[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVES ON
IMMIGRATION STATISTICS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY,
AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 6, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-42
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-859 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RIC KELLER, Florida
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DARRELL ISSA, California
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia STEVE KING, Iowa
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York JIM JORDAN, Ohio
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Joseph Gibson, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,
Border Security, and International Law
ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois STEVE KING, Iowa
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California ELTON GALLEGLY, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel
George Fishman, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
JUNE 6, 2007
Page
OPENING STATEMENT
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law.............................................. 1
The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.. 2
The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary. 8
WITNESSES
The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
Oral Testimony................................................. 4
The Honorable Joseph Crowley, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York
Oral Testimony................................................. 6
Ms. Ruth Ellen Wasem, Ph.D., Specialist in Immigration Policy,
Congressional Research Service
Oral Testimony................................................. 18
Prepared Statement............................................. 21
Mr. Ronald Bird, Ph.D., Chief Economist and Director, Office of
Economic Policy and Analysis, U.S. Department of Labor
Oral Testimony................................................. 46
Prepared Statement............................................. 48
Mr. Michael Hoefer, Director of the Office of Immigration
Statistics (OIS), U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Oral Testimony................................................. 54
Prepared Statement............................................. 56
Mr. Charles Oppenheim, Chief, Visa Control and Reporting
Division, U.S. Department of State
Oral Testimony................................................. 62
Prepared Statement............................................. 64
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law................................ 2
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law................................ 83
Letter to the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law, from a majority of the minority Members of
the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law requesting a Minority day of
hearing........................................................ 85
Prepared Statement of the the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California........ 86
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Joseph Crowley, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New York.......... 87
``Senate Amendment 1150 to S. 1348, the Comprehensive Immigration
Reform Act of 2007, As amended by the Senate through May 24,
2007,'' a Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, published
June 4, 2007, submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren........... 89
``Helping Immigrants Become New Americans: Communities Discuss
the Issues,'' published by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, submitted by the Honorable Steve King................ 133
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from Ruth Ellen Wasem, Ph.D.,
Specialist in Immigration Policy, Congressional Research
Service........................................................ 153
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from Ronald Bird, Ph.D., Chief
Economist and Director of the Office of Economic Policy and
Analysis, U.S. Department of Labor............................. 170
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from Michael Hoefer, Director
of the Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS), U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, with Addendum............................ 182
Answers to Post-hearing Questions from Charles Oppenheim, Chief,
Visa Control and Reporting Division, U.S. Department of State.. 230
Additional Answer to Question posed during the Hearing by the
Honorable Zoe Lofgren from Charles Oppenheim, Chief, Visa
Control and Reporting Division, U.S. Department of State....... 238
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVES ON
IMMIGRATION STATISTICS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,
Border Security, and International Law
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:47 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe
Lofgren (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Lofgren, Gutierrez, Berman,
Jackson Lee, Delahunt, Sanchez, Davis, Ellison, King, Lungren,
and Smith.
Staff present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel; R. Blake
Chisam, Majority Counsel; George Fishman, Minority Counsel; and
Benjamin Staub, Professional Staff Member.
Ms. Lofgren. The Subcommittee hearing will now come to
order.
We have had a series of hearings, beginning at Ellis
Island, examining comprehensive immigration reform, looking at
the issues from 1986 and 1996 in an effort to avoid mistakes of
the past.
We have considered current employment workplace
verification systems, family priorities in immigration, and the
proposed point system that the Senate is looking at. We have
looked at the cost of immigration on States and localities. We
have held hearings on the integration of immigrants, the future
of undocumented immigrant students in the United States, heard
from stakeholders in the immigrant community, labor unions, the
business community, and much of the debate has been around
numbers.
So this is a hearing where we are going to hear from
Government witnesses about the numbers: How many illegal
immigrants are here? How big is the backlog? How many
occupations does the Government project there are or will be
shortages in? How many potential immigrants with pending
immigration petitions are outside the United States?
There are important questions, and we hope to get answers
from the two panels.
We are really very blessed to have two of our colleagues
who are here, but before we go to them I would just like to ask
the Ranking Member if he has a statement he would like to offer
for the record.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International
Law
I would like to welcome the Immigration Subcommittee Members, our
witnesses, and members of the public to the Subcommittee's fifteenth
hearing on comprehensive immigration reform.
Our series of hearings on comprehensive immigration reform began at
Ellis Island, where we examined the need for comprehensive immigration
reform to secure our borders, to address economic and demographic
concerns, and there we reviewed our nation's rich immigrant history. We
have studied immigration reform from 1986 and 1996 in an effort to
avoid the mistakes of the past. We've considered the problems with and
proposed solutions for our current employment and worksite verification
system. In light of the recent Senate immigration agreement to
eliminate family priorities in immigration and replace those priorities
with a completely new and untested point system, we studied the
contributions of family immigrants to America and various immigration
point systems used around the world. We have explored the costs of
immigration on our states and localities. We've held hearings to
explore the importance of immigrant integration and the future of
undocumented immigrant students in the United States. Before the
recess, we heard from numerous groups of stakeholders and labor unions
about their concerns about immigration reform.
Just this morning we listened to the perspectives of business
groups.
This afternoon, in the last of our hearings on comprehensive
immigration reform, we will get the government's numbers.
Much of the debate about comprehensive immigration reform revolves
around numbers. How many illegal immigrants are there? How big is the
current immigration backlog? How many occupations does the government
project there are or will be shortages in? How many potential
immigrants with pending immigration petitions are outside the U.S.?
These are important questions. To draft comprehensive immigration
reform legislation and to answer the inevitable questions about that
legislation, the Subcommittee needs to hear from knowledgeable
government witnesses about the statistics the government keeps.
This hearing will allow the Subcommittee to learn what the numbers
are. Witnesses from the Administration and the Congressional Research
Service will help us to get the facts and figures we all need to make
the judgments and assumptions necessary to do immigration reform right.
From these numbers, we should be able to better make the policy
judgments necessary to evaluate the different comprehensive immigration
reform proposals.
Thank you again to our distinguished witnesses for being here today
to help us sort through what is a complex and very important issue.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, like you, appreciate
the witnesses that are here today.
I will begin my remarks by expressing disappointment about
the procedure surrounding witness selection for today's
hearing. While I appreciate the willingness of the witnesses
who are here to testify, I am disappointed in the fact that the
minority was required to invite only Government witnesses here
to testify. There is no precedent for this, and there will be
no precedent for this.
Unfortunately, today is not the first time that we have had
our witnesses dictated by the majority. The same thing occurred
on May 3rd on a different hearing.
And so, in response to the decree about minority witnesses
and their identity and to ensure that both sides of this issue
are publicly examined, just as I did on May 3rd and pursuant to
House Rule 11, I now request a minority day of hearing to be
able to address this subject matter from a minority
perspective.
And I present a letter to you, Madam Chair.
Regarding the subject at hand, immigration statistics is a
vast issue area. Many immigration-related numbers and
statistics are circulated by Government sources and private
entities each day. I would like to list some of those numbers.
Nineteen thousand five hundred and eighty-eight dollars
($19,588): That is the amount each low-skilled immigrant
household costs American taxpayers per year, according to The
Heritage Foundation.
Two and a half trillion dollars ($2.5 trillion dollars):
the amount of net retirement costs, or benefits minus taxes, to
American taxpayers if all the current adult illegal immigrants
in the United States were granted amnesty, according to The
Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Robert Rector.
Zero: another number, the number of final orders issued to
employers for hiring illegal immigrants in 2004. Zero
enforcement.
Ten: the number of final orders issued for hiring illegal
immigrants in 2005. Working a little better.
Three: the number of illegal immigrants in the Fort Dix
Six, the group arrested while planning to murder American
soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey.
Two hundred seven billion, one hundred million dollars
($207.1 billion): the amount estimated by TREA Senior Citizens
League that a Social Security totalization agreement with
Mexico would cost American taxpayers by the year 2040. That is
$207.1 billion.
One hundred eight thousand and twenty-five (108,025): the
number of OTMs, ``other than Mexicans,'' from countries like
Pakistan, Syria, Iran that were apprehended on the U.S.-Mexican
border by Border Patrol while trying to illegally cross into
the United States.
Twenty-five million (25 million): the number of pounds of
trash estimated by the Bureau of Land Management to have been
left along the Arizona-Mexico border by illegal immigrants
crossing into the United States--25 million pounds.
Seventy-eight and six tenths (78.6): the number of miles of
vehicle barrier that have been built along the 2,000 mile U.S.-
Mexican border as of May 24th of this year.
Eighty-seven and two tenths (87.2): the number of miles of
fencing that have been built along the southern border up to
May 25th of this year.
Sixty-nine million (69 million): That is the number of
people in the United States of working age who are simply not
in the workforce.
One million, two hundred and sixth-six thousand, two
hundred and sixty-four (1,266,264): That is the number of
lawful permanent residents admitted to the United States in
2006, more than any other country in the world.
The statistics I have listed are particularly interesting
since they prove that the United States is generous with its
immigration policy, that the United States has an enormous
problem with illegal immigration, that the United States has
not in many years had an Administration interested in enforcing
immigration laws, that the United States is vulnerable to
another terrorist attack and that we must end illegal
immigration.
With that, Madam Chair, I look forward to the witnesses'
testimony. And I appreciate your acceptance and ask unanimous
consent that the letter be introduced into the record as well.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired. The letter
is received and will be dealt with according to the rules.
[The letter referred to is inserted in the Appendix.]
Ms. Lofgren. The hearing before us will really be to get a
handle on answers. And before we go to our more traditional
Government witnesses, we are very honored to be joined by two
of our colleagues here today.
Thank you for putting up with the business part of our
meeting.
And I am going to go in order of seniority here.
The minority's witness is the gentleman from California,
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. Congressman Rohrabacher, my
colleague from California, represents the 46th Congressional
District. A senior member of the Foreign Affairs and Science
Committees, Congressman Rohrabacher came to Congress after
serving as a special assistant and speechwriter to President
Reagan. He earned his bachelor's degree from Long Beach State
College and his master's degree from the University of Southern
California. And he and his wife Rhonda became the proud parents
of triplets in April 2004. And I invite you to ask him to see
the pictures, as I have. It is a wonderful thing.
We are also joined by our colleague, Congressman Joe
Crowley, the representative from New York's 7th Congressional
District, who is serving his fifth term here in the House.
