S. HRG. 113–129 

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 13, 2013 

Serial No. J–113–4 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–745 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 113–129 

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 13, 2013 

Serial No. J–113–4 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking Member 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Cruz, Hon. Ted, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas, prepared statement .. 130 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 3 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 122 

Hirono, Hon. Mazie, a U.S. Senator from the State of Hawaii, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 128 

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

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 120 

WITNESSES 

Case, Mr. Steve, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Revolution LLC, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 43 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 97 

Crane, Mr. Chris, President, National Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Council 118, American Federation of Government Employees, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 46

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 105 

Murguı ́a, Ms. Janet, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Council 

of La Raza, Washington, DC ............................................................................... 47 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 113 

Napolitano, Hon. Janet, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 5 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69 

Vargas, Mr. Jose Antonio, Founder, Define American, New York, New York ... 39 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 81 

Vaughan, Ms. Jessica, Director of Policy Studies, Center for Immigration 

Studies, Washington, DC ..................................................................................... 41 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 84 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Questions for Steve Case from Senator Grassley ................................................. 131 

Questions for Chris Crane from Senator Grassley ............................................... 133 

Questions for Janet Murgı ́a from Senator Grassley ............................................. 134 

Questions for Janet Napolitano from Senator Grassley ....................................... 136 

Questions for Jessica Vaughan from Senator Grassley ........................................ 141 

Questions for Steve Case from Senator Lee .......................................................... 142 

Questions for Chris Crane from Senator Lee ........................................................ 143 

Questions for Secretary Napolitano from Senator Lee ......................................... 144 

Responses of Steve Case to questions submitted by Senators Lee and Grassley .......................................................................................................................... 146 

Responses of Chris Crane to questions submitted by Senators Grassley and 

Lee ......................................................................................................................... 150 

Responses of Janet Murguı ́a to questions submitted by Senator Grassley ........ 156 

Responses of Secretary Napolitano to questions submitted by Senator Grassley .......................................................................................................................... 162 

Responses of Jessica Vaughan to questions submitted by Senator Grassley ..... 197 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

GAO–13–25 Border Patrol Strategic Plan, Senator Schumer submission .......... 201 

Letter from Senator Jeff Flake to Hon. Janet Napolitano, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, February 11, 2013 ................................................ 210 
Page

IV 

Letter from Chris Crane, National Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Council, to President Obama .............................................................................. 212 

Presente.org, CREDO Action, Daily KOS, America’s Voice, National Council 

of La Raza, and Reform Immigration for America, joint statement ................ 214 

Morton, John, Director, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, 

DC, statement ...................................................................................................... 221 

Letter from Asian American Justice Center to Senate Judiciary Committee, 

February 13, 2013 ................................................................................................ 224 

Bellows, Laurel G., President, on behalf of American Bar Association, Washington, DC, statement .......................................................................................... 230 

ABCNews, Washington, DC, article ....................................................................... 239 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Laura W. Murphy, Director, Washington, DC, statement .......................................................................................... 241 

American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), Crystal Williams, Executive Director, Washington, DC, statement ......................................................... 258 

Mazzola, Justin, Researcher, Amnesty International USA, New York, New 

York, statement .................................................................................................... 262 

Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Washington, DC, statement ............................. 270 

Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum (APIAHF), Washington, 

DC, statement ...................................................................................................... 275 

Arab American Institute, Maya Berry, Executive Director, Washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 281 

AWGCIRSign, February 8, 2013, joint letter ........................................................ 284 

Battle, Colette Pichon, National Board Member, Black Immigration Network, 

New York, New York, statement ........................................................................ 296 

Goering, Curt, Executive Director, The Center for Victims of Torture, statement ...................................................................................................................... 302 

Department of Homeland Security, Immigration Detainer, Notice of Action, 

forms ..................................................................................................................... 305 

Drug Policy Alliance, Grant Smith, Policy Manager, Office of National Affairs, 

Washington, DC, statement ................................................................................ 309 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, DC, February 12, 2013, letter . 313 

Shurtleff, Mark, former Utah Attorney General, statement ................................ 318 

Bowie, Rebecca and Jeff, Suwanee, Georgia, February 12, 2013, letter ............. 321 

Hawkins, James R., Chief of Police, City of Garden City Police Department, 

Garden City, Kansas, February 12, 2013, letter ............................................... 325 

Tiven, Rachel B., Executive Director, Immigration Equality, National Gay 

and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund; National Center for Transgender 

Equality; Family Equality Council; Queer Undocumented Immigrant 

Project (QUIP), a project of United We Dream; United Methodist Church, 

General Board of Church and Society; Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists; United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; 

UCC GenderFold Action Alliance; Auburn Seminary; Gay, Lesbian & 

Straight Education Network; Out4Immigration; Gay & Lesbian Advocates 

& Defenders (GLAD; Transgender Law Center, Washington, DC, joint 

statement .............................................................................................................. 328 

Human Rights First, Eleanor Acer, Director, Refugee Protection Program, 

Washington, DC, statement ................................................................................ 337 

How to Repair the U.S. Asylum and Refugee Resettlement System ................... 347 

How to Repair the U.S. Immigration Detention System ...................................... 373 

National ICE Council, LeAnn Mezzacapo, Washington, DC, statement ............. 392 

Interfaith Immigration Coalition (IIC), interfaithimmigrationcoalition.org, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 399 

Gomez, Rev Jose ́ H., Archbishop of Los Angeles, Chairman, U.S. Conference 

of Catholic Bishops, Los Angeles, California, statement .................................. 431 

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Wade Henderson, President and CEO, Washington, DC, statement ...................................................... 454 

McDevitt-Pugh, Martha, Democrats Abroad LGBT Immigration Task Force, 

Washington, DC, statement ................................................................................ 461 

National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, Kent Lundgen, Brunswick, Georgia, statement ..................................................................................... 462 

National Immigration Forum, Washington, DC, statement ................................ 464 

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................................... 466 

Mann, Donald, President, Negative Population Growth, Alexandria, Virginia, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 475 

Stolz, Rich, Executive Director, OneAmerica, Seattle, Washington, statement . 478 
Page

V 

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

Policy and Program, Andrew Fillum, Director of Youth Leadership Programs, Joy Lawson, Director, YP4 Action, and Minister Leslie Watson 

Malachi, Director, African American Religious Affairs, Washington, DC, 

joint statement ..................................................................................................... 488 

PICO National Network, Gordon Whitman, Policy Director, Washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 491 

Bragar, Robert, DNC Member, Democrats Abroad, Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................................... 494 

SIREN Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network, San Jose, California, statement .................................................................................................. 495 

‘‘Outlaw,’’ New York Times, June 26, 2011, article ............................................... 497 

Vargas, May 24, Time Magazine, New York City, article by Jose Antonion 

Vargas ................................................................................................................... 503 

Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), Adam Isacson and Maureen 

Meyer, Washington, DC, joint statement ........................................................... 521 

Women’s Refugee Commission, New York, New York, statement ....................... 529 

(1) 

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2013 

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

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:43 a.m., in Room 

SH–216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, 

Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, 

Grassley, Sessions, Graham, Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, and Flake. 

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

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning. We’re delayed a little bit starting because there were a number of people waiting to get into the 

room, and I think we have been able to accommodate those who 

were waiting. There are well over a couple hundred people in this 

room. There are hundreds more watching our Committee Webcast. 

And I know that this is an issue that everybody has differing views 

on, and I would hope that—well, I know that we will have a civil 

meeting. Senator Grassley and I will, I think, join in asking everybody to treat all witnesses with respect. 

I think the President should be commended for making comprehensive immigration reform a top priority. He followed his 

speech in Nevada last month with very strong comments last night 

in his State of the Union speech. I agree with his call for real reforms that will not only address our undocumented population, but 

will improve legal immigration by reducing the bureaucracy and 

delays that hinder our job creators but also strain our families. His 

recommendations for how to tackle one of our Nation’s most pressing problems are thoughtful, they are realistic, they are inclusive. 

I was pleased to see that the President’s proposal includes better 

access to visas for victims of domestic and sexual violence, improved laws for refugees and asylum seekers, and the assurance 

that every family receives equal treatment under the law. 

I look forward to seeing these principles turned into legislation. 

More importantly, comprehensive immigration reform has to include a fair and straightforward path to citizenship for those 

‘‘dreamers’’ and families who have made the United States their 

home—the estimated 11 million undocumented people in the 

United States. I am troubled by any proposal that contains false 

promises in which citizenship is always over the next mountain. I 
2 

want the pathway to be clear. I want the goal of citizenship to be 

available and attainable. 

The President and Secretary Napolitano have done more in the 

administration’s first four years to enforce immigration laws and 

strengthen border security than in the previous eight years. But we 

will continue our efforts to make sure that Federal law enforcement officials have the tools they need to be effective and secure, 

and that is something that should unite both Democrats and Republicans. 

Now, despite all our efforts and all our progress, there are some 

stuck in the past who are repeating the demands of ‘‘enforcement 

first.’’ I fear that they mean ‘‘enforcement only.’’ To them I say this 

has stalled immigration reform for far too long. We have effectively 

done enforcement first and enforcement only. It is time to proceed 

to comprehensive action to bring families out of the shadows. 

The President is right: Now is the time. And in my view, it is 

time to pass a good bill, a fair bill, a comprehensive bill. I want 

this Committee to complete work on such a bill over the next few 

months. Too many have been waiting too long for fairness. 

I hope that we will honor those who contributed so much to 

building this country after coming from distant lands in search of 

freedom and opportunity. Few topics are more fundamental to who 

and what we are as a Nation. Immigration throughout our history 

has been an ongoing source of renewal of our spirit, our creativity, 

and our economic strength, whether it was my maternal grandparents who immigrated to Vermont from another land with another language or my wife’s parents who immigrated to Vermont 

from another country with another language. From the young students brought to this country by their parents seeking a better life, 

to the hardworking men and women who play vital roles supporting our farmers, innovating for our technology companies, or 

creating businesses of their own, our Nation continues to benefit 

from immigrants, and we have to uphold the fundamental values 

of family, hard work, and fairness. 

In Vermont, immigration has promoted cultural richness through 

refugee resettlement and student exchange, economic development 

through the EB–5 Regional Center program, and tourism and trade 

with our friends in Canada. Foreign agricultural workers support 

Vermont’s farmers and growers, many of whom have become a part 

of the Vermont families that are so integral to our communities. 

But the dysfunction in our system affects us all. We have to do 

better by gay and lesbian Americans who face discrimination in our 

immigration law. Today, Senator Susan Collins and I will introduce 

the Uniting American Families Act. This legislation, I hope, will 

end the needless discrimination so many Americans face in our immigration system. Too many citizens, including Vermonters who I 

have come to know personally and who want nothing more than to 

be with their loved ones, are denied this basic human right. This 

policy serves no legitimate purpose, and it is wrong. 

The fundamental civil rights of American citizens are more than 

just a social issue. Any legislation that comes before the Senate Judiciary Committee should recognize the rights of all Americans, 

who have just as much right to spousal immigration benefits as 

anybody else, straight or gay. 
3 

We know that the President has a comprehensive proposal that 

he has deferred sending to us at the request of Senators working 

to develop their own legislation. I would say to everybody that the 

window of opportunity will not stay open long. If we are going to 

act on this issue, we have to do so without delay. I hope today’s 

hearing helps to emphasize the urgency of the situation because 

this Committee will start marking up immigration legislation soon. 

Senator Grassley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

before I speak, I want to notify the audience as well as the panelists that three of us on the Committee have a conflict, two Republicans and one Democrat, with Finance, so we will be in and out 

for that hearing, and a couple of us have some conflict also between 

Budget and this Committee. 

I am going to start with a quote from then-Chairman Senator 

Simpson of Wyoming that he made on May 5, 1981, as we started 

down a six-year road to get the immigration bill of 1986 passed. 

‘‘Immigration reform is a perilous minefield of emotionally charged 

issues. One cannot but consider any such discussion as being about 

one’s own ancestors, and in some cases about oneself. Further, it 

brings into question one’s image of America’s past, an assessment 

of America’s present, and most difficult of all, the direction of 

America’s future. There is a general consensus that reform is required, some clear restatement of where we stand. It is imperative 

that the debate concerning such needed reform be conducted in an 

atmosphere of calm, compassionate, and careful deliberation, recognizing the difficulty of the question and the earnestness of those 

who will speak to it.’’ 

Just as Congress was about to undertake an overhaul of the immigration system and to put a legalization program in place was 

what that road we started down was at that time in 1981. His 

words are valuable and relevant today. Since I was elected to the 

Senate in 1980, I have served on this Committee. I have seen my 

share of immigration debates. I voted for the 1986 amnesty because 

I believed it was a one-time solution to our problem. I was wrong. 

And today we are forced to deal with the same problem and the 

same arguments and the same ideas of how to improve the situation. 

I applaud the movement by Members, including several of this 

Committee, to work toward an agreement. I have read the bipartisan framework for immigration reform that the group has written. The one line that struck me was the last sentence of the preamble. It states, ‘‘We will ensure that this is a successful permanent reform to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited.’’ That sentence is the most important part of that document, and we must not lose sight of that goal. We need to learn 

from our previous mistakes so that we do not have to revisit that 

problem again. 

I welcome the Secretary today and hope that we will get a better 

understanding of the administration’s ideas. President Obama campaigned on transparency, but that promise has not been fully met. 
4 

I take my responsibilities to do oversight seriously, so it is extremely frustrating that the questions I have asked of this administration and of this Secretary have gone unanswered. I think it is 

a slap in the face of the American people who also want and deserve answers. So I plan to ask the Secretary about why agents in 

New Jersey were directed not to arrest a sexual predator whom 

they knew had overstayed a visa and had sexually abused minors 

on several occasions. 

According to internal memos provided to the Committee, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials in Newark planned to 

arrest Luis Abraham Sanchez Zavaleta on October 25th, but delayed the arrest after learning it was likely to be a high-profile case 

that would garner significant media and congressional interest. 

Zavaleta had pled guilty as a juvenile in family court in New Jersey to sexual assault of an eight-year-old boy, and police reports indicate that similar abuse had occurred a total of eight times. All 

Republicans on the Judiciary Committee sent the Secretary a letter 

December 19, 2012, and a follow-up letter January 7th this year. 

On February 4, 2013, two officials from Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement briefed Committee staff, but the Department has refused to make available before this hearing the official with firsthand knowledge, raising questions about what the Department 

might be trying to hide. 

Staff is also still waiting for the Department to provide requested 

documents and a full response to our letters. But here is what we 

know. Immigration and Customs Enforcement missed an opportunity to arrest Sanchez Zavaleta in 2010. Then his arrest was delayed again in 2012, from October 25th until December 6th. 

Sanchez Zavaleta had a pending application for Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals. This application was later denied December 

4th. According to ICE agents who briefed Committee staff, Sanchez 

Zavaleta would have been eligible for DACA and his juvenile adjudication would not be a bar to eligibility. Now, isn’t that a shocking 

assertion that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service would 

have the discretion to grant a child rapist application to stay in the 

country? 

Today this person is free in the United States. After having 

served only a few days in detention, he was released on bond and 

is being monitored by ankle bracelet. It is unknown if Sanchez 

Zavaleta continued to work with youth as he did prior to being apprehended. 

So the Secretary must answer for the delay in arresting this sexual predator and for allowing him to be on the streets today. 

I also plan to ask the Secretary about her lack of cooperation and 

transparency with regard to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program. I have sent several letters to the administration 

about how the program would be implemented. Our first letter to 

the President went unanswered. Then the Chairman of the House 

Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith, and I posed several questions 

about background checks, fraud prevention funding, and applications that are denied. We asked the Secretary for a complete set 

of data. At least five of our letters on DACA alone were ignored by 

the Secretary. 
5 

The Secretary has also failed to respond to me about countries 

that refuse or delay taking back aliens. Finally, we have yet to receive responses posed by members of this Committee after our last 

hearing with the Secretary. She appeared before us April 25, 2012. 

Those questions have been ignored. 

We are on the cusp of undertaking this massive reform of our immigration system that I started out my remarks referring to, a very 

important process we are going through. Immigration must be settled. We must find answers. But getting answers to our most basic 

questions that are a part of this process of legislating seems to be 

impossible. This administration has refused to be held accountable. 

I fear that what will become of the President’s promise of transparency if and when we do pass a bill. Enacting a bill is one part 

of the process. Implementing the law that we pass is another. If 

we do not have faith in this administration now, how can we trust 

the implementation of a very important law that hopefully we will 

be able to pass yet this year? 

I look forward to hearing from the Secretary. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Secretary Napolitano is the third Secretary of Homeland Security. She served as Governor of Arizona, Attorney General of Arizona actually, when we first met, and as United States Attorney 

for the District of Arizona. 

The full statements of all witnesses will be placed in the record 

in full, and I would ask you, Madam Secretary, to go ahead and 

summarize or emphasize whatever points you would like. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Grassley and members of the Committee. It is a privilege to 

be here with you today, and I thank you for convening this hearing 

on such an important, timely issue, one that President Obama and 

I are committed to working with you to address: the need for common-sense immigration reform. 

I sit here before you today not just as DHS Secretary but as 

someone who has spent the better part of my life and career focused on immigration enforcement and policy. I grew up in New 

Mexico. As the U.S. Attorney in Arizona, I supervised the prosecution of more than 6,000 immigration felony cases. As Arizona Attorney General and Governor, I dealt with the surge of illegal immigration in the early part of the century. 

As Secretary of Homeland Security, I now serve as the chief enforcer of immigration law and the chief administrator of immigration services. I have dealt with immigration law and policy—— 

[Audience outburst.] 

Chairman LEAHY. The Committee will stand in recess until the 

police can restore order. The police will restore order. Everybody 

will be seated so as not to block the view of those behind you. 

You know, it is interesting. I hope that the people, whether they 

are for or against the position that I or others might take, I hope 

they do not think they are going to really help their cause by doing 

this. We are going to have as open a hearing as possible. We will 
6 

have statements from not only the witnesses but from others. And 

we will also have an orderly hearing because there are a lot of people here who want to hear what the witnesses say, and the Chair 

will not allow disturbances of that. I just want that very, very 

clear. 

Secretary Napolitano, please continue. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I have dealt with immigration law and policy at nearly every level. I have seen this issue 

from many perspectives. I can say without equivocation what everyone who deals with this issue knows well. Our immigration system is not just broken; it is hurting our country. The time to fix 

it is long overdue, and the way to fix it is with common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform. 

There is, as you noted, perhaps nothing more central to the 

American story than immigration and the contribution of immigrants to the United States. Immigration forms the core of our national identity. It has contributed to the richness of our culture and 

the advancement of our society. For many of us, it has also shaped 

our own families. But our immigration system is not working. Our 

communities, workers, and employers are all frustrated by a system that treats a drug smuggler the same as a high-achieving student, undercuts honest employers, and leaves millions in fear of deportation and vulnerable to fraud and other crimes. 

We have tried before to reform this system. We have been unsuccessful because those efforts failed to address the root of the problem and in some cases directly contributed to the situation we find 

ourselves in today. 

Now, I often hear the argument that before reform can move forward, we must first secure our borders. But too often the ‘‘border 

security first’’ refrain simply serves as an excuse for failing to address the underlying problems. It also ignores the significant 

progress and efforts that we have undertaken over the past four 

years. 

Our borders have, in fact, never been stronger. I became U.S. Attorney in Arizona in 1993 after the provisions of the 1986 bill had 

taken effect, and I experienced the surge of border crossings firsthand. And for more than a decade in Arizona, I was vocal about 

filling that gap. We have done that. The situation I face in Arizona 

no longer exists. The border today is not the border then. Our border is better staffed with more people, infrastructure, and technology than at any time in our Nation’s history, and the results are 

clear. Illegal immigration attempts are at 40-year lows; seizures of 

drugs, weapons, and contraband are up over the past four years. 

We have stronger, safer border communities and smarter, more efficient ports of entry. 

But that is not to say that we are done or that we can stop our 

efforts. To the contrary, we must sustain and buildupon them. But 

the most effective way to do that is through common-sense immigration reform that strengthens employers’ accountability and that 

updates our legal immigration system. 

Now, I have also heard the refrain that any attempt to provide 

legal status to the undocumented immigrants already in our country would simply reward lawbreaking and constitute amnesty. Deporting 11 million people is not just impractical and cost prohibi-
7 

tive; it runs counter to our values. It would break apart families, 

hurt our economy, and create labor shortages in critical industries. 

We must have a way for those who broke the law to pay a penalty, 

pay their taxes, learn English, and get right with the law so they 

can earn their way to citizenship. 

Last month, President Obama put forward a set of principles 

that he believes will address the longstanding problems with our 

immigration system. His vision is firm and fair, and it is largely 

consistent with the bipartisan framework for comprehensive reform 

announced by a bipartisan group of Senators, some of whom are 

here today. 

The President’s principles support stronger, sustained border security and immigration enforcement. The President’s proposal gives 

us better tools to strike at employers who hire illegal labor and, by 

doing so, create the market demand for illegal immigration. Under 

the President’s proposal, we would provide a rigorous pathway to 

earn citizenship for those already here, and we would significantly 

improve the legal immigration system. 

Common-sense immigration reform will help eliminate the main 

driver of illegal immigration: the desire to find work. As we make 

it easier for businesses to get the workers they need legally and 

more difficult for undocumented workers to find jobs, this will relieve pressure on the border and reduce illegal flows, and that will 

enable law enforcement to keep their focus where it should be—on 

narcotraffickers, human smugglers, and transnational criminal organizations. 

An improved visa system will help align our work force with the 

needs of our economy. Further expansion of a worker verification 

system will allow employers to quickly and easily confirm the new 

hires and that they are eligible to work here, and increased penalties will help deter employers who still refuse to play by the 

rules. 

A common-sense bill will also increase security by improving infrastructure at the ports of entry, giving prosecutors new legal tools 

to dismantle transnational criminal organizations and supporting 

DHS’ work with State, local, and tribal partners in border communities. 

And, finally, it will help law enforcement protect our communities in other ways, by bringing millions of people out of the shadows. Having a large group of illegal, undocumented immigrants 

creates many problems for law enforcement and for our communities. 

These are all common-sense reforms, supported by law enforcement organizations, business leaders, faith communities, and elected officials from both sides of the aisle. With bipartisan support for 

reform, now is the time to act. 

President Obama and I stand ready to work with this Committee 

and the Congress to achieve this goal for our country, for the American people, and for all who seek to contribute their talents and energy to our great Nation, just as generations before them have 

done, and just as future generations must do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Napolitano appears as a 

submission for the record.] 
8 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. 

You know, as we begin this debate on comprehensive immigration reform, we have heard some say that if we legalize the status 

of millions of people, we are going to end up in the same situation 

10 or 20 years from now with a large undocumented population. 

We will repeat the same cycle as 1986, as has been referred to here 

earlier. And some argue that legalizing the status of this population is going to be a magnet for future illegal immigration. 

How would you respond to that? Is there something different 

today? Do we take different steps in the legislation? How would 

you respond? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I would say that immigration and immigration enforcement now is light years away from 

what it was in 1986, and you can see it by the numbers. I think 

in 1986 the total Border Patrol population was about 3,000. Now 

it is over 21,000, assuming sequestration does not happen. 

I think in 1986 there were a couple of miles of fence along the 

entire southern border, and it was basically chain-link fence. Now 

we have over 655 miles of actual fence infrastructure. In some 

areas it is double. There are a lot of kinds of infrastructure that 

goes into it. 

In 1986, the then-INS removed I think about 25,000 individuals 

from the country. Last year, we removed 409,000. That is a record 

number. Fifty-five percent of those had other criminal convictions, 

by the way. But it is the enforcement and the removals that have 

caused some of the tensions that we saw expressed earlier today. 

So, in short, the border is different than it was then. Immigration enforcement is different than it was then. And I think from 

the President’s standpoint, from our standpoint, two things must 

occur: One, these efforts must be sustained and built upon; and, 

two, we have to get at the demand for illegal immigration, and we 

have to deal with legal migration into the country. 

Chairman LEAHY. Let me ask you this. If you had a legalization 

process, does that make your efforts to apprehend and remove 

those who have committed crimes or are fugitives more or less difficult? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Oh, it makes it less difficult, and the reason, Mr. Chairman, is because, as I mentioned in my statement, it 

takes out of the enforcement area those who have longstanding relationships in the country, who have been here for years, who are 

already working, paying their taxes and the like, and it allows us 

to focus even more specifically on those who are here committing 

other crimes and who are really dangerous to our public safety and 

our security. 

Chairman LEAHY. You know, anybody who has ever been a prosecutor knows that it is impossible to prosecute every single thing 

that comes before you, and actually the reason we either appoint 

or elect our prosecutors, is that we assume they are going to use 

some discretion in what they go after. 

Now, you have shown prosecutorial discretion, which I supported, 

in your policies to provide relief for children brought to the United 

States by their parents. You are not visiting the sins of the parents 

upon the children, in effect, as somebody else said. 
9 

But critics have said the administration’s Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and prosecutorial discretion policies 

have the effect of prohibiting ICE from enforcing the law. How 

would you respond to that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would say to the contrary. First of all, 

the DACA program is consistent with our values. As you said, we 

should not visit the ‘‘sins’’ of the parents upon the children. I think 

about 190,000 have now been granted deferred action under the 

DACA program. 

But, second, the guidance we have given to ICE and ICE agents 

is to focus on those who commit other crimes, who are repeat violators, who are fugitives from existing warrants, and taking those 

who are low priority out of the system per se allows us to achieve 

that focus. 

Chairman LEAHY. Now, I mentioned earlier that Senator Collins 

and I have legislation, the Uniting American Families Act. It is legislation I have introduced every year for 10 years. President 

Obama included immigration fairness as part of his principles for 

immigration reform. Some have expressed the fear that adjudicating same-sex spousal or partner petitions would cause significant challenges for adjudicators and invite more fraud. I do not see 

that. We were able to handle that issue very easily in my State of 

Vermont. 

Do you see any likelihood that expanding the spousal green card 

to committed same-sex couples presents a risk of fraud any greater 

than that associated with heterosexual spousal petitions? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No, and our adjudicators are experienced 

at fraud detection. We have actually increased the number of examiners who focus on this. This is done primarily at USCIS, but, 

no, we do not see that as a barrier to achieving equality. 

Chairman LEAHY. My time is up, but I would ask you to look at 

some of the dysfunctions in the existing H–2A agricultural visa system, especially as that involves dairy farmers, obviously a matter 

of concern to me in Vermont. And I would ask you to work with 

us to make that better and continue to work with us, as you have, 

on the EB–5 Program. That has been a success in Vermont. H–2A 

has problems. EB–5 has worked well. So let us work on those two, 

and if you would commit to have your staff work with mine on 

those two issues, please. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. And on the H– 

2A issue with particularly the dairy farmers, again, another area 

where statutory reform is needed. That can all be fixed by statute. 

Chairman LEAHY. I could not agree more. Thank you. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, if I could, out of courtesy, 

Senator Sessions is Ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, 

and they meet soon. I would like to defer to him and then be the 

next Republican. 

Chairman LEAHY. Certainly. Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And you and I do 

share some common beliefs about EB–5, and I think we can make 

that system better and should make it better. 

And, Mr. Chairman, you touched on a question that is so fundamental to our analysis of immigration law in America, and that is, 
10 

you said you were afraid enforcement first means enforcement 

only. For the American people, what their concern is that by saying 

enforcement only, you really mean amnesty only. You really mean 

that we are not going to have enforcement, but we have got to have 

amnesty first. And that is part of the big debate that we are wrestling with. 

And, Madam Secretary, I truly believe had this administration 

done a better job of enforcement, been more effective in moving forward with a lawful system of immigration, you would be in a much 

stronger position with the American people to ask for a more broad 

solution to the problem. So I think that is the fundamental place 

we are today. 

I truly respect the people that are working that think they can 

reach legislation, but it sounds a good bit like what happened previously. It sounds so much like before where a group of special interests meet at the White House, and you had some of the big business people and you had the agro people and you had the immigration activist people. But I did not see the Border Patrol there. I did 

not see the ICE representatives, the law enforcement officers there. 

And I did not see the American people’s real interests being represented there. 

So a bill will come out, and it will need to be analyzed. I have 

my doubts that it is going to deliver on its promises. If it can deliver on its promises, then I think there will be a strong—I think 

it will have momentum and can go forward, and perhaps even become law. But we might be better in dealing with the discrete problems within our immigration system today than trying a massive 

immigration comprehensive reform. 

I do believe some improvement has been done at the border. I do 

not know where you were, Governor Napolitano, but I fought for 

the fencing that is out there that you are bragging about today, 

and it took a long time, and it basically only got done after the last 

bill or as part of the last bill was going forward. And it called for 

700 miles of fencing. As of February of this year, there are 352 

miles of pedestrian fencing, 299 miles of vehicle fencing, and approximately 36 miles of secondary fencing—not what the law required. It called for full double fencing, pedestrian fencing, for 700 

miles. 

I just say that to say that—and additional Border Patrol Agents 

that have been added in recent years were added over the objection 

of many of the people that were advocating the last amnesty law 

that came forward. 

So, anyway, that is where we are. We had to fight for that. We 

had to fight for funding for that, and we still are not where we 

promised the American people we would be. 

When you last appeared before the Committee in October 2011, 

I raised concerns about the morale of agents and officers of ICE, 

the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. In 2010, they 

cast a no-confidence vote unanimously on their director, John Morton, because of policies implemented by this administration that directly orders them not to enforce the law. These are the people who 

handle mostly the internal, not the border area. 
11 

At that time you said you believed those policies are ‘‘actually enhancing morale among our troops.’’ Well, apparently that was not 

correct. 

According to recent Federal surveys, ICE ranked 279th out of 

291 in agency morale and satisfaction. The president of the ICE 

employees union, Chris Crane, who will testify later, before the 

House Committee last week said that his agency is falling apart. 

Its agents now believe that, ‘‘Death or serious injury to ICE officers 

and agents appears more acceptable to ICE, DHS, and the administration leadership than the public complaints that would be lodged 

by special interest groups representing illegal aliens.’’ 

They have also filed a lawsuit against you alleging that you are 

interfering and blocking their ability to enforce the law. That lawsuit is still in court moving forward. 

So this is a real serious problem. Have you met with Mr. Crane 

or the ICE agents to try to resolve this difficult problem of morale? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, let me make three points, because you actually had a series of questions. 

Number one, were CBP and ICE involved in discussions in the 

White House as the President formed his proposal? And the answer 

is yes. And, in fact, the Acting Commissioner of CBP is a career 

Border Patrol Agent for decades. Operational issues and how the 

system works were definitely part of that dialogue. 

On the fence, the original act was for 700 miles. There was a 

subsequent amendment or adjustment to that—I think it was proposed by Senator Hutchison—to 655 miles. All but one mile of that 

is now complete, and the one mile or different little sections, most 

of them are in some litigation or another with private property 

owners. But the fence, to the extent it has been appropriated for, 

is complete. 

With respect to—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, it is not the kind of fence the statute described. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. And with respect to ICE and ICE morale, 

I think ICE agents have one of the most, if not the most difficult 

law enforcement jobs in America. They get criticized because we 

are deporting too many people, and as I mentioned in my testimony, we have deported more people than any prior administration. Then they get criticized for not deporting everyone who is 

here illegally. It does not surprise me that their morale is low. 

We are working on that, and we are doing a number of things, 

but the key fact I want to get to, Senator, is that it is our responsibility as the leadership of the Department, as the leadership of any 

prosecution agency, to set priorities. It is done within the Department of Justice. It is done within every State Attorney General’s 

office. It is done within every—— 

[Audience outburst.] 

Chairman LEAHY. The police will restore order. 

Thank you. Go ahead, please. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It is done within every local prosecutor’s 

office. 

[Audience outburst.] 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The priorities are not set—with all respect and appreciation for the hard work of our agents in the field, 
12 

they do not set the policy. They get guidance from their leadership 

as to what they should focus upon, and that is what ICE has done. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Feinstein—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I just would 

say they are not happy with those policies. That is the problem. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. We gather that. 

Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I have followed your career and also your administration of a very tough, large, unwieldy Department, and I 

want to thank you for your service and your good work. I think you 

have been just excellent, and I want you to know that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me bring up something that I bring up 

at every hearing, and that is the Visa Waiver Program and the absence of a biometric entry and exit system for foreign visitors. I 

know how important this program is to commerce and travel. I also 

know that Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, and Zacarias Moussaoui 

came in on the Visa Waiver Program. For many years, I have been 

trying to get data on visa overstays for each country, to no avail 

so far. 

Last year, Assistant Secretary David Heyman informed me that, 

by June 2012, the Department would have a fully operational biometric exit system in place that would provide real-time information to those who exit U.S. airports. This new system was expected 

to allow DHS to calculate overstays per country by May 2012. Now, 

as you know, the Department has failed to meet both the May and 

June deadlines. 

Could you give us a quick update? Because I have got two other 

questions I want to get in in my short time. And when are we 

going to be able to get the exit and entry system in place? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right. I think what Mr. Heyman was 

probably referring to was an enhanced biographic exit system that 

will lead to biometric. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. That is correct. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. And that is an important distinction because biometric, as you know, is extraordinarily expensive, and our 

airports were never designed to monitor exits, only entrances. So 

lots of logistical difficulties. 

On the country-by-country overstay rates, I inquired about this 

as recently as last week. I was told that we should have those in 

2013. I said, ‘‘Now in 2013? The end of 2013? ’’ The answer I got 

was, ‘‘By the end of 2013.’’ But, Senator, I want to assure you this 

is something that I am very interested in as well. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, thank you, and that time will be indelible on my consciousness, so I will ask again then. 

I am trying to put together the agricultural jobs part of the immigration bill. As a matter of fact, we are negotiating between 

growers and the farm workers at this time. E-verify, as currently 

constructed, is not workable in agricultural settings. 

Last year, I sent a letter to Director Mayorkas asking for recommendations on how E-Verify can be modified to operate effectively in agricultural settings. In a response letter, he acknowl-
13 

edged the challenges faced. However, he did not provide any specific strategy on how his agency is working to address this issue. 

This is coming up. You know, are we going to include E-verify? 

Are we not? How workable can it be? Can you respond to that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. First of all, as I mentioned in my 

testimony, I believe national implementation of some worker 

verification system—E-Verify is the one we have—is central for immigration reform. It will actually reinforce what we do at the border. But with respect to agricultural workers, one of the problems 

is they are out in the fields. I mean, the farmers are out in the 

fields. So we have been looking at and testing mobile sites that can 

travel around and other kinds of technology that we can use to 

kind of put the E-Verify system where the growers are. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. OK. I would like to follow up with this. 

Last question. One of the principles of our system is family unification. Under current law a citizen or a green card holder can 

bring in immediate family—spouse, children, parents, and minor 

siblings. The question becomes where we draw the line. It was really, as I think Senator Graham knows, a big part of the so-called 

grand bargain when we discussed immigration reform and it was 

on the floor several years ago. 

What do you believe is the appropriate place for this immediate 

family? The nuclear family? How many others should be included? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, this is an issue that has a lot of difficulty associated with it, I think, as we can all appreciate. I think 

what I would say at this point is that the President believes very 

strongly in family unification. How we have dealt with the threeand 10-year bar, I think, is evidence of that. 

We will work with you and with this Committee in terms of looking at the overall—what is the chain, how big is the chain that 

should be permitted under the law. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Do you have any studies on how many—what 

is the average number of people someone on a green card brings 

in with them? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I do not know, Senator. I will find out. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Would you? Because that might be helpful. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Just a statement to follow up on something 

that Senator Feinstein said about entry and exit. We keep track of 

people coming in, obviously. When they go out, she cited cost, and 

there may be some cost to it, but I think it is important to emphasize that that is the law that we ought to keep track of that. 

Madam Secretary, I want to go to what I brought up in my opening statement, and let me say I probably hammer you because you 

did not answer letters, but there are other departments that do not 

answer letters either. I have got email here from a group over in 

the Defense Department that I sent a letter with 78 questions in 

it, and a person in charge of that said, ‘‘F Grassley, whether or not 

we are going to answer him.’’ So, you know, we have got a problem 

throughout the entire bureaucracy, whether Republican or Democrat administrations, not responding to congressional oversight, a 
14 

responsibility of ours under checks and balances of Government. So 

I have not gotten answers from you on this question, so I am going 

to ask about the person that is the sex offender that I referred to. 

And I think it is important that we get it. 

Agents at the field level apparently wanted to detain him as soon 

as possible for deportation in October of last year. Documents show 

the arrest was planned for October 5th but did not occur until December 6th. The delay appears to be related to political sensitivity 

of the case—that is the word we got—and intervention by the headquarters. 

So did you or senior aides have any involvement in the delay? 

If you say no, that is okay with me. I just want to know. Did you 

have any involvement, or your senior aides, in that delay? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I think I know the specific case 

you are referring to, and I did not learn about it until January, nor 

did my aides. 

I now have gone through the chronology of the case, and I can 

answer those questions for you. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. When did you or officials at DHS headquarters first learn about this case? Was it before the December arrest? And I think you just said no, it was January. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I speak for myself, Senator, but I first 

learned of it when the AP ran a story in January. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. And so other officials, you do not know 

of other officials knowing about it before this same story? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Correct. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. If you were told a sex offender has a job 

working with children and if you have the legal authority to detain 

him on immigration violations, why would anyone wait a month 

and a half before taking action? Now, I know it is below your level. 

That is what you just told me. But why would anybody want to 

delay action on that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. If I might, in this particular case, having 

looked at it, I think the real issue was why was there a delay between the adjudicated offense in 2010 to 2012, and I have asked 

my staff to look into that. He should have been removed at that 

point in time. 

In 2012, when you look at the chronology, a lot of things happened. One is the local prosecutor was considering doing something, so we usually defer to that. That is normal. Hurricane Sandy 

hit in the middle of everything. The prosecutor’s office was closed 

for weeks. Our office was closed. 

So there are reasons for that part of the delay, but I think the 

more significant issue is what happened in those two years and 

why wasn’t the original removal effected. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. Now, a question that was not in any letters I wrote to you. It is about DACA eligibility. In a briefing to 

Committee staff, ICE staff said that having ‘‘a juvenile delinquency 

adjudication’’ does not make someone ineligible for DACA. They 

said that this sex predator would have been eligible for DACA despite his record. 

Now, to me, this is outrageous. Will you remedy this loophole 

given that you wrote DACA? 
15 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, the agents were wrong. There is 

a clear public safety exemption in the policy on DACA. I will resend the policy to the particular agents you reference, but they 

were simply incorrect. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, and I think you are doing the 

right thing by doing that. 

This will have to be the last question I ask you. ICE policy states 

that high-profile or high-media-attention cases must be approved 

by headquarters. That policy looks like a dangerous invitation for 

political interference in law enforcement operations. These decisions should be made by career law enforcement professionals on 

the merits. Law enforcement should not be driven by political agendas. 

Why was there such a major disagreement between the law enforcement folks on the ground and senior folks at headquarters on 

when to take action in this case that we just discussed? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Every case has particular facts. They are 

not all the same. And in this instance, as far as I can ascertain, 

you had USCIS turning down the DACA application, and you had 

ICE making sure we could effect the arrest and the removal, and 

they had to coordinate their actions. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I have one more question. 

Chairman LEAHY. Go ahead. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. Thank you. 

After his arrest, the sex offender in this case was released on a 

$20,000 bond and is wearing a location monitoring bracelet. Allegedly, ICE Director John Morton approved this decision to release 

him on these conditions. Were you involved in that decision? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I was not, but the provision of allowing 

bond is in the law. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Do you approve of the decision that was 

made? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. If there is adequate supervision of the defendant, that is a common way to deal with some of these cases. 

Senator GRASSLEY. And, last, has the Department taken any 

other steps to ensure that he is not around children? And if not, 

why not? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would have to look into the specific restrictions on his movement, but the fact that he has an ankle 

bracelet suggests that he is not to be around children. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary, for 

being with us, and I have a special interest in this line of questioning. Twelve years ago, I introduced the DREAM Act. It was a 

bipartisan measure, and not so much today, but I hope that that 

changes. We have had indications that many Republicans who 

voted against it in the past are reconsidering their positions, and 

I am glad they are. 

I also want to salute the President and your office for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA, which basically gives to DREAM Act-eligible individuals a chance to stay in 

the United States. So far, my information suggests there have been 
16 

more than 424,000 requests for this deferred action received by 

USCIS, and over 178,000 have been approved. 

When Congressman Luis Gutie ́rrez and I held on August 15th an 

opportunity for those in the Chicagoland area to come forward and 

apply, we expected several hundred. Twelve thousand showed up. 

Many of them came with their parents. Some of them waited from 

midnight the night before in the hopes of being able to apply. Some 

of them are in the audience today, and they represent, in my view, 

a great opportunity for America to give these idealistic, energetic, 

committed individuals a chance to make this a better Nation. 

But we have drawn rules on the DREAM Act and on DACA that 

I think most Americans would agree are the right rules. Your response to Senator Grassley I think was spot on in terms of what 

we are trying to achieve here. 

In the particular case which he has noted, which has received 

some publicity, I might make this fact clear: This individual was 

not granted DACA. He was denied. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is right. 

Senator DURBIN. He was denied this status. He has been arrested and placed in deportation proceedings, and that is entirely 

consistent with the administration’s policy using limited resources 

to target the most serious offenders. The DACA rules are very 

clear. While juvenile delinquency is not an absolute bar to DACA, 

public safety threats are not eligible, and no juvenile with an adjudication for sexual assault will be granted discretion. That should 

be clear on the record. And for the thousands and thousands of 

young people who have applied, they know these standards going 

in. And to suggest that we are cutting corners for political reasons 

or not paying attention is not the case, to my knowledge. You are 

dealing with literally hundreds of thousands of cases. We are 

human, we are fallible. Some mistakes will be made. But let us 

make no mistake in establishing the sound and specific rules when 

it comes to the DREAM Act and to the application of DACA. And 

I thank you very much for that. 

Now, let me ask you a question which may be more difficult. 

Your critics—and there are some. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I heard some. 

Senator DURBIN. I am sure you did. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DURBIN. They suggest you are going too far in deportation proceedings. They are suggesting that, yes, anyone who is a 

threat to America with a criminal background should go. We understand that. I applaud that. That keeps America safe. But they 

are suggesting that the deportation efforts have gone beyond that 

into families that are no threat whatsoever and result in splitting 

up families. Many times mothers or fathers are removed from 

households full of citizen children. 

So what standards are being used when you talk about 400,000 

deportations beyond the obvious standard of deporting those who 

are a criminal threat to America? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, the standards are spelled out in the 

various memos on prosecutorial discretion and how it is to be exercised. One factor to be considered, Senator, is whether the individual is the parent of citizen children, so that is a factor taken 
17 

into account. But it is not determinative. Many times we find someone who is a parent and they have felony conviction or convictions 

or serious misdemeanors, and—— 

Senator DURBIN. That is another story. That is another story. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO [continuing]. That will control the situation. 

Senator DURBIN. And it should. I suppose what I am asking you 

to clarify, when you do not have that extenuating circumstance, 

when there is no threat to the public, when there is no criminal 

record, when you are breaking up a family, splitting up a family, 

what are the standards that are applied in those circumstances? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I would approach it a different way. 

If they do not fit any of the priority categories—you know, they are 

not a repeat violator, somebody is using the border as a revolving 

door; if they are not someone with a serious misdemeanor conviction or felony conviction; and if it would split up a family, that 

would be a low-priority matter. 

Chairman LEAHY. If the witness would hold, we have a number 

of people that are blocking the view of those who have been sitting 

here for a long time waiting to watch this hearing. The police will 

please remove them. 

I think that—those who are blocking the view, please remove 

them. And I would think that those who come in here who feel 

strongly about something would have at least enough respect for 

human rights, one of the human rights is to allow the people who 

are here wanting to hear this testimony, to give them a chance to 

see and hear what is going on. And I am sorry that they feel that 

the rights apply only to them and not to others who are in the 

room. 

Please continue and I apologize to you and the Senator for the 

interruption. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and my 

time has expired. 

Chairman LEAHY. No, that is okay. Go ahead. 

Senator DURBIN. I will just say to the Secretary and to the Members of the Committee, there is a genuine, good-faith effort underway, a bipartisan effort among Senators, and I am part of a group, 

four Democrats and four Republicans. We are doing our best to fix 

this broken immigration system. I could not agree with you more. 

It is a threat to America’s future if we do not deal with it honestly 

and in a comprehensive and complete way. 

There are elements in this negotiation that go beyond my personal feelings about what should be done, but it is literally an effort to reach consensus and compromise. I know Senator Feinstein 

is engaged in a similar effort when it comes to agricultural workers. We have been encouraged by the President, but the President 

has made it clear he is anxious to move this on. And I hope we can 

meet his—allay his concerns about any delay here. And I thank 

you for accepting one of the most challenging, difficult, and controversial jobs in this administration. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 
18 

Senator Cornyn, you and I have discussed these immigration 

matters often. Please go ahead, sir. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I agree with Senator Durbin. You have got a 

very tough job. And you and I have known each other a long time, 

serving as Attorney Generals of our respective States and you as 

a U.S. Authority and as Governor and now in this important position. And, of course, we have been talking about immigration reform for a long time. 

In 2005, Senator Kyl, from your home State of Arizona, and I cosponsored a bill we called the Comprehensive Border Security and 

Immigration Reform Act of 2005. So this is like deja vu for a lot 

of us. 

But I believe that the reason that immigration reform failed in 

2007 is because the American people do not actually believe that 

Congress intends to follow through on important measures like border security, worksite enforcement, visa overstays, and the like. 

So I just want to ask you some questions, first of all, about a 

story that I read from your appearance in San Diego on Monday, 

January 4th, where it quotes you as saying, ‘‘I believe the border 

is secure.’’ Is that an accurate quote? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It is, but there is a context there that I 

would like to reference you to, which is to say the border is more 

secure now than it has been ever. The numbers are better now 

than they have been in decades. But as you mentioned, Senator, we 

have to build upon that. We have to sustain that. And that should 

be a part of the bill. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, let me refer you to a report of the GAO 

in 2010, which reflects the level of operational control of the border 

as of September 30, 2010. And as you can see, in red is the TexasMexico border, which represents the majority of the southwestern 

border. And you can see in the four sectors that represent the 

Texas border, the border is nowhere near secure. As a matter of 

fact, in the Marfa Sector, it looks like it is about 15 percent operational control; Del Rio looks like perhaps close to 30 percent; Laredo, about 20 percent; and the Rio Grande Valley, arguably 30 

percent or so. 

So I do not believe that the border is secure, and I still believe 

we have a long, long way to go. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. If I might, Senator—— 

Senator CORNYN. I have some other questions I want to ask you. 

As a matter of fact, a recent Government Accountability Office 

found that your Department failed to apprehend at least 39 percent 

of illegal border crossovers in 2011. And, of course, as I travel the 

border in Texas, what the Border Patrol and others tell me on an 

anecdotal basis is that we probably catch about one out of every 

three individuals who try to make it across. But even assuming 

that the Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security 

was able to catch and detain 61 percent of the people who traveled 

illegally across the border, is that a good record, in your view? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, if I might, and let me, if I might, 

go back to the earlier point as well—— 

Senator CORNYN. If you could answer my question—— 
19 

Chairman LEAHY. Now, wait a minute. With all due respect to 

the Senator, you have asked two or three questions here. At least 

give the witness a chance to answer the question. It is not fair to 

ask a witness a question and then not allow them to answer. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would ask her to answer 

my question. If she has further explanation, I am glad to hear it. 

The question is—the question is, just to refresh your memory: According to the General Accountability Office, the Department apprehends about 61 percent of people who crossed the border illegally in 2001. And my question is: Do you consider that a record 

to be proud of? Do you count that as success? Or how would you 

characterize it? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would characterize it as one of the 

many numbers that float around when the term ‘‘border security’’ 

is used. We know that border security is extremely important. We 

know we have done more in the last four years, actually with the 

help of this Congress and appropriations you have made, to deter 

traffic over this border. 

We know the main driver of illegal immigration across the Texas 

border, Arizona, California, whatever, is the ability to work. But we 

do not have the tools to support the border with effective worker 

requirements and prosecution tools against employers. So when 

you think about immigration reform, that is why all these things 

go together. It is a system. 

Now, with respect to that GAO report, I have read it, obviously. 

We disagree with the methodology, but beyond that, I think the 

overall conclusion of that report—and it is GAO, so you have to 

presume it is going to be negative because that is their job, is to 

find out things that are wrong. But the overall tenor of the report—— 

Senator CORNYN. I thought it was determined what the facts 

were. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We have different perspectives. We sit in 

different seats. But in any event, the overall conclusion of the report is, A, fewer people are trying to cross that border; and, indeed, 

other studies have shown that net migration is negative—in other 

words, more people are going south than coming north—and that 

substantial progress has been made. 

Are we done? No. 

Senator CORNYN. One last question. In Fiscal Year 2012, 683 illegal aliens from terrorist sponsor and terror watchlist nations were 

apprehended coming across the southwestern border, so obviously 

people who—more than just people who want to work in the United 

States are penetrating our border and coming here from nations 

like Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Cuba, and Syria. And that 

led former DIA Director, the Director of the Defense Intelligence 

Agency, to conclude that this was a national security risk. 

Would you agree that having the border crossed illegally by people really at will from around the world and the limitation only 

being their determination to get here, that that represents a national security risk? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Senator, obviously we want the border to prevent likely terrorists from entering our country. Everybody would agree with that. 
20 

What I would say further, however, is that by improving the 

legal migration system so that people can get visas, they go 

through our ports, we know who they are, we know what their biometrics are, we know where they are going, having an employer 

sanction system, will enable us to better focus on those who really 

are nefarious and are trying to do us harm. 

So if we want to say, look, we want you to focus on terrorists, 

narcotraffickers, transnational criminal organizations, one way to 

do that, and really the only way to do that, is to take some of these 

others and focus on the legal migration system. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Schumer. 

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

and my colleagues. I had to introduce Jack Lew over at the Finance 

Committee as a fellow New Yorker, which—well, I will not say anything. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I was born there so—— 

Senator SCHUMER. That is what I was going to say, but I did not 

want to—you are almost a New Yorker, but a very successful Arizonan as well. 

First, I want to thank your boss, the President of the United 

States, for his remarks on immigration last night. Continuing his 

handling of immigration, his remarks last night on immigration 

were just right. He importuned us to act. He stated how important 

it was to get this done for the future of America. But at the same 

time, he did not make it a wedge issue. He made it clear that we 

had to act in a bipartisan way and gave us in our little group the 

space to come up with a bipartisan proposal, which we know is 

really our only hope. With a Democratic Senate, a Republican 

House, with the 60-vote rule, unless we have a bipartisan agreement, we are not going to have a bill. And the President is handling this just right, so I thank you and him for that, as well as 

thanking you for being here, because you have been such a strong 

voice on this issue. Since you were Governor of Arizona, you understand both the importance of immigration enforcement and having 

a functional legal immigration system that better reflects America’s 

values and interests. And I believe we need to reform the immigration system, and we need reform that fixes all aspects of our broken immigration system. 

As I mentioned, our little group of eight, four Democrats, four 

Republicans, is really making good progress. We have a timetable. 

We still are looking to get this done in a very short period of time. 

Our Chairman has been both very insistent and gracious, like the 

President, in saying he will make time for us. But at the same 

time, we cannot take forever to get this done. And we are on track. 

The amazing thing in that room—and I think—well, Senator 

Durbin, who was here before, and Senator Graham, who is here 

now, and Senator Flake, who is here now, would agree that both 

sides know they have to give, and they are. And I have been really 

impressed in the room at the desire to get a bill done, and no one 

is seeking political advantage but, rather, doing what is right for 

America. And we have this bipartisan consensus around the principle that we need to further secure the border, reduce visa 
21 

overstays, and crack down on unlawful employment of people without status. 

But all of us believe that it is going to be much easier to accomplish these things after we account for all of the people who are 

currently here without lawful status and allow those individuals 

living here peacefully and productively to earn legal status that allows them to work and earn their way toward citizenship. This 

way, our law enforcement resources, which are always not as much 

as we want, can focus on a smaller universe of criminals, future 

border crossers, future visa overstays, and employers who hire illegal workers because the people, the 11 million who live in the 

shadows, have no criminal background and have met the early 

standards are going to work here legally. So it gives you an ability 

to focus on the people we do not want here. 

Do you agree with that premise? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is right, and I think that is consistent with what I just was sharing with Senator Cornyn. 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. And, by the way, with Senator Cornyn, 

I would just add something about the GAO report, and I would like 

to submit this page that has the statistics in the record. It is true 

that if you just look at apprehensions, it is a 61-percent number 

of people apprehended. But 20 percent go back. They see the Border Patrol agent, and they turn around. And those numbers in 

2001 were an additional 107,000 in addition to the 254,000 apprehensions. So that makes the efficiency rate not 61 percent but 82 

percent, compared to only 66 percent in 2006. 

Are those numbers correct, in your judgment? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I cannot do the math in my head 

right now, but they sound correct. But if I might—— 

Senator SCHUMER. They are in the report. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Very good. But if I might, Senator, I 

think that, as I mentioned earlier, there are numbers flying all 

over the place about what the border is and what apprehensions 

are. Here is what I know. What I know is fewer people are trying 

to immigrate illegally into this country than in four decades. 

What I know is that apprehensions are at a low because attempts are at a low. Drug seizures, contraband seizures, all the 

numbers that need to be up are up. And what I know is we are 

actually removing more people from the country than ever before. 

Senator SCHUMER. And one other thing. At the request actually 

or the importuning of Senator McCain, in 2010 we had—you asked 

for and we in Congress gave you 1,500 additional border personnel 

to the southern border, four new unmanned drones to boost further 

border surveillance and strengthen the presence of the FBI, DEA, 

and U.S. Marshals along the southern border. So it is much stronger today than it was in the past. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, and the aerial assets make a huge 

difference. That is a big deal on border enforcement. 

Senator SCHUMER. And I have not—I am not going to ask any 

more questions. We have a ways to go on the border, and our group 

is working on that. We have made some progress—I would characterize our view we have made good progress, we have to make 

more. Is that pretty much your view? 
22 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think you can always do more on the 

border, yes. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Does the Senator wish to have that report 

made part of the record? 

Senator SCHUMER. Yes. 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection, it will be made part of the 

record. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you. 

[The report appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Lee. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary Napolitano, for your service to our country and for joining 

us today. 

The title of this hearing is ‘‘Comprehensive Immigration Reform.’’ 

The term ‘‘comprehensive’’ seems to accompany the term ‘‘immigration reform’’ with increased frequency these days. It is, nonetheless, 

worth mentioning, I believe, that our immigration system involves 

a lot of complex moving parts, but a lot of these parts are distinct 

from one another. And I believe we ought to have a robust and 

open debate over the proper way to handle each component without 

necessarily assuming that comprehensivity is the without which 

not of any kind of immigration reform. 

The good news is that Republicans and Democrats are not really 

that far apart on many, if not most, of the critical issues that we 

face when it comes to immigration reform. Virtually all of us agree 

that we need to secure America’s border. We need to implement 

workplace verification. We need to reform and enforce our visa system, and we need to streamline legal immigration so that we can 

meet and respond to America’s changing employment and economic 

needs. 

I think we have a real historic opportunity here to make some 

meaningful progress in areas where there is common sense—where 

there is an opportunity for common-sense bipartisan agreement. 

That progress should not be held hostage, in my opinion, to demands that we solve every single problem associated with immigration, that we do it all at once, or that we have to resolve necessarily all of the most contentious issues associated with immigration before turning to those for which there is broad-based bipartisan agreement. 

That is why I have sponsored or cosponsored a variety of bills 

that would address employer verification, prioritize implementation 

of a visa exit system, promote tourism of the United States, help 

alleviate the shortage of legal agricultural workers in this country, 

and reform our visa system to attract the best and the brightest 

workers to contribute to the American economy. 

This morning, I will be introducing the Fairness for High Skilled 

Immigrants Act which would remove the per country caps on employment-sponsored visas, allowing the business community to recruit employees based on their talent rather than based on their 

country of origin. 

So in the spirit of constructive and common-sense reforms, I 

want to begin by asking you, Secretary Napolitano, which specific 

components of immigration reform do you think enjoy the broadest 
23 

bipartisan support and could be implemented most swiftly and 

readily by your Department so we can begin the process of immigration reform? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Senator, I think the framework and 

what is in the framework that was announced really gives you— 

gives me, anyway, a sense of the bipartisan nucleus that is forming 

in the Senate. We want to work with you and work with the Members of the Senate to flesh that out and to get into some of the details because, as you mentioned, it is a big system. 

Senator LEE. Right. And I agree with you, there certainly are elements of that statement that enjoy broad bipartisan support, and 

there are other elements that do not, and that is why I would like 

to see us move forward first on those issues for which there is 

broad bipartisan support. 

Let me switch to another issue. In 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton issued two memoranda 

that outlined priorities for prosecutorial discretion. I was troubled 

by the issuance of those memoranda in some respects, and I remain 

troubled by their implementation. 

Chris Crane, who is a witness on the second panel here for this 

Committee today, submitted written testimony for today’s hearing 

detailing some disturbing accounts of the implementation of this 

prosecutorial discretion directive, as it is known. Specifically, he recounts the experience of three ICE agents in Salt Lake City, Utah, 

who arrested an individual after he admitted in open court that he 

was in the country illegally. The ICE field office Director nevertheless ordered that all the charges be dropped and that the ICE 

agents themselves be placed under investigation for making the arrest. 

I understand that this is just one of many instances in which 

agents’ ability to arrest offenders, admitted offenders, has been restricted. So if the approach to prosecutorial discretion outlined in 

the Morton memoranda is truly to be conducted on a case-by-case 

basis, as prosecutorial discretion is always understood to function— 

that is what prosecutorial discretion is, as the word ‘‘discretion’’ implies—and the memos do not constitute a blanket injunction on the 

pursuit of entire categories of offenders, why is it that ICE agents 

are being reprimanded for merely arresting someone who admitted 

in open court that he had broken the law? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Senator, I would have to look into 

the specifics of that, but as you know, sometimes the allegation or 

the statement that this is what happened does not actually explain 

all the facts. So we need to look at all the facts. 

But, you know, this is and the Committee should appreciate this 

is a big change for ICE to actually have priorities. In the past, 

every illegal immigrant was considered the same as every other illegal immigrant. 

Senator LEE. And I agree there ought to be some discretion. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is right. 

Senator LEE. But my question is—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. And there are no—I am sorry. 

Senator LEE. Is it discretion or is there an injunction against any 

enforcement? 
24 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. There is no injunction categorically. It is 

discretion with factors to be considered. 

Now, what was going on between an agent and their supervisor 

or what have you, there can be a lot of things that add to that situation. So we would have to know it better. 

Senator LEE. OK. Thank you, Madam Secretary. My time has expired. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Senator Lee. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, welcome back. It is good to have you here 

again. I wanted to congratulate you first on the Executive order 

that the President signed yesterday on cybersecurity and that he 

mentioned in the speech last night. I see Senator Graham here, 

and he is part of a bipartisan group that is working to try to supplement that effort legislatively, and we look forward to working 

with you on that. When we see a vaunted American institution like 

the New York Times, which is willing to have journalists go to jail 

to protect its sources, hacked into by the Chinese trying to find the 

sources for stories that are unflattering about the Chinese Government, that is a pretty good sign that the private sector is really not 

up to snuff on protecting our national security in this area. And the 

critical infrastructure folks who run our banking transactions and 

our electric power grids and so forth, I think, we have to be particularly concerned about, so I look forward to working with you on 

that. 

On the immigration bill, I have been a supporter of the highskilled worker legislation—I know Senator Klobuchar has been 

very involved in that—with respect to providing visas for qualified 

immigrant entrepreneurs, with respect to limiting the per country 

caps that Senator Lee described, with respect to providing green 

cards to foreign students who graduate from our universities with 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics degrees. But if 

they cannot work here, they have to go and work for an overseas 

competitor. In Rhode Island, I have seen folks who actually have 

internships with companies while they are students and then have 

to leave and go and work for a competitor. 

So I think this is important, and I wonder if you could take a 

moment to make the case for the record of this hearing as to why 

encouraging highly skilled immigrant engineers and entrepreneurs 

to stay and to locate in this country is good for American jobs and 

is good for the American economy rather than competing and displacing American jobs and the American economy. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think the case for high-skilled and 

STEM-educated workers is extraordinarily strong. We know we 

need more of them in the country. They complement not substitute 

for American workers. They become job creators. They add to economic growth. Some of our Nation’s most successful companies over 

the last decade, even through the recession, were companies that 

were either started by or run by those who came here originally as 

immigrants. 

So it is a global talent pool that we want to have in the United 

States. We want to be a magnet for those types of individuals because, in the end, they are job creators. 
25 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I will stand by that. Thank you very 

much, Madam Secretary. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Cruz, I know you have been having 

some voice difficulty, but—— 

Senator CRUZ. Well, and I would apologize to the Committee, but 

I have lost my voice entirely—perhaps from cheering too much at 

last night’s State of the Union. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I had overlooked that, Senator Cruz. 

Senator CRUZ. I will say this is an incredibly important topic. 

Secretary Napolitano, I thank you for being here. I thank each of 

the witnesses for being here, and I will be entering a statement 

into the record. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, and it will be made part of the 

record. I appreciate you coming here, nonetheless. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cruz appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. We will go to Senator Klobuchar, and I will 

also leave the gavel with you for a couple minutes because I have 

to return a phone call outside. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I had offered to do Senator Cruz’s questions for him and just make 

a few nuanced changes and I would ask them, but he did not accept that offer, Madam Secretary. 

Thank you again, following up on Senator Durbin’s comments, 

for not only taking this incredibly difficult job, but then staying 

with it. Whether it is the hurricanes, whether it is the floods, you 

have been there every step of the way, and certainly this will be— 

working on this comprehensive immigration reform, accountable 

immigration reform, is going to, I think, be a lasting legacy for you 

if we get this done. And I am very hopeful we will. 

Senator Whitehouse talked about the work that I have been 

doing with Senator Hatch, which also includes what Senator Lee 

mentioned, which is getting rid of the per-country cap on green 

cards, with the simple notion that we are the world’s talent, that 

we want to be a country that makes stuff, invents things, exports 

to the world, and to do that we need to access the world’s talent. 

Right now there are no caps on professional sports players. I 

know that from our great teams in Minnesota when you look at 

their roster. But we have very severe caps, as you know, on scientists and engineers, to the point where they are a third of what 

they were in 2001. So part of this—and we truly see this as part 

of this work. I have talked to Senator Rubio about this, who is also 

on our bill with 15 cosponsors, that this is part of comprehensive 

immigration reform, and we see it that way. 

One of the issues here is that when you look at Americans past, 

something like 30 percent of U.S. Nobel laureates were born in 

other countries. Ninety of the Fortune 500 companies were started 

by immigrants. And so this is a key part of how we build our country, how we have built our country, and how we go forward. 

I was intrigued by the beginning of your testimony when you 

talked about how sadly one of the reasons the current system is so 
26 

broken is because it treats drug smugglers the same way as aspiring students. Could you expand on that a bit? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. Because the visas are so limited, 

when you have someone illegally in the country, that is it. They are 

illegally in the country. And so if you arrest everybody that you 

come across who is here illegally, they would be treated the same, 

regardless of circumstance. 

One of the things we have done through prosecutorial discretion 

is to take circumstances into account, but that is no substitute for 

statutory change. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Exactly. We have a student right now—I 

have the president of St. Cloud State in Minnesota here to make 

this case yesterday for the State of the Union. One of his students 

runs their computer program, cannot get a green card, has been 

bouncing around on visas, is a technical superstar and is looking 

at taking permanent residence in Canada because it is just too difficult to get that green card here. 

Following up on what you just said about law enforcement, us 

both being former prosecutors, could you touch on one of the issues, 

getting away from the engineering and science issue here, of having so many people living in the shadows and how that is difficult 

for law enforcement? You raised that in your testimony. Could you 

expand on that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, what happens is, particularly in 

areas where there are large concentrations, people are afraid to go 

to law enforcement if they have been victims of a crime. They are 

afraid to be witnesses so that we can get at criminal prosecution. 

They are simply afraid to interact with law enforcement in any sort 

of productive way. And that is really a cloud on those communities. 

And if you speak with, as I did last week, the sheriffs in and police 

chiefs in places like Los Angeles, they really make that point about 

the effect on law enforcement of a large illegal immigrant population that has no way to get out of the shadows. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I certainly saw that as a county prosecutor. We would have cases where, you know, a kid, a 13-, 14-, 

15-year-old kid, would be threatened by a rapist, basically saying, 

‘‘If you come forward with this, I am going to get you deported.’’ 

And that is one of the reasons in the Violence Against Women Act 

which we just passed we have a provision that continues in there 

for U visas, which allows victims of domestic violence to be able to 

stay and testify against their perpetrators. We had actually wanted 

to use up some of the old U visas—you may be aware of this 

issue—and had to change that in order to get this through. And I 

know that Senator Leahy, Chairman Leahy, is devoted to the idea 

of trying to get this as part of the comprehensive reform we are 

working on. But if you want to elaborate at all on the need for U 

visas for victims of domestic violence? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, the whole issue of U visas, we are 

using up all the U visas that we get. We could use more in terms 

of protecting victims of domestic violence. But, again, every problem that gets referenced by a Member of the Committee I think 

just serves as further illustration why the whole system needs to 

be reformed. 
27 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. I appreciate your work. Thank 

you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Napolitano, and I appreciate the conversations we have had 

over the past years and as recently as yesterday on some of these 

issues. And I appreciate what the Department is doing and is trying to do and the support for our efforts here to get immigration 

reform done. 

I will touch on a few things that were touched on before. Keep 

in mind I am one of the Gang of Eight, if you will. I do want to 

get immigration through. I do not want any of the elements that 

we need to finish to hold up any of the other elements. So my effort 

here is to make it work, and there are some things that we need 

help on with regard to border security elements. 

As you know, as part of the framework, there are certain triggers 

that need to be tripped in terms of border security, and I know that 

is a difficult term to define. We have come up against that again 

and again and again. But part of the issues that we have, you mentioned that GAO at times they seem just to be critical of what a 

department is doing. I should note that with regard to the border 

in Arizona, they are quite complimentary of what is going on in the 

Yuma Sector, for example, so it is not the universal criticism. 

Where there are good things happening, where there is operational 

control, however defined, they tend to point that out. But they have 

noted that there are issues, and in the most recent report of December 2012, they note that the Border Patrol does not have performance goals and measures in place necessary to define border 

security. 

How are we dealing with that? What are we doing to remedy 

that problem? Do you recognize it as a problem, first? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, the problem is, as you mentioned, 

Senator, to define border security. In my judgment, one way to look 

at it is if we have extra money to invest on immigration enforcement, is it better spent on more Border Patrol Agents? We can always hire more Border Patrol—I mean, we can always have a use 

for that. Or is it better spent investing in a worker verification program that really looks at the demand side of this issue? We do not 

have the tools necessary for that. The law does not give us those 

tools. 

In terms of things to look at that are objective, I think you can 

begin with some of the factors in the 2007 bill, you know, apprehensions, crime rates along the border. El Paso was for the third 

year in a row just named the safest city in America with a population of over 500,000. You can look at drug and gun and other contraband seizures. You know, all of those things that were listed in 

the 2007 bill are things that we can relook at again. 

But I would, if I might, suggest that the notion of a trigger is 

not—there is a better way to look at it because a trigger implies 

you do not get to these other things until X is met, when, in fact, 

these all have to be looked at simultaneously. 
28 

Senator FLAKE. Oh, I understand that, and I have been one who 

has always said that the best way to get the border secured is to 

have a legal framework for people to come and to go. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is right. 

Senator FLAKE. And that will be taking place as we look at more 

border security. It is just the path to citizenship, that element that 

takes place years from now, that we have to certify a certain 

amount of border security—or certain level of border security, I 

should say. 

Part of the trouble we have is GAO—there was a RAND study 

a while ago that you may be familiar with that said that GAO reported in 2009 that the CBP, Customs and Border Patrol, explained increases in apprehensions made at a checkpoint in some 

border sectors to improved—it pointed to that as improved border 

security, and then in some sectors it pointed to decreased apprehensions as a measures of increased border security. So there 

seems to be confusion within DHS itself or within the Border Patrol as to what constitutes better security or lessened security. So 

you can see as policymakers we have a difficult time here, and it 

is tough for us to measure. 

My last question. If directed by Congress, is there anything stopping the Department from at least going back to what we were 

doing prior to 2010 where the charts that Senator Cornyn brought 

up, which defined operational control, the percentage of the border 

that is under operational control? I realize it is an imperfect measure, but it is something, and it is something more than we have 

now. Can we go back to that? If directed by Congress, could the Department go back to that measure? And if not, why not? The Department stopped reporting that as of 2010. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would suggest we should not go back, 

and I would suggest that the difference of opinion prior to 2009 

that was referenced in that GAO report illustrates the difficulty of 

any one- or two-line description of what is border security. 

We want to work with the Committee on this. It is a difficult 

thing to substantiate. What we all know is we want a safe border, 

we want a strong border, and, importantly—and I have seen what 

happens when you do not do this. If you do not have the ability 

to sustain those efforts, you can have a problem again. So 

sustainment needs to be part of our equation. 

Senator FLAKE. All right. I have submitted some questions that 

you have, that we talked about, and I will look forward to getting 

those from you with regard to specifics on one ranch near Naco 

that gives us an illustration of, you know, what security we have 

and what we still lack. But if I could have your commitment to 

work with us on these measures, if not operational control then 

some other definition that will give us what the GAO refers to as— 

you know, they say, ‘‘Currently what DHS has does not inform program results and, therefore, limits DHS and congressional oversight and accountability.’’ And that is true. We lack that, and we 

need it, and it is for positive things. We are trying to get immigration reform done. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is right. 

Senator FLAKE. And so if we can work with you on that, it would 

be incredibly helpful. 
29 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We will work with you very closely on 

this and understand the importance of the question. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Hirono. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Napolitano, thank you so much for your tremendous 

service to this country, and, of course, we are confronted with a 

broken immigration system, with 11 million undocumented people 

in our country, with millions of visa overstayers, and decades-wait 

for families hoping to reunite with their citizen members, family 

members. 

You used the term we are here to talk about common-sense 

changes that we can make to improve the system, and I am encouraged by the bipartisan support around the areas of border control, 

workplace enforcement, visa reform. But, of course, unless we get 

to some kind of a bipartisan agreement on addressing the 11 million people in this country who are living in the shadows, then I 

do not think that we are doing the kind of immigration reform that 

we need to do to bring us forward. 

There have been a number of questions about border control. The 

term ‘‘operational control’’ has been tossed out, and to some people, 

operational control means zero illegal border crossings. I think that 

we better make sure that we are using these terms where we are 

all on the same page. But let us say that we are talking about zero 

illegal border crossings. I would like to ask you, Madam Secretary, 

how much money do we spend every year on border control to keep 

out illegal crossers? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Billions upon billions. There are some 

studies that suggest that you could add up all of the expenditures 

of every other Federal law enforcement agency and you would not 

equal the amount we spend on border security. 

Senator HIRONO. And, of course, we are not at zero illegal crossings. So if we were to try to get to that goal, how much do you 

think we would need to spend every year? Because this is about 

cost/benefits. And you mentioned before that perhaps we could be 

using those kinds of sums for other types of immigration reform 

and control. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is right, Senator. You know, we are 

all living in a fiscally austere world. We have a responsibility to invest dollars where they would have the most benefit. I think as the 

Secretary I would advise the Committee that those enforcement efforts are better spent on the interior of the country on things like 

workplace enforcement while we sustain and fill in the technology 

and other things that we have already planned for along the border 

itself. 

Senator HIRONO. I think that immigration reform should be guided by certain principles that reflect our values. There has been a 

lot of emphasis on meeting the critical needs of our economy 

through some changes to how we treat visas, especially with regard 

to people with STEM education. But I also think that another guiding principle should be maintaining our 50-year tradition of bringing families together. And as I mentioned, many of my colleagues 

have highlighted the importance of providing green cards to STEM 
30 

graduates of U.S. universities because I certainly agree that we 

should not educate foreign students and then send them away to 

work for foreign competitors of American companies, and it only 

makes sense to keep such talent here if we can. 

But at the same time as we are focused on employment-based 

immigration, we should not get tunnel vision and forget the human 

element of immigration. And, of course, I am talking about the 

need to expand, as far as I am concerned, to expand the opportunities for families to be reunited and kept together. And this should 

include LGBT families. 

I think family-based immigration is essential to ensuring the 

continued vitality of the American economy and, in fact, the success of immigrants in this country is often the story of the success 

of immigrants with their families. And, of course, I speak from personal experience, being an immigrant myself. 

I wanted to ask you about family reunification because there is 

such a huge, huge backlog there. The most recent visa bulletin indicates that potential immigrants must have been in line nearly 25 

years in order to have their applications processed now. There is 

a significant backlog in family-based immigration to the United 

States, with Asian countries representing some of the largest backlogs. 

I am pleased that the President’s immigration reform principles 

included temporarily increasing the per-country cap for family 

based immigration from seven percent to 15 percent. And so I 

wanted to ask you, if the cap were to be raised, as the President 

has proposed, what would you expect to see in terms of the reduction in the backlog that I talked about? And how long would you 

estimate that it would take to eliminate the family based backlog 

going back decades? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. By increasing the cap—I would have to 

go back and get a firm number for you, but there is no doubt it 

would be a substantial reduction in the backlog. 

Senator HIRONO. Well, for example, in my own community there 

are World War II Filipino veterans who fought alongside our troops 

in World War II, and they have been waiting decades—decades— 

to be reunified with their children who are in their 60s at this 

point. And I hope that part of immigration reform can look to those 

kinds of very specific kinds of instances where perhaps it could get 

ahead a little bit because, you know, they did fight for our country. 

You were asked some questions about the fact that we have so 

many legal people who came to our country through visas, and I 

have been told that maybe about 40 percent, as much as 40 percent 

of the undocumented people in our country are visa overstayers. 

Now, this is an issue that I know that we have been attempting 

to address for over a decade, and I think I heard that perhaps by 

2013 we will get there, that we will be able to verify the overstayers. Could you talk a little bit more about truly what it is going 

to cost for us to put such a system in place? And how much are 

you going to oversee that we get to this 2013 timeframe? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think the 2013 timeframe, Senator, involved estimates of country-by-country overstays, and we will work 

with the Committee on that. 
31 

In terms of being able to ascertain overstays, we have now gone 

back, and one of the things that technology permits us to do now 

is to link different data bases, and it has allowed us to go back and 

look at visa overstays and prioritize them as well, you know, those 

that have committed other crimes, for example, and then those are 

sent over to ICE to go find and to pick up. 

With the enhanced biographic system that we are implementing 

now, the difference between that and the biometric is not as great 

as you would think, and that is our current plan, to do enhanced 

biographic at the exits of our country, land, air, and sea, and then 

move gradually—because it is very, very expensive—into biometric. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

We will go to Senator Graham, then Senator Franken, and then 

we will move to the next panel. Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having this hearing. I think this is an important hearing at a time 

when it will really matter. 

Madam Secretary, the goal, I guess, this time around is to fix a 

broken immigration system in a way that 20 years from now we 

will not have 11 or 12 million illegal immigrants? Isn’t that the 

goal, to fix it? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. I think the country is tired of talking about it. 

I think it is time for us to fix it with the goal in mind that there 

will be no third wave of illegal immigration. 

To put it in context, we are not being overrun by Canadians, are 

we? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Not as far as I can tell. 

Senator GRAHAM. Not as far as I can tell either. I love our Canadian friends. They come to Myrtle Beach in March. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. They come to Arizona, too. 

Senator GRAHAM. They do, and they swim. I do not know why 

in March, but they seem to enjoy that. Then they go back home. 

And I would suggest that they go back home because Canada has 

got a stable government and a stable economy, and most of the people coming here are coming from pretty dire situations, and that 

is just a reality that a lot of people come to this country because 

where they live is not so nice. Do you agree with that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, or their opportunity to raise a family 

and to thrive economically is diminished. 

Senator GRAHAM. Right. I can understand why people want to 

come to America, but I do not understand why we cannot control 

who comes and on what terms. And I think we can if we choose 

to. 

Starting with the border, do you agree with me that you have got 

to have a secure border because if you have a bunch of other laws 

and you can still walk across the street in the country, you are 

probably not going to accomplish your goal? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think we can all agree that border security has to be part of a comprehensive plan. 

Senator GRAHAM. I think that is the starting point, and I want 

to applaud you for making progress. You certainly have. There are 

nine sectors that we have laid out in terms of our borders. What 

I would like from your organization, your Department, is an inven-
32 

tory of what we can do that we have not yet done, and one through 

nine, give us a punch list and let us see if we can push this thing 

over the line and say the border is reasonably secure. So would you 

provide the Committee, if you could, with kind of an inventory of 

what is yet to be done that could reasonably be done in all nine 

sectors? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, we will work with you on that. 

Senator GRAHAM. Also, I agree with you that you could build a 

100-foot-high wall, and if you are getting a job pretty easily on the 

other side of the wall, people will go under it or over it or around 

it. So really E-Verify, controlling employment, is a virtual fence all 

of its own, is it not? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think it is, yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. I just do not see how you could ever solve this 

problem if you do not deal with the magnet, which is jobs. If we 

cannot come up with a system where our employers can tell the difference between being here legally and illegally, we are never going 

to address this problem. So one of the key components is employer 

verification. Do you agree with that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I agree, and I would suggest, Senator, 

that the E-Verify system now is far different from the E-Verify system we—— 

Senator GRAHAM. We are moving in the right direction, but put 

yourself in an employer’s situation. If you ask too many questions, 

like a Social Security card is pretty easily duplicated. If you like 

Ronald Reagan, I could make you Ronald Reagan by midnight. I 

could give you a Social Security card saying you are Ronald 

Reagan. We need to deal with that. And I think we are well on our 

way to doing it. So employer verification, and employers who cheat 

need to be hit hard. Do you agree? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is right. And the current law does 

not give us the tools to do that. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, you are going to get those tools, and 

those employers are trying to do the right thing. You have got to 

be frustrated by your own Government. We are going to give you 

some help. 

So temporary workers. The one thing the President did not mention last night was the temporary worker program. If I had to bet 

where this thing could run into a real roadblock, it would not be 

on the pathway to citizenship. As long as it is earned and it is not 

a special pathway, it will not be on border security because we are 

all signed up for that. I think E-Verify, some kind of new system 

to control employment, we are all signed up for that. 

But here is the friction point: Temporary workers are needed in 

the future, a legal source of labor for American employers. Do you 

agree with that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, that concept is one I can agree with. 

Senator GRAHAM. And the goal is not to displace an American 

worker. You can only get a temporary worker when there is no 

American available at a competitive wage. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The devil is in the details. You have got 

to have appropriate protections for American workers and, indeed, 

for workers who are coming in to work. 
33 

Senator GRAHAM. And nobody wants to displace a willing American worker, but I can tell you, in South Carolina there are certain 

jobs, like in the meat-packing industry, as an employer you can advertise all day long, every day of the week, and you are not going 

to get that work force. And I do not want those meat-packing 

plants to leave the country. I want it to be a win-win where somebody overseas can come here temporarily and improve their life 

and help our employers. Do you agree with that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I agree with that, yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. OK. So that is one of the goals, a temporary 

worker program that will meet the labor needs of this country. And 

demographically we are changing. There are three workers for 

every Social Security retiree today. In 20 years, there will be two. 

Do you agree with me that the demographics of America are changing and that we are going to need a more robust legal immigration 

system? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, and as I mentioned in my opening 

statement, it is part of economic growth. 

Senator GRAHAM. I am running out of time. Just say ‘‘yes,’’ because you—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I will say yes. This is a good cross-examination. 

Senator GRAHAM. And just say ‘‘no’’ when you need to. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. All right. 

Senator GRAHAM. The bottom line here is it is not just the hightech workers. God knows we are going to need—if you go to the 

University of South Carolina or Clemson University graduation, if 

Bob Smith comes across the stage in a Ph.D. program, everybody 

claps because there is only one. We are getting people from all over 

the world coming to our universities, and that is a good thing. Do 

you agree with me that they should not only get a Ph.D. in some 

kind of hard science, they should get a green card with that Ph.D.? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Assuming no security issues, or crime 

issues, yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. And assuming they are not displacing an 

American worker. We are losing a lot of valuable people. Just give 

me a little bit more time here, Mr. Chairman. So the bottom line 

is—— 

Chairman LEAHY. And then we are going to—as soon as you get 

this one last question, we will go to Senator Franken, and then we 

are going to the next panel. 

Senator GRAHAM. I can do this in 30 seconds. Have you ever seen 

a better opportunity than the moment that exists today to pass 

comprehensive immigration reform that would prevent a third 

wave? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No. This is the moment. 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you agree with me that the payoffs for the 

Nation are enormous, we improve our national security, we improve our economy, and we deal with real people who have real 

problems, and we are trying to give them a second chance on our 

terms, and some of the people we are going to say you have got to 

leave because you have been up to no good? Do you agree that the 

payoffs of fixing this broken immigration system are enormous for 

the country? 
34 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I could not say it better than you just 

did. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Madam Secretary, it is good to see you, and it is so good that you can give 

me multiple-word answers if you like. 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Senator FRANKEN. We have been hearing a lot of issues raised, 

family reunification. My office just heard of a story about a Minnesota green card holder, legal immigrant who filed to be reunited 

with his wife and four children in November 2010 and is only now 

in February 2013 getting his application processed. So our system 

is broken when, if you do things right, you cannot see your wife 

and your four kids or cannot even get the application started going 

in about two and a half years. 

I am going to go to something that Senator Leahy brought up, 

which is dairy. Minnesota is the sixth largest dairy producing State 

in the country. It is an important part of our economy. But not 

enough Americans are taking these jobs, and dairy farmers cannot 

access the Federal agricultural Guest Worker Program because 

cows are not seasonal. They have to be milked. If cows were milked 

seasonally, you would have a lot of uncomfortable cows. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. I have had to leave during the hearing once. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Anyway, so this is an old issue, and I am sure 

you are familiar with it. What is the administration planning to do 

in its proposal to help our Nation’s dairy farmers and, more importantly, Minnesota’s dairy farmers? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The administration supports a number of 

reforms to the H–2A program which would deal with the dairy 

issue and fix it. 

Senator FRANKEN. All right. In the United States, approximately 

250,000—or 205 parents of United States citizen children were deported from this country from July 2010 to September 2012. We 

have seen firsthand in Minnesota how devastating these enforcement actions can be on families. I understand that DHS has produced two sets of guidelines on this issue: the first is a parental 

interest directive, which will help ICE personnel conduct enforcement actions in a way that does not necessarily hurt families; the 

other guidance ensures that ICE field teams actually ask parents 

where they want their children to go before they place the children 

in State custody. None of these documents has been issued publicly. 

What is the status of these guidelines? And what is DHS doing 

more broadly to protect children in enforcement actions? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, my understanding is those either 

already have been issued or are about to be issued. I will follow up 

on that. But this really gets to one of the real hardships of the current immigration system. Where the parents need to be deported, 

for example, they meet our other priorities, what do you do with 
35 

the citizen children? One of the things we look at is can one of the 

parents, you know, stay. One of the things we try to find out, are 

there other family members that can take the children if the parents agree to that? And then in some cases, we have to call in 

whatever the social agency involved in the State appears to be. 

Senator FRANKEN. This is something that concerns me when an 

action is being taken, that during that period, during the hours or 

days that this has actually happened, the children have some contact with the parents and that the parents have some rights to be 

in contact with their children, because this is a very traumatic, can 

be a very traumatic, and we have seen this in Minnesota where we 

have had some actions take place where it has been very traumatizing for the kids and for the parents. And I just want to make 

sure—I have a little piece—an important piece of legislation, not a 

little piece of legislation, to make sure that those kids have rights 

and those parents have rights during those kind of actions. I would 

love to work with you on that, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You bet. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Coons is here, and then Senator Cornyn says he has a 

30-second question. But Senator Coons has not had an opportunity. 

Senator COONS. I am happy to defer to my colleague from Texas 

for 30 seconds. 

Chairman LEAHY. For 30 seconds. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just have one other question, Madam Secretary. It is estimated 

that there are between 4 and 5.5 million people who overstayed 

their visas—in other words, 40 percent of the illegal immigration 

in the country is caused not from people who have come across the 

border, which we have discussed, but people who come in lawfully 

but overstay their visa. Seventeen years ago, Congress, as you 

know, passed a requirement for an automated entry/exit system to 

record entries and departures for each one of these individuals. 

What is your plan to deal with 40 percent of the illegal immigration that is a result of visa overstays? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, in the interest of time, because 

there is another panel, why don’t I come and brief you about all 

of the actions on visa overstays. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, if you would just answer my question, 

and then we can follow up with a further meeting if necessary. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It is two phases. One is enhanced biographic at the exits of our country. That is being implemented and 

has been largely implemented already. We would like to move ultimately over time to a biometric exit system, but the money simply 

has not been made available. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you very much, and thank you, Chairman 

Leahy, for convening this important hearing today. 

Secretary Napolitano, thank you. Great to be with you again, and 

thank you for the very hard work that you and the Department 

have done within our complicated and outdated immigration sys-
36 

tem to prioritize our enforcement efforts and to make sure that we 

have a safer and a more just Nation. 

There is a lot more work to be done, and much of that needs to 

come from our work here in Congress in passing a modern and 

comprehensive immigration system. It is broken. Families are torn 

apart. Businesses are discouraged from investing and hiring, and 

we are not living up to our constitutional values and how we treat 

families of all kinds, including LGBT families, and how we treat 

folks who are not citizens but deserve due process of some reasonable kind in this very difficult immigration experience. 

What we are left with is a system that is very expensive, one 

that is expensive for law enforcement at the Federal level and the 

State and local level. It is expensive not just at the border but 

throughout the whole system. It is expensive for U.S. workers, for 

businesses, for taxpayers, and we can and I hope will do better. 

As you know, Secretary, one of the pillars of proposed comprehensive immigration reform is a path to citizenship for the millions of undocumented living here in the United States today. 

Under current law, what is the path to citizenship for someone who 

is currently undocumented but living in the United States? Is there 

a line for them to get on? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Not really, no. If they are here illegally 

and leave and try to re-enter the country, that is one circumstance. 

But we look at prior removals, prior deports as a barrier. 

Senator COONS. And if someone is able to get on to the current 

wait lists for a green card based, say, on a family connection, a relationship to a U.S. citizen, what are the requirements they would 

then have to meet to at some point have a shot at becoming a U.S. 

citizen? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. They are extensive, and they are very 

lengthy. And I think the point of looking at the immigration system 

as a whole, Senator, is for those in the country right now who are 

here illegally to have a pathway to earn citizenship, to pay a fee, 

pay a penalty, learn English, take American civics, and then get in 

the back of the line. 

Senator COONS. In the context of comprehensive immigration reform, there has been some discussion about equality, equal treatment of LGBT Americans being a divisive issue or a side issue that 

does not deserve the kind of focus that it may get in this deliberation. I just want to thank you for what you have done administratively to recognize the special circumstances faced by families with 

LGBT members. But you cannot build a family on deferred action. 

Could I get some commitment that you will cease deportations of 

same-sex partners, of Americans who would otherwise be eligible 

based on status? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We cannot give a categorical answer 

there because of DOMA, and we are charged with enforcing DOMA 

as well. 

Senator COONS. Well, I look forward to continuing to work with 

some of my colleagues who are cosponsoring legislation to repeal 

DOMA. 

I would like to ask about the implementation of the Consequence 

Delivery System that DHS uses, including the Alien Transfer Exit 

Program. It is a program that takes families who have entered one 
37 

sector of the border, say California, for example, and separates the 

members of that family by deporting some members along other 

places, Arizona or Texas or elsewhere. 

In implementing this process, how does the Department ensure 

it does not harm or in any way victimize asylum seekers or vulnerable women or children? And does this system allow for an officer’s 

discretion in how they assign consequences for a particular immigrant and whether it might result in a family disruption or in a 

health, safety, or life risk? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Obviously, those seeking asylum, there is 

a separate process for those who are requesting asylum. But we 

have found that one of the deterrents for repeated illegal immigration is to make sure that there is some consequence for every illegal immigrant that we apprehend at the border, and that is the socalled Consequence Delivery System, one part of which can be the 

lateral movement across the border before the actual deport. 

Senator COONS. One of our highest objectives, I would think, in 

the enforcement actions taken by the Department is to focus on removing those who pose a threat to our community—criminals, violent criminals in particular. And the policy you are now following 

under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals has meant that many 

young people, the so-called DREAM Act kids, no longer live in constant fear of deportation, although they have an uncertain future, 

which I hope we will be addressing through legislation. And these 

young people continue to contribute to our country. 

From the perspective of the Department, could you tell me if this 

policy, this Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival policy, has resulted in increased availability of Department resources to focus on 

higher-priority cases such as identifying and removing, deporting, 

violent criminals? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think we can say that, yes, it does. But 

more importantly, I think the Deferred Action program is consistent with our values as a country and our recognition that these 

young people are not to blame for being in the country. 

Senator COONS. Well, thank you. And, Madam Secretary, as 

somebody who as Attorney General, as a Governor, and as Secretary has tackled what are very difficult issues, I am trying to 

make sure that we square our core values with what is a very political and difficult situation. I just want to thank you for your personal leadership, and I look forward to continuing to work with you 

on this. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Flake had a letter to be included in the record at the appropriate point. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. You had a closing statement? 

Senator GRASSLEY. Not a closing statement. Just thank the Secretary, an understanding I assume we have that questions will be 

submitted for answer in writing. Several people on my side wanted 

a second round, but out of respect for the other panelists, we are 

not going to do that. But the Chairman promised that we would 

have an oversight hearing with you later on this spring, and we 
38 

can pursue all questions at that time. But some people will obviously want to pursue questions on immigration. 

Thank you very much. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Madam Secretary, thank you very much for being here. I think 

there is a growing consensus, I hope there is a growing consensus 

among both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and in the 

other body, that we need—what button did you press, Chuck? 

Senator GRASSLEY. I thought I just turned my microphone off. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We need light on the subject. That is 

right. 

Chairman LEAHY. We need light on the subject. But I think there 

is a growing consensus in both bodies that we need real immigration reform. I am committed as Chairman of this Committee to put 

together a bill with the help of both Republicans and Democrats 

which we will bring to a vote in the Committee and have something come to the Senate floor. 

I worked with former President George W. Bush when we had 

tried once before to do this, but I think the time is even more right 

now. Obviously I come from a State where we do not face the problems that some of my colleagues do from States on the southern 

border and from your own home, but all of us know that there are 

other issues beyond just the border in immigration. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is right. 

Chairman LEAHY. And as a parent and a grandparent, I worry 

very much what is happening to children and families. 

So I appreciate your work, and both from our private conversations and public conversations, I know how dedicated you are to 

getting immigration reform, and we will work together. So thank 

you very much. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. And if the staff could set up for the next panel. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. I am going to ask the panel to please stand to 

be sworn in. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give 

before the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. VARGAS. I do. 

Ms. VAUGHAN. I do. 

Mr. CASE. I do. 

Mr. CRANE. I do. 

Ms. MURGUI ́A. I do. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Let the record show all were 

sworn in, and I thank you for being here. 

We will begin from your right to left, my left to right, with Jose 

Antonio Vargas, a former Washington Post journalist. He is part of 

the team that won the Pulitzer Prize for covering the tragedy at 

Virginia Tech. Those of us who either live or spend time in this 

area have read those articles, wishing that we were not reading 

them, wishing the event had not happened. The Pulitzer Prize is 

well deserved. In many ways, Mr. Vargas served as a whistleblower 

about the intractable situation in which so many who were brought 
39 

to the United States as children find themselves. They speak on behalf of millions who cannot speak for themselves to shed light on 

the human impact of our immigration system. 

Mr. Vargas, please go ahead. And we will hear from each of you, 

and then we will ask questions. 

STATEMENT OF JOSE ANTONIO VARGAS, FOUNDER, DEFINE 

AMERICAN, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member 

Grassley, and distinguished Members of this Committee. 

I come to you as one of our country’s 11 million undocumented 

immigrants, many of us Americans at heart, but without the right 

papers to show for it. Too often, we are treated as abstractions, 

faceless and nameless, subjects of debate rather than individuals 

with families, hopes, fears, and dreams. 

I am in America because of the sacrifices of my family. My 

grandparents legally emigrated from the Philippines to Silicon Valley in the mid-1980s. 

A few years later, Grandpa Teofilo became a U.S. citizen and legally changed his name to Ted—after Ted Danson in ‘‘Cheers.’’ 

Because grandparents cannot petition for their grandkids and because my mother could not come to the United States, Grandpa 

saved up money to get his only grandson, me, a passport and a 

green card to come to America. My mother gave me up to give me 

a better life. 

I arrived in Mountain View, California, on August 3, 1993. One 

of my earliest memories was singing the National Anthem for the 

first time at Crittenden Middle School, believing the song had 

somehow something to do with me. I thought it said, ‘‘Jose, can you 

see?

Four years later, I applied for a driver’s permit like any 16-yearold. That was when I discovered that the green card that my 

grandpa gave me was fake. 

But I wanted to work. I wanted to contribute to a country that 

is now my home. At age 17, I decided to be a journalist for a seemingly naive reason: If I am not supposed to be in America because 

I do not have the right kind of papers, what if my name, my byline, 

was on the paper? How can they say I do not exist if my name is 

in newspapers and magazines? I thought I could write my way into 

America. That was the plan. 

As I built a successful career as a journalist—paying Social Security and State and Federal taxes along the way—as fear and 

shame, as denial and pain, enveloped me, words became my salvation. I found solace in the words of the Reverend Martin Luther 

King, quoting St. Augustine: ‘‘An unjust law is no law at all.’’ 

Ultimately, it took me 12 years to come out as an undocumented 

American—because that is what I am, an American. But I am 

grateful to have been able to tell the truth. And in the past few 

years, more undocumented people, particularly young DREAMers, 

are coming out, telling the truth about the America we experience. 

We dream of a path to citizenship so we can actively participate 

in our American democracy, this church. 

We dream of not being separated from our families and our loved 

ones, regardless of sexual orientation, no matter our skill set. This 
40 

Government has deported more than 1.6 million people—fathers 

and mothers, sons and daughters—in the past four years. 

We dream of contributing to the country we call our home. 

In 21st century America, diversity is destiny. That I happen to 

be gay, that I happen to speak Tagalog, my first language, and that 

I want to learn Spanish—that does not threaten my love for this 

country. How interconnected and integrated we are as Americans 

makes us stronger. 

Sitting behind me today is my Filipino American family: my 

Grandma Leonila, whom I love very much; my Aunt Aida Rivera, 

who helped raise me; and my Uncle Conrad Salinas, who served, 

proudly, in the U.S. Navy for 20 years. They are all naturalized 

American citizens. 

I belong in what is called a mixed-status family. I am the only 

one in my extended family of 25 Americans who is undocumented. 

When you inaccurately call me ‘‘illegal,’’ you are not only dehumanizing me, you are offending them. No human being is illegal. 

Also here is my Mountain View High School family—my support 

network of allies who encouraged and protected me since I was a 

teenager. After I told my high school principal and school superintendent that I was not planning to go to college because I could 

not apply for financial aid, Pat Hyland and Rich Fischer secured 

a private scholarship for me. The scholarship was funded by a man 

named Jim Strand. I am honored that Pat, Rich, and Jim are all 

here today. Across the country, there are countless other Jim 

Strands, Pat Hylands, and Rich Fischers of all backgrounds who 

stand alongside their undocumented neighbors. They do not need 

to see pieces of paper—a passport or a green card—to treat us as 

human beings. 

This is the truth about immigration in our America. And as this 

Congress decides on fair, humane reform, let us remember that immigration is not merely about borders. ‘‘Immigration is in our blood 

. . . part of our founding story,’’ writes Senator Ted Kennedy, 

former Chairman of this very Committee, in the introduction to 

President Kennedy’s book, ‘‘A Nation of Immigrants.’’ I carry it 

around with me. 

Immigration is about our future. Immigration is about all of us. 

And before we take your questions here, I have a few of my own: 

What do you want to do with me? For all the undocumented immigrants who are actually sitting here at this hearing, for the people 

watching online and for the 11 million of us, what do you want to 

do with us? 

[Applause.] 

Mr. VARGAS. And to me, the most important question as a student of American history is this: How do you define ‘‘American’’? 

How do you define it? 

Thank you so much for having me here today. 

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

for the record.] 

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

Jessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies for the Center 

for Immigration Studies where she has worked since 1992, specializing in immigration policy and operations. 
41 

Incidentally, I forgot to mention at the beginning that your whole 

statements will be placed in the record as though read. I have tried 

to be a little flexible with the time, but I am trying to keep close 

to the time because several other hearings are going on. That is 

why Members have been coming in now. 

Ms. Vaughan, please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF JESSICA VAUGHAN, DIRECTOR OF POLICY 

STUDIES, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Thank you. So far, the comprehensive immigration reform proposals all include the same basic elements: amnesty 

for 11 million illegal immigrants; increases in legal immigration; 

and promises of stronger border security and immigration enforcement measures. 

But this package would not only repeat the mistakes of IRCA 

from 1986; it would compound the immigration problems we currently have and fail to deliver a system that serves our citizens’ 

economic needs. 

Now is not the time to create new flows of immigration that will 

put Americans at a disadvantage, especially in exchange for promises of enforcement that are unlikely to be fulfilled. Instead, lawmakers should take the approach that has worked in recent years, 

which is to look for more narrow agreements focused on areas of 

broad consensus. 

How did IRCA fail? The amnesty parts were a great success, at 

least for the three million people who were legalized. But illegal 

immigration continued, and now we have nearly three times as 

many illegal residents as we did in 1986. This is because the Government only relatively recently has gained some control of parts 

of the southwest border and never followed through with the enforcement of employer sanctions. 

The Workplace Enforcement System of IRCA was built to fail. 

The INS put more resources into outreach than enforcement, and 

much like today, what few sanctions were imposed were no more 

than a slap on the wrist. The result was that employers failed to 

take the law seriously. 

The American public understands why IRCA failed. According to 

a new poll my organization just commissioned, when asked why 

there is a large illegal population in the country, 71 percent of voters answered that it is because we have not made a real effort to 

enforce our immigration laws. Only 18 percent think it is because 

we are not letting in enough legal immigrants. 

Not only was the enforcement end of the grand bargain scuttled, 

the Government also failed to enforce the rules of the amnesty program to make sure that only the right people were legalized. It is 

estimated that as many as 25 percent of the approved applications 

were based on fraud. Fraud is to be expected in any immigration 

benefits program, but in this case, the Government was willing to 

look the other way, even in cases of obvious fraud. 

One of the worst examples was Mahmud Abouhalima, a cab driver from New York City, who was approved as a farm worker and 

later went on to help blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. 
42 

Based on what we have seen so far with the DACA program, it 

is reasonable to worry that any new legalization program will be 

administered with a similar indifference to fraud. 

USCIS has yet to report more than a single denial out of the 

more than 400,000 applications submitted. As in IRCA, USCIS has 

established a generous system for DACA where applicants are presumed to be eligible, claims are rarely verified, and failed applicants get to stay anyway, for all intents and purposes immune from 

immigration law enforcement. 

Before considering another large-scale amnesty, we need to shore 

up enforcement of immigration laws in order to prevent another 

surge in illegal immigration. Some progress has been made, but we 

cannot check the box off quite yet. Some of the metrics suggest a 

significant decline in enforcement activity over the last few years. 

Border Patrol apprehensions were up again in 2012 by nine percent. ICE arrests in the interior have been trending downward 

since 2008, and the Investigations Division, they have gone down 

70 percent in the last few years. 

It appears that the number of absconders is rising. ICE has reported that there are 850,000 aliens present in the country who 

have been ordered removed or excluded, but who have not departed. These numbers do not support the Obama administration’s 

claims to have set a record for deportations. 

ICE also has released tens of thousands of deportable criminal 

aliens in recent years. According to the Congressional Research 

Service, these aliens went on to commit 58,000 new crimes in a two 

and a half year period, including more than 5,000 major or violent 

criminal offenses and more than 8,000 DUI violations. 

Similarly, DHS has failed to address the problem of the two 

dozen or so countries that refuse to accept back their citizens who 

have been ordered removed. More than 12,500 aliens, the majority 

of whom were likely criminals, have been released from ICE detention in recent years, and it could be as high a total of as many as 

200,000. 

If properly managed, immigration can serve the national interest, but today we are issuing more new green cards and work visas 

than we can absorb in our labor market without disadvantaging 

the millions of unemployed Americans who are competing in these 

same occupations. The result has been a measurable decline in 

wages for many, in addition to lost opportunities. This has affected 

engineers, teachers, and nurses, but also those Americans who lack 

a higher education and are already struggling to move up the ladder. Employers will have little incentive to improve working conditions and wages as long as there is a steady stream of replacement 

workers. 

Last, a mass amnesty will be costly as newly legalized residents 

will now be eligible for the services and subsidized health care from 

which they were previously barred, and we estimate that this could 

cost tens of billions of dollars per year. Instead, lawmakers should 

start smaller, tackling issues like better workplace enforcement 

and compliance, amnesty for illegal aliens brought by their parents 

at a young age who grew up here with a path to citizenship, ending 

the visa lottery and other programs that do not serve our national 

interest, completing the entry/exit system, reforming the immigra-
43 

tion court system, expanding Federal and local law enforcement 

partnerships, and rebalancing our legal immigration system to 

admit a larger proportion of immigrants who will be self-sufficient. 

Before accepting any large-scale legalization program, people 

need to have some confidence that the laws will actually be enforced and that such an amnesty will not cause another surge of 

illegal immigration, and see meaningful and sustained commitment 

to attaining control of the borders and enforcing immigration laws 

in the interior in a transparent way. 

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

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Steve Case is the chairman and CEO of Revolution, co-founder 

of America Online, and chairman of the Case Foundation, an accomplished entrepreneur, philanthropist, member of President 

Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, and, I would also 

note, a valued and valuable member of the Smithsonian Institution’s Board of Regents. 

Mr. Case, please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE CASE, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, REVOLUTION LLC, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. CASE. Thank you, Senator Leahy, and it is an honor to serve 

with you on that Smithsonian Board of Regents, and it is also an 

honor to be invited to speak to you and the Committee today. 

I want to share my perspective on an issue that I think is central 

to our history and also critical to our future. 

I appear before you today as an entrepreneur, an investor, a civic 

leader, and a colleague and friend of talented immigrant entrepreneurs and innovators who devote themselves to their companies 

and contribute to this country. 

To understand this debate in context, it is necessary to remember that the story of America is in part the story of entrepreneurs 

who settled this land seeking a better life and who through grit, 

hard work, and creativity built companies, cities, and whole new 

industries that power the strongest economy the world has ever 

known. 

Our country did not become the world’s leading economy by luck 

or accident. Iconic Fortune 500 companies that employ thousands 

of Americans did not simply come to be. Revered American cities 

like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles did not sprout up by 

chance. New industries for telephones, airplanes, and the Internet 

were not conceived by happenstance. 

It was the work of pioneering entrepreneurs—beginning with the 

country’s earliest settlers, our Nation’s first immigrant entrepreneurs—who took a risk hoping to turn dreams into startup businesses. 

From the earliest days, immigrant entrepreneurs started some of 

America’s most celebrated enterprises. U.S. Steel, Pfizer, Kraft 

Foods, Honeywell, Goldman Sachs, AT&T, and Yahoo! were all 

started by immigrants. Today, 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies 

in the United States were started by immigrants or the children of 

immigrants—40 percent. 
44 

Between 1995 and 2005, half of Silicon Valley startups had an 

immigrant founder. 

And this is not just about technology companies. When Hamdi 

Ulukaya, an immigrant from Turkey, hired four employees to begin 

packaging yogurt by hand in upstate New York, his friends thought 

it was a crazy idea. Eight years later, Chobani Yogurt generates $1 

billion in sales, has hired 1,500 American workers, and is expanding operations all across the country. 

Mr. Chairman, high-skilled immigrants have always been job 

creators, not job takers. The mistake that opponents of immigration reform often make is believing that our society and economic 

growth are zero sum. They are not. More talented immigrants joining the American family does not equate to fewer jobs; it equates 

to more jobs. 

Others argue that instead of allowing more high-skilled immigrants to stay we should instead focus on better training and 

STEM education for America’s youth. But this is a false choice. We 

can and must do both: Draw the best and brightest from across the 

globe, and develop more talented students here at home. 

But every year, arbitrary immigration caps force approximately 

one-third of the 50,000 foreign-born STEM graduates from our universities to leave the country. If our military had such a policy, we 

would train soldiers, sailors, and pilots at West Point, the Naval 

Academy, and the Air Force Academy only to then send them away 

to join the militaries of other nations. I think we would all agree 

that that would be crazy. But our immigration policy, particularly 

around high-skilled immigrants, is equally crazy. 

Meanwhile, as we as a Nation grow complacent about the global 

battle for talent, our global competitors are stepping up their game. 

China launched the ‘‘1000 Talents Program’’ to attract talented 

researchers back to the country. Australia grants nearly as many 

employment-based green cards as the United States, despite having an economy that is 14 times smaller. Canada recently announced a new startup visa program that grants permanent residency to foreign-born innovators who receive backing from Canadian investors. 

But sadly, here in the United States we are making it harder for 

innovators to come and to stay. A few months ago, I was having 

breakfast with a group of young entrepreneurs in Chapel Hill, 

North Carolina, when I met Deepak, a young, up-and-coming star 

in the Research Triangle area. Deepak was born in India, has a 

Ph.D. in genetics from the University of North Carolina, and his 

health care startup has achieved 40 percent month-over-month 

growth. Yet his green card status remains uncertain, and as a result, Deepak is having difficulty convincing investors to fund his 

expansion. Deepak is ready to hire more employees in Raleigh. Instead, he waits. 

And there are stories like this all over the country. A few decades ago, we lost ground in the manufacturing sector when we 

failed to respond aggressively to global competition. We cannot afford to do the same when it comes to the entrepreneurial sector. 

The good news is that numerous bipartisan, high-skilled immigration proposals have been teed up in recent months that contain 

smart reforms. The Startup Act permits entrepreneurs and STEM 
45 

graduates to stay and start businesses. The I-Squared Act increases the amount of available green cards and removes the per 

country cap for employment-based visas. The Startup Visa Act allows foreign entrepreneurs to move to the United States as long as 

they have financial backing. The SMART Jobs Act slows the STEM 

‘‘brain drain’’ by adding a new non-immigrant F–4 visa. Chairman 

Leahy has introduced a compelling idea based on the EB–5 program that is working in his home State of Vermont. 

President Obama has called for stapling green cards to the diplomas of American-educated immigrants with STEM degrees, and 

the bipartisan Gang of Eight, including many in this room, has 

agreed on a framework to admit the skilled workers necessary for 

a competitive economy. 

I defer to the men and women on Capitol Hill and at the White 

House to determine which of these specific provisions make up the 

final plan, but this much is clear: We must enact measures that 

enable talented entrepreneurs to start businesses here in the 

United States. 

For over a decade, there has been a discussion of the need to update our laws and give our country the tools to win the global battle for talent, and yet nothing has happened. At this critical time, 

I believe the best way to win adoption of high-skilled immigration 

reforms is to make them part of a comprehensive immigration reform package that also addresses a path to citizenship for undocumented workers living in our country, deals with border security, 

and also sanctions on employers who break the law. Such a comprehensive package is essential not only for its potential to spur 

our economic growth, but because it also can address the family 

and human issues that are also at stake in this emotional debate. 

And with the leadership in the Senate and this Committee in particular, it can get done. 

A few months ago, I stood next to President Obama and Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the Rose Garden after they 

joined together to pass the JOBS Act, Jump-Starting Our Business 

Startups Act, on behalf of our Nation’s entrepreneurs. Pundits said 

it would never happen, particularly given it was an election year. 

But it did. Bipartisan progress is possible during moments in 

Washington when diverse groups of citizens call for action. On immigration, this is the moment for Democrats, Republicans, and 

Independents to come together and pass comprehensive reform. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for 

your time. 

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

the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you, Mr. Case. I appreciate that 

very much. 

Our next witness is Chris Crane, the president of the National 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council 118 of the American Federation of Government Employees. He currently serves as 

an ICE deportation officer. Am I correct on that? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEAHY. Your full statement will be placed in the 

record, but please go ahead, sir. 
46 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS CRANE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT COUNCIL 118 OF 

THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. CRANE. Good morning, Chairman Leahy, and thank you, as 

well as honorable Members of the Committee. 

On Saturday, I was contacted by a man whose son was killed by 

an alien who was driving without a license. The alien had failed 

a driver’s exam multiple times but decided to drive anyway. While 

attempting to flee the scene, the alien drove over the man’s son approximately four times. Two years later, the father is still attempting to have the alien who killed his son deported. 

In 2010, an illegal alien, again driving without a license as well 

as being intoxicated, killed one nun and maimed two others. The 

case made national headlines. Many in America called for Secretary Napolitano’s resignation. Last week, that alien was sentenced to 20 years in prison. 

Statistics show that unlicensed drivers kill 8,400 people in the 

United States each year. That is 700 deaths every month. Yet according to ICE’s new prosecutorial discretion policies, driving without a license is just another traffic offense. And because of that, 

ICE agents cannot arrest illegal aliens without licenses unless they 

have already potentially injured someone. 

ICE recently proposed a three-day suspension for an ICE agent 

who arrested an illegal alien with multiple convictions for driving 

without a license and who was attempting to operate a vehicle in 

the agent’s presence. While seeking disciplinary action against the 

agent, ICE simply released the alien without charge, putting yet 

another unlicensed driver behind the wheel. 

Secretary Napolitano describes these new policies as smart and 

effective. I can assure you they are neither. 

I think most Americans assume that ICE agents and officers are 

empowered by the Government to enforce the law. Nothing could 

be further from the truth. With 11 million illegal aliens in the U.S., 

ICE agents are now prohibited from arresting illegal aliens solely 

on charges of illegal entry or visa overstay—the two most frequently violated sections of U.S. immigration law. Agents report 

that of they encounter suspected illegal aliens in the public, they 

cannot arrest them. Their instructions are that only if an alien is 

first arrested by local police on criminal charges may ICE agents 

and officers consider making an immigration arrest. 

If an alien is arrested by local police and placed in jail, again, 

ICE agents may not arrest them for illegal entry or visa overstay. 

New policies require that illegal aliens have a felony arrest or conviction or be convicted of three or more misdemeanors, so many illegal aliens with criminal convictions are also now untouchable. 

ICE agents apply the DREAM Act provisions and DACA not to 

children in schools but to adult inmates in jails. If the inmates 

claim to be DREAMers and claim to qualify under DACA, agents 

must take the illegal alien’s word that they do qualify. No investigation is conducted. There is no requirement that the illegal alien 

provide proof such as a high school diploma or college transcript. 

The fact that as a law enforcement agency ICE has any national 

policy or practice that simply relies on an individual’s word as 
47 

grounds for stopping an enforcement action is yet further proof 

that ICE’s new policies are neither smart nor effective. 

For this and many other reasons, ICE is crumbling from within. 

Morale is at an all-time low. As criminal aliens are released to the 

streets and ICE instead takes disciplinary actions against its own 

officers for making lawful arrests, it appears clear that Federal law 

enforcement officers are the enemy and not those that break our 

Nation’s laws. Whether it be our current immigration laws or future reforms, all will fail as long as individuals can pick and choose 

which laws enacted by Congress will be enforced. Operationally, 

ICE is not prepared or able to properly perform its mission, and 

the interior of the U.S. is not secure. 

In closing, for the last four years, President Obama has excluded 

ICE officers and agents from all input on immigration reforms as 

well as ICE and DHS arrest policies. For that reason, yesterday a 

letter was sent to the President requesting that ICE agents be invited to future meetings as special interest groups representing illegal aliens have been for the last four years. 

To the Members of this honorable body, I extend a warm and sincere invitation to call upon me at any time as we would very much 

like to assist you in your efforts to fix our broken immigration system. 

With that, that concludes my testimony. Thank you. 

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

for the record.] 

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

The last witness is Janet Murguı ́a, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza, the largest Hispanic civil rights organization in the Nation. She served in the Clinton White House, including as Deputy Assistant to the President. She is one of four siblings trained as lawyers. Two siblings, I might mention, currently 

serve as Federal judges, and I was privileged to be here at the time 

both of them became Federal judges. 

This is not your first visit to this Committee. We thank you for 

being here. 

STATEMENT OF JANET MURGUI ́A, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. MURGUI ́A. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also want to 

thank Ranking Member Grassley for giving me this opportunity to 

appear before the Committee today. And in addition to my written 

statement, I want to also request that over 265,000 petitions in 

favor of legalization and a path to citizenship be entered into the 

public record. 

At the outset, I want to join the growing consensus that Congress 

has a historic opportunity to pass immigration reform this year. 

Fixing our broken immigration system is in the best interest of our 

country. Immigration should be orderly and legal and uphold our 

Nation’s values. Reform must include: a road map to legalization 

and citizenship for eligible immigrants; smart, workable enforcement; and a legal immigration system that serves families, workers, and our economy. 
48 

For Latinos, this issue is personal. As the recent election demonstrated, Hispanic voters generated the game-changing moment 

for immigration, giving us the opportunity to finally achieve a solution. And our role is growing. An average of nearly 900,000 Latino 

citizens will turn 18 every year between now and 2028. Our community is engaged and watching this debate very closely. 

This is urgent because the effects of a failed system on our economy and on our country are unacceptable. But I must note that the 

failure to enact immigration reform has not meant inaction on immigration enforcement. In fact, by nearly every standard, more is 

being done to enforce immigration laws than ever before. And detention, prosecutions, and deportations are at all-time highs. 

Of course, for some people no amount of enforcement will ever 

be enough, but for our community, current enforcement levels are 

already intolerable, because virtually all of us, undocumented, permanent resident, and citizen alike, are affected. And despite all 

this enforcement, the notion that we would deport 11 million people is an ugly nightmare, and the notion that they will leave on 

their own is a fantasy. 

So what should we do? Independent commissions have called for 

earned legalization with a road map to citizenship. And it is easy 

to understand why. No healthy society can tolerate the existence 

of a subclass of people outside the scope and protection of the law. 

And continuing a situation where we collectively nod and wink because our society benefits from their labor is unacceptable. When 

our laws do not reflect reality, reality will win every time. 

That is why if we are to restore the rule of law, the single most 

essential element of immigration reform is an earned legalization 

program with a clear, achievable road map to citizenship—not because enforcement is unimportant, but because that is all we have 

done, and restoring the rule of law requires that we do both. 

Most undocumented immigrants are long-term U.S. residents; 

they work hard, pay taxes, and otherwise abide by our laws. They 

provide for U.S. citizen spouses and children. Some came here as 

children, and this is the only country they know and consider 

home. Their lives are inextricably linked with ours. 

The interests of our country are best served by allowing them 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. 

A majority of Americans support earned legalization with a road 

map to citizenship. The American public puts a special premium on 

citizenship because they want to see immigrants all in—not partially in, not in a special status, but in the same boat as everyone 

else. 

The Latino community, three-quarters of whom are citizens, will 

not look kindly at legislation that condemns people to second-class 

status. They want to see a clear path. We understand that there 

will be questions about how long the process should take and what 

specific requirements need to be met. But if the process is unreasonable, the Latino community and I believe most Americans, will 

consider the program disingenuous. 

We now have the opportunity for a real solution that will serve 

our country from the farm fields in the South all the way to Silicon 
49 

Valley. Some of the people we are talking about provided the food 

we will eat today. Others are at this moment caring for our children, our parents, or our grandparents. And, yes, many are ready 

to help support our technology, math, and engineering needs. 

You have the power to help our economy and our Nation by passing immigration reform, and in so doing, you will be helping America’s immigrants, our neighbors, our fellow churchgoers, and for 

many of us our family members. 

I cannot help but feel the spirit of Senator Kennedy here today, 

and I think if he were here, he would say: ‘‘You are right. Now let 

us get to work and get this thing done.’’ 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

Chairman LEAHY. And I might say, if our friend Senator Kennedy was here, he would be able to say it without using a microphone. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. And you would hear it in the halls. 

Incidentally, I am going to put in the record an op-ed piece that 

Mr. Vargas had in the New York Times this morning. 

[The op-ed appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I want to ask a few questions, and then I am 

going to turn the gavel over to Senator Coons because we have a 

court of appeals judge on the floor, and I have to go and handle 

that and hopefully get Mr. Kayatta through. He has been delayed 

for months and months and months. 

Mr. Case, you are known as an entrepreneur, investor, and chair 

of Startup America. You have built companies, you mentor companies, and you have heard the things about why we need more immigrants. We have Americans out of jobs. They need jobs. Why do 

we try to increase opportunities to bring foreign workers? And yet 

we have also seen bipartisan coalitions. Senator Hatch, Senator 

Klobuchar, for example, joined together and introduced legislation 

on this. 

Why is it good to create more visas for foreign skilled workers 

when we have people having trouble finding employment here? 

Mr. CASE. I think the best answer is, as I tried to say in my testimony, that the immigrant entrepreneurs and innovators and engineers that are creating some of our fast-growing companies then 

create jobs both within those companies and more broadly within 

those communities. I saw this when AOL was growing in Northern 

Virginia. It was not just that we had a 1,000 employees, but it created thousands and probably tens of thousands additional jobs in 

terms of housing and restaurants and services and other things 

that were part of that community when it was rising. 

Conversely, a few months ago I was speaking to some entrepreneurs in Detroit, and I was struck by two things. The first was 

that 50 years ago Detroit really was Silicon Valley. It was the most 

innovative place in the Nation, maybe in the world, when the automobile business was on fire. But then Detroit, for a variety of reasons, mostly related to globalization, lost its entrepreneurial mojo, 

and in the last 50 years it has lost 50 percent of its population. As 

a result, Detroit has kind of been in free fall. Now they are trying 
50 

to stabilize and fight their way back. We need to make sure as a 

Nation that we do not lose our entrepreneurial mojo, and the talent 

piece of that is central, that any organization is only as good as its 

people, any country is only as good as its people. So we really need 

to be a magnet for talent because these people are innovators. 

As I mentioned, 40 percent of the Fortune 500 companies were 

started by first- or second-generation immigrants. I would hate for 

those companies to have been started somewhere else. And other 

nations are stepping up their activities. There is the phenomenon 

of the globalization of entrepreneurship as they recognize entrepreneurship is the secret sauce that powered our economy, has driven 

us to our leadership position in the world, and they are trying to 

knock that off and make it really easy for people to go there. And 

we need to make sure we do not get complacent. 

Chairman LEAHY. Are you saying that these high-technology positions would help more than just the technology companies? 

Mr. CASE. Absolutely. There are two reasons. First of all, almost 

every company now is a technology company. Even retailers and 

the service industry, restaurants, manufacturing, things around 

advanced manufacturing, additive manufacturing they all have a 

strong technology component. So when we talk about technology, I 

think people look at it too narrowly and think of it as software 

companies or Internet companies in Silicon Valley. The phenomenon around technology is much broader, and the need for engineering talent all across our Nation and all across our industry 

sectors is much broader. So that is the first. 

The second, though, as I mentioned, it is not just the direct jobs 

that are created by these innovators who take companies that 

started with a handful of people, dozens of people, hundreds of people, sometimes thousands or tens of thousands of people, but the 

ripple effect, the network effect of those companies and their success and growth has more broadly in the community, creating jobs 

across many sectors of our economy. 

Chairman LEAHY. I was struck by something you said about the 

legal—I am sort of compressing it—the legal, social, and moral imperatives of comprehensive immigration reform speak to our character as a Nation. You know, we all have immigrants somewhere 

in our background. My immigrant grandparents created jobs. My 

wife’s immigrant parents created jobs. They made it a better community. 

But with that, Ms. Murguı ́a, I think when you said in your testimony that the notion that we would deport 11 million people is an 

ugly nightmare, I hope that everybody in this room would agree 

with that. But we also know the status quo is not sustainable. 

How would you respond to people—and I have heard this said— 

who have said that anything short of mass deportation is amnesty? 

How do we respond to that? 

Ms. MURGUI ́A. Well, I would just disagree—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Make sure your microphone is on. 

Ms. MURGUI ́A. Well, I would just disagree. I think that amnesty 

is a pardon with no penalty, and we have made it clear that the 

kind of earned legalization on the table does not pardon anyone, 

and by any definition, includes penalties. It requires participants 

to admit an offense and pay a penalty, pay taxes, learn English, 
51 

and go back to the end of the line of those already waiting for citizenship. And I think there is a vast difference between saying that 

something is amnesty when it is a clear pardon. And so I would 

say that it is clearly not. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Vargas, my time is up, but I am introducing the Uniting 

American Families Act with Senator Collins, saying that preserving family unity should be part of our immigration policy. Of 

course, Senator Durbin has led on the DREAM Act, which I strongly supported. 

What is the significance of these two pieces of legislation in your 

mind? 

Mr. VARGAS. I think any talk of reform in this country, inclusion 

must be at the heart of it, because diversity is at the heart of this 

country. We come in all shapes and forms. 

One of the things that I found really interesting listening to the 

House hearing, I think it was last week actually, with Ms. 

Vaughan and Mr. Crane, was a lot of the conversation about lowskilled—I have been to Alabama, I have been to Georgia. I can tell 

you that there is nothing low-skilled about harvesting fruits and 

vegetables and that people who are ‘‘low-skilled’’ must be as protected as high-skilled in the same way that heterosexual couples— 

same-sex binational couples should be afforded the same rights 

that are given heterosexual couples. It is simply an issue of equality. 

You know, when DACA, when Deferred Action was announced 

last June, I have a dear friend sitting here, Gabby Pacheko, who 

has been an activist for a long time, and she qualified for DACA, 

and I do not. I am four months older. I remember she—I saw her 

in the morning when we found out the announcement, and she 

said, ‘‘Do not worry. We are not done. We will take care of you.’’ 

And I know she means that. And we must mean that. We must 

make sure that in an America that is about inclusion that everyone 

is included in reform, that one group is not favored over the other. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

I will yield to Senator Sessions, and, Senator Coons, if we could 

trade places up here and you take the—and I thank the panel very 

much. I apologize for having to leave. It is only because of the court 

of appeal matter on the floor. And Ms. Murguı ́a remembers when 

her sister was up for a similar one and how important it is. But 

I appreciate all of you being here, every one of you. It is important 

to the debate. Thank you. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Chairman Leahy. 

I appreciate all of you coming, your comments, and as we discussed, this is an important national issue. Mr. Vargas, would you 

agree fundamentally that a great nation should have an immigration policy and then create a legal system that carries that policy 

out and then enforces that policy? 

Mr. VARGAS. Yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. I would just say that is a fundamental question of value, because the United States is not able to have an open 

border and allow everybody that would like to come to this country 

come. I know there was a poll in Peru a number of years ago when 
52 

we were in Peru that said 70 percent would come to America if 

they could. I saw a poll in Nicaragua, and 60 percent would come 

to America if they could. So we have to make decisions about how 

that is done so it does not disrupt socially and economically the Nation. 

Mr. Case, I know you are again rallying with a group of special 

interest groups. The President had them at the White House recently. Ms. Murguı ́a was there, you were there. Mr. Crane was not 

there. Anybody who knows anything about how the system actually 

operates on the ground was not there. I do not think anybody representing the broad-based American public was there. 

So I think we have got a problem here. We have, as Mr. Crane 

just dramatically indicated, a serious unwillingness to enforce even 

the most basic laws. 

When President Obama took office, I remember vividly that there 

was a raid at a plant, I think on the west coast, and they immediately apologized. Apparently they told Ms. Murguı ́a in La Raza 

they would not do that anymore. And so the agents were disciplined, and everybody that was found to be there illegally, they 

were allowed to keep their jobs. And that was a signal that went 

right out through law enforcement all over the country. 

And so do the American people worry about this? I think they 

do. 1986 is so fundamental. The amnesty occurs like that—the regularization, if you do not want to call it amnesty. That occurs immediately, and so we promise somehow in the future that we will 

have an enforcement mechanism. So we had three million people 

here illegally then, and now we have 11 million, because the word 

went out that if you get into America, you too will sooner or later 

get amnesty. And we are right back here in that position. 

So we need to see, the American people need to see a real commitment, one that is truly so, to make the laws real and the policies real, and we are not going to be taking a pig in a poke. And 

there is a lot of overconfidence about this bill. I do not think that— 

this legislation is not what the Members said and goes further actually than the Members say about it, the group that is working 

on it, and I really respect them. If it does not really work, it is not 

going to pass. We are going to expose it. I am going to read the 

bill, and others will. So we are going to look at that. It has got to 

end. 

Clearly, we need a policy that serves the national interest of the 

United States. So that means we have to decide how many people 

can come, how many engineers will not be employed because we 

open the world to bright engineers all over the world, people that 

our children and grandchildren—will they not be able to get a job? 

I think it is not so to suggest that you will have no impact on 

wages or jobs. 

I remember Senator Kennedy and I debated the question about 

wages. I suggested that large flows of labor will pull down wages. 

He did not dispute it. He said, ‘‘Well, we will fix it by raising the 

minimum wage.’’ Well, I do not want people operating at the minimum wage. I want them operating two, three times the minimum 

wage. So the President was talking minimum wage last night. It 

reminded me of that. 
53 

So, Mr. Case, I do think that the Canadian plan—I think maybe 

your friend from Microsoft—we have talked about this—has got a 

good plan, that if we move in that direction, it would be appealing 

to me. 

I have talked too long. 

Mr. Crane, has the President or anyone in the administration or 

Congress—well, in the administration asked you or any of your officers about their evaluation of how to improve the immigration law? 

Mr. CRANE. No, Senator. In fact, what we see is that the special 

interest groups are brought in to ICE headquarters, to DHS headquarters. They put out lists bragging, you know, 100 or more special interest groups that they are bringing in to work on the policies, and they completely shut us out to the point where even our 

union rights have been taken away from us and we cannot even 

communicate with the agency through our basic union rights. And 

they have an army of attorneys opposing each and every single 

thing that we do just as a union to try to get involved in any of 

our law enforcement policies to look out for the best interests of our 

officers. 

Senator SESSIONS. Briefly, has Secretary Napolitano formally in 

any official way reached out to the union to find out why you voted 

no confidence in your Director, Mr. Morton? 

Mr. CRANE. No, sir. In fact, I have never met Secretary 

Napolitano, never shook hands with her or anything. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I have called for Mr. Morton to resign. 

I think he has failed in his fundamental duty to enforce the law 

and maintain the morale of the people that we pay to do their jobs 

every day. 

Mr. Chairman, my time has concluded. Thank you very much. 

Senator COONS. [presiding.] Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to all the witnesses. 

Mr. Vargas, I just would first like to thank you for your touching, 

heartfelt story. You can tell why you are good journalist. And I was 

thinking here, as I was listening, that you are not just a DREAMer, but you are a doer, that you are not simply an amnesty seeker, 

as some people here might characterize it, but you are a taxpayer. 

And so I want to thank you for that and ask if you could respond 

to this framework where either we just keep the status quo because 

we are unable to get something done, which I just will not accept, 

or, in fact, we up deportations of people like yourself. What would 

happen to you if that happened? And what is your counterargument in response to what you have heard? 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, could I just have one second 

before you start on that, Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. I would offer for the record a series of documents provided by Mr. Crane, one being his letter to the President 

asking that National ICE Council be included in future immigration meetings, and other documents. 

Senator COONS. Without objection. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Mr. CASE. I am sorry. If I could, Senator Sessions, I just want 

to correct one thing for the record. You mentioned that there was 
54 

a meeting I attended with the President and special interests. I 

have actually never attended a meeting with the President on this 

issue with special interests. I was invited to attend a meeting with 

a dozen CEOs of companies like Coca-Cola and Marriott who were 

talking about pragmatic solutions to get the economy moving, and 

one of the key focuses was immigration, and there was a broad 

sense that the country needed to move forward. So the focus really—if I represent any special interest, it is just doing my part to 

make sure we remain the world’s most entrepreneurial Nation, and 

winning this global battle for talent is central to that. I just wanted 

to correct that. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, we did have a document that suggested 

that that could have been incorrect. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Mr. Vargas, welcome to our hearing. 

So DREAMer versus doer, we are back talking about amnesty seeker versus taxpayer, and how you respond to this and what would 

happen to you if we simply just kept the status quo and/or we just 

upped deportations. 

Mr. VARGAS. First of all, the status quo is untenable. I think we 

all agree that we cannot—that the situation cannot keep going the 

way that it is. This past weekend, I was with Erika Andiola. She 

is a DREAMer who is also a doer, graduated from college, who one 

night ICE just knocked at her door and grabbed her mom and her 

brother. Thankfully, she got on Facebook, and I think there were 

like 300 of us that jumped right in, got on a conference call: ‘‘How 

do we do this?

It should not be lost on anyone the surreal nature of even this 

hearing, the fact that I am sitting here on the same table as Mr. 

Crane and Ms. Vaughan. And before I kind of dive into what you 

said, I think we need to define our terms. And when we talk about 

what is in the national interests of the country, you know, I have 

been to Alabama. I spent some time there. I have been to Alabama 

to talk to someone like Lawrence Calvert, for example, who is a Republican, who is a farmer, who once H.B. 56—you know, that out 

Arizona’d Arizona’s immigration law—was passed, Lawrence Calvert said, ‘‘Wait a second. It is not right for this State to say who 

my friends can be. My best worker is this guy Paco.’’ He is such 

a best worker that there is actually a room in Mr. Calvert’s house 

called the ‘‘Guatemalan suite’’ for Paco. 

So, you know, when Senator Sessions talks about the national interests of Americans, I think about Lawrence Calvert. I think 

about the national interests of my principal and my superintendent 

who are here today. I feel as if we have been having the exact same 

conversation on immigration for the past decade. We invite the 

same people to talk about the same thing as if immigration is all 

about border security. I came here from the Philippines. My border 

was the Pacific Ocean. 

We talk about immigration and enforcement as if we are talking 

about alien people from Mars and not human beings whose lives 

and whose families are being torn apart every day. 

NCLR, which has been referred to as an interest group, represents 55 million Latinos in this country. That is not an interest 

group. 
55 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Mr. Vargas, because I wanted 

to ask one more question here of Mr. Case. I am sure we can talk 

later, but I really appreciate your answer, and I think people need 

to think about who they are talking about. 

Mr. Case, you talked about how, in fact, people do not always see 

how this can create jobs. I think you said, ‘The mistake that opponents of immigration reform often make is believing that our society and economic growth are zero sum. They are not. More talented 

immigrants joining the American family does not equate to fewer 

jobs; it equates to more jobs.’’ And there have been many studies, 

one commissioned by Mayor Bloomberg and Mayor Castro that 

showed, I think, 1.8 jobs for every holder of one of these visits that 

come in, another one up to five jobs that are created. 

Could you talk about your personal experience with this? 

Mr. CASE. That is absolutely true. I have invested—not just 

helped start AOL and create the Internet, but then invested in a 

couple dozen different companies, and many of them started by immigrant entrepreneurs. So I have seen firsthand the job creation leverage of that, and as I said earlier, it is not just the direct impact 

of those companies, it is the broader impact. 

Frankly, when I hear this discussion about immigration—and 

this morning’s discussion was reflective of it—it is usually framed 

as a problem we need to solve. I think it is an opportunity we need 

to see. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Exactly. 

Mr. CASE. And while there is a moral prism aspect, there is a 

political prism aspect, I look at it through the economic prism aspect. And if we are going to remain the leading economy in the 

world and we are going to boost our growth rate from two percent 

to three, four, five percent, which I think is the only way we are 

going to solve our fiscal problems long term, the talent issue is central because all the job creation and economic growth comes from 

these innovative entrepreneurs who are starting companies and 

growing their companies and growing their communities. 

So this really is about the future of the country and how do we 

seize this opportunity to remain the world’s most entrepreneurial 

nation. As I said before, we are getting complacent. Other nations 

are probably laughing at us. Recently, Canada announced a policy 

around the Startup Visa Program and said they are going to go to 

Silicon Valley, fly the Canadian flag, and say, ‘‘Stop messing 

around in the United States. Come here. We welcome you. We are 

going to give you a visa.’’ 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And no one knows that better than Minnesota because we can see Canada from our porch. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And so I am quite concerned about this just 

because we want these people to stay and, you know, make the 

next Post-it Note and pacemaker in Minnesota. And so that is why, 

as you know, Senator Hatch and I introduced the I-Squared bill, 

half Democrat, half Republican authors. It is part of comprehensive 

immigration reform. That is how I see it. But it is also important, 

we believe, to get the writing on the wall and get that bill out 

there, because it really does—right now we have—a third of the 

visas that we had back in 2001 for H–1Bs. We have severe limits 
56 

on per country green cards, which Senator Lee pointed out. And I 

was thinking, as I listened to your testimony where you said a 

third of immigrants at our universities have to go back when they 

do not want to, imagine if that happened to our sports teams. Just 

look at the roster of your favorite sports team, NFL, NHL, Major 

League Baseball. Look at what the immigrants are on that team 

and take a third of them off, because that is what we are doing 

with our universities. 

Mr. CASE. It is worse than we think because when they go back, 

they go to other countries and start companies there. The entrepreneurial ecosystem is developed there, and then they become more 

robust competitors to the United States. So once the genie gets out 

of the bottle, it is hard to put it back in. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right. And to just last bring it back—no 

more questions, Mr. Chairman—to Mr. Vargas, I liked your words, 

Mr. Case, how you see this as an opportunity, that this is not a 

problem, that Mr. Vargas is not a problem, but he is creating opportunities for himself and for others in our country. 

Thank you. 

Senator COONS. Senator Hirono. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

the panel. 

Before I begin my questions, starting with Mr. Vargas, I would 

like to extend a special aloha to Steve Case, who has spent a lot 

of time in Hawaii. You have family there, and you are very much 

a part of our community in the State. So aloha to you. 

Mr. Vargas, I was particularly touched and taken by your testimony because you are living the broken immigration system. And 

I want to welcome your family and friends who are here to support 

you. 

I just happened to read your op-ed piece in today’s New York 

Times where you say that 1.6 million people have been deported by 

this administration and maybe 200,000 of them left their American-born children who, if they do not have family who can help 

take care of them, they end up being in foster care. This is no way 

for us to fix this broken system. 

From your experience—and you also talked about how worried 

your grandmother continues to be because you came out, and were 

in not for some changes in priorities of enforcement, you could be 

arrested right here and now, deported. So I think you really bring 

to the fore the kinds of changes we need to make that really reflects our values. 

Can you just talk a little bit more from not just your experience 

but the experience of the people that you obviously work with in 

terms of how important unifying families is? And that includes 

LGBT families. 

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you. Families are at the heart of the American character. I am fortunate that I have a really, you know, 

strong Filipino family, Filipino American family. You know they 

are from Hawaii. 

Senator HIRONO. Yes. 

Mr. VARGAS. You know, my grandmother, who is sitting right 

there, my Lola, is an American citizen, hard-working, taxpaying 

American citizen. I remember when I got hired at the Washington 
57 

Post, and I was here for five years. Being in D.C. for five years and 

going to the White House and going to Capitol Hill to cover a hearing was—I would not even call her because when I called, the first 

thing she would say is, ‘‘Are you sure you are going to be OK? Are 

you sure you are going to be OK?’’ Thankfully, she is still healthy 

now. She just turned 75 last September, because I promised her 

that once we fixed this—and we are going to fix it—we will be able 

to travel together. I have not seen my mother for 20 years this August. And I can only imagine how many other families are out 

there who are experiencing the exact same thing. 

I have met a lot of same-sex binational couples as I have traveled. I have been to about 25 States, maybe 100 meetings and 

events, even a couple of Tea Party meetings, and it has been really 

interesting, you know, when you see same-sex couples say, ‘‘I cannot marry and petition my partner of five, 10, 12 years, because we 

have DOMA’’—the Defense of Marriage Act that does not allow— 

the Federal Government does not acknowledge same-sex marriage 

even if it happens in New York, for example, or Massachusetts. 

So you see just not how—you really see how broken it is from 

the perspective of individual lives and their connections to their 

own communities. And that is why it is so important, that is why 

it was important for me not just to bring my Filipino American 

family but to bring the family that I found at my high school. You 

know, I do not know what I would have done if Pat Highland or 

Jim Strand and Rich Fischer—they did not see me as an illegal 

alien sitting the classroom. They saw me as a kid who could 

maybe, you know, work for the Washington Post, maybe write for 

the New Yorker. They saw opportunity. They did not see a problem. 

