<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:23250.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-118
THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: SECURING THE COOPERATION
OF PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY AND CITIZENSHIP
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 30, 2005
__________
Serial No. J-109-23A
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
23-250 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
David Brog, Staff Director
Michael O'Neill, Chief Counsel
Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship
JOHN CORNYN, Texas, Chairman
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
James Ho, Majority Chief Counsel
Jim Flug, Democratic Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas........ 1
prepared statement........................................... 27
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Massachusetts.................................................. 3
WITNESSES
Clariond, Roberta, Professor of International Relations,
Technological Autonomous Institute of Mexico, Mexico City,
Mexico......................................................... 7
Rozental, Hon. Andres, former Mexican Ambassador at Large, and
President, Rozental and Associates, Mexico City, Mexico........ 5
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Clariond, Roberta, Professor of International Relations,
Technological Autonomous Institute of Mexico, Mexico City,
Mexico......................................................... 21
Rozental, Hon. Andres, former Mexican Ambassador at Large, and
President, Rozental and Associates, Mexico City, Mexico........ 29
THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: SECURING THE COOPERATION
OF PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 30, 2005
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and
Citizenship, of the Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
Room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Cornyn
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Senators Cornyn, Kyl, Coburn, and Kennedy.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF TEXAS
Chairman Cornyn. This hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship will come to
order. I want to thank Chairman Specter for scheduling today's
hearing and thank Senator Kennedy and his staff for working
with us on this important hearing.
Today, we will continue a series of hearings examining the
need for comprehensive reform of our immigration system. These
hearings have shown that our Nation's immigration and border
security system are broken and leaves our borders unprotected,
threatens our National security, and makes a mockery of the
rule of law.
The system has suffered from years of neglect, and in a
post-9/11 world, we cannot tolerate the situation any longer.
National security demands a comprehensive solution to our
immigration system and that means both stronger enforcement and
reasonable reform of our immigration laws.
For too long, the immigration debate has divided Americans
of good will into two camps, those who are angry and frustrated
by our failure to enforce the law and those who are angry and
frustrated that our immigration laws do not reflect reality.
Both camps are right. This is not an either/or proposition. We
need both stronger enforcement and reasonable reform of our
immigration laws.
First, we must recognize that in the past, we simply have
not devoted the funds, the resources, and the manpower to
enforce our immigration laws and protect our borders. As
history demonstrates, reform without enforcement is doomed to
failure. No discussion of comprehensive immigration reform is
possible without a clear commitment to and substantial
escalation of our efforts to enforce the law.
Recognizing this necessity, on May 26, 2005, Senator Kyl
and I released the border enforcement portion of our
legislation which addresses those areas of border security
which we believe are most in need of reinforcement.
But, increased enforcement alone will not solve the
problem. Any proposal must serve both our National security and
our National economy. It must capable of both securing our
country and being compatible with our growing economy. Our
current broken system provides badly-needed sources of labor,
but through illegal channels.
As an example, Border Patrol Commissioner Robert Bonner has
previously testified before this Subcommittee that the vast
majority of those the Border Patrol apprehends are migrant
workers simply coming here to work. He testified that the
Border Patrol is still dealing with a literal flood of people
on a daily basis, most of whom are attempting to enter the
country in order to work.
While the situation we face at the borders represents a
substantial and unacceptable risk to our National security, it
also demonstrates why we cannot simply close our borders or
round up and remove millions of people from within our midst.
We simply don't have the resources, the facilities, or even the
ability to identify, locate, and apprehend ten to 12 million
undocumented workers and their families. In addition, securing
our Nation's borders at the expense of weakening our economy
and killing off American jobs is simply not an acceptable
alternative.
Any comprehensive solution must address both concerns so
that law enforcement and border security officials can
concentrate their greatest energies on those who wish to do us
harm, not those who wish to work and support their families.
Our economy would suffer if we removed millions of workers
from our National workforce, just as it would suffer if we
removed entire stocks of our natural resources from our
National inventory. Our economy would be strengthened if all
workers could simply come out of the shadows, register, pay
taxes, and participate fully in our economy.
Today's hearing will focus on the fundamental issue of the
level of cooperation the United States can expect from
countries that will benefit from comprehensive immigration
reform. Workers in this country come from many diverse
countries. Essential to immigration reform will be increased
cooperation on border security, efforts to combat human
trafficking and alien smuggling, and stepped up crime
prevention from any country that sends workers to our Nation.
We are addressing these types of issues with Mexico and
Canada. The United States, Mexico, and Canada have entered the
Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement designed to
develop a common security strategy and promote economic
development. According to this week's announcement, border
security remains the central theme of that partnership. I hope
that the partnership continues to identify additional security
initiatives that our countries can jointly pursue and that this
initiative can serve as a model to address security concerns
that relate to other countries as well.
In addition to assisting with border security, sending
countries should further develop strategies that will bridge
the development gap between our country and theirs so that
citizens will not want to leave the country of their birth. For
example, Mexico's leaders have made clear that it is in the
best interest of their country to keep their citizens in their
country, if possible. Foreign Minister Derbez has said the
Mexican government has to be able to give Mexicans the
opportunity to generate wealth that today they produce in other
places. And, President Fox has stated, ``Every person has the
right to find in his own country the economic, political, and
social opportunities that allow him to reach a full and
dignified life.''
I couldn't agree more with these statements. Other
countries need for their young, energetic risk-takers and hard-
workers ultimately to be able to come back home, and
particularly to come back home with the capital and the savings
and the skills they have acquired while working temporarily in
the United States. They need these people to come back to their
home country, buy a house, start a business so that these small
business owners, these potential entrepreneurs can help
strengthen and build a middle class.
Today's hearings will explore the relationship of these
issues to implementing successful immigration reform.
Ultimately, comprehensive immigration reform will require the
active cooperation of participating countries, because we will
have to have better management, communication, and coordination
between our governments to achieve our goals of protecting our
National security and strengthening our National economy.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn appears as a
submission for the record.]
