[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

MAKING IMMIGRATION WORK FOR
AMERICAN MINORITIES

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

MARCH 1, 2011

__________

Serial No. 112-10

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-855 PDF WASHINGTON: 2011

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or
866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERROLD NADLER, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia Virginia
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MIKE PENCE, Indiana MAXINE WATERS, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
JIM JORDAN, Ohio MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
TED POE, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah TED DEUTCH, Florida
TOM REED, New York LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina
DENNIS ROSS, Florida
SANDY ADAMS, Florida
BEN QUAYLE, Arizona

Sean McLaughlin, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
------

Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement

ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman

STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TED POE, Texas MAXINE WATERS, California
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
DENNIS ROSS, Florida

George Fishman, Chief Counsel

David Shahoulian, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S

----------

MARCH 1, 2011

Page

OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration Policy and Enforcement............................. 1
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration Policy and Enforcement............................. 2
The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary....... 4
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 5

WITNESSES

Carol M. Swain, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science and Law,
Vanderbilt University
Oral Testimony................................................. 9
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
Frank L. Morris, Sr., Ph.D., Progressives for Immigration Reform
Oral Testimony................................................. 17
Prepared Statement............................................. 19
George Rodriguez, President, San Antonio Tea Party
Oral Testimony................................................. 28
Prepared Statement............................................. 30
Wade Henderson, President and CEO, The Leadership Conference on
Civil and Human Rights
Oral Testimony................................................. 32
Prepared Statement............................................. 35

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

Prepared Statement from William Lucy, President, Coalition of
Black Trade Unionists, submitted by the Honorable John Conyers,
Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan,
and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary................. 7
Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement............. 54
Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement............. 71
Article from National Review Online, submitted by the Honorable
Maxine Waters, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and
Enforcement.................................................... 83

APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Pedro Pierluisi, a
Representative in Congress from Puerto Rico, and Member,
Subcommitte on Immigration Policy and Enforcement.............. 89
Additional Material submitted by Carol M. Swain, Ph.D., Professor
of Political Science and Law, Vanderbilt University............ 90

MAKING IMMIGRATION WORK FOR
AMERICAN MINORITIES

----------

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration
Policy and Enforcement,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton
Gallegly (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Gallegly, Smith, King, Gohmert,
Poe, Conyers, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Waters, and Pierluisi.
Staff Present: (Majority) Andrea Loving, Counsel; Marian
White, Clerk; and David Shahoulian, Minority Counsel.
Mr. Gallegly. Good morning. I call to order the
Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement.
This morning, we are going to start--I guess we will have
an opening. I have long said the way to solve the problem of
illegal immigration is fairly simple. First, we must enforce
our laws and secure the border. Second, we must remove the
magnets that encourage illegal immigration. And finally, we
must remove the benefits that make it easy for them to stay.
With nearly 14 million unemployed Americans, removing the
magnets--I am sorry, I have got the--excuse me just one moment.
[Pause.]
Mr. Gallegly. I am sorry about that. I got just a little
bit ahead of myself.
When employers hire foreign workers who will work for less
than American workers, Americans lose jobs. So importing
millions of poorly educated foreign workers won't help our
country. But instead, it will only hinder its growth.
This morning's hearing is the third in a series which this
Subcommittee will be examining, the connection between
immigration and jobs. Today, we are exploring perhaps one of
the most important aspects of that connection--the effect that
low-skilled immigrants have on the employment of American
minorities.
This topic is often ignored by amnesty supporters. But
Republicans held a 2007 forum on the issue, and we invited a
witness to discuss it at the 2010 hearing. So I am pleased that
the Immigration Subcommittee is taking a formal look at it
today.
The 13.9 million unemployed Americans deserve every chance
possible to find a job, and our focus should be on ensuring
that every U.S. citizen who is willing to work has a job,
instead of giving jobs to foreign laborers.
Many of those impacted by the current job crisis are
minorities. The unemployment rates for Blacks and Hispanics are
15.7 and 11.9, respectively. They often compete for jobs with
low-skilled immigrant workers.
In 2006, Harvard professor George Borjas researched the
effects of immigration and the wages and employment rates of
the African-American population. He concluded that a 10 percent
immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a particularly
skilled group reduced the Black wage by 3.6 percent. And he
found that the same increase in labor supply lowered the
employment rate of Black men by 2.4 percent.
Using census data from 1960 to 2000, Borjas determined that
as immigrants disproportionately increase the supply of workers
in a particular skill group, there was a reduction in the wage
of Black workers in that group, a reduction in the employment
rate, and a corresponding increase in the incarceration rate.
And young people have been hit especially hard by the
recession. In fact, of young U.S.-born Blacks ages 18 to 29, 55
percent have no education higher than a high school diploma,
and of young U.S.-born Hispanic, 54 percent have no education
higher than a high school diploma.
These low-skilled legal workers are the ones who have to
compete with the jobs with the three-fourths of illegal
immigrants who have no education beyond high school. They are
the real victims of the American failed immigration policy.
Recent research confirms that assertion.
In August 2010, the report by the Center for Immigration
Studies noted that according to the U.S. Census Bureau and
Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 2007 to 2010, younger and
less educated workers are the most likely to be in competition
with immigrants, legal and illegal. And in July 2010, a report
by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern
University noted that immigrants--especially less educated,
undocumented immigrants--provide fierce competition for jobs
for the Black male teens.
Several of our witnesses today have seen firsthand the
impact that mass low-skilled immigration has had on minority
communities. I look forward to hearing their testimony as we
move through the hearing.
And at this point, I would yield to my friend from
California, the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hopefully, all of us in this room can agree on some things.
I am sure we can all agree that our immigration system should
be designed to benefit our country, our economy, and all
American workers. And I know we agree that a functioning system
means stopping illegal immigration. We can agree that
unscrupulous employers will exploit immigrant workers and
undercut American workers, and that can't be.
I hope we can also agree that our laws should prevent
employers from using legal temporary workers to displace
American workers. America needs a system that lets in workers
only where and when we need them, not where and when we don't.
Where we do disagree is on how to get to such a system.
Witness Carol Swain, for example, has often criticized the H-2B
visa program, and I agree with her.
Last year, I introduced a bill that would reform that
program to prevent employers from using H-2B workers to
undercut U.S. workers. Unfortunately, no one on the other side
of the aisle joined me in that effort.
That is perhaps because many of my colleagues believe that
rather than fix our broken system, we should just keep pressing
on the enforcement pedal harder. But increased enforcement is
exactly what we have been doing for 20 years, and everyone
knows it isn't working.
Most importantly, we know you can't just keep enforcing a
broken system. As we have discussed in this Committee's last
few hearings, simply enforcing our laws in agriculture, for
example, would actually destroy many millions of jobs held by
American workers.
We know that even in this economy, Americans are not
returning to the fields, and the wage increase necessary to
entice them there would make U.S. food products no longer
competitive with imported products. The end result would be the
closure of America's farms, a less secure America, and the mass
offshoring of millions and millions of U.S. jobs. These are not
just farm jobs, but jobs supported by agriculture in
manufacturing, seed production, processing, packaging,
distribution, and accounting.
Studies show that for every farm worker we deport, we may
be deporting three other jobs held by Americans. This is the
real math of our complicated economy. Enforcement without
reform may open up a job over here, only to destroy four over
there.
These facts can be hard to accept when our country is
facing the greatest economic challenge since the Great
Depression. People are out of work, and many are out of hope.
Unemployment is stubbornly high, especially in communities of
color. It is a time when many are eager for answers.
But we need more than sound bites. We know there are
unscrupulous employers who capitalize on undocumented workers
to undercut other employers, but some may point to instances of
displacement and draw a conclusion about all immigration and
offer unrealistic prescriptions for mass deportation that will
harm and not help our communities.
As policymakers, we need to consider all available
information. We need to consider that the vast majority of
economists and all of the most recent research in the area
confirm that immigrants actually improve the job prospects of
U.S. workers. Disinterested economic experts, in report after
report, reach such conclusions.
While some economists have found slight negative effects on
the small and shrinking number of Americans without high school
diplomas, much of the newest research reverses those findings
and shows that even such workers have benefited from
immigration. A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute
finds that workers without high school diplomas saw their wages
go up because of immigration. It also shows that similar
positive impacts were experienced by White and Black non-
Hispanic workers alike.
With African Americans specifically, recent studies by the
brightest economic minds shows that immigration does not have
the negative effects that some would suggest. Economist Steven
Pitts of UC-Berkeley, Bernard Anderson of the University of
Pennsylvania, Gerald Jaynes of Yale, and Heidi Shierholz of EPI
conclude that African Americans have generally benefited from
immigration, as many have moved up as immigrants have moved in.
These findings have surprised many, including the
economists themselves. Mr. Jaynes, a professor of economics and
African-American studies at Yale, himself said--and I quote--
``Despite strong convictions for our hypothesis that
immigration had large negative effects on Black workers in
particular, the data forced us to conclude otherwise. Negative
effects were mostly absent and modest at worst for only a small
segment of lowest-skilled workers.''
How can this be? It is because although immigrants fill
jobs, they also create jobs in various ways. They create jobs
by consuming goods and services. They also often fill jobs that
an insufficient number of Americans want to fill, resulting in
the continued viability of certain industries, like
agriculture, that support jobs in other industries, like
manufacturing and processing.
The challenge we face as policymakers is to reconcile these
facts in order to develop a system that works for America. My
colleagues argue that by simply increasing enforcement, we will
free up jobs for American workers. But this is no jobs plan.
Their approach may have superficial appeal, but mass
deportation is hardly smart economic policy. It is a short-
sighted effort that would be costly and would fail. What we
need to do is roll up our sleeves and fix our laws. We need to
secure our borders and close off magnets for undocumented
workers.
We need to be realistic about this population. We can spend
billions in a futile attempt to deport them all, or we can
require them to register, pay taxes, learn English, and ensure
that they are in the system, following the rules. If we level
the playing field and prevent exploitation by unscrupulous
employers, we can protect all workers.
Our goal must be nothing less than an immigration system
that actually responds to our economy and serves the interests
of American businesses and workers. That is the work America
needs us to do.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gallegly. The gentleman from Texas, the Chairman of the
full Committee, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With unemployment at or over 9 percent for 21 months, jobs
are scarce. And that is especially true in minority communities
across the United States.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in January,
the unemployment rate for Blacks was 16 percent, and for
Hispanics, 12 percent. These unemployment rates are much higher
than the national average.
According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 7 million people are
working in the U.S. illegally. These jobs should go to legal
workers, many of whom will be minorities.
Virtually all credible studies show that competition from
cheap foreign labor displaces American workers, including legal
immigrants, or depresses their wages. The Center for
Immigration Studies found that low-skilled workers lose an
average of $1,800 a year because of competition from illegal
immigrants for their jobs. That is a significant economic hit.
A study by Harvard economist George Borjas shows that cheap
immigrant labor has reduced the wages of American workers
performing low-skilled jobs by 7.4 percent. That is a huge wage
cut.
But research is not the only proof. After illegal workers
are arrested and detained during Immigration and Customs
Enforcement worksite enforcement actions, many businesses
replace them with American minorities.
Georgia's Crider, Inc., lost over 600 illegal workers after
an ICE worksite enforcement action. The company increased wages
a dollar an hour and attracted legal workers, primarily Black
Americans.
There are stories like these all over the United States.
Enforce immigration laws, and unemployed Americans will be back
on the payroll and earning a living for themselves and their
families.
Unfortunately, the Administration has almost stopped
conducting worksite enforcement actions and prosecuting illegal
workers. Instead, they conduct I-9 audits and release the
illegal workers so they can walk down the street and take
another job from an American worker.
Each time ICE arrests, detains, or deports an illegal
worker, it creates a job opportunity for an American worker.
Each time the Department of Justice brings a criminal action
against an employer who knowingly hired illegal workers, it
sends a powerful message that their illegal employment will not
be tolerated.
Unfortunately, worksite enforcement has plummeted under the
Obama administration. Administrative arrests have fallen 77
percent from 2008 to 2010. Criminal arrests have fallen 60
percent. Criminal indictments have fallen 57 percent, and
criminal convictions have fallen 66 percent.
With millions of Americans unemployed, it is hard to
imagine a worse time to cut worksite enforcement efforts by
more than half. Not only could the Administration enforce
immigration laws to help protect jobs for Americans, but they
should also expand the use of the E-Verify system. It is the
easiest way to help an employer know that their workforce is
legal.
The Administration needs to be held accountable for not
doing more for American workers.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to welcome all of our
witnesses today. They are all experts and all friends, and I
appreciate their being here.
I yield back.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
At this time, I would recognize the Ranking Member of the
full Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman.
I am very happy to be with you again, Elton Gallegly, on
this, the third hearing on this subject. And of course, this is
the first day of the third month of the 112th Congress, and we
have had on the floor five bills.
The biggest, of course, was the huge cuts that resulted the
week before this one, H.R. 1, the continuing appropriation in
which we introduced some 67 amendments and passed the bill at
about 4:45 a.m. The second was H.R. 2, the repeal of the
healthcare law. And that, again, succeeded.
And the fourth, H.R. 4 was small business paperwork mandate
elimination, which also came out of this Committee. And
Thursday, we will have H.R. 3 on the floor, No Taxpayer Funding
for Abortion Act. And the leadership has now reserved the 6th,
7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th bills to be determined.
If this is the approach toward creating jobs, I don't want
to minimize the effort because there are some important issues
in this hearing. But remember, both Democrats and Republicans
campaigned on the notion that we would create jobs, and we are
creating very few jobs.
Now this is a very sensitive subject because if we are not
careful--and I have a very optimistic and expanded view of what
we can accomplish here today--but the notion that is underneath
the surface of pitting African-American workers against
Hispanic workers and immigrants is so abhorrent and repulsive
to me that I want to get it on the table right now.
And I will be watching very closely for anybody that tries
to suggest that we are going to divide these two minorities who
have much more things in common than they have in difference.
And so, this becomes very, very important.
Now I was hoping that we could get the president of the
Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, Bill Lucy, who is, in
addition, an executive board member of the AFL-CIO, who spent
his whole life working in this. But unfortunately, he wasn't
available, and I presume that the Chair would have been
appropriately welcoming this witness as well.
But he has a statement to submit.
[The information referred to follows:]
Prepared Statement of William Lucy, President,
Coalition of Black Trade Unionists
The Coalition of Black Trade Unionists (CBTU) proudly represents
the interests of over 2.5 million black men and women in the labor
movement. With one in every five black workers in a union, the labor
movement is the single largest organization of African Americans in the
nation. Since its founding in 1972, the CBTU has fought for economic,
political and social justice for every American and used its powerful
voice to demand fairness, equal pay, and a voice on the job for all
workers. It is in this spirit that CBTU advocates for comprehensive
immigration reform.
CBTU strongly supports the Labor framework for comprehensive
immigration reform which calls for: an independent commission to assess
and manage future flows, based on labor market shortages that are
determined on the basis of actual need; a secure and effective worker
authorization mechanism; rational operational control of the border;
adjustment of status for the current undocumented population; and
improvement, not expansion, of temporary worker programs, limited to
temporary or seasonal, not permanent, jobs.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``The Labor Movement's Framework for Comprehensive Immigration
Reform,'' AFL-CIO and Change to Win, April 2009, available at http://
www.aflcio.org/issues/civilrights/immigration/upload/
immigrationreform041409.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
immigration reform should not be portrayed as a wedge issue
While we appreciate the subcommittee's focus on minority workers,
we are deeply concerned the hearing will be used as a forum to blame
immigrants for ``stealing jobs'' and attempt to divide African-American
workers from Latino workers and newly-arrived immigrants from earlier-
arriving immigrants. We sincerely hope members of the subcommittee and
witnesses in today's hearing will rise above such simplistic views and
refrain from divisive rhetoric.
Immigration reform is not an ``us versus them'' issue; it is an
issue that impacts all of us. For far too long, unscrupulous employers
have manipulated our broken immigration system to exploit undocumented
workers, deny workplace protections, depress wages and stifle
collective bargaining rights. This abuse has had a detrimental impact
on all workers and must be stopped.
improving workers rights will help minority workers
CBTU encourages the subcommittee to look at improving labor, health
and safety laws as a way to ``make immigration work for minorities.''
Prioritizing workers' rights and workplace protections will ensure that
our immigration system does not depress wages and working conditions
for American workers. Promoting the freedom to form union and
increasing access to collective bargaining will also benefit minority
workers.
By bargaining collectively, union members are often able to
negotiate higher wages and better benefits. Union members earn almost
28 percent more than nonunion members. The union wage benefit is
greatest for people of color and women. Latino union workers earn
almost 51 percent more than their nonunion counterparts. Union women
earn almost 34 percent more than nonunion women. For African Americans,
the union advantage is 31 percent. For Asian American workers the union
advantage is close to 1 percent.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Union
Members in 2010'', January 2011, table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
CBTU reaffirms its commitment to comprehensive immigration reform,
as outlined in the Labor framework. We encourage Congress to take a
comprehensive approach to immigration reform and prioritize workers'
rights. Ensuring that workers come out of the shadows and participate
in the above-ground economy will raise labor standards for all workers.
__________

