U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–859 PDF 2007

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVES ON IMMIGRATION

STATISTICS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, 

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 6, 2007

Serial No. 110–42

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH GIBSON, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES,

BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas

UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Chief Counsel 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 6, 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 ........................................... 2

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

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................... 8

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 4

The Honorable Joseph Crowley, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 6

Ms. Ruth Ellen Wasem, Ph.D., Specialist in Immigration Policy, Congressional Research Service 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 18

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 21

Mr. Ronald Bird, Ph.D., Chief Economist and Director, Office of Economic 

Policy and Analysis, U.S. Department of Labor 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 46

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

Mr. Michael Hoefer, Director of the Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS), 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 54

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 56

Mr. Charles Oppenheim, Chief, Visa Control and Reporting Division, U.S. 

Department of State 

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

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 64

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

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 ....... 83

Page

IV

Letter to the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, 

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 .................................................................... 85

Prepared Statement of the the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from the State of California .................................................... 86

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Joseph Crowley, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New York ................................................................ 87

‘‘Senate Amendment 1150 to S. 1348, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Act of 2007, As amended by the Senate through May 24, 2007,’’ a Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, published June 4, 2007, submitted 

by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren ............................................................................. 89

‘‘Helping Immigrants Become New Americans: Communities Discuss the 

Issues,’’ published by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, submitted by the Honorable Steve King .................................................................. 133

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from Ruth Ellen Wasem, Ph.D., Specialist 

in Immigration Policy, Congressional Research Service ................................... 153

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from Ronald Bird, Ph.D., Chief Economist 

and Director of the Office of Economic Policy and Analysis, U.S. Department of Labor ....................................................................................................... 170

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from Michael Hoefer, Director of the 

Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS), U.S. Department of Homeland Security, with Addendum ............................................................................................ 182

Answers to Post-hearing Questions from Charles Oppenheim, Chief, Visa 

Control and Reporting Division, U.S. Department of State ............................. 230

Additional Answer to Question posed during the Hearing by the Honorable 

Zoe Lofgren from Charles Oppenheim, Chief, Visa Control and Reporting 

Division, U.S. Department of State .................................................................... 238

(1)

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: 

GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVES ON IMMIGRATION STATISTICS 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, 

REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:47 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe Lofgren 

(Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Gutierrez, Berman, Jackson 

Lee, Delahunt, Sa ́nchez, Davis, Ellison, King, Lungren, and Smith. 

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

Chisam, Majority Counsel; George Fishman, Minority Counsel; and 

Benjamin Staub, Professional Staff Member. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The Subcommittee hearing will now come to order. 

We have had a series of hearings, beginning at Ellis Island, examining comprehensive immigration reform, looking at the issues 

from 1986 and 1996 in an effort to avoid mistakes of the past. 

We have considered current employment workplace verification 

systems, family priorities in immigration, and the proposed point 

system that the Senate is looking at. We have looked at the cost 

of immigration on States and localities. We have held hearings on 

the integration of immigrants, the future of undocumented immigrant students in the United States, heard from stakeholders in 

the immigrant community, labor unions, the business community, 

and much of the debate has been around numbers. 

So this is a hearing where we are going to hear from Government witnesses about the numbers: How many illegal immigrants 

are here? How big is the backlog? How many occupations does the 

Government project there are or will be shortages in? How many 

potential immigrants with pending immigration petitions are outside the United States? 

There are important questions, and we hope to get answers from 

the two panels. 

We are really very blessed to have two of our colleagues who are 

here, but before we go to them I would just like to ask the Ranking 

Member if he has a statement he would like to offer for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]

2

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 fifteenth hearing on comprehensive immigration reform. 

Our series of hearings on comprehensive immigration reform began at Ellis Island, where we examined the need for comprehensive immigration reform to secure 

our borders, to address economic and demographic concerns, and there we reviewed 

our nation’s rich immigrant history. We have studied immigration reform from 1986 

and 1996 in an effort to avoid the mistakes of the past. We’ve considered the problems with and proposed solutions for our current employment and worksite 

verification system. In light of the recent Senate immigration agreement to eliminate family priorities in immigration and replace those priorities with a completely 

new and untested point system, we studied the contributions of family immigrants 

to America and various immigration point systems used around the world. We have 

explored the costs of immigration on our states and localities. We’ve held hearings 

to explore the importance of immigrant integration and the future of undocumented 

immigrant students in the United States. Before the recess, we heard from numerous groups of stakeholders and labor unions about their concerns about immigration 

reform. 

Just this morning we listened to the perspectives of business groups. 

This afternoon, in the last of our hearings on comprehensive immigration reform, 

we will get the government’s numbers. 

Much of the debate about comprehensive immigration reform revolves around 

numbers. How many illegal immigrants are there? How big is the current immigration backlog? How many occupations does the government project there are or will 

be shortages in? How many potential immigrants with pending immigration petitions are outside the U.S.? 

These are important questions. To draft comprehensive immigration reform legislation and to answer the inevitable questions about that legislation, the Subcommittee needs to hear from knowledgeable government witnesses about the statistics the government keeps. 

This hearing will allow the Subcommittee to learn what the numbers are. Witnesses from the Administration and the Congressional Research Service will help 

us to get the facts and figures we all need to make the judgments and assumptions 

necessary to do immigration reform right. 

From these numbers, we should be able to better make the policy judgments necessary to evaluate the different comprehensive immigration reform proposals. 

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

sort through what is a complex and very important issue.

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

witnesses that are here today. 

I will begin my remarks by expressing disappointment about the 

procedure surrounding witness selection for today’s hearing. While 

I appreciate the willingness of the witnesses who are here to testify, I am disappointed in the fact that the minority was required 

to invite only Government witnesses here to testify. There is no 

precedent for this, and there will be no precedent for this. 

Unfortunately, today is not the first time that we have had our 

witnesses dictated by the majority. The same thing occurred on 

May 3rd on a different hearing. 

And so, in response to the decree about minority witnesses and 

their identity and to ensure that both sides of this issue are publicly examined, just as I did on May 3rd and pursuant to House 

Rule 11, I now request a minority day of hearing to be able to address this subject matter from a minority perspective. 

And I present a letter to you, Madam Chair. 

Regarding the subject at hand, immigration statistics is a vast 

issue area. Many immigration-related numbers and statistics are 

3

circulated by Government sources and private entities each day. I 

would like to list some of those numbers. 

Nineteen thousand five hundred and eighty-eight dollars ($19,588): That is the amount each low-skilled immigrant household costs American taxpayers per year, according to The Heritage 

Foundation. 

Two and a half trillion dollars ($2.5 trillion dollars): the amount 

of net retirement costs, or benefits minus taxes, to American taxpayers if all the current adult illegal immigrants in the United 

States were granted amnesty, according to The Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Robert Rector. 

Zero: another number, the number of final orders issued to employers for hiring illegal immigrants in 2004. Zero enforcement. 

Ten: the number of final orders issued for hiring illegal immigrants in 2005. Working a little better. 

Three: the number of illegal immigrants in the Fort Dix Six, the 

group arrested while planning to murder American soldiers at Fort 

Dix, New Jersey. Two hundred seven billion, one hundred million dollars ($207.1 

billion): the amount estimated by TREA Senior Citizens League 

that a Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico would 

cost American taxpayers by the year 2040. That is $207.1 billion. 

One hundred eight thousand and twenty-five (108,025): the number of OTMs, ‘‘other than Mexicans,’’ from countries like Pakistan, 

Syria, Iran that were apprehended on the U.S.-Mexican border by 

Border Patrol while trying to illegally cross into the United States. 

Twenty-five million (25 million): the number of pounds of trash 

estimated by the Bureau of Land Management to have been left 

along the Arizona-Mexico border by illegal immigrants crossing 

into the United States—25 million pounds. 

Seventy-eight and six tenths (78.6): the number of miles of vehicle barrier that have been built along the 2,000 mile U.S.-Mexican 

border as of May 24th of this year. 

Eighty-seven and two tenths (87.2): the number of miles of fencing that have been built along the southern border up to May 25th 

of this year. 

Sixty-nine million (69 million): That is the number of people in 

the United States of working age who are simply not in the workforce. 

One million, two hundred and sixth-six thousand, two hundred 

and sixty-four (1,266,264): That is the number of lawful permanent 

residents admitted to the United States in 2006, more than any 

other country in the world. 

The statistics I have listed are particularly interesting since they 

prove that the United States is generous with its immigration policy, that the United States has an enormous problem with illegal 

immigration, that the United States has not in many years had an 

Administration interested in enforcing immigration laws, that the 

United States is vulnerable to another terrorist attack and that we 

must end illegal immigration. 

With that, Madam Chair, I look forward to the witnesses’ testimony. And I appreciate your acceptance and ask unanimous consent that the letter be introduced into the record as well. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

4

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The letter is received and will be dealt with according to the rules. 

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

Ms. LOFGREN. The hearing before us will really be to get a handle on answers. And before we go to our more traditional Government witnesses, we are very honored to be joined by two of our colleagues here today. 

Thank you for putting up with the business part of our meeting. 

And I am going to go in order of seniority here. 

The minority’s witness is the gentleman from California, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. Congressman Rohrabacher, my colleague from California, represents the 46th Congressional District. 

A senior member of the Foreign Affairs and Science Committees, 

Congressman Rohrabacher came to Congress after serving as a special assistant and speechwriter to President Reagan. He earned his 

bachelor’s degree from Long Beach State College and his master’s 

degree from the University of Southern California. And he and his 

wife Rhonda became the proud parents of triplets in April 2004. 

And I invite you to ask him to see the pictures, as I have. It is a 

wonderful thing. 

We are also joined by our colleague, Congressman Joe Crowley, 

the representative from New York’s 7th Congressional District, 

who is serving his fifth term here in the House. After graduating 

from Queens College, he won a seat in the New York State Assembly at the age of 24 years old. After 12 years of service in Albany, 

he was elected in 1998 to serve with us in the House of Representatives. A Member of the Committee of Ways and Means and the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs, Congressman Crowley is the only 

Member of Congress to have lost a member of his family in the terrorist attacks of September 11. He and his wife Casey have three 

wonderful children: Colin, Kensey Louise, and Liam. And you can 

also ask him to see the pictures. 

We are very pleased to have you both here. You know the drill. 

Your full statements are part of the record. We ask you to try and 

summarize in about 5 minutes. 

We are going to ask other Members to put their opening statements into the record, and we will reserve time for Mr. Conyers or 

Mr. Smith if they come. 

At this point, we would turn to Dana and then to Joe. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, and I appreciate the 

opportunity to testify. 

Whereas reliable statistics on illegal immigration are notoriously 

hard to come by and to verify, so such a discussion as this is very 

beneficial. 

Contrary to the image many are trying to promote, illegal immigration has had a devastating impact on Social Security. More than 

half of illegal immigrants in our country work for cash under the 

table. So these illegal immigrants do not pay into the Social Security system. And since they are paid in cash, the employers do not 

5

pay their part of the contribution into the Social Security system 

either. 

Another negative effect is that jobs which would have been filled 

by American citizens or legal immigrants are taken away. Without 

a pool of available illegal immigrants, employers would be forced 

to hire legal applicants and cover them under Social Security. 