And I think it is important, as we talk about human beings, to 

keep the conversation that way. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 

I think that it is very clear that I am very focused on one of the 

principles of immigration reform as family reunification, and, Mr. 

Case, I agree with you that we ought to provide opportunities for 

people who come here and get their STEM education here, for them 

to remain so that they can—so that we can have the benefit of 

their entrepreneurial skills. 

There are a lot of people—I know you know—who came here as 

children, immigrated here, for example, Sergei Brin of Google, he 

fled the Soviet Union at age six, and Jerry Yang of Yahoo! who left 

Taiwan with his mother at age 10. So I hope that you agree with 

me that we do need to balance the visa/green card issue with encouraging immigration, family immigration to this country so that 

people who dream the American dream can also provide us with 

their talents and entrepreneurism. 

Mr. CASE. I do agree, and as I mentioned in my testimony, I have 

been talking and many people have been talking and advocating for 

high-skilled immigration reform for a decade, and for most of that 

decade, we were frustrated nothing was happening and concluded 

that it would be difficult to get anything done, but if anything got 

done, it would be narrower high-skilled reform package. I think 

there is now a recognition there is a moment, there is now bipartisan support building, and the best, fastest path to get high-skilled 

immigration done is to support comprehensive immigration reform. 
58 

So I think you will see a broader support from the tech community not just on the specific issues, but this broader solution. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. I believe my time is up. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Senator COONS. Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

all for being here. My special thanks to Mr. Vargas. As you may 

know, I have been a long-time advocate of the DREAM Act, both 

as State Attorney General and now as a United States Senator. In 

fact, I try to go to the floor every week when I can to, in effect, 

highlight a story like yours of a DREAMer contributing and giving 

back to this country in very, very material and impressive ways, 

and you have done so, and by today’s appearance you have given 

us a new DREAMer to call a model for why we should pass this 

act and expedite the earned citizenship status for young people 

brought to this country or coming to this country at a young age 

and then being educated, working, contributing, serving in our 

military. Thank you for being here today. 

Mr. Crane, I thought, when you opened with the story of the unlicensed driver causing this tragic crash and injury/death to the individual you described, that you were going to argue for providing 

driver’s licenses and requiring insurance for undocumented immigrants, such as some States have done. What do you think about 

that proposal? 

Mr. CRANE. Well, I think that actually both of those cases that 

I cited, both of those individuals had—one had an opportunity to 

have a license. He was on TPS. So he could have had a license. He 

failed the exam three times. The other one, I think his license had 

been suspended three times. So in both of those cases, there would 

have been no benefit to having a license as both of them had already had licenses. 

I do not know if that answers your question. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. What about insurance? 

Mr. CRANE. Did they have insurance? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Yes. 

Mr. CRANE. That I do not know, sir. My understanding of both 

cases is that they do not, but I cannot say for sure. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And what about increasing the penalties 

for drivers who cause such accidents without insurance, such as 

some States have done? Which is a problem common not only to 

undocumented immigrants but to many, many other citizens. 

Mr. CRANE. I am a law enforcement officer. Absolutely I would 

support stronger penalties for individuals that do not have the 

proper licensing, et cetera. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me ask you, Mr. Case—and I really 

want to thank you for your very persuasive and important testimony today on the H–1B visa reform, and I have joined as a leading cosponsor, with thanks to Senator Klobuchar and Senator 

Hatch, for their effort in championing this reform. 

One concern that has been expressed that also troubles me to an 

extent is the fact that individuals coming here with such visas are, 

in effect, tied to their employer with long backlogs before they can 

receive a green card. Wouldn’t this kind of reform also require or 
59 

entail either streamlining that process or according the H–1B visa 

recipient with greater freedom to move among employers? 

Mr. CASE. Yes, I think that would be a good idea. There are obviously many facets to this, and having more H–1Bs, raising or having no cap for some of these kind of advanced degrees that people 

have so we can keep more of that talent, more innovation here is 

key. But I do think what some have called the portability issue of 

H–1B visas would be helpful. There is no question that getting people here is part of the battle. Getting them to stay here is the next 

part of the battle. I would hate to train them and have them be 

working at IBM or Microsoft or some company, then after three 

years or six years feel like they have to go back and take those 

skills somewhere else or feel they cannot really leave that company 

because to do a startup, even if they would like to, because they 

would lose their status, we really should take this in a broader context of winning the battle for talent. How do we attract some of 

the—keep the ones we have and attract others who can really 

power our economy for the next 200 years and pioneer the next industries? And there are many specifics that obviously you folks 

need to deal with, but I favor a broader solution, a little bit of ‘‘all 

of the above’’ solution around high-skilled immigration. The ISquared is very helpful, the Startup Visa Act very helpful. I am 

pleased that Senator Coons with bipartisan support is reintroducing the Startup Act. It also, I think, is very helpful. 

So I would encourage this Committee to look at all these different bills. There is a lot of commonality to them, but we do need 

a robust high-skilled immigration component to any comprehensive 

reform. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I assume that you would also support 

a stronger system in the United States of STEM education so that 

our own citizens can be afforded greater opportunity to take advantage of these jobs that right now are unfilled because we are not 

providing our young people with the kind of skills that they need 

to fill them. The President highlighted this issue last night in the 

State of the Union, and I strongly support that kind of measure, 

which, again, Senator Klobuchar and others who are behind this 

bill have said is important. 

Mr. CASE. I totally agree. I even believe it has been framed as 

sort of this false choice, either why don’t you invest in STEM education in the United States and not attract people from out of the 

country. Of course, you have to do both, and we should be as robust 

as we can, but recognize that takes some time, 10 or more years, 

before we will get the benefit of any of those investments in our 

own education system. 

Meanwhile, we are starting to lose the battle of talent. We are 

running the risk of losing our status as the most entrepreneurial 

nation. So we need to move very aggressively and very urgently to 

make sure that the best and brightest are coming here and staying 

here. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 
60 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Just one point to follow up on that, not a 

question. The bill actually contains an increase in the visa fee. As 

Mr. Case and Senator Blumenthal know, that will amount to a 

minimum of $3 billion in 10 years that will go directly to STEM 

education and training in our country. And perhaps it will be as 

much as $5 billion. 

And so that was something that we got business support for, and 

it is a really important element of this bill, because we have to do 

both of these things simultaneously. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I was going to make that point, Mr. Chairman, but my time had expired. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I get the point, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator COONS. You have battling cosponsors of an important 

piece of legislation that contributes significantly both to STEM education for U.S. nationals and creating a new pathway. Thank you, 

Senator Klobuchar, for your leadership on the bill and for that contribution. 

Ms. Murguı ́a, if I might, a previous Senator described meetings 

in which only special interests were present and I think fairly directly implied that NCLR is a special interest group that does not 

speak for ordinary Americans. Could you just tell us something 

about who NCLR represents and its role in conversations about the 

path forward for America? 

Ms. MURGUI ́A. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the opportunity 

to respond to that, and I thank Jose Antonio for understanding, 

too, that we are not a special interest group. The fact is that the 

National Council of La Raza, NCLR, has been around for 45 years, 

and we represent a network of affiliates that serve millions of Hispanic families. And what we try to do is make sure that we are 

providing opportunities for our community to succeed, and we have 

various programs that we provide through this network of affiliates, community-based, nonprofit organizations. We run 115 charter schools. We have health programs and health clinics that are 

providing services. 

We run homeownership counseling services that have put over 

65,000 families in their first-time homes, and we have work force 

development programs that have helped fill the gaps in skills so 

that our community can fill the jobs that are out there that need 

to be filled. 

And, yes, we do represent a voice for the community when it 

comes to civil rights and when we have been involved in immigration policy. 

But the truth is that we have been active and involved in representing the Latino community for almost 50 years now, and it is 

something that we believe is important particularly now on this 

issue when we have a unique moment in time to finally put a solution out there for immigration reform. 

And I commend Jose Antonio and the DREAMers for the courage 

that they have demonstrated. It really is an example for all of us 

to put that personal narrative out there for us to understand that 

not only do we need to address their situation, but that they understand that their parents and other family members need to have 
61 

their situations addressed as well. And that is why we need comprehensive immigration reform. 

So when I am in a meeting with the President, I am representing 

not just a special interest but 50 million Latinos who are out there 

contributing mightily, serving in our military, and making this 

country better every day. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. I am well familiar with the range 

and scope of your good work. I just thought it was important to 

have that included in the record. 

As we move forward in this conversation, to the point you made, 

we are grateful to Mr. Vargas for sharing with us the details of his 

personal familial experience and the significant contributions his 

voice, his writing, and his work have made to our country and to 

this debate. But if you might, how in your view is a mixed family, 

one with citizenship and undocumented status, affected? How does 

this illegal limbo impact their interaction, their opportunity, their 

engagement with law enforcement, their likelihood of attending college, or being able to fully participate in America? Then, Mr. 

Vargas, I will ask you to follow up. 

Ms. MURGUI ́A. Well, of course. Right now we have a situation 

where these young people, individuals, have been brought into this 

country by their parents, have grown up pledging allegiance to this 

country in their schools and classrooms, and all they want to do is 

have a chance to go on and to have higher education. And a lot of 

folks have found that cost prohibitive because of their status. But 

not only that, they are living in the shadows still today, and they 

understand that their situation is one that is represented by all 

their families. 

But we are missing out as a country in not benefiting from their 

potential further contributions. And as Steve Case has made the 

point, if we would be able to make sure that we are obviously looking at the harvest of folks that we have here that we are not taking 

advantage of, we need to strike a right balance with folks who are 

coming in, who are able to meet other immediate needs for this 

country in terms of our work force. But we have many individuals 

now that, if we would put the right law in place, allow them to be 

able to come out of the shadows, but also make the right investments, we can have those kinds of contributions to our economy 

which we know will be plentiful. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. And if I might, Mr. Case, because 

my time is about to be up and I want to be respectful of other Senators’ time, you have been an effective and engaged advocate, particularly on the issue of high-skilled immigration, but also consistently around the special contribution of immigrants in the United 

States throughout its whole history—creativity, entrepreneurship, 

vision. And you have tried to bring focus in this Congress to the 

issue of global competition, how things have changed in the last 10 

or 20 years, that today we cannot afford to have the best and 

brightest in the world come here, be trained in some of the most 

advanced skills and techniques, and then go back to their home 

countries where their governments are waiting with resources and 

support to help them then begin companies that will compete 

against us. 
62 

Could you talk just a little bit about how that dynamic, as you 

described it, the entrepreneurial ecosystem, works to our disadvantage if we do not fix this part of our broken immigration system? 

And then, in closing, if you would just comment on why it is important that it be comprehensive, that we not do sort of rifle-shot 

issues to try and address one piece, but that we do this broadly and 

comprehensively. 

Mr. CASE. Well, I think people in this country, including in this 

town, are a little complacent about the role entrepreneurship has 

played in building the Nation and the role it needs to play to continue to drive a powerful economy. We kind of take it for granted 

that entrepreneurship is alive and well, and we like to talk about 

Silicon Valley, and we are so proud of Silicon Valley. And there are 

a lot of great stories. But as you point out, in the last 10 years we 

have seen a dramatic shift, as other countries around the world 

have recognized, that the secret sauce that has powered the American economy and the American story, which is why we are the 

leading nation in the world, you know, the leader of the free world, 

is the work of entrepreneurs and innovators. So they are moving 

very aggressively on talent policy, trying to make it easy for people 

to come and stay because they want to attract the best talent. Investment incentives, you know, little or no capital gains, for example, in many countries, building up more research to make sure the 

next Internets are created in other nations, a whole slew of policies 

that are really focused on trying to shift the center of gravity from 

entrepreneurship being kind of the secret sauce of America and trying to replicate that. 

So we do need to take it quite seriously. I would hate, as I mentioned in my remarks, for us 25 years from now to be bemoaning 

the loss of entrepreneurship like we now bemoan the loss of manufacturing. We are still in the lead, but that lead is slipping, and 

we need to take action. 

Your final question on comprehensive immigration reform, part 

of it is the pragmatic recognition that the best path to get highskilled immigration reform done is to include a broader set of initiatives that have broader support. But also I think it is the right 

thing to do morally and the right thing to do from our economy’s 

standpoint. It is not just about the high-skilled workers in those 

particular companies. It is what happens more broadly in those 

communities and having a path to citizenship and getting people 

off this status of being kind of in the gray zone and contributing 

fully as members of the economy I think is very important, and it 

really is the story of America as well. 

Senator COONS. Well, thank you, Mr. Case. In my view, allowing 

11, 12 million people in this country to come out of the shadows 

to fully engage in our economy, to fully engage in our community 

and our society is one of the best contributions we could make to 

economic growth. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes, I will just ask one more question of 

Mr. Case. Could you explain—I think there is some confusion 

sometimes about why we need both green card reform, where we 

have these students who we literally want to staple a green card 

to their diploma so they can stay and take time to look for a job, 
63 

and then we also have people like a doctor in Minnesota from India 

who for 16 years bounced around on various visas and it was not 

until when he became head of a high-tech company he was able to 

finally get a green card, even though he had been trained at the 

Mayo Clinic, had a diabetes degree, he had worked with low-income families and provided medical services to them, why this 

green card option is important but also why the H–1B is important 

and how we are literally reaching the cap as the economy is improving in some cases, back a while ago, the same day. 

Mr. CASE. I think it is part of this broader issue about winning 

the global battle for talent, and although the issue of 11 million undocumented people is a big issue, we are talking here, whether it 

be the Startup Act or the I-Squared, relatively small numbers that 

have relatively large impact, 50,000, 100,000, 150,000, whether it 

be we are talking about H–1B or a STEM visa or an entrepreneur 

visa. 

So in the grand scheme of things, it is a relatively small part of 

the problem, but, in fact, it is the bigger opportunity in terms of 

job creation. And it is important to recognize there are lots of different ways to attract talent. Some of it is getting students here 

and trying to get them to stay here. Some of it is recruiting people 

to larger companies and then trying to get them to stay in that 

company or stay in our country starting other companies. 

It is all about winning the battle talent, and I think we sometimes focus too much on the specifics and miss the broader story 

of how do we make sure we win that battle for talent. 

So I support all these different initiatives and try to make it as 

robust as possible because there are a lot of different ways people 

are going to be thinking about coming and staying in this country 

and contributing in this country, which is not just about, as I said, 

immigration. It is about our economy. If we want to get our twopercent growth to a higher level, we have got to focus more on innovation and entrepreneurship, given the statistics that half of the 

technology companies are started up by immigrants and 40 percent 

of the Fortune 500 companies are first- or second-generation immigrants, including non-technology companies. If we do not get this 

right, our lead in entrepreneurship is going to slip away, and we 

cannot allow that to happen. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. 

Senator Hirono, do you have any further questions? Senator 

Blumenthal, any further questions. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Yes, just a couple of questions. 

Ms. Vaughan, I want to make sure that I understand your position, which emphasizes really the importance of enforcement. As a 

law enforcer, I am certainly completely in agreement, but I think 

the President and the bipartisan group working here in the Senate 

also contemplate stronger enforcement. In fact, the plan under consideration here, the bipartisan plan, would actually condition 

earned citizenship on some certification that there is stronger enforcement at the borders. But regardless of whether that particular 

device is adopted or not, enforcement at the borders against illegal 

immigration, enforcement within our borders against employers 

who hire undocumented immigrants certainly is the priority goal, 
64 

and in some ways on the President’s plan even above the pathway 

to earned citizenship. 

And so even if they were to adopt the ABC’s of stronger enforcement that you suggest in your testimony should be made a practice, I gather you would still oppose the path to earned citizenship 

for various reasons, not the least of which is your concern about 

unskilled workers filling jobs that otherwise would be filled by 

American citizens. And I wonder what you would do about the 11 

million undocumented people who are within our borders right 

now. 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Well, I think it is important for the public to be 

able to support the proposals that Congress is going to be debating, 

and I think for that to happen, the public has expressed, at least 

through the polling data I have seen, that they want to see a sustained commitment to enforcement before we make a decision on 

what to do with—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So your objection is one of timing, then? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Well, that is part of it. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. In other words, if the polling data show 

that 90 percent—or is your argument about the politics of this 

problem, or is it about the substance? If the President could use his 

bully pulpit to convince the public, beginning with the State of the 

Union last night, that a pathway to earned citizenship is really 

necessary, you would go along with it then? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. The pathway itself is not necessarily the issue. I 

think the politics are a problem because of the fact that there has 

not been enough substance in the way of enforcement to convince 

people that we are not going to be in this same situation 10, 20 

years down the road. 

We also have to—and I do not know of anybody who thinks that 

it is either feasible or a good idea to try to remove 11 million people who are here illegally. But what we have seen—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. You would leave them in their current 

status. 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Well, some of them would make the choice to go 

back home. That is what we have seen happen when robust enforcement has been implemented, for example, at the State level. 

But we can have a conversation about a path to citizenship to those 

that are deemed to be, you know, people that we can accommodate. 

That is also going to have to take into account what the effect is 

going to be on Americans who are looking for jobs, the same kinds 

of jobs, and also whether or not we should adjust future immigration levels to compensate for the fact that we are going to be 

issuing a lot more green cards as a result of any amnesty that is 

contemplated. 

So, I mean, that is why I think trying to bite all of this off in 

one massive bill is going to be very, very difficult to accomplish. 

When I look back at the immigration legislation that has been 

passed since 1986, all of it was much narrower in scope. We have 

passed a lot of—I should say Congress has passed a lot of immigration bills in the last 20 years. All of them were much narrower in 

scope and focused on things that were attainable and around which 

there was broad consensus. And part of that is because of the IRCA 
65 

experience where the amnesty came first and the promises of enforcement were never fulfilled. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. First of all, I think to characterize it as 

amnesty would be rejected by many of us who support it, the idea 

of earning citizenship by paying back taxes, paying a penalty, 

learning English, going to the back of the line, and in the case of 

the DREAMers, literally earning it by serving this Nation in its 

United States military, I think is inaccurate. But I really do believe 

that we are at a moment, a historic moment, when a big deal—and 

immigration reform is a big deal—would be accepted by the public, 

and I think would be inspiring to the public because we are Nation 

of immigrants. We all know it. We all feel it in our gut. We all have 

pictures on our walls of people who came here because this Nation 

has been a beacon for them, not just the skilled who come here 

with H–1B visas, but also, you know, the folks in Connecticut who 

built our railroads, whose children now are running major corporations. 

I just differ with you strongly on the politics of this issue, and 

I think your argument really is grounded in a very pessimistic view 

of what the American public will support. So I thank you for your 

very, very constructive and informative testimony, and I hope that 

we are in a different time in terms of where public opinion is. 

Thank you. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

I believe we have come to the end of our questions. I am going 

to simply thank the panel. I am going to ask unanimous consent 

to place in the record statements from a variety of law enforcement, immigration, and human rights groups and thank them for 

their submissions and providing their testimony on this important 

topic. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator COONS. I do want to say, in closing, Mr. Vargas asked 

at one point rather movingly, ‘‘What is it that you want to do with 

us?’’ And at least speaking for myself, what I would like to see us 

do, as Senator Blumenthal put so well, is to embrace the enormous 

opportunity presented for us to deal with immigrants in America 

not as a problem but as a great path forward together to build a 

stronger, more vibrant, more entrepreneurial America, to allow 

millions to move out of the shadows and to have real access to the 

American dream, to make our country safer, to make it possible for 

folks to openly contribute their skills and talents, as you have, and 

to heal this longstanding impasse over this most fundamental values issue. 

So to the panel, thank you very much for your testimony today. 

The hearing record will remain open for one week if other Senators 

who were not able to attend wish to submit additional questions, 

and the hearing is hereby adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:22 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

(67) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
68 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES, COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER, 

AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS
69 

Statement for the Record 

"Commonsense Immigration Reform" 

Secretary Janet Napolitano 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Before the 

United States Senate 

Committee OD the Judiciary 

February 13, 2013 
70 

Introduction 

Thank you, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and Members ofthe Committee. I am 

pleased to join you today to discuss the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) efforts on 

immigration and why I believe the time has come for Congress to pass commonsense 

immigration reform so that everyone plays by the same rules. 

The United States is a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. Our very founding is rooted in 

immigration. And at every great and momentous occasion throughout our proud history, the 

immigrant, and the immigrant experience, has contributed to the richness of our culture, the 

strength of our moral character, and the advancement of our society. 

As this Committee knows, DHS plays a significant role in the administration and enforcement of 

our immigration laws. We secure our Nation's borders to prevent the illegal entry of people, 

drugs, weapons, and contraband, while fostering legal trade and travel. We enforce immigration 

laws to protect public safety, promote economic fairness and competition, and maintain the 

integrity of our immigration system. We administer legal immigration benefits and services to 

millions of new and aspiring Americans, including members of our Armed Forces. And we 

work with a range of Federal, state, tribal, local, territorial, and international partners to advance 

all of these efforts, while ensuring that the civil rights of affected communities are respected. 

But we know that our immigration system is out of date and badly in need of reform. Our law 

enforcement, our economy, our workforce, and our communities are suffering and frustrated by 

current patchwork of laws and requirements that make up this system. 

The current system forces law enforcement to spend as much time, if not more, going after those 

who pose little risk to the United States as it does criminals and drug smugglers and human 

traffickers. It makes it difficult for companies to hire and retain the workers they need, instead 

sending those we educate in America back to their home countries rather than allowing many of 

our best and brightest students to stay in America where they can create the next new industry 

and jobs for American workers. It allows unscrupulous businesses that hire undocumented 

workers to game the system in their favor, hurting lawful businesses and employees. And it 

keeps families apart, often for years at a time, as they wait for immigration relief. 

Last month in Las Vegas, President Obama discussed the principles that are integral to reforming 

and updating our immigration system. This vision, which shares much in common with the 

principles proposed by a bi-partisan group of Senators, including several here today, would 

continue to strengthen border security and immigration enforcement; crack down on employers 

that hire undocumented workers; create a pathway to earned citizenship for undocumented 

immigrants already in the United States; and make improvements to the legal immigration 

system so our nation can continue to be a magnet for the best and brightest from around the 

world. 

Today, I would like to discuss the President's vision for reform. In particular, I want to describe 

how the President's work on this issue strengthens and builds upon the Department's work, and 

will give our Nation the 21 st Century immigration system it deserves. 

2 
71 

Continuing to Strengthen Border Security 

A constant refrain I have heard as Secretary is that before immigration reform can move forward, 

border security must come first. Too often, the "border security first" refrain has served as an 

excuse for failing to address overall immigration reform. The insistence that an overhaul of our 

immigration laws must wait until the border is secure fails to recognize that immigration reform 

promotes border security. Moreover, the argument ignores the unprecedented progress we have 

made. 

I speak as someone who, as Arizona's u.S. Attorney, Attorney General, and Governor, 

experienced the flood of illegal immigration in the early part ofthe century. That situation no 

longer exists. Over the past four years, DHS has made historic investments in additional 

personnel, technology, and infrastructure at our borders. We have made our ports of entry more 

efficient to expedite lawful travel and trade. We have deepened partnerships with federal, state, 

tribal, and local law enforcement, and internationally, to combat transnational threats and 

criminal organizations to help keep our Southwestern and Northern border communities safe. 

We have improved intelligence and information sharing to identify threats sooner, and we have 

strengthened entry procedures to protect against the use of fraudulent documents and the entry of 

individuals who may wish to do us harm. 

Today, the U.S. Border Patrol is staffed at a higher level than at any time in its 88-year history. 

We have doubled the number of agents from approximately 10,000 in 2004 to more than 21,000 

today. Along the Southwest border, the number of Border Patrol agents has increased by 

94 percent to nearly 18,500. In coordination with state and other Federal agencies, we also have 

deployed a quarter of all u.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operational 

personnel to the Southwest border region the most ever - to dismantle criminal organizations 

along the border. 

u.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has deployed proven, effective technology tailored to 

the operational needs of our agents on the ground, including non-intrusive inspection systems, 

mobile surveillance systems, remote video surveillance systems, thermal imaging systems, 

radiation portal monitors, license plate readers, and biometrics to identify repeat offenders and 

criminals. And we have expanded unmanned aerial surveillance to the entire Southwest border. 

Since 2009, we also have providcd more than $250 million in Operation Stonegarden funds to 

enhance cooperation among Federal, state, tribal, local, and territorial law enforcement agencies 

to secure u.S. borders and territories. More than 80 percent of those funds - or $167 million 

have been allocated to states along the Southwest border. 

The results ofthese efforts speak for themselves. Attempts to cross the Southwest border 

illegally, as measured by Border Patrol apprehensions, have decreased 49 percent over the past 

four years, and are 78 percent lower than what they were at their peak. From Fiscal Years 2009 

to 2012, DHS also seized 71 percent more currency, 39 percent more drugs, and 189 percent 

more weapons along the Southwest border as compared to Fiscal Years 2006 to 2008. Further, 

3 
72 

since 2008, crime in each of the four Southwest border states-Arizona, California, 

New Mexico, and Texas-has decreased significantly. 

We see the results of the substantial investment and strong commitment to border security. But 

to continue making progress to secure our borders, we must modernize our immigration laws. 

We need to make sure our border security efforts are focused on combating public safety and 

national security threats drug smugglers, human smugglers, and transnational criminal 

organizations - not economic migrants. And the best way we can do that is by removing one of 

the biggest incentives that drives most undocumented immigration: the jobs magnet. 

We know most undocumented immigrants are here simply to work, not to cause harm or trouble. 

The more infrastructure we put in place to reduce opportunities for unauthorized work, the more 

we can lower the demand for undocumented workers and thus reduce illegal entry across our 

borders. 

The President's vision for immigration reform addresses this directly. It makes an electronic 

employee verification system mandatory. Electronic verification strengthens the integrity of our 

immigration system and helps support the American economy by providing businesses with a 

clear, free, and efficient means to determine whether their employees are eligible to work in the 

United States. By helping employers ensure their workforce is legal, electronic verification 

promotes economic fairness and a level playing field, prevents the illegal hiring that serves as a 

magnet for further undocumented immigration, and protects workers from exploitation. The 

President's vision also would increase sanctions against businesses that break the law, a further 

disincentive that will help reduce the demand for undocumented workers. 

Moreover, a key element of the President's vision, shared by the Senate's Bipartisan Framework 

for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, is an earned path to citizenship for individuals 

unlawfully present in the United States. Bringing these individuals out of the shadows not only 

will ensure they are held accountable for breaking the law, but also will bring them into a 

regulated system where they can find work legally, eliminating the need to cross the border 

illegally, where they may be preyed upon by transnational criminal organizations or involved in 

human smuggling. It will also help us to further secure the public safety of immigrant families 

and our communities. In turn, this will allow our agents and officers to stay focused on those 

who pose a public safety risk to the American people, and on interdicting drugs and other illegal 

contraband. 

The President's reforms would create new criminal penalties to combat transnational criminal 

organizations that traffic in drugs, weapons, and money, and that smuggle people across borders. 

Importantly, they would expand the scope of current law to allow for the forfeiture ofthese 

organizations' criminal tools and proceeds, which will help deprive criminal enterprises, 

including those operating along the Southwest border, of their infrastructure and profits. 

The President's reform vision would expand our ability to work with our cross-border law 

enforcement partners. It would boost funding to tribal government partners to help reduce illegal 

activity on tribal lands. 

4 
73 

In short, I believe passage ofthe President's reform principles is the single best step we can take 

to enhance border security. 

Smarter. More Effective Immigration Enforcement 

This Administration has undertaken historic efforts to enforce immigration laws in a manner that 

is smart and effective, and that maximizes the impact of the resources that Congress has made 

avaiJable. Over the past four years, we have fundamentally reformed immigration enforcement, 

prioritizing the identification and removal of criminals who pose a threat to public safety, repeat 

immigration violators, and recent border crossers, and targeting employers who knowingly and 

repeatedly break the law. 

At DHS, we have ensured that our resources are applied in a way that enhances public safety, 

border security, and the integrity of the immigration system, while respecting the rule of law. 

Our enforcement results bear this out. 

In Fiscal Year 2012, approximately 55 percent, or more than 225,000, of the individuals that ICE 

removed from the United States were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors a more than 

96 percent increase since Fiscal Year 2008. Overall, 96 percent ofICE's removals fell into one 

of our priority categories this past year. 

An important tool in this effort has been Secure Communities, a program that uses biometric 

information and services to identify and remove criminal and other priority aliens found in state 

prisons and localjails. Since its inception, more than \50,000 aliens convicted of serious crimes, 

including aggravated felony offenses like murder, rape, and sexual abuse of children, have been 

removed from the United States after identification through Secure Communities. For this 

reason, ICE has expanded Secure Communities to more than 3,000 law enforcement jurisdictions 

across the country. 

To ensure that our enforcement resources continue to be focused on priority cases, we also have 

implemented policies and training to ensure that those enforcing immigration laws make 

appropriate use of the discretion they have in deciding the types of individuals prioritized for 

removal from the country. 

Last year, for example, we established a process to allow certain young people who were brought 

to the United States illegally as children and who meet several key guidelines to request 

consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal, and, as a result, 

apply for work authorization. This process helps us continue to focus immigration enforcement 

and ensure that resources are not spent pursuing the removal of low priority cases involving 

productive young people working to better their lives and strengthen their communities. To date, 

more than 424,000 requests for deferred action have been received by U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USC IS), and of those, more than \78,000 have been approved. 

We also have worked to better detect and deter those who overstay their lawful period of 

admission to the United States. In 2012, DHS submitted a biometric air exit plan to the House 

and Senate Appropriations Committees detailing the Department's way forward on developing 

5 
74 

exit capabilities and addressing overstays. This built on a previous effort to vet all overstays for 

national security concerns, which also leveraged existing capabilities to close out overstay leads. 

We now vet all potential overstays and refer leads to ICE based on national security and public 

safety priorities for further review. 

Key to determining who is lawfully abiding by the terms of their admission is the ability to 

match entry and exit records. DHS continues to enhance its capabilities to integrate, process, and 

analyze biographic information contained in immigration databases, which will significantly 

enhance our ability to identify and target for enforcement action those who have overstayed their 

period of admission and who represent a public safety and/or national security threat. The 

current phase of this effort includes automating connections between DHS data sources, and 

refining ICE's ability to more effectively target and prioritize overstay leads of concern, which 

will dramatically improve our ability to successfully match entry and exit records biographically. 

We expect this phase to be complete in mid-2013. 

This system will strengthen our ability to identify individual overstays; provide the State 

Department with information to support visa revocation, prohibit future Visa Waiver Program 

(VWP) travel for those who overstay, and place "lookouts" for individuals, in accordance with 

existing Federal laws; establish greater efficiencies to our Visa Security Program; and enhance 

the core components of an entry-exit and overstay program. 

Concurrently, the DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) is developing criteria for 

evaluation of new technologies that may provide the ability to capture biometrics upon exit. As 

DHS noted in the 2012 plan, we will evaluate technological options within the constraints of the 

current fiscal environment. S&T is developing a test environment for a variety of biometric 

technologies in order for DHS to identify how to implement a process that increases the security 

ofthe travel system and enhances our ability to detect and deter overstays, while also improving 

passenger processing. 

The President's vision for commonsense immigration reform will build upon and strengthen our 

enforcement efforts in several ways. It would expand smart enforcement efforts that target 

convicted criminals in federal or state correctional facilities, allowing ICE to remove them from 

the United States at the end oftheir sentences without re-entering our communities. It also 

would create a streamlined administrative removal process for people who overstay their visas 

and have been determined to be threats to national security and public safety. 

As important, the President's principles for immigration reform include investing in our 

immigration courts by increasing the number of immigration judges and their staffs, investing in 

training for court personnel, and improving access to legal information for immigrants. These 

reforms will improve court efficiency. They also will allow DHS to better focus our detention 

resources on public safety and national security by reducing the time spent in ICE facilities, and 

accordingly, overall detention costs. 

6 
75 

Cracking Down on Employers Who Hire Undocumented Workers 

Our nation's economic health and continued prosperity depends on businesses of all kinds and 

sizes being able to find and maintain a stable, legal workforce, and having confidence that they 

are all playing by the same set of rules. When businesses break the law by hiring undocumented 

workers, it undercuts lawful businesses, creates an uneven playing field, and hurts all workers, 

affecting wages, employee safety, and creating further demand for illegal labor. 

A key part of our immigration enforcement efforts has been strengthening enforcement against 

employers that hire undocumented immigrants. In 2009, ICE implemented a new worksite 

enforcement strategy focused on more effective auditing and investigations that prioritize the use 

of criminal prosecutions against employers that engage in fraud or abusive practices against their 

workers, use unauthorized workers as a business model, or participate in other criminal conduct. 

This worksite enforcement strategy prioritizes investigations involving national security, public 

safety, or critical infrastructure and key resources sectors, and will help reduce the demand for 

illegal employment while protecting employment opportunities for the nation's lawful 

workforce. 

Under this strategy, since January 2009, ICE has audited nearly 9,000 employers suspected of 

hiring undocumented workers, debarred 917 companies and individuals, and imposed more than 

$101 million in financial sanctions, which exceeds the total amount of audits and debarments 

during the entire previous administration. 

At the same time, we have worked to help employers maintain a legal workforce through 

programs like E-Verify, our employee verification system managed by USCIS. US CIS has 

continued to improve and expand E-Verify by adding new features to monitor for fraud, 

redesigning the system to increase compliance and ease of use, and expanding the E-Verify Self 

Check program, a voluntary, fast, free and secure online service that allows individuals in the 

United States to check their employment eligibility status before formally seeking employment. 

In 201 I, we announced the 'I E-Verify' initiative to let consumers know which businesses are 

working to maintain legal workforces by using E-Verify. Employer enrollment in E-Verify has 

more than doubled since January 2009, with more than 429,000 participating companies 

representing more than 1.2 million hiring sites. More than 21 million queries were processed in 

E-Verify in Fiscal Year 2012, allowing businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees 

to work in the United States. 

The President's vision for commonsense immigration reform would strengthen these efforts by 

further enhancing tools for employers to ensure a legal workforce by using federal government 

databases to verify that the people they hire are eligible to work in the United States. 

Specifically, it would require mandatory electronic employment verification, phased in over five 

years, with exemptions for certain small businesses. It also would ensure the privacy and 

confidentiality of all workers' personal information and include important procedural 

protections. This is an important protection as the majority of workers who will be verified 

through the system are U.S. citizens. And it would increase penalties for hiring undocumented 

7 
76 

workers and establish new penalties for committing fraud and identity theft. These 

commonsense measures are consistent with the principles of the Senate Bipartisan Framework. 

To protect against identity theft and document fraud, the President's principles for immigration 

refonn also would mandate a fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant Social Security card and require 

workers to use fraud-and tamper-resistant documents to prove authorization to work in the 

United States. They would also seek to establish a voluntary pilot program to evaluate new 

methods to authenticate identity and combat identity theft, and allow workers to block their own 

Social Security number to prevent it from being used for fraudulent purposes. 

Creating a Pathway to Earned Citizenship 

Currently, there are an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants present in the 

United States. While all of these people are in our country unlawfully, we know their individual 

stories can differ dramatically. Some were brought here as children and have spent almost their 

entire lives in the United States, many going on to graduate from high school or college. Others 

illegally crossed our borders as adults seeking better lives. Some also entered our country legally 

and overstayed their lawful period of admission. 

The President's immigration refonn vision recognizes that deporting 11 million people from the 

United States is not only impractical, but inconsistent with our values. No one questions that 

these individuals have broken the law and should be held accountable for their actions. But they 

are here, and in many cases they have been in the United States for years, have raised families 

here, and are now contributing members of our communities. For immigration refonn to be 

successful, we must make clear from the outset to these individuals that they will have a pathway 

to earned citizenship. 

Consistent with the President's refonn principles, undocumented immigrants would have to 

register, submit biometric data, pass criminal background and national security checks, and pay 

fees. They would then be eligible for provisional legal status. Those with provisional status 

would have to wait until the current legal immigration visa waiting lists are cleared and pay 

penalties before being able to apply for lawful permanent residency, and ultimately, 

United States citizenship. 

Those applying for green cards would also have to pay taxes, pass additional criminal 

background and national security checks, register for Selective Service, where applicable, pay 

additional fees and penalties, and learn English. Consistent with current law, five years after 

receiving a green card, individuals would be eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship like other 

lawful pennanent residents. 

Childhood arrivals-known as DREAMers-also will be eligible for earned citizenship. By 

going to college or serving honorably in the Anned Forces for at least two years, these 

individuals would be given an expedited opportunity to earn their citizenship. 

Of course, we recognize that for this to work, DHS, the Department of State and other relevant 

federal agencies must be equipped to process applications for earned citizenship, conduct 

8 
77 

background investigations, and prevent fraud and abuse, The President's immigration reform 

principles would implement fraud prevention programs that will provide training for 

adjudicators, require regular audits of applications to identify patterns of fraud and abuse, and 

incorporate other proven fraud prevention measures. 

Streamlining Legal Immigration 

Our commitment to improving legal immigration includes launching new initiatives to spur 

economic competitiveness; streamlining and modernizing immigration benefits processes; 

strengthening fraud protections; protecting crime victims, supporting and helping to integrate 

refugees and asylees; updating rules to keep immigrant families together; and promoting civic 

engagement and integration. Over the past four years, we have made progress in each of these 

areas. 

Supporting Economic Competitiveness 

USCIS has launched a series of initiatives to spur economic competiveness by attracting foreign 

entrepreneurial talent to create jobs, form startup companies, and invest capital in areas of high 

unemployment. This includes the Entrepreneurs in Residence initiative, which harnesses 

industry expertise to ensure USCIS policies reflect business realities and increase the job 

creation potential of nonimmigrant high-skilled visa categories. USCIS also continues to 

streamline the EB-5 Immigrant Investor visa program to promote job creation and capital 

investment by foreign investors. And DHS has taken action using existing authorities to keep 

more talented science and math graduates in the country longer and to attract highly skilled 

immigrants who will be critical to continuing our economic recovery and encouraging job 

creation 

Modernizing Systems and Strengthening Protections 

In May 2012, USCIS launched the first release of its electronic immigration benefits system, 

Electronic Immigration System (ELIS), which began the agency's transition from a paper-based 

to an electronic, online organization. This release provides the ability to manage cases 

electronically and allows customers to set up an account for filing electronically. Since then, 

USCIS has launched two additional releases improving on the system's initial capabilities. The 

system is modernizing the processes for filing and adjudicating petitions, transforming how 

USCIS interacts with its customers and manages the six to seven million applications it receives 

each year. 

USCIS also has created a Fraud Detection and National Security directorate that focuses on 

detecting and removing suspected fraud from the application process. USCIS, working with the 

Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, also launched the Unauthorized 

Practice ofimmigration Law (UPIL) initiative, a national, multi-agency campaign that spotlights 

immigration-services scams and the problems that can arise for immigrants when legal advice or 

representation is given by people who are not attorneys or accredited representatives. The UPIL 

initiative has expanded nationwide to include all of USC IS's district offices. 

9 
78 

Protecting Victims and Keeping Families Together 

DHS also has worked to help protect victims of domestic violence, human trafficking, and 

victims of devastating natural disasters and violent conflicts, as well as individuals from around 

the world seeking refuge or asylum in the United States. The Blue Campaign, for example, has 

strengthened and expanded DHS efforts to address human trafficking through prevention, 

protection, and prosecution, as well as public outreach and law enforcement training. We also 

have increased educational efforts with respect to U nonimmigrant visas, which are for victims 

of crimes who have suffered substantial mental or physical abuse and are willing to assist law 

enforcement and government officials in the investigation or prosecution of the criminal activity. 

To keep families together as they navigate the immigration process, last month DHS also 

adopted a final rule that will reduce the time U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate 

relatives who are in the process of applying for immigrant visas to become lawful U.S. 

permanent residents. This rule, which goes into effect next month, allows certain family 

members, who have been unlawfully present in the United States, to apply for a waiver of their 

inadmissibility while still in the United States and receive a provisional waiver determination 

before they leave the United States to complete the immigrant visa process at a U.S. consular 

post. 

Promoting Integration 

USCIS also has continued to strengthen its work with communities nationwide to promote 

citizenship preparation, including civics-based English instruction and education on the rights 

and responsibilities of United States citizenship. As part of this effort, in 201 I, USCIS 

announced the Citizenship Public Education and Awareness Initiative, which funds citizenship 

and integration programs and activities, including competitive grants to local immigrant-serving 

organizations to strengthen citizenship preparation programs for permanent residents. 

The President's Framework 

The President's immigration reform vision builds upon each of these efforts. It would strengthen 

economic competitiveness by allowing foreign entrepreneurs who attract financing from U.S. 

investors or revenue from U.S. customers to start and grow their businesses in the United States, 

and to remain permanently if their companies grow further, create jobs for American workers, 

and strengthen our economy. It would improve the EB-5 Immigrant Investor visa program by 

adding measures to combat fraud and national security threats, permanently authorize regional 

center (pooled investment) programs, and expand opportunities for U.S. economic development. 

In particular, it would "staple" a green card to the diplomas of science, technology, engineering 

and mathematics (STEM) PhD and Master's Degree graduates from qualified U.S. universities 

who have found employment in the United States. The President's vision would address the 

waiting list for employment-sponsored immigration by eliminating annual country caps, adding 

visas to the system, and implementing new measures to combat fraud and national security 

threats. And outdated legal immigration programs would be reformed to meet current and future 

demands by exempting certain categories from annual visa limitations. 

10 
79 

The President's reform vision also seeks to eliminate existing waiting lists in the familysponsored immigration system by recapturing unused visas and temporarily increasing annual 

visa numbers. It raises existing annual country caps from seven percent to 15 percent for the 

family-sponsored immigration system. It treats the families of same-sex partners the same as 

other families by giving foreign born same-sex partners of Americans access to the family based 

immigration system. And it revises current unlawful presence bars and provides broader 

discretion to waive bars in cases of hardship. 

The President's reform principles would streamline immigration law to better protect vulnerable 

immigrants, including those who are victims of crime and domestic violence. They would better 

protect those fleeing persecution by eliminating certain limitations that prevent qualified 

individuals from applying for asylum. And the President's vision promotes earned citizenship 

and efforts to integrate immigrants into their new American communities linguistically, civically, 

and economically. 

Finally, the President's reform principles recognize the importance of travel and tourism to the 

United States and support additional measures to promote foreign travel to America and to 

streamline processing for foreign visitors. This includes allowing greater flexibility to designate 

countries for participation in the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), which allows citizens of 

designated countries to visit the United States without a visa by obtaining security authorization 

prior to travel. The President's vision would strengthen law enforcement cooperation while 

maintaining the program's robust counterterrorism and criminal information sharing initiatives. 

Conclusion 

Our immigration system is sorely out of date and it is time to fix it. The principles outlined by 

President Obama - which are largely consistent with the Bipartisan Framework for 

Comprehensive Immigration Reform - will address long-standing problems. 

His vision for reform will strengthen border security and immigration enforcement. It will help 

crack down on employers that break the law while giving them better tools to hire a legal 

workforce. It will provide an earned path to citizenship so that millions of people can play by 

the same rules as everyone else. And it will streamline legal immigration while supporting our 

economy. 

Importantly, it will allow DHS to continue to build on the progress we have achieved along our 

borders. Immigration reform will help us keep our focus exactly where it should be: preventing 

the entry of criminals, human smugglers and traffickers, and national security threats. By 

updating our antiquated laws governing legal migration to our country, we can eliminate a key 

incentive to those who may seek to illegally migrate to the United States. And because illegal 

migration can have links to transnational criminal activity, where these individuals are at great 

risk from drug cartels and other transnational criminal groups smuggling or trafficking them to 

the U.S., immigration reform will help us further increase public safety. 

II 
80 

Moreover, establishing a sensible pathway to earned citizenship is essential to improving the 

security and integrity of our immigration system. Streamlining the immigration process will 

encourage immigrants to pursue pathways to legal status, reducing attempts to unlawfully cross 

our borders, and will ensure that enforcement resources are spent pursuing the removal of high 

priority cases involving criminals and those who present a risk to public safety or national 

security. 

Over the past four years, the men and women ofDHS have worked very hard to meet our 

immigration responsibilities. The results we are seeing today reflect promises kept. They reflect 

the most serious and sustained effort to strengthen border security and enforce immigration laws 

that I've seen in the more than twenty years I've been engaged in immigration enforcement and 

policy. 

Our borders are more secure and our border communities are among the safest communities in 

our country. We have removed record numbers of criminals from the United States and our 

immigration laws are being enforced according to sensible priorities. We have taken numerous 

steps to strengthen legal immigration and build greater integrity into the system. And we are 

using our resources in a smart, effective, responsible manner. We have matched words with 

action, and we are prepared to implement the reform principles being discussed today. 

I believe we are at a unique moment in history. All sides of the immigration debate agree that 

the status quo is not acceptable and that we must act to address the significant shortcomings of 

the current system now, not years from now. For the first time in recent memory, we are 

seeing a bi-partisan consensus emerge about what those commonsense steps should be. We must 

not miss this opportunity to enact meaningful refonns to not only strengthen our immigration 

system, but also to ensure that our nation remains a land of opportunity for immigrants, 

businesses, and all those whose dreams, aspirations, hard work, and success have contributed to 

our nation's uniqueness, diversity, cultural richness, and economic strength since our founding. 

The President's vision for commonsense immigration refonn will help our nation build a fair, 

effective, and commonsense immigration system that honors our heritage as a nation of laws and 

a nation of immigrants. The time to modernize our immigration laws is long overdue, and we 

stand ready to work with this Committee and the Congress to achieve this important goal for our 

country, the American people, and all those seeking to contribute their talents and energy to our 

great nation. 

12 
81 

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TESTIMONY: Jose Antonio Vargas 

Thank you Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and distinguished members of this 

Committee. 

I come to you as one of our country's 11 million undocumented immigrants, many of us 

Americans at heart, but without the right papers to show for it. Too often, we're treated as 

abstractions, faceless and nameless, subjects of debate rather than individuals with families, 

hopes, fears, and dreams. 

I am in America because of the sacrifices of my family. My grandparents legally emigrated 

from the Philippines to Silicon Valley in the mid-1980s. A few years later, Grandpa Teofilo 

became a U.S. citizen and legally changed his name to Ted--after Ted Danson in "Cheers." 

Because grandparents cannot petition for their grandkids--and because my mother could not 

come to the United States--grandpa saved up money to get his only grandson, me, a passport 

and green card to come to America. My mother gave me up to give me a better life. 

I arrived in Mountain View, Calif. on August 3, 1993. One of my earliest memories was singing 

the National Anthem as a 6th grader at Crittenden Middle School, believing the song had 

somehow something to do with me. I thought the first lines were, "Jose, can you see?" 

Four years later, I applied for a driver's permit like any 16 year old. That was when I discovered 

that the green card that my grandpa gave me was fake. 

But I wanted to work. I wanted to contribute to a country that is now my home. At age 17, I 

decided to be a journalist for a seemingly naive reason: if I am not supposed to be in America 

because I don't have the right kind of papers, what if my name--my byline--was on the paper? 

How can they say I don't exist if my name is in newspapers and magazines? I thought I could 

write my way into America. 

As I built a successful career as a journalist--paying Social Security and state and federal 

taxes along the way--as fear and shame, as denial and pain, enveloped me--words became 

my salvation. I found solace in the words of the Rev. Martin Luther King, quoting st. Augustine: 

"An unjust law is no law at all." 

Ultimately, it took me 12 years to come out as an undocumented American--because that is 

what I am, an American. But I am grateful to have been able to tell the truth. And in the past few 

years, more undocumented people, particularly young DREAMers, are coming out. Telling the 

truth about the America we experience. 
82 

We dream of a path to citizenship so we can actively participate in our American democracy. 

We dream of not being separated from our families and our loved ones, regardless of sexual 

orientation, no matter our skill set. This government has deported more than 1.6 million 

people--fathers and mothers, sons and daughters--in the past four years. 

We dream of contributing to the country we call our home. 

In 21st century America, diversity is destiny. That I happen to be gay; that I speak Tagalog, my 

first language, and want to learn Spanish--that does not threaten my love for this country. How 

interconnected and integrated we are as Americans makes us stronger. 

Sitting behind me today is my Filipino-American family--my grandma Leonila, whom I love very 

much; my Aunt Aida Rivera, who helped raised me; and my Uncle Conrad Salinas, who 

served, proudly, in the U.S. Navyfor 20 years. They're all naturalized American citizens. 

I belong in what is called a mixed-status family. I am the only one in my extended family of 25 

Americans who is undocumented. When you inaccurately call me "illegal," you're not only 

dehumanizing me, you're offending them. No human being is illegal. 

Also here is my Mountain View High School family--my support network of allies who 

encouraged and protected me since I was a teenager. After I told my high school principal and 

school superintendent that I was not planning to go to college because I could not apply for 

financial aid, Pat Hyland and Rich Fischer secured a private scholarship for me. The 

scholarship was funded by a man named Jim Strand. I am honored that Pat, Rich and Jim are 

all here today. Across the country, there are countless other Jim Strands, Pat Hylands, and 

Rich Fischers of all backgrounds who stand alongside their undocumented neighbors. They 

don't need to see pieces of paper--a passport or a green card--to treat us as human beings. 

This is the truth about immigration in our America. 

As this Congress decides on fair, humane reform, let us remember that immigration is not 

merely about borders. "Immigration is in our blood ... part of our founding story," writes Sen. Ted 

Kennedy, former chairman of this very Committee, in the introduction to President Kennedy's 

book, "A Nation of Immigrants." Immigration is about our future. Immigration is about all of us. 

And before I take your questions, I have a few of my own: 

What do you want to do with me? 
83 

What do you want to do with us? 

How do you define "American"? 

Thank you. 
84 

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

U.S. Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Wednesday, February 13,2013 

Statement of Jessica M. Vaughan 

Director of Policy Studies 

Center for Immigration Studies 

Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and committee members, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today. In recent weeks, the President and a group of your Senate colleagues have 

put forward very similar plans for "Comprehensive Immigration Reform." These proposals include the 

same basic elements: amnesty for most ofthe more than II million illegal immigrants residing in the 

country; increases in legal immigration; expansion of guestworker programs; and promises of stronger 

border security and immigration enforcement measures. 

These proposals are essentially the same as those offered about five years ago, which failed to 

pass muster with the American public and with the Congress, with good reason. They adopt the same 

formula as the failed grand bargain of 1986. This package of refonns would make major changes to our 

system, reward huge numbers of scofflaws and create new flows of immigration without regard to their 

effect on U.S. workers, in exchange for unfulfilled promises of enforcement. It is a recipe for failure on 

a scale even more massive than in 1986. 

The IRCA Experience. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) package a 

collection of amnesties coupled with a new prohibition on hiring unauthorized workers - was billed as a 

solution to the illegal immigration problem. The amnesties were a great success, at least in terms of the 

numbers who were legalized - about three million people, with admissions continuing to this day. I 

But the program most certainly did not solve the illegal immigration problem. Following IRCA, 

the size of the stock illegal population rose from about four million in 1986 (pre-amnesty) to about 12 

million in 2007. with estimates dropping slightly in 2008 and 2009, and increasing slightly in 2010 and 

2011, to roughly 11.5 million estimated today. 

1 David North, "Before Considering Another Amnesty, Look at tRCA's lessons," Center for Immigration Studies, January, 

2013, http://www.cis.org!before~considering~another-amnesty-loo k-at-ircas-Iessons. 
85 

2 

Employer Sanctions Not Enforced. The main reason illegal immigration has continued was 

because the government was quick to implement the amnesty program, but never followed through with 

the enforcement of employer sanctions (and only relatively recently has gained operational control of 

large sections of the southwest border). In fact, it seems that the sanctions were never intended to be 

allowed to work at all. Congressional drafters created the clumsy 1-9 system in which employers are 

required to ask new hires for documentation, but not expected or required to verify the information (until 

recent years, when some states and the federal government adopted laws calling for mandatory use of EVerify for some or all categories of employers). The law allowed for more than a dozen different forms 

of identification to establish work authorization. As a result, many workers simply began providing 

false documents, and a booming trade in false identification for employment purposes was born. 

Executive branch officials were equally complicit in creating a workplace enforcement system 

that was built to fail. The INS diverted a significant share of enforcement resources toward an outreach 

program to inform the nation's employers of the new law and their new responsibilities, performed 

primarily by the agency's corps of special agents - which meant that the sworn law enforcement officers 

who were trained and empowered to investigate violations were taken off their beat. In addition, the 

agency leadership crafted the regulations in such a way as to make it difficult to investigate employers, 

and so that any sanctions actually imposed would amount to a slap on the wrist, insufficient to deter 

illegal hiring. The result was that employers failed to take the sanctions seriously and were able to 

absorb any meager penalties as a cost of doing business. 

This fundamental failure of IRCA has not been lost on the public. According to a new poll 

commissioned by my organization, when asked why there is a large illegal population in the country, 

voters overwhelming (71 percent) answer that it is because we had not made a real effort to enforce our 

immigration laws. Only 18 percent think it is because we are not letting in enough immigrants through 

legal channels. 

Massive Fraud and Rubber-Stamping of Applications. Not only was the enforcement end of the 

grand bargain scuttled, the government also failed to make sure that only qualified applicants would be 

legalized. !RCA has been called the most massive fraud ever perpetrated on the U.S. government. The 

fraud in these programs has been well documented (see my colleague David North's summary in "A 

Bailout for Illegal Immigrants: Lessons from the Implementation of the 1986 IRCA Amnesty,,). 2 The 

largest number of fraudulent applications was in the agricultural workers program. In California, the 

number of farmworker amnesty applicants was more than twice as large as the entire agricultural 

workforce at the time. In other parts of the country, applicants often made laughable claims of picking 

strawberries and watermelons from trees, and failed to identify the plants they allegedly had spent 

months handling. One of the terrorists in the first World Trade Center bombing of 1993 obtained his 

green card by claiming to be a farmworker, although he was actually working illegally as a taxi driver. 

It is to be expected that any amnesty or similar government benefits program will attract 

fraudsters. What is most concerning is that the government agency charged with administering the 

program routinely looked the other way and did little to prevent them from getting legalization and thus 

a pathway to U.S. citizenship. The agency managers failed to encourage use of even the most 

rudimentary tools available to check applicants' claims, and frequently overruled the front-line 

adjudicators who spotted the fraud. For example, there is unpublished INS data from 1989 showing that 

2 North, at http://cis.orgfirca-amnesty. 
86 

by that date the front line interviewers had recommended more than 880,000 denials. But by the end of 

the entire program, only about 350,000 denials were reported. 

3 

There are some indications that the administration of the latest amnesty, the new Deferred Action 

for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, is being handled with the same indifference to fraud. For 

example, insiders report that a disproportionate number of the applicants are claiming to be homeschooled, presumably to explain the absence of any documentation of schooling in the United States, 

which would confirm eligibility. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has yet to report a 

single denial out of the more than 400,000 applications submitted, while more than 150,000 have been 

approved. Like INS before it, USCIS has established a generous system for DACA where applicants 

are presumed to be eligible, claims are rarely verified, and failed applicants get to stay anyway, for all 

intents and purposes immune from immigration law enforcement. 3 

Post-IRC'A Surge in Legal Immigration. Not only did IRCA fail to solve the illegal immigration 

problem, it also caused future flows oflegal immigration to swell far beyond the numbers initially 

legalized. This is partly because the family members of legalized immigrants living overseas were not 

covered by the amnesty; but also because many acquired new spouses who could then be sponsored. 

The three million original IRCA beneficiaries amounted to the equivalent of five years' worth oflegal 

immigration, under the rules of the time. We estimate that another 740,000 additional immigrants were 

subsequently sponsored by the original IRCA beneficiaries and were admitted between 1989 and 2012. 

In addition, these individuals have sponsored additional family members, and almost certainly have 

hosted family members who have entered illegally. 

Because Congress has placed limits on some categories of immigration, the surge in post-IRCA 

sponsored family immigration caused the immigrant visa waiting lists to get much longer, especially for 

Mexican applicants, but also for those from other countries. Predictably, this led to calls for reform 

from immigration advocates, which Congress answered by passing the Immigration Act of 1990. That 

law raised the limits for spouses and children of green card holders by diverting numbers to that 

category from the categories for lesser-priority family members, by eliminating the per-country caps for 

the spouse category, and by adding 55,000 extra green cards for the spouses and children ofIRCA 

immigrants each year for a period of three years. The implementation of IMMACT90 brought 

immediate relief to the immigrant visa waiting lists. The waits in the spousal category were reduced by 

several years in a relatively short period of time, although the waiting lists in the lesser priority 

categories increased significantly over time. In retrospect, it would have been a better idea to transfer all 

of the numerical allocations from these lesser-priority categories right away. Such a move would have 

prevented the situation we have now, where some applicants in the sibling category, for example, havc 

been waiting for more than a decade. It would have been more help to the nuclear family members and 

avoided raising false hopes for migration opportunities among the U.S. citizens sponsoring siblings. 

Current System Lacks Control and Integrity. 

The federal government, appropriately, allocates a significant share of taxpayer dollars to the 

immigration agencies that carry out this important work. It is impossible to determine exactly how 

much the federal government has spent on immigration enforcement over the years, because the 

3 For more on the lax administration of DACA, see the Center's collection of articles on this topic: 

http://cis.org/AdministrativeAmnesty. 
87 

4 

Department of Homeland Security and its predecessor, INS, have never tracked these activities. In 

2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) received about $20 million to fund Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and US-VISIT for the missions 

of immigration and customs enforcement and foreign visitor data collection and analysis. This is about 

one-half of the amount spent on all other federal law enforcement expenditures (not counting most 

military and intelligence service law enforcement nor Coast Guard), which totaled about $39 billion in 

2012,4 and one-third of total non-military/intelligence/Coast Guard law enforcement. 

While outlays for border security and immigration enforcement have reached historic highs, it is 

important to remember that the immigration enforcement mission was woefully underfunded for 

decades; meanwhile, the threat from international terrorism and transnational criminal organizations is 

also greater than ever before. And, as discussed above, illegal immigration has risen steadily since 

1986. Some real progress has been made, particularly along the southwest border, as DHS officials have 

frequently reported. 

But our borders are far from secure, and equally important, enforcement of immigration laws in 

the interior is insufficient, inconsistent, overly surgical, and largely ineffective at preventing the entry, 

deterring the settlement, and effecting the removal of illegal immigrants, including those who are 

terrorists, criminals, or otherwise a threat to public safety. 

Immigration Enforcement Anemic under the Ohama Administration. The Obama administration 

has touted its enforcement achievements as "smarter" enforcement that focuses on the removal of noncitizens who have been convicted of serious crimes. Certainly there is an ample supply of those. 

According to the 20 II annual report of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 10% of murderers, 31 % of 

drug traffickers, 34% of money launderers, 64% of kidnappers, and 28% of food and drug offenders 

sentenced that year were non-citizens.5 

Statistics from a variety of sources present a very mixed picture, with many indicators suggesting 

a significant decline in immigration enforcement activity over the last five years, and others showing 

only modest increases: 

Border Patrol apprehensions declined 61 percent over the five year period, from 877,000 in 

2007 to 340,000 in 2011. Our research shows that new illegal entries have slackened 

somewhat since 2007, but there are signs that the tide could be shifting again. According to 

numbers just released by CBP, in 2012 southwest border apprehensions, which the agency 

4 Figures are taken from official agency budget summaries from the last two years. Other federal law enforcement agency 

budgets tallied include: FBI, DEA, ATF, US Marshals, Secret Service, Bureau of Prisons, US Attorneys Offices, 

Transportation Security Administration, Diplomatic Security Service, IRS Criminal Investigation Division, Treasury 

Inspector General for Tax Administration, US Mint Police, Pentagon Force Protection, DoD OlG, Bureau ofIndian Affairs 

Police, Bureau of Land Management Office of Enforcement and Security, National Park Service Police, Fish & Wildlife 

Office of Law Enforcement, Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations, USDA OIG, NOAA Fisheries Office of 

Law Enforcement, FDA Office of Criminal Investigations, Education 01G, Veterans Affairs Police, US Capitol Police. 

5 U.S. Sentencing Commission, 20 II Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, 

http://v,rww.ussc,gov/Data and Statistics! Annual Reports and Sourcebooks!2m. 
88 

has used as an indicator of the number of illegal crossings, went up by nine percent, from 

328,000 to 357,000. 

5 

ICE arrests have been trending downward since 2008, from 320,000 that year to just over 

300,000 in 2011. The most significant decline in DHS arrests - 70% •• was in the Homeland 

Security Investigations division, which is responsible for certain interior enforcement: 

worksite enforcement, transnational gang cases, national security, and certain nonimmigration related casework. HSI arrests have declined from 54,000 in 2007 to 16,000 in 

2011. This is troubling, since the number of illegal residents has not significantly declined 

over this period. 

• Arrests by ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations have held relatively constant over the 

period, averaging 285,000 per year, with a slight drop in totals over the last two years. This 

division focuses on removing criminal aliens discovered in jails, referred by local law 

enforcement, and immigration fugitives. 

• Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which obtains immigration 

court data from the federal government, reports that since 2009, there has been a significant 

decline in the number of aliens that ICE has brought to immigration court. The number of 

immigration court filings has declined 25 percent since last year, and 30 percent since 2009. 

The percentage of aliens ordered deported by immigration judges is the lowest rate since 1998, 

according to TRAC. Last year, judges ordered removal in 57 percent of the cases, and granted 

the alien's request to stay 43 percent of the time. 

It appears that the number of aliens who have failed to abide by deportation orders is rising. In 

2012, ICE reported that there were 850,000 aliens present in the country who have been ordered 

removed or excluded, but who had not departed. 6 In 2008, DHS said that there were 558,000 

"fugitive aliens." 

Obama administration officials have pointed to what they claim is a record number of removals 

and returns -409,000 in 2012, out of more than II million illegal residents -- as evidence that the 

government is doing as much immigration enforcement as it can. But as the president has said, these 

numbers are "actually a little deceptive:" 

• The 2012 deportation numbers are not a record, using the current methodology of counting both 

removals and returns. According to the annual yearbook of immigration statistics, in 1996 

removals and returns numbered more than 1.6 million, up from more than 1.3 million in 1995. 

The "dramatic" recent increases in deportations, removals and returns actually occurred between 

2005 and 2009; since then, the numbers have flattened out noticeably.7 

6 DHS Office of Inspector General, "Improvements Needed for SAVE to Accurately Determine Immigration Status of 

Individuals Ordered Deported," OIG-13-11, December, 2012, 

http://www,oig.dhs.gov/index.php?option:;;com content&view:::::article&id=64<emid=34. 

7 DHS Immigration Enforcement Actions, 201, http://www.dhs.gov/immigration~enforcement-actions-2011. 
89 

It has been established that recent deportation statistics are heavily padded with cases that were 

not previously counted as such.s 

One notable accomplishment has been the implementation ofthe Secure Communities program, 

which links FBI and DHS fingerprint databases to enable TCE to more efficiently identify and remove 

aliens who are arrested by local law enforcement agencies. More than 1.2 million criminal aliens 

arrested by local police have been identified through the Secure Communities program since 2009. Of 

these, 247,000 have been removed so far. The Secure Communities program has contributed to ICE's 

ability to remove more criminal aliens than ever before. 

Unfortunately, ICE is now also releasing more criminal aliens than ever before, thanks to the 

array of policies falling under the umbrella of "prosecutorial discretion," stipulating, essentially, that 

ICE agents may not arrest or seek to remove illegal aliens unless they have been convicted of at least 

three misdemeanors, and sometimes not even then, even ifthese offenses are of a violent or dangerous 

nature. This "worst of the worst" policy leaves a lot of the worst still living in American communities, 

in defiance of our laws, and creates too many needless victims. For example, in September, 2011, the 

Chicago TCE Field Office released Amado Espinoza-Ramirez, an illegal alien who had been charged 

with 42 counts of child molestation, including incestuous child rape. ICE issued a statement saying the 

man was not an enforcement priority, reportedly because he had a U.S. citizen child, a category 

designated for leniency undcr Obama administration policies.9 

6 

According to a Congressional Research Service analysis, over a two and one-half year period 

they studied, ICE released tens of thousands of deportable criminal aliens who had been identified under 

Secure Communities. Of these, the 26,000 criminal aliens were later re-arrested for 58,000 new crimes 

within the time frame of the study. The 58,000 new crimes included 59 murders, 21 attempted murders, 

and more than 5,000 major or violent criminal offenses. In addition, they were charged with more than 

6,000 drug violations and more than 8,000 DUI violations. lo 

In addition, the Obama administration and its agencies have undertaken aggressive legal action 

to try to prevent state and local governments from assisting ICE and from deterring illegal settlement. 

The Department has sued several states, including Arizona and Alabama and also some local law 

enforcement agencies that have elected to allow their officers to follow the guidelines established by 

state and federal laws, rather than the Obama administration's more restrictive and selective policies on 

which illegal aliens to arrest. 

At the same time, both Justice and Homeland Security officials have sat on their hands as a 

number of local governments have adopted policies to actively obstruct ICE's enforcement activities, 

even against criminal aliens. The most egregious sanctuary policy is in Cook County, Illinois, one of the 

largest jail systems in the country, and with a significant population of criminal aliens. In September, 

201 I, the county adopted a policy directing Cook County jail officers to ignore all ICE detainers. The 

, Rep. Lamar Smith, http://www.washingtontimes.com(news(2012(sep/26(obama·puts·illegals·ahea .. 

9 Michael Volpe, "ICE admits releasing alleged child rapist," The Daily Caller, March 21, 2012, 

http://dailycaller.co m(2012(03/21!ice·ad mits·releasing-a lIeged·ch ild-rapist/. 

10 Congressional Research Service memorandum to Rep. Lamar Smith, "Analysis of Data Regarding Certain Individuals 

Identified Through Secure Communities," updated July 27, 2012, linked here: httD:l!cis,org/vaughan/new-report-obamacatch-and-re!ease-policies-result-more-crimes-more-v1ctims. 
90 

result has been the release of hundreds of criminal aliens, including a large number of felons, back to 

Chicago-area communities. One of these was Saul Chavez, an illegal alien who ran over and killed 

Dennis McCann while driving drunk in Chicago in June, 2011, and who had a previous aggravated 

felony drunk driving conviction. II 

Meanwhile, the administration continues to dole out millions of dollars in annual awards, 

earmarked for the costs of detaining criminal aliens, to Cook County and other local governments that 

do everything they can to obstruct ICE from doing its job, when it has the ability and the authority to 

deter such practices by denying the awards. 12 

7 

Similarly, DHS has failed to address the problem of other countries that obstruct immigration 

law enforcement by refusing to accept back their citizens who have been ordered removed. ICE has 

identified about two dozen countries that are "recalcitrant" in repatriating their citizens or in issuing 

travel documents. 13 Because of a 2001 Supreme Court decision, ICE may not detain removable aliens 

for longer than six months, except in exceptional circumstances. As a result, more than 12,500 aliens 

(the majority of whom were likely criminals) have been released from ICE detention. In addition, there 

are between 100,000 and 200,000 aliens living here who have not been in ICE custody recently, but who 

have been ordered removed and could not be removed because their home countries refused to take them 

back. 14 Under current law, DHS may impose visa sanctions on the recalcitrant countries, as has been 

done successfully before; but chooses not to use this leverage. This adds needlessly to our population of 

illegal residents, but also exposes everyone to potential harm. ICE does not routinely inform either 

victims or local law enforcement agencies when it releases such aliens. In one particularly tragic case 

recounted recently in the Basion Globe, illegal alien Huang Chen, convicted of assaulting a woman in 

2006, was released by ICE under Zadvydas rules, and remained free to stalk his previous victim until he 

bludgeoned and slashed her to death in 2010. 15 

These and other gaps in our enforcement system need to be fixed before we can contemplate 

another massive legalization program. This includes finishing the entry-exit system ordered by 

Congress in 1996, so that DHS knows who is coming and going, and more importantly, who is staying. 

Little progress has been made since the initial launch of US-VISIT in 2004. Currently, only air and sea 

passengers receive biometric screening and identity authentication; but the largest number of visitors 

enters through the land ports, and imposters using someone else's legally issued documents are a major 

problem. The biggest problem is abuse of the Border Crossing Cards, which have been issued to more 

11 See testimony of Brian McCann before the U,S. House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and 

Enforcement, March 7, 2012, http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/Hearings%202012/hear030720122.html. 

12 See Jessica Vaughan and Russ Doubleday, "Subsidizing Sanctuaries: The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program/, 

November, 2010, http://www,cis.org/subsidlzing-sanctuaries. 

13 Testimony of Gary Mead, Executive Associate Director, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations, before the House 

Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement, May 24,2011, 

htto://www.dhs.gov!news/2011!OS/24!statement-gary-mead-executive-associate-director-enforcement-and-removaloperations, 

14 Jon Feere, "Reining in Zadvydas: New BHI Aimed at Stopping Release of Criminal Aliens/' Center for Immigration Studies, 

May 2011, http;//www.cis.org/stopping-release,-of-criminal-aliens and Mark Metcalf, .... Built to Fail: Deception and Disorder 

in America's Immigration Courts," Center for Immigration Studies, May 2011, http://cis,org/lmmigration-Courts. 

15 Maria Sacchetti, "Unwanted at home, free to strike again/ Boston Globe, December 8,2012, 

http://www.boston.com/news/nationI2012/12/08/secret-crimin als-qujetty-released-criminats-who-were~supposeddeported-with-deadly-consequences/gA2ALtmA9LMuKUVGnffvAl/story_html. 
91 

than nine million Mexicans, facilitating the illegal settlement of perhaps as many as one million 

Mexicans." 

8 

The other very conspicuous void in immigration law enforcement today is workplace 

enforcement. In early 2009, the Obama administration adopted new policies on worksite enforcement, 

placing the focus on conducting paperwork audits of more companies while deliberately avoiding 

contact with illegal workers. In line with ICE's current strategy, the number ofl-9 audits increased from 

503 to 2,496 from fiscal year 2008 to 2012, the number of final orders to cease violations and pay fines 

increased from 18 to 385, and the dollar amount of final orders increased from $675,209 to $10,463,987. 

But every other metric points in the other direction. Administrative arrests have fallen 78% from 

fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 20 12 (from 5,184 to I, I 18); criminal arrests of employers and employees 

are down 53% (from 1,103 to 520) with criminal arrests of employees down 71% (from 968 to 280) and 

criminal arrests of employers increasing by 78% (from 135 to 240); criminal indictments have fallen 

63% (from 900 to 329); and criminal convictions are down 65% (from 908 to 314). The number ofiCE 

investigative hours devoted to worksite enforcement per quarter fell by 34% from the 3rd quarter of 

fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2010 overall (from 258,306 hours in the 3rd quarter of2008 to 683,868 

hours for all of2010). This represents a drop from 9.5% of all investigative hours to 6.2%. 

In addition, judging from other records I have reviewed that were released through the FOrA 

process, therc is a great deal of inconsistency among ICE investigative field offices in how they go about 

worksite enforcement. Some offices target employers that are suspected of egregiously hiring large 

numbers of workers; others tend to select employers where few suspected illegal workers are found in 

the paperwork, but they can still claim to have completed many audits. Some offices push hard to 

impose large fines, others prefer to issue mainly warnings, even in cases where large numbers of 

suspected illegal workers were found on the payroll. 

In addition, I have found some inconsistencies in the way ICE apparently is classifying its 

investigations, which leads me to wonder if they might be manipulating case reporting statistics in order 

. to give an inflated impression of the level of work site enforcement. Listed under the "Worksite" 

section oflhe ICE Newsroom page, I found several press releases about investigations that were clearly 

criminal in nature, and could not reasonably be classified as "worksite enforcement." So-called 

"worksite" cases I found included prosecutions of the leaders of a prostitution ring in Florida and the 

owner of a motel in EI Paso used as a drophouse for 5,000 smuggled aliens. 

Meanwhile, some of my sources report of another multi-state prostitution ring investigation 

(reportedly involving underage girls) that was initiated by the Border Patrol and later turned over to ICE 

was reportedly dropped because it would have led to discoveries of widespread illegal hiring practices at 

dairy fanns in northern Vermont. Tolerance of flagrant illegal hiring practices at a number of large 

corporate dairy operations, some of which also have a track record of violating environmental and 

conservation laws, has forced many of the smaller, family-owned dairy farmers out of business, and led 

to the sacking of the local residents who used to do this work. Displaced workers and their families 

have abandoned Vermont for other parts ofthe country, and family farmers, unable and unwilling to 

compete with the exploitative and illegal practices, end up selling off their holdings to the large farm 

16 Jessica Vaughan, "Border Crossing Chaos," Center for Immigration Studies, March 25, 2009, 

http://cis.org/vaughan/PaseoDeINortePartIV. 
92 

9 

owners that have trailers, apartments and old farmhouses now full of illegal workers. Vermont 

taxpayers cover the cost of the workers' health care and any other needs, since the farm operators do not 

have the workers "on the books." 

The one consistent theme of worksite investigations in recent years seems to be that arrests of 

workers are to be avoided at all costs. This raises legitimate questions as to the value of an audits-only 

approach. 

Legal Immigration System Has Economic and Fiscal Costs and Lacks Integrity. Obviously 

many immigrants have enriched our nation and have been a source of strength rather than a burden. 

America has given opportunities and safe haven to countless individuals over the decades. If properly 

managed, immigration can serve the national interest and the interests of employers and families alike. 

But our legal immigration system is not managed properly today. We are admitting more people than 

we can employ without disadvantaging Americans, we need to re-allocate the quotas so that we can 

accommodate the highest priority categories, we need to be stricter with the eligibility criteria, and we 

need to stop tolerating such a high rate of fraud. 

Current legal immigration is as high as it has ever been in our history. The government issues 

about one million green cards annually in the family, employment, humanitarian and lottery categories, 

more than all other countries combined. In addition, we have guestworker programs that bring in about 

700,000 workers a year, including farm workers, factory workers, lifeguards, nannies, ice cream 

scoopers, fish slimers, crab pickers, lab technicians, physical therapists, nurses, electricians, church 

secretaries, priests, musicians, baseball players, computer programmers, teachers, college professors, 

researchers, and doctors, among many others. 

Despite its huge size, the legal immigration system is ridiculously oversubscribed, with more 

than four million eligible people on the waiting list, mostly in the lesser priority family categories. It is 

weighted in favor offamily immigration, with only about 12 percent of green cards issued to new 

immigrants based on their skills. As a result, while there are great variations according to sending 

country, our legal immigration system is essentially an unskilled labor importation program that has 

greatly increased the size of America's low-income population. 

The economic and fiscal consequences of admitting so many immigrants who are on average less 

educated than U.S. workers are significant. Not only does mass immigration displace Americans from 

job opportunities, it causes wages to stagnate or decline. There is huge supply of potential less-educated 

workers; more than 25 million native-born Americans aged 18 to 65 with a high school degree or less 

are unemployed. If there were a labor shortage at the bottom end of the U.S. labor market, then wages, 

benefits, and employment would all be increasing; instead, unemployment is stubbornly high and wages 

have declined alarmingly for many U.S. workers, even before the current recession. But hourly wages 

for male non-high school graduates declined 22 percent from 1979 to 2007, and hourly wages for male 

high school graduates declined 10 percent from 1979 to 2007. 
93 

10 

There is no evidence that immigrants only do jobs Americans don't want. Of the 465 occupations 

defined by the government, only four are majority immigrant. Many jobs often thought to be majority 

immigrant are in fact majority native. For example: I? 

Maids and housekeepers: 52 % native-born 

Taxi drivers and chauffeurs: 59 % native-born 

Butchers and meat processors: 64 % native-born 

Construction laborers: 66 % native-born 

Janitors: 73 % native-born. 

The nation's leading immigration economist, George Borjas of Harvard, has demonstrated that 

immigration has had a negative impact on wages, for example, estimating that immigration reduced the 

wages for natives who had not graduated from high school by 7.4 percent. Borjas also has found that 

immigration significantly reduced both the wages and employment of less-educated, native-born African 

Americans. 18 

Other research corroborates these findings of displacement and wage depression. A 2006 study 

by Andrew Sum and his colleagues at Northeastern University found that the arrival of new immigrants 

(legal and illegal) in a state results in a decline in employment among young native-born workers in that 

state. 19 Research by my colleague Steven Camarota has examined differences in wages across 

occupations in which most of the workers have no more than high school education. The findings show 

that immigration reduced wages for American workers by 10 percent in some occupations.20 

Because so many immigrants lack the education and skills needed to be self-sufficient, they tend 

to make disproportionate use of our social welfare programs. In 2010, 23 percent of immigrants and 

their children lived in poverty, compared to 13.5 percent of natives. They account for one-fourth of all 

persons in poverty. In 20 1 0, 36 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one major welfare 

program (compared to 23 percent ofnatives).21 

Many immigrants make progress over time but, on average, even after 20 years, they do not 

come close to closing the poverty and welfare gap with natives. Moreover, immigration does not does 

not have a noticeable impact on our nation's age structure, and so cannot help address the entitlements 

or Social SecuritylMedicare funding crisis.22 

In general, skilled and/or educated immigrants do not impose the same kind of fiscal costs on 

communities as do those who are less educated. However, if skilled immigrants are concentrated in one 

17 Steven A. Camarota, Immigrants in the United States: A Profile of America's Foreign Born Population, Center for 

Immigration Studies, August, 2012, http://cis.org/2012-profile-of-americas-foreign-born-population. 

IB George Borjas, "The labor Demand Curve is Downward Sloping: Reexamining the Impact of Immigration on the labor 

Market," Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 2003, pp. 1335-1374, at: 

http://ksqhome.harvard.edu/NGBorias/Parers/QJE2003.pdf; for a less technical version, see 

www.cis.ora/articles/2004/back504.html. 

19 Andrew Sum, Paul Harrington, and Ishwar Khatiwada I The Impact of New Immigrants on Young NativeMBorn Workers, 

2000-2005, Center for Immigration Studies, 2006, www.cis.org/articies/2006/back806.html. 

20 Steven Camarata, "The Effect of Immigrants on the Earnings of LowMSkilled Native Workers: Evidence from the June 1991 

Current Population Survey," Social Science Quarterly, Va!. 78, 1997. 

21 Camarata, Profile. 

"Ibid. 
94 

11 

labor market or occupation, they can displace U.S. workers, as has happened in the 

technology/engineering sector. Our current admissions system specifically the labor certification 

process - does not protect U.S. workers from unfair competition, nor ensure that America is bringing in 

the kind of workers that are needed, as opposed to simply enabling U.S. employers to bypass U.S. 

workers. 

A growing body of research indicates that while there may be spot shortages of specific skill sets 

or in specific labor markets, the claims of a general shortage of the so-called STEM workers are 

exaggerated. Our colleges and universities are turning out more degree holders in these fields than there 

are job openings, and there is persistent high unemployment in STEM occupations.23 

Some researchers believe we actually have a glut of STEM workers, due in part to the fact that 

we have admitted so many foreign students seeking degrees in this field, most of whom stay on in some 

status, often as R -I B workers with the expectation that they will eventually earn permanent residency. 

In addition, we admit tens of thousands ofH-IB and L visa workers from abroad, many of whom join 

the waiting list for employment-based green cards. The reason we have such a long waiting list for 

employment green cards is because the flow ofH-l Band L workers far exceeds the number of 

employment visas available (and because most of the demand is concentrated in just a few countries). 

There are two problems that plague all of our visa programs, whether temporary or permanent, 

family or employment or humanitarian: lax enforcement of eligibility standards and rampant fraud. 

One example of the former is the abandonment of any pretense of insisting that immigrants show that 

they can support themselves. Despite the law's stipulation that applicants show they are not and will not 

be a "public charge," adjudicating officers at both users and State Department are directed in the 

regulations to ignore most kinds of social welfare benefits that applicants may have received. In 

addition, sponsors who cannot show sufficient income (or sufficient reported income on tax returns) to 

qualify to sponsor a relative are allowed to submit affidavits of support signed by third parties who 

pledge to assist if needed. These pledges are never verified, much less enforced if the immigrant ends 

up needing social services. 

Fraud exists in nearly every category of immigration benefits, although some categories are more 

fraud-prone than others. A number of years ago, USCIS conducted several detailed fraud assessments, 

and found double digit rates of fraud in the categories they studied, which included religious workers, 

employment-based immigrants, H-IB, L-1A, asylum and marriage. The adjudicating agencies have 

improved their fraud investigations and analytical systems significantly. But only rarely do the agencies 

work with other partner agencies to prosecute fraud or to seek the removal of individuals who commit 

fraud or are found ineligible for admission. As a result, an untold number of people who do not qualify 

for residency are allowed to stay anyway. 

Finally, in recent years, the immigration agencies have begun stretching the criteria for eligibility 

in some programs so that unqualified -- and in some cases, potentially dangerous individuals have 

been allowed to stay. For example, according to the law, individuals with Temporary Protected Status 

(TPS) are ineligible ifthey are convicted of two or more misdemeanors. Recently, DRS implemented a 

policy that directs adjudicators to re-classify the misdemeanors as "infractions" so that they can retain 

23 See, for example, Daniel Costa, "Microsoft report distorts reality about computing occupations/' Economic Policy 

institute, November, 2012, http://www,epi,org(publication/pm195~stem~labor~shortage s-microsoft-report-distorts/. 
95 

12 

their TPS. Most of the beneficiaries of this policy have been individuals convicted of drunk or impaired 

driving. While only a small number of people in this category have been approved, it is reasonable to 

ask why the administration would make it a priority to create such a loophole. 

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" Is Not a Solution. 

A mass legalization of 11 million (or more) illegal immigrants and expansion of green card and 

temporary worker admissions, especially when combined with promises of future enforcement, rather 

than strengthened enforcement, will not cure most of the problems with our immigration system. 

On the contrary, the two "comprehensive" proposals would exacerbate our unemployment, 

inequality and wage stagnation problems by adding large numbers of both heavily-educated and lightlyskilled workers to the labor pool, when there is no evidence of need for either type. 

Employers welcome such a situation, but the workers suffer. We know from experience how 

this will turn out. For example, several years ago, the Hyatt Hotels chain replaced its entire staff of 

about 90 housekeepers at its three hotels in Boston with new workers hired through a staffing company 

based in Georgia. The original housekeepers were full-time workers, earning about $14 per hour, with 

subsidized health insurance and paid sick and vacation leave. Many of these women had supported their 

families on these jobs and had worked there for more than a decade. The replacement contract workers 

were brought in from Georgia (some admitted to being here illegally and using false documents to get 

hired). They were willing to work for $8 per hour, without benefits. The original workers were offered 

the chance to keep their jobs as employees of the staffing company at the lower rate of compensation. 

Can there be any doubt that this scenario will repeat itself as employers seek to take advantage of new 

labor streams created by expanded immigration and more guestworker programs? 

Lav.'lTIakers must also consider the cost of adding millions of newly legalized residents to the 

public welfare and subsidized healthcare rolls. Currently, illegal residents are not able to access many of 

the federally-funded programs (except on behalf of U.S.-born children), but will be eligible to do so 

after an amnesty. Even though most illegal aliens are working, because they tend to be concentrated in 

relatively low-paying jobs, they and their families can be expected to apply for many welfare programs. 

This additional cost is likely to run in the tens of billions of dollars per year, and will not be offset by 

new tax payments, again, due to the fact that many are in low-paying jobs. Barring them from the 

welfare programs is not a good choice; once we make the decision to admit someone as an immigrant, 

they should have access to all the same programs as others in similar circumstances. 

As discussed earlier, fraud is likely to bc an issue in any legalization program, especially if this 

administration's handling of DACA is any model. The DACA program is rigged in favor of applicants; 

adjudicators are unable to verify claims of applicants, there is no interview, and the rules are written so 

loosely that it is easy to game the system. Because of a strict confidentiality provision, as with IRCA, 

none of the information on an applicant's paperwork may be shared or used for enforcement purposes. 

We can expect more of the same in any legalization program run by the Obama administration. Indeed, 

in the President's fact sheet on CrR, it states that those whose applications are denied will get appeals 

and judicial reviews - not removal. 
96 

13 

Most of the enforcement measures that have been proposed are vague, aspirational, costly, and of 

dubious feasibility. One, the entry-exit system, was first mandated by Congress in 1996; this should not 

be part of a compromise, it should be completed without further discussion. This is especially important 

in light ofthe administration's proposals to expand the Visa Waiver Program. The White House also 

proposals to implement universal mandatory E-Verify, which is a very good idea, but since the program 

is already operating effectively, this expansion should not be contingent on the development of a 

biometric Social Security Card or other biometric enhancements that would be unduly burdensome for 

employers and workers alike. 

What Should Be Done Instead? 

In light of the vast disparity of views within Congress on which type ofrefonn to pursue, it 

seems unrealistic to rush into the huge agenda put forth in the two "comprehensive immigration refonn" 

proposals that have been issued. The most successful attempts at immigration refonn in recent decades 

have been much narrower in scope, including IMMACT 90, !fRAIRA, NACARA, AC-21 st Century, 

LIFE ACT, the 9/11 bill, and many other smaller measures that have been passed since 1990. 

Lawmakers should start with areas of refonn around which there is already significant consensus 

and popular support. These include better workplace enforcement and compliance, such as universal 

mandatory E-Verify; amnesty for illegal aliens brought by their parents at a young age and who grew up 

here; ending the visa lottery and other programs that do not serve our national interest; completing the 

entry-exit system; refonning the immigration court system; expanding federal-local law enforcement 

partnerships; and rebalancing our legal immigration system to admit a larger proportion of immigrants 

who will be self-sufficient. 

But before undertaking any large-scale legalization program, lawmakers must be able to assure 

the public that the laws we have will actually be enforced, and that such an amnesty will not cause 

another surge of illegal immigration. The government needs to show meaningful and sustained 

commitment to attaining operational control of the borders and enforcing immigration laws in the 

interior in a transparent way, so that all illegal immigrants -- not just those who are convicted criminals 

and known terrorists - are potentially held accountable for violating our law and are preventing from 

gaming our systems. A more detailed laundry list of what meaningful enforcement includes is outlined 

in our publication "ABCs of Effective Immigration Enforcement," available on our website. 24 Progress 

should be measured not just by enforcement actions like apprehensions and removals, but by our success 

in reducing the stock of the illegally-resident population as well as the in-flow of new illegal migrants. 

Our research indicates that most Americans reject the false choice of either mass deportations or 

mass legalization. In our latest poll, using neutral language, voters indicated that they preferred that 

illegal immigrants return home (52%) rather than be given legal status (36%). Further, 69 percent 

believe that giving legal status to illegal immigrants only encouraged more illegal immigration. These 

results suggest that enactment of the "comprehensive immigration refonn" proposals would be a 

political mistake as well as a policy mistake. ### 

24 jessica Vaughan, "ABC's of Effective Immigration Enforcement," http://cis.org/Announcements!Amnesty-Panel~ 

Discus5ion~01142013. 
97 

TESTIMONY OF STEVE CASE 

CHAIRMAN AND CEO, REVOLUTION LLC 

CO-FOUNDER, AMERICA ONLINE 

BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HEARING ON "COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM" 

216 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING 

FEBRUARY 13,2013 

Chainnan Leahy and members ofthe Committee: 

Thank you for the invitation to share my perspective on an issue central to our history and 

critical to our future. 

I appear before you today as an entrepreneur who founded and built America Online just a few 

miles from the Capitol; as an investor through my company Revolution where we mentor and 

support entrepreneurs across the United States; as a civic leader working on public policy and 

private sector initiatives focused on improving the environment for entrepreneurs to start and 

grow companies; and as a colleague and friend of talented immigrant-entrepreneurs and 

innovators who devote themselves to their companies and contribute to our country. Working 

across industries for three decades I have seen firsthand the effects of both smart and misguided 

policies on our businesses, our communities, and our nation's economic competitiveness. 

To understand this debate in context, it is necessary to remember that the story of America is in 

part the story of entrepreneurs who settled this land seeking a better life and who through grit, 

hard-work, and creativity built companies, cities, and whole new industries that power the 

strongest economy the world has ever known. 

Our country did not become the leading economy by luck or accident. Iconic, Fortune 500 

companies such as Intel, DuPont, and Google that employ thousands of Americans who deliver 

goods and services around the world did not simply come to be one day. Revered American 

cities like New Yark, Chicago, and Los Angeles that showcase our cultural, artistic, and 
98 

economic might did not sprout up out of chance. New industries for telephones, airplanes, and 

the Internet that improve the way we live our lives were not randomly conceived. 

It was the work of pioneering entrepreneurs - beginning with the country's earliest settlers, our 

nation's first immigrant entrepreneurs - who took a risk hoping to turn dreams into businesses. 

From the mom and pop bakery on Main Street to fast-growing tech companies like Facebook, the 

primary drivers of our economic growth have been and will continue to be startup businesses that 

create value, generate revenue, produce jobs, spur innovation, and expand the tax base. 

According to the Kauffman Foundation, in the past three decades startups less than five years old 

created almost 40 million American jobs - all the net-jobs created during that period. 

And from the earliest days, immigrant entrepreneurs started some of America's most celebrated 

enterprises. U.S. Steel, Pfizer, Kraft Foods, Honeywell, AT&T, Yahoo!, and Goldman Sachs 

were all started by immigrants. Today, 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies in the United States 

were started by immigrants or the children of immigrants, employing 10 million people across 

the globe and doing $4 trillion in revenue. Of the 10 most valuable brands globally, seven of 

them come from American companies founded by immigrants or their children. In the past 15 

years, immigrants founded one quarter of U.S. venture-backed public companies. l 

Statistics show that immigrants are almost twice as likely as U.S.-born workers to start a 

company. Between 1995 and 2005, half of Silicon Valley startups had an immigrant founder. In 

2005 alone, those businesses achieved $52 billion in sales supporting 400,000 jobs. In 2011, 

more than three-quarters of the patents filed at the top ten patent-producing U.S. schools had an 

immigrant inventor. Of the 1,600 computer science PhD graduates from our universities in 20 I 0, 

60 percent were foreign students.2 

'Partnership for a New American Economy, "The 'New American' Fortune 500" (2011). Available at 

http://www .renewoureconomy .orgfsites/a Illthemes/pnae/img/new-american-fortune-500-j une-20 II.pdf 

2 Partnership for a New American Economy, "Fact. Sheet." Available at 

http://www. renewoureconomv. org/sites/allithemes/pnae/imglfac/s.pdf 

2 
99 

And this is not just about technology companies. When Hamdi Ulukaya, an immigrant from 

Turkey told friends that he was going to start a yogurt company in upstate New York in 2005, 

they advised against the idea. But Hamdi was adamant. He hired four employees to begin 

packaging yogurt by hand, and eight years later Chobani Yogurt generates $1 billion in sales, has 

hired 1,500 American workers, and is expanding operations across the country.3 

Mr. Chairman, high-skilled immigrants have always been job creators, not job takers. They have 

been a valuable source of creativity and innovation helping to build the most diverse and 

entrepreneurial economy in the world. The mistake that opponents of immigration reform make 

is believing that our society and economic growth are zero sum. They are not. More talented 

immigrants joining the American family does not equate to fewer jobs, it equates to more jobs. 

Others argue that instead of allowing more high-skilled immigrants to stay we should instead 

focus on better training and STEM education for America's youth. This is a false choice. We can 

and must do both: draw the best talent from across the globe, and develop more talent in science, 

math, technology, and engineering here at home. We must bolster U.S. STEM education by 

giving teachers and students the tools they need. But we also need to be a magnet for talented 

entrepreneurs and engineers from other countries. It is not the case that an increase in foreign 

talent will increase unemployment for native workers. Studies show that from 2000 to 2007, 

every \00 additional foreign-born workers in STEM fields created 262 additional employment 

positions for native U.S. workers.4 

In recent years, our nation's entrepreneurial edge has been slipping away. Even before the recent 

economic downturn took hold, new company formation was down a quarter, entrepreneurs were 

adding fewer jobs than they had historically, public offerings were down for small and mediumsized companies, and capital was slower to reach high-growth enterprises. An entrepreneurial 

slowdown is antithetical to an economy reeling and striving to return to full employment. 

3 Walsh, Megan, "Chobani Takes the Lead," Bloomberg Businessweek (2012). Available at 

http://www.businessweekcom/articles/2012-0 7-31 Ichobani-takes-gold-in-the-vogurt-aisle 

4 American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and the Partnership For a New American Economy, 

"Immigration and American Jobs" (2011). Available at 

http://www.renewoureconomy.orgisites/all/themes/pnae/imgINAE Im-AmerJobs.pdf 

3 
100 

Last year the Congress and the White House carne to recognize these troubling trends and 

worked together in bipartisan fashion to pass the Jurnpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS 

Act) to help entrepreneurs raise capital from more sources, grow their businesses with less 

burden, and access public markets earlier to boost job creation. The JOBS Act was an important 

step forward in improving the environment for entrepreneurs, but the legislation did not address 

the high-skilled talent issue - the one issue many of us believe is paramount when it comes to 

ensuring our economic competitiveness. 

Now is the time to act. 

Every year, arbitrary immigration caps force approximately one-third of the 50,000 foreign-born 

STEM graduates from our universities to leave the country. After earning a Masters or PhD from 

universities such as Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, and MIT, these talented men and woman move 

to competitor nations and launch businesses abroad that compete with our workers here at 

home. If our military had a similar policy we would train soldiers, sailors, and pilots at West 

Point, the Naval Academy, and the Air Force Academy with world-class battlefield skills, only 

to send them away to join the militaries of foreign nations. This is part of the reason why in 

Silicon Valley over the past seven years the percentage of immigrant-founded startups has 

dropped from 52.4 percent to 43.9 percent.s 

A few months ago I was having breakfast with a group of young entrepreneurs in Chapel Hill, 

North Carolina when I met Deepak, a young, up-and-coming star in the Research Triangle's 

entrepreneurial ecosystem. Deepak was working to grow his health-care startup, create jobs, and 

enable people from around the world to live healthier lives by personalizing the delivery of 

health and wellness advice. Deepak was born in India, has a PhD in genetics from the University 

of North Carolina, and his startup has achieved 40 percent month-over-month growth. Yet his 

green card status remains uncertain and as a result Deepak is having a difficult time convincing 

5 Wadhwa, Vivek; Saxenian, AnnaLee; Siciliano, Daniel F; "America's New Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Then and 

Now" (2012). Available a/ 

http://www.kauffman.orgluploadedFiles/Then and now americas new immigrant entrepreneurs.pdf 

4 
101 

investors to fund his expansion. Deepak is ready to hire more employees in Raleigh. Instead he 

waits. 

There are thousands of these stories across the country. But it's not just about the 

competitiveness of our startup economy. Facebook almost relocated a key project, and numerous 

employees, offshore until it finally obtained a late H-lB visa for a Stanford graduate from Spain. 

Google, along with other large firms, has been forced to relocate part of its operations abroad due 

to the challenges of getting work visas and green cards.6 

Meanwhile, as we grow complacent in the global battle for talent, our competitors are picking up 

their game. 

China has dedicated resources toward increasing its talent pool of skilled workers to 180 million 

in the coming years. The Chinese launched the "1000 Talents Program" to attract talented 

researchers back to the country.7 Australia skips the temporary work-visa step altogether and 

provides fast-track permanent residency to high-skilled workers and their spouses even before 

they relocate. In fact, Australia grants nearly as many employment-based green cards as the 

United States, despite having an economy 14 times smaller.8 Canada took action just a few 

weeks ago when its Citizenship and Immigration office announced a new startup visa program 

that grants permanent residency to foreign-born innovators who receive backing from Canadian 

investors. Jason Kenney, the Citizenship and Immigration Minister of Canada, told one 

newspaper that he plans: 

", .. to go down to Silicon Valley with some of the industry associations here andjly the 

Canadian jlag and say to those bright young prospective immigrants, some of whom are 

'Gruenwald, Iuliana, "Progress on Immigration, Education Key to Reviving Iobs, Tech Leaders Say,;' National 

Journal (2011), Available at http://www.nationaliournal.comltechlprogress-on-immigration-education-key-toreviving-jobs-tech-leaders-say-20 II 0802 

7 Thousand Talents Program. Available at httn:llwww.szdo.cuhk.edu.hklen-GB/research-fundinglnationalfundinglIOOO-talents-plan 

8 Dalmia, Shikha, "Canada Shows How U.S. States Can Fix Immigration," Bloomberg (2012). Available at 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/20 12-11-28!canada-shows-how-u-s-states-can-fix-immigration. hlml 

5 
102 

going to create massively successful companies in their lifetime, that they can come to 

Canada through this program and they can get permanent residency here, and hove the 

certainty that this represents and start their businesses in Canada. ,,9 

From Singapore to Gennany to India, countries around the world are making it easier and more 

attractive for talented foreigners to settle and contribute. What was once the secret sauce of our 

economic advantage - a strong entrepreneurial economy that rewards risk, disruption and 

innovation - is being replicated aggressively around the world. A few decades ago we lost 

ground in the manufacturing sector when we failed to respond aggressively to global 

competition. We cannot afford to do the same when it comes to the entrepreneurial sector. 

The good news is that Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the White House agree that 

we need to take action. Numerous bipartisan, high-skilled immigration proposals have been teed 

up in recent months that contain smart reforms aimed at righting this policy. A combination of 

these refonns should make up a core component of a comprehensive immigration package. The 

Startup Act pennits entrepreneurs and STEM graduates to stay and set up businesses. The JSquared Act increases the amount of available green cards and removes the per-country cap for 

employment-based visas. The Startup Visa Act allows foreign entrepreneurs to move to the 

United States so long as they have financial backing from American investors. The SMART Jobs 

Act slows the STEM "brain drain" by adding a new non-immigrant F -4 visa for students 

pursuing masters or doctorate degrees and puts them on a path to legal, pennanent residency. 

Two more bills introduce in the House last fall would award green cards to top foreign-born 

STEM graduates and entrepreneurs. And Chainnan Leahy has introduced additional immigration 

proposals that merit serious consideration as part of comprehensive immigration refonn, 

including a compelling idea based on the E8-5 program working in his horne state of Vermont. 

President Obama has called for stapling green cards to the diplomas of American-educated 

immigrants with STEM degrees, and in the Senate the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" agreed on a 

9 Dobby, Christine, "Startup Visa Program To Launch Aprill With Participation ofCVCA and NACO," Financial 

Post (2013). Available at http://business.financiaipost.coml201 310l124lstartup-visa-program-to-launch-april-lwith-participation-of-cvca-and-naco/ 

6 
103 

framework to admit the skilled workers necessary for a competitive economy. From the White 

House plan, to the numerous aforementioned high-skilled legislative proposals, to additional 

bills, there are smart ideas on the table. While some increase the number of green cards or the 

number of H-I B visas, others create new entrepreneurial visas, remove the per-country cap for 

employment-based visas, add a new non-immigrant F -4 visa, or build on successful programs 

that lure investment and talent to the United States, all ofthe proposafs together make it easier to 

recruit and retain innovators, founders, and job-creators. Whether a person starts as a student, an 

employee in a large corporation, or as a paJtner of a U.S. enterprise abroad, we should enact 

measures that enable talented entrepreneurs to start businesses and innovate here in the United 

States. I defer to the men and women on Capitol Hill and at the White House to determine which 

of these specific provisions make up the final plan, but I am confident we are close to meaningful 

high-skilled immigration reform. 

While my main focus is on talent, I also believe we need to work together to create a dignified 

path to citizenship for the II million undocumented workers currently in the country, strengthen 

border security, and crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal workers. The legal, 

social, and moral imperatives of comprehensive immigration reform speak to our character as a 

nation. This is an emotional issue. It is a vexing issue. Families are split apart by our immigration 

laws. Young people who love this country are forced to leave. I do not envy the difficult choices 

you all face. But I believe that the smart and responsible course is passing one comprehensive 

bill that deals once and for all with these issues. This is the right thing to do, but also the smart 

thing to do. Sensible immigration policies will ensure America remains a beacon of hope and 

opportunity. 

1\ few months ago I stood next to Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor and President Obama 

in the Rose Garden after they joined together to pass the JOBS Act on behalf of our nation's 

entrepreneurs. Pundits said it would never happen, particularly given it was an election year. But 

it did. Bipartisan progress is possible during moments in Washington when diverse groups of 

citizens call for action. In recent months, a broad coalition of religious leaders, law enforcement, 

labor, big businesses, and entrepreneurs have come together to press our elected leaders to pass 

comprehensive immigration refonn. This is the moment. 

7 
104 

History teaches us that the most open and inclusive societies tend to be the most successful: 

Spain in the early 1400s pioneering navigation and global trade; Italy in the 1500s advancing 

science and learning. But no country has benefited more from immigration than the United 

States. We began as a startup founded by immigrant settlers who left a difficult situation to build 

a better life. What distinguishes us is that we have always been a magnet for risk-taking men and 

women from across the world hoping to start businesses, innovate, and contribute. That is part of 

our DNA. It is why in the 20th century we created more wealth, opportunity, and economic 

growth than any other nation. 

But that advantage is slipping away. As the economies of developing countries mature rapidly it 

is no longer the easy choice to settle in the United States. There are now increasingly attractive 

opportunities abroad. We must improve the environment for entrepreneurship to thrive. Now is 

the time to work together and pass comprehensive reform that fixes our high-skilled immigration 

system. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for your time. 

8 
105 

Statement by Chris Crane, President, 

National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council 118 

of the 

American Federation of Government Employees 

Before the 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

February 13,2013 
106 

The results from the most recent morale survey for Federal agencies were released in December 

2012. ICE dropped in the rankings to 279 out of 291 Federal agencies surveyed leaving only 12 agencies 

that ranked lower in employee morale and job satisfaction than ICE. By comparison, the U.S. Marshals 

Service was ranked 82 in the survey, and the FBI ranked 107. The ICE employee morale survey included 

ICE managers 35 well as officers, agents and administrative personnel. 

As agency morale falls each year, each year ICE leadership finds new excuses to justify the low 

morale. never taking responsibility and never making reasonable efforts to identify and address 

causative issues. This, even after the tragic shooting in a los Angeles ICE office last year, in which an ICE 

Agent shot his own supervisor and was himself shot and killed by another ICE employee. 

To prevent incidents like the one in los Angeles, ICE must begin efforts to address problems 

within the agency. While both internal and external factors contribute to the morale problems within 

ICE, proper leadership from ICE headquarters could make sweeping and effective changes throughout 

the agency. It is the responsibility of ICE leadership to maintain the highest possible morale within the 

agency regardless of the situation and regardless of the factors involved; whether it is addressing gross 

mismanagement and overall corruption within the agency, or addressing the impact of internal or 

external politics. 

While ICE employees are frequently demonized by special interest groups and media outlets, it 

should be known that many ICE employees are themselves the sons and daughters of immigrants, or 

grandsons and granddaughters of immigrants; or are married to immigrants, or are the proud parents of 

adopted babies born outside the U.S. For many of our officers and agents, English was not their first 

language, or they grew up in bilingual household. ICE employees represent the full spectrum of races 

and religions that make up our great country. They are moms and dads, public servants, and many are 

veterans of the United States Armed Forces. ICE agents are not monsters as some would portray them. 
107 

However, ICE agents do believe in law enforcement and the rule of law. Most Americans going 

about their daily lives believe that ICE agents and officers are permitted to enforce the laws of the 

United States. However, ICE agents and officers would tell America a much different story. 

The day-to-day duties of ICE agents and officers often seem in conflict with the law as ICE 

officers are prohibited from enforcing many laws enacted by Congress; laws they took an oath to 

enforce. ICE is now guided in large part by the influences of powerful special interest groups that 

advocate on behalf of illegal aliens. These influences have in large part eroded the order, stability and 

effectiveness of the agency, creating confusion among all ICE employees. For the last four years it has 

been a roller coaster for ICE officers with regard to who they can or cannot arrest, and which Federal 

laws they will be permitted to enforce. Most of these directives restricting enforcement are given only 

verbally to prevent written evidence from reaching the public. 

Most Americans would be surprised 10 know that immigration agents are regularly prohibited 

from enforcing the two most fundamental sections of United States immigration law. According to ICE 

policy, in most cases immigration agents can no longer arrest persons solely for entering the United 

States illegally. Additionally, in most cases immigration agenls cannot arrest persons solely because 

they have entered the United States with a visa and then overstayed that visa and failed to return to 

their country. Essentially, only individuals charged or convicted of very serious criminal offenses by 

other law enforcement agencies may be arrested or charged by ICE agents and officers for illegal entry 

or overstay. 

In fact, under current policy individuals illegally in the United States must now be convicted of 3 

or more criminal misdemeanors before ICE agents are permitted to charge or arresllhe illegal alien for 

illegal entry or overstaying a visa, unless the misdemeanors involve the most serious types of offenses 

such as assault, sexual abuse or drug trafficking. With regard to traffic violations, other than DUI and 
108 

fleeing the scene of an accident, ICE agents are also prohibited from making an immigration arrest of 

illegal aliens who have multiple convictions for traffic related misdemeanors. 

Thus far, ICE's new arrest methodology of prohibiting the arrest of illegal aliens convicted of 

certain unspecified misdemeanors has simply created more confusion among those tasked with 

enforcing immigration law. During conversations with ICE officers, agents and prosecuting attorneys, 

none were able to identify the criminal misdemeanor offenses that ICE leadership has identified as 

"insignificant." Important to note, no training or list of "insignificant" misdemeanor offenses was ever 

provided to ICE employees. 

DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which prevents the deportation of many aliens 

brought to the U.S. as children, is for the most part applied by ICE immigration agents to adults held in 

state correctional facilities and jails pending criminal charges. News has spread quickly through illegal 

alien populations within jails and communities that immigration agents have been instructed by the 

agency not to investigate illegal aliens who claim protections from immigration arrest under DACA. ICE 

immigration agents have been instructed to accept the illegal alien's claim as to whether he or she 

graduated or is attending high school or college or otherwise qualifies under DACA. Illegal aliens are not 

required to provide officers with any type of proof such as a diploma or transcripts to prove that they 

qualify before being released. Even though the immigration officer generally has no proof that the alien 

qualifies under DACA, officers may not arrest these aliens unless a qualifying criminal conviction or other 

disqualifier exists. As one immigration agent stated last week, "every person we encounter in the jails 

now claims to qualify under DACA." 

With all ofthe restrictions placed on ICE immigration agents in enforcing the u.s. immigration 

laws, it is also important to understand the broader law enforcement practices of the Agency and the 

associated impact on immigration enforcement. With approximately 20,000 employees at ICE, 
109 

approximately 5,000 officers and agents handle the majority of immigration work within the agency, to 

include the arrests, case processing, detention, and removal of approximately 400,000 aliens each year. 

Within this group of 5,000 officers, two separate officer positions exist. While all officers have exactly 

the same training, the two officer positions have different arrest authorities, one position with a more 

limited arrest authority than the other. For obvious reasons, this antiquated separation of arrest 

authorities among officers is unnecessary, especially as no additional training is necessary, and clearly 

prevents the best use of the limited resources available for immigration enforcement. Requests for ICE 

Director John Morton to issue a memorandum providing full arrest authority to all officers as a force 

multiplier within the agency have been refused by the Director without explanation. As the 

Administration states publicly that it is pushing for stronger enforcement and optimal utilization of 

limited enforcement resources, these actions appear to indicate otherwise. 

Also important for to understand, pressures from special interest groups have resulted in the 

majority of ICE agents a nd officers being prohibited from making street arrests. Most officers are only 

allowed to work inside of jails hidden from public view, and may only arrest certain individuals who have 

already been arrested by police departments and other Federal agencies. As a general rule, if ICE agents 

or officers are on duty in a public place and witness a violation of immigration law, they are prohibited 

from making arrests and from asking questions under threat of diSCiplinary action. 

Several hundred officers and agents assigned to special teams across the nation do have a 

limited ability on a day-to-day basis to make public arrests outside of jails. For the most part, these 

officers and agents are restricted to arresting specific targets only after each case goes through a 

lengthy authorization process that must eventually be approved by a supervisor in writing. 

As stated previously, new ICE arrest policies clearly appear to conflict with not only the law but 

also with the legal training provided new officers and agents in the academy and on the job at their 
110 

offices in the field. Years of training and experience are not easily undone, especially as ICE refuses to 

provide training to officers regarding its new enforcement policies. As a result, officers are confused 

and unsure about the new policies, and often find themselves facing disciplinary action for following the 

law and their academy training instead of the confusing and highly misunderstood and ever changing 

new policies. 

In Salt Lake City, Utah three ICE agents witnessed an individual admit in open court to a Federal 

Immigration Judge that he was in the United States illegally. ICE agents waited until the alien left the 

hearing and then politely asked him to accompany them, never using handcuffs in the course of the 

arrest. An immigration attorney and activist called the ICE Field Office Director in Salt Lake City verbally 

complaining that ICE officers had arrested an illegal alien. The ICE Field Office Director responded by 

ordering that all charges against the illegal alien be dropped and that the alien be released immediately. 

While the ICE Director ordered the immigration violator be set free, the Director also ordered that all 

three ICE agents be placed under investigation for no other reason than arresting an illegal alien. 

In Dover, Delaware, ICE agents conducted surveillance of a vehicle registered to an ICE criminal 

fugitive. When a man attempted to enter the vehicle and depart, ICE agents discovered that while not 

their arrest target, the man was an illegal alien with multiple convictions for driving without a license. 

Still without a license and attempting to drive, ICE agents considered the man a threat to public safety 

and arrested him. ICE supervisors ordered that the illegal alien be released without charges. When one 

agent attempted to bring immigration charges against the alien as the law and his oath requires, the 

agent's managers released the illegal alien and instead brought formal charges against the agent 

proposing the agent be suspended for 3 days. If the suspension was sustained, a second "offense" by 

the agent would likely result in the agent losing his job. The officer has been an immigration agent for 

18 years and is a 5 year military veteran. 
111 

In EI Paso, TX, ICE agents arrested an illegal alien at a local jail who was arrested by sheriffs 

deputies earlier that same morning and charged with assault causing bodily injury to a family member 

and interfering with a person attempting to make an emergency phone call for assistance. When ICE 

agents attempted to transport the 2451bs subject he resisted and attempted escape, injuring one agent 

before being taken back into custody. When agents returned to their office in EI Paso they were ordered 

by ICE managers to release the alien as a "Dreamer." ICE managers did not question the criminal alien 

and conducted no investigation to ensure that charges for assaulting an officer were not warranted. 

Instead ICE ma nagers ordered that the illegal alien immediately be released without investigation in 

accordance with the President's new immigration policies, reportedly stating to employees that "ICE's 

mission now is to identify aliens and release them." 

With regard to assaults in general, assaults against ICE officers and agents continue to rise as ICE 

arrestees become increasing more violent and criminal in nature. Of the approximately 400,000 aliens 

removed by ICE each year, over 90% come from jails and prisons according to agency officials at ICE 

Headquarters. However, unlike almost every state and Federal law enforcement agency in the nation, 

ICE agents and officers are prohibited from carrying life saving protective equipment such as tasers. ICE 

will not approve this equipment for its agents and officers for political reasons. Death or serious injury 

to ICE officers and agents appears more acceptable to ICE, DHS and Administration leadership, than the 

public complaints that would be lodged by special interest groups representing illegal aliens. While 

unthinkable for most American's that the Federal government would approve the use of tasers on 

criminals who are U.S citizens, but deny tasers to law enforcement officers who a rrest criminal aliens, it 

appears to be the case. As we have reported in the past, ICE, DHS and the Administration work 

exclusively with special interest groups to establish security and arrest protocols throughout the agency 

while excluding input from employees and operational managers in the field. As a result, many special 
112 

considerations exist exclusively for criminal aliens in ICE custody compromising operations and costing 

the agency millions each year. 

In cloSing, while deeply concerned by the actions of our agency, as well as the current state and 

future of immigration enforcement, we are optimistic and confident that all of these matters can be 

successfully resolved with the assistance of members of Congress. Please do not hesitate to contact us 

at any time with any request as we are always ready and willing to assist you. 
113 

A COMMONSENSE SOLUTION FOR IMMIGRATION 

REFORM MUST INCLUDE A ROAD MAP TO CITIZENSHIP 

Presented at 

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

Submitted to 

u.s. Senate Judiciary Committee 

Submitted by 

lanet Murguia 

President and CEO 

National Council of La Raza 

February 13, 2013 

Rilul Yzaguirre Building 

1126 16th Street, NW,Sllit€ 600 

Washington, DC 20036-4845 

www.nclr.org 
114 

2 

Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley, I thank you for holding this hearing on 

immigration reform, and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee today. 

I come before you today in several capacities. I am the President and CEO of the National 

Council of La Raza (NCLR), the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization 

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

the best nonprofits in the nation. We represent some 300 Affiliates-local, community-based 

organizations in 41 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico--that provide education, 

health, housing, workforce development, and other services to millions of Americans and 

immigrants annually. 

Like our country, NCLR has a long legacy of engaging in immigration, evidenced through our 

work in the Hispanic community and in Washington, DC. Some of our Affiliates began as 

settlement houses that helped immigrants from Europe adj ust to American society at the turn of 

the 20th century. Others are the modem-day spiritual descendants of the settlement house 

movement, teaching English, providing health care, promoting financial literacy, and otherwise 

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

of our Affiliates 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 Ccntral 

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, Bush Sr., Clinton, 

and Bush Jr. 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, and we thank the 

Congressional Hispanic Caucus for their leadership on this issue, as well as the bipartisan group 

of senators working on immigration reform legislation in this chamber. 

I am also thc proud daughter of parents who emigrated from Mexico. My father worked in a 

steel mill and my mother looked after us and other neighborhood children to help make ends 

meet. They worked hard to provide for our family in Kansas. My parents stressed the 

importance of education, and thanks to the values that they instilled in us, two of my siblings are 

federal judges, another is a Harvard Law School graduate in private practice who is also deeply 

engaged in philanthropy, and I had the opportunity to work in both Congress and the White 

House. 

At thc outset, I want to join the growing consensus that Congress has a unique, historic 

opportunity to pass immigration reform this year. Not only does fixing our broken immigration 

system benefit immigrants themselves, but it is in thc interest of our country. Immigration to the 

United States should be orderly and legal, promote economic growth, sustain our families, and 

be implemented in a way that is consistent with our nation's values. That is why we need 

immigration reform that (1) restores the rule oflaw by creating a path to legalization and a 

roadrnap to citizenship for the II million aspiring Americans, as well as smart enforcement that 

improves safety, supports legal immigration channels, and prevents discrimination; (2) preserves 

the rule of law by creating workable legal immigration channels that uphold the principle of 
115 

3 

family unity, strengthen our economy, and protect workers' rights; and (3) strengthens the fabric 

of our society by adopting proactive measures that advance the successful integration of new 

immigrants. 

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

nation's Hispanic community. There is a precious opportunity to addrcss it humancly and 

responsibly. The toxicity in this debate has affected us deeply, regardless of immigration status, 

and we see getting this debate on the right course as a matter of fundamental respect for the 

presence and role of Latinos in the U.S. Latino voters generated the game-changing moment for 

immigration last November, creating an opening to finally achievc the solution our country longs 

for. And our rolc is growing. An average of 878,000 Latino citizens will turn 18 each year 

between 2011 and 2028. Our community is engaged and watching this debate closely. 

Immigration Enforcement 

The need for policy solutions is urgent because of the effects our failed system has on our 

economy and on our communities. But I must note that the failure to enact immigration reform 

has not meant inaction on immigration enforcement over the past two decades. In fact, by nearly 

every standard, more is being donc than ever before to enforcc immigration laws. Mcasured 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 cnforcing immigration laws than on all 

other categories oflaw enforcement combincd. 

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

strategies than we do today. Through congressional appropriations and thc passage of legislation 

like the Secure Fence Act and the Southwest Border Security Bill, the federal government has 

certainly enactcd an enforcement-first policy. We have seen more personnel, morc technology, 

more fencing, and morc money put into border security, along with new and expanded initiatives 

like Operation Streamline, which criminally prosecutes all undocumented border crossers and 

has overwhelmed our court system and wasted precious judicial resources. Throughout the 

interior, enforcement has increased through programs like Secure Communities and 287(g) 

agreements. At the worksite, E-VerifY has been expanded, and the incidence ofI-9 audits is at 

unprccedcnted levels. And a number of states have enacted their own immigration enforcement 

measures. 

Measured by results, detention and prosecutions of immigration law violators, as well as 

deportations, are at all-time highs. Perhaps for the first time since we acquired much of thc 

American Southwest in the late 1 840s, net migration from Mexico is now zcrQ--{lr lessaccording to the best available research. 

Reasonable people can disagree about how much enforcement is enough. Even though the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) has testified before Congress that prevention of every 

single unauthorized border crossing would be unreasonable, for some people no amount of 

enforcement will ever be enough. One cannot help but note that this is not the standard that we 

apply in any other area of law enforcement. 
116 

4 

All I can say is that from the perspective of the Latino community, current levels of immigration 

enforcement are already intolerable, because virtually all of us are affected. 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 interwoven with those of citizens, particularly in 

considering the treatment of those who are deemed to be immigrants. That intertwined fate is 

evident in the Latino community, and it is the reason why immigration has become such a 

galvanizing issue with this electorate. Many U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents have 

been stopped, detained, arrested, and even mistakenly deported as a result of federal and state 

immigration law enforcement. 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. Indeed, our nation's very commitment to equal justice under the law is imperiled 

at current levels of immigration enforcement. 

Despite all this enforcement, despite almost half a million people being deported every year, 

despite several years of high unemployment and slow economic growth in sectors where 

immigrant labor had been plentiful, II million people arc not leaving. The notion that we would 

deport II million people is an ugly nightmare, and the notion that they will leave on their own is 

a policy fantasy. So with that reality in mind, what would we have our country do? 

Legalization and Roadmap to Citizenship 

As this Committee is aware, numerous independent commissions have called for an earned 

legalization program with a roadmap to citizenship.l It is easy to understand why. No healthy 

society can tolerate the existence of a subclass of people outside the scope and protection of the 

law. Those living in the shadows are easily exploited by employers, thus lowering the wages and 

labor standards for all workers and undercutting businesses that play by the rules. They are 

afraid to report crimes that they may experience or witness, undermining public safety. 

The continuation of a situation where we collectively nod and wink because our society benefits 

from their labor is unacceptable. When our laws don't reflect reality, reality will win every time. 

That is why if we are to restore the rule oflaw, the single most essential element of immigration 

reform is an earned legalization program with a clear, achievable roadmap to citizenship---not 

because enforcement is unimportant, but because enforcement is all we have done thus far, and 

restoring the rule oflaw requires both elements. Most undocumented immigrants are long-term 

U.S. residents; 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. Their lives are inextricably linked with ours. 

I Such commissions include the Independent Task Force on Immigration and America's Future, co-chaired by 

Spencer Abraham and Lee Hamilton, and the Council on Foreign Relations Independent Task Force, co-chaired by 

Jcb Bush and Thomas McLarty. 
117 

5 

In addition, numerous studies show that legalization and citizcnship would have positive benefits 

for the economy overall, and for all workers, not just for those legalized. 

The interests of our country arc best scrvcd 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 likc cvery other group of immigrants bcforc them. An immigration bill must not 

create a permanent subclass of workers who are expected to support the rest of us in our pursuit 

of the American Dream without having access to it themselves. The U.S. has becn successful as 

a nation of immigrants becausc wc allow and encourage those who come to our shores to fully 

participate in American lifc. By encouraging citizenship and civic participation, we strengthen 

immigrants' connection to the nation and strengthen our common social bonds. 

It is important to notc that thc American public puts a special premium on citizenship, because to 

the American people citizenship signifies fully embracing our country and accepting the contract 

that all of our ancestors at some point made: to bc fully Amcrican. Poll after poll has shown that 

a majority of Americans support an earned legalization with a roadmap to citizenship as an 

essential componcnt of immigration reform. A bipartisan poll released in January showed that 

80% of voters favor a full package of immigration reforms, including a roadmap to citizenship, 

followed by a Gallup poll showing that more than scven in tcn voters would support a roadmap 

to citizenship.2 The American people want to sec immigrants all in-not partially in, not in a 

special status, but in the samc boat as everyone else. 

I can tell you with absolute conviction that the Latino community, three-quarters of whom are 

United States citizens, will not look kindly at immigration legislation that condemns people to 

second-class status. The community desires real reform, with a clear, direct roadmap to 

citizenship. We understand that there will be questions about how long the process should take 

and what specific requirements need to be mct. Those are legitimate items for debate. 

But if the process is not real-if the requirements are designed to impede people from fulfilling 

them, or if so many barriers are put in the way that many participants can't overcome them, or 

the roadmap depends on markers that can be arbitrarily moved or delayed midstream-then the 

Latino community, and I believe most Americans, will not consider the program legitimate. 

Legal Immigration 

While the focus of this testimony is on legalization and a roadmap to citizenship as the 

centerpiece of immigration reform, there are obviously other provisions of immigration reform 

legislation that are important as well. Improving our legal immigration system is the surest way 

to preserve the rule of law once we have rcstored it. 

2 See the January 2013 Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies Poll at 

http://www.seiu.orglimmigrationilmmigration%20Toplines%20Public%20Release.pdfand the February 2013 

Gallup poll at htl" :/iwww.gallup.com/polliI60307!americans-widely-supPOli-immigration-reform-proposals.as!lx. 

For more polling, see htlp:l/americasvoiceonline.org/polls/poll-after-poll-american-public-wants-immigrationreform-with-citizenship. 
118 

6 

Family unity has always been the cornerstone of our immigration system. We must address the 

unnecessary separation of families who are kept apart by extraordinarily long wait times for 

certain family visas, including the families of binational and same-sex couples. Millions of close 

family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents are stuck waiting outside the U.S. for 

visas to become available; many wait for more than two decades. These close relatives are able 

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

Keeping families together and strong is a core principle; it promotes the economic stability of 

immigrants and their integration into our country, and we must continue our historic commitment 

to this idea. 

Immigration reform must also provide a way for immigrant workers to enter the U.S. through 

safc and legal channels in order to meet legitimate workforce needs across sectors of our 

economy. We are confident that immigration reform can establish a system that keeps the 

United States on the leading edge ofthe global economy and preserves thc values of family 

unity. We believc that a process which rcsponds to U.S. labor needs in a regulated, orderly 

fashion-while breaking precedent by providing for full labor rights and protections-is better 

equipped to break the cycle created by previous immigration reforms, which have tightened 

enforcemcnt but failed to establish effective legal avenues that respond to the needs of our 

economy and protect the Amcrican workforce. In short, NCLR believcs that such a program, 

properly constructed, with the opportunity for workers to eventually pursue legal permanent 

residency and then citizenship, is the best way to prevent the nation from having another debate 

in the future about legalizing yet another group ofworkcrs who live and work unlawfully in the 

U.S. Let's be c1ear-wc havc an undocumented population not because there was a legalization 

program in the' 80s, but bccause our legal immigration system is not keeping pace with our 

economy and our family values. 

Our legal immigration system must reflect our future and take into accotmt our country's and 

workers' needs, from the fields all the way to Silicon Valley. A balance is needed whcre 

employers arc able to recruit thc talent we necd today, and contribute to a new funding stream 

that ensures our ehildrcn have the skills they need for the high-paying jobs of tomorrow. 

Similarly, as important contributors to our economy, farmworkers, now and in the future, should 

be given true economic freedom to find agricultural jobs and improve their conditions; and an 

opportunity to earn immigration status and citizenship. And no matter what industry, future 

worker programs must be designed to prevent the systematic abuse we have too often seen. 

Just as we need to ensure that our future legal immigration system protects workers' rights, we 

should take this opportunity to strengthen labor law cnforcement and eliminate the economic 

incentives for unscrupulous employers to hire unauthorized workers. Although there is 

widespread agreement that employment is the principal magnet for unauthorized migration, it's 

curious that few are calling for the kind of buildup in our labor law enforcement infrastructure 

that we've seen in immigration law enforcement. 

Immigrant Integration 

Finally, we need to do more to achieve the successful integration of immigrants into American 

society. Americans hold this in high regard and want to see immigrants pledge allegiance to our 
119 

7 

country. And immigrants want to learn English and make greater contributions to the nation-I 

know it, because my organization and our hundreds of Affiliates help immigrants on this journey 

every day of the wcek. We need to strengthen that process, not undermine or ignore it. 

At the turn of the 20th century, the integration of immigrants was accelerated by both the public 

and private sectors. Government, by establishing universal public education and creating the 

adult education system, established strong policy structures that helped everyone, including 

immigrants, acquire the skills they needed to work in a rapidly industrializing economy. And the 

private sector, through the creation of settlement houses, civic organizations like the Knights of 

Columbus, and the seeding of what eventually became the modern public library system, stepped 

in to ease immigrants' transition to our society. We need a 21st-century strategy to promote the 

integration of immigrants into the economic and social mainstream, and we should start by 

building new mechanisms to achieve this through immigration reform. 

Conclusion 

All of us in this room know the magic of the American Dream. Virtually all of us are the 

descendants of people who came to this country with nothing but a burning desire to provide a 

better life for their children. We now have the power to make this dream a reality for millions of 

fellow human beings who are ready to eam that opportunity. Some of them picked, processed, 

prepared, or served the food we wiH eat tonight. Others are, at this moment, caring for our 

children, our parents, or our grandparents. And yes, many are ready to help support our 

technology, math, and engineering needs. 

They may be our neighbors, our feHow churchgoers, and, for many of us, our family members. 

Now is the time to help them become our fellow citizens, our fellow Americans, by passing 

comprehensive immigration reform. You have a great deal of power to help thcsc families. And 

in so doing, you will be helping our economy and our nation. 
120 

Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), 

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, 

Hearing On "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

February 13,2013 

President Obama should be commended for making Comprehensive Immigration Reform a top 

priority. He followed his speech in Nevada last month with strong comments in his State of the 

Union speech last night. I agree with his call for real reforms that will not only address our 

undocumented population, but will improve legal immigration by reducing the bureaucracy and 

delays that hinder our job creators and strain families. His recommendations for how to tackle 

one of our Nation's most pressing problems are thoughtful, realistic, and inclusive. I am 

particularly pleased to see that the President's proposal includes better access to visas for victims 

of domestie and sexual violence, improved laws for refugees and asylum seekers, and the 

assurance that every family receives equal treatment under the law. The President's leadership, 

the commitment of Majority Leader Reid, and the recent work of Senators are encouraging. 

I look forward to seeing principles turned into legislation. Most importantly, comprehensive 

immigration reform must include a fair and straightforward path to citizenship for those 

"dreamers" and families who have made the United States their home -- the estimated I I million 

undocumented people in the United States. I am troubled by any proposal that contains false 

promises in which citizenship is always over the next mountain. I want the pathway to be clear 

and the goal of citizenship attainable. It cannot be rigged by some illusive precondition. We 

should treat people fairly, and not have their fate determined by matters beyond their control, nor 

by the judgments of those who have been among the most resistant to enacting rational 

legislation. 

This President and Secretary Napolitano have done more in the administration's first four years 

to enforce immigration laws and strengthen border security than in the previous administration's 

entire eight years. A Democratically-controlled Senate passed a $600 million border security 

supplemental in 2010. Yet, despite all our efforts and all our progress, there are still some stuck 

in the past who are repeating the demands of "enforcement first." I fear they mean "enforcement 

only." To them I say that you have stalled immigration reform for too long. We have effectively 

done enforcement first and enforcement only. It is time to proceed to comprehensive action to 

finally bring families out of the shadows. 

The President is right: now is the time. And in my view it is time to pass a good bill, a fair bill, 

a comprehensive bill. I want this Committee to complete work on such a bill over the next few 

months. Too many have been waiting too long for fairness. 

At least since 2005, during the second term of the last Republican President, there has been 

broad acknowledgement that our immigration system is in dire need of improvement and reform. 

The Senate passed a bill in 2006, but it was thwarted by the Republican House. Again, in 2007, 

under the leadership of Senator Kennedy, we tried to work with President Bush to advance broad 

reforms. By then, almost all Senate Republicans had abandoned the effort and opted to become 

part of the enforcement-only crowd. I supported President Bush in his efforts then; I support 

President Obarna's efforts now. 
121 

I hope that we will honor those who contributed so much to building this country after coming 

from distant lands in search of freedom and opportunity. Few topics are more fundamental to 

who and what we are as a Nation than immigration. Immigration throughout our history has 

been an ongoing source of renewal of our spirit, our creativity and our economic strength. From 

the young students brought to this country by their parents seeking a better life, to the 

hardworking men and women who play vital roles supporting our farmers, innovating for our 

technology companies, or creating businesses of their own, our Nation continues to benefit from 

immigrants. We need to uphold the fundamental values offamily, hard work, and fairness. 

We all share in the benefits that immigration brings to our states, communities and businesses, 

and we will all share in an immigration system designed for the 21 st Century. Immigration 

helped build our Nation and enriches our society and economy. In Vermont, immigration has 

promoted cultural richness through refugee resettlement and student exchange, economic 

development through the EB-5 Regional Center program, and tourism and trade with our friends 

in Canada. Foreign agricultural workers support Vermont's farmers and growers, many of 

whom have become a part offarm families that are woven into the fabric of Vermont's 

agricultural community. 

The dysfunction in our system affects all of us. It affects the constituents of every Senator on 

this Committee, including Vermonters. The unfair and harmful policy that prohibits dairy 

farmers from obtaining agricultural workers through the H-2A visa program must be corrected. 

This policy drives workers underground and hurts farmers who are working hard to produce the 

food on which we all depend. It defies common sense and it is time we changed that. 

We must also do better by gay and lesbian Americans who face discrimination in our 

immigration law. Today, Senator Susan Collins and I will introduce the Uniting American 

Families Act. This legislation will end the needless discrimination so many Americans face in 

our immigration system. Too many citizens, including Vermonters who I have come to know 

personally and who want nothing more than to be with their loved ones, are denied this basic 

human right. This policy serves no legitimate purpose and it is wrong. 

Yet, I have heard some disparage fairness in our immigration law as a "social issue" that 

threatens their narrow view of what immigration reform means. Well, to me, the fundamental 

civil rights of American citizens are more than just a social issue. Any legislation that comes 

before the Senate Judiciary Committee should recognize the rights of all Americans, including 

gay and lesbian Americans who have just as much right to spousal immigration benefits as 

anyone else. 

We know that the President has a comprehensive proposal that he has deferred sending to us at 

the request of Senators working to develop their own legislation. Our window of opportunity 

will not stay open long. Ifwe are going to act on this issue, we must do so without delay. I hope 

today's hearing helps to emphasize the urgency of the situation. 

##### 

2 
122 

Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley 

Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

February 13,2013 

"Immigration refonn is a perilous minefield of emotionally charged issues. One cannot 

but consider any such discussion as being about one's own ancestors and in some cases, about 

oneself. Further, it brings into question one's image of America's past, an assessment of 

America's present and, most difficult of all, the direction of America's future. There is a general 

consensus that refonn is required, some clear restatement of where we stand. It is imperative 

that the debate concerning such needed refonn be conducted in an atmosphere of calm, 

compassionate, and careful deliberations recognizing the difficulty ofthe question and the 

earnestness of those who will speak to it." 

Those were the words of Chainnan Alan K. Simpson on May 5, 1981, just as the 

Congress was about to undertake an overhaul of our immigration system and put a legalization 

program in place. His words are valuable and relevant today. While there may be differences of 

opinion on how to enact real change and improve the system, my hope is that we can have a real 

discussion on the merits and a civil discourse that will bring about true refonn. At the end of the 

day, we must do what is right for our country and for American citizens, and we must provide a 

compassionate, fair and legal process for people who want to become a part of this great country. 

Since I was elected to the Senate in 1980, I have served on this committee. I have seen 

my share of immigration debates. I worked very hard from 1981 until 1986 to help fonn a 

consensus, and I voted for the 1986 amnesty because I was led to believe it was a one-time 

solution to our problem. I was wrong, and today we are forced to deal with the same problem 

and the same arguments and the same ideas on how to improve the situation. 

I applaud the movement by some members, including several on this committee, to work 

towards an agreement. I've read the bipartisan framework for immigration refonn that this 

group has written. The one line that struck me is the last sentence in the preamble. It states, 

"We will ensure that this is a successful permanent reform to our immigration system that 
123 

will not need to be revisited." That sentence is the most important part of that document, and 

we must not lose sight of that goal. 

We need to learn from our previous mistakes so that we truly don't have to revisit the 

problem. I hope this body is successful. To be successful, though, first and foremost, we need 

enforcement of the laws on the books. 

We need an administration that won't turn a blind eye to sanctuary cities, and will take 

stronger action against countries that refuse or delay in taking back their aliens. We need an 

administration that will perform the constitutional duty offaithfully executing the laws. 

We need a more secure border. We need an administration that will not fail to implement 

a biometric entry and exit system to track foreign nationals, which was originally required by 

Congress in 1996. We can't reward people who do not abide by the terms of their visas or 

overstay their welcome. We need double layer fencing and other technology along both the 

northern and. southern borders, and we need to provide stiff penalties on those who attempt to do 

harm to our agents who are on the front lines. 

We need E-Verify to be used by every business in America to ensure they have a legal 

workforce. We need to enhance this tool for employers. At the same time, we need to increase 

penalties on employers who refuse to use it or continue to hire people here illegally. We need to 

weaken the job magnet that draws people across the border. 

We need legal immigration reform where we give high skilled and low skilled workers an 

avenue to enter and remain here. We need to enhance the avenues already in place, and we need 

to create new avenues where there's a gap. We need to give employers the tools to have a legal 

workforce, and incentivize them to hire documented and willing workers through legal channels. 

We need to root out and prevent fraud and abuse in these visa programs so they are being used as 

intended and not to the detriment of American workers. 
124 

We need to find common ground on how to deal with 12 million people here illegally. I 

do not think an easy path to citizenship is acceptable to the American people. Nor do I think it 

will solve the problem so the issue doesn't have to be revisited. An overnight legalization 

program for millions of lawbreakers is a short term band-aid, not a long term solution. I learned 

that from our 1986 amnesty. 

The Chairman and I discussed this issue and we both agree that any immigration bill 

must go through regular order. A bill has a better chance of passage after going through a 

thoughtful debate and amendment process - in this committee and on the floor. I appreciate that 

the Chairman is holding the first hearing today, and I look forward to future hearings to dive 

more into the details of the issue. 

I also welcome Secretary Napolitano today, and hope we'll get a better understanding of 

the President's ideas. The President campaigned on immigration reform leading up to the 2008 

election, but refused to lead on the issue. While it appears to be a priority in his second term, the 

President's plan, announced on January 29, falls short of the reforms needed and does very little 

to ensure that enforcement will be taken seriously. The President's plan is silent on future guest 

workers when it's clear we need a program that works and fills the temporary need of employers 

who cannot find Americans able to do the jobs. 

I plan on asking Secretary Napolitano about this administration's promise to be the most 

transparent in history. I take my responsibility to do oversight seriously. So, it's extremely 

frustrating that the questions I have asked of this administration and this Secretary have gone 

unanswered. It's a slap in the face of the American people who also want - and deserveanswers. 

I plan to ask the Secretary about why agents in New Jersey were directed not to arrest a 

sexual predator whom they knew had overstayed his visa and had sexually abused a minor on 

several occasions. According to internal memos provided to the committee, Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement officials in Newark planned to arrest Luis Abrahan Sanchez Zavaleta on 

October 25, but delayed the arrest after learning it was likely to be a high profile case that would 
125 

garner significant media and congressional interest. Zavaleta had pled guilty as a juvenile in 

family court in New Jersey to sexual assault of an eight-year old boy, and police reports indicate 

that similar abuse had occurred on a total of eight occasions. All Republicans on the Judiciary 

Committee sent Secretary Napolitano a letter on December 19,2012 and a follow-up letter on 

January 7, 2013. 

On February 4, 2013, two officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement briefed 

Committee staff but the Department has refused to make available before this hearing the official 

with firsthand knowledge, raising questions about what the Department is trying to hide. Staff is 

also still waiting for the department to provide requested documents and a full response to our 

letters. 

But, here's what we know. Immigration and Customs Enforcement missed an 

opportunity to arrest Sanchez Zavaleta in 2010. Then his arrest was again delayed in 2012, from 

October 25 until December 6. Sanchez Zavaleta had a pending application for Deferred Action 

for Childhood Arrivals, the President's initiative to delay the deportations of up to 1.8 million 

people in the United States. This application was later denied on December 4. According to the 

ICE agents who briefed committee staff, Sanchez Zavaleta would have been eligible for DACA 

and his juvenile delinquent adjudication would not be a bar to eligibility. That is a shocking 

assertion: that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service would have the discretion to grant a 

child rapist's application to stay in the country. It is not clear why his DACA application was 

denied, although there's no doubt that it should have been. The Department has refused to 

provide a copy of that application or any documents related to it since we began asking qucstions 

nearly two months ago. 