Mr. Conyers. Now the NAACP has been working on this issue
for decades. The Congressional Black Caucus has been working on
this issue for decades. We welcome our Judiciary Committee
putting an oar in on this as well.
And so, this is a very important hearing, and I know our
witnesses are going to be careful about their remarks because
they will be scrutinized long after this hearing has ended.
Now the one thing that I want to clear up, if I can, with
the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith, is that
the numbers of people being arrested at the borders and the
enforcement of our borders is, as I interpret what he said,
more lax than ever. Or that the numbers are not proving what--
they are proving that there needs to be more work on it.
But that, Chairman Smith, is only if you take out the
number of helicopter raids and big, mass busts, when they go
into one plant and arrest everybody in sight. That is true that
that sort of conduct is not going on. But we are enforcing our
border security laws more effectively, from my point of view,
than ever before.
Last year, we deported a record number of immigrants. We
have now more Border Patrol officers at our U.S.-Mexican border
than ever before. And border crossings are at the lowest level
since the year 1972. And there are all sorts of statistics that
will be brought forward.
But let us agree that we will work toward the accuracy of
what is going on at the border because I think there is
agreement that that is the key to cutting down and reducing to
the maximum illegal entry into this country through our U.S.-
Mexican border. And so, I am very much committed to this
hearing.
But there is a suggestion that somehow if we cut off
immigrants, we will then be able to hire, particularly for farm
workers, my Subcommittee Chair mentioned, we will be able to
hire African Americans. Well, I have got a half dozen or more
States that we can pay a visit to, and we might want to take a
little trip out to these areas and find out from the farmers
themselves what they are saying.
If you really want to scare our agriculture industry in a
new and different way, tell them that you are going to
eliminate the immigrants that work in these fields at stoop
labor at cheap wages, under deplorable conditions, I think you
will find that their anticipation of being replaced by
unemployed African Americans at this field will not be zero. It
might be 1 or 2 percent. And so, I hope that this discussion
comes out in what we will be doing here today.
The way we are going to deal with creating jobs is to
stimulate the economy and create some jobs. I have heard it
said from my friends here in the Judiciary Committee that we
should collect up every illegal immigrant and send them out of
this country, and I will probably hear that again today, which
is a point of view that is permissible under democratic
discussion of how we should govern.
But I hope that we will get past that. That is not what
this country is about, and an immigration policy, which this
Committee has jurisdiction over, we have got people now born in
this country whose parents were immigrants and who may not have
been here legally and who are now citizens. And that is another
big challenge that awaits, Chairman Gallegly, this
distinguished Subcommittee's work.
And so, I thank you very much for giving me the opportunity
to join in this discussion in the hearing today.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank the gentleman for his opening
statement.
We are fortunate to have a very distinguished panel of
witnesses with us today. Each of the witnesses' written
statement will be entered into the record in its entirety, and
I would ask that each witness summarize his or her testimony in
5 minutes, if possible, to help stay within the time
constraints that we have here today.
We have the lights that will help as an indication of the
amount of time that has been taken, and I would ask that
everybody be sensitive to that.
Our first witness is Dr. Carol Swain. Dr. Swain is a
professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and was a tenured
associate professor of politics and public policy at Princeton
University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
Affairs. Her work on representation and race relations has
earned her national and international accolades.
Dr. Swain, welcome?