With that, I would turn the floor over to Senator Kennedy,
our Ranking Member on this Subcommittee, for any statement he
cares to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you for calling the hearing on the importance of the
cooperation with other governments to help mend our immigration
system.
Without the help and cooperation from neighboring
countries, immigration reforms adopted unilaterally by the
United States are less likely to succeed. So we need to work
with Mexico, Central America, Canada on migration problems and
enforcement. It is in the best interests of all of our
countries to improve security, too. Bilateral and multilateral
agreements provide a framework and incentives for safe and
legal immigration.
Every year, thousands of Mexicans and Central Americans
come to the U.S. legally or illegally to work and join their
families. Illegal immigration continues to increase annually.
To deal with the growing numbers of undocumented workers, we
have to modernize our laws to meet the challenges of the 21st
century. As Mexican officials understand, a guest worker
program and a path towards earned legalization are two
essential components of any effective proposal for reform. We
need fair steps to respond to family needs, economic needs, and
basic migration patterns between the U.S., Mexico, and Central
America.
Another critical component of comprehensive immigration
reform is border security and control of illegal immigration.
One of the mistakes we continue to make is throwing money at
border enforcement as our primary means for reducing illegal
immigration. By making it more difficult for many Mexican
citizens to cross the border to work and reunite with their
families living in the United States, we are essentially
trapping them inside the United States. It is an incentive for
desperate families to do whatever it takes to be together. A
more sound policy is realistic immigration laws that provide
legal avenues for qualified immigrants and strong enforcement
of those laws. This plan will restore control of our borders,
improve national security, and strengthen our economy.
Another mistake of past immigration bills is to assume that
we can control illegal immigration on our own. America needs to
do its part, but Mexico and other countries must do their part,
too, to replace illegal immigration flows with regulated legal
immigration. We need a framework for negotiating an agreement
with Mexico to prevent Mexico from being used as a transit
corridor for third-country nationals attempting to enter the
U.S. illegally. We need to work with Canada and Mexico to help
Guatemala and Belize maintain the security of their borders. We
need a framework for the U.S. to work with all countries of
central America to set up a database on the activities of
criminal gangs, to control alien smuggling and trafficking,
prevent the use and manufacturing of fraudulent travel
documents, and share relevant information.
Under the leadership of President Fox, significant efforts
have been made to address Mexico's economic problems.
Remittances from the United States continue to be a principal
source of income for many Mexican families. Tapping into these
funds, the Fox administration has adopted promising
initiatives, such as the Three-for-One Program to match these
funds with federal, state, and local money. The pool funding is
then used to build schools, clinics, establish other programs
to help economically depressed areas of Mexico.
John McCain and I have included all of these proposals in
our bill. We know that effective enforcement of our immigration
laws depends heavily upon the participation and the commitment
of neighboring governments, and I thank our witnesses at
today's hearing and look forward to working with them to
address these important challenges ahead of us.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you, Senator Kennedy, and I
appreciate your hard work on this effort. I know we will have a
lot of tough work ahead of us, but hopefully this year, we will
be able to achieve some success that we will all be able to be
proud of.
We are pleased today to have a distinguished panel, and I
will introduce the panel and ask each of you to give opening
statements.
Andres Rozental is President of the Mexican Council on
Foreign Relations. He has also been Mexico's Ambassador to
various countries, including the United Kingdom, Sweden, and
its representative to the United Nations. He has also served as
Ambassador at Large in a special envoy for President Vincente
Fox. Ambassador Rozental is now President of Rozental and
Associates, an international consulting firm specializing in
providing political and economic advisory services to both
Mexican and foreign companies.
Joining Ambassador Rozental on our first panel, and only
panel, is Roberta Clariond. I hope I am pronouncing that
correctly, Professor. Professor Clariond is a Professor of
International Relations at the Technological Autonomous
Institute of Mexico. She holds Master's degrees in Latin
American studies and international relations from UCLA and the
University of Chicago. She has been involved in numerous
seminars and projects on migration.
We welcome both of you to the hearing, and Professor, we
want to thank you for agreeing to fill in when your predecessor
fell ill, but we know you have been working on these issues a
long time and appreciate your expertise.
Why don't we begin with the Ambassador, and then we will
turn to the Professor. Let me ask you please to remember to
push the button on the microphone in front of you so the light
shows. That means your microphone is on. We ask you to keep
your opening statement to around 5 minutes, and then we will be
able to engage with some questions with the rest of the panel.
Thank you. Ambassador?
STATEMENT OF HON. ANDRES ROZENTAL, FORMER MEXICAN AMBASSADOR AT
LARGE, AND PRESIDENT, ROZENTAL AND ASSOCIATES, MEXICO CITY,
MEXICO
Ambassador Rozental. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senators
Kennedy and Coburn. Thank you for having me. I have prepared a
written statement, which I leave with you. I won't read through
it. I think you will probably find it interesting.
Chairman Cornyn. We will make it a part of the record.
Ambassador Rozental. But I wanted to take the opportunity
of these few minutes to go over two or three points that are
contained in that statement.
The first is that in February of 2001, just after President
Fox was elected and took office as President of Mexico and
President Bush began his first administration, the two
governments agreed to work together, guided by a principle of
shared responsibility, in establishing new mechanisms to allow
for legal, orderly, safe, and humane migration between both
countries.
The working agenda that was set at the time included five
basic components: Improving border security and safety;
fighting the root causes of immigration from Mexico through
economic development initiatives; modernizing and expanding the
existing temporary worker mechanisms; addressing the status of
undocumented Mexican nationals currently residing in the United
States; and reviewing the backlogs of immigration visas and
also looking at the possibility of taking Mexico and Canada as
NAFTA partners and neighbors out of the country quota system
under which the immigration law currently operates.