After graduating from Queens College, he won a seat in the New
York State Assembly at the age of 24 years old. After 12 years
of service in Albany, he was elected in 1998 to serve with us
in the House of Representatives. A Member of the Committee of
Ways and Means and the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Congressman Crowley is the only Member of Congress to have lost
a member of his family in the terrorist attacks of September
11. He and his wife Casey have three wonderful children: Colin,
Kensey Louise, and Liam. And you can also ask him to see the
pictures.
We are very pleased to have you both here. You know the
drill. Your full statements are part of the record. We ask you
to try and summarize in about 5 minutes.
We are going to ask other Members to put their opening
statements into the record, and we will reserve time for Mr.
Conyers or Mr. Smith if they come.
At this point, we would turn to Dana and then to Joe.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, and I appreciate the
opportunity to testify.
Whereas reliable statistics on illegal immigration are
notoriously hard to come by and to verify, so such a discussion
as this is very beneficial.
Contrary to the image many are trying to promote, illegal
immigration has had a devastating impact on Social Security.
More than half of illegal immigrants in our country work for
cash under the table. So these illegal immigrants do not pay
into the Social Security system. And since they are paid in
cash, the employers do not pay their part of the contribution
into the Social Security system either.
Another negative effect is that jobs which would have been
filled by American citizens or legal immigrants are taken away.
Without a pool of available illegal immigrants, employers would
be forced to hire legal applicants and cover them under Social
Security.
So Americans are losing jobs to illegals who aren't paying
their fair share into the Social Security system.
Corresponding to this, a flow of illegal labor into our
country brings down wages in general. Employers who might have
paid $10 to $12 an hour now pay lower wages, which then results
in lower contributions to the Social Security system.
There are those, of course, who would think the solution is
to legalize all of those who are illegally in the United States
and they believe that this would solve the Social Security
crisis. In fact, legalizing the status of those here illegally
will make the Social Security challenge facing America
dramatically worse. Any plan that specifically gives Social
Security to those who have been working in this country and
have been working here illegally is an invitation to fraud on a
massive scale.
What would stop anyone from claiming that they worked here
under a false Social Security number? Hundreds of thousands of
people pay into Social Security under phony numbers, especially
the number 000-00-0000. How can one prove who it was that used
a fraudulent Social Security number and who did not use that?
So it lends itself to even more fraud.
We already have a huge problem with identity theft and
fraudulent identification. Allowing those who have worked
illegally in the United States to participate in Social
Security exponentially increases the incentive for fraud. And
of course, we already know that the people who have been
working here are willing to commit identity fraud, because that
is how they got the jobs that they are working here in the
first place, all of those who are not working under the table,
and even some of them who are working under the table.
Another overlooked consequence is the survivors' benefit
and disability aspect of Social Security. What would stop
anyone from claiming, ``My spouse worked there under a false
number, I am the widow, these are my children, start sending
the survivors' benefits that we are entitled to''?
Remember, billions of people around the world have no
retirement system whatsoever. So why assume that only younger
immigrants are going to come here to the United States? Why
wouldn't someone in their 50's think, ``I could work in the
United States for 10 years, and Social Security payments would
let me live very well in my own country''?
Furthermore, many people will now be legalized under
several different proposals who are poor and low-skilled. In
fact, over half the illegal immigrants coming into our country
don't even have a high school education.
The inconvenient fact is that Social Security pays out more
benefits proportionally to lower-wage workers than to higher-
paid workers. Thus the projections that I have seen from Social
Security assumes that immigrants who are coming in have the
same earning potential as Americans. Well, that is just not
true.
What we have got here is people pouring in who are poorer,
who will then be receiving more Social Security benefits than
they are putting in, which is a huge threat to the viability of
the Social Security system in the long run.
The last and most significant point is this. In 1986, after
being told that we would be legalizing about 1 million people,
3 million illegal immigrants ended up being granted amnesty. It
is now 20 years later, and the current illegal immigrant
estimates range from 12 million to 20 million people here
illegally. The 20 million figure comes not from a Government
source, but from a private study conducted on the monies that
are sent back through remittances to other countries.
Is there any doubt that legalizing the status of those who
come here illegally will result in a flood of new illegal
immigrants into our country? Permitting these legalized
immigrants into the Social Security system will turbo-charge
the flood of illegals into our country. If we legalize 12
million to 20 million now, there will be 45 million to 60
million here in 2027.
No fence, no wall, no minefield, no system will keep the
illegal aliens out of this country if we give them a reasonable
hope that they will receive Government benefits, including
retirement, and it can be theirs if they just get across the
U.S. border and wait us out.
Under such a strain, our Social Security system will not
survive. It will collapse. Being irrationally benevolent to
illegals is a crime against our own people.
And I would like to submit a written statement for the
record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Subcommittee had not received a written statement at the
time of the printing of this hearing,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Lofgren. Of course. Thank you, Congressman Rohrabacher.
We will turn now to our colleague Joe Crowley, with special
thanks. The Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee had a
scheduling conflict, and his colleague on the Committee stepped
into the breach.
So, Joe, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH CROWLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Crowley. Thank you for inviting me here today.
As you point out, I have a particular interest in the issue
of immigration as the son of an immigrant as well as the
grandson of immigrants. And as duly noted by the leadership on
our side, Whip Clyburn has appointed me as Chief Deputy Whip to
work on this particular issue. So I am very happy to be here
today to speak on this issue.
I believe very strongly in it as well, and I think I have a
more optimistic view of the contributions of immigrants to the
United States economically. And I think it is about looking
forward, not looking backwards, and maybe not even looking at
where we are today but looking at where we are going to be in a
number of years to come.
And I am also not here today to make points or criticize in
any way the Senate bill that they are working through right
now. It is my hope that they do act on something and don't
retreat but move forward and actually pass something, so we can
then take something up here, move to a conference and get real,
comprehensive immigration reform passed.
But I would point out to the Committee that the CBR report
shows that comprehensive immigration reform is essential to the
growth of our economy, and this is why. It is imperative we
pass a comprehensive immigration reform this year in order to
secure our borders, sustain a strong economic future for the
United States and ensure that our country remains a haven for
those who seek freedom, opportunity and a better way of life
for themselves and for their families.
Immigration does not necessarily have to be a drain on the
economy, as many would have you believe. Immigrants are not a
drain on taxpayers in the economy. In fact, they improve many
aspects of our economy, adding to job creation, increasing our
national revenue, and increasing, for example, the revenue
going into Social Security and our Social Security fund.
Look at the jobs they fill, the money they spend, the jobs
they create. They are essential to our Nation's future
prosperity. An immigrant may take a job that in turn leads to
the creation of a job, or two jobs, or three jobs. So we are
not talking about a fixed pie here.
At the Summit on Retirement Savings hosted by the United
States Department of Labor, Alan Greenspan stated, ``The larger
our workforce is in the year 2010 and beyond, the easier
producing goods and services for both retirees and active
workers will be. Immigration policy will therefore be a key
component of baby-boom retirement policy.''
For example, people are not joining the workforce at the
same rate as they were in the 1950's during the baby-boom era.
Passing comprehensive immigration reform is necessary because
it will allow more individuals to join the workforce legally
and to add to our economy and the benefits that we all enjoy.
This year it was widely reported that undocumented
immigrants in New York and throughout our Nation filed taxes in
record numbers to start a paper trail with the prospect of
Congress overhauling our immigration system. This only proves
that comprehensive immigration reform holds the promise of
getting more individuals, even those without documentation, to
voluntarily pay into the system rather than remain an invisible
part and outside of that system.
Undocumented immigrant workers already pay an estimated $7
billion a year into the Social Security system. There can be no
better incentive than a common-sense immigration policy to
encourage more individuals to pay taxes in the hope of getting
a foothold in the climb toward naturalization.
Granted, I do agree that some of the undocumented illegal
workers today are paid off the books. Some use false Social
Security numbers. Others use false taxpayer I.D. numbers to pay
into a system that they will not necessarily get a benefit from
in the future.
No one has yet figured out a way in which we compensate
those who have already contributed toward the Social Security
system who are undocumented here in the United States today.
Immigration will be the primary source of new skilled
workers for manufacturing, filling 10 million new jobs by the
year 2020. An inadequate labor force would accelerate the
transfer of American productive capacity and well-paid
manufacturing jobs overseas. Regardless of what Lou Dobbs says,
it is not speak in facts but pedals fear.
Look at my district, for instance. Look at my city. It is
full of foreign corporations hiring Americans and immigrants
assimilating in and being a boom to our economy. Failure to
attract enough labor through immigration will result in lower
gross domestic product growth by at least 3 percent in 10 years
and at least 17 percent in 30 years.
Immigrants are crucial to jobs and the labor force. Growth
in the 1990's in the new economy of the last decade has
overwhelmingly depended on male immigrant workers. That is also
from Mr. Greenspan.
So in the end, Madam Chair, I applaud the work that you are
doing trying to develop comprehensive immigration reform that
takes into account the integrity of our borders, the need to
end illegal immigration as we know it today, but also bring
about a practical approach toward comprehensive immigration
reform that will improve the economy of the United States and
also the lives of the millions who are undocumented here today
who want nothing more than a better way of life for themselves,
for their families, and for all Americans.
And with that, I will have more formal testimony submitted
for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crowley is inserted in the
Appendix.]
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
Without objection, both statements are submitted for the
record.
Let me ask you this, I know how busy everybody's schedule
is. We ordinarily go to questions. If you have other
obligations, we will happily say goodbye. Or if you are able--
okay.
Why don't we do this? We will start with questions, and
then if you have conflicts, we understand, and you can leave
whenever you need to.
Mr. Crowley. And if I don't like the question I can just
leave.
Ms. Lofgren. That is right. [Laughter.]
Let me start, if I can.
That is right. The Ranking Member is correct. I did reserve
the right for both the Chairman and Ranking Member to give
their opening statements. And I need to recognize the Ranking
Member of the full Committee at this time.
Mr. Smith. Madam Chair, thank you for letting me go out of
order. I appreciate you and Ranking Member King in doing so. I
will only take 1 minute, because I know there is limited time
on the part of our witnesses, and I know Members have
questions.
I just want to make a couple of comments and, on the way
there, also compliment you, Madam Chair, on being such an
activist Chairwoman. You have set the record and set the pace
for a number of meetings and a number of hearings, and it is
all for good effect, I believe.
I want to follow up on what Mr. Rohrabacher said. And I
appreciate his testimony as well.
He made the statement, which is absolutely accurate, that
over half of all immigrants do not have a high school
education. When we talk about the impact of immigrants, for
instance on Social Security, I think we need to differentiate
between those immigrants who have no high school education and
those who do have, say, a college education or above. Their
contributions into Social Security and what they get from
Social Security are obviously going to be different.
