[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVES ON
IMMIGRATION STATISTICS (CONTINUED)
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY,
AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 19, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-43
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
36-174 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RIC KELLER, Florida
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DARRELL ISSA, California
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia STEVE KING, Iowa
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York JIM JORDAN, Ohio
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Joseph Gibson, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,
Border Security, and International Law
ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois STEVE KING, Iowa
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California ELTON GALLEGLY, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel
George Fishman, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
JUNE 19, 2007
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
The Honorable William D. Delahunt, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Massachusetts, and Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law.............................................. 1
The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.. 1
WITNESSES
Mr. Steven A. Camarota, Ph.D., Director of Research, Center for
Immigration Studies
Oral Testimony................................................. 7
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
Mr. Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage
Foundation
Oral Testimony................................................. 19
Prepared Statement............................................. 21
Ms. Shannon Benton, Executive Director, the Retired Enlisted
Association Senior Citizens League
Oral Testimony................................................. 35
Prepared Statement............................................. 37
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve King, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Iowa, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law................................ 4
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law................................ 5
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVES ON
IMMIGRATION STATISTICS (CONTINUED)
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,
Border Security, and International Law
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:02 p.m., in
Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable William
Delahunt (acting Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Delahunt and King.
Staff Present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel; Benjamin
Staub, Professional Staff Member; George Fishman, Minority
Counsel; and Sharon Hoffman, Minority Counsel.
Mr. Delahunt. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law will come to order. This is a continuation of
our hearing on June 6, scheduled at the request of minority
Members pursuant to clause 12(j), parenthesis 1 of House Rule
11, so as to provide additional perspectives on the topic of
that hearing. Our witnesses today have been chosen by the
minority, and we look forward to hearing their testimony. The
Chair now recognizes the Ranking minority Member, Steve King,
for his opening statement.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
hearing here today, and I appreciate the witnesses coming
forward. The subject of this hearing is government perspectives
and immigration statistics, and so as a backdrop as a framework
for this, I pulled out an op-ed that is a published op-ed
humbly written by me. I would like to read this to you as my
opening statement, because I think it frames the subject matter
that is before us in this hearing. The title is ``The Voyage to
Amnestistan Aboard the Clipper Ship `America.' ''
This giant American economy is like an enormous clipper
ship with passengers and crew numbering some 300 million. We
are the fastest sailing ship on the high seas, tempest-tossed
by gusts and gales, clipping our way through the swells and
spray. The crew of the ``U.S.S. America,'' 144 million strong,
trims the sails, swabs the deck, cooks in the galley, cares for
the sick, bails the bilge, and steers the course. The
passengers on this giant clipper ship number 156 million,
including the retired who had their turn, at the ores, the
children who will get their turn, the unemployed who want their
turn and the welfare recipients who are unenthusiastic about
taking their turn. But the largest untapped group by far are
the 70 million working age passengers who are simply not in the
workforce.
Then there are the stowaways, the illegal immigrants,
totaling some 12 to 20 million or more. Five of twelve
stowaways are passengers in steerage, only seven of twelve are
swabbing the deck or trimming the sails of ``America.'' The
Open Borders Lobby wants Americans to believe our economy would
collapse without cheap labor, legal or illegal, and we must
import by tens of millions to provide this labor. Theirs is a
selfish and shortsighted attempt to expand their power at the
expense of our Nation's sovereignty. If they succeed in
granting amnesty to illegal aliens, they will sink this Nation,
the giant clipper ship ``America.''
Two decades have passed since the 1986 amnesty ``to end all
amnesties.'' The Immigration Reform and Control Act was
intended to put an end to open borders by giving amnesty to a
million people who were in the United States illegally. At the
time, I was appalled that Congress and the President could so
flagrantly discount the rule of law, that they would pardon a
million lawbreakers and reward them with the very objective of
their crimes. Years later, we learned the 1 million illegal
aliens intended to be pardoned by the amnesty to end all
amnesties quickly became 3 million. The 300 percent increase
was the result of fraud accelerated by a counterfeit document
industry which immediately sprung up to meet the new demand.
Today, there are probably more than 20 million illegal aliens
in the United States. That number might have been less than a
million if the most essential pillar of American
Exceptionalism, the rule of law, had been respected and
protected from 1986 through today.
Still, with a straight face, we debate granting amnesty to
the 12 to 20 million illegals as if amnesty for tens of
millions of lawbreakers was a simple business transaction. A
pardon for tens of millions of lawbreakers is not the
equivalent of a friendly corporate acquisition of another
company. It is a corporate raid on the American people. The
stakes are high because America is much, much more than a
sanctuary for pirate companies who lure stowaways and broker
the profits from their labor at the expense of the rule of law.
Then, they passed the billions in added social costs of their
cheap labor on to the taxpayer. America may have become a
welfare state since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society was
launched, but we have no obligation to issue a paid-up debit
card awarding the benefits of citizenship to anyone who was
able to sneak into our country.
