[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 51 (Tuesday, May 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, as the year progresses, the debate over 
immigration policy grows more and more heated. Calls for restrictions 
on immigration--both legal and illegal--are accompanied by claims that 
immigrants represent a drain on our economy and a threat to American 
values. These sentiments manifest themselves in immigration-related 
amendments that are being offered to virtually every bill that reaches 
the Senate floor.
  More often than not, however, the debate over immigration policy 
seems driven not by reason, but by emotion. Facts take a backseat to 
impressions, and these impressions are often misguided. If we are to 
undertake to reform our immigration laws--and I do not deny that these 
laws are in need of some reform--we must understand the facts of our 
current immigration regime, and withstand the desire to rely on empty 
rhetoric.
  I am not alone in my views. Recently the Washington Times--in an 
article entitled ``Immigration Facts and Fiction,'' written by my 
friend Ben Wattenberg--counseled Americans to find and understand the 
facts underlying our current immigration system before undertaking a 
comprehensive reform of that system. The Times article, citing a 
recently published study by the Urban Institute on the costs of 
immigration, noted several important facts that should bear on any 
attempted immigration reform:
  The majority of illegal entrants into the United States are 
individuals who overstay their visas, not individuals who illegally 
cross our borders.
  Legal immigrants use less welfare per capita than native-born 
Americans.
  Annual taxes paid by immigrants to all levels of Government more than 
offset the cost of services received by these immigrants, generating a 
net annual surplus of $25 to $30 billion.
  Legal immigrants do not adversely affect the employment rate. Rather, 
the jobs created by immigrant employers for native-born Americans 
offset the jobs taken by legal immigrants from native-born Americans.
  While the total number of foreign-born people in the United States is 
greater than at any time in our history, the percentage of foreign-born 
in the United States is only 8 percent, compared to 15 percent a 
century ago.
  These facts--not our fears and impressions--should inform the 
immigration debate. Only then can we determine what is necessary, and 
avoid what is harmful both to immigrants and to our national identity 
and traditions.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Times article entitled 
``Immigration Facts and Fiction'' by Ben Wattenberg be inserted into 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, Apr. 21, 1994]

                     Immigration Facts and Fiction

                          (By Ben Wattenberg)

       Immigration is again going to be a big issue. The public is 
     upset. It is said that immigration causes unemployment. And 
     that it's responsible for crime. And that it's ruining the 
     environment. And that illegal immigrants are ripping off the 
     welfare system. Mostly unspoken is the fear of what is called 
     ``the browning of America.''
       When America is upset, politicians are upset. Members in 
     both parties, at every level, are proposing anti-immigrant 
     legislation. Nearly everyone (including me) wants to crack 
     down in illegal immigration, and make it much harder for 
     illegals to get government benefits.
       Others say we should cut back legal immigration as well 
     (moderately, states Sen. Alan Simpson; massively, says Sen. 
     Harry Reid). Once again, Mr. Simpson is pushing for 
     ``identification verification,'' making it harder for 
     illegals to get fraudulent work documents ``with a few bucks 
     and access to a color copier.''
       Sen. Edward Kennedy opposes draconian changes. As chairman 
     of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Affairs, he 
     can sidetrack harsh new laws. But there are even ways around 
     Mr. Kennedy. Already there are immigration-related amendments 
     in the crime bill. There will be provisions in the 
     forthcoming welfare bill. More can be expected elsewhere. In 
     addition, there is a White House commission, chaired by 
     Barbara Jordan, with a first report due out in September, 
     designed for action next year.
       Into this political tinderbox something strange has 
     happened. The Urban Institute thought it might be a good idea 
     to lay out some facts on the table before the debate gets too 
     hot. That they have done in a document now circulating in 
     draft, titled ``Immigration and Immigrants: Setting the 
     Record Straight,'' coauthored by Michael Fix and Jeffrey 
     Passel.
       The UI report tells us certain things we ought to know: A 
     few elementary highlights:
       In our mind's eye, we see illegal Mexicans crossing the Rio 
     Grande on moonless nights, by the millions. Yet most 
     illegals--about 60 percent--enter the country as tourists and 
     simply overstay their visas. The Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service counts ``apprehensions,'' but doesn't 
     calculate the number of immigrants who regularly go back to 
     Mexico. The best estimate, net, is that America takes in 
     200,000 to 300,000 new illegal immigrants annually. The 
     number of legals admitted is about 675,000. Combined, call it 
     about a million per year.
       What about the effect of immigration on employment? The UI 
     report says: ``Aggregate data show no overall effect.'' Not 
     much of a headline there, but it makes sense. Immigrants not 
     only ``take jobs'' but they ``consume goods,'' which 
     ``creates jobs.''
       We have never had more foreign-born people in the United 
     States than we do today--about 22 million. That's about 8 
     percent of the total population. But a century ago 15 percent 
     of the population was foreign born. If you're worried about 
     the swamping of American culture by non-Anglos, it's the 
     rate, not the number, that's important.
       The UI report states: ``Overall, annual taxes paid by 
     immigrants to all levels of government more than offset the 
     cost of services received, generating a net annual surplus of 
     $25 billion to $30 billion per year.'' (There is a catch: The 
     federal government gains from immigrants, the state 
     governments end up neutral, varying by state, and the local 
     level pays up big-time, just as they do for natives, mostly 
     for education.)
       Immigrants, even when illegals are included, use less 
     welfare per capita than native-born Americans.
       Because such a large proportion of the immigrant population 
     in America is of new vintage, it seems as if they are not 
     learning English quickly. But the evidence shows otherwise 
     once the length of time in the United States is taken into 
     account.
       The complexion of immigrants is different today. In earlier 
     times (the 1950s) about two-thirds of the legal immigrants 
     came from Europe. Today, only about 15 percent come from 
     Europe, with the rest hailing mostly from Latin America and 
     Asia. In 1900, fully 85 percent of America was ``Anglo.'' 
     Today it's 75 percent. By the year 2040 it will be 59 
     percent, but intermarriage may make those numbers moot.
       It's going to be a big debate, stretching over several 
     years. This time it would be nice if we agreed on some facts 
     before we begin thrashing around.

                          ____________________