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

82–156 PDF 2013

ADDRESSING THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BROUGHT TO THE UNITED 

STATES AS CHILDREN 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 23, 2013 

Serial No. 113–33 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman 

TED POE, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JULY 23, 2013 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

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

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

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and 

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

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 5 

The Honorable Joe Garcia, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security ......................................................................................................................... 6

The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Iowa, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security ... 7 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border 

Security ................................................................................................................. 8 

The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security ..... 9 

The Honorable Rau ́l Labrador, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Idaho, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security . 10 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Mike Coffman, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Colorado 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 13 

The Honorable Jeff Denham, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16 

The Honorable Cory Gardner, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Colorado 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20 

The Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Illinois 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 22 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 28 

Barrett Duke, Ph.D., Vice President for Public Policy and Research, The 

Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 33 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 34 

Margie McHugh, Co-Director, National Center on Immigration Integration 

Policy, Migration Policy Institute 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 36 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 39 
Page

IV 

Pamela Rivera, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 47 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 48 

Rosa Velazquez, Arkansas Coalition for DREAM 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 49 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 51 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Illinois ................................................................. 24 

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

on Immigration and Border Security ................................................................. 70 
(1) 

ADDRESSING THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF 

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BROUGHT TO THE 

UNITED STATES AS CHILDREN 

TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trey Gowdy 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gowdy, Goodlatte, Poe, Smith, King, 

Jordan, Amodei, Labrador, Holding, Lofgren, Conyers, Jackson Lee, 

Gutierrez, and Garcia. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Andrea Loving, Counsel; Allison 

Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel; Graham Owens, 

Clerk; (Minority) Tom Jawetz, Counsel; and Maggie Littlewood, 

Clerk. 

Mr. GOWDY. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on Immigration 

and Border Security will come to order. Without objection, the 

Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any 

time. This is a hearing entitled ‘‘Addressing the Immigration Status of Illegal Immigrants Brought to the United States as Children.’’ We welcome all of our witnesses today. Both panels. And we 

will get to our witnesses momentarily. 

When Chairman Goodlatte had the first immigration hearing 

months ago, I said we were looking for a remedy that would last 

a lifetime. A real remedy, not a political or electoral remedy, but 

a real remedy that is best for our country. And I said I thought we 

could find a synthesis or a harmony, if you will, between the compassion that defines us as a people and the respect for the rule of 

law that defines us as a republic. 

The House Judiciary Committee has since held nearly a dozen 

hearings on different aspects of our immigration system and passed 

four bills, including legislation to strengthen interior enforcement 

and ensure the laws we pass are actually enforced. We know border security and interior enforcement are the only guarantee that 

we will not repeat the mistakes of the past. 

The issue of how to treat children brought to this country is not 

new. Congress has considered it since at least 2001, but it is a new 

issue for this Congress and several Members of this Subcommittee. 
2 

We all view children as a special protected class. We have all witnessed acts of heroism where total strangers risk and sacrifice 

their lives for other people’s children. We admire teachers and 

other professionals who dedicate their lives to teaching and helping 

other people’s children. Children and the issues that impact their 

lives unite us like nothing else. And because children are a special 

class, the law treats children differently in almost every regard. 

When children wander into neighborhood yards, we don’t call 

that trespassing. When children cry and yell and scream at restaurants or on airplanes, we don’t call that a violation of the noise 

ordinance. When children eat a grape at the grocery store or eat 

piece a candy waiting in line before Mom or Dad pays for it, we 

don’t call that petty larceny. Children can’t sign contracts, they 

can’t vote, they can’t purchase certain items, they can’t even work 

in some instances because the law treats children differently. Even 

when children do get in trouble, legally, the system is completely 

separate. Even the purpose of the system is different. The purpose 

of the adult justice system is to punish; the purpose of the juvenile 

justice system is to rehabilitate and to restore. 

The law treats children differently for a variety of reasons, including the fact that children cannot form the intent necessary to 

violate the law. And intent is a necessary element of every criminal 

offense. Simply put, children who were brought here hadn’t committed a crime, misdemeanor or otherwise. The adults may have, 

but the children have not. And that is not an expression of compassion, that is the execution and the application of the law. 

There are an estimated 1.35 million undocumented children 

under the age of 18 and an estimated 1.6 million between ages of 

18 to 24 in this country. In recent months, I have heard from many 

organizations and individuals regarding legislation aimed at granting legal status for this subset of undocumented immigrants children from South Carolina, children from as far away from South 

Carolina as California. When my good friend Jeff Denham was gracious enough to let me visit him in his district, Jeff, I remember 

a young lady at your town hall coming up to us afterward. And for 

virtually all her life this young lady grew up thinking that she was 

an American citizen. She never knew any differently. She led a virtuous life with good grades, hard work, community involvement, 

active in her church, wonderful, loving family. Exactly the kind of 

person that you and I would want to be a fellow citizen. She was 

polite. She was persuasive. She just had one question for us: what 

country am I supposed to go back to? This is the only country I 

have ever known. 

So while there is an obvious openness with respect to children 

who have done nothing wrong, those same equities in my judgment, do not apply in the same regard to the remainder of the 11 

million undocumented immigrants. They may or may not have 

other equities to argue. Let me say this as plainly as I can, attempts to group the entire 11 million into one homogeneous group 

in an effort to secure a political remedy will only wind up hurting 

the most vulnerable. And to earn the trust, respect of our fellow 

citizens, we must ensure there are sufficient antifraud measures 

and sufficient screening mechanisms so those who seek the benefit 

unjustly and without a factual basis are identified. 
3 

In conclusion, let me say this: we are a Nation of laws because 

law provides order and structure and predictability and peace and 

equality and justice. Compassion is good. But it can ebb and flow 

with the vicissitudes of life and the perspective of the individual. 

The law remains sturdy and strong as the foundation upon which 

we live. I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the 

United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I will bear 

arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law. I 

will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the 

United States when required by the law. I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the 

law. That is not an oath for Congress; that is the oath of citizenship. That is the pledge and the promise each makes, hand on 

heart, to their soon to be fellow citizens. Five distinct references to 

the law in just a single paragraph of the oath. If we expect people 

to support, defend, and live by the law after they become citizens, 

what possible explanation can exist for not applying the law during 

the process of becoming a citizen. 

So finally the equities are on the side of the children in my judgment. Equities to be debated. The law is also on the side of these 

children. And the law stands above equity and opinion. America is 

different. We are compassionate and free because most of all we 

are a Nation of laws. And I presume that is one reason people so 

desperately want to come here in the first place. 

And with that, I would recognize the gentlelady from California, 

Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today’s hearing examines a critically important issue in our broken immigration system: 

the treatment of undocumented young people who were brought to 

the U.S. as children. These are kids who have grown up in this 

country, have attended American high schools, and who often know 

no other country as home. 

This Subcommittee last held a hearing about these DREAMers 

in 2007 when three young women testified about their lives. One 

of the witnesses, Tam Tran, grew up in California, graduated from 

Santiago High School in Garden Grove, California and from UCLA 

with a Bachelor’s Degree in American Literature and Culture with 

honors. Tam was in the Ph.D. program in American Civilization at 

Brown University and was continuing to serve as a leading voice 

in support of the DREAM Act when she and a close friend, another 

DREAMer, died in a car crash on May 15, 2010. 

I wanted to recognize Tam as we begin this hearing because I am 

mindful of what Martin Luther King, Jr. referred to as the ‘‘fierce 

urgency of now.’’ Right now, we have an historic opportunity to fix 

our broken immigration system, and it would be a national shame 

if we were unable to do that. One part of that fix, an important 

and compelling part of that fix, is to ensure that DREAMers have 

an opportunity to become just as American on paper as they already are in their hearts. I believe that there is a strong, bipartisan support for that principle and I am encouraged by some of 

what I have heard on this issue from Republican Members, including those in leadership, over the past few months. 
4 

In some ways, this is not new. The DREAM Act was first introduced as bipartisan legislation in 2001 and has had bipartisan support ever since. But the breadth of support in Congress is promising and I am extremely pleased that this breadth of support will 

be reflected by the witnesses who will be testifying today. 

But as encouraged as I am by the focus of our hearing today, I 

must also say that I have concerns about some of what I have read 

in the press leading up to this hearing. I understand that Majority 

Leader Cantor and Chairman Goodlatte are working on a legislative proposal that is rumored to be called the KIDS Act. Their desire to become champions for this issue is a positive development 

and is in many ways a testament to the hard work that DREAMers 

themselves have done to build a coalition by telling their stories 

and advocating for change. But like the immigration bills that this 

Committee marked up in June, we have not yet seen the language 

of the KIDS Act, and we have not been asked to contribute to the 

effort. While I am looking forward to reviewing the KIDS Act when 

its authors are prepared to share it, I know that this is a sharp 

departure from the history of DREAM Act legislation that was always drafted and introduced with bipartisan support. 

I am even more concerned about reports that some Republican 

Members may be working on legislation that would allow undocumented immigrants other than the DREAMers to obtain some temporary lawful status but without a specific path to legal, permanent residency. 

I want to be clear: I recognize that this represents significant 

progress, and I welcome that. I believe it shows a growing appreciation that we cannot fix our broken immigration system without 

addressing the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are part 

of our businesses, our communities, and our families. But I believe 

it would be a grave mistake to allow millions of people to come out 

of the shadows and obtain lawful immigration status, only to leave 

them in a second-class status for the rest of their lives. 

As I said at the Committee’s very first hearing in this Congress, 

partial legalization is a dangerous path. We need only to look at 

France and Germany to see how unwise it is to create a permanent 

underclass. What makes America special is that people come here, 

they assimilate, they become fully American with all of the rights 

and responsibilities that citizenship bestows. 

The American people agree. In a recent Gallup poll, Americans 

were asked the following question: ‘‘would you favor or oppose each 

of the following as part of legislation to address the issue of illegal 

immigration?’’ They were then provided various components of topto-bottom reform of our immigration laws, mandatory e-verify, 

tightened border security, increased visas for skilled workers, and, 

‘‘allowing illegal immigrants to become citizens.’’ In the context of 

a broader fix to our broken immigration system, 88 percent said 

they favored a path to earned citizenship for the undocumented. 

Support was overwhelmingly strong across all ideological and ethnic groups. Among conservative, non-Hispanic, White respondents, 

83 percent favored a path to citizenship and only 17 percent opposed. 

We have an opportunity now to do something that will help 

strengthen America’s economy. An opportunity to keep families to-
5 

gether. And for everyone who believes in the rule of law, and I 

think all of us on the Judiciary Committee are in that camp, we 

have an opportunity to design an immigration system that promotes law-abiding behavior instead of our current one that actually 

depends upon law breaking. 

This opportunity does not come often. I feel as though my entire 

time in Congress, 18-plus years, has been spent looking for an 

opening to fix our broken immigration system once and for all. This 

is that time. The Senate passed a bipartisan immigration reform 

bill, and I am doing everything I can to make sure the House is 

able to do the same. If we work together, I think we can make that 

happen, and I think our country will be better as a result. We 

know that our history as a country, America, was formed by immigrants, and we will not serve our country well unless we ensure 

that our future also welcomes the immigrant that will help build 

a stronger America. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you. Thank the gentlelady from California. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the 

Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy. Thank you for 

holding this hearing. Thank you for your compelling opening statement. 

You know, when most Americans think about illegal immigration, they picture adults crossing the desert on the southwest U.S. 

border. But not every illegal immigrant in the United States can 

be placed into the same category. Some did, in fact, come here by 

paying a coyote to smuggle them across the border. Some came 

here legally on a visa and didn’t leave when their allotted time expired so they could work here illegally. 

However, there is another class of unlawfully present aliens, a 

class of individuals who deserve to be considered from a different 

perspective. I am talking about aliens brought here as children by 

their parents. They had no input into their parents’ decision to 

bring the family to the U.S. illegally. And many of them know no 

other home than the United States, having grown up as Americans 

since they were toddlers, in some instances. They surely don’t 

share the culpability of their parents. 

I have spoken about the fact that as part of the step-by-step approach the House is taking to address immigration reform, we 

should look at whether we as a Nation should allow this group of 

young people to stay in the U.S. legally. And while this is an important piece of immigration reform, it too must be accomplished 

effectively and responsibly to ensure that several years from now 

Congress is not once again being asked to pass another piece of legislation dealing with the immigration status of a new group of 

young people brought here by their parents. 

To that end, I do not believe that parents who made the decision 

to illegally enter the U.S. while forcing their children to join them 

should be afforded the same treatment as their kids. Because, let’s 

be clear, parents bringing their young children to the U.S. illegally 

is not something we want to encourage, not only because it would 

lead to continued illegal immigration, but also because illegally 

crossing the border is dangerous. 
6 

We have all seen the pictures or even video of children who are 

dehydrated and lethargic from an arduous trek across the Mexican 

and Arizona desert with their parents or with smugglers paid by 

their parents. These border crossings could include everything from 

handing a child over to a coyote in hopes of getting the child to the 

U.S., to placing a child in the back of a semi-truck in hopes that 

Customs and Border Protection officers at the U.S. Port of entry 

wouldn’t detect a human presence in the trailer, to bringing a child 

down into a tunnel built between Mexico and the United States, 

knowing that at any moment it could collapse. These are all kinds 

of things that immigration reform must ensure come to an end. Enforcement at the border and in the interior of the U.S. is crucial 

to ending these kinds of situations. And this Committee has passed 

legislation to strengthen the enforcement of our immigration laws. 

However, successful immigration reform must also look at how to 

address the significant population of illegal immigrants who are already here and who were brought here as young children by their 

parents through no fault of their own. And it needs to acknowledge 

that just because there is a group of children does not mean they 

should all be treated the same. For instance, if they have joined 

gangs or been involved in criminal activities, such as by entering 

the country as a drug mule crossing the border, or if they have otherwise shown that they do not intend to be productive members of 

American society, they should not be treated the same for purposes 

of legal status as young children brought here by their parents. 

So I am pleased that the Chairman is taking the time to look at 

this issue today, and I look forward to hearing the testimony of all 

of our witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank Chairman Goodlatte. 

I know we have two panels, including four colleagues who have 

other Committee assignments. There had been other requests for 

opening statements. So we will get to you as quickly as we can. I 

will recognize Mr. Garcia, gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to thank the 

Chairman. I know that he and many on the other side are trying 

to find a solution for this problem, a right solution, a just solution, 

an American solution. That said, when Members of this Committee, 

when Members of this House use inflammatory language, use offensive language, it does not help the process. In my district, I have 

multiple schools who on a regular basis produce valedictorians. 

And they are undocumented. However, when Members of this 

House use language such as, ‘‘For everyone that is a valedictorian 

there are another hundred out there who weigh 130 pounds and 

have calves the size of cantaloupes because they’ve been hauling 75 

pounds of marijuana across the desert,’’ it is offensive. And is beneath the dignity of this body and this country. I know that my colleagues are trying hard. In particular, I know that the Ranking 

Member on our side has been working very hard to find a solution. 

But this is an American problem, and we need to work together. 

We need to stop pointing fingers and find a pathway forward. 

I look forward to the good will in particular of all this House to 

try to find a way to solve this very American problem. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Florida. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King. 
7 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your recognizing me for an opening statement. And my purpose in requesting 

time here is to help set the tone a little bit differently, in that 

when I see that we have eight witnesses all lined up on one side 

of the agenda and four people lined up to speak as opening statements and then would hear from the eight witnesses and at that 

point maybe you would hear from someone who happens to disagree with this concept that is before us today called the KIDS Act. 

And I don’t know how I am supposed to know that officially. I did 

pick that up in the news. I know it was referred to by the 

gentlelady from California as the KIDS Act. 

But we don’t have a bill before us, ladies and gentlemen. And so 

we can’t look at the language of a bill and take a position on that 

language. We are here today examining a concept, a philosophy, a 

potential bill that is not yet before us. This is the opposite order 

that we usually conduct business with in this Congress. So I would 

suggest that in the future we turn that back around, actually have 

a bill before us that we can have witnesses testify to. 

All of us have sympathy for children who are brought here without knowledge that they were breaking the law. I do not think that 

the definition of a child cannot form intent doesn’t stick when I 

look at the way we punish people for committing other crimes. And 

so I disagree with that definition to some degree with the Chairman of the Subcommittee on this particular subject. But whose 

fault is it? It is not the children’s fault if they are children. It is 

not the children’s fault if they are unaware. It is not the children’s 

fault if their parents brought them into the United States. They 

are all subject to the application of the law. Then whose fault is 

it? Is it the parents’ fault? I think so. And is any one of these witness panel, these four or the next four, are they going to advocate 

that we punish the parents for bringing their children into a situation where they all find themselves in contradiction of the law, in 

violation of the law? Is this being set up as a broader picture of 

a backdoor amnesty so that all people that are unlawfully in the 

United States, with those exceptions that the Senate has identified 

as those that have committed a felony and those who have committed those three mysterious misdemeanors, they would be exempt. But, otherwise, everybody in America is targeted to get legalized by the Senate Gang of Eight that may be implicitly in an action that might come from this bill. And I am very concerned about 

that. Because if you legalize people that are here in this country 

unlawfully and you waive the application—even if there were children and you waive the application of the law on their parents, especially if they are the ones that brought them to commit this act, 

then who do you enforce the law against if everybody that hasn’t 

committed the felony is now legalized or their family member is to 

be reunified and everybody that comes after this point, when do 

you start to enforce the law if we can’t enforce it today? On the 

next one that arrives with a 1-week-old baby? Maybe. I don’t think 

so. I think what is on course here, advocated by our witnesses 

ahead of us, I expect, and those that will follow them, is, we will 

just do this little sliver here because this one tugs at our heart. It 

tugs at my heart, too. 
8 

But I listen to the Subcommittee Chairman’s statement when he 

says he wants a remedy that will last a lifetime. I think we have 

a higher responsibility than that. I think we have to preserve the 

rule of law so that this country can last for many, many generations into the future. Not our lifetime, but the lifetime of the 

United States of America. And if you exempt the rule of law with 

regard to immigration, even a part of it, then what you have done 

is you have suspended the law in a category. And if you can suspend the law and exempt it for people who are either here illegally, 

for people that will come here illegally and those who, by the way, 

according to the Senate language, have been deported in the past 

and you invite them to come back to the United States again, then 

what you have done is you have sacrificed the rule of law on the 

altar of political expediency. And the result will be American immigration law will not be set by Americans again, it will be set by 

the people that can circumvent the border security that we are 

promised. But I will promise you, it will not come. It did not come 

in 1986. This Administration is not serious about enforcing the law. 

They will make whatever promises they need to do in order to do 

the legalization they want to do. And if the end of this thing is citizenship because they are willing to sacrifice the rule of law for political power and we have 100 million Americans today of working 

age that are not in the workforce, and we are talking about giving 

a reward for breaking the law, we must take this back to the essential fundamental principle. 

I appreciate the Chairman yielding me some time, and I am looking forward to the testimony of the witnesses. I am not hopeful 

that I am going to hear that statement in any of the testimony that 

comes before this Committee. I thank the Chairman. I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 

Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, this is a good start. We have 

done this, however, for those of us who are senior Members on this 

Committee, for more than a decade. And I thank you and Congresswoman Lofgren for the testimony that will be rendered today. And 

I believe that it is worthy to hear Members of Congress and to find 

that common ground. It is also worthy to hear the opposition. But 

it is also well to note that we as legislators are best when we act 

on behalf of the American people and we strike a compromise. The 

difficulty is, as I have listened to my good friend, that we will go 

nowhere if we cannot find a common ground or we do not have 

those who can see compromise on the horizon. But the one thing 

that we cannot compromise on, and I said this earlier in remarks, 

around the DREAMers and I thank them, for they have put in a 

spark plug that has drawn now the interest of our friends on the 

other side of the aisle, is that we are commemorating and celebrating Ramadan, but we also have principles in the Christian 

faith. One of them is in the book of Ruth, where this young woman 

entreats her mother-in-law not to leave her. She had come close to 

her mother-in-law, and she asked that her mother-in-law not go 

somewhere else and leave her. But we want to tell the DREAM Act 

children that they can stay, but we don’t know about your parents 

or your sisters and brothers. What values are those? What value 
9 

is it if we tell our DREAM Act children that they can stay but we 

tell them not to honor their mother and their father. We have a 

format. We have comprehensive immigration reform. And we can 

listen to individual suggestions. I have seen bills that may be advantageous, that may even be put into the larger framework that 

so many Members have been working on over the years. But we 

cannot move forward if we have motions on the floor of the House, 

for example, voted enthusiastically to unfund the funding that 

would process DREAM Act children. How can you say that you are 

interested in moving forward when we have struck a chord of dissension by taking the very dollars away that would help move the 

process forward, even if we were to take this one bill at a time. 

I will say this as I wrap up. I have spent a number of years, we 

will hold an immigration hearing that we invite all of you to come 

to in Houston, Texas, on the 29th. We want people to come from 

far and wide. Members of Congress are coming in from around our 

State. And we are looking to delineate Texas’ interest and commitment, as one of the larger States of the Union, in comprehensive 

immigration reform. 

This morning, we heard that it is not only business persons, but 

it is the evangelical or the faith community and business. We are 

hoping to strike a chord. That is what we need in this Congress. 

Members of Congress that believe in business, you can vote for 

comprehensive immigration reform. Members of Congress that believe in the faith community, evangelicals and want to bring people 

together, you can vote for a comprehensive approach. And certainly 

if you adhere to law enforcement, who have cried out for comprehensive immigration reform, you can do that. But most importantly, if you believe in humanity, if you believe in the young people that maybe because we are in Washington you don’t see. I see 

them. They come into our office with tears in their eyes. Yes, valedictorians, salutatorians. Young men and women—I know there is 

a bill talking about those who have served in the military. We have 

done some of that before. Some young man who stopped me while 

I was shaking his hand on the platform of graduation, he stopped 

me as we were shaking hands, wishing him well. He said, I want 

to go into the service. And he can’t go now. He didn’t stop me and 

said he wanted to go to vacation or he wanted to get a big-time job. 

He wanted to go and serve his Nation. But of course he had an obstacle. If you see those kinds of children, then you know that the 

only approach we can take is comprehensive immigration reform. 

If you see the tears, if you view the vast humanity, that is the approach we should take. 

I hope, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, that this Committee 

will see a comprehensive initiative, and that we will be voting 

much sooner than later for a better America. With that, yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentlelady from Texas. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this 

hearing, as well as the Chairman of the full Committee, the numerous hearings we have had and the step-by-step approach toward 

immigration reform legislation. I want to make my comments center on the phrase breaking the law. ‘‘Breaking the law.’’ 
10 

It is estimated that over 1.3 million children were brought here 

from foreign countries without their consent by their parents who 

are under the age of 10. 1.3 million brought here under the age of 

10. Everywhere in our law that I am aware of there must be some 

intent for the act to be committed, either civil intent to form a contract, criminal intent to commit a crime. In most States, 10 and 

under, a person cannot form the intent to do anything, to commit 

a crime, to sign a contract, because the law says they are a child. 

And as you have said, Mr. Chairman, immigration law is the only 

place I know of where intent is not required to be considered, 

quote, illegal. 

I think it is time that we bring the law up to the standard of 

all laws in the United States, that a child cannot form the intent 

to commit an act that is illegal in the United States. So, therefore, 

we should look at children brought here by their parents, 10 and 

under, whatever age we use, 1.3 million, as not being able to have 

illegal status because they cannot—they did not consent to the act. 

They did not make that determination mentally. And, therefore, 

they should be treated, I think, in a special way, that they are children brought here with no intent to have the status that they have, 

they were—that status was given to them by their parents. 

So breaking the law? I am not so sure that we can say that they 

have broken the law because their status should not be retroactive 

after they reach a certain age, but their age at the time that they 

were brought here. 1.3 million brought here under the age of 10, 

nowhere else in our law can a person commit a violation of the law 

under the age of 10 except in immigration. 

So it seems to me that it is time that we deal with these special 

children in a very special way and bring them into our society and 

move forward with rectifying this error in our immigration law and 

making sure that we, as the Chairman has said, have compassion, 

that we follow the rule of law, and that we move forward with recognizing these children. 

I have met numerous individuals who were brought here as children. Some of them serve in our military overseas, Afghanistan, 

Iraq. So I think this hearing is very important, hearing from fellow 

Members of Congress about this issue is a unique, special issue in 

the entire discussion of immigration legislation,dealing with those 

children that were brought here not by their choice and not by 

their intent, but the choice and intent of someone else. 

And I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. GOWDY. I believe there was one more request from the gentleman from Idaho. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Chairman, there was no request. But I will 

go ahead and make a short statement. I just—— 

Mr. GOWDY. I should have kept my mouth shut. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. But anything the Chairman asks me to do, 

I will do. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the 

panel, members of the audience, I am grateful that you are here. 

I am grateful that we are having this discussion. I think it is important for us as Americans that we comply first with the rule of 
11 

law, that we, second, look at what the security of our Nation is, 

that we, third, look at what we need to do to make sure that the 

mistakes we have made in the past with respect to enforcement of 

our law, that they can be corrected. I think this is an important 

hearing. I think—I like the tone that we have set so far. And I 

want to make sure that we continue to have this tone and this conversation here about what to do with the people that came here as 

young people. 

Now, I do want to make something very clear that I have said 

in public and private. There is no right to citizenship of the United 

States. It is a privilege that is provided by the law. And it is a 

privilege that is provided by our Constitution. And it is something 

that we need to discuss here, how to do it in the best way, so we 

can prevent in the future having the same mistake—making the 

same mistakes that we made in 1986 and making the same mistakes that we have made over the last 30 or so years. And I want 

to thank you for being here. I want to thank you for your efforts. 

And I will continue to do something to make sure that we can find 

a way for us to actually solve the problems that are facing us, 

which are grave problems that I think affect the future of the 

United States. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Idaho. 

We are privileged to have two wonderful panels, the first of 

which are four of our distinguished colleagues, each of whom has 

a very distinguished resume. I would invite the audience or the 

viewers to look at their resumes in more detail. But in the interest 

of time, because they have other Committees to go to—and, Luis, 

we are anxious for you to come up and join the Subcommittee, I 

am not going to read the biographies. I am simply going to recognize Representative Coffman, Representative Denham, Representative Gardner, Representative Gutierrez, for your opening statements. And then we will—we thank you, and we will let you go 

back to the Committees that I know you all serve on. 

With that, Representative Coffman. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MIKE COFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the first question 

that we—— 

Mr. GOWDY. You may want to punch the button on the—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. It is on now. 

So the first question that we ought to ask ourselves here today 

is whether or not we believe that the young people who were 

brought to this country illegally as children, who grew up and who 

went to school here, who probably know of no other country, ought 

to have the pathway to citizenship. And I believe that the answer 

to that question is yes. 

From my own background, I believe that the greatest expression 

of American citizenship is serving this Nation in our military. It is 

from the sacrifices of those who have worn the uniform that we as 

Americans enjoy the freedoms that we have today. I strongly believe that the undocumented young people in our country ought to 
12 

be able to serve in our military as one of those pathways to citizenship. 

I come from a military family. My late father served in both the 

United States Navy and the Army and was a combat veteran from 

both World War II and the Korean War. I am also a combat veteran with service in both the United States Army and Marine 

Corps and was in both the first Gulf War and the Iraq War. 

First of all, I think we need to remember that the role of the 

United States military is to defend our Nation and that the principle objective must always be the national security of our country. 

We must never use our Armed Forces as an instrument of social 

policy when that conflicts with our national security interests. 

Many of us can remember being told, half jokingly, by drill sergeants that in the military we are to defend democracy and not to 

practice it. 

So the first question should be, will it benefit our military to 

have these undocumented immigrants be able to enlist in the 

United States military, and I think that the answer is clearly yes. 

Allowing these undocumented young people to enlist in the military 

will contribute to the national security of our country. 

I left for my first overseas assignment in the United States Army 

in Europe in 1972. I returned from my last assignment with the 

United States Marine Corps in Iraq in 2006. What I saw over the 

course of that time was first a military in the early 1970’s, in the 

aftermath of Vietnam, that suffered from low morale, poor discipline, and a question mark behind its combat readiness. Since 

both recruiting and retention were difficult, standards were continually compromised in favor of sustaining a large force numerically. 

There is no comparison to my reflection of the military in the 

early 1970’s and the military of today. The United States Armed 

Forces of today is much smaller in size, but it is an elite and a 

more lethal force of highly qualified Americans who want to continue to serve. However, when the civilian job market improves, retaining this quality force will become more challenging. 

A study in 2009 completed by Mission Readiness, entitled 

‘‘Ready, Willing, and Able to Serve,’’ found that 75 percent of young 

adults between the ages 17 to 24 are not fit for military service because they either don’t have a high school diploma, are overweight, 

have a criminal record, or a history of substance abuse. I strongly 

believe that expanding the pool of eligible recruits to select from 

could play a critical role in helping to retain the elite status of our 

military even as the civilian job market improves. 

What my legislation, H.R. 435, the Military Enlistment Opportunity Act, does is provide reforms to our recruiting regulations 

that would allow certain undocumented residents of the United 

States to apply for military service after they have been first vetted 

by the Department of Homeland Security. The vetting by the Department of Homeland Security would only mean that the individual is eligible to apply to serve in the military and it would be 

up to each respective branch of service as to whether or not to accept these applicants. 

Permanent residents, or green card holders, are allowed to enlist 

in the military today, but because they are not U.S. citizens, they 

are very restricted in terms of what occupational fields they can do. 
13 

Only U.S. citizens can hold a security clearance and without a security clearance, an increasing number of occupational fields in the 

military are off limits. Opening up enlistment opportunities to undocumented residents would only aggravate an existing problem by 

relegating these new recruits to a shrinking number of occupational fields given the fact that more and more of them require security clearances. 

My solution under H.R. 435 is to grant citizenship at the beginning of their enlistment for both permanent residents and for those 

who were previously undocumented but now who would be allowed 

to enter the military. This would enable the military to use all of 

their soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen to their best and highest potential because they would no longer be restricted from entering the majority of career fields. However, in doing so, I would 

make the citizenship revokable should the service member receive 

a less than honorable discharge within a 5-year period. Currently, 

enlistments are for an 8-year period but can be a combination of 

active duty, reserve, or inactive reserve time when the service 

members are still available to be called up to return to active duty. 

I strongly believe that allowing those young people we are talking about today to serve in our military as a pathway to citizenship 

is not just the right thing to do but will serve to strengthen the 

national security of our country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Representative Coffman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coffman follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Mike Coffman, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado 

Thank you Chairman Gowdy and the Immigration Subcommittee Members for the 

opportunity speak today on this panel on the legalization of the young undocumented population present in the United States. 

Historically, there is no question that immigrants have contributed greatly to the 

strength, prosperity, and vitality of our nation. 

Americans understand that people are an asset to be valued because we are a nation of, by and for the People—without which our American experiment would cease 

to function. 

Unfortunately, our current system is broken and has become overly burdensome 

for individuals and their families, who want to come to the U.S. in search of a better 

life. 

The legal immigration process is so difficult that it encourages breaking the law 

rather than wading through a complicated bureaucratic visa system. 

For these reasons, I support conservative immigration reform because our current 

system simply does not work for the individuals who share our beliefs and deeply 

desire to be here. 

Although I understand the issue of immigration reform has become divisive, I do 

believe we can come together on at least one single issue. 

We can and should provide a path to citizenship for the young undocumented individuals who were brought here by their parents. 

These young people have grown up here, attended school here, and know of no 

other country besides the United States. 

It should be easy for us to formally accept them into society as long as they have 

stayed out of trouble and are independent, productive residents. 

Also, many of these young people wish to serve this country in uniform. 

My late father, a retired Army master sergeant, taught me that there is no higher 

demonstration of American citizenship than serving in the military. 
14 

As a Marine Corps combat veteran myself, I could not agree more and I strongly 

urge that these individuals have the opportunity to enlist and serve if they qualify. 

Early this year, I introduced H.R. 435, the Military Enlistment Opportunity Act, 

which would allow qualified Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals to enlist in the military. 

Most importantly, H.R. 435 provides a path to citizenship through military service, giving recruits access to all areas of military service including Officer Candidate 

School, Special Forces, military police, and cyber security. 

Citizenship is a prerequisite for a security clearance—without which—these career fields are foreclosed. 

This access to additional talent is also highly beneficial to our armed services because creating a greater pool of recruits is crucial for the military to confront an 

impending recruitment problem. 

Recently, a study completed by Mission Readiness, titled ‘‘Ready, Willing and Unable to Serve,’’ concluded that 75 percent of young adults ages 17 to 24 are not fit 

for military service. 

The vast majority of applicants are turned away because they don’t have a high 

school diploma, are overweight, have a criminal record or a history of substance 

abuse. 

My bill would allow the military to continue to choose from the best by expanding 

their recruiting base. This is essential for our national security. 

Finally, unlike other proposals like the Senate bill, H.R. 435 is in line with how 

the military enlistment process functions. 

By certifying the individual before they attempt to enlist, we relieve the military 

of performing the central functions of the Department of Homeland Security. 

Although the military does perform background checks and confirm documents, 

their central function is to ensure the best and brightest are joining their ranks 

rather than authenticating individual documents. 

H.R. 435 is a commonsense bill that helps young undocumented individuals as 

well as the military. 

I hope that this Committee and the House as a whole understand how important 

immigration reform can be for our military and national security, and 

I look forward to working together on legislation that not only helps the young 

people gain legalization but also aids the armed services maintain their elite and 

unparalleled level of service to this nation. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. Representative Denham, we want to make sure the 

microphones are fully functioning, so we may need to stand down 

just for 30, 45 seconds. 

Mr. DENHAM. Chairman Gowdy. 

Mr. GOWDY. It is definitely working now, Brother. 

Mr. DENHAM. Chairman Gowdy. There we go. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JEFF DENHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. DENHAM. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, I just 

want to first start by thanking both of you for not only the appreciation that I share with both of you on spending time with me 

going over specific pieces of this legislation, but more importantly, 

my constituents. You guys have both dedicated a great deal of time 

and it is much appreciated by me and the folks in my district. I 

also want to thank the Members of this Committee for dedicating 

so much time to actually fixing this problem. I, like the Chairman, 

want to fix this once in my lifetime. It is a huge priority. It is a 

personal priority of mine. But it is also something that I believe 
15 

will grow the economy of California and contribute to the greatness 

of America. 

But on a personal note, I have witnessed the trials and the joys 

of immigration through my own family. My father-in-law is a naturalized citizen from Mexico, my wife and her siblings first-generation Americans. I was very proud when my father-in-law, a very 

proud man, asked me to help him study for his citizenship test. It 

is a big deal. Not everybody wants to become a citizen, but those 

that do are willing to work hard to make this country great. Now, 

I know that we are here today to talk about kids that have been 

brought here through no fault of their own, a very important topic. 

And I look forward to continuing to engage on a variety of other 

issues. But specifically on this topic, one of the bills that is already 

in print, that a number of you have already cosponsored, will be 

part of the KIDS Act, would be the ENLIST Act. And during my 

16 years of serving in the United States Air Force, I served along 

with many foreign nationals who were able to earn citizenship 

through putting their lives on the line for Americans in the armed 

services. Our Nation has never made citizenship a requirement for 

service in our Armed Forces. 50 percent of enlistees in the 1840’s 

were immigrants. 660,000 military veterans became citizens 

through naturalization between 1862 and the most recent numbers 

of 2000. Individuals from Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, and 

America Samoa can gain citizenship today through military service. 

The Lodge Act was passed by Congress in the 1950’s to allow the 

military to recruit from Europe and other Nations overseas to fill 

critical roles. Between 1952 and 1990, 34,620 Filipinos, many of 

whom I served with, enlisted in the Navy were granted U.S. citizenship. 

I introduced the ENLIST Act, H.R. 2377, which authorizes the 

enlistment in the Armed Forces of undocumented immigrants who 

were brought into the United States as children and who are otherwise qualified for enlistment. This bill will provide a way for the 

undocumented immigrants to be lawfully admitted to the U.S. for 

permanent residence by reason of their honorable service and sacrifice in the U.S. military. Not the only way, but certainly a way 

to show their dedication to this great country that we have. 