So Americans are losing jobs to illegals who aren’t paying their 

fair share into the Social Security system. 

Corresponding to this, a flow of illegal labor into our country 

brings down wages in general. Employers who might have paid $10 

to $12 an hour now pay lower wages, which then results in lower 

contributions to the Social Security system. 

There are those, of course, who would think the solution is to legalize all of those who are illegally in the United States and they 

believe that this would solve the Social Security crisis. In fact, legalizing the status of those here illegally will make the Social Security challenge facing America dramatically worse. Any plan that 

specifically gives Social Security to those who have been working 

in this country and have been working here illegally is an invitation to fraud on a massive scale. 

What would stop anyone from claiming that they worked here 

under a false Social Security number? Hundreds of thousands of 

people pay into Social Security under phony numbers, especially 

the number 000-00-0000. How can one prove who it was that used 

a fraudulent Social Security number and who did not use that? So 

it lends itself to even more fraud. 

We already have a huge problem with identity theft and fraudulent identification. Allowing those who have worked illegally in the 

United States to participate in Social Security exponentially increases the incentive for fraud. And of course, we already know 

that the people who have been working here are willing to commit 

identity fraud, because that is how they got the jobs that they are 

working here in the first place, all of those who are not working 

under the table, and even some of them who are working under the 

table. 

Another overlooked consequence is the survivors’ benefit and disability aspect of Social Security. What would stop anyone from 

claiming, ‘‘My spouse worked there under a false number, I am the 

widow, these are my children, start sending the survivors’ benefits 

that we are entitled to’’? 

Remember, billions of people around the world have no retirement system whatsoever. So why assume that only younger immigrants are going to come here to the United States? Why wouldn’t 

someone in their 50’s think, ‘‘I could work in the United States for 

10 years, and Social Security payments would let me live very well 

in my own country’’? 

Furthermore, many people will now be legalized under several 

different proposals who are poor and low-skilled. In fact, over half 

the illegal immigrants coming into our country don’t even have a 

high school education. 

The inconvenient fact is that Social Security pays out more benefits proportionally to lower-wage workers than to higher-paid workers. Thus the projections that I have seen from Social Security asVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:38 Sep 26, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\060607B\35859.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35859
6

1The Subcommittee had not received a written statement at the time of the printing of this 

hearing, 

sumes that immigrants who are coming in have the same earning 

potential as Americans. Well, that is just not true. 

What we have got here is people pouring in who are poorer, who 

will then be receiving more Social Security benefits than they are 

putting in, which is a huge threat to the viability of the Social Security system in the long run. 

The last and most significant point is this. In 1986, after being 

told that we would be legalizing about 1 million people, 3 million 

illegal immigrants ended up being granted amnesty. It is now 20 

years later, and the current illegal immigrant estimates range from 

12 million to 20 million people here illegally. The 20 million figure 

comes not from a Government source, but from a private study conducted on the monies that are sent back through remittances to 

other countries. 

Is there any doubt that legalizing the status of those who come 

here illegally will result in a flood of new illegal immigrants into 

our country? Permitting these legalized immigrants into the Social 

Security system will turbo-charge the flood of illegals into our country. If we legalize 12 million to 20 million now, there will be 45 million to 60 million here in 2027. 

No fence, no wall, no minefield, no system will keep the illegal 

aliens out of this country if we give them a reasonable hope that 

they will receive Government benefits, including retirement, and it 

can be theirs if they just get across the U.S. border and wait us 

out. 

Under such a strain, our Social Security system will not survive. 

It will collapse. Being irrationally benevolent to illegals is a crime 

against our own people. 

And I would like to submit a written statement for the record.1

Ms. LOFGREN. Of course. Thank you, Congressman Rohrabacher. 

We will turn now to our colleague Joe Crowley, with special 

thanks. The Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee had a 

scheduling conflict, and his colleague on the Committee stepped 

into the breach. 

So, Joe, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH CROWLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

YORK 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you for inviting me here today. 

As you point out, I have a particular interest in the issue of immigration as the son of an immigrant as well as the grandson of 

immigrants. And as duly noted by the leadership on our side, Whip 

Clyburn has appointed me as Chief Deputy Whip to work on this 

particular issue. So I am very happy to be here today to speak on 

this issue. 

I believe very strongly in it as well, and I think I have a more 

optimistic view of the contributions of immigrants to the United 

States economically. And I think it is about looking forward, not 

looking backwards, and maybe not even looking at where we are 

7

today but looking at where we are going to be in a number of years 

to come. 

And I am also not here today to make points or criticize in any 

way the Senate bill that they are working through right now. It is 

my hope that they do act on something and don’t retreat but move 

forward and actually pass something, so we can then take something up here, move to a conference and get real, comprehensive 

immigration reform passed. 

But I would point out to the Committee that the CBR report 

shows that comprehensive immigration reform is essential to the 

growth of our economy, and this is why. It is imperative we pass 

a comprehensive immigration reform this year in order to secure 

our borders, sustain a strong economic future for the United States 

and ensure that our country remains a haven for those who seek 

freedom, opportunity and a better way of life for themselves and 

for their families. 

Immigration does not necessarily have to be a drain on the economy, as many would have you believe. Immigrants are not a drain 

on taxpayers in the economy. In fact, they improve many aspects 

of our economy, adding to job creation, increasing our national revenue, and increasing, for example, the revenue going into Social Security and our Social Security fund. 

Look at the jobs they fill, the money they spend, the jobs they 

create. They are essential to our Nation’s future prosperity. An immigrant may take a job that in turn leads to the creation of a job, 

or two jobs, or three jobs. So we are not talking about a fixed pie 

here. 

At the Summit on Retirement Savings hosted by the United 

States Department of Labor, Alan Greenspan stated, ‘‘The larger 

our workforce is in the year 2010 and beyond, the easier producing 

goods and services for both retirees and active workers will be. Immigration policy will therefore be a key component of baby-boom 

retirement policy.’’

For example, people are not joining the workforce at the same 

rate as they were in the 1950’s during the baby-boom era. Passing 

comprehensive immigration reform is necessary because it will 

allow more individuals to join the workforce legally and to add to 

our economy and the benefits that we all enjoy. 

This year it was widely reported that undocumented immigrants 

in New York and throughout our Nation filed taxes in record numbers to start a paper trail with the prospect of Congress overhauling our immigration system. This only proves that comprehensive immigration reform holds the promise of getting more individuals, even those without documentation, to voluntarily pay into the 

system rather than remain an invisible part and outside of that 

system. 

Undocumented immigrant workers already pay an estimated $7 

billion a year into the Social Security system. There can be no better incentive than a common-sense immigration policy to encourage 

more individuals to pay taxes in the hope of getting a foothold in 

the climb toward naturalization. 

Granted, I do agree that some of the undocumented illegal workers today are paid off the books. Some use false Social Security 

8

numbers. Others use false taxpayer I.D. numbers to pay into a system that they will not necessarily get a benefit from in the future. 

No one has yet figured out a way in which we compensate those 

who have already contributed toward the Social Security system 

who are undocumented here in the United States today. 

Immigration will be the primary source of new skilled workers 

for manufacturing, filling 10 million new jobs by the year 2020. An 

inadequate labor force would accelerate the transfer of American 

productive capacity and well-paid manufacturing jobs overseas. Regardless of what Lou Dobbs says, it is not speak in facts but pedals 

fear. 

Look at my district, for instance. Look at my city. It is full of foreign corporations hiring Americans and immigrants assimilating in 

and being a boom to our economy. Failure to attract enough labor 

through immigration will result in lower gross domestic product 

growth by at least 3 percent in 10 years and at least 17 percent 

in 30 years. 

Immigrants are crucial to jobs and the labor force. Growth in the 

1990’s in the new economy of the last decade has overwhelmingly 

depended on male immigrant workers. That is also from Mr. 

Greenspan. 

So in the end, Madam Chair, I applaud the work that you are 

doing trying to develop comprehensive immigration reform that 

takes into account the integrity of our borders, the need to end illegal immigration as we know it today, but also bring about a practical approach toward comprehensive immigration reform that will 

improve the economy of the United States and also the lives of the 

millions who are undocumented here today who want nothing more 

than a better way of life for themselves, for their families, and for 

all Americans. 

And with that, I will have more formal testimony submitted for 

the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crowley is inserted in the Appendix.] 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Without objection, both statements are submitted for the record. 

Let me ask you this, I know how busy everybody’s schedule is. 

We ordinarily go to questions. If you have other obligations, we will 

happily say goodbye. Or if you are able—okay. 

Why don’t we do this? We will start with questions, and then if 

you have conflicts, we understand, and you can leave whenever you 

need to. 

Mr. CROWLEY. And if I don’t like the question I can just leave. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is right. [Laughter.] 

Let me start, if I can. 

That is right. The Ranking Member is correct. I did reserve the 

right for both the Chairman and Ranking Member to give their 

opening statements. And I need to recognize the Ranking Member 

of the full Committee at this time. 

Mr. SMITH. Madam Chair, thank you for letting me go out of 

order. I appreciate you and Ranking Member King in doing so. I 

will only take 1 minute, because I know there is limited time on 

the part of our witnesses, and I know Members have questions. 

9

I just want to make a couple of comments and, on the way there, 

also compliment you, Madam Chair, on being such an activist 

Chairwoman. You have set the record and set the pace for a number of meetings and a number of hearings, and it is all for good 

effect, I believe. 

I want to follow up on what Mr. Rohrabacher said. And I appreciate his testimony as well. 

He made the statement, which is absolutely accurate, that over 

half of all immigrants do not have a high school education. When 

we talk about the impact of immigrants, for instance on Social Security, I think we need to differentiate between those immigrants 

who have no high school education and those who do have, say, a 

college education or above. Their contributions into Social Security 

and what they get from Social Security are obviously going to be 

different. 

And I know later on you are going to have a witness from the 

Social Security Administration. I hope that they will say in open 

court today what they told me on the phone a year ago, and I hope 

they haven’t changed their testimony since that time. 

The discussions I had with the Social Security Administration a 

year ago were that if you took the median age of an immigrant who 

did not have a high school education—and we are talking about 

over half of all immigrants—and you looked at the wages that they 

averaged, which was less than $30,000, over their lifetime they 

would get back more than $100,000 more than they contributed 

into the Social Security trust fund. 

Therefore, every immigrant that does not have a high school education is actually contributing to the destabilization and financial 

insolvency of the Social Security Administration over time. 

We ought to just differentiate between those who contribute and 

have a net positive impact on Social Security and those who are actually going to be getting back over $100,000 more than they put 

in. 

Lastly, when we had more time, I would comment further on the 

impact of immigration on jobs, but every credible study I have seen 

shows that it has a negative impact, particularly on blue-collar 

workers in America and disproportionately on minorities and those 

without a high school education. Those individuals are the ones 

that unfortunately see their wages decline, and there is literally a 

race to the bottom as to how little they can be paid. 

And so I think when we go forward, Madam Chair, we ought to 

take into consideration the adverse impact of those immigrants on 

our American workers. I yearn for a national leader who will stand 

up for the American workers. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman yields back. Now we will return to 

our colleagues for brief questions. 

