[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 200 (Friday, December 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18730-S18731]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  NEW STUDY SUPPORTS LEGAL IMMIGRATION

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier this week, a new study was 
released which highlights the many benefits that immigrants bring to 
the United States, It is vitally important that we be aware of the 
contributions of immigrants to the American economy, to American 
families, and to American communities as we debate the very difficult 
issue of immigration reform.
  The study was published by the National Immigration Forum and the 
Cato Institute with support from a wide array of business, civil 
rights, Hispanic, and religious organizations. It was conducted by 
Prof. Julian Simon of the University of Maryland, who has published a 
number of works or immigration over the years.
  This study joins the impressive group of other important studies 
which demonstrate that legal immigration is not a source of major 
problems for our country. In fact, it brings significant benefits to 
the Nation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the study and 
its opening chapter be printed in the Record, along with an article 
about the study which appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            Immigration: the Demographic and Economic Facts

                          (By Julian L. Simon)


                           Executive Summary

       The following facts emerge from the data and material 
     examined in this volume:
       The rate of U.S. immigration in the 1990s is about one-
     third the rate of immigration at the beginning of the 
     century. The total number of immigrants--including illegals--
     is about the same as or less than the number then, though the 
     country's population has more than doubled.
       The foreign-born population of the United States is 8.5 
     percent of the total population, which is significantly lower 
     than the proportion--13 percent of higher--during the period 
     from 1860 to 1930.
       Immigrants do not increase the rate of unemployment among 
     native Americans, even among minority, female, and low-skill 
     workers. The effect of immigration on wages is negative for 
     some of these special groups and positive for others, but the 
     overall effects are small.
       Total per capita government expenditures on immigrants are 
     much lower than those for natives, no matter how immigrants 
     are classified. Narrowly defined welfare expenditures for 
     immigrants are slightly more than for natives, but this has 
     been true in the past, too. These welfare expenditures are 
     only small fractions of total government expenditures on 
     immigrants and natives. Schooling costs and payments to the 
     elderly are the bulk of government expenditures; natives use 
     more of these programs, especially Social Security and 
     Medicare.
       The educational levels of immigrants have been increasing 
     from decade to decade. No major shifts in educational levels 
     of immigrants relative to natives are apparent.
       Natural resources and the environment are not at risk from 
     immigration. As population size and average income have 
     increased in the United States, the supplies of natural 
     resources and the cleanliness of the environment have 
     improved rather that deteriorated. Immigration increases the 
     base of technical knowledge. That speeds the current positive 
     trends in both greater availability of natural resources and 
     cleaner air and water.


