SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
28–909 PDF
2006
WHETHER THE ATTEMPTED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REID-KENNEDY IMMIGRATION BILL WILL RESULT IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE AND NATIONAL SECURITY NIGHTMARE
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JULY 27, 2006
Serial No. 109–130
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR SMITH, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
RIC KELLER, Florida
DARRELL ISSA, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
LINDA T. SÁNCHEZ, California
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff
PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana, Chairman
STEVE KING, Iowa
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
LAMAR SMITH, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California
LINDA T. SÁNCHEZ, California
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel
ART ARTHUR, Counsel
ALLISON BEACH, Counsel
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CINDY BLACKSTON, Professional Staff
NOLAN RAPPAPORT, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
JULY 27, 2006
OPENING STATEMENT
The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
WITNESSES
Mr. Peter Gadiel, President, 9/11 Families for a Secure America
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
Mr. Michael Maxwell, former Director, Office of Security and Investigations, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
Mr. Michael Cutler, former Examiner, Inspector, and Special Agent, Immigration and Naturalization Service
Oral Testimony
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared Statement
His Excellency Nicholas DiMarzio, Bishop of Brooklyn
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
Letter from the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary; the Honorable Henry J. Hyde, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, and Chairman, Committee on International Relations; and the Honorable Peter T. King, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
Report from the United States Government Accountability Office entitled ''Immigration Benefits: Additional Controls and a Sanctions Strategy Could Enhance DHS' Ability to Control Benefit Fraud,'' submitted by Michael Cutler, Former Executive Examiner, Inspecter, and Special Agent; Immigration and Naturalization Service
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Article entitled: ''Irish in America Are 'Under Seige','' by Caitriona Palmer, submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
Letter from the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition et al., submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
WHETHER THE ATTEMPTED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REID-KENNEDY IMMIGRATION BILL WILL RESULT IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE AND NATIONAL SECURITY NIGHTMARE
THURSDAY, JULY 27, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security, and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:49 p.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John Hostettler (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Subcommittee will come to order.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is the second in a series of hearings reviewing the Reid-Kennedy immigration bill, S. 2611.
The United States admits more permanent resident aliens than any other country, more than 1.12 million in fiscal year 2005, a year in which we also gave refuge and asylum to some 79,000 other aliens.
In December, the House passed a bill that would ensure that our generous immigration laws, written by both Republican and Democratic Congresses over 5 decades, would be enforced and not abused.
In the Reid-Kennedy bill, the Senate proposes to replace our current rational immigration process with a scheme to allow an unknown number of additional aliens who came here illegally to stay forever.
Many would have us adopt that bill without public review. I believe, however, that before we consider a new amnesty, we must examine that bill in the light of the lessons that we learned from the last amnesty in 1986.
As part of this assessment, the Subcommittee today will review the ability of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to process the additional applications required by S. 2611 on the bill's extremely tight time schedule and the effects of granting those benefits on the national security.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Immigration adjudications were a mess in 2001 when President Bush set 6 months as the goal for processing immigration applications. Congress supported this goal with $500 million in funds and furthered that effort in 2002 when it split immigration benefits from enforcement, in part, to ensure aliens received the benefits they were due.
Those efforts have borne fruit. From a peak of 3.8 million, USCIS's backlog stands at 276,000 cases today.
Despite these gains, the USCIS ombudsman has found that the agency ''has ongoing difficulties in providing timely service.'' An adjustment applicant must wait more than 1,000 days in Greer and naturalization takes more than 900 days in Charleston.
The ombudsman has cited aliens who have waited years for benefits. This is unacceptable.
S. 2611 would add an overwhelming burden to USCIS, as it struggles to provide timely services. To comprehend this burden, consider that in fiscal year 2005 USCIS completed just less than 7.5 million applications. S. 2611 would add 10 million to 20 million more amnesty applications, many with short processing times.
How could this added burden not detrimentally affect aliens waiting to immigrate lawfully?
Past experience is not encouraging. When the Clinton INS tried to process a large number of naturalization applications in time for the 1996 election under Citizenship USA, it made serious mistakes, naturalizing some 71,000 aliens with FBI rap sheets, 10,800 of whom had felony arrests. USCIS would face even greater challenges today.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Its ability to process the new amnesty applications under S. 2611 would be impeded, if not hobbled, by fraud. That fraud is best assessed in terms of the 1986 amnesty. Hundreds of thousands of aliens are estimated to have fraudulently received amnesty under the 1986 law.
What is worse, terrorists fraudulently abused the 1986 amnesty to remain in the United States. One, Mahmud Abu Halima, a leader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, received amnesty as an agricultural worker in the 1986 law, even though he really drove a cab.
Another, Mohammed Salameh, driver of the truck in that attack, also applied fraudulently for amnesty. To support his amnesty claim, Mir Kasi, who killed two in front of the CIA in 1993, presented leases, employment letters and a letter from a friend in Pakistan. The 9/11 Commission staff found that these documents were all typed from the same typewriter.
The drafters of S. 2611 did not make USCIS's job easier. Confidentiality bars, which hampered INS in investigating fraud in the 1986 amnesty, are not only replicated in this bill but they are raised, further frustrating fraud investigations.
Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that fraud under S. 2611 would be more pervasive and sophisticated than in the 1986 amnesty. There are now more illegal aliens and thanks to computers they have access to higher quality fraudulent documents. Even the most diligent agency would be hard-pressed to combat fraud under the scheme in the Senate bill.
USCIS's diligence in combating fraud under the crush of millions of future amnesty applications is questionable, however. Mike Maxwell, former chief of the Office of Security and Investigations at USCIS, who is with us today, has testified that the agency ''is operating an immigration system designed not to aggressively deter or detect fraud but, first and foremost, to approve applications.''
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Given past terrorist abuse of amnesty, the rubber stamping of millions of amnesty applications would pose an unacceptable risk to our people and our nation. This risk is heightened by the fact that S. 2611 would give valid IDs to aliens who were never screened by a consular officer in their home countries and who were never inspected at a port of entry. A new name and a new ID would allow a terrorist, known by his real name to our Government, to pass through our society undetected.
We will review these issues with our witnesses today.
At this time, I would turn to identification of the witness panel. Without objection, all Members' opening statements will be made a part of the record.
Now I will introduce this panel of witnesses.
Peter Gadiel is a founder of 9/11 Families for a Secure America, an organization comprised of families of victims killed in the September 11 terrorist attacks and survivors of the attacks. His 23-year-old son James, an assistant trader for Cantor Fitzgerald, worked on the 103rd floor of the north tower of the World Trade Center.
Mr. Gadiel has volunteered full-time since early 2002 in the cause of securing U.S. borders against entry by terrorists. A graduate of Case Western Reserve School of Law, he is a member of the New Hampshire bar.
Mike Maxwell is an independent national security consultant with more than 15 years of experience in the law enforcement and security arenas. He is the former director of the Office of Security and Investigations within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. As director, Mr. Maxwell was responsible for implementing and managing a comprehensive security program for USCIS.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Maxwell has conducted lectures and training sessions in security planning and management, law enforcement management and other fields for Federal agencies, like the FBI, the DEA, ICE and the Department of Defense. He holds a Masters degree from Cambridge College.
Michael Cutler is a retired senior special agent with the Immigration and Naturalization Service's New York district office. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Brooklyn College of the City University of New York in 1971 and that year joined the INS as an immigration inspector at JFK Airport. From 1973 until 1974, he was assigned as an examiner to the unit responsible for adjudicating petitions filed by United States citizens and lawful permanent resident aliens for their alien spouses.
In 1975, he became an INS criminal investigator. In this capacity, he rotated through all of the divisions in the New York district's investigations branch. In 1991, he was made a senior special agent and assigned to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force.
Mr. Cutler has appeared as a witness at congressional hearings at the invitation of both Republican and Democratic Members. He is currently a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio was installed to lead the Roman Catholic Church's Brooklyn diocese in October 2003. He began his ministry to migrant communities in 1976 as the refugee resettlement director for the archdiocese of Newark. Then-Father DiMarzio moved to Washington in 1985 when he was appointed the executive director of Migration and Refugee Services for the U.S. Catholic Conference.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
He was elevated to the rank of Bishop by Pope John Paul II in 1996 and thereafter chaired the Migration Committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Incorporated. In 2000, Bishop DiMarzio was appointed a member of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People.
Gentlemen, if you will please stand and raise your right to take the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you very much. You may be seated.
And let the record show that the witnesses have responded in the affirmative.
Gentlemen, you will notice the set of lights before you. Without objection, your entire written testimony will be made a part of the record. We ask that if possible you summarize as close within the 5 minutes for your oral testimony.
Mr. Gadiel, you are recognized. And could you turn the microphone on there?
TESTIMONY OF PETER GADIEL, PRESIDENT, 9/11 FAMILIES FOR A SECURE AMERICA
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GADIEL. Sorry.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you.
Mr. GADIEL. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of so many who are the victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens, crimes made possible because our Government failed to prevent terrorists and felons from crossing our nation's borders.
As president of 9/11 Families for a Secure America, I and my Members agree that S. 2611 would be an administrative and national security nightmare. But words such as ''administrative'' are bloodless, bureaucratic terms that don't adequately describe the devastation amnesty inflicts on Americans.
Speaking as the bereaved father of a young man killed by terrorists who were allowed into our country only because of the power and influence of the open borders lobby that now stands behind S. 2611, I will speak in plain English. Passing of this amnesty will result in Americans being murdered and subjected to other horrific crimes committed by the dangerous illegal aliens who would be permitted to legally remain in the United States.
