Mr. McKEVITT. You would be picking up a form that is already in use, such as a W-4 form, and you could put any regulations on the back of it. And this is the flexibility that we seek. Rather than evading the preparation of forms, we wish to use forms already in effect which are used, and where the housewife is obligated to have it filled out anyway.

Mr. SEIBERLING. Would the gentlelady yield?

I was one of the people who last year expressed great concern over this. And I pointed out that my mother, who was then 84-and now 85-has occasionally hired people from the Caribbean area. I don't know whether they are aliens or not. But we wrote this so that until she gets a citation which would put her on notice that somebody she was hiring was an illegal alien, the Justice Department couldn't do anything about it. Once she gets a citation, from that point on, she is still all right if she gets one of those forms to be signed by each one of the people she employs. So from that point on, she knows there is such a thing as a form, and that there is a procedure to go through. And I would think that the Justice Department doesn't have the manpower to go around and check up on housewives, who certainly aren't going to hire people in any large volume. So it is very unlikely that any housewife is ever even going to get a citation. Unless that happens, she could do whatever she wants without violating the statute. Does that meet the points you raised?

Ms. HOLTZMAN. I understand that a housewife after she has been put on notice by the Justice Department might avoid sanctions under this statute. But what I am concerned about is how somebody keeps up with the regulations issued by the Attorney General's office when she is not accustomed to receiving counsel in connection with employ

ment.

Mr. SEIBERLING. Isn't the answer that if she ever does get a citation, from then on she knows that she has to get a form signed by the Attorney General. After that, each time she hires somebody that she has reason to think may be an alien, she then gets in touch with whatever is the proper office and says "I would like to have you give me the latest form before I hire the person." That is the big problem, putting her on notice. We tried to get around the problem of giving her notice by saying that the first time around she isn't really in violation. Doesn't that really handle it?

Ms. HOLTZMAN. I understand your point, but I'm still slightly troubled by a housewife, or any small employer, being in violation of the law even if ony on the first occasion when there are no punitive sanctions merely because she does not have ready access to relevant regulations.

Mr. McKEVITT. To coin a phrase, I might say that we chewed around with the first bite doctrine. But that is pretty much what we went over in the first deliberation.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. I had a question with respect to some of the figures you give on page 3 of your statement. With respect to the 505,949 illegal aliens found in fiscal year 1972, do you have any statistics with respect to what proportion of those aliens were receiving public assistance, and where they were employed, and the nature of the employment, and so forth?

Mr. McKEVITT. One of the problems that came up, particularly in the last year, was the question of those who were receiving welfare benefits.

And one of the problems we have is that because of the construction given the case of Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971), by other agencies, it was hard to determine the number of illegals receiving public assistance. The agencies interpreted the Graham case, to say that illegal aliens could receive welfare benefits as well as lawful aliens, or citizens of this country.

I disagree with that interpretation. And this once again is my personal opinion. Of course, it resulted in the Pickle amendment on the House floor at the end of the 92d Congress. But the problem we have there is that we don't have those figures, because of the fact that there has been this ambiguity. And I imagine this will be reviewed again by your subcommittee. We have a figure breakdown so far as countries, where they are coming in from. The vast majority are coming in from the country of Mexico. And at the same time, as I mentioned in my statement, we should not consider it a "Mexican" problem because we have found it to exist coming in from other countries as well, such as the Caribbean as well as Canada and European countries. But to answer your specific question, to my knowledge we don't have any specific figures.

Charlie, do you have anything to add on that?

Mr. GORDON. No. I think you have stated it correctly. We don't have the figures on employment, places of employment, social security. We do know that most of these illegals are caught very shortly after they enter in the process of crossing the border, on the roads leading from the frontier, and so forth. Most of them are caught before they work. Some of them, of course, do get jobs, and we find them on the jobs. We might be able to get some figures that will be helpful to the committee. I doubt whether there will be too much enlightenment there. Mr. McKEVITT. To go one step further, one of the interesting things that was brought out in the hearings the last 2 years was that illegal aliens weren't all going in domestic endeavors, many of them were going into industry. And the hearings brought out the fact that they were receiving wages as high as, I recall, of $4.50 an hour. And in some areas of the country jobs were going begging which other people didn't want to fill.