And I know later on you are going to have a witness from
the Social Security Administration. I hope that they will say
in open court today what they told me on the phone a year ago,
and I hope they haven't changed their testimony since that
time.
The discussions I had with the Social Security
Administration a year ago were that if you took the median age
of an immigrant who did not have a high school education--and
we are talking about over half of all immigrants--and you
looked at the wages that they averaged, which was less than
$30,000, over their lifetime they would get back more than
$100,000 more than they contributed into the Social Security
trust fund.
Therefore, every immigrant that does not have a high school
education is actually contributing to the destabilization and
financial insolvency of the Social Security Administration over
time.
We ought to just differentiate between those who contribute
and have a net positive impact on Social Security and those who
are actually going to be getting back over $100,000 more than
they put in.
Lastly, when we had more time, I would comment further on
the impact of immigration on jobs, but every credible study I
have seen shows that it has a negative impact, particularly on
blue-collar workers in America and disproportionately on
minorities and those without a high school education. Those
individuals are the ones that unfortunately see their wages
decline, and there is literally a race to the bottom as to how
little they can be paid.
And so I think when we go forward, Madam Chair, we ought to
take into consideration the adverse impact of those immigrants
on our American workers. I yearn for a national leader who will
stand up for the American workers.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back. Now we will return
to our colleagues for brief questions.
I, obviously, no matter what conclusions we have reached on
the subject, I believe that all of us, as Members of Congress,
want the best thing for our country. I mean, I don't know of
any Member of Congress who has come here trying to do something
other than the best thing for our country. But we have a
variety of pieces of information before us and are reaching
conclusions based on that information and, in some cases, see
the information in a different way.
We asked the Congressional Research Service a series of
questions, and, without objection, I will make all of their
answers a part of the record.
[The information referred to is inserted in the Appendix.]
Ms. Lofgren. But one of the things that the CRS report--and
I think they are actually quoting the trustee's report from
Social Security. On page 15 of the report, they say that, as
immigration increases, program cost rates decrease. And in a
25-year period, 2007-2031, with a net immigration per year of
672,500, the cost rate is 14.26. If you go up to 900,000, it is
14.3. If it is 1.3 million, it is 3.96.
And they base that assumption, really, on that immigrants
tend to be young. And thinking back to Ellis Island, our first
hearing, what they were looking for at Ellis Island in that big
period was they were looking for young, healthy people who
wanted to work and who wanted to come and be Americans.
I think a hundred years have passed and, really, we are
kind of looking for the same thing: people with enough get-up-
and-go to get up and go and get here and work and make
something for themselves and their family and, in the process,
they make something for America. And I think that is reflected
in the Social Security trustees' report.
I don't know, Mr. Crowley, if you have or not--you are kind
of a pinch-hitter here--whether you have had a chance to take a
look at the trustees' report, but certainly the CBO analysis
that shows a net financial benefit of this immigration, the
report that they have just released--which, without objection,
I will also make a part of the record--would seem to show that.
[The report referred to is inserted in the Appendix.]
Mr. Crowley. I haven't read the trustees' report, but I
have looked over the summary of the CBO report, which does,
although different years, I believe, does demonstrate the same
outcome, and that is that benefit to the coffers of the United
States.
I also think it is important to have, of the notion that if
somehow the 12-million-plus undocumented illegals that are here
today were to evaporate, who would fill the jobs that would
then be created by them.
Clearly--at least in my experience, it has been clear for
me--the overwhelming number of immigrants who come to the
United States today are not different than immigrants who came
in the past, in the sense that their overwhelming drive is to
improve their state of life and for their families as well.
They take tremendous risks to come here. They leave family
members behind, and many of them who have been living here in
an undocumented fashion have been out of physical contact with
their loved ones for many, many years. That strength, that
courage and that drive is something that I think we as
Americans want on our side, want on our team.
So I know there are many who would attack those same
individuals and say we don't want them, whatever the reason is.
But I think they do add tremendously to the value of our
society. The overwhelming majority are looking to contribute
and want to contribute in a more full way, and that is as full
legal citizens.
And I would only add that not only are they right now not
able to have a legal job, they can't live in a legal apartment,
they can't live really in a legal society. They live in a
subculture or a Black-market society. And I think it is better
for all of us.
I am concerned about terrorism. I am concerned about people
being exploited. What better way to make them unexploitable
than by giving them the ability to come out into the light of
day and be a more practical part of our society? Right now they
don't have that opportunity, and that is what I would like to
see change more than anything else.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would suggest, number one, we are not
talking about immigration here. We are talking about illegal
immigration. Because no one would certainly disagree with the
sentiments just expressed about how immigrants have contributed
to our societies and the great things they have done, the
wonderful people they generally have been.
We are talking about illegal immigration here. That is a
different issue. We bring in more legal immigrants than all the
rest of the world combined, so we have no apologies to make
that we open up our borders to legal immigrants. What do we do
with the 15 million to 20 million people who are here
illegally?
The CBO report that you are talking about, or the CRA
report, that suggest that, for example, about the Social
Security situation, that is assuming that the people who have
come here as illegals have the same earning power as the
average Americans workers does. Now, I am sorry, their
assumption is wrong.
Ms. Lofgren. No, actually, I don't think that is the case.
It is not fair. I have the report, and I will give it to you,
Dana.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I think my staff did take my statistics
from that as well.
Ms. Lofgren. On page 15.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But let's then take what common sense
tells you. If we take the 15 million to 20 million people who
are here illegally, we legalize their status and then say,
``The people who are here illegally, who came here illegally
but now are legalized are now eligible to become part of the
Social Security system,'' what is to say that those 100 million
people or 200 million or even more people who would take a
message from that across the world who are 50 years old and
say, ``My gosh, if I can get to the United States, they have
already legalized these other people and made them eligible for
Social Security, I will have a retirement''?
Ms. Lofgren. My time is expired. One of the jobs of the
Chairperson is to set a good example for staying within the
time frame.
I will just say, whether the United States should apologize
is not the question. We are trying to find out what is in the
best interest of America. That is the question for me.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Ms. Lofgren. I would yield now to the Ranking Member for
his 5 minutes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think that we need to have far more discussion about the
long-term implications of what may happen in this Congress this
year.
I do appreciate both of your testimony, to be here today
and to sit and answer questions as well.
Mr. Crowley, you made a comment that piqued my interest. I
haven't had an opportunity, of course, to review the testimony
of either, which means I have to pay attention, which is a good
thing. But I am wondering, from a background perspective, could
you give me some sense of your economic involvement throughout
your non-public life career? Can you give me some sense what
that might be?
Mr. Crowley. In regards to what?
Mr. King. What is your profession in the real world?
Mr. Crowley. As was stated in the opening remarks of the
Chairwoman, I was elected to the State legislature at 24. I was
pretty much a year out of college when I was elected. So,
therefore, I did not have the opportunity to be engaged in a
full-time way in the private sector. Although the State
legislature is a part-time position, and during that time I did
own a business, a travel agency, in Queens County.
Mr. King. That gives you a background, and it helps me
frame this question. As I listed, one of the comments you made
was one immigrant can take a job and create perhaps as many as
two or three other jobs. Could you explain how that would
happen?
Mr. Crowley. What I am suggesting is that if an immigrant
is producing a job and is living in a society, for instance in
a neighborhood like Jackson Heights, Queens, which I represent,
which is an immigrant community, those people have to eat. They
have a job, they earn an income, they provide for their family.
I am talking about they go to a grocery store, they have more
demand, more supplies are needed. The people who stack those
shelves, the people who work at the counter.
Mr. King. Their spending creates two to three jobs then?
Mr. Crowley. I am saying that potentially, theoretically,
if you have more people here, more services are required to
sustain those people, more jobs.
Mr. King. I understand your answer, Mr. Crowley, and I
thank you for that, because I didn't know the distinction was
whether they were going to hire those two or three or whether
their spending was going to create two or three. It is their
spending.
Mr. Crowley. I am talking in terms of common-sense theory.
Mr. King. The ripple effect.
Mr. Crowley. If there are more people here, there are
more----
Mr. King [continuing]. I would argue that when you spend a
dollar, you don't create three, but that would be just our
disagreement.
More important, I think the central question is there is
something that doesn't get answered here, and as the chief
deputy whip on this issue--and I congratulate you for that--the
question I am wondering if it gets asked and answered on your
side of the aisle is, is there such a thing as too much
immigration, legal or illegal?
And the components of that are, can we fail to assimilate?
Is there a number so large of cheap labor that it drags our
economy down? Any of those components.
Is there any limit to what might be supported or endorsed
on your side? And if so, would you consider supporting and
endorsing an overall cap where we could say, however we
rearrange each one of the different kinds of visas we have
here, in the United States there is going to be no more than X
number for each individual year from here on out?
Mr. Crowley. I appreciate the question, Mr. King, and I
suppose those same questions were asked throughout the history
of our country. They were certainly asked in the 1840's when
the Irish were coming to this country, in the 1850's when the
Germans came, and the Italians came later, and the Chinese.
That has been a question, I think, that has been asked often in
the history of the United States.
And my perspective is, my observation is, the moment we
stop growing as a Nation, we stop growing.
Mr. King. How much is too many, though? I know the Irish
are masters at filibustering, and I am one of those guys like
that, so my apologies for that ability. But do we have an
answer----
Mr. Crowley. Well, I am not filibustering. I am answering
the question, that I think that is a question that has been
continued to be asked by many within the country that we know
as the United States today that has expanded over the past few
centuries, originally starting in the 13 colonies and moving
west.
Mr. King. As the whip, will your caucus support an
overall----
Mr. Crowley. Sorry?
Mr. King. As a chief deputy whip, will your caucus support
an overall cap so that we at least know how many we might be
legalizing?
Mr. Crowley. Well, that is way above my pay grade right
now. But what I would suggest is that this is a fluid issue
that we are going through, and I appreciate the hearings that
are being held, that you are participating in. I do think these
are the questions that need to be asked.
Mr. King. I am sorry. I am just about out of time. I
appreciate that.
I want to turn to Mr. Rohrabacher and ask him if he wants
to respond to any of those questions that I have laid out
there, in the few seconds I have left.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I think there is a distinct philosophical
difference. I think the American people should pay attention to
what positions people are taking.
