U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–244 PDF 2007

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

IMMIGRATION REFORM (CONTINUED)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, 

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 9, 2007

Serial No. 110–35

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH GIBSON, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES,

BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas

UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Chief Counsel 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 9, 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 John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

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

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

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................... 5

WITNESSES 

Mr. T. Willard Fair, President, Miami Urban League 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 9

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 11

Mr. Roy Beck, Director, NumbersUSA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 12

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14

Mr. Steve Camarota, Ph.D. Director of Research, Center for Immigration 

Studies 

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

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

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 ........................................................................................................................ 1

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

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

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 4

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 ....... 7

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ... 8

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

‘‘The Impact of the Mariel Boatlift on the Miami Labor Market’’ by David 

Card, August 1989, submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren ......................... 53

‘‘Is the New Immigration Really So Bad?’’ by David Card, January 2005, 

submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren ........................................................... 93

Page

IV

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

Policy Center, May 2007, submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren ............... 136

‘‘The State of Civil Rights’’ by Theodore M. Shaw from The State of Black 

America 2007, published by the National Urban League, submitted by 

the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee ...................................................................... 144

Section 703 of HR 750, ‘‘Recruitment of American Workers in the Save 

America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007’’ submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee ....................................................................................... 154

‘‘The Impact of New Immigrants on Young Native-Born Workers, 2000-2005’’ 

by Andrew Sum, Paul Harrington, and Ishwar Khatiwada of the Center 

for Immigration Studies, September 2006, submitted by the Honorable 

Elton Gallegly ....................................................................................................... 157

‘‘The Fiscal Costs of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer’’ by Robert 

Rector, Christine Kim, and Shanea Wilkins, Ph.D. of The Heritage Foundation, submitted by the Honorable Steve King .................................................... 169

(1)

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

IMMIGRATION REFORM (CONTINUED) 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 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 10:10 a.m., in 

Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe 

Lofgren (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Davis, Ellison, 

Conyers, King, Gallegly, Goodlatte, Lungren, Gohmert, and Smith. 

Staff present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel; George 

Fishman, Minority Counsel; Andrea Loving, Minority Counsel; and 

Benjamin Staub, Professional Staff Member. 

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

Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law will 

come to order. 

This is the continuation of our hearing from last Thursday, 

scheduled at the request of our minority Members pursuant to 

Clause 2(j)(1) of House Rule XI to provide additional perspectives 

on the topic of the hearing. Our witnesses today have been chosen 

by the minority, and we look forward to hearing their testimony. 

[The opening statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

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

IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL

LAW

Pursuant to House Rule XI clause (2)(j)(1), the minority in the Subcommittee is 

entitled to,

[U]pon request to the chairman by a majority of them before the completion of 

the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to 

that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.

Last week, the Subcommittee held a hearing on immigrants and the nation’s economy. At the request of the Ranking Member and a majority of the minority on this 

Subcommittee, today the Immigration Subcommittee is holding a minority hearing 

to continue the discussion on the effects of immigrants on the nation’s economy. 

As I stated last week, some have raised concern that immigrant workers undermine the welfare of native-born workers by reducing wages and raising unemployment levels. Applying basic rules of supply and demand, this argument appears convincing - the more workers there are, the more competition there is for jobs, and 

hence a downward pressure on wages and fewer available jobs. 

However, a majority of experts on this issue, as we heard in our hearing last 

week, have explained that this basic supply and demand argument is too simplistic 

to capture reality. The majority of the scholarship on this topic has indicated that 

2

simple economic arguments of supply and demand fail to reflect the economic complexities of the real world of immigration. As we learned last week, immigrants 

don’t just fill jobs; they also create them in various ways, thereby increasing demand for native-born workers and actually increasing their wages throughout most 

of the economy. 

Our witnesses last week explained that there is some downward effect on wages 

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

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

Now we turn our attention to the minority witnesses to provide their perspective.

Ms. LOFGREN. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking minority 

Member, Steve King, for his opening statement. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

This hearing was called because the minority was denied a witness at last Thursday’s hearing on the U.S. Economy, U.S. Workers 

and Immigration Reform. We invited two private-sector witnesses, 

and the majority publicized the witness list naming those witnesses. However, 2 days before the hearing, the majority dictated 

that one minority witness must be a Government witness. 

The reality is that no Administration witness is going to testify 

to anything other than the Administration’s view on immigration 

reform. In fact, I had a question that I was going to ask them, 

which was: Can you give us your personal opinion? The answer 

would have been no, and I decided not to embarrass them. 

So that leaves those who disagree with the Administration’s position with a tremendously small or nonexistent pool of Government 

witnesses, and the 1 day we had to try to find another witness 

made finding an available, out-of-town Government witness even 

more difficult. 

So, after several attempts to resolve the situation through discussions with the majority, we were forced to disinvite one of the minority witnesses. And pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(1), we 

requested a minority day of hearing. 

Our first thought in seeking witnesses for this minority day of 

hearing was to give Mr. T. Willard Fair the opportunity to respond 

to the attacks leveled by Mr. Wade Henderson, a majority witness 

at last Thursday’s hearing. Mr. Fair will discuss the impact of immigration on African-American workers, and his views are shaped 

in part by his position as President and CEO of the Urban League 

of Greater Miami. So I am pleased that Mr. Fair is with us today. 

I am also pleased that Roy Beck, the Executive Director of 

NumbersUSA, is also here and that he is not holding against us 

the fact that we were forced to uninvite him last week. 

And finally, I am pleased that Dr. Steve Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, is here to give us an 

economist’s view of the issue. 

The issue at hand is extremely important to the future of America. Importing millions of poorly educated foreign workers will not 

help our country. It will only hinder our growth. 

When employers hire foreign workers who will work for less than 

American workers, Americans lose jobs. Currently, there are 69 

million Americans who are working age who are simply not in the 

workforce and 6.9 million working illegal immigrants. We would 

only have to recruit one out of 10 Americans that are not in the 

workforce in order to replace the illegal labor in America. 

3

The open-borders lobby’s argument is that those people do not 

live in the place where the jobs are, but they forget that the illegal 

immigrants did not either. 

So I would point out that at last Thursday’s hearing, some of the 

witnesses argued that adding more people to the workforce helps 

raise wages, but that notion is contrary to the law of supply and 

demand. The bottom line is that when more people are willing to 

work for low wages, the wages go down. Any employer can tell you 

that. 

That is why employers want amnesty for illegal aliens and a 

massive new guest worker program to import the world’s poor because they can profit from that, and the American economy is like 

a ship with 300 million passengers and crew. The passengers do 

not contribute to the efficiency of the ship. It is the crew that does 

that. If we keep taking on more passengers and untrained crew, instead of putting more of our passengers to work, ultimately, this 

great ship, America, will sink, and it will sink into the depths of 

the Third World. 

