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

65–077 PDF 2011

NEW JOBS IN RECESSION AND RECOVERY: 

WHO ARE GETTING THEM AND WHO ARE NOT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 10, 2011 

Serial No. 112–11 

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 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM REED, New York 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT

ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 10, 2011 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and 

Enforcement .......................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy 

and Enforcement .................................................................................................. 2 

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................................... 41 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 41 

WITNESSES 

Steven A. Camarota, Ph.D., Director of Research, Center for Immigration 

Studies 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 45 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 48 

Rakesh Kochhar, Ph.D., Associate Director for Research, Pew Hispanic Center 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 68 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 70 

Greg Serbon, State Director, Indiana Federation for Immigration Reform 

and Enforcement 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 87 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 89 

Heidi Shierholz, Ph.D., Economist, Economic Policy Institute 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 93 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 95 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration Policy and Enforcement ........................................................... 4 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration Policy and Enforcement ........................................................... 7 

Prepared Statement of Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 43 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Press Release from the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) .... 112 

Submission from the Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration (CSII) ..... 113 

Letter from John L. Ghertner, MD ........................................................................ 122 

Prepared Statement of the National Immigration Forum ................................... 123 

(1) 

NEW JOBS IN RECESSION AND RECOVERY: 

WHO ARE GETTING THEM AND WHO ARE NOT 

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m., in 

room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton 

Gallegly (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gallegly, Smith, Gohmert, Poe, Conyers, Lofgren, and Pierluisi. 

Staff present: (Majority) George Fishman, Subcommittee Chief 

Counsel; Marian White, Clerk; and Tom Jawetz, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Six years ago, the Subcommittee held a hearing 

entitled ‘‘New Jobs in Recession and Recovery: Who Are Getting 

Them and Who Are Not.’’ At that time, Chairman Hostettler, the 

former Chairman of the Subcommittee, stated that, ‘‘There is a 

sense among many Americans that the job opportunities they and 

their parents once enjoyed are no longer available to them and 

their children.’’ 

We will hear from the authors of two studies that have both concluded that all of the increase in employment in the United States 

over the last few years has been attributed to large increases in the 

number of employed immigrants, while the number of employed 

natives have actually declined. 

Six years later, we are again in a ‘‘jobless’’ recovery. And we 

again hear about the studies finding that all the net new jobs created are going to immigrant workers. 

Anyone who knows me knows I am a strong proponent of legal 

immigration. I am equally a strong opponent of illegal immigration. 

We are a Nation of immigrants. We are also a Nation of laws. 

Many of the studies we are going to hear about today do not 

make that distinction because the methodology and data to do so 

does not exist. But I ask the panelists, whenever possible, to make 

that distinction. It is really an important distinction between illegal and legal immigration. 

For instance, the Center for Immigration Studies has found that 

in 2008 and 2009, over 2 million new immigrants settled in the 

United States. At the same time, over 8 million jobs were lost. 

What the study doesn’t note is that of the 2 million new immiVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Apr 12, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\031011\65077.000 HJUD1 PsN: 65077
2 

grants, at least one-third illegally entered the country as illegal immigrants. 

The Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University 

has found that between 2008 and 2010, the average number of employed persons in America decreased by over 6 million, while over 

a million immigrants who arrived between 2008 and 2010 were 

able to find jobs. 

The center has also found that the percentage of teenagers employed has plummeted so far so fast that last June less than 30 

percent were employed for the first time in the post World War II 

era. Many of those jobs that students used to work in—in the fast 

food and landscaping industry, for example—are now held by illegal immigrants. 

We in Congress have an obligation to look after the well-being 

of American workers. We have a special obligation to look after the 

most vulnerable American workers, those with lower levels of education who have borne the brunt of today’s harsh job market. 

Therefore, we must ask what is the driving force here? Is there 

a connection between the loss of jobs by natives and the increasing 

number of employed immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants? 

At today’s hearing, we will look at these issues. We will evaluate 

the reasons why the employment of American workers keeps decreasing in the midst of ever-increasing numbers of immigrant 

workers. We will examine the roles of the American immigration 

policy and immigration enforcement practices and the way they 

play in this outcome. 

We certainly don’t want to be here 6 years from now and, again, 

asking why there are fewer and fewer jobs for American workers. 

That is our focus on today’s hearing. And now I would yield to 

my good friend from California, the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I make my opening statement, I wanted to make a comment about the so-called Northeastern report that has been discussed at several hearings and referenced again this morning. 

At the Subcommittee’s first hearing, Mark Krikorian cited to a 

‘‘report’’ several times in support of his arguments. And when I 

questioned him about it, he made clear that he had never seen the 

report and had not analyzed it. He said he had tried to get it, but 

he didn’t think it was publicly available. 

Then at our last hearing, last week, Frank Morris also discussed 

this report. And I asked him if he had seen the report and if he 

would share it with us, and he said he would. And I am sure the 

Chairman recalls my dialogue with Mr. Morris, where he promised 

to send it to us. 

We have not received anything from Mr. Morris. But the majority has provided us with a sheet of paper with three tables that 

they received from a researcher at Northeastern. We understand 

this is all that the majority has. And clearly, this is not a report. 

So I asked my staff to contact the center to see what they would 

give us, and my staff spoke directly to Andrew Sum, the director 

of the center. According to Mr. Sum, there is no report at this time, 

and there never was a report. 

A report of some kind may be issued one day in the future. But 

until now, it has not been published, and it is not available for peer 

3 

review or critique. Once it is published, of course, I expect many 

bright minds will review the data and the conclusions. 

Just to be sure, I had my staff send the page of tables we got 

from the majority to several economists. Each of those economists 

expressed serious concerns with the methodology apparently used 

by the author. I say ‘‘apparently’’ because the tables did not provide 

enough information for accurate analysis. 

In any event, the economists believe that Mr. Sum may have juxtaposed two different methodologies, leading to a distorted view of 

reality. Now, again, they can’t say that this is what actually happened because neither the data, nor the analysis of the data, is 

being made publicly available. And without that, I can’t see how 

we can justifiably rely on this. 

I raise this because I certainly do not accuse the witnesses or the 

majority with deception, but I think there was testimony provided 

to the Committee that was false. And I don’t think it was knowingly false. I don’t mean to say that. But I think it is important 

that we correct the record that there is no report that has been 

cited to us in two hearings and ask that this ‘‘nonreport’’ not be 

cited again in the future. 

And I would ask unanimous consent to add this statement, along 

with the analysis, to the record. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

4 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration 

Policy and Enforcement 


65077A-1.eps
5 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Now, rather than actually attempting to fix our broken immigration system, we are now holding the fourth hearing in a row on the 

exact same topic. Each of these hearings seems to have the same 

goal—to convince us that immigrants, both legal and illegal, are 

bad for our economy. 

I say ‘‘convince’’ because the actual research in this area clearly 

shows that immigration is a net boon to our economy and to American workers. Let me say that again. Whatever you may hear from 

the other side of the aisle, independent economists agree that imVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Apr 12, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\031011\65077.000 HJUD1 PsN: 65077

65077A-2.eps
6 

migration has generally improved the wages and job opportunities 

of U.S. workers. 

