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

55–034 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–296 

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM IN 2009: 

CAN WE DO IT AND HOW? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

REFUGEES AND BORDER SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 30, 2009 

Serial No. J–111–18 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MATT MINER, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND BORDER SECURITY

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

STEPHANIE MARTY, Democratic Chief Counsel 

MATTHEW L. JOHNSON, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ............................... 3 

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California ................. 6 

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts, 

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

Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona .................................... 7 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 93 

Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New York ............ 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 261 

WITNESSES 

Greenspan, Alan, Economist, Former Chairman, Federal Reserve System, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 9 

Henderson, Wade, President and Chief Executive Officer, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Washington, DC ........................................................... 30 

Hunter, Joel C., Senior Pastor, Northland, A Church Distributed, and Member, President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, Longwood, Florida ............................................................................... 15 

Kobach, Kris W., Professor of Law, University of Missouri, Kansas City, 

Missouri ................................................................................................................ 32 

Manger, J. Thomas, Chief of Police, Montgomery County, Maryland, and 

Chairman of Legislative Committee of Major Cities Chiefs Association, 

Rockville, Maryland ............................................................................................. 12 

Medina, Eliseo, Executive Vice President, Service Employees International 

Union, Washington, DC ....................................................................................... 28 

Meissner, Doris, Senior Fellow, Migration Policy Institute, Former Commissioner, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington, DC ......... 26 

Moseley, Jeff, President and Chief Executive Officer, Greater Houston Partnership, Houston, Texas ...................................................................................... 18 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Allen, Gregory K., Chief of Police, The City of El Paso, El Paso Texas, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 45

America’s Voice, Washington, DC, statement ....................................................... 46 

De Castro, Director of Immigration and National Campaigns, National Council of La Raza ........................................................................................................ 48 

Eisenbrey, Ross, Vice President, Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 59

Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, Washington, DC, letter ...................... 60 

Greenspan, Alan, Economist, Former Chairman, Federal Reserve System, 

Washington, DC, statement ................................................................................ 62 

Henderson, Wade, President and Chief Executive Officer, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Washington, DC, statement ........................................ 66 

Hunter, Joel C., Senior Pastor, Northland, A Church Distributed, and Member, President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, Longwood, Florida, statement ............................................................ 74 

Kobach, Kris W., Professor of Law, University of Missouri, Kansas City, 

Missouri, statement ............................................................................................. 83 

Lee, EunSook, Executive Director, National Korean American Service & Education Consortium, Washington, DC, statement ............................................... 95 

Page

IV 

Manger, J. Thomas, Chief of Police, Montgomery County, Maryland, and 

Chairman of Legislative Committee of Major Cities Chiefs Association, 

Rockville, Maryland: 

Statement .......................................................................................................... 99 

Chairman of the Legislative Committee for the Major Cities Chiefs Association, on behalf of the Major Cities Chiefs .............................................. 106 

M.C.C. Nine Point Position .............................................................................. 118 

Dealing with Foreign Nationals ...................................................................... 129 

National Conference of State Legislatures Implementation of the Real 

ID ................................................................................................................... 133 

Major Cities Chiefs Position, paper ................................................................ 134 

Police Chiefs and Sheriffs Speak Out on Local Immigration Enforcement . 135 

Medina, Eliseo, Executive Vice President, Service Employees International 

Union, Washington, DC: 

Statement .......................................................................................................... 182 

The Labor Movement’s Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, AFL–CIO and Change to Win ............................................................ 186 

Meissner, Doris, Senior Fellow, Migration Policy Institute, Former Commissioner, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 188 

Moseley, Jeff, President and Chief Executive Officer, Greater Houston Partnership, Houston, Texas, statement ................................................................... 206 

Narasaki, Karen K., President and Executive Director, Asian American Justice Center, Washington, DC, statement ............................................................ 215 

National Immigration Forum, Washington, DC, proposals .................................. 230 

Hong, Chung-Wha, Executive Director, New York Immigration, Coalition, 

New York, New York, statement ........................................................................ 257 

SIREN, Vanessa Sandoval, Policy Advocacy Program Director, San Jose, California: 

Statement .......................................................................................................... 264 

Maria, undocumented immigrant, statement ................................................ 265 

Marx Reyes, U.S. Citizen, statement .............................................................. 266 

Belen Verdusco, U.S. Citizen, statement ........................................................ 268 

Angelina Mendoza, U.S. Citizen, statement ................................................... 269 

Cristal Ortiz, undocumented student ............................................................. 270 

Summers, Toussaint E., Chief, Herndon Police Department, Herndon, Virginia, joint letter .................................................................................................. 271 

Sweeney, John J., President, American Federation of Labor and Congress 

of Industrial Organizations, Washington, DC, statement ................................ 272 

Wylde, Kathryn, President and CEO, Partnership for New York City, New 

York, New York, letter and attachment ............................................................. 277 

(1) 

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM IN 

2009: CAN WE DO IT AND HOW? 

THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES, AND BORDER SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC 

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

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Schumer, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer, Feinstein, Whitehouse, Cornyn, and 

Kyl. 

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

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Chairman SCHUMER. The hearing will come to order, and first I 

would ask unanimous consent that Chairman Leahy’s and Senator 

Kennedy’s opening statements be read into the record, without objection. 

And, second, we will have a vote, I believe, at approximately 

2:30, so we will have to take a brief break then to allow people to 

vote. I am also going to allow any of the members who are here 

to give opening statements. That is not usually the practice, but I 

think this is an important issue and it would be fair to do that. 

And I want to thank our witnesses for being here. 

Now, before we begin today’s business, I would like to take the 

opportunity to recognize the remarkable leadership that my predecessor—Senator Kennedy—has provided to this subcommittee. 

For the last 46 years, Senator Kennedy has been at the forefront 

of every major immigration debate in this country as a member, 

Chairman, or Ranking Member of this Subcommittee. 

I am sure I speak for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 

when I say that no Senator has worked harder or contributed more 

to the immigration conversation than Senator Kennedy, and we all 

sincerely thank him for his leadership. 

Now, since I became Chairman of this Subcommittee in February, I am often asked the question that we hope to answer today: 

‘‘Can we achieve significant immigration reform in this session and, 

if so, what would this reform look like?’’ That is the question that 

many people are asking. 

Now, people only need to pick up a newspaper or turn on their 

televisions to see many stories quoting Washington insiders and 

political pundits who say it is bad politics to even discuss immigraVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:40 Mar 10, 2010 Jkt 055034 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\55034.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
2 

tion reform at a time when America is facing such serious economic 

challenges. 

But these articles do not report what I am hearing in my conversations with Americans. No one is happy with our current system, whether they are left, right, or center. There is recognition in 

America that the status quo is clearly not working. Indeed, recent 

polls show that 57 percent of Americans believe that immigration 

reform should be a high priority for this Congress. The politics may 

be hard, but the reality is obvious: It is in everyone’s best interest 

to change and fix our current immigration system. 

And it is, therefore, my belief that we can and must try to find 

a way to enact significant improvements to our immigration system 

now. 

So how do we get from here to there? 

From my perspective, it is time to tone down the rhetoric, focus 

on the facts, and carefully weigh what is in the best interests of 

our taxpayers, our economy, our security, and our future. 

That is the spirit in which we have called today’s hearing and 

the spirit in which we can conduct our considerations moving forward. 

It is my belief that the American people are pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration. It is my belief that the American 

people are not afraid of an immigration system that is both tough 

and fair. They want an immigration system that both faces up to 

reality and respects the rule of law. They want an immigration system that will stop the flow of illegal immigrants and respect legal 

immigrants who want to work, pay taxes, remain in this country, 

and become citizens. 

That is what I want, too, and I believe that is what the majority 

of my colleagues here in the Senate want. 

But make no mistake: We cannot restore confidence in our immigration system until and unless we face up to reality, put ideology 

aside, and find solutions that will work to address the situation in 

which we find ourselves today. 

I am hopeful that we can find solutions because a well-functioning immigration system is not only a part of America’s legacy; 

it is also critical to our country’s future. 

The Founding Fathers never intended for America to close the 

door to new Americans, and in each generation since the birth of 

our country, we have accepted the most determined and idealistic 

people from everywhere in the world. And we have been stronger 

for it. 

Because of immigration, Google, Yahoo, Intel, and eBay are 

American success stories. In New York, one-quarter of all businesses are immigrant owned. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 

these immigrant-owned businesses have combined sales of $42.7 

billion and employ 230,000 workers, some of whom are immigrants 

themselves and some of whose families have been in this country 

for 12 generations. 

Nationally, 40 percent of patents in the U.S. are awarded to immigrants. And a recent study found that immigrants are 50 percent 

likelier to start businesses than native-born citizens. New inventions and startup businesses are critical to improving our economy, 

3 

and as the numbers tell us, immigrants play a vital role in both 

of these areas. 

Given the very high stakes in whether and how we move forward 

on the issue of immigration, we have invited a broad spectrum of 

our country’s finest and most distinguished leaders to share their 

wisdom and experience, and we thank you for coming. 

These individuals come from a broad array of disciplines and 

offer vastly diverse perspectives regarding immigration based on 

their training and their area of expertise. 

These distinguished witnesses will tell us whether they agree 

that comprehensive immigration reform is necessary and should be 

enacted in 2009. They will also help us determine what a reformed 

system might look like. 

As we go forward with this hearing today and with this debate 

throughout the year, I hope that my colleagues will agree to work 

together to capitalize on areas of consensus rather than exploit 

areas of disagreement. 

For instance, although my colleague the distinguished Ranking 

Member from Texas and I may have some ideological differences, 

we both approach the immigration conversation from a common 

starting point: We are both Senators from border States with long 

and rich histories of welcoming immigrants from all over the world. 

In fact, the Texas seaport at Galveston became known as ‘‘the Second Ellis Island.’’ 

And that is why our discourse on immigration should take place 

with the common understanding that even if we all came to America on a different boat—or through some other means—we are all 

in the same boat now. 

So as Chairman of this Subcommittee, I pledge that I will work 

and work and work and work to strike the right balance and 

achieve the critical reforms to our immigration system that the 

American people are asking us to enact. This will be very, very 

hard to do, make no mistake. This is hardly an easy task. But we 

have to try for the sake of the future of our country. 

I am confident that our distinguished panel will move us closer 

toward a pathway to reform, and I look forward with great interest 

to their testimony. 

I now want to recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Cornyn, for an opening statement. We will let any member 

who is here issue an opening statement. 

Senator Cornyn? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

opening statement. It is one that I would have been quite comfortable delivering myself, especially the part about Galveston 

being the second Ellis Island. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here, and I am 

grateful to Chairman Leahy and Senator Schumer for initiating 

once again this important dialog on, I think, an absolutely critical 

issue. No one—no one—benefits from the status quo with regard to 

our immigration situation. I agree that legal immigration is something that has made our country a better place. It has strengthVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:40 Mar 10, 2010 Jkt 055034 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\55034.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
4 

ened our economy. It has forged ties of kinship between the United 

States and our neighbors. It renews our national identity as the 

promised land for families in every generation. 

In Texas, as you pointed out, we are a big border State where 

we see and enjoy a lot of cultural diversity. Many of my constituents have family on both sides of the Rio Grande River, and they 

are watching very closely the way that we treat this debate. And 

I agree with you it needs to be respectful; it needs to be civil; and, 

most importantly, we need to get something done in a practical sort 

of way and find that common ground. 

As I said, the status quo is not acceptable to anyone. Texans see 

and Americans see that our border is not yet secure. We see employment verification laws which are not yet enforced. And we see 

millions of men, women, and children who are here in violation of 

our immigration laws who, in essence, are afforded no protection 

from all our other laws. In other words, I think the immigrant that 

comes here without going through our legal immigration system 

finds themselves a victim in so many circumstances, whether a 

woman who is a victim of domestic violence is afraid to go to the 

police because she is afraid of being deported, or a worker who is 

denied fair earnings by an employer who says, ‘‘Well, you know, 

you take what you get or I will turn you in to the immigration authorities.’’ All down the line, I think the biggest victim of the status 

quo is the immigrant who is here living in the shadows and who 

is in noncompliance with our immigration laws. 

Obviously, there is a public health component of our immigration 

system, and so we need to restore one that is protective of the public health, as the recent incidents of this last week or so have reminded us. 

I believe that an important component of an immigration reform 

system—in addition to border security, in addition to employment 

verification so employers do not have to operate as the police officer 

but, rather, the Government provides them the tools to determine 

whether somebody can legally work at their place of employment 

or not—is a temporary worker program. These are essential components of an immigration reform bill. 

As a matter of fact, some of this may sound familiar because in 

2005, Senator Kyl, my distinguished colleague, our distinguished 

colleague from Arizona, and I undertook to introduce what we 

called the ‘‘Comprehensive Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of 2005.’’ And that has been, obviously, 4 years ago. 

Since that time, we have had a number of bills considered on the 

floor, the McCain-Kennedy bill and other iterations of that, and I 

had to go back to check my notes, but I am advised we spent 36 

business days on the floor of the U.S. Senate grappling with this 

issue. And talking in terms of calendar days, that is almost 2 

months. And we have not yet gotten the job done, and we have to 

persevere. 

Now, as I said, I appreciate the Chairman calling this hearing 

and the distinguished witnesses we have. I hope this is just the beginning of a number of hearings we have so we can engage the 

American people in an essential dialog to work our way through 

this problem. 

5 

If we learned anything about the debate, it is that the Washington elites cannot dictate to the American people what the solution must be. We have got to work with and listen to the American 

people and see what we can do in order to come up with a practical 

solution to this challenge. 

I welcome the President’s announcement that he considers immigration reform to be an important subject. I am a little discouraged 

that he seems now to be talking about establishing working groups 

to develop a framework for legislation rather than tackling this 

head on, but I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt, and 

I hope he will tell us, the Congress, who must work on this legislation, what his plan is. We know what Senator Kyl’s and my plan 

was. We know what Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy’s plan 

was. And I think it is essential that a President demonstrate the 

kind of leadership that can only come from the President telling us 

what his plan is so we can get them on the table and work our way 

through them. 

So I want to say again how grateful I am to you, and, again, your 

opening statement, Mr. Chairman, is one that I was very comfortable with as well. I believe we must streamline our temporary 

working programs, offer more visas to highly skilled students who 

study at our colleges and universities, and when they cannot work 

here, they go back to their native land and they compete with us 

and create jobs there rather than here in the United States. So I 

think we need a fair but firm solution, one that embraces the rule 

of law and one that creates the kind of order that right now in the 

absence of that order only makes life more difficult for people who 

are living outside of our immigration laws. 