I, obviously, no matter what conclusions we have reached on the 

subject, I believe that all of us, as Members of Congress, want the 

best thing for our country. I mean, I don’t know of any Member of 

Congress who has come here trying to do something other than the 

best thing for our country. But we have a variety of pieces of information before us and are reaching conclusions based on that information and, in some cases, see the information in a different way. 

10

We asked the Congressional Research Service a series of questions, and, without objection, I will make all of their answers a part 

of the record. 

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

Ms. LOFGREN. But one of the things that the CRS report—and 

I think they are actually quoting the trustee’s report from Social 

Security. On page 15 of the report, they say that, as immigration 

increases, program cost rates decrease. And in a 25-year period, 

2007-2031, with a net immigration per year of 672,500, the cost 

rate is 14.26. If you go up to 900,000, it is 14.3. If it is 1.3 million, 

it is 3.96. 

And they base that assumption, really, on that immigrants tend 

to be young. And thinking back to Ellis Island, our first hearing, 

what they were looking for at Ellis Island in that big period was 

they were looking for young, healthy people who wanted to work 

and who wanted to come and be Americans. 

I think a hundred years have passed and, really, we are kind of 

looking for the same thing: people with enough get-up-and-go to get 

up and go and get here and work and make something for themselves and their family and, in the process, they make something 

for America. And I think that is reflected in the Social Security 

trustees’ report. 

I don’t know, Mr. Crowley, if you have or not—you are kind of 

a pinch-hitter here—whether you have had a chance to take a look 

at the trustees’ report, but certainly the CBO analysis that shows 

a net financial benefit of this immigration, the report that they 

have just released—which, without objection, I will also make a 

part of the record—would seem to show that. 

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

Mr. CROWLEY. I haven’t read the trustees’ report, but I have 

looked over the summary of the CBO report, which does, although 

different years, I believe, does demonstrate the same outcome, and 

that is that benefit to the coffers of the United States. 

I also think it is important to have, of the notion that if somehow 

the 12-million-plus undocumented illegals that are here today were 

to evaporate, who would fill the jobs that would then be created by 

them. 

Clearly—at least in my experience, it has been clear for me—the 

overwhelming number of immigrants who come to the United 

States today are not different than immigrants who came in the 

past, in the sense that their overwhelming drive is to improve their 

state of life and for their families as well. 

They take tremendous risks to come here. They leave family 

members behind, and many of them who have been living here in 

an undocumented fashion have been out of physical contact with 

their loved ones for many, many years. That strength, that courage 

and that drive is something that I think we as Americans want on 

our side, want on our team. 

So I know there are many who would attack those same individuals and say we don’t want them, whatever the reason is. But I 

think they do add tremendously to the value of our society. The 

overwhelming majority are looking to contribute and want to contribute in a more full way, and that is as full legal citizens. 

11

And I would only add that not only are they right now not able 

to have a legal job, they can’t live in a legal apartment, they can’t 

live really in a legal society. They live in a subculture or a Blackmarket society. And I think it is better for all of us. 

I am concerned about terrorism. I am concerned about people 

being exploited. What better way to make them unexploitable than 

by giving them the ability to come out into the light of day and be 

a more practical part of our society? Right now they don’t have that 

opportunity, and that is what I would like to see change more than 

anything else. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would suggest, number one, we are not 

talking about immigration here. We are talking about illegal immigration. Because no one would certainly disagree with the sentiments just expressed about how immigrants have contributed to 

our societies and the great things they have done, the wonderful 

people they generally have been. 

We are talking about illegal immigration here. That is a different 

issue. We bring in more legal immigrants than all the rest of the 

world combined, so we have no apologies to make that we open up 

our borders to legal immigrants. What do we do with the 15 million 

to 20 million people who are here illegally? 

The CBO report that you are talking about, or the CRA report, 

that suggest that, for example, about the Social Security situation, 

that is assuming that the people who have come here as illegals 

have the same earning power as the average Americans workers 

does. Now, I am sorry, their assumption is wrong. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No, actually, I don’t think that is the case. It is 

not fair. I have the report, and I will give it to you, Dana. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think my staff did take my statistics from 

that as well. 

Ms. LOFGREN. On page 15. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But let’s then take what common sense tells 

you. If we take the 15 million to 20 million people who are here 

illegally, we legalize their status and then say, ‘‘The people who are 

here illegally, who came here illegally but now are legalized are 

now eligible to become part of the Social Security system,’’ what is 

to say that those 100 million people or 200 million or even more 

people who would take a message from that across the world who 

are 50 years old and say, ‘‘My gosh, if I can get to the United 

States, they have already legalized these other people and made 

them eligible for Social Security, I will have a retirement’’? 

Ms. LOFGREN. My time is expired. One of the jobs of the Chairperson is to set a good example for staying within the time frame. 

I will just say, whether the United States should apologize is not 

the question. We are trying to find out what is in the best interest 

of America. That is the question for me. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would yield now to the Ranking Member for his 

5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I think that we need to have far more discussion about the longterm implications of what may happen in this Congress this year. 

I do appreciate both of your testimony, to be here today and to 

sit and answer questions as well. 

12

Mr. Crowley, you made a comment that piqued my interest. I 

haven’t had an opportunity, of course, to review the testimony of 

either, which means I have to pay attention, which is a good thing. 

But I am wondering, from a background perspective, could you give 

me some sense of your economic involvement throughout your nonpublic life career? Can you give me some sense what that might be? 

Mr. CROWLEY. In regards to what? 

Mr. KING. What is your profession in the real world? 

Mr. CROWLEY. As was stated in the opening remarks of the 

Chairwoman, I was elected to the State legislature at 24. I was 

pretty much a year out of college when I was elected. So, therefore, 

I did not have the opportunity to be engaged in a full-time way in 

the private sector. Although the State legislature is a part-time position, and during that time I did own a business, a travel agency, 

in Queens County. 

Mr. KING. That gives you a background, and it helps me frame 

this question. As I listed, one of the comments you made was one 

immigrant can take a job and create perhaps as many as two or 

three other jobs. Could you explain how that would happen? 

Mr. CROWLEY. What I am suggesting is that if an immigrant is 

producing a job and is living in a society, for instance in a neighborhood like Jackson Heights, Queens, which I represent, which is 

an immigrant community, those people have to eat. They have a 

job, they earn an income, they provide for their family. I am talking about they go to a grocery store, they have more demand, more 

supplies are needed. The people who stack those shelves, the people who work at the counter. 

Mr. KING. Their spending creates two to three jobs then? 

Mr. CROWLEY. I am saying that potentially, theoretically, if you 

have more people here, more services are required to sustain those 

people, more jobs. 

Mr. KING. I understand your answer, Mr. Crowley, and I thank 

you for that, because I didn’t know the distinction was whether 

they were going to hire those two or three or whether their spending was going to create two or three. It is their spending. 

Mr. CROWLEY. I am talking in terms of common-sense theory. 

Mr. KING. The ripple effect. 

Mr. CROWLEY. If there are more people here, there are more——

Mr. KING [continuing]. I would argue that when you spend a dollar, you don’t create three, but that would be just our disagreement. 

More important, I think the central question is there is something that doesn’t get answered here, and as the chief deputy whip 

on this issue—and I congratulate you for that—the question I am 

wondering if it gets asked and answered on your side of the aisle 

is, is there such a thing as too much immigration, legal or illegal? 

And the components of that are, can we fail to assimilate? Is 

there a number so large of cheap labor that it drags our economy 

down? Any of those components. 

Is there any limit to what might be supported or endorsed on 

your side? And if so, would you consider supporting and endorsing 

an overall cap where we could say, however we rearrange each one 

of the different kinds of visas we have here, in the United States 

13

there is going to be no more than X number for each individual 

year from here on out? 

Mr. CROWLEY. I appreciate the question, Mr. King, and I suppose 

those same questions were asked throughout the history of our 

country. They were certainly asked in the 1840’s when the Irish 

were coming to this country, in the 1850’s when the Germans 

came, and the Italians came later, and the Chinese. That has been 

a question, I think, that has been asked often in the history of the 

United States. 

And my perspective is, my observation is, the moment we stop 

growing as a Nation, we stop growing. 

Mr. KING. How much is too many, though? I know the Irish are 

masters at filibustering, and I am one of those guys like that, so 

my apologies for that ability. But do we have an answer——

Mr. CROWLEY. Well, I am not filibustering. I am answering the 

question, that I think that is a question that has been continued 

to be asked by many within the country that we know as the 

United States today that has expanded over the past few centuries, 

originally starting in the 13 colonies and moving west. 

Mr. KING. As the whip, will your caucus support an overall——

Mr. CROWLEY. Sorry? 

Mr. KING. As a chief deputy whip, will your caucus support an 

overall cap so that we at least know how many we might be legalizing? 

Mr. CROWLEY. Well, that is way above my pay grade right now. 

But what I would suggest is that this is a fluid issue that we are 

going through, and I appreciate the hearings that are being held, 

that you are participating in. I do think these are the questions 

that need to be asked. 

Mr. KING. I am sorry. I am just about out of time. I appreciate 

that. 

I want to turn to Mr. Rohrabacher and ask him if he wants to 

respond to any of those questions that I have laid out there, in the 

few seconds I have left. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think there is a distinct philosophical difference. I think the American people should pay attention to what 

positions people are taking. 

If they think that this massive flood of illegals into our country 

or, even if you just legalize them, that it is not going to cause a 

bigger flood to come in, please pay attention to who is advocating 

what. I believe that is to the great detriment of our people. It is 

hurting our education system. It is threatening our Social Security 

system. 

Our criminal courts in California are just crowded, the criminal 

justice system is breaking down, and this is caused by too large a 

flow of people into our country, an out-of-control flow. And it is not 

in the best interest of our country, and it is not creating better jobs 

or higher-paying jobs for our people. It is bringing wages down. 

Mr. KING. I thank both of the honorable gentlemen and the 

Chair, and I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Ellison, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

14

Let me also thank the two distinguished Members for presenting 

your ideas. Just a few questions that might be a little bit off the 

beaten path of this conversation. 

Could either of you explain what your views are in terms of how 

American trade policy impacts immigration? After the passage of 

NAFTA, in your view, did we see the low-cost, the cheap corn from 

the United States, have an impact on Mexican farms, which then 

led to immigration? 

I mean, we could build a wall as high as we want to, but if a 

Mexican farmer can’t make it, aren’t we driving them to the north? 

Do you guys have any thoughts on that? 

Mr. CROWLEY. I wasn’t here for NAFTA. 

Mr. ELLISON. You can’t duck it like that. [Laughter.] 

Mr. CROWLEY. I am not going to duck it. What I am going to suggest, though, is I think there are a lot of contributory factors into 

what drives immigrants to the United States. 

You are speaking specifically about a trade agreement, which I 

believe NAFTA was Canada and Mexico. The Canadians are not 

coming here in droves. What you are suggesting is that the Mexicans are. 

What I would also suggest is that it is not just Mexicans who are 

coming across that border, that there are others who are looking 

for economic opportunity, that trade policy certainly can have an 

impact on a country’s job market, but I also think there were other 

contributory factors. It could be discrimination, it could be religious 

discrimination, political issues. It could be a hurricane that wipes 

the economy of Central America off the map for a couple of years 

and drives people to come to the United States. 

I think it is a factor. I can’t say specifically whether that particular trade agreement——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Can I answer? 