We know this to be true because such crimes directly resulted from the 1986 amnesty.
This proposed amnesty is much larger and will cause crime on a much larger scale, yet that result is easily avoided if the House sticks to its guns and defeats S. 2611.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you pointed out a few moments ago, the 9/11 Commission itself reported how many people involved in terrorist acts—the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and the murders outside the CIA headquarters—were here thanks to the 1986 amnesty. It is interesting to note that the terrorist, Mir, the one who shot the people outside the CIA headquarters, had filed a fraudulent claim and his claim is being litigated on his behalf by Catholic Social Services.
These are only a few of the long list of killers and would-be killers that we know about who were permitted to remain in the U.S. thanks to the 1986 amnesty. And we know of them only because their crimes and conspiracies made the headlines. We can never know how many other illegal aliens received amnesty that later went on to commit horrible crimes, and we will never know because their ordinary street crimes did not get front page attention.
Although we know that Americans were murdered and brutalized because of the 1986 amnesty, we don't know how large that number is. But since nearly one-third of Federal inmates are foreign born, we can be certain that the number of victims is quite large.
In the 4.5 years I have given in support of efforts to secure our borders, I have heard from hundreds who have been the victims of crimes committed by illegals. Without exception, they know that these crimes occurred because our Government failed to live up to its most basic obligation to its citizens: To protect us from foreign attack.
The 9/11 Commission staff put it in simple terms: ''Terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country.'' Yet with S. 2611, the Senate pretends that 9/11 and thousands of other crimes never happened.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 2002, the first time I was invited to speak at a press conference for Members of Congress, I noted that independent polls consistently showed that over 70 percent of Americans want drastic immigration reform immediately. I said that this majority would soon waken to the fact that the big obstacles to secure borders were the Congress and President George W. Bush and his predecessor, Bill Clinton. I predicted that soon that majority would be fed up, turn on these politicians who have blocked the changes needed to protect another 9/11.
Recent changes have shown that that prediction is accurate. In the last month, nearly half the States and many cities and towns have passed laws to fight illegal immigration and its damaging effects on their economies and society.
Nevertheless, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, La Raza, ACLU, the Catholic Church and the rest of the open borders lobby continue to show that for them the suffering and death endured by Americans is nothing but a cost of doing business, a cost of enlarging the membership. To its eternal shame, the Senate continues to do the bidding of that lobby and demands that our borders remain wide open to illegal aliens and the unknown criminals and terrorists among them.
Last year, the House forced passage of the Real ID Act over the opposition of the open borders lobby in the Senate. Real ID will keep future terrorists from obtaining driver's licenses that were the critical tool for the mass murders of 9/11.
Today, again, for the good of our country, the House must act in opposition to the Senate and defeat S. 2611.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My son, James, was not a statistic; he was a human being trapped with hundreds of his co-workers on the top floors of the World Trade Center while the building beneath them, forcing them further and further up till they had no refuge. I love him today as much as I ever did. I miss him every second of every day. But I am just one of thousands who are forever deprived of the love and comfort of someone dear to them because Congress allowed illegal aliens to enter and remain in this country.
And there are many thousands more who, although they have survived their attacks, their lives are ruined by violent sexual acts, beatings, stabbings and other crimes, causing permanent physical and psychological damage.
How many more parents like me, how many children, siblings, husbands, wives of victims of illegal alien crime must you and the Congress hear from before you reject once and for all the demands of the open borders lobby?
And, last, a plea to President Bush. Mr. Bush, shortly after 9/11, you stood on the ruins of the World Trade Center and since my son's remains have never been recovered, that is the only tomb he will ever know. Mr. Bush, you said, ''I hear you.'' Well, Mr. Bush, I don't think you did hear us, and the Senate hasn't heard us, and I think it is time you started to listen to us and enforce the laws of the United States and protect us from foreign invaders.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gadiel follows:]
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER GADIEL
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of so many who have been the victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens; crimes that were made possible because our government failed to prevent terrorists and felons from crossing our Nation's borders. I am President of 9/11 Families for a Secure America (9/11FSA), an organization whose membership is comprised of family members of those killed in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. For obvious reasons our members strongly oppose S2611 because it would facilitate entry of terrorists into our country.
We fully agree that S. 2611 would be an administrative and national security nightmare, but words such as ''administrative'' and ''national security'' are bloodless bureaucratic terms that fail to adequately describe the devastation amnesty inflicts on individual Americans. Speaking as the bereaved father of a young man killed by terrorists who were allowed into our country only because of the power and influence of the same Open Borders Lobby that is today promoting S. 2611, I will speak in plain English. Passing this amnesty will result in Americans being murdered, and subjected to other horrific crimes committed by the dangerous illegal aliens who would be permitted to legally remain in the United States. We know this to be true because this was the result of the 1986 amnesty. The amnesty proposed in S.2611 will be far larger than that of 1986, and thus will cause crime on a much larger scale. This is a disaster that can easily be avoided if the House sticks to its principles and defeats S.2611.
In 1986, Senator Edward Kennedy, then-Representative Charles Schumer, and other sponsors of amnesty claimed that 'only' one million illegal aliens would be eligible for amnesty. In fact, due to fraud in administration, and underestimation of the number of illegals in the United States, over three million illegals were actually granted amnesty.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The investment firm of Morgan Stanley recently estimated that there are over 20 million illegals in the United States. Yet, at a recent meeting with DHS officials, 9/11 FSA Vice-President Bruce DeCell and I were told that Administration statisticians had ''worked the numbers'' and ''only seven million'' illegals would apply. That is approximately one third the Morgan Stanley estimate, oddly enough, the same fraction used by sponsors of the amnesty of 1986. The track record of the promoters of the 1986 amnesty in predicting the number of illegals who would be eligible tends to confirm what appears to be common knowledge to nearly everyone in the country today: the 20 million figure is closer to the mark.
In 1986, sponsors of amnesty also assured us there would be safeguards to screen out those who were a danger to our country. Their failure to honor that promise is as clear as their inability to predict eligibility numbers.
The 9/11 Commission itself showed us that the 1986 amnesty resulted in dead and injured Americans. It noted that two of the conspirators (Mohammed Salameh and Mahmud Abouhalima, aka Mahmud the Red) in the 1993 attack on the World Trader Center were illegal aliens permitted to remain in the US because of the 1986 amnesty. A third plotter (Mohammed Abouhalima, aka Abo Halima) was permitted to stay in the US for six years until just before the attack when his application under the '86 amnesty was finally denied. Despite the denial he remained in the US to help carry out the plot he had helped plan during the period he was ''legal.''
Mir Aimal Kansi who shot five people outside CIA headquarters was an illegal alien also permitted to remain in the US thanks to the 1986 amnesty law. At the time of his 1993 attack his fraudulent claim was still being litigated by Catholic Social Services.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Former 9/11 Commission staff member, Janice Kephart, has documented a large list of foreign terrorists and their methods of entering the United States and embedding themselves here. (Her 2005 paper, Immigration and Terrorism, Moving Beyond the 9/11 Staff report on Terrorist Travel is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/kephart.html)
Obviously, Ms. Kephart's list of terrorists and would-be terrorists includes only those who have been uncovered by law enforcement. Their involvement in terrorist activities resulted in the research which disclosed their grants of amnesty under the 1986 legislation. The FBI has stated that there are sleeper agents in the United States and of course since we do not know who they are we cannot know how many of them have been granted full access to our society through amnesty.
In addition, we can never know many other illegal aliens received amnesty and later went on to commit 'ordinary' violent street crimes which did not, because of the lack of a terrorist connection, result in exposure of their link to the 1986 amnesty.
We know that Americans were murdered and brutalized because of the 1986 amnesty. Although we don't know how large that number is, since nearly 1/3 of federal inmates are foreign born, we can be certain that the number of victims is very considerable. Because the agencies that will be assigned responsibility for screening applicants will not be able to do meaningful background checks on the 20 million illegals who would apply for amnesty under S. 2611, the opportunities for terrorists and 'ordinary' street criminals, are obvious.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the four and a half years I've given in support of efforts to secure our borders, I have heard from hundreds who have been the victims of crimes committed by illegals. Without exception they know these crimes occurred because our government failed to live up to its most basic obligation to its citizens . . . to protect us from foreign attack. The 9/11 Commission staff put it in simple terms: ''terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country.'' Yet, with S.2611 the Senate pretends that 9/11 and thousands of other crimes never happened.
In 2002, the first time I spoke at a Congressional press conference I noted that independent polls consistently show 70% to 90% of Americans want drastic immigration reform immediately and that this majority would soon awaken to the fact that the biggest obstacles to secure borders were the Congress and Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. I predicted that soon this majority would be fed up and turn on those politicians who have blocked the changes needed to prevent another 9/11. Recent events have shown that prediction to be accurate, for in the past few months, nearly half the States and many cities and towns have passed laws to fight illegal immigration and its damaging effects on their economies and society. They have left the Congress in the dust while they act to preserve themselves.
Among the municipalities that have enacted legislation or policies to discourage illegal immigrants from remaining in their jurisdictions are: Suffolk County, N.Y., Avon Park, FL, Herndon, VA, Sandwich Mass., Maricopa County, AZ, Butler County, OH, Danbury CT, Lima, OH., Hazleton, PA,
States that have acted are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming,
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These actions have taken place despite well funded and coordinated opposition to any restrictions on illegal aliens by Catholic Charities, ACLU, LaRaza (the Race), Maldef, LULAC, US Chamber of Commerce, agribusiness, the travel industry, etc. It must be noted, for example that Catholic Charities, which receives 60% of its budget from governmental sources is among the most pervasive of open borders lobbying groups. 9/11 FSA members have encountered Catholic Charities lobbyists active in the following issues in state legislatures: for legislation to grant drivers licenses to illegals, against legislation to make engaging in human trafficking a crime; for instate college tuition rates for illegal aliens.