The ENLIST Act will only affect a certain population of kids who 

have been in the United States since the age of 15 and are prohibited from expressing their patriotism and allegiance to the United 

States under current military code. These recruits would provide 

the military departments with a talent pool of young men and 

women, many of whom would have strategically valuable language 

and cultural competencies. 

I recently met with a constituent, Gloria Sanchez, Mr. Chairman, 

I think you met her as well, who was recruited by the Marines 

from Modesto High School. A day after completing her paperwork 

and forms, Gloria was contacted by the recruiter and asked for her 

Social Security number, which she obviously did not have because 

she was brought here unlawfully into the United States. Gloria 

would have been able to serve her country had my ENLIST Act already been law. 

In the midst of our immigration reform debate, one thing we 

should all agree on is that we must require those who came here 
16 

illegally to give back before they can receive any additional benefit. 

As someone who served, I remember the pride I felt wearing the 

uniform and cannot think of any better way for these young people 

to earn the right to fully share in the rights and freedoms of America. 

I would just like to point out one other thing. As we traveled 

around this district, we traveled around the State, and I have even 

spent on time in other districts around the Nation. I have talked 

to not only a large number of immigrants, but I have talked to a 

lot of kids. And I get a very interesting look. We don’t speak 

English—we don’t speak Spanish, we only speak English. Their entire life they have gone to our schools with our kids. 

It is an issue we have to address. This is a big challenge, addressing the entire immigration system. But specifically on this 

issue, we have to address this issue, we need to address it now. 

Let me just finish by saying last month I appreciated Chairman 

Goodlatte and House Democratic Caucus Chairman Becerra, we 

had a colloquy on the floor dealing with the ENLIST Act. Both had 

said that they were willing to work together on making sure that 

this issue becomes a reality. I appreciate your willingness to do 

that. This is an important part of this package. And I hope this entire Committee and the entire House will consider the ENLIST Act 

as one of the ways, one of the ways for undocumented individuals 

to legalize. Without providing opportunities to earn a legal status 

our body will not resolve our immigration status. There is no better 

way than putting your life on the line for this country to become 

an American citizen. 

I thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Denham. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Denham follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Jeff Denham, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of California 

Dear Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Members of the Committee, 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you in this Hearing on the 

immigration status of those brought to the United States as children. These are undocumented residents who only know America as their home, and were brought into 

the United States not by their own will, but that of their parents or guardians. 

As a resident of central California, I have spent several decades getting an education, running a business, raising children, farming, attending worship services, 

volunteering for school events and kid’s sports events—all alongside neighbors who 

were immigrants from Central America, South America, Southeast Asia, Portugal, 

and many other parts of the world. 

I have also witnessed the trials and joys of immigration through my own family. 

My father-in-law is a naturalized citizen from Mexico, and my wife and her siblings 

are first-generation Americans. Watching my father-in-law and other family members go through the process of becoming citizens and integrating their pride of their 

heritage seamlessly with their American patriotism has helped shape my idea of 

what patriotism means. I am grateful for the opportunities I have had to experience 

the rich heritage of immigrants in one of the most diverse regions of the world, and 

it is a heritage my wife and I have taken great care to share with our two children 

and our nieces and nephews. 

Although I grew up in a very diverse environment, it was during my 16 years 

serving in the United States Air Force that I developed my strongest appreciation 

for the contribution of immigrants to our nation. I served alongside many foreign 
17 

nationals who were able to earn citizenship through putting their lives on the line 

for Americans in the Armed Services. 

Our nation has never made citizenship a requirement for service in our armed 

forces. Since the founding of our nation, noncitizens have been a part of our military, and Congress has seen fit to make military service a way for patriotic individuals from other countries to show allegiance to our flag and become United States 

citizens. 

Almost half of U.S. Army enlistees in the 1840s were immigrants and more than 

660,000 military veterans became citizens through naturalization between 1862 and 

2000. These men and women have proven that they are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for their adopted country. I believe that anyone who swears an oath 

to defend our nation and serves out an enlistment term honorably should be entitled 

to the privileges afforded to American citizens. 

Currently, citizens of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau, as well as 

American Samoa can gain citizenship through military service. Many individuals 

here on student visas and employment-based visas have special eligibility to join our 

armed forces and earn citizenship through the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) program. Additionally, many foreign nationals and Legal 

Permanent Residents serve in our armed forces as a way to earn citizenship. In the 

1950s, Congress passed the now-expired Lodge Act, which allowed the military to 

recruit from Europe and other nations overseas. Between 1952 and 1990, 34,620 

Filipinos enlisted in the Navy and were granted U.S. citizenship. In all of these 

cases, national security is enhanced, not threatened or undermined by foreign nationals and noncitizens. Likewise, allowing undocumented immigrants to enlist 

would not pose any additional national security risk because they would be subject 

to the same screening mechanisms in place for the other foreign nationals serving 

in our armed forces to earn the right to be called Americans. 

In order to allow undocumented Dreamers to serve our country, I introduced the 

ENLIST ACT, H.R. 2377, which authorizes the enlistment in the armed forces of 

undocumented immigrants who were brought into the United States as children and 

who are otherwise qualified for enlistment. This bill will provide a way for the undocumented immigrants to be lawfully admitted to the U.S. for permanent residence 

by reason of their honorable service and sacrifice in the U.S. military. 

The ENLIST Act will not give undocumented immigrants special benefits, nor will 

it create an opportunity or incentive for undocumented immigrants to rush the border now. The bill will not change military naturalization law. The ENLIST Act will 

only affect a certain population of people who have been in the United States and 

are prohibited from expressing their patriotism and allegiance to the United States 

under current military code. The bill gives an opportunity for current undocumented 

immigrants who otherwise qualify for enlistment to give back to the nation that has 

provided them with so much, including public elementary and secondary education 

and, in many cases, a college degree. 

For the many thousands of young undocumented immigrants who graduate from 

our public and private high schools each year, military service would offer an avenue for them to serve the United States and earn a legal status in the country they 

love. These recruits would provide the military departments with a talent pool of 

young men and women, many of whom would have strategically valuable language 

and cultural competencies. 

I recently met with Gloria Sanchez, a constituent of mine, who was recruited by 

the Marines to serve our country for her leadership, aptitude, skills, courage, and 

patriotism. The Marines and other branches of the military visited her high school, 

Modesto High School, and spent hours talking interested students through the recruitment process. A day after completing her paperwork and forms, Gloria was contacted by the recruiter and asked for her social security number, which she did not 

have because she was brought unlawfully into the United States. Gloria would have 

been able to serve her country had my ENLIST Act already been law. It is a shame 

to see men and women who have lived in the United States for most of their childhood denied the ability to put their lives on the line for our country. Congress has 

an interest in helping build up and care for our armed services, and that includes 
18 

providing opportunities for patriotic young people like Gloria to enlist and serve 

alongside our forefathers and the greatest heroes of American history. 

This body is debating different approaches to fixing our broken immigration system, but one thing we should all agree on is that the approach must require those 

who came here illegally to give back before they can receive any additional benefit. 

As someone who has served, I remember the pride I felt to wear the uniform and 

cannot think of any better way for these young people to earn the right to fully 

share in the rights and freedoms of America. 

I hope you will support the ENLIST Act’s purpose of allowing undocumented immigrants to enlist in the regular component of the Armed Forces. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present this testimony before you today. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Gardner. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CORY GARDNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, and 

other Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify 

today. My full statement has been submitted for the record. 

This hearing today is an important step toward addressing immigration reform in a sensible and systematic manner. Clearly, our 

current system is broken. Immigration is an important issue for my 

district,like it is for everyone on this panel. Ignoring immigration 

laws for nearly 2 decades has helped result in approximately 11 

million people in the United States without documentation. In fact, 

40 to 42 percent of undocumented individuals in the Nation were 

once here legally, but overstayed their visas. The 1986 bill has 

proven unworkable and too easily avoidable. We must reform immigration laws and we must do so in a step-by-step process with deliberation and debate surrounding each piece of reform. And we 

must begin with border security and interior enforcement. We cannot simply put reform to the side because it is unworkable or the 

political will is simply not present to make it work. We have a 

chance to prove to the American people that the Federal Government can be trusted to build a long-term and common sense system. 

It has been said by many that the United States is a Nation of 

immigrants, and I imagine if I was not blessed to be born in this 

country I would have done everything I could to be in this country. 

But we are also a Nation of laws. Our current immigration laws 

have proven inadequate and are not being enforced. If a law is not 

enforced or it is ignored, then we no longer remain a Nation of laws 

and the law becomes worth little more than the bill paper that it 

is written on. 

Congress must move forward by building a new system of immigration laws that will stand strong and secure but still allow a 

workable system for people that want to be part of this great Nation and a healthy economy to have the opportunity to do so. I urge 

the House to be guided by law and fairness during this process and 

fair as well to the those currently waiting in the legal process to 

become citizens. Any immigration reform must first begin with border security and interior enforcement as a top priority, and I will 
19 

not support reform that fails to include strong security enforcement 

measures. Not only do these measures need to exist, but there 

must be confirmation from a credible outside entity that these 

measures have been satisfied and implemented. No one should be 

able to simply choose not to enforce the law or waive it through the 

administrative process. Once we have secured our borders and are 

enforcing the law and guaranteed these measures are working may 

we look to other reforms. 

With these principles setting the framework, we are here to discuss potential reform for the very young, the children who were 

brought illegally into this country as minors. These are the children and young adults that for all intents and purposes are culturally American. These are the children that grew up in the 

United States and go to school with our children and grandchildren, with my daughter. This is an issue of fairness, law, and 

compassion. Many of these children know no other Nation except 

for the United States. Their parents made a decision to enter the 

country illegally and our broken system did nothing to prevent it. 

They deserve to be afforded some form that recognizes that they 

are here through no fault of their own. It was not their decision 

to not follow the law. I believe Members across the aisle can unite 

and agree that providing them with some sort of immigration relief 

is the fair thing to do. But this must be part of a step-by-step reform package. The legislation addressing these young individuals 

should not provide them with a treatment that is unfair to those 

already following the legal process. Any legislation addressing 

these children would need to be solely for the benefit of the child 

and no one else. It cannot elicit chain migration. During the process, we must find the appropriate balance. And while these children remain innocent, we cannot reward those family members 

who have broken the law. 

And I have a story that I would like to share with the Committee. In 2005, I had just been appointed to the Colorado State 

Legislature, and I held one of my first town meetings on the Eastern Plains in a small farm town. The government teacher of the 

local high school brought the government class, the entire class, to 

attend the meeting. There weren’t many of them. But during the 

question-and-answer period of the meeting, a young girl stood up 

and introduced herself, proudly stating that she was graduating 

first in her class, the valedictorian of her senior class, and she had 

gone to school with those same classmates since her kindergarten 

year, K through 12. She stood up and said she was brought in this 

country when she was only a few months old, brought into the 

country illegally. And she asked this question, I will never forget. 

Do you support in-state tuition for illegal aliens, she asked. I told 

her that I did not because allowing passage of such a policy was 

avoiding the real problem, it was failing to address the overall need 

for immigration reform and that we can’t start with in-state tuition 

because we have to pursue meaningful immigration reform first to 

fix the broken nature of our process before anything else could happen. About a month ago, I was in the same small town in the Eastern Plains, and I ran into this young girl once again, same girl, the 

valedictorian of her high school, waiting tables. Eight years later, 
20 

we talked once again about the need for immigration reform. Eight 

years later, nothing has happened. 

This time, Congress cannot just talk about immigration reform. 

Congress must act. While there will be strong disagreement about 

what to do, how to proceed, and what the end policy will ultimately 

look like, we simply cannot do nothing. We must act, and I believe 

we can do so in a way that 30 years from now, 100 years from now, 

future generations of this country, both immigrants and nonimmigrants, can say that back then they did the right thing and 

it is working. 

I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify today. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Gardner. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gardner follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Cory Gardner, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado 

Thank you Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, and the other members 

on this subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today. The panel is an important 

step to address immigration reform in a sensible and systematic manner. In my district, immigration is an incredibly important matter—for families trying to look for 

a better way of life or agricultural interests hoping to harvest this year’s crop. 

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 proved unworkable and too-easily avoidable, and it helped result in approximately eleven million people in the 

United States without documentation. We need long-term, common sense legislation 

to fix this broken system. The House is committed to moving forward with a stepby-step process, with proper deliberation and debate surrounding each piece of reform. It is important that we do this right—proving to the American people the federal government can be trusted to build a lasting system that cannot simply be put 

aside because it is unworkable or the political will is simply not present to make 

it work. 

This afternoon, I will share my views on how to move forward. I believe any immigration reform effort must begin first with border security and enforcement of the 

law. A strong guestworker program, accompanied by a modernized e-verify system, 

is critical. I will also discuss the potential reform for the very young—children—who 

were brought illegally into this country as minors, and possible ways to address this 

issue. 

Many of us elected in 2010 came to Congress because we wanted to put this nation back to work. We wanted to get government out of the way in order to grow 

the economy so that people can find jobs and make sure there is a better tomorrow. 

We came to Washington to keep the American dream alive, and ensure that this 

great nation serves as a beacon of hope for individuals and families that want to 

achieve the American dream. 

It has been said many times before—the United States is a nation of immigrants. 

Had I not been blessed to have been born in this country, I know I would have done 

everything I could to make sure my family had the opportunity to grow up here. 

We are also a nation of laws. Our current immigration laws have proven inadequate 

and are not being enforced. If a law is not enforced or it is ignored, then we no 

longer remain a nation of laws and the law becomes worth little more than the 

paper upon which it is written. According to The Wall Street Journal, between forty 

and forty-two percent of the undocumented people in this country came here legally, 

but overstayed their visas. We need to move forward by building a new system of 

immigration laws that will stand strong and secure, but still allow a workable system for people that want to be a part of this great nation and healthy economy to 

have the opportunity to do so. I urge the House to be compassionate and fair during 

this process. 

Border security and interior enforcement remain my top priority during this debate—it must come first. A government that cannot secure its own border is a gov-
21 

ernment that is not doing its job. The same is with a government that cannot assure 

a legal workforce. In 1986, the American people were promised interior enforcement 

during immigration overhaul, but this never took place. Ignoring immigration laws 

for at least two decades has resulted in at least eleven million undocumented individuals throughout the nation. We can rebuild the trust of the American people by 

securing the borders and enforcing the laws, and making sure that no one can simply choose not to enforce the law or waive it through administrative process. Not 

only do strong security and enforcement measures need to exist in any reform, but 

there must be confirmation from a credible, outside entity that these measures have 

been satisfied and implemented. 

Once we have secured our borders and are enforcing laws—knowing the measures 

are working—we may look to other reform provisions. Today, we are here to specifically discuss those amongst us who were brought to the country as young children. 

These individuals, for all intents and purposes, are culturally American. These are 

the young adults and children who grew up in the United States and go to school 

with our children and grandchildren, with my daughter. These children know no 

other nation, except for the United States. 

This is an issue of fairness, decency, and compassion. Their parents made a decision to enter this country illegally and our broken system did not prevent it. They 

deserve to be afforded some form of legal status that recognizes that they are here 

through no fault of their own. It is not their fault, nor was it their decision to not 

follow the law. I believe Members across the aisle can unite and agree that providing these children with some sort of immigration relief is the just and fair thing 

to do. But it must be part of a step-by-step reform package. 

Any legislation that would address these children would need to be solely for the 

benefit of the child, and no one else. It cannot elicit chain migration. During this 

process we must find the appropriate balance between compassion and justice. 

While these children remain innocent, we cannot reward those family members who 

have broken the law. However, the children do deserve to have the opportunity to 

continue the American dream and we, as Members of Congress, should have the 

compassion to provide them with this. In 2005, I had just been appointed to the 

state legislature. I held one of my first town meetings on the eastern plains of Colorado in a small farm town. The government teacher of the local school brought the 

senior government class to attend the meeting. During the question and answer portion of the meeting a young girl stood up and introduced herself, proudly stating 

that she was graduating first in her class, the valedictorian. She had gone to school 

with her classmates, in the same school, since kindergarten. But, she said, she was 

brought into this country when she was only a few months old and she was illegal. 

‘‘Do you support in-state tuition for illegal aliens?’’ she asked. 

I told her that I did not, because allowing passage of such a policy was avoiding 

the real problem, it was not addressing the overall need for immigration reform. We 

must pursue meaningful immigration reform to fix the broken nature of the process 

before anything like this can happen. 

A month ago, on the eastern plains of Colorado, I saw this same girl. The valedictorian of her class, waiting tables. Eight years later, I once again talked about the 

need for immigration reform. Eight years later, nothing has happened. 

This time, Congress cannot just talk about reform. We must do it. 

While there will be strong disagreement about what to do, how to proceed, and 

what the end policy will ultimately look like, we cannot simply do nothing. We must 

act. And I believe we can do so in a way that, thirty years from now, future generations of this country—both immigrants and non-immigrants—can say, they did it 

right. It is working. 

Again, I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to participate in 

today’s hearing. 

Mr. GOWDY. I now recognize our friend and fellow Judiciary 

Committee Member, Mr. Gutierrez. 
22 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy and Ranking 

Member Lofgren, for inviting me to testify today and to the full 

Committee Chairman, Chairman Goodlatte, for joining us as he 

has during all of these hearings. 

Twelve years ago, I introduced the first bill to legalize the status 

of young people brought to this country by their parents, the Immigrant Children’s Educational Advantage and Dropout Prevention 

Act, 2001. Since I introduced that first bill, the movement for legal 

immigration, for immigration reform, and for legalization has 

grown broader and deeper. In every community today there are 

young people, religious people, women, business owners, immigrant 

moms and dads and regular civic-minded U.S. citizens organizing 

to make sure we pass immigration reform this year in the U.S. 

Congress. 

Over the August recess, Members of this Committee and Members of the House of Representatives will see firsthand that the desire for reform is real and present in their communities across this 

Nation. We have recently heard the Speaker of the House and the 

Majority Leader and a wide array of Republican voices say they are 

for legalizing the status of children under certain circumstances, 

including a pathway to citizenship. Wow. DREAMers and others 

who support immigration reform must be pretty darn persuasive. 

After all, look how far we have come in such a sort time. Just 8 

months ago, the Republican Party platform said, deport them all, 

veto the DREAM Act, and make every State pass Arizona S.B. 

1070. Just a month ago, all but six of the Republicans in the House 

voted to kill the funding for the deferred action for childhood arrivals. Three weeks ago, every single Republican on this panel voted 

to make every undocumented young person a criminal. 

But I am not here to chastise you. Rather, I am here to say, 

thank you for taking a step in the right direction of justice today. 

Now let us find a way to walk forward together tomorrow. Those 

of us who have sat at the immigration reform table for many, many 

lonely years are glad you are stepping up and engaging in a conversation with us. We need you. Without you, we cannot achieve 

success. If the Republican majority is starting with the DREAMers 

because that is as far as you are willing to go in terms of legal status for undocumented immigrants, I say thank you for coming this 

far. Because even a small step in the right direction is the first 

step in any good faith negotiation. It says compromise may indeed 

be within reach. 

But let me be absolutely crystal clear and unequivocal, legalizing 

only the DREAMers is not enough. It would not be enough, given 

the years and decades of hard work and equities that millions of 

immigrants have built in this country. It would not be enough to 

satisfy the intense hunger for legality in the immigrant community, 

the desire to pledge allegiance to this country, the pride with which 

so many want some day to say ‘‘I am an American citizen.’’ And 

it is not enough to restore the rule of law and truly fix a broken 

immigration system. 

I have met with DREAMers and with their moms and dads, and 

I want the same thing for their kids that I want for my two won-
23 

derful daughters. I want an indivisible family. I cannot imagine for 

1 minute that Republicans who I know also honor the sanctity of 

family want to legalize the children but leave the rest of the family 

vulnerable to our broken immigration system. 

After the election, I traveled to Missouri to meet with United We 

Dream and other DREAM activist leaders. I was told in no uncertain terms that they would not leave their parents behind. I will 

let them speak for themselves because they are well and truly capable of doing so, but let me tell you what I saw. 

But let me tell you what I saw. I saw a maturity and a level of 

confidence that I think any politician would be a fool not to consider. They will not settle for what is good for them unless they can 

also win what is good for their families. And do you know what? 

Do you know why? Because their parents instilled values in them. 

Good and decent kids are raised by good and decent parents. If we 

honor the children for being upstanding and, quote, the kind of immigrants we like, then we must honor the parents who helped raise 

them to be upstanding. 

I suspect—no, Chairman Gowdy—I know that there is more to 

come. This hearing and the legislation we understand is being prepared by the majority I fully believe is just the first step. I am optimistic that once you take one step toward justice, you will take a 

second and a third and as many steps as it takes until the thirst 

is extinguished. I want all of us to walk there together. 

Once you see that standing up for young and talented immigrants feels good and right, you will want to stand up also for their 

parents who raised and nurtured them. The DREAMers will remember, the Nation will remember forever how this Congress and 

this country treated their parents. We have come such a long way, 

and we need to work together to keep America moving forward. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the 

op-ed written by my colleague, Congressman Mike Coffman, titled 

‘‘The Time for Immigration Reform is Now’’—it was published this 

past Sunday in the Denver Post—be submitted for the record. I 

have traveled to a lot of places but the op-ed in the paper that welcomed me on Sunday morning in Denver when I arrived this past 

Sunday is one of the best acts of welcoming I have ever received. 

And I would like that to be introduced into the record. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And Mr. Chairman, I would like to be introduced 

into the record—consent to submit an editorial from the Bakersfield Californian, the hometown newspaper of Congressman David 

Valadao, with whom I shared a stage this past Saturday in Bakersfield in his district, and this editorial praises him for his willingness to compromise and engage Members on both sides of the aisle 

on the immigration issue. I ask that also be included in the record. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

[The material referred to follows:] 
24 

Imp f/www d,,~nvel oos t O)JlIjcplnlorl!,:i_2388070~ itirne-Irmn:gration -refcrn~ -IS-11(»''I.' 

Mike Coffman: The time for immigration reform is now 

By Mike Coffman The Denver Post 

Posted: DenverPost.com 

While we are a nation of immigrants, our policies regarding immigration are dysfunctional. This 

is not just because we can't control our own borders and enforce our immigration laws, but 

also because even our system of legal immigration fails to reflect the needs of our country. A 

comprehensive immigration reform proposal must incorporate three essential elements: it 

must secure our borders and provide for the effective enforcement of our immigration laws; it 

must contribute to the economic growth of our country; and it must be compassionate in 

keeping families together. 

First, we must secure our borders and enforce our laws. Ironically, my first overseas military 

assignment involved providing border security for another country while our own border 

remained unsecure. I've been down to our border with Mexico and I'm not convinced that 

simply throwing more money at border security will solve the problem. What is needed is 

leadership that reflects both the will to secure our borders and objective metrics, evaluated by 

experts outside of the executive branch, to make that determination. In addition, I don't think 

many Americans realize that 40 percent of illegal immigration is committed by those who first 

enter our country legally but then overstay their visas. Comprehensive immigration reform 

must not only provide for border security but also must help us enforce our immigration laws 

on those who enter our country on visas. 

Removing the incentives for employers to hire people who are in this country illegally should 

be an essential element of any comprehensive proposal. To help enforce our laws, employers 

must have access and be required to use an electronic system, such as E-Verify, where they 

can quickly and accurately verify the legal status of each job applicant. Employers should be 

subject to stiff fines and criminal prosecution should they knowingly hire workers in this 

country illegally. 

Comprehensive immigration reform must meet the economic needs of our country. No doubt, 

immigration policies should not be used as a tool to displace American labor but to 

complement it. Reform efforts should facilitate a more fluid and workable visa authorization 

system so that temporary workers for both low- and highly skilled positions can obtain and 

renew work permits. Seasonal temporary work, such as in agriculture, needs a robust system 

that allows the workers, without their families, to come into our country when they are needed 

and then go home after their seasonal work is done. For those on student visas in technical 

fields critical to our economy, we should allow them to stay and work in the United States after 

they graduate. 

Lastly, comprehensive immigration reform must show compassion to the families that have 

Page 1 of2 Ju/30, 2013 09"31:52AM MDT 
25 

Imp f/www d,,~nvel oos t O)JlIjcplnlorl!,:i_2388070~ itirne-Irmn:gration -refcrn~ -IS-11(»''I.' 

been here regardless of their immigration status. Many have either children who were born 

here and are American citizens or children who grew up here, went to school here, and who 

know of no other country besides the United States. I believe that these young people should 

be afforded a pathway to citizenship. The adults who knowingly broke our immigration laws 

but who have otherwise not violated any criminal laws should be provided a temporary 

provisional residency. This would constitute a probationary status that would be rescinded if 

certain requirements - such as criminal background checks, paying taxes, and independence 

from public assistance - are not met. 

From this status, they could apply to be permanent residents (green card), but not until all the 

border security and enforcement requirements, under a new immigration reform law, are 

certified to be effectively in place by experts outside of the executive branch. 

There should be no special pathway to citizenship. After earning permanent resident status, 

they could apply for citizenship and should be treated like any other applicant, understanding 

that a critical part of comprehensive immigration reform must include the establishment of a 

much higher standard for both English proficiency and for demonstrating an understanding of 

the civic culture of our nation. 

Our immigration system is badly broken, and every day that it is allowed to continue 

constitutes amnesty for those who have violated our laws. The time for comprehensive 

immigration reform is now. 

u.s. Rep. Mike Coffman is a Republican who represents Colorado's 6th Congressional 

District. 

Page 2 of 2 Ju/30, 2013 09"31:52AM MDT 
26 

Editorial: 

At least one vailley congressman gets it 

Saturday. Jun LS 20L3 L L:OO L'M 

Finall)" Kern Count)' IS !!ettLt1!! the krnd orreadershlp rn the ImmIgration debate II has so 

patientLy w,uted ror. Finally, uur congressman ha~ IOQS~ th" 5haclles of political cauuon ~nd 

voted on the side of economic reality. Although. OWlflg 10 his otherwIse conservative nature. he's 

not the tyPl' of guy to throw around \'I'Ofds like COI1lp;t~s,on or social JuShCt'. oor man In 

Washm1.~on lias In effect addressed those tOO. He has made his position Cl"<lr, nllmigratlon 

reform is inevitable and overduC'. 

No. nOl KevIn McCarthy We ha\'e-yr:\ to see our Bak...-sfiC'ld·based represcutati,'esay an)'lhin» 

that strays fromlhe Republican talkin !! potnLS about hl'T111ctJcally sealrng the border He has yet 

to stakeout a pragmatic vision becau:;e.:u m:t.Jorrty whip. his Job tJ til corral te:! p;lrty loy llSI 5. 

not str::ueg'-1:e or set pohey. 

No. we refer here to David Valadao of Hanford. whose 2Lst Congres.SIllnal Distrrct swoops Into 

Kern Coumy from the north. As a firs.Heml baCk benther. Valadao has ever)' feason to go Wilh 

the now. 'illite w,th the tonservative consensus and otherwise keep his mouth shut. On some 

t11,1l\efS, he has no doubt done that. But ou mlmlgralion. h<\ has seen ,he hYJ>OCTlsy of an 

ecot1Omit model than relies OIl 'mmigrants. nlany of thelJl undO<.:um .. mted. set &gIIitlSl the 

background of a social construtt ,ha, distrusts and mi und~'T"Slands lhem. 

When Rep Sieve King, R-Iowa .• rcu,",ly imroouced a polson·pill amendment 10 Ihe 

immigralion bin ,hal look away all di:scretion from the Depanmem of Homeland Securily on 

maners of deportation, including an end to all defemlLs IJI ,he deportation process ,ha, favors 

"drrom~-rs" C'Ver)' Republican on the Homeland Security Subconlflul!ee suppon~;t Ei<cept one 

•• Valadao 

McCarthy's OOtlSlttUl.'OIS are ubstat1I!:~lIy the satne ones as Valad.l0's. Farnung IS bl~ and so IS 

relinnce on the immiwunt worken; who make ilgo. Many farmC13 already tompl31l1 ,ha, they are 

having trouble hiring enough clllplo}',~ to pick ,heir crops. As a ootlsl'quenoo, wages h.:tve 

increased and cult'l'alion mnlntenano~ pracutes like Ihinl1UlghDve been cut back In favor of 

more urgent t11,1[1ers, namely the harvesl 

&t.rry Be(hvell, president of Ihe Fresno-based California Grape & ~ I'ml' League. told the 

Industry weekly AS Alert IlISl week he was seems a "oolllinurns trend ora llglitenmg supply of 

bbor" for frui, traps. 
27 

"We keep hearing of people saying, 'We wanted X people in a crew and we only ended up with 

Y,'" Bedwell said. 

It's actually starting to get a bit silly. 

One would think that McCarthy would leap to the aid of the farmers in his district, but as the No. 

3 man in the GOP's House leadership team, his job is primarily party politics and caucus 

appeasement. Perhaps, then, he should consider the political consequences offurther alienating 

the fastest-growing voting bloc in America. Failure to act on immigration hurt Republicans in 

2012, and it will hurt them again in due course, unless they agree to meaningful action, and soon. 

One southern valley Republican, at least, seems to get that. Where's the other one? Perhaps 

tending to his A rating from the anti-amnesty group Americans for Legal Immigration. 
28 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gutierrez follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Lofgren for inviting me to testify. 

I am always impressed by the depth and the breadth of the movement in this 

country for immigration reform. 

Twelve years ago, I introduced the first bill to legalize the status of young people 

brought to this country by their parents, the Immigrant Children’s Educational Advantage and Dropout Prevention Act of 2001 (H.R. 1582). That bill provided legal 

status to minors who had lived in the U.S. for at least five years and who were students. 

Needless to say, Congress never passed that bill or similar bills, which is why we 

are here today. 

At the time, immigration reform and standing up for undocumented students was 

a pretty lonely place to stand. 

But look at where we are today. 

United We Dream, an advocacy group which is represented on our second panel 

today, is just one of many advocacy groups and networks that have fought the last 

dozen years for immigrant students and young people. They are diverse, they are 

sophisticated, they are powerful, and—having had various groups of immigrant 

youth protest at my offices over the years—I can tell you, they are persistent. 

Immigrant youth define the pro-immigrant movement and I want to say thank 

you to them for your leadership, your courage, your risk-taking, and your selflessness. 

But they are not alone. 

Today, the movement for legal immigration, for immigration reform, and for legalization is broad and deep. 

In every community in this country, there are young people, there are religious 

people, there are women, there are business owners, there are Latino, Asian and 

African and immigrant moms and dads, and there are just regular, civic minded 

U.S. citizens organizing today to make sure we pass immigration reform this year 

in the United States Congress. 

They stand with the DREAMers. 

And the movement has grown in just the past few years. 

When President Barack Obama was first elected President, I remember Congressman Rahm Emanuel, then an immigration reform skeptic, sitting me down with 

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky in Rahm’s Chicago office for the sole purpose of 

counting Democratic votes for immigration reform. 

Our best guess was we had 185 solid Democratic votes for reform and we would 

need 40–50 Republicans to join us. 

For two years, the President, Speaker Pelosi and everyone else said, ‘‘We’d love 

to push for immigration reform, Luis, but bring us the 40–50 Republican votes first 

and we’ll talk about it.’’ 

Not for want of trying, on my part and on the part of the Congressional Hispanic 

Caucus and many others to build support on both sides of the aisle, we were fighting against the headwinds of the most partisan period in recent American history. 

Even Republicans who stood with us and who had co-sponsored the DREAM Act 

or had co-sponsored the bipartisan bills I wrote with Jeff Flake and John McCain 

and Ted Kennedy—even most of those Republicans would not stand openly with us. 

We were unable to show we had 218 votes to pass immigration reform in the 

House. 

Just two years ago, we were not sure we could pass the DREAM Act when 

DREAMers, advocates, parents, educators and Democrats, including the President 

and Speaker Pelosi, were ready to call the vote in November 2010. 

A ragtag, informal coalition of Democrats—and one or two stealthy Republicans— 

helped us whip the DREAM Act vote, which took place on December 8, 2010. 

We passed the DREAM Act 216–198 and had 208 Democrats on board, even better than what Emanuel and Schakowsky and I had calculated a year or two earlier. 

We had 8 Republicans join us, and two of them continue to serve to this day. 

And you know what? The sun came up the next morning. The world did not spin 

off its axis. We had voted to legalize millions of young people, yet civilized society 

did not crumble. 

Over in the Senate, 55 Senators voted for the DREAM Act but because of their 

arcane filibuster rules, it failed to come to a final vote. A minority, mostly—but not 
29 

exclusively—Republicans were able to thwart what the American people and a majority in both Houses of Congress favored. 

Flash forward another year or so and the movement is growing still. In 2011, 

there was a limited form of prosecutorial discretion for some immigrants, including 

undocumented youth, which President Obama announced as part of an expansion 

of local police involvement in immigration enforcement. 

In 2012, we were asking the President to help stop or slow down the massive 

wave of deportations that were taking a heavy toll on families, including DREAMers, in neighborhoods all across the country. 

For almost two years after the DREAM Act filibuster prevented passage of the 

bill, legal scholars and many others joined us to say the President had extraordinary 

powers to examine the deportations of DREAMers and suspend them because they 

were not in the national interest. 

The White House said they didn’t have these powers under current law, but what 

they really meant was that if they started to dial-back the deportations against 

DREAMers and other groups of immigrants whose departure weakened, not 

strengthened our country—powers that are clear in current law and which the 

former Chairman of this Subcommittee has acknowledged the President indeed 

has—that Republicans, starting in this Subcommittee and going all the way to the 

Speaker’s Office would take action to stop the Obama Administration if they took 

any such action. 

And they were right. 

The Republicans introduced the HALT Act to prevent the President from exercising the executive branch’s long-held power of prosecutorial discretion. This bill 

would have suspended certain discretionary forms of immigration relief, policies 

prioritizing the removal of ‘‘criminal aliens’’ over ‘‘non-criminal’’ aliens and the authority to allow a case-by-case examination of the deportation of DREAMers. 

But the march towards justice for young immigrants continued forward and in 

June 2012, the President announced he would let people who met certain criteria 

apply to have their deportations deferred, making them pay fees and submit fingerprints and documentation that they fit the Department of Homeland Security’s criteria to review their cases. 

In the city of Chicago on August 15th of last year, they came by the thousands. 

Approximately 13,000 young people and their families came to Navy Pier to get 

more information, find out what forms and what documentation they would need 

and, if they were ready, to fill out their application right on the spot. 

There were lots of kids, but the people who came out in Chicago that day were 

families. Little kids too young to apply. Teenagers who were both timid and all 

grown-up at the same time, as only teenagers can be. We had college students and 

graduates with degrees and some who had to drop out of school to support themselves and their families. 

And lots of Moms and Dads! They came to make sure they found out what was 

going on. They had sacrificed their whole lives to make sure their little boy or little 

girl had a chance in this country and they were there to watch out for them, to pray 

for them, and to help make it happen. They were overjoyed that their children were 

getting a chance they wished they had for themselves or for their other children. 

Senator Dick Durbin and Mayor Emanuel and half the elected officials in town 

watched the 13,000 peaceful, hopeful people go through that line and we knew we 

had come so far from 2001 when I first introduced my bill. 

We have heard the Speaker and the Majority Leader and a wide array of Republican voices say they are for legalizing the status of children under certain circumstances. I know as I look at the dais that there are votes for the DREAM Act 

and for legalization of some immigrants under some circumstances on the Republican half of the dais. 

The movement we saw earlier in the year towards compromise and cooperation 

is beginning to be visible again. 

Just last November, every single Republican ran on a platform that said no to 

any form of legalization ever. 

In fact, every single undocumented immigrant—according to the Party Platform 

adopted in Tampa—was to leave the country. All 11 million. 

Your Presidential candidate said they had to self-deport. He said the Arizona 

Law, SB1070, should be the law in every state. He said he would veto the DREAM 

Act if it came to his desk. 

Look how far we have come just in the last eight and a half months. Now we have 

a growing consensus in the Republican Party that legalization under some circumstances might be okay. 

Look how far we have come since June 8th. Just over a month ago. On that day, 

the House voted on the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill and attached to that 
30 

bill was an amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa, which said that any 

funds to protect immigrants from deportation who were brought to the U.S. as children were to be stripped from the bill. 

