[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SEPARATION OF NUCLEAR FAMILIES UNDER
U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 14, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-9
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-881 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
LAMAR SMITH, Texas Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama ZOE LOFGREN, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
JIM JORDAN, Ohio JUDY CHU, California
TED POE, Texas TED DEUTCH, Florida
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
MARK AMODEI, Nevada SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho JOE GARCIA, Florida
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
KEITH ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman
TED POE, Texas, Vice-Chairman
LAMAR SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE KING, Iowa SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
JIM JORDAN, Ohio LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
MARK AMODEI, Nevada JOE GARCIA, Florida
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
George Fishman, Chief Counsel
David Shahoulian, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
MARCH 14, 2013
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Border Security................................ 1
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Border Security................................ 3
WITNESSES
Randall Emery, President, American Families United
Oral Testimony................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Mathi Mugilan Paguth Arivalan, Lawful Permanent Resident
Oral Testimony................................................. 21
Prepared Statement............................................. 22
Demetrios G. Papademetriou, Ph.D., President, Migration Policy
Institute
Oral Testimony................................................. 23
Prepared Statement............................................. 25
Clarissa Martinez-De-Castro, Director, Immigration and Civic
Engagement, National Council of La Raza
Oral Testimony................................................. 29
Prepared Statement............................................. 31
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security................ 47
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary........................... 114
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative
in Congress from the State of South Carolina, and Chairman,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security................ 117
Prepared Statement of the United Auto Workers.................... 119
Prepared Statement of MinKwon Center for Community Action........ 121
SEPARATION OF NUCLEAR FAMILIES UNDER U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2013
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:50 p.m., in
room 2237, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Trey Gowdy
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Gowdy, Goodlatte, King, Amodei,
Labrador, Holding, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Gutierrez, and Garcia.
Staff present: (Majority) Andrea Loving, Counsel; Allison
Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel; Graham Owens,
Clerk; and (Minority) Tom Jawetz, Counsel.
Mr. Gowdy. The Subcommittee on Immigration and Border
Security will come to order. This is a hearing on the
separation of nuclear families under U.S. immigration law.
Unfortunately because of a meeting that the minority Members
will be having with the President, we will stand in recess
until 3:45.
[Recess.]
Mr. Gowdy. On behalf of all of us, thank you again for your
indulgence. We will begin.
This is the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border
Security. We will now proceed with the hearing on the
separation of nuclear families under U.S. immigration law. And
again, on behalf of all of us, thank you for being here.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Family is the fundamental unit of society. Family is where
we go to multiply joy and mitigate grief and share all of the
emotions in between.
A brief moment of personal indulgence. My mother-in-law
fell on Monday and broke her hip, and even though there are
wonderful nurses and doctors at the hospital, it will be family
that stays with her around the clock. It will be family that
will take my daughter to school. It will be family that will do
the grocery shopping for her, and clean the house, and cut the
grass.
We all claim to support pro-family agendas, and we analyze
tax policy, and health care policy, and virtually all of the
forms of policy against the backdrop of whether or not it
incents or disincentivizes family. So it is appropriate that we
also analyze our immigration policy, whether it is friendly to
this thing we call family, the fundamental unit of our culture
and society.
We have heard the statistics about U.S. green card backlogs
and the time it takes for individuals trying to come to the
U.S. legally. In fact, under the current process, if you have
applied for a green card on the basis of being a brother or
sister of an adult U.S. citizen, the wait could be nearly 25
years.
Members of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform now
believe there to be a wait for spouses and unmarried minor
children, but they do not necessarily share the same view about
other family members. In its 1997 report, the Commission stated
the natural interest in the entry of nuclear family members
outweighs that of more extended family members.
The Commission also addressed the wait time for the spouse
and unmarried minor children of lawful permanent residents,
stating that no spouse or minor child should have to wait more
than 1 year to be reunited with a U.S. petitioner. But the
current green card wait time for the spouse and unmarried minor
children of an LPR is actually around two and a half years, and
there around 220,000 people waiting. So why is there a wait?
When Congress created the kind of green card system in the
Immigration Act of 1965, limits were placed on the number of
green cards available for certain classes of people each year.
For instance, each year's family-sponsored green card limit for
spouses and children of lawful permanent residents in the U.S.
is 114,200, plus any unused green cards from the category
allotted for unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens.
This preference category known as family-based second
preference is further divided into 2A preference for spouses
and unmarried children of LPRs and 2B preferences for unmarried
adult children of LPRs. So if the number of green cards
available in any given year for the family-based 2A preference
category is less than the number of people who apply for a
green card in that category, a backlog is created.
At this point, the top five countries with the highest
family-based 2A preference waiting list totals are: Mexico, the
Dominican Republic, Cuba, Haiti, and the Philippines, with the
rest of the countries making up the remaining 32 percent.
Another reason for the wait is the conscious congressional
decision not to allow immediate green cards for the family-
based 2A preference category in order to help prevent marriage
fraud. Since these marriages occur after the LPR has become an
LPR, there is a real threat that if green cards were
immediately available, marriage fraud would become more
prevalent. Ideas differ as to how to reduce the green card wait
time for the family-based 2A preference, and I am sure we will
hear some of those differing views from our witnesses today.
Some individuals believe spouses and unmarried children of
LPRs should be considered the same as immediate relatives of
U.S. citizens and, thus, receive a green card immediately. Some
believe the current situation is fine and that a few years'
wait time is a fair price for the benefit of a U.S. green card,
which then leads to citizenship. And still yet, others believe
that the correct answer lies somewhere in between. So I look
forward to today's witness testimony to learn more about this
issue and possible remedies.
And at this point, I would recognize the gentlelady from
California, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Ms.
Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very
sorry to hear about your mother-in-law, but I know that you
will all take good care of her.
I also would like to note that this is the fifth hearing
this Congress that we have had focusing on our broken
immigration system, and I think each hearing has been
productive and provided useful information. And today is a
critical hearing to focus in on the important issue of the
separation of families under U.S. immigration law.
As you know, family reunification has been really the
bedrock of the American immigration system, at least since 1965
when the law as we currently know it was framed, although there
have been some changes since. I think the focus on the family
was not an accident on the part of Congress. As you have
noticed, it is families that support us. It is family that are
most dear to us. Really it is families that make the Nation
work more than any other abstraction.
As you have mentioned, under the immigration laws, the
parents, spouses, and minor children are U.S. citizens. They
are immediate relatives under the law and can join their family
here. But the system further limits immigration to 7 percent
per country, and I would note that that also leads to very odd
results in some ways because you have the same number of visas
allocated to Iceland with a population of 350,000 as you do to
the population of India, with 1.2 billion. And so there are
anomalies that are caused by that.
Now, we have seen some improvements in the amount of time
that spouses and minor children are separated. But I still
think what does America gain if a husband and wife are
separated, or if children are separated from a parent? I do not
think that is what the Congress intended when we crafted these
laws originally, and I do not think those separations really
serve any valid purpose for the country.
During a prior hearing, one of the Members of the full
Judiciary Committee mentioned an adult son or daughter as chain
migration. I want to note again I do not consider my son or
daughter remote from me. I think that the sons and daughters of
moms and dads are about as nuclear family as you can get. And
it is not you, but I just wanted to restate my concern in that
way.
I think also our problems have been aggravated by changes
that we made in the law in 1996, and I will just give you one
example. In the '96 Act, we established something called the 3
in 10-year bar. I said at the time that it would just create
more unlawful immigration, and I would like to say how
unsatisfactory are the words ``I told you so.''
