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

35–452 PDF 2007

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: IMPACT

OF IMMIGRATION ON STATES AND LOCALITIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, 

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 17, 2007

Serial No. 110–28

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH GIBSON, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES,

BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas

UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Chief Counsel 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 17, 2007

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

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

of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 1

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

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 3

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Dennis P. Zine, Councilman, City of Los Angeles, National 

League of Cities 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 5

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

The Honorable John Andrews, former President of the Colorado State Senate 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 13

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 15

The Honorable Sharon Tomiko Santos, Washington State House of Representatives, National Conference of State Legislatures 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 22

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 24

Mr. Stephen Appold, Ph.D., Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise, University 

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 60

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 62

Ms. Audrey Singer, Ph.D., Immigration Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program, 

The Brookings Institution 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 75

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 77

Ms. Anne Morrison Piehl, Ph.D., Department of Economics & Program in 

Criminal Justice, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 81

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 84

Ms. Deborah A. Santiago, Ph.D., Vice President for Policy and Research, 

Excelencia in Education 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 91

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 94

Mr. Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 99

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 101

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on 

Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International 

Law ........................................................................................................................ 2

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

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on 

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 3

Page

IV

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 

Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International 

Law ........................................................................................................................ 125

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ....... 126

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Janet Napolitano, Governor of the 

State of Arizona, on ‘‘Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Impact of Immigration on States and Localities,’’ submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, 

Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border 

Security, and International Law ......................................................................... 128

‘‘The Fiscal Impact of Immigration Reform: The Real Story,’’ by Daniel Griswold, Director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, May 21, 

2007 ....................................................................................................................... 134

Letter from the National Association of Counties and the National League 

of Cities ................................................................................................................. 138

Prepared Statement of the Fair Immigration Reform Movement ....................... 139

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve DeBenedittis, Mayor, the Town 

of Herndon, VA ..................................................................................................... 141

‘‘Dollars without Sense: Underestimating the Value of Less-Educated Workers,’’ by Walter A. Ewing, Ph.D. and Benjamin Johnson, a policy brief 

of the Immigration Policy Center ....................................................................... 144

(1)

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON STATES AND 

LOCALITIES 

THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, 

REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:06 p.m., in Room 

2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe Lofgren 

(Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Gutierrez, Jackson Lee, Conyers, and King. 

Staff present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Majority Chief Counsel; R. 

Blake Chisam, Majority Counsel; George Fishman, Minority Counsel; and Benjamin Staub, Professional Staff Member. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me first apologize for being a full hour late. 

The Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border 

Security, and International Law will come to order. 

As I have explained to our witnesses, the full Committee was in 

a markup downstairs, and the markup seemed to go on a little bit 

longer than we had planned. And then, of course, as soon as we 

were through, the House of Representatives called us over for a 

vote. So we will proceed as quickly as possible. 

This is the 10th hearing we have had on comprehensive immigration reform. And we have studied—I will put my full statement 

in the record, but we have studied a variety of topics related to 

comprehensive immigration reform, and today we are going to turn 

our attention to the cost of immigration to the States and localities. 

In general, most scholars tend to agree that immigrants, on the 

whole, benefit the U.S. economy and American culture, and the 

Subcommittee’s previous hearings have addressed these issues in 

detail. However, despite the overall benefits of immigration to the 

Nation, most scholars tend to concur that illegal immigration can 

have deliterious effects on States and localities, and it is those effects that we will address during this hearing. 

We have a quorum to proceed. Ordinarily I would not proceed 

with the absence of the Ranking Member, but I have been advised 

that at least two of the witnesses have to leave to catch airplanes, 

so I am sure that Mr. King would not object to our allowing those 

two witnesses in particular to begin with their testimony. 

I see also our Chairman, Mr. Conyers, is here. 

2

We realize that at this point a number of States and localities 

have taken legislative action themselves about the issue of immigration all over the board. And clearly the issue of immigration is 

a Federal issue, and the fact that localities and States are stepping 

forward I think is another indicator that it is really time for the 

Federal Government to step up to the bat and take action. 

The National League of Cities, the Nation’s oldest and largest organization devoted to strengthening and promoting cities, shares 

these frustrations, and we will hear from them. 

When Mr. King arrives, obviously, he will have his statement in 

the record. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL

LAW

I would like to welcome the Immigration Subcommittee Members, our witnesses, 

and members of the public to the Subcommittee’s eleventh hearing on comprehensive immigration reform. 

We started our series of hearings at Ellis Island where we examined the need for 

comprehensive immigration reform to secure our borders, to address economic and 

demographic concerns, and we reviewed our nation’s rich immigrant history. We 

have studied immigration reform from 1986 and 1996 in an effort to avoid the mistakes of the past. We’ve considered the problems with and proposed solutions for 

our current employment and worksite verification system. In light of recent proposals by the White House to eliminate family priorities in immigration and replace 

them with a completely new and untested point system, we studied the contributions of family immigrants to America and various immigration point systems used 

around the world. And just yesterday, we had a hearing to explore integration of 

immigrants and their children into the United States. There we learned that if creating new Americans is a goal of our immigration policy, we should ensure that 

comprehensive immigration reform reflects that objective. Purely temporary worker 

programs with little opportunity for those who contribute to our economy to become 

full members of the country that they’ve helped to build run contrary to the goal 

of Americanism and assimilation, because such programs relegate people to a life 

in a permanent underclass. 

Today we turn our attention to the costs of immigration to states and localities. 

In general, most scholars tend to agree that immigrants, on the whole, benefit the 

U.S. economy and American culture. The Subcommittee’s previous hearings have 

addressed these issues in detail. 

Despite the overall benefits of immigration to the nation, most scholars tend to 

concur that illegal immigration can have deleterious effects on states and localities. 

It is those effects we will address during this hearing. 

The witnesses today will explain that most scholars agree that illegal immigrants 

do create certain fiscal costs to taxpayers. Where there are studies—and they are 

varied because of the lack of accurate data—the costs are actually much smaller 

than many may assume. Still, the costs to taxpayers appear to be fairly minimal, 

costing the average taxpayer less than $200 per year. 

These costs relate to local expenditures on schools, hospitals, and criminal incarceration, disproportionately accrued by states and localities. The federal government 

is a greater beneficiary of the tax revenues. 

Many states and localities are frustrated about this inequality of benefits between 

them and the federal government and the lack of federal action to solve the illegal 

immigration issue. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures:

As of April 13, 2007, state legislators in all of the 50 states had introduced at 

least 1,169 bills and resolutions related to immigration or immigrants and refugees. This is more than twice the total number of introduced bills (570) in 2006.

Up to this point in the 2007 legislative sessions, 18 states (Arkansas, Colorado, 

Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, 

Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia 

and Wyoming) have enacted at least 57 bills in this policy arena, already 2⁄3 of 

the total number of laws enacted in 2006. State legislatures have also adopted 

3

at least 19 resolutions and memorials in their 2007 sessions. Most state legislatures remain in session, an indication that it is quite likely that there will be 

even more activity this year.

The National League of Cities (NLC), the nation’s oldest and largest organization 

devoted to strengthening and promoting cities, shares the same frustrations as 

NCSL. The NLC recognizes that local governments are caught in the middle of the 

economic impacts of illegal immigration. As the federal government controls the flow 

and regulation of immigration, the responsibility of integrating immigrants and providing services such as social services, health care and education, lies within the 

local governments. It is the local governments who are bearing the financial impact 

of both legal and illegal immigration. 

Given these local concerns regarding illegal immigration, the time is now for Congress to address comprehensive immigration reform.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Conyers, would you like to make an opening 

statement? We do have two witnesses who have to run for airports. 

Would you like to just enter your opening statement? 

Mr. CONYERS. Before I put it in the record, I just want to emphasize that most of us realize that States do not want to shift the burden of enforcement to them. 

And, secondly, this is not just an enforcement problem, the reform of immigration, that this maybe ninth hearing has to do with, 

and that the immigration debate highlights the need for universal 

health care. 

We know that immigrants are anything but a burden. It has 

been documented over and over. But I think that one of the responsibilities of this important series of hearings by the Immigration 

Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee is that we analyze the 

cost, the benefits, and the opportunities of working together. 

I would like my complete statement to be entered into the record, 

and I thank the gentlelady, the Chairwoman. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Conyers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY

In this hearing, we will delve a little deeper into the issue of whether immigration 

is a net positive for our communities. 

There are some things that we know going into this debate. 

First, we know that the States do not want us to shift the burden of enforcement 

to them. Nor should we. This is a Federal responsibility, and we must rise to the 

challenge. 

Second, this is not just an enforcement issue. In yesterday’s hearing, we agreed 

that immigrants should be brought into the American social fabric through programs such as language and civics classes. Those programs do not happen on their 

own. Those programs do not happen on their own, and civic engagement, education, 

and opportunity shouldn’t just be for immigrants, but for everyone. We need to support the States and localities to provide these critical services. 

Third, we know that the immigration debate highlights the need for universal 

health care. For example, a Health Affairs Journal study found that undocumented 

immigrants are not the cause of over-crowded emergency departments and higher 

health care costs. Rather, the problem is that more and more Americans lack health 

care coverage. We need to address this and take the burden of our local health systems. 

Finally, we know that immigrants are anything but a burden. As the Economic 

Research Service of the Department of Agriculture states on this point:

‘‘[The infusion of Hispanic immigrants] has helped to stem decades of population decline in some States, revitalizing many rural communities with new demographic and economic vigor. Such population infusions may affect the allocation of State and Federal program funding to rural areas for education, health, 

other social services, and infrastructure projects.’’

4

In fact, these infusions have widely been interpreted as impacting Congressional 

redistricting in some states. Former Governor Tom Vilsak was so struck by this 

issue and by the need to ensure future stability that he pursued a strategy of recruiting immigrants to come to Iowa. 

Immigration presents us with costs, benefits, and opportunities. Working together, 

we can meet the challenges and reap the rewards of these new Americans.

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection. And thank you so much, Mr. 

Conyers, for being here today. 

Without objection, the testimony of Governor Janet Napolitano, 

the governor of Arizona, will also be submitted for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Governor Napolitano is inserted in 

the Appendix.] 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would like to introduce our witnesses. 

Here we have the Honorable Sharon Tomiko Santos, who is a 

Representative in the Washington State House of Representatives. 

Seattle first elected Representative Santos to the Washington 

House in 1998. She now serves as the majority whip. She is a leader on education, health care, and affordable housing, and she 

served as an NGO delegate to the United Nations’ fourth World 

Conference on Women and is a recipient of the Martin Luther 

King, Jr. ‘‘Keeping the Dream Alive Award.’’ She earned her bachelor’s degree from Evergreen State College and her master’s degree 

from Northeastern University. 

I am also pleased to welcome the Honorable Dennis Zine, a 

friend from California, a member of the City Council, representing 

Los Angeles’s 3rd District. Councilman Zine has worked for nearly 

4 decades in public service, beginning as an officer in the Los Angeles Police Department 37 years ago. In addition to his duties as 

Councilman, Mr. Zine volunteers with organizations such as Mothers Against Drun,k Driving, the Haven Hills Home for Battered 

Women and the Jewish Home for Aging. He is the treasurer for the 

Independent Cities Association and represents Los Angeles on the 

National League of Cities Public Safety and Crime Prevention 

Steering Committee. 

I am also pleased to introduce Dr. Stephen Appold, a scholar at 

the Frank Hawkins Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise at the 

University of North Carolina’s Kenan-Flagler Business School. 

Prior to his post at UNC, he taught at Carnegie-Mellon University 

and the National University of Singapore. He also taught in the executive education program for labor unionists in the Ong Teng 

Cheong Institute of Labor Studies in Singapore. Dr. Appold received a bachelor’s and master’s degree from the State University 

of New York Stony Brook and a master’s and doctoral degree from 

the University of North Carolina. 

And, finally, I am pleased to open the minority’s witness on the 

panel, the Honorable John Andrews, former President of the Colorado State Senate. Former Senator Andrews now serves as a senior 

fellow at the Claremont Institute in Denver. He served as a State 

Senator between 1998 and 2005, leaving on a term limit. Prior to 

his distinguished tenure in public office, he chaired the State policy 

network and directed TCI Cable News. After graduating from 

Principia College, former Senator Andrews was also a U.S. Navy 

submarine officer. 

Each of your written statements will be made a part of the 

record in its entirety. We have asked each of you to summarize 

5

your testimony in 5 minutes, and that little machine in the front 

will be your guide. When the yellow light goes on, it means you 

have a minute left. 

I am going to ask first Mr. Zine to speak. He has to leave at 4:30 

to catch a plane. And then I think Mr. Andrews will be following 

shortly, and then we will go to the other witnesses who do not have 

as urgent situations. 

Mr. Zine? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DENNIS P. ZINE, COUNCILMAN, CITY OF LOS ANGELES, NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 

Mr. ZINE. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair 

and Members of the Subcommittee. 

I am Dennis P. Zine, council member from the City of Los Angeles, here today on behalf of the National League of Cities as a 

member of the board of directors for the National League of Cities 

and the Chairperson of the Immigration Task Force for the National League of Cities. 

The Task Force was established 2 years ago to deal with the 12-

plus million undocumented people in the country. 

I have been with the L.A. City Council for 6 years. Before that, 

I was with the Los Angeles Police Department as an officer and a 

supervisor for over 30 years. I am also the son of Lebanese immigrants, so I am well aware of the impact of immigration from the 

perspective of law enforcement and also a vulnerable population, 

and as someone responsible for the management of a major city, 

the City of Los Angeles. 

The National League of Cities is pleased to have this opportunity 

to speak to you this afternoon to present our views on the impact 

of immigration on America’s cities and towns and the need for comprehensive Federal immigration reform legislation. The absence of 

a functional Federal system regulating an orderly flow of immigration has resulted in financial, cultural, and political strains in communities across America. 

Local governments are caught in the middle of this debate with 

no control over the flow and regulation of immigration but with the 

responsibilities of integrating immigrants into our communities 

and providing the services necessary for stable neighborhoods. 

Recent headlines highlighting new restrictive laws are the depressing example of the stress local governments face in dealing 

with the fast-growing immigration populations and finding the best 

way to balance the needs of newcomers with our established residents. 

As immigrants, both legal and illegal, flood our communities, 

more than 90 cities and counties have proposed, passed or rejected 

laws prohibiting landlords from leasing to undocumented immigrants, penalizing businesses that employ undocumented workers 

or training local police to enforce Federal immigration laws. You 

may have heard of the confrontation between the Los Angeles Police Department and the pro-immigration groups on May 1 in Los 

Angeles. It was not a pretty picture and the LAPD does not even 

enforce illegal entry laws. 

While immigrants have strengthened our country and our communities in numerous ways, many communities are straining to 

6

find the right approach in such an unsettled environment over immigration and Federal immigration policy. 

In addition to cultural impacts on the community, the responsibility for providing social services, education and health care is falling on State and local governments, which are feeling the financial 

impact of both legal and illegal immigrants in cities and towns. 

California has long been a gateway for new immigrants. However, 

my colleagues in new destination States now face many of the 

same challenges that we have encountered for many, many years. 

Despite some cities receiving the headlines for their restrictive 

policies, many local governments across the Nation are working 

hard to integrate immigrants without regard to their immigration 

status into their communities. Discussions with local officials 

across the Nation point to positive impacts on communities by reversing population declines, stabilizing or increasing school enrollments, local industrial employers relying heavily on immigrant 

populations to take jobs that would otherwise go unfilled. 

Undocumented immigrants also contribute significantly to spending power of local economies. Sales tax is charged to all who purchase goods and products in our stores. In general, most of these 

residents are hardworking people trying to provide for their families and build a brighter future for their children. Many communities have established welcome centers, held diversity events, and 

undertaken other activities to make the new residents feel that 

they are a valued part of the community. 

Local law enforcement personnel find it difficult if not impossible 

to build trust among undocumented populations and many immigrants are reluctant to report crimes or cooperate in criminal investigations with the police for fear that their undocumented status 

will be uncovered and they may face prosecution and deportation. 

A lack of valid documentation also leaves immigrants vulnerable to 

exploitation by unscrupulous individuals and makes it easer for the 

small minority of immigrants involved in criminal activity to hide 

and even exploit others with impunity. 

Local government’s primary concern is to protect the safety of all 

residents by building trust among all populations with our cities, 

regardless of immigrant status. Families are forced to live underground, unable to get drivers’ licenses or car insurance in most 

States, unlikely to obtain health insurance, and afraid to report 

crimes to the police. 

