[Senate Hearing 118-146]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-146
UNLOCKING AMERICA'S POTENTIAL:
HOW IMMIGRATION FUELS ECONOMIC GROWTH
AND OUR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
September 13, 2023
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
53-785 WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Chairman
PATTY MURRAY, Washington CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
RON WYDEN, Oregon MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia MITT ROMNEY, Utah
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
TIM KAINE, Virginia MIKE BRAUN, Indiana
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico RICK SCOTT, Florida
ALEX PADILLA, California MIKE LEE, Utah
Dan Dudis, Majority Staff Director
Kolan Davis, Republican Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Mallory B. Nersesian, Chief Clerk
Alexander C. Scioscia, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2023
OPENING STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Chairman............................. 1
Prepared Statement........................................... 36
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member...................... 3
Prepared Statement........................................... 38
Senator Alex Padilla............................................. 5
Prepared Statement........................................... 41
Senator Mike Lee................................................. 7
Prepared Statement........................................... 45
STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Senator Mike Braun............................................... 22
Senator Ben Ray Lujan............................................ 25
Senator Lindsey O. Graham........................................ 26
Senator Rick Scott............................................... 29
WITNESSES
Dr. Britta Glennon, Assistant Professor of Management, Wharton
School of University of Pennsylvania, and Faculty Research
Fellow, National Bureau of Economic Research................... 10
Prepared Statement........................................... 48
Mr. David Bier, Associate Director of Immigration Studies, Cato
Institute...................................................... 11
Prepared Statement........................................... 76
Mr. Laurens Van Beek, Software Developer and Former U.S. Visa
Holder......................................................... 13
Prepared Statement........................................... 94
Mr. Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow, Center for Health and
Welfare Policy, The Heritage Foundation........................ 15
Prepared Statement........................................... 101
Dr. Ronil Hira, Associate Professor, Department of Political
Science, Howard University..................................... 16
Prepared Statement........................................... 118
APPENDIX
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record
Mr. Bier..................................................... 128
Mr. Rector................................................... 129
Dr. Hira..................................................... 130
Charts submitted by Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse.................. 132
Documents submitted for the Record by Senator Charles E. Grassley 134
Statement submitted for the Record by AFL-CIO.................... 144
Statement submitted for the Record by Improve the Dream.......... 152
Statement submitted for the Record by Refugees International..... 233
UNLOCKING AMERICA'S POTENTIAL: HOW IMMIGRATION FUELS ECONOMIC GROWTH
AND OUR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
----------
SEPTEMBER 13, 2023
Committee on the Budget,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:00
a.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room SD-608, Hon.
Sheldon Whitehouse, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Whitehouse, Kaine, Van Hollen, Lujan,
Padilla, Grassley, Graham, Johnson, Braun, R. Scott, and Lee.
Also present: Democratic Staff: Dan Dudis, Majority Staff
Director; Melissa Kaplan-Pistiner, General Counsel; Dan RuBoss,
Senior Tax and Economic Advisor and Member Outreach Director.
Republican Staff: Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Ryan
Flynn, Staff Assistant.
Witnesses:
Dr. Britta Glennon, Assistant Professor of Management,
Wharton School of University of Pennsylvania, and Faculty
Research Fellow, National Bureau of Economic Research
Mr. David Bier, Associate Director of Immigration Studies,
Cato Institute
Mr. Laurens Van Beek, Software Developer and Former U.S.
Visa Holder
Mr. Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow, Center for
Health and Welfare Policy, The Heritage Foundation
Dr. Ronil Hira, Associate Professor, Department of
Political Science, Howard University
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN WHITEHOUSE \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Prepared statement of Chairman Whitehouse appears in the
appendix on page 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Whitehouse. Good morning everyone. Welcome to the
first post-recess hearing of the Budget Committee. This one is
a little bit unique in that I am co-chairing it with Senator
Padilla, and it will be--I don't know if co-Ranking Member is a
verb, but our distinguished Ranking Member will be supported by
Senator Lee as an opener also. We will have, rather than the
usual two opening statements, we will have four opening
statements.
And I want to thank Senator Padilla for his emphasis on
this issue, and his support for this hearing. This morning we
discussed the role that immigration plays in driving our
economic growth, and strengthening our global competitive
advantage. Ahead of this year's House driven default crisis,
Ranking Member Grassley called on both parties to get serious
about the budget deficits and debt.
As this Committee has repeatedly shown, we have levers at
our disposal to reduce the deficit, and more importantly, to
reduce the debt to GDP ratio. For example, we can increase
revenues by fixing our corrupted Tax Code, and we can avoid
future increased expenditures, and decreased revenues by
investing now in climate change protections.
Showering tax cuts on the wealthy, and on big MAGA donors,
and on big oil, are in my view not serious pathways to fiscal
responsibility. Today's hearing discusses the powerful tool in
our tool kit, and that is immigration. Economists and experts
agree that expanding lawful immigration pathways to the U.S.
will grow our workforce, our productivity, and our economy.
Reforming our decades old immigration laws is long overdue.
Congress has been trying to reform the system for the
entire time that I've been in the U.S. Senate. In the 11 years
since creating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
(DACA) program, we have not yet passed permanent protections
for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors
(DREAMers), whose fate now lies with the Supreme Court. Real
human consequences to this delay play out in the lives of
immigrants, their families, employers and communities.
People are frightened, and people are suffering. This
includes people seeking refuge and safety. This includes many
essential workers, and, as one of our witnesses today will
testify, this includes people who grew up here, built a life
here, and then had to give it all up when our immigration laws
failed them.
There are also serious economic consequences. A landmark
study on the economics of immigration by the National Academy
of Sciences found unequivocally that immigration is integral to
America's economic growth. At all skill levels, and at all
education levels, immigrants boost our economy.
Immigrants are about 80 percent more likely to start a
business than those born in the U.S., and immigrant
entrepreneurs create jobs for U.S. born workers. More than one
in five small businesses in the U.S. is immigrant owned, and
more than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by
an immigrant, or the child of an immigrant.
Immigrants are also more likely to hold patents that fuel
innovation nationwide. Notably, innovation accelerates among
U.S. born and immigrant workers alike when immigration
increases. Further, undocumented workers help fuel our economy.
Providing pathways to lawful immigration and citizenship is not
only a moral imperative, it is an economic one.
An estimated three-quarters of all undocumented immigrants
were essential workers during the pandemic. In other words,
they were heroes. Their economic contributions would be even
greater, and their risks of exploitation and labor abuse
greatly reduced if lawful status were accorded to them. The
Center for American Progress estimated that creating pathways
to citizenship for DREAMers and Temporary Protected Status
(TPS) holders, farm workers and essential workers, would boost
U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $1.7 trillion over ten
years, and would create over 400,000 new jobs.
Providing lawful status to undocumented workers also
benefits U.S. born workers, by increasing worker power and
reducing wage exploitation. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Economic growth is a product of labor force growth, and
productivity growth. Immigrants are important to both, and they
have become essential to meeting existing labor needs, and to
the continued health of our social insurance programs, as the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director testified in July.
If 2 million more immigrants came to the U.S. each year we
could reverse our predicted population and productivity
decline, and we could nearly double GDP to $47 trillion by
2050, compared to a GDP of only $33 trillion in a low
immigration scenario.
If we are serious about global economic competition with
China, then we need to welcome immigrants. U.S. immigration
hurdles are motivating businesses to hire workers to facilities
abroad, instead of in their U.S. facilities. The talent crew is
global, and America needs to attract global talent to the U.S.
Experts have warned that without boosting legal immigration
significantly now, the U.S. will sacrifice its position as the
world's largest economy by 2030.
Our outdated and broken immigration system is harming
people, and it is also harming our economy and affecting our
budget. Repairing it will expand our economic potential, and
strengthen our global competitiveness. We can fix this, and we
should try. I turn it over now to Ranking Member Grassley,
whose opening statement will be followed by that of Senator
Padilla, whose opening statement will be followed, if he is
present, by Senator Lee. Senator Grassley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GRASSLEY \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears in the appendix
on page 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Grassley. Before I go to my statement, I should
probably make clear because my statement might sound like I
have great disagreement with you, but everything you've said
about legal immigration, I want to say that I associate myself
with your remarks, and the only thing is what keeps us from
getting there is more of a political issue that I think I want
to address.
Chairman Whitehouse. And indeed you and I, and particularly
Senator Graham have been heavily involved in Judiciary
Committee immigration work for many years, so yeah, I agree
with you there. Thank you. Please go ahead.
Senator Grassley. Over the August break I completed my
annual tour of Iowa for the 43rd straight year. I held at least
one Q and A meeting in each of Iowa's 99 counties. These
meetings allow me to hear directly from my fellow Iowans about
what's on their minds, and as an example I listen to people,
what's on their minds.
The father of Mr. Van Beek, who's here as a witness, came
to my Columbus Junction meeting maybe about two or three years
ago, and talked about the very same issues that I presume Mr.
Van Beek will speak to us about today, although it will
probably be a little more general of a statement.
Immigration is an issue on the minds of many Iowans,
specifically illegal immigration, and securing our nation's
borders. And when our borders are not secured, I think the
sovereignty of any nation is compromised. Every night on our
TVs we see immigrants wading across the Rio Grande. We see
immigrants sleeping on streets in New York City, and reports of
similar situations in Chicago and Los Angeles.
As he criticized the Biden administration, the Democrat
Mayor of New York City recently said this crisis will cost New
York 12 billion dollars, and destroy the City. In fact, just
this Saturday New York Mayor warned all City agencies could see
their budgets cut by 15 percent due to an increased cost of
migrant crisis.
So even Democrats who have actually dealt with the crisis,
admit illegal immigration is a huge cost to taxpayers and
society. And it seems to me I don't hear from those same mayors
that it would be a good thing if the President would solve this
problem at the border by securing the border because President
Biden's lax immigration enforcement has contributed to rising
crime in communities across the country.
Gangs at the southwest border recruit migrants to bring
drugs into the United States, those on terrorism watch list
have been apprehended at the border, and who knows how many
have evaded apprehension. In Iowa, Sara Root was killed in 2016
by an undocumented immigrant driving drunk.
New York City's budget cuts could result in no overtime for
City police, and put public safety even more at risk. No one
can place a cost on the lives of families that have been
destroyed by criminals entering our country illegally. These
are very real reasons the Biden administration needs to step up
and control our borders.
Iowans tell me they're sick and tired of the administration
not enforcing our immigration laws. We need real reform and
consistent enforcement of our existing immigration laws.
President Biden took an oath to enforce our nation's laws, and
yet he's not doing that on the subject of immigration.