Just a month ago, every single Republican who voted—except for six—voted for 

the King Amendment. And every single democrat except for three voted against it. 

Just a week or so later, every Republican in this committee voted to make every 

undocumented immigrant—whether they came here with a visa and overstayed or 

if they came across the border or were smuggled in without a visa—every single undocumented immigrant into a federal fugitive. 

We would dump into the criminal justice system 11 million undocumented immigrants and then tell police, if you fail to go after them, we will take your federal 

money away. We will strip the funds that you use for community policing to make 

your neighborhoods safer, unless you start the kind of local police roundup activities 

that made Sheriff Joe Arpaio a household name in Spanish coast to coast. 

Every Republican on the full committee voted for the SAFE Act. But it gets worse. 

Not only would the undocumented immigrants be federal fugitives punishable 

with time in jail before they would be deported, their kids, their parents, their 

spouses, their landlords, their employers, and almost anyone else who has contact 

with them—could be charged with harboring or abetting federal fugitives, given the 

new authority of the States and police to enforce immigration law 

That’s possibly another 10, 20, or 30 million people we drop into the criminal justice system. And everyone on that side of the dais voted for that just two or three 

weeks ago. 

What I am trying to say is that I have been one of the strongest advocates for 

immigration reform, I learned a great deal from the DREAMers, and we must be 

pretty darn effective. 

Because just eight months after your platform said deport them, just a month 

after all but six of you voted to make every last one of them deportable, and just 

three weeks after every single one of you voted for the SAFE Act to make them and 

their families all criminals, here we are at a new turning point. 

I am not here to slam you. 

I am here to say thank you. I am here to say welcome aboard. Those of us who 

have sat at this table and felt lonely are glad you are stepping up again to talk this 

over with us. 

If the Republican Majority is starting with the young people we call DREAMers 

because that is as far as you are willing to go in terms of legal status for undocumented immigrants, I say thank you for coming this far, because taking a step in 

the right direction is the first step in any good faith negotiation. 

It is the first step that says a compromise may be within reach. It is a place we 

can start. 

Let me be clear, and unequivocal. Legalizing only the DREAMers is not enough. 

It is not enough given all the hard work and equities that millions of immigrants 

have built in this country. It is not enough to satisfy the intense hunger for legality, 

the desire to pledge allegiance to this country and the national interest in restoring 

the rule of law. 

But even saying that most of the 11 million are not, in fact, leaving and that we 

must deal with reality in a new and more effective way is an important first step 

towards compromise. 

I suspect there is something else going on. I suspect that this is a first step and 

that there are others to come. This hearing and the legislation we understand is 

being prepared by the Majority is like dipping your toe in the water. 

Maybe if you feel comfortable with one toe, we can work with you to dip another 

toe in the water. 

I am optimistic that once you take a step towards justice, you will take a second 

one. 

Once you see that standing up for young immigrants feels good and feels right, 

you will want to do it more. 

They are delightful young Americans who are just as American as my kids and 

your kids, but they don’t have that crucial piece of paper that says they can live 

here with the full rights—and responsibilities—of my children and your children. 

As Congressman Coffman and Congressman Denham knows, they want to join the 

military. They want to serve this country because it is the only country many of 

them know. 

We are simply talking about the paperwork of our immigration system catching 

up with the reality of our society. And we in this Subcommittee and in this Congress can act to make sure that paperwork catches up with reality. 
31 

Through this process, you are meeting young undocumented immigrants and I 

challenge you to tell them apart from their other immigrant and native U.S. born 

classmates and neighbors. 

When my daughter brought home friends from school, we didn’t check the kids’ 

papers. We didn’t ask for a birth certificate. And when their parents came to pick 

them up at our house, we didn’t ask for their papers, either. 

We talked like parents do about our daughters; about how they were growing up 

so fast, about how kids growing up in America have so many opportunities and so 

many hurdles and how things were simpler in our day, regardless of whether they 

grew up in Chicago like me or someplace else. 

Their kids were growing up here just like my kids were growing up here and 

probably in some cases, the parents, and maybe the kids, were undocumented immigrants. 

The question before us today is not whether we should legalize the young people 

who grew up here. I think my colleagues—not only the majority in the House, but 

a majority of Republicans—would support such a bill crafted in the right way. 

In the bipartisan group I am a part of, we are crafting a bill that allows DREAMers to legalize their status and get on a quicker path to permanent residency. This 

is the consensus of the group, including among our most conservative members. 

But what our bill does is to look not just at the individual immigrant, but at their 

family. 

How can you legalize the status of a teenager and deny legal status to their parent? 

How do you slice and dice the family, such that those who were brought here as 

children get one set of circumstances and their older siblings get something else? 

Or their parents? 

I think we should look at immigrants as most of them look at themselves. As 

members of families with different generations and different circumstances, but 

each with a unique and powerful contribution to make to American society and to 

each other. 

We should be uniting and strengthening the family unit, not dividing them up. 

George W. Bush said that ‘‘family values do not end at the Rio Grande,’’ and I 

think we should examine exactly which side of that river he was talking about. 

When I traveled to Missouri after the election to meet with United We DREAM 

and other DREAM activists and leaders, I was told in no uncertain terms that they 

would not leave their parents behind. 

Many of them are among the 400,000 young people who have received Deferred 

Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA. 

With fees paid, fingerprints taken and criminal background checks passed, DACA 

recipients are in a safe place when it comes to deportation and they can work legally 

and apply for a driver’s license in nearly every state. 

But despite being in a safe place, they will not leave their moms and their dads 

and their siblings by the side of the road. 

I will let them speak for themselves because they are well and fully capable of 

doing so, but let me tell you what I saw. 

I saw a maturity and a level of confidence that I think any politician would be 

a fool to mess with. 

They are here. They are staying. They are not afraid. And they will not settle for 

what is good for them unless they can also win what is good for their families. 

They will remember forever how this country treats their parents. Their generation, whether they are immigrants or native born Americans, will remember what 

we do in this Committee in this Congress. 

We have come a long way, but we need to work together to keep moving forward. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Gutierrez. Again on behalf of all of 

us, I full well recognize that you are needed on the floor and in 

Committee and you have constituents that are waiting on you and 

the fact that the four of you would take the time to come and testify we are all very, very grateful for your perspective and your insight. 

We have another panel, so we will stand down just for a moment 

while the three of you go about and Mr. Gutierrez hopefully will 

join us. And with that, we will be in recess for 5 minutes. 

[Recess.] 
32 

Mr. GOWDY. I want to thank our first panel again for their time 

and expertise and now turn our attention to our second group of 

witnesses, and we are equally grateful for their presence. We will 

begin, as is our custom with non-Member witnesses, by having you 

rise and take an oath. If you would all please rise and lift your 

right hands. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. GOWDY. Let the record reflect all witnesses answered in the 

affirmative. You may be seated. Well, thank you again and I am 

going to read all of your biographies at once and then recognize you 

individually for your 5-minute opening statement. 

And we will start with Dr. Barrett Duke. He is the Vice President for Public Policy and Research and Director of Research Institute of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Agency for Applied Christianity. He has 

been with the group since 1997. 

Dr. Duke graduated summa cum laude with a BA from Criswell 

College. He received a Master’s with honors in Old Testament studies in 1985 from Denver Conservative Baptist Seminary and a 

Ph.D. in religious and theological studies from joint doctoral program of the, I’m probably not going to pronounce this right, let’s 

just say the School of Theology at the University of Denver. How 

is that? 

Mr. DUKE. Yes, sir. That works. 

Mr. GOWDY. Welcome. And then we will have Ms. Margie 

McHugh. She will be our next witness, Co-Director of the Migration 

Policy Institute’s National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy, 

where she provides in-depth research and policy analysis on a 

broad range of immigrant immigration issues. Prior to joining MPI, 

Ms. McHugh served for 15 years as Executive Director of the New 

York Immigration Coalition, as Deputy Director of the New York 

City’s 1990 Census Project and as Executive Assistant to New York 

Mayor Ed Koch’s Chief of Staff. She is a graduate of Harvard and 

Radcliffe colleges. Welcome, Ms. McHugh. 

Ms. Pamela Rivera is a native of Florida and a daughter of immigrants from Colombia. She is a graduate of Florida State University and currently pursuing a Master’s Degree at the University of 

Florida. She has worked for various nonprofit causes, including the 

Salvation Army. Although she is a United States citizen, her sister 

is an undocumented immigrant who was brought to the United 

States at a young age by her parents. Welcome, Ms. Rivera. 

And last but not least, Ms. Rosa Velazquez is a member of the 

National Coordinating Committee of the United We Dream Network and Cofounder and Executive Director of the Arkansas Coalition for DREAM. She is also a board member of the Arkansas 

United Community Coalition. She was brought to the United 

States unlawfully by her parents when she was 5 years old and has 

resided in Arkansas for nearly her entire life. She is currently 

studying at Henderson State University and Harding University 

where she is pursuing two Master’s Degrees, one in English as a 

Second Language and the other in American Literature. Welcome, 

Ms. Velazquez. 

Dr. Duke, we will start with you and then you will have a series 

of light panels in front of you and they mean what they tradition-
33 

ally mean in life, green is go, yellow, slow down; and red is kind 

of summarize if you are able to do so. With that welcome again, 

Dr. Duke. 

TESTIMONY OF BARRETT DUKE, Ph.D., VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

PUBLIC POLICY AND RESEARCH, THE ETHICS AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY COMMISSION OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST 

CONVENTION 

Mr. DUKE. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chairman 

Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, and Members of the Subcommittee. As you heard, I am Dr. Barrett Duke. I’m the Vice 

President for Public Policy and Research for the Southern Baptist 

Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the Subcommittee this afternoon 

from a faith-based perspective on the subject of children who were 

brought here by their parents contrary to our Nation’s immigration 

laws. 

The Subcommittee is right to view this group of undocumented 

immigrants differently from those who came here as adults. These 

are people who did not make a conscious decision to break the Nation’s immigration laws. They were brought here as minors. This 

is the only life they know. It is likely that they identify more with 

this country and its culture than they do with the country and culture from which their parents brought them. This is their home, in 

other words. 

Our country should not hold these children accountable for the 

choices their parents made. Would anyone in this room want to or 

expect to be held accountable for decisions their parents made? I 

think not. Such distinctions are abhorrent to us as Americans. 

Many of our forebears came to this land to escape such types of social stratification. In this land, every person is to be judged by his 

or her own character and accomplishments, not those of his or her 

parents. God Himself has pledged such an approach to individual 

accountability. In the Hebrew scriptures, held by me and billions 

of others as God’s revealed will, the prophet Ezekiel speaking God’s 

pronouncement declared, ‘‘A son won’t suffer punishment for a father’s iniquity and a father won’t suffer punishment for the son’s 

iniquity.’’ If God will not hold children accountable for the sins of 

their parents, certainly we should not either. 

As an evangelical Christian, I rely heavily on the teachings of 

the Bible to help me develop my thoughts about all aspects of life, 

my own and my Nation’s. I fully support the Biblical teaching of 

the divine origin and role of government as laid out in such passages as Roman’s Chapter 13, verses 1 through 5. However, that 

passage does not give government the freedom to act in any way 

it chooses. It states that God’s design for government is to punish 

bad behavior and to reward good behavior. Surely, we would all 

agree that this is a fundamental purpose of government. While 

every person brought to this country illegally as a minor should not 

qualify for special consideration by the Subcommittee, many certainly should. Those who are of good moral character and a demonstrated desire to make their own way through life should be 

given a chance to come out of the shadows and join in the full life 
34 

and vitality of our Nation. We should, in other words, reward their 

good behavior. 

This is a group of people who embody many of the characteristics 

we value in Americans. This is the spirit our Nation celebrates. We 

should celebrate that spirit in these young men and women as well 

and provide a way forward for them. 

As you consider legislation to assist these children of undocumented immigrants to fully prepare for full and productive lives in 

our Nation, here are some things I would urge you to consider: 

First, it is difficult to imagine how you can fully address their 

needs without also addressing the needs of the other undocumented immigrants in our Nation, including their parents. It is my 

hope and prayer that Congress will see this as one piece of a bigger 

plan that meets the principles of sound immigration reform. We 

can honor the rule of law, secure our borders and chart a just and 

compassionate way forward for the millions of other undocumented 

immigrants living peacefully and productively in our midst. 

Second, some parameters are in order as you chart a way forward for these young people. I suggested some in my full testimony, which you have, like evidence of prior residence in the country, enrollment in higher education or some form of national service like the military, which you just heard the gentleman speak of, 

completion of high school or a GED, granting a provisional legal 

status while they fulfill their obligation, and then eligibility for a 

green card and citizenship afterward. 

I thank the Committee for your willingness to tackle this important matter. We are dealing with lives here, not only laws. Let justice be blind, but let her also be discerning. Their character and 

drive reveal that these young men and women under consideration 

represent some of the best of what we are looking for in our future 

citizenry. We should welcome them and encourage them and empower them to stand tall. 

As we honor them and their commitment, we say to a watching 

world and likely to a watching citizenry that this really is still the 

land of opportunity and promise. 

That concludes my comments. I look forward to attempting to answer any questions you might have. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Dr. Duke. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Duke follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Barrett Duke, Ph.D., Vice President for Public Policy and Research, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the 

Southern Baptist Convention 

Good afternoon, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, and members of the 

subcommittee. I am Dr. Barrett Duke, vice president for public policy and research 

for the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. As 

you are aware, the Southern Baptist Convention is the nation’s largest non-Catholic 

denomination, with nearly 16 million members worshipping in more than 46,000 autonomous local congregations. The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission is the official Southern Baptist entity charged by the Southern Baptist Convention to speak 

to our nation’s moral, cultural, and religious liberty matters. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the subcommittee this afternoon from a faith-based perspective 

on the subject of children who were brought here by their parents contrary to our 

nation’s immigration laws. 
35 

The subcommittee is right to view this group of undocumented immigrants differently from those who came here as adults. These are people who did not make 

a conscious decision to break the nation’s immigration laws. They were brought here 

as minors. This is the only life they know. It is likely that they identify more with 

this country and its culture than they do with the country and culture from which 

their parents brought them. This is their home. 

Our country should not hold these children accountable for the choices their parents made. Would anyone in this room want to or expect to be held accountable for 

decisions their parents made? I think not. Such class distinctions are abhorrent to 

us as Americans. Many of our forebears came to this land to escape such types of 

social stratification. In this land, every person is to be judged by his or her own 

character and accomplishments, not those of his ancestors or her parents. God, Himself, has pledged such an approach to individual accountability. In the Hebrew 

Scriptures, held by me and billions of others as God’s revealed will, the prophet Ezekiel, speaking God’s pronouncement, declared, ‘‘A son won’t suffer punishment for 

a father’s iniquity, and a father won’t suffer punishment for the son’s iniquity’’ (Ezekiel 18:20). If God will not hold children accountable for the sins of their parents, 

certainly we should not either. 

As an evangelical Christian, I rely heavily on the teachings of the Bible to help 

me develop my thoughts about all aspects of life, my own and my nation’s. I fully 

support the biblical teaching of the divine origin and role of government as laid out 

in such passages as Romans 13:1–5. However, that passage does not give government the freedom to act in any way it chooses. It states that God’s design for government is to punish bad behavior and to reward good behavior. Surely, we would 

all agree that this is a fundamental purpose of government. 

While every person brought to this country illegally as a minor should not qualify 

for special consideration by this subcommittee, many certainly should. Those who 

are of good moral character and demonstrate a desire to make their own way 

through life should be given a chance to come out of the shadows and join in the 

full life and vitality of our nation. We should reward their good behavior. This is 

a group of people who embody many of the characteristics that we value in Americans. This is the spirit our nation celebrates. We should celebrate that spirit in 

these young men and women, as well, and provide a way forward for them. 

As you consider legislation to assist these children of undocumented immigrants 

to fully prepare for full and productive lives in this nation, here are some things 

I would urge you to consider. First, it is difficult to imagine how you can fully address their needs without also addressing the needs of the other undocumented immigrants in our nation, including their parents. It is my hope and prayer that Congress will see this as one piece of a bigger plan that meets the principles of sound 

immigration reform. We can honor the rule of law, secure our borders, and chart 

a just and compassionate way forward for the millions of other undocumented immigrants living peacefully and productively in our midst. 

Second, some parameters seem to be in order. These young women and men 

should be able to prove they were minors when they were brought here, and they 

should have been here for some period of time prior to the enactment of your legislation so that we make sure we don’t encourage a rush into the country by parents 

hoping to take advantage of this country’s good will. They should demonstrate that 

they are young men and women of strong moral character, with a commitment to 

their futures. Their legal records and a commitment to pursue some form of higher 

education, possibly college or technical school, or some form of service to their country, like joining the armed services, should be a sufficient guide for that. As a sign 

of their good faith commitment to pursue these goals, they should have successfully 

completed high school or passed the GED exam. They should be granted a provisional legal status that protects them from deportation while they are in higher education or some other acceptable activity. Following successful completion of their 

tracks, they should be allowed to apply for a green card and eventually citizenship 

if they desire it. 

As I said earlier, I think you must also consider the parents of these young people. They are likely still their principal supporters, especially of those who pursue 

an education track. I do not think that you can confer a legal status on their parents 
36 

through this legislation. That should be part of the broader immigration reform that 

must be done. But, until you do that, you should do what you can to prevent the 

use of the children’s records as a means to identify their parents for deportation. 

A simple solution might be to seal that part of the children’s records from governmental inquiry. 

There is also the important matter of cost for those who pursue higher education. 

I know Congress is debating that issue for our nation’s college students now. You 

know how much college costs. We shouldn’t make it impossible for these young, aspiring people to attain the goal we have held out to them. If we are serious about 

helping them to reach their full potential, and we should certainly be so, then we 

should do what we can to make it possible for them to obtain some form of financial 

assistance if they need it. The states should decide whether they can qualify for instate tuition. But I would urge you to consider whether the federal government can 

help. Currently, non-citizens with proper documentation or who meet certain criteria can seek federal education funds, like refugees, assylees, victims of humantrafficking, and others. So, there is already somewhat of a precedent for this. 

I thank the committee for your willingness to tackle this important matter. We 

are dealing with lives here, not only laws. Let justice be blind, but let her also be 

discerning. Their character and drive reveal that these young men and women 

under consideration represent some of the best of what we are looking for in our 

future citizenry. We should welcome them and encourage them, and do all we can 

to empower them to stand tall. As we honor them and their commitment, we say 

to a watching world, and likely, a watching citizenry, that this really is still a land 

of opportunity and promise. 

That concludes my comments. I look forward to attempting to answer any questions you might have. 

Mr. GOWDY. Ms. McHugh. 

TESTIMONY OF MARGIE McHUGH, CO-DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

CENTER ON IMMIGRATION INTEGRATION POLICY, MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE 

Ms. MCHUGH. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

good afternoon. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you 

today. I’ve been asked to testify about the broad demographics of 

the population of young, unauthorized immigrants who were 

brought here as children and have since established deep roots in 

this country. Since the more generic analysis of this population 

does not exist, I will rely in my testimony on a detailed analysis 

I co-authored in 2010 of the then DREAM Act population which 

looked at the size and key sociodemographic characteristics of unauthorized immigrants who had entered the U.S. before age 16 and 

were continuously present in the U.S. for at least 5 years. 

Our analysis found that approximately 2.1 million children and 

youths were potentially either immediately eligible for conditional 

legal status or could become eligible in the future. Our study divided the age and date of arrival of eligible populations into four 

subgroups based on their age and level of education, and we estimated each group’s likelihood of meeting the requirements to obtain legal permanent residence, which in that case included completion of a college degree or at least 2 years of post-secondary education or military service. 

Very quickly, the four subgroups broke out as follows: the largest 

was school-age children who would become eligible in the future if 

they graduated from high school or earned a GED and completed 

post-secondary education or military service requirements. Forty- 
37 

three percent of potential beneficiaries were in this category, or 

934,000 children under age 18. 

The next largest group, at 28 percent, were those who had already earned a high school diploma or GED but would need to pursue college or military service in order to obtain a green card. 

Next, about 23 percent, or nearly 500,000 youths, were those 

over age 18 who lacked a high school diploma. They could potentially become eligible in the future if they completed a high school 

diploma or GED and subsequently completed post-secondary education or military service. 

And, finally, we estimated that about 5 percent, or 114,000 of the 

2.1 million, had already obtained at least an associate’s degree, 

and, thus would be immediately eligible for a green card. 

You will see in my written testimony that we looked further at 

key sociodemographic characteristics of the population and challenges many of these young people would face in completing college 

or being accepted into the military. These included affording college 

tuition and fees, needing to work to support themselves or their 

families, juggling parenting responsibilities and closing gaps in 

academic English proficiency. Overall, we estimated that only 38 

percent of the 2.1 million who were potentially eligible based on 

their age, date of arrival and duration of residency would be able 

to meet the educational attainment or military service requirements in the legislation proposed at that time. 

Since the cost of higher education and access to financial aid are 

such critical factors affecting college completion for low-income 

youth based on historical trends, we found that college affordability 

was likely to be the most significant factor that would prevent 

young immigrants from completing a post-secondary education requirement. 

Our profile of the potentially eligible population is consistent 

with national research demonstrating that young immigrants are 

more likely to be nontraditional college students, meaning that 

they often enroll in post-secondary education at older ages, attend 

college part time, work while going to school and juggle family responsibilities along with their coursework. All of these factors have 

been associated with lower rates of college enrollment and completion, therefore a financial, social and academic support stands to 

play a critical role in the success of this population if their pathway 

to permanent residence and citizenship requires successfully making one’s ways through post-secondary education or military service. 

I would like to point out before closing that more recently the 

Congressional Budget Office estimated that approximately 1.5 million unauthorized immigrants would meet the age at arrival criteria under a version of DREAM included in recent Senate immigration legislation. CBO estimated that approximately 24 percent 

of these, 360,000, would be able to achieve permanent residence or 

naturalized by 2023. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while the MPI and CBO estimates 

are based on different parameters, it does seem clear that approximately 1.5 million to 2 million youths meet the residency and age 

at arrival requirements contemplated in recent legislative proposals, but far fewer would gain permanent residence, and eventu-
38 

ally citizenship, under these proposals, approximately 825,000 individuals in our analysis and 360,000 in CBO’s assessment of S. 744. 

In light of the reality that the pathway is a narrow one, the 

sociodemographic characteristics of unauthorized immigrants 

brought here as children provide important considerations for policymakers seeking to allow them to successfully achieve permanent 

legal status in the United States and become fully contributing 

members of our society. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify and 

would be pleased to answer any questions. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Ms. McHugh. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McHugh follows:] 
39 

Testimony of 

Margie'. McHugh 

Co-Dircctor, National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy 

Migration Policy Institute 

Addressillg the laJtnigration Stsrus of/Deg.} Immigrants 

Brought to the United ScJUCS liS Childa:.tJ 

Befoll' the 

House Judiciary Subcomminec on Immigration and Border Security 

U.S. House or Representalives 

W:l.shinglon, D.C. 

July 23) 2013 
40 

Ch~m"'l1 GQWdy, Ranlung Member !..ofg..,n and Mcmben oflhe Subcomlnntcr: 

Good .ftaoQOtl. I am M .. gi,,-).,Icllugh, and J am Co-Dnutor of tlll: N.tion~ Centu On Immlgrnnt 

lnltgr.tioll I'ou<:)' o! th~ M1gn.tiol1 PoLey In.Dmrc (Ml'I},.u m<kpcndcm, non·p.ru .. n !honk IJ.nK 

in Wuhington that n.lyu~ U.S. and inc..rnationa! rrugnuion and imnlJgmnt imcgntion tfCndJ I nd 

polioes. Thank)'Un for th~ apl"'ntUII'Y to ~rifJ (Oday on tbe topic of"Add,..,ulng the ImnnS"'lIon 

St;otus <!f UJegal hnmigr:anl' Brought to th~ United Stlt.,,; IS Childre,," 

Far ovcr. decade, • • dect gtoUp of un."thori~cd ,mmigrnnlli_youog ad"ltl ",ho wet<: brought to 

the Umt.d StIItU u child",n aod do oOt h~"e. meanS '0 . cqui.., legal SI.tm_ha, ."'lui.ed" 

lln]'luc pl:><:. in ,mmig ... non pohcy <I .. cu,>!on.l .nd kgisbu". dfor". At tou know, the,e young 

p-wple _.-e- of let> referred to.~ DREAMtl"l1, a ..,f=occ to tbe Development. Rehcf .nd EdOClltlUn 

for Ah~n Mlno/"f (DRMM) :l.ct, whICb would pro ... ide, p. th to lrg:di~.rion fo. thole who ru~ 

U1i higher cd"CIItion Or molitlry ,,,,,",tt requitemcnu;. Th' a bipart.tr.an Irgi,I'lIon WIS fint 

ch.mpi<!ned in 2001 by Sen~t<> ... Omo Hatth (R·U1) anu llichattl Durbin (D-IL), aOld ",nc~ m~n 

ba. bee" inttodue~d regularly bow." t stllnd·.k",,,, b;lland u pan ofbruo.der co"'pr~he,,",v. 

imm'grotton ,..,fom, bills. 

WhJl~ tbl. h~.nug IS not .bout .peafic legl,latlon, 1 have hccn .. ked to testify .I>oUt the broad 

d~mognlph,cs of tht population of }'Uung ,mmigrlmes who were brough, he.e Q~ duldrcu . nd hi,'e 

"ncecstltbli.hed dc~p tooU in tI", country. To our knowledge there .re no gen~nll analy5es of the 

e"tire IInauthon~ed youth popnbuon under, for eumpl", age 18 or un.mhori~ed immigtonu; 

rega,dtu. of age who amvcd '" th.· United SI.t"" •• ch~dr"". My t[StllnOn)· w,ll therefure rely on 

.nd summ.nzc. MPI', prior ~oalYlj~ of Ihe potenti.) DREAM Act popul tion~. tlm 1'r<}\"i<ic5 our 

!>cst .vo,l.blc ptwry for the unauthon~cd youth popul$tion. After disclI,.ing tbt .ize and 

ch. mcterilhc6 of !h,. populoo"n, r ""'ll theu rurn to. m$cuoswn of lOme of the b .. 6" .. thu 

young ,mmigr:antJ" oould flOC<: in meeting "duc.tion or military service rcqui1"t.lne"t ~ thlt h .... e been 

• future of prior kgisl:o uun, ,nduding cho.Ucul>"~ in p.ying for. =11,,&[ cduc.uon, ",eeting 

'>"'gMng and olher family rcsponribilici<:, and, for some, lining &"'-p in thdt English proficiency 

at)d .(:IItlemie ,kills before enron,ng in coll0S". 

I. Size nfthe Population 

While we do nOlltnow thc'p«ilic provi!ion< thu ,rught emerge from final immigrotion 

lcgi.l~oon in th~ eUlrCnt Congn.·u, thc.re .re s~veraJ k'1' enteo. th.t have held con.t~nt c.r,," (hia 

policy ddmc , ille<: it fir" ~rO$e III 2001. The targot popul~tion fot ollr an.ly.i. thado..: mcludes 

",divitlu"J~ who: 

• H ..... entered the United States before.S" !6 

• Have heen cOntllluc>usly prt.enl III tbe Uruted Stlt/$ for at 1"-$1 fi ... e yean prior to lhe 

legi.buon's enacttnent 
41 

Prior bill. would e",.t~ a pOlh to legal pctm.nenl n:.ldente ~nd nalura1i~.dnn fot tho,( who mect 

edu~t;on or m,lit~ry 6e""'t~ r('1" 'I'<.melllo. Sp<:cHkally, ' PI,liunts would he able to tH" 

po:nnanent re!Udcm:y if ,hcY' 

obtun ~ degree' frot" I n lusutuuon of lug her education or complete", leliM two yeo,. In. 

progr;om for .1n~h lor' 1 de~ or highet ,n the UnitedStlltes Of 

honorably KrvC in the U,S. millt • ." 

MI'I'. 2010 .nal]'li. of tltt: • .u. of the youth population that could benefit from Q lQrgeted 

kgo.1tuti"" program' wa. b .. ed on Ihe 2009 DREAM Act Inlroduced by Sr.n"to' Ou,bln ~Ild 

Reprcscntauvc Howa.d Dermo(l (D·CA). Our ~n.lysis found that ~ppro"im.telr 2.1 million 

child",n ."d romh we", potcll!laUy cithc. immcdi~lely ehgibk for cendmon.11c1l"1 stUu. OJ cauld 

become eltgiblc in ,he fu,ure. Of these 21 mmien pelenti~lIy eligible individual., how~(r, we 

~um~tcd that only aoout 38 p<:rcent-82S,OOO p<:<>ple- wen: likdy to meel the educanoulil or 

milit:try puticil"tion reqUirement! to ~ehieve pennanent rwdcnce (in other ""(lIds g~in 1 gTCl:n 

cord). 

Th~ Census Borel.., d~ not Isk l~go.! ~,"lO' t)" It_ '''IVey. or the ricec"",.1 (em"",;o our ""a1ys" 

o>td. methodology' ,hat imputes Jegal.utm bued o n a Ilumb.:.r of chonc.ten6t'cs, among them 

~r of ,mv.l, gClldu .nd country of origiu. U.inll theso: d.ta, we developed "" run.te. of how 

mooy y","Lng p<.'Opl~ would be ~Iigible to ~pply for !",m"lOnenl residence Insed on their ~8e., length 

of ", .. d~n<:y, how old they ,'It..,.., whcn tbey .mvcd ,n Ihe United State •• 1lI1 c"rrent cdoe.nOll.1 

n~II"oenl. Th.s is how we .. rri".,d al thc estim.te thot 2.1 million p~ople would be potenoally 

digible. 

Mol"( recendy, the CU'lgn:""Jllo.l Budget Office (010) cs\lmu ed that "Pprol<lfruudy I.S million 

unauthuIllcd 101l"'g<1llll' would meCI the age a t arrival <:nte i~ undtt . WorslOn of the DREAM 

Ac, induded in ,he ."",,"I $en.lt lmmisrauon legislation (S. 7H). Al'pMXim~teJy 24 pt:recnt of 

thc:sc-360,OOO--would b ... bl~ te> ~chiev<: pcmunen{ """'<knee or IL1lUn!i7. .. by 2023, CBO 

t:&timotcd. 

In 8um, born CBO and MI'I concluded thot only. smalllhQ.e of Ihe u:llol \]n."thonz~d youth 

populooon C\)uld evemuilly meel Ih~ cduClltion~1 or milit.ry partidl'uion requ'rement$ tQ !("oUn. 

green oo.d. Throus!,oul the rem:oind~r of ,hi. \~.timeny, I w;11 draw upon MPI'. derailed profile e>f 

the potcnnolly eligible population. recogruZlIlg llu, the numb",. could ch~"ge b •• ed upon Ihe 

, )g <.otldu<"", out ..... '1' ... _ <ltfm«! "<leg=." '" mean ~n ."",«1 C<l<Ifontd h,. ... m"l",gun of h!£h<.< .,!,.,,,tion ( .. , . • """'!thInily ooIIcge) ,n., ~ ... t leu, 60 ««hI> '" .bo." ,..., f .... of c"",,,,,,,,,,,,k . 

• 

(W 

Joann. 

.. h,ns'on, 

110....",... 

D.C., 

.nd 

M~.""n 

~I&rf' ~kHugn, 

PoIq Inotitu«. 

DRHA.-ll. 

201(1). 

IlA;,N!1 

wwwm,

A.A. 

atllionl"'liU.RIIl

of""""" 

/p"b,ld'a

/)/1.1'.AM 

"""!S'IlIu-iuJ

Aa ~ 

.:!D1Q.pd): 

, l)u. ,noJ,oJ. WlI.!:>u,d 9n ~kd do .. f'Om ,h~C<. ... u. Bwau', 2006,20118 CUrrenll'oput..""" Sun.,. (CI'S) ,h .. 

"""e .ugm<n,«! ..-uk 1<1\'11 "'''''' ""1'"""""" for tho f~«:>gn I><><n. b,,<d "" ,h. """hodoloc devck>p<:d by ef(~~. 

? .. ,.l 01 ,h. P."" HI>I"''''''Ce..«<.' 
42 

h~pt of fu\ur~ kgislation,' 

II. K~y a.~c c.iuic~ oft",. Population 

II ~gali""llo" focmcd Oil unauthoriz~d imm'grli nl> who cnlcr~d the United State, u child • .., 

would have. puticubtly aillnificant impJCI on the h~ndful of state, whe'" the bulk or ,his 

population is h~",-i ly co"c~mnu"d (...., Figu.e I), C.bro"u> h .. I»' far the Io.rgesl numlx., 

accounting for 26 per«nt o f .ll pot~nri.1 Ixneficiuic:a. Tullos i~ home tn 12 pereeUl, followed by 

Il!orid. (9 ptrcellt). New York (7 percent) and Anznna (5 pucent). Se\'er:ol m~lk.r, " " ...... 

de$tinanon" states thlt have Ixcome knll"l\'n fOf ""pid inco:<:ua ,n the s= of their immigrant 

pop"latiom in rec~nt y~'<5-",c1uding Georgi. and Nor:th C;tOlin~_I.o .ccount for a oize.ble 

5h1.e. Altogether, a!>Qut 7S p~rcenrof th~ potentially eligible popul.ruon .""d". III 10 .. ~tcs. 

FII/" .. 1. Tap Tan Stltu wlm the urgest Number ofPaionlil1 ORE,l". ,let a.MIle "''''''' 1%) 

• u 

"--

_.

I 

, 

..... / 

.--- . 

. --r-' --- 1_ ••••••••••••••••••••••. 

• SoiJmJ: Migtl.tioo Poacy tns~tuto (,",Pt) '0''''' ofCe""" Bureau C"''''''' Popul3l>On SlIMlY (CPS), 2006-2001l 

"""l<Id data, ."5IfT1"nted wit/> '''igMlClnlO ollegat sta1\1110 nor<:iti",ns ~ Jelfr&y S_ Passel. p""" ~nlc Conle< 

With regard to "'glon of origin. Ihe vall tn'Jonl)' ofpolcn tl.l bcndiciaru", .,,. from Lati" 

j\m~nCl.. with MexiOlO unmigrant. 3ccountiflS for (,2 percenl, Centra! "'metlan ImmipnB m.h 

up \1 percent and mhtr Lltin Amman immigant •• nOlh~. I J pcr~ent, ASI,n ,mnugtants 

• V' n"", ~_. of 1\1. DREAM .... , di«u on wk.,!.", th.,. ;,. on "f'P<' '8< ,.a;"g on . kgobilil,. MrI', . ... " .... W'f<-

"",0<1 "" ,he .ug;bilif)' , ..... tio includ,J in <h< lOOIIl.ga!.ollOn. F", """ • .,fo",",,,,,,,, iCC US. l;c"'l<. 

Otv.Iq>mau. /t .... rUld Ed""""" r", ,~Ii<n Minoo-..... , of2OO'),S, 729, I! \" Cont. I".......". 

bnp)ljbgmu lll< p1",,_luo{qucQ'IoIII 1 5,713- U.s, II ...... of R'1'''''4ntwv"" ... mericon DK.m At,. HJ!.. 1751. 

111 _ Cona. ~ _ ....... bup'II,boml!!pc p/ce-l!lll/Qll<Q'lx?du-tI R L1II' Botb 1iI1 ..... ~ inwd",,<'<'! <"" M.",h 

26,200\1, 

l 
43 

<eptell<:!!t 10 pct'C~<!t of the po,~nWllly ~ugible popul.lJo<!, .nd th ... emaining 7 ~zcenl U'e f.om 

Olhe •• egion. , mclllding Europ~, Afrie~ .nd CaM d., 

III, Ed 1t n" tI jn m~nl 

The yOlllh and chlld.en whQ wuuld 11<: potenu.1 bt(lefici~n<l< tndl.lde Ihose who wrre brollght to 

,he United SIlIIte6 befolC age 16.nd h.ve ijv<d in ,hj~ COO<!UY f()r olle .. 1 livf- Y""5, Within Ihi. 

brooder pnpulltio<!, some gNU!,' wnuld have gre~tcr odd, of compl~ting. college degree or 

miljt~., $ervicc. MPI ,,_ted ~ typology ofth«'S group' ~ccordjug to the'r ~gc and levd of 

educauon, and csutmlu:d ""ch group', 1ib:I,hC'>Qd of meeting the tt:'1ut",mcnl~ to obtain ICZal 

permane!!! rCl'idc!!cc. 