Today, the scene on the bridge of ``U.S.S. America'' is the
ship's elected senior officers, Congress, debating a
recommendation from the captain, President Bush, that
``America'' needs more crew to take care of the growing number
of retiring passengers. The captain and his Open Borders Lobby
ensigns argue that ``America'' should sail off the
constitutionally chartered rule of law course to take on
willing crewmen from the foreign country of ``Amnestistan.''
The captain argues that trimming sails, bailing, and swabbing
is something that 70 million working age ``America'' passengers
cannot and will not do. Regardless, they say, we have 12,
perhaps 20, million undocumented passengers and crew--
stowaways--who would refuse to get off the boat at the next
dock if we ask them to. But the captain and the Open Borders
Lobby ensigns have made it clear they will not order them off
the ship even though 90 percent of the illegal drugs abused on
board were smuggled from ``Amnestistan.'' They will not order
them off even though 28 percent of court-martial convictions
are stowaways. They will not order them off ``America'' even
though the 7 percent who are stowaways produce only 2.2 percent
of the work. The rule of law officers need recruit only 1 in 10
working age passengers to replace all of the 7 million working
stowaways.
Instead, the captain and the Open Borders Lobby officers
want to issue an all inclusive ticket to every stowaway, except
those in the brig, so they can eat in the mess hall alongside
the paying passengers or with the documented crew.
Having charted a proper course, the rule of law officers
argue the sum total of strength, vitality and stability of
``America'' is directly proportional to the average individual
productivity of the crew and the passengers. These officers
also argue the free market design of ``America'' requires a
higher ratio of crew to passenger and high productivity from
each crew member in order to guarantee a far more seaworthy
vessel and to ensure safe passage for the stakeholders. Taking
on too many passengers or unskilled crew will slow and
eventually sink ``America.'' But none of these facts have been
enough to sway the captain and Open Borders Lobby ensigns, some
of whom maintain a good side business smuggling stowaways onto
the ship.
If we simply enforce our current laws, millions of
stowaways, both those working and those along for the ride,
will voluntarily disembark at the next port of entry. Their
departure would immediately reduce the burden on the ship's
supplies and crew. Conversely, those Americans who are now
riding along as passengers but who join the crew will provide a
two-for-one benefit to all 300 million. By making the switch
from passenger to crew, they will lift the burden off those who
are carrying them and help shoulder the load of the millions
who would still be passengers.
``America'' has pulled into port at Amnestistan six times
since the amnesty to end all amnesties. Each time Congress
punched a ticket for the stowaways who were overlooked in 1986
or who qualified due to misfortune. This time the captain and
the Open Borders Lobby crowd mean to forever sail off the
course of the rule of law, taking aboard every willing
traveler. This time their experiment will be at least 20 times
greater in number than ever amnestied before. This time it will
truly be an amnesty to end all amnesties. Because this time, if
the Open Borders Lobby wins the debate on the bridge, they will
sink ``America'' to the deep, dark depths of the third world,
on the shoals of Amnestistan.
Mr. Chairman I look forward to testimony and I yield back
the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve King, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International
Law
The Voyage to Amnestistan Aboard The Clipper Ship ``America''
This giant American economy is like an enormous clipper ship with
passengers and crew numbering some 300 million. We are the fastest
sailing ship on the high seas, tempest-tossed by gusts and gales,
clipping our way through the swells and spray. The crew of the ``U.S.S.
America,'' 144 million strong, trims the sails, swabs the deck, cooks
in the galley, cares for the sick, bails the bilge, and steers the
course. The passengers number 156 million, including the retired who
have had their turn at the oars, the children who will get their turn,
the unemployed who want their turn, and welfare recipients who are
unenthusiastic about taking their turn. But the largest untapped group
by far are the 70 million working age passengers who are simply not in
the workforce. They occupy a cabin or bunk in first class or steerage,
depending upon their means. Then there are the stowaways--illegal
immigrants--totaling some 12-20 million. We do know that not all
stowaways are working as crew. Five of twelve stowaways are passengers
in steerage. Only seven of twelve are swabbing the deck or trimming the
sails of ``America.''
The Open Borders Lobby (OBL) wants Americans to believe our economy
would collapse without cheap labor, legal or illegal, and that we must
import more by the tens of millions. Theirs is a selfish and
shortsighted attempt to expand their power at the expense of our
nation's sovereignty. If they succeed in granting amnesty to illegal
aliens, they will sink this nation, the giant clipper ship ``America.''
Two decades have passed since the 1986 amnesty ``to end all
amnesties.'' Congress passed, and President Reagan signed, the
Immigration Reform and Control Act, which was intended to put an end to
open borders by giving amnesty to a million people who were in the
United States illegally. At the time, I was appalled that Congress and
the President could so flagrantly discount the Rule of Law, that they
would pardon a million lawbreakers and reward them with the very
objective of their crimes. A million people rewarded for breaking the
law!