Today, Sanchez Zavaleta is free in the United States. After having served a few days in 

detention, he was released on bond and is being monitored by an ankle bracelet. It is unknown if 

Sanchez Zavaleta continues to work with youth as he did prior to being apprehended. 

The Secretary must answer for the delay in arresting this sexual predator, and for 

allowing him to be on the streets today. 
126 

I also plan to ask Secretary Napolitano about her lack of cooperation and transparency 

with regard to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The Secretary, at the 

President's request, laid out a plan to provide en masse deferred action to certain people in the 

United States. Following that announcement, I sent several letters to the administration about 

how the program would be implemented. Our first letter to the President went unanswered. 

Then Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith, and I posed several 

questions, including: What steps would be taken to ensure that fraudulent documents are not 

submitted in support of deferred action applications? In what circumstances will an individual 

who is denied deferred action be placed in removal proceedings? What sort of confidentiality 

protections will the administration give to applicants? What type of fraud detection mechanisms 

will be used? How will background checks be conducted and which specific databases will be 

used in this process? What information is provided to the intelligence community about 

applicants? Are in-person interviews going to be required, as they are done for other visa 

applicants? How will denials be processed, and why should adjudicators seek the permission of 

headquarters only when they deny? 

We asked the Secretary for a complete set of data, including: how many people apply, are 

approved and denied; how many applications have fraud indicators or are denied on the basis of 

fraud; how many applications are approved or denied in spite of or because of one's criminal 

history; how many DACA recipients who applied and received advanced parole; how many 

DACA applicants requested, received or denied prosecutorial discretion; how many applications 

have been received for individuals in removal proceedings; and how many persons who were 

denied DACA have been put in removal proceedings. 

At least five of our letters on DACA alone were ignored by the Secretary. 

The Secretary has also failed to respond to me and the former Chairman of the House 

Judiciary about countries that refuse or delay in taking back their aliens. In a letter dated June 1, 

Chairman Smith and I asked the Secretary about aliens who are released in the United States due 
127 

to the Zadvydas v. Davis decision that prohibits the government from detaining a foreign national 

with removal orders for longer than 180 days. We asked if she would support a legislative fix to 

authorize the Department to detain aliens beyond six months. We asked if the Secretary has or 

would confer with the Secretary of State about using existing authority to discontinue granting 

visas to nationals of countries that deny or delay in accepting their aliens. Our letter on this very 

serious issue went ignored. 

Finally, we have yet to receive responses posed by members of this committee after our 

last hearing with Secretary Napolitano. She appeared before us on April 25, 2012. As 

customary, the Secretary is asked to respond to questions we pose in writing. She has ignored 

them. 

We are on the cusp of undertaking a massive reform of our immigration system. Yet, 

getting answers to the most basic questions is impossible. This administration has refused to be 

held accountable. I fear what will become of the President's promise of transparency if and 

when we do pass a bill. Enacting a bill is one part ofthe process; implementing a law we pass is 

another. If we don't have faith in this administration now, how can we trust in the future? 

I look forward to hearing from the Secretary and our other esteemed witnesses. 
128 

Senator Hirano Opening Statement 

Hearing before the 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

On 

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

Wednesday, February 13,2013 

Hart Senate Office Building, Room 216 

9:30AM 

Thank you Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley for holding this important 

hearing on comprehensive immigration reform, an issue about which I care deeply. 

Immigration reform should be rooted in a set of guiding principles to ensure that our 

immigration system addresses the critical needs of our economy, while maintaining the nearly 

50-year tradition of bringing families together. 

There is a huge backlog in our legal immigration system. These backlogs have prevented 

Filipino Veterans of World War II, men who fought for our country, from reuniting with their 

children for decades. 

We now consider how to address the numerous problems in a large and complicated 

system. To bring the millions of undocumented out of the shadows so that they can contribute to 

our society fully. To reduce and eliminate the backlogs in family-based immigration. And to 

reunite the Filipino veterans of World War II with their children. 

I know many of my colleagues have highlighted the importance of providing green cards 

to STEM graduates of U.S. universities. I agree that we should not educate foreign students and 

then send them away to work for foreign competitors of American companies. It only makes 

sense to keep that talent here. However, we should not shift the purpose of immigration to the 

United States away from a family focus towards an employment focus. In advocating for more 

employment-based immigration we should not get tunnel vision and forget the human element of 

immigration. We should be looking to expand the opportunities for families to be reunited and 

kept together - and this should include LGBT families. 

Page I of2 
129 

The needs of employers are important in this debate. But I believe that family-based 

immigration is essential to ensuring the continued vitality ofthe American economy. The 

success of immigrants in this country is often the success of immigrants with their families. 

Families provide American workers with a support network and social safety net. 

I am also concerned about how women and children are treated, both in our current 

immigration system and under any reforms we put in place. Female immigrants and 

unaccompanied minors face unique circumstances that are often lost in this debate that focuses 

on enforcement and the job market. For example, a woman who stays at home as a domestic 

worker could fall through the cracks and be denied legal status if she suffers the loss of her 

husband or becomes a victim of domestic abuse. 

Our immigration policies should allow for discretion in dealing with vulnerable 

populations. This should include how we treat families and children in our enforcement and 

detention system. But it should also include how we design an earned legalization program to be 

inclusive of women and children under immigration reform. 

Page 2 of2 
130 

Senator Ted Cruz 

Statement for the Record - "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

February 13,2013 

For generations, individuals from around the world have come to America in 

pursuit of a more prosperous life. As a border-state senator and son of an 

immigrant, I have a deep and personal appreciation for the vast benefits of legal 

immigration and the dangers ofa porous border. 

Few doubt that our current immigration policies are not working. And 

despite repeated promises and commitments, our nation's border is still not secure. 

We can and should improve the process by which people can come legally to 

America. We should minimize the burdens of dealing with the immigration 

bureaucracy, and we should continue to call out to the world, "give me your tired, 

your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." 

At the same time, Washington must make good on its decades-old promise 

to secure our borders once and for all. 

Modernizing legal immigration and securing our borders will not only 

benefit our economy, these actions respect the sacrifice of past immigrants who 

came to America lawfully and will ensure that we remain a beacon of hope and 

opportunity to the world. 
131 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Senator Grassley's Questions for Steve Case 

I. H·IB visas: Recently, we learned that more than 40,000 of the available 85,000 

H· I B visas for fiscal year 2012 went to the top 10 users of the program. The top 

user petitioned for 9,281 foreign workers. Below is the Fiscal Year 2012 data for 

H·IB employers: 

FY12 PERM 

FY 12 H·1B Applications 

Initial forH·1B Immigration Significant 

RANK Employer Petitions Workers Yield Offshoring 

1 Cognizant 9281 669 7% X 

Tata 7469 0% 

Infosys 5600 21 0% 

Wipro 4304 30 1% 

Accenture 4037 8 0% 

HCLAmerica 2070 44 2% 

Tech Mahindra SATYAM 1963 20 1% 

IBM & IBM India 1846 96 5% 

Larsen & Toubro 1932 15 1% 

10 Deloitte 1668 260 16% 

11 Microsoft 1497 1629 109% 

12 Patni 1260 30 2% 

13 Syntel 1161 3 0% 

14 Intel 812 72 9% 

15 Amazon.Com 773 254 33% 

16 Qualcomm 729 506 69% 

17 Google 646 256 40% 

18 PricewaterhouseCoopers 599 159 27% 

19 Synechron 572 6 1% 

20 Mphasis 569 16 3% 

• Aside from increasing annual caps, what more can we do to ensure that companies get the highly 

skilled workers they need? 

• Do you think we should revamp the way these visas are doled out, and prioritize them based on 

skills, whether the applicants were educated here, or whether the company is based in the United 

States? 

• Under current law, only "H·IB dependent employers" have to prove that they have recruited 

American workers and haven't displaced other workers before acquiring an H· IB visa holder. A 

bill sponsored by Senator Durbin and myself would apply protections for visa holders as well as 

American workers. Our bill would ensure that all employers that use the H· I B visa program attest 

that they have tried to find an American who can do the job. Do you believe that companies should 

try to find qualified Americans before they petition for a foreign worker? If not, why not? 
132 

2. H-IB Visas - Protections for American Workers: The Durbin-Grassley H-IB reform bill (s. 

887 in the llO'h Congress) included several provisions aimed at better protecting American 

workers who may be passed over for high-skilled, high-paying jobs. 

o The bill would require that before an employer may submit an H-IB application, the 

employer must first advertise the job opening for 30 days on a Department of Labor 

(DOL) website. DOL would also be required to post summaries of all H-IB applications 

on its website. Do you support such an effort? 

o The bill would require that H-IB employers may not advertise ajob as available only for 

H-IB visa holders or recruit only H-IB visa holders for ajob. Do you support this 

provision? 

o The bill would prohibit employers from hiring H-l B employees who are then outsourced 

to other companies. This is a method that some companies use to evade restrictions on 

hiring H-l Bs. Do you support this effort? 

o The bill would prohibit companies from hiring H-IB employees if they employ more 

than 50 people and more than 50% of their employees are H-IB visa holders. Do you 

support this provision? 

o The bill would require H -IB and L-l employers to pay employees the prevailing wage to 

ensure employers are not undercutting American workers by paying substandard wages 

to foreign workers. Do you support this effort? 
133 

Senator Grasslcy's Questions for Chris O'ane, ICE Union 

1. Resources Needed By ICE: Some outside groups have suggested that more than enough 

resources are devoted to immigration enforcement. What specific and additional 

resources does ICE and its agents necd to better enforce our immigration laws? 

2. Morale: You mentioned that morale at Immigration and Customs Enforcement is low 

and has been falling in recent years. You also stated that agents are regularly prohibited 

from enforcing the law. Do you have any examples in which ICE agents have been 

prevented from doing their jobs and from enforcing the law? 

3. Cooperation Between Federal & Local Law Enforcement: I have been vocal about 

the lack of attention on states and localities that turn a blind eye to people here illegally. 

There are sanctuary cities that refuse to help the federal government. But, on the other 

hand, there are local jurisdictions that are eager about helping to protect the homeland 

and enforcing our immigration laws. What suggestions do you have to improve the level 

of cooperation between local and federal officers so that we can work better together to 

enforce our immigration laws? 

Page 1 of 1 
134 

for Janet 

I. Employer Sanctions: In 1989, Cecelia Munoz - then a Senior Vice President with La 

Raza, today, Director of President Obama's Domestic Policy Council- wrote a report for 

your organization entitled "Unfinished Business: The Immigration Reform and Control 

Act of 1986." The report stated that Congress had a "moral obligation to repeal 

employer sanctions" put in place by the 1986 law, claiming that they infringed on 

citizens' civil rights. Does your organization stand by that report and its 

recommendations? Does your organization support sanctions for employers who hire 

those unauthorized to work in the United States? Would La Raza oppose a 

comprehensive immigration reform proposal that includes mandatory E-VerifY? 

2. Temporary Worker Program: On January 29, President Obama offered an outline of a 

plan for comprehensive immigration reform. While he addresses legal immigration by 

talking about family reunification, increasing numbers, and enhancing tourism, he does 

not mention the need for a future guest worker program to help low-skilled immigrants. 

In your testimony, you stated that "we must provide a way for immigrant workers to enter 

the U.S. through safe and legal channels in order to meet legitimate workforce needs 

across sectors of our economy." What's your reaction to the fact that the President has 

ignored the need for a guest worker program, particularly for low-skilled and year round 

employment? 

3. Limitations on Immigration Levels: Do you think there should be limits on 

immigration levels? If not, why not? If so, what limits should be in place and how do we 

enforce those limits? 

4. Legalization Program Details: Should Congress consider a bill to legalize people 

unlawfully in the country, who should be eligible for the program? Please answer the 

following questions related this issue. 

• Should people here illegally who are in removal proceedings be allowed to benefit 

from a legalization program? 

• Should people that have ignored the government's orders to leave the United States 

after a thorough legal proceeding-be allowed to benefit from a legalization 

program? 

• Should an alien convicted of a felony criminal offense or multiple misdemeanors be 

allowed to benefit from a legalization program? 

• Should gang members be allowed to benefit from a legalization program? 

• If an alien provides information in an application that is law enforcement sensitive or 

criminal in nature, should that information be used by our government and not be 

protected under confidentiality provisions? 

• Should people here illegally be given probationary status, or legal status, without a 

background check done first? 

• Should aliens (rather than taxpayers) who benefit from a legalization program pay for 

all costs associated with it? 

1 
135 

• Should there be a time limit imposed for federal agents with regard to background 

checks on aliens who apply for legalization? 

• Should people that apply for legalization be required to submit to an in-person 

interview with adjudicators? 

• Should people that have been denied legalization be placed in immigration 

proceedings and removed? 

• If the Secretary of Homeland Security must revoke a visa for someone on U.S. soil, 

should that decision be reviewable in the U.S. courts? 

2 
136 

Questions for Secretary .Janet Napolitano 

Senate Judicial"\' Committee hearing on Febr-uary 13.2013 

1. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 

1. DACA Authority: Did your Department obtain a legal opinion from the Office of Legal 

Counselor anyone else in the administration about your legal authority to implement the 

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals? Please provide copies of any documentation, 

including any and all legal opinions, memoranda, and emails, that discusses any authority 

you have or do not have to undertake the program. 

2. DACA processing: Are officers being instructed to approve or pressured to "get to a 

yes" on DACA applications? Is there guidance to officers that Requests for Evidence 

(RFEs) not be issued, or to be issued only in extremely rare circumstances? 

3. Background Checks on DACA Applicants: 

a. Describe what databases are queried as part of the applicant's background check 

and what government agency maintains the database. Does the database have 

audit qualities to determine date, location, and name of official performing the 

query? 

b. Describe what type of queries are being conducted and the information that is 

provided as a result of the search (i.e. NCIC queries provide a description of the 

applicant's criminal history). 

c. Does USCIS receive assistance from any other government agencies when 

conducting background checks on applicants? If so, what is the extent of this 

assistance? 

d. Is the Intelligence Community provided the names of the applicant's to cross 

check with their databases? If not, why not? 

e. At what stage of the background check is the Fraud Detection and National 

Security (FDNS) unit at USCIS consulted? 

f. If an applicant does not provide the designated background documents are they 

allowed to submit additional documents in their place? 

g. Are the applicants allowed to present a character reference to verify their 

identity? If so, are these references verified? 

h. Is FDNS reviewing approved applications for quality assurance? If not, why not? 

i. is the Department requiring in-person interviews? If so, under what 

circumstances? If not, why not? 

j. Does USCIS have a sufficient number of employees to process the background 

checks for the large volume of applicants? Is USCIS currently hiring employees 

or have any vacancies for these positions? If so, how many? 
137 

4. DACA Fraud and Abuse: 

a. What steps has the administration taken to review and ensure that fraudulent 

documents are not submitted in support of applications for deferred action? 

b. What types of fraud detection mechanisms have been used? Which have been 

successful? Which have not heen so successful? 

c. How have the veracity of affidavits been assessed? 

d. In what circumstances does an individual receive a notice of intent to deny and 

a denial of deferred action? 

e. In what circumstance is an individual who is denied deferred action placed in 

removal proceedings? 

f. Please explain the applicable confidentially provisions. At what point in the 

process does confidentially attach? Is confidentiality protected no matter the 

case, or is previous fraud, criminal behavior or national security concerns 

being raised with other law enforcement? 

g. What sort of punishment will be sought for aliens who commit fraud or 

material misrepresentation? Please elahorate if any punishments have been 

imposed. 

5. DACA Data: Please provide the following detailed data, as requested by Chairman Smith 

and myself on September 20,2012: 

a. The number of submitted Form 1-821 Ds (applications for deferred action) 

i. received 

ii. approved 

iii. denied 

iv. approved despite a criminal conviction 

v. approved despite a pending criminal charge 

vi. approved despite ajuvenile criminal conviction 

vii. denied for suspicion of fraud or on the basis offraud. Ofthose, how many 

have been referred for prosecution or removal, and how many have been 

prosecuted or removed for such cause? 

viii. containing fraud indicators 

b. The number of submitted Form 1-765s (applications for work permits) submitted 

along with an 1-821 D 

i. received 

ii. approved 

iii. denied 

iv. granted a fee waiver. 

c. The number of individuals granted deferred action under the DACA policy who 
138 

i. have applied for advanced parole 

ii. have been granted advance parole 

iii. have been granted advanced parole, traveled, and been paroled back into the 

United States and subsequently been granted lawful permanent residency 

iv. have been granted lawful permanent residency under any other means. 

d. The number of parents of applicants for DACA who have 

i. requested prosecutorial discretion 

ii. received prosecutorial discretion 

iii. been denied prosecutorial discretion. 

e. The number of applications that have been received for individuals in removal 

proceedings, and the number of deferred action or work permit applications that have 

been approved for individuals in removal proceedings. 

f. The number ofDACA applicants who have been denied deferred action who have 

been 

i. placed in removal proceedings 

ii. denied due to ineligibility 

iii. denied due to fraud or other violation of the immigration law 

iv. denied due to criminal history 

v. deported from the United States. 

6. Denials: How many DACA applications have been denied? What is the process for an 

adjudicator to deny an application? For what reasons have DACA applications been 

denied? Please break down the number of applications denied and from which service 

center they originate. 

7. USCIS financial health due to DACA: Is there any concern about the fiscal health of the 

agency in charge of DACA the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service? Is the 

current amount being charged for DACA covering all related costs, including processing, 

background checks, and fraud prevention efforts? Is there any discussions taking place 

about increasing the application costs for DACA? 

2. Luis Abrahan Sanchez Zavaleta 

1. Regarding the Luis Abrahan Sanchez Zavaleta case, you said at the hearing, "I did not learn 

about it until January [2013] and nor did my aides." However, all Republican members ofthe 

Senate Judiciary Committee sent you a letter on December 19, 2012, regarding the matter. 

a. Would you like to correct the record with the Committee regarding when you first 

learned of the Sanchez Zavaleta case, or do you stand by your statement that you did not 

learn ofthe case until January 2013? 

b. When was the first time the case was raised with anyone else at DHS headquarters? 

What was the context? What action was taken in response? 
139 

2. On the application for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Form 1-8210, question 

1 of Part 3 asks, "Have you ever been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony or 

misdemeanor in the United States?" Question S.d of Part 3 asks if the respondent has ever had 

"any kind of sexual contact or relations with any person who was being forced or threatened." 

Sanchez Zavaleta answered no to both questions, despite having been arrested for aggravated 

sexual assault on October 11,2009. 

However, Elliot Williams, ICE Assistant Director for the Office of Congressional Relations, 

informed Senate Judiciary Committee staff in a February 4,2013, briefing that lying on a 

DACA application was not considered a crime. 

h. Why is it not a crime to lie on a DACA application? 

i. When false information is provided on a DACA application, how should USCIS deal 

with such a situation? 

j. If there are no consequences for lying on a DACA application, please explain how 

this is not an invitation to lie to the federal government on a DACA application. 

3. ICE and Border Patrol Union Concerns 

• When was the last time you met with the head of each union to discuss concerns by 

agents? 

• How do you respond to the ICE union's complaint that they are handicapped from 

fulfilling their missions? 

• Do you have plans to meet with either union in the near future? 

4. Future Guest Workers 

• Why is the President's plan silent on the need for future guest workers, particularly 

low-skilled workers? 

• Do you believe that a new legal avenue for low-skilled workers is needed in order to 

stem the flow of illegal immigration? 

5. Legalization Program Details 

• Should people here illegally who are in removal proceedings be allowed to benefit 

from a legalization program? 

• Should people that have ignored the government's orders to leave the United States 

after a thorough legal proceeding-be allowed to benefit from a legalization 

program? 

• Should an alien convicted of a felony criminal offense or multiple misdemeanors be 

allowed to benefit from a legalization program? 

• Should gang members be allowed to benefit from a legalization program? 
140 

• If an alien provides information in an application that is law enforcement sensitive or 

criminal in nature, should that information be used by our government and not be 

protected under confidentiality provisions? 

• Should people here illegally be given probationary status, or legal status, without a 

background check done first? 

• Should aliens (rather than taxpayers) who benefit from a legalization program pay for 

all costs associated with it? 

• Should there be a time limit imposed for federal agents with regard to background 

checks on aliens who apply for legalization? 

• Should people that apply for legalization be required to submit to an in-person 

interview with adjudicators? 

• Should people that have been denied legalization be placed in immigration 

proceedings and removed? 

• If the Secretary of Homeland Security must revoke a visa for someone on U.S. soil, 

should that decision be reviewable in the U.S. courts? 

6. Entry/Exit System: Until immigration reform is passed by Congress, what will your 

Department be doing to comply with the 1996 law that requires the Executive Branch 

to implement a biometric entry and exit system? 

7. Cook County 

There has been a lot of discussion about the ordinance in place in Cook County, Illinois. 

Despite the strong stance taken by you and Director Morton, nothing has changed and the 

safety of the public is still at risk. Please provide an update on what options are being 

discussed on how to deal with the ordinance and its impediment on ICE's mission. Also, 

please outline what discussions have taken place with the Department of Justice about 

withholding SCAAP funds for places like Cook County. 

8. Detention Standards 

Last February, ICE announced changes to its detention standards, providing more 

accommodations and benefits to illegal aliens. The manual says that trans gender 

detainees who were already receiving hormone therapy when taken into ICE custody 

shall have continued access. Does that mean taxpayers will be paying for these 

therapies, or will the costs of the therapy be the burden of the detainee? To date, have 

taxpayers paid for these therapies? If so, what has been the cost to taxpayers? 

9. Visa Security Program 

What is the status of the Visa Security Program, specifically how many units are 

deployed and where are they deployed? Do you believe that the Visa Security Program 

should be expanded to all 57 visa-issuing posts determined to be high risk by DHS and 

the Department of State? If so, how much would it cost to expand the VSP to all highrisk posts? Why haven't you asked Congress for that amount as part of your proposed 

budget? 
141 

Senator Grassley"s Question for Jessica Vaughan, CIS 

1. Entry-Exit System: In 1996, Congress required the creation of an automated entry/exit 

system to record the entries and departures of every alien. The law was intended to track 

visa overstays. However, administration after administration has failed to implement the 

"exit" portion, citing costs and burden to airlines and government agencies. The outline 

of a plan circulated by the eight senators includes an entry/exit system, but only at air and 

sea ports. It doesn't include land points of entry. Do you believe that any effective 

entry-exit system must cover land points of entry? 

2. Temporary Worker Program: On January 29, President Obama offered an outline of a 

plan for comprehensive immigration reform. It has four broad parts, including a pathway 

to citizenship for illegal immigrants. And, while he addresses legal immigration by 

talking about family reunification, increasing numbers, and enhancing tourism, he does 

not mention the need for a future guest worker program to help low-skilled irnmigrants. 

What's your reaction to the President's proposed plan, particularly on this point? 

3. E-Verify: On January 31 S\ I introduced the Accountability Through Electronic 

Verification Act, a bill that would make E-Verify a staple in every workplace. When we 

passed the 1986 amnesty, we made it illegal for an employer to knowingly hire someone 

here unlawfully. Do you believe that the E-Verify program should be mandatory? Do 

you think that increasing penalties on employers will help deter them from hiring people 

here illegally? 

4. Biometric Social Security Cards: Some members of Congress have proposed the creation 

of a new biometric Social Security card for all Americans. Do you have any thoughts 

about such proposals? 

5. Spending on Enforcement Efforts: In January, the Migration Policy Institute released a 

report entitled Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a Formidable 

Machinery. The report aims to convince the public that the government has succeeded in 

immigration enforcement and suggests that spending cuts might be in order. What's your 

reaction to the report released by the Migration Policy Institute? 

6. Record Deportation Statistics: Administration officials have pointed to what they claim 

is a record number of removals and returns-- 409,000 in 2012, out of more than 12 

million people here illegally. What's your response to the administration's claims that its 

enforcement numbers and efforts are record breaking? 

7. 
142 

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

February 13,2013 

Questions for Steve Case, Chairman and CEO, Revolution from Senator Lee 

STEM Visas 

Your experiences in the tech industry are consistent with my conviction that educating, training, 

and retaining the best and brightest, whether from the U.S. or abroad, is essential to safeguarding 

the vibrancy of our economy and ensuring continued innovation. I have been a fierce advocate 

for the removal of the per-country caps for employer-sponsored visas and have consistently 

called for improvements to our visa system. My colleagues, Senator Hatch and Senator 

Klobuchar, have introduced S. 169, the I-Squared Act, which takes important steps toward 

realizing the potential that STEM jobs present. This bill, of which I am a cosponsor, takes a 

market-based, commonsense approach to high-skilled immigration in a manner designed to meet 

the needs of U.S. employers and promote economic growth. 

The critics of STEM legislation are few but vocal. Some of their concerns center on claims that 

U.S. workers can adequately fill the STEM positions that are vacant. 

• In your opinion, would bringing in foreign STEM workers oversaturate the job market? 

In your written statement, you stated that "every 100 additional foreign-born workers in STEM 

fields created 262 additional employment positions for native U.S. workers." 

• Why do new foreign workers correlate with such growth in STEM industries? 

In your statement you argued that we must both "draw the best talent from across the globe and 

develop more talent in science, math, technology, and engineering here at home." 

• Why do you think our schools have not produced more STEM workers? 

• What could our state and local governments do to encourage young people to consider 

entering STEM programs? 
143 

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

February 13,2013 

Questions for Chris Crane, President, National Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Council 118 ofthe American Federation of Government Employees from Senator Lee 

Prosecutorial Discretion 

In your written statement, you recounted several stories that I found troubling regarding the 

disciplinary action some ICE agents have endured for attempting to perform the duties Congress 

has requested. In particular, I was disturbed by the experience you described ofthe three agents 

in Salt Lake City who were investigated for arresting a man who openly declared his illegal 

status in court. 

• Has it been your experience that the prosecutorial discretion laid out in the Morton 

memoranda has been implemented on a case-by-case basis, or as a categorical prohibition 

of enforcement? 

• How do the agents you interact with regard the restraints they face while attempting to do 

their jobs? 
144 

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

February 13,2013 

Questions for Secretary Napolitano from Senator Lee 

Morton Memoranda 

In 2011, ICE Director John Morton issued two memoranda that outlined priorities for 

prosecutorial discretion. 1 was troubled by the issuance of those memoranda and I remain 

troubled by their implementation. 

Chris Crane, a ",1.tness on the second panel here today, submitted written testimony for today's 

hearing detailing disturbing accounts of the implementation of this prosecutorial discretion 

directive. Specifically, he recounts the experience of three ICE agents in Salt Lake City, Utah, 

who arrested an individual after he admitted in open court that he was in the country illegally. 

The ICE Field Office Director, however, ordered that all the charges be dropped and that the ICE 

agents be placed under investigation for making the arrest. I understand that this is just one of 

many instances in which agents' ability to arrest offenders has been restricted. 

• Are you concerned that at some point a specific set of so-called "priorities," when 

universally enforced in rigid fashion, will essentially amount to the enactment of 

legislation without bicameralism and presentment? 

Workplace enforcement 

In April 2009, ICE introduced a revised worksite enforcement strategy that prioritizes 

prosecutions against employers who hire unauthorized workers over the prosecution of 

unauthorized workers. 

• Has this shift in priorities measurably reduced the employment of illegal aliens? 

In what ways might a bill that requires the use of E-Verify increase ICE's ability to 

enforce employment laws in the workplace? 

Border Control 

In your written statement, you ascribe the four-year decrease in attempts to cross the Southwest 

border illegally, as measured by Border Patrol apprehensions, to more effective border security. 

• Are you able to account for the effects of a sluggish economy on the decrease in border 

crossings over the last four years? 
145 

Last year, you implemented a new index to track the security of the border -- one that, 

remarkably, does not seek to track the number of illegal aliens who succeed in crossing the 

border. 

• How can improvements in border security be measured accurately if you have changed 

the metrics by which you assess security? 

Visa Exit System 

At a full Committee hearing last April, you testified that a biometric visa exit system could be 

deployed within 4 years. You then submitted your plan to Congress in May. In your written 

statement for today's hearing, you suggested that the current phase, which involves automating 

connections between DHS data sources, would be complete sometime this year. 

• When do you expect the biometric exit system to be fully implemented? 

I believe that increased international tourism could do much more good for our economy than 

our current system allows. America is still viewed as the top destination for many foreigners 

who would come and spend a substantial amount of money here. Travel is one of the easiest 

ways to spur economic growth in our cities, in our national parks, and at our tourist attractions. 

With a reliable exit system in place, we could do more, legislatively, to encourage international 

tourism. 

• What effect do you predict a biometric exit system will have on the visa overstay rate? 
146 

STEVE CASE 

CHAIRMAN AND CEO, REVOLUTION LLC 

CO-FOUNDER, AMERICA ONLINE 

BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HEARING ON "COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM" 

216 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING 

FEBRUARY 13,2013 

OUESTIONS FROM SENATOR LEE: 

In your opinion, would bringing in foreign STEM workers oversaturate the job market? 

To the contrary, attracting foreign STEM workers would grow jobs here in the United States, 

creating more economic opportunity for American workers. Forty percent of Fortune 500 

companies were started by first or second generation immigrants, employing ten million people 

worldwide. In some years, half of Silicon Valley startups had an immigrant founder. Simply-put, 

high-skilled immigrants are job creators, not job takers. They contribute creativity, innovation, 

and diversity to our entrepreneurial economy. I understand the sensitivities of recruiting and 

retaining talented labor, but taken together these men and women will add jobs, not take away 

jobs, here in the United States. 

In your written statement, you stated that "every 100 additional foreign-born workers in 

STEM fields created 262 additional employment positions for native U.S. workers." Why 

do new foreign workers correlate with such growth in STEM industries? 

My point here is not that foreign born workers in STEM fields generate more domestic jobs that 

U.S. born workers in those fields, but rather, that both foreign-born and U.S.-born workers in 

STEM fields generate substantial U.S. employment, so it is in our interest to have more of 

both. Simply put, we need more STEM workers - wherever they are born - to create jobs for 

Americans. We should try to prepare as many Americans as possible for these STEM 

positions. But because we have a severe shortfall, and because we always want to be the magnet 

of the world's best talent, we should do more to get foreign-born STEM professionals to work 

here in America. 
147 

In your statement you argued that we must both "draw the best talent from across the 

globe and develop more talent in science, math, technology, and engineering here at home." 

Why do you think our schools have not produced more STEM workers? 

We are undennining our nation's economic competitiveness when we fail to develop more talent 

in science, technology, engineering, and math here at home. We are not producing STEM 

graduates and workers at the rates we need because we are not training teachers as well as we 

can and we are not providing our kids with the tools they need to succeed in these subjects. Our 

competitors are making this a priority around the world, and we must do the same here at home. 

Just as we recruit and retain talented innovators from abroad, so too must we better equip our 

children here in the United States. With more focus and funding on producing more STEM 

workers here in the United States at the local, state, and federal level, I am confident we can up 

our game and improve our entrepreneurial economy. 

What could our state and local governments do to encourage young people to consider 

entering STEM programs? 

State and local government can encourage more young people to enter STEM programs in a 

number of ways. First, more targeted funding will enable the best teachers of science, 

technology, engineering, and math to continue teaching in primary and secondary education. 

Second, more focus at the university level, including through grants and scholarships, on keeping 

STEM majors in those majors will pay dividends in the long run. Third, more celebration ofthe 

important role innovative STEM fields play in driving our economy and changing the world will 

encourage more students from Kindergarten through senior year of college to pursue, and stick 

with, STEM subjects throughout their academic and professional careers. 

OUESTIONS FROM SEN GRASSLEY: 

Aside from increasing annual caps, what more can we do to ensure that companies get the 

highly skilled workers they need? 

I see the solution to this challenge in the context of a continuum: some talented innovators begin 

here as graduate students dreaming of starting U.S. companies, some arrive as temporary 

workers at our big corporations and learn about a market inefficiency that they believe they can 

address by starting a business and hiring American workers, others are partners of U.S. finns 

abroad where they learn about American markets and understand what it takes to contribute here. 

As long as we make it easier to recruit and retain these innovators along this continuum, we will 

bolster our economic competitiveness by ensuring they create jobs here in the United States, not 

in competitor nations competing with our workers. Specifically, bipartisan legislation proposed 

in recent years addresses the talent issue effectively: from the Startup Act, to the I-Squared Act, 

to the SMART Jobs Act, to the Startup Visa Act, to a few other bills - we have smart legislation 

teed up. 
148 

Do you think we should revamp the way these visas are doled out, and prioritize them 

based on skills, whether the applicants were educated here, or whether the company is 

based in the United States? 

I defer to members of congress on the particulars of the various higb-skilled reform proposals, 

but I do believe we should make it easier to recruit and retain talented innovators who are 

educated here in the United States, work for American companies as temporary employees here 

in the country, or serve as partners of our businesses abroad. As long as we make it easier and 

attractive for the best and the brightest to start or contribute to businesses here, we will 

strengthen our economic competitiveness. As I alluded to in my written statement, forty percent 

of Fortune 500 companies were started by first or second generation immigrants, employing ten 

million people worldwide, and in some years, half of Silicon Valley startups had an immigrant 

founder. The choices we make today will determine where the next wave of great companies 

start-up tomorrow. 

Under current law, only "H-IB dependent employers" have to prove that they have 

recruited American workers and haven't displaced other workers before acquiring an HIB visa holder. A bill sponsored by Senator Durbin and myself would apply protections for 

visa holders as well as American workers. Our bill would ensure that all employers that 

use the H-IB visa program attest that they have tried to find an American who can do the 

job. Do you believe that companies should try to find qualified Americans before they 

petition for a foreign worker? If not, why not? 

Yes, I believe U.S. companies should make a serious effort to recruit qualified American 

workers to fill open positions. Indeed, as a country, we need to do a better job equipping teachers 

with the tools they need to educate American students in STEM fields. Just as we recruit global 

talent, so too should we improve our education system here at home. The mistake that some 

opponents of high-skilled immigration reform often make is believing we have to choose 

between fixing our education system so that more students go on to STEM careers, or recruiting 

innovators from abroad. We can, and must, do both: attract the top talent and develop more talent 

here at home. 

H-IB Visas - Protections for American Workers: The Durbin-Grassley H-IB reform bill 

(s. 887 in the 110th Congress) included several provisions aimed at better protecting 

American workers who may be passed over for high-skilled, high-paying jobs. The bill 

would require that before an employer may submit an H-IB application, the employer 

must first advertise the job opening for 30 days on a Department of Labor (DOL) 

website. DOL would also be required to post summaries of all H-IB applications on its 

website. Do you support such an effort? 
149 

The bill would require that H-IB employers may not advertise a job as available only for 

H-IB visa holders or recruit only H-IB visa holders for a job. Do you support this 

provision? 

The bill would prohibit employers from hiring H-IB employees who are then outsourced to 

other companies. This is a method that some companies use to evade restrictions on hiring 

H-lBs. Do you support this effort? 

The bill would prohibit companies from hiring H-IB employees if they employ more than 

50 people and more than 50% of their employees are H-IB visa holders. Do you support 

this provision? 

The bill would require H-IB and L-I employers to pay employees the prevailing wage to 

ensure employers are not undercutting American workers by paying substandard wages to 

foreign workers. Do you support this effort? 

I certainly believe that the needs of employers to staff their workforce by use of the H-J-B 

program needs to be balanced against the rights of American workers to have the opportunities 

they deserve. I am aware of reports of abuse or misuse of the program, and understand why 

Congress would want to look at reforms in exchange for a more permanent and stable extension 

of the program. I am not familiar with the specific reforms outlined in the Grassley-Durbin bill, 

and would defer to those with more familiarity in these questions. 
150 

Sellatol' Grassley's Questions for Chris Crane, ICE Union 

1. Resources Needed By ICE: Some outside groups have suggested that more than 

enough resources are devoted to immigration enforcement. What specific and additional 

resources does ICE and its agents need to better enforce our immigration laws? 

Only approximately 5,000 officers and agents within ICE perform the lion's share of 

ICE's immigration mission. A matter that ICE Director John Morton has referenced 

himself in testimony. Compare that to the Los Angeles Police Department at 

approximately 10,000 officers. 

Approximately 5,000 officers in ICE cover 50 states, Puerto Rico and Guam, and are 

attempting to enforce immigration law against II million illegal aliens already in the 

interior of the United States. Since 9-11, the U.S. Border Patrol has tripled in size, while 

ICE's immigration enforcement arm, Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), has 

remained at relatively the same size. 

Exasperating the situation, of the 5,000 immigration officers nationwide, hundreds don't 

perform enforcement duties at all due to the elimination of detention facility guard 

positions during the creation ofDHS; hundreds of detention guard positions are now 

filled by ERO's handful of immigration agents. Also, unlike other law enforcement 

agencies, ICE has no additional resources for juvenile services, court duties or supervised 

release (supervised release duties at ICE are similar to probation and parole duties at the 

city and state level). So 5,000 ICE officers and agents also perform all of these duties as 

well. Important also to remember, ICE agents and officers do something that no other 

law enforcement organization in the United States does; they deport approximately 

400,000 foreign nationals to every corner of the globe every year. A staggering statistic 

and a staggering amount of work. Any group that suggests ICE has enough immigration 

enforcement resources is incorrect. The ICE Office of Enforcement and Removal 

Operations, ICE's immigration enforcement arm, is the most understaffed and under 

resourced law enforcement organization in the nation, in my opinion - bar none. 

And one final point related to officer resources, while all ERO agents and officers have 

the same training requirements, its 5,000 officers are broken into two different positions, 

each with differing arrest authorities, which serves to the detriment of the agency's 

mission as some officers are limited in their law enforcement authorities without reason. 

In the field, this regularly results in officers with one arrest authority requiring officers 

with another arrest authority be present before an arrest can be made. With our limited 

resources, this approach to law enforcement has proven highly ineffective not only 

regarding ICE's immigration mission, but also in terms of manning and supporting local 

Page 1 of4 
151 

police task forces, such as gang task forces; simply because all of our officers, who have 

the same training requirements, do not have the same authorities and therefore cannot be 

utilized for many law enforcement functions. 

We believe ICE ERO needs approximately 5,000 more immigration officers putting its 

total number at approximately 10,000. As a force multiplier, a single officer position for 

immigration agents within ERO should be established providing all officers with full 

immigration arrest authorities. This will require no additional training. All immigration 

officers with full arrest authority should be removed from non-law enforcement functions 

that they currently serve in, such as those who now serve as detention facility guards. We 

would suggest that the old INS Detention Enforcement Officer position be reinstated with 

approximately 2,500 officers to replace detention guard positions that would be vacated. 

We also suggest that support staff positions, which are almost non-existent within ERO, 

also be increased at minimum in a similar officer-to-support-staff ratio as currently in 

use. ICE also needs to streamline its time consuming alien processing systems and 

procedures to expedite cases and create more time for officers to perform enforcement 

duties. 

2. Morale: You mentioned that morale at Immigration and Customs Enforcement is low and 

has been falling in recent years. You also stated that agents are regularly prohibited 

from e'?forcing the law. Do you have any examples in which ICE agents have been 

preventedfrom doing their jobs andfrom enforcing the law? 

Most Americans don't know this but ICE agents and officers tasked with immigration 

enforcement, unlike any other law enforcement organization in the country, are 

prohibited from making street arrests. If they see an immigration violation in their 

presence while on duty they are prohibited from making an arrest. The exceptions to this 

rule are very limited. The street arrests that are made must be approved in writing by a 

supervisor for a specific individual who officers plan to arrest before an arrest can be 

made. This type of enforcement is not effective in immigration enforcement where a 

high volume of arrests are needed. ICE agents and officers working immigration 

enforcement are for the most part restricted to arresting individuals in jails and prisons 

who have already been arrested by local police. 

As just a few specific examples, I would mention the Delaware ICE Officer who was 

forced to release an alien without immigration charges and was then himself charged with 

a proposed three day suspension for arresting the illegal alien. Also, the three ICE agents 

in Utah who were forced to release an illegal alien without immigration charges who they 

witnessed claim to a federal judge in open court that he is an illegal alien. Similar to the 

Delaware incident, all three ICE officers were placed under investigation by ICE for 

arresting the illegal alien. Finally, in EI Paso, Texas, ICE agents were forced to release 

Page 2 of 4 
152 

an illegal without immigration charges who was recently arrested by local police for 

assaulting family members. This alien also attempted escape from ICE agents and 

allegedly assaulted officers during the attempt resulting in officer injuries. During 

previous testimony before the house Judiciary Committee I provided internal ICE email 

correspondences describing orders from ICE headquarters for officers not to arrest illegal 

aliens that they encounter in the field. 

ICE agents are never allowed to simply enforce the law. Every officer and agent is 

restricted every day from enforcing immigration violations they witness. Enforcement of 

certain portions of statute are almost completely prohibited from enforcement, such as 

enforcement of laws regarding public charges and simple illegal entry and visa overstay. 

3. Cooperation Between Federal & Local Law Enforcement: 1 have been vocal about 

the lack of attention on states and localities that turn a blind eye to people here illegally. 

There are sanctuary cities that refuse to help the federal government. But, on the other 

hand, there are local jurisdictions that are eager about helping to protect the homeland 

and enforcing our immigration laws. What suggestions do you have to improve the level 

of cooperation between local andfederal officers so that we can work better together to 

enforce our immigration laws? 

You are correct in saying that many local agencies are eager to help. This stems in large 

part from their first hand knowledge of the impact of large criminal alien populations in 

their communities that often control the local drug trade or serve as a primary source of 

gang activity, etc. In my one experience with a "sanctuary type area," the local police 

officers desperately wanted to work with ICE, but were restrained by the mayor and 

police chief. 

In my opinion, it's ICE's responsibility to initiate measures to improve the level of 

cooperation, not the other way around. In each area, ICE officers from the field, not just 

managers, should be permitted to speak with local police officers during their musters or 

during scheduled meetings to educate local officers regarding ICE ERO's enforcement 

resources in that area and how and when ICE can assist local officers in their 

enforcement efforts. This type of outreach and education simply doesn't happen enough 

and is key to building relationships and cooperation. 

Secondly, ICE needs to offer its resources and follow through on a regular basis. ICE 

ERO must have a stronger presence on local task forces such as gang and drug task 

forces, and ERO officers must be empowered to exercise their immigration arrest 

authority. Under current guidance that prohibits making immigration arrests, ICE agents 

and officers will be greatly restricted in their ability to assist locals in attempting to break 

up gang and drug activity, etc. Additionally, relationships between local police and ICE 

Page 3 of4 
153 

tend to break down in circumstance when ICE officers are prohibited from enforcing the 

law as locals police perceive contacting ICE as a waste of time and difficult to deal with. 

Page 4of4 
154 

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

February 13,2013 

Questions for Chris Crane, President, National Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Council 118 of the American Federation of Government Employees from Senator Lee 

Prosecutorial Discretion 

In your written statement, you recounted several stories that I found troubling regarding the 

disciplinary action some ICE agents have enduredfor attempting to perform the duties Congress 

has requested. In particular, I was disturbed by the experience you described of the three agents 

in Salt Lake City who were investigatedfor arresting a man who openly declared his illegal 

status in court. 

• Has it been your experience that the prosecutorial discretion laid out in the Morton 

memoranda has been implemented on a case-by-case basis, or as a categorical 

prohibition of enforcement? 

It is a categorical prohibition of enforcement. The new ICE detainer policy, which I 

submitted as evidence at the hearing, is a well documented example of how ICE policy 

removes discretion from officers and prohibits the arrest of certain individuals and 

groups. According to the new detainer policy, ICE agents encountering illegal aliens in 

jails can no longer make arrests based on the most fundamental and important sections of 

immigration law - illegal entry and visa overstay. ICE officers can only make arrests if 

these inmates have already been convicted of 3 or more misdemeanor offenses, or 

arrested or convicted for a felony offense, etc. So a categorical prohibition has been 

placed on arresting individuals for illegal entry and visa overstay. These practices equate 

to a form of amnesty for millions of immigration violators in the U.S. They are 

essentially protected from arrest. Officers who attempt to enforce these sections of law 

will face disciplinary action. 

• How do the agents you interact with regard the restraints they face while attempting to 

do their jobs? 

It's no secret that morale in the agency continues to plummet and the restraints you 

mention playa large role in that problem. Officers are literally afraid to enforce our 

nation's laws. They believe that ifthey attempt to enforce immigration law as it was 

enacted by Congress, they will be fired and lose the ability to support their families. 

Most officers in the field speak in terms of "keeping their heads down" until the nation's 

economic situation recovers so that they can seek employment elsewhere. In large part 
155 

the reaction is one of fear, leading officers to look for jobs that do not involve 

immigration enforcement both within and outside of ICE. 
156 

Re!!>ponses to 

Senator Grassley's Questions for Janet Murguia 

(NCLR responses are italicized.) 

1. Employer Sanctions: In 1989, Cecelia Munoz [sic]l-then a Senior Vice President with 

La Raza, today, Director of President Obama's Domestic Policy Council wrote a report 

for your organization entitled "Unfinished Business: The Immigration Reform and 

Control Act of 1986." The report stated that Congress had a "moral obligation to repeal 

employer sanctions" put in place by the 1986 law, claiming that they infringed on 

citizens' civil rights. Does your organization stand by that report and its 

recommendations? Does your organization support sanctions for employers who hire 

those unauthorized to work in the United States? Would La Raza oppose a 

comprehensive immigration reform proposal that includes mandatory E-Verify? 

NCLR Response: Based on the moral principle that the federal government should not 

create or maintain policies known to cause significant levels of employment 

discrimination against an already disadvantaged minority group, NCLR and dozens of 

other civil rights organizations did indeed call for the repeal of employer sanctions. In 

the debate leading up to the Immigration Reform and Co ntro t Act (IRCA). NCLR and 

others had raised concerns about the potential for such discrimination, and the case for 

repeal was strengthened by the actual knowledge that the feared discrimination did in 

fact occur, and on a broad scale. 

It is important to understand the context in which this report was written. By the time the 

NCLR report was printed, more than a dozen reports issued by independent private 

organizations and government entities had found that the employer sanctions provisions 

of IRCA, which began to be enforced three years earlier, had led to significant increases 

in employment discrimination against Latinos, Asians, and others who appeared 

"foreign, " including Us. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and others authorized to 

work in the Us. Two initial General Accounting Office (GAO, now known as the 

Government Accountability Office) studies mandated by IRCA had come to similar 

conclusions. In March 1990, the final GAO report in the series found that employer 

sanctions had resulted in a "widespread pattern" of discrimination caused solely by 

employer sanctions, against lawful workers, based on characteristics like speech accent, 

surname, and physical appearance. Specifically, the GAOfound that 19% or 891,000 

employers had adopted "unlawful discriminatory hiring practices" as a result of 

employer sanctions. Such practices included 461,000, or 10% of employers engaged in 

discrimination based on "foreign" appearance or accent; 346,000 or 8% had applied the 

verification system only to persons who appeared or sounded "foreign"; and an 

additional 430,00 or 9% adopted "citizens only" hiring policies, thus illegally excluding 

lawful permanent residents. 

1 The referenced report was actually printed and issued in 1990, although earlier drafts were circulated in various 

formats. The correct spelling af Ms. Munoz's first name is "Cecilia. n 

1 
157 

In callingfor repeal of employer sanctions, NCLR also noted the significant evidence that 

employer sanctions were ineffictive in deterring and preventing unauthorized migration. 

NCLR recommended, instead, increased border enforcement, a recommendation which 

policy makers did pursue, and a series of other measures, including strengthened labor 

laws, more aggressive labor law enforcement and targeting immigration enforcement 

resources at those employers most likely to violate the law which. unfortunately, policy 

makers subsequently did not pursue. It is uncertain whether NeLR 's recommended 

enforcement regime would have been as or more effective than that which ultimately was 

put in place in IRCA, and subsequent to IRCA. The growth of the undocumented 

population from perhaps three to four million post-legalization to more than 11 million 

today suggests that an enforcement strategy relying on employer sanctions as its lynchpin 

has not been especially effective. What iJ. certain is that the hundreds of thousands - and 

possibly a higher number - of u.s. citizens and other legal residents whose employment 

opportunities were eliminated or diminished because of discrimination caused by 

employer sanctions would not have been harmed by the enforcement strategy NCLR 

proposed in 1989. 

Regarding NeLR 's views on employer sanctions today, while as a civil rights 

organization we cannot comfortably "support" any government policy that creates rather 

than removes incentives for employers to discriminate against Hispanics, Asians, and 

others who may appear "foreign." we recognize the reality that this policy is firmly in 

place and unlikely to be repealed any time soon. In that context, we are hopeful that 

technological and other improvements being tested, including measures to strengthen the 

accuracy of systems like £-VerilY and provide prompt remedies to authorized workers 

that are adversely affected by errors, may be able to reduce substantially the incidence of 

sanctions-related discrimination. Assuming the inclusion ofa broad earned legalization 

program with a clear path to citizenship, strengthened labor law enforcement, 

improvements to legal immigration, and measures to promote more e.ffective integration 

of immigrants into the mainstream, we are open to supporting a comprehensive bill that 

might include a mandatory £-VerilY system, provided that effective protections and 

remedies against errors and discrimination that harm lawjiJI workers are also included. 

2. Temporary Worker Program: On January 29, President Obama offered an outline of a 

plan for comprehensive immigration reform. While he addresses legal immigration by 

talking about family reunification, increasing numbers, and enhancing tourism, he does 

not mention the need for a future guest worker program to help low-skilled immigrants. 

1n your testimony, you stated that "we must provide a way for immigrant workers to enter 

the U.S. through safe and legal channels in order to meet legitimate workforce needs 

across sectors of our economy." What's your reaction to the fact that the President has 

ignored the need for a guest worker program, particularly for low-skilled and year round 

employment? 

NCLR Response: NCLR's views on guestworker or temporary worker programs are 

well known, and have been consistentfor over three decades. First, we would greatly 

prefer the admission of permanent legal immigrants, as opposed to guestworkers, to fill 

legitimate lahar market needs, because historical experience demonstrates that 

2 
158 

temporary workers who have less than foil labor rights are inherently exploitable, and 

that such exploitation adverse(v affects the wages and working conditions of all workers, 

Second, to the extent that new or expanded guestworker programs are enacted, they 

should include foil labor rights, a standard that few such proposals have met, Third, we 

have long argued for increased investments in building the human capital of domestic 

workers, through education and workforce development efforts, to minimize the need for 

temporary workers, Finally, we note that most other countries that have relied on 

temporary worker programs experienced both continued illegal migration, as well as the 

creation Cif a permanent subclass of ethnic minorities that have not been integrated into 

the mainstream society, At a minimum, this experience suggests we should approach 

expansion of such programs with extreme caution 

We would prefer that legitimate labor markets needs be addressed large(v through the 

legal immigration system, and in that connection we are heartened by recent press 

reports that organized labor and business have agreed on a set of principles that should 

underlie reforms in that area, 

We are aware of, and have reviewed with interest, the various interpretations of both the 

President's January 29 remarks, and of the subsequent publication o,fportions of draft 

legislation Unlike some who have speculated as to the Administration's motives, we do 

not assume that the omission of some elements that should be included in a 

comprehensive bill, especially from a set of leaked documents, is meaningful at this stage 

Cifthe process, 

3. Limitations on Immigration Levels: Do you think there should be limits on 

immigration levels? If not, why not? If so, what limits should be in place and how do we 

enforce those limits? 

NCLR Response: NCLR believes that as a sovereign nation the United States has a right 

to control its borders, and limiting immigration is an inherent part of that right. Limits 

on immigration - including numbers and characteristics of those permitted to enter from 

abroad - are thus fully legitimate matters for public discussion and policy debate. 

While we cannot address in this briefresponse evel}' one of the numerous aspects around 

what would constitute appropriate limits and how they should be enforced, we can 

summarize our views in three points. First, many scholars and philosophers have labeled 

core immigration questions - who is allowed to enter the u.s. and on what terms - as 

especially challenging because they ineVitably require a series of balancing tests. Thus, 

for example, the "rights" Ciffamity members in the u.s. to petition for their relatives 

abroad are juxtaposed against the "rights" of those already here whose interests might 

be adversely affected. Similarly, the "right" of a business to petition to hire a worker 

from abroad must be weighed against workers already here who may be hurt as a result. 

In short. these are questions of "right vs. right, " not "right vs. wrong. " And at some level 

the interests of families must be balanced with those of businesses and workers because 

3 
159 

they are inextricably linked. Both serve our goals of strengthening our economy and of 

successful immigrant integration. 

Second, in weighing conflicting rights. we believe a number of factors tip the balance 

toward a more inclusive immigration policy. For one thing, our long history as a 

"nation of immigrants" distinguishes us. for the better we believe. from virtually every 

other country on earth. From our very founding and throughout our history, some 

suggested that "new factors "-such as changes in the economy. or limits on resources, 

or the purportedly inferior character of the newest wave of immigrants-required major 

new restrictions on immigrants. In every case they were proven wrong by subsequent 

events. New immigrants settled the frontier, helped save the Union, provided the muscle 

for the Industrial Revolution, contributed mightily to winning two World Wars, and now 

are at the forefront of both generating new scientific and technological innovations and 

providing the services the aging Baby Boom generation requires. Immigration also 

reinforces key American values .. such as family reunification. and the notion embodied in 

the American Dream that in our country anyone can work their w0' up from nothing to 

the economic mainstream through hard work and ingenuity. 

In addition, while every policy produces both costs and benefits, our reading of the 

empirical evidence suggests that the vast majority of economists and social scientists 

from across the ideological spectrum have found that immigration increases economic 

growth and otherwise benefits the country as a whole. Thus, NCLR believes that 

maintaining a generous legal immigration system reflects our highest ideals and is good 

for the economy and the country. 

Third, in our view, appropriate limits on immigration would: (AJ Reaffirm the principle 

that family reunification should remain the cornerstone of the legal immigration system. 

In such a system. U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents would not have to wait for 

decades or longer to reunite withfamity members who live abroad; (B) Include "safe and 

legal channels to meet legitimate workforce needs" in a way that balances the interests of 

employers and workers, white also ensuring suffiCient resources so that today's "children 

have the skills they needfor the highest-paying jobs of tomorrow, " as we noted in our 

testimony. Such a system must include foil labor rights and protections, as well as 

strengthened labor law enforcement; (CJ Be enforced through a combination of 

measures, including border enforcement, labor law enforcement, removal of violators. 

with priority on offenders who pose a saftty or security threat, and, as we noted in our 

answers above, targeting immigration enforcement resources on unscrupulous actors 

who deliberately prey on vulnerable workers and are the most-likely violators. Such a 

system must not encourage employment discrimination against Latinos and others who 

may appear "foreign," and should not condone or encourage racial profiling; we are 

hope/ill that improvements in technology can facilitate these outcomes, as well as help 

develop more effective mechanisms to detect and remove those who overstay their visas. 

4. Legalization Program Details: Should Congress consider a bill to legalize people 

unlawfully in the country, who should be eligible for the program? Please answer the 

following questions related this issue. 

4 
160 

• Should people here illegally who are in removal proceedings be allowed to benefit 

from a legalization program? 

• Should people that have ignored the government's orders to leave the United States -

after a thorough legal proceeding----be allowed to benefit from a legalization 

program? 

• Should an alien convicted of a felony criminal offense or multiple misdemeanors be 

allowed to benefit from a legalization program? 

• Should gang members be allowed to benefit from a legalization program? 

• If an alien provides information in an application that is law enforcement sensitive or 

criminal in nature, should that inforn1ation be used by our government and not be 

protected under confidentiality provisions? 

• Should people here illegally be given probationary status, or legal status, without a 

background check done first? 

• Should aliens (rather than taxpayers) who benefit from a legalization program pay for 

all costs associated with it? 

• Should there be a time limit imposed for federal agents with regard to background 

checks on aliens who apply for legalization? 

• Should people that apply for legalization be required to submit to an in-person 

interview with adjudicators? 

• Should people that have been denied legalization be placed in immigration 

proceedings and removed? 

• Ifthe Secretary of Homeland Security must revoke a visa for someone Oil U.S. soil, 

should that decision be reviewable in the U.S. courts? 

NCLR Response: NCLR agrees with the bipartisan group of Senators working on 

immigration reform legislation and many bipartisan, independent commissions that have 

concluded that a program to legalize those here in unauthorized status is an essential 

element of immigration reform. Such a legalization program must be broad in scope, 

excluding on(v those that pose a demonstrable threat to public sqfety. While some might 

disagree, the alternatives are far worse. Any attempt to round up and deport 11 million 

people in our communities would violate the civil rights and disrupt the lives of millions 

of us. citizens and legal residents. Similarly, attempts to create a climate that is so 

hostile that unauthorized persons might "self deport, .. have already resulted in 

unacceptable lew Is of racial profiling and abuse, including the unlawful detention and in 

some cases even deportation of u.s. citizens. 

A this point, it is unclear what the exact sequence of procedural steps will be required to 

legalize; suffice it to say here that the program should be designed to maximize coverage 

of the undocumented population and afford the government the opportunity to screen out 

those that pose a threat to public sqfety. ljthe program will involve an initial 

registration period/ollowed by a final adjudication, then certainty those registered 

should receive temporary deferred action status with work authorization. This would 

allow SUfficient time for appropriate background checks and, {{required, in-person 

interviews with an examiner. In any event, the deferred status should be renewable until 

such time as a final decision on the application is made. 

5 
161 

Regarding program financing, several studies of IRCA implementation found that the 

effective operation of legalization was endangered by financing provisions that almost 

resulted in the closure of INS processing offices at the height of the application surge. 

NCLR believes that the statute should provide financing sufficient to ensure an effective 

legalization program. 

Consistent with decades of Supreme Court precedents, NCLR supports judicial review of 

government actions that may have serious consequences for the rights and well-being of 

individuals in immigration proceedings. 

6 
162 

Question#: I 

Topic: DACA Authority 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Question: Did your Department obtain a legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel 

or anyone else in the administration about your legal authority to implement the Deferred 

Action for Childhood Arrivals? Please provide copies of any documentation, including 

any and all legal opinions, memoranda, and emails, that discusses any authority you have 

or do not have to undertake the program. 

Response: The Department of Homeland Security is fully committed to ensuring that its 

policies, practices, and procedures including the Deferred Action for Childhood 

Arrivals process - comply fully with all relevant constitutional and statutory 

requirements. As a general matter, however, the Department does not disclose what 

confidential legal advice has been provided or what legal questions may have been 

presented to the Office of the General Counselor to the Department of Justice for 

consideration. 
163 

Question#: 2 

Topic: DACA processing 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Question: Are officers being instructed to approve or pressured to "get to a yes" on 

DACA applications? Is there guidance to officers that Requests for Evidence (RFEs) not 

be issued, or to be issued only in extremely rare circumstances? 

Response: No. Officers are not being instructed to approve or pressured to "get to a yes" 

on DACA requests. Nor are officers being instructed to issue requests for evidence 

(RFE) only in extremely rare circumstances. USCIS officers are instructed to issue an 

RFE, as necessary, to provide requestors an opportunity to submit additional evidence to 

support their request prior to USCIS issuing a final decision. As of February 14, 2013, 

the RFE rate is 22 percent, which is consistent with other USCIS programs that generally 

issue an RFE prior to final adjudication. 
164 

Question#: 3 

Topic: background checks (DACA) 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Question: Describe what databases are queried as part of the applicant's background 

check and what government agency maintains the database. Does the database have audit 

qualities to determine date, location, and name of official performing the query? 

Response: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) performs background 

and security checks for all individuals who request deferred action as a childhood arrival. 

All deferred action requestors will be subject to a TECS query, and those requestors 14 

years of age and older will also be subject to a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

fingerprint check. Both TECS and the FBI fingerprint identification system have logs 

that can be used to determine the date, location, and name of the user performing a query. 

TECS is maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 

Question: Describe what type of queries are being conducted and the information that is 

provided as a result of the search (i.e. NCIC queries provide a description of the 

applicant's criminal history). 

Response: TECS is a border enforcement system that, among other functions, supports 

the screening of travelers entering the United States and the screening requirements of 

other federal agencies. USCIS has access to all wants, warrants, and lookouts listed in 

TECS and certain files within the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database 

through TECS, as well as files which include wants/warrants, foreign fugitives, missing 

persons, registered sex offenders, deported felons, supervised releases, protection orders, 

terrorist organization members, and violent gang members. 

The FBI Fingerprint Check provides summary information regarding an individual's 

administrative and/or criminal record within the United States. 

Question: Does USCIS receive assistance from any other government agencies when 

conducting background checks on applicants? If so, what is the extent of this assistance? 

Response: USC IS submits biometric data to the FBI for a comparison of FBI records. 

When the result is a match to an IDENT fingerprint record, the FBI provides USCIS with 

details of the requestor's arrest history. 

When a TECS query results in a match, USCIS contacts the agency/office that entered 

the relevant record to obtain additional information and to verify that the record relates to 
165 

Question#: 3 

Topic: background checks (DACA) 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Refurm 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

the requestor. If the requestor has more than one record, it may be necessary to contact 

multiple agencies/offices. 

Question: Is the Intelligence Community provided the names of the applicant's to cross 

check with their databases? Ifnot, why not? 

Response: All deferred action requestors are subject to a TECS query. When this query 

returns a positive match against the system's records, USCIS, through its FDNS officers, 

coordinates closely relevant information with the Intelligence Community to ensure 

information is shared between USCIS and the pertinent Intelligence Community agency 

to ensure national security interests are served. 

Question: At what stage of the background check is the Fraud Detection and National 

Security (FDNS) unit at USCIS consulted? 

Response: Any background check hits indicating immigration fraud, criminal activity, 

public safety concerns, or national security concerns are referred to FDNS. 

Question: If an applicant does not provide the designated background documents are 

they allowed to submit additional documents in their place? 

Response: If the supporting evidence filed with Form I-SlID is deemed insufficient, 

useIS will generally issue a request for additional evidence. A list of possible 

supporting documents can be found on the form instructions. 

Question: Are the applicants allowed to present a character reference to verify their 

identity? If so, are these references verified? 

Response: No. An individual requesting consideration of deferred action for childhood 

arrivals may not present a character reference to verify his or her identity. Requestors are 

informed before attending the biometrics appointment about which documents are needed 

to establish identity. 

Question: Is FDNS reviewing approved applications for quality assurance? Ifnot, why 

not? 

Response: Each deferred action request forwarded to FDNS as a fraud referral is 

reviewed to verify the evidence or suspicion of fraud. In addition, USCIS is 

implementing a process to select a random sample of DACA cases for review and 

analysis. This will include a pre-adjudication file review as well as a post-adjudication 
166 

Question#: 3 

Topic: background checks (DACA) 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

follow up to ensure USCIS effectively forwards cases with fraud indicators to FDNS and 

correctly adjudicates all cases. 

Question: Is the Department requiring in-person interviews? If so, under what 

circumstances? If not, why not? 

Response: USCIS will conduct DACA interviews to verify and potentially expand upon 

the representations a requestor makes in the adjudications process. 

Question: Does USCIS have a sufficient number of employees to process the 

background checks for the large volume of applicants? Is USCIS currently hiring 

employees or have any vacancies for these positions? If so, how many? 

Response: Yes, uscrs does have a sufficient number of employees to process the 

background checks for the large volume ofDACA applicants. USCIS has proactively 

hired staff from the onset ofDACA in order to handle the new workload generated from 

the program. The DACA hiring process is still on-going. USCIS intends to hire 746 

positions within the Agency's Service Center Operations Directorate that will support the 

DACA process, in addition to other Service Center Operations workloads. 

Approximately 70% of those hires will be adjudicatory staff while the remaining 30% 

will consist of support and clerical staff. To date, USCIS Service Center Operations has 

hired 426 positions associated with the expected DACA-related workload increase - 316 

of those positions are adjudicatory staff. An additional 196 hiring actions are pending; 

thus, a total of 622 DACA related hiring actions have been initiated through users 

Service Center Operations to-date. Further, as is the case with any newly created 

process, there are additional positions that will be hired outside of the adjudicatory staff 

to support and maintain all other agency responsibilities. For the DACA program, the 

total number of hires will be approximately 1,422 positions. This total number of staffing 

includes more than 130 positions for FDNS as well as additional staff at the National 

Benefits Center to process existing workloads that were internally shifted in order to free 

up capacity at uscrs Service Centers. Finally, some additional hires will also occur 

within the USCIS Management Directorate to support the increased staffing numbers 

within the agency. 
167 

Question#: 4 

Topic: DACA fraud and abuse 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Question: What steps has the administration taken to review and ensure that fraudulent 

documents are not submitted in support of applications for deferred action? 

Response: ICE and USCIS will deploy their considerable fraud prevention resources to 

guard against fraud in this process - and to take strong action against any individuals who 

engage in fraud. In addition, USCIS has developed training and various resource guides 

offering exemplars of documents that may be submitted in support of DACA requests. 

Initial training for officers reviewing DACA requests-including anti-fraud trainingoccurred in September 2012. Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) continues 

to supplement this initial training with targeted anti-fraud training. USCIS is also 

working with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Forensic Laboratory 

and other federal, state, and foreign government officials for the purposes of building a 

repository of government issued documents (e.g., passports, birth certificates, and 

transcripts). These documents are shared with officers and FDNS personnel and are used 

as an aid in verifying information provided by the DACA requestor. 

Question: What types of fraud detection mechanisms have been used? Which have been 

successful? Which have not been so successful? 

Response: USCIS has made clear in its public guidance that if individuals knowingly 

make a misrepresentation, or knowingly fail to disclose facts, in an effort to have their 

case deferred or obtain work authorization through this process, they will be treated as an 

immigration enforcement priority to the fullest extent permitted by law, and be subject to 

criminal prosecution and/or removal from the United States. USCIS is utilizing the 

existing Fraud Detection Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and is incorporating a 

data-driven approach to further facilitate the identification of potential fraud. The antifraud strategy focuses on gathering and managing data, developing strategies, and taking 

appropriate action on all fraud related issues (e.g., denial and referral to ICE for removal). 

TECS and fingerprint checks will provide information on individuals who may pose 

national security or public safety risks as well as indicators of potential fraud. Requestors 

with positive criminal history results, substantiated findings of fraud, or public safety or 

national security concerns will be handled under the current Notice To Appear (NT A) 

policy. If the evidence establishes that an individual has a felony conviction, a significant 

misdemeanor conviction, three or more non-significant misdemeanor convictions, has 

attempted to defraud USCIS, or is otherwise a threat to national security or public safety, 

USCIS will deny the deferred action request unless exceptional circumstances apply. 
168 

Question#: 4 

Topic: DACA fraud and abuse 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

The DACA-specific anti-fraud detection strategy is based on USClS's identification and 

analysis from observed trends and uscrs's ability to gather and manage data obtained 

from and in cooperation with law enforcement, the intelligence community, and other 

government and institutional partners and to take appropriate action when fraud is 

discovered. When multiple DACA requests are identified that demonstrate similar 

indicators of potential fraud, uscrs analyzes the noted requests and conducts additional 

research and coordination with other U.S. Government entities as appropriate. uscrs 

then works to validate and develop additional indicators which are disseminated on a 

broader basis to the adjudicative workflow. 

One particular fraud indicator developed using this strategy is the list of suspect schools 

maintained by uscrs to notify us CIS officers of educational institutions that do not 

exist or are otherwise suspected of providing fraudulent educational documents. uscrs 

has noted and acted upon submissions of educational documents that do not appear to 

have been issued by legitimate schools. 

Question: How have the veracity of affidavits been assessed? 

Response: For most of the guidelines, affidavits are not sufficient on their own as 

evidence submitted with a request for deferred action for childhood arrivals. However, 

affidavits may be used to support meeting the following guidelines, if documentary 

evidence is unavailable: 

• A gap in the documentation demonstrating the five year continuous residence 

requirement; and 

• A shortcoming in documentation with respect to the brief, casual and innocent 

departures during the five years of required continuous presence. 

However, ifuscrs determines that the affidavits are insufficient to overcome the 

unavailability or the lack of documentary evidence with respect to either of these 

guidelines, it may issue a request for evidence indicating that further evidence must be 

submitted to demonstrate that the person meets these guidelines. 

uscrs will not accept affidavits as proof of satisfying the following guidelines: 

• The person is currently in school, has graduated or obtained a certificate of 

completion from high school, has obtained a general education development 

certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran from the U.S. Coast Guard 

(USCG) or Armed Forces of the United States; 
169 

Question#: 4 

Topic: DACA fraud and abuse 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

• The person was physically present in the United States on June 15,2012; 

• The person came to the United States before reaching his or her 16th birthday; 

• The person was under the age of 31 on June 15, 2012; and 

• The person's criminal history, if applicable. 

Question: In what circumstances does an individual receive a notice of intent to deny and 

a denial of deferred action? 

Response: USCIS officers will not defer removal under the DACA process for requestors 

who do not meet the guidelines set forth in the Secretary's memorandum. Where 

evidentiary deficiencies are identified, USCIS officers are instructed generally to issue a 

request for evidence (RFE) or notice of intent to deny (NOlO), as necessary, to provide 

requestors an opportunity to submit additional evidence to support their request prior to 

USCIS issuing a final decision. USCIS will issue a denial if the requestor does not 

provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the guidelines. In some instances an outright denial 

may be issued without first issuing an RFE or NOlO. For example, if the record contains 

irrefutable evidence that a requestor was age thirty-one or older on June 15,2012 or did 

not arrive in the United States before his or her sixteenth birthday, USCIS will issue a 

straight denial because the requestor is unable to satisfy the guideline. 

Question: In what circumstance is an individual who is denied deferred action placed in 

removal proceedings? 

Response: IfUSCIS decides not to defer action in a particular case, USCIS will apply its 

existing policy guidance governing the referral of cases to ICE and USCIS' issuance of 

Notices to Appear (www.uscis.govINTA). 

Question: Please explain the applicable confidentiality provisions. At what point in the 

process does confidentiality attach? Is confidentiality protected no matter the case, or is 

previous fraud, criminal behavior or national security concerns being raised with other 

law enforcement? 

Response: Information provided in a request is protected from disclosure to ICE and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for the purpose of immigration enforcement 

proceedings unless the requestor meets the criteria for the issuance of a Notice To Appear 

or a referral to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the criteria set forth in 

USCIS's Notice to Appear guidance (www.uscis.govINTA). Individuals whose cases are 

deferred pursuant to the consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals process 

will not be referred to ICE. The information may be shared with national security and law 
170 

Question#: 4 

Topic: DACA fraud and abuse 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

enforcement agencies, including ICE and CBP, for purposes other than removal, 

including for assistance in the consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals 

request, to identify or prevent fraudulent claims, for national security purposes, or for the 

investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense. The above information-sharing policy 

covers family members and guardians, in addition to the requestor. 

Question: What sort of punishment will be sought for aliens who commit fraud or 

material misrepresentation? Please elaborate if any punishments have been imposed. 

Response: US CIS is committed to safeguarding the integrity of the immigration process. 

If individuals knowingly make a misrepresentation, or knowingly fail to disclose facts, in 

an effort to have their case deferred or obtain work authorization through this process, 

they may face significant consequences. They will be treated as an immigration 

enforcement priority to the fullest extent permitted by law, and be subject to criminal 

prosecution and/or removal from the United States. 
171 

Question#: 5 

Topic: DACA Data 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Question: Please provide the following detailed data, as requested by Chainnan Smith 

and myself on September 20, 2012: 

Question a: The number of submitted Fonn 1-821Ds (applications for deferred action) 

Question a-i: received 

Response: As of March 14,2013; USCIS has accepted approximately 480,231 DACA 

requests at the intake lockbox facilities. 

Question a-ii: approved 

Response: As of March 14,2013; USCIS has approved approximately 252,193 DACA 

requests. 

Question a-iii: denied 

Response: Generally speaking, USCIS first accepts or rejects filings at a Lockbox 

facility for intake and, within days, issues a receipt notice. Within the next two weeks, 

individuals are scheduled for their biometrics services appointments, which in turn, are 

set two to three weeks in advance to allow individuals to adjust their schedule or arrange 

transportation to appear in person for biometrics collection. After the appointment, 

biometric and biographic checks are run through various databases before a case is 

considered adjudication ready. Cases yielding hits are sent first to specialized units to 

resolve the matter in question and provide definitive infonnation before a case proceeds 

to adjudication. Consistent with standard practice, officers reviewing cases who identify 

a deficiency in the facts or evidence presented generally will first issue a Request for 

Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) before denying the case. Each of 

these avenues provides the requestor an opportunity to address the deficiency in their 

request. The agency provides a standard time period of 84 days to respond to an RFE and 

30 days to respond to a NOlO. If the requestor's response to an RFE or NOm does not 

adequately address the area of concern, the case will be denied. At present, given that the 

process has been just over six months in existence, approximately 1,102 cases have 

reached the stage where they have been denied. 

Question a-iv: approved despite a criminal conviction 
172 

Question#: 5 

Topic: DACA Data 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Response: USClS does not have these statistics. 

Question a-v: approved despite a pending criminal charge 

Response: uscrs does not have these statistics. 

Question a-vi: approved despite a juvenile criminal conviction 

Response: uscrs does not have these statistics. 

Question a-vii: denied for suspicion offraud or on the basis of fraud. Of those, how 

many have been referred for prosecution or removal, and how many have been 

prosecuted or removed for such cause? 

Response: Since the implementation ofDACA, approximately 1,102 denials have been 

issued. None have been denied for fraud. However, uscrs currently has pending cases 

that have not yet been decided that are under active investigation for fraud. 

Question a-viii: containing fraud indicators 

Response: As of March 14,2013; approximately 2,466 cases have been referred to the 

Center Fraud Offices (Fraud Detection and National Security) for fraud 

verification/investigation. The Center Fraud Offices have returned approximately 656 of 

those cases where fraud was not substantiated. The remaining approximate I ,SI 0 cases 

are still pending with the Center Fraud Offices for verification and investigation. 

Question b: The number of submitted Form 1-7655 (applications for work permits) 

submitted along with an I-S2ID 

Question b-i: received 

Response: As of March 14,2013; USCIS has accepted approximately 457,5501-765 

Applications filed concurrently with DACA requests at the intake lockbox facilities. 

Question b-ii: approved 

Response: As of March 14,2013; USCIS has approved approximately 254,6261-765 

Applications that were filed concurrently with DACA requests. 

Question b-iii: Denied 
173 

Question#: 5 

Topic: DACAData 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Response: As of March 14,2013; USCIS has denied approximately 1,165 r-765 

Applications that were filed concurrently with DACA requests. 

Question b-iv: granted a fee waiver. 

Response: As of March 14,2013; uscrs has granted approximately 76 fee exemptions. 

Fee waivers are not available for DACA requests. 

Question c: The number of individuals granted deferred action under the DACA policy 

who 

Question c-i: have applied for advanced parole 

Response: As of February 28, 2013; uscrs has received approximately 124 DACA 

related applications for advance parole. 

Question c-ii: have been granted advance parole 

Response: As of February 28,2013; uscrs has approved approximately 77 DACA 

related applications for advance parole. 

Question c-iii: have been granted advanced parole, traveled, and been paroled back 

into the United States and subsequently been granted lawful permanent residency. 

Response: USClS does not keep these statistics. 

Question c-iv: have been granted lawful permanent residency under any other means. 

Response: uscrs does not keep these statistics. 

Question d: The number of parents of applicants for DACA who have 

Question d-i: requested prosecutorial discretion 

Question d-ii: received prosecutorial discretion 

Question d-iii: been denied prosecutorial discretion. 

Response: There is no process for parents whose children are granted deferred action to 

be considered under the deferred action for childhood arrivals initiative unless they 

independently satisfy the guidelines. Other individuals may, on a case-by-case basis, 
174 

Question#: 5 

Topic: DACAData 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

request deferred action from USCIS or ICE in certain circumstances, consistent with 

longstanding practice. 

Question e: The number of applications that have been received for individuals in 

removal proceedings, and the number of deferred action or work permit applications that 

have been approved for individuals in removal proceedings. 

Response: USCIS does not keep these statistics. 

Question f: The number ofDACA applicants who have been denied deferred action who 

have been: 

Question f-i: placed in removal proceedings 

Response: As of February 21, 2013; USCIS has not placed any DACA requestor in 

removal proceedings. ICE does not track these statistics, as ICE only handles DACA 

requests from aliens held in ICE custody. ICE does not have any mechanisms in place to 

identify when a USCIS denial of a DACA application results in ICE placing the alien into 

removal proceedings. 

Question f-ii: denied due to ineligibility 

Response: As of March 14,2013; USCIS has denied approximately 1,102 DACA 

requests. 

Question f-iii: denied due to fraud or other violation of the immigration law 

Response: Out of the approximate 1,102 denials to date, none have been denied for 

fraud. USCIS currently has pending cases that have not yet been decided that are under 

active investigation for fraud. 

Question C-iv: denied due to criminal history 

Response: USC IS does not have statistics on how many requests were denied because of 

criminal history. 

Question f-v: deported from the United States. 

Response: DHS does not keep these statistics. 
175 

Question#: 6 

Topic: Denials 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Question: How many DACA applications have been denied? What is the process for an 

adjudicator to deny an application? For what reasons have DACA applications been 

denied? Please break down the number of applications denied and from which service 

center they originate. 

Response: Individuals who do not satisfy the guidelines, or who USCIS adjudicators 

determine should not receive an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, will be denied. 

USCIS officers are instructed generally to issue a request for evidence or notice of intent 

to deny, as necessary, to provide requestors an opportunity to submit additional evidence 

in support of their request prior to USCIS issuing a final decision. As of March 14,2013, 

USCIS has denied 1,102 requests. 
176 

Question#: 7 

Topic: financial health (DACAl 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Question: Is there any concern about the fiscal health of the agency in charge of DACA 

- the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service? Is the current amount being charged for 

DACA covering all related costs, including processing, background checks, and fraud 

prevention efforts? Is there any discussions taking place about increasing the application 

costs for DACA? 

Response: All individuals that submit a request for Deferred Action for Childhood 

Arrivals (DACA) must pay a fee of$380 for Form 1-765, Applicationfor Employment 

Authorization (which is filed concurrently with Form 1-8210, Consideration of Deferred 

Action for Childhood Arrivals, and is processed concurrently with that form as part of an 

integrated process) and an $85 biometric processing fee for a total of $465. There are no 

fee waivers available for employment authorization requests filed in connection with 

DACA, although fee exemptions are permitted in very limited circumstances. Since 

August 15,2012, users has been closely monitoring fee receipts associated with DACA 

and the costs to the agency for processing the request including background checks, and 

fraud prevention efforts. Revenues have been sufficient to cover all costs to the agency 

for the DACA process. users will continue to carefully monitor and track revenues 

from the program to ensure they fully cover costs. USCIS will examine the cost of the 

DACA program along with all other agency workload processes as part of its 2014-2015 

Biennial Fee Review (as required by the CFO Act of 1990) to determine if a fee 

adjustment is warranted. 
177 

Question#: 8 

Topic: Luis Abrahan Sanchez Zavaleta I 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Question: Regarding the Luis Abrahan Sanchez Zavaleta case, you said at the hearing, "I 

did not learn about it until January [2013] and nor did my aides." However, all 

Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent you a letter on December 

19, 2012, regarding the matter. 

Would you like to correct the record with the Committee regarding when you first 

learned of the Sanchez Zavaleta case, or do you stand by your statement that you did not 

learn of the case until January 2013? 

When was the first time the case was raised with anyone else at DHS headquarters? 

What was the context? What action was taken in response? 

Response: At the hearing before this Committee, I misspoke as to the date of the 

Associated Press (AP) article on the case. I stated at the hearing that the AP ran a story in 

January. In fact, that AP story ran in December, and that is when I learned of this matter. 

However, DHS staff was made aware of this matter prior to then, and assisted in 

facilitating coordination between USCIS and ICE, and arranged notification to Senator 

Menendez's office after Mr. Zavaleta was apprehended. To my knowledge, decisions on 

the merits of this case were made by USCIS and ICE. DHS headquarters did not make 

those decisions. 
178 

Question#: 9 

Topic: deferred action 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Question: On the application for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Fonn 

1-821D, question 1 of Part 3 asks, "Have you ever been arrested for, charged with, or 

convicted of a felony or misdemeanor in the United States?" Question S.d of Part 3 asks 

if the respondent has ever had "any kind of sexual contact or relations with any person 

who was being forced or threatened." Sanchez Zavaleta answered no to both questions, 

despite having been arrested for aggravated sexual assault on October 11,2009. 

However, Elliot Williams, ICE Assistant Director for the Office of Congressional 

Relations, infonned Senate Judiciary Committee staff in a February 4, 2013, briefing that 

lying on a DACA application was not considered a crime. 

h. Why is it not a crime to lie on a DACA application? 

i. When false infonnation is provided on a DACA application, how should uscrs 

deal with such a situation? 

j. If there are no consequences for lying on a DACA application, please explain how 

this is not an invitation to lie to the federal government on a DACA application. 

Response: It is false to say there are no consequences for lying on a DACA application. 

A DACA requestor is required to declare under penalty of perjury that the infonnation 

provided to support his or her request is true. Lying on a DACA request is a crime and 

DRS will treat it as such. Iffalse infonnation is provided in a DACA request, that 

infonnation may be shared with national security and law enforcement agencies, 

including ICE and CSP, for the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to 

identify or prevent fraudulent claims, or for national security purposes. USCIS has made 

clear in its public guidance that if individuals knowingly make a misrepresentation, or 

knowingly fail to disclose facts, in an effort to have their case deferred or obtain work 

authorization through this process, they will be treated as an immigration enforcement 

priority to the fullest extent pennitted by law, and be subject to criminal prosecution 

and/or removal from the United States. 
179 

Question#: 10 

Topic: Union concerns 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Question: When was the last time you met with the head of each union to discuss 

concerns by agents? 

Response: The American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE), is 

the certified representative of the nationwide bargaining unit that includes U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and agents involved in customs 

enforcement. AFGE has delegated most of the representation functions for this 

bargaining unit to National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council 118 (C 118), 

which comprises 26 union locals. Most of ICE's 24 field office directors meet regularly 

with the union local presidents and their executive board. Although the C 118 president 

elected to discontinue participation in the national ICE labor management relations 

forums (LMRF), union local presidents continue to participate in local LMRF meetings. 

All ofICE's field offices established ICE-LMRFs in early 2011 and, except for those few 

local presidents who elected not to participate or to discontinue participation in the ICELMRFs, ICE field office directors conduct monthly or quarterly LMRF meetings with 

local presidents and local union officers. 

ICE senior leadership, including Director John Morton, has met with CI18 as follows: 

• January - March 2013 - Executive Associate Director Radha Sekar and Human 

Capital Officer Kim Bauhs had a series of ongoing briefing regarding 

Sequestration, Budget and Furlough issues. 

• April 2013 - Kim Bauhs meet with CIl8 regarding Federal Viewpoint Survey 

and a series of other topics raised by the council. Kim requested additional future 

meetings regarding issues of common interest. 

• February 2012-Director Morton met with the Cl18 President and John Gage, 

then AFGE National President, regarding upcoming negotiations concerning the 

ICE Collective Bargaining Agreement. Negotiations were held in the summer of 

2012. A senior advisor to Director Morton served as the chief negotiator. 

• November 201 I-ICE reached out to the Cl18 President as part of a study to 

improve ICE's Labor Relations Program and interactions with the Council. After 

initial discussions, CIl8 declined further participation. 
180 

Question#: 10 

Topic: Union concerns 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

• June 201 I-Director Morton and ICE senior leadership participated in mediation 

with C 118 led by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). 

Through structured interaction, both parties were able to discuss specific problem 

areas and identify possible means to resolve the issues. While some matters were 

addressed through those discussions, areas of disagreement remained. FMCS 

recommended sessions targeted at improving the nature of the relationship and 

interactions between labor and management; however, C 118 declined to 

participate. 

• March 201 I-Per Executive Order 13522, "Creating Labor-Management Forums 

to Improve the Delivery of Government Services," Director Morton hosted a labor 

forum with Cl18 during which numerous issues were discussed of interest to the 

Council. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has also sponsored DHSwide forums during which ICE senior leadership and C lIS have participated. 

Although Cl18 initially declined further involvement in the forums, recently, 

C lIS has begun to participate occasionally. 

Gary Mead, Executive Associate Director (EAD), ICE Office of Enforcement and 

Removal Operations (ERO), has also hosted regular opportunities for pre-decisional 

involvement with C lIS about topics as diverse as agent and officer uniforms, parameters 

for a single agent and officer career path, opportunities for a peer support program, and 

other issues. Additionally, last year, Director Morton accompanied EAD Mead to many 

town halls with ICE personnel held across the country and during those trips, met with 

local union leadership to discuss concerns, mission, and strategy. 

Question: How do you respond to the ICE union's complaint that they are handicapped 

from fulfilling their missions? 

Response: The performance ofICE officers has allowed ICE to achieve record-setting 

results in 2012, demonstrating they are successfully fulfilling the ICE mission. 

Overall, in FY 2012, ERO removed 409,S49 individuals. Of these individuals, 

approximately 55 percent, or 225,390 of the people removed, were convicted of felonies 

or misdemeanors-almost double the removal of criminals in FY 200S. This includes 

removal of 1,215 aliens convicted of homicide; 5,557 aliens convicted of sexual offenses; 

40,448 aliens convicted for crimes involving drugs; and 36,166 aliens convicted for 

driving under the influence. 

ICE continues to make progress with regard to other categories prioritized for removal. 

In 2012, 96 percent of all ofICE's removals fell into a priority category-a record high. 
181 

Question#: 10 

Topic: Union concerns 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Thus, far from being handicapped in fulfilling the ICE mission, the performance of ICE 

officers and agents has been record-setting in 2012. 

Question: Do you have plans to meet with either union in the near future? 

Response: ICE's Office of Human Capital officials have made offers to reconstitute the 

ICE Level LMRF or some method of regular scheduled LMR communications and we 

are awaiting a positive response from the Council 118 President. ICE has indicated that it 

would like to reinstate the LMRFs as part of our renewed efforts to establish effective 

means of constructive dialogue with the national union. Local managers continue to hold 

LMRF meetings with the local union presidents. 

Of note, on March 5, 2013, the CI18 president attended the most recent Department of 

Homeland Security LMRF. 
182 

Question#: 11 

Topic: Future guest workers 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENA TEl 

Question: Why is the President's plan silent on the need for future guest workers, 

particularly low-skilled workers? Do you believe that a new legal avenue for low-skilled 

workers is needed in order to stem the flow of illegal immigration? 

Response: The manner in which legislation deals with the potential need for future 

temporary workers is an important part of immigration reform. We are open to seeing 

how any proposal from the Senate or House proposes to address future temporary worker 

programs so that it both protects workers, including immigrant workers, and is based on 

data-drive workforce needs, and will work with Congress on any such proposals. 
183 

Question#: 12 

Topic: Legalization program details 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Question: Should people here illegally who are in removal proceedings be allowed to 

benefit from a legalization program? Should people that have ignored the government's 

orders to leave the United States after a thorough legal proceeding-be allowed to 

benefit from a legalization program? 

Response: The Administration has made clear that any immigration reform package must 

include a legal way for undocumented immigrants to earn citizenship that will encourage 

them to come out of the shadows so they can play by the same rules as everyone else, 

including paying their taxes. Under any earned citizenship plan, immigrants living here 

illegally must be held responsible for their actions by passing national security and 

criminal background checks, paying taxes and a penalty, going to the back of the line, 

and learning English before they can earn their citizenship. 

Question: Should an alien convicted of a felony criminal offense or multiple 

misdemeanors be allowed to benefit from a legalization program? 

Response: The Administration has made clear that any immigration reform package must 

include a legal way for undocumented immigrants to earn citizenship that will encourage 

them to come out of the shadows so they can play by the same rules as everyone else, 

including paying their taxes. Under any earned citizenship plan, immigrants living here 

illegally must be held responsible for their actions by passing national security and 

criminal background checks, paying taxes and a penalty, going to the back of the line, 

and learning English before they can earn their citizenship. 

Question: Should gang members be allowed to benefit from a legalization program? 

Response: The Administration has made clear that any immigration reform package must 

include a legal way for undocumented immigrants to earn citizenship that will encourage 

them to come out of the shadows so they can play by the same rules as everyone else, 

including paying their taxes. Under any earned citizenship plan, immigrants living here 

illegally must be held responsible for their actions by passing national security and 

criminal background checks, paying taxes and a penalty, going to the back of the line, 

and learning English before they can earn their citizenship. 

Question: If an alien provides information in an application that is law enforcement 

sensitive or criminal in nature, should that information be used by our government and 

not be protected under confidentiality provisions? 
184 

Question#: 12 

Topic: Legalization program details 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Response: The manner in which legislation deals with the confidentiality of information 

submitted as part of an earned legalization program is an important part of immigration 

reform. We look forward to seeing how any proposal from the Senate or House proposes 

to address this issue, and will work with Congress on any such proposals. 

Question: Should people here illegally be given probationary status, or legal status, 

without a background check done first? Should there be a time limit imposed for federal 

agents with regard to background checks on aliens who apply for legalization? 

Response: The Administration has made clear that any immigration reform package must 

include a legal way for undocumented immigrants to earn citizenship that will encourage 

them to come out of the shadows so they can play by the same rules as everyone else, 

including paying their taxes. Under any earned citizenship plan, immigrants living here 

illegally must be held responsible for their actions by passing national security and 

criminal background checks, paying taxes and a penalty, going to the back of the line, 

and learning English before they can earn their citizenship. 

Question: Should aliens (rather than taxpayers) who benefit from a legalization program 

pay for all costs associated with it? 

Response: An earned legalization program should include the payment of fees and 

penalties to offset the costs of administration. 

Question: Should people that apply for legalization be required to submit to an in-person 

interview with adjudicators? 

Response: The manner in which legislation deals with how applications should be 

processed is an important part of immigration reform. We look forward to seeing how 

any proposal from the Senate or House proposes to address this issue, and will work with 

Congress on any such proposals. 

Question: Should people that have been denied legalization be placed in immigration 

proceedings and removed? 

Response: The manner in which legislation deals with individuals whose applications for 

legalization have been denied is an important part of immigration reform. We look 

forward to seeing how any proposal from the Senate or House proposes to address this 

issue, and will work with Congress on any such proposals. 
185 

Question#: 12 

Topic: Legalization program details 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Question: If the Secretary of Homeland Security must revoke a visa for someone on U.S. 

soil, should that decision be reviewable in the U.S. courts? 

Response: The manner in which legislation deals with judicial review as part of a visa 

program is an important part of immigration reform. We look forward to seeing how any 

proposal from the Senate or House proposes to address this issue, and will work with 

Congress on any such proposals. 
186 

Question#: 13 

Topic: Entry/exit system 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Question: Until immigration refonn is passed by Congress, what will your Department 

be doing to comply with the 1996 law that requires the Executive Branch to implement a 

biometric entry and exit system? 

Response: As required by the FY2012 Appropriations Act, DHS provided to the House 

and Senate Appropriations Committees a Comprehensive Biometric Air Exit Plan in May 

2012. In that plan, DHS explained that it will continue to pursue research and 

development into a biometric air exit plan, led by the DHS Science and Technology 

Directorate (S&T), while enhancing the existing biographic air exit system that DHS uses 

today to identify and sanction those who have overstayed their authorized period of 

admission to the United States. Given the concerns with earlier biometric air exit pilots 

conducted between 2004 and 2009, DHS S&T will work with subject matter experts from 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) in order to evaluate recent private sector and international technology 

deployments to detennine additional operational models for a biometric air exit program. 

Our first step is to identifY technology that is viable and not cost-prohibitive before 

proceeding with a pilot program. The plan also described how the Department will 

continue to enhance its existing exit system using biographic data between now and 2014, 

which will: 

Significantly enhance our existing capability to identify and target for 

enforcement action those who have overstayed their authorized period 

of admission and who represent a public safety and/or national security 

threat; 

Establish an automated entry-exit capability that will produce 

infonnation on individual overstays and detennine overstay 

percentages by country; 

Allow us to take administrative action against confinned overstays by 

providing the State Department with infonnation to support visa 

revocation, prohibiting VWP travel, and placing individuals on 

lookout lists, in accordance with existing federal laws; 

Establish greater efficiencies to our Visa Security Program, allowing 

for research and analytic activities to be carried out in the United 

States and investigative and law enforcement liaison work overseas; 

and 

• Provide the core components of an entry-exit and overstay program 

that will incorporate and use biometric infonnation, as technologies 
187 

Question#: 

Topic: 

Hearing: 

Primary: 

Committee: 

13 

Entry/exit system 

Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

mature and DHS can implement an affordable biometric air exit 

system. 

In the past two years, DHS has worked to better detect and deter those who overstay their 

authorized period of admission through implementation of the enhanced biographic 

program. As part of Phase I of this effort, in May 2011, Department components began a 

coordinated effort to vet all potential overstay records against intelligence community 

and DHS holdings for national security and public safety concerns. In total, Department 

components reviewed the backlog of 1.6 million unvetted potential overstay records 

based on national security and public safety priorities. The resulting individuals of 

concern were forwarded to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for further 

investigation, and the remaining records are being manually reviewed by ICE to 

determine overstay status and will be pursued by ICE in accord with the Administration's 

enforcement priorities. Phase II of this effort includes automating connections between 

data sources, allowing the Department's Arrival-Departure Information System, which 

tracks overstays for the Department, to use additional USCIS data useful to determining 

overstays, and refining ICE's ability to more effectively target and prioritize overstay 

leads of concern. This phase was deployed on April 9, 2013. 

DHS is also following through on Phase III of the enhanced biographic exit plan. This 

includes database modernization, further investments in targeting and prioritization 

capabilities, increased functionality between biometric and biographic repositories, as 

well as document validation, which will dramatically improve the ability to successfully 

match entry and exit records biographically. In addition to improving existing biographic 

capabilities, DHS is finding low cost ways to eliminate existing gaps in data. DHS has 

partnered with Canada to develop an exit program on the common land border of both 

countries. Beginning June 30, 2013, each country will exchange entry records on thirdcountry nationals and permanent residents, with the other, such that an entry into one 

country will be an exit from the other. Thus, DHS will have a functioning biographic 

land border exit system on the northern border by mid-2013, in addition to the biographic 

air/sea exit system already in place. 

When fully implemented, the biographic program will eliminate backlog ofunreviewed 

overstays, and allow DHS to prioritize and take action on overstays, focusing on national 

security and public safety, and serve as a solid foundation as DHS continues to research 

additional methods of collecting biometric data at the point of departure for foreign 

nationals. 
188 

Question#: 14 

Topic: Cook County 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Question: There has been a lot of discussion about the ordinance in place in Cook 

County, Illinois. Despite the strong stance taken by you and Director Morton, nothing 

has changed and the safety of the public is still at risk. Please provide an update on what 

options are being discussed on how to deal with the ordinance and its impediment on 

ICE's mission. Also, please outline what discussions have taken place with the 

Department of Justice about withholding SCAAP funds for places like Cook County. 

Response: The Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) are committed to ensuring the safety of American communities and 

will continue to consider options 10 encourage Cook County officials to honor ICE 

detainers. ICE has engaged with the Cook County Board of Commissioners about this 

issue. To address Cook County's concerns, ICE has discussed several alternatives 

regarding the ordinance. 

On September 21,2012, ICE sent a letter to the Bureau ofJustice Assistance, within the 

Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice (DOJ), indicating that ICE had 

completed its review of the fiscal year (FY) 2012 State Criminal Alien Assistance 

Program (SCAAP) funding requests. The letter informed DOJ that the agency's ability to 

accurately verify the immigration status of criminal aliens detained by jurisdictions that 

restrict ICE's access to information and persons who may be in the country unlawfully is 

undermined. Accordingly, while ICE did complete its review of all FY 2012 SCAAP 

requests received from DOJ, ICE was not able to verify submissions from Cook County, 

Illinois, and Santa Clara County, California. 
189 

Question#: 15 

Topic: detention standards 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Question: Last February, ICE announced changes to its detention standards, providing 

more accommodations and benefits to illegal aliens. The manual says that trans gender 

detainees who were already receiving hormone therapy when taken into ICE custody 

shall have continued access. Does that mean taxpayers will be paying for these therapies, 

or will the costs of the therapy be the burden of the detainee? To date, have taxpayers 

paid for these therapies? If so, what has been the cost to taxpayers? 

Response: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) new standard governing 

access to hormone therapy mirrors the policy of the Department of Justice, Bureau of 

Prisons (BOP). Under ICE policy, detainees who are already receiving hormone therapy 

when taken into ICE custody are provided continued access to such therapy, and all 

transgender detainees in ICE custody have access to trans gender-related medical care and 

medications based on medical need. Similar to BOP policy on Gender Identity Disorder 

(GID), ICE policy requires that inmates diagnosed with GID receive all medically 

necessary treatment to achieve physical and mental stability, including hormone therapy, 

regardless of whether or not they had already been receiving such treatment prior to being 

taken into custody. 

All necessary medical care in detention facilities is funded by ICE or the local 

government entity operating the facility rather than by individual detainees; however, the 

costs of providing hormone therapy are modest, ranging from approximately $11-

35/month for male-to-female hormone treatment, and approximately $15-30/month for 

female-to-male hormone treatment. In addition, ICE's policy is consistent with medical 

and legal findings that abrupt termination of hormone therapy can result in adverse, 

severe medical reactions, treatment of which may cause the government to incur 

significant medical expenses. 
190 

Question#: 16 

Topic: Visa Security Pro gram 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Question: What is the status of the Visa Security Program, specifically how many units 

are deployed and where are they deployed? Do you believe that the Visa Security 

Program should be expanded to all 57 visa-issuing posts determined to be high risk by 

DHS and the Department of State? If so, how much would it cost to expand the VSP to 

all high-risk posts? Why haven't you asked Congress for that amount as part of your 

proposed budget? 

*** Lan' Enfon.·enwnt Sensitive *** 
191 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Question#: 16 

Topic: Visa Security Program 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

*** La,\" Enforcement Sensitive *** 
192 

Question#: 17 

Topic: Morton Memoranda 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Mike Lee 

Committee: JUDTCIARY (SENATE) 

Question: In 2011, ICE Director John Morton issued two memoranda that outlined 

priorities for prosecutorial discretion. I was troubled by the issuance of those memoranda 

and I remain troubled by their implementation. 

Chris Crane, a witness on the second panel here today, submitted written testimony for 

today's hearing detailing disturbing accounts of the implementation of this prosecutorial 

discretion directive. Specifically, he recounts the experience of three ICE agents in Salt 

Lake City, Utah, who arrested an individual after he admitted in open court that he was in 

the country illegally. The ICE Field Office Director, however, ordered that all the 

charges be dropped and that the ICE agents be placed under investigation for making the 

arrest. I understand that this is just one of many instances in which agents' ability to 

arrest offenders has been restricted. 

Are you concerned that at some point a specific set of so-called "priorities," when 

universally enforced in rigid fashion, will essentially amount to the enactment of 

legislation without bicameralism and presentment? 

Response: No, this process is simply smart law enforcement policy that will help 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) effectuate its priorities and effectively 

use its immigration enforcement resources. The use ofprosecutorial discretion in the 

immigration context has long been recognized by the Supreme Court, including most 

recently in Arizona v. United States. 
193 

Question#: 18 

Topic: workplace enforcement 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Mike Lee 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Question: In April 2009, ICE introduced a revised worksite enforcement strategy that 

prioritizes prosecutions against employers who hire unauthorized workers over the 

prosecution of unauthorized workers. 

Has this shift in priorities measurably reduced the employment of illegal aliens? 

Response: DHS neither measures nor is aware of any industry that actively measures this 

type of data. 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Office of Homeland Security 

Investigations believes that our revised strategy utilizing enforcement (criminal arrests of 

employers), compliance (Form 1-9 inspections, civil fines and debarment) and outreach 

(ICE Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers (IMAGE) program) is 

more effective in creating a culture of compliance. Since its launch in 2009, the current 

WSE strategy has resulted in record years in criminal arrest of employers/managers, 

initiation of WSE investigations, 1-9 inspections, suspension and debarment of 

companies, and finals orders of administrative fines. 

Question: In what ways might a bill that requires the use ofE-Verify increase ICE's 

ability to enforce employment laws in the workplace? 

Response: The Administration believes that mandated the use of E-Verify, in a phased-in 

manner, is an important component in an immigration reform bill. E-Verify provides 

businesses with a clear, free, and efficient means to determine whether their employees 

are eligible to work in the United States. By helping employers ensure their workforce is 

legal, electronic verification promotes economic fairness and a level playing field, 

prevents the illegal hiring that serves as a magnet for further undocumented immigration 

across our borders, and protects workers from exploitation. 
194 

Question#: 19 

Topic: Border control 1 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Mike Lee 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Question: In your written statement, you ascribe the four-year decrease in attempts to 

cross the Southwest border illegally, as measured by Border Patrol apprehensions, to 

more effective border security. 

Are you able to account for the effects of a sluggish economy on the decrease in border 

crossings over the last four years? 

Response: Border security is a shared responsibility, and a concept that doesn't begin or 

end at the border. To be truly effective, it requires a unity of effort, involving a whole of 

government approach to include Federal, state, local, tribal, and bi-national partnerships. 

Although there are various factors that influence apprehension rates, the Department 

believes that the decline is due in large part to the investments that have been made in 

border security resources. The Department will continue to maintain and expand upon its 

successes, by further integrating Federal, state, local, tribal, and bi-national border 

security efforts and by applying a risk-based strategy, based on information and 

intelligence while moving towards a more flexible and mobile workforce that can rapidly 

respond to emerging threats. 
195 

Question#: 20 

Topic: Border control 2 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Mike Lee 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Question: Last year, you implemented a new index to track the security of the borderone that, remarkably, does not seek to track the number of illegal aliens who succeed in 

crossing the border. 

How can improvements in border security be measured accurately if you have changed 

the metrics by which you assess security? 

Response: Border security is not a simple concept and it cannot be measured in a single 

metric. Border Patrol officers and agents measure success utilizing dozens of metrics, 

each of which paints a different portion of the overall border security picture and each of 

which informs tactical decision making. Amongst others, these metrics include 

apprehensions, recidivism, and crime rates in border communities. While each metric 

helps inform the overall state of border security, the relative importance of each metric 

shifts over time. Because no single metric can measure border security, our focus has 

been on ensuring that Border Patrol agents have the tools necessary to best secure our 

borders. 
196 

Question#: 21 

Topic: Visa Exit System 

Hearing: Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Primary: The Honorable Mike Lee 

Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) 

Question: At a full Committee hearing last April, you testified that a biometric visa exit 

system could be deployed within 4 years. You then submitted your plan to Congress in 

May. In your written statement for today's hearing, you suggested that the current phase, 

which involves automating connections between DHS data sources, would be complete 

sometime this year. 

When do you expect the biometric exit system to be fully implemented? 

Response: DHS provided to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees a 

Comprehensive Biometric Air Exit Plan in May 2012. In that plan, DHS explained that it 

will continue to pursue research and development into a biometric air exit plan, led by the 

DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), while enhancing the existing 

biographic air exit system that DHS uses today to identify and sanction those who have 

overstayed their lawful period of admission to the United States. Given the concems 

with earlier biometric air exit pilots conducted between 2004 and 2009, DHS S&T will 

work with subject matter experts from CBP and NIST in order to evaluate recent private 

sector and international technology deployments to determine additional operational 

models for a biometric air exit program. Our first step is to identify technology that is 

viable and not cost-prohibitive before proceeding with a pilot program. 

Question: I believe that increased international tourism could do much more good for 

our economy than our current system allows. America is still viewed as the top 

destination for many foreigners who would come and spend a substantial amount of 

money here. Travel is one of the easiest ways to spur economic growth in our cities, in 

our national parks, and at our tourist attractions. With a reliable exit system in place, we 

could do more, legislatively, to encourage international tourism. 

What effect do you predict a biometric exit system will have on the visa overstay rate? 

Response: A biometric air exit system will have a marginal impact on the visa overstay 

rate. Biometric air exit data provides additional assurances that an identity departing the 

United States matches a specific identity that previously entered the United States. While 

this will provide significant operational benefits to DHS, biometric exit must still be 

"anchored" by a biographic exit system in order to allow the biometric data to match 

within the time limits that the entry and exit operational environment requires. Further, 

biometric air exit does not solve certain data gaps that DHS is addressing elsewhere, such 

as land border departures. 
197 

Senator Grassley's Question for Jessica Vaughan, CIS 

1. Entry-Exit System: In 1996, Congress required the creation of an automated entry/exit 

system to record the entries and departures of every alien. The law was intended to track 

visa overstays. However, administration after administration has failed to implement the 

"exit" portion, citing costs and burden to airlines and government agencies. The outline 

of a plan circulated by the eight senators includes an entry/exit system, but only at air and 

sea ports. It doesn't include land points of entry. Do you believe that any effective 

entry-exit system must cover land points of entry? 

Answer: Yes; any entry-exit system that fails to cover land ports of entry will miss the majority 

of visitors entering the country, and probably the majority of overstayers as well. According to 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics, about two-thirds of international travelers enter 

the United States by land. Most of these visitors currently are exempt from enrollment in USVISIT meaning we currently do not collect biometric information upon either entry or exit, and 

therefore have not authenticated the visitors' identity nor collected information to determine their 

compliance with immigration laws. A large share of/and-entry visitors are citizens of Mexico 

(or claiming to be), which is also the top country of origin ofthe estimated three to four million 

overstayers. Plans for land port re-design that are currently underway should be expected to 

incorporate the eventual implementation of entry and exit screening. Those land ports that have 

already implemented southbound screening for weapons and cash have a head start and should 

be considered pilots for how to accomplish traveler screening as well. In addition, the expansion 

oftrusted traveler programs should be considered to increase the number of individuals who can 

be tracked in a less labor-intensive process. Lawmakers should consider imposing entry fees for 

cross-border commuters and other visitors to help fund the infrastructure improvements and the 

increased cost of more robust traveler inspections. 

2. Temporary Worker Program: On January 29, President Obama offered an outline ofa 

plan for comprehensive immigration reform. It has four broad parts, including a pathway 

to citizenship for illegal immigrants. And, while he addresses legal immigration by 

talking about family reunification, increasing numbers, and enhancing tourism, he does 

not mention the need for a future guest worker program to help low-skilled immigrants. 

What's your reaction to the President's proposed plan, particularly on this point? 

Answer: Our research shows that the President's plan is unlikely to garner sufficient support to 

pass, and, ifpassed, would be harmful to American workers, costly for taxpayers, and 

detrimental to national security and public safety. It would exacerbate our immigration 

problems, because it completes the amnesty and increases legal immigration before shoring up 

enforcement of immigration laws and improving border security. With regard to the need for 

future low-skill guest worker programs, our research indicates that there is no shortage of such 

workers in the United States at this time. In the fourth quarter of2012, the standard 

unemployment rate (referred to as U-3) for U.S.-born adults who have not completed high school 

was 18.7 percent. Using the broader measure of unemployment (referred to as U-6), which 

includes those who want to work but have not looked recently, the rate for U.S.-born adults who 

have not completed high school was 30.8 percent. This suggests that theoretically, U.S. 

employers in need oflow-skilled workers should be able to find U.S. workers. In addition, our 

family-based legal immigration programs and our existing guest worker programs bring in tens 

of thousands of additional low-skilled workers each year. However, it could be that some 
198 

employers experience spot shortages of workers. I believe that our current guest worker 

programs could be reformed to better meet the small-scale needs of certain employers without 

disastrous effects on U.S. workers. Reforms should include transferring some degree of control 

or input to state workforce agencies, and the programs must be industry-specific, truly temporary 

(confirm exits), short-term (six months or less), include wage and conditions standards, and 

limited in the number of workers admitted. The point must be to avoid encouraging employers 

to become dependent on foreign guest workers, and to promote the development of a stable 

domestic labor source (or alternatives such as robotics or mechanization). In addition, I 

recommend that members of the committee seek data from DHS on the visa compliance rates for 

H-2A and H-2B workers, which was collected under the Visa Exit Program Pilot (terminated in 

September, 20 II). Under the pilot, these visitors were required to exit the United States using 

specific border crossing points so that their departure could be confirmed. This information 

might help lawmakers determine if these programs contribute to illegal settlement or if additional 

compliance requirements need to be implemented. 

3. E-Verify: On January 31 s" I introduced the Accountability Through Electronic 

Verification Act, a bill that would make E-Verify a staple in every workplace. When we 

passed the 1986 amnesty, we made it illegal for an employer to knowingly hire someone 

here unlawfully. Do you believe that the E-Verify program should be mandatory? Do 

you think that increasing penalties on employers will help deter them from hiring people 

here illegally? 

Answer: Yes, E-Verify should be mandatory. As long as E-Verify remains voluntary, then lawabiding, conscientious employers who are diligent about maintaining a legal workforce will be 

disadvantaged by their competitors who continue to hire illegal workers. Unless E-Verify is 

made mandatory, then the unscrupulous employers will not comply. I have interviewed 

employers around the country in a variety of industries about their use of E-Verify and ifthey do 

not use it, when I ask them why, the most common answer is, "because we don't have to." 

According to a recent Bloomberg Government study, the imposition ofE-Verify mandates at the 

state level have significantly affected employer and employee behavior, with the result that 

employers comply with the law, illegal workers depart, and legal workers are hired for those 

same jobs. As for increased penalties, in my view this could be helpful, but it would be even 

more fruitful for ICE to re-balance its worksite enforcement efforts to include more criminal 

investigations against egregious employers with a pattern or practice of illegal hiring, or who 

harbor illegal workers, in addition to the payroll audits, which typically result in paperwork 

violations. According to ICE statistics, criminal arrests, indictments, and prosecutions of 

employers have declined by more than 50 percent since 2008. It doesn't do much good to 

increase the penalties if fewer employers are subject to prosecution to begin with, and if ICE is 

limiting itself in the types of investigations and subsequent charges that it can bring. 

4. Biometric Social Security Cards: Some members of Congress have proposed the creation 

of a new biometric Social Security card for all Americans. Do you have any thoughts 

about such proposals? 

Answer: In my view, the introduction of a biometric Social Security card would not have a 

significant effect on illegal immigration, illegal hiring, or preventing illegal immigrants from 

accessing public benefits, although it would impose burdensome requirements on the federal 
199 

government to produce and issue the cards, on Americans and legal workers to apply for and 

carry the cards, and on employers and government agencies to obtain devices to read the cards. 

Instead, the focus should be on preventing unauthorized or fraudulent use of the Social Security 

numbers. This can be accomplished with existing programs and technology. For example, the 

Social Security Administration and DHS should resume cooperation to issue no-match letters to 

employers in situations of possible fraudulent use, and to notify individuals when their numbers 

may have been compromised. The existing E-Verify and SSNVS programs can support these 

efforts, but they should be used more extensively. 

5. Spending on Enforcement Efforts: In January, the Migration Policy Institute released a 

report entitled Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a Formidable 

Machinery. The report aims to convince the public that the government has succeeded in 

immigration enforcement and suggests that spending cuts might be in order. What's your 

reaction to the report released by the Migration Policy Institute? 

Answer: The MPI report paints a misleading picture of the state of immigration law 

enforcement. First, MPI grossly inflates the immigration enforcement spending totals by tallying 

all spending by three Department of Homeland Security agencies -- Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and US-VISIT, much of which is not 

spent on activities unrelated to immigration enforcement, and compares it to spending on a 

handful of other federal law enforcement agencies, to give the impression that immigration 

enforcement spending represents a majority of all federal law enforcement spending. In fact, 

spending on immigration law enforcement agencies is about one-half of what is spent on all 

other non-military federal law enforcement agencies, not 24 percent greater, as MPI claimed. 

And, a large share of the DHS agencies' activities are not immigration enforcement at all; they 

include customs screening and enforcement, drug and weapons interdiction, cargo inspection, 

returning stolen antiquities, and intellectual property violations. It is true that we have seen 

dramatic growth in immigration enforcement spending over the last two decades, but the scale of 

the illegal immigration problem is much larger than it was two decades ago. And, our nation 

faces greater threats from terrorism and transnational criminal organization than it did two 

decades ago. Besides, in addition to displacing American and legal immigrants from jobs and 

depressing their wages, illegal immigration costs taxpayers about $10 billion a year at the federal 

level, and even more at the state and local level. For this reason, every dollar invested in border 

security and immigration enforcement has a public safety benefit and a fiscal benefit. No one 

could seriously suggest that we under-fund our agencies to the extent that they were starved for 

resources in the 1990s. A more detailed critique ofthe MPI report can be found here: 

http:// ci s.orgl Anno unc ements/I mm i grati on -En forcement -U n i ted -S ta tes-R ise-F orm idab leMachinery. 

6. Record Deportation Statistics: Administration officials have pointed to what they claim 

is a record number of removals and returns-- 409,000 in 2012, out of more than 12 

million people here illegally. What's your response to the administration's claims that its 

enforcement numbers and efforts are record breaking? 

Answer: Statistics on immigration enforcement from a variety of sources present a mixed 

picture of immigration enforcement, with many indicators suggesting a significant decline in 

immigration enforcement activity over the last several years, and others showing only modest 
200 

increases. While the administration claims that 409,000 is a record number of removals and 

returns, they have not shared their methodology nor shown exactly what type of cases they are 

counting. Their deportation statistics include the removal of tens ofthousands of individuals 

who were apprehended by the Border Patrol, and who traditionally were not counted in 

deportation statistics. Older DHS and INS statistics contradict this claim of a record number of 

removals and returns; for example, in 1995 removals and returns numbered more than 1.3 

million, and in 1996 they numbered more than 1.3 million. The total number of removals and 

returns reported by DHS has declined 41 percent since 2007, from 1.2 million to 716,000 in 

2011. Other metrics also indicate a decline in enforcement. For example, arrests by the ICEHSI have declined 70 percent since 2007, while arrests by ICE-ERO have been flat, despite the 

implementation of the Secure Communities program, which has dramatically enhanced ICE's 

ability to identify criminal aliens. Finally, it appears that the number of aliens who have failed to 

abide by deportation orders is rising. In 2012, ICE reported that there were 850,000 aliens 

present in the country who have been ordered removed or excluded, but who had not departed, 

up from 558,000 fugitive aliens reported in 2008. 
201 

Appendix VIII: Estimated Illegal Entries by Data 

Element (Apprehensions, Estimated Tum Backs, 

and Estimated Got Aways) by Border Patrol Sector, 

Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 

Figures 36 through 44 show the number of apprehensions, turn backs, 

and got aways as percentages of total estimated known illegal entries for 

each southwest border sector, from fiscal years 2006 through 2011. 

Figure 36: Number of San Diego Sector Border Patrol Apprehensions, Turn Backs. 

and Got Aways as a Percentage of Estimated Known Illegal Entries, Fiscal Years 

2006 through 2011 

Page 14 GAO~13~25 Border Patrol Strategic Plan 
202 

Appendix VIII: Estimated Illegal Entries by Data 

Element (Apprehensions, Estimated Tum 

Backs. and Estimated Got Aways) by Border 

Patrol Sector, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 

Figure 37: Number of EI Centro Sector Border Patrol Apprehensions. Tum Backs, 

and Got Aways as a Percentage of Estimated Known Illegal Entries, Fiscal Years 

2006 through 2011 

Page 75 GAO·13·25 Border Patrol Strategic Plan 
203 

Appendix VIII: Estimated Illegal Entries by Data 

Element (Apprehansions, Estimated Tum 

Sacks, and E5timate-d Got Aways) by Border Patrol Sector. Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 

Figure 38: Number of Yuma Sector Border Patrol Apprehensions, Tum Backs, and 

GQt Aways as a Percentage of Estimated Known UlegaJ Entries, Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2011 

Page 76 GAO·13~25 SorderPatrol Strategic Plan 
204 

Appendix VIII: Estimated Illegal Entries by Data 

Element (Apprehensions, Estimated Tum 

Backs, and Estimated Got Aways) by Border 

Patrol Sector, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 

Figure 39: Number of Tucson Sector Border Patrol Apprehensions, Turn Backs, and 

Got Aways as a Percentage of Estimated Known Illegal Entries, Fiscal Years 2006 

through 20t t 

Page 77 GAO~13-25 Border Patrol Strategic Plan 
205 

Appendix VIfI: Estimated Illegal Entries by Data 

Element (Apprehensions, Estimated Turn 

Backs, and Estimated Got Aways) by Border 

Patrol Sector. Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 

Figure 40: Number of EI Paso Sector Border Patrol Apprehensions, Tum Backs, and 

Got Aways as a Percentage of Estimated Known Illegal Entries. Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2011 

Page 78 GAO~13~25 Border Patrol Strategic Plan 
206 

Appendix VIII: Estimated Illegal Entries by Data 

Element (Apprehensions, Estimated Turn 

Backs, and Estimated Got Aways) by Border 

Patrol Sector, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 

Figure 41: Number of Big Bend Sector Border Patrol Apprehensions, Turn Backs, 

and Got Aways as a Percentage of Estimated Known Illegal Entries, Fiscal Years 

2006 through 2011 

Page 79 GAO-13-2S Border Patrol Strategic Plan 
207 

Appendix VIII: Estimated Illegal Entries by Data 

Element (Apprehensions, Estimated Turn 

Backs, and Estimated Got AwaY!!ii) by Border 

Patrol Sector, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 

Figure 42: Number of Del Rio Sector Border Patrol Apprehensions. Turn Backs, and 

Got Aways as a Percentage of Estimated Known Illegal Entries, Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2011 

Percentage 

100 

" 

7 • 

•• 

'0 

40 

3. 

Page SO 

2008 1009 2\)'0 

GAO·13·25 Border Patrol Strategic Plan 
208 

Appendix VIII: Estimated Illegal Entries by Data 

Element (Apprehensions, Estimated Turn 

Backs, and Estimated Got Aways) by Border 

Patrol Sector, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 

Figure 43: Number of Laredo Sector Border Patrol Apprehensions, Tum Backs. and 

Got Aways as a Percentage of Estimated Known Illegal Entries, Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2011 

Page 81 GAO~13~25 Border Patrol Strategic Plan 
209 

Appendix VIII: Estimated Illegal Entries by Data 

Element (Apprehensions, Estimated Turn 

Backs, and Estimated Got Aways) by Border 

Patrol Sector, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 

Figure 44: Number of Rio Grande Valley Sector Border Patrol Apprehensions, Tum 

Backs, and Got Aways as a Percentage of Estimated Known Illegal Entries, Fiscal 

Years 2006 through 2011 

Page 82 GAO~13~25 Border Patrol Strategic Plan 
210 

JEff FLAKE 

Unitoi Stares Smatr CO¥M1 PH 0"< THE ,lPtna~fr't 

(0~N.~\! rrt {'N AGi","G 

The Honorable Janet Napolita.-10 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, D.C. 20528 

Dear Mada.-n Secretary, 

As you are aware~ 

February 2013 

system. The renewed on jmml,gra.tjon 

needed solutions to long-standing issues 

much 

Unfortunately, the persistent focus on the narrative that the southern border between the U.s. and 

Mexico is 'safer than ever' is At best, the 'safer than ever' claim refers to the 

situation we were fa.cing years ago historic levels crossings rather than 

any assessment oflhe current 

(DRS) has a determined focus on the 

indicator of perfonnance relative to border security despite this metric 

Any number of factors~ such as the recent economic dov,'ntum, be contributing to 

apprehension rates. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted a 

issued in December of last year that apprehensions as in interim meaSUTe "does not 

results and therefore limits DHS and congressional oversight and accountability." !n 

GAO also noted flatly that "Border Patrol does not yet have goals and 

measures in place necessary to define border security and determine resources necessary to 

achieve it" 

Federal agents along the southern border are no doubt and despite the lack of 

credible performance goals and measures it appears in border security have been 

realized in certain nrcas, such as in the Yuma Sector. However, the issues in the Tucson 

Sector remain a dangerous problem. Take for exa.-nple the Ladd Ranch, a acre ranch that 

shares ten miles oflhe U.S.-Mexico border between Naco, Arizona and the San Pedro River, 

They report witnessing 14 breaches with a jotal of 29 trucks over the last 12 months. According 

to the rancher, the crossings took place in and within sight of four fixed cameros. 

an increased Border in the area, they were told the Border 

the manpower. The Horder claims to have some number of 

the CTOssers and is reportedly planning to instal! a portable camera 
211 

The Honorable JMet Napolitano 

February 11, 2013 

Page 2 

Given the persistence of security issues in the Tucson Sector, it would be beneficial to have the 

Depanment provide answers to tbe following questions related to these witnessed crossings: 

• Does the Border Patrol have a record of the specific crossings that 'were witnessed over 

the last ! 2 months on the !.add RMch? 

• Were My of those involved in the witnessed crossings apprehended by the Border Patrol 

and if so where were they apprehended? 

• To what extent was drug trafficking involved and to the Border Patrol's knowledge were 

any of those crossing armed at the time? 

• If any were apprehended, waS anyone charged and what was the ultimate disposition of 

those apprehended? 

• Given that the !\rea appears to he frequented by those seeking unlawful entry in into the 

U.S., what has been the Border Patrol's presence in the area over the last 12 months? 

• What is the Border Patrol's plan for addressing what appears to he an area frequented by 

those seeking to cross illegally? 

An attitude of 'at least it's not as bad as it used to be' is slim comfort to border area residents 

continuing to be faced with an unsafe situation. Like it or not, the U.S. public will be loath to 

trust the federal government to move forward with the reforms nccessary to address \.\;despread 

issues presented by our broken immigration system unless steps are taken to address security at 

the border. Toward thaI end, 11001; forward to your responses to the questions posed. 

Sincerely, 

/ 

/lEFFFLAKE 

u.s. Senator 
212 

Chris Crane 

President 

February 12, 2013 

National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council 

P.O. Box 471 

Oakdale, LA 71463 

The Honorable Barack Obama 

President 

The White !louse 

Washington, DC 20500 

Dear Mr. President: 

The National Immigration and Customs Enrorcement Council represents 7,000 ICE 

oflicers and support staff who proteclthis nation and uphold our immigration laws. ( write today 

to express my sincere and respectful concern that our union and its members have not been 

invited to participate in White House meetings concerning the crafting of a comprehensive 

immigration bill. It is my understanding that you recently met with business executives and 

advocacy groups to discuss immigration rcform that would include legalization for those now 

here illegally, as well as a possible guest worker program and chain migration, These measures 

would have significant implications for interior immigration enforcement and I believe our 

officers-who risk their lives every day to secure the nation-have a crucial perspective to oITcr. 

As you may know, ICE otncers have b~en forced to tile suit against Secretary Napolitano 

for actions she has takcn that prevent us trom doing our jobs and enforcing duly enacted law. 

Right now, our omcers effectively have 10 choose between enfi)rcing the law as we're trained or 

losing their jobs. I am plaintiff in this suit. Our union has also previously held our appointed 

director, John Morton, in no confidence with a unanimous VOle. 

I have attached to this letter my recent testimony befllre the House Judiciary Committee, 

which outlines in detail the concerns our oflicers have and the threats to public sa11~ty created by 

the constraints which have been placed upon us. Agent morale has been devastated. We are 

given directions, both verbal and written. that prevent us hom being able to arrest those who are 

in dear violation of the law and who may even pose a threat to public safety. We are also 

concerned about the practice of releasing without investigation illegal aliens who have allegedly 

assaulted our officers. 

Until these concerns arc resolved, I fear that any entorcement mechanisms in a future 

immigmtion bill wilL like the laws already on the books. not be enforced. 
213 

In order to shan: these concerns in more detail, I would therefore respectfully request, as 

both an ICE officer and as president of the National ICE Council, that our union be included in 

any future immigratiollll1c.:tings held at the White House. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely. 
214 

Dear Chairman Patrick Leahy, 

Attached please find links to 265,213 petitions calling for a roadmap to citizenship 

for all 11 million undocumented immigrants living in our country collected by the 

following organizations: 

Presente.org 9,856 

CREDO Action 102, 619 

Daily KOS 55,129 

America's Voice 9,026 

National Council of La Raza 4,583 

Reform Immigration for America 84,000 
215 

presenle.opq 

To the United States Congress: 

In past years, previous Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) 

bills haven't come close to giving all undocumented people a 

chance at citizenship, and would have left millions behind. 

I am calling on you to introduce a bill that would provide a pathway 

to citizenship for alln million undocumented people living and 

contributing in our country. 

Link to 9, 856 signatures: 

https:lldocs.google.com/a/presente.org/file/d/OBY3 unTzFl tlYUFGMjlaVEdubkk/edit?usp=sharing 
216 

February 12, 2013 

Chairman Patrick Leahy 

United States Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirilsen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Leahy: 

I am writing to deliver the signatures of 102,619 Americans who have signed a petition with the following 

text: 

"The struggle for immigrants' rights is the next stage in America's movement for civil rights. 

We need to pass real Immigration reform including a roadmap to citizenship for America's 

11 million immigrants." 

Over 11 million immigrants live in the United States w~hout the full protection of our legal system or a 

framework that would provide them with a path to participate in our democracy. 

The time is now for real immigration reform that keeps families together, protects immigrants from violence 

and discrimination, and provides immigrants who are living in America and rontributing to our society a 

pathway to cnizenship. 

Thesa Americans urge you to support real immigration reform, including a roadmap to citizenship for 

America's 11 million undocumented immigrants, 

A pdf file of the full list of signers can be downloaded here: 

http://act,credoaction,comipdfslTell the Senate Immigrant Rights are Civil Rights PetitionSignatures 2 

0130208,OOf 

If you have any questions about these signatures, please do not hesitate to rontact me through the 

information provided below. 

Sincerely, 

Murshed Zaheed 

Deputy Political Director, CREDO Action 

415-369-2000 

Link to 102,619 signatures: 

https:lldocs.google.com/a/presente.org/file/d/OB5mVz9iYURyyaVBoU1kzTZ 

8zaEO/edit 
217 

DAILY HOS 

To President Obama, members of Contress, and aU relevant acencles: 

The undersillled 55,129 people answered the follow!nc online action. Please work to 

update our Immill'atlon process and include a path to dtlzenshlp for milbons of 

hardworklnc Immitrants. 

Sincerely, 

Th e Daily Ko s Staff 

Actual text of the ~all to action petition: 

Support President Oblml's ~III for comprehensive imml,ntfon reform 

with I pith to citizenship 

With President Obama's biJ speech yesterday, and with the announcement of a 

bipartisan framework in the Senate, It's clear that comprehensive Immigration reform Is 

finally within reach. 

As we move forward, we need to make sure the new polley is rooted In the American 

Dream by artlculatin, it clear path to citizenship for millions of hard-workln, immigrants 

and their children. 

Please join with Dally Kos and Workers' Voice by slcninc our petition supportinC 

President Obama's call for comprehensive immicration reform that Includes a path to 

citillenshlp. We will send the Stlllatures to the White House. 

Dear President Obama: 

Thank you for your commitment to update America's immigration polley by creating a 

path to citizenship for millions of hardworking Immigrants. We support you in this fight. 

Link to view 55,129 signatures: 

https:/jdocS./Woftle,com/a/presente.ora/IDe/d/°Bwa3rvz1-

99H¥k8yNXE3b093RUO/edit 
218 

.... 

AMERICA'S VOICE ~B~~ATION 

Dear Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley and Membet·s ofthe Senate 

]udidalY Committee, 

As an organization deditated to hamessing the powerof American voices and 

American values, America's Voice and Am elica's Voice Education Fund works to 

enact polir;y changes that guarantee full labor, r;ivil and political rights for 

im migrants and their families. We work ill partnership with progressive, faithbased, labor, civil lights, and grassroots group s,networks and )eadea's to en ad 

federal legislation that puts 11 million Alllericans-in-waiting on the road to full 

citizellslup 

Americans are ready for action on immigration reform that indudes a dear path to 

citizenslup. In anticipation of this week's healing on tomprehensive immigration 

reform, attached please find the signatures of 9,026 Am eli Cans asking Congress to 

enact a sh'aightforward pathway to citizensllip forthe 11 million Amelicalls-inwaiting. We kindly ask that tlus petition be submitted to the record at the healing. 

We thank the Committee for its consideration; please feel free to contact liS should 

you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

The America's Voice Education Fund Team 

Link to 9,026 signatures 

https:Udocs.google.com/a/presente.org/file/d/OByrtigt9B7VHhmMOttbzZvVVk/edit 
219 

NCLR 

NCLR asked members of its Action Net,,,ork to s.end the fotlowing lett~r to their senators in 

support of pas-sing immi.gratiol1 reform. Th~ NCLR Action Network ~ent 4.583 letters as.k mg 

their .'\,enators to mduJe a roaJm;:.p to i..,ltizenshlp fo-r 11 millilJn aspiring t:lliz:~ns. Those 

mdiyiduals who sent the lettu. are listed in the aUad\<J I'd". 

I urge YPti III Jt'lIl tl) the hlpartlsan gnHlp ~d' sc.-n:It\'[S \\'hp rdeascJ ~t ~et (lfprinclptes fur 

IllHll1,g:r<ltwn I'cfPftlL 1 expel't both polltlcJl r.lrtle~ h' aJJres~ tlll~ pre~~l!lg LSSU~. anJ ! 

h.ok ftlrWard ill yt.)ur leaJ~r~l1!p If) the: dc."h~lte. 

Our gre~tt natlt'}.I) Jcs.C'r\'~~ ~t l'tlmmonsense UlH11I,grathlll system that kt"eps famlltes 

to,;ethc:r anti efc.-ateS a f(i,ujmap to "-~ltll.c."nshlp for II mllli()fl new Americans \\ho aspire to 

he \.~ittz~ns, AnJ th~ puhll\.' 1:\ III !'uPP,)rt of !'u ... ·h a SYStc."llL A rec~nt G\V/PolilH.~() PilI! f,n 

a prt'pl'seJ path ttl CH1Zt."IHhIP show~u that. ~lvt"raJJ. \'\it~r.s. sllrpl"rl It hy ~thn()~t tW() tt.. 

\)l1e. Nc\\' unnllgrants reali7t." the \'.IJUt." \)1 worklllg h~lrd .mJ JlllOg their part til e:x\.·hang~ 

fl1f the: hle!'smgs \If Ith~rty. 

111r~e )"{'u hI make th~ {'('.IJ 1\1 ... ·ltlzenshlp fnr 11 nHillon ne\V Am~ncan!\ lhe ... ·e!ltcrplece 

t,f any rcforrll prOr'is~l1. In aJdlth)ll. i 1(H" .. k f{)rwarJ In leglsbtwo th~lt r~unltt."s all 

fanlllies. IIlduJlI1g LGBT f'amIll~s, l!1"~S. DR EAMt"rs .1 f()~ldlllar to Cltll:~Jlshlr. hdps 

new Hllmlgrants ~~c-ome ne:w Amerh . .'ans.. protcd:o all \\'\.)fke."rs, anJ aJ\'ances the: Jue 

proce!'os rIghts tlLlt are centr~tI to whl' We." ..Aft." ~l:-' ,\ -("\\UIHry, 

Link to view 4,583 signatures: 

https:lldocs.google.com/a/presente.org/file/d/OBzxxluC9AjATb1JSZ3IwNUN 

uaGM/edit 
220 

REFORM IMMIGRATION 

America 

To our leaders in Congress: 

During this critical moment in the fight for immigration 

reform, leaders in Congress on both sides of the aisle are 

weighing in on plans for legislation •• but true reform is not 

complete unless it allows for those living in the shadows to 

come forward and take part in full citizenship in our nation. 

We demand nothing less than a path to citizenship for 11 

million immigrants as part of immigration reform -- and we 

call on legislators like you to rise to the challenge of our 

time, and to support a roadmap to citizenship for 11 million 

undocumented Americans. 

With hope, 

More than 84,000 immigrant rights activists 

across the US 

Links to 84,000 signatures: 

hUllS: IIdocs.google.com fa fllresente.org(fiIe fd fOB4EXZNo3nO l,ZDgxOXBjOT 

ZZX28fedit 

https:f(docs.google.com/a/presente.org/file(d(OB4EXZNo3n01JMOpEVkh3N 

U9ycXc(edit 

https:lldocs.google.com(a/presente.org(fiIe(d/OB4EXZNo3nO1JbE8tZkYON3 

U1Ujg/edit 

https:((docs.google.com/a/presente.org/fiIe/d(OB4EXZNo3n01JV1NXMnFlSX 

R2c28(edit 

https:lldocs.google.com/a(presente.org/file/d/OB5mVz9iYURyyaVBoUlkzT2 

8zaEO/edit 
221 

MEMORANDUM FOR: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

All Field Office Directors 

All Special Agents in Charge 

All Chief Counsel 

10hnMo n 

Director 

QlJice of the Director 

U.s. ntpartment of Hom€'tand Security 

500 12th Street, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20536 

u.s. Immigration 

and Customs 

Enforcement 

Civil Immigration En orcement: Guidance on the Use ofDetainers 

in the Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Criminal Justice Systems 

This memorandum provides guidance on the use of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE) detainers in the federal, state, local, and tribal criminal justice systems. This guidance 

applies to all uses of ICE detainers regardless of whether the contemplated use arises out of the 

Criminal Alien Program, Secure Communities, a 287(g) agreement, or any other ICE 

enforcement effort. This guidance does not govern the use of detainers by U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP). This guidance replaces Sections 4.2 and 4.5 of the August 2010 

Interim Guidance on Detainers (policy Number 10074.1) and otherwise supplements the 

remaining sections of that same guidance. 

Background 

In the memorandum entitled Civil Immigration Enforcement: Priorities for the Apprehension, 

Detention, and Removal of Aliens, issued in June 2010,1 ICE set forth clear priorities that guide 

its dviJ bnmigrotion enforcement. These priorities ensure that ICE's finite enforcement 

resources are dedicated, to the greatest extent possible, to individuals whose removal promotes 

public safety, national security, border security, and the integrity of the immigration system. 

As ICE's implementation of these priorities continues, it is of critical importance that ICE 

remain focused on ensuring that the priorities are uniformly, transparently, and effectively 

pursued. To that end, ICE issues the following guidance governing the use of detainers in the 

nation's criminal justice system at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels. This guidance will 

ensure that the agency's use of detainers in the criminal justice system uniformly applies the 

I A!; amended and updated by the memorandum of the same title issued March 2, 2011. 

www.lce.gov 
222 

The Use of Detainers in the Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Criminal Justice Systems 

Page 2 

principles set forth in the June 2010 memorandum and is consistent with the agency's 

enforcement priorities. 

National Detainer Guidance 

Consistent with ICE's civil enforcement priorities and absent extraordinary circumstances, ICE 

agents and officers should issue a detainer in the federal, state, local, or tribal criminal justice 

systems against an individual only where (1) they have reason to believe the individual is an 

alien subj ect to removal from the United States and (2) one or more of the folloVving conditions 

apply: 

• the individual has a prior felony conviction or has been charged with a felony offense; 

• the individual has three or more prior misdemeanor convictions;2 

• the individual has a prior misdemeanor conviction or has been charged with a 

misdemeanor offense if the misdemeanor conviction or pending charge involvesa violence, threats, or assault; 

a sexual abuse or exploitation; 

o driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance; 

o unlawful flight from the scene of an accident; 

o unlawful possession or use of a firearm or other deadly weapon; 

o the distribution or trafficking of a controlled substance; or 

o other significant threat to public safety;] 

• the individual has been convicted of illegal entry pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1325; 

• the individual has illegally re-entered the country after a previous removal or return; 

• the individual has an outstanding order of removal; 

• the individual has been found by an immigration officer or an immigration judge to have 

knowingly committed immigration fraud; or 

• the individual otherwise poses a significant risk to national security, border security, or 

public safety.4 

, Given limited enforcement resources, three or more convictions for minor traffic misdemeanors or other relatively 

minor misdemeanors alone should not trigger a detainer unless the convictions reflect a clear and continuing danger 

to others or disregard for the law. 

3 A significant threat to public safety is one which poses a significant risk ofhann or injury to a person or property. 

4 For example, the individual is a suspected terrorist, a known gang member, or the subject of an outstanding felony 

arrest warrant; or the detainer is issued in furtherance of an ongoing felony criminal or national security 

investigation. 
223 

The Use ofDetainers in the Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Criminal Justice Systems 

Page 3 

Revised Detainer Form 

To ensure consistent application of this guidance, ICE will revise the DRS detainer form, Form 

1-247. The revised detainer form, which should be used in all cases once it is issued, will 

specifically list the grounds above and require the issuing officer or agent to identify those that 

apply so that the receiving agency and alien will know the specific basis for the detainer. The 

changes to the form will make it easy for officers and agents to document the immigration 

enforcement priorities and prosecutorial discretion analysis they have completed leading to the 

issuance of the detainer. 