TESTIMONY OF CAROL M. SWAIN, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL
SCIENCE AND LAW, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY

Ms. Swain. Good morning.
President Obama's failure to enforce Federal immigration
laws raises the question of whether we are a nation of laws or
a nation without the courage of its convictions. This failure
to enforce many of the congressionally enacted laws of our
Nation places our citizens at risk, and it damages our national
sovereignty and standing in the world.
Under our constitutional system, the President and Members
of Congress and other officers take an oath of office where
they swear to defend the U.S. against all foreign and domestic
threats. The failure to enforce immigration laws means that the
American public is unprotected from a massive influx of
millions of foreign-born persons who have entered this country
without authorization and have taken jobs and opportunities
from law-abiding American citizens.
It does not matter that some of these unauthorized
foreigners are otherwise good people. Maybe most of them are
good people. What matters is their choice to enter this country
unlawfully, in open violation of our laws.
By not defending our laws, the President risks the kinds of
lawlessness that we find rampant in other parts of the world.
It dishonors us, and it dishonors our Nation when the chief
executive sends the signal to the world that laws no longer
matter.
The American people have spoken. Poll after poll has shown
that the American people would like immigration laws enforced
and current levels of immigration reduced. All Americans are
suffering from unemployment, job displacement, and stagnant or
declining wages. But some Americans suffer more than other
Americans.
The unemployment data show that native-born Blacks and
Hispanics with a high school education or less have been harmed
the most by the oversupply of cheap, low-skilled foreign labor.
Unfortunately, a lack of opportunities in the legal job market
has pushed more and more minorities into illegal activities.
Harvard economist George Borjas conducted a study of Black
male employment and found a precipitous decline in Black
employment between 1960 and 2009 that was accompanied by a
sharp increase in their incarceration rate. This decline in
Black employment and the rise in incarceration rates cannot be
explained by the prevalence of crack cocaine or other factors.
Borjas concluded that a 10 percent immigration-induced
increase in the supply of a particular skill group reduced the
Black employment wage by 3 percent, lowered the employment rate
of Black men by about 5 percentage points, and increased the
incarceration rate of Blacks by a percentage point.
Congress can address these issues. Lawlessness has no place
in America. Congress should take immediate steps to regain the
confidence of the American people in the rule of law. Congress
should use its oversight authority to ensure that Homeland
Security is enforcing existing Federal laws and not using our
Federal dollars to sue States.
Congress should increase workplace verification and
enforcement, a restoration of the Social Security no-match
regulation, a return to workplace raids, detention of
unauthorized foreigners who pose a flight risk, and stiff
penalties for employers who repeatedly hire illegal aliens.
Right now, there is a bill before Congress that would make
E-Verify permanent and mandatory for all businesses. H.R. 800
would require employers to check the eligibility status of new
and existing employees, and it would establish penalties for
noncompliance. H.R. 800 needs to be passed quickly and signed
into law.
Congress also needs to strengthen the hands of local law
enforcement officials and give them the authority to assist
with enforcement of immigration laws. Sanctuary cities, towns,
and States should lose their Federal funding.
These difficult measures are necessary if we are to protect
the health and well-being of the American public while
maintaining our national sovereignty and the rule of law.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Swain follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Dr. Swain.
Our next witness is Dr. Frank Morris. Dr. Morris is retired
from the University of Texas at Dallas and was previously the
dean of graduate studies and research at Morgan State
University. He is a former executive director of the
Congressional Black Caucus and is a founding board member of
Progressives for Immigration Reform.
Welcome, Dr. Rodgers--Morris. I am sorry.

TESTIMONY OF FRANK L. MORRIS, SR., Ph.D.,
PROGRESSIVES FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM

Mr. Morris. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Subcommittee.
I believe that I will point out why this particular
relation of jobs and immigrants and low-wage workers is a
particularly important subject for the Judiciary Committee.
Now, basically, to make sure I get my main point in, which
I think I already heard well, that current immigration and
labor laws, the necessity to enforce them, along with E-Verify,
must be vigorously enforced, at a time when all American
workers, and especially African-American workers, are so
economically vulnerable.
Now, in the immigration debate, one of the things that we
consistently see through the press and others, the focus that
somehow it is the immigrants, and I hear it here today, that
are the real victims. What we do not really point out is that
in many ways in our labor market, the immigrants are the
privileged workers, and we don't talk about the real victims
being the low-wage African-American workers, especially subject
to substitution pressures, which, Congressman Lofgren didn't
talk about, but I can elaborate in the questioning area.
The privilege basically is the availability of jobs and a
preference for jobs. Less than one-quarter of the jobs that
immigrants hold are in agriculture. To say that Americans won't
do or can't do or low-wage workers or low-wage Black workers
are not available for jobs in light manufacturing or janitorial
services or food preparation or cleaning or health services is
just simply not true. These are supposedly the fields--jobs
which Americans won't do, and the majority of Americans in
these fields do them.
Now, further evidence of this, once again, comes from
Andrew Sum at Northeastern. He points out that at the time
where we have had this great economic loss of jobs, the great
recession of 2008 to '10, while we have had nearly double-digit
unemployment, over a million new foreign workers have found
jobs. Now this is why we have lost 6.2 million jobs for the
economy as a whole.
Andrew Sum, the really prominent labor economist at
Northeastern, has been quoted as saying, ``Employers have
chosen to use new immigrants over native-born workers and
continue to displace large numbers of blue-collar workers and
young adults without college degrees. One of the advantages of
hiring, particularly young, undocumented immigrants, is the
fact that employers do not have to pay health benefits or
payroll taxes.''
One of the things I want to point out--I need to move
quickly here--is that the differences in the way laws are
administrated. We have African Americans not benefiting from
stringent enforcement of laws that protect workers. Whereas, we
have had in our history, and we have to the present, the
intensive administration of drug laws that have a
disproportionate impact on African Americans.
And I point out the statistics in my written presentation
that are really, really extensive. This double standard, this
double standard of loss, and I point out that now we cannot
continue this.
You know, one of the other benefits that many in the
immigration debate has had is the comparison that somehow
immigrants or undocumented immigrants are in an analogous
position to African Americans in the civil rights struggle. I
point out clearly at least four reasons why that that is simply
in error.
The analogy implies that current employer preferences to
pay workers is the same as African Americans. When we African
Americans were the employed workers, it was during slavery. It
was during times of chain gangs, and it was during times of
agricultural sharecropping. The slogan ``last hired and first
fired'' still has meaning.
And this is the critical effect, the substitution effect.
The fact that the only times when African-American workers
really have a shot, especially African-American workers who
have criminal records, who have gone through the criminal
justice system, is when there are times of full employment. And
we are a long way from that.
The statistics, I have got to really move very quickly to
point out. I point out whole sections in my written statement
of why deteriorating economic conditions require that we give a
preference to American workers, not just even bring them up to
the speed. But American workers clearly need the preference.
And I point out at the end, because my time is short, that
there are three market trends that really require that we once
again focus on our American workers--the fact of more jobs that
are subject to offshoring, the fact that reductions in State
and local employment where African Americans are
overrepresented, and last, but not least, the fact that many of
our major corporations get their revenues and their employment
from outside.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morris follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

__________

Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Dr. Morris.
Our next witness is Mr. George Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez is
president of the San Antonio Tea Party, is a former Reagan
administration official who worked at both the Department of
Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice.
Welcome, Mr. Rodriguez.

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE RODRIGUEZ, PRESIDENT,
SAN ANTONIO TEA PARTY

Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you very much. Is it on?
I am humbled and honored to be the first Hispanic to be
elected as a Tea Party president in this Nation. My testimony
today is more regarding the personal impact on my family that I
have seen regarding illegal immigration and illegal workers in
the United States.
I was born in Laredo, Texas, a border city, where my family
resided for over three generations. Illegal labor was a daily
problem for my family and other Mexican Americans in those
days.
My father, Eduardo Rodriguez, was a printer since the age
of 9. He taught himself how to read and write proper English by
working a printing press. During the Depression, my father
worked very hard to keep his job and a decent wage that would
support his family.
The problem was not only the economic depression that our
country was going through, it was also the competition from
illegal Mexican workers who crossed into Laredo, Texas, every
day. They would cross in to work during the day and then go
back to Nuevo Laredo in the evenings to live.
A low wage in the United States was a great wage in Mexico.
The practice of working illegally in the United States and
living in Mexico was common and continues to be very common in
the border cities. But it was very, very much resented by
Mexican Americans.
In 1938, my father began organizing a printers union not so
much to address the issues of labor, of wage and labor
conditions, but to develop a closed shop as a way, as an only
way to stop the competition from illegal aliens and the
undercutting of wages by Mexican aliens.
For example, an illegal Mexican worker would work for half
the wages a Mexican American would, but still live well in
Mexico. Another issue was how easily a Mexican American could
be replaced if he complained, if he complained to his boss
while illegal workers were plentiful.
After 9 difficult years, my father was successful in
establishing a printers union, which kept illegal aliens from
competing with American citizens for jobs. My father passed
away in 1988, but he was very happy when he heard of the 1986
Immigration Reform Act, that it contained employer sanctions.
Unfortunately, those employer sanctions are rarely, are rarely
enforced.
My father's story is not unique, but rather typical of the
experience most Mexican Americans have had in border towns.
Even today, Mexican Americans--not just in border towns, but
everywhere--will tell you that they do not want illegal aliens
competing for their jobs in any form or fashion. Most Mexican
Americans feel that we must do something to stop aliens from
entering the country illegally, illegally, and taking jobs from
Americans in any form or fashion.
Let me relate one more story. My mother passed away in
1987. And a few days after her death, an acquaintance of the
family's asked to borrow--actually, to purchase--my mother's
Social Security number so she could get somebody to work. Yet
another example of how this system continues to need some
fixing.
My testimony today is not only that we have problems in
America today, where Americans are adversely impacted by
illegal aliens in competing for jobs. In this time of economic
stress, we really, really need to do some more enforcement. One
of the things that we see that is very, very important is--or
that sometimes is not understood is the disdain that Hispanic
Americans have for illegal aliens who are competing for their
jobs.
Now, Mr. Conyers, with all due respect, one thing that you
said a few moments ago as far as abhorrence and the competition
between people, let me tell you what is really abhorrent. That
Hispanic Americans are classified in the same breath with
illegal aliens.
We are American citizens. We are born in this country, and
we honor this country. The laws must be obeyed. And
unfortunately, whenever somebody thinks of illegal aliens, they
think of us, which I find patently unfair and discriminatory.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

__________

Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Mr. Rodriguez.
The fourth witness today is Mr. Wade Henderson. Mr.
Henderson is the president and CEO of the Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights. Prior to this, he was the Washington
bureau director of the NAACP. Mr. Henderson is a graduate of
Harvard University and Rutgers University School of Law.
Welcome, Mr. Henderson.