,;. ltumlimrh Jfflrrtrnlitiw fuMf7INIl/tllllhllltr fIIl,# 'Me mlJla. Young .dul~ who have 

akeody obooned ~I Ie" •• an ~ .. oc,.tr.'. degree would '1u"'ify for lcgall'c.m.ncnt 

'e·",Jellte. l 'hi. ~JI-edu""l"d poplllallon is I tel.uvely &maU group, I'C:p"'~c"Uhg 5 

petccnt of th .. '01:11 polemi.liy eligible populatin". or appro~;tllJlcly ! !4,{)I)J mdIVidual! . 

.i. I'gltllllll'!rrliri!>lt· bit" uhuI wlfllhttul GaD (WA/J!tim. Th".c who h.vealre~dy ~arn~d a 

high .chool diplom. Or GlIO-but nOI a pos!II<:ConJ,.11 d~grc~would n""d 10 f?" ... ue 

ooli"ge ot m.litary ""tv.c~, In mdet \.0 cain IKrrrtancllt ~j't1cnce, Thi, group ~p=CIlU; 

app«>~jm\ltely 28 percent of the loul porubuon, or 61l,OOO ",divjdllak A,,,ol1g th,. 

group, WI h •• ","um.ted ,h • .t 260,000 would /jual'fy frot p~rman<: nl rc.'den~ ~fler 

oon,plering ~n usoci~t~'s <:kgrw or two reo.'ff, 'OW'Iro 0 bachelor', d"!!I'C:c. W~ e.umat< 

th., the route to p,:n"one,,' IUldellcc through milit.ry IoefVICc would be ~ubsl1lnu.Uy 

"atfl'Wcr i1\ both ava,lab.llty And uptake, with fewo. Ih ... 31,000 likely to .d)uS! to 

f>CI1l1~nenl reaide,,,e vio Ihis rOutt (the """ons fo' which will be diocu •• ."j below),' 

(. fWW',WltllliultJ IfigiWr: chj/daQ nil,. qU 18. School·.ge clllidten would be eligible for lcg.ol 

pcn"~,,cnt residence 111 the fUll1'" if they g .... d ..... te from hIgh school Ore,m a Gr::D.n<! 

cOlllpkte the poltlecond • ., rducltion or mWl1Iry .ctvie ~ re<ju,wnenlS, TheM J.e mor" 

tI,a" 934,000 d,dd",n undcr 'II~ 18 who con.pm~ Ihe futuI'C: potcnoally citgtble 

populuion. Among w«c children. MPI cs,imatc<llhal :HtQ,OOO woul(\ be likely If,,I 

complele high ochool ~nd obm" ~ posuecondary der,t",e, and .nothe. 40,000 wuuld 

complNc ,h .. milit:at)' ........ ict ,c'IuUerncnt..-w;th bolh Iheu group. qwLfymg for legol 

IKnnanl:flt u:sldcncc . 

• P.llon»U"l! h~ rtbm~ of.""", win> ,,,,,Id "'!"".a p<''''''''''' !oP! ".IUI. bJo l<1'VIrtj.n tl><. milu.ry i.o "'"c~ ........ 

d,ff"""" ()"" .. .,."Iri <"1'«:1 .h" ,I><. "'~'''' '''In:.: p>th.o 1""""'''<11' kgol""oa ",ouIcl"" 1IJ'P<.lu<l '" m"'1 

pale"',,! DREAM 1>< ... (", .. , ... , ""<1",,,\0.<1, i ...... '"""" 00 no, b,Y< ,h<; r"",,,,, .. l ,uau", .. to pu" .... I"'-""'''Oodaty «I"".""" H<>'<ftve •• ,he """""-t ond Enp.h Lo"g>l'!< pmfK'<1IC)' "<jWf<met>" (<I, mili-...,. «,-.ke_r [>1'<"'"" 

b.", ... 10 •• <>n\<. Re!y"""" 'h, .«cn, put ••• ",'dc.,.,. f,nd th .. to.. ,bon J P'''«"' Df >g<'clig,bk.H"p>mc. (18 

tQ •• ) ...... .. "" ...... nIU.<d """'otT """,,\>0-.;., 2OOS. C"'m 'h, powo 'f~' t:=1Uv< ofp<1'm:ln ... ' !oP! ... !\I •• "'" 

~."'''''' ,ho, ! pe''''''' <II' I ... "r p",.n,i.t """,[td.ri<. """,!d ('"! ..... 'he ,nlU,"'l' octYic. "",h . 

• 
44 

Ii. tOM" qtfNIlJ t1!9 Nut q ftiv. ufJpg/tlMqmqlGEO, Finally, roughly 23 petecn' of thule whn 

meet t.h~ length of =idency and 19i: "I ~rri .... l requi,..""cnlll-nearly 500,000 

indjvldu~!.-~~oV." af;'< I B and do not have a hIgh ,<:bool J'ploma, ~5e Individuall 

could bl!O)me digible in Ihe furu"" if they "'lml)lclIl ~ GEO or II<'condary-l""d diploma 

IbrouQb ,he .d"I'cd uc~IlOn ir$\<:m uld tui»o:qutntly complefe pomccondJrry e.iuation 

Ot rnihwy te",ice. Stilt thtl. P'OJ;PCCIt fot reaching Ih'$ ,hl"'Shold an: p."icul.rly $!im: 

We estimated that only 22,000 of thiJ f:tOup would p'ogru& 10 l~gt! pumAnenl ".<Idenec. 

IV. Barrie .. 10 u galiution 

Yomh who w<!t'e bwughllo ,h Unned 51"1,", os ch,ld,en n:ptc,em arguably Ihe m~t 

~Amcricon!zed" and welt-iotegnu~d group of un.utbori2ed immigranu. federal. &flUe Io,d lOCAl 

governments have already IIlve,ued "uhu"nual ",.OUtC". ill ,belt cIemcmary and lecond.ry 

cdlK<ltion, Qnd d~ have, for Ihe mO,1 part, I>c:en afforded Ihe •• mc.oppor.tumtiea a, Ihe,r peen; 

'hrough high ichool. Thclr pW.pecl~ for p.,. .. ""omla<y edllcaoon and Cl .. e~t Illc""S~ an! >everety 

limiled, howev"t, due 10 fill~nci~1 .nd legal Worrie". Our ",dnute' oflhe number tiltl wQUld 

comp\ctc at leaot {Wo yean of coUcg<l.nd achICve legal pamlIncm rUldence take im.o Ihe .tCOllm 

the high burdles thol .omegroupJ ofpotent;"1 beneficia" •• will cxpericnco:. 

OOmcIl'Clrrt.' St«Ia.r: Over half (58 ptt<:enl) of pOlcllu~1 bcncflcianu live in low~incpmc 

hOllsehol\l$, dcfrned "" le!lS ,han 200 percenl nf the felk .. l poverty level. Among thOle who h.ve 

• high school diploma or GED bul !o.d,. po>"ccondary de~e, 47 peKCI"II Gte low income. The 

medi.n f.mlly mcome .mong Ih" group" $4il,OOO. 

A .. "de body of research d~on.t ... \(, I nrg:u,vr rc:b.uon,h'p between PO"'''}' .nd a""d"n,;c 

"'CC1:$' aero" i ll levc~ of ~~~<:lIdon. Afle' high ~ehool gndlll.tion, th e impacroflXlvwty on 

Indi"idu.l~ ' pol'tsecondary chOl~ i. ruticul.rly pronounced due to ,he !ugh rost of coll~gt: IUlOon, 

.Iong wilh the vppot!unily Cv~I, [Ot tJ(.mplc, of enl~ng the workfOre<: ,'erSlll pu"""ing.ll 

educotioll. TI,e full co,,, of a year of wllcge in 2012-13-ineJuding ,umOll. fccs, hoob, 

' .. nlporl'lion, houling ond olht< e.p<:n~e_rn"g~d fwm ~pproximatcly $15,500 for Ihpse 

atlending publtc two.year colleges to over $35,000 fot Ihose paying out-of-smle ,uiuon al public, 

four-rur colic!!"",.· 

Un.uthorized ,mmlgnnts are ineligible fo< fcdcIllll'dlSIIIlIt' llnd rece,,, ven'o", of the ORE:.:\.M 

Act b:u them from actas;"g PeU g",nts until ~frcr th", become I~al perm.nent ,,,,,,dent!. Si""" 

,he cost ofh,&h<:t rouc.noll and aCCC:;S '0 tinaflCl~! .id arc ~\1Ch critial facto,.. affcctinQ colleg<: 

completion for 10w-lOcomt )'Qulh, bu,d on lunorial ,,,"nd. we bcllcve Ihalcollegt: ~ffotdobilll}' i. 

Ukdy I" be. th ... mps, sigmfiutll fllCIQt thol will pttVC!l1 young unmignnts ftQm eompltllng 0 

pos\.[;ccond:uy edl>c:ttlon rN]uir .. ncnl ts parr of a p~thw:oy to .dutvlng legal p<mlan.",t ,,"sldence. 

'C<>llw Ik>.otd, 1 'tend. in CoIIegt PriCIng, .... ""'1:<-&1,"""= lh1<k't"'d ..... BwljJ<,., 20'2·\3.~ F'l"'" I, 

hut~ll!m.IH',!lwh .... rdPd:lcnUq·.,.t~!D· .. ldCl/lvru~:dt"N""I·II'~k"""'h ... ··1nM~. 
45 

l'mrIIrl"llllld &milJ Rupo!W'vi{j(v; A .~bOl:U\UIJ numbe. of thoa~ 101"'g ~dulu who ClIme to lhe 

Unitt<! St::I!e!; I~ child~n U" now p~r.ms with th";r OWn depcncknt child~n ..... m(,mg femlle 

pole,!U~1 t,.,ndiCJane. who hive I b'8b .chool dIploma o. GBD hut not. coIlegedegrN:, over on .... 

durd (Z8 percent) Iff. pU~IS; thi~ share is- wb,tanll.lly higher among women who Qro OVer 18 and 

lack a !ugh .chool dIploma (S7 percent) ..... mong men, the .hare wnn children tl."gt. .. from 

opprol'im.tely one-fifth 10 one·qUllner lero,s lhcdiffcrent grouJ» of potenu:tl benefici. rics. n,es. 

~gUreI Ind,cat. th~t m.ny pl'O'Sptcnve ben.f,e,"rn:_spco.Uy yo,lng women_ will face eh~lknge' 

ISSO":UCOO with bobtncing Of"gtvmg rt:5ponlibiliuH.nd wucauofJl\1 put5uil$. Fo. tn;. coho ... , In 

partleul." lo;x:IlIl ~upporu .uch as dnld "",e. tllto~pomnon u,",!Onee .nd c"u",elins~' well 10 

!lexibl. CO\.Io;Se Ki>eduling Gnd onlio. le.ming--.o.te bhJy to play. c"hnl rol. In th"" college 

pet"''"tenoe and complenon, 

I..JJWrfbrtr BmiriMlio1' .... mong potentlOl bcneficrancs WIth I hIgh school d,ploma or GED but not 

a college degn:c, 85 ~n:.nt of men and 62 pc"",n! o f ",,,,,,en we", In Ib.l_bo. force. For many of 

th .... Individual., reduclog Ihtlr work ho'-""l to 1'''''''''' po",~econd.ry education may be ~ tough 

ch()lce 10 mol«:, 2S they ~rc ~n th. b"," Wlnn~rs fordl~i. famili ... , and wouk! ~kdy struggle to 

bal~,,~e thcir .rudies 'II.'uh tll~ ne~d for income from work, Howe~ef. the n.:w opponun:im. crca:ed 

by II.lego.~ulIon po.thway may duo!!" that t'luorion for Jorne, mori~aring them 10 pnomue lhcir 

cducatioo I. I tick~t to legal p"nn~"co( "",idenee Ind ""enOJally, perhap" belter JOIls. 

l.""itufE~"iJb l"Wfilllg: Approximo~ly one_fifth of ~ll potential bc".cICI.ne __ 350,OOO 

indivldll. l_ h""", ijnuted e~ h profio<:f1CY, '11lc m~jority oflhe;e ",<lividu.l. (~6 percent) Ire 

dullll who,.]w lo"k. high school doplrn"-" or GED. tn most "" .... , thCle mtlivulual" would need to 

COlnplete aduh Engh:;h ~~ ~ Second Laoguoge (ESt) courle. bc.fo", pursuIng 3 CEO Ind ~..,nMlly 

cu"ins college cr<!diu. For this w ont!. ,he m,lm"y route would be no caSler to punu. thin the 

p<><lOtQJnd.ry route, ~",c:e IhemiijlJ.ry .plIn,de test coo bt tokc>n only in Engb'h_ Additionally, 

those: who have I GED_I""eod of" hIgh B<:hool d'l'lomR--must ~clucve. hIgher 'I"ol,f1'ng 

score on th" milituy apliNde te.t and ~On\!><llc for . Ii,ruted number of ol'"n"'8';n each bOlnch 

o[lhe miliwy.' 

dC!1!lrnti( fWdi"",, nnally, ~ ~Jl eM>lC$harc "fhIgh school gr-duatcs" hkcly 10 be unprepared for 

coUesc-level c()Ursc~ , Comp.'ed 10 the COUre U,S. und"tgndm(e popul~tion. immign.nts at<: 

""1"1"".Uy Ukcly to "",!"'r. rcm~diati""., th~ coU~&t' l~vel.· pole"u~lly due 10 gap' In tbeir aCldunoc 

Entluh k.iUt u well.! the 'l"t hty of theu- high ~hool curnctllum. The de'lgn and '1""Uty of 

rrolcdi:J cours", ouch <tud"ots ~rc. plaCN! tn 10",< b,e.,n idcnofi.d ... major ooou.d"" on the l>alh to ~ 

college degree, wllh many .Iudell!' '" Ihese co"I'$c. n""~ prog=.ing 10 college-level cou • ..".' 

, ROO _ ., "US Milito.,), EttIutmoo, Sr,."dan/" Ed...,.';""" 

bup·ltll>'nilitaq • PI! 'Pm fp<!ljguun;,:thanihtl 11/1 In,lnI,g'_ !)til) . 

• Sand.<> ,;,.!dior "'" Lou", H"",. "N'<W Ar,,,,,,,,",,, In Pt:.orw:onduy I!clo<ll""" A Pmr~. of iJNni&w>' 2nd Scwnd· 

Geoe"''''''' .\".,.,;".n Uode'l"'''''''': {~"lI<toU ",Btief, NCP.s 2()12.2Il, V$, O..,.mne", of C<!u<.!lOn, N.uonol ~",,<ec far EducallOl! 5 .. 11<11<1, \V~, D.C.,)"" 2012'). htlp(!o", .. 1 """{p"b.,,,! 2120I~~1 \ ~f. 

• COnIpI<,. Collog< Am><rico.. ~iH .. Hi,p. E._~ 1l"J,v /II N,w""" (W""'''K'''''. D.C.: Compk .. l.:<>Iktt 

''''''''''''''. 2(112), WWWrn!!fDJo'«pUQ:<0tgldppfCC,\ MtmCda"",,,-6!IAl,jxIf: Thom.o. &llor. l)on~ W""k)<O!>jl ""d 
46 

O,,=U, our prof'le of the potentially eligible POPu!~DO" is conUlI,.nl w,th n.tional J'HCO.reh 

demonsU'aDng lhat,immignlll:l arc mOre likcly 10 be: "Ilomtadio<)"al" o:oIlegc srudr.nt~, In"'l!l,ng IMI 

Ihey often ~nroll in (>OSuccoodary roucaho<, ., older 1ges; . ... ud colltgt p"" lime; work while g01ll1l 

10 ... .11001; and Juggle family re'pon.'b,lhieo aloog Wllh their ,ou~k. .. AU of th~ f.Clol'S h.ve 

been 0510Ct.l1t d with highe. <;\r(:IpooJ! tale<' "ud lower nl~ of coUc!:" compieoon," Therefore, 

finanCIal. .oc,al and academIC ,upporr,,,,nd '0 ploy. tt1llc~1 role in providing; opf>OI1u"itic:s for this 

population 10 a".il,homsd"a of po.thW"l" to penn.ncnt ,,,,idence MId cllizell.'lhlp ,h., require 

.uccc""fuIJy ">:,ki'lS Ofle. way th rough postlceondary .clUC;ttion Or mi~t.ry Itrvict. 

V. Conclusion 

While the MPI ~nd CDO ~um~tes ore lYoued on cliff.ren, u.n"'puon., it d"", .cern clea. th., 

.pproxlm~ldr \.:. million to Z milli01l you,h me.ct thc "'fidmcy and.gt'., .m".1 re'Iui",m.nt~ 

contemplated In recent legislative pro[>O'~II, Bur far fewer woul d gain pcnn:rnent rel,dence (."d 

evenl'U'Uy on~cnolnp) under ,hClre plf)prn~l~ 'pf)roximaldy 825,000 ",divid",,!. in OUr .naly&i¥~"d 

360,000 in th. CBO'$ as-'CWIlem QfS 744 

hI light of Ihe reality d"'t tht pathway ilia n.rrow olle, the &ocio-dcmogro.phlC ch ... etcn.uCI< of the 

popul$uoll of ~o\lng J><'Ople br(lugh( herMs children provide importantcOMidenooo$ for 

1>,,1i<:}'m~kcts 5«king to .!low them (0 &I.lcccufully ach, eve pcrm~nelll lcgoJ ~I'(U~ ," the Un,ted 

Stue! and b~oom~ fully comributing m~mben of oci~ty, 

I tlunk you, Mr. Ch:nrman. fo[ theOpp<>rrunllY to u"mfy and w",,1d be pJe .. cd w 'n~er any 

'1",,~tioru;. 

woo Cioo. "R.r ....... ITnroIImcn'. ~"" C=!'k,;on m ~lopmm .. , Edll<>'_ ecu .... '" C<>mmu",ty C~." 

E...".;" of EtI_ 11.,..... 2'1, <to, 2 (2010) 253-10, ~mli=t , ,,,,,r_,,,,,/l rtidc/poUlia27ZlU7ll2OO1071 

.. No"",,"' C.n,., lOt (!d"""""" ~t,,""a. 'Prof~. or U~""' •• ,n u.s, P ..... ocond..., I!.du<.""" In''''''''''"", 'lOO}.()oI. With. Spoaolll .. tyo" of C""""""'ty Coll<,.. Stude",," in 

1I.o ..... ,T""'....bI,CI"'Io~-O,,) ..... ,.,w ~WnI<>S ........ Or=. n,FIIt"" .jOiMw", 21 ,,,,.1 (7011); IU-69 

lliook"ci. 

"Complc .. 

u, 

CoU'g

BducltWnl

. IImenc., 

. TaIU." 

-rune 

SIotl:

i> 

: I 

,he: 

IJjb.r 

""""'l.w 

[j'/_' ... 

WWfI'<"WlliN«oijrgr ,,,11.,,,, .. (WWili>cIen, W/dpg/Tjmc 

0.('..: E« ...... 

]I 

.,. 

~ 

In Edolcau""l, 20119). 

~,,*",kll"JI ~fM .... blc:r.ijll/{>Ip/J'#.lro<uJ·lkl! ... 'i""'k pdt 

7 
47 

Mr. GOWDY. Ms. Rivera. 

TESTIMONY OF PAMELA RIVERA, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. RIVERA. I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman 

Gowdy and the Subcommittee for letting me share my very personal story. 

My parents moved to the United States in the 1980’s, and I was 

born in 1987 in California. Shortly after my birth, they moved back 

to Colombia with money they had saved working in the U.S. and 

tried to pursue a life there. They had my sister Evelyn while we 

were living in Colombia, and in 1991 when I was 4 and Ev was 3, 

they moved back to the U.S. 

They moved back in order to provide a better life for us. They 

wanted us to live without the drugs, violence and daily car bombings that defined daily life in Colombia and for us to have a chance 

at obtaining a world-class education and fulfilling the American 

Dream. 

For many years, I did not know about my family’s immigration 

status. However, as the years passed, I began to understand that 

my family was not like most. And even though my parents worked 

hard to provide for our family, we would never be treated the same. 

My dad worked nights and my mom worked mornings in order 

to make sure that my two sisters and I were never left alone. They 

understood the meaning of family and how important it was to 

raise their daughters in a stable home. My mom learned English 

quickly by volunteering at our school and working with us on our 

homework. I remember my mom asking my teachers to send home 

extra homework even on Fridays so that my sisters and I would 

catch up to other students. 

My youngest sister Sara was born here in Florida in 1993. We 

all grew up in the same home, attended the same schools, spoke 

English, played lacrosse, but there was one major difference that 

would come to dominate our lives. Sara and I were natural born 

U.S. citizens, while my sister Evelyn was brought here on a nowexpired visa. 

It wasn’t until high school that I found out for sure about my 

family’s immigration status. There were so many little things that 

would come up what that I could not do, I had to work twice as 

hard to figure out because of the situation. For example, I was not 

able to get my driver’s license when I turned 16. And I cannot tell 

you how hard it is as a teenager to not be able to drive. As hard 

as this was for my youngest sister and for me, there was always 

the light at the end of the tunnel, we were U.S. citizens. Ev did 

not have that. She had to go through high school graduation knowing that there was no relief in sight, no path to college, no path 

to a normal job. She had to walk across that stage and into the 

shadows. 

The somewhat normal life she had gotten to live in the only 

home she had ever known was over, she also had to walk across 

that stage without our mom watching because our mom a couple 

months before had been pulled over at a traffic stop, arrested and 

forced to leave the country, all of this happening with my sister in 

the car. 
48 

This all occurred while I was a sophomore in college, and I cannot put into words the level of devastation this caused. It affected 

my personal well-being, it affected my academic success. My sisters 

and I worked hard in school and all earned Bright Futures Scholarships. But unlike my youngest sister and I, Evelyn was unable to 

claim her scholarship because of her undocumented status. 

As a U.S. citizen, I have been able to pursue the American 

Dream. I’m a graduate of Florida State University and I’m currently pursuing my Master’s Degree at the University of Florida. 

Living in a mixed-status family, I have learned to cherish every 

moment I have with my family, especially since we’ve lost our 

mom. As a U.S. citizen, I’m hopeful that Congress finds a way to 

keep this from happening to other families. As of last year, it had 

been over 6 years since Ev had seen her mom. It has been over 6 

years since her life as she knew it came to a halt. This is the only 

home she knows. She has been here for 21 years. Yet she is punished every day and forced to live a life in limbo for no reason at 

all. 

The American Dream has been bittersweet for my family. I’ve 

had to watch my sister and others like her be denied opportunities 

afforded to us in the only country she has ever known by what 

amounts to an accident of birth. 

Thank you so much for letting me share my story. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Ms. Rivera. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rivera follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Pamela Rivera, Washington, DC 

I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Goodlatte, ranking member 

Conyers and distinguished members of this committee for this opportunity to testify. 

My parents moved to the United States in the 1980’s and I was born in 1987. 

Shortly after my birth they moved back to Colombia with money they had saved 

working in the US and tried to pursue a life there. They had my sister Evelyn while 

we were living in Colombia. In 1991 when I was 4 years old they moved back to 

the U.S. in order to provide a better life for my sister and me. They wanted us to 

live without the drugs, violence, and daily car bombings that defined daily life in 

their native Colombia; and for us to have a chance of obtaining a world-class education and fulfilling the American Dream. 

For many years I did not know about my family’s immigration status. However, 

as the years passed I began to understand that my family was not like most, and 

even though my parents worked hard to provide for our family we would never be 

treated the same. My father worked nights and my mother worked in the morning 

in order to make sure that my two sisters and I were never left alone. They understood the meaning of family and how important it was to raise their daughters in 

a stable home. 

My mother learned English quickly by volunteering at our school and working 

with us on our homework. I remember my mom asking my teacher to send home 

extra homework so that my sister and I would catch up to the other students. My 

youngest sister was born here in the U.S. in 1993. We all grew up in the same 

home, attended the same schools, spoke English, and played lacrosse, but there was 

one major difference that would come to dominate our lives: I was a natural born 

U.S. citizen while my sister Evelyn was brought to the United States on a now-expired visa. 

It wasn’t until high school that I found out for sure about my family’s immigration 

status. I was unable to get my drivers license until I was 18 because my parents 

could not take me to the DMV. There were so many little things that would come 

up that I could not do or had to work twice as hard to figure out because of this 
49 

situation. All of this was with the knowledge that my youngest sister and I were 

U.S. citizens, and that for us there was a light at the end of the tunnel. 

Evelyn did not have that. She had to go through her high school graduation knowing that there was no relief in sight—no path to college, no path to a normal job. 

She knew she had to walk across that stage and into the shadows, and that the 

somewhat normal life she had gotten to live in the only home she had ever known 

was over. She also had to walk across that stage without our mom watching, because our mother was forced to leave under voluntary departure. 

My sisters and I worked hard in school and all earned the Bright Futures Scholarship but unlike our youngest sister and me, Evelyn was unable to claim her scholarship because of her undocumented status. 

As a Citizen of the United States, I have been able to pursue the American 

Dream: I am an alumna of the Florida State University, and am currently pursuing 

a master’s degree at the University of Florida. 

Living in a mixed status family I have learned to cherish every moment I have 

with my family especially since we have lost our mother. We have to be proactive 

on issues. We have to protect our families. It has now been over 6 years since Eve 

has seen our mom. It has been 6 years since her life as she knew it came to a halt. 

This is the only home she knows, she broke no laws, she did nothing wrong, yet 

she is punished every day and forced to live in limbo—for no reason at all. 

The American Dream has been bittersweet for us. I have had to watch my sister 

be denied the opportunities afforded to us, in the only country she has ever known, 

by what amounts to an accident of birth. 

Mr. GOWDY. Ms. Velazquez. 

TESTIMONY OF ROSA VELAZQUEZ, 

ARKANSAS COALITION FOR DREAM 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I would like to thank Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, and the distinguished Members of this Committee for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Rosa Velazquez. I’m 30 years old. And ever since I was 5, Arkansas has been 

my home. I’m as Arkansan as the Arkansas Razorbacks, the Harding Bisons and the Henderson Reddies. 

I’m honored to be a member of the United We Dream National 

Coordinating Committee. United We Dream is the largest immigrant youth led group network in the country made up of 51 affiliates in 25 States. As a network, United We Dream is committed 

to winning citizenship for our families and communities, all 11 million Americans without papers, and to creating an immigration system that treats all Americans with dignity, parents like my mother 

who was 22 years old when we came to the U.S. 

Sadly, like so many other parents, her story has been forgotten. 

She made the courageous decision to travel alone with my 4-yearold brother Rudy and myself. I was 5. My mother packed all of our 

things in a backpack, and in August 1989 we got in a plane in 

Mexico City and we arrived in Dallas, Texas. My father Rodolfo 

would join us a year later in Arkansas. 

Throughout my schooling, I was involved in every club, organization and civic group I could be a part of. I have always had the desire to be involved but it was in music that I found my true passion. I remember that the best performances I had were at 

Ouachita Baptist University where I would later be offered a choral 

scholarship. My parents taught me that our family values were 

greater than anything, and where one went, the rest followed. I can 
50 

remember vividly the day that I enrolled at Ouachita Baptist University. My parents went with me. They went with me when I 

chose my classes, when I looked at my dorm and when I went into 

the financial aid office. It was at this office that I found out that 

I was no longer eligible for a scholarship. I was undocumented, and 

I saw my once-in-a-lifetime opportunity slip through my fingers because I lacked legal status. To be fully eligible, I had to be a U.S. 

citizen. It was then that my mother took my hand with tears in her 

eyes and she told me that I could do anything that I set my mind 

to. So if I wanted to go to college, I was going to go to college. 

My mother’s hardworking hands are the reason that I’m here 

today and she is also the reason that I am currently a grad student 

at Henderson State University and Harding University in Arkansas, and I’m pursuing two Master’s Degrees one in ESL English 

and one in American Literature. She is also the reason that my 

brother, Rudy, is going to the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville where in 2 years he will achieve a Bachelor’s Degree in culinary arts. And she is also the reason that my 12-year-old brother 

Randy, a U.S. citizen, has high hopes and aspirations to attend college in the future. 

Arkansas is the poultry capital of the world. We have several 

poultry processing plants and this is where my mother first began 

her work. Her job for the next 10 years was to cut chicken tenders 

with scissors and arrange them in the little yellow trays that you 

are able to purchase today at any grocery store. 

As I sit here today telling you about my achievements and my 

successes, my mother, who has sacrificed everything for me with 

her hard work, is now suffering with carpal tunnel syndrome. 

When Members of Congress tell me that I deserve the opportunity to earn citizenship and my mother doesn’t, I tell them that 

if anyone deserves that opportunity to earn citizenship, it is my 

mother Rosalinda. My mother did what any mother facing uncertainty would have done—provide a better life for her children. 

This is the land of opportunity where we learned that with hard 

work and perseverance, we have the opportunity to succeed. If Congress were to adopt an incomplete solution that would provide a 

path to earn citizenship for DREAMers like me but something less 

for our parents, it be like saying that I can now be one of you, but 

my parent can never be, that our hardworking parents are good 

enough to pick up your crops, to babysit your children, to landscape 

your yards, but they will never be treated as equal members of society. The solution that includes only DREAMers and people like 

me will lead to further separation of families and will in no way 

provide the answer that you seek. 

Fix our broken immigration system. Do we really want to ignore 

the values that history has taught us by giving our parents a sit 

at the back of the line—bus type of legalization? 

I am talented in many fields. I am an asset to this country but 

my mother’s hardworking hands are the foundation on which this 

country was built. I am my mother’s daughter. She and I are equal. 

My name is Rosa Angela Velazquez Figueroa. I am the daughter 

of Rosalinda and Rodolfo Velazquez and the sister to Rudy and 

Randy Velazquez. I am undocumented. I am one of the 11 million. 

And together, we are the American Dream. 
51 

Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Ms. Velazquez. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Velazquez follows:] 
52 

classes, when I looked at my dorm and when I went into the financial aid office. It was at 

this office that I found out that I was no longer eligible for a scholarship. I was 

undocumented, and I saw my once-in-a-lifetime opportunity of attending college slip 

through my fingers because I lacked legal status. This is where I also learned that having 

a social security number, an Arkansas driver's license and a work authorization 

document, were not enough. To be fully eligible, I had to be a US citizen. It was then that 

my mother, through silent tears, took my hand and told me that I could do anything I 

set my mind to ... so if I wanted to go to college, I was going to go to college. 

My mother's hardworking hands are the reason that today, I am currently a grad student 

at Henderson State University and Harding University in Arkansas, pursuing two 

master's degrees, one in ESL English and one in American Literature. She is the reason 

that my brother, Rudy, is attending the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, where in 

two years he will graduate with a Culinary Arts degree. And she is also the reason my 

twelve year old little brother, Randy, a US citizen, has high hopes and aspirations to 

attending college in the future. 

Arkansas is the poultry capital of the world. We have several poultry processing plants 

and this is where my mother first began to work. Her job, for the next 10 years, was to 

cut chicken tenders with scissors, and arrange them in the yellow trays that you are able 

to purchase at any grocery store. As I sit here today telling you about my achievements 

and successes, my mother, who has sacrificed everything for me with her hard work, is 

suffering with carpal tunnel syndrome. 

When Members of Congress tell me that I deserve an opportunity to earn citizenship 

and my mother does not, I tell them that if anyone deserves that opportunity to earn 

citizenship, it is my mother, Rosalinda. 

My mother did what any mother, when facing uncertainty, would have done; provide a 

better life for her children than she had. Given the circumstances we lived under in 

Mexico, she knew in her heart that the US would become our home for what has now 

been 24 years. This is the land of opportunity, where we learned that with hard work 

and perseverance, we have the opportunity to succeed. 

If Congress were to adopt an incomplete solution that would provide a path to earned 

citizenship for DREAlvIers like me, but something less for our parents, it would be like 

saying that I can now be one of you, but my parents can never be. Such a solution would 

tell DREA]\'!iers like me that our hardworking parents are good enough to pick your 

crops, babysit your children, landscape your yard, and at the same time never treated as 

equal members of this society. This solution that includes only DREAlVlers and people 

like me will only lead to further separation of families and will in no way provide the 

2 
53 

solution you seek: fixing our broken immigration system and recogmzmg the full 

humanity of those who have been drawn here by the prospects of work. 

Do we really want to ignore the values that history has taught us by giving our parents a 

"sit at the back of the bus" type oflegalization? 

I was taught at home what this country was founded on: family values, Christian values, 

courage, equality and justice. Anything other than a viable path to citizenship is not 

acceptable for me, my family and the other 11 million Undocumented Americans waiting 

for you to act. 

I am talented in many fields and am an asset for this country, but my mother's working 

hands are the foundation on which upon this country was built. 

I am my mother's daughter. 

She and I are equal. 

We both came here in pursuit of a better life and just like millions of Dreamers and 

families, we are ready to claim our citizenship. 

As a representative of the community directly affected by what actions this committee 

will take on immigration reform, I hope that all members will seek our input as the 

process moves forward. And I hope that this hearing is the first step in addressing not 

only a real solution for me, but also for my parents. 

My name is Rosa Angela Velazquez Figueroa, daughter of Rosalinda and Rodolfo 

Velazquez and sister to Rudy and Randy Velazquez. 

I am undocumented, 

I am one of the 11 Million 

and together, 

WE are the American DREAM. 

3 
54 

Mr. GOWDY. I’m only going to say this once. No response from 

the audience. We are going to have order in this. It’s fine to express 

yourself internally. No visible response. 

With that, I would recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the 

Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And it is 

my pleasure to ask some questions of the witnesses and I would 

like to start with you, Ms. Rivera. I very much appreciate your testimony and that of Ms. Velazquez. 

Ms. Velazquez said that she didn’t think there should be any difference between all of the 11 million people who are seeking to 

come here between herself and her mother, for example. But you 

know your parents. You probably know the parents of other people 

who have children who are not lawfully present in the United 

States. And my question for you is, would your parents and do you 

think other parents would be supportive of legislation that would 

allow your sister and other young people brought here at an early 

age to get legal status and ultimately U.S. citizenship but did not 

address their situation; in other words, parents’ situations in the 

same way? 

Ms. RIVERA. You know that is an incredibly difficult question to 

answer. My parents like I’m sure any other parents want what is 

the absolute best for their children. So you know it’s easy to say 

that, yes, they would be very happy with that. But at the same 

time I can tell you that the pain of not having my mother with us 

is something that I really can’t put into words and it is not something that I feel comfortable saying I’m okay with. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Your mother is not here in the United States. 

Ms. RIVERA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. But if she were here in the United States and 

she got a different status, say a legal status as opposed to a citizenship status, how would she feel about that? 

Ms. RIVERA. My mom is, I know everyone says their mom is the 

best, but my mom is the best, and she from the minute they came 

here, as I said in my testimony, she was at my teachers’ classrooms 

every day you know helping out, making sure that that we, you 

know, were as involved in our community as possible. It was at the 

time extremely annoying and I can only say that when it comes to 

my family, knowing my mom, she wants to be a part of this country. She still thinks, she still thinks of herself as an American even 

though she is in Colombia. So, I feel as though my mom would like 

a shot at being a citizen and she wants the opportunity and the 

responsibility that comes with that. 

You know, again, we had up until that happened lived here, my 

parents for close to 20 years before she left. My dad is now a legal 

resident. He lives here. This is for them, what has become their 

lives. It is the only home we have ever known, so it is very difficult 

for me to say we would be okay with that and quite frankly, I 

wouldn’t be okay with that. I know the sacrifices my parents made. 

I know the long hours my dad worked. I know how hard it was for 

them to be separated from everything they knew as their home, so 

I wouldn’t want to have to make that decision. 
55 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, I certainly understand that you would not 

want them to have to make that decision, but Congress has to 

make that decision. And that is the hard part. 

Let me ask Dr. Duke if you would comment on the problem that 

we have here of determining how we proceed to assure that we 

don’t have future children brought here through the desert, in the 

backs of trailers, under tunnels and so on, into the United States 

illegally. So in order for Congress not to be back in the same position of debating whether to grant legal status to another 11 million 

illegal immigrants 20 years from now, what enforcement kinds of 

measures does the Southern Baptist Convention support being put 

into place? 