These five points, which took up about a year of
discussions between the two governments, came fairly abruptly
to a halt after 9/11. It is very satisfying to me, because I
have been involved in immigration issues between Mexico and the
United States for about 30-some years now, to see that this is
now again back on the agenda, both in each of our two countries
as well as bilaterally.
The point that I would like to make to you Senators is
that, and I agree very much with what Senator Kennedy just said
in his statement, there is no way that this is going to work
unless it is done together with the source countries.
Unilateral immigration reform has been tried before in the
United States. There are lots of precedents for it. Mexico
engaged to share in the responsibility of an immigration reform
and an immigration agreement with the United States and it
would be very important for Mexico to be engaged once again in
a bilateral fashion on this. There doesn't seem to be any way
that I can think of that the United States can administer a
temporary worker program or an earned legalization program or
any other type of immigration reform of substance if it doesn't
have the source countries working with it, and this is
particularly the case with Mexico.
Now, Mexico has done quite a few things. As you mentioned,
the Fox administration began a series of programs to make it
more attractive for Mexicans to remain in Mexico and not come
to the United States. But it occurs to me that the way the
social networks have now been formed between the communities of
Mexicans living in the United States and their families and
their home country, it is probably unrealistic to think that,
over the long term, there will not be any incentives for
Mexicans to come to work in the United States or to live in the
United States, and I feel very strongly that there should be
ample ways for them to do it when they do it legally, in an
orderly fashion, and according to the laws of both countries.
I also believe that the only way to engage Mexico to
cooperate in that is through a series of bilateral agreements.
I think that that is the hook with which you will be able to
get a Mexican government to cooperate and the Mexican
government to help implement whatever decisions you take in
immigration reform.
We also are about to go through a political process in
Mexico. There will be Presidential elections in July. And I
think that it is very important that this engagement take place
as soon as possible so that through the transition of a new
Mexican administration, there be the ability to continue to
work together as the case has been.
Perhaps in the questions, I will be able to further expand
on some of the areas in which the Mexican government has been
working and areas in which it hasn't been working yet but could
be working if a program were designed to engage the Mexican
side equally with the U.S. on this and also to find ways to
undertake enforcement in a way in which both sides work
together, because border security, enforcement of the law, rule
of law in general requires both to be able to function.
I will just finalize with an issue which I have talked
about a great deal over the years, the circularity of the
immigration phenomenon between Mexico and the United States is
an extremely important part of how it worked and how it
functioned, and the interruption of circularity probably is one
of the reasons why it is broken today. Thank you.
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you very much, Ambassador.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Rozental appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Cornyn. Professor Clariond, please proceed with
your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ROBERTA CLARIOND, PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS, TECHNOLOGICAL AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE OF MEXICO, MEXICO
CITY, MEXICO
Ms. Clariond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Kennedy,
for this opportunity to speak to you today.
We firmly believe that the status quo on immigration
between Mexico and the U.S. is no longer acceptable. Moreover,
since the infamous attacks of 9/11, the conditions have only
been aggravated. Because of the current situation, we
appreciate the opportunity to share our ideas with the Senate
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship.
It is necessary to act promptly to develop a new migration
paradigm on Mexican and Central American immigration to the
U.S. Almost 75 percent of the current migration flow to the
U.S. comes from Mexico and Central America. Therefore, I will
focus the majority of my testimony on these areas.
In Mexico and Central America, we fully appreciate the
efforts of this Committee to promote immigration reform. This
testimony consists of five elements that we believe should be
considered in the immigration debate that is taking place in
this legislative chamber.
The first element is shared responsibility. The new
migration status quo should be based on shared responsibility
between the receiving country--the U.S.--and the countries with
intense rates of migration--Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras, and Nicaragua--as the only way to manage a bilateral
and sub-regional phenomenon.
There is an urgency to change the paradigm in which Mexico
and the U.S. operate on migration matters. Traditionally, U.S.
migration policy has been considered a domestic issue. Thus,
U.S. authorities have unilaterally managed migration efforts.
For its part, Mexico for many years had a policy of not having
a policy. During the Fox and Bush administrations, there have
been similar steps to engage in a new migration dialogue and
cooperation. Still, much more has to be done. Mexico and the
U.S. must increase their level of cooperation in both managing
the flow of migrants as well as in creating a more secure and
efficient border.
It is also necessary to revise the U.S.-Mexico
institutional framework for dealing with the border and
migration. A summit involving all agencies in the U.S. and
Mexico dealing with security, borders, and migration should
take place. The summit will not only foster a dialogue on
policies and actions, but it will also create a new binational
mechanism for security, migration, and border cooperation.
The second element is comprehensive reform. For security
matters and given the complicated nature of the migration
phenomenon, a comprehensive migration reform is necessary. This
reform cannot only partially address the different challenges
and problems posed by the high levels of Mexican and Central
American migration to the U.S., it must deal with needs of both
sending and receiving countries.
In addressing five major issues, the Kennedy-McCain
initiative, Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act,
represents a substantial change to the current status quo
addressing the reality of the regional labor market. Mexican
analysts and advocacy groups, such as the National Migration
Institute Citizen Council, have urged the Mexican government as
well as Congress to engage in the Kennedy-McCain effort for
comprehensive reform.
The third element is the creation of an efficient and
secure Mexican Southern border. The border between Mexico,
Guatemala, and Belize is not simply porous, it is wide open.
For many decades, an open Mexican Southern border didn't
represent a major problem, but this is no longer the case in
the post-9/11 security-oriented atmosphere.
In the year 2002, Mexican migration officials deported
138,000 persons, mostly from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras,
and Nicaragua. Last year, the number of deportations increased
to 215,000. Mexico cannot replicate the California experience
of the late 1990's of trying to stop the entry of migrants by
building walls and fences and highly increasing the number of
border patrol agents. After a decade, it is quite clear that
those policies only generated negative consequences without
reducing illegal immigration.