If they think that this massive flood of illegals into our
country or, even if you just legalize them, that it is not
going to cause a bigger flood to come in, please pay attention
to who is advocating what. I believe that is to the great
detriment of our people. It is hurting our education system. It
is threatening our Social Security system.
Our criminal courts in California are just crowded, the
criminal justice system is breaking down, and this is caused by
too large a flow of people into our country, an out-of-control
flow. And it is not in the best interest of our country, and it
is not creating better jobs or higher-paying jobs for our
people. It is bringing wages down.
Mr. King. I thank both of the honorable gentlemen and the
Chair, and I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Ellison, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ellison. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let me also thank the two distinguished Members for
presenting your ideas. Just a few questions that might be a
little bit off the beaten path of this conversation.
Could either of you explain what your views are in terms of
how American trade policy impacts immigration? After the
passage of NAFTA, in your view, did we see the low-cost, the
cheap corn from the United States, have an impact on Mexican
farms, which then led to immigration?
I mean, we could build a wall as high as we want to, but if
a Mexican farmer can't make it, aren't we driving them to the
north? Do you guys have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Crowley. I wasn't here for NAFTA.
Mr. Ellison. You can't duck it like that. [Laughter.]
Mr. Crowley. I am not going to duck it. What I am going to
suggest, though, is I think there are a lot of contributory
factors into what drives immigrants to the United States.
You are speaking specifically about a trade agreement,
which I believe NAFTA was Canada and Mexico. The Canadians are
not coming here in droves. What you are suggesting is that the
Mexicans are.
What I would also suggest is that it is not just Mexicans
who are coming across that border, that there are others who
are looking for economic opportunity, that trade policy
certainly can have an impact on a country's job market, but I
also think there were other contributory factors. It could be
discrimination, it could be religious discrimination, political
issues. It could be a hurricane that wipes the economy of
Central America off the map for a couple of years and drives
people to come to the United States.
I think it is a factor. I can't say specifically whether
that particular trade agreement----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Can I answer?
Mr. Ellison. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I was here. I voted for NAFTA.
Mr. Ellison. Okay.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And I voted for NAFTA because I felt it
would help the American and the Mexican economy.
And to the degree that it has helped the economy of Mexico,
there are reasons some economists believe that the economy of
Mexico would be at a lower level now if we wouldn't have passed
NAFTA. To that degree, it helped solve some of the problem,
some of the pull, that we have here into our country, where
people who are poor in that country are coming here to better
themselves.
But our own policies, what benefits we provide the people
of Mexico or any other country are just as important as the
trade policies. Trade policies will determine a little bit
about how prosperous the other country is, if they have the
ability to earn their own living there. But if we actually
offer all of the benefits and treasures that belong to the
American people to anyone who can come over here, they are
going to come.
Mr. Ellison. I have heard that, and I thank you for sharing
it.
It sounds to me like both you gentlemen pretty much feel
like trade is really not a factor in driving immigration. Or if
it is, it is just one among a whole bunch of other factors, and
we really can't say that American trade policy, particularly
with Central and Latin America, is driving it.
Mr. Rohrabacher. To the degree that----
Mr. Ellison. Let me just tell you this. Mexico imports
corn, okay, from the United States. And, to me, the missing
piece of this conversation is this question of how some of our
policies on trade may benefit multinationals, but those same
policies impact people at the lower-income scale in both the
United States and let's say Mexico for example, in ways that we
really haven't begun to talk about yet.
Mr. Crowley. Mr. Ellison, I wouldn't necessarily disagree
with the point that you are making, although I think the new
template that has been created under this Democratic caucus and
this Democratic Party, in the trade agreements that will move
forward, it will be remarkably different than whatever happened
in the past.
Mr. Ellison. I think you are right. I hope you are right
about that.
Mr. Crowley. And, number two, I also would suggest--and,
you know, I watch Lou Dobbs from time to time--that I do notice
that it moves from immigration to job loss, immigration to job
loss, connecting the two somehow.
Mr. Ellison. Right.
Mr. Crowley. And not to say that there may not be some
impact on both trade, on immigration, as it pertains to job
loss here in the United States, but I do think there is a
concerted effort to try to somehow mire the immigrant
opportunity, blaming them for job loss that is taking place in
Ohio or in Michigan.
Mr. Ellison. The one thing that I want to just say that I
agree with you wholeheartedly is that I definitely oppose the
idea that somehow poor people in the United States or working
people in the United States should look at immigrants as the
people to blame for their woes. I think that the problem starts
at a much higher level, and that is how we run our economy. And
I think a lot of that has to do with globalization and trade
policy.
So that is just my speech.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time is expired.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much.
I would be one who wants us to get an immigration bill
finally completed, but I find myself at times at odds with
everybody involved in this.
Mr. Crowley, I am trying to find out a little bit of a
focus on where you are coming from and some that are aligned
with you are coming from.
As the Republican floor manager for Simpson-Mazzoli in
1986, I was convinced at that time it was the best we could do
and that we would have a barrier against the continuation of
serious illegal immigration with employer sanctions and
enforcement. And it is my observation that we didn't enforce
and we didn't truly implement employer sanctions. And as a
result, the other half of the bargain, which was to legalize a
large number of people rather than settling the issue, became
part of the attraction for more to come here.
And now, instead of dealing with 4 million or 5 million
illegal aliens, we are dealing with 12 million or 14 million.
Mr. Rohrabacher has raised it to 20 million. I don't know by
the time we finish the debate how high the number will be, but
there are a larger number.
So I would just ask you, Mr. Crowley, is that a concern,
and should that be a concern--that is, the continuation of
illegal immigration into the country?
Mr. Crowley. What I would like to see, if I were in the
driver's seat on this legislation, is that it needs to be done
in a holistic approach. It cannot just be about addressing the
issue of the 12 million undocumented without also addressing
the porous nature of our border.
And actually I think there is a third aspect to this, and
that is helping people. It drives toward Mr. Ellison's
comments, and that is helping people in their country of origin
stay in their country of origin.
So in response to your question, I do think it is an issue
that needs to be addressed, but it also has to be done at the
same time we have actual real enforcement.
It is getting a little far afield from what we are talking
about today, specifically, but I would envision and I hope that
we have a conference report that we all get to vote on and the
President has a chance to sign that it is one that recognizes
that we need to take care of the security of the 12-million-
plus undocumented who live here in the United States and at the
same time address the security of the boundaries of our
country.
Mr. Lungren. Okay. Well, in attempting to do that, the
Senate bill, at least as it started on the floor, gave a
January 1, 2007, date as the eligibility for those who would
then be given a legal status. Would you agree with that date?
Mr. Crowley. Well, I guess you have to start somewhere.
Mr. Lungren. I understand that. I am asking whether you
agree.
Mr. Crowley. I have yet to determine whether or not that
will be the date that I will support. That is the Senate's
bill. The House will have a bill, and we will see what the date
is there, and when we go to conference we will----
Mr. Lungren. What would be the basis of your consideration
for that?
Mr. Crowley. I think at this point we should consider
anyone who is in the country at the point the bill is passed as
a matter of a practical approach to it.
Mr. Lungren. You realize saying that would encourage people
to come across now in hopes that a bill is going to pass.
Mr. Crowley. I think that people are anticipating we are
going to be passing a bill anyway. So, you know, the reality is
we will have a new class of undocumented who are living in the
United States.
Mr. Lungren. Then you would disagree with those who say
that if we make a legalization program available, it ought to
be only for those who have actual true roots in the community--
that is, who have, in the balance of equities, been here long
enough such that they have put their roots down, they have
connected here for a sufficient period of time, that it would
be difficult for them to go back.
You would reject that notion?
Mr. Crowley. Mr. Lungren, what I would suggest is that
there will be a date in place. Again, you are asking me my
personal feeling. There will be a date----
Mr. Lungren. No, I understand that. I am trying to figure
out what we need to do, what principles you would bring to bear
on that----
Mr. Crowley. And I will answer the question. What will
happen is there will be a date in place, whether it is January
1, 2007, or some other date, that will be the delineation mark
as to when people would have had to have been here, and then
move forward.
I think that to suggest that we do anything other than that
and to do nothing at all would just simply not deal with the 12
million undocumented.
Mr. Lungren. I am not suggesting doing nothing at all. I
have a bill that says if they have been here for 5 years or
more, because that is roots--I talked to one of our good
Democratic friends and he says he supports that January 1st
date. I said, ``That is not roots.'' He said, ``Well, you know,
at least it is beginning to have some life there.''
Ms. Lofgren. I think the word was ``sprouts.''
Mr. Lungren. ``Sprouts.''
I think we are all here, as far as I can tell, came from
ancestors who came from somewhere else. So I think we are all
dedicated to the sense of immigration. But there is also
something we are dedicated to, which is the rule of law. And in
coming to a bill, we have to somehow balance that love and
dedication to an immigrant nation with a sense of a country of
laws.
And if we lose that, that could undermine--I mean, Father
Hesburgh said a number of years ago something which I think
would be a good guidance for us when he was the co-chair of the
commission on immigration set up by Jimmy Carter. He said, ``We
have to close the back door of illegal immigration so that we
can keep the front door of legal immigration open.'' And I hope
we remember that.
Mr. Crowley. Well, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the
good father, but I would also suggest we have to do what is
practical as well. And I don't know if it is necessarily
practical to go just back 5 years. I think what we are creating
is another class of undocumented in the United States that we
will have as difficult a time dealing with as we are with the
12 million right now.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time is expired.
And I am going to thank our colleagues for taking the time
out of what we know is extremely busy days to share your
testimony and your thoughts and also your willingness to stay
and be a witness and answer questions.
We are going to ask the second panel to come forward, if we
may. I would like to introduce them.
First on the panel, I am pleased to introduce Dr. Ruth
Ellen Wasem, a specialist, some might actually say the
specialist, in immigration policy with the Congressional
Research Service at the Library of Congress. Dr. Wasem first
came to Washington as a public health service fellow with the
Office of Population Affairs in the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. For 20 years, however, she has worked with
the Congressional Research Service. Since 2000, she has led the
policy analysts, attorneys and researchers who work on
immigration. She earned her bachelor's degree from Muskingum
College and both her master's and doctorate degrees from the
University of Michigan.
I am also pleased to welcome Dr. Ronald Bird, who is the
chief economist and the director of the Office of Economic
Policy and Analysis under the Assistant Secretary for Policy at
the U.S. Department of Labor. Prior to his work at the Labor
Department, Dr. Bird served as Chief Economist at the
Employment Policy Foundation and at DynCorp's Consulting
Services Division. He has held faculty positions at the
University of Alabama, North Carolina State University,
Meredith College, and Wesleyan College. He earned his
bachelor's degree from Huntingdon College and his Ph.D. in
economics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
I am also pleased to introduce Michael Hoefer, the director
of the Office of Immigration Statistics, or OIS, in the Policy
Directorate at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Mr.