Let me close by saying I agree with your comments about Senator Kennedy. He has been in the middle of every immigration debate for 40 years. As a matter of fact, one of the bills that I am 

proud of is when I got here, Senator Kennedy and I joined together 

to pass, along with our colleagues’ help, an expedited pathway to 

citizenship for individuals who are part of our United States military. If they are willing to sacrifice and serve in our United States 

military as legal immigrants but not yet citizens, I think it is only 

appropriate that we provide them an expedited path to becoming 

American citizens so they can actually have the full benefits of 

American citizenship for a country that they have risked their life 

to serve. 

So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, first let me thank Senator Cornyn. 

We are off to a great start because he agrees with 90 percent of 

my statement and I agree with 90 percent of his statement. That 

is pretty good to start off and I think bodes well for the future. 

We are joined by two colleagues who have played very active and 

fundamental, important roles in the immigration debate, and I am 

glad they are here, and I know Senator Cornyn agrees with me. We 

look forward to their active participation and input as we move toward a comprehensive solution. 

First, my good friend and colleague, Senator Feinstein from California. 

6 

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and I thank the Ranking Member, Senator Cornyn. I agree with 

your statement, and I agree with Senator Cornyn’s. I am delighted 

to see the distinguished witnesses here today. 

I was one that participated, as did everyone at this dais, when 

we discussed and debated comprehensive immigration reform. And 

what I learned from that debate was that there is indeed a dark 

side in this country, and that dark side really prefers to distort the 

issue. That dark side really caters to the fear in people that if we 

repair a broken system, that if we develop a comprehensive immigration plan that is fair to people, that moves people out of the 

shadows, which uses them in their most constructive and productive way, that it is harmful to this Nation. 

The point I want to make in my few remarks is the harm that 

is being caused to this Nation by not moving. One small part of the 

bill—it is not a small part; it is a large part—has been ag jobs, and 

I have worked with the growers and workers in the agriculture of 

America in virtually many of the States, and here is what I have 

seen: 

Between 2007 and 2008, 1.56 million acres of farmland have 

been shut down in the United States, no labor. American farmers 

are moving to Mexico. At least 84,155 acres are now in production 

in the Mexican States of Baja, Sonora, and Guanajuato. American 

farmers have moved 22,285 United States jobs to Mexico, which 

means they are all in Mexico to cultivate crops varying in diversity 

from avocado to green onions to watermelon. 

Farmers are decreasing the size of their farms and switching to 

less labor intensive and less profitable crops. In the next 1 to 2 

years, the United States stands to lose $5 to $9 billion in agriculture sales to foreign competition if Congress does not act. 

As United States farms close and growers downsize production, 

the United States is also becoming more reliant on foreign imports 

of fresh fruits and vegetables—foreign imports where the standards 

on pesticides and farming are not nearly what they are today. Let 

me give you just a few examples. 

In March 2008, Keith Eckel, the largest producer of fresh market 

tomatoes in Pennsylvania, closed down due to a shortage of farm 

workers. In the height of the 7-week summer harvesting period, 

10,000 tomatoes were picked usually by manual labor at Eckel’s 

Lackawanna County farm. His tomato crop was valued at $1.5 to 

$2 million. Last year, he had planted 2.3 million tomatoes on 340 

acres. Now he is essentially shutting it down or greatly reducing 

it. 

In your own State, Mr. Chairman, New York, 800 farms and $700 million of sales may be forced to go out of business or scale 

back their farm operations if labor shortages continue. For the first 

time since 1991, Jim Bittner, the owner of Singer farms in Appleton, New York, raised 10 percent of his sweet cherry and peach orchards. The labor shortage has forced him to switch over to crops 

that can be harvested by machines. 

Senator Kyl, in your State, in Yuma, Paul Muthart manages 

8,000 acres of production for the Pasquinelli Produce Company. His 

7 

company has been in business for 6 years in a part of the State 

that provides up to 90 percent of the fresh lettuce, broccoli, celery, 

and cauliflower in American grocery stores during some winter 

months. Mr. Muthart is short 20 to 25 percent of the labor force 

he needs. 

Colorado farmers estimate that the State’s fruit and vegetable industry will disappear in the next 5 to 10 years. 

Now, California farmers produce half of America’s fruits, vegetables, and nuts and a quarter of the Nation’s dairy. The California 

ag industry is estimated to lose between $1.7 to $3.3 billion in the 

next year without a stable supply of labor. 

Now, I have heard those who say go out and have Americans do 

the work, and we would all be delighted to have Americans do the 

work. But the fact is they will not. 

In California, we put notices in every welfare department: ‘‘Ag 

Jobs Available. Please Come.’’ How many people came? None. 

So this is highly skilled in the sense of it is back-breaking, it 

takes certain techniques, we have a lot of row crops, and the people 

who do this work are, by and large, undocumented. And they cannot do it now. So the industry is collapsing. 

In my State alone, we have fallowed a half a million acres. We 

now have dust storms that necessitate the closure of I–5 from dust. 

This is not the way it should be. We have farmers in bread lines. 

This is not the way it should be. And so we need this program that 

will get a stable and continuing supply of labor. This is the ag jobs 

bill. 

Now, right now I should tell you that there is a difference between workers and growers on the H–2A part of the bill. I have offered to both sides to negotiate that difference and try to put it together, and as soon as I do, we will be introducing the ag jobs bill, 

which I think will fit nicely into whatever hopefully this Subcommittee will do. So thank you very much. 

Chairman SCHUMER. We look forward to your leadership on that 

issue, Senator Feinstein. 

Senator Kyl. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF ARIZONA 

Senator KYL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I think 

it is interesting that the four of us mostly agree with everything 

that each of us has said. Certainly all of the comments regarding 

agriculture that Senator Feinstein just made apply, as you noted, 

to Arizona as well—not quite as much agriculture in Arizona, but 

many of the same conditions, and we face the same problem. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Can I make you a cosponsor of the bill? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KYL. We are not going to solve the problem piecemeal, 

and therein is perhaps the first lesson for all of us in this room. 

My growers well understand my commitment to resolving the problem for them. 

We just had an announcement by two major labor unions in the 

country that they would not support a temporary worker program. 

We are going to have to get around that problem—well, we are not 

going to have to get around it. We are going to have to solve it if 

8 

we are to have the kind of success with the kind of bill that Senator Feinstein noted. So it illustrates the difficulty of the problem. 

We both totally agree on the need to solve both this agricultural 

issue but also, frankly, in both of our States and in others, you 

have got the home-building industry, which relied extensively on illegal immigrants. The industry itself acknowledged that. And there 

are many other industries as well, certainly the hospitality industry and many others. Now, times are not as good now, and so the 

pressure is not on as much in those industries. But it is every bit 

as much still, the pressure on, in the agricultural industry. 

What I want to do is just briefly note—and, frankly, Senator 

Feinstein’s question makes the point—that since the comprehensive immigration reform, which we spent hundreds of hours on— 

and certainly Senator Kennedy is to be complimented for his sitting 

through every one of those meetings as well—there were many 

complicated provisions that were the result of compromise. One 

could identify four specific ones, though each of us had a little different view as to what the most important provisions were. But I 

support eroding on at least three of these four, and that is the primary point that I wanted to make. We have got to deal with this 

reality. 

I mentioned the temporary worker provision. That was part of 

the key of the legislation. Support for that appears to be eroding, 

at least with respect to organized labor, and yet it is a critical component to any successful bill, and not just for agriculture. 

The path to citizenship, we all know what happened to that. It 

became amnesty and was probably the most specific reason why 

the comprehensive immigration legislation went down. 

There was a very innovative provision that was, frankly, one of 

the key reasons why there was strong support, especially on the 

Republican side, and that was revising our immigration laws to be 

more reflective of the trend occurring worldwide, which is more of 

an emphasis on workforce requirements rather than family or 

chain migration. Interestingly, America still would have had about 

50 percent family immigration, more than most other countries— 

in fact, I think more than any other country. But that was a big 

part of the reform as well with a lot of emphasis on the so-called 

stem migrants, the high-tech- related folks. 

And, finally, employer verification. As Senator Cornyn mentioned, we cannot even get a full year of authorization of the EVerify program now. These were all essential elements of the bill 

last time, and I see support eroding across the board. So we are 

going backward, not forward. We have to find a way to come back 

together to put that kind of a bill together, or something totally different that I cannot quite conceive of. 

I just want to close with this point. Senators McCain and Lieberman and I just had a hearing a few days ago in Arizona related 

to the fact that we have not controlled the border yet and that it 

is dramatically impacting my State of Arizona, but others as well, 

not so much with respect to illegal immigration today, but the 

crime and drugs violence part of this. We have always known that 

about 10 to 15 percent of the people illegally immigrating across 

the southern border were criminals. And if you have a million illegal immigrants, that is 100,000, at least, people we do not want in 

9 

this country. So there are reasons to secure the border other than 

relating to illegal immigration. 

But we are all aware of the crime associated with the drug cartels in Mexico. With over half of the illegal immigration coming 

through my State, and much of that drug trade now resulting in 

violence in my State, this has become an extraordinarily important 

problem to solve. And as the police chief testified at the hearing, 

almost all of the crime is illegal immigrant on illegal immigrant, 

with women being raped, people being kidnapped, more ransom 

being sought, drug violence, murder of people within the cartels 

and all the rest of it. So we have got a huge problem to solve. 

And as my colleague John McCain said during the campaign 

when this was a very political hot potato, he said, ‘‘Those of us who 

supported comprehensive immigration reform learned a lesson. 

People want us to secure the border and enforce the law before 

they are going to have an open mind about comprehensive reform.’’ 

Unfortunately, sadly, we still do not have that border under control, as is evident by the hearing that we held a few days ago. 

So we have a lot of challenges ahead of us. Those of us who supported comprehensive immigration reform the last time around 

have a lot of challenges in front of us, and I appreciate the witnesses who are here today to help us work through those challenges. And I urge everybody in the audience and others who care 

about this issue to approach it in the spirit of good will that I believe it was my colleague Senator Feinstein said would be needed 

for us to get this resolved. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, thank you, Senator Kyl, and I am 

hardly unaware of the challenges that you put forward. They are 

all legitimate challenges. I do think there are potential ideas and 

solutions out there that I have, others have, and I think we can 

do it. I do. Anyway, we are going to try. 

Now, we have a vote at 2:45, so what I think I would like to do 

so we could move things along, we will have our first witness, 

Chairman Greenspan, give his testimony, and then we will probably break and resume about 15 minutes later, if that is OK with 

all of our witnesses. So let me introduce Chairman Greenspan, and 

I will introduce the others after the break. 

Although he needs no introduction, Alan Greenspan is an economist who served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve System of the 

United States from 1987 to 2006. He currently works as a private 

adviser and consultant for firms throughout the United States 

through his company, Greenspan Associates, LLC. He is the author 

of the book ‘‘The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World’’ 

in which he addresses, among other things, the relationship between immigration and the American economy. 

Chairman, we really appreciate your taking the time to be here, 

and we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN GREENSPAN, ECONOMIST, FORMER 

CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. GREENSPAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. If you could just pull the microphone a little 

closer to you, I think that would work better. 

10 

Mr. GREENSPAN. I appreciate this opportunity to testify before 

you this afternoon. 

Immigration to the United States slowed markedly with the 

onset of the current economic crisis. But as the crisis fades, there 

is little doubt that the attraction of the United States to foreign 

workers and their families will revive. I hope by then a badly needed set of reforms to our Nation’s immigration laws will have been 

put in place. 

There are two distinctly different policy issues that confront the 

Congress. The first is illegal immigration, of course. The notion of 

rewarding with permanent resident status those who have broken 

our immigration laws does not sit well with the American people. 

In a recent poll, two-thirds would like to see the number of illegals 

decreased. 

But there is little doubt that unauthorized—that is, illegal—immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of our 

economy. Between 2000 and 2007, for example, it accounted for 

more than a sixth of the increase in our total civilian labor force. 

The illegal part of the civilian labor force diminished last year as 

the economy slowed, though illegals still comprised an estimated 5 

percent of our total civilian labor force. Unauthorized immigrants 

serve as a flexible component of our workforce, often a safety valve 

when demand is pressing and among the first to be discharged 

when the economy falters. 

Some evidence suggests that unskilled illegal immigrants—almost all from Latin America—marginally suppress wage levels of 

native-born Americans without a high school diploma and impose 

significant costs on some State and local governments. 

However the estimated wage suppression and fiscal costs are relatively small, and economists generally view the overall economic 

benefits of this workforce as significantly outweighing the costs. Accordingly, I hope some temporary worker program can be crafted. 

The second policy issue that must be addressed by Congress is 

the even more compelling need to facilitate the inflow of skilled foreign workers. Our primary and secondary school systems are increasingly failing to produce the skilled workers needed to utilize 

fully our ever more sophisticated and complex stock of intellectual 

and physical capital. This capital stock has been the critical input 

for our rising productivity and standards of living and can be expected to continue to be essential for our future prosperity. The 

consequence of our educational shortfall is that a highly disproportionate number of our exceptionally skilled workers are foreign 

born. Two-fifths of the science PhDs in our workforce, for example, 

are foreign born. Silicon Valley has a remarkably large number of 

foreign-born workers. And as you, Mr. Chairman, have pointed out, 

40 percent of our patents are issued to those who are foreign born. 

The quantity of temporary H–1B visas issued each year is far too 

small to meet the need, especially in the near future as the economy copes with the forthcoming retirement wave of skilled baby 

boomers. As Bill Gates, the chairman of Microsoft, succinctly testified before Congress in March 2007, ‘‘America will find it infinitely 

more difficult to maintain its technological leadership if it shuts 

out the very people who are most able to help us compete.’’ He 

11 

added that we are ‘‘driving away the world’s best and brightest precisely when we need them most.’’ 

Our skill shortage, I trust, will ultimately be resolved through reform of our primary and secondary education systems. But, at best, 

that will take many years. An accelerated influx of highly skilled 

immigrants would bridge that gap and, moreover, carry with it two 

significant bonuses. 

First, skilled workers and their families form new households. 

