LIU> ,Ix '""""""l)' Of ... r",c<ul<'llt )lObo,,", """ 

lbe '''I"",,,'b'~'Y,,r Til< f<"'fIlWL<U' '" prOl«' ,., ".""' ... buT "' •• 1", bWt\~ W' ",u,1 ",,,,k '" 

,'t<auzo. "'" ."1"",', ,,,,,. iftb.ydo wi , •• po<.1 U .. dil!luly ofbUl .. "" I.>r",~. ",,~.u tllo 

nrNs of <OOlU>I1W'trI. lbo. ,aU", ,Itb, 1f1 •• K.ulwp M,b!lllll1U<an ~u"!lJ'" ... <omo"'_ 

of .1", 1,,<I ..... Chri";,1O ocli"" .. ! ."d cthi",llntdiriOll, and f,nds ""P'<",ioo, f"" f:ri=!",h .... ;n 

lbe j)l\lIUI'" rnclI ttW: ~ ~l t'Wlo;1U to "Ilnw RIr j\lSI.<c.1Id Jl<:IIco """,,1~ ~U ptOJll~ and 'fS\><'."I 

Tilt ditni<)' of ""ory In"" ... 1"';1I ~_" 0.,;",,,,,;,.., ""{""""""'" IlfOt'rnI' .. Id;~ SKI .... "" ""'~".i ... 

1I .. 'I ... IC,,"""~ o """.1 ",ofil~'~ ond 10m r"",h .. oparI'" !'I"'" """,I.nd I"uuan """''''''',1<\ to< 

'ernuM.td onll .11"""'0"'''''- t~ &ornti"" th •• • 11ow r • ..,m .. ,~ ",,,,.in ,,,,,,,Th" lhf~,,¢lQI11 

"''''''!,_''Olll"""erdi,,@> "hol(l~ b. Im"".".<1 

nl.1"1.: J"l\I r", c.nrynt.\l ,I>< rood), b"nl<o Qr Plobhc ...". ..... , .,od IW ,b. """"''''''.y '" .u\luU. 

Ih"'" "'ow. I\> II« Sub<""uwU ...... 

il<>lI""lfi,lIy ...... "'''.''' 

.... Io_,onder D B,uonpn<'O and K.a,;~ C'OO\VllY 

, 
101


79881A10-11.eps

rRANCISCI'o." Ac."rlOl' NIrr\I.'ORK URGES SUPPORT fOR FA.\til \' REUNifICATION 

SubulIw:d 10 Hmu ludiciary COIIlIwn.., Hea"lI(! "" &panoliou ofNueIearF.lIIIlit~Ulld .. U S. 

hwnip-a<;'" \..11 .. 

fliUlCi!i(;lJ\ Mnoo N"w",I;; ~y \UppO/U" 1M 1'0'11"'" of~ US Conf ...... .::. of CBlbolk Bi!hql$ and 

d,~ ~1I .. r.ilh !","~!!,. h"" Cool,,,,,,, ,"", (wI)' .. IIi'f .. IIU ""..",;..) C"'''I'''''''''' ut ""'''''''''' "",I>" ''''''p..<.<''-'''. ,,'IIhI8"""'" ~'L f'om,I, .. ..., 'h< bo.,e ,.,11 of rno'''rnm'' .... _nd ''''''. of. "'IlII! 

United S','~ ,oo;ioly 

M .... y 01'0'-" "",l1li><", h"" w,llI<"'<d till" d<, .. ""Ill>~ ill..,..,. !ha, f""uly ",,,,,,,"Od. 'NOIISh ok •• ",,,,,, 

lI>d d<poJ!OUOOI and due 10 IonJ: ".,.;n"i liDO!, for {""lily ,;, ••. b"'o on inuuopan' (.,niti ... Backltot." USCIS .1><I1.uI~,cd IlWIJbet of ,i .. , r"",. family m<1lIh<r'< K> llI.\l:o • ,.nib~ dtoic. bo,\\,«" belll~ 

$qIu\>t<d ro. .. n' .. ,tJo.l p<riod of'ime. """,huts "'I~ mOlly Y''''''' <II iUopIl)' ."tcnnl 1M """'try 

Familt .. b<1I\l! 'oro ~pan ,,,JI "'" fix "'" Inwnipll,,,,,, I),""IL hmili<> wbo Ilf\" b«o muU",d '" 

~'dlll ...... " ooort will,u,'" bo ~""m .. , .. ,d cksue '0 be , .. pomibJ. US <IIiz .. ". 

w. "tppO<1 h~" Juc:h w""ld ....,.,.,1< f.mily r~JI"Ii .. riOli, "I<n:."",,....,. «>""'1'}' c'P' to ~ 10 ,due. Ion, wailln, tWWi. UId elinliwlin, dl< ~ 011 mllllber ,,{family vi .... ,"GJ!.bI •. Ex1;tlllfl fllllllly 

b.lckloJ~. w,,,,, bit q"i<lJy 'O\'i .... 'N . • c .. Metl """ JlI"""''''''' .'''''''''.! w,,1kd ",,01 Wld,iuled t.Illil)'-b.:ascd 

.md nnl'\oyJIlm14lt>cl \'l$a5 ,bo\llil be. ,,,,aplUttd. 4IId pro'i'1OIl mad. to ~"'" tbdt Iin,n 'OIUIotXl ';111 

on: no;JI .... "od Do IlQI V,n ~"ly ~ ... !l ,,!oil; '" c~rnp< ihon ""h "',Il"" WQJkor ,,>t>, ,n=.", ,h. bII.nb<, "fwolt ... ,;,.., . , ",ell •• ~'C ,ftllUbt! of "mily ''''''', 

Ifhy .."",,1<.,... r"nlll;', " I1l<.OIIl 1''''111, and dI!l<1fcn. lho .... II<> "''''''oily bc:n.r., &on, . f"""ly "uc~ 

WS!<'1b ",0:100.' illll\ltdiJ'e rd~I"'''' (.po ....... WlllWricd ruioO< cWlolr .... JW'''''I of US ciliml<; '!JlOlI~ 

....t um... dlikl:r"" or U'lb; '''''''''01<01 .ado~' "hiWrCU of LPR<; """rial od'~l d.tild"", ut US .. I""",. 

"bll",. o(US <II,leIIO. 00 "'" " .. ,,'" ,be Ii",,;!y ",ef ... ""e <It.WX1C!' b,,, , ... u, ,b.,,, II od«l"". ~, .. !s. Work for Ilullli!i' ~""" .. fonl' "'bo>. SO.I iSlo ~ £willi .. of $<'· .... 1 FII .... ""''' ,~gel""" &lid 

proI1ob a """"""" ........ h""",,,. 1'11111 ... y I<> cirizotnhip rot th<>se wboo d ..... il.od qqalify r.".;, w. 

111'8<' 'hot poll" $ySlCl't> oot be ~ 10 d<t<lO~'" .1l!lbU,1y for vi .... >1/1« .""b 'l"ICl'" tn,d to pt~ f ... lIily 

w"~~oo rui""IIIS'" I tomIt dtiadVI UI'g:o, 

TI,w)'ou for ro'= •• ,;"',, eon.idtnotion ut m. m,,,.':1 of f .. N1y "'PI"allOO "n in"',,!,IlI' 1'0""!;",, 

Siller M;ISU' l.\Ict:o'. OSF 

O"<<lUf uf AoIw<a<y 

rlall<''''''' Am ... S.",..,.k 
102


79881A10-12.eps

nFe 

UNL 

,,,...--. ....... '" w_ rc,...,...,.,'"" 

"" .• ,--""'''''''~ ,.,.""',...,.., --,." .. ......... ""'-.. ,~ .... ,..". ,lIt><I:' ...... , ..,~, .......... ~ .. _ ~ ~_"" .... 