There is some disagreement on the effect on a small segment of 

the lowest-skilled workers. But there is no disagreement on immigration’s positive effect on the vast majority of U.S. workers. We 

can’t just ignore that. 

Nor can we ignore what we have known for years, that immigrants can help our economy create huge numbers of jobs. It is 

widely known that they create jobs in the technology sector. I come 

from Silicon Valley, where more than half of the startups have at 

least one immigrant as a key founder. 

But this sort of entrepreneurship is not limited to high-skilled 

immigrants. On Monday, the Wall Street Journal reported on a 

new report by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, which 

found that immigrants are creating new business ventures at unprecedented rates. 

Critical for today’s hearing is the report’s conclusion that ‘immigrants were more than twice as likely to start businesses each 

month in 2010 than were the native-born.’’ 

I would ask unanimous consent to enter the article and the report into the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

7 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration 

Policy and Enforcement 


65077B.eps
8 


65077C-1.eps
9 


65077C-2.eps
10 


65077C-3.eps
11 


65077C-4.eps
12 


65077C-5.eps
13 


65077C-6.eps
14 


65077C-7.eps
15 


65077C-8.eps
16 


65077C-9.eps
17 


65077C-10.eps
18 


65077C-11.eps
19 


65077C-12.eps
20 


65077C-13.eps
21 


65077C-14.eps
22 


65077C-15.eps
23 


65077C-16.eps
24 


65077C-17.eps
25 


65077C-18.eps
26 


65077C-19.eps
27 


65077C-20.eps
28 


65077C-21.eps
29 


65077C-22.eps
30 


65077C-23.eps
31 


65077C-24.eps
32 


65077C-25.eps
33 


65077C-26.eps
34 


65077C-27.eps
35 


65077C-28.eps
36 


65077C-29.eps
37 


65077C-30.eps
38 


65077C-31.eps
39 

Ms. LOFGREN. Completely ignoring these facts, some have tried 

to paint a very different picture of immigrants in America. The last 

hearing was particularly contentious because it pitted immigrants, 

both lawful and unlawful, against American minorities. Rather 

than focusing on the real issues that are weighing down those communities, the hearing sought to simply blame immigrants. 

This week, we again seem to be pitting one group against another, placing the foreign-born against the native-born. By focusing 

on the foreign born writ large, my colleagues on the other side of 

the aisle are no longer confining their argument to the undocumented. 


65077C-32.eps
40 

When we discuss the foreign born in today’s hearing, we must 

keep in mind that 44 percent of them are U.S. citizens. An additional third are lawful permanent residents and other legal immigrants, most of whom are on track to become U.S. citizens in the 

near future. 

By pitting the foreign born against the native born, we are largely pitting one group of citizens against another. That is a dangerous place to go. 

Today’s hearing comes as our country is facing its greatest economic challenge since the Great Depression. People are right to be 

concerned about the pace of economic recovery and high unemployment rates, but we need to focus on facts and actual solutions, not 

sound bites. 

It is obvious to everyone that our immigration system is broken. 

And because the laws don’t work, we are left with two entirely unsatisfactory immigration systems—the laws on the books and the 

reality on the ground. 

We can keeping ignoring that duality. My colleagues continue to 

argue that if we simply step up enforcement by stepping harder on 

the gas, we will somehow fix our broken system and cure the rest 

of society’s problems. But let us be honest. You can’t keep enforcing 

a broken system without doing real and lasting damage. 

This Subcommittee has already covered in great detail the incredible damage that we would inflict on the American economy if 

we simply removed 11 million consumers, homeowners, renters, 

employers, and entrepreneurs from this country. We agree that we 

need to end illegal immigration, but we disagree on how to accomplish that. 

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle think we can do that 

with increased enforcement and without otherwise reforming our 

immigration laws. I fundamentally disagree. I think the American 

people disagree. Enforcement without reform won’t work, but it will 

do lasting damage to our economy. 

But let us put that aside for the moment. Illegal immigration is 

not the only problem in our current immigration system. Our current legal immigration system should be designed to respond to the 

needs of our economy and American workers, but that isn’t the 

case. And enforcement alone will not fix that. 

Economic experts agree that immigration is a net positive for our 

country, but they also agree that it would be a much greater asset 

if it were designed to actually adjust to our economic needs. Right 

now, in spite of a massive 20 percent unemployment in construction, our legal system permits employers to bring in foreign construction workers on H-2B visas. That doesn’t make any sense at 

all. And no amount of enforcement will fix this. 

Even if we can’t agree on what to do with the undocumented, we 

should be able to agree that H-2B visas in the construction industry should not be available when we have 20 percent unemployment in that very industry. 

My colleagues have also pointed out in the last few hearings that 

if we simply reduce immigration, both legal and illegal, employers 

would be forced to pay higher wages to attract U.S. workers. But 

I am not sure how to reconcile that with repeated efforts on the 

41 

other side of the aisle to lower wages for legal foreign workers, 

which makes it easier to undercut American workers. 

I must point out that it was the Bush administration that dramatically lowered wages and protections in the H-2A and H-2B 

programs, and it was the Obama administration that has been reversing those changes since taking office. 

In any event, everyone seems to agree that we need to protect 

American workers. So let us focus on changes that we should all 

be able to agree on. 

I introduced a bill in the last Congress that would have reformed 

the H-2B program to prevent employers from undercutting U.S. 

workers with H-2B workers. No one on the other side of the aisle 

joined me then, but perhaps we can agree to work on this bill 

again. I will be introducing a similar bill in this Congress. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentlelady. 

At this time, I would yield to the Chairman of the full Committee, my friend from Texas, Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There is no more important issue this Subcommittee can address 

than that of preserving jobs for American workers. 

The threshold question is how can we best align our immigration 

policy with the needs of American workers? How can we best meet 

the needs of those workers who are unemployed or underemployed? 

The answer is not to keep adding to the supply of low-skilled workers during a severe recession and its aftermath. 

The combined rate of joblessness and underemployment for native-born teens is over 40 percent. The rate for native workers 

without a high school degree over 32 percent. For native-born 

workers with no more than a high school degree over 20 percent. 

How often do we read about the long-term unemployed or the 

working poor or single mothers with no mention of the serious impact of immigration on their employment, wages, and working conditions? We cannot ignore the adverse impact of mass low-skilled 

immigration and the lack of enforcement of our immigration laws. 

At the Subcommittee’s last hearing, we focused on the negative 

effects of cheap foreign labor on American minorities. Let me mention another group of Americans who are especially hard hit—teenagers. In June of 2000, a majority of the Nation’s teens were employed. Ten years later, in June of 2010, less than 29 percent of 

the Nation’s teens were employed. 