They will, of necessity, move into vacant housing units, the current 

glut of which is depressing prices of American homes. And, of 

course, house price declines are a major factor in mortgage foreclosures and the plunge in value of the vast quantity of U.S. mortgage-backed securities that has contributed substantially to the 

disabling of our banking system. 

The second bonus would address the increasing concentration of 

income in this country. Greatly expanding our quotas for the highly 

skilled would lower wage premiums of skilled over lesser skilled. 

Skill shortages in America exist because we are shielding our 

skilled labor force from world competition. Quotas have been substituted for the wage pricing mechanism. In the process, we have 

created a privileged elite whose incomes are being supported at 

noncompetitively high levels by immigration quotas on skilled professionals. Eliminating such restrictions would reduce at least some 

of the income inequality. 

If we are to continue to engage the world and enhance our standards of living, we will have to either markedly improve our elementary and secondary school systems or lower our barriers to skilled 

immigrants. In fact, progress on both fronts would confer important 

economic benefits. 

Immigration policy, of course, is influenced by far more than economics. Policy must confront the very difficult issue of the desire 

of a population to maintain the cultural roots that help tie a society 

together. Clearly a line must be drawn between, on the one hand, 

allowing the Nation to be flooded with immigrants that could destabilize the necessary comity of a society and, on the other hand, 

allowing the Nation to become static and bereft of competition and 

as a consequence to lose its economic vitality. 

The United States has always been able eventually to absorb 

waves of immigration and maintain its fundamental character as 

a Nation, particularly the individual rights and freedoms bestowed 

by our Founding Fathers. But it must be conceded that the transitions were always more difficult than hindsight might now make 

them appear. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to concur with President 

Bill Clinton’s view of our immigration history as expressed in remarks of more than a decade ago: ‘‘America has constantly drawn 

strength and spirit from wave after wave of immigrants....They 

have proved to be the most restless, the most adventurous, the 

most innovative, the most industrious of people.’’ 

We as a Nation must continue to draw on this source of strength 

and spirit. To do so, in the context of a rapidly changing global 

economy, our immigration laws must be reformed and brought up 

to date. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions. 

12 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Greenspan appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Chairman Greenspan. 

Since we do have a little time, I think we will call on Mr. Manger, Chief Manger, to testify. He is the Chief of the Montgomery 

Police Department, Montgomery County, one of the largest in 

Maryland, with more than 1,200 sworn and 550 civilian members 

serving 950,000 residents in the Greater Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Area. Chief Manger is a member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and serves as Chairman of Legislative 

Committee of the Major Cities Chiefs Association. 

Thank you for coming, Chief Manger, and we look forward to 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF J. THOMAS MANGER, CHIEF OF POLICE, 

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND, AND CHAIRMAN OF 

LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF MAJOR CITIES CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 

Chief MANGER. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank 

you for allowing me to speak on this important issue. I am speaking on behalf of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which is comprised of the 56 largest police departments in the United States. 

Let me begin by stating that the failure to secure our borders 

has resulted in significant consequences for local governments. And 

while I am here to focus on the impacts to local law enforcement, 

it is important to keep in mind the overwhelming impact it has had 

on local school systems as well as health and human services agencies. Education, social services, and health care are all impacted as 

much if not more than public safety. 

With regard to the role that immigration issues play within the 

law enforcement community, I will focus my comments primarily 

on illegal immigration and the consequences of having millions of 

undocumented residents living in our cities and towns. 

The first thing that any police chief would want you to know is 

that all individuals—regardless of citizenship—are entitled to basic 

rights and privileges set forth in the Constitution of the United 

States. 

Indeed, every police chief in this nation would, I hope, tell you 

that all persons—regardless of citizenship—have a right to expect 

police service and protection whenever and wherever they need it. 

And herein lies one of the compelling reasons for comprehensive 

immigration reform: It is tremendously challenging to deliver police 

service to a community of people who are afraid to have any contact with the police. The results are an increase in unreported 

crime, reluctant victims and witnesses, and the targeting of immigrants by criminals because the bad guys know that many immigrants will not call the police. It is imperative that we find a way 

to bring these people out of the shadows so that they can get the 

service they need and deserve. 

In addition to the over-representation of our immigrant population as crime victims, the presence of large numbers of undocumented residents adds significantly to local government budgets 

and increases the workload for public safety. I will highlight some 

examples. 

13 

First, an increase in gang activity. Each one of us in our youth 

wanted to feel as though we were a part of something and that we 

were among people who cared about us. For many of us, sports and 

recreation, church, school, and family fulfilled those needs. But for 

any 13-year-old boy thrown into a school and a neighborhood where 

he knows no one, unable to speak English, with little or no parental involvement because his parents are working three jobs, criminal street gangs offer that boy everything he wants. Again, allowing that family to come out of the shadows gives that boy access 

to more opportunities and healthier choices. 

Police are also struggling with a rise in the crimes of identity 

theft and other types of fraud. Until just a few weeks ago, when 

the Maryland General Assembly changed the law, Maryland did 

not require proof of citizenship before issuing a driver’s license. 

Consequently, undocumented residents from all over the East 

Coast submitted fraudulent information and obtained a Maryland 

driver’s license. 

Police departments are also seeing an increase in human-trafficking cases, hate crimes, and cases involving unscrupulous employers not paying their laborers. Many categories of crimes would 

be favorably impacted by immigration reform. 

Perhaps the most significant reason to enact immigration reform 

is to allow police departments all over this Nation to get out from 

being placed squarely in the middle of a huge problem with which 

we have little to no control over the solution. 

The number of undocumented residents has grown tremendously 

in the past 15 years. In fact, 15 years ago, outside of a few border 

cities, I doubt any police chief would have mentioned illegal immigration as even an issue. But today, illegal immigration has affected our budgets, our workload, and most significantly our trust 

and confidence levels in the community. 

Police find themselves trying to respond to pressures from the 

community and elected officials who have extremely diverse viewpoints on the police department’s role in enforcing immigration 

law. This issue has polarized our communities. 

Municipalities have chosen a range of managing this issue. Some 

are proud to be called ‘‘sanctuary jurisdictions’’ where not only does 

local law enforcement not inquire about one’s immigration status 

but those jurisdictions also will not honor nor serve warrants from 

the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. On the other 

end of the spectrum, some jurisdictions have adopted policies that 

prohibit government services going to undocumented individuals, 

and they have elected also to participate in the Federal 287(g) 

training. 

Most jurisdictions have adopted policies somewhere between the 

two approaches I have just described. The overwhelming majority 

of major city police agencies have elected not to participate in the 

287(g) training, primarily because it undermines the trust and cooperation with immigrant communities that are essential elements 

of community policing. 

One of the realities is that public safety increases when people 

have trust and confidence in their police department. Delivering 

fair and consistent police service to all crime victims has to be a 

priority. 

14 

A second reason that most jurisdictions cannot become the immigration police is that local agencies do not possess adequate resources to enforce these laws in addition to the added responsibility 

of homeland security. Enforcing Federal law is an unfunded mandate that most agencies just cannot afford to do. 

In addition, immigration laws are very complex, and the training 

required to understand them would significantly detract from the 

core mission of the local police to create safe communities. 

Prior to a few years ago, enforcing immigration law was solely 

a Federal responsibility. It was a specialty like tax law. If the Federal Government comes to the conclusion someday that too many 

people are tax evaders, will the solution be to authorize local police 

to enforce tax laws? This is certainly contrary to our mission. 

The bottom line remains: Local law enforcement needs to work 

closely with all of our Federal partners, but we cannot do their job 

for them. 

Let me conclude by making the most important point of my testimony. No matter what you do, Mr. Chairman, you cannot solve this 

complex issue if we do not find a way to stop the buildup of another 

group of undocumented residents. Securing our borders must be a 

top priority. Let us find a way to align the labor needs in our country with a sensible immigration policy. Let us bring these members 

of our community out of the shadows and allow them to make a 

better life for their family. 

Let us target those undocumented residents with criminal 

records. Those individuals with criminal histories should find no 

safe harbor, no sanctuary. And, Mr. Chairman, I urge you to use 

your influence with the Attorney General of the United States to 

remove civil immigration detainers from the NCIC data base. Do 

not force local law enforcement officers to become the immigration 

police. 

And, finally, consulting with and involving local police when developing any immigration initiative is imperative if this initiative 

somehow involves or affects local law enforcement. It is imperative 

that Congress work with the President to enact comprehensive immigration reform. Done right, our country will only become stronger. 

[The prepared statement of Chief Manger appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, thank you, Chief Manger, for your excellent testimony. 

I apologize to Dr. Hunter and Mr. Moseley. We will be back 

shortly and resume what is, I think, excellent witnesses and great 

testimony to get us started on this major issue. 

The Committee is temporarily in recess. 

[Recess 2:51 p.m. to 3:24 p.m.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. OK. The hearing will resume, and we apologize. We do not expect more votes for quite a while, so I think now 

we will be able to run through, and I want to welcome our next 

witness. We are truly honored to have him here. Dr. Joel Hunter— 

and I just want to say he went out of his way and changed his 

schedule because he cares so much about this, and the whole Committee really appreciates that, Dr. Hunter. 

15 

Everyone knows him. He is the senior pastor of Northland. It is 

a Church Distributed in central Florida. He is one of America’s 

leading conservative evangelical voices, heads a congregation of 

more than 12,000 members, which I would say even for New York 

City that is a large number of congregants. 

On February 5, 2009, he was appointed to the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, 

which will advise President Obama on substantive policy issues, including interfaith relations, strengthening the roles of fathers in society, and reducing the number of abortions. 

It is an honor to have you here, Dr. Hunter. Thank you for being 

here. 

STATEMENT OF JOEL C. HUNTER, SENIOR PASTOR, NORTHLAND, A CHURCH DISTRIBUTED, AND MEMBER, PRESIDENT’S ADVISORY COUNCIL ON FAITH-BASED AND NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERSHIPS, LONGWOOD, FLORIDA 

Reverend HUNTER. Well, thank you, Chairman Schumer, and 

thank you for the work you did in getting me here. And thank you, 

Senator Cornyn and other esteemed colleagues on this panel, for 

providing me with the opportunity to speak on the moral and religious reasons for immigration reform. 

I am one of hundreds of thousands of local religious leaders in 

this country. I have been a pastor for almost 40 years, and that is 

what I want to be for all my years remaining. And even though I 

am also in leadership positions of national and international 

groups that are dealing with immigration, it is at the local level 

that I am continually reminded that policy truly does hurt or help 

people. 

In my faith tradition, we all start as strangers and aliens, outsiders to the commonwealth of God. But because we have a God 

who was willing to do what it took to include us, at great personal 

cost, we ‘‘are no longer strangers and aliens, but [we] are fellow 

citizens,’’ the Bible says. 

So I find it a high honor to speak to those in power as an advocate for those who have no power. In a verse that would be echoed 

in many religions, Proverbs 31:8 commands us to ‘‘Speak up for 

those who cannot speak for themselves.’’ 

The hope of any religion is that those who have been on the 

wrong path can be set on the right path. The need for comprehensive immigration reform is to create a path that will help people 

do the right thing. A broken system produces a dysfunctional society, fractured families, and it increases the vulnerability of both 

legal and illegal residents. It helps criminals who thrive in the 

shadows and it harms decent people, consigning them to a life of 

insecurity, hiding, and minimal contribution to the general welfare. 

A broken system produces both broken and crooked people. The 

cost to our Nation in terms of productivity, national unity, and national security is depressing. But it does not compare to the damage being done to individuals and families. 

Broken systems tempt many to predatory practices. I cannot 

count the stories I have heard about attorneys taking the entire life 

savings of undocumented workers, producing no results, and then 

abandoning those workers when the money was gone. Is that typVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:40 Mar 10, 2010 Jkt 055034 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\55034.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
16 

ical of the profession? We would not believe so. But ‘‘lead me not 

into temptation.’’ It is a mighty temptation to de-prioritize those 

who are desperate and too intimidated to raise their voices to complain. And what about employers who take advantage of the powerless because there is no system of accountability? 

Or the bureaucrats who have no incentive to produce results— 

or even to keep track of the paperwork—because, who will know? 

Or the talk show hosts that increase their fame and fortune by picturing those without the proper papers only as conniving and dangerous parasites instead of persons made in the image of God, deserving both respect and help to do the right thing? We are producing cottage industries of exploitation. We are also hearing millions of stories that are the opposite of the American dream. 

My friend Reverend Silas Pintos tells of a family in his Hispanic 

congregation that came from England. Both the husband and wife 

were successful business people, and they hoped that in the U.S. 

their children would be immersed in a better environment for family values. So they came to start an alternative energy company. 

After a 2-year ordeal with the immigration system and absurd 

legal fees, the immigration department could not even clearly explain to them why their residency application had not gone 

through. They returned to England emotionally and financially 

devastated. 

My friend Imam Mohammed Musri told me the wife of a 60-yearold man in his congregation was very sick. The man had papers, 

but when the attorney handling his case took a judgeship, the man 

was not told he needed to re-register. He was deported even though 

his wife was too sick to go with him. She was hospitalized and died 

without him because he could not get back into the country to be 

by her side. 

Pastor Augustine Davies is on the staff at my church. He and his 

wife are from Sierra Leone and have just completed the long and 

arduous task of becoming citizens, but they have special relationships with many of the Africans inside and outside our congregation who are caught in the system. One of them is George. 

George is from Liberia, West Africa. He is married and has four 

adult children who live in poverty back in his home country. When 

George arrived, the INS approved the refugee for temporary protection status. George completed a nursing program and got a job. He 

was turned down for TPS renewal, but now George feels the almost 

crushing pressure of providing for his family and other countrymen 

who need the money he can send to them because of his job. He 

stays in the shadows for now. I do not agree with what he is doing, 

but I know his present life is because he loves his family, not because he is out for himself. 

Our immigration system can also intimidate congregations as 

well as individuals and families. My friend Rabbi Steven Engel told 

me that his congregation had sponsored a family from Argentina 

to come to the U.S. The INS lost the paperwork many times. They 

made regular visits to the synagogue, suspicious that the congregation might be doing something wrong. The whole process was so 

stressful and unwelcoming that when Sergio died from a heart attack at the age of 43, the remaining family returned to Argentina. 

17 

These stories and many others do not live up to the ideals of our 

country. We can do better, and we know it. Everyone is frustrated 

with the present system. Our immigration system in many cases 

has us echoing the words of the despairing saint who proclaimed, 

‘‘I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the 

very thing I hate.’’ 