Hoefer began his work with OIS in 1982 and has led the office
since 1997. He began his career in public service with the
Bureau of Labor Statistics and was detailed at the U.S.
Commission of Immigration during its operation. He graduated
from Cornell University in 1976 with a degree in industrial and
labor relations with a concentration in statistics.
And, finally, we are pleased to welcome Charles Oppenheim
to the Subcommittee. He is chief of the Visa Control and
Reporting Division at the Department of State. Mr. Oppenheim
has worked at the State Department for nearly 30 years,
beginning as a consular officer in the Bureau of Consular
Affairs. He is the agency's expert in visa database management
and statistical reporting. A native of Richmond, Virginia, Mr.
Oppenheim graduated from the University of Richmond.
Now, as you know, your full written statements will be part
of our formal record. We would ask that you summarize your
testimony in about 5 minutes. When the yellow light goes on,
that means you only have a minute left. When your time is up,
if you could summarize, that would be great.
This is a wonderful opportunity for us really to hear from
the experts in our own Government about--no one knows better
than you do what the actual statistics are. And so, I think
your answers to our questions can be definitive, and for that
we thank you, not only for being here today but for your public
service, which does count a great deal to all of us in the
Congress.
So if we can begin, Dr. Wasem?
TESTIMONY OF RUTH ELLEN WASEM, Ph.D., SPECIALIST IN IMMIGRATION
POLICY, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Ms. Wasem. Thank you, Madam Chairman, distinguished Members
of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify this
afternoon. I am Ruth Wasem, as you said, a specialist in
immigration policy at the Congressional Research Service.
I am going to breeze through the written testimony I have
prepared by highlighting just a few of the figures in that
testimony.
First, let's take a look at Figure 1, and that is on page 1
in my written testimony. In that, you can see the trend lines
in the foreign-born population. Now, this data is census data
and population data that is based on those censuses and
statistical samples. As you can see, we are at the highest
point in our history in terms of the sheer number of foreign-
born, and in 2005 that was about 36 million.
The main component of the foreign-born that I have depicted
here are as follows: About 35 percent are estimated to have
naturalized. This is based on their self-report. We estimate
that about 30 percent in 2005 are legal permanent residents.
About 31 percent are estimated to be unauthorized aliens, and I
will talk about that a little bit more. And, finally, about 2
percent are estimated--again, I am saying estimated as indirect
estimation techniques--to be people who are here on legal
temporary visas that allow them to stay here long enough to
establish a residence. By that I mean investors, intra-company
transfers, non-immigrants of that sort.
Let's move on then to Figure 3, and this is on page 3 of my
testimony, because this is a figure that depicts that 30
percent I talked about that were legal permanent residents.
These are the annual numbers of individuals who get LPR status,
and it is a trend line from 1900 up until 2005. And as you can
see, the LPR numbers at the beginning of this century are
approximating what they were at the beginning of the 20th
century.
When we speak of LPRs, it is important to get a sense of
what the components of that population are, and that is why I
would like you to take a quick look at Figure 6, and that is on
page 6 in my written testimony. This is the 2005 class of
admission. And you can see quite obviously here that the
largest single group of people who come into the country are
family-based immigrants, 57.8 percent in that particular fiscal
year. A distant second are the 22 percent who come in as
employment-based.
I am going to focus even more on those two classes in the
next figures that I am going to highlight, and these are
Figures 7 and 8 from the testimony. These show trend lines over
the last decade in family-based admissions and employment-
based.
In Figure 7, which are the family-based, you will see that
the ones that are part of the preference category, which I have
labeled as first, second, and third, and that is really the
brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens, the adult children of
U.S. citizens, and the immediate family of legal permanent
residents, those individuals have come in at about the same
rate over the last decade, but they are numerically limited.
The category where we have seen the substantial growth are
the immediate relatives, and that is the one category in the
immigration act which is unlimited.
When we look at the employment-based trends, which I have
in Figure 8--and I have only done the top three preference
categories because the other numbers are too small to discern
in a figure such as this--you can see that we have growth over
the entire decade in all the categories, but the main area of
growth is in what we would call the third preference category.
Those are the professionals, the skilled and the unskilled
workers.
Now let's turn to what I promised I would speak to, and
that is figure 13, which is on page 15 in my report. And I am
skipping way ahead to talk a little bit about the component of
unauthorized migration.
Because of the previous discussion, I will point out there
is a variety of different demographers whose estimates I have
in this chart. However, the thing they have in common is they
are all working with the same basic data source, which is the
Current Population Survey, and they are all using a similar
methodology, a residual methodology. That way, I wanted
something so we really could look at trends over time.
As you can see, much like the other graphs I have shown
you, the trend line is upward. In 2005, we had estimates
ranging from 10.5 million to 11.1 million. The number that is
thrown around today, of course, is 12 million.
Let me briefly say what those components are. In terms of
what I talk about as the unauthorized population, this is who I
am precisely referring to. I am referring to people who entered
this country without inspection, I am referring to people who
entered this country with a fraudulent document, and the people
who came here with a legitimate visa but overstayed the terms
of that visa.
Finally, I am going to just do a quick snapshot of
something that we often neglect to talk about when we talk
about immigrant admissions, and that is the grounds for
inadmissibility.
And on page 20 of my written testimony I present Figure 16.
This time I am moving to State Department data. Before I have
done census data, I used DHS administrative data. Now this is
what the consular officers use. These are the number of
immigrants in 2005 and non-immigrants that were denied a visa
on the grounds for inadmissibility set in the immigration act.
And you can see from this chart, trying to have an
employment-based visa without a proper work authorization was
the principle grounds. Public charge and having been removed in
the past was the second and third most often grounds.
I will conclude my remarks, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wasem follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ruth Ellen Wasem
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much for really a very
voluminous report which I read with great interest, and with
the color charts it was very helpful.
Dr. Bird?
TESTIMONY OF RONALD BIRD, Ph.D., CHIEF ECONOMIST AND DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC POLICY AND ANALYSIS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR
Mr. Bird. Thank you. I am tempted to yield my time to Dr.
Wasem to continue.
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for the opportunity to testify here today. My name is Ronald
Bird, and I am chief economist in the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Policy at the U.S. Department of Labor.
I am here today at your request to provide information
regarding demographics of the U.S. labor force.
The American labor force is large, diverse and dynamic. At
over 152 million workers in May of 2007, the U.S. labor force
is the third-largest among the Nations of the world, behind
only China and India.
The U.S. labor market is healthy. Unemployment in May 2007
was a low 4.5 percent. And we have enjoyed 45 consecutive
months of job growth, with payroll employment growing by 8
million jobs since the post-recession employment low in August
2003.
Unemployment today is below historical averages. Since
1950, the unemployment rate has averaged 5.6 percent, compared
to today's 4.5 percent.
The U.S. labor force grew significantly over the past half-
century. Between 1950 and 2006, the labor force increased from
62.2 million to 151.4 million, a 143 percent increase that saw
89.2 million new workers absorbed into the economy.
During the 1970's, the labor force grew at an average
annual rate of 2.7 percent. Since then, the growth of the labor
force has slowed to an annual average of 1.7 percent in the
1980's and 1.2 percent since 1995.
The Bureau of Labor and Statistics' projections show
continuing declines in the rate of labor force growth with
annual growth slowing to eight-tenths of 1 percent by 2014.
At the same time, the immigrant labor force portion of the
labor force is growing. Current population survey estimates of
the labor force status of the foreign-born do not distinguish
between the documented and undocumented population. However, we
do know that immigrants as a whole are a significant and
growing component of the U.S. labor force.
In 2006, 23.1 million foreign-born workers comprised 15.3
percent of the U.S. labor force. The foreign-born component has
increased by 8.7 million since 1996. Foreign-born workers
accounted for about half of the 17.3 million total increase in
the labor force from 1996 to 2006.
The unemployment rate for foreign-born workers was 4
percent in 2006 compared with an average unemployment rate of
4.7 percent for native-born workers on average over the 12
months of 2006.
Persons of Hispanic ethnicity comprised 50 percent of the
foreign-born labor force in 2006, and 22 percent was Asian
origin.
In terms of educational attainment, 28 percent of the
foreign-born labor force 25 years and older had not completed
high school, compared with about 6 percent of the native-born
labor force. About equal proportions of both the foreign-born
and native-born had bachelor's degrees, about one-third of
each.
Median weekly earnings of Hispanic, foreign-born, full-
time-wage and salary workers were about 75 percent of the
earnings of native-born Hispanics working full-time, while
foreign-born workers with at least a bachelor's degree had
median weekly earnings about identical to those of native-born
college graduates in 2006.
I hope it is helpful. I will be pleased to address your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ronald Bird
Ms. Lofgren. Dr. Bird, it is helpful. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hoefer?
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL HOEFER, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF
IMMIGRATION STATISTICS (OIS), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Mr. Hoefer. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking
Member King, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the role of the Office
of Immigration Statistics, OIS, at the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, to provide an overview of our recent
immigrant population estimates and to answer any additional
questions you may have.
OIS is part of the DHS Policy Directorate and our mission
is to lead the development of statistical information useful in
making decisions and analyzing the effects of immigration in
the United States. We publish reports each year on recent
trends in legal immigration, persons naturalized, and aliens
apprehended and removed from the United States. We primarily
use administrative data collected through the DHS components.
We also provide analyses and estimates to support policy-
makers as they work to understand immigration needs and trends
before setting policy. For example, on the number of foreign
residents in the United States by legal status, as already has
been mentioned in most of the surveys, that information is not
collected, so we need to estimate those numbers.
I want to start by briefly summarizing our recent
estimates, beginning with the number of persons who may be in
the United States unlawfully. We at the OIS estimate that there
were approximately 10.5 million unlawful residents in the
United States as of January 1, 2005, and project that there may
be as many as 12 million as of today.
About 57 percent of the unlawful residents are from Mexico,
and nearly half of the 12 million residents live in California,
Texas, or Florida. The average annual net growth in the number
of unlawful residents has been 500,000 per year since 1990. DHS
has not estimated other characteristics of this difficult-to-
measure population.
Turning to legal immigration, the DHS has granted lawful
permanent resident status to an average of 1.1 million persons
during the past 3 years. More than four out of 10 of these
immigrants are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are
admitted without limitation.