TESTIMONY OF WADE HENDERSON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE LEADERSHIP
CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. Henderson. Chairman Gallegly, Ranking Member Lofgren,
and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for having me here
today.
The Leadership Conference is the Nation's leading civil and
human rights coalition, with over 200 national organizations
working to build an America that is as good as its ideals.
The issue of immigration reform, including the question of
how immigrants interact with various communities of native-born
Americans, has long been one of tremendous importance to the
Leadership Conference. And I am honored to share some of the
thoughts of our coalition today.
For the record, I should also note that I am honored to be
the Joseph L. Rauh Jr. Professor of Public Interest Law at the
David A. Clarke School of Law, University of the District of
Columbia. And for the record, I did not do my undergraduate
work at Harvard. I attended Howard University. I am proud to
note that as well.
I would like to begin by noting what I hope are a few
general points of agreement. First, I believe that everyone in
this room can agree that our Nation's immigration system is
badly broken. It fails to keep up with economic realities. It
fails to provide an orderly way to keep track of who is here.
It inhumanely separates families and keeps them apart. It
penalizes children for the actions of their parents. And it is
so unfair and so burdensome that it fails to give people enough
incentives to play by the rules. America's immigration system
clearly needs sweeping changes, and it needs them soon.
Second, elections have consequence. And while I recognize
that the political landscape has changed, the dire need for a
comprehensive overhaul of our Nation's immigration policy has
not changed.
I would echo what President Obama said during the State of
the Union about the need for Congress to continue working
toward a solution to this issue to humanely deal with people
who are already here, to meet the needs of employers without
undercutting workers, and to ensure that people are using
legal, secure means of coming here and that Congress must do so
in a bipartisan way.
Now, turning more directly to the subject of today's
hearing on making our immigration policies work better for
minority groups, I would note that the real impact of
immigration continues to fuel debate even among the most
knowledgeable policy advocates.
As a lawyer and as a civil rights advocate who has spent
decades elevating fact to combat false and harmful stereotype,
I would say that the research to date paints a far more
complicated picture than the rhetoric we often hear about
immigrants ``taking jobs from African Americans.''
For example, let us begin with the very troubling reality
that African-American unemployment rates have always been high.
Over the last 50 years, the unemployment rate for African
Americans has consistently been almost twice as high as the
unemployment rate for White Americans, even before the foreign-
born population began to increase.
It is also important to remember that African-American
unemployment has a wide range of causes that are difficult for
economists or for anyone else to pinpoint. These include not
only employment discrimination, but also the problem of
structural inequality that results from disparities in
education, criminal justice policies, the availability of
healthcare and housing, as well as the globalization of the
economy and the movement of many types of jobs overseas.
For these and for other reasons, economists are still
debating the real impact of immigration on the overall economy,
as well as its impact on particular groups within the economy.
That said, the Leadership Conference takes very seriously the
underlying concerns which motivated this hearing today.
We strongly believe that public and private initiatives to
address the persistent high rates of unemployment for African
Americans should be one of our Nation's highest priorities.
When it comes to the impact of undocumented immigration on the
job prospects of low-skilled African Americans, there is
admittedly some anecdotal evidence of job displacement, even as
the statistical evidence remains unclear.
However, the premise that widespread job displacement can
be traced directly to the presence of undocumented immigrants
in the workforce is simply unfounded. Moreover, some advocates
for more restrictive immigration policies have chosen to
overstate the problem as a way of garnering greater public
support for their positions, even though many economists
believe that comprehensive immigration reform is the best way
to end the massive exploitation of the undocumented and the
incidental displacement it may cause.
Finally, our own research has found that despite these
concerns, most African Americans still support comprehensive
immigration reform, as I explain in my written statement.
Now, in an effort to address both the misperceived and
legitimate issues of job displacement in a constructive way,
the Leadership Conference organized a summit of leaders from
the African-American, Latino, and Asian-American communities in
2007 with an eye toward the upcoming Senate immigration debate
of that year. I won't continue on this track other than to say,
sir, that in the interest of time, there are recommendations
included in my written testimony which would elevate a solution
to the problem we have discussed.
Now, one last point. I commend those who share our interest
in ameliorating the persistent problem of high unemployment in
the African-American community. However, the singular focus of
today's hearing may do more harm than good by contributing to a
distorted view of a significant issue that defies simple
explanation.
At most, immigration is one small factor in a very
complicated problem of African-American unemployment, and yet
it remains an issue ripe for mischaracterization and political
manipulation. And while I do not question the motives of anyone
associated with today's hearing, I do know that African
Americans tend to take note of how consistently or
inconsistently advocates for reduced immigration show their
concern when it comes to dealing with other factors and the
interests of the African-American community as a whole.
I would cite two examples, but in the interest of time, I
will only emphasize one of them. The two examples would have
been the severe budgetary cuts that were adopted earlier this
month by the House Republican leadership that will have,
unfortunately, a significant and disproportionate impact on
African Americans as a whole.
And then, lastly, I would also point to what appears to be
a coordinated campaign of State and Federal bills aimed at
rewriting the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, one of the
bedrock foundations of civil rights in this country, in a
misguided effort at controlling undocumented immigration. As
some of you may know, attacks on the sanctity of American
citizenship have particular resonance for African Americans.
These concerns were exacerbated at one national event where
a State senator from Florida--I am sorry, from South Carolina
announced his support for the initiative by celebrating the
150th anniversary of the Civil War and South Carolina's role in
starting this conflict through the Confederate attack on Fort
Sumter. This was hardly a rallying cry in support of the more
perfect union we all purport to seek.
Now I don't claim to know what is in any person's heart,
but it is fairly clear to most African Americans that many of
those who are quick to cast blame on the immigrant community
for job displacement or other social ills, do so for reasons
other than their concerns for the economic or social well-being
of African Americans.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Henderson follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

