Mr. EILBERG. What would you do then?

Mr. GORDON. We would invoke both. If it could be established that he was harboring, he would be subject to the consequences of (a). If it is established that he is knowingly employing somebody in violation of the law, he would be in violation of (b).

Mr. EILBERG. And you would prosecute for both?

Mr. GORDON. We would invoke the three-step procedure.

Mr. EILBERG. And finally, Mr. McKevitt, has there been any increase in the last 2 years in the number of prosecutions for illegal entry and smuggling of aliens?

Mr. McKEVITT. I don't have that information. And I would like to request that I be entitled to submit that for the record.

Mr. EILBERG. We would be happy to have that information for the record.

(The information referred to follows:)

PROSECUTIONS FOR SMUGGLING VIOLATIONS

The Service compiles comprehensive information concerning prosecutions for criminal violations arising out of the immigration laws. We are attaching copies of summaries of the disposition of criminal violations for 1972, as well as a summary of various convictions for immigration and nationality violations for the years 1963-72. The foregoing summaries include information concerning the disposition of violations related to smuggling.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE QUARTERLY REPORT OF PROSECUTIONS-SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIONS AND BORDER PATROL,

PART III.-MAJOR OFFENSES PROSECUTED FOR LESSER OFFENSES-8 U.S.C. 1325

TABLE 54.-CONVICTIONS FOR IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY VIOLATIONS, YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 1963-72

Violation

Total....

Immigration violations.......

Illegal entries...

Reentries of deported aliens....

Bringing in or harboring certain aliens.

1963-72 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972

49, 829 2,668 2,882 3, 442 3,195 3,362 2,661 4,623 5,497 9,310 12, 189 46,323 2,472 2,592 3,037 2,887 3,046 2,420 4,125 4,991 8,735 12,018 19,975 222 154 190 357 487 440 1,097 1,6 5,084 10, 292

Fraudulent or false docu

ments.

Mr. EILBERG. Would you care to make a final statement or summarize the need for this legislation? It is obvious from your statement that you support the thrust of what we are trying to do. Do you want to make a further observation on that?

Mr. McKEVITT. I would like to compliment the subcommittee on the scope of the questions you have asked today. It has certainly given us more food for thought, and forced us even to think further on possible language here. But on this, I am glad that Justice now supports the