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

81–734 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 113–45 

HOW COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM 

SHOULD ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF WOMEN 

AND FAMILIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 18, 2013 

Serial No. J–113–8 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking Member 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 2 

Hirono, Hon. Mazie, a U.S. Senator from the State of Hawaii ............................ 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 109 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 126 

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

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

WITNESSES 

Martin, Susan F., Donald G. Herzberg Professor of International Migration, 

Georgetown University, Washington, DC .......................................................... 12 

Moua, Mee, President and Executive Director, Asian American Justice Center, Washington, DC ............................................................................................ 9 

Ng’andu, Jennifer, Director, Health and Civil Rights Policy Projects, National 

Council of La Raza, Arlington, Virginia ............................................................. 14 

Panetta, Karen, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Tufts 

University, Medford, Massachusetts, and Vice President, Communications 

and Public Awareness, The Institute of Electrical & Electronics EngineersUnited States of America (IEEE–USA) .............................................................. 7 

Poo, Ai-jen, Director, National Domestic Workers Alliance, New York, New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 6 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Mee Moua to questions submitted by Senator Klobuchar ............. 31 

Responses of Jennifer Ng’ abdu to questions submitted by Senator Klobuchar 35 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Access Women’s Health Justice, Oakland, California, letter ............................... 37 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Laura W. Murphy, Director, New 

York, New York, statement ................................................................................. 42 

American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Washington, DC, statement ..... 49 

American Jewish Committee (AJC), Foltin, Richard T., Director of National 

and Legislative Affairs, Office of Government and International Affairs, 

Washington, DC, statement ................................................................................ 50 

APIAHF Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum, Washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 52 

Baumgarten, Alexander D., and Katie Conway, on behalf of the Episcopal 

Church, New York, New York, statement .......................................................... 61 

Choice USA, Washington, DC, statement .............................................................. 63 

Colorado Organization for Latina, Denver, Colorado, statement ........................ 68 

Church World Service (CWS), New York, New York, statement ......................... 73 

Family Unity: 

Story of Nadine ................................................................................................. 74 

Story of Sudhir ................................................................................................. 75 

Story of Lauren ................................................................................................. 76 

Story of N .......................................................................................................... 77 

First Focus Campaign for Children, Washington, DC, statement ....................... 78 

Forward Together, Oakland, California, statement .............................................. 81 

Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................................... 86 
Page

IV 

Ginatta, Antonio M., Advocacy Director, US Program, Human Rights Watch, 

New York, New York, statement ........................................................................ 88 

Guttmacher Policy Review (GPR), Washington, DC, article ................................ 93 

Health Food IR, joint letter to President Obama and to all Members of 

Congress ................................................................................................................ 100 

Immigrant and Victim Advocacy Organizations, March 15, 2013, joint letter ... 110 

Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, statement .............. 118 

Imprint Immigrant Professional Integration, Nikki Cicerani, spokesperson, 

http://IMPRINTProject.org, statement ............................................................... 123 

Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), Sister Janet Mock, Executive Director, Silver Spring, Maryland, statement .......................................... 127 

Martin, Susan F., Donald G. Herzberg Professor of International Migration, 

Georgetown University, Washington, DC .......................................................... 130 

Moua, Mee, President and Executive Director, Asian American Justice Center, Washington, DC, statement ......................................................................... 134 

National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, Silver Spring, 

Maryland, statement ............................................................................................ 140 

National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF), Washington, 

DC, statement ...................................................................................................... 141 

National Center for Lesbian Rights, Washington, DC, statement ...................... 147 

National Council of La Raza, Jennifer Ng’andu, Director, Health and Civil 

Rights Policy Projects, Washington, DC, statement ......................................... 152 

National Immigration Law Center (NILC), Washington, DC, statement ........... 159 

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH), New York, New 

York, statement .................................................................................................... 163 

Panetta, Karen, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Tufts 

University, Medford, Massachusetts, and Vice President, Communications 

and Public Awareness, The Institute of Electrical & Electronics EngineersUnited States of America (IEEE–USA) .............................................................. 172 

Planned Parenthood, Dana Singiser, Vice President of Policy and Government 

Relations, Washington, DC, statement .............................................................. 195 

Poo, Ai-jen, Director, National Domestic Workers Alliance, New York, New 

York, statement .................................................................................................... 197 

Praeli, Lorella, Director of Policy and Advocacy, United We Dream, Washington, DC, statemenet ........................................................................................ 201 

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Washington, DC, statement ......... 204 

Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), New York, New York, statement 209 

Sauti Yetu Center for African Women and Families, New York, New York, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 214 

Sojourners, Jim Wallis, President and CEO, Washington, DC, statement ......... 216 

Stolz, Rich, Executive Director & Ada Williams Prince, Director of Policy, 

OneAmerica, Seattle, Washington, statement ................................................... 217 

Tiven, Rachel B., Executive Director, Immigration Equality, Washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 225 

Women’s Refugee Commission, New York, New York, statement ....................... 230 
(1) 

HOW COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM SHOULD ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF 

WOMEN AND FAMILIES 

MONDAY, MARCH 18, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:01 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mazie Hirono, presiding. 

Present: Senators Hirono, Franken, Grassley, and Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAZIE HIRONO, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII 

Senator HIRONO. Good afternoon, everyone. I am pleased to call 

to order this hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. This hearing is titled, ‘‘How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs of Women and Families.’’ It will be an opportunity 

to learn about how immigration impacts women and families as we 

begin to consider the ways in which we will reform our immigration laws. 

I want to welcome each of the witnesses and Senator Grassley 

and Senator Franken for joining us. 

I would like to thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member 

Grassley, and their staffs, for making this hearing possible. 

Now I know that we have folks here that some of us know very 

well, and I would like to give Senator Franken the opportunity to 

say a few words about his good friend who is on the panel today. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is so great to 

have Mee here. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. This confusion, by the way, with Mee’s name 

is a running joke in Minnesota, but it is great to have Mee here. 

It is a really distinct pleasure to introduce Mee Moua, currently 

president and executive director of the Asian American Justice 

Center. Ms. Moua was a State senator in Minnesota, chair of the 

Judiciary Committee in our State Senate; but not only was she a 

State senator, she was the first Hmong American State legislator 

in United States history. 

I read Ms. Moua’s testimony. It will be about uniting families 

and how important that is. And no one is better able to talk about 

families than Mee. She has just the most wonderful family. She is 

a pillar—was a pillar, now she is living here in D.C. in her new 
2 

role, but just a pillar of St. Paul, of the Hmong Minnesotan community, and has the warmest home that I have ever been in. No 

warmer home than the Mouas’, than Mee’s. 

It is great to have you here, Mee. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Senator Franken. 

The debate on immigration reform has often focused on the needs 

of the business community. And despite the fact that immigrant 

women are about as likely to have a bachelor’s degree as immigrant men, and women make up 51 percent of migrants in the 

U.S., employment-based visas go to men over women by a ration 

of 3:1. As a result, women are far more likely to immigrate to this 

country under the family based system. But this often means that 

they are here as dependent spouses without the ability to work legally. 

As we look to reform our immigration laws, we must consider 

how women and families will be affected. Historically, women have 

been treated as unequal in our immigration system, with citizenship tied to their husbands. In fact, 100 years ago, if a U.S. citizen 

woman married a non-citizen, she would lose her citizenship. 

I know firsthand that immigration is a women’s issue and a family issue. 

My mother brought my brother and me to this country when I 

was a young girl to escape a terrible marriage at the hands of my 

father. He was an alcoholic and a compulsive gambler, and I did 

not get to know him much. 

Instead of watching our family continue to suffer, my mother 

made the courageous decision to seek a better life for us. So she 

plotted and planned in secret, and when I was nearly 8 years old, 

we literally—my brother, my mom, and me, later my younger 

brother and grandparents—escaped to this place called Hawaii and 

this country called America. 

It is from my own experience as an immigrant that I believe immigration reform should make the family immigration system 

stronger, not weaker. And we should not ignore the challenges immigrant women face. 

The purpose of this hearing is to look at these challenges and 

how we should correct these problems in the debate on comprehensive immigration reform. 

We will hear about immigrant women in the workplace and the 

problems of exploitation that they often suffer. We will hear about 

the importance of family immigration to our communities and our 

economy. And we will hear about how comprehensive immigration 

reform should address the integration of undocumented women and 

children to fully participate in society. I look forward to a great discussion. 

Before I turn to introductions and witness statements and questions, I will first offer the opportunity to Senator Grassley to make 

an opening statement. Senator. 

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

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a very important hearing because immigration is something that is going to 
3 

be worked on, I think, in both Houses of Congress. It is a long time 

in coming, and it needs to be worked on even though there are still 

big differences of opinion about exactly what should be done. 

We have a distinguished panel to testify. All of you have a passion for changing our immigration system and improving it for generations of families to come. This Congress has an opportunity to 

enact real reform, an opportunity to ensure that our welcome mat 

remains on display while upholding our longstanding dedication to 

the rule of law. 

Today people in foreign lands want to be a part of our Nation. 

In fact, almost a million people every year come to this country legally because we are a very welcoming country and always have 

been, and people will go to great lengths to be a part of our great 

society. We should feel privileged that people love our country and 

want to become Americans. 

Immigration reform is not an easy undertaking. I know this from 

32 years of experience on this Committee. That is why Congress in 

1990 authorized a bipartisan commission to review and evaluate 

the immigration system. 

In 1997, with the help of our witnesses, the United States Commission on Immigration Reform presented their findings and recommendations. They are just as important today as they were 15 

years ago. The Commission stated, ‘‘A properly regulated system of 

legal immigration is in the national interests of the United States. 

Such a system enhances the benefits of immigration while protecting against potential harms.’’ 

The Commission also noted: ‘‘Immigration contributes in many 

ways to the United States: to a vibrant and diverse community, to 

a lively and participatory democracy, to its vital intellectual and 

cultural life, to its renowned job-creating entrepreneurship and 

marketplaces, and to its family values and work ethic.’’ Yet they 

knew then what we know now: that there are costs as well as benefits from today’s immigration. 

The Commission found many flaws in our immigration policies, 

and we have a long ways to go to make it perfect. It is in our Nation’s best interest for future generations and future families to 

begin a serious discussion on how we can enact real reform that 

will sustain for years to come. 

All the witnesses before us are very important. I would like to 

talk about the witnesses that my side of the aisle was able to have 

on the panel. 

Ms. Martin will provide insight on how we should enhance our 

family immigration system, including the fact that Congress must 

set priorities and determine which type of immigration will serve 

the national interest. 

Dr. Panetta will bring a different perspective to the hearing, discussing how American engineers, particularly women, are being 

skipped over for high-skilled and high-paying jobs in the United 

States. She will discuss how the H–1 Visa Program is harming 

American engineers and how women may fall behind even more if 

we do not fix the program. Her testimony sheds light on the reasons why we need legislation in this area. 

I plan to introduce a bill today to ensure that American workers 

are given first opportunity at jobs in science, technology, engineer-
4 

ing, and math. In fact, my bill would close loopholes in the program, reduce fraud and abuse, provide protection for American 

workers and for visa holders, and require more transparency in the 

recruitment of foreign workers. 

All of our witnesses are distinguished witnesses, and I thank all 

of you for participating in today’s hearing. 

Thank you. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Senator Grassley. 

This afternoon, we are joined on the panel by Ai-Jen Poo, director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance and co-director of 

the Caring Across Generations Campaign. Founded in 2007, 

NDWA is the Nation’s leading voice for the millions of domestic 

workers in the United States, most of whom are women. Ms. Poo 

has been organizing immigrant women workers since 1996. In 

2000, she co-founded Domestic Workers United, the New York organization that spearheaded the successful passage of that State’s 

historic Domestic Workers Bill of Rights in 2010. Ms. Poo serves 

on the board of directors of Moms Rising, National Jobs with Justice, Working America, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, and the National Council on Aging. She has been recognized with the Ms. Foundation Woman of Vision Award, the Independent Sector American Express Engine Leadership Award, 

Newsweek’s 150 Fearless Women’s list, and Time’s List of the 100 

Most Influential People in the world. Impressive. 

Next is—you are all impressive, by the way. 

Next is Dr. Karen Panetta, professor of electrical and computer 

engineering at Tufts University and director of the Simulation Research Laboratory at Tufts University. She is also a fellow at the 

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and is the worldwide director of IEEE Women in Engineering. IEEE is the world’s 

largest professional association dedicated to advancing technological innovation and excellence for the benefit of humanity. Dr. 

Panetta received a B.S. in computer engineering from Boston University and an M.S. and Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Northeastern University. She was also the first female electrical engineer 

given tenure in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at Tufts. Before joining the faculty at Tufts, Dr. Panetta was 

employed as a computer engineer at Digital Equipment Corporation. Her research in simulation and modeling has won her research team five awards from NASA for outstanding contributions 

to NASA research and excellence in research. She is a NASA Langley Research Scientist JOVE Fellow, is a recipient of the NSF Career Award, and won the 2003 Madeline and Henry Fischer Best 

Engineering Teacher Award. 

We are also joined by Mee Moua, president and executive director of the Asian American Justice Center. The AAJC is one of the 

Nation’s premier civil rights advocacy organizations. AAJC works 

to advance the human and civil rights of Asian Americans and to 

build and promote a fair and equitable society for all. Ms. Moua 

leads AAJC’s efforts to promote civic engagement, forge strong and 

safe communities, create an inclusive society, and empower Asian 

Americans and other underserved communities. Ms. Moua was a 

three-term Minnesota State senator, where she chaired the Senate 

Judiciary Committee. Born in Laos, Ms. Moua immigrated to the 
5 

U.S. in 1978. Mee Moua and I have been friends, and she certainly 

has a story to tell. She attended Brown University as an undergraduate, earned a master’s degree in public affairs from the University of Texas, Austin, and earned a law degree from the University of Minnesota. 

Also on the panel is Professor Susan Martin, the Donald 

Herzberg Professor of International Migration at Georgetown University Law School—my alma mater, by the way. Professor Martin 

also serves as the executive director of the Institute for the Study 

of International Migration in the School of Foreign Service at 

Georgetown University. The institute provides balanced, multidisciplinary analysis of the complicated issues raised by immigration 

policy and law. A long-time expert on immigration and refugee policy, she came to Georgetown after having served as the executive 

director of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, which 

made its final report to Congress in September 1997. Prior to joining the Commission staff, Professor Martin was the director of research and programs at the Refugee Policy Group, a Washingtonbased center for analysis of U.S. and international refugee policy 

and programs. She was assistant professor in the American Studies 

Department at Brandeis University and lecturer for the History of 

American Civilization at the University of Pennsylvania. Professor 

Martin holds a B.A. from Rutgers and an M.A. and Ph.D. from the 

University of Pennsylvania. 

Finally, we have Jennifer Ng’andu, the deputy director of the 

Health Policy Project of the National Council of La Raza. NCLR is 

the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization 

in the United States and works to improve conditions and opportunities for Hispanic Americans. At NCLR, Ms. Ng’andu is responsible for the oversight of development and advancement of Federal 

policies aimed at improving the health status of Latinos and creating parity for immigrants in the health system. She provides expertise on health and nutrition policy, Affordable Care Act and 

health reform, access in health disparities for racial and ethnic 

populations, immigrant eligibility for health programs and public 

benefits, hunger, and obesity. Ms. Ng’andu holds a bachelor’s degree in psychology from Duke University. 

At this point I would like to ask all of the witnesses to stand and 

raise your right hands as I administer the oath. Do you solemnly 

swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give to this 

Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you God? 

Ms. POO. I do. 

Ms. PANETTA. I do. 

Ms. MOUA. I do. 

Ms. MARTIN. I do. 

Ms. Ng’andu. I do. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. Please be seated. Let the record 

show that the nominees have answered in the affirmative. 

I have a statement that I would like to read portions of from 

Senator Amy Klobuchar. She says: 

‘‘I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today. I had 

hoped to join you, but prior obligations in Minnesota and a snowstorm in Minneapolis have prevented me from making it back in 
6 

time. I want to give a special welcome to my friend and fellow Minnesotan, Mee Moua.’’ 

You have a lot of fans here today, Mee. 

‘‘Mee has been an incredible advocate over the years on many, 

many issues. Most of the talk about immigration has centered on 

the plight of the undocumented, border security, and economic motivations for changing our laws. But family concerns are just as important, and we must ensure that our policies reflect family reunification as a top priority.’’ 

If there are no objections, I would like to enter Senator 

Klobuchar’s full remarks into the record. Seeing no objections, we 

will proceed. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Klobuchar appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator HIRONO. Welcome once again to all of you. 

I would like to recognize each of the witnesses, starting from my 

left, so, Ms. Poo, if you would provide us with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF AI-JEN POO, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL DOMESTIC 

WORKERS ALLIANCE, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Ms. POO. Thank you, Chairwoman Hirono, and thank you, Senator Grassley and Senator Franken, for this opportunity. My name 

is Ai-jen Poo, and I am the director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance. We represent a growing work force of mainly immigrant women who take care of our children, our aging loved ones, 

and our homes. And I bring their spirit, passion, and hopes with 

me today. 

Women like Pat Francois, who is sitting behind me, a nanny in 

New York City for many years, Pat takes great pride in her role: 

arranging play dates, taking the children to the children’s museum 

and the library, reading stories, playing in the park, and most importantly, keeping them safe. She makes it possible for her employers to go to work every day knowing that the most precious parts 

of their lives are cared for while they are gone. Millions of working 

moms and dads count on women like Pat in order to participate 

fully in today’s workplace. But Pat is undocumented and cannot 

participate fully in our country that she now calls home. 

Today, women and children represent two-thirds of all immigrants in the United States. Unfortunately, past rounds of immigration reform debates have excluded women’s experiences, which 

is why this Committee should be truly commended for holding this 

hearing. 

To move us to solutions, here are three basic conditions to ensure 

that millions of women are not left behind on the road to citizenship. 

First, the road to citizenship must be wide. Pat, like most domestic workers, does not have pay stubs to prove she worked for her 

employer. Her world, like much of the informal economy, is a 

paperless world. If the road to citizenship requires proof of employment at any stage, domestic and informal sector workers will be 

run off, along with the estimated 40 percent of undocumented 

women who are stay-at-home moms, which we also know is work. 

Instead, we can use proof of presence to determine eligibility both 

broadly and accurately. 
7 

Second, the road to citizenship must have on ramps. Undocumented women like Pat are particularly vulnerable to abuse, sexual harassment, and severe exploitation, including trafficking. One 

of Pat’s employers was verbally abusive for years while threatening 

to have her deported if she challenged him, until 1 day he physically assaulted her. 

Common-sense reform must include provisions like those—our 

current policies allow unscrupulous employers to wield the threat 

of deportation like a weapon. Common-sense reform must include 

provisions like those in the POWER Act, to ensure that women suffering serious workplace violations are protected and eligible for U 

visas. 

Third, the road to citizenship must take us into the future, acknowledging the increasingly critical role of immigrant women in 

the American economy. Currently less than one-third of all employment visas are given to women as principal holders. Yet 2011 

marked the first year of the ‘‘age wave,’’ when the baby-boom generation has begun to turn 65 at a rate of a person every 8 seconds. 

That means that the demand for care workers, who are mostly 

women, is projected to increase by 48 percent over the next decade. 

But the population of U.S.-born workers who could fill this need is 

only growing by about 1 percent. 

We must create a highway into the future so that the workers 

we need, especially women, can come to work in the United States 

with their families, with full worker’s rights, portability between 

employers, and the ability to obtain green cards and citizenship. 

Senators, many of you have relied upon babysitters or nannies 

to care for your kids, and many of you have housekeepers, and 1 

day many of you may need elder care assistance. Who is going to 

take care of America as we age? 

In fact, it is hard to find anyone in America today whose life has 

not been touched by the care of immigrant women. Because we as 

a Nation count on them, we are counting on you. Women need reform, and we cannot wait. Hundreds of women have come to Washington this week to urge you to act swiftly, with full inclusion of 

women and their families, including LGBT families, because immigration reform is a women’s issue. It is about women’s equality, it 

is about keeping families together and strengthening families, and 

it is an economic issue key to the well-being of the entire Nation. 

Thank you. 

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

the record.] 

Senator HIRONO. Dr. Panetta. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN PANETTA, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF 

ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING, TUFTS UNIVERSITY, MEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS, AND VICE PRESIDENT, COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC AWARENESS, THE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONICS ENGINEERSUNITED STATES OF AMERICA (IEEE–USA) 

Ms. PANETTA. Thank you, Chairman Hirono, Ranking Republican 

Member Grassley, and Senator Franken and the other members of 

this panel. I am honored to be here today to testify on your theme: 
8 

‘‘How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the 

Needs of Women and Families.’’ 

I represent IEEE–USA, the 206,000 members of the Institute of 

Electrical and Electronic Engineers in the United States. We are 

a professional society, the largest organization of technologists in 

the world, founded by Alexander Graham Bell, who was an immigrant, and Thomas Edison, who was not. That global perspective 

has always been a part of the IEEE–USA. 

We know innovation comes diversity of talents, and we seek the 

world’s brightest individuals to work with as equals. IEEE knows 

that one of the world’s most valuable resources that has been underutilized is women. That is why IEEE created the Women in Engineering Program and why I started a Nerd Girls program. So today’s subject is critical. 

On behalf of the largest representative of America’s high-tech 

workers, let me get right to the point. If we truly want to help 

women and families, do not increase the H–1B Visa Program. Increase STEM green cards instead. 

As an engineer, I use data to identify how things break so we can 

prevent catastrophic failures. I am here today to tell you that the 

H–1B Visa Program is a place where our immigration system is 

broken. Who wants to double the number of outsourcing visas for 

companies who take American jobs, give them to temporary foreign 

workers, and then ship those jobs overseas? Yet that is what some 

in the Senate propose doing through the I-Squared bill. 

The IEEE–USA view is simple: we favor green cards, not guest 

worker visas. The greatest damage clearly results from offshore 

outsourcing. The official data from the Department of Homeland 

Security shows that all of the top 10 users of the H–1B program 

and 15 of the top 20 are outsourcing companies. My written testimony documents this for each State. 

For all the talk about H–1Bs helping to create American jobs, the 

facts show something else. Look at Nielsen in Florida, Pfizer in 

Connecticut, the gaming industry in Nevada, just to name a few 

well-documented cases where American jobs were replaced by 

outsourcing. 

In my written testimony, I review the four primary arguments 

made in favor of H–1B and show how in each case the arguments 

do not match the data. 

For example, employers will argue that it takes too long to get 

a green card. Absolutely correct. But it is not an argument for the 

H–1B. It is an argument for enabling employers to get green cards 

for workers when they are hired. We strongly endorse Microsoft’s 

recent proposal to pay a total of $25,000 in fees to take foreign 

STEM graduates from their student visa to a green card. No need 

for an H–1B. It is a principle. If an employer is willing to pay a 

substantial fee for a worker who supposedly possesses skills that 

the employer cannot find in American applicants, then that company should be eager to sponsor that worker for a green card immediately. This would be a solid proof that that employer actually 

needs that person’s skills. 

But we are talking about the impact of comprehensive immigration reform on women and children. The contrasting treatment of 

families in the H–1B program compared to green cards actually 
9 

mocks our values. Most of the 220,000 nuclear family backlog 

counted by the State Department are spouses and children of employment-based permanent immigrants, separated because they received their green cards and then got married. 

As software consultant Matt Arivalan testified to the House Judiciary Committee last week, he said: ‘‘I was shocked to find that because I had made a commitment to America, my wife must wait 

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

wife would not be 12,000 miles away.’’ 

Finally, let me warn the Committee about the obstacles which 

the H–1B creates for American women in STEM fields. It is hard 

to get promoted when you do not get hired in the first place. The 

existence of this preferred pipeline for new hires has hugely discouraging effects on independent American women considering the 

STEM fields. Why? Because my own experience tells me that the 

vast majority of H–1B workers are men, and this does not make 

for a diverse work force or work environment. 

IEEE–USA represents more high-tech workers than anybody 

else. One from inside the industry, looking at the offshoring companies that dominate the H–1B program, tells us that their global 

hiring is 70 percent. But in the U.S., where outsourcing companies 

get more than half of the capped H–1B visas, the ratio is more like 

85 percent men. Shouldn’t this raise a red flag? 

But as an engineer, I do not like making decisions without hard 

data. IEEE–USA has been trying for months to get the actual data 

from DHS. It is a simple question: How many women get H–1B 

visas? 

So we urge this Committee to include this data in their investigation to better understand the effect the legislation will have on 

women and families. More green cards for advanced STEM students, men and women, is the way to go, as IEEE and so many others have urged? 

Green cards do not create a disincentive to hire Americans—including American women—the way H–1B does. That is because the 

green card means the new American is treated as an equal. Isn’t 

that what our immigration system is supposed to do—help our 

economy and new families? 

Let me conclude by thanking the Committee for the honor of 

being asked to testify. I want to particularly thank Senator Grassley for his leadership on the issue and for his H–1B legislation to 

be introduced this week. I will be happy to answer any questions 

in my areas of expertise. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Panetta appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 

Ms. Moua. 

STATEMENT OF MEE MOUA, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASIAN AMERICAN JUSTICE CENTER, WASHINGTON, 

DC 

Ms. MOUA. Madam Chair, Senator Grassley, and Senator 

Franken, thank you so much for the opportunity to be here with 

all of you on behalf of the millions of Asian Americans and Pacific 
10 

Islanders all across this country. It is a pleasure to be in this historic hearing highlighting how comprehensive immigration reform 

should address the needs of women and families. 

When I was 9 years old, my family came to the United States 

as political refugees. Our people’s role as special guerilla unit fighters for the United States during the secret war in Laos rendered 

us displaced and homeless after the U.S. Government left Southeast Asia. To save our lives, we were forced to flee in secrecy, leaving behind our home and our loved ones. 

When we arrived in the United States, my grandfather, my 

uncle, and our only aunt remained trapped in Laos. One uncle was 

at a refugee camp in Thailand, and another uncle was resettled in 

France. When they were eligible, my parents studied hard for their 

citizenship exams in the hope that they would be able to bring my 

grandfather and my uncle and his families to the United States. 

Unfortunately, my grandfather passed away before my father 

could become naturalized. Shortly thereafter, my uncle also passed 

away while imprisoned in a political work camp. 

In 1996, my parents tried to sponsor the one uncle in France, but 

the process took so long that by the time they were eligible to come 

to the United States, they decided to remain in France because 

their children were already married and had their own families. 

The separation and hardship experienced by my father and his 

siblings underscored the heartache and disappointment many immigrant families endure in their search for family reunification. 

The lucky ones are able to overcome life circumstances and delays 

to eventually succeed, but far, far too many simply just give up. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to dig deeper into the realities 

of our family based immigration system and understand how it affects women, children, and families. The principle of family unity 

has long been a core value of our immigration policies in the 

United States, and family based immigration has been a central 

pillar of our current legal immigration system. 

Since our founding as a Nation, each wave of new immigrants 

and their families have strengthened our communities, enriched 

our culture, and the fruits of their entrepreneurial spirit have 

strengthened our middle class and invigorated our economy. 

Unfortunately, the U.S. immigration system is badly broken and 

outdated with the unintended consequences of separating mothers 

from daughters, brothers from sisters, and wives from husbands. 

As of November 2012, nearly 4.3 million close family members 

were waiting in the family visa backlogs. Latino and Asian American families are affected the most by these long backlogs, with 

over 1.3 million waiting in Mexico and over 1.8 million waiting in 

numerous Asian countries. 

Like that experience by my family, many American families have 

been waiting years, even decades, to be reunited with their loved 

ones. For other families, our dysfunctional legal immigration system forces them to choose between remaining apart for years on 

end or remaining in the shadows as undocumented immigrants for 

the chance to be with their families. 

In Pacifica, California, a committed and loving family of four 

faced separation under our current immigration system. Jay and 

Shirley—Jay is a U.S. citizen and Shirley is originally from the 
11 

Philippines—are the parents of twin sons. Shirley and Jay have 

been together for more than 20 years, but because Jay is unable 

to sponsor Shirley for residency, their family was nearly torn apart 

when, in 2009, ICE agents arrested Shirley in front of their children and attempted to deport her back to the Philippines. Shirley, 

Jay, and their twins, who were profiled in People magazine, are depending on Congress to include GLBT families in immigration reform to ensure that they have a permanent solution to remain together in this country. 

While Jay and Shirley’s story highlights how our current immigration system discriminates against GLBT families by prohibiting 

citizens and legal permanent residents from sponsoring their permanent partners for immigration purposes, the heartache and 

hardship they endured as they were forced to make hard choices 

is representative of the real experiences of many immigrant families across this country. This is simply unacceptable and does not 

live up to our ideals as a Nation that values families and fairness. 

Given this broader picture as the backdrop, I want to now turn 

to the fact that women immigrants are disproportionately harmed 

by our broken system. We know that approximately 69.7 percent 

of all immigrant women attain their legal status through family 

based visas, compared to 60 percent of men. Since women are more 

often denied access to resources and education and face social constraints in their home countries, they are overrepresented among 

family based immigrants and underrepresented among employment-based immigrants. 

In those circumstances where they are the dependents of a male 

visa holder, women are not legally allowed to work under our current system and, therefore, are completely tied to their spouse. 

This creates an imbalance of power, which renders women wholly 

dependent on their spouse and in some unfortunate cases particularly vulnerable to an abusive partner. 

An immigration system that disadvantages women as an unintended consequence inevitably hurts families and communities. Immigrant women, like all women, keep their families together, invest in their children’s education, engage in their communities, and 

contribute to the growth and to the prosperity of our economy. 

In 2012, we witnessed a historic election. Immigrants, both 

Latinos and Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, play a key role 

in our electoral outcomes. They vote in unprecedented numbers, 

and they overwhelmingly support a vision of inclusion and fairness 

while rejecting xenophobic policies that pit communities against 

one another. High-income earners versus low-income workers and 

new Americans versus the more established communities. 

In the last 3 months, you, our elected representatives, have made 

it clear that you intend to keep the faith with the American people 

to deliver a common-sense fix to our broken system. 

Today I stand with these panelists to urge you to ensure that 

women and their families remain at the core of your solutions, that 

the fix of our broken family immigration system addresses among 

other critical issues the inhumane backlogs for families and workers, and that it provides balance and flexibility for a comprehensive 

system that values all family members, including our brothers and 

sisters, children of all ages, and LGBT families. 
12 

Whether it was through the Mayflower, Ellis Island, Angel Island, or now all the ports of entry, most immigrants came to the 

U.S. with nothing but hope and their families. Regardless of the 

hardships they encountered or endured, hope and family permitted 

each successive generation of immigrants to muster the courage to 

survive, persevere, and make a deeply rooted life in this country. 

We may all come from different national origins, eat different 

foods, practice different religions, and even speak different languages, but the immigrant heart is what binds us as one people— 

united in hope and opportunity for a more prosperous future for all 

of our families. That is why we love this land, and for those who 

are working hard for our prosperous economy, let our policies also 

work hard for them. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Moua appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 

Ms. Martin. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN F. MARTIN, DONALD G. HERZBERG 

PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. MARTIN. Thank you, Madam Chair, Senator Franken, thank 

you for providing this opportunity to testify this afternoon. 

I have been asked to discuss relevant findings and recommendations of the Commission on Immigration Reform, which I served as 

executive director, as well as my own views on immigration issues. 

I am pleased to do so. Although the Commission’s report was 

issued 15 years ago, many of its recommendations remain as relevant today as they were in 1997. 

I should also note that the recommendations of the bipartisan 

Commission were adopted unanimously or in certain instances by 

a vote of 8–1, showing substantial bipartisan support for credible 

immigration policy. 

Let me begin with the Commission’s overall perspectives on legal 

immigration. 

First, the Commission considered a robust legal immigration system to be in the national interest of the United States. It argued 

that immigration policy should serve three core interests and that 

all of these were equally important: maintaining family unity, encouraging economic competitiveness, and preserving U.S. humanitarian leadership in the world, and that these are served through 

family reunification, employment-based, and refugee admissions, 

respectively. 

Second, the Commission did not believe that there is a magic, a 

priory number of immigrants that should be admitted to the 

United States. Rather, numbers should be readily adjusted to address changing circumstances in the country and the world. It is 

well to note that current family and employment-based admission 

numbers were set in 1990 and have not been changed in the intervening 23 years, despite major changes in the country and the composition of our population. 

Third, the Commission believed that priorities should drive admission numbers and not the reverse. At present, our immigration 
13 

system is largely managed through backlogs and waiting lists. Ceilings have generally been assigned in an arbitrary manner, often as 

a result of political compromise rather than empirical evidence as 

to the likely demand for visas’ different categories. The Commission instead recommended a true preference system in which all 

demand is met in the highest categories in a timely way. 

Let me turn to how these principles translated into specific recommendations related to family reunification. The backlog of applications for all of the numerically limited family categories had expanded quite significantly at the time of the Commission’s deliberations. The Commission recognized that all of these categories were 

important to segments of the population within the U.S. The members’ judgment, however, was that there is a special bond between 

spouses and between parents and minor children that necessitates 

the most rapid family reunification in these instances, regardless 

of whether the sponsor in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident. Not only is the immediate family the basic building block of society, but there is also a legal and fiduciary responsibility for spouses and minor children that do not exist in relationship to adult children or siblings of adult sponsors. 

The Commission was fully supportive of maintaining the numerically unrestricted admissions categories for spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens and recommended that sufficient 

visas be allocated for the admission of all spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents within no more than 1 year of 

application. The Commission also recommended that adult children 

who were dependent on their parents because of physical or mental 

disability be included in these admission categories. 

At present, according to the State Department Visa Bulletin, 

spouses and minor children who applied 21⁄2 years ago are now eligible to enter the country, which seems to be a violation of that 

principle of very rapid family reunification. 

The Commission, recognizing that there were concerns about an 

infinite number of visas being offered at any given time, recommended the elimination of the admission categories for adult 

children and siblings, despite recognizing that there are very good 

reasons to continue to have a very expansion family reunification 

process. 

Currently we offer a few visas to many different family categories, however not enough visas to any one category. 

If you look at the category for the brothers and sisters of U.S. 

citizens worldwide, there is now a delay of 12 years before admission. If you are applying from the Philippines, because of the per 

country limits, it is a 24-year wait. That does not appear to be rational, and particularly not to be bringing in people beyond their 

projected working years and toward the period in which they will 

be retiring. 

The Commission did not address the phaseout of these categories, so I speak personally on this issue. Given that many U.S. 

citizens have petitioned for their adult children and siblings, assuming that the system would remain as it is, my recommendation 

would be to balance the interest in a more efficient system for family reunification with preserving enough visas to permit the admis-
14 

sion of those already in the queue before changing our overall policies. 

Changing these policies is particularly important in the event 

that the Congress will determine to regularize the status of those 

who are currently undocumented in order to ensure that we do not 

have a return of the very extensive backlogs that we had in the 

1990s for the spouses and minor children of the IRCA-legalized 

population. 

Let me finish with just three quick other points. I know I am 

running over. 

One is that in addressing the needs of women, we need to be 

thinking very carefully with regard to ways of still increasing and 

improving the implementation of the Violence Against Women Act 

as it pertains to women. Fortunately, that Act was reauthorized recently. But we still have a problem ensuring that immigrant 

women and children who were abused have access to the information, legal, and economic resources that will permit them to benefit 

from the terms of the legislation. 

Similarly, in terms of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, also 

reauthorized this year, there is a disparity between the numbers 

granted the T visa for protection of trafficking survivors and the estimated total numbers of trafficking victims in the U.S. Between 

2002 and 2012, DHS has only approved 3,269 applications. 

We still lack the tools to identify trafficking victims and help the 

survivors gain access to the type of legal assistance as well as safe 

houses and other services that are needed to ensure their protection. 

Then a final point is in relationship to long delayed legislation 

to remedy problems in our asylum, detention, and refugee resettlement programs as they apply to women and girls. The Refugee Protection Act, introduced by Senator Leahy, includes important provisions that would help facilitate family reunification for refugees 

and asylees; eliminate the 1-year filing deadline for asylum applications, which hinders the ability of women who have been raped 

and suffered other atrocities from coming forward; and changes in 

provisions that currently deny asylum and resettlement to those 

who provided material support to an insurgency, even if that support was coerced, as in many of the cases of rape. 

To conclude, comprehensive immigration reform should recognize 

that family unity is a core value. Ensuring speedy reunification is 

in the national interest of the country. Strong families make strong 

communities, which in turn make for a strong nation. Setting priorities to accomplish this goal would immeasurably strengthen U.S. 

immigration. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Martin appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 

Ms. Ng’andu. 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER NG’ANDU, DIRECTOR, HEALTH AND 

CIVIL RIGHTS POLICY PROJECTS, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF 

LA RAZA, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 

Ms. NG’ANDU. Good afternoon, Chairman Hirono, Senator 

Franken. On behalf of the National Council of La Raza, I thank 
15 

you for the opportunity to be here today. I have been proud to work 

for NCLR for the past 9 years, where I direct their Health and 

Civil Rights Policy Projects. We have been engaged in key debates 

and legislative efforts to make sure that we improve and promote 

life opportunities but, most importantly, the health and well-being 

of Latino families. And as we represent some 300 affiliates, local 

community-based organizations around the country, we see firsthand how they are each day working to integrate these Latino families, some immigrants, some not, and ensure that they pursue the 

American dream. 

It is important to elevate the role of women with any immigration reform conversation, and to that end, the fact is that family 

immigration has been the essential road map to citizenship for generations of Americans in pursuit of a better life. Immigrant families are among the most economically mobile within our country, 

and the women in these families are often the drivers of that success. Women urge their families to integrate, to learn English, engage in civic duties of all kind, and achieve citizenship. 

On the whole, immigrant women and their families are net contributors to their country, and they come here willing to pay their 

fair share and take up the rights and responsibilities of their fellow 

Americans. But there are often gross misrepresentations of how 

they live within our country, including overinflated assessments of 

their use of benefits. 

So I start by setting the record straight. Many people are largely 

unaware of the fact that all immigrants, lawfully present or not, 

face restriction to public benefits. And undocumented immigrants 

are almost entirely banned from most major public health coverage 

and safety net programs. 

Lack of access is often buffered by their lower ages, strong presence in the work force, and positive health behaviors. Immigrants 

are not only less likely to use benefits, but when they actually do 

receive access to a program, they are also likely to use a lower 

value of them. 

To be sure, lower utilization of benefits does have some negative 

consequences. Immigrants who are yet to be naturalized have very 

high uninsurance rates—in fact, it is almost 60 percent—and they 

and those within their families are likely to experience certain 

hardships, such as food insecurity. 

NCLR’s own focus groups conducted in 2009 provide warning of 

the tradeoffs that immigrants may take up without viable insurance options. Many participants, moms and dads, within mixed immigration status families noted that they had put their families at 

severe financial risk in order to make sure that their children had 

essential health care. When it came to their own health needs, the 

majority went without, compromising their own well-being while 

trying to preserve their children’s. 

The irony is that, despite immigrants’ eagerness to take on 

shared responsibility, the system does not always let them in. 

Take, for instance, the recent changes to the health care law that 

created the first-ever statutory restriction to the private health insurance market. Beginning in January 2014, immigrants without 

legal status will no longer be able to purchase insurance in the private insurance marketplace that other uninsured Americans will 
16 

use. Despite the prohibitive costs of insurance, somehow 375,000 

undocumented immigrants have found a way to purchase insurance 

on their own, and while the employer-based market has been a 

source of coverage to some 3 million undocumented immigrants, 

there is a question of whether that market will provide the same 

opportunities since it has been eroding. 

I ask you, Does it make sense to prevent immigrants from buying 

insurance, an action that could bolster the market for millions of 

Americans? 

Furthermore, the immigrant restrictions ensure a 5-year bar to 

public programs such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program, or SNAP. It can be devastating when someone 

falls on hard times. And I would give an example of an immigrant 

victim of domestic violence who is petitioning here under the Violence Against Women Act. She is barred from SNAP and other programs for 5 years, and many immigrant women have cited that 

those dangerous situations keep them—that leaving those dangerous situations actually creates additional economic challenges, 

including risk of hunger. 

I end by emphasizing that Americans support the complete road 

map to citizenship and that the full opportunity to participate is 

one that they support as well. Health care and social services may 

not be a part of the core process to meet citizenship requirements, 

but many of these programs and services underpin this ultimate 

aim. 

It is common sense that immigrant families who pay their fair 

share of contributions are allowed to take part in the systems that 

are fundamental to American life. We should also recognize that 

while some families will fall on hard times and need resources, so 

many of them will come out ahead if we just make a small investment in their well-being. Each policy investment in immigration reform must be mindful of America’s pocketbook, and maximizing 

citizenship should be the primary focus. 

By the same token, it comes down to a simple adage: ‘‘Penny 

wise or pound foolish.’’ Giving immigrant women and families the 

tools for full integration now will pay off in their contributions 

later. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ng’andu appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you very much to all the panelists. 

Before we get to our 7-minute rounds of questions, I would like 

to ask unanimous consent that an open letter to the President and 

all Members of Congress on ensuring access to affordable health 

care and needed nutrition assistance and immigration reform, 

signed by 360 organizations from across the country, be entered 

into the record. Hearing no objections, I will be entered into the 

record. 

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

Senator HIRONO. And I would also like to ask unanimous consent 

to put the statement of Chairman Leahy into the record. Without 

objection, so entered. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 
17 

Senator HIRONO. We will now start on 7-minute rounds of questioning. I will begin. 

First of all, once again I want to thank all of you for coming and 

testifying today. 

Ms. Poo, you talked about how difficult it would be should we 

create a pathway to citizenship for people, particularly women, to 

have the kind of documentation that we might require of them, and 

we had this experience when we had so-called amnesty a couple of 

decades ago. 

So, once again, to ensure that we learn from the past and allow 

mainly women to get on to the path, an earned path to citizenship, 

how would you want us to—what kind of requirements should we 

place on mainly women, domestic workers and others like them, to 

get on this path? 

Ms. POO. Thank you, Chairwoman, for the question. I think that 

there are many solutions to this problem to ensure full inclusion. 

One is in terms of offering—allowing people to submit affidavits 

that prove their presence in the country, like past frameworks for 

immigration have in the past asked for, proofs of presence as opposed to proof of employment. This would allow people who work 

in the paperless informal economy to be able to prove that they 

have been in this country and contributing and building communities, which many have. 

I think some level of flexibility that accounts for the many different kinds of institutions within the community that can vouch 

for presence. Community organizations, institutions like churches, 

many people can vouch for the presence. 

Senator HIRONO. So the main thing is to allow some level of flexibility and ability to have multiple ways that one can prove that 

they have been in this country. 

Ms. POO. Absolutely. 

Senator HIRONO. Even if without documents. 

Ms. POO. Exactly. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 

Ms. Panetta, I take it that you are very much against the H–1B 

visas, and instead you would support something like the STAPLE 

Act, which Senator Flake introduced when he was a Member of the 

House. 

How many women do you think would be able to come in through 

the STAPLE kind of legislation? 

Ms. PANETTA. Well, first of all, let me say I am not against the 

H–1B or my organization is not against H–1Bs. We are against H– 

1Bs for use of permanent jobs that are supposed to be temporary 

positions. Right now the H–1B is being—we are against trying to 

use it as a purgatory to try and buy an individual for 6 years without a commitment to a green card. So that is what we are against. 

And we are against outsources, using it for that purpose. There are 

genuinely valid cases for using it for temporary workers, so we are 

not 100 percent against it. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you for that clarification. 

Now, we have heard testimony that there really is a huge disparity in the women who get to come under a work visa program, 

and you are suggesting that we go with a STAPLE Act kind of 
18 

process. Do you have any sense as to how many women would be 

able to come in through that kind of visa? 

Ms. PANETTA. Well, I can tell you, one of the problems that we 

have here in the United States is that 18.4 percent of all undergraduate degrees in engineering go to women, so it is a huge issue, 

and we know that in engineering, or all the STEM disciplines, that 

we just need more engineers total. So to get more women—and we 

know that in countries like India, some of the top graduates are 

women, and yet they do not get opportunities to come here. 

So by providing STEM-educated people with the opportunity to 

come to the United States, men and women, we believe that that 

would be able to make an impact on the number of women and diversity in the work force, which has also huge cultural work environment implications. So we are hoping that we are not just addressing numbers but we are changing work cultures as well. 

As for specific numbers, I could not give you a ballpark number 

since we—I could get back to you with that, though, from our organization if we could actually do some data mining for you. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. I think you noted in your testimony 

that you were involved with creating the Women in Engineering 

Program, and I commend you for that because I am familiar with 

that program in Hawaii. 

Ms. Moua, as we read in the Washington Post recently, there 

might be an idea to either limit dramatically or eliminate certain 

kinds of family visas, mainly for adult children or for siblings. 

What kind of impact do you think that would have on family reunification? 

Ms. MOUA. Thank you, Madam Chair. As we know, the system 

is badly broken, and the evidence can be found in the long backlogs, visa backlogs that we are experiencing on a daily basis. It is 

concerning to us that there is a proposal on the table for consideration to eliminate married adult children as well as the brother-sister category. 

We all know that as immigrants our families are part of our network, our family is what permits us to be able to set root and really build a life together in this country. And based on what I have 

just shared with you about my father’s experience, you know, when 

you contemplate a long-term life, creating a new home, wanting to 

really set root, you want your families to be around you. And the 

idea of eliminating the third and fourth preference is concerning to, 

I think, all immigrant communities. 

In particular, Madam Chair, I would like to really highlight the 

fact that if those categories were eliminated, unless some alternative provision was put on the table, I think that it would disproportionately affect women and their families, because as I had 

stated in my testimony, over 67, 68 percent of women come to this 

country through the family base and less through the employment 

base. And I think that if we were to eliminate those categories, 

brother-sister sponsorship, sister-sister sponsorship, it would have 

a pretty disproportionate impact on women. 

Senator HIRONO. I recently heard the situation of a person whose 

parents—she is a naturalized U.S. citizen now, having come with 

a green card, and her only surviving family member is a brother, 

and so this person has been waiting for over 6 years for the brother 
19 

to come. And so there are those kinds of circumstances that perhaps we—that we should be aware of. 

Ms. Ng’andu, you talked about the safety net and the access to 

various kinds of social programs, and the people who are here with 

visas have to wait 5 years before they can access certain kinds of 

programs. So let us assume that we do provide an earned path to 

citizenship. Knowing that the people here with the visas, they have 

to wait 5 years, what do you think would be an appropriate length 

of time for those who are on the path to citizenship, they do not 

have a visa, yet what would be a reasonable period of time, do you 

think, for them to wait before they can access social services? I 

know that we would want them from day one, but let us talk about 

if that is really not in the offing. 

Ms. NG’ANDU. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Going back to 

the adage, ‘‘Penny wise and pound foolish,’’ we do not want to see 

waiting periods for these legal immigrants to these programs because we recognize that there is a chance that they fall on hard 

times and that they may need access to these programs. 

The other thing that I will say about that is that it is important 

that we provide opportunities for immigrants to pay their fair 

share and get into the system. So if we can provide access to things 

like private market coverage, encourage employers to provide 

health coverage to their employees, then we can bolster up the system, and that makes it better for Americans. 

By and large, immigrants are using less health care services, and 

so what we would say is that it is important to create that structure for individuals who do fall on hard times to be able to access 

certain particular safety net services so that they are able to get 

the preventive types of care that they need. 

And I will just give you one example of that. We have eliminated 

the 5-year bar as a State option for pregnant women and children 

for certain types of lawfully present immigrants, and for every $1 

invested in prenatal care, we save $4 out of that. So we understand 

that that is going to be a really important savings across the system. 

Senator HIRONO. So you would say that at the very least, for 

those people who are here undocumented, that at the very least 

they should not be having to wait longer than those who are here 

with green cards to access certain services? 

Ms. NG’ANDU. What I would say is that Americans support actually providing health care to legalizing immigrants, to gain access 

to the health care services they need. And, actually, the Kaiser 

Family Foundation just did a poll, and a broad set of Americans 

across all sorts of backgrounds actually said that if someone cannot 

get coverage through their employer, then as part of the integration process, those with provisional status, using the lingo that is 

being used right now, should either be given access to Medicaid 

without the waiting periods or be given access to what are now the 

new health insurance exchanges that will be implemented in 2014. 

So I think people back this idea that someone who is coming here 

and who says that they want to take on the responsibilities of 

Americans also gets the ability to have the rights and be integrated 

into that process. 
20 

Senator HIRONO. So with regard to health care, then, if we do, 

let us hope, comprehensive immigration reform, then we can take 

care of the prohibition in the Affordable Care Act that disallows 

non-citizens from even being able to purchase health insurance, 

that we need to address that in a very specific way to allow those 

on provisional status to be able to go to the health exchanges or 

to pay for their health care insurance. 

Ms. NG’ANDU. Well, and I think it just makes sense. You know, 

if we have 375,000 undocumented immigrants today who now have 

to go into a virtual black market of health insurance to buy their 

insurance because they cannot be a part of the legitimate system, 

then that is a problem. And I think comprehensive immigration reform, it is all about making sure that we have a legitimate system, 

that we are fixing the broken mess within our system. And so that 

means that we need to actually revisit the other infrastructures 

that actually keep immigrants from participating in our society. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I am going to start with Dr. Panetta. You talked about how 

many H–1B visa holders in the United States are male. Some researchers in this field suspect that 70 percent of an offshoring 

firm’s work force is comprised of men. 

First of all, an explanation from your point of view of such an 

imbalance, and why are more men than women coming into the 

country on H–1Bs? 

Ms. PANETTA. Well, first of all, there are more men out there 

coming in because companies are hiring them, and companies decide who they want to hire. And in the case where you are offered 

somebody that you can put on trial and try out for 6 or 7 years, 

or 6 years without a promise of a green card, it is more in the benefit of a company to have this more ‘‘try them out before you buy,’’ 

worth more investing in an American. 

So I would say that one of the problems that we have to look at 

is why aren’t women being allowed to come in, and that maybe the 

hiring types of things that are going on in companies is an issue. 

These are supposed to be temporary work visas, and one company might argue, well, women do not want to come here on temporary work assignments. But, in fact, a lot of these visas are being 

used for permanent positions. 

So to answer your question, Senator, I believe that more men are 

coming simply because companies prefer to hire the men over the 

women. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. Professor Martin, and also to apologize 

to you and Ms. Moua, I missed your testimony because I had a 

meeting with our Lieutenant Governor for a short period of time. 

I am sorry. 

Professor Martin, you discussed the Commission’s recommendations to eliminate the admissions category for adult children and 

siblings. You said that the long waiting times in these categories 

undermined the credibility of the admissions system. I see your 

point about providing false hope to many people who may have to 

wait a dozen years or more to be eligible for a visa. 
21 

Could you tell us how Congress should change the system going 

forward? Should it be an immediate change or a phase-out approach? 

Ms. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Grassley. As I said in my testimony, I am speaking here personally about the way in which the 

proposal should be implemented. In my view, it should be a 

phased-in process. I think that the very large number of Americans 

who have sponsored brothers and sisters and adult children—the 

very large number of U.S. citizens who have sponsored adult children and brothers and sisters who have gone by the rules, have followed the procedures that are in place, are owed a certain level of 

respect for that process. And my recommendation would be to provide additional visas for a transitional period that would allow the 

backlog to be cleared and do it in a very expeditious way, because 

it makes no sense to let it drag out for 12, 15, 20, 25 years, but 

that in the meantime, new applications not be accepted so that as 

we move forward, we will not be adding to the waiting list. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I will continue asking you another question. 

What lessons can we learn from the 1986 legalization? I was on the 

Committee talking about the same issues back in the 1980s. We 

had the same problems then, and we thought that a legalization 

program would solve it once and for all. So when it comes to once 

and for all, I have to say we were wrong. The problem got worse, 

and backlogs continued. 

So what can Congress learn from 1986? And, second, if we 

passed another legalization program for the 11 million undocumented people and the family-based preference system stayed the 

same, what would be the consequences? 

Ms. MARTIN. Let me start with the first part of your question, 

which has not been the particular topic for this hearing, but I think 

the lessons of the 1986 law is that if you legalize without taking 

steps to address the future flow of undocumented migrants, you 

have a problem in terms of having to deal with that issue again 

a few years later. 

I think that problem has to be dealt with through a combination 

of enforcement, particularly in the work site, but new channels for 

legal immigration to meet legitimate demand for workers. So it has 

to be some combination of work site enforcement plus new work 

site programs. And I tend to agree with Dr. Panetta that it makes 

no sense to use temporary programs for permanent jobs, but we do 

also have temporary jobs, and temporary programs do make some 

sense in that context. 

I am very much supportive of an earned regularization program. 

In response also to Senator Hirono’s question before about how to 

make sure that it operates properly, I think it should be as simple, 

as straightforward as possible. The more documentation that we require of people means that—part of what happened in IRCA was 

it became the full employment for counterfeiters bill, because if you 

make demands that are unattainable, people will find a way 

around them. So I think we should be quite straightforward and 

very simple in terms of our provisions. 

With regard to family reunification, the IRCA legalization did not 

initially include a family unity provision. That was adopted in 

1990. That would make it easier for families to come together. I 
22 

would hope that any new formulation takes into account from the 

very beginning that many of the legalized will have spouses and 

minor children still in their country of origin, and that that be 

taken into account, and that we have sufficient visa numbers to 

allow expeditious family reunification in those cases so we do not 

buildup the kind of backlogs that we saw in the 1990s. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Dr. Panetta, you touched on the Optional 

Practical Training program, OPT. I am interested in knowing how 

students you have mentored have been treated as an OPT worker. 

There are no wage requirements or numerical limits. Last May, I 

asked the Government Accountability Office to review the programs, including the controls in place to prevent fraud and abuse. 

I am still waiting for the report. There is widespread belief that 

employers use the program to gain the expertise and labor of foreign students without having to pay for it. In Fiscal Year 2010, 

over 95,000 OPT applicants were granted; very few applications are 

denied. There are very few controls in place to ensure that these 

foreign workers are not mistreated. There is also no requirement 

that a company first recruit and hire an American student with the 

same skills. 

Two questions: What has been your experience with the OPT 

program? And do you have any insight on how students are being 

treated on that program? 

Ms. PANETTA. Thank you for that question, Senator, because the 

reason I am here before you today is because of my experience that 

I have seen over 18 years of my students being tortured by this 

process. 

Students get hired on OPT and have up to 29 months to get promoted to an H–1B, which should not be a bridge to the green card. 

They come, we educate them here; sometimes our Government 

pays for their education, and then they want to stay and they want 

to be citizens of the United States. 

What happens is they get their practical training certificate. 

They get to work for a company. That company then never gives 

them a definitive, honest offer of what they will see, and then they 

let that time elapse up until the point that the person gets very 

uncertain about what their future is. No one wants to know—with 

a month left on their OPT, whether they are going to have a job 

or whether they are going to be shipped off, and that has been the 

case. 

The students that I have worked with have worked long hours, 

16-hour days, never questioning, very complacent because they 

know that if they ask questions or if they make waves, even on 

their pay, a lot of them have come back and shown me the same 

person in the same job getting paid substantially magnitudes less, 

they are getting paid much less than those individuals. And when 

they bring it up—one of them was so bold to bring it up—they then 

postponed even giving him a decision on when they would be filing 

for a visa for him. 

Since these students are so brilliant and they are wonderful contributors to our Nation’s economy, I often step in and actually help 

them find new positions with companies that will treat them better 

and give them more of a commitment to citizenship. 
23 

So, yes, it is being abused terribly by companies in the United 

States, and it is used as an opportunity to hide the fact that they 

are being underpaid, that they are being overworked, and that they 

have no voice. 

When it comes to women, this problem is even more further exacerbated because women most likely will have—I have here—a lot 

of my students have children, and they are afraid that they are 

going to be thrown out of the country and even though their children are U.S. citizens. They have no opportunity to be treated with 

the full rights as their children should be and as their children’s 

neighbors and their parents are. 

So it is a horrible flaw in the program, and that is why I am not 

in favor and my organization is not in favor of using OPT, then H– 

1B as a bridge. We think that if somebody is worthwhile for a company and has skills that you truly need, then send them directly 

to the green card. These people are very competitive, and if they 

know those opportunities are there, that is the incentive. So it has 

been a problem, and I thank you for asking that question. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. Moua, I want to pick up where Ms. Martin was talking about 

backlogs, and maybe instead of picking up, go back to what the effect of these backlogs is on families. 

In the first hearing we held this year on the subject of immigration reform, I highlighted the case of a Minnesota green card holder, a legal immigrant who filed to be reunited with his wife and 

four children in November 2010 and only got his application processed in February of this year. During that wait, his eldest son 

turned 21. That kicked him into a separate visa category with a 19- 

year backlog. 

Our immigration system is broken when, if you play by the rules, 

you do not get to see your wife for 3 years and your son for 20. 

Can you talk a little bit more about just what the impact of these 

backlogs is on families? 

Ms. MOUA. Thank you, Senator Franken. I think that it is my 

mistake for not bringing the map to share with all of you about 

how complex the multiple systems we have in place are. I think 

that the family that you have talked about is a family that is 

caught in all the multiple backlogs that are implied in the current 

problem that we have. You can have a mixed status family where 

each family member is experiencing a different kind of backlog. 

Whether you come from—if you come from Mexico or any of the 

Asian countries, the wait times will differ, anywhere from 4, 6, 8 

years to 23, 24 years, as we have seen in the Philippines. 

What that does is that for families who are caught in that limbo, 

it does not permit them to be able to visit one another while they 

are caught in that limbo. And for some families, it is not just about 

children, particularly if you are a legal permanent resident and you 

are not able to bring your spouse or minor children with you, you 

are separating children from their parents, you are separating husbands and wives from each other. 
24 

In the situation involving our GLBT binational permanent partners couples, they are not able to be reunited with their families. 

In situations like our Filipino vets, you know, we gave them 

things by giving them citizenship to live in this country, and yet 

we are making them wait 20, 25, 26 years to bring their adult married children to be with them in their golden years, to be able to 

take care of them. 

You know, family immigration is good for our economy, and we 

know that our communities and all Americans benefit when we are 

able to provide immigrants with an opportunity to set roots. 

We know that siblings provide immigrants an immediate social 

support system that is able to help them with child care or if they 

fall on hard times or in instances when they need some help to 

start a business. The family network is what has helped our immigrants, regardless of how you come to this country, survive and 

start a life in this country. 

You know, Senator Franken, children will always be our children, whether they are over the age of 21 or not. And for us to 

start thinking about which piece of our family is expendable or is 

tradeable or should not be considered part of our long-held core 

value in our immigrant policies, which is family unit, for us to start 

to think about which members of our family we are going to trade 

away is a dramatic and drastic departure from the core values of 

what has been driving this country since our founding days, where 

families have come together and, through the network of families, 

be able to web together, a future together, dependent on each 

other. 

Senator FRANKEN. And don’t these backlogs sort of incentivize illegal immigration? I mean, if you are overseas and have no prospect of seeing your parents for over 20 years, you are going to— 

I know that I would like to think that my kids would do everything 

they could to be with me because they love me so much. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. MOUA. Senator, in my remarks, I talked about the family 

where one of the moms is facing deportation, and it is in circumstances like that where families feel like, you know, the choices 

before them are long, inhumanely backlog and waits or to choose 

to make those hard decisions to live in the shadows or to live in 

fear and take that risk. And I think that we know far too many 

families who are oftentimes forced into those circumstances. 

Senator FRANKEN. I am thrilled that you are working to protect 

families in the immigration reform process. I want to ask you some 

questions about how this debate affects children in Minnesota and 

around the country. 

Even though undocumented immigration has gone down overall, 

the number of children arriving alone at our borders has doubled 

in recent years. The Federal Government is supposed to arrange 

for attorneys for these children, but only half of them are actually 

getting lawyers. Recently, the American Bar Association told me 

about a Minnesotan who was brought to the country as a 1-yearold and who attended four court hearings without a lawyer. 

Now, obviously, a 1-year-old is a pretty dramatic case, but it is 

happening to all ages of children. At this point, Madam Chair, I 

would like to enter into the record the stories of three other young 
25 

Minnesotans who entered the country when they were either 11 or 

13 years old, but who suffered because they had no attorney to help 

them. 

Senator HIRONO. Without objection, so ordered. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

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

Senator FRANKEN. Ms. Moua, do you think this is a problem we 

need to address and to solve? And Ms. Martin, too. 

Ms. MOUA. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator. Senator 

Franken, let me take a small shot at them, and then any of our 

panelists should weigh in because this is an area that is close to 

many of our hearts. 

I agree with you that children are children, are our children, and 

we all have an obligation to make sure that our children, regardless of their parentage, are able to navigate through our systems 

and that we take care of them. 

The children that you talk about who arrive on our borders without their parents and who are living in this country as minors, is 

serious and we need to take care of them. You add that to the children who are U.S. citizens, whose parents have either been deported or are in the process of removal, many of whom may not 

have relatives here to care for them, who are also living in limbo 

without their families. 

It does not make sense for us to create a system where we have 

got children living in this country and not have the opportunity to 

have their families and their parents here to help them take care 

of us, when in those situations we would take U.S. citizen children, 

deport their families, which is their core support, and then have 

the public system put them into a foster care system and pay for 

that when their parents are willing and able and capable of being 

here to take care of their children so that they can be a family together. 

Senator FRANKEN. I have a piece of legislation, the Help Separated Children Act, which addresses when—we have had a situation in Minnesota where we had meat-packing plants raided, and 

the parents—you know, we would have an 8-year-old come back 

from school and see their brother, who is a year old, at home with 

no one taking care of him because the parents had been taken in. 

And this kid had to take care of the baby brother for a week while 

a grandmother came from Texas or something. 

Ms. Poo. 

Ms. POO. I would like to thank you for your leadership on this 

issue, and the bill that you have introduced is very important. 

There are a number of due process issues that we have to pay attention to, making sure that parents can actually see to the wellbeing of their children, which is what they were meant to do. 

I had the opportunity recently to visit a shelter in Tijuana, Mexico, where women who have been deported end up as they try to 

figure out what happened to their children after they have been deported. And I met a woman who was still holding the shirt that she 

was trying to put on her 2-year-old son as she was separated, detained, and deported. And it took her weeks to figure out what happened to her child. And if you can imagine the pain that she felt 

and imagine what that child, that 2-year-old child felt as he 
26 

watched and witnessed as his mother was separated from him indefinitely. 