__________
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Henderson.
And first of all, I want to apologize to you for
misrepresenting your credentials and Harvard. It was not my
intent to slander you, sir.
Mr. Henderson. No, no. And sir, thank you. And I don't take
any offense, but I am quite proud of my undergraduate degree,
as well as my law school degree and other advanced degrees that
I hold. So thank you, sir.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you.
Dr. Swain, you had entered in the written statement that it
is members of the working class and not highly educated
Americans who are most upset about immigration labor. Could you
maybe expand just a little bit on that?
Ms. Swain. Well, first of all, the American public, for the
last 20 years, poll after poll has shown that the American
public would like to see immigration enforcement. The
economists agree--to answer your question directly, the
economists agree that a small sector of the population is
negatively impacted by high levels of illegal immigration.
That small sector includes low-skilled, poorly educated
Blacks and legal Hispanics. And so, it is not that they are
upset. They are the ones who are being affected. And I believe
all economists would agree that this is the sector, the ones
that are high school educated and less.
Mr. Gallegly. Dr. Swain, further, my colleague and Ranking
Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers, said that the NAACP
has been working on this issue for decades and that those who
want enforcement are pitting Blacks against Hispanics, which is
divisive. Would you like to respond to that?
Ms. Swain. In a book that I edited in 2007 that was
published by Cambridge University Press, entitled ``Debating
Immigration,'' I have a chapter on the Congressional Black
Caucus and its stances toward immigration. And one of the
things that I am dismayed by is the fact that the Black
leadership, whether we are talking about the NAACP or the
Congressional Black Caucus, has done a very poor job of
representing the interests of Black Americans as well as legal
Hispanics in their districts.
Mr. Gallegly. Dr. Morris, would you like to try to respond
to that same question?
Mr. Morris. Yes, one of the studies that really talks about
the differences between elite and sort of grassroots attitudes
is done by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations almost
periodically. And they show that across the board, immigration
is one of the greatest areas where there is a difference
between elite opinion, and I would certainly include elite
Members of Congress, and those who are at the grassroots.
Folks, when you--African Americans, when we are talking not
in the halls of Congress, really do feel, they see certain
things. They see the lack of African-American workers in
construction sites, whether it is in Dallas, whether it is in
Washington, D.C., whether it is from all around the country.
They question why that we don't see more Black workers in
certain other areas.
They realize that the contention that jobs in light
manufacturing, from poultry plants to meat plants, which are
heavily influenced by migrants, are allegedly jobs that
Americans won't do. Well, African Americans, we certainly won't
do them if we don't get the job.
And I think this is as much as anything, that there are--in
a book that Waldinger wrote a number of years ago, there are
networks, there are employment networks that are vital in
recruitment. And many African Americans are out of those
recruitments. Those networks recruit to contractors and others
for undocumenteds. It is a pipeline, and our workers are out of
this. They are out of this.
And especially our vulnerable workers, who have, because we
are in the Judiciary Committee, this interaction with the
criminal justice system. And I think an unfortunate
interaction. There is Michelle Alexander, in both her book and
in her article at American Prospect, shows a 2002 study from
Chicago that shows that 80 percent of young African-American
males have had some interactions with the criminal justice
system, arrests or other kinds of things, which really serves
as a means of not letting them work.
And they don't have the choice. This is the other thing.
African Americans do not have the choice to go home, to go home
or to go back to a place where you could work. A Pew Hispanic
study a couple of years ago pointed out that many of our
immigrants--especially Mexican, illegal and legal--came to the
United States not because they didn't have jobs in Mexico, but
because jobs in the United States pay more.
African Americans, as I point out in my--do not have that
choice of either going back or having someone else protect
their human rights, stand up for their human rights in this
country.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Dr. Morris.
I would just like to ask Mr. Rodriguez a very quick
question. What kind of message is the Administration sending to
the Hispanic-American community when it refuses to detain and
prosecute illegal immigrants found in the workplace?
Mr. Rodriguez. It is sending a very poor message. Let me
tell you that I represent--just in San Antonio, our Tea Party
represents about 6,000 voters. Of those 6,000 voters, about a
third, maybe a little larger number than that, are Hispanic
Americans.
Any time that I have written an article in the newspaper,
and I have written several, the response from Hispanic
Americans is tremendous all the time, saying it is about time
somebody says something. And it is about time somebody stopped
classifying us as somehow part of an entire illegal community.
We are American citizens. We want the laws obeyed.
The laws are there for a reason. And when a law is broken,
then there should be a penalty. And unfortunately, that is not
the message that is going on right now. The message that we
hear right now is, well, you know, we are trying to get votes.
And so, therefore, we are trying to classify everybody the
same.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.
The Ranking Member has asked to defer to the Ranking Member
of the full Committee, my good friend Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers?
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly.
The Chairman, Mr. Smith, and I have to depart to the budget
portion of a Committee to get our resources for the 112th
Congress. So I thank Zoe Lofgren for letting me go first.
This is more puzzling than it is helping us get to the
subject, but, Dr. Swain, you are sitting next to Dr. Morris,
who served with distinction on the Congressional Black Caucus
Foundation. And I was hoping that he would help defend the poor
record of the Congressional Black Caucus that you have
reported. This is the second time you have done that in the
Committee.
Dr. Morris, can you defend me and the members of the CBC
here?
Mr. Morris. Congressman Conyers, certainly. In terms of
support of working-class Americans, absolutely right, and the
Black working class. However, on the immigration issue, I think
that there has been a belief of giving a priority to maybe a
larger political coalition other than focusing on specifically
the direct, narrow concerns of African-American workers.
One of the----
Mr. Conyers. This is sort of damning with faint praise, Dr.
Morris. Could you be a little more emphatic than that?
Mr. Morris. Well, I think that certainly----
Mr. Conyers. I mean, there were seven members when I got
here. There are 42 now, 43. And Dr. Swain never misses an
opportunity to denigrate the CBC, which is frequently regarded
to be the conscience of the Congress.
And of course, I don't know what my constituents are going
to think about your comment because I have been reelected 23
times in a row and am now the second most-senior Member of the
Congress. I hope you won't hold that against the Congress or my
constituents.
But----
Ms. Swain. May I speak, sir?
Mr. Conyers. Not yet. But let me get to Mr. Tea Party from
Texas, George Rodriguez.
And I was impressed that on your statement that you
submitted, you put ``Mr. Tea Party,'' just in case anybody
thought you were just an ordinary rank-and-file Republican.
Now, in Texas, you failed to give support to my Chairman
when he ran just a few months ago. You can speak. I don't want
you to shake your head. I want this to be in the record.
Mr. Rodriguez. Well----
Mr. Conyers. Right?
Mr. Rodriguez. Can I speak now?
Mr. Conyers. Right?
Mr. Rodriguez. Yes, I did. I did not support Mr.----
Mr. Conyers. So we have got a difficult situation here, Mr.
Chairman. No, he said yes. Yes, I am correct. You did not
support the Chairman?
Mr. Rodriguez. I did not support the Chairman----
Mr. Conyers. Right.
Mr. Rodriguez.--Mr. Rodriguez. Is that what you are talking
about?
Mr. Conyers. No, Mr. Smith. Lamar Smith.
Mr. Rodriguez. Yes, we did. We supported Mr. Smith.
Mr. Conyers. Oh, you did?
Mr. Rodriguez. Yes.
Mr. Conyers. Oh, well, I apologize. I thought I was going
to have--hear criticism from the Black Caucus and criticism
from you from Lamar Smith, but you fail me. I thought the Tea
Party was, you know, doing their own thing here.
We have got Members here, newly elected among the 87, that
they are demanding things far beyond what the regular,
ordinary, routine Republicans are doing.
Mr. Rodriguez. Well, Mr. Conyers, perhaps you don't
understand the Tea Party itself.
Mr. Conyers. Perhaps.
Mr. Rodriguez. Let me explain to you, just to be--the Tea
Party is a conservative movement. It is not a political
movement that supports one party or the other. We are
conservatives, okay?
Mr. Conyers. Do you know of any Democrats in the Tea Party?
Mr. Rodriguez. Well, I am not sure I know any conservative
Democrats.
Mr. Conyers. Well, the Blue Dogs will be interested to hear
about that.
Mr. Rodriguez. Well, yes, and we have talked to some of
them. But I am not sure if they are conservative enough for us.
Mr. Conyers. Oh. Well, I am glad to know that our Chairman
cut the mustard to fulfill your----
Mr. Rodriguez. He does have the mustard. [Laughter.]
Mr. Conyers. Well, let me just close with a question about
the subject. How many here of the four of you believe that we
ought to really just remove all the nonlegal immigrants in the
country? Just take them right out of the fields, wherever they
work. Or if they are not working, period.
Mr. Morris. Can I ask, Mr. Chairman, what do you mean
``remove?'' You mean forcible?
Mr. Conyers. Remove, forcible removal out of the United
States.
Mr. Morris. I don't think it needs to be forcible.
Mr. Conyers. Well, let us----
Mr. Morris. That is the difference. I don't think it
needs----
Mr. Conyers. But you are for it.
Mr. Rodriguez. I think you are trying to be dramatic on
that aspect.
Mr. Morris. I think that those who have the choice and want
to go back, should be able to go back.
Mr. Conyers. No, no, no. I am not talking about options. I
am talking about you don't believe that they should be all
removed?
Ms. Swain. Are you referring to me?
Mr. Conyers. And I dropped the dramatic term ``forcible.''
So what do you think about it? Answer the question.
Mr. Morris. What should happen is that if our laws were
enforced----
Mr. Conyers. Yes.
Mr. Morris [continuing]. And especially the workforce laws,
many of those would go on their own because they do have the
choices, unlike our own workers.
Mr. Conyers. You mean they have got jobs back home waiting
for them?
Mr. Morris. And options and choices, yes.
Mr. Conyers. That is the most preposterous suggestion that
I have heard here all morning. That they are all fleeing up
here because they don't like the job, they can get better jobs.
Okay. Let me try something else.
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Conyers, I have great respect for you,
but I would just ask that we kind of wrap this up.
Mr. Conyers. One question. Yes, sir. What about the
question of if we removed the immigrants that work in the
fields at stoop labor, how many of you think that they could be
replaced by African-American unemployed workers?
[Show of hands.]
Mr. Conyers. One, two, three.
Ms. Swain. No, I would like to be able to elaborate, and I
would also like to be able to say to you, Mr. Conyers, that the
Congressional Black Caucus, over the decades, they have done a
great job. But it seems like somewhere along the way, they just
lost their way.
And I think that we can trace the shift in the
Congressional Black Caucus's position on immigration
enforcement and that they seem to be more responsive now to
interest groups rather than to the people that vote for them.
And Black people vote for you and for the other Black members
because they are very loyal. They love you. We love you. I love
you.
But I wish the Congressional Black Caucus would do a better
job of really representing the downtrodden, their constituents
who are of different races and not one particular race.
Mr. Gallegly. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me address my first question to Dr. Swain and to Mr.
Rodriguez because you both, in your written testimony, have
pointed out the disconnect between working Black Americans and
working Mexican Americans and the leaders of various African-
American or Hispanic organizations. And I think you are right.
There is a huge disconnect between the typical Black worker or
Hispanic worker and some of the leaders of the various
organizations.
Why do you think that is? Why is there such a great
disconnect?
Ms. Swain. I believe it is because the elected Members of
Congress, some of both parties, are more responsive to interest
groups than they are to people who are not able to give large
campaign contributions or are not organized. And so, that is
one of the reasons why I am here today, I believe the voices of
ordinary people need to be heard, those that cannot afford to
hire lobbyists.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Mr. Rodriguez?
Mr. Rodriguez. I couldn't agree more with what Dr. Swain
has said. I think what the problem is, and I think that this
is, again, why the Tea Party has come to fruition and been
organized is because we think that we feel that there is a
disconnect between what the grassroots folks say and feel and
see and do and what is happening in Washington, D.C., with
leadership.
We have endeavored to meet with our congressional
representatives in the San Antonio area, and on two occasions,
we have had two Members of Congress tell us, using one phrase
over and over again, ``You don't understand how we work in
Washington.'' Well, the problem is that we do understand how
you work in Washington. You know, that is the headache is that
you are not listening to us.
I mean, we see what is going on, on C-SPAN. We hear the
sound bites. And then, when we try to talk to people, one-on-
one, to explain what is going on, what we see, they don't hear
us. They just don't seem to pay attention. So I think that is
the disconnect.
And the thing that I am telling you right now or that I
want to emphasize to this Committee is that they keep talking
about the immigrant community being under attack. It is not the
immigrant community that is under attack. It is the illegal
immigrant community that we have a problem with, illegal. I am
not sure what the word ``illegal,'' what people don't
understand about that word.
The second thing is that we, as Hispanics, are tired of
being lumped together with illegal immigrants, as somehow what
happens to the illegal immigrant community is going to offend
the Hispanic community. That is not true. We live as American
citizens, and we want the laws enforced.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.
Dr. Morris, I would like to go to a different question,
unless you want to address this question as well?
Mr. Morris. I just wanted to say that with the current
economic situation, it isn't just the matter of illegal
immigrants, but the level of legal and illegal immigration at
the time of the jobs becoming a premium is of great--should be
of great concern.
Mr. Smith. Dr. Morris, my question to you is to emphasize
the 17 percent of African-American men nationwide who are not
employed and to ask you why you think immigration policy may
have caused that high unemployment figure.
But let me actually quote from Mr. Henderson's written
statement that his own poll found that 51 percent of African-
American respondents believe that immigrants take jobs from
Americans and that 59 percent of African-American respondents
believe that immigrants cause lower wages for African-American
workers in particular.
I happen to think that poll is accurate. But why do you
think that immigration policy adversely affects the employment
of Black Americans?
Mr. Morris. Basically, Mr. Chairman--Mr. Smith and the
Committee, because labor is not exempt from the law of supply
and demand. Any time you increase the supply from any source,
you have got two effects. You have got a substitution effect,
and you have got a wage depression effect.
The focus usually of any Congress is on the wage depressant
effect, but my concern, and I think Dr. Swain, too, is the
substitution effect. The fact that you have employees,
employees who are preferred sometimes because they are more
vulnerable, to other employees who are American citizens, who
cannot get jobs because they are not part of networks, because
increasingly there are contractor networks, because sometimes
of their interaction with the criminal justice system, because
of differential enforcement of laws are at a disadvantage.
And even because the so-called merit criteria works both
ways and to the advantage of African Americans. For many kinds
of jobs, we are told that we have educational--we don't get
jobs because our education isn't strong enough or we have
sometimes even language deficits, you know, the ``Ebonics'' and
so forth.
And you find in the immigration area that you have workers
with less education and non-English language skills that are
able to get jobs that are preferred. So there are a whole
number of reasons immigration makes the situation worse.
I agree that it is not the only factor, and I also--I think
we should all agree that many American workers, low-wage
workers that are disadvantaged. But the fact is that it is
worse, and it is going to get a lot worse, and African-American
workers are much more vulnerable.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Morris.
Mr. Chairman, as John Conyers, the Ranking Member, said a
while ago, he and I have to appear before another Committee to
justify the Judiciary Committee budget. So I regret that I am
going to have to leave.
But let me just say I don't think it does anybody any good,
and it certainly does a disservice to Black Americans and
Hispanic Americans, to ignore the consequences of our
immigration policy, which clearly hurts those Black workers and
Hispanic workers.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gallegly. Gentlelady, the Ranking Member from
California, Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to note that it is always a danger to assume
that the American people agree with our opinions, and the
polling shows that the American people overwhelmingly support
comprehensive immigration reform.
And rather than talk about the Lake Research poll, because
Celinda Lake does a lot of Democratic polling, I will talk
about the Fox News poll from 6 months ago, where they found
that 68 percent of voters favored allowing undocumented
immigrants who are willing to pay taxes and obey the law to
stay in the United States, including 63 percent of Republican
voters.
Dr. Morris, I have a quick question for you.
Mr. Morris. Certainly.
Ms. Lofgren. I saw in your written testimony, you cite the
Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University.
Mr. Morris. Yes. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Lofgren. A report that they did. Now we have called
them and asked them for a copy of that study and that report,
and they won't give it to us. Have you seen the report and
analyzed the data? And can we get it from you?
Mr. Morris. Yes, I will certainly do that.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
Mr. Morris. They wouldn't give it to you?
Ms. Lofgren. No. They will not release it.
Mr. Morris. Oh, okay.
Ms. Lofgren. Was what they said. But I would look forward
to getting it from you, our secret, not-so-secret source. Thank
you very much.
I want to ask you, Mr. Henderson--and it is an honor to
have you here as a witness with your distinguished career. You
warn that the prospect of job displacement has been used by
immigration restrictionists to really drive a wedge between
African Americans and Latinos in the United States.
I would like to know what the civil rights community has
done to try and beat back those efforts, and what particular
package of policies do you feel would be effective in actually
meeting the need to protect American workers, especially
minority American workers? What should we be doing to help
them?
Mr. Henderson. Well, thank you, Representative Lofgren, for
the question. I appreciate it.
If you don't mind, I intend to answer it. But let me make
one quick statement before I do. First, I want to challenge the
premise of Chairman Smith's question about whether African-
American legislators represent effectively the constituents for
whom they are sent to Congress, on whose behalf they are sent
to Congress, and whether African-American leaders within
organizations like the NAACP, of which I am a life member and
at one point a representative of the NAACP in its Washington
bureau, whether these organizations and elected officials
address the interests of their constituents.
First, with regard to the elected officials, repeatedly
they are returned to Congress with higher margins of electoral
support than many of their colleagues, regardless of party
affiliation. And my own view, the best evidence of whether
constituents feel that their interests are being well served is
whether they vote regularly for the candidates who come before
them.
The wave election that Mr. Rodriguez celebrates as a Tea
Party leader is evidence that when constituents are
dissatisfied in some way with their representatives, they vote
them out. With regard to African-American leaders, the complete
opposite tends to be the case.
Now with regard to the NAACP, we malign that organization
to suggest in some way that they have no commitment to the
interests of African Americans vis-a-vis the issue of job
displacement. Certainly, the NAACP recognizes that the
immigrant population includes both Africans and representatives
of the Caribbean, as well as Latinos and representatives of
other communities worldwide.
Their interest is no different than any other American who
traces his or her ancestry back to a place other than the
United States and who seeks to ensure that a system is applied
fairly.
And on one last question, anecdotal evidence has its place.
We all use it. It could be evaluated on the merits of whether
or not it is useful to the Committee. However, hyperbole serves
no one's interest. And to suggest that somehow the Obama
administration has failed to enforce immigration laws, when the
evidence would suggest that the level of immigration
enforcement is, in fact, higher than previously existed under
the Bush administration is the best evidence of whether the
Administration is enforcing the law.
Now, with regard to the question that you have asked about
various recommendations that have been made, it is our view
that to suggest somehow that we can solve the problem of high
unemployment that has persistently bedeviled the African-
American community in this country by simply deporting the
undocumented not only is unfounded, it creates a myth that
suggests somehow it is the undocumented who caused the problem.
I wanted to note while both Mr. Smith and Mr. Conyers were
here that they collaborated recently on the enactment of a bill
called the Fair Sentencing Act, along with Sheila Jackson Lee
and many others who helped bring a measure of fairness to the
application of drug policies that had previously skewed the
level of enforcement that African Americans endured. That
bipartisan effort deserves to be recognized because it did
address one of the underlying problems that does affect the
ability of African Americans to obtain the kind of employment
for which they are qualified.
I would also say, however, that we believe targeted
initiatives that include the enforcement of existing labor
laws, as some have suggested that these laws only involve the
issue of deporting undocumented workers, when, in fact,
maintaining a fair workplace, enforcing labor standards,
ensuring that there is public education to inform the public of
the true cause of the depression are all very important.
And last point, I cited the Lake poll not because it was
overwhelmingly favorable to our view. It is, quite frankly,
based on the anecdotal evidence that we know exists. On the
other hand, the depth of commitment to a legalization program
and comprehensive legal immigration reform among African
Americans belies the argument of some that African Americans
somehow are not being served by comprehensive immigration
reform when, in fact, the opposite is true.
Ms. Lofgren. If I may, Mr. Henderson, I didn't, in any way,
mean to criticize your citing Lake.
Mr. Henderson. No, no, no, no.
Ms. Lofgren. I just figured for our conservative friends,
the Fox News poll might be more persuasive.
And I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentlelady.
The Vice-Chairman of the Committee, my good friend from
Iowa, Mr. King?
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank all the witnesses for coming forward to testify
today, and it is always an engaging subject, taken on here for
some time.
I would like to first go across the spectrum of some of the
issues that seems as though, as I read through some of this
testimony and listen to other oral testimony, that there is a
need for some clarification. And I want to lay out this. My
level of consistency with regard to the approach with the
Constitution and the law and the rule of law, and the
consistency is this.
The terms used by Mr. Rodriguez, what is it about
``illegal'' they don't understand? Illegal immigration is
intolerable to a free society. It violates the rule of law. It
undermines an essential pillar of American exceptionalism,
which is the rule of law, and it undermines our respect for the
rule of law as a civilization, as a culture.
If we lose that, then there won't be as big a reason for
people to leave other countries and come here. And I cannot
understand why anyone would seek to re-create the very
conditions that were the motivation for them to leave. I will
stand on the rule of law in every circumstance I can.
The second one is I believe in a tighter labor supply. I
believe that labor is a commodity, and it may not be exactly
tradable on the Board of Trade like corn or beans or gold or
oil, but it is a commodity. And the value of it is determined
in the end by supply and demand in the marketplace.
If people seek to market their skills in an organized
fashion, in a legal fashion, they have complete right to do
that. And if they seek to market their skills by improving them
and individually marketing them, they have a perfect right to
do that in this country, and we need to enhance those
conditions so that this Nation once again becomes a
meritocracy. That is another thing that has attracted people
from all countries on the planet to come here to the United
States.
And it is one of the big reasons why we have skimmed the
cream of the crop off of every donor civilization in the world.
They came here because we had the rule of the law and because
we have established a meritocracy. Today, we have devolved down
into a welfare state, which complicates this discussion
considerably.
But a tighter labor supply improves the wages, the working
conditions, and the benefits for everyone involved in the labor
market. And so, in order to tighten the labor supply, we need
to close the border, and we need to shut down the jobs magnet.
And we need to ensure that legal workers are the only ones
working here in the United States, and there needs to be an
extra benefit to American citizenship.
It needs to be precious, and it needs to be a reward for
having earned it, not something that is granted by a carte
blanche because of somehow there have been so many lawbreakers
that we don't have the will, apparently, to enforce the law.
I am not for mass roundups or deportations in that fashion.
I believe that local law enforcement, working in cooperation
with Federal law enforcement officers, will do a fine job when
they encounter individuals for other reasons. And if we are not
willing to face the concept of deportation, then let us not go
through the charade of thinking we are going to enforce any
other immigration laws.
Then I want to point out also that the idea of equal
opportunity is something where I have significant solidarity
with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He asked for equal opportunity.
He didn't ask for special privileges.
And I believe that every race, every ethnicity, has the
innate ability to compete in a free and open society with equal
opportunity. And we do a disservice to anyone whom we give
special privileges to because they don't have to compete then.
They get handed something that otherwise is precious because it
has been earned.
So that covers some of them. Then noticed that Mr.
Henderson spoke to the effort of some to amend the
Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment. And you will be
glad to know, Mr. Henderson, that I stepped into that
discussion because I thought a couple of United States Senators
had gone a little too far in their discussion about the need to
amend the Constitution and the 14th Amendment to put an end to
the anchor babies issue.
Somewhere between 340,000 and 750,000 babies are born in
this country to parents who are illegal. And that creates an
unnecessary magnet that further undermines the rule of law.
There is a clause in the 14th Amendment that says ``and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof.'' If that clause has meaning, then
I contend Congress has the authority to repair that situation
of anchor babies without having to amend the Constitution, but
do so by statute.
And I would go further and say we should look at our
society and see what we have here in this country. There are
vast parts of America where things work right, where people
live generation after generation. They educate their children.
They get jobs. They live with the hope that there is a future
for them in the neighborhoods that they grow up in.
And I work to see to it that every generation has that
chance in every neighborhood. But I don't see that opportunity
in every neighborhood. There are different cultures that have
risen, partly because the Federal Government has turned this
into a welfare state.
If you look at the reservation system in America, and I
represent two of those and have now for 14 years, and there is
a situation there where there is a dependency that has taken
some of the most independent people in the world and put them
into a dependency situation. And we have seen that replicated
in the inner cities in the major cities of America with the
same results.
We have to turn this culture around, and it needs to be one
that respects the honor and the dignity of work, one that is
focused on the quality of our lives and the underpinnings of
American exceptionalism, but one that also a broad formula, a
broad formula that addresses this.
We should be working to increase the average annual
productivity of all of our people. If we do that, we increase
their dignity, their independence, and their standard of
living.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I didn't come to a question,
but I would yield to the Chairman and thank you for your
attention.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. King.
Before I yield to the gentlelady from Texas, I would yield
to the Ranking Member for a unanimous consent.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would request unanimous consent to enter into the record
statements, important voices from labor, such as William Lucy,
president of the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, and Gerald
Hudson, the executive vice president of the Service Employees
International Union;* a joint statement of unity from the
Reverend Derrick Harkins, the senior pastor of the Nineteenth
Street Baptist Church, and Sam Rodriguez, Reverend Sam
Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian
Leadership Conference; and statements from the Asian-American
Justice Center, the National Asian Pacific American Women's
Forum, the National Immigration Law Center, the National
Immigration Forum, and the American Immigration Lawyers
Association.**
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*See insertion, page 7.
**The statement by the American Immigration Lawyers Association was
withdrawn from insertion in the record of this hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gallegly. Without objection.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