Mr. Chairman, we need to protect the jobs and wages of struggling Americans and legal immigrants. This includes teenagers 

new to the workforce and seasoned workers with years of valuable 

experience. We should design our immigration policy so that it enhances, rather than diminishes, opportunities for American workers. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today’s hearing and yield back. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Michigan, the Ranking Member, my good 

friend, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly. 

42 

I have a statement I will put in the record. But Chairman Smith 

raised to me the most significant question that has to guide all of 

us in all the Committees. What can we do to create jobs and keep 

wages up for all citizens in the country? And on that, Lamar, I 

couldn’t agree with you more. 

The one thing we could do here is to get the Patent and Trademark Office rolling, where the innovation that is so remarkable in 

the American system, functioning so that it doesn’t take years to 

get a patent. Because many of the smaller inventors end up going 

out of business while waiting to get the protection that they need. 

And so, the other body, I am told, has done that for the PTO, and 

I think we will be looking at it carefully since our Committee on 

Judiciary has worked together throughout the last three Congresses on putting out a bipartisan bill in that regard. So I join you 

with this. 

But as we have had three hearings on essentially the immigrant 

issue, and there is a certain nagging feeling that we are, either by 

implication or inadvertently, pitting immigrants against American 

workers, non-immigrants in this examination of how we fight joblessness. And what gets mixed up in it is the fact that we further 

subdivide the legal immigrants from those who are foreign born 

and are not legal. 

But the whole thing comes down as somehow the immigrants are 

responsible in some part for the high unemployment rate. And I 

hope we examine that as carefully and fairly as we can. 

Because even this morning, in another Committee, there is a 

hearing that is quite undisguised in its objective, going right on at 

the same time as this one, which claims to examine the 

radicalization of American Muslims, and that has created quite a 

ruckus. And it ends up with the worst of the things that I fear may 

be inadvertently going on with this fourth Subcommittee hearing 

on immigration and unemployment. 

Now we don’t have direct jurisdiction over unemployment. And 

so, that is why all the Members will get shortly the bill that goes 

to the Education and Labor Committee as an answer to this problem more directly, and that is the revised Humphrey-Hawkins Act 

that has been introduced that creates a way of triggering Government hiring when the unemployment hits roughly over 10 percent, 

training and hiring for direct employment. And I would bring that 

to the attention of my colleagues. 

With that, I will introduce the rest of my statement, and thank 

you, Chairman Gallegly. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

43 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary 


65077D-1.eps
44 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

This morning, we are fortunate to have four very distinguished 

members of the panel as our witnesses. And for the record, each 


65077D-2.eps
45 

of the witnesses’ written statement will be entered into the record 

in its entirety. 

The four witnesses come from different parts of our society, and 

I am anxious to hear their testimony. The first is Dr. Steven 

Camarota. Dr. Camarota is director of research at the Center for 

Immigration Studies. He has been with the center since 1996, and 

his area of expertise is economics and demographics. 

Mr. Camarota has often testified before Congress and has written numerous published articles on the impact of immigration. He 

holds a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia in public policy analysis and a master’s degree in political science from the University 

of Pennsylvania. 

Our second witness is Dr. Rakesh Kochhar. He is an associate director of research at the Pew Hispanic Center. Dr. Kochhar’s work 

at the center focuses on the labor market outcomes of Hispanic 

workers. His study on the wealth of Hispanic households, ownership among minorities and immigrants, and the trends in the income and employment of Latino workers have received widespread 

coverage in the media. 

He received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the University of Delhi, India, and completed his doctoral studies in economics at Brown University. 

Our third witness is Greg Serbon. He is State director of the Indiana Federation of Immigration Reform and Enforcement. He has 

served as a union pipefitter since 1988. Prior, he was a Teamster. 

He was elected as an Indiana Democratic State delegate in 2010. 

And our fourth witness this morning is Dr. Heidi Shierholz. She 

is an economist at the Economic Policy Institute. In 2007, she previously worked as assistant professor of economics at the University of Toronto. Her areas of expertise include labor markets, economic inequality, and minimum wage. She earned her Ph.D. in economics and master’s in economics from the University of Michigan. 

I think we have a very distinguished panel. I look forward to 

your testimony. We will start with you, Dr. Camarota. 

TESTIMONY OF STEVEN CAMAROTA, Ph.D., DIRECTOR OF 

RESEARCH, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES 

Mr. CAMAROTA. I would like to thank the Committee for inviting 

me to talk about this extremely important topic. 

Obviously, we talk about this topic not to pit immigrants and natives against each other but to figure out what has been the impact 

of past immigration so that then we can see what we might want 

to do in the future. That is the only really tool we have. 

So when we try to think about who to allow in, what numbers, 

we have to look at what has been happening in the past. And then 

we also have to think about what has been happening if we want 

to decide what to do about the illegal immigrants here. 

Now I would like to start my comments by pointing out something everybody knows. Everyone agrees the last recession was extremely hard on American workers. The dearth of jobs has been 

enormous. Unemployment, nonwork have become extremely common in a way that they haven’t for basically any other period in 

the post war era. 

46 

But something was happening even before the current recession 

in the U.S. labor market that is very troubling. And my testimony 

will focus on what can only be described as an astonishing decline 

in work among native-born Americans over the last decade, not 

just the last few years. 

The bar chart to my right here shows this extraordinary development. The green bars in the figure show the native and the immigrant share of population growth among potential workers. That is 

the 18- to 65-year-old population. The figures show that about a 

third, or 34 percent, of the increase in the number of 18- to 65- 

year-olds in the United States was among immigrants. 

But what the bar chart on the right shows—or the figure, the bar 

on the right shows, the black bar, is that all of the growth in employment between 2000 and 2005 went to immigrants, even though 

they were only one-third of the increase in the number of potential 

workers. This is extraordinary. 

Looking at the numbers between 2000 and 2010, the number of 

immigrants holding a job increased by 4.5 million, while the number of natives holding a job actually declined by 1.1 million. Even 

though the native-born population grew dramatically by nearly 14 

million people, there were actually fewer of them working by the 

end of the decade. 

Now all of this means that the share of native-born people holding a job has declined significantly. Again, focusing on the workingage population, 18 to 65, or we could say the adult working-age 

population. 

What we see in the line charts here, and it is also Figure 4 in 

my testimony, is that the share of native-born Americans 18 to 65 

holding a job declined dramatically throughout the decade. But it 

didn’t happen for the immigrants in the same way. Their rate held 

roughly constant at around 70 percent, but the share of natives 

holding a job went from 76 percent to 69 percent, really a dramatic 

change. 

Now the question is, is this just the recession? Is this just a statistical artifact of what has happened, say, since 2007 when the 

economy went into recession? But we find that, no, that is not the 

case. 

When we look at the period between 2000 and 2007, the share 

of native-born Americans holding a job actually declined as well. 

Now that, since 2007 is a peak year, that shouldn’t have happened 

if we compare it to a peak year of 2000. Now, among immigrants, 

the share holding a job actually went up, and I have the figures 

in my report. 

So, basically, we are at a situation where the share of workingage Americans who hold a job is now at historic lows, and the number not working is at historic highs. 