So I think the issue—there are many due process issues. Families belong together, children need their parents, and families need 

one another. And I appreciate your question and your leadership. 

Ms. MARTIN. If I could just add, there have been some improvements made in the last few years since the separated children are 

now under the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement rather 

than Homeland Security. But we still have a big gap in terms of 

there not being someone who is appointed as a guardian for the 

children whose principal responsibility is figuring out what is in 

the best interest of the child. And the fact that we do not have 

legal assistance paid for by the Government in these cases, we tend 

to see them as civil cases, but the consequences particularly for a 

separate child are certainly as extreme as they are in criminal 

cases. 

So having the funds to be able to provide for legal assistance in 

these cases I think is absolutely essential. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, I hope the Justice Department can actually supervise this sometimes instead. 

Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony. Thank you for this 

hearing, Madam Chair. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Senator Franken. 

These are important issues, so we have been going over, and I 

want to thank Senator Sessions for your patience. Please go ahead. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Well, these are difficult issues. We need to work through them, 

and we need to create a system, I think, that serves our national 

interest. And I would repeat that. The goal of a good immigration 

system for the United States of America should serve the national 

interest of our Nation. It should includes systems that are readily 

enforceable and that are enforced, that are legitimate, creating a 

system that we can be proud of. 

I am very impressed with the Canadian system. I think it is a 

very good system, and we can a learn a lot from that. So we are 

into the difficult problems today, and this hearing has taught us 

a lot about the human consequences of any decision process when 

somebody gets admitted and somebody else does not. Just because 

it is painful and you made a choice to come to amendment does not 

necessarily mean, I think, that you get to bring your aging parents 

or your brother and sister. It just may not mean that. It is up to 

the United States to decide that question about who legitimately 

should be entered as we establish a good system of immigration. 

I think that is where the American people are. I think their instincts are good and decent. I think they are fundamentally correct. 

They are not anti-immigrant. We remain one of the most welcoming nations in the world for immigrants, and we are proud of 

that, and I want to stress that point. And no one is proposing that 

has any seriousness that we are going to restrict fundamentally the 

number of people who come into our country. We just need to decide how and what standards we will use for that and then how 

we can make sure it is accurately carried out. 

Madam Chair, this is a valuable hearing, and I wish that the 

Committee had been moving stronger over time to confront the real 
27 

issues that presumably eight Senators are meeting somewhere, 

maybe this very minute, trying to decide. They might be under the 

table or down the hall or somewhere. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SESSIONS. I do not know where they are, deciding the 

fate of millions. But I would suggest these are things that we need 

to be talking about. 

I will ask you, Ms. Martin, you worked on the Jordan Commission, and that was an remarkable effort. It, I think, came close to 

providing the Nation a way to deal with our challenge. 

Would you think that a good immigration policy should decide 

carefully who would be included in the future flow—skills, language, family, and those kind of things? Just yes or not. Should 

that be one of the decisions we would make? 

Ms. MARTIN. Yes, of course. 

Senator SESSIONS. And that is not always easy, is it? You have 

been through it. It is a tough thing. 

What about the Temporary Guest Worker Program? It is kind of 

like some of these ideas that one person has one vision of a temporary guest worker and another one has an entirely different vision of it. It is not an easy thing, is it? It takes a lot of work to 

craft a legitimate Temporary Guest Worker Program? 

Ms. MARTIN. Right. 

Senator SESSIONS. And border security, that is a difficult challenge. We have made some progress, and we have not made some 

progress. But you would need to hear from experts and top personnel what kind of metrics to use, what kind of technology to use 

at the border, would you not? 

Ms. MARTIN. Of course. 

Senator SESSIONS. And what about the impact of very large numbers of immigrants that would have on—recent immigrants, 

women, who are working today and would like to get a pay raise 

or like to be able to think they could get a job, you would need to 

consider the impact of a large flow of immigrants on the ability of 

people to get jobs and maybe have an increase in their wage, would 

you not? 

Ms. MARTIN. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. And the biometrics, 40 percent, I understand 

now they say, that enter the country legally are—40 percent of the 

people that are here illegally now have entered legally but did not 

depart as required. So you would need some sort of system of entry 

and exit accounting, would you not? 

Ms. MARTIN. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. And workplace enforcement, I think you mentioned that earlier, that is something we have wrestled with for 20, 

30 years and have not gotten it fixed yet. But that would need to 

be fixed, would it not? 

Ms. MARTIN. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. And a biometric identifying document, that is 

always controversial. But isn’t it pretty much in this modern age 

a cornerstone of an effective immigration policy? And the ability of 

State law enforcement officers to help with the Federal Government and many, many other issues. 
28 

So let me ask you this: With the Jordan Commission, did you 

have public hearings? 

Ms. MARTIN. Yes, we did. 

Senator SESSIONS. Oh, you actually had public hearings? 

Ms. MARTIN. Yes, we had public hearings. We had public consultations that involved experts, advocacy groups, immigrants coming in and talking about various different issues. We also had an 

open microphone so that every person who came to the hearings 

was given 1 minute, and sometimes we would stay for 3, 4, or 5 

hours while we waited for everyone to take their turn. 

Senator SESSIONS. Did you ever listen to experts like law enforcement officers and people who had done enforcement work for years 

and have experience in that? Were they invited? 

Ms. MARTIN. Yes, they were invited, and we also went with them 

on their rounds. So I spent a lot of time and the Commissioners 

spent a lot of time on the border going out with the Border Patrol 

to see what they were actually doing. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I think that is good because these issues 

are very complex. I talked with the Canadian leaders who helped 

craft their policy. They are proud of what they do. They have created a point system. They do not have the kind of family unification vision that many of you would favor, actually. And it strikes 

me—Ms. Moua, maybe you could comment, but do you think that 

a nation that decides that they can admit an individual is somehow 

making—somehow has no right to say that that person’s brother 

would have to qualify independently rather than being given a 

guaranteed entry into the country? Do you think a country could 

legitimately make that decision? 

Ms. MOUA. Senator Sessions, coming from the Asian American 

community here in the 1880s we were the first people to be excluded explicitly by the United States immigration policy, I am well 

aware that this country has never hesitated in terms of the way 

that it chooses to exercise its authority to permit people to either 

enter or depart its borders. And we know that the Asian American 

community in particular did not get to enjoy the benefit of immigration to this country until the 1960’s when those restrictionist 

policies were lifted. So I know very well and am very aware that 

immigration—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, so you would just say, it seems to me, 

that it is perfectly logical to think that there are two individuals— 

let us say in a good, friendly country like Honduras, one is a valedictorian of his class, has 2 years of college, learned English, and 

very much has a vision to come to the United States, and another 

one who dropped out of high school, has minimal skills, both are 

20 years of age, and that latter person has a brother here. What 

would be in the interest of the United States? Which one of those 

would be in the best interest of the United States to be allowed to 

have preference to enter the United States? 

Ms. MOUA. Senator, I think that under your scenario people can 

conclude about which one would be in the best interest of the 

United States. I think the more realistic scenario is that in the second situation that individual would be female, would not have been 

permitted to get an education. And if we were to create a system 

where there was some kind of preference given to, say, education 
29 

or some other kind of metrics, I think that it would truly disadvantage specifically women and their opportunity to come into this 

country. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, that certainly is a problem around the 

world, and I would think the primary problem with education and 

the fact that women have been discriminated against should be focused on the countries that are doing that primarily. 

Ms. Martin, it strikes me that there is a limited number of people that the United States can accept. We cannot accept everybody 

that would like to come, so we should set up standards that are 

fair and just and responsible and reasonable. Your Commission 

dealt with married adult children and brothers and sisters, and I 

suppose—I am not sure what you decided about aging parents, but 

when you admit those persons in preference over people with skills 

the country needs, people that are likely to be successful here, you 

are making a pretty significant policy decision, are you not? 

Ms. MARTIN. The Commission recommended against continuing 

to accept applications for siblings and for adult married children 

largely because we thought that the types of backlogs and waiting 

lists that had been put in—that had ended up being in place for 

those categories made those two categories in particular almost farcical because, instead of providing a rapid way for people to be able 

to come in, join up with their family members, and work, contribute, whether they are uneducated or educated, they were instead outside of the country sometimes for 15, 20, 25 years. And 

we felt that it was more important to ensure that all spouses and 

minor children were able to enter quickly and be with their immediate relatives. 

Frankly, if the Congress were willing to provide very large numbers of visas for family and could guarantee that brothers and sisters could enter within a reasonable period of time, that is a decision Congress can make. But to maintain a few visas and when the 

demand is so large that you end up with waiting times of 20, 25 

years for certain nationalities, that seems to me to be a ridiculous 

way of managing the problem. So it is an issue for Congress. 

You know, I started my testimony saying that there is no special 

magic number. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, thank you. I would say that this has 

been a good discussion. Professor Borjas at Harvard, who wrote the 

book, one of the primary books on this, thinks we already are admitting more people than the country can accept in terms of employment and their expectation that they could be successful. He 

said that in 2007 when we had 5-percent unemployment. 

So I do think there is a limit to how many that can come. We 

have a pretty generous number now. I am not saying that should 

be reduced, but I do think that because a person chooses to leave 

their home country and come to the United States does not necessarily mean they have a right to demand that their brother or 

their other extended family members be allowed to come if they do 

not otherwise meet the standards. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. You are very gracious. I am sorry to 

go over. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Senator Sessions, and I want to 

thank all of the members of the panel. 
30 

Our country is a country of immigrants, and the success of the 

immigrants in this country is often the success of immigrants and 

their families. And so I do not think that we should be setting up 

an either/or proposition because, of course, even those people who 

are the most highly educated and skilled immigrants, they have 

families, too. And so this is—you know, as a sovereign Nation, of 

course we can set whatever limits that we choose as to who can 

come into our country. But this is all about doing the kind of immigration reform that really supports the values that we have in this 

country. And one of the values we have in this country is family 

is important. 

So, with that, I am going to adjourn this hearing, and the record 

will remain open for 1 week. 

Thank you very much. We stand in adjournment. 

[Whereupon, at 3:41 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 
31 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

"How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs of 

Women and Families" 

Questions for the Record from Senator Klobuchar 

ForMeeMoua 

1. In current law there is a requirement that all asylum applicants must apply for 

asylum within one-year of entering the United States. Many advocates believe that 

this rule is arbitrary and has needlessly prevented many deserving people from 

gaining asylum. What impact has this deadline had on asylum seekers and does it 

need to be amended? 

Response: The one-year asylum filing deadline, enacted as part of the 1996 laws, 

has tremendously harmed asylum seekers and unnecessarily wasted government 

resources. 

Human Rights First research has found that as a result of the filing requirement, 

many legitimate refugees with well-founded fears of persecution have been barred 

from receiving asylum in the United States. l "In the 12 years since the deadline 

began barring asylum requests, more than 53,400 applicants have had their 

requests for asylum denied, rejected or delayed due to the filing deadline.,,2 Many 

of these applicants, who are from a multitude of countries, have indeed suffered 

persecution or have well-founded fears of persecution in their home countries. In 

fact, according to Physicians for Human Rights, the bar disproportionately harms 

asylum-seekers with the strongest claims as many fail to file in a timely manner 

due to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and women, who experience higher rates of 

sexual violence and domestic violence, and consequently, have a higher rate of 

untimely filing than men-by 13%.3 

1 The Asylum Filing Deadline, Denying Protection to the Persecuted and Undermining Government Efficiency, 

Human Rights First, Retrieved AprilS, from ht!;p:llwww.humanrightsfirst.org/wpcontent/uploads/pdflafd.pdf. 

'[d. 

3 One Year Bar to Asylum (Fact Sheet), Physicians for Human Rights, Retrieved AprilS, 2013, from 

https·l/s3.amazonaws.com/PHR other Ifactsheets/One-Year-Bar pdf 
32 

There are many legitimate reasons asylum seekers are unable to meet the one-year 

filing deadline. "Asylum seekers may understandably arrive in this country 

traumatized from persecution, unable to speak English and without any knowledge 

of the U.S. asylum system. Some do not know that they might be eligible for 

asylum. Many do not have the resources to retain legal counsel, and pro bono 

resources are scarce or simply not available in many parts of the country.,,4 As a 

result, these asylum seekers are either returned back to the country where they 

were persecuted or only offered temporary forms of protection that leave them 

vulnerable to exploitation, detention and deportation. 

The filing deadline also undermines the efficiency of the already over-burdened 

asylum and immigration court adjudication systems. As a result of the filing 

deadline, over 18,000 cases have been pushed to the immigration court system 

instead of being resolved at the more efficient asylum offices, delaying the 

adjudication of these cases and diverting resources from both the asylum offices 

and the court system. 5 

Rather than preventing abuse of the asylum system by individuals filing fraudulent 

claims, which was the purported purpose its enactment, the one-year filing 

deadline has prevented refugees with credible non-fraudulent asylum cases from 

receiving asylum in the United States, the very individuals the asylum system was 

meant to protect. Beginning in 1995, many major reforms to prevent fraud and 

abuse have already been implemented, including requirements to sign applications 

under penalty of perjury, permanent bars from immigration benefits for fraudulent 

applications, series of database checks with DHS, FBI and other federal databases 

and criminal prosecution of applicants, preparers and attorneys for fraudulent 

applications. 

Legislative history shows that the one-year filing deadline was not intended to bar 

legitimate applicants, which it is indeed doing. Therefore, Congress should 

eliminate the wasteful and unfair asylum filing deadline that is barring refugees 

with well-founded fears of persecution from asylum and diverting overstretched 

4 The Asylum Filing Deadline, Denying Protection to the Persecuted and Undermining Government Efficiency, 

Human Rights First 

SId. 
33 

adjudication resources. 6 This change is included in Refugee Protection Act (RPA) 

of 2011 (S. 1202 and H.R. 2185) Section 3. In connection with this legislative 

change, Congress should also permit individuals who, due to the filing deadline, 

were granted withholding of removal but not asylum, to adjust their status to 

lawful permanent resident and petition to bring their spouses and children to safety. 

2. Under current law parents cannot get asylum based on the fear that their 

children will be subject to persecution in their home country. This means that 

parents can be faced with the agonizing choice of whether to leave their children 

with other caretakers in the us. or bring them back to their home countries and 

face the threat of persecution. Can you speak to this problem and the current 

obstacles tofamity unity in asylum cases? 

Answer: A report by the Women Refugee's Commission found that "[e]very year, 

thousands of unaccompanied alien children (UACs) risk harrowing journeys and 

travel alone to seek refuge in the United States. These children come from all over 

the world for many reasons, including to escape persecution in their home 

countries.,,7 Children around the world are increasingly facing violent attacks by 

gangs and drug cartels and girls in particular face gender-based violence. "In 

recent years, the U.S. government has had roughly 6,000-8,000 of these children in 

its care and custody each year."s The majority of these children, approximately 70 

percent, have been between the ages of 15 and 17.4.9 

, DHS confirmed that it concluded that the asylum filing deadline should be eliminated, confirming that it 

expends resources without helping uncover or deter fraud (UNHCR Washington Office, Reaffirming 

Protection, October 2011, Summary Report, p. 18, at 

http://www.unhcrwashingtQn org latf Icf I%ZBCO ZEDAS EACZl-4340-8SZ0-

194D98BDC139%ZD/georgetown pdO. The Administration has publicly pledged to work with Congress to 

eliminate the deadline (U.S. Department of State, PRM, Fact Sheet: U.S. Commemorations Pledges, Z December 

2011, available at http://www.state.goy/j/prm/releases/factsheets/2011/181020.htm). Several studies 

underscore this issue including Human Rights First, The Asylum Filing Deadline, (New York: 2010) available 

at http://www.humanrightsfirst orgfwpcontentfuploads/pdf lafd.pdf and P. Schrag, A. Schoenholtz, J. RamjiNogales, and J.P. Dombach, Rejecting Refugees: Homeland Security's Administration of the One· Year Bar to 

Asylum, William and Mary Law Review, (2010), available at http://wmlawreyiew,org/files/Schrag.pdf. 

7 Forced from Home: The Lost Boys and Girls from Central America, Women's Refugee Commission, Retrieved 

April 8, 2013, from http://womensrefugeecommission.org/press-room/1491-forced-from-home-the-lostboys-and-gjrls-of-central-america. 

BId. 

9Id. 
34 

Recently, many undocumented parents have brought asylum claims based on fear 

that if they and their children are deported, their daughters will undergo female 

genital mutilation (FGM).IO In many cases where the daughter is a United States 

citizen and thus able to remain in the country without her parents, courts have often 

refused to allow derivative asylum claims absent a showing that the parent 

personally fears persecution or that the child will be constructively deported. II 

By having a law that does not permit children seeking asylum to come with their 

parents, America is creating generations of orphaned asylees in the United States. 

The law forces thousands of children into the foster care system, which not only 

imposes emotional harm on thousands of children, but imposes tremendous costs 

on local, state and federal governments. 12 This law clearly contradicts the United 

States immigration tradition of valuing family unity, particularly between parents 

and children, and harms the most basic and essential unit of American society. 

10 An Impossible Choice: Denial of Parents' Derivative Asylum Claims Based on their Citizen Daughter's Risk 

of Female Genital Mutilation, Washington University Global Studies Law Review, Retrieved April 8, 2013, 

from http://law wustJ.edu !WUGSLRlIssues!Volume8 3!Cahan.pdf. 

11 Id. 

12 Id. 
35 

"How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs of 

Women and Families" 

Questions for the Record from Senator Klobuchar 

For Jennifer Ng'andu 

1. U-Visas are critically important tool for law enforcement. They also serve as a 

vital source of protection for victims of certain crimes, particularly women who 

face domestic violence. Should the comprehensive immigration reform proposal 

include a provision expanding the number of U-Visas authorized for each year? 

What other changes should we make to the U-Visa program? 

**** 

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) agrees that the U-Visa is an essential 

resource for helping immigrant victims of serious crimes and abuse escape 

intolerable conditions and secure legal status. With access to the U-Visa, such 

victims, who are predominantly women, are also required to cooperate with law 

enforcement, providing an important mechanism for pursuing dangerous criminals 

and bringing justice to the nation as a whole. 

There is broad consensus among national experts that the current annual cap on 

granted visas should be raised from 10,000 to 15,000. NCLR supports this 

recommendation and believes that the inclusion of this measure in an immigration 

reform package would not only help these individuals, but would also enhance law 

enforcement's ability to restore the rule oflaw. Additionally, while the U-Visa 

provides remedies for many victims of crime and abuse, victims of child abuse or 

elder abuse are not allowed to request this visa. The U-Visa category should be 

expanded to include these victims of abuse to allow law enforcement to prosecute 

perpetrators of these crimes. 

Victims of abuse broadly cite economic challenges as the hardest to overcome after 

leaving their situation. U-Visa applicants and holders are prone to further 

exploitation given certain vulnerabilities to financial instability that are beyond 

their control. While U-Visa applicants wait for their cases to be adjudicated, they 

do not have the legal authority to work, something that can financially cripple their 

families. The process for adjudication can take nearly a year and a half. During 

that time, in addition to the prohibition against employment, U-Visa applicants 

may not have the documentation to secure additional basic needs, such as a 
36 

driver's license or other identification, or the documentation necessary to rent a 

home. In some cases, U-Visa victims lost custody of their children after leaving 

abusive situations because they could not prove that they could support their 

families. NCLR specifically recommends that laws be changed to provide U-Visa 

applicants with access to employment authorization documents (EADs), allowing 

them the fundamental capacity to enter the formal workforce and secure economic 

resources. 

Furthermore, immigrants with a U-Visa are indefinitely barred from federal meanstested public benefits while in this status, including the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, Medicare, and the Children's 

Health Insurance Program (CHIP), even if they meet all other eligibility criteria. 

By comparison, immigrants who receive T-Visas after experiencing trafficking, 

often under very similar circumstances as V-Visa holders, are rightfully afforded a 

"qualified" status and can access public benefits without any waiting period. 

One NCLR Affiliate, Congreso de Latinos Vnidos, serving Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, cites restrictions to SNAP as one of the core reasons why immigrant 

women in their domestic violence programs choose to stay with their abusers; they 

would rather risk further personal harm than let their children go hungry. It is 

imperative that V-Visa holders can support themselves and their families, ensure 

their full ability to cooperate with law enforcement, and eliminate their risk for 

repeated victimization. Public benefits restrictions should be eliminated for VVisa holders and other immigrant victims of domestic violence and abuse. 

Specifically, provisions under the "Women Immigrants Safe Harbor (WISH) Act" 

would eliminate the arcane eligibility restrictions in multiple public benefits 

programs that keep many victims of abuse and domestic violence in harm's way. 

Finally, while the U-Visa is an important solution for some immigrant victims, it is 

also important to put additional measures in place that prevent victims of abuse 

from having to choose between deportation and leaving abusive situations, when 

their legal status is threatened. As members of congress construct a comprehensive 

immigration reform plan, they should be cognizant of the extent to which an 

immigrant's legal status-and, with higher frequency, women's legal status-is 

contingent on a partner, dependent, or employer. Immigration reform should 

provide assurance that the American standard is one in which no person must be 

bound to an abuser; this means empowering those who have the courage to come 

forward and return to the legal pathway that they were already on. 
37 

access 

WOMEN'S HEALTH JUSTICE 

SUBMrSSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

ACCESS Women's Health Justice 

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Testimony 

"How Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Should Address the Needs of Women and Families" 

March 21,2013 

Dear Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: 

We write today to thank you for holding a hearing on "How Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Should Address the Needs of Women and Families," and to share with you our recommendations on 

this important issue. ACCESS Women's Health Justice is a nonprofit grassroots organization that 

removes barriers to sexual and reproductive healthcare and builds the power of California 

women and girls to demand equity and dignity. 

For women to be completely free and able to chart the course of their own lives, they must be able to 

detennine not just whether and when to create family, but where to create family. 

Furthermore, they must have access to the resources they need in order to care for their own 

reproductive health and raise their families with dignity and respect. Women who are aspiring citizens 

are excluded from public health benefits, and thus face barriers to caring for their own reproductive 

health and to plan their families. All legal immigrants are barred from eligibility for Medicaid, SCHIP, 

and other means-tested federal benefits for the first five years that they live in the United States. This 

arbitrary and harmful restriction denies women access to critical reproductive health care, including 

contraception, cervical cancer screening, and prenatal care. Moreover, while the landmark health 

reform law will give many women increased access to contraception and other reproductive health care, 

a significant portion of those who will remain uninsured are immigrant women, due to restrictions on 

immigrant eligibility for new or expanded coverage options. Women should also be able to care as best 

they can for the health and wellbeing of their children, with the comfort of knowing that they will be 

not be tom away from their children and that they can afford to take their sons and daughters to 

doctor's visits. 

ACCESS Women's Health Justice knows it is not about what you look like or where you were born, but 

how you live your life and what you do that defines you here in America. The contributions of 

immigrant women have always been vital for our society to grow. and flourish. We know OUr country is 

strongest when women are healthy, safe, and able to care for their children and families. Truly effective 

immigration policy reform should value and honor women and their contributions. 

We call on legislators to support immigration reform that ensures women have the resources they 

need to make their own personal decisions about their reproductive health, their families, and 

their lives. To that end, the following are our recommendations for how comprehensive 

immigration policy reform can address the needs of women and families. 
38 

I. Immigrant women need a fair and equitable roadmap to citizenship. 

Any roadmap to citizenship and integration must be open, affordable, safe, and accessible to all 

immigrant women, including those whose work is in the home and those who are employed in 

the informal economy. A roadmap to citizenship that conditions eligibility on participation in the 

formal labor market disadvantages immigrant women, who are more likely to work in the 

informal sector. For example, many immigrant women are domestic workers1

, farm laborers, nail 

salon workers, and homemakers. Immigrant women must be afforded equal employment-based 

migration opportunities and workplace protections so that they may safely pursue economic 

opportunity and support their families with dignity and pride. Our immigration system has 

historically been unfair to women, but now we have an opportunity to change it into one that 

recognizes the unique realities and contributions of women's lives. A truly equitable system will 

place just as much value on women as it does on men. Any proposed pathway to citizenship must 

place equal value on the contributions of women. 

II. We need to keep immigrant women and their families together. 

Immigration reform must protect the right of all families to stay together, regardless of 

immigration status, family structure, sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. In 

addition, immigration policies must be modernized to provide sufficient family-based channels 

for migration in the future. Enforcement, detention, and deportation programs that compromise 

immigrant women's safety, violate their civil, human, and due process rights, and tear families 

apart must be replaced by sensible and sufficient legal channels for migration that adequately 

meet family and labor demands and respect women and their families. 

Millions of families are at risk of being torn apart. Currently,S.! million children live in mixedlegal status families. Four million of these children are U.S. citizens. 2 The growth of mixedstatus families, combined with a lack of sufficient legal channels for migration, means that more 

families than ever are at risk of being separated for years or even permanently. In fact, between 

July 2010 and September 2012, the U.S. deported more than 205,000 parents of U.S. citizen 

children.' 

Family separation burdens local government. When parents are detained or deported, children 

are at risk of ending up in the child welfare system. The Applied Research Center in November 

2011 conservatively estimated that 5,100 children in foster care had parents who had been 

detained or deported. That number is expected to grow to 15,000 over the next five years. 4 We 

must alleviate the unnecessary burden on states by permitting parents to care for their children. 

The lack oflegal opportunities for families to be together incentivizes unlawful migration and 

encourages deported parents to return and reunite with their children. A smart immigration 

I Domestic Workers United. Home is Where the Work Is: Inside NffW York's Domestic Work Industry, Domestic Workers United and DataCenter, 

July 2006. Available at http;I/\\,\¥W.domesticworkersunited,orgiindex,php/enicomponentljdownloadslfinishl3/4. 

2 Passel J, Taylor p, Unauthorized Immigrants and Their US.-Born Children. Pew Hispanic Center. August 2010. Available at 

http://\\-''WW,oewhispanic.orgl201 0/08/) I/unauthorized~immigrants-and~thcir~us--bom·ehjldrenl A~cesscd March 13,2013. 

3 Wessler SR. Primary Data: Deportations of Parents of U.S. Citizen Kids, Colorlines. December 17,2012. Available at 

http://coiorlines.com/archinsl2012112/deportationsofparentsofus-bomcitizens122012.html. Accessed February 4, 2013. 

4 Applied Research Center. Shattered Families: The Perilous Intersection a/Immigration Enforcement and the Child Welfare System. November 

2011. Available at http://are.orglshatteredfnmilies. Accessed February 4, 2013. 

2 
39 

system is one that values and prioritizes family unity. When parents get involved with the 

immigration enforcement system, they often lose any say in how their children are cared for. 

Detained parents are held far from their children. They may be unable to participate in the 

reunification plans necessary to regain custody of children who end up in foster care, and they 

are often denied meaningful access to child custody hearings. A humane and cost-effective 

immigration system would protect parents' constitutionally-protected rights to determine the care 

and custody of their children. 

Children are better off with thcir parents. Being undocumented does not make someone an unfit 

parent, and parental rights should only be terminated in cases of verified abuse and neglect. 

Judges need discretion to keep families together. Heavy-handed detention and deportation 

policies have tied the hands of immigration judges. Judges should be able to exercise discretion 

so that parents do not have to be deported unnecessarily. 

III. We need to advance health equity for immigraut womeu. 

Immigration reform must advance all immigrant women's access to health care and other family 

economic support. Such services and benefits include comprehensive health coverage and care 

and legal and social services that promote equality of opportunity, integration, and the ability to 

make decisions regarding reproductive and sexual health and the well-being ofthe family. 

Immigrant women and families work hard, pay taxes, and are committed to being in America. 

They should be able to pay their fair share for health care and should be included in our health 

care system, just like everyone else. They should not be excluded from health care simply 

because of their immigration status. When our families and our workforce are healthy, we all 

benefit. 

Investing in health is common sense - and makes good fiscal sense. By and large, immigrants 

are younger and healthier than the American population as a wholeS - allowing them to 

participate in our health insurance systems and risk pools makes is a good economic decision for 

the country. When immigrant women and families do not have health care, the need for medical 

attention does not go away. Immigrant families without health insurance may either delay 

treatment for preventable disease, leading to higher costs and greater suffering, or seek care 

through under-resourced and expensive emergency systems. A healthy workforce means a 

stronger economy. Good health care is essential to workers' productivity and the opportunity for 

women and families to realize their full potential. If immigrant women are healthy, they are 

better able to support their family economically and contribute to the success of their children. 

For an immigrant woman, being able to protect her health and care for her family is the first step 

to full social, economic, and civic integration into the American community. When moms are 

healthy, their families benefit. 

Restrictions and other arbitrary delays that are often imposed on immigrants' access to benefits 

are also costly and inhumane. Many immigrant women are unable to obtain affordable health due 

to limitations resulting from their immigration status, such as the current 5-year bar on Medicare 

and Medicaid for lawful permanent residents, and the exclusion of undocumented immigrants in 

5 leighton Ku. Health Insurance Coverage and Medical Expenditures of immigrants and Native-Born Citizens in the United States, 

American Journal of Public Health. July 2009; Vol 99 (7): pp.1322·1328. 
40 

health insurance exchanges. Women and families should not be forced to wait five years for 

health care: five years is a lifetime to a child, and may make the difference between life and 

death for a woman suffering from breast or cervical cancer. Health coverage can mean the 

difference between preventing or treating conditions that can affect development throughout life, 

and leaving those conditions undetected and untreated. Removing the five-year bar for lawful 

permanent residents and those on the roadmap to citizenship will give them the same opportunity 

to pay their share and access health care as their friends and neighbors. 

Today's laws are overly complex, confusing, and restrictive. A patchwork of state and federal 

policies limiting access to health care and family economic support creates confusion. For 

example, a single family could have members with five different kinds of eligibility for health 

care depending on their immigration status. As a result, this "chilling effect" discourages even 

qualified recipients from accessing support.6 No mother should have to navigate different health 

insurance systems for every single child, or choose which of her children gets health care. We 

need a system that works for families and enSUres that women and kids get the care they need. 

Anyone could get hurt or sick, and so everyone should have access to basic health care. No one 

should live in fear that because they lack health coverage or live in world where one accident or 

illness could threaten their entire family's economic security. Access to affordable, quality 

health care is a widely-shared goal. Medical coverage plays a crucial role in health and wellbeing, and all Americans should have access. 

IV. Conclusion and Recommendations 

As Congress considers proposals to reform current immigration laws, it is vital that the 

experiences of immigrant women are part of the equation. There is no doubt that the patchwork 

system that is now in place has hindered our progress as a country. The contributions of 

immigrant women have been and should continue to be allowed to grow - it is good for 

communities and it is good for the country. 

In order to address the unique challenges that immigrant women face on the path to become full 

citizens of the U.S., ACCESS Women's Health lustice urges Congress to adopt a holistic 

approach through the following recommendations: 

(I) Provide a fair, accessible, and affordable pathway to citizenship to all immigrants and, in 

particular, ensure that those who work in informal sectors of the economy can participate in 

this process. 

(2) Promote keeping immigrant families and children together, specifically by increasing familybased immigrant visas; alleviating current family:based immigrant visa backlogs; ending 

discrimination against same-sex partners under family immigration laws; allow Immigration 

Judges to exercise discretion in deportation cases that will result in family separation; and 

protect constitutionally-protected rights to determine the care and custody of their children 

for parents facing deportation. 

6 Huang p, Anchor Babies, Over-Breeders and the Population Bomb: The Reemergence a/Nativism and Population Control in Anti-Immigration 

Policies. Harvard Law and Policy Review. 2008; Voll. Available at http://wvlo,''' .... hlpronline.col1vHuang HLPR.pdf/ Accessed January 12, 2013. 

4 
41 

(3) Advance health equity for immigrant women, including ensuring full access to the Affordable Care 

Act regardless of immigration status and lifting the five-year bar on Medicare and other meanstested federal benefits for legal permanent residents. 

Again, thank you for taking the time to hear from advocates for women on this issue. We hope 

you will take into consideration our recommendations as the dialogue continues around how to 

fix our broken immigration system. 
42 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF 

THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

For a Hearing on 

"How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs of Women 

and Families" 

Submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

March 18,2013 

ACLU Washington Legislative Office 

Laura W. Murphy, Director 

Joanne Lin, Legislative Counsel 

Ian S. Thompson, Legislative Representative 
43 

I. Introduction 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a nationwide, non-partisan 

organization of more than a half-million members, countless additional activists and 

supporters, and 53 affiliates nationwide dedicated to preserving and defending the 

fundamental rights of individuals under the Constitution and laws of the United States. 

The ACLU's Washington Legislative Office (WLO) conducts legislative and 

administrative advocacy to advance the organization's goal to protect immigrants' rights. 

The ACLU submits this statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary on 

the occasion of its hearing addressing the needs of women and families in the 

immigration system. Reforming our immigration laws is urgently needed to ensure that 

women, children, and families do not continue to be deported in unprecedented numbers 

by the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"). During President Obama's first term, 

over 1.5 million people were deported - the highest number of deportations in any single 

presidential term. These historic-level deportations have torn asunder untold numbers of 

families, leaving U.S. citizen children alone and many placed in the child welfare system. 

As Congress drafts and considers immigration reform legislation, we urge Congress to 

address the impact ofDHS immigration policies on women and families, with special 

attention to women who are detained and deported, to the U.S. citizen children who lose 

their mothers to deportation, and to LGBT couples who are not protected under family 

immigration laws. 

II. U.S. Immigration Policies Have Produced Record-Level Deportations and 

Shattered Untold Numbers of American Families. 

According to 2012 data obtained through the Freedom ofInformation Act ("FOIA") 

by Colorlines.com, between July 2010 and September 2012, DHS conducted nearly 

205,000 deportations of parents who said their children are U.S. citizens. These figures 

represent the longest view to date of the national scale of parental deportation. During 

this two-year period, the near 205,000 deportations of parents with U.S. citizen children 

accounted for nearly one quarter of all deportations. l 

Every day American families are torn apart, and U.S. citizen children are forced to 

say goodbye, many forever, to their parents who are deported. What happens to the 

children of deportees? A 20 II Applied Research Center study estimated that at least 

5,100 children in foster care faced significant barriers to reunifying with their detained or 

deported parents. The Applied Research Center projected that if deportation and child 

welfare policies remained unchanged, another 15,000 kids could face a similar fate over 

the three years between 2012 and 2014. 

Amy Cruz is one such child. Born in the U.S., the now 18-year-old is set to graduate 

from high school this spring and to attend San Diego State University in the fall of2013. 

Her academic achievement is particularly notable because she lost her mother to 

1 Seth Freed Wessler, Primary Data: Deportations of Parents of u.s. Citizen Kids, Colorlines, Dec. 17, 

2012, available at http://coiorlines.com/archives/20121l2/deportations of parents of usborn citizens 122012.html. 

2 
44 

deportation eight years ago and has spent her teen years growing up in the child welfare 

system. Eight years ago following a traffic stop in San Diego, Amy's mother, who was 

undocumented, was deported to Mexico -- leaving Amy and her eight siblings on their 

own. All the children were placed in foster care. Due to the large family size, Amy and 

her siblings could not remain together and were instead placed in different foster 

placements. After losing their mother to deportation, Amy and her siblings then lost each 

other - the only family they ever knew. Their family was permanently shattered. 

Amy is just one of many children, born and bred in the U.S., who lose their parents to 

deportation and are then faced with overwhelming odds - fending on their own as they 

try to grow up without their parents. Amy's story begs the question, "Whose interests 

were served by the deportation of Amy's mother? What has happened to Amy and her 

siblings who were robbed of any family stability? What impact do our nation's 

deportation policies have on our state child welfare systems, already strapped for 

resources and stretched thin by urgent demands?" 

The annual deportation of 100,000 parents of U.S. citizens is a trend that must cease. 

In considering immigration reform legislation in 2013, Congress should rescind the 

punitive deportation laws that tear apart American children from their parents each and 

every day. 

III. Immigration Detention Laws Lack Due Process, Thereby Sweeping in 

Women, Mothers, and Grandmothers Who Are Imprisoned by DHS for 

Years. 

Over the last 15 years, immigration detention levels have more than tripled-from 

85,730 detainees in 19952 to an all-time high of 429,247 individuals in FY 2011. 3 In FY 

2011 DHS held an average daily population of33,034 individuals in more than 250 

immigration prison facilities nationwide.4 The people locked up by DHS include 

survivors of torture, asylum-seekers, victims of trafficking, families with small children, 

the elderly, individuals with serious medical and mental health conditions, and lawful 

permanent residents with longstanding family and community ties who are facing 

deportation because of old or minor crimes for which they have already served their 

sentences. 

The steep rise in ICE detention expenditures corresponds to two key shifts that 

effectively guarantee tens or hundreds of thousands of individuals will be unnecessarily 

detained every year. First, mandatory custody provisions enacted by Congress in 1996 

have been interpreted by DHS to require incarceration without bond for virtually all 

2 Doris Meissner et a!., Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a Formidable 

Machinery, Migration Policy Institute, (Jan. 2013), 126, available at 

http://www.migrationpolicv.org/pubs/enforcementpillars.pdf 

3 John Simanski & Lesley M. Sapp, DHS Office ofImmigration Statistics, Immigration Enforcement 

Actions: 2011,4, available at http://www.dhs.gov/sites/defaultifiles/publications/immigrationstatistics/enforcement ar 2011.pdf 

4 ICE Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations, ERO Facts and Statistics (Dec. 12,2011), available 

at www.ice.gov/doclib/foialreports!ero-facts-and-slatistics.pdf 

3 
45 

noncitizens who are removable because of criminal convictions-including nonviolent 

misdemeanor convictions for which they may have received no jail sentence.s As a 

result, thousands of people-including many longtime lawful permanent residents-are 

held without ever being afforded the basic due process of a bond hearing before an 

independent adjudicator while their deportation cases are being decided. 

Moreover, because of DHS's overly expansive interpretation, mandatory detention is 

being improperly applied to, among others, individuals who have substantial challenges 

to removal on which they ultimately prevail; individuals who have old convictions and 

have subsequently demonstrated rehabilitation;6 and individuals who are detained for 

prolonged periods of time-sometimes years-far beyond the "brief" period of detention 

contemplated both by Congress and the Supreme Court in Demore v Kim.7 

For example, the ACLU is currently representing Bertha Mejia, a grandmother who 

has been detained without due process by DHS for nearly 1.5 years. Ms. Mejia has deep 

family ties in California and no violent criminal history. Yet DHS classified her as a 

"mandatory detainee" because of misdemeanor convictions for stealing groceries. That 

classification made her ineligible for a hearing before an immigration judge, where she 

could present evidence that she posed no danger to the community or risk of flight---even 

as her immigration case dragged on for months with no end in sight. 

Because ofDHS's unlawful policies, Ms. Mejia has languished in a county jail for the 

past year and a half. Her lengthy detention has caused great hardship for her loved ones, 

especially for her 9-year-old grandchild whom she was raising. Meanwhile, U.S. 

taxpayers funded Ms. Mejia's unnecessary detention at the rate of $164 per day, to a total 

cost of nearly $90,000. 

Last week a federal judge ordered a bond hearing for Ms. Mejia. The judge held that 

Congress did not intend to strip immigrants of their due process rights based on old 

convictions-including for minor, nonviolent offenses like petty theft. The ruling 

recognizes that Ms. Mejia never should have been in mandatory lock-up in the first place, 

and should have received a prompt bond hearing to determine if she needed to be 

detained. 8 

5 See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). 

6 Although section I 226(c) limits the application of mandatory custody to persons who are arrested by ICE 

"when released" from criminal custody, the agency insists that it applies any time after an individual's 

release. See Matter of Rojas, 23 1. & N. Dec. I 17 (BIA 2001). As a result, ICE applies mandatory 

detention to individuals who have been leading law-abiding lives in the community for years following 

completion oftheir criminal sentences. See Saysana v. Gillen, 590 FJd 7,17-18 (1st Cir. 2009) ("By any 

logic, it stands to reason that the more remote in time a conviction becomes and the more time after a 

conviction an individual spends in a community, the lower his bail risk is likely to be."). 

7 See Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 513 (2003) (authorizing mandatory detention for a "brief period"); 

Diop v. lCElHomeiandSec., 656 FJd 221, 233 (3d Cir. 201I) (due process requires a hearing once the 

duration of mandatory detention becomes unreasonable); Tijaniv. Willis, 430 F.3d 1241, 1242 (9th Cir. 

2005) (8 U.S.c. § 1226(c) only authorizes mandatory detention if removal proceedings are "expeditious"). 

8 Jenny Zhao, VICTORY: Grandmother in Immigration Detention Finally Receives Fair Hearing, ACLU 

Blog of Rights, Mar. 15,2013, http://www.aclu.orgibloglimmigrants-rights/victory-grandmotherimmigration-detention-finally-receives-fair-hearing. 

4 
46 

Unfortunately Ms. Mejia's case isjust the tip of the iceberg. DHS routinely subjects 

immigrants nationwide to unlawful mandatory detention. Another grandmother detained 

without due process is Melida Ruiz, who was detained for seven months at Monmouth 

County Jail in New Jersey before she was finally released after winning her case. A 

longtime lawful permanent resident with three U.S. citizen children and two U.S. citizen 

grandchildren, Ms. Ruiz was arrested by DHS at her home in 2011. She was placed into 

mandatory immigration detention based on a misdemeanor drug possession offense from 

nine years earlier for which she had not even been required to serve any jail time, and 

which was her sole conviction during 30 years of living in the United States. 

Although Ms. Ruiz was eligible for various forms of discretionary relief from 

removal, and posed no danger or flight risk, and although she was the primary support for 

her U.S. citizen mother who suffers from Alzheimer's disease, her 17-year-old and 11-

year-old daughters, and her 5-year-old granddaughter, she was nevertheless forced to 

endure seven months of immigration incarceration. While she was in detention, her 17-

year-old daughter gave birth to a boy. 

In granting her application for cancellation of removal, the Immigration Judge 

emphasized the "substantial equities in [her] favor" including her "work history, tax 

history and property ownership" as well as the fact that her family "would suffer 

significant hardship if she were deported." The Immigration Judge also found that, 

despite the one conviction from 2002 which was "out of character," Ms. Ruiz has been "a 

law abiding resident of the United States and a stalwart positive force for her family and 

friends." DHS chose not to appeal the decision. Ms. Ruiz is now once again reunited 

with her family but at considerable emotional and financial cost. 

As reflected in the examples of Ms. Mejia and Ms. Ruiz, DHS routinely incarcerates 

people who pose no flight risk or danger. Effective alternatives to incarceration-such as 

ankle monitors, curfews, and reporting requirements-are available at a fraction of the 

cost of detention. The question Congress should be asking is -- why did DHS spend 

taxpayers' monies to incarcerate these two grandmothers? As Congress considers 

immigration reform legislation in 2013, the ACLU urges Congress to remember cases 

like Ms. Mejia and Ms. Ruiz, and to take concrete steps to end mandatory detention and 

to provide bond hearings for all detainees in DHS custody. 

IV. Immigration Reform Must Include Equality for LGBT Couples and 

Their Children. 

Family unity - including for those who are LGBT - is a critical component of 

immigration reform. A recent study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of 

Law estimates that there are 32,300 same-sex bi-national (one U.S. citizen and one noncitizen) couples raising more than 11,000 children living in the U.S. today.9 These 

couples, due to senseless and unconstitutional discrimination enacted in the so-called 

9 Gary Gates, LGBT Adult Immigrants in the United States, The Williams Institute (2013), 

http://williamsinstitute.law . ucla.edulwp-contentiuploads/LGBTImm igrants-Gates-Mar-20 13. pdf 

5 
47 

Defense of Marriage Act, are unable to sponsor their spouse or permanent partner in the 

same way opposite-sex couples have long been able to under current immigration law. 

The President's January 29,2013, announcement on immigration reform rightly noted 

that it is important to treat same-sex families as what they are - families. 1O There are at 

least 31 countries around the world that allow residents to sponsor same-sex permanent 

partners for legal immigration.]] To that end, U.S. citizens and lawful permanent 

residents must be given the ability to apply for an immigrant visa on the basis of a 

permanent relationship with a same-sex partner. 

V. Recommendations 

As Congress considers immigration reform legislation in 2013, the ACLU urges it to 

adopt the following recommendations to address the special concerns of women, 

children, and families including LGBT families: 

• Congress should rescind punitive provisions of the 1996 immigration laws that 

lead to family separation. Congress should tighten the "aggravated felony" 

definition so as to limit mandatory deportation to those convicted of serious, 

violent felonies with significant jail time served. Specifically Congress should 

amend the "aggravated felony" definition to ensure that it applies to "convictions" 

only, to felonies and not misdemeanors, and not retroactively. 

• Congress should give DHS arid immigration judges broad discretion to consider a 

range of factors in deciding whether to detain or deport an individual. Special 

consideration should be given to situations where detention or deportation would 

cause hardship to the individual or her family, or for other humanitarian or public 

interest reasons. DHS and immigration judges should have the ability to consider 

extenuating circumstances such as the nature of the offense, when it occurred, 

rehabilitation, family ties, military service, and other equities. 

• Congress should end mandatory detention and instead instruct immigration judges 

to conduct prompt bond hearings for all DHS detainees. 

• Congress should authorize and expand community-based alternative to detention 

("ATD") programs that employ case-management services. All DHS detainees 

should be screened for placement in A TDs. 

10 Press Release, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, FACT SHEET Fixing our Broken 

Immigration System so Everyone Plays by the Rules, (January 29, 2013), http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-

~ress-office/2013/01/29/fact-sheet-fixing-our-broken-immigration-system-so-everyone-plays-rules. 

I Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, 

Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, 

the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, SwitZerland, and 

the United Kingdom. 

6 
48 

• Congress should amend the family immigration laws to give U.S. citizens and 

permanent residents the ability to apply for an immigrant visa on the basis of a 

permanent relationship with a same-sex partner. 

We look forward to working with the members of the Committee to address these and 

other issues at stake in the current discussion over immigration reform. For comments or 

questions, please contact Legislative Counsel Joanne Lin at (202) 675-2338 and by email 

at ilin(wdcaclu.org. 

7 
49 

* American Friends 

Service Committee 

AlI!\eflCBI1 ffiends servilte Committee rtattlml!lrt fo\f tt.~ COn&feftioolllllecord 

perUinifll! to the setlate Judldity C_IUi!<! Hu/IIII! 

Monday. March lt1.10U 

fh., ~rlca" fri\! .. d~ Ser.o'jc,n Commitl~" lAFsq i~ "' ... alm<l$t lOO~",r Did ~Itl> bal"" o'8 .... iraliDI> Brnu ... ~tI 

111 th~ Qij"'~"" beh",f In th~ dltlnlt,y .. nd ..... orth of ""eo!)' p{!CSon Af$( p",,"'d!l'~ dlrl!ct lesal ~en'!~I!r, and qnS<l1IE"1 

,n Orlt~illng 'filth immlgr"""t$ ~ncl ill~l1s "long ..... 'lh .. dVl){ilCY "'lei m;;W!l'D'l!l'lll iluildina throughout tn" U,S, OVI 

InMnlfratioo iIlQli(,( recommE'IW<ltII}!l6 a~l! fil"(>ut)ded ill Arsc'~ hlitorv ",I'd .. <JIves as a faitlll·bas1!d org,iI!\i/,atloo 

I±i,'\d 11\ tttit WfflC.,~ 4l>1 !,he iltlPaW"d {om'"u<ll{1.;s "'lIn wllom 1'1", are iie"ll'l't t'O<lrlt!>::letl, 

Mot ~1.Irpr"ingl¥, imm1gr.,!s dleported trom lhe U.S. are memb.! .. of tlleir family unit., Th .. O"l"'rtm .. ", 0'1 

Home1.nd loecu,ity r"l ... ~"d ~t;lli$tit> sta!>t18 that 2Q4.l1il0 pa,,,nt. 01 US" dl""" dI'!d~n "'"<,r" r"""'· ... "d from 

(h" ltS. betwe"n Juiv 2MO and lolljlt"'mbl!r 2011'. \'Irt1at n"mher~ Gnnat .h:>w, 1$ the hf .. ch.,ngins impct of 

;:~m'lv 5o!lpar"Uoo {WI d',Udrll'1 "l p.mcu!;>r. iii 'fI1!'1iI"S 1:>" !he-f'll1'lily !l~!l ... 'I1QIe-. 'fQlJ~h''''''Q h""" IQ~t" parent 

due 10 deW\1aUon o~ jj'oetMIlOO ",);?lHIR dral'latiC ~"'a"lorai {l)i!f~S weh as IIlelghwned all:.iet~. angel', fear 

.emd frelj<lerot {~l'i~, .. s .4iu;traU!d in a 2010 Urban In~tttut-e study sadly, uil/on the ~mo~.,l of melr parel'lt(;;), 

",-"nit Olildteh itl" 1M! wilhirut a 10<\'«1 OliO! to' C3re fOI th"'I\. I.<t:ordill\!l to tho!: AWlitld Re."",fth Gentel ~""ef 

5.000 ohildren cur,,,nliy in rost", are have .... rl!\!l!s "''''" a,re detained e>r d"",or'!ed. E ... .,rb e"timau. Ihal ~n 

addillon.11S,,000 cnild",," mary b.! pla=d im fO,.te1 ar" O'lo~' lI'1e nexl Ii." fe"r~ U I> result "f imrThisnti«ln 

enron:£'mellt_ 

Tod .. y, mo",tt.an half of all dotum~nt"";1"'" ~ndocumg"ted "",migunt. in ~n .. U.s. an>womCHl and an 

>?S1"1'i('l';J4.1 m$&!P<'1 wom!i'O ;If'!: ~1"clrJ{'iJ_nt"'" W(>mNl wlthIN!l !'lgal ~t .. w; (IfIll" hY'! in thl! :;h~dc ...... o~t (>f 

f~l;r of b!!ing sell"",ilt€'IJ from tl'!-eir la""lIIes through c!l!portat<tf1. ft!I1cl;e'-,,'lll: t!'!<!!m oil~remelY \,,,iMlr,,iJI;e to 

\ ... wkplace e~pjoltatiOl1 aM oo,'l'estic abl)w, Ti\lS pOptNatlon'~ ",~II·beine is fu<ther erod<!!d th'OIl\l;i\ !tertial 01 

tla,ie hullh .cafe "r,d ~OLi.! .e( ... ites. 

Arsc odfe'U 1. .... f~ing poli<:v r"""",meddat>lm: 

Etld anest~, det"ntil>Jl, illW ~p""lation of immit;rdh[~. 

I'n. !/>.sisl'!ion tha' .. lIows p.(Jpl~ ... ho m$id .. '" th'" U.S. to apply ,mmnd'iatdy !\M- I>I'rm ... ,ent 

f,,$ldell(e ~nr;l r,ltl~m.'lill !~ thlO'j' "»oo\>;,, 

E;op.,,,ht., the pr"""",1inS of p.nding vi~ ••. pplic.tmn~. 

EMure ti1M poSitive f"cto'~ are ;;IWilV> balanc~d ildlain,t any n€jg,atllfE' factors when dl!t1!nnillil~ 

elillibilily lor >Wu~. 

EM ... ,,,, ,flat (~r~ftn can Imm1lifilte with p.arl!'1ts and e1imllnalE' han'" (Itl~taclE''} to Im'I'!gmtll'l!l, 

£X1""d.tt~U 10 quu!it'p", alfoniabl" he.lth car .. a'TId ttxi,,1 """'ces to ev"'¥one. fO'!V>rlfl"" <If 

imT!i!Jr~lio" 'iatJ5. 

Elin"ll1d~" lule~ lhal di~ltimil'lilt., b~lwetr\ iltlrl';lIIt"'l' al'ld 1'l<h1·irM .. igtll~U in d~"rm,";he. "Ii!l:cilJi~l)' rot 

pub", b .. "",r1t,. 

AJ-SC "'81>1< th" Cornmitt"'" to _rt """'CInar'( lead"r~l!ip ... nd 10 $"9pClrt n ...... immigrntion "alides tiT .. t 'lisped 

!II .. h"rruI" ,ight> amI "qu.l .. "",.,,,mi<: opportunity of ;>11 in Dut commlllnrties. ,h,a"k you fo, '"is oJ>llClrlunilv Ie 

subm.rt a ':itatcml?nt fa tflc Committr:r-~ 
50 

AJ C American 

Jewish 

Committee 

Statement of 

Richard T. Foltin, Esq. 

Office of Government 

and International Affairs 

l1S615th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

t 202 785 4200 

f: 202.785.4115 

www.ajc.org 

Director of National and Legislative Affairs 

Office of Government and International Affairs 

American Jewish Committee (AJC) 

Submitted on behalf of AJC to 

The Senate Judiciary Committee 

Hearing on 

Immigration Revision and Needs of Women and Families 

March 18, 2013 

T: (202) 785-5463, F: (202) 659-9896 

e-mail: foltinr@ajc.org 

Since its founding in 1906, AlC has been outspoken in support of fair and generous immigration policies. 

As American Jews, we recall how our parents and grandparents made their way to this country seeking a better 

life, and know that we have prospered in and contributed to this country. That same opportunity should be 

available for others. Comprehensive immigration reform will strengthen America's global competitiveness as 

well as allow hard-working immigrants an opportunity to succeed in the United States, for themselves and for 

future generations-and, at the same time, promote respect for the rule of law and protect our national security. 

In advocating for fair, effective and humane immigration policies, AlC acts in accord with the American 

Jewish community's longstanding interest in, and commitment to, a United States immigration and refugee 

policy that represents our nation's best traditions. According to Jewish tradition, "strangers" are to be welcomed 

and valued, as we were once "strangers in the land of Egypt." The Torah tells us: "The strangers who sojourn 

with you shall be to you as the natives among you, and you shall love them as yourself; for you were strangers in 

the land of Egypt" (Leviticus 19:33-34). 

AJC affirms our commitment to the passage of a common-sense comprehensive immigration reform bill 

that serves our nation's interests and upholds our Constitution. In providing a holistic approach to reforming our 

immigration system, this bill should include: a path to legalization and eventual earned citizenship for 

immigrants already in the U.S.; adjustment of quotas for future flows of immigrants, including high and lowskilled employment visas; facilitation and support for immigrant integration; smart and humane enforcement 

measures that bolster our national security; reform of detention policies, due process protections, and special 
51 

protection for asylum seekers, refugees and vulnerable populations; and, critically important, it is imperative that 

this bill include reforms that favor reuniting families. 

Family is the cornerstone of American society. Allowing immigrant families to more easily reunite with 

their loved ones strengthens our economy and promotes a strong social fabric in our communities. Promoting 

family unity incentivizes integration and economic development, as families provide strong fonndations for 

learning English, purchasing a home, pursning job opportunities, starting a business, preparing children for 

college, and strengthening the foundation of our communities. When families are together, the money they earn 

fuels the U.S. economy through taxes, investments, and the purchasing of goods and services. Because of the 

strong economic and social value of family unity, enhancement of the family immigrant visa category must be a 

priority of immigration reform. 

Right now, many immigrant families remain separated for years - sometimes even decades - because of 

bureaucratic visa delays. It is essential that-along with other measures directed at repairing our broken 

immigration system-we reform the immigration system to expedite the visa process in favor of family 

reunification. This includes making family-based visas more accessible, reducing the current backlog of farnilybased visas, increasing the per-country numerical limitation for family-sponsored immigrants from 7 percent to 

15 percent of admissions, and generally reorienting the visa system to prioritize family unity. These reforms 

would help ensure that immigrant families reunite more quickly and protect families from being separated, thus 

promoting family stability and fostering economic growth. Further, we must ensure that family-based visas are 

not placed in competition with other visa categories, an approach that would be inimical to the goal of family 

unity and a better functioning immigration system. 

In sum, AJC calls upon our elected officials to enact immigration reform legislation that provides an 

opportunity for hard-working immigrants who are already contributing to this country to come out of the 

shadows, regularize their status upon satisfaction of reasonable criteria and, over time, pursue an option to 

become lawful permanent residents and eventually United States citizens; reforms our family-based 

immigration system to significantly reduce waiting times for separated families who currently wait many years 

to be reunited; establishes new legal avenues for workers and their families who wish to migrate to the U.S. to 

enter our country and work in a safe, legal, and orderly manner with their rights fully protected; reduces the use 

of detention for immigrants, especially vulnerable groups and those seeking asylum; and ensures that border 

protection policies are consistent with humanitarian values and with the need to treat all individuals with 

respect, white allowing the authorities to carry out the critical task of identifying and preventing entry of 

terrorists and dangerous criminals, thereby bolstering our national security. 

As a faith-based organization. we call attention to the moral dimensions of public policy and pursue policies 

that uphold the human dignity of each person, all of whom are made b 'tselem elohim. in the image of G-d. We 

engage the immigration issue with the goal of fashioning an immigration system that facilitates legal status and 

family unity in the interest of serving the inherent dignity and rights of every individual, even as it enhances out 

national security and promotes respect for the rule of law. It is our collective prayer that the legislative process 

will produce a just immigration system of which our nation of immigrants can be proud. 

AJC appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement and welcomes your questions and comments. 
52 

APIAHF 

ASIAN & PACIFIC ISLANDER 

AMERICAN HEALTH FORUM 

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITIEE ON THE 

JUDICIARY 

FOR THE HEARING ENTITLED "HOW COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM 

SHOULD ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF WOMEN AND FAMILIES" 

March 18, 2013 

BY THE 

ASIAN & PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN HEALTH FORUM 

The Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum (APIAHF) submits this written testimony for 

the record for the March 20, 2013 hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

entitled "Building an Immigration System Worthy of American Values." APIAHF is a national 

health justice organization that influences policy, mobilizes communities, and strengthens 

programs and organizations to improve the health of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and 

Pacific Islanders (AAs and NHPls). For 27 years, APIAHF has dedicated itself to improving the 

health and well-being of AA and NHPI communities living in the United States and its 

jurisdictions. We work at the federal, state, and local levels to advance sensible policies that 

decrease health disparities and promote health equity. 

Immigration policy is an issue that touches the lives of almost every Asian American and Pacific 

Islander (AAPI), and in particular, AAPI women. Nationally, women make up over half of all 

immigrants in the U.S. Despite these large numbers, AAPI women and many other immigrant 

women are ill-served by the complex system of archaic immigration laws that separate families, 

put women at risk and prevent immigrant families from being able to fully integrate into their 

new home. 

Women need fair and commonsense immigration policies that support women and their 

families. We already recognize women as being the backbone of families and communities, and 

immigrant women are no different. Immigrant women lead the charge, keeping their families 

healthy, making sure their children are educated, contributing to the economy and making hard 

sacrifices each day to improve their children's lives. 

1 
53 

Women-and indeed a majority of Americans-are ready to quickly move forward with 

immigration system reforms that work for both Americans and aspiring Americans alike. As 

both Democratic and Republican members of Congress have stated, now is the time to align our 

immigration policies with our American values. For far too long, our immigration policies have 

done a disservice to many immigrants, kept families apart, stood in the way of full integration 

and threatened our nation's future and health. 

Immigration policies must improve the lives of aspiring citizens, not make it more difficult. Our 

laws must carry a theme of American values of shared responsibility, fairness and unity. The 

guiding principle behind any improvements to our immigration laws must be unity for 

immigrants, unity for families and unity for the entire nation. 

The following testimony addresses one of the most critical areas of disparity in this country: 

access to health care. The issue is significant, because as this Committee works to better 

understand the nation's needs and craft solutions to our immigration system, federal agencies 

and states are rapidly implementing the Affordable Care Act and other initiatives to combat 

uninsurance and mitigate the massive toll that uninsurance takes on the nation. While these 

initiatives have the potential to drastically reduce uninsurance, current federal policies and 

proposals being debated in the Senate and House will undermine these efforts and threaten 

the nation's long term health. 

Immigrant women are more likely than U.S. born women to live in poverty, be unemployed and 

lack health insurance. They are also twice as likely as their male counterparts to be widowed, 

divorced or separated. These demographic characteristics show an acute need for health care, 

however immigrant women face a number of barriers to accessing care. Complex federal 

eligibility restrictions deter many immigrant women from critical health programs and has 

resulted in thousands being unable to access programs they are eligible for.lln addition, "public 

charge" fears, sponsor deeming and liability requirements, language barriers and increased 

local immigration enforcement have created a chilling effect on immigrant use of health care 

services and other public benefits. As a result, immigrant women are less likely than u.s. born 

women to receive preventive care, reproductive and sexual health care and prenatal and 

maternal health care. 

I. Barriers to Health Care and Resulting Health Disparities are One of the 

Most Egregious Forms of Inequality 

1 "Anchor Babies, Over-Breeders, and the Population Bomb: The Reemergence of Nativism and Population Control 

in Anti-Immigrant Policies," Harvard Law & Policy Review, Priscilla Huang, Vol. 2 385-406, available at 

http://www.hlpronline.com/Huang HLPR.pdf. 

2 
54 

Every American must have the opportunity to grow up healthy, see the doctor when they are 

sick, and have a chance at reaching their optimal health and well-being. Being healthy is a basic 

need and right. Individuals with health coverage, including Medicaid, report better physical and 

mental health. 2 They are more likely to have routine access to medical care, less likely to rely on 

expensive emergency room visits and have better access to essential preventive services, 

reducing the incidence of chronic diseases that take a major toll on the U.S. health care system. 

In contrast, research shows that the uninsured have significantly worse health outcomes across 

a number of chronic diseases including cancer and diabetes. 3 

Women and racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations pay a high price. 

Women are more likely than men to be uninsured and the limited data available estimates that 

there are over 1.5 million Asian American women who are uninsured, though the number is 

likely higher.' Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders as a whole are overwhelmingly immigrant 

and account for 40% of recent immigrants to the United States. As of 2011, there are over 17.6 

million Asian Americans living in the United States, and over 1.2 million Native Hawaiians and 

Pacific Islanders. These communities, like many other racial and ethnic minorities, are 

disproportionately uninsured for a number of reasons, including cost, challenges naVigating 

enrollment and eligibility processes, and importantly for this Committee-the intersection of 

immigration-based eligibility restrictions on access to health insurance and health programs. 

II. Immigrants Want the Same Opportunity to take Responsibility for 

their Health as All Americans, and a Majority of Americans Agree 

Immigration reform proponents often argue that immigrants must be responsible for their 

actions. The primary reason most immigrants come to the U.S. is to better their lives and that 

of their children through hard work and sacrifice. Those two principles are one of the many 

reasons the U.S. is seen as a nation built by immigrants. 