            1. summary of important facts about immigration

       These are the most important demographic and economic facts 
     pertaining to policy decisions about the numbers of 
     immigrants that will be admitted by law into the United 
     States:
     The Quantities of Immigration
       The total number of immigrants per year (including illegal 
     immigrants and refugees) now adays is somewhat less than it 
     was in the peak years at the beginning of the 20th century 
     when U.S. population was less than half as large as it now 
     is.
       The rate of immigration relative to population size now is 
     low rather than high. Immigration as a proportion of 
     population is about a third of what it was in the peak years.
       The foreign-born population of the United States is 8.5 
     percent of the total population (as of 1990). The proportions 
     in the United States during the period from before 1850 to 
     1940 were higher--always above 13 percent during the entire 
     period from 1860 to 1930--and the proportions since the 1940s 
     were lower. The present proportion--8.5 percent--also may be 
     compared to the 1990s' proportions of 22.7 percent in 
     Australia; 16 percent in Canada; 6.3 percent in France; 7.3 
     percent in Germany; 3.9 percent in Great Britain; and 5.7 
     percent in Sweden.
       Though the volume of illegal immigration is inherently 
     difficult to estimate, a solid body of research, using a 
     variety of ingenious methods, has now arrived at a consensus: 
     the number of illegals in the United States is perhaps 3.2 
     million, pushed downward by the amnesty of 1987-1988, not 
     very different from a decade before. Many of these persons 
     are transitory. The million-plus persons who registered for 
     the amnesty verify that the total was and is nowhere near the 
     estimates that often have been given in public discussion.
       The rate of illegal immigration is agreed by all experts to 
     be about 250,000 to 300,000 per year.
       More than half of illegal aliens enter legally and overstay 
     their visas and permits. ``Less than half of illegal 
     immigrants cross the nation's borders clandestinely. The 
     majority enter legally and overstay their visas'' (Fix and 
     Passel 1994, 4).
     The Economic Characteristics of Immigrants
       New immigrants are more concentrated than are natives in 
     the youthful labor-force ages when people contribute more to 
     the public coffer than they draw from it; natives are more 
     concentrated in the childhood and elderly periods of economic 
     dependence when the net flows are from the public to the 
     individual. Of all the facts about immigration relevant to 
     its economic effects, this is the most important, and the one 
     which is most consistent in all countries, in all decades and 
     centuries.
       Taken altogether, immigrants on average have perhaps a year 
     less education than natives--much the same relationship as 
     has been observed back to the 19th century.
       The average education of new immigrants has been increasing 
     with each successive cohort. The proportion of adult 
     immigrants with 8 or fewer years of education has been 
     trending downward, and the proportion of adult immigrants 
     with 16 or more years of education has been trending upward.
       The proportion of adult new immigrants with eight or fewer 
     years of education is much higher than the proportion of 
     adult natives.
       The proportion of immigrants with bachelor's or 
     postgraduate degrees is higher than the proportion of the 
     native labor force.
       Immigrants have increased markedly as a proportion of 
     members of the scientific and engineering labor force 
     (especially at the highest level of education). Immigrants 
     also have increased rapidly as proportions of the pools of 
     U.S. scientists and engineers. Scientific professionals are 
     especially valuable for promoting the increased productivity 
     and growth of the economy.
       Immigrants, even those from countries that are much poorer 
     and have lower average life expectancies than the United 
     States, are healthier than U.S. natives of the same age and 
     sex. New immigrants have better records with respect to 
     infant mortality and health than do U.S. natives and 
     immigrants who have been in the United States longer.
       New immigrants are unusually mobile geographically and 
     occupationally, in large part because of their youth. Such 
     mobility increases the flexibility of the economy and 
     mitigates tight labor markets.
       First-and second-generation immigrant children do unusually 
     well in school. They win an astonishingly high proportion of 
     scholastic prizes.
     The Effects of Immigrants in the Labor Market
       Immigrants do not cause native unemployment, even among 
     low-paid or minority groups. A spate of respected recent 
     studies, using a variety of methods, agrees that ``there is 
     no empirical evidence documenting that the displacement 
     effect [of natives from jobs] is numerically important'' 
     (Borjas 1990, 92). The explanation is that new entrants not 
     only take jobs, they make jobs. The jobs they create with 
     their purchasing power, and with the new businesses which 
     they start, are at least as numerous as the jobs which 
     immigrants fill.
       Re wage effects, one recent summary concludes, 
     ``Immigration has no discernible effect on wages overall. . . 
     . Wage growth and decline appear to be unrelated to 
     immigration--a finding that holds for both unskilled and 
     skilled workers'' (Fix and Passel 1994, 48). My 
     interpretation of the literature is slightly different: a 
     minor negative effect.
     Welfare Use and Taxes Paid
       Immigrants who enter legally through regular quotas are not 
     permitted to receive public assistance for three years, and 
     they may be deported if they obtain such assistance 
     (though few are). Refugees, however, are entitled to such 
     assistance immediately upon entry, which (together with 
     their needy circumstances) accounts for their high rate of 
     welfare use soon after arrival.
       Re the use by immigrants of welfare services including food 
     stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), 
     Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Medicaid: these 
     expenditures are the tail that wags the dog in policy 
     discussions. Expenditures called ``welfare'' now comprise 
     about $404 per person annually for immigrants and about $260 
     for natives. Total government social outlays are roughly 
     $3,800 for natives.
     
