the outcry would be if the united states is hit with another terror attack. nothing to indicate right now that something is relating. there something happen would inevitably be some sort of outcry of white in the government keep us safe? we had all of these in place. we had all of these reforms supposed to keep us safe after september 11 and they did not. is probablye's reigned for how to find that what thedle between executive branch has an terms of protection in what people who are justifiably concerned about privacy rights are calling for. we have not seen an answer to that. backme people are harking to 75. watch the pendulum has swung. we may be at a point now where there is a little correcting

after 9/11. going into election year, what are the politics? >> this was a real demonstration. you had house republican and democratic leadership on the same side of the issue with the white house. then you had so many members voting to restrict this program. i think the fact that you solve the head of the house and senate intelligence committee consent publicly to examining how to possibly bring this and are put in more privacy protections as an example of what they are willing to do as a first step and if they can do that that they can get agreement on it and put that in place and maybe that will be enough to hold it off. it depends on what trends fire's -- what transpires and whether it continues to down political discourse. a lot depends on how quickly edward snowden situation where there in russia or back in the united states is settled.

>> thank you for your questions. we appreciate it. > [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] later, house leadership discusses the week ahead for congress. >> this is a website. it is the history of popular culture. it is a collection of stories on the history of popular culture. to say pop culture, it is quite more than that. what i have been trying to do more detail with how popular culture impact politics and sports and other arenas.

it is not just about pop culture. we have stories about popular .usic we have some history of media entities. there are a range of things. when they formulated the site i purposefully cast a wide net to see what would work. >> more with jack doyle. tonight at 8:00 on q&a. democratsday, house and republicans voiced their differences on immigration status. they brought their children with them. democrats, including louise gutierrez, insisted the parent should beginning a path to citizenship as any part of the so-called gmac. the said committee heard testimony from two witnesses of discussed the hardships

living as undock -- undocumented immigrants. this portion is about one hour. th >> good afternoon. the subcommittee will come to order without objection. the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. this is a hearing entitled "addressing immigration status of illegal immigrants brought to the united states as children. we welcome all of our witnesses today, both panels. we will get to our witnesses momentarily. when chairman goodlatte had the first immigration hearing months ago, i said we were looking for a remedy that would last a lifetime. a real remedy, not a political or electoral remedy, but a real remedy that is best for our country. i said i thought we could find a synthesis or harmony between the compassion that defines us as a people and the respect for the rule of law that defines us as a republic. the house judiciary committee

has since held nearly a dozen hearings on different aspects of our immigration system and passed four bills, including legislation to strengthen interior enforcement and ensure the laws we pass are actually enforced. we know border security and interior enforcement are the only guarantee that we will not repeat the mistakes of the past. the issue of how to treat children brought to this country is not new. congress has considered it since at least 2001, but it is a new issue for this congress and several members of this subcommittee. we all view children as a special protected class. we have all witnessed acts of heroism where total strangers risk and sacrifice their lives for other people's children. we admire teachers and other professionals who dedicate their lives to teaching and helping other people's children. children and the issues that impact their lives unite us like nothing else. because children are a special

class, the law treats children differently in almost every regard. when children wander in a neighborhood yard, we don't call that trespassing. when children cry at restaurants or on airplanes, we don't call that a violation of the noise ordinance. when children eat a grape at the grocery store or eat a piece of candy waiting in line before mom or dad pays for it, we don't call that petty larceny. children can?t sign contracts, can't vote, can't purchase certain items, they can?t even work in some instances because the law treats children differently. even when children do get in trouble legally, the system is completely separate. even the purpose of the system is different. the purpose of the adult justice system is to punish. the purpose of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate and to restore. the law treats children differently for a variety of reasons, including the fact that children cannot form the intent necessary to violate the law.

intent is a necessary element of every criminal offense. simply put, children who were brought here have not committed a crime, misdemeanor or otherwise. the adults may have, but the children have not. that is not an expression of compassion. that is the execution and the application of the law. there are an estimated 1.35 million undocumented children under the age of 18, and an estimated 1.6 million between the ages of 18 and 24 in this country. in recent months, i have heard from many organizations and individuals regarding legislation aimed at granting legal status for this subset of undocumented immigrants. children from south carolina and as far away as california. when my good friend jeff denham was gracious enough to let me visit him in his district. jeff, i remember a young lady at your town hall coming up to us afterward, and for virtually all of her life this young lady grew

up thinking she was an american citizen. she never knew any different. she led a virtuous life with good grades, hard work, community involvement, active in church, a wonderful, loving family -- exactly the kind of person you and i would want to be, a fellow citizen. she was polite and persuasive. she just had one question for us. what country am i supposed to go back to? this is the only country i have ever known. while there is an obvious openness with respect to children who have done nothing wrong, those same equities in my judgment do not apply in the same regard to the remainder of the 11 million undocumented immigrants. they may or may not have other equities to argue. let me say this as plainly as i can. attempts to group the entire 11 million into one homogeneous group in an effort to secure a political remedy will only wind up hurting the most vulnerable. to earn the trust and respect of

our fellow citizens we must ensure there are sufficient anti-fraud measures and screening mechanisms so those who seek the benefit unjustly and without a factual basis are identified. in conclusion, we are a nation of laws because law provides order and structure and predictability and peace and equality and justice. compassion is good, but it can ebb and flow with the vicissitudes of life and the perspective of the individual. the law remains sturdy and strong as the foundation upon which we live. i will support and defend the constitution and laws of the u.s.a. against all enemies foreign and domestic. i will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. i will bear arms on behalf of the u.s. when required by the law. i will perform noncombatant

service in the armed forces of the united states when required by the law. i will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law. that is not an oath for congress. that is the oath of citizenship. that is the pledge and promise each makes hand on heart to their soon-to-be fellow citizens. if we expect people to support and live by the law after they become citizens, what possible explanation can exist for not applying the law to the process of becoming a citizen? the equities are all decided. the law is also on the side of these children. the law stands above equity and opinion. america is different. we are compassionate and free,

but most of all we are a nation of laws. that is one reason people so desperately want to come here in the first place. with that, i recognize the general lady from california, ms. lofgren. >> this is an important issue in our system, the treatment of undocumented young people who are brought to the u.s. as children. these are kids who have grown up in this country, attended american high schools, who often know no other country as him. this subcommittee last held a hearing about them in 2007 when three young women testified about their lives. one witness grew up in california, graduated in garden grove california, from ucla and a bachelors program with honors. she was in the phd program in american civilization at brown university.

she was serving as a leading voice in support of the dream act which she and a close friend died in a car crash on may 15, 2010. i wanted to recognize her as we begin this hearing because i am mindful of what martin luther king junior referred to. right now, we have an opportunity to fix our broken immigration system and it would be a national shame if we were unable to do that. one part of that fix, an important and compelling part of that fix, is to ensure that dreamers have an opportunity to become just as american on paper as they already are in their hearts. i believe that a strong bipartisan -- there is a strong bipartisan support for that, and i am encouraged by what i have heard on this issue from republican members including those in leadership over the

past few months. in some ways, this is not new. the dream act was first introduced as bipartisan legislation in 2001 and has had bipartisan support ever since. the breath of support in congress -- i am extremely pleased that this will be reflected by the witnesses testifying today. it is -- as encouraged as i am, i must also say that i have concerns about some of what i have read in the press leading up to this hearing. i understand that the majority leader and chairman goodlatte are working on a proposal that is rumored to be called the kids act. their desire to become champions for this issue is positive development. it is a testament to the hard work that dreamers themselves have done to build a coalition by telling their stories and advocating for change. like the bills that this

committee markup in june, we have not yet seen the language of the kids act and we have not been asked to contribute to the effort. while i am looking forward to reviewing the act, i know that this is a sharp archer or the history of the dream act. legislation was always drafted and introduced with bipartisan support. i am even more concerned about reports that some republican members may be working on legislation that would allow undocumented immigrants other than the dreamers to obtain temporary lawful status without a specific path to legal residency. i recognize that this represents progress and i welcome that. i believe it shows a growing appreciation that we cannot fix our broken immigration system

without addressing the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are part of our communities. i believe it would be a grave mistake to allow millions of people to come out of the shadows, obtain immigration status only to leave tm a second-class status for the rest of their lives. partial legalization is a dangerous path. we need only to look at france and germany to see how unwise it is to create a permanent underclass. what makes america special is that people come here. they assimilate, they become fully american with all of the rights and responsibilities that citizenship bestows. american people agree. in a recent poll, americans were asked the following questions, would you favor or oppose each of the following as part of legislation to address the issue of illegal immigration? they were provided various components of top to bottom reform, mandatory verifying, border security, visas for skilled workers, and "allowing illegal immigrants to become citizens." 88% said they favored a path to citizenship for the

undocumented. support was overwhelmingly strong across all ethnic groups. among conservative non-hispanic white respondents, 83% favored a path to citizenship and only 17% opposed. we have an opportunity to do something that will help strengthen america's economy, an opportunity to keep families together, and for everyone who agrees with the rule of law, we have an opportunity to design an immigration system that promotes law-abiding behavior instead of our current one that depends upon lawbreaking. this opportunity is not coming off. my entire time in congress, 18 years, has been spent looking for an opening to fix our broken

immigration system. this is that time. the senate passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill and i am doing everything i can to make sure the house is able to do the same. if we work together, i think we can make that happen and i think our country will be better as a result. we know that our history as a country, america was formed by immigrants and we will not serve our country well unless we ensure that our future also welcomes the immigrants that will help tilt a stronger america. i thank you, mr. chairman, and yield back. >> thank you. the chair will next recognize the chairman from virginia. >> thank you, chairman gaudi. thank you for your compelling opening statement.

desert of the southwest u.s. border. not every immigrant can be placed in the same category. some did come here by paying a coyote to smuggle them across the border. some came here legally on a visa and didn't leave when their time expired so they could work illegally. there is another class of unlawfully present aliens, a class who deserve to be considered from a different perspective. i am talking about aliens brought here as children. they had no input into their parent's decision to bring the family to the u.s. illegally. many of them know no other home than the u.s. having grown up as americans since they were toddlers. they don't share the culpability of their parents. i have spoken about the fact that as part of the step-by-step approach, we should look at

whether we as a nation should allow this group of young people to stay in the u.s. legally. while this is an important piece of immigration reform, it too must be accomplished effectively and responsibly to ensure that several years from now, congress is not once again being asked to pass more legislation dealing with the immigration status of a new group of young people. to that end, i do not believe that parents who made the decision to illegally enter the u.s. while forcing their children to do them should be afforded the same treatment as the kids. let's be clear. parents bringing kids to the u.s. illegally is not something we want to encourage. not only because it leads to continued illegal immigration, but because illegally crossing the border is dangerous. we have seen the pictures and video of children who are dehydrated and lethargic from an arduous trek across the desert

with their parents or with smugglers paid by their parents. these border crossings include everything from handling a child over to a coyote in hopes of getting the child to the u.s., to placing the child in the back of a semi truck in hopes that customs officers wouldn't detect the human presence in the trailer, to bringing a child down into a tunnel built between mexico and the u.s. knowing that at any moment it could collapse. these are all kinds of things that immigration reform must ensure come to an end. enforcement at the border is crucial to ending these kinds of situations. this committee has passed legislation to strengthen the enforcement of our immigration laws. however, successful immigration reform must also look at how to address the significant population of illegal immigrants who are already here and who are brought here as young children by their parents. it needs to acknowledge that just because there is a group of

children, does not mean they should all be treated the same. if they have joined gangs or been involved in criminal activity such as entering the country as a drug mule, or if they have otherwise shown that they do not intend to be productive members of society, they should not be treated the same for purposes of legal status as young children but here by their parents. i am pleased that the chairman is taking the time to look at this issue today. i look forward to hearing the testimony. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you, chairman goodlatte. there have been other requests for opening statements. we will get to you as quickly as we can. i recognize mr. garcia, the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wish to thank the chairman. he and many on the other side are trying to find a solution for this problem. the right solution. a just, american solution.

that said, when members of this committee, members of this house use inflammatory language, use offensive language, it does not help the process. in my district, i have multiple schools who produce valedictorians on a regular basis. they are undocumented. when members of this house used language such as, for everyone that is a valedictorian, there is another 100 who weigh 130 pounds and have cats decides -- calves the size of cantaloupes because they have been hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert, it is offensive. it is beneath the dignity of this body and this country. my colleagues are trying hard, i know that the ranking member on our side has been working very hard to find a solution, but this is an american problem. we need to work together. we need to stop pointing fingers

and finding a pathway forward. i look forward to the goodwill of all this house to try to find a way to solve this american problem. thank you. >> thanks to the gentleman from florida. the chair recognizes the non- woman from iowa. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my purpose in requesting time here is to help set the tone of little differently. when i see that we have eight witnesses lined up on one side of the agenda and for people lined up to speak as opening statements, and then we hear from the eight witnesses, and then maybe you hear from someone who happens to disagree with this concept called the contact. -- the kids act. we don't have a bill before us. we can't look at the language of a bill and take a position on

that language. we are here examining a concept, a potential bill that is not yet before us. this is the opposite order that we usually conduct is nice with in this congress. i suggest that in the future we turn that around, and have a bill before us that we can have witnesses testified to. we all have sympathy for children brought here without knowledge that they were breaking the law. i do not think that the definition of a child cannot form intent, that doesn't stick whose fault is it russian mark that is not their fault if their parents brought them into the united states.