I also point out that we have had testimony here from Robert 

Rector of The Heritage Foundation in a very definitive study that 

identifies a net loss to the taxpayer of $22,449 a year for every 

household on average that is headed by a high school dropout, and 

there has been no response to those statistics and that data. The 

response has been great silence. 

So I appreciate the witnesses being in here, and I appreciate 

your testimony before this Committee, and I am hopeful that if 

there is not going to be another number that is going to be offered 

so that it can be scrutinized by our side of this argument that the 

concession will be made that you gentlemen are right. 

I thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. I look forward to the testimony. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We are pleased to be joined by the Chairman of 

the full Judiciary Committee today, and I would now recognize 

Chairman Conyers for any opening remarks that he may wish to 

make. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren and Steve King 

and Mr. Gohmert and Mr. Smith and Mr. Lungren, our former attorney general from California. 

I consider these hearings very, very important. Why? Because 

what we are trying to do now is to correct some problems that have 

happened across the years, and, of course, resolving old problems 

are a bit of a difficulty. 

Now I come out of the civil rights movement, and Mr. Fair, I understand, does as well. And what we have to examine, I say to the 

witnesses, is how we deal with the problem of a fair amnesty reformation and at the same time deal with the reality of minority 

unemployment in this country, of which there is way more than is 

reported. It is a very highly underreported statistic. 

So can we do that? Can we do that without breaking up families? 

There is not a Member on the full Committee on Judiciary that 

does not want to promote family values and keeping families together. To do that within reason and bounds is a legitimate objective of the immigration reform package that we are at the present 

moment putting together. 

4

We do not have a bill, so everything you say here is being examined for whether it can be included in what our final work product 

is. So what we are trying to say is that we need a re-examination 

of full employment. We would need full employment if there was 

not an immigration crisis. 

I was one of those—and I was so proud that Coretta Scott King 

joined with me when we passed the Full Employment and Balance 

Growth Act, which was trying to deal with the reality. 

Now I would like to see a situation where there is not some gross 

surplus of low-wage workers, unskilled workers, and the number of 

jobs available. What I would like to see is a reasonable distribution 

that I have not found anywhere in my train of logic to want to have 

a pool of unskilled workers, be they immigrant or be they native 

American. I want full employment as a legitimate goal, and for all 

of those witnesses here today that can help me, this would be very, 

very important. 

Keep in mind African-Americans and Latinos, as minority groups 

in America, have a strong common interest in fairness and equal 

opportunity, economically and politically. And as the Leadership 

Conference on Civil Rights noted, the traditional civil rights movement was instrumental in eliminating discriminatory immigration 

quotas in the 1960’s, and that is why, to me, civil rights organizations and their leaders need to speak out on behalf of crafting a 

fair bill. 

Fairness undergirds my major approach to this huge problem 

that Chairman Lofgren and her Subcommittee have adjusted their 

sights to. They are holding more hearings than anybody else in the 

Committee and for good reason. There is a lot of work to be done, 

and we have to climb over a lot of misunderstandings that are out 

there. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Chairman Conyers. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

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

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

JUDICIARY

A serious study of the immigration issue must include a thoughtful analysis of 

how foreign workers impact our native-born workers. We had such a hearing last 

week, and I am happy to hear from even more voices on this important issue. 

Indeed, I join Wade Henderson and the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights 

in applauding the fact that so many people and groups are now expressing concern 

for the state of Black America, and specifically for our unemployed and underemployed young men. 

We need to address these concerns without driving wedges among our communities. As Frederick Douglass stated in a prescient speech he gave in the wake of 

Emancipation, the question of immigration and race prerogative ‘‘should be settled 

upon higher principles than those of a cold and selfish expediency.’’

We cannot simply condemn immigration reform as being either against AfricanAmericans or a disguised form of amnesty. We cannot walk away from the hard 

work that the American people expect from us—to achieve comprehensive balanced 

immigration reform. 

We also cannot ignore the harsh realities that African-Americans have long faced 

in our Nation. We must continue to bring the Nation’s attention to the long-lasting 

social and economic effects of slavery and segregation. These economic issues are 

the root cause of many critical issues in the African-American community today, 

such as education, healthcare and crime. We need to have a constructive dialogue 

on the role of slavery and racism in shaping present-day conditions in our community and American society. 

5

As highlighted in a prior hearing, studies show that black men born in the late 

1960s were, by the end of the 1990s, more likely to have prison records than either 

military records or college degrees. Even worse, those who were high-school dropouts had a nearly 60 percent chance of having served time in prison. 

Nevertheless, the fact that African-Americans face challenges in our labor markets does not necessarily mean that immigrants are the cause of those problems. 

The scholarship on this issue is inconclusive, and studies that fail to take incarceration rates and education into account are of questionable value. 

Even assuming for the moment that immigration does hurt some poor American 

communities—especially African-American communities and established Latino 

communities—what can we do to protect them? 

Mr. Fair, in his written testimony, suggests that less immigration is more likely 

to help a young black man succeed as a carpenter or an ex-convict reintegrate into 

society. I believe, instead, these young men would have a better chance to succeed 

in an environment that promotes: a full employment policy; skills training; education; and transitional programs such as the Second Chance Act. 

Rather than simply closing the door to immigration and hoping that things will 

get better for African-Americans, we should instead be asking ourselves what can 

be done to stimulate job growth and improve opportunities in Black communities 

across the Nation. 

As one of our witnesses is from Miami, it is appropriate for us to note economist 

David Card’s study on the impact of the 125,000 Cuban nationals who came to the 

United States during the Mariel boatlift. Although Miami’s labor force increased by 

some 7 percent within a relatively short period of time, Mr. Card found that the 

Mariel immigration had virtually no impact on the wages or unemployment rates 

of less-skilled workers. 

We should also keep in mind that African Americans and Latinos, as minority 

groups in America, share a strong common interest in fairness and equal opportunity. As the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights has noted, the traditional civil 

rights movement was instrumental in eliminating discriminatory immigration 

quotas in the 1960s. This is why leading civil rights organizations have continued 

to speak out on behalf of immigrants’ rights since then. Balanced immigration reform should be premised on protections for native-born workers such as unemployment thresholds which limit temporary workers. It also should provide protections 

for immigrants such as access to unions, wage protections, and programs that do 

not create a permanent underclass. And, as I mentioned earlier, we need a full employment policy with an educational base and good wages. We must move away 

from the rhetoric of ‘‘impossibility’’ or ‘‘amnesty,’’ and achieve a lasting solution to 

these problems.