The urgency for immigration reform that yields efficiency and 

compassion cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. 

Some of the central principles that comprise most major religions 

are also woven into our country’s history and can be used as a 

standard for immigration reform. 

These principles deem each person as valuable, ‘‘endowed by 

their Creator’’ with a dignity that transcends earthly circumstance. 

Therefore, our system must treat each person respectfully. 

They acknowledge the family as the bedrock of personal and social development, and the support of the family as the foundation 

of a strong society. Therefore, our system should prioritize the family. 

They see law as not only necessary for restraining evil, but as 

needed for structuring healthy relationships. It is right that wrongdoers are restrained and/or punished, but it is a better justice when 

the laws yield correction and the redemption of bad circumstances. 

Therefore, our system should have ways to choose to live upright 

lives after the penalties for wrong decisions. So most people of faith 

are hoping for policies that will prioritize family togetherness, respect for the law, personal productivity, and compassion for those 

who are most helpless. 

We do not envy you your charge. Immigration reform is a morally complex and a politically explosive challenge. But many of us 

are praying earnestly for you, and we are seeking God’s wisdom in 

this matter. 

Including the stranger is not just a matter of compassion but a 

necessity for greatness. 

Loving your neighbor as you love yourself is not only a moral 

commandment but a path to national nobility. If we can build a nation of families and support networks that not only help the 

marginalized to be successful, but help the successful to be helpful, 

then we can better live up to our potential as a people. 

In the end, I believe our Nation will not be judged by the productivity of our budgets or the genius of our laws or even the earnestness of our faith communities. We will be judged, both by history 

and by God, by the way we have treated people, especially those 

who needed our help. 

[The prepared statement of Reverend Hunter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Dr. Hunter, I want to thank you for those 

moving and powerful words. And we are going to send your testimony and some of the others to all of our colleagues. It was really 

terrific. 

Our next witness, thank you for your patience in waiting, Mr. 

Moseley. Our next witness is Jeff Moseley. He is the President and 

CEO of the Greater Houston Partnership. The partnership facilitates corporate relocations and expansions in the Houston area, 

international outreach initiatives such as business development 

18 

missions outside the U.S. in foreign trade delegations, and strategic 

planning. Prior to joining the partnership, Mr. Moseley was the 

CEO of the Office of the Governor for Economic Development and 

Tourism, a position he held from 2003 to 2005. And since you are 

Senator Cornyn’s constituent, maybe he would like to add a word 

of introduction. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me 

to ask Mr. Moseley to come up and testify today. There is great interest, as I indicated in my opening remarks, about this subject 

across the board. The chief talked about impact on local governments, and certainly we see that not only in law enforcement but 

also in our hospitals and health care system. It is a matter of finding skilled workers for jobs where we lack skilled workers, and we 

need to fix this system. And Mr. Moseley has made it his job, along 

with those of the Greater Houston Partnership, to try to come up 

with good solutions and ideas for us. And so I am delighted he 

could be here with us today and share some of his ideas with us. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF MOSELEY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GREATER HOUSTON PARTNERSHIP HOUSTON, TEXAS 

Mr. MOSELEY. Thank you, Senator Cornyn, Chair Schumer, and 

members of this Committee. It is a delight to be able to bring a few 

remarks to you this afternoon, and I thank you for your leadership 

and for your commitment to reforming America’s immigration laws. 

And even though, as we have talked earlier, we may not always 

agree on specific legislative proposals, I am most grateful to each 

of you as members of this Committee for continuing this conversation that Senator Kennedy initiated with the American people so 

many years ago. 

By way of introduction, the Greater Houston Partnership is a 

business association whose membership represents more than $1.6 

trillion in annual revenues. Our organization seeks to represent a 

grass-roots voice for business and industry in this immigration reform dialog, and it is a voice that we know has been missing from 

the debate. We have witnessed most recently the two failed attempts to pass immigration reform. Arguably, the business community bears some responsibility, Chairman, for these failures by 

standing on the sidelines. 

The intent of the 1986 Immigration Control and Reform Act was 

to make employers responsible for verifying the legality of their 

workforce. However, the current system by which employers determine worker authorization is actually no better than the Social Security card, which is still printed on a low-cost basis and, quite 

frankly, has not been upgraded in any fashion since it was begun 

back in the 1930’s. 

We would also argue that there must be a strong balance between securing our borders and safeguarding our prosperity, to 

echo Chair Greenspan’s testimony. 

The Greater Houston Partnership recognizes the need to secure 

our borders. We also support immigration reform that will allow 

employers, through an efficient temporary worker program, to recruit skilled and unskilled immigrant workers when there is a 

19 

shortage of domestic workers. We also believe there is need to provide a process for legal status for qualified, screened undocumented 

migrant workers that are now in the country. 

The Greater Houston Partnership further believes that employers should be responsible for verifying the legal status of those they 

hire. And to this end, we support the creation of a very fast, reliable employment verification system. However, we would also add 

that we oppose laws that would increase civil and criminal penalties on employers without providing viable legal options for hiring 

skilled and semi-skilled workers. 

The partnership’s task force on this issue actually thought we 

should go further, and this led to the creation of a nonprofit organization called ‘‘Americans for Immigration Reform.’’ 

Chairman and members, the purpose of Americans for Immigration Reform is very simple, and that is, is to build a broad, grassroots national coalition that favors immigration reform. 

Last year, Americans for Immigration Reform commissioned a 

major study on the economic impact of undocumented workers, and 

this will sound similar to what Mr. Greenspan talked about. The 

Perryman study, available at Houston.org and 

AmericansforImmigrationReform.org, states it this way—and, quite 

frankly, if you think that subprime mortgages and the freezing of 

credit markets and high-priced energy have a chilling effect on our 

economy, the Perryman study concluded that if all undocumented 

workers were removed from the United States economy, the immediate effect would be the loss of some 8.1 million jobs. And even 

if the economy adjusted, job losses would still exceed 2.8 million. 

And, moreover, our economy would lose, Mr. Chairman and members, $1.76 trillion in annual spending and $652 billion in annual 

output. So even if we did have the resources to round up and deport every undocumented worker in this Nation—which we do 

not—the consequences to our economy would be staggering. The 

Perryman study, again, as I said, can be found free of charge on 

our website, but we think that in today’s economic climate, you and 

I can recognize that even a person who is unemployed in New 

York’s financial sector more than likely would not be willing to relocate and do agricultural work in California or construction work 

in Houston in spite of our mild weather. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Certain seasons. 

Mr. MOSELEY. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. So that is where we certainly agree with Chairman Greenspan that immigrants are net 

contributors to our tax base. And while it is recognized that there 

are costs affiliated with health care and public education, the economic benefit of an educated and healthy workforce strengthens 

our economy. 

We do not believe in amnesty, Mr. Chairman. We do not believe 

in deportation. But there should be a recognized legal status for 

the undocumented so that their contributions to the economy can 

be recorded and they can be taxed for public services just like all 

of us in our community. 

What the business community requires and what the religious 

community desires and what Americans for Immigration Reform 

need, we believe, as has been stated here many times, less rhetoric 

and a real strong, common-sense solution that we can all support. 

20 

We want leaders that are willing to share the truth rather than 

having the primary source of information come from the entertainment industry that inflames, rather than explains, the reality and 

complexities of the immigration issue. 

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Greater Houston Partnership, 

may I extend an invitation to you and your distinguished colleagues for us to host a field hearing for you in the Houston area 

at some time in the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[very difficultThe prepared statement of Mr. Moseley appears as 

a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, thank you, Mr. Moseley. I want to 

thank all four of our witnesses. I do not think we could have had 

four better witnesses to begin this, and from different perspectives 

each showed the need for immigration reform. And we will have 

more witnesses in the second panel who will augment that. 

I am going to ask my first question of Dr. Hunter. Your testimony was a tour de force. It really was. And I hear lots of testimony, and it is right at the very top of the list, so thank you. 

Can I ask you this: How many of your colleagues, would you say, 

in the ministries and all of the clergy would agree with your views 

on immigration? And do you think this time around more religious 

leaders who agree with your view will speak out in favor of immigration reform, as you have done so strongly, not just here but repeatedly? 

Reverend HUNTER. I do, Mr. Chairman, and let me tell you why. 

First of all, most local religious leaders are that because they 

care very deeply about people, and the more they hear these stories 

and the more they become familiar with people who are caught in 

a very bad system, the more sympathy they have and the more 

they are aware of people’s hurts and families’ break-ups. 

The second reason is I think the tide has turned in our country 

as far as—it is almost like we are—we have been systematically 

de-sensitized to, you know, everybody extremizing or extrapolating 

every wrong thing that could happen. And so, therefore, the pundits do not quite have—you notice they are getting more and more 

extreme, and that is for the reason they have to escalate in order 

to get the same amount of attention. 

And for the religious community, there are quite a few now that 

used to be very hard on one side or the other, and they are kind 

of saying, ‘‘Wait a minute. Let us take a second look at this. Let 

us approach this more intelligently. Let us take a look at this as 

complex problem and, therefore, work this thing through.’’ 

I think there is just a new day in this country, and I think that 

many local religious leaders are going to be hopeful, be prayerful, 

and be working toward a solution to the immigration reform challenge. 

Chairman SCHUMER. That is very good news, and I agree with 

you. I mean, even if you just look at the polling data, there are a 

small minority of Americans on either end, but most Americans 

want a solution that will be a fair solution, a humane solution, a 

legal solution. I think the time is right. That is, frankly, why I 

chose to chair this Subcommittee. In previous years, I had other 

Subcommittees here on this Committee. 

21 

The next question is for Alan Greenspan, again, who gave 

great—I do not think I have to ask many questions because the 

four testimonies here were just so incredible and made a much 

more powerful case than my questions would. I would just like to 

flesh out a few things with Chairman Greenspan. 

You said that undocumented workers contribute positively in certain ways to the economy. Having said that, do you believe that a 

system which would rely far more on legal immigration and be balanced between family immigration and economically oriented immigration, where, let us say, 90 percent of the new immigrants into 

this country were legal as opposed to about 40 or 45 percent, which 

it is now, would work better? 

Mr. GREENSPAN. Most certainly, Mr. Chairman. It is very difficult to envisage what it must be like to be an undocumented, illegal immigrant. I think that the Chief specified very well the fear 

that these people have of being deported. That cannot but have a 

very chilling effect on the flexibility or willingness to take certain 

different types of jobs. 

But let me go a step further and say how important it is to recognize, as Mr. Moseley has pointed out, that the very substantial proportion of both documented and undocumented immigrants in our 

labor force are at critical positions. They have very large participation at both the very lowest skill levels and at the very highest 

skill levels. If you were to remove either of those groups, the economy would be in very serious trouble. 

That also tells you, incidentally, that when you have a complementary labor forces, which is what the total foreign-born employment is, the tendency is to increase the productivity of the 

total. 

For example, on your staff, Mr. Chairman, you have a number 

of senior assistants. If you hire two or three people for each of 

those, those people whom you hire are not as good as your assistants, but the working together of the assistants and the helpers enhances the productivity of both. The wage rates of both go up; or 

in a broader context in the economy, the level of productivity and 

standards of living rise. So that when you have a very large group 

of individuals who have less than a high school education and you 

put them in, say, construction jobs, the foremen will be far more 

productive because they have more people to supervise and more 

gets done. The wage rates of the less skilled go up. The wage rates 

of the foremen go up. Everybody benefits. 

Those who argue that immigration suppresses the wage levels of 

native-born Americans are mistaken. It does not. On the contrary, 

it raises them with the sole exception of a small body of those with 

less than a high school diploma. And even they—it is an arguable 

case. 

So the arguments against immigrant labor are just wrong. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For Chief Manger, you testified that asking State and local law 

enforcement to enforce Federal immigration laws is an unfunded 

mandate, which it truly is. Can you just describe in a little more 

detail the amount of money and manpower that the average major 

city police chief currently has to divert from other areas if you were 

22 

to have to fulfill the unfunded mandate of enforcing Federal immigration law? 

Chief MANGER. The 287(g) training I think is a prime example 

where the resources necessary to take on these immigration investigations is really a lot more than most police departments can afford to do. It is not just simply a matter of going for a day’s training and all of a sudden you become—you know, you have this 

287(g) training and you can do immigration investigations. The 

training itself takes over a month. And to have police officers that 

you take out of service to train for that length of time to be able 

to begin to do investigations that previously we have never had to 

do—I mean, it was—so you are taking on complicated investigations that take a long period of time. 

I will just give an example. You stop someone for a simple traffic 

violation, and there are some police departments—not many, but 

some in this country now that if you do not have a driver’s license 

with you and you appear to be foreign born, they will initiate an 

immigration investigation. And it is not just simply running a 

name through a data base. Very often these are complicated investigations that take days in order to determine with some certainty 

someone’s immigration status. 

I do not know of a police department in this country that has the 

ability to take on these types of investigations, which are time-consuming, which are crimes that we have never had to investigate before, and just do it with no impact to their budget and their resources. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I would imagine, as difficult as it is for a 

large city police department, it may be harder for a smaller suburban or rural police department. 

Chief MANGER. Absolutely. 

Chairman SCHUMER. They have fewer resources. 

Chief MANGER. True. Larger departments do have some additional resources. We generally have staff that can do specialized investigations. But, again, I will speak for my police department. If 

I had additional personnel, I have got robbery issues, I have got 

auto theft issues, I have got a lot of other crimes that I think 

threaten public safety a lot more than going after someone who 

may have overstayed a visa. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. 

Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. I have just a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman. Let me start with Mr. Moseley. 

In 2007, when we were debating a comprehensive immigration 

reform bill, there was an amendment adopted that basically eviscerated the temporary worker provisions or guest worker provisions 

in the bill, and some observers called that a ‘‘poison pill’’ because 

that was part of the understanding that a comprehensive immigration reform bill would necessarily include a guest worker provision 

for people who did not necessarily want to be American citizens but 

wanted to come to the United States, fill necessary jobs in a legal 

status, and take the skills and savings they earned during that 

temporary work period back with them to their native land. 

23 

How important do you believe that a guest worker provision is 

to a comprehensive immigration reform bill? And why do you feel 

that way? 