they are all subject to the application of the law. whose fault is that? is it the parents fault? i inc. so. think so. are they going to advocate that we punish the parents for bringing their children into a situation where they find themselves in contradiction and violation of the law? is this a broader picture of a back or amnesty to all people in the united states are those that have committed a felony and those three mr. masters -- misdemeanors. everybody is starting to get legalized by the senate again of eight. i am very concerned about that. if you look at people that are here unlawfully and you wave the application on their parents, especially if they are the ones

who brought them to commit this perform thisou against question? comes after,t when do you start to enforce the law. i think what is on course are those that will follow. we just do this little sliver. this type that are hard. it's like that mind to. i listen to the statement when he says he wants a remedy that .ill last a lifetime we have a higher responsibility than that. we have to preserve the rule of law so that this country can last for many generations into the future. if you exempt the rule of law with regard to immigration, you

have suspended the law and a category. if you can exempt it for people and those who have been deported in the past and to invite them to come back, you have sacrificed the rule of law on the altar of political expediency and the results will be american immigration law will not be set by americans again. it'll be set by the people who can circumvent the border security that we were promised. this administration is not serious about enforcing the law. they will make what ever promises they need to do. is end of this thing citizenship because they are willing to sacrifice the rule of law for lyrical power. we have 100 million americans not in the workforce.

we are talking about giving a real board for breaking the law. we must take this back to the essential fundamental principle. i appreciate the german -- the chairman meeting me -- chairman giving me some time. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas. >> this is a good start. for more thanhis a decade. i thank you. i thank you for the testimony today. i believe that it is worthy to hear members of congress and to find that common ground. it is also worthy to hear the opposition. it is also well to note that we as legislators are best only act

on behalf of the american will and we strike a compromise. the difficulty is that we will go nowhere if we cannot find a common ground or we do not have those that can seek compromise on the horizon. the one thing we cannot compromise on, and i said this in remarks around the journey murders and i thank them because they have a club that has drawn the interest of our friends on the other side of the aisle is that we are commemorating in celebrating ramadan but we also have principles of christian faith. one is in the book of ruth were and treat her mother-in-law not to leave her. she had come close to her mother-in-law and asked her not to leave for. we want to tell the dream act

children that they can stay? we do not know about your parents are sisters and brothers. what value are those? they can stay, but we tell them not to honor their father and their mother. we have a format. we have comprehensive immigration reform. and we can listen to individual suggestions. i have seen bills that may be advantageous, that maybe even put into the larger framework that so many members have been working on over the years, but we cannot move forward if we have motions on the floor of the house, for example, voted enthusiastically to on fund the funding that -- to unfund the funding. how can you say that you are interested in moving forward when we have struck a chord of dissension by taking the very dollars a way that would help move the process forward?

even if we were to take this one bill at a time. i will say this as iraq up. -- as i wrap up. toinvited you all to come this on the 29th. we want people to come from far and wide. members of congress are coming in from around our state. and we are looking to delineate texas' interest and commitment as one of the largest states in the union in comprehensive immigration reform. this morning, we heard that it is not only business persons, but it is the evangelical, the faith community, and business. .e are hoping to strike a chord that's what we need in this congress. that members of congress who believe in business, you can vote for comprehensive immigration reform. members that believe in the faith community, evangelicals, andt to bng people

together, you can vote for a comprehensive approach. and certainly, if you adhere to law enforcement, who have cried out for comprehensive immigration reform, you can do that. but most importantly, if you believe in humanity, if you believe in the young people that, maybe because we are in washington we don't see, i see them. they come into our offices with tears in their eyes. the valedictorian's, young men and, women -- i know there is a bill talking about the ones who have served in the military. a young man stopped me when i was on the platform for graduation. we were shaking hands, wishing him well. he said, i want to go into the service. he cannot go now. he said he wanted to go to acation, he wanted to get big-time job. he wanted to serve his nation, but of course he had an obstacle. if you see those kinds of children, then you know the on approach we can take is

comprehensive immigration reform. if you see the tears, if you view the vast humanity, that is the approach we should take. mr. chairman, ranking member, i hope this committee will see a comprehensive initiative and that we will be voting much sooner than later for a better america. with that, i yield back. >> thank you, the gentlelady from texas. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas. you may thank you for holding the hearing, the numerous committees we have had. a step-by-step approach towards information record -- reform legislation. i want to make my comments center on the phrase "breaking the law." is estimated that that over 1.3 million children were brought here from foreign countries without their consent by their parents, who were under the age of 10. one point three million brought here under the age of 10. everywhere in our law that i'm aware of, there must be some

intent for the act to be civil intentther to form a contract, criminal intent to commit a crime, and most states, 10 and under, a person cannot form the intent to do anything, commit a crime, sign a contract -- because the law says they are a child. and as you have said, mr. chairman, immigration law is the only place i know of where intent is not required to be considered "illegal." i think it is time that we bring the law up to the standard of all laws in the united states, that a child cannot form the intent to commit an act that is illegal in the united states.

so, therefore, we should look at children brought here by their and under, whatever age we use, 1.3 million, as not being able to have a legal status, because they cannot -- they do not consent to the act. they did not make that determination mentally. and therefore, they should be treated, i think, as a special way. that they are children brought here with no intent to have the status that they have. that status was given to them by their parents. breaking the law, i'm not so sure that we can say they have broken the law, because their status should not be run after -- should not be retroactive after they reach a certain age. 1.3 million brought here under the age of 10, nowhere else in our law can a person commit a violation of the law under the age of 10, except in immigration. it seems to me that it is time

that we deal with these special children in a very special way and bring them into our society and move forward with rectifying this error in our immigration , asand making sure that we the chairman has said, have compassion, follow the rule of law, and that we move forward with recognizing these children. i have met numerous individuals who were brought here as a child . some of them serve in our military. overseas, afghanistan, iraq. and so i think this hearing is very important. hearing from fellow members of congress about this issue is a unique, special issue in the entire discussion of immigration legislation, dealing with those children that were brought here not by their choice and not by their intent, but the choice and

intent of someone else. and i yield back to the chairman. >> thank you, gentleman from texas. i believe there was one more request from the gentleman from idaho? >> mr. chairman, there was no request, but i will go ahead and make a short statement. >> i should have kept my mouth shut. >> but anything the chairman asks me to do, i will do. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> think you. it chairman and members of the panel, members of the audience, i am grateful that you are here. i am grateful we are having this discussion. i think it is important for us as americans that we comply first with the rule of law, that we him a second, look at what the security of our nation is, but that we third look at what we need to do to make sure that the mistakes we have made in the past with respect to the enforcement of our law, that they can be corrected. i think this is an important hearing. i like the tone we have set forth so far and i want to make this we can continue to have

tone in this conversation here about what to do with the people that came here as young people. now i do want to make something very clear that i have said in public and private. there is no right to citizenship in the united states. it is a privilege provided by the law and our constitution, and it is something that we need to discuss how to do it in the best way so that we can prevent making the same mistakes we made in 1986 and that we have made over the last 30 or so years. i want to say thank you for being here, thank you for your efforts, and i will continue to do something to make sure we can find a way for us to actually resolve the problems that are facing us, which are grave problems affecting the future of the united states. thank you. >> thank you. we are privileged to have two wonderful panels. the first of which are four of

our distinguished colleagues with a distinguished resume. i would invite viewers to look at their resume in more detail. luis gutierrez, we are anxious for you to join the subcommittee. i am not going to read the biographies, but i will recognize representative denham, representative gutierrez, we thanktative coffman. you. we will let you go back to the committees i know you all serve on. with that, representative coffman. you may want to punch the button on -- >> [indiscernible]

[indiscernible] [indiscernible]first of all, i

think we need to remember that the role of the united states military is to defend our nation, and the goal will always be the national security of our country. [indiscernible] [indiscernible]

first, a military in the aftermath of vietnam that suffered from low morale, poor discipline and a question mark behind its combat rating.-- combat readiness. since recruiting and retention were difficult, standards [indiscernible] there is no comparison between the military of the 1970's and that of today. the united states military of today is smaller in size but it is an elite force. [indiscernible] when the civilian job market improves, retaining the quality of the force will become more challenging. a study in 2009 entitled "ready, willing, and able to serve," found that 75% of young people between ages of 17 and 24 are not fit for mily service,

because they do not have a high school diploma, are overweight, or have a history of substance abuse.i strongly believe that expanding the pool of eligible recruits to select from could play a critical role in helping change the elite status of our military, even as the civilian job market improves. 435, thelation, h.r. military enlistment opportunity reformsvides to our recruiting regulations that would allow certain undocumented residents of the united states to apply for military service after they have first been vetted by the department of homeland security. the vetting would only mean that the individual is eligible to apply to serve in the military and it would be up to each respective branch of service as to whether or not to accept these applicants.permanent residents or green card holders are allowed to enlist in the military today, but because they

are not u.s. citizens, they are very restricted in terms of what occupational fields they can do. only u.s. citizens can hold a security clearance and without a security clearance, an increasing number of occupational fields are off limits. opening up enlistment opportunities to undocumented residents would only aggregate-- aggravate an existing problem by relegating these existing recruits to a smaller number of occupational fields given that more and more of them require security clearance. my solution is to grant citizenship at the beginning of their enlistment for both permanent residents and for those individuals that were previous on -- previously undocumented and would now be allowed to enter the military, enabling the military to use all of their soldiers, marines and airmen to their best and highest potential because they would no longer be restricted from entering the majority of career fields. however, in doing so, my legislation makes thenship revoe

servicemember receives a less than honorable discharge within five years.currently, enlistments are for and eight- year period. servicemembers are still available to be recalled and return to active duty. i strongly believe that by allowing these young people who we are talking about today to serve in our military, it is not just the right thing to do, but it will serve to strengthen the national security of our country. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. representative denham, i want to make sure the microphones are fully functional, so we named -- may need to stand down just 430, seconds., 45 >> chairman gowdy. >> it is definitely working,

brother.ranking member, i want to start by thanking both of you. -- >> i wanted to say thank you for the time you dedicated. it is much appreciated by me and the folks in my district. also, thank you to the members of this committee for dedicating so much time to fix this chairman, i the want to fix this once in my lifetime. it is a huge priority. it is a personal priority of mine. but it is also something that i believe will grow the economy of california and contribute to the greatness of america. on a personal note, i witnessed the trials and the joys of immigration through my own family. my father-in-law is a naturalized citizen from mexico. my wife and her siblings, first- generation americans.

i was very proud when my father- in-law, a very proud man, asked me to help them study for his citizenship test. it is a big deal. not everybody wants to become a citizen, but those that do are willing to work hard to make this country great. i know we are here today to talk about kids that have been brought here through no fault of their own, an important topic, and i look forward to engaging on a variety of other issues, specifically on this topic, one of the bills that is already in an that a number of you have already cosponsored that would be part of the kids at would be -- the kids act would be the enlist act, and during my 16 years of serving in the united states air force i served along many foreign nationals that were able to learn citizenship through putting their lives on the line for americans in the armed services. our nation has never made citizenship a requirement for service in our armed forces.

50% of enlistees in the 1840's were immigrants. 660,000 military veterans became citizens through naturalization between 1862 and the most recent numbers of 2000. individuals from the marshall islands, american samoa, they gained citizenship today through military service. the lodge act was passed to allow the military to recruit from europe and other nations overseas to fill critical roles. between 1952 and 1990, 34,620 filipinos, any of which i served -- many of which i served with, enlisted in the navy and granted were granted u.s. citizenship. i introduced the enlist act,h.r. 2377, which authorizes the enlistment in the armed forces of undocumented inc. -- immigrants that were brought in to the united states as children and are qualified for enlistment.

this bill will provide a way for the undocumented immigrants to be lawfully admitted to the u.s. for permanent residence by reason of their honorable service and sacrifice in the u.s. military. not the only way, but certainly a way to show their dedication to this great country that we have. the enlist act will only affect a certain population of kids who have been in the united states since the age of 15 and are prohibited from experienced patriotism under current military code. this would provide the military with a talent pool of young men and women, many of whom would have strategically valuable language and cultural competencies. i met with a constituent, gloria sanchez, who was recruited by the marines from modesto high school.

one day after completing her forms, she was asked for her social security number, which she did not have because she was brought here unlawfully.gloria would have been able to serve her country had my enlist act already become law. one thing we should all agree on is that we must require those that came here illegally to get -- give back before they can receive any additional benefits. as someone who served, i remember the pride i felt wearing the uniform and i cannot think of a better way for these young people to earn the right to fully share in the rights and freedoms of america. i would just like to point out one other thing. as we have traveled around this district, the state, and i have even spent time in other districts around the nation -- i have talked to a large number of immigrants, and a lot of kids. [speaking spanish]

i get an interesting look -- we do not speak spanish. we speak english. their entire lives they have gone to our schools with our kids. it is an issue that we have to address. this is a big challenge, addressing the entire immigration system, but i think, specifically on this issue, we have to address this issue and we need to address it now. let me finish by saying that last month i appreciated chairman goodlatte and house democratic caucus chairman becerra when we had a colloquy on the floor dealing with the enlist act, and both said they were willing to work together in making sure this issue becomes a reality. i appreciate your willingness to do that. this is an important part of this package and i hope this committee and the entire house will consider the enlist act as one of the ways -- one of the

ways, for undocumented individuals to legalize without providing opportunities to learn a legal status, or a body will not resolve our immigration status -- there is no better way than putting your life on the line for this country to become an american citizen. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. denham. mr. gardner. >> thank you, mr. chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify. my statement has been submitted for the record. this hearing is an important step in addressing immigration reform in a systematic manner. clearly, our current system is broken. immigration is an important issue for my district and for everyone on this panel. ignoring immigration law for approximately two decades has

resulted in approximately 11 million people in the united states without documentation. 42% were once here legally, but overstayed their visas. the 1986 bill has proven unworkable.and too easily avoidable. we must reform immigration laws. we must do so in a step-by-step process, with deliberation and debate surrounding each piece of reform and we must begin with border security and interior enforcement. we cannot simply put reform to the side because it is unworkable or the political will is simply not present to make it work. we have the chance to prove to the american people that the federal government can be trusted to build a long-term and common sense system. it has been said by many that the united states is a nation of immigrants, and i imagine if i was not blessed to be born in this country i would have done everything i could to be in this country, but we are also a nation of laws. our current immigration laws have proven inadequate and are not being enforced.