Ms. LOFGREN. I now would recognize the Ranking Member of the 

full Committee, Mr. Smith, for any opening statement he would 

like to make. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

This is an unusual but necessary hearing, as Mr. King pointed 

out, but I certainly do want to agree with the Chairman of the full 

Committee and the comments that he just made. He said that a 

surplus of unskilled workers basically does no one any good, whether they be immigrants or native workers, and I just absolutely concur with that statement, and I share his concerns that a surplus 

might well lead to greater unemployment among American workers. 

Madam Chair, immigration has become the most complex and 

sensitive subject, I think, Congress faces today. It affects our economy, our culture, and our future. So it is critical that we have accurate facts if we are to properly address immigration reform. The 

late Carl Sagan said, ‘‘Better the hard truth than the comforting 

fantasy.’’

This Subcommittee has held hearings on a number of subjects. 

Regardless of the topic, one question always comes to my mind: 

Who will stand up for the American worker? And the answer is: 

We will, and we must. 

6

Virtually all credible studies show that competition from cheap 

foreign labor displaces American workers, including legal immigrants, or depresses their wages. The Center for Immigration Studies found that low-skilled workers lose an average of $1,800 a year 

because of competition from illegal immigrants for their jobs. That 

is a huge economic hit. 

A study by Harvard Economist George Borjas shows that cheap 

immigrant labor has reduced the wages of American workers performing low-skilled jobs by over 7 percent, and it is instructive that 

the highest unemployment rates among Americans are in the construction and service industries to occupations with a high number 

of illegal immigrant workers. 

The nearly 70 million Americans, who are unemployed or have 

given up looking for jobs, have a right to those jobs. We must put 

the interest of American workers ahead of foreign workers. 

Today, we will hear testimony that all Americans are hurt by 

cheap foreign labor. Almost 20 percent of all Black Americans and 

40 percent of Hispanics do not have a high school degree. These 

low-skilled legal workers are the ones who disproportionately must 

compete with foreign workers. They are the real victims of America’s failed immigration policy. For proof, we have only to look at 

the effects of recent Federal immigration worksite enforcement actions. 

After last year’s worksite enforcement by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Georgia’s Crider lost over 600 illegal workers. Well, what happened? The Wall Street Journal reported, ‘‘For the first time since significant numbers of Latinos 

began arriving in Stillmore, the plant’s processing lines were made 

up predominantly of African-Americans,’’ and Crider continues to 

fill positions with legal workers. 

Is that the expiration of my time, Madam Chair? 

Ms. LOFGREN. I thought it was, but I think we messed up on the 

lights. So why don’t you——

Mr. SMITH. Okay. I would be glad to take another 5 minutes, 

Madam Chair. [Laughter.] 

Ms. LOFGREN. If you could conclude in 2 or 3, that would be perfect. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

All right. Let me repeat that last phrase. The Wall Street Journal reported what happened. ‘‘For the first time since significant 

numbers of Latinos began arriving in Stillmore in the late 1990’s, 

the plant’s processing lines were made up predominantly of African-Americans.’’ Crider continues to fill positions with legal workers. 

Some say there are jobs Americans will not do, but that demeans 

Americans who do work in every occupation. Any honest job is a 

worthy job. If we had to pay a few cents more for a head of lettuce 

or chicken at the grocery store in order to protect American jobs, 

we should be willing to do so. The American worker must come 

first. 

Madam Chair, since I have another minute to go, let me mention 

another subject today, and I cannot avoid mentioning it because of 

what happened yesterday. 

7

Six individuals were arrested on their way to Fort Dix. They 

were terrorists and they intended to ‘‘kill as many soldiers as possible,’’ and they had the assault weapons to do so. As I read it, 

three of the six individuals were in the country illegally. To my 

knowledge, based upon news reports, they did not have any criminal backgrounds. 

These are the individuals who under the Administration and the 

Senate bill that are being considered would have become legalized. 

They might have become guest workers, or they might eventually 

have become citizens. 

So what happened yesterday certainly should be a wakeup call. 

It certainly should have a dramatic impact on our immigration debate and, I hope, will certainly slow down the process of any consideration of amnesty or legalization for people who are in the 

country illegally. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

In view of the schedule and mindful that our witnesses are waiting, we will ask other Members to submit their opening statements 

for the record. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of 

the hearing at any time. 

Without objection, all opening statements will be placed in the 

record. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

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 marks the eighth hearing in a series of hearings dealing with comprehensive immigration reform. This subcommittee previously dealt with the shortfalls of 

the 1986 and 1996 immigration reforms, the difficulties employers face with employment verification and ways to improve the employment verification system. On 

Tuesday May 1, 2007 we explored the point system that the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand utilize, and on May 3, 2007 the focus of the discussion was on the U.S. economy, U.S. workers and immigration reform. Yesterday 

May 8, 2007 we took a look at another controversial aspect of the immigration debate, family based immigration. Today’s hearing is a continuation of the hearing we 

held on May 3, 2007. 

At that hearing this past Thursday, May 3, 2007 the tone of the conversation 

turned ‘‘ugly’’ for lack of a better word. I remind my colleagues that these series 

of hearings that began at Ellis Island and will conclude at the end of this session 

are about finding the truth, dispelling the myths, and arriving at a consensus that 

is in the interest of first the American worker, the border, and our economy. 

Working under the assumption that immigrants are a detriment and a strain on 

our economy, and further a detriment to the economic opportunities of young lowskilled blacks we invited a panel of experts to discuss this very issue. 

Dr. Orzsag mentioned that more low skill workers mean more high skilled workers and low skill labor creates the need for more jobs in general. For example an 

attorney or a doctor may not have the time to mow his lawn, do his own dry cleaning, or make his own lunch. On the other hand a low skilled worker laboring on 

a farm means that there will be an urgent need to hire a driver to deliver the 

produce to the grocery store, and another individual who stocks the product in the 

grocery store. Likewise common sense dictates that the same groups of workers 

make obvious contributions to our economy when they buy groceries, clothes, gas, 

and other living essentials. 

With regards to this ‘‘perception’’ that illegal immigration is having a particularly 

adverse effect on the job opportunities of young black men allow me to reiterate the 

following. That argument is in part a disingenuous argument. It does not take into 

account the fact that since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 our nation 

8

has seen a growing black middle class. Quite frankly, I agree with Wade Henderson. 

I will not allow ignorance and divisiveness into this discussion about immigration. 

However, I understand the concerns of gentleman like T. Willard Fair, and I address these issues in my immigration legislation the SAVE America Comprehensive 

Immigration Act of 2007. 

Let me take a brief moment to describe how my legislation, the SAVE America 

Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007 addresses this shortage of workers. Section 

703 of the SAVE Act, entitled ‘‘Recruitment of American Workers,’’ mandates the 

following. 