Mr. ELLISON. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I was here. I voted for NAFTA. 

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And I voted for NAFTA because I felt it 

would help the American and the Mexican economy. 

And to the degree that it has helped the economy of Mexico, 

there are reasons some economists believe that the economy of 

Mexico would be at a lower level now if we wouldn’t have passed 

NAFTA. To that degree, it helped solve some of the problem, some 

of the pull, that we have here into our country, where people who 

are poor in that country are coming here to better themselves. 

But our own policies, what benefits we provide the people of 

Mexico or any other country are just as important as the trade policies. Trade policies will determine a little bit about how prosperous 

the other country is, if they have the ability to earn their own living there. But if we actually offer all of the benefits and treasures 

that belong to the American people to anyone who can come over 

here, they are going to come. 

Mr. ELLISON. I have heard that, and I thank you for sharing it. 

It sounds to me like both you gentlemen pretty much feel like 

trade is really not a factor in driving immigration. Or if it is, it is 

just one among a whole bunch of other factors, and we really can’t 

15

say that American trade policy, particularly with Central and Latin 

America, is driving it. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. To the degree that——

Mr. ELLISON. Let me just tell you this. Mexico imports corn, 

okay, from the United States. And, to me, the missing piece of this 

conversation is this question of how some of our policies on trade 

may benefit multinationals, but those same policies impact people 

at the lower-income scale in both the United States and let’s say 

Mexico for example, in ways that we really haven’t begun to talk 

about yet. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Ellison, I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with 

the point that you are making, although I think the new template 

that has been created under this Democratic caucus and this 

Democratic Party, in the trade agreements that will move forward, 

it will be remarkably different than whatever happened in the 

past. 

Mr. ELLISON. I think you are right. I hope you are right about 

that. 

Mr. CROWLEY. And, number two, I also would suggest—and, you 

know, I watch Lou Dobbs from time to time—that I do notice that 

it moves from immigration to job loss, immigration to job loss, connecting the two somehow. 

Mr. ELLISON. Right. 

Mr. CROWLEY. And not to say that there may not be some impact 

on both trade, on immigration, as it pertains to job loss here in the 

United States, but I do think there is a concerted effort to try to 

somehow mire the immigrant opportunity, blaming them for job 

loss that is taking place in Ohio or in Michigan. 

Mr. ELLISON. The one thing that I want to just say that I agree 

with you wholeheartedly is that I definitely oppose the idea that 

somehow poor people in the United States or working people in the 

United States should look at immigrants as the people to blame for 

their woes. I think that the problem starts at a much higher level, 

and that is how we run our economy. And I think a lot of that has 

to do with globalization and trade policy. 

So that is just my speech. 

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

The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much. 

I would be one who wants us to get an immigration bill finally 

completed, but I find myself at times at odds with everybody involved in this. 

Mr. Crowley, I am trying to find out a little bit of a focus on 

where you are coming from and some that are aligned with you are 

coming from. 

As the Republican floor manager for Simpson-Mazzoli in 1986, I 

was convinced at that time it was the best we could do and that 

we would have a barrier against the continuation of serious illegal 

immigration with employer sanctions and enforcement. And it is 

my observation that we didn’t enforce and we didn’t truly implement employer sanctions. And as a result, the other half of the bargain, which was to legalize a large number of people rather than 

16

settling the issue, became part of the attraction for more to come 

here. 

And now, instead of dealing with 4 million or 5 million illegal 

aliens, we are dealing with 12 million or 14 million. Mr. Rohrabacher has raised it to 20 million. I don’t know by the time we 

finish the debate how high the number will be, but there are a 

larger number. 

So I would just ask you, Mr. Crowley, is that a concern, and 

should that be a concern—that is, the continuation of illegal immigration into the country? 

Mr. CROWLEY. What I would like to see, if I were in the driver’s 

seat on this legislation, is that it needs to be done in a holistic approach. It cannot just be about addressing the issue of the 12 million undocumented without also addressing the porous nature of 

our border. 

And actually I think there is a third aspect to this, and that is 

helping people. It drives toward Mr. Ellison’s comments, and that 

is helping people in their country of origin stay in their country of 

origin. 

So in response to your question, I do think it is an issue that 

needs to be addressed, but it also has to be done at the same time 

we have actual real enforcement. 

It is getting a little far afield from what we are talking about 

today, specifically, but I would envision and I hope that we have 

a conference report that we all get to vote on and the President has 

a chance to sign that it is one that recognizes that we need to take 

care of the security of the 12-million-plus undocumented who live 

here in the United States and at the same time address the security of the boundaries of our country. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Okay. Well, in attempting to do that, the Senate 

bill, at least as it started on the floor, gave a January 1, 2007, date 

as the eligibility for those who would then be given a legal status. 

Would you agree with that date? 

Mr. CROWLEY. Well, I guess you have to start somewhere. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I understand that. I am asking whether you 

agree. 

Mr. CROWLEY. I have yet to determine whether or not that will 

be the date that I will support. That is the Senate’s bill. The House 

will have a bill, and we will see what the date is there, and when 

we go to conference we will——

Mr. LUNGREN. What would be the basis of your consideration for 

that? 

Mr. CROWLEY. I think at this point we should consider anyone 

who is in the country at the point the bill is passed as a matter 

of a practical approach to it. 

Mr. LUNGREN. You realize saying that would encourage people to 

come across now in hopes that a bill is going to pass. 

Mr. CROWLEY. I think that people are anticipating we are going 

to be passing a bill anyway. So, you know, the reality is we will 

have a new class of undocumented who are living in the United 

States. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Then you would disagree with those who say that 

if we make a legalization program available, it ought to be only for 

those who have actual true roots in the community—that is, who 

17

have, in the balance of equities, been here long enough such that 

they have put their roots down, they have connected here for a sufficient period of time, that it would be difficult for them to go back. 

You would reject that notion? 

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Lungren, what I would suggest is that there 

will be a date in place. Again, you are asking me my personal feeling. There will be a date——

Mr. LUNGREN. No, I understand that. I am trying to figure out 

what we need to do, what principles you would bring to bear on 

that——

Mr. CROWLEY. And I will answer the question. What will happen 

is there will be a date in place, whether it is January 1, 2007, or 

some other date, that will be the delineation mark as to when people would have had to have been here, and then move forward. 

I think that to suggest that we do anything other than that and 

to do nothing at all would just simply not deal with the 12 million 

undocumented. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I am not suggesting doing nothing at all. I have 

a bill that says if they have been here for 5 years or more, because 

that is roots—I talked to one of our good Democratic friends and 

he says he supports that January 1st date. I said, ‘‘That is not 

roots.’’ He said, ‘‘Well, you know, at least it is beginning to have 

some life there.’’

Ms. LOFGREN. I think the word was ‘‘sprouts.’’

Mr. LUNGREN. ‘‘Sprouts.’’

I think we are all here, as far as I can tell, came from ancestors 

who came from somewhere else. So I think we are all dedicated to 

the sense of immigration. But there is also something we are dedicated to, which is the rule of law. And in coming to a bill, we have 

to somehow balance that love and dedication to an immigrant nation with a sense of a country of laws. 

And if we lose that, that could undermine—I mean, Father 

Hesburgh said a number of years ago something which I think 

would be a good guidance for us when he was the co-chair of the 

commission on immigration set up by Jimmy Carter. He said, ‘‘We 

have to close the back door of illegal immigration so that we can 

keep the front door of legal immigration open.’’ And I hope we remember that. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Well, I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with the 

good father, but I would also suggest we have to do what is practical as well. And I don’t know if it is necessarily practical to go 

just back 5 years. I think what we are creating is another class of 

undocumented in the United States that we will have as difficult 

a time dealing with as we are with the 12 million right now. 

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

And I am going to thank our colleagues for taking the time out 

of what we know is extremely busy days to share your testimony 

and your thoughts and also your willingness to stay and be a witness and answer questions. 

We are going to ask the second panel to come forward, if we may. 

I would like to introduce them. 

First on the panel, I am pleased to introduce Dr. Ruth Ellen 

Wasem, a specialist, some might actually say the specialist, in immigration policy with the Congressional Research Service at the LiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:38 Sep 26, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\060607B\35859.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35859
18

brary of Congress. Dr. Wasem first came to Washington as a public 

health service fellow with the Office of Population Affairs in the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. For 20 years, 

however, she has worked with the Congressional Research Service. 

Since 2000, she has led the policy analysts, attorneys and researchers who work on immigration. She earned her bachelor’s degree 

from Muskingum College and both her master’s and doctorate degrees from the University of Michigan. 

I am also pleased to welcome Dr. Ronald Bird, who is the chief 

economist and the director of the Office of Economic Policy and 

Analysis under the Assistant Secretary for Policy at the U.S. Department of Labor. Prior to his work at the Labor Department, Dr. 

Bird served as Chief Economist at the Employment Policy Foundation and at DynCorp’s Consulting Services Division. He has held 

faculty positions at the University of Alabama, North Carolina 

State University, Meredith College, and Wesleyan College. He 

earned his bachelor’s degree from Huntingdon College and his 

Ph.D. in economics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel 

Hill. 

I am also pleased to introduce Michael Hoefer, the director of the 

Office of Immigration Statistics, or OIS, in the Policy Directorate 

at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Hoefer began 

his work with OIS in 1982 and has led the office since 1997. He 

began his career in public service with the Bureau of Labor Statistics and was detailed at the U.S. Commission of Immigration during its operation. He graduated from Cornell University in 1976 

with a degree in industrial and labor relations with a concentration 

in statistics. 

And, finally, we are pleased to welcome Charles Oppenheim to 

the Subcommittee. He is chief of the Visa Control and Reporting 

Division at the Department of State. Mr. Oppenheim has worked 

at the State Department for nearly 30 years, beginning as a consular officer in the Bureau of Consular Affairs. He is the agency’s 

expert in visa database management and statistical reporting. A 

native of Richmond, Virginia, Mr. Oppenheim graduated from the 

University of Richmond. 

Now, as you know, your full written statements will be part of 

our formal record. We would ask that you summarize your testimony in about 5 minutes. When the yellow light goes on, that 

means you only have a minute left. When your time is up, if you 

could summarize, that would be great. 

This is a wonderful opportunity for us really to hear from the experts in our own Government about—no one knows better than you 

do what the actual statistics are. And so, I think your answers to 

our questions can be definitive, and for that we thank you, not only 

for being here today but for your public service, which does count 

a great deal to all of us in the Congress. 

So if we can begin, Dr. Wasem? 

TESTIMONY OF RUTH ELLEN WASEM, Ph.D., SPECIALIST IN 

IMMIGRATION POLICY, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE 

Ms. WASEM. Thank you, Madam Chairman, distinguished Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. 

19

I am Ruth Wasem, as you said, a specialist in immigration policy 

at the Congressional Research Service. 

I am going to breeze through the written testimony I have prepared by highlighting just a few of the figures in that testimony. 

First, let’s take a look at Figure 1, and that is on page 1 in my 

written testimony. In that, you can see the trend lines in the foreign-born population. Now, this data is census data and population 

data that is based on those censuses and statistical samples. As 

you can see, we are at the highest point in our history in terms 

of the sheer number of foreign-born, and in 2005 that was about 

36 million. 