if a law is not enforced or it is ignored, we no longer remain a nation of laws and the bill is worth little more than the paper that is worth on. congress must move forward by building a new immigration laws -- system of immigration laws that stand strong and secure but still allow a workable system for people that want to be part of this great nation and help the economy to do so. i urge the house to be guided by law and fairness during this process, fairness as well to those currently waiting in the legal process. any immigration reform must first begin with border security and interior enforcement and i will not support reform that fails to include strong security enforcement measures. not only do the measures need to exist but there must be confirmation from incredible-- from a credible, outside entity that these measures have been satisfied and implemented. no one should simply choose to not enforce the law or wave it. -- waive it through

administrative process. once we have secured our borders and our enforcing the law and guarantee these measures are working, may we look to other reforms. the very young, the children and young adults that for all intents and purposes are culturally american -- the children they grew up in the0-- that grew up in the united states and go to school with our children and grandchildren, with my daughter. this is an issue of fairness, law and compassion. many of these children know no other nation except for the united states. their parents made a decision to enter the country illegally and our broken system did nothing to prevent it. they deserve to be afforded some form that recognizes that they are not -- they are here through no fault of their own. it was not their decision to not follow the law. i believe members across the aisle can agree that providing them with some sort of immigration relief is the fair

thing to do but it must be part of a step-by-step reform package. the legislation addressing these young individuals should not provide them with treatment that is unfair to those already following the legal process. any legislation addressing the children would need to be solely for the benefit of the child and not anyone else, you cannot elicit chain migration. during the process, we must find the appropriate balance. while these children remain innocent, we cannot award family -- reard -- reward family members that have broken the law. i have a story i would like to share with the committee. in 2005, i had just been appointed to the colorado state legislature and i held one of my first town meetings on the eastern plains in a small farm town. the government teacher of the local high school brought the entire class to attend the meeting. there were not many of them, but during questions and answers a young girl introduced herself and stated she was graduating first in her class, the valedictorian of her senior class, and she had gone to school with those classmates since her kindergarten here.

she said she was brought to the country when she was only a few months old, illegally, and she asked the question that i will never forget -- you support in- state tuition for illegal aliens, she asked. i told her i did not because allowing passage of such a policy was avoiding a real problem, failing to address the overall need for immigration reform and we cannot start with in-state tuition because we have to pursue meaningful immigration reform to fix the broken nature of our process before anything else could happen. about one month ago i was in the same small town in the eastern plains, and i ran into this young girl once again. same girl, the valedictorian of her high school, waiting tables. eight years later, we talked once again about the need for immigration reform. eight years later, nothing has happened. this time, congress cannot just talk about immigration reform.

congress must act. while there will be strong disagreement about what to do, how to proceed and what the end the policy will ultimately look like, we simply cannot do nothing. we must act, and i think we can do so in a way that 30 years from now, 100 years from now, future residents among both immigrant and nonimmigrant could say back then they did the right i wouldnd it is working. like to thank the committee for the opportunity to testify today. >> thank you, mr. gardner.i now recognize our friend and fellow judiciary committee member, mr. gutierrez. >> thank you, chairman and ranking member lofgren for allowing me to testify.and to chairman goodlatte for joining us as he has during all of these hearings. 12 years ago i introduced the first bill to legalize the status of young people brought to this country by their parents. the immigrant children's educational advantage and dropout prevention act, 2001. since i introduced at first-- that first bill, the movement legal immigration,

immigration reform and legalization has grown broader and deeper. in every community today there are young people, religious people, women, business owners, immigrant moms and dads, and regular civic minded u.s. citizens are organizing to make sure we pass immigration reform this year in the u.s. congress. over the august recess members of this committee and members of the house of representatives will see that the desire for reform is real and present in their communities across the nation. we have heard the speaker of the house and the majority leader and a wide array of republican voices they are for legalizing the status of children under certain circumstances, including a pathway to citizenship. dreamers and others who support immigration reform must be pretty darn persuasive. look how far we have come. eight months ago the republican party platform said report them -- deport them all, veto the

dram ac -- dream act, and make everyone pass arizona sb-1070. just a month ago, republicans voted to kill the funding for the deferred action for childhood arrival. i am here to say thank you for taking steps in the right direction of justice today. let us find a way to walk forward together tomorrow. those of us who sat at the immigration reform table for many lonely years are glad we are stepping up and engaging in a conversation. we need you. without you cannot achieve success. majority islican starting with the dreamers because that is as far as you are willing to go with legal status for undocumented immigrants, i say thank you for coming this far. it is a small step in the right

direction, the first debt in any negotiation -- the first step in any negotiation. cover mice may indeed be within reach. -- compromise may be within reach. given theot be enough years and decade of hard work and equity that immigrants have built into this country. not enough to satisfy the hunger for legality and the desire to pledge allegiance to this country. citizen.m an american it is not -- not enough to restore the rule of law. i have met with dreamers in their moms and dads and i want the same thing whether kids that i want -- the same thing for their kids that i want for my daughter's. i want an indivisible family. i cannot imagine for one minute the republicans who i know honor

this entity a family would leave the rest of the family vulnerable. after the election i traveled to missouri to street -- to speak with dream activist and leaders. i was told that they would not leave their parents behind. i will let them speak themselves because they're well fully capable of doing so. let me tell you what i saw. i saw maturity and a level of confidence that anyone would be a fool not to consider. isy will not settle for what good from mms they can win for what is -- good for them and thus they can win what is good for them family. why?know because their parents instilled good values. if we honor children for being upstanding and the kind of

immigrants we like, then we must honor the parents who helped raise them to be updating. know there'sno, i more coming. this hearing is being prepared by the majority. i believe is a first step. i am optimistic that once you take one step forward to take a second and a third in as many steps as it takes until the thirst as extremist. -- is extinguished. once you see that standing up for young and talented immigrants feels good and right, you'll want to stand up for their parents who raised and nurtured them. the dreamers will remember forever how this congress and this country treated their parents. we have come such a long way and we need to work together to keep chairman, i-- mr.rd.

would like to get unanimous -ed entitled the op the time for immigration reform is now was published this past sunday in the denver post be submitted to the record. i travel a lot -- a lot of places but this spoke to me when i arrived in denver as one of the rest ask of welcoming i've ever received. , i would likean to be introduced into the record consent to submit an editorial from the bakersfield californian newspaper. shared a stake in this past saturday in his district in this editorial praises him for his willingness

to economize and engage members on both sides of the aisle. >> without objection. thank you on behalf of all of us. i full well recognize you are needed on the floor and you have constituents waiting on you and the fact that you would take the time to come and testify we are all very grateful for your perspective and insight. we have another panel so we will stand down while the three of you go about. with that, we will be in recess for five minutes. we will continue with the second part of the hearing in just a moment. into the senate, the immigration is working on their passage wednesday. reports inwspaper the house there will not be a vote on immigration before their

recess which is coming up. on friday, eric cantor released the schedule for the last week before recess. they will work on the 2014 spending bill. no mention of immigration. also on friday, paul ryan said from wisconsin that gop leaders will be working on a series of immigration bills in october that include border security, replace barricade -- verification, and creating legal immigration for farm and skilled workers. votesill put off those which is a concern for democrats who wanted to see a vote before august. they will need -- they will need for one more week and then he out until the second week of september. on to the second part of that

hearing on immigration. they are talking to the status of children who are bought -- brought into america illegally other parent. majority leader eric cantor and others are working with republican -- with congress and good luck on that bill to address their status. this portion of the hearing is about 1.5 hours. >> i went take the moment to begin as is our custom with non- member witnesses by having you rise and take an oath. if you walift

your right hand. deuce where the testimony you are about to give the whole truth and nothing but the truth -- do you swear? let the record reflect all answers in the affirmative. thank you again and i'm going to read all of your biography is at once then recognize you individually for your five minute opening statement. ofll start with the director research at the ethics for applied christianity. he's been at the group since 1997. he graduated with a ba and he received a masters with honors in 1985 from the denver conservative baptist seminary. doctorate program.

from the school of theology at the university of denver. then we will have ms. margie mchugh will be our next witness, the codirector of her migration apology three -- policy. on applies in depth analysis a lot of issues answer for 15 years as executive director as deputy director of the new york and 1990 census project mayor ed koch's chief of staff. the daughter of immigrants from columbus and a graduate was currently pursuing a master's of the university of florida and has worked with various nonprofit causes including the salvation of army. she is a u.s. citizen but her

sister is an undocumented immigrant who was not to the united states at a young age by her parents. and rosa velasco is is a member of the united we dream network and cofounder the arkansas member of thea arkansas -- arkansas committee. she was brought in lawfully by her parents and has resided in arkansas for her entire life. she studied where she is pursuing to masters degree am a one in esl and the other in american literature. you will have a series of light panels in the mean with a traditionally mean. meansis go and read summarize if you're able to do so. . >> good afternoon.

i am the vice president of the public aussie research at the baptist convention ethics commission. i appreciate the opportunity to speak this afternoon on the subject of children who were brought here as children. these are people who do not make a conscious decision to break immigration laws, they were brought here as miners. this is the only life they know. with thismore -- country and the country from which they were brought three our country should not hold these children accountable for the choices their parents made. would anyone in this room want to respect to be held accountable for decisions their parents made, i cannot.

many of our forebears came to this land to escape such types of social stratification. person light every should be judged by his or her own character and commitment, not those of his or her parents. has such an approach to account ability. in scripture is held by me and minds of others is god's will, the prophet ezekiel declared a son won't suffer punishment for fathers iniquity. and the father wants suffer for the suns iniquity. god will hold the mcconnell for the sins of their parents, certainly we should not either. i like heavily on the teachings of the bible to develop my thoughts about all parts of life. i support the biblical teaching of the divine origin and role of government as laid out in such

passages such as romans. the passage does not give government of failing to act in any way it chooses -- it says that god's design for government is to punish bad behavior and to reward good behavior. we would argue this is a fundamental purpose of government. while every person brought to this country illegally as a minor should not qualify for special consideration by the subcommittee, many certainly should. those who are of good, moral character can demonstrate a desire to make your own way through life should be given a chance to come out of the shadows and come in the -- joining the full life and vitality of our nation and we should, in other words, reward their good behavior. this is a group of people that embody many of the characteristics we embody and americans, the spirit our nation celebrates. we should celebrate that spirit in these young men and women as well and provide a way forward for them. as you consider legislation to assist these children of

undocumented immigrants to fully prepare for lies in our nation, here are some things i want you to consider. first, it is difficult to imagine how you can fully address their needs without fully addressing the needs of the other undocumented immigrants in our nation, including their parents. it is my hope and prayer that congress will see this as one piece of a bigger plan that needs the principles of sound immigration reform. we can honor the rule of law, secure our borders, and chart a just and compassionate way forward for the millions of others living peacefully and productively in our midst. second, some parameters are in order as you chart a way forward for these young people. i suggest this in my full testimony. evidence of prior residence in the country, like you just heard speaof

completion of -- gentlemen speak of, possession of a ged. i think the committee for your willingness to tackle this important matter. we are dealing with lives here, not only laws. let justice be blind, but let her be discerning. their character and drive reveal that these young men and women under consideration represent some of the best of what we are looking for in future citizenry. we should welcome them, encourage them and empower them to stand tall. as we honor them and their commitment, we say to a watching world, and likely to a watching citizenry at this really is a land of opportunity and promise. that concludes my comments. i look forward to attempting to and -- that concludes my comments. i look forward to attending to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. ms. maggie mccue.

