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

35–117 PDF 2007

U.S. ECONOMY, U.S. WORKERS, AND

IMMIGRATION REFORM

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 3, 2007

Serial No. 110–34

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 3, 2007

Page 

OPENING STATEMENT 

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 Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 3

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

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 50

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Leon R. Sequeira, Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor 

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

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

Ms. Patricia A. Buckley, Ph.D., Senior Economic Advisor to the Secretary, 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 17

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 19

Mr. Peter R. Orszag, Ph.D., Director, Congressional Budget Office 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 26

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 28

Mr. Gerald D. Jaynes, Ph.D., Professor of Economics and African-American 

Studies, Yale University 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 52

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 54

Ms. Rachel M. Friedberg, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer in Economics, Brown University 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 62

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 65

Mr. Wade Henderson, President and CEO, Leadership Conference on Civil 

Rights 

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

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 71

Mr. Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., Ph.D., Professor of Industrial and Labor Relations, 

Cornell University 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 79

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 82

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 ......................................................................................................... 50

Page

IV

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

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 ....... 101

Letter from a majority of the minority Members of the Subcommittee on 

Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law 

requesting a minority day of hearing to the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ................................................................................. 102

‘‘The Composite National’’ by Frederick Douglass, submitted by the Honorable 

John Conyers, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ............................. 104

Letter from Eric N. Gutie ́rrez, Legislative Staff Attorney, Mexican American 

Legal Defense and Educational Fund to the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ................................................................................. 113

Answers to post-hearing questions posed by the Honorable Steve King from 

the Honorable Leon R. Sequeira, Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor ................................................................................................ 115

Answers to post-hearing questions posed by the Honorable Steve King from 

Patricia Buckley, Ph.D., Senior Economic Advisor to the Secretary, U.S. 

Department of Commerce .................................................................................... 117

Answers to post-hearing questions posed by the Honorable Steve King from 

Peter R. Orszag, Ph.D., Director, Congressional Budget Office ....................... 118

(1)

U.S. ECONOMY, U.S. WORKERS, AND 

IMMIGRATION REFORM 

THURSDAY, MAY 3, 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 nall, at 3:22 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe Lofgren 

(Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Gutierrez, Jackson Lee, 

Sa ́nchez, Davis, Conyers, and King. 

Staff present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel; David 

Shahoulian, Majority Counsel; George Fishman, Minority Counsel; 

and Benjamin Staub, Professional Staff Member. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law will 

come to order. 

I would like to welcome the Immigration Subcommittee Members, our witnesses, and members of the public who are here today 

for the Subcommittee’s seventh hearing on comprehensive immigration reform. 

I would like first to apologize for our tardiness in beginning the 

hearing. We had a series of votes on the House floor. That is the 

bad news. The good news is those were the last votes for today, so 

we will not be interrupted further by matters on the floor. 

In our first six hearings, we examined the need for comprehensive immigration to secure our borders, to address economic and 

demographic concerns, and for historical reasons. We examined the 

immigration reform in 1986 and 1996 in an effort to avoid the mistakes of the past. Last week, we considered the problems with and 

the proposed solutions for our current employment and worksite 

verification system. This Tuesday, we examined immigration point 

systems and whether such an immigration system is the right solution for our country. 

Today we are turning our attention to the effects of immigrants 

on the nation’s economy, with particular attention to the nativeborn workforce. 

Recognizing the importance of this issue, the Subcommittee has 

gathered leading Government and academic experts to discuss the 

primary scholarship in this area. I am looking forward to the testimony from Government experts who will discuss the economic need 

for immigrant labor and the effect of immigrant workers on the emVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:11 Sep 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\050307\35117.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35117
2

ployment and wages of native-born workers. We will then hear 

from a panel of labor economists and other witnesses who will further discuss the impacts of immigrant workers on the native-born 

workforce. 

Some have raised concerns that immigrant workers undermine 

the welfare of native-born workers by reducing wages and raising 

unemployment levels. Applying basic rules of supply and demand, 

this argument appears convincing. The more workers there are, the 

more competition there is for jobs. Hence, the downward pressure 

on wages and fewer available jobs. 

However, the experts on our panel today will explain to us that 

the majority of the scholarship indicates that simple economic arguments of supply and demand fail to reflect the economic complexities of the real world of immigration. They will explain that immigrants don’t just fill jobs, they also create them in a variety of 

ways, thereby increasing demand for native-born workers and actually increasing wages throughout most of the economy. 

The witnesses will also show that there is some downward effect 

on wages at some levels. However, the weight of the scholarship 

shows that this effect is much smaller than some have argued, 

even as small as 1 percent. 

Thank you again to our distinguished witnesses for being here 

today to help us sort through what is a complex and very important issue for Americans, American jobs, and our economy. 

[The opening 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 seventh hearing on comprehensive 

immigration reform. 

In our first six hearings, we examined the need for comprehensive immigration 

to secure our borders, to address economic and demographic concerns, and for historical reasons. We have examined immigration reform in 1986 and 1996 in an effort to avoid the mistakes of the past. Last week we considered the problems with 

and proposed solutions for our current employment and worksite verification system. Just this Tuesday, we examined immigration point systems and whether such 

an immigration system is the right solution for our country. 

Today we are turning our attention to the effects of immigrants on the nation’s 

economy, with particular attention to the native-born workforce. 

Recognizing the importance of this issue, the Subcommittee has gathered leading 

government and academic experts to discuss the primary scholarship in this area. 

I’m looking forward to the testimony from government experts who will discuss 

the economic need for immigrant labor and the effect of immigrant workers on the 

employment and wages of native-born workers. We will then hear from a panel of 

labor economists and other witnesses who will further discuss the impacts of immigrant workers on the native-born workforce. 

Some have raised concern that immigrant workers undermine the welfare of native-born workers by reducing wages and raising unemployment levels. Applying 

basic rules of supply and demand, this argument appears convincing—the more 

workers there are, the more competition there is for jobs, and hence a downward 

pressure on wages and fewer available jobs. 

However, the experts on our panel today will explain to us that the majority of 

the scholarship indicates that simple economic arguments of supply and demand fail 

to reflect the economic complexities of the real world of immigration. They will explain that immigrants don’t just fill jobs; they also create them in various ways, 

thereby increasing demand for native-born workers and actually increasing their 

wages throughout most of the economy. 

3

The witnesses will also show that there is some downward effect on wages at 

some levels. However, the weight of the scholarship shows that this effect is much 

smaller than some have argued, even as small 1.1%. 

Thank you again to our distinguished witnesses for being here today to help us 

sort through what is a complex and very important issue for Americans, American 

jobs, and our economy.

Ms. LOFGREN. I would now like to recognize our distinguished 

Ranking Member, Congressman Steve King, for his opening statement. 

Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I very much appreciate you holding this hearing in this ongoing 

effort legitimately to educate the Members of this Subcommittee 

and, by osmosis, Members of the broader Judiciary Committee, the 

Members of Congress and people across this country, so that we 

can continue with this dialogue and hopefully arrive at a policy 

that is good for the future of America. 

But we all learned in school that Members of Congress debate 

policy and amend statutes to address the concerns of the American 

people. Protecting jobs and economic opportunity for Americans is 

one of the most important topics Congress must address. 

A comprehensive immigration reform bill, like the one being discussed by the Senate, the Administration and the open-borders 

lobby, will not protect American jobs or the aspiration of so many 

Americans to better their lives. Importing millions of poorly educated foreign workers won’t help our country but will only hinder 

its growth. 

Americans are conditioned to believe that such immigrants are 

necessary to our economy, because they supposedly take jobs Americans will not do. The reality is employers hire desperate aliens 

who will work for much less than Americans, driving wages down 

and making it impossible for American workers to compete. 

Even Alexander Aleinikoff, a very aptly named former Clinton 

administration INS official and current dean of the Georgetown 

University’s Law Center, has stated that it is a myth to say that 

there is little or no competition between undocumented workers 

and American workers. 

And what about the claims that there are jobs Americans won’t 

do? That claim is a slap in the face to the millions of U.S. citizens 

who go to work every day, working those very same jobs side by 

side. In fact, even in the occupations that have the highest percentage of illegal laborers, the vast majority of workers are Americans. 

Seventy-nine percent of all service workers are native-born. And 

according to the Department of Labor, construction workers currently have an 8.6 percent unemployment rate. 

Americans are willing to work at any job. The hottest, most difficult, dirtiest and dangerous job in the world is rooting terrorists 

out of Iraq. And Marines are doing that job for about $8.09 an 

hour. 

We have 69 million Americans who are of working age but who 

are not in the workforce. There are 6.9 million working illegal immigrants. We would only have to recruit one-tenth of the Americans not in the workforce in order to replace the illegal labor in 

America. 

4

Some say enforcement hasn’t worked, so our only option is to amnesty millions of illegal immigrants. But enforcement has never 

been truly given a chance, because no Administration has taken it 

seriously. 

Just 2 weeks ago, this Subcommittee held a hearing exploring 

the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. Every witness and 

most of the Members present at the hearing agreed that while the 

amnesty portion of that bill was executed, the employer sanctions 

provision never was. 

Now America’s illegal immigration problem is worse than it was 

in 1986, and some are pushing to change the system. But we can’t 

just change the system without regard to the effects of those 

changes on Americans. 

Americans are our primary interest. The effect of importing millions of foreign workers at lower wages and fewer jobs is against 

the American citizens. I know we have academics testifying today 

who will claim the opposite. But you don’t have to look any further 

than what happened after recent ICE worksite enforcement actions 

to see the practical effects. 

After last year’s enforcement actions at Georgia’s Crider Inc, the 

company lost over 600 illegal workers. But Crider increased wages 

more than $1 an hour and within days hired 200 legal workers. 

They continue to fill positions with legal workers. 

And just 3 weeks after the March 2007 ICE worksite enforcement action at Michael Bianco Incorporated in New Bedford, Massachusetts, 400 legal workers applied to fill the 361 positions left 

by illegal immigrants who were deported. 

The companies were forced to raise wages and recruit local employees, many of whom had previously had a difficult time finding 

jobs. 

The American dream means you are the driver of your own destiny, and you can work hard to be successful. But you can’t work 

hard toward that dream if your job is taken by someone willing to 

work for lower wages, or if wages in an entire occupation are depressed by illegal immigration. 

Our focus should be on creating an immigration policy that puts 

the interest of U.S. citizens first instead of the interest of citizens 

from foreign countries. 

And I would add in my opening remarks that we have had some 

serious and intense discussions about how to go about these hearings. There is an empty chair down there because I have been denied a witness to this panel. 

And I find no precedent in the history of this Immigration Subcommittee that would set that standard, but I do find that if we 

will be using the rules, it is important that the other side of this 

argument be heard. 

And so I hereby formally ask unanimous consent to introduce 

this letter into the record, requesting a minority hearing. 

And I thank you, Madam Chair, and I would yield back the balance of my time. 

[The letter referred to is inserted in the Appendix.] 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. King. I will certainly review this 

letter and act according with the rules upon it. 

5

I would like to note we have two distinguished panels today. The 

first is a panel of Government witnesses, and the second a panel 

of other distinguished Americans. 

I will reserve opening statements for the Chairman of the full 

Committee, Mr. Conyers, who is delayed, and Mr. Smith, our Ranking Member, if he should attend. 

First, I would like to introduce the Honorable Leon Sequeira, the 

Assistant Secretary for Policy at the U.S. Department of Labor. Mr. 

Sequeira was confirmed by the Senate to his post with the Labor 

Department in February of this year after having served as Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for 2 years. Mr. Sequeira came to the Department after having served as the Legal Counsel to Senator Mitch 

McConnell of Kentucky and as a Counsel to the Senate’s Rules 

Committee. Like Congressman King, Mr. Sequeira was once a 

Bearcat at Northwest Missouri State University, and he later 

earned his law degree from George Washington University. 

We are also pleased to have Dr. Patricia Buckley with us, the 

Senior Economic Advisor to the Secretary of the U.S. Department 

of Commerce. Dr. Buckley joined the Commerce Department in 

1999 after having served as an economist for 10 years for the Manufacturers Alliance and for 2 years as an economist for Congress’s 

Joint Economic Committee. She holds her bachelor’s degree from 

Clemson University and her Ph.D. from Georgetown University. 

Finally, I would like to welcome Dr. Peter Orszag, the Director 

of the Congressional Budget Office. Dr. Orszag began his 4-year 

term with the CBO on January 18 of this year, after having served 

as the Joseph A. Peckman Senior Fellow and Deputy Director of 

Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution. Prior to his work at 

Brookings, Dr. Orszag served as Special Assistant to the President 

for Economic Policy and the Senior Economic Advisor at the National Economic Council. Dr. Orszag earned his bachelor’s degree 

from Princeton University and his master’s and doctorate degrees 

from the London School of Economics as a Marshall Scholar. 

We have distinguished people here. 

Your written testimony will be made part of our official record. 

We do ask that you summarize your written statements in about 

5 minutes so that we will have an opportunity to ask questions. 

These little machines have lights on them. When the yellow light 

comes on, it means you have got about a minute left. And when 

the red light comes on, it means your 5 minutes are surprisingly 

over. 

So, Mr. Sequeira, if you could begin with your 5 minutes of testimony, we would be honored to hear it. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE LEON R. SEQUEIRA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

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

King and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today about the U.S. economy, our workforce needs 

and the importance of comprehensive immigration reform to our 

nation’s continued economic prosperity. 

The U.S. economy is healthy, resilient, and continues to grow. 

America’s workers are among the most productive of any major inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:11 Sep 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\050307\35117.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35117
6

dustrialized economy, and demand for workers in the U.S. continues to be high. 

In March, the economy gained 180,000 jobs, and there are now 

146 million people currently working in the United States. That is 

a record high. There are now more people working than ever before 

in the country. 

The latest data also show that there are 4.1 million job openings 

in the United States, with new job vacancies opening faster than 

they are being filled. 

And we have an unemployment rate of 4.4 percent, which is well 

below the 5.7 percent average unemployment rate in the 1990’s. 

These conditions suggest that employers continue to face a tight 

labor market. 

Our economy has prospered and our labor markets have grown 

stronger as the number of immigrants in our labor force has increased. 

Over the past 10 years, foreign-born workers increased from 10.8 

percent of the civilian labor force to 15.3 percent. America now has 

23 million foreign-born persons in the labor force helping to fuel 

the economy’s growth. 

Yet during this time, the national unemployment rate has declined. It was 5.4 percent 10 years ago, and it has declined significantly to 4.6 percent last year and, most recently, last month, 4.4 

percent. 

Contrary to the assertions of some, the growth of the foreignborn workforce has not produced significant adverse effects on native-born workers. Unemployment rates for all groups have gone 

down and wages have gone up. 

Over the last decade, as the foreign-born workforce increased, average hourly earnings of production and non-supervisory workers 

increased 8.7 percent after adjustment for inflation. 

And just as my forebearers came to the United States at the turn 

of the last century in search of economic opportunity and a better 

life for their children, immigrants continue to do the same today. 

And immigrants are increasingly important to the strength of the 

U.S. economy. The U.S. workforce is aging, and we do not have native-born workers entering the workforce at the same rate as people are retiring. 

Other industrialized nations in the world face the same problem. 

Continued immigration in the U.S. will allow us to maintain a 

higher ratio of workers to retirees than other major economies such 

as China, Japan, and Germany. 

We also should not overlook the fact that immigrants contribute 

significantly to the innovation and entrepreneurship in our economy. 

The challenge of finding qualified workers is likely to be much 

greater in the coming years. Unmet demand for highly skilled labor 

constitutes one of the foremost challenges confronting U.S. employers who are competing in a global marketplace. 

The Department of Labor, through the Employment and Training Administration, has engaged the business community, educators and the workforce investment system to develop solutions to 

the workforce challenges facing high-growth industries. 

7

We have targeted education and skills development and resources toward helping workers gain the skills they need to build 

successful careers in these growing industries. 

We are transforming the public workforce system to partner with 

higher education to prepare the American workforce for these career opportunities. 

And although these training programs are helping to fill the gap, 

the annual demand for workers far outpaces both the department’s 

and State workforce agencies’ ability to train and equip workers. 

Because of domestic workforce shortages, employers often seek to 

hire temporary foreign workers. Under current law, the Department of Labor has an important role in a number of existing employment-based visa programs. 

The department’s role is to ensure that the employment of foreign workers does not adversely affect U.S. workers. 

We oversee the labor certification process requiring employers to 

first test the labor market for able, available, and willing U.S. 

workers before they are permitted to attempt to hire foreign workers. 

Only if an employer’s effort to hire U.S. workers proves unsuccessful can they apply to hire foreign workers. 

The department also protects U.S. workers by ensuring the 

wages that will be paid a foreign worker do not adversely affect the 

wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. 

We take very seriously our responsibility to ensure that our 

workforce, including foreign workers legally admitted under a temporary worker program, are fully protected by our nation’s labor 

laws. 

These efforts not only help protect foreign workers from exploitation but also help ensure that U.S. workers are not undercut by 

unscrupulous employers. 

In conclusion, immigration fuels our economy, enriches our society, and enhances our global competitiveness through the influx of 

both high-and low-skilled workers. 

Our current immigration system, however, is in desperate need 

of repair. Comprehensive immigration reform will help secure our 

borders, strengthen our interior enforcement efforts, and help meet 

the demand of labor to increase our strong economy. 

The Administration is committed to working with Congress to 

ensure our immigration policies support continued growth of our 

nation’s economy while also protecting American workers. 

We look forward to continuing to work with you and your colleagues in the Senate on this important endeavor. Thank you again 

for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sequeira follows:]

8

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEON R. SEQUEIRA


LRS0001.eps
9


LRS0002.eps
10


LRS0003.eps
11


LRS0004.eps
12


LRS0005.eps
13


LRS0006.eps
14


LRS0007.eps
15


LRS0008.eps
16


LRS0009.eps
17

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Buckley? 

TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA A. BUCKLEY, Ph.D., SENIOR ECONOMIC ADVISOR TO THE SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

COMMERCE 

Ms. BUCKLEY. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the 

Committee. It is my pleasure to appear before you today to present 

a brief statistical overview describing our foreign-born population. 

These data provide support for a very simple conclusion: Immigration contributes to our current economic growth and is necessary to ensure our future prosperity. 

Because of the largely complementary nature of those drawn to 

work in the United States, we as a nation realize real benefits. An 

important segment of those who come to the United States are here 

to create jobs, not to take jobs. 

The size and wealth of this country continues to attract entrepreneurs, and the high rates of entrepreneurship among the immigrant population contributes to the dynamism of the U.S. economy, 

fostering both investment and employment. 

However, even those who come to the United States in order to 

find employment create benefits for the existing population. And it 

is on this aspect of the economics of immigration that I would like 

to focus. 

