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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

29–655 PDF 2006

REID-KENNEDY BILL: THE EFFECT ON AMERICAN

WORKERS’ WAGES AND EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

AUGUST 29, 2006

Serial No. 109–129

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 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

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 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida

PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

AUGUST 29, 2006

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..... 1

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

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 2

The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Indiana, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ........................... 4

WITNESSES 

Dr. Steven Camarota, Director of Research, Center for Immigration Studies 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 7

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8

Mr. Ricardo Parra, Midwest Council of La Raza 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 15

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 17

Dr. Vernon Briggs, Professor of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 31

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 33

Dr. Paul Harrington, Associate Director, Center for Labor Market Studies, 

Northeastern University 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 41

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 44

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Letter from the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., submitted by the 

Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary .............. 66

Letter from the American Immigration Lawyers Association, submitted by 

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

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 68

Prepared Statement of the Kentucky Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the Central Kentucky Council for Peace and Justice ........... 70

(1)

REID-KENNEDY BILL: THE EFFECT ON AMERICAN WORKERS’ WAGES AND EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITIES 

TUESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Walnut 

Rooms 1 and 2, Evansville Auditorium and Convention Center, 715 

Locust Street, Evansville, IN, the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Committee on the Judiciary will be in 

order and the Chair notes the presence of a quorum for the purposes of taking testimony. 

Before Members begin their opening statements, first let me welcome all of you to this fourth field hearing on the subject of illegal 

immigration. And the purpose of this series of hearings is to examine the challenges our Nation currently faces with regard to illegal 

immigration and the impact that the Reid-Kennedy Bill, passed by 

the Senate, will have on the problem if it will become law. 

I am Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the Chair of 

the House Judiciary Committee. With us today are Congressman 

John Conyers of Michigan, who is the Ranking Democratic Member 

on the Committee; Congressman John Hostettler of Indiana, who 

is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration, which since 2003 

has had 49 separate hearings on the subject of illegal immigration 

and its impact on American society and the economy; and Congressman Steve King of Iowa. 

This is a very emotional topic and people have strong opinions 

on both sides of the issue. I’d like to remind the audience before 

we begin this hearing and hear testimony that the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, under which this hearing is held this 

morning, specifically prohibit the audience expressing either approval or disapproval of what is said either by the witnesses or by 

the Members of the Committee when they ask questions of the witnesses. 

Now I know that there are going to be a lot of things that are 

going to be said today that all of you in the audience either strongly approve of or violently disagree with. But one of the purposes 

of these hearings, as well as functionality of our democratic system 

of Government, is that people have respect for opinions that they 

do not agree with. And the Rules of the House specifically give me 

2

as Chair the authority to enforce them that prohibit expressions of 

support or opposition. 

So I’d ask all of you to please do not force me to bang the gavel 

or worse, as this hearing proceeds. 

Today’s hearing will focus on the effect that immigration has had 

on the wages and employment opportunities of American workers, 

and specifically the impact that the amnesty and the vast expansion of future immigration provided by the Reid-Kennedy Bill 

would have. 

In fiscal year 2005, over a million immigrants received green 

cards allowing them to reside and work in the United States lawfully and permanently. And under current law, almost 19 million 

immigrants will receive green cards over the next 20 years. 

Evidence presented at a previous hearing before the Subcommittee on Immigration raised the possibility that current immigration has already adversely affected the job prospects of nativeborn Americans. Specifically, it showed that between March 2000 

and 2004, the number of unemployed adult U.S. natives increased 

by 2.3 million, while the number of employed adult immigrants has 

increased also by 2.3 million, half of whom entered the United 

States illegally. 

Testimony also showed that occupations with the largest immigrant influx tended to have the highest unemployment rate among 

natives and that native-born workers who were in the most direct 

competition with the new immigrants lost jobs at the highest rates. 

If the Reid-Kennedy Immigration Bill were enacted into law, in 

addition to providing amnesty to an estimated 14.4 million illegal 

immigrants, it could allow an estimated 55 million other immigrants to enter the United States and work in a variety of American jobs over the next 20 years, legally. 

Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 

even with the increases in legal immigration provided by the ReidKennedy Bill, an average of 780,000 immigrants would still enter 

illegally in each of the 10 years following its enactment. 

Congress would fail in its responsibility to American workers if 

it were to act on such a proposal without first giving full consideration to how such massive increases in immigration would affect 

the wages and job prospects of United States citizens and of lawfully admitted aliens who are already here. And that is why we are 

here today. 

I look forward to hearing from our panel and hope that their testimony will help inform lawmakers and the public on the impact 

that the expanded levels of immigration proposed by the Senate 

Bill would have on American workers. 

I would now yield to the gentlemen from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, 

for an opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much, Chairman Sensenbrenner, 

and good morning to the rest of the distinguished Committee that’s 

here, our excellent witnesses that have come from sometimes long 

distances, and the full room of citizens who have joined us for this 

hearing. I think that’s very good and very commendable. 

We’ve had a number of these hearings within the last 6 weeks, 

but the Bush Administration has been in office for 6 years and the 

Republicans have controlled the Congress for over 10 years, but we 

3

are only now holding our first hearings addressing the critical need 

to fix our broken immigration and border security systems. Why 

now? Because it is an election year and I think that the Majority 

fears losing control of the House of Representatives. 

The House and the Senate passed their bills on immigration reform and border security months ago. Under regular order, we 

should be appointing conferees and engaging in the process of reconciling the two bills. However, in a substantial deviation from normal practice, the House Republican leadership has instead decided 

to call a series of multi-Committee, multi-State hearings on the 

Senate Bill. Consistently, they have sought great fanfare and publicity for their supposed border security initiatives. But consistently, they have refused to fund these promises and have failed to 

carry out the security measures for which they seek public acclaim. 

For example, we recently found out that the President’s plans to 

deploy the National Guard to the border is far behind schedule and 

with less than half the troops deployed than the President promised would happen by this past June, troop levels will not be fulfilled on time and the extra protection the President promised will 

not be realized. 

These developments make it even more apparent that these immigration hearings may be described as being mostly for show and 

even worse, they may derail an opportunity for real reform. We 

have learned, for example, that four and a half years after 9/11, the 

Bush Administration still does not have any control over the borders. We learn that the Bush Administration has made no effort 

to conduct workplace enforcement on immigration laws. We’ve 

learned that the Majority has rejected many opportunities to 

strengthen our borders with increased staff and funding for necessary security measures. And we’ve learned that the Majority has, 

what seems to me, no realistic plan for resolving the problems of 

11 million unlawfully present immigrants. 

Now if the Bush Administration had properly secured the border, 

we would not be facing the security issues of 11 million unknown 

people in our country. If the Bush Administration had enforced the 

workplace laws, we wouldn’t have over seven million undocumented aliens working in the United States. If the Majority party 

had funded the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations on conducting 

proper oversight, this Committee would not be touring the Nation 

talking about what to do; we would be in Washington hammering 

out a compromise, as we were elected to do. 

We don’t need another misguided plan to distract the American 

public from the bills that have passed the House and Senate. Nor 

do we need these road show hearings to show the American public 

that we need to do something. We all know that. 

Now is the time to go to work, get it done. We must roll up our 

sleeves and get to work on solving the problem created by the Bush 

Administration instead of spreading fear of immigrants and driving 

further wedges between our citizens. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time for making my opening 

statement. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the Subcommittee Chair, the gentleman 

from Indiana, Mr. Hostettler. 

4

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, once again for coming to Evansville, 

coming to southwest Indiana, and holding these hearings. I also 

want to welcome my colleagues, Mr. Conyers from Michigan and 

Mr. King from Iowa, to the Eighth District. I appreciate your willingness to take time out to come to Indiana to talk about this very 

important issue. 

This is an issue that is going to take much work and we are 

about that hard work of putting legislation in place that will benefit all American citizens. And this is part of that work. 

There is a sense among many Americans that the job opportunities they and parents once enjoyed are no longer available to them 

and their children. For those on the lower rungs of the economic 

ladder, the very availability of the American dream seems to be in 

question. 

Today, we will examine the impact immigration is having on 

these issues and what further effects the Reid-Kennedy Bill would 

have. 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 attributable to large increases in the number of employed immigrants, while the number 

of employed natives has actually declined. 

The first study was conducted by Dr. Steven Camarota of the 

Center for Immigration Studies. Dr. Camarota analyzed Census 

Bureau data and concluded that between March 2000 and March 

2004, the number of native-born adults with jobs decreased by almost half a million, while at the same time the number of foreignborn adults with jobs increased by over 2.2 million. Thus, all of the 

almost 1.8 million net increase of adults with jobs went to foreignborn workers. 

The second study, also relying on census data, was conducted by 

Professors Andrew Sum and Paul Harrington and other researchers at the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston. They found that total civilian employment increased by over 2.3 million over the period from 2000 to 2004 and 

that the number of foreign-born workers who arrived in the U.S. 

in this period and were employed in 2004 was about 2.5 million. 

Thus, the number of employed native-born and older immigrant 

workers—and older immigrant workers—decreased by between 

158,000 and 228,000 over the 4 year period. The authors concluded 

that ‘‘For the first time in the post-World War II era, new immigrants accounts for all the growth in employment over a 4-year period. At no time in the past 60 years has the country ever failed 

to generate any net new jobs for native-born workers over a 4-year 

period.’’

Both these studies yield astounding and alarming results. Native-born Americans have not seen an increase in employment in 

recent years. In fact, the number of jobs they hold has decreased. 

At the same time, the number of employed immigrants has risen 

substantially. 

What are the implications of these findings? I will let the authors 

of the studies relate their conclusions in detail, but let me quote 

them in summary. Dr. Camarota concludes that ‘‘By significantly 

increasing the supply of unskilled workers during a recession, imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:42 Oct 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\FULL\082906\29655.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
5

migration may be making it more difficult for similar American 

workers to improve their situation.’’ He also finds that ‘‘The fact 

that immigration has remained consistently high suggests that immigration levels simply do not reflect demand for labor in the country. Immigration is clearly not a self-regulating phenomenon that 

will rise and fall with the state of the economy.’’ Dr. Harrington’s study concludes that ‘‘Given large job losses 

among the Nation’s 20 to 24 year olds with no 4-year degree, Black 

males and poorly educated native-born men, it is clear that nativeborn workers have been displaced in recent years.’’ Reading these two studies, I reach the troubling conclusion that 

our Nation’s immigration policy has not operated in the best interest of America’s workers, at least over the last few years. It appears that the flow of immigrants, both legal and illegal, seems to 

pursue its own independent course, oblivious to whether we are experiencing good times or bad. For struggling American workers, 

current immigration levels can prove challenging during good 

times. In bad times, they can be devastating. 

The Reid-Kennedy Bill would greatly exacerbate these negative 

effects. Not only would it grant amnesty to the vast majority of illegal aliens currently in the United States, but it would add on top 

a guest worker program bringing in 200,000 more unskilled foreign 

workers a year, and would triple legal immigration already at one 

million persons a year. 

I would like to make one final point. Congress cannot enforce our 

immigration laws. 

[Audience comment.] 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will be in order. Would you 

please be seated. 

[Continued audience comment.] 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. May I ask law enforcement to remove the 

person from the room. 

[Continued audience comment.] 

[Audience commenter was removed.] 

[Applause.] 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Again, the Chair would remind members of 

the audience that the Rules of the House of Representatives are 

very clear in prohibiting interruption of the proceedings, how the 

proceedings go on, with statements or comments or expressions either in support of opposition to any of the things that are said either by the witnesses or Members of the Committee. And the Chair 

will not hesitate to enforce the rules, as he has just done. 

The gentleman from Indiana will conclude. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, under the U.S. Constitution, 

the enforcement of the laws of the United States, under article 2 

is the sole prerogative of the Administration, the executive, the 

President. To the extent that Administrations of both parties have, 

for the past 20 years, failed to enforce laws against the employment of illegal aliens, they have contributed to the current dire situation for America’s workers. And that’s why we are here today. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman. 

Let me introduce the witnesses before the Committee today. 

Vernon Briggs, Jr. is a Professor of Industrial and Labor Relations 

6

at Cornell University. His research has embraced such subjects as 

minority participation in apprenticeship training, direct job creation strategies, Chicano employment issues and immigration policy in the American labor force. In addition to the extensive publications of his research, he has served as a member of the National 

Council on Employment Policy and on the editorial boards of such 

professional journals as the Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 

the Journal of Human Resources, the Texas Business Review and 

the Journal of Economic Issues. 

Dr. Steven Camarota is Director of Research at the Center for 

Immigration Studies in Washington. He has testified numerous 

times before Congress and has published many articles on the impact of immigration in such journals and papers as the Social 

Science Quarterly, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune and 

National Review. Dr. Camarota writes regularly for the Center for 

Immigration Studies on a broad range of immigration issues, including his recent reports on labor, Social Security, immigration 

trends and border and national security. 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. 

Paul Harrington is Associate Director for the Center of Labor 

Market Studies, or CLMS, and Professor of Economics and Education at Northeastern University in Boston. At the CLMS, Dr. 

Harrington conducts labor market research at the national, State 

and local levels on a broad range of issues including immigration, 

higher education performance, workplace development and youth 

and families. Dr. Harrington and the CLMS were the first to estimate the sharp increase in the number of undocumented immigrants during the 1990’s. He has earned his Doctor of Education 

degree at the University of Massachusetts at Boston and holds 

Master’s and Bachelor’s degrees from Northeastern University. 

Ricardo Parra is a writer, who resides in Indianapolis, active in 

the civil rights movement throughout many years and a long time 

community leader and advocate. He is the past director of the Midwest Council of La Raza, which was based at the University of 

Notre Dame, and served a 10-State area of the midwest. Mr. Parra 

is also a past member of the Indiana Advisory Committee to the 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Today, he works for the Social 

Security Administration and is a member of the Chicago Region 

Hispanic Action Committee and the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3571, where he has served as Fair Practices Coordinator. 

It is the general practice of this Committee to swear in all witnesses. I would like to ask each of the witnesses to rise and raise 

your right hands and take the oath. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Let the record show that each of the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Without objection, all Members opening statements may be included in the record at this time, and also without objection, the 

full written testimony of each of you will be placed in the record 

at the time you testify orally. 

I would like to ask each of the witnesses to confine their oral remarks to 5 minutes or so and the Chair will be a little bit flexible 

7

in enforcing when the red light goes on on the timers, so that Members of the Committee will have as much time as possible to answer questions. 

Dr. Camarota, why don’t you go first. 

TESTIMONY OF STEVEN CAMAROTA, DIRECTOR OF 

RESEARCH, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me. 

When we talk about immigration and illegal aliens, the first 

point I would like to make is that it is not only silly to argue that 

illegal aliens only do jobs that American don’t want, it’s demonstrably untrue. Of the 470 occupations as defined by the Census 

Bureau, virtually none are majority immigrant, let alone majority 

illegal alien. If there really were jobs that only immigrants do, 

there should be occupations that are almost all immigrant. Such 

occupations don’t exist. 

It is true that most Americans are more educated and thus don’t 

compete with illegal aliens who overwhelmingly are people with 

only a high school degree or who failed to graduate high school. 

But there about 17 million native-born Americans in the labor force 

who either lack a high school education or have only a high school 

degree and work in a high immigrant occupation. And these are 

the individuals adversely affected. 

Now what’s the impact of immigration on American workers? 

Well, an important recent study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics showed that immigration reduced the wages of all workers 

in the United States by about 4 percent in recent years. But for the 

poorest 10 percent, the reduction was about 7 percent. 

My own research has shown that for each 1 percent increase in 

immigrant composition of a low-wage job, wages for natives in that 

occupation declined by about .8 percent. So if there were a 20 percent increase, that would imply that maybe wages are down by 

about 16 percent in that occupation. I should say if immigrants 

were 20 percent. 

Now lower wages for low-income workers should mean higher 

profits for employers or maybe lower prices for consumers. But because the poorest 10 or 15 percent of workers are paid so little to 

begin with and account for such a small fraction of economic output, the gains to employers or to consumers is very tiny; or in the 

words of the Nation’s top immigration economist, the gains for 

America are minuscule for making the poor even poorer. 