>> good afternoon. thank you for the invitation to appear. i've been asked to testify about the broad demographics about the population of young, undocumented immigrants that have been brought here as children and have since established deep roots in this country. since a more generic analysis of the population does not exist i will rely on my testimony on a detailed analysis i co-authored in 2010 of the dream act population that look at the and key social economic aspects who entered and were present in the u.s. for five years. approximately 2.5 million children in use were potentially immediately eligible for conditional legal status or could become eligible. our study divided the age and date of arrival eligible populations into four subgroups based on their age and level of education and we estimated each group's likelihood of meeting

the requirements of legal residence, which included completion of a college degree, or at least two years of post secondary or military service. the groups broke out as follows, largest was school age children that would become eligible in the future or completed secondary education or military service requirements. 43% were in this category, or 934 thousand children under the age of 19. the next largest group, 28%, were those that earned a high school diploma or ged, but would need to pursue college or military service to earn a green card. next, about 23%, or nearly 500 500,000 were those over 18 and that lacked a high school diploma. they could become eligible if they completed a high school diploma or ged, and subsequently post secondary education or military service had finally, we

estimated that about five percent had already obtained at least an associates degree, and that would make them immediately eligible for a green card. you will see in my written testimony that we looked further at key -- written testimony that we looked further at key social economic analysis and the challenges they would face. this included afforded -- affording college tuition and fees, needing to work to support themselves or their families, juggling parenting response abilities were closing gaps in english proficiency. overall, we estimated that only 38% of the 2.1 million that were potentially eligible based on their age, date of arrival and duration of residency would be able to meet the legislation proposed at that time. since the cost of higher education and access to financial aid are critical factors, based on historical

trends, we found that the affordability of college would likely be the most significant factor that would prevent young immigrants from completing a requirement. our profile is consistent with research indicating that young immigrants are more likely to be nontraditional college students, meaning they likely enroll at older ages, attend college part- time, work while going to school, and juggle family responsibilities along with their coursework. all of these factors have been associated with lower rates of college completion, therefore academic support stands a critical role if their pathway to citizenship requires successfully making one's way through post secondary or military service. i would like to point out before closing and more recently the congressional budget office estimated that approximately 1.5

million unauthorized immigrants would meet the age. cbo estimated that approximately 24% of these would be able to achieve permanent residents will be naturalized by 2023. in conclusion, while the npi and cbo estimates are based on different parameters, it does seem clear that approximately 1.5 million meet the residency and age requirements contemplated in recent proposals, but far fewer would gain residence and citizenship under these proposals. approximately 85,000 individuals in our analysis, and 360,000 in the cbo assessment. in light of the reality that the pathway is a narrow one, it provides important considerations for policymakers to allow them to achieve legal

status and become fully contributing members of our society. thank you for the opportunity to testify and i would be pleased to answer questions. >> thank you. ms. pamela rivera. >> i want to take this opportunity to thank chairman gowdy and the subcommittee for letting me share my very personal story. my parents moved to the united states in the 1980s, and i was born in 1987 to -- in california. shortly after my birth, they move back to columbia with money they saved working in the u.s. and tried to pursue a life there. they had my sister evelyn while we were living in colombia and in 1991, when i was four years old, and my sister was three years old, they moved back to provide a better life for us, wanting us to live without the

drugs and daily car bombings that defined life in colombia and for us to have a chance at obtaining a world-class education. for many years, i did not know about the status, but as the years passed i began to understand in my family was not like most. we would never be treated the same. my dad worked nights, and my mother worked mornings to make sure that my two sisters and i were never left alone. they understood the meaning of family and how important it was to raise their daughters in a stable home. my mom learned english quickly by volunteering at her school and working with us on homework. i remember my mom asking my teachers to send home extra homework, even on the bash friday so that my sister and i would catch up to the other students. my youngest sister was born in

florida in 1993. we all grew up in the same home, attended the same schools, spoke english, played lacrosse. there was one major difference that would come to dominate our lives. sarah and i were natural born u.s. citizens, while my sister was braun -- brought here on a now expired visa. it was not until high school that i found out for sure about my family's immigration status. there were so many things that would come up or that i had to work twice as hard to figure out because of the situation. for example, i was not able to get a drivers license when i turned 16 and i cannot tell you how hard it is as a teenager to not be able to drive. as hard as this was for my youngest sister and for me, there was always a light at the end of the tunnel. we were u.s. citizens. evelyn did not have that. she had to go through high school graduation knowing there

was no relief in sight, no path to college, no path to a normal job. she had to walk across the stage and into the shadows. in a somewhat normal life that she had gotten to live, he only home she had ever known was over. she also had to walk across the stage without our mom watching. our mom, couple of months before had been pulled over at a traffic stop, arrested, and forced to leave the country. this all occurred as a sophomore in college and i cannot put into words the level of devastation. it affected my personal training and academic success. my sisters and i worked hard in school. we all earned bright future scholarships, but unlike my younger sister and i, evelyn was unable to claim her scholarship

because of her undocumented status. as a citizen of the united states, i have been able to pursue the american dream -- i am a graduate of the florida state university, and am currently pursuing a master's degree at the university of florida. living in a mixed status family i have learned to cherish every moment i have with my family especially since we have lost our mother. we have to protect our families. it has now been over 6 years since eve has seen our mom. it has been 6 years since her life as she knew it came to a halt. this is the only home she knows, she has been here for 21 years, yet she is punished every day and forced to live in limbo for no reason at all. i have had to watch her be

denied opportunities afforded to us in the only country she has ever known in what amounts to be an accident of birth. >> thank you. ms. velasquez. >> i would like to thank chairman gowdy, and the members of this committee for the opportunity to testify. the name is rosa velazquez. i am 30 years old. ever since i was five years old, arkansas has been my home. i am honored to be a member of the united we dream national coordinating committee. united we dream is the largest immigrant youth-let network in the country made up of 55 affiliates in 21 states. we are committed to winning citizenship for our families and communities. creating an immigration system

that treats all americans with dignity, parents like my mother, who was 22 years old when we came to the u.s.. sadly, like so many other parents, her story has been forgotten. she made the courageous decision to travel alone with my four- year-old brother rudy and myself. i was five years old. my mother packed everything in a backpack, and in august we got in a plane in mexico city and arrived in dallas texas -- dallas, texas. my father would join the site year later. throughout my schooling i was involved in every club, organization and to the group i could be part of. i had always had the desire to be involved but in music i found my true passion. my best performances were at the university why i would later be offered a scholarship. my parents taught me that family values were greater than anything, and where one went, the rest followed. i remember the day i enrolled.

my parents went with me. they went with me when i chose my classes, chose my dorm and went to the financial aid office. it was at this office that i found out i was no longer eligible for a scholarship. i was undocumented and i saw my once-in-a-lifetime opportunity slipped my fingers because i lacked legal status. to be fully eligible, i had to be a u.s. citizen. it was then that my mother took my hand with tears in her eyes and told me i could do anything i set my mind to. if i wanted to go to college, i was going to go to college and my mother's hard-working hands are the reason i am here today, and the reason i am currently a graduate student. i am pursuing two masters degrees. one in esl english and one in american literature. she is also the reason my brother is going to the

university of arkansas. two years he will achieve a bachelors degree in culinary arts. she is also the reason that my 12-year-old brother, randy, a u.s. citizen, has high hopes and aspirations to attend college in the future. arkansas is the poultry capital of the world. we have several poultry processing plants, and this is where my mother first began her work. her job for the next 10 years was to cut chicken tenders with scissors and arrange them in the yellow trays you are able to purchase today at any grocery store. as i sit here telling you about my achievements and successes. my mother, who has sacrificed everything for me is now suffering with carpal tunnel syndrome. when members of congress tell me that i deserve the opportunity to earn citizenship and my mother does not, i tell them that if anyone deserves that opportunity it is my mother.

my mother did what any mother facing uncertainty would have done, provide a better life for her children. this is a land of opportunity. where we learn with hard work and perseverance we have the opportunity to succeed. if congress were to adopt an incomplete solution that would provide a path to earned

this solution that includes only dreamers and people like me will only lead to further separation of families and will in no way provide the answer you seek -- fixing our broken immigration system and recognizing the full humanity of those who have been drawn here by the prospects of work. my mother's hard-working hands are the foundation of which this country were built. i am my mother's daughter. she and i are legal equal -- equal. i am undocumented. my name is rosa angela velazquez figueroa, daughter of rosalinda and rodolfo velazquez and sister to rudy and randy velazquez. i am one of the 11 million and together, we are the american dream. [applause] >> thank you, ms. velasquez. i'm only going to say this once no response from the audience. we will have order in this. it is fine to express yourself internally. no visible response.

with that, i would recognize the gentleman, the chairman of the full committee, chairman good luck -- chairman goodlatte. >> thank you. i would like to start with you, ms. rivera. i appreciate your testimony and that of ms. velasquez. she said she did not think there should be any difference between all of the 11 11 million people between herself and her mother, for example, but you know your parents, probably the parents of other people that have children who are not lawfully present in the united states, and my question for you is when your parents and do you think other parents would be supportive of legislation that would allow your sister and other young people brought here at a young age to give legal status and ultimately u.s. citizenship, but did not address their situation in other words the parents situation in the same way?

>> you know, that is an incredible -- incredibly difficult question to answer. you know, my parents, like i am sure any other parents, want what is the absolute best for their children. so, you know, it is easy to say that yes, they would be happy with that, but at the same time, i can tell you that the pain of not having my mother with us is something that i really cannot put into words, and it is not something that i feel comfortable saying i am ok with. >> your mother is not here in the united states. >> yes, sir. >> but if she were here in the united states and got a different status, a legal status, as opposed to a citizenship status, how would

she feel about that? i know everyone says -- >> i know everyone says their mom is the best, and my mom is the best, from the moment they came here, as i said in my testimony, she was at the teachers classroom every day, helping out, making sure we were as involved in our community as possible. at the time, it was extremely annoying, and i can only say that when it comes to my family, knowing my mom, she wants to be part of this country. she still thinks of herself as an american, even though she is in columbia.

so, i feel as though my mom would like a shot at being a citizen, and she wants the opportunity and the responsibility that comes with that. you know, again, we had, up until that happened, lived here with my parents for close to 20 years. my father is now a legal resident. he lives here. this has become their lives. it is the only home we have ever known. it is difficult for me to say we would be ok with that, and frankly, i would not be ok with

that. i know the sacrifices my parents made and the long hours my dad worked. i know how hard it was for them to be separated from everything they knew -- their home. i would not want to have to make that decision. >> i understand you wouldn't want them to make that decision. the congress has to make that decision. that's the hard part. >> let me ask dr. duke if you would comment on the problem that we have here of determining how we proceed to assure that we don't have future children brought here through the desert in the backs of trailers under tunnels and so on into the united states legally.-- illegally. so in order for congress to grant legal status to another 11 million illegal immigrants 20 years from now, what do they support being put into place?

>> it is a concern to southern baptists as well we resolve this at this time and not have to come back here as well. i think most southern baptist are saying secure the border and workplace verification. they believe those two components would have a lot to do with addressing future illegal immigration. if folks can't get work here, it's going to pretty much discourage them from coming. so we do believe those are a couple of components that the committee should consider as well. >> in your testimony you mentioned a commitment to a pursuit of a higher education or military service should be sufficient to show these people have good moral character and commitment to their futures and thus should be afforded a path to legal status. what should happen to young illegal immigrants that do not show such a commitment and are not of good moral character? >> that is a tough question in my opinion. the legislation under consideration here to me requires a certain level of moral character as well as commitment to the future and so i think that is going to be necessary for this special track for these particular young people. i think the rest are going to have to be considered along with all of the other 10 million or

so undocumented immigrants in our country that the committee is going to have to figure out how to address. there are going to be some adults who won't be able to qualify for whatever this committee and congress chooses to do as well. and unfortunately some of those children as well are going to be caught in a situation where they've made wrong choices and made it nearly impossible for themselves to find a way for this country to be able to grant them the kind of legal status we'd like to give them. >> thank you. >> the chair will recognize the gentle laid i did -- lady from california. >> thank you mr. chairman and thanks to all of our witnesses for excellent testimony that informs us and informs people who are watching this hearing across the country on c-span and other members of congress who are watching it in their office, it is very important that you are here. listening to our two young ladies, very powerful testimony that you've given. and as i was listening to the chairman's question, i was

thinking about the relationship between parents and sons and daughters. i have a son and a daughter about your age. i would do anything for them. and i think you're saying the same about your parents. but here is the problem. when you have -- when you are pitting sons and daughters against moms and dads, you've created really a system that is not healthy. and if i'm hearing you right, it's not that your mother wouldn't do anything for your mother, it's that you would not permit your mother to be thrown to the side of the road for your benefit. is that kind of a good summary of your position? thank you.

dr. duke, we worked together in the past and i appreciate very much your testimony and it's interesting there are many issues that you and i don't agree on. what we've learned is we can work on the things that we do agree on and one of those things has been immigration. the ethics and religious table called for immigration reform and said it should provide clear steps to citizenship for those who want it and qualify. and dr. moore sent a letter to congress saying and i quote a tough yet achievable earned pathway to citizenship is a necessary part of broader reform. is that still your position and the position of the ethics and religious committee of the southern baptist convention? >> thanks for the question.

yes, it is still our position, it is my position that we should not be creating second class citizens in this country. we just don't do that here. everyone should have a full opportunity to rise to the full opportunity this country affords them and citizenship is a part of that. we do believe that we do need to create an opportunity for citizenship for those who did qualify by whatever standards this committee and congress choose. but we believe that should be a component that is possible for these folks. >> thank you very much.

i hope the faithful here in the house will listen to our words of advice. when the house last took up the dream act, some members took to the floor and called it the nightmare act. they said that allowing these young people to come out of the shadows and have an opportunity to earn legal permanent residence and possible in the future citizenship would prevent americans from getting jobs and realizing other opportunities. how would you answer that attack? >> well, certainly we're in a situation in the country right now where we don't have enough jobs it would seem. but we also have a lot of jobs that are going unfilled.

so clearly we need more workers in certain areas than we have right now. we know that business is looking for more workers currently. so clearly there are still a need for more workers in this country. the best thing that we can do is create as well qualified and educated work force as we possibly can. we have all of these young folks here now, over a million who can be brought fully into the work force and can meet a lot of the needs that we already have. as we continue to grow our economy we're going to need more workers. and eventually everybody who wants a full time job is going to be able to find one. so i think this country needs more workers, not less workers. >> i'll just close by saying whenever we have a hearing like this i'm so struck by the courage shown by undocumented individuals.

i think of them as aspiring americans. and i remember my grandfather who came to this country when he was 16 years old with nothing. his process then was he got on a boat and sailed to america and he got off the boat. he never saw his parents again but he wanted to be an american just like you want to be an american. and he and generations of aspiring americans came and really built this country. and to think that our future will not be enriched by people who want it, who have enough hope and enough courage and enough ambition to want to be a free american to help build our country, that that future would not be enriched is just a mistake. because through aspiring americans, people who want to come and throw in their lot with us and build a better country, our future will be strengthened and i don't think we need to ration that. we ought to embrace that just as immigrants built our past, they will help us build a great future for americans. so thank you all for your

wonderful testimony today. >> the chair will recognize the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate being recognized. i was gathering my thoughts and trying to digest what has taken place here today. the first question in your testimony i could hear the emotion in your voice. would you characterize the life you've had living here in the united states living in the shadows? >> i'm sorry? >> would you characterize your life here as living in the shadows? >> that wasn't an option for me. some of the kids wanting to go to college came up to me and i had to voice myself to them.