Yet, America's laws do not match these principles. While the Affordable Care Act offers the 

most significant opportunity to advance the nation's health in the last SO years by drastically 

reducing the number of uninsured, improving access to preventive care and putting the nation 

on a more sustainable path to health! current federal policies threaten to undercut this 

advance. The ACA maintains existing immigration-based restrictions and goes even further and 

affirmatively bars many immigrants from the new coverage options. Undocumented immigrant 

2 "What is the link between having health insurance and enjoying better health and finance?" Robert Wood 

Johnson Foundation, January 2012, available at 

http://www.rwjl.org/content/dam/la rm/reports/issue briels/2012/rwjf72145. 

3 "American's Uninsured Crisis: Consequences for Health and Health Care," Institute 01 Medicine, February 2009, 

available at http://www.iom.edu/-/med ia/Files/Report%20Files/2009/A mericas-U ninsu red-Crisis-Consequencesfor-Health-and-Health-Care/Americas%20Uninsured%20Crisis%202009%20Report%20Brief.pdl. 

4 US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. 

3 
55 

women are completely prohibited from purchasing private health insurance coverage in the 

newly created insurance marketplaces, even at full price and with their own funds. 

In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently created new 

exclusions on a population of lawfully present immigrants, a move that undermines the goals 

and values of the ACA. An Interim Final Rule issued last August excludes youth and young 

adults granted deferred status under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) 

program from key features ofthe health reform law and prevents children and pregnant 

women approved for DACA from enrolling in health insurance under the state option available 

in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). These are young immigrants, 

commonly known as DREAMers, who are finishing their education or serving in the military and 

trying to better their lives and communities, and yet are barred from the new affordable health 

insurance options their citizen counterparts have access to. 

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, also 

known as the "welfare reform" law), created arbitrary and inhumane time limits and other 

restrictions for lawfully present immigrants to become eligible for federal means-tested public 

programs. As a result, these aspiring citizens are barred from critical safety net programs for 

five years and longer, a barrier their native-born counterparts do not have to face. This five 

year wait can be a lifetime for an immigrant woman or child falling on hard times. 

PRWORA also bars citizens from the freely associated states of Micronesia, Republic of the 

Marshall Islands and Republic of Palau from the Medicaid program. These indiViduals, known 

as CO FA (Compact of Free Association) migrants, are persons who are free to enter and work in 

the U.S. without restriction under long-standing agreements between the U.S. and pacific 

jurisdictions. COFA migrants suffer from a number of serious health disparities caused by 

America's militarization of the pacific islands, nuclear test bombing and lack of economic 

supports, including high rates of cervical cancer and other chronic diseases. The 1996 law 

revoked Medicaid coverage for COFA migrants, and, coupled with existing disparities and failure 

on the part of the U.S. to provide required supports, has created serious economic 

consequences for states like Hawaii and the territory of Guam, who have shouldered the 

burden of providing health care to this population. 

These federal policies undermine America's values, further health disparities and put the entire 

nation's health at risk. These disparities will only worsen in 2014, when the ACA is fully 

implemented and the gap between the health of immigrants and those who qualify for new 

coverage options widens. As a result, immigration status will become one of the leading social 

determinants of health-affecting everything from whether or not a person can buy health 

4 
56 

insurance, whether a sick child can see the doctor, and whether a low-income worker can 

afford the treatment they need. 

Despite the politicization of health reform, recent polling conducted by the Kaiser Family 

Foundation found that most Americans support offering the same opportunities for accessing 

affordable health care and insurance to aspiring Americans.s The poll found that six out of ten 

Americans surveyed believed that immigrants on the path to legalization should be able to fully 

participate in health reform and qualify for Medicaid coverage. Overwhelming majorities of 

Blacks and Latinos surveyed agreed with providing equal access to health care. 

While the Kaiser survey did not provide disaggregated data on the views of Asian Americans 

surveyed, the 2012 National Asian American Survey found that one in six Asian American voters 

placed health care as a top issue and Asian Americans overwhelmingly supported the 

Affordable Care Act.6 These numbers are telling as Asian Americans and Latinos supported 

progressive policies during the 2012 election by substantial margins. As Asian Americans 

continue to be the fastest growing racial group in the nation, Asian American voters will 

continue to demand policies that serve their communities. 

III. Access to Health Care for All is an Economic Imperative. 

The U.S. cannot afford to continue the unsustainable health care path the nation is currently 

on. This was one of the reasons lawmakers and President Obama prioritized the Affordable 

Care Act (ACA). While the ACA provides new, affordable insurance options for many of the 

currently 50 million uninsured individuals in the U.S., America will continue to have a 

population of uninsured workers, children and families even after full implementation of the 

law. 

Uninsurance leads to poor health outcomes. The nonpartisan Institute of Medicine (10M) has 

studied the issue extensively and their report, America's Uninsured Crisis: Cansequences far 

Health and Health Care, outlines the resulting lack of access to routine preventive care. In 

addition to the physical toll, there are major economic costs. Shorter lifespans and worse 

health outcomes result in a loss of $65 - 130 billion annuall/ and translate into lost economic 

productivity and threaten economic security as families live in fear of what might happen if 

they get sick. 

5 "Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: Public Opinion on Health Care Issues," Kaiser Family Foundation, February 2013, 

available at http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8418-F.pdf. 

, "The Policy Priorities and Issue Preferences of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders," National Asian American 

Survey, September 2012, available at http://www.naasurvey.coml. 

7 "Hidden Costs, Value Lost: Uninsurance in America," National Academies Press, 2003, available at 

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record id=10719&page=1. 

5 
57 

The consequences are not limited to the individual, but impact communities and state 

economics and put America's security at risk. Expanding access to affordable health insurance 

would help to relieve overburdened safety net hospitals and clinics and reduce uncompensated 

care costs, which often falls to states and the federal government to pick up the tab. In total, 

eighty-five percent of the costs for uncompensated care fall on the government. 8 

IV. Offering Immigrants the Same Opportunities for Affordable Health 

Care and Coverage is Fiscally Responsible and Promotes Full 

Integration 

Providing equal access to affordable, quality care and insurance for immigrants is sound fiscal 

policy. Immigrants are often younger, healthier and have lower health care expenses than 

native-born Americans.9 A recent report by leading health researcher Leighton Ku and Brian 

Bruen found that, analyzing the Census Bureau's March 2012 Current Population Survey, 

immigrants have lower utilization rates for public benefits and the value of those benefits 

received is less than that for native-born individuals.10 In addition, the report found that 

analysis of the 2010 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), costs for immigrants under 

Medicaid were substantially lower compared to native-born adults and for immigrant children, 

costs were less than half that of native-born children. Prior analysis has conclusively shown 

that immigrants as a whole underutilize health care compared to the U.S. born and, when they 

participate in federal and state funded health programs; use fewer resources.ll 

America needs commonsense immigration policies that align with our values, protect all 

families and communities, and put the nation on a path to a better, healthier future. Our laws 

should make health care more affordable and accessible for both Americans and aspiring 

Americans alike. Immigrants already feel the pain when archaic eligibility laws, language 

barriers and access challenges converge. We cannot afford to create new barriers to good 

health for anyone. 

8 "The Cost of Care for the Uninsured: What do We Spend, Who Pays and What Would Full Coverage Add to 

Medical Spending?" Kaiser Family Foundation, May 2004, available at http:((www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/thecost-of-care-for-the-uninsured-what-do-we-spend-who-pays-and-what-would-full-coverage-add-to-medicalspending.pdf. 

, "Health Insurance Coverage and Medical Expenditures of Immigrants and Native-Born Citizens in the United 

States," Am J Public Health, Leighton Ku, 2009 July; 99(7):1322-1328, available at 

http:((www.ncbLnlm.nih.gov/pmc/articies/PMC2696660/. 

10 "The Use of Public Assistance Benefits by Citizens and Non-Citizen Immigrants in the United States," CATO 

Institute, Leighton Ku and Brian Bruen, February 2013, available at 

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/workingpaper-13 1. pdf. 

11 "Health Insurance Coverage and Medical Expenditures of Immigrants and Native-Born Citizens in the United 

States," Am J Public Health, Leighton Ku, 2009 July; 99(7):1322-1328, available at 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696660/. 

6 
58 

APIAHF recommends the following four reforms to ensure that immigration policies support the 

full integration of immigrants and encourage all Americans to take responsibility for their 

health. 

a. Young Adults Granted Deferred Action Must be Allowed Access to 

Health Reform 

Including DACA-eligible youth and young adults in health reform is sound policy and fiscally 

responsible. DACA-eligible youth, commonly known as DREAMers, are a sizable population, 

with recent estimates suggesting that as many as 1.76 million young adults could be eligible for 

administrative relief. 12 An estimated 9% ofthese youth come from Asian countries, comprising 

over 170,000 individuals. These young adults are already part of America's fabric, having lived 

in the country for years, and share the same hopes and aspirations as all young Americans. 

There is no principled reason to treat young people who receive deferred action through DACA 

differently from any other person who has received deferred action. In fact, until HHS decided 

to carve out DACA beneficiaries, they were covered by the ACA like all other persons who have 

been granted deferred action. Restoring eligibility for DACA-eligible young adults in health 

reform would allow these individuals to purchase coverage in the new health insurance 

marketplaces, pay their fair share of health care costs and see a doctor on a regular basis, 

instead of remaining uninsured. Including this population of overall younger and healthier 

individuals in the marketplace creates a more sustainable and robust risk pool and ensures that 

these young people are able to continue to work, pay taxes and build the nation's economy. 

Shutting them out could increase costs for everyone. Excluding a large population of relatively 

healthy young adults from the insurance marketplaces increases the risk of adverse selection 

and ultimately drives up premiums for everyone. Even more worrisome is the fact that if 

premiums rise, citizens and lawfully present individuals alike may find it too costly to purchase 

coverage through the marketplace and instead choose to remain uninsured, further reducing 

the marketplace population and in turn driving up costs. 

Finally, including DACA-eligible youth and young adults in health reform supports 

administrative effiCiency. As states develop processes to facilitate seamless eligibility 

determinations and enrollment for individuals in private insurance plans, Medicaid and CHIP, 

they are faced with yet another complicated process. Treating DACA-eligible youth like all 

other immigrants granted deferred status would ease this process. 

12 "Relief from Deportation: Demographic Profile of the DREAMers Eligible Under the Deferred Action Policy," 

Migration Policy Institute, August 2012, available at 

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/fs24 deferredaction.pdf. 

7 
59 

b. All Immigrants Must be Allowed the Same Opportunity to Take 

Responsibility for their Health by Being Able to Purchase Coverage 

in the Insurance Marketplaces 

Federal law currently excludes undocumented immigrants from purchasing private health 

insurance in the newly created, insurance marketplaces. This policy undermines our country's 

efforts to reduce the number of uninsured and prevents a large population of mostly healthy, 

working adults from being included in state insurance risk pools. It is also the first known 

statutory prohibition on a private market transaction based on an individual's immigration 

status. It's good fiscal policy to offer health coverage to the largest number of people. Allowing 

everyone to pay in increases competition and spreads risks and costs across a larger population. 

As these immigrants continue to contribute to the U.S. economy, support their families and 

work toward a path of obtaining legal status, they must be able to take responsibility for their 

health by having the same opportunity to purchase affordable insurance. 

c. End Arbitrary and Inhumane Time Limits that Put Legal Aspiring 

Citizens at Risk 

Congress should remove the arbitrary time limits imposed on lawfully present immigrants 

whose taxes help support the social safety net programs they are barred from participating in. 

The arbitrary time limits currently in place create substantial barriers for low-income 

immigrants from being able to benefit from the same support systems critical to preventing 

needy individuals and families from slipping into poverty. As a result, eligible immigrants have 

lower rates of enrollment in federally supported programs than their citizen counterparts. This 

disparity is also true among citizen children living in immigrant households, putting these lowincome children at risk offood insecurity and poor health outcomes. 

States already recognize the importance of keeping women, children and families healthy. Four 

states and the District of Columbia use their own funds to provide health care for children 

regardless of their immigration status, and twenty states use the option under the Children's 

Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 to provide health coverage for lawfully 

present children subject to the five-year bar. Fourteen states and the District of Columbia 

provide CHIP or other medical coverage for pregnant immigrant women, regardless of 

immigration status, and an additional thirteen states provide Medicaid coverage for lawfully 

present pregnant women through the CHIPRA option. 

It is important to note that Medicaid is a critical lifeline for women, providing coverage for 

essential health care, including reproductive health care. For every dollar invested in family 

8 
60 

planning, the federal government gets a return of nearly $4, making investing in preventive 

care fiscally sound. 13 

We urge Congress to act again to permanently eliminate this arbitrary restriction for all lawfully 

present immigrants. 

a. America Must Uphold its Commitment to the Freely Associated 

States and Provide Parity in Health Care 

Migrants from the Compact territories should be able to access the federal health programs 

they pay into. CO FA migrants are part ofthe fabric of America and share a complex 

relationship with the U.S. government, one in which the U.S. government has certain 

responsibilities. They contribute to the economy and pay taxes and therefore should be eligible 

for state funded programs. Lifting the current bar on eligibility will provide needed fiscal relief 

for states like Hawaii and the territory of Guam, which, as a result of the federal government's 

failure to provide economic supports for this population, have shouldered a disproportionate 

burden ofthis population's health care expenses. 

V. Conclusion 

Every individual, regardless of immigration status, should have a fair opportunity to attain 

optimal health and well-being. Any fix to the nation's immigration system must include access 

to health care. The alternative risks putting recent reforms and advances at risk, potentially 

shifts costs to states and safety net providers, and could create generations of health 

disparities. 

For more information or questions, please contact Priscilla Huang, APIAHF Policy Director at 

phuang@apiahf.orgor (202) 466-3550. 

13 "Every Dollar Invested in Title X Family Planning Program Saves $3.80," Guttmacher Institute, November 16, 

2006, available at http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/11/16/index.html. 

9 
61 

TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDERD. BAUMGARTEN AND KATIE CONWAY ON 

BEHALF OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH! 

MARCH 18,2013 

We thank Senator Hirono of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Ranking Member Grassley for 

the opportunity to submit this testimony. We welcome this important hearing, "How 

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs of Women and Families," and 

wish to voice our strong support for the protection of the rights of women and families in all of 

our nation's immigration laws. The Episcopal Church has been engaged in the ministry of 

welcoming immigrants and refugees for more than a century, walking with refugees and 

immigrants as they begin their new lives in our communities, and bearing daily witness to the 

human implications of our nation's immigration laws. 

Rooted in our understanding of the Christian imperative to "welcome the stranger," the 

Episcopal Church's highest governing body, the General Convention, has passed multiple 

resolutions affirming the right to family unity, and the right of families to reunify without undue 

delay. In summer 2012 this commitment to family unity for all U.S. citizens and Legal 

Permanent Residents (LPR) was strengthened even further through resolution 0011, "Reform 

Unequal Immigration Law," through which the Church pledged to support legislation that would 

expand our nation's definition of family under immigration law to include the same-sex 

permanent partners and spouses of U.S. citizens and LPRs. This resolution also committed our 

dioceses and congregations to renewed advocacy on behalf offamilies and individuals of all 

sexual orientations who are facing unwanted moves, deportation or separation due to our nation's 

immigration laws. There are an estimated 32, 300 binational, same-sex couples residing in the 

United States today, more than 45% of whom are raising children2

• We believe that these 

families share the same right to dignity and fair treatment as other families, and therefore deserve 

to have their status as a family recognized and protected by our nation's immigration laws. 

Through pastoral care to members of our congregations and our ministry to resettle refuges, we 

witness daily the profound joy of reunification for families long separated, as well as the 

devastation offamilies kept apart. Keeping families apart through per-country caps, decadeslong backlogs, redistribution of family visas to the employment system, failure to recapture visas 

lost to bureaucratic delay, and failure to recognize the immigration claims of same-sex partners 

harms the U.S. economy, fractures our communities, and denies the legacy of family 

immigration that has defined our nation. Families have always served as the foundation for 

strong communities, and the role they play in creating healthy individuals and aiding integration 

should not be diminished or disregarded. Family members help one another integrate, pursue job 

opportunities, start their own businesses, and contribute economically, socially, and spiritually to 

our communities. 

1 Alexander D. Baumgarten is the Director of Government Relations, and Katie Conway is the 

Immigration and Refugee Policy Analyst for the Episcopal Church, a multinational religious 

denomination based in the United States with members in 15 other sovereign nations. 

2 By the Numbers Immigration Equality http://immigrationegualitv.orq/about! 
62 

We believe that policies that uphold the unity of families and address the needs of migrant 

women are especially important in the context of our nation's commitment to welcoming and 

resettling refuges. Because of the violence and persecution refugees have faced in their countries 

of origin, especially refugee women and girls who are at elevated risk for sexual and genderbased violence in displacement situations, many refugee families do not fit our traditional 

definition of "nuclear" families. Refugee families have often experienced the loss of a spouse, 

the loss of parents, and decades-long separation from children and grandchildren. These divided 

families in particular could face permanent separation if our nation's definition offamily were to 

be narrowed or family categories eliminated. For refugees who have resettled in the United 

States, a sibling or a married adult child could be the only remaining family member with whom 

they can reunite, yet this reunification under our current system would take decades. In cases 

where a principal refugee sponsors his or her child and that child has a child of his or her own 

(derivative ofa derivative), that initial refugee's grandchild would not qualify for reunification, 

resulting in permanent separation. 

Our immigration system must be transformed to into a just and humane system that discerns 

between those who enter without inspection to do us harm and those who enter because our 

system cannot provide them with a clear and timely path to reunification with their loved ones or 

legal employment. The Episcopal Church recognizes the necessity of enforcement policies and 

the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens, but we also believe we must work to 

change our nation's laws if they do not respect the dignity of human beings or respond to the 

needs of communities. This call to right relationship within human communities is a cornerstone 

of the Judeo-Christian scriptural and ethical tradition, and finds expression for Episcopalians in 

the promise each makes at baptism to "strive for justice and peace among all people and respect 

the dignity of every human being." Destructive enforcement programs like Secure Communities 

that encourage racial profiling and tear families apart at great fiscal and human cost should be 

terminated, and alternatives to detention that allow families to remain together throughout 

immigration proceedings should be prioritized. 

Thank you for carrying the costly burden of public service, and for the opportunity to submit 

these views to the Committee. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alexander D. Baumgarten and Katie Conway 
63 

Choice USA 

Senate Jndiciary Committee Hearing Testimony 

"How Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Shonld Address the Needs of Women and Families" 

March 21, 2013 

Dear Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: 

We write today to thank you for holding a hearing on "How Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Should Address the Needs of Women and Families," and to share with you our recommendations on 

this important issue. Choice USA is a national youth focused reproductive justice organization. Our 

mission is to provide young people with the tools, information and resources to advocate for sexual and 

reproductive justice for all. Our dedication to young people in this country, particularly those as 

marginalized in our society as most immigrant youth, has led us to submit this comment. 

For women to be completely free and able to chart the course of their own lives, they must be able to 

determine not just whether and when to create family, but where to create family. 

Furthermore, they must have access to the resources they need in order to care for their own 

reproductive health and raise their families with dignity and respect. Women who are aspiring citizens 

are excluded from public health benefits, and thus face barriers to caring for their own reproductive 

health and to plan their families. All legal immigrants are barred from eligibility for Medicaid, SCHIP, 

and other means-tested federal benefits for the first five years that they live in the United States. This 

arbitrary and harmful restriction denies women access to critical reproductive health care, including 

contraception, cervical cancer screening, and prenatal care. Moreover, while the landmark health 

reform law will give many women increased access to contraception and other reproductive health care, 

a significant portion of those who will remain uninsured are immigrant women, due to restrictions on 

immigrant eligibility for new or expanded coverage options. Women should also be able to care as best 

they can for the health and wellbeing of their children, with the comfort of knowing that they will be 

not be torn away from their children and that they can afford to take their sons and daughters to 

doctor's visits. 

Choice USA knows it is not about what you look like or where you were born, but how you live your 

life and what you do that defines you here in America. The contributions of immigrant women have 

always been vital for our society to grow and flourish. We know our country is strongest when women 

are healthy, safe, and able to care for their children and families. Truly effective immigration policy 

reform should value and honor women and their contributions. 

We call on legislators to support immigration reform that ensures women have the resources they 

need to make their own personal decisions about their reproductive health, their families, and 

their lives. To that end, the following are our recommendations for how comprehensive 

immigration policy reform can address the needs of women and families. 
64 

I. Immigrant women need a fair and equitable roadmap to citizenship. 

Any roadmap to citizenship and integration must be open, affordable, safe, and accessible to all 

immigrant women, including those whose work is in the home and those who are employed in 

the informal economy. A roadmap to citizenship that conditions eligibility on participation in the 

formal labor market disadvantages immigrant women, who are more likely to work in the 

informal sector. For example, many immigrant women are domestic workers!, farm laborers, nail 

salon workers, and homemakers. Immigrant women must be afforded equal employment-based 

migration opportunities and workplace protections so that they may safely pursue economic 

opportunity and support their families with dignity and pride. Our immigration system has 

historically been unfair to women, but now we have an opportunity to change it into one that 

recognizes the unique realities and contributions of women's lives. A truly equitable system will 

place just as much value on women as it does on men. Any proposed pathway to citizenship must 

place equal value on the contributions of women. 

II. We need to keep immigrant women and their families together. 

Immigration reform must protect the right of all families to stay together, regardless of 

immigration status, family structure, sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. In 

addition, immigration policies must be modernized to provide sufficient family-based channels 

for migration in the future. Enforcement, detention, and deportation programs that compromise 

immigrant women's safety, violate their civil, human, and due process rights, and tear families 

apart must be replaced by sensible and sufficient legal channels for migration that adequately 

meet family and labor demands and respect women and their families. 

Millions offamilies are at risk of being tom apart. Currently,S.! million children live in mixedlegal status families. Four million ofthese children are U.S. citizens. 2 The growth of mixedstatus families, combined with a lack of sufficient legal channels for migration, means that more 

families than ever are at risk of being separated for years or even permanently. In fact, between 

July 2010 and September 2012, the U.S. deported more than 205,000 parents of U.S. citizen 

children. 3 

Family separation burdens local government. When parents are detained or deported, children 

are at risk of ending up in the child welfare system. The Applied Research Center in November 

2011 conservatively estimated that 5,100 children in foster care had parents who had been 

detained or deported. That number is expected to grow to 15,000 over the next five years. 4 We 

must alleviate the unnecessary burden on states by permitting parents to care for their children. 

I Domestic Workers United. Home is Where the Workls: Inside New York's Domestic Work Industry, Domestic Workers United and DataCenter. 

July 2006. Available at http://W'.'.'W.domesticworkersunited.org/index.phplenicomponentijdo'WIlloadslfinish/3/4. 

2 Passel 1, Taylor P. Unauthorized Immigrants and Their US.~Born Children. Pew Hispanic Center. August 2010. Available at 

http://\VW\\'.pewhispanic.orgl2010108/1l!unauthorized~immigrants~and-their-us-bom-childrenl Accessed March 13,2013. 

~ Wessler SR. Primary Data: Deportations of Parents of U.S. Citizen Kids. Colorlines. December 17, 2012. Available at 

http://colorlines.com/arcbives/2012/12/deportationsofparentsofus-borncitizens122012.html. Accessed February 4, 2013. 

4 Applied Research Center. Shattered Families: The Perilous intersection a/Immigration Enforcement and the Child Welfare System. November 

2011. Available at http://arc.orglshatteredfami!ies. Accessed February 4, 2013. 

2 
65 

The lack of legal opportunities for families to be together incentivizes unlawful migration and 

encourages deported parents to retum and reunite with their children. A smart immigration 

system is one that values and prioritizes family unity. When parents get involved with the 

immigration enforcement system, they often lose any say in how their children are cared for. 

Detained parents are held far from their children. They may be unable to participate in the 

reunification plans necessary to regain custody of children who end up in foster care, and they 

are often denied meaningful access to child custody hearings. A humane and cost-effective 

immigration system would protect parents' constitutionally-protected rights to determine the care 

and custody of their children. 

Children are better off with their parents. Being undocumented does not make someone an unfit 

parent, and parental rights should only be terminated in cases of verified abuse and neglect. 

Judges need discretion to keep families together. Heavy-handed detention and deportation 

policies have tied the hands of immigration judges. Judges should be able to exercise discretion 

so that parents do not have to be deported unnecessarily. 

III. We need to advance health equity for immigrant women. 

Immigration reform must advance all immigrant women's access to health care and other family 

economic support. Such services and benefits include comprehensive health coverage and care 

and legal and social services that promote equality of opportunity, integration, and the ability to 

make decisions regarding reproductive and sexual health and the well-being of the family. 

Immigrant women and families work hard, pay taxes, and are committed to being in America. 

They should be able to pay their fair share for health care and should be included in our health 

care system, just like everyone else. They should not be excluded from health care simply 

because of their immigration status. When our families and our workforce are healthy, we all 

benefit. 

Investing in health is common sense - and makes good fiscal sense. By and large, immigrants 

are younger and healthier than the American popUlation as a whole5 - allowing them to 

participate in our health insurance systems and risk pools makes is a good economic decision for 

the country. When immigrant women and families do not have health care, the need for medical 

attention does not go away. Immigrant families without health insurance may either delay 

treatment for preventable disease, leading to higher costs and greater suffering, or seek care 

through uoder-resourced and expensive emergency systems. A healthy workforce means a 

stronger economy. Good health care is essential to workers' productivity and the opportunity for 

women and families to realize their full potential. If immigrant women are healthy, they are 

better able to support their family economically and contribute to the success of their children. 

For an immigrant woman, being able to protect her health and care for her family is the first step 

to full social, economic, and civic integration into the American community. When moms are 

healthy, their families benefit. 

S Leighton Ku. Health Insurance Coverage and Medical Expenditures of Immigrants and Native-Born Citizens in the United Stotes. 

American Journal of Public Health. July 2009; Vol 99 (7): pp.1322-1328. 

3 
66 

Restrictions and other arbitrary delays that are often imposed on immigrants' access to benefits 

are also costly and inhumane. Many immigrant women are unable to obtain affordable health due 

to limitations resulting from their immigration status, such as the current 5-year bar on Medicare 

and Medicaid for lawful permanent residents, and the exclusion of undocumented immigrants in 

health insurance exchanges. Women and families should not be forced to wait five years for 

health care: five years is a lifetime to a child, and may make the difference between life and 

death for a woman suffering from breast or cervical cancer. Health coverage can mean the 

difference between preventing or treating conditions that can affect development throughout life, 

and leaving those conditions undetected and untreated. Removing the five-year bar for lawful 

permanent residents and those on the roadmap to citizenship will give them the same opportunity 

to pay their share and access health care as their friends and neighbors. 

Today's laws are overly complex, confusing, and restrictive. A patchwork of state and federal 

policies limiting access to health care and family economic support creates confusion. For 

example, a single family could have members with five different kinds of eligibility for health 

care depending on their immigration status. As a result, this "chilling effect" discourages even 

qualified recipients from accessing support.6 No mother should have to navigate different health 

insurance systems for every single child, or choose which of her children gets health care. We 

need a system that works for families and ensures that women and kids get the care they need. 

Anyone could get hurt or sick, and so everyone should have access to basic health care. No one 

should live in fear that because they lack health coverage or live in world where one accident or 

illness could threaten their entire family's economic security. Access to affordable, quality 

health care is a widely-shared goal. Medical coverage plays a crucial role in health and wellbeing, and all Americans should have access. 

IV. Conclusion and Recommendations 

As Congress considers proposals to reform current immigration laws, it is vital that the 

experiences of immigrant women are part of the equation. There is no doubt that the patchwork 

system that is now in place has hindered our progress as a country. The contributions of 

immigrant women have been and should continue to be allowed to grow - it is good for 

communities and it is good for the country. 

In order to address the unique challenges that immigrant women face on the path to become full 

citizens of the U.S., Choice USA Congress to adopt a holistic approach through the following 

recommendations: 

(I) Provide a fair, accessible, and affordable pathway to citizenship to all immigrants and, in 

particular, ensure that those who work in informal sectors of the economy can participate in 

this process. 

(2) Promote keeping immigrant families and children together, specifically by increasing familybased immigrant visas; alleviating current family-based immigrant visa backlogs; ending 

IS Huang P. Anchor Babies, Over-Breeders and the Population Bomb: The Reemergence o/Nativism and Population Control in Anti-Immigration 

Policies. Harvard Law and Policy Review. 2008; Vol 2. Available at nttp:!lwww.hlproniine.comJHuang HI PH pdf/ Accessed January 12, 2013. 

4 
67 

discrimination against same-sex partners under family immigration laws; allow Immigration 

Judges to exercise discretion in deportation cases that will result in family separation; and 

protect constitutionally-protected rights to determine the care and custody of their children 

for parents facing deportation. 

(3) Advance health equity for immigrant women, including ensuring full access to the Affordable Care 

Act regardless of immigration status and lifting the five-year bar on Medicare and other meanstested federal benefits for legal permanent residents. 

Again, thank you for taking the time to bear from advocates for women on this issue. We hope 

you will take into consideration our recommendations as the dialogue continues around bow to 

fix OUr broken immigration system. 

5 
68 

Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reprodnctive Rights 

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Testimony 

"How Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Should Address the Needs of Women and Families" 

March 21, 2013 

Dear Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: 

We write today to thank you for holding a hearing on "How Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Should Address the Needs of Women and Families," and to share with you our recommendations on 

this important issue. The Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights 

(COLOR) is a sisterhood of Latin as, dedicated to building a movement of Latinas, their families, and 

allies through leadership development, organizing and advocacy to create opportunity and achieve 

reproductive justice. 

COLOR believes that women are the backbones of all families including immigrant families. For 

women to be completely free and able to chart the course of their own lives, they must be able to 

determine not just whether and when to create family, but where to create family. Latinas already have 

barriers that prevent them from receiving access to essential services affecting their reproductive health 

and lives. All women should have access to quality, affordable health care and services, education, and 

equal pay for their employment; without these basic needs, women are at greater risk of discrimination 

and oppression. 

Furthermore, they must have access to the resources they need in order to care for their own 

reproductive health and raise their families with dignity and respect. Women who are aspiring citizens 

are excluded from public health benefits, and thus face barriers to caring for their own reproductive 

health and to plan their families. All legal immigrants are barred from eligibility for Medicaid, SCHlP, 

and other means-tested federal benefits for the first five years that they live in the United States. This 

arbitrary and harmful restriction denies women access to critical reproductive health care, including 

contraception, cervical cancer screening, and prenatal care. Moreover, while the landmark health 

reform law will give many women increased access to contraception and other reproductive health care, 

a significant portion of those who will remain uninsured are immigrant women, due to restrictions on 

immigrant eligibility for new or expanded coverage options. Women should also be able to care as best 

they can for the health and wellbeing of their children, with the comfort of knowing that they will be 

not be tom away from their children and that they can afford to take their sons and daughters to 

doctor's visits. 

Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights knows it is not about what you 

look like or where you were born, but how you live your life and what you do that defines you here in 

America. The contributions of immigrant women have always been vital for our society to grow and 

flourish. We know our country is strongest when women are healthy, safe, and able to care for their 

children and families. Truly effective immigration policy reform should value and honor women and 

their contributions. 

We call on legislators to support immigration reform that ensures women have the resources they 

need to make their own personal decisions about their reproductive health, their families, and 

I 
69 

their lives. To that end, the following are our recommendations for how comprehensive 

immigration policy reform can address the needs of women and families. 

I. Immigrant women need a fair and equitable roadmap to citizensbip. 

Any roadmap to citizenship and integration must be open, affordable, safe, and accessible to all 

immigrant women, including those whose work is in the home and those who are employed in 

the informal economy. A roadmap to citizenship that conditions eligibility on participation in the 

formal labor market disadvantages immigrant women, who are more likely to work in the 

informal sector. For example, many immigrant women are domestic workers I, farm laborers, nail 

salon workers, and homemakers. Immigrant women must be afforded equal employment-based 

migration opportunities and workplace protections so that they may safely pursue economic 

opportunity and support their families with dignity and pride. Our immigration system has 

historically been unfair to women, but now we have an opportunity to change it into one that 

recognizes the unique realities and contributions of worn en's lives. A truly equitable system will 

place just as much value On women as it does on men. Any proposed pathway to citizenship must 

place equal value on the contributions of women. 

II. We need to keep immigrant women and their families togetber. 

Immigration reform must protect the right of all families to stay together, regardless of 

immigration status, family structure, sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. In 

addition, immigration policies must be modernized to provide sufficient family-based channels 

for migration in the future. Enforcement, detention, and deportation programs that compromise 

immigrant women's safety, violate their civil, human, and due process rights, and tear families 

apart must be replaced by sensible and sufficient legal channels for migration that adequately 

meet family and labor demands and respect women and their families. 

Millions offamilies are at risk of being torn apart. Currently, 5.1 million children live in mixedlegal status families. Four million of these children are U.S. citizens. 2 The growth of mixedstatus families, combined with a lack of sufficient legal channels for migration, means that more 

families than ever are at risk of being separated for years or even permanently. In fact, between 

July 2010 and September 2012, the U.S. deported more than 205,000 parents of U.S. citizen 

children.] 

Family separation burdens local government. When parents are detained or deported, children 

are at risk of ending up in the child welfare system. The Applied Research Center in November 

2011 conservatively estimated that 5,100 children in foster care had parents who had been 

detained or deported. That number is expected to grow to 15,000 over the next five years.4 We 

must alleviate the unnecessary burden on states by permitting parents to care for their children. 

I Domestic Workers United. Home is Where the Work Is: Inside New York's Domestic Work Industry, Domestic Workers United and DataCenter. 

July 2006. Available at http://W'.'t'W.domesticworkersunited.org/index,php/en/comoonentJjdownloadS/finish/3/4. 

2 Passel J, Taylor P. Unauthorized Immigrants and Their U.S.~Bom Children. Pew Hispanic Center. August 2010. Available at 

http://\,",,,,<w.pewhispanic.org!2010/08/11/unauthorized-immigrants-and-their-us-born-childrenl Accessed March 13,2013. 

3 WcssJer SR. Primary Data: Deportations of Parents ofV.S. Citizen Kids. Colorlines. December l7, 2012. Available at 

http://coiorlines.com/archives!2012/12/deportationsofparentsofus-borncitizens122012.html. Accessed February 4, 2013. 

4 Applied Research Center. Shattered Families: The Perilous Intersection o/Immigration Enforcement and the Child Welfare System. November 

20} L Available at http://arc.org/shatteredfarnjlic~. Accessed February 4, 2013. 

2 
70 

The lack of legal opportunities for families to be together incentivizes unlawful migration and 

encourages deported parents to return and reunite with their children. A smart immigration 

system is one that values and prioritizes family unity. When parents get involved with the 

immigration enforcement system, they often lose any say in how their children are cared for. 

Detained parents are held far from their children. They may be unable to participate in the 

reunification plans necessary to regain custody of children who end up in foster care, and they 

are often denied meaningful access to child custody hearings. A humane and cost-effective 

immigration system would protect parents' constitutionally-protected rights to determine the care 

and custody of their children. 

Children are better off with their parents. Being undocumented does not make someone an unfit 

parent, and parental rights should only be terminated in cases of verified abuse and neglect. 

Judges need discretion to keep families together. Heavy-handed detention and deportation 

policies have tied the hands of immigration judges. Judges should be able to exercise discretion 

so that parents do not have to be deported unnecessarily. 

III. We need to advance health equity for immigrant women. 

Immigration reform must advance all immigrant women's access to health care and other family 

economic support. Such services and benefits include comprehensive health coverage and care 

and legal and social services that promote equality of opportunity, integration, and the ability to 

make decisions regarding reproductive and sexual health and the well-being of the family. 

Immigrant women and families work hard, pay taxes, and are committed to being in America. 

They should be able to pay their fair share for health care and should be included in our health 

care system, just like everyone else. They should not be excluded from health care simply 

because of their immigration status. When our families and our workforce are healthy, we all 

benefit. 

Investing in health is common sense - and makes good fiscal senSe. By and large, immigrants 

are younger and healthier than the American population as a whole5 - allowing them to 

participate in our health insurance systems and risk pools makes is a good economic decision for 

the country. When immigrant women and families do not have health care, the need for medical 

attention does not go away. Immigrant families without health insurance may either delay 

treatment for preventable disease, leading to higher costs and greater suffering, or seek care 

through under-resourced and expensive emergency systems. A healthy workforce means a 

stronger economy. Good health care is essential to workers' productivity and the opportunity for 

women and families to realize their full potential. If immigrant women are healthy, they are 

better able to support their family economically and contribute to the success of their children. 

For an immigrant woman, being able to protect her health and care for her family is the first step 

to full social, economic, and civic integration into the American community. When moms are 

healthy, their families benefit. 

Restrictions and other arbitrary delays that are often imposed on immigrants' access to benefits 

are also costly and inhumane. Many immigrant women are unable to obtain affordable health due 

5 Leighton Ku. Health Insurance Caverage and Medical Expenditures aflmmigrants and Native-Born Citizens in the United States. 

American Journal of Public Health. July 2009; Vol 99 (7): pp.1322-1328. 

3 
71 

to limitations resulting from their immigration status, such as the current 5-year bar on Medicare 

and Medicaid for lawful permanent residents, and the exclusion of undocumented immigrants in 

health insurance exchanges. Women and families should not be forced to wait five years for 

health care: five years is a lifetime to a child, and may make the difference between life and 

death for a woman suffering from breast or cervical cancer. Health coverage can mean the 

difference between preventing or treating conditions that can affect development throughout life, 

and leaving those conditions undetected and untreated. Removing the five-year bar for lawful 

permanent residents and those on the roadmap to citizenship will give them the same opportunity 

to pay their share and access health care as their friends and neighbors. 

Today's laws are overly complex, confusing, and restrictive. A patchwork of state and federal 

policies limiting access to health care and family economic support creates confusion. For 

example, a single family could have members with five different kinds of eligibility for health 

care depending on their immigration status. As a result, this "chilling effect" discourages even 

qualified recipients from accessing support.6 No mother should have to navigate different health 

insurance systems for every single child, or choose which of her children gets health care. We 

need a system that works for families and ensures that women and kids get the care they need. 

Anyone could get hurt or sick, and so everyone should have access to basic health care. No one 

should live in fear that because they lack health coverage or live in world where one accident or 

illness could threaten their entire family's economic security. Access to affordable, quality 

health care is a widely-shared goal. Medical coverage plays a crucial role in health and wellbeing, and all Americans should have access. 

IV. Conclusion and Recommendations 

As Congress considers proposals to reform current immigration laws, it is vital that the 

experiences of immigrant women are part of the equation. There is no doubt that the patchwork 

system that is now in place has hindered our progress as a country. The contributions of 

immigrant women have been and should continue to be allowed to grow - it is good for 

communities and it is good for the country. 

In order to address the unique challenges that immigrant women face on the path to become full 

citizens of the U.S., the Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights 

urges Congress to adopt a holistic approach through the following recommendations: 

(I) Provide a fair, accessible, and affordable pathway to citizenship to all immigrants and, in 

particular, ensure that those who work in informal sectors of the economy can participate in 

this process. 

(2) Promote keeping immigrant families and children together, specifically by increasing familybased immigrant visas; alleviating current family-based immigrant visa backlogs; ending 

discrimination against same-sex partners under family immigration laws; allow Immigration 

Judges to exercise discretion in deportation cases that will result in family separation; and 

(, Huang P. Anchor Babies, Over~Breeders and the Population Bomb: The Reemergence a/Nativism and Population Control in Anti-Immigration 

Policies, Harvard Law and Policy Review. 2008; Val 2. Available at http://,,,,,,'w.hlnronline.comiHuang HLPRpdfj Accessed January 12,2013. 

4 
72 

protect constitutionally-protected rights to determine the care and custody of their children 

for parents facing depcrtation. 

(3) Advance health equity for immigrant women, including ensuring full access to the Affordable Care 

Act regardless of immigration status and lifting the five-year bar on Medicare and other meanstested federal benefits for legal permanent residents. 

Again, thank you for taking the time to hear from advocates for women on this issue. We hope 

you will take into consideration our recommendations as the dialogue continues around how to 

fix our broken immigration system. 

Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights 

March 21, 2013 

5 
73 

cws 

Church World Service statement for the Congressional Record pertaining to the 

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Monday, March 18th, 2013 

As the Senate considers how to best fix the U.S. immigration system, Church World Service (CWS), a 67-

year old humanitarian organization, urges all Senators to work together to enact immigration reforms that 

strengthens family unity and provides a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. 

The CWS network of 37 protestant denominations and 36 refugee resettlement offices across the country 

welcomes newcomers by helping them integrate into their new communities. We advocate for immigration 

reform not only because it is the right thing to do to improve the lives of our immigrant brothers and 

sisters, but also because it is the smart thing to do for our economy and communities. 

Immigration reform must prioritize family unity, which is integral to the economic contribution of 

immigrants and key to the function of our immigration system. When families are separated by visa 

backlogs, bars to re-entry, and no option to adjust status, our immigration system, by failing to function in 

a timely way, necessitates illegal entry. To reform the family-based visa system, we urge Congress to: 

1. Protect and strengthen current family immigration categories (spouse, children, parents, and siblings) 

2. Increase family-based visas, including a temporary increase to clear the backlog with integrity 

3. Recapture unused visas for use in the following year 

4. Increase the per-country cap from 7 percent to 15 percent to reduce backlogs 

5. Reclassify the spouses and minor children of Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) as immediate 

relatives, and re-allocate the remaining visas available to the other existing family categories 

6. Add to the list of family immigration categories permanent partners of U.S. Citizens and LPRs 

To truly fix the immigration system, we must recognize and respond to the reasons why this country 

needs immigrants, and the reasons why people want to immigrate to the United States. There are two key 

factors that benefit the United States and simultaneously improve the lives of immigrants: family unity and 

economic opportunity. These are inseparable and co-joined factors that cannot exist without one another. 

Family unity spurs integration, as families provide strong foundations for learning English, purchasing a 

home, pursuing job opportunities, starting a business, preparing children for college, and contributing to 

communities. When families are together, the money they earn fuels the U.S. economy through taxes, 

investments, and the purchasing of goods and services. A key example of this are immigrant-owned 

companies, many of which are run by families, contribute more than $775 billion dollars annually to U.S. 

gross domestic product, creating jobs that are essential to economic growth.' 

Visa backlogs force LPRs to wait more than two years to be reunited with their spouse or minor child, and 

U.S. Citizens to wait as long as 24 years to be reunited with their sister or brother. CWS urges Congress 

to authorize additional visas so that families can be reunited in a timely manner. We are opposed to any 

reduction in family visas or proposals that claim a false-choice between family and employment visas. 

CWS is committed to working with all members of the Senate and House to enact immigration reform that 

will keep families together and provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Such 

reform would mark real progress. We need to make our immigration system work better for our economy 

and for the fabric of our communities - families. We urge all members of the Senate to strive toward this 

goal. 

1 Open for Business. The Partnership for a New American Economy. 

<htto:llwww.renewQureconomy.org/sitesiali/themesJpnae/openforbusiness,pdf>. 

1 
74 

Family Unity - The Story of Nadine 

Nadine, originally from Trinidad, came 

to the U.S. on a student visa in August 

1988. She completed a graduate 

degree and was sponsored for an H-1B 

visa and later, a green card by a 

corporation. She became a permanent 

resident in 1993, worked, and paid 

taxes. In 1998, Nadine made a 

commitment to the United States, took 

the oath of allegiance, and became a 

naturalized citizen. 

Once Nadine became a U.S. citizen, she 

filed a petition for her mother. While 

the case for her mother was quickly 

processed, Nadine's mother decided not 

to immigrate to the U.S. Nadine's 

mother was later diagnosed with breast 

cancer and died in 2007. 

In February 2006, Nadine filed a sibling 

petition (1-130) for her youngest brother, 

who was 23 years old at the 

time. Though their dad was deceased 

and their mother was fighting cancer, 

Nadine's brother was a determined 

university student. Nadine was working 

long hours in the U.S. and trying to 

provide support to her brother and her 

mother from afar. The family 

determined that it would be best for 

Nadine and her brother to be 

together. The approval for the 1-130 

petition was received from USClS on 

December 7, 2009. The case was sent 

to the U.S. State Department for visa 

processing on December 10, 2009. As 

of April 2013, green cards are 

(Nadine and her brother, New Year's 2013) available to brothers and sisters of U.S. 

Photo credits: Cherrie-Ann Walters citizens who began the process in April 

of 2001, five years before Nadine began 

the process for her brother. To date, a visa has not been made available and, during the almost 

decade-long wait, Nadine's brother finished a bachelor's degree. At age 30, he is currently residing in 

Barbados, where he attended college and remained after graduation. 

Nadine and her brother are very close, and given the age difference between them, Nadine has always 

helped to take care of him. Once she settled in the U.S., Nadine would visit her family every 

year. She called her family weekly and wrote to her brother frequently. Each school year, she bought 

him a new supply of clothes, books, and educational toys. When Nadine's brother was 12 years old, he 

traveled to the U.S. to spend Christmas with her. The following year, he spent the summer with his 

sister. He has made many visits to the U.S. since that time, and when Nadine received her PhD, he 

was there for the ceremonies. In the past six years, Nadine and her brother have buried their mother, 

grandmother, and stepfather -it has been a difficult time for them to be apart. Nadine's brother last 

visited for Christmas in December of 2012. They maintain weekly contact through phone calls, Skype, 

or Facebook. 
75 

The Story of Sudhir 

Sudhir, 44 years old, is an Indian national. When Mohan, Sudhir's mother, was pregnant with him, 

she developed eclampsia, resulting in a reduced level of oxygen to Sudhir during the 

pregnancy. Sudhir's development was slow; he was slow to walk and to learn, and only went to the 

third or fourth grade in school. He is developmentally disabled, with an IQ of 40. Sudhir has always 

lived with his parents who have cared for him as if he were a young child. Sudhir is a friendly, docile, 

and curious person with a strong sense of imagination. He also loves to play. 

Sudhir and his elderly parents, Raj and Mohan, entered the U.S. in lawful nonimmigrant status in May 

2012. Sudhir has two siblings in the U.S. His brother, Dinesh, arrived in the U.S. in 1995 on a J-1 

visa and has been in the U.S. for about 17 years. He is a lawful permanent resident, has filed for 

citizenship, and his naturalization interview has been scheduled for March 2013. His sister, Anjali, 

arrived in the U.S. in 1998 on an H-1B and has been here for about 14 years. She is a U.S. 

citizen. Both Dinesh and Anjali are married to U.S. citizens - Anjali has two children. Both are 

physiCians living in the Chicago area. 

Anjali has filed a family petition for their elderly parents, Raj and Mohan, and for her brother 

Sudhir. Raj and Mohan's age and poor health make it vital that they have the support of their children, 

Dinesh and Anjali. As the parents of a U.S. citizen, there are visa numbers immediately available for 

them. Raj and Mohan have both applied for permanent residency, and it is likely that they will have 

their green cards soon. However, because of the long wait in the family-based immigration system for 

siblings, it will take approximately twelve years before Sudhir will be able to obtain permanent 

residency based on his sister's petition. 

It is simply impossible for Sudhir to wait twelve years outside of the U.S. without his family. He 

requires assistance with everyday tasks of life, including shaving, bathing, and dressing. Sudhir 

requires constant care and cannot be on his own for even one day, much less twelve years. He cannot 

live on his own, and would be subject to physical abuse and exploitation in his home country because 

of his disability. Raj and Mohan's own poor health prevents their return to India, and in addition, the 

family has no relatives in India who can help care for Sudhir. 
76 

The Story of Lauren 

Lauren, a British citizen, 21 years old, came to the U.S. when she was 4 years old. Her 

grandparents had immigrated to the U.S. earlier in 1983 to farm. After an accident where Lauren's 

grandmother had a stroke and lost her leg, her parents, Ian and Allison, brought their family to the 

U.S. in 1995. The parents arrived on an E-2 visa to manage a motel and restaurant. 

Lauren's grandparents became U.S. citizens, and in September 2003, her grandmother filed a petition 

for Lauren's mom as an adult married child of a U.S. citizen (Family Third category). Lauren was a 

derivative on that petition. Because of the wait on the Family Third (F3) category, the family is still 

waiting for visas to be available that would allow them to become lawful permanent residents. From 

March 2013 to April 2013, the F3 category will only inch forward one week from July 15, 2002 to July 

22, 2002. At that rate, it may take 5 more years for their priority date to come current. 

Lauren's parents' E-2 visa status does not provide a path to permanent residency. And when Lauren 

turned 21, she was no longer covered under her parents' current nonimmigrant visa - and was left 

without a status. Furthermore, she may soon "age-out" of the F3 family-based petition filed in 2003, 

her eligibility for which the Child Status Protection Act is only extending past age 21 to the extent of 

the number of days the petition was pending. If the family's priority date does not come current 

before that calculation runs out, Lauren ages out and loses her eligibility. Lauren was granted deferred 

action in 2012, allowing her to stay in the U.S. temporarily, and is currently pursuing dance in New 

York. 

Outside of the extraordinary relief of deferred action there are little options for Lauren to remain with 

her family. If Lauren ages out, she does not keep her place in line with a different petition due to the 

lack of permanent priority dates for family based cases. When her mother gets her own permanent 

resident status, she could file a new petition for Lauren as the adult child of a permanent resident 

(2B). And Lauren will have to start her wait over again. The wait in that category means that Lauren 

could wait another decade or longer to get her green card. 
77 

The Story of N 

N is the daughter of M and J, from Thailand. After immigrating to the US in the 1990's based on M's 

skill as a traditional Thai chef, M and J opened their own Thai restaurant. In 2002, they filed a petition 

for their adult daughter, N, to immigrate and join them. N was over the age of 21 when M and J 

immigrated initially, and therefore, could not accompany them to the U.S. for M's job. 

By the time the petition on N's behalf was approved in 2005, the "priority date" in the category for an 

unmarried daughter of a lawful permanent resident was backlogged to 1995. M and J considered 

naturalizing, but between the demands of running their own restaurant and the high cost of the 

application fees, did not do so until 2010. 

In 2009, however, N decided to get married. As a married daughter of permanent residents, her 

parent's immigrant petitions became immediately void, and she lost her place in the immigrant visa 

quota backlog, losing 5 years of priority. 

M and J have now become US citizens and have re-filed immigrant petitions for their married daughter, 

but their priority date of January 2013 is in a category that is backlogged to July of 2002, meaning that 

it will be at least a decade or more before their daughter can join them. 
78 

.\ 1110 Vermont Avenue NW ., SUJle 900 • Wmhington, DC 20005 

p: 202,657 0677 • f: 202 657 0671 

FIRST ------ FOcus - CAMPAIGN FOR CHILDREN ----------------------------

FIRST FOCUS CAMPAIGN FOR CHILDREN 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING: 

"HOW COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM SHOULD ADDRESS 

THE NEEDS OF WOMEN AND FAMILIES" 

March 18, 2013 

Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to submit this statement on addressing the needs of women and families in immigration refonn. 

The First Pocus Campaign for Children (FFCC) is a bipartisan children's advocacy organization dedicated to 

making children and families a priority in federal policy and budget decisions. Our organization is committed to 

ensuring that U.S. immigration policies promote the health and safety of our nation's children. We firmly believe 

that passage of federal immigration refonn that duly considers the unique needs of women and children is critical 

to build a stronger America. 

Current statistics on the U.S. immigrant population point to the urgent need for immigration refonn to specifically 

address the interests of women and children. Women now comprise 510/0 of all immigrants in the U.S., and 

children of immigrants represent 1 in 4 of all C.S. children. 1 Over 5 million children, the vast majority of whom are 

U.S.-born citizens, live in mixed legal status families with at least one undocumented parent. Therefore it is 

essential that efforts are made to protect the rights of women and children as Congress moves forward on 

irru:nigration refonn, such as ensuring that women and children are able to benefit from a pathway to citizenship, 

keeping families together, and protecting immigrant access to critical safety net programs and income supports. 

Key Components of Immigration Reform that Prioritizes Women, Children and Families 

The FFCC co-led an effort to develop a set of children's principles for immip-ration reform which have received 

support from over 200 organizations representing children, immigrants, academia, civil rights and faith~based 

communities. These principles include: 

A Pathway to Citizenship 

A critical component of immigration reform is a establishing citizenship for the millions of undocumented 

immigrants, including women and families, who play an active role in our schools, churches, and communities. 

Citizenship is the only absolute way to ensure that families will no longer be tom apart at record-setting numbers 

and that parents will have the ability to come out of the shadows, work legally, and adequately pro,~de fot their 

www FFCampaignforChildren org 
79 

FIRST FOCUS CAMP.~IGN FOR CHILDREN ST,\TEME::-.iT FOR THE RECORD 

HOW COMPREHENSIVE IMlvIlGlLHION REFOlL\{ SHOULD ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF WOMEN AND FAMILIES 

1L~RCH 18, 2013 

families. In order to be inclusive and to reflect the immigrant woman experience, a pathway to citizenship must be 

open all immigrant women, including those who work in the home and those who are employed in the infonnal 

economy. "There must also be a distinct pathway for young people who were brought to United States as children 

and call this country home, such as the pathway specified in the Development, Relief and Education for .Alien 

Minors (DREAl\1) Act. 

Keeping Families Together 

Immigration enforcement policies as well as the legal immigration system must be rcfonned to keep families 

together. Our immigration laws often undermine family unity, and increased immigration enforcement measures in 

recent years has had devastating outcomes for women and families. According to the Department of Homeland 

Security, nearly 205,000 parents of US. citizen children were deported in the 26 months between July 1,2010 and 

September 31, 20122 As a result, thousands of[;.S. citizen children have moved abroad to be ,,~th deported 

parents, and an estimated 5,100 children are consequently in the U.S. child welfare system.3 FFCC has done 

extensive advocacy work to raise awareness about the conflicting policies mthin the immigration enforcement and 

child welfare systems that put children in foster care at increased risk of being pennanently separated from their 

detained or deported parents. It is important to note that many parents, particularly women, may not qualify for 

citizenship under immigration reform; therefore, it is critical that immigration enforcement policies minimize 

instances of family separation and duly consider the well-being of children. Other critical areas of immigration law. 

such as policies regarding waivers of inadmissibility and cancellations of removal, must also be revised to ensure 

that the best interests of children are considered in critical decisions regarding a child or parent's ability to enter or 

stay in the United States.4 The family-based immigration system must also be modernized to ensure that families 

are no longer forced to wait as long as 20 years to reunify through family-based channels. 

Protecting Access to entital Services and Income 5 upporls 

Immigration refonn should ensure that all newly legalized women and children have access to income supports as 

well as affordable healthcare, nutrition assistance, and other important services without any additional waiting 

periods. Safety net programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and the 

Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) playa critical role in ensuring the health and well-being of women 

and children in low-income families. The Child Tax Credit (CTC), a proven bipartisan, anti-poverty tool that kept 

1.5 million children from poverty in 2011 alone, helps families meet their childten's basic needs and can be a 

lifeline for children in itnmigrant families with low earnings. S Y ct, despite the fact that children of immigrants 

account for 30~/o of all U,S. children living in low-income families, research shows that immigrant fanUlies are less 

likely to use income-based safety net programs. 6 Por example, according to the Urban Institute, 27% of children of 

inltTligrants in low-income families accessed SNAP compared to 44% of children in low-income native-born 

families in 2008. 7 Confusing eligibility rules as well as fears regarding becoming a "public chargeH have deterred 

many lawfully present and undocumented immigrants alike from applying for scrv-ices for themselves or on behalf 

of their children. As a result, even U.S, citizen children living in mixed-legal status families often fail to receive the 

medical and nutritional benefits to which they are entitled. Furthermore, changes in the 1996 welfare reform laws 

created a five-year waiting period for lawfully present immigrants to receive federal means-tested benefits designed 

to prevent and alleviate poverty, further complicating eligibility rules and delaying access to critical services for 

immigrant women and children. 

2 
80 

FIRST FOCUS CAMP>\IGN FOR CHILDREN STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

HOW COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFOfu'Vj SHOULD ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF WOMEN .\ND FA,IILIES 

~jARCH 18,2013 

Recommendations 

To ensure that our immigration system addresses the needs of women and children, FFCC strongly recommends 

that the following provisions be included in immigration refonn: 

A direct, clear, and reasonable pathway to citizenship that reflects the needs of immigrant women, 

including a distinct pathway for imJnigrants brought to the U.s, as children, (DREAM Act, S 952/HR 

1842, 112ili Congress) 

Ensure that .immigration judges are able to consider hardship to U.S. citizen children in decisions regarding 

a parent's admissibility, detention, or removal by reforming laws regarding cancellations of removal and 

waivers of inadmissibility, (HR 406, 113'h Congress) 

Refonn immigration enforcement policies to prevent the detention of parents whenever possible and in 

cases when a parent must be detained or removed, ensure that parents arc granted due process rights and 

are able to make decisions regarding their child's care, (5 1399, 112'" Congress; HR 2607, 112'h Congress) 

Require state and local child welfare agencies to adopt policies that promote the reunification of systeminvolved children with parents who are involved in immigration proceedings. (HR 6128, 112'h Congress) 

Ensure that newly legalized immigrants have equal access to affordable healthcare, nutrition assistance" and 

income supports '\V-ithout additional waiting periods. 

Ensure that family tax credits that keep children out of poverty remain available, 

Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this statement, Should you have any further questions, please 

contact Wendy Cervantes, Vice President of Immigration and Child Rights Policy at wendyc@firstfocus.net. 

1 Fortuny, K, Hernandez, D., Chaudry, A The L.;rban Institute (2010). YOIl!{g C/Ji/Jrm ofbnmigrants; The leadit{g edge d' AmN"ka'sfotu1'F. 

hnp:/ ("""'''\\i.urhan org/pubticatlons/41"J203.hrmL 

:; u.s. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Deportation of Parents of U.S. Citizen Children July 1,2010- September 30, 2012. 

Accessed by Colodines.com on December 12, 2012. http://colorlines.com/archives!20121121deportations of parents of U"-

born citizens 122012.html 

:> \Vessler, S. Applied Research Center (2011). Shatlmd Families: The perilous ilJlersertion if immigration eJ!lomment and Ihf! child Wf!!ftm .rystf!!1'1, 

http://arc.org/shatteredfaroilies . 

.t Tbronson, D.C. (2013). Immigration enforcement and family courts.In Phillips, S.D., Cervantes, W., IJncroft, Y., Dettlaff, AJ., & Bruce, 

L. (Eds.).Childnn ill Haw! Wg: Crimina/JuJtice, Immigrati()f1 E'iffJrremenf, and Child Wr§.1n. Washington, D.C.: Jointly published by The 

Sentencing Project and First Focus. 

5 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (2013). PoliO' BaJics: The Child Tax Credit. 

http://\1l\\,,-,,',cbpp.or.g/cms lindex.cfm>fa -viC'.y&id-"}289 

6 Chaudry, .A., Fortuny, K The Urban Institute (2010). Children ojimnIigral1ls; Economic Wrll-being. 

hap: I l-w\Y\v.urban.orgl publications f412270.html 

7 Ibid 

3 
81 

Forward Together 

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Testimony 

"How Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Should Address the Needs of Women and Families" 

March 21,2013 

Dear Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: 

We write today to thank you for holding a hearing on "How Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Should Address the Needs of Women and Families," and to share with you our recommendations on 

this important issue. Forward Together is a national, multi-racial organization that works with 

community leaders and organizations to transform culture and policy to catalyze social change. We 

work to ensure that women, youth and families have the power and resources they need to reach their 

full potential. 

For WOmen to be completely free and able to chart the course of their own lives, they must be able to 

determine not just whether and when to creale family, but where to create family. 

Furthermore, they must have access to the resources they need in order to care for their own 

reproductive health and raise their families with dignity and respect. Women who are aspiring citizens 

are excluded from public health benefits, and thus face barriers to caring for their own reproductive 

health and to plan their families. All legal immigrants are barred from eligibility for Medicaid, SCHlP, 

and other means-tested federal benefits for the first five years that they live in the United States. This 

arbitrary and harmful restriction denies women access to critical reproductive health care, including 

contraception, cervical cancer screening, and prenatal care. Moreover, while the landmark health 

reform law will give many women increased access to contraception and other reproductive health care, 

a significant portion of those who will remain uninsured are immigrant women, due to restrictions on 

immigrant eligibility for new or expanded coverage options. Women should also be able to care as best 

they can for the health and wellbeing of their children, with the comfort of knowing that they will be 

not be torn away from their children and that they can afford to take their sons and daughters to 

doctor's visits. 

Forward Together knows it is not about what you look like or where you were born, but how you live 

your life and what you do that defines you here in America. The contributions ofimmigrant women 

have always been vital for our society to grow and flourish. We know our country is strongest when 

women are healthy, safe, and able to care for their children and families. Truly effective immigration 

policy reform should value and honor women and their contributions. 

We call on legislators to support immigration reform that ensures women have the resources they 

need to make their own personal decisions about their reproductive health, their families, and 

their lives. To that end, the following are our recommendations for how comprehensive 

immigration policy reform can address the needs of women and families. 
82 

I. Immigrant women need a fair and equitable roadmap to citizensbip. 

Any roadmap to citizenship and integration must be open, affordable, safe, and accessible to all 

immigrant women, including those whose work is in the home and those who are employed in 

the informal economy. A roadmap to citizenship that conditions eligibility on participation in the 

formal labor market disadvantages immigrant women, who are more likely to work in the 

informal sector. For example, many immigrant women are domestic workersl

, farm laborers, nail 

salon workers, and homemakers. Immigrant women must be afforded equal employment-based 

migration opportunities and workplace protections so that they may safely pursue economic 

opportunity and support their families with dignity and pride. Our immigration system has 

historically been unfair to women, but now we have an opportunity to change it into one that 

recognizes the unique realities and contributions of women's lives. A truly equitable system will 

place just as much value on women as it does on men. Any proposed pathway to citizenship must 

place equal value on the contributions of women. 

n. We need to keep immigrant women and their families together. 

Immigration reform must protect the right of all families to stay together, regardless of 

immigration status, family structure, sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. In 

addition, immigration policies must be modernized to provide sufficient family-based channels 

for migration in the future. Enforcement, detention, and deportation programs that compromise 

immigrant women's safety, violate their civil, human, and due process rights, and tear families 

apart must be replaced by sensible and sufficient legal channels for migration that adequately 

meet family and labor demands and respect women and their families. 