Years later, we learned the one million illegal aliens, intended to
be pardoned by the ``amnesty to end all amnesties,'' quickly became
three million. The 300% increase was the result of fraud, accelerated
by a counterfeit document industry which immediately sprung up to meet
the new demand. Today, there are probably more than 20 million illegal
aliens in the United States. That number might have been less than a
million if the most essential pillar of American Exceptionalism, the
Rule of Law, had been respected and protected from 1986 through today.
Still, with a straight face, we debate granting amnesty to the 12-
20 million illegals as if amnesty for tens of millions of lawbreakers
was a simple business transaction. A pardon for tens of millions of
lawbreakers is not the equivalent of a friendly corporate acquisition
of another company. It is a corporate raid on the American people. The
stakes are high because America is much, much more than a sanctuary for
pirate companies who lure stowaways, and broker the profits from their
labor at the expense of the Rule of Law. Then, they pass the billions
in added social costs of their cheap labor on to the taxpayer. America
may have become a welfare state since Lyndon Johnson's ``Great
Society'' was launched, but we have no obligation to issue a paid-up
debit card the benefits of citizenship to anyone who was able to sneak
into our country. It is not as though they are Katrina survivors with a
claim to prior contributions to the system.
Today, the scene on the bridge of ``U.S.S. America'' is the ship's
elected senior officers--Congress--debating a recommendation from the
captain--President Bush--that ``America'' needs more crew to take care
of the growing number of retiring passengers. The captain and his OBL
ensigns argue that ``America'' should sail off the constitutionally
charted Rule of Law course, to take on ``willing crewmen'' from the
foreign country of ``Amnestistan.''
The captain argues that trimming sails, bailing, and swabbing is
something 70 million working age ``America'' passengers cannot or will
not do. Regardless, they say, we have 12, perhaps 20, million
``undocumented passengers and crew'' (stowaways) who would refuse to
get off the boat at the next dock if we ask them to. But the captain
and the OBL ensigns have made it clear they will not order them off the
ship even though 90% of the illegal drugs abused on board were smuggled
from ``Amnestistan.'' They will not order them off even though 28% of
court-martial convictions are stowaways. They will not order them off
``America'' even though the 7% who are stowaways produce only 2.2% of
the work. The Rule of Law officers need recruit only one in ten working
age passengers to replace all of the 7 million working stowaways.
Instead, the captain and OBL officers want to issue an all inclusive
ticket to every stowaway--except those in the brig--so they can eat in
the mess hall along side the paying passengers or with the documented
crew.
Having charted a proper course, the Rule of Law officers argue the
sum total of strength, vitality, and stability of ``America'' is
directly proportional to the average individual productivity of the
crew and the passengers. These officers also argue the free market
design of ``America'' requires a higher ratio of crew to passenger and
high productivity from each crew member in order to guarantee a far
more seaworthy vessel. The only way to increase the capacity of the
ship and to ensure safe passage for the stakeholders is to increase the
average productivity of everyone on board. Taking on too many
passengers or unskilled crew will slow and eventually sink ``America.''
But none of these facts have been enough to sway the captain and OBL
ensigns, some of whom maintain a good side business smuggling stowaways
onto the ship.
If we simply enforce our current laws, millions of stowaways, both
those working and those along for the ride, will voluntarily disembark
at the next port of entry. Their departure would immediately reduce the
burden on the ship's supplies and crew. Conversely, those Americans who
are now riding along as passengers, but who join the crew, will provide
a two-for-one benefit to all 300 million. By making the switch from
passenger to crew, they will lift the burden off those who are carrying
them and help shoulder the load of the millions who would still be
passengers.
``America'' has pulled into port at Amnestistan six times since the
``amnesty to end all amnesties.'' Each time Congress punched a ticket
for the stowaways who were overlooked in 1986 or who qualified due to
misfortune. This time the captain and the OBL crowd mean to forever
sail off course of the Rule of Law, taking aboard every willing
traveler. This time their experiment will be at least 20 times greater
in number than ever amnestied before. This time it will truly be an
``Amnesty to End All Amnesties.'' Because this time, if the Open
Borders Lobby wins the debate on the bridge, they will sink ``America''
to the deep, dark, depths of the third world, on the shoals of
Amnestistan.
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you Mr. King. Let me just note that I
enjoyed the maritime metaphor, coming from America's most
pristine coastal district, Cape Cod, Nantucket and Martha's
Vineyard, it was most enjoyable. As I indicated pursuant to
House Rule 11 clause 2(j)(1), the minority in the Subcommittee
is entitled, ``upon request to the chairman by a majority of
them--`them' meaning the minority--before the completion of the
hearing to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify
with respect to the measure or matter during at least 1 day of
hearing thereon.'' On Wednesday, June 6, the Subcommittee held
a hearing on ``Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government
Perspectives on Immigration Statistics.'' At the request of the
Ranking Member and the majority of the minority on this
Subcommittee, today the Immigration Subcommittee is holding a
minority hearing to continue the discussion. In the interest of
proceeding to our witnesses, I would ask that other Members of
the Committee submit their statements for the record within 5
legislative days.