Mr. MOSELEY. Senator, I think one of the biggest challenges for 

all of us would be to somehow put together a law with caps or 

quotas and somehow think that we can anticipate the workforce demands of our economy 5 years from today or 3 years from today 

or next year. 

The reality of it is we all admit today that we are part of a global 

marketplace, and as we move more and more into this global economy, we see a demand for workforce, and those demands need to 

be met, or we need to export jobs. It is pretty clear. 

Today, in the Houston economy, one of the demands we hear 

over and over again is the need for engineers in the energy clusters. And the people that are managing these large energy companies are warning us that, with baby boomers retiring, there is a 

curve that is really not going to be met without some type of an 

opportunity to bring in trained, highly trained workers from outside the United States, or we need to export those jobs. That is 

kind of where we see it. 

Today we have 4,000 job openings at the Texas Medical Center 

in Houston. Now, that is a range of jobs, but anybody who has recently been in a hospital probably has looked up and seen that we 

are importing skilled workers when they look into the face of a 

technician or a nurse and they happen to be from the Philippines. 

But we believe there is a huge value, whatever that mechanism is, 

in letting the workforce come into our economy and be used, and 

if they need to go back home, whatever that mechanism looks like, 

we do see a value in that. 

Senator CORNYN. Chairman Greenspan, may I ask you about a 

related topic? That is, to me one of the benefits of a guest worker 

program or a temporary worker visa as a component of comprehensive immigration reform, which was suggested by Mr. Moseley, for 

example, during times of prosperity and a lot of jobs you could 

ratchet it up. During times when the economy was softer and perhaps the need for those workers was reduced, you could dial it back 

without creating a permanent threat to American citizens not being 

able to find a job because maybe there was a foreign worker who 

was permanently here in the country who would occupy that position. 

Do you see any benefit to the flexibility in our economy given the 

ups and downs of the economy in having a temporary worker or a 

guest worker program? 

Mr. GREENSPAN. Yes, I do, Senator. But in the context of broad 

guidelines, the markets will work by themselves in that regard. 

Currently, for example, employment of foreign-born workers has 

suffered, because they happen to be concentrated in areas which 

are economically the weakest, such as construction. We are witnessing very significant decline occurring and a very substantial 

part of that are undocumented workers. They are withdrawing because the demand is not there. If you set broad principles, you do 

not have to calibrate as specifically as is implied, although I have 

no objection to doing it. I am not even sure it is necessary. But I 

grant you, you do need limits because, as I indicated in my preVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:40 Mar 10, 2010 Jkt 055034 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\55034.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
24 

pared remarks, opening up in today’s world to an unlimited flood 

of immigrants does unsettle a society. But within that context, 

there is far more leeway to open up for guest workers or temporary 

workers than even anybody is remotely talking about. And I think 

our economy could absorb them very productively, very quickly. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you very much. 

I just have one last question for Chief Manger. You talked about 

the—and I am sympathetic with your views that the responsibility 

of Federal law enforcement officials should not be thrust as an unfunded mandate on local and State officials. But can you talk with 

me just a second about a phenomenon which I think occurs in 

many of our big-city jails, where you have people who are here illegally but who have committed serious crimes. And if we can separate the people who have come here in violation of our immigration 

laws, which I think most people would not view as a threat to their 

safety necessarily, and those who are here illegally but who have 

committed crimes and exploiting perhaps other immigrants in the 

immigrant community because they know those crimes are unlikely 

to be reported, is there some—what can the Federal Government 

do better to provide you the tools or to allow for the separation of 

those and to deal with the really dangerous criminals, including 

the transnational gangs who are taking advantage of our porous 

borders now and preying on a lot of innocent people in many of our 

big cities and elsewhere? 

Chief MANGER. I think that ICE has heard the message that you 

just stated. The days of us notifying ICE that we have in custody 

someone who has overstayed a student visa and them thinking that 

it is a priority to deport that individual I think are passing. 

Now we have a policy within the Montgomery County Police Department where if we arrest someone for a violent crime and the 

individual is foreign born, we make that notification to ICE for 

them to check on the status. 

Every police chief I think would tell you that what you just described, there is a big difference between someone who is in our 

community committing crimes, an undocumented resident committing crimes in our community, the threat to public safety there I 

think necessitates ICE doing their job and removing that person 

from our community. 

One of the things that I talked about in my testimony was the 

fact that people that are here, undocumented, committing crimes, 

preying on our community, I think should receive no sanctuary, no 

safe harbor in our country. And we have enough folks here, documented and undocumented immigrants, that are contributing in 

our community, that are in no way threatening our public safety, 

that we need to concentrate on, and those that are here committing 

crimes I think we need to remove from our community. 

Senator CORNYN. A quick follow-up, and this is my last question. 

How good a job do you think the Federal Government, ICE, is 

doing now in accomplishing that goal? 

Chief MANGER. Much better, I would say, than a few years ago. 

They realize they do not have the resources to get rid of every undocumented resident. They are now focusing on the worst offenders, and that is what we need them to do. And I think they are 

doing a better job of it today. 

25 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. 

I could not think of four better witnesses to start off our long 

goal, quest, to come up with a comprehensive immigration reform 

bill this year. So I want to thank each and every one of you, and 

as I said, I want to distribute this testimony to all of my colleagues. Thanks for being here. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Now we will call our second panel to the 

witness stand and give them a minute to get settled. 

Let us get started with our second panel. I am going to introduce 

all four, and your entire statements will be submitted into the 

record, and then we will ask some questions. 

Doris Meissner—and I sat on the Immigration Committee when 

she has testified before, and I sat on the Immigration Subcommittee in the House when she was the then-INS Commissioner. 

She is a Senior Fellow now at the Migration Policy Institute and 

one of the leading thinkers in America on immigration and national security. Between 1993 and 2000, as I mentioned, she served 

as Commissioner of the INS. Her accomplishments include reforming the Nation’s asylum system, creating new strategies for managing U.S. borders, improving naturalization and other services for 

immigrants, shaping new responses to migration and humanitarian 

emergencies, and strengthening cooperation in joint initiatives with 

Mexico, Canada, and other countries. 

Eliseo Medina is the International Executive Vice President of 

the SEIU, the fastest-growing labor union on the West Coast and 

the largest union in California. More than 2 million workers across 

the country, including many hundreds of thousands in New York, 

I am proud to say, are SEIU members, which is the union with the 

largest membership of immigrant workers. 

Wade Henderson is expected, and we hope he will be—anyone 

hear from the Leadership Conference? Is he on his way? OK. He 

said he would be here, in all fairness to Wade, he said he would 

be here at about this time, so we expect him, and I will introduce 

him now. He will not hear the introduction, but as my kids used 

to say, ‘‘No big woop.’’ 

Wade Henderson is the President and CEO of the Leadership 

Conference on Civil Rights, counselor to the Leadership Conference 

on Civil Rights Education Fund. The Leadership Conference is the 

Nation’s premier civil and human rights coalition. He is also the 

Joseph L. Rauh Professor of Public Policy at the David Clark 

School of Law in the University of the District of Columbia. 

And Kris Kobach is a professor at the University of Missouri, 

Kansas City School of Law. In 2001, Professor Kobach was awarded a White House fellowship which took him to Washington, D.C., 

to work for the Bush administration in the office of U.S. Attorney 

General John Ashcroft. After his fellowship ended, Attorney General Ashcroft asked Professor Kobach to stay on as his counsel. In 

that capacity, he served as the Attorney General’s chief adviser on 

immigration law and border security. 

We welcome all of you, and we will begin with Doris Meissner. 

26 

STATEMENT OF DORIS MEISSNER, SENIOR FELLOW, MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE, FORMER COMMISSIONER, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, WASHINGTON, 

DC 

Ms. MEISSNER. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator. Let 

me begin by congratulating you for taking on this Committee and 

thank you for doing so. We all know, as you have said, that these 

are big shoes to fill, and I and my colleagues at the Migration Policy Institute, which is a nonpartisan think tank here in Washington, are available to be helpful to you and to the Committee 

with research, analysis, and policy ideas. 

I want to begin by just saying a few things about the economy 

because that, of course, looms above all right now. Where the economy and immigration is concerned, there are a couple of key facts 

that I think really are critical for the work that you are setting out 

to do. Chairman Greenspan alluded somewhat to this, but let me 

underscore it further, and that is that the growth in the foreignborn population in this country has slowed considerably since 2007, 

when the recession began, and that slowdown really began in 2006 

with the unauthorized population. We have seen no significant 

growth in the increase of the size of the unauthorized population 

since 2006. 

That is very important because that growth was going at about 

500,000 a year, a large number of people, for quite a few years running. It does not mean, however, that the people who are in the 

United States in an unauthorized status are going home. There is 

some anecdotal reporting about return migration, but the data do 

not support that there is a trend of return migration. So particularly where the case of the unauthorized population is concerned, 

although it is not growing, it is also not being reduced. 

So we are in a period of pause where immigration increases are 

concerned. It is particularly because of a slowdown in illegal immigration. That is new for the first time in a decade, and it really 

does provide a historic opportunity for needed reforms so that when 

growth does resume, which will happen, the disconnect between 

our broken immigration system and the economy might be fixed, 

and immigration can contribute then in a much healthier way to 

recovery and to our future as a Nation. 

So, with that backdrop, let me touch on just a few critical points 

that have to do with solutions, how we do this fixing. I want to 

make three points. 

First, enforcement. Where enforcement is concerned, we know, of 

course, that the new system has to have rules that are workable, 

and those are rules that have to be able to be enforced. Border enforcement is a given. Of course, we have to have border enforcement and border control. But it is also the case—and I think there 

is wide agreement—that border enforcement cannot succeed without meaningful employer enforcement. And meaningful employer 

enforcement depends on the universal verification, mandatory electronic verification, so that employers can comply with the requirements to hire only legal workers. 

The focus where verification is concerned has been almost entirely on the E-Verify system and on the means, the technology 

means by which one could do verification more effectively. But that 

27 

ultimately will fail in the same way as the I–9 system has failed 

without the companion piece of reliable identification documents. 

I mention that because I have seen you quoted on this point. It 

is a point that I raise again and again and that we raise in our 

work, and I want to validate your position on that, and I want to 

encourage that the Committee work on that and that we work together on that. It is an absolutely essential piece of the verification 

puzzle. 

The second point has to do with legalization. This, of course, is 

the issue where all of the passion is invested. I am not going to do 

the pros and cons on legalization, but I want to make two points 

about legalization. 

First of all, if you take a hard-headed economic look at legalization, and legalization now during a recession period, there is a persuasive case to be made why it makes sense to do legalization during a recession period. I have provided the research and the references in detail in my statement so that they are available to the 

Committee, but I think it is important to step back and take that 

into account in this discussion. 

Second on legalization, I think that it is extraordinarily important for the Committee to work very closely with U.S. CIS and with 

DHS and Government agencies on designing a legalization program 

so that it is a program that can be implemented. 

We need a phased legalization program that begins with a simple 

requirement for a background check so that criminals can be weeded out and a straightforward registration process that leads to 

work authorization and a chance to get in the queue for adjustment. Then over time applicants can earn their way to permanent 

residency and ultimately to citizenship for those who so choose. 

My final point has to do with future flows. I think if we look back 

or IRCA, one might argue that the single biggest failing of IRCA 

was to fail to anticipate future flows of immigration. We looked at 

IRCA as a one-shot deal, we could do it, and move on. That was 

a mistake. Immigration is dynamic. Legal and illegal are closely 

tied. So we will need increased flows of immigration again at some 

point in the future when job growth returns, and we need to be 

able to provide for that in legislation. 

The dilemma, of course, is not only the current dilemma of a recession; it is the bigger dilemma of the way in which our immigration statutes are written today. They are extremely inflexible, and 

there is really very little ability in the current statutory frameworks to adjust levels of immigration against labor market demands and labor market changing circumstances. So that far too 

rigid system with ceilings numerically written into the statute are 

really frustrating our ability to have immigration work much more 

effectively and constructively for the country and for the economy. 

And the only real variable here has been illegal immigration, which 

is responsive, and that is obviously not an acceptable way to go or 

situation to be in. 

We at MPI have addressed this issue several years ago in work 

that we did with a task force that we convened, which was under 

the co-chairmanship of former Senator Abraham and Congressman 

Hamilton. Our report was called ‘‘Immigration and America’s Future.’’ We made many recommendations, but among them the recVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:40 Mar 10, 2010 Jkt 055034 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\55034.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
28 

ommendations that we made was the idea of what we call a Standing Commission on Immigration and Labor Markets as a way of establishing an institutional response to this problem of flexibility 

and adaptation. 

Now, I know the word ‘‘commission’’ is always a problematic 

word. It has all kinds of connotations that are worrisome. But I 

would like to urge that the Committee think about this as a permanent capability within the Federal Government, in the executive 

branch, really akin to what the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the 

Census Bureau do, which would be to provide ongoing research and 

analysis on the relationship between immigration and labor markets. That is research that is not now available. It is not going to 

be produced by the academy because of the nature of the work and 

the way work gets done. But we need evidence, and we need ongoing evidence from which the Congress can make decisions that adjust levels of immigration in a far more systematic, regular fashion. 

So that a body like this would make recommendations based on 

evidence to the Congress for adjustments regularly, and those adjustments would be for the purposes of promoting economic growth 

and competitiveness for our economy for the future. 

I have given you a fuller description in the statement, but suffice 

it to say that our ability to have a more dynamic, responsive legal 

immigration system for employment-based needs in this country is 

going to be increasingly important to us in the future. This provides a possible way to get from here to there. 

Thank you very much. I look forward to working with you in the 

future. 

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

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Ms. Meissner. 

Mr. Medina. 

STATEMENT OF ELISEO MEDINA, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. MEDINA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Eliseo Medina, and I am a very proud immigrant today. To address a U.S. 

Senate Subcommittee is a great honor, and I thank you for the opportunity. 

My family and I came to this country in 1956. We worked in the 

fields harvesting grapes, oranges, and other crops. We worked very 

long days, without breaks, for very low wages and terrible working 

conditions. To ask for better treatment was asking to be fired on 

the spot. But as difficult as the work was, we also knew that if we 

worked hard we had an opportunity to claim our own little piece 

of the American Dream. Because of my history, the issue of immigration reform is very personal to me. 

Today, I am an Executive Vice President of the Service Employees International Union, one of the largest unions in America. I am 

honored to be here today to represent the 2 million homecare, janitors, security officers, and other SEIU members who live and work 

throughout the United States. Many of them immigrants who came 

to this country from all over the world. 