The population distribution of the native-born and the foreignborn are distinctly different. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The members have these charts in their testimony. 

Ms. BUCKLEY. Nearly 70 percent of the foreign-born are between 

the ages of 20 and 54, while less than 50 percent of the native-born 

fall in that category. 

The educational distribution of the native- and the foreign-born 

are also different. And there are distinctions between naturalized 

citizens and non-citizen immigrants. 

While only 12.7 percent of the native-born population does not 

have at least a high school diploma, that proportion is much higher 

for naturalized citizens and non-citizens. 

However, at the other end of the scale, naturalized citizens have 

the highest proportion of those with a bachelor’s degree and those 

with a graduate or professional degree. 

In 2006, just less than 15 percent of the population was foreignborn. However, because of the demographic differences just shown, 

the foreign-born account for a larger proportion of the employed 

population. And that proportion has been growing over time. 

In 1966, 10.6 percent of those employed in the United States 

were foreign-born. By 2006 that proportion had risen to 15.4 percent. 

The addition of these workers into the workforce has allowed the 

rate of employment to grow about twice as fast as it otherwise 

would have during the period. 

With the foreign-born making up a growing portion of the population, concerns have been raised about the degree to which foreign-born workers compete with existing workers. 

18

Some argue that if the two groups of workers can substitute for 

each other, then absent other factors the increase in foreign-born 

workers would drive down wages and reduce job opportunities for 

the native-born. 

However, a look at the geographic and occupational distribution 

sheds some light on this. The distribution of foreign-born is extremely geographically concentrated, and this is particularly noticeable if you look at the map through the lens of looking at it by congressional district. 

On the occupational side of the distribution, here are a list of occupations where we have the highest proportion of foreign-born 

workers. 

One thing that is noticeable about these types of jobs is they are 

location-specific. The worker needs to be where the work is. 

With many types of jobs, especially in the production of tradeable 

goods, it doesn’t really matter where you are. You are in direct 

competition with someone else other places in the country creating 

it. 

But with these types of jobs, the worker needs to be co-located 

with the employer. 

There is a large and growing body of literature that examines 

this issue. These data are only indicators of general trends but 

don’t show causality or strong economic relationships. 

These studies are in general agreement that the high-skilled 

workers do not negatively impact the native high-skilled workers 

and, on balance, provide a net gain for the economy as a whole. 

The question remains, however, about the economic impact of immigration on the native-born workers with limited skills. 

The most recent of the studies seemed to be drawing the conclusion that while the impact on the overall economy is very strong, 

there is, indeed, a small but significant impact on native-born 

workers with lower skills. 

Even if this analysis is correct, however, and there is a negative 

impact on low-skilled workers, drastically restricting immigration 

would be a poor way to help those workers, since the overall impact 

of immigration is so strongly positive: a larger, strong economy, 

higher overall wages, and lower prices. 

It would be more efficient to look at the root causes and improve 

the situation of those workers adversely impacted by improving access to educational and training opportunities. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Buckley follows:]

19

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICA A. BUCKLEY


PAB0001.eps
20


PAB0002.eps
21


PAB0003.eps
22


PAB0004.eps
23


PAB0005.eps
24


PAB0006.eps
25


PAB0007.eps
26

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Orszag? 

TESTIMONY OF PETER R. ORSZAG, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

Mr. ORSZAG. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Mr. King. Let 

me note that since this is the first time I am appearing before the 

Subcommittee as CBO director, I look forward to working with you 

over the next several years on the various issues that you face. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So do we. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Wonderful. 

Since Dr. Buckley covered many of the simple facts about the immigrant population in the United States, I am going to try to focus 

in on the question that you raised at the beginning, Madam Chair, 

on the effects of immigrants on native-born workers and the evidence thereof. 

And I am just going to skip to this chart, which I am not going 

to use quite yet. 

The basic sort of Econ 101 logic that is put forward is that an 

increased supply of foreign-born workers will drive down wages for 

native-born workers, and we do need to keep that simple model in 

mind. 

But there are many modifications or caveats that are important, 

other factors that can mitigate that basic insight. 

So, for example, even at the same level of education, immigrant 

and native-born workers are unlikely to be perfect substitutes for 

each other, whether because of language skills, experience or other 

factors. That mitigates the wage effect on native-born workers. 

Secondly, immigrants and native-born workers do not have the 

same education levels, and it is striking. 

So this chart shows you—if you look at workers with education 

of 8th grade or less, only 1 percent of native-born workers have 

that little education. 

Thirty-six percent of workers from Mexico and Central America 

in the United States have that amount of education. 

As a result, 60 percent of workers in the United States with an 

8th-grade or less education come from Mexico or Central America. 

At the other end of the spectrum, among graduate degrees or 

very highly skilled workers, if you look at foreign-born from the 

rest of the world, not from Mexico and Central America, you also 

see a concentration among highly skilled workers from the rest of 

the world where the share of foreign-born workers from those other 

countries actually is somewhat more concentrated in that very high 

end. 

So you have to be thinking about this kind of bimodal distribution, and the middle is much thinner among foreign-born workers. 

Those differences in education levels are important because in 

many cases an increased supply of less-skilled labor can raise the 

demand for more medium-or high-skilled labor. 

So for example, an increased supply of construction workers can 

create demand for architects, for supervisors at construction sites, 

and all sorts of other, more skilled workers. So the second thing is 

that the education mix is different. 

27

Third, both employers and native-born workers themselves can 

adjust to the presence of foreign-born workers. 

So in the presence of a greater supply of workers, firms can have 

a greater incentive to invest, and that can put upward pressure on 

wages, partially mitigating the sort of simple Econ 101 effects that 

we started with. 

In addition, native-born workers can have an incentive, in the 

face of that effect, to obtain more education themselves, and that 

also can mitigate the effect. 

When you put all these things together, it becomes an empirical 

question: What is the overall impact on native-born workers from 

the immigration that we have seen? 

CBO’s review of the relevant literature suggests that that overall 

impact is very modest, and that even if you look among the most 

heavily affected segment of the labor market—that is, among high 

school dropouts—the effect is still modest. 

This comes from two major types of studies. The first is based 

on local areas, so you look where there is a higher concentration 

of immigrants relative to a lower concentration of immigrants 

across parts of the United States and examine differences in native-born labor market outcomes across those different areas. 

That kind of analysis suggest modest effects, and in fact the most 

famous example of this is looking at unexpected flows of immigrants, in a study that David Card did—or I believe you are going 

to hear in your second panel about an example in Israel where 

there was an unexpected flow of immigrants, and you can then look 

at the impact on native-born workers. And those studies find very 

small effects. 

There have been other studies mentioned that look at national 

level trends in immigrants over time and look at the impact on native workers over time. 

Those have tended to find larger effects, but only because they 

don’t control for various different things, including incarceration 

rates for workers, which can affect their labor market outcomes, including the imperfect substitutability of native-born and foreignborn workers, and including the incentive for firms to invest in the 

face of increased immigration. 

So when you adjust for those kinds of things even at the national 

level, you again get quite modest results. And again, that is why 

CBO has concluded that the impact on the wages of native-born 

workers from immigration is modest. 

A final point I want to make is just to highlight something else 

that Dr. Buckley emphasized, which is when you look to the future, 

labor force growth in the United States among native-born population is expected to slow dramatically because of the retirement of 

the baby boomers, and because of low fertility rates among nativeborn families. 

If we just shut off immigration today, net immigration, close the 

borders, do not allow anyone in or out, if you look at the right-hand 

bar, between 2000 and 2050, the population between ages 15-64 

would increase by only 10 million people. 

That is clearly a very slow rate of workforce growth, and that 

would have significant effects on macroeconomic activity. 

Thank you very much. 

28

[The prepared statement of Mr. Orszag follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER R. ORSZAG


PRO0001.eps
29


PRO0002.eps
30


PRO0003.eps
31


PRO0004.eps
32


PRO0005.eps
33


PRO0006.eps
34


PRO0007.eps
35


PRO0008.eps
36


PRO0009.eps
37


PRO0010.eps
38

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Dr. Orszag. 

And thanks to all the panelists. 

We will now begin questioning, 5 minutes per Member, and I will 

begin. 

Dr. Buckley, I read the entire testimony of all the witnesses, but 

I was interested in your statements relative to job creation and 

some of the entrepreneurism, basically, that have been brought to 

us by immigrants. 

And in Mr. Sequeira’s testimony, he mentioned several individuals—Mr. Khosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems; Andy Grove 

from Intel; Pierre Omidyar helped co-found eBay; Jerry Yang, 

founder of Yahoo; Sergey Brin, who founded Google—actually, all 

these people are from my county. 

But I note that not all of them came as economic immigrants. I 

mean, Jerry Yang grew up in East San Jose. He came as a child. 

Sergey Brin was here, I mean, as a student, and certainly Google 

has made a lot of people rich and created a lot of jobs. 

So when you are talking about this entrepreneurship, I assume 

that you are talking about the mix of immigrants coming in, not 

just people that, you know, sort of Soviet-style, we put a point system on, but just the whole rush of creativity that is sometimes created by an immigrant community. Is that——

Ms. BUCKLEY. I think that is exactly right. The spirit of dynamism in the United States is distinctly different than a lot of other 

countries. 

People keep asking what the secret is to economic growth in the 

United States, and one of the answers is always we have people 

here who are willing to take risks. 

There are lots of reasons for it, and a lot has to do with the way 

our financial systems are set up. People aren’t permanently, for the 

rest of their lives, ruined if they try to start a business and fail. 

A lot of them live to start another one, and another one, until finally they succeed. 

And part of the excitement that you see in this economy, I think, 

stems from just the very fact of our diversity. And this is why the 

whole immigration question going forward is going to be so critically important, because not only do these companies start those 

business, but businesses are part of an ecosystem. 

So if I run a research lab and I can’t get the workers I need to 

work in that lab, I am not just going to move a small facility overseas to hire those workers. I am going to move an entire set. 

And companies like to be co-located with their customers and 

suppliers. So the chance of setting off an unfortunate chain reaction should not be minimized. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If I may, have you studied that? Because 

anecdotally I have run into those situations in my county, which 

is high-tech—it is Silicon Valley—where sometimes you have key 

individuals, and you know, they are just looking for who is the 

smart guy to do something. 

They don’t care whether you are Hungarian or Chinese or whatever. They want you to become an American. But if they have identified somebody and they can’t get that person, and it is key 

enough, they will move the whole outfit to a place where they can 

get people. 

39

And Vancouver is one major example, since it is not that far a 

flight from Silicon Valley. 

Has the Department of Commerce had the resources to study 

that phenomenon? 

Ms. BUCKLEY. We don’t have the data that could actually indicate that, but in connection with another project that we are undertaking on measuring innovation, we have talked to a collection of 

business leaders. 

And it was amazing. In one of the questions we are asking them, 

why do you innovate in this country, and the whole chain and the 

ability to collaborate was very high on the list. 

And I think a study done by IBM of CEOs points to the ability 

to collaborate as a key issue in how a multinational corporation 

chooses to locate its high-tech facilities. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. Sequeira, you have testified quite eloquently on the role, the 

positive role, that immigrants have played in our society. I want 

to ask you if you have thought about the comparison in that positive impact between people who are only on a temporary visa and 

people who are here and actually set down stakes and become assimilated. 

Are the results going to be the same? 

Mr. SEQUEIRA. I think both folks who come here permanently, 

that immigrate to the country, certainly make positive impacts, as 

the data shows. But that is not to say people who come here temporarily don’t make an equally important impact. 

The fact that they aren’t permanent immigrants in no way diminishes the fact that they are filling jobs for which Americans, for 

whatever reason, have chosen not to take. 

And, of course, temporary workers are not excluded from eventually becoming a permanent——

Ms. LOFGREN. Currently not. But one of the phenomena that we 

have seen, again in Silicon Valley, is somebody who comes, becomes a participant in an innovation, and then for whatever reason, sometimes immigration visa issues, actually has to go back—

oftentimes, it is not even to their home country—to a competitor, 

and forms a competitive company with us instead of becoming an 

American. 

My time has expired, and I am going to live by that rule. 

Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the yielding, 

and I do appreciate the hearing. 

A lot of questions come to mind, and I want to also thank you 

all for your testimony and being here today. 

One thing that does come to mind—and I direct my first question 

to Dr. Orszag. In reading through your written testimony, on page 

two you state that the growth of the wages of native-born high 

school dropouts, at least initially, the ultimate impact on wages is 

likely to be modest. 

And as I listened to your testimony, and I hear different oral testimony, the effect was modest, the effect is still modest, and the 

impact on the native workers is modest. 

40

And so I would ask you if you could clarify that. Is it likely to 

be, or is it? And then could you base your conclusion upon something so that I can better understand that? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Sure. I wouldn’t ascribe meaning to ‘‘likely to be’’ 

versus ‘‘is.’’ I think the evidence suggests that the effects based on 

the immigrant pool that we have in the United States to date on 

the functioning of our labor market are modest. 

Mr. KING. Okay. So you would make the definitive statement 

rather than likely, use the term likely. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes. 

Mr. KING. And I want to also ask you, are you familiar with the 

Heritage Foundation study that was done by Robert Rector and released about a month ago that analyzes, not just immigrants but 

without regard to the nationality or lawful presence, households 

headed by high school dropouts and the impact on our economy? 

The short version of that is that a typical household headed by a high school dropout will pay about $9,000 in taxes, including fees 

on lottery tickets, and they will consume about $32,000 in services 

but have a net loss, annual loss, of $22,449 per household headed 

by a high school dropout. 

It is actually marginally a little bit less if they are illegal because 

they use fewer services. Are you familiar with that? And that multiplies out to $1.3 million for every household for the lifetime of 

that household. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I am familiar with some of his past work. I don’t 

believe I have seen that particular study. 

I would say that CBO is going to be in the near future releasing 

a paper on the effects of unauthorized immigrants on State and 

local governments, which is where you would expect the effect to 

be somewhat larger than at the Federal level. 

Mr. KING. And I would ask you, since this is the individual who 

I think did the most definitive analysis of the Senate version of the 

immigration bill last year—his numbers hold up to this day as far 

as criticism that I have seen. 

And I would ask you if you would be willing to sit down with him 

for a period of time and go through that study so I could have some 

level of confidence that your office understands the rationale behind that and give you, of course, an opportunity to either compliment it or criticize it, and at least evaluate it from an objective 

standpoint. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Absolutely. 

Mr. KING. I very much appreciate that, Doctor. 

And then if I would then turn back, then, to Mr. Sequeira, as we 

discussed this, I just had this odd question come to mind. And you 

support the law of supply and demand? 

Mr. SEQUEIRA. Certainly. Everyone does. 

Mr. KING. That is kind of like the softball out there. But then 

explain to me how this works, if we can dump in tens of millions 

of people into the labor market, and they have a negligible effect 

on the wages of the people that are doing the work. 

How can I reconcile that contradiction that appears to be at least 

a contradiction to me? 

Mr. SEQUEIRA. I guess I didn’t understand the question. The contradiction that——

41

Mr. KING. I can restate it, and that is if you believe in the law 

of supply and demand, and you dump in tens of millions of unskilled labor into an existing market, how do you reconcile that 

contradiction? 

Mr. SEQUEIRA. I think most people come to that conclusion with 

the assumption that the economy—we are talking about a fixed 

size of the pie. And the economy grows. And there aren’t a fixed 

number of jobs available. 

Everyone who comes to America as an immigrant gets a job, but 

that doesn’t mean they necessarily displace someone else in the 

marketplace. They may take a job that, in turn, leads to the creation of a job or two or three jobs. 

So we are not talking about a fixed pie. It continues to grow, the 

economy, and the jobs. 

Mr. KING. And if the pie grows faster than the increase of labor, 

then it would be a negligible effect, but doesn’t that also diminish 

the expansion of the opportunities for wages to come up? 

If you dump cheap labor into a marketplace, as that market 

grew, if you dump it in fast enough, it would prohibit the wages 

from going up, would it not? 

Mr. SEQUEIRA. I am starting to tread in dangerous water sitting 

with two economists here. 

Mr. KING. And I see them leaning forward here, and I guess I 

will say I am more interested in the next question I am about to 

ask than actually the answer. I am sorry. I am watching the yellow 

clock here, because I have one more I wanted to ask, I really 

would. 

Also in your testimony, it says comprehensive immigration reform will not only secure our borders and bring illegal aliens out 

of the shadows but also meet the labor demands. 

How does it secure our borders, and how do you get people to actually come out of the shadows? Some will come. But what about 

those that are concerned they won’t be ratified? 

Mr. SEQUEIRA. I think the biggest incentive to get people to come 

out of the shadows revolves around interior enforcement. 

The president said it is a three-part plan. You have to secure the 

borders. You have to increase interior enforcement. And you create 

a workable temporary worker program. 

And with aggressive interior enforcement and a workable temporary worker program, people can’t essentially work in an underground economy. There has to be verification that you know the 

status of an individual before you hire them. 

And if you have no opportunity to work in an underground economy, then your choice is to come out of the shadows and present 

yourself to the authorities, or you are going to have to return home. 

Mr. KING. I just say the ones we want to probably won’t. But I 

thank you. 

And I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

I see the economists—maybe Mr. Conyers will ask you to answer 

Mr. King’s question. 

So I call on Mr. Conyers, our Chairman, for his 5 minutes of 

questions. 

Mr. CONYERS. Could I wait until——

42

Ms. LOFGREN. You certainly may. I will defer to——

Mr. CONYERS [continuing]. The second panel? I haven’t heard 

them, and I wish I had. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is fine. 

We will go to Mr. Gutierrez. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

First of all, when was the last time we dropped tens of millions 

of people into our economy? To anybody. Tens of millions of people 

into our economy? I can’t remember the last time. Anybody know 

the last time we dropped tens of millions of people into our economy? Okay. 

How many undocumented workers are there in the United 

States, in the estimate of anyone on the panel? 

Mr. SEQUEIRA. Ten million to 12 million. 

Ms. BUCKLEY. Yes, according to Pew Hispanic Trust, 12——

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay, so 12 million. 

Ms. BUCKLEY [continuing]. —12.5 million. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And those undocumented workers in our country 

came over a period of how many years? 

Ms. BUCKLEY. They broke out two groups—one, groups that have 

been here I think since before 2000, and the ones more recently—

so it was over a very long period of time. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Over a very long period of time. Twenty years? 

Ms. BUCKLEY. Could be. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Could be. But a very long—so what we know is 

that there is 10 million to 12 million over an extended period of 

time, so there hasn’t been any tens of millions of people dumped 

into our economy instantaneously any time in recent history. 

I want to go to wages and wages going up. Now, I just want to 

make a comment for the Members of the Committee. 