FRIENDS O~ TE£O:-< NATIONAl. LEGISl.llrJON 

., ~ Qu~""r 1,>WIy j~ rIot publi~;"IL"'" 

Frltnd. C~",,"i " .. uo :".'iu .. I I.OW".' ...... ,1O '. moM ror lb. Con~r"".l b.1 R.., .... d 

" "u"" J~d; ry Suhcomn,h, •• "" "'nLl I .. ri"" •• d 8m ..... S«urll)' ';.~ 

Thu, ,,'. Y. rrh 14. ZUI3 

1'h. f ntnlbConulI,lI"" vn N.L O""' I. ~,;I.,ion. f,l\III<l<d in 1'J43. ;, ~kl<J hy Ib< ~il1""'l ''''ll<> "r,II< Rrlig, ..... ~i~'I·"fFn<nd. (Quakcn;i, Our "'Or~"" irun"W"'"'" IS led b)' 1lI< <"lI1i 

k .. ""Ill n:1"",,&I,,1'" ."""'!! prorkw 1><,.,= ItId"·,,h •• I.aroJ GIld.. We btl ....... lhal '''''p<C' 

(u, b"""",...J .j,',1 "sl~".5 ,",,,,,,,,iallo .. 1!'Wd",~ u.., 'nl<grily~f ..... >oc'<lyond II .. ·mI\Om" 

dll'flI'Y or.1I hun"", bdn~'. \\'."",,,!!"i;(.,holl!\',,,munnllShonan u\Ji~l. ,v\., U1 

ortloldulg lhrsc ngll .. '"d n'U:c", ~,,,'bo l'<ip<IIl,ib,li,y '" m:1k. lI"''<Tnm<:nl!. ....,'" 

""'P'''',,,''-........ :md "",,,,,",ohl< 

Th"",fure. ,,"'c 00.11 ''''' h,un"". ~h.,"i'" ,mtnlP"('(lO ,d"nn W< ho,'" ""'n !hoe 

d"l;c""","bOtl ,,{1lIe u.s. 1l1IJrup"''''' "Y"= ",,'cr Ibe (0 .. t/IK.o . {)\ c~!y puni"'" 1:Iw .. ,n 

tal>ikJn "i,~ ,"" ...... .-...1 ""{""'"mc" :&lid on ""rr.,,,,,,, bi ................. y. 11:1\'< ltd I"~ "YS'''''''' 

",>1;0"",,, ,,{ "~~",, md,,,,"'tlln, .. '. "",,-. d .... .,"', .. ,.."h, .. , ,k., 1"'''''''", ,,,>r\;<, <.pk>i!>IK" , .,w 

{'IIIi1i""""IIIlfII",J r", Y""'" """,· .. ,<ko.d<>. l lwn ..... '!lUlII!!I"hM ,,,roo,, , .... kin">!"''' 

inl.1!riW 19 Ih. U.s. haJ,1lOO M"'l:Io.."(lolln! ,onnigro"" 1r.J r ""'dc tnl ,01111,,,,,,, IO~ !><olen 

ImfIu ........ " $~'"m. We I,d,,~\" thaI fur.J.on...,,101 .. !d <<II'1l'fl-i,,,,,,,,,'" ",Iom( ~fU S 

""""gn".m I"~.,y ,""....Jed in ,.<10..,."" 

("'''.lIt .. ord.:1ly. "'IuiUlbk.1II<l <IT",,,,,,, l "M"!!",'''''' 'Y"<tt~ 

En l""" <lnploym<'" ond 1>"", rigln> Ibo- all \\'<>rk~ "'llordl ... "f,mnu~ion_,.., 

/'roI,"1 hunt"" and <1\ll ri!!lll. r,." inntujlml1h m1~lv li,,"8 In the U""N Stol .. ; 

S\I('IIKII1 """""un'(I<~" ,Ih I.rg~ ''''''''''n lr~l;''''' of Imlfllp"lUllS ",,<I ('''Iilo'< Irnmlj!lInl 

InI'1!<"hon. onJ 

Aliw> <nforum<1\1 ",1/1 hunlA/li(ftr1or< VIIlu,,>< 

~"ll>'~ 1/1" ""iu...1 nile ,,{ { .. o,ly <I, ''''" dcwl<lron"", "{"",,Ilby irtd<,'IdI",I.ltId 

oo'mnuoi, .... , t eNt 1><1",,,,, Ih., '""'~grnli,., I"""' .... ~h,,"1J m"~" '<""'("'1111>11 nf "11"'''''''' 

"""",I>, d,ilib:<n, ..... ";hhol!>. 1"11 p"",i~, 000 """,IJ ,,,,,11>.1< r.",1Ii .. b<uolo..J bY ..... Q • .....,.: 

""'l'''''''' wen ",OI'l""'iC-."'<"lC ""'1,1.-,;, Itef",," QfO ... r~n"I) "nm'gr~"OI1.".. .. " """"'id ..... '" 
103


79881A10-13.eps

!hmjly prdt.:r..em;1,.' .. :at~goriJ.."s at ade-"lun1t' h!vd~, augment l:ll'ir~nuntry C~pl'." n;mnve han·; tu 

reentry and acljustrn~ilt of status fort11o:'<c seeking tt) reunite with taml!Y, and eliminate lengthy 

\'tsa ba('klogs by r..:capturing immigrant visas lost to blJrC3ue:ratic dt""jay~ and rolling them overlo 

thl? l1l"xt fisl:ltJ year. Family visa ... should not be pla\.'ed in compdlticifl with e-UlJ-?It,)yme-tH vlsas. 

Spou~e:-> :.lnO minot (:hHdrtn ufhnvfill pcrmant':nt residenls should be n: 'X'la%ified .. as immediote· 

relatives to ensure that the~" individual}, are reunited as. qnickly aSl'l)ssible. 

FCNL \vdcomcs lh~ Rjpartis:an Frunl'Cwork 1(w Compl"dl.;nsivl." Immigration Rdtw[U released on 

January :11' by eight u.s. Senators \Ve cong:rntula~e the authors of the Fl'amework, \VllO readl''!) 

tlcl'DSS party lint's to ackno\,.,le-dge the neeJ to fix nul' bwken immigration system., and 11) propose 

some practical solutions, \Ve SL1PPOft the recommended impmv'Cmer'ds in th~ pn'l('cssing of 

[amd}' visas that Wt,uld help k~ep famihJ;!:\ tog~t11~r by 11Xlu('ing backlogs, and we h.H)K fonvard 

to working ,vith Cnngrel'U; i.tnd ll1clnbcfS of the SUhl"OmmiHet: fin the detad~ of ~f{)Dn legislation. 
104


79881A10-14.eps

lutheran Immigration 

and Refugee Service 

U RSS ......... n. for H.aring: ~Thcs.:p.~.,i "" ofNud ... famm .. undor U.s. Immiw"uOft 

t...w~ 

HQu.., Commin..., Oft.he Jud;<iuy. Subrommin.., on Imm;gr.t;"n an d Bord .. Sc<U"OY 

M.«:h I~, Nil 

J~,d,..." In"",.". ... , ",od Ref_$.n",. QJR,;). do< "" .. " ... I,"W,,,,, ..... ", .. bIo>hnJ 1»- I.u/h<~." chore .... "' "'" U .. ,rd Su,." ~'''''' e "I""".N ""' ...... " rJ<o ... 1 10)' COO'P ....... I .. >II 

... ,j"""", ... ,,,-o .ff,,,,, '" ,j.,ti .,.J <'<XI wo"""· ... n"'-. _~Wn ",f(ln"_ J\ouj>k .of f .. ,h I,. ... 

k"""m.d~,...n ""n.!:"'';' .. ",~' .. n ,II.., ul"""'b f .. ,01)· "''Il". 

"UIlS .. oJ 1",,1R=,.n ......... A, ......... '''''''SIr b<",-~,' d ... , ''''' ... "",,'. ,n."'W""'" 'J''''"''' HI"" 

01<'1' m.nr.., hmiJo<.. ;\j,.n ""I m"'" ,,~<*! I"'~<'<' I\o"li/r 'u~~ ,. .U n1Ott'>"" an<! .,.i-." ....J 1.00. I ilnU, !.IllS I .... ~");.'," . rldChl), " 1.",",}· ;""''W'n\,",,,,,,,,,,'"'' I Ju,', th< 1"'1 .... 8" •• 

" .... , ....... ~ ro ,dI "'" d", '''''''Y ull_ dlt'lr .. ""~ ,...0.' " I"~~bk f.,.. thmr .' ,U«.....J.OO 11"-0' 

bock II> ,hr, "",.<r,' ,10;0, .. "k<rn>«l,h<m, In'd\I~" '0-110> «>me he:.. .... 'k oh ... , ......... r, ....... 1,,,,,,,";\,.", ",>.I '''''I'''''''' .. ( , .... ' bIDu,,,,,.:,, f"nindlrly ..-.ulI onJ ,""-.h,,,,,_,,,,,,, b .... "",.." ,j", 

.wId ' .... .,..,.,.,."" ''''''. <"-"".V ;...-o. "" ,Im"n",,, ~"""'" ... 1 ,."....,~ """'" .. " tOo wr ......... ''"'\! "",_,. I .. "" ..... 1", 1,,<>,'.1. "'Pfl<'" ... ! " ... (,or l<"'~ <hoI.""" .. ,<I "'" .~ lcdl , 

..n.-.._,~Ik"" ,,, k_' '''' ........ "">rId "'''''''''''''''1; to"~ '"""'r'~ 

"r .... ~I", . b<"'R ~iI< ....... , IInIthI' ~ ... '" '"'' ''''''''II ...... ,<, I""' ...... n ,,~"""'. W'I ~><:>1 

... ""","' ...... '11", 1(0<-,. '" ....... "'.,,,,, .. >11 '''1'1'<''' M ("m"),,,, gteo, 11''' ,. .. , ''''' .. ~ 1"''1'''''' ~ w 

rrldit'.J,""" " <t't"I1<1 ~,,,,, r.;,I~.,>II """.oJ. ,"" '"<'<l" """',,,", ,of "10' "'-'<><11'." ",>.I ,I>. RM- [lr 

..... .oJ ~ ~1 .. I>I>oI," lI._~~op.,( ''''' r.rn,nl S .. , .. SJ'M.J ,.f d .. bntijtC""" 1 .. "-'" (;Iu,"'" '" 

,Itnmc. lUf.A). "11""" i. ,., ttl,,'" ~, ""''""-... d", ''''''.~''' ("""'"'" """"I ~,fr"""",." 