Besides entering into a dialogue with Central America and
U.S. authorities, the Mexican government has to implement a
major effort to strengthen the National Migration Institute and
organize the different police corps and military operating at
the Southern border. Corruption among Mexican officers must be
stopped, both for humanitarian and security reasons.
The fourth element is to formalize a sub-regional dialogue
on migration issues. The immigration patterns of the last two
decades have formed a new hemispheric sub-region composed of
Mexico, the U.S., and four Central American countries--
Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. These
accelerated rates of migration explain some new dynamics that
are specific to this region. The emergence of transnational
young criminal gangs, such as the Mara Salvatrucha and the
Barrio 18, which social ties extend from L.A. to Honduras, is
one example. In this case, as in many others, it is necessary
to develop sub-regional approaches to cope effectively with the
specific challenges of the region.
The fifth and last element is the areas in which Mexico
should engage to strengthen the possibilities of a successful
migration reform in the U.S. As Ambassador Rozental was just
saying, it is important to return to the circularity of the
immigration pattern, improve the health and education coverage
of the Mexican nationals, including those who migrate to the
U.S., and improving security and border safety, and one example
could be by cooperating with the U.S. on fighting the criminal
organizations that smuggle immigrants and operate on both sides
of the border. Thank you.
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you very much, Professor.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Clariond appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Cornyn. We will start now with a round of
questions. Let me start perhaps, Professor, with the subject
that you were just addressing. Some have called Mexico's
Southern border America's third border because the transiting
of criminals, human smugglers, and other activities through
that border into the United States is a security concern. What
is Mexico doing to provide greater security along its Southern
border and to stop Mexico from being a transit point for
terrorists, drug dealers, violent gangs, and the like?
Ms. Clariond. Well, as I was just saying, the National
Institute of Migration of Mexico has increased the number of
arrests and deportations of immigrants, illegal immigrants,
especially from Central America into Mexico. I think that to
address, to really address the problem of the transnational
gangs as the Mara Salvatrucha and even criminal drug networks,
we really need to form a sub-regional dialogue to work
together. We cannot try to address unilaterally these
challenges because there is not going to be any forum to do it.
As we said in the report that we handed in before this
hearing, in Salvador, they tried to implement a zero-tolerance
policy towards the Maras. The only thing that happened was that
the Maras, they started to going to Honduras, Nicaragua,
Guatemala, Belize, and Mexico, and even into the U.S.
So Mexico cannot develop a unilateral policy, a zero-
tolerance policy. It has to work together with Central America
and the U.S. in order to really try to approach this challenge.
Chairman Cornyn. I do know that Mexico has been a good
partner with the United States in developing strategies for
security in many respects and we very much appreciate that
partnership. At the same time, the United States cannot
intervene in a sovereign nation's affairs. Regarding the
violence, for example, we see happening in Nuevo Laredo and
places like that--Ambassador, I would appreciate your
observations on this--what can the United States do to help
Mexico further secure law and order within its own borders in
addition to participating in these partnerships and other
efforts that we have been engaged in for some time now?
Ambassador Rozental. My own feeling, Mr. Chairman, is that
there--and we have just concluded a tri-national task force
report on the future of North America in which we have
proposed, in effect, the creation of a security perimeter
around North America whereby all three countries--Canada, the
United States, and Mexico--undertake a joint and shared
responsibility for creating a zone within North America where
issues such as those that you have mentioned are looked at and
dealt with insofar as possible trilaterally.
I agree with you that sovereignty issues always play a role
in how countries see what goes on within their own territories.
But I think that it is clear, and from a survey that the
Council that I chair undertook last year in Mexico of public
opinion attitudes towards international relations and relations
with the United States specifically, that Mexicans, by and
large, understand that these issues need to be addressed
jointly and that because they need to be addressed jointly,
they require us to understand that we can have things which
perhaps in principle look like sovereignty issues but that at
the end of the day make our own region and our own countries,
individually and jointly, more secure and safer for the
citizens within them.
It was interesting to see that Mexicans by a majority, a
fairly large majority, agreed to have the stationing of U.S.
law enforcement personnel within Mexican territory if it meant
that they would be safer from external threats to North America
by doing so.
Chairman Cornyn. Let me ask you about this concept of
circularity of migration that both, Mr. Ambassador, you and the
Professor both emphasized. This seems to be a subject that
comes up repeatedly in our conversations with our friends in
Mexico. And, it seems to be very consistent with America's
national interests and the national interests of Mexico, in
particular, but also with those of other countries in Central
and South America. People who would come to work in the United
States for a time would have the ability to cross the border
during the period of their work visa. Ultimately, to the
success of economies like Mexico and those of countries in
Central America, people would actually return home at some
point with savings and skills, not permanently emigrate to the
United States.
Could you please comment on your view of that issue,
Ambassador?
Ambassador Rozental. Certainly, Senator. The history of
migration patterns between Mexico and the United States, and I
take that particular example because it is the one I know best,
show that, at times--at the times when there were less, fewer
obstacles to circularity, that is, to coming and going, the
numbers of people who came and went, especially the ones who
stayed in the United States, were much lower.
It is my understanding, and I certainly--there is no way to
prove it until we try it, but the fact is that the erection of
all the barriers that have been put up at the border, the
fences and the operations and the enforcement measures that
have been taken, have really only served to ensure that the
people who do make it across, and they always do make it
across, stay in the United States because it is much more
difficult to come and go.
I feel that if there were sufficient opportunities for
Mexicans and others to work in the United States legitimately,
in an orderly fashion, according to United States laws, and to
come here fairly easily, that is, to obtain visas without a 10-
year waiting period or whatever it is, that there would be much
less, one, illegality, and two, many fewer people who would
want to remain in the United States permanently. Again, it is
difficult to prove it, but I think that the history shows that
that is the way it worked before the beginning of all of these
programs to stop people from crossing.
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you very much.
Senator Kennedy?