If we wish for the share of native-born Americans to get back to 

where it was in, say, 2000, we would need to add 12 million new 

jobs for the native born. And the situation is actually much worse 

for those with relatively little education. And again, starkly, their 

labor force participation was actually lower in 2007 than it was in 

2000, quite a bit lower, and it is in Figure 7 of my report. 

47 

And we see that for Americans without a high school education. 

We see that for Americans who have only a high school education, 

and we see it for American-born teenagers. 

Now let me add something about the decline in teenagers’ work. 

It is very troubling, and it is long term. And it is troubling because 

there is a lot of research showing you need to work as a teen often 

to develop the skills necessary to hold a job gainfully later in life. 

Now there are a number of studies that have found that immigration has reduced labor market opportunities for the native born. 

A 2006 study published by the National of Bureau of Economic Research by Borjas, Grogger, and Hagan, showed that—I should say 

Hanson—showed that immigration declined for about 20 to 60 percent—I am sorry, 25 percent of the work among less-educated 

Black men. 

A 2010 paper by Federal economist Christopher Smith suggested 

a third or half of the decline in teenage work is due to immigration. 

And another study by Andrew Sum, not the one that you were talking about before—this is a 2006 study, it is available at our Web 

site—also found, using multivariate analysis, immigration has a 

very significant negative impact on workers under the age particularly of 25 who don’t have a lot of education. 

Now, given the abysmal labor market situation for American 

workers, it is very difficult to justify the continued high level of 

legal unskilled immigration and allowing all the illegal immigrants 

to stay in the country. Now, obviously, there are many things to 

consider. But given this situation and given a reasonable amount 

of evidence that immigration is hurting the least educated in particular, we might want to consider our current course of action. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Camarota follows:] 

48 


SAC-1.eps
49 


SAC-2.eps
50 


SAC-3.eps
51 


SAC-4.eps
52 


SAC-5.eps
53 


SAC-6.eps
54 


SAC-7.eps
55 


SAC-8.eps
56 


SAC-9.eps
57 


SAC-10.eps
58 


SAC-11.eps
59 


SAC-12.eps
60 


SAC-13.eps
61 


SAC-14.eps
62 


SAC-15.eps
63 


SAC-16.eps
64 


SAC-17.eps
65 


SAC-18.eps
66 


SAC-19.eps
67 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Camarota. 

And I appreciate you recognizing the light. We really have a lot 

of folks who want to ask questions and a limited amount of time. 

And any additional statement you have will be made part of the 

record of the hearing. Dr. Kochhar? 

And please pronounce your name for me. I know I am not doing 

it right. 


SAC-20.eps
68 

TESTIMONY OF RAKESH KOCHHAR, Ph.D., ASSOCIATE 

DIRECTOR FOR RESEARCH, PEW HISPANIC CENTER 

Mr. KOCHHAR. No, you are doing great. The trouble is my name 

has two sounds that don’t exist in English. So you are doing great. 

So, Chairman Gallegly, Ranking Member Lofgren, and Members 

of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to testify at this 

hearing. 

I am here today as the principal author of a report the Pew Hispanic Center released in October 2010, entitled ‘‘After the Great 

Recession: Foreign Born Gain Jobs; Native Born Lose Jobs.’’ My 

testimony summarizes and updates some of the key findings of our 

report. The Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research 

Center, does not take positions on policy issues. 

The 2010 report focused on the period from the second quarter 

of 2008 to the second quarter of 2009, when most of the job losses 

during the great recession occurred, and the period from the second 

quarter of 2009 to the second quarter of 2010, the first year of recovery from the recession. 

We found that in the year following the official end of the recession, in June 2009, immigrant workers, who make up about 16 percent of the labor force, gained 656,000 jobs while native-born workers lost 1.2 million. As a result, the unemployment rate for immigrant workers fell from 9.3 to 8.7 percent, while for native-born 

workers, it rose from 9.2 to 9.7 percent. 

Now, because 5 months have passed since the release of our report, I have taken this opportunity to update the results through 

the fourth quarter of 2010. The updated results show that the economic recovery is now offering more widespread job opportunities 

for both native-born and foreign-born workers. 

More specifically, in the 1-year period from the fourth quarter of 

2009 to the fourth quarter of 2010, immigrants gained 657,000 jobs 

and native-born workers gained 685,000 jobs. The unemployment 

rate dropped for both groups during this period. For immigrants, 

it fell from 10.1 to 9.9 percent, and for the native born, it decreased 

from 9.5 to 9.0 percent. 

The fourth quarter of 2010 is the first period since the middle of 

2008 that native-born workers have experienced positive jobs 

growth. For immigrants, the fourth quarter of 2010 marks the 

third successive period of jobs growth. Thus, the economic recovery 

now appears to be benefiting all workers, although the gains to native born have been a bit later in coming. 

But the jobs recovery has been far from complete for either group 

of workers. From the beginning of the recession in the fourth quarter of 2007 to the fourth quarter of 2010, native-born workers have 

lost 6.1 million jobs, and foreign-born workers lost 262,000 jobs. 

The unemployment rate for the native born is up from 4.6 to 9 percent, and for immigrants, it is up from 4.5 to 9.9 percent. 

The reasons that the initial stage of the recovery has proceeded 

differently for native-born and foreign-born workers are not entirely clear. I will summarize some possible reasons and expand on 

each later in response to questions that you may have. 

One factor might be greater flexibility on the part of immigrants. 

Research by others suggests that immigrants are more mobile than 

69 

native-born workers, moving more fluidly across regions, industries, and occupations. 

But the flip side of flexibility can be jobs instability and a loss 

in earnings. And we have observed some of that happening. 

Another reason might be that we are simply observing the greater volatility that typifies the employment patterns of immigrants. 

That means they are subject to greater extremes, both good and 

bad, registering sharper losses in the early stages of recessions but 

rebounding quicker in the recovery. 

The downward trajectory of job losses during this recession was 

steeper for immigrants, and now they are seemingly on a steeper 

climb out of the recession. 

Demographic changes, both short term and long term, might also 

be a factor. The ebb and flow of immigration is sensitive to the 

business cycle, with economic expansions tending to boost inflows. 

A recent report from the Pew Hispanic Center found that the number of unauthorized immigrants in the United States fell during 

the recession, but that the decline seems to have stopped during 

the economic recovery. 

As economic volatility diminishes, longer-term demographic 

trends are more likely to reassert themselves in the jobs market. 

The immigrant share of the U.S. working-age population has been 

on the rise for several decades. 

Because the immigrant population has been growing faster than 

the native-born population, the number of immigrants in the labor 

force and the number employed have tended to rise faster than for 

the native born. The observed pattern during the current recovery 

is consistent with the long-run demographic trend. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kochhar follows:] 

70 


Kochhar-1.eps
71 


Kochhar-2.eps
72 


Kochhar-3.eps
73 


Kochhar-4.eps
74 


Kochhar-5.eps
75 


Kochhar-6.eps
76 


Kochhar-7.eps
77 


Kochhar-8.eps
78 


Kochhar-9.eps
79 


Kochhar-10.eps
80 


Kochhar-11.eps
81 


Kochhar-12.eps
82 


Kochhar-13.eps
83 


Kochhar-14.eps
84 


Kochhar-15.eps
85 


Kochhar-16.eps
86 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Dr. Kochhar. 