.l1"rQO.IjI;II t;"",~. ""'II'" _ M th<1'<"I'''1' l!'''''' ,., ..... ''''''''1(1)'''''' .... ~. U .. ""'''''.~ .. ''''' " ....... 

("""'''' '" ..... ",.,.-h "'" Iu!~ ", bt ~"",,,,,,, . """h .obi<"", "fLoS, """'"'" <0" ...... ' ,k-<:OtJn. ,u ..... "",, Sri-""" .. >II " ........ .-hikl"", , of b..-r", ","''''''''''' _Iro,~ 'or ";:m.-n nI\ll-.nlol. .. :' .. ,,' nil 

I ..... , .. "'" ",!!,..nn-. n.;, """,cl,. <"t'!tM f,><r.IJ "'''~'''.., ,,1>0. (,k<l , " .. 1''''''.''' ""'IV<>' J"~ ~. 

1m .... '" """1)' >bIr ~'b.wn ,10 .. r'''ox" ui ._"1< <k>5r ",b,",'" ,~ ,I>< 1I",t«! ~ .. ".,.' 'J\. 

"'1"''''''' f>milo. ... r.. d", h,.. " coo,'"')' to , .... ,Im<<>< .. , '""', ..... ,>.1 ,I ... """"I ,ml'''''''''-' ,<) k,,1' 

(>mil ... "og<t1" ,.-

I '0"1) .J>r. URS", t... .. J ,c".""" ,,,,,,,,",,, .rI· """"'."',,,....,. "'''ot» ,I ... ;"'....--"''''". ,of flrml)' "b~ 

ocr<", <II< $,'<"", "~.lh''' ""'"lllt"""''' ",I.., ,.~ .... ~, all d,. 1,;",,<01 !><:I,,, ..... '" _ .-""" "'fujt<. . .. 

11M"" f'<'><C"'''''' ,,, ,h.klm, ~''''' om' ... ...,.'" U' ,...,."-,,... "," ",,,",,, ~"I",J ""' ...... 1 bot> .,~", 

,hoy ...... , ""to«_ ;0.,:" ......... 1_ ,~- .... "" '" "" "' '"'" ",""'n,"",,...'" ~-....., ,h.yn ..... (~m, d,~ 

~.".. .. '" "~l~'" uff .. ".t),;. ..... ·,,""1 w ,I><: Ior'g_"'nn ,....,"" .. '" "'"'I.''''''''' "f ....... ,>.1 "I""'IIC ,I" ..... ,,,, ... M«"l!"D >rid ."kor! '" I"'n..w., ~, , ... ,~~ I>''''lj,.b"",t """1Ip;1'.'" '1"" "'" '0 

P-"''''~' I' ~. 1'''''''. munr,.,J <hrkl. '" "bI"'II ~"h ~'h<"" ,I:..')' ''<OJ '"'~- l><: .bIt ~, ""'."" .... J'<"'t> 

_""*' _--"_~ ___ """"""'JO ''''~''''''' 'Ioo;:'' '''':JO''6to ,»C_IM ~.>. __ oc ..... , ·.O .... I'7_· ......... "'i'.)'1 ~, LlRS.org 
105


79881A10-15.eps

LfRS Recommendations to Congress: 

rt'l..UU1)_ 

Survivor.:. of couthct :tnd trauma bt.'ueilt 

wlm C!l;l1 pro\~ide strcnh-rth and tom.fnrr (rf even 

our CUfrt.:nt l11a.Ut"'qU£ltt: :;r~t~'m can ;.'th.o cn:ar(' an 

• P1'(N1-d(' fot fust{·r j'CllflitJc;1.tlO!l tTtifl(lf chiJd-n'n of b.\~·flJl pc;nnafH~nt 

residt'n.ts b:r n·ctn','>:;ifying till'.;m as 

• )..{.lkc :L\'rrilabk Unltscd and undaitl1ed f<lIni1y~bM('tl.a1\(i visa<:. illld <.:..O~llfl' 
106


79881A10-16.eps

• Raisf.' the 

lnng .... y;lit 

\":.sa limits fronl. se';cn to fifteen percent of mtn] adnm.sions to reellCt' 

for n'rt~,in ll;aNon:llirif's_ 

• P:rovide (be rdi.t'f fo:r SUI:\ iVlllg rel~~tin'~, of rl'taget's and ;ls:,'k'e<, ;-{nd the Sdtyiving Sr()use~ 

:lnd ~tf'pcbklrell of L-.S, citi2(~ns. 

• EnslJn~ th;;,: fatluu,-'s 'l.ylth chitdren \\·110 become adults 

:tad rre"{:~nt Jebys t~>r 

~t;tlLlS (:haflf','i:::> for apprm a1. 

'Hlthmlty t"J (111lelior'ltt' 

Additional Ll RS Resoutces 

heed 

L'ntted 

'111C Fcbn,xwy 14, 2013 5tateJnC'nt iou $l.lpport (If (he RC:lniting Falnilies '\ct l T.R. : J:: 

\\,vv;.blt.iy/)·al"l. \1;, 

Tlw J:lll1t;l~: 29, 2111.1 p;-('~s n-lf':lsf' 0:1 Prp.~idenr Ob:lnla\ "rf'f'ch ("ltlinillg:l \,,>ion fi:)f 

imlT::J!:ifJt1Un reform m2y bl:' "[('ad h('re: ~'.btt";\'/\'x(H 1Y':" 

Jfyou i\Dve 

Dii"("C8Jt"f;)"[ 

.2111.J P)'C')S n"}CJSc. on the reic;1"{: of the p-rinrirks for immigrtltlnn 

Senate may be 

<1bm:i: this ~tiltcmt:nt, plt'asr fed frf""~ ro ,OntactB1-it::twy :\.:rsr1"Oll'o, JJRS 

(~O:::) 62(; :')4~~) 01" Vi,l c1"1<1i1 bnY;;7rom@lil;:_org. 
107


79881A10-17.eps

SOjourners 

"",,,n U, lOU 

~Qn'I</j>atI"",,,,1iwI ".'''IrI~ 1>0 .... Mid n.",_~, M<lrrl> 14. by"",_~",,~tJIId_, 

:s.cur~~, ~ "'" ,ok<1.rd IiwI faJlo_ ... ,.~r

r,mi!leo «>_ '" .... ~, .... >po . . .... ~'" bu' .~ of ,h. ", matt ... AI Chri>ll.,.,. .... ""'_. p,...,.".!lM.r><I 

lI'otOCli .... of fomily" • 'ol11rol •• Iuo .... , .... It!' ... W ""' .... be pr'orKl_ltI,ny .........--.. ....,.1\<><1 reform PKi<op. [oct. inc!;,.;,juol ........ d bo ofmod ..... _Ion", .... 01. 01,,,. '" , ...... _"".. ''''0''111 I 

~lm t .... t"''''"","., or":'''' .... oth _. \0 " '"",oro. r_it .... tII ... l ... and ~n"" " Is '''''it,- IN ' 

"'" ........ , .... III1<IIlrr""" , rilOIU 0l'IO .no~'" 'h, '" .. be ~"'ive conMbYroft '" OUt <""""u,"1N< , n"_ o<"""",~ . 

Out ...... n' """,K'lial'mem •• po." .. , ............. oIf'''''lieIIeO'¥i''l <1>I1eI,," oM """ontl _ .... tea II t "W 

..... "", .. "" I""" ",.~ _ O<>K. TIl, 1'><1(" b.I<kk>p .. liS. C,,;,.n,h4p."" I<nm~"", ........... (llSCfS) ..... 

I.", of ""I '\'eI!oes to mlt< .. ~ ho.. .. "",OUd ,"mI'" 10, ... oIont:«I .,._.0I.im< ... ,...." .... '0..-1, 

....,.,b<n ..,;.h dil!i<"~ <hako>. 0It.." .... ~ "!>IIo<urMo •• d 1mmIF ...... ro 'CIf«<! '" co-.. _ .... Oof"l 

,""" .. t"'l<o", ..... , 'ornlll' ~Ji "" "" IftdtI;tWtf pollod Ilftlnlo ~ puttJn. !~R I~ ... rI.~ IQ .. unfit ... .." 