In addition, the Mexican government, through its forty eight consulates and in violation of treaty obligations, lobbies city, county and state law making bodies throughout the nation in opposition to any legislation that would impede illegal immigration.
For these, the constituent members of the Open Borders Lobby, the suffering and death endured by Americans as a result of illegal immigration is just a cost of doing business. To its eternal shame, the Senate continues to do the bidding of that lobby, demanding that our borders remain wide open to illegal aliens and the criminals and terrorists among them. S.2611 exemplifies the Senate's mindless support of that destructive policy
Last year, the House forced passage of the REAL ID Act despite intense opposition from the Open Borders Lobby and the Senate. REAL ID will keep future terrorists from obtaining the drivers licenses that were critical to carrying out the mass murders of 9/11. Today again, for the good of our country, the House must act in opposition to the Senate and defeat S.2611
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My son, James, was not a statistic. He was a human being. I loved him and I love him now as much as ever. I miss him every second of every day. There are many thousands more like me, who are forever deprived of the love and comfort of someone dear to them because Congress allowed illegal aliens to enter and remain in this country. And there are many thousands more whose lives are ruined by violent sexual acts, beatings, stabbings and other crimes causing permanent physical and psychological devastation.
How many more parents like me, and children, siblings, husbands and wives of victims of illegal alien crime must you in the Congress hear from before you reject once and for all the demands of the Open Borders Lobby.
Shortly after 9/11, Pres. Bush stood on the ruins of the World Trade Center, and because none of his remains have ever been found that was the only tomb my son will ever know. The President said: ''I hear you.'' I believe he and the Senate did not hear us. I believe it is time he, and they, started.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Gadiel.
Mr. Maxwell.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL MAXWELL, FORMER DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIONS, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MAXWELL. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss the impact and implementation of S. 2611 by USCIS would have on national security.
As a former director of the Office of Security and Investigations, the only law enforcement component within USCIS, I must point out that the basic premise of this hearing and implementation of 2611 could create an administrative and national security nightmare that is faulty.
The fact is an administrative and national security nightmare already exists at USCIS under our current immigration policy.
Asking USCIS to implement a proposal as sweeping as 2611 without first addressing existing national security vulnerabilities in our immigration system would be irresponsible at best and could actually facilitate ongoing criminal enterprises.
I therefore agree with Director Gonzalez who said just this past Monday, at a naturalization ceremony in New Jersey, ''If we had to institute a guest worker program today, then the system couldn't handle it.''
I would go one step further, however, and suggest that USCIS could never implement 2611 without compromising this nation's security. The integrity of the underlying immigration system is simply too flawed.
Three overarching issues must, in my professional view, be addressed before any policy reform can be effective. The first is rampant corruption. When I last briefed this Subcommittee, the Office of Security and Investigations had a backlog of over 2,000 complaints against USCIS employees. Included among these were national security cases. I had no case management system and a grand total of four criminal investigators in the field.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today, almost a year later, the backlog is well over 3,000 complaints. New complaints are still coming in at a rate of around 50 per week. OSI still has a grand total of four criminal investigators in the field and no case management system.
Despite four arrests and two convictions of USCIS employees in the past few months alone on charges including soliciting sex for citizenship, selling $1 million worth of green cards in a money laundering scheme, falsifying immigration documents and embezzlement, USCIS management continues, in writing, to insist that sufficient safeguards are built into the system to prevent immigration officers from illegally granting the benefits of their choosing, to the person of their choosing, at the time of their choosing, for the reason of their choosing.
The second issue is a prevailing customer service mentality that prioritizes reducing backlogs and moving benefits above all else. For example, USCIS has created an auto-adjudication system that can apparently process applications for work permits from start to finish without any employee actually examining the supporting documentation for signs of fraud. The system bypasses all but the initial IDA, security name check and therefore searches only the printed name of the applicant and not any spelling variation or aliases—hardly effective.
With a work permit in hand, an alien can obtain a Social Security number and, even under the Real ID Act, a driver's license, then open a bank account, perhaps obtain a fire arms license, board an aircraft, et cetera.
USCIS personnel, without the knowledge of the USCIS or DHS chief information officers, developed a computer system, embedded it into the DHS IT backbone, allowing for remote users to manually insert immigration files into the USCIS database in such a manner so that all security background checks were circumvented and immigration benefits were granted to aliens of their choosing.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Following an initial report from IT security staff, senior USCIS leadership quashed any further investigation, including criminal investigation, of the system and took actions to cover up its existence. It should be noted that official USCIS documents revealed this program was not a law enforcement program.
As of March 10, 2006, the USCIS headquarters Asylum Division had a backlog of 515 asylum cases involving applicants residing in the United States who have provided material support to a terrorist or terrorist organization. Their cases are on hold to give DHS time to develop procedures for considering whether the secretary of Homeland Security should exercise discretion to grant them a waiver of inadmissibility so they can stay permanently in the United States despite their terrorist ties.
The third issue is the ongoing failure to share critical law enforcement information within DHS or between DHS and other agencies. As of August 2005, some 1,400 immigration applications that had generated national security hits on IBIS were sitting in limbo at USCIS headquarters because the adjudicators trying to process them were unable to obtain the national security information that caused them to be flagged from other agencies.
As of late September 2005, USCIS had a total backlog of more than 41,000 applications with IBIS hits, requiring further investigation. Because USCIS is not a law enforcement, the FBI does not permit USCIS personnel to conduct name checks on immigration applicants and as of May 2006, the FBI name check backlog had grown to almost 236,000.
As non law enforcement personnel, USCIS adjudicators are prohibited from routinely running criminal history checks on applicants.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In closing, Mr. Chairman, on June 20, Karl Rove told the National Federation of Independent Business, ''Immigration is turning into a big problem. The more you look at it, the more clearer it is that every single part of the system is broken.''
In medical parlance, we must stop the hemorrhage before we can treat the underlying condition. The proposed Senate bill and its associated timeline would overwhelm an already overburdened USCIS and put this nation at great peril.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. With that, I will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Maxwell follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. MAXWELL
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file for complete hearing record.]
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell.
Mr. Cutler, you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL CUTLER, FORMER EXAMINER, INSPECTOR, AND SPECIAL AGENT, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, Members of the Subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honor to come before this Subcommittee hearing to offer testimony on an issue that is one of the most challenging and important issues our nation faces today.
I commend Chairman Hostettler and Members of this Subcommittee for demonstrating true leadership at a time that our nation is in need of true leadership.
The principle by which most responsible and sensible people live their lives could be summed up by the phrase, ''Safety first.'' Yet this fundamental and common sense approach is clearly lacking among all too many of the senators of our nation. They voted for a bill that utterly ignores the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission at a time when our nation is threatened by acts of terrorism.
Nearly every week we read news accounts of suspected terrorists being arrested in countries around the world as well as within the borders of our own country. We see compelling coverage of bombings of trains in Spain, England and most recently India. One of this country's closest allies, Israel, has been forced to take military action to defend itself against terrorism in the Middle East, and yet inexplicably there are senators and others, including the president of the United States who insist on pushing forward to implement the GuestWorker Amnesty Program that would be utterly disastrous for national security.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
USCIS is unable to cope with all of its responsibilities as we speak. The GAO issued a report in March of this year that makes it clear that USCIS is unable to carry out its vital missions today without the added burden that the GuestWorker Amnesty Program would undeniably bring to bear against that overworked, underfunded and, in general, inept agency.
I would recommend a copy of this report be reviewed by the Members, not only of this Subcommittee but by all members of our Government who favor a GuestWorker Amnesty Program.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Cutler, if I could just interrupt. Without objection——
Mr. CUTLER. Sure.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. I will submit into the record the March 2006 report that you reference, ''Immigration Benefits: Additional Controls and a Sanction Strategy Could Enhance DHS' Ability to Control Benefit Fraud.'' Thank you.
[The report follows in the Appendix]
Mr. CUTLER. That is the report, and I appreciate that you do that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sure.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My fear is that because we are dealing with millions of illegal aliens who, in the parlance of the open borders advocates, are undocumented that means they have no verifiable means of proving their true identities. This means that if the program were to be enacted under S. 2611 that it will be a simple matter for illegal aliens, including terrorists or criminals, to walk into an immigration office, along with millions of other illegal aliens, and produce a false name and then get an official identity document from our Government bureaucrats.
These documents would then enable them to circumvent the various no-fly and terror watch lists. They would be able to use these documents as breeder documents, get driver's licenses, Social Security cards, open bank accounts, even library cards, all the while staying under the radar and obscuring and concealing their true identity, and all of this at a time when the citizens of our country have witnessed an erosion of many of the freedoms that we have come to take for granted in the name of national security.
I have heard the President often state that if our nation allowed aliens who simply wanted to work to do so, that law enforcement could then focus on the terrorists. I have to respectfully disagree with this optimistic but extremely naive assessment.
Awhile back, Robert Mueller, the director of the FBI, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee about his concerns about so-called sleeper agents. As you know, a sleeper agent is a terrorist, spy or enemy combatant who one way or another succeeds in gaining entry into the United States to carry out an attack or other hostile act against our country.