First of all any employer that files a petition on behalf of a foreign born employee 

will have to file an affidavit that illustrates their efforts to recruit a lawful permanent resident (LPR) or a United States Citizen (USC), and an emphasis will be 

placed on attempts to recruit employees from minority communities. Recruitment efforts in minority communities can include advertisements in local newspapers in the 

labor market where these workers patronize for at least 5 days, advertisements in 

public transportation systems, and recruitment activities in secondary schools, 

recreation centers, community centers, and other places throughout the communities within 50 miles of the job site that serve minorities. 

The SAVE Act also mandates a 10% surcharge on all fees collected for petitions 

to accord employment based status. These funds would then be used to create an 

employment training program with the purpose of increasing the number of available LPR’s and USC’s in the occupations that are the subjects of these petitions. 

Likewise, 50% of the funds will be used to train workers in rural and inner city 

areas. 

Finally a portion of the proceeds will also be used to establish an ‘‘Office to Preserve American Jobs’’ at the Department of Labor. The purpose of this office is to 

establish policies that encourage American employers to hire American workers before resorting to foreign workers. 

In conclusion I say to this distinguished panel that those of us in the majority 

put the American people first, and we will continue to do so. The notion that we 

would do otherwise is simply not true.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallegly follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELTON GALLEGLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Mr. King, thank you for holding this hearing. It is important that we have a serious discussion about how illegal immigration has affected American workers. 

It defies common sense to argue that the presence of at least 12 million illegal 

workers has not negatively affected the unemployment rate, wages, and working 

conditions for legal American workers. 

A study by the Center for Immigration Studies found that between 2000 and 

2005, the number of new male immigrant workers increased by 1.9 million. At the 

same time, the number of employed unskilled American workers declined by 1.7 million. 

The conclusion is inescapable. 

The problem will be even worse if we grant amnesty to illegal workers. If every 

one of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants sponsors two (2) additional immigrants each, which is a very conservative number—the U.S. will have at least 24 

million new immigrants coming to this country under amnesty over the next 10 

years. That number will not include those who will continue to violate the law and 

cross our borders, figuring that eventually Congress will grant them yet another 

amnesty. 

The new immigrants will not just be competing for jobs, but for housing, health 

care, education, and other services. It defies belief that an additional 24 million people—again, in addition to the 12 million already here—many of whom will not speak 

English and will have few jobs skills, will not have a serious, negative impact on 

our economy, our workforce, our schools, our hospitals, and our communities. 

In addition, there is no doubt that adding a minimum of 24 million people to our 

population will have negative consequences for our environment, our traffic problems, and our overall quality of life. 

Mr. King, I would like to place a copy of the Center for Immigration Studies report I mentioned, The Impact of New Immigrants on Young Native-Born Workers, 

2000-2005, into the record. 

Thank you again for holding this hearing. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

9

I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. We have three witnesses before us today. 

First, we have Roy Beck, the founder and Executive Director of 

NumbersUSA Education and Research Foundation. Mr. Beck is author of the book, The Case Against Immigration. He is a graduate 

of the University of Missouri School of Journalism. 

Next, we have Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research at the 

Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C. He holds a 

Ph.D. from the University of Virginia in public policy analysis and 

a master’s degree in political science from the University of Pennsylvania. 

Finally, we will hear from Mr. T. Willard Fair, President and 

Chief Executive Officer of the Urban League of Greater Miami. Mr. 

Fair has served as an adjunct professor at the Atlanta University 

School of Social Work, Bethune-Cookman College, Florida International University and the National Urban League’s Whitney M. 

Young, Jr. Center for Urban Leadership. He earned his B.A. in sociology from Johnson C. Smith University and an M.S.W from the 

Atlanta University School of Social Work. 

Your written testimonies will be made part of the record in their 

entirety. 

I think you saw the little light system we have here. Each of you 

will be asked to summarize your written testimony in about 5 minutes. When the yellow light goes on, it means you have a minute 

left, and it is always surprising when you are a witness because 

the time really does fly. 

When the red light goes on, it means your time is up, as surprising as that may be, and we would ask you to try and conclude. 

We do not have a heavy gavel, but we would ask if you would conclude so we can get to the next witness and then to the questions. 

So, if we can begin, if we could start, Mr. Fair. 

TESTIMONY OF T. WILLARD FAIR, PRESIDENT,

MIAMI URBAN LEAGUE 

Mr. FAIR. Thank you, and good morning. To members of the 

panel, it is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak to 

you this morning on an issue that is important not only to me, but 

to my constituency group in Miami. 

For the last 40-plus years, I have been attempting to make sure 

that young Black men in Liberty City have the tools that they need 

in order to be productive citizens in Miami-Dade County. We have 

worked at that, and I suggest to you that the status of young Black 

males around this country is of such a significant nature of deterioration that all of us should be concerned. 

We know, based on everything that we have read by all of the 

experts, that the issues that face them, that keep them from becoming productive citizens are many and complex, from family 

composition to incarceration to attitudes to beliefs to the last 

vestiges of racism being practiced. Those things surround them on 

a day-to-day basis. 

I would not suggest to you that those things are the only things, 

nor would I suggest to you that illegal immigration or legal immigration is a primary reason for the creation of those things, but 

when we have the discussion about the variables that make them 

10

unable to achieve their highest aspirations, we never talk about the 

impact of mass immigration on that, and I suggest to you that 

Miami is the best laboratory for you to look at as we talk about 

the impact of legal versus illegal immigration on the ability of 

Black Americans to ascend to the heights of their aspirations. 

When I came to Miami 40-plus years ago, there were certain 

things in place that gave you some understanding about the importance of Black Americans to the economy, to the vitality of that 

city. One of my favorite observations is where did they go because 

when I came to Miami, all of the hotel, motel, restaurant jobs in 

Miami were occupied by African-Americans. Today, that is flipped. 

That is neither good nor bad nor is that condemning anybody who 

has the jobs, but the issue becomes what happened to all of those 

people who had those jobs? 

When I came to Miami 40 years ago, the construction industry 

primarily was made up of laborers who came from Liberty City. It 

is not by accident, but should have been predicted that the first 

persons that fell off the high scaffolds in Miami involved in construction were not people from Liberty City, but were Haitians, because, once again, those jobs that used to be held by African-Americans are now held by others, legal or illegal. The numbers have impacted adversely on the ability of Blacks in Miami to get jobs. 

This does not mean that one wants to blame immigration, but 

one certainly has to understand the effect of mass immigration on 

those set of circumstances. When one digs down deep into that 

whole process, one then begins to understand that if you talk about 

a form of amnesty that is going to put an additional 12-million-plus 

people into that system, I mean, you create other sets of problems 

that are already in place. 