We're a nation of immigrants. We're the most liberal on
this issue of any nation on the face of our globe. America
welcomed roughly 1.5 million legal immigrants in the year of
2022. These folks followed our immigration laws to their
benefit, and to the benefit of our communities as well.
Businesses and our economies benefit from a stable and
legal workforce. Our communities benefit from the economic
contribution of legal immigrants, and the immigrants benefit
from the opportunities and protections offered when they're
here legally. We all benefit when, state, federal and local
resources are not drained dealing with people entering our
country illegally.
No one benefits from mismanaged borders, policies that
incentivize illegal immigration, and poor implementation of
legal immigration programs. My Democrat colleagues argue that
we need to increase immigration to address a labor shortage.
Well one reason we have a labor shortage is this
Administration's anti-work agenda.
A recent study by the Foundation of Government
Accountability found President Biden's expansion of government
program benefits has caused 2.4 million Americans to leave
work. We need to bring Americans back into the workforce, and
reform existing programs before we expand immigration.
This morning we'll hear from Mr. Robert Rector. He's
tracked the cost of illegal immigration for many years. He'll
discuss how Biden Administration mismanagement of our
immigration system has imposed significant financial costs upon
our towns, states, and federal governments.
His testimony will make it clear that relaxing our
immigration requirements is unsustainable, and the wrong
direction to take. We'll also hear from Dr. Ron Hira about the
fraud and abuse of the current H-1B visa program. His message
will be we know the steps needed to improve our current legal
immigration programs, and we must take those steps to protect
American workers and foreign born workers as well as our
economy.
During this past year Senator Durbin and I reintroduced the
bipartisan H-1B and L1 Visa Reform Act to reform and close
loopholes in the H-1B and L1 visa program. The H-1B and L1 visa
program creates a pathway for U.S. companies to recruit highly
skilled non-citizens when there is a shortage of qualified
workers in the country.
Unfortunately, these programs are being abused, mismanaged
by a number of companies who displace U.S. workers. Our
legislation, meaning Grassley/Durbin legislation would reduce
fraud and abuse in our immigration system, provide American
workers protections against being displaced, and protect
foreign workers from being subjected to artificially depressed
wages and poor working conditions.
Before we entertain any increases in these programs, they
have to be fixed. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Whitehouse. Thanks very much Senator Grassley, and
now I will turn to Senator Padilla who, as I indicated in my
early opening remarks, was a terrific support and instigator
for this hearing, and I look forward to his opening remarks,
and then we'll turn to Senator Lee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PADILLA \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Prepared statement of Senator Padilla appears in the appendix
on page 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse. Always
happy to instigate. Thank you Ranking Member Grassley. I thank
both of you for inviting me to help co-chair this hearing. The
role that immigration plays in driving economic growth, and
ensuring that our nation stays competitive on the global stage.
I'm glad to be here today to learn more about the economic
challenges caused by our outdated and broken immigration
system, and the steps that we might take, that we should take,
to make our system and our country stronger moving forward.
Now even in the year 2023, it's no exaggeration to say that
America remains a shining city upon a hill to countless people
around the world who dream of a better life. But make no
mistake, it's not just immigrants who rely on the United States
of America to achieve a better future, America too relies on
immigrants.
Our economic success will continue to depend on immigrants
and all that they contribute to our nation. If all that
immigrants contribute, Congress has failed to pass significant
immigration legislation to update our outdated immigration
system in over three decades. As the Senator from the state
that is home to more immigrants than any state in the nation,
and yes, a proud son of immigrants myself, I know personally
the benefits that immigrants bring to our country, and to our
communities.
And as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on
Immigration, I just want to share with my colleagues on this
Committee, that we've now had six hearings examining the vital
roles that immigrants play in our communities, from members of
the military, to essential workers on the front lines of the
pandemic, and long before then, to entrepreneurs and more. But
over the course of those hearings too many times we've heard
the devastating impacts that our outdated laws have had. The
impact that growing visa backlogs have had on families, on
students, on workers, seeking to immigrate to the United
States. That includes U.S. citizen family members who are
separated or kept apart from loved ones because of our outdated
immigration system.
Here's what we've learned. Every day that we fail to reform
our immigration system is another day that we're holding back
the economy, and another day that our economic competitors
around the world rise. According to Forward.US, meaningful
immigration reform could bring 3.2 million new jobs to the
United States over the next decade, and add a trillion dollars
to our economy.
And we're here today, part of that reform means
facilitating immigration of healthcare providers like
physicians and nurses. Today, the United States is facing a
dire healthcare workforce shortage, including a projected
shortage of up to 124,000 physicians by 2034.
But luckily, we know that immigrant healthcare workers can
help fill this gap. We know it because in many ways they
already are. Immigrants already write our prescriptions, they
care for us at our bedside, and very often they're the
cornerstone for rural and low-income community access to
healthcare. Yet backlogs and processing green cards, along with
annual caps to employment-based visas, mean we can't meet the
high demand for healthcare workers in the United States.
For my colleagues across the aisle, let's be clear. This is
lawful migration, existing programs. We're talking about
addressing backlogs. Now we can't meet our needs unless we act.
Strengthening our economy also means helping immigrants who
hope to make a career for themselves here in science,
technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields, filling a
desperately needed gap in our STEM workforce.
It means helping potential entrepreneurs and business
owners, yes investors who whether because of restrictive
students, or employment based visas, are forced to leave the
country, or never get a chance to contribute to our economy.
And it means passing a pathway to citizenship for long-term
undocumented individuals like DREAMers and DACA recipients,
hundreds of thousands of young people who are already home in
America, but who can't pursue the same opportunities as their
peers because of their status.
How can we live up to our full economic potential when all
these people are denied a secure place in America? And let me
be clear about this, the need for immigrants in our economy
stretches far beyond just the healthcare examples that I've
given, or the STEM fields examples that I've given. They're
essentially in every essential industry, from agriculture to
education, construction, food processing, and more.
In fact, we recognized this during the COVID-19 pandemic,
nearly 1 in 5 jobs deemed essential by the United States
government was held by an immigrant. Yet these same workers
deemed essential to keeping our country running, are denied
permanent protections. They're left to live in limbo. That's
fundamentally wrong.
And it's not just a moral failure, it's a national economic
weakness as well. But it's indicative of the larger problem
that we have, that we will try to square off with today. We
have the solutions to grow our economy, and be more competitive
on the world stage. Time and again the solutions have been
there. But politics has kept Congress from taking the necessary
actions.
To fail to act again would not just cause the United States
to fall behind here at home, we would continue to lose our
competitive edge globally as well. So we must come to the
table, work to bring justice and dignity back to the
immigration system, provide stability for immigrants living
here in America already, and invest in the future of our
economy.
That may seem like a lot to ask, but failure is not an
option. So I challenge all of us here today to listen to the
testimony of our witnesses, look past the partisan talking
points, and let's get to work. We can do this. We need to do
this, and thank you again Mr. Chair for having this hearing
today, and thank you.
Chairman Whitehouse. Senator Lee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEE \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Prepared statement of Senator Lee appears in the appendix on
page 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Lee. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse, and Ranking
Member Grassley, for the opportunity to address the Committee
with a few opening remarks at today's important hearing.
America is a generous country, welcoming to immigrants. It
always has been, and I hope it always will be.
My home state of Utah is an excellent example of that
generosity and welcoming spirit that's come to typify America.
Tragically, as much as we would love to, America cannot be the
safe harbor for every desperate, destitute and wandering soul
in the world.
Under this Administration the bounds of American generosity
has been more than tested. It's been assaulted, stretched to
the breaking point. The cost of an unsecured border and
unprecedented illegal immigration have been both stunning and
debilitating.
The cost of the border crisis is impacting every single
American. It isn't just placing unprecedented strain on our
federal budget, and the budgets of border states. Governors
across America, and mayors of cities large and small, are
feeling the burden of an unprecedented 3 million people
entering this country illegally, and relying almost exclusively
on many instances, on taxpayer resources for their support.
But first and foremost, we must acknowledge the human costs
of our unwillingness to close our border and enforce our laws.
People are dying in cargo containers. Children, including
babies, are being trafficked as commodities, as the price of
admission into our country. Women and children are being
violated, trafficked in the human sex trade.
Violent drug cartels meanwhile are being enriched and
becoming increasingly powerful as they traffic untold amounts
of fentanyl into our country. Over 100,000 people have died
from fentanyl overdoses during the last year alone, and there's
no dispute about where the fentanyl is entering our country.
It's coming through our southern border.
And estimated 196 Americans are dying every single day from
fentanyl. As the Washington Post pointed out, that's the
equivalent of a fully loaded Boeing 757 200 crashing and
killing everyone on board day after day, after day every day of
the year. Now if Secretary Mayorkas and President Biden had a
Boeing 757 crashing every day in American air space, everyone
would be understandably outraged, calling for their resignation
of both officials.
Not only is the fentanyl streaming through our border,
costing American lives, but it's also placing an unsustainable
burden on our healthcare system. Now while the human costs are
certainly the most significant, they're not the only costs
associated with our porous border. We're experiencing
unprecedented strain on our federal, state and local resources.
Now one border town, Yuma, Arizona, spent more than $26 million
to provide medical care for immigrants crossing into the United
States just last year.
About 27 percent of the immigrant patients going there have
come there specifically to deliver their babies in the United
States. According to news reports, one doctor at Yuma Regional
Medical Center said, ``The population of Yuma is 100,000. We've
had 300,000 people cross the border in the last year, and we're
the only hospital that they've come to.''
I don't know how anybody can look at that and say this is a
fair setup. He says the medical facility will never fully be
able to recover financially. Not only does this crisis drive up
costs for the only paying patients, generally the American
citizens and residents of Yuma, but it's also depleted the
hospital's resources, and its ability to care for its own
residents.
The doctor said, ``Migrant patients are receiving free
care, and they have no ability to pay. We have no ability to
bill anyone. We don't know their final destinations, and we
don't know anything about them. We cannot provide completely
free care to the residents of our community, so the situation
is simply not fair, and concerning to them.''
In El Paso, CNN reports about 2,300 illegal aliens are
living on the streets around two shelters downtown. Now what
happens to the citizens of El Paso when they need a helping
hand? I guess you have to wait in line behind the 2,300
immigrants. But it's not only the border towns that are
suffering from this deluge of illegal immigrants. Democratic
mayors across the country are declaring states of emergency
because of the record number of dependent migrants flooding
into their cities.
Two of America's largest cities, New York City and Chicago,
are now experiencing a small fraction of the unsustainable
situation that border states and cities deal with every day.
And their elected officials aren't holding back when it comes
to complaints.