And without objection, all opening statements will be
placed into the record. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare a recess of the hearing.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Today we continue these series of hearings dealing with
comprehensive immigration reform. This subcommittee previously dealt
with the shortcomings of the 1986 and 1996 immigration reforms, the
difficulties employers face with employment verification and ways to
improve the employment verification system. On Tuesday May 1, 2007, we
explored the point system that the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand utilize, and on May 3, 2007 the focus of the discussion
was on the U.S. economy, U.S. workers and immigration reform. After
that we examined further another controversial aspect of the
immigration debate: family based immigration.
Today we continue the vital task of eliminating the myths and
seeking the truth. Last Wednesday's hearing dealt with probably the
most crucial aspect underlying the immigration debate, an immigrant's
ability to integrate, and assimilate into American society. Last
Thursday we tackled another pressing topic, the practical issue of the
impact of immigration on States and Localities. On Friday May 18, 2007
we discussed the issue of the ``Future of Undocumented Immigrant
Students,'' and on May 24, 2007 we examined the ``Labor Movement
Perspective'' on comprehensive immigration reform. Today we will
examine the perspectives of the business community.
Much of the rhetoric that those in the anti-immigrant camp have
repeated in their efforts to deter comprehensive immigration reform is
based in pure ignorance. Webster's dictionary defines ignorance as,
``1. without knowledge or education. 2. Displaying lack of knowledge or
education. 3. Unaware or uninformed: Oblivious.'' When I hear the
rhetoric of those individuals in the anti-immigrant camp this very
definition comes to mind, because either these individuals are actually
without knowledge, willfully display a lack of knowledge, are simply
uninformed, or just oblivious to the facts.
Individuals in the anti-immigrant camp consistently promote
misconceptions about the undocumented population that serve this debate
no justice. For example many argue that illegal immigrants are a burden
on our social services, they are criminals, they are ``taking''
American jobs, they hate America, and they are harming our economy, and
depressing the wages of American workers.
Over the last two months we have debunked all of these myths. Fact
of the matter is that most illegal immigrants do not utilize social
service programs out of fear of being detected; they have an
incarceration rate that does not compare to those of native born
individuals; the concept that they are taking jobs conflicts with all
the data that suggest that there is a labor shortage in the
agriculture, construction, and service industries; individuals who come
here to live the American dream cherish the opportunity and their
children are as American as apple pie; and we have heard testimony
before this subcommittee that illustrates the fact that immigration
benefits our economy, and the impact of immigration on wages is small
if any.
Along those same lines the biggest dispute regarding immigration
statistics is the actual number of undocumented workers who are present
here in the United States, the estimates range from 12 million to 20
million. Two weeks ago, we heard from Dr. Ruth Ellen Wasem of the
Congressional Research Service, which agency has studied this subject
in detail.
The CRS reports that according to the Census Bureau there were 36
million foreign born people who resided in the United States in 2005. A
further look at this population reveals that 34.7% of these individuals
were naturalized; 32.7% were legal permanent residents; 2% were
temporary; and 30.7% were unauthorized. These statistics seem to verify
the fact that there are about 12 million undocumented workers here in
the United States as opposed to 20 million.
The witnesses testifying today have been called to this hearing
held at the request of the minority to challenge the Government's
statistical analyses. An opposing view will be presented by the
following witnesses:
Steven Camarota
Director of Research
Center for Immigration Studies
Robert Rector
Senior Research Fellow
The Heritage Foundation
Shannon Benton
Executive Director
TREA Senior Citizens League
I look forward to the testimony of these witnesses, Madam
Chairwoman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Delahunt. We will now proceed to hear the testimony of
the witnesses before us today. First, we would like to welcome
Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research at the Center For
Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C. He holds a doctorate
from the University of Virginia in public policy analysis and a
master's degree in political science from the University of
Pennsylvania.
Next we would like to welcome back Mr. Robert Rector, a
senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Rector
graduated with a bachelor's degree from the College of William
& Mary and a master's degree from Johns Hopkins University.
Finally, I would like to extend our welcome to Shannon
Benton, the executive director of the TREA Senior Citizens
League. Prior to her work at TREA, she had a 14-year military
career as a medical corpsman in the U.S. Army. She holds a
bachelor's of science degree in management.
Each of your written statements will be made part of the
record in its entirety. I would ask that you now summarize your
testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within that
time, there is a timing light at the table. When 1 minute
remains, the light will switch from green to yellow, and then
to red when the 5 minutes are up.
Mr. Delahunt. Dr. Camarota, please begin.
TESTIMONY OF STEVEN A. CAMAROTA, Ph.D., DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH,
CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES
Mr. Camarota. I would like to thank the Subcommittee for
inviting me, and my name is Steve Camarota. I am Director of
Research at the Center for Immigration Studies. Let me first
talk about illegal aliens and the retirement programs. Illegals
are mostly of working age and cannot collect benefits, thus
they are currently a net positive for Social Security and
Medicare. Illegals paid out $7 billion to these programs or an
amount equal to about 1.5 percent of the programs'
expenditures. That $7 billion figure, I should point out, is my
estimate, and it is sometimes erroneously attributed to others,
but, in fact, it is my estimate.