Prosecutorial Discreti on 

This guidance identifies those removable aliens in the federal, state, local, and tribal criminal 

justice systems for whom a detainer may be considered. It does not require a detainer in each 

case, and all ICE officers, agents, and attorneys should continue to evaluate the merits of each 

case based on the June 2011 memorandum entitled Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion 

Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the 

Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens and other applicable agency policies. 

Six-Month Revie,£ 

ICE Field Office Directors, Chief Counsel, and Special Agents in Charge should closely evaluate 

the implementation and effect of this guidance in their respective jurisdictions for a period of six 

months from the date of this memorandum. Based on the results of this evaluation, ICE will 

consider whether modifications, ifany, are needed. 

Djsclaim~ 

This guidance does not create or confer any right or benefit on any person or party, public or 

private. Nothing in this guidance should be construed to limit ICE's power to apprehend, charge, 

detain, administratively prosecute, or remove any alien unlawfully in the United States or to limit 

the legal authority ofICE or its personnel to enforce federal immigration law. Similarly, this 

guidance, which may be modified, superseded, or rescinded at any time, is not intended to, docs 

not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, 

enforceable at law by any party in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter. 

This guidance does not cover or control those detainers issued by officers and agents ofCBP. 

Detainers issued by CBP officers and agents shall remain governed by existing CBP policy, and 

nothing in this guidance is intended to limit CBP's power to apprehend, charge, detain, or 

remove any alien unlawfully in the United States. 
224 

ASIAN AMERICAN ~~ JUSTICE CENTER IIIl:! it) 

( \ , \ 

February 13, 2013 

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy 

Chairman 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

u.S. Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20S10 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

u.S. Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20S10 

Re: The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: 

On behalf of the Asian American Justice Center (AAJC) and the other affiliate members of the Asian 

American Center for Advancing Justice, a non-profit, non-partisan affiliation representing the Asian 

American and Pacific Islander community on civil and human rights issues, we write concerning today's 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary Hearing: "Comprehensive Immigration Reform". AAJC and our other 

affiliates1 commend the Committee for holding this important hearing and we look forward to working 

with the Committee Members and other Members of Congress to craft fair and humane immigration 

legislation that benefits all Americans. 

We urge you and your members to work for a solution that includes: 

• Prioritizing family unity by immediately and expeditiously eliminating visa backlogs and creating 

a direct, inclusive, and workable path to citizenship; 

Ensuring fairness, equality and due process in our enforcement, detention and deportation 

systems; 

Promoting our economy by valuing and protecting all workers; and 

Supporting immigrants as they integrate and strive for new opportunities in the U.S. 

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 took Congress another 80 years 

before fully repealing these exclusionary laws. As a result, today approximately 60% of Asian Americans 

are foreign born, the highest proportion of any racial group nationwide. Asian immigrants continue to 

make up a significant number of new Americans. For example, in fiscal year 2011, 42% of people who 

became legal permanent residents were from Asia. In a survey after the November 2012 election, 

approximately 82% of Asian American voters in California said immigration played an important role in 

how they viewed presidential candidates. Consequently, comprehensive immigration reform is deeply 

important to the diverse Asian American community. 

PRIORITIZE FAMILY UNITY 

Reunite families by reducing visa backlogs: The family immigration system is a critical part of our 

immigration system and a very important issue to the Asian American community. Asian Americans 

1 In addition to AAJC, the other members of the Asian American Center for AdvanCing Justice are Asian American 

Institute in Chicago, Asian Law Caucus in San Francisco, and Asian Pacific American Legal Center in Los Angeles. 
225 

Page 2 of 6 

make up a growing population of 6% in the U.S. and sponsor more than one third of all family-based 

immigrants. 

Our current broken system disproportionately harms Asian American families, resulting in massive 

backlogs and heartache. Of the almost 4.3 million close family members of U.S. citizens and legal 

permanent residents waiting to be reunited with their loved ones, nearly two million are from Asia. Of 

the top five countries with the largest backlogs -potential active members in our society including highskilled and low-wage workers - four are Asian nations. 

Immigrants like Marichris Arce from the Philippines, now a naturalized U.S. citizen, know firsthand the 

impact of the broken family system. Ms. Arce was separated from her parents and younger siblings for 

six years while she waited for her visa to be processed. She later married and lived an ocean away from 

her husband for seven years for the same reason. Due to the difficulty in obtaining a visa, Marichris' 

husband missed the birth of their first child and only saw his daughter for six weeks each year for the 

first four years of their daughter's life. 

Our American values demand a strong family-based system. Family unity is the cornerstone of 

America's immigration laws. Since our country's founding, entire families would immigrate to the U.S. in 

search for opportunity. Forcing families to live apart for years and even decades is simply unAmerican. Protecting and strengthening the current family-based immigration system is economically 

sound policy for the U.S. Family-based immigration has significant economic benefits, especially for 

long-term economic growth. An immigration system that truly reflects our nation's values must 

recognize that strong families, including lGBT families, create a much-needed foundation for our 

communities and our economy to grow and prosper. 

Establish an inclusive and humane path to citizenship: AAJC and our other affiliates advocate for a 

direct path to citizenship within a reasonable timeframe for all undocumented immigrants in the U.S. 

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPls) have a tremendous stake in legalizing the status of 

undocumented immigrants who remain in the shadows and are an indefinitely exploitable class of 

Americans. More than 1.3 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. are from Asian countries.' 

According to the Pew Research Hispanic Center, over two-thirds of the undocumented population has 

lived in the U.S. for over a decade, contributing to this country's economy and culture. Many 

undocumented immigrants live in "mixed-status" families, and 73% percent of children of 

undocumented immigrants are u.s. citizens. legalization furthermore makes good economic sense, 

generating $1.5 trillion to the nation's GDP over 10 years and adding close to $5 billion in tax revenue 

over the next three years according to the Cato Institute. 

The Chen Family's story is just one of countless stories from aspiring citizens in the Asian American 

community. The Chen Family (a pseudonym) is a family of five consisting of a father and mother and 

their three sons. They are of Chinese ethnicity and upon arriving in the U.S., they immediately applied 

for asylum based on persecution they faced in Brazil on grounds of their ethnicity, An immigration judge 

denied their application for asylum and for close to a decade, they have been appealing that decision. 

Mr. Chen works seven days per week as a tile installer to support his family and provide for his sons' 

education. The family's youngest son recently graduated from the University of California, Santa Cruz, 

and intends to pursue a Master's Degree in Public Health. Tragically, their middle son was diagnosed 

with multiple brain tumors and after undergoing surgery and radiation two years ago, he continues to 

2 U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, "Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigration Population Residing in the United 

States: January 2011" (March 2012), available at 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/oisJII_pe_2011.pdf. 
226 

Page 3 of6 

require intensive supervision and care to meet his most basic needs. Of all three sons, only this son was 

eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") program. The rest of the family is facing 

deportation. While the family has been granted a reprieve from deportation in an exercise of 

prosecutorial discretion, this fix is temporary and lacks the work authorization that is necessary for the 

family to support itself. 

We need solutions for hard-working immigrants like the Chen Family. The process for becoming a citizen 

should be inclusive, workable, affordable and humane, and should not impose punitive measures on 

undocumented immigrants. Continuous work or language requirements for legalization would impose 

additional unnecessary barriers, but in any case should include exceptions for age and disability, among 

other factors. Fines and fees imposed should be reasonable and should include an exception for those 

who cannot afford to pay. 

Furthermore, aspiring citizens should be moving down a direct and inclusive path to citizenship at the 

same time that measures to erase the family-based visa backlogs are being implemented. Current 

proposals that undocumented immigrants "go to the back of the line" are not reasonable where the 

wait time for family members of U.S. citizens is up to 24 years and undocumented immigrants would 

need to wait 29 years to apply for citizenship. Moreover, three of the largest undocumented AAPI 

populations (Pilipino, Indian, and Chinese) are also among the top five ethnic communities in the u.s. 

with the longest visa processing backlogs. The path should also not be contingent on enforcement 

benchmarks. 

ENSURE FAIRNESS, EQUALITY AND DUE PROCESS IN ENFORCEMENT AND ADJUDICATION 

In the past decade, we have deported more people than in the preceding century.' This unprecedented 

rise in deportations has come with a parallel rise in the size of our immigration detention system. 

Today, there are over 32,000 people in immigration detention, nearly a 1700% increase from when 

immigration reform was passed in 1986 under President Reagan.' Expenditures on immigration 

enforcement have also swelled eclipsing the budgets of all otherfederallaw enforcement agencies 

combined.' 

In large part, the rapid growth in our detention and deportation systems came as a result ofthe Illegal 

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) which created new grounds of 

deportation for long-term Lawful Permanent ReSidents, stripped judges in many cases of the power to 

make individualized decisions about detention and deportation, and created broad new mandatory 

deportation grounds.' Today Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders are deported at a rate three times 

higher than other immigrants.' 

The growth of our detention and deportation system also has been fueled by ICE's Secure Communities 

(S-Comm) Program. Launched in 2008, this controversial program entangles local police with 

immigration enforcement. Although the stated purpose of this program is to identify and deport 

, "A Decade of Rising Immigration Enforcement", Immigration Policy Center (January 2013) available at 

http://www . i In m igratio n po !icy. org! sites/ d efa u It/fil est docs/en forcem entstats! a ctsh eet. pdf at Fn2. 

4 "The Math of Immigration Detention: Runaway Costs for Immigration Detention Do Not Add Up to Sensible 

Policies", National Immigration Forum (August 2012) available at 

http://www.immigrationforum.org(images!up!oads!MathoflmmigrationDetentjoll.pdf. 

, "Immigration Enforcement in the United States", Migration Policy Institute (January 2013) available at 

http://www .m igra tion po licY.o rg/ pubs/pi Iia rs-repo rtin brief. pd f at 12. 

, See generally 8 U.s.c. § 1226; IIRIRA § 303 (expanding mandatory detention); 8 U.S.c. § 1101(a)(43); IIRIRA § 321 

(expanded definition of aggravated felony) 

, U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, "2010 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics," (2010). 
227 

Page 40f6 

individuals with serious or violent felony convictions, about 7 out of 10 individuals deported nationally 

either do not have criminal convictions or were convicted of lesser offenses. As a result, S-Comm has 

come under fire for its lack of transparency, undercutting community policing strategies, and interfering 

with due process in the criminal justice system. ICE's superficial fixes to the program have not led to any 

real changes in the impacted communities. We need comprehensive reform that restores fairness, 

equality and due process to our immigration system. 

Further, in keeping with our nation's values of equality and justice, immigration reform legislation 

should prohibit racial and religious profiling and also guard against overreaching national security 

justifications in immigration enforcement. Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, federal 

immigration enforcement has magnified against Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian 

Americans without adequate regard for individual rights. 

The National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) Program is a case in point. NSEERS 

targeted immigrants based solely on their national origin and resulted in approximately 13,000 men 

from predominantly Muslim and Arab countries being placed in removal proceedings. There was not 

even one individual who was charged with a terrorism-related criminal offense 8 Not only should the 

NSEERS Program be eliminated outright, but the same mistakes should not be repeated with the entryexit system expansion proposed in the Senate Bipartisan Framework for Comprehensive Immigration 

Reform. US VISIT opens the door again to selective enforcement based on race, religion, and national 

origin. Allowing this type of profiling in immigration law as a means to fight terrorism has failed in the 

past and will continue to be unreliable and inefficient. Rather, the universal norm should be strict and 

broad prohibitions on the use of race, religion, and national origin in enforcement of federal laws. 

PROMOTE OUR ECONOMY BY VALUING AND PROTECTING WORKERS 

Restrict and limit the use of electronic employment verification systems: Mandatory E-Verify will harm 

a disproportionate number of Asian Americans - including citizens and green card holders. A 2009 

government-funded report found the error rate for foreign-born workers was 20 times higher than that 

of U.s.-born workers: According to recent Census data, throughout the U.S., more than 8 million AAPls 

are foreign born. The E-Verify program is of particular concern for the Limited English Proficient 

members of our community. The already confusing program will be extremely difficult to navigate for 

the more than 30% of Asian Americans who speak English less than very well. lD 

E-Verify promises to push vulnerable workers underground and lead to billions in lost tax revenue. 

Expanding or mandating E-Verify encourages employers to take undocumented workers off the books 

and push them into the underground economy where wage theft, indentured servitude and other 

workplace abuses are widespread. The loss of local, state and federal revenue to the underground 

economy is also profound. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office has estimated a loss of more than $17.3 

billion in federal tax revenue alone over ten years. 

8 Kareem Shor. and Shoba Sivaprasad Wahdia, NSEERS: The Consequences of America's Effort To Secure Its 

Borders (March 31, 2009), p.ll, available at http://www.adc.org/PDF/nseerspaper.pdf, 

9 Westat, Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation (December 2009), p.2i0, available at 

http://www.usc!s.gov!USCIS!E-Verify!E-Verify!Final%20E-Verify%20Report%2012-16-09 2.pdf. 

10 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2009 American Community Survey, 3-years Estimates. 
228 

Page 5 of6 

E-Verify also increases regulatory burdens on employers, particularly small business owners. AAPls own 

more than 1.5 million small businesses in the U.S., with receipts of $507.6 billion.l1 E-Verify requires 

compliance training and capable infrastructure for electronic submission and subsequent work 

verification, taking away time and resources from employers that may not have an infrastructure in 

place. Businesses will have to direct resources to resolving tentative and false non-confirmations, rather 

focusing on productivity and growing our economy. 

The current guest worker program is ripe with exploitation and abuses and must be overhauled: In 

making an immigrant worker's legal status contingent upon employment, current guest worker 

programs subject temporary workers to exploitation and forced labor. Workers lack the basic ability to 

change jobs if they are abused and instead often risk deportation, blacklisting, and retaliation if they 

challenge or report abuses. 

The allegations in the pending Signal International case are illustrative. Represented by the Southern 

Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the Asian American Legal Defense Fund, and others, the plaintiffs in the case 

assert that Signal recruited more than 500 guest workers from India to the shipyards after Hurricane 

Katrina, coerced them into paying exorbitant travel and immigration-processing fees, threatened the 

workers with legal and physical harm, and then required them to live in Signal's guarded overcrowded 

labor camps where they were subjected to psychological abuse and wage theft." 

SPLC has alleged similar abuses in another pending suit involving more than 350 Filipino guest workers 

whose passports and visas were confiscated by their employer pending "repayment" of thousands of 

dollars of recruiting fees and costs - money which the workers had been forced to "borrow" from the 

employer at predatory interest rates.13 

Current guest worker programs must be overhauled to prevent such abuses. Workers should be allowed 

to seek employment with different employers through portable visas and given full labor and workplace 

rights and protections regardless of status. 

ROBUST SUPPORT FOR IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION 

Any immigration reform legislation should require an individual to be subject to all of the responsibilities 

and afforded all of the rights that citizenship entails to ensure that aspiring citizens have the same 

opportunities to be healthy and nourished and the same access to the public benefit programs that our 

taxes support. To ensure successful implementation of health care reform, reduce our overall health 

care costs, and improve health outcomes, everyone should have access to affordable health 

care coverage under health care reform. Everyone living in the United States should have the 

opportunity to be healthy and not hungry, so that they have a fair chance to fulfill their dreams - this 

includes the 1.3 million undocumented Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders who call the United States 

home. 

* * 

11 U.S. Census Bureau, Facts for Features: Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month (May 2011), available at 

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/factsforfeaturesspecialeditions/cbll-ff06.html. 

12 www.ac])J~/intlhumanrights!immigrantsrights/36237IgI20080429.html. 

13 http://www.splcenter.org!sites!default!files/downloads!case/Filipino teachers complaint.pdf 
229 

Page 6 of 6 

AAJC and the other affiliate members of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice look forward 

to working with this Committee and the entire Congress to achieve the goal of fair and just immigration 

reform. 

Sincerely, 

Mee Moua 

President & Executive Director 

Asian American Justice Center 

On behalf of: 

Asian Pacific American Legal Center 

Asian Law Caucus 

Asian American Institute 
230 

Statement of 

LAUREL G. BELLOWS 

President 

on behalf of the 

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 

for the record of the hearing on 

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM 

before the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

of the 

U.S. SENATE 

February 13, 2013 

!'IO l,th Stlc'c't NW • VVdshington, DC 20005 • (2021662-1760 

\\ W\\ ,,1IlH-"rir,1nbar.org 
231 

Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley and Members of the Committee: 

On behalf of the American Bar Association (ABA), I am pleased to submit this statement for the 

Committee's February 13, 2013 hearing on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform." 

The American Bar Association is the world's largest voluntary professional organization, with a 

membership of nearly 400,000 lawyers, judges and law students worldwide. The ABA 

continuously works to improve the American system of justice and to advance the rule of law in 

the world. Through its Commission on Immigration, the ABA advocates for improvements in 

immigration law and policy; provides continuing education to the legal community, judges, and 

the public; and develops and assists in the operation of pro bono legal representation 

programs. 

The United States is a nation of immigrants, and immigration continues to shape and 

strengthen our country. Today, more than one in every five U.S. residents is either foreign-born 

or born to immigrant parents. Every day more immigrants seek to come to our country to 

reunite with close family members, fill jobs, and find protection from persecution in their 

homelands. The development, implementation and enforcement of our immigration laws 

should seek to balance this influx with the necessity of controlling our borders through a fair 

and effective system of immigration. However, even a cursory review of the immigration 

system today shows that it is plagued with problems at every level. 

In the more than fifteen years since Congress last passed major immigration reform legislation, 

the impacts have been felt keenly throughout every aspect of our society: families too long 

separated; business' unable to fill necessary jobs to bolster our economy; those suffering 

persecution lacking access to safe harbor in the land of the free; and a country in fiscal crisis 

spending an inordinate amount of scarce resources on border security and enforcement. 

Ultimately what is needed, and what the ABA supports, is comprehensive reform that fairly and 

realistically addresses the u.s. undocumented population, the need for immigrant labor, the 

value of family reunification, and the importance of an effective and humane immigration 

enforcement strategy. 

Despite the fact that immigration matters routinely involve issues of life and liberty, the 

administrative system of justice that exists for immigration matters lacks some of the most 

basic protections that we take for granted in our American system of justice. As the national 

voice of the legal profession, the ABA has a unique interest in ensuring fairness and due process 

in the immigration enforcement and adjudication systems and those topics comprise the 

primary focus of our recommendations here. 

ENSURING ACCESS TO LEGAL COUNSEL AND LEGAL INFORMATION 

A hallmark of the u.s. legal system is the right to counsel, particularly in complex proceedings 

that have significant consequences. Meaningful access to legal representation for persons in 

immigration proceedings is particularly important. The consequences of removal can be 
232 

severe, resulting in separation from family members and communities, or violence and even 

death for those fleeing persecution. Yet, immigrants have no right to appointed counsel and 

must either try to find lawyers, which is particularly difficult for those in detention, or represent 

themselves. Legal assistance is critical for a variety of reasons, including a lack of understanding 

of our complex immigration laws and procedures due to cultural, linguistic, or educational 

barriers. Statistics show that asylum seekers and others who have legal representation are 

significantly more likely to succeed in their immigration cases. Representation is therefore 

crucial- the outcome of an immigration case should not be determined by a person's ability to 

secure counsel, but on the merits of his or her claim. 

In addition, representation has the potential to increase the efficiency of at least some 

adversarial immigration proceedings. Pro se litigants may be unfamiliar with immigration laws 

and court procedures. Their lack of knowledge and understanding, particularly when combined 

with a language barrier, can create delays that impose a substantial financial cost on the 

government. As a number of immigration judges, practitioners, and government officials have 

observed, the presence of competent counsel helps to clarify the legal issues, allows courts to 

make better informed decisions, and can speed the process of adjudication. Immigration Judges 

otherwise are forced to try to develop facts and identify potential claims for relief during 

expensive on-the-record proceedings. Increased representation for noncitizens thus would 

facilitate the more efficient processing of claims, lessen the burden on the immigration courts, 

and decrease appeal rates. This is particularly true in detained cases. 

The federal Legal Orientation Program should be expanded nationwide and be provided to all 

detained persons in removal proceedings. 

One of the ways that detained immigrants can be provided with relevant legal information is 

through Legal Orientation Programs (LOP). The federal LOP program is administered by the 

Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review, which contracts with 

nonprofit organizations to provide LOP services at 25 detention facilities around the country. 

Under this program, an attorney or paralegal meets with the detainees who are scheduled for 

immigration court hearings to educate them on the law and to explain the removal process. 

Based on this orientation, the detainee can decide whether he or she potentially qualifies for 

relief from removal. Persons with no hope of obtaining relief - the overwhelming majority -

typically submit to removal. 

According to the Department of Justice, LOPs improve the administration of justice and save 

the government money by expediting case completions and leading detainees to spend less 

time in detention. In fact, reports have shown that cases for persons participating in LOPs 

move an average of 12 days faster through the immigration court system. Since the inception 

of the program, the ABA has provided LOPs at the Port Isabel Detention Center in South Texas 

and can unequivocally attest to the benefits that these presentations bring to detainees, the 

facility, and the immigration court system. Legal orientation presentations facilitate 

noncitizens' access to justice, improve immigration court efficiency, and save government 

2 
233 

resources. To maximize these benefits, the Legal Orientation Program should be expanded 

nationwide to all detained persons in removal proceedings. 

Legal representation, including appointed counsel where necessary, should be provided for 

unaccompanied children and mentally ill and disabled persons in all immigration processes. 

There are classes of vulnerable persons for whom it is particularly important to ensure 

appropriate legal representation for the duration of their cases: unaccompanied alien children 

and mentally ill and disabled persons. These persons may lack the capacity to make informed 

decisions on even the most basic matters impacting their cases and are not in a position to 

determine on their own whether they might qualify for relief. In fact, they may not be able 

even to understand the nature of, much less be able to meaningfully participate in, their 

immigration proceedings. However, the particular vulnerabilities of these persons also make it 

difficult to impossible for them to obtain counsel on their own. 

Current law calls for the government to ensure that unaccompanied children have legal 

representation in immigration proceedings and other matters, but only "to the extent 

practicable." Similarly, the law allows, but does not require the appointment of a guardian or 

advocate for vulnerable unaccompanied children. For those who are mentally ill or disabled, 

the law allows an attorney or other representative to appear on behalf of the respondent, but 

does not require that legal representation be provided. Fundamental principles of fairness and 

due process demand that these vulnerable persons receive legal representation and guardians 

to represent their interests throughout the immigration process. While pro bono 

representation should be encouraged and utilized to the maximum extent possible, it cannot 

meet the need in all cases, particularly for those who are detained in remote border areas. The 

ABA recommends that legal representation be provided for unaccompanied children and the 

mentally ill and disabled in all immigration proceedings, including by requiring governmentappointed counsel where necessary. 

Indigent noncitizens with potential relief from removal, and who are unable to secure pro 

bono counsel, should be provided government-appointed counsel. 

About 50 percent of noncitizens in immigration proceedings lack legal counsel; the percentage 

rises to almost 80 percent for those in detention. The reasons vary, but for many the cost of 

retaining counsel presents an insurmountable obstacle, and free or low-cost legal services 

simply may not be available to them. For those in detention, remote facility locations and 

communication barriers may impede such access. Under U.S. law, noncitizens have a right to 

counsel in removal proceedings, but at "no expense to the government." This provision does 

not necessarily preclude government-funded counsel; it merely provides that counsel need not 

be provided as a matter of right. 

The ABA supports establishing a system to identify indigent persons with potential relief from 

removal and refer them to legal counsel. In such a system, all indigent noncitizens in removal 

proceedings would be screened by lawyers or other highly trained experts supervised by 

3 
234 

lawyers. If a determination is made that there may be an availability of relief from removal, the 

person should be referred to legal counsel. While qualifying cases could be referred to 

charitable legal programs or pro bono attorneys if available, where such services are not, then 

government-paid counsel should be provided. 

While establishing such a system would entail some additional cost to the government, the 

number of persons who are potentially eligible for relief from removal is limited. Roughly 10 

percent of those who receive legal orientation presentations have viable claims for relief. Of 

this figure, many secure pro bono counsel and others can afford to retain counsel. A very small 

percentage of LOP recipients and others - those eligible for relief from removal who cannot 

otherwise obtain legal counsel- should be eligible for appointed counsel. 

Beyond the obvious interest of affected noncitizens, legal representation also benefits the 

government and the administration of justice through improved appearance rates in court, 

fewer requests for continuances, and shorter periods in detention at significant financial 

savings. It also deters frivolous claims. Above all, increased representation serves the 

government's interest in seeing that its decisions in these consequential cases turn on U.S. legal 

standards and merit, and not on an individual's ability to secure and afford paid counsel. 

COST-EFFECTIVE AND HUMANE IMMIGRATION DETENTION 

The Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is one of 

the nation's largest law enforcement agencies. ICE annually detains over 400,000 foreign 

nationals in facilities throughout the United States at a cost of $2 billion per year. Of the more 

than 33,000 daily detention beds available to ICE, over half are rented from private prisons and 

state and local jails. In recent years, immigration detainees have represented the fastest 

growing segment of the U.S. incarcerated population. 

Noncitizens in removal proceedings should not be detained, except in extraordinary 

circumstances, such as when national security or public safety is threatened or when a 

noncitizen presents a substantial flight risk. 

Although immigration is a civil, not a criminal, matter, various provisions of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act provide for detention of foreign nationals. The primary reasons for 

permitting detention in the immigration context are to ensure that people appear for all 

scheduled immigration hearings and comply with the final order of the immigration judge. 

Unfortunately, even immigrants who may be eligible for release often remain detained because 

they cannot afford to post bond. These persons often are detained for months or even years 

while their immigration cases work their way through the courts. 

The loss of liberty has punitive effects and works to undercut rights on many levels, including 

the right to counsel. Furthermore, the impact of detention is particularly negative for certain 

vulnerable groups, such as families enduring indefinite separation, asylum-seekers and victims 

4 
235 

of crime suffering from trauma and fearful of government authority, and those with physical or 

mental conditions that may be exacerbated by the lack of adequate medical care. 

Detention also imposes a significant financial burden on the public; the federal government 

spent about $5 million per day on immigration detention in 2012. Efficient and effective use of 

scarce public resources should be directed toward detaining only those who pose a threat to 

public safety or national security, or present a substantial flight risk. Persons who do not meet 

those criteria should be released under appropriate conditions to ensure compliance with their 

immigration proceedings. 

The use of alternatives to detention should be enhanced and implemented appropriately. 

Among the more than 400,000 persons ICE detains annually are long-time permanent residents, 

sole care providers of U.S. citizen children, sUlVivors of torture and abuse, and people with 

serious medical conditions who need specialized care. Humanitarian concerns and limited 

detention capacity have sparked national efforts over the past several years to integrate into 

ICE's general practices the use of various alternatives to detention. Detention alternatives used 

by ICE include release on orders of recognizance, release on bond, supelVised release, and 

electronic monitoring. 

Alternatives to detention offer the prospect of a considerable cost savings. The cost of 

detention is approximately $164 per day per person, while alternative programs can cost less 

than $8 per day. Experience has shown that alternatives programs, designed and implemented 

appropriately, can be extremely effective. A pilot alternatives program coordinated by the Vera 

Institute of Justice between 1997 and 2000 resulted in a 93 percent appearance rate for asylum 

seekers in the program, at about half the cost of detention. ICE's existing alternatives program 

report compliance rates of 85 to 99.7 percent. Aside from the issue of the cost-effectiveness, 

utilizing alternatives in appropriate cases also serves to increase access to legal representation 

and may allow noncitizens to fulfill their family, work, or community responsibilities while 

awaiting determination of their case. 

Congress should provide increased funding for alternatives to detention and direct ICE to 

implement true alternatives to detention that apply to only those who would otherwise be 

detained and that use the least restrictive options necessary to ensure that an immigrant 

appears in court. 

Transitioning to a model of civil detention and ensuring humane conditions for those in 

immigration custody. 

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

agency primarily detains persons who are in removal (deportation) proceedings. Persons in ICE 

custody are not facing criminal trials or serving prison sentences. Under the law, removal 

proceedings are civil in nature and the detention of immigrants serves to ensure their 

appearance at court and to effectuate their removal, not to punish them. Despite ICE's civil 

5 
236 

legal authority, the U.S. immigration detention system has traditionally held detainees in jails 

and in jail-like facilities that are administered according to American Correctional Association 

(ACA)-based standards for persons awaiting criminal trials. 

The ABA has worked for many years to ensure that foreign nationals in the u.s. detention 

system are treated humanely. The ABA worked closely with the Department of Justice over the 

course of several years to craft the first meaningful set of standards to govern treatment of 

persons in immigration detention, focusing on four legal access standards: viSitation, telephone 

access, group presentations on legal rights, and access to legal materials. The DHS/ICE 

detention standards, which have undergone several revisions, have not been codified in a 

statute or regulation and immigration detainees continue to struggle with lack of access to 

representation and legal materials, inadequate medical care, and other issues. 

While DHS/ICE has initiated a process to reform its detention system, it has not adopted or 

crafted detention standards that reflect its civil immigration authority. In 2012, the ABA 

developed and adopted Civil Immigration Detention Standards (Civil Standards)! in order to 

promote access to justice and fair and humane treatment of persons in the immigration 

detention system. The Civil Standards have a set of guiding principles that reflect the 

conviction that civil detention facilities and programs should approximate normal living 

conditions to the extent possible, while ensuring that residents appear at court hearings, can be 

removed (if so ordered) from the country, and do not present a danger to themselves or to 

others. The principles provide: 1) that any conditions placed on noncitizens to ensure court 

appearances or to effect removal should be the least restrictive necessary to further these 

goals; 2) describe a system that would offer a continuum of strategies, programs and 

alternatives to meet these goals, up to and including detention; 3) provide that residents should 

not be held in jails or jail-like settings; 4) highlight the importance of access to legal counsel, 

materials and courts; and 5) emphasize the need for rigorous oversight by DHS/ICE to ensure 

compliance with the standards. 

We are encouraged that ICE opened a facility in March 2012 in Karnes County, Texas that it says 

will provide less restrictive detention environments. However, this facility will be able to hold 

only a fraction of the annual number of detainees, and may be used for those who are well 

suited for appropriate alternatives to detention. We urge additional measures to transition the 

immigration detention system to a truly civil system and, in the meantime, to provide full 

implementation and enforcement of the current ICE Detention Standards at all facilities that 

currently hold immigration detainees. 

A FAIR AND EFFICIENT IMMIGRATION REMOVAL ADJUDICATION SYSTEM 

Se.veral changes in recent years have undermined the quality of due process received by 

noncitizens in the immigration adjudication system. In 2010, the ABA released a report entitled 

1 Available at http://www.americanbar.org/groups/publicservices/immigration/civilimmdetstandards.html. 

6 
237 

Reforming the Immigration System: Praposals to Promote Independence, Fairness, Efficiency, 

and Professionalism in the Adjudication of Removal Cases. 2 The report examined the structures 

and processes of the current removal adjudication system, beginning with the decision to place 

an individual in removal proceedings through potential federal circuit court review. The 

findings of this report confirmed that our immigration court system is in crisis, overburdened 

and under-resourced, leading to the frustration of those responsible for its administration and 

endangering due process for those who appear before it. 

Ultimately the report found, and the ABA believes, that the goals of ensuring fairness, efficiency 

and professionalism would best be served by restructuring the system to create an 

independent body for adjudicating immigration cases, such as an Article I court or an 

independent agency. However, we also recommend a number of incremental reforms that 

could be made within the current structure that could result in enhancing efficiency in the 

system if implemented, and we discuss several below. Without question the most serious issue 

facing the immigration courts, and the one with the most significant impact on the speed and 

quality of case processing, is the lack of resources throughout the entire system. 

Addressing the Need for Adequate Resources 

There have been vast increases in the resources devoted to immigration enforcement efforts 

that have resulted in an ever-burgeoning caseload in the immigration courts - immigration 

court receipts increased by 28% between FY 2007 (335,923) and FY 2011 (430,574). Yet there 

has not been a commensurate increase in resources available to the courts. As a result, the 

case backlog has grown and case processing times are significantly delayed. As of December 

2012, the immigration court backlog was at 322,818 cases, with pending cases waiting an 

average of 545 days, or nearly one and a half years. 

The immigration courts simply have too few immigration judges for the workload for which 

they are responsible. For FY 2011, some 266 immigration judges completed an average of 

1,140 proceedings per judge, not including bond hearings and motions, and issued an average 

of 827 decisions per judge. To produce these numbers, each judge must have issued an average 

of at least 16 decisions each week, or approximately three decisions per weekday, in addition to 

conducting their calendaring hearings, even while assuming no absences for vacation, illness, 

training, or conference participation. A lack of adequate staff support for the immigration 

judges compounds the problem. On average, there is only one law clerk for every three 

immigration judges, and the ratio is even lower in some immigration courts. The shortage of 

immigration judges and law clerks has led to very heavy caseloads per judge and a lack of 

sufficient time for judges to properly consider the evidence and formulate well-reasoned 

opinions in each case. We suggest hiring enough additional immigration judges to bring the 

caseload down to a level roughly on par with the number of cases decided each year by judges 

in other federal administrative adjudicatory systems (around 700 cases per judge annually) and 

providing for one law clerk per judge. 

Z Available at http://www.americanbar.org/groups/publicservices/immigration/publications.html. 

7 
238 

Strategic Decision-Making and Procedural Change to Reduce Unnecessary Litigation 

In addition to increasing resources available, the caseload could also be partially alleviated by 

revising certain Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policies and procedures, consistent 

with enforcement priorities, to decrease the number of cases being put into the court system. 

This will enable the enforcement and adjudication functions to work together more 

strategically and effectively to ensure those the government is most interested in removing are 

prioritized in the process. For example, prosecutorial discretion, while used widely in the 

criminal justice context, has been underutilized in the immigration context. In certain cases it is 

clear that the government will not remove an individual in proceedings - for example because 

of health issues or eligibility for a hardship waiver. Some individuals are eligible for lawful 

status but are awaiting the determination of a benefits application from U.s. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services. Expending significant time and costs in proceedings in these cases does 

not make sense. These are cases that could be excluded from the court system in the first 

instance, by increasing the use of prosecutorial discretion and providing DHS attorney review of 

Notices to Appear before they are filed with the court. 

There also is room for improving efficiency in the process for handling asylum claims. 

Affirmative asylum claims are currently handled by DHS officers, but asylum claims raised in 

expedited removal proceedings are adjudicated by an immigration judge. These defensive 

asylum claims also could be reviewed by asylum officers in the first instance, with referral for 

full adjudication only in appropriate cases. This could prevent thousands of cases from 

reaching the immigration courts each year, while maintaining the integrity of the asylum 

process. In addition, another procedural obstacle is the requirement that asylum seekers file 

their claims within one year of arrival in the country. A recent report found that the one-year 

deadline not only bars refugees who face persecution from receiving asylum in the U.s., but it 

also leads thousands of asylum cases - often considered the most time-intensive and factually 

and legally complex of all immigration cases - that could have been resolved by DHS to be 

referred to the immigration courts.3 In fact, both asylum officers and immigration judges spend 

a substantial amount of time in these cases examining whether the filing deadline was met or if 

the individual may be eligible for one of the exceptions to the deadline. 

Many other recommendations on improving the immigration adjudication system can be found 

in our 2010 report, which we would be happy to share with the Committee. Implementing 

these and other needed changes will help to improve the effectiveness of our immigration 

adjudication system and ensure due process for those caught within it. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share the views of the American Bar Association on this 

critical issue. 

3 Human Rights First, "The Asylum Filing Deadline: Denying Protection to the Persecuted and Undermining 

Governmental Efficiency," September 2010, available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wpcontent/uploads/pdf/afd.pdf. 

8 
239 

WAS H I N G Ta&bl;lM!lgoloom 

.NEWS 

Report: 20% of Fatal Wrecks Involve Unlicensed Drivers 

One in every five fatal car crashes in the United States each year involves a driver who does not 

have a valid license or whose license status is a mystery to law enforcement, according to a study 

released Wednesday. 

The report, "Unlicensed to Kill," sponsored by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, said that 

8,400 people die on average each year in crashes with unlicensed drivers. It also found that 28 

percent of the lawbreaking drivers had received three or more license suspensions or revocations 

in the three years before their fatal collision. 

"It's like a revolving door. These people are being suspended and suspended and suspended 

again, and still, they're driving," said researcher Lindsay I. Griffin of the Texas Transportation 

Institute at Texas A&M University. 

The researchers did not know the total number of unlicensed drivers on U.S. roads today, but 

said they believe those drivers are involved in an inordinate number of fatal crashes. 

Griffin and colleagues studied five years of data from the Department of Transportation's 

Fatality Analysis Reporting System, 1993 through 1997. They studied 278,078 drivers involved 

in 183,749 fatal crashes. 

Among the drivers, 13.8 percent, or 38,374, had a license that was suspended, revoked, expired, 

canceled or denied; had no license at all; or, in some cases, were a mystery because they were 

hit-and-run drivers, or law enforcement officers could not determine their license status for other 

reasons. 

Among the crashes, 20 percent, or 36,750, involved such a driver. 

The researchers found some common characteristics among illegal drivers in fatal crashes: 

- One-third were younger than 20. 

- They were more likely to be male. 

- They were more likely to drive during late night or early morning hours. 

Among those with a suspended license, they were about three times more likely to be drunk in 

the opinion of the investigating officer than properly licensed drivers. Those who had a revoked 

license were about four times more likely to be drunk. 
240 

- They were more than five times as likely to be hit-and-run drivers than legal drivers, in cases 

where the drivers were identified. 

"These are not people who just managed to slip up one time and now they're suspended. They 

seem to be more of a chronically aberrant group," Griffin said. 

Unlicensed drivers pose a particular problem in the West, the researchers found, but the study 

could not explain the geographic disparity. In New Mexico, nearly a quarter of all fatal accidents 

involved illegal drivers, making it the state '.vith the highest percentage. 

Other high-risk jurisdictions were the District of Columbia, Arizona, California and Hawaii. 

Maine had the lowest incidence of deadly crashes involving illegal drivers, 6.4 percent. 

Lt. Patrick Burke, traffic coordinator for the D.C. police department, said mild penalties are 

partly to blame. 

"IfI were to, let's say, arrest a 17-year-old this afternoon who doesn't have a driver's permit, 

never had a driver's permit, that 17-year-old could pay $75 at the local police station and be on 

the street in a car an hour later," he said. 

The researchers said a California policy of impounding the vehicles of unlicensed drivers and 

technology being developed, such as "smart cards" that would prevent an illegal driver from 

taking the wheel, shows promise in preventing fatalities. 

Copyright © 2013 ABC News Internet Ventures 
241 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF 

THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

F or a Hearing on 

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

Submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee 

February 13,2013 

ACLU Washington Legislative Office 

Laura W. Murphy, Director 

Christopher Calabrese, Legislative Counsel 

Joanne Lin, Legislative Counsel 

Christopher Rickerd, Policy Counsel 

Ian S. Thompson, Legislative Representative 

Georgeanne M. Usova, Legislative Assistant 

ACLU of New Mexico, Regional Center for Border Rights 

Vicki B. Gaubeca, Director 

Brian Erickson, Policy Advocate 
242 

I. Introduction 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a nationwide, non-partisan organization 

of more than a half-million members, countless additional activists and supporters, and 53 

affiliates nationwide dedicated to enforcing the fundamental rights of the Constitution and laws 

of the United States. The ACLU's Washington Legislative Office (WLO) conducts legislative 

and administrative advocacy to advance the organization's goal to protect immigrants' rights, 

including supporting a roadmap to citizenship for aspiring Americans. The Immigrants' Rights 

Project (IRP) of the ACLU engages in a nationwide program of litigation, advocacy, and public 

education to enforce and protect the constitutional and civil rights of immigrants. The ACLU of 

New Mexico's Regional Center for Border Rights (RCBR) addresses civil and human rights 

violations arising from border-related immigration policies. RCBR works in conjunction with 

ACLU affiliates in California, Arizona, and Texas, as well as immigrants' rights advocates 

throughout the border region. 

The ACLU submits this statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on the occasion of 

its hearing addressing "Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Our statement aims to provide 

the Committee with an appraisal of the civil liberties implications of immigration reform 

proposals, with a particular focus on the bipartisan reform framework released by eight Senators 

on January 28,2013. 1 While the framework contains many positive aspects - including its 

commitments to create a roadmap to citizenship for aspiring Americans and "to strengthen 

prohibitions against racial profiling and inappropriate use of force, enhance the training of border 

patrol agents, increase oversight, and create a mechanism to ensure a meaningful opportunity for 

border communities to share input, including critiques" the document also includes, and fails to 

include, elements which raise concerns: 

·By endorsing "immediate deportation" of those "[i]lIegal immigrants who have 

committed serious crimes," the framework can be read to support curtailing due process rights, 

such as the opportunity to have a hearing in front of a neutral adjudicator, even for persons never 

convicted of a crime. 

·By uncritically adopting the conventional wisdom of inadequate border security, the 

framework lacks fiscal responsibility and an attention to the true needs of border communities 

suffering from a wasteful, militarized enforcement regime. 

·By advocating for mandatory employment verification, the framework elides the EVerify database system's fundamental defects, and could create a gateway to compulsory 

national ID cards. 

·By leaving LGBT immigrants in the shadows, the framework would perpetuate a basic 

inequality offensive to the Constitution. 

1 Available at http://www.nytimes.comiinteractive/201J/O l/23/us/politicsI28immigration-principles-document.html 

2 
243 

The ACLU urges the Committee to be steadfast in defending and enacting those parts of 

the framework which advance our Constitution's principles and American values of family unity 

and due process. At the same time, the Committee should reject the framework's components at 

odds with these principles and values, as they run counter to both our traditions and national 

interests. 

II. The framework's commendable commitment to a "path to citizenship for 

unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States" should be implemented 

generously, without unreasonable eligibility criteria, a prolonged waiting period, or 

retrenchment of due process. 

The bipartisan framework laudably places at its core a roadmap to citizenship for aspiring 

citizens. American history teaches the dire and repugnant consequences when an "underclass" of 

people live without the Constitution's full protections. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth 

Amendments to the Constitution are offended when aspiring citizens - who are primarily from 

communities of color - face a lifetime of disadvantage and vulnerability. Aspiring citizens are 

productive members of their communities who often live in mixed-status families with U.S. 

citizen relatives. Their enormous contributions to American life are hampered by exploitive 

employers and they face barriers to trusting law enforcement on critical matters including 

reporting crimes like domestic violence. 

To bring these aspiring citizens within the full embrace of constitutional protections, the 

vital roadmap to citizenship promised in the bipartisan framework must be just and fair. It 

should eschew exclusions for past removal orders or any but the most serious convictions, and be 

unobstructed by prohibitive fees, penalties, or waiting periods. Federal courts must guarantee 

effective oversight through judicial review, and statutory protections should be expanded to 

remedy the current due process iniquity of excluding more than half of those facing deportation 

from any day in court? 

The Obama administration has already deported more than 1.5 million people--setting a 

record for a single presidential term.3 One in four Latinos surveyed reported that they knew 

someone deported or detained by the federal government in the preceding year. 4 In 2012 alone 

2 Meissner, Doris, Kerwin, Donald M., Chishti, Muzaffar and Bergeron, Claire. Immigration Enforcement in the 

United States: The Rise ofa Formidable Machinery, Migration Policy Institute, January 2013. Available at: 

http://www.migrationpolicv.orgipubs/enforcementpillars.pdf 

] Corey Dade, ObamaAdministration Deported Record 1.5 Million People, NPR, Dec. 24, 2012, available at 

http://www .npr.orgfblogs/itsal1pol itics/20 12/12124/1 6797000 2/obama-admin istration-deported-record-I-5-m iIIionpeople. 

4 Mark Hugo L{)pez, Ana Gonzalez-Barrera and Seth Motel, "As Deportations Rise to Record Levels, Most Latinos 

Oppose Obama's Policy." (Dec. 28,20 ill, available at http://www.pewhispanic.org!2011!12128Ias.deportationsTise~to~record-levels-most-Iatinos-oppose-obamas-policvI 

3 
244 

nearly 410,000 people were deported - an all-time record for annual deportations.5 Despite the 

administration's claims that it prioritizes the removal of individuals who pose a risk to public 

safety, nearly one-half ofthose deported had no criminal record at all, and a significant 

proportion of the remainder committed no serious offenses threatening public safety.6 "In 2011, 

188,382 people were deported on criminal grounds. Nearly a quarter were deported after a drug 

conviction, another 23% for traffic crimes, and one in five for immigration crimes.,,7 As a result, 

American families have been separated in devastating numbers: between July 2010 and 

September 2012, 23 percent ofthose deported-204,810 individuals-were parents of U.S. 

citizen children.8 From a snapshot survey taken in 20 II, at least 5,200 children were in foster 

care as a result of their parents' deportation.9 

The criteria for legalization must respond to the current crisis of family separation and the 

lack of discretion and judicial review of individual equities that characterizes the machinery of 

deportation. By ensuring that: (1) only the most serious convictions bar legalization; and (ii) a 

waiver exists to consider family unity and other humanitarian equities affected by exclusion, the 

Judiciary Committee would prevent the exclusion of deserving aspiring citizens from the 

promise offull American life. 

Descriptions such as "felony" conviction are ill-suited as categorical exclusions because 

state prosecution decisions should not determine who is eligible for legalization. Some states 

impose felony consequences for immigration status offenses such as "self-smuggling" (Arizona's 

practice of using its state alien smuggling law to charge immigrants with conspiracy to smuggle 

themselves 10), or working under another person's Social Security number. 

Minimizing exclusions and preserving individualized discretion must be the Committee's 

lodestars as it designs the eligibility criteria for legalization. Otherwise, in many cases, families 

may be permanently separated based on past offenses that have little bearing on the legalization 

applicant's current fitness to reside in and contribute to the U.S. It is critical to provide a safetyvalve for those cases, especially since most legalization candidates will not have known of the 

criminal exclusion criteria at the time of conviction. Moreover, the principle of discretion should 

inform the design of future enforcement. The ACLU strongly supports President Obama's 

5 News Release, ICE, FY 2012: ICE announces year-end removal numbers, highlights/oeus on key priorities and 

issues new national detainer guidance tofurther focus resources, Dec. 21, 2012, 

http://www.ice.gov/newsireieasesI12121l21221washingtondc2.htm 

'Id 

7 Tanya Golash-Boza, "Obama's Unprecedented Number of Deportations." CounlerPunch (Jan. 25,21013), 

available al http://www.counterpunch.org/20 13/0 I !25Iob.mas-unprecedenled-number-ot:deportations! 

8 Seth Freed Wessler, Nearly 205K Deportations of Parents 0/ u.s. Citizens in Just Over Two Years, COLORLlNES, 

Dec. 17,2012, available at http://colorlines.comiarchives/2012/12!us deports more than 200k parents.hlm!. 

9 Shattered Families: The Perilous Intersection of Immigration EI?(orcement and the Child Welfare System, Applied 

Research Cenler, Nov. 201 I, http://arc.org/shatteredfamilies. 

10 See Ariz. Rev. Slat. 13-2319. 

4 
245 

inclusion in his immigration refonn framework of a pledge to "revise[] current unlawful 

presence bars and provider] broader discretion to waive bars in cases of hardship." 1 1 

III. The Pathway to Citizenship Must Not Be Contingent on the False Metric of a 

"Completely Secure Border." Instead, Immigration Reform Should End the Abusive 

Militarization of Border Communities. 

a. The "Mini-Industrial Complex" of Border Spending 

The bipartisan framework's implicit demand for an airtight 2,000-mile border ignores the 

fact that border security benchmarks of prior proposed or enacted legislation (in 2006, 2007, and 

2010) have already been met or exceeded. 12 In the last decade, the United States has relied 

heavily on enforcement-only approaches to address migration, using deterrence-based border 

security strategies: 

·The U.S. government has expanded the powers offederal authorities by creating 

"Constitution-Light" or "Constitution-Free" zones within 100 miles of land and sea borders. 

·Because of "zero-tolerance" initiatives like Operation Streamline, the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) now refers more cases for federal prosecution than the Department of 

Justice's (DOJ) law enforcement agencies. Federal prisons are already 40% over capacity, due 

in large part to indiscriminate prosecution of individuals for crossing the border without 

authorization, often to rejoin their families. The majority of those sentenced to federal prison 

last year were Hispanics and Latinos, who constitute only 16% of the population, but are now 

held in large numbers in private prisons.13 

·Since 2003, the U.S. Border Patrol has doubled in size and now employs more than 

21,400 agents, with about 85 percent of its force deployed at the U.S.-Mexico border. 14 So many 

Border Patrol agents now patrol the southern border that if they lined up equally from 

Brownsville to San Diego, they would stand in plain sight of one another. This number does not 

include the thousands of other DHS officials, including Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

Office ofField Operations officers and one-fourth ofal! Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE) personnel deployed at the same border. It also does not include 651 miles offencing, 333 

video surveillance systems, and 9 drones for air surveillance. 

" See "Fixing our Broken Immigration System so Everyone Plays by the Rules." (Jan. 29, 2013), available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-officel20 13/0 1!29!fact-sheet -tixin g-our-broken-imm igration-svstem-soeveD1one-pJays-ruIes 

12 Chen, Greg and Kim. SUo "Border Security: Moving Beyond Past Benchmarks," American Immigration Lawyers 

Association, (Jan. 30, 2013). Available at: http://www.aila.org!contentldefault.aspx?bc=25667143061 

13 U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2011 ANNUAL REPORT, Chapter 5, available at 

http://www.ussc.govlData and Statistics!Annual Reports and Sourcebooks120 11120 II Annual Report Chap5.pd 

f 

14 Migration Policy Institute, Immigration Enforcement, supra. 

5 
246 

From a fiscal perspective, from FY2004 to FY2012, the budget for CBP increased by 94 

percent to $11.65 billion, a leap of$5.65 billion; this following a 20 percent post-9f11 increase 

of $1 billion.15 By way of comparison, this jump in funding more than quadruples the growth 

rate of NASA's budget and is almost ten times that of the National Institutes of Health. U.S. 

taxpayers now spend more on immigration enforcement agencies ($18 billion) than on the FBI, 

DEA, ATF, U.S. Marshals, and Secret Service--combined. 16 

CBP's spending runs directly counter to data on recent and current migration trends and 

severely detracts from the true needs of border security. Over the last decade, apprehensions by 

the Border Patrol have declined more than 72 percent (2000-10). At a time when migrant 

apprehensions are lower than at any time since the 1970s, wasteful spending by CBP must be 

reined in.17 In FY2012, Border Patrol apprehended 340,000 illegal crossers in total, an 

equivalent of 18 apprehensions a year per agent. I 8 A weakening U.S. economy, strengthened 

enforcement, and a growing Mexican economy have led to a dramatic decrease in unauthorized 

migration from Mexico. In fact, net migration from Mexico is now zero or slightly negative (i.e., 

more people leaving than coming).19 

The costs per apprehension vary per sector, but are at an all-time high. The Yuma, 

Arizona sector, for example, has seen a 95 percent decline in apprehensions since 2005 while the 

number of agents has tripled?O Each agent was responsible for interdicting just 8 immigrants in 

2010, contributing to ballooning per capita costs: each migrant apprehension at the border now 

costs five times more, rising from $1,400 in 2005 to over $7,500 in 201 el Indeed, despite 

Border Patrol's doubling in size since 2004, overtime costs have amounted to $1.6 billion over 

the last six years.22 The Judiciary Committee should heed House Appropriations Committee 

Chairman Hal Rogers' warning about the irrationality of border spending: "It is a sort of a mini 

15 Michele Mittelstadt et aI., "Through the Prism of National Security: Major Immigration Policy and Program 

Changes in the Decade since 9/11." (Migration Policy Institute, Aug. 20(1), 3, available at 

http://,,,'Ww.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/FS23 Post-9-11 policy.pdf 

16 Migration Policy Institute, Immigration Enforcement, supra. 

17 Testimony ofDHS Secretary Napolitano to the House judiciary Committee (July 19.2012); DHS Fact Sheet, 

"Apprehensions by the U.S. Border Patrol: 2005-2010." (July 2011), available at 

http://www .dhs.gov/xlibrarvlassets/statistics/pub lications/oi s-apprehensions-fs-2005-20 I O.pdt; see also JefJTey 

Passel and D'Vera Cohn, "U.S. Unauthorized Immigration Flows Are Down Sharply Since Mid-Decade." (Pew 

Hispanic Center, Sept. 1,2010), available at http://pewhispanic.orgirep0l1s/report.php?ReportID~126 

18 Chen Kim, "Border Security." supra. 

19 Philip E. Wolgin and Ann Garcia. "What Changes in Mexico Mean for U.S. Immigration Policy." (Center for 

American Progress, Aug. 8, 20 11), available at 

http://w,,'W.americanprogress.orgiissuesI2011 lOS/mexico immi gration.htm I 

20 Richard Marosi, "Plunge in border crossings leaves agents fighting boredom." Los Angeles Times (Apr. 21, 2011). 

21 Immigration Policy Center, Second Annual DHS Progress Report. (Apr. 2011), 26, available at 

http://www.immigrationpolicv.org/sites!defaultlfiles!docs!2011 DHS Report 041211.pdf 

22 "Border Patrol overtime, staffing up; arrests down." Associated Press (Feb. 5, 2012). 

6 
247 

industrial complex syndrome that has set in there. And we're going to have to guard against it 

every step of the way.,,2J 

b. Lack of CBP Oversight, Racial Profiling and Excessive Use of Force 

Unprecedented investment in border enforcement without corresponding oversight 

mechanisms24 has led to an increase in human and civil rights violations, traumatic family 

separations in border communities, and racial profiling and harassment of Native Americans, 

Latinos, and other people of color - many of them U.S. citizens and some who have lived in the 

region for generations. The hipartisan framework rightly recognizes the need for strengthened 

prohibitions against racial profiling and inappropriate use of force. In addition, more must he 

done to transform horder enforcement hy prioritizing investment in rohust and independent 

external oversight over unjustified expansion of resources. 

Stressed horder communities are a vital component of the half-trillion dollars in trade 

hetween the U.S. and Mexico, and the devastating effects of militarization on them must he 

addressed in serious reform. The U.S.-Canada horder has experienced an increase in border 

enforcement resources as well, with northern horder residents often complaining ahout Border 

Patrol agents conducting roving patrols near schools and churches and asking passengers for 

their documents on trains and huses that are traveling far from horder crossings. The ACLU of 

Washington State has hrought a class action lawsuit to end the Border Patrol's practice of 

stopping vehicles and interrogating occupants without legal justification. One of the plaintiffs in 

the case is an African American corrections officer and part-time police officer who was pulled 

over for no expressed reason and interrogated about his immigration status while wearing his 

corrections uniform.25 A local husiness owner said he's "never seen anything like this. Why 

don't they do it to the white people, to see ifthey're from Canada or something?,,26 

CBP also aids and ahets state and local police racial profiling practices. U.S. citizens 

have been ensnared hy CBP's unnecessary intertwining of its horder protection mission with 

state and local law enforcement operations. In Fehruary 2011, Tiburcio Briceno, a naturalized 

U.S. citizen, was stopped by a Michigan State Police officer for a traffic violation while driving 

in a registered company van. Rather than issue him a ticket, the officer interrogated Briceno 

about his immigration status, apparently based on Briceno's Mexican national origin and limited 

English. Dissatisfied with Briceno's valid Michigan chauffeur's license, the officer summoned 

23 Ted Robbins, "U.S. Grows an Industrial Complex Along the Border." NPR (Sept. 12,2012), available at 

http://www. npr.org/20 12109112/16075 84 7I!u-s-grows-an-ind ustrial-co mplex -along-the-bord er 

"Tim Steller, "Border Patrol faces little accountability," Arizona Daily Star (Dec. 9, 2012), available at: 

http://azstarnet.com/news!local/border!border-patrol-faces-little-accountabilitv/article 7899cf6d-3fl7-53bd-80a8-

ad214b384221.html 

25 Complaint available at http://www.aclu-wa.org!sites/detilUltifiles/attachments/20 12-04-26--C'omplaint O.pdf 

26 William Yardley. "In Far Northwest, a New Border Focus on Latinos." New York Times (May 29, 2012) 

(emphasis added), available at http://www.nvtimes.com/2012!05/29!us!hard-by-canada-border-fears-of-crackdownon-Iatino-immigration.html?pagewanted~all 

7 
248 

CBP, impounded Briceno's car, and told him he would be deported. Briceno says he reiterated 

again and again that he was a U.S. citizen, and offered to show his social security card but the 

officer refused to look. 

Briceno was released after CBP officers arrived and confirmed that he was telling the 

truth. "Becoming a U.S. citizen was a proud moment for me," Briceno has since reflected. 

"When I took the oath to this country, I felt that I was part of something bigger than myself; I felt 

that I was a part of a community and that I was finally equal to every other American. Although 

I still believe in the promise of equality, I know that I have to speak out to make sure it's a reality 

for me, my family and my community. No American should be made to feel like a criminal 

simply because of the color of their skin or language abilities.'.27 

In addition to racial profiling at and within the border, incidents of excessive use of force 

are on the rise, with at least 19 people killed by CBP officials since January 20 10,28 including five 

U.S. citizens and six individuals who were standing in Mexico when fatally shot. On April 20, 

2012, PBS's Need to Know29 program explored the trend ofCBP's excessive use of force, with a 

focus on Anastasio Hernandez Rojas. New footage depicting a dozen CBP officials surrounding 

and applying a Taser and other force to Mr. Hernandez, who was shown to be handcuffed and 

prostrate on the ground contrary to the agency's incident reporting, shocked viewers. The San 

Diego coroner classified Mr. Hernandez's death as a homicide, noting in addition to a heart attack: 

"several loose teeth; bruising to his chest, stomach, hips, knees, back, lips, head and eyelids; five 

broken ribs; and a damaged spine." CBP's version of events described a "combative" person: 

force was needed to "subdue the individual and maintain officer safety." 

27 ACLU of Michigan, "ACLU Urges State Police to Investigate Racial Profiling Incident." (Mar. 21, 2012) 

(emphasis added), availahle at http://www.aclumich.or~iissuesiracial-justiceI2012-03il685 

28 Jorge A. Solis, 28, shot and killed, Douglas, AZ (Jan. 4, 2010); Victor Santillan de la Cruz, 36, shot and killed, 

Laredo, TX (March 31, 2010); Anastasio Hernandez Rojas, 32, tortured to death, San Diego, CA (May 28, 2010); 

Sergio Adrian H. Huereca, 15, shot and killed, EI Paso, TX (June 7, 2010); Juan Mendez, 18, shot and killed, Eagle 

Pass, TX; Ramses Barron Torres, 17, shot and killed, Nogales, Mexico (Jan. 5.2011); Roberto Perez Perez, beaten 

while in detention and died due to lack of proper medical care, San Diego, CA (Jan. 13,2011); Alex Martinez, 30, 

shot and killed, Whatcom County, WA (Feb. 27, 2011); Carlos Lamadrid, 19, shot and killed, Douglas, AZ (March 

21,2011); Jose Alfredo Yanez Reyes, 40, shot and killed, Tijuana, Mexico (June 21, 2011); Gerardo Rico Lozana, 

20, shot and killed near Corpus Christi, TX (Nov. 3, 20 II); Byron Sosa Orellana, 28, shot and killed near Sells, AZ 

(Dec. 6, 2011); Alexander Martin, 24, died in car explosion that may have been caused by Border Patrol lasers 

(March 15, 2012); Charles Robinson, 75, shot and killed, Jackman, ME (June 23, 2012); Juan Pablo Perez Santillan, 

30, shot and killed on the banks of the Rio Grande, near Matamoros, Mexico (July 7,2012); Guillermo Arevalo 

Pedroza, 36, shot and killed, Nuevo Laredo, Mexico (Sept. 3, 2012); Valerie Tachiquin-Alvarado, 32, shot and 

killed, Chula Vista, CA (Sept. 28, 2012); Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, 16, shot and killed, Nogales, Sonora (Oct. 

11,2012); and Margarito Lopez Morelos, 19, shot and killed, Baboquivari Mountains, AZ (Dec. 2, 2012). NOTE: 

This count does not include Border Patrol agent Nicholas J. Ivie, 30, who was fatally shot by friendly fire near 

Bisbee, AZ (Oct. 2, 2012). 

29 PBS Need to Know special, aired April 20, 2012 and entitled "Crossing the line at the border," available at: 

http://w\\'\v .pbs.o rg/wnetlneed -to-know/security/video-first-look-crossing-the-Iine/] 3 597! 

8 
249 

After a Congressional letter signed by 16 members was sent to DHS Secretary Janet 

Napolitano, DHS Inspector General Charles Edwards, and Attorney General Eric Holder,3o on July 

12,2012, the Associated Press reported that a federal grand jury was investigating the death of 

Anastasio Hernandez.31 Border Patrol's use-of-force incidents have attracted international 

scrutiny with the government ofMexico,32 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,33 

and the Office ofthe United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights34 weighing in. 

While the federal government has the authority to control our nation's borders and to 

regulate immigration, CBP officials must do so in compliance with national and international 

legal norms and standards. As employees of the nation's largest law enforcement agency, CBP 

officials should be trained and held to the highest professional law enforcement standards. 

Systemic, robust and pennanent oversight and accountability mechanisms for CBP should be 

included in the immigration reform the Judiciary Committee will initiate. Congress must seize 

this moment for immigration reform to transform border enforcement in a manner that is fiscally 

responsible, enlists border communities in defining the true needs of their communities, and 

upholds constitutional rights and American values. 

IV. Ending the Epidemic of Racial Profiling in Immigration Enforcement 

The bipartisan framework importantly identifies remedies for racial profil ing as an 

immigration reform priority. Racial profiling has thrived in the past decade of immigration 

enforcement, and is currently fueled by ICE's Secure Communities and 287(g) programs, as well 

as by the CBP enforcement activities at international borders and in the U.S. interior described 

above. 

Racial profiling violates the U.S. Constitution by betraying the fundamental American 

promise of equal protection under the law and by infringing on the Fourth Amendment guarantee 

that all people be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Yet DHS immigration and 

border enforcement practices continue to promote racial profiling of those perceived to look or 

sound foreign, even though it is impossible to tell who's here lawfully through these indicators. 

Racial profiling is ineffective, wasteful, and unconstitutional law enforcement that regularly 

30 Congressional sign-on letter sent May 10,2012 to Secretary Janet Napolitano available at: 

http://serrano.house.gov!sitesiserrano.house.govlfiles/DHSletter.pdf; letter sent to DHS Inspector General Charles 

Edwards available at: http://serrano.hollse.eov/sites/serrano.house.gov/liles/DHSIGIetter.pdf; letter sent to DOJ Attorney 

General Eric Holder available at: http://serrano.house.gov/sites/serrano.hol1se.gov/tileslDoJLetter.pdf 

31 Grand Jury Probes Anastasio Hernandez Border Death, available http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012fjuIl12/grandil1ry-probes-border-death! 

32 See, e.g., Bret Stephens, "The Paradoxes of Felipe Calder6n." Wall Street Journal (Sept. 28, 2012), available at 

http://online,wsj.com/al1icle/SBI0000872396390443916104578022440624610104.html?mod~hp opinion 

33 Sec "IACHR condemns the recent death of Mexican national by U.S. Border Patrol Agents." (July 24, 2012), 

available at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media center!PReleasesl20 121093 .asp 

34 See U.N. Radio, "United States urged to probe deaths of Mexican migrants at border." (May 29, 2012), available 

at http://www, unmultimed ia.orWradio/engiishI20 12/0 5/united-states-ureed-to-probe-deaths-of-mexican-mi grants-atborder! 

9 
250 

deprives people of their freedom without due process. Congress must act and make clear that in 

America profiling is anathema to the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. 

a. Secure Communities: A Conduit for Racial Profiling of Hispanics, Latinos, and 

Communities of Color, Including U.S. Citizens 

ICE's primary immigration enforcement initiative is Secure Communities (S-Comm), 

which has been activated across the nation. Under this program, any time an individual is 

arrested and booked into jail, his or her fingerprints are electronically run through ICE's 

databases. Because state and local law enforcement officials know that S-Comm will capture the 

fingerprints of everyone they arrest---even if the arrest is baseless or blatantly unconstitutionalrogue officers have a strong incentive to make pretextual arrests based purely on race, ethnicity, 

or perceived "foreignness." 

S-Comm, therefore, creates an incentive for state and local police to target suspected 

immigrants to arrest for minor offenses-including, for example, driving with a broken taillight 

or driving with an expired tag-purely in order to bring them into the jail and trigger the 

fingerprint-sharing aspect of S-Comm. Police understand that even if an arrest is baseless, even 

iflocal officials decline to press charges, or even if the person is later cleared of wrong doing, 

they can use S-Comm to bring that person to ICE's immediate attention for potential deportation. 

After a similar ICE jail screening program (the Criminal Alien Program or CAP) was 

initiated in Irving, Texas, the Warren Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, found 

strong evidence that local police, emboldened by the knowledge that the people they arrested 

would be brought to ICE's attention once they were booked into jail, engaged in racial profiling 

and pretextual arrests. The report concluded that there was a "marked rise in low-level arrests of 

Hispanics" after CAP came into effect. 

Racial protiling is a well-studied phenomenon for which detailed studies are widely 

available. For example, in Milwaukee, a statistical analysis determined that police pulled over 

Hispanic city motorists nearly five times as often as white drivers, and that "Black and Hispanic 

drivers were arrested at twice the rate of whites after getting stopped.,,35 An ACLU of Arizona 

study showed that during 2006-2007, the state highway patrol was significantly more likely to 

stop African Americans and Hispanics than Whites on all the highways studied.36 

rCE was on clear notice from this history that ostensibly neutral immigration enforcement 

which relies on state and local police arrests will lead to racial profiling. Yet ICE has given no 

35 Ben Poston, "Racial gap found in traffic stops in Milwaukee." MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL (Dec. 3, 2011), 

available at htlp:llwww.jsonline.com/watchdoglwatchdogreportslracial-gap-foulld-in-tran1c-stops-in-milwaukeekel hsip-134977408.html 

16 ACLU of Arizona, Driving While Black or Brown, 3 (2008), available at http://www.aclllaz.org/ 

DrivingWhileBlackorBrown.pdf 

10 
251 

ground on Secure Communities expansion, despite vehement objections by three governors (of 

Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts) and many local elected officials and law enforcement 

leaders. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick explained that while "[ n )either the greater risk of 

ethnic profiling nor the overbreadth in impact will concern anyone who sees the immigration 

debate in abstract terms ... [for] someone who has been exposed to racial profiling or has 

comforted the citizen child of an undocumented mother coping with the fear of family 

separation, it is hard to be quite so detached.,,37 Not surprisingly, some jurisdictions with a 

history of racially-motivated police misconduct have abnormally high numbers of non-criminals 

and low-level offenders among the people processed and removed through S_Comm.38 

DHS has assured Congress that "[w]e are instituting a whole series of analytical steps 

working with [DOl's] Civil Rights Division, the [Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 

(CRCL)] at DHS, inviting them to literally be part of the analysis with us so that we can root out 

and identify any jurisdictions that are misusing Secure Communities.,,)9 ICE subsequently 

announced that "[flour times a year, beginning in June 2011, CRCL and ICE will examine 

Secure Communities data to identify law enforcement agencies that might be engaged in 

improper police practices.,,4o No such data review has yet been released, leaving it to 

nongovernmental analysts to disclose the troubling figure that "Latinos comprise 93% of 

individuals arrested through Secure Communities though they only comprise 77% of the 

undocumented population in the United States.,,41 Even if DHS data review does occur in every 

Secure Communities jurisdiction (3,074 and counting), CRCL has no authority to investigate a 

state or local law enforcement agency's (LEA's) racial profiling. It is therefore up to Congress 

to ensure accountability and oversight of immigration enforcement programs. 

DHS has deployed Secure Communities in jurisdictions where local law enforcement 

agencies have been or are being investigated by the Department of lustice ("001") Civil Rights 

Division for discriminatory policing targeting Hispanics, Latinos, or communities of color. Here 

are three of many examples: 

·DOl concluded that the New Orleans Police Department ("NOPD") has engaged in patterns of 

misconduct that violate the Constitution and federal statutes. DOl documented multiple 

37 Letter from Gov. Deval Patrick to Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson (June 9, 2011). 

38 Nationwide,just over a quarter (26%) of all those deported under S-Comm from 2008 to 2010 had no criminal 

convictions. In Maricopa County, Arizona, however, more than half(54%) of all the people deported under SComm were non-criminals. And in Travis County, Texas, that percentage was 82%. NDLON, Briefing Guide to 

Secure Communities (2010), 3. 

39 John Morton, Testimony to the House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Homeland Security (Mar. 

13,2011). 

40 OCRCL, "Overview of CRCLlICE Quarterly Statistical Monitoring of Secure Communities," available at 

http://www.ice.gov/doc1ib/secure.comrnunities/pdtfstatisticalmonitoring.pdf 

41 Aarti Kohli, Peter Markowitz, and Lisa Chavez, Secure Communities by the Numbers: 

An Analysis oj Demographics and Due Process. 5·6 (201l), available at 

http://www.1aw.berkeley.edu/files/Secure Communities by the Numbers.pdf 

II 
252 

instances ofNOPD officers stopping Latinos for unknown reasons and then questioning them 

about immigration status or posing such questions instead of helping crime victims. Members of 

the Latino community told DOJ that Latino drivers are pulled over at a higher rate than others for 

minor traffic violations.42 DHS has nonetheless continued to operate Secure Communities in 

New Orleans. In this context, it is unsurprising that in Orleans Parish, Secure Communities' 

deportations are composed of 59% non-criminals and 20% misdemeanants.43 This combined 

rate of 79% far exceeds the national average and makes New Orleans one of the worstperforming jurisdictions when measured against Secure Communities' congressionally mandated 

focus on the most dangerous and violent convicted criminals. 

-In 2011 DHS chose to activate Secure Communities in Suffolk County, New York, even though 

DOJ was investigating the Suffolk County Police Department ("SCPD"). Many Latino crime 

victims in Suffolk County described how SCPD demanded to know their immigration status. In 

September 2011, DOJ informed SCPD that its policy governing the collection and use of 

information about immigration status of witnesses, victims, and suspects is subject to abuse. 

DOJ also recommended that SCPD revise its use of roadblocks in Latino communities and 

prohibit identity checks and requests for citizenship documentation.44 Nevertheless, DHS took 

no action to prevent SCPD from serving as a conduit for racial profiling. 

-DHS activated Secure Communities across Connecticut on February 22,2012, only two months 

after DOJ released findings from its investigation ofthe East Haven Police Department (EHPD). 

DOJ concluded that "EHPD engages in a pattern or practice of biased policing against Latinos in 

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and federallaw.,,45 On 

January 24, 2012, four EHPD officers were indicted on federal charges based on their treatment 

of Latino residents.46 Yet DHS continues to partner with EHPD in Secure Communities, another 

instance of conflict with DHS's pledge that its programs are not to "function as a conduit or 

incentive for discriminatory poiicing.,,47 

42 United States Department of Justice, "Investigation of the New Orleans Police Department," Mar. 16,2011,63, 

available at http://www.iustice.gov/crtiabollt/spllnopd report.pdf 

43 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Secure Communities: !DENT/lAPIS Interoperability Monthly 

Statistics through Feb. 29. 2012, available at http://www.ice.govldocliblfoialsc-statslnationwide interop statsfy2012-to-date.rdf 

44 See Suffolk County Police Department Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 13,2011), available at 

http://www.justice.gov/crtlaboutlsplldocllments/suffolkPD TA 9-13-ll.pdf 

45 DOl Findings Letter, December 19,2011, available at 

http://wv.'W.justice.gov/crtiaboutlspl/docllments/easthaven lindletter 12-19-11.pdf 

46 DOl indictment, January 18, 2012, available at httr:l!www.courant.com/community/hc-east-haven-officersindictment-pdf-htmI,0.39619.htmlpage 

47 Margo Schlanger, Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and Gary Mead, Executive Associate Director of 

ICE, "Memorandum to All ICE and CRCL Personnel on Secure Communities Complaints Involving State or Local 

Law Enforcement Agencies," available at http://www,ice.gov/docliblsecllrecommunities/pdfYcomplaintprotocol.pdf,2. 

12 
253 

Secure Communities has also had direct dire racial profiling consequences for U.S. 

citizens, over whom DHS lacks immigration jurisdiction. In 2011, the Warren Institute 

estimated that 3,600 U.S. citizens have been apprehended under Secure Communities.48 Antonio 

Montejano, a Latino born in Los Angeles, was unlawfully detained for four days after having his 

immigration status questioned based on an arrest stemming from his children's handling of store 

merchandise. The incident resulted in his pleading guilty to an infraction, an offense less serious 

than a misdemeanor. Montejano remained in custody despite repeatedly proclaiming his U.S. 

citizenship. Upon his release, he says his 8-year-old son asked him, "'Dad, can this happen to 

me too because I look like you?' I feel so sad when I heard him say this. But he is right. Even 

though he is an American citizen - just like me - he too could be detained for immigration 

purposes because of the color of his skin - just like me.,,49 

b. 2S7(g) Agreements: DRS's Partnerships with Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Other Bad 

Actors 

An ICE "287(g) agreement" delegates federal immigration authority to state and local 

law enforcement agencies under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The 

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has emphasized that "[aJs in the case of ... 

Secure Communities ... , the 287(g) agreements open up the possibility of racial profiling ... 

ICE has failed to develop an oversight and accountability system to ensure that these local 

partners do not enforce immigration law in a discriminatory manner by resorting to racial 

profiling .... ,,50 

287(g) agreements disproportionately affect communities with fast-growing Latino 

populations: 87% of jurisdictions with 287(g) agreements had a Latino population growth rate 

higher than the national average. 51 Investigations by the ACLU of Georgia in Cobbl2 and 

Gwinnett53 counties, and by the ACLU of North Carolina54 detail pretextual, race-based 

encounters under 287(g). 

"!d.; see also Sandra Baltazar Martinez, "Santa Fe man one of thousands oflegal citizens incarcerated by ICE." 

SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN (Nov. 20, 2011), available at 

http://w ... -w.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Citizens-rounded-up 

49 Statement of Antonio Montejano (Nov. 30,2011), available at 

http://w\\'W.ac!u,orgifiles/assetsJantonios statement.pdf 

50 See Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on Immigration in the United States: Detention and 

Due Process. (Dec. 30, 2010), 66,144, available at 

http://cidh.orglpdl%20filesiReportOnlmmigrationlnTheUnited%20States-DetentionAndDueProcess.pdf 

51 See Justice Strategies, Local Democracy on ICE: Why State and Local Governments Have No Business in Federal 

Immigration Law Enforcement. (Feb. 2009), 16, available at 

http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/defaultlliles!publicationsilS-Democracv-On-lce-print.pdf 

" American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia Legal Foundation, Terror and Isolation in Cobb: How Unchecked 

Police Power under 287(g) Has Torn Families Apart and Threatened Public Safety. (Oct. 2009), available at 

http://ww\l'.acluga.org/racial%20profiling%20Cobb.pdf 

53 American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia Legal Foundation, The Persistence of Racial Profiling in Gwinnett: 

Time for Accountability, Transparency, and an End to 287(g). (Mar. 2010), available at 

http://w\V\v.acluga.org/gwinnettraciaJreportfinal.pdf 

13 
254 

Most culpably of all, DHS's 287(g) partnership with Maricopa County Sheriff loe Arpaio 

only ended in December 2011, after DOl concluded that MCSO "engaged in a widespread 

pattern or practice of law enforcement and jail activities that discriminate against Latinos. This 

discrimination flows directly from a culture of bias and institutional deficiencies that result in the 

discriminatory treatment of Latinos." This biased policing was no secret; DOl's statistical expert 

opined that "this case involves the most egregious racial profiling in the United States that he has 

ever personally seen in the course of his work, observed in litigation, or reviewed in professional 

literature."ss Yet DHS refused to suspend the operation of Secure Communities in Maricopa 

County. 

Similarly, in September 2012, after DOJ concluded that the Alamance County, NC, 

Sheriff's Office - at the time one ofICE's 287(g) partners -lied to Latino detainees about nonexistent federal requests for immigration detention, adding that "ACSO discriminates against 

Latinos in its jail booking and detention procedures,,,56 DHS did not end Secure Communities in 

Alamance. The continuation of Secure Communities in Maricopa and Alamance Counties 

means that the very same police departments identified by DOJ as engaged in biased policing 

can remain confident that their biased arrests will have deportation consequences. Congressional 

action as part of immigration reform is required to pry apart the latticework of immigration 

enforcement's intersection with racial profiling practices. 

V. Immigration Reform Must Not Create a National ID System or Harm Fundamental 

Privacy Rights by Mandating the Use ofE-Verify Nationwide. 

The bipartisan framework calls for a "tough, fair, effective and mandatory employment 

verification system." Unfortunately, E-Verify is a flawed electronic employment-eligibility 

screening system that imposes unacceptable burdens on America's workers, businesses and 

society at large. Nationwide E-VerifY would lay the groundwork for a possible biometric 

national ID system, which would have significant privacy and civil liberties costs for all 

Americans, including lawful workers, businesses, and taxpayers. 

E-Verify is an internet-based system that contains identifying information on almost 

every American. The current E-Verify system contains an enormous amount of personal 

information including names, photos from passports and DHS documents, some drivers' license 

54 American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation and Immigration & Human Rights Policy 

Clinic, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, The Policies and Politics of Locallmmigration Enforcement 

Laws: 287(g) Program in North Carolina. (Feb. 2009). available at 

http://www.acluofnorthcarolina.orgifiles/287gpolicyreview O.pdf 

55 U.S. DOl, Civil Rights Division, Letter from Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez to Maricopa County 

Attorney Bill Montgomery (Dec. 15, 201l), available at 

http://www.justice.govlcrtlaboutlsplldocuments/mcso findletter 12-15-11.pdf 

56 U.S. DOl, Civil Rights Division, Letter of Findings re: United States' Investigation of Alamance County Sheriff's 

Office (Sept. 18, 2012), available at http://www.justice.gov/iso!omvresources/171201291812462488198.pdf 

14 
255 

information, social security numbers, phone numbers, email addresses, workers' employer, 

industry, and immigration information like country of birth. 

This vast collection of personal information has the potential to be converted very 

quickly into a national identity system. The data in E-Verify, especially if combined with other 

databases including data on travel, financial information or communications, would be a gold 

mine for intelligence agencies, law enforcement, licensing boards, and anyone who wanted to 

spy on American workers. Because of its scope, it could form the basis for surveillance profiles 

of every American. 

Some lawmakers have also called for it to be accompanied by the creation of a 

biometric nationallD card, which would be issued as part ofthe identity check process in EVerify. These two proposals - biometric national ID and mandatory E-Verify - could quickly 

become a wide ranging permission slip from the government necessary to access basic rights and 

services. Social Security numbers, originally intended to be used for distribution of benefits, 

were never meant to be used for identification. Now it is almost impossible to function in 

America without one. Ifit becomes mandatory, E-Verify could be expanded in much the same 

way. 

As a result, the many errors and problems with E-Verify would quickly become not only 

employment issues but also problems with travel and other fundamental freedoms. This could 

lead to unwarranted harassment and denial of access to TSA checkpoints, voting booths, and gun 

permits, or other harmful consequences not yet envisioned. It is critical that strict limits be 

placed on the use of information in any employment verification system. It should only be used 

to verify employment or to monitor for employment-related fraud, and there should be no other 

federal, state, or private purpose. 

While the bipartisan Senate plan calls for "procedural safeguards to protect American 

workers, prevent identity theft, and provide due process protections," no safeguards can change 

the fact that creating a biometric national ID would irreparably damage the fabric of American 

life. Our society is built on privacy, the assumption that as long as we obey the law, we are all 

free to go where we want and do what we want embrace any type of political, social or 

economic behavior we choose-without the government (or the private sector) looking over our 

shoulders monitoring our behavior. This degree of personal freedom is one of the keys to 

America's success as a nation. It allows us to be creative, enables us to pursue our 

entrepreneurial interests, and validates our democratic instincts to challenge any authority that 

may be unjust. A biometric nationallD system would tum those assumptions upside down by 

making every person's ability to participate in a fundamental aspect of American life -the right 

to work ---contingent upon government approval. 

15 
256 

Implementing E-Verify nationwide would require reliance on massive and inaccurate 

databases, and the room for error is enormous. Currently, E-Verify has been implemented in only 

a fraction of the country's workplaces. If applied to the entire workforce with a conservative 

estimate that I percent of the population could be wrongly identified as not employment 

authorized (as a recent MPI paper estimates57), 1.5 million work-authorized workers could be 

terminated ifthey are unable to fix their records. If applied only to new hires, 517,000 workers 

could lose their jobs. This poor track record will lead to discrimination against those perceived 

to look or sound "foreign," as employers required to use E-Verify would avoid hiring individuals 

they fear are likely to be caught up in the error-prone system. Immigration reform should 

reinforce anti-discrimination principles in employment law, not increase the chances that 

employees will face discrimination in the workplace. 

Even as E-Verify wrongly ensnares so many eligible workers, it fails to achieve its 

intended goal of preventing the hiring of undocumented workers. In fact, according to a DHSfunded study, E-Verify fails to identify undocumented workers 54% of the time.s8 

Furthermore, a nationwide verification system would only increase the risk of data 

breaches and identity theft by making personal information on every American more widely 

accessible. Experts note that the system as currently configured remains vulnerable to identity 

theft and employer fraud, and may serve as a valuable tool for identity fraudsters. At least one 

major data breach ofE-Verify has already occurred. Since the first data breach notification law 

went into effect in California at the beginning of 2004, more than 607 million records have been 

hacked, lost or disclosed improperly including e-verify databases.59 In October 2009, and again 

in December 2009, Minnesota state officials learned that the company hired to process their everify forms had accidentally allowed unauthorized individuals to gain access to the personal 

information of over 37,000 individuals due to authentication practices and web application 

vulnerabilities in their system 60. 

Finally, E-Verify will impose an enormous economic burden on such small businesses, 

and every employer required to comply. In fact, implementing a nationwide E-Verify mandate 

would cost small businesses $2.6 billion each year. 61 Each new hire would cost approximately 

$147 to screen.62 Taxpayers would see a huge bill as well, as national E-Verify would reduce tax 

revenues by $17.3 billion over a decade by pushing employees who are currently paying taxes 

57 Doris Meissner and Marc Rosenblum, The Next Generation o[E-Verifj;: Getting Emplovment Verification Righf 

(Migration Policy Institute, July 2009), http://www.migrationpolicy.ondpubslVerilication paper-071709.pdf. 

58 Id at 6. 

59 Privacy Rights Clearinghouse Chronology of Data Breaches, 

httn:l/www.privacyrights.org/ar/ChronDataBreaches.htm. 

60 John Fay, FTC Settlement Highlights the Importance of Protecting Sensitive 1-9 Data in an Electronic World, 

Guardian 1-9 And E-Verify Blog, May 4, 2011. 

61 Jason Arvelo, 'Free' EverifY May cost Small Business $2.6 Billion: InSight, Bloomberg Government (Jan. 27, 

2011). 

"ld. 

16 
257 

into other jobs on the black market.63 Estimates also suggest that DHS would spend $765 

million implementing the program in the first four years.64 These costs simply cannot be 

justified for a system that is so error-prone and that intrudes on the privacy rights of every 

American. 

VI. Immigration Reform Must Include Equality for LGBT Couples. 

Missing entirely from the bipartisan framework was any reference to the unjustifiable 

discrimination faced by committed same-sex bi-national couples. These couples, due to 

senseless and unconstitutional discrimination enacted in the so-called Defense of Marriage Act 

(DOMA), are unable to sponsor their spouse or permanent partner in the same way opposite-sex 

couples have long been able to under current immigration law. The framework's failure even to 

mention this issue should be addressed by the Judiciary Committee as immigration reform moves 

forward. 

By contrast, the President's January 29, 2013, announcement rightly noted that it is 

important to treat same-sex immigrant families as what they are - families. 65 The ACLU 

strongly concurs with this assessment. Indeed, there are at least 31 countries around the world 

that allow residents to sponsor same-sex permanent partners for legal immigration.66 Family 

unity - including for those who are LGBT - is a critical component of immigration reform. To 

that end, U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents must be given the ability to seek a visa on 

the basis of a permanent relationship with a same-sex partner. 

VII. Conclusion 

The ACLU commends the Judiciary Committee for its prioritization of immigration 

reform, including reduction of abuses in the currently-oppressive enforcement system which has 

cost $219 billion in today's dollars since 1986.67 By jettisoning those components ofthe 

bipartisan framework that clash with civil liberties, the Committee can ensure that the 

framework's roadmap to citizenship is free of unjust obstacles. Members will thereby maximize 

the historic expansion of constitutional freedoms for spouses, friends, parishioners, and 

neighbors who contribute to American communities' success and deserve full and prompt 

citizenship. 

63 Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 4088, the Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act of2007: 

http://Wv.w .cbo.gov/sites! d efau IUfil esl cbo files/ftpdocs/91 xxi doc9 I OO/hr4088ltr. pd f 

64 GAO, Employment Verification Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Improve E-Verify, But Significant 

Challenges Remain, December 2010, GAO-I 1-146. 

65 See "Fixing our Broken Immigration System," supra. 

66 Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, 

Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the 

Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United 

Kingdom. 

67 Robbins, "u.s. Grows," supra. 

17 
258 

AILA National Office 

Suite 300 

1331 G Street, NW 

Washington, DC 

20005-3142 

Tel: 202.507.7600 

Fax: 202.783.7853 

www.aila.org 

Cristal Wi'tJams 

Susan Q. Q .k1t!es 

Statement of the American Immigration Lawyers Association 

Submitted to the 

Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. Senate 

Hearing of February 13,2013 

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) submits the following 

testimony to the Committee On the Judiciary. AILA is the national association of 

immigration lawyers established to promote justice and advocate for fair and 

reasonable immigration law and policy. AILA has over 12,000 attorney and law 

professor members. 

Immigration Reform is Good for America 

Across America, millions of immigrants and their families, businesses and 

communities-indeed our entire nation-are calling for immigration reform. 

AILA urges lawmakers to enact a common sense immigration policy that helps to 

rebuild America's economy, recognizes the contributions of immigrants, keeps 

families together, and strengthens America's security. Well-documented are the 

benefits immigrants bring to every sector of the economy. Immigrants are 

innovators and job creators, especially in the science and technology fields where 

they represent about half of all Ph.D. holders. Immigrant families are more likely 

to start small- and medium-sized businesses. Finally, comprehensive immigration 

reform that includes a legalization plan for the undocumented and enables the 

future flow oflegal workers will bring an estimated $1.5 trillion in additional 

gross domestic product over ten years. 

Legalization of the Undocumented 

Polling nationwide shows two-thirds of American voters support immigration 

reform, including a path to legal status, permanent residency and eventually 

citizenship for the estimated II million undocumented persons living in the 

country. 

Both Republican and Democratic leaders have spoken out against mass 

deportation of undocumented men, women and their families, most of whom have 

deep roots in this country. Such an approach is not only impractical but also 

damaging to the economy and an unwise use of taxpayer dollars. 

A sensible legalization plan should include a rigorous process that requires 

undocumented immigrants to register with the government, undergo background 

checks and pay any fees or taxes. Once they complete these steps, they should 

receive legal status and eventually earn a green card and citizenship. The 

registration and legalization process would not be an amnesty. By definition, 

amnesty is an automatic pardon or a free pass granted to a group of people who do 

not have to do anything in return and are not required to atone for their past 

actions. 

American Immigration Lawyers Association 
259 

Some refonn proposals would require those undergoing legalization to "go to the back ofthe 

line" to ensure they do not obtain green cards before others who have been waiting for 

permanent residence. This requirement could be workable but only if changes are made to the 

future legal immigration system to ensure that long backlogs existing in the current system are 

eliminated. As the system stands now, some green card applicants must wait decades, with such 

extensive backlogs that people literally die waiting. Ifthe legal immigration system is not fixed, 

the "back of the line" requirement could force millions of people to wait for decades in limbo in 

a second class status. 

The Legal Immigration System - Growing Businesses and the Economy 

Currently the immigration system functions so poorly that it is hurting business growth, job 

creation and the American economy. AILA's immigration attorney members frequently help 

their clients-be they small or large businesses, family-owned startups or corporationsnavigate labyrinthine rules and survive extremely long delays in the visa application process. In 

far too many instances, delays due to backlogs in both temporary and pennanent visa availability 

prevent projects from moving forward and hurt businesses and job growth. America's 

immigration system must be flexible and responsive to meet the needs of American businesses to 

ensure our economic security-both in times of prosperity and times of recession. 

Refonns must update the archaic quota limits that have no relationship to the needs of the 

economy and the businesses that drive it. This can be done by exempting those who graduate 

with degrees in science, technology, engineering and math fields as well as accompanying 

spouses and children from the employment-based visa cap count. Refonns must also revise 

quotas to increase the number of green cards for people with vital skills, assure the ready 

availability of needed workers on short-tenn and temporary bases, while protecting the wages 

and working conditions of all workers in the United States. 

The Legal Immigration System -- Ensuring Family Unity 

As vital as expansions to employment visas may be, such refonns cannot be made at the expense 

of the family immigration system. Family unification has always been the cornerstone of the 

U.S. legal immigration system. Keeping families strong and united is a core national value and 

interest, and we must continue our historic commitment to bringing families together. Some 

proposals call for increases in employment visa categories only at the expense of reducing visas 

in family categories. This approach is premised on the faulty assumption that America can only 

absorb a fixed number of immigrants at a given time when in fact our nation's needs are 

constantly changing-sometimes expanding and other times contracting. Our immigration 

system must be flexible and capable of meeting the needs of American businesses, families, and 

the economy. 

A popular misconception about the immigration system is that people who would like to 

immigrate can simply get into line to obtain a green card in a reasonable period of time. That is 

hardly the case. Under the current system, the close family members of U.S. citizens and legal 

pennanent residents wait years, or even decades, to get green cards, due to quotas that limit visa 

numbers. For example, a U.S. citizen parent typically has to wait about seven years to bring an 

adult child; and almost 20 years for those coming from Mexico. Siblings of U.S. citizens 

American Immigration Lawyers Association 2 
260 

typically wait about 12 years. But siblings coming from the Philippines wait 24 years. In the 

employment-based system, reports have indicated that a highly-skilled worker from India could 

end up waiting multiple decades to receive a green card. 

The exceptionally long waits for both family- and employment-based visas keep families apart 

and hinder or even halt business operations. Immigration reform should improve the legal 

immigration system by enacting policies that eliminate the backlogs. To keep families together 

and to ensure our nation is strong, additional green cards should be added to both family and 

employment categories. 

Immigration Enforcement 

In recent years, immigration reform bills have proposed dramatic increases in border security and 

interior enforcement resources, reflecting the perception that the U.S. government is not doing 

enough to enforce immigration laws. But immigration enforcement efforts of the past decade 

have been aggressive and have reached a historic high-point. With $18 billion annually going 

toward immigration enforcement agencies and technologies, our borders and the interior have 

never been more secure. 

In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) removed a total of 409,849 individuals-a 

record number. In January, AILA released, "Border Security: Moving Beyond Past 

Benchmarks," which found that border security efforts have exceeded the border security 

benchmarks established by each of the Senate immigration reform bills of 2006, 2007 and 2010. 

In just over two years-between July 1,2010 and September 30, 20I2-DHS deported 204,810 

parents of U.S. citizens, amounting to nearly 23% of all deportations. In other words, more than 

one in every five people deported is the parent of a U.S. citizen. America's deportation laws are 

literally tearing families apart and hurting people who know America as their only home. 

Thousands of people, including those seeking asylum, are unnecessarily detained at great 

expense to taxpayers even though they pose no threat to anyone. Our laws mandate detention or 

deportation for many people, denying them access to a hearing before a judge, in a system that 

does not guarantee legal counsel for those who cannot afford it. Immigration enforcement 

measures frequently target minority and immigrant communities with strategies that often instill 

fear and distrust ofJaw all enforcement, and, as a consequence, make communities less safe. 

Bring Fairness to Immigration Decisions 

Current immigration laws and policies deny basic due process to millions of people who live in 

the U.S. Long-time residents are subject to deportation even when they have strong ties to the 

community, pay taxes, and desperately want to become full-fledged members of our society. 

Many are eligible to apply for legal status, but because they lived in the U.S. for a period of time 

that was unauthorized they are now barred from fixing their status. Judges often have no ability 

to weigh the individual circumstances of the case. Low-level immigration officials often act as 

judge and jury, and the federal courts have been denied the power to review most agency 

decisions. Congress should restore fairness and flexibility to our system by authorizing 

immigration judges and officials to exercise discretion in considering the individual 

circumstances of each case. 

American Immigration Lawyers Association 3 
261 

Worksite enforcement should protect workers, ensure safe working conditions, and prevent 

worker exploitation while at the same time minimizing the impact on businesses. With respect to 

employment verification, AILA recognizes that America needs an effective way to verify that 

workers are authorized. Such a system must be workable and not overly burdensome for 

employers--including large and small businesses, and employers in various industry sectors. 

Employment verification should be done in a way that protects the rights of all workers-foreign 

and American born. 

The smart solutions to our immigration system and to our border security will not come from 

blindly increasing spending on enforcement. Nor will it come from outdated and unrealistic 

frameworks, such as a 100 percent-sealed border. With immigration enforcement occurring at 

unprecedented levels, it is time to re-evaluate how to move forward. 

America is a nation of values, founded on the idea that all people are created equal and that all 

people have rights, no matter what they look like or where they came from. Our immigration 

laws should reflect our commitment to these values. They should be grounded in civil and 

human rights and ensure due process, equal treatment, and fairness. AILA looks forward to 

working with all of our leaders to ensure that all aspects of our immigration system reflect 

America's values. 

American Immigration Lawyers Association 4 
262 

STATEMENT OF 

JUSTIN MAZZOLA, RESEARCHER 

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA 

"COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM" 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

FEBRUARY 13, 2013 

Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley and members of the Committee: I am honored to 

submit this testimony for the record on behalf of Amnesty International USA regarding today's 

hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform. 

Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 3 million supporters, members and 

activists in more than 150 countries and territories who campaign to end grave abuses of human 

rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. We are 

independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded 

mainly by our membership and public donations. 

We thank you for holding this critical and timely hearing on Comprehensive Immigration 

Reform. A debate on reforming our nation's immigration laws is welcomed and long overdue. 

Any attempts at reform must respect the rights of immigrants and their families and address the 

many human rights violations attributed to the current immigration enforcement system. In 

2009, Amnesty International USA released Jailed Without Justice: Immigration Detention in the 

Page I of8 
263 

USA and in 2012 published In Hostile Terrain: Human Rights Violations in Immigration 

Enforcement in the U.S. Southwest. Both reports demonstrated that human rights violations are 

committed by the government during apprehension, detention and deportation. I am offering this 

testimony for Amnesty International as the lead researcher and author of these two reports on 

apprehension, detention and removal in the United States. 

Mr. N, a Buddhist monk from Tibet, fled to the US after he had been 

arrested, incarcerated, and tortured twice on the basis of his religious beliefs 

and political expressions in support of Tibetan independence. He arrived in 

New York and was immediately placed into immigration detention. Mr. N's 

attorney filed a parole application that included an affidavit from a member 

of the American Tibetan community who pledged to provide Mr. N lodging 

and ensure his appearance at any hearings. During Mr. N's ten-month 

detention, the government provided no response to this request, and Mr. N 

was never given the opportunity to argue for his release before a judge. Mr. 

N was granted permission to remain in the US in September 2007. 

Amnesty International documented that tens of thousands of people suffer in U.S. detention 

facilities every year without a court hearing to determine whether their detention is warranted. In 

just over a decade the number of immigrants in detention each day has tripled, costing taxpayers 

hundreds of millions of dollars a year even though effective and less costly options are 

available. Also, a recent study undertaken by Amnesty International in the Southwest revealed 

that communities living along the border are disproportionately affected by a range of 

immigration control measures, resulting in a pattern of human rights violations, including the 

risk of discriminatory profiling. Furthermore, survivors of crimes and human trafficking told 

Amnesty International that many people were reluctant to come into contact with the law 

enforcement authorities and apply for available remedies because they fear that they will be 

detained and deported or lose custody of their children. The fact that local law enforcement 

Page 2 of8 
264 

officials are used to implement federal immigration programs has exacerbated this problem. 

Those who do decide to report crimes may still be denied access to justice if law enforcement 

officials see them not as the victims of crime, but as criminals. 

The Immigration and Nationality Act defines the criteria for determining whether non-citizens 

are eligible to enter or remain in the USA, and sets out the rules and procedures for the detention 

and removal of non-citizens. The Act gives immigration officers the authority to detain 

immigrants without a warrant if there is a "reason to believe that the alien ... is in the United 

States in violation of any [immigration] law and is likely to escape before a warrant can be 

obtained." Under the Act, immigrants who have committed certain types of crimes must be 

detained. The Department of Homeland Security is empowered to detain immigrants without an 

individual hearing before an immigration judge so that the detainee does not have an opportunity 

to challenge the legality or conditions of their detention. The US mandatory detention system, 

which provides for the automatic detention of individuals without adequate review, amounts to 

arbitrary detention and is in violation of international law. 

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act was one of several pieces of 

legislation enacted in 1996 that significantly expanded the categories of people who were subject 

to mandatory detention. Mandatory detention is now required for those convicted of a variety of 

crimes, including non-violent misdemeanors that do not carry ajail sentence. This breaches 

international law, which obliges governments to ensure that alternatives to detention are made 

available to immigrants and asylum-seekers, in both law and in practice. Indeed, in order to 

Page 3 of8 
265 

establish that detaining an individual is necessary and proportional, governments must first 

consider less restrictive alternative measures. 

In recent years, two immigration bills have been introduced into the US Congress, which, if 

passed, would have had a significant impact on the human rights of immigrants. The most recent 

legislative effort to overhaul the current immigration system was the Comprehensive 

Immigration Reform Act of2011. Introduced in June 2011 by New Jersey Senator Robert 

Menendez, the bill included provisions to strengthen border security, develop a legalization 

program, mandate the use of alternatives to detention for some undocumented immigrants, and 

create a standing commission to evaluate the labor market and recommend quotas for visas. The 

bill also incorporated the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act of 

2011. This would have permitted a group of immigrant students to legalize their status if they 

met certain criteria. Since 2001, the DREAM Act has been introduced into Congress repeatedly, 

but neither the DREAM Act nor the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act had been passed. 

While President Obama issued an Executive Order in June 2012 for Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals which provides interim relief for individuals who would otherwise qualify 

for the DREAM Act, this is only a temporary solution. Real immigration reform which respects 

the US obligations under international law and the human rights of immigrants in the United 

States is the only real solution. 

The recent proposals for immigration reform outlined by the U.S. administration and Members 

of Congress have all called for securing of the US borders. However all proposals must comply 

with international law and any proposals for increased enforcement at the borders must respect 

Page 4 of8 
266 

US obligations under international law, including protecting the right to life of migrants. 

Increased immigration enforcement in certain border areas since 1994 has already pushed 

undocumented immigrants to use particularly dangerous routes through the US desert; hundreds 

of people die each year as a result. 

"[I)t may be more dangerous to cross than ever before. Although it seems to 

be that less people are crossing the border, a higher percentage of people are 

dying." 

Dr. Bruce Parks, Former Chief Medical Examiner, Pima County Office of the 

Medical Examiner, 28 April 2011 

The vast increase of enforcement along the Southern border has also placed Indigenous peoples 

at increased risk of discrimination based on their Indigenous status. Indigenous People whose 

traditional territories and cultural communities span the US-Mexico border, may need to cross 

the border frequently in order to maintain contact with members of the community or visit 

cultural and religious sites on either side ofthe border. Failure to adequately recognize and 

protect the border crossing rights of these communities has left them at risk of discrimination and 

abuse during border crossings and in interactions with Border Patrol agents on Tribal lands. 

"When I cross the border they ask me, 'Are you American?' I tell them, 'I'm 

O'odham.' They will then say, 'I didn't ask you that. Where were you 

born?', 'I was born here [in the USA).' We are all O'odham. That's why I 

tell them, I'm not Mexican or American, I'm O'odham." 

Raymond Valenzuela, Tohono O'odham Citizen, 27 April 2011 

Any discussions with regards to increased enforcement along the border for Comprehensive 

Immigration reform must ensure that the border control policies and practices are compliant with 

the USA's obligations under intemationallaw and standards, including with the right to life, and 

Page 5 of8 
267 

respect the rights of Indigenous peoples as set forth in the UN Declaration on the Rights of 

Indigenous Peoples. 

Conclusion 

While it is generally accepted that countries have the right to regulate the entry and stay of nonnationals in their territory, they can only do so within the limits of their human rights obligations. 

The US goverument has an obligation under international human rights law to ensure that its 

laws, policies and practices do not place immigrants at an increased risk of human rights abuses. 

Amnesty International calls on members of Congress to craft a fair and humane immigration 

policy that upholds the following principles: 

I) Immigration Law Must Uphold the Right to Due Process in Detention and Deportation 

Detention and deportation procedures must be in accordance with due process of law and 

include guarantees that fundamental human rights will be respected and protected. Immigration 

detention should only be used as a measure of last resort and detained immigrants should have 

access to competent counsel and interpretation services, medical and mental health care, and 

regular and meaningful reviews of their detention status. Non-custodial alternatives to detention 

should always be considered before the decision to detain, and the law should require that the 

least restrictive alternative be used in each individual situation. Federal, private, state and local 

facilities detaining immigrants should be required to abide by enforceable human rights 

standards of treatment and be held accountable when the standards are transgressed. In 

deportation proceedings, immigrants should have the right to procedural safeguards including 

opportunities to remain in the U.S. based on a thorough analysis of individual circumstances, 

Page 6 of8 
268 

including family ties and long-time residence, access to competent interpretation services and 

legal counsel, and independent review of decisions to deport. 

2) Undocumented Immigrants Must Be Afforded the Opportunity to Live Legally in the United 

States. 

The presence of a large, often long-term undocumented population and workforce, which 

is frequently marginalized and unable or unwilling to assert their rights, poses serious human 

rights challenges in the U.S. As part of a fair and humane immigration policy, a legalization 

scheme can make a significant contribution towards protecting immigrants' rights, particularly in 

reducing labor exploitation. 

3) No Extension of Agreements between DHS and Local Law Enforcement Agencies until 

Racial Profiling and Other Discriminatory Actions Are Eliminated 

Neither the U.S. constitution nor human rights law permit the arbitrary penalization of 

individuals or entire communities based solely on their race or ethnicity. Yet, despite 

government, NGO and newspaper reports documenting discriminatory enforcement actions 

carried out by local law enforcement pursuant to agreements such as "287(g)," and "Secure 

Communities," the Department of Homeland Security plans to expand these programs. Neither 

the Congress nor the administration should invest any money or resources into these programs 

until independent oversight and accountability systems are in place ensuring that racial profiling 

and other human and civil rights abuses are not occurring, and clear consequences are developed 

and enforced if transgressions take place. 

Page 7 of8 
269 

4) Family Unity 

Immigration law should ensure that people granted legal recognition in the U.S. have the 

ability to quickly reunite with parents, spouses and children overseas through a fair and efficient 

family reunification program, including families headed by same-sex couples. Similarly, 

immigration judges should have the discretion to release from detention and terminate 

deportation in the interest of family unity. Adverse decisions should be subject to independent 

review. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to express the views of Amnesty International. We 

welcome the opportunity for furtber dialogue and discussion about these important issues. 

Page 8 of8 
270 

STATEMENT BY THE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE 

TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

HEARING ON IMMIGRATION REFORM 

FEBRUARY 13, 2013 

We commend Chainnan Leahy and the Members ofthe Senate Judiciary Committee for 

convening today's hearings to advance urgently needed refonn of America's immigration 

system. The current system fails more than just immigrant communities, or families torn apart 

by visa backlogs, or undocumented students. It fails all communities, all families and all 

children who deserve a future that embraces diversity and equal access to the American dream. 

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has advocated for fair and humane immigration policies 

since its founding in 1913. ADL has helped expose anti-immigrant hate that has been a fixture 

of the current immigration debate, and has called for a responsible public debate that will honor 

America's history as a nation of immigrants. 

We write to provide the Committee with perspectives in areas in which ADL's expertise and 

experience give us a particular stake: the need to create a pathway to citizenship for people 

contributing to American society, eliminate immigration enforcement responsibilities from local 

law enforcement, remove anti-immigrant rhetoric from the debate, and ensure that refonn efforts 

will reflect our values as a nation of immigrants. 

Immigration Reform Must Provide a Real Path to Citizenship 

ADL welcomes Administration and bipartisan Congressional support for refonn that includes 

earned legalization with a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants already living in the 

United States. 

Congress must reject any measure that would create an underclass of Americans by denying 

immigrants a path to real citizenship. Americans support a pathway to earned citizenship for 

their neighbors who want nothing more than to come out of the shadows, to contribute to society, 

and to follow the rules without fear of deportation and separation from their loved ones. In 

January, a bipartisan poll sponsored by Service Employees International Union, America's Voice 

Education Fund, and National Immigration Forum found that 77 percent of voters polled support 

an immigration refonn plan that includes a path to citizenship. 

This pathway to citizenship should not be contingent on a trigger, which could delay indefinitely 

the citizenship process and leave millions of people in limbo. America's immigration debate has 

seen proposals in different fonns to deny citizenship to immigrants or their children. Since the 

adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1868, all persons born in the United States have been citizens 

of the United States. Altering the 14th Amendment's citizenship guarantee or creating a fonn of 

sub-citizen legal status for certain immigrants would represent the first time since the Civil War 

era that America would deny full citizenship rights to a minority group. 
271 

As a nation of immigrants, all of us once sought to become part ofthe American fabric. We urge 

Congress to create a pathway to full citizenship for immigrants who are contributing to American 

society, allowing them also to take part in the American Dream. 

Immigration Reform Must Restore Immigration Enforcement to the Federal Government 

As one of the leading nongovernmental organizations in the United States that trains law 

enforcement officials on hate crimes and extremism, and collaborates with law enforcement on 

combatting hate crimes, ADL knows well the value of strong police-community partnerships. 

Establishing and maintaining trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities, who 

are particularly vulnerable to hate crimes, is of paramount importance. Empowering local police 

to be involved in Federal immigration enforcement undermines that trust and forces communities 

underground in a way that adversely impacts both police and the communities they aim to serve 

and protect. 

In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform states have passed laws that compel local 

law enforcement to act as immigration enforcement agents. For example, state laws that require 

local law enforcement to check immigration status, commonly known as "papers please" 

provisions, drive a wedge between law enforcement and immigrant communities. These statutes 

deter undocumented immigrants (and citizens or in-status immigrants who have family members 

who are undocumented) not only from calling the police when they become the victim of a 

crime, but also from coming forward as witnesses to crimes committed against others. And 

Hispanics or Latinos, who are citizens or in-status, fear unjustified stops or arrests resulting from 

bias-based policing. When immigrant communities start to fear local law enforcement rather than 

to trust them, society in general becomes less safe. Ifwell-ordered liberty means anything, it 

must mean that all persons should be afforded access to police protection if they become victims 

of crimes. 

Congress Must Act to Protect the Safety and Security of Minority Communities 

Hate crimes statistics from Arizona provide insight into the impact that "papers please" state 

provisions may have on immigrants, their families, and minority communities more generally. 

In 2009, before Arizona passed SB 1070, an anti-immigrant bill that included a "papers please 

provision," Arizona law enforcement officials reported 219 hate crimes to the FBI. Ofthose, 

nineteen percent were categorized as motivated by ethnicity, which includes Hispanic origin. 

The following year, after the passage of SB 1070, the number of hate crimes in Arizona rose by 

7.7 percent. In contrast, the number of reported hate crimes motivated by ethnicity fell by 4.5 

percent. Even though a federal court had enjoined SB 1070 at that time, the reporting of hate 

crimes targeted at Hispanics dropped. There is no proven correlation, but one could reasonably 

infer that even the specter of the law deterred Hispanics from reporting hate crimes. 

A recent study of Hispanic voters bolsters that conclusion. In the study (Latino Decisions Poll 

with Center for American Progress and America's Voice (July 18,2012), available at 

http://www.latinodecisions.comlblog/wp-contentluploads/20 12107 IJulyl9 SB 1070.pdt), 68 

percent of Hispanics said that the "papers please" provision would make Hispanics less likely to 

report a crime or to cooperate with police investigations. These laws threaten to create an 
272 

underc1ass of people who do not have open access to police protection if they become victims of 

a crime. If Hispanics do not feel they can trust the police, they become uniquely vulnerable to 

further attacks because they have little legal recourse. 

United States history demonstrates all too well the blight on society when certain minority 

groups feel they cannot trust law enforcement. During the Jim Crow era, African-Americans 

often refrained from calling the police. While these immigration laws are quite distinct from that 

era, a similar possibility of dividing society and rendering law enforcement protection 

inaccessible to some groups looms large. 

As a result of ADL's very broad work with law enforcement officials combatting extremism and 

terrorism, fighting bias crime and discrimination, and training on core values, we have developed 

a deep appreciation of the professionalism, commitment, and integrity that the vast majority of 

the members of this profession bring to their work every day. Effective law enforcement is 

important to everyone. Policies that divide communities, inflame fear, foster mistrust and violate 

human rights undermine both our nation's core values and our security. 

Law enforcement does not work in a vacuum. Officers cannot do their job without community 

relationships, trust, cooperation, and a shared sense of responsibility for public safety. We 

encourage Members of Congress to take positive steps forward to promote trust, reject unfair 

stereotyping, and introduce comprehensive immigration reform that will return immigration 

enforcement to the hands of federal agents, rather than local law enforcement. 

Anti-Immigrant Bigotry Should Have No Place in the Public Debate 

ADL is particularly mindful ofthe role that anti-immigrant rhetoric has played in letting fear 

hinder progress toward sound policy solutions. We understand that the policies adopted in the 

halls of government - and the words used in the debate, whether on the floors of Congress or on 

the nightly news -----directly impact our ability to sustain a society that ensures dignity and 

equality for all. The climate of bias and hostility against immigrants that pervades the 

immigration debate hurts our country and stands in the way of the kind of reform Americans 

desperately seek to fix the broken immigration system. 

Americans have been moved by the activism of immigrants marching proudly under the banner 

"We are America," and welcome immigrants' desire to take part in making a contribution to this 

country. They recognize that immigrants reflect the diversity that makes America unique. But 

others are swayed by fear and the hate-mongering that has been a fixture of the public debate 

about immigration reform in the media and on the Internet. 

Our own experience in the Jewish community has taught us that, when a society begins to 

distinguish one group as less deserving of rights than others, discrimination, exploitation, and 

worse can follow. ADL has issued a series of reports over the last decade exposing extremist 

forces in our society today that capitalize on the immigration debate to advance their agenda of 

hate and bigotry, White supremacists have also tried to exploit the issue of immigration to 

promote their racist views. 
273 

ADL has tracked and highlighted these issues. For example, we reported that in February 2013, 

white supremacists plan on holding anti-immigration rallies across the country. See White 

Supremacists Plan Anti-Immigrant Rallies Nationwide in February 2013, 

http://blog.adl.org!civil-rights/white-supremacists-plan-anti-immigration-rallies-nationwide-infebruary-2013. In addition, our reports and blog have highlighted the ties between the 

mainstream anti-immigrant movement and more extreme elements within that movement. 

The anti-immigrant movement often does not distinguish between undocumented immigrants 

and minority communities, making sweeping statements about Mexicans, Latinos, and other 

minority groups. ADL's blog recently featured an article about a leader in a mainstream antiimmigrant movement who promoted conspiracy theories about Mexicans and children of 

undocumented immigrants on a radio show hosted by the head of a local anti-immigrant group. 

See FAIR's Susan Tully Promotes Bigotry and Conspiracies on Radio Show, 

http://blog.adl.org/civil-rights/fairs-susan-tully-promotes-bigotry-and-conspiracies-on-radioshow. We have also seen examples ofthis kind of bigotry at events. For example, at antiimmigrant rallies some have asserted that Mexican immigrants are plotting to reclaim the 

Southwestern part of the United States, accused immigrants of carrying and spreading infectious 

diseases, and alleged that crime rates had risen and property values had fallen because of 

immigrants. 

This demonization and anti-immigrant rhetoric not only counteracts progress towards sound 

policy solutions, but it also puts minority communities at risk. For example, after passage of 

Proposition 187 in California, a ballot initiative which would have denied public benefits to 

undocumented immigrants that spurred widespread anti-immigrant rhetoric, hate crimes against 

Latinos and Asian-Americans spiked in the state. The hate crimes targeted citizens and noncitizens alike. 

We call on this Committee and other Members of Congress to maintain a respectful debate that 

focuses on the issues surrounding comprehensive immigration reform, rather than allowing antiimmigrant rhetoric to derail the conversation and undermine the Framers' vision of a nation that 

affords life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all. 

Congress Should Reject Mandatory Worker Verification Because It Creates an 

Unacceptable Risk of Discrimination 

ADL supports efforts to remedy what everyone agrees is a broken system. But ADL has 

opposed programs like E-Verify, which have been plagued by problems since their inception. 

Experience shows that prevalent database errors wrongly identify naturalized U.S. citizens as 

undocumented and ineligible to work. A December 2010 GAO report on E-Verify documents 

some improvement in the system's accuracy, but also noted that the many Tentative NonConfirmations (TNC) are "more likely to affect foreign-born employees" and such TNCs " ... 

can lead to the appearance of discrimination." Indeed, the report found that authorized workers 

who are foreign-born are up to twenty (20) times more likely than U.S.-born workers to be 

tagged incorrectly as unauthorized to work. 
274 

In addition, two government commissions have found frequent misuse ofE-Verify by employers 

for discriminatory purposes, including forcing immigrant workers to accept lower wages and 

poorer work conditions. Further, when employers who hire unauthorized workers based on the 

E-Verify system will be penalized, the potential for abuse and profiling exists. Even wellintentioned employers may turn away applicants based on their names, accents, and skin color. 

An employment verification system with such significant potential for discrimination is not the 

answer. 

Immigration Policy should be Inclusive of All 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, however, are completely excluded 

from this benefit. Same-sex couples must be treated the same as other families. 

LGBT immigrants are part of many immigrant sub-communities, from brilliant entrepreneurs, to 

loving spouses, to youth who have seen themselves as Americans their whole lives, to asylum 

seekers fleeing desperate situations to stay alive, to undocumented individuals who came to the 

U.S. for a better life and are now living in the shadows with no means to legalize their status. 

We urge Congress to pass the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow gay and 

lesbian Americans to sponsor their permanent partners for legal residency in the United States, 

and to extend to LGBT couples the same rights afforded to all other families. 

Conclusion 

We commend the Senate Judiciary Committee for holding these historic hearings. Our 

immigration system has been broken for too long. In the absence of reform at the federal level, 

states have enacted discriminatory immigration policies that endanger immigrant communities 

and the public safety of society as a whole. We urge Congress to swiftly pass immigration 

reform that reflects the best of America's founding ideals and creates a pathway to citizenship 

for immigrants, builds safeguards against bias and discrimination, and extends equal rights to all 

families. 
275 

APIAHF 

ASIAN & PACIFIC ISLANDER 

AMERICAN HEALTH FORUM 

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITIEE ON THE 

JUDICIARY 

FOR THE HEARING ENTITLED "COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM" 

February 13, 2013 

BY THE 

ASIAN & PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN HEALTH FORUM 

The Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum (APIAHF) submits this written testimony for 

the record for the February 13, 2013 hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

entitled "Comprehensive Immigration Reform." APIAHF is a national health justice organization 

that influences policy, mobilizes communities, and strengthens programs and organizations to 

improve the health of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders (AAs and 

NHPls). For 27 years, APIAHF has dedicated itself to improving the health and well-being of AA 

and NHPI communities living in the United States and its jurisdictions. We work on the federal, 

state, and local levels to advance sensible policies that decrease health disparities and promote 

health equity. 

Immigration policy is an issue that touches the lives of almost every Asian American and Pacific 

Islander. Asian Americans are the nation's fasting growing racial group with a population 

growth rate of 46% between 2000 and 2010, and account for 40% of recent immigrants to the 

United States. As of 2011, there are over 17.6 million Asian Americans living in the United 

States, and over 1.2 million Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. 

Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders and other immigrants are the cornerstone of America. They 

create jobs, employ millions and pay into the tax system. Yet, they must navigate a complex 

system of policies that the majority of Americans consider broken. America's immigration 

system separates families, creates barriers to good health and prevents immigrants from fully 

integrating in and contributing to their communities. Commonsense immigration policies are 

needed. 

Any fix to America's immigration policies must work for all Americans, align with our values of 

shared responsibility and fairness and promote unity among immigrants and citizens alike. 
276 

Federal policies must support immigrants to take responsibility for their health by providing 

them the same opportunities at attaining good health as their citizen counterparts. 

I. Access to Health Care is a Moral and Economic Imperative 

Every American must have the opportunity to grow up healthy, see the doctor when they are 

sick, and have the chance at reaching their optimal health and well-being. Being healthy is a 

basic need and right. Individuals with health coverage, including Medicaid, report better 

physical and mental health.1 They are more likely to have routine access to medical care, less 

likely to rely on expensive emergency room visits and have better access to essential preventive 

services, reducing the incidence of chronic diseases that take a major toll on the U.S. health 

system. In contrast, research shows that the uninsured have significantly worse health 

outcomes across a number of chronic diseases including cancer and diabetes. 2 

While the Affordable Care Act (ACA) provides new, affordable insurance options for many of 

the currently 50 million uninsured individuals in the U.s., America will continue to have a 

population of uninsured workers, children and families even after full implementation of the 

new law. High rates of uninsurance take a toll not only on the individual, but on communities 

and state economies and put America's security at risk. Expanding access to affordable health 

insurance would help to relieve overburdened safety net hospitals and clinics and reduce 

uncompensated care costs, which often falls to states and the federal government to pick up 

the tab. 

II. Current Federal Polices Exclude Immigrants from Health Care, Further 

Disparities and Negatively Impact the Nation's Health 

The Affordable Care Act is the most sweeping piece of health care reform legislation in the last 

50 years and will drastically reduce the number of uninsured, improve access to preventive care 

and put the nation on a more sustainable path to health. Yet, the law maintains existing 

exclusions and bars many immigrants from new coverage options. Undocumented immigrants 

are also prohibited from purchasing health insurance coverage in the newly created insurance 

marketplaces, even at full price and with their own funds. 

In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHSj recently created new 

exclusions on a population of lawfully present immigrants, a move that undermines the goals 

and values of the ACA. An Interim Final Rule issued last August excludes youth and young adults 

1 "What is the link between having health insurance and enjoying better health and finance?" Robert Wood 

Johnson Foundation, January 2012, available at 

http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue briefs/2012/rwjf72145. 

2 http://www.iom.edu/-/media/Files/Report%20Files/2009/Americas-Uninsured-Crisis-Conseguences-for-Healthand-Health-Care/Americas%20Uninsured%20Crisis%202009%2OReport%20Brief.pdf 

2 
277 

granted deferred status under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program from 

key features of the health reform law and prevents children and pregnant women approved for 

DACA from enrolling in health insurance under the state option available in Medicaid and the 

Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). These are young immigrants, commonly known as 

DREAMers, who are finishing their education or serving in the military and trying to better their 

lives and communities, and yet are barred from the new affordable health insurance options 

their citizen counterparts have access to. 

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, also 

known as the "welfare reform" law), created arbitrary time limits and other restrictions for 

lawfully present immigrants to become eligible for federal means-tested public programs. As a 

result, these aspiring citizens are barred from critical safety net programs for five years and 

longer, a barrier their native-born counterparts do not have to face. 

PRWORA also bars citizens from the freely associated states of Micronesia, Republic of the 

Marshall Islands and Republic of Palau from the Medicaid program. These individuals, known 

as COFA (Compact of Free Association) migrants, are persons who are free to enter and work in 

the U.s. without restriction under long-standing agreements between the U.S. and pacific 

jurisdictions. CO FA migrants suffer from a number of serious health disparities caused by 

America's militarization of the pacific islands, nuclear test bombing and lack of economic 

supports, including high rates of cervical cancer and other chronic diseases. The 1996 law 

revoked Medicaid coverage for COFA migrants, and, coupled with existing disparities and failure 

on the part of the U.S. to provide required supports, has created serious economic 

consequences for states like Hawaii and the territory of Guam, who have shouldered the 

burden of providing health care to this population. 

These federal policies undermine America's values, further health disparities and put the entire 

nation's health at risk. These disparities will only worsen in 2014, when the ACA is fully 

implemented and the gap between the health of immigrants and those who qualify for new 

coverage options widens. As a result, immigration status will become one of the leading social 

determinants of health-affecting everything from whether or not a person can buy health 

insurance, whether a sick child can see the doctor, and whether a low-income worker can 

afford the treatment they need. 

III. Commonsense Immigration Policies Must Respond to America's Needs 

and Promote Full Integration. Health Care Must be Part of that 

Equation. 

3 
278 

America needs commonsense immigration policies that align with our values, protect all 

families and communities, and put the nation on a path to a better, healthier future. Health 

care access is critical to the safety and security of all individuals and must be part of any 

immigration solution. APIAHF recommends the following four reforms to ensure that 

immigration policies support, rather than undermine current federal initiatives and state 

economies and protect the health of all Americans. 

a. Young Adults Granted Deferred Action Must be Allowed Access to 

Health Reform 

Including DACA-eligible youth and young adults in health reform is sound policy and fiscally 

responsible. DACA-eligible youth, commonly known as DREAMers, are a sizable population, 

with recent estimates suggesting that as many as 1.76 million young adults could be eligible for 

administrative relief. 3 An estimated 9% of these youth come from Asian countries, comprising 

over 170,000 individuals. These young adults are already part of America's fabric, having lived 

in the country for years, and share the same hopes and aspirations as all young Americans. 

There is no principled reason to treat young people who receive deferred action through DACA 

differently from any other person who has received deferred action. In fact, until HHS decided 

to carve out DACA beneficiaries, they were covered by the ACA like all other persons who have 

been granted deferred action. Restoring eligibility for DACA-eligible young adults in health 

reform would allow these individuals to purchase coverage in the new health insurance 

marketplaces, pay their fair share of health care costs and see a doctor on a regular basis, 

instead of remaining uninsured. Including this population of overall younger and healthier 

individuals in the marketplace creates a more sustainable and robust risk pool and ensures that 

these young people are able to continue to work, pay taxes and build the nation's economy. 

Shutting them out could increase costs for everyone. Excluding a large population of relatively 

healthy young adults from the insurance marketplaces increases the risk of adverse selection 

and ultimately drives up premiums for everyone. Even more worrisome is the fact that if 

premiums rise, citizens and lawfully present individuals alike may find it too costly to purchase 

coverage through the marketplace and instead choose to remain uninsured, further reducing 

the marketplace population and in turn driving up costs. 

Finally, including DACA-eligible youth and young adults in health reform supports 

administrative efficiency. As states develop processes to facilitate seamless eligibility 

determinations and enrollment for individuals in private insurance plans, Medicaid and CHIP, 

3 "Relief from Deportation: Demographic Profile of the DREAMers Eligible Under the Deferred Action Policy," 

Migration Policy Institute, August 2012, available at 

http://www.migrationpolicy,org/pubs/fs24 d efe rred action, pdf. 

4 
279 

they are faced with yet another complicated process. Treating DACA-eligible youth like all 

other immigrants granted deferred status would ease this process. 

b. America Must Uphold its Commitment to the Freely Associated 

States and Provide Parity in Health Care 

Migrants from the Compact territories should be able to access the federal health programs 

they pay into. COFA migrants are part of the fabric of America and share a complex 

relationship with the U.S. government, one in which the U.S. government has certain 

responsibilities. They contribute to the economy and pay taxes and therefore should be eligible 

for state funded programs. Lifting the current bar on eligibility will provide needed fiscal relief 

for states like Hawaii and the territory of Guam, which, as a result of the federal government's 

failure to provide economic supports for this population, have shouldered a disproportionate 

burden of this population's health care expenses. 

c. End Arbitrary Time Limits that Put Legal Aspiring Citizens at Risk 

Congress should remove the arbitrary time limits imposed on lawfully present immigrants 

whose taxes help support the social safety net programs they are barred from participating in. 

The arbitrary time limits currently in place create substantial barriers for low-income 

immigrants from being able to benefit from the same support systems critical to preventing 

needy individuals and families from slipping into poverty. As a result, eligible immigrants have 

lower rates of enrollment in federally supported programs than their citizen counterparts. This 

disparity is also true among citizen children living in immigrant households, putting these lowincome children at risk of food insecurity and poor health outcomes. Congress took a significant 

step toward ending these time limits for lawfully present children and pregnant women 

residing in states that have taken up the option provided in the Children's Health Insurance 

Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 to waive the five-year bar. We urge Congress to act again 

to permanently eliminate this arbitrary restriction for all lawfully present immigrants. 

d. All Immigrants Must be Allowed the Same Opportunity to Take 

Responsibility for their Health by Being Able to Purchase Coverage in 

the Insurance Marketplaces 

Federal law currently excludes undocumented immigrants from purchasing health insurance in 

the newly created insurance marketplaces. This policy undermines our country's efforts to 

reduce the number of uninsured and prevents a large population of mostly healthy, working 

adults from being included in state insurance risk pools. It's good fiscal policy to offer health 

coverage to the largest number of people. Allowing everyone to pay in increases competition 

and spreads risks and costs across a larger population. As these immigrants continue to 

5 
280 

contribute to the U.S. economy, support their families and work toward a path of obtaining 

legal status, they must be able to take responsibility for their health by having the same 

opportunity to purchase affordable insurance. 

IV. Conclusion 

Every individual, regardless of immigration status, should have a fair opportunity to attain 

optimal health and well-being. Any fix to the nation's immigration system must include access 

to health care. The alternative risks putting recent reforms and advances at risk, potentially 

shifts costs to states and safety net providers, and could create generations of health 

disparities. 

For more information or questions, please contact Priscilla Huang, APIAHF Policy Director at 

phuang@apiahf.org or (202) 466-3550. 

6 
281 

A Arab. tuuerlcan 

~stitute 

~, 4 

STATEMENT OF 

Maya Berry, Executive Director 

ARAB AMERICAN INSTITUTE 

HEARING ON: COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM 

SENATE COMMITIEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

February 13, 2013 

Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley and members of the Committee: I am honored to 

submit this testimony for the record on behalf of the Arab American Institute regarding today's 

hearing on immigration reform. 

The Arab American Institute applauds the efforts of President Obama and members of Congress 

to address fundamental immigration reform, including holding this timely hearing today. A 

thoughtful discussion of comprehensive immigration reform (ClR) is long overdue and we are 

pleased to be part of it. 

Arab Americans are a diverse community of immigrants and the descendants of immigrants, 

three and one-half million strong, who have come from throughout the Arab world. Our 

community's success is a poignant illustration of how the immigrant experience has shaped the 

United States. And as we reflect on reform efforts, we trust that the fundamental issue of 

family reunification will remain a cornerstone of our immigration policy. Toward that goal, we 

believe that while any discussion of immigration reform will undoubtedly emphasize border 

security, a pathway to citizenship for the nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants living and 

working in the US should not be contingent upon border issues. This approach will inevitably 
282 

leave millions of immigrants in limbo status, prolonging their wait, and often their separation 

from family members. 

We are heartened by the commitment demonstrated thus far to address the needs of 

individuals who, through no fault of their own, entered the US illegally as children and now face 

deportation as young adults. We were delighted that the President took steps last year to defer 

action against these young people. It is important to us that the proposals offered by the 

President and the Senate have addressed this matter directly and expect that House efforts will 

do the same. 

Over the last decade, a number of "national security" initiatives have been added to our 

already overburdened and inefficient immigration system. The Arab American community 

believes that real immigration reform must include the termination of enforcement measures 

that target individuals or communities based on race, religion, or national origin. The recent 

framework released by the bipartisan Senate group included provisions calling for the 

strengthening of prohibitions against racial profiling and the inappropriate use of force at the 

borders. We look forward to the incorporation of that language in a final bill on comprehensive 

immigration reform. 

The violation of human rights by some of these enforcement initiatives has been welldocumented and is of grave concern to us. Specifically, reform efforts and legislative language 

must include provisions addressing the serious problems with Secure Communities, the 

Criminal Alien Program (CAP), and the Department of Homeland Security's 287(g) program. 

These programs tangle local police in immigration enforcement and led to arrests based on 

minor infractions, which undermine community trust in local enforcement, thus compromising 

public safety and incentivizing racial profiling. 

The Secure Communities program, launched in 2008, allows local and state police to check the 

fingerprints of detainees against the FBI and DHS databases in order to screen for immigration 

status and prior immigration violations. Such policies, however, have created incentives for the 

police to make pre-textual arrests based on racial profiling and other impermissible bases in 

order to check immigration status. The Criminal Alien Program, administered by Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was created to screen inmates and at-large criminals to 

identify non-citizens with serious criminal histories to place into deportation proceedings. As a 

result of CAP, however, individuals are often detained by ICE and deported before they have 

been convicted of a crime or have had the opportunity to seek legal counsel. Finally, the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) affirms that the 287(g) program, enacted by Congress 

in 1996, which authorizes state, county, and local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal 

immigration law pursuant to agreements signed with ICE, lacks certain controls that would 

abate potential misuses of the program. Numerous studies conducted by the federal 

government as well as academic and advocacy groups, evaluating the nationwide impact of 

287(g) programs, have raised concerns about certain jurisdictions, not adhering to ICE's 

guidelines. 
283 

Though it has not been explicitly mentioned in proposals on immigration reform, the National 

Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) should be part of the conversation as well. 

NSEERS permitted the government to systematically target Arabs, Middle Easterners, South 

Asians, and Muslims from 25 designated countries for enhanced scrutiny. Though the program 

was suspended in 2011, countless individuals remain in legal limbo as a result of purported 

NSEERS violations. NSEERS served as a clear example of discriminatory and arbitrary racial 

profiling and we call for its full termination. 

These are but a few of the important concerns you will hear about today from various witness 

testimony and organizations submitting testimonies. We look forward to working with 

members and staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee to ensure that 2013 will serve as a year 

of meaningful and fair immigration reform, and we thank you for your efforts. 
284 

February 8, 2013 

Re: Recommendations on the U.S. Asylum System for Immigration Reform Legislation 

Dear Member of Congress, 

This country has a long history of global leadership in protecting persecuted refugees and 

displaced persons. We believe that immigration reform legislation must include key changes to 

the U.S. asylum system to better ensure that refugees who seek the protection of the United 

States are afforded meaningful access to a fair, effective and timely asylum adjudication process. 

Together, as 162 faith-based groups, refugee protection organizations, and legal experts on the 

U.S. asylum system, we urge the U.S. to take steps to ensure that the U.S. asylum system reflects 

U.S. values and commitments to protecting the persecuted. We support the recommendations 

listed below for inclusion in immigration reform legislation, many of which were proposed in the 

Refugee Protection Act (RP A) of 20 II (S. 1202 and H.R. 2185). 

Congress should support inclusion of the following changes in immigration reform 

legislation to repair the U.S. asylum system: 

1. Eliminate the wasteful and unfair asylum filing deadline that is barring refugees with 

well-founded fears of persecution from asylum and diverting overstretched adjudication 

resources.! This change is included in RPA Section 3. In connection with this legislative 

change, permit individuals who, due to the filing deadline, were granted withholding of 

removal but not asylum, to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident and petition to 

bring their spouses and children to safety. 

2. Require and support a fair and efficient adjudication process authorizing legal 

representation in particularly vulnerable and complex cases, including for children, persons 

with mental disabilities and vulnerable immigrants in immigration detention, authorizing 

increased Immigration Judges and other staffing at immigration courts, requiring all asylum 

claims to be initially adjudicated at the asylum office level, and mandating that EOIR's Legal 

Orientation Program is provided in all facilities that detain immigrants for ICE for more than 

72 hours. Related proposed changes are included in RPA 2011 Sections 10 and 13. 

3. Protect refugees from inappropriate exclusion and free up administrative resources by 

amending INA §212(a)(3)(8) so that it targets actual terrorism and does not exclude bona 

fide refugees. Specifically, the "terrorist activity" definition should be limited to the use of 

armed force against civilians and non-combatants, as proposed in RPA 20 II Section 4, and 

1 DHS confirmed that it concluded that the asylum filing deadline should be eliminated, confinning that it expends resources without helping 

uncover or deter fraud (UNIICR Washington Office, Reaffinning Protection, October 201 J, Summary Report, p. 18, at 

httpH ..... ,\'\\·.unhcIwashington.ofg!atli'cfi% 7BC07EDA5EAC71-4 340-8570-194D98BDC 139% 7Digeorgctown pdD. The Administration has 

publicly pledged to work with Congress to eliminate the deadline (U.S, Department of State, PRM, Fact Sheet: Us. Commemorations Pledges, 7 

December 20 J I, available at http.!/\\'\\'\\'state !wvli/nnnfreleases!facrsheetsf2011!18! 020.htm). Several studies underscore this issue including 

Human Rights First, The Asylum Fllmg Deadline, (New York: 2010) available at http://v.ww.humanrH;htsfir.:;t.orglv.·pconlenVupIQadsfpdflafdpdf 

and P. Schrag, A. Schoenholtz, J. RamJi~Nogales. and J.P. Dombach, Rejecting Refugees: Homeland Security's AdministratIOn of the One-Year 

Barto Asylum, Wilham and Mary Law Review, (2010), available at http.l/\\mlavI'Tcylcv,·.org/jilcsJSchrag.pdf 
285 

the definition of a "Tier III" organization should be eliminated. The definition of "material 

support" should be revised to specify that the term applies only to support that is 

quantitatively significant and qualitatively of a nature to further terrorism. 

4. Implement lasting immigration detention reforms to protect detained individuals, 

including asylum seekers, and reduce unnecessary costs through expanding cost-effective 

alternatives to detention, immigration court review of detention decisions, strengthened 

oversight and compliance mechanisms, and standards and conditions in line with the 

American Bar Association's proposed civil immigration detention standards. 2 Congress 

should also mandate a study on the expanded use of the expedited removal process to ensure 

that refugees are being not returned to persecution. Related proposed changes are included in 

RPA 2011 Sections 10 and 13. 

5. Ensure adequate substantive and procedural safeguards for all child asylum seekers, 

given their vulnerability. Measures should include giving the Asylum Office initial 

jurisdiction over applications of principal child asylum seekers, employing a child centered 

analysis to their claims, and as proposed in the RPA 2011 Section 15 - exempting them 

from such bars as Safe Third Country, previous denial of asylum, and the one year filing 

deadline (provisions already enjoyed by unaccompanied children). 

6. Ensure that gender-based asylum claims are properly recognized by supporting 

legislative clarifications proposed in the RPA 2011, Section 5, especially the provisions 

clarifying what can constitute a "particular social group" (the statutory ground under which 

many women's asylum claims are brought), what kinds of evidence can support such claims, 

and other clarifications needed to remove obstacles currently posed to gender-based claims. 

7. Ensure that asylum-seekers interdicted in international or U.S. waters are not subjected 

to refoulement by requiring that all U.S. authorities taking control of irregular maritime 

vessels in international or U.S. waters make available to irregular boat migrants the 

opportunity to apply for asylum or to express a fear of persecution and shall refer any such 

asylum-seeker to a U.S. asylum officer for an interview according to INA 235(b)(B); and 

requiring that all authorities patrolling the U.S. borders, including the U.S. Coast Guard, 

receive effective training from UNHCR on international human and refugee rights and on 

U.S. domestic asylum law and other forms of protection. Related proposed changes are 

included in RPA 2011 Section 24. 

We look forward to working with you and your staff and would like to respectfully request a 

meeting with you at your earliest convenience to discuss these recommendations further. Sara 

Jane Ibrahim, Advocacy Counsel at Human Rights First, is our focal point and can be reached at 

ibrahims(il)humanrightsfirst.org: 202-370-3318. Thank you for your attention to our views. 

Sincerely, 

2 American Bar Association, ABA Civil Immigration Detention Standards, available at 

hno.l/wv ... w.amcrlcanbar orgigroups/public sen'lcesiimlnlo-rationicl\'lllmmdetstandards html 
286 

NationallInternational Organizations 

American Civil Liberties Union 

New York, NYfWashington, DC 

Americans for Immigrant Justice 

Miami, FLiWashington, DC 

American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) 

Washington, DC 

American Jewish Committee 

Washington, DC 

Blacks in Law Enforcement of America 

Washington, DC 

Breakthrough 

New York, NY 

Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (CGRS) 

San Francisco, CA 

Civil Liberties and Public Policy 

Amherst, MA 

Ethiopian Community Development Council, Inc. 