Look, illegal immigration has occurred in the United
States. It's occurred for a long time, and it started happening
well before the Biden Administration to be sure, but make no
mistake about this. The unprecedented surge in illegal border
crossings, and the ongoing crisis of the last two and a half
years is now being felt everywhere across the country.
This is not an accident. This is the result of deliberate,
willful, non-enforcement of our immigration laws. Unlawful uses
of parole and our unwillingness to correct the perverse
incentives built into our immigration laws. I've introduced the
Stopping Border Surges Act, which would go a long way toward
closing those loopholes.
But following the laws correctly, the laws that are already
on the books would be a great step in the right direction, and
we could stop most of this from happening right now if we just
enforce the laws.
All Americans want America to be a place of refuge, but
Americans of all leanings recognize that the ongoing crisis on
the southern border is threatening our ability to give relief
to true asylum seekers, and also to take care of our own
people, and to provide an environment where people can live in
a place of peace and law and order.
It's my hope, my wish, my prayer, that the Biden
Administration will reverse course on this unacceptably abysmal
record of border enforcement, and start enforcing the law to
bring an end to the crisis. The cost of the Biden Mayorkas
border policies are just way too high for us to pay. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you Senator Lee. Our first
witness is Dr. Britta Glennon, a Professor of Management at the
Wharton School of University of Pennsylvania, and a Faculty
Research Fellow of the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Her research examines human capital and innovation with a
particular focus on how immigration policy affects businesses
decision making and performance.
Dr. Glennon, welcome. Your testimony will be followed by
that of David Bier, he is the Associate Director of Immigration
Studies at the Cato Institute. Mr. Bier has over a decade of
experience in immigration policy, and his work has been cited
widely, including by multiple appeals courts, and the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Mr. Bier was previously a Senior Policy Advisor for Idaho
Congressman Raul Labrador, where he helped draft immigration
legislation. Mr. Bier, thank you for being with us today.
We'll also hear from Laurens Van Beek. Mr. Van Beek is a
graduate of the University of Iowa, with a degree in computer
science, and currently works as a software developer at
Integrated DNA technologies. In 2022 he was forced to self-
deport, and leave his family and home of nearly two decades.
Due to his talents, and employer's needs, his employer has
him working now from overseas. His story exemplifies how
forcing American raised and educated children to self-deport,
hurts America's communities, and its economy, and I would add
makes no sense. Mr. Van Beek, we appreciate you taking the time
to join us.
Then we have Dr. Ronil Hira, an Associate Professor in the
Department of Political Science at Howard University in
Washington, D.C. who has written widely on offshoring and
highly skilled immigration.
Finally, we will hear from Mr. Robert Rector, who is the
Heritage Foundation's Senior Research Fellow with the Center
for Health and Welfare Policy. His research focuses on welfare
and immigration reform, and he has previously published
analysis on the fiscal costs of immigration. I welcome all of
you. Dr. Glennon please proceed. Five minute statements please,
your full testimony will be made a matter of record.
STATEMENT OF DR. BRITTA GLENNON, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF
MANAGEMENT, WHARTON SCHOOL OF UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND
FACULTY RESEARCH FELLOW, NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Prepared statement of Dr. Glennon appears in the appendix on
page 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Glennon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. The primary point I want to make in my remarks is that
the existing academic research strongly indicates that
immigration leads to large gains in productivity, innovation,
and business and economic growth. As a result, the current
outdated and comparatively restrictive U.S. immigration system
is putting the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage. When we
restrict immigration we lose, and other countries gain instead.
Our restrictive immigration policies have already motivated
companies to move jobs and investment out of the U.S. For
example, my own work shows that the 2004 reduction in H-1B visa
cap led U.S. multi-national companies to move tens of thousands
of jobs to the subsidiaries that they operate abroad, both at
existing subsidiaries, and by opening brand new ones.
In other words, the U.S.'s restrictive immigration policies
sent jobs and investment to other countries, especially China,
India, and Canada. In contrast, other research has shown that
an influx of migrants and refugees leads to firm level
onshoring of investment. Policymakers should consider that
restrictive immigration policies, including those implemented
to protect U.S. jobs are actually likely to have the unintended
consequence of pushing U.S. business investment abroad.
But our failure to reform outdated immigration laws is not
only causing us to lose workers. We are also losing startups.
As one example, my work has documented that immigrant would-be
entrepreneurs in the U.S. are going to Canada instead to form
their startups because there's no startup visa in the U.S., and
thus no clear legal path for immigrants to found a business
here.
The loss of immigrant entrepreneurship to other countries
is especially significant since recent work has found that
immigrants of all skills levels were 80 percent more likely
than U.S. born citizens to start a business in the U.S.
Moreover, immigrants were more likely to start a business at
every business size, from small mom and pop shops, all the way
up to high growth startups.
And these immigrant founded companies created 42 percent
more jobs than U.S. citizen founded companies. So if immigrants
originally destined for the U.S. instead choose to go to Canada
for example, they end up creating new jobs for Canadians rather
than for Americans.
Immigrants also disproportionately, positively contribute
to innovation, which has historically given the U.S. a
competitive edge, relative to countries like China, that do not
attract or permit immigrants. A recent study found that
immigrants who account for about 14 percent of the U.S.
population are responsible for 36 percent of aggregate
innovation in the U.S.
Not only do immigrants patent more than U.S. born workers,
but they also increase U.S. born workers productivity by 13
percentage points due to increased collaboration between U.S.
born and immigrant workers, and the recombination of diverse
knowledge and ideas.
Another study turns to history for a clear example of what
happens to American innovation when immigration flows are
restricted. Immigration quotas in the 1920s caused a 68 percent
decline in patenting, in large part because Americans were less
innovative without immigrants around. We risk repeating that
history.
Finally, my own work shows that businesses, based in
countries with more restrictive immigration laws are at a
competitive disadvantage. They perform worse on average than
firms in countries with more open immigration systems, both
because they get less talent, and because of the lost
collaboration between U.S. born and immigrant workers.
But I'm not the only one to show that access to immigrants
affects business performance. For instance, other research
focused on startups has shown that winning the H-1B lottery
improves the likelihood of receiving venture capital funding,
and successfully going public.
Similarly, when firms fail to obtain seasonal immigrant
workers it reduces their revenue and investment. In short, the
ability to hire immigrants of all skill levels matters a lot
for firm innovation and performance.
The implications of the empirical evidence are clear. When
we choose to not reform our outdated and restrictive
immigration system we hurt our competitiveness and economic
dynamism, sending jobs, startups, investment and innovation to
countries that do recognize the economic benefits that
immigrants bring. Thank you.
Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you very much. We turn now to
Mr. Bier, welcome, please proceed with your statement.
STATEMENT OF DAVID BIER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
STUDIES, CATO INSTITUTE \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Prepared statement of Mr. Bier appears in the appendix on page
76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bier. Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Grassley, Co-
Chair Padilla and distinguished members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify. For nearly half a century
the Cato Institute has produced original research showing that
a freer, more lawful and more orderly immigration system
benefits Americans.
Our view is simple. People are the ultimate resource. Only
people can transform natural resources into human resources,
and in a free country they do just that. Immigrants are
workers, inventors, investors, and entrepreneurs. They are
contributors, not takers. The single most important economic
challenge facing the United States is population decline.
Half of America's countries are already losing population.
Immigration alone is keeping the working age population from
falling. By 2040 America's total population will be shrinking.
You can't maintain infrastructure, businesses, or schools when
consumers, parents and workers disappear. Hospitals close,
roads erode when people don't come.
Social security illustrates the massive scale of this
demographic problem. The system is already short nearly 3
million workers that it needs to keep revenues above expenses.
By 2035 it will be 30 million, and benefits will either be cut
by 23 percent, or more likely, taxes will go up.
America's aging workforce is contributing to an
unprecedented labor shortfall. Nearly 10 million jobs have
stood open per month over the last 2.5 years, costing the U.S.
economy nearly $2 trillion. Note that the worker shortage is
not just about a skills gap. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
estimates that nearly 70 percent of jobs in 2031 will not
require a college degree.
A thriving economy will need people of all types.
Immigration isn't the singular answer, but it helps. It helps
because immigrants work, expand the pie, and create new
opportunities for Americans. According to the Cato Institute's
2023 update of the National Academy of Sciences highly regarded
2016 report on the fiscal effects of immigration, immigrants
generate nearly $1 trillion in taxes, nearly $300 billion more
than they receive in benefits.
Moreover, immigrants who enter as young adults, have a net
present value that is positive at every skill level over their
lifetime. Immigrants counteract population decline, and have
created or preserved nearly $3 trillion in housing wealth for
American households, predominantly in areas where housing
prices are falling or are low.
Immigrants work at higher rates at every skill level, and
they work with Americans, not against them. Every worker is
part of an economic eco-system, depending on a vast army of
other workers to make them productive. Immigrant care givers
let U.S. parents get jobs again. Landscaping workers create
jobs for Americans as supervisors.
When farmers in Iowa hire workers, they purchase equipment
that creates jobs in manufacturing in South Carolina for
Americans. Immigrants are primarily compliments, not
competitors. The problem is that America's immigration system
isn't recognizing these benefits. We will next year keep out
about 97 percent of the people trying to get green cards right
now.
As a result, the U.S. ranks in the bottom third of wealthy
countries for immigrants per capita. Our situation is so bad
that Congress isn't even trying to retain the immigrants we
already have here right now. The 11 million or more without
legal status, the 500 or so Afghans, Ukrainians and others with
temporary parole status, the 600,000 DACA recipients, the 1
million international students, the 1 million temporary skilled
workers, and the children of those workers who lose their
dependent status when they turn 21.
All of these people could or would be contributing more to
America's future if they had a permanent lawful status in this
country. We want them to invest in this country. America is
losing our competitive edge. We went from accounting for the
majority of the increase in the immigrant population worldwide
in the 1990s, to accounting for less than 7 percent of it from
2015 to 2020.
Few countries can simply choose their demographic destiny.
America is the greatest country on earth, and we can choose
that destiny, and the immigrants who come here can help keep
America the greatest country on earth, thank you.
Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you very much Mr. Bier. We now
turn to Mr. Van Beek. Thank you so much for coming here and
joining us.
STATEMENT OF LAURENS VAN BEEK, SOFTWARE DEVELOPER AND FORMER
U.S. VISA HOLDER \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Prepared statement of Mr. Van Beek appears in the appendix on
page 94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Van Beek. Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Grassley,
Senator Padilla and members of the Committee. Thank you so much
for the opportunity to share my story. My name is Laurens Van
Beek, and I'm 26 years old. I grew up in Iowa, graduated from
the University of Iowa, and I'm a software developer for an
Iowa based international company.