The main component of the foreign-born that I have depicted 

here are as follows: About 35 percent are estimated to have naturalized. This is based on their self-report. We estimate that about 

30 percent in 2005 are legal permanent residents. About 31 percent 

are estimated to be unauthorized aliens, and I will talk about that 

a little bit more. And, finally, about 2 percent are estimated—

again, I am saying estimated as indirect estimation techniques—to 

be people who are here on legal temporary visas that allow them 

to stay here long enough to establish a residence. By that I mean 

investors, intra-company transfers, non-immigrants of that sort. 

Let’s move on then to Figure 3, and this is on page 3 of my testimony, because this is a figure that depicts that 30 percent I talked 

about that were legal permanent residents. These are the annual 

numbers of individuals who get LPR status, and it is a trend line 

from 1900 up until 2005. And as you can see, the LPR numbers at 

the beginning of this century are approximating what they were at 

the beginning of the 20th century. 

When we speak of LPRs, it is important to get a sense of what 

the components of that population are, and that is why I would like 

you to take a quick look at Figure 6, and that is on page 6 in my 

written testimony. This is the 2005 class of admission. And you can 

see quite obviously here that the largest single group of people who 

come into the country are family-based immigrants, 57.8 percent in 

that particular fiscal year. A distant second are the 22 percent who 

come in as employment-based. 

I am going to focus even more on those two classes in the next 

figures that I am going to highlight, and these are Figures 7 and 

8 from the testimony. These show trend lines over the last decade 

in family-based admissions and employment-based. 

In Figure 7, which are the family-based, you will see that the 

ones that are part of the preference category, which I have labeled 

as first, second, and third, and that is really the brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens, the adult children of U.S. citizens, and the immediate family of legal permanent residents, those individuals 

have come in at about the same rate over the last decade, but they 

are numerically limited. 

The category where we have seen the substantial growth are the 

immediate relatives, and that is the one category in the immigration act which is unlimited. 

When we look at the employment-based trends, which I have in 

Figure 8—and I have only done the top three preference categories 

because the other numbers are too small to discern in a figure such 

as this—you can see that we have growth over the entire decade 

20

in all the categories, but the main area of growth is in what we 

would call the third preference category. Those are the professionals, the skilled and the unskilled workers. 

Now let’s turn to what I promised I would speak to, and that is 

figure 13, which is on page 15 in my report. And I am skipping way 

ahead to talk a little bit about the component of unauthorized migration. 

Because of the previous discussion, I will point out there is a variety of different demographers whose estimates I have in this 

chart. However, the thing they have in common is they are all 

working with the same basic data source, which is the Current 

Population Survey, and they are all using a similar methodology, 

a residual methodology. That way, I wanted something so we really 

could look at trends over time. 

As you can see, much like the other graphs I have shown you, 

the trend line is upward. In 2005, we had estimates ranging from 

10.5 million to 11.1 million. The number that is thrown around 

today, of course, is 12 million. 

Let me briefly say what those components are. In terms of what 

I talk about as the unauthorized population, this is who I am precisely referring to. I am referring to people who entered this country without inspection, I am referring to people who entered this 

country with a fraudulent document, and the people who came here 

with a legitimate visa but overstayed the terms of that visa. 

Finally, I am going to just do a quick snapshot of something that 

we often neglect to talk about when we talk about immigrant admissions, and that is the grounds for inadmissibility. 

And on page 20 of my written testimony I present Figure 16. 

This time I am moving to State Department data. Before I have 

done census data, I used DHS administrative data. Now this is 

what the consular officers use. These are the number of immigrants in 2005 and non-immigrants that were denied a visa on the 

grounds for inadmissibility set in the immigration act. 

And you can see from this chart, trying to have an employmentbased visa without a proper work authorization was the principle 

grounds. Public charge and having been removed in the past was 

the second and third most often grounds. 

I will conclude my remarks, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wasem follows:]

21

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RUTH ELLEN WASEM


REW-1.eps
22


REW-2.eps
23


REW-3.eps
24


REW-4.eps
25


REW-5.eps
26


REW-6.eps
27


REW-7.eps
28


REW-8.eps
29


REW-9.eps
30


REW-10.eps
31


REW-11.eps
32


REW-12.eps
33


REW-13.eps
34


REW-14.eps
35


REW-15.eps
36


REW-16.eps
37


REW-17.eps
38


REW-18.eps
39


REW-19.eps
40


REW-20.eps
41


REW-21.eps
42


REW-22.eps
43


REW-23.eps
44


REW-24.eps
45


REW-25.eps
46

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much for really a very voluminous 

report which I read with great interest, and with the color charts 

it was very helpful. 

Dr. Bird? 

TESTIMONY OF RONALD BIRD, Ph.D., CHIEF ECONOMIST AND 

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ECONOMIC POLICY AND ANALYSIS, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mr. BIRD. Thank you. I am tempted to yield my time to Dr. 

Wasem to continue. 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify here today. My name is Ronald 

Bird, and I am chief economist in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy at the U.S. Department of Labor. 

I am here today at your request to provide information regarding 

demographics of the U.S. labor force. 

The American labor force is large, diverse and dynamic. At over 

152 million workers in May of 2007, the U.S. labor force is the 

third-largest among the Nations of the world, behind only China 

and India. 

The U.S. labor market is healthy. Unemployment in May 2007 

was a low 4.5 percent. And we have enjoyed 45 consecutive months 

of job growth, with payroll employment growing by 8 million jobs 

since the post-recession employment low in August 2003. 

Unemployment today is below historical averages. Since 1950, 

the unemployment rate has averaged 5.6 percent, compared to today’s 4.5 percent. 

The U.S. labor force grew significantly over the past half-century. 

Between 1950 and 2006, the labor force increased from 62.2 million 

to 151.4 million, a 143 percent increase that saw 89.2 million new 

workers absorbed into the economy. 

During the 1970’s, the labor force grew at an average annual 

rate of 2.7 percent. Since then, the growth of the labor force has 

slowed to an annual average of 1.7 percent in the 1980’s and 1.2 

percent since 1995. 

The Bureau of Labor and Statistics’ projections show continuing 

declines in the rate of labor force growth with annual growth slowing to eight-tenths of 1 percent by 2014. 

At the same time, the immigrant labor force portion of the labor 

force is growing. Current population survey estimates of the labor 

force status of the foreign-born do not distinguish between the documented and undocumented population. However, we do know that 

immigrants as a whole are a significant and growing component of 

the U.S. labor force. 

In 2006, 23.1 million foreign-born workers comprised 15.3 percent of the U.S. labor force. The foreign-born component has increased by 8.7 million since 1996. Foreign-born workers accounted 

for about half of the 17.3 million total increase in the labor force 

from 1996 to 2006. 

The unemployment rate for foreign-born workers was 4 percent 

in 2006 compared with an average unemployment rate of 4.7 percent for native-born workers on average over the 12 months of 

2006. 

47

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity comprised 50 percent of the foreign-born labor force in 2006, and 22 percent was Asian origin. 

In terms of educational attainment, 28 percent of the foreignborn labor force 25 years and older had not completed high school, 

compared with about 6 percent of the native-born labor force. 

About equal proportions of both the foreign-born and native-born 

had bachelor’s degrees, about one-third of each. 

Median weekly earnings of Hispanic, foreign-born, full-time-wage 

and salary workers were about 75 percent of the earnings of native-born Hispanics working full-time, while foreign-born workers 

with at least a bachelor’s degree had median weekly earnings 

about identical to those of native-born college graduates in 2006. 

I hope it is helpful. I will be pleased to address your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bird follows:]

48

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RONALD BIRD


RB-1.eps
49


RB-2.eps
50


RB-3.eps
51


RB-4.eps
52


RB-5.eps
53


RB-6.eps
54

Ms. LOFGREN. Dr. Bird, it is helpful. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hoefer? 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL HOEFER, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE 

OF IMMIGRATION STATISTICS (OIS), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. HOEFER. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking 

Member King, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the role of the Office of 

Immigration Statistics, OIS, at the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security, to provide an overview of our recent immigrant population estimates and to answer any additional questions you may 

have. 

OIS is part of the DHS Policy Directorate and our mission is to 

lead the development of statistical information useful in making 

decisions and analyzing the effects of immigration in the United 

States. We publish reports each year on recent trends in legal immigration, persons naturalized, and aliens apprehended and removed from the United States. We primarily use administrative 

data collected through the DHS components. 

We also provide analyses and estimates to support policy-makers 

as they work to understand immigration needs and trends before 

setting policy. For example, on the number of foreign residents in 

the United States by legal status, as already has been mentioned 

in most of the surveys, that information is not collected, so we need 

to estimate those numbers. 

I want to start by briefly summarizing our recent estimates, beginning with the number of persons who may be in the United 

States unlawfully. We at the OIS estimate that there were approximately 10.5 million unlawful residents in the United States as of 

January 1, 2005, and project that there may be as many as 12 million as of today. 

About 57 percent of the unlawful residents are from Mexico, and 

nearly half of the 12 million residents live in California, Texas, or 

Florida. The average annual net growth in the number of unlawful 

residents has been 500,000 per year since 1990. DHS has not estimated other characteristics of this difficult-to-measure population. 

Turning to legal immigration, the DHS has granted lawful permanent resident status to an average of 1.1 million persons during 

the past 3 years. More than four out of 10 of these immigrants are 

immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are admitted without limitation. 

The next leading categories are family-sponsored preference immigrants at about 19 percent, employment-based preference immigrants at 17 percent, and refugees and asylees at 13 percent. 

About one of four immigrants derives their status through a 

spouse or parent. For example, an employment principal who 

comes into the United States may bring their spouses and children. 

We estimate there are approximately 11.6 million lawful permanent residents in the United States as of October 2004 and that 8 

million were eligible to naturalize. Approximately 60 percent of 

those who were admitted legally during the 1970’s and 1980’s have 

naturalized as of 2005. 

55

More recent immigrants are naturalizing sooner than earlier immigrants, though it is not known whether this will result in lifetime naturalization rates higher than 60 percent. 

About 33 percent of immigrants admitted before 1986 had naturalized after 10 years, while between 45 and 50 percent of immigrants admitted from 1992 to 1995 had naturalized after 10 years 

of residence. 

In addition to the immigrants that have been admitted and are 

living in the United States, there are other aliens who have applied 

for but are waiting to obtain lawful permanent resident status. The 

total number of petitioners for LPR status who are waiting to immigrate must be estimated because there is little information available on the number with an approved petition who are already in 

the United States or on the number with a pending petition at 

USCIS who may be living either inside or outside the United 

States. 

My colleague from the State Department is going to talk about 

those who have approved petitions who are awaiting abroad. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. I 

am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoefer follows:]

56

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HOEFER


MH-1.eps
57


MH-2.eps
58


MH-3.eps
59


MH-4.eps
60


MH-5.eps
61


MH-6.eps
62

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

We will turn now to Mr. Oppenheim. 

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES OPPENHEIM, CHIEF, VISA CONTROL 

AND REPORTING DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. Hello. Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member 

King, and distinguished Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer your questions and provide 

an overview of the immigrant visa control and reporting program 

which is operated by the Department of State. 