You can imagine that if you are out of status for 6 months,
that you have to leave the United States, leave your American
citizen spouse for as much as 3 years. If you are out of status
for a year, you have to leave for 10 years. Now, if you leave
for 10 years when your child is 5, by the time you get back,
your child will be grown. And so, what has happened is that
people have declined to ruin their families in that way.
The Migration Policy Institute has done some studies on
that, and it is a significant proportion of the undocumented
population, that were it not for the mistakes we made in the
'96 Act, they would be lawfully present here. They would have
been able to qualify under the Act.
So I think this is a very important hearing. I look forward
to working with you, Mr. Chairman, in making our system work
better and serve America better than it does.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentlelady from California.
Now, we will introduce the witnesses. I will introduce you
en banc, and then recognize you individually. Many of you have
testified before. The light system means what it traditionally
means in life: green, go, yellow, see if you can wrap up within
the next 30, 45 seconds, and then red, go ahead and wrap up as
quickly as you can.
I will start by introducing Mr. Randell Emery. Mr. Emery is
the president of American Families United. He co-founded the
organization in 2006 and first took an interest in legislative
immigration issues when his application for his wife's green
card was delayed by more than 3 years.
Mr. Emery is employed by a global professional services
firm and holds a bachelor of science in management information
systems from the Pennsylvania State University.
Mr. Mathi Paguth Arivalan--and if I mispronounced that, and
I am 100 percent certain I did, I apologize--is a legal
permanent resident currently working as a software consultant
for Newsmax. He was born in India and currently resides in
Delray Beach, Florida.
He is a graduate of the University of Madras and came to
the United States legally in 2005 to work on his inter-company
transfer visa, which is an L-1 visa, and received his permanent
resident status in 2009. He was married a month ago to a
Malaysian citizen, and who is currently awaiting her green card
to join him in the United States.
Mr. Demetrios Papademetriou--I may have added a syllable in
there, and for that I apologize. Well, there is a first for
everything--is a native of Greece. He is president and co-
founder of the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington-based
think tank dedicated exclusively to the study of international
migration. He is also president of the Migration Policy
Institute, Europe.
He received a Ph.D. in political science, international
relations, and comparative public policy for Europe from the
University of Maryland in 1976.
And last, but certainly not least, is Ms. Clarissa
Martinez-De-Castro. She is the director of Civic Engagement and
Immigration at the National Council of La Raza. Ms. Martinez
oversees the organization's work to advance NCCR immigration
policies, as well as efforts to expand Latino policy advocacy
in electoral participation.
She is a naturalized United States citizen, a graduate of
Occidental College and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
Welcome to all of you.
Mr. Emery, we will recognize you first and then go from
your right to left, my left to right, for your opening
statements.
Mr. Emery.
TESTIMONY OF RANDALL EMERY, PRESIDENT,
AMERICAN FAMILIES UNITED
Mr. Emery. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member
Lofgren, and all the members of the panel. My name is Randall
Emery. I am president and co-founder of American Families
United. We are the premier grass roots organization advocating
for nuclear families and immigration reform.
AmericanFamiliesUnited.org was founded by U.S. citizens in
2006 because our rights as U.S. citizens, as husbands and
wives, mothers and fathers, are not respected by U.S.
immigration law. We created American Families United because we
could not find another voice working on our very specific
issues. As U.S. citizens, we immediately make common cause with
lawful permanent residents who face indefensible delays in
uniting with their spouses and kids.
It is often said that our immigration laws are broken, but
not why. It is simple: our laws contradict our values.
Today's hearing is on the separation of nuclear families.
Let me give a brief history of the F2A backlog that spouses and
minor children of legal permanent residents.
We hear all the time about illegal immigration, but it has
been nearly a quarter century since Congress last increased
legal immigration. In 1990, if someone got a green card today
and got married tomorrow, the minimum wait was 1 year. Congress
thought that was too long. The House version of the 1990 act
would have made nuclear families of legal permanent residents a
numerically unlimited category.
Speaking on behalf of American Families United, we are
proud of Governor Romney for proposing to return to this idea
in his 2012 campaign. We are very encouraged of news reports
that Senator Rubio has also proposed making the F2A category
into immediate relatives under the law.
In 1995, the Jordan Commission asked the State Department
for a formal count. How many people are we talking about? The
official estimate was 1.1 million with more than 800,000 in the
U.S. and another 300,000 waiting abroad facing a minimum wait
of 3 years. The Jordan Commission found that this contradicted
our national interests in warmly welcoming new Americans. But
others said the backlog would go away on its own. It has not.
From 1990 to about 2006, the length of the time legal
immigrants who marry, as Mat here did, increased from a year to
nearly 8 years. How could the total number of people waiting
have been declining when the time they must wait increased? But
after about 2006, something weird happened with priority dates.
They moved rapidly forward. A delay that had been 7 or 8 years
is now 2 years and 4 months. It is still far too long, yet it
is not the whole story.
A shorter waiting time does not mean fewer people are
waiting. It means something much worse. People we should have
welcomed were pushed into the shadows. The State Department's
annual waiting list says there are now 220,000 husbands and
wives, parents and kids in this line, but that does not include
hundreds of thousands of applications for nuclear family
immigration held at USCIS.
We want the Committee to see the iceberg below the surface.
These are some of the stories shared with us. An engineer from
Russia, whose wife was in a car accident. He took ``for better
or for worse, in sickness and in health'' seriously, and
literally tried to commute between Oklahoma and the hospital in
Kazakhstan. She was out of the United States so long that his
marriage vows cost him his green card.
An elevator mechanic from Jamaica, he married a foreign
student from Trinidad. They had a baby. She stopped going to
school. By the time they found out the law required her to wait
outside the country, she was already facing a 3-year ban. Then
she learned her mother was dying, so this wife of a legal
immigrant and mother of a U.S. citizen could accept exile from
her husband, the father of their child, or she could never see
her mother again, who would never meet her granddaughter.
And take my own story. I am a U.S. citizen. My wife is here
legally. We got married. We were interviewed for a green card
and told to come back in a few months while they did the
background check. We did what we were told, but they had not
finished the background check. So some people would want to
arrest, deport, and exile her for 10 years because of their
bureaucratic delay.
Let us be clear. One of the best things Congress could do
about illegal immigrants is to stop making more of them.
American Families United has met with dozens of U.S.
representatives and senators in their offices. I want to
particularly thank Congresswoman Lofgren and especially Mr.
Gutierrez, as well as Mr. Amodei and Judge Poe, for meeting
with us on Valentine's Day.
We support comprehensively fixing our immigration laws.
Legalization means waivers of inadmissibility for millions of
people, but new laws must reflect old values: marriage, family.
We urge this Committee to recognize that nuclear families of
legal permanent residents are immediate relatives. We also urge
due process waiver reform because the families of U.S. citizens
should be treated at least as generously as anybody else in
comprehensive immigration legislation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Emery follows:]
__________
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Arivalan.
TESTIMONY OF MATHI MUGILAN PAGUTH ARIVALAN,
LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT
Mr. Arivalan. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member
Lofgren, and all the Members of this distinguished Committee.
My name is Mathi Magulin Paguth Arivalan. I am a legal
permanent resident of the United States. I hope to become a
United States citizen one day.
I was born in India. I am a Tamil. That means I am a member
of one of the oldest continuous nationalities on earth, as
venerable as the ancient Hebrews, older than the Romans, nearly
as old as the Egyptians, who built the pyramids. Tamils are
scattered across most of South Asia: India, Malaysia, and, most
painfully, Sri Lanka. It is exciting to me as a legal immigrant
of this country to think that I am bringing one of the world's
oldest people to one of the world's youngest nations.