I'm also a member of Improve the Dream, and one of 250,000
young immigrants who face constant barriers in our legal
immigration system that forces young people who are brought
here legally, raised and educated here, to leave the country
after turning 21. I am visiting today from Belgium, as I have
already been forced out of my home of nearly two decades.
Despite going to great lengths to follow every letter of
U.S. immigration law, my ability to build a future in the only
country I call home, is obscured in red tape. And it has
happened both as a child growing up here lawfully, and as an
adult trying to navigate the employment-based immigration
system.
I was born in the Netherlands, and in 2005 when I was 7
years old, my parents moved us to the United States in search
of a better life after rising crime in our area. My family had
already had deep roots in Iowa, dating back to shortly after
World War II, when my grandmother, at age 16, started a
correspondence with students attending a small farm school in
Iowa City, and grew that connection over time leading to the
Mayor of Iowa City dedicating September 9,1997 as ``Leny Van
Beek Day'' in her honor.
When we settled in Iowa, my dad got the opportunity to
start his own small jewelry business in North Liberty. Having
grown up watching my parents become welcomed members of the
Iowa City community as they poured love and care into every
piece of jewelry they made, I knew that this is where wanted to
stay.
Growing up on the farm, I have fond memories of feeding
horses, riding through the corn fields on a four wheeler,
picking sweet corn, and attending the Johnson County Fair with
my family. I attended Mark Twain Elementary, where I was a
crossing guard, having to make sure to take down and put up the
American flag every afternoon and morning.
While attending Iowa City High School I represented my
school at the Iowa Model UN Conferences. I attended the
University of Iowa, where I got my bachelor's degree in
computer science, and immersed myself in the typical American
campus life and student organizations. Freshman year, the first
hurdle in my immigration status became apparent.
To graduate, I would need to switch from my status as a
dependent on my parent's visa, to an international student
visa. My parents visa allows them to operate a small business,
hire American employees and renew their status. But it does not
have an obtainable pathway to permanent residence, or
citizenship for them or dependents.
So when I turned 21, I aged out. All of the years that I
spent growing up in this country were rendered useless by our
immigration laws, and I was treated like a brand new immigrant
coming here for the first time. My parents could never have
imagined that America's immigration laws would allow them to
lawfully build lives in their local communities, while forcing
their son to face challenges to continue staying in the country
as an adult.
After graduating I began working full-time for Integrated
DNA Technologies in Coralville, Iowa. Under my F1 Optional
Practical Training (OPT) status for college graduates, which I
had for three years due to my STEM degree. I worked directly on
software for the production of DNA assays with a wide range of
medical uses, including during the height of the COVID
pandemic.
Despite my accomplishments, and deep ties to my community,
I was one of thousands of STEM professionals not selected by
the randomized visa work lottery system over three attempts in
three years. This meant that when my OPT expired in July of
2022, I had to self-deport, or risk being in the United States
with an expired status.
I had to sell my car, condense my life down to two
suitcases, leave my friends, coworkers, community, family
behind, leave the country that I love, and go back to the
Netherlands, a place I hadn't even visited in the 17 years
since leaving. It was not my home. And on July 6, 2022, I saw
the turmoil weigh on our family as it was split apart when my
parents waved me, their only child, off at the airport.
I told my dad that I would make the best of the situation.
However, deep down I knew that things could never be the same.
My life had turned upside down and started over. Two months
after I was forced to leave, my father was diagnosed with
kidney cancer. I could not be with him in the time that he
needed me most.
Imagine being their only child, and not being able to be
there for your parents when they have dedicated their entire
life for the betterment of your American dream. Throughout all
of this my employer is actively working on my return, but the
fact that I'm coming here today from Belgium, demonstrates that
our system has failed.
It failed me, my family, my community and my employer. I
now pay taxes and spend my money in Belgium, and I can't see my
family, and my true home nearly enough. This is not what the
founding fathers intended for America. The U.S. is my home, and
I want to live here and contribute to my community in Iowa.
My story isn't unique. Every year another 10,000
individuals like me, who grew up in this country with lawful
status are forced to leave. We are America's children. On top
of this, thousands of other individuals are forced to take
their talents and potentials to other countries who are happily
welcoming them and their families.
We need Congressional action that creates a clear,
attainable pathway for people like me to obtain permanent
residence. Otherwise, our country will continue to waste its
investments, and the potential of immigrants who only want to
help grow the country they love. The bipartisan America's
Children Act, led by Senators Padilla and Paul would be a great
start as it permanently fixes the problem for people like me.
For the U.S. to continue as a global leader we cannot
afford to squander the talents of people who have been shaped
by American values, and want to give back to the country that
raised them. I am and always will be an American, even if the
paperwork tells a different story. Thank you Chairman.
Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you very much Mr. Van Beek. Next
is Mr. Rector, Dr. Rector. I'm sorry I'm not seeing it from
here. Let's go to the Doctor, Mr. Rector please proceed.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT RECTOR, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, CENTER FOR
HEALTH AND WELFARE POLICY, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Prepared statement of Mr. Rector appears in the appendix on
page 101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rector. The United States, if you look at the world,
there are over 900 million people who would like to come and
live in the United States, and if you think about open borders
in that context, it's clear that open borders would transform
the United States beyond any reasonable recognition of what it
is.
We have experimented with open borders now for about three
years, and the consequences of that are very apparent, as the
Mayor of New York just recently said that New York is facing a
crisis across state and cities expenditures only of $6 billion
a year.
He said ``This is coming to a neighborhood near you. Never
in my life have I had a problem that I did not see an ending
to. I don't see an ending to this. This issue will destroy New
York City. The City we knew we are about to lose.'' And that is
a microcosm of the United States because with the open border
immigration--illegal immigration crisis, our nation is a nation
that we are about to lose, and it's directly a result of the
policies implemented by President Biden.
When Biden campaigned for the Presidency, he said he would
urge illegal immigrants to surge to the border. A remarkable
statement. He then has set up a policy where when they reach
the border there is an open admission process in which almost
all of them are automatically allowed into the states. And then
he also promised, and has delivered that once they arrive in
the United States, unless they commit some type of serious
crime, there will be absolutely no deportation for them.
This is explicitly an open borders policy even though they
don't want to admit it. And as a result of this open borders
policy Biden did not get his expected surge of illegal
immigration, he has generated an absolutely tidal wave.
In the months since Biden took office there have been 5
million illegal immigrants who have crossed the border and
taken up residence in the United States. This is more than
twice the highest rate ever achieved in this before, and it is
a result of these five million immigrants--illegal immigrants,
entering the country.
We now have over 15 million illegal immigrants in the
United States, and it continues to rise, as the Mayor of New
York said, there is no end in sight. This is a catastrophe that
can only get larger and larger. But if the current trends
continue, we will have within about four or five years, over 20
million illegal immigrants residing in the United States with
no policy other than to grant them amnesty and full access to
the U.S. welfare system.
And what are the consequences of this? Well fiscally
illegal immigrants, about half of them, lack a high school
degree historically. This means that of the 15 million we
currently have here, the fiscal expenditures are about $150
billion a year. They pay about $50 billion in taxes. This
creates a deficit of $100 billion a year. What's $100 billion a
year? That's equivalent to a 75 cent tax on every gallon of
gasoline sold in the United States.
The National Academy of Sciences says that this type of
low-skilled immigrant again, with close to half of them not
having a high school degree, cost the U.S. taxpayer, net of any
taxes these individuals pay in, $288,000 per person per year.
When you take the current mass of them, that is $3.8 trillion
over the course of a lifetime--not per year, over the lifetime.
That's $3.8 trillion for the whole mass of them over the
course of a lifetime, and that is just the current number. This
population is going to go up, and these costs will simply
become higher and higher. An additional impact of this is that
when you bring in low skill immigrants of this sort, and I have
over 80 studies that I can provide the Committee on this, you
bring in this type of low skill immigration, what it does is
drive low skill American workers, particularly minority
workers, out of the labor force and drives down their wages.
Typically for every 10 percent increase in the low skill
immigrant population in an employment group, the wages go down
by about 6 percent, and we have seen in our low skill
population largely static wages for decades now, and that is
substantially due to the influx of low skilled workers coming
in to compete with them.
Milton Friedman told us we cannot have open borders in a
welfare state. We are now experimenting with that, and we are
finding as the Mayor of New York has found, that that was
exactly right.
Chairman Whitehouse. Dr. Hira please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. RONIL HIRA, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
POLITICAL SCIENCE, HOWARD UNIVERSITY \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Prepared statement of Dr. Hira appears in the appendix on page
118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Hira. Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Grassley,
other distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for
inviting me to testify here today. It's both a professional
honor, but it's personally very meaningful to me. I'm the son
of two Indian immigrants. My late mother was a physician, and
my late father was an engineer.
My wife is also an immigrant from India, so it has a lot of
personal meaning to me. I want to recognize Ranking Member
Grassley's spearheading leadership on bipartisan reforms that
would create a skilled immigration system that's fairer to
guest workers, immigrants, and U.S. workers alike.
S. 979, H-1B and L1 Visa Reform Act of 2023 is co-sponsored
by Senators Durbin and Sanders. It would yield, if passed, it
would yield higher economic growth and reduced budget deficits.
The title of this hearing is how immigration can fuel economic
growth and the country's competitive advantage, but too often
the immigration policy discussion conflates immigration,
immigrants with guest workers.
It's really important to make a clear distinction between
the two. Immigrants are people who can stay in the U.S.
permanently, whereas guest workers are temporary, non-
immigrants. Unlike immigrants, guest workers can only stay in
the country under specific conditions, and have very limited
rights. As a result, every time Congress creates a new guest
worker program, or as in the case of OPT was created by the
administrative state, you're creating a different, a distinct
market, a different labor market that operates distinctly and
separately from our normal labor market.
The rules that govern these guest worker programs are
critical because they shape how that market behaves. We have
not spent enough time--policymakers, but also academics and
researchers have not spent enough time scrutinizing the
details, the details really matter in terms of what those rules
are for guest worker programs because you want to have a
certain kind of behavior, well that behavior in terms of the
market will be shaped by these rules.
There are really two overarching principles for any guest
worker program, whether it's here in the U.S. or in the United
Arab Emirates (UAE), whether it's for high-skilled programs
like the H-1B or lower skilled for like the H-2B. Guest worker
programs are supposed to fill labor market gaps where there's a
real genuine labor shortage of U.S. workers, and really
importantly, guest workers themselves must be protected because
they're very vulnerable to exploitation.