Mr. DUKE. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. It is a concern 

to Southern Baptists as well that we resolve this at this time and 

that we not have to come back here again as well. I think most 

Southern Baptists are saying, secure the border and workplace 

verification. They believe those two components would have a lot 

to do with addressing the future of illegal immigration. If folks 

can’t get work here it’s going to pretty much discourage them from 

coming. And so we do believe that those are a couple of components. There are certainly many others that the Committee should 

consider as well. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And in your testimony you mention that a commitment to the pursuit of a higher education or military service 

should be a sufficient guide to show that these young people have 

good moral character and a commitment to their futures and thus 

should be afforded a path to legal status. What should happen to 

young illegal immigrants who do not show such a commitment and 

are not of good moral character? 

Mr. DUKE. You know, that is a really tough question in my opinion. The legislation under consideration here to me requires a certain level of moral character as well as a commitment to the future, 

to their futures and so I think that is going to be necessary for this 

special track for these particular young people. I think the rest are 

going to have to simply be considered along with all of the other 

10 million or so undocumented immigrants in our country that the 

Committee is going to have to figure out how they address. There 

are going to be some adults who aren’t going to be able to qualify 

for whatever this Committee, the Committee and ultimately Congress chooses to do as well. And, unfortunately, some of those children as well are going to be caught in a situation where they have 

made wrong choices and they have made it nearly impossible for 

themselves to find a way for this country to be able to grant them 

the kind of legal status that we would like to give them. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Doctor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte. The Chair will now 

recognize the gentlelady from California, the Ranking Member of 

the Subcommittee, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of 

our witnesses for simply excellent testimony that not only informs 

us but I think informs people who are watching this hearing across 

the country on C-SPAN and other Members of Congress who are 

watching it in their offices. It is very important that you are here. 
56 

Listening to our two young ladies, Ms. Rivera and Ms. Velazquez, 

very powerful testimony that you have given and as I was listening 

to Mr. Goodlatte’s, Chairman Goodlatte’s question I was thinking 

about the relationship between parents and sons and daughters. 

I have a son and a daughter, kind of about your age. I would do 

anything for them. And I think you’re saying the same about your 

parents. But here is the problem. When you have, when you are 

pitting sons and daughters against moms and dads, you’ve created 

really a system that is not healthy. And if I’m hearing you right, 

Ms. Rivera, it’s not that your mother wouldn’t do anything for you, 

it’s that you would not permit that. You would not permit your 

mother to be thrown to the side of the road for your benefit. 

Is that kind of a good summary of your position? 

Ms. RIVERA. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Dr. Duke, we’ve worked together in the past and I appreciate 

very much your testimony. And it’s interesting you know there are 

many issues that you and I don’t agree on but what we have 

learned is that we can work to things that we do agree on and one 

of those things has been immigration. The Ethics and Religious 

Liberty Commission is part of the Evangelical Immigration Table, 

and the statement released in March calling for immigration reform said that it should, and I quote, provide clear steps to citizenship for those who want, want it and qualify. Dr. Russell Moore, 

the President of the Commission, sent a letter to Congress last 

month saying that, and I again quote, ‘‘A tough yet achievable 

earned pathway to citizenship is a necessary part of broader reform.’’ 

Is that still your position and the position of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention? 

Mr. DUKE. Congresswoman Lofgren, thanks for the question. 

Yes, it is still our position. It is my position that we should not be 

creating second-class citizens in this country. We just don’t do that 

here. Everyone should have a full opportunity to rise to the, a full 

opportunity that this country affords them and citizenship is certainly a part of being able to do that. 

So we believe, and I certainly believe, that we do need to create 

an opportunity for citizenship for those who can qualify by whatever standards this Committee and Congress would choose. But we 

do believe that that should be a component that is possible for 

these folks. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. And I hope that the faithful 

here in the House will listen to your words of advice. 

Now when the House last took up the DREAM Act some Members took to the floor and they called it the Nightmare Act. They 

said that allowing these young people to come out of the shadows 

and have an opportunity to earn legal permanent residence, and 

possibly also in the future citizenship, would prevent Americans 

from getting jobs and realizing other opportunities. 

How would you answer that attack, Dr. Duke? 

Mr. DUKE. Well, certainly, we are in a situation in our country 

right now where we don’t have enough jobs it would seem, but we 

also have a lot of jobs that are simply going unfilled, and so, clearly, we need more workers in certain areas than we have right now. 
57 

We know that business is looking for more workers currently. So 

clearly there is still a need for more workers in this country. The 

best thing that we can do is create as well qualified and educated 

a workforce as we possibly can. We have all of these young folks 

here right now, what, over 1 million, who can be brought fully into 

the workforce and can meet a lot of those needs that we already 

have and as we continue to grow our economy we are going to need 

more workers and eventually everybody who wants a job, a fulltime job is going to be able to find one. So I think this country 

needs more workers not less workers. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. I’ll just close by saying you 

know whenever we have a hearing like this I’m so struck by the 

courage shown by undocumented individuals. I think of them as aspiring Americans. And I remember my grandfather who came to 

this country when he was 16 years old with nothing. His process 

then was he got on a boat, it sailed to America and he got off the 

boat. He never saw his parents again. But he wanted to be an 

American just like you want to be an American. And he and generations of aspiring Americans came and really built this country. 

And to think that our future will not be enriched by people who 

want to, who have enough hope and enough courage and enough 

ambition to want to be a free American, to help build our country, 

that that future would not be enriched is just a mistake because 

through aspiring Americans, people who want to come and throw 

in their lot with us and build a better country, our future will be 

strengthened. And I don’t think we need to ration that. I think we 

ought to embrace that. Just as immigrants built our past they will 

help us build a great future for Americans. 

So thank you all for your wonderful testimony today. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from California. The Chair 

will now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate being recognized, and listening to the testimony of the witnesses here, gathering my thoughts and trying to digest what’s been taking place 

here today, and I think the first question I would ask is, Ms. Velazquez, and your testimony here I could hear the emotion in your 

voice and would you characterize the life you have had here in the 

United States as, you individually, living in the shadows? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I’m sorry? 

Mr. KING. Would you characterize your life living here in the 

United States as living in the shadows? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Living in the shadows wasn’t an option for me. 

There were—I was a voice to some members of my community. 

Some of the kids that were going to college there, that were wanting to go to college came up to me and I had to voice myself to 

them and let them know that—— 

Mr. KING. So you wouldn’t characterize your life as living in the 

shadows here? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. No, sir. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. I appreciate knowing that. 

I turn to Dr. Duke. And listening to your testimony and you cited 

Ezekiel 18:20 in that I would call it the sins of the father section. 

But I understand that point that the sins of the son shall not be 

punished by the father—onto the father and vice versa. But I look 
58 

at that and I also I read through the rest of your testimony and 

the balance of what you said, and it appears to me that neither 

would you punish the parents for bringing their children here, you 

just wouldn’t do so in this bill. 

Did I read that correctly? 

Mr. DUKE. Thank you for the question, Congressman. No, I’m not 

saying we shouldn’t hold the parents accountable for the choices 

that they made. There do need to be appropriate forms of restitution and penalty if these—— 

Mr. KING. But you wouldn’t apply current law to them, you 

would exempt them from current law and want to write a new law 

that would be less onerous than the penalties in current law for the 

parents? 

Mr. DUKE. Yes, sir, I think what we are saying is we are, or at 

least what I’m asking you is to create another set of penalties for 

the law other than the penalty that currently exists. 

Mr. KING. Would this be under the concept of mercy? 

Mr. DUKE. Well, mercy at the very least, but also in my opinion 

simply a matter of practicality and humanity. 

Mr. KING. Mercy at the very least. Can you cite—and you are, 

no question, a Biblical scholar. Can you cite any place in the Bible 

where mercy is not accompanied by repentance? 

Mr. DUKE. Well, Congressman, I simply know that God says, I 

will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. So He gets the freedom to choose whether or not—— 

Mr. KING. We’re pretty sure he calls for repentance, though, 

aren’t we, as Christians? 

Mr. DUKE. He gets to choose under which circumstances He 

wants to have mercy, and we get to choose the circumstance under 

which we choose to have mercy. 

Mr. KING. Let me suggest that we couldn’t teach Christianity 

without repentance being a component of it, however. And I just, 

I wanted to make that point but also, I know that the Southern 

Baptist Conference has cited Matthew 25:35 for I was a stranger 

and you let me in. 

Mr. DUKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KING. And that is a central theme, also, which I’m a little 

surprised isn’t in this testimony, but I would expect that you would 

adhere to that proposal as well, that theological philosophy? 

Mr. DUKE. Yes, sir, that’s correct. 

Mr. KING. So are you aware, when we see that word ‘‘stranger,’’ 

and when you look back through the Greek which is the foundation 

of the interpretation that most of the modern day Bible that I 

know, the word stranger is the Greek word xenos, x-e-n-o-s. And 

are you aware that that really means within that context in Greek 

guest foreigner, an invited guest, rather than someone who came 

in against the law? 

Mr. DUKE. Yes, sir. I understand that there are various understandings of how that word is to be interpreted in that passage. 

Mr. KING. So you wouldn’t interpret Mathew 25:35 to mean you 

are commanded by God to welcome anyone that comes into your 

country or home regardless of whether they were invited or whether they were uninvited? 
59 

Mr. DUKE. I don’t think—yes, sir. I think that is correct. We are 

not required to invite anyone who simply comes along into our 

homes. But we are required to express hospitality toward those, as 

many of those as we can. 

Mr. KING. Towards invited guests, according to the Greek interpretation I would suggest. 

Mr. DUKE. Pardon? 

Mr. KING. Hospitality toward those invited guests, according to 

the Greek interpretation of the word xenos, stranger, invited guest. 

Let me move on. Also St. Paul gave a sermon on Mars Hill, it’s 

in Acts 17. And in that he said, and God made every Nation on 

Earth, and He decided when and where each Nation would be, and 

He granted that authority to the elected officials within the countries to set the border and to control the border. And that is the 

definition of sovereignty as I understand that. 

Would you have a different understanding of St. Paul’s sermon 

on Mars Hill? 

Mr. DUKE. No, sir. I think that God does give human beings the 

freedom to create their own borders and to establish their own 

laws. 

Mr. KING. Thank you very much. I appreciate all the witnesses. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from 

Michigan, the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to all of 

our witnesses. 

I’m very impressed by the overall direction that all of the witnesses have made, their understanding of how we deal with not 

only the DREAMers but with their parents as well. One thing that 

concerns me is that sometimes we manage to keep the DREAMers 

in and there seems to be a growing tendency in that direction in 

the Congress. But the separation of the children, the DREAMers, 

from their parents, is something that still troubles me. And I’d like 

to just go down the witness list and see if you share any of this 

unease with me. 

And I always like to start with the Vice President of the Southern Baptist Convention. One of these days we’re going to get a witness from the Northern Baptist Convention here, but it hasn’t happened yet. 

Mr. DUKE. There aren’t as many of them. 

Mr. CONYERS. That’s a good reason. 

Mr. DUKE. I thank the Congressman. I do share concerns for the 

parents of these young men and women. They’re in a different circumstance, however, because they purposefully have violated the 

law. So it’s difficult for me to see how we can address the circumstance for these particular young people and then also address 

the parents’ needs without talking about a full immigration solution. 

Mr. CONYERS. Comprehensive. 

Mr. DUKE. Yes, sir, a complete immigration solution that would 

address not only their parents but the parents of children who 

were born here as well who also need their circumstances to be addressed. 
60 

Mr. CONYERS. And might I ask you for your feelings on this part 

of the discussion? 

Ms. MCHUGH. I would just say that our organization is focused 

on analysis of policy options facing the Congress, and so it’s not the 

sort of way that we would approach the, approach an issue. 

Mr. CONYERS. That means that you wouldn’t think of it as comprehensive or that we could create a path for citizenship even for 

the parents although they have without doubt violated some of our 

immigration rules but we always start off here by saying, on both 

sides of the aisle, that the immigration system is broken. So it’s not 

a matter of worrying too much about these rules, it is can we construct some others? And do you have an idea on that? 

Ms. MCHUGH. Perhaps I was listening to your question with too 

formal an ear. I thought you said did I have a feeling of concern 

about that. I would say for my organization overall that a great 

deal of our policy analysis over the years has focused on the need 

for more comprehensive approaches to reform if we are to fix the 

system. But I would just say that there’s a distinction between that 

and the question that you had asked. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Oh, thank you. 

Ms. Rivera, what say you? 

Ms. RIVERA. Obviously, I am supportive of comprehensive immigration reform, anything that helps families stay together. I think 

that that is the epitome of at least what my family, what I was 

raised on. I think it’s for the well-being of children, and I just think 

it’s for the well-being of America because you know the family unit 

is probably the most important unit we have in society. 

Mr. CONYERS. So what about the parents? Do you think that we 

keep the DREAMers and work out a way for them a path for citizenship? But what bothers me is what do we do with the parents? 

Do we kick them out? Do we separate? Do we separate them from 

their children who were born here in the country? 

Ms. RIVERA. No. I don’t think that that is, I don’t think that that 

is a real option. I think that that can cause lasting damage. I can 

tell you, I recently got married, I got married last month and had 

to go through the decision of trying to figure out how to do a wedding because I have my sister who cannot leave the country, and 

I have my mother who cannot come into the country. So I was engaged for 2 years hoping that some type of solution would occur 

and that at the very least my sister would be able to travel to Colombia. So finally we just had to give in and we had to get married. 

And it was wonderful but my mom was there via face time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Chairman, could I get a response from Ms. Velazquez, even 

though my time is expired? 

Mr. GOWDY. Certainly, Mr. Conyers. Ms. Velazquez, you may answer Mr. Conyers’ question. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. At home I was taught that what this 

country was found on family values, Christian values, courage, 

equality and justice. I hope that this hearing is the first to addressing not only a resolution for me but for my parents as well. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
61 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. The Chair 

will now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me thank all the others. It’s very good testimony, compelling 

emotional testimony we appreciate that. Let me go right to where 

Mr. Conyers was. 

Ms. Velazquez and Ms. Rivera just for the record so we’re all 

clear, you obviously support a path for citizenship for DREAMers 

and you would support a path for citizenship for parents as well? 

Ms. Velazquez? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Ms. Rivera? 

Ms. RIVERA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. How about you, Ms. McHugh? 

Ms. MCHUGH. I’m sorry, a path—— 

Mr. JORDAN. A path to citizenship for DREAMers is what we’re 

talking about today. Would you also support a path to citizenship 

for parents? 

Ms. MCHUGH. My organization isn’t an advocacy organization 

and so we don’t take positions. 

Mr. JORDAN. I’m asking you as a witness in today’s hearing what 

do you think? 

Can you speak on your behalf of yourself or you can only talk 

about your association? 

Okay. How about Dr. Duke? 

Mr. DUKE. Congressman, thanks for the question. Yes I believe 

there should be a way forward for citizenship for these others as 

well. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. Let me go back to Ms. Velazquez. What about 

the rest of the estimated 11 million illegals here? Do you support 

a path to citizenship for those individuals? Ms. Velazquez? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yes, sir. I support a path to citizenship for the 

11 million. 

Mr. JORDAN. Ms. Rivera? 

Ms. RIVERA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DUKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. You guys do? The Southern Baptists have taken a 

position on that? 

Mr. DUKE. Restate your question so I can answer it then, please. 

Mr. JORDAN. We all know you are for the DREAMers. We all 

know you’re for parents except Ms. McHugh doesn’t want to respond to that. Ms. Velazquez and Ms. Rivera also are for the rest 

of the estimated 11 million who are here illegally, a path to citizenship. I just want to know where the Southern Baptists are. 

Mr. DUKE. Yes, sir. In our resolution in 2011 we did call for legal 

status for the undocumented immigrants here in our presence in 

this country and in further reflection since then most Southern 

Baptists are also asking for a way forward for citizenship for these 

11 million as well, and that certainly would be my position. 

Mr. JORDAN. That’s your position and it’s the position of the 

Southern Baptists? 

Mr. DUKE. The Southern Baptist Convention has not stated officially that that is its position. 
62 

Mr. JORDAN. Ms. Velazquez, do you support the comprehensive 

bill passed by the United States Senate? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I support a pathway to citizenship for 11 million 

undocumented immigrants. 

Mr. JORDAN. Have you looked at the Senate bill? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. And you are for it or against it? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. It has a path to citizenship, so I support a path 

to citizenship. 

Mr. JORDAN. Ms. Rivera, can you comment on the Senate bill? 

Are you for The Senate bill? 

Ms. RIVERA. Yes, I am. 

Mr. JORDAN. Ms. McHugh, have you taken a position on the Senate bill? 

Ms. MCHUGH. No, we have not. 

Mr. JORDAN. Dr. Duke, have Southern Baptists taken a position 

on the Senate bill? 

Mr. DUKE. The Southern Baptist Convention has not taken a position on the STEM bill. My organization, the Ethics and Religious 

Liberty Commission—— 

Mr. JORDAN. No, no. I’m talking about the Senate bill, as passed 

by the Senate. 

Mr. DUKE. Oh, the Senate bill. No, sir, we have not. We have 

simply said we believe it is a good step forward but it needs some 

repair and needs some work and we are looking to the House to 

help address some issues. 

Mr. JORDAN. Last question for you, last question, Mr. Chairman 

and it’s for you, Dr. Duke. 

The Southern Baptist Convention, you said you believed they’re 

for a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million even though you 

haven’t taken a formal position. Is there anything in what you perceive as the position of the Southern Baptists that says border security must happen before there is a pathway to citizenship for 

those, for the estimated 11 million folks in the country illegally? 

Mr. DUKE. Yes, sir. I would say that most Southern Baptists, and 

certainly myself, believe that we need to make sure the border is 

secure before citizenship is possible. But we do believe that we do 

also need to address the circumstances of these 11 million and that 

it needs to be done as a package in order to make sure that all of 

the needs of our Nation and of these undocumented immigrants are 

addressed. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. Do you have any—I said last question but I 

changed my mind here, Mr. Chairman. I’ve got one more for Dr. 

Duke. 

Do you have any concern—Mr. Gutierrez and the passion he 

brings to this issue we all respect. But he talked about in his statement that, you know, if, in fact, we pass a DREAM Act for young 

people that well, we’re going to have to make sure we do it for parents because we can’t have this—are you at all concerned about 

where it goes and the logical steps that Mr. Gutierrez has pointed 

out and all of you have pointed out, that it travels that way before 

we have a chance to actually secure the border and maintain the 

border as a sovereign Nation? Does that concern you at all, Dr. 

Duke, and the Southern Baptist Convention? 
63 

Mr. DUKE. Congressman, it does concern me that we may not get 

to the place where we secure the border. And I’m looking to you 

to make sure that there is a mechanism in place that assures us 

that the border is secured before permanent legal status is applied, 

but that doesn’t mean that you can’t do something intermediate in 

the meantime so that these folks here can at least know that they 

no longer have to live under the fear of deportation while our country is resolving this problem. 

Mr. JORDAN. Great. Thank you, Mr. Duke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Gutierrez. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you to all the witnesses. It was a very compelling and very moving 

testimony. I’m delighted that you’re here and I’m delighted that 

we’re having a hearing that I think really broadens the perspective 

of this Committee. And I’d like to take the opportunity to say that, 

to Ms. Velazquez, you love your mom? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yes, sir. I love my mother. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. After you described her, I love her too. And I 

want her to be part of your life. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. I’ll let her know that. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And I know that, Ms. Rivera, you know, you 

have two siblings, right? 

Mr. RIVERA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. One of them out of status, the other one an 

American citizen like you. How do you feel, how important is it to 

you as an American citizen that you get your mom back? How important is it? 

Ms. RIVERA. It would mean a lot. It’s hard because there are so 

many things that you just want to call your mom and tell her 

about. There are so many little instances that people don’t have to 

think about and don’t even realize or, you know, that you take for 

granted. I’ve had to, I’ve had to experience that. I know how difficult it is and I can’t imagine how difficult it must be for my mother always living in fear and never knowing if something happens 

to her kids, knowing that she cannot be there for them. 

So you know I understand this issue is incredibly complicated, 

and I’m very happy not to have to do this myself but I believe that 

Congress has the ability to do it and I would love to have my mother back. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you. As we look at it, and as I look at it, 

I try to look at it through the prism. I have two daughters. I can’t 

imagine what their life would be like without their mother. There 

are certain things that dads don’t do. There are certain parts of life 

that dads don’t fill in. I am kind of like the—I am the concierge. 

You know, need a ticket. Okay. Call Dad, he’ll get you a ticket. 

Need to learn to drive a car, call Dad. Need somebody to take you 

to the university to go check it out, call Dad. I do those kinds 

things of things. Flat tire, call Dad. Right? Then there’s all the 

other stuff that moms do, that parents do. I am not trying to diminish what we as men do and the relationship we have. But 

moms are pretty important in people’s lives. So we should think. 
64 

I don’t think about them as much. I say to my colleagues, I think 

simply about ourselves. And I think about what our relationship is 

to our children and how important I know every member of this 

panel is and has been and will continue to be to their children. And 

to simply look at it from your own prism in terms of your own children and what would their lives be like without us, I don’t think 

it would be the same. 

And I just want to say that, look, this isn’t about the Senate bill. 

We can draft one here in the House of Representatives. We have 

the skills and we have the knowledge and I know that we have the 

fortitude to get us through those debates and those discussions. 

And so it is not about amnesty. 

I mean, I look at the Senate bill and I say to myself, we really 

want it. I mean, we are saying 10, 15, 20, 25 years. Ms. Velazquez. 

Every cent that an undocumented person like your mother has 

spent and sent to Social Security Trust Fund, gone. Vanished. Confiscated in the Senate bill. Ten, 15, 20, 25 years. Work for the next 

10 years. I came to Congress to have comprehensive healthcare for 

everybody. Gone. Eleven, 10 years, you want to get legalized, don’t 

expect a cent of subsidy. And pay every tax imaginable and fulfill 

every financial responsibility. And don’t expect one means tested 

program. Not one. 

And in 10 years, kind of forget about bringing your brothers or 

your sisters, because those are costs. Those are gone. And then if 

that wasn’t enough, 20,000 more border patrol agents. But you 

know what, it is worth it what you are doing. What we are doing 

is worth it. It is worth it to sit down. And I want to extend another 

hand to the other side of the aisle to say all those things, I don’t 

like them, but I am ready to accept them. Because the alternative 

is the kind of pain that you hear about from that young lady. And 

you have to multiply what they said here millions of times. I just 

want you to think of those millions of tears each and every day, 

the pain and the devastation that exists in our community. 

So thank you for the personal testimony. Thank you for 

humanizing this issue for all of us, and because I think that is 

going to help inform this Committee better than any statistics can. 

Thank you so much. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. 

Labrador. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Rivera, I only disagreed vehemently with one thing that you 

said in your testimony, and it’s my mom is the best. So, no. I just 

have a few questions for you. And I appreciate both of you testifying today. But I want to talk about the realities of immigration. 

The immigration system that we are currently living under. 

Are you familiar, Ms. Rivera, with the immigration system back 

in Colombia, what it is like? 

Ms. RIVERA. I’m not. No. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Do you know what would happen if I entered the 

country illegally today in Colombia? 

Ms. RIVERA. No, sir. 
65 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Do you know what would happen to my 

kids who I would bring into Colombia illegally? 

Ms. RIVERA. No, sir. 

Mr. LABRADOR. I suggest to you the treatment would be vastly 

different than the treatment that you and your family would receive here in the United States. 

Now, since you came before us, and I don’t like to ask personal 

questions, but you’ve testified about some personal issues. You said 

that your mom—you said you are a U.S. citizen; correct? 

Ms. RIVERA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And your mom can’t come here to the United 

States. How is that possible when you are a U.S. citizen? What exactly is happening? 

Ms. RIVERA. My mom, when I was a sophomore in college, she 

was pulled over for a minor traffic citation, was then arrested. And 

I believe she was—she was then arrested. And then at some point 

ICE got involved. She was taken to a detention center. You know, 

unfortunately for us, at the time, you know, I was not aware of all 

the different things—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. I just want to—I want to clarify something. She 

was arrested. She was returned to Colombia. Is that correct? 

Ms. RIVERA. She was taken to a detention center and then a couple months later she was then—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. And you are over the age of 21. 

Ms. RIVERA. Not at the time. 

Ms. RIVERA. But today you are. 

Ms. RIVERA. Yes, I am. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Why can’t you apply for her? 

Ms. RIVERA. I have. Her visa was approved in the U.S. and then 

when she went to the embassy in Bogota, she was denied. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Do you know why she was denied? 

Ms. RIVERA. They said that she automatically, for leaving the 

country, the 10-year ban was—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. So did you file a waiver for her? 

Ms. RIVERA. My father—so complicated. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Just yes or no. I know this is difficult. 

Ms. RIVERA. He has since then. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And they haven’t approved that yet. 

Ms. RIVERA. No. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But there is a way for your mom to come if you 

file a waiver and all those things. And the only point I am trying 

to make, I am not trying to embarrass you or put you on the spotlight, is one of the things that we are talking about doing here in 

the House of Representatives is actually removing some of these 

waivers that are actually preventing people who have been removed from the United States from coming back legally. And that 

is something that if we could pass in some legislation, you know, 

that would actually help you and your family, and it is one of the 

things that I am trying to accomplish. 

Now, Ms. Velazquez, you—in your testimony, you said some 

things that I found frankly a little bit hard to understand. You 

said, ‘‘If Congress were to adopt an incomplete solution that would 

provide a path to earned citizenship for Dreamers like me but 

something less for our parents, it would be like saying that I can 
66 

now be one of you but my parents can never be.’’ And then you also 

said, ‘‘Do we really want to ignore the values that history has 

taught us by giving our parents a seat at the back of the bus type 

of legalization?′′ 

That is actually highly inaccurate. And it is highly, I think, a little bit dismissive of our current immigration system. Are you familiar with the H-1B process at all? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I am not. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Right now, if I came to the United States legally, 

so not coming illegally, I came to the United States as an H-1B 

worker, which is somebody who works in—as a guest worker in the 

high tech industry or requires a college degree, and I had children 

in the United States, they would become citizens. But I would not 

be necessarily—I would—I don’t have a right to become a citizen 

of the United States. I could apply for citizenship, but there is 

nothing that technically says I would have to become a citizen. And 

there are millions of people who come to the United States who 

have children and they still have to leave even though they came 

here legally. Are you aware of that? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I did not know that. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So it wouldn’t be treating your family any different than we treat the millions and millions of people who actually come legally to the United States and they don’t have a right 

to stay in the United States. Now, I want to find a way to make— 

to help the 11 million. I don’t have a problem with that. But to 

come here to Congress and say that we are putting your parents 

in the back of the bus when we are treating them—we would treat 

them the same that we would treat anybody else who came here 

legally who doesn’t have a right to citizenship, I think you need to 

really rethink your rhetoric. Because there are people that are here 

legally that don’t become citizens of the United States, and they 

have children here, and they have the same values, the same beliefs, the same everything that you have, but the law does not 

allow them to become citizens. But yet they can actually stay here 

as guest workers in many, many industries. 

I want to find a solution for this problem. I want us to treat everybody fairly. But, like I said in my opening statement, the most 

important thing for me is the rule of law, making sure that we prevent having this problem again 10 years from now, 20 years from 

now. Because, frankly, that is not fair to either one of you. If we 

continue to have these problems for the next little while, then there 

is going to be another Ms. Rivera and another Ms. Velazquez who 

is going to be coming here to Congress and telling us about the 

compelling story about their families and how their families now 

need to have a new legal status. 

So I want to help you, I want to help your families, but, most 

importantly I want to make sure we fix the problems that we have 

so we don’t have to have this conversation again. Thank you very 

much for being here today. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Idaho. 

The Chair would now recognize gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the Chairman. And I join with 

the idea that whenever we make steps toward improving lives and 
67 

act as legislators, we are really doing the right thing because that 

is a challenge and the charge that we have been given in this Congress, is to come to help fix America’s problems. 

I want to acknowledge my appreciation for all of the witnesses. 

But I do want to thank in particular who I saw earlier, Ms. Velazquez and Ms. Rivera. Because along with your knowledge, there 

are personal stories that are being told. 

And, Ms. Rivera, I can’t thank you enough for discussing something so personal. And I think if we can all appreciate each other’s 

humanity that what we are talking about is not the nuts and bolts 

of moving checkers on a chess board, checkers board or chess on 

a chess board, but we are really talking about human lives. And 

I believe that we have held human lives in the balance too long. 

This has been going on too long. The key to this is not presupposing or predicting ill and disaster and devastation, but to look at 

the Senate bill as a marker in terms of attempting to frame, Dr. 

Duke, the relief this time so we don’t have the idea of someone 

being able to say this will happen again. 

Dr. Duke, I want to pose this question to you. We thank you for 

representing the Southern Baptists. This morning, we were with 

the evangelicals, who have made a commitment and have embraced, I guess, people from different faiths. And they believe it is 

time to move—really on the—the human aspect of it. As you listened to Ms. Rivera, Ms. Velazquez, you know, this is a comprehensive pathway to citizenship. There is a crack in the armor when 

you suggest that you will take the children. I know that some years 

back, the Ranking Member and myself worked on—in various ways 

and then together—the idea of what kind of facilities children are 

in, young people are in, under the age of majority. Previously, in 

detention centers, it wasn’t a pretty scene. It wasn’t a pretty scene 

when you had to separate families. So the human question arose. 

The idea of human trafficking, which I know the church has 

worked on, is dastardly. I come from a city that has an enormous 

problem in human trafficking, and it is not an international city, 

it is Houston. 

So my question to you is, do you see the value in taking the comprehensive approach and regularizing family members, agricultural 

workers, tech workers, other skilled workers that really reins in 

what I think our friends have been speaking of through this hearing? 

Mr. DUKE. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman Jackson 

Lee. Yes, we believe that we do need to address the entire 11 million or so undocumented immigrants here, that the family unification is an important aspect of immigration reform. The question for 

us with the—with this particular question on these particular children to us is a little different than their parents simply because the 

children didn’t break any laws. And so I just don’t see how you can 

address the parents who did break laws of that particular group 

differently than you address all the other parents of children who 

broke the law. That needs to be addressed in a bigger package of 

bills that we believe this—that you are working on and that we are 

hopeful you will continue to work on. And that this particular aspect of it, just these particular children just become one part of the 

entire package that does ultimately assure us family units. 
68 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you can support comprehensive immigration reform? 

Mr. DUKE. Yes, we support a full immigration reform. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me ask, get these questions out before my 

time, Ms. Rivera, Ms. Velazquez, can you talk to me both about the 

pain of separation from parents or the pain that young people 

have? Why don’t we start with you, Ms. Rivera, the pain that you 

are experiencing—even though you are over 21? 

Ms. RIVERA. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. Of not having your mother here. 

I assume she is in Colombia? 

Ms. RIVERA. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You as a citizen have the right to visit. But 

the pain of not being able to have your mother here in the United 

States. 

Ms. RIVERA. It’s very difficult. It’s the little things that add up. 

Birthdays, celebrations, graduations, weddings, also to things that, 

you know, become harder and harder. It’s having to see my sister, 

who is unable to visit her, suffer and see that the only way she can 

interact with my mom is through a computer camera. So it’s incredibly difficult. As I said in my testimony, it affected me while 

I was in school. I had to reach out to my college of liberal arts to 

my counselors and let them know what was going on because I 

could not concentrate. I was a college undergrad student trying to 

understand immigration law, which is just about impossible. Filing 

paperwork. So it’s just—it’s very difficult. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Ms. Velazquez. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I can only imagine what it would be not to have 

my parents with me. My younger brothers, yeah, it would be devastating. And the pain in the community exists. We have several 

families in the State of Arkansas that are now battling that. And 

I can only imagine what Hido’s parents would feel like to leave 

their 5 U.S. citizen children and then having to go back to a place 

that, you know, they haven’t been to in a long time. We also have 

another case in Fort Smith where the Hernandez family have two 

U.S. citizen children, one is 3 years old. And their parent is in a 

detention center, waiting to be deported. And every time I see 

Leticia, I can see the pain in her eyes that she has whenever she 

talks to me about her dad and how much she misses him and playing with him. So just the thought of not being there, and even at 

my age, not being there with him is terrifying to me. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Ms. Velazquez. I thank the gentlewoman 

from Texas—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the Chairman very much. And, 

Mr. Chairman, I am yielding back, just saying that Congress’ duty 

is to fix these kinds of problems, even if they are pretty tough. I 

thank you and I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Chair would now recognize the gentlelady from 

California for unanimous consent. And then the gentleman from 

Nevada, who has waited patiently, my good friend Mark Amodei. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous 

consent that we make a part of the record statements from the 

Congressional Asia-Pacific Island American Caucus, the National 

Immigration Forum, the First Focus Campaign for Children, the 
69 

American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigrant Justice 

Center, the Asian Americans Advancing Justice, CHIRLA, the 

Anti-defamation League, National Education Association, YWCA, 

and the Church World Service, as well as a statement on citizenship from the Evangelical Immigration Table, and a poll from last 

week from the Gallup Organization on immigration as seen by 

Americans. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
70 

C!hmgr.ens l'lf il1£ ltil1itcif ~iatc.5 

D!iillii]ingtoll, lBC!! 20515 

Statement for the Retord 

Hearing on: "Addressing the Immigration Status of IUegal Immigrants Brought to the United 

States as Children" 

July 23, 2013 

Today, the House Subcommittee on Immigrntion and Border Security will hold a hearing titled 

"Addressing the Immigration Status of Il\egallmmigrants Brought to the United States as Children," As 

Chair and Immigration Task Force Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus 

(CAPAC), we strongly support fixing our broken immigration system. 

Asian Americans over the last ten years were the fastest growing racial group, making up 6% of the U.S. 

population. In the context of our current immigration debate, Asians also make up the single largest 

group of new immigrants coming to the U.S. annually, accounting for over ten percent of all 

undocumented immigrants. 

We believe that any effort to amend our immigration system must include a roadmap to citizenship for 

the estimated II million undocumented immigrants residing in the U.S. Immigrants in the United 

States, who work hard, pay their taxes, and undergo criminal and national security background checks 

deserve an opportunity to come out of the shadows and enter American society. 

Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) undocumented youth specifically stand to benefit from 

immigration reform. One in 10 young people who would benefit from the DREAM Act is of Asian 

origin. Ofl.76 million potential DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) beneficiaries, 9 

percent (about 170,(00) are from Asia. In the University ofCalifomia system, AAPIs make up about 

45% of undocumented undergraduate students. 

These young people were brought to the United States through no fault oftheir own. They are 

Americans in every way, except on paper. They were raised as Americans, in American schools, yet 

cannot benefit from the opportunities afforded by a college education. These youths contribute to our 

nation and our culture every day. We owe them a chance to continue their pursuit of the American life 

and dream. In 2010, members of CAPAC overwhelmingly voted in favor of the DREAM Act (H.R. 

5281) when it passed the House. 

However, a legislative fix that only addresses DREAM youth would ignore the challenges that face 

immigrant families throughout the country, including the 4.5 million American-citizen children of 

undocumented immigranlB living in mixed-status families. Congress should address the parents, 

families and neighbors of DREAM eligible youth as we work on updating our nation's immigration 

laws. Inability to do so would fail to adequately fix our broken immigration system and tear millions of 

families apart. The family unit is a bedrock American value that Congress should continue to protect as 

we consider immigration reform. 

While we strongly support efforts to address this population of undocumented immigrants who came to 

the U.S. as youth, we should not leave the remaining undocumented immigrants without a rooomap to 
71 

citizenship. Last month, a super majority of bipartisan Senators successfully passed comprehensive 

immigration refonn (S. 744) that addressed undocumented youth as well as the remaining 9 million 

undocumented immigrants. It is now up to the House to act on the best chance in a generation to refonn 

our broken immigration system. We urge this subcommittee to follow the bipartisan precedent led by the 

Senate to draft legislation that ensures undocumented immigrants of every age and background can 

come out of the shadows and become American citizens. 