Because immigrants, whether legal or illegal, generally live or 

work in our cities and towns, new legislation to significantly improve the Federal immigration system is a critical issue for the National League of Cities. National League of Cities asks you to act 

quickly to enact comprehensive reform to the current immigration 

laws to bring some sense and reasonableness to America’s immigration policy. 

We are talking about comprehensive immigration reform legislation which should include the following: enforcement of existing 

laws, including strong worksite enforcement and accurate worker 

verification; increased staff and resources at the borders; increased 

enforcement against those individuals who initially enter the country illegally with student, tourist or business visas but remain in 

this country after their visas expire; effective enforcement of the 

7

Federal law that makes it illegal to knowingly hire and employ undocumented immigrants and to penalize employers significantly 

who continue to violate the law; better verification system, including a universal, reliable, effective, secure, nondiscriminatory identification verification system using the top technology; better avenues for legal immigration, including legal means of immigration 

of foreign nationals who want to work here temporarily, as well as 

those who desire to become legal, permanent residents, gain citizenship; and a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the United States through payment of appropriate 

fees, back taxes, background checks, absence of criminal gang activity, work history, and the ability to meet English and civic requirements; funding to help alleviate the impact on communities, 

including public safety, language, health education. 

Border security along with employee verification and other reasonable measures will bring about safety and security for the 

American people and at the same time assist those desiring to 

achieve the American dream which we all enjoy. 

And in conclusion, this isn’t a partisan issue, it is across all political lines and impacts hundreds of communities across America. 

The solution rests in your hands. We implore you to act and finally 

resolve this. 

In conclusion, NLC looks forward to working with you, and I 

thank you for your time. Five minutes and seventeen seconds. 

[Laughter.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zine follows:]

8

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENNIS P. ZINE


DZ-1.eps
9


DZ-2.eps
10


DZ-3.eps
11


DZ-4.eps
12

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Councilman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, is the gentleman going to leave 

before the witnesses have concluded their presentations? 

Mr. ZINE. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think he is going to have to. And also Mr. Andrews. 

Mr. ZINE. Yes, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Could I ask him to include subsequently in writing 

the incredible Los Angeles police riot that you referenced in your 

statement. 

And I would like to get a comment from a veteran law enforcement person as well as a distinguished Councilman: what is the effect of all of these raids and roundups on places in which likely immigrants may be? 

We have got a huge law enforcement problem going on as we 

speak, and you would be appropriate to help us sort that out. 

Mr. ZINE. We have that, and that is one of the problems with no 

comprehensive reform. We have jurisdictions throughout the country that have decided to do it on their own. And as the Chair said, 

you have individual localities establishing their own rules and regulations in the absence of a Federal regulation. 

So we have, for example, in some counties in California, they do 

immigration enforcement. In Los Angeles, we don’t. But you can’t 

have this, ‘‘I crossed this community into another community and 

we are going to be incarcerated because we don’t have proper status in the country.’’

Mr. CONYERS. So what about the Los Angeles police rioting on 

immigrants? 

Mr. ZINE. Well, when that happened—see, we don’t have a policy. 

We have what is called ‘‘special number 40.’’ We don’t enforce the 

status of an individual in the country. We are banned from that 

through an order that has been in place in Los Angeles City for 

many years. 

But what happened in that particular situation is you had a 

demonstration, a May Day demonstration. There was a dispersal 

order after police were assaulted with some rocks and bottles, after 

a motorcycle supervisor was knocked off his motorcycle. So there 

was the command to disperse the crowd. And I will be the first to 

admit that the way they dispersed that crowed was not appropriate. 

Mr. CONYERS. It wasn’t premeditated? 

Mr. ZINE. No, no, no. There was a scheduled demonstration, a 

May Day demonstration, which they annually have. This demonstration——

Mr. CONYERS. No. I mean the action of the police, was that premeditated? 

Mr. ZINE. Well, I would hope not. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well——

Mr. ZINE. And we are doing an investigation that is due the end 

of this month to bring all the facts forward. We know that that is 

not the typical procedure by any law enforcement agency, when you 

have members of the media, women and children, that get involved 

in this situation with the dispersal of a crowd, but——

13

Mr. CONYERS. Finally—Madam Chair, you have been very generous—do you know the record of the Los Angeles Police in terms 

of illegal activity and violence visited upon their citizenry? This 

isn’t an isolated case. 

Mr. ZINE. Well, the Los Angeles Police Department is under a 

Federal consent decree because of situations that have taken place 

in the past, and we hope with this administration and Antonio 

Villaraigosa as our mayor, this city council, which I am a proud 

member of, Bernard Parks, former chief of police, is a council member, we are rectifying the situation that has been—shall we say 

some of the sad situations that have taken place in Los Angeles 

City in the past. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

I wonder if we could ask Mr. Andrews to deliver his testimony 

and then we might have just a few minutes left to direct questions 

to these two members, and then they will have to run. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN ANDREWS, FORMER 

PRESIDENT OF THE COLORADO STATE SENATE 

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, thanks for your courtesy in 

taking me out of order. 

Madam Chair, Mr. Conyers, Members of the Committee, it is an 

honor to speak with you this afternoon. 

I am John Andrews. I was President of the Colorado Senate, 

2003 to 2005. Our western State is not on the frontline of America’s southern border, but we are a second-line State. We have been 

identified as a gathering and transmission point for a massive mission point for a massive flow of people that have entered this country illegally. 

I bring you from Colorado an appeal to build a fence and secure 

the border first and foremost. I appeal to you not to reward 

lawbreakers with green cards and citizenship. 

People in Colorado are self-reliant in their way of life, optimistic 

in their outlook, welcoming to newcomers from anywhere in the 

world. We are not complainers, and we are not alarmists. But we 

know a problem when we see one, and we expect a bargain to be 

kept. 

Right now millions of Coloradans see the invasion of illegal 

aliens as an urgent problem for our State. We attribute that problem to the Federal Government’s failure to keep its bargain with 

Americans everywhere for secure borders and the rule of law. Amnesty for illegal aliens was supposed to fix this problem 20 years 

ago. It did not. 

Estimates today put the illegal alien population of Colorado at 

somewhere between 250,000 to 750,000 people, up to 15 percent of 

the entire population. Our schools, our health care system, and our 

criminal justice system are groaning under this burden. Our common culture and common language are fraying. We feel Washington has let us down. It seems Congress and the White House 

just don’t care. 

Most of those individuals who broke the law to come here or stay 

here are probably good people with good motives. But we can’t be 

sure. Some may be enemy sleepers with deadly intent. Nor can we 

14

be sure how many of them are actually here, or what countries 

they came from. 

But I can assure you, Madam Chairman, their country of origin 

does not matter to Coloradans. What matters is their disruptive 

impact on our State, disrupting self-government, disrupting safe 

neighborhoods, disrupting affordable public services. 

Feeling betrayed by Federal inaction, Coloradans last year started a petition to protect affordable public services by restricting 

them to legal residents only, except in emergencies or by Federal 

mandate. That petition was called Defend Colorado Now. I was one 

of four co-chairmen, Democrats and Republicans, Anglos and Hispanics, helping lead that campaign. 

A study done for our group, based on documented statistics in 

the public record, found that illegal aliens were costing Colorado 

taxpayers over $1 billion a year through the extra burden on services and that they were reducing family paychecks by another $2 

billion a year through lower wages. The entire study is available 

online and I have provided that citation for the Committee’s reference. 

In 2005, Colorado voters had approved a ballot issue to raise taxes by about $1 billion a year, which wouldn’t have been necessary if the Federal Government had kept its bargain for secure 

borders. Then in 2006, with that petition, we set out to do what 

we could about the problem ourselves. 

You are absolutely right, Madam Chairman. It can’t be solved 

State by State. 

Our petition happened to fall short, but it did push the legislature into passing some of the toughest ID requirements and workplace sanctions of any State. 

The legislature also took an extraordinary step. It asked voters 

to approve a lawsuit against the Attorney General of the United 

States, as if Mr. Gonzales didn’t have enough on his hands, which 

demands enforcement of Federal immigration laws in order to give 

us some budgetary relief in the areas of health care, law enforcement, criminal defense and incarceration, education. It passed by 

a landslide and the Colorado lawsuit is now in Federal court. 

We aren’t holding our breath, but it shows the public impatience 

on this issue. 

I grew up in a Colorado mountain town called Buena Vista. This 

week there was a national news report alleging that radical 

Islamists have a paramilitary training camp at Buena Vista. I wonder if some of them are illegal aliens, similar to the Fort Dix cell 

that was recently broken up. That is the risk we take with an unsecured border in the middle of a global war. 

As the father of a Denver police officer, I have to take such 

threats seriously. One of my son’s fellow officers, Donald Young, 

was brutally murdered by an illegal alien 2 years ago this month. 

My son has a T-shirt that says ‘‘Never Forget.’’ Coloradans won’t 

forget, but we can’t solve this problem without your help here in 

Congress. 

The help we need is for you to build the fence and secure the border, period. No amnesty. No so-called comprehensive solution for 

cheap votes and cheap labor. Just stop the invasion. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present our State’s concerns. 

15

[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrews follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN ANDREWS

I’m John Andrews, former President of the Colorado Senate, now a senior fellow 

with the Claremont Institute. People in my state are self-reliant in their way of life, 

optimistic in their outlook, and welcoming to newcomers from anywhere in the 

world. We are not complainers, and we are not alarmists. 

But we know a problem when we see one, and we expect a bargain to be kept. 

Right now millions of Coloradans see the invasion of illegal aliens as an urgent 

problem for our state, and we attribute that problem to the federal government’s 

failure to keep its bargain with Americans everywhere for secure borders and the 

rule of law. 

Amnesty for illegal aliens was supposed to fix this problem 20 years ago. It did 

not. Estimates today put the illegal alien population of Colorado at somewhere between 250,000 to 750,000 people—as much as 15 percent of the entire population. 

Our schools, our health care system, and our criminal justice system are groaning 

under this burden. Our common culture and common language are fraying. We feel 

that Washington has let us down. It seems Congress and the White House just don’t 

care. 

Most of those individuals who broke the law to come here or stay here are probably good people with good motives. But we cannot be sure. Some may be enemy 

sleepers with deadly intent. Nor can we be sure how many of them are actually 

here, or what countries they came from. 

I can tell you that their country of origin does not matter at all to my fellow Coloradans. What matters is their disruptive impact on our state—disrupting self-government, disrupting safe neighborhoods, disrupting affordable public services. 

Feeling betrayed by federal inaction, Coloradans last year started a petition to 

protect affordable public services by restricting them to legal residents only, except 

in emergencies or by federal mandate. The petition was called Defend Colorado 

Now. I was one of four co-chairmen, Democrats and Republicans, Anglos and Hispanics, leading that campaign. 

A study done for our group, based on documented statistics in the public record, 

found that illegal aliens were costing state taxpayers over $1 billion a year through 

the extra burden on services—and reducing family paychecks by another $2 billion 

a year through lower wages. (See full study at www.defendcoloradonow.org.) 

In 2005, Colorado voters had approved a ballot issue to raise taxes by about $1 

billion a year—which would not have been necessary if the federal government had 

kept its bargain for secure borders. 

In 2006 Coloradans set out to do what we could about the problem ourselves. Our 

petition fell short, but it did push the legislature into passing some of the toughest 

ID requirements and workplace sanctions of any state. 

The legislature also asked voters to approve a lawsuit against the US Attorney 

General, demanding enforcement of federal immigration laws in order to give us 

some budgetary relief in the areas of health care, law enforcement, criminal defense 

and incarceration, and education. It passed by a landslide and the Colorado lawsuit 

is now in federal court. We’re not holding our breath, but it shows the public impatience on this issue. 

I grew up in a Colorado mountain town called Buena Vista. This week there was 

a national news report alleging that radical Islamists have a paramilitary training 

camp at Buena Vista. I wonder if some of them are illegal aliens, similar to the Fort 

Dix cell that was recently broken up. That’s the risk we take with an unsecured 

border in the middle of a global war. 

As the father of a Denver police officer, I have to take such threats seriously. One 

of my son’s fellow officers, Donald Young, was brutally murdered by an illegal alien 

two years ago this month. My son has a T-shirt that says ‘‘Never Forget.’’ Coloradans have not forgotten, but we can’t solve this problem without your help in Congress. 

The help we need is for you to build the fence and secure the border, period. No 

amnesty for lawbreakers. No so-called comprehensive solution for cheap votes and 

cheap labor. Just stop the invasion. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present my state’s concerns.

16

ATTACHMENT


JA-1.eps
17


JA-2.eps
18

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you both very much. 

I know that you both indicated that you have to leave at 4:30. 

We have questions, but we also don’t want you to miss your planes, 

so if you need to leave at this point, we do understand. 

Mr. ANDREWS. I would be happy to take a few minutes, Madam 

Chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I will begin the questioning. 

Let me ask Mr. Zine. It has been a pleasure to work with the 

City of Los Angeles and the National League of Cities. You note 

in your testimony that the National League ‘‘opposes the conscription of local personnel to enforce Federal immigration laws and you 

urge us not to transfer responsibility of enforcing immigration laws 

to States or local government.’’

What do you think would be the consequences of doing that? 

What is your concern about the unintended consequence of having 

State and local governments enforce Federal immigration laws? 

Mr. ZINE. The concern with that is that we don’t have sufficient 

personnel to handle the routine calls for service. We are trying to 

get to 10,000 police officers in the City of Los Angeles. We have a 

4 million person population. We are 9,500 and we are struggling 

to recruit police officers. 

We don’t have the personnel to handle our basic responsibilities. 

If we start doing immigration enforcement—when I joined the police department in 1968, we did immigration enforcement. And we 

would find an individual who was illegal in this country, we would 

take them down to Immigration, they would take custody. The volume wasn’t what it is today. It is really physically impossible with 

the limited resources we have. 

The other issue is, it breaks down that relationship we try to 

build with the immigrant populations. We speak over 130 languages in the City of Los Angeles. If we start doing that with our 

police officers, we are going to break down whatever we have established in relationships community policing with many of the people 

who come here from Armenia, from many, many countries. It is not 

just one particular ethnic group. 

And the problem is that we don’t have the personnel, we are 

going to break down whatever relationships we have established 

with these groups, and many of them are hardworking people trying to strive for that American dream. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am going to not use all of my time and allow the 

Ranking Member to ask his questions. We are doing an abbreviated set of questions so we can get to the others on the panel. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you for your testimony, both of you. 

Mr. Zine, first, as I listen to your testimony here, this thought 

occurs to me. You have quite a list of things that we need to do. 

Quite comprehensive in this list, and many of them have significant merit. 

I will take you back, though, to—I can’t get past a question, it 

happens to me once in a while, if I can’t resolve something on the 

road to somewhere, I have to go back and fix that spot. And so that 

piece that I don’t comprehend is the comprehensive immigration reform proposal at its very base and foundation, and that is a recognition by I believe this panel and certainly a consensus of the 

19

witnesses that have been before it that if you legalize people that 

are currently here illegally, they will have access to more government services, not less. And the cost then to local government in 

particular increases significantly. 

So as I listen to your proposal for solutions, I would wonder why 

you want to have my burden on local government, at least so far 

as those benefits are concerned, rather than less, which would 

come from enforcement of the immigration law. 

Mr. ZINE. What we are talking about is a buy-in to the system. 

We are talking about having to pay the taxes, having to pay the 

fees, having them legitimized within the system. 

What we have found is deportation doesn’t work. People get deported and they come right back. So we are looking at realistically 

how do we deport 12 million people, what do we do with the children that are born here in America that we are now going to have 

to deal with. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Zine, even though abbreviated, I still don’t think 

I understand that in that you will have more burden on the local 

taxpayer on a per capita basis just by legalizing the people that are 

here. If they aren’t going to move out of Los Angeles County, you 

are still going to have that burden, only it will be greater because 

they will have access to more services. 

So doesn’t that put more burden on the people that are currently 

there? 

Mr. ZINE. Well, they have access to all the services now, within 

the County of Los Angeles, the county hospitals, the education system. That is one of the problems that we have. They are already 

taking advantage of those systems and costing the taxpayers. 

Mr. KING. I don’t think we are going to agree on that. 

Mr. ZINE. They are not excluded, in other words. They are not 

excluded from any of the basic services that we provide, whether 

it be education or hospital. 

Mr. KING. But they are excluded from some Federal services, and 

that I will think you will acknowledge. 