What the research shows, and not just research, but we can
just look at the data. The U.S. government has really failed on
both accounts meeting both of the principles, and I'll just
highlight the H-1B as the textbook example of this failure. The
H-1B program was created, and is intended to fill labor
shortages for college educated labor markets for jobs. Instead
of filling those labor market gaps and labor shortages, it's
instead widely used to hire cheaper indentured workers who are
exploited to directly compete with American workers, and so
they're substituting for those American workers.
And to also subsidize the offshoring of U.S. jobs. Simply
put, the H-1B visa is the outsourcing visa. I didn't call it
the outsourcing visa, one of the Indian Commerce Ministers
called the H-1B the outsourcing visa. It's widely exploited to
offshore jobs, suppress wages and working conditions, and it
also fuels rampant wage theft from H-1B workers themselves.
We just need to look at the government data on who--which
firms are actually the largest H-1B employers. If you look at
the top three, they are all IT staffing firms. One based in the
U.S., Cognizant, and two based in India, InfoSystems, and Tata
Consultancy. They received an astonishing 350,000 approvals
over 10 years, and for new workers they received 87,000 new
initial H-1B visas from the government.
That 87,000 is enough to populate a mid-sized city. These
three firms alone took 10 percent or 1 in 10 of all of the cap
visas for new workers over the past 10 years, crowding out
employers like Mr. Van Beek, who are trying to go through the
lottery system and trying to get H-1B visas.
The reason is pretty simple. It's because these IT staffing
firms core to their business model is being able to exploit the
H-1B visa for lower wages, and indenturing those workers. And
it's highly profitable. It's extremely lucrative, and so it's
mimicked across the sector by all these other firms, HCL, IBM,
are all doing these same kinds of things. Thank you for your
time. I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Whitehouse. Thanks very much. Let me start with
Dr. Glennon if I may. We often hear the argument that
encouraging high-skilled immigrant engineers, technical people,
entrepreneurs to locate in this country will allow them to
compete with, and displace American jobs, and challenge the
American economy. What is wrong with that argument?
Dr. Glennon. Thank you. So there's two parts that are wrong
with that argument. Both have to do with the demand side,
right. So first of all, immigrants are job creators, much more
than they are job takers, so they are much more likely to start
a company, which then creates jobs for Americans.
The second piece that's wrong with that argument is that
they serve as complements to U.S. born workers. And so if you
look at for example, the innovation data, right, they not only
are producing more patents, but they're also actually making
U.S. inventors much more productive, right? They're helping
U.S. inventors create more patents and more impactful patents,
and so it's actually these complementarities that are
generating economic growth and innovation for the U.S. as a
whole.
Chairman Whitehouse. Mr. Bier, could you take your quite
compelling testimony, and apply it to the issue of economic
competition between the United States and China? During my
opening statement I put up a graphic that shows that in a high
immigration scenario versus in a low immigration scenario, U.S.
GDP changes quite dramatically.
This is our--the lavender here is our high immigration, $47
trillion at 2050 GDP, and low immigration it's only $33
trillion, that's a $14 trillion gap if you would be good enough
to make reference to that, and apply your testimony to it.
Mr. Bier. Sure. Absolutely. Absolutely size, absolutely
matters. You want to have a large economy, a growing economy, a
growing workforce, a growing consumer base because that's where
companies are going to want to invest. If we want to throw our
weight around on the world stage, which of course we do. We
want to open up markets. We want to have people appealing to
us, not to Communist China on issues like free speech, then we
want to be the largest economy in the world.
And immigration is really the only way that we're going to
maintain that. I just want to flag one thing for the Committee,
that Department of Defense under the Trump administration in
2020 put out a report saying that today's education pipeline is
not providing the necessary software engineering resources to
meet the demand of the defense sectors, and the population of
China is producing eight times the number of STEM graduates
than the United States is.
So we are losing out in an enormous way on the high skill
side of things, and on the low skill side of things when it
comes to immigration compared to China.
Chairman Whitehouse. And just as a general question, can
anyone offer a positive social benefit from Mr. Van Beek having
to deport himself out of the United States? Is anybody here to
defend that? For the record, not one hand has gone up from our
panel. Mr. Van Beek, seven? Is that how old you were when you
came to this country?
Mr. Van Beek. That's correct.
Chairman Whitehouse. What grade did you first go into?
Mr. Van Beek. I went into third grade I believe, yes.
Chairman Whitehouse. Yeah. Really good move to be throwing
third graders who have spent their entire lives in this country
out. There is a way to fix it. I tried to do this in the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) last year, and that
is to open a STEM exemption from the visa caps, which I assume
would get around Mr. Rector's antipathy to low skilled workers,
as he calls them.
STEM is pretty high skilled I would think. And
unfortunately, we were unable to get that done, but I very much
hope that we will try again, and perhaps on the basis of the
testimony here, have more success. With that let me turn to my
distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Grassley of Iowa.
Senator Grassley. Mr. Rector, I think you touched a little
bit on my first question, so I'll give you a chance to
elaborate your research and analysis on the cost of illegal
immigrants to local, state and federal government has
consistently shown fiscal burden to the U.S. taxpayer. What
types of costs can government leaders from New York City, Mayor
Eric Adams, to small town mayors in Massachusetts expect to
face?
Mr. Rector. About two-thirds of the fiscal costs go to the
federal government, but the other third goes to state and local
communities, starting with healthcare. They have to spend a lot
on that. The average cost of an education in the United States
for children is $15,000 per child per year, most illegal
immigrants have kids.
Someone has to pay the cost of educating those kids, that's
borne by local governments. It's certainly not being paid for
by the illegal immigrant themselves that has an eighth grade
education. And then you have the routine expenditures of police
and sewers and so forth and so on, that's why even if you
abolish the welfare system, illegal immigrants would still be
in fiscal deficit, they would still receive much more in
expenditures than they pay in taxes.
Today they get about $3 of government expenditures for
every dollar of taxes they pay. And I'm talking taxes
comprehensively. I've got in our calculations, as in the
National Academy of Sciences, we have excise taxes, cigarette
taxes, so forth and everything, they do pay taxes, but they
receive far more in benefits.
Senator Grassley. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I have three articles
from the New York Times that I would like to put in the record,
and these articles deal with costs to governments.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Documents submitted by Senator Grassley appear in the appendix
on page 134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Whitehouse. Without objection.
Senator Grassley. Thank you. Dr. Hira, we have heard this
morning from other witnesses that the solution to the problem
in our immigration system specifically H-1B is to just increase
the number of visas given out each year. Is that a reasonable
solution? And explain why or why not?
Dr. Hira. Mr. Grassley, thank you for the question. It's a
bad idea. More is not better. Better is better. The solution to
the H-1B program is contained in your bill, which is raising
wages, and selecting workers who are better. Right now the top
firms, like Cognizant, InfoSystems, and Tata, are not bringing
in H-1B workers because they bring any special skills.
In fact, they have lower skills. They've all been involved
in scandals where U.S. workers directly trained their
replacements at these companies, and we're talking about
hundreds if not thousands of workers. So we should be shooting
for better, not more.
Senator Grassley. Dr. Hira, you helped work with Durbin and
me on our H-1B bill. Given your study of the program, this visa
program over the years, can you tell us the top two changes
that you would make to the program that would have the most
immediate and impactful improvements in the program? And are
those changes in S. 979?
Dr. Hira. Thank you, Mr. Grassley. Yes. They are contained
in the bill, and the top two I would say are wages. Why are we
setting wages so low, you're inducing and incentivizing firms
to bring in lower paid H-1B workers. The second top one, and I
think the bill has a tremendous number of good features. The
second one I would point to is that it ensures that U.S.
workers have a legitimate shot at the jobs, and the job
openings.
Right now, contrary to conventional wisdom and
misunderstanding, people think that you have to demonstrate
that no U.S. worker is available. Fact, before hiring an H-1B,
in fact employer can't bypass the U.S. labor market all
together, bring in H-1Bs, import H-1B workers, and even
displace U.S. workers with H-1B workers. So it would solve at
least those two problems.
The other thing I'd add is that some of these things can be
done administratively by the Departments of Labor and Homeland
Security, but the statutory fixes would be permanent ones.
Senator Grassley. Yeah. Mr. Rector, my last question.
Comparing your recently updated fiscal burden data to your
previous research, did you find particular changes in the data
that surprised you, or were notable?
Mr. Rector. The absolute magnitude of the growth of the
illegal immigrants. This is close to 2 million people a year
coming in, being admitted, and being released into the United
States with no pretext of removing them ever, or deporting
them. We've never had anything like that. And this will
accelerate because in fact it's going so fast that the Census
Bureau can't even keep up with these changes. It's absolutely
unprecedented in the history of this country.
Senator Padilla. Thank you Senator Grassley, excuse me. Let
me thank the witnesses once again for your testimony, and
particularly Mr. Van Beek for sharing your story with us today.
My heart goes out to you, and it's an outrage that you were
forced to leave your home and family behind for another country
that you barely knew, as you explained, after living here for
so many years.
That's a significant failure of our immigration system to
not consider the fate of the children of temporary visa holders
whose parents have applied for a green card, but again, this is
a lawful mechanism, but they're stuck waiting in year's long
backlogs, and children like you, and there's many, many
throughout the country, at risk of aging out from protection of
their parent's status.
So I too, similar to what Senator Whitehouse mentioned, had
a fix. We have an idea. We have a solution here. It's called
the America's Children Act, which I hope we're able to pass in
time to help other people in circumstances very similar to
yours. So we will continue to press this legislation, to
address the needs of thousands of others, what we called
documented DREAMers in this situation.
Can you describe, Mr. Van Beek, your experience regarding
the challenges and uncertainty that your family encountered due
to your immigration status, especially up to your self-
deportation?
Mr. Van Beek. Yes, certainly. Thank you. So the uncertainty
was kind of up to the last minute almost. With my employer kind
of the last hope being the H-1B visa lottery of 2022. We didn't
really know until about April, March-April that I was not
selected. And with my OPT expiring in July there was no other
status that I could, you know, transition into, so it was
basically then a rush to figure out how I'm going to move back
to the country, and where I was going to live.
So you know, I did apartment searching online, a wonderful
thing the internet sometimes. That made it a little bit easier,
but still, you know, I didn't know what I was going into, and.
Senator Padilla. I imagine it was stressful for your
family?
Mr. Van Beek. For sure.
Senator Padilla. And I could imagine for your employer.
It's very hard to replace a worker like you.
Mr. Van Beek. It is. Yeah. We just previously to that
during the COVID pandemic had to, you know, hire a number of
workers to as our company is growing significantly, so.
Senator Padilla. So again, I just wanted to underscore the
very real people impact on this in terms of your family, but
the economic impact in terms of an employer. Next question, we
heard in your testimony today that immigrants boost innovation,
even increase productivity of U.S. born workers where they are
present.