So, when we begin to talk about the issue and its impact on 

Black America, academicians, researchers all have demonstrated 

very clearly by their research that it does occur. What disturbs me, 

for example, is we talk to economists, we talk about supply and demand, and we know that it is going to impact on us adversely, and 

finally, we may admit that it does, but when we talk about that 

it does, we talk about it impacts modestly. Well modestly may 

mean one thing to you as an academician, but if it is you in reality, 

then it is significant. It is no longer modest. 

So all of the experts agree that illegal versus legal, legal versus 

illegal has an impact on the ability of African-Americans to get 

jobs. But we began to switch it off and say that it does not. 

We also have this whole notion that we can allow certain people 

to come in to the system, create jobs, and as they take over certain 

jobs, they will then, by virtue of their numbers, create other jobs 

in the industry. Well, that does not work in Miami because what 

happens is that if you take over all of the jobs picking lettuce, the 

notion is that you are able to pick lettuce cheaper and, therefore, 

you can get it to the market faster. You get it to the market faster. 

Therefore, you can get more people to buy it. Then what happens 

is that——

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Fair, your red light is on. If you——

Mr. FAIR. My red light? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes. If you could just, you know, wrap up, I do not 

want to cut you off in the middle of your sentence. 

11

Mr. FAIR. What happens then is that if those who are in place 

to get the new jobs are not people that look like me, then it works. 

But the lettuce pickers then become the cashiers, then become the 

foremen, then become the truck drivers, and once again, we are 

locked out of an industry. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fair follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF T. WILLARD FAIR

Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to address this panel. 

I have devoted much of my adult life to one of the most important challenges facing our country: How to help young black men build constructive lives as fathers 

and breadwinners. The size of the problem was outlined in a recent book published 

by the National Urban League entitled The State of Black America 2007: Portrait 

of the Black Male—black men are much more likely to be unemployed than white 

men, more likely to be dropouts, in prison, in poverty, or dead. 

There are many reasons for grim statistics like this, including the continuing effects of slavery and Jim Crow; the shift in the economy away from manufacturing; 

broken schools in our big cities; the glorification of self-destructive behavior by popular culture. 

But one factor is too often ignored—mass immigration. 

There was little immigration when the struggle for civil rights began to achieve 

success in the 1950s and ’60s. In fact, the 1965 immigration law that started today’s 

mass immigration was itself seen as a civil rights measure, intended to clean out 

rules that favored immigrants from some countries over others. Sen. Edward Kennedy, then, as now, chairman of the Senate immigration subcommittee, said ‘‘The 

bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. . . . It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.’’

So much for predictions. 

Since 1965, nearly 30 million legal immigrants have come here, plus millions of 

illegal aliens. The results have been devastating for those Americans—black or 

white—who compete for jobs with this immigrant tide. George Borjas of Harvard 

has shown that immigration has cut the wages of American men without a high 

school degree by $1,800 a year. Economists at Northeastern University have found 

that businesses are substituting immigrants for young American workers, especially 

for young black men. In fact, scholars estimate that immigration is the reason for 

one-third of the drop in employment among black men, and even some of the increase in incarceration. 

Of course, none of that means that individual immigrants—or particular immigrant groups—can be blamed for the difficulties facing black men. Being pro-Me 

should never make me anti-You. Nor can we use immigration as a crutch, blaming 

it for all our problems. The reality is that less-educated black men in America today 

have a variety of problems—high rates of crime and drug use, for example, and poor 

performance at work and school—that are caused by factors unrelated to level of 

immigration. 

But if cutting immigration and enforcing the law wouldn’t be a cure-all, it sure 

would make my job easier. Take employment—immigration isn’t the whole reason 

for the drop in employment of black men; it’s not even half the reason. But it is 

the largest single reason, and it’s something we can fix relatively easily. 

Think about it this way: If there’s a young black man in Liberty City, where I 

live, who’s good with his hands and wants to become a carpenter, which is more 

likely to help him achieve that goal—amnesty and more immigration, or enforcement and less immigration? 

Which is more likely to help an ex-convict or recovering addict get hired at an 

entry-level job and start the climb back to a decent life—amnesty and more immigration, or enforcement and less immigration? 

Which is more likely to persuade a teenager in the inner city to reject the lure 

of gang life and instead stick with honest employment—amnesty and more immigration, or enforcement and less immigration? 

And it’s not just a matter of jobs. Whatever your views on government social programs, everyone can agree that resources are not infinite—there’s only so much social spending to go around. And since immigrants have relatively low skills and low 

incomes, they use a lot of social services and pay little in taxes, cutting into the 

spending on America’s own poor. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that 

illegal aliens alone cost federal taxpayers $10 billion more a year in services than 

12

they pay in taxes—that’s $10 billion that’s not being spent on disadvantaged Americans, not counting the much larger deficits at the state and local level, where most 

social services are provided. 

Likewise with the schools. This is an issue close to my heart, since I co-founded 

Florida’s first charter school and was recently confirmed as chairman of the statewide Board of Education. We must offer the best education possible to all our children, for their own good and for the good of our country. But as budgets have tightened, school enrollment has surged, and all of the growth in the nation’s school-age 

population—100 percent—comes from immigrant families. This surge in enrolment 

has led to school overcrowding and has diverted resources that would otherwise 

have been devoted to at-risk students. 

Solutions to the challenges facing black Americans have to come from both private 

efforts and government initiative—but regardless of the specific approach, flooding 

the job market and overwhelming the public schools and other government services 

undermines all our efforts. The interests of black Americans are clear: No amnesty, 

no guestworkers, enforce the immigration law.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Mr. Beck, your 5 minutes are beginning. 

TESTIMONY OF ROY BECK, DIRECTOR, NumbersUSA 

Mr. BECK. Madam Chairwoman and Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Members King and Smith, and others Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to talk about this subject, which was the chief topic, I believe, of the bipartisan U.S. 

Commission on Immigration Reform in the 1990’s chaired by the 

late Barbara Jordan. 

I was pleased that Chairman Conyers brought up this key principle of immigration policy that has fairness to it, and I believe 

that that was one of the chief principles of the bipartisan commission. In fact, a quote from the Commission’s study said that immigration policy is needed so that ‘‘it helps mitigate potential negative impacts, particularly on disadvantaged U.S. workers.’’

I am pleased to talk about this because I helped found 

NumbersUSA in 1997, I should say, to educate about and to advocate for the recommendations of the Jordan Commission. The Jordan Commission could find no rational justification to meet emerging labor needs by importing large quantities of foreign workers. 

Now this is after several years of study. 

Regrettably, Congress only dealt with a few recommendations 

about illegal immigration, but put off almost all the recommendations that the Jordan Commission had about protecting the American worker, and that is what they did. They put it off. Many of 

you were here. You know Congress put it off and it has not taken 

it back out. 