29 

Regardless of where we came from, we go to work every day with 

the same goal: to work hard, to contribute to society, and to achieve 

our own American Dream. 

Today immigrant workers are advocating alongside their coworkers and neighbors in support of economic reform, real health 

care reform, and strengthening the rights of workers through passage of legislation like the Employee Free Choice Act. I believe that 

to achieve that dream, we also have to finally address our broken 

immigration system. The status quo is simply unacceptable and 

works only to the benefit of those who break the rules. 

That is why the largest workers organizations in the country— 

the Change to Win federation and the AFL–CIO—have come together around a unified proposal for comprehensive immigration 

reform that consists of five components, each of which depends on 

the others for success: rational control of the border; a secure and 

effective worker authorization mechanism; adjustment of status of 

the current undocumented population; improvement, not expansion, of temporary worker programs; and an independent commission to assess and manage future flows, based on labor market 

shortages that are determined on the basis of actual need. 

This proposal will allow millions of undocumented workers to 

come out of the shadows, relieving them of the fear of arrest and 

deportation and of leaving behind their families. It will stop unscrupulous employers from taking advantage of their lack of legal 

status to exploit them and violate existing wage and hour and 

health and safety laws. Guest workers fare no better because they 

are tied to their sponsoring employer, with no effective redress because to complain is to lose your visa and be deported. 

I saw this system firsthand with my father and brother and later 

as an adult working with sugar cane cutters in Florida under the 

H–2A program. These workers are not treated as ‘‘guests’’ in our 

country; they are treated more like indentured servants. 

The current broken system has given rise to a three-tier caste 

worker system in America: citizens, guest workers, and undocumented workers. This onerous system depresses wages for all workers because too many employers seek out the cheapest, most vulnerable workers in order to gain a competitive advantage. This 

helps no one, not American workers, not immigrants, and not businesses that play by the rules, and certainly not taxpayers who 

wind up paying for an ineffective enforcement system that is focused on arresting service workers, farm and meatpacking workers, 

instead of stopping drug smugglers, gang members or other larger 

threats to our national security. 

Real reform will allow us to focus our resources on our priorities 

instead of on our prejudices. It will solve many problems at one 

time instead of the current Band-aid approach. 

Since we unveiled our proposal, the portion that has received the 

most attention has been the independent commission. The men and 

women of the labor movement have long believed that our current 

system for bringing in permanent and temporary workers simply 

does not work effectively. 

The key to designing a sustainable workplace immigration system is that the flow of future workers must be rationally based on 

the always evolving labor market needs of the United States. 

30 

The commission would act in two phases. First, it would examine 

the impact of immigration on the economy, wages, the workforce, 

and business in order to recommend to Congress a new flexible system for meeting our labor needs and set the number of employment 

visas. Next, the commission would set and continuously adjust future numbers based on a congressionally approved method. 

We believe our proposal will give all stakeholders a seat at the 

table in order to build a system that works for the long term that 

is based on sound public policy, not on politics, and it will provide 

for lasting political support. 

We hope that you will give it your consideration. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. 

OK. Mr. Henderson, I read your introduction and explained to 

people you had promised to be here around 4 o’clock, and you were 

true to your word. 

STATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL 

RIGHTS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. HENDERSON. My apologies. Let me begin again. Thank you, 

Chairman Schumer, for the opportunity to address what for the 

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights is even now one of the preeminent civil and human rights issues of the 21st century. 

I would like to begin with what I hope are a few points on which 

we can all agree. 

First, I think it is clear to everyone that our Nation’s immigration is badly broken. It fails to keep up with economic realities; it 

does not keep track of who is here; and it does not give people 

enough incentive to play by the rules. We clearly need drastic 

changes. 

I think we also agree on the need to include more effective but 

also more realistic and more human immigration enforcement. It is 

simply unrealistic to stretch fences across our borders, and we cannot leave enforcement to local police or, worse, to private groups. 

But we can take more sensible measures like hiring more Border 

Patrol agents, making better use of technology, and working closely 

with Mexico against human and drug trafficking. 

Third, I hope we can agree on the compelling need to give millions of undocumented immigrants in our country a realistic, humane way to come out of the shadows and legalize their status. As 

a lifelong civil rights advocate, I recognize the treatment of undocumented immigrants is an economic and legal issue of great importance. But it is also a civil rights issue of profound significance that 

goes directly to our most fundamental understanding of civil and 

human rights. 

We do not need to condone violations of immigration laws, but 

motives count. And when we consider why most of our current undocumented population came here and the role that immigration 

policy played in aiding and abetting their arrival, it is clear that 

we should not treat them as fugitives. If they are otherwise lawVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:40 Mar 10, 2010 Jkt 055034 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\55034.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
31 

abiding and willing to contribute and play by our Nation’s rules, 

then we should provide them with lawful status. 

And, fourth, because we all agree that families are the backbone 

of our society, our immigration laws should reflect this instead of 

keeping them apart as they do now. 

Moving more directly to the focus of today’s hearing, how to overhaul our immigration system, I am certainly mindful that these are 

incredibly challenging times. Our economy is badly struggling, 

leaving countless numbers of Americans economically insecure, and 

Congress obviously has a lot on its plate this year. But from our 

perspective, the challenge of immigration reform in 2009 is also 

pressing. However, to achieve reform, the American people must be 

convinced that even in these difficult times, reform makes sense 

economically as well as morally, and that the needs of all Americans are considered. 

For example, the needs of low-wage workers, a group disproportionately composed of African Americans, have long been neglected 

by policymakers, and this neglect could impede immigration reform. The situation facing African American workers is a complicated one, and as I explain in more detail in my written testimony, there is no consensus on whether immigration worsens their 

employment situation. 

For example, long before immigration policies were made more 

generous in the 1960s, black unemployment rates were twice as 

high as for white workers, and they have stayed that way even as 

the immigrant percentage of our population has increased. Nevertheless, immigration opponents continue to raise the specter of job 

loss and reduced wages among African Americans as a tactic in 

their opposition to comprehensive reform. 

Economic insecurity is certainly very keenly felt today in the African American community, as in every community. But this does 

not mean that African Americans oppose comprehensive immigration reform, and we at the LCCR have done extensive research that 

confirms that point. Instead, it underscores the need for reform 

proposals that will simultaneously advance the economic well-being 

of all low-wage workers. 

I believe that reform must take two key steps in order to succeed: first, it must forge policies that promote economic advancement for native-born workers; and, second, prevent immigrant 

workers from being exploited and being used to undercut the wages 

for everyone else. 

As to the first part, my written testimony describes some ideas 

jointly developed by civil rights leaders to address the concerns of 

low-income workers across the board. They include: better enforcement of anti-discrimination laws; improved job vacancy notification 

systems to give native-born workers better job information; increased enforcement of workplace standards; and more resources 

for job skills, training, and to help workers relocate. 

The second key component is an immigration bill that provides 

for genuinely fair treatment of immigrants and prevents immigrant 

workers from being used to undercut standards for all workers. The 

American labor movement recently issued a blueprint that embodies these ideas, and my friend Eliseo Medina has already addressed some of these issues in his testimony. 

32 

Now, before I finish, I would like to add that most African Americans understand better than almost anyone else that it is inherently wrong to divide people along the lines of race and ethnicity 

or national origin, and that ‘‘us versus them’’ wedge politics hurts 

everyone in the long run. That is why finally African Americans 

also take note of how consistently certain groups show their concern for us across the board and not just when it comes to immigration policy. 

Sadly, immigration restrictionists rarely show interest in the African American community at other times. To anyone who looks 

closely at where immigration restrictionists stand on other priorities of importance to African Americans, it is clear that they are 

not and never have been our friends. 

I want to thank you again for having me here today, and I look 

forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Henderson appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Wade Henderson. 

Now they did call another vote. We have about 6 minutes left on 

it, so, Mr. Kobach, to give you a full hearing and so I would have 

time to ask questions, do people mind waiting? I will get back as 

quickly as I can. Is that OK with all our witnesses? Great. OK. 

Thank you. 

The hearing is temporarily recessed once again for a vote. 

[Recess 4:29 p.m. to 4:52 p.m.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. The hearing will come to order, and we 

apologize to all the witnesses for that brief interlude. And now we 

are ready for Mr. Kobach. 

STATEMENT OF KRIS W. KOBACH, PROFESSOR OF LAW, 

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 

Mr. KOBACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will assume for the 

sake of this hearing that when we talk about comprehensive immigration reform, we mean reform similar in basic respects to the 

Senate bill 1348 of 2007, and I will explain with that understanding two basic reasons why pursuing that course of action 

would be ill-advised: first, the incapacity of the administration of 

U.S. CIS, the bureaucratic incapacity to implement the amnesty in 

the time scale that was anticipated by that bill; and, secondly, the 

national security concerns that must flow from any large-scale amnesty. 

First, looking at the CIS, it simply does not have the resources 

at this time to effectively implement an amnesty of the scale contemplated by the 2007 bill. To understand this, just consider a few 

numbers. On top of the 12 million-plus illegal aliens in the country 

who would be eligible for the amnesty, presumably, there would 

also be a mass influx of hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions 

more, which is exactly what happened after the 1986 amnesty, who 

would present fraudulent documents to apply for the amnesty as 

if they had already been here. INS reported after the 1986 amnesty 

that they discovered 398,000 cases of such fraud, and it is reasonable to expect that a similar influx would occur this time. 

But let us just assume for the sake of argument that 12 million 

illegal aliens are eligible and apply for the amnesty. Now, the 2007 

33 

bill required everyone to apply within a single year period. There 

are 250 calendar days that the Government is open for business in 

a given year. That means that there would have to be an average 

of 48,000 applications for amnesty every day. As of September 

2008, there were only 3,638 status adjudicators at U.S. CIS, and 

that number cannot be increased quickly because of the difficulty 

of hiring and training them quickly, and, of course, the attrition of 

existing adjudicators. Forty-eight thousand applications spread 

among about 3,600 adjudicators means an average of 13 amnesty 

applications per adjudicator per day. And, of course, on some days 

the number might well be double that amount. And under the 2007 

bill, with each application the adjudicator had only one business 

day to determine if there were any national security or criminal 

reasons why an individual application should not be granted. 

Now, that is a bleak picture, but unfortunately it gets worse because that is assuming that those adjudicators are not doing anything right now. Of course, they are. There is a backlog of pending 

applications of approximately 3 million cases at present, and, of 

course, on top of that comes the 4 to 6 million applications for 

things like green cards and other benefits that we currently grant 

that come in every year. 

The GAO recently reported that U.S. CIS is, accordingly, 

stretched to the breaking point—so much so that there is so much 

time pressure that they spend too little time scrutinizing the applications. As a result, the GAO concluded the failure to detect fraud 

is already ‘‘an ongoing and serious problem’’ at U.S. CIS. They said 

a high-pressure production environment exists, and it is widely 

known that at some U.S. CIS offices, there is an informal so-called 

6-minute rule in place where an adjudicator has to get through at 

least 10 applications per hour, and it is a veritable bureaucratic 

sweatshop. 

Well, as a result of this time pressure, U.S. CIS right now is failing to engage in common-sense verification with outside agencies, 

for example, calling a State DMV to see if two people who allege 

that they are married are actually living together. And, in fact, in 

many offices adjudicators are discouraged from making back-up 

calls like that. 

So this agency is already dangerously overburdened and susceptible to fraud. What would an amnesty of the style contemplated 

by the 2007 bill do? It would more than triple their existing workload. This 6-minute rule might become a 3-minute rule or a 2- 

minute rule. And it must also be remembered that the much smaller amnesty of 1986 for 2.7 million aliens was extended—or, rather, 

it took 17 years for that amnesty to be fully implemented. As late 

as fiscal year 2003, U.S. CIS was still adjudicating applications 

from the 1986 amnesty. This Committee is now contemplating an 

amnesty that would be approximately 4 times as large. 

Now, in the past U.S. CIS, when presented with a proposal like 

this, has said that the way it would deal with that surge of applications is by hiring contractors and that that might somehow solve 

the problem. But that approach is problematic for two reasons. 

First of all, it is unlikely that the necessary background checks 

and training of the contractors could be completed in time. There 

is already a massive backload at the Office of Personnel ManageVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:40 Mar 10, 2010 Jkt 055034 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\55034.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
34 

ment, which does background checks on U.S. Federal Government 

employees, of several hundred thousand people. The 2007 bill ignored that problem. 

The second problem is that contractors, even if they could be 

found and quickly put into place, they have to be trained. 

Now, one of the benefits of our current status adjudicators is that 

they are expert in immigration law and they are trained in detecting fraud in the applications for benefits. It is simply critical that 

in any amnesty the adjudicators be properly trained. 

Secondly, I want to talk about some national security concerns. 

An additional flaw in the 2007 bill is that it would have required 

any background check, as I mentioned, for the probationary visa to 

be accomplished within one business day. Now, that might be possible if the U.S. Government had a readily searchable computer 

database of every terrorist in the world. But, in fact, many of the 

records are paper records, and many of the records are held by foreign governments. So a 24-hour background check simply is impossible. Indeed, right now the FBI is doing name checks for U.S. CIS 

for applicants for benefits, and there is a huge backlog of about 

60,000 name checks waiting at the FBI right now. 

Now, their objective, if all of the problems are solved, is to get 

to a world where most of the name checks can be done in 30 days 

and all of the name checks can be done in 90 days. But we are not 

there yet. So to imagine that we could do something like the 2007 

bill and have a thorough name check in 24 hours is simply infeasible. 

But even when the Government has as much time as it needs, 

as much time as it wants to do a name check, terrorist applications 

can get through. Case in point: Mahmud ‘‘the Red’’ Abouhalima. He 

was given legal status under the 1986 amnesty as a seasonal agricultural worker even though he was driving a cab in New York. He 

subsequently was a ringleader in the 1993 plot against the World 

Trade Center, and his brother Mohammed also got amnesty fraudulently in the 1986 amnesty. 

Finally, I would like to conclude by pointing that a terrorist has 

one other option other than attempting to apply for the amnesty 

under his real name, and that is to simply invent a clean identity, 

a fictitious identity. The 2007 bill failed to include any safeguard 

for this problem, and I would urge you, if a bill is drafted again, 

it must close this loophole, because the former bill never contained 

any requirement that a secure, biometric embedded passport be 

provided to prove that the amnesty applicant is who he says he is. 

