[Senate Hearing 112-941]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-941
THE DREAM ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES
AND BORDER SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 28, 2011
__________
Serial No. J-112-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-267 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California Member
CHUCK SCHUMER, New York ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
DICK DURBIN, Illinois JON KYL, Arizona
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Kolan Davis, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
CHUCK SCHUMER, New York, Chairman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont JOHN CORNYN, Texas, Ranking Member
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa
DICK DURBIN, Illinois ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota JON KYL, Arizona
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
Stephanie Martz, Democratic Chief Counsel
Matthew Johnson, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
JUNE 28, 2011, 10:01 A.M.
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas........ 3
Durbin, Hon. Dick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois..... 1
prepared statement........................................... 100
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of
California..................................................... 6
Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa...... 7
prepared statement........................................... 96
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 16
prepared statement........................................... 95
Schumer, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York... 10
WITNESSES
Witness List..................................................... 45
Camarota, Steven A., Ph.D., Director of Research, Center for
Immigration Studies, Washington, DC............................ 38
prepared statement........................................... 88
Duncan, Hon. Arne, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, DC................................................. 8
prepared statement........................................... 60
Kaso, Ola, Warren, Michigan...................................... 32
prepared statement........................................... 72
Napolitano, Hon. Janet, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, Washington, DC....................................... 13
prepared statement........................................... 46
Stanley, Clifford L., Ph.D., Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense,
Washington, DC................................................. 15
prepared statement........................................... 66
Stock, Margaret D., Lieutenant Colonel, USAR, Retired, Anchorage,
Alaska......................................................... 34
prepared statement........................................... 78
QUESTIONS
Questions submitted to Steven A. Camarota by Senator Grassley.... 108
Questions submitted to Hon. Arne Duncan by Senator Grassley...... 106
Questions submitted to Hon. Janet Napolitano by Senator Grassley. 103
Questions submitted to Clifford L. Stanley by Senator Grassley... 107
ANSWERS
Responses of Steven A. Camarota to questions submitted by
Senator Grassley............................................... 122
Responses of Hon. Arne Duncan to questions submitted by
Senator Grassley............................................... 118
Responses of Hon. Janet Napolitano to questions submitted by
Senator Grassley............................................... 109
[Note: At the time of printing, the Committee had not received
responses from Clifford L. Stanley.]
MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Laura W. Murphy, Director,
Washington Legislative Office, and Joanne Lin, Legislative
Counsel, statement............................................. 125
Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Dan Stein,
President, statement........................................... 129
THE DREAM ACT
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2011
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees
and Border Security,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
Room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Dick Durbin,
presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin, Schumer, Leahy, Feinstein,
Franken, Blumenthal, Cornyn, and Grassley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DICK DURBIN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Senator Durbin. Good morning. This hearing of the
Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security will
come to order. Today's hearing is on the DREAM Act, legislation
that would allow a select group of immigrant students to earn
legal status.
Before I begin, I want to especially thank the Chairman of
the full Committee, Senator Leahy, and Senator Schumer, who
chairs the Immigration Subcommittee and who will join us
shortly, for their long-standing support of this legislation
and for giving me the opportunity to hold the first-ever Senate
hearing on this bill.
This bill has been introduced and considered for almost 10
years. The first hearing was scheduled for September 12, 2001,
and was canceled for obvious reasons. The bill has gone through
numerous markups, a lot of floor debate, and been considered in
various forms, but this is the first official Committee hearing
on the bill.
Thousands of immigrant students in the United States were
brought here as children. It was not their decision to come to
this country, but they grew up here pledging allegiance to our
flag and singing our national anthem. They are Americans
through and through.
The DREAM Act would give these young people a chance to
earn legal status if they have good moral character and go to
college or serve in the military.
The DREAM Act would make America a stronger country by
giving these talented immigrants the chance to fulfill their
potential.
The young people who would be eligible for the DREAM Act
call themselves ``Dreamers,'' and over the years I have met a
lot of them, and hundreds of them are here today. I want to
introduce a few of them.
The first one is Tereza Lee. Tereza, would you please stand
up?
Ten years ago, I was contacted by Ann Monaco, a teacher at
the Merit School of Music in Chicago. One of her students--
Tereza--was an extraordinary musical talent who had played as a
soloist with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. She had been
accepted at several of the country's most prestigious music
schools: the Juilliard School of Music and the Manhattan School
of Music. As they were filling out the application form for her
to go to school, the question came up about her nationality.
Her parents had brought Tereza to the United States when she
was 2 years old; they had never filed any papers, and she was
undocumented.
So we contacted the INS, and they told us that she had an
option: Tereza would have to leave the United States for 10
years. And that is when I started to work on the DREAM Act.
Let me tell you, the story has a very happy ending. Tereza
went on to obtain her B.A. and Masters from the Manhattan
School of Music. In 2009, she played her debut at Carnegie
Hall. Today she is pursuing her doctorate at the Manhattan
School of Music.
Tereza, you got me started. Thank you for being here.
[Applause.]
Senator Durbin. No politician ever wants to stop the
applause, but we have Committee rules, and we ask you to please
hold your reactions, positive or negative, to yourself. Thank
you.
Nelson and Jhon Magdaleno, would you please stand?
Nelson and Jhon were brought to this country from
Venezuela. Nelson was 11, Jhon was 9. In high school Jhon was
the fourth highest ranking officer and commander of the Air
Honor Society in Junior ROTC. Nelson and Jhon are now honor
students at Georgia Tech University, one of the best
engineering schools in America. Nelson is a computer
engineering major, and Jhon is a biomedical engineering major.
Thank you for being here.
Tolu Olabunmi, please stand. Brought to the United States
from Nigeria as a child, in 2002 she graduated from a
prestigious university in Virginia with a degree in chemical
engineering. It has been 9 years since she graduated. She has
yet to work a day as a chemical engineer because she is
undocumented. She has been waiting for Durbin to pass the DREAM
Act for 9 years, and she is now over the age of 30, and that is
why the eligible age in our law that we have before us today is
35, because she should not be held responsible for the fact
that we have not done what we need to do in passing the law.
Tolu, thank you for being here.
Monji Dolon, please stand up if you are here, Monji. His
parents brought him here from Bangladesh in 1991 when he was 5
years old. In 2008, he graduated from the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. Now he is being courted by the
technology industry. He has even been offered a job as a lead
engineer for a start-up in Silicon Valley. He cannot accept the
job offers he has received because he is undocumented. Thank
you.
Benita Veliz. Benita was brought here in 1993 at the age of
8. She graduated as valedictorian of her high school class at
the age of 16, graduated from the honors program at St. Mary's
University in Texas, with a double major in biology and
sociology. Thank you, Benita, for being here.
Angelica Hernandez, please stand. Thank you, Angelica.
Brought here from Mexico when she was 9 years old, in high
school she served in the Junior ROTC and was president of the
National Honor Society. This spring she graduated from Arizona
State University as the Outstanding Senior in the Mechanical
Engineering Department. Angelica, thank you.
There are many others here today who I would like to
introduce, but I do not have the time to do it. Let me ask
everyone here today who is a DREAM Act student to stand and be
recognized. Thank you so much for being here, for the sacrifice
you made to come. You can be seated.
When I look around this room, I see America's future--our
doctors, our teachers, our nurses, our engineers, our
scientists, our soldiers, our Congressmen, our Senators, and
maybe our President.
I ask my colleagues to consider the plight of these young
people who find themselves in a legal twilight zone through no
fault of their own. They are willing to serve the country they
love. All they are asking for is a chance.
Opponents of this bill say they sympathize with DREAM Act
students. But they criticize the bill and offer no alternative.
Do they want these young people to leave, to go back to
countries where they may never have lived or do not remember?
Or to continue living in the shadows and in doubt about their
future?
These Dreamers would happily go to the back of any line and
wait their turn for citizenship, but there is no line for them
to get into.
I urge my colleagues to support the DREAM Act. It is, I
think, one of the most compelling human rights issues of our
time in America.
[The prepared statement of Senator Durbin appears as a
submission for the record.]
I would like to recognize Senator Cornyn, the Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have anticipated
today's hearing with decidedly mixed emotions, on the one hand
with compassion and sympathy for these young students who so
earnestly want a brighter future for themselves; but on the
other hand, with a sense of frustration at the way this issue
has been wielded as a political weapon.
You know I have supported a version of the DREAM Act for
many years, and I know you have been a champion of this. I
admire your typical persistence, and I know you care deeply
about these young people whose parents were illegal immigrants,
or are, and who brought them to the country in violation of our
law, but who themselves have no culpability for being here in
violation of our immigration laws.
It has been too long--since 2007, in fact--when Senator
Reid, the Majority Leader, brought an immigration reform bill
to the Senate floor. As a matter of fact, I remember reading in
President Bush's book, ``Decision Points,'' he said Senator
Teddy Kennedy called him and asked him to call Senator Reid and
ask him to keep the Senate in session over the weekend in 2007
so that the Senate could finish its work on that bill in 2007.
But Senator Reid declined to do so, and as you know, that bill
was pulled.
I had no reason to doubt also the President of the United
States' promise to make immigration reform a priority. As a
matter of fact, he said he would do so within his first year in
office. But we know now that he did not keep that promise, and
I have been disappointed by the President's failure to lead on
immigration reform.
I know I am not alone. Having pushed controversial
legislation through the United States Senate when Democrats
controlled both the Congress and the White House--the stimulus
package, the health care bill, the Dodd-Frank bill--there is no
reason why the President of the United States could not have
delivered on his immigration reform promise during his first 2
years as President if it was really the priority that he
claimed.
I am also disappointed that the Senate Majority Leader has
refused to place immigration reform on the Senate agenda since
2007 but, nevertheless, last December used once again the DREAM
Act as a political football in a political stunt. He refused to
allow any amendments to the bill when it was brought to the
floor that might have addressed bipartisan concerns about it
and would have, in fact, improved it, in my view. And he
refused to allow enough floor time for the Senate to debate the
bill. It was hardly a recipe for success. Instead, it had all
of the hallmarks of a cynical effort to use the hopes and
dreams of these young people as a political wedge in the run-up
to the 2012 election. I believe we can and that we should do
better.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, we all have compassion for these
young people, many of whom live in my State, the State of
Texas. We know how the broken immigration system has failed
them, and we know how Washington's failure to deliver credible
immigration reform has failed the country.
It is important, though, to get the details right, and that
is why the process by which this bill is considered in this
Judiciary Committee and on the floor is very important.
Unfortunately, the version of the DREAM Act we have got before
us has several well-known problems that have never been
satisfactorily addressed.
Under this version of the DREAM Act, a 35-year-old illegal
immigrant with only 2 years of post-high school education would
be eligible for a green card, regardless of whether they ever
earn a degree. In fact, the bill allows the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security to waive the educational
requirement entirely so that all that is required for a pathway
to citizenship is a GED.
Under this version of the DREAM Act, a 35-year-old illegal
immigrant who has been convicted of two misdemeanors would be
eligible for a green card. And let us remind ourselves that
many misdemeanors are not minor offenses. In many States, they
include driving while under the influence of alcohol, drug
possession, burglary, theft, assault, and many other serious
crimes. In New York, sexual assault of a minor in the third
degree is a misdemeanor. Someone with two convictions for any
of these crimes could eventually be eligible for a path to
American citizenship under this legislation, and that does not
include people who are actually charged with felonies but who
later pled guilty to a reduced charge of a misdemeanor.
This version of the DREAM Act also has, in my opinion, very
weak protections against fraud. As we saw in 1986, anytime we
expand eligibility for an immigration benefit, we create a
whole new opportunity for fraud if we are not careful. Yet this
bill actually protects the confidentiality of the DREAM Act
application even if it contains false information. And this
bill does not acknowledge the impact of chain migration by
hundreds of thousands of family members in a fragile economy
that we have now.
Mr. Chairman, these concerns, as you know, are not new. I
have raised them time and time again over the years. But I want
to make clear that the biggest obstacle to the passage of the
DREAM Act is not the specific issues I have mentioned. It is
the failure of the Federal Government to keep its promise when
it comes to immigration reform. Moreover, were we to pass this
bill as a stand-alone bill without addressing the rest of our
broken immigration system, I believe it is far less likely that
we would ever get to the other issues in our broken system,
this being the most sympathetic of any of those.
The issue we are addressing today is, in fact, the engine
that could help pull the train for credible immigration reform.
Once it leaves the station, what are we to tell our
constituents who care deeply about the rest of our broken
immigration system?
But I think it is important also to recall and remind
ourselves that America is a welcoming Nation to immigrants who
play by the rules and do it the right way. Last year more than
600,000 people became naturalized U.S. citizens. I think that
is something we should be proud of. Nearly 50,000 of these new
Americans are Texans, and on Memorial Day this last year, I had
the honor of attending a ceremony where young men and women who
have green cards were the beneficiaries of an expedited path to
citizenship as a result of legislation that I cosponsored with
Senator Teddy Kennedy. It was one of the first bills that I
cosponsored in the Senate.