Although illegals are a benefit to retirement programs, in
that same research where I estimated the $7 billion, I also
found that the illegal aliens are a net drain on the rest of
the Federal budget. So all of the net benefit they create for
Social Security and Medicare is eaten up by the drain they
create in the rest of the budget. The net fiscal drain, all
taxes paid minus all services used, was about $10 billion in
2002. It is also important to understand that even the
relatively tiny positive effect they have on Social Security
and Medicare is partly due to their inability to collect
benefits. If legalized, they would represent a long-term drain
because illegal aliens are overwhelmingly individuals with very
little education and thus have low incomes. Social Security
pays more generous benefits to low-income workers than what it
pays to higher income workers.
So if legalized, you would be adding a lot of low income
poor folks to the system and further straining it. Let me talk
more generally about immigrants and Social Security. All the
research shows that immigration is only a tiny impact on the
solvency of the program. According to the Social Security
Administration, if legal immigration was cut by 41 percent from
800,000 to 470,000, it would increase the program's projected
deficit by only 2.5 percent. And it is not clear that even this
tiny benefit exists because the Social Security Administration
assumes that legal immigrants have exactly the same wages as
native-born individuals from the moment they arrive and thus,
make tax payments roughly similar. This runs contrary to a
large body of literature.
Immigration has such a tiny impact on Social Security
because immigration is only a tiny impact on the aging of
American society. The 2000 census showed that if all post-1980
immigrants and all of their U.S.-born children were not
counted, the working age share of the population, 15 to 64,
would be about 66 percent. If we count all the immigrants in
the 2000 Census, the working age share of the U.S. population
is exactly the same, about 66 percent. Looking to the future,
Census Bureau projections show immigration, regardless of its
level, has only a tiny impact on the aging of society because
immigrants age just like everyone else. They are not that much
younger to start, and their fertility, while somewhat higher,
converges with native fertility pretty quickly.
To put it a different way, immigration adds to the working
age population and it also adds to the population too old or
too young to work. No serious demographer argues that
immigration makes America much younger.
Finally, I would like to talk about the labor market and
the idea that we are desperately short of less educated
workers. There is no evidence of a labor shortage, especially
at the bottom of the labor market. If there were, wages and
benefits and employment should all be increasing very fast as
employers bid up benefits and so forth for workers in a
desperate attempt to retain and attract workers who don't have
a lot of education. That is not what is happening. The share of
native-born Americans who don't have a high school degree, who
are in the labor force, has been declining. It even declined
from 2005 and 2006. The share of Americans who only have a high
school degree has been declining, again within the last year.
There are 23 million adult natives with a high school degree or
less who are either unemployed or not in the labor force right
now. There are 10 million teenagers 15 to 17 who are unemployed
or not in the labor force right now.
In comparison, there are about 7 million illegal aliens
holding jobs. If we look for a labor shortage while looking at
wages, again we find the same pattern. Hourly wages for men
with less than a high school education and hourly wages have
for men with only a high school education have actually
stagnated, and in some cases, declined in real terms in the
last 5 years, all of which is a strong indication that there is
no labor shortage.
It is very hard to find an economic reason to allow in
large numbers of less educated immigrants. We seem to have a
lot of such workers. Such workers tend to a net drain on public
coffers. Immigration, legal or illegal, cannot fix the problem
of an aging society. We will have to look elsewhere to deal
with that issue.
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Mr. Camarota. That was
extraordinarily well done.
Mr. Camarota. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Camarota follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven A. Camarota
Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Rector.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT RECTOR, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, THE
HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Mr. Rector. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
I am going to talk about the long-term fiscal effects of
granting amnesty to the current illegal population. When we
start with that, we have to recognize that one of the
predominant characteristics of this illegal immigrant
population, aside from the fact that they are very poorly
educated, is that there are very few of them that are elderly,
virtually no elderly people among that group.
So one of the effects that you get by granting them legal
status is that immediately, for example, in the Senate bill
from the moment they get a probationary Z visa, they have a
Social Security number, they begin to contribute into Social
Security and earn entitlement to Social Security and Medicare
that they categorically don't have now. And that means that
about 30 years from now, they will be taking out from those
programs as well as ancillary programs from the elderly, such
as Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid.
So if we assume there are 12 million illegals, about 10
million of those are adults, we must assume that looking at the
current types of benefits received by that type of immigrant
when they turn elderly, they will receive a minimum of about
$17,000 a year in net benefits each year after retirement, and
they will live, according to current projections, at least 18
years into retirement.
So that comes to a net cost in retirement years of over
$300,000 from a group that will have contributed very little in
taxes during its working years. In fact, they are almost
certainly net fiscal takers even during their working years.
But when you take those figures and multiply them by the 10
million adults that we would give amnesty to, allowing for
certain attrition and mortality, you come up to a net cost on
the taxpayer in retirement of over $2.5 trillion. That is an
extraordinary sum.