Now why do illegals reduce wages? The main reason is not so 

much that they work for less. Instead, it’s basic economics—increase the supply of something, in this case less educated workers, 

you lower its price. And wages and benefits are the price employers 

pay for labor. This means that if you let illegal aliens stay, you 

have not solved the fundamental problem of the increase in the 

supply of such workers. 

Now some people think we have a labor shortage and point to 

the unemployment rate of 5 percent. However, a national unemployment rate of 5 percent is irrelevant to the illegal immigration 

debate because unemployment is 18 percent among young natives 

18 to 29 years of age, who have not completed high school. And for 

8

Blacks in this age group without education, it’s 35 percent. And 

this is as recently as May of this year. Unemployment is 10 percent 

for young natives, again 18 to 29, with only a high school degree. 

And for Blacks in that age group, it’s 16 percent. Unemployment 

is also 19 percent for native-born teens, age 15 to 17, and it’s 28 

percent for native-born Black teens. And these figures don’t include 

the enormous growth in the number of less educated natives who 

have given up looking for work altogether and don’t even show up 

now in unemployment figures. There is simply no evidence that we 

have a labor shortage at the bottom end of the labor market. 

Wages for workers with little education have either stagnated or 

declined. The share of such workers who were offered benefits like 

healthcare from their employers has declined. The share of less 

educated Americans who are not even looking for work and have 

left the labor force altogether, as I said, has risen. If there really 

was a shortage, employers should be bidding up wages and offering 

ever greater benefits packages and drawing more people into labor 

force. There is actually only one piece of evidence that that there 

is a labor shortage of less educated workers. And that is 

testimonials from employers. That’s it. All the other data the Government collects shows exactly the opposite. 

The only way one can justify allowing large numbers of less educated immigrants in is if one thinks the poor in this country are 

overpaid. 

Let me make one final point. Some observers think that we need 

large scale immigration because we’re an aging society and there 

won’t be enough workers in the future, or even maybe now. But demographers, the people who actually study human population, 

agree that immigration has very little impact on the aging of American society. For one thing, immigrants age just like everyone else. 

In the 2000 census, the average age of an immigrant was 39; the 

average age of a native was 35. The Census Bureau has concluded 

‘‘Immigration is a highly inefficient means for changing the ratio 

of workers to everyone else.’’

Those that want to let illegal aliens stay or double or even triple 

legal immigration from its current one million a year, at least have 

to understand that what the Senate Bill does will come at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable Americans. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Parra, why don’t you go next? Press 

the red button to turn the mic on. When you’re ready, I’ll push the 

button to start the timer. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Camarota follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN A. CAMAROTA

INTRODUCTION

Few government policies can have so profound impact on a nation as immigration. 

Large numbers of immigrants and their descendants cannot help but have a significant impact on the cultural, political, and economic situation in their new country. 

Over the last three decades, socio-economic conditions, especially in the developing 

world, in conjunction with U.S. immigration policy, have caused 25 million people 

to leave their homelands and emigrate legally to the United States. Additionally, 

the Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that the illegal alien popuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:42 Oct 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\FULL\082906\29655.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
9

1See ‘‘Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 

1990 to 2000’’ available at http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/Ill—Report—1211.pdf 

lation grows by 400,000 to 500,000 each year.1 The current influx has caused an 

enormous growth in the immigrant population, from 9.6 million in 1970 (4.8 percent 

of the population) to 36.2 million (12.1 percent of the population) today. 

As in the past, immigration has sparked an intense debate over the costs and benefits of allowing in such a large number of people. One of the central aspects of the 

immigration debate is its impact on the American economy. While the number of 

immigrants is very large, as I will try to explain in this paper the impact on the 

overall economy is actually very small. And these effects are even smaller when one 

focuses only on illegal aliens, who comprise one-fourth to one-third of all immigrants. While the impact on the economy as a whole may be tiny, the effect on some 

Americans, particular workers at the bottom of labor market may be quite large. 

These workers are especially vulnerable to immigrant competition because wages for 

these jobs are already low and immigrants are heavily concentrated in less-skilled 

and lower-paying jobs. In this paper I will try to explain some of the ways immigration impacts natives and the economy as a whole. 

FIVE REASONS IMMIGRATION CAN IMPACT WAGES

Immigrants Might Work for Less. For the most part, the research generally 

indicates that a few years after arrival, immigrant wages are very similar to those 

of natives in the same occupation with the same demographic characteristics. This 

may not be true in all places and at all times, but in general it seems that only 

newly arrived immigrants undercut native wages. This is probably true of illegal 

aliens as well. While immigrants as a group and illegals in particular do earn less 

than native-born workers, this is generally due to their much lower levels of education. In other words, immigrants are poorer than natives, but they generally earn 

wages commensurate with their skills, which as a group tend to be much lower than 

natives. 

Immigrants Are Seen as Better Employees. There is certainly a lot of anecdotal evidence and some systematic evidence that immigrants are seen as better 

workers by some employers, especially in comparison to native-born African Americans. It is certainly not uncommon to find small business men and women who will 

admit that they prefer Hispanic or Asian immigrants over native-born blacks. This 

is especially true of Hispanic and Asian employers, who often prefer to hire from 

within their own communities. We would expect this preference to result in lower 

wages and higher unemployment for those natives who are seen as less desirable. 

A study of the Harlem labor market by Newman and Lennon (1995) provides 

some systematic evidence that employers prefer immigrants to native-born blacks. 

Their study found that although immigrants were only 11 percent of the job candidates in their sample, they represented 26.4 percent of those hired. Moreover, 41 

percent of the immigrants in the sample were able to find employment within one 

year, in contrast to only 14 percent of native-born blacks. The authors concluded 

that immigrants fare better in the low-wage labor market because employers see immigrants as more desirable employees than native-born African-Americans. I have 

also found some evidence in my work that in comparison to whites, there is an 

added negative effect for being black and in competition with immigrants. 

The Threat of Further Immigration. While no real research has been done on 

this question, the threat of further immigration may also exert a significant downward pressure on wages. To see how this might work consider the following example: Workers in a meat packing plant that has seen a sudden rise in the number 

of immigrant workers will very quickly become aware that their employer now has 

another pool of labor from which he can draw. Thus, even if immigrants remain a 

relatively small portion of the plant’s total workforce, because of our relatively open 

immigration policy, the potential of further immigration exists. Therefore, nativeborn workers curtail their demands for higher wages in response to the threat of 

more immigration and this in turn holds down wages beyond what might be expected simply by looking at the number of immigrants in an occupation or even the 

country as a whole. 

Immigration Increases the Supply of Labor. By far the most important impact immigration has on the workforce is that it increases the supply of labor. Based 

on the March 2005 Current Population Survey, there were almost 21 million adult 

10

2Figures for 2005 are from ‘‘Immigrants at Mid-Decade: A Snapshot of American’s Foreignborn Population in 2005, which can be found at www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1405.html. 3 3George Borjas and Richard Freeman’s New York Times Opinion piece can be found at http:/

/ksghome.harvard.edu/GBorjas/Papers/NYT121097.htm . 4 Altonji, Joseph G. and David Card. 1991. ‘‘The Effects of Immigration on the Labor Market 

Outcomes of Less-skilled Natives’’ in John M. Abowd and Richard B. Freeman editors, Immigration, Trade and Labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Borjas, George. 1984. ‘‘The Impact of Immigrants on the Earnings of the Native-Born,’’ W.M. 

Briggs and M. Tienda, Editors, Immigration: Issues and Policies, Salt Lake City: Olympus. 

Borjas, George J. 1983. ‘‘The Substitutability of Black, Hispanic and White Labor. Economic 

Inquiry, Vol. 21. 

Butcher, Kristin F. and David Card. 1991. ‘‘Immigration and Wages: Evidence from the 

1980s,’’ The American Economic Review Vol 81.

immigrants holding jobs in the United States.2 However, they are not distributed 

evenly across occupations. In 2005, 30 percent of immigrants in the labor market 

had no high school education, and for those who entered in the preceding five years, 

34 percent lacked a high school degree. In comparison, only 8 percent of natives in 

the work force did not have a high school education. Overall, immigrants comprise 

15 percent of the total workforce. But they are 40 percent of those without high 

school diplomas in the work force, while accounting for 12 percent of workers with 

more than a high school education. 

The occupational distribution of immigrants also shows their high concentration 

in jobs that require relatively few skills. In 2005, immigrants made up 6 percent 

of persons in legal services occupations (primarily lawyers and support staff), and 

9 percent of individuals in managerial jobs. In contrast, they comprised 34 percent 

of workers doing building clearing and maintenance, and 26 percent of construction 

laborers. This means immigration has increased the supply of the some kinds of 

workers much more than others. As a result, any effect on the wages or job opportunities of natives will likely fall on natives employed in less-skilled and low-paying 

occupations. Given that they face much more job competition, it should not be surprising that less educated workers generally have a less favorable view of immigration. In contrast, more educated and affluent workers who generally have a more 

favorable view of immigration tend to see immigrants as only ‘‘taking jobs Americans don’t want.’’

Workers not in Competition with Immigrants. If immigration reduces wages 

for less educated workers, these wages do not vanish into thin air. Employers now 

have more money either to pay higher wages to more educated workers or to retain 

as higher profits. The National Research Council, in a 1997 study entitled ‘‘The New 

Americans,’’ estimated that immigration reduced the wages of workers with less 

than a high school degree by about 5 percent. These workers roughly correspond to 

the poorest 10 percent of the workforce. But this reduction caused gains for the 

other 90 percent of workers equal to one or two tenths of one percent of their wages. 

The impact on educated workers is so small because workers at the bottom end of 

the labor market earn such low wages that even a significant decline in their wages 

only generates very modest gains for everyone else. 

For reasons explained in greater detail in the NRC report, the aggregate size of 

the wage gains for more educated workers should be larger than the aggregate 

losses suffered by Americans at the bottom of the labor market, thereby generating 

a net gain for natives overall. The NRC’s findings mean that the wages of workers 

without a high school degree are $13 billion lower because of immigration, while the 

wages of other natives are roughly $19 billion higher, for a net gain of $6 billion. 

Of course, as a share of their income the losses to less-educated natives are much 

larger than the gains to other workers. And as share of the total economy the gain 

is extremely small. The two Harvard economists who did the NRC’s labor market 

analysis argued that the benefit to natives, relative to the nation’s $8 trillion economy at that time, is ‘‘minuscule.’’ 3 However, it should also be noted that while the 

effect on natives overall may be minuscule, the immigrants themselves benefit substantially by coming here. 

Empirical Research 

Attempts to measure the actual labor market effects of recent immigration empirically have often come to contrary and conflicting conclusions. Studies done in the 

1980s and early 1990s, which compared cities with different proportions of immigrants, generally found little effect from immigration.4 However, these studies have 

been widely criticized because they are based on the assumption that the labor market effects of immigration are confined to only those cities where immigrants reside.

Impact of Immigration Is National Not Local. The interconnected nature of 

the nation’s economy makes comparisons of this kind very difficult for several reaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:42 Oct 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\FULL\082906\29655.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
11

5Frey, William H. 1993. Race, Class and Poverty Polarization of US Metro Areas: Findings 

from the 1990 Census, Ann Arbor, Mich.: Population Studies Center. 

Frey, William H. 1996. ‘‘Immigration, Domestic Migration, and Demographic Balkanization in 

America: New Evidence for the 1990s,’’ Population and Development Review. Vol. 22. 6 Edmonston, Barry and James Smith Ed. 1997. The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, 

and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. 7Steven Camarota 1998. ‘‘The Wages of Immigration: The Effect on the Low-Skilled Labor 

Market,’’ Washington D.C.: Center for Immigration Studies. Camarota, Steven A. 1997. ‘‘The Effect of Immigrants on the Earnings of Low-skilled Native Workers: Evidence from the June 1991 

Current Population Survey,’’ Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 78. 8For a technical version of Dr. Borjas research see http://ksghome.harvard.edu/GBorjas/Papers/QJE2003.pdf, for a less technical version see www.cis.org/articles/2004/back504.html . 

sons. Research by University of Michigan demographer William Frey 5 and others, 

indicates that native-born workers, especially those natives with few years of schooling, tend to migrate out of high-immigrant areas. The migration of natives out of 

high-immigrant areas spreads the labor market effects of immigration from these 

areas to the rest of the country. There is also evidence that as the level of immigration increases to a city, the in-migration of natives is reduced.

In addition to internal migration patterns, the huge volume of goods and services 

exchanged between cities across the country creates pressure toward an equalization 

in the price of labor. For example, newly arrived immigrants who take jobs in manufacturing in a high-immigrant city such as Los Angeles come into direct and immediate competition with natives doing the same work in a low-immigrant city like 

Pittsburgh. The movement of capital seeking to take advantage of any immigrantinduced change in the local price of labor should also play a role in preserving wage 

equilibrium between cities. Beside the response of native workers and firms, immigrants themselves tend to migrate to those cities with higher wages and lower unemployment. In short, the mobility of labor, goods, and capital as well as choices 

made by immigrants may diffuse the effect of immigration, making it very difficult 

to determine the impact of immigration by comparing cities. 

The National Research Council. One way researchers have attempted to deal 

with the problems associated with cross-city comparisons is to estimate the increase 

in the supply of labor in one skill category relative to another skill category brought 

about by immigration in the country as a whole. The wage consequences of immigration are then calculated based on an existing body of literature that has examined 

the wage effects of changes in the ratio of skilled to unskilled workers. The National 

Research Council (NRC) relied on this method in its 1997 report entitled The New 

Americans.6 The report was authored by most of the top economists and demographers in the field of immigration. The NRC estimates that immigration has had 

a significant negative effects on the wages of high school dropouts. The NRC concluded that the wages of this group, 11 million of whom are natives, are reduced 

by roughly 5 percent ($13 billion a year) as a consequence of immigration. Not a 

small effect. Dropouts make up a large share of the working poor. Nearly one out 

of three native workers living in poverty lacked a high school education. The wage 

losses suffered by high school dropouts because of immigration are roughly equal 

to the combined federal expenditures on subsidized School Lunches, low-income energy assistance, and the Women Infants and Children program. 

Center for Immigration Studies Research. My own research suggests that the 

effect of immigration may be even greater than the estimates in the NRC report.7

I compared differences across occupations nationally and found that the concentration of immigrants in an occupation does adversely affect the wages of natives in 

the same occupation. My results show that immigrants have a significant negative 

effect on the wages of natives employed in occupations that require relatively few 

years of schooling, accounting for about one-fifth of the labor force. In these occupations, a 1 percent increase in the immigrant composition reduces the wages of natives by 0.8 percent. Since these occupations are now on average 19 percent immigrant, my findings suggest that immigration may reduce the wages of workers in 

these occupation by more than 10 percent. It should also be added that native-born 

blacks and Hispanics are much more likely than whites to be employed in the adversely impacted occupations. 

Other Research on Wages. Harvard professor George Borjas, who is regarded 

as the nation’s leading immigration economist, found in a study published in 2003 

by the Quarterly Journal of Economics that between 1980 and 2000, immigration 

reduced the average annual earnings of native-born men by an estimated $1,700 or 

roughly 4 percent.8 Among natives without a high school education, who roughly 

correspond to the poorest tenth of the workforce, the estimated impact was even 

larger, reducing their wages by 7.4 percent. The 10 million native-born workers 

without a high school degree face the most competition from immigrants, as do the 

12

9Kposowa, Augustine J. 1995. ‘‘The Impact of Immigration on Unemployment and Earnings 

Among Racial Minorities in the United States.’’ Racial and Ethnic Studies, Vol. 18. 10The report entitled ‘‘Dropping Out: Immigrant Entry and Native Exit From the Labor Force, 

2000–2005’’ can be found at www.cis.org/articles/2006/back206.html. 

eight million younger natives with only a high school education and 12 million 

younger college graduates. The negative effect on native-born black and Hispanic 

workers is significantly larger than on whites because a much larger share of minorities are in direct competition with immigrants. 