Millions offamilies are at risk of being tom apart. Currently, 5.1 million children live in mixedlegal status families. Four million of these children are U.S. citizens. 2 The growth of mixedstatus families, combined with a lack of sufficient legal channels for migration, means that more 

families than ever are at risk of being separated for years or even permanently. In fact, between 

July 2010 and September 2012, the U.S. deported more than 205,000 parents of U.S. citizen 

children.3 

Family separation burdens local government. When parents are detained or deported, children 

are at risk of ending up in the child welfare system. The Applied Research Center in November 

2011 conservatively estimated that 5,100 children in foster care had parents who had been 

detained or deported. That number is expected to grow to 15,000 over the next five years.4 We 

must alleviate the unnecessary burden on states by permitting parents to care for their children. 

The lack of legal opportunities for families to be together incentivizes unlawful migration and 

encourages deported parents to return and reunite with their children. A smart immigration 

system is one that values and prioritizes family unity. When parents get involved with the 

I Domestic Workers United. Home is Where the U-ark Is: Inside New York's Domestic Work Industry, Domestic Workers United and DataCenter. 

July 2006. Available at http://W\\w.domesticworkersunited.org/index.php/enioomponentljdo ... nloadS/finish/3/4. 

2 Passel J, Taylor P. Unauthorized Immigrants and 11,eir U.S.~Bom Children. Pew Hispanic Center. August 2010. Available at 

http://www,oewhisoanic,org/2010/08111/unauthorized-irnmigrants~and~their~us-bom~chi1drenl Accessed March 13,2013. 

3 Wessler SR. Primary Data: Deportations of Parents ofV.S. Citizen Kids. Colorlines. December 17, 2012. Available at 

htto!llcoJorlines.com/archives/20J2/12/deportations of parents of us-born citizens 122012.html. Accessed February 4,2013. 

4 Applied Research Center. Shattered Families: The Perilous Intersection of immigration Enforcement and the Child Welfare System. November 

2011. Available at http://arc.oWshatteredfamilies. Accessed February 4, 2013. 

2 
83 

immigration enforcement system, they often lose any say in how their children are cared for. 

Detained parents are held far from their children. They may be unable to participate in the 

reunification plans necessary to regain custody of children who end up in foster care, and they 

are often denied meaningful access to child custody hearings. A humane and cost-effective 

immigration system would protect parents' constitutionally-protected rights to determine the care 

and custody of their children. 

Children are better off with their parents. Being undocumented does not make someone an unfit 

parent, and parental rights should only be terminated in cases of verified abuse and neglect. 

Judges need discretion to keep families together. Heavy-handed detention and deportation 

policies have tied the hands of immigration judges. Judges should be able to exercise discretion 

so that parents do not have to be deported unnecessarily. 

III. We need to advance health equity for immigrant women. 

Immigration reform must advance all immigrant women's access to health care and other family 

economic support. Such services and benefits include comprehensive health coverage and care 

and legal and social services that promote equality of opportunity, integration, and the ability to 

make decisions regarding reproductive and sexual health and the well-being of the family. 

Immigrant women and families work hard, pay taxes, and are committed to being in America. 

They should be able to pay their fair share for health care and should be included in our health 

care system, just like everyone else. They should not be excluded from health care simply 

because of their immigration status. When our families and our workforce are healthy, we all 

benefit. 

Investing in health is common sense and makes good fiscal sense. By and large, immigrants 

are younger and healthier than the American population as a wholeS - allowing them to 

participate in our health insurance systems and risk pools makes is a good economic decision for 

the country. When immigrant women and families do not have health care, the need for medical 

attention does not go away. Immigrant families without health insurance may either delay 

treatment for preventable disease, leading to higher costs and greater suffering, or seek care 

through under-resourced and expensive emergency systems. A healthy workforce means a 

stronger economy. Good health care is essential to workers' productivity and the opportunity for 

women and families to realize their full potential. If immigrant women are healthy, they are 

better able to support their family economically and contribute to the success of their children. 

For an immigrant woman, being able to protect her health and care for her family is the first step 

to full social, economic, and civic integration into the American community. When moms are 

healthy, their families benefit. 

Restrictions and other arbitrary delays that are often imposed on immigrants' access to benefits 

are also costly and inhumane. Many immigrant women are unable to obtain affordable health due 

to limitations resulting from their immigration status, such as the current S-year bar on Medicare 

and Medicaid for lawful permanent residents, and the exclusion of undocumented immigrants in 

5 leighton Ku. Health Insurance Coverage and Medicol Expenditures a/Immigrants and Native-Born Citizens in the United States. 

American Journal of Public Health. July 2009; Vol 99 (7): pp. 1322·1328. 

3 
84 

health insurance exchanges. Women and families should not be forced to wait five years for 

health care: five years is a lifetime to a child, and may make the difference between life and 

death for a woman suffering from breast or cervical cancer. Health coverage can mean the 

difference between preventing or treating conditions that can affect development throughout life, 

and leaving those conditions undetected and untreated. Removing the five-year bar for lawful 

pennanent residents and those on the roadmap to citizenship will give them the same opportunity 

to pay their share and access health care as their friends and neighbors. 

Today's laws are overly complex, confusing, and restrictive. A patchwork of state and federal 

policies limiting access to health care and family economic support creates confusion. For 

example, a single family could have members with five different kinds of eligibility for health 

care depending on their immigration status. As a result, this "chilling effect" discourages even 

qualified recipients from accessing support.6 No mother should have to navigate different health 

insurance systems for every single child, or choose which of her children gets health care. We 

need a system that works for families and ensures that women and kids get the care they need. 

Anyone could get hurt or sick, and so everyone should have access to basic health care. No one 

should live in fear that because they lack health coverage or live in world where one accident or 

illness could threaten their entire family's economic security. Access to affordable, quality 

health care is a widely-shared goal. Medical coverage plays a crucial role in health and wellbeing, and all Americans should have access. 

IV. Conclusion and Recommendations 

As Congress considers proposals to refonn current immigration laws, it is vital that the 

experiences of immigrant women are part of the equation. There is no doubt that the patchwork 

system that is now in place has hindered our progress as a country. The contributions of 

immigrant women have been and should continue to be allowed to grow - it is good for 

communities and it is good for the country. 

In order to address the unique challenges that immigrant women face on the path to become full 

citizens of the U.S., Forward Together urges Congress to adopt a holistic approach through the 

following recommendations: 

(1) Provide a fair, accessible, and affordable pathway to citizenship to all immigrants and, in 

particular, ensure that those who work in infonnal sectors of the economy can participate in 

this process. 

(2) Promote keeping immigrant families and children together, specifically by increasing familybased immigrant visas; alleviating current family-based immigrant visa backlogs; ending 

discrimination against same-sex partners under family immigration laws; allow Immigration 

Judges to exercise discretion in deportation cases that will result in family separation; and 

protect constitutionally-protected rights to detennine the care and custody oftheir children 

for parents facing deportation. 

6 Huang P. Anchor Babies, Over-Breeders and the Population Bomb: The Reemergence a/Nativism and Population Control inAnti~lmmigration 

Policies. Harvard Law and Policy Review. 2008; Vol 2. Available at http://www.hlpronline.comiHuang HLI)R.pdfl Accessed January 12, 2013. 

4 
85 

(3) Advance health equity for immigrant women, including ensuring full access to the Affordable Care 

Act regardless of immigration status and lifting the five-year bar on Medicare and other meanstested federal benefits for legal permanent residents. 

Again, thank you for taking the time to hear from advocates for women on this issue. We hope 

you will take into consideration our recommendations as the dialogue continues around how to 

fix our broken immigration system. 
86 

nFC 

UNL 

March 15, 2013 

245 SEL'OND STREET, NE 

WASHINGTON, DC20002~5761 USA 

PHONE (202) 547-0000 

TOLL¥FREE PHONE (800) 63{1-133O 

FAX (202)547-0019 

LEGISLATIVE ACTION MESSAGE (202) 547-4343 I http://www.fcn1.org I E-MAIL fcn1info@fcn1.org 

FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION 

... a Quaker lobby in the pUblic interest 

Friends Committee on National Legislation Statement for the Congressional Record 

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing 

Monday, March 18,2013 

The Friends Committee on National Legislation, founded in 1943, is guided by the spiritual 

values of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). Our work on immigration is led by the call 

for right relationships among people and between individuals and God. We believe that respect 

for human and civil rights is essential to safeguarding the integrity of our society and the inherent 

dignity of all human beings. We recognize that governments have an indispensable role in 

upholding these rights and citizens have the responsibility to make governments more 

responsi ve, open, and accountable. 

Therefore, we call for humane comprehensive immigration reform. We have seen the 

degeneration of the U.S. immigration system over the last three decades. Overly punitive laws, in 

tandem with increased enforcement and an inefficient bureaucracy, have led to systemic 

violations of rights: indiscriminate raids, detention without due process, worker exploitation, and 

families separated for years or even decades. Humane immigration reform would restore 

integrity to the U.s. tradition of welcoming immigrants and provide real solutions to a broken 

immigration system. We believe that fundamental and comprehensive reform of U.S. 

immigration policy is needed in order to: 

• Create an orderly, equitable, and efficient legal immigration system; 

• Enforce employment and labor rights for all workers, regardless of immigration status; 

• Protect human and civil rights for immigrants currently living in the United States; 

• Support communities with large concentrations of immigrants and facilitate immigrant 

integration; and 

• Align enforcement with humanitarian values. 

Recognizing the critical role offamily in the development of healthy individuals and 

communities, FCNL believes that immigration policies should make reunification of spouses, 

parents, children, and siblings a top priority, and should include families headed by same-sex 

couples as well as opposite-sex couples. Reform of the family immigration system should retain 

family preference categories at adequate levels, augment per-country caps, remove bars to 
87 

reentry and adjustment of status for those seeking to reunite with family, and eliminate lengthy 

visa backlogs by recapturing immigrant visas lost to bureaucratic delays and rolling them over to 

the next fiscal year. Family visas should not be placed in competition with employment visas. 

Spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents should be reclassified as immediate 

relatives to ensure that these individuals are reunited as quickly as possible. 

FCNL welcomes the Bipartisan Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform released on 

January 28 by eight U.S. senators. We congratulate the authors of the Framework, who reached 

across party lines to acknowledge the need to fix our broken immigration system, and to propose 

some practical solutions. 

However, we are concerned at the news that the Senate bipartisan group is considering cutting 

family visa categories for siblings and adult married children of U.S. citizens. Cutting family 

visa categories increases pressures for illegal immigration, exacerbating the problems of the 

country's broken immigration system. Evidence indicates that many of the undocumented 

immigrants in the U.S. came here to be reunited with their families, when they had no legal 

means to immigrate. Congress will not fix the broken system by dividing families and reducing 

legal avenues for family migration. We look forward to working with Congress and members of 

the committee on the details of reform legislation. 
88 

Written Statement of Antonio M. Ginatta 

Advocacy Director, US Program, 

Human Rights Watch 

to 

the United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary 

Hearing on "How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should 

Address the Needs of Women and Families" 

March 18, 2013 

1 
89 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement on 

today's hearing on how comprehensive immigration reform should address the needs of women 

and families. Human Rights Watch is an independent organization dedicated to promoting and 

protecting human rights around the globe. We have been reporting on abuses in the US 

immigration system, including violations of the right to family unity, for over 20 years. On 

February 1, we issued a briefing paper entitled "Within Reach: A Roadmap for US Immigration 

Reform that Respects the Rights of All People," which we wish to submit forthe record.' Our 

testimony will discuss a number of the recommendations that are developed in greater detail in 

the briefing paper, and which we think should guide any effort to reform our current, deeply 

flawed, immigration system. 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "[t]he family is the natural and fundamental 

group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.'" Family unification has 

rightly been at the heart of discussions about US immigration policy for over 50 years. A 

commission appointed by Congress to study immigration policies in 1981 concluded, 

"Reun ification of families serves the national interest not on Iy th rough the humaneness of the 

policy itself, but also through the promotion of the public order and well-being of the nation. 

Psychologically and socially, the reunion offamily members ... promotes the health and welfare of 

the United States.'" 

Yet for years, the current US immigration system has split up countless families and left others to 

live under the constant threat of separation. 

The United States is home to 40 million immigrants-ll million of whom are unauthorized.' Nearly 

17 million people live in families in which at least one member is an unauthorized 

'''Within Reach" can also be downloaded at http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/02/01/us-immigration-reform-shoulduphold-rights. 

'Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted Oecemberto, '948, G.A. Res. 217A(lIJ), U.N. Doc. Al810 at 71 (1948), 

art. 16(3). 

'US Select Committee on Immigration and Refugee Policy, "U.s. Immigration Policy and the National Interest," 1981, p. 

112~ quoted in Chris Duenas, "Coming to America: The Immigration Obstacle Facing Binational Same~Sex 

Couples," Southern California Law Review, vol. 73 (2000), pp. 811-84'. 

4 Pew Hispanic Center, 'Unauthorized Immigrant Population: National and State Trends, 2010," February 1,2011, 

http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdf (accessed January 8,2013). The Pew Hispanic Center updated its 

estimate of the unauthorized immigrant population more recently to 11.1 million in 2011. Pew Hispanic Center, 

"Unauthorized Immigrants: 11.1 Million in 2011," December 6. 2012, 

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/12/06/una uth orlzed-immigra nts·1'-1·mitlion-in-20'1 (accessed January 8, 20 13). 

2 
90 

immigrant.s Despite these family relationships, most unauthorized immigrants have no realistic 

way to gain legal status under existing law. Some of these immigrants have valid applications for 

legal status filed by their US citizen or permanent resident family members, but low numerical 

limits for family visas and processing inefficiencies have led to a massive backlog. An adult son or 

daughter from Mexico, for example, may wait almost 20 years after a petition is filed by a US 

citizen parent. This backlog creates tremendous pressure throughout the immigration system, 

leading to increased illegal immigration and visa overstays. 

Others are ineligible to apply for legal status, despite their family relationships, because of the 

length of time they have been in the US without status or because of the way in which they entered 

the country. Even spouses of US citizens, if they entered unlawfully, cannot gain legal status 

without leaving the country-and that can trigger alO-year bar to returning. A common 

misconception is that having a US citizen child can enable an unauthorized immigrant to 

immediately gain legal status. A US citizen can apply for a parent to gain permanent resident 

status only once he or she turns 21, and even then a parent who has been in the US without status 

for over a year will have to leave the country and wait 10 years to apply for legal status. A recent 

change in administrative policy will allow some relatives (excluding parents of US citizens) to 

apply for a waiver of the 10-year bar, which requires proof of extreme hardship to a US citizen 

relative, before leaving the country. But this change only gives people the option of applying for 

the waiver in advance and is limited to a small number of unauthorized immigrant family 

members. It does not eliminate the general bar most relatives face to gaining legal status. 

Moreover, some immigrants are completely barred from getting a visa through their US citizen 

spouse or partner due to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which excludes lesbian and gay 

couples from the US government's definition of "spouse.'" Thousands of US citizens and their 

foreign same-sex spouses or partners face enormous hardships, separation, and even exile 

because this discriminatory policy deprives these couples of the basic right of family unity_ This 

policy not only separates loving partners from one another, it also splits parents from children 

(many of whom are US citizens). Data from the 2000 census showed that almost 16,000 

binational, same-sex couples (46 percent of the total) reported having children in their 

slbid. 

'Human Rights Watch, Family Unvalued: Discrimination, Denial, and the Fate of Binational Same· Sex Couples Under 

U.S. Law, May 2, 2006, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/oS/Ol/family-unvalued·o. 

3 
91 

household.' Each of these households represents a real family, whose lives are made difficult and 

uncertain by discriminatory US immigration policy. 

This policy violates the basic human rights of freedom from discrimination and respect for family 

life. To disregard same-sex relationships for immigration purposes sends a message, as the South 

African Constitutional Court put it, "that gays and lesbians lack the inherent humanity to have 

their families and family lives in such same-sex relationships respected or protected .... The impact 

constitutes a crass, blunt, cruel and serious invasion of their dignity."s 

Under current immigration law, most unauthorized immigrants with US citizen family members are 

under a constant threat of deportation. In most cases, immigration judges are not even 

empowered to take family unity into account. Non-permanent residents who have resided in the 

US for 10 years, have good moral character, and can demonstrate a US citizen or permanent 

resident spouse, child, or parent, would suffer "exceptional and unusual hardship" in the event of 

deportation are eligible to apply for "cancellation of removal" and receive permanent resident 

status. But such cancellation is capped at only 4,000 per year and the "exceptional and unusual 

hardship" standard, instituted in the 1996 amendments, is meant to encompass hardship that is 

substantiallY beyond what would normally result from family separation. Even under the existing 

standard, grant rates vary widely across the country, and Congress has severely limited judicial 

review of these decisions, which would help maintain greater consistency. 

The limits of existing law are evident in the fact that in just the past two years, the US government 

has carried out over 200,000 deportations of people who said they had US citizen children.' These 

parents have almost no way to return legally. Immigrants can be barred from the US for 10 years, or 

for life, if they leave after having been in the country for at least a year without authorization. 

Immigration law is particularly harsh on people who face deportation after criminal convictions, 

even for lawful permanent residents convicted of minor or old offenses. Amendments that went 

into effect in 1996 stripped immigration judges of much of the discretion they once had to balance 

7Ibid .• p. 176. 

, National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and others v Ministry of Home Affairs and Others, Constitutional Court 

of South Africa, CCT 10/99. at 54 and 42. 

'Seth Freed Wessler. "Nearly 205K Deportations of Parents of US Citizens in )ust.OverTwo Years,"C%rUnes. December 

'7. 2012. http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/12/us_deports_more_than_200k_parents.html (accessed January 22. 

2013). 

4 
92 

family unity against the seriousness of the crime. As a result, many lawful permanent residents, 

after serving whatever sentence is imposed by the criminal justice system, feel they are further 

punished with exile. If they return without permission to the US, they are often charged with the 

federal crime of illegal reentry, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. 

Recommendations: 

Adjust the country quotas and number of family-based preference visas available to reduce 

the current backlog. 

Allow non-citizens eligible for a family visa to apply for adjustment without having to leave the 

country and triggering unlawful presence bars, and expand the waiver provisions to allow 

waiver of the unlawful presence bars if a person can prove extreme hardship to a US citizen 

child. 

End the discrimination against binational same-sex couples and ensure that they receive the 

same recognition and treatment afforded to binational opposite·sex couples in US immigration 

policies providing for family unification. 

o In particular, allow foreign, same-sex permanent partners or spouses of US citizens to 

be recognized as "spouses" under US immigration law. 

Restore and expand the power of judges to consider family unity in any removal decision by 

removing the cap on cancellation of removal for non-permanent residents and by returning to 

the pre'1996 standard of "extreme hardship' to the non-citizen or to the non-citizen's spouse, 

parent, or child. 

Restore discretion to immigration judges to weigh evidence of rehabilitation, family ties, and 

other equities against a criminal conviction in deciding whether to deport lawful permanent 

residents. 

Allow for judicial review of decisions involving waivers based on hardship to families. 

Create avenues for immigrants who are currently inadmissible to apply for permission to gain 

legal status if they have lawfully present family in the US and can currently demonstrate good 

moral character. 

Ensure that unauthorized immigrants who under existing law may be barred from the United 

States, such as for immigration offenses or criminal convictions, are given the opportunity to 

overcome these bars and apply for legalization if they are able to offer evidence of current 

good moral character, long residence in the United States, family ties, military service, and 

similar factors in their favor. 

5 
93 

16 I Number 1 

Toward Equity and Access: Removing Legal Barriers 

To Health Insurance Coverage for Immigrants 

By Kinsey Hassledt 

r nearly two decades, federal and state 

policies have piled atop one another to create barriers to health insurance coverage for 

millions of women, men and children residing in the United States with varying immigration 

statuses. These coverage restrictions foster harmful disparities in access to health care services 

generally, and to sexual and reproductive health 

services in particular. Inequitable access to coverage jeopardizes the health and well-being of immigrant women, families and communities into 

the next generation, and compromises the public 

health of the nation as a whole. 

Following the 2012 elections, immigration reform 

has been back on the federal policy agenda, 

which presents a needed opportunity to raise 

awareness of and ultimately remove restrictions 

on immigrants' access to health coverage. Yet, 

those who hope for more equity for all individuals and families in the United States have cause 

to be wary; past attempts at bipartisan immigration reform have failed and left coverage gaps in 

place. Immigrants' health coverage needs were 

inadequately addressed in the landmark 2010 

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). 

And millions of young immigrants newly eligible 

to lawfully reside in the United States as a result 

of a 2012 program unilaterally established by the 

Obama administration were denied most forms 

of health coverage under subsequent regulations. 

It is because of such past failings, however, that 

the best health and economic interests of immigrant women and their families-and the country 

they are part of-must be revisited. 

2 

A Patchwork of Policies 

Since the mid-1990s, mounting anti-immigrant 

sentiment has left not only undocumented immigrants, but also recent, lawfully present immigrants with multiple barriers to and few options 

in accessing basic health coverage and services, 

including sexual and reproductive health care. 

Prior to 1996, lawfully residing immigrants in 

the United States had the same eligibility as citizens for means-tested benefit programs under 

federal law. But, with the enactment of the 

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act, or "welfare reform;' only 

immigrants who were lawfully residing before 

August 1996 maintained that eligibility. Most who 

immigrated after 1996 were (and still are) deemed 

ineligible for the first five years during which they 

have lawful status. Among the most important 

programs restricted to immigrants under the 

"five-year ban" is Medicaid-the country's largest 

insurer of low-income individuals and families, 

and a crucial source of coverage for sexual and 

reproductive health services. Immigrant children 

(including teenagers) who have been lawfully 

present in the United States for fewer than five 

years were similarly denied coverage through 

the closely related Children's Health Insurance 

Program (CHIP), implemented the following year. 

Medicaid does pay for services provided in emergency situations, including labor and delivery, to 

people regardless of immigration status. Beyond 

that, limited exceptions to the five-year ban were 

eventually made for pregnant women and children.The first of two exceptions for pregnant 

women was a 2002 rule issued by the Bush ad-
94 

ministration that allows states to provide prenatal 

care to low-income immigrant women-both 

lawfully present and undocumented-by granting 

CHIP eligibility to their fetuses (see "New SCHIP 

Prenatal Care Rule Advances Fetal Rights at LowIncome Women's Expense;' December 2002). As 

of January 2013, 15 states had taken up this coverage option (see table).'" Subsequently, when 

the 2009 Children's Health Insurance Program 

Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) was enacted, it 

authorized states to waive the five-year ban for 

immigrant pregnant women (in their own right, 

as opposed to via their fetuses) and immigrant 

children otherwise eligible for Medicaid or CHIP. 

As of January 2013, 20 states offer this coverage 

to pregnant women, and 25 to children.' 

Meanwhile, in 2006, Congress passed a requirement that nearly all citizens provide detailed 

documentation of their citizenship to enroll in 

or renew Medicaid coverage. (Noncitizen immigrants eligible for Medicaid were already 

required to provide documentation of their lawful status.) A tiered list of documentation was 

prescribed, with passports topping the list, even 

though many low-income individuals do not 

possess one; providing a birth certificate along 

with a driver's license or similar photo identification qualified as second-tier documentation (see 

"The Impact of Anti-Immigrant Policy on Publicly 

Subsidized Reproductive Health Care;' Winter 

2007). This cumbersome policy led to delays and 

declines in coverage and care among qualified 

citizens, as well as increased government costs 

for its implementation, and in recent years, the 

burden has been somewhat eased,3 For example, 

CHIPRA gave states the option of employing electronic databases to verify eligibility prior to burdening individuals. Expanding on that successful 

provision, state agencies and health insurance 

exchanges, beginning in 2014 under the ACA, 

will be required to utilize data from electronic 

databases before requiring individuals to provide 

documentation to verify their eligibility for public 

or private coverage. 

Beyond alleviating the citizenship documentation burden, however, health care reform was 

largely a missed opportunity to put right so much 

of what had gone wrong regarding immigrants' 

Guttmacher Policy Review I VDlume i6, Number 1 i Winter 2013 

%of fed!lt!lIlVillndedeovemg.eexpllnsions 

immigrants 
95 

access to health coverage and care. Despite the 

initial intentions of some policymakers that immigrants' health insurance and health care needs 

would be addressed, the coverage benefits of the 

ACA as enacted are disproportionately inaccessible to immigrants. Aside from the state options 

to cover lawfully present children and pregnant 

women discussed above, the five-year Medicaid 

ban remains in effect. In a kind of concession, the 

ACA does enable immigrants who are ineligible 

for Medicaid due to the five-year ban to purchase 

private coverage through the insurance exchanges that will become operational in 2014, and to 

receive subsidies to make this coverage affordable. The ACA, however, not only makes undocumented immigrants ineligible for subsidies, but 

also prohibits them from purchasing coverage 

through exchanges-even at full cost. 

Finally, in 2012, the president established the 

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) 

program, which although an important step 

forward in its own right, was a bitter disappointment for advocates of immigrants' health coverage and service access. The program allows for 

previously undocumented young people (ages 

15-30) who immigrated as children with their 

families and who are engaged in school or work 

to remain in the United States for renewable twoyear periods. But unlike other lawfully present 

immigrants, young people granted DACA status 

are barred from nearly every form of public and 

private health coverage. DACA grantees are expressly carved out of the population of lawfully 

present immigrant children and pregnant women 

whom states may cover under Medicaid or CHIP 

through the 2009 CHIPRA option (see above). 

And under current rules, the years individuals 

live in the United States with DACA status do 

not count toward their five-year path to Medicaid 

eligibility. Furthermore, those with DACA status 

are ineligible to purchase private coverage on the 

health insurance exchanges, with or without the 

federal subsidies. 

In short, despite now being lawfully present, 

those with DACA status have essentially the same 

coverage options as the estimated 11.1 million 

undocumented immigrants residing in the United 

States: nearly none.' Ineligible for Medicaid and 

CHIp, low-income young people with DACA status and undocumented immigrants can obtain 

Medicaid coverage only if they are pregnant and 

living in a state with the 2002 CHIP option, or if 

they live in a state or locality that uses entirely 

nonfederal funds to cover health services usually 

under Medicaid to individuals regardless of immigration status. When it comes to private coverage 

options, these populations will only be allowed to 

obtain coverage outside the exchanges. 

The Case for Coverage 

As a result of this patchwork of policies, millions 

of immigrant women and their families who live, 

go to school and work in communities all around 

the country are effectively blocked from obtaining health insurance. This disparity in coverage 

hinders immigrants' ability to obtain health care, 

including sexual and reproductive health services, which puts them at disproportionately high 

risk of negative health outcomes. 

The gaps in immigrants' health coverage are 

great. Even though they are more likely than the 

native-born to participate in the U.S. workforce, 

immigrants are overrepresented in low-wage 

jobs that are unlikely to offer employer-sponsored health coverage.'This, along with existing 

policy barriers to public and private insurance 

options, contributes to noncitizen immigrants 

being much more likely than native-born or naturalized citizens to be uninsured. Among women 

of reproductive age (15-44), 45% of the 6.6 million noncitizen immigrants are uninsured, compared with 24% of naturalized citizen immigrants 

and 18% of U.S.-born women (see chart).' Among 

poor reproductive-age women (a group in which 

immigrant women are disproportionately represented), 60% percent of noncitizen immigrant 

women lack health insurance-nearly twice the 

proportion of U.S.-born women. And only 27% of 

poor immigrant women of reproductive age have 

Medicaid coverage, compared with 44% of those 

who are U.S. born. 

Although there is limited evidence specific to 

immigrant women's use of sexual and reproductive health services, lack of insurance is generally 

associated with a reduced use of health services, 

especially among low-income women.7Thus, it is 

Winter 2013 j Vn!ume 16, Number 1 i Guttmacher PolicV Review 
96 

unsurprising that according to at least one recent 

report, immigrant women's health service utilization is constrained by their lack of insurance 

coverage and the high out-of-pocket costs they 

confront as a result.aYet, immigrant womenespecially those who are undocumented-have 

higher birth rates than native-born women, and 

so are more likely to need comprehensive maternal care. 9,10 Immigrant women are also particularly likely to be young, low-income and women 

of color-all demographic characteristics linked 

to particularly high risk of negative sexual and reproductive health outcomes, namely unintended 

pregnancy and STls.""·" 

Comprehellsive Maternity Care 

The widely recognized positive benefits of appropriate preconception, prenatal and postpartum 

care include better chances of full-term pregnancies and healthy birth weights and a decreased 

likelihood of long-term health complications for 

mothers and infants," Prenatal care is particularly beneficial among young and low-income 

women, groups that are particularly likely to 

be uninsured."'" Indeed, the ACA takes numerous steps to address these issues by expanding 

coverage generally and specifically guaranteeing coverage for a broad package of maternity 

care services (see "The Potential of Health Care 

Reform to Improve Pregnancy-Related Services 

and Outcomes;' Summer 2010). 

Yet, millions of immigrant women remain ineligible for comprehensive maternity coverage. And 

while what limited evidence there is suggests 

immigrant women have relatively healthy pregnancies,16,17 their need for comprehensive maternity care is no different than U.S.-born women's. 

This is especially true as children of immigrants 

comprise ever-larger proportions of the overall 

U.S. popUlation: Although their birth rates have 

declined consistent with, even driving, broader 

U.S. trends, immigrant women continue to have 

higher birthrates than native-born women."'" In 

2008, an estimated 8% of the babies born in the 

United States (340,000)-all of whom are automatically citizens-had undocumented parents, 

comprising a disproportionately large share of 

the newborn population.' Given these statistics, 

accessible comprehensive maternity coverGuttmacher Policy Review I Volume 16, Nl,lmbM i I Winter 2013 

The 6.5 miiHon womelll)f reproductive age who are not U.S, citizens are 

particularlyllkelytobeullinsured. 

All women 15-44 

Total 16 

Native· 16 born 

All l' immigrants 

cmzens 12 

Noncitizens 15 

Poor women 15-44 

Total 40 

Native· +! bom 

AU '[J immigrants 

Naturalized 34 citizens 

Noncitizens 26 

% Privately insured Medicaid Uninsured 

age could advance long-term health outcomes 

among immigrant women and their children, reducing systemic health disparities with each new 

generation of Americans. 

Coverage obstacles to immigrant women's affordable access to prenatal care are also financially 

short-sighted. An Institute of Medicine committee 

estimated that every $1 invested in preventive 

prenatal care would save more than $3 by reducing the number of low-birth-weight infants and 

the costs associated with their care." Additionally, 

in a 2013 analysis, annual Medicaid emergency 

expenditures were estimated at $2 billion,20The 

5 
97 

majority of those were for labor and delivery care 

for immigrant women in emergency rooms.21 In 

sum, barriers to immigrant women's ability to 

obtain health insurance are putting the long-term 

health of these mothers and their infants at risk, 

and creating inefficiencies in public expenditures. 

Contraceptive Services and Supplies 

Effective contraception helps women to avoid 

unintended pregnancy and the adverse maternal and child health outcomes associated with 

unplanned births." Women's ability to plan and 

space their children has also been linked to advanced educational and employment opportunities and pursuits, and to the enhanced well-being 

of families (related article, page 8). Yet, cost is 

one important factor that interferes with women's 

use of the most effective contraceptive methods. 

Eliminating cost-sharing for the full range of 

methods can help them overcome this barrier. 

Despite the fact that contraceptive coverage 

without cost-sharing has long been available to 

women enrolled in Medicaid, and will increasingly be so in private insurance underthe coverage advances of the ACA, millions of immigrant 

women are cut off from those options. As a result, they may lack access to the full range of contraceptive options; the limited evidence available 

specific to immigrant women suggests they are 

less likely to use preventive reproductive health 

services, including contraception.'This is particularly problematic as women of color and low-income women are disproportionately affected by 

unintended pregnancies." And, undocumented 

immigrants-including the nearly one million 

young people estimated to immediately qualify 

for DACA status-are particularly likely to be of 

reproductive age and Hispanic origin.22-

24 

The fiscal case for contraceptive coverage with 

no cost-sharing for all women-including immigrant women-is a strong one. Nationally, the 

public costs related to births resulting from unintended pregnancies were estimated at $11 billion 

in 2006;" the estimated cost to federal, state and 

local governments of teen childbearing in 2008 

was also estimated to be nearly $11 billion." 

These costs would be even higher in the absence 

of publicly subsidized family planning services. 

6 

Every public dollar invested in helping women 

avoid pregnancies they do not want saves about 

$4 in Medicaid expenditures otherwise needed 

for pregnancy-related care and one year of infant 

medical care." In the private sector, contraceptive coverage is at least cost-neutral, if not costsaving. For instance, the federal government, in 

its role as the nation's largest employer, reported 

no cost increases after requiring coverage of contraceptives for its employees in the late 1990s." 

Further, not covering contraceptives has been 

estimated to cost employers approximately 15% 

more than providing such coverage." Importantly, 

none of these estimates take into account the 

broader health, social or economic benefits to 

women and families that come with being able to 

time, space and prepare for pregnancies-crucial 

considerations for immigrant women's full and 

productive integration into U.S. society. 

Preventive Sellrices 

Finally, there are a number of other preventive 

sexual and reproductive health services important 

for all women of reproductive age, such as regular well-woman visits, STI testing and screening 

for reproductive health cancers. Without adequate 

health coverage, these preventive services can be 

costly and out of reach, particularly to teenagers 

and young adults with little disposable income. 

As a group, the disproportionately young, lowincome immigrant population is at heightened risk for STls, notably HPV. According to a 

February 2013 report from the CDC, half of all 

new STI cases occur among 15-24-year-olds, and 

HPV accounts for 14 million of the 20 million new 

STI cases each year." HPV is a particularly salient 

issue among immigrant women: Left unchecked, 

certain strains of HPV can occasionally lead to 

cervical cancer, which disproportionately afflicts 

and causes the deaths of foreign-born women, 

particularly those who are Latina and women in 

certain Asian communities.30This phenomenon 

is likely due in large part to the fact that many 

of these women go without timely Pap tests and 

screenings, which in turn stems from financial, 

cultural and linguistic barriers.' 

Not extending coverage for STI testing to lowincome immigrants is also fiscally questionable. 

Winter 2013 I Volume 16, Number 1 ! Guttmacher Policy Review 
98 

There are no cost estimates specific to immigrants, but the most recent CDC analysis estimates that $16 billion is spent in the United States 

each year on the direct medical costs of STls; the 

majority is devoted to long-term treatment and 

care of HIV and of HPV and its resultant cancers." 

A Need lor Action 

In his 2013 State of the Union address, President 

Obama called for "comprehensive" immigration 

reform, and a draft of the administration's proposal was released shortly thereafter. Meanwhile, 

mUltiple congressional groupings-most notably 

the Senate "Gang of Eight"-have released their 

own bipartisan principles. Despite major differences over border security and whether reform 

should include a path to citizenship, there does 

seem to be an emerging consensus: If this federal 

legislation is enacted, it will likely grant some form 

of provisional status to undocumented immigrants 

currently living in the United States. 

With that status, whatever it may be, should 

come access to affordable public and private 

health insurance options, and the increased access to sexual and reproductive health services 

that insurance coverage makes possible. Indeed, 

this principle already has broad public support: 

Most Americans believe upon obtaining provisional status, immigrants should be able to access Medicaid (63%) and subsidies to affordably 

buy insurance on the exchanges {59%)." 

This principle should apply not only those with 

this provisional status, but also to those with 

DACA status and all other immigrant individuals 

and families lawfully present in the United States. 

They should all be eligible for Medicaid and CHIP 

without the five-year ban or any other waiting 

periods. Enabling immigrants-based solely on 

their income-to access Medicaid coverage instead of the more costly coverage available on 

the exchanges is sound health policy that also 

has the potential to save federal dollars. That 

said, private coverage should be made equally 

accessible. All lawfully present immigrant individuals and families-again including those 

with DACA status and those with any newly 

established status resulting from immigration 

reform-should be able to purchase coverage 

Guttmacher Policy Review 1 Vo!umo 16, Number 1 ! W]nt8r 2013 

through the health insurance exchanges and to 

receive income-based subsidies to make this coverage affordable. 

The recent immigration reform discussions to 

date continue a long-term trend of giving short 

shrift to the legitimate health insurance and 

health care needs of our nation's immigrants, including coverage and care related to sexual and 

reproductive health. The outcome of the immigration reform debate is uncertain and the stakes are 

high for immigrants and U.S.-born citizens alike, 

but the time has come to define "comprehensive" reform to include more than issues of border security and citizenship. The human needsincluding health care--<lf immigrant women, 

men and children must also be embraced. The 

case for doing so-in the health and economic 

interests of immigrant families and in the shared 

public health and fiscal interest of the countryis compelling. www,guttmacher,ol'g 

REFERENCES 

1. Heberlein M et a!., Gettingimo Gear for 2014: Findings from a 

50-State Survey of Eligibitlty; Enrollment, Renewal, and Cost-Sharing 

Policies in Medicaid and CHIP, 2012-2013, Washjngton, DC: Kaiser 

Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, 2013, <http://V'I\NW.kff. 

org/medicaid/upload18401.pdf>, accessed Feb. 25, 2013. 

2. Migration Policy !nstitute, 2011 American Community Survey and 

Census Data on the foreign born by state, percent for.eign born by 

state (1990, 2000, and 2011), <http://vVW'N.migrationinformation.org/ 

datahub/acscensus.cfm>, accessed Mar. 1, 2013, 

3. Ross DC, New Citizenship Documentation Option for Medicaid 

and CHIP fs Up and Running: Data Matches with Social Security 

Admmistration Are Easing Burdens on Families and States, 2010, 

Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, <httpJ/V'I\NW. 

cbpp.org/f!les/4-20-10health,pdb, accessed Feb. 19, 2013. 

4. Passel J and Cohn D, Unauthorized Immigrants: 11.1 million in 2011, 

Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2012, <http://V'I\NW. 

pewhispanic.org/2012112106/unauthorized-immigrants·11-1· 

million·in-2011/>, accessed Feb. 28, 2012. 

5. Kells6r Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, Key Facts on 

Health Coverage for Low-Income Immigrants Today and Under Health 

Reform, 2012, <http://www.kff.org/uninsuredlupload/827Rpdf>, 

accessed Feb. 25, 2013. 

6. Special tabulations by the Guttmacher Institute of data from the 

2012 Current Population Survey. 

7. Misra D, ed., Women's Health Data Book: A ?roffle of Women'S 

Heafth m rhe United States, third ed., Washington, DC: Jacobs 

Institute of Women's Health and Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 

2001, <http://\IVWVV.kff.org!womenshealth/up!oad/Women-s-Health· 

Data·Book.pdb, accessed Feb. 25, 2013. 

8. Nationa! Institute for Reproductive Health, Safeguard and 

Expand the Rights of Immigrants to Reproductive Hea/rh Care, 

2009, <hnp:/Iwww.urbaninitiative.orglSlteContent/SUlticiDocs/ 

AgendaCh10!mmigrants.pdb, accessed Feb. 25, 2013. 

9, Passel J and Taylor P. Unauthonzed Immigrants and Their U.S,~Bo({j 

Children, Washmgton, DC: Pew Research Center, 2010, <http://vVW'N. 

pewhispanic.org/files/reports/125.pdb, accessed Feb. 25, 2013. 

10. Mote! S and Patten E, Statistical portrait of the foreign-born population in the United States, 2011, Washington, DC: Pew Research 

Center, 2013, <http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/01/29/statlsticalportrait--01-the~foreign·bom-popu!atfon·iMhe-u n ited-states-2011 ;., ac~ 

cessed Feb. 25, 2013. 
99 

11. Finer lB and Zolna MR, Unintended pregnancy in the United 

States: mcidence and disparities. 2006, Contraception, 2011, 

84(5):478-485. <http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs!]ournals/ 

j.contraceptlon.2011.07.13.pdf>, accessed Mar, 6, 2013. 

12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC Fact Sheet: 

Incidence, Prevalence, and Cost of Sexually Transmit1ed Infections 

in the United States, 2013, <http://www.cdc.gov/stdJstats/STIEstimates·Fact-Sheet·Feb-2013,pdf>, accessed Feb. 28, 2013. 

13. Guttmacher Institute, Testimony of Guttmacher Institute submitted to the Committee on PreventlVe Services for Women, Institute of 

Medicine, 2011, <http://wv..w.guttmacher.org}pubslCPSW·testimony, 

pdf::>, accessed Feb. 25, 2013. 

14. Committee to Study Outreach for Prenatal Care, Division of Health 

Promotion and Disease Prevention, Institute of Medicine, Prenatal 

Care: Reaching Mothers, Re13ching Infants, Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press, 1988, <www.nap.edu/catalog.php?recordjd=731>, 

accessed Mar. 6, 2013. 

15. U,S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health 

Resources and SerVices Administration, Maternal and Child Health 

Bureau, Child Health USA 2011, 2011, <mchb.hrsa.gov/chusal1/hsful 

pages/312pc.htmb, accessed Feb. 25, 2013. 

16. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), 

Health care for undocumented Immigrants, ACOG Committee 

Opinion, 2009, No. 425, <http://wv...w.acog.org/-/medja/ 

Committee%200pinions/Committee%20on%20Heaith%20Care%20 

for%20Underserved%20Women/co425.pdf?dmc=1&ts=2013022 

8T1218547043>, accessed Feb. 28, 2013. 

17, McGlade MS, Saha S and Dahlstrom ME, The latina paradox: 

an opportunity for restructunng prenatal care delivery, commentary, 

American Journal of Public Health, 2004, 94(2):2062-2065, <http:// 

WVIIw.ncbi.n.lm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448590/pdf/0942062.pdf>, 

accessed Mar. 6, 2013. 

18. livingston G and Cohn D, US Birth Rate Falls to a Record 

Low; Decline Is Greatest Among immigrants. Washington, DC: 

Pew Research Center, 2012, <http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/ 

files!2012/11/Bjrth_RateJinal.pdf>, accessed Feb. 28, 2013. 

19, Committee to Study the Prevention of low Birthweight, Division 

of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Institute of Medicine, 

Preventing Low Birthweight, Washington, DC: National Academy 

Press, 1985, <http://v..t.Nw.nap.edulcatalog.php?recordjd:511>, 

accessed Mar. 6.2013. 

20. Galewitz, P. Medicaid helps hospitals pay for !lIegal Immigrants' 

care, Kaiser Hearth News, Feb. 12, 2013, <http://www. 

kaiserhealth news .org/Stories/20 13/F e brua ry/13IMedlcajd-illegal~ 

immigrant-emergency-care.aspx>, accessed Feb. 25, 2013. 

21. DuBard CA and Massing M, Trends in emergency Medicaid 

expenditures for recent and undocumented immigrants, JAMA, 

2007, 297(10):1085-1092, <http:mama.jamanetwork.com/articie. 

aspx?artic!eid=206014>, accessed Feb. 25, 2013, 

22. Taylor P et aI., UnauthOrized Immigrants: Length of Residency, 

P13rterns of Parenthood, Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 

2011, <http://www.pewhispanic.org/filesJ2011/12/UnauthorizedCharacteristlcs.pdf>, accessed Feb. 25, 2013. 

23. Passel J and lopez MH, Up to 1.7 Million Unauthorized fmmigrant 

Youth May Benefit from New Deportation Rules. Washington, 

DC: Pew Research Center, 2012, <http://www,pewhispanic.org/ 

files!2012j12/unaLJthroizedjmmigrant_youth_update.pdf>. accessed 

Feb, 25, 2013. 

24. Passe! JS and Cohn D, Unauthorized fmmigrant Population: 

Nationa! and State Trends, 2010, Washington, DC: Pew Research 

Center, 2011, <httP'l/www.pewhlspanic.org/Wes/reports/133.pdf>, 

accessed Feb. 25, 2013. 

25. Sonfleld A et aL The public costs of births resufting from unintended pregnancies: national and state-level estimates, Perspoctives 

on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2011, 43(2):94-1 02, <http://wv...w. 

guttmacheLorg/pubs/psrh/full/4309411.pdf>, accessed Mar. 6, 2013. 

26. Nationa! Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 

COlJnting It Up: The Public Costs of Teen Childbean'ng: Key Data, 2011, 

<http://www.thenationaicampaign.org/costs/pdf/counting-lt-up/ 

key·data.pdh, accessed Feb. 25, 2013. 

27. Frost JJ, Henshaw SK and Sonfie!d A, Contraceptive Needs 

and Services, Nattonal and State Data, 2008 Update, New York: 

Guttmacher Institute, 2010, <http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/win/ 

contracepttve-needs-2008.pdf>, accessed Mar. 6, 2013. 

28. Lachance JR, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 

letter to Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President, N(ltlonaj Women's Law 

Center. Jan. 16, 2001. 

29, Washington Business Group on Health, Promoting Healthy 

Pregnancies: Counseling and Contraception as the First Step, 2000, 

<http://www. busi nes sgrotJ p health. org/pub/f31 3bfdf-2354-d7 1 4-5128-

e818e9583140>, accessed Mar. 6, 2013. 

30. Schleicher E, Immigrant Women and Cervical Cancer Prevention in 

the United States, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School 

of PublIC Health, 2007, <http://wv...w.jhsph,edu/research/centers-andinstitutes/womens-and-childrens-health-po!icy-center/publications! 

lmmigrantWomenCerDlncerPrevUS.pdb, (lccessed Feb. 25, 2013. 

31. Kaiser Family Foundation, Kaiser Health Trackmg Poll: Public 

Opinion on Health Care Issues, 2013, <http://v..t.Nw.kff.org/kaiserpo!ls/ 

upload/8418-F.pdf>, accessed Mar. 1, 2013. 

Winter 2013 j VolumB 16, Nurnber 1 ! Guttrnacher Policy Review 
100 

An Open Letter to President Obama and to All Members of Congress 

We urge you to create a humane and just immigration process that provides a clear roadmap to citizenship 

for the 11 million aspiring citizens and dignifies the individual and our nation by ensuring access to 

affordable health care and needed nutrition assistance. We believe that reform of our immigration system 

is a moral and economic imperative. This is true for the millions of aspiring citizens caught in the morass 

of a broken system; for those of us whose family, friends, neighbors, schools, congregations and 

communities include these individuals; and for achieving a stronger, more prosperous nation. 

It is well established that immigrants help fuel the U.S. economy with their hard work and 

entrepreneurship. They contribute to the national treasury and are needed to shore up Social Security 

and Medicare. Our population is aging and our labor force increasingly depends upon immigrants and 

their children. 

A new immigration system with a roadmap to citizenship will bring aspiring citizens out of the shadows so 

that they and their families may fully and equally participate in the life of our nation. Doing so not only 

will help immigrants but will profoundly benefit the community at large. It will enable economic growth 

and ground our national policy in the values we cherish. This is our opportunity to live up to our nation's 

promise of the unalienable rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." 

To acknowledge the inherent value and dignity of all human beings and to invest in our future, we must 

commit to ensuring their health and wellbeing. We ask our leaders to pass a national immigration law 

grounded in our most cherished principles. Such a policy will provide equal responsibility, and an equal 

opportunity to meet that responsibility, to all individuals living in the U.S. 

Immigration reform that reflects America's values and priorities will provide equality and dignity and 

will: 

:::J Help lift families out of poverty and promote economic security for alllow'income families. This 

investment in human capital will make for a stronger, more secure nation. 

o Reaffirm our nation's long"standing tradition of providing a core safety net for citizens and immigrants 

residing in the U.S. which will reinforce efforts to achieve national progress in health and nutrition. 

n Ensure access to key programs and public services that meet basic human needs, including health 

services and insurance, education, nutrition assistance, and working family tax credits. 

c Invest in robust efforts to integrate immigrants into their communities. 

:::J Ensure that all individuals have access to and pay their fair share for quality, affordable health care 

and receive medical care when they need it. 

National Groups 

Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum 

Church World Service 

CLASP 

Coalition on Human Needs 

First Focus 

National Immigration Law Center 

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health 

605 CITIZENSHIP PROJECT 

9t05 
101 

Advocacy and Training Center 

Advocates for Youth 

AFL·CIO 

AIDS Community Research Initiative of America 

AIDS United 

Alliance for a Just Society 

Alliance for Children and Families 

Alliance of Baptists 

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) 

American Federation of Teachers 

American Medical Student Association 

American Sexual Health Association 

America's Voice 

Anti· Defamation League 

Arab American Institute 

Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum 

Asian American Justice Center, Member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice 

Asian Pacific American Medical Student Association CAP AMSAl 

Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations 

Black Alliance for Just Immigration (BAJIl 

Bread for the World 

Breakthrough 

The CA Endowment 

Campaign for America's Future 

Campaign for Community Change 

Campaign to End AIDS 

CANN ·Community Access National Network 

The Center for APA Women 

Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc. 

Change Matrix LLC 

Children's Advocacy Institute 

Children's Health Fund 

Children's HealthWatch 

The Children's Partnership 

Church World Service 

Civil Liberties and Public Policy Program 

CLASP 

Coalition on Human Needs 

Committee of Interns and Residents' SEIU Healthcare 

Community Action Partnership 

Community Catalyst 

Congregation of St.Joseph 

David Ostrow & Associates 

Democratic Socialists of America 

Dignity Health 

The Episcopal Church 

The Episcopal Network for Economic Justice 

First Focus 

Food Research and Action Center 

Gilbert Law Office 

Health Care for America Now 

Hispanic Federation 

HIV Prevention Justice Alliance (HIV PJAl 

Hmong National Development 
102 

Immigrant Legal Resource Center 

Immigration Equality 

International Union, UAW 

Jewish Council for Public Affairs 

Justice and Peace Center A Ministry of the Sisters of St. Joseph-Concordia 

Keshet 

Khmer Health Advocates, In. 

Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA) 

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights 

Leadership Conference of Women Religious 

Legion of Mary 

LULAC 

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service 

Main Street Alliance 

Migrant Clinicians Network 

National Asian American Pacific Islander Mental Health Association 

National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum 

National Association of Council for Children 

National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems 

National Association of Social Workers 

National Black Gay Men's Advocacy Coalition 

National Center for Law and Economic Justice 

National Center for Transgender Equality 

National Community Tax Coalition 

National Council of Jewish Women 

National Council on Aging 

The National Crittenton Foundation 

National Education Association 

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force 

National Health Law Program 

National Hispanic Media Coalition 

National Immigration Law Center 

National Korean American Service and Education Consortium 

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health 

National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty 

National Minority AIDS Council 

National Senior Citizens Law Center 

National Women and AIDS Collective (NWAC) 

National Women's Health Network 

NETWORK, a National Catholic Social Justice Lobby 

Office ofImmigration and Refugee Resettlement (ABHMS) 

Office of Social Justice, Christian Reformed Church in North America 

Positive Women's Network- United States of Anlerica 

Project Inform 

Provincial Council of the Clerics of St. Viator (Viatorians) 

Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We Need 

Research Institute Without Walls 

RESULTS 

Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law 

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 

SFNewsfeed. us 

Single Stop USA 

Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia 

Sisters of the Holy Cross· Congregation Justice Committee 
103 

South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) 

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC) 

Treatment Action Group 

U.S.·EI Salvador Sister Cities 

UAW 

Union of Reform Judaism 

United for a Fair Economy 

United Mine Workers of America 

United Neighborhood Centers of America 

United Steelworkers 

United We Dream 

Viatorians 

Voices for America's Children 

World Education, Inc. 

StatelLocal Groups 

9to5 Atlanta 

9to5 California 

9to5 Colorado 

9to5 Milwaukee 

Action for Children North Carolina 

Advocacy for Justice and Peace Committee ofthe Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia 

Advocates for Children and Youth 

Advocates for Women 

Mrican Services Committee 

AFSCME3299 

AIDS Foundation of Chicago 

AIDS Legal Council of Chicago 

AIDS Resource Center Ohio 

Alameda Health Consortium 

Alianza del Pueblo 

Alivio Medical Center 

All Saints Episcopal Church, Pasadena, CA 

Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment 

Alliance of Filipinos for Immigrant Rights and Empowerment 

American Citizens for Justice/Asian American Center for Justice 

American Friends Service Committee of Western Massachusetts 

Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families 

Arkansas Marshallese Community 

Asian American Community Services 

Asian Counseling & Referral Service 

Asian Health Coalition 

Asian Human Services Family Health Center 

Asian Law Alliance 

Asian Law Caucus, member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice 

Asian Pacific American Legal Center 

Asian Services In Action, Inc. 

Asian"American Community Service Council 
104 

Association for Latino American Studies (ALAS) 

Bay Area Immigration Taskforce 

Bay Clinic, Inc. 

Berkshire Immigrant Center 

California Church IMPACT 

California Immigrant Policy Center 

California Latinas for Reproductive Justice 

California Pan-Ethnic Health Network 

California Primary Care Association 

Cal~ Islanders Humanitarian Association 

Canal Alliance 

CASA de Maryland 

Casa Latina 

Cascade AlDS Project 

Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago 

Center for Advocacy, Rights and Engagement 

Center for Civil Justice 

Center for Independent Living of South Florida, Inc. 

Center for Interfaith Encounter 

Center for Latino Progress - CPRF 

Center for Public Policy Priorities 

Central Ohio Immigrant Justice 

CEO Pipe Organs/Golden Ponds Farm 

Children Now 

Children's Alliance 

Christie's Place 

CIR NOW- Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Citizen Action of New York 

City ofHope 

Cleveland Chinese students and professional group 

CLUE Santa Barbara 

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLAl 

Code Pink - Wichita 

Collaborative Center for Justice 

Colorado Center on Law and Policy 

Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition 

Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights 

Communications Workers of America 

Communities Creating Opportunity 

Community Action Partnership of Utah 

Community Legal Services, Inc. 

Community Of Friends In Action 

Community Service Society of New York 

Comunidad Liberaci6n1Liberation Community 

Connecticut Multicultural Health Partnership 

CT Asian Pacific American Affairs Commission 
105 

Dallas Fort Worth Pride Movement 

Denali Family Services 

Developing & Empowering Latinos In America 

Dominican Development Center 

Dominican Sisters of Houston 

DRUM - Desis Rising Up & Moving 

Earth Mama Healing, Inc, 

East Central Illinois Refugee Mutual Assistance Center 

El CENTRO de Igualdad y Derechos 

El Quinto Sol De America 

Elba Central School 

Empire Justice Center 

Encuentro 

Entre Hermanos 

Episcopal Church of Our SaviourlIglesia de Nuestro Salvador 

Faith Caucus - IL CBHC 

Farmworker Association of Florida 

Filipino Advocates for Justice 

First Mexican Baptist Ch. 

Florida Legal Services, Inc. 

GALAEI 

Georgia Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition 

Georgia Rural Urban Summit 

Grace Lutheran Church 

Gray Panthers of San Francisco 

Greater Rochester Coalition for Immigration Justice 

Guam Communications Network 

The Hat Project 

Health Care For All New York 

HIAS Chicago 

HIAS Pennsylvania 

Hispanic Alliance of Tampa Bay 

Hispanic Community Dialogue Organization 

Hispanic Ministry Office 

HIV Law Project 

Housing Works 

Houston Community Services 

Iglesia Bautista 

Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights 

Illinois Conference UCC Immigration Task Force 

Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota 

Immigrant Service Providers GrouplHealth 

Immigration Advocacy Matters 

Immigration Rights Task Force ofthe Unitarian Society of New Haven 

Immigration Service and Aid Center (ISAAC) 

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement 
106 

Jewish Community Action 

Jones and Chao, P.C. 

Kentucky Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights 

Kentucky Equal Justice Center 

Kentucky Youth Advocates 

Kitsap Immigrant Assistance Center 

Kokua Kalihi Valley 

Ko'olauloa Community Health and Wellness Center 

Korean Community Center ofthe East Bay 

Korean Resource Center 

L.A Community Legal Center and Educational 

La Esperanza 

Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center 

Latin American Association 

Latino Coalition for a Healthy California 

Latino Community Roundtable 

Latino Education & Training Institute 

Libreria Del Pueblo, Inc. 

Lifelong AIDS Alliance 

Lifting Latina Voices Initiative 

Little Sisters of the Assumption Family Health Service 

Lowcountry Immigration Coalition 

LULAC Council # 7226 

LULAC· TAMPA 

Lupus Foundation of Northern California 

Make the Road New York 

Maria Sanchez' Ley Law Office 

Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition 

Massachusetts Law Reform Institute 

Maxwell Street Legal Clinic 

Migrant Support Services of Wayne Co. NY 

Minnesota AIDS Project 

Mississippi Immigrants Rights Alliance 

Modesto Peace/Life Center 

My Language link 

National Council of Jewish Women, Concordia Section 

National Council of Jewish Women, Los Angeles Section 

National Council of Jewish Women, Cleveland Section 

National Council of Jewish Women, Greater Houston Section 

National Council of Jewish Women, Illinois State Policy Advocacy Chair 

National Council of Jewish Women, Long Beach Section 

National Council of Jewish Women, Missouri State Policy Advocacy Chair 

National Council of Jewish Women, Peninsula Section 

National Council of Jewish Women, Rhode Island Section 

National Council of Jewish Women, Texas State Policy Advocacy CO'Chair 

National Council of Jewish Women, Utah Section 
107 

National Council of Jewish Women, Valencia Shores Section 

National Council of Jewish Women, Greater Detroit Section 

National Council of Jewish Women, California 

National Council of Jewish Women, St. Louis Section 

National Immigration Reform Advocates 

National Latino AIDS Action Network 

National Tongan American Society 

Nations of Micronesia Committee 

New Haven Peoples Center 

New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty 

New York Immigration Coalition 

New York Lawyers for the Public Interest 

New Yorkers for Accessible Healtb Coverage 

NH Alliance for Immigrants and Refugees 

NM Asian Family Center (NMAFC) 

NOELA Community Health Center 

North Carolina Council of Churches 

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project 

Ohio AIDS Coalition 

Ohio Asian American Health Coalition 

OneAmerica 

Open Door Clinic 

Oregon New Sanctuary Movement 

Pacific Islander Cancer Survivors Network 

Pacific Islander Health Partnership 

Pax Christi DuPage County 

Pennsylvania Council of Churches 

PICO California 

Pilgrim Congregational DCC 

Prevention Point Philadelphia 

Reformed Church of Highland Park, NJ 

The River Fund 

San Diego Hunger Coalition 

San Ysidro Health Center 

Services for tbe Advancement ofWomen"SEPA Mujer 

Servicios de La Raza 

Sierra Italia, Inc. 

Silicon Valley Alliance for Immigration Reform 

Sisters of Mercy West Midwest Justice Team 

Skagit Immigrant Rights Council 

Social Justice Ministry of Sacred Heart Catholic Church 

St Louis Inter-Faith Committee on Latin America 

Street Level Health Project 

Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition 

Triumph Treatment Services 

Unitarian Universalist Congregation of the Lowcountry 
108 

United Church of Christ 

Unity Fellowship of Christ Church NYC in Brooklyn 

University of Colorado 

University of Hawaii 

UNO Federation Community Services 

Virginia Organizing 

Vision y Compromiso 

Voces de la Frontera 

Waimanalo Health Center 

Washington Community Action Network! 

Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights 

Wayne Action for Racial Equality 

Weber County Democrats 

Westchester for Change 

Western Center on Law and Poverty 

Wisconsin Council on Children and Families 

WV FREE Advocates for Reproductive Health, Rights and Justice 

Xaverian Brothers 

Yakutat Healthy Community Coalition 

YWCA Tulsa-Immigrant Program 
109 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HIRONO 

Hearing before the Senate Committee on the JUdiciaI)' 

"How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs of Women and Families" 

Monday, March 18,2013 

Good afternoon, eveI)'one. I am pleased to call to order this hearing of the Senate Committee on 

the Judiciary. This hearing is titled, "How comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs 

of Women and Families." It will be an opportunity to learn about how immigration impacts women and 

families, as we begin to consider the ways in which we will reform our immigration laws. 

I'd like to welcome each of the witnesses, and Senator Franken for joining us today. 

I would like to thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley, and their staffs, for making 

this hearing possible. 

The debate on immigration reform has often focused on the needs of the business community. 

Despite the fact that immigrant women are about as likely to have a bachelor's degree as immigrant men, 

and women make up 51% of migrants in the U.S., employment based visas go to men over women 3-to-1. 

As a result, women are far more likely to immigrate to this countI)' under the family-based system. 

But this often means that they are here as dependent spouses without the ability to work legally. 

As we look to reform our immigration laws, we must consider how women and families will be 

affected. Historically, women have been treated as unequal in our immigration system, with citizenship 

tied to their husbands. In fact, 100 years ago, if a U.S. citizen woman married a non-citizen she could lose 

her citizenship. 

I know firsthand that immigration is a women's issue and a family issue. 

My mother brought my brother and me to this countI)' when I was a young girl to escape a terrible 

marriage at the hands of my father. 

He was an alcoholic and compulsive gambler. I did not get to know him much. 

Instead of watching our family continue to suffer, my mother made the courageous decision to seek 

a better life for us. 

She plotted and plal1l1ed in secret, and when I was nearly 8 years old ... 

We literally escaped to this place called Hawaii and this countI)' called America. 

It's from my own experience as an immigrant that I believe immigration reform should make the 

family immigration system stronger, not weaker. 

And we should not ignore the challenges immigrant women face. 

The purpose of this hearing is to look at these challenges, and how we should correct these 

problems in the debate on Comprehensive Immigration Reform. 

We will hear about immigrant women in the workplace, and the problems of exploitation that they 

often suffer. We will hear about the importance of family immigration to our communities and our 

economy. And we will hear about how Comprehensive Immigration Reform should address the integration 

of undocumented women and children to fully participate in society. I look forward to a great discussion. 
110 

Statement Submitted by 192 Immigrant and Victim Advocacy Organizations 

Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, March 18, 2013: 

"How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs of Women and Families" 

March 15,2013 

We, the undersigned 192 national, regional, state and local organizations that assist and advocate on 

behalf of immigrant survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking in the 

United States, as well as refugee and immigrant women fleeing violence in other countries and seeking 

safe haven in the United States, write in support of the Senate Judiciary Committee's focus on 

concerns of women and families in comprehensive immigration reform (CrR), and to urge particular 

attention to key issues of vital concern to the courageous survivors we represent. At this moment, 

Congress has a unique opportunity to enact meaning,ful reforms to a broken immigration system and 

provide essential protections for those immigrants who are most vulnerable. Indeed, many immigrants 

find themselves in abusive or exploitative situations in their homes and workplaces due to their lack of 

immigration status, Abusive partners, opportunistic predators, and manipulative employers often 

exploit a victim's lack of immigration status, or dependent immigration status, as a way to maintain 

power and control and to keep victims silent. While immigration remedies provided under the 

Violence Against Women Act (VA WA), the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and US asylum laws 

may help some, clarifying and strengthening these forms of protection so that no survivor falls through 

the cracks is urgently needed. Additionally, comprehensive immigration reform is needed to help 

prevent this vulnerability to abuse and exploitation in the first place. Reforms are also imperative to 

enable the United States to live up to its domestic and international protection obligations, and to 

reassert our country's leadership globally as a nation of compassionate, well-reasoned, and above all, 

just, laws. 