.. I ......... 'l>o't=»> ..... _"" ... '.,...,m 

.ljUol ... """ .. 'on mltm ..... 01 mptO'A! .nd """oil"'" ,h. "'''""' 1/MIIiI";"" PIO<OSO by i<clIrc.' 1M hlrmf ... ~ ... , "'" ."'" I<Id<.dlnl ."10 ..... 1"... "''''G ,"·ontry "nd '.o'ocI; of opt!oo, to odf ....... "" 

t~ Unmo<I.,," 'omitj "'""' ... ". ~I '" ... hIcI1. ",Of"".I"",,~ _1i<11_ oord .. _~. It """'_"ble lo, 

~o .. ",ho""'" to ''''''~ 1c1OilV. WI """ COnI ..... to pro'"tll, ,,,ihe< .. 'Nov _10. _ """ ... tho ........ ood<otc 

.not Q_' "..~ tow.,eII '~ '~:P lor 'lit II ","~ro. "~',"I ,lmffic.nHu" • ......, _' .... '" ,;,e UMoG St. ,u 

AJ. OIn,,'oM. _ bell .... "'" """",,..,,,,, ,.""Id fI.>pKt , ... (iod I""'" ,"",itt' 0/ .... '1' per"'" """ '." ..... .". nOl _,., ... \l>o<rI 're,"', ,,,k ","dlet. CofM, .... I~ •• _ ... Nn r,,,,JIj .. ,,,,,,, "'""" 10 11\1< .0(0 .... '... 01>10 

to_ eroo'inc on Immlt< ...... 

~,,' _ .... 1.1 '0 o<JlcuIo .. tI,. f>;1l/1ooI call 'olO<ioI !w'''''' ~ hop< a'>d bulldl'lg a """""""M to tromf",m 

ItodIWdual>, """"''''~/o~ ,,,,,-.h, a<td I"" MIrl<I. "" """ • ...,...""',""'" II""'" ~~ II' "'" WoIl;s. ", • .-,_ 

ao.,~"'~Woi' ......... JQjO."..'. 

- - _ ...... _ ............. 

-
108


79881A10-18.eps

General Boord of Church ond Society of The lInitoo Methodis, (;hurcb 

Statement f&r the Congressional Record fo-r the 

House Judiciary Committ{l(" Hearing 

Thundny, .YllIrch 14"',2013 

The General Board of Church and Society of The United Method]st Church has jong advocated 

for just and humane immigration retorm that provides a pathway to full citizenship for 

unciocnmemoo immignmls atid reuniHes. famWt's separated by migr.a.tio{l, lJnhcd MethodLqs 

have wltm ... 'Ss,cd the brokenness nf the current immigration system firsthand. United 1tlcthodists 

serve immigrant communities through such ministries as Justice for Our Neighbors, \v·hich 

provides tl<ee lcg~I counsel for lowMjncome immigrants, Mao), United l\'iethodis-r churches are 

located in immigrant communities and led by irnmib'Tal1ts. Therefbre. we advocate for volicie.:; 

that willuphnld the basic dignIty of ail immigrants and prQtect their ci\"it and human rights. 

The United rvIethodist Church belic\cs that '"at tIle center of Christian fil1thfufncss to Scripture is 

the caB "ve have been gjven to love and welcome tile sojourner. ,.to refuse to \vekome migrants 

to this coumry and to stJuld by in silence while fltmi1i-l.'::l,i are separated, individual freedoms are 

ignored, and the migrant cOmmtUlity in the United States is dcmon!z(xL . .Is complicity to. !i-in." 

('Welc-oming the Migrant to the V.S.", 2008 Hook o!,Rcsofntiol1s) 

Tht;' time for humane ref0rrn is now, F'or far 100 long. the Uuited States has continually increased 

border and interior eoi'm-cement effOits. Last yen!" atont\ the U,S. spent 11}Ore than $1 S billion on 

immigration. enforcement, more than an other federal laVl." entoJt'cment i'lgencies combined, I 

"Vhat is. 1111e- throughuut Scripture remains tme today: familiefi are tht: comerstone of a strong and 

growing society_ Family stabWty 5trengthen individuals, neighborhoods. and entire communities. 

it is through famIlies that individuals learn ba!iic skiHs to flourish io life. and importantly. that 

they gain their villues and rnomtit)\ Fnmily unity is the primary way individuals integnlte into the 

targer society. famllies provide strong foundation<i> for leaming English, purchasing:3 home, 

pursuing job oppurtunlties, s,tal'tillg a business, preparing' (.'hHdrt!l1 fi:.It' college, and contdbuthlg to 

communities, \Vhen famili'C'S. are together, the money they eam fuds the U.S. economy through 

taxes, illvestme11ts, and the purchitsing of gbods and services. IherefOre~ any reform to the 

jnuni~'t(-ltjon system flHJ.st makt' family unity it's corne!'5Wne (.u1d those l.'efonus must include: 

j. Protect and strengthen Cnm!llt fam.i1y tmmigmtton {'ategorie~ {spouse, childrcn~ parents. and 

siblings} 

L Increase family .. based visas, mc!uding a temporary increase to clear the backlog with 

intol?griry 

3. Recapture unused visl'l.s for use in the following yea!' 

4, lu>.;rcRsc the p('r~CNlI1tr}' cap from 7 percC'llt to is pcr~ent to rcdu{;c backlogs 

5. Reclassi(y the spouses and minor children 'Of La\vful Permanent Residents (LPRs) as 

1111.luediate r~laiives, and re-anOl.'m~ the remaining \1'SHs availahh: to the olht!T<:xbting fumtIy 

categories 
109


79881A10-19.eps

(), Add to the list of family ilYU11igration categories pennanoent partners of U.S. Citizens. ilnd 

LPRs 

Policies that prevent family unity only further damage [he immigration system and negatively 

impact [he economy. Under the curroent visa system, on~y U.S. citizens are aHowed to sponsor 

their spouse, children, parents, and siblings: and LawfLlI Permanent Residents (LPRs) can anI). 

sponsor their spouse and children. In addition, visa backlogs can be as long as seven years for a 

spouse or minor l:.hild of LPRs, and as long as 27 yt::ars for a ,:iibling of a U.S. citizen. Under 

these cnllstralllts, the notion of' chain migration' is a ITlyth. Therefore, we vigomm.ly nrpose a.ny 

attempT to reduce fmnily visas or put them in competitioll with otber tJ"pes of visas., 

United Methodist'! across the countr:v stand ready to \vork with ('Ill members of the Hous.e and 

Senatt:: to enact immigration rctorm that will keep families together and provide a pathway to 

citi7ensbip tfX llodocumented immigrants, \Ve need refmln that is humane <lnd eftective ,'md "love 

urge all members of the HOllse Judiciary Comlllirtee to strive toward this goal. 
110

Mr. GOWDY. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from 

Nevada, Mr. Amodei. 

Mr. AMODEI. I arrived late, and I missed some of your testimony, 

so I will be brief with that. I do think I missed anybody’s testimony 

that the ways things are now are okay, right? Is there anybody 

here on this panel that thinks it is okay the way it is now? 

Okay. The record should reflect a negative response. 

You have talked about it is unnatural, Mr. Papademetriou, to 

separate families, kids, and parents, and stuff like that. When you 

talk about if this is going to be the precipitating Congress for doing 

something to change what is unacceptable now, what role do you 

think national interests ought to be in setting that policy when you 

compare it with, you know, separating people? What role does the 

national interest play in discussing that policy? 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. It is a critical role that the national interests will play, but I do not see the national interest being antithetical to keeping nuclear families together. 

Mr. AMODEI. Okay. Well, I do not think I intimated that you had 

to pick one or the other. 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. Okay. 

Mr. AMODEI. But you do acknowledge that nation interests 

should be part of that discussion. 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. Absolutely, sir. 

Mr. AMODEI. Ms. Martinez, you indicated you thought that 

things should be clear and fair, which is a pretty good place to 

start. Has your organization proposed any legislation when we talk 

about this issue to say if you are admitted under the circumstances 

that Mr.—listen, people mangle my last name all the time, so you 

I am not going to——

Mr. ARIVALAN. You can just call me Mat. 

Mr. AMODEI. Okay, good. Big buy, how about that? [Laughter.] 

Have you got any proposals for how that works if you are being 

admitted as a married person or separated from your children, 

what the process should be before you are allowed to come into the 

country in terms of making that something that is more transparent to folks as opposed to what sounds like a surprise for a lot 

of people? 

Ms. MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO. I think that we are dealing with a 

couple of different problems. I mentioned 3 of them, and the situations for each is different. In some of these categories, the process 

itself may not be necessarily the most difficult part, but the reality 

that the lane in which people are coming into is too narrow, and, 

therefore, the wait starts getting really long. So I think that is one 

of the proposals is took particularly at the immediate relatives, the 

spouses and small children, of legal permanent residents and figure 

out how to expedite or how to minimize those waits. 

I think when we are talking about, for example, how the laws 

apply or exclude LGBT families, are talking about a different set 

of issues, and those are families that are summarily excluded from 

being able to use these mechanisms right now. 

And then when we are talking about the separation of nuclear 

families as a result of the 3- and 10-year bars that Ms. Lofgren 

mentioned, or as a result of deportation policies, I think it is another set of issues, but that hopefully within the context of immiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:42 Jun 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\031413\79881.000 HJUD1 PsN: 79881
111

gration reform, as we create a rigorous path to earn legality, we 

also start addressing some of those. 