While most of those adversely affected are less educated workers, Borjas’s re- search indicates that the impact of immigration is throughout the labor market. The 

results for more skilled workers are particularly important because few of the immigrants in this section of the economy are illegal aliens, yet the effect is the same— lower wages for natives. This new research strongly indicates that the primary reason immigration lowers wages is not that immigrants are willing to work for less, 

rather lower wages are simply the result of immigration increasing the supply of 

labor. 

Impact on Employment. While most research has focused on wage effects of immigration, some work has also found an impact on employment. A 1995 study by 

Augustine J. Kposowa found that a 1-percent increase in the immigrant composition 

of a metropolitan area increased unemployment among minorities by 0.13 percent.9

She concludes, ‘‘Non-whites appear to lose jobs to immigrants and their earnings are 

depressed by immigrants.’’ A 1997 report published by the Rand Corporation, entitled ‘‘Immigration in a Changing Economy: California’s Experience,’’ and authored 

by Kevin McCarthy and Georges Vernez (1997) estimated that in California between 

128,200 and 194,000 people were unemployed or withdrawn from the workforce because of immigration. Almost all of these individuals either are high school dropouts 

or have only a high school degree. Additionally, most are either women or minorities. 

Impact on Employment post-2000. More recent work done on immigration also 

suggests that immigration may adversely impact native employment. A report I authored for the Center for Immigration Studies early this year showed that only 9 

percent of the net increase in jobs for adults (18 to 64) went to natives between 2000 

and 2005, event though adult natives accounted for 61 percent of the increase in 

the overall size of the 16-to-64 year old population. Looking at adult natives with 

only a high school degree or less, the number of these less-educated natives not in 

the labor force, which means they are not working or looking for work, increased 

by 1.5 million between 2000 and 2005. At the same time, the number of adult immigrants (legal and illegal) in the labor force with only a high school degree or less 

grew by 1.6 million. Of perhaps greatest concern, the percentage of adult natives 

without a high school degree who are in the labor force fell from 59.1 to 56.3 percent 

between 2000 and 2005 and for natives with only a high school degree it fell from 

78.2 to 75.4 percent.10 In total there are 11.6 million immigrants in the labor force 

with only a high school degree or less, about half are illegal aliens. 

Data collected since Katrina still shows no improvement in labor force participation for either native-born dropouts or those with only a high school degree. Only 

unemployment among native-born dropouts has improved, but not for natives with 

only a high school degree. The decline in less-educated adult natives (18 to 64) in 

the labor market does not seem to be the result of more parents staying home with 

young children, increased college enrollment or early retirement. The workers themselves are not the only thing to consider, nearly half of American children (under 

18) are dependent on a less-educated worker, and 71 percent of children of the native-born working poor depend on a worker with a high school degree or less. The 

findings of our 2005 employment study are very consistent with research on this 

subject. Andrew Sum and his colleagues at Northeastern University have also published several reports showing that all or almost all job growth from 2000 to 2004 

went to immigrants. 

A recent report by the Pew Hispanic Center found no consistent pattern with regard to native employment between states that experienced a large influx of immigrants and states that had relatively few immigrants. Two key points need to be 

made about this report: First, as already discussed, it is not at all clear that one 

can measure the impact of immigration by looking at local labor markets. Second, 

the report does not focus on trends among persons under age 30 or 35, who have 

seen the biggest decline in employment in the last 5 years. In fact, Pew only looks 

at workers 25 year and older. Thus many of he workers most effect are excluded 

by Pew, and the rest are lumped in with older workers whose employment has not 

declined significantly. 

Benefits of Immigration 

13

11These figures and ones on aging that follow can be found in a 2005 report by the Center 

for Immigration Studies entitled, ‘‘Immigration in an Aging Society: Workers, Birth Rates, and 

Social Security,’’ which can be found at www.cis.org/articles/2005/back505.html . 12 12See page 21 of the Census Bureau’s ‘‘Methodology and Assumptions for the Population 

Projections of the United States: 1999 to 2100.’’ The report can be found at www.census.gov/

population/www/documentation/twps0038.pdf 

Of course, it is important to realize that wage losses suffered by the unskilled do 

not vanish into thin air. As already discussed, the NRC estimated that the gain resulting from the wage loses suffered by the unskilled is equal to about one or two 

tenths of one percent of our total economy. Thus, additional unskilled immigration 

can be justified on the grounds that it creates a very small net benefit for the country as a whole, though it is harmful for unskilled workers. There is some debate 

about the net benefit of immigration. A 2002 study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), entitled ‘‘Technological Superiority and the 

Losses from Migration,’’ found that there is no economic gain from immigration. In fact the loss to all natives totals nearly $70 billion dollars. But it must be remembered that neither the NRC study or NBER study takes into account the benefits 

to immigrants. 

Impact on an Aging Society 

Some observers think that without large scale immigration, there will not be 

enough people of working age to support the economy or pay for government. It is 

certainly true that immigration has increased the number of workers in the United 

States. It is also true that immigrants tend to arrive relatively young, and that they 

tend to have more children than native-born Americans. Demographers, the people 

who study human populations, have done a good deal of research on the actual impact of immigration on the age structure. There is widespread agreement that immigration has very little impact on the aging of American society. Immigrants age just 

like everyone else; moreover the differences with natives are not large enough to significantly alter the nation’s age structure. This simple fact can be seen clearly in 

the 2000 Census, which showed that the average age of an immigrants was 39, compared to 35 for natives.11

Another way to think about the impact of immigration on the aging of American 

society is to look at the working-age population. In 2000, 66.2 percent of the population was of working-age (15 to 64), but when all post-1980 immigrants are not 

counted, plus all of their U.S.-born children, the working-age share would have been 

65.9 percent in 2000. Immigration also does not explain the relatively high U.S. fertility rate. In 2000, the U.S. fertility rate was 2.1 children per woman, compared 

to 1.4 for Europe, but if all immigrants are excluded the rate would still have been 

2.0. Looking to the future, Census Bureau projections indicate that if net immigration averaged 100,000 to 200,000 annually, the working age share would be 58.7 

percent in 2060, while with net immigration of roughly 900,000 to one million, it 

would be 59.5 percent. As the Bureau states in the 2000 publication, immigration 

is a ‘‘highly inefficient’’ means for increasing the working age share of the population in the long-run.12 Census projections are buttressed by Social Security Administration (SAA) estimates showing that over the next 75 years, net legal immigration of 800,000 a year versus 350,000 would create a benefit equal to only 0.77 

percent of the program’s projected expenditures. 

Of course, it must be emphasized that immigration does not make the country 

older. In fact, the impact is slightly positive. But, one can advocate less immigration 

secure in the knowledge that it will not cause the population to age more age rapidly. There is no doubt that the aging of the nation’s population will create very real 

challenges. But the level of immigration is almost entirely irrelevant to this problem. America will simply have to look elsewhere to met these challenges. 

Policy Discussion 

Knowing that low-skilled natives are made poorer or their unemployment increased by immigration does not tell us what, if anything, we should do about it. 

The extent to which we take action to deal with the wage and employment effects 

of immigration depends on how concerned we are about the wages of less-skilled natives. A number of scholars have argued that the inability of low-skilled workers to 

find work and earn a living wage contributes significantly to such social problems 

as welfare dependency, family breakup, and crime. One need not accept all the arguments made in this regard to acknowledge that a significant reduction in employment opportunities for the poorest Americans is a cause for real concern. 

Help Workers But Leave Immigration Policy Unchanged. If we wish to do 

something about the effects of immigration, there are two possible sets of policy options that could be pursued. The first set would involve leaving immigration policy 

in place and doing more to ameliorate the harmful effects of immigration on natives 

14

13See Footnote 1. 

in low-skilled occupations Since the research indicates that the negative impact 

from immigration falls on those employed at the bottom of the labor market, an increase in the minimum wage may be helpful in offsetting some of the wage effects 

of immigration, though doing so may exacerbate the unemployment effect. Most 

economists think that the minimum wage tends to increase unemployment. Increasing the minimum wage and keeping unskilled immigration high, may make this 

problem even worse. 

Another program that might be helpful in assisting those harmed by immigrant 

competition is the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). There is little doubt that the 

Credit increases the income of low-wage workers. However, in addition to the high 

cost to taxpayers, the Credit may also hold down wages because it acts as a subsidy 

to low-wage employers. That is, employers have less incentive to increase wages because workers are now being paid in part by the federal government. Cutting lowand unskilled immigration, on the other hand, has no such down side for less-skilled 

workers nor is it costly to taxpayers. Moreover, the Credit only increases earnings 

for those with jobs, it does not address increased unemployment among the lessskilled that comes with immigration. Finally, it is not clear how much increasing 

the minimum wage or the EITC would be helpful in dealing with the decline in 

labor force participation among less educated natives discussed above. 

Reducing Unskilled Legal Immigration. The second set of policy options that 

might be enacted to deal with this problem would involve changing immigration policy with the intent of reducing job competition for natives and immigrants already 

here. If we were to reduce unskilled legal immigration we might want to change the 

selection criteria to ensure that immigrants entering the country will not compete 

directly with the poorest and most vulnerable workers. At present, only about 12 

percent of legal immigrants are admitted based on their skills or education. Since 

two-third of permanent residency visas are issued based on family relationships, reducing the flow of low-skilled legal immigrants would involve reducing the number 

of visas based on family relationships. This might include eliminating the preferences now in the law for the siblings and adult children (over 21) of U.S. citizens 

and the adult children of legal permanent residents. These changes would not only 

reduce low-skilled legal immigration immediately, they would also limit the chain 

migration of low-skilled immigrants that occurs as the spouses of those admitted in 

the sibling and adult child categories petition to bring in their relatives. 

Reducing Unskilled Illegal Immigration. In addition to reducing the flow of 

low-skilled legal immigrants, a greater allocation of resources could be devoted to 

controlling illegal immigration, especially in the interior of the country. About one 

half of the immigrants working in such occupations as construction, building cleaning and maintenance, and food processing and preparation are estimated to be illegal aliens according to my own analysis and research done by the Pew Hispanic 

Center. A strategy of attrition through enforcement offers the best hope of reducing 

illegal immigration. The goal of such a policy would be to make illegals go home 

or self deport. The former INS estimates that 165,000 illegals go home each year, 

50,000 are deported, and 25,000 die. But some 800,000 to 900,000 new illegals enter 

each year so there is a net growth of 400,000 to 500,000 a year.13 If America becomes less hospitable to illegals, many more will simply decide to go home. 

The centerpiece to interior enforcement would be to enforce the law barring 

illegals from holding jobs by using national databases that already exist to ensure 

that each new hire is legally entitled to work here. In 2004, only four employers 

were fined for hiring illegals. The IRS must also stop accepting Social Security numbers that it knows are bogus. We also need to make a much greater effort to deny 

illegal aliens things like divers licenses, bank accounts, loans, in-state college tuition, etc. Local law enforcement can play an additional role. When an illegal is encountered in the normal course of police work, the immigration service should pick 

that person up and deport him. More agents and fencing are clearly needed at the 

border as well. 

Conclusion 

As discussed above, the impact of immigration on the overall economy is almost 

certainly very small. Its short- and long-term impact demographically on the share 

of the population that is of working age is also very small. It probably makes more 

sense for policymakers to focus on the winners and losers from immigration. The 

big losers are natives working in low-skilled low-wage jobs. Of course, technological 

change and increased trade also have reduced the labor market opportunities for 

low-wage workers in the Untied States. But immigration is different because it is 

a discretionary policy that can be altered. On the other hand, immigrants are the 

15

big winners, as are owners of capital and skilled workers, but their gains are tiny 

relative to their income. 

In the end, arguments for or against immigration are as much political and moral 

as they are economic. The latest research indicates that we can reduce immigration 

secure in the knowledge that it will not harm the economy. Doing so makes sense 

if we are very concerned about low-wage and less-skilled workers in the United 

States. On the other hand, if one places a high priority on helping unskilled workers 

in other countries, then allowing in a large number of such workers should continue. 

Of course, only an infinitesimal proportion of the world’s poor could ever come to 

this country even under the most open immigration policy one might imagine. Those 

who support the current high level of unskilled legal and illegal immigration should 

at least do so with an understanding that those American workers harmed by the 

policies they favor are already the poorest and most vulnerable.

TESTIMONY OF RICARDO PARRA,

MIDWEST COUNCIL OF LA RAZA 

Mr. PARRA. Members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for 

allowing me to speak and inviting me, and also thanking the public 

to be present to witness the hearing here. My name is Ricardo 

Parra. 

I would like to get directly into the subject about the impact on 

U.S. workers. I’m sure that in keeping with the theme of the field 

hearing, ‘‘The Reid-Kennedy Bill: The Effect on American Workers’

Wages and Employment Opportunities,’’ some will represent studies that undocumented immigrants are impacting American workers. At the end of this report, you will find recent studies that dispute those claims. 

For example, the study ‘‘Growth in the Foreign-Born Workforce 

and Employment of Native-Born,’’ Pew Hispanic Center, August 10, 

2006. This report shows that rapid increases in foreign-born populations at the State level are not associated with negative effects 

on employment of native-born workers. 

Also, new data released by the Census Bureau August 15 accent 

the magnitude to which immigration continues to fuel the expansion of the U.S. labor force. The study ‘‘Growth and Reach of Immigration,’’ Rob Paral, Immigration Policy Center, August 16, 2006. 

Earlier in June, 500-plus economists, including five Nobel Laureates—Thomas C. Schelling, University of Maryland; Robert Lucas, 

University of Chicago; Daniel McFadden, University of California, 

Berkeley; Vernon Smith, George Mason University; and James 

Heckman, University of Chicago indicated immigration was an economic plus, saying ‘‘the gains from immigration outweigh the 

losses.’’

Fact: Immigrant labor is needed to fill jobs in the U.S. that older, 

more educated American workforce is not willing to fill, especially 

at the low wage and poor working conditions many unscrupulous 

employers offer. Currently, there are approximately nine million 

undocumented workers in the U.S. filling important gaps in the 

labor market. There is substantial evidence that their presence in 

the labor force creates jobs and strengthens local economies. Fact 

is undocumented immigrants contribute to the process of wealth 

creation. 

So here we have the hearings, the field hearings. Many people 

say it’s a lot of spin and I think we have to stop the spin. We can 

do better. The American people want Congress to stop the spin and 

work on real issues to real problems, like the broken immigration 

16

system. But instead of sitting down to negotiate with the Senate 

over workable immigration reform, House leaders are stalling and 

conducting an anti-immigrant road show. They want to portray all 

immigrants as criminals and terrorists, to manufacture support for 

their ‘‘get-tough’’ and ‘‘get-tough only’’ approach to immigration reform. But the American people won’t buy it. They want Congress 

to get back to work and to come up with real solutions that is fair 

and practical: a comprehensive immigration reform bill that recognizes reality, rewards work, and restores the rule of law to immigration. 

To enforce our immigration laws, we need to make them enforceable. Our broken immigration system is a complex problem that 

needs a comprehensive overhaul. We’ve been implementing piecemeal measures for 20 years, which have made the system more 

complex, but not more controlled. ‘‘Seal the border’’ is a sound bite. ‘‘Enforce our laws’’ is a sound bite. Comprehensive reform is a solution, and only by changing our laws to meet economic need and 

family ties will we be able to restore control and order to our system. ‘‘Enforcement-only’’ or ‘‘enforcement-first’’ is the status quo, more 

of the same, and a prescription for failure. For the past 20 years, 

we have tried enforcement-first and enforcement-only. The result 

has been a spectacular failure. People smuggling has become big 

business. Fake document merchants have plenty of customers. Unscrupulous employers have a large pool of exploitable workers. 

Families stay separated for years. Hundreds die in the desert each 

year. There are 12 million undocumented immigrants and counting 

and Americans all across the U.S. are angry at the Government’s 

failure. In light of all this, calls for more of the same do not make 

sense. Illegal immigration happens because we have jobs or loved 

ones on this side of the border and an insufficient number of legal 

visas for these workers and family members. We must deal with 

reality. 

