I. INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony on behalf of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the largest national constituency-based Latino civil rights organization. NCLR is an umbrella organization for more than 250 affiliates – community-based institutions that provide a wide range of services to more than 3.5 million Latinos each year. NCLR has long been involved in the public policy debate on immigration; for us this is a civil rights issue of fundamental importance. Immigration policy is a priority for us not because so many Latinos are immigrants – indeed many of our fellow Americans are surprised to learn that the majority of Latinos are native-born U.S. citizens – but rather because immigration policies tend to affect us all, whether or not we were born here.

The initial reports emerging from the 2000 Census illustrate why the immigration issue is so important to Hispanic Americans. While many of us come from communities that became American by conquest, the fastest growing segments of the Latino community are either immigrants themselves or the products of immigration. The extraordinary growth of our community, which is emerging as a force throughout the U.S., demonstrates the power of the immigration phenomenon and the ways in which the classic American story is being repeated all over the country. One of the many reasons for our strength as a nation is this repeating process, through which immigrants are transformed by the experience of becoming Americans, and America itself is also transformed, enriched, and reinvigorated by the presence of immigrants.

Few Americans doubt that our tradition as a nation of immigrants is one of America's defining characteristics; the diversity this fosters is a big part of what makes our country unique. There is ample evidence supporting the notion that this continues to be true; immigrants who choose to make their lives here enrich the United States economically, socially, and culturally. Immigrants contribute about $10 billion to the U.S. economy each year. If you account for the impact of immigrant-owned businesses, this figure is likely to be far higher. A vast array of observers, including key business leaders, the AFL-CIO, and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, have pointed to immigration as a key element in the nation's recent economic growth – the hard work of immigrants has been essential to creating the unprecedented prosperity that America enjoys.

But it is also part of the American story that the very processes of immigration and demographic change are sometimes greeted negatively. Even as immigrants have enriched the nation, they have also been attacked for not seeming educated enough, skilled enough, or "American" enough to belong here. There are anti-immigrant organizations and movements working today to raise concerns about current waves of immigration. At their best, these organized movements provoke discussion and debate; at their worst, they promote hatred and bigotry. These movements have often shaped the nation's policies toward immigrants, from the exclusionary laws that dominated American policy until the middle of the 20th century to the most recent major immigration reform enacted in 1996, which reflects significant anti-immigrant sentiment.

The U.S. clearly does well by doing the right thing – our policy strategy of reuniting families, protecting refugees, and providing for specific labor needs appears to benefit not simply the immigrants themselves, but America as a whole. Indeed, while the basic framework of our legal immigration policy is the right one, the way in which we implement our immigration laws is far out of step with the reality that immigrants are an asset to the U.S. and who should be treated with respect and a commitment to equity. Our most recent set of immigration reforms was drafted at the height of a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment; the impact of these reforms on many hard-working immigrants and their families has been devastating. Across the country, legal residents and U.S. citizens face the separation of their families, inappropriate detention and deportation, major damage to due process of law, and distinctly unequal treatment under the law. Indeed, immigrants are subjected to a set of policies that are unthinkable for other Americans – our nation's commitment to equal justice has been severely undercut by recent changes in immigration law. In addition, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has long been notorious in immigrant communities for its poor treatment of the individuals and families it is meant to serve. I would hope that this Subcommittee would turn its attention to these major ways in which immigration policy reflects an attitude that commits a grave injustice to our nation's immigrants and their many contributions to the nation.

II. REFORM OF THE INS

During the recent presidential campaign, then-candidate George W. Bush made a public commitment to implement substantial reforms of the INS in order to improve its effectiveness and responsiveness to the communities it serves. NCLR, like the vast majority of Latinos, welcomes this commitment and is looking forward to working with President Bush's Administration and the Subcommittee to realize this particular vision. The Latino community has an enormous interest and stake in the reform of the INS. However, the issue is not simply reforming the agency, but doing it in a way which promotes equity and accountability. If last year's legislation on reform of INS serves as a guide to this year's debate, NCLR would be comfortable with the approach in last year's Senate bill. However, if the House bill provides the framework, we would be forced to oppose.

NCLR agrees with President Bush that one of the principal priorities for INS reorganization is to improve its accountability for fair and speedy adjudication of the numerous petitions that come before it: for family visas, political asylum, citizenship, and other important processes. We have long complained that a mentality of enforcement has been too visible in the administration of these processes; while most INS personnel do their jobs well, there are too many who still believe that their responsibility is to look for ways to "get" people as they go through routine processes like naturalization and visa processing. As a result, our community fears any contact with the INS; even those who have no reason to fear a naturalization interview believe that the adjudicator might find some excuse to deny their petition, or worse. Enough people have found themselves detained or ensnared in complicated bureaucratic processes to make these fears warranted.

