[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
``WHY DON'T THEY JUST GET IN LINE?''
BARRIERS TO LEGAL IMMIGRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-18
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-890 WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair
ZOE LOFGREN, California JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., DARRELL ISSA, California
Georgia KEN BUCK, Colorado
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida MATT GAETZ, Florida
KAREN BASS, California MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island TOM McCLINTOCK, California
ERIC SWALWELL, California W. GREG STEUBE, Florida
TED LIEU, California TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington CHIP ROY, Texas
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida DAN BISHOP, North Carolina
J. LUIS CORREA, California MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon
LUCY McBATH, Georgia BURGESS OWENS, Utah
GREG STANTON, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MONDAIRE JONES, New York
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
CORI BUSH, Missouri
PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chair
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado, Vice-Chair
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington TOM McCLINTOCK, California,
J. LUIS CORREA, California Ranking Member
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas KEN BUCK, Colorado
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania CHIP ROY, Texas
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
BETSY LAWRENCE, Chief Counsel
ANDREA LOVING, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, April 28, 2021
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Citizenship from the State of California....... 1
The Honorable Tom McClintock, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee
on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of California.... 3
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of New York........................... 5
WITNESSES
John C. Yang, President and Executive Director, Asian Americans
Advancing Justice | AAJC
Oral Testimony................................................. 7
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
David J. Bier, Research Fellow, Cato Institute
Oral Testimony................................................. 24
Prepared Statement............................................. 26
Pareen Mhatre, Iowa City, IA
Oral Testimony................................................. 40
Prepared Statement............................................. 42
Robert Law, Director of Regulatory Affairs and Policy, Center for
Immigration Studies
Oral Testimony................................................. 48
Prepared Statement............................................. 50
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
An article entitled ``Immigrants Applying for Citizenship in
Houston Face High Wait Times,'' Houston Chronicle, submitted by
the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, a Member of the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Citizenship from the State of Texas for the
record......................................................... 74
Statement from Edgar Falcon, American Families United, submitted
by the Honorable Veronica Escobar, a Member of the Subcommittee
on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of Texas for the
record......................................................... 86
Items submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the
Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of
California for the record
A report entitled ``Immigrants are Vital to the U.S. Economy,''
from the Joint Economic Committee............................ 110
Statement from a coalition of ASISTA, Asian Pacific Institute
on Gender-Based Violence (API-GBV), Casa de Esperanza, and
Tahirih Justice Center....................................... 122
A report entitled ``Background and Barriers to Legal
Immigration,'' from the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC)....... 127
Statement from CASA, Gustavo Torres, Executive Director........ 136
Statement from the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights
(CHIRLA)..................................................... 139
Statement from the Federation of American Scientists (FAS)..... 143
Statement from Immigration Voice............................... 148
Statement from Improve The Dream............................... 152
Statement from the Microsoft Corporation....................... 157
Statement from the National Immigration Law Center (NILC)...... 161
Statement from the National Partnership for New Americans
(NPNA)....................................................... 166
Statement from the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and
Immigration.................................................. 171
Statement from the Public Defenders Coalition for Immigrant
Justice...................................................... 176
Statement from UnidosUS........................................ 180
Collection of Personal Statements From Members of Improve The
Dream........................................................ 187
Statement from Curtis Morrison and Rafael Urena, Attorneys at
Law.......................................................... 202
Statement from Dr. Kevin Kells................................. 205
Statement from Erika Orrantia.................................. 207
Statement from Gilbert Loredo.................................. 209
Statement from Jason Rochester, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters.................................................... 210
Statement from Maz Rostamian, Founding Member--Director of
``All Of Us''................................................ 213
Statement from Ramon Canaba, Jr., Retired Supervisory
Immigration Enforcement Agent, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement.................................................. 229
APPENDIX
Statements submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the
Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of
California for the record
Statement from the Federation of Malayalee Associations of
America (FOMAA).............................................. 232
Statement from the International Medical Graduate Taskforce.... 233
Statement from Save H4 EAD..................................... 237
Statement from Worldwide ERC................................... 241
Statement from the Association of Americans Resident Overseas
(AARO)....................................................... 243
Statement from Engine.......................................... 244
Statement from the Honorable Shelia Jackson Lee, a Member of the
Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of
Texas for the record........................................... 248
``WHY DON'T THEY JUST GET IN LINE?''.
BARRIERS TO LEGAL IMMIGRATION
Wednesday, April 28, 2021
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:12 p.m., via
Webex, Hon. Zoe Lofgren [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lofgren, Nadler, Jayapal, Correa,
Garcia, Escobar, Jackson Lee, Scanlon, McClintock, Buck, Biggs,
Roy, and Spartz.
Staff Present: John Doty, Senior Advisor; Moh Sharma,
Member Services and Outreach Advisor; Jordan Dashow,
Professional Staff Member; Cierra Fontenot, Chief Clerk; John
Williams, Parliamentarian; Betsy Lawrence, Chief Counsel;
Joshua Breisblatt, Counsel; Anthony Valdez, Professional Staff
Member; Ami Shah, Counsel.
Ms. Lofgren. The Subcommittee on Immigration and
Citizenship will now come to order, a quorum being present.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess
of the Subcommittee at any time. We welcome everyone to this
afternoon's hearing entitled, ``Why Don't They Just Get in
Line? Barriers to Legal Immigration.''
I'd like to remind Members that we've established an email
address and distribution list dedicated to circulating
exhibits, motions, or other written materials that Members want
to offer as part of our hearing today. If Members would like to
submit materials, please send them to the email address that
has previously been distributed to your office, and circulation
of the materials to Members and staff will be made as quickly
as possible.
I'd like to ask all Members to mute their microphones when
you're not speaking, to prevent feedback and other technical
issues. You can unmute yourself anytime you seek recognition.
Finally, before we begin, I ask unanimous consent that our
Judiciary Committee colleague, the gentlelady from North
Carolina, Ms. Ross, be permitted to participate in today's
Subcommittee hearing. Following the Committee's practice, Ms.
Ross will be allowed to question the Witnesses if she is
yielded time by one of the Members of the Subcommittee. I will
now recognize myself for an opening statement.
I'd like to welcome our Witnesses and the Members of the
Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee to today's hearing on
barriers to legal immigration. Today, we'll explore the
question, why don't they just get in line? For many, that
question can be answered in one of two ways: For some, there
simply is no line; and for others, the line is so long that
they will never get to the front.
The framework for our legal immigration system dates back
to 1952 and 1965, and was last updated more than 30 years ago.
In 1990, Congress established the worldwide numerical limits on
immigrant visas that still exist today, as well as the so-
called per-country cap which further limits the number of visas
that can be issued to nationals of any single foreign State.
This outdated framework is now failing our Nation.
Over the past three decades, the worldwide limits and per-
country cap have led to wait times that were unimaginable in
1990. Today, an estimated 3.8 million individuals are waiting
for a family-based immigrant visa, while approximately 1
million individuals wait for employment-based visas. Because of
the per-country cap, the wait times are particularly long for
individuals for countries with higher populations and higher
demand for visas such as India, China, and Mexico.
For example, today it takes 23 years for an unmarried son
or daughter of a U.S. citizen to receive a visa if they come
from Mexico. As most family-based immigrants wait outside the
United States for their visas to become available, families are
forced to remain apart for decades.
While most employment-based immigrants wait for a visa in
the United States, the hardships associated with the backlog
are different but still significant. The per-country cap has
had a huge impact on families from India and China who are
stuck in the backlog the longest, even though a person's
nationality has nothing to do with their merit as an employee.
For example, prospective employment-based immigrants can't
switch jobs without a new employer agreeing to file a petition
on their behalf. With limited mobility this can expose workers
to substandard working conditions or prevent them from
advancing up the professional ladder.
Further, the children of employment-based immigrants who
turn 21 before they reach the front of the line, age out of
dependent status and often green card eligibility. Despite
growing up here, to remain, they must independently qualify for
status on their own. If they're unable to do so, they must
return to a country that is quite literally foreign to them.
On top of these very significant limitations, laws passed
in 1996 that were intended to crack down on unlawful
immigration by forcing those without status to return home
have, instead, accomplished the opposite. IRCA established new
bars to inadmissibility creating a difficult catch-22 situation
for many who become eligible for a green card, but have
accumulated unlawful presence.
Certain individuals, including some spouses of U.S.
citizens, are ineligible to apply for a green card in the
United States, and instead must depart and apply to U.S.
Consulate abroad. It is the Act of departing itself that
triggers the bar for unlawful presence, which can keep families
apart for at least 3 or 10 years, and, in some cases,
permanently.
Not surprisingly, rather than risk a lengthy separation,
many families have, instead, chosen to remain together in the
U.S. According to a new report from the Pew Research Center, as
of 2017, undocumented immigrants have lived in the United
States an average of 15 years, up from just 7 years in 1959.
AILA also made changes to restrict the discretion of
immigration judges and adjudicators, making our immigration
laws even less flexible. Some bars to admissibility can't be
waived at all, even if the individual was very young when the
Act occurred or lacked the knowledge or intent to violate the
law. Laws that completely close off relief regardless of the
underlying circumstances don't protect our country and impose
needless hardships on American families by keeping them apart
or their loved ones forever in the shadows.
As lawmakers, it's incumbent upon us to fix those laws that
don't well-serve the United States. I think that there are many
aspects of these dated immigration laws that simply do not
well-serve the United States of America, nor do they
necessarily serve the purposes for which they were introduced.
I'll just give an example of the 3- and 10-year bar. I
remember the discussion so well. I was a Member of this
Committee at the time, as was our Chair, and my colleague,
Sheila Jackson Lee. Elton Gallegly, then a Congressman from
California, and Lamar Smith, then a Congressman from Texas,
promoted the idea of the 3- and 10-year bar as an effective
remedy to unpermitted entry to the United States. It was only
directed at those who were not inspected. It did not apply to
those who overstayed their visa.
We know, because from 1995 to today, there has been massive
uninspected entry to the United States, that this effort to
prevent that has simply failed. It serves no purpose today
other than to frustrate the law itself which promotes American
citizens being able to petition for their husbands and wives.
It's now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock,
for his opening statement. Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
If you'll recall, on March 4th, the Ranking Member of the
Full Committee, Mr. Jordan, along with all six Republican
Members of this Subcommittee, wrote to you requesting a hearing
on the border crisis that's been caused by President Biden's
decision to stop the MPP program, abandon the border wall, and
to execute [inaudible] faithfully execute the laws of the
United States.