And we know that numerous immigrant founded startups have
grown to become some of America's most successful companies. As
of 2023, nearly 45 percent of Fortune 500 companies, including
Costco, Apple, and Moderna, were founded by immigrants, or
their children. Those are facts. But despite the widespread
evidence that immigrants are significant contributors to the
U.S. economy, our current immigration laws do not provide a
viable visa option for them to start their new venture, leaving
many potential founders to move to competing countries, with
less outdated and restrictive immigration laws, again causing
America to fall behind.
Dr. Glennon, you touched on this in your testimony. Can you
just expand a little bit more? What is the economic impact of
these businesses and jobs moving elsewhere, and what does that
mean for the American people?
Dr. Glennon. Yeah. Thank you. So as I mentioned in my
testimony, you know, immigrants are 80 percent more likely to
form startups, and that's actually despite the fact that we
don't have any pathway for them to form startups currently. I
mean so under something like the H-1B program, there's no
ability to form a startup under any of the other programs,
short of permanent residency.
There's no way to form a startup. And so what I found in my
research is that many of these constrained immigrant would-be
founders who moved to the U.S., wanted to form a startup in the
U.S. had to leave and go somewhere else. In my paper that was
Canada.
Senator Padilla. Yes.
Dr. Glennon. And that meant that those jobs that they're
creating go to Canadians. The innovation that they are creating
then goes to the Canadian economy, the consumption that is
occurring goes to Canada as well.
Senator Padilla. I take that as maybe a recommendation you
have to create a startup visa. In addition to that, can you
comment on the impact of expanding employment-based visa
numbers, or lifting the country caps that are in place, and
from an economic standpoint what that would mean?
Dr. Glennon. Yeah. So you know, a big part of the problem
right now is the uncertainty, right, which we heard about from
Mr. Van Beek. So if you are an immigrant, and you want to
consume, or you want to form a startup, or you want to invest.
If you don't know if you can actually stay, then you're really
limited in how much you can do that.
And so it's really depressing how much immigrants are
actually able to contribute to our economy, and the same goes
for businesses, right? If they're not sure that they care hire
the immigrants that they need, then they're going to be also
more wary about investing.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. Senator Braun.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BRAUN
Senator Braun. Thank you acting Mr. Chair. It's such an
interesting conversation because in my home state of Indiana,
crossroads of America, the biggest manufacturing state per
capita, really in every nook and cranny has a strong immigrant
presence.
But I think what we've got to get to the bottom of, since
everyone wants something to work better, is how do we get
there? And the sad think about this place, you've got to get 60
Senators to agree to it, even on issues that have so much
merit. I, back in March of 21, went with 16-17 other
republicans down to the border, and we see that up close. You
see the humanitarian issues involved in there.
I traveled, visited all 92 counties, heard the same thing.
Workforce, workforce, workforce, and we know how immigrants
become the entrepreneurs, the startup businesses and all that.
So how do we get to where we kind of can solve the issue, and
listening to the border patrol, I think it all starts down
there on the southern border.
The whole issue of comprehensive immigration reform, so you
don't have people coming in risking life and limb, when there's
a need for much more legal immigration, how do you get there?
Well they were very clear. They said in the highest traffic
areas you had to have something physically in place to help
them out, that was going to reduce the flow.
And then you do need to throw everything at it, in terms of
technology, and additional labor resources so that we get back
to a secure border. Then I think you cascade quickly into
solutions. When one side of the aisle has chosen to get rid of
the idea of having a secure border, I don't think that syncs up
with the majority of Americans, and especially the legal
immigrants that have come into this country.
All the stories I just briefly heard I hear repeats of it.
We do so many issues involving immigration in our own
constituent service back in Indiana. But how do you get to
where we start solving the problem? I think you're going to
have to have security there, based upon the experts who tell us
what needs to be done, and then you start looking at how you
solve all the related problems.
And I think most republicans would agree with what I've
just said, but until you abandon the current policies that seem
to promote a completely open border, it puts in peril the ones
that want to come into this country, and it causes chaos once
you're here. So I could dwell and go on, but I think there's
going to be general agreement with that on our side of the
aisle, and I hope on the other side of the aisle.
Because immigrants built this country. How could we be in
such a complex, confusing situation that we have now in front
of us? Secure the border, put the resources there. Look what
was working pre-Biden Administration. A lot of the aspirations
that the Biden Administration wants they're aspirational
because it's not based upon a secure border.
I'm going to look at a practical matter. The country is
borrowing 30 cents on every dollar we spend currently. That's
going to be a huge burden for the next generation, and their
kids, and when you bring folks into the country that aren't
prepared even to blend into the workforce, it puts a further
stress on what's been the biggest dereliction in this country
that politically we're willing to borrow from our kids and
grandkids, for our latest and greatest political idea, none of
them which have been knocking it out of the park.
Mr. Rector, I'd like to ask you would you be able to
quantify in some way Social Security and Medicare, the two
systems that structurally are breaking the budget, and we need
to roll our sleeves up and try to fix. What does--what happens
financially? How much would it cost? Can you put a number on it
if you try to integrate that into a system that's currently
going broke?
Mr. Rector. Not only transfers from the resources from the
young to the old, but it also transfers resources from affluent
to the non-affluent, so when you bring in for example, someone
with an eighth grade education, although we will always hear
oh, they put some money into social security, they get vastly
more back out of it than they put in.
It's obvious. And plus you can't just look at Social
Security in isolation because these individuals are also taking
all these other resources so that they effectively are usually
receiving, going to receive over their lifetimes, about $3 of
government expenditures for every dollar of taxes they put in.
And again, I'm very comprehensive in the way I count the taxes
they pay.
You don't pay much income tax, but they do pay a lot of
sales tax, things like that at the local level. But it's only
here in Washington that you would actually think that someone
that has an eighth grade education is going to put more into
government in taxes than they take back out and benefits. It
doesn't matter whether that person is born in Tennessee or born
in Guatemala.
If you bring in people with a very low education levels,
they will access the welfare benefits system. That's clearly
what the National Academy of Sciences shows, and then they
impose massive long-term tax burdens on the taxpayer. Illegals
currently, I would say, are going to cost the country just
trillions and trillions of dollars in net.
You have to bring in higher skilled people, individuals who
have a college education, do pay more in taxes than they
receive in benefits. Those who do not, do exactly the opposite.
Senator Braun. And I think that just shows how difficult
the problem is because we hear it from all, from the entire
spectrum in terms of what we need to do, but if it's not based
upon a secure border that we were starting to put in place, we
even exacerbate the problem for those that want to come into
the country, and for how they're going to make a life here once
they get here.
And look at what was working, secure the border, roll up
our sleeves, fix the problem. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Padilla. Senator Braun, before turning to Senator
Lujan, I appreciate Mr. Rector's knowledge of the perspectives
on the answer to your question and other methodologies. Let me
ask Mr. Bier if he might chime in here on the question. Social
Security was a specific example, and the impact of immigrants
on the economy.
Mr. Bier. Oh look, the fundamental problem with Social
Security is there are not enough workers paying into the system
to support the retirees, and that problem is going to get
worse. More workers would benefit, that's what the Social
Security trustees say. The Congressional Budget Office agrees
with that perspective.
I fundamentally do agree that there needs to be other
reforms to the system to make it financially sound, but we have
the analysis to show that more workers is going to increase the
number of taxes going in, and improve the fiscal situation. On
the whole, if you look at all of the taxes, all the benefits,
you know, we've done it.
We have this huge, huge report right here that you can
read, that looks into this, and the biggest set of taxes that
Mr. Rector is not including in his analysis is the taxes that
business pay on capital when the hire workers. So every time
you hire workers you almost always are investing more capital
in the business, and that is the biggest affect, trillions of
dollars increase in capital as a result of immigration.
Senator Braun. And do you believe a secure border has to be
something that you have to have in place to then go after what
you're looking at?
Mr. Bier. Well I think legal immigration is critical to
having a secure border. When I talk to Border Patrol officials
they say look, we don't want these people who are coming for
peaceful purposes to be crossing here. We should have a legal
process for them to come.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. Senator Lujan?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LUJAN
Senator Lujan. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thanks to
everyone for being with us today. Thank you for the panel for
making time to be here. I believe immigration is a fundamental
part of our country. Immigrants not only enhance the culture of
our communities, but they come to the U.S. looking to work hard
to make things better, to create opportunities.
For those that have started businesses here, and you know,
the line of questioning that I just heard, and one of the
responses, we have a workforce shortage in America, especially
in the agricultural communities, and in places that are
packaging produce, and poultry, and pork and beef. I want to
see more people come to the United States that have the
opportunity to go through apprenticeship programs, or go to
college, but there's a lot of people that do very well that
work in all these other spaces.
When I traveled to every country in the union, and I speak
to people where there's a shortage, they tell me about the
needs they have. It takes people from all backgrounds. Now my
father was a welder. He was an iron worker. He did not have a
college degree.
He became the Speaker of the House in the State of New
Mexico, the longest serving speaker in our state. When he was
Speaker, he was the only blue collar serving speaker in the
country. He had a lot to offer America, and a lot to offer New
Mexico. I hope we just step back, and we understand the needs
that exist in our country, and find a way to get there.
I appreciate the question that was asked by my colleague,
Mr. Braun, about border security. One of the stats that I am
astonished with is that less than 10 percent of vehicles that
come into the United States on the southern border are
screened. It takes money to make investments and bring
technology so that we get 100 percent vehicles screened.
And not just coming into the United States, but leaving the
United States, so that we can get our hands on all the bad
stuff coming in and all the guns going out. But it takes
investment. It takes money, and we have to get there in that
place. So as we have this comprehensive conversation about
border security, I certainly hope that there's a willingness to
make investments so that we're able to see everything coming in
and going out.
And it's not just the southern border. The rates of bad
things coming into the United States from Canada is horrific.
The stuff that comes in from the water ports is just as bad in
these big shipping containers that travel around the world. Why
aren't we screening those? And why are we helping allied
countries around the world, who also send goods to the United
States, to screen them, their incoming and their outgoing?
I'm just beside myself with some of this, but to the point
today, Dr. Glennon, is it true that the Center for American
Progress analyzed that providing a pathway to citizenship for
undocumented immigrants to U.S. would bolster the United States
GDP over the years, and create over 400,000 new jobs?