Mr. Serbon, or it ‘‘Ser-bone’’? 

Mr. SERBON. Serbon. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Serbon. Thank you. 

Hit your button there. No, on the microphone, please. There we 

go. 


Kochhar-17.eps
87 

TESTIMONY OF GREG SERBON, STATE DIRECTOR, INDIANA 

FEDERATION FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM AND ENFORCEMENT 

Mr. SERBON. There we go. 

Thank you, Congressman, for giving me the chance to speak on 

behalf of the working-class Americans. 

A lot has changed since the last time I spoke before some of you 

in 2007. In 2007, we had plenty of jobs, the housing market was 

booming, and it seemed Americans were happy and working for the 

most part. Fast forward to today with unemployment or underemployment numbering as high as 20 million Americans, and the 

immigration floodgates are still wide open. 

Being a union member and an immigration activist, I am in a 

unique position because I travel to many different job sites and 

have the opportunity to speak with coworkers about immigration, 

legal and illegal. 

We are creating a permanent underclass in our country driven 

by immigration and the people who are supposed to represent the 

American citizens first, in my opinion. How many poorly educated, 

or even highly educated, do we allow into our country while millions of our citizens languish on unemployment? I think it is 99 

weeks at the present time. It could be more. 

While I was doing some research for this hearing, I discovered 

we have at least 29 visa programs we give non-immigrants to come 

and work in America. At this point in time, 40 percent of illegal 

immigration in our country occurs when these non-immigrant visa 

holders overstay their visas. 

The visa programs you created are too numerous and too fraud 

laden, yet this issue is not being addressed properly, in my opinion. 

We have IT workers out of work, yet we issue around 85,000 I believe they are H-1B visas to these high-tech workers. 

The son of one of our members is an IT worker and couldn’t find 

a job for a year. This person possesses an MBA and had plenty of 

experience. Nobody wanted to pay him what he was worth because 

they know that cheaper labor is a visa away. 

I have personally witnessed immigrants being put in dangerous 

situations at the work sites I have been on. I have watched as employers had immigrants use power tools—such as saws, chipping 

hammers—without any eye or face protection. One occasion, take 

notes, OSHA came out to the job site for an inspection, and most 

of the immigrants left until the inspection was completed. 

Now I had to stop and think. Why would they leave a job site 

when only a safety inspector was present? Was it because the employer didn’t want to take a chance that they might perform a task 

unsafely or maybe without their required safety equipment, thereby causing a fine for the employer? 

On construction sites, where communication is critical and a 

safety issue, I have run into people on the job who couldn’t speak 

a word of English. I worked at a factory in late fall of ’99. The 

building had no heat, and the women that I saw working there 

were dressed in winter clothing. 

The only people in the factory that spoke English were the supervisors, and of the 30 or so workers, maybe one or two spoke some 

broken English. I had to find an interpreter while I am at work 

88 

from time to time just to keep the workplace safe, and this is not 

the way it should be. 

It has become increasingly difficult to find a job, and there are 

many good people I have worked with over the years who have not 

worked for months. We need an immigration time-out. The people 

calling for more immigration do not care one iota about the working person in this country. 

The founder of the AFL, Samuel Gompers, wrote a letter to Congress in 1924 concerning immigration. In that letter, Mr. Gompers 

stated, ‘‘America must not be overwhelmed.’’ As far as I can see, 

the employers want cheap and subservient labor, and it would be 

fair to say we are giving it to them. 

Now some of the job sites that I am on. They use the I-9 or the 

E-Verify programs to make sure their workers are legal citizens or 

are able to work in the country legally. And you will find that the 

amount of immigrants drops significantly on these job sites that 

use these two programs. So I am saying we need to make E-Verify 

mandatory for everybody. 

And also, I see a lot of numbers thrown out around here by 

economists, but they are all working. So it is hard to say when you 

are on the other end of the deal, ‘‘Look at this number,’’ while you 

have got someone that is maybe in their 98th week of unemployment? I mean, something is not jiving here, you know? 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Serbon follows:] 

89 


Serbon-2.eps
90 


Serbon-3.eps
91 


Serbon-4.eps
92 


Serbon-5.eps
93 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Serbon. 

Dr. Shierholz? 

TESTIMONY OF HEIDI SHIERHOLZ, Ph.D., ECONOMIST, 

ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE 

Ms. SHIERHOLZ. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Lofgren, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to share 

my views. 

As we all know, over the last 4 years, this country has faced and 

continues to face a labor market crisis like nothing we have seen 

since the Great Depression. In this environment, all demographic 

groups have seen substantial increases in their unemployment 

rate. 

The latest aggregated labor market data available from BLS 

came out last Friday. So we now have employment and unemployment numbers by nativity for last month. What the data show is 

that both immigrants and native-born workers saw their unemployment rates more than double since the start of 2007—or more than 

double, excuse me, between the start of 2007 and the end of 2009. 

And both have seen only modest improvement since then. 

Last month, the unemployment rate of immigrant workers was 

9.8 percent, up 5 percentage points from where it was 4 years ago. 

Native-born workers have fared just slightly better, with an unemployment rate of 9.5 percent, up 4.6 percentage points over the last 

4 years. 

Okay. That is unemployment. But what about jobs? Using the 

same BLS data, we find, like Dr. Kochhar, that while immigrants 

and native-born workers have experienced somewhat different timing of employment changes brought on by the great recession, their 

broad experience of breath-taking job deficits has been remarkably 

similar. 

Last month, immigrants and natives earned roughly the same 

place, with immigrant employment 4.3 percent below where it was 

4 years ago, and native-born employment 4.4 percent below where 

it was 4 years ago. So that answers the larger question of how native-born and immigrant workers are doing relative to each other 

in this national calamity of the great recession and its aftermath. 

But I would also like to step back and answer the broader question of what is known in general about the effect of immigration 

on the labor market outcomes of native workers. While Mr. 

Camarota clearly documented the decline in native employment 

over the last 10 years and the increase in immigrant employment 

over the last 10 years, we, of course, know that two trends happening at the same time does not mean that one caused the other. 

So, first and foremost, I think it is important to point out that 

in the ongoing debate on immigration, there is broad agreement 

among academic economists who research this that in the long run, 

immigration has a small, but positive impact on the labor market 

outcomes of native workers. 

Let me say that again. There is broad agreement among researchers who study this that in the long run, immigration has a 

small positive effect on the labor market outcomes of native workers. 

94 

The real debate is around whether, within that overall positive 

effect, certain groups are harmed, in particular native-born workers 

with low levels of education. Importantly, the most recent work on 

the effect of immigration on wages, which updates and refines some 

of the methodology that had found sizable negative effects of immigration on native workers with low levels of education, now finds 

extremely modest effects. 