We received no response. On March 12th, I reiterated that
request to you in a subsequent letter. Again, no response. I
wish to make that request to you once again. The situation is
deteriorating rapidly, and the implications for every American
community that will soon see its schools heavily impacted by
non-English-speaking students, its hospital emergency rooms
filled with illegal aliens demanding basic health services, and
its safety compromised as gangs proliferate, and as criminal
illegal aliens are released into our neighborhoods rather than
to be deported.
Worse than ignoring this crisis, the majority seems to be
working overtime to make it worse. In the last few weeks, the
House has moved legislation to make it harder to keep
terrorists out of the country, and harder to stop illegal
drugs, weapons, and other contraband from breaching our ports
of entry.
Now, we're holding this hearing aimed at flooding the labor
market with low-wage labor just at the time when working
Americans are trying to regain the prosperity that they were
enjoying under the Trump policies. Those policies secured our
border, and for the first time in decades, the income gap
between rich and poor began to narrow as blue-collar wages
surged.
Unemployment reached its lowest rate in 50 years, the
poverty rate plunged to its lowest rate in 60 years, and wages
recorded their strongest growth in 40 years. The labor
participation rate began to increase after decades of decline
as American workers, who had given up hope of work, began
seizing opportunities.
So, I hope the majority will listen very carefully to Mr.
Law's testimony. He'll tell us how flooding the market with
low-wage labor does enormous economic harm to working
Americans. He destroys the myth that the programs like the H-1B
and H-2B visas fill gaps in the American labor market. What
they actually do is to allow employers to fill positions and
wages substantially less than the domestic labor market would
otherwise come in.
Wealthy corporate interests get richer by paying less than
the Americans require to do these jobs. Immigrant labor gets
paid more than they could get in their own countries, and all
this at the expense of working Americans whose wages stagnated
for decades as the immigrant share of the population tripled.
As Mr. Law points out, it is the blue-collar American workers
who lose and lose big.
I particularly want to note this passage from his
testimony: There are no jobs Americans won't do. There are only
wages and working conditions that they are not willing to
accept for the work, nor should they. By refusing to offer
higher wages or conditions to entice Americans to come to work
for them, employers create a mirage of a labor shortage, and
point to importing foreign workers as the only solution.
Circling back to supply and demand, employers want to flood the
market with labor supply to drive down wages. That's the game
that they're playing.
A particular note is the optional practical training
program that allows foreign students to work here for 3 years
after graduation. Unlike their American classmates, they're
exempt from payroll taxes, making them much cheaper than
American graduates to hire. If your family's recent college
graduate can't find work, there's a simple reason.
It's not that these policies put foreign workers at parity
with American workers, they put American workers at a
considerable disadvantage competing for jobs and market wages
in their own country, and it's their own representatives that
are doing this to you.
The crisis at the border is beginning to awaken Americans
that their futures are very much at stake. Their simple ability
to make it in their own country is now being jeopardized by the
officials that they trust. I think it's why some of my
colleagues would rather virtue signal to each other about their
charity for strangers in a strange land than to fix our open
border and lax immigration laws so that we can restore the
American Dream for American families.
I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair of the Committee, Mr. Nadler, is now recognized
for an opening statement.
Chair Nadler. Thank you, Madam Chair.
With today's hearing, we explore an aspect of the
immigration system that is of great importance to millions of
U.S. citizens and aspiring Americans: Barriers to legal
immigration. It's important to remember that the immigration
debate in this country does not start and stop at the southern
border. We won't fix the system if we simply pump more money
into border security, or an ineffective wall. To truly fix the
system, we must update the legal immigration framework, and
restore discretion to forge pathways to permanent residence and
meet the needs of our country today.
Currently, more than 1 million individuals are stuck in the
employment-based immigrant visa backlog, and nearly 4 million
are waiting for a family-based visa. These backlogs exist, and
have grown longer each year, because our legal immigration
system has been frozen in time since 1990. The impact of these
long wait times can be devastating, particularly for those from
high-demand countries who wait the longest.
For example, today it takes nearly 25 years for certain
family-based immigrants to receive a visa. That's a quarter of
a century that many families must endure while separated from
their loved ones. Many employee-based immigrants must wait well
over a decade to reach the front of the immigrant visa line.
Although most of these individuals live and work in the United
States on temporary visas during that time, life-changing
events can have serious consequences.
For example, if the principal immigrant dies before a visa
becomes available, a risk that has become all too real during
the COVID-19 pandemic, the family Members will lose their
temporary status and be forced to leave the United States.
Similarly, children who turn 21 before reaching the front of
the green card line age out of eligibility for dependent status
and must find a way to qualify for status on their own.
Our immigration laws are also particularly harsh for
thousands of U.S. citizens whose spouses and children are
virtually shut out of the system with no means of obtaining
lawful status because of provisions that restrict or provide no
discretionary waivers of inadmissibility or deportability and
that provide arcane bars for unlawful presence.
Because of policies like these, far too many families have
been needlessly and cruelly separated for years. For example,
my constituent, Dr. Kevin Kells, has lived apart from his wife
for over 15 years. In 1998, before they met, Dr. Kells' wife
traveled to the United States to attend a high school
graduation party. She did not speak English, but the driver of
her car told the border officer that she was born in the United
States. Her record now shows that she made a false claim to
U.S. citizenship, and she is permanently barred from the United
States.
For Dr. Kells and his wife, there is no line to obtain a
green card or legal status, nor are there options for many
others, given the limited discretion of immigration judges and
officers to waive the consequences of past acts, even those
that were based on honest mistakes made decades ago.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the
impacts of the outdated immigration system and the reforms that
are needed to ensure the system works for, not against,
American families and businesses. I thank the Chair, Ms.
Lofgren, for her leadership on this issue and for holding this
important hearing. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
It's my understanding that the Ranking Member, Mr. Jordan,
does not wish to make an opening statement. If that's
incorrect, he should speak up now. If not, we will certainly
welcome his submission of a statement for the record.
It's now my pleasure to introduce today's Witnesses. John
Yang is the President and Executive Director of Asian Americans
Advancing Justice. In 1997, Mr. Yang cofounded the Asian-
Pacific American Legal Resource Center, a nonprofit
organization dedicated to addressing the needs of Asian-Pacific
Americans in the DC metropolitan area.
Previously, Mr. Yang was a partner with a law firm Wiley
Rein, LLP, and worked in Shanghai, China for a U.S. Fortune 200
company. Mr. Yang received his J.D. from George Washington
University Law School.
David Bier is a Research Fellow for immigration studies at
the Cato Institute, a nonpartisan public policy research
organization. Mr. Bier has nearly a decade of immigration
policy research working with the Niskanen Center and the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, in addition to the CATO
Institute.
From 2013-2015, Mr. Bier served as a Senior Policy Adviser
for Congressman Raul Labrador, then a Member of this Committee,
and later Chair of this Subcommittee.
Pareen Mhatre is a student of biomedical engineering at the
University of Iowa. Ms. Mhatre came to the United States when
she was 4 months old as a dependent on her mother's student
visa and has lived here ever since with her parents. Last
month, Ms. Mhatre turned 21, and aged out of her H-4 status.
Because of the immigrant visa backlog, she is now at risk of
separation from both her family and the only country she has
ever known.
Finally, Robert Law, who is the Director of Regulatory
Affairs and Policy for the Center for Immigration Studies. From
2017-2021, Mr. Law served first as Senior Policy Adviser, and
later as Chief of Office Policy and Strategy at U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services. He has a bachelor's
degree from the University of Virginia, and a J.D. from the
Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law.
Now, we welcome all our distinguished Witnesses. We thank
them for participating in today's hearing, and, as is
customary, I would like to swear in all our Witnesses. Please,
each of you, turn on your video and audio and make sure I can
see your face, and your raised right hand, while I administer
the oath.
Do you swear under penalty--or affirm, under penalty of
perjury that the testimony, you are about to give is true and
correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief,
so help you God? Please say yes. Yes, I do.
It is noted that all our Witnesses have taken this oath.
Please note that your testimony, your full written statement,
will be made part of the record in its entirety, and we do
accordingly ask you to summarize your testimony in about 5
minutes. To help you keep track of that time, there is a timer
on your screen, and we ask that you be attentive to it.
We will begin with you, Mr. Yang. Please help us with your
testimony.
TESTIMOMY OF JOHN C. YANG
Mr. Yang. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Chair
Lofgren, Ranking Member McClintock, Committee Chair Nadler, and
all the Members of the Committee. I appreciate this opportunity
to testify before all of you.
Asian Americans are acutely aware of the injustice of
living in and contributing to the United States economy and
society by always being treated as a so-called perpetual
foreigner. This concept has been enshrined in our laws at
different times with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the
incarceration of Americans of Japanese descent during World War
II.
As such, we advocate for citizenship for all people who
live and work permanently here in the United States. It should
not be lost that two-thirds of the Asian-American population
here in the United States are immigrants, that of our
immigrants, about 75 percent of the Asian-American immigrants
in recent years come through based on family-based visas, and
that about 40 percent of the current immigrants to the United
States come from Asia.
Now, these immigrants come through family-based system,
others did come through humanitarian, employment-based or
diversity visas and then they sponsor family Members. The
family system creates a built-in safety net for new immigrants.
Those who came before them helped new immigrants' relatives
find housing and jobs, learn English, successfully navigate a
foreign system to them, and eventually become United States
citizens and participate in our democracy.
Together, families pull capital and labor to buy homes,
start businesses, and create jobs. Immigrants accounted for 30
percent of all new entrepreneurs in 2014, despite only
comprising only 13 percent of the United States population.
Caretakers, who are predominantly women, do unpaid and
undervalued work that enables their family Members to work
outside the home. Our system is also in need of serious reform.
There are three basic answers to the question in the title
of today's hearing, which is ``Why don't they just get in
line?'' and some of this has been answered.
First, there is simply no line for some of our immigrants.
Many undocumented people and nonimmigrant visa holders simply
do not qualify for any existing immigrant pathways even though
they were invited here by our government, or they are here out
of status through no fault of their own. There are very few
employment visas available for lesser-skilled workers in labor
markets that desperately need workers, and even those with a
college degree.
Second, many immigrants are in line, but those lines are
far too long and snake around several blocks. There are around
4 million recorded family Members in line for green cards under
the family-based system even though that system, as a practical
matter, only has approximately 226,000 family-based visas
allocated per year.
The employment-based system is no different. As several
Members noted, there are approximately 1 million people waiting
in that backlog, even though there are only about 140,000
employments-based visas allocated per year.
Years of bureaucratic processing delays, these low
numerical limits, country caps, and Congress' inability to Act
and update the system to keep up with population growth and
labor market needs, has resulted in these extreme backlogs in
the green card programs, and some families wait for decades to
be reunited with their loved ones.