[[Page S18731]]

       Because of the public interest in the set of welfare 
     services that includes food stamps, AFDC, SSI, and Medicaid, 
     the data on this cluster of welfare programs are presented 
     here, but only for completeness. By themselves they do not 
     provide the basis for any conclusions about overall transfer-
     payment receipt by various cohorts of immigrants and natives, 
     because these calculations do not include most payments to 
     the native elderly.
       Foreign-born persons taken altogether have perhaps a 10 to 
     20 percent higher probability of obtaining these welfare 
     services than do natives. They average perhaps 30 percent 
     higher average receipts per capita than do natives.
       There may have been a small increase in the use of these 
     programs from pre-1970 to post 1970 entrants and from 
     immigrants arriving between 1970 and 1986 to those entering 
     between 1987 and 1990, but the evidence is mixed.
       If refugees are excluded from the assessment, and only 
     nonrefugees are considered, the rate of welfare use for new 
     immigrants who entered between 1980 and 1990 is considerably 
     below the rate for natives ages 15 and above.
       Among foreign-born persons 65 years of age or more, a 
     greater (and growing) proportion receive welfare (mainly SSI) 
     than among natives. This is due to the arrival of many 
     immigrants too late to accumulate enough work time to earn 
     Social Security benefits; the welfare is a substitute for 
     Social Security.
       Social Security and Medicare are by far the most expensive 
     transfer payments made by the government. These payments go 
     almost completely to natives. This is because immigrants 
     typically arrive when they are young and healthy, and also 
     because older recent immigrants do not qualify for Social 
     Security for many years after their arrival.
       Social Security and Medicare are by far the most expensive 
     transfer payments by the government. The cost of supporting 
     elderly natives is vastly greater than for immigrants. This 
     is because immigrants typically arrive when they are young 
     and healthy, and the appropriate life-time analysis shows 
     that this provides a large windfall to the national treasury. 
     (Current data alone also show a similar effect because of the 
     contemporary age distribution of the immigrant population). 
     Also, older recent immigrants do not qualify for Social 
     Security for many years after arrival.
       As of the 1970s, immigrant families in all cohorts within 
     several decades clearly paid more taxes on average than 
     native families. However, the mean earnings of all new 
     immigrant men were smaller relative to adult natives 25 to 64 
     in the 1980s than in the previous decade. The mean earnings 
     of immigrant men who entered in the 1970s were smaller 
     relative to adult natives 25 to 64 in the 1980s than the 
     similar comparison for the previous decade. This continues a 
     trend from men who entered in the 1960s. This implies that 
     the size of tax contributions by recent cohorts of immigrants 
     relative to those of natives has diminished in recent 
     decades.
       When immigrants are subclassified by legal category of 
     entrance, the picture is quite different from that for 
     immigrants taken altogether. In an analysis of the 1990 
     census, where the average household income (different from 
     the earnings concept referred to in the paragraph above) for 
     natives was $37,300, 1980-1990 immigrants from countries from 
     which most of the immigration is legal received $34,800 (that 
     is, 91 percent of natives' household income), the average for 
     those from countries sending mostly refugees to the United 
     States was $27,700, and for those from countries sending 
     illegals $23,900. (No information is now available on whether 
     the picture was the same or different in earlier decades.) 
     These data on recent legal immigrants are the relevant data 
     for policymaking in legal immigration.
       As of the 1970s, immigrants contributed more to the public 
     coffers in taxes than they drew out in welfare services. The 
     most recent available data (for 1975) show that each year, an 
     average immigrant family put about $2,500 (1995 dollars) into 
     the pockets of natives from this excess of taxes over public 
     costs.
       The possible changes over time in earnings in the various 
     immigrant cohorts cast some doubt on the present-value 
     calculation for earlier years concluding that immigrants make 
     net contributions to the public coffers; a different sort of 
     calculation may be needed for which data are not available.
       Illegal aliens contribute about as much to the public 
     coffers in taxes as they receive in benefits. New data 
     suggest that the undocumented pay about 46 percent as much in 
     taxes as do natives, but use about 45 percent as much in 
     services.
     Immigrants, the Environment, and Natural Resources
       Natural resources and the environment are not at risk from 
     immigration; rather, in the long run, resources increase and 
     the environment improves due to immigration. The long-term 
     trends show that U.S. air and water are getting cleaner 
     rather than dirtier, and world supplies of natural resources 
     are becoming more available rather than exhausted. 
     Immigration increases the technical knowledge that speeds 
     these benign trends.
     Public Opinion about Immigrants and Immigration
       The most recent polls of U.S. residents' opinions show that 
     most persons want less immigration. This is consistent with 
     the consensus of all polls since the first such surveys in 
     the 1940s. There does not seem to be a long-run trend in 
     public opinion opposing immigration.
       A poll of the most respected economists found a consensus 
     that both legal and illegal immigrants are beneficial 
     economically.
       No data are presented in this pamphlet concerning racial or 
     ethnic composition or the country of origin of immigrants 
     because these characteristics are not relevant for any policy 
     decisions that are related to the economic consequences of 
     immigration.
                                                                    ____