Senator Kennedy. Thank you both. Let me ask, Ambassador,
why do you think all five of these points are necessary to
reform the immigration laws and the sort of chaos lawlessness
that now exists?
Ambassador Rozental. Senator, thank you. I believe that all
five are necessary because they all form part of the
phenomenon. They all have to do with the issue of immigration.
I mean, the first, of course, is what do you do about all the
people who have yet to come to the United States to work, who
are being demanded for work here, who have job offers and who
have the ability to be employed?
The second part is, of course, the several million people
who are already in the United States without proper
authorization, and you can't, I think, solve the first issue
without addressing the second issue, among other reasons,
because of the constituencies involved within the internal
domestic political system of the United States and the various
groups that deal with the issue.
Border security and safety not only after 9/11, but even
before 9/11 was a very big issue, and what has happened in
these recent weeks and months at the border with the United
States on the Mexican side, although perhaps today more evident
from media coverage, is not new. There has always been a degree
of criminal element in the border, at the border, because of
the illegality of the issues that cross the border, whether it
is arms smuggling or people smuggling or illegal immigration or
contraband or anything else.
The efforts that Mexico needs to make, and these are
efforts which I think the United States should participate in,
perhaps together even with Canada, to enhance the opportunities
for its own citizens within the country, for a developing
country that has so many other requirements to deal with in its
social and economic structure is an issue which needs to be
addressed, as well, because as long as there are areas and
pockets of poverty in Mexico and states that don't give
opportunity to their people, then those people will be looking
for ways to move forward.
And finally, the country quota system, although on the
books, in practice is not being observed. There are many more
Mexicans who get legal and proper visas to come to the United
States under all of the different programs that are offered for
them to do that, whether it is family reunification or
whatever, that if all of this was put in an orderly system and
Mexicans knew that if they had a job offer here and they could
come and that the visa would be available within, I don't know,
30 days if they could prove that they had a job offer and that
they could come back and forward at the end of that job offer
or move to another job, that there would be much less of an
illegality to the system.
So from my perspective--a former Foreign Minister of Mexico
called it a ``whole enchilada.'' I wouldn't call it that, but I
would say that these are very much entwined as issues in the
immigration phenomenon and, therefore, need to be looked at
together, including the border security and enforcement issue,
which I think is very much a matter of consideration of this
Subcommittee.
Senator Kennedy. Maybe you have answered this question with
the first one, but what would happen if our Congress only
addressed the border security and didn't address the need for
legal status of the undocumented or a legal avenue of new
temporary workers? What do you think the result would be?
Ambassador Rozental. Senator, I think the result would be
exactly the same as we have had for the last 50 years. You
would continue to have the same phenomenon of Mexicans crossing
over to the United States to work. Americans, by the way,
staying in Mexico to work, as well, without proper
authorization. I should point out that this is not just a pure
one-way street. There are many fewer, but there are Americans
who live in Mexico and work in Mexico without proper
documentation.
And I think that the only way that you can address this
issue and get to the root causes of it is to deal with those
points in addition to enforcement. The U.S. has done nothing
but to try to enforce the border up until now, and over
successive immigration reform acts and all of the money and
resources, human and financial, that have been put in
enforcement, it has not made the slightest dent in the actual
numerical issue of the migration phenomenon.
Senator Kennedy. Professor Clariond, let me ask you, how
can we best guard against the corruption, the fraud, the other
illegal activities by the sort of unscrupulous recruiters and
make sure the visas are available to qualified workers?
Ms. Clariond. We are going to start right now cities. The
H2A and H2B visas that almost were allocated to Mexican
workers, almost in the number of 70,000 visas last year, there
is no involvement of the Mexican or the U.S. Government in
allocating these visas. So they are in hands of recruiters
which can lead to an increase in the possibilities of
corruption and fraud. So I think that the best way to guard
against this kind of illegal activities will be not to let it
go in the hands of the recruiters and to form an
intergovernmental task force in Mexico with the participation
of labor, foreign affairs, interior, and social development
ministers in order to be able to manage the demand for visas in
the U.S.
Senator Kennedy. I think that is a good suggestion. My time
is up, but I would be interested in following up.
Also, Ambassador, as I mentioned, my time is up, but I hope
that sometime you might be able to supplement about your
reactions to that Three-to-One Program, which I would be
interested in your ideas. Perhaps the Professor could give us a
little summary about your own impressions on that, what you
think its strengths are, its possibilities for expansion.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
Senator Coburn has graciously allowed Senator Kyl to go
first because I know you have a short amount of time to be
here, Senator Kyl, so please go ahead.
Senator Kyl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much
appreciate that. Senator Coburn, I need to apologize to both of
you. I am the Chairman of another Committee that is meeting
right now just down the hall. Fortunately, it is on the same
floor of the same building, but I do need to return to that.
So rather than take the time of my colleagues here, I
wonder if you would be willing if I submitted a couple of
questions for the record. It would give you time to think about
the response to that, and I will just tell you a couple of the
subject matters.
One of the things, Ms. Clariond, that you mentioned was
that perhaps Mexico could do more to help the United States
with interdiction and removal of the third-country nationals,
sometimes known as OTMs. I am very interested in how that might
be helpful.
Mr. Ambassador, I am interested in what Mexico might do to
realistically work with the United States, cooperate with the
United States in a temporary worker program. The last
suggestion might be part of that, and perhaps that could be
expanded on.
And then, finally, the third area would deal with what
recommendations you would have with respect to people who are
already here illegally as contrasted with those who might
participate in a guest worker program prospectively and how we
would make that work.
But again, let me ask you to submit that for the record so
that I don't use my colleagues' time here. I again apologize to
you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator Coburn.
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you, Senator Kyl.
Senator Coburn?
Senator Coburn. Thank you, and thank you for your
testimony.