Look, and let's be clear, such long family separations are
harmful to families. People make life choices, including
foregoing marriages or education while they wait in these
lines, if they have a line at all. They have children abroad
who could've started their education here in the United States
rather than transitioning at an older age.
These delays are contrary to U.S. interests and, where
possible, we should encourage them to immigrate in their youth,
so they can invest in English, education, and job skills to be
successful.
Over half of the 1.1 million new green cards issued
annually go to people that are already living in the United
States, and the U.S. has not updated the family-based
immigration system, nor increased the annual number allocation
in over 30 years despite the fact that our U.S. population has
increased and is aging.
It's not lost on us that the Census Bureau just yesterday
announced that we had the lowest growth here in the United
States since the 1930s at 7.4 percent. So, in order for our
population to grow and survive and prosper, we do need more
immigrants in the system.
Finally, undocumented immigrants face other barriers to
adjusting their status. There are estimated 1.4 million
undocumented immigrants with U.S. citizen or legal permanent
resident spouses, and 3.4 million undocumented immigrants with
a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident child.
Finally, they face barriers to inadmissibility, as was
noted, the most notable being the 3- and 10-year bars. The
solution is easy, and that's why Advancing Justice, AAJC,
advocates for the passage of Congresswoman Chu's Reuniting
Families Act, Congresswoman Linda Sa'nchez's U.S. Citizenship
Act, in whole or in part, to solve these problems. These
provisions will create reasonable lines that we need to ensure
a vital America in the future.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Yang follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Yang.
Now, we would be happy to invite Mr. Bier for your
testimony. Welcome.
TESTIMOMY OF DAVID J. BIER
Mr. Bier. Chair Lofgren, Ranking Member McClintock, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity. After having worked as Senior Policy Adviser for a
Member and Vice Chair of this important Subcommittee, it is an
honor to be invited back to explain the challenges that
America's legal immigrants face.
The simple answer to the question that this hearing poses,
why don't immigrants get in line, is that immigrants cannot
legally get into line, that is, apply for legal permanent
residence on their own. U.S. legal immigration is based almost
exclusively on selection or sponsorship by the U.S. Government,
U.S. families, employers, or other sponsors. Thus, the question
could be restated: Why can't Americans let immigrants get into
the line? The answer to this question is that the government
effectively bans us from doing so.
Today, the only immigrants who can immigrate permanently
from abroad without numerical limits are the spouses, minor
children, and parents sponsored by adult U.S. citizens. All
other permanent immigration from abroad is either capped or
illegal, and the four capped categories aren't realistic
options for nearly all would-be immigrants.
First, is the diversity visa lottery which selects 55,000
immigrants from a pool of generally over 20 million applicants,
a 0.2 percent chance; second, is the refugee program, which
currently select just 15,000 refugees from nearly 20 million
refugees worldwide, even worse odds; third, other family
sponsored categories for only the closest relatives of U.S.
citizens and legal permanent residents, and here, the caps have
created a backlog of nearly 4 million applicants, with many new
applicants facing near 100-year wait times; and fourth,
employer-sponsored immigration. Foreign employees also face a
hard cap, also set by Congress in 1990, and half of that cap
ends up being used by their spouses and minor children.
Indian immigrants bear nearly the full burden of the low
overall employer-sponsored caps as a result of the per-country
caps, which limit immigrants from any single birthplace to no
more than 7 percent of the green cards issued. Indians are
about half the applicants, which means they end up being about
90 percent of those in the backlog. At the current rate of
issuances, it would take a new Indian applicant applying today
with a master's degree or less, at least 84 years to receive a
green card.
During this time, nearly 200,000 Indians already in line
today would die waiting, even assuming that they could stay in
line that long. Another 100,000 of their minor children already
waiting with them right now will age out of eligibility for
green cards based on their parents' application when they turn
21 and lose their chance at permanent residence altogether.
Even if you're not from India, it's effectively impossible
to obtain employer sponsorship for permanent residence while
you're not already in the country. This is because the
government takes between 2-3 years to process a case abroad.
That's far too long to fill an open position, and the result is
that almost all employer-sponsored immigrants must first obtain
an H-1B temporary work visa, come here and work for their
employers while the permanent residence process unfolds.
This is challenging for workers with college degrees
because the cap on the H-1B visa is just 85,000, and employers
petitioned for about 275,000 applicants last year. For workers
without a college degree, it's effectively impossible. There's
no year-round temporary work visa for them at all, so they are
shut out. That is it. Four options to obtain permanent
residence from abroad, and none are realistic for those
crossing the border.
When immigration is illegal, no one can claim surprise at
illegal immigration. The U.S. immigration system is far more
constrained today than in its past. Before 1924, the U.S.
allowed an annual rate of legal immigration as a share of its
population, more than double any recent year. Many years during
that time the rates were five times higher. That was when the
U.S. system had a viable line that most immigrants were
presumptively eligible for. Today, we have few eligible
categories, arbitrary caps, and endless waits. We can do
better.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Bier follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
Next, we will hear from Ms. Mhatre. Ms. Mhatre, you are
welcome to join us with your statement for 5 minutes.
TESTIMOMY OF PAREEN MHATRE
Ms. Mhatre. Chair Nadler, Chair Lofgren, Ranking Member
McClintock, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
giving me the opportunity to share my story with you today. My
name is Pareen Mhatre. I'm currently a third-year biomedical
engineering student minoring in business Administration at the
University of Iowa.
I'm also a member of Improve The Dream, a youth-led
advocacy organization bringing awareness for more than 200,000
children of long-term visa holders who face self-deportation,
even though we have grown up in the United States with a
documented status. I am one of these children. I am a
documented Dreamer.
I was born in India, and my parents brought me to
Cincinnati, Ohio, when I was 4 months old, in August 2000, as a
dependent on my mother's student visa. After a year, we moved
to Iowa City, Iowa. My parents completed multiple degrees at
the University of Iowa, and both parents started to work for
the university. My status changed to an H-4 dependent visa in
2008, and my parents' employer filed for a green card in 2012.
I was enrolled in the Iowa City Community School district
from K-12. Having lived in this country for virtually my whole
life, my roots are here in Iowa, and I am a Midwesterner. As I
grew up, I volunteered for many organizations in my community,
including the public library and the local hospital. I've been
part of teams that have competed in various STEM and student
journalism competitions at both State and national levels.
During my time at school, at every step of the way, I
formed relationships with teachers and students that have had a
lifelong impact on me. Ms. Riepe in elementary school, guided
me to lead. Mr. Norton, in middle school, gave me the
confidence in my math skills that would allow me to choose
engineering as my major. Mr. Gross, in high school encouraged
me to speak up on unjust issues.
Over the past 21 years, my parents and I have received help
and love from many wonderful people of this country, and we are
very grateful for it. At the same time, our hearts break when
we think of my future immigration status and that of many other
documented Dreamers. Due to the uncertainty of my situation, I
have been in constant fear for the past 5 years.
Despite living here my whole life and having, very
literally, grown up on my university campus, I am considered an
international student. After spending nearly my entire life
here, I am encountering the same hurdles as newly arrived
international students.
I am now a junior at the University of Iowa. My future goal
is to work in the STEM field to contribute to advancements in
medical devices. However, due to my status, the inability to
obtain internships has limited me in terms of acquiring the
professional experiences for my goals.
For the past 9 months, I've been awaiting approval for the
change of status to F-1 students. I also turned 21 less than 2
weeks ago, so I no longer have dependent status. I aged out of
the system. Unless my application is approved, I am not allowed
to enroll in classes in future semesters.
As a result of the barriers and the daily worry of my
situation, I have been diagnosed with clinical depression,
generalized anxiety disorder, and panic disorder. I've been
seeing a therapist for more than a year, because I've reached a
point where I could not cope alone, and I needed help.
If my application is denied, I will be immediately out of
status and will need to self-deport. My family will be torn
apart and our American Dream will vanish even though I am an
Iowan and American at heart.
Even if my application is approved, the odds are against
people like me. After completing my education, I would need to
obtain my own H-1B visa to be able to [inaudible], but only 31
percent of applicants were selected in 2020. Even after going
through the entire employment-based green card process, I will
be at the back of the line. People say, just get in line and
apply for citizenship. The truth is, there is no viable line
for me and the thousands of documented Dreamers.
My journey might sound unique, but more than 200,000
children share my story. Anagh will age out and face self-
deportation in 9 months. Hudi (ph) will face deportation in 7
months. Trishdy (ph) will face self-deportation in 5 months.
Members of Improve The Dream are grateful for our voice being
recognized with our inclusion in the recently passed Dream and
Promise Act.
Chair Lofgren, we are extremely thankful to you for this
positive change, and hope that going forward, all solutions for
Dreamers will include documented Dreamers like us. However, we
hope that this Committee will also work to permanently end
aging out and address the root causes of this issue.
Chair Nadler, Chair Lofgren, and Ranking Member McClintock
and the Members of the Subcommittee, please consider the
thousands of children and families who have had hopes in
pursuing the American Dream, but are being torn apart, despite
maintaining a documented status. This land of the free, this
beautiful and generous Nation is our home. I hope you can
improve the dream for all of us who only want a chance at the
American Dream.
Thank you so much for your time today, and I look forward
to answering any questions you may have.
[The statement of Ms. Mhatre follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Ms. Mhatre. We will actually make
an inquiry of the Department about the status of your
application. I don't understand why you have not heard back, so
hopefully, that will help get an answer to you.
Now, we will turn to Mr. Law for your 5 minutes of
testimony. Welcome, sir.
TESTIMOMY OF ROBERT LAW
Mr. Law. Thank you. While the topic of our Nation's lawful
immigration system and the impact it has on the wages and job
opportunities for Americans is an important one, a sovereign
Nation must enforce the laws on the books, otherwise the rules
become moot. The ongoing and worsening crisis at the southern
border should temper consideration of any expansive legal
immigration reforms.
The United States is the greatest country in the world, so
it is unsurprising that billions of people from around the
globe would relocate to America if they could. This presents a
binary policy choice: Either allow unlimited immigration or set
annual numerical limits. Unlimited immigration is not feasible
and numerical limits or caps are not barriers, but instead, the
rules under which our legal immigration system operates.
Because the American people are the true stakeholders in
U.S. immigration policy, the system should not operate in a way
that harms American workers. Every year, the United States
awards 1 million new green cards, and allows in approximately
700,000 temporary foreign workers, generally without any
analysis of whether there is any significant economic or labor
need.
There is ample evidence that the current high levels of
legal immigration, both permanent and temporary, negatively
affect the wages and opportunities for certain Americans. With
our predominantly family-based immigration system, only about
15 percent of green cards are awarded in a given fiscal year on
the basis of merit. The result is that an overwhelming number
of immigrants, including those who subsequently become
naturalized U.S. citizens, are less educated and lower skilled
than the general native-born American population.