>> so you wouldn't characterize your life as living in the shadows here? >> no, sir. >> listening to your testimony and you scythed ezequiel 18:20, i would call it the since of the father section. but i would understand that point the since of the son shall not be punished on to the father and vice versa. i look at that and read through the rest of your testimony and it appears to me that neither would you punish the parent for bringing their children here. you just wouldn't do so in this bill. did i read that correctly? >> no, i'm not saying we shouldn't hold the parents accountable for the choices they made. there do need to be appropriate forms of penalty. >> but you wouldn't apply current la t

you would want to write a new law that would be less onerous than current law for the parents? >> yes, i'm asking you to create another set of penalties for the law other than the penalty that currently exists. >> would this be under the concept of mercy? >> mercy at the very least but also in my opinion simply a matter of practicality and humanity. >> can you -- humanity. >> can you cite any place in the bible where mercy is not accompanied by repentance? >> i know that god says i will have mercy on whom i will have mercy. so he gets the freedom to choose >> he calls for repentance as

christians. >> we get to choose the circumstances under which we have mercy. >> we couldn't teach christianity without repentance being a component of it. >> i know matthew for i was a stranger and let me in. >> that was a central theme also which i'm surprised wasn't in this testimony but i suppose you would adhere to that proposal as well? >> yes, sir that's correct. >> and so are you aware when we see that word stranger and when you look back through the greek which is a foundation of the modern day bible i know. xanos is the greek word, that means guest foreigner, an invited guest rather than someone who came in against the law? >> i understand there are

various understandings of how that word is to be interpreted in that passage. >> so you wouldn't interpret that to mean you are commanded by god to welcome anyone that comes into your country or home regardless of whether they are invited or uninvited? >> yes, sir, that's correct, we're not required to invite anyone that comes along into our homes but we are required to express hospitality toward those >> to the invited guest according to the greek interpretation of the word xanos, stranger invited guest. >> st. paul gave a sermon on mars hill in acts 17. he said, and god made every nation on earth and he decided when and where each nation would be. and he granted that authority to the elected officials within the countries to set the border and to control the border and that is the definition of sovereignty as i understand.

would you have a different understanding of that sermon? >> no, sir, i think god does give human beings the freedom to create their own borders and to establish their own laws. >> i appreciate all the witnesses. i yield back. >> the chair will recognize the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you mr. chairman and welcome to all of our witnesses. i am very impressed by the overall direction that all of the witnesses have made. their understanding of how we deal with not only the dreamers, but with their parents as well. one thing that concerns me is that sometimes we manage to keep

the dreamers in and there seems to be a growing tendency in that direction in the congress. but the separation of the children, the dreamers, from their parents is something that still troubles me. and i'd like to just go down the witness list and see if you share any of this unease with me and i always like to start with the vice president of the southern baptist convention. one of these days we're going to get a witness from the northern baptist convention here but it hasn't happened yet. >> there aren't as many of them. >> that's a good reason. >> thank you, congressman. >> i do share concerns for the

parents of these young men and women. they are in a different circumstance, however, because purpose fully violated the law. we can see address the circumstance for these young people and address the parent needs without talking about a full immigration solution. >> comprehensive? >> yes, sir, a complete solution that would address their parents and the parents of children who were born here as well who also need their circumstances to be addressed. >> and might i ask you for your feelings on this part of the discussion? >> our organization is focused on analysis of policy options facing the congress and so it's not the sort of way that we would approach the issue. >> that means that you wouldn't think of it as a comprehensive or that we could create a path

for citizenship even for the parents although they have without doubt violated some of our immigration rules. but we always start off here by saying on both sides of the aisle the immigration system is broken. so it's not a matter of worrying too much about these rules, it's can we construct some others? if you have an idea on that? >> perhaps i was listening to your question with too formal an ear. i thought you said did i have a feeling of concern about that. i would say for my organization overall that a great deal of our

policy analysis over the years has focused on the need for more comprehensive approaches to reform if we are to fix the system. but i would say there is a distinction between that and the question you had asked. >> thank you. >> what say you? >> obviously i am supportive of comprehensive immigration reform, anything that helps families stay together. i think that that is the epitome of at least what my family, what i was raised on. i think it's for the well being of children. and i just think it's for the well being of america because the family unit is probably the most important unit we have in society. >> so what about the parents?

do you think that we keep the dreamers and work out a way for them, a path for citizenship but what bothers me is what do we do with the parents? do we kick them out? do we separate them from their children who were born here in the country? >> no, i don't think that that's a real option. i think that that can cause lasting damage. i can tell you i recently got married. i got married last month. and i had to go through the decision of trying to figure out how to do a wedding because i have my sister who cannot leave the country and my mother who cannot come into the country. so i've been engaged for two years hoping some type of solution would occur. and at the very least my sister

would be able to travel to columbia. so finally we had to give in and we had to get married. and it was wonderful but my mom was there via facetime. >> could i get a response even though my time is expired? >> certainly. >> thank you. at home i was taught that what this country was founded on family values, christian values, and justice. i hope this is addressing a real solution for me and for my parents as well. >> thank you very much. >> the chair will now recognize the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you.

let me thank all of you. it's very compelling emotional testimony. let me go to you obviously support a path to citizenship for dreamers and you would support a path to citizenship for parents as well? >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir. >> how about you? >> i'm sorry. >> a path to citizenship for dreamers is what we're talking about today. would you support a path to citizenship for parents? >> we don't take a position -- >> i'm asking you as a witness what do you think. can you speak on behalf of yourself? >> what about dr. duke? >> yes, i believe there should be a way for citizenship for these others as well. >> what about the rest of the estimated 11 million illegals here, do you support a path for

those as well? >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir. >> you guys do? >> the southern baptist is taking a position on that? >> restate your question so i can answer it then. >> we all know you are for the dreamers and for the parents. for the rest of the estimated 11 million a path to citizenship, just want to know whether southern baptist are. >> yes, sir we did call for legal status for the undocumented immigrants here in our presence in this country and in further reflection since then most southern baptist are also asking for a way forward for citizenship for these 11 million

as well and that certainly would be my position. >> it's your position and the position of the southern baptist? >> they have not stated officially that is its position. >> do you support the comprehensive bill passed by the united states senate? >> i support a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants. >> have you looked at the bill? >> yes, sir. >> are you for it or against it? >> a path to citizenship so i support a path to sid zip? >> are you for the bill? >> yes, i am. >> have you taken a position on the bill? >> no. >> has the baptist convention taken a position. >> no. the baptist organization has not taken a position on the bill. we believe it's a good step forward but it needs some work and we're looking to the house to help address some issues. >> last question for you dr. duke. the southern baptist convention

you said you believe they are there on pathway to citizenship for the 11 million even though you haven't taken a formal position. is there anything in what you perceive as the position of the southern baptist that says border security must happen before there is a pathway to citizenship for those, for the estimated 11 million folks in the country illegally? >> i would say most southern baptist and myself believe we need to make sure the border is secure before citizenship is possible. but we believe we also need to address the circumstances of these 11 million and that it needs to be done as a package in order to make sure all of the needs of our nation and of these undocumented immigrants are addressed. >> i said last question but i changed my mind. >> do you have any concern -- he

talked about in his opening statement that if in fact we pass a dream act for young people, that we're going to have to make sure we do it for parents. are you concerned at all about where it goes tapped logical steps that have been pointed out that it travels that way before we have a chance to secure the border and maintain the border as a sovereign nation. does that certain you at all? >> it does concern me that we may not get to the place where we secure the border and i'm looking to you to make sure that there is a mechanism in place to ensure the border is secured

before permanent legal status is applied. but that doesn't mean that you can't do something in the meantime so that these folks here can at least know that they no longer have to live under the fear of deportation while our country is resolving this problem. >> thank you. >> the chair will now recognize the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. and thank you to all of the witnesses. it is very compelling and very moving testimony. i am delighted that you're here and i'm delighted that we're having a hearing that really brought in the perspective of this committee. and i'd like to take the opportunity to say that you love your mom? >> yes, sir, i love my mother. >> after you described her, i love her too. >> thank you. >> and i know that you have two siblings right? >> yes, sir. >> one out of status, the other an american citizen like you. how important is it as an

american citizen that you get your mom back, how important is it? >> it would mean a lot. it's hard because there are so many things you want to call your mom and tell her about. there are so many instances that people don't have to think about and don't even realize that you take for granted. i've had to experience that. i know how difficult it is. i can't imagine how difficult it must be for my mother. always living in fear not knowing if something happens to her kids that she cannot be there for them. i understand this issue is incredibly complicated and very happy not to have to do this myself. but i believe that congress has the ability to do it and i would love to have my mother back.

>> thank you. i think you know as we look at it and i look at it, i try to look at it through i have two daughters and i can't imagine what their life would be like without their mother. there are certain things that dads don't do. there are certain parts of life that dads don't fill in. i'm the concierge, need a ticket call dad. need to learn to drive a car, call dad. need somebody to take you to the university to check it out, call dad. i do those kind of things. flat tire, call dad. then there is all the other stuff that moms do, that parpts do. i'm not trying to i did minute sh what men do and the relationship but moms are pretty important in people's lives. i don't think about them as much i think about ourselves and i think about what our relationship is to our children

and how important i know every member of this panel is and has been and will continue to be to their children. look at it in terms of your own children and what would their life be like without us. i don't think it would be the same. i just ant to say that -- want to say that this isn't about the senate bill. we can draft one here in the house of representatives. we have the skill and knowledge and fortitude to get us through those debates and discussions. and so it not about amnesty. i look at the senate bill and i say we really want it.

we're saying 10, 15, 20, 25 years. every scent that an undocumented person like your mother has spent and sent to the social security trust fund gone, confiscated in the senate bill, 10, 25 years. i came to congress to have comprehensive healthcare for everybody. gone. 10 years you want to get legalized, don't expect a scent in subsidy and pay every tax imaginable. and in ten years forget about bringing your brothers or sisters because those are gone. then if that wasn't enough 20,000 more border patrol agents. but it's worth it what you're doing.

what we're doing is worth it. i want to extend another hand to the other side of the aisle to say all of those things i don't like them, but i'm ready to accept them because the alternative is the kind of pain that you hear that young lady. and you have to multiply what they said here millions of times. i want you to think of those millions of tears every day, the pain and devastation that exist in our community. thank you for the personal testimony and for humanizing this issue for all of us. that's going to help inform this committee better than any statistics ever can. >> i thank the gentleman from illinois. the chair recognizes the gentleman from idaho. >> thank you mr. chairman. i only disagreed vehemently with one thing and that is my mom is the best. i just have a few questions for you. i appreciate both of you testifying today. i want to talk about the realities of immigration, the immigration that we're currently living under. are you familiar with the immigration system back in

columbia what it's like? >> i'm not. >> do you know what would happen if i entered the country illegally today in columbia? >> no, sir. >> do you know what happened to my kids that i would bring into columbia illegally? >> i would submit to you the treatment would be vastly different than the treatment you and your family received here in the united states. now since you came before us and i don't like to ask personal questions but you've testified about personal issues. you said you're a u.s. citizen correct. and your mom can't come here. how is that possible? >> my mom when i was a sophomore in college she was pulled over for a minor traffic citation, was then arrested and i believe she was then arrested and at some point ice got involved.

she was taken to a detention center. unfortunate for us at the time i was not aware of all the different things -- >> i want to clarify something. she was arrested, she was returned to columbia is that correct? >> she was taken to a detention center and then a couple months later she was. >> you're over the age of 21? >> not at the time. >> but today you are. >> why can't you apply for her? >> i have. >> her visa was approved in the u.s. and then she was denied. >> do you know why she was denied. >> she said for leaving the country there is a ten-year ban. >> did you file a waiver? >> my father -- >> he has.

>> and they haven't approved that yet? >> no. >> but there say way for your mom to come if you file a waiver and all those things. and the only point i'm trying to make i'm not trying to embarrass you is one of the things we're talking about doing here in the house of representatives is removing some of these wavers that are preventing people who have been removed from the united states from coming back legally. and that's something if we could pass in some legislation that would actually help you and your family and it's one of the things i'm trying to accomplish. now in your testimony you said some things that i found frankly a little bit hard to understand. you said if congress were to adopt an incomplete solution that would provide a path to citizenship but something less for our parents it's like saying i can be one of you but my parents can never be.

and you said do we want to give our parents a seat at the back of the bus type of legalization? it's highly inaccurate and a little dismissive of our current immigration system. are you familiar with the hb-1 at all? >> no. >> if i came legally as an h-1 b workers in the high-tech industry or requires a college degree and i had children in the united states, they would become citizens but i would not be necessarily -- i don't have a right to become a citizen of the united states. i could apply for citizenship but there is nothing that technically says i have to become a citizen. there are millions of people who

come to the united states who have children and they still have to leave even though they came here legally. are you aware of that? >> i did not know that. >> it would not be treating your family different than millions of people who come legally to the united states and they don't have a right to stay in the united states. i want to find a way to help the 11 million. i don't have a problem with that. but to come here to congress and say that we're putting your parents in the back of the bus when we're treating -- we would treat them the same as anybody else who came here legally who doesn't have a right to citizenship, i think you need to rethink your rhetoric. because there are people here legally that don't become citizens of the united states and they have children here and have the same values and beliefs and everything that you have. but the law does not allow them to become citizens but yet they can stay here as guest workers in many many industries.

