aliens by employers. We do object to the use of aliens to lower American standards of wages, hours and working conditions. We do object to unscrupulous individuals who gouge enormous amounts of money from the aliens to transport them under conditions which are worse than the minimum required to transport animals. We do object to the use of illegal aliens as strike breakers when American workers have had to strike to improve themselves.

"We object to many, many things which are too numerous and obvious to enumerate here. But the point I am attempting to make is that we are not antiMexican. We are, most of us, Mexican and DAMN PROUD OF IT."

BLACKMAIL TARGETS

In previous testimony and statements, we have provided examples of organizing campaigns, collective bargaining efforts and strikes which were broken by the employer's use of illegal aliens. We showed how legal aliens or American citizens were injured by this traffic. But that is not the full story of the tremendous human and economic damage caused. There is the additional harm done to the illegal alien, himself.

Mr. Garcia writes of the blackmail perpetrated against the illegal alien. The illegal is a sitting duck for exploitation. He has no rights. He can always be threatened effectively on the job or off.

Mr. Garcia tells of a man who entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico in 1958, married a Mexican-American women and they had four children. They settled in Brownsville, Texas. He was a member of our Union while working at a food processing plant in Brownsville. The plant closed down.

"About two years after the plant closed, this man came to my office in San Antonio," Mr. Garcia writes. "He told me that he was going to abandon his family, so that his wife and children could get on welfare. He asked me if I would please look in on his family when I went to Brownsville, but never to tell his wife why he had left her and the children.

"He told me that he had applied for unemployment (compensation) and the company had filed objections on the basis that he had been fired. He said that he had gone to the company office to get an explanation and was informed that if he were to appeal, as any worker is entitled to do, he would be reported as an illegal alien and would be deported.

"He told me that after this incident, he was never able to get a job for over two or three days.

"This man abandoned his family, added five people to the welfare roll. The only reason he could be exploited this way was because he was an illegal alien." This incident also demonstrates how well many employers know that they are employing illegal aliens. They also know how to use this knowledge effectively in their own interest.

EMPLOYER KNOWLEDGE

Another example of this knowledge comes from a letter to me from Erbey M. Rendon, Financial Secretary of our Local Union 171 in San Antonio. He writes: "Our Local Union is engaged in a strike against the George Braun Packing Co. (doing business as the L & H Packing Company) here in San Antonio, Tex. Some of the illegal aliens have been taken out of the plant and arrested by agents of the Immigration and Naturalization Service more than two times. Still, the employer denied that he had knowledge as to their status."

Sen. Edward F. Kennedy had written to Raymond F. Farrell, Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, about the use of illegal aliens to break the L & H strike. In his reply of November 13, 1972, Commissioner Farrell wrote:

"A review of Service records relating to this situation has revealed a history of numerous complaints and countercomplaints dating back to 1968. Mr. Rendon and other representatives of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen's Union have furnished Service investigators with periodic information over the years concerning suspected illegal status nationals of Mexico working at the L & H Packing Company. On each occasion our investigators have responded by checking the packing house employees at their next opportunity. Incident to these checks a substantial number of apprehensions have been accomplished. During the past year 43 deportable aliens were removed from the employ of this firm, including three checks and 12 apprehensions during the three months preceding your letter.

"On September 18, 1972 our Assistant District Director for Investigations at San Antonio met with Mr. Rendon and five other members of the Union and their attorney, Mr. Frank Herrera. At this time they furnished the names of eight alleged illegal aliens employed at the Braun Division of the L & H Packing Company. They advised that there were about 60 persons employed at the plant and that they believed that most of them were in illegal status. The following day our investigators made a thorough check of the Braun plant and located 16 deportable aliens among the approximately 60 individuals checked. Four of these aliens were found to have prior records of immigration violations and were prosecuted accordingly."

CLASS JUSTICE

Please note the outcome: The illegal aliens were deported and the four repeaters among them "were prosecuted accordingly." The company, however, escaped any penalty whatsoever because of the current loophole in the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

Such a situation can only be considered class justice. Mr. Garcia writes of talking to people in Mexico who had been deported back to their native land. They spoke heatedly against "American colonialism."