The principle of the Commission was that immigration policy 

should never be allowed to reduce the wages, working conditions or 

the opportunities of American workers, and those recommendations 

of about a decade ago were that this country should dramatically 

reduce legal immigration, that is bring in fewer of these legal foreign workers that are impacting the people that Mr. Fair is talking 

about trying to help, the American workers, said that illegal immigration should be substantially reduced by eliminating the jobs 

magnet, illegal foreign workers in this country should be removed 

from the labor markets and caused to return to their home countries, and that large-scale foreign worker programs should be 

avoided. 

13

It seems to me the major question before this Subcommittee, before this Congress, is: Why not go ahead and pass the rest of the 

Jordan recommendations on immigration to protect the American 

worker? Have the conditions of our vulnerable American workers 

improved so dramatically since then that that is no longer valid? 

And I think the answer is, no, they have actually decreased. 

I want to use the remainder of my oral comments to touch on one 

aspect of the Jordan Commission recommendations which was 

about reinvigorating domestic recruitment channels. Now we can 

take an example right here in the Chesapeake region, especially 

over on the Atlantic Coast. 

Every year, you have all of these tourism industry businesses up 

and down the coast saying down in Congress, ‘‘We have to have 

more visas for foreign workers,’’ and yet in just Virginia, Maryland, 

D.C. alone, there are 2 million working-age native-born citizens 

who are not working right now. 

Many of these businesses have better procurement channels, 

labor recruitment channels with Poland than they do with the Potomac, even though the Potomac has tens of thousands of older 

teens and young adults who are wasting away early years of their 

lives in nonemployment, instead of getting the experience and the 

dignity of having the entry-level, the stepping-stone jobs that would 

lead them to lives of middle-class financial security later on. 

The Jordan Commission spoke to this problem. They said the 

availability of foreign workers may create a dependency on them. 

We see that everywhere. It has been well-documented that reliance 

on foreign workers in low-wage, low-skill occupations creates disincentives for employers to improve pay and working conditions for 

American workers. 

When employers fail to recruit domestically or pay wages that 

meet industrywide standards, the resulting dependence, even on 

professionals, may adversely affect both U.S. workers in that occupation and U.S. companies that adhere to appropriate labor standards. 

We have 23 million native-born Americans, 18 to 64, who are less 

educated, no more than a high school degree, who do not have jobs 

right now—23 million. With this kind of situation, with the kind 

of poverty you read in the Post yesterday, the story about Mr. Edwards and his concern about the 37 million people in poverty, you 

think what would it be like if the American business community 

created domestic recruitment channels into these big pockets of 

poverty? How would that change the suffering that we have at the 

lower levels of this country? 

I would say that it is time to look at those Jordan Commission 

recommendations, maybe go further. I would say why recruit 

through immigration any low-skilled workers to deal with those, 

and my final sentence, Madam Chairwoman, is that the evidence 

shows that we do not have a shortage of workers. We have a shortage of domestic recruitment channels. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beck follows:]

14

1 ‘‘Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S.,’’ Jeffrey S. 

Passel, Pew Hispanic Center. 2March 2006 Current Population Survey 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROY BECK

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

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about immigration 

policy and its effect on American workers, one of the two subjects that has dominated my attention as an author and journalist for the past two decades. 

The topic of this hearing was addressed through years of exploration by the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by the late Barbara Jordan, and including other luminaries such as Michael Teitelbaum and the late Richard Estrada. As it happened, I was commissioned by W.W. Norton & Co. during precisely that mid-1990s period to research and write a book on this same topic. The 

Jordan Commission began issuing its reports just as I had sent my final manuscripts to New York. I was surprised and pleased to see the Commission making 

many of the major recommendations that I had included in my own book’s conclusions, and for largely the same reasons, including the Commission’s principle that 

immigration policy needed to:

‘‘. . . help mitigate potential negative impacts, particularly on disadvantaged 

U.S. workers.’’

For the last decade, I have had the privilege of educating about those recommendations that came from the final act of public service of Barbara Jordan’s 

long and illustrious career. Since 1997, I have been the executive director of 

NumbersUSA. It is a non-profit, non-partisan organization founded to educate about 

and carry out both the immigration recommendations of President Clinton’s Council 

on Sustainable Development and the Jordan Commission recommendations that 

were designed to serve this country’s national interests, and especially the interests 

of American workers and the households they support. 

Let’s apply that standard to the question of what to do with illegal aliens who 

already are in our country. Is the approach that works best for the American worker 

also good for the economy? Or are the two goals in conflict? 

WOULD WE COLLAPSE IF ILLEGAL WORKERS SELF-DEPORTED?

What if the officially estimated 7 million illegal foreign workers 1 were 

caused to self-deport over the next decade primarily through the enactment and implementation of laws that denied them U.S. jobs? 

This is not an idle scenario. Most of the major corporate lobbies believe an aggressive enforcement of immigration laws, added to mandatory workplace verification of 

new hires, would lead to a substantial loss of workforce among businesses that have 

illegally hired a lot of foreign workers. 

That is why they insist on a legalization of the current illegal workforce—and 

adoption of a large new guest worker program—before they would consent to full 

enforcement of immigration laws. 

In the assessment of the corporate lobbies, an Attrition Through Enforcement policy depriving businesses of their illegal workers would threaten to collapse the economy, harming all workers and the national interest. 

But in the school of thought represented by the bi-partisan U.S. Commission on 

Immigration Reform, the removal of millions of illegal foreign workers would open 

up jobs and raise the wages for American workers while strengthening the economy 

and serving the national interest. 

A GIANT POOL OF NON-EMPLOYED AMERICANS

Would our economy suffer under an Attrition Through Enforcement & Self-Deportation scenario? Would American workers gain? Is it economically necessary to legalize the illegal workers to keep their employers in business? 

Let’s look at some big numbers. 

About 142 million people in America (including 7 million illegal aliens) hold paying jobs. They are the producers, and they support 160 million people in America 

who do not hold a paying job (including 5 million illegal aliens).2

That’s 142 million supporting 160 million others. 

But among the 160 million ‘‘non-producing’’ dependents are 70 million ‘‘non-institutionalized’’ people who have no job but who are of the same age as the Americans 

who are holding full-time and part-time jobs. 

15

3 ‘‘2006 annual Average Data, Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 

by age, sex and race,’’ Bureau of Labor Statistics 4 ‘‘Dropping Out: Immigrant Entry and Native Exit From the Labor market, 2000–2005,’’ Steven A. Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, March 2006

Nearly 70 million people in the broad working age of 16–74 are either looking for 

a job and are considered unemployed, or have dropped out of the labor force altogether.3

That would be 70 million Americans without a job from which to find only 7 million to replace the illegal foreign workers—that is 10 available legal U.S. residents 

without a job for every one illegal foreign worker with a job. 