__________

Mr. Gallegly. The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
And let me thank the Ranking Member for the opportunity and
allow me to express my appreciate for all of the witnesses.
Whenever we have Americans who are able to come and participate
in this participatory democracy, we are the better for it.
Whether we agree or disagree, we are the better for it.
Mr. Rodriguez and I have worked together, and it is good to
see him again. And certainly, Dr. Swain and I have participated
in some of these similar hearings. Certainly, Dr. Morris and
Mr. Henderson.
Let me just, Dr. Swain, I know that I had an academic
background from you before. Where was your undergraduate and
graduate degrees?
Ms. Swain. I have five degrees. I started off----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Can you just tell me the schools because
my time is short?
Ms. Swain. Okay. My Ph.D. is from the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. I have two master's degrees, one from
Yale and one from Virginia Polytechnic Institute. And I started
life as a high school dropout with my first degree from a
community college. So I have come from the bottom and
understand working people.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Dr. Morris?
Mr. Morris. My doctorate is from MIT, master's in public
administration from the Maxwell School of Syracuse. My
undergraduate, where I am going back for my 50th year this
year, is from Colgate University.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay. And Mr. Henderson, I won't ask you
because I have already heard.
Mr. Rodriguez?
Mr. Rodriguez. I am a graduate of Brigham Young University.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay. Let me first say that the
Congressional Black Caucus have been champions for higher
education. The very existence of historically Black colleges
and Hispanic-serving institutions through this very rocky road,
particularly in the last Administration, has been at the behest
of the Congressional Black Caucus and its collaboration with
the Hispanic Caucus, and we are very proud of the opportunities
that we have given to young people.
In addition, we have been champions, I know that I will not
take a back seat to anyone on supporting community colleges,
which happen to be probably some of the most diverse
institutions that we could have.
I can't compete with you, Dr. Swain. I have an
undergraduate degree from Yale and a law degree from the
University of Virginia. And so, I am looking forward to having
the opportunity to go back and get a number of others. I will
check you out at that time.
But in any event, I wanted to just say to you that this
hearing reminds me of a hearing that is dead on point for
comprehensive immigration reform. This is the testimony. I
don't have to go any further to reinforce. Everything you have
said will provide for the database for comprehensive
immigration reform, which the President of the United States,
Sheila Jackson Lee, Emanuel Cleaver--I want to cite some names
here--chairman of the CBC, and Ms. Chu, Mr. Gutierrez,
representatives from several other organizations, and I have
them here, Mr. Henderson, of course, comprehensive immigration
reform.
It can't get any better than this. So let me proceed with
my questioning, and Mr. Henderson, I am going to focus a little
bit on you. And I will allow, maybe yield to Dr. Swain for a
moment.
First of all, I have a document here from the Murphy Law
Firm 2010 that indicates that ICE raids have resulted in a 45-
fold increase in criminal worksite arrests. So there has been
no back-stepping under this Administration on raids. Whether or
not they have been well, at one point, I do know that we have
halted raids because ICE has been so effective in worksite
investigation.
While I have that point, I want to take a personal
privilege, Mr. Chairman, and put in the record, as I have done
before, my deepest sympathy to Jaime Zapata's family, who was
killed in Mexico when two gunmen attacked him with AK-47s. I
would prefer having a hearing on the tragedy and crisis of
dealing with the loss of this patriot than to waste our time as
we are doing.
But in any event, since we are, let me quickly move to
questions and to point out.
Mr. Gallegly. Without objection, if you would like to have
that entered into the record, we will enter that into the
record.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Just as my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you for your kindness, to offer the sympathy of this Committee.
But I have a document here from the GSA that is apologizing
for failing to meet the goals of MWBE businesses for the
Federal Government. Small businesses, minority-owned businesses
create jobs. I have a document that I would like to put in the
record where the Bush administration submitted an anti-
affirmative action brief.
Now these are all youngsters. I am a youngster as well. And
frankly, and Mr. Chairman, would you indulge me just so I can
finish and get my question here?
Mr. Gallegly. If you would like to enter that into the
record, we will do that without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