i want to find a solution for this problem. i want us to treat everybody fairly. like i said in my opening statement the most important thing for me is the rule of law. making sure we prevent having this problem again 10 or 20 years from now. that's not fair to either one of you. if we continue to have these problems then there will be another both of you who is going to be coming here to congress and telling us about their families and how their families need to have a new legal status. i want to help you and help your families but most importantly i

want to fix the problems we have so we don't have to have this conversation again. thank you very much for being here today. >> the chair will recognize the gentle lady from texas. >> let me thank the chairman. and i join with the idea that whenever we make steps toward improving lives and act as legislators we are really doing the right thing because that is the challenge and the charge we've been given in this congress is to fix america's problems. i want to acknowledge my appreciation for all of the witnesses. but i do want to thank in particular the two ladies because along with your knowledge there are personal stories that are being told. and i can't thank you enough for discussing something so personal. and i think if we can all appreciate each other's humanity that what we're talking about is not the nuts and bolts of moving checkers on a board or which he is on a which he is board but

we're talking about human lives. and i believe that we have held human lives in the balance too long. this has been going on too long. and the key to this is not presupposing or predicting disaster and devastation but to look at the senate bill as a marker in terms of attempting to frame the relief this time so that we don't have the idea of someone being able to say this will happen again. dr. duke, i want to suppose this question to you. we thank you for representing the southern baptist this morning. we were with the evangelicals who have made a commitment and

embraced people of different faith and they believe it's time to move on the human aspect of it. as you listened to them you know there say comprehensive pathway to citizenship. there is a crack in the armor when you suggest that you'll take the children. i know some years back the ranking member and myself worked on the idea of what kind of facilities children are in, young people in r in under the age of majority previously in detention centers, it wasn't a pretty scene. it wasn't a pretty scene when you had to separate families. so the human question rose. the idea of human trafficking which i know the church has worked on is vast. there is a huge problem of human trafficking.

do you see the value in taking the comprehensive approach and regulising family members, agriculture workers, tech workers, other skill workers that really reigning in what i think our friends have been speaking of in this hearing? >> yes, we believe we do need to address the entire 11 million or so undocumented immigrants here that the family unification is an important aspect of immigration reform. the question for our with this particular question on these particular children to us is a little different than their parents simply because the children didn't break any laws. soon

address the parents who did break laws of that group differently than you address the other parents of who broke the law. that needs to be addressed in a package that you are working on and we're hopeful you continue to work on. these particular children just become one part of the entire package that does ultimately ensure us a family unit. >> so you can support comprehensive immigration reform? >> yes, we support a full immigration reform. >> can you talk to me both about the pain of separation from parents or the pain that young people have? we'll start with you, the pain that you're experiencing of not having your mother here? i assume she's in columbia? >> yes, ma'am. it's very difficult. it's the little things that add

up, birth days, celebrations, graduations, weddings, all sorts of things that become harder and harder. it's having to see my sister who is unable to visit her suffer and see that the only way that she can interact with my mom is through a computer camera. so it's incredibly difficult. as i said in my testimony it affected me while i was in school. i had to reach out to my college of liberal arts to my counselors and let them know what was going on because i could not concentrate. i was a college undergrad student trying to understand immigration law which is just about impossible, filing paperwork. it's very difficult.

>> i can only imagine what it would be to not have my parents with me. my younger brothers -- yeah, it would be devastating. and the pain in the community exists. we have several families in the state of arkansas that are battling that. and i can only imagine what parents would feel like leaving their u.s. citizen children and going back to a place they haven't been to in a long time. we have another case where there are two u.s. citizen and their parent is in a detention center waiting to be deported. i can see the pain in her eyes that she has whenever she talks to me about her dad and how much she misses him. so the thought of not being there is terrifying to me. >> thank you. >> i'm yielding back and saying that congress' duty is to fix these problems even if they are

pretty tough. >> the chair will recognize the gent from california. >> i would ask unanimous consent that we make a part of the record statements from the congressional asian pacific caucus, the campaign for children, the american civil liberties union, the asian americans advancing justice, the anti-defamation league. ywca and a poll from last week from the gallop organization on immigration as even by americans. >> without objection. >> the gentleman from nevada. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to associate myself with

the remarks of my colleague from texas although i wish mr. guteiras was still here. i wanted to talk to him about teaching people to drive. since he's not we'll skip that part. during the course of this hearing we've heard i don't want my parent left behind, so this doesn't happen again. the package comprehensive and everybody has concentrated on what the problem is now and rightfully so. but we don't have that luxury of just concentrating on that. your circumstances have been well represented and i'll tell you quite frankly i personally believe the hardest thing for anybody to do is go back to the people they represent and say we did nothing. does anybody on the panel think that what is going on now is okay and nothing status quo is

okay? record should reflect nobody answered in the affirmative. so let me ask you this: i want to ask you to branch out beyond your personal circumstances, wanting your parents together and all that stuff which is understandable and human nature. what was -- do you have any knowledge of what the thought process was when your mom said you know what, i'm going there and i'm staying and i'm taking my two-year-old -- the age doesn't really matter. and i'm asking the question in the context of because one of the toughest things is justify in 1986 they dealt with it. in 2013 we're going to deal with it hopefully. so now we're 10 or 15 years down the road. how do you make sure nobody comes here 10 or 15 years from now and has to silt where you are.

what is the piece and with all due respect the border is in texas to california. there is a gulf and a few coasts. what is your thought of how do you make sure this doesn't happen again once we deal with this group? any suggests? >> i think that's your responsibility. you all hold the answer to what we're going through. >> when you come and say i want a comprehensive thing but you can't say i have nothing to give you on the other part. i mean you can but then you risk whatever we come up with which i think would scare the heck out of you. >> to answer the first part of that question, columbia in the 1980's and 1990's was a very scary place to be so my parents did what i think any parent would do is they tried to give us every opportunity and they

wanted to get us out of there because it was just so dangerous. so to now address the second part of your question, it's very difficult to say how you fix this problem. but i know that you guys are incredibly talented and you may think that say copout but i think that sitting down and talking this out you can figure it out. >> thank you for acknowledging that and the folks on the south side of the building should have a shot at that as well as the folks from the north side of the building. >> any thoughts? what have other countries done? what do you do so you don't keep turning the wheel and having new groups that are disenfranchised because our current system obviously isn't working?

>> i'm not involved in a lot of these different areas of work in my organization but you may be aware we've published extensive analysis of border systems. we have done work looking at how other countries are handling these issues also. we've done a great deal of analysis. >> briefly can you summarize. >> you know there are no answers >> thank you unanimous so far. >> thanks for your question. it is a great question how do we never come back here again. there will probably always be some people here illegally. we will probably never get 100% security. the workplace is a draw. if you can put in some sort of e verify that certainly will deal with a lot of it. we need a better way to track visas as well so folks aren't

overstaying their visas. it's offensive folks who gave their word they would only be here a certain amount of time have overstayed their visas so you should address that as well and of course border security would help as well. >> thank you very much. >> the chair will now recognize myself. i never even thought about trying to take new testament but several colleagues have made reference to the bible and a couple named joseph and mary immigrated to egypt when herod was looking for their son. in the gospel of matthew. i want to ask you this because this vexes me from an equity or fairness standpoint. i never understood why god preferred e saw over jacob or why they killed the fatted calf

for the prodigal son when the other did it exactly right. he didn't squander his fortune. he did exactly what his father asked him to do. imagine a couple in columbia with a daughter as bright and beautiful as this young lady. and they did it the way we asked them to do it. what are the equities of jumping anyone ahead of them in line? >> thanks for the question. it is a tough question and your question is about how to understand those particular situations in the bible are still being debated and will be until the lord returns i'm sure. so you're not alone in trying to sort through some of those

things. i think the realities is we have a situation nobody wants but it's a real situation we're dealing with. we have 11 million people here. we cannot continue them to live in the circumstances they are living in. it's not right for them or in our country's best interest so we need to address that. if we're going to secure the border we're going to trap 11 million people here. we need to not consign them to lives of poverty and their children and their children after them. so it's more of a tract cal question then what you do with folks in line trying to get here when you already have 11 million here. you could say you have 11 million here and those other folks at least they are making a living wherever they are. at least they have some degree

of support wherever they are rather than us trying to drive these other folks out of here. we have to address this situation. we can't ignore it and act as though it doesn't exist. some folks will be a long time in that pro says unless you want to speed up how quickly we can process people for citizenship. >> i think all of the witnesses have made reference to 11 million. i hear it everywhere i go as if it's a homogenous group and we know it's not. you made reference several times to the 11 million. would you agree with me that those members of the 11 million who can't pass a background check shouldn't be on a path to anything other than deportation? >> maybe the people that don't pass a background check but i believe there should be a pathway for the majority of the 11 million. >> that's different than what you said earlier. >> my point is all 11 million can't pass any background check.

all 11 million from preachers to members of congress can't pass a background check so why persist with a talking point of 11 million when we know that's disingenuous. all 11 million don't want to be u.s. citizens. all 11 million can't pass a background check. if you son seed that then we get background check is going to look like. for instance if you have a conviction for domestic violence should you be on a path to citizenship or deportation? >> i can only argue for my sake and my parents' sake -- >> no. you advocated on behalf of 11 million. you are not a difficult fact pattern so the talking point of 11 million aspiring americans. i'm not interested in that. i'm down in the details of what does a background check look like. do you think a conviction of domestic violence should disqualify them from a path to citizenship?

>> that's up to you all to decide. >> if it's up to us then why do i constantly hear 11 million if it's one group. why? why not say what you said which is there are subgroups which warrant different levels of scrutiny. for instance children who were brought here with no criminal intent. that levels one scrutiny. the parents who brought them

here levels another level of scrutiny. those who have misdemeanor convictions have a different level, those who have felony convictions have a different level of scrutiny. why is that not the more honest response than to talk about 11 million? >> i'm not in a position to talk about who deserves what. how would you decide one person deserves one thing another person doesn't? >> it's not hard for me. i spent 12 years prosecuting domestic violence. the devil is in the details. the bright line people don't have any trouble with that. the devil is in the details. i'm out of time. i'll say this on behalf of all four of you were very good persuasive witnesses. even if i don't agree

necessarily with everything that is said. i think you are here in good faith. you've contributed to the debate. when i see quotes like i did today from someone named dan who apparently works for the president, i think it's the same dan that said the law is irrelevant. and he tweeted out today that our plan is to allow some kid to stay but deport their parents. he summarized this entire debate with that tweet. so i want to compliment you and thank you for not being a demagogic self-serving political hack who can't be elected to a parent advisory committee much less congress which is what he is. i want to thank you for not being that and understand these are complex issues where reasonable minds can perhaps differ. and with that, on behalf of all of us, i thank you for contributing to this issue. does the ranking member wish to say something in conclusion? >> no, i would just say that i do thank once again the witnesses for their testimony and i think that it has advanced the cause of justice forward. and you're right, these are complicated questions but i think you're also right they not so complicated that we

can't figure them out. so i would like to pledge once again my interest in working with the chairman to reform the laws. they are a mess from top to bottom and hopefully we can fix them from top to bottom. i yield back. >> i thank the gentle lady. >> we've had this hearing and we appreciate it. willu know whether there be a series of hearings or will we move to full committee? what can we perceive to be the next steps? >> i appreciate the gentle lady's question. i

with that, we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> i know congressman steve king has been coming under criticism for remarks that he made about undocumented young immigrants and the drug trade. john boehner said that his remarks were deeply offensive and wrong. he spoke from the house floor on thursday. he defended his statement. take a look. debate. i challenge people to debate with me because i believe one of two things. if i can't sustain myself in debate i need to get more

information. i need to get better informed, or could it be that i'm wrong? only two alternatives can come from not being able to sustain yourself in a debate. i'll go back and get all the information i can get, but i'll also reconsider. and anybody should. that's why i challenge people to debate. i'll take it up, and we'll see who can stains themselves. we may not get this resolved in one discussion. in fact, in this congress it's been a very rare thing over the 10-plus years i have been here to see anybody stand up and admit, i was was wrong. what you said changes my position. what i learned changes my position. no, there are too many egos involved in this congress for that to happen off. it will have a little bit privately. it will happen incrementally, it doesn't happen publicly unless there is leverage brought to bear. here's my point, mr. speaker, and that is this. our southern border is porous. it's not as porous as it was seven or eight years ago.

mainly because the economy has grown in mexico at about twice the rate that it's grown in the united states over the last 4 1/2 or five years. pressure ve as much on our border, but i can tell you this. 80% to 90% of the illegal drugs consumed in america come from or through mexico. i can tell you that in mexico they are recruiting kids to be drug smugglers. between the ages of 11 and 18 they have arrested and i believe incarcerated and the number of convictions that actual -- that actually may be the number of convictions, it's at least this, over 800 per year over the last couple years at that ratio of those who are kids who are smuggling drugs into the united states. we pick up some on our side of the border, that adds to that number. the ones we catch. many get away. every night some come across the border smuggling drugs across the border. increasingly the higher value drugs, heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine in some form or another,

are being strapped to the body sometimes of young girls, teenage girls. the media is replete with this. anybody that reads the paper should know, especially those that live on the border, should know that there are many, many young people coming across the border unlawfully who are smuggling drugs into the united states. they should also know that now the drug cartels, and i mean specifically the mexican drug cartels, have taken over drug distribution and most of the major cities in america, i think intel will tell you every major city in america, and the numbers that i have seen go there a little over 200 cities in the country to 2000. i don't know what population that dials it down to. i haven't seen the map. it should be appalling to a country and civilization to see that's taking place. when you understand that according to the drug enforcement agency of every chain of illegal drug distribution we have in the country, they will tell you at least privately as they have to me on multiple occasions, at

least one link are illegal aliens smuggling drugs into the united states. it's important that we know that will as a congress, as a country, as a civilization. if we deny those facts, if we deny the information that comes obama t of the administration that certainly supports those, if you deny the information that comes out through the major media that's there, if you deny what we are told by our law enforcement officers on the border of the united states that are continually interdicting drugs at about the same rate they did sews six or seven, eight years ago when the population of illegal was flowing over the border at a faster rate than today, the illegal drugs come across the border roughly similar to that time. that said, there is still high demand in the united states. high demant means drugs are likely to come in. if we are enforcing our borders and tightening down security, the price of drugs should go up. if you look at the price of drugs, i think you are going to find we haven't been very effective in interdicting drugs coming across our southern

border. part of that is because they find new ways to smuggle and some are because kids are being used to smuggle drugs into the united states. that's appalling to me. the depth across the arizona border, it's still there. this debate taking place now in the middle of the summer is going to end up with more people being found out there own the desert in the brush who have lost their lives trying to get into the united states of america. we need a secure border. we need to build a fence, wall, two r sense so we have patrolling zones. we need to use our boots on the ground in the most effective way possible. no nation should have an open borders policy, no nation should have a blind eye policy towards the enforcement of the laws. no nation can long remember -- remain a great nation if they decide to sacrifice the rule of law on the altar of political expediency. no nation like the united states ever america can tain to grow and be a vo -- can continue to

grow and be a strong nation if we are going to judge people because they disagree with our agenda rather than the content of their statement. we have to be critical thinkers. we have to be analytical. we should understand facts from emotion. let's pull together, let's understand that we do have compassion. we do have compassion for every human person deserves dignity. we need to treat them with warmth, that love as the american people always have, korean war veterans did when they gave themselves for a country they never knew and a people they never met, but we must not sacrifice the rule of law on the altar of political expediency. with that, >> over in the senate, dick durbin reacted to the statements from congressman king.