One report I would like to highlight is a 2010 paper by Giovanni 

Peri that addresses an issue that is particularly important to keep 

in mind today. Peri finds, consistent with the literature, that in the 

long run, immigrants do not reduce native employment rates. But 

he finds that in the short run, immigration may slightly reduce native employment rates because the economy takes time to adjust. 

Importantly, this effect varies according to the broader economic 

environment. When the economy is strong and the labor market is 

adding jobs, new immigration creates enough jobs, even in the 

short run and even for less-educated workers, to cause no harm to 

the employment of native-born workers. 

But during downturns, things don’t adjust as quickly. When the 

economy is weak, new immigration has small negative impacts on 

the employment of native-born workers in the short run. 

This finding underscores the fact that the U.S. could benefit 

enormously from an immigration system that is more responsive to 

economic conditions. In our current immigration system, legal immigrant flows are essentially unresponsive to the business cycle. In 

particular, Congress has set a yearly limit on the number of new 

immigrants who may enter the country legally in order to work. 

These limits don’t fluctuate based on the state of the labor market. As Ms. Lofgren pointed out, in 2010, the unemployment rate 

in construction was 20 percent. But the Department of Labor, nevertheless, certified thousands of H-2B visas for construction workers. 

To remedy this logic-defying situation, an independent Federal 

agency could be established to evaluate U.S. labor markets and annually make recommendations to Congress on the levels of permanent and temporary immigrant labor. This would better allow the 

U.S. economy to respond to the needs of employers during expansions while avoiding the potential crowding out of native-born 

workers in the short run when the unemployment rate is high. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Shierholz follows:] 

95 


HS-1.eps
96 


HS-2.eps
97 


HS-3.eps
98 


HS-4.eps
99 


HS-5.eps
100 


HS-6.eps
101 


HS-7.eps
102 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you. Thank you very much Dr. Shierholz. 

Before I ask a couple of questions of the witnesses, I would just 

like to respond to a comment that my good friend Mr. Conyers, the 

Ranking Member and former Chairman of the full Committee, who 


HS-8.eps
103 

has been my neighbor and a man, as I have said, I have great respect for. And that will not change. 

But one of the things that goes on around here is we do have differences of opinions from time to time, and I think that is healthy. 

I would just like to remind the Ranking Member that for the past 

4 years when the minority was in the majority, you had a different 

approach to dealing with immigration. And while I disagree with 

it, I respected that right to disagree. 

And in 4 years, the issue of illegal immigration and immigration 

in general did not change any for the better. We have been here 

for 2 months, and we have taken a little different approach. I happen to believe that our approach will be more effective. Only time 

will tell. 

But give us a chance. We have only had 2 months, and I would 

really like to work with you. 

Having said that, now I would like to ask Mr. Serbon a question. 

You obviously have a different background, and you have been in 

the trenches. You work shoulder-to-shoulder with the people that 

have been dramatically affected with the unemployment across this 

country probably most of your life. 

And as a union worker, I don’t know whether this is a fair question to ask you, but I am going to ask it anyway. Do you believe 

that the American unions, labor unions, have abandoned what I 

have always thought was their longstanding policy to oppose illegal 

immigration? 

Mr. SERBON. Well, they take a different view on certain issues 

about the immigration debate. I know that they are totally against 

the guest worker program, at least the construction workers are. 

You know, like I said, any company that uses the I-9 or E-Verify, 

there is very few immigrants working in that field. And I don’t 

know why. Maybe there is a lot of illegals in the construction, I am 

sure. 

But I have had a couple of unions reach out, and they said that 

they do support the—we got a bill, Senate bill 590 in Indiana, dealing with illegal immigration. And they do support it. 

They just don’t, some of them don’t come out and job on the 

bandwagon with me and get out there in the trenches and push the 

issue. So as far as the hierarchy, I don’t know what they are thinking. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Do you think the motivation could possibly be an 

increase in the brotherhood? 

Mr. SERBON. Somewhat, yes. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Probably on a more important issue, there has 

been a lot of discussion, and during the debate, we continue to hear 

that illegals only take the jobs that American workers will not 

take. Do you believe that there are jobs out there that American 

workers have and would like to have today that are and have been 

taken by people that have no legal right to be in the United States? 

Mr. SERBON. Well, they have had numerous raids a few years 

back in food processing plants, like chicken and beef processing 

plants. And every time they did a raid and actually arrested the 

illegals that were working there, Americans filled the gap. 

And even there was an automotive plant that did I think it was 

either axles or transmissions in southern Indiana. And just the 

104 

rumor that ICE was going to raid the plant sent hundreds of their 

workers scurrying from the shift they were working on, and the 

plant ended up hiring some American citizens. 

And they actually quoted in the newspaper that—they actually 

interviewed the citizens, and they said we have been trying to get 

into this plant for a couple of months now, and it was just full. And 

then after just the threat of ICE coming, they had positions opened 

up. 

So Americans will take these jobs. You may have a different outlook as far as picking crops, but we do have visa programs to address that issue. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Dr. Camarota, could you take a shot at that same 

question? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. It sort of builds on something Dr. Shierholz said. 

The idea that she advocated is that, look, even the unskilled immigrants and the unskilled natives do very different things. 

But as my other panelist pointed out, when we have had raids 

and the illegal immigrants were removed from the labor market, 

what do you know? Natives got a large fraction of the new jobs. 

Sometimes they had to pay more and treat workers better. This 

happened at plants for Swift and at another plant in Tar Heel, 

North Carolina. We have done some work on that. 

What seems to have happened or the argument goes like this. 

Well, there are fewer natives, say, in construction as a share of unskilled natives in construction and more and more immigrants. And 

this suggests to some people that, well, the natives move out of 

construction and do something that requires more skill. 

The argument would be more persuasive is at the same time, we 

haven’t seen this dramatic decline in work. In other words, lots of 

natives used to work in construction. They may work less there. 

But they haven’t gone over to other occupations. They just work a 

whole lot less. 

And this is a very long-term trend. As immigration has increased 

over the last three decades, the share of less-educated teenagers— 

the share of teenagers, I should say, and less-educated adults 

working has just continually declined. 

So what may seem to be happening is it is not so much that they 

are moving and sort of just not competing with immigrants, those 

that are, are just dropping out of the labor market. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much. 

I would just like to express an observation I have made over the 

last few years. As a parent of four grown young adults and a 

grandparent, when my children were in high school and college 

they worked in the fast food business. They all worked in high 

school and college, flipping burgers. I know that many young people today are trying to get these jobs and are having a tough time. 

I have made a personal observation of several food chains in my 

area or fast food chains in my area, where I happen to know a 

large percentage of the workers are undocumented. I happen to 

know of at least one food chain where there is almost no 

undocumenteds and doing exactly the same work, flipping the same 

hamburgers and principally the same product. But the only difference is about $2 an hour in the beginning wage. 