The American people have been compassionate and generous to
illegal immigrants and their families. In 1986, President
Reagan signed an amnesty for about 3 million people. It was
supposed to be the last mass legalization that America would
ever need because the trade-off was increased and enhanced
enforcement. But the enforcement never happened.
So the problem is not that America is an unwelcoming Nation
or that America is not a compassionate Nation or that America
will not continue to be welcoming and compassionate if we
handle this issue correctly. The problem is that the Federal
Government is still not doing what it promised to do in 1986:
to secure our borders, to enforce our immigration laws,
especially at the workplace, adequately, and encourage large
numbers of people from systematically--discourage large numbers
of people from systematically violating the law of the land.
I believe sincerely that our policy should be pro-legal
immigration and anti-illegal immigration. This bill, sadly,
does nothing to fix our broken immigration system. It is a
Band-aid. And maybe worse, it will provide an incentive for
future illegal immigration. This bill does nothing for border
security, workplace enforcement, visa overstays that account
for about 40 percent of illegal immigration in this country. In
other words, it does nothing to reduce the likelihood of
further illegal immigration.
What parent would not be tempted to immigrate illegally on
the hope that if not they but maybe their children would be
given the gift of American citizenship? And after these
children are citizens, under current law how many millions of
their immediate family members would eventually become eligible
for citizenship?
I think millions of Americans would support the DREAM Act,
Mr. Chairman, if they could get their questions answered, like:
Will this bill solve the problem of our broken immigration
system or will it make it worse by incentivizing illegal entry?
What is the impact on sky-high unemployment rates for current
citizens and legal residents? In fact, the unemployment rate
for Hispanics in America is roughly 2 percentage points higher
than for the general population. And, finally, how will we pay
for this when 43 cents out of every dollar the Federal
Government currently spends is borrowed money and we have a
$14.3 trillion national debt?
What message are we sending to those on the other side of
the borders who are thinking about entering the country
illegally with a minor child? If we pass this bill, will we be
back here in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, with the same
concerns that these young people are bringing to us today? In
other words, is this the kind of dream that will reoccur
indefinitely?
Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, these are some of the questions
that I have today and some of the questions I will have for the
panelists. Thank you very much.
Senator Durbin. Senator Feinstein.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
wish I could stay for the whole hearing. The Appropriations
Committee is hearing the intelligence budget at 10:30, so I
will need to go. But I want to thank you for your leadership on
this. I know it has been difficult. You have been resolute and
steadfast, and it is very much appreciated.
I am one that believes that the time really has come to
pass this bill. I listened very carefully to what Senator
Cornyn said. We serve together on this Committee. I have come
to appreciate him over the years. I think the one thing that I
really agree with that he said is that these youngsters bear no
culpability. And in my mind, that means a great deal. These
youngsters did not institute the act to come here. Their
parents did. They took part of our education system, and the
youngsters that I see are the valedictorians--I know several--
the student body presidents, some fighting our wars, some
getting master's degrees, some getting Ph.D.s, working on the
side, helping out their families, trying to get scholarship
wherever they can to better themselves so that they can be part
of the American dream.
Some of the youngsters in this room came in at 6 months
old. They did not know. And our education system essentially
they have made great use of, and I think that is important.
UCLA has just finished a study that says that undocumented
youth who would obtain legal status under the DREAM Act could
contribute an estimated $1.4 trillion to the United States
economy over a 40-year period. That is pretty compelling
evidence that these students work hard, that they care, and
that they want to be part of the American dream. And to the
best of my knowledge, the American dream has never been an
exclusive dream that only some people could share.
I want to make one last comment about the borders. The
borders are more secure today than they have been in 10 years,
and I know Secretary Napolitano will comment eloquently on
that. But to the best of my knowledge, we have doubled Border
Patrol from 10,000 to 20,000 people; we have completed 600
miles plus of border fence; we have avionics, we have all kinds
of technology on the border. And what took place in the early
1990s, which was people coming over by the thousands, no longer
come over.
So I just want to say that to use border security as a
reason not to give these young people a chance makes no sense
to me. I mean, here is somebody that has a graduate degree who
cannot find a job. It is wrong.
So I do not want to get wound up, but I want to thank you
for what you are doing, and I want to support it in any way,
shape, or form I can. Thank you very much.
Senator Durbin. Senator, you can get wound up anytime.
Thank you very much.
Senator Grassley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Senator Grassley. I appreciate the opportunity to speak,
but I am going to put my statement in the record so we can get
on with it.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ranking Member Chuck Grassley
appears as a submission for the record.]
Senator Durbin. Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. I will not put my statement in the record,
but when we get to the questions I will probably say a thing or
two. Thank you.
Senator Durbin. We are expecting Senator Schumer to join
us, and he may have a chance to make an opening statement. But
let me turn to our first panel of witnesses for opening
statements. Each witness will have 5 minutes. The complete
written statements will be made part of the official record.
And if the witnesses will please stand and raise your right
hands to be sworn.
Do you affirm the testimony you are about to give before
the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Secretary Napolitano. I do.
Secretary Duncan. I do.
Mr. Stanley. I do.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, and let the record
reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative.
At the outset I want to say how pleased I am we have two
members of the President's Cabinet here today. It is unusual
for Cabinet Secretaries to appear before a Subcommittee and
unusual for them to testify in support of legislation. I think
it is a measure of this administration's commitment to the
DREAM Act that you are here.
Our first witness is Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.
Previously, he was chief executive officer of the Chicago
Public Schools from 2001 until 2008, the longest-serving big-
city education superintendent in the country. Prior to this he
ran the nonprofit foundation Ariel Education Initiative and
played professional basketball in Australia. Secretary Duncan
graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University.
Thank you for being here today, and the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. ARNE DUNCAN, SECRETARY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Secretary Duncan. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Cornyn,
and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to come before you today and talk about the DREAM Act.
As you know, the Obama administration strongly supports
this legislation which historically has enjoyed support from
both sides of the aisle. Through it, a generation of Americans
will have the opportunity to earn a college degree and serve
our country in the military. Without it, these young people,
who have been here for most if not almost all of their lives
will miss out on the American dream, and our country's long-
term economic prosperity will suffer as they fail to fulfill
their true economic potential.
In the few moments that I have today, I want to explain two
reasons why it is critically important to pass the DREAM Act.
First, it is an issue of fairness. Thousands of young
people have worked hard, but they are being denied the chance
to build a better future for themselves and to contribute their
skills, talents, and creativity to our country.
Second, it is an issue of economic prosperity. By offering
these young people the chance to earn a college degree, we are
helping them establish their own economic security, and in the
process they will help sustain America's economic
competitiveness into the future.
The students who will benefit from the DREAM Act deserve a
fair chance to succeed. They are some of our country's best and
brightest, and as we saw here today, they come from across the
globe. But they were raised and educated here in America. They
have deep roots here and are loyal to our country because for
many of them it is the only home they have ever known. And we
should not punish these students because they are brought here
by their parents.
Some of them first learned that their families are
undocumented when they applied for college at 17 or 18 years
old. And it goes against the basic American sense of fairness
to deny them opportunities because of the choices made by their
parents.
It also goes against our national interests to deny these
young people, these students, a chance to get a college
education. By creating opportunities for these bright and
talented youth to attend college, they will contribute much,
much more than they ever could as struggling workers moving
from one under-the-table job to another. With a college
education, they can fill important jobs in fields today facing
critical shortages, such as engineers and nurses and teachers.
And today it is important for folks to really understand this.
In this very tough economic times, our country still has about
3 million unfilled jobs open today. By 2018 we will need to
fill 2.6 million job openings in the fields of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics.
Let me say that again: 2.6 million openings in the STEM
fields alone.
The students who will benefit from the DREAM Act will
absolutely help to fill those jobs. By working in these fields,
they can contribute to our country's economic growth. With a
bachelor's degree, their earnings will be up to 80 percent
higher than if their education ends in high school.
According to a 2010 study from UCLA, those who would
benefit from the DREAM Act could generate between $1.4 trillion
and $3.6 trillion in income over their careers. With those
extra earnings, they will purchase homes and cars and other
goods to drive our economic growth. And we know that these
students are hungry. They are hungry to go to college. Right
now 13 States offer in-State tuition for undocumented students.
In these States that offer a promise of low-cost tuition, the
high school dropout rate for non-citizen Latinos has fallen by
14 percent.
Texas was actually the first State to create tuition
benefits for these students. Today undocumented students in
Texas are almost 5 times more likely to enroll in postsecondary
education as opposed to undocumented students in nearby States
that do not offer them that same in-State tuition.
But for far too many of these young students, the benefit
of in-State tuition is not enough. Even with the reduced costs,
college remains unaffordable for them. For those who cannot
afford it, their choices are actually limited. Eventually the
earning power of a college degree is limited because they are
unable to legally work and become full participants in our
economy. And that is why the Federal Government needs to offer
low-cost loans and work-study opportunities and the potential
for permanent resident status to our young people.
Before I close, it is important to be clear about what the
DREAM Act will do and what it will not do and to dispel two
important myths.
First, the DREAM Act will not provide amnesty to students.
It will offer a conditional, lawful, permanent resident status
only for students who meet a rigorous set of criteria. They
must have entered this country before the age of 15, and they
must have lived in this country for 5 years before the bill's
enactment. They must have graduated from high school or have
earned admission into an institution of higher education. They
must pass a rigorous background check to show they are not a
security threat and demonstrate good, moral character.
Students would not be eligible if they have a criminal
record that would make them inadmissible to this country or
result in imprisonment that exceeds certain amounts of time.
The students will earn their permanent resident status after a
6-year process.
The second myth about the DREAM Act is that it would
restrict the availability of Federal student aid for U.S.
citizens. Simply put, that is not true. It would not happen. By
statute, student loans are available to all students who are
eligible to receive them. And because DREAM Act students would
be ineligible for Pell grants, passing this bill would not have
costs associated with the program.
All told, the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO,
estimates that the DREAM Act would generate $1.4 billion more
in revenue than it would add in costs over the next decade.
And, collectively, as we strive to reduce the deficit, we
simply cannot afford to leave that kind of money, those kinds
of resources on the table.
Chairman Durbin, you and I have worked together on so many
issues both here in Washington and back home in Chicago. I just
have tremendous admiration for your courage, for your tenacity,
and for your integrity. We have done many things together, but
nothing--nothing--we could do together would be more important
for our Nation's young people and ultimately for our country
than passing this DREAM Act, and I thank you so much for your
personal leadership on this issue.
This is common-sense legislation that will open the doors
of postsecondary education to thousands of deserving young
people. Millions of our ancestors, yours and mine, have come to
America to be free, to work hard, and to pursue their dreams.
They have fueled our economy for generations and made America
the most prosperous Nation in the world. By passing the DREAM
Act, we will offer a new generation of immigrants the
opportunity to go to college, help our economy prosper, and
live their own American dreams.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Arne Duncan appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Durbin. Secretary Duncan, thank you very much.
We are going to go slightly out of order here because
Senator Schumer, who chairs the Immigration Subcommittee and
was kind enough to allow me to have this special hearing, has
to go to another important meeting, and he has asked if he
could make a brief opening statement before Secretary
Napolitano and Dr. Stanley. So since he has the important
Subcommittee for your homeland security agency, I think we
ought to let him do it.
Secretary Napolitano. Absolutely.
[Laughter.]
Senator Durbin. Senator Schumer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK SCHUMER,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Schumer. Thank you. First I want to thank you,
Senator Durbin, for holding this hearing. I want to thank
Chairman Leahy as well as Ranking Member Cornyn. And I am
honored to be here today for this first Senate hearing on the
DREAM Act, and I am glad that everyone here worked hard to make
this a reality.
When Senator Durbin asked me if he could chair a hearing on
the DREAM Act in the Immigration Subcommittee, I could not have
been happier to let him do it, and I want to salute his
leadership on this issue, which has been passionate,
intelligent, effective, and never-ending--and will not end, I
am sure, until the DREAM Act is enacted into law.
The American people have heard a lot about the DREAM Act
today, and I just wanted to make three simple points.
First, the DREAM Act comports with basic American
traditions of enforcing the rule of law and holding individuals
accountable for their actions. Unlike other individuals who
might fall under the category of being an illegal immigrant,
the DREAM Act only applies to young persons who made no
decision to come to America. None of the young people who would
benefit from the DREAM Act broke the law when they came here.
They had no intent to break the law, and there is no law they
can be prosecuted for breaking. This is an undisputed fact.
The best thing about America, the thing I am proudest of,
is that we each stand on our own two feet. We are not judged by
who our parents are, what our parents did for a living, or
when, why, or how our parents came to this country. We are
judged by our own actions, and the deal we all abide by is that
if we work hard and play by the rules, the American dream is
available to each and every one of us.
But too many still say we should punish people not for
their own actions but for actions of their parents. Well, that
is un-American, and it violates the very spirit of our
Constitution, which specifically says that there shall be no
corruption of blood, meaning our Founding Fathers specifically
endorsed the concept that children should not be punished for
the sins of their parents.