              [From the Los Angeles Times, Dec. 11, 1995]

             Study Paints a Positive Picture of Immigration


costs: both legal and illegal immigrants use fewer government resources 
                than native-born citizens, report says.

                         (By James Bornemeier)

       Washington.--A new study on the effects of immigration 
     finds that total per capita government expenditures are much 
     lower for immigrants--legal and illegal--than for native-born 
     citizens.
       The report also paints an upbeat picture of immigrants' 
     educational achievements and asserts that the nation's 
     natural resources and environment are unaffected by the 
     influx of immigrants.
       ``As of the 1970s, immigrants contributed more to the 
     public coffers in taxes than they drew out in welfare 
     services,'' the report says. ``The most recent data * * * 
     show that each year an average immigrant family puts about 
     $2,500 into the pockets of natives from this excess of taxes 
     over public costs.''
       The study, to be issued this morning in Washington by the 
     National Immigration Forum, an immigration-advocacy group, 
     and the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank, comes at a 
     time when Congress is wrestling with major immigration bills 
     and public opinion is increasingly negative on immigration 
     issues.
       Legislation is progressing in both houses of Congress to 
     clamp down on illegal immigration and--to the dismay of many 
     immigration advocates--restrict entry of legal immigrants as 
     well.
       The issue has split Republicans, some of whom see the free 
     flow of legal immigrants as an economic boon to the country. 
     Immigrant-rights groups say the political activism to stem 
     illegal immigration has unfairly led to the limitations on 
     legal immigrants.
       But groups pushing for stronger restrictions on immigration 
     branded the report, authored by University of Maryland 
     professor Julian L. Simon, as biased.
       ``Julian Simon is not a liar,'' said Dan Stein, executive 
     director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, 
     ``but he gets as close as anyone can be to one. He is 
     intentionally deceptive, manipulative and grossly in error.'' 
     Signifying the sensitivity of the issue, more than 20 
     interest groups and think thanks have signed on to the 
     report, and they span the political spectrum--from the 
     immigrant-rights group, the National Council of La Raza, to 
     the Progress and Freedom Foundation, an organization closely 
     associated with House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
       House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a strong supporter of 
     legal immigration, is scheduled to address the Capitol press 
     conference where the report is to be released today.
       Among the report's most controversial findings is Simon's 
     conclusion that government expenditures are lower for 
     immigrants than for native-born Americans.
       According to the report, the average immigrant family 
     receive $1,404 in welfare services in its first five years in 
     the country. Nativeborn families averaged $2,279, Simon 
     writes. The report makes these other points:
        The number of illegal immigrants in the United 
     States--estimated at 3.2 million--is not very different from 
     a decade before.
        More than half of illegal immigrants enter legally 
     and overstay their visas; less than half enter clandestinely.
        New immigrants are more concentrated than native-
     born citizens in the youthful labor force ages when people 
     contribute more to the public coffers than they draw out.
        Immigrants on average have a year less education 
     than natives--about the same relationship as has been 
     observed back to the 19th century.
       Such optimistic findings collide with the views of other 
     researchers.
       ``His numbers are conventional and unremarkable,'' said 
     Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies in 
     Washington. ``The question is what sort of spin Julian puts 
     on them. He has his bias, and the bias has a very significant 
     influence on the interpretation he has put on the facts.''
       As an example, Simon says the number of immigrant high 
     school dropouts has been declining. For example, Krikorian 
     said, Simon reports that the number of immigrant high school 
     dropouts has been declining.
       ``But what he doesn't mention,'' said Krikorian, ``is the 
     gap between the percentage of American high school dropouts 
     and the percentage of immigrant high school dropouts is 
     widening. It's pretty obvious that the education gap in 
     increasing. By not addressing [that] he makes his document an 
     advocacy document.''

                          ____________________