Mr. ZINE. But not local services. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. That is your business down there, I guess. 

Let me ask you another question, then. You don’t cooperate with 

Federal officials. You are a sanctuary city. And that is—I think we 

understand the meaning of that term as I use it here. If we give 

you—grant you—or if you get your version of comprehensive immigration reform, would you then consider amending that ban on cooperating with Federal law enforcement officials and help us cooperate at the local level to enforce the new immigration law? 

Mr. ZINE. Well, once we approach something that is realistic, 

that we see employer verification, if you are going to work, no matter what type of industry you are going to work in, you are going 

to have that verification, we would be more than happy to work in 

cooperative relationship to enforce that against the employer, 

against the employee, so we have something with some teeth. Right 

now we don’t have anything. 

Mr. KING. Will you gather information on the street as it came 

across to the officers, which is now prohibited? 

Mr. ZINE. It is now prohibited, but once we have this—but, see, 

part of it is you have to be legitimate. The employer-employee. 

20

Once we have reached that point, you have got to have it. We want 

enforcement. Then it would go to the police commission and go to 

the city leaders. 

Mr. KING [continuing]. Officers on the street that know they are 

looking at people that are unlawfully present standing on the 

streets of Los Angeles today, and they are prohibited from engaging those people. Would you maintain that kind of a policy or 

would you cooperate with Federal law and help us, when we turn 

over the new coin? 

Mr. ZINE. Once the new coin is turned over, then I am sure the 

policymakers would have a different approach. But let me say this 

about illegal immigration. An individual commits a crime in Los 

Angeles and they are illegal, we do enforce the immigration laws 

against people that are committing crimes. 

Mr. KING. I understand that. 

Mr. ZINE. We are not going out there and asking for identification. Once they commit a crime, then we use all the resources of 

the Federal, local and State governments. But that is another policy matter that would come before us for review. 

I would support something like that because we are not going to 

have it without teeth and cooperation. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Mr. Gutierrez? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much. 

I thank the witnesses for their testimony. 

In Chicago we have Michigan Avenue. It is know as ‘‘The Magnificent Mile.’’ But there is a street called 26th Street in Little Village. It is not called ‘‘Magnificent 26th Street.’’ But it collects second only to ‘‘The Magnificent Mile’’ in sales tax, the second street 

in the whole city of Chicago. It is a two-mile long, immigrant community rebuilding that community and bringing sales tax there. I 

just wanted to make that point very quickly. 

I wanted to ask Mr. Andrews, in Colorado, are undocumented or 

as you refer to them illegal workers exempted from paying sales 

tax when they make a purchase at a local store? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Of course not, Congressman. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. When they pay their cable bill, are they exempted from the tax that is imposed on the cable bill? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Not at all. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. No. How about when they pay their electric bill 

and we tax their electric bill? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Not at all. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Gas bill? I guess they are not exempted from 

that bill. Let me see what else. I am just trying to think of what 

taxes I pay. Let me see. My phone bill and my cell phone bill has 

Federal, state and local taxes on my phone bill, both my phone bill 

at my home and my cell phone bill. I pay property taxes. I imagine 

you know that they own property, they own homes. So they are not 

exempted in the state of Colorado from paying property taxes. I 

imagine you agree with that? 

Mr. ANDREWS. I see where you are going, Congressman——

21

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I just want an answer to the question. Are they 

exempted from paying property taxes? 

Mr. ANDREWS. There is no exemption that I know of for any tax. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Gasoline taxes, when they fill their tank up with 

gasoline? Tobacco taxes, if they have that particular vice? Liquor 

taxes, if they have that one? If they open a business, I imagine 

they are not exempted from paying fees to the city or the State. 

And they are not exempted from paying Federal income tax, State, 

local tax, or any city tax. They are really not exempted from any 

of the taxes. 

So these 250 to 750, this wide range of people that we don’t know 

how many there are, are not exempted from paying any of those 

taxes. 

Mr. ANDREWS. To the extent, sir, that they are on the books. And 

their employment, if some of them are of the books, obviously they 

are not being taxed. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I knew you were going to go to that point, Mr. 

Andrews. But the employer is required to deduct from their payroll. 

And did you know, Mr. Andrews, that there are over $30 billion in 

unaccounted, unidentified, can’t identify who the people are, in the 

Social Security Trust Fund? Over $30 billion. 

Do you know that every year tens of thousands of ‘‘no match’’ letters are sent out to employers by Social Security because they can’t 

match the name, yet those funds are continuing to flow to our Social Security Trust Fund? 

Mr. ANDREWS. All I am able to speak to, Congressman, is the 

methodology of our study in Colorado, which accounting for the 

taxes estimated to be contributed by those illegally present in the 

United States, still leaves us with a net taxpayer burden in Colorado of $1 billion a year, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I know that there are politicians, I am sure 

present company excluded, who wish to say our school system is 

failing, crime is on the increase, because I listened to your testimony and read it, and then simply attribute it to undocumented 

workers in this county when indeed they do pay taxes in abundance. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and thank you for letting me extend my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

The gentleman’s time has expired, and Mr. Zine has left us. 

The Ranking Member has asked unanimous consent that he be 

recognized for 2 minutes. And, without objection, he is recognized 

for 2 minutes. 

Mr. KING. I thank the Chair, and she reads hand signals very 

well. 

I would like to give Senator Andrews an opportunity to explain 

that viewpoint that I think might have been somewhat frustrated, 

and I yield to you. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. King, but I think my response to 

Mr. Gutierrez, point well taken about the contributions in sales 

and other forms of taxation that are made by individuals present 

in Iowa or Illinois or Colorado, legally or illegally. The methodology 

of the study, to which I have referred the Committee in its full 

text, posted on the Web site of the Defend Colorado Now campaign, 

22

made allowances for the estimated tax contributions of this threequarter million illegal population in Colorado and still concluded 

that legal residents were paying an extra $1 billion in public services to support them. 

Mr. KING. Picking up on that, what I get in the middle of my 

packing plant area, where I grew up and where I live, are manilla 

envelopes full of check stubs from people that are working in the 

packing plant and there will be nothing deducted for State or Federal income taxes, because there are people that are claiming the 

maximum number of dependents, whether they actually have them 

or not, it is very unlikely. 

They do pay Social Security and they sacrifice their Social Security to the account that Mr. Gutierrez mentioned, but oftentimes, 

and we had testimony before this Committee just last year, that 

somewhere between 45 percent and 55 percent are being paid off 

the books. They don’t pay income tax. They don’t pay Social Security. But that Social Security that goes into that account is something that is unlawfully earned, every time. And so I don’t think 

we have an obligation to hand somebody back some money that 

they unlawfully earned. 

I yield back to Mr. Andrews. 

Mr. ANDREWS. I do need to go. I appreciate the Chairman’s courtesy in changing the schedule in order that I can make my plane. 

It was my honor to testify here in 2003 on the Matricula Consular card, restrictions passed with my legislative sponsorship in 

Colorado. I remember a spirited exchange between myself and Congressman Gutierrez at that time, and I welcome the opportunity to 

have a similar exchange with the Committee today. 

Thank you so much. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

And as mentioned before, we may have written questions that we 

will ask you to respond to. 

We are now going to turn to our other patient witnesses. 

First, Councilwoman Santos, we are honored to hear from you. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE SHARON TOMIKO SANTOS, 

WASHINGTON STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 

Ms. SANTOS. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member King and 

Members of the Subcommittee, I am Washington State Representative Sharon Tomiko Santos. 

I appear today on behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures, a bi-partisan organization representing the 50 State legislatures and the legislators. I co-chair NCSL’s Executive Committee Task Force on Immigration and the States. 

Madame Chairwoman, thank you for your leadership in examining the impact of immigration on the States. My comments represent NCSL’s policy on immigration reform, and I ask that our 

policy be placed in the record. 

With bipartisan consensus, we call on the Federal Government 

to act now to pass comprehensive immigration legislation to enhance our border security, address the inequities in our system and 

assist the States with the impact and integration of immigrants, 

especially in our health care, education and justice systems. 

23

States are often left to pay for programs required by Federal law 

as well as services mandated by the courts with limited Federal reimbursements. Our Nation’s immigration laws must not contain 

unfunded mandates nor preempt areas of existing State authority. 

CBO estimates significant cost shifts to the States in education 

and health care systems. States are still the provider of last resort, 

especially in protecting public health and safety and providing 

emergency health care. Public hospital ERs are often the first point 

of entry for medical care. We also are expected to provide public 

health services and to help control potential bioterrorism threats, 

SARS, and avian flu. 

We struggle with the demands upon our pre-K to 12 education 

systems. In the Seattle public schools, students speak more than 

100 languages and dialects. Statewide, the ESL population has 

doubled in the last 10 years. According to superintendents with 

high immigrant enrollment, at least 16,000 Washington students 

are in danger of not being graduating due to language requirements. 

We need additional resources to meet the No Child Left Behind 

requirement. We also believe that it is imperative to provide language and education to newcomers, including temporary and guest 

workers, to facilitate their successful integration into society as 

well as into the economy. Substantial Federal funding for Englishlanguage instruction and ESL can assist the States in these efforts. 

States must be able to count on a reliable guaranteed funding 

source to manage the fiscal impact of providing health and education to immigrant populations. Last year’s Senate bill and the 

STRIVE bill included State impact grants to ameliorate these costs. 

NCSL will only support comprehensive immigration reform legislation if it includes these crucial grants to the States. These funds 

must be subject to State legislative appropriations, providing public 

accountability for these funds. 

The cost of incarcerating unauthorized immigrants that have 

committed crimes in State and local jails should be fully borne by 

the Federal Government through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. Currently, SCAAP only reimburses about 25 percent 

of the cost incurred by States. The President’s fiscal year 2008 

budget eliminates these reimbursements. Shifting Federal costs to 

States weakens our intergovernmental partnership to combat crime 

and is an untenable, unfunded Federal mandate. 

I ask you to place correspondence between my governor and the 

U.S. attorney general in the record. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection. 

[The letter referred to is included in the attachments to Ms. 

Santos’ prepared statement.] 

Ms. SANTOS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

This document invoices the Federal Government for non fairly 

reimbursing my State under SCAAP. In fiscal year 2005, Washington spent $27 million to temporarily hold Federal prisoners. We 

were reimbursed $1.72 million. 

Madam Chairwoman, we urge you to convey to the appropriators 

the vital need for Federal funding for SCAAP and to include full 

reimbursement in any comprehensive immigration reform law. 

24

In late 1999, a terrorist was apprehended crossing Washington’s 

northern border. U.S. security needs must be met at all ports of 

entry and we support full Federal funding for technological and infrastructure improvement and renewed cooperation to counter 

human trafficking and drug smuggling. Security needs, however, 

must also recognize that border State economies are intertwined 

with our neighbors. 

NCSL supports comprehensive immigration reform that includes 

a temporary worker program and an earned legalization program 

for unauthorized immigrants that is not amnesty but a way for 

people who want to remain here in this country to accept a reasonable punishment and work toward legalizing their status. 

State legislators deeply care about immigration reform, Madam 

Chairwoman. I ask that the NCSL reports of State legislative action be placed in the record. This year, more than 1,000 legislative 

bills have been introduced. It is unprecedented. 

You truly are the only policymakers that can fix this problem. 

I thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Santos follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHARON TOMIKO SANTOS

Good Afternoon. 

Madame Chairwoman, Ranking Member King and Members of the Subcommittee 

on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. I 

am State Representative Sharon Tomiko Santos. I serve as a member of the Washington State House of Representatives and as House Majority Whip. I appear today 

on behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), a bi-partisan organization representing the 50 state legislatures and the legislatures of our nation’s 

commonwealths, territories, possessions and the District of Columbia. I am also cochair of NCSL’s Executive Committee Task Force on Immigration and the States. 

Madame Chairwoman, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your 

leadership on this issue and your recognition of the importance of examining the 

impact of immigration on states and localities. State legislators deeply care about 

immigration reform and in a bipartisan fashion call on the federal government to 

pass legislation that will enhance our border security, while addressing the inequities in our current system. The federal government must also deal with the consequences of its immigration policy decision-making. Immigration reform must assist the states with the impact and integration of immigrants, especially on our 

health care, education and justice systems. 

I represent one of the most diverse communities in Seattle, Washington, the 37th 

District, home to a 25 percent foreign-born population. Overall, more than 12 percent of the state’s population is foreign-born and only nine other states have a higher growth rate when it comes to their foreign-born population. Our state has been 

strengthened by the contributions of immigrants. Immigrants have been a source of 

economic development, especially in the agriculture and technological sectors. Over 

60 percent of the state’s agricultural industry is comprised of immigrant labor. 

Federal immigration policy will determine whether we have a stable and reliable 

workforce. The value of our hand-harvested fruit industries exceeds $1.6 billion an 

year. Particularly, our apple and cherry industries are heavily dependent on migrant and seasonal farm workers. Immigration policy will also have an impact on 

other Washington-based industries, such as the public utility industry and the impending retirement wave in this sector. Forty-two percent of Puget Sound Energy’s 

work force is eligible to retire in the next five years. 

Madame Chairwoman, the United States security needs must be met on all ports 

of entry, the southern and also the northern border. As you know, Washington is 

a border state and in late 1999, a terrorist was apprehended crossing this very 

northern border. We must keep our citizens secure. Yet, without compromising this 

critical security need, we need to consider that the northern border region is becoming increasingly economically integrated. One example that comes to mind is the upcoming 2010 Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver, Canada. For my state it is critVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:04 Aug 21, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\051707\35452.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35452
25

ical to harness the beneficial effects connected to an event of this magnitude and 

to facilitate a visit to the United States for many guests from all over the world. 

Although immigration policy falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government, the impact of these policies are directly felt by the states. States are often 

left to pay for programs required by federal law as well as services mandated by 

the courts with limited federal reimbursements. The arrival of immigrants into an 

area requires programs and policies specifically directed towards the needs of immigrants while encouraging economic, social, and civic integration within the community. 

Last year, NCSL’s leadership created an Executive Committee Task Force on Immigration and the States to examine both the state and federal roles in immigration 

reform, to consider NCSL policy and to examine the impact of immigrants on states. 

I speak today representing the bipartisan consensus that led to the adoption of our 

current NCSL policy on Immigration Reform. Immigration is now a 50-state issue—

concerning not only border states like my own but states in the South and Midwest, 

some of whom have seen a 400 percent increase in the number of foreign born residents over the last ten years. Madame Chairwoman, I ask that the NCSL policy be 

placed in the record. 

While immigration policy is a federal responsibility, there has been an unprecedented level of activity in state legislatures on this issue, especially in the absence 

of a federal solution. 

All 50 state legislatures have addressed immigration-related legislation in their 

2007 legislative sessions and over 1150 bills have been introduced. This is already 

twice the number of bills compared to the full 2006 sessions (570). Up to this point, 

18 states have enacted 57 bills (as compared to 90 enactments during the entire 

2006 legislative sessions.) 

The main topics addressed by these bills are employment, law enforcement, benefits and education. Also, there is significant activity by the states in preventing 

human trafficking. Many state legislatures are still in session, meaning that it is 

quite likely that there will be even more activity as the year progresses. Madame 

Chairwoman, I ask that the full NCSL reports of state legislative activity from 2006 

and 2007 be placed in the record. 

Madame Chairwoman, we urge you and the members of the Subcommittee to consider the impact of immigration policy changes on the states. Federal immigration 

policy must strike a balance among core principles of our democracy: preserving the 

safety and security of our nation, encouraging the economic strength of our states 

and communities, and recognizing our history as a nation of immigrants. Our nation’s immigration laws must not contain unfunded mandates nor preempt areas of 

existing state authority. Federal immigration reform will not be comprehensive unless it addresses the impact of immigration on the states—border security and law 

enforcement, the costs of health and education and civic integration. 

BORDER SECURITY AND THE ROLE OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

Border enforcement is critical and we support full federal funding, especially for 

personnel and improvements in technology and infrastructure. State lawmakers 

have also called for renewed cooperation to counteract human trafficking and drugsmuggling. 