----------

Ms. Jackson Lee. I would.
Mr. Gallegly. And the time of the gentlelady has expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee. But Mr. Chairman, please, I would like to
finish my question. I think others have gone over as well. I
just am polite enough to----
Mr. Gallegly. Well, we have been very, very----
Ms. Lofgren. May I ask unanimous consent that the
gentlelady be given an additional 1 minute?
Mr. Gallegly. One minute. Without objection.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
So I cite a lot of anti African-American policies, which
would be the kind of effort that I would like to see us focus
on, whether affirmative action is relevant, whether small
businesses or minority-owned businesses.
I am going to give this question to you, Mr. Henderson. I
would like you to be as provocative as ever. We are 150 years
under slavery, African Americans. We have administrations,
Republicans, who are fighting affirmation action. We have the
Republican Congress cutting economic development assistance $16
million, Minority Business Development Agency $2 million, and
job training $2 billion.
Would you please answer, what is more important to African
Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and other poor Americans without
jobs than a question of illegal immigration that doesn't get to
the question of fixing the problem of immigration reform? Mr.
Wade Henderson, please.
Mr. Henderson. Well, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, first of
all, thank you for your question.
I think the framing of the issue that you have presented
raises an opportunity to address one of the issues Mr. King
raised in his presentation about the meaning of equal
opportunity in American life. Martin Luther King's principles
are shared by many Americans, and certainly I believe in the
principles of Dr. King.
But I also note that we, as a Nation, were founded with the
stain of slavery that compromised our democracy from its
inception. It took a civil war, the passage of three
constitutional amendments, and a virtual 150 years of concerted
struggle to reach the level of ``equal opportunity,'' which I
will put in quotes, that we enjoy today.
I grew up as a native in Washington, D.C., the Nation's
capital. The first quarter of my life, I grew up under legal
segregation perpetrated and extended by the Federal Government,
which we now salute. I am proud that I have participated in the
change that has made for a more perfect union.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Should we be talking about affirmative
action and job training?
Mr. Henderson. This is my point.
Mr. Gallegly. Would the gentleman please summarize? We are
well above time.
Mr. Henderson. I will definitely summarize. Denial of equal
opportunity in education, denial of equal opportunity in the
application of our criminal justice policies, denial of equal
opportunity in access to housing and jobs compromises the
principle of equal opportunity and continues to contribute more
directly to the high persistent unemployment rate that African
Americans endure and not the issue of illegal immigration, as
has been cited by virtue of this hearing.
And Congresswoman Jackson Lee's observations about how
Government policy interacts in ways that deprive the very
community that we are talking about of the equal opportunity we
purport to support is, itself, the best evidence of the shall
we say inconsistent application of policies.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Henderson.
Mr. Gallegly. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here, Dr. Swain. It is good to see you
again.
I have some questions for as many of you as I can get in
the next 5 minutes.
Mr. Rodriguez, you are from San Antonio. You probably know
more about the coming of people into the United States legally
and illegally than probably anyone in the room. My wife is from
Harlingen, down in the valley, and have been there numerous
times and the border numerous times to see the situation.
The General Accounting Office, those are the folks that
keep statistics, said in the last 2 or 3 weeks that 44 percent
of the border is under some control of the United States. Only
15 percent is airtight. That means we got the control of those
15 percent of the border.
And if only 44 percent is under some control of the U.S.,
that means 56 percent is not under the control of the U.S. or
Mexico. It is somebody else controls that, or no one does--the
drug cartels, the Zetas, whoever. Which allows everybody to
come into the United States if they want to, the good and the
bad and the ugly. And we are getting a lot of all of them into
the United States.
I have read your testimony. I am aware of your background.
And I have this question for Dr. Swain as well. There is a
philosophy in this country by some that the rule of law doesn't
apply to everybody that comes into the United States. If you
are coming here for a certain reason, we will give a wink and a
nod, and you can come on across. And then, eventually, we will
let you stay under some type of program.
But if you are somebody else, like a drug dealer or someone
we don't like, we are going to enforce the rule of law if you
come into the United States, and we are going to keep you from
coming in. If you come in, we are going to send you back where
you came from. So that seems to discriminate on following the
rule of law, whether it is on purpose or just by negligence.
What do you think about the rule of law as whether it
should apply to everybody or just some people?
Mr. Rodriguez. The rule of law, sir, has got to apply to
everybody equally. That is the bottom line. This is a country
based on the rule of law. When it begins, when we begin to set
it aside, when we begin to make excuses, when we begin to say,
well, that situation is different from this situation, then I
am sorry--and I don't mean to offend attorneys in this room--
but that is when trial attorneys begin to take over and try to
find loopholes in life.
There are no loopholes in life. When you have done
something wrong, you have done something wrong. You, yourself,
in Harris County know of that situation where an undocumented
alien killed a police officer. That person had been stopped and
held before, and because apparently they didn't break the law
enough for some folks or to cover whatever issue there was
there for them to be deported, they weren't deported. And they
committed a terrible crime.
This is what we see in the Hispanic communities across the
country because that is where you find the illegal aliens. That
is where you find them. We are in the Hispanic community, by
large--at least in San Antonio. Again, speaking from my
experience as the Tea Party president in San Antonio, Hispanics
are very, very tired of hearing excuses for illegal aliens who
are here in the United States.
Mr. Poe. I represent, as all Members of Texas delegation
do, numerous Hispanics. And we constantly are helping folks get
here the right way. It takes years. The whole immigration
system, I think, needs to be set aside, and we start over with
a simpler model. So it is people can get here quicker and more
secure. That is a different issue.
But I hear constantly anecdotally, ``I came here the right
way. I waited my turn. I took that oath. There is no prouder
American than me.'' That is what they tell me when they go
through the process and sworn in by one of our Federal judges
later.
Do you think those comments by--in an anecdotal sense ring
true through people who come here the right way, then want to
become a citizen. Some of them go off to war and fight for
America, are killed in Afghanistan, all to be an American
citizen. But they are all coming the right way. Can you make a
comparison between that philosophy and those who just come over
here?
Mr. Rodriguez. Definitely, there is a big difference.
Because when you start out to be an American citizen and you go
through the legal process and you go through the whole
education, through the understanding of the history, through
all the education process, there is a big difference between
that and someone who snickers. And literally, we see them
constantly, someone who snickers because they got here
illegally, you know?
There is a famous Latino radio personality, Piolin, he is
called. And at the height of the immigration debate last year
or year before last, he was snickering publicly on radio that
he had crossed the U.S. border several times illegally. That is
completely wrong. That is completely wrong. That sends the
wrong message to people. That sends the wrong message to young
people. That is just wrong on so many levels it is not even
funny.
On the other hand, we constantly hear from people that have
come here legally, people who are legal immigrants, who have
gone through the citizenship process, and they are very, very
proud to be Americans. And they don't like illegal aliens just
coming over and taking benefits for the sake of it.
Mr. Poe. Thank you.
I was going to ask those same questions to Dr. Swain. May I
have unanimous consent for an additional minute?
Mr. Gallegly. Without objection.
Mr. Poe. Dr. Swain, you heard the questions. I would like
to hear your answers.
Ms. Swain. The breakdown in the rule of law that we see in
the United States applies to more than just immigration
enforcement, and I think it undermines our constitutional
system that we have laws that are not being enforced.
We also have a process through the Constitution for
changing the laws that we are uncomfortable with. And until we
change those laws that we are uncomfortable with, then we owe
it to our fellow citizens, we owe it to each other to enforce
the laws on the book.
And it is not just about illegal immigration. There is
lawlessness all around, and it is increasingly happening in the
U.S. with people individually deciding which laws they want to
obey. This can only lead to the breakdown of our society.
Mr. Poe. All right. Thank you, Dr. Swain.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Gallegly. The gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr.
Pierluisi?
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would first like to thank Congresswoman Waters for
allowing me to take this turn. I have to say that I have been
waiting patiently to speak.
I feel disturbed. The first thing that I will say is that I
hear all of this about we are a nation of laws. Let us not
forget we are also a nation of immigrants.
While we have every right to regulate immigration, enforce
our immigration laws, it makes no sense to demonize immigrants
in America. That goes against the fabric of our society. It
goes against our roots.
I can only surmise, but I have to say that I have no doubt
that there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of
American citizens or documented residents in America who at one
point in their lives did not have their papers in order. It has
happened throughout our history.
I have also heard that this is the rule of law, that what
is going to happen if we don't enforce the rule of law? Well,
let me be plain about it. If the rule or the law is not
working, you change it.
What makes no sense is to have a system that is not
working. What makes no sense is to have about 12 million people
out there we cannot even account for who are in fear. And then
one day we come here, and they are blamed for our crime
problems? The other day they are blamed for our economic
troubles.
And where are the studies? The majority of the studies do
not support either proposition. That is why I am disturbed.
I brought a couple of--and then one last thing, Mr.
Rodriguez. I am a Puerto Rican American. As a Puerto Rican
American, I am an American citizen by birth. I don't like to be
stigmatized either, but I do something about it. I am trying to
fix the system so that we don't have all those fellow Hispanics
facing what they are facing these days.
I have a couple of statistics. If I hear you right, Mr.
Rodriguez, you are saying that all we have to do is enforce the
laws and the border. Well, the first statistic I am going to
tell you is that 4 out of 10 undocumented immigrants in this
country are here because they overstayed their visas, not
because they crossed the border illegally.
So that is one thing. Your proposition wouldn't fix that.
Second point, if the premise is that this Government is not
doing enough, our Federal Government is not doing enough, I
will just give you statistics. In 2007, $7.3 billion were
assigned for border protection. Less than 3 years later, 2010,
$10.1 billion assigned to border protection.
I am not an expert in math, but at least that is like a 40
percent increase. So it is not like we are not doing something
about it. It is just that the system, again, is not working.
Now, I noticed Mr. Rodriguez as well, and I will let you
comment because I don't want this to be a one-way exercise, in
fairness to you. But I also heard about your father's, your
struggles and so on. But I wonder whether you know that all
major labor unions in this country reject your solution, your
proposed solution, let us simply enforce the law. Let us do
more of the same.
The unions do not support that. AFL-CIO, Change to Win,
representing 16 million workers in America and more than 60
unions argue that continuing our failed and enforcement-only
approach will merely push undocumented workers further into the
shadows where they are more susceptible to abuse and
exploitation.
What do you have to say, Mr. Rodriguez, about my feelings
and the statistics that I am sharing with you?
Mr. Rodriguez. Well, apparently, you are pretty passionate.
But let me begin by, first of all, the situation of my comments
about border security.
I recognize that 40 percent overstay. And when I talk about
border security, I am talking about enforcement across the
border of not only at the border, but across the spectrum also
of those that have overstayed, trying to find them and taking
the proper action. That is what we need to do.
Secondly, if we would enforce--if we would enforce the
employer sanctions, that would take a magnet. That would be a
great, a great step in taking one magnet away for these people
staying here, okay?
Third, you talk about the difference between the Bush
administration and what the current Administration has done as
far as the budget for enforcement. Well, that is great. That is
great. But we weren't happy with the Bush administration.
Again, I am not here representing the Republican Party,
sir. I am here representing the San Antonio Tea Party. And the
San Antonio Tea Party, as well as other Tea Parties, is a
conservative organization, and we are not happy with anything
that is not enforcing the law, okay, whether it is Republican
or Democrat. So that is third.
The next thing is that when we want--if we want to, when
you talk about the union, well, in my opinion, all the unions
want to do is grow and get more members, okay? I don't think
that they really want to protect American workers at this
point. If they did, then they would be trying to enforce
illegal immigration laws.
So that is where I am coming from.
Mr. Pierluisi. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Gallegly. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And appreciate so much all of the witnesses being here and
all your time.
And I had to step out briefly, but I hadn't heard anybody
demonizing immigrants. In fact, the people I know here on both
sides of the aisle all feel that one of our great strengths as
a country is because we are a nation of immigrants. Because
people come from all over, and we enforce the law more fairly
than any nation in history. And therefore, that gives everybody
a chance who really wants to pursue it.
What drove me off the bench is seeing a government--as a
felony judge, I was seeing more and more young women with
children coming in who had had a check dangled in front of
them, and friends say, ``I would just drop out of high school.
Government will send you a check.''
And it was breaking my heart to see these women charged
with felonies for going and getting a job and not reporting it
because they were just trying to get out of the hole. But they
were lured into it by well-meaning, well-intention legislation.
And I am concerned that we are doing the same thing with
illegal immigration. We are told by political advisers on both
sides of the aisle, gee, if you take too strong a stand on
border security and legal immigration, then you can't have a
majority. You have got to back off of that because you will
offend Hispanics.
But it is my impression and we have been told, for example,
in here before that over 70 percent of gang members are
illegally here. And it also seems that most, that a majority of
the crimes by illegal immigrants are against Hispanics. So I
would think it would be a great thing and a great help to
Hispanic community to enforce legal immigration to protect
Hispanics.
Am I wrong, Mr. Rodriguez?
Mr. Rodriguez. Not at all, sir. Let me give you another
example, another personal example. Because again, when we watch
from C-SPAN, the general folks out in the grassroots, I am
sorry, and I don't mean to offend you--not you personally.
Mr. Gohmert. Oh, go ahead.
Mr. Rodriguez. But Members of Congress sometimes come
across a little arrogant to us when we speak. So the only thing
I can tell you is I am not an expert other than personal,
personal experiences. Three weeks ago, my niece was hit in her
car by an undocumented alien in San Antonio, okay? Didn't have
insurance. Didn't even have a driver's license. Nothing we can
do about that, you know?
Just like Dr. Swain has mentioned, there is a rule of law
problem here, and the Hispanic community in San Antonio--again,
our Tea Party, 6,000 folks strong, a third of them are
Hispanic, and it is growing. And they know our position on
immigration, and it is just that we are tired.
We see it. We see not only the issue of the violence and
the issue of entitlements. I mean, they are here illegally. I
am sorry. And that is what needs to be addressed.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, as a judge, I often saw that the victims
of illegal immigrant felonies were Hispanics that were legally
here, and I felt an obligation, it doesn't matter what your
race is, if you are a victim of a crime, we owe you the
obligation to protect you. And that is part of our sworn job,
and we hear so many saying, well, we could never deport the
millions that are here.
It just seems like if we enforce the law, E-Verify, and dry
up benefits, I feel like we are corrupting the Hispanic culture
that came with, generally speaking, a faith in God, a devotion
to family, and a hard-work ethic, and that we are actually
destroying that heritage by saying, here, we will throw you
benefits like we have lured so many into ruts they can't get
out of.
I am very concerned, and let me just say I appreciate so
much your taking the time. Some people may watch C-SPAN and
say, ``Well, I wonder how much they get paid?'' Obviously, you
didn't get paid anything. You came because you believe in what
you came to testify about. And so, we are so very thankful for
you.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters?
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I ask that the Subcommittee and witnesses excuse my absence
at the beginning of today's hearing. I was called to serve as
Ranking Member on a Financial Services Committee hearing this
morning and was, therefore, unable to arrive at this
Subcommittee in a timely manner.
However, I have reviewed all of the witnesses' testimony,
and I would like to use my time to make a few observations.
First, I ask unanimous consent to include within the record an
online article written by Mark Krikorian, entitled ``Contra
Nadler--Yes, Reach Out to Immigrants, But Not by Admitting More
of Them.'' The article was published in the National Review
Online.
In the article--well, may I submit that for the record, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Gallegly. Without objection, it will be made a part of
the record of the hearing.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