The Department of State is responsible for administering the 

provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act which relate to 

the numerical limitations on immigrant visa number use, and I will 

briefly describe that process. 

At the beginning of each month, the Visa Office receives a report 

from each consular office abroad listing the total of documentarily 

qualified immigrants who are subject to numerical limitation. 

These cases are provided by foreign state chargeability, preference, 

class, and priority date. 

The foreign state chargeability refers to the per country limitation to which the immigrant visa applicant will be charged and is 

generally the foreign state or dependent area to which the applicant was born. Exceptions are provided for a child or a spouse to 

prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which neither parent was a native or resident. 

Alternate chargeability is desirable in the issuance of visas when 

a parent or spouse has a more advantageous place of birth than 

that of the applicant’s. The preference is the visa class established 

by the Immigration and Nationality Act to which the applicant may 

be assigned based on relationship to U.S. citizens, legal permanent 

residents or employment status. 

Immigrant classifications fall into two basic categories: unlimited, such as immediate relatives, and numerically limited, such as 

family employment cases. The preference classes which are being 

discussed today are strictly the numerically limited. 

The priority date is normally the date on which the petition to 

accord the applicant immigrant status was filed. 

The Visa Office subdivides the annual preference and foreign 

state limitations specified by the Immigration Nationality Act into 

monthly allotments. The totals of qualified applicants which have 

been reported to the Visa Office are compared each month with the 

numbers available for the next regular allotment. 

The determination of visa number availability requires the consideration of several variables. These include past number use, estimates of future number use, return rates, and estimates of U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services demand based on cut-off date 

movements. 

If sufficient numbers are available in a particular category to satisfy all qualified demand, the category is considered ‘‘current.’’ For 

example, if the monthly allocation target is 10,000 and we only 

have 5,000 applicants, then the category can become ‘‘current.’’

Whenever the total of qualified applicants in a category exceeds 

the supply of numbers available for a particular month, the catVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:38 Sep 26, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\060607B\35859.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35859
63

egory is considered to be ‘‘oversubscribed,’’ and a visa availability 

cut-off date is established. The cut-off date is the priority date of 

the first qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a 

visa number that month. 

For example, if the monthly target were once again 10,000 and 

we had 25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cutoff date so that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated, and the 

cut-off date would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant. 

Therefore, only persons with a priority date earlier than the established cut-off date are entitled to allotment of a visa number. 

Once the above factors have been taken into consideration, the 

cut-off dates for the following month are established. They are immediately transmitted to overseas posts and the U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services Office and are also published in the 

‘‘Visa Bulletin’’ and online at the consular affairs Web site. 

I have submitted a copy of the latest ‘‘Visa Bulletin’’ for the 

record. 

Visa allotments for the month that are transmitted to posts must 

be returned if they are not used, and the numbers are provided in 

priority date order with the oldest reported first. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Office requests are based 

on an adjustment of status cases for which all clearance processing 

has been completed. 

The National Visa Center, which is located in Portsmouth, New 

Hampshire, provides administrative support for the U.S. embassies 

and consulates abroad that process immigrant visas. Approved immigrant visa petitions are sent by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services directly to this center for initial screening, recordkeeping instructions to visa applicants prior to being forwarded to 

overseas posts for further processing. 

If an applicant’s party date does not allow the case to be forwarded overseas, then the petition is stored at the center. 

As of March 27, 2007, over 2.7 million active family immigrant 

cases were on file at the National Visa Center and almost 60,000 

employment-based applicants were on file at the center. These totals include both principal applicants and their derivatives and 

spouses since each requires the use of a visa number. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today and would welcome any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Oppenheim follows:]

64

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES OPPENHEIM


CO-1.eps
65


CO-2.eps
66


CO-3.eps
67


CO-4.eps
68

ATTACHMENT


CO-5.eps
69


CO-6.eps
70


CO-7.eps
71


CO-8.eps
72


CO-9.eps
73


CO-10.eps
74


CO-11.eps
75


CO-12.eps
76

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Oppenheim. 

And thanks to all of the witnesses. 

We will now begin questions, and I will begin with some questions that I don’t know, hopefully you can answer. 

Dr. Wasem, looking at your Figure 7, trends in family-based immigration, you outline the growth in the immediate relative category. 

And I remember during the markup of the 1996 Act there was 

a discussion, just a little trip down memory road, on what kind of 

constraints would be put on the spouses of American citizens. And 

one of the most conservative Members of the Committee all of the 

sudden said, ‘‘Wait a minute. We are not going to do that. It has 

not ever been the job of the Federal Government to tell American 

citizens who they get to marry.’’

And that is really the origin, I think, philosophically, of the immediate relative category, that Americans are free to fall in love 

and marry whoever they want. But it is a slightly different issue 

with parents. 

Are you able to separate out the parents from the spouses, minor 

children, in that graph? 

Ms. WASEM. I do not have that data with me. I don’t know if Michael might. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Do you have it, Mr. Hoefer? 

Mr. HOEFER. In my testimony there is a Table 1, which shows 

the average annual numbers from 2004 to 2006, so it is recent 

data. But out of an average of 478,000 immediate relatives that 

come in each year of those 3 years, 93,000 were parents, 284,000 

approximately——

Ms. LOFGREN. Of the immediate relatives? 

Mr. HOEFER. Yes, were spouses, and 101,000 were children. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay, that is very helpful. I overlooked that. 

Let me ask you, Mr. Hoefer, you mentioned naturalization rates 

are going up, and we had a discussion here several hearings ago 

when one of the witnesses suggested that the rate of naturalization 

was actually declining. 

Mr. HOEFER. I think probably part of the confusion here is I am 

talking about people who are legal immigrants. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Who are able. 

Mr. HOEFER. Who are able. So if you are looking at population 

data, such as through the Census or the American Communities 

Survey, it includes illegal aliens, it includes people who aren’t eligible. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So your percentage is of the people who are legally 

able to apply to become a citizen, that rate is increasing. 

Mr. HOEFER. That is right. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. That is helpful. Thank you. 

Dr. Wasem, your Figure 14, I am wondering if we have this data. 

In the 1986 chart, it lists North and South America together as 23 

percent, but in 2005 it shows, by the way, that immigration from 

Mexico is dropping substantially, as a percentage——

Ms. WASEM. As a percentage. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. As a percentage, from 69 percent to 

56 percent. But Latin America is now a separate category, and 

inexplicably Canada is linked with Europe. 

77

Do we know if those are apples to apples instead of apples to oranges, how those trends go? 

Ms. WASEM. I don’t. These were estimates, because the 1986 data 

was done by different researchers using the same basic methodological approach and data sources, but they did cut the regions of 

the countries and the world differently. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Does anybody else have that, or could it be easily 

obtained? I don’t want to create a huge workload, but if there is 

a figure that is readily available, I would appreciate it. 

Ms. WASEM. If it was readily available, I probably would have 

used it. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I see. 

Mr. HOEFER. You are referring to illegal as opposed to legal immigrants? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes. 

Mr. HOEFER. I have some data here that I can share with you 

for 2000 versus 2005, but that is——

Ms. LOFGREN. Perhaps after the hearing, that can be provided. 

I am interested in the inadmissibility grounds on Figure 16. By 

far, the greatest on the bar chart is immigration violations. And I 

am interested—I am sure it is many things, but one of the questions that people have suggested is that the 3-and 10-year bars actually ended up being a substantial issue for immediate relatives. 

And you hear that the waivers are backing up and the like. 

Can you address that, Mr. Oppenheim? Do you know the answer? 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. Not specifically on that. I could get back to you 

with the data. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would appreciate that. 

Do you know, Dr. Wasem, on Figure 16? 

Ms. WASEM. I do not know. I am looking at my tables in the appendices, where I have some trend lines from 2000, 2002. And this 

is something that has changed over time in terms of the difference 

it makes, but I haven’t gone far enough back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, again, I don’t want to give a major research 

project to any of you, but if you have that information readily available, I would be very interested in receiving it. 

I just note, when we were at Ellis Island, before the hearing we 

went through a tour of the museum, and I wish I had taken a picture of it, but there was a plaque, and it said, in the year 1902, 

the population of the cities of New York, Chicago, St. Louis and 

several others—I don’t remember all of them—75 percent of the 

population of those cities were either immigrants or the children of 

immigrants. 

Is that true in any city in America today? Do you know? 

Ms. WASEM. I wouldn’t be surprised. I don’t know. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is a surprise question. Perhaps the answer 

can come later. 

Ms. WASEM. Yes. It is worth looking up, though. We could look 

that up. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. King, it is your turn for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

You have piqued my interest on a number of things here, the 

witnesses as well as the questioning you had. And I probably have 

a picture of that, if I could dig through my files. 

78

I would first turn to Mr. Hoefer, because I recall some numbers 

that were brought before this panel some time, a couple of weeks 

ago, with regard to the naturalization rate. And your testimony 

stated that U.S. census naturalization rates included also illegal 

population that were not eligible for naturalization. 

And the numbers that we had before this panel a couple of weeks 

ago were that in 1970 there was an 82 percent naturalization rate, 

and that incrementally dropped from 82 percent down to the year—

each census year, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. By the year 2000, 

they had gone down to a 13 percent naturalization rate. 

And so, as I hear your testimony on this, it would be an important distinction if one included illegal immigrants. And yet when 

I look at USCIS’s report and it states here clearly that for the year 

2002—and remember, the year 2000 had 13 percent naturalization 

rate had gone from 82 percent to 13 percent over that 30-year period. 

But 2002, the numbers show this: LPR population, 2002, 11.4 

million; population eligible to naturalize, 2002, 7.8 million; number 

of persons naturalized in fiscal year 2002, 573,000, which rolls out 

to be 7.3 percent. 

So that would indicate that the eligible population numbers from 

USCIS did not include those that were not eligible for naturalization. 

How would you respond to those numbers from USCIS? 

Mr. HOEFER. Well, everything you said was true. 

What we have done to get these naturalization rates is follow cohorts through time. So we looked at people that became in 1970, 

1980 and followed them through time and matched them with their 

naturalization record. 

When you look at a point in time, you are looking at, if you use 

Census data, you are looking at people who are illegal. The CIS report that you were mentioning, there are many people over time 

that don’t naturalize, but eventually we find that about 60 percent 

do. So some of those people, the 8 million, they are just newly eligible, so they haven’t naturalized yet. It takes them time. 

What we find is about half of those who are going to naturalize 

do so within the first 10 years, but there are people that naturalize——

Mr. KING. That is by their own report, though, if I also hear you 

testimony on that. 

Mr. HOEFER. Yes. 

Mr. KING. And this USCIS report would be statistically those 

that are eligible for naturalization. The user survey numbers 

are——

Mr. HOEFER. No, they are not. What we have done is we have 

matched the individual record of legal immigration to the individual record of naturalization. 

Mr. KING. Would you then disagree with a conclusion that one 

can draw from USCIS’s report that it goes from 82 percent in 1970 

down to 7 percent in the year 2002? 

Mr. HOEFER. I don’t think that the USCIS report says that. 

Mr. KING. I have got it here, and I would be happy to introduce 

it into the record. I ask unanimous consent to do so. 

Mr. HOEFER. Okay. 