All it required was two scraps of paper, two easily forged documents, like a pay stub or a bank slip, saying that a person of this 

name exists. Under that bill, a person could walk into U.S. CIS office, call himself ‘‘Rumpelstiltskin,’’ offer two easily forged pieces of 

paper, and walk out the next day with a Federal Governmentissued ID card under that name, which he could then use as a 

breeder document to get a driver’s license, to board airplanes, to do 

all sorts of things. And that gap can be closed if the bill were to 

include a requirement that every amnesty applicant provide a passport, a secure passport of the type that has embedded biometrics, 

which some countries, but not all countries, currently issue today. 

35 

In conclusion, there are very large bureaucratic problems, incapacity problems, and there is also the issue of terrorism, which is 

a very real threat. I am not saying that all or even a very large 

number of amnesty applicants would be terrorists, but the point is 

if an amnesty program is created, it has to take into this risk. 

Thank you. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Kobach. 

All right. Here is what I want to ask our panel. The basic formulation, as I see it, to do immigration reform is I think the American 

people would accept a fair, reasonable path to citizenship for the 

illegal immigrants who are here. I think they would accept a full 

future immigration policy which would have room for both, and we 

are going to have to resolve both. I know, Wade, you said family 

has to come first. There are people who say jobs has to come first. 

I think you have to have both in there. I think there would be room 

for it. And I think we can even come to an agreement. I mean, 

there is a great deal of disagreement, as Mr. Medina would admit, 

as to how you get temporary workers into the country. 

If the American people were convinced there would not be another wave of illegal immigration, which means you have really got 

to be hard on that, very hard, that is basically my view. And I 

would like to know from at least the three panelists here, since Mr. 

Kobach is against the whole thing and just calls it ‘‘amnesty’’ and 

that is that, I would like to ask the other three on the panel: Do 

you think that is a reasonable formulation? We can start with you, 

Ms. Meissner. 

Ms. MEISSNER. Yes, I do, and I think that it actually tracks the 

way in which—the comments that I gave, and I think that there 

is—that continues to be the framework, and I think we have got 

to work out the details of that framework. 

Chairman SCHUMER. All right. How about you, Mr. Medina? 

Mr. MEDINA. I would agree, Mr. Chairman, and let me just say, 

correcting one of the comments that the labor market is not opposed to temporary workers coming in the future, it is a question 

of how many, how do they get here, and what rights they have 

when they get here. But we are not opposed to that question because we understand that there may be, will be times when the 

economy needs these workers. 

The last thing I would—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. And there are probably certain industries 

that need them more than others. 

Mr. MEDINA. Yes. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I mean, I have not studied this yet, but you 

could see where agriculture would need it more than construction, 

for instance. Is that unfair? 

Mr. MEDINA. And this is why we propose a commission so that 

you can actually wrestle with all of these questions and come up 

with a workable solution. 

And, Mr. Chairman, if I may, one last comment is on the question of national security concerns. It seems to me that it does not 

make any sense to think that somehow we are safer if there are 

12 million people that we do not know who they are, what their 

36 

intentions are, or what their background is, that we are much safer 

if we bring them forth and figure out who they are, where they 

live, where they work, and what they are doing. And to continue 

to ignore that, I would submit to you, is more about national security concern than legalizing them. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Mr. Henderson. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I think you have articulated a 

common-sense framework that really is the core of, I think, popular 

support for immigration reform as we understand it, and I think 

it would unite the American people around a comprehensive bill, 

even in a time of economic challenge where jobs obviously and employment are on the minds of all Americans. I think you are right 

that Americans recognize the compelling nature of a legalization 

program and would be willing to support it so long as the bill met 

the other criteria that you have outlined. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I mean, I have put it and I think we have 

to put frankly and not beat around the bush if we are going to get 

something done here, which is my goal. Most Americans are proimmigration but anti-illegal immigration. 

Does anyone on the panel disagree with that? No? Mr. Kobach, 

you agree with that, right? OK. 

OK. Now, let’s talk a little bit about—because Mr. Medina and 

Ms. Meissner had a little bit of common ground in terms of a commission, but I did not understand yours first, Ms. Meissner. Would 

you want the commission to set a number that Congress would 

have to ratify every year? 

Ms. MEISSNER. I view this commission as a permanent capability 

of the Federal Government to be doing research and analysis that 

is the basis for recommendations to Congress to adjust levels. 

Chairman SCHUMER. How frequently? 

Ms. MEISSNER. And it could be as frequent—I would say 

mandatorily every 2 years, but more frequently if need be. 

Chairman SCHUMER. You could run into lots of different problems; by having Congress do this every 2 years is a problem. 

Ms. MEISSNER. Well, you would not have to. You could get a recommendation that things are fine and stay at a steady state. But 

the point is to be constantly reviewing and learning about what is 

happening and where there are disconnects. And the point is to be 

doing it on the basis of evidence, not political horse trading. 

Now, the horse trading obviously needs to go on, and that is your 

job. I am simply saying that you—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Hard enough once every decade, let alone 

every 2 years. 

Ms. MEISSNER. Well, but the problem with every decade is exactly where we are at. 

Chairman SCHUMER. You are right. 

Ms. MEISSNER. So, you know, my mental model of this is. given 

where we are at, to have levels that are written into the statute, 

because I do not think that the Congress at this point is prepared 

to have enough confidence in any other way of doing it, and then 

to begin over time to adjust against those levels the same up or 

down. And in a period of recession, as we are in right now, it might 

be much more frequently that this bureau—I am going to call it a 

‘‘bureau’’ of the executive branch—you know, comes to the ConVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:40 Mar 10, 2010 Jkt 055034 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\55034.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
37 

gress, and then there has got to be a mechanism for how it is that 

you actually decide to act or not act on that recommendation. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I just wonder if a commission—you know, 

I do not know. I am not taking a position pro on con on a commission, just trying, since two different witnesses threw it out, I am 

not sure that the commission would be trusted, so to speak, by either side in the debate, or if it is trusted by one side, not on the 

other. What do you have to say about that? Mr. Medina, some have 

said that, well, the commission you are talking about is just a way 

to sort of say we do not need any guest workers or—— 

Mr. MEDINA. Not at all. 

Chairman SCHUMER. OK. Could you address that? 

Mr. MEDINA. We certainly understand that there are labor market needs. What we envision is a commission that would be much 

more nimble than the current system so that they would be able, 

as Ms. Meissner said, to develop the data on where and how and 

how many workers are needed and then adjust accordingly. It 

would still be subject to congressional approval. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Oh, yours would be as well to congressional 

approval? 

Mr. MEDINA. Yes, but the whole process, but that the commission 

would be the one that would be charged with developing the information and then saying here is our proposal. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. And so your commission and Ms. 

Meissner’s commission are not all that different. 

Mr. MEDINA. I think that other than what we would like it to be 

able—we see also the commission as a place where we could all sit 

together, that all the stakeholders would come together and hash 

out what the system is, and then Congress then could take up approval or disapproval on—what we thought about is that we had 

a fast-track process. And, again, this is just the concepts that we 

have come up with for purposes of the conversation. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right, and you believe that there is a need, 

there is room, you would accept a certain amount of guest workers 

each year or—— 

Mr. MEDINA. There will need to be workers coming in the future. 

We absolutely understand that. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right, but sometimes you could so no guest 

workers, just everyone who comes should have a path to citizenship. 

Mr. MEDINA. Well, what we would like—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. That is the other side of it. 

Mr. MEDINA.—is to be able to take a look at the future flow that 

we have today and provide a legal and orderly way for them to get 

here so that the way to get here is not through the desert or not 

through sidestepping the port of entry. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Of course. 

Mr. MEDINA. And then as we do that, the one change that we 

think is important is that it not be like today’s H–1B and H–2A 

where workers have no rights, and there is a series of things that 

we would advocate, as we have continuously, about in order for 

workers not to come and then be in a situation where they are so 

tied to the employer that they have no effective redress when they 

get exploited. 

38 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. Ms. Meissner, you have the most experience with the bureaucracy. What do you have to say about Mr. 

Kobach’s view that the bureaucracy would be incapable of dealing 

with a path to citizenship for such a large number of people. 

Ms. MEISSNER. Well, it certainly is incapable of dealing with it 

right now, but that is a totally static view of the way things work. 

Obviously, if there were legalization developed by the Congress, it 

would have to include the kind of planning and the kind of resources for the implementing agencies to implement. And I think, 

you know, you would do that, and the reason that I urged that the 

legislation be written in very close collaboration with U.S. CIS and 

DHS is precisely for reasons of resources, but also for reasons how 

it is designed. 

The worst thing that could be done this time around based on 

what we learned during IRCA is a program that is what I think 

of as retrospective; in other words, a program that asks to look at 

documents from the past for people to prove that they have been 

in the country. That would be a deal breaker. 

This should be a program that is prospective, is getting people 

to register and come forward, a requirement to come forward, and 

then prospectively earn the adjustment to permanent residence and 

to citizenship. That is an entirely different scheme to try to implement, but it matters very much how the legislation is written. 

Now, you know, you look at IRCA. The legalization program in 

IRCA was actually successfully implemented. INS created an entirely parallel structure within the agency focused solely on legalization—its own offices, its own staff, its own training—and they 

were able to get it done through the fees that were collected with 

the application. You would have to do something along those lines. 

It would be different, but you can do it. 

When the 1996 laws passed, there was an enormous workload 

with the 1996 laws. We wrote 60 regulations in 6 months during 

that period. A bureaucracy staffs up and does the planning, working with the Congress, to carry out a mandate like this. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. You disagree with her analysis of 

IRCA, Mr. Kobach, with a separate group so it would not have the 

extra burdens with enough employees to do the job? Or do—— 

Mr. KOBACH. I agree that—— 

Chairman SCHUMER.—you think it is just impossible, period? 

Mr. KOBACH. No, I do not think it is impossible, period, the administrative—but you would have to massively increase the number of people. We are talking about going from 3,600 to somewhere 

north of 10,000, and that would require training them, and that 

would require finding them, and that would require a period of 

time to get them in place. 

And if I might just mention one other point—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. But it could be done. 

Mr. KOBACH. In theory, it could be done, but it would take time. 

If I could—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, no one is saying—you know, your 

plan is one plan, but it is not the only one, that all 12 million apply 

and get their papers processed in a year. Certainly everyone should 

have to register immediately so you avoid fraud and stuff, but not 

be processed, not put on the path. 

39 

Mr. KOBACH. But the 2007 bill actually said, ‘‘From this date, 

you have 12 months, and everybody has to come in.’’ So it actually 

did not allow time to beef up—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. But you could phase it in, right? 

Mr. KOBACH. In theory, one could. I want to mention one other 

point about commissions. You know, we did have a very big and 

important commission, the Jordan Commission, which studied immigration reform, and I think it is fitting for everyone to go back 

and re-read that Commission’s report because they had a lot of 

good recommendations. And on the subject of legal immigration, 

one of their points was that, yes, legal immigration is good, but 

within reasonable limits. And that is my view, too. You have to 

have limits so you do not displace American workers, and you have 

to have limits so that you do not overload our assimilation system, 

so that our melting pot continues to work and that people continue 

to recognize themselves as Americans. 

Chairman SCHUMER. But you do admit, obviously, that the 

present system is broken? 

Mr. KOBACH. Well, I will admit that some aspects of it are broken, but actually our enforcement aspects have been working relatively well in the last year because of the increased worksite enforcement that ICE has been engaged in and also because of some 

of the assistance from States like Arizona that compel E-Verify, 

you have actually seen self-deportation from certain jurisdictions, 

especially Arizona, because of the enhanced enforcement pressure. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I think one of the witnesses testified that 

the number of illegal immigrants here in America had not gone 

down. It had not gone up, but it had not gone down. 

Mr. KOBACH. According to—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Is that your view? 

Ms. MEISSNER. That was mine, yes. 

Mr. KOBACH. I believe that that is incorrect. According to the 

Current Population Survey of the U.S. Census Bureau, in fiscal 

year 2008—and these numbers were reported by the Center for Immigration Studies. In 2008, there was a net decrease of 1.3 million 

illegal aliens. 

Chairman SCHUMER. You disagree with that, Ms. Meissner? 

Ms. MEISSNER. If you take deportations—which is the normal 

course of enforcement—out, there has not been a net change in the 

size of—it is just not growing. 

Chairman SCHUMER. OK. Let me see here. Let me see if I have 

anything else. 

Yes, Mr. Medina, I think the labor market has had a change in 

its views on immigration over the last 5 years, fairly dramatic, led 

by your union, I would say. Could you tell us why you think immigration reform done in the right way would not hurt the members 

of your union, many of whom compete with immigrants for jobs? 

Mr. MEDINA. We think that the problem right now, Senator, is 

that you have millions of workers with no rights, cannot defend 

themselves, get taken advantage of by the employers, and under 

that situation where you have undocumented workers, guest workers, and native workers, you wind up with a situation where everybody suffers. And we believe that the best way to ensure is to have 

a level playing field for all employers that have to comply with the 

40 

laws, that have to do the same things, whether it be OSHA or wage 

and hour laws, and that also are protected by our labor laws, that 

that will do more to protect the standard for workers in this country than anything else we can do. 

Chairman SCHUMER. And does most of the labor—I mean, the 

NCIU has been, as I said, ahead of the curve on this issue. Do you 

think most of the labor market now supports what you are saying 

here? 

Mr. MEDINA. This position that we took has been endorsed by 

every union in the Change to Win Federation and in the AFL–CIO. 

So we are all on the same page. I know much has been made about 

divisions within labor in the past, but in reality, we were on the 

same page with 90 percent of the issues. The one question that we 

were wrestling with was future flows, how you address them. We 

have now come to a process that we believe would deal with that 

question, and so we are all moving forward. 

Chairman SCHUMER. If I sat you down with, say, Mr. Moseley, 

do you think you could come to an agreement on how to structure 

it? 

Mr. MEDINA. I believe so. I think that one of the things that we 

really are working hard on is to have this conversation with every 

stakeholder. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, that is what we hope to encourage 

here on the four or five major issues that get in the way of immigration reform. But on guest workers, which helped bring down the 

bill last time, you heard, I think, Jon Kyl, you think that business 

and labor could come to an agreement. 