And we found some interesting testimony from Mr. Shapiro in New York on this particular situation as to the types of jobs which were available there. There were a variety of jobs. As a matter of fact, as we went east we found that more and more industrial jobs were available. In Chicago we found this to be true, and in Detroit and New York. So this is more of a general answer, but unfortunately we don't have the specifics.

Mr. EILBERG. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Surely.

Mr. EILBERG. Will you try to supply us with whatever figures you can get, Mr. Gordon?

Mr. GORDON. We have some that will be helpful, not as complete as you want. But we will try to get more.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Just as a matter of curiosity, in terms of the statement about the unavailability of figures, do you intend to ascertain when you locate the deportable aliens where he or she is employed, and the facts as to whether she is on public assistance, and so forth. Mr. GORDON. Sometimes the fact that they are already employed is itself a violation of status if they are here as nonimmigrants. And the fact that they are employed is one of the facts that we obtain as part of the deportation proceedings. As to aliens who are caught here illegally, very often we find them on jobs, so we know they are employed.

Others may be found in public transportation facilities on highways coming near the borders, across fields, and so forth, and we don't have any interest in their employment there, we have an interest in the fact that they are here illegally, and they have to be back. And they are sent back.

But when they are on the job, obviously we know they are working there.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. In other words, you would have the information with respect to it someplace.

Mr. GORDON. We have some information, I have seen it, as to people who have been found in employment, and the type of employment that they have. And we would be glad to get that for you.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank you.

No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

(The information referred to follows:)

EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION REGARDING ILLEGAL ALIENS LOCATED BY IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

As stated at the hearing, the Immigration and Naturalization Service does not have complete statistical information regarding the type of employment engaged in by illegal aliens when located by the Service. Of the 505,949 deportable aliens located in fiscal year 1972, 89,680 were found to be employed in agriculture and 102,911 were employed in industry and other occupations. The remainder were not employed.

In 1972, at the request of a Special Study Group then considering the problem of illegal entrants from Mexico this Service conducted a sample inquiry in selected districts to ascertain employment status and nature of employment of illegal aliens from Mexico located by the Service. The Service response to the Special Study Group is of interest in connection with the subcommittee's inquiry, and a copy is attached for your information.

Statistical data relating to the number of deportable aliens found employed by trades, crafts and skills, and wages earned is not recorded for summary reports. Individual apprehension reports for the Los Angeles, San Diego, San Antonio, Dallas, and El Paso offices were received for the months of July and August 1972

DEPORTABLE MEXICAN ALIENS FOUND EMPLOYED JULY-AUGUST 1972

Los Angeles:

16 percent employed in food handling.

50 percent employed as unskilled labor in manufacturing plants.
12 percent employed as semi-skilled labor in manufacturing plants.
6 percent were employed as members of various crafts.

Of those employed, 19 percent were receiving wages within the prevailing wage scales; 17 percent were receiving less than the prevailing wage scale; 12 percent-no information on reports; remaining numberinformation pertinent to wage scale unknown.

San Diego: 20 percent found employed were semi-skilled labor employed in various industries; 80 percent were found employed in food industry.

San Antonio : 8 percent found employed in food handling industry; 2 percent were unskilled labor; 89 percent semi-skilled in various industries; 1 percent were members of crafts.

Dallas: 12 percent employed in food handling industry; 68 percent unskilled laborers employed in various manufacturing industries; 30 percent were semi-skilled laborers employed in various manufacturing industries.

El Paso: 51 percent in food handling industry; 4 percent unskilled in manufacturing industry; 35 percent semi-skilled in manufacturing industry; 10 percent employed in various crafts.

All of the above were receiving wages within the prevailing wage scale.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. McKevitt, since H.R. 928 would repeal the harboring provisions of section 274 which provides that normal employment practices shall not constitute harboring, wouldn't the Department have the option of prosecuting under section 274, or following the threestep procedure prescribed in H.R. 982 in cases of unscrupulous employers, or is there a possibility that the Department might follow both routes?