The ratio is still overwhelmingly in favor of finding American worker replacements even if you limit the pool to:

• Native-born Americans

• Aged 18–64

Some 42 million Americans without a job meet those criteria. 

And of those, 23 million are ‘‘less-educated’’ Americans with no education beyond 

high school and, thus, the people who would be more likely to compete for most of 

those jobs. That would be three less-educated Americans without a job for every illegal alien with a job. 

Sadly, this category of less-educated Americans has seen labor participation rates 

fall still lower in recent years, as foreign labor participation has risen.4 Opening up 

construction, food production, hospitality and other service jobs would provide immediate opportunities to reverse the native workforce dropout damage of recent years. 

ILLEGAL ALIENS DO JOBS AMERICANS WON’T WAIT TO DO

Skeptics always raise the question about whether Americans would do the jobs 

that illegal aliens are doing. My response long has been that without the availability of foreign labor, employers eliminate jobs that aren’t very productive and improve the conditions on the others until Americans take them. 

But many recent cases of workplace raids in meatpacking plants and factories in 

all regions of the country during the last few months have suggested that there are 

a lot of Americans who will take so-called foreigner work as is. In nearly every case, 

federal enforcement arrested or drove out large numbers of illegal foreign workers 

who were entirely replaced by American workers within a few weeks. In some cases, 

the employers offered somewhat better wages, benefits and working conditions to attract jobless Americans back into the labor market. But in other cases, Americans 

were willing to take the jobs under the exact circumstances the illegal worker held 

them. 

We may understand why when we look at the labor statistics a little closer. There 

may be 23 million less-educated Americans without a job as the potential pool for 

replacing the illegal aliens and many of whom will need some serious recruiting to 

get back into the job market. But there are around 7 million unemployed Americans 

who are looking for a job right now. 

SOCIETY AS A WHOLE AND ALL WORKERS TEND TO BENEFIT

Why would we not seek to meet our labor needs out of this pool of non-employed 

Americans? 

From the standpoint of the non-employed Americans, why should they be denied 

the opportunity to be recruited to jobs that will provide them the satisfaction and 

dignity of being productive members of our society? The Americans who would benefit tend to be among the most vulnerable members of our national community, with 

the fewest resources. 

From the standpoint of taxpayers, why should working-age Americans dependent 

on taxpayer support not be encouraged to step up to the plate to take available jobs? 

The 142 million productive working people of this country already are supporting 

the physical and social infrastructure for those 70 million non-employed workingage Americans. As any of those 70 million enter the labor force, there would be no 

need for more infrastructure to handle the housing, education, transportation, recreation, health care, etc. of they and their families (because they already are here). 

Furthermore, as they enter the workforce they would begin paying more taxes to 

take some of the tax burden off the 142 million. 

If all 12 million of the officially estimated illegal aliens were to leave the United 

States, and if 7 million Americans replaced the 7 million illegal workers in their 

jobs, the ratio of ‘‘producers’’ to ‘‘non-producers’’ would change from a 142 to 160 

16

5 1997 Report To Congress, ‘‘Becoming An American: Immigration and Immigrant Policy,’’ p. 

796March 2006 Current Population Survey 

ratio to a 142 to 148 ratio, with significant implications for tax/expense ratios of 

local and state governments. 

According to recent Heritage Foundation research, most households headed by illegal aliens are net tax drains of around $18,000 a year. When they leave the country, governments not only save the $18,000 per household, but they save on the formerly non-employed legal resident who has taken the illegal worker’s job and is now 

paying more taxes. A less-educated legal resident worker will be a net tax drain, 

too, but since he/she already was a tax drain as a non-employed person, he/she 

should be less of a drain with a job. 

‘ATTRITION’—NOT ‘MASS DEPORTATION’—PROVIDES TRANSITION

I am not aware of any study or even claim that the Attrition Through Enforcement & Self-Deportation option could result in mass departures of millions a year. 

And no political leader is proposing mass deportations. 

Thus, the process of recruiting and training Americans to replace 7 million illegal 

foreign workers as discussed above would take place over several years. 

The bad news for many of America’s most vulnerable citizens is that it will be 

years before many of those jobs will be opened up by illegal aliens leaving the country. But the slow, steady process of emptying out the illegal population will provide 

employers plenty of time to adjust to a new era of the rule of law and establishing 

new channels of recruiting. 

’ATTRITION’ SETS NEED FOR DOMESTIC RECRUITING PATTERNS

Many public and business leaders in local areas seem to sincerely believe that 

their region not only needs the illegal workers but must import new platoons of 

legal foreign workers each year. 

I recently spoke to a group of government and business leaders from western Colorado. One man said that many tourism and minerals businesses there depend on 

illegal labor now, have depended on it for a long time and would collapse if new 

flows of foreign labor were cut off. Through a combination of legal and illegal channels, according to this man, many businesses had become addicted to foreign labor. 

The Jordan Commission spoke to this problem:

‘‘The availability of foreign workers may create a dependency on them. It has 

been well-documented that reliance on foreign workers in low-wage, low-skill occupations, such as farm work, creates disincentives for employers to improve pay 

and working conditions for American workers. When employers fail to recruit domestically or to pay wages that meet industry-wide standards, the resulting dependence—even on professionals—may adversely affect both U.S. workers in that 

occupation and U.S. companies that adhere to appropriate labor standards.5

Here again are conclusions that foreign-worker patterns that are harmful to vulnerable Americans are also harmful to the economy as a whole. But just like individuals who are addicted to harmful drugs, businesses and local economies can 

wean themselves and change to healthier patterns of behavior. 

Does anybody really believe that the Colorado ski industry and mineral industry 

would shut down if the federal government shut off its supply of foreign workers? 

Instead of shutting down, one can be sure that these industries would aggressively create new channels of recruitment, perhaps into the relatively nearby population centers of Kansas City, Dallas, St. Louis and Chicago. Yes, at first, they 

might find it difficult to persuade non-employed people in those cities to pick up 

roots and move with their families to Colorado. But once the first individuals and 

families settle and like their conditions, they will send back word to old neighbors, 

friends and family—just like the foreign workers have been doing the last 30 years. 

Soon, domestic networking patterns will create flows of labor just like the international ones do today that result in entire villages in foreign countries emptying 

out to settle in one small area of the United States. 

There are currently around 750,000 non-employed native adults (age 18–64) in 

Wisconsin, 900,000 in Missouri, 1.7 million in Illinois and 3.1 million in Texas.6

While Attrition Through Enforcement is gradually weeding out illegal workers from 

the Colorado labor force, employers have huge pools of potential workers to be persuaded to try living in the beautiful Rocky Mountain state. And if those states don’t 

17

7 1997 Report To Congress, Becoming an American: Immigration and Immigrant Policy, U.S. 