I find it particularly interesting that people always use the issue 

of wages and that the wages will suffer for American workers, especially when the Congress of the United States has yet to increase 

the minimum wage, at least in the last 9 years. I particularly find 

it troublesome from people that are concerned about wages of 

American workers, but we can do nothing to impact our economy 

and to structure our economy for the wages of American workers. 

They won’t do anything about that, but when they see immigrants they say, ‘‘wages of American worker.’’ So I just would like 

to ask for a little bit more consistency in terms of what we talk 

about here in the Committee. 

Securing our borders. In order to secure our borders and to have 

a safer society—we have 12 million people—would one of the rationales be that we should know who these people are, and they 

should register for the Government, and therefore we would have 

a more secure society? Anyone? 

Mr. SEQUEIRA. I think certainly, yes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Good. That is what I think. 

And, you know, Madam Chairwoman, it is not all the time that 

I agree with the police. But we have the head of our border patrol, 

the chief of our border patrol, who has come before this Committee. 

And he has said, ‘‘The way you can help me, all right, secure our 

border is to have a new worker program to allow workers to come 

43

to the United States.’’ That is the head of our border patrol, the 

police. 

I always find it interesting when Members of Congress and especially politicians who are always the friends of the police all of a 

sudden tend not to listen to the police when the police say something that doesn’t fit into their particular scheme of things. 

And lastly, I want to say the ones we don’t want won’t come out. 

Well, yes. Let’s start with the ones that we can. That is who I want 

to come out. So then we can distinguish between them and enforce 

our laws on a smaller population of people because there is 12 million people that are legalized that our Government knows. 

And lastly, as I don’t want to take up the 5 minutes, I would like 

to say that I take a little bit of umbrage and this is a little personal. You know, my dad came with an 8th-grade education, my 

mom came with a 6th-grade education to this country, and their 

son is now a Member of Congress, and my sister is a school teacher. 

They didn’t understand the language. They only spoke Spanish. 

We grew up in a bilingual household. And obviously through some 

feat of magic, I learned English, since there were no English-only 

laws operating in this country as I was raised. 

And indeed, all of my friends’ parents—we always found it interesting that our parents spoke to us, as most immigrants, speaking 

the language of the country that they come from. 

And I want to make it clear, my parents are from Puerto Rico, 

so they didn’t have the immigration issue and the technicality of 

becoming citizens. 

But in every other respect, they were poor, and they fled Puerto 

Rico during Operation Bootstrap because a whole community—that 

is why our census data will tell you there are more people who 

claim to be Puerto Ricans living in the United States than on the 

island of Puerto Rico. 

In other words, they came here for the same reasons and under 

the same conditions and with the same socioeconomic conditions 

that low-skilled, low-wage workers come here to this country. 

And yet this Congress is permeated with the sons and daughters 

of those very immigrants. So I think we should take that a little 

bit into account. I know it was a little personal, but I thought I 

should bring that relevancy to this hearing. 

Thank you very much to the panel. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Ms. Sa ́nchez is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I want to go back to Mr. King’s question and allow Mr. Orszag 

an opportunity to address it. 

If I am not mistaken, Madam Chair, the question was if bringing 

more workers into the United States, immigrant workers into the 

United States, taking into account the laws of supply and demand, 

how does that not drive down wages for native-born workers or 

take jobs away from native-born workers? 

Could you please explain that apparent contradiction? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Sure. The law of supply and demand doesn’t tell you 

anything about what the size of an impact is. It suggests that if 

you have an increased supply of something, you normally drive 

44

down the price or the wage of that something. But you can’t tell 

from theory how big that effect is. 

And in my oral remarks, I tried to walk through some of the reasons that would suggest that there might be more modest effects 

than you would sort of think ahead of time. And so, it ultimately 

becomes an empirical question, which is, how big is it? 

When you look at the empirical evidence, the most credible evidence suggests that the effects are very small—and I will avoid all 

the weasel words, not likely—based on the available evidence are 

small. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. I appreciate your clarification of that. 

Dr. Buckley, I understand from your testimony that immigrants 

have a substantially higher rate of entrepreneurship than nativeborn Americans, and that the high rates of entrepreneurship 

among the immigrant population contribute to the dynamism of the 

economy, fostering both investment and employment. 

You described them, I think, as risk-takers. And I would tend to 

agree, figuring that people who are willing to leave their families, 

their language, their culture behind to come to a country and make 

or break it are definitely taking big risks. 

When you are talking about immigrants having sort of a higher 

rate of entrepreneurship, I assume that you are not distinguishing 

between the different types of immigrants, whether it is familybased immigrants, employment-based or humanitarian-based immigrants. Am I correct in that assumption? 

Ms. BUCKLEY. That is correct. And I would like to clarify that 

that is a study done by the Kauffman Foundation. That was not 

a study done by the Department of Commerce. 

If I could add one more thing to Dr. Orszag’s explanation, that 

is that when the supply curve shifts out, there is usually a shift 

out in the demand curve, because when people come here, they 

rent houses, they buy groceries, they buy cars. 

So it is not only a shift in one of the curves. There is a shift in 

the other curve that occurs at the same time, which is why, absent 

doing fairly sophisticated econometric studies, you are not going to 

be able to distinguish between which one of those effects dominates. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. You also stated that immigration has 

been a key contributor to our past growth. In your opinion, do you 

think we could have achieved the levels of economic growth the last 

couple of years without the growth in the immigrant labor force? 

Ms. BUCKLEY. Absolutely not. When you have half of your labor 

force growth coming from immigration, it is not logical to think 

that economic growth would have been the same without them. 

Disentangling the exact impact would be very difficult to do because of the distributional issues. But if you just take a very simplified example that a combination of growth in labor force hours—

that growth rate plus the growth rate of productivity gives you the 

potential growth rate of GDP. 

If labor force is growing by 0.8 percent a year and it only grew 

by 0.4, adding it to the same productivity growth rates—I don’t 

know how that would change—you would be reducing the growth 

in the economy by 0.4 percent per year. 

45

But again, that is really rough, and without doing a lot of work 

pulling that number out would be very difficult. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. But is it fair to just summarize and say that part 

of the economic growth that we have experienced has been due to 

immigration? 

Ms. BUCKLEY. Yes. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Sequeira, in pressing a proposal to reform our immigration 

system, the Administration seems to be focused on very large expansions of temporary worker programs that don’t seem to provide 

those workers with a way to become permanent residents. 

Isn’t it true that one of the significant benefits of immigration in 

America is the fact that immigrants help, often times, revitalize 

troubled communities or blighted communities? 

They start new businesses that bring in important economic activities to neighborhoods and ultimate then integrate into the 

American community to become part of the American dream. 

Mr. SEQUEIRA. I think, yes, that is certainly true for immigrants. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Okay. If we rely too heavily, though, on using temporary workers who have very little chance of becoming permanent 

members of our society, aren’t we going to then lose those positive 

benefits that immigration brings? 

Mr. SEQUEIRA. I think that is one conclusion that one could 

draw, but that at least seems to assume that there won’t otherwise 

be other immigration going on. And I think that, certainly, the robust immigration we have had, legal immigration, over the past 

several years expects to continue, and maybe in some cases even 

increase. 

And a temporary worker program would be separate and apart 

from that. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Madam Chair, I know my time has expired, but 

if I could just follow up with one last question directly related to 

this, and beg an additional——

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for 

an additional minute. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. 

My point being that workers who are simply coming here on 

some kind of short-term contract are going to have less incentive, 

would you think, to invest in our communities, to maybe buy a 

home, or build a business, or to learn English if at the end of the 

day they are not going to be able to stay and they are going to have 

to go home? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I think that may be true for some, but also it is important to remember that we currently have temporary worker programs, and tens of thousands of temporary workers come into the 

country every year expressly just to work for short periods of time, 

likely to earn money to return to their home country, in agriculture, at the end of the growing season. 

And they prefer to do that, because of the economic opportunities 

here. They come here and earn money and return to their home 

country where they live and where their family remains. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me turn to Mr. Davis for his 5 minutes. 

46

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And because some 

of us literally have planes to catch, I won’t be able to be here for 

the second panel, so I will make my comments a little bit more 

global than they normally would have been. 

I want to address this issue of competition for low-wage jobs. And 

I want to put it in the context of my region of the country, the 

American South, and our experience in the first 60 years of the 

20th century. 

At the end of the 19th century, there was a fair amount of cohesion between low-income Whites and Black descendants of slaves 

in the American South. They felt they had a lot in common. They 

were both poor. They felt they had a lot in common. They were 

both struggling to hold their family units together against all kinds 

of economic pressures. And they had a lot in common because they 

had significant shared histories of exclusion from the dominant social structures in their States. 

And they were voting for the same candidates. The people they 

were voting for were winning elections. And Southern politics was 

becoming very progressive. And not everyone liked that. And some 

of the people with power who didn’t like the progressive politics figured, ‘‘Well, how do we move history in a different direction? Well, 

maybe one way to do it is to start to break the cohesion down between low-income Whites and Blacks and get them mad at each 

other.’’

So this was the strategy that was employed in the South for the 

first 60 years of the 20th century: Go to low-wage Whites and say, 

‘‘If you give political freedom, status and power to Blacks, they are 

going to crowd you. They are going to push your place at the pedestal, and there won’t be as much to go around. After all, we are 

fairly poor in the South, and if more people can enter the circle of 

power, there will be more to go around for everybody.’’

And it was an argument that had a lot of force for the first 60 

years, and then all of a sudden we start electing New South governors, and we got more progressive, and people started to think 

that kind of politics didn’t work very well. 

I mention all of that not just to give you a history lesson, but because I see echoes of it in what is happening in our politics today, 

frankly. 

And I am distressed when I see people on either the extreme left 

or the extreme right, the Black community or the White community, Democrats or Republicans, go to African-Americans or low-income Whites and tell them they ought to be distressed about lowincome migrants coming here and crowding out their space in the 

labor force. 

You have all done a very good job making an economic argument 

that, first of all, the premise is wrong. But there is a broader political context here. This is destabilizing and dangerous in a community that cares to be cohesive. These kinds of arguments are destabilizing and dangerous in a community that cares to be cohesive. 

And I want to follow up on Mr. Gutierrez’s point. I like this idea 

of an emerging caucus around the interests of low-wage folks. 

But if the caucus were to get together and to form a charter, I 

would suspect the following issues should be at the top of the agenda—minimum wage, because we haven’t raised it in 9 years, and 

47

in real purchasing dollars it is the equivalent of $3.50 today. That 

ought to be number one. 

Number two ought to be expanding trade adjustment assistance 

so that we have a comprehensive program and not a narrow program for people who have been unfairly hurt by globalization. 

Number three ought to be more spending on education in communities that can barely fund their own school districts. 

Number four ought to be stronger health care, because we know 

the impact between health care and economic productivity. 

And if I had time, I could give you another 15 or 20. And if I 

had a lot of time, I might get to number 21, which was, frankly, 

dealing with these kinds of issues. 

So I would simply ask the panel to respond to this particular argument in the context of the minority community. Pick any city, 

pick Chicago, pick Atlanta, pick any large urban city with a minority population. Is there any empirical evidence whatsoever that immigration has contributed to unemployment among poor Black 

folks? 

And as we used to say in the courtroom, let the record reflect 

that all three witnesses shook their heads no. 

But who wants to comment? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I would just comment that I would agree with the 

tenor of your remarks, that while immigration may have had some 

effect, there are other forces that are having a much larger effect 

on low-income native-born American workers, including technological changes. 

And if you look at the combination of sluggish real income 

growth among lower-income households, and very high levels of 

earnings volatility, that combination, I think, is something that 

policy makers are rightly concerned about. 

Mr. DAVIS. And I will follow up with this point, if I can ask the 

Chair’s indulgence for an additional 30 seconds. 

If you look at the American South, at the heavy concentrations 

of low-wage individuals, it is in the Mississippi Delta, the Alabama 

Black belt, and there is virtually no cognizable illegal immigration 

in those communities. It is point with a lot of zeroes behind it. 

So again, facts are very, very helpful if we will only take the time 

to look at them. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank you very 

much. 

And we would now recognize the gentlelady from Texas for 5 

minutes, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And again, let me offer my appreciation for the steady building 

blocks that we have worked to construct here as we move, probably 

somewhat swiftly, in the next couple of weeks toward confronting 

this important question. 

Let me also thank the Ranking Member and the full Committee 

Chair. I think it is appropriate to acknowledge that the Chair has 

had an enormous civil rights victory today, Mr. Conyers, so this is 

a good day for us. 

Let me acknowledge my colleagues, because each and every one 

has had a series of pointed questions, and apologize to the witVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:11 Sep 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\050307\35117.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35117
48

nesses. We were in another meeting dealing with that other issue 

called the Iraq war. 

But I wanted to follow up on the line of questioning that I know 

some colleagues have already offered, but—Mr. Davis. 

I have sat in this chair on the Immigration Subcommittee for, I 

think, calculating, about 6 years and faced a high degree of frustration that we were not moving. We were certainly listening to a lot 

of testimony when we had hearings on the H-1B visas and the capping. 

And out of that, I listened to a wide array of opinions and also 

perceptions. And I think it is important, because you were so definitive in your response to Mr. Davis’s question about whether there 

is an impact economically on, in a certain instance, low-income or 

African-Americans. 

But there is perception. So I have heard testimony about engineers who have said that we have not been able to be hired in 

some of the technological fields, the fields of software writing, if 

you will, because of the color of our skin. That is an important 

question to answer. 

And so in listening to that for 6 years, we worked to construct 

legislation that—I hope my colleagues will offer me the opportunity 

to be a witness in this Committee, because it does have a lot of interested parties. And that is around the question of being able to 

have a dual focus when we move forward on immigration reform—

develop stakeholders in America who otherwise would not be. 

Beyond telling Americans that, you know what, you are really 

not impacted by the influx of migrant workers—I believe they are 

not. I believe they are a crucial part of the economy. 

And there is something to say that visas create work. H-1B visatype visa holders may create work. But I think in creating stakeholders, you have got to assess rural areas that are underemployed 

or unemployed in high numbers, inner-city areas. You have got to 

have them become stakeholders. 

Some way we have got to have the dual process of a worker program—I don’t like temporary. I think people are here to work. And 

I question the Administration’s definition of such—but to have a 

dual process and find the opportunity for a jurisdictional nexus to 

have job training, job recruitment and job retention, so you can answer the question of people who will put full-page ads to suggest 

something is being taken away. 

And I would also say that I don’t think we can be so finite and 

definitive, because each area is different. Somebody will come here 

and testify and say, ‘‘I was employed, and someone else came and 

took the job because they were bilingual,’’ or construction sites, 

large numbers of Hispanics and not African-Americans. 

So my question is let’s deal with the issue of perception. Would 

you concede that many Americans, Anglo, African-Americans and 

others, might think new immigrants might be detrimental to them? 

And do we not need to create some focus so that Americans can 

be stakeholders by saying alongside of comprehensive immigration 

reform, we have got a package of job training? It might be a nexus 

there. It might be through some of the revenue that comes out. 

But you create this hand-in-hand relationship: ‘‘I am going to go 

along because it is good for us. They are working, we are working.’’ 

49

We have got to be able to deal with perception, because a lot of our 

votes on the floor are going to be lost in perception. 

Would you care to answer that one question? 

Mr. SEQUEIRA. Yes. I think that is the case. And as you will recall, a few years ago Congress did just that with the H1B program. 

And part of those fees do come to the Department of Labor and 

are——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And we have got to make that better. It was 

not a really effective program. But go ahead. 

Mr. SEQUEIRA. Yes, and that type of program, I think, works, and 

it certainly generates a lot of money that is a defined, dedicated 

revenue stream that can be used for exactly those type of products. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Dr. Buckley? 

Ms. BUCKLEY. I agree with you that the perception is there. I am 

not sure exactly what needs to be done about it. I am sorry, that 

is out of my area. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But at least you say the perception—may I get 

Dr. Orszag very quickly? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Sure. And I think you probably have more information about perceptions than I do, but based on my informal perception of perceptions, I think that perception is there. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And on that note, the gentlelady’s time is expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So we need to work on it. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I want to thank the panelists for being here today. 

Your testimony has been very helpful, and your written testimony 

is really spectacular. We do appreciate it. 

Without objection, the Members of the Subcommittee will have 

5 legislative days to submit questions to you, which we will forward 

and ask, if you can, that you answer them as promptly as possible 

so they can be made part of the record. 

We will now hear from our second panel of distinguished witnesses. 

I am pleased, first, to introduce Dr. Gerald Jaynes, the Director 

of Graduate Studies in African-American Studies and professor of 

African-American Studies and Economics at Yale University. Professor Jaynes has taught at Yale since 1977, just 1 year after having received his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois. In addition 

to his renowned body of scholarship, Professor Jaynes served as 

Study Director for the Committee on the Status of Black Americans 

for the National Research Council here in Washington and head of 

the research project, ‘‘Immigration, Blacks, and Race Relations’’ 

sponsored by the Mellon Foundation. 

We are also pleased to have Dr. Rachel Friedberg with us, a senior lecturer in economics at Brown University. Dr. Friedberg has 

taught at Brown since 1992. In addition to her work at Brown, she 

also serves as a faculty research fellow at the National Bureau of 

Economic Research, a fellow of the Stanford University Center for 

the Study of Poverty and Inequality, and an external fellow of the 

Center for Research and Analysis of Migration. Dr. Friedberg received her bachelor’s degree from the University of Illinois and her 

Ph.D. in economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

Next, I would like to extend a warm welcome to Wade Henderson, the president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil 

50

Rights. Prior to his post in the Leadership Conference, Mr. Henderson served as the Washington Bureau Director of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Associate 

Drector of the national office of the American Civil Liberties Union. 

Mr. Henderson also served as Counselor to LCCR’s education fund 

and the Joseph L. Rauh Jr. Professor of Public Interest Law at the 

David A. Clarke School of Law at the University of the District of 

Columbia. Mr. Henderson holds his degrees from Howard University and the Rutgers University School of Law. 

And I will just say that I am so personally honored to be in the 

presence of Mr. Henderson. It is an overwhelming honor to have 

someone of your reputation appear before us as a witness, and it 

is a personal thrill to me. 

Finally, I would like to welcome our minority witness, Dr. 

Vernon Briggs, Jr., Emeritus Professor of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University. A prolific scholar, Professor Briggs 

has additionally taught courses at Michigan State University, Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, and the University 

of Texas at Austin. He has served as an advisor to a host of Federal agencies, among them: the Department of Labor; the Department of Health, Education and Welfare; and the U.S. Civil Rights 

Commission. He has served as a board member for the Center for 

Immigration Studies since 1987. He earned his bachelor’s degree 

from the University of Maryland and his master’s and doctorate degrees from Michigan State University. 