Mr. McKEVITT. I think they would be prosecuted under H.R. 982. Mr. EILBERG. Why do you say that?

Mr. McKEVITT. I just think that the provisions would apply to them as well.

Mr. EILBERG. But 274 provides a criminal penalty, does it not? And the Department has been

Mr. GORDON. 274 (a), that is the one you are referring to? The present 274?

Mr. EILBERG. Yes, section 274 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

Mr. GORDON. That is the present 274 (a).

Mr. EILBERG. Yes.

Mr. GORDON. This deals generally with smuggling, or activities related to smuggling.

Mr. EILBERG. I am wondering whether you would follow that act, or whether you would go under the H.R. 982, assuming that that would become law.

Mr. GORDON. If there are two violations they could be prosecuted for both. And if it were a criminal violation it would be referred to the U.S. attorney. I asume that if the U.S. attorney would prosecute them in the absence of the new statute, he would prosecute them if the new statute were there.

In many cases, as you know, the U.S. attorneys do not prosecute.

Mr. EILBERG. I am just concerned that if we go through with H.R. 982 and it becomes the law that one would just not be slapped on the wrist with a three-step procedure in the first case, and instead could be prosecuted under section 274.

Mr. GORDON. I don't believe there is any danger of that. If there is a criminal violation, if he violates subsection (a), that violation is referred to the U.S. attorney. That is independent of (b), which is a three-step process. If he violates two statutes he can be prosecuted for the penal violation, and if the other penalty provision is applicable, that can be invoked also.

Mr. EILBERG. I am thinking of a hypothetical case also where the violator is violating both the harboring provision and the employment provision in this bill.

Mr. GORDON. His case would have to be referred to the U.S. attorney because there is a criminal violation.

Mr. DENNIS. Would the chairman yield?

Mr. EILBERG. Yes, sir.

Mr. DENNIS. I take it what you are getting at is that under section 274 you can be prosecuted for harboring.

Mr. GORDON. Harboring, transporting, and similar activities.

Mr. DENNIS. And then at present it says: "However, ordinary employment practices shall not be considered as harboring." But we repealed that.

Mr. GORDON. We would have repealed that.

Mr. DENNIS. I think what Mr. Eilberg is suggesting is that since that is repealed, ordinary employment practices could become harboring, and might you not have the option, if the case were serious, of bringing a harboring prosecution rather than a prosecution under the new bill, isn't that the question?

Mr. EILBERG. That is exactly the question. And maybe I don't understand, but I am asking perhaps that you think about this some. more and give us a further statement as to what would happen in that kind of situation.

Mr. GORDON. Let's get the facts.

The employer, I assume, is involved in transporting or harboring or bringing in somebody illegally. That is a violation of the present law. It would continue to be a violation of the law as amended.

Mr. EILBERG. And then you would then not enforce this new legislation that we are now considering and simply prosecute for harboring?

Mr. GORDON. He would be prosecuted or referred to the U.S. attorney for prosecution of harboring.

Mr. EILBERG. And not given a citation?

Mr. GORDON. I don't believe that follows, because if he violates (b), he would be subject to the consequences of (b) also. He would be subject to penalties for both violations.

Mr. McKEVITT. You are going to have to exercise your option there. If you have got a pure case of harboring or smuggling the prosecution would be under 274 (a).

Mr. EILBERG. I am just trying to determine which route you would take.

Mr. GORDON. I think there are two independent offenses. One is smuggling, harboring, related offenses, that is a criminal violation which is more aggravated than mere knowing employment. In addition, a new offense would be created under (b), if this bill is adopted, which is knowingly employing illegal aliens. That offense may have nothing to do with harboring. The employer's conduct also could involve harboring, or transporting or whatever. These are separate violations. Each one would apply. If he were harboring he could be prosecuted. If he knowingly employs, he could be subject to the consequences of this bill.

Mr. EILBERG. Don't you see the possibility that one might violate both?

Mr. GORDON. Yes.