Madame Chairwoman, NCSL opposes proposals to shift the federal responsibility 

of enforcing civil immigration law to state and local law government, thus diverting 

critical resources from state and local law enforcement agencies and compromising 

public safety. Enforcement of federal immigration laws is a federal responsibility; 

state governments are already required to assist the federal government in criminal 

immigration violations. Civil immigration law enforcement, i.e. being in the country 

without permission, should remain the responsibility of the federal government, and 

only the federal government. State and local government law enforcement and public safety personnel are already asked, without the benefit of adequate federal assistance, to incarcerate, detain and transport unauthorized immigrants who have 

committed crimes. States do not have the funding and/or resources to train their 

employees in the matters of immigration law, unless the state has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which will be specific to that state. The MOU, 

currently used by states such as Alabama and Florida and counties such as Los Angeles County and Mecklenburg County, gives states and localities the option to 

enter into a voluntary formal agreement with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. When training under the MOU process is fully funded by the federal government, we view this as a viable way to give states and communities the choice of 

whether local enforcement of federal immigration laws is appropriate for them. As 

you know, training for state and local officers regarding the complexities of immiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:04 Aug 21, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\051707\35452.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35452
26

gration law is crucial to avoid the risk of compromising successful community policing efforts and exposing governments to increased liability from the very communities that they serve as well as to avoid complaints of racial profiling. 

The burden of incarcerating unauthorized immigrants who have committed 

crimes, been convicted and are serving their time in state and local jails should be 

fully borne by the federal government. The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) is a federal program through which states are reimbursed for the 

costs associated with incarcerating unauthorized aliens. SCAAP currently reimburses state and local governments for approximately 25 percent of the total costs 

incurred. There have been repeated efforts by the federal government to zero out 

this funding, including in the President’s FY 2008 budget. Shifting these costs to 

cities and states weakens the intergovernmental partnership to combat crime. No 

immigration reform legislation will be complete without due attention to both the 

programmatic and fiscal aspects of SCAAP. 

Madame Chairwoman, Washington state taxpayers bear a significant amount of 

the costs incurred through the incarceration of criminal unauthorized immigrants. 

I ask that correspondence between my Governor Christine Gregoire and the U.S. Attorney General be included in the record. Governor Gregoire has invoiced the federal 

government for not fairly reimbursing Washington state through the SCAAP program. In FY 2005, the Department of Corrections incarcerated almost a thousand 

criminal unauthorized immigrants at a cost of $74 a day. This amounts to a total 

of $27 million. Of this amount, the federal SCAAP program only reimbursed Washington $1.72 million. This represents approximately $4.75 per day. The total shortfall of federal reimbursements amounted to over $25 million in FY 2005. It is an 

untenable unfunded federal mandate. We urge you to ensure full reimbursement to 

the states for the cost of incarcerating undocumented immigrants both in any comprehensive immigration reform law and the FY 2008 appropriations. Madame 

Chairwoman, as the committee of jurisdiction we urge you to convey to the appropriators the vital need for full funding of this program. 

HEALTH CARE, EDUCATION AND CIVIC INTEGRATION

CBO has estimated significant costs to the states in education and health care 

systems. The 1996 federal welfare law established a five year bar on SCHIP/Medicaid, food stamps, TANF and SSI for legal immigrants. Yet, state governments are 

still the providers of last resort, particularly in protecting public health and public 

safety and providing emergency health care. State governments also fund and provide critical English-language instruction and public education to newcomers that 

are essential for promoting public safety, reducing community tensions and integrating newcomers into our communities, including those who might be here on a 

temporary basis. Currently, public hospital emergency rooms are often the first 

point of entry when this population needs medical care. The costs are significant as 

medical conditions are often in an advanced stage. Because states and local governments enhance their partnership with the federal government in anti-terrorism activities, we are concerned about effectively providing public health services, which 

include encouraging residents to seek emergency health care and report disease to 

health officials in order to control potential bioterrorism threats, SARS, and avian 

flu. It is important that any immigration reform bill address health care planning 

and services that remove the burden from public hospitals and take into consideration the necessity of public health interventions. 

Madame Chairwoman, we also struggle with the needs of pre-K to 12 education. 

I represent two school districts, Seattle and Renton. In the Seattle public schools 

district, students speak more than a hundred languages and dialects, including Vietnamese, Spanish, Chinese, Cambodian, Lao, Tagalog, Korean, Samoan, Amharic, 

Tigrigna, Russian, Ukrainian, and Somali. In the Renton school district, seventy-five 

home languages or dialects are represented among students and the English learner 

population (ELL) has increased more than 51 percent since 2000. Statewide, the 

ELL population has doubled in the last ten years. Most of these students are second 

and third generation, rather than immigrant students, and the majority of these 

students are Hispanic. 

Thirty-five superintendents from districts with high Hispanic student enrollment 

petitioned Governor Gregoire, the State Superintendent and Members of the Legislature regarding the delay of Washington State Assessment of Student Learning 

(WASL) requirements. In the petition, the superintendents identify improvements 

in the system but also make it very clear that 16,000 students in Washington are 

in danger of not being allowed to graduate from high-school due to language requirements. Let me quote the superintendents’ petition: ‘‘The educational system 

(. . .) has failed to let us meet the needs of so many of our students because the 

27

system has not provided us with adequate time and resources to get the job done.’’ 

We need additional resources to ensure that these children meet the No Child Left 

Behind (NCLB) standards. 

Additionally, we believe that it is imperative to provide language and education 

to newcomers to our country in order to accomplish successful integration into 

American society and culture. English-language acquisition is essential for newcomers, including temporary workers. Substantial federal support for English-language instruction would enable states and towns to better educate children and 

adults and help to integrate these newcomers into our communities. As state and 

local government elected officials we find that the inability to communicate and understand each other serves as a flash point for aggravating tensions between newcomers and citizens. Assisting state and local government in English-language instruction for newcomers can help to alleviate these tensions and improve overall 

community relations. 

STATE IMPACT GRANTS

A critical component of last year’s Senate bill and this year’s STRIVE bill is state 

impact grants to ameliorate the costs states bear in health and education. NCSL 

will only support comprehensive immigration reform legislation if it includes these 

crucial grants. 

It is essential that state and local governments have a reliable, guaranteed funding source to manage the fiscal impacts of providing health, education (both pre-K–

12 as well as ESL and civics for adults) to immigrant populations, including temporary and guest workers. These funds must be subject to state legislative appropriations, providing accountability for application of these funds to vital services. We 

urge inclusion of this or a similar provision in comprehensive immigration reform 

legislation this year. 

OTHER KEY ISSUES FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

There are a number of key features that NCSL deems necessary in order for any 

comprehensive immigration legislation to succeed. NCSL supports comprehensive 

immigration reform that includes a temporary worker program and an earned legalization program for unauthorized immigrants that is not amnesty but a way for people who want to remain in this country to accept a reasonable punishment and work 

towards legalizing their status. 

NCSL supports the creation of a temporary worker program, which will better ensure border security by providing a legal channel for people wanting to come into 

our country. This program will require state-federal cooperation. 

NCSL supports efforts prioritizing the promotion of citizenship and creating an 

earned legalization program for unauthorized immigrants currently in the country. 

This should not be a program providing for amnesty, but rather create a way for 

people who want to remain in this country to accept a reasonable punishment and 

work towards citizenship. 

NCSL supports full, appropriate and necessary federal funding for increases in 

Department of Homeland Security border enforcement personnel and for improvements in technology and infrastructure. Investments in technology and infrastructure can effectively leverage manpower and maximize the capacity of federal border 

enforcement agents in securing the borders. Related to efforts against human trafficking and drug smuggling, states have been leaders in addressing these concerns. 

We encourage the federal government to increase its enforcement of these crimes. 

The federal government should plan and fully fund the required services and facilities related to these crimes. 

Madame Chairwoman, Ranking Member King and Members of the Subcommittee, 

I thank you for this opportunity to testify and look forward to questions from members of the subcommittee.

Attachments: 

1. NCSL Immigration Reform Policy 

2. 2006 State Immigration Legislation 

3. 2007 State Immigration Legislation 

4. Letter From Washington Governor Gregoire to U.S. Attorney General Alberto 

Gonzales 

28

ATTACHMENTS


STS-1.eps
29


STS-2.eps
30


STS-3.eps
31


STS-4.eps
32


STS-5.eps
33


STS-6.eps
34


STS-7.eps
35


STS-8.eps
36


STS-9.eps
37


STS-10.eps
38


STS-11.eps
39


STS-12.eps
40


STS-13.eps
41


STS-14.eps
42


STS-15.eps
43


STS-16.eps
44


STS-17.eps
45


STS-18.eps
46


STS-19.eps
47


STS-20.eps
48


STS-21.eps
49


STS-22.eps
50


STS-23.eps
51


STS-24.eps
52


STS-25.eps
53


STS-26.eps
54


STS-27.eps
55


STS-28.eps
56


STS-29.eps
57


STS-30.eps
58


STS-31.eps
59


STS-32.eps
60

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very, very much. And all of those documents will, as mentioned, be placed in the record. 

Dr. Appold, we would like to hear from you. 

TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN J. APPOLD, Ph.D., KENAN INSTITUTE 

OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL 

Mr. APPOLD. Hi. I am Steve Appold from the Frank Hawkins 

Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise at the University of North 

Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

I was part of the team that put together the Institute’s report on 

the economic impact of the Hispanic population on the state of 

North Carolina. North Carolina was a key expansion State for Hispanic immigrants during the 1990’s and the first half of this decade. This is, other States have more and a higher proportion of 

Hispanics, but during the 1990’s the Hispanic population rose faster in North Carolina than in any other State. 

A large proportion of North Carolina’s Hispanic population consists of recent immigrants and their families, which is why we, for 

our purposes, can use those terms almost interchangeably. You 

could not do that in another State; in 10 years you won’t be able 

to do that in North Carolina either. 

But that influx of immigration brought about a large amount of 

interest and concern in the State about the impact on business, 

government and other aspects of social life. 

The Kenan Institute was commissioned by the North Carolina 

Bankers Association to lay out some basic facts about the demography and economic impact of Hispanic immigration. Copies of the 

report are available from the Institute’s Web site, and I have 

brought several copies with me. I don’t see them, but I left them 

down in 2138 earlier today. 

Our basic finding for North Carolina is that Hispanic immigrants 

are a fiscal drain on State and local governments, costing $61 million more or less in 2004 for an average of $102 per Hispanic resident, but create an overall economic advantage through their consumer spending and cost-effective labor that supports key industries, including construction and agricultural processing. I had better be careful saying that since I did walk through the rally earlier 

today. 

But that is, much like localities offering relocation inducements 

to firms in order to capture the benefits of employment growth, the 

immigration business model, if I can call it that, that seems to be 

working in North Carolina is one of providing a focused subsidy in 

order to increase overall gain. The balance differs from State to 

State and will most likely vary over time. 

Right now I want to concentrate on our methodology rather than 

discuss our results. Our analysis consisted of five key steps, each 

relying on and extending federally-funded data collection. We needed to estimate the total Hispanic population, Hispanic consumer 

spending power and economic impact of that spending, the taxes 

paid, critical public costs, and we limited our attention to three 

areas: education, health care delivery and criminal justice and productivity effects. 

61

What we did was attempt a broad, overall synthesis so that 

many different data sources, including federally-funded data collection, extensive interviews with public official service providers and 

business people and public administrative records were used. 

We wanted an accounting of costs and benefits that was as close 

to the ground as possible. Studies of immigrant impacts are often 

driven as much by their modeling assumptions as by the data, and 

we wanted to get as close to the data as possible. Unfortunately, 

we needed to estimate our information much more than we would 

have liked. The data for accurate, timely measurements often do 

not exist. Moreover, we found that we were sometimes forced to explore new ground in making those estimates. 

Before I became involved with this project, I had assumed that 

everything that could be said already had been said since Hispanic 

migration has been occuring for several decades. I was wrong. Key 

areas of analysis that might support informed public policy were 

simply missing. 

Since completing this study, we have refined our estimation 

methods and are continuing to do so. We have also performed similar analysis for another State and we are beginning to investigate 

the factors that determine the level of costs and benefits across 

States. 

Thank you for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Appold follows:]

62

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN J. APPOLD


SJA-1.eps
63


SJA-2.eps
64


SJA-3.eps
65


SJA-4.eps
66


SJA-5.eps
67


SJA-6.eps
68


SJA-7.eps
69


SJA-8.eps
70

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Doctor. 

And we will now begin our questions. I am going to defer to the 

Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers, who has another obligation pretty soon, to ask him to go first. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

I waive my questions, but I have the impression that we are here 

weighing the obligations and costs and expenses of having immigrants of different categories in a State versus the benefits or economic advantages that occur by their presence. And it seems to be 

that almost every witness has talked about that this afternoon. 

And we come up with an uneven response about it. And I would 

like to assure the two remaining witnesses that this is an important part of these hearings, and the documentation on this subject 

is going to be part of an incredibly important way that we work our 

way toward a full and comprehensive bill, because there is a law 

enforcement magnet somewhere here, that people want to punish 

and get rid of and build fences, and there is another point of view 

that there may be benefits not yet fully recognized by many of the 

legislators. And it seems to me that the accuracy of our economic 

picture that we paint in the Congress will be very important in determining how we put together a final reform package, and that 

makes this hearing very important. 

So the continued cooperation with our Subcommittee Chair 

would be very important. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

The Ranking Member is recognized. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I turn first to Representative Santos. I know as I stepped forward and took the oath of office, I reflect back on that time, and 

I know you must have done the same. Do you take an oath to uphold the rule of law as a Representative for the State of Washington? 

Ms. SANTOS. I take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the 

United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington. 

Mr. KING. Does that imply the laws underneath the constitutions 

as well? Is that answer yes? 

Ms. SANTOS. Yes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. I just wanted that clarification, and then 

I will move on from that. I don’t want to make a point off that necessarily. 

In your testimony, you addressed the SCAAP funding and that 

it is under-funded and you are only receiving 25 percent of the 

costs incurred by incarcerating criminal aliens in the State of 

Washington to a shortfall of I think $172 million, you testified. But 

all the way across the country we have that same kind of deficiency, if I read the reports correctly. 

And so are you aware that when you—and I think you are because I identify significant intellect there. But when you ask for, 

then, a comprehensive immigration reform plan, rolled out in the 

Senate today, that legalizes 12 or 20 or more million people, that 

really means the end of SCAAP funding for that massive number 

of people, and maybe it would qualify for those newly arriving 

illegals that would start this process all over again. Are you willing 

to make that kind of sacrifice? 

71

Ms. SANTOS. Well, I am certainly not familiar with the details of 

the breaking news that we heard right before we came in, but what 

I do know, Congressman, is that right now we are absorbing, our 

taxpayers are absorbing, the costs of enforcing and implementing 

Federal laws. 

Mr. KING. You would lose SCAAP funding under—I mean, let’s 

just presume that what I said is right and no further than that. 

But you would lose the SCAAP funding under that. You wouldn’t 

have a claim to funding for criminal aliens any longer, because 

they would no longer be criminal aliens. 

Ms. SANTOS. Well, I think that, again, the devil is in the details, 

and I would hope that in other areas of the legislation that you 

would, collectively, that Congress would recognize that we all, the 

Federal Government and the State government and the local government, down to our little school boards, all share in a common 

objective of integrating newcomers and ensuring——

Mr. KING. You make your point that we should pay attention to 

that deficiency should there be some legislation passed. That goes 

into this record, and I think it is an important one that we should 

all consider as we decide this argument. 

But have you seen any statistics, the Federal Government is 

housing 27 percent of the inmates are criminal aliens. If you extrapolate those 25 percent numbers across the States and put that 

altogether, you would come up with about 28 percent of our State 

inmates and our Federal inmates are criminal aliens. They aren’t 

all illegal. Some of them, about 40 percent, came here and overstayed their visas. But between them, if they are committing that 

percentage of the crime, have you considered how many murders 

that is, how many victims of negligent homicide that is, and that 

those casualties are far greater than the cumulative total in Iraq 

and September 11 together on an annual basis? 

Ms. SANTOS. And, Congressman, I do know that some of the individuals who are being held, at least in my State’s state and local 

jails, are only being held on the basis of a traffic violation. 

Mr. KING. But still, somebody is committing the murders, the 

rapes, the negligent homicides, and we don’t have any evidence 

that the criminal aliens are committing those acts in a lesser number as a proportion of their overall population or their inmate base. 

And so would you put this into your equation, I would ask you 

to do this as a policy leader in your part of the world, that if we 

enforce our immigration laws, those who are illegal aliens would 

not be here. Therefore, the victims of those crimes would still be 

alive. And those who are unlawfully present here in the United 

States then, add that total up, and weight that as part of your oath 

too. I mean, I weigh it heavily with mine, to protect the American 

people as the first priority. And I give you an opportunity to respond to that. 