Proposals that ignore the 12 million undocumented immigrants 

in our midst are not serious proposals No reform proposal can be 

taken seriously if it assumes that undocumented immigrants will 

simply go away if we get tough enough. It also does not make sense 

to treat those workers as hardened criminals. They’re already part 

of our workforce and have U.S. citizen and legal resident family 

members. Making them into criminals would only drive them further underground and we would know even less about who they 

are. A much better solution would be to bring them out of the shadows so that we can find out who they are, put them through background checks and security screening, make sure they are all on 

the tax rolls and make them earn their citizenship over time by 

learning English, keeping a clean record and continuing to contribute to our country. 

Proposals that pretend we don’t need immigrant workers are also 

not serious proposals. Let’s get real. We have jobs on this side of 

the borders and workers clamoring to fill them on the other side. 

Time to wrap it up? Okay, thank you very much. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you, Mr. Parra. 

Dr. Briggs. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Parra follows:]

17

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICARDO PARRA


RP0001.eps
18


RP0002.eps
19


RP0003.eps
20


RP0004.eps
21


RP0005.eps
22


RP0006.eps
23


RP0007.eps
24


RP0008.eps
25


RP0009.eps
26


RP0010.eps
27


RP0011.eps
28


RP0012.eps
29


RP0013.eps
30


RP0014.eps
31

TESTIMONY OF VERNON BRIGGS, PROFESSOR OF INDUSTRIAL 

AND LABOR RELATIONS, CORNELL UNIVERSITY 

Mr. BRIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Press the red button so the mic works. 

Mr. BRIGGS. Oh, yes. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My 

comments may seem glib but the support is in the lengthy testimony, so I hope people have a chance to read it carefully. Also, 

when I use the term ‘‘American worker’’ that means not only native-born Americans, but it also means those people who are naturalized citizens, people who are permanent resident aliens and 

those who are legally allowed to be here. So when I use ‘‘American 

workers,’’ it is not something that I am simply trying to distinguish 

between foreign-born and native-born, it includes them. 

Immigration reform is the domestic imperative of our time, but 

only in the past 41 years in which this issue exploded. It was totally unexpected, there was nothing—no anticipation was ever 

given to what happened, the explosion of mass immigration. It 

wasn’t supposed to happen; it did happen. And that should be a 

warning when we take action in terms of legislation, it has had 

enormous unexpected consequences. We ought to be very careful on 

what we enact, that ought to be an overriding lesson. 

With respect to impact of immigration, the one place where immigration is most significant is on the labor force. As Samuel Gompers, the former President of the American Federation of Labor, 

many years ago wrote, ‘‘Immigration is, in its most fundamental 

aspect, a labor issue.’’ Immigrants, regardless of how they come 

into the country or how they’re admitted, usually go directly into 

the labor force, as do their spouses and their children, no matter 

what criteria we admit them in. So that the labor market is the 

ultimate test of what the impact of immigration is all about. 

Today, we have 12 million illegal immigrants in the country, 

about 500,000 a year adding to that number. This is in addition to 

the six million illegal immigrants who have been given amnesty by 

seven different amnesties since 1986. It is incredible when you 

think of this. In addition to the illegal immigration we have today, 

you’ve given seven amnesties to six million others. 

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 started the 

process of granting amnesties. It enacted a system of employer 

sanctions that were supposed to largely stop the future flow. But 

it was quickly realized that employer sanctions had severe problems. Without a reliable and verifiable identification system in 

place, fraudulent documents were easily obtained. Likewise, there 

was no internal enforcement—none, and very little inside the country at the work sites. And at the borders, vastly inadequate resources in manpower was provided to manage border entry. 

Consequently, for many employers, they came to view violations 

of IRCA as simply risk-free, who cares. And as far as illegal immigrants, why not come, no one is going to stop you if you do try. So 

them came. 

The main reasons—this is what I want to emphasize—that employer sanctions were enacted—and I have testified before Congress for 25 years on this issue strongly—was to protect the AmerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:42 Oct 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\FULL\082906\29655.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
32

ican worker from competition for jobs from people that are not even 

supposed to be in the country, much less in the labor force, period. 

The point is often overlooked that when we do an immigration 

reform, the existing shortcomings must make getting those who 

have violated the law out of the labor force as well as including 

those who might come in the future. That’s critical to it. 

Presently, there are over seven million illegal immigrants in the 

labor force. But it’s not just the high number that, as I’ve said, has 

importance. Overwhelmingly these illegal immigrants are poorly 

skilled and poorly educated. Estimated about 83, 84 percent have 

only a high school diploma or less, of the illegal immigration population. This means it’s only a small portion of this labor force. 

Comparisons with State levels or national levels are totally irrelevant. Illegal immigrants compete with the poor and the low wage 

sector of the labor market. That’s the people who carry the burden 

and that’s the ones that public policy should be concerned about. 

Tragically, the most economic disadvantaged in the economy and 

the ones who needed the protection the most are the ones who bear 

the direct competition by illegal immigrants. Worse yet, in this bitter competition at the bottom of which there are 34 million low 

wage workers in the United States—34 million of them—it’s these 

persons who are bearing the competition of the illegal immigrants. 

And in this competition, the game is rigged. The illegal immigrants 

will always win in the competition for jobs—always. No matter how 

hard the American workers, as defined, citizens and native-born, 

try, they’re going to lose in that competition. Illegal immigrants 

will accept low wages, long hours, work and not complain under deplorable conditions and violation of labor laws. They will do this 

consistently because their orbit of comparison is the wages and 

working conditions in the country which they come from, which are 

always worse than they are here in the United States no matter 

how bad they are in this country. 

So many American workers come to prefer illegal immigrants, 

they want illegal immigrants if they can get them. And it’s simply 

wrong to say that illegal immigrants take jobs that American workers will not do. The reason American workers will not do these jobs 

for the same low wages, long hours, bad working conditions that 

illegals will and they would not have to if the illegal immigrants 

weren’t there. These jobs would be performed but they’d be performed by people with better standards of living. That’s the whole 

purpose of it. 

In the low skilled labor market, American workers know that 

employers typically consider workers as being dispensable. The 

work may be actually essential that these people do, but in the low 

skilled labor market, it doesn’t matter who does it. As long as 

someone can be found to do the work, there’s no reason for an employer to improve the terms of employment. The tragedy for low 

skilled American workers is that the permissive immigration policy 

has enabled a growing pool of illegal immigrants who are not only 

willing to work under deplorable working conditions, but are actually grateful for the opportunity to work under these awful conditions. There are now tens of thousands of jobs, as documented in 

studies cited in the paper, for which no American worker needs to 

33

1For a discussion of how the ‘‘unexpected’’ came to be, see Vernon M. Briggs Jr., Mass Immigration and the National Interest, (Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. 2003), Chapter 10. 2Samuel Gompers, Seventy Years of Life and Labor, (New York: Dutton, 1925), Volume 2, p. 

154. 

apply, they will not be hired. The employers prefer the illegal immigrants and if they’re there, that’s what they want. 

So American workers are being harmed and it’s the low wage, 

low skill, the lowest production of our Government who have the 

greatest impact. Getting illegal immigrants out of the labor force 

is as important as keeping the future illegals out. 

In addition to the adverse impact on American workers, the presence of illegal immigrants on these terms has led to exploitation, 

massive exploitation. The literature is rampant with examples of 

extortion, physical abuse, human slavery, wage kickbacks, child 

labor, sexual harassment, job accidents, sweat shop working conditions. All of this because we have allowed and tried to make excuses for illegal immigration. We need to get illegal immigrants out 

of the labor force. 

I see my time has expired. I haven’t got to the Senate Bill 2611, 

but I will if you’ll give me a question later. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Dr. Briggs. 

Dr. Harrington. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Briggs follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VERNON M. BRIGGS, JR. 

‘‘We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is 

in it—and stop there, less we be like the cat that sits on a hot stove-lid. She 

will never sit down on a hot lid again—and that is well; but also she will 

never sit down on a cold one anymore.’’—Mark Twain

Immigration reform is the domestic policy imperative of our time. The revival of 

the phenomenon of mass immigration from out of the nation’s distant past was the 

accidental by-product of the passage of the Immigration Act of 1965.1 Immigration 

had been declining as a percentage of the population since 1914 and in absolute 

numbers since 1930. In 1965, only 4.4 percent of the population was foreign born— the lowest percentage in all of U.S. history and totaled 8.5 million people (the lowest 

absolute number since 1880). There was absolutely no intention in 1965 to increase 

the level of immigration. The post-World War ‘‘baby boom’’ was on the verge of pouring a tidal wave of new labor force entrants into the labor market in 1965 and 

would continue to do so for the next 16 years. Instead, the stated goal of the 1965 

legislation was to rid the immigration system of the overtly discriminatory admission system that had been in effect since 1924. But as subsequent events were to 

reveal, this legislation let the ‘‘Genie out of the jug.’’ Without any warning to the 

people of the nation, the societal changing force of mass immigration was released 

on an unsuspecting American economy and its labor force. By 2005, the foreign-born 

population had soared to 35.5 million persons (or 12.1 percent of the population) and 

there were over 22 million workers in the labor force (or 14.7 percent of the labor 

force). 

Clearly, the overarching conclusion from the experiences of the past 41 years is 

that, when it comes to immigration reform, legislative changes should only be taken 

with great caution. While there is common agreement that the existing system requires major changes, the need for reforms should not be seen as an opportunity 

to introduce a myriad of dubious provisions—each of which has significant labor 

market implications—simply to placate the opportunistic pleadings of special interest groups. 

Immigration is a policy-driven issue. Policy changes make a difference. Any 

changes should be to the benefit of the nation—especially the welfare of its existing 

labor force. For as America’s most influential labor leader, Samuel Gompers, observed in his autobiography: ‘‘Immigration is, in all of its fundamental aspects is 

a labor problem.’’ 2 For no matter how immigrants are admitted or by what means 

they enter the United States, most adult immigrants immediately join the labor 

force following their entry as do today many of their spouses and, eventually, most 

34

3 Jeffrey Passel, ‘‘The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the 

U.S.’’ Research Report, (Washington, D.C.: The Pew Hispanic Center, 2006), p.1. 4The legalization programs have been: The Immigration Reform and Control Act (2.7 million 

adjustments in two separate amnesties); Section 245i rolling amnesties in 1994 and its legislative extension in 1997 (578.000 adjustments); the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American 

Relief Act of 1997 (1 million adjustments); the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 

1998 (125,000 adjustments); the Late Amnesty Agreement of 2000 between President William 

Clinton and Congressional leaders to allow 400,000 illegal immigrants adjustments because, it 

was alleged, they should have qualified for one of the IRCA amnesties of 1986; and the Legal 

Immigration and Family Equity Act of 2000 (900,000 adjustments). 

of their children. Immigration has economic consequences, which political leaders 

need to take into account when making any policy decisions. 

‘‘THE HOT STOVE-LID’’ ISSUE: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

The underlying reform issue that must be addressed before any others is illegal 

immigration. It makes no sense to debate remedies for deficiencies and/or additions 

to the extant immigration system when mass violations of whatever is enacted are 

tolerated year after year after year. The accumulated stock of illegal immigrants is 

believed to number between 11.5 to 12 million persons.3 The annual additional flow 

is estimated to be between 300,000 to 500,000 persons. Many believe these estimates are too low. Worse yet, these numbers exist despite the fact that over 6 million illegal immigrants have been allowed to legalize their status as the result of 

seven amnesties granted by the federal government since 1986.4 No other element 

of immigration reform has any claim of priority over the enactment of measures to 

end this scourge to effective policy implementation. The hemorrhage of illegal immigrants has not only made a mockery of the nation’s immigration laws, it has seriously undermined the public’s confidence in their own government’s ability to secure 

its borders and control the nation’s destiny. 

Despite the fact that the issue of illegal immigration had been identified soon 

after the Immigration Act of 1965 was passed, it took Congress another 21 years 

to finally confront the issue. It did so with the passage of the Immigration Reform 

and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). This legislation made it illegal for an employer to 

hire a non-citizen unless that person had specific authorization to work (i.e., they 

were a permanent resident alien of the United States or they held a specific nonimmigrant visa that permitted them to work under specific terms for a temporary 

time period). A scale of escalating civil penalties coupled with the potential of criminal penalties for serious repeat offenders was established. 

IRCA also granted a general amnesty to most illegal immigrants living in the 

country since January 1, 1982 and an industry-specific amnesty to most illegal immigrants who had worked in the perishable-crop sector of the agricultural industry 

for at least 90 days between May 1, 1985 and May 1, 1986. These amnesties were 

deemed necessary because, prior to the passage of IRCA, our immigration policies 

were seen as being ambiguous as to their intentions relative to the working rights 

of illegal immigrants. While it was illegal for illegal immigrants to enter the country 

without inspection or to work in violation of the terms of an otherwise legal nonimmigrant visa, it was not illegal for a U.S. employer to hire them. IRCA ended this 

legal hypocrisy with its new provisions regarding employer sanctions. They became 

effective the instant that President Ronald Reagan signed the legislation on November 6, 1986. 

Previously, legislation to enact employer sanctions had been introduced by the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives and was passed in 1971 and 

1972 only to die both times in the U.S. Senate. The proposal was resurrected and 

included as part of a legislative package proposed by President Jimmy Carter in 

1977. He had correctly identified illegal immigration as being a critical labor market 

problem and included employer sanctions as part of his legislative remedies to correct this mounting malady. Congress, however, was hesitant to accept such a bold 

change in the status quo and believed that it would be better to address the problem 

of illegal immigration in the context of a comprehensive effort to reform of all aspects of the nation’s embattled immigration system. To aid them in this task, Congress created the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, chaired by 

the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh who was President of Notre Dame University at the 

time. It was requested to study all aspects of the nation’s immigration system and 

to make any recommendations for changes it deemed necessary. When the Select 

Commission made it final report in early 1981, it identified illegal immigration as 

the primary cause for the immigration system to be ‘‘out of control.’’ The Select 

Commission concluded that the ‘‘centerpiece’’ of the nation’s efforts to enforce its immigration laws should be employer sanctions. Ultimately in 1986, Congress and the 

35

5Passel, p.2. 

6George J. Borjas, ‘‘Increasing the Supply of Labor Through Immigration: Measuring the Impact on Native-Born Workers,’’ Backgrounder, (Washington, D.C., May, 2004). 

President agreed and they were enacted as part of IRCA. By this time, efforts to 

pass ‘‘comprehensive’’ immigration reform had been abandoned when those efforts 

failed in both 1982 and 1984 (likewise, refugee reforms had already been pealedoff for separate legislative action in 1980). But amidst a continuing public outcry 

demanding action on illegal immigration, a strategy of ‘‘piecemeal’’ reform was 

adopted in 1986 by congressional leaders—with illegal immigration identified as 

being the most egregious problem that needed to be addressed first—and it proved 

to be successful. 

Experience quickly revealed, however, that IRCA had serious weaknesses. Without a reliable and verifiable worker identification system in place, fraudulent documents are easily obtained which meant that enforcement efforts can be—and are—

widely circumvented. Vastly inadequate resources were provided to manage border 

entries and to patrol the vast border space between entry points. Internal enforcement away from the border and at worksites was and still is virtually non-existent. 

As a consequence, illegal immigrants continue both to enter surreptitiously or to 

overstay and violate the terms of legal visas. As a result, violations of the employer 

sanctions provisions of IRCA were—and still are—viewed as being ‘‘risk-free’’ actions by many employers. In 2004, only three employers nationwide paid criminal 

fines for violating the law. Perversely, those employers who seek to follow the law 

are often placed at a distinct competitive disadvantage in their hiring decisions with 

those employers who flaunt the law. 