79

Mr. KING. But I would just say that I really wish we didn’t have 

this kind of a trend to look at. And even if we are looking at, whatever is a number between yours and mine, it is a bad sign from 

an assimilation prospect that we don’t see more enthusiasm for 

naturalization. That is the conclusion that I would draw, and 

maybe draw a truce there on that disagreement. 

Mr. HOEFER. Respectfully, I believe the naturalization rate is increasing, and what is happening is that people do emigrate and 

leave the country. I think the census data shows people who immigrated in 1980 who are still here, and many of those people do naturalize. So that is the reason you see that trend going down. 

But it really, if you look at the cohorts, the naturalization rate 

is——

Mr. KING. We will have both numbers in the record, Mr. Hoefer, 

and I appreciate your position on this. 

And I turn to our economic analyst here, Mr. Bird, and I want 

to put a little philosophy out there to you. And since you are an 

analyst, not just a person who reports statistics but someone who 

can analyze it, would you agree or disagree with this statement 

that I am about to make, and that is that the sum total of the economic strength of a Nation is directly proportional to the average 

individual productivity of its people? 

Mr. BIRD. Well, I think that is a reasonable statement to make. 

Human capital is a very important part of the total productive assets of a Nation. And certainly our prosperity, our ability to grow, 

to produce the goods and services we produce, depends on our productivity, and that depends on both our physical capital and our 

human capital. 

Right now, today, or in the latest data I have calculated is 2004, we produce about $40, a little over $40 of output per hour of effort 

in America, and that is almost the highest in the world, and that 

is the product of our human and physical capital, combined effort. 

Mr. KING. I have a follow-up question in writing. I have to yield 

back to the Chair. 

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

The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Bird, one of the things that has bedeviled me for a long time, 

from the first time I was in Congress to this time in Congress, is 

the significantly higher unemployment rates we have in the African-American community than the rest of the community, and particularly with young, Black males. 

When I was in my other job as attorney general of California, the 

figure was often brought up to me that we have a disproportionate 

percentage of young, Black males that are incarcerated. And as we 

would examine that problem, one of the suggestions was a lack of 

economic opportunity. 

I would like to ask a question about whether you have given us 

some figures about the overall African-American unemployment 

rate. Do you have the unemployment rate for males, 20 to 35, in 

the various categories that you have that is White, African-American, Asian and Hispanic? 

Mr. BIRD. I do not have those numbers with me today, but they 

are available, and I could provide those. 

80

Mr. LUNGREN. Would it be correct to say that African-American 

unemployment for males from 20 to 35 is significantly higher than 

that for Whites and for Asians? 

Mr. BIRD. I would presume that may be the case, yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Do you have any figures that break down according to industry? I would be very interested in the construction industry. 

Mr. BIRD. Congressman, there is data that can be compiled, and 

some of this is already tabulated routinely by the Bureau of Labor 

and Statistics, that reports from the current population survey the 

percentage of people who are unemployed with respect to their previously reported industry. That could be compiled. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Let me tell you where I am trying to go, and 

maybe you can give me some help on where I would get the proper 

information. 

Back in the early 1970’s, I worked in construction while I was 

going to law school, and it was in southern California. And it was 

unusual on the construction job site, at least from my observation 

in southern California, for people who were speaking other than 

English and were Hispanic, and in some cases, just because of conversations I had with them, were in this country without the benefit of papers. 

We had Hispanics working in the workforce, but they were second and third generation in construction, and it appeared to me, 

and maybe I am wrong, that African-Americans were a higher percentage in the workforce in construction then than they are now. 

And again, this anecdotal. Now it appears to me we have a far 

greater percentage of Spanish-speaking individuals in the construction trades than we had then, a significant increase in that. Obviously I don’t go around and ask people, you know, are you here legally or not here legally, but it has been suggested to me that a 

significant percentage are here illegally. 

And as I look at an immigration fix, I am one of those who believes we have to have a temporary worker program. I think we 

have proven that we need that in the area of agriculture. But I am 

one of those who believes that perhaps you could show a loss of job 

or job opportunity for the African-American community, particularly young males in construction, as a result of the presence of illegal aliens in the United States. 

I don’t have data to try and be able to assess that. Could you 

give me some help as to what data might be available so at least 

I could have something to look at to see whether the trends are in 

the direction I think they are or whether my assumptions or conclusions have no merit? 

Mr. BIRD. Well, of course at this time I don’t have any data with 

me to answer whether your presumption is correct or not. However, 

at least some of what you are asking for I believe can be addressed 

by looking at our current population survey and perhaps some 

other data survey sources with our colleagues at Bureau of Labor 

and Statistics. And I would be happy to work with your staff subsequently to develop that and get that to you. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I would appreciate that. That would help us, because we are in a very controversial, to say the least, controversial 

subject here. And one of the elements of it is a temporary worker 

81

program, and one of those elements is what kind of a temporary 

worker program. 

And as you analyze it, you hear those that say illegal immigration has no impact whatsoever on job opportunities for native-born 

Americans or Americans who are here on a legal basis and other 

who say it has everything to do with it. 

And I have a sense of what I believe is true based on my own 

observations and anecdotal information, but I don’t have any raw 

data or examined data. 

Mr. BIRD. The data that I am thinking about will not address the 

documented versus undocumented. But it may be possible to develop some data that addresses the construction industry in particular in terms of race, ethnicity, foreign-born status——

Mr. LUNGREN. What about native-born versus——

Mr. BIRD. Native-born versus foreign-born status, perhaps, but 

not going back as far because that distinction has not been collected in the data except since 1997, I believe, so we have a shorter 

time frame there on that, and the ethnicity has not been collected 

for that every year. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I hope 

that we can work with you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time is expired. And, really, all 

time is expired. 

I would like to thank these witnesses. 

I will note that, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit additional written questions to each of you, and 

the Committee will forward those questions. We ask that you answer as promptly as you can. 

I will just note, Mr. Hoefer, that you didn’t have a copy of the 

document that the Ranking Member—I am not faulting the Ranking Member, but I would like to send that to you and ask you to 

just give us your answer in writing. 

Mr. HOEFER. Certainly. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And we will share it with all the Members. 

I would note that we have had a series of hearings since February, 15 hearings, and this hearing today has helped us with the 

statistics and some of the numbers. I think that at this point, although I went into this proces thinking that I knew something, and 

I did, I certainly have learned some things as well. 

And the testimony of a great number of enormously intelligent 

and scholarly people are posted on our Web site. Anybody who 

wants to get an education on this subject is invited to check it out. 

At this point, we are hoping that we are able to move forward. 

I hope that we are able to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform. Your testimony today has been a part of that, and 

we thank you very much. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(83)

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 IMMI- GRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Today we continue these series of hearings dealing with comprehensive immigration reform. This subcommittee previously dealt with the shortfalls of the 1986 and 

1996 immigration reforms, the difficulties employers face with employment 

verification and ways to improve the employment verification system. On Tuesday 

May 1, 2007 we explored the point system that the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand utilize, and on May 3, 2007 the focus of the discussion was 

on the U.S. economy, U.S. workers and immigration reform. Last week we took a 

look at another controversial aspect of the immigration debate, family based immigration. Today we continue the vital task of eliminating the myths and seeking the 

truth. Last Wednesday’s hearing dealt with probably the most crucial aspect underlying the immigration debate, an immigrant’s ability to integrate, and assimilate 

into American society. Last Thursday we tackled another pressing topic, the practical issue of the impact of immigration on States and Localities. On Friday May 

18, 2007 we discussed the issue of the ‘‘Future of Undocumented Immigrant Students,’’ and on May 24, 2007 we examined the ‘‘Labor Movement Perspective’’ on 

comprehensive immigration reform. Today we will examine the perspectives of the 

business community. 

Much of the rhetoric that those in the anti-immigrant camp have repeated in their 

efforts to deter comprehensive immigration reform is based in pure ignorance. Webster’s dictionary defines ignorance as, ‘‘1. without knowledge or education. 2. Displaying lack of knowledge or education. 3. Unaware or uninformed: Oblivious.’’ 

When I hear the rhetoric of those individuals in the anti-immigrant camp this very 

definition comes to mind, because either these individuals are actually without 

knowledge, willfully display a lack of knowledge, are simply uninformed, or just oblivious to the facts. 

Individuals in the anti-immigrant camp consistently promote misconceptions 

about the undocumented population that serve this debate no justice. For example 

many argue that illegal immigrants are a burden on our social services, they are 

criminals, they are ‘‘taking’’ American jobs, they hate America, and they are harming our economy, and depressing the wages of American workers. 

Over the last month and a half we have debunked all of these myths. Fact of the 

matter is that most illegal immigrants do not utilize social service programs out of 

fear of being detected; they have an incarceration rate that does not compare to 

those of Native born individuals; the concept that they are taking jobs conflicts with 

all the data that suggest that there is a labor shortage in the agriculture, construction, and service industries; individuals who come here to live the American dream 

cherish the opportunity and their children are as American as apple pie; and we 

have heard testimony before this subcommittee that illustrates the fact that immigration benefits our economy, and the impact of immigration on wages is small if 

any. 

Along those same lines the biggest dispute regarding immigration statistics is the 

actual number of undocumented workers who are present here in the United States, 

the estimates range from 12 million to 20 million. We will hear testimony from Dr. 

Ruth Ellen Wasem from the Congressional Research Service who will help us discover the truth. For example, according to the Census Bureau there were 36 million 

foreign born people who resided in the United States in 2005. A further look at this 

population reveals that 34.7% of these individuals were naturalized, 32.7% were 

Legal Permanent Residents, 2% were temporary, and 30.7% were unauthorized. 

These statistics seem to verify the fact that there are about 12 million undocuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:38 Sep 26, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\060607B\35859.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35859
84

mented workers here in the United States as opposed to 20 million. I look forward 

to the testimony of our witnesses, Madam Chair I yield back my time.

85

LETTER TO THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW, 

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


3.eps
86

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER,

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

I appreciate the opportunity to testify. As reliable statistics on illegal immigrants 

are notoriously hard to come by and verify such an open discussion as this is necessary. 

Contrary to the image many are trying to promote, illegal immigration has had 

a devastating financial impact on Social Security. 

More than half of illegal immigrants in our country work for cash under the table. 

So these illegal immigrants do not pay into the Social Security system. And since 

they are paid cash, the employers do not pay their contribution into the Social Security system either. 

Another negative effect is that jobs which could be filled by American citizens and 

legal immigrants are taken away. Without a pool of available illegal immigrants employers would be forced to hire legal applicants and cover them under Social Security. So Americans are losing jobs to illegal aliens who aren’t paying their fair share 

into the Social Security system. 

Corresponding to this, a flow of illegal labor into our country brings down wages 

in general. Employers who might have paid $10 or $12 dollars an hour now pay 

lower wages, which then results in lower contributions to the Social Security system. 

There are those, of course, who think the solution is to legalize all the illegals 

in the United States, and this will solve the Social Security crisis. In fact, legalizing 

the status of those here illegally will make the Social Security challenge facing 

America dramatically worse. 

Any plan that would specifically give Social Security to those who have been 

working in this country is an invitation for fraud on a massive scale. What would 

stop anyone from claiming they worked under a false Social Security number? Hundreds of thousands of people pay into Social Security under a 000–00–0000 number, 

how can you prove who used that fraudulent number and who did not? 