But while awaiting his instructions, however, such individuals do whatever they have to do to not call attention to themselves. Many, as we have seen, get low-profile [jobs], such as driving an ice cream truck, a taxicab, work in a used car lot, or attend school. Often the job that they take provides them with mobility to move freely among us as they conduct clandestine meetings, surveillance or other preparatory functions till the day that they are called into action.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A few days before a terrorist carries out an attack, he is in fact likely to hide in plain sight by going to his job. If our Government makes it that much easier for a terrorist to legally get a job under an assumed identity, then Al Qaida should give the people in our Government who make this possible the MVP award.
The GuestWorker Amnesty Program will undoubtedly entice ever-increasing numbers of illegal aliens to head for our country, because this program will convince people throughout the world that in the United States not only will you be permitted to break the law and get away with it, but that we are actually willing to reward you for breaking the law by even providing you with Social Security benefits when you commit identity theft and use somebody else's Social Security number, even as law enforcement agencies across our country are increasingly turning to asset forfeiture strategies to combat a wide variety of crimes on the city, State and Federal level.
Moreover, there is no door that could be shut so there is no way to keep the millions more illegal aliens from gaining access to our country. The confidentiality provisions would also hobble efforts by law enforcement officials to make certain that criminal and terrorist aliens have their applications properly scrutinized, inviting more fraud.
The avalanche of applications will further erode any effort to restore integrity to the benefit system, meaning that fraud will become even more attractive to criminal and terrorist aliens, furthering encouraging more of them to seek to enter the United States, making it easier for them to game the system, and then we wind up with a vicious cycle where we have more aliens filing more applications, and quality will continue to erode as more applications are filed.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And, meanwhile, decent people who file applications for benefits will be put on the back of this line because the overflowing system won't be able to deal with their applications. That was one of the lessons of the 1986 amnesty, in fact.
Additionally, a meaningful effort needs to be made, not only to deny applications where fraud is involved but to prosecute people who become involved in fraud and to remove aliens who are identified as being the beneficiaries of fraud applications. Right now they file an application with little fear of either criminal charges being brought or administrative deportation actions being initiated.
So if you consider all of this and you realize that the bill of 1986 is essentially a reworked version that we are looking at now, it makes no sense to continue along this path. S. 2611, at a time that we are in now, facing terrorism, facing growing problems with narcotics and gang activities in the United States, makes no sense, and any kind of amnesty program must not be considered at this time.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cutler follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. CUTLER
Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, members of the subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honor to come before this subcommittee hearing to offer testimony on an issue is that one of the most challenging and important issues our nation faces today. I commend Chairman Hostettler and members of this subcommittee for demonstrating true leadership at a time when our nation is in need of true leadership.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The principle by which most responsible and sensible people live their lives can be summed up by the phrase, ''Safety first.'' We instill this principle in our children as soon as they are old enough to understand the words. Yet, this fundamental and commonsense approach is clearly lacking among all too many of the senators of our nation. They voted for a bill that utterly ignores the findings and recommendations of the 911 Commission at a time when our nation is threatened by acts of terrorism. Nearly every week we read news accounts of suspected terrorists being arrested in countries around the world as well as within the borders of our own country. We see compelling coverage of bombings of trains in Spain, England and India, most recently. One of this country's closest allies, Israel, has been forced to take military action to defend itself against terrorism in the Middle East. Yet inexplicably, there are senators and others who insist on pushing forward to implement a guest worker amnesty program that would be utterly disastrous for national security.
USCIS, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that would be responsible for administering the proposed guest worker amnesty program, is unable to cope with all of its responsibilities as we speak. The GAO issued a report in March of this year, makes it clear that USCIS is unable to carry out its vital missions today, without the added burden that the guest worker amnesty program would undeniably bring to bear against that overworked, under funded and in general, inept agency. The report is entitled, ''Immigration Benefits: Additional Controls and a Sanctions Strategy Could Enhance DHS's Ability to Control Benefit Fraud'' and can be found at the following link:
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/gaoimmbenefits31006.pdf
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would recommend that a copy of this report be reviewed by the members of not only this subcommittee, but by all members of our government who favor a guest worker amnesty program.
My fear is that because we are dealing with millions of illegal aliens who, in the parlance of the open borders advocates, are undocumented, have no verifiable means of proving their true identities. This means that if this program were enacted, these millions of illegal aliens would be able to go to an immigration office, assume any identity they found convenient and receive official identity documents from our government. It would be a simple matter for a terrorist or criminal, to walk into such an office, provide a false name to the over-worked bureaucrat at USCIS who will probably be given only a minute or two at most to interview each applicant. The terrorist would then receive a guest-worker identity document in that new identity that would permit him to circumvent the various terrorist watch lists or so called, ''No fly'' lists and thereby embed himself in our country and gain access to what are supposed to be secure venues. Undoubtedly, these identity documents will become the most valued breeder document enabling the bearer to receive driver's licenses, credit cards, Social Security numbers and even library cards in a false name, completing the process of creating new false identities at grave risk to national security, at a time that the citizens of our country have witnessed an erosion of many of the freedoms we have come to take for granted.
I have heard the President often state that if our nation allowed aliens who simply wanted to work, to do so, that law enforcement could then focus on the terrorists. I have to respectfully disagree with this optimistic but extremely naíve assessment. Awhile back, Robert S. Mueller, the Director of the FBI testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee about his concerns about so-called ''sleeper'' agents. As you know, a sleeper agent is a terrorist, spy or enemy combatant, who one way or the other succeeds in gaining entry into our country awaiting instructions to carry out a terrorist attack or other hostile act against our country. While awaiting his instructions, such individuals do whatever they have to do in order to not call attention to themselves. Many, as we have seen, get a low-profile job such as driving an ice cream truck or a taxi cab, work at a used car lot or attend school. Often the job they take provides them with the mobility to move freely among us as they conduct clandestine meetings, surveillance or other preparatory functions for the day they are called into action. A few days before a terrorist carries out an attack he is, in fact, likely to hide in plain sight by going to his job.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If our government makes it that much easier for a terrorist to legally get a job under an assumed identity, then Al Qaeda should give the people in our government who make this possible, the ''MVP Award.'' When we see commercials on television or ads in the newspapers for various goods or services, the ad usually concludes with a disclaimer by the provider of that product or service that details the potential negative impact that the product may have on the consumer. With all of the high-pressure sales pitches we have been bombarded with by members of the United States Senate in attempting to sell their bill, S. 2611, they have neglected to provide a disclaimer, so I will do it for them.
If we provide illegal aliens with guest worker amnesty that differentiates how we treat aliens based on how long they have been here, it will be virtually impossible to make certain that this, along with all of the other provisions, will have integrity, just as it will be impossible to make certain that many more illegal aliens don't run our borders, stow away on ships or gain entry through ports of entry, claiming that they have been here for the 5 years that would virtually provide them with the ''keys to the kingdom.'' There would be no way to force these millions of illegal aliens to leave our country because we cannot enforce their departure today. The guest worker amnesty program will undoubtedly entice ever increasing numbers of illegal aliens to head for our country because this program will convince people throughout the world that in the United States, not only will you be permitted to break the law and get away with it, we are willing to reward you for breaking the law by even providing you with Social Security benefits if you commit identity theft and work, or claim to have worked, under someone else's Social Security number, even as law enforcement agencies across our nation are increasingly turning to asset forfeiture strategies to combat a wide variety of crimes on the city, state and federal level. Moreover, there is no door that can be shut, so there is no way to keep millions of more illegal aliens from gaining access to our country. The confidentiality provisions would also hobble efforts by law enforcement officials to make certain that criminal and terrorist aliens have their applications properly scrutinized. The avalanche of applications will further erode any effort to restore integrity to the benefits system meaning that fraud will become even more attractive to criminal and terrorist aliens, further encouraging more of them to seek to enter the United States and making it easier for them to game the system to enable them to embed themselves within our country and hide in plain sight. As it is, each year the director of USCIS and his subordinates promise to reduce the backlog of pending applications for a wide variety of immigration benefits including the granting of resident alien status and the conferring of United States citizenship upon aliens. It is common knowledge that there is an inverse proportion between quantity and quality. The more work you try to do in a limited period of time, the more that the quality of the work you are doing suffers. By having USCIS make the reduction of the backlog of pending applications the priority, more fraud escapes detection. Consequently more aliens get away with committing fraud, emboldening still more aliens to file more fraudulent applications for benefits, further eroding any efforts at quality control and fraud detection. This creates an ever-increasing backlog and an ever-increasing spiral of fraud. In order to break this dangerous cycle, we need to establish a clear priority of combating fraud where those who perpetrate fraud can expect that they may well be discovered and prosecuted. Additionally, a meaningful effort needs to be made to locate, arrest and deport alien beneficiaries of fraudulent applications.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Because of the current pressure to move the applications, much of the fraud escapes detection and only a relatively infinitesimal number of aliens are ever prosecuted or deported because they were involved in immigration benefit fraud. A guest worker amnesty program that has the potential of dumping millions of more applications into the hopper at USCIS would be absolutely disastrous for any effort at combating immigration benefit fraud and restoring even a modicum of integrity to the immigration system and would fly in the face of recommendations of the 911 Commission.
As all of this is going on, our valiant soldiers are fighting in far off lands to help protect our nation against terrorists while some of our politicians at home are seemingly unwilling to secure our nation against the scourge of terrorism in the name of free trade and a desire to keep our nation's borders wide open. They use deceptive language to obfuscate the issue and, quite frankly so has the President of the United States. I have often heard the President say that he wanted to legalize immigrants. I am, as you know, a former INS special agent. This combination of words, ''legalizing immigrants,'' has confounded me. Language is important and so I think it is important to make this point. To offer to make immigrants legal is about as meaningful as offering to make water wet. Water is wet and immigrants, by legal definition, are already legal. In fact, an immigrant is defined as an alien who has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence. An immigrant has a so-called ''green card'' and is able to travel freely around our country and across our nation's borders. An Immigrant has the right to work at any job he is qualified to do. An immigrant has the right to petition the government to have his spouse join him in the United States as an immigrant and may also do this for his (her) minor children. Indeed, an immigrant is on the path to United States citizenship. How much more legal would the President want to make an immigrant?