As for the illegal immigrants themselves, those apprehended at or near the border 

are typically simply returned to Mexico, if that is their nationality. They then repeat 

their efforts to enter illegally and continue to do so until eventually they succeed 

in avoiding capture. Those who are apprehended and are not of Mexican origin are 

usually released and told to report to a hearing at some distant date (which few 

ever do). The same has been often the case away from the border. Because there 

is a chronic shortage of detention facilities nationwide and as detention is costly, 

those apprehended away from the border are likewise usually released and either 

told to report to a future hearing or to agree voluntarily to leave the country on 

their own (few do either). If it were not for the human tragedies involved, the entire 

federal enforcement process to date would be script for comedy. 

But the fundamental reason to rectify the shortcomings of IRCA are associated 

with the reasons why employer sanctions were deemed necessary in the first place: 

to protect the American worker (defined here and hereafter as being the native born 

workers; all foreign born persons who have become naturalized citizens; those noncitizen workers who are permanent resident aliens; and those foreign nationals who 

have been granted specific non-immigrant visas that permit them to work for limited time periods in the country) from having to compete for jobs with persons who 

are legally not supposed even to be in the country and absolutely not supposed to 

be in the labor force. 

It is estimated that there are 7.2 million illegal immigrants in the labor force in 

2005 (or about 4.9 percent of the nation’s labor force).5 But it is not the total number—even though it is very large and no doubt undercounted due to the great difficulty obtaining reliable data on any illegal activity—that is the crucial concern. Because illegal immigrants tend to be disproportionately concentrated in certain segments of the nation’s labor market, their direct impact is quite specific. The 2000 

Census reported that 58 percent of the adult foreign-born population had only a 

high school diploma or less. Undoubtedly the educational attainment level of illegal 

immigrants is even worse than this bleak Census finding that is the product of our 

entire immigration system. Consequently, there is no doubt that most illegal immigrants are poorly educated, unskilled and often do not speak English. Of necessity, 

therefore, they seek employment in the low skilled occupations in a variety of industries. In the process, they artificially swell the labor supply in those occupations and 

industries and depress the wages of the low skilled American workers who also 

work in these sectors.6

If permitted to compete for these jobs with American workers, the illegal immigrants will always win. This is because they will do anything to get the jobs—accept 

lower than prevailing wages; work longer hours; work under dangerous and hazardous working conditions; and live in crowded and sub-standard housing. They will 

accept conditions as they are and are less likely to report violations of prevailing 

laws pertaining to work standards, anti-discrimination and sexual harassment—

even if they know these laws exist (which many do not). No American worker can 

36

7 E.g., see Elizabeth Bogen, Immigration in New York, (New York: Praeger, 1987), p. 91. 8 Eileen Appelbaum, Annette Bernhardt and Richard Murnane, Low Wage America, (New 

York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2003). 9Steven A. Camarota, ‘‘Dropping Out: Immigrant Entry and Native Exit from the Labor Market, 2000–2005,’’ Backgrounder, (Washington, D.C.: Center for Immigration Studies, March 

2006). 10 Council of Economic Advisers, Economic Report of the President: 1994, (Washington, D.C. 

Government Printing Office, 1994), p. 120. 11 Chulhee Lee, ‘‘Rising Family Income Inequality in the United States, 1968–2000: Impacts 

of Changing Labor Supply, Wages and Family Structure,’’ NBER working Paper No. 11836, Abstract. 

successfully compete against them—nor should they—when the rules of the game 

are who will work the hardest, for the longest, and under the worst conditions. 

As a consequence, the illegal immigrant worker becomes the ‘‘preferred worker’’ for employers. It is not that ‘‘American workers will not do certain jobs;’’ it is that 

they will not do the jobs under the same terms that illegal immigrants often will— nor should they. As for the illegal immigrants, they willingly work under these adverse conditions, because their orbit of comparison is with the conditions of work 

in their homelands. Literally, it does not matter how bad the working conditions are 

in the United States as they are invariably far better than they were where they 

come from. Sometimes it is simply the fact that it is possible to get a job at all that 

distinguishes the state of economic opportunity in the United States from their previous experiences in their countries of origin. 

Thus, illegal immigrants will always be willing to work in any job they can find. 

Low skilled American workers (as defined above), on the other hand, know that low 

wages and bad working conditions are associated with jobs where employers typically consider individual workers as being dispensable. The work may be essential, 

but who does it is not important. As long as someone can be found to do it, there 

is no need to make the job attractive or to compete actively to get some one to do 

it. The availability of a pool of illegal immigrants who are more than willing to do 

fill these jobs means that wages do not have to be increased or do working conditions need to be improved. Moreover, employers have found illegal immigrants so 

attractive that they often use those who they do hire as a network to hire their relatives and friends when they need replacements or additional employees. As a consequence, there are thousands—probably tens of thousands—of jobs in which employers will not hire American workers.7 They do not want them and, given the alternative of illegal immigrants, they do not recruit or hire American workers. All 

of this is illegal, of course, but who is keeping the illegal immigrants out? 

In this context, it is important to know that there are more than 34 million low wage workers in the U.S. labor force (those earning less than $8.70 an hour—a wage that will about meet the minimum poverty threshold for a family of four) who 

are in the low skilled sector of the labor market.8 Overwhelmingly, most of these 

workers are American workers (as defined above). Also, as the number of illegal immigrant workers has soared since the year 2000, 3.2 million native born persons of 

working age who had only a high school diploma or less have dropped-out of the 

labor force.9 Presumably, they have found it more rewarding to seek public benefits 

to support themselves or chosen to pursue illegal activities to support themselves. 

Unfortunately, it is these low skilled American workers who bear most of the burden of competing for the jobs on the lower skill rungs of the nation’s economic job 

ladder with illegal immigrants. 

It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the Council of Economic Advisers to the 

President during the Clinton Administration found that ‘‘immigration has increased 

the relative supply of less educated labor and appears to have contributed to the 

increasing inequality of income within the nation.’’ 10 Subsequent research has documented the obvious. In a study released in late 2005 by the National Bureau of Economic Research that analyzed the explanations for the dramatic rise of family income inequality in the United States that has occurred since 1968 (i.e., roughly the 

same period that spans the revival of the current wave of mass immigration), it 

found that ‘‘for the lower half of the income distribution, . . . changes in labor supply’’ was one of the ‘‘principal causes of the growing distance between the poor and 

the middle-income families.’’ 11 Thus, immigration in general but illegal immigration 

in particular is unquestionably a major explanation for this worrisome and dangerous societal trend. 

Massive numbers of illegal immigrants such as those now in the U.S. labor force— and the prospect that many more will continue to come until the magnet of finding 

jobs is turned-off—has opened wide the door for human exploitation. The literature 

is rampant with case studies and reports that document that the portion of the 

labor market where illegal immigrants work is infested with of the use of extortion 

37

12 E.g., see Peter Kwong, Forbidden Workers: Illegal Immigrants and American Labor, (New 

York: The New Press, 1997); Luis Urrea, The Devil’s Highway, (New York: Little, Brown and 

Company, 2004); and Ted Conover, Coyotes: A Journey Through the Secret World of America’s 

Illegal Immigrants, (New York: Vintage Books, 1987). 13Olga R. Rodriguez, ‘‘Migrants Rush for Border Anticipating Guest Worker Plan,’’ Ithaca 

Journal, (Associated Press story), (April 13, 2006), p. A-2. 

and brute force (by human smugglers which is a thriving criminal enterprise), 

human slavery (workers bound to human smugglers until their fees are paid off), 

wage kickbacks (to employers of illegal immigrants as well as to labor contractors), 

child labor, sexual harassment, job accidents (especially by illegal immigrants who 

cannot read safety warnings or who lie about their past work experiences and are 

injured or killed in jobs that they really do not know how to do), and the growth 

of ‘‘sweat shop’’ manufacturing.12

Thus, there is nothing romantic about the nation’s failure to enforce its immigration laws no matter how often or vocal pro-immigrant advocacy groups try to spin 

and to rationalize the issue. Indeed, the indifference paid by many of our national 

political leaders, the media, and many elite leaders of business, labor, religious, civil 

rights, and civil liberties groups to these exploitive conditions represents a decidedly 

seamy side—the dark side, if you will—of our democracy. 

In addition to the adverse workplace impact of illegal immigration, there are other 

corrosive effects on the social fabric that are also linked to illegal immigration. 

Among these are: adult illiteracy, child poverty, school dropouts, unvaccinated children, violent street gangs, crime, and persons without health insurance to mention 

only some of the concerns that are reasons themselves to act. 

THE LESSONS FROM ‘‘EXPERIENCE’’

Illegal immigration is the primary issue that immigration reform must embrace. 

Not only is it a cause itself of significant harm to the economic well-being of the 

most needy members of the American populace, but it also adversely affects the 

broader society itself. Hence, there is little reason to believe that other policy reforms can be beneficial as long as the integrity of the entire system is in question. 

There are three steps that must be taken: 1. The employment sanctions system 

must be made to work (e.g., a program to verify social security numbers must be 

made mandatory immediately and steps taken to establish a national counterfeitproof worker identification card be undertaken and implemented as soon as possible; 

internal enforcement at the worksite to validate that employees are in fact eligible 

to work must become a routine matter; fines for violations of the employer sanctions 

system must be increased as must be the criminal penalties for repeat offenders). 

2. Enforcement must become a reality (by both deed and publicity, the message 

must be made clear: illegal immigrants will not work in the United States—those 

apprehended will be deported and those who hire them will prosecuted to the full 

extent of the law; more detention facilities, manpower, and resources must be devoted to enforcement). 3. There must be no amnesties—now or in the future—for 

those illegally in the United States (American workers are being harmed by the 

presence of persons in the labor force who are not supposed to be there; getting 

those who are now here out of the labor force is as important as keeping future illegal immigrants from entering it; talk of amnesties only raises the hopes of those 

here that they can stay and of others outside the country to keep coming because, 

if an amnesty is provided again, it will likely be done again in the future—that is 

the wrong message).13

As there is no debate over the fact that the nation’s immigration laws are not 

being enforced, ‘‘experience’’ indicates that fact alone is one of the primary reasons 

why illegal immigration not only continues over the years but gets progressively 

worse. Until the nation’s immigration laws are made enforceable and are enforced, 

‘‘wisdom’’ dictates that the reform process should ‘‘stop’’ here. 

THE ‘‘COLD’’ STOVE-LID ISSUE: S.2611

With the exception of the provisions pertaining to enforcement issues, most of the 

provisions of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S.2611) neglect 

the earlier experiences that should have been learned with the passage of IRCA in 

1986. The proposed legislation also contains provisions that have staggering implications for the future of the size and composition of the nation’s labor force and population. Given the scale of the numbers involved, the effects of such massive changes 

themselves deserve careful scrutiny independent of being linked to the controversial 

subject of illegal immigration. The passage of IRCA, as discussed earlier, was supposed to have brought an end to the issue of illegal immigration. Based on the asVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:42 Oct 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\FULL\082906\29655.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
38

14 Robert Rector, ‘‘Up to 61 Million Immigrants Might Flow into the U.S. Under Proposed Reform,’’ and Stuart Anderson, ‘‘After Analyzing Data, Foundation Finds 28 Million a More Likely 

Figure’’ Rocky Mountain News, (July 1, 2006), pp.10C–11C. 

sumption that it did, the Immigration Act of 1990 was passed which dealt with the 

next step in ‘‘piecemeal reform:’’ legal immigration. Based on the premise that the ‘‘backdoor’’ to the American labor market was closed (i.e., illegal immigration), the 

Immigration Act of 1990 sought to open the ‘‘front door (i.e., legal immigration) by 

raising the annual level of legal immigration to about 675,000 persons a year plus 

refugees. But the premise proved to be false and by the mid-1990s the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (CIR), Chaired by Barbara Jordan (a former member 

of Congress but by then was a Professor at the University of Texas at Austin) was 

recommending that the level of legal immigration be reduced back to about its pre1990 level of about 550,000 persons a year (including refugees). 

As the findings of the Jordan Commission became public through a series of interim reports, Congress and the Clinton Administration did tinker with the issue 

of illegal immigration with the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. But none of the real needs—such as a requirement 

for employers to verify the authenticity of social security numbers or the need for 

a verifiable worker identification system—were included in the 1996 legislation. 

Likewise, all the Commission’s recommendations for significantly reducing the annual level of legal immigration and making major changes in the admission categories were simply ignored This was despite promises by both the President and 

congressional leaders that they would come back to these issues after the 1996 election. It never happened, of course. Had the major recommendations of the Jordan 

Commission been accepted, the immigration mess that nation has today could have 

been largely avoided. 

Unfortunately, S.2611 shows no awareness of any of the findings, insights, and 

recommendations of CIR. This is despite the fact that its reports are the most politically impartial and carefully researched study of immigration that the nation has 

ever had. In sharp contrast, S.2611 seems to be the product of the wish list of every 

pro-immigration special interest group in Washington. None of its major provisions 

show the slightest awareness of any of the research on what is wrong with the existing immigration system and what can be done to reform it. Concern for the anticipated impact on the income, wages and employment opportunities for American 

workers of such massive changes in prevailing immigration policy is scant. 

Estimates of the overall numbers of immigrants who will be admitted under 

S.2611 over the next 20 years are all over the place. They have ranged from 28 million to as high as 61 million and almost everywhere in-between.14 The variation occurs, understandably, because many of the provisions require assumptions that simply cannot be known in advance by anyone. Human beings are involved and how 

they respond individually and collectively to legislative prompts, permissions and restrictions can never be known in advance for certain. Thus, much of what is proposed is a voyage into uncharted waters with respect to what may happen. If the 

scale of persons involved were small, the uncertainty would not matter much; but 

this is not the case. The estimated numbers are huge and the accompanying margins of error of analysis are large. The human consequences of a mistake that could 

flood the low skilled labor market and swamp the nation’s social safety systems are 

enormous and could be disastrous to the nation. 

By any stretch of the imagination, if the entire bill were enacted in it present 

form, the number of immigrants admitted should at least triple (to at least 53 million persons) over what would be the case if the law was left unchanged (about 18 

million) over the next 20 years. These figures, however, do not allow for any continuation of illegal immigration over these years (which is, of course, unrealistic) 

and it omits some groups who may also benefit but are simply impossible to estimate in advance—e.g., parents of those who eventually become naturalized citizens 

and, therefore, have the right to enter in unrestricted numbers. 

Most of the ‘‘new’’ immigrants would enter as a result of the amnesty provisions 

and what is called ‘‘guest worker’’ provisions of the legislation. About 10 million of 

the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country would be eligible to benefit. Those who have been illegal for 2–5 years (about 1.8 million persons) can apply 

for a newly created H-2C visa entry card for a so-called ‘‘guest worker’’ program at 

specific ports of entry. After four years in that status (or sooner if their employer 

applies on their behalf), they can apply for permanent resident alien status but all 

of this time they may work in the U.S. labor force. For those illegally in the country 

more than 5 years (7.7 million persons), they can apply immediately (i.e., they are 

placed on a ‘‘glide-path’’) for a permanent resident card and will receive it as soon 

as the backlog of applicants can be processed. Meanwhile, they too have immediate 

39

legal access to the U.S. labor market. Lastly, there is also a special agricultural 

workers program, or ‘‘blue card’’ program, (for 1.1 million illegal immigrants working in the agricultural industry, about 830,000 of whom would be eligible under the 

other two amnesties but will probably choose this one because it has a much faster 

and cheaper way to become a permanent resident alien). This means that about 2 

million illegal immigrants (those here less than 2 years) are the only ones who are 

supposed to leave or be deported if apprehended. 

Most of the beneficiaries of these amnesties are already in the country and most 

who of working age are presumably employed or trying to be. Most are believed to 

be employed in the low skilled sector of the economy. By allowing them to stay and 

to legalize their status means they will be able to more easily move between jobs 

and employers so that the many American workers who presently compete with illegal immigrant workers cannot expect any relief. But to make matters worse, as they 

move around freely and legally, other unskilled workers in other geographical areas, 

occupations and industries may who have not competed with them in the past may 

now be impacted. Over time, these newly entitled workers are permitted to legally 

bring their immediate family members with them, it can be expected they too will 

gradually enter the low wage labor market too—some legally but others illegally if 

they come early. Even these estimates of behavior are likely to be underestimated 

since it is likely that there will be extensive fraud associated documentation of eligibility for the different categories and family relationships plus the certainty that illegal immigration will add even more. Moreover, as these persons become eligible 

to become naturalized citizens, their extended family relatives and their family 

members become eligible to immigrate. Over the next two decades, the percentage 

of the population who will be foreign born will soar to levels never before experienced in the country (certainly over 20 percent) as will the percentage of foreign 

born in the labor force hit unprecedented heights (perhaps as high as 24 percent). 