Arlington, V A 

Fabamu Refugee Programme 

International 

Family Equality Council 

Washington, DC 

Franciscan Action Network 

Washington, DC 

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders 

Boston, MA 

HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) 

New York, NY/Washington, DC 

Human Rights Advocates International (HRAI) 

Elizabeth, NJ 
287 

Human Rights First 

New York, NY/Washington, DC 

Human Rights Watch 

New York, NY 

Immigration Equality 

New York, NY/Washington, DC 

International Foundation for Gender Education 

Waltham,MA 

Jesuit Refugee ServicelUSA 

Washington, DC 

Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) 

Washington, DC 

Lambda Legal 

NewYork,NY 

Leadership Conference of Women Religious 

Silver Spring, MD 

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service 

Baltimore, MD/Washington, DC 

Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA) 

Richardson, TX 

National Center for Transgender Equality 

Washington, DC 

National Council of Je\vish Women (NCnV) 

New York, NY 

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund 

Washington, DC 

National Immigrant Justice Center 

Chicago,IL 

National Immigration Law Center 

Los Angeles, CAiWashington, DC 

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health 

New York, NY/Washington, DC 
288 

NETWORK, a National Catholic Social Justice Lobby 

Washington, DC 

Organization for Refuge, Asylum & Migration (ORAM) 

San Francisco, CA 

Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) 

Cambridge, MA 

Refugee Women's Network, Inc. 

Decatur, GA 

Survivors of Torture, International 

San Diego, CA 

Tahirih Justice Center 

Falls Church, VAIHouston, TX 

The Ceuter for Victims of Torture 

St. Paul, MN 

The Episcopal Church 

Washinh>ton, DC 

Unid@s, The National Latin@ LGBT Human Rights Organization 

Washington, DC 

US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants 

Arlington, VA 

Women's Refugee Commission 

Washington, DC 

StatelLocalOrganizations 

Advocacy for Justice and Peace Committee of the Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia 

Philadelphia, P A 

Advocates for Survivors of Torture and Trauma (ASTT) 

Baltimore, MD 

American Gateways 

Austin, TX 

Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition 

Washington, DC 
289 

Casa Esperanza 

Plainfield & Bound Brook, NJ 

Casa Latina 

Seattle, WA 

Cleveland Immigrant Support Network 

Cleveland, OH 

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) 

Los Angeles, CA 

Community Immigration Law Center (CILC) 

Madison, WI 

Congregation of St. Joseph 

Cleveland, OH 

DRUM - Desis Rising Up & Moving 

Jackson Heights, NY 

Georgia Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) 

Atlanta. GA 

HIAS Pennsylvania 

Philadelphia, P A 

Holy Cross Ministries of Utah 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Human Rights Initiative of North Texas 

Dallas, TX 

Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project 

Portland, ME 

IRATE & First Friends 

Elizabeth, NJ 

Jesuit Social Research Institute/Loyola University New Orleans 

New Orleans, LA 

L.A. Community Center Legal & Educational 

Los Angeles, CA 

La Raza Centro Legal 

San Francisco, CA 
290 

Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center 

EI Paso, TX 

Lutheran Social Services of New England 

Worcester, MA 

Nebraska Appleseed 

Lincoln, NE 

Pangea Legal Services 

San Francisco, CA 

Political Asylumllmmigration Representation Project (PAIR Project) 

Boston, MA 

Program for Torture Victims 

Los Angeles, CA 

Reformed Church of Highland Park, NJ 

Highland Park, NJ 

Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES) 

San Antonio, TX 

Sisters' Home Visitors of Mary 

Detroit, MI 

Sisters of Mercy West Midwest Justice Team 

Omaha, NE 

Sisters of Saint Joseph of Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia 

Philadelphia, P A 

Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia 

Aston, PA 

Sisters of St, Joseph of Rochester 

Rochester, NY 

The Advocates for Human Rights 

Minneapolis, MN 

The Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project 

Florence, AZ 

The IHM Justice, Peace and Sustainability Office 

Monroe, MI 
291 

Un Local, Inc. 

New York, NY 

Who Is My Neighhor? Inc. 

Highland Park, NJ 

Law Professors * • Institutional ajJiliations of individual signatories are for identification purposes only. 

Wendi Adelson 

Clinical Professor 

Florida State University College of Law 

Susan M. Akram 

Clinical Professor and Supervising Attorney, 

Asylum and Human Rights Program 

Boston University School of Law 

Deborah Anker 

Clinical Professor of Law and Director of 

the Harvard Law School Immigration and 

Refugee Clinical Program 

Harvard Law School 

Sabi Ardalan 

Lecturer on Law, Harvard Immigration & 

Refugee Clinical Program 

Harvard Law School 

Elizabeth Badger 

Visiting Assistant Professor 

Boston University School of Law 

David C. Baluarte 

Practitioner in Residence & Arbenz Fellow, 

International Human Rights Law Clinic 

American University - Washington College 

of Law 

Melynda Barnhart 

Associate Professor 

New York Law School 

Jon Bauer 

Clinical Professor of Law, Richard Tulisano 

'69 Human Rights Scholar and Director, 

Asylum and Human Rights Clinic 

University of Connecticut School of Law 

Richard Boswell 

Professor of Law 

University of California, Hastings College 

of the Law 

Stacy Caplow 

Professor of Law and Director of Clinical 

Education 

Brooklyn Law School 

Bridgette Carr 

Clinical Assistant Professor, Human 

Trafficking Clinic 

University of Michigan Law School 

Michael J. Churgin 

Raybourne Thompson Centennial Professor 

in Law 

The University of Texas at Austin 

Fernando Colon-Navarro 

Professor 

Thurgood Marshall School of Law (Texas) 

Erin B. Corcoran 

Professor of Law and Director, Social 

Justice 

University of New Hampshire School of 

Law 
292 

* Institutional affiliations of individual signatories are for identification purposes only. 

Ericka Curran 

Associate Professor 

Florida Coastal Immigrant Rights Clinic 

Judith Diamond 

Associate Professor 

Boston University School of Law 

Marsha A. Freeman 

Senior Fellow, University of Minnesota 

Human Rights Center 

University of Minnesota Law School 

Niels W. Frenzen 

Clinical Professor of Law 

Gould School of Law, University of 

Southern California 

Paula Galowitz 

Clinical Professor of Law 

New York University School of Law 

Lauren Gilbert 

Professor of Law 

St. Thomas University School of Law 

(Miami Gardens, FL) 

Denise Gilman 

Clinical Professor and Co-Director, 

Immigration Clinic 

University of Texas School of Law 

Joanne Gottesman 

Clinical Professor and Director, Immigrant 

Justice Clinic 

Rutgers School of Law - Camden 

Florida Coastal School of Law 

Anjum Gupta 

Assistant Professor of Law, Director, 

Immigrant Rights Clinic 

Rutgers School of Law - Newark 

Michael G. Heyman 

Professor 

The John Marshall Law School 

Barbara Hines 

Clinical Professor of Law, Immigration 

Clinic 

University of Texas School of Law 

Kit Johnson 

Associate Professor of Law 

University of Oklahoma, School of Law 

Won Kidane 

Associate Professor of Law 

Seattle University School of Law 

David Koelsch 

Associate Professor, Immigration Law 

Clinic 

University of Detroit Mercy School of Law 

Hiroko Kusuda 

Assistant Clinic Professor, Stuart H. Smith 

Law Clinic & Center for Social Justice 

Loyola New Orleans College of Law 

Nancy K. D. Lemon 

Lecturer 

Berkeley School of Law, UC Berkeley 

Emily Leung 

Albert M. Sacks Clinical & Advocacy 

Fellow, Harvard Immigration & Refugee 

Clinical Program 

Harvard Law School 

Miriam H. Marton 

William R. Davis Clinical Teaching Fellow, 

Asylum and Human Rights Clinic 

University of Connecticut School of Law 
293 

• Institutional affiliations of individual signatories are for identification purposes only. 

Elizabeth McCormick 

Associate Clinical Professor of Law and 

Director, Immigrant Rights Project 

University of Tulsa College of Law 

Michelle McKinley 

Associate Professor and Associate Dean for 

Research and Faculty Development 

University of Oregon School of Law 

M. Isabel Medina 

Ferris Family Distinguished Professor of 

Law 

Loyola University New Orleans College of 

Law 

Stephen Meili 

Professor 

University of Minnesota Law School 

Jennifer Moore 

Professor of Law 

University of New Mexico School of Law 

Rev. Craig B. Mousin 

University Ombudsman 

DePaul University College of Law 

Laura Murray-Tjan 

Interim Director, Immigration & Asylum 

Clinic and Director, Federal Appeals Clinic 

Boston College Law School 

Karen Musalo 

Clinical Professor of Law & Director, 

Center for Gender & Refugee Studies 

U.C. Hastings College of the Law (San 

Francisco, CA) 

Lori A. Nessel, Esq. 

Professor of Law and Director, Center for 

Social Justice 

Seton Hall University School of Law (South 

Orange, NJ) 

Mark Noferi 

Instructor of Legal Writing 

Brooklyn Law School 

Michael A. Olivas 

William B. Bates Distinguished Chair in 

Law and Director, Institute for Higher 

Education Law and Governance 

University of Houston Law Center 

Sarah Paoletti 

Practice Associate Professor and Director, 

Transnational Legal Clinic 

University of Pennsylvania Law School 

Jason Parkin 

Assistant Professor of Law 

Pace Law School 

Michele R. Pistone 

Professor of Law 

Villanova University School of Law 

Nina Rabin 

Associate Clinical Professor of Law and 

Director, Bacon Immigration Law and 

Policy Program 

James E. Rogers College of Law, University 

of Arizona 

Jaya Ramji-Nogales 

Associate Professor of Law 

Temple University, Beasley School of Law 

Maritza Reyes 

Associate Professor of Law 

Florida A&M University College of Law 

Nicholas J. Rine 

Clinical Professor of Law 

University of Michigan Law School 
294 

• Institutional affiliations a/individual signatories are/or identification purposes only. 

Sarah Rogerson 

Assistant Clinical Professor of Law and 

Director, Family Violence Litigation Clinic 

& Immigration Project 

Albany Law School 

Ediberto Roman 

Professor of Law & Director Citizenship and 

Immigration Initiatives 

Florida International University 

Victor Romero 

Maureen B. Cavanaugh Distinguished 

Faculty Scholar & Professor of Law 

The Pennsylvania State University, 

Dickinson School of Law 

Rachel E. Rosenbloom 

Associate Professor of Law 

Northeastern University School of Law 

(Boston, MA) 

Heather Scavone 

Clinical Practitioner in Residence, 

Humanitarian Immigration Law Clinic 

Elon University School of Law 

Irene Scharf 

Professor 

University of Massachusetts School of Law 

Malinda Schmiechen 

Adjunct Professor, Immigration and 

Nationality Law 

William Mitchell College of Law 

Andrew I. Schoenholtz, J.D., Ph.D. 

Visiting Professor of Law 

Georgetown University Law Center 

Philip G. Schrag 

Delaney Family Professor of Public Interest 

Law 

Georgetown University Law Center 

Monica Schurtman 

Associate Professor and Supervising 

Attorney, Immigration Law Clinic 

University of Idaho College of Law 

Barbara Schwartz 

Clinical Professor of Law 

University ofIowa College of Law 

Careen B. Shannon 

Adjunct Professor of Immigration Law 

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, 

Yeshiva University 

Claudia Siovinsky 

Adjunct Professor of Law 

New York Law School 

Dan R. Smulian 

Associate Professor of Clinical Law, Safe 

Harbor Project, BLS Legal Services 

Corporation 

Brooklyn Law School 

Gemma Solimene 

Clinical Associate Professor of Law 

Fordham University School of Law 

Melysa Sperber 

Adjunct Professor 

George Washington University School of 

Law 

Maureen A. Sweeney 

Clinical Instructor, Immigration Clinic 

University of Maryland Carey School of 

Law 

Stacy Taeuber 

Clinical Assistant Professor, Immigrant 

Justice Clinic 

University of Wisconsin Law School 
295 

• Institutional affiliations of individual signatories are for identification purposes only. 

Margaret Taylor 

Professor of Law 

Wake Forest University School of Law 

Phil Torrey 

Clinical instructor, Harvard Immigration & 

Refugee Clinical Program 

Harvard Law School 

Enid Trucios-Haynes 

Professor of Law & University Faculty 

Grievance Officer 

Brandeis School of Law, University of 

Louisville 

Diane K, Uchimiya 

Professor of Law 

University of La Verne College of Law 

(Ontario, CA) 

Gloria Valencia-Weber 

Professor 

University of New Mexico School of Law 

Michael S, Vastine 

Associate Professor of Law and Director, 

Immigration Clinic 

St. Thomas University School of Law 

(Miami Gardens, FL) 

Rose euison Villazor 

Professor of Law 

University of California at Davis School of 

Law 

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia 

Clinical Professor and Director, Center for 

Immigrants' Rights 

The Dickinson School of Law, Pennsylvania 

State University 

Jonathan Weinberg 

Professor of Law 

Wayne State University 

Deborah M, Weissman 

Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished Professor of 

Law 

School of Law, University of North Carolina 

at Chapel Hill 

Virgil Wiebe 

Professor of Law and Director, Immigration 

Law Practice Group 

University of St. Thomas School of Law 

(Minneapolis, MN) 

Michael J. Wishnie 

William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of 

Law and Deputy Dean for Experiential 

Education 

Yale Law School 

Teresa Woods 

Visiting Instructor and International Human 

Rights Clinical Teaching Fellow, Human 

Rights and Genocide Clinic 

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law 

Elizabeth L. Young 

Associate Professor of Law, Immigration 

Law Clinic 

University of Arkansas School of Law 

cc: Cecilia Munoz, Director, White House Domestic Policy Council 

Felicia Escobar, Senior Policy Advisor, White House Domestic Policy Council 

Tyler Moran, Deputy Policy Director, Immigration, White House Domestic Policy Council 

Julie Rodriguez, Associate Director for Latino Affairs and Immigration, White House Office of Public 

Engagement 

Vincent Cochetel, Regional Representative for the United States of America and the Caribbean, United Nations 

High Commissioner for Refugees 

12 
296 

BLACK IMMIGRATION NETWORK 

STATEMENT OF 

Colette Pichon Baltle, Esq., National Board Member 

Black Immigration Network 

HEARING ON: COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM 

SENA TE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

February 13, 2013 

Chahman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley and members of the Committee: I am honored to 

submit this testimony for the record on behalf of the Black Immigration Network regarding 

today's hearing on immigration reform. 

The Black Immigration Network (BIN) envisions national unity around racial justice and migrant 

rights toward achieving social, economic and political power. BIN's mission is to establish a 

"kinship" among Black immigrant and African Americans to connect, learn and build towards 

policy and cultural shifts for a racial justice and migrant rights agenda. 

We thank you for holding this critical and timely hearing on immigration reform. We urge that the 

Senate Committee base reform on the principles of human dignity and racial equity. The first step 

toward reform must be the acknowledgement of the impact of free trade policies on the increased 

migration of people into the U.S. Priority to the movement of goods translates into the need for 

prioritizing the humane movement of people across U.S. borders. In addition, upcoming revisions 

must work to dismantle overt and structural discrimination found in current policies and 

35 West 31" Street, Suite 7021 New York, NY 10001 

(602) 845-9248 

info@blackimmigration.net 

www.blackimmigration.net 

1 
297 

BLACK IMMIGRATION NETWORK 

practices of the immigration/naturalization system. Moreover, discussions relating to the abolition 

of the birthright to citizenship established in the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution 

should be outwardly dismissed as racist and unacceptable. 

In furtherance of the above acknowledgements and in collaboration with our national membership, 

BIN has developed four main principles upon which we offer specific recommendations to 

decision-makers allies and other participants in the immigration refonn process. These principles 

are entrenched in the real impacts faced by Black immigrants as they navigate the current 

immigration system. Moreover, these principles seek to address the negati ve and historical 

practices of government policies and social institutions on the realities of Black citizenship- even 

outside of the current immigration process. Now is the time to choose to move in a positive 

direction around race, immigration and citizenship in the United States. To do this BIN's priority 

principles of immigration refonn include: 

1. Family reunification must be a core principle of immigration reform; 

2. Temporary status holders (E.G. TPS, DED, Refugee, Asylum, etc.) must be 

prioritized in any Legalization Program; 

3. Immigration Enforcement can no longer support mass detention/incarceration; and, 

4. Economic Justice must guide the establishment of penalties and immigrant 

community economic support. 

35 West 31" Street, Suite 7021 New York, NY 10001 

(602) 845-9248 

email: info@blackimmigration.net 

www.blackimmigration.net 

2 
298 

BLACK IMMIGRATION NETWORK 

The Black Immigration Network applauds the bi-partisan group of Senators' recent decision to 

endorse a path to citizenship for undocumented people living in the United States. We urge the 

Senate to create such a path and ensure that it is inclusive, accessible, and fair. 

Family Reunification. Family reunification must be a core value of immigration reform and it 

stands as one of BIN's top priorities in the current legislative efforts around immigration reform. 

BIN's membership continues to witness the generational devastation that occurs when families are 

separated by policy or practice. We believe that in-tact families act as an essential element of 

strong communities and a stronger United States of America. 

Family reunification for Black immigrants, moreover, requires an acknowledgement that 

immigrant families are located both inside and outside of U.S. borders. Reunifying family 

members will require visa processes that do not cause an undue burden to restrict accessibility to 

move in and out of the country. In addition, immigration reform should value the unique ways that 

families are defined in both African and Diaspora traditions. Legal definitions using familial 

degrees of connection or DNA connection should be expanded. Western processes of familybuilding (E.G. biological birth, formal adoption) should be honored, but should not be seen as the 

sole process for creating and maintaining families. 

Prioritize Temporary Status Holders in Legalization. Reform rooted in fairness should not 

marginalize those who have struggled to enter the U.S. lawfully and maintain their status. While, 

any program or legislation that provides a process of legalization or "pathway to citizenship" 

35 West 31'1 Street, Suite 7021 New York, NY 10001 

(602) 845-9248 

email: info@blackimmigration.net 

web: www.blackimmigration.net 

3 
299 

BLACK IMMIGRATION NETWORK 

should include those with unlawful legal status, such an effort must prioritize those temporary 

status holders already in the U,S, Unlike the mainstream face of immigration, a large percentage 

of Black immigrants from the African Diaspora1 enter the U,S, lawfully, It is the backlogged U,S 

immigration system that often serves as the culprit for the need to maintain "temporary" or "nonimmigrant" status instead of allowing for an adjustment to a "long-term" or "immigrant", Instead 

of an unlawful entry, Black immigrants in particular are penalized by this backlog which often 

pushes them to "age-out" of benefits or overstay a temporary visa - a document obtained after 

criminal background checks and approval by the Department of State, The temporary status of 

these Black immigrants should not be credence to be excluded in a new path to a more permanent 

status or citizenship, 

Enforcement Disconnected from Mass Incarceration. BIN views the mass incarceration of 

Black Americans and the detention of Black immigrants as part of the same systemic problem that 

should be eradicated, Black immigrants and African Americans continue to be disproportionally 

represented in the U,S, prison system. Despite civil violation of immigration law, immigrants are 

often detained as criminal offenders, often with limited access to legal counsel. BIN, therefore 

urges the Senate to disconnect enforcement of immigration laws from the practice of mass 

incarceration for profit and the policy of racial targeting to reach incarceration goals. The 

privatization of prisons acts as incentive to incarcerate society'S most disenfranchised groups, 

which is often determined by race or skin color. This type of human-capital market encourages 

racial profiling and other discriminatory practices within the criminal justice and various social 

J BIN defines the African Dia<;pora as Africa and countries that received Africans during the centuries of the 

Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. 

35 West 31 st Street, Suite 7021 New York, NY 10001 

(602) 845-9248 

email: info@blackimmigration.net 

www.blackimmigration.net 

4 
300 

BLACK IMMIGRATION NETWORK 

systems. Moreover, the practice of mass incarceration of Black people (immigrant and citizen 

alike) maintains- and in many ways strengthens - the larger social structures ofrace and class 

divisions. 

Too often, the long- term impacts of discriminatory race targeting and mass incarceration go 

unmentioned. However, communities and families of Color bear the real costs of mass 

incarceration. The long-term impact of mass incarceration eventually leads to the 

disenfranchisement of Black voters - sometimes for a life. It strips away (either by law or desire) 

the participation in democracy- thereby further silencing Black voices. 

The Black Immigration Network urges the Senate to ensure that reform of the immigration law 

enforcement system upholds our Constitution and protects due process and human rights for all 

people in the United States. Years of "enforcement first" or "enforcement only" policies have lead 

to record numbers of detentions and deportations, excessive use of force and rampant racial 

profiling. This approach has eroded due process and human rights for those detained and 

threatened the privacy and freedom of citizens and non-citizens alike. 

Economic .Justice in Immigration Reform. Finally, we encourage the Senate to commit to 

principles of Economic Justice in immigration reform. By having a justice-based and innovative 

approach to economic justice, current efforts on immigration reform offer an opportunity to create 

positive impacts in various Black communities. 

35 West 31 st Street, Suite 7021 New York, NY 10001 

(602) 845-9248 

info@blackimmigration.net 

web: www.blackimmigration.net 

5 
301 

BLACK IMMIGRATION NETWORK 

Any fines or other penalties associated with the path to legalization should not be disproportionally 

burdensome. Even with high levels of education, Black immigrants tend to earn low wages 

compared to other similarly trained immigrant or native workers. In 20 II black immigrants had 

the highest unemployment rate-l 2.5 percent-of any foreign-born group in the United States. 

Similar statistics can be offers as it relates to African Americans- and has been more pronounced 

in during the most recent financial crisis and economic recession. 

In addition new federal legislation should provide support to the communities that receive Black 

immigrants who are often marginalized once lawfully present as contributors to the U.S. economy. 

Priority should be given to investing in resources for job training initiatives or entrepreneurial 

support programs that promote the success of Black immigrants specifically and the Black 

community in general. 

Conclusion 

The Black Immigration Network commends the Committee's leadership in holding this hearing 

and we are grateful for the opportunity to present our position. Congress should take this 

opportunity to move forward with an immigration reform bill that prioritizes racial justice and 

human dignity. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to express the views of the Black Immigration Network. We 

welcome the opportunity for further dialogue and discussion about these important issues. 

35 West 31 st Street, Suite 702 I New York, NY 10001 

(602) 845-9248 

email: info@blackimmigration.net 

web: www.blackimmigration.net 

6 
302 

Introduction: 

The 

CENTER for 

VICTIMS of 

TORTURE 

Statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee 

Hearing on: 

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

Curt Goering, Executive Director 

The Center for Victims ofTorture 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

February 13, 2013 

The Center for Victims of Torture (CVT) commends Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Ranking 

Member Chuck Grassley (R-IA) for holding this hearing on "Comprehensive Immigration 

Reform." CVT is an international non-profit organization that provides treatment and 

rehabilitation services to torture survivors in the U.S. and abroad. Founded in Minnesota in 

1985, CVT was the first organized program of care and rehabilitation for torture survivors in the 

U.S. and one of the very first in the world. To date, we have extended care to more than 21,000 

victims of torture and war trauma at our healing sites in Minnesota, Africa and the Middle East. 

Our experience over 27 years has given us a unique perspective on the long-term devastation 

that torture inflicts on individuals and communities. 

A high percentage of the survivors we treat in our clinic in St. Paul, MN are asylum seekers who 

have suffered unimaginable abuse at the hands of repressive regimes. For those going through 

the asylum process, survivors of torture live with the constant fear that they may be returned 

to their torturer. Delays in the asylum and immigration court processes leave them in an 

agonizing state of legal limbo, during which they often spend years separated from family who 

may still be in danger overseas. 

Receiving asylum in the United States is their lifeline, yet many face such dire obstacles as they 

seek protection and freedom that the flawed process itself exacerbates the severe mental 

health symptoms of the torture they've suffered. This makes their healing, adjustment and 

integration even more challenging. 

1 
303 

Recommendations: 

CVT believes it is essential that immigration reform does not leave out vulnerable refugees and 

asylum seekers who have fled their home countries because of torture and persecution. 

Specifically, CVT urges Congress to address the following: 

• Eliminate the filing deadline for asylum-seekers. 

Asylum seekers must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that they filed their 

application within one year of arrival in the United States or they are barred from asylum 

status, absent changed or extraordinary circumstances that led to their failure to file within one 

year. The deadline prevents legitimate asylum-seekers from having their asylum cases 

adjudicated on the merits and leads bona fide applicants, including survivors of torture, to be 

denied the protection they need and for which they are otherwise eligible, solely due to a 

technicality. 

In addition to the negative consequences for applicants, the filing deadline leads cases that 

could otherwise be resolved with the asylum office to be referred to the immigration courts, 

resulting in long delays and contributing to the growing backlog of cases pending in the 

immigration courts. 

• Refine the Terrorism Related Inadmissibility Grounds (TRIG) to target actual terrorists. 

The overly-broad definitions of "terrorist" activity, "terrorist" organization and what constitutes 

"material support" to terrorism in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) should be revised. 

Presently, the terms are defined so broadly that for many individuals the circumstances 

triggering their ineligibility are their very basis for seeking asylum or refugee protection. To 

avoid mislabeling refugees as terrorists, the INA should be amended to explicitly recognize an 

exception for activities conducted as a result of coercion; the term "material," as it relates to 

"material support," should be defined as something of value given in the furtherance of 

terrorism; and the category of undesignated "tier three" terrorist organization standard should 

be eliminated. 

The current discretionary exemption process is slow and overly bureaucratic, creating long 

delays with thousands of applications languishing "on hold." Applicants "on hold" are in legal 

limbo and often remain separated from family members. For survivors of torture, these false 

labels and extended delays significantly impede their healing and rehabilitation process. 

• Reform the immigration detention system. 

For many survivors of torture, whose torture may have occurred while in a confinement setting, 

the immigration detention experience is often retraumatizing and may lead survivors to relive 

their horrid experiences of torture, contributing to further psychological damage. Torture 

survivors who seek asylum in the United States may be detained upon arrival at an airport or 

2 
304 

border port of entry or may be arrested on the border or in the interior of the United States 

prior to filing an application for relief. The detention experience is particularly detrimental to 

survivors of torture who, as a result of their torture, may already be struggling with severe 

anxiety, depression, sleep abnormalities, medical conditions, physical pain, and/or Post 

Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and are facing the possibility of deportation to country where 

they were tortured and where they fear being tortured again. 

Whenever possible, torture survivors should not be detained. Immigration reform should 

eliminate provisions "mandating" detention, expand humane alternatives to detention 

programs-including community release programs, and improve due process and review 

standards to avoid arbitrary or prolonged detention. 

Conclusion: 

When torture survivors seek asylum in the United States, they are seeking healing and 

protection from those responsible for their torture. The United States has a system designed to 

provide that save haven but that system is badly broken and in need of urgent repair. As 

Congress lays the groundwork for comprehensive immigration reform, it is essential that this 

reform does not leave out vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers who have fled their home 

countries because of torture and persecution. 

3 

CONTACT: 

Annie Sovcik 

Director of the Washington Office 

The Center for Victims of Torture 

202-822-0188; asovcik@CVT.ORG 
305 

DEPARTMENT OF HOU:::LAND SECURITY 

IMMIGRATION DETAINER - NOTICE OF ACTION 

: Flle No: 

Date: 

------~-1 

--"_."------ _--i 

7r R6rJ:~o,~;;;~~~· ~( d H<~~r:~t':: ;-;:;;f~;;oTr>C~ A~k;r~:;;;-

"-~---l\qAI;\j"tAjr;fclJsTcfi5V OFALiEIT Fcii"l: A--" -~ Name of AI, po- _________ ..••. _"" __ -:-:--::--:-:-_______________________ _ 

Dale of Birth: . Sex: 

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHs)HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING ACTION RELATE~--­

THE PERS?N IDENnFIED ABOVE, CURRENTLY IN YOlJR CUSTODY; 

.'_.--"-.~;;;;;.d~~~y:;at !.~~~:~~=~~.::i,~ye :he InrllVi,",~j~~.~~.:n::; 1'1" 'SuhWGt 10 n~·ma'.'nl ftr;m th~ Vnited St:;t~s Th~ lndivldual (c!1t?ck 

D3S a Dller a felony CQii"/lGtl011 ,),r l~as !:E:<:-11 chargee w!:h (1 

o.l~ach-od and was; scrJed 00 _ .. _. ____ {dilte,. 

:J Served ~ \"'<lff.;1f'~ d r.IT(;i>! for f0nlOV;)f proceedings. A copy 'Jf llm ',,·j;l.rr.?ml is altr,ch(':d and was served on _ . ___ . ___ ({},";:e) 

j Ob!ainC-i;l an O"nSf of dcporlallun :::r rernovaJ irem the United Stmc:, fm' this ner:son_ 

This ,1r;tjorr ~oes not limit your discrotlon to m<.lke decisioJlS fe-farad to this person's custody ctiissificJtion, work, quarter 

Dss/gnmerHs, or other matter.s. DHS dist;;our~gas dismissing crimifwl ChOlrgcs based em rho CXistMCO Qf a detainor. 

IT IS REQIJ,ESTED THAT YOU; 

Maintair~ Clfslody of !il(' Hlbj':-CI for <l period tJOT TO EXCEED 43 HOURS excluding S;:!!~:fdetys. SW1{).:)V$. and ho'idays. be,and 

:~~i2 limn whe-n thE- subject WOtlfe hCM:.- t~m, [;!l\::..'!Setj ffCil1l your(:J'Stcdy 10 ali:::.-I DHS tala~c cu:;:ody of the subject in:s request flcss fro!1". feceral reglilatio'1 3 § 287 7. You arc nat aUlhorized to held the subi~c.t beyond these 48 houf5_ As 

early as DOSS!:;'\? prlor to lhe t;me you ott".cr':ise would rduJse the Stlt:;ect, p1e;.se nolify OHS by c<,\Ih'tg ~ __ during t;t.lsi:~~:;s 

hours of after hours or In .em emNg~.mcy. If you cannot !Nlet( a DHS Otriciat al f'1(;se 1"~!l1~~rs. plM5e contact Ihe ICE LZrw 

Enforcement Suppon C<?r::nr in Bur);:l9!QI1. Vermon: al". {802} S72-'GO::!O 

Plovide:a ccpy to the ~L.bjCt:~ 01 this l1el;)iner 

NoHfy !iTs off.ce cllhe time af t, 'i('rt<;e at leDst 30 days PrI:l( to rc!eme" or as far in Zldv~'1CC as j:ossJ!:;lc 

r-lotify (his offlc-e in the event of the inm<lte's de(:]!h, hOsPlt.:;!j::Gticn or ~r"lnsfer (0 ~n(jlhef ins:itutl~)fl. 

TO 8E COMPLETED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY CURRENTLY HOLDING THE SUBJECT OF THIS NOTICE: 

LOCiJ! Booki~g!lnma1e #: 

and return 10 DhS lJSlr.g !ht1lJ1wetopo Bnc(ose~j lor your COnvenience or by faxing a cop}' 

shou!d lTlaint5in a copy ffH your own records 53 you may track the ease and not hold the 

L(ltest criminnJ ch:ugc!ccnvicllon: ___ (d~:!C'j EslHnntcd rclCilSC: ___ ~(4a:'!) 

l(istcr:m;'i:1; Cna[;;Jc,lconv:ctiC:1: __________________________ . ____ _ 

Notice: Once in 

Page 1 of3 
306 

Page 2 of 3 
307 

NOTICE TO nlE DETAINEE 

in~ ~cP<.irt~aht of Hcmel"l:lld SeCtlrity (OHS) has pl~ced an immlgra:ho1l dct(llner eli you. An HT>n:;gratiol1 de-t:ainer is a nolle;;: from 

Dl-iS trform,~ l~w ,&I:fOiCC','1':0111 :19cnciQS Ihot DHS Illten>js to a~:>\.!Jne =;JstQtiy o.f you after yOl.' othef,;,Jisl3 woukl bo released :r.:::rn 

;ustOGy, 0H~,h~ts i,-=quest~d that Ins is ;;",rre:1!1y d-e12i!~ifrg you mamt>1U"i c'.lstody of~'Ol,! (Of <! period not 

~c ex:eed 46 {oXc!U,dm9. Svfldnys, nmi t:Dyan~ {t'.lE lime when you would have been released by the slate Of 

!::ca! !uw 3,l:tItG;ltlf::S. un YCq! clim;:u d;;~f~,W$ or con'/!:.:lwns, If OtiS do~s not toJ •. c you into custody during that 

ad<!ittonai ~3 ?10ur. )Jl2'rro:l, not ecuntil19 wcc!,cnds or hoUdnys. you should contact Vour custodiall (tne lalJl enlorcemem ;'Inane',' 

or Oihef~ ~n.;!tY[ha: IS holding .~'o:.J ~C\':) to. i?:l~!f~ aoout YCl~l :~I.ease. from state Of local custo:-!y if you have a tomp!:!.int rc!)a~ing 

this dCt .. mvr vr wl~ted to 'oilolauons c! CIVil nghts 01 eM! itbertios connect.ed to OHS activillp;o, please contact the iCE Joint 

tnt.'~e Centor at 1.?77~2:1NTAKG il.\77~24G.i!253}. If you bcliev(! yau arc ;:I Unlt,:>d St:-ltC8 citizen or tho victim of fI crime, please 

advIse OHS Wj calling the leE Law Enforcement Support C2nt~r to!! free.n ;1355) 4,)3.$903, 

NOTlfiCACI6N A LA PERSONA DETENIDA 

EI Cep,J:1~mci1Io de Serr-·wdf1: N~1CinnJl (OHS) de EE, UU. ha emil;:;io Un;) orden de detcnci6n inmi9ra~oria en su cor.lra. Medi,anlc 

csta elden, ~e !1o:lfica iiI bs c·r;2!'1i-smos pollc:Cl"les quo el DHS prctl;;!lcle arreste.rfo cuando us!ed cumpla su reclus;6n actual. El OHS h" 

solk::;loda poiicia! ~::cal 0 estatJI a ;;,,100 de Sa :;;i:!U;); {:clcru;:!Gll en a./stadia ;:01 un pericdo no fl'oyor i1 

~8 !~OI[lS . ;;<1oaoo$, ~om~ngas y di<ls festi'1'Js; tras e! ccse de su reclusion Si el DHS no procode con su arresto 

l!"!m,grn:toFio cSlt:: perlOdo acJjcjona1 de- 48 horas, cxclu)'tmdo los fineg. de scm.:m;t 0 dias fesfivos, llstcd deb) 

cOJl'!unica:rse' con la auto~jd-<'ld ost:.;ta! a lac.ri! qu~ 10 titme d.etlmldo \,~l orgilniSma pclirJz! l. :Jlrd en!it;{"J:j a :.:ugo de SU custodia 

db~sner mayoreS d~L1l!CS !chre et :;ese de su rCC:...,5ton. Sl tiene aiguna quej; que 5C relacionti con esta orden de 

o ,con posiblcs infracciones a los d.F,!fCdlCS 0 libertadc5 ct'liles en conexi on con ii.ls 3c:ti .... idadC'$ d~1 OHS, 

comuniqucsc con (,.01 John Intake COfit.C!'r (Centre de Admlslon) de! lee (Sclvicio dl] Inminraci6n y Control de Auuiln~s) 

Uam~1ndo (11 1..a77~'2tNTA!>(E {317 .. 2-46·8253}. Si ustcd cree que cs ciud .. dano de los Est~lCfc$ Uriido$ 0 quo h:x sido victima de 

un deiito, informesclo a! DKS lfnmatldo al Cl'.!ntro de Apoyo a los Organism os Poltd;,les {Law Enforcement Support. Center} 

del ICE. leJ\?fono {aSS} 448·u903 (tlamada gratuita). 

Avis au detenu 

Le deFJI:1:ernent de la Se-curile Intcricure rOepUI1rnenl or Homeland SeClwty (DHS)) a ernfs, i! vQlre encon!te, un OfU![: d'incafci:r~tion 

pour des raisQ!'IS d'unmlgraI!On. Un ardre (!')nca~cemijon pOl.t dg~ rnisons <j'I:':1rnitjr.atlon esl uti avis du OHS tnformant les agerit~5 de!: 

forces de q!.e !e [;1 is a !'1n,tenlion de vC'JS Getenir "pres Ia cat!'! nor:l'1:<l-e de volre remIS-\!' en lil;;e"":c, Le DHS a requf~ que 

de ['ortire, Q\li VQV$ Cjehcnt actw::-ll€fi'H'Ylt, Von:; gmde en d~!'2'ntlC'n ;J6f1cde fna.(lm:r!~' de 48 l'1eute5 

Cllm.1n:::~\{!s ,,\ JOWl.,. f61H~t.) i}U de!il JiJ !a P'1!J0Cl: II Ja do:!" laqde\k; \tou;\. Ot:,,{;Z etc- [I-':lnt$ at1 hper1e par !!Js 

aul:rltes pdicieres de Dtl !.oc~lcs en fonr::!io,"1 des inct~p.a!jons cu c:-ndam.,;;t:m's a. vo~(e enCOl1tre. Si Ie OHS ne VDUS 

d6tlcm p<1S ~~J(ant ccttc- pedode supplcmcnt.oire de 48 haurc~, sar.s comptor les de semaincs et f~s jours (eries, vous 

dcvez contal;U~r votro gordian des fcrees de !'oldle qui VO!)5 de~ient 'lctUl?!!cment) pour 'IotlS ref1seigner a propDs de votre 

htcr,G:;C~ 0':H;n:!S~ on :'autcH:?:: Si VOIlS avez une plaime il farmuler 3U $1Jjet de cct crdrC' d'in.carc~r.,tion au en ,a.pport 

avec dO$ violations de \lOS d.roils civils liees a des activftcs du OHS, veuWcz c;ont3ctor Ie ct'ntre commun d'admissions du 

Sor.r[c:c dc ,'Immigration et dcs Dou;!ncs (Jce ~ Immigrn.tion and Customs EnforcC'ment] [tCE Joint Intake Center] au 

1.877.21NTA~E t871~:Z46.8253). Si vous crO),ez O~fC: un citoycn des Elats-Unis ou fa ~ictjm-Q- d'un crime. veuiltoz en aviser Ie 

DHS co appolant 1e centre cl'Gssistaflce des forcC!s de "ord'ro de J'ICE [ICE law Enforcement Support Centor] au numcro 

gratun (SS5} 448-6903, 

AVISO AD DETENTO o Oermrtamq:mo de erli S9U none. Esre d,:;:U:1~enlc ~ lir.T aviso 

JB }i,:l qlh~ 0 OilS crctcndc a:;suIl11[ a d<l ~ua pt'$5ca. ,;aso >'ibcl<?Idi..l 0 01-lS petliu 

que n Oloend.ll de on lei ,:mcorreg,YJ<:: da swn alual dc!e'1\ilo r~tH'lc:'h<l~o soo custWl-<:l no maximo. 48 noras 

(c)(Citlilid(,HU ;,>r,baoos, Jcmlngos C! feriados) opes 0 ot?o~:cdQ em !1ue $Eria !:berado netas aU1Dfidflues ~~\(lCuars au mur.l0pO'IS I:Jc 

tt:lposi(:~o d~ dt~ .fE:on10 corq as fe.sf.lt;c:I~'a!i Dctlsn-;-6U!r v pvT'"'~"lS Ctlmiri~.;s. Sc 0 DHS nflo olssumir" su.::! custodia durante CSSi'lS 

46 her;!.s adiclonnis, exc!lllndQ~sc os fin$ de sem.ana c fer13dos, voce deveta cntrar cm c.onto:ito com 0 sou .;ustodianta tn 

d~ lirposi9;,"to da let au Qt.l.1!quer outro onHdrlde quo es.leja dct€:"ndo-c no n~om~nto) par" ohtC( hfonr,o~.325 50bre sua libe-rar;ao 

CHS!Ctit.3 ~staduni OU mu,TClp.JJ Gnso YO~C tc-nho aloul1l..l rcc!ama~jo () fao:er sobru est;;:l .ordctn de cust6dl., imigr.JtoriZl OLl 

rclacionada a vio\;:)GoC!s dos seus direitos OU liberdades civis de:ccm:mtc das atividades do DHS, entre em contato com c 

Centro de ~ritrada Ccnjunta cJz:t Agcncia do Controle do hnignu;!o i! Alf;;ltldega {ICE) p('lo tClefonc 1MS77.246.B253, So voco 

acredltar qtio e um cid,luaO dos EUA ou e-st~l SE!1do vhima de um crime-, inrcrm~ a otiS ligando p<'Ira 0 Centro de Apoio a 

Imnosil;5o d::\ L~i do ICE pelo tclcfonf' ftc" ligncao gratuit.1 {855} 448·6903 

Pag~ 30f3 
308 

THONG BAo CHO NGU'CJI BI GIAM 

GILr . 

86 Quae Phorg tDHS) (fa co r~nl: glam giLf QUY VI vi 11 do di trl' Lenh giam gIfT vi Iy do di tru 13 thong bim cua OHS cho 

cae :'C' qUcf: thi hanh fu?t philp la OHS co y c!it:h tar:-: gi{"r quy vi sau kh. quy V! etiDC :h,:\ OHS da yeu cau co' quan thi 

hanh tu£!t Phap 1)(~n dang ,glCl' vi tiep htc t~m giCr quy VI trong khong qua 48 gUt Clvng flO {khOng ke ttl!.'.!' Say. C~u 

nh~t. va cae ngay ogl1i lei 913rl rna Ie fa quy v~ sa OLiO'C ca qUem thi hanh !tJ~t phap cua tf~u bang nct3c ala 

pl!LfO'ng 1hz ra dU3 !t6n cae an va ~o> hinh 51)' ella q~y vi. Ni:u DHS khong t~m giam quy vitrong tho'! ginn 48 gio. 

be sung d6',!{hong tinh cttc ngay CUO! tllan ho~c ngay lit quy vi nan li6n f?c v&J ben giam gili' quy vi (CO' qual) thi 

11anh luat pMp haac t6 ch(fc khac hiM dang giam giO' quy 'D d& I\6! vi; vi$e ecr quan dja phLTong ho~c lien bang tha quy 

vi ra N§u quy vi co khi6u n9i v6 J~nh giam 9iiV nay ha~c Ji~n quan t&i cae trU'ang hQ'p vi ph~m dan quy~n ho~c tlJ' 

do cong dah lien quan to-i cae ho~t 6';;og eu, DHS, vui long lien I~e vo-; ICE Joint Intal<n Center t~i sl, 

'-S77-2INTA!<E (677-240-8253), Nau quI' vi lin r!lng quI' vlla cong dan Hoa Ky hQ~c n~n nhan t9i ph~m, vllj long 

baa cho OHS bj~t lJ~ng each m,j ICE Law Enforcement Support Contcr 1?i .6 di~n 1110,,; ml~n phi (SSS) 448-6503, 

*~~±~~~IDHS)2~ili~~~.RM~% •• R~.*.~.~±~~Dffl* 

.@~.~.,B~.ffi.±~~H~~~W~~M~M~~MHPa~~~.~M.~ 

m~ •.• ~~±~~HEft~~M~ffl~~~~~~~*,m.~~~m~e~.~u 

~~~l~~~~ffi.~~~~=~n~~~ ~=~M~.~.~Ra48~rt(.~ i 

~. §M~~@B~n) .•• ~.E±~±B*~~tt.~.~a~.nQ~~.~ 

~~~~~,~m~.*~H ••• ~(~~~m~~~~~~.R~.~) ,W~~ 

~~M~~~~~*.~~~~~.~ .••• ~~~~~m.*~.EE±~±BH 

IT~PJi}iV&ll\JmJ:z.EMx.~i'OEl EMHiif1ilHll:if, , i~ll**~§lI.f§B:;&~*tA$M~'&l'j2i! 

!{Ijr:j:lIC'\ ICE Joint Intake Center) , >e~~li!J~ 1-877-2INTAKE (877-246-8253)0 :/lO 

•• W~~ ••• ~&.m.~.A,*.~~13~&.*tA*~~tA*~.r:p~ 

( ICE law Enforcement Support Center) ,~Pll*~§lI±~:±ilj)o ~tA*j!(Jlllr:p'~'D9 i ~M)~>e\!-l'j18.1ll: (855)448-6903. 

Page4cf3 
309 

Immigration Enforcement and the War on Drugs: 

Drug-Related Immigration Policies Need Reform 

Hearing on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Wednesday, February 13, 2013 

Submitted by 

Grant Smith, Policy Manager, Office of National Affairs, Drug Policy Alliance 

Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and members of the Committee: 

I am honored to submit this testimony for the record on behalf of the Drug Policy Alliance 

regarding the hearing on comprehensive immigration reform that occurred on February 13, 

2013. 

As the nation's leading organization promoting drug policies grounded in science, compassion, 

health and human rights, the Drug Policy Alliance is concerned that tens of thousands of 

noncitizens are forcibly deported every year for nonviolent drug law violations, separated from 

family members residing in the United States, and deprived of the ability to fulfill their financial, 

occupational and personal commitments. We urge you to end the practice of deporting and 

refusing admission of noncitizens solely for admission of drug use or past low-level drug law 

violations. 

In the 1980s and 1990s Congress enacted immigration policies that greatly expanded the 

grounds for removal of noncitizens for drug law violations.' Federal immigration authorities 

interpret these policies broadly and have applied them aggressively against noncitizens. In 

recent years, noncitizens who interact with the criminal justice system or possess a criminal 

record have become the focus of federal immigration enforcement efforts to remove "criminal 

aliens" from the U.S. without consideration of mitigating factors such as the length of time since 

applicable convictions occurred, the nature and severity of each offense, any ties or obligations 

to U.S.-born children or other dependents, and the extent to which the noncitizen eligible for 

removal contributes to society. 

Removal of noncitizens occurs without regard for their legal status or their efforts to meet legal 

requirements to maintain lawful permanent residency status. Thousands of noncitizens with 

legal permanent resident status are deported every year for a drug law violation -- and many are 

even deported for drug law violations that occurred years or even decades in the past.2 Many 

deportations are triggered by an arrest or conviction for the simple possession of marijuana or 

other drugs. Although a waiver exists for noncitizens arrested for simple possession of 30 grams 

or less of marijuana, the conditions for obtaining the waiver are excessively stringent. 3 Lawful 

permanent residents and other noncitizens are also subject to deportation for a drug law 

violation when they are sentenced to probation or other alternatives to incarceration. 

Noncitizens who plead guilty to participate in drug courts and other diversion programs expose 

themselves to deportation, since immigration officials view a guilty plea as a conviction. A 

deportation on account of a prior drug law violation can also be triggered when a lawful 

permanent resident seeks to renew their "green card," applies for naturalization, or faces review 

by an immigration officer upon returning to the U.S. after traveling abroad. 

Drug Polley Alliance I 925 15th Street NW. 2nd Floor, Washington. DC 20005 

voice I 2()2.216.01l03 fa. I www.rlrugpoiicy.org 
310 

Every year, hundreds of millions of noncitizens seek admission into the U.S. Noncitizens 

traveling to the U.S. can be denied admission for a drug law violation that occurred in the United 

States or in a foreign country. Immigration officials also question noncitizens about experience 

with drug use in the present as well as in the past. Noncitizens who admit to an immigration 

officer that they use drugs or have used drugs any time in the past are inadmissible4 In 

addition, noncitizens who have written about personal experience with drug use on the Internet 

or other sources may face inadmission after an immigration officer reviews this information.s 

Noncitizens eligible for the Visa Waiver Program are questioned about drug use and drug law 

violations as part of the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (EST A) preclearance 

process that must be submitted to immigration authorities before an eligible noncitizen can 

travel to the United States. A noncitizen who might otherwise have traveled to the U.S. for 

tourism and other non immigration purposes may be deterred from traveling when confronted 

with these questions. Evidence that these questions have a deterrence effect can be found in 

abundance on the Internet. In just the United Kingdom alone, media reports and local law 

enforcement have warned the public in recent years that a drug offense - no matter how minor -

will jeopardize entry into the United States.6 

Case Samples 

In 1978, Sandra Kenley emigrated from Barbados and obtained lawful permanent resident 

status. In 1984 and 2002, Sandra was convicted for possession of cocaine and sentenced to 

probation both times. In a letter to immigration authorities, Sandra's probation officer who 

supervised her following her 2002 conviction wrote that Sandra "completed a drug treatment 

program and was successful in her treatment goals" and was "granted early termination based 

on her performance."? Following her release, Sandra made significant changes in her life. She 

completed a nursing course and began working as a nurse and was awarded sole custody of 

her granddaughter. However, in 2005, Sandra was denied re-admission as a lawful permanent 

resident following a trip to Barbados with her granddaughter to visit family'" Sandra was placed 

into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody after officials decided that her prior 

drug convictions made her deportable." Prior to her detention, Sandra notified ICE officials that 

she suffered from a large fibroid that hemorrhaged every day, which her doctor was scheduled 

to surgically remove. 'O ICE Officials, however, allegedly failed to provide Sandra the medication 

or medical attention that her fibroid condition required. Ultimately, Sandra died in ICE detention 

- weeks after being detained for years-old misdemeanor drug charges for which she never 

served any jail time." 

Nearly seven years ago, Glendene Grant lost contact with her daughter, Jessie Foster, who 

had moved to Las Vegas from her native Canada. A private investigator hired by Glendene 

determined that Jessie had been forced into prostitution by human traffickers.'2 Glendene 

subsequently made three trips to Las Vegas in search of her daughter, and appeared on the 

Montel Williams Show in New York to raise awareness about her disappearance.'3 Glendene 

was on her way to Las Vegas for a fourth time to meet with police officials when a U.S. customs 

officer at the border crOSSing discovered that Glendene had been convicted more than twenty 

years ago in 1986 on marijuana and cocaine posseSSion charges in Canada and thus she was 

not allowed to enter the U.S." Glendene appealed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Chief but was told there was no relief available. "I'm not going to Vegas for a holiday - I'm going 

because my daughter is missing," Glendene told the Calgary Sun at the time. 's 

2 
311 

Time for Reform 

Many state and local jurisdictions have reformed their drug policies in recognition that drug 

enforcement-centered policies are too costly to taxpayers and do greater harm than good for 

our nation's families and communities. Fourteen states have decriminalized possession of 

small amounts of marijuana, while eighteen states and the District of Columbia allow access to 

medical marijuana. Voters in two states - Colorado and Washington - recently approved the 

legal regulation of marijuana production and sales, a policy that 50 percent of Americans now 

support.'6 Moreover, the public overwhelmingly believes that the war on drugs has failed and 

supports treating drug use as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue. 

Under current immigration policies, noncitizens must satisfy requirements that are more 

stringent than those set for U.S. military recruits or individuals seeking employment with the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, which now considers applicants with some illicit drug use in the 

pas!.17 Federal immigration policy toward noncitizens with any history of drug use is excessive, 

cruel, inhumane and out of step with drug policies established by a growing number of state and 

local governments. 

Recommendations 

End the removal of lawful permanent residents for admission of drug use or low-level 

drug law violations that occurred more than one year in the past or did not result in arrest 

or conviction." 

Repeal provisions that deny admission to noncitizens who admit to drug use or have 

committed - or admit to committing - a drug law violation in a foreign country or the 

United States more than one year in the pas!." 

1 Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Subtitle M Narcotics Traffickers Deportation Act, P.L. 99-570; 

Immigration Act of 1990, P.L. 101-649; Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, P.L. 104-

132; Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, P.L. 104-208 

2 Human Rights Watch, Forced Apart: Families Separated and Immigrants Harmed by United States 

Deportation Policy (New York, July 2007), p.69 

3 see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h), Immigration and Nationality Act 

4 see 8 USC § 1182, Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(a)(1)(A)(iv); Immigration and Nationality Act § 

212(a)(2)(A)(i)(lI) 

5 Adam Liptak, "The Nation's Borders, Now Guarded by the Net," New York Times, May 14, 2007 

B Simon Calder, "Inside Travel: Fortress USA Blocks Tourism," The Independent (London), January 1, 

2004; Gill Charlton, "Will my HIV-positive friend get his US visa?," The Daily Telegraph (London), October 

29, 2005; Tim Shipman, "US records UK visitors' race and reading habits," The Sunday Telegraph 

fLondon), September 23, 2007 

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, Community Supervision 

Services, General Supervision Branch "A", Written Correspondence from Lisa Silor, Community 

Supervision Officer to U.S. Custom and Border Protection, Deferred Inspection Unit, Dated October 26, 

2005; Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, Community 

Supervision Services, General Supervision Branch "A", Request for Early Termination of Regular 

Probation, Docket Number F-2740-02, August 28, 2003 

B U.S. Congress, 110lh Congress, First Session, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the 

JUdiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Crtizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, 

"Detention and Removal: Immigration Detainee Medical Care," October 4, 2007 

3 
312 

9 Nina Bernstein, "Deaths of immigrants in U.S. held for deportation spark scrutiny," The New York Times, 

June 26, 2007 

10 U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Form 1-831 Continuation Page, 

Case Number WAS0610000392/A021668804, November 2,2005; U.S. Department of Justice, 

Immigration and Naturalization Service, Record of Sworn Statement in Administrative Proceedings, Form 

Number 1-877, File Number A021668804, November 2,2005 

11 U.S. Congress, 110'h Congress, First Session, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the 

Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, 

"Detention and Removal: Immigration Detainee Medical Care: October 4, 2007 

12 Cathryn Atkinson, " 'I get a strong feeling that ... she needs to be found and rescued'; A year ago, a 

y,oung woman with a secret vanished in Las Vegas," The Globe and Mail, April 4, 2007 

3 Tarina White, "Montel to air tragic story," Calgary Sun, April 15, 2007 

14 Lena Sin, "Mother's hunt for missing daughter blocked at border: mother's trip stopped over old 

conviction," The Province (Canada), June 3, 2007 

15 Sarah Kennedy, "Past conviction halts search; U.S. security guards stop mother from looking for 

daughter in Las Vegas," Calgary Sun, June 10, 2007 

16 Rasmussen Reports Poll, May 12, 2012. poll results retrieved June 4,2012 from Rasmussen Reports; 

Angus-Reid Public Opinion Poll, May 29-30,2012, poll results retrieved August 6,2012 from AngusReid; Gal/up Poll, October 6-9,2011. Poll results retrieved June 4,2012 from Gallup Politics 

17 Nancy Morawetz, "Rethinking Drug Inadmissibility," William and Mary Law Review, Vol. 50, No. 163, rJ" 31, 34,40,47 

See Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)§ 237(a)(1)(A); § 237(a)(2)(B)(i); § 237(a)(2)(B)(ii); § 

237(a)(2)(A)(iii) 

19 See Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)§ 212(a)(1)(A)(iv); §212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) 

4 
313 

UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

1331 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, NW, W ASHlNGTON, DC 20425 www.usccr.gov 

February 12,2013 

Dear President Obama: 

We write in our individual capacities as two members of the eight-member U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights, and not on behalf of the Commission as a whole. In light of 

your proposal to reform the immigration system, we are writing to address a rarelydiscussed effect of granting legal status or effective amnesty to iIlegaf immigrants. Such 

grant of legal status will likely disproportionately harm lower-skilled African-Americans 

by making it more difficult for them to obtain employment and depressing their wages 

when they do obtain employment. 

In 2008, the Commission held a briefing regarding the impact of illegal 

immigration on the wages and employment opportunities of African-Americans. I The 

testimony at the briefing indicated that illegal immigration disproportionately impacts the 

wages and employment opportunities of African-American men.2 

The briefing witnesses, well-regarded scholars from leading universities and 

independent groups, were ideologically diverse. All the witnesses acknowledged that 

illegal immigration has a negative impact on black employment, both in terms of 

employment opportunities and wages. The witnesses differed on the extent ofthat impact, 

but every witness agreed that illegal immigration has a discernible negative effect on 

black employment. For example, Professor Gordon Hanson's research showed that 

"Immigration ... accounts for about 40 ~ercent of the 18 percentage point decline [from 

1960-2000] in black employment rates." Professor Vernon Briggs writes that illegal 

immigrants and blacks (who are dispropcrtionately likely to be low-skilled) often find 

themselves in competition for the same jobs, and the huge number of illegal immigrants 

ensures that there is a continual surplus oflow-skilled labor, thus preventing wages from 

rising.' Professor Gerald Jaynes's research found that illegal immigrants had displaced 

U.S. citizens in industries that had traditionally employed large numbers of AfricanAmericans, such as meatpacking.5 

1 U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS, THE IMPACT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ON THE WAGES AND 

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BLACK WORKERS [hereinafter THE IMPACT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION], 

~vailable at http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/lllegimmig_10-14-1 0_ 430pm.pdf. 

!d. at 3, Finding S: 

Illegal immigration to the United States in recent decades has tended to depress both 

wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens, a disproportionate 

number of whom are black men. Expert economic opinions concerning the negative 

effects range from modest to significant. Those panelists that found modest effects 

overall nonetheless found significant effects in industry sectors such as meatpacking and 

construction. 

J Id,at26. 

4 Idat 37, 38-39 

, Idat 31. 
314 

UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

1331 PENNSYLVA~IA A VENUE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20425 www.usccr.gov 

Illegal immigration has a disparate impact on African-American men because 

these men are disproportionately represented in the low-skilled labor force, The Census 

Bureau released a new report on educational attainment after the Commission issued its 

report, This report, released in February 2012, found that 50.9 percent of native-born 

blacks had not continued their education beyond high schoo1.6 The same report found that 

75.5 percent offoreign-born Hispanics had not been educated beyond high school, 

although it does not disaggregate foreign-born Hispanics who are legal immigrants from 

those who are illegal immigrants.7 However, Professor Briggs estimated that illegal 

immigrants or former illegal immigrants who received amnesty constitute a third to over 

a half of the total foreign-born population.8 Foreign-born Hispanics who are in the United 

States illegally are disproportionately male.9 African-Americans who have not pursued 

education beyond high school are also disproportionately male. lo These poor educational 

attainment levels usually relegate both African-American men and illegal immigrant men 

to the same low-skilled labor market, where they must compete against each other for 

work. I I 

The obvious question is whether there are sufficient jobs in the low-skilled labor 

market for both African-Americans and illegal immigrants. The answer is no. As 

Professor Briggs noted in his testimony to the Commission, "[i]n February 2008 ... the 

6 CAMILLE L. RYAN & JULIE SIEBENS, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, EDUCATIONAL A IT AINMENT IN TIlE UNITED 

STATES: 2009 (Feb. 2012), at 7, ""aifable at http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p20-566.pdf. 7 Id. 

8 THE IMPACT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, supra note I, at 35-36. 

9 Peter Skerry, Splitting the Difference on Illegal Immigration, NATIONAL AFFAIRS (Winter 2013), at 5 

(HOfthe undocumented immigrants over the age of 18 currently residing in the U.S., there are 

approximately 5.8 miHion males, compared to 4.2 million females."), available at 

http://www.nationa1affairs.comldoclib/20 130 1 02_ Skerry. pdf. 

10 THE fMPACTOF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, supra note 1, at 52; see also Anne McDaniel, Thomas A. 

DiPrete, Claudia Buchmann & Vri Shwed, The Black Gender Gap in Educational Attainment: Historical 

Trends and Racial Comparisons, 48 DEMOGRAPHY 889, 890 (2011) ("It is well known that black males 

trail black females on a range of key educational outcomes, including high school graduation, college 

enrollment, and college completion."), available at http://jrnetsolserver.shorensteincente.netdnacdn.comiwp-contentlup1oadsl20 11 (] Olfulltext.pdf. 

11 THE IMPACT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRA nON, supra note 1, Statement of Vernon.iVI. Briggs, Jr. ,at 37. 

[T]t is not everywhere that there is likely to be significant competition between low 

skilled black workers and illegal immigrant workers, but there are ample circumstances 

where there is - such as the large metropolitan labor markets of Los Angeles, New York, 

San Francisco, Chicago, Miami and Washington-Baltimore. Moreover, some of the 

fastest growing immigrant concentrations are now taking place in the urban and rural 

labor markets of the states of the Southeast ~ such as Georgia, North Carolina and 

Virginia, which never before were significant immigrant receiving states in previous eras 

of mass immigration. Indeed, about 26 percent of the nation's foreign-born population are 

now found in the states of the South - the highest percentage ever for this region. There is 

mounting evidence that many of these new immigrants in this region are illegal 

immigrants. 
315 

UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20425 www.usccr.gov 

national unemployment rate was 4,8 percent, but the unemployment rate for adults (over 

25 years old) without a high school diploma was 7,3 percent,,12 During 2007, "Black 

American adult workers without a high school diploma had an unemployment rate of 

12,0 percent, and those with only a high school diploma had an unemployment rate of7.3 

percent.',I) These statistics suggest both that there is an overall surplus of workers in the 

low-skilled labor market, and that African-Americans are particularly disfavored by 

employers.14 

Furthermore, these statistics reflect an economy that was not experiencing the 

persistent stagnation we are experiencing today. The country's economic woes have 

disproportionately harmed African-Americans, especially those with little education. In 

20 II 24.6 percent of African-Americans without a high school diploma were 

unempl0j.ed, as were 15.5 percent of African-Americans with only a high school 

diploma. 5 Two and half years into the economic recovery, African-Americans face 

particular difficulty obtaining employment According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

the seasonally adjusted January 2013 unemployment rate for all black Americans not 

just those with few skills was 13.8 percent, nearly twice the white unemployment rate 

of7.0 percent 16 The economy has a glut oflow-skilled workers, not a shortage. 

Not only do illegal immigrants compete for jobs with African-Americans, but that 

competition drives down wages for the jobs that are available. It is a truism that illegal 

immigrants are willing to work long hours for low pay, even under poor conditions. As 

Professor Briggs noted in his testimony, it is not that there are American citizens who are 

unwilling to perform the jobs taken by illegal immigrants. It is that American citizens are 

unwilling to take these jobs for the same wages as illegal immigrants, and are unwilling 

to endure the same poor working conditions. When faced with a willing, albeit illegal, 

workforce, some employers hire the people who will work for less money and will not 

complain about working conditions. This drives down the prevailing wage. 

Julie Hotchkiss, a research economist and policy advisor at the Federal Reserve 

Bank of Atlanta, estimated that "as a result of this growth in the share of undocumented 

workers, the annual earnings ofthe average documented worker in Georgia in 2007 were 

12 ld. at 36. 

IJld. 

14 ld., Statement of Harry J. Holzer, at 41. 

Other evidence, including that by ethnographers, indicates that employers filling low-wage jobs 

requiring little reading/writing or communication clearly prefer immigrants to native-born blacks, 

and encourage informal networks through which immigrants gain better access to these jobs. The 

native-born black workers likely would be interested in some, but not al1 of these jobs, depending 

on their wages, 

15 U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR, The African-American Labor Force in the Recovery (Feb. 29, 2012), at Chart 3, 

available at http://www.dol.gov/_sec/mediaireportslBlackLaborForce/BlackLaborForce.pdf. 

16 BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, Employment situation summary (Feb. 1,2013), available at 

hltp:llwww.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nrO.htm. 
316 

UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20425 www.usccr.gov 

2.9 percent ($960) lower than they were in 2000 .... [A]nnual earnings for the average 

documented worker in the leisure and ho~itality sector in 2007 were 9.1 percent 

($1,520) lower than they were in 2000.,,1 A $960 annual decrease may not seem like 

much to a lawyer or a doctor. But as you noted in regard to the 2012 payroll tax cut 

extension, an extra $80 dollars a month makes a big difference to many families: "It 

means $40 extra in their paycheck, and that $40 helps to pay the rent, the groceries, the 

rising cost of gas .... " 18 

Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants will only further harm African-American 

workers. Not only will the low-skilled labor market continue to experience a surplus of 

workers, making it difficult for African-Americans to find job opportunities but AfricanAmericans will be deprived of one of their few advantages in this market. Some states 

require private employers to use E-Verify to establish that their workers are in the 

country legally. This levels the playing field a bit for African-Americans. If illegal 

immigrants are granted legal status, this small advantage disappears. 

Furthermore, recent history shows that granting amnesty to illegal immigrants 

will encourage more people to come to the United States illegally. The 1986 amnesty did 

not solve the illegal immigration problem. To the contrary, that amnesty established the 

precedent that if you come to America illegally, eventually you will obtain legal status. 

Thus, it is likely that if illegal immigrants are granted legal status, more people will come 

to America illegally and will further crowd African-American men (and other low-skilled 

men and women) out of the workforce. 

Before the federal government decides to grant legal status to illegal immigrants, 

due deliberation should be given to what effect such grant will have on the employment 

and earnings prospects of low-skill Americans generally and black Americans 

specifically. We respectfully submit that granting such legal status is not without 

substantial costs to American workers. 