Before we invite each of the witnesses to give their testimony, I 

noted at the outset of our hearing that we would reserve time for 

the Chairman of the Committee to make his opening statement. 

And as Mr. Conyers has joined us, I would invite him now to make 

his opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

In view of the fact that this second panel has been waiting so 

long and I want to hear them so much, I ask unanimous consent 

to put my opening statement in the record, reading this one 

quotation from Frederick Douglass. 

He said, ‘‘We should welcome to our ample continent all nations, 

kindred tongues, and peoples. And as fast as they learn our language and comprehend the duties of citizenship, we should incorporate them into the American body politic. The outspread wings 

of the American eagle are broad enough to shelter all who are likely to come.’’

And I would ask that that be put into the record, in addition to 

his speech from which that is drawn. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection, that will be done. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. 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

There is a concern that immigrants, both legal and undocumented, have undermined wages and working conditions for U.S. workers, especially in the low-wage 

sector. These are real concerns, and we must take them seriously in crafting a realistic immigration policy. 

But these concerns can also be twisted and misused. I am very concerned that 

those who do not want immigration reform to succeed are trying to split minority 

51

1Frederick Douglass, ‘‘Composite Nationality’’ (1867). Douglass Papers, Library of Congress, 

Box 22, Folder 18.

communities and coalitions through the use of proxies and fully-funded but false 

grassroots organizations. I am heartened to see that the Leadership Conference on 

Civil Rights and other groups are standing for unity and realistic immigration reform. 

Nevertheless, immigration does pose some important questions. I am interested 

in hearing the panelists on several aspects of this issue:

First, how can we harness the energy of these new immigrant communities 

while also ensuring opportunity for everyone, especially low-wage workers?

Second, how can we ensure that immigration programs don’t destabilize poor 

urban and rural communities that have fought so hard just to get back on their 

feet?

Finally, how can we establish safeguards to help American workers while resisting efforts to split the minority communities apart on this issue?

On that note, I would like to remind everyone of the words of the great Frederick 

Douglass. Many may not recall that after the Civil War, rather than resting from 

his struggles against slavery and on behalf of the African-American community, 

Douglass turned his attention to immigration in a speech entitled ‘‘Our Composite 

Nationality.’’

For just as we are discussing today, Douglass recognized that concerns about 

American jobs could be used to drive wedges among ethnic communities. He was 

concerned that prevailing sentiment would reduce immigrants to mere guestworkers 

who would be shut off from society and exploited by bosses. And he was especially 

concerned that such treatment of the immigrants would be used by the powerful to 

undercut the gains of Emancipation, split minority communities, and create a new 

slave class. 

Frederick Douglass did not blame the immigrants themselves for this. He did not 

see them as a threat to the African-American community for which he had worked 

so hard. His time in slavery made him compassionate to the suffering of others, not 

hardened to their plight. 

Douglass rejected those who claimed that immigrants would hurt America. He 

noted that they were the same ‘‘gloomy prophets’’ who had previously held that 

slaves had no capacity to be free. Instead, he spoke with pride of an America capable of accepting all who sought shelter in this country:

‘‘We should welcome to our ample continent all nations, kindreds, tongues and 

peoples; and as fast as they learn our language and comprehend the duties of 

citizenship, we should incorporate them into the American body politic. The 

outspread wings of the American eagle are broad enough to shelter all who are 

likely to come.’’ 1

I would ask that Frederick Douglass’ landmark speech be made part of the record 

of this hearing in its entirety, because what he argued for almost 150 years ago remains true today. Through a controlled, orderly, and fair immigration system, we 

have a chance to ensure that our communities are not divided. We have a chance 

to ensure that, as Douglass suggested,

‘‘all here [shall] bow to the same law, speak the same language, support the 

same Government, enjoy the same liberty, vibrate with the same national enthusiasm, and seek the same national ends.’’

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

As you know, we have a little machine here. Your written testimonies will become part of the permanent record of this hearing. 

We would ask that you try and summarize your written testimony 

in about 5 minutes, and when the yellow light goes in it means you 

have got about a minute left. 

So if we could start here with Dr. Jaynes, if you would begin, we 

would be honored to hear you. 

52

TESTIMONY OF GERALD D. JAYNES, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDIES, YALE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. JAYNES. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Members of 

the Committee. 

Well, first, as a veteran Econ 101 lecturer, I feel impelled to add 

a small point of clarification to the last panel discussion. That is 

that, strictly speaking, the law of supply and demand can be stated 

succinctly in the following way: that an increase in the supply of 

labor will decrease wages, holding all other relevant variables constant. 

Now, all those other relevant variables, of course, haven’t been 

held constant. And that is what leads to the complications involved 

in attempting to estimate what the effects on native-born workers 

have been of the immigration. 

The majority of the—much more than simply the majority—the 

great preponderance of the methodologically sound studies have 

found that these effects are negligible at worst, and some have actually found that they are positive. 

In general, studies have shown that the overall net effects of immigration on the United States as a whole have been a positive 

one. That is, immigrants produce more than they consume in terms 

of public services, which is the appropriate criterion to use when 

you are looking at this from the point of view of the United States 

as a whole. 

Now, from the point of view of an individual community, you 

might be concerned about whether they are paying taxes and exceeding the services you are paying, but that would be for the community as an entity, as a part of the whole. 

Now, there are in excess of 150 million workers in the U.S. labor 

force. So we can conclude that immigration has been a positive benefit overall and still understand that there can be winners and losers; that is, that there can be some communities who may have suffered negative losses, and there can be some groups of workers who 

suffered negative losses. 

And then as a consequence, we can find all kinds of examples of 

groups of workers or individuals or communities who have suffered 

damages. 

That is why academic economists and policy analysts do statistical studies, so that we won’t be simply concerned with the anecdotal story that might tell us something about a particular case but 

doesn’t give us good understanding of what is going on with the nation as a whole. 

The concept that is used to justify using cost-benefit analysis to 

talk about whether something is overall effective than positive or 

negative for the nation, say, is called by economists the Hicks compensation principle. 

And it can be succinctly summarized as saying the following. If 

the net benefit is positive, then the sum gains of all the winners 

is sufficient that they could compensate the sum gains of all the 

losers and still have something left over. Therefore, theoretically, 

everyone could gain. 

53

In practice, however, the compensation is never forthcoming to 

the losers. As a consequence, the losers’ voices are often shrill and 

standing up loudly to be heard. 

One aspect of the debate over our immigration policy which I 

think is somewhat missing is that aspect which discusses how do 

we compensate those losers. 

Yes, those same best studies find that the most disadvantaged, 

least educated workers in the workforce are modestly hurt in the 

labor market in terms of employment in some places and their 

overall wage packages. 

So a just democratic society such as ours should place into a debate over immigration reform the idea that there would be a discussion as to how do we compensate those workers—not directly, 

of course, by sending them checks in the mail, but how do we put 

forth policies which will allow them to obtain training, education, 

possibly relocation? 

How do we put that issue into the overall debate? 

Secondly and lastly, with respect to this idea of compensation 

and the fact that there are gainers and losers, although the vast 

majority of we Americans in the economy as a whole gain from immigration, is the idea that there will also be some pockets of labor 

markets where immigration has a very detrimental effect. 

There are some industries—for example, the meat packing, the 

poultry industry—where immigration has, indeed, deteriorated the 

conditions for workers to an extent that I would call it a national 

disgrace. 

But one of the major reasons why that occurs is simply because 

the undocumented workers who now dominate the labor forces in 

those industries are being exploited by the employers themselves. 

And if we allow the immigrant workers, documented or undocumented, to be exploited we do, indeed, ensure that some nativeborn workers are going to be exploited as well. 

So we need to also be talking about the fact that any changes—

temporary workers, guest workers, whatever we might want to call 

them, are going to have to have important safeguards which attempt to protect the integrity of our low-wage labor market for all 

workers, native-born, immigrants alike. 

And that will require that we address issues such as minimum 

wage laws, granting protections to immigrant workers, and one of 

those special protections would be giving them the mobility to 

change employers, which is not always the case under temporary 

work visas, for example. 

And we must give them a path to citizenship so that they can 

enjoy the prospect of being full beneficiaries of this great country. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jaynes follows:]

54

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GERALD D. JANES


GDJ0001.eps
55


GDJ0002.eps
56


GDJ0003.eps
57


GDJ0004.eps
58


GDJ0005.eps
59


GDJ0006.eps
60


GDJ0007.eps
61


GDJ0008.eps
62

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Dr. Jaynes. 

Dr. Friedberg? 

TESTIMONY OF RACHEL M. FRIEDBERG, Ph.D.,

SENIOR LECTURER IN ECONOMICS, BROWN UNIVERSITY 

Ms. FRIEDBERG. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren, Chairman 

Conyers, Ranking Member King and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. 

When we think about the impact of immigration on American 

workers, there are two principal dimensions to consider, jobs and 

wages, or what an economist would call quantities and prices. 

In my testimony, I will summarize what economists have learned 

about both. And let me begin with the bottom line. The academic 

literature has found that immigration does not have a negative effect on the employment of native-born workers. 

There is some debate about the effect on wages, but most studies 

have found the effect to be small, ranging from small negative to 

small positive. 

Now, in general, the field of economics has two things to offer, 

theory and evidence. 

First, theory. Since it seems that principles of economics always 

bears repeating, when the supply of something goes up, its price 

will fall, and so will the price of things that are close substitutes. 

But on the other hand, there will be an increase in the price of 

things that are used in combination with it, what we call complements. 

So for example, if the supply of lettuce pickers in the United 

States increase through immigration, theory predicts that the 

wages of lettuce pickers will fall, and so will the wages of workers 

with similar skills. 

But there will be an increase in the earnings of truck drivers, 

restaurant workers, supermarket stockers and all of the people who 

work together with lettuce pickers in getting lettuce to our dinner 

tables. 

Theory predicts the same pattern for employment. Immigration 

will make it harder for native-born lettuce pickers and those with 

similar skills to find work, but it will also create more jobs for supermarket and restaurant workers and so on. 

Finally, because immigrants not only work but, like everyone 

else, also spend money, the increased demand for goods and services will create jobs and raise wages throughout the economy. 

Now, economic theory tells us about the direction of these three 

effects, negative effects on substitutes, positive effects on complements, and then what we call the scale effect, the positive effect 

overall. 

But theory alone can’t tell us anything about the magnitude. For 

that, we need data. And we need to directly observe cases of immigration and measure the changes that it brought about. 

It is challenging to figure out how to do this right. One approach 

that has been used is to compare the wages and unemployment 

rates of people in cities with more versus fewer immigrants. 

One issue here with this approach is that if we see cities with 

a lot of immigrants booming, we don’t know if the immigrants 

63

caused the economic boom or if it was the boom that attracted immigrants there in the first place. 

Careful studies that account for this issue find no impact of immigration on the employment of the native-born and only a small 

impact on wages. The estimates are that roughly a 10 percent increase in immigration is found to lower wages by, at most, 1 percent. 

A second approach does something similar, but rather than comparing across cities—say, Los Angeles versus Cleveland—it divides 

the national workforce into skill groups—say, comparing high 

school dropouts to college graduates—and asks have the nativeborn workers who are most similar to immigrants in terms of their 

education and skills—have those natives done worse than others. 

These studies find somewhat larger effects on wages, with a 10 

percent increase in immigration lowering native wages by about 3 

percent. 

A final approach analyzes cases in which history has given us 

something close to a lab experiment, cases in which a large number 

of people left one country for another, driven by forces other than 

the current state of the economy in their destination. 

One famous example is the 1980 Mariel boat lift, when about 

125,000 people left Cuba for Miami. The exodus occurred because 

people were suddenly allowed to leave Cuba, and Miami was the 

closest destination. 

Following the boat lift, did natives in Miami do worse compared 

to natives in Houston or Los Angeles, what we can think of as the 

control group in this experiment? 

The answer is no. Natives in Miami did not, in fact, have higher 

unemployment or slower wage growth than similar natives in other 

cities. 

These findings have been supported by studies of other natural 

experiments from different countries and time periods, including 

France in the 1960’s, Portugal in the 1970’s, and my own work on 

the mass migration of Russians to Israel in the 1990’s. 

None of these studies finds a significant negative effect of immigration on native employment or wages. 

So what is the bottom line of all of this labor economics research? 

There is no evidence of a negative effect of immigration on native 

employment. And while there is not a clear consensus about wages, 

most studies point to small effects. 

Now, I have discussed Americans as workers, but that is not all 

we are. We are also consumers, employers and taxpayers. How 

does immigration affect us in these roles? 

Well, as consumers, we benefit from the lower prices of goods 

and services that result from immigrant labor. 

As employers—and in fact, as anyone with money in the bank—

we gain from the higher return to capital that results from an increase in the size of the labor force. And as employers, we also gain 

from the increased demand for our products. 

Finally, as taxpayers, on the one hand, immigrants use Government-funded services like schools and hospital emergency rooms, 

and legal immigrants also have some limited access to means-tested public programs. 

64

On the other hand, immigrants pay taxes: payroll tax, income 

tax, sales, property, and so on. 

How does the extra spending compare to the extra revenue? 

Some groups have immigrants clearly impose a fiscal burden on the 

cities and States where they live. But at the Federal level, the foreign-born are a net fiscal benefit. 

Furthermore, estimates of the long-run impact of immigration on 

the overall fiscal balance suggest a positive effect as the children 

of immigrants who cost money today begin to work and pay taxes. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Friedberg follows:]

65

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RACHEL M. FRIEDBERG


RMF0001.eps
66


RMF0002.eps
67


RMF0003.eps
68

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Dr. Friedberg. 

Mr. Henderson? 

TESTIMONY OF WADE HENDERSON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member 

King, Members of the Subcommittee. 

I am Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference 

on Civil Rights. The Leadership Conference is the nation’s oldest, 

largest and most diverse civil and human rights coalition, with almost 200 national organizations working to build an America as 

good as its ideals. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to address what for 

many of us in the civil rights community consider one of the preeminent civil and human rights issues of the 21st century. 

If I could ask your indulgence for just a minute, I do want to congratulate, however, Chairman Conyers for a significant civil rights 

victory today in the passage of the Local Law Enforcement Hate 

Crimes Prevention Act. 

Congratulations. It is certainly a great accomplishment. So thank 

you. 

I would like to start this discussion with a few general observations on the subject at hand. 

First, the Leadership Conference agrees that our nation’s immigration system is badly broken. It fails to keep up with economic 

realities. It does not keep track of who is here. And it does not give 

people sufficient incentive to play by the rules. 

Our nation clearly needs sweeping changes to our immigration 

policies and procedures, and it needs them soon. 

We also agree that among these changes, we also have to include 

more effective, but also more realistic and more humane, immigration enforcement. It is simply unrealistic to stretch fences across 

our borders. And we can’t leave enforcement to groups like the 

Minutemen. 

We can take more sensible measures like hiring more border patrol agents, making better uses of technology and working closely 

with Mexico against human and drug trafficking. 

Third, the Leadership Conference strongly supports giving roughly 12 million undocumented immigrants in our country a way to 

come out of the shadows and to legalize their status. 

The fight for justice, fairness and equal treatment under law and 

in the workplace, access to fair housing, proper medical care, good 

schools, and opportunity led to massive demonstrations that fueled 

the civil rights movement nearly 50 years ago. 

Today, that fight permeates the immigration debate. And as a 

lifelong civil rights advocate, I do not see the legalization of undocumented immigrants as an economic issue. I see it as a moral 

one, and I believe it goes directly to our most fundamental understanding of civil and human rights. 

Now, we do not condone the violation of immigration laws. But 

motives count for something. 

And when we consider why most undocumented immigrants 

come here, motivated by a desire to escape economic or political 

hardships that native-born Americans today cannot fully underVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:11 Sep 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\050307\35117.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35117
69

stand, it is clear to the Leadership Conference, and hopefully to everyone, that we should not treat them as fugitives. 

They should not be so afraid of the police that they do not even 

report crimes. When they work, they should know that they will be 

treated safely and paid fairly. And if they drive, it is in everyone’s 

interest to make sure that they are obeying the rules of the road. 

And if they contribute and play by our nation’s rules, they should 

live within the full and equal protection of the law. 

Now, with these thoughts in mind, the Leadership Conference 

looks forward to the vigorous and thoughtful debate over the 

STRIVE Act. 

And while the bill certainly needs to be improved in some areas, 

on the whole it represents a far more credible and pragmatic approach to fixing our nation’s immigration system than H.R. 4437, 

the leading bill in the last Congress. 

Turning more directly to the subject of today’s hearing, I understand it was motivated in part by a recent advertisement that appeared in Washington newspapers and with an African-American 

purporting to blame immigrants for taking hundreds of thousands 

of jobs, and saying that legalizing undocumented workers would 

further devastate Black communities. 

And while I certainly share the legitimate concerns about unemployment and underemployment among African-Americans, I do 

not share the simplistic and divisive view that immigrants are to 

blame or that they are stealing jobs from any community. 

And I also think the situation is too complicated to be explained 

away in a one-page newspaper advertisement. 

Moreover, to those who have asked whether the ad represents 

the genuine views of the African-American community, let me respond in the following way. Putting an ethnic face on a factual distortion does not make that distortion an ethnic position. 

And for one thing, the employment crisis facing African-Americans began long before our nation took a more generous approach 

to immigration in 1965. 

As you can see in my written statement, Black unemployment 

rates have always been twice as high as that for White workers. 

And they have stayed that way even as the percentage of our foreign-born population has increased. 

This higher unemployment rate is, above all else, the result of 

structural racial discrimination, past and present, not only in the 

labor market but also in other aspects of society such as the housing market, education, and criminal justice. 

And it is made worse by broader changes in the U.S. economy 

such as globalization and the movement of many types of jobs overseas. 

As far as whether immigration aggravates the situation, economists, as you have heard, have not formed a real consensus. Even 

among experts who do think there is an impact, they disagree over 

its extent. 

In the absence of significant evidence to the contrary, the Leadership Conference rejects the simplistic and divisive scapegoating 

of immigrants as reflected in the recent ad campaign that I mentioned earlier, and we urge the Subcommittee to do the same. 

70

Now, at the same time, we do recognize that the displacement of 

unskilled native-born workers is possible and is perceived to be a 

real problem. And indeed, it has to be addressed in some way. 

At the very least, the prospect of it has been used by restrictionists to drive a wedge between African-Americans and Latinos, or 

certainly to attempt to do that, and Asians as well. 

As such, the Leadership Conference takes the underlying concerns very seriously. And earlier this year, we organized leaders 

from African-American, Latino and Asian communities, and other 

progressive groups, to discuss how best to address these issues in 

the ongoing debate over immigration. 

We have followed that up by coming together in support of a 

statement of principles that we released today, urging Congress to 

take up, either as an amendment to comprehensive immigration reform or as a concurrent standalone bill, an analysis that we think 

will help in contributing to the debate. 