"I am not sure what American colonialism is, but with the rank and file worker, we (Americans) are becoming about as popular as a pole cat at a lawn party," according to Mr. Garcia.

It is time to stop the class justice. It is time to stop the blackmail and exploitation of the illegal aliens. It is time to stop the awful cycle of poverty creation, which is inherent in the illegal alien traffic. Progress toward these goals can be made by the Committee's and Congress' approval of H.R. 982. We strongly urge you to do so as speedily as possible.

Mr. EILBERG. At this point we conclude the hearings on illegal aliens.

(Thereupon, the subcommittee hearing was concluded at 11:43

a.m.)

(The following are additional statements submitted for the record :) STATEMENT BY HON. WILLIAM M. KETCHUM OF CALIFORNIA IN OPPOSITION TO H.R. 982 BEFORE HOUSE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to come before you today to speak in opposition to H.R. 982, the so-called illegal aliens bill, currently under consideration by this subcommittee. Being from California, I have had some experience with legislation of this type, and I am referring to the Arnett Act of 1971, which is currently tied up in the courts.

H.R. 982 would have the effect of turning U.S. employers into overnight immigration inspectors. In the case of the illegal entrant, you are asking the U.S. employer to determine if an alien seeking employment is illegally in this country when the U.S. Border Patrol has already failed to do so. In the case of the nonimmigrant who seeks employment in violation of his status, you are asking the U.S. employer to become conversant with the maze of State Department immigrant and nonimmigrant classifications which do permit employment. In both cases, you are threatening him with civil and, ultimately, criminal sanctions if he fails.

I do not believe that I am maligning the character of the average U.S. employer if I suggest that one outcome of such legislation would be to curtail employment of aliens who are legally entitled to work, as well as of native-born Mexican Americans and others of foreign stock who look as if they might be aliens, legal or otherwise. In short, while I am aware of the appeal of this legislation, I believe one of its effects would be to increase unemployment among some of those who have already been hit the hardest.

While I do not argue that the illegal alien comes to this country primarily in search of employment, I do not see that this makes the U.S. employer responsible for the illegal alien problem, which is what this legislation seeks to do.

Alien control is the business of the Justice Department's Immigration and Naturalization Service and the State Department's Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, not that of the California farmer, the Detroit manufacturer or the New York City restaurant owner. Enacting this legislation in response to the illegal alien problem would be similar to responding to the crime problem by enacting legislation penalizing those citizens whose affluence incites others to robbery.

In short, I believe H.R. 982 is unfair both to U.S. employers and to legal aliens. Further, because I believe it is inherently unworkable, it would make the worst kind of law-one which could only be unevenly and capriciously enforced. Gentlemen, I respectfully urge you not to endorse this legislation, I suggest the possibility of strengthening the Border Patrol to meet the problem where it starts-at our borders and our International Airports and, further, enacting strong criminal sanctions against the illegal immigrant rather than just shipping him home. Thank you!

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning, to let you know of my deep concern over the current policies of the Immigration and Naturalization Service on street arrests of so-called "illegal aliens", particularly in the New York City area.

To say that I find these activities completely unacceptable and abhorrent is putting it very mildly. In my opinion they are regrettably reminiscent of the Palmer raids of years ago, which we would all like to think of as a closed chapter in our immigration enforcement policies in these United States.

Of major concern to me in connection with these activities is the fact that the action under way indiscriminately affects all types of individuals-citizens, legal aliens and illegal aliens alike. And, under present law they have no immediate remedy. As you all know, the immigration laws provide extremely broad authority to immigration officers to arrest aliens without warrants, an authority which, to my knowledge, is not granted to other law enforcement officers. In our free society, such authority should be exercised with due restraint and with due regard for the constitutional rights of citizens and legal aliens, as well as the illegal aliens at whom the program is directed.