Though this is not a reason to cast a negative light on any
of these aliens, we should, however, consider whether we are
adequately addressing the problems of U.S. citizens, education,
unemployment, poverty, before welcoming even more people who
are likely to struggle with the same issues.
The oversupply of workers at the bottom of the labor market
reduces wages and job opportunities for Americans at that
level. Specifically, the Americans who lose out due to mass
immigration tend to be those without a college degree,
including African Americans and other minorities, the young,
and the disabled. These Americans are usually the last to enter
the workforce during an economic boom, and the first to be let
go during economic downturns.
On the other hand, lower wages translate to higher incomes
for business executives and larger profits for corporations.
The rich get richer, immigrants receive higher wages than they
would for the same work in the home country, and lower-skilled
Americans disproportionately suffer.
As the National Academy of Sciences found in 2016, the
lower wages paid to immigrant workers translates to
approximately $54 billion a year in lost income for
marginalized American workers. Put another way, mass low-
skilled immigration fuels income inequality and causes
significant wealth transfer from blue-collar Americans.
A common refrain from businesses and proponents of high
levels of immigration is that our country needs immigrants
because there are supposedly jobs that Americans will not do.
The data clearly refutes that, with only 6 of 474 unique
occupations being majority immigrant. This flawed premise
should be dispensed with, as Chair Nadler himself said during
an October 2017 immigration bill markup.
Or consider these words from Jared Bernstein, former Chief
Economic Adviser to then-Vice President Biden, quote,
``Employers are very quick to raise the specter of a labor
shortage, but often it's another way of saying they can't find
the workers they want at the price they're paying. They are
unwilling to meet the price signal the market is sending so
they seek help in the form of a spigot like immigration,'' end
quote.
Due to mass legal immigration, Pew reports that the real
wages of noncollege-educated Americans have stagnated or
declined over the past 40 years. It took a decade for wages of
hourly workers to return to pre-Great Recession levels, and
American workers across the board still have not recovered from
the crippling effects of the economic downturn caused by COVID-
19. It is not unreasonable to wonder if these marginalized
Americans will ever recover with government policies that flood
the labor market with cheap foreign labor.
In closing, I note that the mid 1990s Jordan Commission,
named after former Congresswoman and civil rights icon Barbara
Jordan, warned about all this, quote, ``Immigration policy must
protect U.S. workers against unfair competition from foreign
workers with an appropriately higher level of protection to the
most vulnerable in our society,'' end quote.
One last quote, ``The Commission is particularly concerned
about the impact of immigration on the most disadvantaged
within our already resident society, inner-city youth, racial
and ethnic minorities, and recent immigrants who have not yet
adjusted to life in the U.S.,'' end quote. It is long past time
for Congress to heed the recommendations of the Jordan
Commission. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Law follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. Thanks to all our Witnesses for
your testimony. Now is the time when Members of the
Subcommittee can ask questions of the Witnesses for up to 5
minutes. I'll turn first to the Ranking Member, Mr. McClintock,
for his questions. Mr. McClintock, you are recognized.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Law, to hear the Democratic witnesses, immigration
slowed to a trickle. Yet, you pointed out that currently, the
United States issues over 1 million green cards per year and
over 43 million immigrants was able to obtain lawful permanent
residency status since the 1965 Act. You point out in your
written testimony that the number of immigrants in the United
States has gone from 9.6 million in 1970 to 44.9 million in
2019, a nearly 4\1/2\-fold increase.
You point out that the immigrant share of U.S. population
has nearly tripled over this time period from 4.7 percent to 13
percent, and that the United States admits more immigrants per
year with a path to citizenship than the rest of the world
combined. That doesn't sound like a trickle to me. What am I
missing?
Mr. Law. Thank you, sir. No, the only trickle, of course,
would be this last year which, of course, the entire world shut
down due to COVID-19. Any suggestion otherwise that immigration
has been shut out, more specifically, within the Trump
Administration, is simply not true.
During the previous Administration, legal immigration,
meaning green cards, continued to average just slightly over 1
million a year. That has been consistent with more recent
historical norms. Any form of temporary worker programs, such
as the aforementioned H-1B or H-2B programs, those caps have
been met. In fact, the H-2B supplemental authority that
Congress delegated was utilized numerous times by prospective
DHS Secretaries. So, it's just simply not true. It's
intellectually dishonest to suggest that legal immigration was
shut out at any time under the Trump Administration.
Mr. McClintock. Well, we have heard about long wait times.
Now, Gallup polling estimates that from their polling data,
just in Latin America and the Caribbean, there are 42 million
people wanting to come to the United States, let alone from the
rest of the world. Aren't the wait lists the national
consequence of the simple fact that not everybody who wants to
come to the United States can come to the United States?
Mr. Law. Yes, thank you. As I mentioned in my opening
remarks, we're really posed with just two choices: You either
have unlimited immigration, which our country legitimately
cannot sustain. Our borders cannot contain the entire world's
population, and as great of a Nation as we are, it's
unsurprising that everybody would want to come here. We don't
have the space and we certainly don't have the economy to cover
everybody.
Regarding the green cards, so, therefore, we have
respective limits that Congress has set in place. When there is
a higher demand than there is the available amount of green
cards, there is not a backlog as has been often
mischaracterized. It is, in fact, a wait list. That's exactly
what that means. You have to wait until your number becomes
available. A backlog suggests basically government ineptitude
in delayed processing.
There's no amount of expeditious processing that the
government could do to approve all the green cards,
particularly for what is called the oversubscribed nations.
There is a limit that Congress has put in place, and for those
who aren't able to get in because of those limits, they simply
are just waiting their turn. It's not a backlog. It is a wait
list, and that distinction is very critical to understand.
Mr. McClintock. The per-country cap on green cards, without
that, wouldn't it mean that the largest countries would then
claim all the slots? Isn't a per-country cap designed assure
that citizens of every country have a shot at those slots?
Mr. Law. Absolutely. The 1952 immigration system had a
national origin quota system that we did away with in the 1965
Act. Having per-country caps was a very thoughtful decision
that said, we value diversity in our immigrant population. We
don't want populous countries or large-sending countries to
capture all the green cards at the expense of nationals from
every other country in the world. In recent--go ahead.
Mr. McClintock. I was going to say, we heard one Democratic
Witness recommend that we start by removing the per-country
limits, but ultimately, we should remove the worldwide limits--
all the worldwide limits on family and employment-based
immigration entirely. What would that mean for working American
families?
Mr. Law. I mean, if we were to disregard all forms of
immigration limits and the entire world's population came to
the United States, there are very few Americans that would find
themselves employed, or certainly having the same types of
wages and opportunities that they currently have. I mean, it's
simple supply and demand.
With respect to the per-country caps, while it does appear,
just by a quick reading of the statute, to be limited to 7
percent, there is actually a carve-out provision that when the
lower-sending countries don't utilize their allotment, higher-
sending countries do get more of that.
When it comes to India, they are currently getting 25
percent of the green cards available in a given fiscal year. If
you disregard per-country caps, Indian nationals will take at
least 90 percent of the green cards for the next decade. What
that means is, you don't have diversity in the immigrant
population, and you have now injected waits to everybody else
in the world just to cater to one particular population.
Mr. McClintock. I see my time is expired. Thank you very
much for your testimony.
Mr. Law. Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair of the Committee, Mr. Nadler, is now recognized
for 5 minutes.
Chair Nadler. Thank you.
Mr. Bier, in 1996, Congress enacted what has become known
as the 3- and 10-year bars. You discussed in your testimony how
harsh these bars are, how limited the waivers are, and the
impact they have on millions of individuals. Can you discuss in
more detail just how these bars work and why, in your view,
they need to be replaced?
Mr. Bier. Thank you for that question. Under the bars,
anyone with a year of illegal presence in the United States
cannot reenter the country legally for 10 years, and this is
essentially one of the most counterproductive enforcement
measures that Congress has ever enacted.
As a result of the bars, if someone is trying to get right
with the law, and that should be the goal of our immigration
enforcement system, is that we should have a process for people
to correct the mistakes that they made, and go home and get an
immigrant visa and come back. Under this system, you are barred
even if you are eligible for status, which means, you have
created an incentive in the law to continue to maintain illegal
presence in this country, and not return home and correct your
mistake.
So, what we've seen is people stay, despite being eligible
for a green card, many of them end up being deported, and then
you're subject to a permanent bar on reentry. Then you have a
situation today, right now, where Border Patrol is apprehending
tens of thousands of parents of U.S. citizens who are crossing
the border illegally, even though they could be eligible for a
green card if not for the bars that the law subjects them to.
So, it has completely backfired, and it hasn't worked out
at all how the authors of that law expected it to.
Chair Nadler. Thank you.
Mr. Yang, in your opening statement, you discuss the need
to protect and reform family-based immigration, which has been
the bedrock of our immigration system since 1965. Can you
discuss some of the obstacles that U.S. citizens and green card
holders face when they try to sponsor family Members through
our legal immigration system?
Mr. Yang. Thank you for that question, Chair Nadler. The
main obstacle is with respect to the wait times. Because of the
limited number of family-based visas that are available, family
Members end up--United States citizens trying to sponsor family
Members often have to wait several years, if not decades, for
them to be able to bring over their family Members. If you're
talking about nationals from Mexico, Philippines, India, China,
or the Philippines, those waits could be upwards of 20 years or
more.
Now, why is that important? Because we want to unify family
Members here in the United States to provide that social safety
network for those people to prosper. Those people are doing any
sort of different, oftentimes undervalued work to help
Americans succeed in business, to help Americans create
businesses, help Americans to innovate.
That's why the family-based immigration system works,
because it creates that entire network that values how our
system is constructed, and values all of these different pieces
that aren't simply based on merit, or based on existing wealth
that would contribute to the American economy.
Chair Nadler. Thank you.
Ms. Mhatre, can you describe to the Subcommittee what you
want to do with your degree in biomedical engineering if you're
able to stay in the United States and obtain a green card?
Ms. Mhatre. Thank you for that question. Like I stated, I
would like to help improve the healthcare system by advancing
medical devices, and, most importantly, I want to give back to
the community that has supported me and my family for the past
almost 21 years now. I realized I wanted to do this because of
my volunteering experience at the hospital.
I was not only exposed to the hospital environment, but
also to the way physicians use various types of equipment and
devices to treat patients, and I want to use this experience,
and as well as my degree, to help contribute to these
advancements in the medical field, and hopefully help increase
the quality of life for patients and just be a productive
member of the society.