At this time, I would yield to the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren. 

105 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I listened to everyone, I was reminded of the phrase, ‘‘There 

is lies, darned lies, and statistics.’’ And here we are with a variety 

of statistics being cited to reach dramatically different conclusions. 

I am wondering, Dr. Shierholz, I mean, we have got whenever 

there is a chart, you know, must be true. But your testimony really 

somewhat puts a different analysis on this. Really, the assumption 

that is being made here is that it is sort of a one-for-one simple 

math issue in terms of immigrants coming in. 

And I am wondering if you could explain why that simple math 

is not the case. I am thinking about, for example, migrant farm 

workers. I mean, we have done some analysis on that. We have not 

seen Americans willing to go out and become a migrant farm worker. I mean, very few. 

I think some of it is the conditions of the work. Some of it is the 

pay. But also it is being a migrant worker and having to live in 

dormitories away from your family, and we just haven’t seen Americans sign up for that. And yet we know that for every field job, 

there is three upstream and downstream jobs in terms of marketing and the like that Americans are holding. 

And if you were to do the wages high enough to lure Americans 

into a barracks, you probably wouldn’t be able to compete with 

farms across our border, in New Zealand or Australia or Mexico or 

the like. 

Can you explain why this one-for-one doesn’t work? 

Ms. SHIERHOLZ. Yes. You know, as a labor market economist, I 

like this question because it lets me talk about something that I 

think is a big misperception when thinking about labor markets 

and immigration. I think there is this idea out there that immigrants are just working machines that are doing work that could 

have been done by someone else, period. 

And what that does is it misses this whole other side of the equation that workers, immigrant workers are also people. They spend 

their wages on goods and services. They are buying cars and groceries and paying rent. So that is paying the wages of other people 

and generating jobs. 

So, in an economy that has more people, be it immigrants or native-born workers, in an economy that has more people, we intuitively understand that that doesn’t necessarily mean higher unemployment rates. It is just a bigger economy. We do not think that 

because New York has a bigger population than Denver that New 

York is going to have a higher unemployment rate than Denver. It 

is just a bigger economy. 

So immigrants—there are both sides of the equation. They just 

make the situation bigger. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask you this. I think we don’t really know, 

but there are people have estimated that there are 11 million, in 

the neighborhood of 11 million individuals who are in the United 

States without the proper documentation. Some of them have been 

here for 20 years. Some of them came last year. 

I think some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 

indicated that it would probably be impossible to round up 11 million people and deport them. But that by hammering down on enforcement that there would be sort of an attrition, that people 

106 

would leave. Although there is no evidence that that is, in fact, 

happening. 

Can you describe, in your judgment as an academician and someone who studies this, what would happen if we actually did pull 11 

million people out of the economy? If we pulled them out next 

month, go to wherever you were born, what would happen to the 

American economy? 

Ms. SHIERHOLZ. So, okay, I have to think about this. Obviously, 

if we all of a sudden rounded up 11 million people, there would be 

a national disaster that would cause—you know, that would cause 

a huge economic shock that would ripple around and cause dramatic job loss. 

So the transition would be very difficult, but let us ignore the 

transition and just say, all right, magically, we have 11 million 

fewer workers in this country. That would just reduce the labor 

market by 11 million workers. It wouldn’t mean there would be 11 

million job openings. 

You have just shrunk the whole pie. So you have lost workers, 

but you have also lost consumers. So in the same way adding immigrants just sort of absorbs new people and makes the economy 

bigger, subtracting them does the same thing. 

So you had a bigger place, and now it is 11 million smaller. But 

you didn’t necessarily—you are not going to have a whole bunch 

more job openings. You are not going to necessarily reduce the unemployment rate by doing that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I thank you for that answer. 

I would just—this is a complicated question, and we all see it 

from our own life experiences. But I think when I think about foreign-born employers, I often think about Sergey Brin. And I am 

glad that Google is in Mountain View, instead of in Moscow, and 

it employs tens of thousands of my constituents. And I am glad 

that he did what he did. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to the witnesses for being here today. 

This is an intriguing area, and as Ms. Lofgren points out, statistics point to unusual things. Let me ask with regard to the statistics, Mr. Kochhar, that you have cited in your paper, ‘‘After the 

Great Recession,’’ the employment of foreign-born Hispanics increased by 435,000 while employment of native-born Hispanics decreased by 43,000. 

You found that employment of foreign-born Blacks increased by 

81,000 while employment of native-born Blacks decreased by 

142,000. You found that foreign-born Hispanics gained 98,000 construction jobs while 133,000 native-born Hispanics lost construction 

jobs. 

What is your explanation for this anomaly? The foreign born gain 

jobs. The native born lose jobs. 

Mr. KOCHHAR. You are referring to the report I submitted? 

Mr. GOHMERT. It was your paper ‘‘After the Great Recession.’’ 

Mr. KOCHHAR. Right. So that was the period from the middle of 

’09 to the middle of 2010. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. 

107 

Mr. KOCHHAR. The first year of the recovery where, in the aggregate, the native born still had a significant job loss, and the foreign 

born were starting to recover in terms of jobs. And so, what you 

describe by race and ethnicity, it just filtered down the pipeline. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But do you have any explanation for that emergence—— 

Mr. KOCHHAR. Your question is why one is gaining and the other 

isn’t gaining? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. 

Mr. KOCHHAR. I alluded to some of those. Well, all of those reasons that I feel are relevant in my testimony having to do with 

greater flexibility on the part of migrant workers, the fact that we 

are catching them at a point of time of volatile economic trend, and 

we happen to be catching one on the up and the other, yes, on the 

up, but not quite across the line. 

And also the demographic trends. So those are some of the factors I refer to. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Serbon, American labor unions, if you look 

over the entirety of the 20th century, had a history and policy of 

being opposed to illegal immigration because they were protecting 

or attempting to protect those American citizens who had jobs, and 

it seemed to make sense. 

Do you know why the American labor unions have abandoned 

that longstanding policy of opposition to illegal immigration and 

have now embraced illegal immigration as somehow being helpful 

to their union members? 

Mr. SERBON. Well, I really can’t speak for the hierarchy of our 

unions. I know a majority of union members, I think it was 58 percent in one poll I had read, want the enforcement aspect of our immigration laws enforced. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But that is rank-and-file union members. 

Mr. SERBON. Right. Right. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. Do you have any polling of union leaders to 

see how much different they are than union members? 

Mr. SERBON. I have talked to some of the State leaders on some 

groups, some of our labor groups, and they do support the regular 

immigration aspect of our immigration policy. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But the policies seem to embrace illegal immigration. 

Mr. SERBON. Some of the higher-ups embrace it. I—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. And that is why I am asking. Why do the higherups of unions differ from their membership? 

Mr. SERBON. I have no clue what they are thinking. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. But you do you think they are thinking 

something? [Laughter.] 

All right. I see my time has expired. 