Sincerely, 

~~~ 

Abigail Thernstrom 

Vice Chair 

Peter Kirsanow 

Commissioner 

17 THE iMPACT OF ILLLEGAL IMM1GRATION, supra note 1, at 46. 

18 Arnie Parnes, Obama: Payroll tax cut extension 1-vil! help with higher gas prices, THE HILL, Feb. 21, 

2012, available at http://thehiJJ.comlbJogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/211765-obama-payroll-tax-cut-extension-willheJp-with-higher-gas-prices. 
317 

UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

1331 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, NW, W ASlIINGTON, DC 20425 www.usccr.gov 

Cc: Representative Bob Goodlatte (Chair, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on 

the Judiciary) 

Representative John Conyers (Ranking Member, U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on the Judiciary) 

Representative Marcia Fudge (Chair, Congressional Black Caucus) 

Senator Patrick Leahy (Chair, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary) 

Senator Charles Grassley (Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on the judiciary) 

Senator Charles Schumer (Chair, U.S. Senate Committee on the judiciary Subcommittee 

on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security) 

Senator John Cornyn (Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security) 
318 

Statement for the Record 

Former Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

February 13, 2013 

Mark 1. Shurtleff was the first three term attorney general in Utah history; he was reelected in November 2008 with a strong 70 percent of the vote. Attorney General 

Shurtleff was born and raised in Utah, graduating from Brighton High School, Brigham 

Young University and the University Of Utah College of Law. He is a Past Chairman of 

the Conference of Western Attorneys General (CWAG) and has served several times on 

the Executive Committee for the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG). In 

addition, he serves on the Board of Directors ofthe America-Israel Friendship League, 

Fight Crime: Invest in Kids Association and the Washington Legal Foundation. Locally, 

he serves on the Boards of the Utah Prosecution Council, Commission on Criminal & 

Juvenile Justice, the Constitutional Defense Council, Governor's Child & Family Cabinet 

Council and Utah Citizens Against Pornography. In January 2013, he joined the 

international law firm of Troutman Sanders LLP as a Partner, and he will work out of 

their Washington, D.C., office. 

I applaud the Committee for holding this hearing on the matter of America's broken 

immigration system and urge the Committee to fix our immigration system the 

American way, by taking up a broad immigration reform approach that includes a path 

to citizenship. 

I believe Congress must seize upon the momentum that has been building around 

immigration reform. In the past two years, an alliance of conservative faith, law 

enforcement and business leadership has come together to forge a new consensus on 

immigrants and America. These relationships formed through outreach in the 

evangelical community; the development of state compacts; and regional summits in the 

Mountain West, Midwest and Southeast. 

In early December 2012, I was one of over 250 faith, law enforcement and business 

leaders from across the country - including one of today's witnesses, Chairman and 

CEO of Revolution Steve Case - who came to Washington, D.C., for a National Strategy 

Session and Advocacy Day. We told policymakers and the press about the new 

consensus on immigrants and America. More importantly, faith, law enforcement and 

business leaders from across the country committed to work together to urge Congress 
319 

to pass broad immigration reform in 2013. This week we launched the Bibles, Badges 

and Business for Immigration Reform Network to achieve that goal. 

As the Committee discusses reforming our immigration system, I am encouraged to see 

that four of the committee's members, including Senators Richard Durbin, Charles 

Schumer, Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake, are involved in working on a bipartisan 

immigration reform bill. The principles released by this group are an encouraging sign 

that Congress will finally fix our broken immigration system. I am also pleased that 

Senator Mike Lee of Utah has been engaging in these bipartisan negotiations and hope 

he continues to be involved in the process. 

However, it is also important that the discussion does not become singularly focused on 

enforcement. Over the last few years we followed the enforcement-only approach on 

immigration and it has led to less law and less order. We need a commonsense, 

workable approach. Chris Crane, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent 

based in Salt Lake City, Utah, and President of the National Immigration Customs 

Enforcement Council 118 of the American Federation of Government Employees, would 

have you believe that ICE does not do its job. He says ICE agents have been verbally told 

by their headquarters not to detain and arrest certain undocumented immigrants, even 

if they have illegally re-entered the country. 

While Mr. Crane is entitled to his own opinion as to how our immigration enforcement 

works, he is not entitled to his own facts. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 ICE detained a record 

number of people: 429,000. In FY 2012 ICE deported a record 409,849 people. Of 

these, approximately 55 percent, or 225,390, were convicted of felonies or 

misdemeanors - almost double the number of criminals removed in FY 2008. On top of 

this, 96 percent of all removals (also a record high) fell under ICE's priorities for 

deportation. 

Contrary to what Chris Crane would lead you to believe, ICE priorities include recent 

border crossers and people who re-enter the country illegally. An enormous amount of 

resources are devoted to prosecuting individuals who enter the country illegally. For 

example, in the first 10 months of FY 2011, over 63,000 people were charged with illegal 

entry or illegal re-entry, making up 46 percent of all federal prosecutions during that 

time. In light of all of these statistics, it is hard to reconcile Mr. Crane's statements with 

reality. 

However, we are not going to deport our way to a controlled immigration system. The 

American people want this problem solved. In poll after poll the American people 

demand law and order, secure borders and broad immigration reform that includes 

earning U.S. citizenship. 
320 

I urge the Committee to focus today, and in subsequent hearings, on enacting 

commonsense, broad immigration reforms that help to fix our broken immigration 

system. 
321 

2/12/13 

To: United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

C/o The Honorable Senator Chuck Grassley 

Dear Sirs: 

Rebecca Bowie and Jeff Bowie would like to submit our testimony for the pending committee 

hearing on Illegal Immigration and the need for Immigration Reform in the United States. We 

wish to thank the committee for allowing us the opportunity to present our story. 

We, like so many of our fellow Americans, were bystanders and unconcerned with the issue of 

immigration reform until we were unwillingly brought into the debate. On the morning of July 

29,2008 at approximately 6:30 AM our 28 year old daughter was brutally murdered. She was 

killed while dressing for work in the bedroom of her condo located in Smyrna, GA. We did not 

know this until July 31, 2008. On the afternoon of July 31 the life of the Bowie family was 

altered forever more. The circumstances are described as follows: Elizabeth Bowie, our 

daughter, was in the midst of changing school districts and was attending a new teacher 

orientation. She did this on Monday July 28 and then did not appear on either ofthe next two 

days. One of the assistant principals contacted me by email to ask if there was something 

wrong with Elizabeth. This was surprising news to me as she was excited about her new 

opportunity. Here cell phone was broken and after unsuccessfully trying to reach her by 

email, her mother and I went over to her condo to find out what was happening. We did not 

have a key and were unable to contact her so we called the police. They discovered her body. 

An autopsy determined her cause of death and established that she had been murdered. As a 

parent the world stops at that moment. Then to find out that your child had been murdered 

was not something you can comprehend. The pain you feel as you think about all the times you 

held her as a child is beyond proper description. To think that someone would hurt her to pOint 

of death was devastating. 

The city of Smyrna has a small CSI department and they began a very thorough investigation of 

everyone she knew and had contact with. We gave them all ofthe names we knew but never 

dreamed that anyone she knew could have killed her. However, the investigation pieced 
322 

together enough evidence to link her to an illegal alien she had dated. Once presented with 

the fact that someone illegal committed the crime a comment by the chief detective struck me. 

"How do you find a ghost?" This underground society that has come here illegally does not use 

their real names, identities, addresses or anything. So how do you find someone? It strains 

our precious resources even more. The Smyrna police force was able to piece together a 

connection to the killer. She had met him through one of her students at school. This student 

came to school crying and upset one day. His father was very sick and because he was illegal he 

had no insurance or standing. Elizabeth intervened on his behalf and got him into Northside 

Hospital. He subsequently died in spite ofthe good care and Elizabeth saw to it his son was 

returned to his mother in Mexico. This man had three brothers, two were in the landscaping 

business and the third worked for them. They had children that were in elementary school and 

Elizabeth helped them with their studies. During this time the younger brother named Juan 

Lazaro Abrego became interested in Elizabeth and dated her. Her mother and I were not in 

favor of her dating an illegal and expressed this to Elizabeth. After this most communication 

ceased and I thought he had returned to Mexico. He apparently did so a couple of times but 

Juan returned to kill Elizabeth. We are expressing all this to you so you can see the wide divide 

in value systems that would create a situation leading up to murder. It is my beliefthat people 

committed to joining a society have more feeling for and stake in the outcome of their 

behavior. Elizabeth had done so much good for this family you cannot imagine any of them 

killing her. 

We realize that every parent is proud oftheir children but in the case of Elizabeth we have 

much to tell about. She was the type of citizen that America can be proud of. She was a school 

teacher that had taught at Marietta Middle School for 5.5 years. She brought personal 

experience and heart to classroom every day. The school is a mix of ethnic backgrounds and 

very diverse family backgrounds. There were many single family homes and many issues that 

plague our society and educational institutions today. Elizabeth was uniquely qualified to bring 

life and hope to so many of her students. She knew the Lord Jesus Christ as her personal savior 

and had a relationship with Him shared by very few. As a result ofthis she was a world traveler, 

going to Kenya, Jordan, Cambodia, and Thailand and over the United States. She brought these 

personal experiences to life in her social studies' classes. They loved her. 

Elizabeth was very giving. She gave up her bed twice and slept on the floor for months because 

she felt the people she gave the bed to needed it more than she did. Liz gave up her television 

to a student going to college who was too poor to dream of having one while she went without 

for more than a year. She gave away my clothes to the homeless and fed them in Atlanta's 

Woodruff Park with what little she had. 
323 

During Elizabeth's memorial service one of her former fellow students in the Master's program 

in Education at Georgia State University got up to say Elizabeth was his only white friend. As I 

listened I thought she truly had gotten the essence of life. No color, no prejudice, no 

discrimination defined a person for Elizabeth. Wouldn't it be a great place if we all felt that 

way? 

I say all this to describe a citizen ofthe United States that we need more of and not less of. Her 

death by someone who should have not been here in the first place is a tragedy for her family 

and her country. Elizabeth was a much understated person. No one knew of all the generous 

things she had accomplished as most of this was never known by anyone until after her death. 

We would like to encourage you to do something positive in her memory to reform this broken 

immigration system. 

We need strong borders between the United States and Mexico. This revolving door has to 

stop. We must stop letting who knows who walk into this great country with the purpose of 

making money at any cost and not seeking to adopt our country as their own. They can either 

make it rich with their contribution to society or they can rob it blind and steal away the ideals 

of our citizens. If we don't protect our country who will? Letting millions of illegal's come and 

go at will is not protecting our borders or our citizens. Elizabeth's death proves that. 

We need an immigration program that recognizes the need to welcome enough labor to meet 

the needs of our economic system legally. Elements of our system feed off the illegal work 

force that reduce wages and reduce the value of our fellow man. The ability to get work visas 

in a controlled manner should be expanded to meet the labor demands of our economic 

system. After we have a permitting system that lets us pursue enough labor E Verify should be 

made stronger not weaker and we should prosecute those that violate the laws of the land. 

We owe it to the immigrants who came here legally and waited their turn to not provide 

blanket amnesty. We also cannot round up millions and bus them back across the border. The 

issue is complex but we must face the complexity and think outside the box. 

Elizabeth's killer still roams loose in Mexico. What's sad is that three weeks after her murder 

we knew who did it and where he was. It took a whole year in the Department of Justice to get 

the extradition paperwork done to go get him and by that time he was long gone. He still 

roams free in Mexico with not much fear that he will ever get caught. Our agreements with 

Mexico need to be simplified and improved so that this does not happen. 
324 

Finally, we need compromise to get action. I am frankly exasperated at the lack of action in 

Congress to get something done. We need compromise to accomplish what has to be done on 

immigration. Don't think for a minute that either party has a mandate from the citizens of this 

country. We elected you collectively to do a job and we expect the debates to bring about 

good ideas and good collective thinking not inaction. For the sake of Elizabeth's memory stop 

procrastinating and bring about real change. Good ideas come from outside the Beltway so get 

the citizenry involved. You might be pleasantly surprised. Thank you very much. 

Jeff and Rebecca Bowie 

Suwanee, GA 30024 
325 

304 N. 9 J ', SnEET 

GARDEN CITY, KANSAS 67846 

CITY OF GARDEN CITY 

POLICE DEPARTMENT 

JAMES R. HAWKINS 

CH!EF Of POLICE 

February 12, 2013 

620-276-1300 

FAX, 620-276-1313 

OR 620-276-1314 

My name is James Hawkins and I have been the Chief of Police of Garden City, Kansas for 

seventeen years. Garden City is a community in southwestern Kansas which is predominantly 

populated by immigrants, of both lawful and unlawful status. Garden City is a community of 

majority minority status. 

The history of immigration to Garden City is one that starts in the early 1900s and since then 

there has been a steady stream of immigrants. The agricultural economy of the area relies very 

heavily on immigrants and they are a very productive element of the community. They 

contribute both socially and economically to the community. 

I applaud the efforts of this committee to attempt to achieve a consensus on immigration that 

will assist those already in the Unites States and provide guidance for future, legal immigration 

while maintaining secure borders. 

As a law enforcement officer with almost thirty years of experience I have seen the value of 

cooperation between law enforcement and the community it serves. Law enforcement cannot 

operate effectively without the confidence and cooperation of the community regardless of 

whether the residents are lawfully in the United States or not. When things go awry in the 

community, it is usually with the help of citizens that crimes are solved and ultimately 

adjudicated. This community policing approach works very effectively. 

The Garden City Police Department has worked diligently to treat all residents, whether citizens 

or not, fairly and equitably and remain neutral regarding the immigration status of residents. The 

Garden City Police Department, and I'm certain, almost every other municipal law enforcement 

agency, does not have the resources to enforce federal immigration laws and it would be 

counter-productive to community policing efforts to do so. 

Providing a legal status to undocumented immigrants already here would provide a means for 

immigrants to lawfully obtain driver's licenses and insurance, and assist law enforcement in 

identifying those who should not be here. Consequently it will assist those immigrants to 

continue to stay involved and invest in the community in which they already live and work. 

Thank you for thoughtful consideration. 

James R. Hawkins 

Chief of Police 
326 

Quotes for the Record 

Law Enforcement Officials 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

February 13, 2013 

"Now is the time to finally pass comprehensive immigration reform. We can keep our 

borders secure, deal humanely and fairly with the millions of undocumented workers 

already here, establish a guest worker program, and reform the system to attract the 

best and the brightest who want to come to America. This has been our tradition and it 

can be a vibrant part of our future." 

Grant Woods. (R-Ariz.) 

Arizona Attorney General (1991-1999) 

"What we have had here is a failure to communicate due in part to the uncharitable and 

at times hate filled rhetoric of some in politics and the media that play on our worst of 

emotions. Please move forward on reform and fix our system so that we can once again 

act humanely and justly." 

Mark C. Curran, Jr., Sheriff, Lake County, Ill. 

"Each day we delay the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform, is a day we 

fail to bring an untold number of people residing in our communities into the fold as it 

relates to our collective public safety efforts. But for their immigration status, these 

individuals are otherwise law abiding and productive members of our society. 

Unfortunately, the vitriolic rhetoric directed toward immigrants has created an 

environment of fear and intimidation where all too often victims of crime and witnesses 

to crime hesitate to assist law enforcement. Bringing legitimacy to this segment of 

society will undoubtedly strengthen the ability of peace officers to bring criminals to 

justice and justice to the victims of crime and their families." 

Art Acevedo, Chief of Police, Austin, Tex. 
327 

"As a sheriff along the Texas-Mexico border, my role is to ensure the safety and wellbeing of our citizens and all those who enter our country," said Webb County Sheriff 

Martin Cuellar. "But in doing so, and while protecting them, we must also keep our 

human hat on and keep in mind that it is not healthy to separate families. This is why a 

well thought of pathway to citizenship is very important." 

"It is my honor to serve you as your Sheriff." 

Martin Cuellar, Sheriff, Webb County, Tex. 

"Law enforcement knows firsthand the need for immigration reform. Police officers and 

sheriffs deputies who work the streets need clear direction and the current law just 

doesn't provide that. A new law with clear policy objectives and broad bipartisan 

consensus will allow local law enforcement to focus on criminal conduct and not on 

immigration status. For the sake of public safety, we have to move beyond the status 

quo." 

William D. Gore, Sheriff, San Diego County, Cal. 
328 

'MMIGRAT'ONIII ACTION 

FUND 

@l'fff~~~ 

GLAD 

H.l\IAL lUSTIer UNDn, lAI\I 

and the United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; UCC GenderFold Action 

Alliance; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; Auburn Seminary; 

Transgender Law Center 

The Need for LGBT -Inclusive Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Testimony Submitted to U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Hearing: "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

Wednesday February 13,2013 

Statement of Rachel B. Tiven, Esq., Executive Director, Immigration Equality; National 

Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund; National Center for Transgender Equality; 

Family Equality Council; Queer Undocumented Immigrant Project (QUIP), a project of 

United We Dream; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; 

Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists; United Church of Christ, Justice and 

Witness Ministries; UCC GenderFold Action Alliance; Auburn Seminary; Gay, Lesbian & 

Straight Education Network; Out4Immigration; Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders 

(GLAD); Transgender Law Center 
329 

Immigration Equality is a national organization that works to end discrimination in U.S. 

immigration law, to reduce the negative impact of that law on the lives oflesbian, gay, bisexual, 

transgender ("LOBT") and HIV -positive people, and to help obtain asylum for those persecuted 

in their home country based on their sexual orientation, trans gender identity or HIV -status. 

Immigration Equality was founded in 1994 as the Lesbian and Oay Immigration Rights Task 

Force. Since then we have grown to be a fully staffed organization with offices in New York 

and Washington, D.C. We are the only national organization dedicated exclusively to 

immigration issues for the LOBT and HIV -positive communities. More than 38,000 activists, 

attorneys, faith leaders, and other constituents subscribe to Immigration Equality's emails and 

action alerts, and our website has over 380,000 unique visitors per year. The legal staff fields 

over 3,700 inquiries a year from individuals throughout the entire U.S. and abroad via telephone, 

email and in-person consultations. 

We applaud the Senate Judiciary Committee for convening this hearing today and hope that 

Comprehensive Immigration Reform ("CIR") will be given the serious consideration that it 

deserves. CIR is of vital importance to the LOBT community. LOBT immigrants are part of 

many immigrant sub-communities, from brilliant entrepreneurs, to loving spouses, to youth who 

have seen themselves as Americans their whole lives, to asylum seekers fleeing desperate 

situations to stay alive, to undocumented individuals who came to the U.S. for a better life and 

are now living in the shadows with no means to legalize their status. Immigration Equality 

recognizes the need for truly Comprehensive Immigration Reform which addresses the myriad 

needs ofthe immigrant community and the parallel needs of the LOBT immigrant community. 

CIR Must Include the Uniting American Families Act 

Although Immigration Equality works on many issues affecting the LOBT immigrant 

community, no issue is more central to our mission than ending the discrimination that gay and 

lesbian binational couples face. Because there is no recognition of the central relationship in the 

lives of LOBT Americans, they are faced with a heart-rending choice that no one should have to 

make: separation from the person they love or exile from their own country. Inclusion of the 

Uniting American Families Act ("UAFA,,)i within CIR would provide a pathway to legalization 

to LOBT 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 aU 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 pernlanent 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 Ccnsus estimated that approximately 36,000 samesex binational couples live in the United States.iii This number is miniscule compared to overall 
330 

immigration levels: in 2011, a total of 1,062,040 individuals obtained lawful permanent resident 

status in the United States.iv Thus, if every permanent partner currently in the U.S. were granted 

lawful permanent residence in the U.S., 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 ofthe 

individuals holding college degrees. v 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 fundamental of which is to remain together. 

One of the striking features of the statistical analysis performed of the 2000 census is how many 

same-sex 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. vi 

Among female couples, the figure is even more striking, 58% of female binational households 

include children. The vast majority of children in these households are U.S. citizens. vii 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 Lavy and Tzila Levy are a loving, married couple, living in Brooklyn, New York. Adi is a U.S. 

citizen and Tzila a citizen of Israel. The couple met in 2010 and recently married in Brooklyn, 

New York. Adi has suffered from chronic kidney disease since the age of seventeen. Tzila is Adi's 

primary source of care and emotional support, and she entered the U.S. on a visitor's visa in 

order to care for her wife while Adi receives life-saving treatment from a respected expert in her 

illness. Because their marriage is unrecognized by the federal government, no other visa was 

available to Tzila. 

Adi's health has continued to deteriorate and she has been placed on the kidney transplant fist. 

Tzila extended her visitor visa to remain at Adi's side, but as the end of Tzila's authorized stay 

approached, Adi and Tzila were left withaut a permanent solution for their family. In November 

2012, the couple submitted a spousal petition for a green card. In January 2013, the family's 

request was denied because Adi and Tzila's family ties are not recognized under U.S. immigration 

law. Adi fears that she and her wife could be torn apart. She fears being left alone to face her 

chronic health issues without her primary caregiver and emotional support. Without a lasting 

immigration solution, this family will continue to face a life filled with uncertainty and fear. 

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 
331 

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 \, 

20 \3, a diverse group of businesses signed onto a letter to the House and Senate supporting 

passage ofUAFA or CIR 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.,wlIl 

The coalition includes over 30 businesses, such as American Airlines, Dow Chemicals, 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 allow their citizens to sponsor long-term, same-sex partners for 

immigration benefits. ix 

No Comprehensive Immigration Reform can be truly comprehensive if it leaves out thousands of 

LGBT families. We urge the Senate to include UAFA language in any CIR bill. 

CIR Must Include the DREAM Act 

There is a broad consensus that CIR must include a swift pathway to legalization for 

undocumented young people who were brought to the United States as children, attended school 

here or joined the military, and see themselves as Americans in every way other than their legal 

documents. LGBT activists have been at the forefront of the brave young people who have been 

fighting tirelessly for passage of the DREAM Act.' Unlike their heterosexual counterparts, 

lesbian and gay young people have grown up knowing that, under current law, they do not have 

the ability to marry an American citizen and legalize their status through that relationship. 

Moreover, many LGBT DREAM activists have described the dual painful experiences of 

"coming out" twice once as LGBT and then again as undocumented - to loved ones, 

employers, friends and educators. Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Jose Antonio Vargas broke 

new ground by coming out to the world as undocumented and gay in the New York Times 

Magazine:i LGBT undocumented youth face discrimination at every tum and have fought hard 

to ensure that CIR is inclusive oftheir multiple identities:ii In short, the DREAM Act is critical 

to the LGBT community and eIR would not be truly comprehensive without providing a fair and 

fast pathway to legalization for those who qualify for the DREAM Act. 

CIR Must Provide a Definite and Reasonable Pathway to Citizenship for the 

Undocumented 

There are currently an estimated II million undocumented immigrants living in the United 

States. Like all Americans and aspiring Americans, they want nothing more than to regularize 
332 

their status so that they can feel secure that they will not be separated from their families and can 

work and travel lawfully. Conservative estimates state that 3.8% of the United States population 

identifies as lesbian, gay or bisexual.xiii Applying this percentage to the estimated I I million 

undocumented immigrants in the United States means that there are approximately 4 18,000 

undocumented lesbian, gay and bisexual immigrants. It is essential to this part of the LGBT 

community that CIR include a clear pathway to citizenship. There should be a roadmap to 

legalization put in place immediately by CIR and not be contingent on any "trigger" enforcement 

events whose contested parameters could delay implementation indefinitely. 

CIR Must Increase the Numbers of Family Visas Available 

One ofthe many failings of the current immigration system is the absurdly long wait to sponsor 

some family members under the current family preference system. Some of those waiting in the 

backlogs are LGBT individuals, waiting for a parent or sibling's petition to become curren!.'!V 

Those parents and siblings are also the grandparents, aunts, and uncles of many LGBT young 

people. For LGBT youth - many of whom are vulnerable to bullying in their schools -the 

support of extended family is crucial. The impact of decade-long waiting periods can have a 

cascading effect on families, and change is needed. LGBT immigrants are rightly and proudly 

included in the Reuniting Families Act, to be introduced by Congressman Mike Honda this 

month. That bill makes sensible, necessary changes to the family visa system: changes that must 

be incorporated in CIR. 

CIR Must Repeal the One Year Filing Deadline for Asylum Seekers 

Each year Immigration Equality represents more than 400 LGBT asylum seekers through direct 

representation and partnerships with pro bono attorneys. These brave individuals literally leave 

everything behind to seek freedom from persecution, violence, and abuse simply because of who 

they are and whom they love. Since the 1996 enactment of the Illegal Immigration Refonn and 

Immigrant Responsibility Act, asylum seekers have been required to submit their application 

within one year of arriving in the United States. There are only two narrow exceptions to this 

rule: "changed circumstances" and "extraordinary circumstances," and lack of knowledge of the 

one year filing deadline or of asylum itself is not considered a valid exception. While many 

political dissidents are aware that if they reach the United States they can seek political asylum, 

there is no way for most LGBT people to know that asylum is potentially available to them based 

on their sexual orientation or gender identity!V The primary reason that Immigration Equality's 

attorneys decline otherwise meritorious cases for legal representation is that the asylum seeker 

has missed the one year filing deadline. 

For those in removal proceedings who have no viable exception to the one year deadline, it may 

be possible to obtain withholding of removal and thus avoid removal to a country in which they 

fear persecution. But the standard for withholding is much higher than for asylum with an 

applicant required to prove that it is "more likely than not" that she will be persecuted rather than 

demonstrating a "well-founded fear" offuture persecution. Thus individuals who miss the 

deadline yet cannot meet the higher standard for withholding can be removed even if they have 

clearly met the threshold of "well-founded fear" of persecution required under asylum law. 
333 

Moreover, an individual who is granted withholding remains in a permanent limbo status, with a 

final order of removal entered against him. An individual with withholding status can never 

travel outside the U.S., can never apply for lawful permanent residence or citizenship, must 

renew his Employment Authorization Document annually, and can be required to have regular 

check-ins with a deportation officer forever. Thus an individual who missed the one year filing 

deadline can never fully integrate into American society. 

The one year filing deadline was initially enacted to prevent individuals who do not have 

legitimate asylum claims from filing for asylum solely to obtain work authorization. Since the 

enactment of the deadline, other changes to the asylum law - including a waiting period to obtain 

employment authorization, mandating that cases be resolved faster, and the imposition of strict 

penalties for filing a frivolous application - have caused a marked decrease in the number of 

asylum applications.xvi Thus there is no legitimate reason to continue to deny applicants with 

valid claims based on an artificial application deadline. 

We therefore urge the Senate to repeal the one year filing deadline as an important part of CIR. 

We recommend that CIR include the Refugee Protection Act. 

CIR Must Reduce Mandatory Detention and Provide Greater Protections to Vulnerable 

Detainees 

LGBT individuals are among the most vulnerable people held in immigration detention.xvii 

Every week, Immigration Equality hears from LGBT individuals who are subjected to verbal and 

physical abuse while detained. For trans gender, as well as lesbian, gay, and bisexual asylum 

seekers who have suffered trauma in their home country, being housed in prison-like conditions 

while awaiting an immigration hearing is terrifying. We frequently hear from transgender 

detainees who are placed in administrative segregation - solitary confinement - purportedly to 

protect them from potential abusers. There, trans gender detainees are isolated from all other 

detainees, denied access to vital programs, and often denied reasonable access to counsel. If 

transgender individuals must be detained, they must be detained safely, in housing that protects 

them from harm without blaming the victim for abuse. 

Current record levels of immigration detention are linked to funding by Congress for specific 

numbers of detention beds as well as mandatory detention rules that can prevent individuals with 

minor crimes from being considered for bond or alternatives to detention. The current detention 

system unnecessarily costs U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars a year and treats violators of civil 

immigration laws as if they were criminals, yet with no right to counsel. For LGBT detainees 

and others, CIR must change the inhumane and wasteful immigration detention system. 

Any E-Verify Program or Biometric Identification Card that CIR Implements Must not 

Discriminate against Transgender Individuals 

If CIR requires employers to check employment eligibility through an E-verifY system and/or if 

CIR implements social security cards or otl1er national identification cards willi biometric 

information, these measures should include only that personal information which is truly 

essential to employment verification. These measures should not make use of unnecessary 
334 

personal information that invades the privacy of and could cause real harm to individuals. To cite 

just one example, for an estimated 700,000 to 1 million transgender people - Americans and 

newcomers alike a system that flags gender discrepancies as suspicious will result in job loss 

and may threaten personal safety. Other personal data, such as a worker's former name, could 

also "out" individuals as transgender and make them vulnerable to discrimination which remains 

pervasive today. The Social Security Administration does not require the use of gender for 

employment verification, and the agency itself recommends that employers not submit gender 

markers for employees. We therefore believe that these systems should not include unnecessary 

personal information, such as gender markers, and should include strong privacy protections for 

all workers. 

CIR Must Provide Protections for Immigrants Living with DIV 

The current frameworks for CIR state that individuals with provisional legal status, that is those 

who are in the process oflegalizing their status, will not be eligible for certain federal benefits, 

including certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. For many individuals living with HIV, 

ranging from U.S. citizens to undocumented immigrants, receiving ongoing medical care, 

particularly primary care and preventative care, are crucial to maintaining their health and 

productivity. Access to regular medical care makes it more likely that HIV will be detected 

early and that the effects of the virus can be minimized. Moreover, access to health care not only 

benefits individuals, but also benefits entire communities by reducing HIV transmission. It is 

crucial that CIR increase access to health care for people living with HIV rather than decreasing 

it. 
335 

Conclusion 

We applaud the Senate for convening this hearing and for considering needed immigration 

refonns. 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, comprehensive immigration refonn that fully respects the unique needs 

and contributions ofLGBT immigrants. 

i UAFA would add "permanent partner" as a category of "immediate relative" to the INA. "Permanent partner" is 

defined as any person 18 or older who is: 

I. In a committed, intimate relationship with an adult U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident 18 years or 

older in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment; 

2. Financially interdependent with that other person; 

3. Not married to, or in a permanent partnership with, anyone other than that other person; 

4. Unable to contract with that person a marriage cognizable under the Immigration and Nationality Act; and 

5. Not a first, second, or third degree blood relation of that other individual. 

As with current marriage-based petitions, permanent partners would be required to prove the bona fides of their 

relationships and would be subject to strict criminal sanctions and fines for committing fraud. 

ii In 2011 family-based immigration accounted for 688,089 grants oflawful permanent resident status, Department 

of Homeland Security, Annual Flow Report, April 2012, Table 2, at 3available at 

http://www .dhs.gov/xlibrary!assets/statistics/publications!lpr _ fr _ 20 I I. pdf 

,ii Family, Unvalued: Discrimination, Denial, and the Fate of Binational Same-Sex Couples Under U.S. Law,joint 

report by Human Rights Watch and Immigration Equality, 2006, at 17, 3 available at 

http://www.hrw.orgienfreports/2006/05/01/family-unvalued . 

" Department of Homeland Security, Annual Flow Report, March 2009, available at 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publicationsilpr_.fr _2008. pdf. 

Y Family, Unvalued, at 176. 

\-1Id 

~, !d. In female binational households, 87% of the children were U.S. citizens; in male households, 83% were U.S. 

citizens 

VllI AvailabJe at http://immigrationegualitvactionfund.org/images/BusinessCoalition signonJctte.LllM. 

"These countries include Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, 

Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden Switzerland, and the 

United Kingdom. See Family, Unvalued. 

x The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors or "DREAM Act," provides a pathway to lawful 

permanent residence to undocumented young people who were brought to the United States as minors. The 2009 

Senate version of the bill requires applicants to: Have proof of having arrived in the United States before age 16; 

Have proof of residence in the United States for at least five consecutive years since their date of arrival; Ifmale, 

have registered with the Selective Service; Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of bill enactment; Have 

graduated from an American high school, obtained a GED, or been admitted to an institution of higher education; 

Be of good moral character. 
336 

"Jose, Antonio Vargas, "My Life as an Undocumented Immigrant" New York Times June 22, 2011, 

http://www.nvtimes.com/20 I J I06/26!maf!azine/my-lifeM as-an-undocumentedimmigrant.html? r~4&ret"'magazine&pagewanted~all& 

x;; See, for example, Jorge Gutierrez, "I Am Undocuqueer: New Strategies for Alliance Building for the LGBTQ 

and Immigrant Rights Movements," htlp:!!www.huffingtonpost.com!jorge-gutierrezli-amundocuqueer b 2521339.html. 

,;;, See "LGBT Identity: A Demographer's Perspective," by Gary J. Gates, June 2012, available at 

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edulresearchlcensus-Igbt-demographics-studies/lgbt-identity-a-demographersperspectivel 

x;, Department of State Visa Bulletin, available at http://www.travel.state.gov/visa!bulletinibulletin5856.html. 

"See, "The Gay Bar: The Effect of the One-Year Filing Deadline on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and 

HIV-Positive Foreign Nationals Seeking Asylum or Withholding of Removal" by Victoria Neilson & Aaron 

Morris, 8 New York City Law Review 233 (Summer 2005), discussing the disproportionate impact of the one year 

filing deadline on LGBT applicants. 

xv; The number of asylum applications filed with the Department of Homeland Security, that is affirmative 

applications, dropped from 64,644 in 2002 to 24,988 in 2011. See United States Government Accountability 

Office, U.S. Asylum System, September 2008, at 58 available at htlp:llwww.gao.govinew.items/d08940.pdf and 

DHS Annual Flow Report: Refugees and Asylees 2011, May 2012 available at 

http://www.dhs.govixlibrarv!assets/statisticsipublications/ois rfa fr 2011.pdf. 

xv;; See, National Immigrant Justice Center, "Stop Abuse of Detained LGBT Immigrants," 

http://www.immigrantjustice.orgistop-abuse-detained-Igbt-immigrants 
337 

human rights first 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD OF ELEANOR ACER 

Director, Refugee Protection Program 

HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST 

On 

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

SUbmitted to the 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

February 13, 2013 
338 

Introduction 

Human Rights First is an independent advocacy and action organization that challenges America 

to live up to its ideals. We are a non-profit, nonpartisan international human rights organization 

based in New York and Washington D.C. To maintain our independence, we accept no 

government funding. For over 30 years, we've built bipartisan coalitions and teamed up with 

frontline activists and lawyers to tackle issues that demand American leadership, including the 

protection ofthe rights of refugees. Human Rights First oversees one of the largest pro bono 

legal representation programs for refugees in the country, working in partnership with volunteer 

attorneys at U.S. law firms. Through that program, we see day in and day out the ways in which 

current U.S. immigration laws and policies are denying or delaying protection to refugees who 

seek this country's protection from political, religious and other persecution. 

Today's hearing is entitled "Comprehensive Immigration Reform." In this statement, I will 

explain the impact of our nation's current immigration laws on asylum seekers and refugees, and 

provide recommendations on how to repair the U.S. asylum system, based on the research of 

Human Rights First and our experience representing refugees in the U.S. asylum system. 

U.S. Protection of Asylum Seekers: A Core American Value and Commitment 

The United States has a long history of providing refuge to victims of religious, political, ethnic 

and other forms of persecution. This tradition reflects a core component of this country's identity 

as a nation committed to freedom and respect for human dignity. Over thirty years ago, when 

Congress-with strong bipartisan support-passed the Refugee Act of 1980, the United States 

enshrined into domestic law its commitment to protect the persecuted, creating the legal status of 

asylum and a formal framework for resettling refugees from around the world. The United States 

is the world leader in resettling refugees, working in partnership with faith groups, civil society, 

and communities across the country. 

U.S. leadership in the protection of refugees is also about how this country treats refugees who 

seek asylum here in the United States, and about whether this country's policies and programs 

including its approach to immigration law enforcement - live up to the same standards we call on 

the rest of the world to respect. In the wake of World War II, the United States played a leading 

role in drafting the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and committed to 

comply with its core provisions by signing on to the Convention's Protocol. 

How the U.S. Commitment to Asylum Seekers Has Faltered 

The United States has faltered on its commitment to those who seek protection-imposing a 

flawed one-year filing deadline and other barriers that prevent refugees from receiving asylum; 

interdicting asylum seekers and migrants at sea without adequate protection safeguards; 

detaining asylum seekers in jails and jail-like facilities without prompt court review of detention; 

mislabeling victims of armed groups as supporters of "terrorism"; and leaving many refugees 

separated from their families for years and struggling to feed, house, and support themselves due 

to extensive delays in the underfunded and overstretched immigration court system. 
339 

These deficiencies not only have domestic consequences, but they also lower the global standard. 

As the Council of Foreign Relations' Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy---cochaired by former White House chief of staff Thomas "Mack" McLarty and former Florida 

governor Jeb Bush---pointed out, the U.S. commitment to protect refugees from persecution "is 

enshrined in international treaties and domestic U.S. laws that set the standard for the rest of the 

world; when American standards erode, refugees face greater risks everywhere." 1 

How to Repair the U.S. Asylum System in Immigration Reform Legislation 2 

A range of barriers in current immigration law limits access to asylum or other protection for 

many refugees and other vulnerable persons. Immigration reform initiatives should honor our 

history as a nation of immigrants and a global leader in the protection of refugees. We welcome 

the call by leaders on both sides of the aisle to prioritize immigration reform, fix existing visa 

programs, and provide a pathway to citizenship. As these proposals take shape over the coming 

months, Congress and the president should commit to measures that will strengthen basic due 

process, fix the nation's flawed approach to immigration detention, and eliminate barriers to 

asylum that are inconsistent with America's commitment to protecting refugees. In letters sent to 

the Administration and Congress on February 8, 2013,162 national refugee protection 

organizations, faith based groups, state and local organizations, and legal experts on the U.S. 

asylum system supported these principles. 3 

1. Eliminate the unfair and wasteful asylum filing deadline from immigration law 

Through pro bono legal representation and research, Human Rights First has documented that 

many bona fide refugees are unable to file for asylum within one year of arrival, due to 

challenges such as trauma, inability to speak English, and lack of knowledge about the U.S. 

asylum system. Many refugees have been barred from asylum in this country due to the filing 

deadline. This technicality diverts limited governmental resources that could be more efficiently 

spent addressing the merits of cases. 

Specifically, Human Rights First's 2010 report, The Asylum Filing Deadline: Denying 

Protection to the Persecuted and Undermining Governmental Efficiency, found that the filing 

deadline has not only barred refugees who face religious, political, and other forms of 

persecution from receiving asylum in the United States, but has also delayed the resolution of 

asylum cases and led thousands of cases that could have been resolved at the asylum office level 

J Council on Foreign Relations, Independent Task Force Report No. 63, U.S. Immigration Policy, p. 31 available at 

http://www.cfr.org/immigration/usimmigration-policy!p2003O. 

2 For a full set of recommendations. see Human Rights First's 2012 Blueprints. How to Repair the US. Asylum and 

Resettlement Systems, at bttp:ll\vww.humanrightsfirst.org!wpconten~'uploads!pd£lbluepril11s20 12mRF Asylum blueprint.pdf, and How to Repair the us. Immigration Detention 

System, at 

http://www .humanri ghtsfirst.orglwpcontent/uploads/pdflblueprints20 12mRF Immi gratioll Detention blueprint.pdf 

3 Human Rights First, 162 Sign Immigration Reform Letter Urging Congress, Administration to Protect Those 

Fleeing Persecution, at http://,,,,,w.humanrightsfirst.orgI20 13102!081162-si gn-i mmi gration-reform-Ietter-urgingadministration~congress-to-protect-those-tleeing-persecution. (Letters with signatories at 

http://www.humanri ghtsfirst.orglwp-contentluploads! A W G CIRSi gnOnLetter-Administration .pdf and 

http://www.humanrightsfirst.orglwp-contentJuploadsIAWGCIRSionOnLetter-Congress.pdD. 
340 

to be shifted to the increasingly backlogged and delayed immigration court system. An 

independent academic analysis ofDHS data concluded that, between 1998 and 2009, if not for 

the filing deadline, more than 15,000 asylum applications-representing more than 21,000 

refugees-would have been granted asylum by DHS without the need for further litigation in the 

immigration courts. 4 

For example, as detailed in Human Rights First's report:5 

An Eritrean woman, who was tortured and sexually assaulted due to her Christian 

religion, was denied asylum in the United States based on the filing deadline even though an 

immigration judge found her testimony credible and compelling. 

A student who was jailed by the Burmese military regime for his pro-democracy 

activities was denied asylum by the United States based on the filing deadline despite his 

isolation in the U.S. and lack of English. 

A Chinese woman who feared persecution and torture in China for her assistance to 

North Korean refugees was determined by the immigration judge to face a clear probability of 

torture but was denied asylum based on the filing deadline and ordered removed by the U.S. 

Board ofImmigration Appeals. 

A man from Togo who was tortured because of his pro-democracy activities had his 

asylum request rejected based on the filing deadline, and the request was only granted - three 

years after his initial filing - after subsequent immigration court litigation. 

A Congolese nurse who was persecuted and tortured due to her human rights advocacy 

and her Catholic faith was denied asylum based on the filing deadline even though the 

immigration court found her to be a credible refugee who faced a clear probability of 

persecution. 

A teenager who was battered, kidnapped, and raped in Albania while plans were made to 

traffic her into prostitution was denied asylum after her application was ruled untimely. 

The exceptions to the filing deadline for changed or extraordinary circumstances - have not 

prevented genuine refugees from being denied asylum in the United States. Indeed, as detailed 

in Human Rights First's report on the filing deadline, many refugees with well-founded fears of 

persecution have been denied asylum by U.S. adjudicators despite the fact that there are 

exceptions to the filing deadline. The lack of federal court review on the issue in most circuits 

also means that refugees in many parts ofthe country cannot get mistaken filing deadline denials 

corrected by the federal courts. 

, See Human Rights First, The Asylum Filing Deadline: Denying Protection to the Persecuted and Undermining 

Governmental Efficiency (New York: 20 I 0), at http://www.humanrightsfirst.orgJwp-contentJuploadsipdf/afd.pdf, P. 

Schrag, A. Schoenhoitz, J. Ramji-Nogales, and J.P. Dombach, "Rejecting Refugees: Homeland Security's 

Administration of the One-Year Bar to Asylum," William and Mary Law Review, (2010), at 

http://wmlawreview.orgifiles/Schrag.pdf. 

, Ibid. 
341 

While proponents of the filing deadline were, at the time it was created, concerned about the 

abuse of the asylum system by individuals filing fraudulent claims, this procedural impediment 

has actually prevented refugees with credible non-fraudulent asylum cases from receiving 

asylum in the United States. Moreover, as detailed in the report, U.S. immigration authorities 

implemented a series of major reforms to the asylum system beginning in 1995. These reforms 

targeted incentives for filing fraudulent applications, increased staffing at the asylum office, and 

improved the pace of adjudications so that individuals who did not have credible cases were put 

into the deportation process much more quickly. In the intervening years, additional controls to 

counter abuse have also been added to the system. As detailed in the Human Rights First report, 

there are numerous mechanisms in place that are actually designed to combat abuse and fraud. 6 

In addition, the filing deadline wastes government resources in the immigration courts and at the 

Board of Immigration Appeals. When a case is rejected by the asylum office based on the filing 

deadline, it is referred into the removal process and placed into immigration court removal 

proceedings. The court process - which is an adversarial process - involves a significantly 

greater use of government resources. Since the filing deadline went into effect, over 53,400 

asylum seekers have had their requests for aylum rejected by the asylum office based on the 

deadline and not on the merits of their cases. As a result, thousands of asylum cases have been 

put into the overloaded immigration court system. Some (though not all) of those cases could 

have been - and would have been - resolved at the asylum office level through a grant of asylum 

if the filing deadline did not exist, thus saving a tremendous amount of government resources. 

In 2011, DHS confirmed that it concluded that the one-year asylum filing deadline should be 

eliminated, confirming that it expends resources without helping uncover or deter fraud. 8 In 

connection with the 60th anniversary of 195 I Refugee Convention, the Administration pledged 

to work with Congress to eliminate the deadline.9 

Recommendations 

• Eliminate the asylum filing deadline contained in INA §208(a)(2)(B); and 

• Address the plight of refugees who have been denied asylum due to the deadline by 

adding a provision in the INA to permit refugees who were granted withholding of 

removal, but not asylum, due to the filing deadline to adjust their status to lawful 

permanent resident and petition to bring their spouses and children to safety. 

6 Ibid., pp. 26 - 27. 

7 Filing deadline data provided to NGOs, including Human Rights First, by the USCIS Asylum Division on Dec. 16, 

2009. 

8 UNHCR Washington Office, Reaffirming Protection, October 2011, Summary Report, p. IS, at 

http://www,unhcrwashington.org/atf/cf/% 7BC07EDA5EAC71 ,4340,8570, 194D98BDC 139% 7D/georgetown,pdf 

9 U.S, Department of State, PRM, Fact Sheet: u.s. Commemorations Pledges, 7 December 20 II, available at 

http://www,stale,gov/jlprm/rcleases/factsheels/20 II/lSJ 020,hlm. 
342 

2. Reduce unnecessary immigration detention costs and implement lasting reforms 

DHS and ICE detain up to 33,400 immigrants and asylum seekers each day-an all-time high of 

over 429,247 in fiscal year 2012 alone. At an average price of $164 per person, per day, the U.S. 

immigration detention system costs taxpayers $2 billion annually, despite the availability of less 

costly, less restrictive, and highly successful alternative to detention programs. 1O Alternatives to 

detention-which can include a range of monitoring mechanisms, case-management, and in 

some cases electronic monitoring--can save more than $150 per day per immigration detainee--

millions annually." As the Council on Foreign Relation's Independent Task Force on U.S. 

Immigration Policy noted, alternatives to detention can "ensure that the vast majority ofthose 

facing deportation comply with the law, and at much lower costs."" A January 2012 Heritage 

Foundation report also recognized the cost-effectiveness of alternatives to detention. 13 

While ICE has expanded alternatives to detention, it has not used these cost-effective alternatives 

to reduce unnecessary detention and detention costs--citing to language in DHS appropriations 

legislation that ICE has viewed as mandating that it maintain and fill a specific number of 

detention beds (33,400 for fiscal year 2012). This type of "mandate" does not exist in other law 

enforcement contexts and prevents the agency from saving taxpayer dollars by using more 

appropriate alternatives when detention is not necessary. 

Under current U.S. policies, many asylum seekers and immigrants do not have access to prompt 

court review of their immigration detention, contrary to U.S. commitments to human rights, 

refugee protection, and basic fairness. For example, the initial decision to detain an asylum 

seeker or other "arriving alien" at a U.S. airport or border is "mandatory" under the expedited 

removal provisions ofthe 1996 immigration law. The decision to release an asylum seeker on 

parole--or to continue his or her detention for longer-is entrusted to local officials with ICE, 

which is the detaining authority, rather than to an independent authority or at least an 

immigration court. Several other categories of immigrants-including lawful permanent 

residents convicted of a broad range of crimes, including simple drug possession and certain 

misdemeanors, as well as more serious crimes, and who have already completed their 

sentences-are also subjected to "mandatory" detention, and deprived of access to immigration 

court custody hearings. 14 

ICE detains immigrants in approximately 250 jails and jail-like facilities nationwide. In these 

facilities, they wear prison uniforms and are typically locked in one large room for up to 23 

hours a day, they have limited or essentially no outdoor access, and they visit with family 

through a Plexiglas barrier. USCIRF concluded that these kinds offacilities "are structured and 

operated much like standardized correctional facilities" and are inappropriate for asylum 

10 National Immigration Forum, "Math ofimmigration Detention" (August 2012) available at 

http://www.immigrationforum.orgiimages/uploads/MathoflmmigrationDetention.pdf. 

lJ Ibid. 

12 Council on Foreign Relations, supra note I, p. 29. 

13 Heritage Web Memo 3455, Administrative Reforms Insufficient to Address Flawed White House Immigration 

and Border Security Policies, by Matt A. Mayer, Jan. 10,2012, at 

http://www .heritage.org/research/reportsi20 12/0 11 administrati ve-reforms-in-imm igration-and-border-securitypolicies. 

14 See INA § 236(c); 8 CFR § 208.30, 212.5, 235.3, and 1003.19. 
343 

seekers.15 A 2009 DHS-ICE report confiI1lled that "all but a few ofthe facilities that ICE uses to 

detain aliens were built as jails and prisons."'· 

In 2009, DHS and ICE committed to shift the immigration detention system away from its 

longtime reliance on jails and jail-like facilities to facilities with conditions more appropriate for 

civil immigration law detainees.17 Since then, ICE has opened two facilities with less-penal 

conditions and made progress on some other aspects of detention refoI1ll. ICE continues, 

however, to hold the overwhelming majority of its daily detention population in jails and jail-like 

facilities, with a full 50 percent held in actual jails. 

The UNHCR, in its 2012 guidelines on detention, as well as other international human rights 

authorities, have confiI1lled that asylum seekers and other immigration detainees should not be 

detained in facilities that are essentially penal facilities, nor should they be made to wear prison 

unifoI1lls but should instead be peI1llitted to wear their own civilian clothing." As documented in 

Human Rights First's 2011 report Jails and Jumpsuits: Transforming the u.s. Detention System-

-A Two-Year Review, and discussed during Human Rights First's 2012 Detention Dialogues, 

many criminal correctional facilities actually offer less restrictive conditions than those typically 

found in immigration detention facilities, and corrections experts have confiI1lled that a 

nOI1llalized environment helps to ensure the safety and security of any detention facility. The 

American Bar Association, at its annual meeting in August 2012, adopted civil immigration 

detention standards that outline the conditions that should be required in connection with 

detention of civil immigration detainees. J9 

Recommendations 

• Direct DHS to use alternatives in place of more costly detention when it is not necessary, 

resorting to detention only when threat to public safety or risk of flight cannot be 

addressed through less restrictive measures; 

• Direct DOJ and DHS to revise regulatory language to provide immigration court custody 

hearings for "arriving aliens," and amend INA §235 and §236 to provide that all 

15 USCIRF, Asylum Seekers in Expedited Removal Volume II, p. 189, at 

http://www.uscirf.goviimages/stories/pdf/asvlum seekers/ERS RptVolfI,pdf; USCIRF, Expedited Removal Study 

Report Card (2007), p. 5. 

" Dr. Dora Schriro, Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations (Washington, DC: Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement, 2009), p. 21, available at http://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/odpp/pdf/ice-detention-

!l2!&l!f. 

11 Human Rights First, Jails and Jumpsuits: Transforming the u.s. Immigration Detention System - A Two- Year 

Review (New York: Human Rights First, 2011), pp. 4-6, at http://www.humanri~htsfirst.om/wpcontentiuploads/pdf/HRF-laiis-and-lumpsuits-report.pdf, citing ICE, "Fact Sheet: 2009 Immigration Detention 

Reforms," at http://www.ice.gov!newsilibrary/factsheets/refonn2009reform.htm; ICE Strategic Plan FY 2010-2014 (Washington, DC: ICE, 2010), p. 6; 

ICE, "Fact Sheet: ICE Detention Reform Principles and Next Steps," news release, October 6,2009, at 

hltp:llwww.dhs.gov!xlibrary/assetsipress ice detention reform fact sheet.pdf; DHS press conference, October 6, 

2009, video recording, hltp:iiwww.c-spanvideo.orgiprogram/2893 13-1; and 2009 DHS/ICE Report, pp. 2-3. 

l& UNHCR, Detention Guidelines: guidelines on the applicable criteria and standards relating to the detention of 

asylum-seekers and alternatives to detention (2012) at http://www.unhcr.orW505bIOee9.htm!. 

'9 See ABA Civil Immigration Detention Standards at 

http://www.americanbar.orgicontent/dam!abaladministrative/immigrationlabaimmdetstds.authcheckdam.pdf. 
344 

detention decisions be made on an individual basis, reviewable by an immigration court; 

and 

• Require DHS to implement standards and conditions in line with the American Bar 

Association's proposed civil immigration detention standards. 

3. Require and support a fair and efficient adjudication process 

U.S. immigration courts are over-stretched and underfunded, leading many cases to be delayed 

for two years or more and prolonging the separation of many refugee families. 84 percent of 

detained immigrants including many asylum seekers - have no legal counsel, left to navigate 

complex removal proceedings unrepresented. The DOl Executive Office for Immigration 

Review (EOIR) has explained that "[n]on-represented cases are more difficult to conduct. They 

require far more effort on the part of the judge." Another obstacle that exacerbates the difficulty 

of securing legal representation for immigration detainees is the remote location of many 

detention facilities. USCIRF has found that many ofthe facilities used to detain asylum seekers 

are "located in rural parts of the United States, where few lawyers visit and even fewer maintain 

a practice." The Commission concluded that "[t]he practical effect of detention in remote 

locations .. .is to restrict asylum seekers' legally authorized right to counsel.,,20 

The immigration court system within EOIR is in a state of crisis and is not adequately serving 

the interests of the U.S. government or the applicants appearing before it. While resources for 

immigration enforcement have increased steeply or remained high in recent years, the resources 

for the immigration court system have lagged far behind. The immigration court backlog, as of 

December 2012, was at 322,818 cases, with pending cases already waiting an average of nearly a 

year and a half (545 days).21 As the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) 

confirmed in lune 2012, the immigration court backlog and "the limited resources to deal with 

the caseload" present significant challenges. 22 The American Bar Association's Commission on 

Immigration, in its comprehensive report on the immigration courts, concluded that "the EOIR is 

underfunded and this resource deficiency has resulted in too few judges and insufficient support 

staff to competently handle the case load ofthe immigration courts.'.23 

Through our partnership with law firms representing asylum seekers through our pro bono 

program, Human Rights First sees firsthand the hardship that court backlogs and extended 

processing times create for our refugee clients-many of whom are currently being given court 

dates two years away. While they wait for their claims to be heard, many remain separated from 

spouses and children who may be in grave danger in their home countries. Lengthy court delays 

also increase the difficulty of recruiting pro bono counsel. 

20 USCIRF, Asylum Seek£rs in Expedited Removal, p. 240. 

" TRAC, Latest Immigration Court Numbers, as of December 2012 at 

http://trac.syr.edulimmigration!reports/latest imm~ourt!#backlog 

22 Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), "Immigration Removal Adjudication, Committee on 

Adjudication, Proposed Recommendation, June 14-15,2012," p. I, available at http://www.acus.gov/wpcontentluploads/downloads!201 2!05!Proposed-lmmigration-Rem.-Adj.-Recommendation-for-Plenary-5-22-12.pdf. 

23 American Bar Association, Reforming the Immigration Delention System (20 I 0), pp. 2-16 at 

http://www.americanbar.ondcontentldam/abafmi,,ratedlImmigratioll/PublicDocuments!aba complete full report. aut 

hcheckdam.pdf 
345 

Recommendations 

• Provide DOJIEOIR with adequate resources to conduct timely and fair proceedings, 

including to increase staffing at the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration 

Appeals and to provide mandatory initial training and ongoing professional development 

for all BIA members, immigration judges, and legal support staff; 

Mandate that EOIR's Legal Orientation Program, lauded for promoting efficiency and 

effectiveness, is provided in all facilities that detain immigrants for ICE; 

• Support legal representation in cases where justice requires, including for children, 

persons with mental disabilities, and other vulnerable immigrants; and 

Support elimination of asylum filing deadline, which, as detailed above, would reduce the 

number of asylum cases referred to the immigration courts. 

4. Protect refugees from inappropriate exclusion and free up administrative resources 

U.S. immigration laws have for many years barred from the United States people who pose a 

danger to our communities or threaten our national security, even if they would otherwise qualify 

for refugee protection. Bars to refugee protection also exclude people who have engaged in or 

supported acts of violence that are inherently wrongful and condemned under U.S. and 

intemationallaw. These important and legitimate goals are consistent with the U.S. commitment 

under the Refugee Convention and its Protocol, which exclude from refugee protection 

perpetrators of heinous acts and serious crimes, and provide that refugees who threaten the safety 

of the community in their host countries can be removed. However, as detailed in two reports 

issued by Human Rights First, for a number of years now, overbroad definitions and 

interpretations of the terms "terrorist organization" and "terrorist activity" in U.S. immigration 

law have ensnared people with no real connection to terrorism. Consequently, thousands of 

refugees seeking safety-including those with family already in the United States-have been 

barred from entering or receiving protection in the United States, and many refugees and asylees 

already granted protection and livin¥ in this country have been barred from obtaining green cards 

and reuniting with family members. 4 

Recommendation 

Amend the definitions of "terrorist activity" and "terrorist organization" in INA 

§212(a)(3)(B) so that they target actual terrorism. Currently, these definitions are being 

applied to anyone who at any time used armed force as a non-state actor or gave support 

to those who did. These have included Iraqis who supported the overthrow of Saddam 

Hussein, Sudanese who fought against the armed forces of President Omar Al-Bashir, 

and Eritreans who fought for independence from Ethiopia. These definitions are also 

being applied to persons whose supported armed groups under duress, and to individuals 

who were kidnapped or conscripted as child soldiers. Specifically, the very expansive 

sub-section ofthe "terrorist activity" definition at INA § 212(a)(3)(B)(V)(b) should be 

" See Human Rights First, Is This America? The Denial of Due Process to Asylum Seekers in the United States 

(New York: Human Rights First, 2000), at http://www.humanrightsfirst.orgfour-worklrefugee-protectionldueprocess~js-this-americal. 
346 

limited to the use of armed force against civilians and non-combatants, and the definition 

ofa "Tier III" organization at INA § 2l2(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) should be eliminated. 

Thank you again for your consideration of Human Rights First's views. 

Attachments: 

Sign-on Letter to Congress, Re: Recommendations on the U.S. Asylum System for Immigration 

Reform Legislation, also at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wpcontent/uploads/A WGCIRSignOnLetter-Congress.pdf. 

Human Rights First, Blueprint for the Next Administration, December 2012, How to Repair the 

US. Asylum and Resettlement Systems, also at http://wVvw.humanrightsfirst.org/wpcontent! up I oads/pdtlbilleprints20 12/HRF Asy I urn b Illeprint. pd f 

Human Rights First, Blueprint for the Next Administration, December 2012, How to Repair the 

Us. Immigration Detention System, also at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wpcontent/lipioads/pdllbilleprints2012/HRF Immigration Detention billeprinl.pd[ 
347 

human rights first 

American ideals. Universal values. 

How to Repair the 

U.S. Asylum and 

Refugee Resettlement 

Systems 

BLUEPRINT FOR THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION 

December 2012 
348 

ABOUT US 

On human rights, the United States must be a beacon. 

Activists fighting for freedom around the globe continue to look 

to us for inspiration and count on us for support. Upholding 

human rights is not only a moral obligation; it's a vital national 

interest. America is strongest when our policies and actions 

match our values. 

Human Rights First is an independent advocacy and action 

organization that challenges America to live up to its ideals. We 

believe American leadership is essential in the struggle for 

human rights so we press the U.S. government and private 

companies to respect human rights and the rule of law. When 

they don't, we step in to demand reform, accountability and 

justice. Around the world, we work where we can best harness 

American influence to secure core freedoms. 

We know that it is not enough to expose and protest injustice, 

so we create the political environment and policy solutions 

necessary to ensure consistent respect for human rights. 

Whether we are protecting refugees, combating torture, or 

defending persecuted minorities, we focus not on making a 

point, but on making a difference. For over 30 years, we've 

built bipartisan coalitions and teamed up with frontline activists 

and lawyers to tackle issues that demand American leadership. 

Human Rights First is a non-profit, nonpartisan international 

human rights organization based in New York and Washington 

D.C. To maintain our independence, we accept no government 

funding. 

This report is available for free online at 

www.humanrightsfirst.org 

© 2012 Human Rights First. All Rights Reserved. 

Human Rights First 

New York Office 

333 Seventh Avenue 

13th Floor 

New York, NY 10001-5108 

Tel.: 212.845.5200 

Fax: 212.845.5299 

humanrightsfirst.org 

Washington D.C. Office 

100 Maryland Avenue, NE 

Suite 500 

Washington, DC 20002-5625 

Tel: 202.547.5692 

Fax: 202.543.5999 
349 

How to Repair the 

U.S. Asylum and 

Refugee Resettlement 

Systems 

BLUEPRINT FOR THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION 

"Our values and our interests dictate that the 

protection of tile most vulnerable is a critical 

component of our foreign policy. We have a 

moral imperative to save lives, We also hava 

interest in sus/aining US, leadership, which 

enables us to drive the development of 

international humanitarian principles, 

programs, and policies like no other 

government in the world, Such efforts promote 

reconciliation, security, and well,being in 

circumstances where despair and misery 

threaten stability and critical US national 

security interests, , 

President Obama on World Refugee Day 

June 20, 2011 

Introduction 

The Obama Administration, as it embarks on its second 

term, should reaffirm U,S, leadership on the protection of 

refugees by repairing flaws in the U,S, asylum and 

resettlement systems, Many of these flaws have 

persisted for years, undermining U,S, leadership and 

leaving refugees in difficult and vulnerable situations, 

The White House should lead this effort and launch 

stronger mechanisms to safeguard protection throughout 

U's, agencies, The administration should also look for 

opportunities to move some of these repairs forward in 

concert with broader immigration reform initiatives. 

The United States has a long history of providing refuge 

to victims of religious, political, ethnic and other forms of 

persecution. This tradition reflects a core component of 

this country's identity as a nation committed to freedom 

and respect for human dignity. Over thirty years ago, 

when Congress-with strong bipartisan supportpassed the Refugee Act of 1980, the United States 

enshrined into domestic law its commitment to protect 

the persecuted, creating the legal status of asylum and a 

formal framework for resettling refugees from around the 

world, The United States is the world leader in resettling 

refugees, working in partnership with faith groups, civil 

society, and communities across the country, The U,S, 

resettlement program is in many ways a success, but it 

also needs improvements in order to protect some ofthe 

most vulnerable refugees and to ensure that refugees 

can successfully rebuild their lives after arriving in the 

United States, 

U,S, leadership in the protection of refugees is also 

about how this country treats refugees who seek asylum 

here in the United States-and whether this country's 

policies and programs live up to the same standards we 

call on the rest of the world to respect In the wake of 

World War II, the United States played a leading role in 

drafting the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of 

Refugees and committed to comply with its core 

provisions by signing on to the Convention's Protocol. 

Yet, the United States has faltered on its commitment to 

those who seek protection-imposing a flawed one~year 

filing deadline and other barriers that prevent refugees 

from receiving asylum; interdicting asylum seekers and 

migrants at sea without adequate protection safeguards; 

detaining asylum seekers in jails and jail-like facil~ies 

without prompt court review of detention; mislabeling 

victims of armed groups as supporters of "terrorism;" 

and leaving many refugees separated from their families 

for years and struggling to feed, house, and support 

themselves due to extensive delays in the underfunded 

and overstretched immigration court system. 

The challenges facing both the asylum and resettlement 

systems have only been compounded by the failure to 

promptly resolve the steady stream of interagency 

asylum and refugees issues-now involving over seven 

HOW TO REPAIR THE u.s. ASYLUM AND REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT SYSTEMS-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 1 
350 

U.S. govemment agencies-and the lack of senior 

leadership focused on protection. 

Over the last four years, the Obama Administration has 

taken some important steps towards addressing some of 

the significant challenges that are undermining the U.S. 

asylum and resettlement systems. But, as it embarks on 

its second term, these efforts should be accelerated 

because far too often the United States is-stilfdepriving refugees of access to its asylum system, 

detaining them in a costly system that relies on jails and 

jail-like facilities, leaving some of the most vulnerable 

refugees stranded even though they face imminent risks 

of harm and prolonging the separation of refugee 

families for years due to delays in the under-resourced 

immigration court system and the unworkable system for 

issuing °exemptions~ from bars under the immigration 

law. 

These deficiencies not only have domestic 

consequences, but they also lower the global standard. 

As the Council of Foreign Relations' Independent Task 

Force on U.S, Immigration Policy~o-chaired by former 

White House chief of staff Thomas "Mack" McLarty and 

former Florida governor Jeb Bush--pointed out, the U.S, 

commitment to protect refugees from persecution qis 

enshrined in international treaties and domestic U,S. 

laws that set the standard for the rest of the world; when 

American standards erode, refugees face greater risks 

everywhere. "1 

Building on the long history of bipartisan support for U.S. 

leadership in protecting refugees, the Obama 

Administration-with leadership and engagement from 

the White House-should in its second term reevaluate 

and reform provisions of law, poliCies, and practices that 

are inconsistent with U.S. human rights commitments 

and values. Many of these policies and practices can be 

changed administratively, Some of these reforms-like 

the elimination of the one-year asylum filing deadlinecan and should be included as components of 

comprehensive immigration reform initiatives. 

HOW TO REPAIR THE U,S. ASYLUM AND REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT SYSTEM5-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 2 
351 

How to Repair the 

U.S. Asylum and 

Refugee Resettlement 

Systems 

SUMMARY 

During his second term, President Obama should renew 

and restore U.S. leadership in protecting refugees, both 

at home and abroad. This blueprint provides a detailed 

roadmap of recommendations and summarizes these 

recommendations immediately below: 

RESTORE ACCESS TO ASYLUM AND 

OTHER PROTECTION 

iii Prioritize work with Congress to eliminate the 

counterproductive asylum filing deadline. 

II Safeguard refugees from expedited removal and 

effectively implement protection measures. 

II! Revise the U.S. approach to maritime interdiction 

and require interviews, interpreters, and other 

safeguards. 

iii Promulgate regulations clarifying "particular social 

group,~ ~nexus,~ and lack of state action. 

PROMOTE FAIR, TIMELY, AND EFFECTIVE 

ADJUDiCATION FOR ASYLUM CASES 

III Increase immigration judges, support staff and 

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) staffing. 

III Support elimination of asylum filing deadline. 

Im1 Improve access to legal counsel and lega! 

orientation presentations: 

.. Expand Legal Orientation Programs (LOP). 

.. Promote efficiency and justice through support 

of legal representation funding. 

• Facilitate recruitment of pro bono counsel. 

lit Give U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS) Asylum Office initial jurisdiction over all 

asylum and withholding claims. 

Ii Revise asylum uclock" regulation so asylum seekers 

are not deprived of opportunity to support 

themselves for years. 

.. Limit use of video conferencing for hearings. 

EliMiNATE UNNECESSARY AND 

INAPPROPRIATE IMMIGRATION 

DETENTION 

m Implement cost-effective alternatives to detention, in 

place of unnecessary detention. 

liB Revise regulations, and support legal positions and 

legislation, to provide access to Immigration Court 

custody hearings. 

III Stop using prisons, jails, and jail-like facilities. 

III Adopt and implement standards appropriate to civil 

immigration detention. 

1'1 Increase access to legal representation, legal 

information, and fair procedures. 

PROTECT REFUGEES FROM 

INAPPROPRIATE EXCLUSION 

II Support legislative adjustments to immigration law 

definitions to actually target terrorism. 

IIIilI Implement August 2012 exemption swiftly and 

ensure additional exemptions are signed soon. 

iii Adopt sensible legal interpretations. 

II Issue regulations to prevent unjust exclusion under 

"persecutor" bar. 

HOW TO REPA!R THE u.S. ASYLUM AND REFUGEE RESeTILEMENT SYSTEMS-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLuePRINT 3 
352 

IMPROVE U.S. REFUGEE ADMISSIONS 

PROGRAM TO STRENGTHEN PROTECTION 

FOR VULNERABLE REFUGEES 

III Meet U.S. resettlement goals and facilitate access 

for particularly vulnerable. 

III Continue to improve security checks and reduce 

delays in U.S. resettlement processing. 

III Provide appropriate suppcrt for refugee integration. 

STRENGTHEN EXPEDITED 

RESETTLEMENT AND EXPEDITED 

PROTECTION 

III Strengthen coordination of the multiple steps in the 

U.S. resettlement process, including: 

• Develop regional guidelines with target time 

frames. 

III Appoint expedite specialists at U.S. 

Resettlement Support Centers (RSCs). 

II Increase capacity to expedite security checks. 

• Designate RSC staff to conduct prescreening. 

• Provide prompt USCIS interviews. 

II Report on number and timing of expedited cases. 

III Address delays due to high rates of positive TB tests 

later shown to be TB·free upon further testing. 

11\ Improve emergency protection through Emergency 

Transit Facilities and safe shelter. 

STRENGTHEN PROTECTION AND 

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION 

III Improve White House and interagency coordination: 

II Institute annual interagency protection meeting. 

III Prioritize and Increase staff to facilitate 

coordination on protection. 

III Create senior director for protection at the 

National Security Council (NSC). 

III Institutionalize protection within the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS): 

• Create undersecretary for immigration and 

protection. 

iii Create and staff senior protection office. 

• Allocate more staff to DHS policy office. 

.. Direct DHS general counsel to ensure protection 

compliance. 

HOW TO REPAIR THE U.S. ASYLUM AND REFUGEE RESETIlEMENT SYSTEMS-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 4 
353 

How to Repair the 

U.S. Asylum and 

Refugee Resettlement 

Systems 

RESTORE ACCESS TO ASYLUM AND 

OTHER PROTECTION 

BACKGROUND 

A range of barriers limit access to asylum or other 

protection for many refugees and other vulnerable 

persons. These barriers include: the one-year tiling 

deadline on U.S. asylum applications, the expedited 

removal system, U.S. maritime interdiction policies that 

lack adequate protection safeguards, and the twelveyear delay in issuing regulations on the "particular social 

group" and "nexus" elements of the refugee definition. 

Asylum Filing Deadline: Human Rights First's 2010 

report, The Asylum Filing Deadline: Denying Protection 

to the Persecuted and Undennining Governmental 

Efficiency, found that the filing deadline has not only 

barred refugees who face religious, political, and other 

forms of persecution from receiving asylum in the United 

States, but has also delayed the resolution of asylum 

cases and led thousands of cases that could have been 

resolved at the asylum offioe level to be shifted in to the 

increasingly backlogged and delayed immigration court 

system. An independent academic analysis of DHS data 

concluded that, between 199B and 2009, if not for the 

filing deadline, more than 15,000 asylum applicationsrepresenting more than 21,000 refugees-would have 

been granted asylum by DHS without the need for 

further litigation in the immigration courts. 2 

Expedited Removal: Under § 235 of the INA, U.S. 

immigration officers halle the power to order the 

immediate, expedited deportation of people who arrive in 

the United States without proper travel documents. 

While measures were put in place to protect asylum 

seekers with "credible fears" of persecution from this 

summary deportation, a study by the bipartisan U.S. 

Commission on International Religious Freedom 

(USCIRF) found serious flaws in the implementation of 

these measures.' DHS has, however, expanded the use 

of this flawed process. In 2002, 34,624 individuals were 

deported through expedited removal, but this number 

more than tripled to 123,000 in fiscal year 2011. In 

recent months, Human Rights First has learned of a 

number of cases in which asylum seekers who evinced 

a fear of return were not referred for credible fear 

interviews. 

Maritime Interdiction: The United States has a long 

history of interdicting Cuban, Haitian, Chinese, and other 

asylum seekers and migrants at sea-a history that has 

triggered international criticism and set a poor model for 

other states around the world.' The United States 

moreover does not have effective, fair, transparent, and 

nondiscriminatory standards to govern its interdiction 

actions and ensure compliance with its commitments 

under the Refugee Protocol and other human rights 

conventions. The UNHCR Executive Committee (of 

which the United States is a member) has made clear 

that "interception measures should not result in asylum 

seekers and refugees being denied access to 

international protection, or result in those in need of 

international protection being returned, directly or 

indirectly, to the frontiers of territories where their life or 

freedom would be threatened on account of a 

Convention ground, or where the person has other 

grounds for protection based on internationallaw.~s U,S. 

interdiction policies are flawed for all who attempt to 

come by sea---but they are inconsistent and particularly 

flawed for Haitians. Haitians are not informed, either in 

wr~ing or verbally, that they can express any fear or 

concern about repatriation. By contrast, Cubans are at 

least told that they can raise any concems with a U.S. 

Officer, though some of the language read to Cubans 

encourages return to Cuba to seek U.S. protection. 

Sexual and Gender-based Persecution Claims: While 

the United States has played a leading role in advancing 

protection for victims of sexual and gender-based 

persecution, a number of significant gaps continue to 

undermine the ability of refugees who face these and 

other harms to acceSS and receive U.S. asylum or 

resettlement. Despite the pressing need for legal 

guidance on the particular social group and nexus 

elements, and a December 2009 announcement in the 

HOW TO REPAIR THE U,S, ASYLUM AND REFUGEE REsEnLEMENT SYSTEMS-A HUMAN R1GHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 5 
354 

Federal Register that the Departments of Homeland 

Security and Justice intended to relaunch the rulemaking 

process, the Obama Administration has not yet 

promulgated regulations, leading to inconsistent and 

arbitrary decision making at all levels of the immigration 

adjudication system!' As a result of the twelve-year 

delay in resolving these issues, asylum applicants have 

been denied protection and retumed to the hands of 

their persecutors, or have remained in lega! limbo, 

postponing their ability to reunite with their children and 

bring them out of harm's way. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

ill Prioritize work with Congress to eliminate the 

counterproductive asylum filing deadline. The 

administration should make it a top priority to work 

with Congress to eliminate the wasteful and 

counterproductive asylum filing deadline (contained 

in INA §208(a)). It should fulfill the December 2011 

pledge, made in connection with the 60th anniversary 

of 1951 Refugee Convention, to work with Congress 

to eliminate the deadline. This reform should be 

included in any legislative immigration reform 

initiatives. The legislation should also permit 

refugees who were granted withholding of removal, 

but not asylum, due to the filing deadline to adjust 

their status to laVYfu! permanent resident and to 

petition to bring their spouses and children to safety. 

The administration should work with Senator Orrin 

Hatch, one of the main proponents of the deadline, 

who promised "[I]f the time limit and tts exceptions 

do not provide adequate protections to those with 

legitimate claims of asylum, ! will remain committed 

to revisiting this issue in a later Congress."7 In 2011, 

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

confirmed that it had concluded that the filing 

deadline should be eliminated because it leads 

genuine refugees to be denied asylum, expends 

resources without helping uncover or deter fraud 

and only makes the process more difficult.s 

Ironically, while the deadline was initially proposed 

as a tool to prevent fraud, it actually leads the Unoed 

States to deny asylum to credible refugees while 

also delaying asylum adjudications and diverting 

governmental resources from adjudicating the actual 

merits of asylum requests. 

III Safeguard refugees from expedited removal and 

effectively implement protection measures. The 

administration should work with Congress to revise 

INA §235 to limit the use of expedited removal to 

migration emergencies as the process lacks 

sufficient safeguards to ensure asylum seekers are 

not mistakenly deported.9 In the meantime: 

• DHS and its component agencies U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

should ensure that procedures designed to 

protect asylum seekers from return to 

persecution are followed, publicly report on 

credible fear referral rates, and implement 

USCIRF recommendations on expedited 

removal. Hl 

• DHS and USC IS should conduct credible fear 

interviews within two weeks, request and 

allocate funding so interviews are conducted in 

person rather than by telephone or 

videoconferencing, and assess reasons for any 

declines in rates of referrals to credible fear 

interviews or grant rates. 

• Support, and ensure cooperation with, 

congressional authorization for USCIRF to 

conduct a review of the expanded 

implementation of expedited removal. 

iii Revise U.S. approach to maritime interdiction 

and require interviews, translators, and other 

safeguards. The White House should revise its 

approach to interdiction, and allow interdicted 

persons with fears or concems of return to seek 

asylum or other protection in the United States. 

While the practice of interdiction continues: 

HOW TO REPAIR THE U.S. ASYLUM AND REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT SYSTEMS-A HUMAN RiGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 6 
355 

• DHS should develop transparent, 

nondiscriminatory written standards 

governing interdiction and rescue 

operations. These standards should require 

interpreters, individual screening interviews, and 

effective safeguards so that those with 

protection concerns are referred for protection 

screening interviews. Not only would individual 

screening interviews help identify anyone who 

may require a full protection interview, but they 

are also essential to identify urgent medical 

concerns, victims of trafficking, and whether 

children are unaccompanied or at risk of harm, 

The set of very basic protection questions and 

language included on form 1-867A&B, for use by 

border officials in expedited removal, would 

provide a model for use during individual 

interdiction screening interviews and assist in 

identifying individuals who should be referred for 

protection screening interviews. 

• The U,S. Coast Guard should use 

interpreters in any interdiction operations. 

Interpreters are essential to ensure individuals 

can actually communicate any fear, concern, or 

need for a protection interview. Without 

interpreters, interdicted Haitians who do not 

speak English are somehow expected to 

indicate their fear of return by shouting (the 

much-criticized "shout test"). 

.. DHS, USCIS, the Bureau of Population, 

Refugees, and Migration (PRM), and other 

agencies should work together to promptly 

resettle those found to be refugees. in the 

United States or in places where they have 

family or other significant ties. They should not 

be held for extended periods at the U.S. base on 

Guantanamo Bay. 

• The Coast Guard and other U.S. 

representatives engaged in interdiction 

efforts should be trained on Implementation 

of U.S. protection commitments. The 

administration should direct the Coast Guard 

and other U.S. authorities engaged in 

interdiction operations to hold regular and 

repeated protection trainings, and should fulfill 

the pledge made, in connection wrth the 60~ 

Anniversary of the Refugee Convention, to 

conduct updated training to U.S. Coast Guard 

personnel to focus on identifying manifestations 

of fear by interdicted migrants. 

II Promulgate regulations clarifying interpretation 

of "particular social group/' "nexus" and lack of 

state protection. The White House should direct the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) and DHS to promulgate 

regulations providing that: 

III Either direct or circumstantial evidence is 

sufficient to fulfill the nexus requirement, 

including evidence that legal or social norms in 

the home country tolerate persecution of 

individuals like the applicant. This framework is 

consistent with the Supreme Court's nexus 

analysis in INS v. Elias-Zacarias. If direct or 

circumstantial evidence establishes that racereligion, nationality, membership in a particular 

socia! group, or political opinion is one central 

reason for persecution, nexus is established, 

regardless of whether the persecutor also has 

other motives. 

• The definition of "particular social group" should 

be guided by the "fundamental and immutable 

characteristics" standard, as articulated in the 

BIA's precedential decision Matlerof Acos/a, 11 

without additional requirements. This standard 

requires that members of a particular social 

group demonstrate that they share a common 

characteristic they either cannot change, or 

should not be required to change because the 

characteristic is fundamental to their identity or 

conscience. Reversion to the BIA's longestablished and well-regarded Acosta standard 

would eliminate the demand that a particular 

social group be "socially visible," a requirement 

that is posing severe obstacles to a broad range 

of meritorious asylum claims, including claims 

based on gender violence. 

• Where an asylum applicant fears persecution at 

the hands of nongovernmental actors, the 

applicant may qualify for protection by showing 

that the home state is unable or unwilling to 

HOW TO REPAIR THE U.S. ASYLUM AND REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT SYSTEMS-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 7 
356 

protect the applicant, and this requirement IS 

satisfied where the government fails to provide 

effective protection. 

PROMOTE FAIR, TIMELY, AND EFFECTIVE 

ADJUDICATION FOR ASYLUM CASES 

BACKGROUND 

The immigration court system within the Executive Office 

for Immigration Review (EOIR) is in a state of crisis and 

is not adequately serving the interests of the U.S. 

government or the applicants appearing before it. While 

resources for immigration enforcement have increased 

steeply or remained high in recent years, the resources 

for the immigration court system have lagged far behind 

leaving the immigration courts under-staffed and underresourced. The immigration court backlog, as of October 

2012, was at 321,044 cases, with pending cases already 

waiting an average of 532 days.lz As the Administrative 

Conference of the United States (ACUS) confirmed in 

June 2012, the immigration court backlog and "the 

limited resources to deal with the caseloadn present 

significant challenges. 13 The American Bar Association's 

Commission on Immigration, in its comprehensive report 

on the immigration courts, concluded that ~the EOIR is 

underfunded and this resource deficiency has resulted in 

too few judges and insufficient support staff to 

competently handle the caseload of the immigration 

courts."14 

Through our partnership with law firms representing 

asylum seekers through our pro bono program, Human 

Rights First sees firsthand the hardship that court 

backlogs and extended processing times create for our 

refugee clients-many of whom are currently being 

given court dates two years away. While they wait for 

their claims to be heard, many remain separated from 

spouses and children who may be in grave danger in 

their home countries. Without access to work 

authorization while awaiting their immigration court 

hearings, many asylum seekers are unable to support 

themselves and their families. Some become homeless 

or destitute. Lengthy court delays also increase the 

difficulty of recruiting pro bono counsel. 

The delays and burden on the immigration courts are 

compounded when cases that could or should be 

granted at the asylum office level are put into the 

immigration court system. As noted above, thousands of 

asylum cases have been placed into the immigration 

court system unnecessarily due to the inefficient asylum 

filing. Many other asylum cases could also be more 

efficiently resolved at the asylum office leVel. 

Immigration court resources are also diverted in other 

ways, including by the asylum "clock" which has been 

reported to take at least 20% of court administrators' 

time. 15 

The efficiency, effectiveness, and faimess of the 

immigration court system, as weI! as the administration 

of justice, are further undermined by the lack of legal 

counsel in asylum and immigration court proceedings. 

As the EOIR has explained: "Non-represented cases are 

more difficult to conduct. They require far more effort on 

the part of the judge<"" The ABA study found that fewer 

than half of immigrants in immigration court had the 

benefit of representation, and for those in detention, 

about 84 percent were unrepresentedY The academic 

statistical study Refugee Roulette found that 

represented asylum seekers win their cases at a rate 

that is about three times higher than the rate for the 

unrepresented. 16 The fairness of the immigration court 

system is also undermined by the increasing conduct of 

asylum hearings via video teleconferencing (VTC), 

particularly for asylum and other merits hearings where 

the stakes are extraordinarily high and the outcomes can 

hinge on the immigration judge's finding of credibility. 

RECOMMENDA nONS 

!'II Increase the number of immigration judges, 

support staff, and Board of Immigration Appeals 

personnel. The White House and the Department of 

Justice/Executive Office for Immigration Review 

should urge Congress to provide DOJIEOIR with 

adequate resources to conduct timely and fair 

proceedings and specifically to (1) increase staffing 

at the immigration courts and the Board of 

Immigration Appeals and (2) provide mandatory 

initial training and ongoing professional development 

for all BIA members, immigration judges, and legal 

support staff 

HOW TO REPAIR THE u.s. ASYLUM AND REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT SYSTEM$-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 8 
357 

III Support elimination of asylum filing deadline 

which, as detailed above, would reduce the number 

of asylum cases referred to the immigration courts. 

1m Improve access to legal counsel and legal 

orientation presentations: 

• Significantly expand the Legal Orientation 

Program (LOP) to improve immigration court 

efficiency and justice, as detailed below in the 

immigration detention section of this blueprint. 

• Promote efficiency and justice through 

support of legal representation funding. 

EOIR should, as ACUS recommended, make 

the case to Congress that funding legal 

representation for respondents in removal 

proceedings, including those in detention, as 

well as children and those with mental health 

issues, will promote justice and produce 

efficiencies and net cost savings. The Obama 

Administration should actively support these 

efforts, as well as the appointment of guardian 

ad litem for unaccompanied minors and 

individuals who lack competency. 

• Grant requests for earlier hearing dates. 

EOIR should welcome, and immigration judges 

should grant, requests to schedule immigration 

court hearing dates within severa! months, 

rather than in two years or longer. This would 

allow asylum seekers with family stranded at 

risk abroad, or with children on the verge of 

~aging Qut," to have their cases resolved sooner. 

A reliable system for requesting earlier hearing 

dates might also help individuals secure 

counsel, including pro bono counsel, who might 

be hesitant to commit to take on cases with 

hearings mo or three years away. 

" Give USCIS Asylum Office initial jurisdiction over 

all asylum and withholding claims. DHS and DOJ 

should adopt a single non-adversarial interview 

process before the USCIS Asylum Office for all 

asylum seekers, including ~arriving" asylum seekers 

and "defensive" asylum seekers. Key steps are 

detailed in the 2012 ACUS report." 

11 Revise asylum Ilclock" and work authorization 

regulations and procedures so asylum seekers 

are not deprived of opportunity to support 

themselves for years. DHS and DOJ should revise 

their regulations and procedures20 to allow asylum 

and withholding applicants to qualify for work 

authorization provided that at least 150 days have 

passed since the filing of an asylum application. This 

adjustment would address multiple problems relating 

to the work authorization "clock" and would enable 

many asylum seekers to avoid becoming destitute 

and homeless while waiting for their hearing dates. It 

would also improve immigration court efficiency. 

USCIS should also allow applicants to view their 

asylum clock information online, as recommended 

by the USCIS ombudsman." In January 2012, 

USC IS committed to explore the feasibility of making 

an applicant's asylum clock information available 

online in the Electronic Immigration System (EllS)." 

• Limit use of video conferencing for hearings. The 

Obama Administration should work with Congress to 

secure adequate funding for EOIR so that judges 

can conduct merits hearings in person rather than 

via video-conference (VTC). The administration 

should also facilitate coordination between ICE and 

EOIR so that ICE uses detention facilities close to 

immigration courts, and EOIR provides immigration 

judges to work at these facilities. The administration 

should limit VTC to some "master calendar" 

hearings, and bar the use of VTC in asylum and 

other merits hearings. EOIR should take steps to 

address problems with VTC including those 

identified in the 2012 ACUS report. EOIR should 

also encourage immigration judges to afford 

favorable consideration to requests that hearings be 

conducted in person and EOIR should require 

coding of asylum and other hearings conducted via 

video to allow for data collection and analYSis. EOIR 

and ICE should make VTC available to allow 

counsel to communicate with detainees. 

HOW TO REPAIR THE U.S. ASYLUM AND REFUGEE RESETILEMENT SYSTEMS-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 9 
358 

ELIMINATE UNECESSARY AND 

INAPPROPRIATE IMMIGRATION 

DETENTION 

BACKGROUND 

DHS and ICE detain up to 33,400 immigrants and 

asylum seekers each day-an all-time high of over 

429,247 in fiscal year 2012 alone. At an average cost 

$164 per person, per day, the U.S. immigration 

detention system costs taxpayers over $2 billion 

annually, despite the availability of less costly, less 

restrictive and highly successful alternative to detention 

programs.t3 Alternatives to detention-which can include 

a range of monitoring mechanisms, case-management, 

and in some cases electronic monitoring---can save 

more than $150 per day per immigration detaineemillions annually.24 As the Council on Foreign Relation's 

Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy 

noted, alternatives to detention can "ensure that the vast 

majority of those facing deportation comply with the law, 

and at much lower costs."" A January 2012 Heritage 

Foundation report also recognized the cost-effectiveness 

of alternatives to detention.26 

While ICE has expanded its use of alternatives to 

detention, it has not used these cost~effective 

alternatives to reduce unnecessary detention and 

detention costs--citing to language in DHS 

appropriations legislation that ICE has viewed as 

mandating that it maintain a specific number of detention 

beds (33,400 for fiscal year 2012). 

Immigration detainees are held in over 250 jails and jaillike facilities nationwide. In these facilities, they wear 

prison uniforms and are typically locked in one large 

room for up to 23 hours a day, they have limited or 

essentially no outdoor access, and visit with family 

through a Plexiglas barrier. The bipartisan U.S. 

Commission on International Religious Freedom 

concluded that these kinds of facilities "are structured 

and operated much like standardized correctional 

faci!ities~ and are inappropriate for asylum seekers. 27 A 

2009 DHS-ICE report confirmed that "all but a few of the 

facilities that ICE uses to detain aliens were bui~ as jails 

and prisons."2~ 

In 2009, DHS and ICE committed to shift the immigration 

detention system away from its longtime reliance on jails 

and jail-like fadlrties to facilities with conditions more 

appropriate for civil immigration law detainees.29 In a 

statement of objectives for new facilities, ICE described 

"less penal" conditions that would include increased 

outdoor access, contact visitation with families, and 

unon-institutional" clothing for some detainees. The 

UNHCR, in its 2012 guidelines on detention, as well as 

other international human rights authorities, have 

confirmed that asylum seekers and other immigration 

detainees should not be detained in facilities that are 

essentially penal facilities, nor should they be made to 

wear prison uniforms but should instead be permitted to 

wear their own civilian c!othing. 311 

As documented in Human Rights First's 2011 report 

Jails and Jumpsuits: Transforming the U.S. Detention 

System--A Two-Year Review, and discussed during 

Human Rights First's Detention Dialogue Symposia, 

many criminal correctional facilities actually offer less 

restrictive conditions than those typically found in 

immigration detention facilities, and corrections experts 

have confirmed that a normalized environment helps to 

ensure the safety and security of any detention facility." 

DHS and ICE have opened two facilities with less-penal 

conditions and made progress on some other aspects of 

detention reform. ICE continues however to hold the 

overwhelming majority of its daily detention population in 

jails and jail-like facilities, with a full 50% held in actual 

jails. These facilities are often in remote locations, far 

from already limited pro bono legal resources, the 

immigration courts, or U.S. asylum offices. At many of 

these remote facilities, immigration officials are alsoincreasingly-turning to the use of video-conferencing to 

conduct immigration court hearings and even credible 

fear screening interviews, compounding the challenges 

that detained asylum seekers face in accessing 

protection. 

HOW TO REPAIR THE U,S. ASYLUM AND REFUGEE RESeTILEMENT $YSTEMS-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 10 
359 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Obama Administration should prioritize immigration 

detention reform as detailed in Human Rights First's 

blueprint, How to Fix the Immigration Detention System. 

Some key steps include: 

S1I Prioritize immigration detention reform with 

slrong While House leadership, The Obama 

Administration should make transformation of U.S. 

immigration detention policies and practices a 

priority in its immigration reform agenda and should 

announCe a major initiative to advance immigration 

detention reforms, many of which can be 

implemented without congressional action. The 

administration also should designate immigration 

detention transformation as a top priority for DHS 

and ICE. 

II! Implement cosl ... ffeclive alternatives to 

detention, in place of unnecessary detention. 

ICE should implement an effective nationwide 

system of Alternatives to Detention (ATD) utilizing 

appropriate levels and types of supervision, 

community support, and individualized case 

management so that individuals who do not present 

risks can be effectively supervised without resort to 

much more costly detention.l2 Alternatives programs 

should be used in place of detention that is 

unnecessary rather than primarily as a supplement 

to existing levels of detention. The administration 

should reject the notion that it is mandated to detain 

daily the number of individuals corresponding to the 

number of beds Congress funds. The administration 

should also realize cost savings by urging Congress, 

in connection with DHS appropriations legislation, to 

(1) not include language referencing a specifiC 

number of detention beds, and (2) recognize ICE 

flexibility in its allocation of the enforcement and 

removal budget to shift funds from detention to more 

cost-effective alternatives to detention-flexibility 

that it inCluded in the 2013 budget request for DHS. 33 

/I: Revise regulations to provide access to 

immigration court custody (bond) hearings. The 

Departments of Justice and Homeland Security 

should revise regulatory language in provisions 

located mainly at B C.F.R. §1003.19(h)(2)(i) and 

§212.5, as well as §20B.30 and §235.3, to provide 

arriving asylum seekers and other immigration 

detainees with the chance to have their custody 

reviewed in a ubond~ hearing before an immigration 

court. The administration should also support 

inclusion of this reform in legislation to ensure lasting 

reform. The UNHCR's 2012 guidelines on detention, 

as well as recent reports of the U.N. special 

rapporteur on human rights of migrants and the 

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 

confirm the need for prompt court review of 

immigration detention. 

tI! Stop using prisons, jails, and jail-like facilities. 

ICE should phase out the use of prisons, jails, and 

jail-like facilities to hold asylum seekers and other 

immigration detainees. After an individualized 

assessment of the need to detain, ICE should only 

use facilities with conditions appropriate for civil 

immigration detention: detainees should be 

permitted to wear their own clothing, move freely in a 

"normalized environment" among various areas 

within a secure facility, access true outdoor 

recreation throughout the day, access programming 

and email, have some privacy in toilets and showers, 

and have contact visits with family and friends. There 

are a few existing ICE facilities that have conditions, 

which as detailed in Human Rights First's blueprint 

How to Fix the Immigration Detention System, could 

be replicated, with improvements in other facilities. 

III! Develop and implement standards appropriate to 

civil immigration delention. A 2009 report, 

prepared for DHS and ICE by the expert appointed 

by Secretary Napolitano to review the immigration 

detention system, concluded that the detention 

standards used by ICE-which are based on 

criminal incarceration standards "impose more 

restrictions and carry more costs than are necessary 

to effectively manage the majority of the detained 

population." DHS and ICE should develop and 

implement new standards-not modeled on 

corrections standards-to specify conditions 

appropriate for civil immigration detention. These 

new standards should be guided by the American 

Bar Association's Civil Detention Standards, adopted 

HOW TO REPAIR THE U,S. ASYLUM AND REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT SYSTEMS-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 11 
360 

by the ABA House of Delegates in August 2012, 

which confirm some key conditions that should be 

included in civil immigration detention standards 

including that immigration detainees be permitted 

contact visits, be allowed to wear their own clothing 

(rather than uniforms), and be provided with free 

access to outdoor recreation throughout the day. 

USCIRF also recommended that DHS establish 

more appropriate detention standards, 

II Increase access to legal representation, legal 

information, and fair procedures. 

II DOJ, DHS, ICE, and the White House-should 

work with Congress to ensure that Legal 

Orientation Programs (LOP) are funded and in 

place at all facilities detaining asylum seekers 

and other immigration detainees. LOP has 

received widespread praise for promoting the 

efficiency and effectiveness of the removal 

process from immigration judges, who have 

praised LOP for better preparing immigrants to 

identify forms of relief. During fiscal year 2012, 

LOP was operating in 25 detention facilities on a 

budget of $4.6 million, and it was expected to 

reach 65,000 of the more than 400,000 

individuals held in immigration detention. The 

president's fiscal year 2013 DOJ budget request 

included $6 million for adult LOP, a $2 million 

increase. 

II The administration should also support funding 

for !ega! counsel in immigration proceedings and 

in particular for vulnerable groups such as 

children, those with mental health issues and 

those held in immigration detention. ' 

II DHS should end the use of detention facilities in 

remote locations which limit access to legal 

representation, medical care, and family. The 

administration should work with Congress to 

ensure in-person immigration judges and 

asylum officers for hearings and interviews. 

PROTECT REFUGEES FROM 

iNAPPROPRIATE EXCLUSION 

BACKGROUND 

U.S. immigration laws have for many years barred from 

the United States people who pose a danger to our 

communities or threaten our national security, even if 

they would otherwise qualify for refugee protection. Bars 

to refugee protection also exclude people who have 

engaged in or supported acts of violence that are 

inherently wrongful and condemned under U.S. and 

international law. These important and legitimate goals 

are consistent with the U.S. commitment under the 

Refugee Convention and its Protocol, which exclude 

from refugee protection perpetrators of heinous acts and 

serious crimes, and provide that refugees who threaten 

the safety of the community in their host countries can 

be removed. However, as detailed in two reports issued 

by Human Rights First, for a number of years now, 

overbroad definitions and interpretations of the terms 

"terrorist organization" and "terrorist activity" in U.S. 

immigration law have ensnared people with no real 

connection to terrorism. Consequently, thousands of 

refugees seeking safety-including those with family 

already in the United States-have been barred from 

entering or receiving protection in the United States and 

many refugees and asylees already granted protection 

and living in this country have been barred from 

obtaining green cards and reuniting with family 

members. 

More than four years ago, Congress, in a bipartisan 

effort lead by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Jon 

Kyl (R-AZ), amended the law to authorize the 

administration to exempt persons with no actual 

connection to terrorism from the effects of these 

statutory definitions. However, to date, the relevant 

government agencies have failed to establish workable 

procedures to implement that authority effectively, and 

have continued the abuses that legislation was 

supposed to end. 

HOW TO REPAIR THE U.S. ASYLUM AND REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT SYSTEMS-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 12 
361 

In addition, for many years, DHS and its predecessor 

agency, the Immigration & Naturalization Service, as 

well as the BIA, had applied the immigration law's 

"persecutor bar" to applicants who had been forced 

under duress to assist in acts of persecution against 

other people. Victims of this interpretation have included 

former child soldiers and other refugees who were 

forced by their persecutors to take part in the 

persecution of others. Both agencies argued that their 

interpretation was required by a 1981 Supreme Court 

decision interpreting provisions of the Displaced Persons 

Act. In March 2009, the Supreme Court clarified in the 

case of Negusie v Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009) that its 

earlier precedent did not dictate the interpretation of the 

INA's persecutor bar, and remanded the issue to the BIA 

for reconsideration. More than three years later, DHS 

and DOJ have yet to issue regulations revising their 

interpretations of the persecutor bar. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The exclusive use of unreviewable discretionary waivers 

is not a manageable long-term solution to the underlying 

problem of the overly-broad statutory definitions of 

terrorism in U.S. immigration law. This problem requires 

a legislative solution. In the short term and in parallel to 

legislative reform, however, the Obama Administration 

can make meaningful progress toward resolving certain 

aspects of this problem by reviewing some of the 

extreme legal interpretations. Key steps forward include: 

ill Support legislative adjustments to immigration 

law definitions to target actual terrorism. The 

administration should support legislation to amend 

the definitions of "terrorist activity" and "terrorist 

organization" in INA §212(a)(3)(B) so that they target 

actual terrorism. Currently, these definitions are 

being applied to anyone who at any time used 

armed force as a non-state actor or gave support to 

those who did. These have included Iraqis who 

supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, 

Sudanese who fought against the armed forced of 

President Omar AI-Bashir, and Eritreans who fought 

for independence from Ethiopia. These definitions 

are also being applied to persons who supported 

armed groups under duress, and to individuals who 

were kidnapped or conscripted as child soldiers. 

Specifically, the very expansive subsection of the 

"terrorist activity" definition at INA § 

212(a)(3)(B)(V)(b) should be limited to the use of 

armed force against civilians and noncombatants, 

and the definition of a ''Tier III" organization at INA § 

212(a)(3)(8)(vi)(III) should be eliminated. 

III Implement August 2012 exemption swiftly, and 

ensure additional exemptions are signed soon, 

The DHS secretary should allow USCIS officers to 

reexamine and provide relief to individuals--on an 

individual, case-by-case basis-who had voluntary 

associations with so~alled "Tier III" groups. These 

groups are not designated as terrorist groups 

anywhere and in many cases are long defunct or are 

groups the U.S. government sympathizes with and 

even supports. An exemption issued in August 2012 

to allow the case-by~ase adjudication of many 

cases in this category where the applicants (or their 

spouses) were previously granted protection in this 

country, was a step in the right direction. But this 

exemption needs to be implemented swiftly. In 

addition, the DHS secretary should sign additional 

exemptions to allow the prompt adjudication of 

cases of persons who do not bear responsibility for 

serious human rights abuses or crimes and pose no 

threat to the security of the United States. Progress 

in this area is particularly urgent with respect to 

refugees who are applying for asylum or 

resettlement now. 

III Adopt sensible legal interpretations. The White 

House-in partnership with the Departments of 

Homeland Security, Justice, and State--should 

review and revise legal interpretations of the 

immigration statute inherited from the Bush 

Administration-including: (1) revise the approach to 

what constitutes "material support" to specify that the 

term applies only to support that is quantitatively 

significant and qualitatively of a nature to further 

terrorist activity (rather than, for example, to the 

distribution of prodemocracy pamphlets or the 

donation of a chicken); (2) clarify that "routine 

commercial transactions"-like the sale of flowers at 

a flower shop--<lo not constitute "material support;" 

and (3) the material support bar and other terrorismrelated (immigration law) bars should not be applied 

HOW TO REPAIR THE U.S. ASYLUM AND REFUGEE RESETILEMENT SYSTEMS-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 13 
362 

to persons acting under coercion, to children, or in 

other circumstances where criminal law would 

recognize a defense. Statutory interpretations should 

be brought into line with the purpose of the law. 

which was to exclude and deny relief to persons 

responsible for or supportive of terrorist acts or 

groups, and who are perceived to pose a terrorist 

threat to the United States. 

III Issue regulations to prevent unjust exclusion 

under "persecutor" bar. DHS and DOJ should 

move forward to issue regulations revising their 

interpretations of the persecutor bar in the wake of 

the Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Negusie v. 

Holder. These regulations should include language 

that ensures that those who are not legally 

responsible for the persecution of others are not 

unfairly targeted by these provisions which are 

aimed at those who knowingly and voluntarily 

persecuted their fellow hUman beings. 

IMPROVE U.S. REFUGEE ADMISSIONS 

PROGRAM TO STRENGTHEN PROTECTION 

FOR VULNERABLE REFUGEES 

BACKGROUND 

The United States leads the world in resettling refugees, 

worKing in partnership with faith groups, civil society, 

and communities across the country. Not only does 

resettlement help save lives, but it can be a strategic tool 

for supporting and encouraging nations in war-torn 

regions across the world to admit and protect large 

numbers of refugees who are fleeing from violence, war, 

and serious human rights abuses. For example, the 

Obama Administration has reported that U.S. willingness 

to resettle refugees who had fled from the fighting in 

Libya to Tunisia and Egypt "helped keep borders open 

for refugees and helped relieve pressure on these two 

countries during their own periods of political change. n :J.4 

In fiscal year 2010, the United States resettled over 

73,000 refugees. But the level of U.S. resettlement has 

fallen steeply over the last few years-to about 56,000 

refugees in fiscal year 2011 and 58,236 refugees for 

fiscal year 2012. The president had, however, 

authorized the resettlement of many more refugees60,000 for fiscal year 2011 and 76,000 for fiscal year 

2012. Many refugees around the world who were slated 

for potential resettlement to the United States were left 

stranded in difficult and sometime dangerous situations. 

Over the last year, the Obama Administration has 

worked to address many of the processing and security 

check delays that contributed to this problem, including 

delays relating to the addition of enhanced security 

checks. In its September 2012 report to Congress, the 

Obama Administration reported that "admissions levels 

remained low until interagency coordination and 

processing procedures were improved" and that "[t]hese 

improvements resulted in increased refugee admissions 

levels beginning in May 2012 and admissions levels are 

expected to continue at these higher levels in FY 

2013."" 

Although the United States has the world's leading 

resettlement program, its processing times can be quite 

prolonged, leaving some refugees stranded in 

dangerous locations or in difficult circumstances. 

Moreover, some refugees are found ineligible for 

resettlement but are not provided with the information 

that would allow them to subm~ a meaningful request for 

review of that denial. Those who are resettled to the 

United States can face other challenges as they try to 

rebuild their lives and support themselves in their new 

home country. 

HOW TO REPAIR THE U,S, ASYLUM AND REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT SYSTEMS-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 14 
363 

RECOMMENDA nONS 

III Enhance U.S. global leadership by meeting 

resettlement goals and providing access to 

resettlement for particularly vulnerable refugees. 

III The U.S. government agencies involved in the 

resettlement process- the Department of State 

(PRM), DHS (including USCIS), and the security 

vetting agencies-should devote the necessary 

prioritization and staffing to the Refugee 

Admissions Program so that the United States 

meets its goal of resettling 70,000 refugees in 

fiscal year 2013, maintains or increases that 

goal for the next fiscal year (taking into account 

global needs), and continues to reduce the 

average processing time for resettlement 

applications. 

III PRM should increase access to U.S. 

resettlement for particularly vulnerable 

individuals, and in particular support increased 

UNHCR capacity to make referrals of 

particularly vulnerable cases for U.S. 

resettlement, encourage increased outreach to 

and identification of vulnerable individuals and 

support employment or deployment of more 

resettlement processing staff. 

III The administration should strengthen measures 

to facilitate resettlement of LGBTI partners 

together. PRM and USCIS should facilitate 

access to resettlement, including through 

"Priority 3" proceSSing, for partners of LGBTI 

refugees resettled to, or granted asylum in, the 

United States. 

g Continue to improve security checks and reduce 

delays in resettlement processing. 

III The White House should continue to provide 

leadership and work with PRM, DHS, and the 

security vetting agencies to address sources of 

delay in security background checks, including: 

(1) staff all security vetting agencies sufficiently; 

(2) remove duplications in the security 

background check process; (3) reduce the 

number of cases unnecessarily delayed due to 

uncleared "holds" relating to potentially 

derogatory information; and (4) create a 

proactive auto-alert system so that any 

emerging derogatory infonmation is flagged as it 

emerges rather than an additional security 

check having to be run pre·departure. 

'" The White House should continue to work with 

PRM, USCIS, and other partners to increase or 

maintain extended validity periods for key steps 

in the resettlement process, reduce the need for 

steps to be unnecessarily repeated by 

maintaining the interagency check validity period 

of 16 weeks, and allow fingerprints to be 

electronically resubmitted in all locations. 

III Improve fairness by providing information 

necessary to request review of mistaken 

security-check denial. In order to minimize 

mistaken denials based on security checks, USCIS 

should provide sufficient information to enable 

individuals to file a meaningful request for review of 

a resettlement denial related to a security check, 

including clear indications that a case is denied for 

security reasons as well as the nature of the 

information. 

ill Provide appropriate support for refugee 

integration. The Office of Refugee Resettlement 

(ORR) and PRM should provide appropriate support 

for refugee integration including: 

III ORR should maintain and increase the current 

level of support (through the per capita reception 

and placement grant of $1 ,850) for refugees 

resettled to the United States so that they can 

rebuild their lives. 

HOW TO REPAIR THE u.s. ASYLUM AND REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT SYSTEMS-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 15 
364 

III PRM and ORR should commission a study by 

an independent academic expert, with input 

from civil society, nongovernmental 

organizations (NGOs), and other relevant 

stakeholders, on the quality of reception and 

integration for refugees and asylees, which 

includes a comprehensive survey of refugees 

and asylees. 

.. PRM should provide information to resettlement 

agencies- prior to and during the resettlement 

"allocations~ proces~oncerning refugees with 

particular support needs, such as survivors of 

sexual and gender based violence (SGBV), 

survivors of torture and LGBTI refugees, so that 

these refugees can benefit from speCific support 

services, including services funded by ORR, that 

have been established in resettlement locations 

in different parts of the country. ORR has funded 

specific support programs for groups, including 

torture survivors and LGBTI refugees, with 

specific needs, but at present PRM is not 

providing the relevant information to 

resettlement agencies so they are not able to 

identify these cases during the allocations 

process and cannot place them into these 

specific programs. As a result, individuals who 

could benefit from specific care services are 

instead placed elsewhere, including to locations 

that may have a negative impact on their 

welfare. For example, LGBTI refugees have 

been resettled to locations that are not able to 

provide the necessary support to, or are not 

welcoming to, LGBTI persons. 

STRENGHTEN EXPEDITED 

RESETTLEMENT AND EXPEDITED 

PROTECTION 

BACKGROUND 

Many refugees continue to face extreme danger even 

though they have crossed borders in search of safety. In 

October 2011, PRM issued a fact sheet publicly outlining 

its criteria for expediting res~ttlement in some cases. 

The fact sheet identifies two categories of cases that can 

be considered by the United States for expedited 

resettlement-one that involves "life-threatening 

protection scenarios," and a second in which refugees 

have suffered or face a range of serious harms or other 

urgent protection risks. The October 2011 PRM fact 

sheet indicated that the United States was not able to 

resettle cases involving life-threatening protection 

scenarios in less than eight to ten weeks, due to security 

clearance procedures, the requirement of face-to-face 

interviews, and protocols relating to the detection and 

treatment of tuberculosis. 

However, in the time since that fact sheet was issued, 

U.S. government agencies have made significant 

progress in improving the pace of resettlement and 

security clearance processing. In its September 2012 

report to Congress, the Obama Administration reported 

that Uinteragency coordination and processing 

procedures were improved."" The NSS, PRM, and DHS 

have also worked together to develop measures to 

expedite security background checks in a limited number 

of cases-with security vetting agencies returning 

expedited interagency checks in five working days. 

Measures are also now in place to expedite Security 

Advisory Opinion (SAO) background checks (which are 

not required by all applicants) and PRM is currently 

taking steps that will further reduce the general SAO 

processing time. In addition, PRM has supported the 

hiring of "expedite specialist" staff at two U.S. 

Resettlement Support Centers to oversee the progress 

of expedited cases through the U.S. resettlement 

system. PRM and its resettlement partners have also 

improved resettlement processing time by extending the 

"validrty period" of some steps in the resettlement 

process that previously expired too quickly (leading 

HOW TO REPAIR THE U.s. ASYLUM AND REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT SYSTEMS-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPR.INT 16 
365 

refugees to have to repeat certain steps in the process 

needlessly). 

This progress has created a new opportunity for 

improving the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program's 

capacity to expedite the resettlement of a small number 

of refugees who face life-threatening or other serious 

and urgent risks. In the September 2012 Refugee 

Admissions Report to Congress, the Obama 

Administration confirmed that the multi-step nature of 

U.S. resettlement processing "does not exclude the 

United States from participation in the resettlement of 

urgent cases." It also reported that "on a case-by-case 

basis, individual applicants in need of expedited 

handling are processed on an accelerated schedule, ~ 

Outlined below are steps that the Obama Administration 

should take during its second term to strengthen U.S. 

capacity to expedite resettlement and to provide 

protection to refugees who face urgent or life-threatening 

risks while they are awaiting completion of resettlement 

processing. These steps would also help respond to 

President Obama's December 2011 direclive on the 

protection of LGBT persons which instructed agencies to 

take steps to ensure that the "Federal Government has 

the ability to identify and expedite resettlement of highly 

vulnerable persons with urgent protection needs,"37 

While some other countries have procedures that allow 

refugees at risk to be resettled faster, their programs do 

not negate the acute need for an effective U.S. 

expedrted resettlement program. For instance, other 

programs do not always respond to the most at-risk 

individuals; some have very specific criteria that 

preclude many of those in need of urgent resettlement. 

In some cases, at-risk refugees have strong family or 

other ties to the United States. For example, some Iraqi 

refugees worked with the U.S military or other U.S. 

organizations. Refugees with strong U.S. ties should 

generally be resettled to the United States. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The State Department (PRM) and USCIS, coordinated 

by the White House, should continue to take steps to 

improve the U.S. capacity to protect and resettle 

refugees facing urgent risks within eight weeks or less 

from some key locations. They should also develop the 

ability to resettle a small number of refugees facing 

imminent risks on an emergency basis. Key steps 

include: 

III Strengthen coordination of the multiple steps in 

the U,S, resettlement process. PRM. USC IS. and 

Resettlement Support Centers should continue to 

strengthen coordination of the multiple steps in the 

U.S. resettlement process in order to make 

expedited processing less resource-intensive, 

including: 

III Develop regional guidelines with target time 

frames. PRM, USCIS and the RSCs should 

develop regional guidelines for an resettlement 

partners in each region with target time frames 

for each step in the process. These guidelines 

would improve the efficiency and consistency of 

expedited processing and promote continuity 

when current staff departs. PRM developed a 

draft of global guidelines in 2011, but regional 

guidelines would be able to reflect local 

processing realities. 

III Appoint expedite specialists at RSCs. PRM 

should fund RSCs to employ expedite 

specialists in the different regions to improve 

case management of expedited cases. 

• Increase capacity to expedite security 

checks, USCIS and PRM should continue to 

work with the security vetting agencies to 

increase the number of security background 

checks that can be expedited in emergency or 

urgent cases. 

III Designate RSC staflto conduct 

prescreenlng. RSCs should designate specific 

staff as responsible for conducting prescreening in expedited cases, including in 

emergency cases. 

HOW TO REPAIR THE U.S. ASYLUM AND REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT SYSTEMS-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 11 
366 

.. Provide prompt USCIS interviews. USCIS 

should provide prompt interviews including in 

cases where no circuit ride is planned. RSCs 

should request emergency interviews when 

necessary. In very limited circumstances (given 

the challenges relating to video-conferencing), 

USCIS should use videoconferencing where it is 

not possible to conduct a rapid face-to-face 

interview of a refugee facing imminent or urgent 

protection risks. 

.. Report on the number and timing of expedited 

resettlement cases. PRM should work with its RSC 

partners to compile and share information regarding 

the number of urgent cases resettled to the United 

States each quarter, the average processing time of 

urgent cases, the quickest case processed, and the 

major challenges impacting on expedited 

resettlement. 

.. Address delays due to high rates of positive 

tuberculosis (TB) tests later shown to TB·free 

upon further testing. In countries where the Center 

for Disease Control's 2007 tuberculosis guidelines 

are implemented, CDC should work with PRM to 

address the high rates of suspected TB cases that 

are then shown to be TB·free upon further testing. 

Suspected TB cases require a further six to eight 

weeks for sputum cultures to be tested which 

creates a significant delay for cases needing to be 

expedited. Particularly problematic is that in some 

regions a low percentage of suspected T8 cases are 

shown to have actual TB upon further testing. CDC 

and PRM should work together to implement an 

alternative and more rapid form of testing to prevent 

individuals without TB from being unnecessarily 

delayed by an overly-inclusive initial TB reading. 

.. Strengthen use of Emergency Transit Facilities 

for protection cases. The United States currently 

supports and makes regular use of Emergency 

Transit Facilities (ETFs) in Romania, Slovakia. and 

the Philippines-particularly in cases where USCIS 

officers cannot access the country of asylum or the 

specific location of applicants to conduct 

resettlement interviews, PRM should make more use 

of the ETFs for refugees facing urgent or lifethreatening protection situations (in addition to using 

the facilities for "transit" cases). PRM should also 

allow more efficient use of the facilities by allowing 

the use of a/l available spaces at a facility once 

some members of larger groups have departed 

(rather than limiting new arrivals until the entire 

group has departed). PRM should also support the 

training of ETF staff so that they are equipped to 

address the protection needs that will arise at these 

facilities for survivors of sexual and gender-based 

violence (SGBV), LGBTI refugees and persons with 

disabilities. 

.. Strengthen support for safe shelter. To ensure 

the safety of refugees who face high risks of 

violence-including as they await U.S. resettlement 

processing-PRM and DRL should strengthen 

support to UNHCR and local NGOs to enable them 

to provide, or increase their capacity to provide, safe 

shelter for refugees facing high risks. In many cases, 

scattered site housing is the safest approach. U.S. 

support should increase the capacity of existing 

refugee shelter and scattered housing initiatives as 

well as support the inclusion of refugees in existing 

shelters for citizens, such as those for survivors of 

sexual and gender-based violence (SG8V). 

HOW TO REPAIR THE u,S, ASYLUM AND REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT SYSTEM5-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 1 B 
367 

STRENGTHEN PROTECTION AND 

iNTERAGENCY COORDINATION WITHIN 

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT 

BACKGROUND 

Asylum seekers and refugees now interact with three 

separate agencies within DHS - CSP, ICE, and 

USCIS,"The U,S, Coast Guard, also within DHS, 

interacts with asylum seekers and refugees too, as well 

as other vulnerable migrants, in the course of maritime 

interdiction operations. U.S. immigration courts and the 

SIA are part of EOIR, which is within DOJ, as is the 

Office of Immigration Litigation (OIl), Multiple 

government agencies are also involved in U.S. refugee 

resettlement, including Department of State (PRM), 

USCIS within DHS, as well as ORR within the 

Department of Health and Human Services, On top of 

these bureaus, various "security vetting agencies," with 

other important priorities. also playa role in background 

and security check processing. 

This overly bureaucratic and fractured system has 

meant that the interagency issues relating to the 

protection of asylum seekers and refugees have often 

fallen through the cracks, The efforts to address and 

solve these problems are further aggravated by the fact 

that protection of asylum seekers and refugees has to 

compete with many other pressing issues that fall within 

DHS's responsibility, 

In 2003, Human Rights First recommended that the 

department create a high-level office to coordinate and 

ensure protection for refugees and asylum seekers. 3S A 

new position of Special Advisor for Refugee and Asylum 

Affairs was created in 2006, but the office was quickly 

given broader responsibility over immigration policy, 

which limited its capacity to address and resolve a range 

of cross-cutting refugee issues, The position was 

subsequently converted to a less senior level role, and it 

still lacked sufficient staffing, authority, and capacity to 

resolve interagency issues within DHS, Other experts 

have expressed concern that unresolved cross-cutting 

immigration issues have undermined DHS performance, 

due to the lack of mechanisms, at the departmental 

level, for resolving differing views of the various 

agencies with immigration-related responsibilities. 

Nearly ten years after the creation of DHS and the 

proliferation of asylum and refugee-related 

responsibilities among such a multitude of agencies, 

strong leadership on protection and interagency 

cooperation have not yet been established, and refonms 

are either stalled, delayed for years, or simply never 

adequately addressed, Some examples include: the 

twelve year delay in issuing clarifying regulations relating 

to "social group" eligibility for asylum; the failure to 

effectively address the delays in security check 

processing until senior National Security officials 

intervened; the slow pace of exemptions and review of 

flawed legal interpretations in connection with the 

immigration law's "terrorism" bars, as well as the inability 

to agree to more effective approaches to addressing this 

challenge; the failure to issue timely regulations 

following the Supreme Court's decision in Negusie v 

Holder; the failure to implement effective and 

nondiscriminatory protection safeguards in U.S. maritime 

interdiction; and the location of immigration detention 

centers far from asylum offices that can conduct credible 

fear interviews or immigration courts to conduct removal 

hearings. 

Because all of these federal agencies and component 

agencies are involved in activities relating to U.S. 

refugee policy and Refugee Convention compliance, 

strong White House leadership is cnucial. A clear signal 

from the White House that asylum and refugee 

resettlement issues are a priority would help encourage 

greater attention to addressing these issues within the 

agencies and ensure that key reforms are incorporated 

into comprehensive immigration reform initiatives. 

HOW TO REPAIR THE u.s. ASYLUM AND REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT SYSTEMS-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 19 
368 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

• Improve While House and inleragency 

coordination on asylum and resettlement. As the 

Council of Foreign Relations Task Force on 

Immigration Policy recommended, the administration 

should "give greater priority for refugee issues. 

within the White House." Key steps include: 

• Institute annual interagency meeting on 

protection The White House should institute an 

annual interagency cabinet-level meeting to 

coordinate federal efforts on a range of 

protection matters, including asylum and 

refugee resettlement The meetings would help 

move forward efforts to address cross-cutting 

challenges, as they would present a regular 

opportunity for cabinet-level officials to highlight 

accomplishments and priorities. This process 

should be modeled on the president's 

Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat 

Trafficking in Persons (a cabinet-level entity 

created by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act 

of 2000 to coordinate federal efforts to combat 

trafficking in persons). This meeting should be 

chaired by the president to hold officials 

accountable for the problems outlined in this 

blueprint, and also for the president to 

communicate-his commitment to U.S. leadership 

in protecting refugees directly to his heads of 

agencies. 

• Prioritize and improve coordination across 

agencies The White House should prioritize the 

coordination of refugee and similar protection 

issues across the multiple agencies. The White 

House should increase NSS, Domestic Policy 

Council staffing to support improved 

coordination (not only around the recent security 

check delays but going forward on an ongoing 

basis). As resolving these interagency issues in 

a timely manner, and ensuring that various 

agencies fulfill their protection responsibilities---

consistent with U.S, global leadership interests 

and human rights commitments-will require 

direct engagement by the president and senior 

White House staff. The president and senior 

White House staff should monitor and regularly 

intervene with the heads of the relevant 

agencies on these matters. 

• Create a senior director for protection at the 

NSC. To give the White House greater capacity 

to improve protection, the director should be 

supported by the NSS and the Domestic Policy 

Council, and coordinate a range of protection 

issues, including refugee resettlement, asylum, 

and unaccompanied minors. 

!li Institutionalize protection within OHS. 

• Create undersecretary for immigration and 

protection. The position of undersecretary for 

immigration and protection should be created at 

DHS. The undersecretary should have line 

authority over ICE, CBP and USCIS, and over 

the Coast Guard on matters relating to 

protection of refugees and vulnerable migrants. 

In addition to facilitating resolution and action on 

matters relating to immigration policy, this 

position would facilitate coordination and timely 

resolution of refugee, asylum and other 

protection related issues so that fewer issues 

would require the allention of the secretary. 

II Create and staff a senior protection office. 

DHS should create a Senior Protection Office, 

led by a direct report to the secretary of DHS or 

the new undersecretary. Both the USCIRF and 

the CFR Immigration Policy Task Force 

recommended greater coordination and 

prioritization of refugee issues at DHS and the 

creation of an office within DHS that is 

responsible for refugee protection.40 This office 

should have both policy and operational 

oversight, and should establish mechanisms to 

ensure that Coast Guard, ICE, CBP and USCIS 

poliCies and actions are in accordance with U.S. 

treaty obligations. 

HOW TO REPAIR THE u.S. ASYLUM AND REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT SYSTEMS-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 20 
369 

• Allocate More Staff to DHS Policy office. DHS 

and Congress should work together to address 

the imbalance of policy staff between DHS 

component agencies with immigration mandates 

and the DHS policy office. The limited policy 

staff at DHS in contrast to the much larger policy 

staffing at ICE, CSP and USCIS, undermines 

the ability of DHS to resolve immigration policy 

matters that involve differing agencies and 

differing views. This imbalance should be 

addressed by reallocating immigration policy 

staff from the component agencies-particularly 

ICE and CSP-to the DHS policy office. 

• Direct DHS general counsel to monitor 

protection compliance, The DHS general 

counsel's office should also be directed to 

monitor and oversee, as an integral part of ils 

legal role, that U.S. refugee protection and 

human rights convention commitments are 

implemented throughout the agency, including 

within ICE and CSP. The office should, for 

instance, weigh in on positions taken by ICE on 

asylum cases to oversee compliance with the 

Refugee Protocol and on policies-like those 

relating to lack of court review of detention-that 

are inconsistent with U.S. commitments under 

human rights conventions. 

HOW 10 REPAIR THE U.S. ASYLUM AND REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT SYSTEMS-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 21 
370 

Endnotes 

1 Council on Foreign Relations, Independent Task Force Report No, 63, U.S. Immigration Policy, p. 31 available at http://'NWW.cfr.orglimmigration/usimmigration-policyip20030. 

2 The deadline bars an applicant from asylum if she cannot demonstrate by "clear and convincing evidence» that her application was filed within one year 

of her arrival in the United States, absent a finding of ~changed~ or "extraordinary" circumstances that would excuse her delayed filing. Examples of 

changed and extraordinary circumstances can be found at 6 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(4) - (5), Human Rights First, The Asyfum Filing Deadline: Denying 

Protection to the Persecuted and Undermining Govemmental Efficiency, (New York: September 2010) available at http://VMW.humanrightsfirst.org/wpcontenVuploads/pdf/afd.pdf. Philip G. Schrag, Andrew L Schoenholtz, Jaya Ramji-Nogales, and James P. Dambach, Rejecting Refugees: Homeland 

Security's Administration of the One-Year Bar to Asylum, VlJiliiam and Mary Law Review, (December 2010), available at 

http://wrnla'Nreview.orgffiles/Schrag.pdf 

l USCRIF Report on Expedited Removal, p. 54, available at http://\w.w.uscirf,gov/images!storiesJpdf/asylum_seekersNolumeJpdf. 

4 Human Rights First, Renewing U.S. Commitment 

to Refugee Protection Recommendations for Reform on 

the 30th Anniversary of the Refugee Act (New York: Human Rights First, March 2010), p. 14, ava!!able at http://\w.w.humanrightsfirst.orglwpcontenVuploads/pd1130th-AnnRep-3-12-1 O. pdf. 

sUNHCR Executive Committee, Protection Safeguards in Interception Measures, Conclusion No. 97 (Ltv), 11 a(iv) (Oct. 10,2003), available at 

http://\w.w.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3f93b2694.html. 

e Asylum and Withholding Definruons, 74 Fed. Reg. 64,220 {Dec. 7, 2009} 

7142 CONGo REC. S11492 (daily ed. Sept. 27, 1996) (statement 01 Sen. Hatch). 

S UNHCR Washington Office, Reaffirming Protection: Strengthening Asylum in the United States, Commemorating the 60th Anniversary of the 1951 

Refugee Convention, October 25, 2011, Summary Report, p. 16, available at http://\w.w.unhcrwashington.orglatf/cf/%7BC07EDA5E-AC71-4340-8570-

194D9BBDC139%7D/georgetown.pdf. 

9 See Human Rights First, Is This America? The Denial of Due Process to Asylum Seekers in the United States (New York: Human Rights First, 2000) 

available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/our-workJrefugee-protectionfdue-process-is-this-americat, 

10 USC!RF Report on Expedited Removal, supra note 3 

191. & N. Dec. 211 (BIA 1985). 

12 TRAC, Latest Immigration Court Numbers, as of October 15, 2012 available at http://trac.syr.edulimmigrationfreportsllatesUmmcourt!#back.log 

13 Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), "Immigration Removal Adjudication, Committee on Adjudication, Proposed 

Recommendation, June 14-15, 2012," p. 1, available at http://\w.w.acus.govtwp-contentluploads/downloads/2012f05/Proposed-lmmigration-Rem.~Adi·­

Recommendation-for-P!enary-5-22-12.pdf. 

14 American Bar Assoclation, Reforming the Immigration Detention System (2010). pp. 2-16 availab!e at 

http://\w.w,americanbar.org/contentldamiaba/migratedilmmigrationJPublicDocuments/aba_complete_fuIUeportauthcheckdam.pdf 

15 Benson and VVheeler, Enhancing Quality and Timeliness in Immigration Removal Adjudication Inten'm Draft, p. 54, avallable at 

http://www.acus,govtwp-contentfuploads/downloadsf2012104lUpdated-ACUS*lmmigration-Removal-Adjudication-Draft-Report-for-4·23.pdf. 

16 Charles H. Kuck, Legal Assistance for Asylum Seekers in Expedited Removal: A Survey of Altemative Practices (Dec. 2004), available at 

http://www.usclrf.gov/images/stories/pdf/asylum_seekersJlegaIAssist.pdf. 

17 American Bar Association, Reforming the Immigration Detention System (Washington, D.C.: ABA, 2010), supra note 14, 5·7. 

HI Ramji-Nogales, Schoenholtz & Schrag, supra note 1, pp. 45-46. 

19 Heritage Web Memo 3455, "Administrative Reforms Insufficient to Address Flawed White House Immigration and Border Security Policies,~ by Matt A 

Mayer, Jan. 10,2012, available at http)l\w.w.heritage.org/research/reportsf2012/01/administrative-reforms-ln-immigration-and-border-security-policies 

" INA § 206(d)(2)(2009); 6 CFR § 206.7(8)(2011); 6 CFR § 1206.7(8)(2011); 6 CFR § 2748.12(c)(6)(2011). Additionally. The authority under INA § 

206{d)(2} to promulgate a regulation allowing for employment authorization for asylum applicants rests with the 

Secretary under INA§103(a), 8 USC 1103(a), as amended by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub, L. No. 107~296, tit. XI, § 1102, 116 Stat. 2273, 

and the Homeland Security Ad of 2002 Amendments. PUb. L. 106~7, Div. L, § 105(a)(1), (2).117 Stat 

531 (2003). See http://\w.w.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb--employment-authorization~for ~asylum-08262011.pdf 

21 Citiz.enship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, Employment Authorization for Asylum AppHcants: Recommendations to fmprove Coordination and 

Communication (August 26, 2011) available at hUp:/I\w.w.dhs.gov!xlibrary/assets/cisomb-employment-authoriz.ation·for-asylum-06262011 .pdf. 

d..2 USCIS, Response to Recommendation 50 (January 4,2012) available at 

http://\w.w,uscis.gov/USCISIResoufcesJOmbudsman%20LiaisoniResponses%2oto%20Forma!O/o20Recommendations/USCfS%20Response%2oto%20F 

onnal%20Recommendatlon%2050.pdf. 

23 National immigration Forum, "Math of Immigration Detention" (August 2012) available at 

http://\w.w.immigrationforum.org/images/up!oads/MathoflmmigrationDetention.pdf. 
371 

24 Ibid 

2:' Council on Foreign Relations, supra note 1, p. 29. 

2Il Her!tage Foundation, supra note 19. 

27 USCIRF, Asylum Seekers in Expedited Removal Volume II, p. 189, available at 

http:ltwv.w.uscirtgovlimagesistories/pdf/asylum_seekers/ERS_RptVolILpdf; USCIRF, Expedited Removal Study Report Card (2007), p. 5. 

16 Dr. Dora Schriro, Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations (Washington, DC: Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 2009), p. 21, 

available at http:/twv.w.ice.gov/docHb/abouVoffices/odppfpdfllce-detention-rpt.pdf.{hereinafter cIted as 2009 DHSJICE Report). 

~ Human Rights First. Jails and Jumpsuits: Transforming the U.s. fmmigration DetentiDn System - A Two-Year Review (New York: Human Rights First, 

2011), pp. 4-6, available at http:/twv.w.humanri-ghtsfirst.orgiWp-contenVup!oads/pdf/HRF-JaHs-and·Jumpsuits--report.pdf, citing ICE, "Fact Sheet 2009 

Immigration Detention Reforms," avaHable at http:/twv.w-ice.gov/news/llbraryJfactsheets/reform2oo9reform.htm; ICE Strategic Plan FY 2010-2014 (Washington, DC: ICE, 2010), p. 6; 

ICE, "Fact Sheet: ICE Detention Reform Principles and Next Steps," news release, October 6, 2009, available at 

http:/twv.w.dhs.govtxUbrary/assetslpress_ice_detention_reform_fact_sheet.pdf; DHS press conference, October 6, 2009, video recording, http:/twv.w.cspanvideo.org/program/289313-1; and 2009 DHSIICE Report, pp. 2-3. 

3ll UNHCR, Detention Guidelines: guidelines on the applicable criten's and standards relating to the detention of asylum-saekers and altematives to 

detention (2012) available at http:/twv.w.unhcr.org/505b10ee9.html. 

31Human Rights First, supra note 29. 

n Council on Foreign Relations, supra note 1, pp. 106·109. 

332011 Council offoreign Relations Report, pp.106-7; OHS Budget-in- Brief, Fiscal Year 2013, available at 

http:jtwv.w.dhs.govtxlibrary/assets/mgmtldhs~budget-in-brjef-fy2013.pdf. 

34 Ibid, page 3. 

35 Ibid, page 15. 

36 Ibid, page 15. 

37 The Wlite House, "Presidential Memorandum -International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender 

Persons," December 6, 2011, available at http://'NIoV'N.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011112/06/presidentia!-memorandum-international~initiativesadvance.human~rights-I {accessed January 9, 2012). 

36 Vllhen asylum seekers arrive at an airport or a border entry post, they are initiaUy inspected and interviewed by officers from CBP. If encountered in the 

border areas, asylum seekers are interviewed by officers with the Border Patrol, also part of CBP. \I\o1len asylum seekers are detained, ICE is the 

component agency responsible for their detention. ICE "trial attorneys" will also represent the agency in Immigration Court removal proceedings, typically 

opposing asylum seekers' requests for protection. Before arriving asylum seekers are allowed to request asylum, they wlJl first have to be interviewed by 

an Asylum Officer with USC)S. USC!S also conducts asylum intervieW'S for asylum seekers who apply for protection after they have entered the country 

and who are not generally delained. 

39 In November 2003, HUman Rights First began urging DHS Secretary Thomas Ridge to create a high leve! of refugee protection in his office to ensure 

the proper resolution of refugee issues that cut across DHS component agencies. Human Rights First Letter to Thomas J. Ridge (Nov. 5, 2003), 

available at http://wwN.humanrightsfirst.org/asylumJridge_tetter110503.pdf. 

~o Councll on Foreign Re!ations, supra note 1, p. 108. 
372 

human rights first 

AmenC30 ideals. Univ~rsal values, 

New York Office 

333 Seventll Avenue 

13- Floor 

New York, NY 10001·5108 

Tel.: 212.845.5200 

Fax: 212,845.5299 

humanrightsfirstorg 

Washington D,C. Office 

100 Maryland Avenue. NE 

Suite 500 

Washington, DC 20002·5625 

T81202547.5592 

Fax: 202,543,5999 
373 

human rights first 

American ideals. Universal values. 

How to Repair the 

U.S. Immigration 

Detention System BLUEPRINT FOR THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION 

December 2012 
374 

ABOUT US 

On human rights, the United States must be a beacon. 

Activists fighting for freedom around the globe continue to look 

to us for inspiration and count on us for support. Upholding 

human rights is not only a moral obligation; it's a vital national 

interest. America is strongest when our policies and actions 

match our values. 

Human Rights First is an independent advocacy and action 

organization that challenges America to live up to its ideals. We 

believe American leadership is essential in the struggle for 

human rights so we press the U.S. government and private 

companies to respect human rights and the rule of law. When 

they don't, we step in to demand reform, accountability and 

justice. Around the world, we work where we can best harness 

American influence to secure core freedoms. 

We know that it is not enough to expose and protest injustice, 

so we create the political environment and policy solutions 

necessary to ensure consistent respect for human rights. 

Whether we are protecting refugees, combating torture, or 

defending persecuted minorities, we focus not on making a 

point, but on making a difference. For over 30 years, we've 

built bipartisan coalitions and teamed up with frontline activists 

and lawyers to tackle issues that demand American leadership. 

Human Rights First is a nonprofit, nonpartisan international 

human rights organization based in New York and Washington 

D.C. To maintain our independence, we accept no government 

funding. 

This report is available for free online at 

www.humanrightsfirst.org 

© 2012 Human Rights First. All Rights Reserved. 

Human Rights First 

New York Office 

333 Seventh Avenue 

13th Floor 

New York. NY 10001-5108 

Tel.: 212.845.5200 

Fax: 212.845.5299 

humanrightsftrst.org 

Washington D.C. Office 

100 Maryland Avenue, NE 

Suite 500 

Washington, DC 20002-5625 

Tel: 202.547.5692 

Fax: 202.543.5999 
375 

How to Repair the 

U.S. Immigration 

Detention System 

BLUEPRINT FOR THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION 

'(We are] working every day to make sure we 

are enforcing flawed [immigration] laws in the 

most humane and best possible way" 

President Sarack Obama, July 25,2011 

"[T]here is a big difference between managing 

a detention system for ICE versus running a 

slate-prison system", This is a system Ihal 

encompasses many different types of 

detainees, 110t a/l of whom need to be held in 

prison-like circumstances or jail-like 

circumstances, which not only may be 

unnecessary but more expensive than 

necessary' 

Department of Homeland Security Secretary 

Janet Napolitano, October 6, 2009 

Introduction 

As the Obama Administration embarks on its second 

term and recommits itself to immigration reform, it 

should prioritize its commitment to transform the 

immigration detention system, In 2009, the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) committed to overhaul the 

U,S, immigration detention system and shift it away from 

its longtime reliance on jails and jail-like facilities,' Since 

that time, ICE has taken steps to address some of the 

problems in the existing system, It has, for example, 

hired cnsite detention service managers to improve 

oversight, implemented new parole guidance for arriving 

asylum seekers, and streamlined the process for 

detainee health care treatment authorization, It has also 

taken a number of steps towards a broader 

transformation of the system, such as opening a "model" 

civil detention facility in Karnes County, Texas, that 

offers conditions more appropriate for immigration 

detainees. 

More needs to be done to move this transformation 

forward, The overwhelming majority of detained asylum 

seekers and other civil immigration detainees are still 

held in jails or jail-like facilities where they have limited 

or essentially no outdoor access, wear prison uniforms, 

and visit with family through Plexiglas barriers, The U,S, 

Commission on International Religious Freedom, the 

American Bar Association, a 2009 DHS-ICE report, and 

a range of international human rights authorities, have 

all recommended alternatives to detention and 

conditions more appropriate for civil immigration 

detainees, As documented in Human Rights First's 2011 

report, Jaifs and Jumpsuits: Transforming the U.S, 

Immigration Detention System-A Two-Year Review, 

many crimina! correctional facilities actually offer less 

restrictive conditions than those typically found in 

immigration detention facilities, and corrections experts 

have confirmed that a unormalized environment" helps to 

ensure the safety and security of any detention facility, 

In its second term, the Obama Administration should 

prioritize the transformation of detention poliCies and 

practices in its immigration reform agenda and should 

lead this effort from the White House, As detailed in this 

blueprint, components of this transformation should 

include: (1) individualized assessments of detention with 

prompt immigration court review; (2) reliance on cost~ 

effective alternatives to detention in many cases; (3) a 

corresponding reduction in reliance on detention as the 

default tool for enforcement; (4) the phasing out of jails 

and jail-like facilities; and (5) the use of facilities with 

conditions appropriate for civil immigration detention 

when detention is used, This transformation should be 

facilitated as immigration reform moves forward, 

decreasing demands for detention beds, 

HOW TO REPAIR THE U.S. IMMIGRATION DETENTION SYSTEM-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 1 
376 

The costs of immigration detention have risen 

dramatically over the past 15 years, as detention levels 

have more than tripled-from 108,454 detainees in 1996 

to an all-time high of 429,247 in fiscal year (FY) 2011. 

Congress has annually appropriated the funds to sustain 

and expand the immigration detention system-from 

$864 million seven years ago to $2.02 billion today. 

These dramatic increases have continued-and been 

maintained-even as criminal justice systems across the 

country have recognized that effective alternatives to 

detention can create tremendous cost·savings and more 

humane outcomes for individuals, while also achieving 

governmental objectives. Alternatives to detention cost 

ICE on average $8.88 per day per individual-more 

than $150 a day less than detention. Meanwhile, ICE's 

requested budget of almost $2 billion for detention in FY 

2013 was 18 times its requested budget of $112 million 

for alternatives to detention. 

Not only are U.S. immigration detention practices 

unnecessarily costly, they are also inconsistent with this 

country's values and human rights commitments. The 

United States is a nation of immigrants and a global 

leader in the protection of refugees. The United States 

often calls on other countries to end detention that is 

inconsistent with intemational human rights law, and to 

release political dissidents, prodemocracy activists, 

religious minorities, journalists, and others from such 

detention. Around the world, other countries detain 

refugees and asylum seekers in ways that are 

inconsistent with the Refugee Convention and human 

rights law, including, for example, Iraqi refugees jailed in 

Lebanon and North Korean refugees detained in China. 

U.S. global leadership on refugee protection and human 

rights is undermined by U.S. immigration detention 

policies, which set a poor example for the rest of the 

world and undercut U.S. moral authority to criticize the 

detention policies and practices of other nations. 

Criminal justice systems throughout the United States 

are striving to transform the way they approach 

detention to reduce costs, improve efficiency and 

effectiveness, avoid detaining individuals unnecessarily, 

and make detention itself more humane. In a series of 

symposiums held by HUman Rights First across the 

country in fall 2012, former corrections offiCials, criminal 

justice experts, attorneys, and politicians from both sides 

of the aisle have confirmed that alternatives to detention 

should be used when detention is not necessary, 

reducing costs significantly, and that when detention is 

necessary, more normalized conditions can help ensure 

safer environments for detained individuals as well as 

officers working at these facilities. Human Rights First 

will hold a final symposium-scheduled at the Cato 

Institute in early 2013--to bring experts from across the 

country to Washington to discuss lessons learned from 

criminal justice reform and the steps necessary to truly 

transform the U.S. immigration detention system. 

Many of these steps, as detailed below, can be 

implemented by the Obama Administration without 

legislation. Some should be included in immigration 

reform legislation. As noted throughout this blueprint, 

many of these reforms have been endorsed by 

bipartisan task forces, U.S. government entities, 

corrections professionals, and a range of groups from 

across the political spectrum. 

HOW TO REPAIR THE U.S. IMMIGRATION DETENTION SYSTEM-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 2 
377 

How to Repair the 

U.S. Immigration 

Detention System 

SUMMARY 

The Obama Administration should reform U.S. 

immigration detention policies and practices. Key steps 

include: 

PRIORITIZE IMMIGRATION DETENTION 

REFORM. 

III Provide strong White House leadership. 

III Designate detention transformation a top priority for 

DHS and ICE. 

II Work with Congress to build support. 

III Overcome potential roadblocks. 

IMPLEMENT EFFECTIVE COURT REVIEW 

AND SUPPORT INDIVIDUAliZED 

ASSESSMENTS 

&I Revise regulations to provide immigration court 

custody hearings for immigration detainees. 

Ii Provide immigration court custody hearings in cases 

of prolonged detention. 

19 Monitor implementation of asylum parole guidance. 

II Support revisions to immigration law to require 

individualized assessment of the need to detain prior 

to use of detention. 

IMPLEMENT EFFECTIVE SYSTEM OF 

ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION AND 

REDUCE UNNECESSARY COSTS 

III Reduce costs by utilizing altematives in place of 

unnecessary detention. 

ill Prevent unnecessary detention by implementing 

validated dynamic risk classification tool nationwide. 

III Reduce costs by recognizing that restrictive 

measures can constitute custody. 

.. Support steps to reduce delays in the immigration 

court system. 

iii Use community-based models and case 

management in nationwide system of alternatives to 

detention. 

STOP USING PRISONS, JAILS, AND JAILLIKE FACILITIES; USE ONLY FACILITIES 

WITH APPROPRIATE CONDITiONS 

l1li Phase out the use of jails and prisons. 

III Use facilities with conditions appropriate for civil 

immigration detention, 

III Develop and implement new standards on 

conditions for civil immigration detention. 

III Reform existing immigration detention facilities to 

the extent possible. 

III Use risk classification assessment tool to identify 

and properly place any detainees who present 

safety risks in custody. 

IMPROVE ACCESS TO LEGAL COUNSEL 

AND FAIR PROCEDURES 

l1'li End use of detention facilities in remote locations 

that limit access to legal representation, medical 

care, and family. 

!/II Support funding and placement of Legal Orientation 

Programs (LOPs) at all facilities that detain asylum 

seekers or other immigration detainees. 

III Support funding for legal counsel in immigration 

proceedings, particularly for vulnerable groups. 

.. Direct that all detained asylum seekers and other 

immigrants receive merits hearings in person, not 

via video. 

" Ensure prompt and in-person credible fear and 

reasonable fear interviews. 

HOW TO REPAIR THE u.S, IMMIGRATION DETENTION SYSTEM-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 3 
378 

TAKE OTHER STEPS TO ADDRESS 

DEFICIENCIES IN IMMIGRATION 

DETENTION CONDITIONS 

iii Provide high-quality medical and mental health care. 

III Promptly propose and implement Prison Rape 

Elimination Act (PREA) regulations based on the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) PREA rule. 

III Limit solitary confinement or segregation to only very 

exceptional cases, as a last resort, and for the 

briefest time possible. 

III Improve training and communication for ICE officers 

and facility staff. 

HOW TO REPAIR THE U.S. IMMIGRATION DETENTION SYSTEM-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 4 
379 

How to Repair the 

U.S. Immigration 

Detention System 

PRIORITIZE IMMIGRATION DETENTION 

REFORM 

BACKGROUND 

ICE should continue to address deficiencies in the 

existing immigration detention system, as detailed in the 

last section of this blueprint. In order to truly transform 

the existing system, however, and shift it away from its 

reliance on jails and jail-like facilities, the administration 

will also need to move fonward boldly on several bigpicture reforms over the next four years. 

The time for this kind of transformation is now. Not only 

is this a key moment for immigration reform in general. 

But across the country, criminal justice systems are 

striving to transform the way they approach detention to 

reduce costs, improve efficiency and effectiveness, 

avoid detaining individuals unnecessarily, and make 

detention itself more humane. DHS and ICE can learn 

much from these initiatives, many of which have been 

highlighted through the Dialogues on Detention 

symposia that Human Rights First has held across the 

country.z 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

IIiI Provide strong White House leadership. The 

Obama Administration should make transformation 

of detention policies and practices a priority in its 

immigration reform agenda. As detailed in this 

blueprint, components of this transformation should 

include: (1) individualized assessments of detention 

with prompt immigration court review; (2) reliance on 

cost-effective alternatives in place of detention; (3) a 

corresponding reduction in reliance on detention as 

the default tool for enforcement; (4) the phasing out 

of jails and jail-like facilities; and (5) the use of 

facilities with conditions appropriate for civil 

immigration detention when, after an individualized 

assessment, detention is determined to be 

necessary. The Obama Administration should 

announce a major initiative to advance immigration 

detention refonms, many of which can be 

implemented without congressional action. 

II! Designate immigration detention transformation 

as a top priority at DHS and ICE. The Obama 

Administration should designate immigration 

detention translonmation as a top priority for the 

secretary of DHS and the director of ICE, and should 

identify specific big-picture objectives relating to key 

components of this transformation such as: the 

revision of regulations denying access to 

immigration court "bond" hearings; the closing of 

jails and jail-like facilities; a reduction in detention 

levels and the use of more cost-effective alternatives 

to detention; the development and implementation of 

civil detention standards. The administration, DHS, 

and ICE should allocate the staff necessary to 

achieve these objectives. 

IfIl Work with Congress to build support. The 

administration should also work closely with 

Congress to build further support for the use of costeffective alternatives and the reduction of detention 

levels, and to revise laws to provide individualized 

assessments and court review of detention. The 

administration should not agree to additional 

detention, or sacrifice efforts to reduce unnecessary 

detention, in connection with negotiations over future 

immigration reform legislation. 

IfIl Overcome potential roadblocks. The Obama 

Administration should proactively address any 

baseless arguments that reforms tum facilities into 

"resorts,» create unsafe environments, or undermine 

security, including by pointing out that prison experts 

have confirmed that more normalized conditions can 

actually improve facility safety (as Human Rights 

First has documented through various reports and 

events3

), The administration should also encourage 

investment in alternative economic development 

plans for towns where jails and jail-like facilities that 

house ICE detainees provide a significant number of 

local jobs, so that the closure of inappropriate jails 

does not inadvertently hurt local economies, and 

should work closely with members of Congress to 

minimize resistance to the ending of ICE contracts 

HOW TO REPAIR THE u.s. IMMIGRATION DETENTION SYSTEM-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 5 
380 

with jails based on these concerns. Alongside any 

plan to build new more appropriate facilities for 

immigration detention (which should be located near 

legal counsel and immigration judges), the 

administration should commit to closing specific jails 

and jail-like facilities and increasing the use of 

alternatives, so that new facilities with more 

appropriate conditions do not lead to an expansion 

of unnecessary detention. 

iMPLEMENT EFFECTIVE COURT REVIEW 

AND SUPPORT INDIVIDUALiZED 

ASSESSMENTS 

BACKGROUND 

Under current U.S. policies. many asylum seekers and 

immigrants do not have access to prompt court review of 

their immigration detention. For example, the initial 

decision to detain an asylum seeker or other ~arriving 

alien" at a U.S. airport or border is "mandatory" under 

the expedited removal provisions olthe 1996 

immigration law. The decision to release an asylum 

seeker on parole-or to continue his or her detention for 

longer-is entrusted to local officials with ICE, which is 

the detaining authorrty, rather than to an independent 

authority or at least an immigration court. In March 2012, 

the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) denied a petition 

requesting reform of regulations to provide arriving 

asylum seekers with immigration court custody hearings. 

Several other categories of immigrants-including lawful 

permanent residents convicted of a broad range of 

crimes, including simple drug possession and certain 

misdemeanors, as well as more serious crimes, and who 

have already completed their sentences-are also 

subjected to "mandatory" detention, and deprived of 

access to immigration court custody hearings.4 

Article 9(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and 

Political Rights (ICCPR), which the United States ratified 

in 1992, provides that "anyone who is deprived of his 

liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take 

proceedings before a court ... " The 1951 Refugee 

Convention and its Protocol, to which the United States 

has also committed, make clear that refugees should not 

be penalized for illegal entry, and UNHCR's 2012 

Guidelines on Detention emphasize that those detained 

should "be brought promptly before a judicial or other 

independent authority to have the detention decision 

reviewed" wrthin 24 to 48 hours. In a 2012 report, the 

U.N. special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants 

stressed that states should provide "automatic, regular 

and judicial review of detention in each individual case," 

and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 

specifically called on the United States to ensure that 

immigration courts be allowed to review release 

decisions made by immigration officers. 5 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Dbama Administration should take steps to 

implement immigration court review of detention and 

support individualized assessments, including: 

EiI Revise regulations to provide immigration court 

custody hearings for immigration detainees, DOJ 

and DHS should revise regulatory language in 

provisions located mainly at 8 C.F.R § 

1003.19(h)(2)(i) and § 212.5, as well as § 208.30 

and § 235.3, to provide arriving asylum seekers and 

other immigration detainees with the chance to have 

their custody reviewed in a "bond" hearing before an 

immigration court. This reform would give arriving 

asylum seekers the same access to immigration 

court custody determination hearings that is 

provided to many other immigrants and would help 

ensure that individuals are not detained 

unnecessarily for months without having an 

immigration court assess the need for continued 

detention. 

III Provide immigration court custody hearings in 

cases of prolonged detention, DHS and DOJ 

should review and revise their current interpretations 

of the availability of bond hearings for aliens in 

prolonged detention who are held under 8 USC. § 

1231, § 1225(b), and § 1226(c), and should require 

bond hearings for immigrants detained six months or 

more. 

II Monitor implementation of asylum parole 

guidance, DHS and ICE should continue to monitor 

implementation of the asylum parole guidance to 

ensure that ICE field offices are assessing each 

arriving asylum seeker for parole eligibility under the 

HOW TO REPAIR THE U.S. IMMIGRATION DETENTION SYSTEM-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 6 
381 

specified criteria and consistently and accurately 

implementing the guidance. The parole guidance 

should be applied to all detained asylum seekers, 

including those picked up in the interior, and should 

be codified into regulations. 

a Support revisions to immigration law to require 

individualized assessment of the need to detain. 

The Obama Administration should work with 

Congress to amend § 235 and § 236 of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act to allow all detention 

decisions to be made on an individual basis, rather 

than automatic or mandatory detention. Automatic 

detention of broad categories of noncitizens 

precludes individualized, case~specific assessments 

by immigration judges of human~arian factors, such 

as family and community ties, as well as the risk of 

flight or danger to public safety. Automatic detention 

also costs taxpayer money-the government 

spends $164 per night on every detained individual' 

IMPLEMENT EFFECTIVE SYSTEM OF 

AL TERNATIVES TO DETENTION AND 

REDUCE UNNECESSARY COSTS 

BACKGROUND 

A~ernatives to Detention (A TO) programs generally 

provide for release from immigration detention with 

additional supervision measures intended to ensure 

appearance and compliance. Several successful ATD 

programs have been tested in the United States over the 

years, including programs run by the Vera Institute of 

Justice and by Lutheran Immigration and Refugee 

Service. These programs documented high appearance 

rates, and saved government funds by allowing for the 

release of individuals from more costly immigration 

detention. 

As the Council on Foreign Relations' Independent Task 

Force on U.S. Immigration Policy noted in its report, 

alternatives to detention can "ensure that the vast 

majority of those facing deportation comply with the law, 

and at much lower costs."7 A January 2012 report on 

U.S. immigration and border security policies from the 

Heritage Foundation also recognized the importance of 

alternatives to detention to "bring costs down," stating 

that "[I]or a fraction of the costs of holding individuals in 

deportation centers, ISAP [the current ATD program] 

steers individuals through deportation proceedings and 

electronically monitors them to ensure that they leave 

the country when ordered." The report recommended 

that more be done "to identify the proper candidates for 

ISAP-like programs" and that "[o]ther commonsense 

programs should be analyzed and, if effective, 

expanded .,,8 

ICE's Alternatives to Detention program is currently 

provided by BI Incorporated, a private company owned 

by the publicly traded prison company GEO Group. A 

full-service program provides "intensive case 

management, supervision, electronic monitoring, and 

individuals service plans," and a technology-only 

program uses GPS tracking and phone reporting. BI 

says its programs help "mitigate flight risk and guide the 

participant through the immigration court process.'" A 

report issued by Lutheran Immigration and Refugee 

Service indicates that the programs offer "minimal 

assistance to ensure [partiCipants] are adequately 

equipped to participate in their immigration 

proceedings." Still, according to Bl's annual report to the 

U.S. government, in 2010, 93 percent of individuals 

actively enrolled in ATDs attended their final court 

hearings, and 84 percent complied with removal 

orders. 10 

In the criminal justice system, pretrial services are used 

in jurisdictions across the country to save the cost of 

jailing individuals whose cases are pending and who 

pose no flight or public safety risk. The Texas Public 

Policy Foundation, home to the criminal justice reform 

coalition Right on Crime, has advocated for expanded 

use of alternatives like pretrial services for years, citing 

cost savings." At Human Rights First's Detention 

Dialogue at the University of Califomia-Irvine in 

September 2012, the director of the Santa Clara Office 

of Pretrial Services reported that independent auditors 

found that pretrial services saved $26 million for Santa 

Clara County over the course of six months in 2011,12 

Congress has consistently appropriated the funds to 

sustain and expand the immigration detention systemfrom $864 million eight years ago to $2 billion today, an 

increase of 131 percent. ICE spends an average of $164 

per day per detainee." In an April 2010 report to 

Congress, ICE stated that ATDs costs ICE on average 

HOW TO REPAIR THE u.S, IMMIGRATION DETENTION SYSTEM-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 1 
382 

$8,88 per day per individual-more than $150 a day less 

than detention. Meanwhile, the administration requested 

nearly $2 billion for detention in FY 2013-18 times its 

request of $112 million for alternatives to detention, 

While ICE has expanded its use of alternatives to 

detention, it has not used these cost-effective 

alternatives to reduce unnecessary detention levels and 

its costs-instead cfting to language in DHS 

appropriations legislation that ICE has viewed as 

mandating that it maintain a specific number of detention 

beds (33,400 for FY 2012),14 Nevertheless, the 

administration's FY 2013 Budget Request for DHS 

included "flexibility to transfer funding between 

immigration detention and the ATD program," 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

To implement an effective system of alternatives to 

detention and reduce unnecessary costs, the Obama 

Administration should: 

.. Reduce costs by utilizing alternatives In place of 

unnecessary detention. Alternatives programs 

should be used in place of detention that is 

unnecessary rather than primarily as a supplement 

to existing levels of detention. The administration 

should reject the notion that ICE is mandated to 

detain daily the number of individuals corresponding 

to the number of beds Congress funds, The 

administration should also realize cost savings by 

urging Congress, in connection with DHS 

appropriations legislation, to (1) not include 

language referencing a specific number of detention 

beds, and (2) recognize ICE flexibility in its allocation 

of the enforcement and removal budget to shift 

funds from detention to more cost-effective 

alternatives to detention-fiexibilily Ihal the 

administration included in its FY 2013 Budget 

Request for DHS,15 

II Prevent unnecessary detention by Implementing 

validated dynamic risk classification tool 

nationwide, ICE should assess eligibility for 

alternatives to detention in each individual case 

before resorting to detention, as well as assessing 

eligibility for ATDs periodically during detention, ICE 

should identify triggers for rerunning the assessment 

so that, for example, asylum seekers who have 

passed their credible fear screening interviews and 

are no longer subject to mandatory delenlion will 

aulomalically be reassessed for release, ICE should 

also rerun the assessment on a regular basis for 

every detained individual. At the Detention Dialogue 

organized by Human Rights First at the University of 

California-Irvine in September 2012, the fonmer 

chief probalion officer of Alameda County slressed 

that effective use of a risk assessment tool is key 10 

ensuring that individuals who do not need 

supervision are not referred unnecessarily into 

alternatives programs. 

III Reduce costs by recognizing that restrictive 

measures can constitute custody. ICE should 

consider some restrictive measures that are 

sometimes characterized as ATD to constitute 

custody for the purposes of the mandatory detention 

laws at INA § 236(c) and § 235(b), and enroll 

detainees subject to mandatory detention who are 

otherwise eligible for release (because they pose no 

public safety risk) into those programs, DHS has 

discretion to recognize the broad meaning of 

"custody" to include the use of a range of tools, and, 

as Ihe U,N. special rapporteur on the human rig hIs 

of migrants noted in his 2012 report, "[sJome noncustodial measures may be so restrictive, either by 

themselves or in combination with other measures, 

that they amounl to alternative forms of detention, 

inslead of alternatives to delention," ICE should also 

utilize other alternate forms of delention, such as 

"home delention," which would lead 10 substantial 

cost-savings. 16 

.. Support steps to reduce delays in the 

immigration court system. The administration 

should prioritize, and ask Congress to prioritize, 

adequate funding for the immigration courts, which 

are currently experiencing subslanlial backlogs and 

delays, Timely hearings and case resolutions would 

maximize the cost-savings that can be realized 

through ATD programs, in addition to advancing 

justice and fairness. 

III Use community-based models and case 

management in nationwide system of 

alternatives to detention. ICE's allernatives 

programs should use full-service communily-based 

HOW TO REPAIR THE u.s. IMM1GRATION DETENTION SYSTEM-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 8 
383 

models that provide individualized case 

management, increase access to legal and social 

service providers through meaningful referrals, and 

provide information about immigration court and 

case matters. According to multiple studies, 

successful alternatives to detention programs in the 

United States and around the world typically include: 

individualized case assessment; individualized case 

management, including referrals; legal advice; 

access to adequate accommodations; information 

about rights and duties and consequences of 

noncompliance; and humane and respectful 

treatment 17 

STOP USING PRISONS, JAILS, AND JAILLIKE FACILITIES; ONLY USE FACILITIES 

WITH APPROPRIATE CONDiTIONS 

BACKGROUND 

Over three years ago, DHS and ICE committed to 

transform the U.S. immigration detention system by 

shifting it away from its longtime reliance on jails and jaillike facilities, to facilities with conditions more 

appropriate for the detention of civil immigration law 

detainees. At the time of these commitments, DHS and 

ICE recognized that detention beds were in facilities that 

were 'largely designed for penal, not civil, detention." In 

a statement of objectives for new facilities, ICE 

described 'less penal" conditions that would include 

increased outdoor access, contact visitation with 

families, and ~non-institutjonar clothing for some 

detainees. 18 ICE also opened one new "model" civil 

detention facility in 2012. 

Despite these efforts, the overwhelming majority of 

detained asylum seekers and other civil immigration law 

detainees are still held in jails or jail-like facilities. At 

these faciHties, asylum seekers and other immigrants 

wear prison uniforms and are typically locked in one 

large room for up to 23 hours a day, they have limited or 

no outdoor access, and typically visit with family through 

Plexiglas barriers. They are often handcuffed andlor 

shackled by U.S. immigration authorities when they 

arrive at U.S. airports or border entry points and when 

they are transported to detention facilities, to immigration 

court, or to the hospital." 

Jails and jail-like facilities have been found to be 

inappropriate and unnecessarily costly for asylum 