I am also married. I hope you do not mind if I exercise one
of the prerogatives enshrined in the Bill of Right. I want to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I came to the United States on an L visa in 2005 as a
software consultant. I got my green card in 2009. These days I
work for Newsmax, which I expect most of you are familiar with.
I am well-known in the Tamil community, which is worldwide. It
was through my work in human rights, particularly after the
genocide against Tamils in Sri Lanka, that I met Bhavaneswari.
She is also a Tamil, born and raised in Malaysia. We fell in
love. We got married on February 14th. Of course you all
recognize that is a marvelous bit of multiculturalism. I did
not grow up celebrating Valentine's Day, but I think it will
also be our wedding anniversary.
What I have to tell this Committee that I was shocked to
discover when I was about to file a petition to bring
Bhavaneswari to America, my new country, as my new wife, that
the minimum wait in this category is more than 2 years. I
understand that this delay has been as long as 8 years for some
people.
Let me explain why that shocked me. After all, I have been
working legally in this country for about 8 years. I know many
professionals who work here on various visas--L1, H1B. They can
bring their wives to the United States almost immediately. But
I have made a commitment to the United States by becoming a
legal permanent resident. As a Tamil, I cannot say that that
there is any other nation on earth that is truly my home, but
is that not America's story that this is a land where those who
are not at home anywhere can make one?
So I was shocked to find that because I made a commitment
to America, my wife must wait in another country for years. If
I was just a temporary worker, my wife would not have been
12,000 miles away.
I did what any red-blooded American would do. I went on the
Web and used Google. I found AmericanFamiliesUnited.org and
realized that my problem was not unique. It was, in fact, a
feature of U.S. immigration law. I cannot believe that was the
intent of Congress. This organization was formed to fix it, so
I joined.
All I know is what I see in the media, but we are very
hopeful that Congress will comprehensively reform immigration
laws to reflect the very values that attracted me to this
country. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Arivalan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mathi Mugilan Paguth Arivalan,
Lawful Permanent Resident
Thank you Chairman Gowdy, ranking Member Lofgren, and all the
members of this distinguished Committee. My name is Mathi Mugilan
Paguth Arivalan. I am a legal permanent resident of the United States.
I hope to become a US citizen one day.
I was born in India. I am a Tamil. That means I am a member of one
of the oldest continuous nationalities on earth--as venerable as the
ancient Hebrews, older than the Romans, nearly as old as the Egyptians
who built the Pyramids. Tamils are scattered across much of South
Asia--India, Malaysia, and, most painfully, Sri Lanka.
It is exciting to me, as a legal immigrant to this country, to
think that I am bringing one of the world's oldest peoples to one of
the world's youngest nations.
I am also married. I hope you don't mind if I exercise one of the
prerogatives enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and petition the
government for a redress of grievances.
I came to the United States on an L visa in 2005, as a software
consultant. I got my green card in 2009. These days, I work for
Newsmax, which I expect most of you are familiar with.
I am well-known in the Tamil community, which is worldwide. It was
through my work in human rights, particularly after the genocide
against Tamils in Sri Lanka, that I met Bhavaneswari. She is also a
Tamil, born and raised in Malaysia.
We fell in love--and we got married on February 14th. Of course you
all recognize that is a marvelous bit of multiculturalism. I did not
grow up celebrating Valentine's Day, but I think I like that it will
also be our wedding anniversary.
But I have to tell this Committee that I was shocked to discover,
when I filed a petition to bring Bhavaneswari to America, my new
country, as my new wife, that the minimum wait in this category is more
than two years. I understand that this delay has been as long as 8
years for some people.
Let me explain why that shocked me. After all, I have been working
legally in the United States for 8 years. I know many professionals who
work here on various visas: L-1, H-1B. They can bring their wives to
the United States almost immediately.
But I have made a commitment to the United States by becoming a
legal permanent resident. As a Tamil, I cannot say that there is any
nation on earth that is truly my home--and isn't that America's story,
that this is the land where those who are not at home anywhere, can
make one?
So I was shocked to find that because I had made a commitment to
America, my wife must wait in another country for years. If I was just
a temporary worker, my wife would not be 12,000 miles away.
I did what any redblooded American would do--I went on the Web, and
used Google. I found AmericanFamiliesUnited.org--and realized that my
problem was not unique. It is in fact a feature of US immigration law.
I cannot believe that was the intent of Congress. This organization was
founded to fix it. I joined.
All I know is what I see in the media, but we are very hopeful that
Congress will comprehensively reform immigration laws to reflect the
values that attracted me to this country.
__________
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Papademetriou. I will get it in another 6 or 7 weeks.
TESTIMONY OF DEMETRIOS G. PAPADEMETRIOU, Ph.D., PRESIDENT,
MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE
Mr. Papademetriou. I have to keep coming back. That is the
only way to do it.
Mr. Chairman, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Labrador, it
is a pleasure to testify before you on this particular issue. I
think that following the statements of the Chairman and the
Ranking Member, it is clear that we all agree that how a
country approached immigration and how it treats its immigrants
is a powerful statement to the world about the values and the
principles on which it stands.
And indeed when it comes to family, our commitment to
families is very deep. From the total number of legal permanent
residents, people who come to the United States, about two-
thirds of all visas go to families of U.S. citizens. And if you
add all of the family members that accompany to join others
throughout the immigration system, the total proportion goes up
to 80 percent. So 80 percent of the total number of the 1.1
roughly visas that we issue each year essentially goes to
family members.
And you have all suggested and seem to agree that indeed
that is extremely important. And you have also talked about the
second preference, the backlogs. The first of the 2 second
preference subcategories, 2A, gets about 77 percent of the
about 115,000 visas that are available in the category. The 2
big categories, which is the unmarried adult children 2A is
spouses and unmarried minor children. The 2 big categories gets
the remainder, about 23 percent.
So it is not, you know, unusual that the delays, the
backlogs that have been created are distributed unequally--a
little over 200,000 for the 2A and about 500,000 for the 2B.
And the average waiting times is a little over between 2 and a
two and a half years for 2A, about 8 years for 2B. And for the
Filipinos and the Mexicans, on the 2B the Filipinos would be 11
years and Mexicans 20 years. We can all do that math.
These numbers, of course, come from the National Visa
Center of the Department of State, and these are the people
waiting abroad, and they have filed a petition. They qualify
under the law, and they are waiting in line.
There is another number, which is not known, some people
suggest a very large number--I make no judgments in this
because we have not studied at the Migration Policy Institute--
where people apply for adjustment of status from within the
United States under Section 245(i) of the INA.
Last year, 12,000 people actually joined, you know, the
ranks of green card holders for this particular route. It is a
significant number, but much smaller than the number for all of
the other visas.
Now, I know that we all believe deeply within us that there
is a great deal of exceptionalism within our country, and
indeed there is. But I do want us to all know that among
advanced industrial democracies, all the European countries--
Canada, Australia, and what have you, New Zealand--we are the
only ones who have either numerical limits or waiting lists for
spouses and minor children of green card holders, the only
ones. Even if you were to take the example of Germany, which is
not exactly, you know, at least until very recently, a place
that is very friendly to immigration, spouses and minor
children can join their loved ones, their spouse, or their
parent without any delays, except administrative delays. And
these tend to be very, very short, from 28 days to about 3
months, with the exception of Canada where the delays can go as
far as 30 months.
So what I have tried to suggest in this brief review is
that we need to do something about this particular change;
otherwise, we are going to not only keep families separate, but
also we are going to contribute to this population that is in
the United States illegally.