Another way of thinking about this is if we are talking
about adding 5 to 10 percent on an increase in Social Security
beneficiaries and 30 years from now at a point in which Social
Security will already be running an annual deficit of $200
billion that we can't even possibly begin to imagine how we
will pay for.
So we are going to add on another $8, $9 million
predominantly high school dropout beneficiaries. I guess if you
are already bankrupt, you don't actually have to take into
consideration the cost of what you are doing. There are certain
factors that could actually lead this estimate to be
considerably on the low ball. One is that the way that I costed
for that estimate, the cost of an elderly immigrant retiree was
based on 2004 data. But all data showed that, for example,
medical costs and the Medicaid and Medicare programs expanded
roughly 2 percent faster than the consumer price index. So that
in real deflated terms, those benefits for the retirees 30
years from now would probably be about 50 percent higher in
today's dollars than the ones that I used.
Also the bill does not have a provision at the present time
to allow spouses to enter from abroad. If an illegal immigrant
has a spouse or a child abroad, we are to assume that they will
be kept there forever. That does not sound like the way that we
make decisions in this country, and I expect that we will also
allow in spouses and children from abroad. That can add as much
as an additional 4 or 5 million immigrants on top and that will
add to the additional cost. And then there is the issue of
fraud. Fraud could be extensive and also move up the number of
people entering into the system and costing the system.
On the other hand, there are some factors that might bring
this down. For example, if the second generation children of
these immigrants themselves become net taxpayers, that could
reduce the cost somewhat. What I would say fundamentally is
that there are two arguments that I have seen advanced against
this. One is to quote the Social Security study itself. It
shows that immigrants are a net positive. That study, as Mr.
Camarota has mentioned, is based on assuming the immigrant has
the skill level and earnings of the average American. The
second is that you simply cannot analyze Social Security in
isolation. It is true that low-skill immigrants contribute
maybe $3,000 a year to Social Security. But if they draw down
10 times that much in benefits from other programs and other
revenue sources, the government is not better off.
This will become dramatically clear about 10 years from now
when Social Security costs will increasingly be funded not by
Social Security taxes but by general revenue. If there is a
drawdown on general revenue because a working-age immigrant is
drawing more in, say, welfare benefits or other types of
benefits, then that puts additional strain on funding the
retirement system. It doesn't make it better. Overall granting
amnesty to illegal immigrants is not only profoundly unfair, it
will be profoundly costly to the U.S. taxpayers.
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Mr. Rector.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rector follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Rector
Mr. Delahunt. Ms. Benton, please proceed.
TESTIMONY OF SHANNON BENTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE RETIRED
ENLISTED ASSOCIATION SENIOR CITIZENS LEAGUE
Ms. Benton. Congressman Delahunt, Ranking Member King, and
guests, thank you for having me here today to present
testimony. My name is Shannon Benton, and I am the executive
director of The Senior Citizens League, also known as TSCL. Our
organization is a proud affiliate of The Retired Enlisted
Association. TSCL is under the direction of our chairman, Ralph
McCutchen and an all volunteer board of trustees comprised of
retired veterans. We have more than 1 million active senior
citizen members and supporters nationwide who are concerned
about the protection of their Social Security Medicare,
veterans and retiree military benefits. Allow me to make clear
right here at the beginning, TSCL is in no way opposed to
lawful immigration. We believe it is a vital part of the
foundation of our country. Some estimates, including those by
the Pew Hispanic Center, have suggested there are nearly 12
million illegal immigrants in the United States from all over
the world. Seemingly, the lack of law enforcement and the
potential for a better life have led to staggering numbers of
immigrants coming to the U.S. both illegally and legally. TSCL
applauds Congress for attempting to address the immigration
issue.
However, we fear that a little-known loophole in the Social
Security Protection Act of 2004 has not been addressed in
Senate immigration bill S. 1348, and that not addressing this
will result in significant damage to the already strained
Social Security trust fund. In fact, TSCL previously estimated
this loophole could cost more than $966 billion in Social
Security benefits by the year 2040. Because of this loophole,
we believe noncitizens who worked illegally without
authorization currently or at some time in the past could
become entitled to Social Security benefits.
According to the Government Accountability Office as of
2003, the Social Security Administration had issued a total of
more than 7 million nonwork Social Security numbers. Audits by
the Social Security Inspector General have found that these
nonwork numbers are widely abused by illegal workers. According
to the GAO, and I quote, ``There are millions of noncitizens
assigned nonwork Social Security numbers before 2004 who may
qualify for benefits in the coming years,'' unquote, because
the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 does not affect
them.
Some noncitizens enter the country with work authorization
but then overstay their visas once their temporary work
authorization expires, essentially continuing to work in the
United States illegally. Because of this, TSCL recently
released a projection of the cost of benefits based on illegal
work. The estimate which was produced by an independent Social
Security and Medicare policy analyst for TSCL found that more
than 2 million nonwork Social Security number holders could
become eligible for Social Security benefits.