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I believe that just as the members of the Senate who voted for S. 2611 and other pro illegal alien advocates are not likely to provide a disclaimer for their remedy to the immigration crisis confronting our nation today, this improper and misleading use of the term immigrant falls under the heading of ''deceptive business practices.'' By eliminating the distinction between illegal aliens and immigrants, it becomes a simple matter to keep hammering away at the concept that America is the land of immigrants and that immigrants have made immeasurable contributions to our nation over the years. I am a strong advocate for the recognition of the contributions of immigrants to our nation, indeed, I am the son of an immigrant; however, there is a world of difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien.
There is scant difference between the bill the Senate recently passed and the disastrous Amnesty of 1986, notwithstanding the protestations of the members of the Senate who would take issue with my position. But, if they do not want to learn the lesson of relatively recent history where the Amnesty of 1986 is concerned, then I would recommend that they study much more distant history and study the strategy behind the ''Trojan Horse.'' Only a fool would permit strangers into his home without knowing their true identity or purpose for seeking to enter. Yet, this is precisely what S. 2611 facilitates. In these perilous times, this is not acceptable and must not be allowed.
In support of my concerns about the failings of USCIS I respectfully request that a copy of the GAO report I cited previously be attached to this testimony along with a press release prepared by USCIS dated June 29, 2006, entitled, ''A Day in the Life of USCIS'' that details the myriad tasks that are performed on a daily basis now, before they might have to deal with the onslaught of millions of amnesty applications that the Senate bill would cause. I have attached a copy of that press release to my prepared testimony and believe it provides ample evidence of just how USCIS is over-extended, even without the guest worker amnesty program it would be mandated to administer under the provisions of S. 2611. It may be found at the following website:
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/gaoimmbenefits31006.pdf
Simply stated, a guest worker amnesty program would not only attract even more illegal aliens into our country enabling terrorists and criminals to more easily blend into our country, it would also provide unknown aliens with official identity documents in assumed identities that would enable the terrorists and criminals with an easy means of creating new identities they could use to travel freely across our borders, around our nation and gain access to secure venues and embed themselves in our country. This would, I fear, create a grave risk to our nation's security.
I look forward to your questions.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Cutler.
Bishop DiMarzio, you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF NICHOLAS DiMARZIO, BISHOP OF BROOKLYN
Bishop DIMARZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members, for this opportunity to testify today.
I have to disagree with one of my former panelists, because I don't think the Catholic Church is part of the open border lobby. I do agree with another who said that we already have a nightmare here, a security nightmare, because we have an untold number of undocumented aliens in this country. That is a grave security problem.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Catholic Church has long experience in working with immigrant populations. In our Catholic Legal Immigration Network, we have 158 agencies that do offer legal services. They are all BIA accredited. And so we, too, wish to make people legal in this country, and we respect the immigration laws, and we also respect the right of nations to protect their borders.
There is no question that we have not done a good of protecting our borders, but I would contend that the problem, as well as being a border issue, is a labor market issue. The problem is in the labor market as much as it is at the border.
We need to deal with it in a comprehensive way to deal with all of the issues so that we can have security. It is obviously our goal, and background checks, as we have heard already, are critical. I think with the new information technology we have, if we have a will to find a way to make background checks better, I am sure we can do that.
We must be sure also to give adequate resources to implement the program. In the last amnesty, of which I think I am a survivor, I was here in 1986, worked with Congress, was running the Catholic Church's implementation program, we needed to have perhaps a better relationship with the Immigration Service at the time.
I hope that USCIS in this time, if we are able to bring some program of legalization around, will have a better relationship with us called, the qualified designated agencies, which helped the Immigration Service at that time to process all these applications.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Obviously, fraud is a major concern. The Catholic Church does not stand for fraud. We, in our application process, made very effort to make sure that any application process by us was certainly legal and had the proper documentation. That is where the qualified entities can be of great assistance to the Immigration Service in doing that work.
I think also, as we look to the—there are certain qualifications that we need in a program as we are finding it. In order to deal with the security issue, we have to be in a comprehensive approach to dealing with all of the factors that influence undocumented immigration.
I just finished a term as the commissioner for the Global Commission International Migration, a U.N.-inspired body, that will bring its report to the United Nations this September. What is clear in the many hearings we had around the world that undocumented migration is an international problem.
But only with international cooperation can we ever hope to resolve this problem. We need to work with the nations from which these people come to deal with the issue in an upfront and enlightened manner so that we can stem the flow of unregulated migration, which is good neither for the people nor for the countries from which they come or to which they come. We are clear that that is our policy.
I think also we need to look at the opportunities that this presents. This program characterizes that amnesty is probably more a legalization program. There are rather onerous burdens that have to be passed in order for this to happen. I urge the House to work with the Senate to improve the bill so that it is something that is comprehensive, something that will aim at security, which is a paramount question in our society today so that we can have an immigration system that works.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We need immigrants in our country. It seems our labor market needs them, but we have to find a way we can bring them here legally without any of the external problems that have plagued us in the past. If the law is broken, we must fix it. And, certainly, when we fix it, we must do it in the right way, and I am sure that with the expertise of Congress that this can be done.
So thank you for this opportunity to speak today.
[The prepared statement of Bishop DiMarzio follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MOST REVEREND NICHOLAS DIMARZIO
I am Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, bishop of Brooklyn, chairman of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), and a consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' (USCCB) Committee on Migration. I would like to thank subcommittee Chairman John Hostetler (R-IN) and Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) for having me today to testify before the subcommittee.
Today, I would like to concentrate my testimony in the following areas:
elements necessary to correct inefficiencies which occurred in implementing the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)—the last legalization program—and to ensure efficient processing of applications for any legalization enacted this year;
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
the value of a comprehensive approach to immigration reform as an antidote to the immigration crisis we face in our country today, including how such an approach is consistent with, and beneficial to, national security goals; and
elements of H.R. 4437 which we find problematic because they harm legal immigrants, refugees, and asylum-seekers.
THE ROLE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN IMMIGRATION REFORM
The Catholic Church has a long history of involvement in the immigration issue, both in the advocacy arena and in welcoming and assimilating waves of immigrants and refugees who have helped build our nation throughout her history. Many Catholic immigration programs were involved in the implementation of IRCA in the 1980s and continue to work with immigrants today. In fact, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was a national coordinating agency for the implementation of IRCA. We have a strong working relationship with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that would be largely responsible for implementing any new legalization and temporary worker programs. There are currently 158 Catholic immigration programs throughout the country under the auspices of the U.S. bishops.
Our experience in working with immigrants throughout the years compels us to speak out on the issue of immigration reform, which we believe is a moral issue which impacts the human rights and human life of the person. The Church's work in assisting migrants stems from the belief that every person is created in God's image. In the Old Testament, God calls upon his people to care for the alien because of their own alien experience; ''So, you, too, must befriend the alien, for you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt'' (Deut. 10:17–19). In the New Testament, the image of the migrants is grounded in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. In his own life and work, Jesus identified himself with newcomers and with other marginalized persons in a special way; ''I was a stranger and you welcomed me'' (Mt. 25:35). Jesus himself was an itinerant preacher without a home of his own as well as a refugee fleeing the terror of Herod. (Mt. 2:15).
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In modern times, popes over the last hundred years have developed the Church's teaching on migration. Pope Pius XII reaffirmed the Church's commitment to caring for pilgrims, aliens, exiles, and migrants of every kind, affirming that all people have the right to conditions worthy of human life and, if these conditions are not present, the right to migrate.(see footnote 1) Pope John Paul II stated that there is a need to balance the rights of nations to control their borders with basic human rights, including the right to work; ''Interdependence must be transformed into solidarity based upon the principle that the goods of creation are meant for all.''(see footnote 2) In his pastoral statement, Ecclesia in America, John Paul II reaffirmed the rights of migrants and their families and the need for respecting human dignity, ''even in cases of unauthorized migration.''(see footnote 3)
In an address to the faithful on June 5, 2005, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI referenced migration and migrant families; ''. . . my thoughts go to those who are far from their homeland and often also from their families; I hope that they will always meet receptive friends and hearts on their path who are capable of supporting them in the difficulties of the day.''
In the pastoral letter Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope, the United States and Mexican bishops point out why we speak on the migration issue; ''As pastors, we witness the consequences of a failed system every day in the eyes of migrants who come to our parish doors in search of assistance. We are shepherds to communities, both along the border and in the interior of the nation, which are impacted by immigration. Most tragically, we witness the loss of life at points along our southern border when migrants, desperate to find employment to support themselves and their families, perish in the desert.''(see footnote 4)
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For these reasons, the Catholic Church holds a strong interest in the welfare of immigrants and how our nation welcomes newcomers from all lands. The current immigration system, which can lead to family separation, suffering, and even death, is morally unacceptable and must be reformed.
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM
As the then Director of the U.S. Catholic Conference's Migration and Refugee Services (MRS), I oversaw the Catholic Church's participation in programs to assist the millions of aliens who applied for immigration benefits under IRCA. Since that time, I was appointed a bishop by the Holy Father, where I now head the diocese of Brooklyn, one of the largest and most diverse dioceses in the country.