Mr. AMODEI. I will just finish with this because I know we are 

getting short on time. I do not think I have heard anybody talk 

about things are okay in this meeting or otherwise. Nobody, regardless of what their politics are, say things are okay. But I would 

remind you that as you go to what would be an improvement over 

the system, that solutions are something in the context of we are 

talking about families today. 

But you, and thank you for your comments about open borders 

and not open borders, because it is kind of like having a speed limit 

sign out there saying it is 55, but we are telling you right now nobody is enforcing the traffic laws. It does not matter what your 

traffic laws are if they are not enforceable, if they are not transparent, they are not predictable, clear and fair, I think is the 

phrase you used. 

So even though we are concentrating on nuclear family issues 

today, it is like specifics, I think, in terms of allowing folks from 

wherever they happen to be from in getting down to something 

that can actually move will be helpful. And I do not mean to be 

trite, but it is like I do not think anybody disagrees that there is 

a problem. It is like what is the idea for the solution in terms of 

how do you change this with respect to that, but in the global 

sense? 

So thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman. 

I want to now recognize the gentleman from Illinois and then try 

to also get in the gentleman from Virginia. Mr. Gutierrez? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Well, thank you. I want to thank all of the panelists, and I want to say to Mr. Emery, thank you for the invitation. It was wonderful to be there with Mr. Labrador and others 

are you made your presentation. 

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am sure the 

gentlelady, the Ranking Member, could probably persuasively 

argue otherwise, but I think this is a pretty hard panel to beat. I 

fills our record with the necessity of American citizens and their 

need to keep their families together. And I got to tell you, thank 

you for putting together a panel that really, I think, helps all of 

the Members begin to understand the complexity of our broken immigration system, and how it really impacts American citizens, and 

families, and marriage. I for one am a strong supporter in the institution of marriage, and I think that here we have given testimony 

about how our immigration system undermines marriage. 

I want to also take an opportunity to say to Chairman Goodlatte, 

I want to thank you. I read your Christian Science Monitor interview. I want to thank you. I think that your expressions are ones 

that fill me with hope, and I think should fill all of these panelists 

with hope that we can find a bipartisan solution that keeps our 

borders secure and does not open our borders, but has a compassionate understanding that there are families being disrupted. 

I would like to ask Ms. Martinez, how many people have been 

deported during the last 4 years? 

Ms. MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO. Just in the last 4 years——

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Sure. 

112

Ms. MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO [continuing]. It is 1.6 million. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. 1.6 million. Were there 1.6 million people deported in the previous 4 years, or were there less or more, if you 

know? 

Ms. MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO. No. I mean, one thing that we know, 

and it is has been documented very well by the Department of 

Homeland Security, in studies, and by a number of other entities, 

is that this is the biggest fight that we have seen in deportations 

of any previous Administration. 

And so, the reality is that we need enforcement of our immigration laws. There is no question about it. But I think that one of 

the things that we need to do to be able to restore the rule of law 

is understand that we cannot restore the law any more by simply 

continuing to do enforcement, enforcement, enforcement, without in 

a pragmatic way that addresses reality, dealing with the population who is here, two-thirds of whom have been here for 10 years 

and are part of U.S. citizen families. 

And so, therefore, to restore the rule of law, we need that twopronged approach. And we have done a great deal of investment, 

boots on the ground, and other policies on enforcement. The piece 

that remains undone is what we do about the population that is 

here? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. To follow up with you, I recently read that we spend $18 billion a year on enforcement on homeland security. 

Could you share with us what that means in respect to, like, the 

FBI and other enforcement agencies at the Federal level? 

Ms. MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO. Actually if you give me the opportunity, it was actually the Migration Policy Center who did a whole 

report on that, and Demetrios probably is probably a bigger expert 

on those figures than I am. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Demetrios, please. 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. Fourteen billion dollars for all of the other 

Federal enforcement agencies. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. We spent $18 billion on what exactly? 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. You know, that is the budget for interior 

enforcement for border enforcement. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And we spend $14 billion on what in comparison 

to that——

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. FBI, DEA. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So we spend more money on enforcement on immigration than we do on the Secret Service to protect the President, to protect our currency, the FBI, the marshals. 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. All of that. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And yet we see it is had a devastating effect on 

our families. 

I just wanted to try to have a little balance in terms of there is 

enforcement. It is expanding. It is expanding even though we have 

huge communities of people demanding a change. It has continued 

to expand, and the number of dollars that we use and the devastating effect. And I think Mr. Emery, and I think the witnesses 

we have, we see the devastating effect because I know. 

So I joined the gentlelady, Jackson Lee, this past weekend in 

Houston. I now join Congressman Vargas in San Diego. And I just 

want to assure my colleagues that although much has been said, 

113

we are for secure borders. We are for the rule of law. We are also 

for a compassionate, understanding immigration system that keeps 

our families together. We have record deportation and we have 

record strife on our poor immigrant families across this Nation. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. 

We have votes pending, so in lieu of asking questions, I will just 

make a few observations. 

I first want to thank all of the witnesses for their compelling testimonies that impact the basic fundamentals of life when you are 

talking about family and spouses. 

I also want to confess a certain bias. As a former prosecutor, it 

was not so much respect for the rule of law as much as it was adherence to the rule of law. You could respect something and then 

still not adhere to it. And I cannot tell you the number of times 

I had to prosecute laws that I did not agree with. I would not have 

written the law that way. I would have written it differently. But 

yet I took an oath to enforce law, not just respect it, but enforce 

it. 

And if we are going to have a remedy that satisfies all of us, we 

are going to have to convince our fellow citizens that this is the last 

time as a Nation we have a conversation. In other words, we can 

pass something, but if everybody still says, well, I do not agree 

with this part of it; therefore, I may respect it, but I am not going 

to adhere to it, we are not going to get it done. 

So I appreciate the commentary on respect for the rule of law. 

That respect has to manifest itself in an adherence. I would imagine that is one of the reasons that we are a destination point for 

people who want to improve their lives is because we are a Nation 

of laws. It is the greatest equalizer in the world, and as sure as 

you may want to benefit from the non-application of the law today, 

you will be clamoring for the full application of another law tomorrow. 

So with that, I want to thank all of our panelists. And let me 

now go to—Mr. Goodlatte, I will yield to you a minute of my time 

if you want it. If not, I will go to the gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, I am just going to thank you for holding 

this hearing and second your comments. I appreciate the remarks 

of the gentleman from Illinois. 

This panel is a very moving panel, and I appreciate their testimony. I would just say that as we address this issue, we need to 

keep people who are trying to go through the process legally at the 

forefront of our minds. That does not mean we can ignore the problem with people who are not lawfully here. But we need to make 

sure that as we do this work, we are keeping in mind the highest 

priority, which is we are a Nation of immigrants, and we are going 

to make sure that we treat those immigrants like people we have 

always benefited from wanting to come to this country. And I agree 

with you, we are also a Nation of laws, and we have to find a way 

to bring those two things together to make this work. 

I will yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Florida and 

thank him for his patience. 

114

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have very much 

more to add. I think what I would like this Committee, because I 

agree with Mr. Goodlatte. But what I think is very important to 

remember is that in the end we are a country of immigrants that 

needs immigrants. And if these hearings were being held because 

we are trying to figure out ways to get people to migrate to America, we would be in far worse trouble than having hearings when 

we are trying to filter who we want to come in because so many 

want to come in. 

Thank you very much for being here. I enjoyed the testimony and 

appreciated your good work. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Florida. 

I would also ask unanimous consent to put the full statement of 

Chairman Goodlatte into the record. 

Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodlatte follows:]

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

Thank you, Chairman Gowdy. 

The objective of immigration law is to regulate who enters the country and to ensure that their entrance is in the interest of the United States. While much of the 

discussion about reforming immigration centers on what to do with the estimated 

eleven million unlawful immigrants in the United States, no less deserving of careful reflection are the nuclear family members of lawful permanent residents waiting 

in backlogs to enter the U.S. 

Today’s hearing focuses on the nuclear family and how greencards are issued for 

the spouses and unmarried minor children of lawful permanent residents (LPRs). 

Current law allows the spouse and unmarried minor children of a U.S. citizen to 

immediately receive greencards—there is no cap on the number of greencards that 

can be issued to them each year. 

In addition, when a foreign national becomes a lawful permanent resident, their 

spouse and minor children at the time also get green cards. But if LPRs marry foreign nationals after they get their greencard, only about 88,000 greencards are 

available each year to their spouses and minor children. Therefore backlogs develop. 

At this time nearly 220,000 spouses and minor children are waiting for those 

greencards. And they must wait outside the U.S. 

The State Department is currently issuing greencards for spouses and children of 

LPRs whose applications were received in or before November 2010. So there is a 

nearly two and a half year wait for those spouses and children. 

In the past, the wait time has been as high as six years. A decade ago Congress 

adjusted our immigration policy to address concerns about families being apart for 

so many years. 

The ‘‘Legal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act of 2000,’’ created a temporary 

visa to allow the spouse or minor child of a lawful permanent resident to wait inside 

the United States if they had been waiting at least three years outside the U.S. The 

V visa, as the LIFE Act visa is known, has since expired. 