The statement has been signed by prominent African-American, 

Latino and Asian civil rights organizations, distinguished scholars 

and progressive groups, all of whom recognize that while low-wage 

native American workers and immigrant workers historically have 

always been played off against one another, the reality is that all 

low-wage workers are exploited. 

And I am going to conclude with one final statement, Madam 

Chair. African-Americans also take note of how consistently people 

show their concern for us across the board. 

During last year’s renewal of the Voting Rights Act, for example, 

the most important civil rights law we have, restrictionist voices 

that claim to be protecting African-Americans now stood squarely 

against us then. 

Sadly, they have rarely been any more supportive when it comes 

to things like minimum wage, public education, Head Start, racial 

profiling, hate crimes—I could go on and on. 

To anyone who looks closely and doesn’t rely on full-page newspaper ads, it is clear that restrictionists are not now, nor have they 

ever been, friends of African-Americans in terms of our economic 

or political interests. And certainly, as a community, we take that 

into account in the analysis of any of these issues. 

And thank you for the opportunity to be with you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Henderson follows:]

71

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON


WH0001.eps
72


WH0002.eps
73


WH0003.eps
74


WH0004.eps
75


WH0005.eps
76

ATTACHMENT


WH0006.eps
77


WH0007.eps
78


WH0008.eps
79

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Finally, Dr. Briggs? 

TESTIMONY OF VERNON M. BRIGGS, JR., Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF 

INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS, CORNELL UNIVERSITY 

Mr. BRIGGS. Thank you, Members of the Committee. I would love 

to respond to some of the other people and the presentations of 

today, but maybe we will get to that a little bit later. 

For over 40 years, Congress has been trying to respond to the 

unexpected consequences of the passage of the Immigration Act of 

1965. Everything that the Congressmen sitting up there in 1965 

said was not going to happen did happen. 

The return of mass immigration was totally unpredicted. Neither 

political party takes any credit for it. It didn’t happen because any 

one of them pushed for it. It happened because of an accident. 

That is why they are great—as Father Hesburgh said, you have 

to be very cautious when you take immigration policy changes. 

There are unexpected consequences. 

The foreign-born population was 8 million people in 1965. It is 

36 million today—completely unexpected. I am not saying it is good 

or bad. I am saying it was unexpected. It was not what was supposed to happen. 

Immigration is a policy-driven issue. That is why I urge you to 

consider the policy, which is what my life has been about, public 

policy. What you do makes a difference in this field. 

A lot of times, you can do policy and nothing happens. In this 

field, it does happen. And quite often, things happen you didn’t expect. 

Samuel Gompers, America’s foremost labor leader, in his autobiography wrote, ‘‘Immigration is, in all of its fundamental aspects, 

a labor issue’’—a labor issue. 

But no matter how people are admitted to the United States, 

what category they get in or how they come in, the adults join the 

labor force, and quite often their spouses and children eventually 

do, too. 

Thus, the labor market impact of what is done must be a guiding 

consideration, not the only one, but a guiding one, when legislative 

decisions are made. 

What is wrong with the existing immigration system? And I am 

quoting basically from the Commission on Immigration Reform, 

which every one of my recommendations follows—every one—

chaired by Barbara Jordan, an African-American, lest anyone forget. 

The major conclusion of the Jordan commission was that there 

was an incompatibility between the human capital being provided 

by our foreign-born population and that of the native-born population of the country as a whole. That is even worse—57 percent 

today. 

Fifty-seven percent of the adult foreign-born population have 

only a high school diploma or less. That is where the impact is. 

And that is the people I defend, the low-wage workers of the 

United States of all races. 

80

And that is the ones that are being most adversely affected by 

immigration policy, which is exactly what the Jordan commission 

concluded. 

And every study that I know about impact of immigration on 

low-wage workers has said they are the ones who are adversely impacted. I don’t dismiss that. 

Some people say well, somebody else benefits. These guys lose. 

It is a negative—net gain. It is wrong. 

Any public policy that hurts the poor, the low-income and, the 

minority and youth and women population of the United States, as 

a product of it, is a policy you have got to be deeply concerned 

about, that it disproportionately impacts. 

The Clinton administration, the Council of Economic Advisors, 

which I quote, clearly stated that in their report, that ‘‘the relative 

supply of less educated persons has contributed to increasing income equality in the United States.’’

And today, the unemployment rate for people without high school 

diplomas is 6.8 percent. For the Black workers without high school 

diplomas today, it is 12.8 percent. Those are the ones still searching for jobs. 

The second major problem of our immigration system, of course, 

is the massive abuse of this system. We have 36 million foreignborn persons. Twelve million are illegal. We have had seven other 

amnesties since 1986. 

I supported the amnesty in 1986, strongly. That gets a lot of criticism. But that was the last amnesty that we should have ever had. 

And there should never be another one. 

We have had seven since then, legitimizing 6 million illegal immigrants, so big that we can say maybe half the foreign-born population in the United States today is in here in defiance of the public 

policy. Something is wrong with the public policy when half the 

people that are in the country have broken the law coming in. 

The losers when you have illegal immigration are the low-wage 

workers—United States—who have to compete in terms of their 

labor market for those jobs, and many of them become discouraged 

and leave the labor force. These are the people who need protection 

of the law the most. 

Lastly, there is evidence that without any evidence of real labor 

shortages, in my view there is massive abuse of the temporary 

worker programs we already have today. 

The massive expansion of visa programs for unskilled workers I 

think is unjustified, and certainly for even skilled workers is questionable. 

What do we do to reform this? And these are exactly the commission—this is where immigration reform goes. I am not in favor of 

comprehensive immigration reform. I am in favor of real immigration reform. 

And this is exactly what the Jordan commission said. The first 

thing we want to do is to begin to deal with this issue of incompatibility of human resources. 

And they suggest that getting rid of those extended family categories—the three of them in which a lot of extended family members come in on the coattails of people who come in legally in the 

United States. 

81

And that is what throws the system—the human resources out 

of kilter with the labor—the human resource needs of our population—to delete those categories. 

And that reduces the chain migration effects, which is the most 

dangerous thing about the amnesty program, is the potential chain 

effects down the trail. If we follow the Jordan commission, that 

would diminish that issue. 

It might make some support for amnesty more acceptable. But 

it is impossible to accept it today with that chain migration system—effects in the system. 

And Barbara Jordan made it very clearly—the first thing that 

they recommend is that there, of course, be ‘‘no unskilled immigration under the legal immigration system.’’ None. And that ought to 

be cut out. 

What should we do to—I will be very quick here. What should 

we do, in terms of immigration reform? Strong enforcement of employer sanctions. It should be the centerpiece, as Father Hesburgh 

said it was supposed to be. 

That should be the focus of everything we talk about: stronger 

enforcement. That is the first thing we must do; show this law is 

going to be enforced. Enforcement must become a reality. There 

must be no amnesty, for all the reasons I put down there, most importantly, the extended family categories. 

And what it would do—and in my view, it could lead to a Marxian nightmare 10 years or 20 years from now when all the family 

reunification principles kick in of amnesty for 12 million people, 

and tens of millions of more persons come in on the coattails of 

those who have been given amnesty. 

We can expect massive fraud in—so that even more will come in. 

We can expect that the low-wage labor market will simply be inundated, and this will disproportionately affect African-Americans, 

Latinos and all low-wage workers. They will be disproportionately 

affected by amnesty. 

And finally, of course, it is inconceivable that the Department of 

Homeland Security could ever administer a massive amnesty program. 

Well, I talk about non-immigrant labor, which I—be just with respect to guest worker programs, just in conclusion. 

How can anybody in Congress be advocating for guest worker 

programs, when every commission—every commission—has said no 

guest worker programs for unskilled workers? How is it possible 

people could still be talking about this? And every reputable scholar who has studied guest worker programs, for the reasons I outlined in my testimony, has shown it always fails. 

Well, there is a lot more that could be said, but I am outnumbered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Briggs follows:]

82

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VERNON M. BRIGGS, JR.


VMB0001.eps
83


VMB0002.eps
84


VMB0003.eps
85


VMB0004.eps
86


VMB0005.eps
87


VMB0006.eps
88

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Dr. Briggs. And your full statement is 

a part of the record, and I have read it, and I hope the other Members have. 

Before beginning the questions, I have decided to take my place 

at the end and defer to the Chairman of the full Committee, who 

is here, and let him begin with his 5 minutes of questioning. 

Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, that is very kind of you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it very much. 

Dr. Briggs, you caught me offguard this afternoon. It is late in 

the day. 

You agree with Barbara Jordan, but the larger question is, would 

Barbara Jordan agree with you? 

Mr. BRIGGS. I hope so. 

Mr. CONYERS. Her successor is here, so that I know that conversation will be continued. 

But I would like you to examine, sir—and I would like to continue this discussion in writing or in person out of the Committee—

by introducing you to the statement of principles referred to by 

Wade Henderson and see how they compare with some of the views 

that you have expressed. There may be some areas of agreement. 

And I would like unanimous consent to introduce these into the 

record at this time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection. 

[The information referred to is available in the form of an attachment to Mr. Henderson’s statement.] 

Mr. CONYERS. This is such a difficult program. We have all these 

organizations—the Coalition for the Future of the American Worker, the FAIR, NumbersUSA, all alleged civil rights organizations 

that are ready to pounce upon the fact that African-American 

workers at the bottom of the workforce—and yet the greatest unemployed: double the unemployment is a modest statement in some 

areas of our country. You can talk about 40 percent and 50 percent 

unemployment. 

And so I thought we were going to really be able to get into this, 

but the restrictions of the 5-minute rule and the two panel and four 

or five witnesses a panel—let me just lay some things out. 

And I would like to open our Committee office and my staff to 

all of you to make comments to me about this. 

You see, immigration can’t be solved without a lot of other economic factors being addressed, if not resolved. And I am glad to 

hear that we are talking about winners and losers. 

I make a point, too, in my little set of notes. Our colleague, Maxine Waters of California, on this Committee, a sterling Member, 

she told me—and I didn’t know I was going to repeat this in public. 

But she told me that all of a certain kind of job in Los Angeles—

I don’t know if it was bus drivers or hotel workers, I don’t know 

what it was—but she said every single position that had an African-American worker has been replaced by what appears to be an 

immigrant worker. 

And it is a serious problem, because I need to be made more comfortable in this discussion. And believe me, this Committee is holding three times as many hearings on this bill than any of our other 

Committees are meeting. 

89

I mean, it is a highly industrious activity because of the complexity. But if immigrants are taking low-paying wages, somebody 

had the job before they got it. So you know, here all of you on—

we are going to see each other and talk this thing out. 

But I may not be seeing all of you, Dr. Jaynes and Dr. Friedberg 

and Dr. Briggs, as much as I will be seeing others about this. 

But in my simplistic way of thinking, somebody got replaced. 

Now, who did they get a job from? Or what happened to them? 

Where did they go? 

And I can’t resole my position on the complex formation of a bill. 

I think we need major reform. 

Okay, next point—and you can all answer these after I get 

these—well, I only have two points. A full employment policy. Now, 

the last time I was working on full employment was with the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act. 

Coretta Scott King came up here. They were about to dump it 

in the Senate. And we were able to get it into law. I must say it 

has never been used in the law. It is still sitting up there. 

But to talk about how we are going to resolve this huge workforce relocation without talking about a massive training and creation of new jobs strikes me as something that we ought to be very 

careful about. 

Now, my time has expired, and I can do one of two things: Ask 

for your time, or——

Ms. LOFGREN. Or we would ask for unanimous consent to allow 

the witnesses to address the Chairman’s questions. 

Mr. CONYERS. Or that. That is a probably more realistic——

Ms. LOFGREN. And of course, since we are the Chairmen, there 

is unanimous consent. 

Mr. CONYERS. I had forgotten there was that option as well. 

Now, let me ask Wade Henderson to begin a discussion, a critique, of what has been going on here from my perspective. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Well, Chairman Conyers, you have raised, I 

think, one of the most important questions in the debate of the day, 

which is how does one explain the perception that Congresswoman 

Sheila Jackson Lee alluded to with the first panel, which is that 

even though the evidence would suggest there is no displacement 

of workers as between undocumented workers and native-born 

workers who hold low-paying jobs, low-wage workers, there is certainly anecdotal evidence to suggest that. 

The problem you alluded to, for example—and whether it is the 

hotel industry or the construction industry—is an issue of great 

concern to many in the civil rights community and, as you might 

imagine, to communities with low-wage native-born workers, 

whether it is African-American or legal immigrant workers or others. There is real concern. 

Bernard Anderson, Dr. Bernard Anderson, formerly of the Department of Labor during the Clinton administration, the first 

tenured African-American professor at the Wharton School of Economics, has looked at these issues over the years and analyzed 

comparative data. We allude to it in our testimony. 

He suggests that there is some evidence that workers who held 

those jobs previously moved up the economic ladder and made 

90

available new slots that were then filled by a new generation of 

workers. 

There is some evidence to support that as well. The notion that 

workers today won’t do jobs that previously they once did is true 

but only to the extent that wages are inadequate and insufficient 

to attract them to do the work. 

There are real factors of exploitation involved and real structural 

discrimination. 

And I would say to you that the phenomenon that African-Americans have experienced throughout our obviously complex history 

with our own country—which is that there have been instances 

where African-American workers are preferred in certain subservient jobs, in contrast to native-born White workers. 

But as they become aware of their own rights and choose to exercise those rights, either by forming unions or being more outspoken 

and challenging employer practices, they are then replaced by undocumented workers who follow a pattern of subservience more 

akin to the earlier experiences of African-Americans before they became fully aware of their rights. 

So I mean, there are, indeed, complex patterns of behavior and 

job circumstances that can’t entirely be explained with economic 

analysis and data alone. But we are looking into those issues. 

We are working closely with economists. We are working with 

our friends in organized labor and a broad variety of unions. 

And we are trying to determine whether a supplemental set of 

economic initiatives, like those which we have outlined in the principles you alluded to, might be able to help, either incorporated in 

an immigration bill or a standalone supplemental bill. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Dr. Jaynes, can you help me sleep more comfortably tonight after having been in this hearing? What is your 

guidance for us up here? 

Mr. JAYNES. Well, Congressman Conyers, I actually am familiar 

with the data, in fact, that you gave with respect to Los Angeles, 

and it is the hotel industry. 

Two things about that. First, you can always find these particular examples where you could point to something like that and 

attempt to extrapolate it across the entire country, but that is precisely what the studies are showing, that the extrapolation doesn’t 

really work. 

Where you can find a negative impact like that, you can find several positive impacts which sort of wash it out. Now, of course, that 

wouldn’t necessarily make people in Los Angeles happy if they had 

lost jobs. 

But the other component to that is it is not simply a case of one 

day you woke up and there were a lot of African-Americans working in this industry and on Wednesday morning they were all replaced by Latino workers. 

This has been an expanding industry in Los Angeles. And by and 

large, Latino workers are the ones who have been getting the jobs 

as it expands. 

Now, part of what Mr. Henderson just said, that African-Americans are, indeed—as the older ones leave the labor force and 

91

younger ones come in, they are better educated, they have other 

levels of skills, and they are taking other kinds of jobs. 

So all of that tends to explain it. That doesn’t mean that there 

aren’t any African-Americans who wanted jobs in the hotel industry in Los Angeles and didn’t get them. There indubitably must be 

some. 

But overall, I don’t think that the major problem with respect to 

African-American employment in Los Angeles or anywhere else is 

due to immigration. 

One other point about this perception thing. It is true that African-Americans, when you look at polling data—and I am talking 

about polling data not just recently, but polling data going back to 

the early 1990’s—it is true that African-Americans are more likely 

to say that immigrants take jobs from native-born Americans. 

However, two further points. That is still a minority of AfricanAmericans saying that. And secondly, even though African-Americans say that, they are more likely than others to still look positively toward immigration and immigrants. 

Mr. CONYERS. Glad to hear all of your comments. 

And thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I now recognize Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Henderson, in reviewing your testimony—and I direct you, 

if you could, to page five of your testimony, at least as I count those 

pages, you have a paragraph that begins, ‘‘In closing, I would like 

to add that civil and human rights organizations do take note of 

how consistently or inconsistently’’—and I would ask you to focus 

on this phrase—‘‘inconsistently in this case advocates for restrictive 

immigration policies show their concern for the welfare of AfricanAmericans.’’

That phrase ‘‘in this case’’—could you inform this panel as to 

whom that refers to or what entity that might refer to? 

Mr. HENDERSON. I don’t think it refers specifically to any entity, 

Congressman King. What it says, in effect, is that African-Americans as a community look at the totality of positions taken by those 

who both support our positions and those who would seek to oppose 

them. 

And what we have found is that there is a fundamental inconsistency. There are many who would use the——

Mr. KING. And I did read that testimony, and I heard you in your 

testimony where you already presented that orally. 

And as I look at this, you state that immigration restrictionists 

have been opposed to Head Start, are for racial profiling, apparently, against affirmative action and against hate crimes, and the 

list goes on. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes. 

Mr. KING. But I would direct your attention to the paragraph 

above that that says, ‘‘African-Americans understand that it is inherently wrong to divide people along the lines of race or ethnicity 

or national origin, and that creating us-versus-them scenarios does 

not help anyone in the long run.’’

Would you acknowledge that there are people of good will and 

people of good intellect that believe that these policies that you adVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:11 Sep 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\050307\35117.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35117
92

vocate actually divide people along the very lines that you have 

identified that I just read to you? 

Mr. HENDERSON. No, I reject that, Mr. King. Quite frankly, I 

think——

Mr. KING. Okay. And then you—okay. I hear your answer to 

that. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Okay. 

Mr. KING. Now I would ask you, then, that as I read this—from 

my side of this view, as I read this, this is a thinly veiled allegation 

of racism. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Not at all. 

Mr. KING. And I would ask you, do you believe that——

Mr. HENDERSON. That is your term, not mine. 

Mr. KING. Okay, then I will ask you a direct question. 

Mr. HENDERSON. That is your term, not mine. 

Mr. KING. Do you believe that the people who are immigration 

restrictionists, by your definition, are racists? 

Mr. HENDERSON. I was quite precise in the language I chose to 

use, Mr. King. What I said——

Mr. KING. So was I, Mr. Henderson. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Well, what I said was that immigration restrictionists have practiced wedge politics, divisive politics, and I think 

it is harmful to the country. 

Mr. KING. Would you, though, answer my precise question? 

Mr. HENDERSON. Which is? 

Mr. KING. Which is, do you believe that immigration restrictionists are racist? 

Mr. HENDERSON. No, I never used that term. 

Mr. KING. Do you believe they are? 