Thus, if S.2611 is enacted, the only thing that can be said for sure is that the 

number of unskilled workers is going to swell enormously. This does not portend 

well for much in the way of upward wage pressure for those many American workers on the bottom of the economic ladder and it means the competition for low 

skilled jobs will be brutal. Rather than have market forces improve wages for low 

skilled American workers (if the illegal workers were removed from the labor market as current law says they should), market forces can be expected to keep wages 

for low skilled workers low (and probably falling in real terms). This means that 

they will have to hope that state and federal minimum wages levels are increased 

to circumvent the market and it is increasingly likely that, as their numbers swell, 

state and local tax payers are going to be called-on to subsidize these low wage 

workers who are not going to be able to earn sufficient incomes by working to cover 

housing, health, and living expenses for themselves and their family members. 

These amnesty programs, if enacted, will guarantee the there will be no shortage 

of low wage workers for the next 20 years—especially if illegal immigration continues to supplement the ranks of the low skilled pool. But there can be no parallel 

guarantee over these years that there will be a sufficient increase in demand for 

low-skilled workers whose unemployment rates are already among the highest in 

the nation. There is absolutely no evidence of a generalized labor shortage of low 

skilled workers or any signs of wage-induced inflationary pressures associated with 

shortages for such workers. Indeed, if ever there was a prescription for the resurrection of the Marxian notion of the existence of ‘‘a reserve army’’ of the poor and unemployed to keep wages depressed for the vast number of low skilled workers for 

those with jobs over the long run and to make this nightmare a reality, this legislation is it. 

Likewise, at the other end of the wage scale, the proposal to dramatically expand 

the H-1B program for workers in specialty occupations has nothing to do with illegal 

immigration. But, it too has much to do with special interest lobbying for skilled 

labor that will be cheaper than if these industries have to compete for such workers 

among an exclusively American worker pool. The basic question is: why should the 

government use public policy to keep the wages of American workers lower than 

they would otherwise be or even to provide opportunities for employers of such 

skilled labor to avoid hiring or to replace American workers? The existing H-1B program is fraught with charges of hiring and layoff abuses. These concerns are associated with whether or not the program is designed to keep starting level wages low 

and, also, whether it is also used as a means to discriminate against older workers 

who, if retained, would command higher wages. It also conjures up opportunities for 

abuse associated with the issue of ‘‘indentured servitude.’’ If the visa holder is intending to try to use it as a means to ultimately legally immigrate to the United 

States under the employment-based admission category, he often needs his employer to certify that he is needed and that qualified American workers are not 

40

available. There is no indication at the moment of any shortage of these skilled 

workers and it would be highly preferable, if there were to be one, that support be 

given by Congress to invest in the American youth and American training institutions to meet such a labor demand. There is no reason to expand this controversial 

program at a time when the public’s attention is focused on the issue of illegal immigration. 

And, of course, all of this assumes that the immigration bureaus in the Department of Homeland Security can adequately administer these new programs while 

keeping up with all of their other service and enforcement duties. These bureaus 

are already the most over worked, under staffed and, relative to the importance of 

their duties, the most under funded agencies in the entire federal bureaucracy. It 

is simply inconceivable that these bureaus could administer these added duties in 

anything near a competent manner, even if they tried. It would be far cheaper and 

far more effective to simply staff-up and fund-up the enforcement divisions and tell 

them to do what the law currently requires. The greatest beneficiaries of this simple 

mandate would be the low-skilled American worker. 

‘‘REAL’’ COMPREHENSIVE REFORM

The title of S.2611 is The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act but the legislation itself is not ‘‘comprehensive’’ at all. The logical starting point of any such effort 

would be the final report of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (CIR) that 

was issued in 1997. CIR was concerned that the existing system pays virtually no 

attention to the labor market in its design. For the vast majority of immigrants, 

their human capital attributes play no role on their eligibility to immigrate. Whatever human capital attributes most immigrants bring to the United States is purely 

an accidental benefit to the nation. Far too many bring far too little. The ‘‘chainmigration’’ where by the admission of one person triggers an entitlement to the multiple entries of a myriad of family members only compounds the pattern 

Unfortunately, as the data on the foreign-born population shows, many have low 

levels of educational attainment, are poorly skilled, and are non-English speaking. 

To reduce this outcome, CIR proposed that the level of legal immigration be reduced—not increased. To accomplish this feat, it recommended the deletion of most 

of the extended family admission categories of the current system that provide an 

eligibility claim for entry if one member of the family immigrated to the United 

States and naturalized. Specifically, CIR proposed that the categories that admit 

adult unmarried children of U.S. citizens; adult married children of permanent resident aliens; and the adult brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens all be eliminated. 

Doing so would greatly reduce the chain-migration features of the present system 

which is the major reason that human resource attributes play such a small role 

in determining the eligibility of most of those who are legally admitted. It is also 

a principle reason why the accumulating family reunification effects of S.2166 are 

so massive and so worrisome. They would entitle the potential admission of so many 

persons with low human capital endowments. 

In this same vein, CIR also recommended the termination of the diversity admission category. The diversity lottery pays scant attention to any of the human capital 

attributes of who those it renders eligible to enter (as long as the ‘‘winners’’ have 

high school diplomas). Furthermore, CIR recommended that no unskilled workers 

be admitted under the employment-based admission category. It recognized that the 

nation already has a surplus of unskilled workers and certainly did not need to 

admit any more. CIR was emphatic in concluding that there should be no guest 

worker programs for unskilled workers and only such programs for skilled workers 

under very restrictive terms. No where in their findings did they recommend any 

amnesty for illegal immigrants. Instead, they made numerous recommendations to 

rid the labor market of their presence. 

The findings of the Commission on Immigration Reform were the product of six 

years of careful study that was backed up by numerous public hearings, consultations with experts and research studies—including the work done by a panel created 

by the National Research Council. Comprehensive immigration reform should begin 

with CIR’s recommendations. There seems to be no awareness in the provisions of 

S.2611 of any of CIR’s work which leaves one wondering where did these anti-American worker ideas come from? 

CONCLUDING COMMENT

Until it can be demonstrated the United States is willing and capable of enforcing 

its immigration laws, illegal immigration will continue with all of its negative impacts on American workers and corrosive effects on American society. Keeping illegal immigrants from entering the country without inspection or violating the terms 

41

of a legal visa and removing those in the county from the labor force is the prerequisite for all serious immigration reform efforts. Accomplishing this does not 

mean that amnesties should be given to those already here as a way to make the 

problem disappear. Such political sophistry—as ‘‘experience’’ has shown—only encourages more to come and, as shown, 

has enormous population and labor force consequences associated with family reunification rights of those granted legalization. More importantly, however, amnesty 

will do nothing to help the American workers and American taxpayers who are adversely affected by the presence the 12 million illegal immigrants currently here. 

With Labor Day 2006 only a few days away and given the location of this hearing, 

a paraphrase of the words of a famous Indianan—Knute Rockne—seems most appropriate for a conclusion: ‘‘Let’s win one for the American Worker.’’ Make enforcement of our immigration laws a reality. ‘‘And stop there.’’

TESTIMONY OF PAUL HARRINGTON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR LABOR MARKET STUDIES, NORTHEASTERN 

UNIVERSITY 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner, it’s a 

privilege to come before the Committee today. 

During the last 5 years, new immigrants have accounted for an 

overwhelming share of all the employment growth in the Nation—

that has occurred in the Nation. Native-born adults and established immigrants have been unable to capture much of the new 

employment opportunities that have been created in the U.S. since 

2000. Total number of employed persons, age 16 and over, in the 

United States between 2000 and 2005 rose by 4.835 million. A total 

of 4.134 million new immigrants were employed by 2005. That 

means that 86 percent of the entire rise of employment that occurred over the last 5 years in the United States has been concentrated among people that came into the United States from 

overseas between 2000 and 2005. So new immigrants have accounted for all that employment growth. 

Among men, new immigrants accounted for the entire rise in employment, as the total number of employed men in the Nation increased by 2.665 million, while number of employed new immigrant 

males, immigrant males that came into the country after 2000, rose 

by 2.76 million. For the first time since World War II, there has 

been no gain in employment among native-born men over a 5-year 

period. 

Employment growth among new immigrants was heavily concentrated among those under the age of 35. Approximately twothirds of the increase in the new immigrant employed workforce, 

or about 2.7 million workers, took place among those 16 to 34. 

Many of the young immigrants were very close substitutes to native-born young workers—tend to be male, tend to have low levels 

of educational attainment. By subtracting the number of new immigrant workers in each group from the change in total employment 

by age, we can estimate the change in the number of employed native-born workers and established immigrants in each group in the 

United States. Over the last 5 years, the total number of young 

people employed in the country under the age of 35, who are native-born, fell by 4.2 million. There were 4.2 million fewer 16 to 34 

year old native-born teens and young adults employed in the 

United States in 2005 than there were in 2000. However, there are 

2.7 million more 16 to 34 year old foreign-born workers who came 

into the United States over the last 5 years, who have been emVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:42 Oct 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\FULL\082906\29655.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
42

ployed. Very powerful evidence, in my mind, of substitution occurring in the job market. 

When you ask yourself, well, is this a demographic factor, have 

we simply got fewer young people, native-born young people, residing in the United States. The answer is no. The size of the teen 

and young adult population has expanded by about 1.8 million over 

the last 5 years. There reason why employment among young teens 

and young adults in the United States has declined is because their 

employment rate has fallen. Employment referring to the sheer 

people in the working age population that have a job. 

So back in 2000, the number of 16 to 19 year old males that 

worked in the United States was about 45 percent, about 45 percent of all males 16 to 19 had a job. By 2005, that share had fallen 

to 36 percent, a relative decline of one-fifth in 5 years, a historically low rate of teen employment in the United States. For females, the rate feel, for 16 to 19 year olds, the rate fell from 46.8 

percent down to 39.5 percent, a 16 percent relative decline in employment rates. Across the board, for 16 to 19, 20 to 24, 25 to 30— 29 year olds—we see extraordinary losses in employment rates. 

So what we see happening here is the substitution of foreignborn for native-born workers is very heavily concentrated among 

the youngest people in the United States and people with lower 

levels of educational attainment. 

Diminished access to employment for teens and young adults has 

important economic and social consequences. Working at an early 

age is a developmental activity akin to developing basic skills or occupational proficiencies in a school setting. Building work experience helps enhance the productive abilities of young adults along 

dimensions that are not typically addressed in classrooms. Students who work more at younger ages participate in the labor force 

at higher rates as adults, are less likely to experience a bout of unemployment as adults and if they do become unemployed, find 

work more quickly than those with little or no work experience. 

Early work experience can increase the earnings of individuals over 

their lifetime between 25 and 30 percent when they become young 

adults. So the power of early work experience is extraordinarily important. 

Multi-varied analysis of employment status of teens and young 

adults, we conducted using America’s community surveys, found 

that the employment probabilities of young workers were substantially negatively affected by the level of new immigrant worker 

inflows into a State, contrary to the findings of the Pew study. 

These negative impacts tended to be larger for young subgroups, 

for men than for women, for in-school youth than for out-of-school 

youth and particularly for Black and Hispanic males relative to 

their White counterparts. Employers were substituting new immigrant workers for young native-born workers. And the estimated 

size of these displacement effects we found to be quite large. 

Last topic I want to talk about has really got to do with the hiring of new immigrants and how I believe that this has really had 

some important long-term impacts on the structure of labor markets and industrial relations, employer-employee relations in the 

United States. Fewer new workers, especially private sector wage 

and salary jobs are ending up on formal payrolls of employers. 

43

This particular economic recovery has been very weak. We have 

not generated plenty of jobs in the United States over the last 5 

years. In fact, if you go back and look by historical standards, in 

the first 4 years of recovery, the average rate of new job creation 

is about 11.5 percent relative to previous periods. During this recovery, the rate is only 2.5 percent. So it has been a very sluggish 

employment growth. What’s happened is that over time, rather 

than creating regular wage and salary jobs where we have Social 

Security, unemployment insurance and other kinds of tax reporting 

occur, we’re generating large numbers of jobs off the books. And 

you see these in places like Lowe’s and Home Depot, in parks, in 

shopping lots, and they’re informal labor pools. Back in the great 

Depression, we used to call them shapeups. And these are fundamentally undermining the industrial relations system in the 

United States. They are not a repeal of labor laws, they’re a nullification of labor laws. There are no wage and hour laws in those 

shapeups. There are no occupational safety and health laws in 

those shapeups. As Professor Briggs says, there is simply exploitation there. 

Thanks so much for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Harrington follows:]

44

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL E. HARRINGTON


RP0001.eps
45


RP0002.eps
46


RP0003.eps
47


RP0004.eps
48


RP0005.eps
49


RP0006.eps
50

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much. 

Members will be recognized under the 5-minute rule. That applies to us as well as to the witnesses, and the Chair will recognize 

himself first. 

There have been a lot of questions asked why there is no Conference Committee between the Senate and the House. The House 

passed its bill in December and sent the papers to the Senate. The 

Senate passed its bill in May and failed to send the papers to the 

House. And the only way a Conference Committee can be set up 

under the rules of the Congress is for the second House to have the 

papers and to move to send the bill to conference. So it can’t be 

done in the House of Representatives because the Senate, for reasons of their own, didn’t send the papers over. 

Now one of the problems in the Senate Bill is that it raises about $50 billion in new taxes. The Constitution is quite plain in stating 

that tax legislation has to originate in the House of Representatives and that means if the Senate tries to pass a new tax in the 

Senate Bill, the House just sends it back with a blue slip stating 

that the Constitution has been violated. And that’s what would 

happen if we did get the papers, because the Senate was told before they passed their bill that there was a Constitutional problem, 

and they kept the taxes in anyhow. 

Now I’m one of those that believes in market economics. The free 

enterprise system is based on market economics and the market 

works. And I think it is a given fact that illegal immigrants will 

work for less money than citizens or legal immigrants who have 

green cards, which are work authorizations. I also believe very 

strongly that there’s no job an American won’t do if they’re paid 

enough. And I believe that the testimony of all four of you, at least 

expressly or implicitly, states that Americans will take those jobs 

if they’re paid enough. 

So the issue of exploitation of employers of the illegal immigrant 

workforce is one of the engines that drives the magnet to bring illegal immigrants across the border, because there are jobs available. 

The 1986 immigration reform bill made it an offense for an employer to hire an illegal immigrant. But the verification system, 

Mr. Parra, as you very correctly state, has been based upon fraudulent documents, Social Security numbers that are made up, those 

that are obtained through identity theft, documents that you can 

buy very close to any college campus, but it does say you’re over 

21 if you buy them there, but otherwise, on street corners. 

One of the things that the House-passed bill contains is a computer verification of Social Security numbers. So if somebody is 

using a made-up number or one that has another name on it, the 

computer would flag that and tell the employer. Do you support 

that system in the House Bill, Mr. Parra? 

Mr. PARRA. I’m not familiar with that in the House Bill, I know 

about the Senate and what they’re trying to get done and what 

they’re trying to accomplish. And that has a much more comprehensive—— Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, let me explain in this area, because 

this is the key to dealing with the problem that we’re talking about 

at the hearing today. The House Bill requires the verification of 

new employees within 2 years. And it’s going to take that amount 

51

of time to get the Social Security Administration’s database up to 

snuff to be able to do that. The House Bill also requires the 

verification of existing employees within 6 years. The Senate Bill 

doesn’t do that. 