I have 2 suggestions for you to consider. The first one is
to create a second category within the immediate relatives
category. You can call it IR2. And the second one is to revisit
the V visa, which is the temporary visa. And we can do that
relatively easily. Congress can do and undo whatever it wishes,
and we can take care of the problem.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Papademetriou follows:]
__________
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Martinez.
TESTIMONY OF CLARISSA MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO, DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION
AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA
Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy and
Ranking Member Lofgren, Members of the Committee, for the
opportunity to be with you today.
Given that my fellow witnesses have done a great job, I
think I am going to try to concentrate on adding some context
of how why this issue is so important and how we are looking at
it.
First, as a way of background, let me say NCLR is the
largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy
organization in the country with a network of nearly 300
community-based organizations who serve millions of Americans
annually. These are groups who are in the trenches and seen the
results of what is happening with inaction in the immigration
system.
Without a doubt, immigration is a galvanizing issue for the
Nation's Hispanic community, 75 percent of whom are United
States citizens. The toxic rhetoric in the debate has affected
us all regardless of immigration status, and that is why I
believe Latino voters responded the way they did in the last
election in a way that I believe also has created an
opportunity to try to get to a solution.
Our community is very engaged in watching this debate very
closely, and it matters not just to the voters today, but the
average 900,000 Latino citizens who are going to be turning 18
every year between now and 2028.
We believe that immigration to the United States should be
orderly and legal. And as part of the opportunity that Congress
has right now to get immigration reform right, we believe that
we should have a system that, number one, restores the rule of
law by creating a path to legality and citizenship while also
combining smart enforcement meshers that respect rights and
increase security.
Number two, a system that preserves the rule of law through
functioning legal immigration channels that uphold the unity of
all families and respond to the needs of employers and the
American workforce. And number three, and not least, is a
system that strengthens the fabric of the country by promoting
immigrant integration. Family-based immigration is something
that is important in all of these 3 categories.
We understand that the various components of the
immigration system are designed to work in tandem. Therefore,
once we restore the rule of law, our ability to preserve it
will rest on whether or not we have a functioning legal
immigration system that does not create incentives to go around
it. The cornerstones of that system have been family and
employment-based migration. And while some see these as
competing categories, the reality is that they are highly
complementary and intertwined in both advanced national goals
of strengthening family values and achieving global economic
competitiveness.
Keeping families strong is a fundamental value of American
life. It also promotes the economic stability of immigrants in
their integration into our country, which is a goal we have as
a Nation. In every wave of immigrants that have to America, the
family unit has been critical both to the survival of
immigrants in a strange land also to their success in adapting
and contributing to their newly-adopted country.
We would be undermining ourselves if we walked away from
family unity as a guiding principle for our immigration policy.
And close relatives are able to make vital contributions to the
U.S. economy as workers and as entrepreneurs, and have helped
revitalize many cities and revitalize and re-energize U.S.
small business culture. Put plainly, family-based immigration
is an economic and social imperative. And to fully reap its
rewards, we must address the problems causing the unnecessary
separation of families.
Problem number 1, due to a lack of available visas, there
is about 4.3 million relatives of U.S. citizens waiting outside
to reunite. LGBT families, problem number 2, are completely
excluded. Problem number 3, hundreds of thousands of U.S.
citizens and lawful permanent residents have been separated
from family members due to the increase in deportations.
We can solve these problems, and we definitely need to look
at broadening the lanes. Modern families are complicated and
diverse, and we must have an immigration system for the 21st
century that reflects those complexities and includes a mix of
permanent and temporary family and business.
I urge the Subcommittee to think in terms of both/and as
opposed either/or, and in so doing, to remember the principles
that should guide us: to restore the rule of law, to preserve
it, and to advance immigrant immigration. And we need both
family and employment-based immigration to achieve that. It is
a challenge, but I think it is something that is doable, and
definitely this body has the power to do something about it.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Martinez-De-Castro follows:]
__________
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, ma'am.
The Chair would now recognize Mr. King for his 5 minutes'
worth of questions.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
testimony here of the witnesses. And I was just reflecting on
restore the rule of law, Ms. Martinez, and I recall being a bit
astonished listening to a hearing in the Ag Committee a few
years ago when one of your colleagues from your organization
testified that we had people that were getting overweight
because they had food anxiety. And if we just give them more
food stamps, they would not eat as much and tend to lose
weight, and that would solve the obesity problem. But when I
hear a discussion about restoring the rule of law by suspending
the rule of law, it is awfully hard for me to wrap my mind
around that rationale.
So I would ask you instead a pointed question, and that is,
do you have any estimation or any position in your organization
on what you think the population of the United States should be
in a generation or two or three? Do you have any position on
that? And the second question is, do you have a position on how
many legal immigrants should be brought into the United States
each year?
Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. Well, I am not a demographer, so I
think I would be hard pressed to say what the population of our
country should be. What I do----
Mr. King. Is that something you have considered, though? Is
that part of the discussion matter or is it just outside the
zone of what you focus on as an organization?
Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. In the context of immigration,
obviously unless we are going to start regulating how many
children Americans can have, the issue of how large or country
should be, I think it is a whole other discussion.
Mr. King. We are not going to down there. Okay. I do not
think we are going to get that answer. And you do not have a
position on where about 1.2 million immigrants are brought into
the United States. Do you believe that number should increase
or decrease?
Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. So on the issue of immigration
specifically, there are about, as you said, a million
immigrants that are coming into our country both from the
employment system and the family system. That is 0.3 percent of
the current American population.
So I think that we have the ability to actually broaden
those lanes a little bit in a way that responds to the needs of
the economy and the needs of our families.
Mr. King. So you would see the number perhaps going up.
Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. I am sorry?
Mr. King. You see the number perhaps going up at greater
than 1.2 million, but marginally. Do I hear that answer right?
Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. I think that it should go up.
Mr. King. Okay, I hear that. Now, are you familiar with
Milton Friedman's argument that, and he used a shorter phrase
of this, and you have not used this, but an open borders
policy. We understand what that vernacular means in our society
today. But Milton Friedman's statement that an open borders
policy is not compatible with the welfare state. Are you
familiar with that argument?
And you have made the argument that the demands of labor
should direct, at least to a significant degree, the flow of
traffic across our borders into the United States. And you have
made a cast that there are 4.3 million people that are waiting
in line outside the United States. I think that is important.
But do you agree with Milton Friedman that a welfare state
and an open borders policy are incompatible?
Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. I am not familiar with the full
argument. What I would say is that our organization does not
support open borders, nor do we think that Congress will ever
get to support something like that. So in a way, I do not think
that it is necessary to go down that road because that is not
what we are talking about here. We are talking about----
Mr. King. But it is. We do have a welfare state here, and
it looks like our President is seeking to guarantee a middle
class standard of living for anyone who might be inside the
United States of America. And we have 80 different means test
of welfare programs here in the United States.
I do not know how you better define a welfare state than
that. I just did not think it was arguable that this is a
welfare state, but do you understand that it is incompatible to
have an open borders policy and a welfare state at the same
time?
Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. We do not have an open borders
policy, and my argument does not support one.
Mr. King. Thank you. And I would ask then, Mr. Emery, do
you have a position on these questions that I have asked,
primarily whether the number of illegal immigrants should go up
or down?
Mr. Emery. No, sir. We do not have a position on how
Congress should prioritize the numbers or how big they should
be. But we think that our laws should respect our values. And
we ask the question does anybody here think that our current
laws do that now? So that is why we are advocating that the
legal permanent residents be uncapped, and also that in the
context of comprehensive reform, that there is due process
waiver reform for U.S. citizens so that U.S. citizens are
treated at least as well as anybody else.