As advocacy organizations and victim services providers, we believe that any comprehensive 

immigration reform effort must be particularly mindful ofthe needs of survivors of domestic violence, 

sexual assault, human trafficking and other gender-based human rights abuses, There continue to be 

obstacles and barriers to access immigration relief and other protections and assistance for immigrant 

survivors that we urge Congress to address through comprehensive immigration reform, most notably 

through expanding opportunities for law enforcement to enlist help from immigrant victims of crimes, 

supporting immigrant survivors in their efforts to achieve self-suffieiency, clarifying the availability of 

asylum protection for those who flee gender-based persecution, and ensuring that immigration 

enforcement reforms do not impede the access of survivors of violence to life-saving protections. 

Increased attention to preventing violence and exploitation is also needed, including greater access to 

vital information about rights and resources for all immigrants, as well as greater regulation of foreign 

labor recruiters and other systems responsible for labor migration. 

We preview below just a few of the important priorities for refugee and immigrant women facing 

violence that we urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to take up in the context of comprehensive 

immigration reform, and look forward to working further with you to address additional acute 

concerns: 
111 

1. Enhancing Law Enforcement's Ahility to Enlist Help from Crime Victims. 

For the third year in a row, 10,000 crime victims and their children have received U visas, exhausting 

the annual cap (set by Congress in 2000) before the end of the fiscal year. I Tens of thousands of law 

enforcement officials across the country in the years since the U visa was established have been helped 

by noncitizen victims of crimes who bravely came out of the shadows to report crimes and assist in 

investigations and prosecutions, helping enhance victim and community safety and hold all 

perpetrators accountable. These victims have risked brutal retaliation from abusers and perpetrators, 

but have bcen reassured by the U visa that they at least might be protected from deportation. USCIS 

Director Alejandro Mayorkas has stated that, "the U-visa is an important tool aiding law enforcement 

to bring criminals to justice. At the same time, we are able to provide immigration protection to 

victims of crime and their families. Both benefits are in the intcrest of the public we serve."z 

The U visa and T visa (for victims of trafficking) arc essential tools for combating crime and 

improving community outreach and policing, getting perpetrators off the streets and making not only 

the immigrant victims upon whom they prey, but also the whole community, safer.3 For this reason, 

Congress should strengthen the U and T visa programs through comprehensive immigration refonn, 

empowering more victims to come forward by encouraging law enforcement in their use ofT and U 

visa certifications and expanding the number of U visas available on an annual basis. More visas are 

needed, prccisely because the program is working as intended, to encourage immigrant help-seeking 

and crime-reporting, and perpetrator-accountability. In the T -visa context, too few visas are being 

granted to this vulnerable population, and Congress needs to look seriously at reforming the T -visa 

application system to ensure that trafficking survivors are able to access and receive this important 

form ofrelief.4 

2. Supporting Survivors' Self-Sufficiency; Removing Dependence on Abusers and Other 

Vulnerabilities to Further Victimization 

Currently, survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking are experiencing 

significant delays in the processing of their VAWA, U visa and T visa applications. For example, it 

can take upwards of 15-18 months for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to 

adjudicate a VAWA self-petition.5 Such long waits for the adjudication of their cases, coupled with 

other debilitating constraints (a lack of access to work authorization or other financial supports, and 

lack of adequate access to public assistance, including public housing) can be devastating to survivors 

who face dire personal and economic hardship, and may possibly place them in the unconscionable 

position of having to return to violent homes. In fact, domestic violence is a leading cause of 

homelessness for women, as abusers are often the ones in control of financial resources. 6 This issuc is 

compounded for immigrant survivors who may not be eligible for financial supports or other resources 

I On August 21. 2012, USCIS recently announced that the agency approved the statutory maximum of 10,000 petitions for U 

nonimmigrant status. USCIS, Press Release. USClS Reaches Milestone for Third Straight Year: 10,000 U Visas Approved in Fiscal 

Year 2012, available at h!!P.;!Z~:y.\\:y~'_,!!s.£j,,~,g9Y/!1~~Y~ 

2 Id. 

3 USC1S. "Information for Law Enforcement Officials~Immigration Relief for Victims of Trafficking and other Individuals" available at: 

Q!tp~{[}!~w. U~~ili.gQ~'Jll.~J;J~L~.~.~9_!:!.~.~.~!'U.!lJ1t@i~_{lIi~~Jtl!~~_4.!!~D.~fi~~ ,~.n,~_1ksOUTf.~s/T1,LQAfQIIo.!ljy~fQI9~m~!:.illif 

4 For example in 2011, USCIS granted 557 T-visas were granted to survivors although 5,000 are available annually. See 2012 U.S. 

Department of State Trafficking in Persons Report, pg 362, available at: http://www.state.gov/doeuments/organizationl192598.pdf 

5 The processing time listed on USCIS website for 1-360 VAWA self-petition at the Vermont Service Center is June 5, 2011, over a 1.5 

year wait for adjudication of the application. https:/legov.uscis.gov/crisiprocessTimesDispiavInit.do. Advocates among the signatories to 

this letter report VAWA self-petitions filed as early as December 2010 that are still pending, 

I) Futures without Violence. "The Facts on Housing and Violence," available at: 

http://www.futureswithoutvioience.org!userfiles/file/Children and Families/facts housing dv.pdf 

2 
112 

to assist them and are economically dependent on abusers if they are ineligible for work authorization 

because of their lack of immigration status. 

The profound ripple effects of processing delays and the inability to achieve self-sufficiency or access 

social safety-net supports can subject victims of crime to additional risks of violence, exploitation, and 

manipulation, including the loss of custody of their children, 

For this reason, we urge Congress to address the lack of access to work authorization and other 

financial supports for VA W A, U and T visa applicants whose applications may be pending for a year 

or longer, and to remove other barriers to accessing critical resources to enable battered immigrants to 

escape violent homes. 

3. Protection for Survivors of Gender-Based Violence Seeking Refuge in the United States 

The availability of asylum in the United States for women fleeing gender-based persecution - such 

fundamental human rights abuses as domestic violence (severe, sustained and unaddressed by the 

authorities in their home countries), rape (including as a weapon of war), human trafficking, female 

genital mutilation, "honor" crimes, and forced marriage - urgently needs to be affirmed and the legal 

standards clarified. Women fleeing such human rights violations should have access to refugee 

protection. 

Without clarity around gender-based asylum, women and girls around the country face inconsistent 

and adverse decisions on their applications, or lengthy adjudication delays and appeals - in fact, some 

of the women and their children whose very lives hang in the balance of the critical clarity we urgently 

seek have been left in limbo for well over a decade. Women and girls seeking asylum have often 

rejected cultural norms or practices (such as female genital mutilation or forced marriage) that make 

them unable to access help from their own families and communities, isolating them from the most 

common support and guidance systems available to other refugees or immigrants seeking protection in 

the United States and making their survival during prolonged adjudications that much more difficult 

and dangerous. Immigration reform must address this long-languishing field oflaw and ensure 

obstacles are removed to give women and girls the meaningful ability to access protection. 

4. Survivors and Enforcement Efforts 

We urge Congress to reject enforcement-related proposals that would create new obstacles, or 

exacerbate existing hurdles, for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking and 

other violent abuses. Without adequate protections and supports for victims of crime, there will be a 

"chilling effect" on survivors, preventing them from accessing protections to keep themselves and their 

families safe and to seek justice for crimes committed against them. 

Conclusion 

We strongly support the Senate Judiciary Committee's efforts to seek comprehensive immigration 

reform, and urge you to prioritize the necd to protect immigrant women and their families from 

violence and exploitation. 

SIGNED 

3 
113 

Natignal Coalitjons and Qrgapizatjons 

9t05 

Advocates for Youth 

America's Voice Education Fund 

American Association of University Women (AAUW) 

Americans for Immigrant Justice 

Asian Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence 

ASISTA Immigration Assistance 

Break the Cycle 

Breakthrough 

Casa de Esperanza: National Latin@ Nctwork for Healthy Families and 

Communities 

Center for Gender and Refugee Studies 

Center for Women Policy Studies 

Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc. 

Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking 

Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs 

FaithTrust Institute 

First Focus 

Forward Together 

Futures Without Violence 

Immigration Equality Action Fund 

Institute for Science and Human Values 

Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community 

Jewish Women International 

Kids In Needs of Defense (KIND) 

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) 

Legal Momentum 

Media Equity Collaborative 

Mil Mujeres 

National Alliance to End Sexual Violence 

National Association of Commissions for Women 

National Center for Victims of Crime 

National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women 

National Coalition Against Domestic Violence 

National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs 

National Congress of Black Women, Inc. 

National Council of Jewish Women 

National Council of Women's Organizations 

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund 

National Immigrant Justice Center 

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health 

National Legal Aid and Defender Association 

National Network to End Domestic Violence 

National Organization for Women 

National Organization of API Ending Sexual Violence 

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence 

4 
114 

National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence 

OneAmerica 

Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We Need 

Tahirih Justice Center 

The Advocates for Human Rights 

U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants 

UltraViolet 

United Mcthodist Women 

V-Day 

Women of Color Network 

Women's Rcfugee Commission 

YWCA USA 

Regjonal Qrganizations 

Asian Pacific Islander Lcgal Outreach 

East Bay Sanctuary Covenant 

IAMCHOICE 

Kansas City Anti-Violence Project 

Lutheran Social Services of New England 

Lydia's House 

Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition 

Pisgah Legal Services- Mountain Violence Prevention Project 

Southern Poverty Law Center 

Turning Anger into Change 

Women's Law Project 

State Qrganizatjons 

ACCESS Women's Health Justice 

Advocates for Women 

Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violencc 

Arkansas Coalition Against Sexual Assault 

Arkansas National Organization for Women 

AsianlPacific Islander Domestic Violence Resource Project 

California National Organization for Women 

California Partnership to End Domestic Violence 

Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault 

Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services 

Consejo- Mi Casa Transitional Housing Program 

Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence 

Delaware Coalition Against Domestic Violence 

Delaware Department of Justice 

Florida Council Against Sexual Violence 

Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence 

Idaho Coalition Against Sexual & Domestic Violence 

I1linois Coalition Against Domestic Violence 

Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault 

I1linois National Organization for Women 

5 
115 

hnmigration Center for Women and Childrcn 

Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault 

Justice For Our Neighbors - Nebraska 

Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence 

Kathlynne Ramirez, Esq. LLC 

Kentucky Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights 

Kentucky Domestic Violence Association 

La Esperanza Health Counseling Services 

Latinas Unidas por un Nuevo Amanecer (L.U.N.A.) 

Maryland National Organization for Women 

Michigan National Organization for Women 

MMG Law, Wisconsin 

Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence 

Monsoon United Asian Women of Iowa 

Montana National Organization for Women 

Network for Victim Recovery of DC 

Nevada Nctwork Against Domestic Violence 

New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault 

New York State Coalition Against Sexual Assault 

Nisaa African Womcn's Program 

No More Deaths 

North Carolina Coalition Against Sexual Assault 

Ohio Domestic Violence Network 

Ohio National Organization for Women 

Project S.A.R.A.H. 

Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence 

South Carolina Victim Assistance Network 

Students Working for Equal Rights 

The Texas Council on Family Violence 

UNIDOS Against Domestic Violence 

Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence 

Virginia National Organization for Women 

Virginia Poverty Law Center 

Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violencc Action Alliance (VSDVAA) 

Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs 

Washington Defender Association's Immigration Project 

Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence 

WEAVER 

West Virginia Foundation for Rape Information and Services 

Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence 

Women Watch Afrika, Inc. 

Women's Law Center of Maryland 

Worker Justice Center of New York 

Wyoming Coalition Against DV/SA 

African Services Committee 

Alexandra House, Inc. 

Alternatives to Domestic Violence 

Local Organizatjons 

6 
116 

Anna Marie's Alliance 

Bluff Country Family Resources, Inc. 

Capstone Counseling Center 

Casa de Esperanza 

Catholic Charities on North East Kansas 

Community Solutions 

Crisis Intervention Center 

Dady & Hoffinann LLC 

Domestic Abuse Project 

Durham hnmigrant Solidarity Committee 

East End National Organization for Women 

Enlace Comunicario 

Family Counseling Center of St. Paul's 

Family Crisis Center, Inc. 

Family Service Madison 

First Pittsburgh Chapter, National Organization for Women 

Freeborn County Crime Victims Crisis Center 

GaDuGi SafeCenter 

Human Rights Initiative of North Texas 

Just Neighbors 

Lakes Crisis and Resource Center 

Liberal Area Rape Crisis and Domestic Violence 

Montgomery County Commission for Women 

Mosaic Family Services 

MUJER 

My Sister's House 

National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum-DC Chapter 

New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project 

Ni-Ta-Nee National Organization for Women 

North Dallas Chapter of National Organization for Women 

Northern Manhattan hnprovement Corporation 

Options: Domestic and Sexual Violence Services 

Pauli Murray Project 

Palm Beach County National Organization for Women 

Public Counsel 

SAFEHOME 

SafeHouse Center 

SCSU Women's Center 

SEP A Mujer Inc 

Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network 

Sexual Assault Recovery Program 

Sojourner House 

Squirrel Hill National Organization for Women 

The Aurora Center 

The Nurtured Parent Support Group for Survivors of Domestic Abuse TriCity Community Action Program, Inc. 

Victim Resource Center of the Finger Lakes, Inc. 

Violence Intervention Program 

Voices Against Violence 

Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights 

7 
117 

Waypoint 

Wild Iris 

WOMAN Inc 

Women's Resource Center, Pennsylvania 

Womenspace 

YWCA Domestic Violence Shelter and Sexual Assault Program, Iowa 

YWCA of Binghamton and Broome County, New York 

This statement was prepared by a national committee of leading experts on existing protections - and protection 

gaps ~ in US laws affecting refugee and immigrant women survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, 

human trafficking, and gender-based persecution, including ASISTA Immigration Assistance, Casa de 

Esperanza: National Latin@ Networkfor Healthy Families and Communities, The Center for Gender and 

Refugee Studies, The Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking (CAST), National Immigrant Justice Center, 

National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, Tahirih Justice Center and the Washington State 

Coalition Against Domestic Violence. 

For more information, please contact Cecelia Levin with ASISTA Immigration Assistance at 

Cf!felia@asistQhf!~,.gor Jeanne Smoot with the Tahirih Justice Center atj§Qnne@tahirih.org. 

8 
118 

Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota 

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Testimony 

"How Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Should Address the Needs of Women and Families" 

March 21, 2013 

Dear Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: 

The Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota (ILCM) was founded in 1976 as Ojicina Legal, a program of 

Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services (SMRLS). Ojicina Legal established itself as a separate 

501(c)(3) nonprofit in 1996 due to federal restrictions on legal aid offices. The agency was later 

renamed to reflect the increasing diversity of the immigrant population it served. Over the last decade 

ILCM has established itself as Minnesota's premier provider of comprehensive immigration legal 

services to low-income clients of all nationalities. 

We write today to thank you for holding a hearing on "How Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Should Address the Needs of Women and Families," and to share with you our recommendations on 

this important issue. 

For women to be completely free and able to chart the course of their own lives, they must be able to 

determine not just whether and when to create family, but where to create family. 

Furthermore, they must have access to the resources they need in order to care for their own 

reproductive health and raise their families with dignity and respect. Women who are aspiring citizens 

are excluded from public health benefits, and thus face barriers to caring for their own reproductive 

health and to plan their families. All legal immigrants are barred from eligibility for Medicaid, SCHIP, 

and other means-tested federal benefits for the first five years that they live in the United States. This 

arbitrary and harmful restriction denies women access to critical reproductive health care, including 

contraception, cervical cancer screening, and prenatal care. Moreover, while the landmark health 

reform law will give many women increased access to contraception and other reproductive health care, 

a significant portion of those who will remain uninsured are immigrant women, due to restrictions on 

immigrant eligibility for new or expanded coverage options. Women should also be able to care as best 

they can for the health and wellbeing of their children, with the comfort of knowing that they will be 

not be torn away from their children and that they can afford to take their sons and daughters to 

doctor's visits. 

The Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota knows it is not about what you look like or where you were 

born, but how you live your life and what you do that defines you here in America. The contributions of 

immigrant women have always been vital for our society to grow and flourish. We know our country is 

strongest when women are healthy, safe, and able to care for their children and families. Truly effective 

immigration policy reform should value and honor women and their contributions. 

We call on legislators to support immigration reform that ensures women have the resources they 

need to make their own personal decisions about their reproductive health, their families, and 
119 

their lives. To that end, the following are our recommendations for how comprehensive 

immigration policy reform can address the needs of women and families. 

I. Immigrant women need a fair and equitable roadmap to citizenship. 

Any roadmap to citizenship and integration must be open, affordable, safe, and accessible to all 

immigrant women, including those whose work is in the home and those who are employed in 

the informal economy. A roadmap to citizenship that conditions eligibility on participation in the 

formal labor market disadvantages immigrant women, who are more likely to work in the 

informal sector. For example, many immigrant women are domestic workers I, farm laborers, nail 

salon workers, and homemakers. Immigrant women must be afforded equal employment-based 

migration opportunities and workplace protections so that they may safely pursue economic 

opportunity and support their families with dignity and pride. Our immigration system has 

historically been unfair to women, but now we have an opportunity to change it into one that 

recognizes the unique realities and contributions of women's lives. A truly equitable system will 

place just as much value on women as it does on men. Any proposed pathway to citizenship must 

place equal value on the contributions of women. 

II. We need to keep immigrant women and their families together. 

Immigration reform must protect the right of all families to stay together, regardless of 

immigration status, family structure, sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. In 

addition, immigration policies must be modernized to provide sufficient family-based channels 

for migration in the future. Enforcement, detention, and deportation programs that compromise 

immigrant women's safety, violate their civil, human, and due process rights, and tear families 

apart must be replaced by sensible and sufficient legal channels for migration that adequately 

meet family and labor demands and respect women and their families. 

Millions of families are at risk of being tom apart. Currently,S.! million children live in mixedlegal status families. Four million of these children are U.S. citizens. 2 The growth of mixedstatus families, combined with a lack of sufficient legal channels for migration, means that more 

families than ever are at risk of being separated for years or even permanently. In fact, between 

July 2010 and September 2012, the U.S. deported more than 205,000 parents of U.S. citizen 

children.3 

Family separation burdens local government. When parents are detained or deported, children 

are at risk of ending up in the child welfare system. The Applied Research Center in November 

2011 conservatively estimated that 5,100 children in foster care had parents who had been 

detained or deported. That number is expected to grow to 15,000 over the next five years." We 

must alleviate the unnecessary burden on states by permitting parents to care for their children. 

1 Domestic Workers United. Home is Where the Work Is: Inside New York's Domestic Work Industry, Domestic Workers United and DataCenter. 

July 2006. Available at http://\'.'WW.domestkworkersunited.org/index,phpien/componentijdov.nloadslfinishl3/4. 

2 Passell, Taylor P. Unauthorized Immigrants and T1wir US.-Born Children. Pew Hispanic Center, August 2010, Available at 

http://\\''ww.newhisPanic.org/20JO/OS/ll/unauthorized-immigrants~and-their-us-bom-childrenl Accessed March 13,2013. 

3 Wessler SR. Primary Data: Deportations of Parents of U.S. Citizen Kids. Colorlines. December 17,2012. Available at 

http://l."oloriines.com/archivesI2012/12/deportations of parents of us-born dtizens 122012.htmt Accessed Febrmuy 4. 2013. 

4 Applied Research Center. Shattered Families: The Perilous intersec#on a/Immigration Enforcement and the Child Welfare System. November 

2011, Available at http://arc.org/shatteredfamilies. Accessed February 4, 2013, 

2 
120 

The lack of legal opportunities for families to be together incentivizes unlawful migration and 

encourages deported parents to return and reunite with their children. A smart immigration 

system is one that values and prioritizes family unity. When parents get involved with the 

immigration enforcement system, they often lose any say in how their children are cared for. 

Detained parents are held far from their children. They may be unable to participate in the 

reunification plans necessary to regain custody of children who end up in foster care, and they 

are often denied meaningful access to child custody hearings. A humane and cost-effective 

immigration system would protect parents' constitutionally-protected rights to determine the care 

and custody of their children. 

Children are better off with their parents. Being undocumented does not make someone an unfit 

parent, and parental rights should only be terminated in cases of verified abuse and neglect. 

Judges need discretion to keep families together. Heavy-handed detention and deportation 

policies have tied the hands of immigration judges. Judges should be able to exercise discretion 

so that parents do not have to be deported unnecessarily. 

III. We need to advance health equity for immigrant women. 

Immigration reform must advance all immigrant women's access to health care and other family 

economic support. Such services and benefits include comprehensive health coverage and care 

and legal and social services that promote equality of opportunity, integration, and the ability to 

make decisions regarding reproductive and sexual health and the well-being of the family. 

Immigrant women and families work hard, pay taxes, and are committed to being in America. 

They should be able to pay their fair share for health care and should be included in our health 

care system, just like everyone else. They should not be excluded from health care simply 

because of their immigration status. When our families and our workforce are healthy, we all 

benefit. 

Investing in health is common sense - and makes good fiscal sense. By and large, immigrants 

are younger and healthier than the American population as a whole' - allowing them to 

participate in our health insurance systems and risk pools makes is a good economic decision for 

the country. When immigrant women and families do not have health care, the need for medical 

attention does not go away. Immigrant families without health insurance may either delay 

treatment for preventable disease, leading to higher costs and greater suffering, or seek care 

through under-resourced and expensive emergency systems. A healthy workforce means a 

stronger economy. Good health care is essential to workers' productivity and the opportunity for 

women and families to realize their full potential. If immigrant women are healthy, they are 

better able to support their family economically and contribute to the success of their children. 

For an immigrant woman, being able to protect her health and care for her family is the first step 

to full social, economic, and civic integration into the American community. When moms are 

healthy, their families benefit. 

Restrictions and other arbitrary delays that are often imposed on immigrants' access to benefits 

are also costly and inhumane. Many immigrant women are unable to obtain affordable health due 

5 leighton Ku. Health Insurance Coverage and Medical Expenditures of Immigrants and Native-Born Citizens in the United States. 

American Journal of Public Health. July 2009; Vol 99 (7): pp. 1322-1328. 

3 
121 

to limitations resulting from their immigration status, such as the current 5-year bar on Medicare 

and Medicaid for lawful permanent residents, and the exclusion of undocumented immigrants in 

health insurance exchanges. Women and families should not be forced to wait five years for 

health care: five years is a lifetime to a child, and may make the difference between life and 

death for a woman suffering from breast or cervical cancer. Health coverage can mean the 

difference between preventing or treating conditions that can affect development throughout life, 

and leaving those conditions undetected and untreated. Removing the five-year bar for lawful 

permanent residents and those on the road map to citizenship will give them the same opportunity 

to pay their share and access health care as their friends and neighbors. 

Today's laws are overly complex, confusing, and restrictive. A patchwork of state and federal 

policies limiting access to health care and family economic support creates confusion. For 

example, a single family could have members with five different kinds of eligibility for health 

care depending on their immigration status. As a result, this "chilling effect" discourages even 

qualified recipients from accessing support.6 No mother should have to navigate different health 

insurance systems for every single child, or choose which of her children gets health care. We 

need a system that works for families and ensures that women and kids get the care they need. 

Anyone could get hurt or sick. and so everyone should have access to basic health care. No one 

should live in fear that because they lack health coverage or live in world where one accident or 

illness could threaten their entire family's economic security. Access to affordable, quality 

health care is a widely-shared goal. Medical coverage plays a crucial role in health and wellbeing, and all Americans should have access. 

IV. Conclusion and Recommendations 

As Congress considers proposals to reform current immigration laws, it is vital that the 

experiences of immigrant women are part of the equation. There is no doubt that the patchwork 

system that is now in place has hindered our progress as a country. The contributions of 

immigrant women have been and should continue to be allowed to grow - it is good for 

communities and it is good for the country. 

In order to address the unique challenges that immigrant women face on the path to become full 

citizens of the U.S., The Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota urges Congress to adopt a holistic 

approach through the following recommendations: 

(I) Provide a fair, accessible, and affordable pathway to citizenship to all immigrants and, in 

particular, ensure that those who work in informal sectors of the economy can participate in 

this process. 

(2) Promote keeping immigrant families and children together, specifically by increasing familybased immigrant visas; alleviating current family-based immigrant visa backlogs; ending 

discrimination against same-sex partners under family immigration laws; allow Immigration 

Judges to exercise discretion in deportation cases that will result in family separation; and 

6 Huang P. Anchor Babies, Over~Breeders and the Population Bomb: The Reemergence o/Nativism and Population Control in Anti-lmmigration 

Policies, Harvard Law and Policy Review. 2008; Voll. Available at http://www.hlpronline.com/Huang HLPR.pdf! Accessed January 12,2013. 

4 
122 

(3) Protect constitutionally-protected rights to determine the care and custody of their children 

for parents facing deportation. 

(4) Advance health equity for immigrant women, including ensuring full access to the Affordable Care 

Act regardless of immigration status and lifting the five-year bar on Medicare and other meanstested federal benefits for legal permanent residents. 

Again, thank you for taking the time to hear from advocates for women on this issue. We hope 

you will take into consideration our recommendations as the dialogue continues around how to 

fix our broken immigration system. 

Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota 

450 S}ndicate St. N., Suite 175 

St. Paul, MN 55104 

(651) 641-1011 

Fax: (651) 641-1131 

www.ilcm.org 
123 

IMPRINT Professional Integration 

March 18,2013 

TO: The Honorable Mazie Hirono; Members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee 

RE: Testimony of IMPRINT to US Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on "How 

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs of Women and Families." 

FROM: Nikki Cicerani, spokesperson for IMPRINT (contact@imprintproject.org, 212-219-

8828); and executive director of Upwardly Global 

IMPRINT appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee 

on the topic of "How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs of 

Women and Families." 

IMPRINT is a national coalition of nonprofits working to support the successful integration of 

skilled immigrants into American society. Our member organizations provide a range of 

education and workforce services to internationally educated, skilled immigrants who are un- or 

under-employed. 

It is vital that Comprehensive Immigration Reform be truly comprehensive. That means ensuring 

that mechanisms are in place to economically integrate immigrants who are already present in 

the US, as well as those who may arrive in the future. 

It is in our nation's interest to fully incorporate immigrant women who have brought with 

them a wealth of skill and experience gained in their home countries. Yet today, women who 

were educated abroad as doctors, scientists, engineers and other professionals are too often 

working as cashiers, housekeepers and nannies. 

This so-called "mal-employment" has been extensively documented by the eminent labor 

economists Dr. Paul Harrington and Dr. Neeta Fogg of Drexel University.1 

More than simply a labor-market phenomenon, mal-employment (also called skill underutilization) has consequences for real people. People like Alba, a psychologist from Mexico, 

and Celina, an information technology professional from Colombia.2 

These women are bright, talented and too often limited by the challenges of navigating 

complex and hard-to-find pathways back to their professional careers. Alba spent years working 

l Mal-Employment Problems Among College-Educated Immigrants in the United States. Fogg, Neeta, and P. 

Harrington. 2012: Drexel University Center for Labor Markets & Policy. Viewable at: 

http://lincs.ed.gov Iprofessional-developmentlresource-collections/profile-153 

2 First names used for privacy. 
124 

IMPRINT Professional Integration 

as a house cleaner after she came to the U.S.; Celina struggled to obtain even a first American 

job. 

When women like Alba and Celina are effectively forced to take employment in lower-wage 

positions, the consequences are felt far beyond their own families. Our society loses the 

opportunity to benefit from their full talents, women workers lose the chance to reclaim their 

professional identities and contribute at the highest levels, and families lose vital income (and 

often health benefits) as mothers are trapped in low-level jobs. 

It doesn't have to be this way. There are proven strategies that can help women immigrants 

to lift themselves and their families out of poverty and establish themselves in the middle class. 

These "immigrant integration" services have been honed over the past decade by organizations 

such as IMPRINT member Upwardly Global, which helps skilled immigrants to prepare for the 

US professional labor market through activities such as mock interviewing, workforce 

acculturation, and more. 

IMPRINT members have seen firsthand what a difference it can make when skilled 

immigrants receive the right intervention. Brief, targeted services helped Celinda learn how to 

present her skills to a US employer. Today she is employed as a Systems Integration Consultant 

at Accenture. 

A similarly focused process helped Alba move from cleaning houses back into the field of 

psychology. Today she works as a counselor for survivors of domestic violence. 

These two success stories are powerful examples of how immigrant women - and the 

employers and communities that welcome them can benefit from appropriate "immigrant 

integration" services. (Learn more about promising practices in this area from the IMPRINT 

publication Talent is Ready, available at www.imprintproject.org.) 

But IMPRINT and its member organizations are only able to reach a fraction of the over I 

million college-educated immigrants nationwide3 who are underutilized. We can't do it alone 

and the good news is, we don't have to. There is strong interest from public and private 

partners around the country who want to institute these vital services in their communities. 

More than 1,000 people have registered for IMPRINT's webinars in the last five months aloneincluding strong representation from refugee resettlement agencies, community colleges, local 

workforce investment boards, and other service providers. 

These leaders recognize what IMPRINT knows well: Enabling skilled immigrant women to 

find jobs commensurate with their abilities not only elevates their own financial status and 

3 Migration Policy Institute 
125 

IMPRINT Professional Integration 

allows their families to enter the middle class, but also benefits our nation as a whole. They add 

to the tax base; create additional, indirect jobs; and fill shortages in needed areas such as health 

care, engineering and IT. 

There is solid research documenting the scope ofthis problem and the value of potential 

solutions. Here are just a few relevant facts: 

• More than 1 million college-educated immigrants residing in the US are unemployed or 

underemployed in low- or semi-skilled jobs that fail to draw on their education and 

expertise. 

• Those immigrants who have earned their college degree abroad are twice as likely to be 

under-employed than their US-educated counterparts. 

• Yet many of these immigrants are trained in areas that are in demand here in this country, 

such as Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM), Health Care and IT. 

• Each 100 immigrant workers with an advanced degree are associated with an additional 

44 new jobs for other workers; in STEM fields this rises to 86 jobs. 

• With appropriate guidance and targeted interventions, under-employed skilled 

immigrants typically increase their annual income by 215% to 900%. 4 

Employing skilled immigrants in more appropriate positions also adds to our economy by 

increasing tax revenue and consumer spending. 

Three pieces of the puzzle are in place: Talented women immigrants continue to choose the 

United States as their home. Promising practices exist to help them establish professional 

careers. And momentum is building among American communities eager to ensure that they can 

benefit from the ambitious newcomers in their midst. 

The final piece is up to Congress. We respectfully request that this committee recognize the 

importance of including the integration of skilled immigrants as part of a Comprehensive 

Immigration Reform package. Such inclusion will help raise thousands of immigrant women 

and families into the ranks of the middle class and support our country's overall economic 

growth. 

IMPRINT would be pleased to work with this committee and its staff to develop specific 

language around this proposal, as appropriate. 

On behalf of IMPRINT, and especially on behalf of the women and men served by our member 

organizations, thank you. 

4 Sources for this entire section: Migration Policy Institute; Drexel University Center for Labor Markets and Policy; 

Partnership for a New American Economy; IMPRINT member organization client data. 
126 

Statement by Senator Klobuchar 

I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here today. I had 

hoped to join you, but prior obligations in Minnesota and a snow 

storm in Minneapolis have prevented me from making it back in 

time. I want to give a special welcome to my friend and fellow 

Minnesotan - Mee Moua. Mee has been an incredible advocate 

over the years on many, many issues. 

I also want to thank Sen::ltor Hirono for chairing this hearing; it 

is extremely important. Most of the talk about immigration has 

centered on the plight of the undocumented, border security and 

economic motivations for changing our laws. But family 

concerns are just as important, and we must ensure that our 

policies reflect family reunification as a top priority. 

Again, thank you to Senator Hirono and our witnesses, and I 

will be submitting some questions for the record. 
127 

Senate JUdiciary Committee Hearing, March 18, 2013 

"How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs of Women and 

Families" 

As women of faith we, the members of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious 

(LCWR), take seriously the gospel call to welcome the stranger and care for those in need. As 

Catholic sisters we are committed to the precepts of Catholic Social Teaching that remind us that 

the dignity of the person is at the core of our moral vision of society; that how we organize our 

society affects human dignity directly; and that any system that is deliberately cruel or inhumane 

needs to change. Because of these beliefs, at our 2012 national assembly, LCWR, "called on 

Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform that includes the reunification of families 

and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the United States." 

Catholic sisters began coming to these shores 286 years ago as immigrants to serve immigrant 

populations. To this day they continue to minister to these aspiring citizens in schools and 

hospitals, in the fields and in the cities. They share the pain of mothers separated from their 

children and fathers who have risked their lives for love of their families. They know the sorrow 

of siblings who have not seen each other since their youth and grandparents who fear they will 

never know their grandchildren. 

Families are the building blocks of our society. Our nation needs, and our people deserve, 

immigration reform that reflects the paramount importance and socio-economic necessity of 

family unity; reform that does not pit one group of aspiring Americans against another. We need 

not sacrifice family unity to meet the needs of business and workers. 

Immigrant women, like all women, are the backbone of their families and communities. They 

contribute to the economy, keep their families together, and invest in our future by investing in 

their children's education. Immigrant women are the drivers of social integration, encouraging 

their families to learn English, succeed in school and business, pursue naturalization, and fulfill 

their civic duties. 

We look forward to working with lawmakers as they develop legislation that expedites the 

reunification of families, preserves family-based visa categories, reduces current backlogs, 

provides humanitarian consideration for families torn apart by detention, and guarantees equal 

protection and equal opportunity for immigrant women. 

LCWR is an association of leaders of congregations of Catholic sisters in the United States. The 

conference has nearly 1500 members, who represent more than 80 percent of the 57,000 women 

religious in the United States. Founded in 1956, the conference assists its members to 

collaboratively carry out their service of leadership to further the mission of the Gospel in 

today's world. 

Sister Janet Mock, CSJ, Executive Director 
128 

Statement of Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) 

"How Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Should Address the Needs of Women and Families" 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

March 18,2013 

Today the Committee will examine ways comprehensive immigration reform can address the 

needs of women and families. For years, long visa backlogs in our immigration system have 

prevented families from being together. An estimated 4 million close family members of U.S. 

citizens and green card holders are waiting to join their relatives in America. Some of these 

families, predominantly from Mexico and the Philippines, have waited more than 20 years to be 

reunited. This is simply unacceptable. While preserving family unity is a core tenet of our 

immigration policy, our broken immigration system is instead hurting families. This has 

devastating consequences, especially for the women and children who bear the brunt ofthe 

unsettled environment our immigration system causes. 

New immigrants often face the reality of spending prolonged periods of time without their loved 

ones because the broken immigration system has little to no flexibility. Beyond that, it is 

punitive to families seeking to lawfully enter the United States because lawful permanent 

residents must wait over two years to be reunited with their spouse or children. Newly 

naturalized citizens must wait over seven years to be reunited with their adult children and over 

ten years for their siblings. 

I believe that families should be protected. Our immigration system must honor the love that 

binds spouses and children. It should come as no surprise when spouses, desperate to reunite 

with their loved ones, overstay a tourist visa or cross the border without authorization. 

It is time for us to proceed in a comprehensive way that protects families. The "enforcement 

first" mentality that so often guides this debate must be met with the facts: The President and 

Secretary Napolitano have done more in the administration's first four years to enforce 

immigration laws and strengthen border security than in the previous administration's entire 

eight years. We have done enforcement first and sadly, enforcement only. It is time to capitalize 

on this progress and bring families out of the shadows to remove the cloud of uncertainty and 

fear that needlessly blankets their lives. 

Changes to our family-based immigration policies are not just the right thing to do for moral 

reasons; they would also be good for the economy. Our policies too often provide a disincentive 

for immigrants to put down roots, establish stronger connections in their local communities, and 

become fuU-fledged Americans. We cannot continue to expect the best and brightest in the world 

to come to America and contribute ifthey cannot bring their families. Our system must catch up 

to the demands of a 21 st century economy, and not remain a relic of the past. 

And family unity in our immigration policy should include all families. Last month, for the 

fourth straight Congress, I introduced the Uniting American Families Act, which grants gay and 

lesbian binational couples immigration rights heterosexual spouses have long enjoyed. This bill 

would end a destructive policy that rips families apart and forces hardworking Americans to 

make the impossible choice to leave the country they love and start over in another country that 
129 

provides immigration protection for their relationship. Frances Herbert and Takako Ueda are 

two Vermonters who know first-hand the harm caused by this discriminatory Federal policy. 

Gordon Stewart is another Vermonter, who testified before this Committee about the heart 

wrenching decision to leave the country he loves to be with the person he loves. There are 

countless others in this same situation across the Nation. I will continue to fight on their behalf. 

No American should face such a choice. 

We need to fix our broken immigration system. As we consider comprehensive reform, we 

must not pit visas for family-based immigrants against those sponsored by employers. We can 

and must find a way to balance these priorities to promote economic growth, strengthen the lives 

of individuals, protect families, and provide equal protection under the law for all people residing 

in America. We have an historic opportunity to get this right. It is time for intelligent, common 

sense reforms to our immigration system. 

I thank Senator Hirono for chairing this important hearing today and focusing on how our current 

system tears families apart. I know her unique personal experience will contribute greatly to the 

debate next month as we consider comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate Judiciary 

Committee. 

#### 

2 
130 

Testimony 

Susan F. Martin 

Donald G. Herzberg Professor ofIntemational Migration 

Georgetown University 

At the Hearing on 

How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should 

Address the Needs of Women and Families 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

March 18, 2013 

Mr. Chairman, Members ofthe Committee, thank you for providing this opportunity to 

testify on how comprehensive immigration reform should address the needs of women and 

families. I hold the Donald G. Herzberg Chair in International Migration in the School of 

Foreign Service, Georgetown University. I also serve as the Director of the Institute for the 

Study ofIntemational Migration at the university. Prior to joining Georgetown's faculty, I was 

the Executive Director of the US Commission on Immigration Reform, which was chaired for 

most of the Commission's life by the late Barbara Jordan. J have been asked to discuss relevant 

findings and recommendations of the Commission as well as my own views on immigration 

reform. I am pleased to do so. Although the Commission's report was issued 15 years ago, many 

of its recommendations remain as relevant today as they did in 1997. 

The Commission was mandated by the Immigration Act of 1990 to advise Congress and 

the President on all aspects of immigration policy. The Chair was appointed by the President, 

four members by the majority and minority leadership ofthe Senate and four by the majority and 

minority leadership of the House. The Commission issued four reports between 1994 and 1997, 

one of which dealt exclusively with legal immigration issues. The recommendations ofthis 

bipartisan Commission were adopted unanimously or, in certain instances, by a vote of 8-1. 

Let me begin with the Commission's overall perspectives on legal immigration. First, the 

Commission considered a robust legal immigration system to be in the national interest of the 

United States. It argued that immigration policy should serve three core interests: maintaining 

family unity, encouraging economic competitiveness, and preserving US humanitarian 

leadership in the world. These interests are served through family reunification, employment, 

and refugee admissions, respectively. 

Second, the Commission did not believe that there is a magic, a priori number of 

immigrants that should be admitted to the United States each year. The number of admissions 

within and across each of the core categories should be readily adjusted to address changing 

circumstances in the country and the world. The Commission recommended that Congress revisit 

admission numbers every three to five years, rather than set hard ceilings that are seldom 

adjusted upward or downward. It is well to note that current family and employment based 

admission numbers were set in 1990 and have not been changed in the intervening 23 years. 

Third, the Commission believed that priorities should drive admission numbers and not 

the reverse. At present, our immigration policies are largely managed through backlogs and 
131 

waiting lists. There are a small number of visas, relative to demand, allocated in most ofthe 

admissions categories. Ceilings have generally been assigned in an arbitrary manner, often as a 

result of political compromises rather than empirical evidence as to the likely demand for visas. 

As a result, long waiting times for a green card persist for almost all categories. The Commission 

recommended a true preference system in which all demand is met in the highest categories in a 

timely way, rather than the allocation of some visas to all categories. 

Let me tum to how these principles translated into specific recommendations related to 

family reunification. At the time of the Commission's investigations, the backlog of applications 

had grown significantly in all of the numerically limited family categories: unmarried adult 

children of US citizens (FB I); spouses and minor children (FB 2A) and unmarried adult children 

(FB2B) oflegal permanent residents (LPRs); married adult children of US citizens (FB 3); and 

siblings of adult US citizens (FB 4). The Commission recognized that all of these categories 

were important to segments of the immigrant population in the United States. The members' 

judgment, however, was that there is a special bond between spouses and between parents and 

minor children that necessitates the most rapid family reunification in these instances. Not only 

is the immediate family the basic building block of society but there is also a legal and fiduciary 

responsibility for spouses and minor children that does not exist in relationship to adult children 

and siblings of adult sponsors. 

The Commission was fully supportive of maintaining the numerically unrestricted 

admissions categories for the spouses, minor children and parents of US citizens and 

recommended that sufficient visas be allocated for the admission of all spouses and minor 

children of LPRs within one year of application. The Commission also recommended that adult 

children who were dependent on parents in the US because of physical or mental disability be 

included in these admission categories. To address the growing backlog of visa applications in 

the FB 2A category, the Commission recommended an additional 150,000 visas per year over the 

then limits until the backlog was cleared. The growth in that category was largely related to the 

legalization program implemented under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (an 

issue to which I will return). The review of new applications for these family admissions 

indicated that 400,000 visas would thereafter be sufficient to meet demand, but as mentioned 

earlier, the Commission called on Congress to adjust the numbers if needed to avoid backlogs in 

the priority categories. At present, according to the State Department Visa Bulletin, spouses and 

minor children who applied prior to December IS, 2010 (priority date) will be eligible for visas 

as of April 2013 (a wait of at least 2 years and 4 months). 

The Commission further recommended the elimination ofthe admission categories for 

adult children and siblings. The demand for visas in these categories consistently outstrips the 

statutory limits, leading to long waiting times that undermine the credibility of the admissions 

system. The Commission noted that credible immigration policy should not give false hopes to 

applicants of speedy admission. This situation has not improved significantly in the past 15 

years. According to the April 2013 Visa Bulletin, applicants in FB 4 (siblings) category who 

applied prior to May 1,2001 (about 12 years ago) are just now eligible for a visa. Because of per 

country limits, only those Filipinos who applied before August 15, 1989 are eligible for visas-a 

delay of 24 years. The worldwide priority dates for FB 1, FB 2B and FB 3 are March 6, 2006, 
132 

April 8, 2005, and July 22, 2002, respectively, with much longer waits for applicants from 

Mexico and the Philippines. 

The Commission did not directly address the phase out of these categories. I speak 

personally on this issue. The many US citizens who have petitioned for their adult children and 

siblings to join them are deserving of consideration in determining how to transition from the 

current to any new system. One way to balance the interest in a more efficient system with the 

concerns of these families is to cease accepting new applications while preserving visas to permit 

the admission of those already in the queue. Given the large backlog, I would recommend 

allocating additional visas over a five year period so that the benefits derived from their ultimate 

admission-to both their families and the country as a whole-are derived in a shorter time. It 

makes little sense to keep out immigrants during their most productive years and then admit 

them as they get closer to retirement age-which is the end result of 24 year waiting periods. 

As mentioned previously, the large backlogs in the 1990s in the FB 2A category were 

primarily a result of the IRCA legalization. Many of those who earned regularization were in the 

US on their own, with spouses and children in their country of origin. Once they became legal 

permanent residents, many of the legalized then petitioned for admission of their family 

members. By 1995, the backlog ofIRCA family applications had grown to more than 800,000 

and the total backlog in the FB 2A category was more than 1.1 million. With less than 90,000 

visas available per year in this category, it would take more than ten years to get through these 

applications while new ones went to the back of the list. Mechanisms to avoid the development 

of similar backlogs in family reunification will be needed in any future regularization program. 

The principle offamily unity for spouses and minor children should apply equally to the 

legalized as to other immigrants since there is a strong national interest in intact families. 

As this hearing addresses ways immigration reform should address the needs of women 

as well as families, let me turn to a few additional issues. Here, I am speaking for myself, not the 

Commission. The United States has been a leader in protecting women and girls who immigrate 

to the United States through both legal and unauthorized channels. Provisions under the Violence 

against Women Act (VA W A) have been particularly important in ensuring that abused women 

do not become more vulnerable as a result of immigration provisions. Victims of domestic abuse 

should continue to be able to petition for themselves and their children if their abuser is the 

person who would otherwise be their immigration sponsor. The recent very welcome 

reauthorization of VA WA made some important improvements, including better regulation of 

marriage brokers, the addition of stalking to the forms of domestic abuse that warrant protection 

for immigrant women under VA WA, and new provisions to protect detained women from rape. 

A problem still remains, however, in ensuring that immigrant women and children who are 

abused have access to the information, legal and economic resources that permit them to benefit 

from the terms of the legislation. 

Implementation is also an issue regarding the groundbreaking provisions of the 

Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) related to the survivors of human trafficking. The 

TVPA was reauthorized as part of the VAWA reauthorization of2013. The United States has 

been a global leader in protecting the victims of international trafficking operations, as manifest 

in the T visa. Yet, the disparity between the numbers granted the T Visa (between FY2002 and 
133 

FY2012, DHS approved only 3,269 applications for T-I status, according to the Congressional 

Research Service) and the number of trafficking victims estimated to be in the country remains 

troubling. Research might help determine if the estimates are inflated or the T visa is too 

restrictive in its application. What is certain, however, is that we still lack the tools to identify 

trafficking victims and to help the survivors gain access to the type of legal assistance as well as 

safe houses and other services needed to ensure their protection. 

A final point is in reference to long delayed legislation to remedy problems in our 

asylum, detention and refugee resettlement programs as they apply to women and girls. The 

Refugee Protection Act, introduced by Senator Leahy, includes important provisions that would 

improve the protection of women who are fleeing persecution and serious human rights 

violations. These include clarification of what constitutes a particular social group for purposes 

of asylum adjudications, which is the category that encompasses many of the victims of gender 

based persecution; authorization of alternatives to detention for asylum seekers, including 

women and children; facilitating family reunification for refugees and asylees; elimination of the 

one year filing deadline for asylum applications, a barrier for many refugee women and girls who 

have experienced rape and other atrocities that often require lengthy recovery periods; and 

changes in provisions that currently deny asylum and resettlement to those who provided 

material support to an insurgency, even if that support was coerced, as is the case in many 

situations involving women forced by their abductors to provide sex, food and other support. 

To conclude, comprehensive immigration reform should recognize that family unity is a 

core value of the United States. Ensuring the speedy reunification of families is in the national 

interest ofthe country. Strong families make strong communities, which in tum make for a 

strong nation. Setting priorities to accomplish this goal would immeasurably strengthen US 

immigration policy. I would be pleased to answer your questions. 
134 

ASIAN AMERICAN 

JUSTICE CENTER 

Written Testimony ofMee Moua 

President and Executive Director 

Asian American Justice Center, 

A Member ofthe Asian American Center for Advancing Justice 

U.S. Senate Committee on the judiciary 

Hearing on: "How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs of 

Women and Families" 

March 18,2013 
135 

Chairman Leahy, Senator Orassley, and Members ofthe Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before the Committee today on behalf of the Asian American Justice 

Center (AAJC), a member ofthe Asian American Center for Advancing Justice. Founded in 

1991, AAJC is a national organization whose mission is to advance the human and civil rights of 

Asian Americans, and build and promote a fair and equitable society for all. AAJC is one ofthe 

nation's leading experts on issues of importance to the Asian American and Pacific Islander 

community including: immigration and immigrants' rights, affirmative action, anti-Asian 

violence prevention/race relations, census, language access, media diversity, voting rights and 

civil and human rights. 

Women and Children Need a Strong Family-Based Immigration System 

The principle offamily unity has long been a part of our immigration tradition in the United 

States and family-based immigration is a central pillar of current U.S. immigration law. Since 

our founding as a nation, each generation of immigrant families have strengthened our 

communities, enriched our culture, and invigorated our economy. 

Unfortunately, the U.S. family immigration system is broken, outdated and failing to facilitate 

the full purpose of our family immigration policies. Our current system, which has not been 

updated in over two decades, works against families by separating mother from daughter, sister 

from brother and wife from husband. As of November 2012, nearly 4.3 million close family 

members were waiting in the family visa backlogs. Latino and Asian American families are 

impacted the most by these long backlogs. Of the nearly 4.3 million family members in the 

backlogs, more than 1.3 million are from Mexico alone. Over 1.8 million are from Asian 

countries. Other countries including the Dominican Republic and El Salvador also have 

significantly large numbers of family members waiting to join loved ones in the U.S. Some 

family members have been waiting years, even decades, to be reunited with their family in 

America. 

Forcing families to live apart for years and even decades is simply un-American. Imagine living 

apart from your husband or wife or daughter or son for years, decades even. These lengthy 

separations are heart-breaking and strain familial ties. Moreover, our dysfunctional legal 

immigration system forces some families to choose between remaining apart for years on end 

and living in the shadows as undocumented immigrants just to be with their loved ones. Our 

current system also discriminates against LOBT families by prohibiting citizens and legal 

permanent residents from sponsoring their same-sex, foreign-born partners for immigration 

purposes. This is simply unacceptable and it does not live up to our ideals as a nation that values 

families and fairness. 

To make matters worse, women immigrants are disproportionately harmed by our broken 

system. Approximately 69.7 percent of all immigrant women attain legal status through familybased visas, compared to 60.6 percent of men. Since women are more often denied access to 

resources and education and face social constraints in their home countries, they are both 

overrepresented among family-based immigrants and underrepresented among employment2 
136 

based immigrants.] A Department of Homeland Security examination of fiscal year 2011, for 

instance, showed women using 58% of all family sponsored visas. 2 

Due to the same issues of access to resources and education, principle employment-based visa 

holders are significantly more likely to be men. As dependents of the male principle visa holder, 

women are not legally allowed to work under our current immigration system and therefore, are 

completely tied to their spouse. This creates an imbalance of power, which renders women 

wholly dependent on their spouse and vulnerable to an abusive partner. 

An immigration system that harms women inevitably hurts families and communities. Immigrant 

women, like all women, are the backbone of their families and communities. They keep their 

families together, invest in their children's education, acquire various needed roles in their 

communities and contribute to the U.S. economy. If America wants to uphold its value of 

women and the family unit, we need a stronger family-based immigration system that reflects 

our values as a society. 

Immigrant Women Make Significant Economic Contributions 

Immigrant women, like their native-born counterparts, are an integral part of our workforce and 

economy. They are business owners-both small and large, who create much-needed jobs for all 

Americans. Between 2000 and 2010, immigrant women's entrepreneurship rates had grown to 

over 9 percent, which exceeded rates for native-born women. 3 As of 2010, "40 percent of all 

immigrant business owners were women [and] 20 percent of all women business owners were 

foreign-born.,,4 

As workers, immigrant women have a wide-range of skill levels and fill in gaps across the 

business sectors. In 2008, nearly 60 percent of foreign-born women were in the labor force. 5 

Based on 2010 data, women who were naturalized U.S. citizens even had a slightly higher 

employment rate (92.4 percent) than native-born women (91.7 percent).6 Immigrant women 

make up significant numbers in the management and }!rofessional occupations, service 

occupations, as well as retail and office occupations. Educational attainment of immigrant 

women varies, but overall it is similar to native-born women. For example, in 2008, 26.4 percent 

of immigrant women had bachelor's degree compared to 27.1 percent of native-born women, and 

1 A Devastating Wait: Family Unity and the Immigration Backlogs, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Retrieved 

March 14, 2013, from http://www.advancingequality.orglattachments/files/I17/ APALC Jamily _report. pdf. 

2 20 II Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. 

Retrieved March 14,2013, from http://www.dhs.gov/sites/defau1t1files/publications/immigrationstatistics/yearbookl20 IlIois...Yb _ 20 II.pdf. 

J Pearce, Susan C., Clifford, Elizabeth J. & Tanden, Reena. Our American Immigrant Entrepreneurs: The Women, 

Immigration Policy Center. Retrieved March 17,2013, from http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/ouramerican~immigrant~entrepreneurs·women. 

4 Jd. 

'Immigrant Women in the United States: A Portrait of Demographic Diversity, Immigration Policy Center. 

Retrieved March 17, 2013, from http://www.immigrationpolicy.orgljust-facts/immigrant-women-united-statesportrait-demo graphic-diversity. 

6 Employment Status of the Civilian Labor Forccl6 Years and Over by Sex, Nativity, and U.S. Citizenship Status, 

U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved March 17,2013, from http://www.census.gov/ropulation/foreign/dataicps2010.html. 

7 Jd 

3 
137 

9.5 percent of immigrant women had graduate degrees versus 9.6 percent of native-born 

women. 8 

We also know from our real world experiences that immigrant women make up a significant 

number of caregiver professionals. These are the women who day in and day out care for our 

children, our mothers and fathers, other loved ones with special needs, and our homes. For 

example, 95 percent of domestic workers nationwide are women--and in some large cities more 

than three-fourths of domestic workers are immigrant women. 9 A recent study found that 28 

percent of personal care and home health aides "are foreign-born and ofthose, 60 percent are 

from Latin America and the Caribbean.,,10 Because of limited legal immigration opportunities, 

many of the female immigrants who become in-home care workers came to the U.S. through the 

family system. II 

We must fix our family-based immigration system, so that we can enhance our families, provide 

support and reliefto women and children and rebuild our economy for a more prosperous nation. 

Family-based immigration has significant economic benefits, especially for long-term economic 

growth. Family-based immigrants foster innovation and development of new businesses, 

particularly small and medium-sized businesses that would not otherwise exist, creating jobs for 

American workers. Immigrant-owned businesses have surged in the last ten years. In 20 I 0, small 

businesses owned by immigrants employed approximately 4.7 million people and generated an 

estimated $776 billion in revenues, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute. 

Particularly, many Asian and Pacific Islanders family members come to the U.S., pool their 

resources together and work in their family-owned businesses. White and Asian immigrants are 

more likely to be small business owners. Our reforms should make it easier for families to 

reunite in the U.S. and contribute to our economy. 

Families are critical in providing emotional, physical and mental to support to all workers. 

Research shows that workers who have the support and encouragement of their family members 

are more likely to be productive and successful as they strive to integrate into our communities. 

Lengthy family separations are stressful and take a personal toll on workers. It forces many 

immigrant workers who are separated from their families to send money overseas rather than 

being able to invest all of it in their local communities. A robust family-immigration is in the 

interest of all Americans. 

Women Strengthen Families and Enable Successful Integration 

Immigrant women are essential for the successful integration of their families. They provide 

stability for the family and help the family put down permanent roots for their families. They 

, Immigrant Women in the United States: A Portrait of Demographic Diversity, Immigration Policy Center. 

9 Women's Refugee Commission, "Women and Immigration Reform: Key Facts and Figures." 

10 Henrici, Jane (2013). Improving Career Opportunities Jor Immigrant Women In-Home Care Workers, Institute for 

Women's Policy Research (p. 5). 

" Hess, Cynthia and Henrici, Jane. (2013). Increasing Palhways 10 Legal StatusJor Immigrant In-Home Care 

Workers, Institute for Women's Policy Research (p. 9). 

4 
138 

invest in their children's education and send them to college. These women are instrumental in 

enabling the family to pool resources together to open a small business or buy a home. Critically, 

immigrant women are also more likely to initiate the citizenship process for their families. 

Immigrant women have higher propensity to naturalize. In 2008, nearly half (46.4 percent) of 

~em~le immil~rants were naturalized U.S. citizens compared to 39.7 percent of male 

ImmIgrants. 

For these reasons, our immigration laws must promote immigrant integration that includes and 

empowers women. Among other provisions, naturalization should be financially accessible. The 

price of naturalization has risen very high and often the fee is a substantial hurdle to attain 

American citizenship. Congress should also create opportunities for immigrants to receive 

English Literacy, Civic Education and Continuing Education. Immigrants are well aware that 

English is a key to job security and advancement and integration into American society. 

However, the road to English language acquisition is long and difficult-something many in our 

monolingual society do not always recognize. Even with that, the demand for adult English 

language learning programs far exceeds the supply. There are currently long waits for existing 

adult English language learning programs. 

With Congress's strong support of immigrant integration, we can ensure that the economic and 

social contributions of America's immigrants strengthen our nation to the fullest. 

We Need Commonsense Solutions To Help Immigrant Women and Families 

Our American values demand a strong family-based system, and the immigrant community 

voted for immigration reform in 2012. Latinos, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders 

overwhelmingly supported a vision of inclusion and fairness, while rejecting xenophobic policies 

that pit communities against one another-high-income workers v. low-income workers and 

immigrant v: nonimmigrant communities. 

Numerous surveys, conducted by nonpartisan organizations have shown that the American 

people support commonsense immigration reform. For example, in a survey conducted by 

AAJC, Asian Pacific Islander American Vote and the National Asian American Survey, 54 

percent of Asian Americans polled indicated that visa backlogs are a significant problem for their 

families. 

Congress must tackle these backlogs by crafting a family-based system that adequately addresses 

the wait times and can adapt to our ever-changing immigrant populations. Because women are 

overrepresented in our family-based system, addressing the family backlogs will ultimately help 

women. One potential solution is to reclassify spouses and minor children of legal permanent 

residents as "immediate relatives." We would also urge Congress to include the provisions in the 

Reuniting Families Act that has been introduced on the House side by Rep. Honda and has been 

supported by Senate leaders in the past. 

Lastly, while Congress has the opportunity to develop a system that will work for families, we 

urge Congress to preserve the family categories for brothers and sisters and the married sons and 

12 Immigrant Women in the United States: A Portrait o/Demographic Diversity, Immigration Policy Center. 

5 
139 

daughters of U.S. citizens. Family is family. Arbitrarily drawing the line in the sand will only 

continue to kick the can down the road. Congress must construct a system that is flexible, easily 

accessible and encourages legal immigration. Policymakers will focus on what some call "future 

flow." We urge you and your colleagues to realize that eliminating categories, placing superficial 

caps and ignoring the human face on these backlogs will only make future flow an ongoing 

issue. It will force families back into the shadows and subject them to ongoing hardships. In 

1996, we created this broken and unyielding system, and now it's time we fix it. 

Whether it was through the Mayflower, Ellis Island, Angel Island or now all our ports of entry, 

most immigrants came to the U.S. with nothing but hope and their families. Regardless of the 

hardships they encountered or endured, hope and family permitted each successive generation of 

immigrants to muster the courage to survive, persevere and make a deeply rooted life in this 

country. We may all come from different national origins, eat different foods, practice different 

religions and even speak different languages, but the immigrant heart is what binds us as one 

people -united in hope and opportunity for a more prosperous future of our families. That is 

why we love this land. That is why we must work together to fix our broken immigration system. 

Thank you and I look forward to answering your questions. 

6 
140 

s;,.." of the Good 5hq>hcn! 

The National 

Advocacy Center 

,."~"'" --"'~; 

National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd statement for the Congressional 

Record pertaining to the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Monday, March 18, 2013 

Since the Order of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd was founded in France in 1835, the Order has 

dedicated itself to serving poor and marginal women and families. The work of the Sisters in 70 countries 

in 5 continents, 22 States, and 2 U.S. Territories is based on the belief in the unique value of the human 

person, regardless of age, sex, culture or religion. Eacn person has the right to a basic quality of life; 

adequate income, shelter, opportunities for education and employment, quality health care, and nutrition. 

As Catholics, our faith requires that everyone should be treated with the utmost dignity and respect. 

As recently stated by Archbishop Jose H. Gomez, the Catholic Church has a long history of involvement in 

the immigration issue, both in the advocacy arena and in welcoming and assimilating waves of immigrants 

and refugees who have helped build our nation throughout her history. Family reunification, upon which 

much of the U.S. immigration system has been based for decades, should remain the cornerstone of U.S. 

immigration policy. Immigrant families contribute to our nation and help form new generations of Americans. 

Even while many migrants come to the United States to find employment, many come as families. 

The U.S. family-based immigration system, which helps keep families together, is in urgent need of reform. 

The current visa quota system, last revised by Congress in 1990, established statutory ceilings for family 

immigration that are now inadequate to meet the needs of immigrant families wishing to reunite in a timely 

manner. The result has been waiting times of five years or more-and more than eight years for Mexican 

permanent residents-for husbands and wives to reunite with each other and for mothers and fathers to 

reunite with minor children. The waiting times for adult siblings to reunite can be twenty years or longer. 

Such lengthy waiting times are unacceptable and actually provide unintentional incentive for some 

migrants to come to the United States illegally. Substantial changes must be made to the U.S. familybased immigration system so that it will meet the goal of facilitating, rather than hindering, family unity. 

Such changes can be made in several ways, but they should not alter the basic categories in the family 

preference system. 

We oppose the imposition of such a point system, which we fear would place higher value on highlyeducated and skilled immigrants than on family ties. We reject the premise that the family-based system has 

historically not worked in the best interest of this nation. Indeed, there is evidence that immigrant families 

represent the backbone of communities in this nation, especially in urban areas. They have started and 

maintained family businesses, from restaurants to dry cleaning stores and from auto mechanic businesses 

to pastry shops. Immigrant families also take care of each other and ensure that all members of the family 

are provided for, as well as contribute their talents to the strengthening of local neighborhoods. 

Based upon our belief in the importance of family unity, the National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the 

Good Shepherd urges Congress to: 

1. Protect and strengthen current family immigration categories (spouse, children, parents, and siblings) 

2. Increase family-based visas, including a temporary increase to clear the backlog with integrity 

3. Recapture unused visas for use in the following year 

4. Increase the per-country cap from 7 percent to 15 percent to reduce backlogs 

5. Reclassify the spouses and minor children of Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) as immediate 

relatives, and re-allocate the remaining visas available to the other existing family categories 

6. Add to the list of family immigration categories permanent partners of U.S. Citizens and LPRs 

We look forward to continue working with members of Congress to achieve compassionate, 

comprehensive immigration reform that will give priority to family unity. 
141 

National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPA WF) 

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Testimony 

"How Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Should Address the Needs of Women and Families" 

March 21, 2013 

Dear Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: 

We write today to thank you for holding a hearing on "How Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Should Address the Needs of Women and Families," and to share with you our recommendations on 

this important issue. The National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF) is the only 

national, multi-issue Asian and Pacific Islander (API) women's organization in the country. Our 

mission is to build a movement to advance social justice and human rights for API women and girls, 

and one of our primary areas of expertise is organizing and advocating for the inclusion of women's 

concerns in immigration policy reform. 