Chair Nadler. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Buck would be next, but I think he has had to step
away, so we will turn to Mr. Biggs for his questions. Mr.
Biggs, you're recognized.
Mr. Biggs. I thank the Chair for recognizing me and
appreciate all our Witnesses being here.
I am, however, once again, disappointed that we're not
having a hearing on the actual border crisis. While legal
immigration is important to our country, the most important
issue, in my opinion, that this Subcommittee should be
addressing is the border security.
The current crisis was created by the Biden Administration
and our Democrat friends in Congress. President Biden ended
successful policies and programs that were put in place by the
Trump Administration, and then brought the southern border
under operational control, generally. Democrats in Congress
continue to promise amnesty to those who have broken our laws.
They continue to provide incentives and draws for people from
all over the world to enter our country illegally.
When it comes to legal immigration, we're the most generous
Nation in the world, despite the COVID-19 pandemic. For
instance, in fiscal year 2020, more than 700,000 people
received a green card, and more than 620,000 individuals were
naturalized. In fiscal year 2019, more than 1 million
individuals received green cards, and more than 840,000
individuals were naturalized.
In fiscal year 2019, there were more than 186 million
nonimmigrant alien admissions to the United States. That
included over 440,000 H-2A visa admissions, and over 129,000 H-
2B admissions and over 1.8 million student admissions.
According to USCIS data, as of September 30, 2019, there were
more than 583,000 aliens authorized to work in the United
States under the H-1B visa classification.
By any stretch of the imagination, by any rational look at
this, you cannot say that the United States is squeezing out
immigrants, when instead, we're the most generous Nation in the
world for immigration. So, Mr. Law, my first question is for
you. What impact would reinstating the MPP have on the current
crisis?
Mr. Law. Thank you. MPP was one of the--or remain in
Mexico, as it is sometimes referred to as--was one of the most
visionary aspects of the Trump Administration's efforts to
control the border and deter fraudulent, frivolous, and
otherwise nonmeritorious asylum claims filed by economic
migrants. The way that MPP works is if you are inadmissible,
you must wait in Mexico if you are non-Mexican until you have
your court hearing.
The number one goal of economic migrants is to simply be
let into the country, at which point they oftentimes disappear,
or, in many cases, are actually given work permits while they
wait out their court dates. Very few of them actually meet the
statutory requirement of the humanitarian protection that we
call asylum, so MPP actually does control the border.
Mr. Biggs. So, Mr. Law, how many aliens are currently in
the United States waiting their asylum claim to be adjudicated
by USCIS or EOIR?
Mr. Law. Thank you, sir. It's my understanding, based off
of the fiscal year 2021 refugee report that the State
Department submitted, which takes into account and recognizes
that our humanitarian efforts are both refugee from abroad and
asylum here at home, and we have to address both. That USCIS
has approximately 598,000 asylum applications that they are
dealing with, and that EOIR for the Department of Justice has
approximately 549,000 on their docket.
Mr. Biggs. So, what percentage of aliens who actually
express fear at the border ultimately file an asylum claim?
Mr. Law. So, this is an important point. The claiming of
credible fear tends to have been the ticket into the country.
That does not mean that you are granted asylum, it just means
you have met the first threshold. Once that claim has been
made, only 62 percent are subsequently turning around and
actually seeking in this country.
Mr. Biggs. So, in 20 years--in fiscal year 2020 through
quarter three, what percentage actually was adjudicated as
having a credible fear claim?
Mr. Law. Credible fear is a rather higher number. Then when
you look at actual asylum grants, which is it the more
important measure, it's only approximately 15 percent.
Mr. Biggs. Right, and I have got--that's, roughly, right
all the way back to fiscal year 2013. What happens to those
whose claims are not granted?
Mr. Law. Well, oftentimes, they are not removed from this
country. They should be. Just given the sheer volume of it, and
the limited enforcement resources that ICE has, very, very few
actually get removed. That, again, just further complicates the
system and just fuels the next caravan of economic migrants.
Mr. Biggs. I see my time has expired. I thank the
gentlelady. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. The gentlelady from Washington, Ms.
Jayapal, is now recognized.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to our
Witnesses for being here today. I am here today as the only
Member of this Committee to actually have been on an F1 student
visa.
When I was 16 years old, my parents sent me by myself with
their last $5,000 so that I could get the best education and
the most opportunities here in the United States. It was a
tremendous sacrifice for them, and we still live on different
continents. I spent a good chunk of my life on an alphabet soup
of visas.
After I graduated from college, I transitioned to a
practical training visa, and then back to a student visa for
graduate school, and then to an H-1B visa before eventually
obtaining legal permanent resident status or a green card
through marriage to a U.S. citizen.
My journey to citizenship, like so many other immigrants,
was almost thwarted entirely by life. In 1995, I received a 2-
year fellowship to go back to my birth country of India. To
maintain my green card, I had to return to the United States
once a year. I carefully planned the timing so that I could
return home to the United States for the final trimester of my
pregnancy, and be within those rules, but then I developed a
leak in my amniotic sack that endangered the life of both me
and my child.
I had an emergency C-section at 26\1/2\ weeks in India and
spent months at my child's bedside in the ICU, praying and
doing everything I could for their survival. That also meant I
was unable to return to the United States within my year
window, and I lost my legal status, even though my husband and
now my child were both U.S. citizens.
The then-Immigration and Naturalization Service was not
concerned with the real-life decision I had to make to stay in
India for the safety of me and my child when it revoked my
legal status, and it was only after enormous advocacy from my
family and my fellowship that I was able to get my permanent
resident status reinstated and reenter the country with my
family, only to have to start from scratch with my green card,
and wait another 3 years to get my citizenship.
Once I finally became a citizen after 17 years of living in
the United States, I desperately wanted to bring my parents
here to be with me and their grandchild. They were elderly, and
it was unfair to uproot them from their community, especially
with the additional time it would take to join me through
family sponsorship.
I tell this story because it is really important that we
think about how tough our immigration system is to navigate,
and how families are kept apart, and how this story, just like
the stories of our Witnesses today, are just a few of the many
stories that are out there.
So, is Ms. Mhatre, thank you for being here today and for
sharing your story; one that is all too common and very
heartbreaking. Now, I understand that you have aged out of
eligibility for an
H-4 visa, the visa for spouses and children of H-1B visa
holders. Can you just quickly share why that visa was so
critical to you and your family?
Ms. Mhatre. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman. The
H-4--the dependent visa is the only thing that's kept me and my
family together for 21 years. I have been in the United States
since I have been 4 months old. I have gone to school here. My
parents and I have built a life here in our community. So, it
was really terrifying to think about the fact that once I
turned 21, I would lose my H-4 visa, and there was a chance
that I couldn't be on the same continent as my parents. This
feeling is still pertinent today.
Because I have aged out, I don't know if my applications
will be approved. My future is really uncertain. I may have to
leave the only place I call home.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. Mr. Bier, can someone like Ms.
Mhatre follow all the rules and still lose their H-1 status?
Mr. Bier. Absolutely. Losing your H-4 status is built into
being a dependent of an H-1B worker. As soon as you turn age
21, you can lose your status. Ultimately, this is a component
of the immigration system throughout. You can lose your status
even if you do everything right. We have seen in recent months
how 91,000 spouses who are on an H-4 visa also lose their
status and lose their work authorization because of delays at
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. So, we already
talked about how these delays are impacting individuals. At the
end of the day, many people are losing status in this country,
despite following every Rule laid out for them in the law.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. Very quickly, Mr. Yang. In December
alone, women accounted for over 85 percent of jobs lost, and
Black, Hispanic, and Asian women accounted for all women's jobs
lost that month. How does the experience of the H-4 workforce
fit into this, and why is it so particularly devastating right
now?
Mr. Yang. Thank you for that question. Very briefly, 95
percent of H-4 visa holders are women, and at least 98 percent
of them come from Asian countries. Because of some of these
bureaucratic delays, as well as the COVID-19 problem, some of
them have fallen out of status. If that results in a job loss
to get back into the economy, and at the level that they were,
they're losing literally a year or 2 years in their ability to
be promoted and succeed in the business environment.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired. We will now
turn to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy, for his questions.
Mr. Roy. Well, I thank the Chair. Can you hear me okay,
Madam Chair?
Ms. Lofgren. Yes, I can.
Mr. Roy. Okay. I am in front of this building hear in Texas
between events, and so I apologize. Hopefully, my signal stays
strong. I appreciate all the guests here today joining us, all
the Witnesses, and the opportunity to have this hearing. The
one question that I have--and I think that my friend from
Arizona, Mr. Biggs, raised one of these questions. Mr. Law, I
think you and he had an exchange along these lines. I want to
make sure I heard it correctly. How many people are in the
United States right now, legally, we are admitting over a
million people a year. Is that correct?
Mr. Law. That's correct. One million permanent resident
green cardholders a year.
Mr. Roy. How long have we been at, roughly, that clip? I
mean, by my account, it means somewhere close to a decade. Is
that right? I mean, certainly, 5 years or more?
Mr. Law. It's longer than a decade. Probably going on close
to 20 years. There's only been a few years where the numbers
were lower than 1 million a year, and they were still in the
high 800,000s or low 900,000s. None of those years, of course,
occurred under the Trump Administration. So, this notion that
legal immigration was shut down is just completely not
intellectually honest.
Mr. Roy. Right. So, putting aside for a moment some of the
issues my colleagues are raising--and all of which we all want
an immigration system that works smoothly. I've had numerous
friends over the years who have sought, tried to come to the
United States. I had a teammate of mine at the University of
Virginia, who was the first Black to win the South African
Open. It was a big deal in golf, as you can imagine, post-
apartheid South Africa. He and some of my other friends, and
another friend from Zimbabwe were trying to get into the
country. It was all very difficult for my friends.
Your point, I think that is important, is that we still
have a million-plus who are coming into our country every year.
Do you know, Mr. Law, how many people are admitted to other
countries around the world each year? That's a big question. I
realize that. Do you have any idea?
Mr. Law. Sure, so I don't have an itemized breakdown, but
it's my understanding that the rest of the world combined
offers what is equivalent of our green card or permanent
immigration status. Combined it is less than what we do on an
actualized basis.
Mr. Roy. Yeah, and I actually would love the answer to that
from you or any of the other Witnesses at the end of this
hearing. I will ask my staff to look at it, but I don't have
the exact number. It's something like that, right? I mean, I'm
not trying to minimize the importance of perfecting our
immigration system. The point of Mr. Biggs was in welcoming a
million people legally a year in the United States of America.