Mr. King. Can you explain to me Ms. Martinez's position
that we can restore the rule of law by exempting people from
it?
Mr. Emery. I am sorry. No, I do not know that I can speak
for her.
Mr. King. It is not really a rhetorical question. It is
something that this Congress needs to understand. There seems
to be people in this Congress that can take the position that
they respect, and defend, and protect the rule of law. And one
of the ways we are going to do that is to suspend the rule of
law for a certain class of people.
I heard testimony here that once we restore the rule of
law. We have the rule of law. It has been eroded by a lack of
enforcement.
But let me make another point that I would ask you to
comment on, and that is that each of the times that I hear from
witnesses on this subject matter, there is an advocacy for
expanding one or more of the visa categories. And each time
that advocacy takes place, there seems to be a disregard for
the overall number of Americans that might come into the United
States, what is that proper number, the 4.3 million or more,
and I actually think it is more, that are waiting in line
outside the United States. That is the back of the line.
How many people would come here if we had a policy that
could process them more quickly than Mr.--I did not follow your
last name. I do not have my glasses on, but the gentleman said.
So my question back to you then is, do you have a position
on that total number of legal immigrants or do you at least
understand that the advocacy we are hearing here is a peace of
the jigsaw puzzle that only views opening up certain visa
categories without regard to the overall number.
Mr. Gowdy. You can answer the question.
Mr. Emery. As I said, we do not have a specific position on
that, but for us it is really about values. And we do not see
that the moral argument for Mat to have his wife here is less
for a resident than for a citizen. Again, it is up to Congress
to set these priorities and to deal with them. Our concern is
really this most basic fundamental value of husbands and wives
and moms and dads being with their kids.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you to the gentleman from Iowa.
The Chair would now recognize the gentlelady from
California, the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am wondering, Mr. Papademetriou, sometimes people talk
about chain migration, and there may be a myth out there that
someone here can petition for their grandparents, and their
aunts, and their uncles, and their cousins. Can you tell us who
can petition for a relative?
Mr. Papademetriou. Yes, a U.S. citizen.
Ms. Lofgren. And who they can petition for?
Mr. Papademetriou. Right. A U.S. citizen can petition for
their immediate relatives defined as minor children under 21,
spouses, and parents. And this is numerically unlimited. And
then they can petition for their unmarried adult children. This
is numerically limited. There are only about 23,000 or so visas
that we dedicate to that. They can petition for their married
adult children. That is the 3rd preference, and that is, again,
around 23,000 or so visas. And they can petition for their
siblings. That is the 4th preference, and that is about 6,500,
6,600 visas.
The reason I keep saying ``about'' is because as you all
know, you know, if one category does not use the few numbers,
they move them. They move this way and they also move the other
way.
And, of course, today's topic, which is the 2nd preference,
and this is the spouses and unmarried minor children, category
2A, the 2nd preference. And spouses--I am sorry--and unmarried
adult children, which is 2B. That is it. Everybody is
somebody's uncle, so, you know----
Ms. Lofgren. But no cousins, no grandparents.
Mr. Papademetriou. No cousins----
Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. No aunts, and no uncles.
Mr. Papademetriou [continuing]. Or things like that.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you for clarifying that. You know,
Congress makes the laws. We made some mistakes in '96 when we
amended the act, in my judgment. And now we have a chance to
remedy some of the mistakes that we have learned about since
that time.
One of the things that I think is important is that if we
have a system, that it be honest, and that it work. And looking
at the question of 4th preference, I recently asked about the
backlog in 4th preference and was told that if you petitioned
for your brother or sister who lived in Mexico, that it would
be 150 years until a visa number became available. Now, that
strikes me as kind of a fraud to tell people, you know, when
you are 150 years, because I do not think any of us are going
to get there, that there is a 60-year wait when it comes to
someone born in the Philippines.
I mean, is that a viable situation to have 150-year wait?
Mr. Papademetriou. I think waits for more than 10 years,
and if we can actually wait that long, do not make any
particular sense because they basically violate, you know, a
number of principles. And I do not know, you know. The reason
that you are using this very high number is because of the per
country limits, et cetera, et cetera.
But if you put those things aside, the Filipino would have
to wait about 25 years on average again, but there will still
be those extremes. Same thing with the Mexican.
So fundamentally, if somebody has to wait for these kinds
of years, it makes no sense for us to have anything like that,
you know, in legislation.
Ms. Lofgren. Right. It just does not work, yeah.
Mr. Papademetriou. So, you know, you are going to have to
come up with something else, you know, either by, you know,
fundamentally, you know, reducing the number of years or,
again, these laws. You are lawmakers. You can make them and
unmake them, you know.
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Mr. Papademetriou. And at the end of the day, you know,
these are going to be things on which you can agree. And
ultimately, laws are not made in a vacuum. They are going to be
made, you know, with the full understanding of what really is
the best toward the society.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. You know, a lot of times, I come
from Silicon Valley. And people advocate for high-skilled
immigration, people with their Ph.Ds. And I agree with that. I
mean, the geniuses that come in and are graduating from
Stamford every year in the sciences is just awesome. But I
think it is easy to assume that some of our most famous high-
skilled immigrants, actually they came as children. I mean, you
think about Sergei Brin, the co-founder of Google, he came to
the United States with his parents when he was 6, and I met his
mother, who is a lovely woman. They still live in the Bay area.
Or Pierre Omadar, who is--I can never pronounce his name, but
he came as a child. He was born in Paris. Or Jerry Yang, who
founded Yahoo!, who actually grew up in East San Jose. He came
when he was 10 years old.
So when we think about the balance that is necessary, I do
not think we need to fight each other because, you know,
innovators come in various routes. They come because they went
to a school at a great university, but they also came with
their parents. And sometimes I say this, but I thank Sergei and
his family, that Google is in Mountain View instead of Moscow,
where he was born.
So I am hopeful, Mr. Chairman, that we will make progress.
These are difficult and important questions that we face. I am
mindful of Mr. King's question. You know, two and a half
million die in America every year, too, so we need to take a
look at the entire demographic picture and the fact that we are
not in the demographic dead spiral that Russia is in, that
Japan is in, and the like.
I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentlelady.
The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Idaho, Mr.
Labrador.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Emery, one suggested legislative fix for the F2A
preference category is to allow spouses and minor children of
legal permanent residents to be treated as immediate relatives.
Do you think that might encourage fraud?
Mr. Emery. Well, I guess I would have to think about how
does it work for the skilled workers now. I mean, I am not
expert on that area, but do we find a whole lot of fraud with
people who come in H1B visas? If we do, I have not heard about
it.
Mr. Labrador. But we find a lot of fraud in people coming
here even on immediately relative visas. So the question is,
because I do not disagree with your policy prescription. I
actually think it is a good prescription. But we have to think
prospectively about future flow of immigration, what it is
going to encourage. When we change our law, you do it so you
can encourage certain behavior and also discourage certain
behavior.
So if we know that in the immediate relative category there
is a substantial amount of fraud, is that something that we
should be thinking about when we are changing these categories?
Mr. Emery. Well, I can only speak from experience. And, you
know, my experience is that people are married and fight
against incredible odds to be together. And it is a real
testament to marriage. That is the personal experience I have.
Mr. Labrador. That is great. Thank you. Thank you.
Ms. Martinez, same question to you, because, again, I do
not disagree with the policy prescription. I actually think it
is a good idea to change the category. But as you are thinking
about changing the law, you have to think about all the
consequences of that change. Do you think it would encourage
fraud, and if it does or does not encourage fraud, what do we
do to make sure that we do not have more fraud in the
immigration system?
Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. I am not sure that the change in
the law itself would encourage more fraud. I think as with any
program, and as you know as lawmakers, there are very
entrepreneurial people out there that may try to find a way
around things. But, you know, we can pose the same question as
a program like Medicare. We know there is fraud in the Medicare
program. That does not mean we do away with the program. We try
to figure out what mechanisms we can put in place to make sure
that we prevent those very entrepreneurial creating people from
gaming the system while making sure that the incentives are
maximized. And I agree completely with your framing about law
creates incentives to do one thing or another.
And so I believe that really the case in front of you all
here, we are not really talking about more immigration or less
immigration. We are talking about putting a system in place
that is going to regulate the immigration that is happening and
that is in our best interests to make sure that it is going
through legal channels, where people are being vetted, where
people are being counted, where we know where they are going.
And so an expansion in the program or reclassifying some of
these categories would actually create the incentives for
people to go through the system, which is what we want. And
then we can concentrate on those very entrepreneurial people
who want to try to game it.
Mr. Labrador. So if we are going to increase the number of
immigrants, which we would if we changed the F2A category, and
again, I agree with the policy, are there any categories in a
family-based system that maybe we should be thinking about not
having anymore?
Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. That is a very difficult question,
and the reason I say that is because if you are a person whose
only family in the world is a brother or a sister, that is your
immediate family.
Mr. Labrador. But if you are a person whose only family is
a brother or sister, why did you leave your brother or your
sister?
Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. Well, it happens, right? It
happens. I can speak to that experience.
Mr. Labrador. There are a lot of examples, but I think if
we are going to be increasing the number of visas, which I
think we should for some categories, I think at some point we
also have to make the policy decision of what is in the
national interests for the United States, because our
immigration policy is not for the interests of the individual.
Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. That is right.
Mr. Labrador. It is the national interests of the United
States. Do you agree with that?
Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. I agree that it should be in the
national interest, and I think the national interest here is
that each of the different programs that we have, and I agree
that we need to figure out how to simplify because things are
extremely complicated.
Mr. Labrador. Yes.
Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. But each of the programs we have
has the goal of encouraging people or giving people hope to
stand in a line that might have a chance to go through. And so
to the extent that we make arbitrary decisions that take those
things away, we are also creating incentives for people to go
around them.
Mr. Labrador. I do not think it is an arbitrary decision to
determine what is in the national interest, which family
members are in the national interest. We do not allow uncles.
We do not allow aunts. So at some point we have to make a
policy decision here in Congress.
Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Idaho.
The Chair would now recognize the gentlelady from Texas,
Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank the Chairman and the Ranking
Member, but also the courtesy of my friend, Mr. Gutierrez, and
to all of the colleagues that are here.
Mr. Chairman, let me acknowledge the importance of these
hearings, and thank you and your staff, along with Ms. Lofgren,
for ensuring that we have a very, very solid record on some of
the important work that this Congress has to do. And I want to
thank the witnesses.
And as I was being briefed by staff, I want to make sure
that it is very clear in this immigration story, this
immigration journey, that they view America as the land of
opportunity. And I believe that when we speak of our country as
we live in it, none of us will ever describe our Nation as a
welfare state. We describe it as a place where can finish
education to the public system, that we can get a higher
education, the best education for reasonable resources
expended. We view it as a place that you can move from poverty
to opportunity. And that story is larger than us. It goes all
around the world.
That is why people may leave a beloved family member
behind. I hear the stories every day. It is not a celebratory
case when someone has an opportunity to come to the United
States, but not their family. They sacrifice because of what
they believe the values of this Nation are all about.
Mr. Papademetriou, you had a sentence that I think is
really the statement. How a country approaches immigration and
how it treats its immigrants is a powerful statement to the
world abut its values and the principles upon which it stands.
I have a short period of time. I just want to ask you. Is
America overwhelmed with immigrants?
Mr. Papademetriou. No, it is not overwhelmed by immigrants.
And we take far fewer immigrants on per capita basis that many
other countries do. For instance, Canada takes 3 times as many
immigrants per Canadian more so than we do. Australia does
likewise.
So the issue is not more or fewer. The issue is a system
that makes sense, as Ms. Lofgren said, that has clear rules,
that those rules can be understood by everyone, and that it
does not ask people to do things that will be completely
unnatural in the regular course of their lives. And separating
spouses from minor children is unnatural.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me follow that up with Ms. Martinez,
who said the same thing. If we have a system that establishes
the rules, do you believe both advocates and those who seek in
this country will follow the rules in most part?
Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. I think if the rules are clear and
fair, people have an incentive to do that. Even if you think
about the current population in our country who is
undocumented, when you think about people who were willing to
risk their lives, literally and not figuratively, to come here
for either the opportunity of a job or to reunite with a loved
one. And many times, having to spend not only their life
savings, but the life savings of their home network or families
to be able to pay a smuggler.
If there was a real line that people believed in, whether
it was employment based or family based, to be able to wait and
come here, I think that when you put in the balance the risks
to your life and the life savings of a community, then it
creates an incentive to come in legally. But that is why it is
so important that our legal immigration system work properly.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And it should respond to this crisis of
separating our families.
Let me ask both Mr. Emery and Paguth. I am trying to see.
In a hearing that I had in my district, I was told the story of
a father who was placed on a plan and literally told to sell--
let me temper that down--to give away his American-born
children. And you are speaking of a legal status of a legal
permanent resident and the numbers being such that you cannot
have your wife. And so to fix that, I think our witnesses are
talking, is the adding of those numbers so that you have a
fair, legal process.
Mr. Emery, can both of you speak to that very quickly?
Mr. Emery. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The tearing apart of families?
Mr. Emery. Yes, we see it all the time. And again, it is
not just the permanent residents. It is U.S. citizens, too. And
that is why we are advocating for exactly what you are saying,
for permanent residents to be able to bring their spouses here
without any delay, and also for U.S. citizens to have process
waiver reform so that they are treated at least as well as
other groups in immigration reform.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Can the gentleman answer quickly, please?
Mr. Arivalan. I agree with Mr. Emery. I am here because I
did not want to my marriage to fail. Two years plus visa
processing time of 6 months to a year is a long time for any
marriage. It is a huge hardship on any marriage. And it would
have a negative effect on any relationship for that matter.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This
gentleman I think is a legal permanent resident because he
wants to be a citizen. A work permit would allow him to have
his wife. This is a process that we need to fix.
And I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member very much. I
yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. I am going to briefly yield to the gentlelady
from California before we go to the gentleman from Nevada.
Ms. Lofgren. I would just like to ask unanimous consent to
place into the record 17 statements from various religious and
civil rights groups.
Mr. Gowdy. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
Mr. Gowdy. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from
Nevada, Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei. I arrived late, and I missed some of your
testimony, so I will be brief with that. I do think I missed
anybody's testimony that the ways things are now are okay,
right? Is there anybody here on this panel that thinks it is
okay the way it is now?
Okay. The record should reflect a negative response.
You have talked about it is unnatural, Mr. Papademetriou,
to separate families, kids, and parents, and stuff like that.
When you talk about if this is going to be the precipitating
Congress for doing something to change what is unacceptable
now, what role do you think national interests ought to be in
setting that policy when you compare it with, you know,
separating people? What role does the national interest play in
discussing that policy?
Mr. Papademetriou. It is a critical role that the national
interests will play, but I do not see the national interest
being antithetical to keeping nuclear families together.