Asians and Pacific Islanders (APls) constitute 27.7% of the country's immigrant population1 and are the 

fastest growing racial group in the nation. In fact, 60% of Asians and 14% of Native Hawaiians and 

Pacific Islanders are foreign-born.' There are currently 9 million women of Asian descent in the U.S. 3 

Four Asian countries- China, the Philippines, India, and Korea-rank among the top ten countries that 

undocumented immigrants in the U.S. migrate from.' 

Our organization knows it is not about what you look like or where you were born, but how you live 

your life and what you do that defines you here in America. The contributions of women -mothers, 

sisters, daughters, and coworkers - have always been vital for our society to grow and flourish. We 

know our country is strongest when women are healthy, safe, and able to care for their children and 

families. Truly effective immigration policy reform should value and honor women and their 

contributions. 

1 Jeanne Bat:alova. Migration Policy Institute Asian Immigrants in the United Stales.May 2011. Available at 

http://www. migrationinformation.org!usfocus/display .cfm?ID=841 

2 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007~2009 American Community Survey, 3-Year Estimates. See also Asian American Center for Advancing Justice, A 

Community o/Contrasts - Asian Americans in the United States: 201 J. Available at 

http://ww>v.advancincriustice.or{t/pdf7Community of Contrast.pdt: 

J This figure is based on data "Asian alone or in combination" figures. U.S. Censlls Bureau. 2010 Census Summary File 2, Age Groups and Sex: 

2010 (QT·P1). 

4 Hoffer, Retyna,. and Baker. Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in Ihe United States: January 201 I. March 2012, 

Available at http://\v\.,..w.db~.govlxlibrary/assets/st3tistics/publications/ois ill pe 201 Lpdf. 

I 
142 

If we want to have a fair, effective, and holistic conversation about immigration policy change, 

we need to include immigrant women. We must ensure that how we treat API women upholds our 

country's values and commitment to freedom and justice for all, and that these women can fully 

contribute to the U.S. 

NAPAWF's core values in immigration policy reform are: a roadmap to citizenship;jamily unity; 

health equity; andfreedomfrom violence. To that end, the following are our recommendations for 

how comprehensive immigration policy reform can address the needs of women and families. 

I. Immigrant women need a fair and equitable roadmap to citizenship. 

Any roadmap to citizenship and integration must be open, affordable, safe, and accessible to all 

immigrant women, including those whose work is in the home and who are employed in the 

informal economy. A roadmap to citizenship that conditions eligibility on participation in the 

formal labor market disadvantages immigrant women, who are more likely to work in the 

informal sector. For example, many immigrant women are domestic workerss, farm laborers, nail 

salon workers, and homemakers. Immigrant women must be afforded equal employment-based 

migration opportunities and workplace protections so that they may safely pursue economic 

opportunity and support their families with dignity and pride. Our immigration system has 

historically been unfair to women, but now we have an opportunity to change it into one that 

recognizes the unique realities and contributions of women's lives. A truly equitable system will 

place just as much value on women as it does on men. Any proposed pathway to citizenship must 

place equal value on women's work. 

n. We need to keep immigrant women and their families together. 

Immigration reform must protect the right of all families to stay together, regardless of 

immigration status, family structure, sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. In 

addition, immigration policies must be modernized to provide sufficient family-based channels 

for migration in the future. Enforcement, detention, and deportation programs that compromise 

immigrant women's safety, violate their civil, human, and due process rights, and tear families 

apart must be replaced by sensible and sufficient legal channels for migration that adequately 

meet family and labor demands and respect women and their families. 

Millions of families are at risk of being torn apart. Currently, 5.1 million children live in mixedlegal status families. Four million of these children are U.S. citizens. 6 The growth of mixedstatus families, combined with a lack of sufficient legal channels for migration, means that, as a 

result of deportation, more families than ever are at risk of being separated for years or even 

permanently. In fact, between July 2010 and September 2012, the U.S. deported more than 

205,000 parents of U.S. citizen children.7 

5 In fact, one survey showed that 20% of domestic workers surveyed in New York City were Asian. See Domestic Workers United, Home is Where 

the Work Is: Inside New York's Domestic Work Industry, Domestic Workers United and DataCenter, July 2006. Available at 

http://\\'ww.domesticworkcrsunited.org/index.php/en/component/jdOv.·1l1oadsflinish/3/4. 

6 Passel J, Taylor P. Unauthorized Immigrants and Their U.5,MBorn Children. Pew Hispanic Center. August 2010, Available at 

http://www.pewhispanic orgI2010/08/11/unauthorized~immlgrants~and~thelr-us-born-children/ Accessed March 13, 2013. 

7 Wessler SR. Primary Data: Deportations of Parents of U.S. Citizen Kids. CoJorlines. December 17, 2012. Available at 

http://colorlines,com/archivesI2012/12/deportationsofparentsofus-borncitizens122012.htm1. Accessed February 4, 20}3, 

2 
143 

Family separation burdens local government. When parents are detained or deported, children 

are at risk of ending up in the child welfare system. The Applied Research Center in November 

of20 II conservatively estimated that 5,100 children in foster care had parents who had been 

detained or deported. That number is expected to grow to 15,000 over the next five years.8 We 

must alleviate the unnecessary burden on states by permitting parents to care for their children. 

The lack of legal opportunities for families to be together incentivizes unlawful migration and 

encourages deported parents to return and reunite with their children. A smart immigration 

system is one that values and prioritizes family unity. When parents get involved with the 

immigration enforcement system, they often lose any say in how their children are cared for. 

Detained parents are often held far away from their children. They may be unable to participate 

in the reunification plans necessary to regain custody of children who end up in foster care, and 

they are often denied meaningful access to child custody hearings. A humane and cost-effective 

immigration system would protect parents' constitutional right to determine the care and custody 

of their children. 

Children are better off with their parents. Being undocumented does not make someone an unfit 

parent, and parental rights should only be terminated in cases of verified abuse and neglect. 

Judges need discretion to keep families together. Heavy-handed detention and deportation 

policies have tied the hands of immigration judges. Judges should be able to exercise discretion 

so that parents do not have to be deported unnecessarily. 

III. We need to provide health equity for immigrant women. 

Immigration reform must advance all immigrant women's access to public services and 

economic support. Such services and benefits include comprehensive health coverage and care, 

legal and social services that promote equality of opportunity, integration, and the ability to make 

decisions regarding reproductive and sexual health and the well-being of the family. Immigrant 

women and families work hard, pay taxes, and are committed to being in America. They should 

be able to pay their fair share for health care and should be included in our health care system, 

just like everyone else. They should not be excluded from health care simply because of their 

immigration status. When our families and our workforce are healthy, we all benefit. 

Investing in health is common sense - and makes good fiscal sense. By and large, immigrants 

are younger and healthier than the American population as a whole.9 Allowing them to 

participate in our health insurance systems and risk pools is a good economic decision for the 

country. When immigrant women and families do not have health care, the need for medical 

attention does not go away. Immigrant families without health insurance may either delay 

treatment for preventable disease, leading to higher costs and greater suffering, or seek care 

through under-resourced and expensive emergency systems. A healthy workforce means a 

stronger economy. Good health care is essential to workers' productivity and the opportunity for 

8 Applied Research Center. Shattered Families: The Perilous Intersection of Immigratian Enforcement and the Child Wei/are System. November 

2011. Available at http://arc.org/shatteredfamilies. Accessed February 4, 2013. 

9 Leighton Ku. Health Insurance Coverage and Medical Expenditures of Immigrants and Native-Born Citizens in the United States. 

American Journal of Public Hea~h: July 2009, Vol. 99, No.7. pp. 1322-1328. 

doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.144733 

3 
144 

women and families to realize their full potential. If immigrant women are healthy, they are 

better able to support their family economically and contribute to the success of their children. 

When moms are healthy, their families benefit. 

Restrictions and other arbitrary delays that are often imposed on immigrants' access to benefits 

are costly and inhumane. Many immigrant women are unable to obtain affordable health due to 

limitations resulting from their immigration status, such as the current 5-year bar on Medicare 

and Medicaid for lawful permanent residents, and the exclusion of undocumented immigrants in 

health insurance exchanges. Women and families should not be forced to wait five years for 

health care: five years is a lifetime to a child, and may make the difference between life and 

death for a woman suffering from breast or cervical cancer. Health coverage can mean the 

difference between preventing or treating conditions that can affect development throughout life, 

and leaving those conditions undetected and untreated. Removing the five-year bar for lawful 

permanent residents and those on the roadmap to citizenship will give them the same opportunity 

to pay their share and access health care as their friends and neighbors. 

Today's laws are overly complex, confusing, and restrictive. A patchwork of state and federal 

policies limiting access to health care and family economic support creates confusion. For 

example, a single family could have members with five different kinds of eligibility for health 

care depending on their immigration status. As a result, this "chilling effect" discourages even 

qualified recipients from accessing support.lO No mother should have to navigate different health 

insurance systems for every single child, or choose which of her children gets health care. We 

need a system that works for families and ensures that women and kids get the care they need. 

Anyone could get hurt or sick, and so everyone should have access to basic health care. No one 

should live in fear that because they lack health coverage or live in world where one accident or 

illness could threaten their entire family's economic security. Access to affordable, quality 

health care is a widely-shared goal. Medical coverage plays a crucial role in health and wellbeing, and all Americans should have access. 

IV. Comprehensive immigration policy will advance freedom from violence for women. 

Reforms to our immigration policies must bring an end to programs that disproportionately 

impact women by discouraging reporting of crimes to law enforcement. Existing immigration 

enforcement measures often compromise the safety of communities rather than advancing 

protections for women fleeing state and interpersonal violence, trafficking, or exploitation. 

Many immigrant women are granted lawful entry to the United States through their husband, but 

are not legally allowed to work. In fact, the majority oftemporary worker visas such as the HI B visa heavily used by Chinese and Indian immigrants - deny dependent spouses employment 

authorization. The result is that women become wholly dependent on male sponsors and can 

exacerbate situations for those facing abuse and domestic violence. Women need an independent 

way to immigrate lawfully, be economically empowered, and access a roadmap to citizenship. 

1(1 Huang P. Anchor Babies, Over~Breeders and the Population Bomb: The Reemergence of Nativism and Populatian Control in Anti-lmmigrotion 

Policies. Harvard law and Policy Review. Vol 2: 2008. Available at http://www.hlpronline.com/Huang HLPR.pdf I Accessed January 12, 2013. 

4 
145 

Growing partnerships between local law enforcement and Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement are increasingly turning local police into immigration officers. This often makes 

women reluctant to report crimes and abuse for fear of deportation. Abusive spouses and 

exploitative employers are given a powerful weapon of control, and can effectively silence their 

victims by threatening to call the police. Instead of endangering women with these local law 

enforcement partnerships, we should empower women with smart enforcement that protects 

communities and rebuilds trust. 

While most women come to the U.S. in search of a better life, some come in search of safety 

from violence and persecution at home. Others come unwillingly as the victims of traffickers. All 

of these women are deserving of protection, and a humane immigration system that is consistent 

with American values must stand up for the vulnerable. This means identifying vulnerable 

women who come into contact with the immigration system; providing access to asylum and 

other fonns of humanitarian relief; reducing the use of immigration detention; ensuring that 

those who must be detained are afforded basic standards of care; and putting survivors on a 

roadmap to citizenship. 

V. Conclusion and Recommendations 

As Congress considers proposals to refonn current immigration laws, it is vital that the 

experiences of API women are part of the equation. There is no doubt that the patchwork system 

that is now in place has hindered our progress as a country. The contributions of API immigrant 

women should be allowed to grow - it is good for communities and it is good for the country. 

In order to address the unique challenges immigrant women face on the path to becoming full 

citizens, NAPA WF urges Congress to adopt a holistic approach through the following 

recommendations: 

(I) Provide a fair, accessible, and affordable roadmap to citizenship for all immigrants. 

This means a process that is affordable, doesn't entail long waiting periods, offers support systems 

for navigating the immigration processes, includes language learning mechanisms; grants immediate 

access to citizenship for young people who are waiting to contribute to the economy, achieve 

educational goals and skill building visions - the DREAMers; and recognizes the work of women 

employed in informal sectors of the economy and at home providing care for their own 

families. 

(2) Promote keeping immigrant families and children together. This means increasing 

family-based visas; alleviating current family-based immigrant visa backlogs; ending 

discrimination against same-sex partners under family immigration laws; allowing judges to 

exercise discretion in deportation cases that would result in family separation; and protecting 

the due process rights of parents facing deportation who want to retain custody over their 

children., 

(3) Provide health equity for immigrant women. This means reversing the decision to exclude 

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA)-eligible immigrants from health programs, 

lifting the five-year ban on access to public health benefits for Lawful Pennanent Residents 

5 
146 

(LPRs) and Lawful Prospective Immigrants (LPIs), and giving all aspiring citizens the right 

to purchase insurance through the exchanges. We believe that in order to have a healthy, 

productive, and contributing community, the basic needs of all individuals should be taken 

into account. 

(4) Advance freedom from violence for immigrant women. This means tenninating programs 

that allow state and local law enforcement to carry out immigration laws that create a sense 

of fear that forces women to choose between her own safety and fear of deportation; 

expediting current family-based sponsorships, granting dependent visa holders access to selfsufficiency independent of primary visa holder; expanding protections and relief for asylum 

seekers and survivors of trafficking, including increasing the number ofU-visas for survivors 

of domestic and sexual violence; supporting women's independence by recognizing their 

work in employment categories; and creating better channels of protection for immigrant 

women workers on the job. 

Again, thank you for taking the time to hear from advocates for women on this issue. We hope 

you will take into consideration our recommendations as the dialogue continues around how to 

fix our broken immigration system. 

For further information about how comprehensive immigration reform affects API women, 

please contact Wida Amir at wamir@napawCorg. 

6 
147 

National Center for Lesbian Rights 

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Testimony 

"How Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Should Address the Needs of Women and Families" 

March 21, 2013 

Dear Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: 

We write today to thank you for holding a hearing on "How Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Should Address the Needs of Women and Families," and to share with you our recommendations on 

this important issue. The National Center for Lesbian Rights is a legal organization dedicated to 

advancing the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LOBT) people and their families. 

For women to be completely free and able to chart the course of their own lives. they must be able to 

determine not just whether and when to create family, but where to create family. 

Furthermore, they must have access to the resources they need in order to care for their own 

reproductive health and raise their families with dignity and respect. Women who are aspiring citizens 

are excluded from public health benefits, and thus face barriers to caring for their own reproductive 

health and to plan their families. All legal immigrants are barred from eligibility for Medicaid, SCHlP, 

and other means-tested federal benefits for the first five years that they live in the United States. This 

arbitrary and harmful restriction denies women access to critical reproductive health care, including 

contraception, cervical cancer screening, and prenatal care. Moreover, while the landmark health 

reform law will give many women increased access to contraception and other reproductive health care, 

a significant portion of those who will remain uninsured are immigrant women, due to restrictions on 

immigrant eligibility for new or expanded coverage options. Women should also be able to care as best 

they can for the health and wellbeing of their children, with the comfort of knowing that they will be 

not be tom away from their children and that they can afford to take their sons and daughters to 

doctor's visits. 

The National Center for Lesbian Rights knows it is not about what you look like or where you were 

born, but how you live your life and what you do that defines you here in America. The contributions of 

immigrant women have always been vital for our society to grow and flourish. We know our country is 

strongest when women are healthy, safe, and able to care for their children and families. Truly effective 

immigration policy reform should value and honor women and their contributions. 

We call on legislators to support immigration reform that ensures women have the resources they 

need to make their own personal decisions about their reproductive health, their families, and 

their lives. To that end, the following are our recommendations for how comprehensive 

immigration policy reform can address the needs of women and families. 

I. Immigrant women need a fair and equitable roadmap to citizenship. 

Any roadmap to citizenship and integration must be open, affordable. safe, and accessible to all 

immigrant women, including those whose work is in the home and those who are employed in 

the informal economy. A roadmap to citizenship that conditions eligibility on participation in the 

I 
148 

fonnallabor market disadvantages immigrant women, who are more likely to work in the 

infonnal sector. For example, many immigrant women are domestic workers " fann laborers, nail 

salon workers, and homemakers. Immigrant women must be afforded equal employment-based 

migration opportunities and workplace protections so that they may safely pursue economic 

opportunity and support their families with dignity and pride. Our immigration system has 

historically been unfair to women, but now we have an opportunity to change it into one that 

recognizes the unique realities and contributions of women's lives. A truly equitable system will 

place just as much value on women as it does on men. Any proposed pathway to citizenship must 

place equal value on the contributions of women. 

II. We need to keep immigrant women and their families together. 

Immigration refonn must protect the right of all families to stay together, regardless of 

immigration status, family structure, sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. In 

addition, immigration policies must be modernized to provide sufficient family-based channels 

for migration in the future. Enforcement, detention, and deportation programs that compromise 

immigrant women's safety, violate their civil, human, and due process rights, and tear families 

apart must be replaced by sensible and sufficient legal channels for migration that adequately 

meet family and labor demands and respect women and their families. 

Millions offamilies are at risk of being torn apart. Currently, 5.1 million children live in mixedlegal status families. Four million of these children are U.S. citizens. 2 The growth of mixedstatus families, combined with a lack of sufficient legal channels for migration, means that more 

families than ever are at risk of being separated for years or even pennanently. In fact, between 

July 2010 and September 2012, the U.S. deported more than 205,000 parents of U.S. citizen 

children.) 

Family separation burdens local government. When parents are detained or deported, children 

are at risk of ending up in the child welfare system. The Applied Research Center in November 

2011 conservatively estimated that 5,100 children in foster care had parents who had been 

detained or deported. That number is expected to grow to 15,000 over the next five years. 4 We 

must alleviate the unnecessary burden on states by pennitting parents to care for their children. 

The lack of legal opportunities for families to be together incentivizes unlawful migration and 

encourages deported parents to return and reunite with their children. A smart immigration 

system is one that values and prioritizes family unity. When parents get involved with the 

immigration enforcement system, they often lose any say in how their children are cared for. 

Detained parents are held far from their children. They may be unable to participate in the 

reunification plans necessary to regain custody of children who end up in foster care, and they 

are often denied meaningful access to child custody hearings. A humane and cost-effective 

1 Domestic Workers United. Home is Where the Work Is: Inside New York's Domestic Work Industry, Domestic Workers United and DataCenter. 

July 2006. Available at http://Vv-ww,domesticworkersunited.orglindex.phpJenicomponentljdov .. nloadslfinishl3/4. 

2 Passel J, Taylor P. Unauthorized Immigrants and Their U.S·Born Children. Pew Hispanic Center. August 2010. Available at 

ht1p:Jlwv,.w.pewhispanic.orgI2010/08/11/unauthorized~immigrants~and-their-us-bom-childrenl Accessed March 13, 2013. 

3 Wessler SR. Primary Data: Deportations of Parents of U.s. Citizen Kids. Colorlines. December 17, 2012. Available at 

http://colorlines.comJarchives12012/12/deoortations of parents of us-born citizens 122012.html. Accessed February 4, 2013. 

4 Applied Research Center. Shattered Families: The Perilous Intersection of Immigration Enforcement and the Child Welfare System. November 

2011. Available at http;//arc.org/shatteredfamilics. Accessed February 4, 2013. 

2 
149 

immigration system would protect parents' constitutionally-protected rights to determine the care 

and custody of their children. 

Children are better off with their parents. Being undocumented does not make someone an unfit 

parent, and parental rights should only be terminated in cases of verified abuse and neglect. 

Judges need discretion to keep families together. Heavy-handed detention and deportation 

policies have tied the hands of immigration judges. Judges should be able to exercise discretion 

so that parents do not have to be deported unnecessarily. 

III. We need to advance health equity for immigrant women. 

Immigration reform must advance all immigrant women's access to health care and other family 

economic support. Such services and benefits include comprehensive health coverage and care 

and legal and social services that promote equality of opportunity, integration, and the ability to 

make decisions regarding reproductive and sexual health and the well-being of the family. 

Immigrant women and families work hard, pay taxes, and are committed to being in America. 

They should be able to pay their fair share for health care and should be included in our health 

care system, just like everyone else. They should not be excluded from health care simply 

because of their immigration status. When our families and our workforce are healthy, we all 

benefit. 

Investing in health is common sense - and makes good fiscal sense. By and large, immigrants 

are younger and healthier than the American population as a whole' - allowing them to 

participate in our health insurance systems and risk pools makes is a good economic decision for 

the country. When immigrant women and families do not have health care, the need for medical 

attention does not go away. Immigrant families without health insurance may either delay 

treatment for preventable disease, leading to higher costs and greater suffering, or seek care 

through under-resourced and expensive emergency systems. A healthy workforce means a 

stronger economy. Good health care is essential to workers' productivity and the opportunity for 

women and families to realize their full potential. If immigrant women are healthy, they are 

better able to support their family economically and contribute to the success of their children. 

For an immigrant woman, being able to protect her health and care for her family is the first step 

to full social, economic, and civic integration into the American community. When moms are 

healthy, their families benefit. 

Restrictions and other arbitrary delays that are often imposed on immigrants' access to benefits 

are also costly and inhumane. Many immigrant women are unable to obtain affordable health due 

to limitations resulting from their immigration status, such as the current 5-year bar on Medicare 

and Medicaid for lawful permanent residents, and the exclusion of undocumented immigrants in 

health insurance exchanges. Women and families should not be forced to wait five years for 

health care: five years is a lifetime to a child, and may make the difference between life and 

death for a woman suffering from breast or cervical cancer. Health coverage can mean the 

5 Leighton Ku. Health Insurance Coverage and Medicol Expenditures of Immigrants and Native-Born Citizens in the United States. 

American Journal of Public Health. July 2009; Vol 99 (7): pp. 1322-1328. 

3 
150 

difference between preventing or treating conditions that can affect development throughout life, 

and leaving those conditions undetected and untreated. Removing the five-year bar for lawful 

permanent residents and those on the roadmap to citizenship will give them the same opportunity 

to pay their share and access health care as their friends and neighbors. 

Today's laws are overly complex, confusing, and restrictive. A patchwork of state and federal 

policies limiting access to health care and family economic support creates confusion. For 

example, a single family could have members with five different kinds of eligibility for health 

care depending on their immigration status. As a result, this "chilling effect" discourages even 

qualified recipients from accessing support.6 No mother should have to navigate different health 

insurance systems for every single child, or choose which of her children gets health care. We 

need a system that works for families and ensures that women and kids get the care they need. 

Anyone could get hurt or sick, and so everyone should have access to basic health care. No one 

should live in fear that because they lack health coverage or live in world where one accident or 

illness could threaten their entire family's economic security. Access to affordable, quality 

health care is a widely-shared goal. Medical coverage plays a crucial role in health and wellbeing, and all Americans should have access. 

IV. Conclusion and Recommendations 

As Congress considers proposals to reform current immigration laws, it is vital that the 

experiences of immigrant women are part of the equation. There is no doubt that the patchwork 

system that is now in place has hindered our progress as a country. The contributions of 

immigrant women have been and should continue to be allowed to grow - it is good for 

communities and it is good for the country. 

In order to address the unique challenges that immigrant women face on the path to become full 

citizens of the U.S., the National Center for Lesbian Rights urges Congress to adopt a holistic 

approach through the following recommendations: 

(l) Provide a fair, accessible, and affordable pathway to citizenship to all immigrants and, in 

particular, ensure that those who work in informal sectors of the economy can participate in 

this process. 

(2) Promote keeping immigrant families and children together, specifically by increasing familybased immigrant visas; alleviating current family-based immigrant visa backlogs; ending 

discrimination against same-sex partners under family immigration laws; allow Immigration 

Judges to exercise discretion in deportation cases that will result in family separation; and 

protect constitutionally-protected rights to determine the care and custody of their children 

for parents facing deportation. 

6 Huang P. Anchor Babies, Over-Breeders and the Population Bomb: The Reemergence a/NatiVism and Population Control in Anti-Immigration 

Policies. Harvard Law and Policy Review. 2008; Vol 2. Available at hltp:/lwww.hlpmnline.com/Huung HLPR.pdf I Accessed January 12, 2013. 

4 
151 

(3) Advance health equity for immigrant women, including ensuring full access to the Affordable Care 

Act regardless of immigration status and lifting the five-year bar on Medicare and other meanstested federal benefits for legal permanent residents. 

Again, thank you for taking the time to hear from advocates for women on this issue. We hope 

you will take into consideration our recommendations as the dialogue continues around how to 

fix our broken immigration system. 

5 
152 

THE PATHWAY TO FULL INTEGRATION AND SELF 

SUFFICIENCY: CRITICAL SUPPORTS FOR IMMIGRANT 

WOMEN AND FAMILIES 

Presented at 

"How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs of Women 

and Families" 

Submitted to 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Submitted by 

Jennifer Ng'andu 

Director, Health and Civil Rights Policy Projects 

National Council of La Raza 

March 18, 2013 
153 

2 

Senator Hirono, Ranking Member Grassley, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on 

behalf of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), I thank you for the opportunity to appear 

before you today and provide testimony. NCLR is the largest national Hispanic civil rights and 

advocacy organization in the United States, an American institution recognized in the book 

Forces/or Good as one of the highest-impact nonprofits in the nation. We represent some 300 

Affiliates-local, community-based organizations in 41 states, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico-that provide education, health programs and care, housing, workforce 

development, and other services to millions of Americans, including immigrants, annually. 

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

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

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

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

communities by advocating for public policies here in Washington and increasingly at the state 

level. 

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

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

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

that promote immigrant integration. We have worked with multiple Administrations-including 

Presidents Reagan, both Bushes, and Clinton, to achieve the best results possible for our 

community and for the country. We know that working with both parties is the only way to get 

things done. We thank the U.S. Congress for making it an imperative to achieve immigration 

reform this year. It is clear that everyone-not just the Hispanic community and not just 

immigrants-has a stake in and stands to benefit from having well-functioning and fair 

immigration policies. 

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

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

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

status, and getting this debate on the right course is a matter of fundamental respect for the 

presence and role of Latinos in the U.S. This community of voters generated the game-changing 

moment for immigration last November, creating an opening to finally achieve the solution to 

our broken immigration system. And Latinos' critical role in civic society continues to grow. 

An average of 878,000 Latino citizens will tum 18 each year between 2011 and 2028. Our 

community is engaged and watching this debate closely. 

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

fixing our broken immigration system benefit immigrants themselves, but it is in the interest of 

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

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

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

deliver immigration reform that: 

NCLR 

NAnONAlCOtiNCIlOFU,RAIA 
154 

3 

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

the 11 million aspiring Americans, as well as smart enforcement that improves safety and 

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

process 

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

immigration channels that uphold the principle of family unity for all of America's families, 

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

labor rights, and protections for the American workforce 

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

successful integration of new immigrants 

Investments in Women and Families Are at the Heart of Immigrant Integration 

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

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

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

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

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

contributing to their newly adopted nation. We would be undermining ourselves as a nation if 

we walked away from family unity as a guiding principle for our immigration policy. These 

close relatives are able to make vital contributions to the U.S. economy as productive workers 

and entrepreneurs. Family-based immigrants have a higher mobility than employment-based 

immigrants and are able to fill gaps in our economy. 

Immigrant families are also more likely to start small- and medium-sized businesses as they 

benefit from family networks and pooled resources. Research shows that immigrant families 

work together not only to accelerate the integration of new immigrants, but they also form 

businesses together. Prior testimony from conservative policy organizations notes "a large 

majority of immigrant-owned businesses in the United States are individual proprietorships 

relying heavily on family labor," and family-based immigration has contributed to reenergizing 

small business culture in the U.S. I Immigrant-owned family businesses are a driving force 

behind revitalization in cities across our country and spur job growth in nearly every major 

metropolis. Immigrant women, in particular, are helping the country produce economically as 

one of the fastest growing sectors ofthe small business community. Immigrant women now 

represent 40% of immigrant business owners in the United States, often while serving as the 

predominant caregivers within their families. 

Immigrants who enter the U.S. through the family-based immigration system have social and 

economic advantages in that families act as a resource for integration. Families are powerful 

integrating institutions-serving as resources for employment, access to credit, and as a one-stop 

shop for support and information for newcomers. This allows immigrants to integrate into our 

society and become productive taxpayers more quickly. The instrumental role of women as the 

drivers of integration may go unnoticed; however, they often help their families achieve full 

1 Testimony of Stuart Anderson, on behalfofthe National Foundation for American Policy, before the 

House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security. and International Law, May 2007. 

NCLR 

NATIONUCIHHICllllfiARm. 
155 

4 

participation in society by pushing them to naturalize, learn English, and take on many on civic 

responsibilities. 

The Truth about Immigrants and Public Benefits 

There are significant mischaracterizations of immigrants' access to public benefits. Many 

Americans are largely unaware of the fact that undocumented immigrants are almost entirely 

banned from most major health insurance and public safety net programs. Lack of access is 

often buffered by lower ages, strong presence in the work force, and positive health behaviors, 

ensuring that immigrants use fewer public resources. Immigrants are not only less likely to use 

public benefits systems, but when they actually do receive access to a program, they are also 

likely to use a lower value of benefits, making them cheaper to provide for when they are 

enrolled in programs. According to a recent Cato report, the total use of benefits such as SNAP 

and Medicaid was 25-50% lower for immigrants than citizens, when adjusting for characteristics 

like socioeconomic factors and age. 2 Health expenditure data drawn from more than twenty 

articles from peer-reviewed journals, scholars, and respected health researchers also indicate the 

same. Immigrants, uninsured or not, at any age, generally cost less to the system, though many 

pay more out of their own pockets to get fewer services. 

These promising figures should not imply that the status quo is okay. One critical study 

published in the American Journal of Public Health in which immigrants were again found to 

have half the per capita health expenditures as U.S. citizens provides strong warning. The tradeoff of immigrant restrictions was borne on the backs of their children. Immigrant children while 

having per capita expenditures that are overall 74% lower than children in fully citizen families, 

also had emergency room expenditures that were three times higher than citizen children. 3 In 

addition, programs such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) have a small 

cost, but many studies demonstrate that these programs can lift people out of poverty and have 

lasting benefits on the nutritional status of children. In particular, Children's HealthWatch found 

that children of immigrants who received SNAP were healthier, less hungry, and more likely to 

have better nutrition outcomes than those in immigrant households without SNAP. General 

SNAP use among children closed the poverty gap by 21.3% from 2000--2009. 

A Splintered Public Benefits System 

The ultimate goal of any public benefits system should be to provide the support that enables 

American families-including immigrant families-to become self-sustaining. However, the 

irony in the treatment of immigrants is that the rules in place may actually make it harder for 

them to do so. 

Very few would argue that health insurance is essential to health and well-being in the U.S. 

However, recent changes to the health care system put in place the first-ever statutory restriction 

to private market insurance. Beginning in January 2014, when state and federal health insurance 

2 Leighton Ku and Brian Bruen. "The Use of Public Assistance Benefits by Citizens and Non-Citizen Immigrants in 

the United States" Cato Institute: Washington, DC. (February 2013) 

J Sarita Mohanty, et al. "Health Care Expenditures ofImmigrants in the United States: A Nationally Representative 

Analysis." American Journal o/Public Health. August 2005; 95(8): 1431-1438. 

NCLR 

NAllDNUCOUHOlOfiARm. 
156 

5 

exchanges are implemented, immigrants without legal status will no longer be able to purchase 

insurance in the predominant marketplace, where an estimated 16 million Americans will 

eventually purchase their health insurance. There are approximately 375,000 undocumented 

immigrants who purchase insurance on their own who now will have to seek other alternatives in 

the equivalent of an insurance black market. While the employer-based market is a source of 

coverage for some three million undocumented immigrants, there is the question of whether or 

not that market will provide the same opportunities as it has been consistently eroding. 

Most immigrants coming here through the family based immigration system must be sponsored 

by someone who demonstrates that they will financially support those immigrants. The penalties 

can be severe for those who do accept help. For instance, immigrants accepting any cash 

assistance such as those in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) also face these restrictions and can be deemed "public 

charges" and made inadmissible to the country and potentially deportable. 

Recognizing that any family can fall on hard times, immigrants are allowed to accept certain 

non-cash assistance. Even so, under the Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), immigrant women and families face statutory restrictions to 

programs that could help with full integration and productivity. With rare exception, most legal 

immigrants face a minimum five-year bar to federal programs that are often central to health and 

well-being such Medicaid, Medicare, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP). Anyone who is undocumented and even certain legal immigrants are barred 

indefinitely under those statuses. 

The outcomes of these restrictions are can be brutal. Victims of domestic violence-immigrant 

or not--often cite economic challenges as the primary barrier to escape of abuse. An immigrant 

woman who is allowed to petition for immigration relief under the Violence Against Women Act 

(VA W A) is barred from SNAP and other programs for five years. U-Visas petitioners, victims 

of crime who are assisting in the prosecution of those criminals, are denied access to the SNAP 

program altogether while in that status. Many immigrant women experiencing domestic 

violence are held hostage to abusers by basic economics, and those who end up leaving put the 

rest of their family at risk of other serious problems, including hunger. 

Due to the construction of these systems, which inhibits their participation even when they pay 

their fair share, the majority of immigrants go without coverage (58.9%) and their families may 

face difficulties and take longer to achieve well-being. Public benefits and health care 

restrictions reach well into immigrant families, even for those who are eligible. The most recent 

estimates reveal that the uninsurance levels of citizen children living in citizen-headed 

households is at 8% nationally. In households where at least one parent is a legal immigrant, 

uninsurance nearly doubles, with 14% of citizen children being uninsured. Finally, one-quarter 

(25%) of citizen children with at least one undocumented parent are uninsured. Children of 

noncitizens also experience double the food insecurity (22.1 %) than children in naturalized 

immigrant families. 

NCLR's own focus groups, conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research in 2009, on 

uninsurance in mixed-immigration status families caused alarm. Uninsured moms and dads 

NCLR 

MATIDNU ~IH1NtIlIlF LA Rm. 
157 

6 

understood the absolute necessity of good health care for their children. Many participants noted 

that they had put their families in severe financial risk, often accruing debt in order to make sure 

that their children had essential health care. When it came to their own health needs, the 

majority went without, compromising their own well-being while trying to preserve their 

children's. 

The reality ofNCLR Affiliates who are often on the frontlines of immigrant integration is 

equally concerning. San Ysidro Health Center is an NCLR Affiliate in the southernmost part of 

California. Ofthe 82,000 patients that they serve per year, more than half are uninsured. 

According to Ed Martinez, San Ysidro's President and CEO, doctors and health professionals 

experience high levels of stress-some even becoming demoralized-because of the care they 

can't give when a client is without an eligible immigration status and uninsured. As a group that 

believes their sole purpose is to heal, they provide critical primary and family care services 

regardless of status. But they often experience trouble when they need to provide health care 

beyond their capacity. A few weeks ago, a 40-year-old woman walked into their clinic with 

severe pain due to a mass that her doctor believes is cancerous. As a community health center, 

San Ysidro is not equipped for her necessary surgery or the chemotherapy that might 

follow. None of their outside partners have agreed to help. This woman, and patients like her, 

must be sent away with little more than a prescription to manage pain. San Ysidro believes that 

the only time this patient will be connected to a hospital is if she somehow finds insurance or 

ends up in emergency surgery when the condition worsens. 

Moving Forward 

Across the board, Americans back a complete roadmap to citizenship--one that allows for 

legalization---ensuring immigrants the opportunity to learn English, work at productive jobs, and 

perfonn the duties needed to earn their citizenship down the road. As recently as a month ago, 

the Kaiser Health Tracking Survey found that Americans supported health care for legalizing 

immigrants, with more than half agreeing that immigrants with proposed "provisional status" 

should be able to access Medicaid or receive financial supports for private insurance if their jobs 

did not allow for them to purchase insurance. This finding was supported by the majority of 

Americans from all racial and ethnic backgrounds. Health care and social services may not be a 

part of the core process to meet citizenship requirements, but many of these programs underpin 

this ultimate aim. 

It is common sense that we allow immigrant families, who pay their fair share of contributions, 

to participate in the systems that are fundamental to the infrastructure of American society. 

Their future health and well-being will be important to sustain the vibrancy of our country. 

NCLR believes that policymakers should consider the following strategies as they develop 

legislation: 

• Bolster the ability of employers to ensure that workers can support their families. 

Workers should have the ability to create strong households, invest in citizenship, and 

ultimately avoid hardships like hunger. This should be backed up with appropriate 

incentives to strengthen the eroding employer-based health care system and ensure that 

NCLR 

NATlDNAlCDUN[IlDfLAflm 
158 

7 

workers and their families are provided opportunities to gain access to employer-based 

health insurance and wellness plans. 

• Prevent the undermining of the private insurance market. Encourage immigrant families' 

participation in the private sector insurance market by extending coverage opportunities 

to legalizing immigrants in this area, supporting the systems where other Americans get 

their insurance. 

• Remove statutory restrictions to federal "means-tested" health and nutrition programs for 

lawfully present immigrants, including those who are legalizing. Eliminating barriers to 

Medicaid, for currently lawfully present immigrants whose only options may be 

exchanges, may actually generate funding that can be reinvested in our nation's health 

priorities. 

• Provide neighborhoods and communities with the resources needed to support integration 

at the ground level. Ultimately, these resources will be the closest partners of immigrant 

families who will help them thrive and contribute. 

In previous legislative debates, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and the President 

of the United States have touted immigration reform as vehicle to promote public policy that 

addresses the social well-being and health of immigrants. NCLR agrees that now is the time. 

We recognize that each policy investment in immigration reform must be mindful of America's 

pocketbook. By the same token, it comes down to a simple adage-penny wise or pound 

foolish. Giving immigrant women and families the tools for full integration now will pay off in 

their contributions later. 

NCLR 

NAH!lNUtOUNrtlOFl.4IlAIA. 
159 

Statement of National Immigration Law Center 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Hearing: Immigration Revision and Needs of Women and Families 

March 18,2013 

The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) is a nonpartisan organization exclusively dedicated to 

defending and advancing the rights oflow-income immigrants and their families. We conduct policy 

analysis, advocacy, and impact litigation, as well as provide training, publications, and technical 

assistance for a broad range of groups throughout the U.S. 

Since its inception in 1979, NILC has earned a national reputation as a leading expert on the intersection 

of immigration law, health care and economic supports, and the employment rights of low-income 

immigrants. NILC works in collaboration with health care advocacy and anti-poverty groups, state 

immigrant rights coalitions, legal aid attorneys, workers' rights advocates, labor unions, health care and 

social service providers, and faith and community-based organizations. NILC is a key resource for 

federal and state policymakers, government agencies, as well as the media due to our in-depth policy 

expertise which is informed by on-the-ground experiences and emerging issues. 

NILC advocates for passage of broad and humane immigration reform legislation that provides a clear 

roadmap to full citizenship for the 11 million aspiring citizens. This would make it possible for 

immigrants to fully integrate into the nation's social and economic fabric, with all the rights and 

responsibilities entailed in full integration. Full citizenship should ensure that everyone living in the U.S. 

has access to economic supports, affordable health care, workers' rights, and the freedom to live free from 

fear of detention and deportation. 

Immigrant families face barriers that keep them disproportionately in poverty 

Immigration reform will not only affect those currently without a road to citizenship, but their family 

members as well. There are an estimated 5.5 million children living in mixed-status immigrant 

households, three-quarters of whom are U.S. citizens. 1 Of the II million individuals currently without 

status, one million are children and of the remaining ten million adults, nearly one-half are parents of 

children. As a result, it is critical that Congress not consider the II million aspiring citizens as a 

monolithic group and recognizes that immigration reform will have an exponential effect on the lives of 

millions oflow-income individuals, citizens as well as immigrants, residing in the U.S. 

Children in immigrant families make up nearly one in four of all children in the U.S. and account for 

almost a third of all children in U.S. low-income families.' In 2010, the median annual household income 

1 Passel, Jeffrey, Cohn, D., A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, April 14, 2009, Pew Hispanic Center, 

available at hrtp:I/\vww.pewhispanic.orgireportsJreoort,php?ReportID-107. See also S. McMorrow, G.M. Kennye, & c. Coyer, 

Addressing Coverage Challenges/or Children under the Affordable Care Act, Urban Institute, May 20 II, available at 

http://www. urban.org/uploaded pdl7412341-Affordable-Cate-Ac!.pdf. 

22011 American Community Survey and Census Data on the Foreign Born by State, Migration Policy Institute, available at: 

http:/AvVi\\'.rriigrationintonnation,orgldatahub/acscensus.cfm 
160 

for non-U.S. citizens was $25,000, roughly half the median income of citizen households.3 In the United 

States, a child should not face hunger or a lack of a sense of security, or be unable to see a doctor when 

ill; yet children with immigrant parents disproportionately experience these barriers as compared to 

children with native-born parents. Although all parents strive to provide for their children and ensure that 

they have the opportunities afforded to every child and be able to succeed in life, immigrant parents face 

barriers to do so consistently, which stem primarily from their immigration status rather than lack of 

effort. For instance, despite immigrants' high levels of participation in the nation's workforce, a 

disproportionate number of immigrants and their family members are uninsured" Currently, more than 

one-third of children in immigrant families do not have health insurance.' Thus, while the majority of 

Americans receive affordable coverage for themselves and their families through their employer, 

immigrants often lack health insurance because they work in low-wage industries that do not offer strong 

worker protections or benefits." This lack of affordable health insurance puts these immigrants at grave 

risk - both physically and financially - and makes the working conditions of immigrant workers even 

more egregious.' Compounding this dynamic, many immigrant workers face retaliation, oververification, and retaliation in the workplace, necessitating serious refOims of electronic emplovment 

verification,' particularly for women; and protection from retaliation.!O 

Since immigrant families tend to work in low-wage industries, and the majority of children in immigrant 

families are U.S. citizens, many children in immigrant families are eligible for government-sponsored 

health insurance, such as Medicaid, as well as anti-hunger programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP).II Unfortunately, their participation rates in these programs are consistently 

lower than children in native-born households.l2 For example, while participation rates for children in 

SNAP have been historically nearly 90%, U.S. citizen children in mixed-status households participated at 

only 55%.13 These discrepancies between access to health care and nutrition programs among children in 

immigrant and native-born citizen households are most often a result of a complicated set of eligibility 

'id. 

4 Key Facts on Health Coverage for Low-Income Immigrants Today and Under the Affordable Care Act, Kaiser Family 

Foundation, March 2013, available at: http://W\\'W.kff.orgluninsurcd/8279.cfm 

5201 J American Commu.nity Survey and Census Dala on the Foreign Born by State, Migmtion Policy Institute, available at: 

http://\v\\'W.migrationinforrnation.org/datahubJacscensus.cfm 

6 Key Facts on Health Coverage/or Low-Income Immigrants Today and Under the Affordable Care Act. Kaiser Family 

Foundation, March 2013, available at: http://v''W\\'.kft:org!uninsuredl8279.dh1 

7 For more information on the mistreatment of immigrant workers, see Statement of Emily Tulli, House Committee on the 

Judiciary, January 26, 2011, aval1able at https://njic.org!documem.hlml?id-="360. 

8 Sec NILC's E-Verw & Immigration Reform. February 2013 available at: https:llnilc.QrgJdQcument.html'!id~855 

9 See NILe's E-Verify Errors: A Women's Issue. March 2013 available at: https:/lnilc.orgleveriftimpactonwomen.html 

10 See NILC's The POWER Act: Protect Our Workers from Exploitation and Retaliation Act, June 2011 available at: 

https:llnilc.org/power-act-2011-06-08.html 

11 See NILC's Overview of Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs available at: 

http://www.nilc.org!table ovrw tcdprogs.html 

12 See e.g., Victoria Lynch, Samantha Phong, Genevieve Kenney. and Juliana Macri, Uninsured Children: Who are They and 

Where Do They Live?, Urban Institute, August 2010, accessible at: http://wviw.rwjforg!contentldam!webasscts/20 I O!08/unin<ured-children (providing analysis of participation rales of children in Medicaid and the Children's Health 

Insurance Program (CHIP)). 

13 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Guidance on Non~Citizen Eligibility, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture, June 2011, available at: ,""w.fns.usda.gov/snap/govemmentfpdtiNon-Citizen _Guidance _ 06301l.pdf 
161 

rules based on immigration status that lead to confusion and enrollment errors. I4 For example, a parent 

who is a lawful permanent resident (also referred to as an "LPR" or "green-card holder") who obtains her 

status today must wait an arbitrary five years to enroll in SNAP, Medicaid, as weB as Temporary 

Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), even ifshe meets all other eligibility criteria today. The Personal 

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) created a web of 

complicated, arbitrary, and burdensome eligibility rules that deny opportunities to low-income 

immigrants and their families, who include individuals with lawful status or are U.S. citizens, from 

escaping poverty." Moreover, immigrants who are barred from federal affordable health care and antihunger programs pay taxes that help support these programs now as well as in the future. I6 

Yet access to health and nutrition programs for low-income immigrants has very little to do with the fact 

our immigration laws are outdated and that our immigration system must be reformed. Individuals 

imrriigrate to the United States for three key reasons - to reunite with family members, to seek better 

education and employment opportunities, or for humanitarian reasons (e.g. fleeing violence due to war or 

internal conflicts, fleeing persecution for religious beliefs, etc.). The failure of our current immigration 

system to adequately address these needs and the economic needs of the nation is one reason why our 

immigration system is broken and that there is "no line" for millions of individuals to stand in. Even for 

those who do have a line to stand in, punitive provisions from the 1996 laws such as the 3 and 10 year 

bars, stand as arbitrary barriers to re-unification. 17 

It is critical that future efforts to repair this broken system address the actual causes of migration rather 

than myths based in fear, not fact. Access to affordable health care, anti-hunger or anti-poverty programs 

does not cause migration; in fact, immigration increased in the 1990's as a result of economic growth in 

the U.S. and despite federal restrictions to these key programs.18 During this most recent recession, 

immigration declined.l9 However, denying access to these programs to the most vulnerable among us has 

resulted in increased health disparities, learning difficulties for children who are hungry, ill, or unable to 

see the blackboard for instance, and a generation of parents who are struggling to provide for their 

families and give them an opportunity for a better life. 

Congress must not perpetuate this harmful mistake. An immigration system for the 21" century must 

recognize our nation's current economic needs as well as create the opportunities that will help spur 

economic growth in the future by investing, rather than punishing, aspiring citizens so they can contribute 

to their fullest potential. 

\4 See NILC's Overview of Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs available at: 

http://www.ni1c.orgltableo\.[\\lfednrogs.html. Also see e.g., Connecting Eligible immigrant Families to Health Coverage and 

Care: Key Lessonsfrom Outreach and Enrollment Workers, Kaiser Family Foundation, October 2011, available at: 

http://w\\w.kfforg/medicaid!8249.cfm 

15 See NILe's Overview a/Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs available at: 

http://w\\:w.nilc.org!tableo\.1"\\ltcdprogs.htmi 

16 See e.g., Strength in Diversity: The Economic and Political Power of Immigrants, Latinos, and Asians, Immigration Policy 

Center, January 2012, available at: http://w\v\v. immigrationpolicv .org!just-facts!strcngth~djversitv-cconomic-and-politicalpower-immigrants-latinos-and-asians 

17 Even the waiver that exists to overcome the 3 and 10 year bars does not even consider whether a U.S. citizen child would 

sufTer hardship if denied reunification with her parents. SeeINA §212(a)(9)(8)(v). 

18 Passel, Jeffiey and Cohn, D., U.S. Population Projections: 2005-2050, Pew Hispanic Center, February 11,2008, available at: 

http://www.pcwhispanic.org/2008102/11/us-oopulation-projections-2005·20501 

19 Passel, Jeffrey and Cohn, D., Unauthorized Immigrant Population: National and State Trends, 2010, Pew Hispanic Center, 

February I, 20 I I, http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/02/0 Ifunauthorized-immigrant-population-brnational-and-state-trends-20 I 01 
162 

Recommendations for addressing the needs oflow-income families in immigration reform 

Immigration reform must provide a roadmap to full citizenship, reunite family members who have been 

separated due to family visa backlogs and harmful immigration enforcement policies, and enact strong 

worker protections that will improve the working conditions for everyone?O The majority of Americans 

support a pathway to citizenship and modernizing our immigration system." 

In addition, there is strong support that aspiring citizens on a road to citizenship have access to affordable 

health care and nutrition assistance. More than 360 state and national organizations, representing a 

diverse group of stakeholders - including health care providers, labor, children's and women's rights 

organizations, immigrant rights groups, and the faith community - joined together to ask Congress and 

President Obama to pass immigration reform legislation that entails not only responsibilities, but the 

opportunities to meet those responsibilities, through fair access to health and anti-hunger programs.22 

Access to these programs would provide only a level playing field for these individuals, rather than a 

special benefit. For example, allowing aspiring citizens to be able to purchase affordable health insurance 

through the Affordable Care Act, along with millions of other Americans, allows them to pay their fair 

share and help bring down the cost of health care for everyone." In fact, there is already strong supportespecially among voters of color - for providing aspiring citizens access to affordable health care through 

Medicaid or private insurance under the Affordable Care Act of 20 I 0.24 

The National Immigration Law Center recently launched the Healthy New Americans campaign to 

provide an opportunity for a diverse and growing number of supporters and voices to advocate for access 

to affordable health care and nutrition assistance for millions of low-income aspiring citizens, who 

include children, women, as well as parents. The long-term consequences of excluding aspiring citizens 

and other immigrants from full participation in society denies not only them, but all of us, a more 

economically secure future and a stronger nation that lives up to and demonstrates its most cherished 

values. 

20 See e.g., Shattered Families: The perilous Intersection a/Immigration Enforcement and the Child Welfare System~ The 

Applied Research Center (ARC), November 2011, available at: http://arc.org/shatteredfamilies 

21 See a compilation of public polling from January and February 2013 including from Quinoipiac. WaShington Post/ABC News, 

Public Policy Polling, AP·GFK, Hart Research AssociateslPublic Opinion Strategies, and Fox News. Available at: 

http://amefica..''ivoiceonline,org!polls/poll·roundup~americans·support~fun-citizenship-for·undocumented-hnmigrantsl 

22 An Open Letter to President Ohama and to All Members a/Congress, March 2013, available at: 

http://v.,,,,",,v.ni!c.orgldocument.html?id=845 

23 How immigrants Are Covered in Health Care Reform, National Immigration Law Center, April 2010, available at: 

http://wvlo·w.niic.org/innnigran1shcr.html 

24 See Kaiser Family Foundation, February Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, February 2013 available at 

http://ww\\',kff.orglkaisemolls/8418.cfm 
163 

o NAnONAL LATINA IN"ITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

STATEMENT OF 

NATIONAL LATINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

FOR HEARING, "HOW COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM SHOULD 

ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF WOMEN AND FAMILIES" 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

March 18,2013 

Chainnan Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: 

We are honored to submit this statement for the record on behalf of the National Latina Institute 

for Reproductive Health (NLIRH) regarding today's hearing on "How Comprehensive 

Immigration Refonn Should Address the Needs of Women and Families." We would like to 

extend a special thanks to Senator Hirono for calling this hearing and for her leadership on 

immigration refonn and support for immigrant women and families. NLIRH is the only national 

organization advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice for 24 million U.S. Latinas, their 

families, and their communities. Through policy advocacy, community mobilization, research, 

and public education, we work to ensure the fundamental human right to reproductive justice for 

Latinas, including immigrant Latinas, who face additional barriers to achieving reproductive 

health. 

NLIRH is a founder and Steering Committee member of the National Coalition for Immigrant 

Women's Rights (NCIWR), the leading national collaboration to assert a gender and women's 

rights analysis to immigration law, policy, and practices. The Coalition now represents over 80 

grassroots and national advocacy organizations working together for immigration refonn, fair 

and non-discriminatory implementation of our immigration and enforcement policies, and 

reproductive and economic justice for immigrant women in the United States. As organizations 

representing immigrant women, we write today out to commend members of the Senate 

Judiciary committee for their commitment to improving our immigration laws. We also seek to 

highlight opportunities for improving policies for immigrant women and families through the 

bipartisan framework for immigration refonn put forth by Senators Schumer, McCain, Durbin, 

Graham, Menendez, Rubio, Bennet, and Flake. 

Immigrant Women are the Backbones of Our Families, Communities 

Immigrant women are integral to the rich social, cultural, intellectual, and economic fabric of the 

United States. Immigrant women are the drivers of integration by encouraging their families to 

learn English, succeed in school and business, pursue naturalization, and fulfill their civic 

NATIONAL LATINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

50 Broad Street, Suite 1937 19D1 L St ]\''W, Suite 300 

New Y ark, NY 10004 Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: 212·422·25531 Fax: 212·422·2556 Phone: 202·62H4351 Fax: 202·62H427 

\\'''\\'\v.latinainstitutc.org 
164 

e NATIONAL LAllNA INSTITUTE FOR REPROOUCTIVE HEAITH 

responsibilities. Immigrant women are more likely to start businesses than their U.S.-born 

counterparts and now account for 40% of all immigrant business owners.! Yet, despite their 

many contributions to our families and communities, issues of concern to women continue to be 

left out of conversations about immigration reform, and women continue to suffer injustice, 

discrimination, family separation, disparities in health care access and outcomes, and fear 

because of our nation's immigration policies. 

The face of the immigrant in the United States is increasingly that ofa woman. Women now 

make up 51 % of the immigrant population2 and 55% of all green card recipients in 2010.3 The 

majority of women migrate to reunite with family, to make a better life for their children, or to 

escape oppression, discrimination, and violence that prevent them from living full and free lives 

in their home countries. Yet, current immigration laws, policies, and programs disproportionally 

disadvantage women. In the absence of sufficient legal channels for migration, more than 5 

million women in the United States today are undocumented and living on the margins of our 

society.4 

Instead of honoring the contributions of immigrant women to the United States, past efforts at 

immigration reform have failed to provide for equitable citizenship, adequate protection, and full 

integration for all women. A reasonable and sustainable solution to current and future 

immigration needs must take into account gender specific perspectives. In addition, the path 

forward on immigration must ensure equality for all immigrants, protect and promote their civil 

and human rights, and empower aspiring citizens to fully participate in and contribute to our 

economy and society. 

Statement of Principles on Women and Immigration Reform 

1 Pearce S, Clifford E, Tandon R. Our American Immigrant Entrepreneurs. Immigration Policy Center. December 

20 II. Available at 

http://www.immigratiollpolicy.ondsites/default'files/docs/Women Immigrant Entrepreneurs 120811.pdf I 

Accessed March 13,2013 

'United States Census Bureau. 2011 American Community Survey I-Year Estimates. Selected Characteristics of the 

Native and Foreign-Born Populations. Available at 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t. Accessed on January 15, 2013. 

J Motel S, Patten E. Statistical Portrait of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2011, Table #1. Pew 

Hispanic Center. January 2013. Available at http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/01/29/statistical-portrait-of-theforeign-born-population-in-the-united-states-2011l#1I Accessed March 13, 2013; Department of Homeland 

Security. 2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Homeland Security; 20 II. 

Available at http://www.dhs.gov/sites/defaultlfiles/publications/immigratiollstatistics/yearbook/2011/ois yb 2011.pdflAccessed March 13,2013. 

4 Hoefer M, Rytina N, and Baker B. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Estimates ofthe Unauthorized 

Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2011. March 2012. Available at 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrarv/assets/statistics/publicationslois ill pe 2011.pdf. Accessed on January 15,2013. 

"IATIONAL LA TINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

50 Broad Sneet, Suite 1937 1901 L St NW, Suite 300 

New York, NY 10004 Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: 212·422·25531 Fax: 212·422·2556 Phone: 202·62H4351 Fax: 202·621-1427 

v .. '\V"'\vJatinainstirutc.org 
165 

e NATIONAL LATINA INSTITUT' FO. REPRODUCf'VE HEAITIJ 

The National Coalition for Immigrant Women's Rights (NCIWR) has issued a Statement of 

Principles for Women and Immigration Reform, which advances a vision of immigration reform 

that is inclusive and responsive to the needs and concerns of immigrant women. The Statement 

of Principles, endorsed by more than 230 local, state, and national organizations representing 

immigrant rights, reproductive health and justice, children's health and rights, labor and workers' 

rights, civil rights, faith, and LOBT rights, calls for the inclusion of women in all aspects of 

immigration reform. The principles are: 

• Any pathway to citizenship and integration must be open, affordable, safe, and accessible 

to all immigrant women, including those whose work is in the home and those who are 

employed in the informal economy; 

• Immigrant women must be afforded equal employment-based migration opportunities 

and workplace protections so that they may safely pursue economic opportunity and 

support their families with dignity and pride; 

• Immigration reform must protect the right of all families to stay together, regardless of 

immigration status, family structure, sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status, 

and provide sufficient family-based channels for migration in the future; 

• Immigration reform must advance all immigrant women's access to public services and 

family economic support, including comprehensive health coverage and care, and legal 

and social services that promote equality of opportunity, integration, and the ability to 

make decisions regarding reproductive and sexual health and the well-being of the 

family; 

• Enforcement, detention, and deportation programs that compromise immigrant women's 

safety, violate their civil, human, and due process rights, and tear families apart must be 

replaced by sensible and sufficient legal channels for migration that adequately meet 

family and labor demands and respect our obligations under international law; and 

• Reforms to our immigration policies must bring an end to programs that 

disproportionately impact women by discouraging reporting of crimes to law 

enforcement and compromising the safety of communities, and must advance protections 

for women fleeing state and interpersonal violence and victims of trafficking or 

exploitation. 

Gaps for Immigrant Women Identified in Senate Bipartisan Framework for 

Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

While NLIRH and NCIWR applaud the Senate's commitment to improving our nation's 

immigration laws and establishing consensus on creating a roadmap to citizenship for the II 

million aspiring citizens currently undocumented, we have identified gaps for immigrant 

women's health and rights in the framework put forth by the bipartisan committee in the U.S. 

Senate. 

"'A TIONAL LA TINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

50 Broad Street. Suite 1937 1901 L St NW. Suite 300 

New York. NY 10004 Washlngron.DC 20036 

Phone: 212e 422e 2553I Fax: 212-422-2556 Phone: 202-62H435I Fax: 202-62H427 

\-y\ywJatinainstitute.org 
166 

e NATIONAL LATINA INSlTTUTE FOR REPRonucnvE HEAUl1 

As currently written, the framework would preserve existing gender inequalities in our 

immigration system by failing to provide women an equal opportunity to apply for citizenship, 

and favoring employment-based migration over expanded opportunities for family unity. 

AdditionaHy, the policies laid out in the bipartisan framework may endanger immigrant women's 

health, safety, and well-being by requiring increased immigration enforcement and denying 

access to federal health and family economic support for those granted provisional status. 

We know that improving the health of immigrant women and families makes for stronger 

communities and makes good fiscal sense, and would urge the Committee to consider these 

issues as the work to reform our immigration system proceeds. 

The Impact of Health Care Restrictions on Immigrant Women 

Immigrant women face additional barriers, including financial, legal, and language barriers, to 

accessing the health care they need. Ofthese barriers, lack of access to health insurance remains 

one ofthe most harmful and persistent. Despite high participation in the labor force,5 immigrant 

women are less likely to have access to employer-sponsored health care compared to U.S.-born 

individuals.6 In 2011, only 34% of non-citizen immigrant Latinas had access to their employer's 

health care.? This stands in stark contrast to the U.S. citizen population, of which approximately 

64% have access to health coverage through their employment. 8 Immigrant Latinas are overrepresented in industries that typically do not offer health coverage to its employees, including 

agriculture and the service sector. 9 Additionally, immigrant Latinas are more likely to work in 

professions where employment is informal, as caretakers and domestic workers for example, 

where they do not have access to employer-sponsored coverage. Moreover, these same jobs are 

often dangerous and subject the employee to higher risk of injury or illness, exacerbating the 

situation. Additionally, immigrant Latinas are more likely to be low-wage workers and live in 

51n 2011, the labor force participation rate for foreign-born women was 54.6% compared to 58.7% for U.S. born 

women. In 2011, the jobless rate for immigrant women was 9.5% compared to 8.3% for U.S. born women. United 

States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. Labor Force Characteristics of Foreign-Born Workers 

Summary. May 24, 2012. Available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/forbm.nrO.htm.Accessed on February 3, 

2013. Of the 11.9 million undocumented in 2008,8.3 million were in the workforce. See Passel J, Cohn D. A 

Portrait oJ Unauthorized Immigrations in the United States. Pew Hispanic Center. April 2009. Available at: 

http://www.pewhispanic.orgJ~009/04114/a-portrait-of-unauthorized-immigrants-in-the-united-statesl Accessed 

February 20, 2013. 

6 Kaiser Family Foundation. The Role of Employer-Sponsored Coverage For Immigrants: A Primer. June 2006. 

Available at http://www.kfforgiuninsuredJuploadJ7524.pdf. Accessed on October 5, 2012. 

7 Labor Council for Latin American Advancement. Trabajadoras: Challenges and Conditions of Latina Workers in 

the United States. March 2012. Available at http://www.lclaa.orglimages/pdflTrabajadoras Report.pdf. Accessed 

on February 28, 2013. 

8 Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. Connecting Eligible Immigrant 

Families to health Coverage and Care: Key lessons from Outreach and Enrollment Workers. October 2011. 

Available at http://www.kff.org/medicaidJ8249.cfin. Accessed on October 12, 20]2. 

'Ibid. 

NATIONAL LATINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

50 Broad Street, Suite 1937 1901 L St NW. Suite 300 

New York, NY lD004 Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: 212·422·25531 Fax: 212·422·2556 Phone: 202·621-1435I Fax: 202·621-1427 

\\'\vwJarinainsritlltC':.org 
167 

e NATIONAL LATINA INSHWfE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEAUll 

poverty, 10 putting costly private plans out of reach for many. As such, immigrant Latinas have 

less access to employment-sponsored and private health insurance, compared to the U.S.-born 

population. 