Last year the House passed a bill that would have reauthorized the V visa and 

reduced wait times even more. The ‘‘STEM Jobs Act of 2012,’’ contained a provision 

lowering the wait requirement for a V visa from three years to one year. While that 

particular provision had some problems—including the fact that it cost approximately $3 billion over 10 years in the form of federal government benefits—the underlying principle that nuclear families should be together is an important one that 

Congress should promote. 

So today we examine the issue and possible changes to the law that could be 

made to help reduce the greencard wait times of spouses and children of LPRs, 

while at the same time discouraging marriage fraud. I look forward to hearing what 

the witnesses have to say. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back the balance of my time. 

115

Mr. GOWDY. Again, on behalf of all of us, thank you for your indulgence with our taking a break for our colleagues to meet with 

the President. And thank you for your indulgence with our having 

to go vote. Thank you for your collegiality with one another and 

also with the Subcommittee. 

And with that, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(117)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security 

Family is fundamental unit of society. Family is where we go to multiply joy, mitigate grief and share all the emotions in between. My mother in law fell and broke 

her hip Monday and even though there are wonderful nurses at the hospital it will 

be family that sits with her round the clock. And family will help get our daughter 

to school on time, and family will cut the grass and make the meals. We all claim 

to support pro-family agendas. And we analyze tax policy and healthcare policy and 

virtually all other forms of policy against a backdrop of whether it incents or disincentives family. So it is appropriate that we also analyze our immigration policy 

to see whether it is friendly to this thing we call family, the fundamental unit of 

our culture and society. We have heard the statistics about U.S. Green Card backlogs and the time it takes for individuals trying to come to the U.S. legally. In fact, 

under the current process, if you have applied for a Green Card on the basis of 

being a brother or sister of an adult U.S. citizen, the wait could be nearly 25 years. 

Members of the U.S. Commission on Immigration reform did not believe there 

should be a wait for spouses and unmarried minor children, but did not necessarily 

share the same view about other family members. In its 1997 report, the Commission stated, ‘‘the national interest in the entry of nuclear family members outweighs 

that of more extended family members.’’

The Commission also addressed the wait time for the spouse and unmarried 

minor children of lawful permanent residents (LPRs), stating that ‘‘no spouse or 

minor child should have to wait more than one year to be reunited with their U.S. 

petitioner.’’

But the current greencard wait time for the spouse or unmarried minor child of 

an LPR is actually around two and a half years. And there are around 220,000 people waiting. 

Why is there a wait? When Congress created the current greencard system in the 

‘‘Immigration Act of 1965,’’ limits were placed on the number of greencards available 

to certain classes of people each year. 

For instance, each year’s family-sponsored greencard limit for spouses and children of lawful permanent residents in the U.S. is 114,200 plus any unused 

greencards from the category allotted for unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens. 

This preference category, known as family-based second preference, is further divided into 2A Preference—for spouses and unmarried children of LPRs—and 2B 

Preference—for unmarried adult children of LPRs. 

So if the number of greencards available in any given year for the family-based 

2A preference category is less than the number of people who apply for a greencard 

in that category, a backlog is created. 

At this point, the top five countries with the highest family-based 2A preference 

waiting list totals are Mexico (40%), Dominican Republic (11.4%), Cuba (6.3%), Haiti 

(5.3%) and the Philippines (4.3%). All other countries make up the remaining 32%. 

118

Another reason for the wait is the conscious Congressional decision not to allow 

immediate greencards for the family-based 2A preference category in order to help 

prevent marriage fraud. 

Since these marriages occur after the LPR has become an LPR, there is a very 

real threat that if greencards were immediately available, marriage fraud would be 

prevalent. 

Ideas differ as to how to reduce the greencard wait times for the family-based 2A 

preference. And I am sure we will hear some of those differing views from our witnesses today. 

Some individuals believe that spouses and unmarried children of LPRs should be 

considered the same as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and thus receive a 

greencard immediately. Some believe that the current situation is fine—that a few 

years wait time is a fair price for the benefit of a U.S. greencard which then leads 

to citizenship. And still others believe that the correct answer is somewhere in between. 

So I look forward to the witness testimony today, to learn more about the issue 

and the possible solutions. 

I yield back the balance of my time.

f

119


79881B-1.eps

Statement of the United Auto Workers 

Submitted to the 

Committee on the JUdiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Immigration 

and Border Security 

Hearing on March 14,2013 

"The Separation of Nuclear Families under U.S. Immigration Law" 

TI,e hltemational Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America 

(UAW), submits the following tcstimony to thc Housc Judiciary Committcc. Thc UAW is onc of the 

largcst and most divcrsc unions in North Amcrica, with mcmbcrs in virtually every scctor ofthe 

economy. Thc UAW has more than onc million activc and rctircd mcmbcrs in the Unitcd States, Canada 

and Puerto Rico. 

From our earliest days, the UA W has been a leader in the struggle to secure economic and social justice 

for all people. Our commitment to improve the lives of working men and women extends beyond our 

borders to encompass families from around the globe and keeping families together is integral in helping 

shape the future of American economic stability and protecting and preserving American family values. 

According to rccent reports by thc Partncrship for a New Amcrican Economy and thc Asian Amcrican 

Justice Center respectively, immigrants are more than twice as likely to start a business in the United 

States as non-immigrants, and in 2011, innnigrants started 28 pcrccnt of all new busincsscs whilc only 

accounting for 13 pcrccnt ofthe U.S. population. Family-based immigrants arc morc likely than othcr 

dcmographics to start small and medium-sizcd busincss, creating jobs for immigrant and nativc-bom 

workers. 

TI,e UAW supports refonn and expansion of family-based visas. While currently there are proposals to 

limit family-based visa categories to increase employment-based visas, it is cmcial for Congress to 

prioritize family unity for immigrants. Family separation hinders the acculturation of immigrants whose 

broad-based families are sources for their strength and vigor. Current immigration laws force siblings. 

spouses, and children to wait many years before reunifYing. creating vacuums of support networks where 

instead there could be relatives to help inll1ligrants integrate to new surrOlmdings and culture. 

Critically necded improvcmcnts in thc systcm include: 

Re-ciassifYing the children and spouses oflawnil permanent residents as "illllllediate relatives" 

allowing thcm to immcdiately qualify for a visa; 

Recapturing wlllsed family-based and employment-based visas that were authorized but not 

allocatcd duc to burcaucratic delay; 

hlcreasing the per country limits of family visas from 7% to at least 15% to help ease family 

green card backlogs 

Allowing same-scx partners to rcunite; and 

Allowing orphans, widows and widowers to immigrate despite death ofa petitioner. 

Furthcnnorc, wc support a pathway to citizenship and arc fully committed to mal,ing that a rcality. 

Reform of our immigration laws must reflect America's values as a democratic society, and not create a 
120

f


79881B-2.eps

second class of workers, whether through a temporary worker program or by restricting the ability of the 

lmdocumented to someday attain citizenship. 

In conclusion, the UAW appreciates the opportunity to submit our vie\","s to the Committee on the 

Judiciary ofthe U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security 

regarding The Separation of Nuclear Families under u.S. Immigration Law. We look forward to 

working with Members of the Subcommittee and the entire Congress as you consider these 

important issues. 

Signed, 

Cindy Estrada 

Vice-President 

United Auto Workers 
121


79881C-1.eps

MINKwON CENTER 

For Community Action 

Mi,,",,",," C.Illn for Coo"m",iry Aeli"n 

Slate",. ", for the R«ord 

fi lwu Committ •• 0" lilt-J ud icio,), 

Subto"""iU ... 1I11 Im lni~r tt iion Rod Hord •• Steucil)' 

IInrill, " " Th. Sr puM!ion of !'iudu r hmilin undu U.S. Im''';gr8Iioll L~ .. ~ 

March20, 20U 

The Minkwoo e.me.- fw Community Action respectfully !ubmit~ rhi5 STatement for rhe re.:ord Dflhe 

hcaring on March 14. 2013 befor~ the SUhcolllmiltee on I",migllltioo.nd Bmder Se... "ity ofllte 

House C()mm,uee 00 the Judiciary 00 MThe S"IlarauQn of Nuclear Families LInder U S lmmigrntion 

Law" 

Th~ ~linKwon C~nler for CommunilY AClion (formerly YKASEC) \I'IIS csLilblished in 1')84\0 meel 

the 'I('o.'IISBnd ooncerns oftheKore:an Am<.'riclUl C()Il1munhy Ihrough five pro!l,l1Im area>" Community 

Organizing &AdvOC!lCY. Social Services, Civic Participation_ YlI\llh Empowem,mr • ."Il CulTUre, 

Sinc~ oor fotmdins. we hal'e made a profoond presence in the Korean American. Asian America". 

a"d i""niS"lnt con"nu"iti~ through v.rioos g,."s.<rOOU organizing. eduClItion. _tid .dvocac~ 

initiati,'es that address imp<>rtant communily issues atthenational. state, ftnd cit)'lewls We-place 

spocial c'nphasis <JI1 lU"'!!ing the neW. of ourmiUg;n.lilW community ('In~ including the j'1J\,th. 