For a complete explanation of all the assumptions that were
used to calculate the cost, we would ask that you please refer
to our written testimony. However, in a nutshell, the equation
used to calculate the $966 billion dollar cost to Social
Security from 2008 to 2040 is 2,065,594 persons with nonwork
Social Security numbers which was adjusted annually for
mortality, and multiplied by $15,642, the annual low-income
family benefit that was adjusted annually also for a 2.2
percent COLA equals $966 billion. We have attached to our
written testimony our detailed analysis, titled ``Cost of
Illegal Work: Immigrants With NON-Work Social Security
Numbers.''
Although S. 1348 in its original text does not address the
loophole, an amendment was offered by Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison that would prevent Social Security credit for periods
without work authorization from being counted from the start
date of January 1, 2004.
Although this amendment passed, it does not cover Social
Security numbers issued between 1974 and 2003. TSCL believes
that the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 should be
amended to close the apparent loophole, allowing credit earned
while using a nonwork or invalid Social Security number. There
have been several pieces of legislation introduced that would
do just that, including House resolution bill 736, the No
Social Security For Illegal Immigrants Act.
In closing, TSCL respectfully encourages Members of
Congress to request that the Congressional Budget Office
conduct a realistic long-term study of the effectiveness
loophole that it could have on Social Security's trust fund.
Our mission, and we believe that of Congress as well, is to
ensure the solvency of Social Security for retirees and the
disabled who live in the United States. Again, it is important
to us that we stress TSCL is not anti-immigration. We are for
protecting solvency in the Social Security trust fund. Thank
you for your time and opportunity to present testimony about
the possible $966 billion hemorrhage to the Social Security
trust fund. I would be happy to address any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Benton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Shannon Benton
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Ms. Benton. We will now proceed to
questions for the witnesses, and I will begin by recognizing
Mr. King for 5 minutes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for your
testimony, all of you. And Ms. Benton, first I would ask you if
you could elaborate for this panel about the extent that you
went through to get a copy of the totalization agreement, that
degree of difficulty, and why you think it was so difficult.
Ms. Benton. Well, we don't want to speculate on why it was
so difficult. That would be--anybody's guess would probably be
as good as ours. We requested through routine Freedom of
Information Act channels to receive a copy of the totalization
agreement approximately 4\1/2\ years ago. Back in December,
ironically just before the long New Year's Eve weekend, we were
notified that we did, indeed, get a copy of that. Prior to that
though, we did have to file a lawsuit against the Department of
State and the Social Security Administration before a copy of
it would be released.
Mr. King. Was it a FOIA Act?
Ms. Benton. Yes, it was, sir.
Mr. King. Thank you, Ms. Benton. And I should say that in a
free country, you shouldn't have to jump through all those
hoops to get access to information that could turn the destiny
of America. Thanks for doing that.
Ms. Benton. Yes, sir.
Mr. King. It is a service to everybody in this country to
have access to real information. Somebody had to take the
initiative, and you did. Mr. Rector, I just reflected on the
last time you testified before this Committee, and I believe
that at the conclusion of that Committee some of your
conclusions, in fact, some of your statistics were challenged.
And the numbers of illegals who would be granted amnesty at
that time; the version of the Senate bill was challenged. There
was also a report introduced into the record by the Immigration
Policy Center. I actually didn't know who they were and still
don't. I asked for their report. I found one that was 10 years
old.
I didn't find the report that was current that contradicted
your statistics or your conclusions that you had drawn. What I
did find was an opinion that was written against yours. But it
didn't bring any other stats into play that I could see. Would
you care to comment on that? You know, I will agree with the
comment that was made by the Chair of the time. We are entitled
to our opinions, but not to the facts, or our choice of the
facts at least. Would you please provide for this Committee
your response to that?
Mr. Rector. I think that that study basically made two
points. One was a point that is often repeated, that immigrants
have restricted access to welfare. Therefore, everything that I
have to say must be inaccurate because I show immigrants
getting a lot of welfare. And the 1996 Welfare Reform Act
basically meant that low-skill immigrants could no longer be a
fiscal burden. I find that rather humorous since I played a
very large role in writing that act, including the immigration
provisions.
And that criticism is simply unfounded because they didn't
bother to read the actual methodology, provided I think on page
9 of the report where the way that I calculate immigrant
receipt of any benefit, including means tested welfare
benefits, is simply to go into the Census record, find the
immigrant, and ask, does the immigrant report receiving food
stamps? Does the immigrant report receiving women, infants, and
children assistance? Does it report receiving Medicaid? Does it
report receiving the public housing benefits or TANF benefits
or anything like that? There are a few cases where receipt of
benefits is imputed by Census rather than based on self-report
by the immigrants themselves. The principle one, there is the
earned income tax credit, and I specifically adjusted the
conclusions to allow for the fact that illegal immigrants would
be less likely to get the earned income tax credit.
So you know, it is simply inaccurate. The reality is that
low-skilled workers in the United States, on average their
households, receive about $10,000 a year in means-tested
welfare. They tend to receive that at every stage of the life
cycle. It is not always the same program. And that is based on
what they told us they got. And it doesn't matter whether it is
an immigrant or a nonimmigrant.