seekers and other civil immigration detainees by the 

U.S. government itself, as well as by bipartisan groups 

and international human rights bodies. In 2005, the 

bipartisan U.S, Commission on International Religious 

Freedom concluded that most of the facilities used by 

DHS to detain asylum seekers and other immigrants "in 

most critical respects ... are structured and operated 

much like standardized correctional facilities," 

resembling "in every essential respect, conVentional 

jails." The Council on Foreign Relations' bipartisan task 

force on immigration policy, co-chaired by Jeb Bush and 

Thomas McLarty III, concurred in July 2009 that "[i]n 

many cases asylum seekers are forced to wear prison 

uniforms [and] held in jails and jail-like facilities." The 

bipartisan Constitution Project's Liberty and Security 

Committee similarly concluded in December 2009 that 

"[d]espite the nominally 'civil'-as opposed to 'criminal'-

nature of their alleged offenses, non-citizens are often 

held in state and local jails." In 2009, DHS's own special 

advisor-who has run two state prison systems and 

currently serves as commissioner of correction in New 

York City-concluded in a report prepared for DHS and 

ICE that: 

With only a few exceptions, the facilnies that ICE 

uses to detain aliens were built, and operate, as jails 

and prisons to confine pre~trial and sentenced felons. 

ICE relies primarily on correctional incarceration 

standards designed for pre-trial felons and on 

correctional principles of care, custody, and control. 

These standards impose more restrictions and carry 

more costs than are necessary to effectively manage 

the majority of the detained population. 

The use of immigration detention facilities that are penal 

in nature is inconsistent with U.S, commitments under 

the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 

and its Protocol, as well as the Intemational Covenant 

on Civil and Political Rights. In reports specifically 

focused on the United States, the Inter-American 

Commission on Human Rights and the U.N. special 

rapporteur on the human rights of migrants have both 

expressed concern about the punitive and prison~like 

conditions used by the U.S. government in its 

immigration detention system, with the latter noting that 

HOW TO REPAIR. THE U.S. IMMIGRAnON DETENTION SYSTEM-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 9 
384 

Ufreedom of movement is restricted and detainees wear 

prison uniforms and are kept in a punitive setting." The 

U.N. Refugee Agency (UNHCR), in its 2012 Guidelines 

on Detention, stressed that the "use of prison, jails, and 

facilities designed or operated as prison or jails, should 

be avoided," and "[clriminal standards (such as wearing 

prisoner uniforms or shackling) are not appropriate." The 

current U.N. special rapporteur on the human rights of 

migrants, in his 2012 report on immigration detention. 

confirmed that immigration detainees "should not be 

subject to prison-like conditions and environments, such 

as prison uniforms, highly restricted movement, lack of 

outdoor recreation and lack of contact visitation" and that 

states should uallow administrative detainees to wear 

their own clothing" as well as the right to communicate 

with relatives and friends and to have access to religious 

advisers. 2o 

Ironically, as Human Rights First documented in its 2011 

report Jails and Jumpsuits, many correctional facilities 

actually offer less restrictive conditions than those 

typically found in immigration detention facilities. As 

corrections officials and experts have confirmed, 

including during discussions at Human Rights First's 

Detention Dialogues symposia, more normalized 

environments can help to ensure the safety and security 

of any detention facility. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

DHS and ICE should move forward----{)n a priority basis-

-to transform the current detention system that relies on 

jails and jail-like facilities to one with conditions 

appropriate for civil immigration law detainees. Key 

steps include: 

II Phase out the use of jails and prisons. As the 

agency moves foTVtlard in transforming the detention 

system, ICE should phase out its agreements and 

contracts with county jails and with the federal 

Bureau of Prisons. Jails and prisons are 

inappropriate for civil immigration law detainees. ICE 

should also end the use of jail-like immigration 

detention facilities. 

III Use facilities with conditions appropriate for civil 

immigration detention. After an individualized 

assessment of whether detention is necessary, ICE 

should only use facilities with conditions that provide 

a more normalized environment, permitting 

detainees to wear their own clothing, move freely 

among various areas within a secure facility and 

grounds, access true outdoor recreation for 

extended periods of time, access programming and 

email, have some privacy in toilets and showers, 

and have contact visits with family and friends. 

Contact visits with family should be permitted in any 

new and existing ICE facilities. Medical experts as 

well as corrections administrators affirm the benefits 

of contact visits for the well-being of individuals held 

in detention, and indeed the entire federal prison 

system permits contact visits with family. ICE should 

also limit the use of handcuffs and shackles to 

extraordinary circumstances. These more 

normalized conditions should exist for the vast 

majority of asylum seekers and other immigrants 

held in detention; at present, they exist only for a 

small minority of individuals held in ICE detention. 

II There are a few immigration detention facilities with 

more appropriate conditions that could, with 

improvements, be replicated. The Berks Family 

Residential Center in Pennsylvania, Hutto Detention 

Center in Texas, Broward Transitional Center in 

Florida, and a new facility in Karnes County, Texas, 

all permit detained individuals to move freely within 

certain areas of the facility and offer extended 

outdoor access and privacy in toilets and showers. 

At Broward and Karnes, detainees still wear uniform 

clothing, though. as UNHCR, the U.N. special 

rapporteur on the human rights of migrants and 

other authorities have made clear, asylum seekers 

and other immigration detainees should be able to 

wear their own civilian clothing. At both Hutto and 

Berks, detainees do wear civilian clothing. 

!f$ Develop and implement new standards on 

conditions for civil immigration detention. ICE 

should develop, adopt, and enforce new residential 

detention standards that require all facilities to 

permit detainees to wear their own clothing, move 

freely among various areas within a secure facility 

and grounds, access true outdoor recreation for 

extended periods of time, access programming and 

email, have some privacy in toilets and showers, 

HOW TO REPAIR THE U.S.IMM!GRATION DETENTION SYSTEM-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 10 
385 

and have contact visits with family and friends, 

among other elements. These standards should be 

modeled on the American Bar Association's Civil 

Immigration Detention Standards, which were 

adopted by the ABA House of Delegates in August 

2012. The ABA civil immigration detention standards 

confirm some key conditions that should exist for 

civil immigration detention-inciuding that 

immigration detainees should be permitted contact 

visits, should be allowed to wear their own clothing 

(rather than unifonms) and should be provided with 

free access to outdoor recreation throughout the 

day. The bipartisan U.S, Commission on 

International Religious Freedom recommended that 

DHS establish more appropriate detention 

standards, and the 2009 DHS-ICE detention report 

concluded that that the standards used by ICE 

"impose more restrictions and carry more costs than 

are necessary to effectively manage the majority of 

the detained population." To promote compliance, 

new ICE civil immigration detention standards 

should be incorporated into all contracts and 

agreements and promulgated into regulations. As an 

initial step, ICE's existing perfonmance-based 

detention standards should be revised to incorporate 

some key elements from the ABA civil detention 

standards-including to require (not merely to 

consider ~optimal~) contact visitation and access to 

outdoor recreation throughout the day and, rather 

than uniforms, to allow detainees to wear their own 

clothing or other nonuniform civilian clothing if a 

detainee lacks clean or adequate clothing." 

II Reform existing immigration detention facilities 

to the extent possible. While existing jails and jaillike facilities remain inappropriate for civil 

immigration law detainees, some reforms can be 

implemented at these facilities while the transition to 

more appropriate facilities moves forward. In these 

existing facilities, ICE should institute contact visits, 

true and expanded outdoor recreation, and some 

privacy in showers and toilets within six months, 

wherever the phYSical plant does not preclude these 

refonms. ICE should also penmit detainees to wear 

their own clothing or at least noninstitutional 

clothing, rather than prison uniforms. ICE's 2011 

Perfonmance-Based National Detention Standards 

should provide a basis for system-wide 

implementation of these improvements. 22 

1111 Use risk classification assessment tool to 

identify and properly place any detainees who 

present safety risks in custody. ICE should 

complete the process of automating a risk 

classification assessment tool for use in all ICEauthorized facilities. An effective and standardized 

assessment tool can be used to identify individuals 

who may pose a risk to officers or to other 

detainees, and in such cases, ICE can ensure 

appropriate placement separate from lower-risk 

detainees, or other measures proportionate to the 

risk, to address safety. In taking such measures, ICE 

should not automatically hold in a correctional 

setting all detainees with criminal convictions, 

IMPROVE ACCESS TO LEGAL COUNSEL 

AND FAIR PROCEDURES 

BACKGROUND 

The overwhelming majority of asylum seekers and 

immigrants who are held in immigration detention-84 

percent-are not represented by legal counsel in 

removal proceedings, in which they defend themselves 

against the govemment's efforts to deport them.23 The 

U.S. government does not generally provide funding for 

legal representation for asylum seekers and other 

immigrants in their asylum and immigration proceedings. 

Yet the importance of counsel cannot be overstaled. 

For asylum seekers, several studies have documented 

the impact of legal representation on success rates. 

More broadly, the Department of Justice's Executive 

Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has expressed 

~great concern H about the large number of individuals 

appearing in immigration court without representation, 

and has also noted that "[nJon-represented cases are 

more difficult to conduct," and that they require 

additional effort and time from immigration judges. 24 

Immigration proceedings are a daunting labyrinth for any 

individual to navigate alone-€specially as the 

consequence of deportation is tremendous-yet the 

majority of detained immigrants go through the process 

not only without counsel, but also without sufficient 

opportunity to seek counselor access legal information. 

HOW TO REPAIR THE U.S. IMMIGRATION OETENTION SYSTEM-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 11 
386 

While not a substitute for legal representation, the highly 

successful Legal Orientation Program (LOP)-an EOIR 

program managed through a contract with the Vera 

Institute for Justice, which subcontracts with local 

nonprofit legal service providers-offers basic legal 

information to immigration detainees so that they can 

understand their legal options, and helps connect them 

to pro bono resources. LOP has received widespread 

praise for promoting the efficiency and effectiveness of 

the removal process, and immigration judges have 

lauded LOP for better preparing immigrants to identify 

forms of relief. "The president's FY 2013 budget 

request recognized the success of LOP and sought to 

expand its reach by increasing its budget by one-third 

over FY 2012 levels. At present, EOIR is funded to 

operate the LOP in just 25 detention facilities, reaching 

only approximately 15 percent of detained immigrants 

and 35 percent of detained immigrants in EOIR 

proceedings annually. 

Another obstacle that exacerbates the difficulty of 

securing legal representation for immigration detainees 

is the remote location of many immigration detention 

facilities. In its 2005 study on asylum seekers in 

expedited removal, the U.S. Commission on 

International Religious Freedom found that many of the 

facilities used to detain asylum seekers were "located in 

rural parts of the United States, where few lawyers visit 

and even fewer maintain a practice. n The Commission 

concluded that "[t]he practical effect of detention in 

remote locations ... is to restrict asylum seekers' legally 

authorized right to counsel. n26 

At many of these remote facilities, immigration officials 

are also-increasingly-turning to the use of video· 

conferencing to conduct immigration court hearings and 

even credible fear screening interviews, compounding 

the challenges that detained asylum seekers face in 

accessing protection. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

DOJ, DHS, and ICE should work with Congress to 

ensure that detained asylum seekers and other 

immigration detainees have sufficient access to leg a! 

representation, legal information, and in*person hearings 

of their asylum claims and deportation cases. Key steps 

include: 

Ii End use of detention facilities in remote 

locations that limit access to legal 

representation, medical care, and family, The 

2009 DHS-ICE report recommended that "facilities 

should be placed nearby consulates, pro bono 

counsel, EOIR services, asylum offices, and 24-hour 

emergency medical care" and that the "system 

should be linked by transportation." Yet according to 

Human Rights First calculations, 40 percent of all 

ICE bed space is located more than 60 miles from 

an urban center. ICE should end the use of all 

facilities in remote locations to help ensure that 

detainees can access not only attorneys, but also 

their families, doctors, psychiatrists and 

psychologists, and socia! services. 27 

Ii Support funding and placement of Legal 

Orientation Programs (LOPs) at all facilities that 

detain asylum seekers or other immigration 

detainees. The DOJ, the White House, and 

Congress should work together to ensure that LOPs 

are fully funded at all ICE-authorized facilities used 

to detain asylum seekers and other immigrants. ICE 

should not detain immigrants in new facilities until 

LOP funding to serve those facilities is in place. 

.. Support funding for legal counsel in immigration 

proceedings, particularly for vulnerable groups, 

The U.S. government does not generally provide 

funding for legal representation for asylum seekers 

and other immigrants in their asylum and 

immigration proceedings, despite the welldocumented importance of counsel. The Obama 

Administration should support efforts to provide 

funding for legal representation for vulnerable 

groups such as children, individuals with mental 

disabilities, and individuals held in immigration 

detention. 

III Direct that all detained asylum seekers and other 

immigrants receive merits hearings in person, 

not via video, The Obama Administration should 

work with Congress to secure adequate funding to 

the EOIR so that judges can conduct all merits 

hearings in person rather than via videoconference 

(VTC). The administration should also facilitate 

coordination between ICE and EOIR so that ICE 

uses detention facilities close to immigration courts, 

HOW TO REPAIR THE U$.IMMIGRATION DETENTION SYSTEM-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 12 
387 

and EOIR provides immigration judges to work at 

these facilities. The administration should limit the 

use of VTC to some "master calendar" hearings, and 

should generally prohibit the use of VTC in asylum 

and other merits hearings. EOIR should take steps 

to address the problems in the use of VTC including 

those identified in the 2012 report of the 

Administrative Conference of the United States. 

EOIR should also encourage immigration judges to 

afford favorable consideration to requests that 

hearings be conducted in person and EOIR should 

require coding of asylum and other hearings 

conducted via video to allow for data collection and 

analysis. EOIR and ICE should make VTC available 

to allow counsel to communicate with detainees. 

l1li Provide prompt and in-person credible fear and 

reasonable fear interviews. U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS) should interview 

asylum seekers and other applicants for protection 

promptly, ccnducting credible fear interviews and 

reasonable fear interviews within 14 days of 

detention. Interviews should be conducted in person, 

not via phone or video. 

TAKE OTHER STEPS TO ADDRESS 

DEFICIENCIES IN IMMIGRATION 

DETENTiON CONDITIONS 

BACKGROUND 

Over the last three years, ICE has taken significant 

steps to address some of the problems in the existing 

jail-oriented immigration detention system. It launched 

an online detainee locator and a community hotline, 

hired and trained on site detention service managers to 

improve oversight as well as an ICE public advocate at 

headquarters, and developed a risk classification 

assessment tool (see section above on altematives to 

detention). ICE also improved its parole guidance for 

arriving asylum seekers, developed an access policy 

that allows nongovemmental organizations to tour 

facHities and speak with detainees, and revised its 

detention standards (though these have not yet been 

implemented in any facility). In addition, since 2009 ICE 

has streamlined the process for detainee health care 

treatment authorization and modified the medical 

benefits package for ICE detainees. 

Despite this progress, a range of serious problems 

remain, including those relating to medical and mental 

care, mechanisms for preventing sexual assault, and the 

use of solitary confinement. 

Medical and Mental Health Care. In March 2011, the 

DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a 

report that identified a number of problems in the 

delivery of mental health services to ICE detainees, 

including inadequate oversight, insufficient staffing, and 

unclear decision-making authority over transfers of 

detainees with mental health care needs. Physicians for 

Human Rights also identified, in a 2011 report, the 

problem of "dual loyalties, " in which health care 

providers are ethically obligated to act in the best 

interests of their patients but in the immigration detention 

system are employed by, and report to, law enforcement 

authorities or private prison companies. The conflicting 

pressures that can result often lead to negative health 

outcomes for detainees> 

Sexual Assault. In 2003, both chambers of Congress 

passed the Prison Rapa Elimination Act (PREA) 

unanimously, and President Bush signed it into law. In 

its June 2009 report, the Commission created under 

PREA found that "[a] large and growing number of 

detained immigrants are at risk of sexual abuse. Their 

heightened vulnerability and unusual circumstances 

require special interventions.,,28 Indeed, between 2007 

and mid-2011, almost 200 complaints of sexual abuse in 

ICE custody were made to the DHS Office of Civil Rights 

and Civil Liberties" In May 2012, the DOJ finally issued 

strong PREA regulations, but despite Congress's 

intention, those new standards do not apply to ICE 

facilities. At the same time, however, President Obama 

issued a presidential memorandum stating that PREA 

covers all federal confinement facilities and directing all 

agencies with federal confinement facilities to propose 

their own PREA "regulations or procedures" within 120 

days, and finalize those regulations or procedures within 

240 days. As of November 2012, DHS, with ICE and 

Customs and Border Protection facilities holding 

hundreds of thousands of immigrants annually, had not 

yet proposed PREA rules. 

HOW TO REPAIR THE u.s, IMMIGRATION DETENTION. SYSTEM-A HUMAN. RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 13 
388 

Solitary Confinement. A September 2012 report from 

Physicians for Human Rights and the National Immigrant 

Justice Center found that "solitary confinement in 

immigration detention facilities are often arbitrarily 

applied, significantly overused, harmful to detainees' 

health, and inadequately monitored." A 2011 report from 

the U.N. special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, 

inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 

observed that solitary confinement is often used to 

punish a detained individual who has violated a facility 

rule, as well as to separate vulnerable individuals, 

including LGBTI individuals, from the general population. 

The special rapporteur noted that solitary confinement 

can lead to anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive 

disturbances, perceptual distortions, paranoia, and 

psychosis, and self-harm for any population. 30 Solitary 

confinement can negatively impact asylum seekers and 

survivors of torture in particular. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Though ICE has taken some steps toward improving 

conditions in the existing system, serious deficiencies 

persist. DHS and ICE should implement a number of 

improvements in all facilities housing immigration 

detainees, including: 

II! Provide high-quality medical and mental health 

care. The administration should take additional 

steps to improve the timely provision of medical and 

mental health care for all ICE detainees, including: 

implement the remaining OIG recommendations on 

mental health care, require that health care 

professionals report to a health organization rather 

than to ICE, and create an independent oversight 

organization to monitor provision of medica! and 

mental health care. 

III Promptly propose and implement Prison Rape 

Elimination Act (PREA) regulations based on the 

DOJ PREA rule. DHS should propose PREA 

regulations immediately, and finalize them within the 

time frame directed by the May 2012 presidential 

memorandum. These rules should be based on the 

DOJ PREA rule, and should incorporate the 

supplemental immigration detention standards 

developed by the PREA commission. 

" Limit sOlitary confinement or segregation to only 

very exceptional cases, as a last resort, and for 

the briefest time possible." ICE should revise its 

policies and practices to: end the use of solitary 

confinement in place of protective administrative 

segregation for vulnerable individuals; end the use 

of non-medical segregation cells for medical 

isolation or observation; forbid the use of solitary 

confinement or segregation for mentally ill 

detainees; forbid continuous solitary confinement or 

segregation for more than 15 days;" ensure that 

any individual placed in solitary confinement or 

segregation is afforded the same access to medical 

and mental health care, telephones, law library, legal 

presentations, legal visits, and outdoor recreation as 

the general population; and require that every 

detention facility submit to its field office monthly 

reports detailing the number of individuals in solitary 

confinement and other forms of segregation, the 

reasons for their segregation, the length of time they 

are held, and a demonstration that they have 

received daily visits from qualified mental health 

care providers. 33 

III Improve training and communication for ICE 

officers and facility staff. ICE should require that 

all officers and facility staff interacting with ICE 

detainees throughout the detention systemwhether employed by ICE, local jails or prisons, or 

private contractors-receive in-depth training 

annually on the particular situation and needs of an 

immigrant detainee population, among other training 

and professional development opportunities. The 

DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties should 

support this training 

HOW TO REPAIR THE U,S, IMMIGRATION DETENTION SYSTEM-A HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT 14 
389 

Endnotes 

1 These commitments are detailed in Human Rights First, Jails and Jumps!1its: Transforming the U.S. Immigration Detention System-A Two-Year 

Review, (New York: Human Rights First, 2011), ppA-6 

2 More information on Human rights First's Dialogues on Detention available at: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/our-work/refugee-protection/dialogueson-detention!. 

3 See Jails and J(Jmpsuits; and http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/our·wor1<lrefugee-protection/dia!ogues-on-detention/. 

4 See INA § 236{c); 8 CFR § 208.30, 212,5, 235.3, and 1003,19. 

5 IACHR Report on U.S. Immigration Policy and Practices, ~ 139, 418, 529, 431. 

6 National Immigration Forum, The Math of fmmigration: Runaway Costs for Immigration Detention Do Not Add Up to Sensible Policies, (NIF, August 

2012). p.2. 

1 Human Rights First, U.S, Detention of Asylum Seekers: Seeking Protection, Finding Prison (New York: Human Rights First, 2009), pp. 63-67; Lutheran 

Immigration and Refugee Service, Unlocking Uberty: A Way Forward for U.S, Immigration Detention Policy (URS, October 2011): Jeb BuSh, Thomas F. 

McLarty III, Edward H. Alden, Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. Immigration Policy, Independent Task Force Report No. 63 (2009), p.29 (Hereinafter 

"2011 Council on Foreign Relations Report"). 

S Hen'tage Web Memo 3455, Administrative Reforms Insufficient to Address Flawed \Nhite House Immigration and Border Security Policies, by Matt A. 

Mayer, Jan. 10, 2012, available at: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012101/administrative-reforms-in-immigration-and-border-security-policies. 

9 Bllncorporated, Intensive Supervision Appearance Program If: An Alternatives to Detention Program for the U.S. Department of Homefand Security, 

(B! incorporated, CY 2010), pp. 4·5, 17, 21. B! and ICE have named the full-service and technology~only programs together "lSAP 11~-a new version of 

the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program that began as a pilot in 2004. 

10 BI Incorporated, Intensive Supervision, p. 4, 5, 17,21; Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Unlocking Uberty, p.8. 

11 See: hHp:IIwww.texaspolicy.com/center/effective-justice/reports/public~safety-and-cost-control-solutions-texas-county-jails 

12 See: http://"www.sccgov.orglsites/boslManagement%20AudiUDocuments/PTSFinalReport.pdf 

13 Supra, note 5. 

14 Department of Homeland Security, FY 2012 Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 43, 59. 

15 2011 Council on Foreign Relations Report, pp.106-7. 

15 See AILA memo, "The Use of Electronic Monitoring and Other Altematives to Institutional Detention on Individuals Classified under INA § 236(c)," 

(August 6, 2010), available at "WWW.nilc.org/document.html?id=94.NolegalauthoritydirectiyaddressesDHS.sdiscretion to use alternatives to detention 

for mandatorily detained populations under §236(c), because neither the INA nor any regulations contemplated the use of new tools. 

17Edwards, Alice, Back to Basics: The Right to Uberty and Security of Person and 'Alternatives to Detention' of Refugees, Asylum-Seekers, Stateless 

Persons, and Other Migrants (Geneva: UNHCR, 2011), PPL.Af2011/01.Rev.1, p. 84; and International Detention Coalition, There Are Alternatives: A 

Handbook for Preventing Unnecessary Immigration Detention (Melbourne: International Detention Coalition, 2011), pp. 7-9. 

18 Jails & Jumpsuits, pp.4-6. 

19 Human Rights First has interviewed scores of detained asylum seekers who have been handcuffed and shackled. Asylum seekers may be handcuffed 

and shackled by Customs and Border Protection officers, jf detained in a border area, by ICE officers, or by contractors hired by ICE to transport 

detainees to and from facilities. 

20 U.N. Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Jorge Bustamante: Mission to the Unffed States of 

America, NHRCI7I12/Add.2 (March 5, 2008), ~ 28, available at: htfp:l/www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/47d647462.html 

21 The ABA's 2012 Civil Immigration Detention Standards are available at: 

http;lIwww.americanbar.ofg/contenUdam/abaiadministrative/immigrationiabacivdetstandards.authcheckdam.pdf. 

21 See Standards 4.5, 5.4, and 5.7. The 2011 PBNDS are available at http://'www-ice.gov/detention-standardsI20111. 

23 American Bar Association, Reforming the Immigration System: proposals to Promote Independence, Fairness, Efficiency and Professionalism in the 

Adjudication of Removal Cases (Chicago: American Bar Association, 2000), p. ES-7. In its 2010 Statistical Yearbook the Executive Office for 

Immigration Review (EOIR) reported that in FY 2010, 43 percent of immigrants in proceedings-both detained and non-detained-were represented by 

counsel. 

24 Government Accountability Office, U.S. Asylum System: Significant Variation Existed in Asylum Outcomes Across Immigration Courts and Judges, 

GAO-8-940 (VVashington, DC: GAO, 2008), p. 30. DOJ/EO!R, FY 2010 Statistical Year Book (VVashington, DC: Office of Planning, Analysis, & 

Technology, 2011), p. G-1; and Charles H. Kuck, ~Lega! Assistance for Asylum Seekers in Expedited Removal: A Survey of Alternative Practices," in US 

Commission on Intemational Religious Freedom, Asylum Seekers in ExpedIted Removal, Volume I: Findings & Recommendations (WaShington, DC; 

USCIRF, 2005), p. 8, 

2$ For more information about the Vera Legal Orientation Program, see Legal Orientation Program, Vera Institute of Justice, 

http://www.vera.org/projecU!egal-orientation-program; see Vera Institute of Justice, "Legal Orientation Program: Evaluation and Performance and 

Outcome Measurement Report, Phase 1I," (May 2008), available at http://www.vera.org/download?file=1778/LOP%2Bevalution_updated%2B5-2Q.. 

08.pdf. 

2'3 USCIRF, Asylum Seekers in Expedited Removal, p. 240. 

27Dr. Dora Schriro, Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations (Washington, DC: Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 2009), p.18, 

available at hHp:/IwwwJce.gov/doclib/aboutiofficesfodpp/pdflice-detention-rpt.pdf. Jails & JumpsuITs, p. 31. ABA, "Criminal Justice Standards," Standards 

23-8.1; 23-8.5; and 23~9.4. 

28 National Prison Rape Elimination CommiSSion Report, Ch. 9 

29 Information about these complaints was obtained by the ACLU through a Freedom of Information Act request http://www.aclu.org/sexual·abuseimmigration-detention. 
390 

30 Interim report to the U.N, Genera! Assembly of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading 

treatment or punishment, Al66/26B, Aug. 5, 2011, pp. 13, 26, 27. 

31 The American Bar Association's Standard 23.2.6 (a) on the Treatment of Prisoners suggests that "Segregated housing should be for the briefest tenn 

and under the least restrictive conditions practicable and consistent with the rationale for placement and with the progress achieved by the prisoner," at 

http:/{\WIW.americanbar.org/publications/criminaljustice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_treatrnentprisoners.htm 

32 U.N. Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur, p.9. The U.N. special rapporteur noted that after 15 days, according to medical 

literature, "some of the harmful psychological effects of isolation can become irreversible." 

33 ICE's 2011 Perfonnance·8ased National Detention Standards-'Nhich have not yet been implemented in any facility holding ICE detainees-require 

daily visits from "health care personnel." This requirement is not sufficient. The daily visits should be conducted by qualified mental health care providers 

and include periodic out·ake!! assessments. 
391 

human rights first 

American ideals. UniVersal values. 

New York Office 

333 Seventh Avenue 

13"" Floor 

New York, NY 10001·5108 

Tel.: 212,8455200 

Fax: 212.845.5299 

humanrightsflrstofg 

Washington D.C. Office 

100 Maryland Avenue, NE 

Suite 500 

Washington, DC 20002·5625 

Tel: 202.547.5692 

Fax 202.543,5999 
392 

National ICE Council 

Immlgration and Customs Enforcement 

of tile 

M'Y";;"""it'l Federation of Government Employees 

with AFL-CIO 

Dear Congressional Representative: 

Thank you for meeting with ICE employees regarding the ICE Provisions for the Law 

Enforcement Component ofImmigration Reform. Please find the enclosed documents attached: 

1. ICE Provisions for the Law Enforcement Component of Immigration Reform 

2. ICE White Paper - Single Career Patb Implementation and Funding 

3. Summary - JHU Study (3 pages) 

If you have 

Mezzacapo at i'".\iiWliL'/f, 

Sincerely, 

National ICE Council 
393 

National ICE Council 

immigration ami Customs Enforcement 

of the 

American Federation of Government Employees 

Affiliated with AFL-CIO 

iCE PROVISONS 

LAW ENFORCEMENT COMPONENT -IMMIGRATION REFORM 

ICE reports that in FY 2012 it deported 409,849 illegal aliens with approximately 96 percent 

of those deported falling into Obama Administration priority categories; 225,390 were convicted 

criminals. The deportation of a quarter million convicted criminals in one year by ICE should 

alert lawmakers to the staggering number of criminal aliens in the U.S. and the need for more 

robust enforcement by ICE, with or without immigration reforms. 

Of the estimated II million illegal aliens currently in the U.S., approximately 40"/0 (4.5 

million) are visa overstays. Current proposals by the President as well as proposals found in the 

bipartisan framework essentially ignore interior enforcement focusing on increasing border 

security and the creation of a system to track visa overstays. While border security is essential, it 

will be the job onCE agents to locate, arrest and deport millions of visa overstays that will exist 

(and/or be identified by newly developed tracking systems) even after immigration reforms are 

in place. 

Despite successful efforts to secure the border that may occur in the future, a percentage of 

attempted illegal entries will succeed. Criminal individuals and organizations will be especially 

persistent in these attempts. Again, ICE will be responsible for locating and arresting these 

aliens on the interior of the United States. Even if future border security were 90% more 

successful than current efforts, the number of illegal entrants each year could be in the hundreds 

of thousands. 

Any future reforms that continue to utilize immigrant and non-immigrant visas, or guest 

worker programs, will introduce over a million new legal entrants into the U.S. each year that 

will be deportable if the conditions of their visas are violated. Again, ICE will be responsible for 

enforcing these laws, as well as apprehending violators. 

As almost half of all illegal aliens in the U.S. entered legally but overstayed visas, it is clear 

that eliminating illegal entries is only half of the challenge. When one adds the other 

enforcement efforts listed above, as well as any future legislation regarding increased worksite 

enforcement, it is clear that ICE ERO is not prepared for that mission. Important to note, that 

while the Border Patrol has almost tripled in size since 9/11, immigration enforcement resources 

within ICE have remained relatively the same. Approximately 5,000 officer and agents within 

ICE handle the lion's share ofICE's inunigration mission, to include not only the arrest of aliens, 

but also their detention, court proceedings and eventual deportation. ICE ERO may be the most 

understaffed and under resourced law enforcement organization in the United States. A matter 

that must be addressed as part of any effort to reform the nation's broken immigration system. 
394 

II Increase by 5,000 the number of full-time ICE Deportation Officers 

II Merge all ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Law Enforcement Officers into ICE 

Deportation Officer Positions (OS-5-0S-12) eliminating differing arrest authorities and 

antiquated positions providing a force multiplier which allows operational flexibility, 

efficiency and productivity . 

., Increa'ie by 700 the number of support staff for ICE Deportation Officers 

" Authorize ICE to hire 2,500 Detention Enforcement Officers to be responsible for 

detention duties, including transportation and guarding of detainees, facility security, and 

assisting with processing 

II Increase by 10,000 the number of ICE detention beds 

.. Increase the number of DOJ Immigration judges 

.. Increase the number onCE prosecutors 

.. Require ICE or ICE-trained agents at every federal/state/county prison/jail to place 

mandatory detainers on all unlawfully present aliens identified by ICE 

.. Require ICE to assign Deportation Officers and Immigration Enforcement Agents to 

serve as members of any state or local gang task force, at the request of the task force 

• Require that all ICE Deportation Officers, Immigration Enforcement Agents, and 

Detention Enforcement Officers have adequate equipment, including body armor, Tasers, 

and M-4 rifles 

.. Require mandatory issuance of "Notice to Appear" to illegal aliens with criminal 

convictions, any conviction for operating a vehicle under the influence, or suspected or 

known gang affiliation, or any illegal alien who assaults a law enforcement officer (the 

NTA puts the alien before an immigration judge, who then decides whether the a1en 

should be removed or is eligible for relief) 

.. Deny visas for countries that refuse to repatriate their nationals who come here and 

commit crimes (as authorized by current law) 

.. Establish an ICE Advisory Council with seven members, including one appointed by the 

President, one appointed by the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, one 

appointed by the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, three appointed by the 

ICE Officers and Agents Union and one appointed by the ICE Attorneys Union (the 

Council would report to ICE Headquarters and to the House and Senate Judiciary 

Committees on a quarterly basis on the current status oflaw enforcement efforts, 

prosecutions, removals, equipment and personnel needs, and the effectiveness of policies 

and regulations promulgated by Headquarters) 
395 

?-Jovember L 2011 

VIA E-:vlAIT AND CERTIFIED \1f\lL 

'vir Chris Crane. President 

/uncrican tederat~on of Go,"en1menl EniplDyees 

"ationaI Council] J 8 ICE 

Dear : ... lr. Crane: 

I::~ :;(}"";~(~!:;Fd '';:~"r;,<";y 

tid]1:;;: 

A_s we ha\'e disc'clssed, the establishment of a wlifonn career path which allows for a single law 

enforcemer:t position to be hired as a GS-5 with a career ladder to a journeyman grade of GS-12 

is among my highest pliorities_ i believe the enhancements to our operational flexibility, 

cHiciency, and productivity that will come \\"itll the new position are essential to the continued 

su:cess of the Office of Enforcemem and Removal Operations (ERO). Also, as you know, I have 

already taken a significal1t step in this direction by Jilling all Deponation OtIlcer (DO) vacan.cies 

rrom among lhe ranks of our current Immigration enforcement Agents (lEAs) whenever 

possible. 

Berring any events beyond my control, I intend to take the next broad steps to complete this 

critical project: 

:\0 \aterthan the beginning of the third quaTter ofFY-13, cease hiring lEAs and 

beginning hiring G5-5 DOs (title subject to change) with promotion potential to GS-12. 

No later than the begilming of the third quaner ofFY-i3, begin announcing GS-Il/12 

competitive merit promotion opportw1ilies for 08-9 lEAs v;ill1 time in grade. 

_,. Continue the competiri\-e merit promotion process each year thereafter until a uniform 

career path and single Jaw position is established. 

While! will cominue to seek the appropriated funds for this project I 30m confident that barring 

unforeseen financial circumstances. [ will be able to fund this project through etI!ciencies and 
396 

Mr Chris Crane 

Page 2 of2 

the incremental approach outlined above from eXIsting base resources. Should this change, I will 

noti!") you immediately. 

The role of Council 118 in this process is invaluable. There is much to be done over the months 

ahead if "e are :0 be ready w proceed in FY-13. I look forward to continuing to work with you 

and the Council 0:1 this important project. Tn the short nm, it would be helpful if you can provide 

lEe your comments on the draft proposed position description and performance work plan for the 

new position. as well as the working group recommendations resulting from the two weeks of 

meetings between union represcntatiyes and ;n~!!1agers here i.e, Washington last month. I need 

this information 10 mo\"c the process Jorward. 

Thank you for YGur continued suppOl1 of and valuable input to this initiative. 

Respectfully. 

G aJ:y :\ok~d 

Executive Associate Dii"ector 
397 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Enforcement Removal Office Career Path Assessment 

Executive Summary (Prepared by the National ICE Council) 

The Johns Hopkins University, School of Education, Division of Public Safety Leadership 

(JHU) was tasked by the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) of the U.S. 

Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) to assess the feasibility of creating a single-track career 

path for Immigration Enforcement Agents (lEAs) and Deportation Officers (DOs) in the 

Enforcement and Removal Office (ERO- formerly known as ORO). 

The intent of the study was to provide recommendations on how a single career track 

might: 

LJ Strengthen the overall mission of ICE 

[] Yield position management efficiencies 

lJ Strengthen career advancement opportunities 

The study was also designed to provide ICE executives with information sufficient to 

determine: 

[] impact of decisions 

n Budget requests or decisions 

11 Near term pilot and longer-term transition plan options 

This report is based on the findings of 24 confidential interviews conducted over a 

period of 2 months. 60% were non-supervisory personnel; the remaining 40% were 

supervisors. 

iCE ERO Career Path Study Recommendations 

This section contains JHU recommendations for a single career path based on the 

interview findings, site visits, and literature review. 

1. Convert DO and lEA positions into one series, from GS-5 to GS-12, ratifying 

the ongoing evolution of ERO; 

2. Rename new position/series; 

3. Write PDs for each position in series, identifying required training and experience 

to advance; 

4. Broadly advertise within the organization the requirements for 

advancement through the series; 
398 

5. Develop GS-13 specialist positions, as investigative duties create need, 

with a clear justification process; 

6. Develop transition training plan and initiate the process of conversion; 

7. Develop entry level training requirements to reflect entry at various 

grades through journeyman GS-12 level; 

8. Develop an evaluation approach to weigh in depth functional experience vs 

rotational experience in the promotion process; 

9. Develop cost estimates for transition/conversion of all staff to the new positions; 

10. Develop cost estimates for steady state after conversion (e.g., training, promotions, 

etc); 

11. Explore the possibility of "grandfathering" employees who choose not to participate 

in conversion; 

12. Develop measures of success for conversion, including changes in attrition rate, etc.; 

13. Explore implications for DRA's of conversion of DOs and lEAs to a single career 

track; 

14. Explore opportunities for further contracting out; 

15. Create an Executive Steering Committee to review progress of Working Group, 

make decisions where necessary, and gain approval for execution; 

16. Develop a Communications Plan. 
399 

Statements from members of the Interfaith Immigration Coalition 

for the Senate Judiciary Hearing: "Comprehensive Immigration 

Reform" 

February 13,2013 

Statements submitted from: 

1. American Friends Service Committee 

2. American Jewish Committee 

3. Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) 

4. Church World Service 

5. The Episcopal Church 

6. Franciscan Action Network 

7. Friends Committee on National Legislation 

8. Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) 

9. Leadership Conference of Women Religious 

IO.Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service 

II.Missionary Society of S1. Columban 

12. National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd 

13. United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries 

14. U.S. Jesuit Conference 

Addendum: The Interfaith Immigration Coalition principles for comprehensive 

immigration reform 
400 

* American Friends 

Service Committee 

American Friends Service Committee statement for the Congressional Record 

pertaining to the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing 

Wednesday, February 13, 2013 

The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is an almost lOO-year old faith-based organization 

grounded in Quaker belief in the dignity and worth of every person. AFSC provides direct legal services 

and engages in organizing with immigrants and allies along with advocacy and movement building 

throughout the U.S. We directly support immigrants and refugee workers and their communities to 

organize themselves, to seek out and raise their issues as a way to affirm their aspirations and needs, 

and to continue to make contributions to this nation. 

Our immigration policy recommendations are grounded in AFSC's history and values as a faith-based 

organization and in the voices of the communities with whom we are deeply connected. We believe that 

the basis of U.S. immigration policy should be the protection of human rights and equal opportunity, not 

structures that privilege people of certain nationalities, enable employers to tap workers outside the 

protections of wage and safety laws, or result in the forced separation of families and communities. 

Humane immigration policy must include a fair mechanism for undocumented workers to gain 

permanent residency and citizenship in a fair, timely and orderly fashion. At the same time, it must stop 

the detention and deportation system that has torn apart families, and instead ensure that the human 

rights of liberty and due process are enforced. 

Specifically we urge compassionate and effective immigration policies that are grounded in the following 

principles: 

Develop humane economic policies to reduce forced migration 

Protect the labor rights of ALL workers 

Develop a clear path to citizenship 

Respect the civil and human rights of immigrants 

Demilitarize the U.S.-Mexico border 

Make family reunification a top priority 

Ensure that immigrants and refugees have access to services 

AFSC applauds the "Dear Colleague" letter released by Senators Leahy, Coons, Blumenthal and Hirono 

calling on Congress to support immigration policy reforms that respect the human and civil rights of 

immigrants. We agree that the current immigration system is punitive, fails to provide adequate due 

process protections, results in unnecessary detention in often inhumane conditions and tears families 

apart. We encourage the Committee to embrace this values-driven approach to reforms. 

AFSC urges the Committee to exert visionary leadership and to support new immigration policies that 

respect the human rights and equal economic opportunity of all in our communities. Thank you for this 

opportunity to submit testimony. 
401 

AJ C American 

Jewish 

Committee 

Statement of 

Richard T. FoItin, Esq. 

www.aJc.org 

Director of ~ational and Legislative Affairs 

Office of Government and International Affairs 

American Je"isb Committee (.UO 

Submitted on behalf of AJC to 

The Senate Judiciar~' Committee 

Hearino on " Comprehensive Immigration Revision 

Febl'uary 13, 2013 

T: (202) 785-5463, F: (202) 659-9896 

e-mail: foltim·(aajc.org 
402 

,ullerican Jewish COMnit!e" S!at"lllenr on 

Comprehensi\'e Immigration RdOim 

Sine" its founding in 1906. AJC has been outspoken in support oHair and generous llllllugralion 

policies. As American J elY'. "''' recall holY our parellls and gralldparellls made their \Yay to this country 

seeking a b"ner life. and know that lYe lim'" prospered in aild eonnibuted to this country. TIlat sam" 

oppolTImiry should be a,'ailable for others. Comprehensive immigration refOIUl will strength"n 

,\merica's global eompetitivene"s as ,yell as allow hard-"'orking inllnigrmm an 0ppolTImiry to succeed III 

the Cnited Stat"s. for thellls<iYeS and for flllure generatiollS-and. at the sallle tllne. promote respect for 

the mle of law and protect om national seCluity. 

In ad,'oeating for fair. "O:'<ctiw and human" immigration policies. AJC acts in accord with the 

_,,-merican Jewish conulllmity's longstanding interest in. and conlllutm"nt to, a United States inunigrarion 

and refugee policy that represents our nation's be5t traditions. According to Jewish n'adition. "snmlgers" 

are TO be welcolll"d and valued, a, we were OllCe "sn-allgers iu The laud of Egypt. " The Torah tells u;,: 

"TIle strangers who SOjO\u1l with you shall be To you as the natives among you. and you shall low Them 

as yourself: for you were stIan?"r;, in the land of Eg)l)("' (L"viticu;, 19:33-3~1, 

AJC cOllllllends Senator Leahy (D-\T) for urging his fellow Selluwrs TO enact CL'lllprehellSi\'e 

immigration r"foll11 t1wt includes a path"'ay TO citizenship for law abiding inuuigraurs alr"ady h"re and: 

1. Pro,'ides for 3n "nforcelll"nr process Thatm3tch"s O\u' \'alues, including a fair h"aring befe)!" a judg'" 

a bond hearing. f"deral COllll revie", ami acc",,> TO COlllI;'''!: 

o Provides for IllUllan" treatment of anyone detained by innllig:ratioll aUThorities and ensures that no 

one is depI1\'ed of their libelly except as a last reson: 

~, R"duces the impact of enforcemelll on children and falluli"s: 

.t. Clmifies that immigration enforcement is a federal respomibiliry that should be administered 

mUfol111lv 8cross the coulltrv: 

5, Explicitl;' r"jeets C!isclilllin~tion and racial protiling: and 

6, Ensures That all agencies charged "'ith enforcement operaTe with aecolU1tability and u'anspar"ncy, 

.UC also applauds the bipani,;mltl"allle\\'ork for inlllligration refolUl inu'oc!uced by S"nators Schlllller 

(D-::-'-Yl. :\lcCain (R-AZ'i. Durbin (D-ILl. Grahmn (R-SC), l\len"ndez (D-t'Jl. Rubio (R-FL), Be1111et (DCO) and Flake (R-AZl on January 28. 2013. TIle basic legislath'e pillars of this bipartisan frameIH)Ik 

would: 

I, Crem" a tough but fair patl! to citizenship for unauthorized inlllligrants cuneutly living in 

lhe Cnitec! States That is coutingelllupon secming our bordeI5 and u-acking whether legal 

inlllligrants have left lhe cOlU1try when requll'ed: 

, Refol11l e)m legal illulligration system to better r"coglliz" the imporrance of characteristics that "ill 

h"lp build The Am"rican economy and sTrengthen _'\lnelical1 families: 

_', Cr"are an effectiw employment verification system Th,1t will prewnt identity th"ft and end the biling 

e)1' fhmr" lUlamhoriz"d workers: and 

4, Establish an llnplm'ed pr,xess for adnuttlllg futllre workers to Serve om nation's worlctorc" ne"ds. 

while simultaneously protecting all workers. 

By producing an lllitiativ" that accepts the premise of a path to citizenslup tor lllldoclUll"meci 

inuni£!HultS. The Senators r"co;nuze iI111rll;n'ation as a kev factor III bo15t"Img AUl"lica'5 ecollolnic 

strengTh and democratic pluralism. Tile p;oposed refon~s TO the family and ~mplo}1l1ent visa categoJies 

are also encouraging, Allowing illnnigrant families to more easily relUlite with Their loved ones 

prome)t", a strong social fablic ill our COlllllllUlities, In addition. making it easier tor high and low-skilled 
403 

American Jewish Committee Statement on 

Comprehcnsiye Immigration Reform 

immigrant workers to come to this country will help to ensure that American businesses haw the labor 

they need to compete in a global economy. 

AJC recognizes the need for enhanced enforcement measures directed at assuring 3n effectiw and 

fair immigration sy>tem that abo protects national security. Ho,,'e\'cr. AJC is concemed that the 

bipartisan frame\york proposed by the eight Senators does not quantify how and ,,'hen the border \yill 

be deemed secure or proyide specifics as to hOlY the gOYemment Iyould track yisa owrstays. Without 

objectiwly defining these critical components, it \yill be diflicult to detennine when these goals are 

met. In addition, the emplO)lnent yerificnrion system propo,ed in this framelmrk must inclutle explicit 

protections against racial profiling and other ci\'il rights abuses. \I'e applaud Senator Leahy on his 

principles that explicitly reject discrimination and racial profiling and seek to proyide ft)r an 

enforcement process that inclndes due process protection.;. Abow all. AJC looks fonyard to \yorking 

\yith the Senate to draft comprehensive immigration refonn legislation. and achie\'ing in 2013 a 

genuine breakthrough on this critical issue. 

Following the lead of all of these Senators, AJC declares our conunitment to the pas,age of a 

COnmlOll-';eme bill that serws ollr nation's interests and upholds our Con,titution. This bill must proyide 

a holistic approach to refonnillg our inunigration system and should include: 

1. ..\. path to legalization for immigrants already in the rnited States. 

There are an estimated II million undocumented inulligrants currently residing in the rnited States. 

Comprehensiw inU1ligration reit1ITn would proyide the;,e inunigrants Witll a path to legal status and 

eventual eamed citizemhip. This track to citizel15hip should be realistic. rather than being so 

burdensome thn! it preyents integration, Reasonable criteria may include leaming English, having a job, 

maintaining a criminal-free background. and or paying a modest fine and back taxes. Howewr. fines 

should not be excessiw, exemptions should be made for nrlnerable populations, and immigrant> should 

not haw to return to their country of origin to apply tor legal status or citizenship, These measures 

\yould only deter participation in the legalization process. Creating a path to citizenship for the 

undocl.Ullented would open the door to a better life it1T those \\'ho desire to work hard and contribute in a 

positiw \\'ay to American societl' but tor nOlY 111mt live in the shado\\'s, a situation that offends rile 

dignity of all human beings. 

Additionally, within the II million undocmuented immigrant popUlation, there are an estimated 

50,000-65,000 lmdocumented students who ilTaduate from American hidl schools each Year. :-'1any 

came to the C.S. at a young age. have grO\\11-UP in American schools, d;ve!oped Ameri~an \'alues~ und 

are American in ewry sense except their citizenship. AJC supports inclusion of the Dewlopment, 

Relief. and Education for Alien :vIinors (DREAM) Act in a comprehensive inU1llgratiol1 refonn bilL The 

DREAM Act would pnwid~ this sd~ct group of immigrant studems, who at this time are only eligible 

for a two-year temporary status under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arriyals pro gram, a pemlanent 

patll to citizemhip. 

2. Reforms that fayor reuniting families. 

Famih' is the comers tone of Amelican society. Allowing ilmnigrant f3lnilies to more easily relUlite 

with theiilowd ones strengthens our economy aild prolllote~ a stro~lg social fabric in our COIl~l1l.Ulities, 
404 

AmericlUl Je1\-i,h Committee Statement on 

Comprehell5in~ Inunigration Refonll 

3 

Promoting tinnily lmity incentivizes integration and economic development. as tiuuilies provide strong 

foundations for leaming EnglIsh_ purchasing a home_ pursuing job 0ppoffimiues_ starting a business_ 

preparing children for college_ and strengthening the foundatil)n of our commul1Jties_ \\ 11en families are 

together. the money they earn fuels the CS. economy through taxes_ inwIllucnh and the purchasing of 

goods and sen-ices. Because of the strong economic and social \'alue of familv unit\". enhlUlCement of 

ihe family inuuigrant \'isH category must.-under any circumstances. remain a l;riorit~- of immigrmion 

refonu. 

Right nO\l-. many immignmt families remain separated for years sometiuw; ewn decadesbecause of bureaucratic visa delays. Comprehen5i"e immigration refornlmust refol1u the inmrigration 

system to expedite the "isa process in favor of family reunification. Thi, includes making family-based 

,-isHs lllore accessible. reducing the current backlog of fanrily-based ,-isas, increasing the per-country 

ll1unericallimitation for family-sponsored illlllligrants from 7 percent to 15 percent of adnussions. and 

generally reorienting the \-isa system to prioritize flUnily unity. These reforms would help ensure 

immigrant families reunite more quickly and protect fmnilies from being separated. thus promoting 

family stability and fostering economic gro\\1h_ 

Further. it is important that. in refomling the ilmnigration system_ we push back agaimt etIons to 

den\" citizen;hip to inunigrant children born in the United States_ ,yhich violates the 14th Amendment of 

the rs Constitution. Also_ we mmt ensure that fanuly-based visas are not placed in competition ,\-ith 

other "isa categories. an approach that would be inimical to the goal of t:1l11ily unity and a better 

functioning inulligration system. 

3. Adjustment of quotas fol' futul'e !lows of immigrants, including high and low-skilled 

employment \isas. 

InIDligration policies that promote entry of both lrigh andlo\\"-"kilkd \\"OTkers \vould strengthen our 

nation's global cOl11petiveness and ensure that American bu,illesses haw the skilled and unskilled labor 

they need to compete in a global economy. AJC supports increasing or eliminating the numerical limit 

of visas for high-skilled workers in proportion to our country's economic demands_ and establishing an 

additional ,-isa category for foreign nationals \\'ho earn master's degrees or Ph.Ds in science. technology. 

engineering or mathematic, (ST£:\1). 

Addressing the low-skilled labor demands of the agricultural industry. AJe supports inclusion of the 

Agricultural Job,_ Opporrunity_ Benetit~ and Security Act (AGJOBS) in an iUUlugrntion ref 01111 bill. 

legislation that \Yould grant earned legalization to undocunlcnted agricultural \yorkers based both 011 past 

agricullllIal IH)rk in the r.s. and a prospective work requirement. Seasonal agTlcultmaJ \Yorkers. due to 

their migrant 'tatus. are highly ntlnerable to economic exploitation and denial of their ciyil rigllls. \lith 

httle abihty to defend themsel\"es. AgJOBS represents a step forward in putting such workers on the 

path to eligibility for enmed legalization and citizenship_ better protecting their rights_ their acce,;, to our 

legal system and their stake in our society. 

Establislring an impro\-ed process te)r admitting ti.tture workers to sen'e our nation', workforce needs 

would allow om country to meet its labor demands while protecting the \\'orkforce from abuse. The,e 

fonvard thinking ref 01111'; \yould help to en~ure that American lm,ine,ses haye the labor they need to 
405 

American Jcwj,h Committee Statement on 

C omprehensiye Immigration Rcfonn 

remain globally cOll1petitiw and would bendit American busine"es by providing a sustainable. reliable 

and cOll1petitiw workforce. 

4. Facilitation of and support for immigrant integration. 

:Vlany inul1iorrmltS desire to natumlize but lack the necessary tools. AJC bdiews that the successful 

accultur~tion oiinllnigrants is nmdml1ental to a sound inul1igr;tion policy. and urges greater efforts to 

f1cilitate nC""COll1crs' adjustment to American society. Acculturation etIort, 5hould convey an 

understanding of and appreciation for American democratic mstimtions. patriotism. and comtitl.ltional 

principles. including equality tmder the Imy and due process. At the same time. without a \'igorous 

commitment to pluralism and respect for inul1igrant cultures. America risks increasing etlmic tension 

and resentment. Both the successful incorporntion of inulligrants and a respect for pluralism are 

neces>ary to preserye the "A.mericml ell'emn" and sustain democracy. 

Consistent "'ith these bdietS. ATC supports the creation and or reinvigoration of as well as 

increased nmding for programs and practices designed to etIectiwly acculturate immigrants. including 

increased SUppOlt for progrmns for adults and children Also. comprehensi\'e inunigration refoml should 

include greater emphasis on the imponance of learning English by newcomers-adults and childrenwith greater funding for such progratm so that all \"ho \"ish to do so haw the opportunity to leam 

English upon their arri"ul in the C.S. or soon thereafter. Finally. there must be recognition that 

acculturation cannot be accomplished "'ithout the significant participation of community institutions. 

5. Smart and humane enforcement measures that bolster our national security. 

Border policies 111mt be consiqent with humanitarian yalues and with the need to treat all individuals 

\\'ith respect. while allowing the Cnited States to implement its inunigration laws and identity and 

prevent the entry of criminals. and of person;, who \"ish to do us hanll or otherwise pose a risk to our 

national security. 

In updating and reforming border security measures, there should be (1) greater intelligence sharing 

regarding potentwl terrorists alllong the nation's llltelligence and gatekeeper agencies: (2) increased me 

of state-of-the-an anti-fraud technology to create counterfeit-resistant passports and yisas. atld atlalyze 

,uspect documenls: (3) layers of security with multiple screening points for tllose departing for and 

arri\'ing in the C.S .. and (4) improvements in the system that tracks foreign nationals who enter and 

leaw the C.S., includin2 tile \'i2orous monitoring of tllose who enter with student. visitor. or 

emplo)1llent visas: matclling of emries into and ~xits from the C.S. in order to better alen the 

govemment to those \\'ho stay in the C.S. beyond tile tenns of their vi,a,: and improwd enforcement of 

applicable laws for those who o,,"rstay their visas. 

To tile extent Congre,> considers. as part of comprehensive inunigration reform. the creation of a 

mmlc!atory electronic work-eligibility wrilicarion system atld action on "employer ,anctions" that 

penalize employers for tile ktlo\\"ing cmplo)1llent of unauthorized in:rnngrmlt';. such mea'ures should 

incorporate adequate safeguards to protect workers from discrimination in the \yorlqllace. 
406 

American Jewish Conlll1illee Statement on 

Comprehensive Inlll1igration Rdonn 

6, Reform of detention polides, due process protections, and special protection for 

asylum seekers, refugees and vulnerable populations, 

The United States has A long history of globallendership in protecting persecuted refugees and 

displaced persons. Inllnigration rdonn legIslation must include key changes [0 the CS. asylum system 

to bener ensure that refilgees who seek the protection of the Cnited State;, are afforded meaningful 

access to a fair. dfectiw and timely a;,yhnn adjudication process and the FS. mmt take steps to ensure 

that the C.S. asylum system reneets CS. "alues and conmliunents to protecting the persecuted. 

AJC suppom the recolllmendations proposed in the Refugee Protection Act (RPA) of 20 11 (H.R. 

2185). and urges that an inunigration refonn bill include proyisions to eliminate the limitations that 

prewnt qualitied indiyiduals from appll'ing for a,ylum, improve legal infonnation for immigrants. 

im'est in our immigration courts. and expand alternatiyes to detention, especially for asyhull ;,eekers and 

,ulnerable populations. Enforcement measures such as detention and raids should be narrowly tailored, 

and should be carried our in a humane fashion and in accord "'ith due process. 

In 'Uln. AJC calls upon our elected ofticiab to enact inmrigration refonnlegislation that provide, ml 

opportunity for hard-working inlllligrants who are already contributing to tlris conntry to come our of the 

,hado\\'s, regularize their status upon satisfaction of reasonable criteria and. oYer time, pursue an option 

to become la\\ful penllanent residents mld ewntually United States citizens: refonns OllT t:1lllily-based 

il1l1nigrmion system to significantly reduce "'aiting times for separated families who currently wait 

m311" years to be reunited: establishes new legal avenues for workers and their families who wish to 

mi,rrate to the CS to enter our COIUltry and "'~rk in a safe, lelmL and orderly manner \\'lth their ri2:hts 

fiilr" protected: reduces the use of det~ntion for imllligrallls, e:pecially \'llm~rable groups and thoZe 

seeking asylUlll: and ensures that border protection policies are con"istent with hUll1anitari31l ,'alues and 

with the need to treat all indi"iduals \\itll respect, while allo\\'illg the anthorities to carry out the critical 

task of identifying and prewnting emry of terrorists and dangerous crinrinals. thereby bolstering our 

national security. 

As a faith-based organization, we call attemion to the moral dimensions of public policy and pursue 

policies that uphold the human dignity of each perSall, all of\\hom are made b 'tselem dahill!. in tlle 

in1.1ge of G-d. \\-e engage the inllnigration i%ue with the goal offashioning an illlllligratioll system that 

facilitates legal srams and family unity in the interest of ;,eITing the inherent dignity and riglll'> of eWr\' 

indi,'iduaL e~'en as it enhances ~ut n3tional ""curity and prom.ne, respect for the n'lle of la~,·. It is our ' 

collective prayer that the legislatiw process will produce a jmt immigration ,ystem of which our nation 

of inunigrants can be proud. 

AJC appreciates the 0ppo11u11ity to submit this statemelll and \wlcomes your questions and 

C0l11111ents. 
407 

•• < Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) ..., iN TH E UNiTED STATES AND CANADA 

"As Christians cammitted ta Gad's call ta welcame the stranger and ta pramate the 

whaleness and well being af families, Christian Church (Disciples af Christ) leaders have far years 

called upan aur paliticalleaders ta mave beyand aur current system that leaves aur neighbars in 

the shadaws, divides us against ane anather, and devastates children by tearing apart their 

families. We therefare welcame an appartunity ta achieve immigratian refarm that is nat anly 

camprehensive and bipartisan, but alsa cansistent with aur basic values af justice and 

campassian." Rev. Dr. Ronald J. Degges, President of Disciples Home Missions 

Statement in Support of Just, Humane, and Compassionate Immigration Reform 

from Christian Church (Disciples of Christl Refugee & Immigration Ministries 

The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is a denomination of approximately 700,000 

members and 3,500 congregations that was born from a frontier movement with immigrants 

among our first leaders. Our body was founded on the principles that all are welcome at the 

Table of Christ, and includes a large number of congregations with first generation Americans. 

We recognize the strength of the United States emerges from the diversity of its immigrants, 

and affirm that immigration has played a major role in the development of our countries and in 

the advancement of our economies. 

Disciples commend the U.S. Congress and the Obama Administration in recognizing the 

priority need for immigration reform that repairs and updates our current broken immigration 

system. We welcome immigration reform that is comprehensive and bipartisan, and which is 

"just, humane and compassionate." To do so falls in fine with our sacred scriptures, where "the 

presence of a stranger is seen as an opportunity for hospitality-the sharing of one's home and 

resources" (resolution on "Faith and Our New Neighbors," 2007.) 

We applaud the principles outlined in the February 5,2013 letter by Senators leahy, 

Hirono, Blumenthal, and Coons which urge commonsense laws that affirm the equality of all 

persons, seek fair hearings and due process, reject unnecessary detentions, and require 

accountability and transparency in enforcement practices. As Disciples, we are compelled to 
408 

speak against mistreatment of the stranger as we remember God's command that "You shall 

not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt" (Exodus 22:21 

NRSV). We support reform policies which reflect our church's historical call to "ensure 

adequate legal representation and appropriate civil liberties to all immigrants being targeted 

and detained for national security reasons" (resolution "On Assuring Civil Liberties and Equal 

Justice to Immigrant Communities in the United States," 2003.) 

We further insist that security for our country should not result in racial discrimination, 

threats of deportation, or targeting immigrants on the basis of national, ethnic and religious 

identity. We support the right of our nation to defend our borders and to ensure the integrity 

of the workplace through enforcement. However, our nation has pursued policies focused 

upon enforcement for over twenty five years, and unnecessarily punitive and disproportionate 

enforcement must not deprive immigrants oftheir basic human and civil rights. 

Therefore, last week we joined our denominational voice with diverse ecumenical 

partners in the "Christian Churches Together" network from Catholic, Evangelical/Pentecostal, 

Historic Protestant, Orthodox, and Historic Black churches, to highlight these unified principles 

for fundamental immigration reform: 

• An earned path to citizenship for the 11 million people in the United States 

without authorization. 

• The priority offamily reunification in any immigration reform. 

• Protecting the integrity of our borders and protecting due process for 

immigrants and their families. 

• Improving refugee protection laws and asylum laws. 

• Reviewing international economic policies to address the root causes of 

unauthorized immigration. 

We pray for legislators in their important work of crafting legislation that reflects our 

values for just, humane, and compassionate immigration reform, and look forward to 

supporting these reforms together. 
409 

(f) 

cws 

Church World Service statement for the Congressional Record pertaining to the 

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wednesday, February 13th , 2013 

As the U.S. Senate considers how to best fix the U.S. immigration system, Church World Service (CWS), 

a 67-year old humanitarian organization, urges the Senate to enact immigration reforms that strengthens 

family unity and provides a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who are currently undocumented. The 

CWS network of 37 protestant denominations and 36 refugee resettlement offices across the country 

welcomes newcomers by helping them integrate into their new communities. We advocate for immigration 

reform not only because it is the right thing to do to improve the lives of our immigrant brothers and 

sisters, but also because it is the smart thing to do for our economy and communities. 

Immigration reform must include a workable, clear, and attainable path to full citizenship for the 

approximately 11 million men, women and children who are undocumented. These aspiring citizens are 

American in all but paperwork, and should be provided an opportunity to take the citizenship exam and 

pledge the oath of allegiance. As shown by a recent bipartisan poll conducted by Hart and Public Opinion 

Strategies, 80% of Americans support immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship. 1 

Immigration reform must also prioritize family unity. Family unity is integral to the economic contribution of 

immigrants, and also key to the function of our immigration system. When families are separated by 

lengthy visa backlogs, bars to re-entry, and no option to adjust their status, our immigration system, by 

failing to function in a timely way, incentivizes illegal entry. 

Family unity spurs integration, as families provide strong foundations for leaming English, purchasing a 

home, pursuing job opportunities, starting a business, preparing children for college, and contributing to 

communities. When families are together, the money they earn fuels the U.S. economy through taxes, 

investments, and the purchasing of goods and services. A key example of this are immigrant-owned 

companies, many of which are run by families, contribute more than $775 billion dollars annually to U.S. 

gross domestic product, creating jobs that are essential to economic growth. 2 

Our current visa system only allows U.S. citizens to sponsor their spouse, children, parents, and siblings; 

and Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) can only sponsor their spouse and children. In addition, visa 

backlogs can be as long as seven years for a spouse or minor child of LPRs, and as long as 27 years for 

a sibling of a U.S. citizen. CWS urges Senators to authorize additional visas so that families do not have 

to wait years to be reunited. We are opposed to any reduction in family visas or proposals that claim a 

false-choice between family visas and employment visas. 

Immigration reform should not continue or increase harmful enforcement poliCies that have proven 

ineffective and inhumane. For decades, the United States has increased border and interior enforcement 

efforts. Last year alone, the U.S. spent more than $18 billion on immigration enforcement, more than all 

other federal law enforcement agencies combined! However, border militarization and fence 

construction, workplace and home invasion raids, utilizing local police to enforce immigration laws, and 

1 Nationallmmirgation Reform Survey. Hart Research ASSOCiates I Public Opinion Strategies. 

<http://wNw.seiu.ora/immigrationllmmigration%20T op!ines%20PubHc%20Release.pdf.;> 

2 Open for Business. The Partnership for a New American Economy. 

<http://www.renewDureconomy.oralsiles/a!!/themes/pnae/openforbusiness pdf>. 

3 Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a Formidable Machinery. The Migration Policy Institute. 

<http://www.miarationpolicY.orq/pubs/enforcementpillars. pdf>. 
410 

inhumane detention, coupled with congress's failure to enact real solutions, have only further damaged 

an already broken system. 

CWS is committed to working with all members of the Senate and House to enact immigration reform that 

will keep families together and provide a pathway to citizenship. Such reform would mark real progress. 

We need to make our immigration system work better for our economy and for the fabric of our 

communities - families. We urge all members of the Senate to strive toward this goal. 
411 

THE 

Epi~'jcopal CHURCH 

TESTI\IO~Y O~ OF .UEx..-L ,"DER D. BAr:'IGARTE~ A~"D KA TIE CO~WA Y O~ 

BEHALF OF THE EPISCOPAL CHl"RCH1 

FEBRFARY 13, 2013 

We thank Senaror Leahy. Chauman of the Senate JudicialY Committee. and Ranking r-Iember 

Grassley for the oppornmity to submit this te._timon),. \Ve m~lcome this hearulg all the need for 

cOlnprehensive immigration ref0l111 because we beliew that our immigration sy>Tem is broken. 

and that we as a nation deSelye an iUlilliE:wtion sYstem that reflects our values and our hisrorv, 

Our nation and our faith find foundation'in the b~lief that al\ people are creared in the likene;s of 

God and should therefore be treated with dignity. equality. and fau1less under our laws, 

TIle Episcopal Church' s support for comprehensive and InUll3ne ref0l111 of om' innnig:ration laws 

stems fl:om our decades-Ionz cOllnuitmellt to iumli!D:ants and refhzees. rooted in our biblical 

mandaTe to \\'elcome The str~nger and serw the "Ie;st of these." m~long us. For OWl' 60 years. the 

Episcopal Church has resettled retllgees fleeing persecution mId has served as a forcefhl 

advocate for rhe needs of refugees. imll1ig::rants and other at-lisk migrants for whom stronger 

protection is Heeded nnd~r our la\\'s. This cOlllmitment TO protection has led our highest 

govemiug body. the General Convention. to pa"s multiple resolutions Ul suppon of an 

immigration system That al\o\\'s undocllmenTed immigranTs with established roots in the United 

States access to a pathway to citizenship. TIlis includes a commitmellT the rightS of all families. 

including the fmllilies of same·sex partners and spouse", to reunify without lmdue delay: labor 

protections lUlder the law for both US. and migram workers: and conlIlion-sense enforcement 

policies dmt respect the digniTy and wonh of every hUlllan being, 

Each day. Ul congregations. diocese and cOlllnHmities across the cOllmry. The "su'angers" aillong 

us emich our lives and comribute to the 1l1ultiethnic u'adition of the American Dream, 

InUlligrauts of all skillle\'eis. jiOlU those who pick the food that nourishes us to those who care 

for our children and elders to those whose technological innovations 1ix om' compUTers, 

contribUTe economically, socially and spirinlally to our conlllllUlities, That is why we believe thaT 

any umnigraTion refOl1Ulllust refol1u The entire SYSTem and avoid pitting different causes of 

migration and groups of i!llllligrams against one anorher. Workers of all ski\1lew!> Sl10lIld be 

allowed to offer theu' needed contributions TO our economy and they should be allowed to keep 

their families intact. Our svstemlllUST nOT deny The socio-economic necessirv of family, and The 

employment and t~1mily-i~1l1ligratioll systems'should be viewed a;, complim'entmy ratiler than 

competiTive. Family members help one anOTher ultegrate, pursue job oPPOi1lmiTies. start Their 

O\YJl busulesses. and provide The foundations of healthy COnnl11ll1iTies. 

Our inlluigraTioll SYSTem should be reiol1ued so ThaT iIllmigrams who wish to reunify with theu' 

families or seek emplO)1l1em in The United Stares elo not have to make iulpossible choices 

bem'een om ilmlligration laws and the p<'ople they love, Our ChW'ch r<'cognizes The importmlce 

1 Alexander D. Baumgarten is the Director of Government Relations, -and Katie Con'Nay is the 

Immigration and Refugee Policy Analyst for the Episcopal Church, a Illultinational religious 

denomination based in the United States with members in 15 other sovereign nations, 
412 

THE Episcopal 

CHURCH 

of adhering to our nation's law;;, but \w beJieye \w must work change rhe laws ifrhey do nor 

resp.:ct the dignity oflnullan beings or respond to til.: needs of conUlllllliti.:s. This call to light 

relationship withilllnullall COllllllllllities is a comerstone of the Judeo-Christian scripllu'al and 

ethical tmdition, and Ends expression for Epi;;copaliuns in the promise each makes at baptism TO 

"sniw for jmtice and peace mnong all people ancl respect the dignity of every human b.:ing.·· 

Our immigration system must be transfonned to iuto a just and lnunane system that disc em!', 

betw.:.:n thos.: who enter illegally to do us haHn and those Who enter because our ;,ystem Call1lo! 

provide them with a clear and timely path to tinnily relllliEcation or legal elllplo}1l1eni. The 

fillldamellTal principles oflegal due process should be granted to all persons and all immigration 

enforcement policies s!Jould be proporrional and InUllane. which is why the Episcopal Church ha;, 

called for the inllnediate tenuinmion of destl11ctiYe enforcement programs like Secure 

Comlllunities. 2S7-g. and the implelllellTation of conlll1unity altematives to the costly prison-like 

immigration detention system. 

We liope that this hearing provides us with tlie first step towards the justice and peace that \w 

seek. Thank you for callying tlie costly burden of public s.:rvice. and for the OPPOi11Uliry to 

sublllirrhese views TO rlie C0111111iftee. 

RespecrfiIlly submitted. 

Alexander D. Baulllg311en and Karie Conway 
413 

Franciscan Action Network 

Transforming the World in the Spirit of St. Francis and St. clare 

30254 'S~r(,ft, '~:: • I', 2.:ohillfton, DC 20017" ~ 1-888-364-3383 (toB frb.':')· 202-527-7576 (fax) 

The Franciscan Action Network welcomes the work of the bi-partisan Senate Committee and the Obama 

Administration to make humane, common sense immigration reform a priority for this Congress. After 

years of failure to mend our country's broken immigration system, these efforts offer hope and 

encouragement to millions of aspiring Americans eager for a path to full citizenship, and to families 

separated by rigid andunfair practices within the current immigration system. 

We support the principles stated by Senators Coons, Blumenthal, Leahy and Hirono in their 

"Dear Colleague" letter of February 5. We join these Senators in calling for immigration reform that is in 

accord with our country's values: i.e, provides enforcement that includes transparency, equality, due 

process, humane treatment, reduces the impact on children and families, and rejects discrimination and 

racial profiling. 

We firmly believe, in accord with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, that reform must include a 

fair and reasonable path to citizenship for eleven million undocumented immigrants, many of whom 

have been working and contributing to U.S. society and economy for many years, and must also 

prioritize family unity. Principled reform should also address root causes of migration from developing 

countries and create a legal employment structure for future workers that protects both migrants and 

the U.S. citizen laborforce. 

While we applaud serious bi-partisan efforts to reform the current immigration system, we are 

concerned about proposals to make a path to citizenship contingent on confirmation that our southern 

border is secure. Congress must acknowledge that the border is more secure now than it has ever been, 

with as much as $150 billion dollars spent on enforcement in the past ten years. Migration has 

decreased while deportations have increased. Demanding "proof" of security could continue to delay 

enactment of comprehensive and humane immigration reform. 

We are eager to work with members of Congress as they develop legislation to bring our immigration 

system into harmony with American values of fairness, compassion, and the importance of family as the 

basic unit of a strong United States society. 

Sister Marie Lucey, OSF 

Director of Advocacy 

Franciscan Action Network 

Patrick Carolan 

Executive Director 

Franciscan Action Network 
414 

nFe 

UNL 

Fdll1wry 12, 2013 

US S'ECQXD SEEH, XE 

W .... ;'Hr.\"GTO:-:', DC 20002-5761 CSA 

PHO~f (202)347~D{lO 

TOLL-FREE F'HOXE (500) 030·1330 

lEC';SL.:..Tr>t: ACTIOl\· MESSAGE (20:2) 5-t7....f3-l3 hnp:/iwww.fcnLorg E-:\>LA.IL tC111l'lio'~frnL01g 

FRlENDS Cm,Il\IITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION 

... ,1 Quaker IoN'!! iII tlte pllI'lie illtere"t 

Framework fOI' Comprebemin Immigl'atioll Reform: 

A Good Start for Blparti;all COll~el"\atioli 

Th< Fri<nds Committee on :-<ational Legislation welcomes the Bipanisan Framework fbr 

Comprehensiw IUlluigrarion Refolln released Oil January 28 by eight CS. Senarors. \\'e 

eongramlare the amhor" of tile Framework. who reached aeros!' pmty lines ro adJ10lyledge the 

need to fix our broken illlllligration "ystem, and to propose some practical soluriom, 

The Frame"'ork includes se\'eral positive and imponant feamres. It outlines a roadlllup to 

evenrual citizenship for undocumented immigrams clUwmly in the 1.'5. It recolllmends 

improvements in the processiug of tamily \'i5a5 that would help keep tamilies together by 

reducing backlogs. It proposes to improve the process by I\'hieh workers of all sldlllevels can 

come to the Cnited States, and reco.gnizes the imponance of strengthening labor protections for 

all \yorkers. 

HoweWL we are concemed about the Framework's proposal to increase, y~t again. enforcement 

at the border and at pons of enllY to the Cui ted States, even though the FS, ah'eady inl'ests more 

in immigration enforcement by the Department of Homeland Security than in all other federal 

law enforcement agencies combined. According to DHS report;" illegal border crolsings haw 

diminished dramatically in the past five year;" Evidence indicates that border enforcement hal 

been substantially addres5ed. and it's time to mo\'e on to other repairs needed by our broken 

system. 

The Framework lists practical solmioll5 tor mallY immigration-related problems that need 

attemiOlL and then thlSll'ates the potential effectiveness of these solutions by crearing 

unuecessary conditions and balTiers. For example, the Framework proposes thm resolving the 

siTIlation of th~ 11 million clUwntly Undocllluented inuuigrants who are here in this country 

should await "completion" of border elltorcement measure,. ,Ve beliew that Congress's rop 

priority should be to design practical and durable solutions to resolw ClilTent problems aud 

prevent reCUlwnce of the anomalies that characterize our illl1nigration system today, Delays and 

baniers that prevent necessary solutions ti-om being applied simply lengthen the umolUlt of time 

that the narionllllbt lil'e with a broken system, 
415 

To create an effective repair to ollr immigration system, legislation will need to include a 

rational. specific. and attainable metric to describe what is meant by "completion" of border 

enforcement. Legislation will also need to include a clarification that agricultural workers who 

sign up for the special agricultural worker program may at some point leave agricultural work 

and pursue a roadmap toward eventual citizenship. Without such assurance, this legislation 

would create an anomalous "citizen-second class"- with no right to move or to change jobs or 

employers. Since the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, this COWltry has no such category 

of Citizenship. 

Finally, FcNL is concerned about the civi1liberties implications of employer-based enforcement 

mechanisms - patiicularly a mandatory E-VerifY system that will Wldoubtedly catch citizens, 

especially those with foreign sOWlding names - in their nets. Because employer-based 

enforcement systems that focus on individuals will reach much more widely than other 

approaches. the legislation must incorporate protections of privacy. due process, atld 

fundamental fairness. 

Various industries in the U.S. need more workers; communities need strong fanrilies. Families 

need each other. Everybody needs jobs. OUr common future relies on an educated and committed 

citizenry. These concerns and values can merge in a fair and hWllalle renovation of our 

inlmigration laws and programs. FCNL looks forward to seeing the details of the legislation -

and to the opportunity to support the good parts and persuade lawmakers away from the parts 

that fail to fIX our broken system. 

2 
416 

Submittl"d to the Senate Judiciary Committl'l' Rl'gal'ding the Hearing 00 

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

Februal'y 13, 2013 

HIAS. the global migtatioll agency of the American Jewish COllllUllIlity, welcomes the opportunity to 

submit written testimony regarding refonning our country's immigration system. Throughout its more 

than J30-year history, HIAS has advocated for just and compassionate inmIigration laws that honor 

i\merica's tradition as a welcoming nation. HIAS is also a national resettlement agency and an 

international refugee services organization with programs around the world. 

Central to immigration refonn. there must be a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigtants 

currently in the U.S. including undocumented students who would be covered by the DREAM Act 

and shorter "'ait times for family members seeking to be reunited with their loved ones in the 

U.S. Additionally, immigration refonn legislation must ~.eate legal and orderly avenues for workers and 

their families seeking migtation to work in the U.S. ill sate and secure enviromuents with their rights fully 

protected. 

Comprehensive inlluigration refonn presents an opportunity to fix a broken system that adversely affects 

many inlluigrants in the U.S., including refugees and asylwu seekers. Immigtationlaws enacted in 1996, 

intended to crack down on Wldocumented migration, also included an array of artificial, technical barriers 

that deny asylum to persecuted people who have tled to the United States. hI addition, as Congtess and 

the President work to fLX the broken irrunigl1ltion system, they shouldn't neglect the refugees some of 

our most nJ\nerable innnigrants - who innlligtate to this country each year. hI order to ensure that local 

commlUlities remain welcoming to refugees, we need to update our outdated laws, reverse chronic 

Wlderfunding. better prepare refugees for life in America. and - for the fIrst time - create clear goals and 

a comprehensive approach for successful refugee integtation. We also need to better demonstrate the 

benefIts of refugee resettlement. The humanitarian act of saving and resettling refilgees not only benefits 

the refugees themselves - it also benetits the local conmmnities where they resettle and the COWltry as a 

whole, \\'hich gain so much from these newcomers. 

We encourage Congress to incorporate pro,isions from the Refugee Protection Act into any 

comprehensive inlmigtation refonn bill. Specifically. the Se~.etary of State shonld be authorized to 

designate certain gtoups as eligible for expedited adjudication as refugees - currently the State 

Department lacks this authority and therefore is unable to address situations in which a group is targeted 

for persecution in their country of origin or COWltry of fIrst asylum and Heeds expedited resettlement for 

humanitarian reasons. Furthennore, comprehensive immigration rdonn legislation should address 

current laws that threaten the rights and satety of asylum seekers, including a harsh expedited renlOval 

system. arbitrary deadlines for tlling asylum claims, and other limitations 011 asylum seekers' ability to 

obtain protection in the U.S. 

As Jews, we support policies that fulfill the Torah's mandate to 'welcome the stranger; as we know that 

etfective innnigtation policies have often made the difterence between life and death, between oppression 

and the opportunity for success. It is eLUcial that we utilize this opportunity to provide safe haven to the 

persecuted. HIAS looks fonvard to working with legislators and immigrant communities to revamp and 

revitalize our country's current immigtation system in a way that honors our American and Jewish values. 

HIAS Today Jewish values for the global good 

Providing reseue and refuge on five eontlnents 
417 

Statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee 

Principles to Guide Immigration Reform 

13 February 2013 

As Women of faith we, the members of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), take 

seriously the gospel cali to welcome the stranger and care for those in need. As Catholic sisters we are 

committed to the precepts of social teaching rooted in the Catholic tradition that remind us that the 

dignity ofthe person is at the core of our moral vision of society; that how we organize our society 

affects human dignity directly; and that any system that is deliberately cruel or inhumane needs to 

change. Because of these beliefs, at our 2012 national assembly, LCWR, "called on Congress to pass 

comprehensive immigration reform that includes the reunification of families and a path to citizenship 

for undocumented immigrants living in the United States." 

Catholic sisters began coming to these shores 286 years ago as immigrants to serve immigrant 

populations. To this day our sisters continue to minister to these aspiring citizens in schools and 

hospitals, in the fields and in the cities. We see the devastating effects of the brokenness of the current 

immigration system every day. We share the pain of mothers separated from their children and fathers 

who have risked their lives for love of their families. We know the struggles of survivors of human 

trafficking and torture who seek comfort and safety. 

The Senate framework and the principles laid out in the President's speech in Las Vegas provide hope to 

our immigrant brothers and sisters and promise that the values that are the bedrock of our national 

identity will flourish-family unity, equal opportunity, due process, and respect for the dignity of ali 

God's children. 

We welcome the letter of Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), along with Sens. Chris Coons (0-

Del.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) which echoes our own concerns that 

any immigration legislation be grounded in the human rights principles that are the bedrock of our 

national culture. 

Today our broken immigration system too often separates families, denies the dreams of youth, 

incarcerates innocents, and limits the rights of aspiring Americans. Our nation needs, and our people 

deserve, immigration reform that reflects the best of who we are. Immigration reform must prioritize 

family unity, provide a fair and reasonable roadmap to citizenship, respect human rights and restore due 

process to those detained by immigration authorities, protect the rights of all workers, promote the 

integration of new Americans, and address the poverty, persecution, and inequity that force migrants to 

flee their homes and families. 
418 

We look forward to working with lawmakers as they develop legislation that is grounded in the 

principles of the Constitution and fully reflects the values which bind this nation together. 

lCWR is an association of leaders of congregations of catholic sisters in the United States. The 

conference has nearly 1500 members, who represent more than 80 percent of the 57,000 women 

religious in the United States. Founded in 1956, the conference assists its members to collaboratively 

carry out their service of leadership to further the mission of the Gospel in today's world. 
419 

LIRS Statement for Hearing: "Comprehensive Immigrdtion Refonn" 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

February 13, 2013 

Lutheran Immigration and Refllgee Sen-ice (LIRS), the national agency established by Luthel'ml 

churches in the l ~nited States to SefYe uprooted people, is. pleased by CongfE'"ssioll::l1 ,md 

Achninisrratiye efforts to draft and ell<'lct comprt'henslYe inmligration reform. People of faith ha,e 

long called for an immigration systt"l11 th"ilt priodtizes family unity and is grollnded in humanitarian 

principles. 

As this conunittee and others begin work on immigration rf:'fonn legisLltion, LIRS offers our 

support for legisbtioll adhering to the following tin' principles tal' reform: 

• Pwyiding ,til f:'arned path'-Yilr to la"\"\'hll pennanent residency llnd e,eluual citizenship for 

undocumented immigf<1l1ts alJ(l their families. 

• Ens1Jring the humane and Just enforcement orv.s, imnligt'atiol1la\\'s, specitIcally by 

reducing the use of immigr<1tion oetelltion and expanding the use' of C0I1ll111Huty snppol't 

pmgnulls (or immigrants ..... '\-ho do not need to be detained. 

• Protect.ing lamilie-s from sep;ut\tion and ensuring an adequate supply of ,;'sa5 for families 

seeking to reunite. 

• Prm-idiog adequ;tte resonrces ,U1d protections to ensure the snccE'ssfl.11 integration of 

re.h1gees, asylees, SU1yiVOl"S of t01U11'e and tntbck.illg, unaccompanied children, and other 

v111nerable nlignl11ts. 

• Ensuring the proteerion of e.s. citizen lind migrant ,\·orkers. 

LIRS supports compassionate llumigration refoun, including an l"'mphasis on a roadmllp to 

citizenship for undocumented migrants, the importance of fll1uily mlltYj ,lild <1cknowlrogement th.lt 

oyersight and safeguards are necessary components, Bishop Julian Gordy of the Southeastern Synod 

of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in • .-111lerka's Southeastern Synod st.1fed, "For too long. OUf 

6unilies and communities haye felt rile harmful consequence':) of federal inaction on llllnligtmio11 

reform," 

Create a Roadmap to Citizenship for Aspiring Americans 

.. -\11)" compl·ehensiYt.> imullgratioH l'efor1l11t:'gislation musr neate an immigrmion process allowIng 

;'lspu:illg i\meric~ns the opportunity to becomE' Paited States citizells. LIRS sllppons an earned 

patll'\yay to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and thell' t~unilies th:u is accessiblE' and 

re:asol1<lble. 

Cnrrenriy, those '\'t-ithout legal sDltU::: must live '-'t-1th the constant possibility of oetf'ution, rernm-;:tl~ 

and t~Hllily 'Separ;\tion; unceltainties that h::lv(' neg;trjye impacts on the well-being of indiyidual 

National Headquarters: 700 Light Street. Baltimore. Mary!.and 21230' 410-230-2700' fa)';, 410-23°-289° 

Advocacy-Office! 122 C Street NW. SUite 125. Wasr,lngton. DC 20001 • 202-783-75Q9' fax' 2m-783-7502 
420 

migrants as well as broader society. 1 .A life spent li'\-ing in the shado\ys yioh!.tes the Inhel'ent dignity 

of e:<1Ch hmnan being, .. "-\ f\.')ad11l;lp to citizenship will allo\\· people ,dlO ha\"e beenlh-ing in -a.nd 

contributing to oux nation tOl' 111<lHT ,"ears to beo,)1:ne full meluhers of their COlllllluuities .... -\11 €':lrned 

path\y,<\y to '-citizenship has econonric· benefits as ,,-ell: if Hlliegal pennanent resi.dents cUll:ently 

eligible to l1<1ttlralize did so it ,,-enId 11lcre-ase the Vnited St.1tes· (;'1'055 Domestic Product bet\n::'ell 

$37 billion and 552 billion.' 

Refonn Immigration Enforcement 

URS will strive to ild\~all('e i.1l11111gr~1tiOlll'efonn that secures Ul.igr;lllts' rights <111d treats e'~E"lTolle 

"\dth dignity nnd t<1irn€'ss. 

~--\$ Congress has deliberated 011 ho\\- to refonn ... -\met:1c.n's illunigl'ation l:lwS for decade5~ 

eniQrCen1E'nt of cnrrent !a"\,"'s hrtS exponentiruly expanded. Wllen.. adjusted for intlati.on, the 

goyernmel1t spends 15 times as much on iuunigl"ation enl(H'c€'tllent today (517.9 billion) as it did in 

1986 (51.2 billion).' 

Since the last serious debate on inlIlug1':r1.tiolll'eionl1 in 2007, the budget to.r the DepartmE'llt of 

H0111e1and Security) Inlllligl'ation and CUSt01l1S Enforcelul?ut's CICE) enforceluent -and removal 

operilrions has grown timn 51.984 billion to 52.75 billion'" In fiscal rear (FY) 2011, ICE detained 

flll all-tune high nU1nbel' of persons- 429~OOO.'s In jus-t the tlrst 51.,,-:: months of 2011, ICE remo,"'ed 

46,486 people with FS. citizen children.' In IT 2012, 409,849 jlldi,~dllals "." .• remo"ed by ICE', 

Office of Euforcement and Renloyal Op€'l.·atioll~s, 

TIle 111l1nbers b-e-ar ""itnE'ss to the t;,cts that coullnUlutles and families experience eyer)' day: 

ellforC'enlent of our immigration bws is happening at an unprecedented and incredible pace. 

11uDUgh LIRS~s pl'ogranllllatic ,,·ork, we ha'i.¥e ,\~itllessed fil'S~lalld the detrlluelltal effects 

illlUligl";,1t1oll enforcement nl€,<lsures~ such as Inunigt'atlon detention, haY"e on illdi"ddu(lls~ Euuilies, 

and cOllullunities. 

1 Lr~O!T iQ/lWrT i)j fbi'L'l'f'J r:lllilllligmlf.f. Center for AmeOC;ll1 Progress hrt}1:/ ;"\n\:1[.:lmeriCl\npro~'{t..~~&rg/\yp~ 

~~2LJ..'''' /nff:'niiy,l.tLegf,l\~igje.tJ.tffuP-Q,tL~X!.crllmill,pd.t (De'C"elllbe-r 2012). 

2 Tin!' Viriflend:.>' ~rCitl:;w.r/;'P, Immigration Policy Cente.r, h..IT',J.;Ljnlt1J.i,gillriQllr~li~futj./ di''i-ldelld'3·dtiz~l.ip.:: 

\Vh:-lt'"..gf\Jizatioll~must-leild-:.~irilli~ (february 2.013). 

:> I'h'~i,IIigm!iOll' EI!fr-M'JJ.lciJI iN fh~ [·,lfikd Jlntrs; T/Jr Rise ~l(l Pon;;idab/r Jl{}(.biJle~)', lrigr~ltioll Policy Instimte. 

b!:KP~L15,""\.',n1i...~I;.(ltW!!PQli~~lliQ!£,g.melltpill2.(~~df (l,Ulll:ll'Y 2013). 

"' Vlliockiltg L)/xt!J:.-1 IFf!!' FMJilmjcr CS. Ilfli/I{gmtil/IJ Dffwtiou PoliO" LutherAll Immigration and R.t:-.fngee Set'lce' 

""",,-lirs.oryldit-'rluJ;r (October 2011). 

:. LOiU(}ljd{;ted~-1pprf1.'JrlittjOli$~~kt rf 2012. PL 122--:"4 ilttp;/ j\',n~.Q.g9y/fdsys/pk",~PJ".:\\Y-112p.Jl!?r:':±!J~!mljPL-\lL:. 

11 "publ74 .. htm tDec.13, 2(11)~ 

(i b'llllf'igr,JtiOIi Enjrmr'.IIIfflt ~-ldj()I/J': 2011. Office oflUlm1grnuQu Stari'Stics. Policy Di.ce-cToHlte. 

hItt-~;L/\\"",-.dhs>gm-/<;:it%! dei}luit! filesLpnblicatioll':l /imm:igmrioll-sultistil'S/ eufofce-!ll~!JLnr 2011 ,pdf (Sept. 2012) 

~ Dtp(J.!tl1li(;t/ ofPtJtY'JIts C!lt-S-Bol1l Cit/:::.!"s. hnmig!l1rioll llnd Cm,toms Enforcement. Imp:"" ;\n'-w~W;$-,Q,~~1:C 

coml"nt/upkwds/2u12;O-/ICE-PEPORT-OF-P'",,--\RE?\:TS-Or::1~~:.clI-FY-2011'.f~lf (~hrch 2012). 

s Fr 2012: ICE 11NJ101f}h"M),fW-{,Jld rflJN!l't:Ji 11l1fJd)(!:~, higbiZghtJ'fO{'lfS eil kfJ' f+Jrioriti('S ,md itS/fU ilfW IItdj(ji/a/ d/'fai:ill?f'glfJdolict to jfrrthrr 

jOrlil rr:SOlffH'J, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

htTp: I' /,,"~-~ice"~oy ,"l1e\p,,! l't.'lt~'l<;:fS-/ 12121 L21221'\'\·lls1.ungtQudc.fJJ.!1Il (De-c. ~012). 

2 
421 

lsant .10111h, grew up .in Sierl'a Leone during the COUlltIy'S ch~il ,"V~.9 \~11en she "\'~;as twelyf' years old, 

I50m wa, raped by rebel soldiers and separated 6:om her mod,er. Isat" later sllfterro lem.ue genital 

mutilation (FG2\£) and ,"'-as severely puni.shed when she refused to perf 011.11 the practice on othel' 

young "·onl("ll. Isattl Hed to the lTnited States \vhere upon expressing h("1' intention to apply tor 

asylum at the aupolt ,he was detained Ul York COllnty Prison (P,-\). \'Owe ill detention, Isatn was 

denied lued.ical care for complications relating to FG:\.I. \\111:'11 post~traunllltic srJ."ess disorder caused 

het: attacks of anxiet)"r 5h(" ,,-as isolated in solitary confulenlent. 

Despite being an expel1sh~e and inhmnaue way to ensnre appe-aranc€' ~t hnmigration c.mut 

proceedings) the grO\\·tll of llllluigration detentio11 has been steep and continual. TIle United States 

currenrly spends approximately 24~/o OlOre money on linmigration enfOrCenlE'llt acth~ities than on all 

odlel' federal law elliarcement prograrns ("om.biued. JO 

To detaill a \,-oman like Isam for one dar costs U.S. taxpayers an awrage ofS164." LIRS SUppOlts 

increased 'Use ot alternahyeS to dl:'[elltioll~ '\\"hich l"ange in cost from a few cents a chr to an <1'\el"age 

of $22 a day <;I1ld allow migra.nts to l"elUlite with fanllly l11embers and cOlluibure to their conl1nl.llutie~ 

"'dille undergoing .itnmigratioll proceedings.12 Isatu ,"vas eyenhlally .released fronl detention "vith a 

tl"acking d€,yice as part of an alrerllati,~es to detention progl",ull. Appeal·arlee l"ates in inulligration 

proceedings for those released on alternatives to detention a\"'l:'rage O\"'ef 90~/0, Ina king these options 

a practical) hUl1mne, and econolIucal rutf'111ative to d("tention. lJ 

... ·\ny retolln of our iUlllligt'atioll systenl nmst include protections agaulst al'bitl"alT detention and the 

separation of £unilies ~lld S<lfegl1ards to ensure enforceluent is carried out in a fau.·, 11l.l1nanE', and 

ecollonucallr sound numner. 

Prevent Family Separation 

LIRS strongly belie\"'es dlilt a fefanned lllllli.gratiOll systenl IllUst itnpt:ove fam.ily unity. Fanilly is the 

cornerstone of our faith and the grO'llncfulg sttucture of our society, Conlprehensive unmig.ratiou 

ref0.l111111Ust uphold the llnpoltallce of fatuilies to our congregations and COlluuunities by including 

luean.iugtlll refonns to dIe tam.ily-based inlIuigratioll systell1. 

People of faidl all oYer .-\merica wholeheartedly agree 011 dle need tor an impl'ovement of the 

unnugratioll procl:'ss for families. "'LIRS and Lutherans all across this CO\Ultry will be lifthlg up our 

yoices and en~ging hnnnakers frolll hath pa.rties to oll1swer the president's call for fill.r and 

c0111passioll .. '1t(" lnunigratioll relanD that is both business and fanuly fi:ienelly," said DRS President 

and CEO Lilld~ Haltke. 

9 B'l7kell PrMlisr.r: S t'eki"g Politiral_ {~)'/;rrl! in _-l,llertm, Gdies. Home J01UnaL http;) /'\"'\\"'\l.-.lhj,CDIl1fht'-:1hh! ne,,"s! <;eekiJlg::. 

p..olit.ic~}llm".in-l1meriqlj?p51gE'-l (Feb. 2010). 

10 IIIJIIJ'gmti()JI E1fofl'fl/lf!lt III 1m Cuittn SMits: Tlx Riff ~f[f FOl'lllidal& J![fdJ;l/r~)', ).Iigration Policy Institute 

http;;' /~v'\nr.nlig.l'atiQnpoiicr.org! pubs! t:'nfo~ct'menrpil~rs.Jillf (J.ulu<try :!O (3). 

11 Tbf' Jlr1th ifII11111l,gmti(J11 Detrfltioi/, NlltiOllal Immigration Fomm, 

h.rr,R; .. l !'\'\I."'\\·.imm.igrl1tionfomm.or~!im..ages/uplol1d5/!\Iathotlmmigr;'ltionDeteHrlon,pdf (August 2(12). 

12 eJflo<"R.illg L.ilJ('l'D': ~ -! fr~t' Fonmrd fOr L '.5. ItllllligmtioJj Dffr#li()N PoliO." Ll1.therllll Iromigt:rtiotl ~lld Refugee Sen"ice 

wsrw.lirc;.orgfdign.ity (October 20lt), 

"Ibid. 

3 
422 

TIle aYellues for iarnilies to legally lulluigl'llte nUlst be accessible and suffidt"llt to avoid family 

separation. TIle current fanuly,,'1sa system forces too l11allY families to endure years of sepannioll 

from their lo,'ed Olles. For some fomilies who filed a visa petition before Jnlle 1, 1989, backlogs hoye 

fOl"Ccd thein to ",·ait over 23 years to begin dle application process. 14 TIl€>Y ",ill finally be able to do 

so in Febnlary 2013. Any retonll of our immigra.tion srstenll1lUst reduce these backlogs and 

llnprO'\1C' .mechanistns tor Eunuy menlbers to reunite with relatives in dle United States. 

Protect and Integrate Refugees and Other Vulnerable Migrants 

""'s one of the few mgallizatiol15 resettling'refugees iu the l'nited States, URS sees the yalue of the 

refugee progral11 as well as the opportunity for llnproyeluents ill the Pl"ocess.ing and protection of 

"i.'1.llnerable Hllgrants. Comprehensiye ll11I1ugratioIl reform legislation rnust include provisions to 

update all channels of migration to the United States and improye protection atlorded to vulnerable 

Llugrants, refl1gees and asy-h.ln1 seekers. 

Too Inany't'111nerable migrants are denied protection tor bnl't"allCTatic reasons, CU1'l'€'lltly, asylmll 

seekers IllUSt file'tl1eir: request for asyhun within one year of arrival to the United States. TI1el'f> are 

111any reasons asylul1l seekers arE' unable- to iiIe within the deacUine, including lack of access to legal 

services, the effects of traU1na and torture~ a.nd language barriers.u The itllpact of this ullnecessary 

and outdated deadline is striking. Que in trre asyh.l111 drums are denied because tlle c(lse ,-vas tiled 

.after the deadline, nl..:'lking the deadline a significant barrier to protection in the Vnitfti States. 16 

11105e lnigrants who lack legal status in the United States mar be particularly vl1hlerable to being 

targets of nime or v-lolellce. TIle U "-1sa 'W"aS created in 2000 to protect llllg1'ant survivors of violence 

who assIst law enf6rcelnent in tlleir ixl\-estigath~e efforts. 17 The 10~OOO HllllUallil1ut 011 IT "'lsas h-a.s 

been reached prior to the end of dle fiscal year for the last three rears. IS .• :-in eJ..'PClnsioll of the U ,;,sa 

program in cOlllprehellslve illlluigmrion reform would ensure migrant ~Ul"\>iVO[S of violence who 

work to assist L1\V ellfc)1'Celnent receive the pl:otection tlle), need. 

DRS is one of t\VO organizations providing seL"\-ices to uUHccompan.ied migrant chilch'€11 in the 

United States, placing tlmu in foster care and assisting witl1 fa.mil}: reunification. In 2012, tl,e 

nUlnber of children crossing the border as tul.accompanied minors spiked dramatically: 13,625 

children were appreh~nded in fiscal rear 2012 compared to 6,855 children in 2011, a significant 

increase d13t strained the capadty of selyice providers,l? .,:\s COfJgress considers llll11Ugratioll ref 01'111 

14 T ~iJ(1 Bulletin, Departllu'nt of Statt.", http://trawls:tat~go't"/Y15u/bulletulilluUetin5856.11t1111 (Ft'bt11~Ur Z013). 

15 RPpfflfthf Om'~l~Mr_-J.!)!I!1!1I DemiJilll.'. N~tional Immigrant Justice- Cemer, llttP:/ i"Y.i'"\'\·.immlgr'la!1riuscicf'<orgf.(f;'peru~one~ 

rear-asrlurn·dea~ 

16 Tbt Om-Year ~-1.{)ltl1iJ DelJdliJ/f: aNd tbr: BL4.: ~,,\'/l Prof1!({J(}I!, So Pmi'~sJ, >Jatioll~l Imm.ignnH Justice Center. 

http://w\~''\'t·.imtu.igrj-''Jntimr.ice.otg!QneTe:udeadlin~ (October 2010). 

17 T :-1.JV'A Prop/de.! Protutirms Jor IlJmligmllt IFoJlII'I/ and T ';tti/~/$ ~f CriJ!l(" Immigration Policy Center. 

http;;' f'\\'\\''\t·_imm!g!ationpo1ic)'.Q.(g/jllst.ta.~r!5./'t-iolence:Hgruilir::\YOmt>lhlct-\·~I\\-a-pr:m-ides.protections-immigr~mwomell~;1tld·\"ictim$-cci1lle (!\Iay 2012). 

16 C;' T ";SIl.r Hit!, Ceiling. The NE'~x York Tunes, http:.I /'\\"'\"~-U·,llytil1'l.f>s.cQ!1i i201 :2:/09 /04/ opilliol!L~~.!!11:.ri,·';'ls-fob1Qb1sed:. 

womf'n~hit-:1.cl:'.iliug.hnnl? '[-0 (Sept. 3, 2012). 

19 Protfdillg CIJ(7(IJJl1p{w;ed Aligmrlf ChiM!1'}), Luther~tl Immig.[\ltLollllnd Renlgee Semce. http·!llirs.orglw'pcoutf>nriuploads /2013 /02 /LIRS-Bflc~T(ounder-on. r 1l(\C(,oU1p~lUied-1figraut-C.hildr:ftl-12-'::O 12.pdf (December 2012). 

4 
423 

legislation. hI\Vlnakf'l'S nmst take into account the gl'O,"-ing arm'"als of 11l1~cco1l1pallif'd children and 

ensure dlf'y are treated \'\idl compassion, pal'ticui;uiy that they receive the screenings and sen;ices to 

which they are entided bl' law. 

Protect Workers 

LIRS advocate~ lor provisions in comprehensive immigr"tion ref 01111 that will ensl11'e protections for 

V.S. citizen and migrant workers. As Congress builds,n immigration system that ensures a supply of 

Ia bor to meet national demands, fllture immigr;;tion laws HmS! recognize the conuibutions migrants 

make to onr rOlnmuluties and improve'protections to ensure the safety, dignity and fair treatnlent of 

ev-ery· ,,¥orkef. 

Conclusion 

URS is nationally recognized for irs leadership ad'-ocating on behalf of refugees, asyillm seekers, 

uIUlccoI11pani€'d children, inunigrant<i in detention~ truTulif's fractured by migration and other 

vulnerable populations, and ior providing services to migrants tl,rough over 60 grassroots legal and 

social sen-ice partners across Ih .. {Tnited States. 

If you have "n)' question about this statement, plE'll,e contact Blinn"y ~}'Strom, Director for 

Advocacy, at (202) 626-7943 or via em"il at bnrstrom@lirs.orlr. 

Additional URS Resources 

URS's prindples for immigration ref01m mar be read here: www.hit.1rl\·ftillniH 

• TI,e JannaI.)' 29, 2013 press release on President Obama's sp€'ech outlining a vision tor 

immigration retorm mar be read here: www.bit.1y/VxQHYW· 

TI,e January 28,2013 press release on the release of dIe bipartisan principles tor immigration 

refon11 in the Sellate mar be ,"<'ad here: www.bit.ly!\,11PPX2 

URS's E~Q's all dle F"mily IllUlligration Systelllmar be read here: www.bit.ly/llIqt2Z 

URS's backgJ:()1Ulder on unaccompanied children mar be read here: www.bidy/YSevzlT 

TI,e December 15,2011 press release expressing conce11lS wid, illcreased FY 2012 

immigration detention spending may be read here: www.bit.b-!XoeHtA 

• TI,e October 2011 report, Ulllotking Lb,,!:!': A lVqr FOnJwrd for U.S. Immigration Detmfion Pn/if), 

ma)' be read here: www.bit.h-!\'''l1'-:FE 
424 

MISSIONARY SOCIETY OF ST. COLUMBAN 

U.S. REGION 

February 2013 

The Mis~ionary society of st. Columban is an intemational catholic organization committed to justice, peace and the integrity 

of creation. Our faith teaches us that we are one human family and we are called to welcome the ,tl1ln,er (Mt l5:35). 

In recognition of the migrants and refugee's with whom we live and serve in the U.S. and around the world, Columban 

missionaries an? pleased to see the release of the Senate's bipartisan proposal on immigration reform and to hear the 

President's pledge to address our nation's immigration system. We are eSPE"cia!1y gratified to see nationalll"aders prioritize 

immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship and a commitment to family reunification. 

We see Immi,ratlon reform as a (rlth:al step towards restonn.: rI~t relationships with our immigrant sisters and brotheors. 

For nearly 20 years, we have ministered to immigrants on the U.s.-Mexico border in EI Paso, Texas and Juarez, Mexico. In our 

parishes, mission centers, and communities around the country including Texas, California, Nebraska, Illinois, Rhode Island, 

NE'W York, and Washington D.c., we hear the stories of migrants and their families.; we know the violence they suffer. We 

witness the shadows in which they are force.d to live and the pain that family seoparation has caused. We also see the 

suffering of immigrants in detention centers and jails whose only crime was being undocumented. 

Internationally we are present in EuropE', Asia, South Amerka, the Middle Eas.t, and Oceania. We view U.S. immigration as 

part of a broader global migration reality. We witness. how U.S. policies such as the North Americ.an Free Trade Agreement, 

dollarization, and the Merida Initiative have contribute<! to instability and insecurity in communities and countries across the 

globe, causing people to move. We are advoc:ates for the United States to be a eood elobe' citizen and res.tore r1cht 

reletlonshlps both Internally and elrtematly. 

The current reforms proposed do not meet these goals. We are concerned that the bipartisan framework makes the path to 

c.itizE'nship contingent upon our success in .. ecuring our borders and addressing visa overstays. We question who and how 

border security.is and will be defined. Knowing that we have alreadv spent billions of dollars on s-ecuring our borders, it is 

now time to secure the future of the 11 million immigrants living in our country. We must nat unnecessarily prolonl or block 

the path to citizenshIp of immigrants already present, or keE'p partners, children, and other family members apart any 

longer. 

We question the many stipulations required to I?arn permanent residency andror a green card in the United States. 

Conditions such as additional criminal background and national security chQCks. and high fees and fines do not create a viable 

and accessible pathway; rather, they establish roadblocks on the ever·1Eilgthening road to citizenship that keep this 

vulnerabls population in the shadows. 

We lire committed to an immigration policy that addresses the foot causes of mivation. The current immigration reform 

proposals fail to adequately address the root causes of migration such as economic policy, dimate change, poverty, political 

conflict, violence of many origins, and persecution that create unlivable conditions at home, forcing pE'Ople to move and 

families to separate. 

As Catholic missionaries, \w dedicate our lives and service to advocating for the dignity and rights of weary and exploited 

immigrants seeking to work and to contribute to the social fabric of our nation. lack of lelal documentation farces 

Immlerants to live In a culture of fear. Insecurtty. and vulnerability. This. applies especially to immigrants on the Southwest 

border where mass detainment and deportations, criminalization of migrants, and miHtarilation of the region is widespread, 

w. look forward to c-omplIssktnete immiJration reform, which seeks justice by sranting protection and true legalization 

(pennanent legal status and citi1.en"hip), to a person of any country or work industry in a timely manner. We seek reform that 

reunites families, and not on a temporary basis with guest worker programs. We seek reform which recognizes and 

addresses the increasing danger of creating a permanent underclass (of immigrants) in oor society. lastly, we seek reform in 

which ali immigrants. and their families hold the same freedoms and rights as any citizen of the United States. 

Rev. Timothy Mulroy, sse 

Director, u.s, Region 

Amy Woolam Echeverria 

Director, Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach 
425 

Statement in Support of Family-Based Immigration 

National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd 

Sister Gayle Lwanga, RGS 

February 13, 2013 

The Sisters of the Good Shepherd form one international congregation ministering in 71 countries on 

five continents. In the United States, the Sisters are spread from east to west in 23 states and also are in 

Canada. Founded over two hundred years ago in Angers, France, by St. Mary Euphrasia who believed 

that God is like a compassionate Shepherd whose love for all is boundless, Good Shepherd Sisters 

respond to a call to reach out to everyone and help awaken in all peoples a sense of each one's unique 

worth and inestimable value. 

As a religious community we believe the unique worth of each individual extends to all immigrants, both 

documented and undocumented. Seeking to build a more just and compassionate society, we urge 

members of Congress to give priority to family unity when they are creating immigration policy. 

The worse human suffering is being separated from the person you love. This suffering is even more so 

when it is separation from your mother or father, your daughter or son, your wife or husband 

The Catholic Church has consistently taught the importance and the sacredness of the family. Without 

the presence of a secure and loving family, we cannot be emotionally nourished and develop into loving 

and socially responsible adults. 

Please create legislation that assures that families will not be separated. Also, enact legislation that will 

ensure that the hundreds of immigrant families who have been separated for many years will be quickly 

reunited. 
426 

Sialem.ntio the Senat. Judiciary Committee 

Principles 10 Guide Immigration Reform 

13 February 2013 

The United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries, gladly joins 

the faith community on this day, as together we witness to the plight of 

our undocumented brothers and sisters here in the United States. 

The Judiciary Committee Hearing on Immigration falls on Ash 

Wednesday. On this day we wear ashes on oW' foreheads as a sign of 

repentance. Today We repent for our lack of hospitality to our immigrant 

sisters and brothers, and we pray for justice and inclusion. 

The United Church of Christ (UCC) is a Christian denomination, 

descendants oflbe pilgrims who sailed on the Mayflower seeking 

religious freedom in a new land. As such, we support Ihe struggle of our 

sisters and brothers who have journeyed to this land seeking safety, 

opportunity and peace. 

In a recent statement, vee national officers released a statement in 

support of immigration reform efforts stating: 

We applaud Ihe renewed efforts by President Obama and a 

bipartisan committee of senators to bring proposals for 

comprehensive immigration reform legis/alion 10 the Congress thaI 

will move our country beyond the strategy of simply securing our 

borders. The United Church of Christ has long supported 

compassionate reform in our country's approach to immigration 

and we will look to see that the recommendalions being proposed 

will protect the human righls and dignity of our brothers and 

sisters. 

It is our sincere hope that you will be open to hearing the needs of our 

undocumented brothers and sisters and will allow mercy to accompany 

justice for the undocumented. 
427 

The US. Jesuit Conference commends Congress and the Obama Administration on maldng immigration 

reform a priority. We urge elected officials to move from the rhetoric of 'America as a land of family 

values 'to the reality of a nation that enacts just immigration laws that protect and reunite families. The 

social and economic costs of separating children from their parents and incarcerating caregivers and 

wage earners grow higher each year. We, as Jesuits, because of our commitment to educating the 

children of migrants in our schools, sen'ing migrant communities in our parishes, and offering deported 

men, women and children food and shelter on the border, see firsthand the costs of our current 

immigration laws. Therefore, the Jesuit Conference urges Congress to right size its family visa allocation 

and abolish 3 and 10 year bars which prolong family reunification and destroy familial bonds. 

Rev. Thomas P. Greene, SJ, Secretary for Social and International Ministries, Jesuit Conference 

ofthe United States 

U.S. Jesuit Conference Welcomes Bi-Partisan Action for Immigration Reform. Urges Congress to 

Increase Accountability and Oversight for Agencies Charged with Enforcement and Protect 

Migrants' Due Process Rights 

The U.S. Jesuit Conference welcomes bi-partisan initiatives designed to repair our broken and outdated 

immigration system. We support the principles outlined by Senators Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, and 

Leahy in their February 5th "Dear Colleague" letter which calls for comprehensive immigration reform 

that embraces accountability, transparency, due process and equality under the law. It is our firm belief 

that these principles are the foundation of immigration reform that respects migrants' rights and human 

dignity. 

Through our ministries, we witness on a daily basis the tragic consequences of our nation's current 

immigration laws and policies. We can and must do better. As our elected officials attempt to develop a 

viable immigration system, we urge them to place family unity, human dignity, transparency and 

accountability at the center of their debates. 

We assess each immigration policy proposal by whether it adheres to the Catholic and American value of 

promoting and affirming human dignity As such, we urge Congress to enact policies that prioritize family 

unity, increase oversight and transparency of immigration enforcement agencies, and ensure that 

immigrants' due process rights are protected. 

As established by the Justice for Immigrants campaign of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and 

reiterated by the U.S. Jesuit Provincials in their joint letter to Congress in June 2010, a comprehensive 

and humane approach to immigration reform must: 
428 

Establish a pathway to citizenship that ensures undocumented immigrants have access to fulJ 

rights; 

Expedite family reunification and emphasize family unity for all immigrants; 

Restore due process, accountability, and transparency, particularly in the context of detention 

and deportation processes to foster humane enforcement of our immigration policies; 

Include policies that address the root causes of migration from developing countries; and 

Create a legal employment structure for future workers that protects both migrants and the 

U.S. citizen labor force. 

While we are encouraged by the bipartisan tone of Senate leaders as they craft immigration reform 

legislation, we are concerned that proposals which make earned citizenship dependent upon a "secure 

border" will leave millions of lives in limbo and prolong indefinitely the irregular status of our 

undocumented brothers and sisters. 

Our borders are best secured and our communities best kept safe by allotting sufficient family and 

employment visas, and ensuring humane, transparent, and accountable practices which foster trust 

between border communities and law enforcement entities. 

We look forward to working with lawmakers as they develop legislation that meets the need for 

comprehensive and humane immigration reform. 
429 

Intel1'aith Immigration Coalition Members 

African Am~riCJn ~1inblcN in Ai:liull 

American Daptist Chun:hcs. l~SA 

Amencllll Bapti~t Home Mi~~jon Societies 

American Friend~ S~rvke Committee 

American Jc","t!'oh Commitlee 

Bread for the Wodd 

Church World SCfVjC:C 

Columban Center for Advoca,'Y & Outre<lch 

Dhciples Ju~tice Actioo Nelwork 

(Di~dpk~ of Chri!'ot) 

The Episcopal Church 

Franci~C'an Action Network 

Friend~ Committee on National Legi .. Jation 

Hebrew Imrnigr.mr Aid Society 

Interfaith Worker Ju"tice 

Iri."h Apo:..to!ate USA 

1 .. lamic Information Center 

Je'luit Refugee Service 

Jewhh Council for Public Affairs 

Leat.iership Conference of Women Religiou .. 

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Se;:rvice 

Maryknoll Oftice for Global Concern .. 

Mennonite Centml Committee U.S. 

Wa .. hington Offic:c 

Muslinl Public Affairs. Council 

Nmional Advocacy Center of the SisteC'\ of 

the Goml Shepherd 

NETWORK. A Catholic SociaJ Ju!'.tice Lobby 

Pax. Chrhti USA 

PICO K<ttinnal Netwurk 

Prcsb;1erian Church USA. Immigration 

h~ues Offices 

Union for Refoml Judaism 

Si~lcr~ or MeTCY of the ,'\merica, 

Sojourner~ 

JP HUUlan Security 

Unitarian Univet\ali~t A~~ociation of 

Congregation.;, 

United Church of Chri!'.L JU~lice :.md 

Witne~!oo Mini~tries 

United Methodist Church. General Board of 

Church and Society 

UNITED SIKHS 

World Relief 

The InterlMh Immigration Coalition (lIC), a coalition of 35 national faith-based 

organizations, calls on the 113'" Congress to reform of our broken immigration 

system. For more than a decade, the IIC has baen working wrth hundreds of 

congregations, service providers, and faith leaders across the country to 

educate communities, oppose anti-immigrant legislation, and work toward 

humane immigration reform. In the past four years alone, the IIC network has 

organized more than a thousand prayer vigils, community forums, and rallies 

across the country in support of immigrants' rights. As a diverse coalition, we 

see this as an opportunity to raise issues that should be considered as 

Congress moves forward with fixing our nation's broken immigration system. 

The IIC calls on Congress to enact legislation that will: 

Address the causes of Migration 

People of faith have witnessed firsthand the suffering caused by extreme 

poverty, violent conflict. political and religious persecution, and environmental 

destruction that prompt individuals to leave their homes in search 01 a batter me. 

U.S. foreign policy must seek smart, eNective ways to help reshape linancial 

systems that unduly burden vulnerable populations - including U.S. trade 

policies, international financiaJ institutions, and local economies in sending 

countries -toward models that support those in need. 

Our faiths compel us to seek to reduce the need for people to leave their 

homes in order to provide for their families. Rather than current policies which 

undermine sustainable livelihoods in sending countries, we should invest in 

environmentally sustainable economic development that preserves and 

defends the basic human rights of all people. These policies will provide 

alternatives to unauthorized immigration and reduce the need for costly border 

enforcement, detention, and deportation. 

Create a Process for Undocumented Immigrants to Earn Citizenship 

Any meaningful reform of our immigration system must include a fair and 

generous process that allows undocumented immigrants and their families to 

earn lawful permanent residency with a pathway to citizenship. The workability of 

such a program should not be hindered by overly punrtive criteria. such as 

mandating that immigrants leave the country or pay exorbitant fees, or by making 

the process conditional upon the implementation of enforcement measures. We 

urge membars of Congress to oppose legislation that would curtail the nature 01 

cftizenshipor restrict access fa public benefits and child tax credits. 

Keep Families Together 

Families are the basic unn of strong communities. Today, thousands of families 

are separated by our broken immigration system and should ba reunned. 

Backlogs at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the limrted numbar of 

visas force family membars to choose batween baing separated for extended 

periods of time or illegally entering the country. A fair immigration system must 

improve and strengthen the family immigration process by recapturing visas lost 

to bureaucratic delay to retduce the current backlog; reclassifying spouses and 

minor children of lawful permanent residents as immediate relatives; raising the 

per cou ntry visa limrts from seven to fifteen percent of total admissions to reduce 

long wait times for certain nationalities; eliminating unlawful presence bars for the 

spouse, child, or parent of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents; 

admitting surviving family members of deceased famiy petitioners; and 

eliminating the cap on the total numbar of family-based visas available. 

Enact the Development, Relief, and-Education for Alien MInors (DREAM) Act 

The faith community sees the DREAM Act as vital in fixing the broken 

immigration system. The DREAM Act has had many iterations, and the IIC calls 
430 

on Congress to enact robust and inclusive legislation that would provide a pathway to citizenship for individuals 

brought to the United States at age 16 or younger, are currently no older than 35 years of age, and who have 

graduated from high school, earned a GED in the U.S, or are currently in school. In addition to college and military 

service criteria, the IIC urges legislators to include volunteer service as a method by which DREAMers can 

maintain legal status and earn crtizenship, DACA recipients should automatically qualify for any legalization 

process, and their time with DACA status should count toward any conditional status period under the DREAM Act 

Protect Workers' Rights, Including Agricultural Workers 

There is a clear need to expand legal avenues for workers to migrate to the United States in a safe, authorized, 

and orderly manner, It is vilal that these workers' rights are fully protected, including the right to bring their 

families with them, travel as needed, change their place of employment, and apply for lawful permanent 

residency and eventually citizenship. 

Enactment of AgJobs (the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits and Security Act) would provide a legal, 

stable labor force by offering undocumented farmworkers the chance to earn legal status by meeting stringent 

work requirements and legal obligations, AgJobs wouid revise the H·2A agricultural guest-worker program to 

help employers fill critical agricultural positions that have been difficult to fill, sustaining agricultural industries 

while also protecting workers' rights, 

As currently structured. the electronic employment verification (E-verify) program has proven detrimental to 

migrants, employers, and citizen employees. It leads to increased discrimination and unfair hiring and firing 

practices. For these reasons, and because we believe all workers benefit from the enforcement of health, safety, 

wage, and hour laws, as well as the right to peacefully organize, the IIC is opposed to the mandatory expansion 

of the E-verify program, 

Place Humanitarian Values at the Center of Enforcement Policies 

Enforcement policies must be made to be consistent with humanrtarian values and wrth the need to treat all 

individuals with respect, while allowing the United States to identify and prevent the entry of persons who commrt 

dangerous crimes. Over the past twenty years, the federal government has dramatically increased border fence 

and other infrastructure construction, border patrol presence, immigration detention, and the deportation of 

irnrnigrants, wrthout regard to cost or effectiveness. Over $10 billion of taxpayers' money has been spent on border 

security. It is now time to reform the broken immigration system. To truly decrease unauthorized immigration, the 

Unrted States should irnprove access to a fair and hurnane legal immigration system, increasing and improving the 

efficiency of ports of entry, expanding visa availability, and eliminating application backlogs. 

Border security has also proven to be environrnentally irresponsible on many levels. It threatens already 

endangered species and damages public lands and interferes wrth business and land owners who operate and live 

along the border. We have also witnessed the desecration of sacred sites and the violation of religious freedom, as 

well as the unnecessary anguish of community members whose loved ones have suffered or died seeking entry 

into the United States. Above all else, enforcement policies must treat all individuals with respect and dignity. 

Citizens and migrants alike have the right to a fair and humane legal immigration system that respects the dignity 

of all persons, prioritizes the cohesiveness of families and communities, recognizes the economic contributions of 

immigrants, and upholds our moral obligations to provide refuge and welcome for the sojoumer. 

Protect Refugees and Migrant Survivors of Violence 

The IIC encourages Congress to make life-changing improvements to the U.S, refugee resettlement program that 

would help refugees integrate in their new homes in the United States. Refugees have fled persecution in their 

home countries due to their race. nationality, religion, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group, 

and the United States has a rich tradition of welcoming refugees and helping them begin new lives. Bills such as 

the Refugee Protection Act, Domestic Refugee Resettlement and Modernization Act, and Strengthening Refugee 

Resettlement Act include positive reforms that would not only help refugees, but provide important resources to the 

communities that welcome them. 

The Violence Against Women Act (V AW A) has a long history of uniting lawmakers wijh the common purpose of 

protecting survivors of domestic violence. Congress has consistently recognized the vulnerability of non-citizen 

survivors of violence by enacting prOVisions in VAWA that enhance safety for survivors and their children and 

provide tools for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute crimes_ In 2012, the House of Representatives 

passed a VAWA reauthorization bill that would undermine years of protections for immigrant victims and would 

actually make immigrants more vulnerable, endangering many lives. The IIC urges that any reauthorization of 

VAWA maintain and improve protections for migrant survivors. not weaken them. 

2 
431 

Testimony 

Of 

Most Reverend Jose H. Gomez 

Archbishop of Los Angeles 

Chairman, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops 

Before the 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

On 

Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

February 12,2013 
432 

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 comprehensive 

immigration reform. 

Mr. Chairrilan, I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify today on this important topic. 

would like to thank Chairman Patrick Leahy, and Ranking Minority Member Grassley for 

holding this hearing on an issue that is of such vital importance to our nation. 

Weare hopeful that today' s hearing marks the beginning of a process that will result in swift 

enactment of comprehensive immigration reform. 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 who come to this nation in search 

of employment for themselves and their children. 

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. We also must restore due process protections to 

immigrants, many of which were taken away under the Illegal Immigration Reform and 

Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Perhaps most importantly, the United States must work 

with Mexico and other nations to address the root causes of migration, so that migrants and their 

families may have a greater opportunity to remain in their homelands and can live in dignity. 

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-

• Enact comprehensive immigration reform legislation that provides a path to citizenship 

for undocumented workers in our nation; reforms the employment-based immigration 

system so that low-skilled workers can enter and work in a safe, legal, orderly, and 

humane manner; and reduces backlogs and waiting times in the family preference system 

so families can be reunited. 

• Examine the "push" factors of migration, such as international economic policies, and 

enact policies that encourage sustainable economic development, especially in sending 

communities; 
433 

• Restore basic due process protections for immigrants, including the restoration of 

administrative and judicial discretion in removal proceedings and elimination of the 3-

and IO-year bars to re-entry; 

• Adopt necessary legal reforms for special populations, such as refugees, asylum seekers, 

trafficking victims, and unaccompanied children; and 

• Include the necessary elements in any legislation to efficiently implement any new 

immigration program, including taking actions to prepare the U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Service (USerS) to implement any new program and to properly fund such 

implementation. 

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 ofthe 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 U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USerS), 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. 10:17-19). 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." (Mt. 25:35) Jesus himself was an itinerant preacher without 

a home of his own as well as a refugee fleeing the terror of Herod. 

(Mt. 2:15) 

In modem times, popes over the last 100 years have developed the Church's teaching on 

migration. Pope Pius XII reaffirmed the Church's commitment to caring for pilgrims, aliens, 

2 
434 

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. 1 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 all."2 In his pastoral statement, 

Ecclesia 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.',3 

In an address to the faithful on June 5, 2005, His Holiness Pope 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 Pope 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 sufficient 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 U.S. 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.,,4 

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 ofthe nation, which are impacted by immigration. Most 

tragically, we witness the loss oflife at points along our southern border when migrants, 

desperate to find employment to support themselves and their families, perish in the desert. 

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, suffering, and even death, is morally unacceptable and must be 

reformed. 

II. The Immigration Debate 

I Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia (On the Spiritual Care of Migrants), September, 1952. 

2 Pope John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, (On Social Concern) No. 39. 

3 Pope John Paul II, Ecelesia in America (The Church in America), January 22, 1999, no. 65. 

4 Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope. A Pastoral Letter Concerning Migrationfrom 

the Catholic Bishops of Mexico and the United States." January 23, 2003, n. 57. 

3 
435 

During the II 3th Congress, there is real opportunity to adopt bipartisan immigration reform 

legislation. We hope Congress can avoid the experience of the I 10th Congress, when 

immigration legislation died on the U.S. Senate floor when there were insufficient votes to 

invoke cloture on the measure. 

During consideration of the bill on the floor and prior to a cloture vote, the U.S. Catholic bishops 

worked with senators to fashion the most comprehensive and humane legislation possible. 

Unfortunately, as negotiations ensued, it became clear that the legislation would include 

provisions that made it difficult for the U.S. Catholic bishops to endorse it. 

Primarily, the U.S. bishops were concerned about the inclusion of a point-based system to 

replace the family-based immigration system that the nation currently employs, among other 

issues. I will address some of these problem areas in my testimony. 

We would like to work with Senate leaders and interested groups to ensure that the product that 

the Senate Judiciary committee produces, and, indeed that the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of 

Representatives passes, is one that updates and repairs our broken immigration system in a 

humane manner. 

We are heartened by statements by President Obama that immigration reform is a priority for his 

Administration, and that he is committed to working with Congress for its enactment in the near 

future. We also are heartened by recent statements from Republicans and Democrats alike in the 

House and Senate in support of immigration reform. In order to achieve this goal, Congress and 

the president will have to work in tandem throughout the legislative process, and both sides in 

this debate should make efforts to minimize the harsh rhetoric evidenced in previous debates. 

We are hopeful that the future national debate on immigration will focus upon the many 

contributions which immigrants, both documented and undocumented, make to our country. 

History informs us that our nation has been built, in large measure, by the hard work of 

immigrant communities. We must remember that, except for Native Americans, we are all 

immigrants or descendants of immigrants to this great land. 

III. Policy Recommendations 

Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Catholic bishops believe that any comprehensive immigration reform bill 

should contain the following elements: 

• A path to citizenship that gives deserving migrants who are currently in the United States 

in undocumented status an opportunity to eam legal permanent residency and eventual 

citizenship; 

• a new worker visa program for unskilled workers that allows migrants to enter the U.S. 

legally and safely and protects the labor rights of both U.S. and foreign workers; 

4 
436 

• reform of our family-based immigration system to reduce wattmg times for family 

reunification, based on the union of a husband and a wife and their children; 

• restoration of due process protections for immigrants, including asylum-seekers; 

• policies that address the root causes of migration, such as the lack of sustainable 

development in sending nations, and 

• legal remedies for special populations, such as refugees, asylum seekers, trafficking 

victims, and children. 

During my testimony, I will attempt to spell out in more detail our recommendations in this 

regard, as well as point out the policy provisions the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops 

(USCCB) would oppose in any immigration reform bill. 

A. Path to Citizenship for the Undocumented 

With regard to immigration policy reform, it is vital that Congress and the administration address 

a path to citizenship for the undocumented currently in the United States; employment-based 

immigration through a new worker visa program; and family-based immigration reform. 

Without addressing reform in each leg of the "three-legged stool," any proposal will eventually 

fail to reform our immigration system adequately. 

A main feature of any comprehensive immigration reform measure should be a path to 

citizenship that permits undocumented immigrants of all nationalities in the United States the 

opportunity to earn permanent residency and eventual citizenship. Such a feature would provide 

benefits to both our nation and to immigrants and their families, who would be able to "come out 

of the shadows" and become full members of the community. We support requiring applicants 

to pay a fine, achieve English competency, and wait in the back of the line. 

The "Bipartisan Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform" (Bipartisan Framework), 

proposed on January 22,2013 by a bipartisan group of eight U.S. Senators supports a path to 

citizenship for legalizing undocumented aliens but would make the path contingent on 

enforcement goals; moreover, it recommends the establishment of a commission to assess 

whether the border is "secure." Among the goals stated in the Bipartisan Framework are the 

completion of an entry-exit system and an increase in the number of Border Patrol agents and 

technology at the southern border. 

We ask the committee to resist making the path to citizenship contingent upon enforcement goals 

along the border. Mr. Chairman, over the past 25 years our nation has pursued an enforcementonly immigration policy, with little or no reforms to our legal immigration system and no 

program for bringing millions of the undocumented out of the shadows. Moreover, over the past 

12 years, the U.S. government has spent billions of dollars along our southern border, including 

the tripling of border patrol agents, the addition of unmanned aerial vehicles and other 

technology, and the construction of nearly 700 miles of border fencing. According to the Pew 

5 
437 

Hispanic Center, net migration from Mexico has reached zero. As the Department of Homeland 

Security has stated, as of 201 0, we have obtained "operational control" of our borders. 5 

We should no longer wait to implement other reforms to the system, particularly a path to 

citizenship for the undocumented. We can work to improve humane border enforcement and 

implement other reforms simultaneously. 

At a minimum, there should be a "date certain" in which qualifying immigrants should be able to 

apply for permanent residency. It should not be contingent on new initiatives which could take 

many years to complete and a subjective judgment by a commission. 

Additionally, it is vital that any earned legalization program is both workable and achievable. 

In other words, the program should not be so complicated as to be unworkable, or not easily 

administered, nor should the requirements be so onerous as to disqualify or discourage otherwise 

qualified applicants. 

We also would support a shorter waiting time for applicants to apply for permanent residency. 

Some proposals in the past have suggested waiting times as long as 10 years or more before an 

applicant could apply for permanent residency. We find this period too lengthy, and believe the 

American public would agree. Polls and other surveys of the American public find that 

Americans want immigrants integrated into society as soon as possible, so that they are "playing 

by the same rules," as U.S. citizens. 

We also support broad eligibility requirements for any legalization program, including generous 

evidentiary standards and achievable benchmarks toward permanent residency. This also would 

include a recent arrival date. The assessment of fines associated with a legalization program 

should be reasonable and English competency, not fluency, should be required oflegalization 

applicants, whereby they are permitted to demonstrate that they are working toward fluency. 

It is important that any program capture the maximum number of those who currently live in the 

shadows, so that we significantly reduce, if not eliminate, the undocumented population in this 

country. To this end, we ask that those individuals who qualify for the DREAM Act or for 

AgJOBS specifically be given an immediate path to permanent residency and citizenship. 

Finally, the U.S. bishops oppose proposals that would only grant legal residence to the 

undocumented and withhold from them any opportunity for permanent residency and eventual 

citizenship. We believe that such proposals would create a permanent underclass in our society, 

without full rights in our communities, and that the establishment of such an underclass would 

cut against American tradition and values. 

In our view, an earned path to citizenship would provide many benefits, as follows: 

l Rebecca Gambler, Border Patrol Strategy: Progress and Challenges on Implementation and Assessment 

Efforts, Testimony Before the Subcommittee of Border and Maritime Security Committee on Homeland 

Security, House of Representatives, GAO, May 8, 2012. 

6 
438 

• A path to citizenship would keep families together and improve the well-being of 

U.S.-citizen children. Legalization would help stabilize immigrant families and would 

protect U.S.-citizen children in "mixed" status families. More than 5.5 million U.S. 

citizen children have one or more undocumented parents. 6 Between July 2010 and 

September 2012, 204,810 parents of U.S.-citizen children were removed from the U.S. 

away from their U.S.-citizen children.7 

• A path to citizenship would recognize and maintain the economic contributions of 

the undocumented. Undocumented workers are an integral part of many industries 

across the country, including agriculture, service, construction, meatpacking, and 

poultry processing. For example, undocumented workers make up more than 50 

percent of the labor force in agriculture. Currently, there are roughly over eight million 

undocumented workers in the U.S. labor force, representing 5.2% of the total American 

workforce in 2010.8 In addition, undocumented workers contribute billions to the tax 

and Social Security systems, paying $520 billion into the Social Security system since 

1975, and contributions from these newly legalized workers would add close to $5 

billion in additional tax revenue in just the next three years.9 

• A path to citizenship would improve wages and working conditions for all workers. 

By legalizing the labor force in a way which allows immigrants to become permanent 

residents, wages and working conditions would improve for all workers. According to 

a North American Integration and Development Center study, a new legalization 

program would increase the wages of immigrant workers by 15 percent, similar to the 

effect after passage of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. 10 Legalization 

also would allow workers to organize and assert their rights, leading to better working 

conditions and wages for all workers. 

• A path to citizenship would help bring U.S. immigration policy in line with U.S. 

economic policy. The United States and Mexico are more integrated than ever. U.S. 

immigration policy has yet to adjust to the fact that U.S. economic policies such as 

NAFTA have facilitated rapid interdependence between Mexico and the United States. 

As economic policies are integrated, so, too, must bilateral migration policies. 

6 Jeffrey Passel and D'Vera Cohn, Unauthorized Immigrant PopUlation: National and State Trends,:20IO 

Pew Research Hispanic Center, (20 II) 

7 American Immigration Council, Falling Through the Cracks: The Impact of Immigration Enforcement on 

Children Caught Up in the Child Welfare System, December 12,2012. 

'Jeffrey Passel and D'Vera Cohn, A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, Pew 

Hispanic Research Center (2009-2010) 

9 Marshall Fitz, Time to Legalize II Million Undocumented Workers, Center for American Progress, 

November 14,2012. 

10 Raul Hinojosa Ojeda, Comprehensive Migration Policy Reform in North America: The Key to 

Sustainable alld Equitable Economic Integration. Los Angeles, California: North American Integration 

and Development Center, School of Policy and Social Research, UCLA, August, 2000. 

7 
439 

• A path to citizenship would make us more secure. By legalizing the 11 million 

undocumented and requiring that they register with the U.S. government, law 

enforcement would be able to focus on others who are in the United States to harm us. 

Despite the dire warnings of opponents of a path to citizenship for undocumented workers, 

evidence suggests that it would yield benefits at many levels by preserving farnily unity, securing 

the economic contributions of migrants, and raising the wages and working conditions of all 

workers. 

B. Employment-Based Immigration 

Perhaps the most challenging aspect of immigration policy refonn is the creation of a new 

worker program that protects the basic rights of all workers, both foreign and domestic. The 

history of "guest worker" programs in the United States has not been a proud one. Indeed, the 

Bracero program, the largest U.S. experiment with temporary laborers from abroad, ended 

abruptly in 1964 because of abuses in the program. The U.S. Catholic bishops have long been 

skeptical oflarge-scale "guest worker" programs. Nevertheless, the status quo, which features a 

large underclass of undocumented workers, unprotected by the law, is unacceptable. 

In this regard, the U.S. bishops have proposed a new model for a worker program that includes 

several elements, better labeled a new worker program. Each of these elements, properly 

implemented, would, in our view, help protect the rights of foreign and U.S. workers and ensure 

that legal avenues are provided for future migrants so that they can enter the country in a safe, 

legal, and humane manner. 

• Wage and Benefit Levels. Any worker program should ensure that wage levels 

and benefits for "guest workers" are equal to those afforded to domestic workers in 

an industry. Overtime pay should be available. Benefits such as worker's 

compensation, social security, housing, and health-care should be made available. 

• Worker Protections and Job Portability. Workers in any "guest worker program" 

should enjoy the same protections of U.S. labor law as U.S. workers, regardless of 

the industry they are working in. This should include a right to redress grievances in 

federal court and a transparent arbitration system; safe and sanitary working 

conditions; and expressed terms of employment. Workers should be able to move to 

other employment within an industry and not be tied to one employer. Work 

accrued toward permanent residency should not be affected by changing jobs or 

employers. 

• Family Unity. Workers should be able to be joined by their spouse and children in 

the United States during the length of the worker's visa. Both husband and wife 

should be eligible for work authorization, regardless of whether they work in the 

program. Spouses and children should be able to become eligible for permanent 

residency at the same time as the worker in the program. 

8 
440 

• Labor-Market Test. A mechanism should be included to ascertain whether U.S. 

workers within an area are adversely impacted by the hiring of workers from abroad. 

Employers should be required to advertise job openings to the maximum extent 

practicable and make good-faith efforts to recruit U.S. workers for a sufficient 

amount of time. 

• Mobility. Workers and their families should be able to travel throughout the United 

States, travel back and forth from the United States to their country of origin, as well 

as travel from work site to work site, regardless of location, for the duration of their 

visa. Visas should be renewable as long as workers meet the requirements of the 

program, and applicable waivers to bars to admission should apply. 

• Enforcement Mechanisms. Resources should be appropriated to ensure proper 

enforcement of worker protections in the program. Workers should be given the 

right to sue in federal court for violation of rights. 

• Path to Citizenship. Workers should have the option of working to earn permanent 

residency over time, similar to an earned legalization program, as outlined in my 

testimony. 

In our view, any new worker program must contain these elements in order to avoid the abuses 

of past such programs and to ensure that workers' rights are protected. In addition, such a 

program should be enacted in conjunction with a legalization program for the undocumented so 

that groups of workers are not pitted against each other. A just worker program also would 

mitigate the amount and effects of undocumented migration, which can lead to the abuse, 

exploitation, or even death of migrants. 

Standing Commission on Labor Markets. There have been proposals in the past that would 

create commissions to determine annual visa levels, based on economic needs. 

While the U.S. bishops do not oppose the concept of a commission, we believe that the scope of 

its oversight and its authority should be limited. 

First, we do not believe that visa programs outside the employment-based system, particularly 

family-based categories, should be placed under such a commission's purview. We also believe 

that niche programs, such as the Religious Worker Visa Program, should be excluded from such 

a commission's jurisdiction, as the levels and structure of such programs should be decided by 

Congress, in consultation with the full range of faith groups who benefit from it. 

In addition, we believe that Congress should establish a floor for annual visas in any new worker 

program and that any commission's examination of such programs should be limited to 

examining environmental factors and making recommendations to Congress regarding a level of 

visas above the floor. We also believe that the commission should consider humanitarian 

factors, such as the rates of deaths in the American desert, so that the program can be adjusted 

accordingly. 

9 
441 

Religious Workers. We urge you to include a permanent extension of the special immigrant 

non-minister portion of the Religious Worker Visa Program in any reform legislation. This 

program permits 5.000 non-minister religious and lay persons each year to enter the United 

States and work on a permanent basis. They work in religious vocations and contribute to their 

denominations, but also work in the community helping U.S. citizens. 

C. Family-Based Immigration 

Family reunification, upon which much ofthe U.S. immigration system has been based for 

decades, should remain the cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy. Immigrant families 

contribute to our nation and help form new generations of Americans. Even while many 

migrants come to the United States to find employment, many come as families. 

The U.S. family-based immigration system, which helps keep families together, is in urgent need 

of reform. 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 of five years 

or more-and more than eight years for Mexican permanent residents-for husbands and \Vives 

to reunite with each other and for mothers and fathers to reunite with minor children. The 

waiting times for adult siblings to reunite can be twenty years or longer. 11 

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 of facilitating, rather than 

hindering, family unity. Such changes can be made in several ways, but they should not alter 

the basic categories in the family preference system. 

Opposition to a "point" system to replace family-based immigration. Mr. Chairman, during 

the 2007 immigration reform debate, the U.S. Senate strongly considered replacing the familybased 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 oflocal neighborhoods. 

II u.s. Citizenship and Immigration Service Fact Sheet, January, 2004. 

10 
442 

Family reunification has been the cornerstone of the U.S. immigration system since the inception 

of our republic. It would be foolhardy to abandon this system, as the fanlily unit, based on the 

union of a husband and a wife and their children, represents the core of our society and culture. 

Opposition to the inclusion of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) in immigration 

reform legislation. Mr. Chairman, we are opposed to the inclusion of the Uniting American 

Families Act (UAFA) in comprehensive immigration reform legislation. This legislation 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. 

D. Enforcement Regime and Due Process 

Mr. Chairman, we believe that the best way to secure our borders and to ensure that our 

immigration laws are just and humane is to enact comprehensive immigration reform legislation. 

Since 1993, when the U.S. Border Patrol initiated a series of enforcement initiatives along our 

southern border to stem the flow of undocumented migrants, Congress has appropriated and the 

federal government spent about $50 billion on border enforcement, tripling the number of Border 

Patrol agents and introducing technology and fencing along the border. 

During the same period, as Congress has enacted one enforcement-only measure after another, 

the number of undocumented in the country has more than doubled and, tragically, nearly 8,000 

migrants have perished in the desert of the United States. One of the more troubling and severe 

enforcement efforts that has been implemented in the name of protecting the border, Operation 

Streamline, has criminalized unauthorized entry and re-entry of immigrants beyond the civil 

immigration system, placing them in the U.S. federal criminal justice system. The sheer volume 

of individuals detained under this program has overwhelmed the U.S. court and prison system 

and has led to procedural due process violations in the courts and substantive due process 

violations related to arbitrary detention. 

As you may know, Mr. Chairman, the U.S. bishops have expressed concern with the border 

fence which has been built along our southern border as well as the ongoing implementation of 

Operation Streamline. We do not believe these approaches will solve the problem of illegal 

immigration and could send migrants into even more remote regions of the border and into the 

hands of unscrupulous smugglers. 

We are hopeful that comprehensive immigration policy reform that emphasizes legal avenues for 

migration will mitigate the perceived need for continuing to increase the number of border patrol 

agents, criminal prosecutions of immigrants and the amount and length of border fencing. Such 

reform could alleviate the pressure on border enforcement by undermining human smuggling 

operations and reducing the flow of undocumented migrants across the border. It also could 

help create a more stable atmosphere for the implementation of enforcement reforms, such as 

biometric visas and passports, which would help better identify those who come to harm us. 

11 
443 

Mr. Chainnan, I would like to offer the position of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on 

several enforcement issues you may consider during consideration of comprehensive 

immigration refonn: 

National Emolover Electronic Verification System. Mr. Chainnan, we know that there has 

been significant discussion and debate, including the introduction and markup of legislative 

proposals, over the question of whether the U.S. should enforce immigration-related work 

eligibility requirements in the workplace by imposing a mandatory electronic verification system 

on employers nationwide, so that employees who are hired are in the country legally and 

authorized to work. While we are not per se opposed to such a system, several steps should be 

taken to ensure that any system is applied unifonnly and in an accurate way. 

We would not oppose the adoption of a mandatory employer verification system provided that 

such a system: 1) is accompanied by a broad-based legalization program, so that all workers have 

an opportunity to become legal and not remain outside of the system; 2) is phased in at a 

reasonable rate with objective benchmarks so implementation is feasible for both employers and 

the govemment; 3) is not reliant on inaccurate, uncorrected goverrunent databases that result in 

the wrongful denial of employment of potential employees; 3) puts protections in place so that 

employers do not use the system to wrongfully discharge certain employees; and 4) provides a 

mechanism for employees and potential hires who are falsely identified as ineligible to work to 

correct any misinfonnation that leads to the false positive 

Reform of Detention Standards and Practices. Mr. Chainnan, we are deeply concerned with 

the status quo when it comes to the detention of aliens who are in removal proceedings, 

especially vulnerable migrants, such as children and families. We applaud Secretary Napolitano 

for her initiative to refonn the detention system, but we believe that statutory change is 

necessary. Similarly, we call for the end of Operation Streamline and the corresponding $1 .02 

billion srent in FY2011 on the incarceration costs of non-violent individuals for basic migration 

crimes. l We support the enactment of provisions which would: end mandatory detention and 

restore discretion to immigration officials and judges to release individuals who are not a flight 

risk and do not pose a risk to public safety; create nationwide alternatives to detention programs; 

improve standards for detention conditions, making the detention system truly civil in nature and 

including prompt medical care in compliance with accreditation requirements, access to legal 

counsel, and standards for families, children, and victims of persecution and torture; and 

establish a new Office of Detention Oversight at the Department of Homeland Security. 

Restoration of Due Process Protections. Finally, we urge the committee to reexamine the 

changes made by the 1996 Illegal Immigration Refonn and Immigrant Responsibility Act 

(IIRlRA), which eviscerated due process protections for immigrants. We urge you to restore 

administrative and judicial discretion in removal proceedings so that families are not divided, 

repeal the 3-and 10-year bars to re-entry, and revisit the number and types of offenses considered 

as aggravated felonies as a matter of immigration law. 

12 FY20 II, Budget in Brief, Department of Homeland Security, (20 II) 

12 
444 

E. Special Populations 

Asylum-seekers and refugees should be afforded protection. Those who come to our shores 

in need of protection from persecution should be afforded an opportunity to assert their claim to 

a qualified adjudicator and should not be detained unnecessarily. The expansion of "expedited 

removal," a practice that puts bona fide refugees and other vulnerable migrants at risk of 

wrongful deportation, should be halted. At a minimum, strong safeguards, such as those 

suggested by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, should be instituted to 

prevent the return of the persecuted to their persecutors. We urge the subcommittee to include 

these reforms in any reform legislation. 

We also believe that the definitions of terrorist activity, terrorist organization, and what 

constitutes material support to a terrorist organization in the Immigration and Nationality Act 

(INA) were written so broadly and applied so expansively that thousands of refugees are being 

unjustly labeled as supporters of terrorist organizations or participants in terrorist activities. 

These definitions have prevented thousands of bona-fide refugees from receiving protection in 

the United States, as well as prevented or blocked thousands of applications for permanent 

residence or for family reunification. 

We urge the committee to reexamine these definitions and to consider altering them in a manner 

which preserves their intent to prevent actual terrorists from entering our country without 

harming those who are themselves victims of terror-refugees and asylum-seekers. At a 

minimum, we urge you to enact an exception for refugees who provide assistance to a defined 

terrorist organization under duress. 

Additionally, we ask the committee to repeal the one-year filing deadline on asylum applications, 

which has prevented many asylum-seekers from obtaining immigration relief. Often it takes 

time for asylum-seekers to adjust to the United States and obtain legal assistance to file these 

claims. Many are detained and are unable to access the asylum system. 

U.S. Refugee Program. Mr. Chairman, we also have several recommendations for reform of 

the U.S. refugee program. Our nation employs a robust refugee program which has served as an 

example to the rest of the world that refugees should be afforded protection. However. the U.S. 

refugee program suffers from inadequate funding and structural and policy deficiencies. We ask 

for the following changes in the law affecting refugees served in the U.S. refugee program: 

• Refugees admitted into the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program are being extended a 

special humanitarian protection reserved for those most in need, and have passed through 

an incredibly rigorous process of screening and background checks before entry. They 

are here legally and permanently and should therefore be admitted as Legal Permanent 

Residents, instead of being required to wait at least a year before applying to adjust their 

status, as current law necessitates. This requirement can lead to a number of delays and 

complications for refugees, including detention. 

13 
445 

• The U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program is in dire need of restructuring and increased 

funding. In addition to an overall assessment of the program, we advocate strongly for an 

increase in and annual update of the Reception and Placement Grant; creation of a 

Resettlement Emergency Fund; significant expansion of the Matching Grant Program, 

enabling more refugees to become self-sufficient through early employment; expansion 

of the Unaccompanied Refugee Minor program, which serves some of the most 

vulnerable refugee children; and establishment of a Refugee Integration Grant Program 

and a Case Management Program. 

• Family reunification is a central tenet of the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program. 

However, due to gaps in current U.S. immigration law, some refugees who have a 

legitimate refugee claim and should be able to join family members here are unable to 

enter the U.S as refugees. Reforms to address this problem include allowing orphaned 

refugee children to be resettled along with their adoptive families and speeding up the 

adjudication ofrefugees' and asylees' family reunification petitions. 

• We support reform of the fee structure to provide for the direct appropriation of funds for 

refugee and asylum adjudications; the requirement that a refugee applicant whose 

application for admission as a refugee is denied be notified in writing of the reasons why 

his or her application was denied; and the establishment of formal training programs in 

each of the refugee processing regions to provide English as a Second Language (ESL), 

cultural orientation, and work orientation programs for refugees who have been approved 

for admission to the United States before they are admitted. 

Unaccompanied Alien Minors. Mr. Chairman, the USCCB is also very concerned with the 

plight of unaccompanied minors who enter the United States. The number of unaccompanied 

alien minors entering the U.S. has reached new levels with more than 14,000 minors coming into 

Office of Refugee Resettlement custody in FY2012. With this in mind, we feel strongly that the 

following changes should be made in laws impacting minors: 

• All children at the border, including unaccompanied Mexican children, should be 

screened for trafficking and fear of return as mandated in the Trafficking Victims 

Protection Act of 2008. Child welfare experts should assist in the screening and other 

humanitarian assistance at the border. 

• Unaccompanied Alien Minors Special Immigrant Juvenile and U-Visa recipients should 

qualifY for refugee benefits, so they can receive appropriate health-care and social 

services. 

• Small scale community-based programming should be a pnonty for housing of 

unaccompanied children in federal custody as opposed to large scale institutionalized 

settings. 

• Legal counsel should be guaranteed to unaccompanied alien minors, so they can navigate 

the complex legal immigration system and obtain appropriate immigration relief. 

14 
446 

• Post release family preservation services should be guaranteed for all unaccompanied 

minors who are released to sponsors in the United States. 

• A transnational family reunification approach should be adopted when deciding on 

durable solutions in the best interest of unaccompanied children. This includes family 

tracing and assessment, through international home studies, of the viability of all family 

reunification options, regardless of geography, for reunification. 

• Return and re-integration services in countries of origin should be supported by the U.S. 

Government, with clear authority and appropriations given to the appropriate federal 

agency. 

• An independent outcome evaluation should be conducted that assesses the well-being of 

unaccompanied children released from federal custody, taking in account such factors 

such as legal relief and child permanency outcomes. 

F. Addressing the Root Causes of Migration 

As the bishops have also taught, all persons have the right to remain in their homeland 

and to find there the means to support themselves and their families in dignity. Migration 

flows should be driven by choice, not necessity. To achieve this goal there is a need to 

develop the economies of sending nations, including particularly Mexico and the 

countries of Central America. 

Only a long-term effort that adjusts economic inequalities between the United States and 

the nations south of our border will provide indigenous workers with employment 

opportunities that will allow them to remain at home and to build a dignified life for 

themselves and their families. The Church has consistently singled out economic 

inequality between nations as a global disorder that must be addressed. Within the United 

States-Mexico relationship, for example, we have witnessed the application of economic 

policies that do not adequately take into account the welfare of individual persons and 

families who struggle to survive and flourish. 

In light of historic relationships, recent migration patterns, and increasing economic 

integration among the United States, Mexico, and Central America, particular attention 

should be dedicated to bilateral and multilateral efforts in the hemisphere to reduce the 

economic and social factors driving irregular migration. 

In our pastoral letter on migration, the Catholic bishops of Mexico and the United States 

wrote, "the realities of migration between both nations require comprehensive policy 

responses implemented in unison by both countries. The current relationship is 

weakened by inconsistent and divergent policies that are not coordinated and, in many 

cases, address only the symptoms of migration and not its root causes.,,!3 

13 Strangers No Longer, n. 56. 

15 
447 

It is critical that Congress and the administration look at the immigration issue, 

particularly with Mexico and Central America, as part and parcel of the bilateral 

relationships with these neighboring countries, including trade and economic 

considerations. Improving migration management in the region will need to be coupled 

with bilateral efforts to address the forces which compel migrants to take great risks to 

come to the United States. Such investment in shared prosperity in the region is an 

essential element of improved regional migration management. 

Without a systematic approach which examines why people migrate, the United States 

and other govemments will not be able to address the underlying causes of migration. It 

is clear that foreign-born workers continue to come to this nation regardless of 

enforcement strategies. What attracts them is employment and opportunities to meet the 

basic needs of their families, opportunities largely unavailable in their home 

communities. Increasingly, youth and women migrate to reunite with their families or 

escape violence in their home countries. These populations are particularly vulnerable to 

sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking and other opportunistic crimes frequently 

perpetrated against migrants. 

Particular focus should be given to rural poverty, disaster risk reduction and addressing 

high youth unemployment, issues particularly associated with emigration in the 

hemisphere. 

Small-scale farm families in Latin America have benefitted little from the region's 

economic growth over the past two decades. Migration in Central America and Mexico 

often occurs first from rural to urban areas, and subsequently across borders. Families 

unable to recoup key assets in the aftermath of natural and environmental disasters and to 

meet basic shelter and livelihood needs have a greater likelihood of displacement and 

migration. 

The majority of migrants to the United States from Central America and Mexico are 

between 15-30 years old. In Latin America young people 15-25 years old are three times 

more likely to be unemployed than other workers, and in 2011-2012 the rate of migration 

of unaccompanied minors from Central America doubled, with a significant percentage 

of these youths reporting threat of violence, primarily from gangs, as their primary reason 

for migrating. 

We offer the following policy recommendations to address the root causes of migration: 

• Trade policy must reflect principles of just development. Wealthier countries 

should reduce the subsidies, tariffs, and quotas that severely constrict poorer 

countries in their ability to market their own products and sustain their own 

agriCUlture. Developing countries should be given some flexibility in using 

appropriate subsidies, tariffs, quotas, and other support measures to make sure 

they have sufficient food supplies, enhance rural incomes, and promote rural 

development. 

16 
448 

• Trade negotiations should reflect standards of equity andfairness. Trade 

documents should be made available during the process of negotiation for review 

and public comment. Major elements of civil society, including groups 

representing poor, business, labor and religious communities, should have greater 

access to participation in the negotiation process. Wealthier countries should 

provide technical assistance to help poorer countries be able to participate more 

fully in trade negotiations and to ensure that sectors that would not benefit from 

the agreements are supported. Labor and environmental concerns should be 

treated as integral to trade agreements and not as peripheral matters. 

• Labor rights need to be recognized in the trade negotiation process. Trade 

agreements should lead to economic and social improvements at home and 

abroad, particularly for poor and vulnerable workers and their families; this can 

be accomplished by adopting internationally agreed upon labor standards and by 

ensuring there is a safety-net in sectors that would be adversely affected by the 

agreements. Trade agreements should foster the right to organize and bargain 

collectively. Trade agreements should also encourage and not undennine the 

ability of poor countries to promote environmental protection and sustainable 

agricultural practices. 

• The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other free trade 

agreements have harmed small businesses and small farmers in Mexico and 

elsewhere in Latin America, especially in the rural sector. Nations should 

reconsider the impact of economic and trade agreements on persons who work 

hard at making a living, particularly small farmers. In addition, these agreements 

must preserve the rights of workers in these countries to work under just labor 

conditions, and must adequately safeguard human rights and environmental 

protections. 

• The creation of employment opportunities in Mexico, the nations ofCmtral 

America and throughout Latin America would help to reduce poverty and 

would mitigate the incentil·efor many migrants to look for employment in tile 

United States. The implementation of economic policies in these countries that 

create living-wage jobs is vital, especially for Latin American citizens without 

advanced skills. Investments in health, housing and educational systems in these 

nations must be improved to provide the basis for enhanced employment 

opportunities for workers. Targeted development projects in municipalities and 

rural areas that traditionally have had the highest rates of emigration are 

necessary. Projects and resources particularly should be focused on the 

agricultural sector and small businesses in Latin America. 

• Support the identification and promotion of key natwnal and municipal level 

public policy innovations for poverty reduction and inclusive development in the 

region. Sustainable poverty reduction and more equitable growth in countries of 

origin require comprehensive economic, political and social policy approaches. 

17 
449 

The U.S. Govenunent should expand its partnerships with govcnunents, private 

sector, and civil society to identify and develop public policy innovations that 

demonstrate substantive impact on poverty reduction, social inclusion and disaster 

risk reduction. 

• Establish a Regional Social Investment and Development Fund to reduce 

economic and social disparities and migration pressure between NAFTA and 

CAFTA trading partners. Investment in shared prosperity in the region is an 

essential element of improved regional migration management. 

• Alleviate rural poverty and revitalize agricultural production in prioritized 

migrant sending countries, through the granting of Trade Preferences, Most 

Favored Nation Status or adjustment to current agricultural trade relations, to 

ensure greater poverty reduction benefits from trade. Such assistance should 

prioritize investment in rural development strategies, marketing support and 

extension services to small farmers, strengthening of agro-enterprise partnerships, 

programs that protect or reverse degraded natural resources and expanded access 

to credit and micro-finance opportunities for small farmers, particularly in regions 

of highest out-migration. 

• Support disaster recovery strategies for highly vulnerable populations in 

Central America and Mexico as part of social safety net and disaster response 

systems. This should include support for the development of mechanisms to 

expand financial (savings and credit) and non-financial services (property and 

livelihoods insurance), and environmental adaptation for vulnerable families 

within Disaster Risk Reduction and Recovery Strategies. 

• Support comprehensive public-private strategies, partnerships afld programs 

which prioritize income- generation and violence reduction efforts with youth 

in Central America and Mexico. Targeted public-private investment and 

partnerships to reduce youth unemployment in the region would significantly 

contribute to poverty and violence reduction, regional stability and investment in 

hwnan capital and the future of the region. 

• As border regions are a focal point Of the migration phenomenofl, resources 

also should be directed toward commuflities Ofl the United States-Mexico 

border. Such additional resources should augment existing efforts by border 

residents to aid migrants in meeting their most basic needs. We urge the initiation 

of joint border development projects that would help build up the economies of 

these areas so that border residents may continue to work and live cooperatively, 

obtaining necessary support for their health, educational and legal needs. 

• Governmeflts should recognize the importance of preserving the environmettt 

and the rights of ifldigettous popUlations. Economic development and 

opportunity must be fostered in a context that preserves and protects the 

18 
450 

environment. In particular, land policies should respect the rights of indigenous 

people in the region to use and live on their land. 

• External economicfactors, including excessive levels offoreign debt, must be 

addressed. Government policies at both the national and international level must 

address the role of excessive debt as a destabilizing element in the economy of a 

nation. Where appropriate, debt relief and reform must be considered as a critical 

component of foreign policy to allow foreign governments the opportunity to 

develop without the undue burdens of high levels of indebtedness. 

• Efforts must also continue to address the under{I'ing causes of violence in the 

border regions. Policies must reflect the importance of controlling the illicit drug 

trade, the centrality of curbing corruption at every level of national life, and the 

need to curtail the arms trade, weapons and human trafficking, as well as the 

resultant violence that accompanies these illicit activities. 

IV. Implementation ofImmigration Policy Reform 

It is important to understand that the manner in which comprehensive immigration reform is 

implemented is vital to its success. A public-private partnership is necessary so that immigrant 

communities are aware of the facts of the application process (thus eliminating the involvement 

of "notarios") and are able to receive assistance in accessing the program. 

It will be essential that Congress provide adequate resources for DHS and community-based 

legal services programs to implement and execute any earned legalization program. As passed 

by the Senate, for example, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (ClRA) of 2006 

anticipated this need by establishing a fee structure that approximately 66 billion dollars of 

revenue dedicated to processing applications for earned adjustment. 

Fee-generated funds, alone, will not be adequate, however, to meet the needs of an earned 

adjustment program. Congress will also need to directly appropriate funds to get any such 

program started. And it will need to be vigilant to ensure that fee-generated funds are not 

diverted for other purposes, as has often been done in the past. 

While some may quarrel with the use of appropriated funds for this purpose, I would suggest that 

the alternative would likely require the expenditure offar more funds and yield a less desirable 

result. Imagine how much it would cost to apprehend, detain, and deport the estimated II 

million people who are in the United States illegally? The cost of properly implementing an 

earned legalization program is tiny when compared to the cost of the alternative approach. 

Mr. Chairman, we believe that any comprehensive legislation can be implemented through 

reasonable fees imposed on applicants and with some supplemental funding appropriated by 

Congress. Fees should not be so punitive as to place the program out of the reach of qualified 

applicants. 

19 
451 

We recommend the inclusion of the following elements in any legislation to ensure that a 

program is implemented appropriately: 

• Confidentiality. Applicants for legalization should be extended confidentiality and 

not be subject to arrest and deportation if they fail to qualify for the program. This 

would ensure maximum participation in the program and that those who do qualify 

are not discouraged or intimidated from applying. 

• Reasonable Implementation Period. Sufficient time should be given between 

enactment and implementation so that regulations, procedures, and infrastructure are 

in place. Deportations of prospective applicants should be suspended between these 

two dates. 

• Derivative Benefits. Immediate family members-husband, wife, and childrenshould receive the same immigration benefits under legalization as the primary 

beneficiary. 

• Generous Evidentiary Standards. For purposes of verifying an applicant's 

eligibility for legalization, evidentiary standards should be based upon 

"preponderance of the evidence" and should include a wide range of proof, including 

attestation. 

• A Simple and Broad Registration Process. Such a process would bring forward 

eligible applicants for preliminary security screening. 

• Operational Terms Should be Clearly Defined: Operational terms in the bill, such 

as "continuous residence," "brief, casual, and innocent," and "known to the 

government," should be defined in the legislation to avoid later confusion. 

• Broad Humanitarian Waiver. A broad waiver of bars to admissibility, such as 

unlawful presence, fraud, or offenses related to unauthorized status, should be 

included in the legislation. 

• Increased Resources for the Executive Office for Immigration Review: in order to 

meet the need for qualified, competent legal services, rapid adjudication of 

applications for Board of Immigration Appeals (BrA) Recognition and Accreditation 

will be necessary. Funding for EOIR should be generously appropriated ahead of 

implementation. 

• Funding for Legal Services: Funding for BrA recognized agencies should be 

authorized prior to implementation, to conduct public outreach and to build the 

capacity ofthese agencies. 

• Funding to Assist Service Providers and Potential Applicants to Meet Program 

Requirements: Funds should be allocated to organizations that will assist immigrants 

20 
452 

to become eligible for the legalization program, including for providing civics and 

ESL instruction. 

The inclusion of these elements in any legislation would facilitate the implementation of any 

program. 

In addition, the Congress and the administration should take steps to reduce the immigration 

adjudication backlogs which now exist so that immigrants receive benefits in a timely way and 

that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (US CIS) is able to implement any new 

program. 

Moreover, in 2007 the government enacted an increase in fee applications by three times for 

green card applications, leaving these benefits financially out of reach of many applicants. 14 

This has led to a drop in naturalization applications in 2008 and 2009. US CIS recently 

announced that it may raise fees even further in the near future. We urge the subcommittee to 

reassess these fee increases and authorize the use of general funds for processing of applications. 

Mr. Chairman, reduction in the current backlogs in naturalization and adjustment of status 

applications as well as the maintenance of affordable fees should be part of our nation's efforts to 

reform our immigration system. We recommend that Congress evaluate the budget of the U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) and provide more directly appropriated funding 

for infrastructure and backlog reduction. 

V. Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the issue of comprehensive 

immigration reform. Now is the time to finally enact such reforms, and we must do it right. 

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 U.S. Catholic bishops strongly believe that comprehensive immigration 

reform should be a top priority 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. 

14 69 Federal Register 5088 (February 2, 2007) 

21 
453 

22 
454 

RIGHTS 

working group 

STATEMENT OF 

WADE HENDERSON, PRESIDENT AND CEO 

LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

MARGARET HUANG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

RIGHTS WORKING GROUP 

HEARING ON: COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFOR,l\f 

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

FEBRUARY 13,2013 

Chairman leahy, Ranking Member Grassley and members of the Committee: We are Wade 

Henderson, President and CEO of The leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and 

Margaret Huang, Executive Director of Rights Working Group. Thank you for the opportunity to 

submit testimony for the record regarding today's hearing. 

The leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights is the nation's oldest and most diverse 

coalition of civil and human rights organizations. Founded in 1950 by Arnold Aronson, A. Philip 

Randolph, and Roy Wilkins, The leadership Conference seeks to further the goal of equality under 

law through legislative advocacy and public education. The leadership Conference consists of more 

than 200 national organizations representing persons of color, women, children, organized labor, 

persons with disabilities, the elderly, gays and lesbians, and major religious groups. 

Rights Working Group (RWG) was formed in the aftermath of September 11th to promote and protect 

the human rights of all people in the United States. A coalition of more than 350 local, state and national 

organizations, RWG works collaboratively to advocate for the civil liberties and human rights of 

everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, citizenship or immigration status. 

Currently, RWG leads the Racial Profiling: Face the Truth campaign, which seeks to end racial and 

religious profiling. 

We are very grateful for today's hearing, and we are very encouraged by the renewed bipartisan efforts 

to overhaul our nation's immigration system. We strongly believe that our nation's immigration system 

is badly broken. It fails to keep up with economic realities, it fails to provide an orderly way to keep track 

1 
455 

of who is here, it inhumanely separates families and keeps them apart, it penalizes children for the 

actions of their parents, and it is so unfair and so burdensome that it fails to give people enough 

incentives to play by the rules. America's immigration system clearly needs sweeping changes, and it 

needs them soon. 

We believe that one of the most important - and certainly most-discussed - elements of overhauling 

our immigration system is giving unauthorized immigrants, living and working in our country, a realistic 

way to come out of the shadows and legalize their status. This is not an issue of politics or economics 

but of morality, and it goes directly to our most basic understanding of civil and human rights. 