In addition, backlogs processing continues to plague the system. Recent efforts to speed up naturalization processing have had a positive impact, but only at the expense of slowing down the adjudication of other important petitions. It is unreasonable for an agency of the size and scope of INS to send teams of adjudicators from backlog to backlog, reducing one set of problems while another one builds. This clearly indicates the need for adequate resources, appropriate training, and a long-term strategy to ensure that the agency can fulfill its mission. There are still far too many problems that result in extraordinary delays for thousands of people; lost applications are commonplace, as is poor treatment of those who come to inquire about the status of their applications.

NCLR believes that accountability for the way INS conducts its enforcement activities is an equally important goal for the reorganization of INS. We have opposed legislation to reform the agency in the past because we believed that it would reduce accountability on the enforcement side and increase the kinds of abuse that affect far too many Latinos. Immigration enforcement often runs afoul of the civil rights of Hispanic Americans, including U.S. citizens and legal residents who are mistaken for immigrants because of their ethnic appearance. In border communities, generations of Latinos have complained about being asked to prove that they belong in their own neighborhoods; these practices are increasingly evident in the interior of the U.S. INS increasingly enlists other agencies in its enforcement strategies, including the Social Security Administration and local police forces, in a way that is both highly invasive and abusive. Part of the discussion on reform of the INS must include the establishment of law enforcement standards that protect the rights of those who come into contact with INS and accountability for the way the entire enforcement operation is conducted.

III. FARMWORKERS AND GUESTWORKERS

The debate on agricultural labor and guestworkers has already emerged as a major issue this year. NCLR has a long history in this debate; we are extremely concerned about the treatment of farmworkers in the U.S., which we have repeatedly expressed to this Subcommittee. NCLR strongly believes that any policy debate on agricultural labor must start from the perspective that the status quo is unacceptable; it is unreasonable for the nation's farm laborers to continue to live and work in conditions that resemble the 19th century more than they do the modern workplace. For this reason, we have strongly opposed legislation that has been introduced in the last several Congresses to expand the existing H-2A temporary worker program and reduce its labor protections.

The context in which this debate takes place is important; there is ample evidence to suggest that the major claim of the agricultural industry – that they have a labor shortage and must therefore import temporary workers – is unsubstantiated. A variety of recent reports, including by the U.S. General Accounting Office, have documented a surplus of agricultural labor. The GAO analyzed unemployment data in the 20 major agricultural-production counties in the United States and found that most have double-digit unemployment rates. Nor is there an impending shortage.

Additionally, employers have not sought to stabilize the labor market. Farmworkers' wages have declined in real terms during the last decade, and poverty rates have increased during the last few years, according to the Department of Labor. If there were a labor shortage, we would have seen employers increasing wage rates and offering other inducements. Rampant violations of minimum and other labor protections persist, according to recent studies.

There are strong indications that labor-intensive agribusiness can afford to pay a living wage. Agricultural productivity has increased substantially. The value of production of fruits, vegetables, and horticulture – labor-intensive crops – grew by 52% to $15.1 billion between 1986 and 1995. Exports of these products nearly quadrupled between FY 1986 and FY 1997, reaching $10.6 billion. Farmworkers did not share in that increase.

NCLR takes the position that any legislation related to temporary labor in agriculture or the service sector must recognize these circumstances and begin to address them in a way which puts farm laborers finally on equal footing with other American workers with respect to wages and labor rights. In particular, we have argued that any consideration of legislation affecting farm labor in the U.S., including the guestworker discussion, be consistent with several fundamental principles before being considered by this Subcommittee. First, any policy aimed at this sector must improve substantially the labor protections available to farmworkers and the enforcement of such protections. It is unreasonable that this sector functions under a set of labor standards far below the rest of the U.S. workforce. Any change in the law must result in substantial improvements in wages and working conditions for farmworkers. Similarly, legislative reforms must recognize that a substantial part of the existing agricultural workforce lives and works in the U.S. without the benefit of legal immigration status. It is in the long-term best interests of the country, the industry, and the workers themselves, to provide individuals with an opportunity to adjust their status and reunite with their families. NCLR believes that any reforms that simply expand the guestworker structure without significant improvements in labor standards and access to adjustment are incomplete, and likely to perpetuate the unacceptable conditions in which farmworkers live and work.

IV. REVISIT THE 1996 LAW

There is no greater evidence of the disconnect between the important and well-recognized role that immigrants play in the economy and society of the U.S. and their treatment under the law than the laws passed in 1996, which have had a devastating impact on immigrant families and their basic rights. In particular, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reform Act (PRWORA) enacted that year have become potent symbols of an ugly anti-immigrant era whose legacy is the atrocious treatment of immigrants and their families. While there have been modest reforms to remedy some of the ugliest provisions in these laws, there are still substantial reforms necessary to prevent the needless hardships endured by immigrant families which continue to shock their neighbors and communities.