Ms. SANTOS. I think it is very important to recognize first and 

foremost that those who are in prison wouldn’t have the opportunity to legalize, and I think that in terms of the question of State 

legislators upholding their oath to uphold not only the Constitution 

of the United States but their State constitutions and the laws underneath, I think that you would find that according to our NCSL 

policy, we are asking for the opportunity to continue to partner 

72

with the Federal Government to come forward with something that 

is comprehensive, a framework that we could all buy into on a bipartisan basis, because right now, as it is, we have got every State 

in the union trying to step in and fill a void that currently exists. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

I thank you both for your testimony, and I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

I will now take my opportunity to ask questions and then we will 

go to our second panel. 

Dr. Appold, I thought your testimony was very interesting and 

I had a chance to read through it. I want to ask just a couple of 

questions. 

On Page 7 of your testimony, you basically come to the conclusion, using the analysis that you have done, that there is a cost of 

between the tax contributions and major public costs, of $102 per 

Hispanic resident. But then you go on to talk about the labor power 

and the other benefits. 

Have you calculated or is it possible to calculate the labor benefits that you then discuss and the economic activity? I mean, what 

is the bottom line? Is there a way to get there? 

Mr. APPOLD. We are not 100 percent satisfied with our way of 

merging the three different areas of the analysis. There is a way 

to do that, but we have not completed it yet. 

So what we did is we identified the impacts of consumer spending, the fiscal balance and the productivity impacts separately. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. So are you still working on that? 

Mr. APPOLD. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So we might get a later report? 

Mr. APPOLD. Not this afternoon. [Laughter.] 

Ms. LOFGREN. Not this afternoon. That is fair enough. 

Let me just——

Mr. APPOLD. But if you say you want it, that will encourage us 

to work harder. 

Ms. LOFGREN. It is very interesting. He and Councilman Zine 

had to get to their planes, but State Senator Andrews referenced 

a study that they did. I don’t have the methodology, and they came 

up with, you know, a huge cost that they are suspecting in his 

State. I don’t know if you have had a chance to review the Rector 

Study from the Heritage Foundation, but they come up with a cost. 

I mean, the reports really are all over the board, and I am sort of 

wondering what methodology should be relied upon. 

Mr. APPOLD. Well, what we reacted to, there is some very good 

work that was done in the late 1990’s, the New Americans, and I 

believe The Heritage Foundation builds off that methodology. 

And that is a very nice methodology, but it relies a lot on certain 

assumptions. And if I go look at the National Bureau of Economic 

Research’s Web site, I can download papers that come to very different kinds of conclusions, and it is all based on what assumptions 

they start with. 

And so what we did is we figured we could not contribute something to that debate. These are smart people. They have been going 

back and forth for at least a decade. We would stay close to the 

ground and come as close to measuring as we could. 

73

Ms. LOFGREN. Very interesting. 

Councilwoman Santos, I was in local government for longer than 

I have been in Congress, and I really know what it is like to be 

in local government, where the rubber meets the road. And your 

testimony is important to us. 

In addition to your official duties on the City Council, I know 

that you have an interest in the overall economy of your region, 

and I note that 42 percent of the Puget Sound Energy’s workforce 

is eligible to retire in the next 5 years. How are you going to meet 

the job needs? Are you looking to immigration to meet that economic fall from retirement? 

Ms. SANTOS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And, of course, I 

serve in the State legislature, so I have, from the standpoint of——

Ms. LOFGREN. I really messed that up, haven’t I. I am so sorry. 

Ms. SANTOS. They get paid better than we do at the State, so——

Ms. LOFGREN. That is true. 

Ms. SANTOS. Yes, that is true, and I would direct your attention 

to actually an article a business columnist for one of our Seattle 

dailies, who made the point that not only is 42 percent of Puget 

Sound Energy’s workforce scheduled to retire in the next 5 years, 

but there is also about 25 percent of the Boeing machinists who 

will be scheduling to retire within the next 5 years. I think they 

said that 5,000 out of 21,000 machinists in the Puget Sound region 

are over the age of 50 and something like 8 percent are over the 

age of 60. 

I think about our $1.6 billion apple industry, which is handpicked fruit. Cherries are the same way, largely dependent on the 

migrant seasonal labor force that comes through California, Oregon, and Washington. It is important for us to ensure that the 

temporary and the seasonal workforce needs of the States are addressed. I might also add in the high tech arena as well. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Representative, my apologies for calling you councilwoman. 

And I will just note that in a different role, as Chair of the California Democratic Delegation, we have worked very hard on 

SCAAP funding and agree. 

Ms. SANTOS. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would like to thank the two witnesses for their 

patience and sticking with us to give your testimony, for your answers to our questions, and note that we have 5 legislative days 

to submit questions in writing. If we have further questions, we 

will forward them to you and ask that if you are able to respond 

as promptly as possible, that would be very much appreciated. 

We are aware that witnesses testify really as a contribution to 

our country, and we appreciate your contribution today very much 

indeed. 

Ms. SANTOS. Thank you for inviting us. 

Mr. APPOLD. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would like to call the second panel. 

I would like to introduce our second panel. 

First, we are pleased to have Dr. Audrey Singer with us today, 

the immigration fellow at the Brookings Institution Metropolitan 

Policy Program. An accomplished scholar, Dr. Singer joined Brookings after having served as an associate at the International MigraVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:04 Aug 21, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\051707\35452.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35452
74

tion Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International 

Peace. She held a faculty position in the Department of 

Democraphy at Georgetown University and has worked as a demographic analyst at the U.S. Department of Labor. She holds her 

bachelor’s degree from Temple University and both her master’s 

and doctoral degrees from the University of Texas at Austin. 

I would like next to welcome Dr. Anne Morrison Piehl, an associate professor in the Economics Department and a member of the 

program in criminal justice at Rutgers, the State University of New 

Jersey. In addition to her responsibilities at Rutgers, Dr. Piehl 

serves as a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic 

Research. She also held a teaching post at the John F. Kennedy 

School of Government at Harvard University for 12 years. She 

earned her bachelor’s degree from Harvard and her Ph.D. from 

Princeton University. 

Next we are pleased to have Dr. Deborah Santiago with us, the 

Vice President for policy and research at Excelencia in Education. 

Prior to her work at Excelencia, Dr. Santiago served as an analyst 

at the U.S. Department of Education, as deputy director of the 

White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic 

Americans, as Vice President for Data and Policy Analysis at the 

Los Angeles County Alliance for Student Achievement, and as an 

Irvine fellow at the Rossier School of Education at the University 

of Southern California. She holds her bachelor’s degree from the 

University of Mary Washington, a master’s degree from Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute and State University, and a doctorate in education policy from the University of Southern California. 

Finally, we would like to welcome back the minority’s witness, 

Mr. Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation here in Washington. Mr. Rector’s research has focused on 

the U.S. welfare system and he has authored a number of works 

on the subject, including America’s Failed $5.4 Trillion War on 

Poverty. Mr. Rector graduated with a bachelor’s degree from the 

College of William and Mary and a master’s degree from Johns 

Hopkins University. This is Mr. Rector’s second appearance before 

this Subcommittee on the matter of comprehensive immigration reform. 

And we do welcome all of you. 

As you heard with our first panel, we do ask that you summarize 

your testimony in about 5 minutes. Your entire written statement 

will be made part of the record of this hearing. 

When you have consumed 4 minutes, the yellow light will go on 

and when the light turns red, it means that 5 minutes is up. And 

the time flies, really, it is often a surprise. We ask that you wrap 

up at that point so that we will have an opportunity to ask questions. 

And again, thank you so much for being here. 

We will begin with you, Dr. Singer. 

75

TESTIMONY OF AUDREY SINGER, Ph.D., IMMIGRATION FELLOW, METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM, THE BROOKINGS 

INSTITUTION 

Ms. SINGER. Thank you. Madam Chairwoman and Members of 

the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you 

today about the effects of immigration on States and localities. 

My comments today will focus on three interrelated areas: how 

settlement patterns of immigrants have shifted during the past 15 

years, and how many areas with no history of immigration are experiencing recent and rapid influxes; how although States and local 

areas have no control over who enters the country, local institutions and leadership shape the prospects for immigrant integration; 

finally, drawing on existing models, I will suggest a role for the 

Federal Government in helping States and localities with immigrant integration through funding to coordinate public policy explicitly and strategically aimed at immigrants. 

As Congress continues to debate Federal immigration reform, 

States and localities will deal on their own with many issues that 

they view as the responsibility of the Federal Government. I will 

make the case that there should be a Federal program that helps 

States and localities with immigrant integration so it is not left entirely in their hands. 

As of March, 2005 an estimated 36 million immigrants were living in the United States. Due to changes in labor markets, today’s 

immigrants, both legal and illegal, are increasingly settling outside 

well established immigrant gateways in a new group of cities, suburbs, small towns and rural areas. Prior to the 1990’s, immigrant 

settlement had a predictable pattern and was limited to mostly cities in the southwest and coastal States. By century’s end, many 

places with virtually no history of immigration were attracting immigrants. 

The swiftness of the influx in areas that historically have not accommodated large numbers of immigrants has caused social and 

economic stress where institutional structures that could assist in 

the integration of immigrants are insufficient or nonexistent. Local 

leaders are grappling with the costs to institutions where immigrant newcomers have the greatest impact, such as schools, hospitals, and public safety departments. 

There has been a proliferation of State and local laws, ordinances, proposals and practices around immigration in very recent 

years. The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that 

as of April 2007, all 50 States are considering immigration-related 

bills, twice the number they considered in all of last year. More 

than half of the bills relate to employment, State benefits, services, 

law enforcement and education issues. 

In addition to State bills, countless local jurisdictions have introduced laws related to immigrants, focusing on issues such as day 

labor sites, language, employment, rental housing, and local law 

enforcement. 

Not all of the policy changes are restrictive or punitive. However, 

it is worth noting that many of the most restrictive measures have 

been developed in areas with little or no prior experience of immigration. 

76

Federal immigration policy all but ignores the fact that immigrants settle into local areas. Big picture policy issues like border 

enforcement and the visa allocation system are national-level concerns. But immigrants are not evenly distributed across the Nation. They live in cities, counties, towns, and neighborhoods. They 

work in local firms, join local religious congregations, they access 

State and local services. Their children attend local schools. 

Localities have no control over who enters the country, or who 

lives in their communities, but they have considerable influence 

over how immigrants are incorporated, socially, economically, and 

civically. 

Immigrant integration is an overlooked aspect of the immigration 

policy arena. Integration is the long-term process where immigrants become incorporated into U.S. life and it involves both established residents and immigrant newcomers. It refers to changes 

immigrants undergo as they adapt but it also refers to the effect 

immigrants have on local institutions and communities as well as 

the Nation. 

In order for the U.S. immigration system to work well, it must 

address the integration of immigrants who arrive with a multitude 

of background characteristics. Alongside State and local governments are schools, faith-based institutions and a host of nonprofits, 

that develop programs and practices that aid in the integration of 

immigrants. The quality of these systems and institutions makes 

a difference in how people adapt to life in the United States. The 

best thing that we can do for communities, especially those that 

are newly affected by immigration trends, is to provide guidance on 

policies to facilitate integration and funding to carry them out. 

There currently is no national office that works to coordinate, 

measure and advance immigrant integration. What would such a 

national program look like? 

Seed funding for the proposed New Americans Initiative would 

be provided by the Federal Government but would comprise State 

initiatives built around public-private partnerships. Several leading 

models exist, one in Illinois and one in Colorado, that prioritize 

programs that help immigrants learn English, gain citizenship, involve immigrant parents in schools and provide better access to 

services at State agencies. 

Under a national New Americans Initiative, States would be encouraged to design their own strategic recommendations and advisory structures, pursue funding from foundations and businesses 

and work with local organizations. 

The Federal Government would monitor and coordinate processes 

to glean policy guidance and promising practices to be shared 

across States. It would also work to first develop and then achieve 

certain measurable benchmarks related to immigrant integration. 

Regardless of when immigration reform happens, States and localities face on-the-ground realities regarding new flows of immigration. It is time for the Federal Government to take a leadership 

role in making the integration process smoother for immigrants, 

State and local governments, and communities to yield long-term 

benefits for the Nation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Singer follows:]

77

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AUDREY SINGER

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the effects of immigration on states and localities. My research focuses on comparative metropolitan settlement patterns and the 

responses of local communities to immigration. 

My comments today will focus on three interrelated areas.

• How settlement patterns of immigrants have shifted during the past 15 years, 

and how many areas with no history of immigration are experiencing recent 

and rapid influxes.

• How although states and local areas have no control over who enters the 

country, local institutions and leadership shape the prospects for immigrant 

integration.

• Finally, drawing on existing models, I will suggest a role for the federal government in helping states and localities with immigrant integration through 

funding to coordinate public policy explicitly and strategically aimed at immigrants.

As Congress continues to debate federal immigration reform, state and localities 

will deal on their own with many issues that they view as the responsibility of the 

federal government. The elements of immigration reform must include border and 

interior enforcement, an employment verification system, new worker program, visa 

reforms, and an earned legalization program. I will make the case that there should 

be a federal program that helps states and localities with immigrant integration so 

it is not left entirely in their hands. 

THE NEW GEOGRAPHY OF IMMIGRATION

As of March, 2005 an estimated 35.7 million immigrants (of all legal statuses) 

were living in the United States. Due to changes in labor markets, today’s immigrants, both legal and illegal, are increasingly settling outside well established immigrant gateways in a new group of cities and suburbs. Prior to the 1990s, immigrant settlement had a predictable pattern and was limited to mostly Southwestern 

and coastal states and metropolitan New York, Los Angeles, Miami and Chicago. 

By century’s end, many places with virtually no history of immigration were attracting immigrants. 

The swiftness of the influx in areas that historically have not accommodated large 

numbers of immigrants has caused social and economic stress. Especially in rural 

areas, small towns, and suburban areas, the institutional structures that could assist in the integration of immigrants—both community and governmental—are insufficient or nonexistent. Local leaders are grappling with the costs to institutions 

where immigrant newcomers have the greatest impact, such as schools, hospitals, 

and public safety departments. 

Many large metropolitan areas as well as small towns and rural areas saw a doubling or more of their foreign born in the 1990s alone. The root causes of new trends 

in settlement are mixed. In the latter half of the 1990s, some metropolitan areas 

experienced robust economic growth, thus creating new job opportunities for immigrant (and US-born) newcomers. In other places, refugee resettlement appears to 

have increased foreign-born residents and also spurred on subsequent migration. A 

third factor is the internal movement of foreign-born U.S. residents, for instance the 

outflow of immigrants from Los Angeles to other metropolitan areas in the region 

in search of a lower cost of living. Underlying all of these trends are social networks 

of information about jobs and housing that inform the decisions immigrants and refugees make on where to reside. 

Newly emerging immigrant gateways are drawing immigrants in record rates. 

Some of the fastest growing places are in the southeast such as Atlanta, RaleighDurham, and Charlotte, and other new metropolitan destinations are in the southwest, for example, Dallas-Fort Worth, Phoenix, and Las Vegas. Several northwest 

metro areas like Seattle, Portland, and Sacramento have re-emerged as immigrant 

gateways after having waned as immigrant destinations during the second half of 

the 20th century. Most of these areas have seen their immigrant population grow 

three or four fold as a result of new immigration in the past 20–25 years (see Singer 

2004). 

This period marked another new immigrant settlement trend—one taking place 

wholly within metropolitan areas—the suburbanization of immigration. As the 

urban economy has shifted from manufacturing to new economy services, the suburbs have become the preferred location for dispersed commercial and office space. 

As immigrants have followed the opportunities, including jobs and housing, they are 

now breaking with historical patterns and moving directly from abroad to areas outVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:04 Aug 21, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\051707\35452.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35452
78

side of central cities in great numbers. This represents a departure from the past, 

when the pattern was more likely to be that immigrants moved to cities where housing and jobs were plentiful, and where they found others from their own background. The end of the 1990s marked the first time that the suburbs surpassed cities as the primary place of residence among the foreign born. 

While immigration is largely an urban experience in the contemporary United 

States, a growing number of immigrants are also choosing small towns and rural 

areas. A recent study by Penn State sociologist Leif Jensen noted that immigrants 

are finding opportunities in agriculture, food processing, and other manufacturing 

in rural counties particularly in southeastern states. They are also settling in western areas with tourism-based economies and rural areas on the outskirts of larger, 

more immigrant-heavy areas. Immigrants in rural areas are often more noticeable 

and can elicit strong reactions, and the infrastructure to receive them is often nonexistent (Jensen 2006). 