Meanwhile, to the best of my understanding, correct me if
these numbers are correct, we had 170,000 in March along our
southern border, about a little over 100,000 in February,
another 70-something thousand in January, and we're waiting on
the April numbers right as the month of April here winds down,
we'll get the April numbers. We're pushing upward of half a
million for over the first 4 weeks of this calendar year. Does
that sound right in terms of apprehensions at our southern
border?
Mr. Law. I lost you a little bit, but I believe if you are
referencing the border apprehension numbers, yes, it was
roughly, I believe, 78,000 in January, up to 101,000 in
February, which is a 15-year high, and then it ballooned to
172,000 in March. All bucking the historical trend of border
apprehensions going down at this time a year.
Mr. Roy. Right. I believe we will be pushing half a million
here by the end of April. We'll see what the numbers are for
April when we get that report. Also, that does not account from
what we call got-aways. Right? It doesn't account for the
people coming in between the ports of entry or between who are
getting through at the ports of entry. For example, in the Del
Rio Sector alone, we know there were in the last month in
March, there was 26,000 cameras had caught movement of activity
of individuals moving across the border of 26,000. That's just
the Del Rio Sector. In other words, there are certainly tens of
thousands of people that are able to get into our country
between the ports of entry and illegally not being apprehended.
Do you understand that to be correct?
Mr. Law. That's correct. You will never truly understand
what the real denominator is because some are captured by
camera, as you referenced, others are just simply missed and
are particularly good at coming across the border. So, yes, the
border apprehension is just a snapshot of overall larger,
illegal alien population coming across the border.
Mr. Roy. Okay. Madam Chair, I don't have a clock ticker on
my thing, but I want to be mindful of time. I don't know where
I am for the 5 minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. Your time is up.
Mr. Bier. Congresswoman, could I answer your question
really quick about the share of immigrants that come to the
United States out of the share of all immigrants? Because it's
actually only 10 percent of all immigrants worldwide come to
the United States in the last 10 years. So, 10 times as many
immigrants are going to other countries than are coming to the
United States. So, it's not correct that the United States
allows more immigrants here than the rest of the world
combined. That's just not correct.
Mr. Roy. Okay. Well, we can get back--Mr. Bier, we can get
that number. I think what my point was going to be, whatever
the number is, we bring in a substantial portion of the
immigrants around the world of 7-point X billion people around
the world. We have a substantial portion of that coming into
the United States. I would like to know if you can confirm the
number on that? As you said, maybe we have 10 percent, and that
means 10 million are immigrating into the country, and we have
a million of them. Okay. That's fine. I will accept that. We'll
go look it up. My main point is when we say we're kicking the
lion's share. I would look to then see that list compared to
every other country, itemized country by country. I would like
to know then what that means in terms of overall burden and
costs of us having a system to do all that. I think these are
important questions for us to understand.
The only other question I have for Mr. Law, and I will wind
down.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired, so if you
could wrap up.
I don't want to cut you off prematurely, but your time has
expired, so let's wrap it up quickly, if you could.
Mr. Roy. Okay. Understood, and I appreciate that
graciousness. Quick question, Mr. Law. Do you believe it to be
true that the increase in illegal immigration under the power
of the cartels in our southern border is hampering legal
immigration? Because the cartels are looking to funnel their
traffic through their operations versus our normal legal paths?
Mr. Law. That is a complicated question, in a short amount
of time I go over. Typically, the whole situation of border and
immigration system, they interplay against each other, their
burdens, we give and take on the whole thing. Any activity that
encourages cartels and coyote behavior is problematic.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. The gentleman's time has more than
expired.
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lofgren. We will turn now to Mr. Correa for his
questions. Lou, it is your time.
Mr. Correa. Can you hear me okay, Madam Chair?
Ms. Lofgren. Yes, we can, Lou. Go ahead.
Mr. Correa. Thank you very much. First, let me thank you
for holding this most important. I want to thank our Witnesses
for being here today. Let me say that hearing this discussion
reminds me of the debate we have been having 40-50 years, maybe
100 years throughout the history of this country.
At the end of the day, we are a country of immigrants, I
don't think there's any other place in the world that you can
point to and say you are a country of immigrants. A little
secret here, essentially, we're all riffraff. We've all come to
this country because our own country didn't want us there, so
that's why we came to America with nothing but our dreams and
our ability to work hard.
Mr. Bier, I wanted to talk a little bit about the labor
stats, because about a year ago, I got a call from a lobbyist
representing the poultry business. He was calling me because I
was in this Committee and wanted my help. He told me a story
where down in Deep South, 600 poultry workers had gotten
deported, bringing the whole poultry industry, the whole county
to a standstill, the economy. He told me, he said, ``Lou, we
can't get workers.'' He said, ``It's not about wages.'' He
said, ``they're all Members of the food and commercial--United
Food and Commercial Workers Union. We just can't get people to
come in and do these jobs.''
You think about the comments that we make today, and I
guess you look at numbers, and you can do whatever you want to
do with numbers. In California, the fifth largest economy in
the world, heavily dependent on immigrants, skilled and
unskilled.
We are going through a pandemic. We talk about the
unemployment numbers. I went out there and I visited farm
workers, working under in what we could call dangerous
conditions. Nonetheless, they were working to feed us under
these conditions. You look at Silicon Valley, the
pharmaceutical industry, the medical device industry, what
would we do without skilled and unskilled workers? Do we have a
labor shortage in this country? What is going on? Do these
immigrants hurt Americans? Please, Mr. Bier.
Mr. Bier. No, they absolutely do not hurt Americans. It was
said that there's no job an American won't do. That's certainly
true. When it comes to farm labor, meat and poultry processing,
and other industries, there is no unemployed Americans who are
seeking out these jobs.
In fact, a study was done of farm workers in North
Carolina, for example. At the height of the recession in North
Carolina in 2011, there were more than 500,000 unemployed North
Carolinians. The H-2A program advertised to those jobs at the
prevailing wage for multiple months to those unemployed
Americans. And only 7 of those applicants, U.S. workers,
actually came on and stayed throughout the entire season. So,
there is a need for foreign workers to come in and fill some of
these slots.
Under the H-2B program, we see the same thing. We have
100,000 labor-certified, Department of Labor-certified
positions that are unfilled right now that need workers, and
yet, we're hearing that we don't have any way to get them into
the country. So, it's a major issue right now. Right now, some
of the numbers are out of date. Today, we have more open jobs
in this country than before the start of the pandemic.
So, yes, unemployment is high, but, guess what, we're still
in the middle of the pandemic. Many people are still afraid to
go out to work. Immigrants are willing to go out and work these
jobs, and we should let them, because it's harmful to our
economy not to allow it.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Bier. Very quickly, Ms. Mhatre,
I wanted to ask you, you're an individual that America needs.
You come, you educate yourself in the STEM area, a scientist
and healthcare worker. These are the areas that America has the
edge on technology. We make the best pharmaceuticals, the best
medical instruments, and the best medicine. This is where I see
your role. The doctors at the local hospital--a lot of them are
immigrants. Yet, we have this issue of not letting you into a
country. Why in God's name would we take somebody smart like
you, intelligent like you, give you all this education, all
this training, and then tell you, thank you very much, thank
you, but go away, we don't want you anymore? I just think it's
crazy. What do you think? Could you enhance our country with
your skills? Thank you.
Ms. Mhatre. Thank you so much for your kind words. I just
want to say I am very grateful for the opportunities that I
have that my university has given me. However, it hurts when I
am not able to fulfill my goals or give back to the community
that has done so much for me.
Mr. Correa. Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Spartz is next, but the rules require, Ms. Spartz, for your
camera to be on. Could you please turn on your camera and be
recognized for your questions? Ms. Spartz? There you are. You
are now recognized.
Ms. Spartz. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's
a very important conversation, and I appreciate you having this
conversation. As a legal immigrant myself, I truly believe
would have a lot of work to improve our legal immigration
system, improve our legal infrastructure, and, also, look at
how we can really streamline some of the policies that better
serve our country and provide less bureaucracy, including maybe
some visa policy and work visa policies. There is a lot of work
to do in this area. It's also important that we have a secure
border with--we have a border policy and the issue with
national security.
So, I think it's important for us to have this
conversation. So, it seems to me that we don't have it very
often, and we don't have it in a productive way. So, hopefully,
our Committee can work on it because it's not--you cannot
resolve all this with religious--do it in one bill.
So, my question is going to be related to--I can ask,
several of you, if any can volunteer from our panel people,
what is some things you believe that Republicans and Democrats
can agree on that we can provide, streamline legal immigration
system, provide border security, and national security on the
border? If there is any place we can find a common ground, or
we can never--because it seems like I am frustrated as a lot of
people.
We have been discussing for years, and I am sure Madam
Chair has been on this Committee for a long time, but nothing
happens. We keep discussing and we keep discussing. I will be
honest with you what's happening on the border, it breaks my
heart. It's a very disturbing situation. It didn't happen
overnight, but it's escalated recently.
So, we have to have good policy. We have to be able to work
as a branch, and then work and put pressure on the Executive
Branch to actually get stuff done and work with us. So, anyone
on the Committee wants to mention just quickly what do you
think? Do you think there is hope that something can be done?
Ms. Lofgren. Ms. Spartz, if I could interrupt. Last
Congress, 365 Members of the House voted to make adjustments on
the per country cap limitation, not to eliminate it completely.
So, it was a huge bipartisan vote in the House. The Senate
mucked it up. That was an example of bipartisan effort. Ms.
Buck was the principal who--
Ms. Spartz. Maybe we need to work better. I have a visa
policy, it's all right. I have a problem. It should be. We
actually represented the people that represent the State. I
don't know, we have Mr. Roy and he has worked a lot of policy
issues. Do you want to mention something? Do you think there is
something that can actually happen and have somethings that can
be decided by the President?
Mr. Law. Yeah, thank you. First, we should absolutely fix
the TVTRA and Florida settlement loopholes in the law. Even
President Obama back in 2014 pleaded with Congress to do that,
and Congress failed to act. If we do not enforce our laws and
remove the incentives for economic migrants and other
vulnerable people to put themselves in harm's way through
coyotes and drug cartels to come here when they don't have a
mechanism, other than just coming across the border, we have
got to stop that. You have got to cut off this link to the
cartels.
Unfortunately, regarding the per country caps, while, yes,
it did pass with a broad bipartisan support, I think there's
fundamental misunderstanding about what that bill does. It
would be a train wreck to the legal immigration system, and,
frankly, it would reward those in the tech industry, in
particular, who have replaced and displaced American workers by
utilizing the H-1B program first, which does not require you to
actually seek out Americans first. They only petition for
Indian males to overload the system, because there is no per
country cap on H-1B, Congress can fuse the whole system by
creating this concept of dual intent where you can have both
nonimmigrant, meaning temporary, and immigrant, meaning
permanent, intend at the same time.
