[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.
____________________