It is easy to focus on the fact that many immigrants have broken the rules in order to get or stay here. 

We do not condone violations of our immigration laws. But as we do in most other circumstances, we 

should also look at why these individuals have broken the rules. Motives count. And the overwhelming 

majority of unauthorized immigrants have broken the rules not to "steal jobs," to live off the 

government, or to take advantage of anyone else. Instead, most of them have been motivated, to the 

point where many have even risked their lives to come here, by the desire to escape economic or 

political hardships that few native-born Americans today could fully understand. At the same time, they 

are all too often enticed here by employers who are perfectly willing to use and abuse them in the 

process. 

When we consider the motives of most of the unauthorized immigrants who live and work in our 

country, it is clear to us - and hopefully to everyone - that our policies should not treat them as 

fugitives or "illegal," but as an economic and social reality that must be addressed in a thoughtful 

manner that best serves our nation and our communities as a whole. For example, immigrantsregardless of their legal status - should not be so afraid of law enforcement that they refuse to report 

crimes in their own neighborhoods, and they should not fear that they will be singled out because of 

their perceived race, national origin, religion, or ethnicity. When they go to work, they -like all humans 

- have a right to know they will be treated safely and paid fairly, which protects the interests of nativeborn workers as well. If they drive on our roads, it is in the interest of us all to make sure they are doing 

so safely. Regardless of how they may have initially come here, if they show a Willingness to play by the 

rules and contribute to our economy and our society, we should have policies in place that will reward 

their hard work. At the very least, we would hope that we can all agree that punishing the children of 

unauthorized immigrants for the actions of their parents is nothing short of cruel, and is an affront to 

our deepest values and constitutional traditions. 

We also believe that in fixing our immigration system, it is vital that we include more realistic and more 

humane immigration enforcement. For many reasons, it is undoubtedly important to know who is 

coming here and under what circumstances, and to protect communities from people who would do us 

harm when they have no authorization to be here. Yet as evidenced by record-high numbers of 

deportations in the past four years, the notion that the laws are not being enforced is simply not true. 

The real problem, when it comes to enforcement, is that ongoing efforts - particularly since the 

implementation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 - too often 

take a heavy-handed and even cruel approach. Countless numbers of immigrants - regardless of their 

2 
456 

legal status - are needlessly locked up and removed, even when detention and deportation do not serve 

the public interest, because immigration judges and other officials no longer have the ability or the 

incentive to exercise common sense. At the same time, many of the most complicated and sensitive 

decisions involving immigration law enforcement are being made in many parts of the country by 

untrained state and local law enforcement officials, or worse, by private for-profit corporations that 

have a financial incentive to lock up as many people as possible. 

As a nation, we can and should take more sensible measures, such as hiring additional inspectors and 

border patrol agents to work in ports of entry, making better use of technology, and working more 

closely with Mexico to cut down on problems like human trafficking and the drug trade. At the same 

time, enforcement efforts must ensure due process and protect the civil rights of all people who are 

affected. 

Finally, we believe that family unity should be a key foundation of our immigration laws, in the same 

way that it is a key foundation of our society itself. Sadly, our current immigration system is chronically 

plagued by administrative backlogs in the family-based visa process, as well as by the woefully 

inadequate numbers of family-based visas that become legally available each year. As a result, it can 

often take years or even more than a decade for close relatives of U.S. citizens or permanent residents 

to obtain immigrant visas, and these delays simply encourage people to overstay temporary visas or find 

other ways to enter the country in order to be with their loved ones. Other families are kept apart by 

outright discriminatory federal policies, particularly the wrongly-named Defense of Marriage Act of 

1995. Addressing these and numerous other problems in our immigration system is an essential 

component of the modern civil and human rights agenda. 

Border Security, Border Communities 

Since the 1980s, immigration reforms have opened paths to citizenship for some. More often, however, 

reforms have expanded the capacity of immigration enforcement. This has been particularly true since 

the events of September 11th, after which concerns about national security led to an extraordinary 

escalation of border security, including the building of walls, a military presence, an exponential increase 

in CBP agents and drones. 

Many lawmakers have thus far taken the position that a path to citizenship must be contingent upon 

further tightening of border security. Such positions overlook the fact that, according to the most 

reliable demographic and sociological research, the border is already secure. As of 2012, border 

apprehensions are at a forty-year low point, and levels of violent crime in border cities have declined 

steadily for the past two decades.'ln a 2010 poll of border community residents, 87.5% responded that 

they feel safe walking and driving in their neighborhood, and 59.7% responded that they feel their 

border neighborhood is as safe as most U.S. neighborhoods.' Meanwhile, massive resource increases to 

1 Johnson, Kevin and Alan Gomez, Violentoimes drop overallin U.S. bonder dtJes, USA Today, Nov. 4, 2012, available at 

http://www.usatoday.com/storv/news/nation/2012/11/04/violent-crimes-drop-overall-in-us-border-Cihes/1681821/. 

2 Border Network for Human Rights, Border Community Security Poll: Border residents say they feel safe living on 

the U.S. Border, Report released August 10, 2010, available at http://www.scribd.com!doc!55556668!Do-youfeel-safe-at-the-U-S-Mexico-Border-Border-Residents-Respond 

3 
457 

Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) have doubled the number of Border Patrol agents since 2005 and have 

led to substantial new investments in CBP infrastructure and technology.' The image of the border as a 

zone of "murder, terror and mayhem," as described by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, is false and 

misleading.' 

One area of border security, however, has been woefully neglected: the security of immigrant 

communities and communities of color against racial profiling and violations of civil and human rights by 

law enforcement. Within approximately 100 miles of both the southern and northern borders, Border 

Patrol agents have been known to respond to 911 calls, sometimes under the pretext of interpretingS

; to 

board buses and trains that cross no national border and demand detailed immigration papers from 

people of color and those perceived as "foreign"'; and to raid sensitive locations, such as schools and 

health clinics. At its best, these activities have led immigrant communities to fear and avoid police, 

travel, and community institutions; at its worst, it has led to the tragic and unnecessary deaths of border 

community residents, including U.S. citizens. 

The past few years have been marked by excessive enforcement efforts with little to no public 

accountability. A recent Families for Freedom / NYU Law School report has documented CBP in New 

York state giving its agents bounties in the form of gift cards for the amount of arrests they made.7 

Muslims have been targeted by CBP agents at the border and ports of entry, questioned invasively 

about their first amendment protected activity." Excessive use of force has resulted in several deaths 

over the past few years of men, women and boys - some even U.S. citizens." In short, the border does 

not need more boots on the ground, walls or drones. Humane border policy needs to include a 

prohibition on racial profiling, training and accountability for CBP agents, and a separation between 

border enforcement efforts and state and local policing. Instead, resources should be redirected to 

ports of entry increasing their capacity to search cargo containers and facilitating the movement of 

people and trade through border entry points. 

Immigration Detention and Human Rights 

, Migration Policy Institute, "Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a Formidable Machinery," 

January 2013, available at http://www.migrationpolicy.orgjpubs/enforcementpillars.pdf, p. 3 

4 Ann Garcia, "Fact Sheet: Setting the Record Straight on Border Crime: Border States are Safe Today and Only 

Getting Safer," http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/pdflborder crime.pdf. 

5 See generally "The Growing Human Rights Crisis Along the Northern Border," OneAmerica, April 2012, found at 

http://www.weareoneamerica.org/northern-border. 

6 See generally "Justice Derailed, What Raids on New York's Trains and Buses Reveal about Border Patrol's Interior 

Enforcement Practices" New York Civil liberties Union, November 2011, found at 

http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/NYCLU justicederailedweb O.pdf. 

7 See generally "Uncovering USBP: Bonus Programs for United States Border Patrol Agents and the Arrest of 

Lawfully Present Individuals," Families for Freedom and NYU Immigration Clinic, January 2013, found at 

http://familiesforfreedom.org!sites!default/files/resources/Uncovering%20USBP-FFF%20Report%202013.pdf. 

8 See generally "Unreasonable Intrusions: Investigating the Politics, Faith & Finances of Americans Returning 

Home," Muslim Advocates, April 2009, found at 

http://www.muslimadvocates.org!documents!Unreasonable Intrusions 2009.pdf. 

'See "Border Patrol Abuses since 2010," Southern Border Communities Coalition, found at 

http://soboco.org!border-patrol-brutality-since-2010/' 

4 
458 

The past few years have seen record numbers of people in immigration detention and the development 

of Criminal Alien Requirement (CARs) facilities to house those labeled "criminal aliens" by the variety of 

state laws and federal policies that have co-opted state and local police into immigration enforcement 

duties. Federal agencies, based on Congressional appropriations language, have been operating on the 

premise that ali 34,000+ immigration detention beds in the United States must be filled at ali times. 

Detention conditions have improved in some locations, but problems with detention conditions in 

immigration facilities persist. Detention should never be based on mandates - detention should only be 

used as a matter of last resort. Any immigration reform initiative should refocus resources away from 

costly, unnecessary detentions to more cost effective and humane community-based alternatives to 

detention. 

A Fair Day in Court 

The evolution of immigration laws has seen a marked decrease in judicial discretion and the ability of 

individuals to have their case considered on the merits. Any immigration initiative should restore due 

process to the system, expanding judicial discretion to consider individual circumstances so that each 

immigration case can be evaluated on its own merits. Mandatory detention categories should not be 

expanded, nor should additional removal grounds be added or expanded. To ensure that all individuals 

receive their fair day in court, legislation should restore meaningful judicial and administrative review 

and reform the immigration courts to preserve judicial independence. 

Current immigration laws allow the government to deport many without seeing an immigration judge, 

and the vast majority are unrepresented. Low-level government agents are able to order removal 

without any higher review. Current law also contains many provisions that require immigrants to be 

mandatorily detained without any opportunity to see a judge, at times being transferred far from their 

families as well as any available witnesses in their immigration cases. Immigration reforms should 

protect the fundamental U.S. Constitutional principle of due process and ensure that everyone has 

access to courts to argue their case and ask for their freedom outside of the coercive conditions of 

detention. 

E-Verify and a NationallD System 

E-Verify and biometric ID systems violate privacy rights and threaten to exacerbate employment 

discrimination and racial profiling against immigrants, people of color, and people with names that 

might be perceived as foreign. E-Verify, which checks people against a government database before 

allowing them to work, has been dangerously error-prone. Though the error rate declined from 8% to 

2.7% between 2004 and 2009' °, at least 80,000 authorized workers lost out on a new job last year 

because of a mistake in the system. Employers have told the u.s. Government Accountability Office that 

errors were more likely to occur with Hispanic employees with hyphenated or multiple surnames, and 

studies have shown that in 2008 the error rate for those eventually authorized to work was 20 times 

higher for foreign-born employees than for those born in the U.S. An expansion of E-Verify would spread 

10 Migration Policy Institute, "Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a Formidable Machinery," 

January 2013, p. 8 

5 
459 

employment discrimination against U.S. workers perceived as foreign. Moreover, such expansionespecially through the proposed national biometric ID card system-would likely lead to violations of all 

Americans' privacy rights. As individuals and communities of color are often subject to the most 

pronounced privacy violations, including unreasonable search and seizure and surveillance, creating a 

nationallD system would almost certainly deepen the problem of racial profiling in the U.S., while also 

overburdening taxpayers, employers, and government agencies. 

State-Federal Collaboration in Immigration Enforcement and Criminalization 

The devolution of immigration enforcement to state and local law enforcement has exacerbated 

profiling based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, national origin, language and perceived immigration 

status. Federal programs like the Criminal Alien Program, the 287(g) program and Secure Communities 

along with state laws like Arizona's SB 1070 have created incentives for the police to make pre- textual 

arrests based on racial profiling and other impermissible bases so that immigration status can be 

checked.ll It has served to criminalize the immigrant and particularly the Latino community, allowing 

people to be labeled "criminal aliens" for such minor infractions as traffic violations and driving without 

a license. Current practices that involve state and local police in immigration enforcement have also 

allowed for the unlawful detention and deportation of individuals with valid claims to remain in the 

United States-including lawful permanent residents and even U. S. citizens. It has also interfered with 

long-established community policing practices. These policies have alienated immigrant communities, 

making them less likely to cooperate with police investigations or come forward when they are victims 

or witnesses of crime. 

Moreover, Operation Streamline, active in several of the sectors on the Southwest border, has 

mandated the prosecution of border crossers in federal courts. The prosecutions, which do not 

resemble traditional criminal proceedings, result in groups of 75-90 people being informed of their 

rights and asked to plead guilty to illegal entry or illegal re-entry en masse. Such trials raise serious due 

process concerns. Those convicted are then routed toward privately run CARs facilities", making 

Latinos the largest growing segment of the federal prison population. Furthermore, the program has 

not proven to be a deterrent to those crossing the border as many of those funneled through the 

process do not fully understand the ramifications of the process and often have strong ties to the U.S. 

and are willing to risk the threat of prosecution to return. 

11 See generally "The C.A.P. Effect: Racial Profiling in the ICE Criminal Alien Program," The Warren Institute, 

September 2009, found at http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/policybrief irving FINALpdf, "Secure Communities 

by the Numbers: An Analysis of Demographics and Due Process," The Warren Institute, October 2011, found at 

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Secure Communities by the Numbers.pdf, and "Local Democracy on ICE: 

Why State and Local Governments Have No Business in Federal Immigration Law Enforcement," Justice Strategies, 

February 2009, found at http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications!JS-Democracy-OnIce.pdf. 

12 See generally "Dollars and Detainees The Growth of For-Profit Detention," The Sentencing Project, July 2012, 

found at http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc Dollars and Detainees.pdf and "Privately Operated 

Federal Prisons for Immigrants: Expensive. Unsafe. Unnecessary," Justice Strategies, September 2012, found at 

http://www,justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/Privately%200perated%20Federal%20Prisons%2 

Ofor%201mmigrants%209-13-12%20FNLpdf. 

6 
460 

Immigration reform efforts should dismantle laws and policies that transfer the responsibility of 

immigration enforcement to state and local authorities and put the federal government squarely back in 

charge of immigration enforcement efforts. Enforcement of immigration law should be smart and 

targeted, conducted in a way that does not violate the civil and human rights of those targeted by such 

efforts. Operation Streamline should be reconsidered and the trend of criminalizing immigrant 

communities should be reversed. 

Summary: Racial Profiling and Discrimination, a Common Denominator in Immigration Enforcement 

Programs 

Years of enforcement only immigration policies have lead to exorbitant spending with seemingly limited 

return. According to a recent report by the Migration Policy Institute, spending on immigration 

enforcement has eclipsed spending by all other federal law enforcement agencies combined.13 The path 

of enforcement only policies has lead to massive spending on a broken system that encourages racial 

profiling and violates the civil and human rights of those who come into contact with it - migrants, legal 

residents and citizens alike. Congress should take this opportunity to move forward with an immigration 

reform bill that accepts the new realities of the U.s. workforce and facilitates workers rights, family 

unity, and human dignity. Any adjustments to enforcement programs and policies should be to scale 

down enforcement efforts, focusing on accountability and this country's founding principles of fairness, 

due process, and equal protection of the law. 

13 Migration Policy Institute, "Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a Formidable Machinery," 

January 2013, Page 9. 

7 
461 

In Support of the Uniting American Families Act 

Testimony submitted to: 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Hearing: 

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

February 13, 2013 

Statement of: 

Martha McDevitt-Pugh, representing Democrats Abroad LGBT Immigration Task Force 

Democrats Abroad is the official arm of the Democratic Party of the United States for the more than 7 million 

Americans living overseas. With organized committees working in 48 countries, and individual members in 

nearly every country in the world, Democrats Abroad registers U.S. voters for absentee ballots and represents 

the interests of Americans abroad to lawmakers in Washington. 

We applaud Senator Leahy for holding this hearing and for advocating for fair treatment of gay and lesbian 

Americans in our immigration system. 

Democrats Abroad first adopted a resolution calling on Congress to pass the Uniting American Families Act in 

2006 (see below). Now more than ever, we urge Congress to take action. 

Uniting LGBT families must be part of any comprehensive immigration reform in order to ensure lesbian, gay, 

bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans a fundamental right: the right to live in our country with their 

permanent partners. 

I speak from personal experience. 

I am a native-born US citizen and my partner is Australian. Because LGBT couples and our families have no 

status or protection in US immigration law, I was faced with the painful choice between my country and my 

partner. I moved to the Netherlands in 2000, leaving behind my family, community and career as a manager in 

Silicon Valley to be with the love of my life. 

Today I am eager to retum to the USA to care for my 83-year-old mother. She deserves to have all four of her 

children around her in her elderly years. Because my spouse does not quality as a family member for US 

immigration purposes, I am again faced with a choice that no US citizen should have to make. 

My situation is not unique. Untold numbers of GLBT U.S. citizens, many of them members of Democrats Abroad, 

share my plight and yearn for this basic right freely granted to opposite-sex couples. 

Personally and on behalf of Democrats Abroad, I urge Congress to end the forced exile of U.S. citizens like 

myself by including the Uniting American Families Act in comprehensive immigration reform. 

Resolution supporting the Uniting American Families Act 

Adopted by the Democratic Party Committee Abroad. Washington, D. C., March 4, 2006 

WHEREAS, every American is entitled to equal protection under the law; 

WHEREAS, the U.S. immigration system is largely based upon the principle of family unification; 

WHEREAS. federal law does not currently recognize permanent same-sex partners for immigration purposes; 

WHEREAS, this results in thousands of US citizens being forced into exile to be with foreign-born partners, causing 

unnecessary hardship, separation from family members and careers, and loss of valuable skills and resources for our 

country; 

WHEREAS, the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) has been introduced in Congress by Sen. Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. 

Nadler (D-NY) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act and allow U.S. citizens and legal penmanent residents to 

sponsor same-sex partners for immigration; 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Democrats Abroad urges Congress to pass the Uniting American Families Act at 

the earliest possible date and supports the removal of legal barriers to immigration by penmanent same-sex partners. 
462 

Contact Kent Lundgen 

Phone (509) 961-7001 

Email nafbpo@nafbpo.org 

http:www.nafbpo.org 

National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers rejects individual 

proposals for Immigration reform by President Obama and the Senate. Each 

will reward illegal behavior by the grant of amnesty, and as proposed are 

unenforceable. 

The President and the Senate have recently issued proposals for immigration legislation 

that would supposedly deal with the unmanaged population of illegal aliens in the United 

States. The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO) must 

oppose both proposals. 

NAFBPO rejects the President's proposal out of hand. It is unacceptable in that it 

contains not so much as a nod to immigration enforcement or a secure border. It is 

predicated upon administration claims that the border is se'cure now. or at least. secure 

enough. That claim is at best wishful thinking but is more likely willful misdirection of the 

public's opinion of the situation. A study of Border Patrol operations by the Government 

Accountability Office indicates that the Border Patrol is about 60% effective. a 

deplorable figure even if accurate. NAFBPO members maintain contacts with many field 

officers and managers currently on active duty in the Border Patrol and in most areas 

those officers tell that at best, they catch only 10% of those who try to enter illegally. 

Those facts are stifled by higher management because they do not support the 

administration's narrative that the border is under control. 

For Release 8 aDa m PDT February 3 2013 One more page 
463 

Superficially, the Senate proposal is the least objectionable in that the amnesty 

proposed for unnumbered millions of illegal aliens is predicated upon a demonstrably 

secure border. That, however, lacks much. We ask, by what measure is the border to 

be called secure? That must be addressed. And, why is there no mention made of 

interior enforcement other than employer penalties for hiring illegal aliens? For example, 

the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs (ICE) agents have been forbidden to 

work cooperatively with other law enforcement officers except on high-level criminal 

investigations even though a substantial amount of crime and public harm is committed 

by illegal aliens. Unless convicted of a crime of violence, most illegal aliens are released 

back into the community. Furthermore, illegal aliens are not generally eligible for most 

means-tested welfare but that prohibition has been largely flouted. That should be 

stopped, but there are no efforts in that direction. In short, illegal aliens need not fear 

arrest or deportation from anyone. 

NAFBPO's fundamental objection to both plans, though, comes from this sad fact: the 

President and his administration have proven themselves unworthy of trust. Congress 

may pass what it will but it should do so with the certain knowledge that the President 

will pick and choose what laws or portions of laws he wishes to enforce. And based on 

his demonstrable record, we may be sure that any enforcement provisions will be 

ignored while the results of another amnesty will be with us for many decades. 

For Release 8 OOa m PDT Februa 3 2013 
464 

Statement for the Record 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

February 13, 2013 

The National Immigration Forum works to uphold America's tradition as a nation of 

immigrants. The Forum advocates for the value of immigrants and immigration to the 

nation, building support for public policies that reunite families, recognize the 

importance of immigration to our economy and our communities, protect refugees, 

encourage newcomers to become new Americans and promote equal protection under 

the law. 

The National Immigration Forum applauds the Committee for holding this hearing on 

the matter of America's broken immigration system and urges the Committee to take up 

a broad immigration reform approach. 

We believe this time will be different when it comes to passing immigration reform. In 

the past two years, an alliance of conservative faith, law enforcement and business 

leadership has come together to forge a new consensus on immigrants and America. 

These relationships formed through outreach in the evangelical community; the 

development of state compacts; and regional summits in the Mountain West, Midwest 

and Southeast. 

In early December 2012, over 250 faith, law enforcement and business leaders from 

across the country, including one oftoday's witnesses, Chairman and CEO of Revolution 

Steve Case, came to Washington, D.C., for a National Strategy Session and Advocacy 

Day. They told policymakers and the press about the new consensus on immigrants and 

America. The event generated more than 60 news stories across the country, and 

participants organized 78 Hill meetings (57 with Republicans). More importantly, faith, 

law enforcement and business leaders from across the country committed to work 

together to urge Congress to pass broad immigration reform in 2013. This week we 

launched the Bibles, Badges and Business for Immigration Reform Network to achieve 

that goal. 

As the Committee discusses reforming our immigration system, we are encouraged to 

see that four of the committee's members including Senators Richard Durbin, Charles 

Schumer, Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake, are involved in working on a broad bipartisan 

immigration reform bill. The principles released by this group were an encouraging sign 

that we will finally fix our broken immigration system. 
465 

However, it is also important that the discussion does not become singularly focused on 

enforcement. A singular focus on immigration enforcement will not result in workable 

solutions, and gives an appearance of an attempt to prey upon both our legitimate 

concerns and prejudices in order to score political points. 

In light of the record enforcement that is now taking place-at great cost to taxpayers-it 

will be hard to justify even more enforcement. The deportation of undocumented 

immigrants is now at record levels, border apprehensions are at their lowest levels in 40 

years and net migration is at zero. 

Criminal prosecutions of employers who are exploiting undocumented workers are also 

at record levels. The Administration's focus on cracking down on unscrupulous 

businesses that exploit cheap immigrant labor is the best way to protect the jobs of all 

American workers while at the same time leveling the playing field for honest businesses 

that play by the rules. 

To blame the immigrant worker for a system that is so broken only punishes hardworking families yearning for the American Dream. More of the same kinds of 

enforcement is not a solution that meets America's interests. 

The American people want this problem solved. Multiple national polls over the last 

month show solid support for solutions that include, in addition to reasonable 

enforcement, creating legal channels for immigrants and establishing tough but fair 

rules to allow undocumented immigrants to stay and continue to work in the U.S. and 

eventually earning U.S. citizenship. 

Reforming our immigration laws would generate as much as $5 billion in additional tax 

revenue in just the next 3 years and support nearly a million jobs-and right now 

Americans overwhelmingly want Congress to focus on job creation and the economy. By 

contrast, mass deportation of undocumented immigrant already working here would 

cost more than $200 billion-draining the treasury further and adding to our debt. 

At the border, any additional investments in enforcement programs must be held to 

some standard of effectiveness. Millions of dollars have been wasted as more money has 

been poured into border enforcement without consideration of need or result. 

We cannot spend or enforce our way to a solution on illegal immigration, and we urge 

the Committee to focus today, and in subsequent hearings, on enacting common-sense 

reforms that move us forward, not backward. 
466 

NATIONAL LATINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCfIVE HEALTH 

STATEMENT OF 

NATIONAL LATINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

February 13,2013 

Chainnan Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: 

We are honored to submit this statement for the record on behalf of the National Latina Institute 

for Reproductive Health (NLIRH) regarding today's hearing on Comprehensive Immigration 

Refonn, NLIRH is the only national organization advancing reproductive health, rights, and 

justice for 24 million U.S. Latinas, their families, and their communities. Through policy 

advocacy, community mobilization, research, and public education, we work to ensure the 

fundamental human right to reproductive justice for Latinas, including immigrant Latinas, who 

face additional barriers to quality and affordable reproductive health care. 

NLIRH is a founding Steering Committee member of the National Coalition for Immigrant 

Women's Rights (NCIWR), the leading national collaboration to assert a gender and women's 

rights analysis to immigration law, policy, and practices. The Coalition now represents over 70 

grassroots and national advocacy organizations working together for immigration refonn, fair 

:\',\TIO'<AL LATI:\'A I'<STIlTTE FOR REPROOlCTIVE HEALTH 

50 Broad Street, Suite 1937 1901 L St NW. Suite 300 

New York, NY 10004 Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: 212,422,2553 I Fax: 212,422,2556 Phone: 202,62H435I Fax: 202,62H427 

w\vwJarinain.)titutc.org 

Page 1 of9 
467 

NATIONAL LATINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

and non-discriminatory implementation of our immigration and enforcement policies, and 

reproductive and economic justice for immigrant women in the United States. As organizations 

representing immigrant women, we write today out to commend members of the Judiciary 

committee for their commitment to improving our immigration laws. We also seek to highlight 

opportunities for improving policies for immigrant women and families through the bipartisan 

framework for immigration reform put forth by Senators Schumer, McCain, Durbin, Graham, 

Menendez, Rubio, Bennet, and Flake. 

Immigrant Women are the Backbones of Our Families, Communities 

Immigrant women make great contributions to the rich social, cultural, intellectual, and 

economic fabric of the United States. They are our mothers, grandmothers, sisters, daughters, 

spouses, partners, and friends. They are students, teachers, laborers, business owners, 

lawmakers, and much more. Yet, despite their many contributions to our families and 

communities, issues of concern to women continue to be left out of conversations about 

immigration reform, and women continue to suffer injustice, discrimination, family separation, 

and fear because of our nation's immigration laws. 

The face of the immigrant in the United States is increasingly that of a woman. Women now 

make up 51 % of the immigrant population.' and 100 immigrant women arrive in the United 

lUnited States Census Bureau. 2011 American Community Survey l~Year Estimates. Selected Characteristics of the Native and 

Foreign~Born Populations. Available at http://factfinder2.census.govlfaces/navlisflpages/searchresu!ts.xhtml?refresh:;;:t. 

Accessed on January 15, 2013. 

:'>,\T10'lAL LATI:'>A INSTlTl"TE FOR REPROnl"CTIVE HEALTH 

50 Broad Street, Suite 1937 1901 L St NW, Suite 300 

New York, NY lO004 Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: 212-422·25531 Fax: 212·422·2516 Phone: 202·62].14351 Fax: 202·62J.l427 

\\"\\'w.latinainstittl[c.org 

Page 2 of9 
468 

NATIONAL LATINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

States for every 96 men.2 The majority of women migrate to reunite with family, to make a 

better life for their children, or to escape oppression, discrimination, and violence that prevent 

them from living full and free lives in their home countries. Current immigration laws, policies, 

and programs disproportionally disadvantage women, and women are too often left out of policy 

discussions that affect their lives. In the absence of sufficient legal channels for migration, more 

than 5 million women in the United States today are undocumented and living on the margins of 

our society.] 

Instead of honoring the contributions of immigrant women to the United States, past efforts at 

immigration reform have failed to provide for equitable citizenship, adequate protection, and full 

integration for all women. A reasonable and sustainable solution to current and future 

immigration needs must take into account gender specific perspectives. In addition, the path 

forward on immigration must ensure equality for all immigrants, protect and promote their civil 

and human rights, and empower aspiring Americans to fully participate in and contribute to our 

economy and society. 

Statement of Principles on Women and Immigration Reform 

As work to advance comprehensive immigration reform has intensified over the past few 

2 Migration Policy Institute. MPI Data Hub: Foreign~Born Males per 100 Foreign~Born Females, for the United States: 1870 to 

2011. Available at http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/charts/final.malesfemales.shtml Accessed on January 15, 

2013. 

3 Hoefer M, Rytina N, and Baker B. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant 

Population Residing in the United States: January 2011. March 2012. Available at 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assetslstatistics/publications/Dis ill oe 20ll.pdf. Accessed on January 15, 2013. 

,",yrtO'lAL I.ATl'l .. \ I,",STITlTE FOR REPRODlCTIVE HEALTH 

SO Broad Street, Suite 1937 1901 L St NW. Suite 300 

New York, NY 10004 Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: 212-422-25531 Fax: 212-422,2556 Phone: 202,621-14351 Fax: 202,621·1427 

wy.,rw.latinainstitutc.org 

Page 3 0[9 
469 

NATIONAL LATINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

months, the National Coalition for Immigrant Women's Rights (NCIWR) and allied 

organizations organized a series of roundtable discussions to elevate issues immigrant women 

face as a result of our current immigration laws, policies, and practices. As a result, NCIWR and 

allied organizations composed a Statement of Principles for Women and Immigration Reform, 

which advances a vision of immigration reform that is inclusive and responsive to the needs and 

concerns of immigrant women. The Statement of Principles, endorsed by more than 200 local, 

state and national organizations representing immigrant rights, reproductive health and justice, 

children's health and rights, labor and workers' rights, civil rights, faith, and LGBT rights, calls 

for the inclusion of women in all aspects of immigration reform. For the full statement, please 

see Addendum A. The principles are: 

• Any pathway to citizenship and integration must be open, affordable, safe, and accessible 

to ALL immigrant women, including those whose work is in the home and those who are 

employed in the informal economy; 

• Immigrant women must be afforded equal employment-based migration opportunities 

and workplace protections so that they may safely pursue economic opportunity and 

support their families with dignity and pride; 

• Immigration refonn must protect the right of all families to stay together, regardless of 

immigration status, family structure, sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status, 

and provide sufficient family-based channels for migration in the future; 

:\.\T\O:"iAL LATI:\A I:\STlTl TIC FOllllICPHOlll CliVE HEALTH 

50 Broad Street. Suite 1937 1901 L St NW, Suite300 

New York, NY 10004 Washingron, DC 20036 

Phone: 212-422·25531 Fax: 212-422-2556 Phone: 202·621·]4351 Fax: 202·621-1427 

\\"\\wJarinainc,tiwft:.nrg 

Page 4 0[9 
470 

NATIONAL LATINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

• Immigration reform must advance all immigrant women's access to public services and 

family economic support, including comprehensive health coverage and care, and legal 

and social services that promote equality of opportunity, integration, and the ability to 

make decisions regarding reproductive and sexual health and the well-being ofthe 

family; 

• Enforcement, detention, and deportation programs that compromise immigrant women's 

safety, violate their civil, human, and due process rights, and tear families apart must be 

replaced by sensible and sufficient legal channels for migration that adequately meet 

family and labor demands and respect our obligations under intemationallaw; and 

• Reforms to our immigration policies must bring an end to programs that 

disproportionately impact women by discouraging reporting of crimes to law 

enforcement and compromising the safety of communities, and must advance protections 

for women fleeing state and interpersonal violence and victims of trafficking or 

exploitation. 

Gaps for Immigrant Women Identified in Senate Bipartisan Framework for 

Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

While NLIRH and NCIWR applaud the Senate's commitment to improving our nation's 

immigration laws and establishing consensus on creating a roadmap to citizenship for the 11 

million aspiring citizens currently undocumented, we have identified gaps for immigrant 

:\ATlO.'<AL LHI:\A I.'<STlH n: rOR REPROUrCTIVE HEALTH 

50 Broad Stteet, Suite 1937 1901 L St NW, Suite 300 

New York, NY 10004 Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: 212,422,2553 I Fax: 212-422-2556 Phone: 202-62l-l435I Fax: 202,62H427 

ww\\'.latinLlinstitut(~ mg 

Page 50f9 
471 

NATIONAL LATINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

women's health and rights in the framework put forth by the bipartisan committee in the U.S. 

Senate. 

As currently written, the framework would preserve existing gender inequalities in our 

immigration system by failing to provide women an equal opportunity to apply for citizenship, 

and preferencing employment-based migration over expanded opportunities for family unity. 

Additionally, the policies laid out in the bipartisan framework may endanger immigrant women's 

health, safety, and well-being by requiring increased immigration enforcement and denying 

access to federal health and family economic support for those granted provisional status. 

We know that improving the health of immigrant women and families makes for stronger 

communities and makes good fiscal sense, and would urge the Committee to consider these 

issues as the work to reform our immigration system proceeds. 

The Impact of Health Care Restrictions on Immigrant Women 

Laws enacted over recent decades restricting immigrants' access to vital health care and 

economic supports have disproportionately impacted women, who are more likely to seek health 

care and family economic supports for themselves and their children. i Moreover, laws allowing 

public benefits administrations to report immigration status of applicants to immigration 

enforcement authorities have created a climate of fear. Women do not come forward to 

participate in family economic security programs, even when they and their children are eligible, 

\,\TIO'HL UTI.'I;A I'I;STlTlTE Fon REPIWIHCTIYE HEALTII 

50 Broad Street. Suite 1937 1901 L St NW, Suite JOO 

New York, NY 10004 Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: 212·422·25531 Fax: 212·422·2556 Phone: 202·62H4351 Fax: 202·62H427 

w\vw.latinain'ititute,org 

Page 60f9 
472 

NATIONAL LATINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

because they are afraid of being detained or deported. ii A patchwork of state and federal policies 

limiting access to health care and family economic supports also create confusion and a "chilling 

effect" discouraging all immigrant participation in health care and family economic supports. l11 

For example, immigrant women's participation in Medicaid dropped significantly after the 

enactment offederallegislation restricting immigrant women's access to vital health and family 

economic security programs.iv Additionally, despite the partial restoration of immigrant access to 

SNAP after 1996, immigrants represent a disproportionately low share of SNAP enrollees. v 

Additionally, immigrant women are more likely than U.S. born women to be uninsured for 

health care. While immigrants represent 13% of the total U.S. popUlation, they represent 29% of 

the uninsured.4 Immigrant women are also less likely to have access to employer-sponsored 

health cares and the lower wages of immigrant women may put costly private insurance out of 

reach for many immigrant women. Barriers to health insurance and health care programs 

certainly contribute to widened health disparities. For instance, while cervical cancer (which is 

preventable in most cases and can be treated if caught early) has been on the decline for U.S. 

born women, rates for immigrant women have been on the rise.6 Studies point to lack of health 

4 United States Census Bureau. 2011 American Community Survey l·Year Estimates. Selected Characteristics 

of the Native and Foreign·Born Populations. Available at 

http://factfinder2.census.gov /faces/nav Ijsf /pages/searchresults.xhtm I?refresh=t. Accessed on January 15, 

2013. 

5 Kaiser Family Foundation. The Role of Employer·Sponsored Coverage For Immigrants: A Primer. June 2006. 

Available at http://www.kff.org/uninsured/uploadIZS24pdt Accessed on October 5.2012. 

6 American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Health Care for Undocumented Women. January 2009. 

Available at 

http://www.acog.orgiRosources And Publications/Committee Opinions/Committee on Health Care for Underse 

[Vod Women/Health Care for Undocumented Immigrants. Accessed on October 8, 2012. 

:\,\T10:\AL LATI:\.\ I:\STITlTE fon ItEPIWlllCTlVE HEALTH 

50 Broad Street. Suite 1937 1901 L St NW, Suite 300 

New York, NY 10004 Washingron, DC 20036 

Phone: 212·422·2553 I Fax: 212·422·2556 Phone: 202·62H435I Fax: 202·62H427 

\y\vw.larinainstitutc.org 

Page 70f9 
473 

NATIONAL LATINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

insurance as a significant barrier for immigrant women in accessing the routine gynecological 

care necessary to prevent cervical cancer.7 

Investing in Immigrant Health Makes Fiscal Sense 

By and large, immigrants are younger and healthier than the American population as a whole. 

Allowing immigrants to participate in our health insurance systems and risk pools makes good 

fiscal sense. When immigrant women and families lack access to health care, the need for 

medical attention remains, though low-cost preventive care is restricted. Immigrant families 

without health insurance may either delay treatment for preventable disease, leading to higher 

costs and greater suffering in the long run, or seek care through under-resourced emergency 

systems. Immigrant families pay payroll and sales taxes, and many have for years been paying 

into social security. Many immigrant women and families simply seek the opportunity to pay 

their fair share and have a fair chance of pursuing the American dream. 

Investing in Health is Fair and Good for our Communities 

No one should live in fear that because they lack health coverage, one accident or illness could 

threaten their family's economic security. Access to affordable, quality health care is a widely 

shared goal. Good health care is essential to workers' productivity and the opportunity for 

women and families to realize their full potential. Given the crucial role that medical coverage 

7 Rodriguez MA, Ward LM, Perez· Stable EJ. Breast and cervical cancer screening: impact of health insurance 

status, ethnicity, and nativity of Latin as. Ann Fam Med. 2005; 3:235-41. 

~,\TIO~AL IATI:-;.\ Il'iSTlTlTE FOR REl'lWDlCTIVE HEALTH 

50 Broad Street, Suite 1937 1901 L St NVv', Suite 300 

New York, NY 10004 Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: 212-422,25531 Fax: 212,422,2556 Phone: 202,62H4351 Fax: 202,62H427 

\\'¥.'v,.t.latinainstitute.org 

Page 8 of9 
474 

NATIONAL LATINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

plays in determining health and well-being, all Americans should have access to coverage. For 

an immigrant woman, being able to protect her health and care for her family is the first step to 

full social, economic, and civic integration into the American community. 

Conclusion 

The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health urges the Committee to consider the needs 

and perspectives of immigrant women and families, as well as the unique challenges these 

groups face, as the work to reform our immigration policies proceeds. NLiRH recommends that 

the committee considerthe Statement of Principles for Women and Immigration Reform as 

immigration reform proposals are vetted and developed, including the urgent needs to expand 

access to health care and family economic supports for all immigrant women and families, 

regardless of their status pre- or post-reform. We are grateful for the opportunity to present this 

testimony, and thank the Committee for your ongoing work on these important issues. 

, Huang P. Anchor Babies, Over-Breeders and the Population Bomb: The Reemergence of Nativism and Population 

Control in Anti-Immigration Policies. Harvard Law and Policy Review. Vol 2: 2008. Available at Accessed on 

January 12,2013. 

" Ibid 

II! Ibid. 

"Gold RB. Immigrants and Medicaid after Welfare Refonn. Guttmacher Report on Public Policy. March May 2003, 

Volume 6, Number 2. Available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgrI06/2/gr060206.html. Accessed on Januarv 

n.2013. 

, Barrett A. Poikolainen A. Food Stamp Program Participation rates: 2004. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food 

and Nutrition Service. 2006. Available at 

http://www.fus.usda.gov/oraiMENUipublishedisnapIFILES/ParticipationlFSPPart2004.pdf Accessed on January 16, 

2013. 

"'.HIO.\"\L LUI\A I\STITlTE FOR REI'IWlllTTlVE HEALTH 

50 Broad Street. Suite 1937 1901 L St NW, Suite 300 

New York, NY 10004 Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: 212-422-2553; Fax: 212-422·2556 Phone: 202-621-14351 Fax: 202-621-1427 

w\\'wJarinain.,ritutt.org 

Page 9 of9 
475 

TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO: 

u.S. SENATE 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

FEBRUARY 13, 2013 

BY: 

DONALD MANN, PRESIDENT 

Negative Population Gro\\ th 

2861 Duke Street, Suite 36 • Alexandria, VA 22314 
476 

TESTIMONY OF: 

DONALD MANN, PRESIDENT 

NEGATIVE POPULATION GROWTH 

U.S. SENATE 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

FEBRUARY 13,2013 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, I submit this testimony in 

response to the current debate on American immigration reform in the hopes that it will help guide the 

full Congress to find responsible solutions to one of our nation's most critical challenges. 

In speaking for Negative Population Growth (NPG), I carry a message from hundreds of 

thousands of concerned Americans who have worked with NPG for over 40 years. Together, we seek 

to make certain that our elected leaders consider the prospect of continuing population growth. 

While there is sure to be a number of groups petitioning Congress to focus on their individual 

agendas, NPG's primary request is that you keep future population growth in mind when shaping 

national immigration policy. 

Studies have shown that immigration is presently, and will continue to be, the single-largest 

contributor to America's population growth. The U.S. Census Bureau currently estimates our nation's 

population at over 315 million people, projecting that it will reach 400 million people by 2050 - an 

increase of at least 85 million people injust 37 years. 

Such disastrous population growth would require trillions of tax dollars to repair and expand 

our nation's crumbling infrastructure of roads, bridges, hospitals, and schools. America's classrooms 

will become even more overcrowded. Traffic congestion will become commonplace from coast to 

coast. Development and urban sprawl will cause destruction of precious wildlife habitats and 

farmland. Pollution will further contaminate our air and water, and more of our dwindling natural 

resources will be consumed. 

Our nation is already confronting an unsustainable future with its present population size. If 

today's reforms result in amnesty for existing illegal immigrants and allow millions more to arrive, the 

results will be calamitous. You hold in your hands the power to write immigration policies which 

contain future population numbers or to allow short-sighted policies, which will send our population 

soaring. 

We ask that, as you undertake this project, you follow the same tenet that has guided doctors 

for centuries: "First, do no harm." In each decision you make on immigration, you must ask how this 

action will contribute to future popUlation growth in five, ten, thirty, or fifty years. What effect will 

your decision have on the America inherited by future generations? 

If Congress allows "politics" to drive this debate and makes the wrong immigration decisions, 

it will condemn our children and grandchildren to a world of economic, social, and environmental 

impoverishment. I am sure we can all agree - we must ensure them an acceptable quality of life. 

To meet the goals of reforming immigration and arriving at sustainable population numbers, 

NPG presents the following recommendations: 

• America's borders must be made secure. Any new immigration reform legislation is useless 

without measures to reduce illegal immigration to near zero. 

Undocumented aliens now in the U.S. should not be granted permanent residence or 

citizenship. Our nation's leaders made that "compassionate" mistake in 1986, which led to a 

surge of illegal immigration. Today, illegal immigration should be halted via enhanced 

enforcement. America is in no position to take on the massive social costs (and the resulting 

population growth) by permitting millions of illegal immigrants to remain in America. 

Negative Population Grov.th 

2861 Duke Street. Suite 36 • Alexandria, VA 22314 

Page I of2 
477 

Current immigration laws must be strictly enforced. In addition, more maximum fines and 

penalties should be imposed on those who fail to heed them. Those arriving or remaining here 

illegally should be subject to the "expedited removal" provisions in current law. The 

breakdown of enforcement of our nation's immigration laws in recent years must not be 

allowed to continue. 

All employers in the U.S. must be required to use E-Verify to substantiate the legal status of all 

workers - both current and new. Failure to comply should lead to the government shutting 

down the business. 

Illegal presence in the U.S. should be made a misdemeanor offense comparable to the existing 

provisions for illegal entry. 

• A workable check-inlcheck-out system for foreign visitors and students must be put in place 

and enforced. 

• Present policies related to "chain migration" must be radically revised. New rules should be 

established that limit family reunification to include only members of a new immigrant's 

nuclear family. 

Existing rules governing nationality and family reunification must be clarified and structured so 

that automatic birthright citizenship is halted. It is estimated that a growing fraction of the 

300,000 births to illegal immigrants each year is the result of "birth tourism". 

The number oflegal immigrants permitted to settle in the U.S. annually must be significantly 

reduced. Recently, this number has topped one million people annually. A sustainable 

population level for the future is dependent on legal immigration being limited to no more than 

200,000 per year. 

Mr. Chairman, as I noted earlier, no issue is more tied to America's population growth than 

immigration. It is crucial that as you write these new immigration laws, which will stand for decades 

to come, you ensure they help reduce, rather than promote, popUlation growth. 

As you hear from other groups on this multi-faceted subject, please keep in mind that while 

many call for growth as a solution to all our problems, research reflects a very different picture of our 

present reality and grim future. Perpetual growth is a mathematical absurdity on a finite planet - there 

must be limits. Science is demonstrating that population size and consumption rates in the United 

States are already too large and are degrading the natural systems that support us. The challenge 

before you is to create an immigration system that will not only help stop population growth, but turn it 

around. 

In all, Mr. Chairman, NPG asks that as you advance immigration reforms designed to correct 

the huge flaws that have existed for far too long, you also take the long-term view. You can bestow a 

great gift on our nation if our new immigration laws provide future generations with a livable, 

sustainable, and not overpopulated America. Thank you. 

Negative Population Growth 

2861 Duke Street, Suite 36 • Alexandria, VA 22314 

Page 2 of2 
478 

MISSION 

OneAmerica 

advcr:ces the 

fundamental 

princip!es of 

democracy and 

justice 61 t~e 

local. state and 

naHooallevels 

by building 

power within 

immigront 

communities 

in' collaborotiof' 

with key ollies.. 

STATEMENT OF 

RICH STOLZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

ONEAMERICA 

HEARING ON: COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

February 13, 2013 

MERICA 

With Justice for All 

F{'P?i<?i{'..' Hate Fre'c Zone 

Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley and members of the Committee: I am 

honored to submit this testimony for the record on behalf of OneAmerica regarding 

today's hearing on immigration reform. 

OneAmerica is the largest immigrant advocacy organization in Washington State. Our 

mission is to advance fundamental principles of democracy and justice at the local, state 

and national level by building power and capacity in immigrant communities with key 

allies. 

We thank you for holding this critical and timely hearing on immigration reform. Our 

statement focuses on four areas: keeping families together through a pathway to 

citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the United States, addressing the 

growing human rights crisis along the northern border caused by unaccountable 

border enforcement, upholding the principle of family unity in our legal immigration 

system, and restoring due process and civil liberties to immigration enforcement. 

Keep Families Together through a Roadmap to Citizenship 

OneAmerjca is encouraged that the bipartisan group of Senators supports a roadmap to 

citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. We 
479 

MISSION 

OneAmenca 

advonces t~e 

fundamental 

prirtciples of 

democrocy and 

iustice at the 

locol, stole and 

n alionol levels 

by bUilding 

power within 

immigranf 

communities 

in" co!loboratiop 

with key allies. 

MERICA 

With Justice for All 

P(}r>nei(:! lIate Flt'C ZU.'H' 

We support proposals like the bipartisan Senate blueprint describes for a probationary 

status that could immediately take pressure from detention and deportation off of 

immigrant families in the United States. Yet any such proposal must be workable. If 

barriers or fees to adjustment of status are too extreme or difficult for low-income 

individuals to manage, this will only undermine the effectiveness of any program and 

lead to further family separation. Furthermore, such a program must not exclude 

immigrants with work histories that may be difficult to document, for example day 

laborers or domestic workers. 

We also recommend that family members who have been deported be given the 

opportunity to return to the United States to be with their loved ones. Such a proposal 

would be pragmatic and reasonable, since one primary driver of illegal immigration 

(particularly in recent years) has been the desire to be re~unjted with loved ones, Such 

actions, called in most cases illegal re~entry, could render these individuals unable to 

return to the United States in the future and disqualify them from being able to adjust 

their status. In addition, the 3 and 1D-year bars to re~entry must be eliminated, so that 

no individuals who are eligible for an immigrant visa are punished by being separated 

from their family for many years. 

Finally, we strongly oppose the proposal from the bipartisan group of Senators that 

could condition a roadmap to citizenship on a vague set of benchmarks associated with 

border enforcement More than a decade of debate on immigration reform has seen 

such benchmarks conSistently changed to require ever more resources and greater 

security. A roadmap to citizenship must be certain in any legislation passed by 

Congress. 

Address the Growing Human Rights Crisis along the Northern Border 

Washington State shares 427 miles of the northern border with Canada, including three 

border crossin~s in Blaine, lynden and Sumas. From FY 2003 to FY 2012, Customs and 
480 

MISSlm~ 

Ol1eAmertco 

adyor;ces rhe 

fundamental 

pfi~cipies of 

democracy and 

justice 61 the 

k,col, state and 

naiionallevr:'!'b 

by bUilding 

power within 

immigrant 

jf]' coliaboratlOf' 

wilh ~ey ollie;. 

MERICA 

With Justice for All 

P(,rmcIZr'l1ate Pl.:!' Zj)!lf: 

Border Protections activities along the northern border has vastly increased from $5.9 

billion to $11.7 billion in funding, and the number of Border Patrol agents has increased 

from 569 agents to more than 2,200 agents. Since 9/11, none of the 43 Washington 

State prosecutions for terrorism have been referred to the courts from the Border 

Patrol despite this massive increase in activity. Methods used to detain people and the 

lack of accountability for human rights violations and racial profiling has created a 

climate of fear in immigrant communities, creating mistrust of both local and federal 

law enforcement. 

We are encouraged by proposals in both the President's and Senate's framework calling 

for accountability measures, including partnerships and commissions involving federal 

and local law enforcement, local elected leaders and community organizations and 

residents. More than a decade of increased enforcement along our nation's borders 

now require the federal government to institute strengthened systems of accountability 

that ensure the effective use of limited resources, that protect border residents from 

racial profiling and harassment, and that acknowledge the equally important goals of 

ensuring commerce along our borders. 

This month, Families for Freedom and the New York University School of law released a 

report, Uncovering USPB: Bonus Programs for United States Border Patrol Agents and 

the Arrest of Lawfully Present Individuals 

(http://famillesforfreedom.org/resources/famllies-freedom-new-report-uncoversnearly-300-wrongfu!-arrests-border-patrol-and-almost) which documents the use of 

bounties and bonuses for the numbers of arrests by Border Patrol agents, creating 

pernicious incentives for harassment of individuals. The report also documents 300 

wrongful arrests by the Border Patrol within one station in one Border Patrol sector 

since June 2010. 

These practices afe consistent with those found by OneAmerica documented in a report 

released in 2012. 'The Growing Human Rights Crisis Along Washington's Northern 
481 

MISSION 

OneAmenca 

advor:ces the 

fundamental 

Pf!~cjpies of 

democracy and 

justice at the 

local, stole and 

na1ionallev~!s 

by budding 

power withirt 

immigronf 

communities. 

in" collaboratiofl 

wilh ~ey allie;_ 

MERICA 

With justice for All 

Formed:,' Hate Frl-'f,' Zom' 

Border, which includes findings from 109 on-the-ground interviews, two hearings and 

observations and research in border communities. Our findings demonstrate several 

key patterns of abuse: 

The Border Patrol engages in systematic profiling ofreligious and ethnic minorities. Our 

report identified 63 incidents that involved apparent racial profiling by the Border 

Patrol, and 82 incidents that involved the Border Patrol asking people for papers either 

while driving or at a public location, such as gas stations, ferry terminals, or outside of 

Wal-Mart, without reason to suspect unlawful activity. Respondents who experienced 

these incidences consistently reported that the only explanation fortheir targeting was 

that they looked Latino or like "workers." 

Border Patrol agents routinely provide backup and language interpretation when 

requested by loca! police. About 38% of all incidents reported involved CBP acting as 

interpreters at the request of local police. Upon arrival, Border Patrol agents routinely 

ask for the immigration status of individuals present. In many cases, Border Patrol only 

checked immigration status and failed to provide interpretation at all. 

Border Patrol's collaboration with other agencies, including local Jaw enforcement, 

emergency responders, and the courts, has created extensive fear and resulted in vital 

services being perceived as immigration enforcement. The Border Patrol is the 

dispatcher for 911 calls in the cities of Blaine, Lynden, and Sumas. In many cases they 

arrive before or with local law enforcement and emergency responders. Many people 

are afraid to call 911 because they feel that local law enforcement and federal 

immigration agents are the same, These practices have erected barriers to the trust and 

relationships necessary for effective crime-fighting. 

Comprehensive immigration reform legislation must acknowledge that more than a 

decade of increased border enforcement must finally be brought under greater 

oversight and accountability. Rather than increasing assets along our nation's borders, 

it is time to reassess their effectiveness and bring into balance the impact on local 
482 

ONEAMERICA 

"'" "," With Justice for All ,*.&\%,&4 FonnedylIt.1tr!Fit'CZOllP 

tv\fSSION reform legislation must address the need for clearer policies that protect against radal 

OneAmerica profiling of ethnic and religious minorities in immigration enforcement. 

advar.ces the 

fundamentai 

priflciples of 

democracy and 

justice af the 

local, stale and 

nalional levels 

by bUilding 

powef within 

immigront 

communitles 

in' collaboratiol' 

with key L,IHes.. 

Uphold the Principle of Family Unity 

Currently, families are divided by visa waiting periods and processing delays that can last 

decades, Immigration reform must strengthen the family preference system and keep 

families together by increasing the number of visas available both overall and within 

each category. OneAmerica is concerned that the Senate proposal may open the door 

to significant changes to the family visa program, including shifting away from a family 

preference system, Any such system must prioritize family preference as a key 

component of future immigration into the United States. Our family preference system, 

despite bureaucratic flaws that have led to excessive backlogs, is an important aspect of 

our nation's success in ensuring the effective integration of immigrants into our society. 

Immigration reform must also ensure that immigration status alone does not disqualify 

a parent, legal guardian, or relative from being a placement for a foster child. This 

would prohibit a State, county, or other political subdivision of a State from filing for 

termination of parental rights in foster care cases in which an otherwise fit and willing 

parent or lega! guardian has been deported or detained. Immigration reform should also 

allow judges to decline to order the removal of the parent of a US citizen child If the 

judge determines that removal would not be in the child's best interests, and to extend 

opportunities for immigrant visas to permanent partners of US citizens and permanent 

residents (I.e. incorporate the Uniting American Families Act of 2011, HR 1537-this 

provision wos not in OR ASAP). 

Restore Due Process and Civil liberties 

In the last decade, immigration enforcement resources and activity has escalated at an 

astounding pace. In the last four years alone, more than 1 million undocumented 

immigrants have been removed from the United States. 
483 

MISSION 

OneAmenca 

advar.ces the 

fundamental 

principfes of 

democracy and 

justice af the 

local, stote 'Jnd 

nalionai lev~!s 

by buiiding 

power withif1 

immigront 

communitIes 

in colloboratiof1 

MERICA 

With Justice for All 

Fc,pnt'dy llate Fie!' Zl)lH' 

We must uphold American values by ensuring that all people, no matter where they 

come from, are afforded fundamental rights, including the right to a fair day in court 

before being separated from family and community and deprived of liberty and the right 

to be free from inhumane conditions of confinement. 

To reduce the cost of detention imposed on taxpayers and to ensure humane and safe 

treatment for all individuals, immigration laws must ensure that detention is used only 

as a last resort, This means repeal of mandatory detention laws and expansion oftruly 

community-based alternatives to detention. Adopting these changes will bring about a 

massive reduction in the detention of immigrants, Those facing deportation who cannot 

afford attorneys must be provided a government-appointed attorney to ensure fair 

results. Failure to protect these fundamental rights goes against the core values of 

America's democracy. For the benefit of everyone, these basic rights must be restored 

and protected. 

Since 1996, certain criminal convictions, including some minor misdemeanors from 

many years ago, automatically trigger deportation for life regardless of individual 

circumstances. Immigrants suffer a disproportionately harsh double punishment 

because they have already served their criminal sentence prior to deportation 

proceedings, Some immigrants even face deportation for condUct that was not 

deportable at the time it was committed or is not considered a "conviction" under state 

law. 

Immigrants should not be treated only as the sum of their mistakes in a nation that 

values second chances. Immigration Judges must be given back the power to grant a 

second chance and cancel someone's deportation after looking at other aspects of a 

person's life-such as family ties, length of time in the U.S., rehabilitation, and 

acceptance of personal accountability. Criminal court judges should also be given back 

the power they once had to recommend against deportation. 
484 

MISSION 

OneAmenccr 

advor:ces the 

fundomenfoj 

principles of 

democracy and 

justice at the 

local, stale and 

nalianalleveh 

by bUilding 

power withir 

immigrant 

communitIes 

in' collaboratiof' 

with key allies. 

MERICA 

With Justice for All 

The entanglement of these deportation programs with the criminal justice system 

threatens the rights of U.S. citizens and immigrants alike, encouraging racial profiling 

and resulting in long periods of detention. This undermines community safety by 

eroding trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement. Immigrants 

hoping to reunite with their families by coming or returning to the U.S. without 

authorization now also face excessive crimina! punishments, compounding the racial 

and economic injustices of the criminal justice system. Immigration legislation must rein 

in the constant funneling of immigrants into the deportation system and the unequal 

treatment of immigrants in the criminal justice system. 

Current immigration laws allow the government to deport many without letting them 

see an Immigration Judge. Most also do not have lawyers to help them. For these 

people, low-level government agents simply decide to order their removal. No one 

should be banished from the U.S. and torn from their family and community without 

their day in court. 

Laws that require jailing thousands of immigrants while they fight their deportation 

cases are inhumane. Even in the criminal justice system, people facing charges can at 

least request bail. Many immigrants are transferred to for-profit detention centers 

thousands of miles from their homes, do not have access to lawyers, and are pressured 

to accept deportation to escape the deplorable conditions. 

Conclusion 

Comprehensive immigration reform, if done correctly, creates the opportunity to 

strengthen our economy and level the playing field among employers and workers alike. 

We have the opportunity now to ensure that the needs of key industries, particularly 

the agriculture and high tech sectors important to Washington State's economy, will 

have a more stable and reliable workforce. And any such sector based programs must 

be balanced against the needs of native born workers while also ensuring the robust 

enforcement of labor protections that must be extended to fully embrace current 

undocumented workers and future temporary workers, 
485 

MISSION 

OneAmenca 

odVdr.ces the 

fundamental 

principles of 

democracy and 

jusfiGe at the 

loco I, stole and 

nalional levels 

powef within 

immigrant 

communities 

in' co!laborati0l1 

MERICA 

With Justice for All 

F6nnuiy Hate Frt!!' Zone 

The path of "enforcement only" policies has led to massive spending on a broken system 

that encourages racial profiling and violates the civil and human rights of those who 

come into contact with it-migrants, lega! residents and citizens alike. One America is 

heartened by the Committee's leadership in holding this hearing and we are grateful for 

the opportunity to present our position on unjust, ineffective and counterproductive 

practices within the immigration enforcement system. Congress should take this 

opportunity to move forward with an immigration reform bill that accepts the new 

realities of the u.s. workforce and prioritizes workers' rights, family unity, and human 

dignity. Any adjustments to enforcement programs and policies should be to scale 

down enforcement efforts, focusing on accountability and this country's founding 

principles of fairness, due process, and equal protection of the law. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to express the views of OneAmerica. We welcome 

the opportunity for further dialogue and discussion about these important issues. 
486 

MERICA 

With Justice for All 

Ftlrrnedy lIat.:: Pr..w Zone 

MISSION OneAmerica's Principles for Just and Humane Immigration Reform 

OneAmenca 

adyonces the 

fundamental 

principles of 

democracy and 

justice of t~e 

locol, st(lle and 

national level,." 

by bUilding 

power within 

immigranl 

cornmunihes 

in" collaborotiol' 

wilh key ollies. 

Keep aU families together by creating a road map to citizenship. The current 

immigration system separates hundreds of thousands of children, parents, and families 

through policies that have not been updated in 25 years. America deserves a common 

sense immigration process, one that includes a road map for New Americans who aspire 

to be citizens, including LGBTfamilies. 

Reunite families. An immigration process that values family unity must include family 

preference and enough visas to reunite all families separated by bureaucracy and 

discriminatory quotas. Family unification must also include the opportunity for family 

members who have been deported to return and join their families. 

Create a sensible worker program with protections. We are united by a deep respect 

for those who work hard for a living and share our commitment to country. We must 

develop a worker program that honors hard work and the contributions immigrants and 

their families to our economy, Visas should be tied to workers, not to an employer, to 

ensure full labor rights. 

Ensure humane treatment. We wi!! continue to aggressively push for accountability, 

humane treatment, and due process in the violent and abusive border and detention 

systems that have grown exponentially and wastefully in the !ast decade. 

Restore a Fair Day In Court. Immigrants should not be treated only as the sum of their 

mistakes in a nation that values second chances. Immigration judges must be given back 

the power to cancel a person's deportation after looking at other aspects of her life, like 

family ties, length oftime in the U.S., rehabilitation, and acceptance of responsibility. 

Respect safety in immigration enforcement. Border enforcement - which has been 

made worse by increased collaboration between Federal agencies and loca! law 

enforcement - must reflect American values, prioritizing the safety and security of 

border communities and consulting with these communities in the process. We demand 

an end to failed immigration enforcement programs, including Secure Communities. 

Promote Immigrant Integration. Comprehensive legislation should include forward~ 

thinking strategies for how the United States will embrace immigrants and immigrationl 
487 

MISSION 

OneAmenca 

advances the 

fundamental 

prirtcipies of 

democracy and 

justice of the 

locol, stole rJnd 

nalionol leveLs 

by bUilding 

power within 

immigrant 

communities. 

10' collaborotior' 

wilh key ollie •. 

MERICA 

With Justice for All 

n,rmcdy lIme FrtW Zone 

including adequate resources for local communities to support individuals seeking to 

legalize their status and a national office of immigrant integration to develop and 

support policies that help immigrants fully contribute to America's social, economic, and 

civic fabric. Ensure that taxpaying immigrants working to adjust their status have access 

to public benefits. 

Support Gender Equity. Ensure that any new immigration process recognizes the unique 

challenges facing immigrant women, including protections for survivors ofvio!ence and 

human trafficking. A legalization program must value the contributions immigrant 

women make as workers, entrepreneurs, and mothers. 
488 

February 13, 2013 

A. PEOPLE ~.,UHr' FOR THE 

.~AMERICAN 

". "" WAY 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Chairman 

The Honorable Charles Schumer, Chairman, Immigration, Refugees and Border Security 

Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: Hearing, "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

Dear Chairman Leahy and Chairman Schumer: 

Thank you for holding this hearing and for turning your attention to the critical issue of comprehensive 

immigration reform. Our broken immigration system harms families, communities and our nation as a 

whole. It creates instability for families, deprives millions of working Americans of civil rights and 

workplace protections, and prevents many who are providing for their families, paying taxes and 

contributing to their communities from fully integrating into our country. In 2012, Americans voted in 

great numbers for candidates who promised workable, common-sense solutions to our immigration 

crisis. Piecemeal legislation will not fix our system in the long term. Now is the time to pursue strong, 

lasting, comprehensive reform. 

People For the American Way, our members and supporters across the country, and members of our 

advocacy networks urge you to create a viable comprehensive immigration reform plan that will 

strengthen our economic security and conform to our national values. Such a plan must provide 

undocumented workers already in the country with a path to citizenship so they can fully contribute to 

our economy and society. It must reduce the backlog of individuals seeking residency and citizenship by 

creating a more robust and flexible visa program. It must recognize that immigrants are an integral part 

of our labor force by addressing employment-based immigration needs. It must ensure strong worker 

protections and address our enforcement needs in a manner that is just and consistent with our existing 

due process and civil rights laws. And it must reunite American families by allowing US citizens or 

permanent residents to sponsor their same-sex partners for immigration to the US, a right that is 

currently denied based solely on their sexual orientation. 

People For the American Way's advocacy networks represent three communities that have confronted 

our broken immigration system firsthand and have strong stakes in comprehensive immigration reform. 

YP4 Action represents youth organizers on campuses across the country, a number of whom have 

undocumented family members or are themselves undocumented. All of these organizers are leading 

efforts to create positive social change in their communities and their country, regardless of immigration 

status. YEO Action represents young, progressive elected officials, who feel the impact of federal 

immigration policy with their constituents at the state and local level. Finally, African American 

Ministers in Action represents a multidenominational network of African American clergy, many of 

whom serve as faith leaders for immigrant communities, in particular those from Africa, Haiti and the 

Caribbean. 

110] 151h Street, NW • Suite 600. Washington, DC 20005 

Telephone 202.467.4999 • Fax 202.293.2672 • E-mail pfaw@pfaw.org • Web site http://www.pfaw.org 
489 

Together, People For the American Way and its advocacy networks urge you to adopt a comprehensive 

immigration refoon package that creates a healthy, practical, commonsense immigration system worthy 

of the country it serves. 

YP4Action 

YP4 Action is the advocacy affiliate of People For the American Way Foundation's Young People For 

program, which develops young progressive leaders on campuses throughout the country. Many of the 

young people we work with are immigrants or the children of immigrants, and many more have friends 

and classmates who are personally affected by today's broken immigration system. President Obama's 

executive order partially implementing the DREAM Act allowed thousands of young undocumented 

immigrants to come out of the shadows and publicly give back to their country. Any comprehensive 

refoon package must include expanded and strengthened provisions that afford young undocumented 

immigrants the opportunity to earn a path to citizenship, to pursue an affordable higher education and to 

give back to the country they love. 

Many of our members have also experienced firsthand the impact that our immigration system has on 

binational families. Any immigration refoon package must place a priority on uniting families, including 

those led by LGBT parents. 

YEO Action 

YEO Action, the advocacy affiliate of People For the American Way Foundation's Young Elected 

Officials Network, represents young progressive elected officials in federal, state and local offices. State 

and local elected officials see firsthand the impact that federal immigration policy has on their 

constituents. School board members face the challenge of ensuring that the children of undocumented 

parents have access to education and opportunity. City council members and mayors must ensure that 

immigrants in their communities - documented and undocumented - have the protection of and are 

treated fairly by law enforcement. Progressive state legislators face battles over extreme state-level 

legislation proposed in the absence of federal reform and must work to ensure that all residents of their 

states have access to education, law enforcement protection, and health and human services. 

Too often, our state and local elected officials are left picking up the pieces of a federal immigration 

system that has not kept pace with reality. A broken immigration system undeonines the efforts of state 

and local elected officials to serve their constituents through effective law enforcement, public safety, 

public health and education. Congress must pass a comprehensive immigration refoon package that 

acknowledges the contributions that immigrants are making across the country and allows 

undocumented immigrants and their children to come out of the shadows. 

African American Ministers in Action 

As community and faith leaders, members of African American Ministers in Action are concerned 

about building a system that works for all immigrants. AAMIA's members work particularly closely 

with immigrants from Africa, Haiti and the Caribbean, whose needs are too often overlooked in the 

immigration reform debate. The tragedy last year when eleven Haitians, including four children, 

drowned after their boat capsized on its way to Florida highlights the necessity of improving the asylum 

- 2-
490 

process, especially for our close neighbors in Haiti, We must also strengthen our refugee resettlement 

program and provide it with adequate resources to help refugees adjust upon their arrival in the United 

States. 

It is critical for all immigrants, including those from Africa, Haiti and the Caribbean, that we build a 

pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are already living in our country and 

contributing to our society. These immigrants, like those before them, have built lives in this country 

and are contributing to our economic and social fabric. They must be brought out of the shadows. 

Lastly, as faith leaders, AAMIA's members wish to ensure that any comprehensive immigration reform 

treats all individuals and families with dignity and respect. This includes placing a priority on family 

reunification, providing safety and shelter for refugees and ensuring due process for every immigrant, 

regardless of country of origin. 

Conclusion 

The challenges that our country's immigration system faces are complex and require a thoughtful. farsighted and broad solution. Congress must resist efforts to address these complex problems in a 

piecemeal fashion and must instead confront this critical issue with a bold, comprehensive plan. With 

comprehensive immigration reform we have the opportunity to create a positive change in millions of 

American lives and to set our country on a strong, stable course for the future. We urge Congress to 

seize this opportunity. People For the American Way and our advocacy networks look forward to 

working with you to advance these much needed reforms. 

Sincerely, 

l·- /fJ' 

Il~£.7 ,116,.-/~ 

Marge Baker Andrew Gillum 

Executive Vice President for Policy and Program Director of Youth Leadership Programs 

---.P " 7/ c.... ' ;. Jyc

,::./( c (J/~?!/('// /) 1j.;(1Z,,:;<":'7'::.<-

! . 

Joy Lawson Minister Leslie Watson Malachi 

Director, YP4 Action Director, African American Religious Affairs 

CC: Ranking Member Chuck Grassley 

Ranking Member John Cornyn, Immigration, Refugees and Border Security 

Committee Members 

- 3-
491 

Testimony of Pica National Network 

Submitted to the 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

February 13, 2013 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank you for this opportunity to 

submit testimony in support of Immigration Reform that focuses on a path to citizenship for the 

eleven million aspiring American citizens who live in our communities. 

PICO National Network is the nation's largest grassroots faith-based community organizing 

network. Through our sixty-two state and local member organizations and 1,200 religious 

congregations, we see first-hand how current immigration policy is breaking apart families at a 

level unseen in our nation's history. As a multi-racial network of people of faith from 35 

different religious traditions, we welcome the decision by Senators from both parties to 

embrace immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for our neighbors, friends and 

fellow parishioners. 

As you move ahead with the important work of reforming our nation's immigration policy, we 

pray that you will keep your hearts and minds focused on the immigrant families who see this 

nation as their home and want to live free from fear. There is moral urgency to the work you 

are taking up. Our many faith traditions teach us that each person is created in God's image 

and has intrinsic dignity. We hope that you will approach this public debate with a spirit of 

compassion and wisdom. 

Citizenship is an American value that makes our communities and nation stronger 

Based on our experience working to strengthen families and communities in more than 200 

cities and towns across the United States, PICO urges Congress put a direct path to citizenship 

at the heart of immigration reform legislation. It is urgent that we move forward now with a 

policy that makes it possible for undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows and 

become full-fledged participants in our society. 

Our country is now facing a third generation of children growing up in homes with 

undocumented family members. A total of 16.6 million people live in mixed-status homes with 

one or more undocumented family members.; We urge you to listen carefully to the toll that 

current federal immigration policy is having on children, families and communities. Never 

before in our history have we detained and deported so many people, few of whom pose any 
492 

Page I 2 Testimony of PIca National Network on a direct path to citizenship 

risk to our communities. Our hearts go out to the children who have seen their mothers and 

fathers detained and deported and to those who live in daily fear of losing their parents. A 

child in Florida told us that she prays that her car would be invisible so that the police would 

not stop her mother and take her away. 

Two-thirds of all undocumented immigrants have been in the United States for more than a 

decade.ii They are Americans in all but paperwork. We urge you to see citizenship as an 

American value that is good for our families, communities and economy. We are stronger as a 

nation when all people take on the responsibilities and rights of being citizens. 

Legislation should avoid unnecessary obstacles and delays on the path to citizenship 

Our shared goal should be more people who live in our country successfully applying to become 

citizens, not fewer. Therefore it is important that Congress avoid placing unnecessary obstacles 

or delays that would result in millions of people living in limbo. Once immigrants come forward 

and complete the process they should be granted temporary status and a certain path to 

citizenship. 

With no net flow of immigrants from Mexico and 21,370 border patrol agents on the federal 

payroll iii much has been done in recent years to secure the border. PIca strongly believes that 

a path to citizenship should not be contingent on border security measures that have largely 

been put in place. Nor is it reasonable to make people wait in limbo for citizenship for ten or 

twenty yea rs. 

The success of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) should guide us forward 

We should look to the highly successful Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACAl policy 

announced this summer as a guide to establishing an effective path to citizenship that has 

broad public support. DACA created a clear and straightforward process for undocumented 

Dream Act eligible immigrants to come forward and apply for temporary legal status. The 

policy largely avoided creating unnecessary obstacles or exclusions. As a result, as of January 

17, 2013, 407,899 people had applied for DACA and 154,404 had been approved.iv 

Not only has DACA received strong public support, but the policy, and the Dreamers who made 

it a reality, have also inspired our nation, providing concrete evidence that the American people 

want to include not exclude undocumented immigrants from our society. 

The opportunity to reform enforcement and dramatically reduce detentions and deportations 

As we bring undocumented families in from the shadows, we also have a unique opportunity to 

reform enforcement policies that are imposing devastating costs on families and 

communities. The Federal Government now spends $18 billion annually on immigration 

enforcement, outstripping all other federal law enforcement spending.v More than 392,000 

immigrants were detained in FY 2011, more than half of whom had no criminal convictions. vi 

Our goal should be a smarter system that makes our families safer rather than unnecessarily 

spending billions of taxpayer dollars on an increasingly privatized detention industry. 

Pica encourages people to consult their own faith traditions for guidance on specific elements of legislation. 
493 

Page I 3 Testimony of PICO National Network on a direct path to citizenship 

Pica's Campaign for Citizenship 

Over the coming months, through our grassroots Campaign for Citizenship, PICO and our 62 

faith-based member organizations will be organizing to make sure that Members of Congress 

from both parties and the President follow through on the long-delayed promise of full 

citizenship for all. We will be sending a clear message when it comes to immigration reform, 

full citizenship is a crucial Litmus Test for Latino voters and all people of faith. 

Mr. Chairman, we thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony and urge you to 

continue holding hearings that provide an opportunity for Senators to hear directly from 

immigrant families and religious leaders dealing first hand with the impact of current 

immigration policy on local communities. 

Gordon Whitman, Policy Director 

PICO National Network 

gwhitman@piconetwork.org 

www.campaignforcitizenship.org 

I http://www<natianaljournal.com/th en exta m e rlea/! m m igrati on! 0D j n jan ~ the-h igh~price-of· im m igrati onenforcement-without-immigration-reform-20120830 

" h ltp://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/12/01/unauthorized-imm igra nts-I eng th-of -res i den (y-pattern s-ofparenthoodl?src:::::prc-quiz 

iii http://www.migrationpollcy,orgipubs/enforcementpillars.pdf 

''http://www_uscis.gov/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/lmmigration%20Forms%20Data/AII%20Form 

%20Types/DACA/DACA%20Monthly%20Report%20AVer''102011%20PDF.pdf 

, http://www _ migrati on pol i (y. 0 rg/pu bs/pillars-reporti n brief. pdf 

''http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/MathoflmmigrationDetention.pdf 

PICD encourages people to consult their own faith traditions for guidance on specific elements of legislation. 
494 

In Support of the Uniting American Families Act 

Testimony submitted to: 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Hearing: 

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

February 13,2013 

Statement of: 

Robert Bragar, DNC Member, representing Democrats Abroad 

Democrats Abroad is the official arm of the Democratic Party of the United States for the more than 7 million 

Americans living overseas. With organized committees working in 48 countries, and individual members in 

nearly every country in the world, Democrats Abroad registers U.S. voters for absentee ballots and represents 

the interests of Americans abroad to lawmakers in Washington. 

We applaud Senator Leahy for holding this hearing and for advocating for fair treatment of gay and lesbian 

Americans in our immigration system. 

Democrats Abroad first adopted a resolution calling on Congress to pass the Uniting American Families Act in 

2006 (see below). Now more than ever, we urge Congress to take action. 

Uniting LGBT families must be part of any comprehensive immigration reform in order to ensure lesbian, gay, 

bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans a fundamental right: the right to live in our country with their 

permanent partners. 

On this painful subject, I speak on behalf of the members of Democrats Abroad. And I speak from personal 

experience. 

I am a gay American. My same-sex spouse is Dutch. In spite of our long-standing committed relationship, US 

law bars me from sponsoring him for residence in the US. 

Because US immigration law does not recognize same-sex partners, I and many others have been forced to sell 

our property, cut short satisfying careers, leave our homes and rebuild their lives in distant countries. I left my 

law practice and sold my apartment to make a new life in the Netherlands, where I have lived since 1994. 

This affects my family in America as well. When my mother was ill at the end of her life, I could not be at her 

side. 

My situation is not unique. Untold numbers of GLBT U.S. citizens, many of them members of Democrats Abroad, 

share my plight and yearn for this basic right freely granted to opposite-sex couples. 

Personally and on behalf of Democrats Abroad, I urge Congress to end the forced exile of U.S. citizens like 

myself by including the Uniting American Families Act in comprehensive immigration reform. 

Resolution supporting the Uniting American Families Act 

Adopted by the Democratic Party Committee Abroad, Washington, D. C., March 4, 2006 

WHEREAS, every American is entitled to equal protection under the law; 

WHEREAS, the U.S. immigration system is largely based upon the principle of family unification; 

WHEREAS, federal law does not currently recognize permanent same-sex partners for immigration purposes; 

WHEREAS, this results in thousands of US citizens being forced into exile to be with foreign-born partners, causing 

unnecessary hardship, separation from family members and careers, and loss of valuable skills and resources for our 

country; 

WHEREAS, the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) has been introduced in Congress by Sen. Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. 

Nadler (D-NY) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act and allow U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to 

sponsor same-sex partners for immigration; 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Democrats Abroad urges Congress to pass the Uniting American Families Act at 

the eartiest possible date and supports the removal of legal barriers to immigration by permanent same~sex partners. 
495 

STATEMENT OF 

SERVICES, IMMIGRANT RIGHTS AND EDUCATION NETWORK 

HEARING ON: COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

February 13,2013 

Chainnan Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley and members of the Committee: I am honored to 

submit this testimony for the record on behalf of Services, Immigrant Rights and Education 

Network (SIREN), regarding today's hearing on immigration refonn. 

Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network (SIREN) is a leading non-profit organization 

dedicated to empower diverse immigrant communities in Santa Clara County through policy 

advocacy, organizing and legal services. We advocate for policies that are inclusive of all 

immigrants and respect the rights of all people. 

As such, SIREN would like to thank you for holding this critical and timely hearing on 

immigration refonn. SIREN applauds the bi-partisan group of Senators' recent decision to 

endorse a path to citizenship for the II million aspiring citizens living in the United States. We 

urge the Senate to create such a path that is inclusive, accessible, and fair. Our immigration 

system must reflect the American values of hard work, the importance of family unity and 

economic prosperity. 

Additionally, SIREN urges the Senate to ensure that refonn of the immigration law fixes our 

current legal channels to keep American families together. The current pathways to legalization 

are outdated and out of touch with our economic and demographic realities. For instance, a 

parent from the Philippines is currently facing a wait of 15 years to be reunited with their 

unmarried child in the United States. Our admission system has not been updated for over a 

decade and results in long waiting periods for immigrant visas. We must enhance the existing 

channels and reduce the barriers to family unity. 

Page 1 of2 
496 

Finally, SIREN urges the Senate that any comprehensive reform bill upholds our Constitution 

and protects due process and human rights for all people in the United States. Years of 

"enforcement first" or "enforcement only" policies have lead to record numbers of detentions 

and deportations, excessive use of force and rampant racial profiling. We must terminate 

immigration enforcement programs that criminalize immigrants. The erosion of due process, 

mass incarceration of immigrants, and constant massive deportations has created an unbearable 

and inhumane environment for American families. Such developments are unacceptable in a 

nation founded upon democratic values, individual freedom, and equal rights. 

Conclusion 

Immigrants are a vibrant force and make great contributions to our culture, society and economy. 

They come to the United States to work, to be reunited with family or in search of a better life. 

Yet, despite their many contributions, millions of immigrants continue to live in the shadows. 

Our immigration laws need to recognize immigrant contributions and reflect our American 

values offamily unity, justice and equality for all. 

SIREN is heartened by the Committee's leadership in holding this hearing and we are grateful 

for the opportunity to present our position on the urgent need for comprehensive immigration 

reform with a roadmap to citizenship for the 11 million aspiring citizens. Congress should take 

this opportunity to move forward with an immigration reform bill that accepts the new realities 

of the U.S. workforce and prioritizes workers' rights, family unity, and human dignity. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to express the views of SIREN. We welcome the 

opportunity for further dialogue and discussion about these important issues. 

Sincerely, 

Jazmin Segura 

Federal Policy Advocate 

Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network 

J azminia)siren-bayarea.org 

408-453-3003 ext 102 

Page 2 of2 
497 

June 26,'2011 

My life in America as an undocumented immigrant. 

One August morning neatly two decades ago, 

my mother woke me and put me in a cab. She 

handed me a jacket. "Baka malam(r: doon" were 

among the few words she said. ("It might be cold 

there.") When I arrived at the Philippines' Ninay 

Aquino International Airport with her, my aunt 

anda family friend, I was introduced to a man I'd 

never seen. They told me he was my uncle. He 

held my hand as I boarded an airplane for the 

first time. It was 1993, and I was 12. 

My mother wanted to give me a better life, so 

she sent me thousands of miles away to live with 

her parents in America - my grandfather (Lol() in 

Tagalog) and grandmother (Lola). After I arrived 

in Mountain View, Cali[, right in the middle of 

Silicon Valley, I entered sixth grade and quickly 

grew to love my new home, family and culture. I 

discovered a passion for language, though it was 

hard to learn the difference between forma! 

English and American slang. One of my early 

memories is of a freckled kid in middJe school 

asking me, "What's up?" I replied, "The sky/' 

and he and a couple of other kids laughed, I won 

the eighth~grade spelling bee by memorizing 

words I couldn'tproper!y pronounce. (The winning word was "indefatigable.") 

By JOSE ANTONIO VARGAS 

One day when I was 16, J rode my bloke to the high enough, I would be rewarded with citizen~ 

nearby n.M.V. office to get my driver's permit. ship, I felt I could earn it. 

Some of my friend$already had their licenses, so I've tried. Over the past 14 years, I've graduI figured itwas time. But when I handed the clerk ated from high school and college and built a 

my green card as proof of U,S. residency, she career as a journalist, interviewing some of the 

flipped it around, examining it, "This is fake/' most famous people in the country, On the sur~ 

she whispered. "Don't come back here again." face, I've created a good life. I've lived the 

Confused and scared, r pedaled home and American dream. 

confronted Lolo. I remember him sitting in the; But [ am still an undocumented immigrant. 

garage, cutting coupons. I dropped my bike and i And that means living a different kind of reality. 

ran over to him, showing him the green card. It means going about my day in fear of being 

"Peke ba ito?" 1 asked in Tagalog. ("Is this found out. It means rarely trusting people, even 

fake?") My grandparents were naturalized thoseclosesttome,withwho lrea!lyam, It means 

American citizens - he worked as a security keeping my family photos in a shoebox rather 

guard, she as a food server - and they had than displaying them on shelves in my home, so 

begun supporting my mother and me financial~ friends don't ask about them. It means reluctantly when I was 3, after my father's wandering Iy doing things [know are wrong and unlawful. 

eye and inability to properly provide for us led 1 And it has meant relying ona sortof21st-century 

to my parents' separation. Lolo was a proud : underground railroad of supporters, people who 

man, and t saw the shame on his face ashe told I took an interest in my future and took risks for me. 

me he purchased the card, along with other: Last year I read about four students who 

fake documents, for me. "Don't show it to i walked from Miami to Washington to lobby for 

other people," he warned, i the Dream Act, a neadydecadewotd immigration 

I decided then that I could never give anyone < bill that would provide a path to citizenship for 

reason to doubt I was an American, I convinced young people who have been educated in this 

myself that ifI worked hard enough, ifI achieved country. At the risk of deportation -the Obama 

f'HOTOCRAPH 81' RYAN PFLUCER 
498 
499 

administration has deported about a million 

people in the last two and half years - they are 

speaking out. Their courage has inspired me. 

There are believed to be 11 million undocu~ 

mented immigrants in the United Srates. Some 

pick your strawberries or care for your children. 

We're not always who you think we are. Some 

are in high school or college. And some, it turns 

out, write news articles you might read. I grew 

up here. This is my home. Yet even though I 

think of myself as an American and consider 

America my country, my country doesn't think 

of me as one of its own. 

My first challenge was the language. Though I 

learned English in the Philippines, I wanted to 

lose my accent. During high school, I spent hours 

at a time watching television (especially "Frasi~ 

er," "Home Improvement" and reruns of "The 

Golden Girls") and movies (from "Goodfellas" to 

"Anne of Green Gables"), pausing the VHSto try 

to copy how various characters enunciated their 

words. At the local library, I read magazines, 

books and newspapers- anything to learn how to 

write better. Kathy Dewar, my high-school English teacher, introduced me to journalism. From 

the moment I wrote my first article for the student 

paper, I convinced myself that having my name in 

print - writing in English) interviewing Americans - validated my presence here. 

The debates over "illegal aliens" intensified my anxieties. In 1994, only a year after my 

night from the Philippines, Gov. Pete Wilson 

was re~elected in part because of his support 

for Proposition 187, which prohibited undocu~ 

mented immigrants from attending public 

school and accessing other services_ (A federal 

comt later found the law unconstitutional.) 

After my encounter at the D.M.V. in 1997, r grew more aware of anti-immigrant sentiments and stereotypes: they don't want to 

assimilate, they are a drain on society. They're 

Stayi"O Papers TFie documentation that 

VargllS obtamtd overtFie )'tar5 - a fake p'W! 

cllrd, a [Ilkc passport, a riril'e'511censeallol\'ed Film to remain in the U.S. In Oregon, 

a fnrnd provided a mai/in,1;! address. 

nO[ talking about me, I would tel! myself. I huge sum for him - to pay him to smuggle me 

have something to contribute. here under a fake name and fake passport. (I 

To do that, 1 had to work - and for that, I never saw the passport again after the flight and 

needed a Social security number. Fortunately, have always assumed that the coyote kept it.) 

my grandfather had aJreadymanaged to get one After I arrived in America, Lolo obtained a new 

for me. Lolo had always taken care of everyone fake Filipino passport, in my real name this 

in the family. He and my grandmother emigrat- time, adorned with a fake student visa, in addied legally in 1984 from Zambales, a province in tion to the fraudulent green card. 

the Philippines of rice fields and bamboo hous- Using the fake passport, we went to the local 

es, to the United States, following Lola's sister, Social Security Administration office and 

who married a Filipino~American serving in the applied for a Social Security number and card. I 

Americanmilitary,Shepetitionedforherbroth- remember it was a quick visit. When the card 

er and his wife to join her, When they got here, came in the mail, it had my full, real name, but 

Lolo petitioned for his two children-my moth- it also clearly stated: "Valid for work only with 

er and her younger brother - to follow them, tN,S, authorization." 

But instead of mentioning that my mother was a When I began looking for work, a short time 

married woman, he listed her as single. Legal after the D.M.V. incident, my grandfather and I 

residents can't petition for their married chil~ took the Social Security card to Kinko's, where 

dren. Besides, Lolo didn't care formy father. He he covered the "J.N.S. authorization" text with 

didn't want him coming here too. a sliver of white tape. We then made photocopBut soon Lola grew nervous that the immigra- ies of the card, At a glance, at least, the copies 

tion authorities reviewing the petition would would look like copies ofa regular, unrestricted 

discover my mother was married, thus derailing Sodal Security card. 

notonty her chances of coming here but those of Lolo always imagined I would work the kind 

my uncle as well. So he withdrew her petition. of low-paying jobs that undocumented people 

After my uncle came to America lega!lyin 1991, ! often take. (Once I married an American, he 

Lolotriedtogetmymotherherethroughatour· i said, I would get my real papers, and everyist visa, but she wasn't able to obtain one, That's II thing would be fine.) But even menial jobs 

when she decided to send me. My mother told requirc documents, so he and I hoped the docme later that she figured she would foHow me tored card would work for now. The more doc~ 

soon. She never did. uments I had, he said, the better. 

The "uncle" who brought me here turned out While in high school, I worked part time at 

to be a coyote, not a relative, my grandfather Subway, then at the front desk of the local 

later explained. Lolo scraped together enough Y.M.e.A., then at a tennisc!ub, until I landed an 

money - I eventually learned it was $4,500, a unpaid internship at The Mountain View Voice, 

my hometown newspaper. First J brought coffee 

and helped around the office; eventually I 

began covering city-hall meetings and other 

assignments for pay. 

For more than a decade of getting part-time 

and full·time jobs, employers have rarely asked 

to check my original Social Security card. 

When they did, I showed the photocopied ver· 

sion, which they accepted. Over time, I also 

began checking the citizenship box on my federal 1-9 employment eligihility forms. (Claim~ 

ing full citizenship was actually easier than 
500 

declaring permanent resident "green card" 

status, which would have required me to provide an alien registration number.) 

This deceit never got easier. The more I did 

it, the more I felt like an impostor, the more 

guilt I carried ~ and the more I worried that I 

would get caught. But I kept doing it. 1 needed 

to live and survive on my own, and I decided 

this was the way. 

Mountain View High School became my 

second home. I was elected to represent my 

school at school-board meetings, which gave 

me the chance to meet and befriend Rich 

Fischer, the superintendent for our schoo! district. I joined the speech and debate team, 

acted in schoo! plays and eventually became 

co-editor of The Oracle, the student newspaper. That drew the attention of my principal, 

Pat Hyland. "You're at schoo! just as much as I 

am," she told me. Pat and Rich would soon 

become mentors, and over time, almost surrogate parents for me. 

After a choir rehearsal during my junior 

year, Jill Denny, the choir director, told me she 

was considering a Japan trip for our singing 

group. I told her I couldn't afford it, but she 

said we'd figure out a way. I hesitated, and then 

decided to tell her the truth. "It's not really the 

money," I remember saying. "I don't have the 

right passport." When she assured me we'd get 

the proper do~uments, I finally told her. "1 

can't get the right passport," I said. "I'm not 

suppose-d to be here," 

She understood. So the choir toured Hawaii 

instead, with me in tow. (Mrs. Denny and I spoke 

a couple of months ago, and she told me she 

hadn't wanted to leave any student behind.) 

Later that school year, my history class 

watched a documentary on Harvey Milk, the 

openly gay San Francisco city official who was 

assassinated. This was 1999, just six months 

after Matthew Shepard's body was found tied 

to a fence in Wyoming. During the discussion, 

I raised my hand and said something like: "I'm 

sorry Harvey Milk got killed for being gay. 

I've been meaningto say this ... I'm gay." 

I hadn't planned on coming out that morning, 

though I had known that I was gay for several 

years I became the only openly gay student at 

school, and it caused turmoil with my grandparents. Lola kicked me out of the house for a few 

weeks. Though we eventually reconciled, I had 

disappointed him on nvo fronts. First, as a Catho~ 

lie, he considered homosexuality a sin and was 

embarrassed abO\lthaving"angapona bakla" ("a 

grandson who is gay"). Even worse, Iwas making 

matters more difficult for myself, he said. I needed to marry an American woman in a sham mar~ 

riage in order to gain a green card. 

Tough as it was, coming out about being gay 

docllments wouldn't pass m\ll;ter. So before 

starting the job, I called Pat and told her about 

my legal status, After consulting with management, she called me back with the answer I 

feared: 1 couldn't do the internship. 

This was devastating. What good was college if 

I COUldn't then pursue the career I wanted? In was 

to succeed in a profession that is all about truthtelling, 1 couldn't tell the truth about myself. 

After this episode, Jim Strand, the venture 

capitalist who sponsored my scholarship, 

offered to pay for an immigration lawyer. Rich 

and I went to meet her in San Francisco's 

financial district. 

I was hopeful. This was in early 2002, shortly after Senators Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, and Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat, 

, introduced the Dream Act Development, 

Relief and Education for Alien Minors. It 

, seemed like the legislative version of what I'd 

seemed less dalli1ting than coming out about my , told myself: If I work hard and contribute, 

legal stahlS. I kept my other secret mostly hidden. things would work out. 

While my classmates awaited their college 

acceptance letters, I hoped to get a fuH~time job at 

The Mountain View Voice after graduation. It's 

not that I didn'twantto go to college, but I couldn't 

apply for state and federal financial aid. Without 

that, my family couldn't afford to send me. 

But when I finally told Pat and Rich about my 

immigration "problem" - as we called it from 

then on - they belped me look for a solution. (At 

first, they even wondered if one of them could 

adopt me and fix the situation that way, but a 

lawyer Rich consulted told him it wouldn't 

cha~ge my legal status, because I was too old.) 

Eventually they connected me to a new scholarship fund for high-potential students who were 

usually the first in their family to attend college. 

Most important, the fund was not concerned 

with my immigration status. I was among its first 

recipients, with the scholarship covering tuition, 

lodging, books and other expenses for my studies at San Francisco State University. 

As a college freshman, I found a job working 

part time at The San Francisco Chronicle, where 

I sorted mail and wrote some freelance articles. 

My ambition was to get a reporting job, so I 

embarked on a series of internships. First I landed 

atThe Philadelphia Daily ~ews, in the summerof 

2001, where I covered a drive-by shooting and 

the wedding of the 76ers star Allen Iverson. Using 

those articles, I applied to The Seattle Times and 

got an internship for the following Slimmer. 

But then my lack of proper documents became 

a problem again. The Times'srecruiter, Pat Foote, 

asked all incomingintems to hringcertain paperwork on their first day: a birth certificate, or a 

passport, or a driver's license plus an original 

Social Security card. I panicked, thinking my 

Hut the meeting left me aushed. My only 

solution, the lawyer said, was to go back to the 

Philippines and accept a lQ-year ban before I 

could apply to return legally. 

If Rich was discouraged, he hid it well. "Put 

this problem on a shelf," he told me. "Compartmentalize it. Keep going." 

And I did. Forthe summer of2003, I applied 

for internships across the country. Several 

newspapers, including The WaH Street Journal, 

The Boston Globe and The Chicago Tribune, 

expressed interest. But when The Washington 

Post offered me a spot, I knew where I would go. 

And this time, I had no intention of acknowledging my "prOblem." 

The Post internship posed a tricky obstacle: It 

required a driver's license. (After my dose call at 

the California D,M.V., I'd never gotten one.) So I 

spent an afternoon atThe Mountain View Public 

Library, studying various states' requirements. 

Oregon was among the most welC<Jming- and it 

was just a few hours' drive north. 

Again, my support network came through. A 

friend's father lived in Portland, and he allowed 

me to use his address as proof of residency, Pat, 

Rich and Rich's longtime assistant, Mal)' Moore, 

sent letters to me at that address. Rich taught me 

how to do three-point turns in a parking lot, and 

a friend accompanied me to Portland. 

The license meant evel)'thing to me ~ it 

would let me drive, fly and work. But my grandparents worried about the Portland trip and the 

Washington internship, While Lola offered daily 

prayers so that I would not get caught, Lola told 

me that I was dreaming too big, risking too much. 

I was determined to pursue my ambitions. I 

was 22, I told them, responsible for my own 

actions. But this was different from Lolo's driving 
501 

a confused teenager to Kinko's. I knew what f 

was doing now, and I knew it wasn't right. 

I was paying state and federal taxes, hut I was 

using an invalid Social Security card and writing 

false inrormation on myemp!oyment forms. But 

that seemed better than depending on my grand~ 

parents oron Pat, Rich and Jim, or seeking some 

kind of government assistance - or returning to 

a country I barely remembered. I convinced 

myself all would be O.K. if I lived up tothe quali~ 

ties of a "citizen": hard work, self-reliance, love 

of my country. 

At the D.M.V. in Portland, I arrived with my 

photocopied Social Security card, my college 

J.D., a pay stub from The San Francisco Chroni· 

de and my proof of state residence - the letters 

to the Portland address that my support network 

had sent. It worked. My license, issued in 2003, 

was set to expire eight years later, on my 30th 

birthday, on Feb. 3, 2011. I had eight years to succeed professionally, and to hope that some sort 

of immigration reform would pass in the mean· 

time and allow me to stay. 

It seemed !ike all the time in the wortd. 

My summer in Washington was exhilarating. I 

was intimidated to be in a major newsroom but 

was assigned a mentor- Peter Perl, a veteran 

magazine writer - to help me navigate it. A 

few weeks into the internship, he printed out 

one ormy articles, about a guy who recovered 

a long~!ost wallet, circled the first two para~ 

graphs and left it on my desk.. "Great eye for 

details- awesome!" he wrote. Though I didn't 

know it then, Peter would become one more 

member of my net"vork. 

At the end of the summer, I returned to The 

San Francisco Chronicle. My plan was to finish 

school-I was now a senior- while I worked for 

The Chronicle as a reporter for the dty desk. But 

when The Post beckoned again, offering me a 

fulkime, two-year paid internship that I could 

start when r graduated in June 2004, it was too 

tempting to pass up. I moved back to Washington. 

About four months into my job as a reporter for 

The Post, I began feeling increasingly paranoid, as 

ifJ had "illegal immigrant" tattooed on my fore· 

head -and in Washington, of all places, where the 

debates over immigration seemed never·ending, 

I was so eager to prove myself that I feared I was 

annoying some colleagues and editors- and worried that anyone of these professional journalists 

could discover my secret. The anxiety was nearly 

paralyzing.! decided I had totell one of the higherups lIbout my situation. I turned to Peter. 

By this time, Peter had become part of newsroom management as The Post's director of 

training and professional development, a job he 

still holds. One afternoon in late October, we 

walked a couple of blocks to Lafayette Park, 

across from the White House. Over some 20 

minutes, sitting on a bench, I told him every· 

thing: the Social Security card, the driver's 

license, Pat and Rich, my family. 

Peter was shocked. "I understand you 100 

times better now," he said. He told me that I had 

done the right thing by telling him, and that it 

was now our shared problem. He said he didn't 

want to do anything about it just yet. f had just 

been hired, he said, and I needed to prove myself. 

"When you've done enough," he said, "we'll tell 

Don and Len together," (Don Graham is the 

chairman of The Washington Post Company; 

Leonard Downie Jr. was then the paper's executive editor.) We sealed the deal with a hug. A 

month later, I spent my first Thanksgiving in 

Washington with Peter and his family. 

In the five years that followed, f did my best 

to "do enough." [was promoted to staffwriter, 

reported on videoNgame culture, wrote a series 

on Washington's H.I.V./AIDS epidemic and 

covered the role of technology and socia! media 

in the 2008 presidential race. I visited the White 

House, where r interviewed senior aides and 

covered a state dinner - and gave the Secret 

Service the Social Security number I obtained 

with false documents. 

I did my best to steer clear of reporting on 

immigration policy but couldn't always avoid 

it. On two occasions, I wrote about Hillary 

Clinton's position on driver's licenses for 

undocumented immigrants. I also wrote a story 

about Senator Mel Martinet. of Florida, then 

the chairman of the Republican National Committee, who was defending his party's stance 

toward Latinos after only one Republican presidential candidate-John McCain, theco·author 

of a failed immigration bill- agreed to participate in a debate ~ponsored by Unlvlsion, the 

Spanish·language network. 

It was an odd sort of dance: I was trying to 

stand out in a highly competitive newsroom, yet 

I was terrified that if I stood out too much, I'd 

invite unwanted scrutiny. I tried to compartmentalize my fears, distract myselfbyreporting 

on the lives of other people, but there was no 

escaping the central conflict in my life. Maintaining a deception for so long distorts your 

sense of self. You start wondering who you've 

become, and why. 

In April 2008, I was part of a Post team that 

won a Pulitzer Prize for the paper's coverage of the 

Virginia Tech shootings a year earlier. Lolo died a 

year earlier, so it was Lola who called me the day 

of the announcement. The first thing she said was, 

"Anong mangyan kung maJ<Jman nang tao?" 

What will happen if people find out? 

I couldn't say anything. After we got off the 

phone, I rushed to the bathroom in the fourth floor 

of the newsroom, sat down on the toilet and cried. 

In the summer of2009, without ever having had 

that fonow~up talk with top Post management, I 

left the paper and moved to New York to join The 

Huffington Post. ! met Arianna Huffington at a 

Washington Press Club Foundation dinner I was 

covering for The Post !:\Vo years earlier, and she 

later recruited me to jDin her news site. I wanted 

to learn more about Web publishing, and I thought 

the new job would provide a useful education. 

Still, I was apprehensive about the move: Many 

companies were alreadyusing ENerify, a program 

set up by the Department of Homeland Security 

that checks ifprospective employees are eligible to 

work, and I didn't know if my new employer was 

among them. But I'd been able to get jobs in other 

newsrooms, I figured, so I filled out the paperwork 

as usual and succeeded in landing on the paYToll. 

While I worked at The Huffington Post, other 

opportunities emerged. My H.I.V./ AIDS series 

became a documentary film called "The Other 

City/' which opened at the Tribeca Film Festival 

last year and was broadcast on Showrime. I 

began writing for magazines and landed a dream 

assignment: profiling Facebook's Mark Zucker~ 

berg for The New Yorker. 

The more I achieved, the more scared and 

depressed I became, I was proud of my work) but 

there was always a cloud hanging over it, over me. 

MyoId eight·year deadline - the expiration of 

my Oregon driver's license -was approaching. 

Afterslightly less than a year,l decided to leave 

The Huffington Post. In part, this was because I 
502 

wanted to promote the uocumentl1ry and write a 

book about online culture or so I told my 

friends. But the real reason was, after so many 

years oftrymgto bea part of the system, offocusing al! my energy on my professional life, I had 

learned that no amount of professional success 

would solve my "problem" or ease the sense of 

loss and displacement I felt. I ask questions for a 

living, yet I could hardly answer the questions of 

my own life.llied to a friend about why I couldn't 

take a weekend trip to Mexico. Another time I 

concocted an excuse for why I couldn't go on an 

aH-expenses-paid trip to Switzerland. I have been 

unwilling, for years, to be in a long-term relationship because 1 never wanted anyone to get too 

close and ask too many questions. All the while, 

Lola's question was stuck in my head: What will 

ha[)pen if people find out? 

Early this year, just two weeks before my 30th 

birthday, I won a small reprieve: I obtained a 

driver's license in the state of Washington. The 

license is valid until 2016. This offered me five 

more years of acceptable identification - but 

also five more years of fear, of lying to people I 

respect and institutions that trusted me, ofrun~ 

ning away from who I am. 

I'm done running.l'm exhausted. I don't want 

that life anymore. 

So I've dedded to come forward, own up to 

what I've done, and tell my story to the best of 

my recollection. I've reached out to former 

bosses and employers and apologized for misleading them - a mix of humiliation and liberatioll comillg with each disclosure. All the 

people mentioned in this article gave me permission to use their names. I've also talked to 

family and friends about my situation and am 

working with legal counsel to review my 

options. I don't know what the consequences 

wi!! be of telling my story. 

1 do know that I am grateful to my grandparents for giving me the chance for a better life. I'm 

also grateful to my other family - the support 

network I found here in America - for encouraging me to pursue my dreams. I wrote a short 

essayabout Pat and Rich in The Washington Post 

magazine in 2005, rcferriog to them as my parents, and I still feel that way, 

It's been almost 1S years since I've seen my 

mother. Early on, I was mad at her for putting 

me in this position, and then mad at myselffor 

being angry and ungrateful. By the time I got to 

college, we rarely spoke by phone. It became 

too painful; after a while it was easier to just 

send money to help support her and my two 

half·siblings. My sister, 2 years old when I left, 

isalmost20 now. I've never met my 14-year~o!d 

brother. I would love to see [he-m. 

Not long ago, I called my mother. I wanted to 

fill the gaps in my memory about that August 

Be .. efact~H$ Varxaswith the school officials 

Rich Fischerand Pat I~J'lalld at hi, hIgh-school 

gradIMtio/!; witl! his grandfather, Lola, 

with whom he lived and who provided m05to/ 

the resources for hUJourney toAmcnca. 

morning so many years ago. We had never discussed it. Part of me wanted to shove (he memory 

aside, but to write this article and face the facts 

of my life, I needed more details. Did I cry? Did 

she? Did we kiss goodbye? 

My mother told me I was excited about meeting a stewardess, about getting on a plane. She 

also reminded me of the one piece of advice 

she'd given me for blending in: If anyone asked 

why I was coming to America, I should say I 

was going to Disneyland .• 
503 
504 

Iii i 

Nation ilmmlgration 2,19 

'Why haven't you 

gotten deported?' That's usually the first thing people 

ask me \,-,hen they learn I'm an undc~:umented immigrant or, rut more 

rudely, an "illegal" Some ask it with 

anger ortrustration, others with genuine bafflement. At a restaurant in 

Birmingham) not farfrom the llniversity of Alabama, an inebriated you ng 

white man challenged me: "'You got 

yuur papers?" I told him I didn't. 

","'lell, you should get your ass home. 

then." In California, a middle-aged 

white woman threw up her arms and 

wanted to know: "\\lhyhasn't Obama 

dealt with you?" At least once a day, 

I get that question, or a variation of 

it, via e-mail, hveet or Facehook message, Why, indeed, am I still here? 

It's a fair question. and it's been 

hanging over me every day for the 

past year, eversince I publicly revealed 

my undocumented status. There are 

a~ estimated 11.5 million people like 

me in this country, human beings 

with stories as varied asAmericaitself 

yet lacking a legal claim to exilit here. 

like many others, I kept my status 

a secret, passing myself off as a US. 

citizen-right down to cultivating a 

homegm\vn accent. I went to college 

and became a journalist, earning a 

staff job at the Vv1ashington Post But 

the deception weighed on me. \Vhen I 

eventually decided to admit the tru th, 

I chose to come out publicly-very 

publicly-in the form of an essay for 

the Xe\V York Times la~t June, Several immigration lawyers counseled 

against doing this. ("It's legal suicide," 

warned one.) Broadcasting my status 

to millions seemed tantamount to an 

indtation to the immigration cops: 

Here I am. Come pick me up. 

So I waited And waited some 

more. As the months passed, thefe 

' .... ere no knocks on my door, no papers served, no calls or letters from 

U.S. Immigration and Customs En· 

forcement(ICE), whkh deported are· 

cord 396,906 people in fiscalzoII, Be· 

fore 1 came out, the question always 
505 

- at the top of my mind was, What will 

happen ifpeoplefindout? Afterward. 

the question changed to What happens now? It seemed I had traded a 

largely hidden undocumented life in 

limho for an openly undocumented 

life t hat's still in limbo. 

But as I've tTisscrossed the US.-

participating in more than 60events 

in nearly 20 states and learning all I 

can about this debate that divides 

our country (yes, it's my country 

too)-l've realized that the most important questions are the ones other 

people ask me. I am now a walking 

conversation that most people are 

uncomfortable having. And once 

that com'ersation starts, it's dear 

why a consensus on solving our immigration dilemma is so elusive. The 

questions 1 hear indicate the things 

people don't know, the things they 

think they knO\\<' hut have heen misinformed~ about and the views they 

hold but do not ordinarily voice. 

I've also been witness~ to a gh ift I 

IHI II 

~ Video I Watch a.nd hear JoseAntonio "'~lr~.1as and athtT 

tmdocwnented immigmnts 

3/19 

believe will be a game changer for population. At least 2,000 undocuthe debate: more people coming out. mentl'il immigrants-most of them 

\Vhile closely associated with the under ]o-have contacted me and 

modern gay-rights movement, in outed themselves in the past year. 

recent years the term comin!1 out and OthersarecomingOlltoversodalmethe act itself have been embraced by dia orin person to their friends, their 

the country's young undocumented fellow students, their colleagues. 
506 

am 

It's true, these individuals-many 

hrought to the U.S. by family when 

they were too young to understand 

what it means to be «illegal"-art! a 

fra(1ion of the miUions living hidden lives. But each hemmes another 

walking conversation. ,iVe love tlus 

country. \Ve contrihute to it This is 

our ho~e. \Vhat happens when even 

more of us step forward? How \·till 

the u.s. government and American 

citizens~act then? 

The contradictions of our immigration dehate are inescapable. 

Polls show substantial support for 

creating a path to citizenship for 

some undocumenteds-yet 52% of 

Americans !l'Upport allowing police 

to stop and question anyone they 

suspect of heing "illegal." Democrats 

are viewed as being more welcoming to immigrant". but the Ohama 

Administration has sharply ramped 

up deportations. The probusiness 

GOP waves a KEEP OUT flag at the 

:\1e~ican horder and aHI::Lp WANTEO 

iikE; 

4119 

sign TOO yards in. since so many in· 

dustries depend on cheap lahor. 

Election-year politics is rurther 

confusing things. as hoth parties 

scramble to attract Latinos without 

scaring off other constituencies.. President Obama has a.s much as a 3-to-I 

lead over )'1ittRomney among Latino 

voters, but hi') deportation push is 

dampening their enthus.iasm. Romney has a crucial ally in Florida Senator )'-1arco Rubio, a Cuhan American, 

hut is hurdened hy the sharp anti~ 

immigrant rhetoric he unleashed 

in the primary-election hattIe. This 

month, the Supreme Court is e)lllect· 

ed to rule on Arizona's cont roversial 

anti-immigrant law. A decision either 

way could galvanize reform support· 

ers and opponents alike. 

But the real political nash point is 

tht! proposed Dream Act, a decadeold immigration bill that\vould pro· 

vide a path to citizenship for young 

people educated in this country. 

The hill never pa,~ed, but it focused 
507 

Nation! Immigration 

attention on these youths, who call 

themselves the Dreamers, Both the 

President and Rubio have placed 

Dreamers at the center of their re~ 

form efforts-hut with sharply differingviews on howtoaddress them, 

ICE, the division of the Department of Homeland Securitv (DHS) 

charged with enforcing imm'igration 

laws, is its own contradiction, a tangled bureaucracy saddled with conflicting goals. A", the weeks passed after my public confession, the fears of 

my lawyersa nd friends began to seem 

faintly ridiculous. Coming out didn't 

endanger me; it had protected me. 

A Philippine-born, colleb'l'-educated, 

wtsfJoken mainstream journalist is 

not the face the government wants to 

put on its deportation program, Even 

S(), who flies unclerthe radar, and who 

hecomes one of those unfortunate 

396,')067 \Vho stays, who goes, and 

\\'ho decides? E\-entuaHy I confronted 

ICE about its plans for me, and learne 

away wi tl1 even more questions·. 
508 

iMti 

1 am not without contradictions 

either. Jam 31 and have heen a working journalist for a decade. I know I 

can no longer claim to he a detached, 

objective reporter, at least in the trarntionalsense. lam part of this evohing 

story and growing movement. It is 

pEI50nal Though I have worked hard 

to approach this is~ue like any other, 

I've aL<;o found myself drawn to the 

aeri vis ts, driven to help tell their story. 

This i~ the time to tell it. 

'Why don't you 

become legal?' 

asked 79 year-old William Ogleshy 

of Iowa City, Iowa. It was early December, a few weeks hefore the Iowa 

caucuses, and I was attending a .Mitt 

Romnev to\vn hall at an animalfeed m;ker. Romney had jmt fielded 

questions from a group of voters, 

including Oglesby and his wife Sharon, both Repl1blican~, .'iddressing 

immigration, Romney said, "For 

those who have come here mega ny, 

]I 

they might have a transition time to 

allow them to set their affairs in order and then go hack home and get 

in line \vith everybody dse." 

"1 haven't hecome legal; 1 told 

\ViJIiam, "'becausethere'snowav for 

me to become legal, sir." ~ 

Sharon jumped in. "'You can't get 

a green card?" 

"Xo, nla'am:' 1 said. "There's no 

process for me." Of all the questions 

I've been asked in the past year, 

"\Vhy don't you become legal?" is 

probably the most exasperating. But 

it speaks to how unfamiliar most 

Americans are with how the immi-

!:,'Tation process works. 

As Angela ~1. Kelley, an immigration advocate in \Vashington. told 

me, "'If you think the American tax 

code is outdated and complicated, try 

understanding America's immigra· 

tion code."Theeasiest \Vayto become 

a U.S. citizen is to be born heredoesn't matter who your parents 

are; you're in. (The main exception 
509 

is for children of foreign diplomatic 

offil;als.} If you were hom outside 

the ns. and want to come here, the 

golden ticket is the so-called green 

card, a dOL\.Iment signifying that the 

t 15, government has granted you 

permanent-resident status, meaning you're able to live and, more im~ 

portant, work here. Once you have 

a green card, you're on your way to 

eventual citizenship-in as little 

as three years if you marry a US. 

citizen-as long as you don't hreak 

the law and you meet other requirements such as pa}ing a fee and passing a civics test. 

Obtaining a green card means 

navigating one of the two principal 

ways of getting permanent legal sta~ 

ills in the U.S.: family or specialized 

work. To apply for a green card on 

the basis offamily, you need to be a. 

spouse, parent, chikl or sibling of a citizen. «;reen·card holders can petition 

only for their spouses or unmarried 

children.) Then it's time to get in line. 

MANOEEP CHAHAL 

India 

'lJwptlifgaOlllD 

b..'wrtleaJodar.' 
510 

fiG ] 

For green-card seekers, the U.S. has a 

quota of ahout 25,000 green cards per 

country each year. That means :\101-

dova (IxJpulation: 3.5 million) gets the 

same number of green cards as :'v1exico (population: II2million~ The wait 

time depends on demand. If you're in 

.'..lexico, India, the Philippines or another nation with many applicants, 

expect a ""vait of year sorev en decades. 

(Right now, for e..xample, the US. is 

considering Filipino sihHngs who applied in January 1989.) 

Taking the employment route to 

a green card meaIL" clearing a pretty 

high haT if you have an employer 

who's willing to hire you. There 

are different levels of priority, with 

preference given to people with job 

skills considered crucial, such as 

",peci~llized medic~ll professionals, 

advanced-degree holders and executives of multinational companies. 

There's no wditing list for those. If 

you don't qualify for a green card, 

you may he ahle to secure one of 

m 

9 l 19 

the- few kinds of temporary work 

visas-including the now famous 

HI"B visas that are common in Silicon Valley. For those already in the 

U.S. without documentation-tho!>"e 

who have sneaked across a border 

or ov-erstayed a temporary dsa-it's 

e\'en more complicated. Options are 

extremely limited. One route is to 

marry a Us. citizen, but it's not as 

easy as the mO\ies would have you 

think. The proce.!."S can take years, 

especially if a sham marriage is suspected. I couldn't marry my way into 

citizenship e\"en if I wanted to. I'm 

gay. Same·sex marriage is not recog· 

nized by the federal governmentexplicitly so, ever since Congress 

passed the Defem,"e of :vtarriage Act. 

From the government's perspective, 

forme to pursue a path to legalization 

now, I would have to leave the U.s., 

return to the Philippines and hope to 

qualify via employment, since I don't 

have any qualifying family members 

here. But because I have admitted to 
511 

being in the u.s. illegally, I would he 

suhject toa lO·year bar he-fore any application would he considered. 

TIle long-staBed Dream Act is the 

best hope for many young people. 

The original 2001 ver~,;on ""QuId 

have created a path to legal statuseffectively a green card-for undocumented people age 1I and under 

who had graduated from high school 

and resided in the US. for five years. 

As the bill stalled in Congress and 

Dreamers got older. the age requirement went u~ getting as high as 

35. Rubio is expected to introduce 

his own variation, granting nonimmigrant visas so Dreamers could 

legally stay in the U.S., go to school 

and work. Its prospects are dim 

in a griillocked Congress. Obama, 

meamvhile. is said to be weighing 

an Executive Order that would halt 

deportation of Dream Act--eligible 

youth and provide them \\lith work 

permits. Under both Rubio's bill (details of which are not yet confirmed) 

TOW OlUBUNMI 

~gL't'i.J. 

'fmadk'mic/ll 

CI:lij'HlCffWaN 

aJt)oX>Ilt:Jrrrhwrwn 

lIH1icil.rilri!:/hts.: 
512 

--""",,-"" """""- , ~ ~~ 

Nation Ilnnnlg;ration 

""""''''-'''''''''''',.,,' 

JOBS 

THEY FlU. 

WIlE .. 

'IliEY'R£FROM 

.-... _ ......... _ ...... . 

1111 

and Obama's Executive Order (which 

is being studied), Dreamers could be· 

come legal residents. However, both 

proposals are only the first steps of a 

longer journey to citizenship. 

'Why did you get your 

driver's license when you 

knew it wasn't legal? Do you think you belong to a special 

class of people who can break any 

laws they please?" 

These were the questions of a palite, mild-mannered man namedKon--

rad Sosnow, who I later learned was a 

lawyer. In late March, Sosnowand I 

participated in what was billed as a 

"civility roundtable" on immigration 

in my adopted hometown of Moun· 

tain View, '.alif. About 120 people at· 

tended. Sosnow had read my coming· 

out story and wanted to know why I 

had such disregard for laws. 

"I don't think I belong to a special 

class of people-not at all," I remem~ 

ber telling Sosnow. "I didn't get the li· 

cense to spite you or disrespect you or 

because I think I'm better than you. 

I got the license because, like you, I 

needed to go to work. People like me 

get licenses becanse we need to drop 

kids off at school and becanse we 

need to pick up groceries. I am sorry 

for what I did, but I did it because I 

had to live and survive." Sosnownod· 

ded, not exactly in agreement but at 

least with some understanding. We 

shook hands as the evening drew to 

a close. Months later. Sosnov.r told me 

he's written e·mails to the President 

and other elected officials, asking for 

immigration reform. 

Everyday life for an undocument· 

edAmerican means a constant search 

for loopholes and back doors. Take air 

traveL for instance. Everyone knows 

that in the pOst·I)III era, you can't 

fly without a government~issued In. 

The easiest option for most people is 

their driver's license. Most states will 

not issue a license without proof of 

legal residency or citizenship. But a 
513 

Nation ilmmlgratlon 

Jew grant licenses to undocumented 

immigrants) New ~fexiro and Wash~ 

ington State among them Like many 

othe"ffi, I had falsely posed as a Washington State resident in order to geta 

license. Weeks after my coming-out 

essay was published last year, Wash· 

ington revoked the license-not because I'm undocumented but because 

I don't actually live in Washington. 

For those who don't have a driver's 

license-that includes me now-a 

passport from OUI native country 

can serve as ID. But it makes every 

flight a gamble. My passport, which I 

got through the Philippine embassy, 

lacks a visa. If airport security agents 

tum the pages and discover this, they 

can contact Customs and Border Protection, which in turn can detain me. 

But for domestic /lights, securityusu· 

aUy checks just the name, photo and 

expiration date, not for the visa. 

We may be nonpeople to the TSA 

but not to the IRS. Undocumented 

workers pay taxes. I've paid income 

[AJYON.mKY 

-

Dontini1.."au 

Republic 

'M'.v.ummls 

WMon1Irll 

1Ul!~tJu";: 

,h'fm:' 
514 

taxe~ state and federal, since 1 started 

working at 18. The IRS doesn't care 

if I'm here legaHy; it cares about its 

money. Some undocumented ptx)ple, 

of course. circumvent the system, ju~t 

like some citizens. But according to 

the nonpartisan Institute on Ta"{ation and Economic Policv, hOll.';eholds 

headed bv Und(Xllrne~ted \vorkers 

wUecth-ely paid SIL2 billion in state 

and local taxes in 20ID-$I.2 billion 

in income taxes, sl.6 billion in property taxes (because undocumented 

immigrants do own property) and 

88.4- billion in consumption taxes. 

\\/e also pay into Social Secur ity. Even 

as manv of us contribute, \ve cannot 

avail o~rselves of a great deal of the 

services those tax dollars pay for. 

\\lben you lack legal status, the 

threat of deportation is a constant 

concern. In three years, Obama has 

deported I.Z million; it took President 

Ceorge \v. Bush eight years to deport 

1.6 millioo. "lInder both the Bush and 

Obama administrations, we have re12/19 

versed ourseh'es as a nation of immigrants," Bill Ong Hing, a veteran immigration lawyer. told me. (Indeed. 

nations like Canada now have higher 

percentages of immigrant'> than the 

"melting pot" ofthe II.S.) 

A big driver of the deportation 

numbers is ICE's Secure Communi· 

ties program, \vhich was meant to 

target terrorists and ~'erious crimi· 

nals but also \\rinds up snaring 

those \,-,hose only crimes are civil 

violations connected to being un· 

documented (like driving without a 

license). Students and mothers have 

heen detained and deported alongside murderers and rapists. 

Depending on how the politics 

plays to the local electorate, many 

states wind up writing theirO\vn immigration laws. Two years ago, Arizona passed SB !07D-it'> "Show me 

your papers" bill-then the strictest 

immigration law in the country. 

It embodies an attrition-throughenforcement dOl1rine: the state will 
515 

so threaten the livelihood of it"> undocumented population that they 

will just give up and selfdepnrt. 

Among the bill's most controversial 

provisions, currently being reviewed 

by the Supreme Court, is one giving 

la\v-enforcement officials the power 

to stop anyone whom they suspect 

to ~ "illegal." Arizona's law inspired 

copycat bills across the coun try. 

for all the roadblocks, though, 

many of us get by thanks to our fdlow Americans. \Ve relyon agrowing 

network of citizens-Good Samaritans, our pastors, our co-workers, 

ou r teac hers who protect and look 

after us. As I've traveled the countr\', 

I've seen how members of this u~­

derground railroad are coming out 

ahout theirsupport for us too. 

'So you're not Mexican?' 

an elderly white\voman named Ann 

(she declined to give her last name) 

asked me when 1 told her about my 

undocumented !>1atus last Octo~r. 
516 

NatIon Ilrnrnlcratlon 

We stood in front of a Kohl~ department store in Alabama, which 

last year outdid ArUona by passing 

HB 56, the country', most draconim 

immigration law. HB S6 requires 

pubIic,choolstocollecttheimmigratioo status of new students and their 

parents and makes it a felooy for 

anyone to transport or house an undocumented immigrant. Both provisions are currently blocked by federal 

courts pending a ruling 

Ann,a registered RepubIican, was 

born and raised in the South, where 

immigration is introducing a new 

varuble into the old raria! divide. 

Alabama's immigrant population, 

thongh still reiatively small, has 

nearly doubled in the past decade. 

The state's Latino population alone 

grew from L7% of the overall populmonin 2000 to nearly 4-% in 20IOabout IBo,ooo people, according 

to Census figures. But when I told 

Ann I am Filipino, she scrunched 

her forehead "My border; I ex· 

plained, 'was the Pacific Ocean.' 

Though roughly 59% ofthe esti· 

mated n.5 million undocumented 

immigrants in the U.S. are from 

Mexico, the rest are not About I million come from Asia and the Pacific 

Islauds, about Boo,ooo from South 

America and about 300,000 from 

Eur~. Others C(Rlle from Nigeria, 

Israel, pretty much everywhere. In 

the case of countries that don't share 

a border with the US. these are almost always people who entered the 

country Iegally--as vacationers or 

on temporary visa~ overstayed 

the time permitted. 

But perception has become real· 

ity. What~ cemented in people's 

consciousness is the television reel 

of Mexicans jumping a fence. Reality check: illegal border crossings are 

at their lowest level since the Nixon 

era, in part because of the continued 

economic slump and stepped·up enforcement. Accocding to the Office 

of Immigration Statistics at DHS, 

14/19 

86% of undocumented immigrants 

have been living in the U.S. for seven 

years or longer. 

Still, for many, immigratinn is 

synonymous with Mexicans and 

the border. In several instances, 

white conservatives I spoke to 

moved from discussing "illegals' in 

particnlar to talking about Mexi· 

cans in general-about Spanish be· 

ing overheard at Walmart, about the 

onslaught of new kids at schools and 

new neighbors at churches, about 

the 'other" people. The immigra· 

tion debate, at its COl"eJ is impossible 

to separate from America's unprec· 

edented and cuJture-shifting demographic makeover. Whites represent 

a shrinking share of the total U.s. 

population. Recently the U.s. Cen· 

sus repocted that for the first time, 

children born to racial- and ethnicminority parents represent a major· 

ity of all new births. 

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, there are also at least 
517 

Nation I Immigration 

17 million people who are legally 

living in the U.S. but whose fami· 

lies have at least one undocumented 

immigtant. Aboot 4.5 million U.S.-

citizen kids have at least one un~ 

documented parent. ImmigIation 

experts call these mixed-status fam· 

ilies, and [ grew up in one. [ come 

from a large Filipino clan in which, 

among dozens of cousins and uncles 

and aunties and many American~ 

born nieces and nephews, I'm the 

only one who doesn't have papers. 

My mother sent me to live with my 

grandparents in the US. when [was 

12. When [ was 16 and applied for a 

driver's permit, [ found out that my 

green card-my main form of legal 

identification-was fake. My grand. 

parents, both naturalized citizens, 

hadn't told me.lt was disorienting. 

first discovering my precarious 

status, then realizing that \\-nen ! 

had been pledging allegiance to the 

flag, the republic for which it stands 

didn't have room for me. 

f.1J MEUSSA 

VEliZ 

ColomhLl 

'lt1.,.mHobIXJJmea 

&'dalUlf<rkcr.' 

12J MyUNG 

KEUNCHOf 

South Knf!'a 

'1 w.lI1tlo brtiw fhtlll!1CI1W:IIlLlHlt 

f;;1Soo'o:'inthewarid.' 

fJ}WIUAN 

MEJIA 

I.e.J-o$CAR 

CHICO 

\ieJiiro 

-ltt .. mH"beQ 

t<lttoo<1t'tisl 

.Wdflj'!(fl.".' 
518 

Nation ilmmigratlon 

'Why did you come out?' asked 2o.year-old Gustavo Madrigal, who attended a talk I gaveatthe 

University of Georgia in late April. 

Like many Dreamers I've met, Madrigal is active in his community. 

Since he grew up in Georgia. he's 

needed to be. A series of measures 

have made it increasingly tough for 

undocumented students there to at· 

tend state universities. 

"Why did you come out?" I asked 

him in turn 

"I didn't have a choice: Madrigal 

replied. 

"I also reached a point," I told 

him. ~when there was no other 

choice but to come out" And it is 

true for so many others. We are 

living in the golden age of coming 

out. There are no overall numbers 

on this. but each day 1 encounter 

at least five more openly undocu~ 

mented people. As a group and as individuals, we are putting faces and 

names and stories on an issue that 

is often treated as an abstraction. 

Technology, especially social 

media, has played a big role. Online, people are telling their stories 

and coming out, asking others to 

consider life from their perspec· 

tive and teSting everyone's em~ 

pathy quotient. Some realize the 

risks of being so public; others, 

like me, think pUblicity offers pro· 

tection. Most see the value of con~ 

neeting with others and sharing 

experiences-hy liking the page of 

United We Dream on Facebook, for 

example, or watching the Undocumented and Awkward video series 

on YouTuhe. 

This movement has its roots in 

the massive immigrant-rights rallies of 2006, which were held in pnr 

test ofHR 4437, a Repoblican·hacked 

House hill that would have classified 

undocumented immigrants and 

anyone who helped them enter and 

remain in the U.s. as felons. Though 

the bill died, it awakened activism 

17i 19 

in this young generation. Through 

Facebook, Twitter and YouTh be,l encountered youths who were bravely 

facing their truths. 

"For many people, coming 

out is a way of saying you're not 

alone: says Gaby Pacheco of Unit· 

ed We Dream. Her parents came 

from Ecuador and brought her to 

the U.S. in '993, when she was 7. 

Immigration officials raided her 

home in 2006, and her family has 

heen fighting deportation since. 

Now 27. she has three education 

degrees and wants to be a specialeducation teacher. But her life remains on hold while she watches 

documented friends land jobs and 

plan their futures. Says Pacheco: 

"In our movement, you tome out 

for yourself, and you come out for 

other people." 

The movement, as its young 

members call it, does not have a 

single leader. News travels hy tweet 

and Fatebook update, as it did when 
519 

Nation I Immigration 

we heard that Joaquin Luna, an 

undocumented IS·year·old from 

Texas, killed himself the night after 

Thanksgiving and, though this is 

unproved. we instantly connected 

his death to the stresses of living as 

a Dreamer. Some Dreamers. contem~ 

plating coming out, ask me whether 

they should pretend to be legal to get 

by. "Should I just do what you did? 

You koow, check the citizensbip 

box [on a government form] and try 

to get the job?" a few have asked me. 

Often I don't koow how to respond. 

fd like to tell them to be open and 

honest, but I know lowe my career 

to my silence for all those years. 

Sometimes alii can manage to say 

is ·You have to say yes to yourself 

when the world says no." 

'What next?' Is the question I ask myself now. 

it's a question that haunts every un--

documented person in the U.S. The 

problem is, immigration has become 

GABYPACliECO 

t::Cu",dcr 

"UyJrL"iIfn i.t M 

beab[;:i;l/~<] 

mtlsi(i!1thrr-arj~L' 
520 

Nation I Immigration 

a third-rail issue in Washington, 

n.C-more controversial even than 

health care because it deals with i,-

sues of race and class, of entitlement 

and privilege, that America has 

struggled with since its founding. As 

much as we talk about the problem, 

we rarely focus on coming up with 

an actual soIution-an equitable 

process to fi x the system_ 

Maybe Obama will evolve on immigrantrights. jU'it as he's evolved on 

gay rights, and lL"" his executive powers to stop the deportations of undocumented youths and allow US to stay, 

go to school and work, if only \\;th a 

temporary reprieve. The Republican 

Party can go one of two ways. It will 

either make room for its moderate 

voices to craft a compromise; after 

alL john McCain, to name just one, 

was a supporter of the Dream Att. 

Or the party will pursue a hard-line 

approach, further isolating not just 

Latinos, the largest minority gmup 

in the Us., but also a growing multi-

.th nie America that's adapting to the 

inevitable demographic and rultoral 

shifts. In 2ISt century politics, diversity is destiny. 

As forme, what happells llext isnl 

just a philosophical question. I spend 

every day wondering what, if anything, the government plans to do 

with me. Aftermonths of waiting for 

something to happen, I decided that 

I would amfront immigration offidals myself. Since I live in r\'ew York 

City, I called the loeallCE office. The 

phone operators I first reached were 

taken aback when I explained the 

reason for my call Finally I was con+ 

neeted toanlCEofficer. 

"Are you planning 00 deporting 

me?" I asked. 

I quickly found out that even 

though I publicly came out ahoutmy 

undocumented status, I stilI do not 

.,,-ist in the eyes of ICE. Like most undocumented immigrants, I've never 

been arrested. Therefore. I've never 

been ill contact with ICE. 

19! 19 

'1\fter checking the appropriate 

ICE databases, the agency has no records of ever encountering Mr. Var~ 

gas," Luisrvlartmez,a spoke~man for 

theICE office in New York, wrote me 

in an e-mail. 

I then contacted the ICEheaclqnar. 

lers in WashingtoI1- I hoped to get 

Some insight into my status and that 

of all the others who are coming out. 

How does ICE view these cases? Call 

publicly revealing undocumented 

status trigger deportation proceedings, and if so, how is that decided? Is 

ICE planning to seek my deportation? 

"We do not comment on specific 

cases," is all I was told. 

I am still here. StiU in limbo. So are 

nearly I2 million others like meenough to populate Ohio. We are 

working with you, going to school 

with you. paying taxes with you, 

worrying about oUI bills with you 

What exactly do you want to do with 

us? More important, when will you 

realizethatweareoneofyou? • 
521 

WASHINGTON OFFICE ON LATIN AMERICA 

Promoting human rights, democracy, and social justice 

Written Testimony Submitted by Adam Isacson and Maureen Meyer 

Washington Office on Latin America 

Hearing of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" 

February 13, 2013 

Since 2011 the Washington Office on Latin America's Border Security and Migration project 

has visited six of the nine regions into which Border Patrol divides the U.S.-Mexico border. 

On both sides, we have met with law enforcement and migration officials, human rights 

advocates, humanitarian workers, lawyers, journalists, scholars, and migrant shelter staff. 

Our work has introduced us to a reality quite different from the way the border often gets 

portrayed in Washington. Mexico's severe recent violence has almost entirely failed to 

"spill over" into the United States.' The number of migrant apprehensions has dropped 

precipitously, even as drug seizures have climbed. 

Our work on the border has made us aware of greatly increased, but questionably 

allocated, U.S. border security resources; a lack of strategic clarity following a historic 

buildup; practices that make deportees vulnerable to organized crime; and a sharply rising 

toll of migrants who die preventably of thirst, exposure, drowning Of similar causes while 

on U.S, soil. 

Future efforts to secure our southern border must reflect the reality on the ground, while 

ensuring that enforcement policies do not multiply risks to migrants' lives and safety. Now 

is the time for the U.s. government, in collaboration with Mexico, to make the world's 

busiest frontier more efficient, lawful, and humane for the rest of the twenty-first century. 

As Congress begins discussing immigration reform, with further increases in border 

security spending a likely outcome, we ask that it consider the following elements. 

I, Focus additional border security investments on the ports of entry. 

It appears likely that any immigration reform measure this year will include a further 

buildup of security assets and capabilities on the U.S.-Mexico border. If that happens, we 

1 See the discussion of spfHover violence data on pages 5-7 of WOLA's retent report Beyond the Border Buildup (Washington: 

WOLA, April 2012) <http://www.wola.org/files/Beyond_the_Border_BuHdup_FINAl.pdf>, and the analysis of Arizona state 

violent crime statistics at WOLA's Border Fact Check website: "Is Arizona suffering 'Increased crime and drugs' because of the 

border?" Border Fact Check (Washmgton: WDLA, August 13, 2012) <http://borderfactcheck.tumbILcom/post/29317170766jisarizona-suffering-lncreased-crime-and-drugs>. 
522 

ask that it make the distinction among areas between land ports of entry, where coverage is 

quite thorough, and the ports of entry themselves, where needs are greater. 

Recent years have seen a dramatic increase in federal efforts to cover the mostly remote 

and rural areas between the ports of entry. Border Patrol. the agency primarily responsible 

for these areas, has experienced a fivefold increase in personnel in the last twenty years. By 

the end of2012, there were 18,516 Border Patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border, up 

from 9,891 in 2005 and 3,496 in 1993.2 Customs and Border Protection's Office of Air and 

Marine now has over 290 aircraft at its disposal. including seven Predator-B drones 

patrolling the U.S.-Mexico border and a plan to reach 11 drones by 2016.3 

Data on apprehensions indicate that undocumented migration across the U.S.-Mexico 

border has fallen to earIy-1970s levels.4 Combine this drop with the increase in Border 

Patrol personnel. and the number of migrants apprehended per Border Patrol officer (19 in 

2012) is now one tenth of what it was in 2000.5 

Apprehensions per Border Patrol Agent, 1992-2012 

-Oll 

1IIIIIhh 2 U.S. Border Patrol, "Border Patrol Agent Staffing By Fiscal Year' (Washington: Customs and Border Protection, February 2013) 

<http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/border_security/border_patro1/usbp_statistics/usbp_fy12_stats/staffing_1993_2012.ct 

t/staffinL1993_2012.pdf>. 

3 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, "Offlce of Air and Marine Overview" (Washington: Customs and Border Protection, 

October 5, 2010) <http://www .cbp.gov /xp/cgov/border _secu rlty fa mt documents/oa m_nr/cbp _air_rna rine _overview .xml>. 

Brian Bennett, "Homeland Security adding 3 drone aircraft despite lack of pilots/' The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles: October 

27, 2011) <http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/27/nation/la-na-us-drone-20111027>. 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Observations on the Costs and Benefits of an Increased Department of Defense Role in 

Helping to Secure the Southwest Land Border (Washington: GAO, September 12, 2011) <http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO11-856R>. 

4 U.S. Border Patrol, "U.S. Border Patrol Total Apprehensions by Southwest Border Sectors Fiscal Year 1960-2012" "(Washington: 

Customs and Border Protection, February 2013) 

<http://www .cbp.gov /Iinkha nd Ie r /egov /borde r _security/borde r _patrol/usbp _ statistics/ usbp _fy12_stats/a ppr _ sWb.ctt/appr_s 

wb.pdf>. 

5 U.S. Border Patrol. "Border Patrol Agent Staffing By Fiscal Year/, op. cit. 

2 
523 

Instead, it is at the ports of entry where needs are now greatest and least fulfilled. While 

Border Patrol's presence doubled at the U.S.-Mexico border since 2005, that of CBP's Office 

of Field Operations, which interviews and inspects all would-be crossers, grew by only 14 

percent, to about 5,500 employees today.6 As a result, northbound waits at busy border 

crossings routinely last a commerce-stifling one to two hours, at times even more. 

The consequences of under funding the ports of entry go still further. Our interviews with 

law enforcement officials coincide in concluding that the majority of most drugs (with the 

possible exception of marijuana) pass through the ports of entry-not the areas in 

between-hidden in cargo containers, vehicles, and merchandise. Meanwhile, 

overwhelmed Field Operations staff can devote little time to southbound inspections that 

are needed to halt arms trafficking and bulk cash transfers. 

To address border security challenges effectively, and to make better use of U.S. financial 

resources, any additional investment should go to the agents at the ports of entry. 

2. Increase coordination among federal, state and local agencies by developing a 

comprehensive southwest border security strategy coordinated by the White 

House. 

After the buildup of the last several years, the U.S. government now has a multi-layered, 

overlapping, often confusing, and expensive set of agencies with border security 

responsibilities. 7 

These include components of the Departments of Homeland Security (CBP, Border Patrol, 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Justice (Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Defense (Northern Command, National Guard 

deployments), states, localities, and others. Some are civilian, some are military, and nearly 

all have their own separate intelligence capabilities. Their growth has been accompanied 

by numerous ad hoc efforts to get employees of different agencies to work together, share 

intelligence, and carry out joint operations through a series of task forces, fusion centers, 

and other coordination bodies. Even when they are part of the same cabinet department, 

however, agencies have different goals, cultures, authorities, and ways of measuring 

success, and may at times compete for resources-and thus for credit. 

This lack of clarity not only risks wasting resources. It can cause threats to be misread or 

missed. And it can cause consequences, like the humanitarian crisis facing the migrant 

population discussed below, to be overlooked, ignored, or even aggravated. 

6 United States Congress, "Testimony 01 Congressman Silvestre Reyes (TX-16) Belore the Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee Homeland Security" (Washington: U.S. House of Representatives, April 14, 2011) 

<http://web.archive.org(web/20121212125201/http://reyes.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx7DocumentID=249470 >. 

U,S. Government Accountability Office; Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen CBP Efforts to Mitigate Risk of Employee 

Corruption and Misconduct (Washington: GAO, December 4, 2012) <http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-59>. 

7 See the discussion of agencies' responsibilities on pages 17-28 of WOLA's recent report Beyond the Border Buildup 

(Washington: WOLA, April 2012) <http://www.wola.org(liles/Beyond_the_Border_BuildupJINAL.pdl>. 
524 

As is the case with the National Drug Control Strategy and Southwest 

Border Countemarcotics Strategy the development of a national border security strategy 

should be the responsibility of the White House, since so many cabinet departments have a 

stake in border security. The strategy must also take into account cooperation-including 

sharing resources and intelligence and carrying out joint operations-with agencies over 

which the White House has no jurisdiction, such as states,localities, and especially the 

Mexican government 

3. Increase efforts to protect migrants. 

3a. Abandon deportation practices that risk endangering people. 

The U.S. government's repatriation practices have prioritized dissuading migrants from 

reentry over preventing families from being separated and respecting deportees' human 

rights. Mexican migration officials, migrant shelters, and U.S. border groups repeatedly 

report violations of the 2004 Memorandum of Understanding on the Safe Orderly 

Dignified and Human Repatriation of Mexican Nationals and local agreements between 

governments on repatriation practices, particularly provisions regarding the time of day 

when-and ports of entry where-women and children can be repatriated. 

Although current agreements permit repatriation of able-bodied men 24 hours a day, 

returning any migrant in the post-midnight hours-as happens frequently-leaves 

deportees lacking shelter, bus services, and wire transfer services. At times, they may even 

be in danger: Mexico's six border states are all included in the State Department's 

November 2012 travel warning for Mexico.s Migrants in these states' cities are often 

victims of kidnapping, abuse, and extortion by criminal organizations and, at times, by 

Mexican officials. 

Between 2009 and 2012 we noted a disturbing trend: the United States increased 

repatriations to Mexican border cities in Coahuila and Tamaulipas states, where homicides 

at the time were rising-a key indicator of increasing danger. Where homicides were 

dropping, as in Sonora and Baja California states, U.S. authorities chose to repatriate fewer 

migrants.9 While the security crisis in Mexico's border zones continues, determinations of 

sites for repatriation must take into account security conditions, assessed on current data 

about risks. 

8 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, "Travel warning" (Washington: November 20,2012) 

<http://travel.state.gov/trave!/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_5815.html>. 

9 Government of Mexico, Secreta ria de Gobernaci6n, Sistema Nacional de Seguridad Publica, "jncidencia Delictiva Nacional, 

Fuero Comun" (Mexico: SNSP, 2013) 

<http://www.secretariadoejecutivQsnsp.gob.mx/es/SecretariadoEjecutivo!lncidencia_Delictiva_Nacional_fuero_comun>. 

Government of Mexico, Secretarfa de Gobernaci6n, Instituto Nacional de Migracion, "Boletines Estad(sticos" (Mexico: Centro de 

Estudios Migratorios, 2013) <http://www.inm.gob.mx!index.php/page/Boletines_Estadisticos>. 

4 
525 

The services available to deported migrants should also be a factor. Tijuana, Baja California 

state, where the United States reduced deportations by one-third between 2009 and 2012, 

has 12 migrant shelters. In contrast, one only shelter operates in Matamoros, Tamaulipas 

state, yet the number of migrants deported to this city more than quintupled in this 

period.1o 

The practice of "lateral repatriation," officially termed the Alien Transfer Exit Program 

CATEP), also puts some migrants at risk. The program moves undocumented male migrants 

from the sector where they were detained to another location, often hundreds of miles 

away, for removal. The rationale is to disrupt the connection between migrants and the 

smugglers with whom they originally crossed, thus making it harder to attempt another 

border crossing. 

Concerns about the program include a lack of transparency about its operations and 

guidelines about who can be laterally repatriated; the effects of repatriating Mexican 

migrants to cities with which they are unfamiliar, and which may lack safety and social 

services; and the separation of families. Multiple accounts indicate that migrants, especially 

those unfamiliar with their cities of arrival, are preyed upon by gangs and organized 

criminal groups when deported from the United States.ll 

10 Government of Mexico, Secreta ria de Gobernaci6n, Instituto Nacional de Migracion, "Boletines Estadfsticos/' op. cit. 

Universidad Aut6noma de Baja California Campus Mexicali, Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, Directorio de Organizaciones 

Sodates que Atlenden a Migrantes en la Frontera Norte de Mexico (Mexicali: !IS, 2013) 

<https://docs.google.com/file/d/OByHZE7WNNlsfaG9EZmxHdDRrMG8/edit>. 

11 Daniel Hernandez, {(Does U.S. deportation program put migrants in harm's way?" The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles: 

September 29, 2011) <http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/201l/09/mexico-zetas-deportation-illegal-immigrationletter-exit-transfer.html>. 

Richard Marosi, "Deportees to Mexico's Tamaulipas preyed upon by gangs," The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles: September 8, 

2012) <http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/08/local/la-me-deportee-danger-20120909>. 
526 

Immigration reform efforts should ensure that deportations of undocumented 

migrants to Mexico are carried out in a way that does not endanger them. Late-night 

returns and lateral repatriations should be stopped. In its cooperation with Mexico, the 

United States government should hold bi-national meetings every six months to assess the 

security situation and existing government and social services in Mexican border towns to 

determine which areas are safer and better equipped to receive repatriated migrants. This 

is particularly the case with migrants whom ICE is deporting from the interior of the United 

States. 

3b. Prevent migrant deaths. 

Every day, one or more migrants die on U.S. soil of dehydration, hypothermia, drowning, or 

similar causes related to the dangers of their journey. In fiscal year 2012, Border Patrol 

reported finding the remains of 463 migrants, over 100 more than in 2011 and the highest 

number on record since 2005,12 Deaths of migrants are increasing at a time when 

apprehensions of migrants-and thus most likely the total number of migrants-are 

dropping. This means that their passage is getting deadlier. 

Migrant Deaths in Arizona 

(Database of the Tucson Coalici6.n de Derechos Humano5 ~ biUy/XHzsTn) 

Many more of these lives could be saved with a few inexpensive adjustments in water 

availability, rescue beacons, and search-and-rescue capability. Additional funds should be 

appropriated to OHS to expand Border Patrol Search, Trauma, and Rescue Unit 

Nick Miroff, "Lateral deportation: Migrants crossing the Mexican border fear a trip sideways/ The Washington Post 

(Washington: February 12, 2013) <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/02112/Iateral-deportationmigrants-crossing-the-mexican-border-fear-a-trip-sldeways/>. 

12 U.S. Border Patrol, "U.s. Border Patrol Sector Profile" (Washington: Customs and Border Protection, February 2013) 

<http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/border_security/border_patrol!usbp_statistics/usbp_fy12_stats/usbp_sector_profile.ct 

t/usbp _sector_profile. pdf>. 

U.s. Border Patrol, "U.S. Border Patrol Sector Profile" (Washington: Customs and Border Protection, April 2012) < 

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/border_security/border_patrol!usbp_statistics/usbp_fy11_stats/fy_profile_2011.cttIfL 

profile_20ll.pdf>. 

Marc R. Rosenblum, Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry (Washington: Congressional Research 

Service, January 6, 2012): 33 <http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/180681.pdf>. 
527 

teams (BORST AR), particularly in southwest border sectors with high numbers of 

migrant deaths. Studies have shown that the probability of death decreases significantly if 

BORSTAR agents, as opposed to non-BORSTAR Border Patrol agents, respond to a migrant 

in distress. 13 

Since they enable agents to locate migrants in distress, Border Patrol has also affirmed that 

rescue beacons help them save migrants' lives.14 Access to water, too, can also be a 

question of life and death. Humanitarian organizations routinely place water jugs and 

drums in the borderlands, but their capacity is limited and state and federal agents at times 

obstruct their efforts. Directing Border Patrol to establish water drums, particularly 

alongside rescue beacons, would be an important step to avoid preventable deaths 

on U.S. soil. 

Preventing migrant deaths would also ease the financial burden on state and local 

authorities with meager resources to deal with migrant remains. Local officials in Brooks 

County, Texas, which saw migrant deaths nearly double in 2012, estimate that the costs of 

dealing with the unidentified dead, including mortician fees and autopsies, amount to 

hundreds of thousands of dollars each year,15 

4. Identify migrant remains. 

Many of these recovered remains, which now number in the thousands, are unidentified. 

No unified procedure exists to process remains and DNA samples of bodies found in the 

border region. Many remains have not had their DNA sampled, and there has been no 

consolidated effort to match the DNA of unidentified remains with family members 

searching for missing loved ones. 

An immigration reform effort could make it possible to identify the dead, and find 

the missing, by including the following modest measures. 

• Provide federal funding to counties and tribal governments for the handling and DNA 

analysis of remains found in U.S. territory within 200 miles of the border with Mexico. 

• Mandate and fund the creation ofa Missing Migrants program within the National 

Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs). This would include uploading all 

missing migrant cases into NamUS and directing all forensic institutions processing 

migrant remains to do the same. 

• Clearly authorize and encourage NamUs to respond to international requests and 

facilitate information sharing. 

13 u.s. Government Accountability Office, Border-Crossing Deaths Have Doubled Since 1995 (Washington, August 2006): 

<http://www.gao.gov /a ssets/260/2S 1173.pdl> 

14 U.S. Customs and Border Protectionl "Rescue Beacon Helps Border Patrol Agents Save Lives of Two People" (Falfurrias, Texas: 

CBP, April 27, 2012) 

<http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/newsJeleases/locaIj2012_news_releases/april_2012/04272012_S.xml>. 

15 "Death toll 01 illegal immigrants soars in South Texas," The Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Fort Worth, TX: January 1, 2013). 
528 

• Authorize and fund large-scale DNA comparisons between unidentified remains found 

in the U.S. and that of relatives of missing nationals provided by foreign consulates. 

Recent border security and migration resources from WOLA: 

• BorderFactCheck.org website 

• "Beyond the Border Buildup," an April 2012 report: www.bit.ly/MBzJzz 

• "Border Security and Migration: A Report from South Texas," January 2013: 

www.bit.ly/14pPotX 

• "Five Misconceptions about Border Security," February 2013: www.bit.ly/X3Mk4X 

• "An Uneasy Coexistence: Security and Migration Along the EI Paso-Ciudad Juarez Border," 

December 2011: www.bit.ly/xOH69n 
529 

Women's Refugee Commission 

Statement on Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee 

February 13, 2013 

The Women's Refugee Commission welcomes the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on 

Comprehensive Immigration Reform. As the Committee considers a commonsense 

approach to immigration reform, it is imperative that women and children be afforded 

opportunities, protections and pathways equal to those of men. Reform cannot be 

comprehensive unless it addresses the lived realities of all migrants in the United States. 

Migrant women and children are too often omitted from public discourse around 

immigration reform, even though they comprise a significant proportion of the total 

immigrant population. They come to the United States in search of opportunity, freedom, 

family unity and safety from violence in their home country. However, they have unique 

vulnerabilities that our immigration laws do not sufficiently address. Women and children 

are more likely to face exploitation and danger both at the border and in the interior. In 

addition, because women often lack access to higher education, they may not be able to 

avail themselves of the same opportunities for employment-based migration and suffer 

disproportionally from the backlogs in our family-based system. Families are too often 

separated by immigration enforcement practices that threaten women's custody oftheir 

children. And migrant children, many ofthem unaccompanied, have no access to legal 

pathways through employment-based migration and limited access to counsel and critical 

social services. Furthermore, they experience emotional trauma and instability as a result 

of limited discretion and due process in our immigration laws. 

While we recognize the need to address inadequacies in the employment-based system and 

to ensure security at the border, such reforms cannot be made at the expense offamily 

unity, civil and human rights, and due process. The Women's Refugee Commission urges 

the Committee to commit to a solution that is fully inclusive of all immigrants - including 

women and children - and that protects core American concepts, including family unity 

and equal rights. 
530 

In order to accomplish immigration reform that is truly inclusive and comprehensive, the 

Women's Refugee Commission highlights four key issues that the Committee must include 

in any piece oflegislation: 

• A pathway to citizenship that includes women and children 

• Mechanisms for ensuring family unity 

• Smart border enforcement 

• Due process protections 

A Pathway to Citizenship That Includes Women and Children 

As noted in the "Statement on Principles on Women and Immigration Reform," endorsed by 

over 200 local, state and national organizations (see attached), the face of the migrant in 

the United States is increasingly that of a woman. Fifty-one percent of the immigrant 

population is made up ofwomen.1 One hundred immigrant women arrive in the United 

States for every 96 men.2 Approximately 5 million undocumented women3 and 1 million 

undocumented children4 currently live in the United States. Yet our immigration laws and 

policies have historically been - and continue to be - unfair to both groups. Pathways to 

citizenship that rely on traditional standards for employment verification disadvantage 

immigrant women workers, who are more likely than men to work in the informal 

economy or as homemakers, and children, who cannot legally work below a certain age. 

Thousands of women and children who enter lawfully as beneficiaries of an employmentbased visa application have no work authorization. They are wholly dependent on the 

principal visa holder and thus are highly vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. Decadeslong backlogs in the family-based immigration system - more often utilized by women -

mean that women have fewer opportunities than men to lawfully join family in the United 

States and greater incentives to cross the border through unlawful channels. In addition, 

the children of immigrants represent the fastest growing segment of the child population, 

as stated in the "Principles for Children in Immigration Reform," also endorsed by over 200 

local, state and national organizations (see attached). They currently comprise 1 in 4 of all 

children in the United States.s Immigration policies that fail to meet the needs and realities 

of their parents fail them as well. 

'United States Census Bureau. 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. Selected Characteristics of 

the Native and Foreign·Born Populations. Available at 

http://factfinder2,censu5.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresu!ts.xhtm!7refresh-t. Accessed on February 11, 2013. 

'Migration Policy Institute. MPl Data Hub: Foreign·Born Males per 100 Foreign-Born Females,!or the United States: 

1870 to 2011. Available at http://www.mlgratloninformation.org/datahub/charts/finaLmalesfemales.shtml. Accessed on 

February 11, 2013. 

3 Hoefer M, Rytina N and Baker B. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Estimates of the Unauthorized 

Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2011. March 2012. Available at 

http://www.dhs.gov!xlibrary!assets!,tatistics!publications!ois ill pe 2011.pdf. Accessed on January 15, 2013. 

4 Urban Institute, http://www.urban.or.!publications!412203.html. 

'Foundation for Child Development. Children in Immigrant Families: Essential to America's Future, 3 (June 

2012). Available at http://fcd-us.org/resources/children-im migrant-familie s-essentia I-a mericas-future. Accessed on 

February 11, 2013. 
531 

If it is to be effective in the long term, solutions to our broken immigration system must 

broaden the opportunities for women and children to migrate lawfully and to become full 

contributors to the economic and social fabric of our society. Any pathway to citizenship 

must be open, affordable, safe and accessible to all women and children in need of status. 

For women, the pathway must include those whose work is in the home and those who are 

employed in the informal economy. For children, it must include beneficiaries of Deferred 

Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), undocumented children under the age of 21 and 

unaccompanied immigrant children. Furthermore, any avenue for self-petition for legal 

status for persons vulnerable to abuse by principal applicants must also be preserved. 

Lastly, reform must reduce backlogs in the family-based system, provide protections for 

those who migrate through the employment-based system and avoid the temptation to 

sacrifice family-based visas to the demand for high-skilled workers. 

Mechanisms for Ensuring Family Unity 

The story of a mother and son whom the Women's Refugee Commission met at the Berks 

Family Residential Center in Leesport, Pennsylvania, illustrates the urgent need to ensure 

that immigration enforcement does not undermine children's safety and tear families apart. 

Luz was detained in rural Pennsylvania and ordered deported. She left her one-year-old 

son, a U.S. citizen child, with a neighbor, expecting to return in a few days. However, Border 

Patrol apprehended Luz and her son shortly after she picked the boy up from a facility for 

unaccompanied alien children in Arizona. They were taken into custody and transferred to 

a family detention facility across the country. Because Luz was in detention, it was 

impossible for her to make long-term care arrangements for her infant or to arrange to 

take the child with her to her home country. She called her neighbor, her consulate and her 

deportation officer for help - all to no avail. Luz was deported without her baby and is 

unlikely to be able to reunify with him in the future. 6 

Luz's story is a frightening reality for many parents. Some 5.5 million children in the United 

States live in fear of being separated from a parent because their family is of mixed legal 

status.7 Current immigration policies tear hundreds of thousands of these families apart 

every year. Over 200,000 parents of U.S. citizen children were deported between July 2010 

and September 2012, according to the Department of Homeland Security.S Many parents 

apprehended during immigration enforcement operations have no opportunity to make 

care arrangements for their children, and children are needlessly placed in the child 

welfare system. Over 5,000 children are currently in the child welfare system as a result of 

a parent's detention or deportation,9 and the complications that arise at the intersection of 

immigration and child welfare law mean that family reunification will be all but impossible 

in many of these cases. 

'Women's Refugee Commission. Torn Apart by Immigration Enforcement: Parental Rights and Immigration 

Detention, 12 (December 20 10). Available at http://womensrefugeecommission.org/programs/detention/parentalriglli. Accessed on February 11, 2013. 

7Id. 

'Immigration Policy Center. Falling Through the Cracks. Available at http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/justfactslfalling-through-cracks. Accessed on February 11, 2013. 

9Id. 
532 

The family unit is an integral building block of thriving and successful communities. 

Children cannot achieve their full potential when they grow up without their parents and 

parents cannot raise strong, capable and successful children when they live in constant fear 

of detection and removal. It is essential that reform place family unity back at the center of 

our immigration policy. Undocumented family members must have a mechanism to come 

out of the shadows and access full citizenship. Detained and deported parents must have a 

meaningful opportunity to protect their parental rights. The immigration system must also 

speedily resolve the current visa backlogs and provide adequate channels for family-based 

immigration that minimize prolonged family separation and remove incentives to migrate 

unlawfully. 

Smart Border Enforcement 

For immigration reform to be effective, border enforcement must include security of the 

person and migrants seeking safety should be quickly identified and given the right to seek 

protection in accordance with international law. In the past two years the use oflethal 

force against migrants, even children, has escalated and hundreds of stories of physical 

abuse against migrants have been reported. For example, a 16-year-old girl told the 

Women's Refugee Commission that when she was apprehended by Border Patrol the agent 

kicked her hard on the leg. When the agent eventually agreed to take her to a doctor 

because she couldn't walk on that leg, he threatened her and told her she couldn't tell the 

doctor who had hurt her leg. The agent sat with the girl while the doctor examined her and 

she was unable to report the abuse. 

Every year, thousands of unaccompanied children come to the United States, many of 

whom are fleeing persecution and violence in their home country. When these children are 

apprehended by Border Patrol, they are held in the same inappropriate conditions as 

adults, in freezing cold border stations without sufficient food, water, clothing or blankets. 

Although these children have experienced violence and trauma along the way, they have no 

one to help them understand what is happening to them - or to explain their legal options 

- during these first days in the country. As a result, many who have asylum claims or are 

victims of trafficking are a risk of being returned to their country without an opportunity to 

pursue protection here. 

Money allocated to enforcement should be spent wisely - not to already well resourced 

Border Patrol or deterrence programs that have not been proven to be effective, but to 

provide adequate training, oversight and accountability mechanisms that ensure migrants 

are being treated with respect and dignity. When dealing with children, enforcement 

efforts must take into consideration the best interest of the child. Children should be given 

the benefit of the doubt during any investigation, inquiry or detention. There must also be 

appropriate and accountable training policies and protocols for interacting with and 

screening children and asylum seekers. The use of force should be prohibited, except where 

there is a demonstrated need, and it is essential that women, children and families be 

provided a safe environment while they are in the custody of the federal government. 
533 

The Women's Refugee Commission acknowledges the importance of ensuring rule oflaw 

and protecting against genuine threats; however, it is of utmost importance that the 

security of our country's borders does not come at the cost of undermining our nation's 

traditions of due process and at the expense of the human rights of migrants. 

Due Process Protections 

Soledad arrived at the Eloy detention facility in Arizona in December 2011. As an asylum 

seeker, she was subject to mandatory detention. She immediately reported she was 

pregnant and suffering abdominal pains. After days of making complaints that were 

ignored by medical staff at the facility, Soledad began bleeding. She was finally taken to a 

doctor who told her she was losing her baby. Soledad was sent back to her cell to deal with 

the miscarriage by herself and remained in detention as she delivered her fetus. Soledad 

was eventually released on bail and is fighting her asylum claim based on being a victim of 

domestic violence. 

Due process is the bedrock of the American justice system. It is a basic right that is essential 

to preserving American values of fairness and equality. However, thousands of immigrants 

experience mandatory or prolonged detention without any opportunity for a hearing. In 

2012 alone, the United States detained almost 400,000 immigrants - at the expense of tax 

payers.10 Many of these detainees are women, children and families seeking safety from 

persecution or other human rights abuses. For example, under Expedited Removal, asylum 

seekers without proper documentation must be detained without bond hearings while 

their cases are reviewed. Conditions in immigration detention facilities are too often based 

on a correctional model. These facilities may be hundreds of miles away from city centers, 

making it almost impossible for family or counsel to visit. Mandatory detention forces the 

federal government to spend money on detention beds even though economical and 

effective alternatives to detention and alternate forms of detention exist. 

Immigration reform must respect the due process rights of immigrants. To do so, 

mandatory detention laws should be eliminated and replaced with individualized 

determinations of the need to detain. If detention is required, it must consist of the least 

restrictive means possible, which includes alternative forms of custody such as ankle 

monitors or house arrest. Alternatives to detention should also be expanded and the costly 

legislative requirement for a minimum numbers of detention beds must be eliminated. 

Moreover, the conditions of custody must reflect the civil nature of immigration violations. 

Detention facilities should be non-penal and minimally restrictive. NGOs should be given 

access to all Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection 

detention facilities to monitor conditions and provide independent oversight of the 

Department of Homeland Security's operations. Finally, all children and persons with 

disabilities in removal proceedings should have access to government paid counsel in their 

proceedings. 

10 http://www.ice.govinews/re!eases/1212/121221washingtondc2.htm. 
534 

Æ