On top of these barriers, existing federal policies undermine access to health insurance for 

immigrant Latinas. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 

(PRWORA), or the 1996 welfare reform law, eliminated or restricted immigrants' participation 

in federal health care programs. The law imposes a five-year bar for access to Medicaid and 

other means-tested benefits for long-standing immigrants. These federal restrictions also impact 

immigrants' eligibility for state and local government health programs, including the State 

Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP). Both Medicaid and SCHIP provide access to 

important sexual and reproductive health care, and the changes due to welfare reform have had a 

dramatic impact on all immigrants' participation in these programs. 1 1 Additionally, the Illegal 

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), also of 1996, further restricted 

immigrant women's access to health and economic sup~orts by making it more difficult for 

immigrants to establish eligibility for public programs. 2 The barriers put in place by the 1996 

laws continue to have a harmful impact on the health and lives of immigrant women. 

Recently-enacted federal legislation, which gives states more options to cover immigrants, have 

represented a tremendous step forward, yet many gaps remain. With the Children's Health 

Insurance Program Reauthorization of2009, states were given the option to receive federal funds 

to cover "lawfully present" children under 21 years of age and/or pregnant women without the 

five-year waiting period. Yet approximately half of states, including states with high immigrant 

populations like Texas and Florida, have not taken up this option to provide coverage to pregnant 

women.13 Additionalli,' undocumented immigrant women have never been eligible for federal 

health care programs. 4 

)0 In 2011, immigrant women earned 64 cents for every dollar U.S.-born women earned and nearly half (49.3%) of 

women-headed immigrant households lived in poverty. United States Census Bureau. 2011 American Community 

Survey I-Year Estimates. Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations. Available at 

http://factfinder2.censlls.gov/faces/nav/jsfipages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t. Accessed on January 15,2013. 

11 Sonfield A. The Impact of Anti-Immigrant Policy on Publicly Subsidized Reproductive Health Care. Guttmacher 

Institute. Gut/macher Policy Review. Winter 2007; 10(1). Available at 

http://www.guttmacher.org!pubs/gprlI01l/gprlOOI07.html. Accessed on October 12, 2012_ 

12 Huang P. Anchor Babies, Over-Breeders and the Population Bomb: The Reemergence of Nativism and Population 

Control in Anti-Immigration Policies. Harvard Law and Policy Review. Vo12: 2008. Available at 

http://www.hlpronline.comlHuang HLPRpdf. Accessed on January 12,2013. 

13 In fact, Texas, a state with a large immigrant population, denies federal Medicaid coverage to most qualified 

immigrant adults who entered the country on or after August 22,1996 even after they complete the federallyimposed 5-year bar. See National Immigration Law Center. Table: Medical Assistance Programs for Immigrants in 

Various States. July 2012. Available at http://nilc.orgidocument.html?id=159. Accessed on October 11, 2012. 

14 Huang P. Anchor Babies, Over-Breeders and the Population Bomb: The Reemergence of Nativism and Population 

Control in Anti-Immigration Policies. Harvard Law and Policy Review. Vol 2: 2008. Available at 

http://www.hlpronline.com/Huang HLPR.pdf. Accessed on January 12,2013. 

:'<ATlO:'<AL LATINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

50 Broad Street, Suite 1937 1901 L St NW, Suite 300 

New York, NY 10004 Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: 212-422-25531 Fax: 212-422-2556 Phone: 202-62H4351 Fax: 202,62H427 

v-...'Vi.,,\vJarinainstitutc.Clrg 
168 

e NATIONAL LAnNA INSllTUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

And gaps for immigrant women remain after the enactment of the health reform law, the 

Affordable Care Act (ACA). Despite advances for immigrant health through the ACA, federal 

restrictions on immigrant's access to health care were not addressed by the law and immigrants 

were restricted or excluded from new and expanded coverage options, including the expanded 

Medicaid program, full price plans offered on the new health insurance exchanges, and 

premium tax credits and subsidies to help afford plans on the exchanges. 15 

Due to these barriers to both public and private health insurance, 55% of non-citizen immigrant 

Latinas in 2011 lived without any form of health insurance. 16 And immigrants are greatly overrepresented in the uninsured population: while immigrants represent 13% of the total U.S. 

population, they represent 29% ofthe uninsured. 17 

Barriers to health insurance have had a dramatic impact on the lives of immigrant Latinas. Laws 

enacted over recent decades restricting immigrants' access to vital health care and economic 

supports have disproportionately impacted women, who are more likely to seek health care and 

family economic supports for themselves and their children. 18 Moreover, laws allowing public 

benefits administrations to report immigration status of applicants to immigration enforcement 

authorities have created a climate of fear. Women do not come forward to participate in family 

economic security programs, even when they and their children are eligible, because they are 

afraid of being detained or deported. 19 Additionally, the patchwork of state and federal policies 

limiting access to health care and family economic supports also create confusion and a "chilling 

effect" discouraging all immigrant participation in health care and family economic supports. 20 

For example, eligible immigrant women's participation in Medicaid dropped significantly after 

the enactment of federal legislation restricting immigrant women's access to vital health and 

family economic security programs.21 And despite the partial restoration of immigrant access to 

15 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured: Key Facts. Immigration 

Reform and Access to Health Coverage: Key Issues to Consider. February 2013. Available at 

http://www.kff.orgJuninsurediuploadiS420.pdf. Accessed on March 14,2013. 

16 Labor Council for Latin American Advancement. Trabajadoras: Challenges and Conditions of Latina Workers in 

the United States. March 2012. Available at http://www.lclaa.orgJimages/pdf/Trabajadoras Report.pdf. Accessed 

on February 2S, 2013. 

17 United States Census Bureau. 20 II American Community Survey \-Year Estimates. Selected Characteristics of 

the Native and Foreign-Born Populations. Available at 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?rerresh=t. Accessed on January IS, 2013. 

" Huang P. Anchor Babies, Over-Breeders and the Population Bomb: The Reemergence of Nativism and Population 

Control in Anti-Immigration Policies. Harvard Law and Policy Review. Vol 2: 200S. Available at Accessed on 

January 12, 2013. 

19 Ibid. 

20 Ibid. 

21 Gold RB. Immigrants and Medicaid after Welfure Reform. Guttmacher Report on Public Policy. March May 

2003, Volume 6, Number 2. Available at http://www.guttmacher.orgipubs/tgr/0612/gr060206.htmL Accessed on 

January 13,2013. 

:'<ATIO:'<AL l.ATINA INSTITIlTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

50 Broad Street, Suite 1937 1901 L St NW, Suite 300 

New York. NY 10004 Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: 212·422·2553 I Fax: 212-421·2556 Phone: 202·62H435I Fax: 202·62J.1427 

\v\vwJarinainstitute.org 
169 

~ NATlONAlLATlNA INSlTl1JU FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) after 1996, eligible immigrants represent a 

disproportionately low share of SNAP enrollees.22 

Barriers to health insurance and health care programs contribute to widened health disparities, 

poorer health outcomes, and increased health care costs. For instance, while cervical cancer 

(which is preventable in most cases and can be treated if caught early) has been on the decline 

for U.S. born women, rates for immigrant women have been on the rise. 23 Studies point to lack 

of health insurance as a significant barrier for immigrant women in accessing the routine 

gynecological care necessary to prevent cervical cancer. 24 Additionally, research has 

demonstrated that undocumented women without access to prenatal care are four times more 

likely to deliver low-weight infants and more than 7 times more likely to deliver prematurely 

than undocumented women with access to prenatal care.25 And every dollar cut from prenatal 

care in California has been associated with a $3.33 increase in post-natal care costs and $4.68 in 

incremental long-term care costs, ultimately leading to increased costs to taxpayers over the 

long_run.26 As such, federal policies restricting immigrant Latinas' access to health care have 

enacted a high human toll-by contributing to widened reproductive health disparities - and have 

defied sound public health policies. 

There is Broad Support for Advancing Immigrant Health in Immigration Reform 

A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation demonstrated that there is high public support for 

advancing immigrant equity in health through immigration reform. According to the survey, 63% 

of people believed that immigrants currently without status who will obtain provisional status 

through immigration reform should be eligible for Medicaid coverage.27 And 59% believed 

immigrants with provisional status should be eligible for federal assistance to purchase a health 

plan on the new health insurance exchanges if they do not have access to health insurance 

through their employer. Support for both proposals was higher among Black and Latino 

22 Barrett A, Poikolainen A. Food Stamp Program Participation rates: 2004. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food 

and Nutrition Service. 2006. Available at 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/oraiMENUIpublishedisnapIFILESlParticipationIFSPPartZ004.pdf Accessed on January 16. 

2013. 

23 American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Health Care for Undocumented Women. January 2009. 

Available at 

http://www.acog.orglResources And Publications/Committee Opinions/Committee on Health Care for Underse 

rved Women/Health Care for Undocumented Immigrants. Accessed on October 8, 2012. 

24 RodriguezMA, Ward LM, Perez-Stable EJ. Breast and cervical cancer screening: impact of health insurance 

status, ethnicity, and nativity of Latin as. Annual of Fam Med. 2005; 3:235-41. 

25 Lu MC, Lin Y, Prietto N, Garite T. Elimination of Public Funding of Prenatal Care for Undocumented Immigrants 

in California: A CostlBenefit Analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2000; 182(1): 233-239. 

2'Ibid. 

27 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: Public Opinion on Health Care Issues. February 

2013. Available at http://www.kff.orglkaise[JJolls/uploadl8418-F,pdf. Accessed on March 14,2013. 

NATIONAL LA TINA INSTInJTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

50 Broad Street. Suite 1937 I9Dl L St NW, Suite 300 

New York, NY 10004 Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: 212-422-25531 Fax: 212·422·2556 Phone: 202·62l-l4351 Fax: 202·62H427 

wvv\vJacinainstitute,org 
170 

e NATIONAL LATINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

respondents. The study also found that many people underestimate the extent to which 

immigrants are excluded from affordable and quality health care options. 

Investing in Health is Common Sense--and Makes Good Fiscal Sense 

By and large, immigrants are younger and healthier than the American population as a wholeallowing them to participate in our health insurance systems and risk pools makes good fiscal 

sense. When immigrant women and families don't have health care, the need for medical 

attention doesn't go away. Immigrant families without health insurance may either delay 

treatment for preventable disease, leading to higher costs and greater suffering, or seek care 

through under-resourced and expensive emergency systems. 

A Healthy Workforce Means a Stronger Economy 

Good health care is essential to workers' productivity and the opportunity for women and 

families to realize their full potential. If immigrant women are healthy, they are better able to 

support their family economically and contribute to the success of their children. For an 

immigrant woman, being able to protect her health and care for her family is the first step to full 

social, economic, and civic integration into the American community. When mom is healthy, the 

whole family benefits. 

The 5-Year Bar and other Arbitrary Delays are Costly and Inhumane 

Women and families should not be forced to wait five years for health care: five years is a 

lifetime to a child, and may make the difference between life and death for a woman suffering 

from breast or cervical cancer. Health coverage can mean the difference between preventing or 

treating conditions that can affect development throughout life, and leaving those conditions 

undetected and untreated. Removing the five-year bar for legal immigrants and those on the 

roadmap to citizenship will give them the same opportunity to pay their share and access health 

care as their friends and neighbors. 

Today's Laws are Overly Complex, Confusing, and Restrictive 

A patchwork of state and federal policies limiting access to health care and family economic 

supports creates confusion and a "chilling effect" discouraging qualified recipients from 

accessing support.28 A single family could have members with 5 different kinds of eligibility for 

health care depending on their immigration status. No mother should have to navigate different 

health insurance systems for every single child, or choose which of her children gets health care. 

We need a system that works for families and ensures that women and kids get the care they 

need. 

2& Huang P. Anchor Babies. Over-Breeders and the Population Bomb: The Reemergence o/Nativism and Population 

Control in Anti-Immigration Policies. Harvard Law and Policy Review. Vol 2: 2008. Available at 

http://www.hlpronline.com/Huang HLPR.pdf I Accessed January 12,2013. 

"'A TlO"'AL l.A TINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEAl.TH 

50 Broad Street. Suite 1937 19011. St NW, Suite 300 

New York, NY 10004 Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: 212-422-25531 Fax: 212-422-2556 Phone: 202-621-14351 Fax: 202-62l-I427 

w\vw.larinainsritute.org 
171 

e NATIONAL LATINA IN'= FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

Anyone Could Get Hurt or Sick, and So Everyone Should Have Access to Basic Health 

Care 

No one should live in fear that because they lack health coverage, one accident or illness could 

threaten their family's economic security. Access to affordable, quality health care is a widelyshared goal. Medical coverage plays a crucial role in health and well-being, and all Americans 

should have access. 

Conclusion 

The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health urges the Committee to consider the needs 

and perspectives of immigrant women and families, as well as the unique challenges these 

groups face, as the work to reform our immigration policies proceeds. NLIRH recommends that 

the committee consider the Statement of Principles for Women and Immigration Reform as 

immigration reform proposals are vetted and developed, including the urgent needs to expand 

access to health care and family economic supports for all immigrant women and families, 

regardless of their status pre- or post-reform. We are grateful for the opportunity to present this 

testimony, and thank the Committee for your ongoing work on these important issues. 

NATIONAL LATINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODVCTIVE HEALTH 

50 Broad Street, Suite 1937 1901 L St NW, Suite 300 

New York, NY 10004 Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: 212-422·25531 Fax: 212·422·2556 Phone: 202-62H4351 Fax: 202·62H427 

,,,'-ww,11rinainstitutc,C1rg 
172 

Testimony of 

Karen Panetta, Ph.D. 

Vice President, Communications and Public Awareness 

The Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers - United States of 

America (IEEE-USA) 

To the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the 

Needs of Women and Families 

18 March 2013 
173 

Thank you, Chairman Hirono, ranking Republican member Grassley, 

and the other members of this panel. I am honored to be here to 

testify on your theme: "How Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Should Address the Needs of Women and Families." 

My name is Karen Panetta. I am a Professor of Electrical and 

Computer Engineering and Director of the Simulation Research 

Laboratory at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts. I was 

worldwide director of IEEE's Women in Engineering (WIE) 

Committee. I'm also editor-in-chief of the award winning IEEE WIE 

Magazine and creator of the "Nerd Girls" program. The mission of 

this nationally acclaimed program is to break down the many 

barriers that discourage young women from studying engineering 

and pursuing careers in engineering fields. 

I represent the IEEE-USA, the 206,000 members of the Institute of 

Electrical and Electronics Engineers in the United States. We are a 

professional society, the largest organization of technologists in the 

world, founded by Alexander Graham Bell, who was an immigrant, 

and Thomas Edison, who was not. That global perspective has 

always been a part of the IEEE-USA. 

It is fuel for America's economic engine. 

We recognize that innovation comes from a diversity of talents, and 

we seek out the world's brightest individuals to work with. 

We not only want to work with them there, we also welcome them 

here - as equals. 

IEEE has recognized that one of the world's most valuable resources 

has been underutilized. That resource is women. As part of the 

IEEE's commitment to promoting diversity, we have created the IEEE 

Women in Engineering program, which is now the world's largest 

professional organization where a community of both men and 

women support the advancement of women in the Science, 

Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines. 

Comprehensive immigration reform is a multi-faceted issue, so in 

2 
174 

this hearing I have been asked to focus on just one aspect: the impact 

of huge increases in H-lB visas, as proposed by the I-Squared bill, on 

women and families. 

As an engineer, one of my talents lies in the ability to use data to 

identify how things "break". I do this so I can identify the pitfalls 

and failures in a system so that they can be fixed before any harm can 

be done. I am here today to tell you that the HI B Visa Program is a 

place where our immigration system is broken. The American people 

are being harmed and it only requires us to look at facts to see why. 

When companies replace American workers with lower-paid foreign 

workers, our economy suffers. And when companies move good, 

high-paying jobs out of our country permanently our nation's 

prosperity and long-term competitiveness suffers even more. 

I don't know of anyone in this country who would want to defend 

doubling the number of outsourcing visas for companies who take 

American jobs, give them to temporary foreign workers, and then 

ship the jobs overseas. Yet that is what some in the Senate have 

proposed doing through the I-Squared bill. 

The IEEE-USA view of skilled immigration is simple: we favor green 

cards, not guest worker visas. There are no problems for which green 

cards are not a better solution than temporary visas. And there are no 

problems with the H-lB program itself that a system built on green 

cards cannot fix. 

The greatest damage that the H-IB visa program imposes on women 

and families clearly results from offshore outsourcing. A month ago, 

Computerworld analyzed official data from the Department of 

Homeland Security which show that all of the top 10 users of the HIB program, and 15 of the top 20, are outsourcing companies. These 

fifteen companies used more than half of all the H-lBs used by the 

private-sector in 2012, and they do not represent all the offshore 

outsourcing companies that are active in the U.S. 

So for all the talk about H-IBs helping to create American jobs, the 

facts show something else: As the Indian government itself has said, 

the H-IB is the outsourcing visa. This hurts American familiesincluding women and children. 

3 
175 

It not only harms the many H-lB workers who want green cards 

themselves, it also hurts their spouses and families by holding them 

in immigration purgatory for years. They are in this country, but 

don't have residency rights to stay here unless their employer allows 

him/her to stay. This lack of permanence and uncertainty makes it 

difficult to build the type of life expected by all Americans and it can 

be especially difficult for children, many of whom are US citizens, 

who can't understand why their parents do not have the same rights 

as their neighbors. 

The offshoring phenomenon has been well documented and is easy 

to see in the H-1B data. We have numerous examples of the H-lB 

visa being used to replace Americans with lower-cost H-lB workers 

and to help companies move American jobs overseas: Nielsen in 

Florida. Pfizer in Connecticut. The gaming industry in Nevada, just 

to name a few well-documented cases. 

There are essentially just four arguments used to justify the H-lB 

program. 

The first, and most candid, is the one made by the government of 

India. They regard the H-1B program as trade in services. Contractors 

recruit in India to bid on jobs in the US, competing with American 

companies with lower labor costs. A Duke University survey found 

that 72% of companies which use outsourcers do so to save on labor -

they don't want workers who are better, they want workers who are 

cheaper. 

But it is one thing to ship jobs overseas to take advantage of lower 

wages and working conditions. It is another to import those lower 

wages and working conditions to the US. 

I can see why India likes this model. I do not see why any American 

Senator or Representative would support increasing H-lB visas for 

this purpose. 

The second argument is that there are some genuinely temporary 

jobs, for which there should be some genuinely temporary visas. 

Companies which use the H-lB for this purpose have a legitimate 

complaint that the demand for H -1 B visas is so great that they cannot 

get what they need. The answer is simple: cut out the outsourcers. 

Without them in the program, there will be plenty of H-lB visas for 

4 
176 

legitimate companies with a need for genuinely temporary workers. 

The third argument is the Farm Team: the idea that an employer 

should be able to try a foreign student out - first on Optional 

Practical Training, OPT, then on an H-IB, for years on end, before 

finally going through an elaborate regulatory process to sponsor the 

worker for a green card. I am not sure that Senators appreciate what 

a huge disincentive this creates for high tech employers to hire 

Americans, particularly women. 

When an employer offers a foreign STEM grad a job on OPT, they 

have no commitment to sponsor them for an H-IB. When they offer 

to hire them with an H-IB visa, good for three years, they have not 

committed even to sponsor them for a second three years, much less 

for a green card. The worker has until the 5th year of his H -lB visa to 

find an employer who will sponsor him - and they are nearly all men 

- for a green card and then, during the often years long process called 

labor certification, if the worker takes a new job with someone else, 

the employer simply withdraws the green card application and the 

worker has to start over. 

The final argument that employers make for the H-lB is that it takes 

too long to get a green card. This argument is absolutely correct - but 

it is not an argument for the H-IB program. It is an argument for 

enabling employers to get green cards for STEM graduates as soon as 

they are hired. 

Employers often cry crocodile tears that they cannot get enough 

green cards, and they cannot get them fast enough. But you can easily 

fix both problems. At the end of the last Congress, a substantial 

House majority twice voted to create 55,000 more STEM green cards. 

The path to increased high skilled immigration is clear before you. 

As for enabling employers to get green cards for their new hires as 

soon as they are employed, well: shouldn't that be what the OPT 

term is for? Twenty-nine months is plenty of time for a transition. 

The delays are caused not only by too few green cards, but also by 

the labor certification and petition process. The solution to this 

problem is also simple: replace Labor Certification with fees. 

We strongly endorse Microsoft's proposal from last December to pay 

5 
177 

a total of $25,000 in fees to take foreign STEM graduates from their 

student visa to green card - and we urge that this transition be 

completed promptly and directly, with no need for the intermediate 

step of an H-lB. The principle is very simple: if an employer is 

willing to pay a substantial fee -- Microsoft proposed $25,000 -- for a 

worker who can quit if they are underpaid or mistreated, that is solid 

proof that the employer actually needs the worker's skills because 

they are willing to pay for them. If there was an American with 

comparable skills, the employer would not need to pay $25,000 to 

sponsor someone for a green card. 

But if an employer is only willing to pay a substantial fee for a 

worker who cannot easily quit if they are underpaid or 

unappreciated - as is true for the Farm Team H-IB model- that is 

also pretty solid proof that the employer isn't paying for the worker's 

skills, but for the indentured character of the visa. 

So the H-IB gives companies enormous leverage over their workers, 

and that leverage creates a huge disincentive to hire Americans. 

But that's not all. We are talking about the impact of comprehensive 

immigration reform on women and children. When the Senate looks 

at comprehensively fixing our immigration system, here are two 

problems to solve: 

If someone gets married and then gets a green card, both spouses get 

green cards. That is a good thing. But when the green card comes 

before the marriage, the minimum wait for the new spouse to get 

their green card is more than two years, and has been more than 7. 

While many can disagree on what the definition of family values are, 

no one can disagree that valuing families is the underlying fabric of 

our society. Separating families is tearing at the fabric of our nation. 

It can also push devoted families into illegal immigration as they 

choose to commit to their marriage vows and responsibilities as 

parents. 

So the contrasting treatment of families in the H-IB program 

compared to green cards actually mocks our values: it forces skilled 

STEM graduates who want to have real marriages to remain 

temporary workers, since it punishes those who make a commitment 

6 
178 

to the United States before they are married. 

While everyone acknowledges it is just the tip of the iceberg, most of 

the 220,000 backlog counted by the State Department are spouses and 

children of employment-based immigrants, permanent residents, 

separated by the lack of immediate visas for these nuclear family 

members. 

As software consultant Mathi Mugilan Paguth Arivalan testified to 

the House Judiciary Committee last week: 

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

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

was just a temporary worker, my wife would not be 12,000 

miles away. 

True, an H-lB spouse cannot work, but the I-Squared bill proposes to 

change that. So the Senate is actually considering creating incentives 

for STEM graduates to stay on H-lB visas longer, because the women 

-- and families -- of temporary workers are treated better than those 

who have made a commitment to the US by becoming legal 

permanent residents. 

Let me warn the Committee about the obstacles which the H-lB visa 

program creates for American women in STEM fields. 

We all know that there is a serious gender imbalance in science, 

technology, engineering and math. Some of this is outright 

discrimination. Some of it can be attributed to the hostile 

environment that develops when a professional field is closed off to 

women, or any other underrepresented group. Some can be directly 

traced to cultural pressures and negative social stereotypes of 

intelligent women, all of which we try to overcome through our 

Women in Engineering program. 

But clearly, disincentives to hire an American woman for that first 

STEM job are a huge obstacle to moving up in the field. It is hard to 

get promoted when you don't get hired in the first place. The 

existence of this preferred pipeline for new hires has a hugely 

discouraging effect on independent American women considering 

STEM fields. 

7 
179 

Why? Because H-IB workers are almost always foreign men held at a 

disadvantage by their employers as long as they are working at 

permanent jobs on temporary visas. 

When those disincentives for hiring American women are created by 

the Congress, you have a powerful affirmative obligation to correct 

them. As Senator Hirono pointed out in her opening remarks, most 

women come as immigrants through family-based immigration, 

because men get most of the green cards in employment-based 

immigration. That is even more true for the H-IB program, and it is 

especially true for outsourcers. 

How true? My own experience tells me that the vast majority of H18 workers are men. Everybody knows this. The IEEE-USA 

represents more American high tech workers than anybody else, so 

we have sources. One from inside the industry, looking at the 

offshoring companies that dominate the H-18 program, is that their 

global hiring is 70% men. But in the U.s., where outsourcing 

companies get more than half the capped H-18 visas, the ratio is 

more like 85% men. That's outrageous. 

As an engineer, I don't like making decisions without hard data. The 

IEEE-USA has been trying for months to get the actual data on this 

from DHS. They have been stonewalling us. It's a simple question: 

how many women get H-IB visas? 

We are still waiting on our Freedom of Information Request. But it's 

a scandal that we even had to file one. When you think about it --

why doesn't DHS already know exactly how many women get H-18 

visas? If a major immigration program effectively discriminated 

based on race or national origin, would that be okay? 

We urge this Committee to set aside any legislation proposing to 

increase H-IB visas until we have this data. Surely you would not 

want to have voted substantial increases in the H-IB program, only 

to discover that the data shows that not only is it mostly used by 

outsourcers whose business model is entirely about replacing 

American workers, but also that the H-IB visa program effectively 

pushes women out of the STEM fields. 

Finally, let me turn from the controversies to what ought to be the 

easy part of comprehensive immigration reform where there is broad, 

8 
180 

bipartisan agreement. Virtually everybody agrees that there ought to 

be more green cards for advanced degree STEM students in this 

country. This is the easiest and most effective way to welcome the 

graduates of our top universities into this country as Americans, 

empowering the immigrants to fully participate in our economy 

while not disadvantaging Americans who want successful careers 

and scientists and engineers. 

Why is Congress jeopardizing comprehensive immigration 

legislation with the H-IB's controversies and conflicts? 

Surely, this Committee will try to cut outsourcers out of the H-lB 

program before you even consider increasing H-IB numbers. 

Why not first increase green cards for STEM graduates, as both 

Women in Engineering and the IEEE-USA and so many others have 

urged? 

Green cards do not create a disincentive to hire Americans -

including American women - that the H-IB does, because the green 

card means the immigrant worker is treated as an equal. 

Let me conclude by thanking the Committee for the honor of being 

asked to testify. I want to particularly thank Senator Grassley for his 

leadership on the issue and for his H-lB legislation to be introduced 

this week. 

I will be happy to answer any questions on my areas of expertise. 

-30-

9 
181 

Supplementary Material 

A. Dominance of the H-1B program by Outsourcing Companies 

1) Analysis of US Department of Labor LCA (Labor Condition 

Applications) data by the IEEE-USA 

Applications approved 

Total for Outsourcing 

Location Applications Companies Percentage 

Alabama 2070 669 32 

Alaska 303 175 58 I Arizona 9288 5488 59 

Tem~e 713 323 45 

Arkansas 4051 2648 65 

California 115841 42102 36 

San Jose 14246 7395 52 

Colorado 9598 5967 62 

Connecticut 15534 9619 62 

Delaware 4109 2431 59 

Florida 24601 11680 47 

Miami 3905 1690 43 

Tam a 3307 2216 67 

Georgia 19453 8862 46 

Hawaii 613 143 23 

Idaho 1112 594 53 

Illinois 38993 20498 53 

Indiana 6048 2601 43 

Iowa 3783 1577 42 

Kansas 3899 24121 62 

Kentucky 3803 1934 51 

Louisiana 1749 518 30 

Maine 1253 740 59 

Maryland 10745 2877 27 

Massachusetts 25844 12853 50 

Michi an 17317 9136 53 

Minnesota 14994 9858 66 

Duluth 164 137 84 

Twin Cities 72 

Mississippi 847 310 37 

10 
182 

Missouri 9122 5436 60 

Montana 164 64 40 

Nebraska 2,282 1269 56 

Nevada 1570 727 46 

New Hampshire 2476 1425 58 

New Jersey 47480 25955 55 

New Mexico 919 228 25 

New York 62528 22031 35 

North Carolina 18808 11427 61 

NC 13th District 2182 1266 58 

North Dakota 917 549 60 

Ohio 23,725 14,647 62 

Oklahoma 2,110 935 44 

Oregon 8907 6329 71 

Pennsylvania 25051 13263 53 

Rhode Island 2452 1603 65 

South Carolina 3478 2017 58 

SC 4th District 1678 1428 85 

South Dakota 796 606 76 

Tennessee 8575 5723 67 

Texas 55421 23407 42 

Utah 2268 1218 54 

Vermont 813 545 67 

Virginia 17541 6983 40 

Washington 18992 8376 44 

West Virginia 800 397 50 

Wisconsin 10623 7173 68 

Wyoming 91 0 

11 
183 

2) Computerworld reports: the majority of H-IB visas actually 

issued go to outsourcing companies; the impact on companies, 

including contractors, that rely on American workers. 

[Highlights added.] 

http://www.computerworld.com/s/ article I 9236732 I The_dat 

a_shows_Top_H_lB_users_are_offshore_outsourcers?taxonom 

y Id=70&pageNumber=1 

The data shows: Top H-IB users 

are offshore outsourcers 

U.S. government1s H-1 B visa list shows accelerating 

demand from offshore outsourcers 

By Patrick Thibodeau and Sharon Machlis 

February 14, 2013 03:28 PM ET 

Computerworld - WASHINGTON -- The largest single users 

of H-1 B visas are offshore outsourcers, many of which are 

based in India, or, if U.S. based, have most employees 

located overseas, according to government data obtained 

and analyzed by Computerworld. 

Search the 2012 H-1B database by employer to see how 

many new H-1B visas were granted to a company. 

The analysis comes as supporters of the skilled-worker visa 

program are trying to hike the H-1 B cap to 300,000. 

Supporters of the raised cap, though, face opposition from 

critics who contend that H-1 B visas undermine American 

tech workers and shouldn't be expanded. 

12 
184 

Year 

FY12 

FY11 

FY10 

FY09 

FYOS 

Approved 

134,780 

99,591 

69,266 

80,283 

98,014 

Initial petition requests that were approved; does not include renewals. Source: 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 

Most of the largest H-1 B users easily account for more than 

35,000 H-1 B visas under the "initial" visa plan, which 

includes new H-1 B visa holders or those who work second 

concurrent jobs with a different employer. H-1 B visa 

holders who change employers altogether are not counted 

as new approvals. The government data could also include 

visa applications filed in 2011 but not approved until 2012. 

"This is just affirmation that H-1 B has become the 

outsourcing visa," said Ron Hira, a public policy professor 

at the Rochester Institute of Technology and researcher of 

tech immigration issues. 

Company 2012 2011 

Cognizant 9281 5095 

Tata 7469 1659 

Infosys 5600 3360 

Wipro 4304 2803 

Accenture 4037 1304 

HCL America 2070 930 

Mahindra Group (incl Satyam) 1963 404 

IBM 1846 987 

Larsen & Toubro 1832 1156 

Oeloitte 1668 798 

Microsoft 1497 1384 

Patni Americas 1260 164 

Syntel 1161 363 

Employers with the most new H-1 8 visa application approvals in fiscal year 2012. 

13 
185 

Source: Computerworld analysis of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 

data. Some company divisions were combined, such as IBM Corp. and IBM 

India, Tata consulting and engineering groups, etc. 

Not all of the major H-1 B users are India-based. 

Microsoft ranked 11 th and has largely been the public face 

of those supporting a U.S. H-1 B cap increase. IBM is also a 

major visa user but its numbers also include the company's 

India-based operation. Global firms Accenture and Deloitte 

use the visa for IT services operations. 

The U.S. currently makes 85,000 H-1 B visas available 

annually, but more can be approved for operations with 

exemptions, such as universities and nonprofit research 

organizations. 

A group of 10 bipartisan U.S. senators last month filed a 

bill, called the Immigration Innovation or I-Squared Act, that 

would hike the H-1 B visa cap immediately to 115,000 and 

then allow it to gradually rise further to 300,000. 

One of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said 

the bill addresses "the shortage of high-skilled labor we 

face in this country. This shortage has reached a crisis 

level. " 

While the companies who testify in support of raising the 

visa cap are typically U.S.-based, like firms like Microsoft, 

the largest H-1 B visa users are offshore providers, such as 

New Jersey-based Cognizant, which at 9,281 visas in 2012 

led the list. 

At the end of 2011, Cognizant employed 137,700 overall, 

according to its annual report. Of that number, 21,800 were 

14 
186 

based in various locations throughout North America and 

Latin America. The balance was mostly in Asia-Pacific. 

Cognizant employed 156,700 at the end of last year, but 

has not yet released a new annual report yet with regional 

breakdowns. 

Of its U.S. workers, Cognizant points out in securities filings 

that the "vast majority of our technical professionals in the 

United States and Europe are Indian nationals who are able 

to work in the United States and Europe only because they 

hold current visas and work permits. II 

Cognizant didn't want to comment on the data, but did 

raise a caution flag that it believes the 2012 government 

numbers are higher than the number of H-1 B visas the 

company actually used. However, USC IS confirmed that 

the data in their list was accurate. 

According to the USCIS data, initial H-1 B approvals for all 

employers combined jumped 35% year over year. 

The USCIS initial data includes some 134,000 entries. 

Some companies are entered multiple times because of 

variation in their identification due to multiple business units 

(IBM Corp. vs. IBM India, for example) and multiple 

versions of the same company name (such as Microsoft 

Corp. and Microsoft Corporation). 

The different versions were consolidated in 

Computerworld's analysis but left in their original form in 

the searchable database above. It also includes institutions 

that are exempt from the cap, such as universities and 

research institutions. This data is for the 2012 federal fiscal 

year that ended on Sept. 30. 

15 
187 

While the USCIS data shows a higher number of initial visa 

requests for all the outsourcing firms last year, the numbers 

have not changed the overall trend. The pattern of usage 

remains the same. 

Offshore firms, including India-based Tata Consultancy 

Services, Infosys, Wipro, Mahindra Group (which includes 

Sat yam) and Larsen & Toubro, have been among the 

largest users year after year. 

Hira believes that more H-1 B visas will lead to more 

offshore outsourcing. 

"The failure of Congress and the Obama Administration to 

close loopholes in the H-1 B program is reducing job 

opportunities for American high-tech workers and 

undermining their wages," said Hira. 

Hira believes the H-1 B usage data should give pause to the 

lawmakers who introduced the Immigration Innovation Act. 

"If that bill were to be passed we'd see a major 

hemorrhaging of American jobs and it would discourage 

American kids from studying high-tech fields," he said. 

Microsoft would not comment on the USCIS data. The 

company is perhaps the leading industry advocate for tech 

immigration reform and increasing the "STEM pipeline," 

referring to science, technology, engineering and math 

jobs. 

The large hike in H-1 B visa use marks the first time that 

new-use approvals broke 100,000. When asked to doublecheck those surprising results, a USC IS spokesman said 

they were confident of the data. 

16 
188 

Some sources who saw the numbers speculate that the 

higher H-1 B count numbers may be result of a shift from 

the l-1 visa, which are used by companies with offices in 

the U.S. and abroad to transfer employees. Visa rejection 

rates have been rising, they noted. 

Hong Kong-based ClSA Asia-Pacific Markets, an equity 

and financial services group, said visa rejection rates are 

exceeding 40%. But it believed the outlook for overseas 

firms is improving thanks to a shift in Congress on 

immigration. 

Citing recent moving to liberalize access to work visas and 

permanent residency, ClSA sees Congress "taking a more 

reformist and accommodative stance moving away from 

the anti-business immigration rhetoric which dominated the 

U.S. immigration discourse through 2011-12." 

Search the 2012 H-1B database by employer to see how 

many new H-1 B visas were granted to a company. 

Patrick Thibodeau covers SaaS and enterprise 

applications, outsourcing, government IT policies, data 

centers and IT workforce issues for Computerworld. Follow 

Patrick on Twitter at @DCgov, or subscribe to Patrick's RSS 

feed. His email address is 

pthibodeau@computerworld.com. 

17 
189 

http://www.computerworld.com/s/articJe/9237639/Lawmak 

ers hear -'rom_CEO _opponents_oCH_1 Bs?taxonomyld=72 

Lawmakers hear from CEO 

opponents of H -lBs 

Domestic IT services providers believe U.S. visa policies 

put them at a competitive disadvantage 

By Patrick Thibodeau 

March 15, 2013 03:53 PM ET 

Computerworld - WASHINGTON -- In a closed door 

meeting this week on Capitol Hill, lawmakers and staff took 

the H-1 B visa debate in a different direction. They invited 

the heads of some U.S.-based IT services companies, 

competing directly with offshore outsourcing providers, for 

a frank discussion away from the public eye. 

Among those invited to present at this meeting was Brian 

Keane, the CEO of a new IT services company, Ameritas 

Technologies. It opened its first services center in Baton 

Rouge, La., in July. At its opening, Louisiana Gov. Bobby 

Jindal said the center, with its average salary of $63,000, 

will II create more opportunities for our sons and daughters 

in Louisiana." It plans to have a staff of 300 by 2016. 

Ameritas is hiring local college graduates, most of whom 

have a computer science degree and some with physics 

and programming skills. The company puts these new 

employees through a technical training boot camp to 

18 
190 

Keane said at the meeting. Overseas companies are also 

paying lower wages to H-1 B workers in the U.S., "so they 

can charge lower prices than equivalent U.S. competitors 

using U.S. citizens as their workforce," he said. 

Offshore providers are the major users of the H-1 B visas, 

and last year they used about half of the available visas. 

The H-1 B visa is a competitive issue for Keane, and he has 

been in this business for years. He was the former CEO of 

Keane, a $1 billion IT services company that became a 

subsidiary of NIT Data Corp. in 2011 . 

For Keane, the H-1 B visa is a competitive issue, but also 

said, in an interview. 

The session was organized by U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (0-111.), 

who, with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), are the Senate's 

two leading H-1 B critics. The Senate is considering a bill to 

raise the 65,000 H-1 B cap to 300,000 under a graduated 

increase formula, and eliminate a cap altogether for 

advanced degree STEM graduates, students with degrees 

19 
191 

in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. That 

H-1 B cap for STEM graduates is set at 20,000. 

The Senate staffers also heard from Systems in Motion 

CEO Neeraj Gupta, a domestic IT services company with a 

development office in Ann Arbor, Mich. 

"American IT jobs continue to be 'offshored," Gupta said, in 

his remarks. "While our H-1 Band L 1 visas make a valuable 

contribution to the U.S. economy, they are also "enabling" 

the offshore industry and creating a competitive 

disadvantage for domestic organizations." 

Ron Hira, a public policy professor at the Rochester 

Institute of Technology who participated in the session, said 

the forum raised the H-1 B visa as a competitive issue for 

U.S. companies. 

Durbin and Grassley have proposed a number of 

restrictions to the program, including limiting any 

company's use of the H-1 B visa to half of its workforce. 

They have also been interested in changes that would end 

the lower tier of the prevailing wage rate. 

Among the ideas Gupta suggested was to set higher pay 

for H-1 B workers. Keane would like to see eliminating the 

H-1 B visa for entry level workers. 

Keane sees opportunity for a domestic IT services industry, 

20 
192 

in part, because of the changing nature of development. 

Increasing reliance on development methodologies such 

as agile has created a need for real-time decision-making 

and close collaboration. But that also means increasing the 

supply of domestic IT workers by encouraging college 

enrollments and training, he said. 

2) The impact S. 169 would have on creating a new and larger 

backlog for green cards. 

(Analysis by former House Immigration Chairman Bruce A. 

Morrison, principal author of the Immigration Act of 1990, a 

practicing immigration lawyer and chairman of Morrison Public 

Affairs Group.) 

ANALYSIS OF EB BACKLOGS AND EFFECT OF S. 169 

The following analysis assumes the enactment of S. 169 provisions regarding green 

cards. It calculates backlogs and ongoing demand and supply using principals only. (For 

backlog data that includes dependents, the numbers are divided by 2.1, the prevailing 

average of 1.1 dependents per principal.) Per country quotas are assumed to be 

eliminated. The State Department publishes backlog data each month, but it is limited to 

cases at NVC (less than 10% of the EB demand) and 1-485s approved at US CIS (which 

excludes 1-140s that have never been current and for which no 1-485 could have been 

filed). The chart below includes 1-140 approvals since January 2007 from an inventory 

produced in July 2012 (and so does not include approvals since then but which is 

approximated by the January-July 2007 approvals that are included). 

Current Backlog Estimate EB-2 (Thousands) 

DoS Chart (2/8/2013) (/2.1) 24 

1-140 Approvals Since 8/07(India) 93 

1-140 Approvals Since 1I08(China) 12 

1-140 Approvals Since 8/07(Mexico) 0 

1-140 Approvals Since 8/07(Philippines) 0 

1-140 Approvals Since 8/07(Other Countries) 0 

21 

EB-3 (Thousands) 

27 

60 

9 

23 

35 

92 
193 

Total Backlog (Principals Only) 

Supply and Demand in 2014 

Recapture (Principal Only Usage) 

Estimated EB-l Fall Down 

Estimated EB-4 & 5 Fall Down 

Effect of STEM Exemption 

Annual Allocation (36.9% of 140,000) 

Supply for EB-2 

Backlog 

Annual Demand ( Average from 1-140 

Approvals) 

Net 2014 Supply (Fall Down to EB-3) 

Net Unmet 2014 Demand (Carryover to 2015) 

Supply and Demand in 2015 

Recapture (Principal Only Usage) 

Estimated EB-I Fall Down 

Estimated EB-4 & 5 Fall Down 

Effect of STEM Exemption 

Annual Allocation (36.9% of 140,000) 

Supply for EB-2 

Backlog 

Annual Demand (Average from 1-140 

Approvals) 

Net 2015 Supply (Fall Down to EB-3) 

Net Unmet 2015 Demand (Carryover to 2016) 

Supply and Demand in 2016 

Recapture (Principal Only Usage) 

Estimated EB-I Fall Down 

Estimated EB-4 & 5 Fall Down 

Effect of STEM Exemption 

Annual Allocation (36.9% of 140,000) 

Supply for EB-2 

Backlog 

Annual Demand (Average from 1-140 

Approvals) 

Net 2015 Supply (Fall Down to EB-3) 

Net Unmet 2015 Demand (Carryover to 2016) 

22 

129 

EB-2 (Thousands) 

139 

5 

5 

30 

52 

231 

-129 

-39 

63 

o 

EB-2 (Thousands) 

0 

5 

5 

30 

52 

92 

0 

-39 

53 

0 

EB-2 (Thousands) 

0 

5 

5 

30 

52 

92 

0 

-39 

53 

0 

246 

EB-3 (Thousands) 

81 

o 

52 

-246 

-42 

63 

-92 

EB-3 (Thousands) 

0 

0 

52 

-92 

-42 

53 

-29 

EB-3 (Thousands) 

0 

0 

52 

-29 

-42 

53 

34 
194 

These estimates show that EB-2 clears in the first year, but EB-3 not till the third. 

Meanwhile, both categories will likely be current because uscrs will not keep up with 

the processing. Concurrent filings will be the rule again. Some increase in demand will 

occur due to the improving economy. But H-IB increases would be the main source of 

additionall-140s. Beginning in 2014, the H-lB usage would increase by a minimum of 

50,000 (just the baseline increase) probably 70,000 (due to elimination of the master's 

cap). This overwhelms the 34,000 extra numbers by 2016 and the backlog grows as fast 

as the H-IB numbers do. 

### 

23 
195 

Planned 

Parenthood' 

Care. No matter what. 

Planned Parenthood Federation of America Planned Parenthood Action Fund 

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Testimony 

"How Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Should Address the Needs of Women and Families" 

March 21, 2013 

Planned Parenthood Federation of America ("Planned Parenthood") and Planned Parenthood Action Fund ("the 

Action Fund") are pleased to submit these comments on immigration reform before the United States Senate 

Judiciary Committee. Planned Parenthood is the nation's leading women's health care provider and advocate 

and a trusted, nonprofit source of primary and preventative care for women, men, and young people in 

communities across the United States. Every year, Planned Parenthood health centers provide affordable birth 

control, lifesaving cancer screenings, testing and treatments for STD's and other essential care to nearly three 

million patients. The vast majority of Planned Parenthood patients have incomes at or below 1S0 percent of the 

federal poverty level, and in 2010, 23 percent (more than 630,000 people) of Planned Parenthood clients were 

Latinos. 

We thank you for holding an important hearing ,"How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the 

Needs of Women and Families." In addition to expressing our appreciation to the Committee for addressing such 

an important topic, we would like to provide our unique perspective as a health care provider and elaborate on 

the specific question posed by Senator Hirono regarding the five year waiting period for Medicaid coverage 

As a health care provider, we urge Congress to lift the current five year waiting period for legal immigrants to 

access essential health care programs, including Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). 

The five year waiting period is an arbitrary and harmful restriction that has resulted in women being unable to 

access vital preventive care that they would otherwise qualify for, including cancer screenings, pap smears, and 

birth control. As a result, immigrant women are more likely to develop preventable illnesses and delay 

obtaining medical treatment. We know that access to affordable and reliable contraception is critical for 

women and is directly linked to improved maternal and infant health. When women plan their pregnancies, 

they are more likely to access prenatal care - improving their own health and the health of their children. By 

lifting the five year waiting period, immigrant women will be able to access contraception and pre and postnatal care that helps keep them and their families healthy. Indeed, refusing to allow access to this type of 

coverage, for any amount of time, will only further contribute to poor health outcomes-exacerbating health 

disparities for a large section of the American population today and for generations to come. In addition to 

lifting the five year waiting period, we also urge Congress to allow all immigrants to access health care via 

private insurance Marketplaces (formerly called Exchanges). The Affordable Care Act already allows lawfully 

present immigrants to access coverage in the Exchange; however, undocumented immigrants cannot access 

health plans in the Marketplace even at full cost. Although undocumented individuals are able to access health 

care coverage outside of the Marketplace, it is very likely that the coverage will be cost prohibitive. This means 

that many undocumented women will not be able to access coverage - coverage that would include critical 

women's health services, such as birth control and maternity coverage. 
196 

As our nation looks towards building a brighter future, it's important to recognize that there are significant gains 

to be made for our country by making health care more accessible for all people. We strongly urge for the 

removal of the five year waiting period so that all legal immigrants have access to essential programs, including 

Medicaid and CHIP. In addition, as efforts move forward with comprehensive immigration reform, we ask that 

you ensure the pathway to citizenship leads to full and equal rights, including access to private and public health 

care coverage. 

Sincerely, 

Da na Singiser 

Vice President of Policy and Government Relations 

Planned Parenthood Action Fund 

Planned Parenthood Federation of America 

1110 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20005 
197 

Senate Judiciary Hearing 

Women and Immigration Reform 

Testimony of Ai-jen Poo 

Director, National Domestic Workers Alliance 

March 18, 2013 

My name is Ai-jen Poo and I am the director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance. 

I lead an organization whose members are domestic care workers - a growing 

workforce of mainly immigrant women who ta ke care of our children, our aging loved 

ones and our homes. Domestic care workers are aspiring Americans who work hard 

every day so America's families and economy can work too. Many of you listening to my 

testimony today benefit from the help of domestic workers. In our modern, demanding 

economy, domestic workers do the work that makes all other work possible. It's time 

we make our immigration policy work for domestic workers. 

Today, I bring the spirit, passion and hopes of women domestic workers here with me. 

Women like Pat Francois, a nanny in New York City who has given many years of her life 

to raising and nurturing other people's children. Pat takes great pride in her role: 

arranging play dates, taking the children to the ballet and children's museum, reading 

stories, playing in the park and most importantly, keep them safe. Millions of working 

moms and dads count on women like Pat in order to participate fully in to day's 

workplace. But Pat is undocumented and cannot participate fully in our country that she 

now calls home. 

Pat, like most domestic workers, does not have pay stubs and tax forms to prove she 

worked for her employer. Her world, like much of the informal economy, is a paperless 

world. 

In a survey of over 4000 low-wage workers in three largest cities in the US - New York, 

Chicago and Los Angeles-workers in occupations with high percentages of women did 

not receive pay stubs with their pay. Now, the fact is that New York, Illinois and 

California do require employers to provide a pay stub or a wage statement with pay. But 

98% of surveyed undocumented nannies, 92 % of maids and housecleaners, 77 % of 

garment workers did not receive any pay stubs.1 That's just the reality immigration 

reform must take into account. 

In isolated and informal workplaces it is unrealistic to expect workers to ask their 

employers for documentation, especially immigrant workers with such little control over 

the terms and conditions of their work in the first place. And often, employers who are 

1 National Employment Law Project, Immigration Status and Pay Documentation, 2008, See 

http://nelp.3cdn.net/5.6610295228b5~f19a ~km6it)Vof.PQf. 
198 

asked for documentation simply fire their workers fearing their own liability. Linking 

eligibility to proof of employment at any stage on the road to citizenship could exclude 

Pat and hundreds of thousands like her. And it would also exclude an estimated 40% of 

undocumented women work as stay at home moms, spending their days and nights 

caring for their own families. 

I know a lot of you have children. Getting them to eat their vegetables and get to school 

on time and nursing them when they're sick and tucking them in at night - that's work. 

Trying to get a four-year-old to do anything is harder than getting a compromise 

between Democrats and Republicans. And I know many of you have aging parents or 

are looking to your own twilight years, when you might need more support. Maybe 

your kids will take care of you, but if they can't or don't want to, you'll rely on domestic 

workers too. 

Any common-sense immigration reform legislation must include a roadmap to 

citizenship that acknowledges the contributions of the millions of mothers and women 

like Pat who are valued contributors to our communities. This road cannot put undue 

obstacles, roadblocks, dangers and detours in the way, such as requiring proof of 

employment in order to qualify. If immigration reform doesn't help Pat and domestic 

workers and undocumented moms throughout our country, then we can't really call it 

reform. 

This week, hundreds of women-immigrant and non-immigrant and from all over the 

country-are here in Washington DC with the We Belong Together campaign because 

they want to make sure that women's priorities and issues are at the forefront of the 

immigration debate. So, we thank you for holding this hearing. Women are here 

because we understand that we must raise our voices and votes for immigration reform, 

an issue that is central to women's equality and opportunity. Some of my colleagues 

will talk about other priorities for women, including ensuring that family sponsorship 

backlogs are cleared and that women have access to essential health care and are 

protected from traffickers. 

I am focusing on three pieces. One I have mentioned is an inclusive path to citizenship 

with no proof of employment requirement. 

The second has to do with protections for women from violence and abuses of civil and 

labor violations on the job. Back to Pat... She loves the work she does and the children 

she cares for but she-like so many domestic workers and other women workers-has 

endured both verbal and physical abuse. One employer was verbally abusive to her for 

several years; she was afraid to challenge him because he often reminded her that he 

knew she was undocumented and could call immigration and have her deported at any 

moment. One day, in a fit of rage, he physically assaulted her, finally causing her to 

leave the job out of fear for her physical safety. Like survivors of domestic Violence, 

domestic workers are hidden in private homes, behind the closed doors, and can suffer 
199 

extreme forms of abuse as a result. And by allowing the threat of deportation to be 

wielded by unscrupulous employers like a weapon, our current flawed immigration 

policies enable this abuse. 

Unsurprisingly, undocumented workers experience almost double the rates of wage and 

hour violations than documented and US-born workers. 2 For example, 37% of 

undocumented workers experienced minimum wage violations, while 21% of 

documented workers and 15% of US born workers experienced minimum wage 

violations. Undocumented women experienced even higher rates of wage and hour 

violations (47%) than undocumented men (29.5%).3. Finally, immigrant women are 

more likely to work in industries and occupations with significantly higher injury rates 

than U.S.-born women.4 

Immigration reform should include language such as that which is in the POWER Act, to 

protect women from dangerous working conditions and serious labor and civil rights 

violations on the job, including sexual harassment, severe forms of exploitation, and 

labor trafficking. Common sense reform should ensure that workers suffering serious 

violations who are cooperating with federal, state, or local law enforcement would be 

eligible for U-visas. 

Common sense immigration reform should also facilitate immigrant integration, 

including ensuring that fees are reasonable and payable over time. High application fees 

will limit the number of applications a family can afford, reSUlting in applications only 

being filed by male heads-of-households. Fee structures should incentivize families to 

apply for all eligible members of the family, and must be on a sliding scale in order to 

support the economic self-sufficiency of women, particularly low-wage women workers. 

Immigrant women workers will only a playa greater role in America's economy going 

forward. 2011 marked the first year of the "age wave," when the baby boom 

generation has begun to turn sixty-five at a rate of a person every 8 seconds. In less than 

20 years 75 million Americans will have reached retirement age. The aging of America 

means the overall demand for direct-care workers, who are predominantly women, is 

projected to increase by 48 percent over the next decade. But the population of US2 National Employment Law Project, Workplace Violations, Immigration Status, and Gender, 

August 2011, http://\Y~w.ll,''lp.org!Pilg~!-

!Justice/201I!Fact Sheet Workplace Violations Immigration GendcLpdt'?nocdn=1. 

3 National Employment Law Projcct, Workplace Violations, Immigration Status, and Gender, 

August 2011, htt1J1L\Yl"W~ll£IQ.Q[gip_,!g~:: 

'!Justice/201l/Fact Sheet Workplace Violations Immigration Gcndcr.pdf!nocdn=l. 

4 Orrenius, P. & Zavodny, M. 2009, Do Immigrants Work in Riskier Jobs? Demography, 46(3), 

535-551. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbLnlm.nih.gov/pmciarticles!PMC;(831347/. 
200 

born workers is only growing by about 1%.5 

Demand for these services is growing much faster than the labor pool. Immigrant 

women will be needed to fill the labor shortage6

; we must increase the legal pathways 

for workers who will come in the future to come safely, with full worker protections, 

and the opportunity to bring their families with them from the outset. Today, only 27% 

of all employment visas are given to women as principle holders, even though many 

industries that project severe labor shortages are dominated by women workers. 

Three-quarters of dependent visa holders in the employment category are women but 

these women-even though they have the same level of education as native-born 

women-do not have the opportunity to work and contribute their skills to our country. 

This is a waste of their talents and leads to unhealthy dependency on husbands who can 

and do take advantage with emotional and physical violence. 

My own mother came to this country from Taiwan on a STEM-like program to receive 

her PhD in chemistry. She was able to apply for legal permanent residency, and help 

build a life for us. Today, as a medical oncologist at MD Anderson in Texas, she conducts 

cutting edge clinical trials to develop a cure for melanoma. But just as my mother loves 

and cares for me and supports America's economy, so does Pat Francois. 

Undocumented immigrant care workers like Pat create positive ripple effects across our 

economy and yet remain almost invisible in our policies. 

Immigration reform offers us a unique opportunity to help millions of women and 

families in America who benefit, every single day, from the work of undocumented 

immigrant women. 

On behalf of the millions of undocumented immigrant women and the millions of US 

citizen women who depend on, are connected to and care about them, I urge you to act 

swiftly to enact immigration reform, with full inclusion and protections for women and 

families who are here and those who will come in the future. Immigrant women are 

deeply embedded in the fabric of our nation, contributing to our culture and our 

communities, strengthening our families, and growing our economy. Common sense 

immigration reform must put the priorities of women at the forefront. Immigration 

reform IS a women's issue, central to equality and opportunity for all American women, 

and central to the well-being of the nation as a whole. Thank you. 

5 PHI, Fact Sheet: Occupational Projections for Direct Care Workers 2010-2020, February 2013, 

Retrieved from: 

http://phinational.org/sitcsiphinational.or&lli-''.Siphi fag_t,~hcctlupdatc singles 2.pdf. 

6 Institute for Women's Policy Research, Increasing Pathways to Legal Status for Immigrant InHome Care Workers, 2013, http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/increasing-pathways-to-legalstatus-for-immigrant-in-home-care-workers/. 
201 

Testimony Submitted to U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Hearing: How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs of Women and 

Families 

Monday, March 18, 2013 

Statement of Lorella Praeli, Director of Policy and Advocacy, United We Dream 

United We Dream is the largest national network of youth-led immigrant organizations in the 

country, with 57 affiliates in 26 states. We aim to address the inequities and obstacles faced by 

immigrant youth and to develop a sustainable, grassroots movement, led by undocumented 

immigrant youth-Dreamers-and their allies. 

We applaud the Senate Judiciary Committee for convening this hearing about the needs of 

women and families in comprehensive immigration reform ("CIR"). United We Dream is deeply 

concerned about family unity and the inclusion of LGBTQ families in comprehensive 

immigration reform. Family unity has long been a bedrock principle of immigration law and we 

as a nation should renew oUT committnent to that principle by adopting reforms that will keep 

families together and reunite families that have been tom apart by detention and deportation. 

Promote family unity by eliminating the 3- and lO-year inadmissibility bars 

The 3- and 10-year bars prevent people from re-entering the country for 3 years ifthey accrued 

more than 180 days of unlawful presence, and left the United States, or 10 years if they accrued 

more than one year of unlawful presence. INA § 212(a)(9)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1 1 82(a)(9)(B). These 

bars trap many noncitizens in their undocumented status in the United States because leaving 

will separate them from family, including U.S.-citizen or lawful permanent resident ("LPR") 

spouses and children, for years. Immigrants who entered without inspection, for instance, are 

ineligible to adjust to LPR status even if a visa becomes available. INA § 245(a), 8 U.S.C. § 

1255(a). If these immigrants leave in order to attempt to re-enter through the consular visa 

process, however, they will trigger the bars and be separated from their families in the United 

States for 3 or 10 years. Likewise, these bars prevent people who voluntarily leave the United 

States after overstaying their visas from reuniting with their families, even though they initially 

entered with inspection. 

The 3- and 1 O-year bars should be eliminated because they do little to deter unlawful presence 

and have the perverse consequence of forcing immigrants to choose between staying 

undocumented in the United States in order to stay with their families or separating themselves 

from their families for many years in order to pursue a visa through the uncertain consular 

process. A successful legalization program must promote family unity by waiving the 3- and 10-

year bars for immigrants who are themselves applying for legalization as well as for their 

spouses, children, and parents abroad. At a minimum, the eligibility criteria for a waiver to the 3-

and lO-year bars should be relaxed so that immigrants who are spouses or children of U.S. 

citizens or LPRs only have to show that refusal of admission would be a "hardship" rather than 
202 

an "extreme hardship" to their immediate relative. INA § 2l2(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. § 

I I 82(a)(9)(B)(v).1 

Ensure parents' and children's rights in all immigration enforcement actions 

The immigration enforcement system often has tragic, permanent consequences for immigrant 

families. At least 5,000 children of immigrants in the United States currently live in the U.S. 

foster care system because their parents were placed in immigration detention or deported2

. 

When parents are placed in detention, they are often not given the opportunity to make 

appropriate care-taking arrangements for their children. They may lose contact with their 

children and with their state's family court system, sometimes causing the state to wrongfully 

terminate their parental rights. United We Dream believes that Congress must put an end to the 

tragic consequences that result from the dysfunctional intersection ofthe child welfare and 

immigration systems in states across the country. Moreover, we believe that all families' rights, 

including those LGBTQ families, must be respected and protected by U.S. immigration law. 

Therefore, United We Dream calls on Congress to pass the Help Separated Families Act and 

Help Separated Children Act. The proposed legislation would make it far more difficult for states 

to terminate parental rights or deny placement into caring adult homes due to a parent or 

caretaker's undocumented status. It would also require ICE to consider the best interests of 

children in detention, release and transfer decisions, and would provide for greater and more 

effective cooperation between federal immigration enforcement and state child welfare agencies. 

Moreover, United We Dream strongly believes that any version of these acts that Congress 

ultimately includes in the bill must also protect LGBTQ parents by ensuring that both child 

welfare systems and the immigration enforcement system recognize these family relationships in 

such situations. 

Include the Uniting American Families Act in immigration reform 

U.S. immigration law facilitates family-based immigration in many ways, with family-based 

immigration accounting for roughly 65% of all authorized immigration to the United 

States.3 However, LGBTQ families continue to face discrimination in the legal immigration 

system, forcing families to either remain in the shadows without legal status, flee the United 

States, or be separated from their loved ones. United We Dream's entire membership has stood 

1 The Department of Homeland Security recently established a new provisional unlawful presence waiver program, 

effective March 4, 2013, that would allow noncitizens to apply for a provisional waiver of the 3- or 10-year bars 

from within the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e). The purpose of the program is to provide noncitizens with some 

more certainty about whether the 3- and 10-year bars will be waived for them before they leave the country to try to 

re-enter through the consular visa process. This program, while a step in the right direction, has limited applicability 

to many in the undocumented community. The "extreme hardship" standard remains a difficult one to meet, and, the 

provisional waiver is only available to those who have a U.S.-citizen spouse or parent, not those who have LPR 

spouses or parents. 

2 Applied Research Center. "Shattered Families: The Perilous Intersection ofimmigration Enforcement and the 

Child Welfare System." November 2011. 

J Dep't of Homeland Security, Annual Flow Report, April 2012, 

http://www .dhs.gov!xlibrary !assets!statistics!publications!lpr _ fr _20 I I.pdf. 

2 
203 

consistently behind its LGBTQ members and strongly opposes this egregious form of 

discrimination. We will continue to stand in solidarity with LGBTQ immigrants throughout this 

legislative debate to demand the inclusion of the Uniting American Families Act in immigration 

reform. 

The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) would grant long-term, committed same-sex 

partners the same rights that married heterosexual couples have under immigration law. Thus, for 

example, UAF A would permit U.S. citizens in same-sex relationships to petition for their partner 

to become a legal permanent resident, and would permit an undocumented partner of a U.S. 

citizen to be considered for cancellation of removal. Although some of these partners may 

currently reside abroad, UAFA would also affect some mixed-status families living in the United 

States. These families are currently pushed into the shadows by discriminatory immigration laws 

and live in fear of being separated. 

Conclusion 

United We Dream commends the Senate JUdiciary Committee for holding this hearing on the 

needs of women and families in comprehensive immigration reform. The current immigration 

system cruelly and separates families. A comprehensive immigration reform bill must include 

reforms that promote family unity and include LGBTQ families. 

3 
204 

PRO· FAITH • PRo-FAMILY' PRO-CHOICE 

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Testimony 

"How Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Should Address the Needs of Women and Families" 

March 21, 2013 

Dear Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: 

Thank you for holding a hearing on this critical issue, which-like the lives and needs of 

marginalized people in general-is too often overlooked. We write to share our faith-based 

perspective. 

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, an interfaith coalition of 32 religious 

organizations dedicated to reproductive justice, believes strongly that reform legislation 

should do three things: (1) provide a fair, accessible, and affordable pathway to citizenship; 

(2) keep families and children together, including an end to discrimination against samesex partners; and (3) advance health equity for all immigrant women. 