Ambassador, a couple of questions I have. The Mexican
government, I guess it was last year, stopped requiring visas
for Brazilians, and since that time, we have seen a
tremendously increased number of Brazilians, not necessarily
the poorest but some from the lower-middle economic classes
coming through Mexico as a transit. Can you explain the logic
behind elimination of the visa requirement for Mexico for
Brazilians who are coming in and transiting through?
Ambassador Rozental. Thank you, Senator. Well, I, of
course, don't represent the government and I with difficulty
would be able to tell you why certain policies are government
policy. I suspect that because Brazil is a sister Latin
American country and because we generally have a suppression of
visa regime with most of the countries in Latin America that
this was not an issue.
I know that the United States government has been in
discussions with the Mexican government about requiring visas
for Brazilians. One of the things that has been done recently,
and I think it is a harbinger of the type of cooperation that I
think a North American security perimeter would require, is
harmonization of third-country visa policies. We have done it
to some extent already, but not fully, and I think that the
only way to consider it in a wider scheme of things would be
precisely to have an overall cooperation.
In the Ottawa meeting of the ministerial groups that
reported to Presidents Bush, Fox, and Prime Minister Martin of
Canada just this last Monday, one of the issues which is
covered in the report is third-country national visa
harmonization, and it is certainly, I think, one of the issues
that needs to be looked at.
One of the things I would like to remind people that I talk
to about immigration matters in North America is that Canada
does not require visas from Mexicans. It is a country that
Mexicans can visit freely for the amount of time that the
Canadian authorities allow Mexicans to go there, and we have no
undocumented or illegal immigration issue with Canada
whatsoever. We have a guest worker program for agricultural
sector that covers several of the provinces. There are about
10,000 Mexicans that go every year. They all come home. They
are all rehired the following year. They now have a
longstanding presence among their employers. Their employers
want the same people to keep coming and it works very well.
That, although the numbers are obviously very different
from those that could be involved in a U.S.-Mexican temporary
worker program, it is certainly a possibility and it is a
bilateral program. That is, both governments administer it
jointly.
Senator Coburn. Would you care to guess for us the number
of visas, H1 and H2 visas, that might be required to fully meet
the needs that we have on our side as well as the demands
coming from Mexicans and other than Mexicans on a visa program
if, in fact, we had an ideal program, much like Canada has?
Would you have any idea of the number of visas We have had
discussions on the floor in the Senate. There has been a lot of
discussion bandied around in terms of the guest worker program.
Do you have any ideas as to those numbers?
Ambassador Rozental. The only number that I can give you
with any authority is the one that, bilaterally, Mexico and the
United States have been looking at from the time that we did
our binational study, and that is that it has fluctuated yearly
between 300,000 and 400,000 people. We don't know how many of
those people return, so that whether the universe is--are all
individuals who are different or whether they come and go. But
presumably, if you were to cover, from the Mexican point of
view, the total amount, you would be talking about somewhere in
that ballpark figure.
If you were to add the Central Americans and other
countries, OTMs, as they are called, other-than-Mexican
nationals, it would probably be an additional amount, although
I think that, statistically, Mexicans cover about 60 percent of
the numbers.
Senator Coburn. Professor Clariond, would you have an
answer to that question or an estimate?
Ms. Clariond. I agree with Ambassador Rozental. He used--I
mean, Jeffrey Pascal from the Pew Hispanic Center, his last
estimates indicate that around Mexican migration to the U.S.
fluctuates between 420,000 and 480,000, so if you really want
to have access, give legal channels to this migration, it will
have to be around that number.
Senator Coburn. Thank you very much. My time has about
expired and I will yield back.
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you, Senator Coburn.
Professor, one of the burdens that illegal immigration
places on taxpayers at the local level is the cost of health
care. We know that it is the most expensive, least efficient
form of delivery because it is in emergency rooms. The Federal
Government requires an emergency room to see any patient
without regard to their citizenship status, without regard to
whether they have insurance or not.
In my State, Texas, 25 percent of the population is without
health insurance, which means that an awful lot of people end
up going to the emergency room, and many emergency rooms in
large cities, like Dallas, for example, at Parkland Hospital,
have to go on ``divert'' status. That is, they can't take any
emergencies because they are full of people who are not
emergencies, who don't have health care, who have nowhere else
to go.
What kind of obligation would you see that Mexico and any
other country that would benefit from an authorized worker
program, what sort of obligations could the United States
expect them to accept in terms of the health care of their own
people and relieving some of that burden off of the local
taxpayers in Texas and places like that?
Ms. Clariond. Well, the Mexican government clearly needs to
strengthen its health coverage programs. It just implemented a
new program called Seguro Popular, that it is a public health
program for low-income families. These are the families that do
not have access to any other kind of health system, Social
Security system in Mexico. The idea is to see if the Seguro
Popular could be extended to migrants, Mexican migrants in the
U.S.
Another idea can be to establish a bilateral or binational
health coverage system with private enterprises joining in and
seeing that some of these migrants can receive health care
attention in Mexico, not only in the U.S.
Chairman Cornyn. Ambassador, I would be interested in your
comments in that regard, as well. I think virtually every
country in the world, as a condition to issuing visas or
allowing people from other countries to enter that country for
any extended period of time, require proof of health insurance.
Would that be one of the alternatives that you think would be a
reasonable requirement of temporary workers who would be
admitted to the United States under such a program were it
adopted?
Ambassador Rozental. Senator, it works that way with our
Canadian program, the Mexican-Canadian program. They are
insured while they are in the United States. Mexican
undocumented workers usually pay fairly large amounts to the
smugglers who put them across. If you didn't have to pay that
and you used that money to partially pay for health insurance
while you are in the United States, I would suspect that many
of them would prefer to have health insurance and prefer to
have access not only to emergency room care, but to general
health care.
The other possibility, and this ties in with the issue of
incentives, I think Mexico and the U.S. need to find together,
but Mexico needs to do its part, of course, to find incentives
to keep Mexicans at home, but it also needs to find incentives
for Mexicans to use Mexican educational, Mexican health,
Mexican other services that are available.