Now the effect of not verifying existing employees is that a current illegal immigrant employee would be able to keep their job forever, but worse, in my opinion, that employee would become an indentured servant because they would not be able to get a new job 

because their bad Social Security number would end up being 

caught when they applied for a new job. So the Senate Bill ends 

up having all the illegal immigrants who are working now essentially becoming indentured servants. 

Do you think that’s right? 

Mr. PARRA. Sounds like a pointed question to me. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. Well, I just want to be clear. 

Mr. PARRA. I think that that wouldn’t be right. But, you know, 

I’m thinking that the Senate has either incorporated that in its 

planning and that you need to work together with the Senate. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, the reason the Senate did that is 

that they’ve bought the Chamber of Commerce line on that, because they’re the ones that are making out from exploiting the 

labor of illegal immigrants. 

Now the House Bill, that I’ve been criticized for being too harsh 

on, also increases the fine for the first offense of hiring an illegal 

immigrant from $100 per illegal immigrant to $5000 per illegal immigrant. Now $100, you know, is part of the cost of doing business 

nowadays. If a fine is to be effective, it’s got to be high enough to 

act as a deterrent. Do you support increasing the fines for people 

who hire illegal immigrants? 

Mr. PARRA. Again, whether that—how does that compare with 

the Senate? I really think that, Mr. Sensenbrenner, you need to 

talk to the Senate and work together on this on a bipartisan basis. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Oh, I understand. 

Mr. PARRA. —work together on this. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. My time has expired. The gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m thrilled with this hearing. We find out that, first of all, the 

Chamber of Commerce doesn’t get it. I thought they usually sided 

with my Republican friends, but that’s not happening. 

And then I look at the title of the Bill, the Reid-Kennedy Bill. 

Well, friends, Mr. Reid is not a cosponsor, Mr. Kennedy is; but I 

was just handed a list by staff of the cosponsors of this legislation 

that came out of the Senate. And outside of Kennedy, there are five 

Republican Senators that support it—Senator Brownback, Senator 

Graham, Senator Hagel, Senator Martinez and Senator McCain. It 

started out the McCain-Kennedy Bill and Mr. Reid is finally getting some credit that he doesn’t deserve in this case. 

Now there’s something else that’s beginning to pique my curiosity. There are 23 Republican Senators that apparently don’t understand what my Chairman has been laboring to get them to get 

through their noggins for many, many months, including the senior 

Senator from Indiana, Chairman Hostettler, Senator Lugar, voted 

52

for this Bill. Thirty-six Republicans voted for this Bill that is being 

a subject of examination. 

Now I had the idea that you had, shouldn’t we just get in touch 

with Bill Frist, Dr. Frist, the Majority Leader in the Senate, Republican, or Mitch McConnell, the Whip in the Senate, from Tennessee, Republican? We’ve had all these hearings around the country, why don’t we just meet with them and say look, fellows, this 

may come as news to you but when you pass a bill in the House 

and then you pass a bill in the Senate and there are differences, 

you have a conference. Now this was pretty advanced legislative 

procedure—you have a conference and you work it out. 

Let me just ask the witnesses, would you have any objection if 

that initiative were taken and that they would come together and 

they would agree? Mr. Parra, what do you think? 

Mr. PARRA. I think it’s an excellent idea and I think that’s what 

the people want, they want progress on this and they want you to 

work together. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. CONYERS. I said that there were 36, there were only—there 

are not that many Republican Senators that supported it, there 

was only 23. 

Dr. Camarota, what is your view about us coming together in 

that spirit? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Let me answer it this way—— Mr. CONYERS. Well, wait a minute, I don’t want you to answer 

it that way, I want you to say yes or no. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CONYERS. I’ve only got 5 minutes. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Is this like have I stopped beating my wife yet? 

Mr. CONYERS. No. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. I think the answer—the bottom line is—— Mr. CONYERS. I need to get an answer. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. —the number of people who think it’s a good 

idea to triple legal immigration and grant legal status to 12 million——

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. —is very small outside of Washington. 

Mr. CONYERS. Stop. You didn’t answer the question. 

Dr. Briggs, let me try you. In the spirit of friendship and bipartisanship, I come here to help get something done in the Congress; 

what do you think, could we possibly get together and begin to 

work these things out? I wouldn’t mind all of you witnesses coming 

to the conference, they’re not secret conferences, and help advise 

the Senators and the House Members what they should do. What 

do you think? 

Mr. BRIGGS. Well, ultimately of course it has to happen and it 

will happen some day, that you all will come together. So I mean 

it’s——

Mr. CONYERS. But I mean sooner rather than later. I’m not talking about ultimately. I mean—— Mr. BRIGGS. I would like to see a bill passed this year. I’d like 

to see it emphasize enforcement. I have very little support for 2611 

and that’s in my testimony that I didn’t get to. But obviously you’re 

going to come together 1 day and the sooner the better. 

53

Mr. CONYERS. Right. Look, somebody is going to have to give up 

something. And let me just ask Mr. Harrington and I will give up 

my time, Mr. Chairman. What do you think, sir? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Well, Congressman, I would simply say this, I 

come from a State where the entire Congressional delegation is 

Democratic and if you give me a chance and let me work them over 

a little bit, then we can have the hearing after that. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, that’s cool, that’s what we do all the time, 

that’s wonderful. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hostettler. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Briggs, you have been very prominent in the labor movement 

over many decades. I don’t think we got an opportunity to elaborate completely on your bona fides, but that would be a fair assessment of your career, would it not? 

Mr. BRIGGS. I hope so, yes. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Well, thank you. And you mentioned a quote 

by Samuel Gompers and I’d like to elaborate on that because while 

there was a lot of discussion about the Chamber of Commerce and 

employers that utilize illegal aliens at much lower cost, which is a 

very significant concern for all of us, there is the other side of this, 

in that there have been strange bedfellows made in this. 

Mr. BRIGGS. Yes. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. So let’s look at the quotes that I have for you. 

In 1981, the AFL-CIO declared ‘‘Illegal workers take jobs away 

from American workers and they undermine U.S. wages and working conditions.’’ Isn’t that what you understand the position was 

back during the Hesburgh Commission? 

Mr. BRIGGS. Absolutely. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Okay. But they have evolved in their opinion, 

and recently, 20 years later, John Sweeney, President of the AFLCIO, said this, ‘‘The only thing that is just is a general amnesty.’’

And a general amnesty means what? 

Mr. BRIGGS. Basically those illegal immigrants here will be allowed to stay. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Every one of them, correct? 

Mr. BRIGGS. Their status will be legal. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. A general amnesty. So the Chairman—the 

President of the American Federation of Labor, Congress—CIO, 

AFL-CIO, Industrial Organizations, has said recently that we need 

a general amnesty, is your understanding, even outside this quote? 

Mr. BRIGGS. Yes. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. On November 16, 2004, more recently, he said 

‘‘Undocumented workers already in this country and their families 

should be provided permanent legal status through a new legalization program.’’

Next slide, please. AFL-CIO spokeswoman Kathy Roeter, I believe is her name, summed it up, ‘‘We are always looking for opportunities for people to join unions. That’s our number one reason for 

working with immigrants.’’

Carl F. Horowitz, Director of the Organized Labor Accountability 

Project said ‘‘A grant of lawful permanent resident status to as 

54

many illegal aliens as possible would mean more dues collections 

and benefit plan contributions.’’

And then summing it up very appropriately I think is Mike Garcia of the Service Employees Union who said, ‘‘We will lead the Nation in the fight for legalization.’’

And so a cross—fairly well a cross section of labor, including the 

very upper echelon of the AFL-CIO, is pushing very hard for a general amnesty and a legalization of the millions of illegal aliens here 

for, in their own words, expanded dues collection and benefit plan 

contributions. 

Remember, Dr. Briggs, the last time we got together, the Democrat Minority had brought forward a representative from the Cato 

Institute. 

Mr. BRIGGS. Yes. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Do you remember that? 

Mr. BRIGGS. I sure do, I’ll never forget it. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And your testimony was very intriguing, I have 

it before me here. But as we talk about strange bedfellows in this 

debate and we talk about the Democrat Minority calling Cato Institute at one similar hearing and today there’s La Raza testifying for 

them—fairly divergent opinions, are they not——

Mr. BRIGGS. Yes. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. —on a wide variety of issues? 

Mr. BRIGGS. Yes. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Then you have the Chamber of Commerce, who 

opposed the House Bill, we have the AFL-CIO, who is calling for 

a general amnesty, not just individuals that are covered by the 

Senate Bill. In fact, the AFL-CIO is a little squeamish with the 

Senate Bill, are they not? 

Mr. BRIGGS. Yes, I think they oppose some of the guest worker 

provisions. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Right, because there are actually restrictions in 

the Senate Bill. 

Mr. BRIGGS. Yes. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I won’t say that too loudly because they’re not 

significant restrictions, but there are restrictions. 

And so there are these strange bedfellows that would, politically 

speaking, if you looked across the gamut, it would be, we might 

say, a no-brainer, for legislation similar to the Senate to be put into 

law. Would you not agree? 

Mr. BRIGGS. Yes. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. But there is this obstacle, is there not? 

Mr. BRIGGS. Yes. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And that obstacle is the Republican Majority in 

the House of Representatives at this point, is it not? 

Mr. BRIGGS. Well, not all the Democrats supported the Senate 

Bill. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. That’s an excellent point, there’s a lot of Democrats up for reelection this time and there are a lot of Democrats 

that did not support the bill. 

But given the wide spectrum of support ideologically, from the 

AFL-CIO to the Chamber of Commerce, from Cato to La Raza, amnesty would almost be a given, if not for the obstruction of the MaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:42 Oct 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\FULL\082906\29655.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
55

jority in the House of Representatives who want enforcement only 

at this time; is that not true? 

Mr. BRIGGS. Well, I don’t know if it’s obstruction, I mean a lot 

of these people, as I said in my written testimony, like the AFLCIO, it’s the leadership that’s pushing this. I don’t think the rank 

and file, I have a lot of contact with people in unions, I teach in 

the School of Labor and Industrial Relations and you see them all 

the time, and they don’t support what the leadership does on these 

issues. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And we will continue to be an obstruction. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to thank the witnesses for their testimony here as well. 

I’d direct my first question to Mr. Parra. In your testimony, you 

list five Nobel Laureates, but in your testimony you say that they 

contend that immigration is an economic plus. But many times in 

your testimony, you don’t define the difference between legal and 

illegal immigration and it appears that in this testimony, that’s the 

case. Could you let us know as to whether the five Nobel Laureates 

are speaking to illegal immigration or speaking to legal immigration? 

Mr. PARRA. Yes, sure. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Please turn the mic on. 

Mr. PARRA. I think they’re speaking about immigration, because 

I think when you talk about illegal—in terms of how do you define 

this, how do you record it even in the census, how do you know, 

because a person that’s undocumented or illegal may not show up 

as being undocumented. 

Mr. KING. Then there——

Mr. PARRA. Now on the question of legal immigration, I think the 

same thing happens in other aspects of what’s discussed here. Oftentimes, legal immigrants don’t have the same rights as Americans. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Parra, my clock is ticking here. But 

I would submit that this testimony on legal immigration is not so 

relevant to our discussion here because we’re talking about illegal 

immigration. That’s been the issue. 

I would take us back over to Dr. Camarota. Do you have any 

numbers as to the percentage of illegals that are actually employed 

in the workforce, Dr. Camarota? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Most people think it’s about six to seven million 

of the roughly 12 million. The rest are children or people who take 

care of young children or people who just don’t work. And that’s a 

typical sort of employment rate. 

Mr. KING. Between 50 and 60 percent perhaps then? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Yeah, 50 to 60 percent hold a job, yes. 

Mr. KING. Okay, and then Mr. Parra’s testimony says nine million of 12 million illegals are working. Do you have any scenario 

in the workforce that would indicate that 75 percent of the illegals 

are employed? 

56

Mr. CAMAROTA. No, I think Pew came out—and I basically came 

about 6.5 million, they say about seven of the 12, and I think that’s 

what most people think, 

Mr. KING. And Mr. Parra, I just ask this broader question, I 

think it’s a broader question that is seldom asked and even more 

rarely answered, and that is, is there such a thing as too much immigration? And you could answer that in both categories, legal and 

illegal. 

Mr. PARRA. It depends on the supply and demand situation in 

the country. It also depends on the globalization that’s occurring 

and also the growth and what job growth is happening in the country. And those would be the things the Chamber of Commerce looks 

at and other people look—economists look at in terms of when they 

decide that yes, immigration is A-plus, that it is not a loss. 

Mr. KING. Can there be too much immigration, can a Nation take 

on more immigrants than they can possibly assimilate or accommodate into an economy? 

Mr. PARRA. You have to look at your economy and the growing 

economy. 

Mr. KING. Is that possible though? 

Mr. PARRA. Yes, if your economy needs that; yes. 

Mr. KING. The answer then is yes? 

Mr. PARRA. It depends on the economy. 

Mr. KING. But the answer is yes that a Nation can take on too 

many immigrants to assimilate or——

Mr. PARRA. The question ‘‘too many,’’ what is too many? How 

much are too many? 

Mr. KING. That is the question to you, Mr. Parra. 

Mr. PARRA. Where is the cutoff? 

Mr. KING. And I would submit——

Mr. PARRA. If you base it on politics, too many may be three. 

Mr. KING. I’ll direct this question then back Dr. Briggs, please. 

Mr. BRIGGS. Of course, it’s interesting in economics, you have to 

be very careful, when economists talk about economic benefit. Most 

of the economic benefits that come from immigration; in fact all of 

them, are wage suppression. Wages are driven down and usually 

that’s what’s seen as a benefit. Now that’s a benefit sometimes 

when seen from an economist’s standpoint; it’s not a benefit when 

you look at it for workers, public policy is there designed to drive 

down the wages of working people. Sometimes when people talk 

about the economic benefits, that’s generally the benefit that 

they’re driving at, but it’s certainly—that’s why we have immigration laws, so you can’t take on too many people and immigration 

was found originally to be a threat to the public policy in the 

United States, that’s why we started regulating it. You don’t want 

to have open borders and let the market simply determine it independently. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. Dr. Harrington. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Sir, the answer is particularly—I think there’s 

two ways to think about this. One, what is the basic business cycle 

condition, you know, in the economy. In the last 5 years, our job 

generation capacity has been quite poor, that’s why we’ve seen the 

substitution of foreign-born for native-born workers in recent times. 

57

I think the second thing is that as Steve Camarota pointed out 

in his earlier paper, this tremendous occupational mismatch out 

there where we’ve flooded the bottom of the labor market and it 

has pushed down wages and caused exploitation of workers. 

So to me, the evidence is overwhelming that, yes, absolutely, we 

have by far too big an inflow. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is a first rate panel of witnesses. I’m very proud of all of 

you. Many of you have testified on this subject before in the Congress. 

What do you think is going to happen to these hearings now that 

we’ve already passed a bill, the Senate has already passed a bill. 

We’re conducting an extraordinary procedure which I have never 

been a part of before. What do you think is going to happen with 

these hearings? Because we’ve had one very important suggestion 

made, that we contact the Majority Leader and the Whip, the Republican leaders of the Senate, and say please, gentlemen, when 

you pass a bill in one house and they pass it in the other body, you 

go to a conference, so couldn’t we get to a conference. What do you 

think, Dr. Briggs? You’ve got as much seniority as anybody around. 

Mr. BRIGGS. Well, as I say, I think this issue is desperately important. In my testimony I say it’s an imperative. I think it is the 

domestic issue. The Iraq War may be an international issue of the 

Nation, but this is the domestic issue. And I deeply feel it has got 

to be addressed. Yes, I would like to see action, I’d like to see— but I don’t want to necessarily see anything happen. What I tried 

to say in my testimony is I wish that Congress would start with 

the Jordan Commission findings, which I think is the best study 

ever done of immigration, the most impartial, and may I point out 

that five members of the Jordan Commission were Democrats and 

four were Republicans, and they said the level of immigration was 

too high in 1997, it needed to be cut back by 35 percent. No amnesty, no guest worker programs. 