Mr. HENDERSON. I am not going to characterize——

Mr. KING. In other words, you won’t say you don’t believe they 

are. You won’t answer me. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Well, I think that group indictments and group 

libel are inappropriate. 

Mr. KING. Then I will ask you specifically. Do you personally believe that? 

Mr. HENDERSON. I am responding. I am responding to your question. 

Mr. KING. You are, I agree. 

Mr. HENDERSON. I don’t think you asked a question about whether we believe that restrictionists in their entirety are racist. If you 

ask me about an individual who has taken a particular position, I 

would answer that based on——

Mr. KING. I have taken these——

Mr. HENDERSON [continuing]. The best of my ability. 

Mr. KING [continuing]. Particular positions, so I will ask——

Mr. HENDERSON. But I will not—I will not——

Mr. KING [continuing]. You about me. Do you believe that? 

Mr. HENDERSON [continuing]. Make a group libel. I will not make 

a group libel, notwithstanding your view. 

Mr. KING. Do you believe, then, that I am a racist? 

Mr. HENDERSON. Why would I believe that, sir? 

93

Mr. KING. I read this, and I will tell you that I am often told how 

people interpret what they read. I am telling you how I interpret 

that. 

And I am asking you if you could give me a clear answer to that, 

and you said you reject that people of good will can disagree on 

that. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Congressman King, I don’t know you nearly 

well enough to make a determination of your personal views on 

issues of race. 

Mr. KING. I agree with that. 

Mr. HENDERSON. I would hesitate to make a comment about 

whether you are or are not racist. Only you, I think, could make 

that determination in the context at hand. 

Mr. KING. If I hadn’t made that determination, I wouldn’t have 

had enough guts to ask you that question, Mr. Henderson, and I 

appreciate your response to it. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you. 

Mr. KING. And I would then—let’s see. Would you, then, draw a 

distinction between legal and illegal immigration? 

Mr. HENDERSON. I draw a distinction between legal immigration 

and undocumented immigration. The answer is yes, I do draw a 

distinction. 

Mr. KING. And you think there should be some consideration and 

policy for those two. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Certainly, I think that the United States, as 

any sovereign nation, has the responsibility to control its immigration policies. I believe that is an inherent responsibility of sovereignty. 

Mr. KING. I appreciate that distinction. 

And I turn to Dr. Jaynes. And I am going to give you just a very 

quick scenario here, and that is I recall reading a study—it was in 

the Des Moines Register some years ago—where they had gone into 

the city of Milwaukee, in a neighborhood, and studied 36 square 

blocks, all households in those 36 square blocks. 

And that was a neighborhood that had migrated up to Milwaukee from the South about the same time that the Okies went 

to California during the Depression era and up to World War II, 

to take those good union jobs that were in the breweries and those 

kind of jobs that were there in Milwaukee. 

And they interviewed every household, and it was African-American households in each one of those, because that was the neighborhood that they chose, and there wasn’t a single working male 

head of household in those 36 square blocks. 

And so, you know, as I listened to the Chairman’s discussion 

about this and the anecdotal evidence, this is one of those studies 

that I have read that is more than anecdotal. 

And I want to encourage people to be working that are in this 

country that are people that are lawfully present here. When I see 

a study like that, I don’t know how to explain that. 

And I would ask if you could do that for this panel, please. 

Mr. JAYNES. Well, I think I maybe missed something in your explanation. You said that the study was done during the Depression? 

94

Mr. KING. No, they migrated there during the Depression and 

this study was done——

Mr. JAYNES. Oh, they migrated during the Depression. 

Mr. KING [continuing]. About 6 years or 7 years ago when the 

study was done, so it would be second-or third-generation people 

that had—in that neighborhood. 

Mr. JAYNES. Well, what you are trying to—you are asking me to 

give an answer to the fundamental question for the low-income African-American population; that is, what explains low levels of 

labor force participation that has been going on over approximately 

the last four decades? 

Mr. KING. Yes. 

Mr. JAYNES. We have nothing close to the time allowed here for 

me to go into that. If you wanted me to actually give you an answer to that, I could send you something in writing. 

Let me say, however, that the fact that that question persists 

and exists is precisely one of the major reasons why one would say 

let’s look at the facts that such low labor force participation, joblessness, unemployment levels have existed even before the 1965 

Immigration Reform Act—or not reform act, but the 1965 Immigration Act. 

And it is one of the less technical reasons why one might believe 

that contemporary immigration is not the fundamental reason why 

we have low levels of employment and low wages among less-educated African-Americans. 

Mr. KING. I would just say quickly, Dr. Jaynes, that I understand 

the economics but I don’t understand the sociology. And I would 

look forward to—if you would, very seriously, help enlighten me on 

the sociology of that question that you offered. Appreciate it very 

much. 

And I thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

I would yield now to Members who have planes to catch. And 

first, our colleague, Mr. Gutierrez. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. You are wonderful, Madam Chairwoman. Thank 

you so much for calling this hearing and allowing me to address 

this very distinguished panel next. 

I would like to say, first of all, thank you for your written testimony. It is going to help us immeasurably as we look at this issue, 

and so I thank all of the members of the panel, because I know it 

is late on a Thursday, and you have been wonderful to come here 

and speak to us. 

I would think, Madam Chairwoman, we might want—just an 

idea, just a suggestion—we might want what comes as evidence 

here, is to have a broader conversation, because I think some of the 

underlying things here are about race, and how it is we get along, 

and how it is we perceive each other outside of the debate of immigration, and how that impacts our relationships both here in the 

Congress and in our greater community. 

And so I know that African-Americans and Latinos—I mean, we 

need to respond to these ads, and we need to have an honest conversation amongst ourselves so that we can bridge those kinds of 

gaps, as we have done—as Mr. Henderson has so clearly stated we 

have done in the past, and how we have voted, the values we have 

95

represented and defended here in the Congress of the United 

States, because regardless what is on that ad, history shows that 

we have so much in common. 

We have fought for so many of the same things. I mean, let me 

just say thank you to Mr. Henderson and the organization and organizations that he represents and those that he worked for before, 

because those that had his job before him made it possible for me 

to be a Member of Congress. 

Obviously, my parents raised me well, gave me a great education. But someone fought for civil rights legislation, for voting 

rights legislation, which led to creations of districts in which I 

could be competitive. 

And we continue. I would just like to say that I think we need 

to have that conversation. If this panel moved me to nothing else—

you know, I am so happy that someone took the ad on. 

And it is opening up a series of questions for me of what we need 

to do as a community of people within the Congress of the United 

States. 

Let me just say the following. I don’t know if the restrictionists 

and the nativists are guided by prejudice, are guided by hatred. 

I can only say that history tells me that when the Irish arrived, 

they said they were the hungry, uneducated people who came to 

our shores that were going to undermine our society because they 

weren’t White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. 

I think they were wrong about the Irish, and I think history has 

shown that to be wrong. 

The New York Times at the turn of the century wrote in one of 

their editorials, ‘‘Only by the rule of law can we hope to contain 

these people,’’ referring to Italian immigrants to this nation. You 

know, once we said to the Chinese, ‘‘Build our railroads,’’ and then 

we excluded them specifically. 

So politics—politics—and the use of race and prejudice and bigotry and some of those more base instincts as human beings that 

we unfortunately still have to deal with, have been used within the 

immigration debate throughout the history of our nation. And that 

is something that is undeniable. And so as America grapples with 

this, it is going to have to, obviously, take other things under consideration. 

I would like to say, lastly, look, we create, Dr. Briggs, hundreds 

of thousands of low-skilled, low-wage jobs every year in this country. That is just a fact. 

And as an industrialized nation, we have a better-educated, better-equipped community of people that is getting better-educated. 

That is a good thing. That is a society that is fulfilling its responsibility to those of us that are members of it. The people are getting 

better education. 

But our economy is creating other kinds of jobs. It is the reality 

of our system. Yet we have 5,000 visas for low-wage workers. 

We share a border, the longest uninterrupted border between a 

Third World nation and an industrialized nation. It is part of our 

hemisphere. 

And we had better understand, because many of the same people 

who today are restrictionists on immigration reform and against 

comprehensive immigration reform were the first to extol the valVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:11 Sep 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\050307\35117.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35117
96

ues of NAFTA, and integrating our economics, and allowing products to cross the border. 

But with that crossing of products and industry and in that 

globalization, which we all believe is good at the end game, are 

going to come communities of people that are impacted. 

And history has shown us that people, especially those in—agricultural workers, as been done in Mexico, we cannot—how do you 

expect, under NAFTA, for workers in Mexico, which have two or 

three acres, to compete with our agri-industrial business in Kansas? 

Of course, we are the best at putting corn out there. We are the 

most efficient. They have suffered greatly. So winners and losers. 

I want to make sure that as we have this conversation, Madam 

Chairwoman, that we take—and that we have—you know, we not 

simply say there are going to be winners and losers. 

Let’s look for winners. Let’s look for the best that we can. And 

I thank the members of the panel immensely for their contribution 

here this afternoon. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady from Houston and the successor to 

the Barbara Jordan seat in the Congress, Sheila Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, you honor me, but we all pay 

tribute to the Honorable Barbara Jordan, who the very esteemed 

Chairman of the full Committee had the distinguished role of being 

on this other body, the Judiciary Committee, during her tenure. 

And I am reminded of the kind words that she offered about John 

Conyers. 

And I thank the Chairwoman as well for yielding to me. I got an 

e-mail about a plane about to depart, so I thank you for that. I will 

pose some questions. 

Let me acknowledge a point of personal privilege, Dr. Jaynes, as 

a graduate of the college at which you now teach, I am very proud 

that you are here. I won’t give you the year that I graduated from 

Yale, but I am delighted that the African-American Studies Department is still going strong. 

Judge Leon Higginbotham said that race matters. And I join 

with my colleagues. I think this is a vibrant, vigorous discussion, 

and I would encourage maybe a roundtable briefing. 

I am going to offer, Mr. Henderson, that the principles become 

a construct. Frankly, I believe that there can be a dual partnership 

with comprehensive of immigration reform and travel on the same 

legislative vehicle. 

The reason why I say that is that we have focused our attention 

today, Dr. Briggs, and we have used African-Americans, Hispanics—but going to parts of Ohio, parts of Appalachia in West 

Virginia, and a number of other areas, and we can cite others of 

low economic levels who will be moved by the suggestion that I am 

being put out because new workers are here. 

Frankly, I think that our economic policies are really the ruin of 

our existence. We stopped manufacturing. I mean, that was the 

level of integration into a better life. 

As the immigrants came in the 1800’s and then in the 1900’s, 

some of them moved into the Rust Belt, and they began doing the 

kind of large manufacturing, and they became at least the 

underpinnings of the middle class. 

97

And many were African-Americans who had come from the 

South. So we know that if the turning of the economy has a certain 

bend to it, making things with your hands or building things—the 

Detroit phenomenon—we know that people are employed, and employers will not care who you are. 

But the idea is that our work has changed. And in the course of 

our work having changed, society has been, if you will, unsympathetic to young African-American males, to the creation of single 

families, to drug addiction and other elements. 

But I do want to make the point that this is a broad question. 

It impacts people of all economic levels. So I want to raise this 

quick point. 

Dr. Jaynes, quickly, you indicated that you are ready to concede, 

at least, that immigration probably hurts the employment and 

wages of some less educated persons, but you still conclude immigration is a net benefit to the United States, and I do, as well. 

Do you then think that, as we move for comprehensive immigration reform, as we look at some of the principles that Dr. Henderson has offered, that we can look to job creation, job retention, nondiscrimination, wage increase so that we get the pool of workers 

that feel left out, even though, as I said, it is perception rather 

than, in many instances, reality? 

Can we move that along as we move comprehensive immigration 

reform? 

Mr. JAYNES. Yes. I absolutely believe that that should be part of 

the entire debate and process. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Dr. Briggs, I note that you use the word amnesty. It just gets me, and I respect—might I say, if the honorable 

Barbara Jordan had lived, one thing I always understood, she was 

a listener. She grew with the issue. She understood the Constitution. And she was eloquent on the words we, the people. 

And I know that she had the chairmanship of that Committee 

and talked about an I.D. card, but she also had the broadness of 

embracing people. 

We have leaders of industry—construction, agriculture and service workers—who believe that their particular industry would collapse without the broadness of the workers that we need here. 

What would you do with those industries, service and otherwise, 

who need that employment base? 

And have you read the basic legislative initiatives that do not define this as amnesty? It defines it as a process, an orderly process. 

But just answer the question about these industries who are utilizing this new workforce. 

Mr. BRIGGS. Well, an amnesty is an amnesty. I mean, you could 

change the words, but it is still an amnesty. 

But the question you asked——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. In your mind, but I understand we disagree 

on that. But just how would you address the question of the large 

need of a workforce in these areas? 

Mr. BRIGGS. Employers want cheap labor. And that is what illegal immigrants give. The question that is before—most of what has 

been said here today is absolutely irrelevant to this question of illegal immigrants on the labor force. 

98

Illegal immigrants are preferred workers. When you put them 

into competition—and if an employer can have them—our business 

men are not evil. They are pragmatic. If you give me people who are glad to work for $5 an hour, or $5.15 an hour, because they make $5 a day in Mexico, I want those 

people. I don’t want American workers. 

And that is what anybody, regardless of their race—it is impossible to compete with illegal immigrants. Of course they say that—

but I will tell you this. I don’t think Americans are going to stop 

eating just because—if they had to pay a little bit more to agricultural workers. I got in this——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, may I reclaim my time? 

Would the Chairwoman just indulge me an additional minute 

just to answer the gentleman? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I will leave it at this. 

Dr. Briggs, I can step away from this seat and come down and 

shake your hand and say we can work together. Let me tell you 

why. I think you are not listening. 

In the course of the testimony here, everything you said a new 

comprehensive immigration reform will cure. One, increase of 

wages. Two, a non-discriminatory workplace. Three, the recruiting 

of workers from all over, giving people the opportunity—American 

workers, for example—you want to be in the agriculture business 

in the—I want to put a scientific terminology to it—the gathering 

of products. 

Do you want to be in the service industry? Do you want to be 

in the construction industry? All of those opportunities—we are 

trying to cure the cancer of illegal immigration. 

Mr. BRIGGS [continuing]. Guest worker program. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me reclaim my time. 

Mr. BRIGGS. Because it will not—it will lower wages. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me reclaim my time, and I appreciate 

your intensity. I am not putting any names on anything. One, we 

have 12 million or a number undocumented. And what I am saying 

to you is we will cure the ailment by documentation. 

And therefore, no one on this panel is arguing for low wages, so 

I thank you. I want to work with you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Dr. Henderson, I just——

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. Has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. I would just finish on this point. 

This is an excellent construct. I believe it needs to be in conjunction with the traveling vehicle, because that will bring forward the 

people who, if you will, have bought into the myth that their jobs 

are being lost. 

And I thank the gentleman. I would love your answer, but I yield 

back to the——

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

I am going to be very quick, because the hour is late. But I do 

want to just follow up with Dr. Friedberg very carefully on her 

analysis. 

And I was interested in the economic analysis that I have read, 

talking about some industries where there is heavy participation of 

99

immigrant labor—for example, in the landscaping industry and 

some others—and the assertion being made that actually I think 

I—just the way I have lived, I have observed, is that at some point, 

rather than raise wages, you eliminate the industry. 

And I will just give you an example. I mean, growing up in California, I didn’t know anybody who had ever hired anybody to mow 

their lawn other than a kid for 50 cents. Now, everybody has a 

landscaping service that they pay. 

So you know, I think that is a—and if it was a lot more—there 

is a limit to how much you will pay. I mean, at some point you will 

go buy your own lawn mower and go back to the way it used to 

be. 

So I thought that was an interesting piece of the testimony. I 

also wanted to talk about, and have you explain, the Mariel boat 

lift study, because I am fascinated by that. 

We had how many? Thousands of Cubans who came, but they 

came legally, and I don’t understand—if you could just detail the 

specifics of who didn’t get displaced and how that could happen. 

Can you explain that? 

Ms. FRIEDBERG. Well, the Mariel boat lift study, which was done 

by David Card, analyzed the 125,000 Cubans who came to Miami 

and compared them—excuse me, looked at the outcomes of nativeborn workers in Miami, and compared them to similar workers in 

similar cities. 

So he broke workers down into groups—White, African-American, Hispanic and earlier waves of Cubans—and looked at cities 

that had similar demographic and economic characteristics—Houston, L.A., Atlanta, and Tampa. 

And basically, he compared what happened to the natives in 

Miami compared to the similar natives in other cities, and found 

virtually no effect on the wages or unemployment rates of lesskilled workers in any of these groups. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, how could that be? 

Ms. FRIEDBERG. So the first part, the study, is what empirical 

economists are good at. The next part is somewhat speculation. 

Further research is needed to see exactly what are the mechanisms 

that enabled the economy to absorb such a large number of immigrants. 

Some ideas are, first, that production techniques are flexible, so 

in places where there is a large supply of less-killed workers, we 

see that firms shift—find ways to use those workers in order to increase efficiency and lower cost. 

And second, to some extent, immigrants and natives are almost 

never perfect substitutes. 

If you think about it, even when on paper they have the same 

education and experience, the native-born worker has English as a 

native language, American education, American work experience, 

networks of people for, you know, job networks, informational networks. So you know, that is something also that economists are 

looking into. 

But the fact that the economy is able to absorb a large number 

of immigrants is something that the research has found, and the 

mechanism for that is something that the research is working on. 

100

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just like to thank all the panelists and 

note that as we have gotten the testimony about how immigrants 

who are risk-takers have actually increased the economic activity 

of the United States, and your eloquent testimony, really, about not 

allowing divisiveness to defeat that opportunity for the United 

States—as we listen to this testimony, I have been thinking about 

the other roles we have on the Judiciary Committee. 

And some of the testimony and efforts that we have made to address the issues of racism and poverty—and Bobby Scott in particular, our Chairman of our Crime Subcommittee, addressing the 

issues of especially African-American young men who are disproportionately incarcerated. 

And the issue that we—as a country, we are doing nothing about 

that—nothing about that. And preventing the creation of Google is 

not going to address that issue. But it is an issue that our country 

needs to resolve. 

And so I am actually very appreciative of the time you have 

spent here. 

And in addition to coming up with a comprehensive approach to 

the immigration issues that we face, I am now beginning to understand that this may also lead us, finally, to have a more vigorous 

effort to address these other issues, these typically American issues 

that we have for so long ignored. 

So on that note, I will note that we will—may have additional 

written questions that we will send to each of you, and we would 

ask—the record will be open for 5 days, and we ask that if we send 

you questions, if you are able to respond promptly we would appreciate that very, very much. 