STATE AND LOCAL RECEPTION OF IMMIGRANTS

This week, Farmers Branch, a suburb of Dallas, voted into law an ordinance that 

makes it against the law for landlords to rent to illegal immigrants. This is not the 

first municipality to introduce such a measure—several localities around the country have patterned new laws like this one after similar measures in Hazleton, Pennsylvania. The Farmer’s Branch law is emblematic of the frustration that many local 

public officials feel about the lack of federal reform and represents just one way they 

are choosing to take action. 

There has been a proliferation of state and local laws, ordinances, proposals, and 

practices around immigration in very recent years. The National Conference of State 

Legislatures reports that as of April 2007, all 50 states are considering immigrationrelated bills—nearly three times the number they considered last year. That 

amounts to over 1,100 pieces of state legislation designed to address immigration 

or immigrant-related issues in the first quarter of 2007, more than twice as many 

introduced in all of 2006 including:

• 41 states have 199 bills related to employment, most of them restricting the 

employment of unauthorized workers or addressing eligibility for workers’ 

benefits.

• 39 states have 149 bills addressing state benefits and services to immigrants. 

Many of these bills would restrict services, but some broaden benefits to specific immigrant groups.

• 30 states have 129 bills around law enforcement issues, either those that 

would authorize local law enforcement to work with federal immigration authorities or the opposite: those that prohibit local law enforcement from doing 

so.

• 30 states have 105 bills dealing with education issues related to participation 

in educational programs, some restrictive, some inclusive, including bills 

around eligibility for in-state reduced tuition costs.

In addition to state level reforms, countless local jurisdictions have introduced 

laws related to immigrants, focusing on issues such as day labor sites, language, 

employment, rental housing, and local law enforcement. Other communities are 

using laws already on the books—like residential zoning and housing ordinances—

to attempt to curb the increase of immigrants or force them out. Growing intolerance towards illegal immigration—and growing frustration with the lack of federal 

movement on immigration reform—often drives local officials towards greater enforcement of ordinances that may deflect immigrants elsewhere and show that they 

are responding to public pressure. 

These new policies are in part a result of the new geography of immigration, and 

the rapidity with which immigrants are appearing in new communities. City, county 

and municipal officials are feeling pressure to ‘‘do something’’ about immigration. 

The result is that local governments are creating their own de facto immigration 

policy. 

Not all of the local policy changes are restrictive or punitive; some places have 

developed new policies and passed ordinances that accommodate immigrants, such 

as publishing material in languages other than English or maintaining local services 

for all immigrants regardless of legal status. However, it is worth noting that many 

of the most restrictive measures have been developed in areas with little or no prior 

experience of immigration. 

Although many of these new laws may be legally challenged and eventually 

struck down, they stir up local debate and create an uncomfortable environment for 

immigrants, even those who are here legally. 

79

Thus in the absence of federal policy, we can expect that state and local officials 

who are feeling the pressure to take action will continue to develop their own strategies for dealing with immigrants. Regardless of how the current immigration reform 

debate is resolved, they still have the day-to-day responsibility of integrating immigrants in neighborhoods, local labor markets, and schools. 

A ‘‘NEW AMERICANS INITIATIVE’’

Federal immigration policy all but ignores the fact that immigrants settle into 

local areas. Big picture policy issues like border enforcement and the visa allocation 

system are national level concerns. But immigrants are not evenly distributed 

across the nation; they live in cities, counties, towns, and neighborhoods. They attend local schools, work in local firms, shops, and factories, join local religious congregations, and they access state and local services. Localities have no control over 

who enters the country, or who lives in their communities, but they assert significant influence over how immigrants are incorporated, socially, economically, and 

civically. 

Immigrant integration is an overlooked aspect of the immigration policy landscape. Immigrant integration is the long term process where immigrants become incorporated into US life, and it involves both established residents and immigrant 

newcomers. It means immigrants learning English and American ways of life. It 

also means that American institutions are adapting to newcomers over the long run 

and combining diverse origins and perspectives into one people, the American people, as it has done for over 200 years. Ultimately, immigrant integration fosters social inclusiveness and economic mobility as immigrants and their offspring become 

full members of US communities. It refers to changes immigrants undergo as they 

adapt, but it also refers to the effect immigrants have on local institutions and communities as well as the nation. 

In order for the U.S. immigration system to work well, it must address the social, 

political, and economic integration of immigrants who arrive with a multitude of national origins, languages, religions, customs, and skills. The current ‘‘system’’ of integration involves little formal aid or guidance from the federal government. Historically, immigrants turned to mutual aid societies, settlement houses, churches, and 

synagogues. Today, alongside state and local governments are schools, churches and 

a host of nonprofits, that develop programs and practices that aid in the integration 

of immigrants. The quality of these systems and institutions makes a difference in 

how people adapt to life in the United States; therefore it is imperative that local 

areas, especially ones newly affected by immigration trends, have guidance on policies to facilitate integration, and, as important, funding to carry them out. 

There currently is no national office that works to coordinate, measure, and advance immigrant integration. Other countries such as Canada, Sweden, and the 

Netherlands include integration in their national offices. 

States and localities—particularly in new immigrant destination areas—would 

benefit from intentional, strategic and coordinated public policy directed explicitly 

at immigrant integration. Localities across the country, both established areas and 

new destinations, will benefit from an infusion of resources to address the shortand long-term process of immigrant integration. 

Many of the state and local policy points that I have already mentioned are the 

very issues that constitute a framework for immigrant integration. Can we build a 

national, harmonized system of providing English language classes to immigrant 

newcomers? Can we ensure that newcomers, while on their way to learning English, 

have access to vital information about services, safety, and civic responsibilities? 

Can we develop programs to assist new destination areas with resources to help 

public schools, law enforcement agencies, and healthcare providers as they encounter immigrants and refugees for the first time? 

What would such a program look like? Seed funding for the proposed New Americans Initiative would be provided by the federal government, but would comprise 

state initiatives built around public-private partnerships. A good model is a 2005 

Illinois initiative designed to provide a ‘‘coherent, strategic, and proactive state government approach to immigrant integration.’’ In Illinois, a State Taskforce, which 

includes high-level state agency and department officials, is charged with examining 

how the state government can systematically address its changing population, augmented by a Policy Council, which includes Illinois leaders with experience managing immigration in the business, community, philanthropic, faith, labor, and government fields. The two groups’ recommendations prioritized programs that would 

help immigrants learn English, put legal immigrants on a path towards citizenship, 

establish state Welcoming Centers as a first point of contact for immigrants arriving 

into Illinois, and provide better access to services that state agencies provide. 

80

Another model comes from the Colorado Community Trust’s ‘‘Supporting Immigrant and Refugee Families Initiative’’ which supports 19 Colorado communities in 

their efforts to support immigrants and established residents in working together 

for healthy communities. Specific needs and strategies are identified through a planning process that involves members from a wide range of perspectives: health care, 

education, business, banking, law enforcement, local government, and various nonprofit and faith-based organizations. Current projects include strengthening local 

health care providers’ ability to offer competent care to people from different cultures, helping immigrant parents to become more involved in their children’s 

schools, improving access to English classes for immigrants, and developing mentoring opportunities among foreign and native-born families. 

Under a national New Americans Initiative, states would similarly be encouraged 

to design plans specific to their needs. Recommendations from the Illinois experience that are universally applicable include:

• Implementing an English learning campaign. Gaining English proficiency is 

fundamentally important for immigrants to participate fully in American society. This recommendation calls for a coordinated effort among the state community college board, businesses, educators, and immigrant advocates to create, fund, and implement a campaign to offer English instruction where immigrants live and work.

• Helping eligible legal permanent residents attain U.S. citizenship. When immigrants naturalize, they take on the rights and responsibilities of being a full 

member of U.S. society; they can vote, hold public office, serve on juries, and 

participate in other civic activities. The program should support communitybased organizations that help immigrants prepare for the naturalization 

exam and guide them through the formal process.

• Ensuring that immigrants and refugees can access state services. While immigrants are building their English skills, they should have good access to services and information about state offerings, even if it must be provided in their 

own languages. Many local governments across the country already offer services and material in languages of local immigrant groups, provide translation 

services, and hire multi-lingual staff. Implementing this recommendation will 

make language access a foundational method of doing business with local governments.

For states to adopt a model such as the Illinois or Colorado examples would require federal start-up funds. Each state would design its own strategic recommendations and advisory structure, pursue funding from foundations and businesses to 

create public-private partnerships, and work with local organizations in affected 

areas. The federal government would monitor the New Americans Initiative to glean 

policy guidance and promising practices that can be shared across states, where immigration patterns are new, changing, or well established. It should also work to 

first develop and then achieve certain measurable benchmarks related to immigrant 

integration. 

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Current legislative proposals point to the possibility of an earned legalization program. Such a program would enable localities to demonstrate the presence and size 

of their undocumented population. New destination states and localities, especially, 

have short-term fiscal burdens related to providing schooling, emergency health 

care, and other social services that they cannot meet through existing revenue 

sources. An earned legalization program must include funding for an impact aid program to offset state and local expenditures. 

A precedent for this proposed program is the $4 billion State Legalization Impact 

Aid Grant program, a provision of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act 

(IRCA) that helped states offset the costs associated with legalized immigrants. The 

plan was to compensate states for providing public benefits, public health services, 

and adult education to help immigrants meet IRCA’s requirements for basic knowledge of the English language, U.S. history, and government. Unfortunately, the program, which ended in 1995, was unevenly implemented. States and localities complained that reimbursements were too low and too slow and that reporting requirements were poorly designed. To succeed, a new impact aid program must function 

better than the last one by stating clear guidelines, allowing states planning flexibility, and requiring less onerous reporting requirements. 

A large-scale legalization program would create millions of new legal residents 

whose status may result in more stable employment and higher income, which benefit them, while the concomitantly higher income tax payments benefit government 

81

entities. The additional services they need should be covered in part by fees for registering with the earned legalization program. Such fees should cover the program’s 

administrative costs, defray social expenditures, and contribute to the New Americans Initiative to ensure longer term integration. 

Regardless of when immigration reform happens, states and localities face on-theground realities regarding new flows of immigration. It is time for the federal government to take a leadership role in making the integration process smoother for 

immigrants, state and local governments, and communities. Ultimately, all integration is local.

References

Downs-Karkos, Susan. ‘‘Immigrant Integration in Colorado.’’ Denver: The Colorado 

Trust. 

Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. For the Benefit of All: Strategic 

Recommendations to Enhance the State’s Role in the Integration of Immigrants in 

Illinois: Joint Executive Summary, Year One and Report of the New Americans 

Policy Council, Year One. Chicago: Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee 

Rights, 2006. 

Jensen, Leif. 2006. ‘‘New Immigrant Settlements in Rural America: Problems, Prospects, and Policies.’’ Durham, NH: The Carsey Institute, University of New Hampshire. 

Meissner, Doris, Meyers, Deborah W., Papademetriou, Demetrios G., and Fix, Michael. Immigration and America’s Future: A New Chapter. Report of the Independent Task Force on Immigration and America’s Future, Spencer Abraham and 

Lee H. Hamiltion, Chairs. Washington, D.C.: Migration Policy Institute, 2006. 

Available at http://www.migrationpolicy.org/ITFIAF/index.php. 

Singer, Audrey. 2004. ‘‘The Rise of New Immigrant Gateways.’’ Washington, DC: 

The Brookings Institution.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Piehl? 

TESTIMONY OF ANNE MORRISON PIEHL, Ph.D., DEPARTMENT 

OF ECONOMICS & PROGRAM IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE, RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY 

Ms. PIEHL. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren and Ranking Member King, for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee. 

Today I am pleased to testify about the academic literature on 

the relationship between immigration and crime. This literature, 

and therefore my testimony, is concerned with average behavior, so 

it emphasizes common crimes of violence and property. 

There are, to be sure, less common and more serious threats associated with terrorism, but those are addressed more directly with 

intelligence and enforcement. 

With regard to street crime, my remarks will conclude that the 

empirical research does not suggest that immigrants pose a particular crime threat. Rather, the evidence points to immigrants 

having lower involvement in crime than native-born Americans. 

The literature begins by noting that the addition of immigrants 

to the population, if immigrants commit any crimes at all, will by 

definition increase the total number of crimes in the United States. 

Academics have generally posed the relevant question as: do immigrants add to the crime risk in the population? 

The answer to this question would be ‘‘yes’’ if immigrants are 

more likely to commit criminal acts or if immigration causes the 

native born to increase their criminal behavior. 

It would be reasonable to expect immigrants to have higher levels of criminal activity compared to natives because immigrants 

have traditionally rated high on factors that have been strongly 

correlated with crime: higher levels of poverty, lower levels of eduVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:04 Aug 21, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\051707\35452.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35452
82

cation, urban residence, et cetera. Some have argued that immigration might increase the criminal activity of the native born if immigrants displace natives from work and promote urbanization. 

But at the same time, the current policy environment provides 

several mechanisms that are likely to reduce the criminal activity 

of immigrants. Legal immigrants are screened for criminal backgrounds. Non-citizens, legal or not, are subject to the increased 

punishment associated with deportation if the crime of conviction 

is a serious one. And illegal immigrants have an extra incentive to 

steer clear of law enforcement for even minor offenses. 

So now to the evidence. Several important studies have estimated the empirical magnitudes of these theorized connections. 

First, consider the impact of immigration on crime rates. This type 

of analysis aims to identify the total effect of immigration, regardless of whether it is the immigrants or the natives that are committing the crimes. 

In an analysis of the largest U.S. cities, Kristin Butcher and I 

found that in 1980’s, cities that received more immigrants had the 

same average change in crime as cities receiving fewer immigrants. 

In the 1990’s, the relationship was actually negative, where cities 

that received the most immigrants had a larger crime drop than 

cities receiving fewer immigrants. 

Other researchers have looked at this question by comparing border cities to non-border cities and immigrant neighborhoods to nonimmigrant neighborhoods within the same cities, and all of these 

studies support the basic inference in my own work, that immigration is not associated with an increase in crime rates in a locality. 

Further evidence can be found in analyses of institutionalization 

rates of immigrants compared to those of natives. In an analysis 

of men age 18 to 40, using the United States Census, Kristin 

Butcher and I found that immigrants have much lower institutionalization rates, on the order of one-fifth the rate of natives. And 

this gap has expanded over the past 20 years. 

It is important to be fair in the comparison, because immigrants 

by definition have had less time to be apprehended of crimes. And 

so we do some careful modeling work in that paper to try to make 

a fair comparison of immigrants and natives, and still conclude a 

large gap between the two. 

It is possible that the threat of deportation deters immigrant 

crime, but we conclude that deportation per se is not driving these 

results, because even citizens who are not subject to deportation 

look better than natives and increasingly so over time. 

Our interpretation of the results is that the process of immigration selects individuals who are less likely to be involved in crime. 

The best evidence of this is when we compare immigrants to native 

born individuals who have migrated across State lines, we find 

much less of a gap between the two. 

Differences in criminality have also been studied using survey 

data. In self-report surveys, we find that violent offending is lowest 

for new immigrants, is higher in the second generation and yet 

higher still in the third generation. 

But even if immigrants have lower criminal activity than nativeborn citizens, as we have heard already in earlier testimony today, 

the costs of law enforcement borne by State and local governments 

83

on behalf of immigrants can be substantial. In my written testimony, I provide some data showing the concentration of incarcerated immigrants in particular States. You find, not surprisingly, 

that California and Texas bear the brunt of the cost for that population. 

It is also worth noting that immigration provisions themselves 

may impose costs on States and localities as it restricts their ability to manage their own prison population through their usual 

mechanisms. 

In conclusion, there is no empirical evidence that immigrants 

pose a particular crime threat. In contrast, the evidence points to 

immigrants having lower involvement in crime than natives. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Piehl follows:]

84

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANNE MORRISON PIEHL


AMP-1.eps
85


AMP-2.eps
86


AMP-3.eps
87


AMP-4.eps
88


AMP-5.eps
89


AMP-6.eps
90


AMP-7.eps
91

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Santiago? 

TESTIMONY OF DEBORAH A. SANTIAGO, Ph.D., VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY AND RESEARCH, EXCELENCIA IN EDUCATION 

Ms. SANTIAGO. Hello. Thank you. It is an honor to present here 

in front of you today. 

I want to note that I am with a national organization that focuses on Latino student success, not to the exclusion of others, but 

starting with Latinos, as sort of a footnote. 