Mr. Amodei. Okay. Well, I do not think I intimated that you
had to pick one or the other.
Mr. Papademetriou. Okay.
Mr. Amodei. But you do acknowledge that nation interests
should be part of that discussion.
Mr. Papademetriou. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Amodei. Ms. Martinez, you indicated you thought that
things should be clear and fair, which is a pretty good place
to start. Has your organization proposed any legislation when
we talk about this issue to say if you are admitted under the
circumstances that Mr.--listen, people mangle my last name all
the time, so you I am not going to----
Mr. Arivalan. You can just call me Mat.
Mr. Amodei. Okay, good. Big buy, how about that?
[Laughter.]
Have you got any proposals for how that works if you are
being admitted as a married person or separated from your
children, what the process should be before you are allowed to
come into the country in terms of making that something that is
more transparent to folks as opposed to what sounds like a
surprise for a lot of people?
Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. I think that we are dealing with a
couple of different problems. I mentioned 3 of them, and the
situations for each is different. In some of these categories,
the process itself may not be necessarily the most difficult
part, but the reality that the lane in which people are coming
into is too narrow, and, therefore, the wait starts getting
really long. So I think that is one of the proposals is took
particularly at the immediate relatives, the spouses and small
children, of legal permanent residents and figure out how to
expedite or how to minimize those waits.
I think when we are talking about, for example, how the
laws apply or exclude LGBT families, are talking about a
different set of issues, and those are families that are
summarily excluded from being able to use these mechanisms
right now.
And then when we are talking about the separation of
nuclear families as a result of the 3- and 10-year bars that
Ms. Lofgren mentioned, or as a result of deportation policies,
I think it is another set of issues, but that hopefully within
the context of immigration reform, as we create a rigorous path
to earn legality, we also start addressing some of those.
Mr. Amodei. I will just finish with this because I know we
are getting short on time. I do not think I have heard anybody
talk about things are okay in this meeting or otherwise.
Nobody, regardless of what their politics are, say things are
okay. But I would remind you that as you go to what would be an
improvement over the system, that solutions are something in
the context of we are talking about families today.
But you, and thank you for your comments about open borders
and not open borders, because it is kind of like having a speed
limit sign out there saying it is 55, but we are telling you
right now nobody is enforcing the traffic laws. It does not
matter what your traffic laws are if they are not enforceable,
if they are not transparent, they are not predictable, clear
and fair, I think is the phrase you used.
So even though we are concentrating on nuclear family
issues today, it is like specifics, I think, in terms of
allowing folks from wherever they happen to be from in getting
down to something that can actually move will be helpful. And I
do not mean to be trite, but it is like I do not think anybody
disagrees that there is a problem. It is like what is the idea
for the solution in terms of how do you change this with
respect to that, but in the global sense?
So thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman.
I want to now recognize the gentleman from Illinois and
then try to also get in the gentleman from Virginia. Mr.
Gutierrez?
Mr. Gutierrez. Well, thank you. I want to thank all of the
panelists, and I want to say to Mr. Emery, thank you for the
invitation. It was wonderful to be there with Mr. Labrador and
others are you made your presentation.
I want to say, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am sure the
gentlelady, the Ranking Member, could probably persuasively
argue otherwise, but I think this is a pretty hard panel to
beat. I fills our record with the necessity of American
citizens and their need to keep their families together. And I
got to tell you, thank you for putting together a panel that
really, I think, helps all of the Members begin to understand
the complexity of our broken immigration system, and how it
really impacts American citizens, and families, and marriage. I
for one am a strong supporter in the institution of marriage,
and I think that here we have given testimony about how our
immigration system undermines marriage.
I want to also take an opportunity to say to Chairman
Goodlatte, I want to thank you. I read your Christian Science
Monitor interview. I want to thank you. I think that your
expressions are ones that fill me with hope, and I think should
fill all of these panelists with hope that we can find a
bipartisan solution that keeps our borders secure and does not
open our borders, but has a compassionate understanding that
there are families being disrupted.
I would like to ask Ms. Martinez, how many people have been
deported during the last 4 years?
Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. Just in the last 4 years----
Mr. Gutierrez. Sure.
Ms. Martinez-De-Castro [continuing]. It is 1.6 million.
Mr. Gutierrez. 1.6 million. Were there 1.6 million people
deported in the previous 4 years, or were there less or more,
if you know?
Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. No. I mean, one thing that we know,
and it is has been documented very well by the Department of
Homeland Security, in studies, and by a number of other
entities, is that this is the biggest fight that we have seen
in deportations of any previous Administration.
And so, the reality is that we need enforcement of our
immigration laws. There is no question about it. But I think
that one of the things that we need to do to be able to restore
the rule of law is understand that we cannot restore the law
any more by simply continuing to do enforcement, enforcement,
enforcement, without in a pragmatic way that addresses reality,
dealing with the population who is here, two-thirds of whom
have been here for 10 years and are part of U.S. citizen
families.
And so, therefore, to restore the rule of law, we need that
two-pronged approach. And we have done a great deal of
investment, boots on the ground, and other policies on
enforcement. The piece that remains undone is what we do about
the population that is here?
Mr. Gutierrez. To follow up with you, I recently read that
we spend $18 billion a year on enforcement on homeland
security. Could you share with us what that means in respect
to, like, the FBI and other enforcement agencies at the Federal
level?
Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. Actually if you give me the
opportunity, it was actually the Migration Policy Center who
did a whole report on that, and Demetrios probably is probably
a bigger expert on those figures than I am.
Mr. Gutierrez. Mr. Demetrios, please.
Mr. Papademetriou. Fourteen billion dollars for all of the
other Federal enforcement agencies.
Mr. Gutierrez. We spent $18 billion on what exactly?
Mr. Papademetriou. You know, that is the budget for
interior enforcement for border enforcement.
Mr. Gutierrez. And we spend $14 billion on what in
comparison to that----
Mr. Papademetriou. FBI, DEA.
Mr. Gutierrez. So we spend more money on enforcement on
immigration than we do on the Secret Service to protect the
President, to protect our currency, the FBI, the marshals.
Mr. Papademetriou. All of that.
Mr. Gutierrez. And yet we see it is had a devastating
effect on our families.
I just wanted to try to have a little balance in terms of
there is enforcement. It is expanding. It is expanding even
though we have huge communities of people demanding a change.
It has continued to expand, and the number of dollars that we
use and the devastating effect. And I think Mr. Emery, and I
think the witnesses we have, we see the devastating effect
because I know.
So I joined the gentlelady, Jackson Lee, this past weekend
in Houston. I now join Congressman Vargas in San Diego. And I
just want to assure my colleagues that although much has been
said, we are for secure borders. We are for the rule of law. We
are also for a compassionate, understanding immigration system
that keeps our families together. We have record deportation
and we have record strife on our poor immigrant families across
this Nation.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Illinois.
We have votes pending, so in lieu of asking questions, I
will just make a few observations.
I first want to thank all of the witnesses for their
compelling testimonies that impact the basic fundamentals of
life when you are talking about family and spouses.
I also want to confess a certain bias. As a former
prosecutor, it was not so much respect for the rule of law as
much as it was adherence to the rule of law. You could respect
something and then still not adhere to it. And I cannot tell
you the number of times I had to prosecute laws that I did not
agree with. I would not have written the law that way. I would
have written it differently. But yet I took an oath to enforce
law, not just respect it, but enforce it.
And if we are going to have a remedy that satisfies all of
us, we are going to have to convince our fellow citizens that
this is the last time as a Nation we have a conversation. In
other words, we can pass something, but if everybody still
says, well, I do not agree with this part of it; therefore, I
may respect it, but I am not going to adhere to it, we are not
going to get it done.