__________

Ms. Waters. In the article, Mr. Krikorian, the executive
director of the Center for Immigration Studies, outlines in
plain language why all Republicans should oppose immigration
reform. As we discuss and debate these issues regarding
immigration policy, I think it is important for the Committee
and the public to be aware of any biases that may impact the
witnesses' testimony.
Since the majority often calls a representative from the
Center for Immigration Studies to testify, I am concerned that
this organization's research may be more politically motivated
than out of a genuine concern for the unemployment rate among
American minorities.
I understand they don't have a witness here today, but in
the editorial for the National Review Online, Mark Krikorian
writes, and I quote, ``On the contrary, the threat to the GOP
and its agenda is not the party's opposition to mass
immigration, but mass immigration itself. The majority of
Hispanics vote Democratic, and this would surprise no one
knowledgeable about American history. That is what immigrants
and the native-born closest to immigration have always done.''
As a Member of Congress representing both Latinos and
African Americans, I am very disappointed with the majority's
effort to pit minorities against one another in a blatant
attempt to derail comprehensive immigration reform. Clearly,
today's hearing was organized to divert attention away from the
inability to present policies and proposals that would truly
stimulate the American economy and help put all Americans back
to work.
As it is duly noted in Mr. Wade Henderson's written
testimony, African Americans have often maintained higher
unemployment rates than other groups. And as Mr. Frank Morris
noted in his written testimony, these rates have links to many
other challenges disadvantaged populations have faced in the
United States.
Yet, by and large, my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle have been collectively against job training grants,
summer jobs funding, community development block grant funding,
foreclosure prevention programs, heating subsidies for low-
income families, policies promoting diversity in Federal
contracting, eliminating the crack cocaine sentencing
disparity, eliminating the mandatory minimum sentencing,
increases in Title VI funding for public schools, fully funding
Pell grant, fully funding the EEOC to police racial
discrimination, and reforms in our tax code that would provide
for economic opportunity for those who are not included among
the Nation's wealthiest top 1 percent of households.
The Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus have been at the forefront in championing
progressive policies that take into account the challenges that
American minorities confront. One need only review the
Republicans' voting records to understand their political
priorities, and it does not include a deep concern for the
working class or American minorities.
Today, I continue to support a comprehensive framework that
includes reforms to our deportation and detention policies, as
well as border security. Reform must also include a fair path
to citizenship and some penalty for those who have been in the
U.S. illegally. Individuals who have lived in the U.S. for many
years while raising their families, paying taxes, and paying
into Social Security should have the opportunity to become
legal citizens in a fair and efficient process.
We must also hold employers accountable for assessing
increased penalties for exploiting undocumented immigrant
labor.
Mr. Chairman, comprehensive reform is the only way that we
will be able to create an immigration system that is fair,
feasible, and protects American workers. A fragmented reform
policy that focuses only on E-Verify and deportation will yield
unintended consequences that will negatively impact American
workers.
Now this is what we recently learned. Seven hundred
thousand jobs would be lost under the GOP cuts. This is a
report by the independent economic analyst Moody's Analytics.
Chief economist Mark Zandi prepared the report. The GOP plan
slashes $61 billion in Federal appropriations over the next 7
months. This is in the Washington Post.
So let me just conclude by saying for those of us who are
on the front lines, who are elected in districts where we have
significant Black, Latino, and Asian populations, have to be
responsible. We cannot afford to allow people who have
political agendas to divide us. It is easy for those who have
no responsibility, who don't have to answer to the public, to
come with their undocumented accusations and talk about----
Mr. Gallegly. Would the gentlelady please try to summarize?
We are----
Ms. Waters. Yes. Let me just mention the kind of
undocumented testimony that we get here. In the testimony by a
guest such as Dr. Carol Swain, she states, ``A study at the Pew
Hispanic Center found that during the current recession,
foreign-born workers have gained employment while native
workers continue to lose jobs.''
Now there is no further discussion of this. There is no
attempt to have us understand what this study was about and how
it worked. A blanket statement that says that this was found.
This is outrageous and ridiculous, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
I wish I could stay to hear further from these witnesses,
but I really don't think it is worth it. And I would like to
thank Mr. Wade Henderson for being here today.
Ms. Swain. I would like to respond to that statement.
Mr. Gallegly. I will give the witness 30 seconds to
respond.
Ms. Swain. I would assume that as a Member of Congress,
that she should be familiar with the studies put out by the Pew
Hispanic Center, and that study is well documented. It is
reputable. If anything, it is considered pro Hispanic. And so,
she should be familiar with that study. It is cited. So she
should go read it for herself.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Dr. Swain.
At this time, I would yield an additional 30 seconds to the
Ranking Member for a closing statement.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted--I know all of the witnesses had to stretch
to be here, and it is all appreciated. But I know, in
particular, Mr. Henderson had to change all sorts of things
around on his schedule. So I wanted to publicly thank him for
completely upending his life to be here today, and it is very
much appreciated.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back with
thanks.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentlelady.
And with keeping with her comments, I would like to thank
all the witnesses for their testimony today.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit to the Chair additional written questions for the
witnesses, which we will forward and ask the witnesses to
respond promptly as they can in order to get the answers made a
part of the record of the hearing.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit any additional material for inclusion in the record.
And with that, again, I want to thank the witnesses and----
Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Gallegly. I will yield.
Ms. Lofgren. And I look forward to getting the study from
Dr. Morris that we mentioned earlier.
Mr. Gallegly. That is a part of the record.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The information referenced for inclusion in this record was not
received by the Subcommittee prior to the printing of this hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And with that, thank you all again.
The Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X

----------

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Pedro Pierluisi, a Representative
in Congress from Puerto Rico, and Member, Subcommitte on Immigration
Policy and Enforcement

Additional Material submitted by Carol M. Swain, Ph.D.,
Professor of Political Science and Law, Vanderbilt University
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]