The blending of those two things together has unfortunately
created a mess that is too often just destroying the system.
Frankly, that is why the per country caps are in place. We need
to have clear distinctions between permanent immigration and
temporary immigration, which is why things like alien and
immigrant are important legal terms because those distinctions
matter very much.
Ms. Spartz. I yield back. If you have a second, if you can
maybe something quickly. Madam Chair, if you can allow me a
couple of seconds.
Ms. Lofgren. Of course. The gentlelady yields back. I
appreciate her question. We now turn to Ms. Garcia for her 5
minutes.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all
the Witnesses that are here today, and, Madam Chair, for
holding this critical hearing. When it comes to immigration
issues, as you said, everyone always asks, why don't they just
get in line like everybody else? The truth of the matter is, is
there is no everybody else, because of the unduly burdensome
barriers to immigration that make it impossible to whether
there's no general purpose line, or as one of the Witnesses
said, there is a lot of waits everywhere.
Like many of my colleagues have called for confident
immigration reform for many, many years. Today, we have before
us a lot of questions that are being asked about wait lists,
backlogs, because the reality is that USCIS provides on its
website that the estimated time range is 5-17 months of
processing time for an immigrant who applies for a green card
at the Texas Service Center. Not long ago, the national average
processing time for citizenship had increased by 80 percent.
Here in Houston, the median wait time was 14 months over a
year, and processing could take up 25 months. That's two years.
What's more is that number of immigrant visa cases pending
interviews at the National Visa Center increased by 473,000.
While green card wait times were already at a steep rise,
COVID-19 has made it worse, the surge to unprecedented levels.
So, the bottom line is, we need change, and we need it now.
I want to start with you, Mr. Bier, we have said over and
over, and I think a couple of colleagues have even used the
word, we are the most generous country in the world on
immigration. Can you really give us some context in light of
the many barriers for pathways into really getting there? I
know they keep talking about these 1 million green cards. The
truth is, 65 percent of those were based on a green card going
to a relative. So, just quickly, some of the barriers, and I
would like the 1-minute mark, Madam Chair, yielded to my
colleague, Ms. Ross, for a question.
Mr. Bier. Ultimately, if you don't have a family member in
the United States, and you don't have a college degree, you are
pretty much shut out of the immigration system in the United
States. We have a system that basically assigns people by
random lottery that you have almost no chance of winning. We
are one of the largest countries in the world. We are the third
largest country in the world. So, the idea that 1 million
should sound impressive to anyone, it is just not that
impressive. It's 1 million out of 330 million people. That's
less than \1/3\ of a percent of our population.
Overall, compared to other countries, controlling for the
population size, we rank 61st in the world for our foreign-born
share of the population. We're bottom third among wealthy
countries. We're fourth in last among OECD countries for
employment-based immigration. We're not even in the top 50
countries worldwide for refugee and asylum intake per capita.
Even if the U.S. increased its legal immigration system five-
fold for the next decade, we still wouldn't have a foreign-born
share of the population equal to the share in Australia,
Canada, New Zealand, or Switzerland. So, the idea that the
United States is letting in some absurd number of people that's
totally abnormal for a developed country is just not true.
Ms. Lofgren. Ms. Garcia, you have a minute and 11 seconds.
Do you wish to yield to Ms. Ross now?
Ms. Garcia. If I can put a document in the record. It's
called, Immigrants Applying for Citizenship in Houston Face
High Wait Times.
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, that will be made a part of
the record.
[The information follows:]
MS. GARCIA FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Ms. Ross, you are recognized.
Ms. Ross. Thank you so much, Congressperson Garcia and
Chair Lofgren. I am honored to be here and make this visit to
your Subcommittee, because I want to advocate for documented
Dreamers like Ms. Mhatre, and her colleagues that improve the
dream.
My district in the research triangle area of North Carolina
depend on highly skilled, highly educated foreign workers to
fill jobs in technology and biotech. These workers bring their
families to my district, build their lives here, and make our
communities better. Our economy is booming because of them. So,
I want to thank you, Ms. Mhatre. I want to thank you, and I
want to thank your family. We need these workers and their
families to help our Nation maintain its status as a world
leader in innovation. I will close just by saying if you want
to go to a Committee that can really agree on the need for
these workers, come to the Science, Space, and Technology
Committee because we want you to stay in our country, and we
welcome you. Thank you so much, and I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady, Ms. Garcia yields back. Now, I
am pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Escobar.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I am so
grateful for this hearing and for this opportunity. I want to
just say a few things before I ask my question. What we're
seeing today and have seen for years at the southern border in
safe and secure communities like my own is, unfortunately, the
consequence of America's failed approach to immigration. For
decades, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on
hardening our border, on costly ineffective walls, and during
the past Administration, using cruelty as a deterrent.
At the same time, our country has limited, and in the eyes
of many, essentially eliminated legal pathways. So, we
shouldn't be at all surprised that as legal pathways shrink,
irregular or undocumented immigration grows. What we should
have learned by now is that the shortsighted approaches of the
past not only do not work, but they dehumanize immigrants and
they debase us.
I frequently hear my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle cynically say that they support legal immigration. Yet,
they say this knowing full well that those legal pathways have
continued to shrink and for many are nonexistent.
At the beginning of this hearing, we heard the Ranking
Member preach that we should continue the same failed
approaches of the past. I will recount that old saying for him,
that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over
and over again.
It's long past time that we recognize that immigrants are
in that positive for our economy. After the results from the
Census Bureau, recently, we should recognize that we need them.
I want to take a moment to highlight the story of how we
have eliminated pathways for people. One of my constituents
Edgar Falcon, has been living the reality of permanent family
separation for the last decade. Edgar, a U.S. citizen, met his
now wife in Ciudad Juarez Chihuahua. His wife later applied for
a visa and was denied over an incident that occurred when she
was a teenager. An adult took her to a port of entry and
encouraged her to present false documents to enter the United
States. This decision she made as a child resulted in a
permanent bar to accessibility. There are no waivers for a
situation like this, and, therefore, no forgiveness.
Edgar has been splitting his time between El Paso and
Ciudad Juarez where his wife and daughter live, but they can't
be together. Edgar is 1 of 1.3 million U.S. citizens whose
families have been permanently separated over a denied spousal
visa, or the removal of a spouse from the country. I ask
unanimous consent to enter Edgar's statement into the record.
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, the material will be in the
record.
[The information follows:]
MS. ESCOBAR FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Madam Chair, I will be
reintroducing the American Families United Act this week, a
bill that will help families like Edgar's, and I hope my
colleagues will cosponsor.
Mr. Bier, I really was so interested in the Cato
Institute's survey polling results that you provided us this
week. I want to get back to something that you talked about and
something that we're grappling with, the visa backlogs in our
immigration system. What would a more efficient system look
like? What should Congress do to begin to address this issue?
Mr. Bier. As the Chair said, the most important thing is
fairness in the system. So, everyone should be treated equally
without regard to their birthplace. Ultimately, Congress does
need to address the fact that there are not enough green cards
for the demand from around the world. We need these people. So,
ultimately, we need to create a flexible immigration system
that evolves with our economy and society.
So, the idea that we should have a hard cap on the number
of employment-based green cards makes no sense in a modern
economy with demand that could change overnight. A new industry
could be born tomorrow. We don't even know what it is. Yet,
we're deciding in Congress right now how many green cards we're
going to have 10 years from now?
We're dealing with a cap that's 30 years old, and yet, the
idea that we can't make any tweaks to that magical number makes
no sense, no economist would agree with it. It's really
counterproductive.
So, I would argue we need a flexible cap, or have the cap
eliminated entirely, because every single person that we're
keeping out would be a huge asset to our economy right now.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Mr.
Bier, I want to follow up with you beyond this hearing to
continue this conversation.
I will just close, there was a mention of intellectual
dishonesty earlier by Mr. Law, when he and my colleague, one of
my colleagues, Mr. Roy, were talking about border encounters
and apprehensions. We need to talk about this honestly. Those
numbers, just for the public's sake, include numbers of
recidivists. In other words, policies in place, like title 42
that cause people to attempt multiple times to come into our
country.
So, those numbers sound--they're intended to sound scary to
folks, but they don't reflect adequately what is truly
happening. Madam Speaker, I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady yields back. The other
gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, is now recognized.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Madam Chair, thank you, and to the Ranking
Member, thank you so very much. I would almost say for some of
us, this is down memory lane. A memory lane that we wish we did
not have to repeat. I am grateful that we are moving forward. I
would like to really think that there is light at the end of
the tunnel. So, let me thank all the Witnesses, first, for
their testimony.
Let me share some thoughts. Madam Chair, I am not seeing
the 5 minutes. So, please forgive me. I am just going to try to
move as quickly as possible. I do want to get this particular
information into the record. Texas immigrants that are in our
particular State, 43,500 homes in Texas, and pay $240,500,000
annual mortgage payments, and their households contribute 2
trillion--$2,234,800,000 in Federal taxes, and $1,265,000 in
State and local taxes, just for our information, and as well,
$10 billion in spending power in Texas. That's just in Texas. I
imagine we can repeat some of these numbers all over the
Nation.
So, these immigrants, by the way, come from all over the
world. Houston has found itself, and Harris County is one of
the most diverse cities in the Nation. Our friends from
Southeast Asia, Latinx, Hispanic, from Africa, in particular,
as well. Each having their individual--from the Mid-East, from
Iran, from various other places in the Mid-East, from Israel.
Immigrants come from everywhere contributing their own talents.
I am wondering why there is such an apprehension and fear.
So, I am going to raise my questions in that context, if I
might. Congressperson Escobar has moved me to be able to speak
of a Palestinian family that I worked with immediately after 9/
11. They had a loss in their family. By the way, they owned a
flag store. The flag store was making American flags. There
were nine Members, and most of children had been born in the
United States. That's how long they had been--and their
youngest child as well. They had a death in their community.
The block that they lived on, there were many Muslims coming,
and they were tired. They might have been praying out and
around because of the loss, in their family, a Muslim loss.
They were saying their prayers.
So, a neighbor called the authorities and said terrorists
were gathering for a meeting. This was right after 9/11. I
understand that to the extent that one might be sympathetic.
That family was rounded up with their American store. Their
parents were not citizens. Their children were. We worked and
worked and worked with an effort to try and secure their
ability to stay, so that they could status themselves.
Ultimately, they were deported to Jordan; first to Canada, and
then to Jordan. The hardship and break on that family was
enormous.
I want to ask both Mr. Yang and Mr. Bier, in particular,
and I will start with Mr. Bier. I do want to say, I join with
the Congressperson Pareen, to find every way to ensure that you
can stay in this Nation, this country, your country, and to
make sure that you can get the interns and fellowships you
want.