So I appreciate the commentary on respect for the rule of
law. That respect has to manifest itself in an adherence. I
would imagine that is one of the reasons that we are a
destination point for people who want to improve their lives is
because we are a Nation of laws. It is the greatest equalizer
in the world, and as sure as you may want to benefit from the
non-application of the law today, you will be clamoring for the
full application of another law tomorrow.
So with that, I want to thank all of our panelists. And let
me now go to--Mr. Goodlatte, I will yield to you a minute of my
time if you want it. If not, I will go to the gentleman from
Florida.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, I am just going to thank you for
holding this hearing and second your comments. I appreciate the
remarks of the gentleman from Illinois.
This panel is a very moving panel, and I appreciate their
testimony. I would just say that as we address this issue, we
need to keep people who are trying to go through the process
legally at the forefront of our minds. That does not mean we
can ignore the problem with people who are not lawfully here.
But we need to make sure that as we do this work, we are
keeping in mind the highest priority, which is we are a Nation
of immigrants, and we are going to make sure that we treat
those immigrants like people we have always benefited from
wanting to come to this country. And I agree with you, we are
also a Nation of laws, and we have to find a way to bring those
two things together to make this work.
I will yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Florida
and thank him for his patience.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have very
much more to add. I think what I would like this Committee,
because I agree with Mr. Goodlatte. But what I think is very
important to remember is that in the end we are a country of
immigrants that needs immigrants. And if these hearings were
being held because we are trying to figure out ways to get
people to migrate to America, we would be in far worse trouble
than having hearings when we are trying to filter who we want
to come in because so many want to come in.
Thank you very much for being here. I enjoyed the testimony
and appreciated your good work.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
I would also ask unanimous consent to put the full
statement of Chairman Goodlatte into the record.
Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodlatte follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary
Thank you, Chairman Gowdy.
The objective of immigration law is to regulate who enters the
country and to ensure that their entrance is in the interest of the
United States. While much of the discussion about reforming immigration
centers on what to do with the estimated eleven million unlawful
immigrants in the United States, no less deserving of careful
reflection are the nuclear family members of lawful permanent residents
waiting in backlogs to enter the U.S.
Today's hearing focuses on the nuclear family and how greencards
are issued for the spouses and unmarried minor children of lawful
permanent residents (LPRs).
Current law allows the spouse and unmarried minor children of a
U.S. citizen to immediately receive greencards--there is no cap on the
number of greencards that can be issued to them each year.
In addition, when a foreign national becomes a lawful permanent
resident, their spouse and minor children at the time also get green
cards. But if LPRs marry foreign nationals after they get their
greencard, only about 88,000 greencards are available each year to
their spouses and minor children. Therefore backlogs develop.
At this time nearly 220,000 spouses and minor children are waiting
for those greencards. And they must wait outside the U.S.
The State Department is currently issuing greencards for spouses
and children of LPRs whose applications were received in or before
November 2010. So there is a nearly two and a half year wait for those
spouses and children.
In the past, the wait time has been as high as six years. A decade
ago Congress adjusted our immigration policy to address concerns about
families being apart for so many years.
The ``Legal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act of 2000,'' created
a temporary visa to allow the spouse or minor child of a lawful
permanent resident to wait inside the United States if they had been
waiting at least three years outside the U.S. The V visa, as the LIFE
Act visa is known, has since expired.
Last year the House passed a bill that would have reauthorized the
V visa and reduced wait times even more. The ``STEM Jobs Act of 2012,''
contained a provision lowering the wait requirement for a V visa from
three years to one year. While that particular provision had some
problems--including the fact that it cost approximately $3 billion over
10 years in the form of federal government benefits--the underlying
principle that nuclear families should be together is an important one
that Congress should promote.
So today we examine the issue and possible changes to the law that
could be made to help reduce the greencard wait times of spouses and
children of LPRs, while at the same time discouraging marriage fraud. I
look forward to hearing what the witnesses have to say.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back the balance of my time.
__________
Mr. Gowdy. Again, on behalf of all of us, thank you for
your indulgence with our taking a break for our colleagues to
meet with the President. And thank you for your indulgence with
our having to go vote. Thank you for your collegiality with one
another and also with the Subcommittee.
And with that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5 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 Trey Gowdy, a Representative in
Congress from the State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee
on Immigration and Border Security
Family is fundamental unit of society. Family is where we go to
multiply joy, mitigate grief and share all the emotions in between. My
mother in law fell and broke her hip Monday and even though there are
wonderful nurses at the hospital it will be family that sits with her
round the clock. And family will help get our daughter to school on
time, and family will cut the grass and make the meals. We all claim to
support pro-family agendas. And we analyze tax policy and healthcare
policy and virtually all other forms of policy against a backdrop of
whether it incents or disincentives family. So it is appropriate that
we also analyze our immigration policy to see whether it is friendly to
this thing we call family, the fundamental unit of our culture and
society. We have heard the statistics about U.S. Green Card backlogs
and the time it takes for individuals trying to come to the U.S.
legally. In fact, under the current process, if you have applied for a
Green Card on the basis of being a brother or sister of an adult U.S.
citizen, the wait could be nearly 25 years.
Members of the U.S. Commission on Immigration reform did not
believe there should be a wait for spouses and unmarried minor
children, but did not necessarily share the same view about other
family members. In its 1997 report, the Commission stated, ``the
national interest in the entry of nuclear family members outweighs that
of more extended family members.''
The Commission also addressed the wait time for the spouse and
unmarried minor children of lawful permanent residents (LPRs), stating
that ``no spouse or minor child should have to wait more than one year
to be reunited with their U.S. petitioner.''
But the current greencard wait time for the spouse or unmarried
minor child of an LPR is actually around two and a half years. And
there are around 220,000 people waiting.
Why is there a wait? When Congress created the current greencard
system in the ``Immigration Act of 1965,'' limits were placed on the
number of greencards available to certain classes of people each year.
For instance, each year's family-sponsored greencard limit for
spouses and children of lawful permanent residents in the U.S. is
114,200 plus any unused greencards from the category allotted for
unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens. This preference category,
known as family-based second preference, is further divided into 2A
Preference--for spouses and unmarried children of LPRs--and 2B
Preference--for unmarried adult children of LPRs.
So if the number of greencards available in any given year for the
family-based 2A preference category is less than the number of people
who apply for a greencard in that category, a backlog is created.
At this point, the top five countries with the highest family-based
2A preference waiting list totals are Mexico (40%), Dominican Republic
(11.4%), Cuba (6.3%), Haiti (5.3%) and the Philippines (4.3%). All
other countries make up the remaining 32%.
Another reason for the wait is the conscious Congressional decision
not to allow immediate greencards for the family-based 2A preference
category in order to help prevent marriage fraud.
Since these marriages occur after the LPR has become an LPR, there
is a very real threat that if greencards were immediately available,
marriage fraud would be prevalent.
Ideas differ as to how to reduce the greencard wait times for the
family-based 2A preference. And I am sure we will hear some of those
differing views from our witnesses today.
Some individuals believe that spouses and unmarried children of
LPRs should be considered the same as immediate relatives of U.S.
citizens and thus receive a greencard immediately. Some believe that
the current situation is fine--that a few years wait time is a fair
price for the benefit of a U.S. greencard which then leads to
citizenship. And still others believe that the correct answer is
somewhere in between.
So I look forward to the witness testimony today, to learn more
about the issue and the possible solutions.
I yield back the balance of my time.