From my position as a bishop, not only do I minister to a diocese that has within it many immigrants, I also serve as Chairman of Board of Directors for the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), which advises and provides immigration services for dioceses all around the country.
My time with MRS, my experience as a bishop, and the research that the Church has conducted over the last several decades lead me to conclude that it is possible to establish a program to permit deserving undocumented aliens to apply for earned legalization without crippling the process of adjudicating other applicants for immigration benefits or jeopardizing our national security. In order to do this, however, Congress will have to provide a number of things:
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Adequate Resources
Proper Planning Before Implementation
Establishment of a Separate Entity within USCIS to Implement the Bill
The Use of Qualified Designated Entities
Rigorous Background Checks
These five elements are a subset of a larger list of necessities that I outline later in my testimony. However, because the subject of today's hearing is the question of the adequacy of an already over-burdened USCIS to process applications for legalization, I will set out those factors at this point in my testimony.
ADEQUATE RESOURCES
It will be essential that Congress provide adequate resources for DHS to implement and execute any earned adjustment program. As passed by the Senate, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA) of 2006 anticipates this by establishing fees that will generate approximately 66 billion dollars of revenue dedicated to processing applications for earned adjustment.
The fee-generated funds, alone, will not be adequate, however. Congress will also need to directly appropriate funds to get the program started. And it will need to be vigilant to ensure that fee-generated funds are not diverted for other purposes, as has often been done in the past
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While some may quarrel with the use of appropriated funds for this purpose, I would suggest that the alternative would likely require the expenditure of far more funds and yield a less desirable result. Imagine how much it would cost to apprehend, detain, and deport the estimated 12 million aliens who are in the United States illegally? The cost of properly implementing an earned adjustment program is tiny when compared to the cost of the alternative approach.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that any comprehensive legislation can be implemented through reasonable fees imposed on applicants and with some supplemental funding appropriated by Congress. Fees should not be imposed, however, which place the program out of the reach of qualified applicants.
Proper Planning Before Implementation/Reasonable Enactment Period: Sufficient time should be given between enactment and implementation so that regulations, procedures, and infrastructure are in place. Deportations of prospective applicants who qualify should be suspended between the two dates. However, Congress should mandate an expedited rulemaking process so that the program is not delayed significantly. If key issues are not resolved at the program's outset, inefficiencies and litigation will occur. The application period for the program should last at least one year so that all qualified applicants can raise the application fee and apply for the program.
Rigorous Background Checks and Security Clearance Procedures: Given the terrorist threat, any program will lack credibility and support if it does not a ''good moral character'' requirement and rigorous identity and security clearance procedures. Steps must be taken, however, that persons are not denied eligibility based on appearance or demeanor, and that sufficient checks and balances are in place to ensure that no one who qualifies is unjustly denied from the program.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Establishment of a Separate Entity within USCIS to implement the bill: A separate entity, similar to the asylum corps, should be created within USCIS to implement legislation; such an entity should be adequately funded through appropriations. A program that attempted to operate through existing systems would worsen the backlog and customer service problems that have plagued DHS in the past.
The Use of Qualified Designated Entities: Qualified designated entities (QDEs) which are Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)—recognized should be created to assist in implementation of any new program. QDEs play a crucial role in public education, outreach, convincing applicants to come forward, preparing strong applications, and liaising with the government.
Mr. Chairman, these elements are crucial to the successful implementation of comprehensive immigration reform legislation. Other important elements should also be included in any final measure:
Operational Terms: Operational terms in the bill, such as ''continuous residence,'' ''known to the government,'' and other important eligibility criteria should be specifically defined to avoid delays and to eliminate confusion. The lack of a precise definition of these terms caused many cases to languish in 1986.
Generous Evidentiary Standards: Evidentiary standards should be based upon ''preponderance of evidence'' and should include a wide range of proof, since migrants do not often create a paper trail. This would allow the maximum number of persons to participate in the program.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Broad Humanitarian Waiver: A broad humanitarian waiver of bars to admissibility, such as unlawful presence, fraud, or other minor offenses is necessary. See refugee waiver (INA 209c) or NACARA waiver.
Confidentiality: Applicants for either the legalization program or temporary worker program should be extended confidentiality and not be subjected to deportation or arrest if they do not qualify. Such confidentiality should be preserved unless criminal issues are raised that are not associated with undocumented status. Without this assurance, it is likely that many persons would not come forward and the goals of the program would not be achieved.
Derivative Benefits: Immediate family members should receive the same benefits under legalization/temporary worker program as the worker. This would keep families together and minimize fraudulent applications from family members desperate to remain with their loved one.
THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM
Mr. Chairman, we believe that the best way to secure our borders and to ensure that our immigration laws are just and humane is to enact comprehensive immigration reform legislation.
Since 1993, when the U.S. Border Patrol initiated a series of enforcement initiatives along our southern border to stem the flow of undocumented migrants, Congress has appropriated and the federal government spent about $25 billion on border enforcement, tripling the number of Border Patrol agents and introducing technology and fencing along the border. During the same period, as Congress has enacted one enforcement-only measure after another, the number of undocumented in the country has more than doubled and, tragically, nearly 3,000 migrants have perished in the desert of the United States. It is clear that another approach is necessary.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Catholic bishops believe that any comprehensive immigration reform bill should contain the following elements:
policies which address the root causes of migration, such as the lack of sustainable development in sending nations;
a legalization program which gives migrant workers and their families an opportunity to earn legal permanent residency;
a temporary worker program which protects the labor rights of both U.S. and foreign workers;
reform of our family-based immigration system to reduce waiting times for family reunification; and
restoration of due process protections for immigrants.
As you know, the U.S. Senate passed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA) of 2006, which contains many of the elements the Catholic Bishops believe are necessary to comprehensively reform our flawed immigration system. Although it does not contain all the elements the U.S. bishops would like to see in legislation, it is the right approach and direction our country should be taking in tackling the problem of illegal immigration. In our view, an enforcement-only approach to immigration reform will not address the need for legal avenues for future flows of immigrants to come to the United States to work or join family members, nor would it address the plight of 11–12 million undocumented in the nation. We encourage you to work with your Senate colleagues to produce a bill which encompasses the elements outlined above.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to say upfront, Mr. Chairman, that we are wary of recent suggestions that the Senate-passed bill's legalization, temporary worker, or immigrant visa provisions be modified in a way that would delay their implementation or subject them to subjective ''triggers.'' We believe that any bill which Congress enacts should not only be comprehensive in nature, but must be implemented in a carefully calibrated manner. Indeed, we note that the Senate-passed already contains a number of mechanisms designed to ensure proper implementation of the legislation. We firmly believe, however, that Congress should not enact into law a scheme that would require further congressional action before implementation of the legalization, temporary worker, or immigrant visa provisions or subject those provisions to ''triggers'' that are vulnerable to the vicissitudes of political pressures, rather than objective measurements of what is necessary in order to properly implement the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to concentrate at this point in my testimony on how the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform would enhance, not undermine, our ability to protect the nation from terrorist threats. The overriding principle which supports this view is that by enacting comprehensive immigration reform, we would better be able to identify who is already in the country and to identify and control who enters it. By enacting a program which provides an earned path to citizenship, for example, a far greater portion of the 11–12 million undocumented persons in the nation likely would emerge ''from the shadows'' and identify themselves to the government. The establishment of additional employment and family-based visas for low-skilled workers and their families would provide legal avenues for those seeking to enter the United States, helping to better ensure that the government knows who is entering the country and for what purpose. The current reality is that our government is unaware of the identities of the overwhelming majority of the 11–12 million undocumented who are in the United States and unable to monitor efficiently those who cross the border illegally.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I am not alone in this assessment. I would like to submit for the record, with your permission, a statement from nine former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials who agree that the best way to secure our borders is to enact comprehensive immigration reform legislation. In their letter, they write, ''. . . enforcement alone will not do the job of securing our borders. Enforcement at the border will only be successful in the long-term if it is coupled with a more sensible approach to the 10–12 million illegal aliens in the country today and the many more who will attempt to migrate to the United States for economic reasons.''
In addition, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) recently completed a study on national security and immigration policy. As part of that study, CLINIC staff interviewed a wide range of counter-terrorism experts in order to examine what the United States must do to reduce the threat of terrorism and how immigration policy and U.S. immigration system fits into an overall security strategy. The study provided several policy recommendations to enhance national security through the U.S. immigration system, including the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform.
First, in our view and the view of these experts, national security should not simply be equated with protection from physical attack. It also entails protecting our economic and political interests; immigration policies should not deny us access to the global economy. Policies which attempt to prosecute, jail, and deport 7.2 million undocumented workers—five percent of the U.S. workforce—do not protect our economic security and weaken us. Policies which would separate 10 percent of U.S. families by deporting their undocumented family members undermine our values.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, we should better assess the effectiveness of immigration policies as a deterrent to terrorists. Does a certain immigration policy relate to a legitimate national security goal? For example, we do not believe that the summary return of asylum-seekers, the indefinite detention of immigrants, or the removal of due process protections necessarily make us safer, but they certainly have the effect of impinging on civil rights and undermining the fairness of our laws.
Third, our immigration policies should help our relationship with immigration communities, not alienate them. The United States should be able to identify and run background checks on non-citizens, but is unable to do so if these non-citizens feel safer underground. Enabling state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws also has the effect of alienating major immigrant communities and reducing our ability to identify and prosecute smugglers, traffickers, and would-be terrorists.