I would note that next week we have two additional hearings. On 

Tuesday at 9:30 in this hearing room, we will have a hearing on 

the role of family-based immigration in the U.S. immigration system. And on Friday morning at 9 a.m., again in this room, we will 

have a hearing on the impact of immigration on States and localities. 

Thank you very, very much for your participation. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(101)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Today marks the sixth hearing in a 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. Today the focus of the discussion turns to 

the U.S. economy, U.S. workers and immigration reform 

Let me start by stating that in order to achieve a practical, and sensible resolution to this debate about comprehensive immigration reform we have to get past the 

tremendous amount of devisive, hurtful, and untruthful rhetoric that has clouded 

the discussion. That is why today’s hearing is so important. We will get past the 

myths, and try to uncover the truth. So I ask my fellow members to look beyond 

the rhetoric, roll up your sleeves, listen to what our witnesses have to say about 

the effect of the immigration population on the U.S. economy and workers, and take 

the next step towards a solution. 

There is a grave misconception that foreign-born workers are a drain on our economy (i.e.—public schools, hospital emergency rooms, and public assistance programs) when in actuality studies have shown that this is not the case. These are 

hard-working individuals who hold multiple jobs, and although they may send 

money back to their home countries, they must still be able to provide for their own 

groceries, housing, transportation, and other basic needs here in the United States. 

This means an entire population of workers who shop at our grocery stores, utilize 

our public transportation, eat at our restaurants, and shop at our malls. Also, many 

individuals in the construction, agriculture, and service industries will tell you that 

the potential loss of this workforce will have a devastating impact on our national 

economy. 

The most popular stereotype about the low-skilled foreign workers is that they are 

taking jobs from native-born workers. Unfortunately, many individuals in the antiimmigration camp have sought support from the black community, by pitting 

Latinos against blacks. Yet, the focus ought to be on the employers who exploit foreign born workers at the expense of native born workers. Further, studies show that 

the effect of immigrant workers on native-born workers is minimal at best. Fact of 

the matter is that since the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the black middle class 

has seen substantial growth, thus the argument that immigration is having a disproportionate effect on blacks is in part a disingenuous argument. Studies have 

shown that the influx of Cubans to Miami in the early eighties did not have a negative impact on the wages of blacks living in Miami. 

In conclusion let me state that comprehensive immigration reform is an issue that 

I have been taking head on since 2000. That is why I introduced the Save America 

Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007. As you know I come from the great state 

of Texas, a border state. I have first hand knowledge of the wonderful contributions 

that the immigration population has made to the greater Houston community. This 

is why I have no fear, reservations, or brutal misconceptions about the immigrant 

population that some may have. I hope my colleagues in Congress heed my message 

and carefully consider the facts, and not the myths.

102

LETTER FROM A MAJORITY OF THE MINORITY MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

REQUESTING A MINORITY DAY OF HEARING TO THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, 

CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER

SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW


4-1.eps
103


4-2.eps
104

‘‘THE COMPOSITE NATIONAL’’ BY FREDERICK DOUGLASS, SUBMITTED BY THE

HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

As nations are among the largest and the most complete divisions into which society is formed, the grandest aggregations of organized human power; as they raise 

to observation and distinction the world’s greatest men, and call into requisition the 

highest order of talent and ability for their guidance, preservation and success, they 

are ever among the most attractive, instructive and useful subjects of thought, to 

those just entering upon the duties and activities of life. 

The simple organization of a people into a National body, composite or otherwise, 

is of itself and impressive fact. As an original proceeding, it marks the point of departure of a people, from the darkness and chaos of unbridled barbarism, to the 

wholesome restraints of public law and society. It implies a willing surrender and 

subjection of individual aims and ends, often narrow and selfish, to the broader and 

better ones that arise out of society as a whole. It is both a sign and a result of 

civilization. 

A knowledge of the character, resources and proceedings of other nations, affords 

us the means of comparison and criticism, without which progress would be feeble, 

tardy, and perhaps, impossible. It is by comparing one nation with another, and one 

learning from another, each competing with all, and all competing with each, that 

hurtful errors are exposed, great social truths discovered, and the wheels of civilization whirled onward. 

I am especially to speak to you of the character and mission of the United States, 

with special reference to the question whether we are the better or the worse for 

being composed of different races of men. I propose to consider first, what we are, 

second, what we are likely to be, and, thirdly, what we ought to be. 

Without undue vanity or unjust depreciation of others, we may claim to be, in 

many respects, the most fortunate of nations. We stand in relation to all others, as 

youth to age. Other nations have had their day of greatness and glory; we are yet 

to have our day, and that day is coming. The dawn is already upon us. It is bright 

and full of promise. Other nations have reached their culminating point. We are at 

the beginning of our ascent. They have apparently exhausted the conditions essential to their further growth and extension, while we are abundant in all the material 

essential to further national growth and greatness. 

The resources of European statesmanship are now sorely taxed to maintain their 

nationalities at their ancient height of greatness and power. 

American statesmanship, worthy of the name, is now taxing its energies to frame 

measures to meet the demands of constantly increasing expansion of power, responsibility and duty. 

Without fault or merit on either side, theirs or ours, the balance is largely in our 

favor. Like the grand old forests, renewed and enriched from decaying trunks once 

full of life and beauty, but now moss-covered, oozy and crumbling, we are destined 

to grow and flourish while they decline and fade. 

This is one view of American position and destiny. It is proper to notice that it 

is not the only view. Different opinions and conflicting judgments meet us here, as 

elsewhere. 

It is thought by many, and said by some, that this Republic has already seen its 

best days; that the historian may now write the story of its decline and fall. 

Two classes of men are just now especially afflicted with such forebodings. The 

first are those who are croakers by nature—the men who have a taste for funerals, 

and especially National funerals. They never see the bright side of anything and 

probably never will. Like the raven in the lines of Edgar A. Poe they have learned 

two words, and these are ‘‘never more.’’ They usually begin by telling us what we 

never shall see. Their little speeches are about as follows: You will never see such 

Statesmen in the councils of the nation as Clay, Calhoun and Webster. You will 

never see the South morally reconstructed and our once happy people again united. 

You will never see the Government harmonious and successful while in the hands 

of different races. You will never make the negro work without a master, or make 

him an intelligent voter, or a good and useful citizen. The last never is generally 

the parent of all the other little nevers that follow. 

During the late contest for the Union, the air was full of nevers, every one of 

which was contradicted and put to shame by the result, and I doubt not that most 

of those we now hear in our troubled air, will meet the same fate. 

It is probably well for us that some of our gloomy prophets are limited in their 

powers, to prediction. Could they command the destructive bolt, as readily as they 

command the destructive world, it is hard to say what might happen to the country. 

They might fulfill their own gloomy prophesies. Of course it is easy to see why certain other classes on men speak hopelessly concerning us. 

105

A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; 

claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, 

and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword 

and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to 

most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people 

among ourselves. 

To those who doubt and deny the preponderance of good over evil in human nature; who think the few are made to rule, and many to serve; who put rank above 

brotherhood, and race above humanity; who attach more importance to ancient 

forms than to the living realities of the present; who worship power in whatever 

hands it may be lodged and by whatever means it may have been obtained; our Government is a mountain of sin, and, what is worse, its [sic] seems confirmed in its 

transgressions. 

One of the latest and most potent European prophets, one who has felt himself 

called upon for a special deliverance concerning us and our destiny as a nation, was 

the late Thomas Carlyle. He described us as rushing to ruin, not only with determined purpose, but with desperate velocity. 

How long we have been on this high road to ruin, and when we may expect to 

reach the terrible end our gloomy prophet, enveloped in the fogs of London, has not 

been pleased to tell us. 

Warnings and advice are not to be despised, from any quarter, and especially not 

from one so eminent as Mr. Carlyle; and yet Americans will find it hard to heed 

even men like him, if there be any in the world like him, while the animus is so 

apparent, bitter and perverse. 

A man to whom despotism is Savior and Liberty the destroyer of society,—who, 

during the last twenty years of his life, in every contest between liberty and oppression, uniformly and promptly took sides with the oppressor; who regarded every extension of the right of suffrage, even to white men in his own country, as shooting 

Niagara; who gloats over deeds of cruelty, and talked of applying to the backs of 

men the beneficent whip, to the great delight of many, the slave drivers of America 

in particular, could have little sympathy with our Emancipated and progressive Republic, or with the triumphs of liberty anywhere. 

But the American people can easily stand the utterances of such a man. They 

however have a right to be impatient and indignant at those among ourselves who 

turn the most hopeful portents into omens of disaster, and make themselves the 

ministers of despair when they should be those of hope, and help cheer on the country in the new and grand career of justice upon which it has now so nobly and 

bravely entered. Of errors and defects we certainly have not less than our full share, 

enough to keep the reformer awake, the statesman busy, and the country in a pretty 

lively state of agitation for some time to come. Perfection is an object to be aimed 

at by all, but it is not an attribute of any form of Government. Neutrality is the 

law for all. Something different, something better, or something worse may come, 

but so far as respects our present system and form of Government, and the altitude 

we occupy, we need not shrink from comparison with any nation of our times. We 

are today the best fed, the best clothed, the best sheltered and the best instructed 

people in t he world. 

There was a time when even brave men might look fearfully at the destiny of the 

Republic. When our country was involved in a tangled network of contradictions; 

when vast and irreconcilable social forces fiercely disputed for ascendancy and control; when a heavy curse rested upon our very soil, defying alike the wisdom and 

the virtue of the people to remove it; when our professions were loudly mocked by 

our practice and our name was a reproach and a by word to a mocking earth; when 

our good ship of state, freighted with the best hopes of the oppressed of all nations, 

was furiously hurled against the hard and flinty rocks of derision, and every cord, 

bolt, beam and bend in her body quivered beneath the shock, there was some apology for doubt and despair. But that day has happily passed away. The storm has 

been weathered, and portents are nearly all in our favor. 

There are clouds, wind, smoke and dust and noise, over head and around, and 

there always will be; but no genuine thunder, with destructive bolt, menaces from 

any quarter of the sky. 

The real trouble with us was never our system or form of Government, or the 

principles underlying it; but the peculiar composition of our people, the relations existing between them and the compromising spirit which controlled the ruling power 

of the country. 

We have for along time hesitated to adopt and may yet refuse to adopt, and carry 

out, the only principle which can solve that difficulty and give peace, strength and 

security to the Republic, and that is the principle of absolute equality. 

106

We are a country of all extremes—, ends and opposites; the most conspicuous example of composite nationality in the world. Our people defy all the ethnological and 

logical classifications. In races we range all the way from black to white, with intermediate shades which, as in the apocalyptic vision, no man can name a number. 

In regard to creeds and faiths, the condition is no better, and no worse. Differences both as to race and to religion are evidently more likely to increase than 

to diminish. 

We stand between the populous shores of two great oceans. Our land is capable 

of supporting one fifth of all the globe. Here, labor is abundant and here labor is 

better remunerated than any where else. All moral, social and geographical causes, 

conspire to bring to us the peoples of all other over populated countries. 

Europe and Africa are already here, and the Indian was here before either. He 

stands today between the two extremes of black and white, too proud to claim fraternity with either, and yet too weak to withstand the power of either. Heretofore 

the policy of our government has been governed by race pride, rather than by wisdom. Until recently, neither the Indian nor the negro has been treated as a part 

of the body politic. No attempt has been made to inspire either with a sentiment 

of patriotism, but the hearts of both races have been diligently sown with the dangerous seeds of discontent and hatred. 

The policy of keeping the Indians to themselves, has kept the tomahawk and 

scalping knife busy upon our borders, and has cost us largely in blood and treasure. 

Our treatment of the negro has slacked humanity, and filled the country with agitation and ill-feeling and brought the nation to the verge of ruin. 

Before the relations of these two races are satisfactorily settled, and in spite of 

all opposition, a new race is making its appearance within our borders, and claiming 

attention. It is estimated that not less than one hundred thousand Chinamen, are 

now within the limits of the United States. Several years ago every vessel, large 

or small, of steam or sail, bound to our Pacific coast and hailing from the Flowery 

kingdom, added to the number and strength of this new element of our population. 

Men differ widely as to the magnitude of this potential Chinese immigration. The 

fact that by the late treaty with China, we bind ourselves to receive immigrants 

from that country only as the subjects of the Emperor, and by the construction, at 

least, are bound not to [naturalize] them, and the further fact that Chinamen themselves have a superstitious devotion to their country and an aversion to permanent 

location in any other, contracting even to have their bones carried back, should they 

die abroad, and from the fact that many have returned to China, and the still more 

stubborn [fact] that resistance to their coming has increased rather than diminished, it is inferred that we shall never have a large Chinese population in America. 

This however is not my opinion. 

It may be admitted that these reasons, and others, may check and moderate the 

tide of immigration; but it is absurd to think that they will do more than this. 

Counting their number now, by the thousands, the time is not remote when they 

will count them by the millions. The Emperor’s hold upon the Chinamen may be 

strong, but the Chinaman’s hold upon himself is stronger. 

Treaties against naturalization, like all other treaties, are limited by circumstances. As to the superstitious attachment of the Chinese to China, that, like 

all other superstitions, will dissolve in the light and heat of truth and experience. 

The Chinaman may be a bigot, but it does not follow that he will continue to be 

one, tomorrow. He is a man, and will be very likely to act like a man. He will not 

be long in finding out that a country which is good enough to live in, is good enough 

to die in; and that a soil that was good enough to hold his body while alive, will 

be good enough to hold his bones when he is dead. 

Those who doubt a large immigration, should remember that the past furnishes 

no criterion as a basis of calculation. We live under new and improved conditions 

of migration, and these conditions are constantly improving. America is no longer 

an obscure and inaccessible country. Our ships are in every sea, our commerce in 

every port, our language is heard all around the globe, steam and lightning have 

revolutionized the whole domain of human thought. Changed all geographical relations, make a day of the present seem equal to a thousand years of the past, and 

the continent that Columbus only conjectured four centuries ago is now the centre 

of the world. 

I believe that Chinese immigration on a large scale will yet be our irrepressible 

fact. The spirit of race pride will not always prevail. The reasons for this opinion 

are obvious; China is a vastly overcrowded country. Her people press against each 

other like cattle in a rail car. Many live upon the water, and have laid out streets 

upon the waves. Men, like bees, want elbow room. When the hive is overcrowded, 

the bees will swarm, and will be likely to take up their abode where they find the 

best prospect for honey. In matters of this sort, men are very much like bees. HunVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:11 Sep 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\050307\35117.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35117
107

ger will not be quietly endured, even in the celestial empire, when it is once generally known that there is bread enough and to spare in America. What Satan said 

of Job is true of the Chinaman, as well as of other men, ‘‘All that a man hath will 

he give for his life.’’ They will come here to live where they know the means of living 

are in abundance. 

The same mighty forces which have swept our shores the overflowing populations 

of Europe; which have reduced the people of Ireland three millions below its normal 

standard; will operate in a similar manner upon the hungry population of China 

and other parts of Asia. Home has its charms, and native land has its charms, but 

hunger, oppression, and destitution, will desolve these charms and send men in 

search of new countries and new homes. 

Not only is there a Chinese motive behind this probable immigration, but there 

is also an American motive which will play its part, one which will be all the more 

active and energetic because there is in it an element of pride, of bitterness, and 

revenge. 

Southern gentlemen who led in the late rebellion, have not parted with their convictions at this point, any more than at others. They want to be independent of the 

negro. They believed in slavery and they believe in it still. They believed in an aristocratic class and they believe in it still, and though they have lost slavery, one element essential to such a class, they still have two important conditions to the reconstruction of that class. They have intelligence and they have land. Of these, the land 

is the more important. They cling to it with all the tenacity of a cherished superstition. They will neither sell to the negro, nor let the carpet baggers have it in 

peace, but are determined to hold it for themselves and their children forever. They 

have not yet learned that when a principle is gone, the incident must go also; that 

what was wise and proper under slavery, is foolish and mischievous in a state of 

general liberty; that the old bottles are worthless when the new wine has come; but 

they have found that land is a doubtful benefit where there are no hands to it. 

Hence these gentlemen have turned their attention to the Celestial Empire. They 

would rather have laborers who will work for nothing; but as they cannot get the 

negroes on these terms, they want Chinamen who, they hope, will work for next to 

nothing. 

Companies and associations may be formed to promote this Mongolian invasion. 

The loss of the negro is to gain them, the Chinese; and if the thing works well, abolition, in their opinion, will have proved itself to be another blessing in disguise. To 

the statesman it will mean Southern independence. To the pulpit it will be the hand 

of Providence, and bring about the time of the universal dominion of the Christian 

religion. To all but the Chinaman and the negro, it will mean wealth, ease and luxury. 

But alas, for all the selfish inventions and dreams of men! The Chinaman will 

not long be willing to wear the cast off shoes of the negro, and if he refuses, there 

will be trouble again. The negro worked and took his pay in religion and the lash. 

The Chinaman is a different article and will want the cash. He may, like the negro, 

accept Christianity, but unlike the negro he will not care to pay for it in labor under 

the lash. He had the golden rule in substance, five hundred years before the coming 

of Christ, and has notions of justice that are not to be confused or bewildered by 

any of our ‘‘Cursed be Canaan’’ religion. 

Nevertheless, the experiment will be tried. So far as getting the Chinese into our 

country is concerned, it will yet be a success. This elephant will be drawn by our 

Southern brethren, though they will hardly know in the end what to do with him. 

Appreciation of the value of Chinamen as laborers will, I apprehend, become general in this country. The North was never indifferent to Southern influence and example, and it will not be so in this instance. 

The Chinese in themselves have first rate recommendations. They are industrious, docile, cleanly, frugal; they are dexterious of hand, patient of toil, marvelously gifted in the power of imitation, and have but few wants. Those who have 

carefully observed their habits in California, say they can subsist upon what would 

be almost starvation to others. 

The conclusion of the whole will be that they will want to come to us, and as we 

become more liberal, we shall want them to come, and what we want will normally 

be done. 

They will no longer halt upon the shores of California. They will borrow no longer 

in her exhausted and deserted gold mines where they have gathered wealth from 

bareness, taking what others left. They will turn their backs not only upon the Celestial Empire, but upon the golden shores of the Pacific, and the wide waste of waters whose majestic waves spoke to them of home and country. They will withdraw 

their eyes from the glowing west and fix them upon the rising sun. They will cross 

108

the mountains, cross the plains, descend our rivers, penetrate to the heart of the 

country and fix their homes with us forever. 

Assuming then that this immigration already has a foothold and will continue for 

many years to come, we have a new element in our national composition which is 

likely to exercise a large influence upon the thought and the action of the whole 

nation. 

The old question as to what shall be done with [the] negro will have to give place 

to the greater question, ‘‘what shall be done with the Mongolian’’ and perhaps we 

shall see raised one even still greater question, namely, what will the Mongolian 

do with both the negro and the whites? 