the elderl y. recent immi~nt " low-i ncome rcsidents. and limited EnWish proflcienl residents 

OVf.RVIEW 

TheA~ln J'acifi c .... merican (Af'A) populatjoo is ooe orthe faSlest gf"";ng in tloe Uni ted 

St.1U From 2000 to 2010. the APA population increased by 43%' 1>laking up over. qua"crofth. 

foreign·bom popnlMion in the U.S, ,..PAs now acx:oum for these<:ond largeit !!rot'P of incoming 

immignmlll at OVer 40% To date, two-third. of APA adullS in th~ U.S are foreign bOfn. and three· 

fiflM are ..tigible to vote. Aflerthe hi~toric 2012 elwions, nltiooal toori t pdling data dffitottsrrated 

thatllfl ovenvhelming woo-thirds oflheAPA popu lation favored cOIltprd,ensi"e immiJY1ltioo, refan,,: 

In fact, I recem report frootthe Nal;on 1 A~i"" American Surwy (NAAS) f""used on fRmi ly 

m.mitiCllt;OIl ",ported that" m.joril:~ of APA1 (54%) b~lievc-the .,uensi ve backlogHn:" crisis in oor 

cO'1!!nun'lit5 _ This is ~ Cfilic~1 issue forOW' COIlununily Of thc I I million U/ldOCtmlCJ1led immigrams 

in the CI)l lntl)', 1 J million are APA, A~d ofth._fi ve OOlln!ri~ " i !h the 1()fl!l<:S! baeklogl; for family 

visas. four are in Asia (Philippines, China. India, and Victnam) Due to s ubs!."ti.1 b~cklog. fOf 

issuing family I'isas. 4.3 million ~Ie art! cunently ai~n!l overseas. I 8. million of which art' from 

A~ian nations' Even in Flushing. oor home base, over 70% of the Korean co",",un;ty is for~.I!nborn' As ""ch, the i.sue 10 be Iddreo;,ed retatcs di~proporriOll lt ly 10 AP,\ child,~n and families "lid 

rai:le'l wave COIIccms to Ihe MinKwon Center 

''"'''_ .......... ., ... I ...... ''''''''' ... ,._~_ Pj_ .... l.7 .. 1"''' .... _ .... __ ~..,j :O)j .... _\_I-''-

1'_ »II 1'lIQ(l\<"""",, I'''' :a.20U~_ .. _"', ....... -::010 •• 1 l· __ "" .. t, o.I_-'-'-\"""lOll,'_~r- ......... '-t,,,_·,I,'UJt(f· __ S<. _,, ___ ,-..... ,.,!,-....... _,_ .. .--.......,.·MUIl-T,.-.• _'?,.. :11,' ~'"'-, •• '" >!Ill 

.H~,~",,~ """ ...... ,....,. .. --"'-"'" ___ ~~~ "' ..... .. 

'* I __ --.~,--,....,- ... ~_' ..... _ ...... ................. ~, .... H".JI,!!JI'·.- --.-...."~ ...... ... 

l"" :oo'I.JI'" ..... ·-

"-_~ .. ·~"""" '' ~_"l"' 

.. ''''''"'''·__ ·-··- ._.- .~--,,~ 

..." .1_!_.-~ """"" ___ ",.,..",_ ...... fr<O . ,cr l'.JI'K J"OOOl Oll"'l''l''''_ 
122


79881C-2.eps

~ MINKwON CENTER 

~ For Community Action 

KEY CONC[ItNS WITII TIl l: SEPARATION Of fAM ILI ES 

As the polilicallalldscare h<lS shifted and momentum f(ll" comprehensive immigration reron" h<lS 

acccierated dramatically, we were pleased \0 stetht Nny proposals rroJ&nil('d the need 10 

stTen!!lhen American families by reducing backloJ;.S in fami\ ~ vi,.., cate!ll>ries. l-low"""er, with so mafijo' 

AI'A families al Slake.. Ihe MinKwon Center i~ conccmed aboullhelack ohpeci/icily in the proposal 

and J'e<)uesllhat the aClUlIi bill comainseveral prescnOy UI\$l8100 clem ems In addition. theMinKwon 

CCnk'f fond, Ihe recent discussion~ 10 redu<t the numb..'t ofav,ilatM family-based vi!.3s in !'aw, .. (If 

worl-based "ius 3m misleading and unWl~truC'\ive The need for family-baled \';,as and won.·based 

visas are complcmenwy ;swe. that muS( not be pilled against OIle .nother The increast of either ,;sa 

category ,hQUld nOl be v,~ed;n. zero-,um w,"Mvi~w This false dichQlorny harm~ Ihe "ery 

fou ndalioo Ihat OI,r immigrslioo .ySleni wa. buill upon In the following. Ihese i .. """ Will beomlinoo 

Slone. II' U l!f"'" f_",ily Ilrl'furnrr ~ •• "p. rM' t II,. f"n,ili •• af U.S . • il·U " ., 1.<'2 "1 

P(nna'IMt Rp idr"" (L rK . and l!'fr O {~r<1 holdtn. 

urn·"~y. rM"ili"" are dividl'd by ,isa Waili,,!! p<-"iods and '''''('''''i.in.gd~l~y. that ctln last 

decades. For ex.mpl~. Ihe wail for Korean immil!films CQ.<ld c>(.end m(n Ihall I J yrar:!. "hile Ihe 

wait for Filipino immignonl$ <:an span up loa stan)ing 21 years! APA familie.s in paniculaf' ~Il: ",or~ 

likely Ihan other g;roups 10 he 'aughl in .he ba~klogs for famil y unifi calinn "ilh an .,·erage...,.;. 

period ofa. IUSI1.9 ye8~ While our immig/aiion syslem ~I!\'~dy m:<J!!Ili~e5 Ih~1 spou-. childrel' 

(unde.- 21 l, and o»renlS de,;e"" priorily " "inomedi~te ,elarivOl'S.." ,,"de.. Ihe <!lfrenl law Ihis fmly 

appli"" 10 U S citizens Since APAs mIke up 1M secot,d IU'!,'e1 JPllUP offoreijpl'bom popu1;ltions in 

Ihc US _ in part because of We U S .... clusiOllary .tlS IhsllaJgeti."d Alian C<lImtria yntil 1%5 -

man y IIl:!IOI yel naluralized and as such. all: ""bjectl'd to s.ui!\!!i."Ttt caps s..palllling Ihem from 

immediate famil y members These restrictive caps oblige ,dalive. of U'lh 10 wail OIl decade·IOIlg 

I ines that I C«'pl no MUm: Ihan 7'"10 of applicalions from each country annually. 

Even Ihe delay in visa, for '~)3ti~e> orus Cilizens;s tOO con~iderable 10 ill"OIl!. To date. AI'A 

fan,ili .... are slill the m05lljkely 10 ,'~ dme family member~ remainins abroad. a"coomin~ for 

..early one.lhird of all family--based immigntion ~isa5 in the US.· - rtgardJl'$$of "nozen.hip SlituS 

Unl"'!s we make family unification web<.'<lruck in any immi!!)lui()ll r.,fotm pad,ag", we will <)Illy 

c<lI'lrolpute 10 Ihe d .. rimental JlflIclice of "'parating parents O1Id Iheir child"", from on<'· .nother. 

Strict " iut., in ~lI lid ei ""ui~. tio .. appliu linns And ~It d bllrklot:O fnr n'allY run, 

In 'nany cues, Ihe 1()I18 wairing period ri l!!!e1~ IUles thaI rt'Voi<ean individ"al's applicaliun 01 

eX ltflds their waif lime for many more yea~. While these triggers Wi.'!e originally cMablished 10 

prt'Venl imtni g;,.,ion abuse. Ihey ~ave in51ead placed additional b~rrier; that "eed!e5~ly ~eep f~n1ilies 

'''" 

for iftSlBnce. many children ofLPRs 'age OUl' oflheir immiwatioo Cale!!Of)' once they mrn o_e, 21 

~ears of gc. CO!\s~uemly. Ihelie-children, wllo had bt>en wailing since tlley well: minors. m,m now 

endure an odditional W";I of 4-\0 yt'= before reunili'ng ""th tn",r o»,eh!' for cas,," when ooe's U S 

petiliooe, I"'~~ away. or "h~n ""e;s m~nied. 'h ir immigratioo 'ppl;catil)ll' .re similarly 

~ .,', .. _ "'" ...... ' lfI1J·v .. _.r .. ..... "'m :< .. I~" :vu I'~ . , •. ,,_ ,"",I 

.... .. "'--.. .... " ......... """" ... ",,,,'-_, \o.._"'I'-" L~\""" _""""""""""",,,,,,· ""'_oq&,M~~ "-__ , ...... _l ............. 1IXiO " ........... lIIIl ' .... ' ... ~~~_, .... ," '\1"-l(. _ .. -'rlr 
123


79881C-3.eps

~ MINKwON CENTER 

~ For Community Action 

;nyalid~t~ , Ratherlhan r~o.Bni~e mesad (ureoflhesetases. O\Jf broken immi(!Talioo system ooly 

goes f""her to hurt flmilie'l and individuals ",)10 00IIl( here Sttking opportuu,ity I"d fTeedom from 

oppressioo 

E.n""'E bllCkLog., In .'c ";n,,any no taLl tir ORlhs for It g! L ( lU cy ill Oil. ,,,,,,,,grail .. ,, sn l.",. 

ea.h year. the quOOI of visas available to immigrant! in neh of the family preference catej!orie.; does 

m>l m.:ellhe need for these visas With q"O!a~ sellnadequately low and ,,;th proc.:ssinl! 

inefficiem:ies lh!llead to even Wea1fr backlogs. e~iSlinsrules do nOl grant many applicants a re.l.lislk. 

plIth 10 gain leJ!81 entry in t~ U.S. By ignoring these ~"er-expanding backlogs. we creau·I,erncndoo~ 

pr~ure lhroughoUl the immigratil)ll syStt m - eITeCli,<tly driving p<>O\lJe to risk .;ruT tmering Ihe 

US illegally or illicitly overstaying their vi .. s in order 10 be wilh their ramili"" COlls~ucntly, thi. 