Mr. CONYERS. But can’t we just start a conference and continue 

these discussions? I mean you’ve been a witness to conferences before, this is not brain surgery or anything complex. I mean you’ve 

got to move to the next step. 

We could hold these hearings and fill up the libraries with hearings. Here we are in this great State in this small city. Just think 

of how many other places we could go and have some really great 

hearings on this. But none of it, I don’t think, is going to amount 

to much until we get to the conference. And I know you hope that 

we get there and do something constructive. 

Now let me ask one question here that has been bothering me 

and I want to get it in right away. How do we get these 11 million 

illegals to leave? What’s the best plan? How are we going to round 

them up, because some people have talked about attrition, well 

that would be 50 years, I don’t know. We can’t wait for attrition 

to kick in. But what about self-deportation? What is the likelihood 

of these millions of folks rumbling around underground economy, 

what’s the likelihood of them coming forward and say okay, you got 

58

me. You passed the House Bill and it says that we’ve got to report 

to be deported, we also were made felons in the process. What do 

you think the likelihood is of 11 million people coming out of the 

shadows to get kicked out and sent back to wherever they came 

from? 

Mr. BRIGGS. Well, the testimony—the purpose is and what the 

law is to get them out of the work site and if you get them out of 

the work site, that is the focus. And then——

Mr. CONYERS. Okay, so we’re not going—we’re going to leave 

them here? 

Mr. BRIGGS. No, no. Well, I’m not saying people——

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BRIGGS. Look, that’s the law right now. The law is they don’t 

work. If people want to stand on the street corners and look at 

Americans——

Mr. CONYERS. Are you familiar with the fact that the House Bill 

suggests that they don’t stick around after they come off their job, 

that they get back to the borders or further. I’ve got a problem with 

that. 

Let me try this with you, Mr. Parra. What’s the process that you 

think might be helpful? Do you think that they will self-deport? 

Mr. PARRA. No, I don’t think people will self-deport. 

Mr. CONYERS. Do you think anybody would self-deport? 

Mr. PARRA. I don’t think anybody would self-deport. 

Mr. CONYERS. Out of all 11 million, wouldn’t a few hundred come 

forward and confess, plead for mercy? You don’t think so? 

Mr. PARRA. No. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hostettler. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Camarota, can you give us an idea of how many illegal aliens 

self-deport every year? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Yeah, it looks like about 150,000 people go home 

on their own each year and about 50,000 illegal aliens are deported 

each year, so about 200 right now. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. So three times as many self-deport as are deported forcibly? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Yes, that’s according to INS estimates, yes. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. And so self-deportation happens by 

the hundreds of thousands, given the fact that there are millions 

of jobs in America that some suggest American won’t do. 

So if we take the motivation away from these individuals by aggressively enforcing the immigration laws, the Center for Immigration Studies has suggested that—in a study recently, that attrition, 

that leaving and going to the job that they had in the place that 

they left—because we actually heard testimony in San Diego that, 

according to one professor that’s done decades of research in this, 

that in fact the unemployment rate of individuals coming into the 

United States to get a job is actually between four and 5 percent 

over the decades of studies that he’s done. The unemployment rate 

in those individuals before they come to America for a job is better 

than the unemployment rate in the United States. Is that——

59

Mr. CAMAROTA. Right. There’s this mistaken notion that everyone is fleeing desperation. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Yeah. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. But all the research shows most people who come 

actually already had a job, they just wanted higher wages, which 

is perfectly understandable. But the point about attrition through 

enforcement is that people do have a life to return to, that is, the 

job they used to have. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Not only the job, but in many cases their families. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Are often still there. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. So if they don’t have a job in America because 

we’re aggressively enforcing the law and they left a job in their native country, it’s highly likely that they will in fact self-deport to 

be reunified with their family and to reacquire a job in the economy that they left. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. It’s a perfectly reasonable assumption, sure. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

Let me ask you, Dr. Camarota, what will happen to illegal immigration levels if we pass a second round of amnesty similar to the 

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Well, I mean, the available evidence suggests 

that we’ll just supercharge illegal immigration. See, there’s a mistake about how people think about immigration, it’s driven largely 

by networks of family and friends. The larger legalized population 

in the United States, this creates even greater contact and a greater draw back in the home community. Most people don’t just wake 

up in the morning and say I think I’d like to go to America. Typically they have a friend, a brother, a sister, a cousin who says I 

can get you a job, I know how to get an apartment. If you legalize 

all the illegal aliens here, not only will you convey to everyone that 

America just doesn’t take its laws seriously, but also you will create a whole new set of networks that would then draw millions 

more into the United States. And that’s exactly what happened last 

time. Legal immigration is double what it used to be and the number of illegal aliens in the United States is probably close to triple 

what it was when we had our last amnesty, because of this phenomenon. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And it’s not just from individuals from Mexico 

or Central or South America, the number of other than Mexicans, 

OTMs, that are coming across the border is accelerating substantially, is it not, over the last few years? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Yes. Obviously the largest share come from Latin 

America, but illegal immigration—you know, we have hundreds of 

thousands of illegal aliens from Asia, the Middle East and so forth, 

yes. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And so if the word goes out that a second 

round of amnesty has been delivered, won’t that fuel not only illegal immigration into our country from people indigenous to south 

of the border, but it will send a message to the rest of the world 

that if you come here from eastern Europe, from Asia, from fill-inthe-blank, that if you make it to Mexico, then you can make it into 

America and ultimately be rewarded with a path to citizenship and 

at least a good job. 

60

Mr. CAMAROTA. Yes, because you want to get in line for the next 

amnesty, of course. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Harrington, I want you to once again stipulate—reiterate the 

points you made with regard to net new jobs created over the last 

5 years for native-born men. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Yeah, for native-born men over the last 5 

years, all the—there has been no employment increase among native-born men between 2000 and 2005. The number of native-born 

men in 2005 that have a job has actually declined relative to its 

figure in 2000. That all the gains we had in male employment were 

among recent immigrants, that is, recent immigrant males that 

came into the United States after 2000. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And that’s historic. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. That’s historic——

Mr. HOSTETTLER. That’s unprecedented? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. This is unprecedented in the history of American labor markets. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’ll direct my first question to Dr. Harrington. Do you have any 

numbers, Dr. Harrington, on percentage of dropout rates for American students and the trend of that over the last say couple of decades? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Yes, sir, we did some work for a group called 

the Business Round Table in Washington, D.C. where we estimated 

the overall size of the dropout population in the United States and 

we estimated that the status dropout rate for people age 16 to 21 

in the U.S. is about 30 percent, ranged somewhere between 25 and 

30 percent. The Manhattan Institute in New York City, using an 

entirely different methodology, also estimated a dropout rate in the 

United States of 25 to 30 percent. 

Mr. KING. I saw that on the news one morning a couple of 

months ago and it was an astonishingly high rate and when I reflect back on what that means about those American students that 

are dropouts from high school and what their opportunities are if 

the low skill jobs are being swallowed up exclusively or statistically 

at least exclusively, by the influx of uneducated illegals. 

Another question that I would direct, I think to you, Dr. Harrington, is do you have an opinion on what’s essential work? And 

I think of it in these terms, if wages are being driven down and 

I can think in terms of a constituent I have that has a 24-row 

planter and he’s as technical as you can be and he markets on the 

internet, he’s an ag producer and he bought land in Brazil and he 

has 96 one-row cultivators down there, 96 people with a hoe, that 

he pays $3.00 to $4.00 a day. I’ve watched him use technology in 

Iowa, and cheap labor parks his equipment in Brazil. This phenomenon of non-essential work, when you have people that will 

work for say $3.00 to $5.00 an hour, to pick a number, is there 

more work that gets done that’s hired that wouldn’t be done otherwise, that people would either do themselves or let go? And how 

61

much of this percentage of work that’s being done by illegals in this 

country is essential versus some non-essential work? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Well, I think the evidence is pretty clear on 

this, that at the very bottom of the labor market, the contribution 

to output and GDP is quite low because the wage rates are low. 

So by definition, it’s just not a very productive job. And it means 

a couple of things, it means that firms are slower to engage in technological innovation because they substitute low wage labor for 

more sophisticated technologies. That may, in the long run, actually inhibit productivity in the U.S. 

But the second thing that happens is we’re just seeing a lot of 

growth in off-the-books jobs, they’re not really jobs. I was speaking 

to a construction worker and he said to me there’s plenty of work 

out there, but not many jobs. And that means we’re creating this 

whole informal, illegal sector of the economy that’s really undermining work. And I would consider all that not only inessential, I 

would consider that illegal and immoral. 

Mr. KING. I just paint a scenario here in a broader picture, 

what’s a country to do? I firmly believe that we should establish 

an immigration policy designed to enhance the economic, the social 

and the cultural well-being of the United States of America. And 

that should be the mission for every country, for that matter and 

it has to be—— [Applause.] 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Chair has to remind the audience 

again about the rules about expressing support or opposition to 

what’s said. Please follow them. 

The gentleman from Iowa. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’d ask you to look at this Nation as an overall economic vehicle 

that we have as essentially a huge lifeboat with about 300 million 

people in it. And you need people to row and people to bail and people to chart the course and somebody to cook the means, folks out 

there that essentially put their hands to the task of helping to 

drive this economic engine. And I look also across this 300 million 

people and out of them, we have 9.3 million between the ages of 

16 and 19 who are simply not in the workforce, there are another 

4.3 or so million on welfare, there are another—oh, let’s see, there’s 

a number between 65 and 70, there are about 4.5 million not in 

the workforce, kind of our vigorous senior citizen age there. When 

you add it all up including retired, you have 77.5 million non-working Americans. If you take the retirees out of there and pick that 

age, that vital age between 20 and 65, you’re over 60 million nonworking Americans. Now what kind of a Nation, if we were rowing 

this lifeboat along and we decided we needed some more people at 

the oars, and that’s a questionable issue listening to this testimony 

this morning, but we pull across another continent somewhere and 

say let’s load some more oarsmen on here because we need them 

versus take some people out of steerage, out of those 77.5 million 

that are not contributing to this economy and put them to the oars, 

put them to bailing, what’s that mean to the overall picture of our 

economy when you’re bringing on more people when you’ve got 77.5 

million people not working in America? And I direct that to Dr. 

Camarota, please. 

62

Mr. CAMAROTA. Right, and the trends look terrible. The share of 

less educated workers holding a job has declined dramatically in 

recent years. If all jobs went to the immigrants, it wouldn’t necessarily be all bad news if the native pool was shrinking. It’s actually growing and yet what’s happening is these people are leaving 

the labor force entirely. So to stay with your analogy, now they’re 

becoming increasingly dead weight. And that can’t be good to have 

a lot of young men in particular standing around on street corners 

idle. 

Mr. KING. Dr. Briggs, quickly, please. 

Mr. BRIGGS. Well, I would certainly agree with that, but please 

also remember that all these entry level jobs, almost all of us at 

some time work in those entry level jobs, I certainly did. And these 

entry level jobs are not jobs that are just for low educated persons. 

Many people, teenagers, young people, that’s how you begin. I set 

pins in a bowling alley, they don’t do that any more, thank God. 

But that was how you start, that starts you on the trail of work 

and you’ve got to have access to so-called low income jobs, whether 

you’re rich or poor. Many people work in this labor market, it’s not 

just the low income people who are perpetually there. They are 

very important and I’m deeply concerned with, but a lot of people 

get their entry level work experience in these low entry level jobs 

and that’s the way they gradually escalate themselves up to a 

worker, a full time worker. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair will recognize himself now to wrap up the hearing. 

Mr. Conyers and I were in the Congress in 1986 when the Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed. And 

I voted against it because I didn’t think it would work. And I think 

in 20 years experience, a no vote was the correct one. 

The linchpins of the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill were to give amnesty 

to the illegal immigrants who were in the country at that time and 

then to prevent more illegal immigration by setting up the employer sanction system. 

Well, the amnesty was hugely successful and a lot of it was 

based upon fraudulent documents, according to then Attorney General Edwin Meese. And employer sanctions were never enforced. 

And I think what this hearing has done today is to emphasize 

that there is going to be no immigration reform bill passed that 

will be effective, whether it’s the Senate Bill or the House Bill, unless employer sanctions are enforced. And that means having a 

verifiable system to flush out the bad documents. It also means increasing the fines on those employers who do hire illegal immigrants, so that the fines are high enough to act as a deterrent. And 

with the House Bill and the $5000 apiece fine that I’ve referred to 

earlier, all you need to do is to have a couple of raids of employers 

who have 500 or more illegal immigrants. That’s a $12.5 million 

fine and that will make front page news in every newspaper in the 

country and start acting as a deterrent to people doing that in the 

future. 

I hear an awful lot about why the bill hasn’t gone to conference. 

That’s the Senate’s fault, it’s not our fault. And I said that earlier 

as well. The Senate also adopted a 124-page amendment in the 

middle of the night right before they passed the bill. And I’m one 

63

who believes that the best disinfectant is sunlight and there’s not 

a heck of a lot of sunlight in Washington, D.C. and there’s a lot 

more sunlight in Evansville and in Dubuque and in El Paso and 

in San Diego than there is in Washington, D.C. And frankly, that’s 

why we’re having these hearings here. 

The testimony that we’ve heard today has not been given in the 

Senate or the House, about the devastating impact of illegal immigration on employment, particularly on employment of low skilled 

people who are just entering the labor force. The illegal immigrants 

are taking their jobs away. And we really can’t complaint about 

youth crime and drugs and all of the other illegal and bad social 

activities unless we provide jobs for the kids who are getting out 

of our schools, hopefully with a diploma, but including those that 

are not. 

And I’m one who believes that it’s better to pass no bill than a 

bad bill. The Senate Bill, in this respect, which I think is the 

linchpin of any effective immigration reform law, is sorely lacking 

because it doesn’t deal with the issue of the bad actors who are employing illegal immigrants, largely off the books and paying them 

substandard wages and in many cases exploiting them. 

I would hope that that’s something that people of good will, 

whether they’re for or against either of our bills, will agree on. And 

I think if we don’t deal with this issue, we’re going to end up striking out and having another problem that will be even worse that 

the country will have to face. 

And I’m opposed to amnesty. I think amnesty is wrong because 

it awards somebody with citizenship eventually who has broken 

our law, in some cases to the detriment of those potential immigrants who wish to comply with our law, but we’ve had seven amnesties since 1986. If amnesty was the answer, those seven amnesties would have ended up solving the problem and we wouldn’t be 

here today and I’d be on my boat in the lake west of Milwaukee 

in Wisconsin rather than working here in Evansville, Indiana. 

But I’m also deeply concerned about the fact that the Senate Bill 

does goofy things like requiring people in private sector employment to pay amnestied illegal immigrants more than native workers and also the business of retroactive Social Security benefits of 

illegal benefits who used fake Social Security numbers to get jobs, 

which will be an 80 to 100 billion dollar hit on the Social Security 

trust fund that I think all of us realize is not all that healthy. 

So I’d like to thank our witnesses today. I’d like to thank all of 

you for coming to listen to this hearing as well as my colleagues 

from near and far who have come to participate. I’ve learned a lot 

at this hearing, I hope that all of you, whether you’re on this side 

of the dais or the other side of the dais, have also learned a lot. 

So thank you again for participating in a very constructive hearing. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Yes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Could I ask unanimous consent that the American 

Immigration Lawyers Association letter be included in the record. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. And without objection, 

the Committee stands adjourned. 

[The material referred to is published in the Appendix.] 

64

[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(65)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

66

LETTER FROM THE ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, INC., SUBMITTED BY

THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY


ABC1.eps
67


ABC2.eps
68

LETTER FROM THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, SUBMITTED BY

THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY


AILA1.eps
69


AILA2.eps
70

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE KENTUCKY COALITION FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND THE CENTRAL KENTUCKY COUNCIL FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE


KC0001.eps
71


KC0002.eps
72


KC0003.eps
73


KC0004.eps
74


KC0005.eps
75


KC0006.eps
76


KC0007.eps
77


KC0008.eps
78


KC0009.eps
79

Æ


KC0010.eps