Already has the matter taken this shape in California and on the Pacific Coast 

generally. Already has California assumed a bitterly unfriendly attitude toward the 

Chinamen. Already has she driven them from her altars of justice. Already has she 

stamped them as outcasts and handed them over to popular contempt and vulgar 

jest. Already are they the constant victims of cruel harshness and brutal violence. 

Already have our Celtic brothers, never slow to execute the behests of popular prejudice against the weak and defenseless, recognized in the heads of these people, fit 

targets for their shilalahs. Already, too, are their associations formed in avowed hostility to the Chinese. 

In all this there is, of course, nothing strange. Repugnance to the presence and 

influence of foreigners is an ancient feeling among men. It is peculiar to no particularly race or nation. It is met with not only in the conduct of one nation toward 

another, but in the conduct of the inhabitants of different parts of the same country, 

some times of the same city, and even of the same village. ‘‘Lands intersected by 

a narrow frith, abhor each other. Mountains interposed, make enemies of nations.’’ 

To the Hindoo, every man not twice born, is Mleeka. To the Greek, every man not 

speaking Greek, is a barbarian. To the Jew, every one not circumcised, is a gentile. 

To the Mahometan, every man not believing in the prophet, is a kaffe. I need not 

repeat here the multitude of reproachful epithets expressive of the same sentiment 

among ourselves. All who are not to the manor born, have been made to feel the 

lash and sting of these reproachful names. 

For this feeling there are many apologies, for there was never yet an error, however flagrant and hurtful, for which some plausible defense could not be framed. 

Chattel slavery, king craft, priest craft, pious frauds, intolerance, persecution, suicide, assassination, repudiation, and a thousand other errors and crimes, have all 

had their defenses and apologies. 

Prejudice of race and color has been equally upheld. The two best arguments in 

its defense are, first, the worthlessness of the class against which it was directed; 

and, second; that he feeling itself is entirely natural. 

The way to overcome the first argument is, to work for the elevation of those 

deemed worthless, and thus make them worthy of regard and they will soon become 

worthy and not worthless. As to the natural argument it may be said, that nature 

has many sides. Many things are in a certain sense natural, which are neither wise 

nor best. It is natural to walk, but shall men therefore refuse to ride? It is natural 

to ride on horseback, shall men therefore refuse steam and rail? Civilization is itself 

a constant war upon some forces in nature; shall we therefore abandon civilization 

and go back to savage life? 

Nature has two voices, the one is high, the other low; one is in sweet accord with 

reason and justice, and the other apparently at war with both. The more men really 

know of the essential nature of things, and on of the true relation of mankind, the 

freer they are from prejudices of every kind. The child is afraid of the giant form 

of his own shadow. This is natural, but he will part with his fears when he is older 

and wiser. So ignorance is full of prejudice, but it will disappear with enlightenment. But I pass on. 

I have said that the Chinese will come, and have given some reasons why we may 

expect them in very large numbers in no very distant future. Do you ask, if I favor 

such immigration, I answer I would. Would you have them naturalized, and have 

them invested with all the rights of American citizenship? I would. Would you allow 

them to vote? I would. Would you allow them to hold office? I would. 

But are there not reasons against all this? Is there not such a law or principle 

as that of self-preservation? Does not every race owe something to itself? Should it 

not attend to the dictates of common sense? Should not a superior race protect itself 

from contact with inferior ones? Are not the white people the owners of this continent? Have they not the right to say, what kind of people shall be allowed to come 

here and settle? Is there not such a thing as being more generous than wise? In 

the effort to promote civilization may we not corrupt and destroy what we have? 

Is it best to take on board more passengers than the ship will carry? 

109

To all of this and more I have one among many answers, together satisfactory to 

me, though I cannot promise that it will be so to you. 

I submit that this question of Chinese immigration should be settled upon higher 

principles than those of a cold and selfish expediency. 

There are such things in the world as human rights. They rest upon no conventional foundation, but are external, universal, and indestructible. Among these, is 

the right of locomotion; the right of migration; the right which belongs to no particular race, but belongs alike to all and to all alike. It is the right you assert by 

staying here, and your fathers asserted by coming here. It is this great right that 

I assert for the Chinese and Japanese, and for all other varieties of men equally 

with yourselves, now and forever. I know of no rights of race superior to the rights 

of humanity, and when there is a supposed conflict between human and national 

rights, it is safe to go to the side of humanity. I have great respect for the blue eyed 

and light haired races of America. They are a mighty people. In any struggle for 

the good things of this world they need have no fear. They have no need to doubt 

that they will get their full share. 

But I reject the arrogant and scornful theory by which they would limit migratory 

rights, or any other essential human rights to themselves, and which would make 

them the owners of this great continent to the exclusion of all other races of men. 

I want a home here not only for the negro, the mulatto and the Latin races; but 

I want the Asiatic to find a home here in the United States, and feel at home here, 

both for his sake and for ours. Right wrongs no man. If respect is had to majorities, 

the fact that only one fifth of the population of the globe is white, the other four 

fifths are colored, ought to have some weight and influence in disposing of this and 

similar questions. It would be a sad reflection upon the laws of nature and upon 

the idea of justice, to say nothing of a common Creator, if four fifths of mankind 

were deprived of the rights of migration to make room for the one fifth. If the white 

race may exclude all other races from this continent, it may rightfully do the same 

in respect to all other lands, islands, capes and continents, and thus have all the 

world to itself. Thus what would seem to belong to the whole, would become the 

property only of a part. So much for what is right, now let us see what is wise. 

And here I hold that a liberal and brotherly welcome to all who are likely to come 

to the United states, is the only wise policy which this nation can adopt. 

It has been thoughtfully observed, that every nation, owing to its peculiar character and composition, has a definite mission in the world. What that mission is, 

and what policy is best adapted to assist in its fulfillment, is the business of its people and its statesmen to know, and knowing, to make a noble use of said knowledge. 

I need to stop here to name or describe the missions of other and more ancient 

nationalities. Ours seems plain and unmistakable. Our geographical position, our 

relation to the outside world, our fundamental principles of Government, world embracing in their scope and character, our vast resources, requiring all manner of 

labor to develop them, and our already existing composite population, all conspire 

to one grand end, and that is to make us the make perfect national illustration of 

the unit and dignity of the human family, that the world has ever seen. 

In whatever else other nations may have been great and grand, our greatness and 

grandeur will be found in the faithful application of the principle of perfect civil 

equality to the people of all races and of all creeds, and to men of no creeds. We 

are not only bound to this position by our organic structure and by our revolutionary antecedents, but by the genius of our people. Gathered here, from all quarters of the globe by a common aspiration for rational liberty as against caste, divine 

right Governments and privileged classes, it would be unwise to be found fighting 

against ourselves and among ourselves; it would be madness to set up any one race 

above another, or one religion above another, or proscribe any on account of race 

color or creed. 

The apprehension that we shall be swamped or swallowed up by Mongolian civilization; that the Caucasian race may not be able to hold their own against that vast 

incoming population, does not seem entitled to much respect. Though they come as 

the waves come, we shall be stronger if we receive them as friends and give them 

a reason for loving our country and our institutions. They will find here a deeply 

rooted, indigenous, growing civilization, augmented by an ever increasing stream of 

immigration from Europe; and possession is nine points of the law in this case, as 

well as in others. They will come as strangers, we are at home. They will come to 

us, not we to them. They will come in their weakness, we shall meet them in our 

strength. They will come as individuals, we will meet them in multitudes, and with 

all the advantages of organization. Chinese children are in American schools in San 

Francisco, none of our children are in Chinese schools, and probably never will be, 

though in some things they might well teach us valuable lessons. Contact with these 

yellow children of The Celestial Empire would convince us that the points of human 

110

difference, great as they, upon first sight, seem, are as nothing compared with the 

points of human agreement. Such contact would remove mountains of prejudice. 

It is said that it is not good for man to be alone. This is true not only in the sense 

in which our woman’s rights friends so zealously and wisely teach, but it is true 

as to nations. 

The voice of civilization speaks an unmistakable language against the isolation of 

families, nations and races, and pleads for composite nationality as essential to her 

triumphs. 

Those races of men which have maintained the most separate and distinct existence for the longest periods of time; which have had the least intercourse with other 

races of men, are a standing confirmation of the folly of isolation. The very soil of 

the national mind becomes, in such cases, barren, and can only be resuscitated by 

assistance from without. 

Look at England, whose mighty power is now felt, and for centuries has been felt, 

all around the world. It is worthy of special remark, that precisely those parts of 

that proud Island which have received the largest and most diverse populations, are 

today, the parts most distinguished for industry, enterprise, invention and general 

enlightenment. In Wales, and in the Highlands of Scotland, the boast is made of 

their pure blood and that they were never conquered, but no man can contemplate 

them without wishing they had been conquered. 

They are far in the rear of every other part of the English realm in all the comforts and conveniences of life, as well as in mental and physical development. Neither law nor learning descends to us from the mountains of Wales or from the Highlands of Scotland. The ancient Briton whom Julius Caesar would not have a slave, 

is not to be compared with the round, burly, a[m]plitudinous Englishman in many 

of the qualities of desirable manhood. 

The theory that each race of men has come special faculty, some peculiar gift or 

quality of mind or heart, needed to the perfection and happiness of the whole is a 

broad and beneficent theory, and besides its beneficence, has in its support, the 

voice of experience. Nobody doubts this theory when applied to animals and plants, 

and no one can show that it is not equally true when applied to races. 

All great qualities are never found in any one man or in any one race. The whole 

of humanity, like the whole of everything else, is ever greater than a part. Men only 

know themselves by knowing others, and contact is essential to this knowledge. In 

one race we perceive the predominance of imagination; in another, like Chinese, we 

remark its total absence. In one people, we have the reasoning faculty, in another, 

for music; in another, exists courage; in another, great physical vigor; and so on 

through the whole list of human qualities. All are needed to temper, modify, round 

and complete. 

Not the least among the arguments whose consideration should dispose to welcome among us the peoples of all countries, nationalities and color, is the fact that 

all races and varieties of men are improvable. This is the grand distinguishing attribute of humanity and separates man from all other animals. If it could be shown 

that any particular race of men are literally incapable of improvement, we might 

hesitate to welcome them here. But no such men are anywhere to be found, and 

if there were, it is not likely that they would ever trouble us with their presence. 

The fact that the Chinese and other nations desire to come and do come, is a proof 

of their capacity for improvement and of their fitness to come. 

We should take council of both nature and art in the consideration of this question. When the architect intends a grand structure, he makes the foundation broad 

and strong. We should imitate this prudence in laying the foundation of the future 

Republic. There is a law of harmony in departments of nature. The oak is in the 

acorn. The career and destiny of individual men are enfolded in the elements of 

which they are composed. The same is true of a nation. It will be something or it 

will be nothing. It will be great, or it will be small, according to its own essential 

qualities. As these are rich and varied, or poor and simple, slender and feeble, broad 

and strong, so will be the life and destiny of the nation itself. 

The stream cannot rise higher than its source. The ship cannot sail faster than 

the wind. The flight of the arrow depends upon the strength and elasticity of the 

bow; and as with these, so with a nation. 

If we would reach a degree of civilization higher and grander than any yet attained, we should welcome to our ample continent all nations, kindreds [sic] tongues 

and peoples; and as fast as they learn our language and comprehend the duties of 

citizenship, we should incorporate them into the American body politic. The 

outspread wings of the American eagle are broad enough to shelter all who are likely to come. 

As a matter of selfish policy, leaving right and humanity out of the question, we 

cannot wisely pursue any other course. Other Governments mainly depend for secuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:11 Sep 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\050307\35117.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35117
111

rity upon the sword; our depends mainly upon the friendship of its people. In all 

matters,—in time of peace, in time of war, and at all times,—it makes its appeal 

to all the people, and to all classes of the people. Its strength lies in their friendship 

and cheerful support in every time of need, and that policy is a mad one which 

would reduce the number of its friends by excluding those who would come, or by 

alienating those who are already here. 

Our Republic is itself a strong argument in favor of composite nationality. It is 

no disparagement to Americans of English descent, to affirm that much of the 

wealth, leisure, culture, refinement and civilization of the country are due to the 

arm of the negro and the muscle of the Irishman. Without these and the wealth 

created by their sturdy toil, English civilization had still lingered this side of the 

Alleghanies [sic], and the wolf still be howling on their summits. 

To no class of our population are we more indebted to valuable qualities of head, 

heart and hand than the German. Say what we will of their lager, their smoke and 

their metaphysics they have brought to us a fresh, vigorous and child-like nature; 

a boundless facility in the acquisition of knowledge; a subtle and far reaching intellect, and a fearless love of truth. Though remarkable for patient and laborious 

thought the true German is a joyous child of freedom, fond of manly sports, a lover 

of music, and a happy man generally. Though he never forgets that he is a German, 

he never fails to remember that he is an American. 

A Frenchman comes here to make money, and that is about all that need be said 

of him. He is only a Frenchman. He neither learns our language nor loves our country. His hand is on our pocket and his eye on Paris. He gets what he wants and 

like a sensible Frenchman, returns to France to spend it. 

Now let me answer briefly some objections to the general scope of my arguments. 

I am told that science is against me; that races are not all of one origin, and that 

the unity theory of human origin has been exploded. I admit that this is a question 

that has two sides. It is impossible to trace the threads of human history sufficiently 

near their starting point to know much about the origin of races. 

In disposing of this question whether we shall welcome or repel immigration from 

China, Japan, or elsewhere, we may leave the differences among the theological doctors to be settled by themselves. 

Whether man originated at one time and one or another place; whether there was 

one Adam or five, or five hundred, does not affect the question. 

The grand right of migration and the great wisdom of incorporating foreign elements into our body politic, are founded not upon any genealogical or archeological 

theory, however learned, but upon the broad fact of a common human nature. 

Man is man, the world over. This fact is affirmed and admitted in any effort to 

deny it. The sentiments we exhibit, whether love or hate, confidence or fear, respect 

or contempt, will always imply a like humanity. 

A smile or a tear has not nationality; joy and sorrow speak alike to all nations, 

and they, above all the confusion of tongues, proclaim the brotherhood of man. 

It is objected to the Chinaman that he is secretive and treacherous, and will not 

tell the truth when he thinks it for his interest to tell a lie. 

There may be truth in all this; it sounds very much like the account of man’s 

heart given in the creeds. If he will not tell the truth except when it is for his interest to do so, let us make it for this interest to tell the truth We can do it by applying 

to him the same principle of justice that we apply ourselves. 

But I doubt if the Chinese are more untruthful than other people. At this point 

I have one certain test,—mankind are not held together by lies. Trust is the foundation of society. Where there is no truth, there can be no trust, and where there is 

no trust there can be no society. Where there is society, there is trust, and where 

there is trust, there is something upon which it is supported. Now a people who 

have confided in each other for five thousand years; who have extended their empire 

in all direction till it embraces on e fifth of the population of the glove; who hold 

important commercial relations with all nations; who are now entering into treaty 

stipulations with ourselves, and with all the great European powers, cannot be a 

nation of cheats and liars, but must have some respect for veracity. The very existence of China for so long a period, and her progress in civilization, are proofs of her 

truthfulness. But it is said that the Chinese is a heathen, and that he will introduce 

his heathen rights and superstitions here. This is the last objection which should 

come from those who profess the all conquering power of the Christian religion. If 

that religion cannot stand contact with the Chinese, religion or no religion, so much 

the worse for those who have adopted it. It is the Chinaman, not the Christian, who 

should be alarmed for his faith. He exposes that faith to great dangers by exposing 

it to the freer air of America. But shall we send missionaries to the heathen and 

yet deny the heathen the right to come to us? I think that a few honest believers 

112

in the teachings of Confucius would be well employed in expounding his doctrines 

among us. 

The next objection to the Chinese is that he cannot be induced to swear by the 

Bible. This is to me one of his best recommendations. The American people will 

swear by anything in the heavens above or in the earth beneath. We are a nation 

of swearers. We swear by a book whose most authoritative command is to swear 

not at all. 

It is not of so much importance what a man swears by, as what he swears to, 

and if the Chinaman is so true to his convictions that he cannot be tempted or even 

coerced into so popular a custom as swearing by the Bible, he gives good evidence 

of his integrity and his veracity. 

Let the Chinaman come; he will help to augment the national wealth. He will 

help to develop our boundless resources; he will help to pay off our national debt. 

He will help to lighten the burden of national taxation. He will give us the benefit 

of his skill as a manufacturer and tiller of the soil, in which he is unsurpassed. 

Even the matter of religious liberty, which has cost the world more tears, more 

blood and more agony, than any other interest, will be helped by his presence. I 

know of no church, however tolerant; of no priesthood, however enlightened, which 

could be safely trusted with the tremendous power which universal conformity 

would confer. We should welcome all men of every shade of religious opinion, as 

among the best means of checking the arrogance and intolerance which are the almost inevitable concomitants of general conformity. Religious liberty always flourishes best amid the clash and competition of rival religious creeds. 

To the minds of superficial men, the fusion of different races has already brought 

disaster and ruin upon the country. The poor negro has been charged with all our 

woes. In the haste of these men they forgot that our trouble was not ethnographical, 

but moral; that it was not a difference of complexion, but a difference of conviction. 

It was not the Ethiopian as a man, but the Ethiopian as a slave and a covetted [sic] 

article of merchandise, that gave us trouble. 

I close these remarks as I began. If our action shall be in accordance with the 

principles of justice, liberty, and perfect human equality, no eloquence can adequately portray the greatness and grandeur of the future of the Republic. 

We shall spread the network of our science and civilization over all who seek their 

shelter whether from Asia, Africa, or the Isles of the sea. We shall mold them all, 

each after his kind, into Americans; Indian and Celt; negro and Saxon; Latin and 

Teuton; Mongolian and Caucasian; Jew and Gentile; all shall here bow to the same 

law, speak the same language, support the same Government, enjoy the same liberty, vibrate with the same national enthusiasm, and seek the same national ends.

—————

Sources: 

Douglass Papers, Library of Congress, microfilm reel 14.

113

LETTER FROM ERIC N. GUTIE ́ RREZ, LEGISLATIVE STAFF ATTORNEY, MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND TO THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, 

CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER

SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW


7-1.eps
114


7-2.eps
115

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS POSED BY THE HONORABLE STEVE KING FROM

THE HONORABLE LEON R. SEQUEIRA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


9-1.eps
116


9-2.eps
117

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS POSED BY THE HONORABLE STEVE KING FROM

PATRICIA BUCKLEY, PH.D., SENIOR ECONOMIC ADVISOR TO THE SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


10.eps
118

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS POSED BY THE HONORABLE STEVE KING FROM

PETER R. ORSZAG, PH.D., DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE


11-1.eps
119

Æ


11-2.eps