Second, the DREAM Act only serves to eliminate a
nonsensical distinction that currently exists within our
immigration system, a distinction where foreign students with
no ties to America are actually treated much better than
children who have grown up their whole lives in this country
and have graduated from American high schools. Here is what I
mean.
Under our current system, if a young person living in
Mexico, England, China, or Egypt is accepted for study at an
American university, that child is welcome to come here to
America with a student visa so long as they do not pose a
threat to the country. Then if that same young person can find
a job in the United States upon graduating, he or she can often
earn citizenship if their employer agrees to sponsor that
person for a green card. But the DREAM Act kids, who are
educated in our public schools and who are Americans in their
hearts and in their souls, cannot go to college if they are
accepted into our schools without subjecting themselves to the
risk of deportation.
This distinction simply makes no sense. I would much rather
give a slot at one of our universities to a young person who
wants to stay here and contribute than to an individual who
might want to use their education to return home and compete
against our companies.
Third, the DREAM Act does not even come close to giving
legal status to every young person who entered the United
States without legal status. It only legalizes the few young
people that can keep their nose clean for 10 years, earn a
college degree, or serve military honorably and with
distinction. Many would say that those are among the best of
people that we want to become citizens. I cannot think of
anyone who embodies the rugged American spirit more than these
young folks who will succeed and earn legal status under this
program.
And I want to think of individuals like Cesar Vargas. He is
a graduate of my alma mater, James Madison High School. I
played basketball at James Madison, and our team's motto was,
``We may be small but we are slow.''
[Laughter.]
Senator Schumer. I hope the team was better when Cesar went
there.
Anyway, he was brought to the United States by his parents
when he was 5. He is here today. I know you had all the DREAM
kids rise, but maybe if he is not embarrassed, Cesar would rise
so I could just wave and say hello. Hi, Cesar. He is wearing
the American flag on his lapel, I might note. Right? Did I see
that correctly?
We do not have to sing the Madison alma mater together,
Cesar, for the sake of keeping the rest of the audience in the
room.
When Cesar was in college, he tried to enlist in the
military but was turned away because he did not have legal
status. Today Cesar is a student at City University of New York
of Law. He has a GPA of 3.8. He is fluent in Spanish, Italian,
and French, and he is close to mastering Cantonese and Russian.
Cesar obviously is a talented individual. He has received
lucrative offers to work for corporate law firms outside the
United States, but his dream--his dream, and the dream of many
of us--is for him to stay in the United States and serve our
country. He wants to serve as a military lawyer. And, by the
way, we need military lawyers who speak all those many
languages. Without the DREAM Act, Cesar will not be able to
enlist in the military.
Haven't young people like Cesar proven that they are worthy
of the opportunity to live their dreams?
So I thank everyone for coming to this hearing, and I hope
we can pass the DREAM Act as part of tough, fair, and
practical, bipartisan immigration reform legislation as soon as
possible. And I tell my good friend from Texas, we are
continuing to work on a bipartisan comprehensive bill. We are
making decent progress, and I hope he will join us in trying to
make that happen.
I thank Secretary Napolitano and Dr. Stanley for indulging
me here, and I certainly thank Chairman Durbin for leading this
hearing and leading this drive for the DREAM Act.
Senator Durbin. Senator Schumer, thank you for that strong
statement, and we are looking forward to working together.
Our next witness, Janet Napolitano, is Secretary of
Homeland Security. Previously Secretary Napolitano was Governor
of Arizona. She was the first woman to chair the National
Governors Association and named one of the top five Governors
in the country by Time Magazine. Secretary Napolitano was also
the first female Attorney General of Arizona and served as U.S.
Attorney for the district of Arizona. Secretary Napolitano
graduated from Santa Clara University where she was the
university's first female valedictorian, received her J.D. from
the University of Virginia School of Law.
Secretary Napolitano, we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, DC
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, and thank
you, Ranking Member Cornyn, and it is also a pleasure to see
Ranking Member Grassley, and we appreciate your work with the
Department on all of the range of matters before the Department
of Homeland Security.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today in favor of
the DREAM Act, which is a priority for this administration. It
is important to the Nation as a whole. It is important to the
mission of the Department of Homeland Security. The President
and the administration strongly support this bill, and I would
echo everything that Secretary Duncan said before me.
Now, last December I joined the President and many members
of the Cabinet in urging the Congress to pass the DREAM Act. In
fact, that effort included not only the Departments of Defense
and Education, who are here today, but also Secretaries
Salazar, Locke, Solis, Vilsack, and a host of others who worked
for the bill's passage.
We were disappointed that this important legislation did
not overcome the filibuster against it, but we did not view
that as a terminal point for the DREAM Act. And for that reason
I commend you, Senator Durbin, and the numerous cosponsors of
the DREAM Act for continuing to work to pass this bill.
The case for the DREAM Act is strong, and there are many
ways in which this legislation is important for our country.
President Obama has called the DREAM Act, ``the right thing to
do for the people it would affect and the right thing to do for
the country.'' And not only is it the right thing, it is the
smart thing. Both Democrats and Republicans have voiced support
for this common-sense bill because it is important to our
economic competitiveness, as Secretary Duncan said; our
military readiness, as you will hear; and there is, quite
frankly, no reason not to pass this important legislation.
It is also important to our law enforcement efforts, and as
the member of the Cabinet responsible for enforcement of
immigration laws, I would like to focus on how the DREAM Act
would strengthen our ability to enforce and administer our
Nation's immigration laws.
The DREAM Act should be seen in the broader context of this
administration's comprehensive approach to border security and
to immigration enforcement which has achieved important and
historic results. Over the past 2 years, our approach has
focused on identifying criminal aliens and those who pose the
greatest security and public safety threats to our communities.
This is what any good law enforcement agency does. It sets
priorities to make sure we maximize the impact of each
enforcement dollar.
The DREAM Act supports these important priorities because
only young people who are poised to contribute to our country
and have met strict requirements regarding moral character and
criminal history would be eligible. These individuals do not
pose a risk to public safety. They do not pose a risk to
national security. Yet, as long as there are no legal options
available for them to adjust their immigration status, they
will be part of the population subject to immigration
enforcement.
It simply does not make sense from a law enforcement
perspective to expend limited law enforcement resources on
young people who pose no threat to public safety, have grown up
here and want to contribute to our country by serving in the
military or going to college.
The reality is that we have a significant population of
people who are in this country illegally, some 11 million, and
Congress simply does not appropriate the resources to remove
such a large number. So that is why it has been important to
develop a clear strategy with clear priorities to guide our
enforcement efforts. That is why it is so important that we
utilize programs that focus our enforcement efforts on the
populations that are most likely to pose a threat to security
or public safety.
Our Department has focused on identifying criminal aliens
and those who pose the greatest threats to our communities, and
we have prioritized them for removal from our country. We have
also worked to ensure that employers have the tools they need
to maintain a legal workforce and face penalties if they
knowingly and repeatedly violate the law.
Through the establishment of clear priorities, our interior
enforcement efforts are also achieving unprecedented results.
More than half of those removed last year were convicted
criminals, the most ever removed from our country in a single
year. And between October of 2008 and October of 2010, the
number of convicted criminals that were removed from the United
States increased 71 percent while the number of non-criminals
removed dropped by 23 percent.
Indeed, the priorities we have set are strengthened by the
DREAM Act. It is simple. Passage of the DREAM Act would allow
us to focus even more attention on true security and public
safety threats by providing a firm but fair way for individuals
brought into our country as children through no fault of their
own to obtain legal status by pursuing higher education or by
serving in the United States Armed Forces.
As introduced, the DREAM Act establishes a rigorous process
for those who enter the United States illegally as children,
but allows them to obtain conditional permanent resident status
by proving that they meet several strict requirements. Those
individuals who would qualify under the DREAM Act do not fall
within our enforcement priorities, and passage of the DREAM Act
would completely eliminate them from the population that is
subject to immigration enforcement.
Passage of the DREAM Act will neither resolve nor
substitute for the need for comprehensive immigration reform.
But while the broader immigration debate continues, I urge the
Congress to address the DREAM Act now. It is common-sense
legislation. It has been supported, at least in the past, by
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, and it will assist
the Department of Homeland Security in fulfilling our security,
our public safety, and our immigration enforcement missions.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Janet Napolitano appears as
a submission for the record.]
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Our next witness is Dr. Clifford Stanley, Under Secretary
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. Previously, Dr. Stanley
was president of Scholarship America, the Nation's largest
nonprofit private sector scholarship organization; prior to
this, executive vice president, University of Pennsylvania.
Under Secretary Stanley, a retired United States Marine Corps
infantry officer, served 33 years in uniform, retiring as a
major general. He received his B.A. from South Carolina State
University, his Master's of Science degree from Johns Hopkins,
and a doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania.
Under Secretary Stanley, please proceed with your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF CLIFFORD L. STANLEY, PH.D., UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Stanley. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member
Cornyn and other Members. I am pleased to be here today to
discuss S. 952, the Development, Relief, and Education for
Alien Minors Act of 2011, the DREAM Act, and its impact on our
Armed Forces. The DREAM Act would provide a path to legal
permanent residence for individuals who have come to the United
States at 15 years of age or younger and have lived here for at
least 5 years. These young people must also meet several
additional requirements before they receive lawful permanent
resident status. They include completing 2 years of honorable
military service or 2 years of college, demonstrating good
moral character, and remaining in a conditional status for a
period of 6 years.
As I am joined on this panel by the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security who will discuss and who has
already discussed some parts of the DREAM Act and immigration
and naturalization, the Secretary of the Department of
Education who will focus on the impact of postsecondary
education, my remarks today will be limited to the impact of
the DREAM Act on the military force and force management.
The Department of Defense strongly supports the DREAM Act.
This targeted legislation will allow the best and the brightest
young people to contribute to our country's well-being by
serving their country in the United States Armed Forces or
pursuing a higher education. In my three decades of service as
a Marine officer, I served with many people who immigrated to
our Nation looking for a better life. Since the Civil War, we
have embraced the role of immigrants in our Armed Services.
This is nothing new. Regardless of their backgrounds, they had
and continue to have one core mission in life: to serve our
Nation.
Today more than 25,000 non-citizens serve in uniform, and
approximately 9,000 legal permanent resident aliens enlist each
year. They serve worldwide in all services and in a variety of
jobs. They represent the United States both at home and
abroad--even on the front lines of our current overseas
contingency operations. Since September 11, 2001, over 69,000
have earned citizenship while serving, and over 125 of those
who entered military service after that date have made the
ultimate sacrifice in war and have given their lives for our
Nation.
The DREAM Act expands the opportunity for service to an
entirely new group of non-citizens--those who are in an
undocumented status through no fault of their own. The young
men and women who would be covered under this legislation would
further expand the prime recruiting market for the services and
allow us to selectively manage against the highest recruiting
standards. They are scholars, student leaders, and athletes. In
fact, some have participated in high school Junior ROTC
programs.
These students are culturally American, having grown up in
the United States, often having little, if any, attachment to
their country of birth. They are functionally without
citizenship anywhere in the world, and passage of the DREAM Act
would offer this very specific subset of young people the
opportunity to serve the Nation in which they grew up and
provide a path to becoming productive citizens and contributing
members of our society.
Candidates enlisting under the DREAM Act would be subject
to the same rigorous entrance standards as all other
applicants, maintaining the highest quality and integrity of
the force. They would also be expected to complete the existing
terms of service required of all members of the Armed Services.
The Department strongly endorses and supports the passage
of the DREAM Act and believes it will have a positive impact on
military recruiting and readiness. I thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you today and look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Clifford L. Stanley appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Dr. Stanley.
We are honored to have the Chairman of the full Senate
Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, here, and I would like to
invite him to make some opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much. I was able to schedule
two different things at the same time because I knew this was
in the hands of Senator Durbin and Senator Cornyn and the
others. But I watched, Secretary Napolitano, your statement,
and, Secretary Duncan, I agree with what you have said.
Dr. Stanley, as the proud father of a young Marine, I am
delighted to see you here and hear what you said. I know that
my son, who is now finished with all of his Marine Corps
duties, agrees completely with the support of the DREAM Act.
I have been a supporter of this bill and a cosponsor since
it was first introduced in the 107th Congress. I was
disappointed when it did not pass last year, but Senator Durbin
has been the strongest proponent of this. It is just
remarkable. I do not want to embarrass him, but if you knew the
hours he spends in cornering and collaring Senators pushing for
this bill, the passion is very, very real.
I think of all the young men and women who have worked so
hard to support this legislation. They find themselves in an
impossible situation. They have come out to speak for the
legislation. They wish nothing more than to become lawful,
patriotic full participants in the country they call home, and
they actually risk their position in this country in speaking
out. I think those are some of the bravest things I have seen.
The DREAM Act serves the interests of the United States. It
certainly encourages and rewards military service. I agree with
Secretary Gates and General Powell that our Armed Services will
be stronger for encouraging greater participation by those who
want to serve the United States. Allowing these young people to
serve America in their journey to become Americans is something
we should all support. Remember, it is a long journey for them.