Rep. Mike Honda 

Immigration Taskforce Co-Chair 

Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus 
72 

NATIONAL 

IMMIGRATION 

FORUM 

State ment for l he Record 

House Judicia ry - Sul)(",mmittee un Immigration and Borde r ScClIrity 

"Addressing the Immigration Status of lIlega! Immigrants Brought t o the 

United States as Children" 

J ul)':I.3, 20 3 

The National Immigration Forum works to uphold America's tradition as :1 nation of 

immigranK The Forum adVQ<:ales for the value of immigrantS and immigration to the 

nnt;uII, building support fol' public pnJici~ thaI reunite fnmilies, ret."Ogni~e the 

importance of immigrntion to our economy and our communities, protect refugees. 

encourage newcomers to becnme new Americans and promote equal protection under 

the law. 

The National Immigration FOl'um applaudli the Committee for holding th ~ h~ti ng on 

tlle matter of AUlI'rk'a's DREA.i\lers and urges Ihe Committee to look at the DREAMers 

as lipan uf bro:,d inluligration reform that includes nn QPpurtimity for citirenship for 

nOI only Ihe DREAMers but all the others whn desire to ~lIme part of the American 

Dream. 

L.'lS! month by a bipartisan V(lle of 68-32 the United States Seuate l)a~ S. 744. the 

"Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigl"',llion Modernization Act (herein 

after referred to as S. 744), a eomprehensi\'e immigr~tion reform that attempts to strike 

the right Imlanre between increased immigration enforeement nnd border security, 

earned legalizntion and nn opportunity for citizenship, reforms to Ollr current family 

based and employer-sPOl1sort~:1 immigration system and l'fforts to deal with the current 

immigrlltion ba,·klog. One of ·the key lessons learnl'li from 1986, besides thl' nct.'tl for 

additional future leglll avenues in our immigration system, is that all parts of our 

l:nmplex immigration system are interrelated, and must be dealt with ill II l'Qh .. :si\'e 

munner, or we will suffer the nnintend~"(1 con5t.'quences. 

Accordingly. as the Co mmil1 eo~ discusses the DREAMers and the potential -KJDS Ace 

legislation, it ~ important that the discussioll not becomc singularly rocused on just this 

one piece of immigration rcfc,nn. It singular focus on the DREAMers will 110t lix Ollr 

broken immigration sySlem and. while helpiul; addTCS!l the plight of DREAMers. ignores 

their purclltS and (ltllers whl! a! ~o arc desen'iug of a chantoe tu participate in building 

Am~rica. While some may ,see the DREAMers as worthy, there are many others, 

immigrants who simply seek to participate in the American dream, who also desen-e 8 

chance to earn that opportlLuily. Ours;s a oommy of second chances. While not 
73 

NATIONAL 

IMMIGRATION 

FORUM 

suggesting amne.<;ty, a path that ullows them to loome forward, be registered, plly tllXCS 

and fines and demonstrate tileir commitment to the United Slales by worki ng and 

learning Eoglish. will allow them to contribute LO OU T economy and our strength as a 

nation. 

In 2010 whell the Natlurml immigratiol1 FunLm (illd other uTgani7.1ltions atl\'c~ated fur 

the DKEAM Act we recognized thnt while the DREAM Act was n vcry important step 

towards reform, it was not gning lU fi~ our nalion's broken immigration s)'stcm by itself. 

It was a "down payment~ on broader reforms. Qur immigration problem is a nationnl 

problem dcsel'\~ng of a nalion;.!. comprchensi"e approach. 

However, we. believe that rhis lime is differ!.',,\ when it Wines 10 passing immigration 

reform, 1n the past lW1) years, an (l1Iiam:e of Ct)nser.'(ttivl.' raith, lilw ~n orrelU~nl and 

business leaderlihip has l~mu: together to forge a new COUS~llSUS un immigrololS and 

America tltnt supports a compreltensh'e solution with support for tlte nile of lnw, bill 

Illso ~uppo rli \'e of a palh to legnl status nnd IIll opportunity for citizen~hip for the 

undocumented. These relalii)nsbip;; formed through outreach in the C\'angelical 

community; the developll1l'nl 'Jf stllte compacts; and re&ional summits in the Mountain 

We.;1. Midwest and SouthCllliI. 

In ellrly December 20 ~. ovel- ~50 faith. Inw enforcement and business leaUcrs from 

acros.~ the country came to Washingtun. D.C .. for a National Strategy Session and 

Advoca~"y Day. They told poli~)·maker$ and the pres.~ about the new l"Onsensus on 

immigranlS and America. In Febntary, to SUPJXlrt these Cff011S. the National 

Immigration Forum launched the Bibles, Badges and Business for ImmigratiOIl Refonn 

Network to aebicl'e the gool oJ brood immigratiOIl refurm. J..a,;t mouth. to help acbieve 

that go~l t this oeh>'Ork held;\! Policy Bre~kfnst aod Advocacy Day where participants 

organized 83 Hill meetings (55 "ith Rl"])ubliCllos). This was just one event of over 40 

th~l were held all over the COllntry in sUpJXlrt of immigration reform 

Two dQn," nutjQJwl [If)!1 ~ over the last few months show solid sopport for solutioo$ that 

include, in addition to reasonable enforcement, the en-alion of legal chaonels for 

immigrants ~nd the establishment of tough bnt fair rules In allow l1ndocuJ11cntoo 

immigranls to slay and contin..uc (1) work in the o.s. and earn the nbility to eventually 

llPply for U.S. citizenship. 

The Forum looks fom·ord to eontinuing thi~ positive discussion 011 how best to move 

fon,·ard with passing broad immigration reform inlo law. The time is now for 

immigration rcfoml. 
74 

FIRST FocuS 

FIRST FOCUS CAMPAIGN FOR CHILDREN 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY AND BORDER SECURITY: 

"ADDRESSING THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF ILLEGAL 

IMMIGRANTS BROUGHT TO THE U.S. AS CHILDREN" 

July 23, 2013 

Chainnan Gowdy, Ranking lIcmbcr Lofgren. and lIcmbcrs of the Subcommittee U11 Immigratlull Policy and 

Border Security, thank you for the orportumty to submit this statement on addressing the immigration status of 

immigrants hrought to the U.S. as children. 

The First Focus Campaign fur Children is a bipartisan children's a(h~ocacr organization dedicated tl) making 

children and t~unilics a priuf1ty in federal policy and budget dCClSlOllS. A.nllnportant aspect uf that "\vork 1S a 

COtllt111trnent to ensurtng that our llat1on's ltlltnigLltiOll policies promote child \\,'ell-being b) e1lsuring that Elmilies 

stay together and that ,111 children h,n-c the opportunitr to gro\v and thn\T. \\'c support the pass,lge of immigration 

reform that meets the needs of children and protects '\mericctn family yctlues. 

\\'e haye long worked towards passage of the Developmellt Relief and I (ducatlo11 for '\lien Mltlors (DR] (, \ \1) \ct, 

and are ellcouraged to see support contltlue to grO\\. 011 the issue across p,lrt} lltles. \Ve flrml) belie\"e that 

immlgr,lOts \"ho entered the U.S. ,1S ch!ldren, h,l\T grmvn up as ,\mericans, ,111d Glll this countrr their home should 

have the opportumty to become U.S. citiLens and fully contribute to society. It is estimated that 1 million children 

currently under the age of 18 are growing up m the U.S. \\,ith an uncertain future with the onl~ option of relief 

hemg the temponry 1\\ o-year deferred action and wor1. authoriL;rltlon avalhhle through the Deferred Actjcm for 

Childhood ~\rriyals (D~c\C:~'\) program. 1 \\Thile the D~,\C~C\ program has been successful, congressional action is still 

urgently needed to proYide these young people "\"\'ith a long~term solution hy creating a path to citizenship. 

Prm-id1t1g undocumented youth \vith citizenship \vould help secure our nation's future prosperity hy reducing the 

high school dropout rate and making the C.S. once again a global leader in college completion rates. Tn t~{Lct, a 2010 

study by the CCL-\ Nurth A.1llerican Integration and Development Center found that the lcKollization u£ 

undocumented yuuth could potentially generate 1.38 to 3.6 tnlliun dullars uycr their lifetime.~ TI1US, \ve tionly 

believe that any lc'glslativc fix for lmtmgrMlts brought to the U.S. as children must be as ltlclusiye as possible by 

accounting for all immigt<lOts \vho entered ,1S minors despite their current ,lge, cre,lting achieY,lblc requirements 

and fees, <cLOd making higher eduCcttion affon_Ltblc. 
75 

rlR.""1' rOO S C\\!P>\IC;-N rem CH1Ll)Rr:N ."'I'A'lh\WN"1' H)R 'I'Hr: RI-<JX)Rl) 

HR,\RlNG ON THE Ii\I1fIGRA,TION ST~'\Tl~S OF Il\,[~[lGRA,NTS BROl~GHT TO THE LT.S AS CHIDLRE:"J 

11_1LY 23, 2013 

Ho"vever, we also firmly bel!eve that a leglSlattye fix that only addresses the chtldrell ill need of immigration status 

falls short of fully addressing the challenges hcltlg the millions of children that are impacted by C.S. immigration 

polic~ e\ery d;l~, including the 4 .. 1 million C.S. citizen children living in mixed-legal status f1mihes. These children 

live ltl fear of being sepamted from a parent or hwed one (It any moment, and thousands haye already been torn 

apart from a father or mother. In fact, according to the Deparl1nent ofIIomdand Security·, nearly 20.1,000 parents 

of u.S. citizen children ,-vere deported in the 2G months het\veenJuly 1,2010 and Septemher 3L 2012.3 Research 

h;lS consistently shmvll tlut seVlLlti0n from a p;1[ent due to immigranon enforcement has a Sig111t1C111t detrimental 

impact on children's mental and physical health, academic periiJrrnance, and economiC stabilit~.+ ~\ ne\.\' report b~ 

Human Impact Partners estimates that in the next year, if current immigration enforcement InTis arc maintained, 

roughly 43,000 U.S. citizen children ,-vill experience a decline in health as a result of the deportation of a primary 

can.:giYer, wh11e another 100,000 children \v-ill suffer from \vithdrawal after a parent's arrest. 5 In some cases, a child 

\vith a detamed or deported parent may unnecessarily enter the U.S. child welfare system, as documented by a 

recent report by the ·\pplied ResedTch Center ,-vhich estimates thdt 5, IO() children \vith ,t dct,tined or deported 

p,trent ,tre currently living in foster care. Once ,t child is involved \vith the child \velfare system, there is (t 

sig11ificant risk that they may be pennanently separated from their t~,tmily due to contlicting immigTation and child 

'Ivelf,JXe bl\VS. 

I ior too long our immigrdtion Lt\ys have [tiled to consider the mterests of children, ,llld as result, our children IMve 

p,tid a he(lYY price. ,\ddressing the 1 million children in need of legal St,tnlS is ,til import,tIlt tirst step, but it is also 

necessary that Congress ,1(t to p(lSS a comprehensi\e fix to our immigration system that protects our children's 

nghts ,md lTlterests and keeps E1milies together. Recoglli/'1l1g the lleed for immigration reform to duly consider the 

needs of childrell, I "irst I i'ocus co-led all effort to de'l'elop ,1 set of !~hiJ~i!J:Jl~;>_CLil!~~l.t:,k~~J~lrj:::J.tTll::;'G:W":;:'l~ ttlr2D:n 

\vhlCh haye heen endorsed hy over 200 organizanons. These principles call for imiTI1gration refonn to: 

Pro\'ide children, youth and their Elmilies With (1 direct, clear, and reasonable path\\'a~ to citiL;enship, 

includillg ,1 ullique ,md expedited path h)f all those who e1ltered the U.S. as children, such as 1) \C-\-

gr;mtees, undocumented children ,-"dlO 3re still mmors, immigrant foster children, and unaccompanied 

immigpnt children; 

Ensure that imlll1gration judges are allowed to exerClse discretion in admission and rem(l\al decisions 

based on the hardship to C.S. citizen and Lnvfully permanent children; 

Ensure that parents are not needlessly separated from their ch11dren, by reforming immigmtlOn 

enforcement policies to ensure that the best interest of children are conslLlered in detention, transfer, and 

remm-;ll decisions and ;lllmving p;1[ents to m;lke decisions regard111g their child's Clre; 

Establish policies for child wdf,tre and immigTation enforcement agencies to better facilitate the 

reunification of children in foster care \vith a detained or deported parent; 

j\Iodenlize the family immigration system to address the backlog and create appropriate channels for future 

migration that promote t~11TI11y unity; 

Protect ;1Ccess to cnncli safety net programs and income supports for children and their families; and 

Pnwide improyed protections for unaccompanied immigrant children, including access to legal 

representation. 

2 
76 

rlR.""1' rOO S C\\!P>\IC;-N rem CH1Ll)Rr:N ."'I'A'lh\WN"1' H)R 'I'Hr: RI-<JX)Rl) 

HR,\RlNG ON THE Ii\I1fIGRA,TION ST~'\Tl~S OF Il\,[~[lGRA,NTS BROl~GHT TO THE LT.S AS CHIDLRE:"J 

11_1LY 23, 2013 

In closing, \\-e'd like to th,mk the Ch,lirman and the Subcommittee for holding this he,lrillg 011 such all important 

issue and for recognizmg that children must be given special consideration in the immig;ration debate. \"Ve full~ 

support 11lclusiye and reasOfuble leglslation that will prm-ide undocumented mdividuals who entered the C.S. ;lS 

children \\-ith the opportunity to achie\·e full cltlzenship as part of a larger irillnigration proposal that addresses the 

needs of the millions of children In-ing in mixed lcg~11-stah.1S t~llmhes as "\vell as the thousands of yulnemble 

unaccompanied imlmgrant children seeking refuge in our country every year. To fully make children a priority-, 

Congress must address the full spectrum of issues impactmg children to ensure that our immigration system "\vorll:S 

for cluldren and fallulies. 

Thank you again for the opportulllty to submit this statement. Should you have any further quest1ons, please 

contact '"X'endy Cen~antes, \Tice President of Immigration and Child Rights Policy at ='l_t!].;j~~::;:J0t1rEJi:Qc\.ls..l1.ft. 

Tbe F.collo;m" Potmtru/ oj DR F.A,\i Ad Bmeji&iIJrieJ', '\orth A.mCrlCfHl Jntcgmhon 

Los "\llgde~. 
77 

ACLU 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF 

THE AMER.ICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

For II Hearing on 

"'Addressing the Irnmigratioll SUIIUS of Ulegallill mignllJls Brought to tht United 

ate~ as Childrrn" 

Submiltetllo Ihe U.S. Uouse Commillee 011 the ,Iudicillr), 

Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee 

Jul y 23, 20]J 

A,CL U WaShington Legisla li\·t Office 

Laura W Murphy. Director 

JOiIune Lin. Legislative Couflsci 

Chris Rickerd, Policy Counsel 

Michael Tan, SlafT Atlomcy 
78 

Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, and Members of the Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security: 

The American Civil Liberties Union CACLU") commends the Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security for conducting a hearing on a pathway to citizenship for 

aspiring Americans who came to the U.S. as children, popularly known as DREAMers. 

The ACLU is a nationwide, non-partisan organization of more than a half million 

members, countless additional activists and supporters, and 53 at1iliates nationwide 

dedicated to enforcing the fundamental rights of individuals under the Constitution and 

laws of the United States. The Immigrants' Rights Project of the ACLU engages in a 

national program of litigation, advocacy, and public education to enforce and protect the 

constitutional and civil rights of immigrants. 

Addressing the legal status of DREAMers is an important, but insufficient 

response to the need for immigration refoTlll. This statement discusses additional refonns 

that are necessary to give DREAMers the equal protection of our Constitution and a fair 

chance to fulfill their American dream. 

I. To guarantee full equality and inclusion for DREAMers and U.S. citizen 

children in mixed-status families, immigration reform legislation must 

include a fair pathway to citizenship for aspiring Americans as well as 

due process reforms. 

Irrespective of their immigration status, all children sufter when their parents and 

siblings are living in the shadows.1 Undocumented people are vulnerable to exploitation 

by employers, which has serious economic consequences for their families. Millions of 

DREAMers, other immigrants, and U.S. citizens live daily with the fear that their parents 

and siblings will be detained and deported2 High school DREAMers wonder whether 

their parents will be there to see them graduate and to move onto higher education. Any 

immigration reform legislation, therefore, must include a fair path to citizenship that 

keeps families together. 

In addition, immigration refoTlllmust address the systemic due process problems 

that have long plagued our immigration detention and deportation system. Almost 

205,000 parents of US. citizen children were deported between July 2010 and September 

20123 In far too many cases, immigration judges do not even have the authority to 

consider whether parents can remain with their children in the US. Convictions for an 

"aggravated felony"-a misnomer which includes misdemeanors, no contest pleas, nonI See IIIROhAZL YOSHIKAWA & JE~ YAKHOLOI'TS]'YA, MIGRATIO:-l POLICY INSllTUT],. U:-IAUTHOlUZ],]) 

IMMIGRANTPAREKTS AND THEIR CHILDREN'S DEVELOPME'H (2013), available at 

http://www.migrationpolicy .org/pubs/COI -Y oshikawa.pdf. 

2 Over five million childrcn---<oight percent of all children in the U.S.-have at least one parent who is an 

undocumented ilmnigrant. ld. at 3. 

, Seth Freed Wessler. Nearly 205K Deportations of Parents of us. Citizens in Just Over Two Years, 

COLORLINES (])ec. 17,2012.9:45 AM). 

http://colorlines.com/arehivesf2012/12/us_deports_more _than_ 200k -.l)arents.html. 

2 
79 

violent offense, and even decades-old convictions-lead automatically and categorically 

to deportation, with only the narrowest of exceptions 4 In aggravated felony cases, the 

immigration judge is not permitted to take family relationships into account, 

notwithstanding the hardship that deportation would cause to a U.S. citizen child or 

family member. 

We urge the House of Representatives to recognize the contributions that the 

DREAMers and their families have made and will continue to make to this country. 

Relegating millions of aspiring Americans to a permanent "underclass," in which they 

work and pay taxes, but are denied the opportunity to become citizens, as well as their 

basic rights to family unity, is counter to our American ideals offundamental fairness. 

II. Immigration reform legislation must provide a fair and expeditious path 

to citizenship and must clarify that DREAMers are "lawfully present." 

Any immigration reform should include a generous, fair, and expeditious pathway 

to citizenship for DREAMers, without prohibitive fees or unreasonable eligibility criteria. 

Additionally, legislation should remove key barriers that currently keep DREAMers from 

realizing their full potential and giving back to our communities. 

Fair eligibility criteria for DREAMers include the elimination of any upper age 

cap, so that all DREAMers who came to the United States as children and satisfy the 

eligibility requirements are not arbitrarily barred from the path to citizenship, due to 

delays in passing immigration reform legislation. Moreover, educational requirements 

should be reasonable and responsive to the financial barriers that DREAMers must 

overcome to pursue higher education5 

Furthennore, immigration refonn legislation should clarify that beneficiaries of 

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") and DREAMers legalized under 

forthcoming legislation, are treated as "lawfully present" in the U.S. as they proceed 

along the path to citizenship. Recent experience with the DACA program makes the 

need for such clarification all too clear. Notwithstanding clear guidance from the federal 

Department of Homeland Security that DACA recipients are lawfully present and 

authorized to live and, in most cases, work in the U.S., a few states have opted to deny 

DREAMers basic rights and privileges based on the states' wrongful conclusions that 

DACA recipients are not authorized to be in the U.S. For example, Arizona has denied 

drivers' licenses to DREAMers based on its own erroneous determination that DACA 

recipients are not federally "authorized" to be in the U. S., G and Georgia has denied 

DREAMers admission to five state universities based on its conclusion that DACA 

"8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43). 

'DREAMers arc ineligible for federal financial aid, including work-study and loans. See Catherine Eusebio 

& Fermin Mendoza, The Case for Undocumenled SlUdenls in Higher Educalion, EDUCATORS FOR FAIR 

COJ\SIDCRATIO,\ 2 (2013), available a/ In most states, 

DIlliAMers must pay out-of-state tuition rates at four-year universities. injra notes 10-12. 

(, hltp:!/www.aclu.orglimmigrants-rights/arizona-dream-act-coalition-et-al-v-brewer 

3 
80 

recipients are not "lawfully present,,7 DREAMers should not be denied the basic rights 

and privileges they need to function in everyday life and to pursue their educational and 

career goals. Immigration reform legislation that gives DREAMers a pathway to 

citizenship and clarifies that they are lavvfully present will help protect DREAMers from 

such discrimination by state entities. 

III. Immigration reform legislation must remove the barriers that unfairly 

exclude DREAMers from educational and career opportunities. 

Under current law, prohibitive state tuition rates and arbitrary state licensing 

restrictions prevent many DACA beneficiaries and DREAMers from pursuing their 

educational and career goals. Immigration reform legislation must include a repeal of 8 

U.S.C. § 1623, which forbids states from providing undocumented students 

postsecondary education benefits "on the basis of residence," unless the same benefit is 

available to out-of-state U.S. citizens or nationals 8 For many DREAMers, the dream of 

attending college is limited to state public colleges, which are much more affordable than 

private colleges. Unfortunately in many states, undocumented DREAMers attending 

public colleges are charged out-of-state tuition rates even though those DREAMers 

attended secondary school in the state. The practical reality is that for most immigrant 

families, the costs of out-of-state tuition are prohibitively expensive, 9 and out-of-state 

tuition rates effectively block many DREAMers from all higher education institutions, 

other than community or junior colleges. 

In response to this problem, 15 states have enacted laws that extend in-state 

tuition to all students graduating from state high schools, thereby making public colleges 

and universities more affordable-and thus more accessible-to students regardless of 

immigration status. 10 These states allow students who meet specific requirements, 

regardless of their immigration status, to pay in-state tuition rates at public postsecondary 

schools: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, 

Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington. 

Some of these state tuition equality laws have been subject to legal challenges-all 

unsuccessful-under 8 USC. § 162311 Immigration reform legislation should repeal 8 

U.S.C. § 1623 to clarify that all states are free to choose to provide in-state tuition to 

undocumented students, DACA recipients, and DREAMers who are on the pathway to 

citizenship. 

http://www . aduga. org/news/2 013/03/061 ad u -georgia -sends-letter-board -re gents-asking -they -lift -ban 

'See, e.g., Day v. Rand, 500 F.3d 1127 (lOti, CiT. 2007); Martinez, et al. v. Regenls of the University of 

Caii/ornia, 1981' 3d I (Cal. 2008). 

9 Afap: Siale Laws & Policies on Access 10 Higher Educalion/or Immigranls, NATIONALI'>IMIGRATION 

LA\V CEKTER (May 25, 2013), bnp),~~~:~,:~~)]ilf,--Q[g/£sh10g0~~SSJ0~~J~jt~Jl!n11#rrt?Pl. 

Ie, Eighteen states have laws or universitv system policies that grant in-state tuition to undocumented 

students: Califomia, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Milllcsota, 

Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, and Washington. See 

id. 

II See, e.g., Da)' v. Hanel, 500 F.3d 1127 (10m Cir. 2007): Marlinez, el ai. v. Regenls o/Ihe Universil)' (1/ 

Califomia, 198 P.3d I (Cal. 2008) 

4 
81 

Finally, immigration reform legislation should guarantee that DREAMers and 

other work-authorized immigrants have equal access to professional, commercial, and 

business licenses. Providing access to professional licenses is necessary to ensure that 

DREAMers can pursue careers in medicine, law, science, and a host of other fields. 12 

Indeed, without this clarification in the law, DREAMers will be cut off from pursuing 

their career and vocational goals, since they will be blocked from obtaining the requisite 

license to practice in their field of training. Moreover, eliminating barriers to 

professional, commercial, and business licenses for these talented individuals will enrich 

the economy and benefit all Americans. We are all worse oiIwhen talented immigrants 

are blocked from careers based on arbitrary licensing restrictions. 

We commend the Subcommittee for recognizing the need for a pathway to 

citizenship for DREAMers. The criteria for legalization should be fair, without 

prohibitive fees or any age cap that would arbitrarily exclude some DREAMers. Once 

they are on the path to citizenship, DREAMers should be given the same basic rights and 

privileges as other lawfully present aspiring Americans. Legislation must also remove the 

barriers that unfairly exclude DREAMers from educational and career opportunities, so 

that DREAMers have equal access to affordable higher education and professional 

licenses. 

Most importantly, legislation should recognize that DREAMers' undocumented 

families and neighbors also dream of coming out of the shadows and participating fully in 

our economy and communities. Without a path to citizenship and equal due process 

protections for all undocumented immigrants, DREAMers and U.S. citizen children in 

mixed-status families will still be denied the equal protection of our laws, and our 

Constitution's promises of fairness and equal opportunity will remain unfulfilled. We 

urge the Subcommittee to promote equality and family unity by considering a 

comprehensive approach to immigration reform, including due process reforms and a 

pathway to citizenship for all undocumented immigrants. 

" Ovcr 800 different occupations require a license, and approximately 30 percent of all workcrs nationwide 

must have a license as a condition of employment. MORRIS M. KLEINER. LiCEKSING OCCCPATIONS: 

ENSURING QUALITY ORREsTRICTIO'l COMPETITION? 5 (W.E. Upjohn Institute. 1st ed. 2006). ALAN B. 

KRUEGER. Do Iou Need a License to Ham IOU Might Be SUiprised at the Answer. N. Y.lI.\IES. 

March 2, 2006. 11m",' flD\:1)'JJ.Y!ime"'-~()111/'2_Q(}Qi(nl(}2111l!5in~'''~·()11:rm(mQyiQZ.",,,m~ I:1tl1111. 

5 
82 

A IIEAIITLAND AmANCE 1'A00RAM 

Testimony by Mary Meg McCarthy 

Executive Director, National Immigrant Justice Center 

Submitted to the House Judiciary Committee 

Hearing on "Addressing the Immigration Status of Illegal Immigrants 

Brought to the United States as Children" 

July 23, 2013 

Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and members of the Committee: Thank you for the 

opportunity to submit this statement for the record. Since its founding nearly 30 years ago, Heartland 

Alliance's National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJe), a Chicago-based non-governmental organization, has 

been dedicated to safeguarding the rights of non-citizens. Each year, NIJC and its unparalleled network 

of 1,000 pro bono attorneys provide legal counsel and representation to nearly 10,000 individuals. NIJC 

also promotes access to justice for impoverished immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers through 

impact litigation, policy reform, and public education. 

Thank you for taking the time to hold this hearing on the plight of undocumented immigrant youth. We 

applaud the decision of both Democrats and Republicans to consider this important issue; however, we 

strongly urge you to consider comprehensive immigration reform that would help all families. Providing 

a roadmap to citizenship for DREAMers is a good first step; however, many of the 11 million 

undocumented people who have built lives in the United States are not DREAMers and are in need of a 

way to come out of the shadows as well. In order to resolve the problems that our broken immigration 

system has created, a solution is needed for the larger undocumented immigrant community. 

Undocumented immigrants are interwoven into our communities and many families are mixedstatus-meaning that at least one family member is a noncitizen and one is a U.S. citizen. According to 

the Pew Hispanic Center, in 2011, 16.6 million people lived in a mixed-status family and one-third of U.S. 

citizen children of immigrants live in a mixed-status family.' Therefore, failure to include the parents and 

siblings of DREAM-eligible youth in immigration reform efforts will not stabilize immigrant families and 

will have a serious impact on the well-being of many immigrant youth. 

In the first six months of 2011, over 46,000 parents of US citizen children were deported.' Deportation 

has devastating consequences for families. Our deportation policy-which often targets individuals 

whose only wrongdoing is being out of status-creates single-parent households, leaving families in 

1 Taylor, P., M.H. Lopez, J. Passel, and S. Motel. "Unauthorized Immigrants: Length of Residency, Patterns of Parenthood." Pew Hispanic Center, 

208 S. LaSalle Street. SUite 1818. Chicago, IL 60604 I Phone: 312.660.1370 I Fax: 312.660.1505 I www.lmmigrantjustlce.org 
83 

A IIEAIITLAND AmANCE 1'A00RAM 

financial and emotional turmoil. Nationally, children in single-parent households are 4.2 times more 

likely to live in poverty than children in two-parent households.' In addition, the poverty rate for singlemother families is 40.7 percent compared to 24.2 percent for single-father families. 4 Since men are 

disproportionately detained more often than women, the economic consequences for immigrant 

families are much greaterS Families are at a higher risk to fall into poverty following deportation. 

Also, many children whose parents are deported end up in the foster care system. According to a report 

from the Applied Research Center, there are a minimum 5,100 children in the foster care system as a 

result of parents being detained or deported. 6 The cost of foster care is estimated at $26,000 annually 

per child. In addition, the cost to detain one person is an estimated $164 per day; with at least 34,000 

people detained at any time, this costs American taxpayers $5.4 million per day.' At a time when our 

country is struggling with federal sequestration and cuts to social service programs, the u.S. cannot 

afford this wasteful spending to detain and deport hardworking parents, tearing families apart in the 

process. 

The impact of immigration enforcement policies goes far beyond the individuals who are subject to 

immigration enforcement; their families and communities also suffer the consequences. In addition to 

the financial costs of detention and deportation, children in immigrant families and their communities 

suffer emotionally and psychologically. In addition, many immigrant children conflate immigration 

agents with the police and grow up believing that they cannot go to the police for help. In fact, many 

immigrant families will not seek out emergency services or cooperate in criminal investigations for fear 

of being deported. This makes our communities less safe. 

Laura entered the US with her siblings thirteen years ago at the age of sixteen. Although she 

considers the U. S. to be her home, she wasnY able to apply for deferred action status because 

she missed the cutoff date by one year. As such, Laura has to live in fear of coming into contact 

with ICE and being deported. 

We need to find a solution to the broken immigration system. This must include a roadmap to 

citizenship for 11 million New Americans in this country. Any legislation that provides a narrow path to 

citizenship is only a temporary fix that will not solve our problems in the long-run. In addition, it 

excludes many hardworking individuals. 

Victor, a native of Mexico, has been in the United States since he was seven years old. He 

graduated with honors from Waukegan High School. After graduation, he worked at a metal 

3 Dreby, J. "How Today's Immigration Enforcement Policies Impact Chidlren, Families, and Communities," Center for Americon Progress, Aug. 

2012, http://www.americanproeress.of2jwp-content/uploilcJS/2012/08/DrebylmrlllgrOJilonF8miliesFINAL.pdf pp.9. 

4 Ibid . 

., Dreby 2013. 

6 Wessler, S.F. "Shattered Families: The Perilous Intersection of Immigration Enforcement and the Child Welfare System." Applied Research 

Center, Nov. 2011, http://www.arc.orgi5hatterprJfamiiles. 

7 National Immigration Forum. The Math of Immigration Detention: Runaway Costs for Immigration Detention Do Not Add up to Sensible 

Policies." Aug. 2012. 

208 S. LaSalle Street. SUite 1818. Chicago. IL 60604 I Phone: 312.660.1370 I Fax: 312.660.1505 I www.lmmigrantjustlce.org 
84 

A IIEAIITLAND AmANCE 1'A00RAM 

factory for seven years while also attending college classes to train to be an automotive collision 

expert. He regularly attends his church, Iglesia Sagrada Familia, and helps out with the youth 

group. He has two traffic citations for driving without a license, both of which he paid and resolved 

in a timely manner. He has no additional criminal history, past arrests, prior convictions, or 

outstanding arrest warrants. His neighbors characterize him as "courteous and attentive" as well 

as "responsible and hard-working." 

In September 2008, Victor was stopped by ICE officers while he was giving an acquaintance a 

ride home. Officers were looking for the acquaintance, but questioned and detained both of them. 

Victor gave his name and date of birth to the officers, but refused to answer any questions about 

his immigration status. ICE officers forcibly searched Victor and placed him in removal 

proceedings based on information seized from his wallet. He paid a $5,000 bond to get out of 

immigration detention. In December 2008, NlJC became involved in the case. Our motion to 

suppress!terminate was denied, and NlJC was appealing up through the courts when DACA was 

announced. His case was then administratively closed in 2012 and Victor was granted DACA. 

Victor's girlfriend recently had their first child. They have been living together for more than a 

year; she cares for the baby at home while Victor provides for the family. Victor is currently 

pursuing advanced training in automotive repair at College of Lake County. According to his 

professors, he is an "outstanding member" of his community and "motivated to continue his 

education. " 

Finally, failure to address the situation of the 11 million undocumented people in this country will 

perpetuate an underclass without full rights and will impede economic growth. According to the 

Migration Policy Institute, naturalized citizens earn more than noncitizens and are less likely to be 

unemployed.' Naturalized citizens earn 50 to 70 percent more than noncitizens.' They are also half as 

likely to live below the poverty line compared to noncitizens.lO Indeed, the Center for American Progress 

(CAP) found that implementation of the Senate's immigration reform bill S. 744, which includes a 13-

year-long roadmap to citizenship, will boost GDP by $832 billion between 2013 and 2022. The CAP 

report also indicates that the longer immigrants have to wait for legalization, the more economic 

benefits are curtailed. Reducing the wait to naturalize under the Senate plan to just five years would 

increase GDP by $1.1 trillion over a 10-year period." 

Immigration advocates from all backgrounds-including DREAMers-will not stand for immigration 

reform that excludes parents and family members. Not only is this bad for our families, it is bad for our 

communities and our economy. We urge this Committee to create a meaningful solution by introducing 

8 Sumption, M. and S. Flamm. "The Economic Value of Citizenship for Immigrants in the United States." Migration Policy Institute, Sept. 2012, 

.t!lJ:.p://carnggLG'!lliliil('admin/MediiJ/Publi,aiions/mQi 2(On vQb)~cjtizf'n~hip Q.1.g.1f 

9 Sumption and Flamm 2012, pp. 11. 

11! Ibid, pp.l1. 

11 Lynch, R. and P. Oakford. "The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented Immigrants." Center for American 

Progress, Mar. 20, 2013, .!l!.t!2iLwww.3m ericanprogress.oty Iwr-conten ~ !uploads/2013/0:l !EtonornicEffectsCiti zenship-J ,oif. 

208 S. LaSalle Street. SUite 1818. Chicago. IL 60604 I Phone: 312.660.1370 I Fax: 312.660.1505 I www.lmmigrantjustlce.org 
85 

A IIEAIITLAND AmANCE 1'A00RAM 

comprehensive immigration reform legislation with a road map to citizenship for all 11 million 

undocumented people. 

I thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony on the urgent need to reform America's 

immigration system. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 

mmccarthy@heartlandalliance.org or at 312.660.1351. 

208 S. LaSalle Street. SUite 1818. Chicago, IL 60604 I Phone: 312.660.1370 I Fax: 312.660.1505 I www.lmmigrantjustlce.org 
86 

Written Statement of 

Asian Americans Advancing Justice 

House Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security 

Hearing on: "Addressing the Immigration Status of Illegal Immigrants Brought to the United 

States as Children" 

July 23, 2013 

Today the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security will hold a hearing titled 

"Addressing the Immigration Status of Illegal Immigrants Brought to the United States as 

Children." On behalf of Asian Americans Advancing Justice ("Advancing Justice"), a national 

non-profit, non-partisan affiliation representing the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) 

community on civil and human rights issues, we believe that considering the plight of 

undocumented youth is a good first step in reforming the broken immigration system. However, 

we respectfully urge the Subcommittee to consider the plight of all of the estimated 11 million 

undocumented individuals who currently reside in the United States. Anything less than a full 

solution to fix the broken immigration system is not enough. 