Mr. King. I will point out, we had testimony before this
Committee, the majority's witness who represented Los Angeles
County, that they make their own distinction between legal and
illegal. I would ask a quick question of Dr. Camarota. I just
appreciate what you brought here with regard to how America
doesn't get younger with immigration. That seems to be
relatively unique. Could you expound on that little bit, how
you came to that curiosity that brought you to this conclusion.
Mr. Camarota. Well, you can look at projections, or the
Census Bureau's projections, you can look at the actual Census
data taken on all the illegal immigrants, recalculate it for
age, recalculate the share of the population that is of working
age. Here is a way of thinking about it, you take a June
current population survey. The total fertility in the United
States is about 2.1 children per woman. Take out all the
immigrants, and recalculate it. You know what it is, it is 2.
Immigration slightly increases the total fertility rate in the
United States. Whether we do current data or whether we do
projections in the future, immigration has only a tiny effect
on the aging of American society because the immigrants age
like everyone else.
Mr. King. Thank you, Dr. Camarota. I yield back.
Mr. Delahunt. You don't have to yield back, Mr. King
because your time is expired.
I am going to ask just very few questions. But before I do,
and we adjourn for the day, I want to thank the witnesses for
their testimony today. We appreciate you adding your useful
perspectives to the important issues we are now considering as
we work on reforming our Nation's immigration laws.
I have a question that has just popped into my mind. Let me
address it to Dr. Camarota. And I think you indicated validly
that in terms of Medicaid and Social Security, the reason for
the net plus, if you will, is predicated on the fact that the
illegals are reluctant in the vast majority of the cases, many
of whom presumably assume false names, don't collect for fear
of apprehension and the ensuing proceedings.
Mr. Camarota. And the young age. Right, most of them are
under 65. Even if they were legal, they wouldn't be getting it.
Mr. Delahunt. Right. And then I was thinking, you know,
most employers hopefully are acting in good faith. And they
withhold income tax. Has there ever been a study done in terms
of the income taxes withheld from a paycheck to an illegal?
Because presumably I am inferring that the illegal would be
reluctant to seek a refund, if you will. For example, the
earned income tax credit, et cetera. Has that ever been
discussed in the literature at all?
Mr. Camarota. Yes. I have an estimate for how much illegal
aliens pay in everything from excise taxes to income taxes. It
is a lot. It is $4,200 per family. The problem is, they created
about $7,000 in costs for the Federal Government for a net
drain. The other thing is that I should tell you that----
Mr. Delahunt. Can I ask the question?
Mr. Camarota. Sure. Go ahead.
Mr. Delahunt. What is the income--I am just curious, what
is the net, if there is a net, positive in terms of the Federal
Government withholding, if you have calculated that. In other
words, I am saying, we all get our paychecks. There is a
certain amount withheld, I would presume illegals do not file
income taxes. That amount of withholdings, has that ever been
calculated? I mean, if they were legal, presumably it would be
refundable.
Mr. Camarota. Yes. I should say that the Inspector General
of the Treasury Department didn't look--but they tried to pick
out all the illegals who filed income tax returns, and I
believe the figure for 2004 was that they refunded about $10
billion to illegal aliens in that year.
Mr. Delahunt. How much did the government make off of the
failure to----
Mr. Camarota. Per household, I have estimated that illegals
pay about $1,400 a year to the Federal Government in income
tax. They also pay other taxes as well.
Mr. Delahunt. I appreciate the answer to that, $1,400.
Again, I think it was you, Dr. Camarota, that talked about the
second generation--maybe it was Mr. Rector. But let me direct
the question to you.
Presumably those who come to this country legally are
similarly situated in terms of their education level. Is that a
fair statement?
Mr. Camarota. The legal immigrant population is very
diverse. There are a whole lot of folks who come with graduate
degrees, but according to the new immigrant survey, about 38
percent of new legal immigrants also haven't graduated high
school. Now people improve their education after they get here
too, so keep that in mind. But a very large share of legal
immigrants also have----
Mr. Delahunt. I guess the point that I am saying, that
first generation of legal immigrants to this country, do they
pose a deficit or a net plus in terms of----
Mr. Camarota. It is a good question. Let me give you an
answer this way----
Mr. Delahunt. Or do we wait for the second generation?
Mr. Camarota. Our hope is the second generation. We are not
sure how that is going to work out. Basically, what seems to
matter is not your legal status, but your education. If you are
legal and come without a high school degree, you are more of a
fiscal burden. If you are legal and come with a college degree,
you are large fiscal benefit. That is sort of the answer. It
appears that at the Federal level, legal immigrants are
actually somewhat of a benefit. And at the State and local
level, somewhat of a drain. If you want sort of the best--but
what seems to matter most is the education level, not the legal
status.
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you. And without objection, Members
will have 5 legislative days to submit any additional written
questions to you, which we will forward and ask that you answer
them as promptly as feasible to be made part of the record.
Without objection, the record will remain open for five
legislative days for the submission of any other additional
materials. And with that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]