But they want to become Americans. As Americans, we ought to be
so proud to see these young people wanting to serve and embrace
our Nation.
Just think how extraordinary it is, as you have already
pointed out, that men and women who are not U.S. citizens fight
in service of the United States and its citizens, and let us
not forget they die in the service of the United States and our
citizens. That says a lot about America, but it also says a lot
about the character of those who serve in our military who want
to become Americans.
The bill also promotes educational opportunities for
America's young people. I can see no purpose that is served by
deporting talented young people who find themselves in a
situation not of their own making, especially for those who
wish for nothing more than to contribute to the country they
call home.
Military readiness and higher education are not Democratic
or Republican ideals. They are American ideals. They are the
kind of ideals that attracted my grandparents, my maternal
grandparents, when they immigrated to this country from Italy,
or my wife's parents when they immigrated to Vermont.
To disparage this legislation by calling it ``amnesty''
ignores our fundamental values of fairness and justice. Almost
30 years ago, in the landmark Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe,
the Supreme Court held that children may not be punished for
the actions of their parents. I find it hard to believe that
anyone would disagree with that principle. But if you deny
these deserving students a chance to gain lawful status and an
opportunity to realize their potential, you do just that.
I know I preach to the converted with a lot in this room.
We just have to convert 50 percent plus one of the House and
the Senate. Or, I guess now we have to go 60. When I came here,
you only needed 51 votes to pass something, but now we need 60.
But whatever it takes, it is a matter of honesty and fairness
and what we stand for as Americans. Every one of us has
immigrant parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents
somewhere down the line. We enjoy being Americans. Let people
who have worked hard to be Americans enjoy it, too.
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Chairman Leahy. You have been a
stalwart champion and friend on this issue.
We are now going to ask questions--and I will be first, and
then we will go through the panel here--of the first witness
panel that we have before us. And before asking my first
question, I would like to take a moment to respond to my friend
Senator Cornyn from Texas.
To my knowledge, the only perfect law ever written was
written on stone tablets and carried down a mountain by Senator
Moses.
[Laughter.]
Senator Durbin. Otherwise, we are doing our best, and
sometimes we do need to improve legislation that is before us.
I am always open to that, and I have always been open to good-
faith efforts to amend the DREAM Act to achieve our goals,
which I think are fairly simply stated.
I would also say that I have been faulted, maybe even
today, for looking for every single opportunity to bring this
matter before the United States Senate. I brought it as an
amendment to a bill, and I was criticized because they said you
did not bring it as a free-standing bill. Then I brought it as
a free-standing bill, and they said, well, it is the wrong
time.
It seems like if people are looking for a reason to vote
no, they are always going to find one. But I do want to invite
those who are genuinely interested in working on this
legislation to work with me. Let me say a few things about the
criticisms that have been leveled.
One, this notion that this is an unlimited opportunity for
people to qualify under the DREAM Act ignores the obvious.
Under the DREAM Act no one will be eligible unless they arrived
in the United States at least 5 years before the bill became
law, so it is not a completely open-ended opportunity.
Secondly, Senator Cornyn has gone through a long list of
very serious misdemeanors, and I do not diminish them in any
way. I will tell you, though, there is a specific requirement
in the DREAM Act that the person who is applying be of good
moral character, which means at the end of the day they will be
judged in the entirety of their life experience, and they have
to pass that judgment.
Third, there are questions as to whether or not there is
going to be fraud involved in applications by people under the
DREAM Act. This bill establishes a criminal penalty for fraud
of 5 years in prison. This is not a light slap on the wrist. We
are serious. If you want to be serious about becoming an
American, at least legally an American and become an American
citizen, we want to make sure that you are honest with us all
the way.
So let me speak to questions to the panel. Secretary
Napolitano, I listened carefully to what you had to say, and as
I understand it, with 11 million undocumented estimated in our
country and your responsibility to deport those whom you
consider to be a threat to our country, you have established a
priority, as you have said, where those who have some criminal
background or otherwise some character defect that might be a
threat to America.
What I am asking you is, there was a recent memo by John
Morton in your Department which established some standards and
guidelines for deportation. What are you doing to ensure that
the Morton memo is fully implemented and DREAM Act students are
not unjustly deported?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, you are right, Senator Durbin.
We simply do not receive the appropriation necessary to remove
everyone who is technically removable from the United States,
and so we have to set priorities. That is what good leaders do.
That is what good law enforcement requires. Those priorities
have been set forth in the Morton memo, and they focus upon
those who are the greatest risk to public safety or to
security.
One of the things we are working on now is to design a
process that would allow us as early as possible to identify
people who are caught up in the removal system who in the end
really do not fit our priorities or in the end an immigration
judge would not find them removable. We have not perfected such
a process, but we certainly are working on the design of one.
Senator Durbin. I hope you can and I hope we can work
together because I honestly believe that you have an important
and serious responsibility to keep America safe, and I believe
the overwhelming majority of young people I have met who would
qualify under the DREAM Act are not only no threat to America,
they are, in fact, something good for the future of America,
and we want to make sure that we do our part in the Senate and
in Congress, but to work with this administration so that they
are not caught up in deportation when, in fact, it is not in
the best interests of our country.
I would also like to go to this question that has been
raised repeatedly about so-called misdemeanor offenses. As this
bill is written, an applicant under the DREAM Act must
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that they are of
good moral character, going beyond whether or not there has
been a misdemeanor on their record. Can you tell me what that
standard means in light of some of the questions that have been
raised earlier?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I think you said it very well
in your original response to Senator Cornyn. It is looking at
the totality of circumstances and the totality of behavior of
the individual who is the applicant for DREAM status. And so
there are gray areas: Offenses in some States may be
misdemeanors; in others they may be felonies. But that can all
be taken into account by the immigration officer who is
processing the application.
Senator Durbin. Secretary Duncan, the argument has been
made here today that we cannot afford these students, they are
just too darn expensive, they are going to cost us too much
money to educate them, and we have to acknowledge the fact we
are in a deficit situation. So are the DREAM Act kids too
expensive for the future of America?
Secretary Duncan. Quite to the contrary, the opposite is
true. Again, whether it is CBO numbers or you look at lifetime
earnings, Senator, you and I both know we have to educate our
way to a better economy. That is the only way we are going to
get there. And when we have a couple million unfilled high-
skill, high-wage jobs available today, even in this tough
economy, we need the workers who can fill those jobs, who have
those skills. The only way we get there is if we have many more
people graduating from college. If we want to maintain our
economic competitiveness relative to other nations, we have to
increase those numbers pretty significantly.
This is a huge number of young people passionately
committed to their education who are going to make a lot of
money, who are going to pay taxes, who are going to buy homes,
who are going to buy cars. They are going to contribute. And,
again, according to CBO's numbers, this will lead to deficit
reduction. To not take advantage of this as a country is simply
nonsensical to me. This is an investment, not an expense.
Senator Durbin. And isn't it also true that most of these
students have been beneficiaries of public education to this
point in their lives?
Secretary Duncan. They would basically be the only students
who could qualify. Again, going back to your point, they would
have to have been here and been in this country for at least 5
years beforehand. They would have to have graduated from
school. These are young people committed to getting an
education, committed to contributing.
We have a devastating dropout rate in this country. Years
ago it was okay to drop out. You could go get a good job. There
are none of those jobs available today. We have to get that
dropout rate down to zero. It is far too high in our home State
of Illinois. It is far too high in Texas and other States
around the country. By giving that dream, making that dream a
reality, that young people know they can go to college, we will
keep many more people engaged; we will keep them moving in the
right direction. And if we do that, they are going to give so
much more to the country than they can by working a bunch of
dead-end, small-time cash jobs.
Senator Durbin. Secretary Duncan, a few years ago I spoke
at the Illinois Institute of Technology commencement in Chicago
and watched as master's degrees and Ph.D.s were awarded and saw
all of the students, primarily from Asia, as they filed across
the stage. And someone said to me later, ``Why don't we staple
a green card on every one of those diplomas? We need this
talent. We need these people.'' And I think the point was made
earlier by Senator Schumer.
Do you see some inconsistency in welcoming those born in
another land who come to the United States for an education and
saying to those who have gathered here with engineering degrees
and the like, ``Leave, we do not need you''?
Secretary Duncan. Again, that makes no sense whatsoever,
and we need people who are going to be the creators, the
entrepreneurs, the innovators who are going to create the next
generation of jobs, the next Google, the next Facebook. I have
seen numbers that show that of all the start-up companies that
come out of Silicon Valley, about a fourth are started by
immigrants.
We need that talent. We need them to drive our country
forward. They can be the field to our economic engine. So not
to give them opportunity, we hurt our country, and that is what
I simply cannot get past. I cannot understand that.
Senator Durbin. Dr. Stanley, I have heard a lot of
suggestions about the DREAM Act over the years, and one of them
I have heard more than once said let us just make this for
military. If they will enlist in the military, then we will
give them a chance to be legal. In other words, if they are
willing to die for our country and wear our uniform, we ought
to give them a chance to be citizens, but under no other
circumstances.
What is wrong with that position?
Mr. Stanley. Well, Senator, that is a very narrow focus. I
believe and the Department believes that that should be a much
broader focus. That way we have--we are looking at increasing
the pool, those eligible. We do not want to narrowly scope this
so it is just the military. In fact, that would be the opposite
of it. I think the unintended consequences of doing that would
not achieve what you want to do.
We also would be actually discriminating against those who
were not able to actually be able to serve. We have people, for
example, who are disabled, who may have other disqualifying
characteristics through no fault of their own that could not
serve in the military but who are just as qualified.
Again, the pool is the most important thing for us in
having a talented pool to choose from.
Senator Durbin. And we speak with some pride of the fact
that we have an all-volunteer military force. In this
situation, if this became the only avenue for legalization, it
really, I think, runs afoul or in the face of that whole
concept of a volunteer military force, does it not?
Mr. Stanley. It does, yes.
Senator Durbin. Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, in your testimony you assert that only
individuals of good moral character who have not committed any
crime that would make them inadmissible to the United States
would be eligible for the DREAM Act. Later in your written
testimony you clarify that to mean that no one convicted of a
felony or more than three or more misdemeanors could be
eligible.
Does it concern you that we have a loophole for people with
multiple criminal convictions in a bill that is advertised as
helping non-culpable students who have lived lives on the
straight and narrow path?
Secretary Napolitano. Senator, first, I think that, again,
we have to look at the totality, and the bill allows the
totality of the circumstances to be taken into account in terms
of the character of the individual involved. But the criteria
as set forth in the bill are far more strict than the normal
criteria used in the naturalization or the legalization
process.
Senator Cornyn. Well, let me ask, do you support the bill
as currently written?
Secretary Napolitano. I do.
Senator Cornyn. And you speak on behalf of the
administration, correct?
Secretary Napolitano. I do.
Senator Cornyn. Would you support an amendment that would
specify that certain misdemeanor offenses for which a single
conviction of those offenses would make someone ineligible? For
example, an amendment that would strike eligibility for driving
under the influence of alcohol or possession of drugs or
burglary or theft or assault, would the administration support
an amendment to Senator Durbin's bill that would make people
guilty of those offenses ineligible?
Secretary Napolitano. I think, Senator, that if you wish to
offer some language to actually examine, we would certainly be
open to looking at that.
Senator Cornyn. Well, that is not particularly reassuring
given the track history of Senator Reid bringing the bill to
the floor and not allowing any amendments. Last December was
the last time. But this bill also as written gives you
discretion, as Secretary of Homeland Security, to waive certain
ineligibility requirements. For example, someone who has
committed voter fraud, you could in your discretion waive that
ineligibility requirement.
Under what circumstances would you see yourselves using
that waiver authority for somebody who has been convicted of
voter fraud?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, again, I think this is not the
hearing to go into some of the actual details of the bill in
that sense, and I would suggest----
Senator Cornyn. Of course it is.
Secretary Napolitano [continuing]. Senator Cornyn, that if
you have amendments, we would be happy to consider them, and
this is the time to see that language.
Senator Cornyn. Well, Madam Secretary, you are here under
oath speaking on behalf of the administration on a piece of
important legislation that bears--and you say you support it as
written and the administration supports it as written. I think
it is appropriate to be able to ask you questions about it.
And, in fact, isn't it true under this legislation that you as
the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security would have
the authority to waive entirely the education or military
requirements and put someone on a path to citizenship? Are you
aware of that?
Secretary Napolitano. Senator, I think that the criteria as
listed in the bill are very specific, and that would be the
path that we would adopt.
Senator Cornyn. So you would not use the waiver authority
that is put in the bill?
Secretary Napolitano. Not necessarily.
Senator Cornyn. Well, that is not very comforting, ``not
necessarily.'' For an administration that has already granted
1,433 waivers of the health care bill that has passed, 3.2
million people are not required to comply with the health care
law that passed, the controversial health care bill that passed
this Congress. And to give you or any other non-elected, non-
accountable individual complete discretion to waive the
requirements of the law, I will have to tell you, is not
comforting to me.