Let me just quickly ask Mr. Yang and Mr. Bier, because have
I heard this before. Can you, through me, speak to the fears
that are being expressed by my friends on the other side of the
aisle? How do you address that fear for us to be able to move
in a bipartisan way realistically to solve this inadequate
immigration system? Let me start with Mr. Bier first, please.
Mr. Bier. I think we can think of a number of different
ways to address the concern. The main concern that I am hearing
from the other side is that there are just too many people who
want to come to this country. I don't share that concern at
all. I think more people contributing to this country would
make us a stronger economy, a stronger country. If you look at
our share of GDP, it's declined by 50 percent out of the share
of world GDP over the last 50 years.
So, the U.S. influence is declining as a result of these
limits on immigration. I do think that we can find agreement in
certain areas. The majority in this current Committee passed an
ag workforce bill. We also had an ag workforce bill passed by
the last majority, Representative Goodlatte's bill. We could
find common ground about that, and ultimately see that pass
into law.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Yang.
Mr. Yang. Mr. Bier gives a good--let me give you two
stories. One is Levi Strauss. Levi Strauss was brought here to
the country because of one of his siblings. He came here with
nothing in his pockets and built an iconic American brand.
Let me talk about Yahoo, Jerry Yang, was brought here to
the country by one of his siblings. He brought an iconic
American brand. That's the value that immigrants and family
immigration brings to this country.
Ms. Jackson Lee. If you only can see our way clear, and
that would include African immigrants as well who come and have
a strong emphasis on science and medicine and building the
economy. I hope our friends on the other side can hear that,
because I do think we can find a pathway forward. Madam Chair,
I don't know my time at this point.
Ms. Lofgren. Time actually has expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, thank you so very much. With that,
Ms. Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady, Ms. Scanlon, is now
recognized.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Chair Lofgren, for hosting this
important conversation. I was so interested to read the title
of today's conversation, because it becomes such a cliche
response. Whenever the broken nature of our immigration system
intrudes on the news, the idea that people seeking admission to
the U.S. should get in line or wait their turn becomes a go-to
talking point for folks who don't really understand how complex
our immigration system has become. Often the lack of
understanding goes back to their personal family history,
whether decades or generations ago, which was often vastly
different and didn't involve navigating the complicated photos
and application processes or waiting decades for a visa.
So, the reality is, our immigration system today is
incredibly slow and complex. Refugees are waiting decades for a
chance to join their families in the U.S. Talented workers are
choosing to work in other countries so that they can more
easily bring their spouses and children. Of course, Dreamers
and TPS holders are left confused by complicated and
regrettably changing guidance.
So, I am grateful for this opportunity to hear from experts
about the changes that Congress could make because we really
must simplify and reform our immigration process.
Mr. Yang, I think your testimony talks a little bit about
the decades' long backlogs for family-based and green cards.
Can you talk a little bit about that and maybe compare how
those backlogs impact people from different areas, or people
today versus even a decade or two ago?
Mr. Yang. Absolutely. Thank you for that question.
Certainly, the backlogs do affect us differently depending on
where you're from. So, if you talk about countries like Mexico,
Philippines, India, and China, those countries have the longest
backlog, especially when you talk about the sibling category,
we're talking about over two decades when it comes to family-
based immigration.
So, I think Mr. Bier talked about there was perhaps an
unusable system, as it currently exists. That's exactly right.
As we need to update the system from where it was 30 years ago.
One thing to go to what Representative Spartz was asking
about is what are some fixes that we could offer that make
sense, or that are efficient? One thing that could be offered
is ending the count of derivatives. Or what I mean by
derivatives is, spouses and immediate children of a person that
is applying for a visa. Right now, they're counted towards
these caps, towards these numbers. If we exclude them from the
numbers, then we start to get rid of the backlog. We start to
streamline the system. Reclassifying spouses, permanent
partners, and minor children of green cardholders and immediate
relatives, that's another way that you start to move some of
these backlogs.
The last thing I would offer that certainly is something
that, whether it's Congress potentially, administratively you
could do is recapturing immigrant visas that were unused.
Because of bureaucratic delays, because of administrative
delays, there's been a number of unused visas as far back as
1992 that we can recapture, and then that could streamline that
process to start to reduce those backlogs.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you for that. That's really interesting.
I did have experience with representing a woman who our State
Department honored as a hero from Darfur, who was repeatedly
kidnapped and tortured and spent decades in a displaced persons
camp where her parents and siblings remain. There is nothing
she can do to try to reunite with her family. She cannot return
there, or she'll be murdered. She cannot bring them here. It's
truly, truly heartbreaking.
Mr. Bier, I hear all the time from academic, medical, and
research institutions in my district that our system and,
particularly, the rules regarding H-1B visas and work
authorization for spouses are really impeding our economic
efforts and our research and development efforts and really
hurting a lot of our medical progress, ect. Can you address the
consequences to the U.S. economy and to Americans if we don't
address some of these issues?
Mr. Bier. Look, we are already losing out dramatically as a
result of our broken immigration system. India has already
surpassed us in terms of software exports in the world economy.
You are talking about biomedical expertise; the United States
is losing out there. We know that all the companies that were
working on vaccines, all of them were employing H-1B workers.
Many of their spouses are ineligible from working until they
enter the green card process. Now, we have Trump era rules that
are preventing those spouses from being able to renew their
work authorization.
So, we've had 91,000 lose their work authorization over the
last year. All those people are working in high-skilled
industries and occupations, and we're disemploying them, and
causing this huge upset in the high-skill sector.
So, ultimately, Congress needs to step in, they need to
have congressional authorization and mandates to make sure that
we are treating our high-skilled workforce like the asset that
they are. Ultimately, no country on Earth treats their high-
skilled immigrants as poorly as the United States does. So,
it's no wonder so many are going to other countries. We're
seeing immigration--Indian immigration to Canada in the last 5
years has doubled. So, it's not surprising that the United
States can lose out on many innovators and entrepreneurs.
Ms. Scanlon. I think I have even heard, other countries
such as President Macron, actively courting folks who aren't
able to stay here. I see my time has expired, so I yield back.
Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady yields back. I now will start
with my questions. I think about a lot of Americans are great
people, and I have heard people say, my family immigrated the
right way, and that's all we want. I think about my
grandfather, he immigrated the right way at the time. That
process was this: He got on a boat, the boat sailed to America,
and he got off the boat. That was the whole process. It's what
served the United States at the time. We now have a very
complicated system, and the question is, does it serve the
United States' interest or not?
When I think about the backlogs and family immigration, if
you are a legal permanent resident of the United States, and
you petition for your spouse, ultimately, you and your spouse
are going to be reunited, but there may be some delay. So, what
value does it give to the United States to separate spouses for
a period of years? I don't see what value that yields to the
United States. We ought to fix that because we set the rules.
Also, about the employment base, and yes, we have the
National Origin Bill, but we have a version of that now. If you
take a look at the V's allegation, Western Europe has 25
countries, some very tiny, Lichtenstein. The population of
Western Europe is about 196 million people. They get no more
than 7 percent per country. Yet, if you look at India, with a
population of 1.36 billion, they get the same allocation as
Lichtenstein.
Now, I don't think that's a neutral allocation, and I think
it harms the United States. Because the gentlelady is right, we
have recruiters down here from Canada taking people who are
hotshots, waiting in interminable lines, and they're leaving.
They're going to Toronto, which is why the Toronto tech economy
is growing faster than Silicon Valley today. So, we need figure
out what's good for America, what serves American interest as
we look at writing the laws.
I would like to talk to you, Dr. Bier, if you would. On the
per-country cap issue. Obviously, the broader issue is making
sure that we have enough visas to meet the need, and that
relates to both scrutinizing that we have an adequate test to
make sure that Americans are not displaced, that the person who
is to be hired, in fact, is an important goal and win for the
American economy. We may want to do that. If that hurdle is
passed, how do we make sure by adjusting the caps that we don't
actually hurt others? People are concerned. If you adjust
relative to the biggest companies, somehow others will be left
out, when, in fact, the bill that we have worked with the
Senate on doesn't completely eliminate the cap, it just adjusts
it downward to 75 percent. Can you address that issue?
Mr. Bier. Well, the issue you're talking about is
ultimately the consequence of the backlog in the per country
caps is that almost all the people in the backlog are from
India. So, if we do it in a first-in--first-out basis, then
Indians are going to be processed first, and then new
applicants are going to get to the back of the line. In my
opinion, that is a completely fair system. There are other
issues at stake, and, so, there is a transition process
provided in the bill that enables a transition over time to
phase out these country caps.
At the end of the day, a fair process is treating everyone
as individuals, knowing what the process is going to be when
you apply, and taking into account birthplaces is just not a
reasonable basis for an immigration system.
Ms. Lofgren. We had a report, and I would like to ask
unanimous consent to put the report in the record.
[The information follows:]
MS. LOFGREN FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. The Joint Economic Committee has prepared a
report on immigrants in the U.S. economy. They report that 29
percent of physicians in the United States are foreign-born,
and that 25 percent of new firms in the United States were
started by immigrants. I am just wondering by failing to
provide for a lawful status for needed physicians, and for
people who want to start companies in the United States, what
damage, in your judgment, does that do to the American economy
and to American workers? Mr. Bier, if you can address that.
Mr. Bier. It does incredible damage. If you look for the
Bureau of Labor Statistics saying these are going to be some of
the fastest-growing occupations with the aging of our society.
As the elderly population grows, we're going to need more
physicians, we're going to need more home health aides. Home
health aides are even more overrepresented by the immigrant
population. They're almost 40 percent foreign-born.
So, we need these workers right now, particularly, dealing
with the demographic situation that our country faces. The
Social Security Administration is telling us we need workers to
fund Social Security.
So, at the end of the day, I think you have to say that our
system is too constrained given the moment in time right now.
We have to address the challenges of our economy, and one of
those is expanding the legal immigration system.
Ms. Lofgren. I see that my time has expired, and so I will
stop my questions. We do know that the record is open for the
next 5 days for additional questions that may be directed to
our Witnesses. We ask if those questions are directed to you,
that you please answer them promptly.
I would also like to ask unanimous consent to put in the
record statements from 16 organizations and 25 individuals,
four individuals who have asked that their statements be made
part of the record.
[The information follows:]
MS. LOFGREN FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, that will be done. This
concludes today's hearing. I would like to thank, once again,
our panel of Witnesses for participating in this hearing. You
have helped advance our understanding of this complex issue.
Without objection, as I said, all Members will have 5
legislative days to submit additional written material or
questions for the Witnesses. Unless there is an objection, this
hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]