(u"h .... ml",,"5 their chanoe'! ofre<:oeivill!l.grHn canh in tile fUlure In f~c!. IhtS<'- illicit aC\~ ofl~n 

ind""e all ul~.wf l preRnc~ bar that ban. lin indi\'idual frolU emcrin.g thecounlry ~gain for up to 10 

y(1lt'!; Wilh ne~rly (7 millioo families in which al kasl on~ m"'llber 1:1 undOC\lmenl<'d il1lh~ U.S'. 

this i'I"~\'.i in!! evidence that ooreu"""t , ),stem is broken and that imllligram. cann", simply 'gel in 

Hne' 10 5ee their ramm~~ 

Oneofthe. MinK"'00 CenICl" .\ clients, the Kim family. serve as a ~Ia", ex~mplcofthis ploblem /0,11' 

Kinl camelo Ih~ U,S. with a grff11 card ov .... 20 yelU'$ ago "'bile hi~ wife still re:sided in K<",ea with 

their 2 m!>llih yea r old lwins While he had a !!r~en cald s!,oosored by h" mOlh~, at the time, hi. wif~ 

and children were granted an 11 year waili"", I'~OO Unable to wail ov .... a de<:adeand miss the 

twins m,,;;t f<><mauve ydrs, the wife!Uld ohild,('n e"~ntuaJly came 10 tile U.S 00 ItO"riSt "sa 

Today. Ibe Iwins a!e over 11 yeal'5 old and having l,J!ed OUI ofthe process now live in the sbadows lIS 

nndocnmemed immiJVlllll.'l_ While the MinKwon Cente, has helped the twins sppl y for tempoorary 

Slam! under Deferred Actioo. il i~ tlear th!t I more pem1!nenl 311d ;nclu~i ve resolution is needed both 

for their ... ke a. well ~s (or their mother 

l.i",iliIl2 tht """,hf T "f f~nliJ l' "rdfr rf "i" 1< 1I ""i hJ f for f~<h ra!III!O' " d"rTu h' rr.ru Oil. 

~ 

Since The ""actm .. 11 lh~ ImmigraTion and Nationality Act of 1965, family ties hve b""" CfiTicalTO 

tbe KlCial and e«:>nomic incllIlI""'lion of new immigrants For immigranlS "h·o enter tbe U.S. 

sponSO<4!d by a fam;\y-based visa. Ihey have a" au om~t;c sllppon Sy~ t~'" (ha' I"ovidt$ th~m with the 

re~=s needed 10 adapt to the work ~nvin:x"nenl here and either lind a job or SUll1theiro\\'n 

busin.ss A 2013 lnlll1ilP'ation Policy Cf utl't case STudy found thai e.~ cnd-ed immigrant familifs and 

dose-knit immi@lan!COfflmllnllieiot.asethee<:onornicassimilaticmornewimmigrants and promOie 

;nvestment;n U.S human capital il.S well as thefonnltiOl\ ofbusi,\es.5es'" In faci. research i"PPOfU 

thai immigrants are JfI% more likel), 11'1 .t~rI new bll";ncs....- than native-hom AmeriC3fts~ Earn;n!!, 

betwml immi~t)t~ who gained "'"ry with family-bllSed visa. and thO!l> that emer.:d with k;II~· 

based vi."" a,~ found to evcmuBli y equ.lize following an initial earnin!!'!!lIP As runher~viden"e 

Thai flmilies play I critical role in immigrants comributin!! to business deveJopmem IlI\d community 

' 1lo<o .... ~_ ... ...., ....... • ......... _ ......... I~1t$ ___ .. -..--'_ ...... ~ ... l _ 

_ - n.dli;o-.... w .. __ I< •• I .... >Q,~~ .... , ..... lOll .... ""--"_"oQ __ ,~lJo"" 

~-n...""_ .. ·"-ty_-.-· ___ IC_ ~ ... " .... :l(IU. W<Io ,.~ ... >till . .... ,,"'_ ........... }'<'¥J _ ___ ..... ,_.._' .... 

""-11", "tIw C-~.F_~_ .... .,·I' ~ .... .. O\! "'ll . ....... '~ ~ ... :<IlL · ........... 100/1'-..1"' .... _ ..... __ ..-.lI\l ... " .. , 
124

Æ


79881C-4.eps

~ MINKwON CENTER 

~ For Community Action 

Improvemenl. Ih~1 same study ~ ()Il II'! rflXl"llh~1 famil -sponso~d immigrant, have b~e Ihe 

most upwardly mobile of all AmtricaJ1 workers'o 

Addil;onall~, family visas pia)' In importam roI~ in complemenTing high·skilled \'isas family· 

fri endl y poli cies will help allrael more skilled ... or~ers 10 the US. Skilled workers ",,11 100>\ likely 

opt to seule in countries thai will welcome th~ir famil ies as well. Ever , ;nce l%~. the llS. has 

rightfull y based their ~ySlem On the oorrespondin/!. faclon ()f f3mil )l lie. and/or the work skills of 

prospe.::ti ve immigrams As ",epu,h fer CIR now, il is imponam that we do nOlI lose sight <lfillis for 

our familie. and for OUT ewnOl1.\Y I'luge 

~£ :\ :\ ENDAT O:\'S 

The lime;s nQw 10 enact brood, humane immigration r~f01Tl1lhal ""vallers inclusion, faim"",!. and 

equality fOf immigrant. and all communities Such refonn muS! indude the follo",iUSl!wding 

principles' 

nc~asing caps for famil y-based ptef~nce v;sas. t'Spe\:iall)' for COIl "tries ""i\ll the most 

'*rt/llau~ wait pffiodt. These Visas ca~ COII1e ffom recaplll,;ng, "nu5ed family, eU\pll})' lI1cnt, 

01" diver£ity-bascd visas, 

lliopanding.the immediate relative category to indude fRmil)' mtmbers ofLPRs and green 

card hold~"f. < 

OpeJ,in,g & p;lt~ of return for lJ S citil~n. ' and residents' immediBte family members who 

have been dtportcd, and allowin!! imlnedilte relatives to adjust their status in the U.s. 

re!!mlles. of the manne, in which they cm~,ed the US, 

Eliminatins unlawful p~'''1\CC harsthaJ would separnte indi,·id"a.t. from their famili.,. for J!O 

lOy tars. 

Alln"in!! US. ci1iumnnd LPRslo spomor same-scoX p;lrtnflfs for immigratiOllIO the US. 

providing an immedia.e fi~ fDr "'''''Y "''''.,..s''. couples ~nd II,,:;, famili es "'ho currently fact 

SCPiU'ahOO or e,;ilt. 

CONCL USION 

A~ ConJ!fe5S and the reside"tloo~ to enlct in"ni grati()tl refoml in 201l Ind beyund, we h~ they 

wi ll understand that anv bill mnst ndud~ th ~ alxwe k)!islati "e ti'ell ,fit is t.) achie-oe a pemlanenl 

.solution tu the man y prublll'llls within our immigutioo s)'stem too ay, We must re!nember Amo:rica's 

immi,gralioo ~ystem WA~ bullt on thc fundamental behefthat flmilies skruld be keptlQgelher The 

MioKwon CenterforComm"nity Action stand. read)' to work with this Committee lo~n511 ,.".that th~ 

loni! ove.d"e reform of our ;mmigl1ltion "yllcm reCOj;lliz"", the vital comribu1ioo. immiwont. ,"k~ 

10 this toUn t!)' Ind promCtle5 diJ!l1ity 31ld respect for;mnti!P'llnts Ind their famittes, 

T>oo "'h_ot _",~""",- · _ _ ~ ...... e... N.,. 1 ...... a'" ",,,,,, " \ .... ~ .. l "' .. _ .. ,_ ... ~,.":;. .. r.."' ... , .. _,,, .. ""'_""'~ 

•