Dr. Glennon. That's my understanding. There's an important
complementarity between low wage workers and higher wage
workers in particular. So for example, we have a shortage of
childcare providers, right, and there's work showing that when
you allow more undocumented immigrants, or more lower skilled
immigrants then it actually allows women to enter the workforce
because they no longer are restrained in their ability to do
so.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that Dr. Glennon, and I had
some constituents come visit with me today from southern New
Mexico, who were sharing with me the problem with trying to
find healthcare staff right now, or sorry, childcare staff.
They built new facilities, but it's hard for them to get them
staffed up, so I appreciate what you focused in on there.
I'm reminded, Mr. Chairman, as my time expires, that--
(audio dropped). That it had a positive score for what it would
do to strengthen the GDP in America, with all the challenges
that we have, maybe we start by dusting that one off, and get
that one passed. And let's move from there and see if we can
find a path forward.
But I certainly appreciate this important hearing, the
testimony that's been provided. The testimony that will still
be submitted. I have a lot of questions, I'll make sure that I
get them in, so I can be respectful of my colleagues, but thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing, and for
everyone coming in today.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you Senator, and now we will turn
to Senator Graham, who I said at the outset when he was not
here, is such an important figure in the bipartisan
conversations that we've had on immigration over many years.
Senator Graham.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR GRAHAM
Senator Graham. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a
really good topic. Let's see if we can find some common ground.
To the panel, how many of you believe that the southern border
is secure? How many of you believe it's not secure? 4 out of 5.
What about you Mr. Hira?
Dr. Hira. I don't know enough about how that would be
defined to pass judgement.
Senator Graham. Well we've had over 5 million people come
in illegally, so anyway. I think it's unsecure, and we need to
make it secure. Now let's talk about immigration. What
percentage of agricultural workers, the people that go harvest
the crops, and do all the agriculture stuff are undocumented,
illegal immigrants? Does anybody know?
Mr. Bier. 50 percent.
Senator Graham. Okay. Does anybody doubt what he said? All
right. If those 50 percent went away tomorrow what would
happen?
Mr. Bier. A lot of farms would go bankrupt. There would be
a massive shift in trade practices, so we'd start importing a
lot more food from abroad.
Senator Graham. Does anybody disagree with that?
Mr. Rector. Yeah. Farm labor is unique in its reliance on
immigration, but if you look at all the other sectors of the
economy, types of occupations.
Senator Graham. Well let's just stick with farm labor right
now.
Mr. Rector. Okay.
Senator Graham. Do you agree that I think it's closer to 70
percent. Do you agree that a substantial percentage of people
in the agricultural business, workers in the field are
undocumented illegal immigrants?
Mr. Rector. They're certainly immigrants, and probably a
lot of them are illegal.
Senator Graham. Yes. So I guess here's my point. That's
just one industry. There are a bunch of others, meat packing.
Have you ever been into a meat packing plant? Has anybody ever
been to a meat packing plant? You ought to go. I don't think
you will stay. Most people working in a meat packing plant are
immigrants.
My point is let's make this a win/win. Stop illegal
immigration. Let's go to merit-based immigration. Do you agree
with that Mr. Rector?
Mr. Rector. I think that the problem is the issue here that
I would say is we used to have this rhetoric that there are
jobs that Americans won't do, and you've isolated two of them.
Senator Graham. Do you believe there are jobs Americans
won't do, or is that just rhetoric?
Mr. Rector. I think the two that you isolated are, that's
probably about right. But all the other jobs that Americans
allegedly won't do, more than half the workers are actually
U.S. born citizens, and the wages in those industries have
remained basically flat for decades.
Senator Graham. Because people are paying illegal
immigrants under the table.
Mr. Rector. Partly, and it's also we always talk about
these labor shortages, but if you look at the below median
income in the United States, it really hasn't gone up in
constant dollars for decades. That is not an indication of a
chronic labor shortage.
Senator Graham. Well if you have a business, you're having
a hard time getting workers. Restaurants, every restaurant in
South Carolina's number one issue I can't find people to work.
Part of it is we pay people too much not to work, and the other
part is people sort of moved on in the economy. Mr. Hira,
you're the H-1B advocate here.
Dr. Hira. I'm not sure I would call myself an advocate.
Senator Graham. Do you want more H-1B visas?
Dr. Hira. No.
Senator Graham. Do you want less?
Dr. Hira. I've argued for a better system. Right now, just
to give you an example, we had 750,000 applications submitted
for 85,000 spots this year. And instead of picking the best of
that 750,000, picking the 85,000 top ones, they chose to pick
them randomly, by random.
Senator Graham. I am with you.
Dr. Hira. That doesn't make any sense. It's irrational.
Senator Graham. Okay. Do you think we should have more
visas available in this space?
Dr. Hira. No. Not under the current system. It has to be
reformed.
Senator Graham. Well let's say you reform the system.
Dr. Hira. Well it's a hypothetical. It depends on what
reforms.
Senator Graham. Could we do it better?
Dr. Hira. Yes.
Senator Graham. My question is are we generating enough
workers in our own country to fill these jobs?
Dr. Hira. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. Okay. Well why do we need the visa program?
Dr. Hira. We don't need one as it's currently constructed.
Senator Graham. Well are you arguing that we don't need an
H-1 visa program at all?
Dr. Hira. I think we should favor integration over guest
worker programs. I think we've ended up relying on----
Senator Graham. You know, I don't mean--wait, I'm asking
you fairly simple question. In this space employers tell me
that without immigration they'd have a hard time filling the
workforce because people are not graduating in our colleges
with a skillset at the levels necessary. Is that a false
statement they're giving me?
Dr. Hira. I think it's a misleading one, yeah.
Senator Graham. Okay.
Dr. Hira. If you want to look at whether there's a shortage
in STEM, and you could look at even in software development,
what would you look at? We have a market. You look at the
price, the wages, and wages have been flat. They haven't gone
up, so there isn't any shortage.
Senator Graham. Mr. Bier, do you agree with that?
Mr. Bier. No. I don't agree with it at all. Unemployment in
software development is below 2 percent. We've seen massive
increases in the number of U.S. born workers, 150 percent
increase since 2006 in a U.S. born software developer worker
population in the United States. So there hasn't been any
displacement. There's unemployment, the numbers are going up,
there's just not enough workers all around.
Senator Graham. I'll end on this, and thank you for
indulging me. I've been following this for decades. We don't
have a rational legal immigration system. Our population is
declining, it is not growing. If you know anything about the
American economy, the number one problem most employers have is
finding reliable workers.
If you deported all illegal immigrants in the agricultural
space, we'd all starve. That doesn't justify illegal
immigration, it means we need to reform the system to make it a
win/win. When it comes to the H-1B world, I am convinced our
education system is not producing enough in this area, and you
need immigration to fill in the gap, but it needs to be what
Dr. Hira says, rational and merit-based.
So you'll never convince me that our immigration system is
working because it's not, and the problem is that we need to
bring people into our country, Mr. Chairman, from all over this
world based on merit, and if we don't get a hold of this, the
population decline, the number of people affected by drugs, and
inability to work is going up.
We have a recruiting problem in the military because most
people of a military service age are not able to serve. So to
deny that immigration is not going to be the life blood of the
future economy is a mistake. To say the current system works is
an equal mistake. Thank you for having this hearing.
Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you very much Senator Graham.
Senator Scott is our final witness of this hearing, unless
someone else arrives at the hearing, just general notice to
anybody who plans to attend that it will wrap with Senator
Scott, and you have his five minutes to get here. Senator
Scott, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT
Senator Scott. Thank you Chairman. Thanks for holding the
hearing. Mr. Rector, how in the last two years, how many
people--first of all I come from an immigration state. I come
from Florida, so we have a lot of primarily Latin America, but
some Eastern Europe, but a lot from Latin America. So, and our
economy is over the last, you know, especially 50 years, a lot
of it has been developed based on legal immigration from Cuba,
Venezuela, and of course American citizens have come from
places like Puerto Rico.
So in the last two years how many people have come into our
country legally, and how many people have come in illegally?
Mr. Rector. Equal. I know illegally it's been 5 million
people. We know that by looking at the encounters that result
in admission to the country. It's absolutely unprecedented. And
this discussion is a little distorted because we talk about
needing STEM engineers and things. They're not STEM engineers,
or Ph.D.s with electronics engineering coming across the border
here.
All of that immigration historically is very, very low
educated, and it is not going to produce technological change
or anything. Many of these people have an eighth grade
education. And what they actually do in my perspective is to
push out the lowest skilled American workers, particularly
minority workers, right out of the workforce. And there's a
massive literature that indicates that.
Senator Scott. So you think in the last two years about 5
million legal and 5 million illegal?
Mr. Rector. I believe so. I know the illegals.
Senator Scott. Does anybody know the legal number of people
who have come here legally in the last two years?
Mr. Bier. In the last two years?
Senator Scott. Yeah.
Mr. Bier. We've awarded about 2.1 million green cards for
two years, so about----
Senator Scott. For two years?
Mr. Bier. Okay. So 2.1 have come here legal, and 5 million
illegally.
Senator Scott. So if you come here legally, what benefits
does the government give you versus if you come here illegally?
Does anybody know? Mr. Rector?
Mr. Rector. Yeah. The legal immigrants after five years are
eligible for the welfare system. 90 different means tested
programs. They also are eligible for Social Security and
Medicare, but that's a little illusory because the welfare
programs primarily have eligibility through children, and
illegal immigrants have children they get in the welfare state.
And basically, we're promising amnesty, which most of the
members of Congress, or at least on the left side, want
amnesty. That would give the illegals eligibility to absolutely
everything.
Senator Scott. Let's go back. So if you come here legally.
Mr. Rector. Yeah.
Senator Scott. Is there a cost to other taxpayers?
Mr. Rector. Absolutely. Again, the simplest thing to
understand----
Senator Scott. Just on the legal. What would be the average
cost to an American citizens if somebody comes here legally?
Mr. Rector. It's a couple, $10,000 a year, depending upon
the education level. Again, the simplest thing to understand is
if you bring in someone with a college education, they're going
to pay more in taxes than they take out in benefits. If you
bring in somebody with a tenth grade education, it's exactly
the opposite.
Over the course of a lifetime they're going to take out
about $3.00 of benefits for every dollar of taxes they pay.
Senator Scott. So if you come here legally, right now. If
you come here legally, the 2.1 million people who came here
legally, let's just take them, they come here. They come here
legally. They get their green card. Do they cost us money?
Mr. Rector. Yes.
Senator Scott. Are they productive citizens day one?
Mr. Rector. The welfare system is designed to support
people who work, okay? So they in fact do work, but they also
receive enormous amounts of benefits. That's the nature of the
welfare state.
Senator Scott. Do the people that come here illegally get
more than benefits?