Fourth, comprehensive immigration reform should make our nation safer, not less safe. By bringing 11–12 million undocumented persons ''out of the shadows,'' we can identify who they are, where they live, and with whom they may be affiliated. By creating legal avenues for migration, we are better able to control who is coming into the country and for what purpose.
Finally, we must implement a policy of assimilation of immigrants to make us more secure. As we have seen in other nations, such as France and England, the lack of integration policies have led to violence and unrest. We also need to assimilate in order to ensure our economic stability, so that new workers may advance and develop in their skills.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that national security is not just about keeping those who harm us out of our country, but about keeping those who help us in and allowing others who want to help us to enter. Comprehensive immigration reform will help us achieve this goal
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
THE IMMIGRATION REFORM DEBATE AND H.R. 4437
As you know, in December 2005, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4437, the Border Security, Anti-Terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. While the U.S. bishops appreciate the need to secure the nation's borders and believe that passage of a House bill was a necessary first step to begin the immigration debate, the USCCB opposes H.R. 4437 because we believe it is overly punitive, too narrowly focused and would cause harm to legal immigrants, asylum-seekers, refugees, and the nation. We strongly believe that an enforcement-only approach will not solve the problem of illegal immigration, but could exacerbate it by driving migrants further underground and into the hands of unscrupulous smugglers. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to submit a copy of correspondence opposing the legislation, dated December 14, 2005, to all members of the House of Representatives from Most Reverend Gerald R. Barnes, bishop of San Bernardino and chairman of the USCCB Committee on Migration.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that, despite the opposition of the USCCB to H.R. 4437, we are not opposed to all aspects of the bill. Steps taken in Title I, for example, to increase resources for border security are necessary to ensure security for our country. We also appreciate the leadership of the House of Representatives in launching the immigration debate, which, although contentious, is necessary for the betterment of our communities.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight some of the major provisions of H.R. 4437 which we find problematic and which we believe would undermine the fairness of our immigration laws without necessarily making our nation safer.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Criminalization of Undocumented Presence. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Section 203 of H.R. 4437 would make undocumented presence in the country a criminal offense and a felony, subject to at least one year of jail time. While the authors of H.R. 4437 have indicated their willingness to reduce the nature of the offense to a misdemeanor rather than a felony, we believe that this provision would unjustly and unwisely make undocumented immigrants—especially those who are here presently—criminals and would not serve the best interests of our nation. It is well established that the large majority of immigrants who come to this nation do so to work to support themselves and their families. Indeed, over eighty percent of the undocumented population in this nation is involved in either a part-time or full-time employment. They benefit our nation in terms of the taxes they pay and the work they perform. Instead of criminalizing these persons, we should permit those who are deserving to earn a legal status so they can come forward and contribute to our nation without fear.
Criminalization of those who ''assist'' undocumented persons. Section 202 of H.R. 4437 would expose to felony prosecution anyone who ''assists'' an undocumented person or provides assistance that permits an undocumented alien to ''remain in the United States,'' knowingly or in reckless disregard to whether a person was in the country illegally. In our view, Section 202 goes well beyond the scope of addressing alien smuggling and has the great potential to implicate many good Samaritans under the broadened definition of smuggling, including church personnel. For example, under Section 202, a church group or priest that provides food aid, shelter, emergency medical care or other forms of assistance to an individual could be imprisoned and risk forfeiture of their assets for ''assisting'' an undocumented person. Certainly alien smuggling and trafficking for profit or commercial gain are activities that need to be sanctioned. Existing law already provides for harsh penalties for such behavior. However, H.R. 4437 goes far beyond increasing penalties for these heinous activities. Instead, it would jeopardize millions of Americans—neighbors, family members, faith institutions, and others—who live and work with undocumented immigrants.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Criminalization of Passport or Visa Fraud. Section 213 would make a variety of forms of passport, visa, and immigration fraud criminal offenses, making even one such instance punishable by more than a year in prison, and, thus, making them aggravated felonies that would render persons so convicted inadmissible and ineligible for any immigration benefit. Although no one supports passport or visa fraud, distinctions should be made for those who engage in it for nefarious purposes and desperate refugees who are fleeing persecution. Often times, refugees must fabricate documents to escape persecution because they cannot obtain valid ones from the authorities persecuting them. Not only would this section render legitimate refugees ineligible for relief because of the means they had to use to escape their persecutors, it also would jeopardize battered women and children acting under the direction, force, or coercion of a parent, guardian, smuggler, or trafficker.
Mandatory Detention for Undocumented Aliens Apprehended at or Between Ports of Entry. Section 401 would require the mandatory detention of an alien apprehended at a U.S. port of entry or along an international land or maritime border of the United States. We are concerned that this provision is so overly broad that persons who are in the country legally and vulnerable populations will be harmed, such as U.S. citizens without proper documentation, legal permanent residents, asylum-seekers who are not in expedited removal and have a credible fear of persecution, unaccompanied children, and trafficking victims. It also would add additional stress to our overly burdened detention system, leading to increased use of local jails and the commingling of non-violent offenders with violent ones as well as the separation of families.
Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws by State and Local Authorities. Sections 220–222 would grant broad authorization to state and local law enforcement authorities to enforce federal immigration laws. We reject the premise in these sections that all persons suspected of being undocumented immigrants should be rounded up by state and local police agents. State and local law enforcement authorities have many serious concerns on their hands, such as protecting our communities from violent criminals. If these provisions are enacted into law, we fear that immigrant communities would no longer trust local police to protect them or to share with them important information about crime in their neighborhoods. We also are fearful that massive-scale enforcement of civil immigration laws by ill-trained state and local police officials will result in inadvertent deprivations of even citizens' and lawful permanent residents' civil and constitutional rights.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Expedited Removal. Section 407 would expand and mandate the use of expedited removal with respect suspected illegal aliens who are not nationals of Canada, Mexico, or Cuba and who are apprehended within 100 miles of a U.S. international land border, within 14 days of entry. We are concerned that bona fide asylum seekers would be harmed by this provision, since in many instances Border Patrol agents, untrained in the finer details of asylum law, will be making life and death decisions for individuals.
Indefinite Detention of Individuals who cannot be returned to their country. Section 602 would permit the indefinite detention of certain aliens who cannot be removed to their country of nationality. As you know, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that a person can only be held for a period reasonably necessary to effectuate removal, and found six months to be reasonable. Holding a person longer than the period of their penalty violates basic human rights.
Creation of 700 miles of Fencing. H.R. 4437 would mandate the construction of 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. We do not believe that the erection of such a wall would address the underlying causes of migration and would not deter desperate migrants from attempting to enter the nation. It could lead, however, to an increase in smuggling networks and to more dangerous attempts to enter the country, increasing the number of migrant deaths. As I explained earlier in my testimony, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the adoption of comprehensive immigration reform will help ease the pressure along our southern border.
Elimination of Diversity Visa Program. Section 1102 would eliminate the Diversity Visa program, created in 1990 to give foreign nationals of nations without a high volume of immigrants an opportunity to immigrate to the United States. This program has been successful in bringing in a diverse number of individuals who have at least a high school education and some job training. Given the new security checks for those entering the country, we see no justification for the elimination of this program.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, these are some of the provisions in H.R. 4437 which cause us grave concern, although they do not represent the totality of our concerns. We hope we can work with you and your staff in the days and months ahead to ameliorate these provisions and work toward a just comprehensive immigration reform package.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for inviting me to testify before your subcommittee today. Our nation stands at an important time in her history, when we need to remain vigilant against outside threats without sacrificing values which we hold dear—justice, fairness, and opportunity. We must honor and continue our history as an open and democratic society which values hard work and the contributions of immigrants. As soon as possible, I ask that you work with your Senate colleagues to fashion a comprehensive immigration bill which is just, humane, and provides for the security needs of our country.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Bishop.
At this time, we will turn to questions from Members of the Subcommittee.
First of all, Mr. Gadiel, you concluded your statement that we must enforce our immigration laws. Is it your understanding, having studied, I am sure very closely, the work of the 9/11 Commission, is it your understanding that if immigration laws that were in place prior to September 11, 2001 would have been aggressively enforced, that the plan that led to the tragic events of September 11 could have been derailed?
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GADIEL. I think there is no doubt of that. The 9/11 Commission report, in great detail, described how the consular officials in Saudi Arabia granted visas to people who were clearly ineligible and should have had secondary inspection and their applications were defective on their face or had missing answers. And every one of them is a young, single male from terror-sponsoring nations, and not one of them was eligible, not one.
But the reason the State Department issued these visas was because they are pressured by the open borders lobby to let more people in. The travel industry wants to sell more airline tickets, the college industry wants to sell more seats, and the high-tech industry wants more cheap labor. And so there is this enormous pressure, and that is why we don't enforce their laws.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you.
Supporters of the Senate's amnesty bill have argued that the bill will actually enhance our national security by bringing illegal aliens out of the shadow, as they say. Do you agree with that?
Mr. GADIEL. Well, Mohamed Atta had a driver's license and he was out of the shadows, and I don't know what good that did us on 9/11. And what this does is it allows people who are terrorists to, when they get their American citizenship, to adopt a new name, which, in effect, wipes them off of the terrorist watch list. They can adopt a new name. They go back to their own country they are not even known by that name anymore.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It gives the veneer of legitimacy to anybody no matter how dangerous that person is. If we had given—we almost did give citizenship, in a sense, because of the open access and process in this country, but if we had given him citizenship, it would have been even more of a privilege for him.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you.
Mr. Maxwell, in your testimony, you state that USCIS has ''a customer service mentality that invariably trumps national security concerns.'' You also state that high-ranking immigration officials have termed immigration ''a right rather than a privilege.''