We already have a huge problem with identity theft and fraudulent identification. 

Allowing those who have worked illegally in the United States to participate in Social Security exponentially increases the incentive for fraud. 

Another overlooked consequence is the survivors’ benefits and disability aspects 

of the Social Security system. What would stop anyone from claiming ‘‘My spouse 

worked here under this false number, I am his widow, these are his children, please 

start sending the survivors benefits we are now entitled to.’’

Remember, billions of people around the world have NO retirement whatsoever. 

Why assume that only younger immigrants will come into the United States? Why 

wouldn’t someone in their 50’s think ‘‘I could work for ten years in the United 

States, and the Social Security payment would let me live well back home.’’

Furthermore, many people who will be legalized under several different proposals 

are poor and low skilled. In fact over half of illegal immigrants do not even have 

a high school education. The inconvenient fact is Social Security pays out more in 

benefits, proportionally, to lower wage workers than higher wage workers. The projections I have seen from Social Security assumes immigrants have the same general earning potential as native born Americans, and they do not. These illegal immigrants will receive far more from the system than they paid into it, creating a 

huge threat to the viability of the Social Security system in the long run. 

The last and most significant point is this: In 1986, after being told it would only 

legalize about 1 million people, 3 million illegal immigrants ended up being granted 

amnesty. It is now 20 years later, and the current illegal immigrant estimates range 

from 12 to 20 million people. The 20 million figure comes, not from a government 

source, but from a private study conducted of the monies sent back through remittances to in Central American countries. 

Is there any doubt legalizing the status of those here illegally will result in a flood 

of new illegal immigrants into our country. Permitting these legalized immigrants 

into the Social Security system will turbo-charge the flood of illegals into our country. 

If we legalize 12 to 20 million people now, there will be 45 to 60 million illegal 

aliens here in 2027. No fence, no wall, no minefield, no system will keep illegal 

aliens out of the country if we give them the reasonable hope that generous government benefits, including retirement, can be theirs if they can just get across the 

U.S. border and wait us out. Under such a strain our Social Security system cannot 

survive and will collapse. Being irrationally benevolent to illegals is a crime against 

our own people.

87

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH CROWLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Thank you for inviting me here today. As you point out, I have a particular interest in the issue of immigration as the son of an immigrant as well as the grandson 

of immigrants. And as duly noted by Chairwoman Lofgren, Majority Whip Clyburn 

has appointed me as Chief Deputy Whip to work on this particular issue. Therefore, 

I am very happy to join you today and speak on this issue. 

I strongly believe in comprehensive immigration reform and seem to have a more 

optimistic view of the contributions of immigrants to the United States economically. This must be about 

looking forward, not backwards—looking at where we are going to be in years to 

come, and not where we are today. 

Today, I am not here to criticize the Senate bill in any way, as they are working 

through it as we speak. It is, however, my hope that the Senate passes a bill so 

that the House can take it up, pass its bill, and move to conference in order to get 

real, comprehensive immigration reform passed. 

As I testify before you today, I would like to highlight the Congressional Budget 

Office (CBO) Cost Estimate report which shows that comprehensive immigration reform is essential to the growth of our economy. 

It is imperative that we pass a Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill this year 

in order to secure out borders, sustain a strong economic future in the United 

States, and ensure that our country remain a haven for those who seek freedom, 

opportunity, and a better life for themselves and for their families. 

Immigration does not necessarily have to be a drain on the economy, as many 

would have you believe. Immigrants are not a drain on tax payers and the economy. 

In fact, they improve many aspects of our economy: adding to job creation, increasing our national revenue through greater receipts of Social Security payroll taxes, 

which are classified as off-budget. 

Look at the jobs they fill, the money they spend, and they jobs they create. They 

are essential to our nation’s future prosperity. As Leon Sequiera, Assistant Secretary for Policy for the U.S. Department of Labor stated, ‘‘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.’’ We have an expanding marketplace and an 

economy that continues to grow. 

The growth of the foreign-born workforce has no produced significant adverse effects on native-born workers. Unemployment rates for all groups have gone down 

and wages have increased. As Mr. Sequiera pointed out, there are 4.1 million job 

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

being filled. 

At the Summit on Retirement Savings hosted by the United States Department 

of Labor, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve Board Chairman stated, ‘‘The 

larger our workforce is in the year 2010 and beyond, the easier producing goods and 

services for both retirees and active workers will be. Immigration policy will therefore be a key component of baby-boom retirement policy.’’

For example, people are not joining the workforce at the same rate as they were 

in the 1950s, the Baby-boom era. Economically, passing comprehensive immigration 

reform is essential because it will allow more individuals to join the workforce, 

thereby adding to our economy and the benefits we all enjoy. 

This year, it was widely reported that undocumented immigrants in New York 

and throughout the nation filed taxes returns in record numbers to start a paper 

trail with the prospect of Congress overhauling our immigration system. This only 

proves that comprehensive immigration reform holds the promise of getting more 

individuals, even those without official documentation, to voluntarily pay into the 

system rather than remain invisible outside of it. 

Undocumented immigrant workers already pay an estimated $7 billion into the 

Social Security system. There can be no better incentive than a common-sense immigration policy to encourage more individuals to pay taxes in the hope of getting 

a foothold in the climb towards naturalization. Granted, I agree that some of the 

undocumented workers today are paid off the books. Some use false Social Security 

numbers or false taxpayer I.D. numbers to pay into a system that they will not necessarily get a benefit from in the future. It has yet to be determined how we compensate the undocumented individuals in the United States who have already contributed toward the Social Security system. 

Additionally, immigration will be the primary source of new skilled workers for 

the manufacturing sector—filling 10 million new jobs by the year 2010. An inadequate labor force would accelerate the transfer of American productive capacity and 

88

well-paid manufacturing jobs overseas. Regardless of what Lou Dobbs says, he does 

not speak in facts, but peddles fear. 

Look at my district, for instance. Look at my city. It is full of foreign corporations 

who hire Americans and assimilating immigrants alike. All of these corporations 

have been beneficial to our economy. As Alan Greenspan stated, ‘‘Failure to attract 

enough labor through immigration will result in lower gross domestic production 

growth by at least 3 percent in 10 years and at least 17 percent in 30 years. Immigrants were crucial to the job and labor force growth in the 1990s. Furthermore, 

the ‘‘New Economy’’ of the last decade was overwhelmingly dependent on male immigrant workers.’’

So in the end, Madam Chair, I applaud the work that you are doing in attempting 

to develop a comprehensive immigration reform bill—one that takes into account 

the integrity of our borders and the need to end illegal immigration as we know it 

today. And doing so with a practical approach that will improve the economy of the 

United States, the lives of the millions who are undocumented here today, who want 

nothing more than a better way of life for themselves, their families, and for all 

Americans.

89

‘‘SENATE AMENDMENT 1150 TO S. 1348, THE COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

ACT OF 2007, AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE THROUGH MAY 24, 2007,’’ A CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE, PUBLISHED JUNE 4, 2007, SUBMITTED BY

THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN


4-1.eps
90


4-2.eps
91


4-3.eps
92


4-4.eps
93


4-5.eps
94


4-6.eps
95


4-7.eps
96


4-8.eps
97


4-9.eps
98


4-10.eps
99


4-11.eps
100


4-12.eps
101


4-13.eps
102


4-14.eps
103


4-15.eps
104


4-16.eps
105


4-17.eps
106


4-18.eps
107


4-19.eps
108


4-20.eps
109


4-21.eps
110


4-22.eps
111


4-23.eps
112


4-24.eps
113


4-25.eps
114


4-26.eps
115


4-27.eps
116


4-28.eps
117


4-29.eps
118


4-30.eps
119


4-31.eps
120


4-32.eps
121


4-33.eps
122


4-34.eps
123


4-35.eps
124


4-36.eps
125


4-37.eps
126


4-38.eps
127


4-39.eps
128


4-40.eps
129


4-41.eps
130


4-42.eps
131


4-43.eps
132


4-44.eps
133

‘‘HELPING IMMIGRANTS BECOME NEW AMERICANS: COMMUNITIES DISCUSS THE

ISSUES,’’ PUBLISHED BY THE U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE STEVE KING


5-1.eps
134


5-2.eps
135


5-3.eps
136


5-4.eps
137


5-5.eps
138


5-6.eps
139


5-7.eps
140


5-8.eps
141


5-9.eps
142


5-10.eps
143


5-11.eps
144


5-12.eps
145


5-13.eps
146


5-14.eps
147


5-15.eps
148


5-16.eps
149


5-17.eps
150


5-18.eps
151


5-19.eps
152


5-20.eps
153

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM RUTH ELLEN WASEM, PH.D., 

SPECIALIST IN IMMIGRATION POLICY, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE


6-1.eps
154


6-2.eps
155


6-3.eps
156


6-4.eps
157


6-5.eps
158


6-6.eps
159


6-7.eps
160


6-8.eps
161


6-9.eps
162


6-10.eps
163


6-11.eps
164


6-12.eps
165


6-13.eps
166


6-14.eps
167


6-15.eps
168


6-16.eps
169


6-17.eps
170

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM RONALD BIRD, PH.D., CHIEF ECONOMIST AND DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC POLICY AND ANALYSIS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


7-1.eps
171


7-2.eps
172


7-3.eps
173


7-4.eps
174


7-5.eps
175


7-6.eps
176


7-7.eps
177


7-8.eps
178


7-9.eps
179


7-10.eps
180


7-11.eps
181


7-12.eps
182

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM MICHAEL HOEFER, DIRECTOR OF THE

OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION STATISTICS (OIS), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WITH ADDENDUM


8-1.eps
183


8-2.eps
184


8-3.eps
185


8-4.eps
186


8-5.eps
187


8-6.eps
188


8-7.eps
189


8-8.eps
190


8-9.eps
191


8-10.eps
192


8-11.eps
193


8-12.eps
194


8-13.eps
195


8-14.eps
196


8-15.eps
197


8-16.eps
198


8-17.eps
199


8-18.eps
200


8-19.eps
201


8-20.eps
202


8-21.eps
203


8-22.eps
204


8-23.eps
205


8-24.eps
206


8-25.eps
207


8-26.eps
208


8-27.eps
209


8-28.eps
210


8-29.eps
211


8-30.eps
212


8-31.eps
213


8-32.eps
214


8-33.eps
215


8-34.eps
216


8-35.eps
217


8-36.eps
218


8-37.eps
219


8-38.eps
220


8-39.eps
221


8-40.eps
222


8-41.eps
223


8-42.eps
224


8-43.eps
225


8-44.eps
226


8-45.eps
227


8-46.eps
228

ADDENDUM


8A-1.eps
229


8A-2.eps
230

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM CHARLES OPPENHEIM, CHIEF,

VISA CONTROL AND REPORTING DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE


9-1.eps
231


9-2.eps
232


9-3.eps
233


9-4.eps
234


9-5.eps
235


9-6.eps
236


9-7.eps
237


9-8.eps
238

ADDITIONAL ANSWER TO QUESTION POSED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE

ZOE LOFGREN FROM CHARLES OPPENHEIM, CHIEF, VISA CONTROL AND REPORTING

DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE


10-1.eps
239

Æ


10-2.eps