[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 200 (Friday, December 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S18745]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   THE BENEFITS OF LEGAL IMMIGRATION

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, as immigration reform legislation moves 
closer to the House and Senate floors, a new study has appeared that 
confirms what many of us on both sides of the aisle have been saying 
all along: That legal immigrants confer net economic benefits on 
American society.
  The study, entitled ``Immigration: The Demographic and Economic 
Facts,'' is authored by University of Maryland professor Julian Simon 
(no relation) and published by the Cato Institute and the National 
Immigration Forum in association with a diverse coalition of over 20 
organizations. I would like to include for the Record a Los Angeles 
Times article from December 11, 1995 previewing the report's findings, 
which include the following:
  The current rate of immigration is only about one-third the rate of 
immigration at the beginning of the century.
  Total per capita government expenditures are lower for immigrants 
than for native-born Americans.
  The effect of immigration on Americans' wages is limited.
  Because new immigrants are more concentrated than native-born 
Americans in the youthful labor force ages, they tend to contribute 
more to the public coffers than they draw out.
  Educational levels among immigrants have increased from decade to 
decade.
  These conclusions again confirm that current levels of legal 
immigration are not a problem for America. In fact, the legal 
immigrants of today demonstrate the same work ethic and imagination 
that characterized their predecessors of decades ago, and continue to 
be a vital component of our Nation's well-being.
  The same cannot be said of illegal immigrants. These individuals 
should be the subject of our attention as immigration reform 
legislation winds its way through Congress. This administration has 
demonstrated an unprecedented commitment to preventing illegal 
immigration through increased enforcement at the border and in the 
workplace. We in Congress should continue this effort and work hand in 
hand with the administration in this endeavor. In so doing, however, we 
should not disturb our system of legal immigration, which works now and 
has worked in America for centuries.
  The difference between legal and illegal immigration is the subject 
of much public confusion. It is up to Congress, with the help of such 
reports as the Simon report, to keep the two issues distinct, and to 
focus its attention on the real immigration problem: illegal 
immigration.
  The article follows:

              [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 put 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 tanks 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 
     received $1,404 in welfare services in its first five years 
     in the country. Native-born 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 
     over-stay 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 is 
     increasing. By not addressing [that] he makes his document an 
     advocacy document.'' 

                          ____________________