Under the understanding that there would be a program which
the Mexican side would be involved with or shared
responsibility for, things like a binational health insurance
scheme, issues relating to the Seguro Popular that Roberta
mentioned, the possibility which we even discussed back when I
was Deputy Foreign Minister in the prehistoric times of this
century--of last century, actually--was to allow for emergency
health care at the border to be provided on the Mexican side
rather than on the U.S. side. Now, there is a time problem and
you can't expect people to make a big trip, but at least along
the border, and this specifically referred to the State of
Texas, the idea that Mexicans who needed emergency health care
could get it on the Mexican side rather than on the U.S. side
in order to alleviate the cost to the U.S. taxpayer.
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you. Let me ask again, we talked a
little bit about the circularity of migration issue and this
sort of counterintuitive idea--I mean, I understand what you
are saying, and I have seen this written up in a number of
places, that by enhancing border security in the United States,
we have actually locked people into our country, in a sense,
rather than allowed them to go back and forth.
But, we all know that we simply can't have an open border
and we all know that the United States and any country has to
know who is coming into their country and why. And finally, I
would say we have to be able to place some reasonable limits on
immigration. Any nation in its own interest has to be able to
limit immigration to some rational level, recognizing that
there is a tremendous demand for the labor provided by
immigrants.
I want to press you maybe a little bit, Mr. Ambassador, on
the security issue again because I don't know how we deal with
the terrorist who wants to come across if we regard the
security perimeter as only covering the three countries of the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. I mean, I wouldn't expect
you to want American law enforcement to go to Nuevo Laredo and
intervene in those violent episodes.
I guess I am wondering a little bit, do you see a
difference between the way that Americans view sovereignty in
terms of what our borders mean as opposed to the way Mexicans
view our border? I sense there would be some difference in
perception and approach because so many of my friends from
Mexico seem to view us as a North American continent, not as
separate nations with sovereign borders.
Ambassador Rozental. Thank you, Senator. No, I am not one
of those that feels very strongly either way. I think we have a
North American sub-region. We have set up a North American Free
Trade Agreement. We have free movement of goods. We have a fair
amount of free moment of services. I think that, eventually, as
a long-term goal, an open border or a free movement of people
should be a long-term goal.
I think it is obviously unrealistic to expect that to
happen today or even in the next 15 or 20 years, but hopefully
when Mexico is a developed country, when the economy and the
social structure of Mexico are such that they are more in line
with the U.S. and Canada, there is no reason why we couldn't
have a similar situation as to what the Europeans have, and
that is a fair amount of freedom of movement both for jobs as
well as for other legitimate activities.
The issue of stopping terrorists and undesirables, if you
like, from my perspective, would work better if it were done on
the other perimeters of our region than if it is done at the
land borders, which are already extremely congested, saturated,
where you have the issue of the trade and the commercial
traffic that goes through. You mentioned Nuevo Laredo. Sixty
percent of our bilateral trade goes through truck traffic in
Nuevo Laredo, as you well know.
If you concentrate all of the resources that you are today
concentrating on the fight against terrorism and securing the
U.S. homeland and you don't worry about what is going on on the
Southern border of Mexico or the Northern borders of Canada or
the entranceways, gateways into the airports and seaports, you
are, in effect, only doing half of the job.
And my point is that you work in looking at North America
as a region and then you transfer part--not all, but part of
the security mechanism to the outer perimeter through third-
country national visa harmonization, watch lists, sharing of
databases, for example, deciding that before you issue a visa
to come into North America in the U.S. Consulate in Paris or in
Tehran, you consult the Mexicans and the Canadians as to
whether they have any information on that individual, things of
that sort which can increase security and increase the
protection that you give to the region. That doesn't address
the issue within the region, but it does address part of the
issue outside.
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you.
Senator Coburn?
Senator Coburn. I just had one question. It is kind of a
personal note and it is to ask motivation rather than anything,
in your opinion. As an obstetrician, I have delivered lots of
foreign babies in my practice in Oklahoma, most of which are
Hispanic, but not all Mexican. Is there part, because of our
citizenship requirements of birth, if you are born in this
country, does that play a role at all in motivation for coming
across the border? You know, this is a more frequent occurrence
in this country, and, of course, there is chain migration
associated with that in that if you are born here to an illegal
alien, you are still a U.S. citizen.
Is that part of the motivation? Is that ever in the
thinking, or is that just a happenstance of those that are
here, in your opinion?
Ambassador Rozental. Senator, I think it certainly is a
phenomenon that exists. I think it exists much more along the
Mexican border, in Mexican border cities, especially Tijuana
and some other places, where more well-to-do Mexican women go
to have their deliveries in the United States for that reason.
But I do not think that it plays a very dramatic or important
role in the general migration phenomena.
Senator Coburn. If my daughter were pregnant and delivered
in Mexico, would she be a Mexican citizen?
Ambassador Rozental. Yes, she would.
Senator Coburn. The child would? Thank you.
Chairman Cornyn. Ambassador Rozental and Professor, I read
with interest about a mortgage program for Mexican migrants
where Mexican migrants living in the U.S. can obtain mortgages
to buy homes in Mexico. Supporters of the program argue that it
will increase the standard of living of the families of
migrants in Mexico and it will reinforce migrants' roots in
their native country.
What steps do you think Mexico and other countries can take
to increase economic opportunity at home to maintain ties to
one's homeland in a way that promotes the circularity of
migration you are talking about and prevents the severance of
ties on a permanent basis with their home country such that
they are more likely to permanently emigrate to the United
States? Professor, would you like to take a stab at that first,
please?
