U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

36–174 PDF 2007

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 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

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 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas

UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Chief Counsel 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Minority Counsel 

(III)

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

(1)

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 

2

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, 

3

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:]

4

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 inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:27 Sep 26, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\061907\36174.000 HJUD1 PsN: 36174
5

clusive 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 

6

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. 

7

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 

8

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:]

9

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN A. CAMAROTA


SAC-1.eps
10


SAC-2.eps
11


SAC-3.eps
12


SAC-4.eps
13


SAC-5.eps
14


SAC-6.eps
15


SAC-7.eps
16


SAC-8.eps
17


SAC-9.eps
18


SAC-10.eps
19

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 

20

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:]

21

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT RECTOR


RR-1.eps
22


RR-2.eps
23


RR-3.eps
24


RR-4.eps
25


RR-5.eps
26


RR-6.eps
27


RR-7.eps
28


RR-8.eps
29


RR-9.eps
30


RR-10.eps
31


RR-11.eps
32


RR-12.eps
33


RR-13.eps
34


RR-14.eps
35

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 calVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:27 Sep 26, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\061907\36174.000 HJUD1 PsN: 36174
36

culate 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:]

37

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHANNON BENTON


SB-1.eps
38


SB-2.eps
39


SB-3.eps
40


SB-4.eps
41


SB-5.eps
42


SB-6.eps
43


SB-7.eps
44


SB-8.eps
45


SB-9.eps
46


SB-10.eps
47


SB-11X.eps
48

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 41⁄2 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 lowskill 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 

49

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 lowskilled 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. 

50

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 

51

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.]

Æ