The next leading categories are family-sponsored preference
immigrants at about 19 percent, employment-based preference
immigrants at 17 percent, and refugees and asylees at 13
percent.
About one of four immigrants derives their status through a
spouse or parent. For example, an employment principal who
comes into the United States may bring their spouses and
children.
We estimate there are approximately 11.6 million lawful
permanent residents in the United States as of October 2004 and
that 8 million were eligible to naturalize. Approximately 60
percent of those who were admitted legally during the 1970's
and 1980's have naturalized as of 2005.
More recent immigrants are naturalizing sooner than earlier
immigrants, though it is not known whether this will result in
lifetime naturalization rates higher than 60 percent.
About 33 percent of immigrants admitted before 1986 had
naturalized after 10 years, while between 45 and 50 percent of
immigrants admitted from 1992 to 1995 had naturalized after 10
years of residence.
In addition to the immigrants that have been admitted and
are living in the United States, there are other aliens who
have applied for but are waiting to obtain lawful permanent
resident status. The total number of petitioners for LPR status
who are waiting to immigrate must be estimated because there is
little information available on the number with an approved
petition who are already in the United States or on the number
with a pending petition at USCIS who may be living either
inside or outside the United States.
My colleague from the State Department is going to talk
about those who have approved petitions who are awaiting
abroad.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to testify.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoefer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Hoefer
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
We will turn now to Mr. Oppenheim.
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES OPPENHEIM, CHIEF, VISA CONTROL AND
REPORTING DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Oppenheim. Hello. Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member
King, and distinguished Members of the Committee, it is a
pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer your questions and
provide an overview of the immigrant visa control and reporting
program which is operated by the Department of State.
The Department of State is responsible for administering
the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act which
relate to the numerical limitations on immigrant visa number
use, and I will briefly describe that process.
At the beginning of each month, the Visa Office receives a
report from each consular office abroad listing the total of
documentarily qualified immigrants who are subject to numerical
limitation. These cases are provided by foreign state
chargeability, preference, class, and priority date.
The foreign state chargeability refers to the per country
limitation to which the immigrant visa applicant will be
charged and is generally the foreign state or dependent area to
which the applicant was born. Exceptions are provided for a
child or a spouse to prevent the separation of family members,
as well as for an applicant born in the United States or in a
foreign state of which neither parent was a native or resident.
Alternate chargeability is desirable in the issuance of
visas when a parent or spouse has a more advantageous place of
birth than that of the applicant's. The preference is the visa
class established by the Immigration and Nationality Act to
which the applicant may be assigned based on relationship to
U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents or employment status.
Immigrant classifications fall into two basic categories:
unlimited, such as immediate relatives, and numerically
limited, such as family employment cases. The preference
classes which are being discussed today are strictly the
numerically limited.
The priority date is normally the date on which the
petition to accord the applicant immigrant status was filed.
The Visa Office subdivides the annual preference and
foreign state limitations specified by the Immigration
Nationality Act into monthly allotments. The totals of
qualified applicants which have been reported to the Visa
Office are compared each month with the numbers available for
the next regular allotment.
The determination of visa number availability requires the
consideration of several variables. These include past number
use, estimates of future number use, return rates, and
estimates of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services demand
based on cut-off date movements.
If sufficient numbers are available in a particular
category to satisfy all qualified demand, the category is
considered ``current.'' For example, if the monthly allocation
target is 10,000 and we only have 5,000 applicants, then the
category can become ``current.''
Whenever the total of qualified applicants in a category
exceeds the supply of numbers available for a particular month,
the category is considered to be ``oversubscribed,'' and a visa
availability cut-off date is established. The cut-off date is
the priority date of the first qualified applicant who could
not be accommodated for a visa number that month.
For example, if the monthly target were once again 10,000
and we had 25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a
cut-off date so that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated,
and the cut-off date would be the priority date of the 10,001st
applicant. Therefore, only persons with a priority date earlier
than the established cut-off date are entitled to allotment of
a visa number.
Once the above factors have been taken into consideration,
the cut-off dates for the following month are established. They
are immediately transmitted to overseas posts and the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services Office and are also
published in the ``Visa Bulletin'' and online at the consular
affairs Web site.
I have submitted a copy of the latest ``Visa Bulletin'' for
the record.
Visa allotments for the month that are transmitted to posts
must be returned if they are not used, and the numbers are
provided in priority date order with the oldest reported first.
Citizenship and Immigration Services Office requests are
based on an adjustment of status cases for which all clearance
processing has been completed.
The National Visa Center, which is located in Portsmouth,
New Hampshire, provides administrative support for the U.S.
embassies and consulates abroad that process immigrant visas.
Approved immigrant visa petitions are sent by the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services directly to this center
for initial screening, recordkeeping instructions to visa
applicants prior to being forwarded to overseas posts for
further processing.
If an applicant's party date does not allow the case to be
forwarded overseas, then the petition is stored at the center.
As of March 27, 2007, over 2.7 million active family
immigrant cases were on file at the National Visa Center and
almost 60,000 employment-based applicants were on file at the
center. These totals include both principal applicants and
their derivatives and spouses since each requires the use of a
visa number.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify today and would
welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Oppenheim follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles Oppenheim
ATTACHMENT
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Mr. Oppenheim.
And thanks to all of the witnesses.
We will now begin questions, and I will begin with some
questions that I don't know, hopefully you can answer.
Dr. Wasem, looking at your Figure 7, trends in family-based
immigration, you outline the growth in the immediate relative
category.
And I remember during the markup of the 1996 Act there was
a discussion, just a little trip down memory road, on what kind
of constraints would be put on the spouses of American
citizens. And one of the most conservative Members of the
Committee all of the sudden said, ``Wait a minute. We are not
going to do that. It has not ever been the job of the Federal
Government to tell American citizens who they get to marry.''
And that is really the origin, I think, philosophically, of
the immediate relative category, that Americans are free to
fall in love and marry whoever they want. But it is a slightly
different issue with parents.
Are you able to separate out the parents from the spouses,
minor children, in that graph?
Ms. Wasem. I do not have that data with me. I don't know if
Michael might.
Ms. Lofgren. Do you have it, Mr. Hoefer?
Mr. Hoefer. In my testimony there is a Table 1, which shows
the average annual numbers from 2004 to 2006, so it is recent
data. But out of an average of 478,000 immediate relatives that
come in each year of those 3 years, 93,000 were parents,
284,000 approximately----
Ms. Lofgren. Of the immediate relatives?
Mr. Hoefer. Yes, were spouses, and 101,000 were children.
Ms. Lofgren. Okay, that is very helpful. I overlooked that.
Let me ask you, Mr. Hoefer, you mentioned naturalization
rates are going up, and we had a discussion here several
hearings ago when one of the witnesses suggested that the rate
of naturalization was actually declining.
Mr. Hoefer. I think probably part of the confusion here is
I am talking about people who are legal immigrants.
Ms. Lofgren. Who are able.
Mr. Hoefer. Who are able. So if you are looking at
population data, such as through the Census or the American
Communities Survey, it includes illegal aliens, it includes
people who aren't eligible.
Ms. Lofgren. So your percentage is of the people who are
legally able to apply to become a citizen, that rate is
increasing.
Mr. Hoefer. That is right.
Ms. Lofgren. Okay. That is helpful. Thank you.
Dr. Wasem, your Figure 14, I am wondering if we have this
data. In the 1986 chart, it lists North and South America
together as 23 percent, but in 2005 it shows, by the way, that
immigration from Mexico is dropping substantially, as a
percentage----
Ms. Wasem. As a percentage.
Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. As a percentage, from 69 percent
to 56 percent. But Latin America is now a separate category,
and inexplicably Canada is linked with Europe.
Do we know if those are apples to apples instead of apples
to oranges, how those trends go?
Ms. Wasem. I don't. These were estimates, because the 1986
data was done by different researchers using the same basic
methodological approach and data sources, but they did cut the
regions of the countries and the world differently.
Ms. Lofgren. Does anybody else have that, or could it be
easily obtained? I don't want to create a huge workload, but if
there is a figure that is readily available, I would appreciate
it.
Ms. Wasem. If it was readily available, I probably would
have used it.
Ms. Lofgren. I see.
Mr. Hoefer. You are referring to illegal as opposed to
legal immigrants?
Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
Mr. Hoefer. I have some data here that I can share with you
for 2000 versus 2005, but that is----
Ms. Lofgren. Perhaps after the hearing, that can be
provided.
I am interested in the inadmissibility grounds on Figure
16. By far, the greatest on the bar chart is immigration
violations. And I am interested--I am sure it is many things,
but one of the questions that people have suggested is that the
3-and 10-year bars actually ended up being a substantial issue
for immediate relatives. And you hear that the waivers are
backing up and the like.
Can you address that, Mr. Oppenheim? Do you know the
answer?
Mr. Oppenheim. Not specifically on that. I could get back
to you with the data.
Ms. Lofgren. I would appreciate that.
Do you know, Dr. Wasem, on Figure 16?
Ms. Wasem. I do not know. I am looking at my tables in the
appendices, where I have some trend lines from 2000, 2002. And
this is something that has changed over time in terms of the
difference it makes, but I haven't gone far enough back.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, again, I don't want to give a major
research project to any of you, but if you have that
information readily available, I would be very interested in
receiving it.
I just note, when we were at Ellis Island, before the
hearing we went through a tour of the museum, and I wish I had
taken a picture of it, but there was a plaque, and it said, in
the year 1902, the population of the cities of New York,
Chicago, St. Louis and several others--I don't remember all of
them--75 percent of the population of those cities were either
immigrants or the children of immigrants.
Is that true in any city in America today? Do you know?
Ms. Wasem. I wouldn't be surprised. I don't know.
Ms. Lofgren. That is a surprise question. Perhaps the
answer can come later.
Ms. Wasem. Yes. It is worth looking up, though. We could
look that up.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. King, it is your turn for 5 minutes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You have piqued my interest on a number of things here, the
witnesses as well as the questioning you had. And I probably
have a picture of that, if I could dig through my files.
I would first turn to Mr. Hoefer, because I recall some
numbers that were brought before this panel some time, a couple
of weeks ago, with regard to the naturalization rate. And your
testimony stated that U.S. census naturalization rates included
also illegal population that were not eligible for
naturalization.
And the numbers that we had before this panel a couple of
weeks ago were that in 1970 there was an 82 percent
naturalization rate, and that incrementally dropped from 82
percent down to the year--each census year, 1970, 1980, 1990
and 2000. By the year 2000, they had gone down to a 13 percent
naturalization rate.