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) have much at stake in pushing for fair and 

inclusive immigration reform. Out of about 18 million AAPIs in the US, 1.3 million are 

undocumented.' More undocumented AAPI immigrants are from China than any other Asian 

country (280,000), closely followed by the Philippines (270,000), India (240,000), Korea 

(230,000), and Vietnam (170,000)2 Undocumented Indians are the fastest growing 

undocumented AAPI community - has doubled in size from 120,000 to 240,000 from 2000 to 

2011 3 267,000 LGBT-identified individuals are undocumented, representing about 2.7% of 

undocumented adults in the US. and of which 15% of undocumented LGBT adults are AAPI4 

AAPI undocumented youth specifically stand to benefit from immigration reform. Among the 

2.1 million undocumented youth who would qualify for legalization through the DREAM Act, 1 

in 10 is of Asian origin.' Of I. 76 million potential DACA beneficiaries, 9 percent are (about 

170,000) from Asia." In the University of California system, AAPIs make up about 45% of 

undocumented undergraduate students, with Koreans comprising 70 percent of the 

Pev,..' Hispanic Cenler, "1Jnaulhon:;,cd TmmiS'Tant Populalion: Nalional and Slate Trends, 2010," a\,ailahlc at 

bllp.!l\'., V\ \V .pc\-\hi sp:miL' .org!2U 11/U2/0 l/un,-~ ulhoriL(;,i-ilIllDlwani -1'\)PlIL1lioll-bnL-ll~(m<:d -and--,;latc-tn:nd;:;-2l11 Of. 

, Michael I Ioefer, Nancy Rytina and Bryan Baker, DIIS Office of Immigration Statistics, '-Estimates of the 

Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2011," September 2012, available at 

bJ! E : (~~,~_ >'Vy ~'_._lULj-,-,gl ~~,::, 01_i ~I.:~~-r:y i,~ ~?c 10! ~~4~ i_~Lj~' ti/J") _l!~ h_ c ~J j ~!_~l j ~'~~2 i_0 _jU_p~ _:?J) JJ _. nil. , 11oererat5. 

, Gary J. Gates, "LGBT Adult Immigrants in the United States;· Williams Institute, March 2013, pg 1, available at 

http://l;villiam5institute.law.ucla.eduh;vp-content/uploadslLGDTlmmigrants-Gates-Mar-2013.pdf. 

.JeanTIe Hatalova and Margie McHugh, --DRI-:/\M V~. Realily: /\n /\naly~i~ or Potenlial DRI-:/\M /\ct 

Beneficiaries,'- .July 2010, pg. 6, available at hnp:I/\\'\\'\v.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/dream-insight-july2010.pdf. 

Jeanne Batalova and Michelle Mittelstadt, "Relief from Deportation: Demographic Profile of the DREAlv1ers 

Potentially under the DefelTed ., August 2012, pg. 6, available at 
87 

undocumented student population followed by Pilipino (10%), Chinese (7%), and Indian and 

Pakistani students (5%)7 

Undocumented youth face several obstacles: 1) they cannot receive any federal financial aid; 2) 

they cannot establish state residency; 3) they cannot receive benefits on the basis of residency, as 

federal law bars states from doing so unless the same benefit is offered to all U.S. citizens 

regardless of their residency; and (4) they lack access to healthcare8 In fact, any solution to the 

broken immigration system should include access to health care, not just for Dreamers but for all 

undocumented immigrants as tax-paying members of our society9 These youth also often face 

emotional distress, anxiety, sadness, and depression - all psychological costs related to the fear 

of revealing their status to others and fears of deportation. 10 

In addition, many Dreamers reside in mixed-status families where family members are 

undocumented, are legal permanent residents, and are citizens. These families are getting torn 

apart, separated, and held back because of the broken immigration system. A large percentage of 

the II million undocumented individuals have gone through the legal immigration system and 

are ensnared in backlogs, waiting for years to legalize." To be with their family, some have 

overstayed their visas or arrived without authorization because of the long wait times for family 

sponsorship, while others have let their temporary status lapse. According to the Pew Hispanic 

Center, approximately 5.5 million children in the United States, including 4.5 million U.S.-born 

citizens, live in mixed-legal status families with at least one parent who is an unauthorized 

11nmigrant. 12 

These children are at risk of being separated from a parent at any time. The U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) Office of the Inspector General estimates that over 108,000 parents of 

U.S.-citizen children were removed from the U.S. between 1997 and 2007.13 Reflecting a 

dramatic increase in recent years, statistics released by DHS reveal that 204,810 parents of U.S.-

''Annual Repol1 on AB 540 T,tition Exemptions, 2011-2012 

15, available at http://'Y'v"l,,\Y.UCOD.c:du;'studcntNutiollUI Law Center. "Immigrants <lnd the AITonlable Care Acl." (Jvailable at 

http://\Y\\\Y.nilc org/imnllgrantshcr.html. 

, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, "Undocumented Immigrants' State and Local Tax Contributions;" 

Julv 2013, available at http://,,,,w.itep.org/pdf/undocumentedtaxes.pdf (estimates that undocumented immigrant 

conlrihLLiL: signiricantly, paying $10.6 hillion a year in slale and local sales, c:-.cisc, income and property taxes). 

, Educators for Fair Consideration, "The Case for Undocu1l1enhxl Students in Highcr Educ<Jtion," avail<Jblc at 

hJ1I2ifYiSD}~of:.JJc~!imllg~~/GAFC Tll~J!~U2df. 

Immigration Policy Center, "\Vhy Don't They Just Get in Line?: The Real Story of Getting a "Green Card" and 

Coming to the lJniled Statc~ I.egally," March 201.3, available at hllp:llv",·ww.immib'Tatiollpo1icy .org~just-racl~/v",·hydon%b2 %80%991-lhey -j uSl-gd -line. 

Immigration Policy Center, -'F alling Through the Cracks: The Impact of Immigration Enforcement on Children 

Caught Up in the Child \Velfare System," available at http:lh,y\yw.immigrationpolicy.org/iust-facts/falling-throughcrad..s. 

lmmigration Policy Center, "}< aIling Through the Cracks: 1 he Impact of hnmigration Enforcement on Children 

Caught Up in the Child \Velfare System," available at http://w\v\Y.immiQ:[;]tionpolicY.orgijust-fscts/faninf":-throughIT.1l9:;';i; DIIS Office of In~pector General, "R.emovals from Illegal Alien Parents of United States Citizen Children," 

January 2009, available at bJ1J:~L6..~ly.oi2..dh~gQy@~~!~151~lgInJlQl(i.Jl9-15 Janiol2J.?flf. 
88 

citizen children were removed from the US. between July 1,2010 and September 31, 2012, 

accounting for nearly 23 percent of aJl individuals deported during that period. 14 

Moreover, by no means was Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) - instituted by the 

Obama Administration - a panacea. AJthough DACA allowed Dreamers to legally work in the 

U. S. and defer their deportation proceedings, this is only a temporary bandage. Deferred action 

is not federal law and can be terminated at any time. 15 DACA recipients are only granted such 

status for two years at a time and an application notifies DRS of their presence, potentially 

exposing youth to future removal proceedings. Lastly, no benefits are conferred to family 

members that may also be undocumented but do not qualify for deferred action. 

In 2013, we face a historic opportunity to wholly tlx the broken immigration system. We need a 

broad and inclusive solution to address the plight of all Dreamers that includes the ability to 

become citizens and to reunite with their loved ones. Moreover, we need a comprehensive 

solution that fully addresses the II million undocumented individuals that live in the U.S. 

Immigrant youth cannot leave their parents behind, stuck in second-class status. Immigrant 

youth have been at forefront of calling for reform that will bring all II million out of the 

shadows. These leaders have also called for a commonsense solution that reunites families, 

protects workers, and ends harsh and unwarranted enforcement measures. 

This is a mandate not just by Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, but by the American 

people. In the November 2012 election, AAPI community said that immigration refonn is issue 

of vital importance. In exit polling conducted by Advancing Justice-LA, 82% of Asian 

American voters in California said that immigration played an important role in how they viewed 

the presidential candidates. 16 73% of Asian American voters and 71 % of Latino Americans cast 

their ballots for President Barack Obama in the November 2012 election.'7 A June 21, 2013 

FiveThirtyEight blog for the New York Times reports that polls show 72 percent of Republicans 

support a path to citizenship with multiple, specified requirements, as do 77 percent of 

independents and 83 percent of Democrats. 18 

hnmigralioll Folicy Center. "Falling Through the Cracks. The Imp(Jcl of hnmigration Enforcement on Children 

Caught Up in the Child Welfare System," available at http://v·>~''\\'.inl1l1il':[ationrolicv.nrg!j-clS[-facts!t'Jnin:l-throtl2:hcracks; Seth freed \Vessler, Colorlines, "Nearly 20SK Deportations ofParellts of U.S. Citizens in Just Over 2 

Years," available at http://colorlines.com/archives/20 121 12/deportations _of Jlarents _ oC ushorn citi/,ells 1220 [2.h1m1. 

" U.S. D(;partTIlL:TIt of Homd:md Security, "Deferred Aclion for Childhood Arrivals: Fn.;:qucnlly Asked Queslions," 

available at http://v .. ,\\\\'. dhs. gov Idefened -action -childhood -arrivals. 

Daniel Ichinose, Asian Pacific American Legal Center (nmv Asian Americans Advancing Justice as of June 

20B), "THE 20121\Sl1\N I\Mc:RICI\N VOlH IN CI\Llf'ORNII\: Preliminary 1"indings iro111l\PI\LC's 2012 

slale\\-'ide phone poll," <lvailable at 

http://apnlc.:ldvnncin2:jl1stice.on!/~ites/default!files/PIIONE%20POT L'Yz,20PO\VER%20POINT.rdf. 

New York Times, "Election 2012: President Exit Polls." available at 

http://c1L:dion~.nylimcs.com/2012/n:~LLlls/prcsidcnl/cxil-polls. 

e Nate Silver, Ne\v York Times. --In Immigration Reform, Republican SuppOli for Citizenship llinge~ on 

Obstacles;' available at 
89 

There are also economic benefits to providing a path to citizenship for the II million. Earlier 

this year on June 18,2013, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) assessed the Senate's 

comprehensive immigration bill (S 744), which includes path to citizenship. The CBO found 

that in the first ten years after enactment, S.744 would reduce federal budget deficits by $197 

billion (although Corker-Hoeven amendment decreased this to less than $40 billion).'9 Over 20 

years, S. 744 would reduce deficits by $700 billion over that period20 Allowing undocumented 

immigrants to work in the United States legally would increase their state and local tax 

contributions by an estimated $2 billion a year21 In contrast, mass deportation would cost the 

U. S. economy a $2.6 trillion in lost, cumulative GDP over 10 years," and a total 5-year 

immigration enforcement cost under a mass deportation strategy would be approximatel y $285 

billion23 

We once again strongly urge the Subcommittee to consider the plight of all ofthe estimated II 

million undocumented individuals who currently reside in the United States. Anything less than 

a full solution to fix the broken immigration system is not enough. We welcome the opportunity 

for further dialogue and discussion about these important issues. We look forward to working 

with the Committee as it develops and moves immigration reform legislation through Congress. 

Thank you for the opportunity to express the views of Advancing Justice. 

CungressionalBuJget OlTice. "Cost Estilllule. S. 744 BonIer Securily, Economic Opporlunity, (JIld Immigration 

Modernization Act, As repOlied by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on May 28, 2013, including the 

amendments made in the star of June 2013;" June 18, available at 

1l1tlJj.!v,:'n,,&i',-,"g~/oill'''~Lckj'''!!!lif!111,,-s[;t>QJiksbl!lt'Ki'1,l1lemc{,:Z±lp'Jf (s!ubsecluently amended on Jlme 24, 2013 bv 

arler amendment passage, (l\·allahlc at 

hu p:/ /v,,'\>"'\'.'. cbo. gO\' lsi tcs/ default/filed\..' bofilcdat tadlln("'~1lslSA %201183. pdl} 

Congressional Budget Office, "Cost Estimate: S. 744 Border Security, Economic OppOliunity, and Immigration 

Modemization Act, As rep0l1ed by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary' on May 28,2013, including the 

aml.~lllmcnts madL in the slar print or June (), 2013:' J LLne 1 S, 2013, a\'aiiahic at 

hHr ){1\ _W\\---, 12b l·g()_~ i:;l tc-,~lderltlil.L~CiJs;:·/\; l!~ll}J<::~iJ ~tll (JS~hrp~lJ[ ~!(> 7 '~~~ ~prr[. 

Instltute on Taxation and Economic Policy, --Undocumented Immigrants' State and Local Tax Contributions," 

Julv 2013, available at http://,,,,w.itep.org/pdf/undocumentedtaxes.pdf. 

R.aul Hinojosa-Ojcua, Immigration Policy Ccnler, "R.aising thL Floor ['or American 'v./orkers: The Economic 

Benefits of Comprehensive lmmigration Reform," January 2010, availahle at 

http://\y\\\-y . americanpro gress. orglissues/20 1 % 1 /pdflimmigrationeconreport. pdf. 

- Center for American Progress, --The Costs of Mass DepOliation: Impractical, Expensive and Ineffective," March 

2010, available at http://,,,,,v.americanprogress.orglissues/2010/OJ/pdf/cost_ oC deportation.pdf. 
90 

OOill'l10N fOR II\IIUNE IDIGIWT 8IGIm OF U18!NGIDX 

Th. lI r.bl ~ Trey Go .. 'dy 

Sub<nmmiu"" no JIl I" i~ ... tion ond 80.d r S.<u.ity. Cb. i.man 

lUll ~) bu(" lI uus<. Offi •• O"ilcli"i: 

\\·. hi"~t"n , DC 205 ~ 

Th. Honor.bl. Z/N I ... ;~' 

R. nk;" , ,\I nl""r of Subro",miu ,,",oo n",i~" ion ud 8o ~r !'<curily 

1401 l.onp 'O rlh lI ..,Ofr. ~ DuildinG 

\ .... shini:' ..... OC 21151 5 

Juh' 22.l0IJ 

Rt: 1/""", Ju diciary s..b<ommiu,", 1I •• rine. "Addrn';n& lh. IInmi'''''io", SUI,, " of 1II ... l lmm'g •• ,," 

Drought 10 Ih. Unitt<! S,"", II< Childrtn 

tkar C11~inn:lll C,.,wdj , 

The Coal.lI"" for Hu .. ",1IC 'tII""81:>"1 R'8111' of Lo. ""10<10" (CBlRLA) os 3 «:gI0II3\ "'lI""'>.:II"'" ,,1>000 ,m""", " 10 

,,,1\',,,,,,,, Ille hun'." ond ,"il "slob; ofi"'m, ""u'~'1<l ",r""..,os 'n L<>:s Ansoles_ CHIRLA ad"""",," <1/\ b.:halfofth,s 

com",,,,,,!)' ,h.OIJll/o pelot) and ad"""",,)'. "WUl'?"IIJ!. cd"""';OII alld ""''''''unll)' build ,oS. On bclulfofCIIlRLA. I ~'n 

wnlo"~ '0 C'I"':~ 0.,. ',e"5 "" IIl.:.Up«Im'''lI .ub.."'''n"~",, h""""l! "" "Add,o"""11 dIC l,noniS"',;"" S",,,,, of 111011,1 

h"m' r:lms 8mogl" !o !he lIn;I." S13l ~ "" Ch,ldton ~ '0 be held July Hod ,n I"" Hau"" Subcom",;ncc OIl 

10"""813';'"' .nd (I",dc", 

DREAM" .. ",.., 'C3lClt"1) of )'a",,!! '"1''''11''''''' "ho \\e"" brooghl!o!1Ie Un n"" Swu:as ch,ld",n \hlOUglo no d'.""I~I"" 

m~"'" """ f Of """'," ,,(tlIcs<: n",nl!!.r:I'u )uutlt, ~'" UlIUcd Stale, os the onl) <X>Iln!1") lh::) ' "" '0 knawn Dcsp;!e Ihc" 

l'<:m In tho. 00""11). th"",,, )outh ""H no! beeD .tole '" :..Ii"" th'" $1:11"; and he>d d.:!W" • p.Ul'"'Y 10 """",,<h,p, 

0 11 R\..A $Oppons 3 bi1"'rfisa" sol""on '0 bnng tbt:$c lIud<:n~ OIl' of the $b.1dQws, We :.lso bi,:li"," ...,. Ihe sohw"" 

m"1t I.lI:c ,DIOacCOUnt tha! the n)OJ onl) DREAM .... "", att:l<hcd '0 1."IJl!t' nnnltJl.nl'>I fa.",Iit:S "lKoall'l o.lIlloe Vn,,"" 

S""", .. 'heir llQnw *'" «101Iribu!<l ID OUr oo""uy daily Any klltSl."on Or con't rlM'''Qn d) addn.'MI"!! the fu,u", m 

DR!iAJI,k", In '''' U"" w StaleS .,,,,, .1>0 Ind""" a con,·crs:o.oon .bout ,,,,,,, f".",hef. Allo ... ,nl/. on.: "",mber of on 

nn"""utnCmcd f:unt] ), "'''us m"<r anQtb<:. :odds (0 the pmbkm of m"cd ""'u.s f'''' I!tes :1l1d ka,,,, (l/Ier f:unll)" 

members" Ith an Wlc,;fUUn (",urt II hCH: d;:pon:ulon tS atOwtd c>,et)' corneJ, 

Defum:d " ClIO!! for Childhood Am,,,I. (DACAl. ai' adMIt"istr:l"'"" mcasu", to I""\\<k; u:mporar)" ",hef to 

DRF..A lr!', """ allo"cd a ponlOil oflh.: populanOIl to obtaon \Ion """,,lIS and p"" "ldos proICclion f",,,, Ikpon:ulo" 

ThiS progr:>m II 'ct) 1,""ICd, for In.,lluCe i! caps p.mlclpanlS at age 3 ! and I! II a !emporat)' fi.' , Th"'" OREAMER. 

who I"" e al ",ad~ aged 001 of Ihc u,"'ntonal K-!2 and ""ooltd",:" odtlCtlll"., ~.u,'" Ort left om of O""fI 111 .. !cmpoflU) 
91 

OOill'l10N fOR II\IIUNE IDIGIWT BlGm OF UI8 HGDIl 

fix /:Ion Ih()usn tJ,oy m.1~ mc<1 .11 "fthe Olhe, rcqllin,mo"u Any legI!IOIi~" d'31 ""me! 001 of =,gn. ... thi. ~":U . 

shoold ons"", that like a road"",p 10 COlIl""""P fOf II mllhon '",m'8"'"I5. Ill< road""", for DREAI>k:rs i. as il\cl .. ",. 

,.. possible 

Ail lmm,gmnt )'OIIlh d= .... c a o~ III ,,"h,e •• c,llzion,h,p Whik: I)Rl!AMors =oft<ln 3.>SOC"".:d "'lh I"gh s<hool 

,"d .:oliege O!I<'sludcnts ,"" rnlil) IS thai rKII all ,mm'Bran, toolh "'" ~bln" OOn.plo" , rllrmal oo"""'<On. I"'tc'ad or 

lIoading "If 10 ccilCt'I PQSI high schooll 8raduali()ll. """." ywlll <h~ 10 "nlist In the mill!.1/) While '''''''l 

DREAM.", ,\Osh '" """i.'II"I"- ,n lhe aml<d f.:,,,,,, on<! pl\ll"'" fn'<...Jo.n" In I"" onl) 00",'1<) II",) ru"" ~no" n. ,hou 

ItlC~ "(stain, kn,.' , lhtm '"Chll,bl<. Imm,!!ran' )'OII,h >houl,l lit'- ""Ie 10 sen, in ,,,,-, mihW) and 1'\."<"'" iogal Sl:IIII. 

aud a padll\~ 10 ,,(,Unship rQO' !hemiC I"", 3IId 1"""f',"lh~l, In addition 10 IIIc milila!) ,,,,,le. youth .hoold be: able 10 

sub>"hI\C (ho.' <tl"t:lIIQn ~"," m.!nt fur ,olunlOCr ""d oommuni,,' 8<" IN hOIUj; "i!h rePl'Tabk: QI'g;u1Iza!i'"IlS in U..-" 

CQnlmunuie. A!kr fu nnin~ 3 <:trW" "uonb<... mhO"'f of ,ol"n,,,,,, ",,,·joe, !ho) sllould tho" quality fen • path",,,")' to 

~1 1z<lO$!up , 

CHIRLA "dlXllllC.a COI"-cn;:al,,,. "" the fu,,,re of ,mlnly""l )'OOlh In om CO""I~ H,,,,",or. 110 nil'" .Iii<> ,~""" 

that p",,-,d,"<l 001",100' rill the", )""Ih docs "'" r" 0I1f b"""'n 1I1lO"llr;ol,on .lom and cb.,,,, RIll PIll"de ",lief f!lf 

Iho" ramil,o. We n"".,J I<> ronl,n"c In \\art: !<IIIe!!"" 1<1 el\:"'c abl·pom",,". , oo"pI\:hc:n,i, ,, ""h,MO 10 "'" broken 

,m.nlgr:luQ" $1'$1."' and o.:cI< • p"lh"'~) W CUi2",>lup for u.c cnlil\: ,,,,,"is'''"1 COO""'""")' 

J_ph V,Ii,-!. 

O IiRLA, ""Ire)' DIrector 
92 

--=-= 

---- -'''- ~--

--

~= _ -'-.. -_.-

-- _.- -"~ _.-

-~ 

----

------

--e -- --- -"t5 

-:....."'":: ---"-

._- -------" -'-

----- -------

--- - -'---" --"-" = .- ------- ,-- --

-.::::..~ --- ----'

. 

-

.:-~!:: 

--

-~'= 

-.::::= 

..:..i:'t 

-------

_--.-

--_'r: - . -..!..-:O=-

----._---

-.= - -.:::-..::: 

"---

,--

--- -

AltL. 

100 

Imagine a World Without Hate" 

The Hooomble Trey Gowdy 

Chair. Ho""" JI>dicillf)' Su\xomminecon ~umisnl!ion. nnd Border 

S«urity 

1404 L.ongwonh Ilouse: om"" Building. 

WoshiJIgIOO. DC 20SIS 

The Honorable Ted P<>c 

Vi<:cCbalt. Houx Judiciary Subrommiuec 'm Immigmtion. nnd Border S«urity 

2412 R~yburn om"" Huildinu 

WIISbing'OII. OC 20515 

The Honnmbl~ Zoe Lufgn'n 

Ranking Member. HOUS&!Judiciary ~ube""'mill"""" Immill"'tion. and Border Securily 

1401 Longwurih HoUS<! Office Suildi,,¥ 

Woshinglon. D,C, 20SIS 

July 23. 2(jIJ 

Dear Chlirmun Gowdy. Vice Chaim,;\/! Po<: .... d R""king Member I.ofgn:n. 

W. write 10 commond youlUld the members of the 110""" Judiciiit)' Su\xcmmill«011 

ImmignliOllIUld BonIer Security for conv~"Oing lOd:!y'o hearing l<Il!oddn:s.s lhe immigmtion 

stalu. ofund""""",nled child"", IUId advance "'icnlly needed "'form o( ","mC3', 

immigmtion 'Yote, •. The cwn:ol.y.u:ru faih ""'''' than) .... 1 itmnigm,t oQIJIIl\unitin. Or 

r.",ilies tom apan by visa backl<>gl. or undnc:umnnl'<l studenl:l. II f. ilfaU <omonmi'li .... all 

families and all childn:n who dt$t .... ·~ • futU!"t that <"I11braccs diversity and equal '""<eM IQ 

~ American dtI::un. We .ppm:illle 'M- opponuniry 10 provide the vicw. " rtile AnIl. 

Def"",.tion wgue ("01.). and would ask that thi. Slatoment be.incll1lled os pan ofib< 

bcariDS record. 

"OL has udvO<:atcd fQl fait ond humane immi&ralin" polici .. ~i""" its fo"",ding in 

1913. l1Ie League Iw helped expose anti.immigrant hale that h.cs be ••• fixture ortM-

<\ll1'em immi,Qmtion debate, and Iw; tailed (or a responsibk publl< debate that "illllonor 

America', hiiltory as a IIIItion orimmigranl5, We WIdenwId lhI,lbo policies _<Iopled in lbo 

ball. of gO\'emmcnt - and the word. used in !he dc:bB",. whotller U1l lbo floors ofCoogrcss 

or OIl 1be nightly !H:_ --di=dy inlpa<:t our ability to $U$W.in " weiC'lY lhot cnsun:s dianity 

WId equalily for all. The dimal. of bias and Iwlilily against immi\l1llllS thaI pc1""!>dcs lile 

immill"'tion dWal. buns OIl( country Md SWlds In lbe wayof!he k,nd o(",r",", Am.:ricans 

despmotoly seck 10 fIX the broken immigmlion sr.!!.m . 

ADL Ius COtlSislt'llll)" ,upPO~ passageoflhe Dcv.:lopment. Relief. and EdlIOaIion fOf 

Alien Mioom (DREAM) Act. whi"h would allow eligible. undocwnc:nu:d youlh III I~y lOt 

Ic\;lll.tot ..... I.fts1 )'ClIt. AUl wdcon><:<llhe administration', Defe=il ""I'on (<>rChildhood 
93 

Arrivals (DACA) initiative to defer the deportation of some undocumented immigrants who 

were brought to the U.S. as children, and allow them to work legally. 

We urge the House to act now to create a pathway to legalization for the thousands of young 

students who were brought to our caunll)" with no documentation. through no fault of their 

own. These children, like their American counterparts, have been rdised and educated in our 

communities, have worked hard and stayed out of trouble. They deserve the opporttmity to 

make a contribution to our country. Without legislation similar to the DREAM Act, these 

committed students will graduate without hope or a plan for the future, and without a place 

to cal! home. 

While ADL supports legislation that creates a pathway to citizenship for students brought to 

the United States as children, the American people want broad immigration refonn with a 

path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. A July 11 th, 2013, Gallup poll found that 

88% of all Americans support a path to citizenship as part ofinunigration reform. A poll of 

Republican primary voters fouad 70% of respondents arc open to a bill that combines tough 

border security, and requiring employers to check on potential hires' legal status with 

providing an eventual path to citizenship, and 71 % of respondent., support increases in legal 

immigration. 

A piecemeal approach to immigration reform that addresses only undocumented minors but 

would depolt their older siblings and parents is simply out of step with the clear majority of 

the American public who support legalization tor the undocumented immigrants already 

contributing to American society. Individual pieces of legislation that address only small 

portions of the problem cannot fix America's broken immigration system. The Honse has an 

extraordinary opportunity to pass historic immigration reform legislation. \Vc urge you to 

seize this unique moment in history and pass a comprehensive immigration reJorm bill that 

honors our history as a nation of immigrants. 

Our immigration system has been broken for too long, Passage of legislation akin to the 

DREAM Aet would be an important first step toward restoring order and [aimoss to our 

immigration system, but it cannot be the only step. We urge the House to address the plight 

of undocumented minors in the context of broader, comprehensive reform that reflects the 

best of America's founding ideals and creates a patl1\vay to citizenship for immigrants, 

builds safeguards against bias and discrimination, and extends equal rights to all families, 

Sincerely, 

Stacy Burdett 

Washington Director 

Deborah Lauter 

Directort Civil Rights Division 
94 

July 23, 2013 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren 

U.S. House of Representatives 

1401 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-0519 

Dear Congresswoman Lofgren: 

On behalf of the more than three million members of the National Education 

Association, we would like to offer the following views in connection with today's 

hearing, "Addressing the Immigration Status of Illegal Immigrants Brought to the 

United States as Children." 

The United States is a nation of immigrants, and how we treat new immigrants 

reflects our commitment to the values that define us. We urge the House to move 

swiftly and support common-sense immigration reform that: 

• Creates a realistic path to citizenship for all the aspiring Americans who 

call the United States home. When drafting legislation, we urge you to 

consider the need to ensure a fair process that tal(es into consideration the 

ways in which aspiring Americans contribute to our country, and how they 

help strengthen our economy. 

• Preserves the unity of families, traditional and nontraditional. Family 

unity plays a critical role in student success. Yet growing numbers of public 

school students live in fear that our nation's immigration policies will break 

up their families, forcing them to choose between their cOlmtry and their 

loved ones-mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers. Family-based 

immigration is essential to keeping America strong. 

• Creates an expedited path to citizenship for students brought to the 

United States as children. Our broken immigration system is draining 

America of the talent and resources this nation needs to compete in the 

global economy of the 21st century. Under current law, undocumented 

students can be denied access to in-state tuition, federal loans, and health 

benefits; as a result, many are unable to pursue higher education. Yet a 30-

year-old immigrant who graduates from college pays $5,300 more in taxes 

and costs the govemment $3,900 less annually than a high school dropout. A 

DREAM Act would provide an expedited path to citizenship for students 
95 

brought to the United States as children, by no fault of their own, who 

graduate from high school or earn a G.ED. An expedited path to citizenship 

for our littlest aspiring Americans-children too young to have graduated 

from high school-on a par with a DREAM Act would help ensure equity 

within families. 

Immigration policy is a top priority for educators because it has a profound impact 

on tlleir students and students' families. Educators encounter aspiring Americans in 

their classrooms and schools every day. They are students, friends, and 

neighbors-people who moved here to put food on the table, to provide for their 

families, and for the uniquely American promise of freedom and opportunity. We 

are all better for having these hardworking, aspiring Americans as contributing 

members of our communities. 

NEA urges tile House to act swiftly and in a bipartisan fashion. We look forward to 

working with you to make comprehensive immigration reform a reality at last. 

Sincerely, 

Mary Kusler 

Director, Government Relations 
96 

Jund. '2013 

el""lnJltlf19 ,..,ei.m .mpo_,1na women 

ywca 

As ont of lh" oldest WOIn .... '·s ri!)hl. OfglInizarion. cOI"",iued 10 elinlin'lin!! ",cism alld 

~m[!l'!werins women. lht YWCA 'i dt1:1l1y 'n\'e5Icd in Ihe rassast of c(\",pllChom~ve 

immIgration reform ,ha, i5 ;"c\usi""oflhe needs of"",,,c,~ girl, and f&lllil;= We 

applaud the U S S~leJ ... dicii\l)l Commillt1: forpilS~n)i, Ihe /lu",I.'r .Wel/rity. FCiJI~"'" ~ 

ap,";"'Ii"jlywtJlmllllgrw/w ,ll<J<km/:illw" Ad of 10lJ (S 744) and we will continue 10 

5Uppon pr<w;sions io ,h~ Ieglslalion as il m()V~! through th. I--\.(:Jus~ and Sen ale Ihal will 

prot""t th~ !IlIfety. security. and opporTunity ofimmigrlnt WOIl1<"1l and Ih"; ~ rllll1ij;~s 

Wom~n .re inoreasingiy beoom;ng Ihe fllCe oI' lhe millfll " t population in th~ Uni,cd 

Stlll~ . They now make up 51% of'he imn,i!lflln' populanQn. and l()() 'mmigram women 

ani" " in l~e Un'lI,d Slates for every % men The YWCA USA IIfge. Coogre .. 10 ras. 

legislation Ihal "ill provide. clear rQadmap lodtil en.h,p for the 11 minion aspiring 

Americans, many of whom "Je WOO",,,. girl. and DREAMmr We ask ConlV",;;.to adopt 

legi:!/atioll Ihal will allow tl1em 10 fully (mellnlle into the nation 'S $()Cial and ecQn(lm;C 

f;wric. wilh.1I <>fthe righl> .~d respon.ibililic, entailed ~ full imewati ..... 

Citizenship should ensure Ihal e"~l)'<JIle living in Ihe LIS has acc<'SS to (!OOr)OOlic 

suppons, afTordable h~alth care. workers' riJlltIS. Bnd Ihe Ibilit~ ro Ii"e f~ from Ih~ fear 

ofdeienlion and deportation Spe.:if,cally. Ihe YWCA "'lIcs Cool!' esslo cnact nali ..... al 

immigration ",form legisl.!;oo thai ;n<:ludes. 

A r08dm31' 1<> dtiu nshill ror the II million "'piri" l! m~rira n •. Immil!"'ooo 

~form should incl"de a clear and easily na"igaloo road 10 full citizenship for Ihose 

currenlly living under Ihreal ofdCJ)<Jrtalinro, a~ "ell as for hose~kln8 10 reunile 

wilh their families, Wilh I S million immigranlS deponed ~;nce '2009, the highesl 

number yet. Immi!ITalion poIiC)' hu used mass dell'lllioo ill,d deportation of 

immi!!ran\s. oflert resulting in displaced f~milies and COI,,"lun lie~ Any legi!Jat;oo 

introduced mu" b( conlprehen.ive ~nd foc~sed OIl family reonirlC~lion . incl~~,iIY, 

III\d ill'(!!I1'lion ralhcrt~an border securil ~ and enrorc .. ~nl'!l( 

Arrrss 10 Q""lil), h alth Ure nd teo',,' mie s"l'llor15. ",illt no ",.iting periods. 

Immigra!ion r~ orm should inch'de,mm;:diale access 10 quality health care and 

economic suplXl'ts Wai~inl! periods for heaith car( w= rtlj«t~d ~ Ihe d~a e on 

IheAfford~bl. e . re-Act .nd w~r~ rtmo.-cd for childr .... and p~om wom~n in Ihe 

Children's l lealth Insurance Program Reaulhorizalion Act. Any huhh car~ <;II' !)Iher 

",rely·nC! <;eN;""" th ol .re cUlTenlly available. regardless of illlmillnltion slalUs. 

should rem"j" available 10;> IhOOl' who n,'t'd Ihem 

Th IlR.EAM A.I. Immigration refo;>ml si'ould include a system [(' allow lhOKe who 

2025 Nt SIl .. t, NW 

Su~. 560 

Wn~ "1I lon . D.C. 20036 

202 .... 7.4801 
97 

were brought to the country as children, known as DREAMers (because of the 2001 

Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act), to begin the citizenship 

application process immediately. Any provisions pertaining specifically to legalization for 

DREAMers should allow people who are currently in school to qualify and not be restricted 

by age or education level; give states more treedom to offer in-state tuition; limit any 

criminal or conduct bars; and, clarify that the often harsh immigration consequences for 

certain conduct do not apply to minors. 

Protections for trafficked women and immigrant women who are victims of sexual or 

domestic violence. Immigration reform should include protections for immigrant women 

who are victims of sexual abuse, domestic violence and trafficking. Detained immigrant 

women and young girls are at higher risk for experiencing sexual assault and rape, and they 

must have access to resources and protections to prevent such incidences. U-Visas for 

immigrant victims of violence should be included as a part of immigration refonm In 2000, 

advocates in the field recognized that, while YAW A provided critical protections for 

victims of domestic and sexual violence, immigrant victims were reluctant to speak up due 

to a fear of deportation or retaliation. U-Visas provide a safe haven for immigrant victims 

by allowing them to reach out for help and creating a path to citizenship independent of 

their abusers. 

We are at a critical crossroads in our nation's history as Congress considers legislation to 

overhaul our immigration system. We urge Congress to be inclusive of the needs of women, 

girls, and their families by passing legislation that includes a fair roadmap to citizenship and 

reunities families; guarantees access to affordable health care options; creates a system that 

enables young immigrants who are enrolled in school or serving their country the ability to 

become citizens; and provides critical protections to women who are victims oftratIicking, 

sexual assault or domestic violence. 

Dara Richardson-Heron, M.D. 

CEO, YWCA USA 
98 

(f) 

cws 

CWS Stetement lor the Congrllssl.)nal Record Pertaining to the Healing on Addressing the 

Immlgllllion Status ot IIlegllllmmlgranls Brought to the United States as Children 

House Judiciary Commll1ee, Subcommittee on Immlgra\lol'I and Borde! SeCl,lllty 

Tuesday, July 23rd, 2()13 

Afiltle House COrnmlllltll on the Judlci:lry'S $ubeommilUle Qf1 Immigra1ion and Border Secur~v 

considers policy changes Ihal would irnpacl the lives of immigrants who entered Ihe Un~ed Stales as 

children, Ctlurcn World Service [CWS) expresses OUr sl4lpMlot Imm;graHon leform lha! Cl'eales II 

path 10 c~lz9(lship. l&gardless of age. 1'01 OUI urnlocurnented community members. 

Whila ~ Is llooouraging 1o SIIII mllmber.; of the Subc:ommlllEK1 lakll an itlterest in helping immigrants 

who IInl!lred Ihe Unll!KI Stales whlln childrlln adjusllheir sl a1Os, WfJ know first·nand Ihal ttlEl wlli lbeing 

of individuals is dmermlned nOl solely tlY their own rights and oppOOunijies. but by the rights. 

opporluroities and freedoms 01 their family mBfTlbers. Familial bonds are a cornerslooa 01 slabHity, 

happinl'ss and strong commun ~i 8S. This Is especially true for many individuals who immigrated to the 

Un~Gd Stales as children. 