But let me ask you, Senator Durbin I believe asked you
about the so-called Morton memo, and, in fact, on Monday, the
Houston Chronicle broke a story that uncovered what they said
was an apparent attempt by the Department of Homeland Security
to mislead the public and the Congress with regard to selective
enforcement of certain immigration offenses. In fact, one
spread sheet that was produced indicates that ICE attorneys in
Houston alone sought the dismissal of deportation proceedings
against 78 aliens convicted of offenses including sexual
assault, kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon, solicitation
of murder, burglary, delivery of drugs, theft, forgery, and
DWI, to name just a few.
In fact, in 2010, I wrote you a letter and asked you for
details with regard to this program. In response, the
Department of Homeland Security assured me that a directive
instructive ICE attorneys to seek dismissals of immigration
proceedings involving certain classes of criminal aliens ``does
not exist.'' But indeed now as the Houston Chronicle reports,
it did exist, it does exist.
Could you explain the apparent discrepancy between your
response to a question about the existence of this memo and
what the Houston Chronicle reported on Monday?
Secretary Napolitano. I would be happy to. The Director has
responsibility for immigration enforcement across the entire
country, many field offices across the land, all dealing with
different circumstances all the time. And his job--and I have
asked him to do this--is to make sure that there are clear
priorities that are set and enforced.
Unfortunately, one of the 26 field offices conflated two
different memos that had come out and misconstrued what he
directed. That has since been clarified, cleared up, and fixed,
and I would be happy to provide your office with a side
briefing on that. But the plain fact of the matter is that a
miscommunication occurred at the regional level in one of 26
offices.
Now, that does not really, I think, pertain here, and I
will tell you why. What we are talking about here----
Senator Cornyn. Well, Senator Durbin asked you about it--I
beg your pardon--and so you answered questions about the Morton
memo and about your policy for selectively enforcing
immigration laws based on what you say are scarce resources.
Have you ever requested Congress to provide the appropriations
necessary for you to enforce the law as Congress has written?
Secretary Napolitano. We certainly have provided Congress
with the information about what it would take to remove 11
million people from the country.
Senator Cornyn. That is not the question, Madam Secretary.
My question is: Have you requested the Congress the
appropriations to enable the Department of Homeland Security,
which is committed with enforcement of our immigration laws,
with the ability to do its job?
Secretary Napolitano. Senator, as you know, because this
dialogue has gone on for quite some time in the Congress, we
have provided the information about what it would take to do
removal of everyone in the country. It is obvious that those
resources are not available. And when you are talking about
DREAM Act students, it really does not make sense. We really
need to take our resource----
Senator Cornyn. Madam Secretary, you are not answering my
question. And let me close with----
Secretary Napolitano. Well, perhaps I am not understanding
your question. I thought I was answering it.
Senator Cornyn. Well, you are not. Maybe we need to
continue the dialogue.
Secretary Napolitano. I would be happy to.
Senator Cornyn. Secretary Duncan, let me just ask, since my
time is quickly escaping us, you talk about the importance of
being able to retain in this country highly educated people who
hail from other countries who are educated in our institutions
of higher education, and I actually agree with you. That is why
I have been the principal Senate sponsor of something called
``the skill bill,'' which would actually raise the cap on the
H-1B visas to enable people who graduate with math, science,
engineering, and other degrees at the graduate or postgraduate
level to enable us on a selected basis to retain them here in
this country so they do not simply take the education that
taxpayers have subsidized here and go back home and then
compete with us and create jobs there. Do you and the
administration support lifting the cap on the number of H-1B
visas here so we can retain more of these students that are
highly educated and whose educations are subsidized by
taxpayers here in America?
Secretary Duncan. I will just speak personally that I think
in this country we need as much talent as we can get, and we
need, again, the innovators, the entrepreneurs, the folks who
are going to create jobs. And I think you have a room full of
young people here who have those skills, who have that
capacity. I want to give them those kinds of opportunities.
Senator Cornyn. Well, do you know for a fact that the young
men and women here in this room who seek passage of this
authority would, in fact, qualify for those 3 million jobs that
are unmet right now?
Secretary Duncan. I do not know all these young people
intimately here. I saw them here today. But I will tell you
there are many young people in this room and around the
country, in your home State and mine, whom, when we talk about
almost 2 million unfilled STEM jobs--and we know that is the
future economic engine of our country. Could many of the young
people in this room and around the country help to fill those
jobs and drive the economy? No question in my mind. Absolutely.
I have worked with many of them in the Chicago public schools,
extraordinarily talented.
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would permit
me one last question. This is for Dr. Stanley.
Dr. Stanley, you are aware, are you not, that under the
current law the Secretary of Defense can waive certain
ineligibility requirements for somebody who is not a green card
holder or an American citizen and allow them to serve in the
United States military? Are you aware of that, sir?
Mr. Stanley. I believe you are referring to the Military
Accessions Vital to the National Interest.
Senator Cornyn. Yes, it is 10 U.S.C. Section 504, and it
provides discretion to the Department of Defense Secretary to
allow the enlistment of somebody who meets perhaps the
situation of Cesar Vargas, who is not a green card holder, but
it gives that discretion. Are you aware that there is
discretion under current law to allow certain individuals on a
selected basis to serve in our military who are not green card
holders or American citizens?
Mr. Stanley. I am, Senator. It is a very narrowly focused
program. It is actually for very specific skills like medicine
or language.
Senator Cornyn. In fact, it has never been used, right?
Mr. Stanley. It has been used.
Senator Cornyn. It has been?
Mr. Stanley. It has, yes, Senator. It has been used, in
fact, as a pilot program that is actually being used now, and
we use that for very specific skills.
Senator Cornyn. Well, I would love to get--the information
that my staff was provided or provided to me said that it had
never been used, so I would love to get that information from
you and your office.
Mr. Stanley. We will do that.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Senator Cornyn. Our information
says it has never been used for undocumented immigrants. It
might have been some other immigration status.
Mr. Stanley. That is correct.
Senator Durbin. I believe later in the hearing Lieutenant
Colonel Margaret Stock is going to testify about the challenge
that would present.
Senator Leahy.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Stanley, I am not going to be able to stay for Colonel
Stock's testimony, but her testimony points out that the DREAM
Act beneficiaries would be subject to all the statutory and
contractual obligations of a U.S. citizen, but would still be
ineligible for officer commissions and ROTC scholarships and
other opportunities. They have to wait longer to become
eligible to be naturalized than other non-citizens who serve in
our military. That really does not sound like amnesty.
Given the higher demands on the DREAM Act beneficiaries, do
you think that we will still find them joining our military?
Mr. Stanley. Yes, Senator, we do. We believe that we will
find--because the standards for enlistment will not be relaxed,
and we have to have qualified people who not only pass the
physical but the mental and obviously have the moral background
and all the things that go into being good citizens in order to
be able to enlist into the military.
Chairman Leahy. You talked about the historical
contribution immigrants have made throughout history in our
military. I remember a person in our military who was an
immigrant in an area of conflict in this country who
fortunately had language skills that were exactly helpful to
others in the military and to our intelligence people.
Aren't we better off with diversity within our military,
and not just in race or place of origin but languages and all
the rest?
Mr. Stanley. Yes, that is correct, Senator. The issue of
having language and cultural diversity within the military is
very important, and, in fact, just the other day we met with
some of our combatant commanders who actually emphasize that
need as we go into different geographical regions in the world
and preparing for actually what we may be doing tomorrow as
well as executing what we do today.
Chairman Leahy. Secretary Napolitano, I appreciate your
being here. Can we assume, though, that you will come to
testify before the full Committee in your capacity as Secretary
before the year is out?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
Let me ask you this: You were a Governor of a southern
border State and before that you were a prosecutor. Some have
argued that if we have the DREAM Act, it is going to encourage
more illegal immigrants to come to the United States in the
future. That assumes that foreign nationals would come to the
United States unlawfully in anticipation that some future act
of Congress would provide relief. Do you agree with that
argument?
Secretary Napolitano. No. I think as the bill is drafted,
there would be a time period set during which an individual
would be eligible, but outside that period, there would not be
eligibility. So it is not an unending process. This is really
dealing with the young people the likes of which we see in the
room this afternoon.
Chairman Leahy. The current estimates are that
approximately 2 million individuals currently in the United
States could qualify for the DREAM Act if it was enacted. If it
was enacted and the steps were being followed, would that free
up some of your personnel in Homeland Security to do what most
of us would consider regular law enforcement actions, in
identifying and removing criminal aliens?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, it would, and that is the whole
point of having clear guidelines, clear priorities. But what we
would urge the Congress to do is to take this group of young
people who are no risk to public safety, no risk to security,
who have no individual culpability, and take them out of the
universe of those against whom any enforcement action should be
taken so that we can focus on others who are more serious risks
to our Nation.
Chairman Leahy. Secretary Duncan, I believe you have
probably answered this, but I just want to make sure.
Obviously, I am a supporter of the DREAM Act, but some have
argued that it could impose higher costs on public colleges and
universities through increased enrollment, people eligible for
in-State tuition and so on. In my own State of Vermont, we have
public universities; we have State universities.
How do you react to a criticism like that?
Secretary Duncan. I just look at CBO's numbers that showed
this reduces the deficit. This is a budget saver, not an
expense. And I have never seen a study in my life that said
that investment in getting more young people college educated
would somehow hurt the economy. It is just absolutely
counterintuitive. We desperately, frankly, need many more young
people in this country not just going to college but
graduating, and we have so much talent here, so much potential
to leave them on the sidelines, it sickens me.
Chairman Leahy. Well, I am not going to disagree with that.
There were some statistics in the paper the other day, the
number of States with aging populations. We ought to be getting
well-educated young people into our workforce, not the other
way around.
Secretary Duncan. We have gone from first in the world in
college graduates to ninth, and I think we are paying a real
price for that economically. And the President has challenged
us to again lead the world in college graduates by 2020, and we
have so many people who can contribute to us again leading the
world. To not give them that opportunity is nonsensical.
Chairman Leahy. Secretary Duncan, you have been to my
State. I still think of the day when both you and my wife
received honorary degrees from St. Michael's College. You came
to a very diverse school in the area where a lot of immigrants
have come and a lot of refugees have come. There are dozens of
languages spoken there. But our State as a whole is not a
diverse State. I think we are 97-percent white. But I have got
to tell you, in my State of Vermont there is strong, strong
support for the DREAM Act, strong support for it because
Vermonters believe in fairness. It certainly is not something
that will affect a lot of those young children you had school
lunch with that day. But we Vermonters believe it is simply a
matter of fairness, and an awful lot of Vermonters are only a
generation or two away from immigrant status. We believe it is
a matter of fairness. I believe it is a matter of fairness. And
for whatever time I have left in the Senate, I will fight,
along with Senator Durbin, for it.
Senator Durbin. I need your help. Thank you.
Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to thank you, Secretary Napolitano, Secretary
Duncan, and Dr. Stanley, and I especially want to thank all the
students who are in the audience today. I think what you are
doing is important and I think it is brave, and I commend you
for it.
Now, before I begin my questioning, I want to take a moment
to explain why I support the DREAM Act. Since coming to office,
I have learned a lot about so many Minnesotans--so many
students like yourselves. I learned about a student whose
parents brought him to the United States--to the suburbs of the
Twin Cities of Minneapolis-St. Paul--when he was 8 years old,
and he saves up all his money every year just to take one class
at the University of Minnesota because that is all he can
afford.
I learned about a young woman who cleans bathrooms in a
dental clinic in Apple Valley in Dakota County who wants to
start her own design business.
I learned about a young man who is student body president
of his Minnesota college and wants to become an educator for
kids who are poor like him.
Each of those students is just like you. Each of those
students is so smart and so capable and so good. And each one
of those students has a dream, but because of this injustice in
our law, those students are stuck. I applaud you, Mr. Chairman,
for drafting a bill that would end that injustice, and I am a
proud supporter of this bill.
Dr. Stanley, I sincerely believe that the day after it
passes there will be lines out the doors of college registrars
and military recruiters, across this country.
I did a lot of USO tours, and the USO asked me to go to
Walter Reed. I had the same experience that I think everybody
who goes to Walter Reed has, which is: You go there thinking,
``How am I going to cheer up a guy who has lost some limbs?''
And you always end up getting cheered up yourself. I am sure
you have had that. It is everyone's first experience.
So I go there, and they have to go in and ask each wounded
soldier whether they want a visitor. I remember--it was
Specialist Melendez--I saw his name on the door--and they went
in, came out and said, ``Okay, Al, go in.'' I was nervous. I
saw Specialist Melendez, and he was grinning ear to ear, not
because I was coming in--I thought it was because he was
watching something on TV. And his dad was there grinning ear to
ear. I started talking to him. He had lost one leg right up to
his hip and the other leg above the knee. He was grinning
because he had just become a citizen. I asked him how many guys
in his unit were immigrants, and he said five, back in Iraq. I
guess none of them had become citizens yet.