And so, as I hear your testimony on this, it would be an
important distinction if one included illegal immigrants. And
yet when I look at USCIS's report and it states here clearly
that for the year 2002--and remember, the year 2000 had 13
percent naturalization rate had gone from 82 percent to 13
percent over that 30-year period.
But 2002, the numbers show this: LPR population, 2002, 11.4
million; population eligible to naturalize, 2002, 7.8 million;
number of persons naturalized in fiscal year 2002, 573,000,
which rolls out to be 7.3 percent.
So that would indicate that the eligible population numbers
from USCIS did not include those that were not eligible for
naturalization.
How would you respond to those numbers from USCIS?
Mr. Hoefer. Well, everything you said was true.
What we have done to get these naturalization rates is
follow cohorts through time. So we looked at people that became
in 1970, 1980 and followed them through time and matched them
with their naturalization record.
When you look at a point in time, you are looking at, if
you use Census data, you are looking at people who are illegal.
The CIS report that you were mentioning, there are many people
over time that don't naturalize, but eventually we find that
about 60 percent do. So some of those people, the 8 million,
they are just newly eligible, so they haven't naturalized yet.
It takes them time.
What we find is about half of those who are going to
naturalize do so within the first 10 years, but there are
people that naturalize----
Mr. King. That is by their own report, though, if I also
hear you testimony on that.
Mr. Hoefer. Yes.
Mr. King. And this USCIS report would be statistically
those that are eligible for naturalization. The user survey
numbers are----
Mr. Hoefer. No, they are not. What we have done is we have
matched the individual record of legal immigration to the
individual record of naturalization.
Mr. King. Would you then disagree with a conclusion that
one can draw from USCIS's report that it goes from 82 percent
in 1970 down to 7 percent in the year 2002?
Mr. Hoefer. I don't think that the USCIS report says that.
Mr. King. I have got it here, and I would be happy to
introduce it into the record. I ask unanimous consent to do so.
Mr. Hoefer. Okay.
Mr. King. But I would just say that I really wish we didn't
have this kind of a trend to look at. And even if we are
looking at, whatever is a number between yours and mine, it is
a bad sign from an assimilation prospect that we don't see more
enthusiasm for naturalization. That is the conclusion that I
would draw, and maybe draw a truce there on that disagreement.
Mr. Hoefer. Respectfully, I believe the naturalization rate
is increasing, and what is happening is that people do emigrate
and leave the country. I think the census data shows people who
immigrated in 1980 who are still here, and many of those people
do naturalize. So that is the reason you see that trend going
down.
But it really, if you look at the cohorts, the
naturalization rate is----
Mr. King. We will have both numbers in the record, Mr.
Hoefer, and I appreciate your position on this.
And I turn to our economic analyst here, Mr. Bird, and I
want to put a little philosophy out there to you. And since you
are an analyst, not just a person who reports statistics but
someone who can analyze it, would you agree or disagree with
this statement that I am about to make, and that is that the
sum total of the economic strength of a Nation is directly
proportional to the average individual productivity of its
people?
Mr. Bird. Well, I think that is a reasonable statement to
make. Human capital is a very important part of the total
productive assets of a Nation. And certainly our prosperity,
our ability to grow, to produce the goods and services we
produce, depends on our productivity, and that depends on both
our physical capital and our human capital.
Right now, today, or in the latest data I have calculated
is 2004, we produce about $40, a little over $40 of output per
hour of effort in America, and that is almost the highest in
the world, and that is the product of our human and physical
capital, combined effort.
Mr. King. I have a follow-up question in writing. I have to
yield back to the Chair.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren?
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much.
Dr. Bird, one of the things that has bedeviled me for a
long time, from the first time I was in Congress to this time
in Congress, is the significantly higher unemployment rates we
have in the African-American community than the rest of the
community, and particularly with young, Black males.
When I was in my other job as attorney general of
California, the figure was often brought up to me that we have
a disproportionate percentage of young, Black males that are
incarcerated. And as we would examine that problem, one of the
suggestions was a lack of economic opportunity.
I would like to ask a question about whether you have given
us some figures about the overall African-American unemployment
rate. Do you have the unemployment rate for males, 20 to 35, in
the various categories that you have that is White, African-
American, Asian and Hispanic?
Mr. Bird. I do not have those numbers with me today, but
they are available, and I could provide those.
Mr. Lungren. Would it be correct to say that African-
American unemployment for males from 20 to 35 is significantly
higher than that for Whites and for Asians?
Mr. Bird. I would presume that may be the case, yes.
Mr. Lungren. Do you have any figures that break down
according to industry? I would be very interested in the
construction industry.
Mr. Bird. Congressman, there is data that can be compiled,
and some of this is already tabulated routinely by the Bureau
of Labor and Statistics, that reports from the current
population survey the percentage of people who are unemployed
with respect to their previously reported industry. That could
be compiled.
Mr. Lungren. Let me tell you where I am trying to go, and
maybe you can give me some help on where I would get the proper
information.
Back in the early 1970's, I worked in construction while I
was going to law school, and it was in southern California. And
it was unusual on the construction job site, at least from my
observation in southern California, for people who were
speaking other than English and were Hispanic, and in some
cases, just because of conversations I had with them, were in
this country without the benefit of papers.
We had Hispanics working in the workforce, but they were
second and third generation in construction, and it appeared to
me, and maybe I am wrong, that African-Americans were a higher
percentage in the workforce in construction then than they are
now.
And again, this anecdotal. Now it appears to me we have a
far greater percentage of Spanish-speaking individuals in the
construction trades than we had then, a significant increase in
that. Obviously I don't go around and ask people, you know, are
you here legally or not here legally, but it has been suggested
to me that a significant percentage are here illegally.
And as I look at an immigration fix, I am one of those who
believes we have to have a temporary worker program. I think we
have proven that we need that in the area of agriculture. But I
am one of those who believes that perhaps you could show a loss
of job or job opportunity for the African-American community,
particularly young males in construction, as a result of the
presence of illegal aliens in the United States.
I don't have data to try and be able to assess that. Could
you give me some help as to what data might be available so at
least I could have something to look at to see whether the
trends are in the direction I think they are or whether my
assumptions or conclusions have no merit?
Mr. Bird. Well, of course at this time I don't have any
data with me to answer whether your presumption is correct or
not. However, at least some of what you are asking for I
believe can be addressed by looking at our current population
survey and perhaps some other data survey sources with our
colleagues at Bureau of Labor and Statistics. And I would be
happy to work with your staff subsequently to develop that and
get that to you.
Mr. Lungren. I would appreciate that. That would help us,
because we are in a very controversial, to say the least,
controversial subject here. And one of the elements of it is a
temporary worker program, and one of those elements is what
kind of a temporary worker program.
And as you analyze it, you hear those that say illegal
immigration has no impact whatsoever on job opportunities for
native-born Americans or Americans who are here on a legal
basis and other who say it has everything to do with it.
And I have a sense of what I believe is true based on my
own observations and anecdotal information, but I don't have
any raw data or examined data.
Mr. Bird. The data that I am thinking about will not
address the documented versus undocumented. But it may be
possible to develop some data that addresses the construction
industry in particular in terms of race, ethnicity, foreign-
born status----
Mr. Lungren. What about native-born versus----
Mr. Bird. Native-born versus foreign-born status, perhaps,
but not going back as far because that distinction has not been
collected in the data except since 1997, I believe, so we have
a shorter time frame there on that, and the ethnicity has not
been collected for that every year.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I hope
that we can work with you.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time is expired. And, really,
all time is expired.
I would like to thank these witnesses.
I will note that, without objection, Members will have 5
legislative days to submit additional written questions to each
of you, and the Committee will forward those questions. We ask
that you answer as promptly as you can.
I will just note, Mr. Hoefer, that you didn't have a copy
of the document that the Ranking Member--I am not faulting the
Ranking Member, but I would like to send that to you and ask
you to just give us your answer in writing.
Mr. Hoefer. Certainly.
Ms. Lofgren. And we will share it with all the Members.
I would note that we have had a series of hearings since
February, 15 hearings, and this hearing today has helped us
with the statistics and some of the numbers. I think that at
this point, although I went into this proces thinking that I
knew something, and I did, I certainly have learned some things
as well.
And the testimony of a great number of enormously
intelligent and scholarly people are posted on our Web site.
Anybody who wants to get an education on this subject is
invited to check it out.
At this point, we are hoping that we are able to move
forward. I hope that we are able to move forward with
comprehensive immigration reform. Your testimony today has been
a part of that, and we thank you very much.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Today we continue these series of hearings dealing with
comprehensive immigration reform. This subcommittee previously dealt
with the shortfalls of the 1986 and 1996 immigration reforms, the
difficulties employers face with employment verification and ways to
improve the employment verification system. On Tuesday May 1, 2007 we
explored the point system that the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand utilize, and on May 3, 2007 the focus of the discussion
was on the U.S. economy, U.S. workers and immigration reform. Last week
we took a look at another controversial aspect of the immigration
debate, family based immigration. Today we continue the vital task of
eliminating the myths and seeking the truth. Last Wednesday's hearing
dealt with probably the most crucial aspect underlying the immigration
debate, an immigrant's ability to integrate, and assimilate into
American society. Last Thursday we tackled another pressing topic, the
practical issue of the impact of immigration on States and Localities.
On Friday May 18, 2007 we discussed the issue of the ``Future of
Undocumented Immigrant Students,'' and on May 24, 2007 we examined the
``Labor Movement Perspective'' on comprehensive immigration reform.
Today we will examine the perspectives of the business community.
Much of the rhetoric that those in the anti-immigrant camp have
repeated in their efforts to deter comprehensive immigration reform is
based in pure ignorance. Webster's dictionary defines ignorance as,
``1. without knowledge or education. 2. Displaying lack of knowledge or
education. 3. Unaware or uninformed: Oblivious.'' When I hear the
rhetoric of those individuals in the anti-immigrant camp this very
definition comes to mind, because either these individuals are actually
without knowledge, willfully display a lack of knowledge, are simply
uninformed, or just oblivious to the facts.
Individuals in the anti-immigrant camp consistently promote
misconceptions about the undocumented population that serve this debate
no justice. For example many argue that illegal immigrants are a burden
on our social services, they are criminals, they are ``taking''
American jobs, they hate America, and they are harming our economy, and
depressing the wages of American workers.
Over the last month and a half we have debunked all of these myths.