Many ,mmigrant families have buayed ''!!Ieh other through slruooles laced fn their home countries, 

~llIding poIIatly. war. persacullon, and thtl p<linlul but necessary decision 10 leave their home 

country III search 01 a beltet lI1e. In the Unlt9d States. many immigrant lamilles hava also found 

strangrh In 0119 another as IMy have li:Ced discnmlnaHon, e~p!Ohtioo, and th'l ongoing lear 01 

apprelllln~on. detention, depon~ lon, .,nd separallon tram their loved ones. 

To allampt to help a young parson by ~~ovidillg them an oppOllunity lor growlh. while simunarlflously 

denyiTlg thai opport uo~y to their parents, Is 10 deny thallhe wellbeing 01 a child is in large pan subject 

to the wellbei ng of their family un~. Fan.,~ias ara the backbone 01 our country and Iheir uMy promotl'S 

the !!lability. hea h. and prodiJC1lv~y 01 indlyjduall;, which Is crttlcallor the suength or commun~fes. 

As CWS has not seen lagislativelanguage lor the KIDS Act that some In Congress ara working to 

intrtXluce, WII cannor comment on it. But. While WII roeognilll ttlat Slk:tJ a bill rfligllt t'o9lp SorM, we 

must SIIIlSS tllat is rt IlIr from the lull so'tutiOl1. Such a narrowly-focused b~I, IlIgard)ess of the 

improvaments ij would bring 10 the fiva:! or some. slIn would no1 r,~ our naHon's broklln Immigration 

s~lam . We al\OOy,age Congress 10 enact a pathway to cllizanshlp fhat Is IImelv and aC{)assibkr. both 

tor undocumented youth and OU I undO\:Uffillnted oommunily mambll's of all ages. 

As a 67· yaa, old lakh-based humanitarian OIg ni2~Hon lhat works w,th immigrant communrties 

through our 37 member denominlltions and 36 local oltices lind aHiI'alas around lhll country, WII warn 

to Sill! policy changes that Improve tnll ijVIIS or undoeumll!ll9d youth. WII pray 100ihosII changes, and 

we have educated our oommun~les ano:! polley makers aboUl the nnd torthose chllnges. But WII also 

SlIaIt broader changll: immigration ralorm thai wil1 l9un~a s¶Uld famlTles and craatB a path to 

cttilanshlp for our undoxum(W1ted com nun~y mllmbllrs, ragardles$ of age_ A more narrowly tsllo(ttd 

bi ll mghl be a slap in the righl direction, 001 ~ cannot promise 10 j~ our immigla1lon system or come 

close to providing Iha opportunities n!IErded for undocumented men, womOfl and children to rullillhalr 

dreams and make a better lIJ1 urll. 

We arllelJ::ouraged that Houseieadamhip and the SubcommittllO sa<ik to fIImooy the probfoms that 

our immigration sysillm creatlls lor undocumented youth. W e .espectfully ask that all members 01 the 

Srbcommittee support proposals fhal ~Io furthl'l' than just this narrcw issue, to emblaCII with 

meaningful policy changlllhil lives 01 all our undocurTumtlld community members, that they might 

haVIl an opportunity 10 pUISUII a pathway to cltizllnshlp. Ttlis IS key 10 ralorming 01.11 immigration 

systam. grounding our immigration policies Tn sound Teason, and helping to fOsler mOIll welcomIng 

communijies and a strongllr economy In whi<;h ilil can ItlnvlI .. nd grow. 
99 

E\angdicaJ 

Immigration 

Tahl~' 

I..";l .. ... ,,dr""'" 

N.\ ..... I""""""I.""~ 

1t\""",licot. 

'~p '' ' !<>O ...... " W",.J.lR<IH 

v..,1~ _,,, .. ,," Ilt<""''''' lho Worid 

I'ltod C. "' II~ "". (l1n."", .. n ",'"'"nilY 

!",d'I"' .. "I~lioo 

.... ,,, 0, ... "" r&.,., .. ~,~ 

Ilkh~"" Lo" d s...thooru !lor"" !~hL~ . .... 

R<I;yoOi< Uh<,')'C"n>n>boiIo" 

Sa .. ""'! 'odri""~,, N.'""'"! I u,,,,"Oe Chri>li"n 1., •• I0",'M~ c.",I<"', ..... · 

Goo "rirl 5011l'''''''' N.' .... II"'U .. , 

f)n",,'O<llI eo..~' 1000 

M.ti,,, .. SIlo,,,,c 

Libm)-OJDn.. ..... 

J IHlW .. III" 

"~"'''' 

Stale.m l·n t o n Citizens h ip 

The E\'ongeli"allmmigration 'fableStat~ment of Principles calls for 

immigrat ion reform tlu\I ' estab\ishes ~ p~th lowaxd legal slaw s and/or 

ci i~enshil' for Ih06e who qualify ""d who wish 10 bet'<JlOtl per",allenl 

,..".idellls-· We beli"" .. ajust and fair imuti&ralion system ~huuld inc.ludl.', 

foe tlwst! who want it and qualify, clear steps todtizenship. Th~ call is 

rooted ill onr biblically informed cmnmitmem to hUlU"'l freedom and 

dignily. 

We """,gni,., th~1 immigrnnls COm~ 10 Ih .. Uniled States fordiffe",nt 

reasons. Some wnlll 10 work. either t~mpornrilyor for a numberofyelll'!l, 

Md thi:n .... 'turn to their home COUl1lries, Oth~rs are p~pared to mnl<;: a ]krnl~nenl comm,llnent ~s U.S. cili;(f!ns. Our ilOmigrnlioll5yStenl should 

II.ll0w for ellCh oflhese opliOll~ , 

For Ihe cu~tly undo<:umenl~, Ihe finn ep sbmdil be a regi~tration 

~~ nnd baekgr()Und chrek. and paymenl of a fine or fulfillment pf 

communilysen1~. Thos.' who qualify foe pr<»'isiomIl5l .... tus should then 

be able 10 earn legal pennant1l.t residency O'o'er a period of feasible )"eal'S 

by ",orkillj\.l*,};ng taxe5.le .... rning English, and demonstraling their good 

moral char~c er. Addi lou~1 "is,os will be Deeded 10 mMe sure thai Ihose 

al ..... dyin line are processed. first.. nlis wi!! ensure Ihal IhO!<cappl)ing 

now do not ~Qjoy an adn,nlageover thos~ "'hD have been trying 10 comply 

w;lh immigralion laws. while .11"",;'1& all qualified applicants 10 .... nl 

STaTO~ witl,in a n:awnabll.'l'l'riod. 

e'..,ryon~ who aGh ev~ pennllnent re!liden ~ status should be allowed 10 

,,"<)rl: tow.rtI6Iize.nship if they are wi!Hug 10 ~mbra~ all oflhe 

l"i'Sponsihili ti ~ ofciti7-enship_. n,U! IYl'ioally illvok"" " Ih ree· 10 five-yeM 

wailing period. demonstrntin! good moral charnctl!1". and ml!«ling s[>t'Cific 

requirements for En&lish la"tlullgeprofic;"""y lind U.S. civics knowledge. 

with appropriate exemptions for the elderly and for pe!'!lOns with 

di ..... hilities. 

American democ:m~ ;~ anch ored bylhe conviction Ihat 1111 h" l\lIIl\ being!; 

art' crraled in Goofs,m"ge, and shollid be Ire1Ited with dignity and 

respecl. For Iho$e who have earned the right 10 li"e pelmMlent.Jyin Ihe 

United Stales, citil~ns hip is a natund ne.~l step. Citiunship confers bodi. 

tight$ and ~Ptln~ibilitje:\ for par1icipa liull '" our nation~J life. Thoml i~ 

nothing 10 begain~ by barring lawful pennanent reside nl~ from 

be-roming ci li zen~. 

Our ~bili l' to attract and intt'V<lte moth'aled llnmigrants and their 

families gi\'e& us l compelil;\'e edge in t.J t~ gioblll marketplace. Keepin,g 

families together rePws QII .. deeply held .. aloes. Having~ fair 3nd 

balanced S)'Slem thai inciu.ies a process for earning perma,ne)ll "-"SideJlCl.' 

staTU., and ev~n .. )ally citizellshjp !ler""" our national interest. The 

na.tucal""tion l>tn,mony is alwa~:s II d""pl)' illllpiringdispJa)' nf patrinlism. 

'n'o<e who oom"l;t to citizl~lShil1 \'olutllarily <-",riel, the meanillg of 

citi",,,shij> for all of us. 

TIM: 1l,,"" KI'Iial Ilu",ilt"'liun T"hI< 

~'lit.lt \!lndorn "!l· ~ 
100 

July >5,10>3 

In U.S., More Relate to Democrats Than GOP on Immigration 

PR1:-;CErON. NJ _. Alneric~n •• ,e Inor. likely!O .. y Ih.ir view. en immij\ul;on .nu lmmi&roli<>n '.""In 

.Ii&" with th. Deono,rollc P .. ty"s th." with the R.publican r.rty"J p<>licie •• olthou&h (ewer th. " halfrel.t. 

10 . ,th.r pa rty un Ih ..... u~. 

Party .sew "" C/"""r /0 Own Vi.<u..,,· "" fmmigroli{>II 

.111"" )V'If opinion, ,,),loh rcditlaipofQ"\ ""II ..... ~, ImmlJnrtlon ond ",unlJlrntluo .."fon" 

""". ,1".,." 10 J'W'''''''' - [Ih~ o.mOCl'''' PorI)" (or) the R<publk.n Pa'I)"I? 

U.S.odllll> 

N""·lr"",,,l ... h!t ... 

81 ..... 

filopoDi'" 

(",1.1_ l'oln,,, ... ,,,1 ""I"'n'. 

JU".I~ ruly i.~<>,~ 

C;AI..LUI' 

," 

.. '. 

NooiUI.r (m l.)/ 

"""1.11"1.,,, 

• 

" 

" " 

" 

Much of U.S. policy di.cu ..... ien aboUI hnmi&ration and ImmigrMlon reform is focu<ed on ilI.pl 

immigulion from 1 .... lin Am. rioa. makint Ih.ubjecl particularly r.levo"IIO U.s. Hi.ponie •. Si .• in '0 

Hilp."ie.~g,"e ",ore with Ih. U.",o.rolic Potty lin immigr.'ion, while 26""g'ee mOre wi~h ~he 

lI.publican rorly. Thi. rel"e •• nlo a .ligh1ly ~rU1~r l>rof~r."c¥. for ~h~ De",o.rol>l ."'o,,~ llilpank. Ih." 1& 

... " in their 'tIlU~! RPljliru i party jdeolificpliou. Thr~ugnoUl ~o,~, Galh,p (,,, ,, ,d~, "oflli'p.oi .. 

!Mnlifyin!; wilh Or Ic:mln~ low3rd lh~ Democr.ti< PorI)" ~nd "4" fMollfylng ... Or I.onlng Republlcoo. 

m.ds.lso he.vily f:t.VQr Ihe o.mocroli,· Parl~ Oil immi!;ralion policy. wilh 7o"sayln~ ilt polieiucom" 

c1o""r In thd r Own view. on lh. i .. ue. whil. l~~nam. Ih ... Republican Party. T1,i, repre •• nls a li~I"ly 

we,ker f.voril .. ", tOworo1he !)tnto ... t. 11,." bl.cklt .how lobule pMty ,dem,fico lion. WIt;I ... on the 

other Itond, .,.011<1111 e"enly "pli! in tbe;, pOTly prete,"".c' DO immigra!illo, .imilar 10 tlt.ltllvcraU party 

'" 

The.e re.uh. 01'. h ... <1 on Gallup', J,,". 1.~-J"ly 5 Minority Ri~hlo ond R>:lationl poll of 4,37 ~ U.S. a<l"II •. 

The .urvey ;ncllld~" i,ll.rvi.wI with ' .000 H"p.ni<s .nd 1,01 0 IIoo·)1i'l1>n;o bl~ok", ,n .dd;lion 10 2,149 

noo-Itlsp>nlo white •. 
101 

1~ .. cI .. qcdso .nd oldcrarc ,he m ... 1 hkoly 10 ",. the n"",oer.11c Pa.ty",vitwson Imhli''"tio" mort 

d o..,ly malrh thel. o .. n (76"), ( .. 11" .... <1 by youA,or blltb (67">, "lder lI~niu (64"), and YDuRler 

lIi.p~nl<l (n">. 

Whllt •• ,ed III 10 49 5h ...... 1",1111111 to .. ard the Demoe •• t.on thil qll •• tion'44'h.ythtltv"' ...... 

mo.t In II"" "';Ib ,hal porly, .. erS ... 39"~h<lOJI n, Iht Il<:publkan hrt)'. ""11"'50 and older.", Iheonly 

TOc:!"I/ethlc: . ," ~.nup 10 .nw lhe ,,~r way. with ~6" naml .. , ,h. Republican. "lid 39" Ihe o.lII<K.aU 

PU71y.'ian .. , a"""r 10 Own l'I'e, ... un '",,",yruhull •• by Rare /JIId Elhrucily. ""d ~ 

fIlxb ,,.,.. BLocb,8.o," 

lliopo .. 100 5<>+ 

Uiop .. Ioo,/llOt'I 

N ..... II ... '" _"ioe.> tlI .. .., 

N_lliopo .. Jcwlt~"~ 

\oaI.,,, ~'oI,,"_f1.Od • ..,~ 

J .. "" 13 .,J "1f ~. 20'3 

ljALUJf' 

Oe .. " .... l~ 1,,,.1), 

• 

" In 

~ 

~ 

~ 

" 

Nci.her (ml.)/ 

JI."l",I.lk an 1y l"""I'I"I"" 

• • , '.' 

" ., ~ " ~ 

~ " .. .. " 

Addillonally, hl,1I PCrc enlagcsofRcpubliunl (8s!ijano Iltm<>cnu (89") 'Mntlf)' with Ihlro..-n pUly 

On Immi, •• t;on, wh ile indep."denU a.e _boul evenly divided , 

PUMy So<~" asClQl;ffr m Own Vic. ... "" /mmiqrulUm •• by Prmyl/1 

JII" "",,"'pill~". "I'Iith po>!\Ii.oaI f'l11)"o l"'\lcI~. ,,.. ,nun,,,,,,.,,,, ~n.lI",".'I\_ .. , ... " 

"An. n......t" '~" "' ... - (.ho I)moomotoc I'wrl'l' ( •• , u ... a.,...IM"." P.tnrl't 

lIoru_i .. ~rt)' 

Rtpubllotn. 

h .... po"".1I1o D.",_ 

t",I.I. I'oh"" .. ,..! .~"''' •• 

Jill'" ."h,b· ',,::on 

n _\II.\,I' 

• 

, 

.. " 

~ltI I"" ·}1 Ibpubliaon hn,' 1'1"",>11'110", 

• • .. , 

" " • 

on.. Pme ..... 111O~nd "m~.ican.brojldly IIlpoorlipl ;ub gfl!tur~ror dnl'~1 w'tb IInm',rl'"1 

I" in~ in Ihe UJllllepUy tbat .re 10,,<111 iR .be Sonald"lm",i,,,lton ,.10.0' bill 
102 

'I.",. ofthdr employe.s ._ \wo ign~\ur" IIt'pub1i"~n IUU," .•• r~ about oqually likely t(l n.m. tlte 

Ooo",<rltic or thel\'publitan Party a. the Un' lh~y ""oro ogrtc with 0" Immigrati(>n. At th.~.m. time. 

lhe,!i,hl ",oj",'\y nflh".., whn [ •• ",up"n,h., .horHerm vi ... lor.killed wnrken .",1 ",cIling. palh 

In .iti""u.hip lot 1II~B.1 i"",ni~'an .. ··lwu ~ropo."I' Ilron!lly adva" •• d by tho Den,oor3l1 - ny Ih. 

Demoer.tie Porty'. ;,"mil;rotion .;~W& m~l.h Ihcirown_ 

puny s,.."n lIS C/."",r Iv Ou'" ~'i~w"w, 1",,,,,'yrr,l,oll .. by S"I'/>orfjIJr!r,It('ijo'c 

'mmigrut~JIl·lIefi".m l'nlfl'lSl,L< 

r""" .. I'.ndl .... tho ,,"mhor of ,.."" I·l<rm ""'r ....... fur 

Immiinolll> ... It_,i:lh .kll!...no "..ood I" ~'e US. 

r....,rollo";1l5lDopJlmm!&r.ont> o/~clyio th.o>untry ~,< 

opponunity to b.c<tm. U,s. oti;om.lfthoy m ... "'rbin 

""lui"'m."!> • .." . period nr~m<,lm:ludln;; I"'l'i"g 1=. ~ad • ponatty, _i~. mmlrul b.~rouncl dleck, und 

j""ml",t"glloh 

F .. " • .-qulri", .... ,.""""" .. ,, .. , ",dled< tho !mmij; .. lion 

ot.N.,..,. WIt.kc" Ih~y hln 

r .... r ~&hr.nin&><'<'Urily at u.s. bonI~r> 

Al.IJ W 

IX" .. ' .... "'''' Part)" 

• 

~ 

" 

~ " 

li.~n 

!'lori, 

• 

" 

" 

" " 

The lU"d'lio" helWl!~n Atn"" •• n.'.p"dfie vi"",. till intm;~"liu" M,l I"~ !'4"Y thoy b.li~H mn." 

d" .. ly rel'r~.~ol' h~ir lmmigr,Uib" vi"ws 13 , omewhol <uonger .. h"" Ilt""'''IO '",mlg .. I;,," priorilid 

Tho .... whO'e'.y that h.ltinS Ihe Ilowofimmigr.'\\JOOtnin, inl" I~~ U,S, iIIeially .h"ul<l k Ib~ priurily 

are mo.e likdy to .ay Ihe Rl:p"blicaa Porty'. ]>olki .... lher Ihaa Ihe Democratic P.rty" .re do ... 10 

Ih.ir"wn: 50"VI , J~s. lIy "''',lrlSt, Iho •• who 'til' Iht priority oh"tthl h~ <lulin& wilh immi,,,,,t • 

• "rrMtly ,n Ihe u.s. meS"lIy idenlify even ,!tOr. "ro"l:ly 010'. w'lh 1M DemO","I;" Parly un 

immigralion, 6t " 10 ~5 "-

Pm1y Secli a.-(:/''''I:r In Own I'ielt"'''" I",,,,,yrut"'~ ··/'Y l'roj'''''''''''Ji,r II'hi"h 

Pu/iql Slwultl /,., [lX (;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11',, '",miyrlfr;'", Prior,l!! 

Ha.lbo8 n"w"rcll .. ~ nmni ."""ntnU,~tl':; 

0..101>1: ..-illi.imtll",,"t> "'" .... ,,/,. l1ulu< u.s 

n"" "111 l.i n~ 

o."", .... "tle 

j'an)' 

, 

" , ..

"'(><,blk. n 

I'a ny 

, 

.W 
103 

The Demo~ .. tk Party IIasan ed,eo~er the R.p~blk.n Party In Amerio.ns'peroept;onsofwhi.h major 

party mor~ doni)' sb.rn their own .. iewl on immi,ration .nd i"'miaraliom reform. M~th oftM" 

ho ...... er, ~nec"'str.ilht part;...n.llip, •• equally hi'" proportions ofRl:publiunlond Demo ... !1 p~r..r 

their own parly. Perhap' more import.ml" independenll are ""enly d .. ided. 10"<:$Iinl lha' ...,ither 

1>"'11 hi' sllkedo",. ",.anioaNI politicalldunl.," on Ib.~. \\'I>ilu are II ... divided ... hile blacka 

and Hispanic. line "I' wilh 'h. o.mocralic Party, .. hlch it ,i",iI.r '0 the p."."' .... n In ove .. 11 p.rly Ill. 

NOlably, Ameriolns·pr.r..re""e$ on four lpeoifi. 'nun1,t.tion p'0p" ... ls do nol pe"""'lly 11<10". wilh lb. 

Plrty they na..,t I. better ren.clin, theirimmi, .. lion viewi. Th.fl ben" .. all orlbe propOut.Ct.llup 

teoled - Ihose o"erinRopport~nily 10 ill.,.11mmi,rao", 0.""tl1 .. IIIose stru3Ihenin,1.w. apinll 

ill.,ollmmi, .. lioll -- win superm.joelly IUI'I'O'I. ud Ihu~ donl break sharply olonB polille.l lin.s. 

Perhap' lh. "'e .. a," l'lb., immigrotion i,less of. rinooroul i .... e thlo it might apP<'aT from the "tWa 

out of CoOS"'" even ifraok-a"d-file Rop"bliun. and lJoonlocral.gonorally do pr~for Ih~irown p"Tly ~ 

polioiuon Ih~ iuuc. 

" , .. ~,~~ ~""'I .... 

, ~. 

11,,1 

.. " 

• 

"'_'l>MIooI",,_,. ~1 "~ •. "" ... ~, " "'!JI! t~ ... "r , ...... ,.1-!i ,. "",_ __11o.l1_ .. _- IIIC'ItCI... ,I, 

........ ...... ott .~. 

~ ............ - • d. 

•• 

-

• -, . 

""' ........ , "~ . "" .... , _ ... 1I¥3oH .... 'V 

" -• 
104 

C"II1r11~ I (I"" , G."up, '.0 . ... " d~b" ,,,..,v.d 

C. ". p . ,.,. '" . , ... 'n ........ ro I ,.~iil."d ud "."I,,, ... d 'TO d, m ,~ . th . , i.<I. d. ~"' ... , n'" to. 11m ', .~ I.' A B. 

A.·<"." .bll l~ ,. ~ ... &1,".0" 'n, P'" ... n.,' ..... !, u, CE, , • CI'.! , A''''.'., .... C"~"" S"O"~""E>; p'.''', CII ~." 

SU". " l,,¥i.~ ••• C . .. "",.o 1101'1«" .nl Jn~ ... . C.,,_.r En,.""."" I 101 • •• , ... <.,. Dr. G."up ~ .. tr.lI . 

En! pi ..... Iloi l"'" 0. I J.l d". En .. ,;,. I<n ".<m". I C, .. ,lDn Jnd .... Foil"", T~I, 1'0 lb. C. Il.p. G. Il.p Br. ;n. Co". p 

lilI.i .... .I, .. , ,,.I. GIIJ. 0."." C .. ,.lIlo,. G' Ii"p·II .. II~ .... y. W<II·JIo'., ",Jt>:. c . llup M.u' .. n".' J ... , • • I, 

CI-OJ. C.,lop P,o. l. G.II"p P, .... Collop ,. .. "'., IIt I.fi" ~. c.nup 1I.lv."i'y, C. "up W .. ·ld n ...... Il""n ~il"'" 

II. nl • "s;, ... A«.I" .. ",. IC",", , II O. I..J. F.>5. "u'''''''';Jhl, ,." , .. SIr<"C'.'. POu," I Quall,~ Sy .. c .. , 

Pe,I", .. ," .. O"I"'h~';on. """'" "t.. pci" , ip,lln';shl. Q' _ . Q .. Ac«),,,,,,," , 0,. ,,<Iv,nU, •. 8.1 .. 11 .. 

R .... rch . 1,, <. , SE'.:I5. SVH, SRI, SOO I <A ,h . Cilr. S,.,""b. Sp"'li, h'. S",""h.·II ... d ~.lti". , S" ISh"" 

SI .. ns,h.c".,h, S'''"!'h,f .. p'''''. 5,,.ns,h.fl.oler. SIC,."h.IM),'''. Strol lh lQu ... . S. p[lOfllnsi~~ . 

TXI R .'!.+Rl-r3. T."" .<rl".j ~t. The G.II. p 'h. Tn .1;,,,. p 1'011. Th. c.". p School. Y •• " ,.P~.', Y""'Y 

M • • • , ... CD'. W'''b.," , PI"d.,. "oh i •• or. "<Ii ... ", • Ad a rl . b;H,y. ~ " " '111<01. A "onl" , IIcliot. Com on ."~. 

C""' .... "k.II .... C_poll'I .... C ..... et.d ..... Co,,.I,,. M1, C",,,.,,. Dolib"at l • • , nov.I"".r, lIi .. l pll .. , Em ~f ' 

F.,"' .... P""., . F",~.I .. I •• Il>'''' •• " 'd • .,ion. '."u,I ••. I"djYidu.Ii .. ,I .. , '"p.', '.'<llo."'" . 1.0"",, . .. , .. molt<. r".;,;."y. 1(01" ... ~.op .... ,",l;\, . R.",,,.,, • •. Sel'·A ... , . "". Si~",O .. n' •• ~!o"'5" .• "~ w .... , A,I 

",h •• " .. I,." ,k. It. Ih . P'I'P"'~ of'h'lo '.'''''.''' ' ,.om"~_ ,. ~ ... '" o"rI.l •• , . " ... Io.d fQ< " 00«0"' n' ".;" . 

p.,. ••• 1 ",. on'y· ~.prod~"i ... rr lo!blt.~ ",i.h", .. ,~ ... , ..... porm 1 .. 1 .. ol C.lluP. In. 
105 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Amoodei. 

Mr. AMODEI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Texas, although I wish 

Mr. Gutierrez was still here. I wanted to talk with him on the 

record about teaching people to drive. Since he is not, we will skip 

that part. 

You know, during the course of this hearing you have heard 

things about, ‘‘I don’t want my parents left behind.’’ ‘‘So this doesn’t 

happen again.’’ The package, comprehensive, you know, in this 

town, define ‘‘comprehensive.’’ And everybody has concentrated on 

what the problem is now, and rightfully so. But we don’t have that 

luxury of just concentrating on that. Your circumstances have been 

well represented, and I will tell you what, quite frankly, I personally believe the hardest thing for anybody to do is go back to the 

people that they represent, whatever the district is, and say we did 

nothing. Does anybody on the panel think that what is going on 

now is okay and nothing, status quo is okay? 

Record should reflect nobody answered in the affirmative. Correct? Okay. 

So now let me ask you this: I want to ask you to branch out beyond your personal circumstances, wanting your parents together, 

all that other sort of stuff, which is understandable in human nature. What was—and I will start with you, Ms. Velazquez, do you 

have any knowledge of what the thought process was when your 

mom, if I recall correctly, I missed part of it, said, you know what, 

I’m going there. And I’m staying and I’m taking my 2-year-old, the 

age doesn’t really matter. And I am asking the question in the context of, because one of the toughest things to justify, because, okay, 

in 1986 they dealt with it. Here we are in 2013, we are going to 

deal with it, hopefully, we should. But now as some of the indication has been, so now we are 10 years down the road, 15 year down 

the road. How do you make sure that nobody comes here 15 or 20 

years from now and has to sit where you are and tell the stories 

about that? What is the piece—and with all due respect, the border 

isn’t Texas to California. You know, there is a gulf and there are 

a few coasts, and there is that thing up there north of Montana 

called Canada. What is your thought on how do you make sure this 

doesn’t happen again? Once we deal with this group, any suggestions? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Well, I think that’s your responsibility, Congressman. I think you—you all hold the answer to what we’re going 

through. 

Mr. AMODEI. Okay. And I appreciate that. But when you come 

and say, I want a comprehensive thing, I want you to deal with it, 

you can’t say, but I got nothing to give you on the other part. 

Here’s what I want you to do for me. I mean, you can, but then 

you risk whatever we come up with, which I think would scare the 

heck out of you. 

Ms. Rivera? 

Ms. RIVERA. Thank you, Congressman. To answer the first part 

of that question, you know, Colombia in the ’80’s and the early ’90’s 

was a very scary place to be. You know, my parents did what I 

think any parent would do, what I know I would do for my children, is they tried to give us, you know, every opportunity. And 
106 

they wanted to get us out of there because it was just so dangerous. 

So to now address the second part of your question, it’s very difficult to say, you know, how you—you fix this problem. But, you 

know, I know that you guys are incredibly talented and I know 

that you may think that that is a copout, but I really think that, 

you know, sitting down and talking this out you can figure it out. 

Mr. AMODEI. And thank you for acknowledging that and the fact 

that the folks on the south side of the building should have a shot 

at that and hearings like this and other things, as well as the folks 

from the north side of the building. 

Ms. McHugh, any thoughts? What have other countries done? 

What do you do so that you just don’t keep turning the wheel and 

having new groups that are disenfranchised because our current 

system obviously isn’t working? 

Ms. MCHUGH. I’m not involved in a lot of these different areas 

of work in my organization. But you may be aware that we have 

published extensive analyses of both interior and border enforcement systems. We have done comparative work looking at how 

other countries are handling these issues. Also we’ve done a great 

deal of analysis of selections—— 

Mr. AMODEI. Briefly—I got a yellow light. Briefly, can you summarize? 

Ms. MCHUGH. Yes. We know there are no easy answers to this. 

Mr. AMODEI. Thank you for that. It’s unanimous so far. 

Mr. DUKE. Congressman, thanks for your question. It is the great 

question, how do we not ever come back here again. There will 

probably always be some people here illegally. We’re not going to 

ever get hundred percent security at that point. But certainly the 

workplace is a large draw. And if you can put in some kind of everify for most employment circumstances, that certainly is going 

to deal with a lot of it. We need a way to track visas as well so 

the folks aren’t overstaying their visas. To me it’s offensive that the 

folks who gave their word that they would only be here a certain 

amount of time have chosen to back out on their word and overstayed their visas. To me, that’s a concern as well. So you should 

address that as well. And then, of course, border security would 

help as well. 

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

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Nevada. 

The Chair would now recognize himself for 5 minutes of questioning. 

Dr. Duke, I made a D in Old Testament, so I never thought 

about trying to take New Testament. But several of my colleagues 

have made reference to the Bible, and I’m almost positive that a 

couple named Joseph and Mary emigrated, according to one of the 

gospels, to Egypt when Herod was looking for their son. I guess in 

the Gospel of Matthew. But I want to ask you this, because this 

is what kind of vexes me from an equity or a fairness standpoint. 

I want you to imagine—I never understood why God preferred 

Esau over Jacob. And I never really understood why they killed the 

fatted calf for the prodigal son when the other son had done it exactly right, exactly the way he was supposed to do it. He didn’t go 

and squander his fortune, he did what his father asked him to do. 
107 

So imagine a couple in Colombia with a daughter every bit as 

bright and engaging and beautiful as Ms. Rivera. And they did it 

the way we asked them to do it. What are the equities of jumping 

anyone ahead of them in line? 

Mr. DUKE. Congressman, thanks for the question. It is a tough 

question. And your questions about exactly how to understand 

those particular situations in the Bible are still being debated and 

will be until the Lord returns, I’m sure. So you’re not alone in trying to sort through some of those things. 

I think that the reality is we have a situation that no—nobody 

wants but it’s a real situation that we’re dealing with. And we have 

11 million people here. We cannot continue to allow them to live 

in the circumstances they are living in. It’s not right for them, it’s 

not in our country’s best interest. So we need to address that. If 

we’re going to secure the borders and we’re going to trap 11 million 

people here, we better figure out some kind of way to stop us from 

simply consigning them to lives of poverty or bare subsistence, and 

their children and their children and their children after them. So 

it’s more a practical question I think at that point, what you do 

folks in line trying to get her when you already have 11 million 

here. You could say that you already have 11 million here you have 

to address and those other folks, you know, at least they are making a living wherever they are. At least they have some degree of 

support wherever they are rather than us trying to drive these 

other folks out of here. 

So we have to address this situation. We can’t simply ignore it 

and act as though it doesn’t exist. But when we do talk about getting on a path to our legal status, permanent legal status and so 

on, or citizenship, they should get behind the line. They should get 

at the end of the line for everybody who already has their paperwork in. For whenever their paperwork goes in, it should go in and 

be active after all of these other folks who have already applied in 

that process. So some folks will be a long time in that process unless you want to speed up how quickly we can process people for 

citizenship. 

Mr. GOWDY. Ms. Velazquez, I think all of the witnesses have 

made a reference to 11 million. I hear it everywhere I go as if it’s 

a homogenous group, and we know it’s not. And you made reference several times to the 11 million. Would you agree with me 

that those members of the 11 million who can’t pass a background 

check shouldn’t be on a path to anything other than deportation? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Maybe the people that don’t pass a background 

check, but I do believe that there should be a pathway for the majority of the 11 million. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, now, that is very different from what you said 

earlier, and that is kind of my point. My point is all 11 million 

can’t pass any background check. All 11 million of any category of 

people, from preachers to Members of Congress, can’t pass a background check. So why persist with the talking point of 11 million 

when we know that that’s disingenuous? All 11 million don’t want 

to be citizens. All 11 million can’t pass a background check. And 

even if you concede that then we get to the details of what the 

background check is going to look like. For instance, if you were 

sitting where Mr. Amodei is sitting, if you have a conviction for do-
108 

mestic violence, should you be on a path to citizenship or a path 

to deportation? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Well, I can only argue for my sake and my parents’ sake—— 

Mr. GOWDY. No, no, no, no, no. With all due respect, you advocated on behalf of 11 million aspiring Americans. You are not a difficult fact pattern. Ms. Rivera is not a difficult fact pattern. So the 

talking point of 11 million aspiring Americans, I am not interested 

in—in that. I am down in the details of what does a background 

check look like? Do you think a conviction for domestic violence 

should disqualify someone from being on a path to citizenship or 

status? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I think I’m going back again to that’s up to you 

all to decide. And—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, if it’s up to us, then why do I constantly hear 

11 million if it’s one monolithic, homogeneous group? Why? I mean, 

why not just say what you said, which is there are subgroups that 

warrant different levels of scrutiny. For instance, children who 

were brought here with no criminal intent. That warrants one level 

of scrutiny. The parents who brought them here who can fashion 

criminal intent warrants another level of scrutiny. Those who have 

misdemeanor convictions have one level of scrutiny. Those who 

have multiple misdemeanor convictions have a different level of 

scrutiny. Those who have felony convictions have a different level 

of scrutiny. Why is that not the more honest response than to talk 

about 11 million aspiring Americans? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Well, honestly, I’m in no position to tell you who 

deserves what. And I don’t know what you would do. How would 

you decide that 1 percent deserves something that the other 

doesn’t. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, it’s not hard for me. I spent 16 years prosecuting people for domestic violence. That’s a disqualifier to me, 

even though most States consider it a misdemeanor. So with all 

due respect, the devil is in the details. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Right. 

Mr. GOWDY. The bright line—you know, people don’t have any 

trouble with that. The devil is in the details. I’m out of time. I’ll 

just say this on behalf—all four of you were very good, persuasive 

witnesses, even if I don’t agree necessarily with everything that’s 

said. I think you are here in good faith. You contributed to the debate. When I see quotes like I did today from someone named Dan 

Pfeiffer, who apparently works for the President. I think it is the 

same Dan Pfeiffer that once said the law is irrelevant. And he 

tweeted out today that our plan is to allow some kids to stay, but 

deport their parents. He summarized this entire debate with that 

tweet. 

So I want to compliment you and thank you for not being a demagogic, self serving political hack, who can’t even be elected to a 

parent advisory committee, much less Congress, which is what Mr. 

Pfeiffer is. I want to thank you for not being that and understanding these are complex issues where reasonable minds can perhaps differ. 

And with that, on behalf of all of us, I thank you for contributing 

to this issue. 
109 

Does the Ranking Member wish to say something in conclusion? 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. I would just say that I do thank, once again, 

the witnesses for their testimony, and I think that it has advanced 

the cause of justice forward. And you are right, these are complicated questions. But I think you are also right they are not so 

complicated that we can’t figure them out. And so I would just like 

to pledge once again my interest in working with the Chairman to 

reform the laws. They are a mess from top to bottom. And hopefully we can fix them from top to bottom. 

And I yield back and thank you for the offer. 

Mr. GOWDY. I will thank the gentlelady. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I might have a parliamentary inquiry. We 

have had this hearing, we appreciate it. Do you know whether 

there will be a series of hearings? Will we now move to full Committee? Or what do we—can we perceive to be the next steps? 

Mr. GOWDY. I appreciate the gentlelady’s question, and I can’t 

think of anyone less qualified than the lowest Member on the Republican side answering it. But I am happy to check with Chairman Goodlatte and get you an answer. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you so very much. We will both do so. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I will thank all our witnesses. And with your indulgence, I would like to come down there and thank you in person. 

With that, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:13 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