My comments here today, however, are more general, because I 

am focusing on the broad costs and benefits of educating immigrant 

students, and I want to make sure that those students get service. 

Immigration policy in the United States is a Federal responsibility. We talked about that. However, the effects, both positive and 

negative, of immigration are concentrated in States and communities where immigrants lives. One of the most contentious issues 

between jurisdictions is the cost of educating immigrant students. 

Attention was captured in 1982 when the U.S. Supreme Court 

ruled in Plyer v. Doe that children are entitled to an education regardless of the immigration status. 

Given that the Federal Government provides only about 9 percent of educational costs nationally, the majority of funding responsibility for immigrant education comes from State and local governments. No American institution has felt the effects of immigration 

more forcefully than the Nation’s public schools. No set of American institutions is arguably more critical to the future success of 

immigrant integration in our country. 

Public education is unlike any other public benefit because of the 

role it plays in sustaining our political and cultural heritage. 

The main points of my testimony are as follows: 

In looking at the research, the majority of studies on the effects 

of educating immigrants confirm that State and local governments 

experience more cost than benefit for educating immigrants in single periods. 

Most studies that examine the effects of educating immigrants 

look at costs in a single period without considering the long-term 

effects of education as an investment with future benefits. For this, 

the methodologies are very diverse. 

Third, while the Federal Government provides some Federal support for educating immigrants to State and local school districts, 

there is no doubt that this support does not cover the entire costs 

of education for immigrants. 

And, fourth, while States and local governments incur more costs 

than benefits in the short term, they also accrue more direct benefits in the long term for their investment. Therefore, the appropriate Federal and State balance of funding for immigrant education remains contentious. 

Just a quick comment about some of the analysis that we were 

looking at. Numerous studies provide analysis of the educational 

costs the States incur in educating immigrant students in a single 

time period. For example, a study by the Federation for American 

92

Immigration Reform estimated that in a single year the cost of educating immigrant K-12 students nationally was almost $29 billion. 

This represents about 6 percent of K-12 expenditures nationally. In comparison, the Federal Government provided about $41 billion 

for elementary and secondary education while State and local governments provided about $200 billion each, about 45 percent. 

So when education is treated as a cost item in a single period’s 

fiscal analysis, the benefits, both tangible and intrinsic, are not 

considered. Two seminal National Academy of Science reports 

stress the importance of looking at the effects over longer periods 

of time and including at least three generations when calculating 

the effects of education. Otherwise, analysis can misrepresent the 

ultimate benefit that States and local communities gain from a 

more educated immigrant workforce. 

Fiscal impact analyses are incomplete if they include only the 

cost of educating children and not the higher earnings and tax paying capacity of those children in future years. Further, there may 

be an even larger fiscal impact in the long-term for not educating 

immigrants. A RAND study notes that higher levels of education 

translate into lower public expenditures over an individual’s lifetime in the form of revenues saved in public welfare, health and 

law enforcement programs, and revenues earned from increased 

taxes and contributions to Medicare and Social Security. 

The majority of tax revenues paid by immigrants go to the Federal Government, but the larger share of public service costs related to immigration are at the State and local level. Therefore, the 

fiscal balance of educating immigrants can be positive at the Federal level but negative at the State and local government level. Because immigration policy is a Federal responsibility, the Federal 

Government does provide some financial assistance to States and 

school districts, although the amount of financial support does not 

cover the majority of educational expenses. 

In title 3 of the No Child Left Behind Act, the Federal Government provides support to States to educate English language needs 

as well as immigrant students. In 2007, this included about $670 

million to be distributed to States where up to 15 percent could be 

used for immigrant education programs. Of the top three States 

with immigrant students, California could use up to $25 million, 

Texas $13 million and New York $7 million. However, studies have 

shown that education the students costs in the multiple billions of 

dollars to each State. 

Some would want to prevent immigrants from receiving a public 

education because of their concern for the staggering cost of social 

programs. However, it is critical that State and local governments 

consider the benefits as well as the costs for educating these students. Higher earnings are strongly associated with increasing levels of educational attainment for students, regardless of immigrant 

status. 

It should also be noted that States also incur costs for educating 

native-born students and do not see the benefit of this investment 

until years later as well. 

The skill level of current immigrants and their children will be 

determined by the quality of their K-12 education experience and 

by their ability to get a college education in the future. If immiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:04 Aug 21, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\051707\35452.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35452
93

grants and their children experience rising levels if educational attainment, their presence can be a competitive advantage for States 

and localities. 

The total fiscal impact of educating today’s immigrants and their 

children includes fiscal effects currently and to the future, which 

are inferred but cannot be calculated in the present. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Santiago follows:]

94

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEBORAH A. SANTIAGO


DAS-1.eps
95


DAS-2.eps
96


DAS-3.eps
97


DAS-4.eps
98


DAS-5.eps
99

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rector? 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT RECTOR, SENIOR RESEARCH 

FELLOW, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION 

Mr. RECTOR. Thank you for having me back to talk about the fiscal cost of low-skilled immigrants at the State and local level. 

As you know, I calculated the cost of that type of immigrant, immigrants without a high school degree, for overall Federal, State 

and local, finding that they received about $30,000 a year in government benefits, paying in about $10,000 in taxes, and I counted 

every single tax that Mr. Gutierrez could mention. I even got their 

lottery ticket purchases with a very generous assessment. And so you have a gap there of $19,500. And if you go down to the State level, you get basically the same picture, about $14,000 

in benefits, about $9,000 in taxes; about a gap of about $5,000. If 

those figures are correct, then low-skill immigration constitutes an 

unfunded mandate on States and localities. 

Let’s talk a little bit about methods, because we have different 

studies here. The methods I use are the methods used by the National Academy of Sciences. What I count are what the National 

Academy of Sciences counted. I don’t count defends, I don’t count 

interest, other things that have been charged against me. I just 

count. 

And how do I count? Well, it is real simple. I go to the Census 

Bureau. If a low-skill immigrant says they got a food stamp, I 

count the value of the food stamp. I don’t have any assumptions. 

I am just a counter. And it is very simple. You count Social Security. You count Medicaid. You count public education. 

And one of the very strong points of the way I do this thing is 

if you take my methods and you apply them to the entire U.S. population, what happens? You get tax revenues that exactly equal all 

the tax revenues in the United States and expenditures that exactly equal all the expenditures in the United States, because I 

didn’t leave anything out, and most studies leave things out selectively, and that drives what they get. 

What I find is exactly what the National Academy of Sciences 

found, that there is certain types of people when you bring them 

in the country they cost the taxpayer a fortune. Let’s start with, 

say, bringing in a 65-year-old and putting him on SSI. Gosh, pretty 

hard to make that one a financial winner for the taxpayer. 

But also, when you bring in somebody that is a high school dropout, there is no study that exists that shows that that individual 

is going to pay more in taxes then they take out in benefits or even 

come close to it. 

If my figure of $30,000 a year is even remotely correct, that exceeds the earnings in these households. How could they possibly 

pay taxes? And the only way that you can make them look fiscally 

attractive is to take large things off the books. Let’s take education 

off the books. Now, there is some credit in doing that, because education for those kids does have a kind of mitigating effect on future 

losses in the future. 

But I would simply say, the National Academy of Sciences used 

the same model I did, and they looked at those high school dropout 

100

families and they looked at all of the generations that would follow. 

They looked at it for 300 years. And even after 300 years, the fiscal 

loss of the first generation of high school dropouts was so extreme, 

that the net present value never came to zero. 

Now, that is a pretty rotten investment. You invest money and 

300 years later you still haven’t made one penny on your investment. That is not a good deal and that is exactly what this sort 

of situation is. 

I do think that it does make sense that once an immigrant is 

here, you do need to educate the kids to mitigate future costs. It 

doesn’t mean that child is going to be a net tax contributor. It 

doesn’t mean the child will make up the deficit of the first generation, but you will mitigate those costs. But that is a very different 

decision than deciding whether you are going to admit millions of 

those low-skill families in the first place. 

And I would simply say, when we talk about positive investments, that any investment that doesn’t make back the initial cost 

of the investment within 25 years is a rotten investment, and there 

are many other investments we could make besides bringing in 

low-skill immigrants and charging that cost to the U.S. taxpayer. 

Taxpayers cold spend more on the education of their own children. 

Taxpayers could invest in the stock market. Any of those investments would have returns infinitely larger multiples of return than 

bringing in individuals who obviously, at least in the first and second generation, are going to take much more out of the taxes than 

they put in. 

I would say that I would like to make some more comments in 

the question period about amnesty, because the tax cost that I am 

talking about here today are merely a drop in the bucket compared 

to what you get when you grant amnesty and the right to get into 

Social Security for illegal immigrants that are here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rector follows:]

101

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT RECTOR


RR0001.eps
102


RR0002.eps
103


RR0003.eps
104


RR0004.eps
105


RR0005.eps
106


RR0006.eps
107


RR0007.eps
108


RR0008.eps
109


RR0009.eps
110


RR0010.eps
111


RR0011.eps
112


RR0012.eps
113


RR0013.eps
114


RR0014.eps
115


RR0015.eps
116


RR0016.eps
117


RR0017.eps
118

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, all of the panelists, for your testimony. 

We will now begin with questions for our panelists, and I will 

begin. 

Dr. Piehl, I found your testimony extremely interesting because 

the testimony that you have given is very much at variance with 

some of the casual things that are said about crime and immigrants, and I was particularly interested in the percentage of the 

population incarcerated. 

Some individuals have suggested that a very large percentage, 19 

percent, 20 percent, of all prisoners in Federal custody are non-citizens. In fact, one of our Committee Members who is not here today 

suggested that. But your analysis actually seems to indicate otherwise. 

Can you explain the disparity? Is it people who are being held 

for immigration violations or how do we explain this? 

Ms. PIEHL. I appreciate the question. 

The statistic is often quoted in the public press as well, that we 

have a very high proportion of Federal inmates who are immigrants (who are ‘‘non-citizens’’ is the way the data are collected). 

And that is in fact true. The data that I have from the Bureau of 

Justice statistics that are included in my testimony show that 19 

percent of the population at any given time in the Federal prison 

system are non-citizens. 

There are two reasons that that figure is misleading, though, as 

a synopsis of the larger issue of immigration and crime. One is that 

violations of immigration law are, by definition, as you know, violations of Federal law. So Federal prison is the only place for people 

who violate immigration law to be housed. 

If you look at the broader population of prisoners, you find the 

proportion is much lower. So if we are thinking about State populations, you find that the percentage of non-citizens is, I think, 6.4 

percent. It is in the——

Ms. LOFGREN. I was interested that in your study, the population 

of California is 30 percent foreign born, but in the State prison 10 

percent foreign born. 

Ms. PIEHL. That is almost correct. 

Among the California system, 10 percent are non-citizens, but 

California, because its system is so large, contains 30 percent of all 

non-citizens who are incarcerated in State prisons. So when you 

hear talk about the SCAAP provisions, for example, that is showing 

you the disproportionate——

Ms. LOFGREN. That is why the California delegation is for 

SCAAP funding. 

Ms. PIEHL. Exactly. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I wonder if I could ask Dr. Singer, your testimony 

was also very interesting and something that I hadn’t actually focused on, which is where are people going and has it changed, and 

that may also have an impact on the discussion that we are having 

nationally on immigration. 

You mentioned the need to have actual coordinated efforts to 

help integrate people and help immigrants become Americans. We 

had a very interesting hearing on that yesterday. You said that 

Canada does something. Can you give us just an insight into what 

Canada does to help on that? 

119

Ms. SINGER. Sure. 

Let me first start by saying that I think one of the problems with 

not having a national coordinated strategic system is that across 

places there is a lot of variation, and this kind of fragmented approach to how we receive immigrants and what kinds of things 

they are entitled to or how they are served or what we expect of 

them can be very different in places right next door to each other. 

In Canada, part of their program is to give people services and 

training right up front, so people are received in English and/or 

French, since they have two national languages, are part of the integration program. Referral services for community organizations 

and local government services are also part of that package. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I see that my time is about up. I did want to 

thank Dr. Santiago also for being here. And I guess all I can say 

is there is no greater bargain, no greater investment you can make, 

than education. We all know that. 

And although we look at our budgeting here and even put it to 

one side from the immigration question, you know that it is a cost 

but the financial rewards are reaped many, many fold for those investments. And I thank you for your powerful testimony to that impact. 

I am interested, Mr. Rector, and I hope at some other time that 

we will be able to—perhaps in my written questions I can follow 

up with some of the issues and questions that I have. But I know 

that the time is late. 

You have been here all afternoon and I don’t want to violate the 

red light, so I will turn to the Ranking Member. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to take the first opportunity to thank all the witnesses 

here. It means a lot to this country that people are willing to come 

forward and spend your time, make this commitment. 

I am not going to be able to ask questions from everybody. I 

would love to sit down and have dinner with you all, because it 

would be fascinating to have this conversation engaged. 

So I am going to first just focus on Dr. Piehl. 

I hear your testimony and I view it as an academic testimony. 

And I think you spent significant time in this. I think it is a real 

investment. 

Have you had an opportunity—I have a study in my hand. It is 

an April GAO study that deals with criminal aliens that are incarcerated. As you can see, I have looked this over a few times. 

Ms. PIEHL. Is that from 2005? 

Mr. KING. Yes, 2005. 

Ms. PIEHL. Yes, I have it, but I haven’t looked at it recently. 

Mr. KING. In there, it says that the population of our Federal 

penitentiaries that is criminal aliens is 27 percent. And so we are 

only 8 percent off in the Federal part of this. 

Do you know of any inmates in the Federal penitentiary that are 

there because they were unlawfully present in the United States? 

And I mean that because I think we need to weigh what that 

means. And if they are, I am going to submit that it would be because that was the violation that they could convict them of. Probably they weren’t just someone who was going to pick tomatoes. 

120

Ms. PIEHL. There are people who are in there under that crime, 

and it is quite possible that that was the crime of conviction but 

not the original intent. Right. 

Mr. KING. And in your testimony, I am going a little bit from 

memory here, you state that in conclusion there is no empirical evidence that immigrants pose a particular crime threat. Have you 

looked at the violent death rates in countries that are south of our 

border, Mexico and thereon south? And are you familiar with the 

relationship with violent crime and death rates in those countries 

compared to that in the United States? 

Ms. PIEHL. Broadly. 

Mr. KING. And if I could stipulate some of those as from my 

memory, U.S. violent death rate is 4.28 per 100,000 and Mexico’s 

is 13.2, so an approximately three-times higher violent death rate 

there. It gets worse as we go south. Honduras is nine-times. El Salvador is unpublished, presumably because it is not a very flattering 

number. Columbia’s is 15.4 times the violent death rate of the 

United States. 

When you add to that that some of those people that are coming 

here are bringing the $65 billion worth of illegal drugs into the 

United States and I think you referenced one of the points that is 

important demographically, that many of them are young men who 

really carry with them society’s pathologies. I am just a man, I will 

say that. 

And so when you add that all up, how can one conclude that illegal immigrants represent a lower percentage of the crime? And do 

you have anything in your studies that actually defines the difference and studies illegal immigration as opposed to legal immigration, because I think we do recognize that if you are here under 

probation, so to speak, waiting to be legalized, you are likely to be 

more in compliance with the law than if you are here illegally in 

the shadows. 

Ms. PIEHL. Those are about eight or nine good questions. I think 

I lost track. 

So let me start with the last one. We don’t really have good data 

to study the questions that you ask and the questions that I ask, 

so all of the studies that I reported on here are ones that are doing 

the best method that they can with the data that they have to 

bring evidence to bear on what are key, quality questions. 

One of the most important omissions is that we never have data 

collected by status of immigrant, so we don’t know whether people 

are illegal or not, or how they came, you know, what their visa status was. 

Mr. KING. We merge the two. 

Ms. PIEHL. So all the studies that I reported either defined people based on country of birth or on citizenship status. We are using 

both of those in different cases as——

Mr. KING. You don’t draw a distinction between legal and illegal 

in any of the testimony that you have here. So it is merged together and it is blurred. 

Ms. PIEHL. That is correct. And that is a gap in the literature—

there is no way to see filling that. 

Mr. KING. And I have found that as I go to the States and I ask 

them their incarceration rates for criminal aliens versus illegal 

121

aliens, lawfully presents, nation of origin, they really don’t have 

records that they can give me that give me confidence that they are 

keeping them in a fashion that I can count on. Would that be your 

experience, too? 