My understanding of the law is that it provides for the exercise of discretion in individual cases, and requires the immigration officer to have good reason to believe that the individual is an alien, that he is in the United States unlawfully, and, most important, that he is likely to flee before a warrant for his arrest could be obtained. The law does not appear to have been intended to cover mass arrests without warrants, particularly in cases where the Immigration and Naturalization Service has admittedly made ample preliminary inquiry to determine the need for arrest warrants. It seems to me to be contrary to the actual intent of the law to assume that all "aliens" or "foreigners" to be found at a given point will necessarily be illegally in the country, and would flee before an appropriate warrant could be obtained. The New York District Director's office apparently makes careful preparations for these raids, and could presumably issue and secure warrants upon presentation of available evidence. I am convinced that these activities unreasonably impinge upon the rights of persons using public thoroughfares in New York City, and are beyond the broad authority granted. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects all people against unreasonable search and seizure, and specifically states that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, . . . shall not be violated. I was equally appalled to learn that not only does the Immigration and Naturalization Service in New York conduct searches and seizures on street corners and subway stations, but has also assumed local police functions and considers it to be within its jurisdiction to become involved where there are neighborhood gatherings of suspected "illegal aliens".

I have received a number of complaints about these activities by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and understand that many of the searches were related to specific factories where illegal aliens were known to be employed but to which employers would not grant access. Evidently the Service feels that places of residence and employment are not nearly so "productive" as places of embarkation and debarkation for public transportation. From the amount of complaints I have received it is apparent that many citizens and residents ob

ject to these blatant screening-type operations which subject any "foreignlooking" or "foreign-speaking" individual to warrantless arrest unless he can prove his citizenship or legal residence on the spot. Sometimes it is difficult or impossible to establish one's status immediately. I understand that a civil suit for injunctive relief and false arrest has already been instituted by the American Civil Liberties Union in behalf of citizens or lawful residents who were so arrested.

A report from the Immigration and Naturalization Service indicates that some mistakes are made and that occasionally an innocent person is apprehended. In fact, the report reflects that "an experienced officer working in this manner is normally about 90% accurate in his selection of suspect illegal status aliens". Perhaps the Service is proud of that record, but I find it intolerable that even one individual might be subjected to false arrest under such conditions. Our City of New York has an extremely large percentage of residents whose appearance and ethnic characteristics appear to be "foreign" or "alien", and I find it highly objectionable that immigration officers are sent to public places with instructions to find persons with certain physical traits or appearance, who "might be❞ in the country illegally.

Under the explosive circumstances of the manner in which the detection of illegal aliens is now being pursued in the New York area, I believe it would be proper and prudent for your Subcommittee to investigate the current situation to determine whether or not any specific changes in the law might be necessary. I believe this hearing will be helpful in that direction.

The federal courts, too, have noted in a decision handed down last year that "we do not in any way intend to suggest that the appearance of being oriental is in any respect 'suspicious', and we wish to state in unequivocal terms that we could never condone stopping or questioning an individual simply because he looked to be of oriental descent." The same principle can be applied to those of other ethnic appearance.

I have given some serious thought to the preparation of a bill to limit the authority of immigration officers to make warrantless arrests, and hope that such legislation, if enacted, would then preclude continued possible abuses of the law as it now exists, particularly as the rights of citizens and lawful resident aliens are affected. I hope to introduce that legislation in the near future. Thank you for permitting me to testify on this most important issue.

STATEMENT BY THE HONORABLE EDWARD R. ROYBAL OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, I welcome this opportunity to appear before your committee today to discuss my concerns about the effect of H.R. 982 on equal employment.

In our zeal to eradicate the evils of labor exploitation and unemployment, we must be careful not to create legislation that would inadvertently perpetuate discrimination and lack of equal opportunity in employment.

It is my hope that we can avoid this serious pitfall and develop a bill which protects the rights of our working men and women, including equal employment for those workers who for generations have suffered under the weight of job discrimination. This is indeed a very difficult task which requires our close examination of the provisions of H.R. 982.