Fact of the matter is that most illegal immigrants do not utilize
social service programs out of fear of being detected; they have an
incarceration rate that does not compare to those of Native born
individuals; the concept that they are taking jobs conflicts with all
the data that suggest that there is a labor shortage in the
agriculture, construction, and service industries; individuals who come
here to live the American dream cherish the opportunity and their
children are as American as apple pie; and we have heard testimony
before this subcommittee that illustrates the fact that immigration
benefits our economy, and the impact of immigration on wages is small
if any.
Along those same lines the biggest dispute regarding immigration
statistics is the actual number of undocumented workers who are present
here in the United States, the estimates range from 12 million to 20
million. We will hear testimony from Dr. Ruth Ellen Wasem from the
Congressional Research Service who will help us discover the truth. For
example, according to the Census Bureau there were 36 million foreign
born people who resided in the United States in 2005. A further look at
this population reveals that 34.7% of these individuals were
naturalized, 32.7% were Legal Permanent Residents, 2% were temporary,
and 30.7% were unauthorized. These statistics seem to verify the fact
that there are about 12 million undocumented workers here in the United
States as opposed to 20 million. I look forward to the testimony of our
witnesses, Madam Chair I yield back my time.
Letter to the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International
Law, from a majority of the minority Members of the Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International
Law requesting a Minority day of hearing
Prepared Statement of the the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher,
a Representative in Congress from the State of California
I appreciate the opportunity to testify. As reliable statistics on
illegal immigrants are notoriously hard to come by and verify such an
open discussion as this is necessary.
Contrary to the image many are trying to promote, illegal
immigration has had a devastating financial impact on Social Security.
More than half of illegal immigrants in our country work for cash
under the table. So these illegal immigrants do not pay into the Social
Security system. And since they are paid cash, the employers do not pay
their contribution into the Social Security system either.
Another negative effect is that jobs which could be filled by
American citizens and legal immigrants are taken away. Without a pool
of available illegal immigrants employers would be forced to hire legal
applicants and cover them under Social Security. So Americans are
losing jobs to illegal aliens who aren't paying their fair share into
the Social Security system.
Corresponding to this, a flow of illegal labor into our country
brings down wages in general. Employers who might have paid $10 or $12
dollars an hour now pay lower wages, which then results in lower
contributions to the Social Security system.
There are those, of course, who think the solution is to legalize
all the illegals in the United States, and this will solve the Social
Security crisis. In fact, legalizing the status of those here illegally
will make the Social Security challenge facing America dramatically
worse.
Any plan that would specifically give Social Security to those who
have been working in this country is an invitation for fraud on a
massive scale. What would stop anyone from claiming they worked under a
false Social Security number? Hundreds of thousands of people pay into
Social Security under a 000-00-0000 number, how can you prove who used
that fraudulent number and who did not?
We already have a huge problem with identity theft and fraudulent
identification. Allowing those who have worked illegally in the United
States to participate in Social Security exponentially increases the
incentive for fraud.
Another overlooked consequence is the survivors' benefits and
disability aspects of the Social Security system. What would stop
anyone from claiming ``My spouse worked here under this false number, I
am his widow, these are his children, please start sending the
survivors benefits we are now entitled to.''
Remember, billions of people around the world have NO retirement
whatsoever. Why assume that only younger immigrants will come into the
United States? Why wouldn't someone in their 50's think ``I could work
for ten years in the United States, and the Social Security payment
would let me live well back home.''
Furthermore, many people who will be legalized under several
different proposals are poor and low skilled. In fact over half of
illegal immigrants do not even have a high school education. The
inconvenient fact is Social Security pays out more in benefits,
proportionally, to lower wage workers than higher wage workers. The
projections I have seen from Social Security assumes immigrants have
the same general earning potential as native born Americans, and they
do not. These illegal immigrants will receive far more from the system
than they paid into it, creating a huge threat to the viability of the
Social Security system in the long run.
The last and most significant point is this: In 1986, after being
told it would only legalize about 1 million people, 3 million illegal
immigrants ended up being granted amnesty. It is now 20 years later,
and the current illegal immigrant estimates range from 12 to 20 million
people. The 20 million figure comes, not from a government source, but
from a private study conducted of the monies sent back through
remittances to in Central American countries.
Is there any doubt legalizing the status of those here illegally
will result in a flood of new illegal immigrants into our country.
Permitting these legalized immigrants into the Social Security system
will turbo-charge the flood of illegals into our country.
If we legalize 12 to 20 million people now, there will be 45 to 60
million illegal aliens here in 2027. No fence, no wall, no minefield,
no system will keep illegal aliens out of the country if we give them
the reasonable hope that generous government benefits, including
retirement, can be theirs if they can just get across the U.S. border
and wait us out. Under such a strain our Social Security system cannot
survive and will collapse. Being irrationally benevolent to illegals is
a crime against our own people.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Joseph Crowley,
a Representative in Congress from the State of New York
Thank you for inviting me here today. As you point out, I have a
particular interest in the issue of immigration as the son of an
immigrant as well as the grandson of immigrants. And as duly noted by
Chairwoman Lofgren, Majority Whip Clyburn has appointed me as Chief
Deputy Whip to work on this particular issue. Therefore, I am very
happy to join you today and speak on this issue.
I strongly believe in comprehensive immigration reform and seem to
have a more optimistic view of the contributions of immigrants to the
United States economically. This must be about
looking forward, not backwards--looking at where we are going to be
in years to come, and not where we are today.
Today, I am not here to criticize the Senate bill in any way, as
they are working through it as we speak. It is, however, my hope that
the Senate passes a bill so that the House can take it up, pass its
bill, and move to conference in order to get real, comprehensive
immigration reform passed.
As I testify before you today, I would like to highlight the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Cost Estimate report which shows that
comprehensive immigration reform is essential to the growth of our
economy.
It is imperative that we pass a Comprehensive Immigration Reform
bill this year in order to secure out borders, sustain a strong
economic future in the United States, and ensure that our country
remain a haven for those who seek freedom, opportunity, and a better
life for themselves and for their families.
Immigration does not necessarily have to be a drain on the economy,
as many would have you believe. Immigrants are not a drain on tax
payers and the economy. In fact, they improve many aspects of our
economy: adding to job creation, increasing our national revenue
through greater receipts of Social Security payroll taxes, which are
classified as off-budget.
Look at the jobs they fill, the money they spend, and they jobs
they create. They are essential to our nation's future prosperity. As
Leon Sequiera, Assistant Secretary for Policy for the U.S. Department
of Labor stated, ``Everyone who comes to America as an immigrant gets a
job, but that doesn't mean they necessarily displace someone else in
the marketplace. They may take a job that, in turn, leads to the
creation of a job or two or three jobs.'' We have an expanding
marketplace and an economy that continues to grow.
The growth of the foreign-born workforce has no produced
significant adverse effects on native-born workers. Unemployment rates
for all groups have gone down and wages have increased. As Mr. Sequiera
pointed out, there are 4.1 million job openings in the United States,
with new job vacancies opening faster than they are being filled.
At the Summit on Retirement Savings hosted by the United States
Department of Labor, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve Board
Chairman stated, ``The larger our workforce is in the year 2010 and
beyond, the easier producing goods and services for both retirees and
active workers will be. Immigration policy will therefore be a key
component of baby-boom retirement policy.''
For example, people are not joining the workforce at the same rate
as they were in the 1950s, the Baby-boom era. Economically, passing
comprehensive immigration reform is essential because it will allow
more individuals to join the workforce, thereby adding to our economy
and the benefits we all enjoy.
This year, it was widely reported that undocumented immigrants in
New York and throughout the nation filed taxes returns in record
numbers to start a paper trail with the prospect of Congress
overhauling our immigration system. This only proves that comprehensive
immigration reform holds the promise of getting more individuals, even
those without official documentation, to voluntarily pay into the
system rather than remain invisible outside of it.
Undocumented immigrant workers already pay an estimated $7 billion
into the Social Security system. There can be no better incentive than
a common-sense immigration policy to encourage more individuals to pay
taxes in the hope of getting a foothold in the climb towards
naturalization. Granted, I agree that some of the undocumented workers
today are paid off the books. Some use false Social Security numbers or
false taxpayer I.D. numbers to pay into a system that they will not
necessarily get a benefit from in the future. It has yet to be
determined how we compensate the undocumented individuals in the United
States who have already contributed toward the Social Security system.
Additionally, immigration will be the primary source of new skilled
workers for the manufacturing sector--filling 10 million new jobs by
the year 2010. An inadequate labor force would accelerate the transfer
of American productive capacity and well-paid manufacturing jobs
overseas. Regardless of what Lou Dobbs says, he does not speak in
facts, but peddles fear.
Look at my district, for instance. Look at my city. It is full of
foreign corporations who hire Americans and assimilating immigrants
alike. All of these corporations have been beneficial to our economy.
As Alan Greenspan stated, ``Failure to attract enough labor through
immigration will result in lower gross domestic production growth by at
least 3 percent in 10 years and at least 17 percent in 30 years.
Immigrants were crucial to the job and labor force growth in the 1990s.
Furthermore, the ``New Economy'' of the last decade was overwhelmingly
dependent on male immigrant workers.''
So in the end, Madam Chair, I applaud the work that you are doing
in attempting to develop a comprehensive immigration reform bill--one
that takes into account the integrity of our borders and the need to
end illegal immigration as we know it today. And doing so with a
practical approach that will improve the economy of the United States,
the lives of the millions who are undocumented here today, who want
nothing more than a better way of life for themselves, their families,
and for all Americans.
``Senate Amendment 1150 to S. 1348, the Comprehensive Immigration
Reform Act of 2007, As amended by the Senate through May 24, 2007,'' a
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, published June 4, 2007,
submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren
``Helping Immigrants Become New Americans: Communities Discuss the
Issues,'' published by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
submitted by the Honorable Steve King
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from Ruth Ellen Wasem, Ph.D.,
Specialist in Immigration Policy, Congressional Research Service
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from Ronald Bird, Ph.D., Chief
Economist and Director of the Office of Economic Policy and Analysis,
U.S. Department of Labor
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from Michael Hoefer, Director of the
Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS), U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, with Addendum
ADDENDUM
Answers to Post-hearing Questions from Charles Oppenheim, Chief,
Visa Control and Reporting Division, U.S. Department of State
Additional Answer to Question posed during the Hearing by the Honorable
Zoe Lofgren from Charles Oppenheim, Chief, Visa Control and Reporting
Division, U.S. Department of State