Last Wednesday, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee at a hearing entitled “Border Security: Frontline Perspectives on Progress and Remaining Challenges.”

From the outset, Chairman Tom Carper (D-DE) repeated the Obama Administration’s narrative that the border is secure. Reflecting on his trip to the border with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Carper stated “I saw a border that I think appears to me and to a lot of other people is more secure than it’s ever been — or been in a long time.” (Bloomberg Government Transcript, Apr. 10, 2013) “Are [our] borders more secure than they have been in the past? I think it’s clear that they are.” (Id.) “Today, illegal immigration is at historic lows,” he declared. (Id.)

However, U.S. Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher’s testimony directly contradicted that assertion. “We have seen an increase in attempted entries,” Fisher told the Committee. (Id.) Specifically, Chief Fisher testified that apprehensions of aliens crossing the border illegally are up 13 percent compared to last year. (Id.) While stating that the “reasons and modus” behind the increase are varied, he conceded that Congressional negotiations for “comprehensive” immigration reform is part of the reason for the increase. (Id.)

And while some Senators on the Committee openly support amnesty, they also criticized the administration’s failure to develop an official metric for border security.  Senator Carper particularly criticized DHS’s use of apprehensions as an indicator of border security.  “Arrests cannot be the only metric available to measure the performance of our efforts at the border,” said Senator Carper. “Without knowing how many people are actually trying to cross the border, we will never know how effective our efforts truly are to date.” (Id.)  Senator McCain echoed that criticism. “You can’t rely on apprehensions as the only measurement. But the fact is we have no measurements. We have no measurements now,” declared McCain. (Id.)  Even Chief Fisher acknowledged the weakness of DHS’s position:  “The extent to which the border is secure has more to do with known and evolving threats and our ability to respond to those threats and less to do with fluctuations and things like apprehension numbers.” (Id.)

To the Committee’s surprise, Chief Fisher refuted recent testimony by Border Patrol Assistant Commissioner Mark Borkowski by announcing that the agency is developing a new system that measures apprehensions as well as the number of illegal aliens that avoided detection. (See FAIR Legislative Update, Mar. 25, 2013)  “We want to know how many people come across the border and of that number, how many people do we either apprehend of turn back,” Fisher testified. (Bloomberg Government Transcript, Apr. 10, 2013) “Have you developed the metrics or not?” demanded McCain. (Id.) After receiving an affirmative response from Fisher, McCain asked “You have? And we’re using them?” (Id.) “We’re just starting to,” Fisher replied. (Id.) “Well, it is in the final stages of development, Senator. I can tell you that.” (Id.)

Last week, several pro-amnesty organizations held a press conference to announce they would fight any efforts by Congress to eliminate or reduce chain migration.  (Associated Press, Apr. 3, 2013) Chain migration refers to the ability of individuals to sponsor extended family members for green cards under the Immigration and Nationality Act (See Section 203(a)).

The groups are reacting to statements from Gang of Eight member Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) who has said on several occasions that he intends to tackle chain migration in the highly-anticipated amnesty bill.  For example, on CNN last Sunday, Senator Graham said that a primary goal of the legislation would be to “turn our chain migration, family-based immigration system into a merit-based immigration system with a family component.” (CNN.com, Mar. 30, 2013)

But even though Senator Graham has been a long-time amnesty supporter, the amnesty groups were not impressed.  ”We’re very concerned about what we’re hearing,” said Mee Moua, president of the Asian American Justice Center. (NBCnews.com, Apr.3, 2013)”The elimination of any of the categories, particularly the sibling or married children categories, is going to have a disproportionate impact on the Asian American community, in addition to the Latino community and the African-Caribbean community as we’re striving to allow those groups to reunite with their families.”  (Id.)

Martinez de Castro from the National Council of La Raza argued that these extended family members are no less likely to contribute positively to the economy than those who come for work.  (Id.) Kevin Appleby of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops echoed her sentiment. ”Immigrant families are not potted plants,” Appleby said. ”They work, and they are economic actors as well.” (Id.) AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka added: ”Some are trying to pit economic interests against family. They say that ‘on merit’ brothers and sisters and children and spouses are worth less than people employers prefer. The labor movement doesn’t buy that for one second.” (Talking Points Memo, Apr. 3, 2013)

Despite such statements, family-based immigration does in fact make up roughly two-thirds of all green cards issued annually and, because of the ability to sponsor numerous family members, tends to bring in less educated, low-skilled individuals.  According to 2010 census data, only 18% of the foreign-born population in the U.S. had a bachelor’s degree.  About 16.9% had some college education, while 26% had only a high school diploma and 28.1% had less than a high-school diploma.  (CIS Report, August 2012)  Similarly, in 2010, the median annual income for a foreign-born worker was $34,021 compared to $43,701 for a native-born. (Id.)