What effect would these attitudes that are there today have on USCIS's ability to screen applications under S. 2611 for national security risks?
Mr. MAXWELL. This attitude is really a carryover from the INS days. It simply transferred from INS into CIS as DHS was created. And despite calls from Director Gonzalez that national security is the forefront for his agency, once you leave Washington, D.C., the pressure of backlog elimination that currently exists within USCIS simply forces managers in the field to push applications forward at the expense of national security. They have to meet the mandate of backlog elimination.
S. 2611 will just continue to put pressure on the managers in the field. And so what they will do is they will continue to develop programs in the field despite calls from senior leadership at headquarters so that they can meet the mandate of Congress, and national security will suffer. They will simply cheat the system so that they can push benefits through the system.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you.
Mr. Cutler, you are a former INS examiner. How difficult would it be to verify that an illegal alien has resided in the United States for a given period of time, say, 5 years?
Mr. CUTLER. It would be difficult with the resources that are there, because we keep hearing about background checks. A background check is not the same thing as a field investigation. All a background check means is you run fingerprints and a name that the person put on their application. A proper investigation would require agents to go out, knock on doors, show photographs, interview people. It is an arduous task. It might take days per application.
If you are dealing with millions of applications and you are dealing with a workforce of a couple of thousand agents, the numbers don't add up. It would take many, many years to even begin to get a handle on it, and meanwhile with the open borders that we have and with the Visa Waiver Program that we have, we are being inundated by aliens on a daily basis and we would be getting inundated with applications.
In fact, I think in 1986 the original estimate was that there would be about a million to a million and a half aliens applying for amnesty. When the final numbers were in, I believe the actual number of applications that had been approved was more than 3.5 million. Partially, they may have been undercounting, but I also believe that we had aliens who entered the United States after the program actually began to give amnesty and people successfully claimed to have been here for the requisite number of years in order to qualify.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I think that with the lack of resources and the much greater number of potential applicants today, there is just absolutely no way that this system would have even a shred of integrity.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you.
Mr. Maxwell, how many contract workers does USCIS currently have?
Mr. MAXWELL. They have approximately 7,500 contractor workers on the books now.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Will USCIS need to hire additional contract workers to adjudicate the applications under S. 2611?
Mr. MAXWELL. They would have to hire more contract workers. Just prior to my resignation in February, discussions were they would hire between 7,500 and 10,000 additional employees, most of that outsourced to contract employees.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. For just——
Mr. MAXWELL. Just to handle what at that point was called the Temporary Worker Program.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Very good.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What would be the ramifications for national security and public safety by allowing contract workers to adjudicate amnesty applications?
Mr. MAXWELL. Really, the answer to that is a two-pronged answer, and it really raises some grave concerns for national security. At the time, I was involved in planning for the Temporary Worker Program, as it was called then. There was discussion that the contract employees would not undergo a full background investigation and would still be given access to sensitive law enforcement databases to vet the alien applicants, which raised some grave concerns, because at the same time we had just convicted a contract employee for accessing those sensitive law enforcement databases and releasing sensitive law enforcement information to a criminal who was being investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration.
So without thoroughly vetting those contract employees and giving them access to terrorist watch list, obviously connect the dots, we are not sure who we are giving access to these terrorist databases and can they be co-opted by foreign intelligence, by terrorist groups, by criminal organizations? Absolutely.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Can they be planted?
Mr. MAXWELL. Can they be planted? Absolutely. That was one concern that we raised, and our recommendation was that all contract employees, all Federal employees undergo a full background investigation which would be at great expense, obviously, before they be given access to these sensitive law enforcement databases.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The second part of the equation was hiring this second workforce for USCIS to conduct background investigations on the alien applicants, that the background investigation process itself is flawed.
As the inspector general recently reported, 45,000 aliens from high-risk nations, state sponsors of terrorism, have been released into the general population since 2001 because the background check process itself is flawed.
We simply cannot verify the backgrounds, the identities, the countries of origins of everybody who comes through the system. We just don't know who they are. We are essentially giving these people new identities, releasing them into the country even though they are coming to us from countries that sponsor terrorism. So it really does present a grave national security risk.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for questions.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman very much.
In a better day, I would like to be in a conference right now really ironing out, I think, the concerns that have been articulately expressed really over and over again by so many. I do want to acknowledge that we appreciate the witnesses who are here and the very diverse testimony that comes forward.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I do want to acknowledge and express again the sympathy to Mr. Gadiel and also raise a question with you.
If we are trying to fix what is a broken system, and might I say that it is broken both in terms of the legal system and an undocumented system, we have to fix both, along with border security, one of the elements that has been crucial is to get the men and women on the front lines well prepared.
I believe you had an opportunity to review H.R. 4044 that talked about my legislation giving equipment to the Border Patrol, border security. Is that a good place to start along with some of the other issues that we are discussing and to include the northern border where we provide the night goggles, the power boats, the computers, the training, technology for trained Border Patrol agents?
We know statistically that Border Patrol agents, by the few numbers that they have now, have stopped about $1.7 million from coming across the border. Just imagine if they had the equipment and the staffing, training the kind of effective tool they would be.
Is that an important step for Congress to make and fund to its maximum what they need to provide those kinds of resources?
Mr. GADIEL. Absolutely, without question. I think it is quite obvious and logical that the more people that are on the borders, patrolling the borders and the better equipment they have, the more people we will stop. And, certainly, the northern border is not something that can be ignored at all. I agree with you 100 percent on that.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, I appreciate your support of my legislation, and I look forward to trying to pursue this very point.
I do want to go to Bishop DiMarzio and thank you so very much, because before us we have just recently announced the Pence-Hutchison bill, and I take to heart Mr. Maxwell's comments. I think it would be an outright outrage to talk about, if you will, contracting out security data.
But one of the failures of the IRCA, and if you might share why we failed at IRCA, because you were actively involved in helping or hoping to make it work. We failed in IRCA, [one], because we shortchanged the funding, we shortchanged the partnership, we didn't do employer sanctions. But here you are today.
We are all recognizing that we have 12 million undocumented, hardworking, taxpaying individuals who simply want an economic opportunity. And the Pence-Hutchison bill that talks about report to deport is frivolous and foolish.
So tell us how we can make IRCA work and how nonprofits who understand that we do have a system of laws and a system of immigrants, and we don't want to violate laws, we want to deal with the large humanity that we have and really stop ignoring the challenges before us. And that is, of course, to gain control of the border, to conduct workforce enforcement and certainly not skimp on the dollars.
How can we make this an effective implementation, say, for example, of a conference report that would take a large part from the Senate bill?
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Bishop DIMARZIO. I think again from the experience of the last time, there were failures, but there were a lot of successes. An overwhelming amount of good citizens have been added to this country, and I think that is what we have to look at, the success that has happened there.
I think the paradigm has to be changed. I think in the past we had an adversarial relationship between the INS and the entities that were designated by Congress to assist them. They knew that they could not do the job by themselves. They need to set up, obviously, USCIS, a separate unit, and they could never add it to the present unit. And I think we have got to look at in the past IRCA was talked about as kind of a tripod, looking at enforcement, the legalization issue and the workplace enforcement, the border enforcement and workforce enforcement. I think those same elements still need to be addressed.
The workforce enforcement, talking about employer sanctions, isn't sufficient, because most employers are on it. They check what they are given and it is not adequate. We need to have a secure way in which employers can be sure that they are hiring workers that are authorized for employment. And that is something that needs to go contemporaneously with securing the border, while at the same time giving legalization to the people that are already here.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. And how can nonprofits be helpful in this process, short of the component of the Pence bill, which is to contract out Government's work? But you can be effective in helping to make sure this actually works properly.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Bishop DIMARZIO. I think there is a network across the country of nonprofits that are looking to assist people, assist the Government, assist the country in making sure that the legalization process is legal and that it is expeditiously carried out. So I think the network is available.
I think we are a self-correcting system in our country; we can improve things. If we see that something is wrong, that is our greatest asset. We have been able to change and to improve, and think what we have learned from the past, and there has been several analyses. We can make sure that those problems don't reoccur and that we design a system that is even more effective.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank the witnesses as well, and I appreciate your continued involvement in this issue.
To sit here and listen, one of the things that occurs to me, and I think I direct my first question to Mr. Maxwell, is that the concept of processing millions of people through a background check or background test and the first foundation of that would be, what information, what identification documents would they bring to the table for that background check?
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And let's presume that since the majority are from Mexico, let's just talk specifically of Mexicans as a standard, do you know what percentage of Mexican citizens have a legitimate document that identifies who they are? What percentage gets birth certificates at birth and that tracks them through life, for example?
Mr. MAXWELL. I don't know specifically, sir, what percentage have legitimate documents. I do know, however, that the Castorena cartel in Mexico is the largest organized crime family dealing specifically in counterfeit documents in Mexico, operates in 50 cities in the United States. It is a $300 million a year counterfeit document trade here in the United States. They can produce counterfeit documents with embedded biometrics, documents that can fool law enforcement upon visual inspection.
Mr. KING. So if you were going to verify, you would have to go back and verify at the place of birth.
Mr. MAXWELL. Absolutely.
Mr. KING. And that is the only way that one could actually do that legitimately.
Mr. MAXWELL. Absolutely.
Mr. KING. And that concurs with a constituent I have when I asked him that question, and he is from Mexico and a good legal resident and a good business person in my district, his answer was, ''I don't know what the percentage is but I can buy whatever I want—driver's license, birth certificate—easily purchasable on the market.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I see Mr. Cutler leaning ahead.
Do you care to comment, Mr. C