I also learned on those tours that there are undocumenteds
serving in our military. Is that the case, Dr. Stanley? I mean,
there are not supposed to be, but there are, right?
Mr. Stanley. Senator, I have to take it for the record.
That I do not know. About undocumented?
Senator Franken. Yes. I have seen reports that they manage
to do it.
Let me ask a question. Say an undocumented managed to get
into the military, which they do, from reports I have read, and
they got wounded, say, after this was passed, but they had
committed a couple of misdemeanors. If this person had lost a
leg while fighting and serving in our military, would you be
able to give them a waiver, Madam Secretary?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, you present a compelling case,
and every exercise of waiver authority needs to be narrowly
construed because we want to follow the words of the statute.
But the case you described, depending on what the misdemeanors
were, if they were truly minor misdemeanors and someone had
sacrificed limbs for their country and they otherwise met every
other criteria, of which there is a long laundry list of in
this bill, that would be something that would be considered for
a waiver, yes.
Senator Franken. So maybe that waiver is a good thing.
Mr. Chairman, 2 months ago you sent a letter with 21 other
Senators to President Obama asking him to grant deferred action
to DREAM Act-eligible students while we work on passing this
legislation. I would like to let everyone know that today I
will be sending my own letter to the President in support of
deferred action. I think it is the least that we can do to stop
this injustice from getting any worse.
Secretary Duncan, you talked about the CBO report on how
passing the DREAM Act would affect our deficit. We are now in
the middle of talks about budget, and about deficits, and about
the long-term sustainability of our debt. Can you talk about
what this would do in terms of bringing down our debt?
Secretary Duncan. These are the CBO's numbers, not mine,
and CBO, as you know, is nonpartisan. Their numbers are very
simple. They estimate that if the DREAM Act would pass, it
would generate $1.4 billion more in revenue----
Senator Franken. Trillion.
Secretary Duncan. Billion, $1.4 billion more in revenue
than it would add in costs over the next decade. So this is a
deficit reducer.
Senator Franken. I am sorry, $1.4 trillion is the amount of
income they would have, but $1.4 billion----
Secretary Duncan. That is the deficit reduction. The $1.4
trillion, that is the bottom number in terms of income. It was
a range between $1.4 trillion and $3.6 trillion. So these are
huge numbers. And, again, you know all the buying power,
purchasing power, and what that would mean for our country to
have that happening rather than, again, a bunch of people
working for peanuts under the table.
Senator Franken. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Franken.
Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. In light of the figures that were just
given, I have to ask--based upon what the Congressional Budget
Office assessed a version of the DREAM Act this past December--
so I am going to ask Secretary Napolitano: Their estimate of a
$5 billion increase to the deficit, while a huge burden, does
not come close, in my opinion, to the actual cost of
implementation of the bill, so a simple question to you: What
is the Department's estimate of the implementation of this
bill? And where will the money come from?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, we think we could handle the
implementation of this bill in CIS, and if I am not mistaken, I
believe there is also a fee mechanism in the bill as well, as
there are for many of the citizenship programs that we
administer. This is a budget-neutral bill, in other words.
Senator Grassley. Okay. So your opinion is a lot different
than what the Congressional Budget Office had.
Let me go on to another point. On May 10, 2011, President
Obama addressed an El Paso, Texas, crowd on immigration. In
that speech he stated, ``And sometimes when I talk to
immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress
and change the law myself. But that is not how our democracy
works.''
On June 17th, a memo was released giving ICE officers,
agents, and attorneys prosecutorial discretion, for instance,
as involving undocumented immigrants on a case-by-case basis.
Does this change in course reflect an administrative bypass of
Congress?
Secretary Napolitano. I believe, Senator Grassley, you are
referring to the memo from the ICE Director to the field?
Senator Grassley. Yes.
Secretary Napolitano. Okay. No, it does not bypass Congress
at all. It recognizes that we have sworn to uphold the existing
immigration law, which we will. But we are in essence in many
respects a prosecution office, and prosecution offices have
priorities. The Department of Justice, the United States
Attorneys offices have priorities. There is the U.S. Attorney's
manual that governs priorities. It is about allocating
properly, and with the public safety of the country number one
in mind, the resources that we are given by the Congress.
Senator Grassley. Secretary Napolitano, again, if the
Congress fails to enact a version of the DREAM Act, will the
President and/or the Department bypass Congress and implement
it administratively? Can you give this Committee assurances a
mass amnesty will not be done administratively under President
Obama?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, and the President has been very
firm on this. In meeting with groups that very much want him to
accomplish a DREAM Act administratively, he has said no. This
is for the Congress to debate and to decide. But what is within
the Executive prerogative is to set prosecution priorities,
which is what we have done.
Senator Grassley. You used the words ``prosecution
priorities.'' I was asking about would there be any mass
amnesty done.
Secretary Napolitano. Perhaps we are just thinking about
the same thing and using different words. There is no mass
amnesty here.
Senator Grassley. Okay. Are you aware of any discussions
within the Department to extend deferred action or humanitarian
parole on a categorical basis such as those who would benefit
under the DREAM Act?
Secretary Napolitano. I am aware that there were some
lower-level discussions, but the policy of the Department is
that there can be no categorical amnesty, and there will not
be, which is why the Congress needs to act. There is some
urgency here with these young people.
Senator Grassley. Would you be willing to give the
Committee notification of every instance the Department grants
deferred action to a DREAM Act-eligible person so that we know
that you are truly doing this on a case-by-case basis?
Secretary Napolitano. We would be willing to discuss that
with you, a process for that, yes.
Senator Grassley. We have had so much correspondence here
over the last year on this issue. I am not sure we have not
already asked you that, so I am not sure I want to discuss it
anymore.
Secretary Napolitano. Senator, we have had an awful lot of
correspondence with the Committee on various issues, but I
think the point of the question is would we agree to some
oversight of how the deferred action process is being
administered, and the answer is we want to be very transparent
about how we are exercising the authorities the statutes give
us.
Senator Grassley. Okay. In response to the discretionary
memo of June 23, 2011, Chris Crane, president of the National
ICE Council, stated, ``Any American concerned about immigration
needs to brace themselves for what is coming. This is just one
of many new ICE policies aimed at stopping the enforcement of
U.S. immigration laws in the United States. Unable to pass its
immigration agenda through legislation, the administration is
now implementing it through agency policy.''
I would like to have you rebut this assertion that the
Department is bypassing Congress.
Secretary Napolitano. I think it could not be more wrong,
and I do not know where he gets his information, but the
enforcement record of this administration is unparalleled. We
have enforced the law. We have improved the removal of criminal
aliens. We have removed more people from the country. And we
get criticized for that. In fact, I suspect we have been
criticized by some of the people attending in this room in
support of the DREAM Act. But it is our belief that enforcement
of the immigration law is very important, and must be done
smartly intelligently, effectively, and fairly.
We also believe, however, that the DREAM Act-eligible
students or applicants for the military are not those against
whom the full force of the immigration law and removal from the
country is appropriate. That is why we believe that Congress
should address this and provide a legislative fix for this
problem.
Senator Grassley. Unrelated to the DREAM Act, because I
promised--I am not going to ask you a question for answer
orally, but I would like to have an answer in writing. This is
because I promised the Brian Terry family that every time I got
an opportunity to ask somebody that had anything to do with
Fast and Furious or immigration, I would ask this question.
Last week Chairman Issa and I sent a letter regarding your
Department's involvement in that. It is a follow-up letter that
I sent in March that Customs and Border Protection refused to
answer. I would like to have you give a complete and thorough,
timely response to that letter. In addition to what is in that
letter, I would like to ask you to comment, not now but in
writing. The U.S. Attorney in Arizona, Dennis Burke, is your
former chief of staff. Have you had any communications with him
about Operation Fast and Furious or about Agent Terry's death
at the time? And if so, I would like to have you describe that
communication.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Senator Grassley. Now, I have got an opportunity for one
more question. The legislation broadly allows the Secretary to
set forth the manner in which those seeking benefits under the
DREAM Act to apply. This concerns me. One requirement is the
undocumented person must initially enter the U.S. before the
age of 16. As you know, many countries do not keep accurate
records of birth, and fraudulent documents are rampant. What
documents would you require to determine age? And how will you
determine when the undocumented person actually entered the
United States? And what steps will you take to ensure this
legislation does not exacerbate the black market for fraudulent
documents?
Secretary Napolitano. We will obviously take up
administratively, but one of the things we have done in the
last 2 years is greatly increase our anti-fraud efforts in the
entire immigration benefit process. So, for example, we now
have anti-fraud officers in all of 184 field offices. We have
special anti-fraud units that are in some of the highest-use
offices. We have a lot better way of checking records and
verifying records, in part because of the greater use of
biometrics, biometric passports and the like.
So we have a number of different ways to address that
particular issue to make sure that the DREAM Act is not used as
a vehicle for fraud.
Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam
Secretary.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Grassley.
I know Senator Blumenthal was trying to join us, so if he
arrives in a minute or two, I am going to give him a chance to
ask questions.
At the end of the hearing, I am going to be entering into
the record 141 statements of support for the DREAM Act, and I
would like to just say to this panel, because we have had a
number of questions related to the impact of the DREAM Act on
education, and I want to make it clear that we have statements
of endorsement of this legislation from a long, long list of
colleges and universities across the United States, including
the American Association of Community Colleges, the American
Association of State Colleges and Universities, the American
Council of Education, the Association of Jesuit Colleges--the
list goes on and on. If these organizations thought the DREAM
Act was a threat to the future of education, they certainly
would not endorse it. They have, and we are honored to have
their support.
I am also happy to have the support of so many different
religious organizations who have weighed in on behalf of this,
from Christian and Jewish and different organizations including
the Association of Catholic Colleges, the National Association
of Evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention. It is just a
broad array of people who are supporting this in principle.
Senator Blumenthal cannot make it in time, so I am going to
thank this panel for their testimony. We appreciate so much
your being here. There may be some written questions coming
from other Members of the Committee, and I hope you can respond
to them in a timely way. I appreciate very much your testimony.
Thank you.
Senator Durbin. I am now going to invite the second panel
to come before us, and as they do, I am going to read their
introductions in the interest of time.
Our first testimony is going to come from Ola Kaso, who is
sitting down at the table now. We welcome you. We have a
statement from Senator Carl Levin, who was honored to bring her
to this hearing this morning. He called me because he was so
excited about her testimony. He is stuck in another Committee
hearing, but strongly supports the DREAM Act and is standing
behind Ola Kaso's testimony. She graduated from high school in
Warren, Michigan, earlier this month with a 4.4 grade point
average. She is enrolled in the honors program at the
University of Michigan, where she will be a pre-med student.
Senator Carl Levin is a cosponsor and strong supporter of
the DREAM Act, as I mentioned. Earlier this year he intervened
with the Department of Homeland Security to stop Ms. Kaso's
deportation. Senator Levin submitted a statement for the
record, and here is what it says:
``We need for Ola Kaso to be able to stay in this country.
We need her and the people like her in our communities and our
schools and universities and our businesses. This is a matter
not of Democrats and Republicans, left and right, but of right
and wrong, and I encourage this Subcommittee and my colleagues
in the Senate to embrace Ola Kaso and young Americans like her
who will make our country stronger, if only we allow them to.''
Ms. Kaso, thank you for being here today, fresh out of your
high school graduation, and we would like to give you a chance
now to make an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF OLA KASO, WARREN, MICHIGAN
Ms. Kaso. Thank you. Chairman Durbin and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit this
testimony.
I was 5 years old, but I remember it like it was yesterday.
Apprehensively, I teetered into the perplexing classroom.
Students spoke in a language completely foreign to me. The
teacher, too, spoke and pointed a certain direction. What did
she want me to do? Where did she want me to go? I stood there,
frozen still and silent like a statue. The children stared and
they laughed. After a week of my unremitting silence, I was
directed into the principal's office. My mother was there, too,
seated to the right of the translator that had helped her
enroll me in school. The teacher spoke, and the translator
began speaking too.
``She says Ola might need special attention. She barely
socializes with the other kids and she is not learning
anything. She suggests that Ola be taken out of the general
class and be placed into the ELL program so she can get the
extra assistance she needs.''
I have come a long way since that day 13 years ago. I have
become proficient in the English language, and I have excelled
in my studies.
Since the third grade, I have been placed in advanced
programs, all of which I have fully utilized. I have taken
every Advanced Placement course my high school has offered, and
I have earned a 4.4 GPA doing so. I earned a 30 on my ACT with
English being my highest score. In high school I was a varsity
athlete. I ran cross country in the fall, and I played tennis
in the spring. I was the treasurer of the Student Council, and
I was the treasurer of the National Honor Society at my school.
Furthermore, I tutor students that are still struggling to
become proficient in English, and I have received numerous
scholarship offers, and I have been accepted to several
universities.
I commit countless hours to community service and charity
events because I feel that big change comes through little
steps. I juggle all my school work, after-school activities,
and community service projects while also having a job. I have
completely immersed myself within the American culture, of
which I so strongly desire to become a citizen.