he also spoke on thursday. an interruption -- but i will tell you that we have had a htory of debating immigration in congress, and when i read this book on the history of immigration itself, i came up with some interesting quotes." since 1924, albert johnson, the republican from washington state, is chairing the house committee on immigration. this is what he said -- "today, instead of a well-knit home jean us -- homogenous citizenry, we have a body public made up of diverse elements. today descendants from free men bred to the knowledge of freedom and practice of self-government under the law, we have a population no small proportion of which is sprung from races that throughout the centuries have known no liberty at all. in other words, congressman johnson said, our capacity to maintain our cherished

institutions stands diluted by a stream of alien blood with all its inherited misconceptions, respecting the relationships of the governing power to the governed. it is no wonder, congressman johnson said, therefore, that the myth of the melting pot has been discredited. the united states is our land, he said. we intend to maintain it so. the day of unalloyed welcomes to all people, indiscriminate acceptance of all races has definitely ended." end of quote. that was a statement made by a member of congress in 1924 and you read it today and you think to yourself how could anyone possibly be talking about racial purity in the united states of america as he did. it just draws so many terrifying parallels to a debate which happened not many years later in europe over racial purity. but it happened. and it happened in the united states congress.

and sadly, that wasn't t end of hatred toward immigration in the united states congress. mr. president, 12 years ago i introduced a bill called the dream act. the dream act was a response to a constituent case in my office. a young woman, a korean woman, in chicago called our office. she had a story to tell. she said that she had brought her daughter at the age of 2 from korea to the united states, to chicago on a visitor's visa. along with her husband. and they envisioned that her husband would open a church, and they looked forward to that day and it never happened. and her husband continued to pray for that miracle for their family, but the mother said i had to go to work. the mother went to work in a dry cleaning establishment in chicago, and if you've been to that wonderful city you know the majority of dry cleaning establishments of runy korean familieoe

o work 12 hours a day and don't think twice about doing it. this woman went to work but she wasn't making much money. and her little girl as well as the girl's brother and sister grew up in deepest poverty. the little girl tells the story that she used to go to school, the to middle school and high school and wait till the end of the lunch hour when students were throwing away part of the lunch they didn't eat and she'd dig through the waste basket to find food. that's how poor they werp. but something came along that made all the difference in the world. in chicago we have the merit music program. a woman decided 10 or 15 years ago to leave some money and she said use this mey to provide musical instruments to children, poor children in public schools as well as the lessons they need so they can play the instruments. the merit music proam is an amazing success, 100% of the students who are eolled i that merit music program go to college. 100%. this little girl, this korean

immigrant girl, was brought into the program and introduced at the age of 12 to a piano for the first time. she fell in love with the piano. and she started working and practicing on it. she'd stay at the merit music program headarters late into the night. they gave her a key because it was warm and she wanted to practice her piano. she became such an accomplished pianist by the time she was in high school she was accepted to to the juilliard school of music and manhattan conservatory of music. amazing for this poor korean girl. when she applied filling out the application she came to the line that said nationality and citizenship and she turned to her mher and said what do i put? her mom said we brought you here at the age of 2 and never filed any papers. mom said let's call senator durbin. so they called our office and we dhekd chekd on the law and the law in the united state is very clear and very cru

th in the united states said that literal lil girl had to leave this country for 10 years and apply to come back. ten years. she had brought here at the age of 2. she was only 17 or 18 at the time. that's when i decided to introduce the dream act and the dream act said if you were brought here as a child to the united states, if you complete high school, if you have no criminal record of any concern and you're prepared to either enlist in our military or finish at least two years of college, we'll put you on a path to becoming a citizens of the united states of america. that was the dream act. introduced 12 years ago, called on the floor many different times for passage. it finally passed just a few weeks ago as part of comprehensive immigration reform. i might tell you the end of the story about this young girl. she didn't qualify for any financial assistae because she was undocumented. two families in chicago, one woma who is an amazing fd

of mine named joan harris said they'd pay for her education. swheept to the meantd conservatory of music, she excelled in the piano, she played in carnegie hall, she married an american jazz musician and became a citizen of the united states and now she is working on her ph.d. in music. she just sent me her tape for her ph.d. and she is amazing. teresa lee is her name. she is the first dreamer. it's because of her i come to the floor today. you see, mr. president, just yesterday it was disclosed that a member of the house of representatives, congressman stephen king of iowa, spoke to the issue of the dreamers. i don't know how many dreamers, students who would qualify for the dream act, that congressman king has met. i have met hundreds of them. they are amazing. incredible. livingheir entire life in the united states undocumented, fearing deportation any minute of any day, wdering what

tomorrow will bring. the gentleman up in the classrooms of america and pledging allegiance to the only flag theyave ever known, singing the only national anthem they know and being told by so many people don't belong here, you're not part of this country. they are completely conflicted and worried and uncertainty about their future. and they are nothing short of amazing. these young people have done things with their lives which just arencredible. mesh the valedictorians of their classes in many case perks gone on to college and paid for it out of their pocket in many cases. ve come to the floor on 54 different occasions with color photos of these dreamers from all over thunited states. when they gave us the permission to disclose their identity and told their stories and every time i've told that story about that dreamer, someone has stopped me in the hall and said that's an amazing story about this young person who just wants to be part of the the united states and its future.

so it was troubling yesterday to pick up and read the quotes from stephen king, who is a congressman from iowa. mr. king is new comer when it comes to criticizing immigration. he introduced a bill three or four weeks ago in the house of representatives which would have removed all the federal funds that are being used now to spare these dreamers from deportation in the united states. in other words, the president has issued a executive order so the young people eligible for the dream act can stay, he wanted to remove all the funds so they'd have to be deported immediately. he called that for a vote. it passed in the u.s. house representatives, just a few weeks ago. overwhelmingly supported by his republican side of the aisle. so stephen king has a record of opposing immigration and doing it in a very forceful way. but they found a quote which

he'd made, a statement he had made on the issue of the dreamers, and that's why i come to the floor today. in an interview wit radio iowa, mr. king said yesteay it seems as though i have a few critics out there. but those advocating for the dream act try to make it about valedictorians. i don't disagree there are dreamers that are valedictorians but it also would legalize those smuggling drugs into the united states. in his original comments, congressman king of iowa said -- quote -- "for everyone who is a valedictorian there is another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds and they've got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert" -- end of quote. in his interview tuesday

evening, congressman king doubled down on those comments according to "the washington post" saying -- quote -- "we have people that are mules, they're drug mules, they're hauling drawings drugs across the border and you can tell by their physical characteristics what they've been doing for months" -- end of quote. mr. president, if you've going to be part of this political business you better have a pretty tough spine. and a pretty hard shell. because people throw criticism around all the time. and if you cant take it, this ain't beanbag, do something else. but i deeply resent what was said by congressman king about these dreamers. it is totally unfair. 's mean, and it's hateful. don't take my word for it. take the words of the republican leaders who responded to mr. king. house speaker john boehner commenting on congressman king's comments called tm -- quote -- "wrong and hateful." that's from speaker boehn. house majority leader he can cantor said they were -- quote -- "inexcusable" -- end of

quote. during a house judiciary committee hearing tuesday, representative joseph garcia described king's words as -- quote -- "beneath the dignity of this body." representative raul labrador, republican of idaho who has been heavily involved in immigration reform, expressed hope wednesday that king regretted his remarks. "there's nobody in the conference who would say such a thing and i hope that he if he thought about it wouldn't say such a thing again close quote, labrador said. it is heartening to know that members of exphan king's own party, republicans,mr. have stated unequivocally how awful his statement was. it troubles me and it's heartbreaking to think that these dreamers, these young people who are simply asking for a chance to be part of the united states, would be characterized as dope smugglers and drug smugglers. obviously congressman king's never read the dream act because

if you've ever been convicted of a crime, country be approved through the dream act for citizenship. not a serious crime. that's part of the law. he should know better. but i'm not sure that he cares. i'm glad that members of his own party have stepp up and branded these comments for what they are. and what i have to say to him is take a moment away from the media, meet some of these dreamers and hear their stories. hear what they've been through and hear about what they want to do with their lives for the united states of america's future and to the dreamers themselves, this isn't the first criticism they've run into. they've taken a lot. they're courageous young men and women. when i started this trek, this 12-year trek on the dream act, i used to give speeches in chicago about the bill and there would be audiences full of hispanics usually, nothing much would be said and i'd go out to my car afterwards in the

darkss there would be a couple students waiting by the car. they'd look both waig wairs to make sure no oneas around and say senator, we're dreamers. we're counting on you to give us a chance. over the years, these young people who waited to greet me in the darkness when no one was around have now stepped up. they're identifying who they are so america knows what's at stake. and when you meet the dreamers you will realize how awful and wrong these statements are by congressman king. there will always be critics of immigration in america it's part of our national tradition. but i do believe the vast majority of americans are fair people. they are people who believe in justice. they do not believe that a child, a child should be held responsible for anyrongdoing by their parent. if their parent brought broth them to the united states as a baby, they have had no voice in that decision. why should they be penalor

that decision? they should be given their own chance to become part of this nation's future. i'll close by saying that maybe teresa lee wasn't the first dreamer in my life, my mother was brought here at the age of 2, and certainly didn't have much of a voice in the decision to come to america. but thank goodness her mother and father decided to make that trip and that my grinders --, grandparents located in illinois and gave me a chance to grow up in a great place with a great story. that's my story

>> on friday talk about immigration and how immigrants give an overall lift to the economy by increasing job growth, jobs, and their impact on mass migration. the cato institute hosted this event. it is about one that and a half hours. -- one hour and a half. >> since you did not come here to hear me talk about it, i will begin right away with an introduction.

our first presenter will be professor madelin zavodny, the chair the economics department of agnes scott college in atlanta. she is a fellow at the american enterprise institute. her interests include economics of the family and immigration. she has published in dozens of academic journals, my favorite being "beside the golden door." our second presenter ethan lewis, a research fellow at the national bureau of economic research. previously he worked at the

federal reserve bank of philadelphia. his research interest includes the interplay of different economic factors of production, the impact of technology and education on labor markets, and immigration. professor lewis has written almost a dozen pieces that have appeared in journals as well as numerous book chapters and other publications, most notably "analyzing how immigrants and american workers work together in the american labor market." our final presenter will be michael clemens, who leads migration and development initiative at the center of global development. he has served as professor of

public policy at georgetown, as well as a consultant for numerous aid organizations. his research interests include the effects of foreign aid on economic development and trying to judge techniques to evaluate the effectiveness of projects. he is trying to identify the determinants of capital flows and, in recent years, with immigration, on immigration, with focus on global implications of loosening immigration restrictions. his papers have been published in numerous outlets, including academic journals. his 2011 paper in the journal of economic perspectives catapulted him overnight into the who's who of economics. without further ado, i will begin with our first presenter, professor zavodny.