Mr. MEDINA. I think that everybody is sick and tired of a system 

that does not work, and I think people want to make it work. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I think the time is right. I do. 

Do you agree with that, Doctor—Doris—are you Dr. Meissner 

or—— 

Ms. MEISSNER. No. I am Doris Meissner. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Mrs. Meissner, Ms. Meissner. Former Commissioner. I used to call you ‘‘Commissioner.’’ Do you think labor 

and business could come to an agreement on the guest worker—— 

Ms. MEISSNER. I do not know, because I do not—I mean, I do not 

know all of the issues, the political issues. But I will tell you 

this—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Just your hunch. You have more experience—— 

Ms. MEISSNER. I do think so, and I actually think that there is 

an idea here that I want to throw into the mix, which is an idea 

that we also came up with in the ‘‘America’s Future’’ task force, 

and it is the idea of provisional visas, which is a new visa stream 

that starts out as a temporary visa but can also become a visa that 

leads you into permanent immigration. And I think that is the reality of the way things happen on the ground, is that people tend 

to come for temporary reasons, whether they are high-skilled or 

low-skilled. Right now with H–1Bs, we have found a way that they 

should be allowed to adjust. But that kind of a concept of a visa 

that actually may start with one purpose, but as people attach to 

the labor market and as conditions change, may ultimately make 

41 

it possible for them to be eligible to become permanent is another 

form of flexibility that we need. 

I think ideas like that in connection with discussions among constituency groups, business and labor, do offer the opportunity for 

some real synergies. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Mr. Medina, is that on the outset something you would consider? I am not asking you to endorse it. 

Mr. MEDINA. We are always ready and eager to sit down and 

have conversations to figure out how we solve it. Absolutely. 

Chairman SCHUMER. All right. Now I just want to ask each of 

you a final question. If the goal is to come up with comprehensive 

immigration reform that would get us support of the majority of 

the American people, a majority of the House, a majority of the 

Senate, which issue do you think is our biggest stumbling block? 

OK? You can have a minute to think about it. It is sort of like asking what is your favorite song. It is hard to pick one, right? Or your 

favorite movie. 

Go ahead, Ms. Meissner. 

Ms. MEISSNER. I think it remains the issue of legalization. 

Chairman SCHUMER. You mean the path to citizenship, how 

it—— 

Ms. MEISSNER. No. The idea that a legalization program is rewarding lawbreaking and the continued inability to have that conversation. So that I think that it ultimately becomes the difficult— 

the most difficult continues to be a political issue, not a substantive 

policy issue. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. But, again, my view is that at least 

that view is mooted, A, if the path to citizenship is a real path and 

has penalties and other types of things but is reasonable, OK? You 

know, Mr. Kobach would just call anything ‘‘amnesty,’’ but if you 

rob somebody and serve 5 years in jail and then come out, it is not 

amnesty, OK? Or you get fined and you pay it, it is not amnesty. 

Amnesty is saying we absolve you, and no one is for that. So I 

thought it was sort of unfair for you to call this program ‘‘amnesty.’’ That is not what it is, and I will let you respond to that. 

But my view is—— 

Ms. MEISSNER. But I think explaining is the critical issue. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Yes, but, again, I think most Americans, at 

least the polling data I have seen and talking to people, their 

greatest fear is not this time’s path to citizenship, because they 

know that there is no real other solution, and they are not happy 

with the present, but that it is going to happen again and again 

and again. And as most of you know, I have some thoughts on that 

issue, which we are not going to discuss at this hearing, but I think 

there are ways to convince people it is pretty foolproof. 

What do you think, Mr. Medina? 

Mr. MEDINA. I would agree with Ms. Meissner, but I think that 

all the polls and all the focus groups that have been done is that 

once people understand this is not Ronald Reagan’s amnesty, this 

is earned legalization where you will have to pay a fine, you will 

have to be gainfully employed, you have to undergo a background 

check, you have to learn English and integrate yourself into society—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Go to the back of the line. 

42 

Mr. MEDINA [continuing].—You need to earn that and go to the 

back of the line. It is earned legalization, not amnesty. When people hear that, I think they say, ‘‘That sounds like a good thing to 

me. Let’s fix it.’’ And so I think—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. I think what the polling data shows is 

when it is described as amnesty, they say no, and then when you 

describe it without either calling it amnesty or a legal path—you 

know, a path to legalization, people say, ‘‘That sounds good.’’ They 

list the five or six things that you have. But that is not how it always works. 

Wade? Mr. Henderson. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Please call me ‘‘Wade,’’ Mr. Chairman. Actually—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. You can call me—if I am going to call you 

‘‘Wade,’’ you can call me ‘‘Chuck.’’ 

Mr. HENDERSON. All right. I actually think, sir, that your formulation really highlights the greater difficulty, I think, in securing 

public support for comprehensive reform as we have described it. 

I would agree with both Doris Meissner and Eliseo Medina about 

legalization being a challenge. But I do not think it is the most difficult challenge. I think the public is there. I think for all kinds of 

compelling reasons they will embrace it in time. 

I think you have identified what is probably the greater challenge, which is to convince the public that this process will not 

have to be repeated again or every decade, as now has been the 

case, in order to accommodate this new flow of undocumented individuals. I think that is No. 1. 

Hand in glove with that goes this issue of a secure form of identification that helps to ensure that both individuals who are given 

access to legalization as well as those given access to employment 

have gone through a process that ensures that they are the individuals they purport to be and that that form of identification will be 

viable and not then be somehow used improperly in other contexts, 

whether it is for purposes of harassment in the law enforcement 

sense, for purposes of exclusion under voter ID laws. There are 

many permutations of this issue that—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Do you think it is doable? 

Mr. HENDERSON. I think it is doable, but I think it will be—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. For the audience, Wade—Mr. Henderson— 

used to be ACLU, so his previous hat is going to be valuable in 

helping us do this right. 

Mr. HENDERSON. I think it can be done, but I think it is going 

to be a real challenge. I think it is a challenge. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Mr. Kobach, you get the last word. What is 

going to be the toughest part of this? 

Mr. KOBACH. Mr. Chairman, if I might just—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Aside from convincing you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KOBACH. Let me just go to your discussion about the term 

‘‘amnesty.’’ I think an amnesty would probably be defined as something that gives the unlawfully present alien legal presence in 

the—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Why don’t you define ‘‘amnesty’’ without 

using the specific? What is amnesty in general? 

43 

Mr. KOBACH. Well, think of the analogy of a thief. If you give a 

thief an amnesty, an amnesty would include forgiving him for his 

crime after he has paid his—or maybe not making him pay a penalty. But you certainly would not say that an amnesty has to include giving the thief the money that he stole. 

Now, what has an illegal alien taken? Presence in the United 

States that was not given to him. So, therefore, an amnesty should 

not include, in my view, a true amnesty or a good amnesty would 

not include giving him what he has taken. 

What kind of amnesty could I support? Well, here is one, and 

maybe you did not think I could support one. But that is, right now 

we have a 10-year bar that says if you have been unlawfully 

present in the United States, you cannot apply for a visa for 10 

years. I would say do not give the illegal alien lawful presence in 

the United States right away, say, ‘‘You can go back to your home 

country, and you can get in line with all the other millions of people, and we will not impose that 10-year bar.’’ That would be the 

kind of amnesty I could accept, because that would actually encourage people to go home and it would encourage them to get right 

with the law. 

But as far as the stumbling block, I agree with former Commissioner Meissner. The biggest stumbling block is the sentiment of 

the American people—this is according to a Rasmussen poll in August of 2008—that 69 percent of voters say controlling the border 

is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented 

workers, and I think the American people are right, and the American people would probably prefer to see for a while if enforcement 

works. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Let me ask you this. If you said you could 

do both, would they say yes or no—controlling the border and— 

what was the second part? 

Mr. KOBACH. The second—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. The Rasmussen poll, what—— 

Mr. KOBACH. Oh, controlling the border and legalizing the status 

of undocumented workers. 

Chairman SCHUMER. If you said both or neither, what do you 

think the American people would say? 

Mr. KOBACH. Well, but—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Just answer the question. 

Mr. KOBACH. If the American people—if it said both or neither? 

Chairman SCHUMER. Yes. 

Mr. KOBACH. That is an interesting question. I have never seen 

that question polled. 

Chairman SCHUMER. OK. What do you think? 

Mr. KOBACH. I think probably most would say neither, because 

I think the reaction—they already perceive that the border is uncontrolled, and so, therefore, legalizing would be a change from the 

status quo, so they would probably say they would rather have the 

status quo than an amnesty program. And I think you would probably get that result. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. Anyone else want to say anything 

here? Because we are going to probably call on you in the future 

to help us. 

[No response.] 

44 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, then, I thank you. This has been a 

great start, and as I said, I am optimistic, using the formulations 

that we have talked about today, that we might—not for sure, and, 

boy, it is hard. I do not want to give anyone the illusion that this 

is easy. But we might be able to get something done that really 

stands by the basic view that Americans support, like legal immigration and do not like illegal immigration, and implement something that makes that happen. 

With that, I want to thank our panel not only for their wisdom 

and their excellent testimony and their patience, but for being 

here. And just before we break, I have to ask unanimous consent 

to put—OK. At this time I would also like to submit for the record 

testimony from the following organizations: AFL–CIO, Asian American Justice Center, Economic Policy Institute, El Paso Police Department, Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, National Korean American Service and Education Consortium, New York Immigrant Coalition, Partnership for New York Services, Immigrant 

Rights, and Education Network. So, without objection, those are 

added to the record. The record is open for 7 days. 

And with that, we are closing this hearing and thanking our witnesses again. 

[Whereupon, at 5:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.] 

45 


55034.001
46 


55034.002
47 


55034.003
48 


55034.004
49 


55034.005
50 


55034.006
51 


55034.007
52 


55034.008
53 


55034.009
54 


55034.010
55 


55034.011
56 


55034.012
57 


55034.013
58 


55034.014
59 


55034.015
60 


55034.016
61 


55034.017
62 


55034.018
63 


55034.019
64 


55034.020
65 


55034.021
66 


55034.022
67 


55034.023
68 


55034.024
69 


55034.025
70 


55034.026
71 


55034.027
72 


55034.028
73 


55034.029
74 


55034.030
75 


55034.031
76 


55034.032
77 


55034.033
78 


55034.034
79 


55034.035
80 


55034.036
81 


55034.037
82 


55034.038
83 


55034.039
84 


55034.040
85 


55034.041
86 


55034.042
87 


55034.043
88 


55034.044
89 


55034.045
90 


55034.046
91 


55034.047
92 


55034.048
93 


55034.049
94 


55034.050
95 


55034.051
96 


55034.052
97 


55034.053
98 


55034.054
99 


55034.055
100 


55034.056
101 


55034.057
102 


55034.058
103 


55034.059
104 


55034.060
105 


55034.061
106 


55034.062
107 


55034.063
108 


55034.064
109 


55034.065
110 


55034.066
111 


55034.067
112 


55034.068
113 


55034.069
114 


55034.070
115 


55034.071
116 


55034.072
117 


55034.073
118 


55034.074
119 


55034.075
120 


55034.076
121 


55034.077
122 


55034.078
123 


55034.079
124 


55034.080
125 


55034.081
126 


55034.082
127 


55034.083
128 


55034.084
129 


55034.085
130 


55034.086
131 


55034.087
132 


55034.088
133 


55034.089
134 


55034.090
135 


55034.091
136 


55034.092
137 


55034.093
138 


55034.094
139 


55034.095
140 


55034.096
141 


55034.097
142 


55034.098
143 


55034.099
144 


55034.100
145 


55034.101
146 


55034.102
147 


55034.103
148 


55034.104
149 


55034.105
150 


55034.106
151 


55034.107
152 


55034.108
153 


55034.109
154 


55034.110
155 


55034.111
156 


55034.112
157 


55034.113
158 


55034.114
159 


55034.115
160 


55034.116
161 


55034.117
162 


55034.118
163 


55034.119
164 


55034.120
165 


55034.121
166 


55034.122
167 


55034.123
168 


55034.124
169 


55034.125
170 


55034.126
171 


55034.127
172 


55034.128
173 


55034.129
174 


55034.130
175 


55034.131
176 


55034.132
177 


55034.133
178 


55034.134
179 


55034.135
180 


55034.136
181 


55034.137
182 


55034.138
183 


55034.139
184 


55034.140
185 


55034.141
186 


55034.142
187 


55034.143
188 


55034.144
189 


55034.145
190 


55034.146
191 


55034.147
192 


55034.148
193 


55034.149
194 


55034.150
195 


55034.151
196 


55034.152
197 


55034.153
198 


55034.154
199 


55034.155
200 


55034.156
201 


55034.157
202 


55034.158
203 


55034.159
204 


55034.160
205 


55034.161
206 


55034.162
207 


55034.163
208 


55034.164
209 


55034.165
210 


55034.166
211 


55034.167
212 


55034.168
213 


55034.169
214 


55034.170
215 


55034.171
216 


55034.172
217 


55034.173
218 


55034.174
219 


55034.175
220 


55034.176
221 


55034.177
222 


55034.178
223 


55034.179
224 


55034.180
225 


55034.181
226 


55034.182
227 


55034.183
228 


55034.184
229 


55034.185
230 


55034.186
231 


55034.187
232 


55034.188
233 


55034.189
234 


55034.190
235 


55034.191
236 


55034.192
237 


55034.193
238 


55034.194
239 


55034.195
240 


55034.196
241 


55034.197
242 


55034.198
243 


55034.199
244 


55034.200
245 


55034.201
246 


55034.202
247 


55034.203
248 


55034.204
249 


55034.205
250 


55034.206
251 


55034.207
252 


55034.208
253 


55034.209
254 


55034.210
255 


55034.211
256 


55034.212
257 


55034.213
258 


55034.214
259 


55034.215
260 


55034.216
261 


55034.217
262 


55034.218
263 


55034.219
264 


55034.220
265 


55034.221
266 


55034.222
267 


55034.223
268 


55034.224
269 


55034.225
270 


55034.226
271 


55034.227
272 


55034.228
273 


55034.229
274 


55034.230
275 


55034.231
276 


55034.232
277 


55034.233
278 


55034.234
279 


55034.235
280 


55034.236
281 


55034.237
282 


55034.238
283 


55034.239
284 


55034.240
285 


55034.241
286 


55034.242
287 


55034.243
288 


55034.244
289 

Æ 


55034.245