The proposed bill would amend subsection 245 (c) to require adjustment of status eligibility to Western Hemisphere aliens. I strongly favor this amendment which would end a discriminatory and unjust disqualification in our current immigration law as well as further our basic humanitarian goal of reuniting families.

I would like to offer for your consideration an additional section which I originally proposed in my own bill, H.R. 3715. This new section would provide a written authorization from the Attorney General permitting those adjusting their status to accept or continue their employment. The purpose of this language would be to clarify any question regarding the work status of aliens undergoing adjustment. It would guarantee to these individuals the right to work and support their families without having to go on public welfare.

I have also introduced several other legislative proposals which I believe are related to the illegal alien problem but deal more directly with inequities in the Western Hemisphere immigration ceiling and absence of a family preference

system. I will discuss these proposals later this month at the subcommittee's hearings on Western Hemisphere immigration. Let me just state at this time that a great deal of the illegal alien problem is closely related to current discriminatory policies which have created considerable pressures on Western Hemisphere immigration.

The other section of this bill which I am deeply concerned with is the illegal alien provisions. Section 2(b)(1) provides the employer with immunity if he obtains from the prospective employee a signed statement in writing that such a person is not an illegal. This statement constitutes prima facie proof that the employer has made a bona fide inquiry. Thus, unless it can be shown he accepted this statement knowing it to be false, the employer is not liable under this legislation. The bill also provides a three-step procedure before any employer can incur criminal liability.

I have strong reservations about the advisability of these provisions and their serious adverse effects on equal employment. I believe that if these provisions are kept in their present form, they will cause a chilling effect on the employment of citizens who have been most susceptible to the label "foreigner" because of stereotypes or prejudicial attitudes.

First of all, this section leaves it up to the employer to decide who will be required to answer questions on citizenship or legal status. In practice, this would permit employers to treat persons of Mexican or Asian heritage differently from those of Caucasian background. I cannot overemphasize the seriousness of this fact, particularly in light of the long and well-documented history of job discrimination and other forms of exclusion experienced by these and other minority groups.

Certainly if the employer already has some question about the status of a certain individual-and let's face it, the question will probably be based on the person's color, accent, or surname he is not about to take the time to find out the truth of the matter, but will simply refuse to hire him.

No matter how conscientious or fair-minded an employer will be, he will try to minimize his encounter with the law, simply because it is not good for business. As a consequence, the employer will be reluctant to accept the applicant's statement or documents as true and will base his decision on color or accent and not on his qualifications.

Under these circumstances the prospective employee finds himself with the impossible burden of proving job discrimination. The burden is impossible because the Civil Rights Act only prohibits discrimination based on national origin but not on citizenship. The prejudiced or unscrupulous employer can easily hide behind the constitutional confusion created by these provisions.

In the case where the employer has been actually cited or penalized, the program of discrimination is compounded. Such an employer will even be less inclined to take the chance of hiring anyone who he considers to be a possible foreigner.

This reliance on the "good faith" and expertise of the employer in determining the legal status of a job applicant was also an underlying premise in the California Arnett Law which was declared unconstitutional last year.

As you know, this law attempted to penalize the employer who knowingly hired an illegal without providing adequate safeguards or procedures to protect the equal employment rights of U.S. citizens. Even before the law became effective, it was clear that its effect was to deny Americans of Mexican or Asian origin equal protection under the law.

Experience with this law showed that employers sought to minimize their exposure to the legal penalties, with the result that they refused to hire persons of such backgrounds. There were many occasions when I received calls from parish priests and from ministers who complained that employers were asking questions about the status of some of their parishioners and, in some cases, were firing them when the worker could not verify his status immediately. Some employers would not even interview anyone who was of Asian background or who had a Spanish surname. In contrast, persons with Caucasian features, whether here illegally or not, were not subjected to this unfair treatment.

Gentlemen, the situation boils down to a fairly simple but crucial question. Suppose you have two equally qualified persons applying for the same job. One is white while the other is Mexican or Asian. Would you as an employer take the risk of hiring a person who you think may lead you into a confrontation with