Ms. Clariond. Yes. Thank you, Senator. The Mexican
government recently has implemented a program on transnational
mortgage, as you were saying, to make housing available for
low-income families. So I think it will, as part of any
temporary worker program between Mexico--that Mexico cooperates
with the U.S., it will be--the Mexican government can broaden
this program and make it accessible for Mexican immigrants to
come back, as an incentive to come back and be able to own
their own house and their family--for their family. This
really, as we all know, owning a home is part of strengthening
your ties to your community of origin. So I think this will
provide to be an important economic incentive for migrants,
Mexican migrants in the U.S. to go back.
Chairman Cornyn. Ambassador, one proposal that I am
familiar with--that I learned about from Senator Phil Gramm, my
predecessor--I embraced in a bill I sponsored last year. It
would allow the withholding from a worker's pay (someone who
works on a temporary basis in the United States and would not
be eligible for Social Security through the United States or
Medicare) sums that would ordinarily be withheld, and it would
put them in a separate account for the worker. The sums would
only be made available to the worker upon return to his/her
country of origin. The belief is that this would provide yet
another incentive for the worker to return home by providing
him/her with some capital--savings that would be beneficial to
the worker and to the country of origin because it could be
used to buy a home, start a small business, or otherwise
contribute to the economic development of that country. Do you
see that as one potential approach that we could use, or are
there positives or negatives associated with that?
Ambassador Rozental. Thank you, Senator. The Social
Security Administration in this country and the Mexican Social
Security Institute signed an agreement back in June of last
year, a so-called totalization agreement, which allows Mexicans
who work both in the United States and in Mexico to be able to
retire and get Social Security benefits from both under this
agreement. It works also for Americans who work in Mexico. It
also avoids dual Social Security taxation, which is an issue
that people who work in both countries have to deal with.
That agreement, which was negotiated and signed by both
governments, is still pending submission to this Senate and
also pending submission to the Mexican Congress for
ratification. Once it is ratified, it will go a long way
towards doing exactly what you mentioned.
Whether you could also add to that the possibility of a
withholding for a savings account, an IRA-type system where you
would have something for when you went back home, I think is
certainly a feasibility. The number one use in Mexico of
remittances sent by Mexican migrant workers home is for the
purchase of a home.
Chairman Cornyn. I know occasionally, I hear people say
that one reason why Mexico and other countries are not
committed to immigration reform in the United States is because
these countries depend on the remittances sent from workers
here in the United States. I think that is wrong. I disagree
with those who argue that because if you would estimate that
the remittances, the amount of money actually sent, let us say
from the United States to Mexico, which I think is in the $16
to $17 billion range per year, represents the savings rate by
immigrants, let us say it is ten percent of one's earnings,
Mexico might be the beneficiary from an economic standpoint of
that $16 or $17 billion, but it represents an additional 90
percent of economic activity which is taking place in the
United States and not in Mexico. So, I have a little difficulty
with the argument.
Thus, I might just ask, Ambassador, this question. What
other steps do you believe that Mexico can take on its own or
with help from the United States to develop its economy and
create jobs and opportunities in that country so that, as both
President Fox and Secretary Derbez have said, Mexicans can
achieve their life's dreams in their country of origin?
Ambassador Rozental. I think there are two aspects to the
question, Senator. The first aspect is the question of the
incentives that the Mexican government as such can put on the
table for Mexicans to stay in Mexico or return to Mexico if
they are not in Mexico or if they travel or take jobs
elsewhere.
And the other aspect, of course, has to do with how
Mexicans themselves see this phenomenon of circularity. I
mentioned earlier that the way it used to work, before all of
the obstacles came about, was that most Mexicans would go
seasonally into the United States and work in the agricultural
sector to do seasonal work and then go home and have jobs the
rest of the year. Today, the category of migrants that come
from Mexico has changed considerably. They are no longer
predominately agricultural workers. Today, they work in the
service sector, they work in a whole series of areas of the
U.S. economy that are not limited to agriculture.
And they also probably would be better off if they were
able to deal with their skills in both countries, and many of
them do, and many of them risk the travail of crossing the
border and risking being caught and deported and going back
again because the number of reincidences that the Border Patrol
and the U.S. Immigration Service documents is rather high,
which, in effect, again indicates that they are looking at this
as almost a bilateral labor market in which they would like to
be able to work a certain period of time, whether it is a few
months of a year or a few years of a decade in the United
States and then be able to go home, because that is where their
families are, that is where their ties are, in some cases that
is where they own property.
Again, the circularity issue, the interruption of
circularity, I think to a great extent has led to the fact that
the system doesn't work the way it used to.
On the incentive issue, there are incentives of a financial
nature. Senator Kennedy and yourself, you mentioned the Three-
for-One Program. This is a program that President Fox put into
place to match remittances with federal, state, and local--
which is why it is called three-to-one--dollars with investment
in infrastructure, infrastructure being job creating on the one
hand and also giving development opportunities to these regions
of Mexico that generally are poorer.
Employment incentives--you will be able, presumably, under
an agreement that those who came back to Mexico would have some
sort of a fast track into the job market, to be able to get
employment in an easier way and through a government-sponsored
scheme where they would be able to enter the job market in
Mexico in a better system.
Educational incentives--Mexicans who came to the United
States and worked here and picked up skills while they were
here could then go back to Mexico with educational incentives
to be able to either continue their training and their skill
building or go into the educational system beyond high school
and beyond what the average Mexican goes through.
And then there are the pension and Social Security
incentives. There is the mortgage incentive that we talked
about for homebuilding. There are a whole series of issues that
could be on the table.
Again, all of these, I think, are conditioned on the
bilateral nature of the discussion. As I said at the outset,
the bilateral part of the discussion was interrupted
fundamentally at 9/11 and has not really resumed as far as
immigration is concerned since then.
Chairman Cornyn. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador
and Professor. Thank you for your time and testimony on this
important subject.
We will leave the record open until 5:00 p.m. next
Thursday, July 7, for members to submit additional questions in
writing or additional documents for the record.
With that, and with my thanks, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the record follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.012
<all>