There are countless scriptures, stories, and principles across faith traditions which speak to 

the importance of offering at least fair treatment-if not generous hospitality-to 

immigrants. For example, the plight ofthe Israelites in Egypt, and the lessons learned from 

it, are clearly and powerfully articulated in these words from the Hebrew Bible: 

The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, 

and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt 

Leviticus 19:34 

Restricting immigrant's access to healthcare, whether through time-based restrictions to 

Medicaid eligibility or other measures, utterly fails our basic religious imperative to 

welcome the stranger-to provide vulnerable women and their families with exactly the 

kind of compassionate support that we, in their situation, would hope to have. 

We ask you to support immigration reform that ensures women have the resources they 

need to make decisions about their reproductive health, their families, and their lives 

according to their own values and religious beliefs. To that end, the following are our 

recommendations for how comprehensive immigration policy reform can address the 

needs of women and families. 

Page 1 of5 
205 

I. Immigrant women need a fair and equitable roadmap to citizenship. 

Any roadmap to citizenship and integration must be open, affordable, safe, and accessible 

to all immigrant women, including those whose work is in the home and those who are 

employed in the informal economy. A roadmap to citizenship that conditions eligibility on 

participation in the formal labor market disadvantages immigrant women, who are more 

likely to work in the informal sector. For example, many immigrant women are domestic 

workers!, farm laborers, nail salon workers, and homemakers. Immigrant women must be 

afforded equal employment-based migration opportunities and workplace protections so 

that they may safely pursue economic opportunity and support their families with dignity 

and pride. Our immigration system has historically been unfair to women, but now we have 

an opportunity to change it into one that recognizes the unique realities and contributions 

of women's lives. A truly equitable system will place just as much value on women as it 

does on men. Any proposed pathway to citizenship must place equal value on the 

contributions of women. 

II. We need to keep immigrant women and their families together. 

Immigration reform must protect the right of all families to stay together, regardless of 

immigration status, family structure, sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. 

In addition, immigration policies must be modernized to provide sufficient family-based 

channels for migration in the future. Enforcement, detention, and deportation programs 

that compromise immigrant women's safety, violate their civil, human, and due process 

rights, and tear families apart must be replaced by sensible and sufficient legal channels for 

migration that adequately meet family and labor demands and respect women and their 

families. 

Millions of families are at risk of being torn apart. Currently, 5.1 million children live in 

mixed-legal status families. Four million of these children are U.S. citizens. 2 The growth of 

mixed-status families, combined with a lack of sufficient legal channels fur migration, 

means that more families than ever are at risk of being separated for years or even 

permanently. In fact, between July 2010 and September 2012, the U.S. deported more than 

205,000 parents of U.S. citizen children.3 

Family separation burdens local government. When parents are detained or deported, 

children are at risk of ending up in the child welfare system. The Applied Research Center 

in November 2011 conservatively estimated that 5,100 children in foster care had parents 

1 Domestic Workers United. Home is Where the Work Is: Inside New York's Domestic Work Industry, Domestic Workers 

United and DataCenter. July 2006. Available at 

http'/lwwwdornesticwQrkersunjted orgliodex php/en {compooentljdownloads/finjsh/3/4. 

2 Passel J, Taylor P. Unauthorized Immigrants and Their U.S.-80m Children. Pew Hispanic Center. August 2010.Available at 

htt;p'/IWWW pewbispanic grg/2QIQ/Q8/11 /unauthQdzed:immigrantswand~their-l1s-bQrn-chndrenJ Accessed March 13. 

2013. 

3 Wessler SR. Primary Data: Deportations of Parents of U.S. Citizen Kids. Colorlines. December 17, 2012. Available at 

http://colorlines.com/archjyes/2012112/deportations of parents of us-born citizens 122012.html. Accessed 

February 4, 2013. 
206 

who had been detained or deported. That number is expected to grow to 15,000 over the 

next five years.4 We must alleviate the unnecessary burden on states by permitting parents 

to care for their children. 

The lack oflegal opportunities for families to be together incentivizes unlawful migration 

and encourages deported parents to return and reunite with their children. A smart 

immigration system is one that values and prioritizes family unity. When parents get 

involved with the immigration enforcement system, they often lose any say in how their 

children are cared for. Detained parents are held far from their children. They may be 

unable to participate in the reunification plans necessary to regain custody of children who 

end up in foster care, and they are often denied meaningful access to child custody 

hearings. A humane and cost-effective immigration system would protect parents' 

constitutionally-protected rights to determine the care and custody of their children. 

Children are better off with their parents. Being undocumented does not make someone an 

unfit parent, and parental rights should only be terminated in cases of verified abuse and 

neglect. Judges need discretion to keep families together. Heavy-handed detention and 

deportation policies have tied the hands of immigration judges. Judges should be able to 

exercise discretion so that parents do not have to be deported unnecessarily. 

III. We need to advance health equity for immigrant women. 

Immigration reform must advance all immigrant women's access to health care and other 

family economic support. Such services and benefits include comprehensive health 

coverage and care and legal and social services that promote equality of opportunity, 

integration, and the ability to make decisions regarding reproductive and sexual health and 

the well-being of the family. Immigrant women and families work hard, pay taxes, and are 

committed to being in America. They should be able to pay their fair share for health care 

and should be included in our health care system, just like everyone else. They should not 

be excluded from health care simply because of their immigration status. When our 

families and our workforce are healthy, we all benefit. 

Investing in health is common sense - and makes good fiscal sense. By and large, 

immigrants are younger and healthier than the American population as a wholeS -

allowing them to participate in our health insurance systems and risk pools makes is a 

good economic decision for the country. When immigrant women and families do not have 

health care, the need for medical attention does not go away. Immigrant families without 

health insurance may either delay treatment for preventable disease, leading to higher 

costs and greater suffering, or seek care through under-resourced and expensive 

emergency systems. A healthy workforce means a stronger economy. Good health care is 

4 Applied Research Center. Shattered Families: The Perilous Intersection 0/ immigration Enforcement and the Child Welfare 

System. November 2011.Available at http·lIarcorg/sbat!eredfamilies.Accessed February 4,2013. 

S Leighton Ku. Health Insurance Coverage and Medical Expenditures a/Immigrants and Native-Born Citizens in the United 

States. American Journal of Public Health. July 2009; Vol 99 (7): pp.1322·1328. 
207 

essential to workers' productivity and the opportunity for women and families to realize 

their full potential. If immigrant women are healthy, they are better able to support their 

family economically and contribute to the success of their children. 

For an immigrant woman, being able to protect her health and care for her family is the 

first step to full social, economic, and civic integration into the American community. When 

moms are healthy, their families benefit. 

Restrictions and other arbitrary delays that are often imposed on immigrants' access to 

benefits are also costly and inhumane. Many immigrant women are unable to obtain 

affordable health due to limitations resulting from their immigration status, such as the 

current 5-year bar on Medicare and Medicaid for lawful permanent residents, and the 

exclusion of undocumented immigrants in health insurance exchanges. Women and 

families should not be forced to wait five years for health care: five years is a lifetime to a 

child, and may make the difference between life and death for a woman suffering from 

breast or cervical cancer. Health coverage can mean the difference between preventing or 

treating conditions that can affect development throughout life, and leaving those 

conditions undetected and untreated. Removing the five-year bar for lawful permanent 

residents and those on the roadmap to citizenship will give them the same opportunity to 

pay their share and access health care as their friends and neighbors. 

Today's laws are overly complex, confusing, and restrictive. A patchwork of state and 

federal policies limiting access to health care and family economic support creates 

confusion. For example, a single family could have members with five different kinds of 

eligibility for health care depending on their immigration status. As a result, this "chilling 

effect" discourages even qualified recipients from accessing support.6 No mother should 

have to navigate different health insurance systems for every single child, or choose which 

of her children gets health care. We need a system that works for families and ensures that 

women and kids get the care they need. 

Anyone could get hurt or sick, and so everyone should have access to basic health care. No 

one should live in fear that because they lack health coverage or live in world where one 

accident or illness could threaten their entire family's economic security. Access to 

affordable, quality health care is a widely-shared goal. Medical coverage plays a crucial role 

in health and well-being, and all Americans should have access. 

IV. Conclusion and Recommendations 

As Congress considers proposals to reform current immigration laws, it is vital that the 

experiences of immigrant women are part of the equation. There is no doubt that the 

patchwork system that is now in place has hindered our progress as a country. The 

6 Huang P.Anchor Babies, Over·Breeders and the Population Bomb: The Reemergence o[Nativism and Population Control in 

Anti·lmmigration Policies. Harvard Law and Policy Review. 2008; Vo12. Available at 

http://wwwhlpronHnecQmlHuang HLPR pdf I Accessed January 12, 2013. 
208 

contributions of immigrant women have been and should continue to be allowed to grow -

it is good for communities and it is good for the country. 

In order to address the unique challenges that immigrant women face on the path to 

become full citizens of the U.S., the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice urges 

Congress to adopt a holistic approach through the following recommendations: 

(1) Provide a fair, accessible, and affordable pathway to citizenship to all immigrants 

and, in particular, ensure that those who work in informal sectors of the 

economy can participate in this process. 

(2) Promote keeping immigrant families and children together, specifically by 

increasing family-based immigrant visas; alleviating current family-based 

immigrant visa backlogs; ending discrimination against same-sex partners under 

family immigration laws; allow Immigration Judges to exercise discretion in 

deportation cases that will result in family separation; and protect 

constitutionally-protected rights to determine the care and custody of their 

children for parents facing deportation. 

(3) Advance health equity for immigrant women, including ensuring full access to 

the Affordable Care Act regardless of immigration status and lifting the five-year 

bar on Medicare and other means-tested federal benefits for legal permanent 

residents. 

Again, thank you for taking the time to hear from advocates for women on this issue. In the 

name of compassion, conscience, and justice, we ask you to please ensure that the needs of 

women and families are fully included in the critical process of fixing our broken 

immigration system. 
209 

Reproductive Health Access Project 

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Testimony 

"How Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Should Address the Needs of Women and Families" 

March 21, 2013 

Dear Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: 

We write today to thank you for holding a hearing on "How Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Should Address the Needs of Women and Families," and to share with you our recommendations on this 

important issue. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP) seeks to ensure that women and teens 

at every socioeconomic level can readily obtain birth control and abortion from their own primary care 

clinician. RHAP is guided by the principle that women of all socioeconomic levels have the right to 

access birth control and abortion services in safe, secure settings. We believe that reproductive health 

choices are highly individual and must be made by individual families in consultation with caregivers 

for whom women's ability to meet their full potential is of paramount importance. We believe that these 

choices must be supported by health care policies that ensure women have fair and equal access to the 

means to control their reproductive futures. 

For women to be completely free and able to chart the course of their own lives, they must be able to 

determine not just whether and when to create family, but where to create family. 

Furthermore, they must have access to the resources they need in order to care for their own 

reproductive health and raise their families with dignity and respect. Women who are aspiring citizens 

are excluded from public health benefits, and thus face barriers to caring for their own reproductive 

health and to plan their families. All legal immigrants are barred from eligibility for Medicaid, SCHlP, 

and other means-tested federal benefits for the first five years that they live in the United States. This 

arbitrary and harmful restriction denies women access to critical reproductive health care, including 

contraception, cervical cancer screening, and prenatal care. Moreover, while the landmark health 

reform law will give many Women increased access to contraception and other reproductive health care, 

a significant portion of those who will remain uninsured are immigrant women, due to restrictions on 

immigrant eligibility for new or expanded coverage options. Women should also be able to care as best 

they can for the health and wellbeing of their children, with the comfort of knowing that they will be 

not be torn away from their children and that they can afford to take their sons and daughters to 

doctor's visits. 

The Reproductive Health Access Project knows it is not about what you look like or where you were 

born, but how you live your life and what you do that defines you here in America. The contributions of 

immigrant women have always been vital for our society to grow and flourish. We know our country is 

strongest when women are healthy, safe, and able to care for their children and families. Truly effective 

immigration policy reform should value and honor women and their contributions. 

We call on legislators to support immigration reform that ensures women have the resources they 

need to make their own personal decisions about their reproductive health, their families, and 

their lives. To that end, the following are our recommendations for how comprehensive 
210 

immigration policy reform can address the needs of women and families. 

I. Immigrant women need a fair and equitable roadmap to citizenship. 

Any roadmap to citizenship and integration must be open, affordable, safe, and accessible to all 

immigrant women, including those whose work is in the home and those who are employed in 

the informal economy. A roadmap to citizenship that conditions eligibility on participation in the 

formal labor market disadvantages immigrant women, who are more likely to work in the 

informal sector. For example, many immigrant women are domestic workersl

, farm laborers, nail 

salon workers, and homemakers. Immigrant women must be afforded equal employment-based 

migration opportunities and workplace protections so that they may safely pursue economic 

opportunity and support their families with dignity and pride. Our immigration system has 

historically been unfair to women, but now we have an opportunity to change it into one that 

recognizes the unique realities and contributions of women's lives. A truly equitable system will 

place just as much value on women as it does on men. Any proposed pathway to citizenship must 

place equal value on the contributions of women. 

II. We need to keep immigrant women and their families together. 

Immigration reform must protect the right of all families to stay together, regardless of 

immigration status, family structure, sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. In 

addition, immigration policies must be modernized to provide sufficient family-based channels 

for migration in the future. Enforcement, detention, and deportation programs that compromise 

immigrant women's safety, violate their civil, human. and due process rights, and tear families 

apart must be replaced by sensible and sufficient legal channels for migration that adequately 

meet family and labor demands and respect women and their families. 

Millions offamilies are at risk of being torn apart. Currently, 5.1 million children live in mixedlegal status families. Four million of these children are U.S. citizens. 2 The growth of mixedstatus families, combined with a lack of sufficient legal channels for migration, means that more 

families than ever are at risk of being separated for years or even permanently. In fact, between 

July 2010 and September 2012, the U.S. deported more than 205,000 parents of U.S. citizen 

children.3 

Family separation burdens local government. When parents are detained or deported, children 

are at risk of ending up in the child welfare system. The Applied Research Center in November 

2011 conservatively estimated that 5,100 children in foster care had parents who had been 

detained or deported. That number is expected to grow to 15,000 over the next five years: We 

must alleviate the unnecessary burden on states by permitting parents to care for their children. 

The lack of legal opportunities for families to be together incentivizes unlawful migration and 

encourages deported parents to retum and reunite with their children. A smart immigration 

I Domestic Workers United. Home is Where the Work fs: Inside NfJW York's Domestic Work Industry, Domestic Workers United and DataCenter. 

July 2006. Available at http://wv.w.domesticworkersunited,org/index.php/en/component/jdo\\nloadsifinishJ3/4. 

:2 Passel J, Taylor p, Unauthorized Immigrants and Their U.S.~Born Children. Pew Hispanic Center, August 2010. Available at 

http://www.pewhispanic.org/201 O/081l1/unauthorized~jmmigrants-and~their-us-bom-childrenl Accessed March 13,2013. 

3 Wessler SR. Primary Data: Deportations of Parents of U.S. Citizen Kids. Colorlines. December 17, 2012. Available at 

http://colorlines.com/archivesI2012112/deportationsofparentsofus~borncitizens122012.html. Accessed February 4. 2013. 

4 Applied Research Center. Shattered Families: The Perilous Intersection of Immigration Enforcement and the Child Welfare System. November 

2011. Available at http://arc.orgishattercdfamilies.AccessedFebruary4, 2013, 

2 
211 

system is one that values and prioritizes family unity. When parents get involved with the 

immigration enforcement system, they often lose any say in how their children are cared for. 

Detained parents are held far from their children. They may be unable to participate in the 

reunification plans necessary to regain custody of children who end up in foster care, and they 

are often denied meaningful access to child custody hearings. A humane and cost-effective 

immigration system would protect parents' constitutionally-protected rights to determine the care 

and custody oftheir children. 

Children are better off with their parents. Being undocumented does not make someone an unfit 

parent, and parental rights should only be terminated in cases of verified abuse and neglect. 

Judges need discretion to keep families together. Heavy-handed detention and deportation 

policies have tied the hands of immigration jUdges. Judges should be able to exercise discretion 

so that parents do not have to be deported unnecessarily. 

III. We need to advance health equity for immigrant women. 

Immigration reform must advance all immigrant women's access to health care and other family 

economic support. Such services and benefits include comprehensive health coverage and care 

and legal and social services that promote equality of opportunity, integration, and the ability to 

make decisions regarding reproductive and sexual health and the well-being of the family. 

Immigrant women and families work hard, pay taxes, and are committed to being in America. 

They should be able to pay their fair share for health care and should be included in our health 

care system, just like everyone else. They should not be excluded from health care simply 

because of their immigration status. When our families and our workforce are healthy, we all 

benefit. 

Investing in health is common sense and makes good fiscal sense. By and large, immigrants 

are younger and healthier than the American population as a wholeS - allowing them to 

participate in our health insurance systems and risk pools makes is a good economic decision for 

the country. When immigrant women and families do not have health care, the need for medical 

attention does not go away. Immigrant families without health insurance may either delay 

treatment for preventable disease, leading to higher costs and greater suffering, or seek care 

through under-resourced and expensive emergency systems. A healthy workforce means a 

stronger economy. Good health care is essential to workers' productivity and the opportunity for 

women and families to realize their full potential. If immigrant women are healthy, they are 

better able to support their family economically and contribute to the success of their children. 

F or an immigrant woman, being able to protect her health and care for her family is the first step 

to full social, economic, and civic integration into the American community. When moms are 

healthy, their families benefit. 

Restrictions and other arbitrary delays that are often imposed on immigrants' access to benefits 

are also costly and inhumane. Many immigrant women are unable to obtain affordable health due 

to limitations resulting from their immigration status, such as the current 5-year bar on Medicare 

S Leighton Ku. Health Insurance Caverage and Medical Expenditures af Immigrants and Native~Barn Citizens in the United States, 

American Journal of Public Health. July 2009; Vol 99 (7): pp.1322-1328. 
212 

and Medicaid for lawful permanent residents, and the exclusion of undocumented immigrants in 

health insurance exchanges. Women and families should not be forced to wait five years for 

health care: five years is a lifetime to a child, and may make the difference between life and 

death for a woman suffering from breast or cervical cancer. Health coverage can mean the 

difference between preventing or treating conditions that can affect development throughout life, 

and leaving those conditions undetected and untreated. Removing the five-year bar for lawful 

permanent residents and those on the roadmap to citizenship will give them the same opportunity 

to pay their share and access health care as their friends and neighbors. 

Today's laws are overly complex, confusing, and restrictive. A patchwork of state and federal 

policies limiting access to health care and family economic support creates confusion. For 

example, a single family could have members with five different kinds of eligibility for health 

care depending on their immigration status. As a result, this "chilling effect" discourages even 

qualified recipients from accessing support.6 No mother should have to navigate different health 

insurance systems for every single child, or choose which of her children gets health care. We 

need a system that works for families and ensures that women and kids get the care they need. 

Anyone could get hurt or sick, and so everyone should have access to basic health care. No one 

should live in fear that because they lack health coverage or live in world where one accident or 

illness could threaten their entire family's economic security. Access to affordable, quality 

health care is a widely-shared goal. Medical coverage plays a crucial role in health and wellbeing, and all Americans should have access. 

IV. Conclusion and Recommendations 

As Congress considers proposals to reform current immigration laws, it is vital that the 

experiences of immigrant women are part of the equation. There is no doubt that the patchwork 

system that is now in place has hindered our progress as a country. The contributions of 

immigrant women have been and should continue to be allowed to grow - it is good for 

communities and it is good for the country. 

In order to address the unique challenges that immigrant women face on the path to become full 

citizens of the U.S .• the Reproductive Health Access Project urges Congress to adopt a holistie 

approach through the following recommendations: 

(I) Provide a fair, accessible, and affordable pathway to citizenship to all immigrants and, in 

particular, ensure that those who work in informal sectors of the economy can participate in 

this process. 

(2) Promote keeping immigrant families and children together, specifically by increasing familybased immigrant visas; alleviating current family-based immigrant visa backlogs; ending 

discrimination against same-sex partners under family immigration laws; allow Immigration 

Judges to exercise discretion in deportation cases that will result in family separation; and 

6 Huang P. Anchor Babies, Over-Breeders and the Population Bomb: The Reemergence a/Nativism and Population Control in Ami-Immigration 

Policies. Harvard Law and Policy Review. 2008; Vol 2. Available at nttp:I/v.:wvt.hlpronlioe.com!Huang HLPR.pdfl Accessed January 12,2013. 

4 
213 

(3) protect constitutionally-protected rights to determine the care and custody of their children 

for parents facing deportation. 

(4) Advance health equity for immigrant women, including ensuring full access to the Affordable Care 

Act regardless of immigration status and lifting the five-year bar on Medicare and other meanstested federal benefits for legal permanent residents. 

Again, thank you for taking the time to hear from advocates for women on this issue. We hope 

you will take into consideration our recommendations as the dialogue continues around how to 

fix our broken immigration system. 

5 
214 

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

RE: 

Senator Hirono 

Sauti Yetu Center for African Women and Families 

March 15,2013 

Senate Hearing on "How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address 

the Needs of Women and Families" 

Sauti Yetu Center for African Women and Families, whose name means "Our Voice" in 

Swahili, is an African immigrant community-based organization that provides services to 

families, youth and victims of domestic and sexual violence. Sauti Yetu is based in the Bronx, 

where roughly a third of the city's African immigrant population lives. 

According to the U.S. Census, New York City is home to the largest population (over 

100,000) of African immigrants in the United States. These newest New Yorkers represent a 

mosaic of ethnic, religious and cultural diversity and speak an array of languages such as French, 

Wolof, Mandinke, Soninke, Fulani, Pulaar or Arabic. Because of their rich diversity, African 

immigrants are a tremendous cultural and economic resource for the city however, they face 

many immigration related challenges that affect their ability to provide for their families and 

contribute to their communities. Comprehensive immigration reform is important to the women 

and families we serve because a pathway to citizenship will provide economic security that will 

allow women to provide for their families and integration in communities that they have long 

been part of. We urge that any pathway to citizenship and integration must be open, affordable, 

safe and accessible to ALL immigrant women and their families. Specifically, we urge that 

comprehensive immigration reform must: 

Keep families together. Too many women and children unfairly bear the brunt of 

detention and deportation. In the recent two-year period, 23% of all deportations were issued for 

parents with U.S. citizen children. Sauti Yetu clients come from multi-status families where 

undocumented parents raise their U.S. born children working as hard as they can to provide for 

their families. However, fears of being deported keep many parents from actively participating in 

their children's lives. In a nation that values liberty and justice for all, we cannot continue to 

enforce laws that harm families and punish aspiring Americans. Immigration reform must protect 

parental rights and increase alternatives to detention. 

Promote civil and human rights. Immigration remedies must have requirements that are 

realistic to the challenges that immigrants encounter when first coming to the United States. This 

p.o. Box]112, New York, NY 10163 

Phone: 718-665-2486 I Fax: 718-665-2483 

E-mail: info@s3utiyetu.org / Website: wl/oI\v.sautiyetu.org 
215 

is most evidence in the 1-year deadline for asylum applicants. This needs to be changed to either 

no deadline or a ~-year deadline. Some Sauti Yetu clients are eligible for asylum relief because 

of a well-found fear of future persecution based on gender-based violence however, the burden 

of meeting the 1-year deadline is umealistic to the reality of being a new immigrant. Most 

immigrants arrive to the US and are not aware of the I year deadline for applying for asylum, 

due to isolation, language barriers, and a focus on obtaining their concrete needs of housing, 

emolling their children in school; and public benefits for food. 

Keep Women safe. Many ofthe African immigrant women we work with who are 

victims of abuse do not have proof of abuse such as a police report, Order of Protection, or 

medical report of injuries sustained by the abuse. They are adamant to cooperate in the 

prosecution of their abusers because of fear of the shamelblame that would accompany being the 

cause of her husband being arrested, feeling indebted to her husband because he is sending 

money to her family in her home country, or fear of the police due to corrupt practices by legal 

authorities in her home country. Reforms to our immigration policies must bring an end to 

programs that disproportionately impact women by discouraging reporting of crimes to law 

enforcement and compromising the safety of communities. Policies must consider the cultural 

and social factors that affect a victim's decisions. 

A reasonable and sustainable discussion about comprehensive immigration reform must 

take into account gender specific perspectives. Sauti Yetu urges members of Congress to work 

towards immigration reform that ensures families are kept together, promotes women's safety 

and provides remedies where women can unite all of their many contributions to strengthen our 

culture and communities. 

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to share our comments with the Senate Hearing 

Committee. We hope to continue to be part of this important discussion. 
216 

SOjourners 

hi oDtkipatio" of the h""riI'1g t,.,lng om "". ,Mpflll"l', Marm llr, by m., SMat~ '"dleJot)' Commit"'", S,*""""", 00. 

",)"",.,<1 Jh .. jollowNlg ,,_mont, 

Filmllies coroe In n>,,~'( shape;; ",d 5il~; c.ut ,,11 of tlleffl "'~tte<" AS C"'I!'tJart; ",00 Ame'It"'~, p"i!se""~tlon "and 

pfoW~lioo of family *5 a t1!ntrai value aM family unity &iI<ltJld b~ Ilriiafltiled In allV wmprl!hll'l!Slve hMl'\liratoo 

",[<wm p"tk~" [Och indi,'ldL",1 .hauld b. offered til<' option to , .. ide du"" to th";! 100000d On .. thlo"8" a 

1..glli_Ie and tr.n_rent pro",,, .. whith ".",,1<> to ,~r"IrU"td a famity', "'''II~ing an:! ."""'tity. I' is 'amity th.1 

$OOit.&.'u~ and fweb imm~r3nt':) eFh)rts -and et1ahte~ them to b~ :ao~iti\lC!' cCJrltribulOf$. to our tommuniUe~ ,artd aur 

r-...anom'f< 

Our (\Jrr~nt Impra(tlci1llystem !J?pa"'t~s tt>Qusand! Of f~m4il;)s I~",ving ,hlld,~ ~nd j) .. ~nts rt<lv.stat"d as th1'V 

"fi! sej1i!f"ated from t~l!lr io)'!ec! ooe," Th~ huge backlogs at u" 5. ClUl~S"'P and !~lmilifaI!OI1 5eMcl!'l (lISeIS) and 

I.{toj ,.;gal il~.;ooe5 00 migrate have separated families for prol0flliltld perj{)tjs of tifil;;llu,delfi;ng famil,/, 

m.;mbt!'l'5 with IlIfff'(\Jlt chcit<:s. O/t<lI1tim;;$, uMiowme:nted im",i~(a,.,t5 3r"€ iOO'c:ed to ~fiOO;.e bet ... ","," bei1ig 

~parate-d from tfleir faf"'J\1l\l tnetnbef1 for an in~flnjte- period of tifne- or lliJtfing t!heir Hves J.I ri~k to fe'U1Jite with 

relati'i-'e:s. -8~ the'f tross the border u~lJthorile-d, 

A. j,wl Im"."&""",,, w,tm1' ml)st 'ml>''''~ ~.,d w~"gt'h<?n" th.!! (\Jr~r>t immigr1ltion p'OC<im ttv IOQklng;:>1 1h1' 

h~nnful "",'" Thil! ~ • ."t in,ludmg hllll~ b.,kIQIt'. ~I'i to r,H"1Iry anll th" 1m qi QptiPWI ro adjustllall.ll 

throLijlh Imm",dia~ famlll' m_~rs, all of WhiCh 'i!~a(e,l>;jte lengthy 'II'aiUne: ~rlods <lnd make it uf\f",aMi>le for 

th!)se ,who wan! toapplv I~ill!y. We Olgl! all Sl!n",ton t<) Ilf<ltect filmil>!!s as Ifl,ey dlWelop a comprel\;;nYo" 

packi>ge tllal pfwi~s a palM towards 6tlzen"hip liM tn.e 11 million aSpifil"8 Afil<!ric311s cll'fr~llll.,. f~slctj"l: i~ tbe 

Uniltd St~!" •. 

As Ch'i.~.m, "..., boli""" au, immieration d,ouk! ''''pet! the God gi""n <li;lnlty of evorry p"",,on and th.t "" .. n. 

not ~pilr .. t",g th1'''' f",m th.!!ir £.milies" COfWT1Ij."tfU th,iv .. whe'" fa",'Ii~ who .... ~nt to Ii~" tt>B"tiu;>r ",e ""I~ 

to, (:n.;!'iltt~"e: an IrnrmgrOJ;'!l.:Jfl svs-te-m tTt;}t JX"~t'i'S f-iilmilv unity sl-.::l ...... ~ th-e b(!"s"t of who W'it\ ;::I~ ao;; a !1>1>t~ 

~oj(lUf1'II'/'5' miS;.liort Is to artfc"lilt" tll;? Oiblicai call to ro<:lai fill:rf«', ill'SllirlJlf /loP!' (JflfJ 001IdllI! a ,'l1O'l1Y'1e11l til 

tra.~'larm ,ndi.-iduill's, CO""""",!, .... rhlr <hur'~, ""d th" warld. for"""" inf""maOm aJl<!"t 5ajourrwn or .'im Walti., 

Ptesf<ientlh1G CEO a{ SOjOUtMfS, ple<lSl' "lSiI "",,",,sofo.MI, 
217 

~$ 

" 

ONEAMERICA " 

STATEMENT OF 

RICH STOlZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & 

ADA WILLIAMS PRINCE, DIRECTOR OF POLICY 

ONEAMERICA 

HEARING ON: ((How Immigration Reform Impacts Women and Families.H 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

March 18, 2013 

With Justice for All 

Chairman Leahy and members of the Committee: I am honored to submit this 

testimony forthe record on behalf of OneAmerica regarding today's hearing on how 

immigration reform impacts women and families. 

OneAmerica is the largest immigrant advocacy organization in Washington State. Our 

mission is to advance fundamental principles of democracy and justice at the local, state 

and national level by building power and capacity in immigrant communities with key 

allies. 

We thank you for holding this critical and timely hearing on this issue. Our statement 

focuses on Supporting Gender Equity in Immigration Reform. It is critical to ensure that 

any new immigration process recognizes the unique challenges facing immigrant 

women, including protections for survivors ofvio!ence and human trafficking. A 

legalization program must value the contributions immigrant women make as workers, 

entrepreneurs, and mothers. 

Keep Families Together through a Roadmap to Citizenship 

Any pathway to citizenship and integration must be open, affordable, safe, and 

accessible to All immigrant women, including those whose work is in the home and 

those who are employed in the informal economy 

Advancing Immigrant, Civil & Human WWWW(AREONEAMER1CAORG I INfQ@WEAREONEAMtRICAORG " 1 1225$ WEtlER:"T $UlTE430 SEAITlE WA98144 I 0:2067232203 F:206B260423 

RIg Its OneAmertcalSanonproli SOl(((3)mg.,,,,"a~,o,, 
218 

ONEAMERICA 

~"" ~" With Justice for All #$ll\1l.~ < 

5,1 million children in the United States live in mixed-legal status families. Four 

million of these children are U.S. citizens. 7 The growth of mixed-status familiescombined with a Jack of sufficient legal channels for migration - means that more 

families than ever are at risk of being separated for years or even permanently. In 

fact, between July 2010 and September 2012, the United States deported more than 

205,000 parents of U.S. citizen children. 8 

When parents are detained or deported, children are at risk of ending up in the child 

welfare system. The Applied Research Center in November 2011 conservatively 

estimated that 5,100 children in foster care had parents who had been detained or 

deported. That number is expected to grow to 15,000 over the next five years. 9 We 

must alleviate the unnecessary burden on states by permitting parents to care for 

their children. 

Immigration reform must protect the right of all families to stay together, regardless of 

immigration status, family structure, sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital 

status, and provide sufficient family-based channels for migration in the future. 

We also recommend that family members who have been deported be given the 

opportunity to return to the United States to be with their loved ones. Such a proposal 

would be pragmatic and reasonable, since one primary driver of illegal immigration 

(particularly in recent years) has been the desire to be re-united with loved ones. Such 

actions, called in most cases illegal re-entry, could render these individuals unable to 

return to the United States in the future and disqualify them from being able to adjust 

their status. In addition, the 3 and IO-year bars to re-entry must be eliminated, so that 

no individuals who are eligible for an immigrant visa are punished by being separated 

from their family for many years, 

Advancing Immigrant, Civil & Human WWWWEAREONEAIv\[RI(AORG I INfOOW[AREONEAMERICAORG l"{ja11ts 1225$ WEllER:,-SUlf430 SEATTlE WA9S144 I 0:2067232203 F.2068260423 

b On»AmerH:a',illlonprontS01(c)13!Oli;ja[]llil(IOn 
219 

ONEAMERICA 

'*" ,," With Justice for All JJl',~ ~ 't"9 

Create a sensible worker program with protections 

We are united by a deep respect for those who work hard for a living and share our 

commitment to country. We must develop a worker program that honors hard work and 

the contributions immigrants and their families make to our economy. Visas should be 

tied to workers, not to an employer, to ensure worker protections. There should be 

more funding for enforcement of standards and for health and safety and protections 

against discrimination. In addition, we recommend access to whistle blower protections 

for women workers who are victims of labor trafficking and workplace crimes. 

Access to Benefits 

Immigration reform must advance ALL immigrant women's access to public services and 

economic support, including comprehensive health coverage and care, and legal and 

social services that promote equality of opportunity, integration, and the ability to make 

decisions regarding reproductive and sexual health and the well· being of the family. Yet, 

immigrant women are less likely to receive adequate reproductive health care, including 

cervical and breast cancer screening and treatment, family planning services, HIV/AIDS 

testing and treatment, accurate sex education and culturally and linguistically 

competent services. 

A healthy workforce means a stronger economy, Good health care is essential to 

workers' productivity and the opportunity for women and families to realize their full 

potential. If immigrant women are healthy, they are better able to support their family 

economically and contribute to the success of their children, For an immigrant woman, 

being able to protect her health and care for her family is the first step to full social, 

economic, and civic integration into the American community. 

Uphold the Principle of Family Unity 

Currently, families are divided by visa waiting periods and processing delays that can last 

decades and the majority of those waiting in backlogs are women. Immigration reform 

must strengthen the family preference system and keep families together by increasing 

Ad\ ancing Immigrant, Civil & Human WWWWEARtONEAMERICAQRG I INfQ@WEAREONEAlv1.ERICAORG Rio11ts 12255 WELlER5T SUITE 430 SEA"'lE WA98144 I 0:2067232203 F:2068260423 

(:) OneAm"rhclp;')nonprofil ~Ol(c){3)Ofg~nll<lJon 
220 

ONEAMERICA 

With Justice for All 

the number of visas available both overall and within each category. OneAmerica is 

concerned that the Senate proposal may open the door to significant changes to the 

family visa program, including shifting away from a family preference system. Our 

current family preference system, despite bureaucratic flaws that have led to excessive 

backlogs, is an important aspect of our nation's success in ensuring the effective 

integration of immigrants into our society. 

Immigration reform must also ensure that immigration status alone does not disqualify 

a parent, legal guardian, or relative from caring for a foster child. This would prohibit a 

State, county, or other political subdivision of a State from filing for termination of 

parental rights in foster care cases in which an otherwise fit and willing parent or legal 

guardian has been deported or detained. Immigration reform should also allow judges 

to decline to order the removal of the parent of a US citizen child If the judge 

determines that removal would not be in the child's best interests, and to extend 

opportunities for immigrant visas to permanent partners of US citizens and permanent 

residents. 

Immigrant Integration 

Opportunities for immigrants to receive English Literacy, Civic Education and Continuing 

Education must be a part of Immigration Reform. English language skills represent one 

of the keys to educational and employment opportunity for immigrants, as well as to 

their full socia! and civic participation in U.S. life. Yet in 2010, more than half the 

immigrants in the United States ages five and older were limited English proficient (LEP). 

Federal and state funding for ESOl programs has shrunk even as demand has increased; 

waiting lists for classes can be months and even years. English language learning should 

encompass allleve!s of learning, including support for digital literacy, with 

contextualized content leading to employment opportunities, improved access to 

continuing education, and stronger pathways to citizenship. Support for workplace, 

community-based, and community college instruction is essential. Quality and access 

should both be prioritized with opportunities for diverse !earners in the community at 

1\(h anclng Immigrant, Civil & Human WWWWEAREONEAMERICAORG I INfO@WEAREONE.o.M::RICAORG Riahts 12255 VvEhERST SUITEtl30 ::,EAITlE NA9S144 j 0:2067232203 f:20682Q0423 

b OwAme t(a ,s.a nonp<oiit SOl ( 31 Q!9;).n ldl on 
221 

ONEAMERICA 

@,£-,%> 

~~ With Justice for All 

the workplace, at schools and early learning centers, and at the community college 

level. 

Restore Due Process and Civil liberties 

In the last decade, immigration enforcement resources and activity has escalated at an 

astounding pace. In the last four years alone, more than 1 million undocumented 

immigrants have been removed from the United States. 

We must uphold American values by ensuring that all people, no matter where they 

come from, are afforded fundamental rights, including the right to a fair day in court 

before being separated from family and community and deprived of liberty and the right 

to be free from inhumane conditions of confinement. 

Enforcement, detention, and deportation programs that compromise immigrant 

women's safety, violate their civil, human, and due process rights, and tear families 

apart must be replaced by sensible and sufficient !egal channels for migration that 

adequately meet family and labor demands and respect our obligations under 

international law. 

Reforms to our immigration policies must bring an end to programs that 

disproportionately impact women by discouraging reporting of crimes to law 

enforcement and compromising the safety of communities, and must advance 

protections for women fleeing state and interpersonal violence and vIctims of trafficking 

or exploitation. 

Partnerships between local law enforcement and the Department of Homeland 

Security are increasingly turning local police into immigration officers. This makes 

women reluctant to report crimes and abuse for fear of deportation. Abusive 

spouses and exploitative employers are given a powerful weapon of control, and can 

effectively silence their victims by threatening to call the pOlice. Instead of 

1\ch (lndug Immigrant, Civil & Human WWWWEAREONEAMERICAQRG I INfO@WEAREONEAMER1CAORG Ri ah ts 12255 WEllER 5T SUITE 430 ~EAmE WA98144 I 0:2067232203 f: 2068200423 

b O""'Arne'l("jsanonp'ofi!)Ol(c(3lo,q~"'lato" 
222 

ONEAMERICA 

,,'" With Justice for All ." 

endangering women with these loca! law enforcement partnerships, we should 

empower women with smart enforcement that protects communities. 

Conclusion 

A reasonable and sustainable solution to current and future immigration needs MUST 

take into account gender specific perspectives. In addition, the path forward on 

immigration MUST ensure equality for all immigrants, protect and promote their civil 

and human rights, and empower aspiring Americans to fully participate in and 

contribute to our economy and society. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to express the views of OneAmerica, We welcome 

the opportunity for further dialogue and discussion about these important issues. 

Advdncing Immigrant, Civil & Human WWWWEARE'ONtAMERICAORG I INfO@WEARWNEAMERICAORG 

~ h 1225 SWEllER $T SUITE 430 "fAmE WA 98144 I 0: 2067232203 F: 2068260423 

Ilig ts OneAme'K8 Isa nonprofit 501((){1)Qlg"n~iltOfl 
223 

~., 

" 

ON " EAM ERICA 

With Justice for All 

OneAmerica's Principles for Just and Humane Immigration Reform 

Keep all families together by creating a roadmap to citizenship. The current 

immigration system separates hundreds of thousands of children, parents, and families 

through policies that have not been updated in 25 years. America deserves a common 

sense immigration process, one that includes a road map for New Americans who aspire 

to be citizens, including lGBT families. 

Reunite families. An immigration process that values family unity must include family 

preference and enough visas to reunite all families separated by bureaucracy and 

discriminatory quotas. Family unification must also include the opportunity for family 

members who have been deported to return and join their families. 

Create a sensible worker program with protections. We are united by a deep respect 

for those who work hard for a living and share our commitment to country. We must 

develop a worker program that honors hard work and the contributions immigrants and 

their families to our economy. Visas should be tied to workers, not to an employer, to 

ensure futllabor rights. 

Ensure humane treatment. We will continue to aggressively push for accountability, 

humane treatment, and due process in the violent and abusive border and detention 

systems that have grown exponentially and wastefully in the last decade. 

Restore a Fair Day In Court. Immigrants should not be treated only as the sum of their 

mistakes in a nation that values second chances. Immigration judges must be given back 

the power to cancel a person's deportation after looking at other aspects of her life, like 

family ties, length of time in the U.S., rehabilitation, and acceptance of responsibility, 

Respect safety in immigration enforcement. Border enforcement - which has been 

made worse by increased collaboration between Federal agencies and local law 

enforcement - must reflect American values, prioritizing the safety and security of 

border communities and consulting with these communities in the process. We demand 

an end to failed immigration enforcement programs, including Secure Communities. 

Promote Immigrant Integration. Comprehensive legislation should include forward~ 

thinking strategies for how the United States will embrace immigrants and immigration, 

Ach ancing Immigrant, Civil & Human NWWWEAREONtAMERICAORG i INfO@WEAREONEAMER!CAORG 

~ h 12255 WEllERST ~d1TE430 SEATTLE WA9S144 I 0'2067232203 F'2068260423 

Rlg ts OneAm,n<:a,).anonp,.,11\ 501\c!l310lg",1zatofl 
224 

ONEAMERICA 

o~ ,," With Justice for All $$"\1'(11:> 

including adequate resources for local communities to support individuals seeking to 

legalize their status and a national office of immigrant integration to develop and 

support policies that help immigrants fully contribute to America's social, economic, and 

civic fabric. Ensure that taxpaying immigrants working to adjust their status have access 

to public benefits. 

Support Gender Equity. Ensure that any new immigration process recognizes the unique 

challenges facing immigrant women, including protections for survivors of violence and 

human trafficking. A legalization program must value the contributions immigrant 

women make as workers, entrepreneurs, and mothers. 

Advancing Immigrant, Civil & Human WWWWEAREONEAMERCAORG I NfO@Vv[AREONEAMtRl(AORG I{,i 11 t s 1225 SWEllER S'" SUITE 430 SEATHE WA 98144 I 0: 206 723 2203 F' 206826 OJ.23 

g On"Am"',~alS<1nonpr0Ii,SOl\c 3ltlfganllat,01 
225 

'MM'GRAT'ONIII 

National Headquarters 

40 Exchange Place 

Suite 1300 

New York, NY 10005 

212714-2904 

The Need for LGBT -Inclusive Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Testimony Submitted to U.S. Senate JUdiciary Committee 

Washington, DC Office 

1325 Massachusetts Ave. NW 

Suite 250 

Washington, DC 20005 

202347-0002 

Hearing: "How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs of Women and 

Families" 

Monday, March 18,2013 

Statement of Rachel B. Tiven, Esq., Executive Director, Immigration Equality 

Immigration Equality is a national organization that works to end discrimination in U.S. immigration 

law, to reduce the negative impact of that law on the lives oflesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender 

("LGBT") and HIV -positive people, and to help obtain asylum for those persecuted in their home 

country based on their sexual orientation, transgender identity or HlV -status. Immigration Equality 

was founded in 1994 as the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force. Since then we have 

grown to be a fully staffed organization with offices in New York and Washington, D.C. We are the 

only national organization dedicated exclusively to immigration issues for the LGBT and HlV -positive 

communities. More than 38,000 activists, attorneys, faith leaders, and other constituents subscribe to 

Immigration Equality's emails and action alerts, and our website has over 380,000 unique visitors per 

year. The legal staff fields over 3,700 inquiries a year from individuals throughout the entire U.S. and 

abroad via telephone, email and in-person consultations. 

We applaud the Senate Judiciary Committee for convening this hearing today. Family unity has been at 

the heart of U.S. immigration law for more than half a century and we believe that it should remain at 

the heart of Comprehensive Immigration Reform ("CIR"). Under the current family preference 

immigration system, many family members have to wait years or even decades for their priority dates to 

become current so that they can join their American family members in the United States. We support 

efforts to reduce this unconscionable backlog that keeps families apart. 

Under the current immigration system, LOBT families are systematically excluded. No matter how long 

a same-sex couple has been together, regardless of whether they are raising children together, and even 

if they are legally married, these families are completely shut out of the U.S. immigration system. No 

immigration reform can be considered comprehensive ifit leaves out this entire class of families. 

CIR Must Include the Uniting American Families Act 

Although Immigration Equality works on many issues affecting the LOBT immigrant community, no 

issue is more central to our mission than ending the discrimination that gay and lesbian binational 

couples face. Because there is no recognition of the central relationship in the lives of LOBT 
226 

Americans, they are faced with a heart-rending choice that no one should have to make: separation from 

the person they love or exile from their own country. Inclusion of the Uniting American Families Act 

("UAFA")! within CIR would provide a pathway to legalization to LGBT families. 

Family unification is central to American immigration policy because Congress has recognized that the 

fundamental fabric of our society is family. Family-based immigration accounts for roughly 65% of all 

legal immigration to the United States.2 Family ties transcend borders, and in recognition of this core 

value, the American immigration system gives special preference for the spouses of American citizens 

to obtain lawful permanent resident status without any limit on the number of visas available 

annually. Lesbian and gay citizens are completely excluded from this benefit. 

An analysis of data from the 2000 Decennial Census estimated that approximately 36,000 same-sex 

binational couples live in the United States.3 This number is miniscule compared to overall immigration 

levels: in 2011, a total of 1,062,040 individuals obtained lawful permanent resident status in the United 

States.4 Thus, if every permanent partner currently in the U.S. were granted lawful permanent residence 

in the U.S., these applications would account for .03% of all grants oflawful permanent residence. 

The couples reported in the census are, on average, in their late 30s, with around one-third of the 

individuals holding college degrees.5 The average income level is $40,359 for male couples and just 

over $28,000 for females. Each of these statistics represents a real family, with real fears and real 

dreams, the most fundamental of which is to remain together. 

One of the striking features of the statistical analysis performed of the 2000 census is how many samesex binational couples are raising children together. Almost 16,000 of the couples counted in the census 

- 46% of all same-sex binational couples - report children in the household.6 Among female couples, 

the figure is even more striking, 58% offemale binational households include children. The vast 

majority of children in these households are U.S. citizens.? Behind each of these statistics is a real 

family, with real children who have grown up knowing two loving parents. In each of these households, 

there is daily uncertainty about whether the family can remain together, or whether they will have to 

move abroad to new schools, new friends, and even a new language. 

Every day Immigration EqUality hears from lesbian and gay couples who tell us painful tales of trying to 

maintain their families despite almost impossible odds. For example: 

Adi Lavy and Tzila Levy are a loving, married couple, living in Brooklyn, New York. Adi is a 

Us. citizen and Tzila a citizen of Israel. The couple met in 2010 and recently married in 

Brooklyn, New York. Adi has sufJeredfrom chronic kidney disease since the age of 

seventeen. Tzila is Adi 's primary source of care and emotional support, and she entered the 

Us. on a visitor's visa in order to care for her wife while Adi receives life-saving treatment 

from a respected expert in her illness. Because their marriage is unrecognized by the federal 

government, no other visa was available to Tzila. 

2 
227 

Adi's health has continued to deteriorate and she has been placed on the kidney transplant 

list. Tzila extended her visitor visa to remain at Adi's side, but as the end ofTzila's authorized 

stay approached, Adi and Tzila were leji without a permanent solution for their family. In 

November 2012, the couple submitted a spousal petition for a green card. In January 2013, the 

family's request was denied because Adi and Tzila s family ties are not recognized under Us. 

immigration law. Adi fears that she and her wife could be torn apart. She fears being leji alone 

to face her chronic health issues without her primary caregiver and emotional support. Without 

a lasting immigration solution, this family will continue to face a life jilled with uncertainty and 

fear. 8 

Adi and Tzila want nothing more or less than any other family; they want to live together, secure in the 

knowledge that they will not be separated. 

The inability to sponsor a partner or spouse is even more devastating to women who are forming 

families. Many couples delay having children in the hope that the family can first stabilize its 

immigration status. For those who do have children, the uncertainty and stress of whether their family 

can remain together is multiplied exponentially. 

Kelly Costello and Fabiola Morales married in Washington DC in the summer of2011. Fabiola, 

a citizen of Peru, has been living in the United States for six years, where she has been earning a 

degree in nursing. Fabiola also suffers from multiple sclerosis and is receiving experimental 

treatment at Georgetown University. Kelly is an elementary school teacher. In what should be a 

joyous time for their family, Kelly is pregnant with twins. But every day the couple must live 

with the knowledge that when Fabiola 's student visa expires later this year, she could have to 

leave the country and leave her family behind. 9 

The lack of recognition of same-sex relationships affects not only the individual family, but the larger 

community as welL In many instances, large companies are unable to retain talented workers who are 

forced to leave the United States to maintain their relationships. That is why a growing number of 

businesses have endorsed the Uniting American Families Act. On January 1,2013, a diverse group of 

businesses signed onto a letter to the House and Senate supporting passage of UAF A or CIR that 

includes UAFA stating: 

"We have each worked to help American employees whose families are split apart because they 

cannot sponsor their committed, permanent partners for immigration benefits. We have lost 

productivity when those families are separated; we have borne the costs of transferring and 

retraining talented employees so they may live abroad with their loved ones; and we have missed 

opportunities to bring the best and the brightest to the United States when their sexual orientation 

means they cannot bring their family with them."JO 

3 
228 

The coalition includes over 30 businesses, such as American Airlines, Dow Chemicals, Intel, Nike, and 

Goldman Sachs. To these companies it is clear that respecting relationships across international 

boundaries is not only the right thing to do, it also makes economic sense and helps to recruit and retain 

the most talented employees in their companies. There are currently at least two dozen countries that 

allow their citizens to sponsor long-term, same-sex partners for immigration benefits. J 1 

No Comprehensive Immigration Reform can be truly comprehensive ifit leaves out thousands ofLGBT 

families. We urge the House to include UAFA language in any CrR bill. 

CIR Must Increase the Numbers of Family Visas Available 

One of the many failings of the current immigration system is the absurdly long wait to sponsor some 

family members under the current family preference system. Some of those waiting in the backlogs are 

LGBT individuals, waiting for a parent or sibling's petition to become current. 12 Those parents and 

siblings are also the grandparents, aunts, and uncles of many LGBT young people. For LGBT youthmany of whom are vulnerable to bullying in their schools the support of extended family is crucial. 

All of the family preferences must remain intact in immigration reform. The impact of decade-long 

waiting periods can have a cascading effect on families, and change is needed. LGBT immigrants are 

rightly and proudly included in the Reuniting Families Act, to be introduced by Congressman Mike 

Honda this month. That bill makes sensible, necessary changes to the family visa system: changes that 

must be incorporated in CrR. 

Conclusion 

We applaud the House for convening this hearing and for considering needed reforms to the family 

unification system. Too many individuals in the United States -lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and 

straight - cannot fully access the American dream because of our antiquated immigration system. For 

LGBT families with young children, undocumented youth, and asylum seekers, it is time to pass 

rational, humane, comprehensive immigration reform that fully respects the unique needs and 

contributions ofLGBT immigrants. 

1 UAFA would add "permanent partner" as a category of "immediate relative'~ to the INA. '''Permanent partner" is defined as 

any person 18 or older who is: 

I. In a committed, intimate relationship with an adult U.S. citizen or legal pennanent resident 18 years or older in 

which both parties intend a lifelong commitment; 

4 
229 

2. Financially interdependent with that other person; 

3. Not married to, or in a pennanent partnership with, anyone other than that other person; 

4. UnabJe to contract with that person a marriage cognizabJe under the Immigration and Nationality Act; and 

5. Not a first, second, or third degree blood relation of that other individual. 

As with current marriage-based petitions, pennanent partners would be required to prove the bona fides of their relationships 

and would be subject to strict criminal sanctions and fines for committing fraud. 

2 In 2011 family-based immigration accounted for 688,089 grants of lawful permanent resident status, Department of 

Homeland Security, Annual Flow Report, April 2012, Table 2, at 3available at 

http://www .dbs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/lpr Jr _2011. pdf 

J Family, Unvalued: Discrimination, Denial, and the Fate of Binational Same-Sex Couples Under U.S. Law, joint report by 

Human Rights Watch and Immigration Equality, 2006, at 17,3 available at 

http://www.hrw.org/enireports/2006!05/01/family-unvalued . 

4 Department of Homeland Security, Annual Flow Report, March 2009, available at 

http://www .dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/lpr _If _ 2008.pdf. 

5 Family, Unvalued, at 176. 

6 Id. 

71d. In female binational households, 87% of the children were U.S. citizens; in male households, 83% were U.S. citizens 

8 See Erica Pearson, "Newlywed 1esbians from Brooklyn hope feds decide on green-card bid after Supreme Court weighs in 

on DOMA," NY Daily News, December 12,2012 available at http://www.nvdailynews.com/new-york/lesbian-couplewaiting-doma-decision-artic1e-l.12 J 8693 . 

9 See Pamela Constable, "Federal marriage law may force deportation of many immigrant gay spouses," Washington Post, 

December 29, 2012, available at http://articles.washingtonpost.coml2012-12-29/locaIl3607J393 I gay-spouses-binationalQ:ay-couples-doma . 

10 Available at http://immigrationequalitvactionfund.org/images/BusinessCoaJition signonletter.pdf. 

II These countries include Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Gennany, Iceland, Israel, the 

Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South AfTica, Spain, Sweden Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. See 

Family, Unvalued. 

12 Department of State Visa Bulletin, available at http://wwv{Jravel.statMQY/visalbulletin/bulletin5_~56.html. 

5 
230 

III 

Women's Refugee Commission 

Statement on "How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs of 

Women and Families" 

Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee 

March 18, 2013 

The Women's Refugee Commission thanks the Senate Judiciary Committee for convening 

today's hearing on "How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs of 

Women and Families." Historically, immigration law has disproportionately disadvantaged 

women, and by extension their families. As Congress works to bring our immigration laws into 

alignment with the realities of modem migration flows, it is critical that the needs and lived 

realities of women, children, and families are fully, fairly, and equitably addressed. This hearing 

represents an historic, and essential, first step in that process. 

Immigrant women are integral building blocks of thriving and successful communities in the 

United States, and have been over this country's long history. They are vital to the American 

economy and contribute significantly to its growth. Immigrant women also serve as the backbone 

of strong families and work hard so that their children can get a fair shot at the American dream. 

Family is a core value for women, and the desire to be with family, and to make a better life for 

their family, is one ofthe primary reasons why women come to the United States. Historically, 

our immigration laws placed great value on family unity, and this focus on family contributed to 

the development of strong communities and a successful and diverse country. Yet family unity 

has been eroded in recent years by inefficiencies in the family-based visa system and overly 

zealous immigration enforcement that is tearing families apart. 

It is paramount that efforts to reform our immigration laws restore the primacy of family unity 

and provide women and their families with opportunities to contribute to the common 

good now and in the future. We urge Congress to act quickly to enact legislation that will 

establish fair, accessible, and equitable roadmaps to full citizenship for women and children, and 

that will keep families together. 

Roadmaps to Citizenship must encourage and allow for full participation by women. 
231 

Historically, women have been disadvantaged by legalization and citizenship programs. A 

comprehensive study ofthe 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) found that 

women faced significant difficulty proving their physical presence in the country because many 

worked in the informal economy or only had documents in their husband's name.i In addition, 

95 percent of domestic workers nationwide are women, and in major cities more than threefourths of domestic workers are foreign born.ii Yet many past immigration reform proposals 

excluded domestic workers who could not provide proof of employment. Furthermore, 

immigrant women are more than three times as likely to stay at home to raise their children, and 

onerous documentation requirements could deny these homemakers a fair chance at 

legalization. iii As past failures to fully include women demonstrate, immigration reform can only 

be successful when women can come forward and participate. Applicants, including women and 

children, must have a range of ways to demonstrate their physical presence in the country and 

their contributions to our communities and society. 

The family based immigration system must provide sufficient and expedient lawful 

channels for women to reunite with their families. Women rely more heavily on the familybased immigration system than men. Seventy percent of all immigrant women attain legal status 

through family-based visas, compared to sixty-one percent of men. Meanwhile, men are four 

times as likely to be the principal recipients of employment-based visas.1V Women's 

disproportionate dependence on family-based visas, as opposed to employment-based visas, 

means that women have fewer lawful channels to come to the United States. In addition, 

decades-long backlogs in the family-based immigration system means that many women spend 

an unacceptably long time separated from their families. Any reductions or restrictions to the 

family-based visa system will hurt women more than men, and will further incentivize their 

unlawful entry into the United States. As Congress works to pass immigration reform, the focus 

must be on improving efficiencies in the family-based system and on ensuring sufficient legal 

mechanisms for family members to be together. 

To restore our historical commitment to family unity, we must reduce the collateral 

consequences of immigration enforcement for children and families. Some 5.1 million 

children in the United States live in fear of being separated from a parent because their 

family has mixed legal status. Four million of these children are U.S. citizens.V While child 

welfare and legal principles agree that it is generally in the best interest of a child to be with his 

or her family, the complications that arise at the intersection of immigration and child welfare 

law often result in the permanent separation of families. Detained and deported parents are 

routinely denied the ability to make basic decisions about their children's care and well-being. 

For example, detained parents are not even guaranteed a phone call to find someone to care for 

their children. That means children are left uncared for, and are often placed in foster care. 

Currently over 5,100 children are in the child welfare system because ofa parent's detention or 

deportation. That number is expected to triple over the next five years. VI Detained and deported 

parents are also denied meaningful opportunities to participate in child custody hearings, and 

family reunification plans. The heartbreaking result is that families are being separated on a 

staggering scale. Between July 2010 and September 2012, over 200,000 orders of removal were 

issued for parents of United States citizen children. V1I 
232 

This broken system encourages a revolving door at the border. Parents who are deported without 

their children are incentivized to use any means necessary to return to the United States so that 

they may see their children again. It also means that a parent simply trying to reunite with his or 

her child can be caught up in criminal prosecution through Operation Streamline when they reenter the United States after removal. Not only does this result in a long jail sentence for the 

parent, it also prevents them from legally migrating in the future to be with their child. We can 

enforce the rule oflaw without harming children and families, but we must ensure that 

immigration enforcement is carried out in a smart and humane manner. 

Our long-held commitment to protecting all children, especially the most vulnerable, must 

be reflected in our immigration laws. Children are also at risk of being left out of the roadmap 

to citizenship. While the DREAM Act provides important opportunities to undocumented 

children here in the U.S., it leaves a significant population of children out, including very young 

children and those that were over 15 when they came to join their parents. Unaccompanied 

children often immigrate to reunify with their parents who are already here. Because our 

immigration system lacks sufficient legal channels for family re-unification, they are compelled 

to make the risky journey by themselves or with smugglers who often exploit them. Other times, 

children are trying to reunite with their non-traditional families. For example a child raised by an 

elderly grandparent, who seeks to join an Aunt who is in the U.S. legally, is often forced to come 

to the country alone because there is no lawful mechanism in place for them. Our immigration 

system must reflect our Constitutional definition offamilyViii and permit children to immigrate in 

order to reunify with their care-takers. To do this, Congress must act to reduce backlogs in the 

family-based system and to provide a roadmap to citizenship that includes all children. 

Under current immigration law, children who come to this country without a parent or guardian 

have no right to an attorney or the assistance of a child advocate. We must reform our 

immigration laws to ensure that no unaccompanied child has to appear in immigration court 

alone. In addition, while many children come to this country fleeing violence at home, our 

policies for identifying and protecting children seeking asylum fall woefully short of our 

obligations under domestic and international law. All children should be afforded the opportunity 

to first make an asylum claim before an asylum officer. We must ensure that best interest of the 

child is reflected in our immigration laws; judges should be able to use discretion in cases where 

children are at risk of abuse, neglect and trafficking if they are sent back to their country of 

origin. Without affording appropriate due process protections to all children, true access to 

immigration relief is thwarted. 

Conclusion 

Immigration reform is not comprehensive unless it addresses the needs and lived realities of 

immigrant women and families. The Women's Refugee Commission urges the Senate Judiciary 

Committee to consider the deleterious impact of current immigration policy on the safety and 

success of women and families, and to work towards the development of legislation that honors 

and encourages their contributions and puts them on an expedient roadmap to becoming full 

citizens of the United States. 
233 

Æ 

i The study by the Urban Institute and Rand Corporation found that women without documents were forced 

to rely on affidavits to prove their residence, resulting in higher levels of scrutiny, denials and extensive 

litigation. Susan Gonzalez Baker. The Cautious Welcome: The Legalization Programs of the Immigration Reform 

and Control Act Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press and the Rand Corporation (1990) at 137-8. 

ii Linda Burnham and Nik Theodore. Home Economics. The Invisible and Unregulated World of Domestic Work 

National Domestic Worker's Alliance. Center for Urban Economic Deve!opment University oflllinois at 

Qlli&.gQ. Data Center. Available at http:((wwwdomesticWQrkers.org/hgmeeconomics/Accessed on January 

16,20l3. 

iii Jeffrey Pasel and D'Vera Cohn, Pew Research Hispanic Center, A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the 

United States (April 14, 2009) Available at 

http://www pewhjspanic.orgl2 009 IQ4 I 14 la-portrait-of-unauthorized -immi grants-in-the-uni ted -states I 

Accessed March 13, 2013. 

i' Kelly Jefferys, DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, Characteristic of Employment--Sponsored Legal 

Permanent Residents: 2004 (October 2005) 

'Jeffrey Passel and Paul Taylor. Unauthorized Immigrants and Their U.S.-Born Children. Washington, DC: Pew 

Hispanic Center (August 2010). Available at http://www pewhispanic nrg12010 108 III lunauthorizedimmigrants-and-their-us-born-childrenl Accessed March 13, 2013. 

"Applied Research Center, Shattered Families. Available at http://arc.org/shatteredfamilies. Accessed on 

March 11, 2013. 

wi Immigration Policy Center. Falling Through the Cracks. Available at http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/justfacts/falling-through-cracks. Accessed on February 11, 2013. 

,iii Moore y. East Cleveland 431 H S. 494 504-506 flJ.S. 19771("Ours is by no means a tradition limited to 

respect forthe bonds uniting the members ofthe nuclear family ... By the same token the Constitution 

prevents East Cleveland from standardizing its children - and its adults - by forcing all to live in certain 

narrowly defined family patterns."); Shani M. King, U.S. Immigration Law and the Traditional Definition of 

Nuc/ear Family, Toward a Functional Definition of Family that Protects Children's Fundamental Interests, 41 

COLUM. H. RTS. L. REV. 509 (2010)