There is a long list of excesses still present in the law which do nothing to forward the cause of immigration control, and do great harm to immigrant families and the nation's commitment to equal justice. In particular, NCLR hopes that this Congress will address:

· The unnecessary barriers to the reunification of families caused by several different provisions, including the failure to permanently extend section 245i, and the creation of arbitrary financial restrictions

· The injustice of "court stripping," which has prevented judges from offering leniency, and which has denied thousands of immigrants access to legal status for which they are eligible

· The automatic deportation of legal residents who committed minor offenses years ago and have since paid their debt to society

· A variety of provisions that undermine the confidentiality of immigrants and their families, and undermine their confidence in law enforcement and other public officials

· The lack of parity in the treatment of all of the refugees from the Cold War, particularly those from Central America who have made their homes in our communities for more than a decade

· The continuing impact of welfare reform, particularly on the health and nutritional status of legal immigrant children

NCLR strongly believes that it is in the best interest of the nation to rededicate itself to fair and equal treatment under the law. These policies, which tear families apart and undermine our nation's commitment to equal justice under the law, are more than a disservice to hard-working immigrants and their families; they undermine the commitment to fairness and equity that all Americans value.

V. ENFORCEMENT ISSUES AND PRACTICES

NCLR has grave concerns about the way in that immigration enforcement is conducted. While we, like most Hispanic Americans, agree that the nation has a right to enforce its laws and control its borders, the manner in which we engage in these efforts must be consistent with our laws and values. Unfortunately, immigration enforcement has for many decades been conducted in a way that undermines the rights that Americans hold most dear. Hispanic Americans, immigrant and native, continue to suffer abuse in the name of immigration enforcement.

The border between the United States and Mexico is an obvious focus of concern; the number of border enforcement personnel has increased dramatically in recent years. NCLR has long been concerned about the lack of adequate standards and training in the conduct of enforcement personnel. As large numbers of new officers are added, these concerns about their preparation are growing. In addition, along with many observers in the international and human rights communities, NCLR is alarmed at the number of deaths at the border. For many years, we have argued that an effective and humanely implemented deterrent at the U.S.-Mexico border is a key element of an immigration control strategy. It has since become clear that the cost for our current deterrence strategy is excessively high; over 600 people have died attempting to cross our border since it was implemented in the mid-1990s. This is an unacceptable and tragic outcome, which more than justifies a re-evaluation of the nation's strategy at the border.

NCLR is also highly concerned about the strategies being deployed by INS in the nation's interior. We have formally protested the strategy of creating "Quick Response Teams" (QRTs) in communities with emerging Latino populations. Our analysis of the response to this initiative suggests that a major result of this policy is the harassment of Latinos and others whose ethnic appearance suggests to law enforcement officers that they might be immigrants. The presence of INS in these communities often leads to improper collaborative efforts between INS and local police, who regularly stop Latino drivers and pedestrians and demand proof of immigration status. NCLR receives reports from all over the country of abuse at the hands of local police who have either come to believe on their own or have been persuaded by INS that their jobs should include immigration enforcement. Not only is this improper under the law, it seriously jeopardizes the public safety by destroying Latinos' confidence in their local law enforcement agencies. When entire communities begin to believe that the police are a source of harassment rather than protection, it becomes difficult to enforce the law and protect the public. NCLR strongly believes that these arrangements do little to advance immigration enforcement, and they do great harm to the larger community, not to mention to the fundamental rights of those of us whose only "infraction" is the fact that to others we look "foreign."

In addition, INS continues to use invasive verification procedures as a key enforcement strategy in a way that is undercutting immigrant communities and entire industries. For example, in 1999 through Operation Vanguard, INS compelled the entire meatpacking industry in Nebraska to turn over its employment records for verification. INS then attempted to verify these workers through its own databases, which are known to have substantial error rates, and those of the SSA, which are also inadequate to demonstrate the workers' eligibility to work legally in the U.S. The result of this operation was massive displacement of workers, including those who were legal residents, but who mistakenly turned up as potential problems in the data match. These immigrants, who are legally here but who also fear any contact with the INS, left their jobs rather than attempt to clarify their records. NCLR has long argued that INS verification schemes are unlikely to have an impact on illegal migration, but will clearly undermine the rights of workers caught up in problems as a result of faulty data. We believe that the use of verification systems as a tool in immigration enforcement must be re-evaluated.

VI. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, NCLR believes that this Subcommittee has a tremendous responsibility and a great opportunity in the 107th Congress. Immigrants throughout the United States, whose populations are more diverse than ever, and whose presence is felt throughout the nation, know well that they are not afforded the respect they deserve under our immigration laws. Neither they nor NCLR argue for a massive liberalization of immigration law, nor for great expansions in the number of immigrants who come to the U.S. But we do argue for family reunification, due process of law, protection for those fleeing persecution, equal treatment, and respect. Immigrants know well that their hard work and commitment to their chosen country is part of a long and extraordinary tradition that has made America great. We diminish that greatness when we allow excessively harsh, unjust, and inhumane laws to remain on the books. This Subcommittee has an opportunity to honor the many contributions that immigrants make in energizing our economy and revitalizing our communities. We urge you to lead the charge in restoring fairness to our laws.