Ms. PIEHL. That would be correct. And you also would need reliable population estimates in order to denominate those to figure 

out relative risk. 

Mr. KING. You are an intellectual and honest lady. 

I just turn to Mr. Rector for a comment of any gaps that you 

might have heard in this testimony. Would you like a comment 

quickly? 

Mr. RECTOR. Well, I would just say that when you are really 

looking at these costs, the most important thing you have to be 

looking toward is the cost of amnesty. And with amnesty, what you 

are actually talking about is taking about 9.3 million individuals 

who are not currently eligible for Social Security and Medicare and 

ensuring that they go into those systems. 

Very few of the illegals are currently elderly, but if you grant 

amnesty they are all going to stay here. If you move 9.3 million 

people with a normal mortality rate up into retirement, the next 

cost of that to the taxpayers by the time they hit retirement will 

be about $17,000 per person per year. About 9 million people times 

the time they would spend in retirement, that is $2.5 trillion. 

And that cost will come smashing into our fiscal coffers at exactly the time that Social Security is already going bankrupt. 

There is no possible way out of this. How in the world can you 

add in 9 million people, 60 percent of whom lack a high school degree and have paid very little in taxes in, into these types of systems, into Medicaid, into SSI, into Social Security, without gargantuan costs in the future? 

And I am just astonished at how irresponsible it is for the Congress to be considering this type of amnesty without even beginning to look at that type of future cost. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairwoman, and I thank the 

Ranking Member. 

We always do that, because we have had a series of hearings and 

we hope that our appreciation reflects on the hard work of their 

staff as well. 

Let me thank the witnesses for their testimony and forgive me 

for having to pose rapid-fire yes-no or brief answers in order to 

help me understand and to frame the case of this particular hearing. 

Let me share one statement that finds itself in our memorandum 

that indicates despite the overall benefits of immigration to the Nation, most scholars tend to concur that illegal immigration can 

have deliterious effects on States and localities. It is those effects 

that we will address during this hearing. 

I just want to focus on those sentences and begin my line of questioning. 

122

First of all, I am from Houston, Texas, and Harris County has a $1.5 million SCAAP grant that deals with reimbursement for the 

services or needs of those in our population that are undocumented. There is no doubt that our hospitals, our schools, our other 

social services can stand more resources. Period. They certainly can 

stand more resources for those of us who are large States that have 

a large population of undocumented individuals. 

Interestingly enough, the population of naysayers in Harris 

County is very small. There have been a number of elected officials 

who tried to do the blame game and certainly we have had a number of amendments about police arresting those who are undocumented. We have some issues with the jail. But we have not taken 

to the street to suggest that there is not also a positive to many 

who happen to be undocumented, who happen to be hardworking, 

fulfilling various needs in our community, whether it be if you will 

low-skilled to other skills, and young people in our schools who are 

striving for the American dream. 

So let me just say that the frame is illegal immigration can be 

deliterious, but if we fix the system and begin to document so that 

individuals are out of the shadows, are paying taxes, may even be 

able to pay for some sort of hybrid health care, may be eligible for 

S-CHIP, is that not a better approach? 

Dr. Singer? 

Ms. SINGER. Well, I think you hit on all of the key points in 

terms of this being an immediate need for some places where there 

is a new influx of immigrants, but it is also a long-term issue in 

a place like Houston, that is used to bringing in people. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But will documentation for those who are now 

undocumented help to move us toward fixing the problem, because 

they become contributing, I hope? This is on the—I am not approaching the criminal issue right now. I am approaching those 

that may be using our social services. And my time is limited, so 

I am trying to get a quick yes or no. 

Ms. SINGER. I think with legal status, we have seen in the past 

in the last program, 1986, that workers were able to experience 

some economic mobility because they were able to come out of the 

shadows, learn English and move up in their jobs. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Dr. Piehl, is that correct? Yes or no on providing some pathway to citizenship to cure part of this deliterious 

impact. 

Ms. PIEHL. It may, but my testimony doesn’t directly address 

that point. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Dr. Santiago? 

Ms. SANTIAGO. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Dr. Rector, you keep harping on amnesty. All of the bills that I 

have seen, all of the thought that I have seen has been a methodical structure of compensation, fines and other penalties or other 

hurdles. That is not amnesty. And the question I would ask, when 

you say that this has a negative impact on our economy, we have 

a large agricultural industry. Farm workers I consider a very respectable, if you will, profession or need. 

What substitute would you have for those who happen to be utilized—and again, this not denigrating, because I would open those 

123

opportunities for any American who chooses to have it. I don’t 

think any farm denies them. But what substitute would you have 

for that and what would you respond to the constant refrain that 

we try to explain to those who keep using the term ‘‘amnesty’’ that 

this is not the amnesty of 1986, when you have a series of penalties 

and a very extensive wait? In fact, I understand the Senate bill has 

probably projected the wait to be some 13 years, the agreement 

that has just been put forward. 

Mr. RECTOR. Well, I think that you have to really look and say, 

okay, now, agriculture might be an area where a guest worker program might be viable. But if you allow the guest worker to come 

in with a family and obtain citizenship, then that is going to impose about an $18,000 a year cost on the taxpayers in any given 

State. How are you going to pay for that? You are going to have 

to pay for that in some way. And you have to take that in as a rational consideration. 

I would say when you grant amnesty, or grant citizenship, whatever you want to call it, the costs obviously go up much farther 

than the taxes, because there is a little bit of off-the-books work 

here for illegals. So they are not paying Social Security tax. But 

that, for these workers, is going to be $1,000 or $2,000 a year that 

you would ante in if they started paying Social Security tax. 

I have costed this out very carefully. On the other hand, if you 

start making them eligible for, as you said, S-CHIP, food stamps, 

public housing and on and on and on, the cost of that are extraordinarily large, and indeed I mean the fines in these bills are so 

trivial in comparison to the additional costs and benefits, they are 

not even a grounding error. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. My time has ended. 

Let me just say, Chairwoman, Mr. Rector’s history is, as he has 

put forward, is one interpretation. My interpretation of the thousands upon thousands of immigrant families who came in, documented or undocumented, in the 1900’s, who became contributors 

to society, even if they had to take a step on the social service step 

in the early part of their history, they did ultimately become contributors. And that is what we can look for, for a documented system that documents people and regularizes their existence. 

I yield back to the gentlelady. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

I would like to thank all of the witnesses for sticking with us 

here this afternoon, for your patience with us for being an hour 

late because of the Committee markup and our vote. 

Without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit additional written questions for you, which we will forward. 

And we ask that if you are able to respond as promptly as possible, 

we would sure appreciate it. 

Without objection, the record will remain open for 5 legislative 

days for the submission of any other additional materials. 

I think the testimony today has been very helpful, illuminating 

some of these issues on comprehensive immigration reform. I know 

it will prove valuable to us as we move forward these next 6 weeks 

or so when we hope to actually come to a conclusion on these major 

challenges that face us. 

124

I would like to extend an invitation to anyone within hearing to 

attend our next hearing on comprehensive immigration reform, 

which will be tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. in the room downstairs, 

Room 2141, during which we will explore the future of undocumented students and immigration reform. 

And on next Tuesday at 2 in the afternoon we will hear 

prospectives on immigration reform from faith-based and immigrant communities, and that will also be in Room 2141. 

With that, my thanks again for your donation of your time and 

your wisdom. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:53 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(125)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVE KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CON- GRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMI- GRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Madame Chair, thank you for holding this hearing. 

While immigration policy enforcement is supposed to be a federal responsibility, 

much of the burden caused by mass immigration falls on the states and localities 

in which the immigrants, legal and illegal, settle. 

This Subcommittee and the Full Committee have examined the effects of immigration on states and localities on a number of occasions. Most recently, last August 

in San Diego, CA, the Full Committee explored the impacts that the Senate-passed 

Reid-Kennedy amnesty bill would have on American communities at the state and 

local level. 

In San Diego we heard testimony that Los Angeles County is being buried with 

the healthcare, education, criminal justice and other costs associated with illegal immigration. 

We also heard from a witness from the University of Arizona Medical Center in 

Tucson who said that providing care to the uninsured, uncompensated poor and foreign nationals cost the hospital $30 million in 2006 and $27 million in 2005. Few 

U.S. hospitals can continue to provide adequate care for American citizens, with 

such an enormous burden. 

More than a decade ago, at a hearing on this same topic, Michael Fix of the 

Urban Institute told the Judiciary Committee that ‘‘[T]here is a broad consensus in 

the research that the fiscal impacts of illegal immigrants—that is, their impacts on 

local, state and federal taxpayers—are negative, generating a net deficit when they 

are aggregated across all levels of government. . . .’’

Because of these burdens and the frustrations that recent Administrations, including the present one, have essentially abdicated enforcement of immigration law, 

many States and localities have decided to try to fix the problems themselves. They 

have considered and often enacted legislation aimed at reducing the negative impacts of illegal immigration. 

According to the National Conference of States Legislatures, as of April 13, 2007, 

1,169 immigration-related bills and resolutions have been introduced in legislature 

in all 50 states. That is more that twice the number introduced last year. The bills 

touch on every immigration-related policy from receipt of public assistance, to education to voting. 

For instance, just last week the Oklahoma Governor sign into law a bill that requires state and local agencies to verify the citizenship and immigration status of 

applicants for state or local benefits. 

In March, the Idaho Governor signed into law a bill that requires the verification 

of lawful presence in the United States in order to receive public benefits. 

And this week residents of Farmer’s Branch, TX, a Dallas suburb, recently approved, by 68 percent to 32 percent, an ordinance that requires apartment managers 

to verify that renters are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before leasing to the 

property. 

The cost of educating the children of illegal immigrants, whether the child is U.S. 

born or foreign born, is perhaps the largest, both fiscal and societal, cost at the state 

and local level. Not only are schools overcrowded because of illegal immigrants, but 

since K-12 education is federally mandated, states and localities have no choice but 

to pay the required fiscal costs. Those costs equal $7,700 per student per year—an 

amount that most illegal immigrants do not cover with the taxes they pay. 

Uncompensated health care for illegal immigrant families is also a huge burden 

on states and localities. According to the U.S.-Mexico Southwest Border Counties 

126

Coalition, hospitals in the southwest border counties of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, 

and California alone incur costs of $190 million per year for uncompensated emergency medical treatment of illegal immigrants. Many hospitals around the country 

have already been forced to stop providing medical specialties, like trauma care, or 

have closed down completely because of the budgetary strains. 

And the law enforcement costs of illegal immigration are also substantial and increasing. According to the GAO, 28 percent of inmates in Federal and state prisons 

are criminal aliens. In the state of New York, it is estimated that the uncompensated cost of incarcerating criminal aliens is $165 million a year—money that I am 

sure New York taxpayers would like not to have to spend. 

I am pleased that we are exploring this issue today and note the importance of 

creating immigration policy that is good for the American people—not just certain 

interest groups. 

And before I close, I would just like to note that Robert Rector, Senior Research 

Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, is one of the witnesses today. Not only will he 

be testifying as to the fiscal impacts of immigration on states and localities, but he 

is more than willing to address any concerns Members of the Subcommittee may 

have about his recent research, such as those expressed in a recent Immigration 

Policy Center brief. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE

fSHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Today we continue these series of hearings dealing with comprehensive immigration reform. This subcommittee previously dealt with the shortfalls of the 1986 and 

1996 immigration reforms, the difficulties employers face with employment 

verification and ways to improve the employment verification system. On Tuesday 

May 1, 2007 we explored the point system that the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand utilize, and on May 3, 2007 the focus of the discussion was 

on the U.S. economy, U.S. workers and immigration reform. Last week we took a 

look at another controversial aspect of the immigration debate, family based immigration. Today we continue the vital task of eliminating the myths and seeking the 

truth. Yesterday’s hearing dealt with probably the most crucial aspect underlying 

the immigration debate, an immigrant’s ability to integrate, and assimilate into 

American society. Today we will tackle another pressing topic, the practical issue 

of the impact of immigration on States and Localities. 

While many will argue that illegal immigration is a national epidemic, truth of 

the matter is that our local municipalities are the entities that have to address the 

needs of not only the undocumented population, but also there documented immigrants, and United States Citizens. Plenty of individuals in the anti-immigrant 

camp argue that these groups of undocumented individuals are placing a strain on 

the local hospitals, public schools, and social service programs. I can recall a recent 

CNN news report that documented children who live in Mexico, but attend school 

here in the States. Some will use this anecdotal evidence to suggest that it is a microcosm of the type of strain illegal immigrants place on our Localities, arguing that 

the parents of these kids do not pay property taxes and therefore their kids should 

not receive the benefit of an American public school education, despite the fact that 

these children are United States Citizen. 

As I just mentioned many in the anti-immigrant camp will argue that the same 

strain is being placed on our hospitals, jails, and social services. They complain of 

overcrowded emergency rooms, and limited access to social service programs due to 

the influx of illegal immigrants. Therefore, this hearing like all our previous hearings will seek to debunk the myths associated with illegal immigration, and expose 

the facts about the impact that illegal immigration has on States and Localities. 

Allow me to share a sample of those facts with you. With regards to the strain on 

local jails, the Harris County Jail does receive some federal assistance in the form 

of a $1.5 million dollar SCAPP grant to help house illegal immigrants. That is not 

to say that the Harris County Jail does not suffer from overcrowding, the record is 

established on that fact, but it is not the result of an influx of illegal immigrants. 

I believe that through the thoughtful and insightful testimony from the previous 

panels of experts, we have established a solid foundation of facts. The primary fact 

is that this undocumented population and this new wave of immigrants have benefited the United States economy. Their presence generates small businesses, which 

generates local tax revenue. The creation of low-skilled jobs creates the need for 

high skill jobs, and the task that low skilled workers perform, (i.e., landscaping, 

127

service industry jobs) makes life easier for high-skilled workers and allows them to 

work more efficiently. In all I believe that we can agree on the positive impact that 

immigrants have on our Nation as a whole, culturally and financially, however a 

closer look at the impact on localities does deserve particular attention because 

these entities do not have the resources that the federal government has. 

There are costs to taxpayers that result from illegal immigration. Estimates and 

methodologies vary as to those costs, but most scholars agree that illegal immigrants do create certain fiscal costs. State and local governments are frustrated by 

the costs incurred locally and the lack of federal government action to address these 

problems through immigration reform. As of April 13, 2007, state legislators in all 

of the 50 states had introduced at least 1169 bills and resolutions related to immigration or immigrants and refugees. This is more than twice the total number of 

introduced bills (570) in 2006. In fact in my home state of Texas, a town called 

Farmers Branch just enacted a law that made it illegal for landlords to rent to illegal immigrants. Given the extensive testimony that we heard about the problems 

that sophisticated corporate employers such as the Swift Meat Packing Co. have 

when they try to verify an employee’s status, can you imagine the trouble that an 

individual landlord will have. If a federal system like the Basic Pilot Program is riddled with problems, and subject to fraud, so will the individual landlord. Reactionary policies and laws such as the one passed by the Farmers Branch city council 

is not the answer. 

I look forward to the testimony from today’s witnesses.

128

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JANET NAPOLITANO, GOVERNOR OF THE

STATE OF ARIZONA, ON ‘‘COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON STATES AND LOCALITIES,’’ SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE ZOE

LOFGREN, CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW


5-1.eps
129


5-2.eps
130


5-3.eps
131


5-4.eps
132


5-5.eps
133


5-6.eps
134

‘‘THE FISCAL IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION REFORM: THE REAL STORY,’’ BY DANIEL GRISWOLD, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR TRADE POLICY STUDIES, CATO INSTITUTE, MAY 21, 

2007


7-1.eps
135


7-2.eps
136


7-3.eps
137


7-4.eps
138

LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES AND THE

NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES


8.eps
139

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FAIR IMMIGRATION REFORM MOVEMENT


9-1.eps
140


9-2.eps
141

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVE DEBENEDITTIS, MAYOR,

THE TOWN OF HERNDON, VA


10-1.eps
142


10-2.eps
143


10-3.eps
144

‘‘DOLLARS WITHOUT SENSE: UNDERESTIMATING THE VALUE OF LESS-EDUCATED

WORKERS,’’ BY WALTER A. EWING, PH.D. AND BENJAMIN JOHNSON, A POLICY BRIEF

OF THE IMMIGRATION POLICY CENTER


11-1.eps
145


11-2.eps
146


11-3.eps
147


11-4.eps
148


11-5.eps
149


11-6.eps
150


11-7.eps
151

Æ


11-8.eps