I am currently enrolled at the University of Michigan, one
of the most prestigious public universities in the Nation,
where this fall I will be majoring in brain, behavioral, and
cognitive science with a concentration in pre-med.
I ultimately aspire to become a surgical oncologist, but
more importantly, despite seemingly endless obstacles, I intend
to work for patients that cannot afford the astronomical fees
accompanying life-saving surgeries, patients that are denied
the medical treatment they deserve. My goal is not to increase
my bank account; my goal is to decrease the amount of
preventable deaths. How can I go to a lucrative job every day
knowing that there are mothers wasting away in front of their
children because they cannot afford surgery? I cannot and I
will not. I wish to remain in this country to make a
difference. I wish to remain in this country to help American
citizens.
On March 28th, I was spontaneously told that I would be
deported in less than a week despite the fact that my family
has complied with all immigration laws for the last 13 years. I
was 2 months short of obtaining my high school diploma. I was
shocked. How could I be sent to a place I did not even
remember, a culture that is completely foreign to me? I am not
even fluent in Albanian, so if I were to be sent back, I could
not pursue a college education. My hard work, my dreams, and my
future were at risk of being eradicated. I have considered one
country, and one country only, to be my home. America is my
home, not Albania.
My community rallied behind me. They asked for my
deportation to be suspended, and the Department of Homeland
Security responded and granted me deferred action for 1 year so
I can continue my studies.
My family came here legally, and we followed the law every
step of the way. Despite my compliance with the law, there is
no way I can obtain citizenship under the current law; despite
all my hard work and contributions, I face removal from the
only country I have ever considered home. Despite my
aspirations and good intentions for my country, I face
deportation in less than a year.
I am a DREAM Act student. I was brought to this country
when I was 5 years old. I grew up here. I am an American at
heart.
There are thousands of other Dreamers just like me. Look
around the room and you will see hundreds of them today. All we
are asking for is a chance to contribute to the country that we
love. Please support the DREAM Act.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today on
behalf of all of the Dreamers.
[The prepared statement of Ola Kaso appears as a submission
for the record.]
Senator Durbin. Ola, thank you. You were speaking for
thousands just like you all across America, and you were very
effective. Thank you for doing that.
Our next witness is Margaret Stock, a retired Lieutenant
Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve. Lieutenant Colonel Stock is
counsel at the law firm of Lane Powell. Previously, she was a
professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, a partner
at the law firm of Stock and Mueller and an associate at the
law firm of Atkinson, Conway & Gagnon. Lieutenant Colonel Stock
received a bachelor's from Harvard and Radcliffe Colleges, a
J.D. from Harvard Law School, a master's in public affairs from
Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and a master's of
strategic studies from the U.S. Army War College.
Lieutenant Colonel Stock, we look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL MARGARET D. STOCK, U.S. ARMY
RESERVE, RETIRED, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
Ms. Stock. Thank you, Senator Durbin. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today regarding the DREAM
Act.
In addition to the qualifications that you mentioned, I
earlier heard a question from Senator Cornyn regarding the
MAVNI Program, and I would like to mention that I was the
original project officer for the MAVNI program under the Bush
administration, so I am prepared to answer questions about that
issue, although that is not the subject of the hearing today.
I would also like to mention that among my professional
affiliations I have membership in the American Bar Association
where I am a commissioner of the Commission on Immigration, the
American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Federalist
Society for Law and Public Policy, and the Republican National
Lawyers Association. I am mentioning those only to reveal my
potential biases at this hearing.
Over the years, as an attorney I have represented hundreds
of businesses, immigrants, and citizens who seek to navigate
the difficult maze of U.S. immigration law, and I am prepared
at this hearing to address some of the specific questions that
Senator Cornyn and others raised earlier about, for example,
the effect of the provision in the new version of the DREAM Act
with regard to good moral character, from which there is no
waiver authority granted to the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security. So I would like to mention that I would like
to address that later.
I am honored to be appearing before you this morning to
discuss the DREAM Act because the DREAM Act is essential to our
national security, our economy, and it is necessary to end the
colossal waste of human talent that is going on right now with
the status of these American-educated young people.
The DREAM Act is part of a comprehensive solution to our
Nation's immigration problems, but as others have noted, it is
perfectly reasonable to pass it as a stand-alone bill, and I
applaud you for holding a hearing to address that issue in
hopes that this can be passed.
As the Council on Foreign Relations Independent Task Force
on U.S. Immigration Policy explained recently--and I also
should reveal that I served on that task force under Jeb Bush
and Mack McLarty--the Independent Task Force endorsed the DREAM
Act saying, ``The DREAM Act is no amnesty. It offers to young
people who had no responsibility for their parents' initial
decision to bring them into the United States the opportunity
to earn their way to remain here.'' And more particularly, the
DREAM Act will enhance America's ability to obtain future high-
quality recruits for the United States Armed Forces.
The reality of our Nation's broken immigration system has
been that we now have in the United States today a very large
population of persons who have no means of obtaining lawful
permanent residence here, even if they have lived in America
for decades, gone to school here, paid their taxes, and
committed no crimes. Many of these individuals are legally in
the U.S. in some status that falls short of lawful permanent
residence, but some 12 million are unauthorized, including an
estimated 2.1 million youth and young adults.
Despite the fact that many of these undocumented young
people have grown up in the U.S., attended our schools, and
demonstrated a sustained commitment to this country by learning
English and succeeding in our educational system, U.S.
immigration laws provide no avenue for them to obtain any legal
status.
The DREAM Act would allow those young people who have grown
up in this country, graduated from high school, been
acculturated as Americans, and have no serious criminal record
and meet the good moral character requirements to go to college
or serve in the military and thereby legalize their immigration
status.
Those who oppose the DREAM Act often mistakenly repeat the
popular misconception that these young people should just ``get
in line like everyone else.'' But without the DREAM Act, there
is no line for them to stand in.
The inability of this large group of young people to obtain
any legal status has far-ranging social and economic impacts,
not least of which is an obvious impact on the qualified
manpower available for the U.S. Armed Forces. Currently,
unauthorized young people are barred from enlisting in the U.S.
military. And I would just note for the record that the
suggestion that the Department of Defense should be hiring
undocumented persons who are not authorized to work in the
United States is interesting in light of the fact that every
other U.S. employer is barred from employing people who are not
authorized to work in the United States.
Persons lacking familiarity with today's enlistment process
might believe it is possible for the services to enlist
undocumented immigrants, but in reality the services do not
have the legal or administrative authority to enlist somebody
who has no record with the Department of Homeland Security and
is not authorized to work in the United States and who has no
valid Social Security number. So the services cannot use their
10 United States Code 504 enlistment authority to enlist
undocumented immigrants.
In contrast, the Department of Homeland Security has the
institutional expertise and processing systems required to take
applications from unauthorized immigrants, fingerprint them,
collect their filing fees, vet them against complex
inadmissibility and removability criteria, create ``alien
files'' on them, assign them alien numbers, and otherwise
process them for conditional permanent residence status. And
under the DREAM Act, this process will happen before these
young people appear at a recruiting station and try to enlist.
So they will be legal when they approach a military recruiter.
The Department of Defense will not be in the position of trying
to hire people who are unauthorized to work.
The DHS process will be a first gate to screen out persons
who are unsuitable for military service as a result of having
serious criminal or immigration violations or who lack good
moral character. And the DREAM Act appropriately assigns to DHS
the role of accepting these applications and conducting this
immigration law vetting before any of them are given the
conditional lawful residence status.
Under the DREAM Act, all DREAM Act beneficiaries who
attempt to enlist will have conditional lawful permanent
residence, a status that is already recognized in existing
enlistment statutes and military regulations. Some people have
suggested that the Department of Defense create a ``military
only'' DREAM Act, but such a program would present a greater
security risk to DOD, would flood military recruiters with
unqualified applicants for enlistment, and would require
significant changes in military enlistment regulations and
recruiting resources. A ``military only'' DREAM Act would also
contradict the fundamental premise of the all-volunteer force,
as many DREAM Act beneficiaries would be motivated to join the
military out of a desperate desire to legalize their status and
not because they are truly interested in military service.
It is important to note--and other witnesses stated this
earlier--that DREAM Act beneficiaries will have the same
statutory or contractual enlistment obligations as all other
military personnel. The only difference is that they will be
unable to naturalize through military service until they have
lifted the conditions on their lawful permanent residence
status, a process that is likely to take about 7 years in most
cases. So they will not be eligible to become citizens
immediately under military naturalization statutes.
Some have opined that the DREAM Act is unnecessary because
the Armed Forces are currently meeting their enlistment goals,
but this is also a misinformed opinion. The current beneficial
recruiting environment is a direct result of the poor state of
the United States economy. As the U.S. economy recovers from
the current recession and our population continues to age, the
Armed Forces will face a very difficult recruiting climate.
Now, we know that DREAM Act beneficiaries are going to help
meet our Nation's future need for individuals who are highly
qualified and are interested in joining the Armed Forces
because this population highly propensed to serve. I want to
mention not only the fact that the DREAM Act creates a strong
incentive for military service, but that past DOD studies have
shown that this particular population comes from a demographic
group that is already heavily predisposed to military service.
A 2004 survey by the Rand Corporation found that 45 percent
of Hispanic males and 31 percent of Hispanic females between
ages 16 and 21 were very likely to serve in the U.S. Armed
Forces compared to 24 percent of white men and 10 percent of
white women.
Senator Durbin. Colonel Stock, I am sorry. We have a vote
in just a few moment, and I want to make sure we can wrap up
this Committee hearing. So if you could conclude, I would
appreciate it.
Ms. Stock. Absolutely.
As mentioned above, Senator, I am a member of the retired
Reserve of the U.S. Army Reserve, and I served in the U.S. Army
Reserve for 28 years. During that time I learned of many
undocumented immigrants who wanted to serve America by joining
the all-volunteer force. I often had the unpleasant task of
explaining to these eager, patriotic, and energetic young
people that they were barred from enlisting because of their
lack of legal status.
I also talked to many military members who were trying to
get promising young people to enlist. They would approach me,
and I would have to give them the same bad news. And over and
over again I would hear the comment, ``Ma'am, this makes no
sense. All they want to do is serve the United States. Why
don't we let them?''
In my written testimony, I have given you anecdotes from
several of our Junior ROTC instructors who were in public
schools in America that have large numbers of undocumented
people in them. These anecdotes illustrate the propensity of
these young people to serve America and the propensity of these
young people to perform well through military service.
It makes little sense to deport these American-educated
youth. It is expensive to locate, arrest, imprison, and deport
them. The DREAM Act would help to fix our dysfunctional
immigration system. It is good for our national security, and
it is good for our economy. Pass the DREAM Act and let these
promising young people serve America.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Margaret D. Stock appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Colonel Stock.
Dr. Camarota is the director of research for the Center for
Immigration Studies, holds a Ph.D. from the University of
Virginia in public policy analysis and a master's degree in
political science from the University of Pennsylvania.
Dr. Camarota, thanks for being here today. The floor is
yours.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN A. CAMAROTA, PH.D., DIRECTOR
OF RESEARCH, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Camarota. I would like to thank the Committee for
inviting me to speak here today.
The recently introduced or reintroduced DREAM Act attempts
to deal with one of the more vexing issues in immigration. The
Act offers permanent legal status to illegal immigrants, up to
age 35, who arrived in the United States before age 16. These
individuals are one of the most compelling groups of illegal
immigrants because in almost every case their parents are to
blame for their situation, not them.
However, as currently written, the law has a number of
significant problems. In my oral testimony I will highlight
four main problems, and I will suggest possible solutions. My
written testimony has a more extensive list.
First, there is the issue of cost. The DREAM Act requires 2
years of college but no degree is necessary. Given the low
income of illegal immigrants, most can be expected to attend
State- and county-supported colleges. Not including illegal
immigrants already enrolled, the cost to taxpayers in tuition
subsidies for these State-supported schools for the roughly 1
million students we think will attend is about $12 billion for
the State schools and the community colleges.
In addition to the cost to taxpayers, there is the related
issue of crowding-out U.S. citizens and legal immigrants in
these public institutions that are already reeling from budget
cuts at the State and local level. It is important to remember
that the illegal immigrant population is concentrated in only
about a dozen States, and enrollment slots are not unlimited in
those States. There is a limit to how many people can attend,
at least in the short term.
Now, advocates of the DREAM Act argue that it will
significantly increase tax revenue because once they have a
college education recipients will earn more and pay more in
taxes. Whether that is true or not, it is important to
understand that any hoped-for tax benefit will come only in the
long term and will not help public institutions deal with the
large influx of students the Act creates in a relatively short
period of time.
Further Census Bureau data show that the income gains for
having some college, but no degree of any kind, are quite
modest. So the resulting income gains in tax revenue will be
small, at least as currently written.
Now, one way to deal with this situation is for Congress
simply to provide additional funds to State universities and
community colleges. If the idea behind the DREAM Act has
merit--which I think it does--then acknowledging these costs
and being honest with the public and including these costs in
the law is clearly necessary.