Mr. Rector. No. They get slightly less, so they're actually
slightly less expensive to the taxpayer, but the bottom line is
a person with a tenth grade education, eleventh grade
education, we redistribute income to that person very strongly
whether they're born in Kentucky, or whether they are here from
abroad.
Senator Scott. Well let me ask you a question. So what you
see in the news is places like New York. They're saying that
all these illegal immigrants have come up there, and now
there's housing in hotels, and they're giving food vouchers and
things like that. So a legal citizen--if somebody comes here
with a green card doesn't get that.
Mr. Rector. Absolutely not. New York City is a little
extreme because they have a right to shelter there. But the
bottom line is again, I've studied the welfare system in what I
call the broader transfer system for my entire career. If you
have people that are less skilled, we support them. We don't
require them to pay much in taxes. We give them lots of
benefits from welfare, Social Security, education of the kids,
all of which is free.
All of which has to be paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. And
when you bring in that type of individual from either illegal,
or legal immigration, it puts enormous fiscal pressures on the
rest of the taxpayers.
Senator Scott. Okay. So okay, so nobody knows the number.
If you came here legally what it costs us versus if somebody
came here illegally, and nobody knows that number. There's
never been a study?
Mr. Rector. Yes. I can give you that number. I've done that
study.
Senator Scott. Okay.
Mr. Rector. And it's about 50 percent higher if you're
legally holding education constant, okay, because the illegals
do not get mean assisted welfare to the same degree.
Senator Scott. Have you ever seen anything on this? Has
anybody ever done a study on like take the 2.1 million people.
Senator Whitehouse. I think the witnesses are better
positioned to answer the question.
Mr. Rector. Yes. Senator I have done it.
Senator Scott. You have. Okay. I'd like to see it.
Mr. Rector. Absolutely.
Senator Scott. Here's the way I look at it. It's not fair
to the person that comes here legally, right? It's completely
unfair to someone who comes through the legal process, because
first of all it's not free. It costs them money. My office does
a lot of this in Florida as you would expect.
And we help a lot of people go through the process that
have a right to be here. They have a right to be here, but they
don't know how the process works. And then the lawyers, it's
shocking how much these people are paying, so that's one thing.
But I'd like to see a study of that, but first off, I think
it's completely unfair if somebody comes through the process,
then somebody comes here illegally. Second, it would be nice to
know what the cost of the shelter and all this stuff is because
that does cost us, and all of us are going to pay this in
taxes.
And then the other question I have is it has to impact, and
I don't know where the number--where you limit it, but it has
to impact jobs. I mean if there's way more people in the job
market.
Mr. Rector. There is a very extensive literature on the
impact of low skill immigration on low skill American workers,
particularly male, low skill, black male workers, okay. And I
know of 80--I think it's 83 studies of that that I have read.
Senator Scott. Do the rest of you agree with that? Do you
guys agree with that? You don't think that----
Mr. Rector. But the bottom line is 9 out of 10 of those
studies show that there's a significant wage loss effect when
you bring in low skilled immigrant workers to compete with
those low skill American workers. It's just the literature is
overwhelming, it's just overwhelming, and it's common sense.
It's what economics tells us.
Chairman Whitehouse. We are beyond the Senator's time, but
I did see Mr. Bier reaching for his microphone, and he was
spoken over by Mr. Rector. So let me give him a chance to add
his response to the general question asked by Senator Scott.
Mr. Bier. If you look at when we saw the greatest wage
growth in the United States for the non-college educated
population, it was from the 1950s through the 1970s. When the
labor force growth for that population was three times what it
is now. And since the 1980s. So the idea that we're seeing more
labor force growth, more labor force competition for this
population, is totally untrue.
In fact, that population is in decline. And we need workers
to fill these types of jobs. We talked about manufacturing,
talked about meat processing, talked about farm workers, there
are jobs. And in fact, there are far more job openings than
there are unemployed people in the United States right now.
If you want a job I can find you a job, no problem.
Senator Scott. Well logically you would say that if there's
more workers it's going to impact my ability to get the job. A
kid growing up in a poor family in a poor neighborhood. That's
what you would say, right? I think that's logical now. There
might be other factors that are going to grow your economy
faster, but I think the other thing we're dealing with is the
fact that we have now a labor participation rate, and we've got
100 million people in our country that are of working age, that
are now not working.
And all these things, it's not like just one thing we're
going to fix. We've got to fix immigration, and we've got to
fix, we've got to get people back to work because it's not
going to work if we don't.
Chairman Whitehouse. Again, I saw Mr. Bier trying to
respond. If you don't mind letting him talk.
Mr. Bier. But just the logical point, yes. When more people
come in they increase the supply of labor, but they also
increase the demand for labor. So if I can hire a worker on my
farm, I'm buying equipment that worker is going to use, and
that's increasing demand for workers in manufacturing.
I could give you countless examples. The H-2B visa lottery
when the losers who don't get the visas, don't create more jobs
for Americans, the ones who win the lottery create more jobs
for Americans.
Senator Scott. So I'm pro-immigration.
Chairman Whitehouse. Okay.
Mr. Bier. I know.
Senator Scott. I just think we've got to figure out. I
think we have to do two things. We have to get Americans back
to work, and two, we have to figure out how we incentivize,
create a system where we get people that want to come here to
work, and not be dependent. Because I mean I think we have to
do both of those things, and there has to be limits. I mean you
just can't say 100 million people.
If all of Guatemala comes tomorrow, they might be wonderful
people, but we couldn't afford that.
Mr. Rector. If I could give it another historical example.
Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you. Let me wrap up at this
point. We're five and a half minutes over the Senator's time. I
think if there's one thing that this hearing demonstrates there
is plenty to disagree over on the broad issue of immigration
and border security. But it does seem that as Senator Graham
said, there is also common ground within that broad range.
We easily achieved common ground on the notion that Mr. Van
Beek's situation contributes zero value to our country, and
should be fixed. And I did not hear any rebuttal of the numbers
we've been operating under, which is that a low immigration
future runs us to a 33 trillion dollar economy by 2050.
A high immigration economy runs us to a $47 trillion
economy by 2050, and our current trajectory is $37 trillion. So
we're not trending towards the stronger economy, we're trending
towards the weaker, low immigration economy. And put against
that is the estimation that--well China's economy always may
blow up a bit, but the current trend they're headed toward a
$50 trillion economy.
So if you take the competition with China seriously, we're
not--we're just a close second to them if we do our best work
on this. So what I hope is that we can work off that, what I
hope is a rock solid base of common ground that expanding
lawful immigration, which I would argue means including law
abiding undocumented workers, will yield enormous, enormous
economic rewards for our country, which will benefit as I said,
rising tide lifts all boats.
If the Ranking Member, or Senator Lee appear they'll be
offered the chance to offer a closing remark as well. Them not
being here, I'll offer Senator Padilla a chance for a closing
remark. If anybody, my co-chair, much appreciation for his work
on this. If there are pending questions--if anybody has
questions they'd like to ask the witnesses by way of questions
for the record, we'll want them in by noon tomorrow.
And if the witnesses would indulge us by responding
promptly to those, so we can get responses back, I would be
grateful, or staff will be pursuing that with you to make sure
that that is done. I'm grateful to you all, and I will let
Senator Padilla close us out. Thank you.
Senator Padilla. I just want to take a moment to once
again, thank Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Grassley and
all the staff who made today's hearing possible, and to thank
the witnesses once again for being here today. Today's hearing
was critically important, not just to help members further
understand the deep, economic benefits of immigration in the
United States of America.
But for Americans at home to understand the fundamental
difference between the headlines they see each and every day,
and the reality of what immigrants mean to our nation. Dozens
and dozens of empirical studies have found that immigration
benefits our economy. Immigration benefits not just immigrant
workers, immigration benefits American workers.
It would be smart to listen to the economists, and business
leaders, who are sounding the alarm on our labor shortage, and
it's astonishing to hear some of my Republican colleagues say
that their primary objective is to get Americans back to work.
We have historic record low unemployment, and we still have
significant workforce shortages in a number of sectors.
In addition to that, we have a decline in our population
growth rate. As I mentioned before, meaningful immigration
reform could lead to 3.2 million new jobs in America over the
next decade and 1 trillion dollars added to our economy. Who
wouldn't want that?
From healthcare, to business, STEM, to agriculture,
immigrants have been, and remain key to our national security
and economic prosperity. That's right. Economic prosperity and
national security. By refusing to act on immigration reform,
solutions we know we need. By refusing to have constructive
conversations about the border while also trying to improve
legal pathways to immigration, Republicans are holding our
economy back, and threatening our global standing.
Their unwillingness to work with us means our competitors
will continue to gain an advantage on us. And it means that
we're losing out on the talent that could be coming to America
to create jobs due to next world changing startup, to discover
the next lifesaving medication, or even just to become the next
great Little League coach, or neighbor who contributes to the
community.
There are many steps we could take right now to start to
chip away at this outdated system. Solutions like passing the
America's Children Act to keep the children of long-term visa
holders, like Laurens, at home here in America where they
belong. By expanding the supply of green cards, and eliminating
per country visa caps to help reduce wait times and backlogs,
and reuniting families, and fostering more innovation and
growth in America at the same time.
We could make sure that international, and undocumented
students can access and complete higher education in the United
States, and enter our workforce, not pushing them out to take
their talents and skills and education elsewhere. We can, and
should update the existing registry cut-off date for the first
time in almost 40 years, so that millions of immigrants who are
already living here, already working here, already contributing
to the success of the United States, can live freely without
fear of an uncertain future.
And we can make progress by passing my bill, the
Citizenship for Essential Workers Act, to create a pathway to
citizenship. Not automatic, but a pathway to citizenship for
the workers that the United States government deemed essential
during the COVID-19 pandemic.
I would argue they were essential before the pandemic, and
will continue to be essential long after the pandemic is
officially over, who worked so hard to keep us safe, healthy
and fed every day. Mr. Chairman, at some other opportunity I'd
engage with these witnesses or other experts, with the question
of what the impact would be on our food supply chain, the cost
of fruits and vegetables if we do not have the immigrants that
we do at the agricultural sector.
Chairman Whitehouse. We actually had some testimony on that
during an exchange between Senator Graham and Mr. Bier.
Senator Padilla. Excellent. I'm sorry I missed it, but will
replay the tape. But at the end of the day we need to look past
the partisan games, and understand that no one wins when we
continue to fail to reform our immigration system. The future
of our economy, for those who come here for a better life, and
for American citizens, depends on our ability to come together
to fix this outdated and broken system.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to do exactly
that. Thank you again, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you very much Senator Padilla.
The hearing is adjourned. I am grateful to the witnesses for
your participation and your testimony.
[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m. Wednesday, September 13, 2023,
the hearing was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]