Mr. SERBON. Yes, I think they are thinking about something. I 

don’t know what it is. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, that is why I am wondering if maybe they 

are more concerned about forsaking the interests of their current 

members in order to pursue or lure future members. But anyway, 

I am glad to know they are thinking something. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you. 

108 

The gentleman from Michigan, do you have some questions, Mr. 

Conyers? 

Very well. Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman. 

One of the things that we are trying to do to stem the illegal entries is take care of the border there, and we have what is known 

as the ‘‘wall builders’’ in the Congress. Just a build a wall high 

enough and put enough guards on it. Are you a wall builder? 

Mr. SERBON. Me? 

Mr. CONYERS. You. 

Mr. SERBON. I support their cause, but I don’t—my main issue 

is that you do the, like I said, E-Verify, I-9. Once they get past the 

border, they are home free. That is my opinion, and we need to do 

this for every employer. 

You eliminate the job magnet, you eliminate the illegals. 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, but you can’t eliminate the job magnet if you 

have got in Detroit the unemployment rate is not 9 percent, but 38 

percent. So we are trying to create a job magnet. So when we create one for inside the U.S., don’t worry. There will be people trying 

to get here by any means necessary. 

Mr. SERBON. Oh, I understand. Just the Doctor here had pointed 

out that if you bring in more people, it will create jobs. You know, 

they start their own businesses. 

And in the construction field, before, I have been on projects 

where you get a multiple layer of employers, you will find that one 

employer, maybe he is an immigrant contractor. And what they do 

is they hire all their own people. So I have been on job sites where 

the whole crew was Romanian. 

We have American electricians everywhere. That is a high-skilled 

job. They did a very good job. But what I am saying is if you are 

going to allow someone in here to create a job, immigrant wise, and 

then they hire all their own people from their own country, what 

does that do for the American people? Other than bag their groceries when they come to buy them. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, Congresswoman Lofgren has a bill in that 

wants to relate the unemployment rate in building to allowing people who do building to come in. It is a pretty simple thing, but it 

is not being done. It is being ignored. We almost—we will probably 

have to pass a law to get it done. 

How is the new president of AFL-CIO doing, in your judgment? 

Is he one of the ones up at the top that don’t get it, or is he an 

improvement, in your view? 

Mr. SERBON. I think he needs some more enlightening on the 

issue. I can’t speak for him. You know, maybe you should have another hearing and invite him. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, we may do that. But I was just reacting to 

your comment about the fact that some of the people at the top of 

collective bargaining in the country have different views from people in the middle and lower ranks of collective bargaining. 

Mr. SERBON. Well, if you are seeing like in my area where unemployment for tradesmen was 28 or 30 percent, and we are continuing to bring in immigrants, skilled or unskilled, and I really 

don’t see the leaders of the AFL-CIO saying stop. I haven’t heard 

109 

it myself. Maybe you have. I think they need to maybe voice their 

opinions for the American workers more. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I can help you because James Hoffa comes 

out of Detroit there at national headquarters, and we fly regularly 

on Delta. So if you don’t mind, I will communicate our discussion 

to him for you. 

Mr. SERBON. Oh, sure. I would love to speak to him. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. Well, I speak to him pretty regularly. 

Now the big discussion here among our distinguished panel is 

that there is a causal connection between immigration numbers 

and unemployment. And some say that there isn’t any direct causal 

connection. What do you think about that, sir? 

Mr. SERBON. Well, I just look—you know, everyone does numbers 

here and—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes. 

Mr. SERBON.—I see if there is 20 million people unemployed and 

you are still bringing in 1 million, 1.5 million, 2 million a year, 

something has got to give. And I think if we just stop legal immigration for a couple of years and let the market sort itself out—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Stop it altogether, right. 

Mr. SERBON.—I think we would be in a far better position. I 

mean, at 99 weeks unemployment, like I said, when you are coming up to 98 weeks and you just can’t leave your home, travel a 

couple hundred miles. Some tradesmen do. But if you are not 

skilled, to travel somewhere out of your comfort zone to go find another job. 

Mr. CONYERS. Can I get an additional minute, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, sir. 

What about sending back all the illegals, period? 

Mr. SERBON. That would be pretty difficult. 

Mr. CONYERS. What is it, about 11 million? 

Mr. SERBON. It would be very difficult to send them all back. But 

if you, like Ms. Lofgren stated before, immigration or enforcement 

through attrition, if you start enforcing certain laws and actually 

step it up, they will leave on their own. 

I mean, I just read that Mexico’s unemployment rate is 4.9 percent. So that is quite a bit less than ours. 

Mr. CONYERS. Could I ask, Dr. Camarota, are you willing to 

agree that there may not be a direct causal connection between immigration rates and unemployment? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Well, I think that what the research suggests 

and both common sense is it is never one-for-one, an immigrant arrives, and an American loses his job. Certainly, I have never suggested that. That would just be simply silly, of course. 

But on the other hand, 45 percent of the maids in the United 

States and 35 percent of the construction laborers in the United 

States are foreign born now. In each case, about half is illegal. To 

suggest that that kind of massive increase in the supply of workers 

has no impact on those occupations is equally silly as a kind of onefor-one. 

Some occupations are largely unaffected. Only 5 percent of lawyers in the United States. So I don’t think immigration has almost 

any effect in that occupational category. 

110 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

What about this business of people will take any job? Seasonal 

labor, that is almost all immigrant work. I mean, people just don’t 

go for working in the field. Stoop labor isn’t getting it. Besides, the 

pay is terrible, and the working conditions are onerous. And that 

is why immigrants do the work, get the work. That is the only jobs 

they can get. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Well, remember, and even if we focused on illegal 

immigrants, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates 5 percent, a very 

small fraction of all illegal immigrants, work in agriculture. It is 

almost irrelevant to the illegal immigration debate. 

There is about three times or four times as many illegal immigrants in things like construction and food service and food preparation. And they are the jobs that are still overwhelmingly done by 

natives, where immigrants have made all these gains. 

So if you want to have a special program for agriculture, we 

could talk about that. I might be amenable. But again, it is a tiny 

fraction of the illegal workforce. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

Thanks, Chairman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

I want to thank all the witnesses this morning. Thank you for 

your testimony and for answering the questions, and look forward 

to working with you as we continue our efforts dealing with this 

issue in the days and months to come. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit to the Chair additional written questions for the witnesses, 

which we will forward and ask the witnesses to respond as promptly as they can so the answers can be made a part of the record of 

the hearing. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit any additional materials for inclusion in the record. 

And with that, again, I thank you for being here today. And with 

that, the hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(111) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

112 

Press Release from the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) 

f 


65077E.eps
113 

Submission from the Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration (CSII) 


65077F-1.eps
114 


65077F-2.eps
115 


65077F-3.eps
116 


65077F-4.eps
117 


65077F-5.eps
118 


65077F-6.eps
119 


65077F-7.eps
120 


65077F-8.eps
121 

f 


65077F-9.eps
122 

Letter from John L. Ghertner, MD 

f 


65077G.eps
123 

Prepared Statement of the National Immigration Forum 

Æ 


65077H.eps