[applause] forany thanks to cato organizing this event. it could not be more timely. i will talk about the case for highly skilled immigrants. this is incredibly easy to make, and if you do not believe hopefully you will in 20 minutes. let me start with the caveat when i say highly skilled, i mean highly educated. this is not to denigrate or not give credit to the talents less educated workers have.

hear the shorthand you when talking about education is to call it skilled. it is important to recognize that workers throughout the distribution do have skills. i will talk about the highly educated. what will i talk about? i will give you an overview of immigrant skill levels and how they compare to those of the u.s. natives, and i will talk about highly skilled immigrants in the labor market, and what economic research tells us about their contributions to economy and about policies, since that is what is on the agenda these days in congress. what this figure shows you is the educational distribution of the foreign born workforce. if you took all immigrants, defined as anyone who is not a u.s. citizen at birth, and look at the distribution across educational categories for most recent data available, this is what it would look like. what do you see? it looks like immigrants are relatively low education, that the preponderance of the most

common group is not having a high school diploma or ged. when you look at u.s. natives in contrast, they look like this. what is interesting to take from this is u.s. natives are relatively unlikely to be in the no high school degree category, the one on the far left. why? we have compulsory education laws that requires everyone to go to school in the united states until 16 or 18. most people end up getting their diploma. they recognize there is a high return to getting a ged, so they go on and get it. most of u.s. natives are in the high school diploma or ged, some college, or bachelor's degree category, and small percentages are in the masters or professional degrees or in the ph.d. category. what you should walk away from this with is the comparison of immigrants to natives. what this figure shows is the relative share of immigrants to the share of natives. it is taking the first figure and dividing by the second figure. it is comparing the two. immigrants are

disproportionately at the extreme. they are particularly likely to be at the no high school degree level, not a surprise when you think about the fact that 1/3 of immigrants are from mexico, latin america, or other relatively poor countries. look what happens when you look at the other side of the educational distribution. the percent of ph.d.'s, immigrants are twice as likely as u.s. natives to have a ph.d. and just as likely to have a master's or professional degree.

then you look at immigrants, they are at the ends of the labor market. this is where the economic contributions come in him a these comparative advantages that immigrants have, that they are different from u.s. natives. let's think about highly skilled immigrants in the labor market. one of the concerns u.s. natives have is they compete with natives were jobs, and natives are either less likely to have a job or when they have a job they earn lower wages. sense,ems like common and you hear anecdotes -- my brother lost a job because competition from immigrants. when you go through and systematically look at the data, there is surprisingly little evidence of negative competing or similar

u.s. workers. when you look at highly skilled immigrants, the only research that finds a significant negative effect on wages among highly skilled workers, those who have beyond a college degree, is published in the quarterly journal of economics. when you look at the preponderance of the evidence, article after article finds lots of evidence of zeros, and some evidence of positive effects that has went out in a paper published in labor economics that looks like immigrants are complementary to higher skilled natives. when you look at low skilled immigrants, those who are at the bottom of the educational distribution, there is more evidence of negative effects, things are still very mixed here, it would be very difficult to walk away from the economics literature with the conclusion that immigrants hurt impeding natives in the labor market. i want to talk about h-1b visas. h-1b visas are these temporary visas for specialized workers. what the research in this area shows clearly there is no

compelling evidence by economic research that h-1b holders harm similar natives. research shows that h-1b workers actually earn more than similar natives, that they are not undercutting u.s. natives in the market. my research for the federal reserve bank in atlanta shows these workers have no negative effects on unemployment or on wages in the i.t. sector, where most workers work. there is research done published in the review of economic statistics in 2012 that shows h-1b workers reduce wages among college graduate u.s. natives. my research for the american enterprise institute shows the number of h-1b workers is possibly related to total employment when you look at everyone, you see positive job effects from having more h-1b workers. when you talk to people in the high-tech industry, and they are concerned about h-1b looks more like an age story than an immigrants

story. people who are having difficulty getting jobs are older workers. some of them are foreign-born as well as native-born. the idea that we will attribute what is going on in the industry does not hold up in the data. why don't we see more negative effects? there is a lot of possibilities. one is that u.s. natives might move into different jobs as a result of immigration, and this is what research showed, that u.s. natives moved into the comparative advantage as result of immigration by the low skilled and high skilled immigrants.

it is possible u.s. natives move across areas, and this is what other research shows, that u.s. natives move to different places when immigrants are moving into their local area. there is research that suggests the competition from highly skilled immigrants comes when they speak english very well. the fact that a lot of high skilled immigrants in high-tech fields are not fluent in english reduces how substitutable they are for u.s.-born workers. another possibility and the most important one here is highly skilled workers do not harm competing or other u.s. native job opportunities because highly skilled immigrants create jobs, via other innovative activities. what is the research? if we turn to job creation, my report for the partnership for the new american economy shows if you increase the number of

foreign-born advanced degree holders in the united states, for every 100 more of them, total u.s. employment increases by 44. if those foreign-born holders happen to work instead and have a degree from a u.s. from 100 more of them, you get 262 more u.s. jobs from u.s. natives. there's job creation going on, not just for the immigrants, but for u.s. natives as result of having more highly skilled immigrants. business creation. what research by others show here is about 1/4 of high-tech startups and half of the high- tech startups in silicon valley

have at least one key immigrant founder, that immigrants are playing an important role in the high-tech industry. what other research shows is that immigrants are more likely to have started a firm with at least 10 employees than u.s. natives are when we look at college graduates. so they are creating jobs, creating businesses. they are innovating as well. research shows immigrants are twice as likely to patent as a college graduate u.s. natives are. they work in stem and are in innovative fields. other research shows not only are immigrants more likely to patent and innovate then natives, but there is no crowd out or negative effects going on among u.s. natives. likeything, it looks there's positive spillovers among u.s. natives. research shows that when you

have more h-1b workers you have higher productivity growth, that if you look at foreign-born stem workers they can account for 1/4 of the increase in growth in the 1990's and during the early 2000/s. highly immigrants are net fiscal contributors, that they are paying more in taxes than receiving and government benefits. in this era when we are worried about social security and medicare and outsized government deficits, it is important to have them. when we think about policy implications from this, they are clear, that we would want more highly skilled immigrants, creating jobs, creating businesses, patenting, innovating.

one thing that is important recognize is the foreign students, the graduate level, and the h-1b program are critical entry points for this population, that most of them are not coming over as green cards. they are not coming as unauthorized immigrants. these programs ensuring that there are ways for foreign students to enter and get visas, and then stay in united states is very important if we want to get the jobs and business creation benefits of highly

skilled immigrants. when you think what are the problems with current policy that with the senate legislation addressed, there are very long waits for green cards, of thousands of highly skilled immigrants waiting, mostly in the united states on h-1b visas to get a green card, and they are waiting for many years, particularly if they are from china, india, the philippines, or mexico, because country cap said no one country can receive more than 7% of green cards right now. the senate bill would change that since that is a very good thing to get rid of these country caps and end the queues that stretch for years and years. what i tell my students is if you want to remain in the united states, how should they remain, they should marry a u.s. native, and it is sad i have to tell them that, not consistent with the type of visas they are on, but our immigration policy is messed up when your best way to stay in the united states is to marry a u.s. native. i would like to say low skilled

and less educated immigrants play an important role in our economy as well. we should not forget about their economic contributions. please to not take any of this as not saying that low skilled immigrants matter as well. thank you. [applause] >> hi. i'm ethan lewis. thank you. thank you for having me here. it is great to talk here. what i want to talk about his benefits and costs of immigration on low skilled immigration, so the benefits and costs of immigration is a big topic. i will not discuss all the benefits and costs. i will focus on two pieces of my own research and what they contribute. i want to start with a broad overview, and i will copy some of madelin's facts on this in order to set the stage for understanding my contribution to this topic. the first thing we know, for a

while that the gains to immigrants themselves from migrating are huge. if you think about the average wage of a mexican living in mexico compared to what they earn in the u.s., there is an enormous gap that incentivizes them to come here. that is one of the things that michael will talk about. the world would be better off if there were fewer restrictions. a lot of people would be better off if there were fewer restrictions on where you could live in the world. in addition, as it turns out, there are gains to the receiving country, which are also positive. i will use the terms native born, u.s.-born, and natives

interchangeably, so there is gains for us as well, and they are also positive, but smaller than the gains to the immigrants themselves. today when i talk about benefits of immigration, i am really talking about second thing, the gains to us, and we should not forget the first, and back to that, but today i'm talking about benefits to natives born. there is a theoretical model in the economics literature which says we get gains from immigration by pushing up the wages of native born workers. with economists there is always a trade-off, never a free lunch, so the cost is there is some winners and some losers. immigration pushes down the wages of some workers and up for some workers, but on average we benefit. how does this work? the optimal immigration system is one in which what we do is we admit immigrants who have skills that would otherwise be scarce in the existing population, skills that would be hard to come by in the existing population.

if we do that, it pushes down the wages of those who have skills, but for the rest of us, by having access to this pool of workers who have scarce skills, that makes us more productive. our wages as a result go up and we are better off. another words, the average native born worker benefits, but at the expense of lower wages for some types of workers. a corollary of this is that if we just pick immigrants that look like us, if they have the same mix of skills as us, there would be no benefit in this model, just the expanding the population. ok. to make this more concrete, let's look at the skill mix of immigrants and natives as it actually occurs. this is the division into very broad skill categories. immigrants who are over the past decade, the percentage of the black bars, and the natives who are shown in the gray bars, among college and non-college status. this is a broad distinction. there are skill differences within these broad categories, but a lot of economics research has shown this is like the most basic key skill measure that divides workers in the labor

market. college and non-college workers do very different things, and the labor market treats them as different types of workers. what this shows is a majority of u.s. workers, almost 60%, are college educated. in the standard model, it says we benefit from importing this scarce skills, the non-college workers, the less educated workers, and our immigration policy pushes in that direction. most immigrants are non-college educated. however, it does not push very strongly in that direction and as it turns out. if these bars were the same height, in this theory we would get no benefit from immigration, and we are not far from being there. in addition, inside this black bar are all or most of the

illegal immigrants who are not a part of the official immigration policy. if you take them out, our policy is less tilted toward producing benefits for the u.s. how does it work? to remind you, in theory, bringing in the -- bringing in these non-college workers, it will push down the wages of non- college workers, but push up the wages of everybody else, and since most of us are college educated in the u.s., the average native benefits. is that what actually happens in practice? do you see empirical support for this model? is that what actually happens? first you need to know two other things. it matters not just that the skill mix, but how many come. if they were all unskilled, they would not have much impact on the wage structure so there will not be benefit or cost. second, immigrants are not geographically uniformly spread.

immigrants are a lot more concentrated in some markets than others, and that is what we can use and economists often used to assess these models empirically. let's try that. the first thing we should see, if this is the way i am describing is correct, placed hat got more immigration to see for slower increases in college -- immigration pushes down the skill mix and makes us less college educated. indeed we see that. what i am showing is a circle in this data plot is a metropolitan area, the labor market, and on the x axis is the change in the share of foreign born over the last 10 years, the amount of immigration relative to the population. the y axis is the change in the share of college educated. placed that got more immigrants saw faster declines in college share or lower increases in college share, and places that

got less immigrants saw faster increases in college share. immigration is pushing down the average college education. immigrants are less educated. ok. unless you think that is a bad thing, i remind you in the standard model this produces benefits and indeed you see that. more foreign-born workers and increases in college share also saw faster wage growth for foreign born workers. native born workers who happen to live in cities who have bigger inflows of immigrants in the 2000's saw faster wage growth. that is the benefit of

immigration in the standard model. what about the cost? the people that are supposed to be hurt by this are the non- college worker, we are pushing down their wages as we add more non-college workers. when you write this up to the growth of wages of college and non-college, you do not see that negative effect. if you look at the left-hand bar, wage growth for non- college workers and the right- hand graph is for college workers, which are upward sloping, as the model predicts. you are not seeing that cost side of the equation, the non- college wages are not going down in the 2000's. i do not want to overstate this. you can work hard and rule out that immigrants are picking places that have faster wage growth using historical patterns of immigration and economists have tried to rule these things out. sometimes if you look another decades, you can find negative effects, but they tend to be

muted is the way i will summarize. they tend to be smaller than the theory would predict. what is going on? my view is that standard model is too simple, leaving out ways the labor market adapts. one of those ways is that firms can respond to immigration by changing the way they produce, they change their production technology. another thing that leaves out is immigrants and natives may not compete so head to head as might imagine. he worked in different occupations, and even immigrants and natives who looked the same. their production technology. the idea of this is that in response to an influx of low skilled workers, firms might develop more adopt reduction technologies which are more

intensive in unskilled labor. if you think about this, this will diminish the negative wage impact. firms find productive uses for more low skilled workers when there are more low skilled workers available. that is not as hard as you might think, because we live in a world where over time technology is becoming increasing skill demanding. i look at automation and the thing that is going on -- at manufacturing, and the main thing that is going on in manufacturing is that over time firms are automating their productioney adoptg

things like industrial robots, which essentially are replacing tasks previously by low skilled workers. in response to immigration, what i found is that firms simply adopt less of this new expensive machinery and employ instead. ok, and so in particular i used the strategy that i told you about, i compared firms who were located in areas that saw big influxes of low skilled workers due to immigration to firms in areas who did not, and that this depressed their adoption of automation technologies, and instead gave more job opportunities to low skilled workers. unless you think this has something to do with the kinds of firms that are located in high immigration areas, i have information on what these firms

were planning to do in terms of adoption of automation technologies are to the arrival of the immigrant. if you ask them what -- it is not retrospective, they interviewed the firms prior to this wave of immigration in the late 1980's, and their plans look the same for adoption of automation technology prior to the wave of immigration, but when the immigrants came in they shifted their plans, they shifted down their use of automation technology. onther thing that is going is that maybe immigrants and natives, even ones that look the same on paper to us, that have the same education, same work experience, they're not working in the same jobs. they are competing in different labor markets in some sense. if this is the case, and there is some evidence for it, the cost of immigration is going to be disproportionately borne by the immigrants themselves. if immigrants compete with other immigrants and less so with natives, what immigration will do is it will push down the wages of other immigrants, not relative to similarly skilled natives, and you actually see this. what this is, the x axis is increasing the amount of immigration in a transformed version for theoretical reasons,

basically to the right is more immigrants, and the y axis is now the growth in immigrants wages relative to similarly skilled natives. what this shows you his place as they got more, the wages of immigrants rob relative to similar skilled natives, and that tells you immigrants are the ones who are disproportionately hit by immigration relative to natives. what i found in my own research is this has something to do with the language skills of immigrants. when you break it up into immigrants with strong english and poor english, it is driven by the immigrants with poor english. this is shown here. immigrants who are poor at english, you do not see a downward trending relationship, and with no english skills, that is where you see the downward trend. to drive this point home, i looked at a special case, which

is puerto rico, and a lot of to drive this point home, i looked at a special case, which is puerto rico, and a lot of people do not know that puerto rico gets a lot of immigration, too, from latin america, and particular and what the difference in puerto rico, everybody speaks spanish, natives and immigrants. if you do the same graph, you do not see that downward sloping relationship. ok. there is other evidence that immigrants and natives do different things. it was mentioned work, where immigrants specialize in jobs which require less communication skills, essentially. that is consistent with that language story i told you. there is direct evidence where there is a lot of immigrants, the price of low skill services, which would be jobs that do not require a lot of communication,