Now, a second major issue with the bill is that any
legalization for illegal immigrants unavoidably encourages more
illegal immigration. We have seen that in the past, and that is
always an issue.
Now, the best remedy would be to include some important
enforcement mechanisms in the law, such as full implementation
of the US-VISIT program, which tracks the arrival and departure
of visitors to our country. Also including mandatory e-Verify,
which verifies the legal status of workers would make sense. A
more rapid implementation of the Secure Communities program and
adding funding for the 287g program--Secure Communities and
287g, as you all know, deals with criminal aliens. If we take
these simple steps, we can help discourage future illegal
immigration.
Now, a third issue with the Act is that it is an invitation
to fraud in many ways. First off, the confidentiality means
that if somebody commits fraud, the bureaucracy is in kind of a
box because they cannot use the information that they learn in
the application process against that individual, as I read the
Act. Also, the Act does not have a clear list of documents that
will be acceptable for identification. This happened also in
1986 in the IRCA amnesty. Most estimates show that about
700,000 illegal immigrants who were not qualified for that
legalization got legalization because at the time the
bureaucracy was overwhelmed, as it is now. There was no clear
list of documents. They could not do all the investigations. We
are setting ourselves up for a repeat of that situation.
The most obvious way to fix this problem is to give the
immigration bureaucracy a lot more money, let it hire the staff
and train up, so it could process all these applications, also
change the fraud situation. If somebody provides fraudulent
information, you have to be able to use the information in the
application against that person, so you can go to the address,
for example, that they might give you.
Now, the fourth problem--and I will just touch on it--with
the DREAM Act is that a person convicted of two serious
misdemeanors could still qualify. We have heard a lot of talk
about this, and we know that some misdemeanors are pretty
serious. There is a very simple solution. Just put in the law
that people convicted of drunk driving or a sexual offense or a
violent offense, even if it is a misdemeanor, are ineligible.
It is a pretty obvious and quick thing to do, and I think it
would reassure the public.
In conclusion, while illegal immigrants raised in the
United States do not have a right to stay in our country, they
certainly have a claim on our conscience. We should act on that
claim. But we should do so in a manner that limits unintended
consequences.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Steven A. Camarota appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Dr. Camarota.
In 2007, when I was bringing the DREAM Act up, you were
interviewed by C-SPAN, and you said something a little
different than your testimony today. You said, ``Children pay
the penalty for their parents' misdeeds. If a parent does not
pay the mortgage and the house gets foreclosed, sometimes the
children suffer. We incarcerate hundreds of thousands of
parents each year and deprive those children of their
parents.''
Then when I brought several Dreamers to a press conference
which I had, you also said, ``U.S. Congressmen should not be
harboring and giving a podium to people who knowingly and
willfully violate our laws. I hope they would not do it with
tax cheats, I hope they would not do it with robbers, and I
hope they would not do it with illegal aliens.''
You have given a much more moderate statement today. Have
you had a change of heart?
Mr. Camarota. Well, I certainly agree with the second part
completely. I do not think that you should give a podium to
people who are in our country illegally, just like I do not
think you should give a podium to anyone who is currently and
admittedly violating our law. Now, that is my opinion. You are
the Senator. You will ultimately make that determination.
On the question of whether children pay the penalty for
their parents' misdeeds is undoubtedly true, both
philosophically and just as a matter of fact. Bad parents abuse
their children. Bad parents do all kinds of things. In this
case it is the bad act of the parent that is causing injury to
the child.
But I never said that I was completely opposed to the idea
of the DREAM Act. I am not completely opposed.
Senator Durbin. So when you talk about educational costs,
we talked about that earlier, and it appears that there are
some people who disagree with you--the Secretary of Education
as well as the Association of Colleges and Universities and a
long, long list of schools who do not believe the DREAM Act
would be a burden but, rather, an opportunity.
I might also add that among those hundreds who are here
today are many who are going to school right now, paying out of
their own pockets to go to school. So to think that this is a
possibility of 50,000 new students arriving on the scene, many
of them are already making extraordinary sacrifices to go to
school. They are enrolled currently. So how do you respond to
that?
Mr. Camarota. I think you misunderstood me. The CBO
estimate, as I understand it, dealt with the Federal budget,
and we could talk about that and whether it is right or wrong.
But we are talking here about costs at the State and local
level only. And so most people, the average subsidy for a State
school is, like $12,000. For a community college it is a few
thousand. I assume in my research that about 80 percent of
DREAM Act recipients would go to community college, which is a
lot cheaper. Now, if they go to State school, it will be a lot
more, but I do not think that is what is going to happen.
On the question of whether it is a burden because there are
already people here, we think that about 60,000 students
currently attend in-State school at in-State prices who are
here illegally based on some research. Your bill is looking to
add about a million people to that system, 500,000 of whom,
given their age and soon graduation or have already graduated,
about half a million, like I said, 500,000, will be enrolling
in a very short time. That is why I would urge you to provide
the billions of dollars necessary for these schools to take in
those kids.
Senator Durbin. So you would disagree with the conclusion
of the Secretary of Education that ultimately America will be a
stronger Nation once these students have graduated from school
and are taxpaying citizens, providing assistance for their
children and for other families? You disagree with that
conclusion?
Mr. Camarota. Well, let us be clear. It only requires 2
years of college. The income gains for 2 years of college is
not very great if you do not get any degree. So maybe if you
wanted to ensure you could have it so that it gets a degree,
and I cite the research on how much income gains you would get.
But the bigger question is if you hope that this will be a tax
gain for the taxpayers--let us assume that this is a good deal
for taxpayers--that is in the long run. You are still looking
at adding hundreds of thousands of new students who are
currently not enrolled to say our community college system in
only about 12 States.
So if you think it is going to be a benefit in the long
run--and that is a fascinating and interesting discussion we
could have. But if you think that is the case, provide the
money to these schools so there is not this crush given the
limited resources.
Senator Durbin. It sounds very rational and logical, but
for one important fact. Even the State of Texas has decided
that these students will be given in-State tuition. They have
decided these students are worth keeping in Texas. We think
they are worth keeping in America. And so every State should be
offering at least an opportunity for them. So this notion that
somehow these are just a drain on the system, I just do not buy
your premise on that.
One last point. Colonel Stock, I want to get back to the
point that Dr. Camarota raised again. I think the ultimate test
of these students is going to be the question of good moral
character and whether or not we specify which misdemeanors are
acceptable, which are not, it comes down to that final--as
Secretary Napolitano said--evaluation of their total life
experience as to whether or not they ultimately will have a
chance.
Do you see this the same way, that this is the last stop in
the most important comprehensive look at their lives?
Ms. Stock. I do not see it the same way as Dr. Camarota,
Senator Durbin, because I have a background in immigration law,
and I know what good moral character means. And I know that you
have put that in the law, and you have not provided the
opportunity for the Secretary to waive that requirement. She
has no ability to waive that.
I believe that some people may be unfamiliar with the
Immigration and Nationality Act Section 101(f), which provides
a statutory bar to showing good moral character for certain
offenses, and there is a laundry list of those offenses. Any
person who has committed any violation of the law that would
bar good moral character under 101(f) would be barred from
applying for DREAM Act benefits.
So this business of, well, we have to name the specific
offenses, I think the Immigration and Nationality Act provides
an answer to that, which is simply that this good moral
character requirement is a nice, neat way to encapsulate a
whole bunch of offenses, including every single one that
Senator Cornyn mentioned earlier before he had to leave the
hearing.
So I think this is a red herring that is distracting us
from the actual necessity to solve our Nation's problem here,
which is this colossal waste of educated person power that is
going on here.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. Since Senator Blumenthal was not able to
ask questions of the first panel, I would like to give him the
opportunity to speak and ask questions.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. I really appreciate that,
Senator Franken, and I will not take the full time.
I just want to thank Senator Durbin for his very passionate
and persevering commitment to this cause. As a new United
States Senator, I want to join him in his strong advocacy for
this measure. We have just given a face to it in Connecticut
with a young man named Mariano Cardoso, who was brought to this
country when he was 22 months old. He just graduated from
community college. He is 23 now, and he is going to be a civil
engineer in Connecticut. He has had the courage to become a
face and a voice for this measure, and it takes real courage to
do it, and I want to thank whoever is here today to join us,
because many of them across the country I think have been the
most effective advocates for this cause. When people see the
young people who are actually involved, they really put aside
all of the--excuse me, all of the somewhat more abstract points
in favor, some against, because they are such an enormous
potential asset to this country, as Senator Durbin and Senator
Franken have expressed so powerfully in what they have said so
far.
So I just want to join the advocates who are here today in
this cause and say to the folks who have come to testify and to
be here today, thank you for enlightening us further. And I
know we have a vote, so I am going to defer to Senator Franken,
if I may, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Franken. Thank you, Senator, and I associate myself
with all your remarks.
Ms. Kaso, I think you are very brave to be here, and I
thank you for being here. Let me ask you a question. Did you
make the decision to come to the United States? Was it you?
Ms. Kaso. I did not, no.
Senator Franken. Okay. How old were you when you came to
the United States?
Ms. Kaso. I was 5 years old.
Senator Franken. I was 4 when I came to Minnesota. I
consider myself a Minnesotan, but I had a year on you there.
But you consider yourself an American, right?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Kaso. Yes.
Senator Franken. Okay, great. Now, tell me again what you
want to do for a living. It sounded like you wanted to be a
doctor.
Ms. Kaso. A surgical oncologist. I want to remove cancer
tumors.
Senator Franken. Okay. And you want to be able to help
people who cannot afford health care?
Ms. Kaso. That is correct, yes.
Senator Franken. Okay. Well, hopefully we will have taken
care of that, too.
[Laughter.]
Senator Franken. Thank you for being here.
Ms. Kaso. Thank you for the opportunity.
Senator Franken. Lieutenant Colonel Stock, let me just ask
you this: I talked about doing USO tours before. During 2005
and 2006, you talked in your testimony about how right now we
are able to be in a recruiting--okay, I guess I have to go to
vote, but what I am going to do is ask a question, and then I
am going to leave, and you are going to answer to----
Ms. Stock. Can I also answer your question about
undocumented immigrants while you leave, too?
Senator Franken. Yes, sure. Say anything you want after I
leave.
[Laughter.]
Senator Franken. And I will hear it later. But what I know
is that in 2005 and 2006 especially, we were not meeting our
recruiting numbers, and we had moral waivers, right? And we had
cognitive waivers. We really needed to be able to recruit. It
would have been great to have this group of people to recruit,
wouldn't it have?
Ms. Stock. It would have absolutely been great. We would
not have had to give morals waivers to some of the people who
came into the service and later engaged in misbehavior.
I would like to address the question regarding undocumented
immigrants. I read occasionally that there are lots of these
undocumented immigrants allegedly in the military. But, in
fact, that is not the case. I know this because I work with the
American Immigration Lawyers' Military Assistance Program, and
the few undocumented immigrants who serve in the military come
forward to that program often seeking help. And I can tell you,
Senator Durbin, the outcome for these people is not rosy.
Occasionally some of them are able to get United States
citizenship through their military service, but in other cases,
the outcome is not a pretty one, and I will just offer the
example of a young man who was DREAM Act eligible, or would
have been if the DREAM Act had been passed. He tried to join
the U.S. Marine Corps a few months ago. He was processed by an
unscrupulous recruiter and brought into the Marine Corps,
whereupon, the Marine Corps turned him over to Immigration and
Customs Enforcement and had him deported to Mexico when he
reported for basic training. So this idea that there are lots
of undocumented immigrants in the military is a misguided myth.
The few that we have found in the military are people who have
come in through the use of bad documents or by mistake, and
most of them would be ineligible under the strict good moral
character requirement that you have in the current version of
the DREAM Act. They would not be eligible to get status through
the DREAM Act.
Senator Durbin. Thank you. As you can see, I have been
abandoned by my colleagues who are off to vote, which I have to
do myself in just a few moments. But, in conclusion, thank you
to Dr. Camarota, Lieutenant Colonel Stock--and, Ola, how is
your last name pronounced?
Ms. Kaso. ``Kass-o.''
Senator Durbin. So we all got it wrong. Ola Kaso, thank you
so much for your great story, compelling story that you gave
us.
I am going to ask unanimous consent--and since there is no
one here to object, I am going to get it--to enter into the
record 141 statements of support for the DREAM Act included
here, and I mentioned earlier the wide array of organizations
that support this.
I am discouraged that after 10 years this law has not
passed, but I am not so discouraged as to give up the effort. I
believe in all of you, and I want you to believe in this
country. Sometimes it takes us a long time to get to the right
conclusion and to reach fairness and justice. But we do get
there. And those of you who are waiting patiently with your
lives on hold and with real uncertainty, know I hope from some
of the statements made by my colleagues today the deep feelings
we have that this is a cause of justice and once that we are
going to continue to pursue. Our day will come. This dream will
come true.
The Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Applause.]
[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
A P P E N D I X
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]