Commission on Immigration Reform 8The Case Against Immigration, Roy Beck (W.W. Norton) 

9 American Inequality: A Macroeconomic History, Jeffrey Williamson and Peter H. Lindert 

(Academic Press) 

prove responsive enough, there are always the 4 million non-employed native adults 

in California. 

Because international recruiting services and networks are so readily available 

and because the federal government provides and allows such large flows of foreign 

workers, many Colorado businesses are far more likely today to seek workers from 

Central America than from the Central Time Zone of the U.S. 

The Jordan Commission thought the federal government should encourage employers to re-discover domestic recruiting, calling on it to provide:

‘‘. . . incentives or penalties to help ensure that employers in the U.S. engage in 

serious recruitment of American workers (for example, national rather than local 

recruitment where appropriate) and contribute significantly to the training of the 

domestic U.S. workforce.’’ 7

The same phenomenon can be seen so readily in the Chesapeake Bay region and 

especially along the Atlantic seashore where the tourism industry clamors for access 

to more and more foreign workers even though around 2 million American natives 

in Maryland, Virginia and Washington DC do not have a job. Included in that are 

more than a million in the area who are less-educated. To again go alliterative, 

some of the businesses demanding more work visas each year are far more focused 

on recruiting from Poland than from the Potomac where tens of thousands of older 

teens and young adults waste away years in non-employment with little experience 

in entry-level and stepping-stone jobs that could form a pattern for later middleclass financial success. 

The gradual loss of illegal labor and a gradual reduction in new legal foreign labor 

would begin to create the virtuous economic circles of the World War One and World 

War Two eras in which industries had to recruit heavily from among poor, underemployed White and Blacks in the South and in the hill countries of our nation. 

When the wars shut off immigration, corporate America finally valued the least valued members of our national community and created great migrations of American 

natives across regions, leading toward the Great Economic Compression that turned 

the country into a dominantly middle class society.8

DEAD-END JOBS BECOME PRIZED JOBS WITH LOWER IMMIGRATION

The Great Economic Compression between 1929 and the early 1950s provides us 

a model for how reducing overall immigration numbers not only can stop the damage of immigration policy but greatly improve the lives of people in lower-skill jobs 

without them even having to change jobs. 

It was a time when the lower classes gained considerably on the middle classes 

and the middle classes gained on the upper classes. This emerging egalitarianism 

happened despite the coincidence with a Great Depression and a World War. Economic historians have attributed as much as one-third of this advancement of the 

working classes to the fact that immigration levels were low (well below 200,000 a 

year) and fertility had been low, producing an ever-tighter labor market.9

I stood face-to-face with this history during my research in Iowa meatpacking 

towns. I talked to old meatcutters who had begun their careers in the 1920s in disgusting, dangerous conditions at very low pay. For four decades, industry had used 

the easy supply of foreign labor to bust unions and keep meatcutting as one of the 

worst jobs in America. 

But after Congress put strict numerical caps on immigration in 1924, the immigrants in the packing houses found that their labor was more and more valued in 

the tighter labor markets. Their unions grew stronger, pay rose and meatpacking 

became one of the safer jobs in America. 

I talked to numerous men who in the 1970s made enough money to support large 

families on one income and took nice vacations every year. 

But all of them had lost their jobs in the early to mid-1980s after Congress allowed the flow of foreign labor to rise from a quarter million a year in the 1960s 

to a half million a year in the 1980s (and then a million a year after 1990). One 

meatpacking company used the excess labor to bust the unions and slash wages and 

working conditions. Every other company then had to do the same or be run out 

of business (and several were). Now, meatcutting is back to being one of the worst 

jobs in America, populated mainly by immigrants and illegal aliens who will put up 

with the conditions just as long as it takes to find another job. 

18

I have no doubt that if Congress would enact the Jordan Commission recommendations, we would again see a beleaguered immigrant workforce in the 

meatpacking industry see their jobs turn into some of the best lower-skilled jobs in 

the country. 

But until then, we seem destined to continue a sad chain of occupations collapsing 

across the country. American drywallers are among the workers most under attack 

right now. But you can see it with all kinds of trades and services as the federal 

government’s recklessness about immigration numbers ruins formerly middle-class 

occupations. 

JORDAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDED LESS FOREIGN LABOR

The Jordon Commission in the 1990s could find no rational justification to meet 

emerging labor needs by importing large quantities of new foreign workers. 

Regrettably, Congress dealt with only some of the illegal immigration issues in 

1996 and decided to set aside all of the Jordan Commission recommendations on 

legal immigration for consideration in a future year. That year has yet to arrive. 

I hope this hearing is a sign that the time has finally come when Congress and 

the President will effect policies that place the same kind of priority as did the bipartisan Commission on ensuring that immigration never be allowed to reduce the 

wages, working conditions or opportunities of American workers. 

Based on that principle and research of the economy and labor markets in the 

1990s, the Jordan Commission concluded that:

• Annual legal immigration numbers should be dramatically reduced;

• Illegal immigration should be substantially curbed by eliminating the jobs 

magnet;

• Illegal foreign workers already in the U.S. should be removed from our labor 

markets and caused to return to their home countries;

• Large-scale foreign guest worker programs should be avoided;

• Legal immigration should be limited to spouses, minor children, refugees and 

workers of very high skills not possessed by American workers.

It seems to me that the major question before this subcommittee is why it should 

not go ahead and approve the rest of the Commission’s recommendations and also 

exercise its oversight and purse functions to force this Administration to implement 

the immigration laws already passed by Congress. 

Congress needs to consider if the conditions of the American worker and the economy have changed substantially since 1996 to suggest that a different direction from 

the Jordan Commission is in order. 

With the abysmal statistics on widening gaps in income distribution and the 

plight of both our native and our foreign-born workers at the lower rungs of the 

labor market, it appears that the recommendations of the Jordan Commission are 

even more in order today than when they were made a decade ago.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Dr. Camarota, your 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF STEVE CAMAROTA, Ph.D. DIRECTOR OF 

RESEARCH, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Madam Chairwoman and Mr. King and Members 

of the Committee, I would like to thank you for inviting me here 

to speak. 

I would like to begin my comments perhaps in a way by building 

just on what Mr. Beck said, by looking at it with data. There is no 

evidence of a labor shortage in this country, especially at the bottom, the labor market where immigrants are most concentrated. If 

there was, wages, benefits and employment should all be increasing fast. Actually, that is the opposite, the exact opposite, of what 

has been happening. 

The national unemployment rate of 4 or 5 percent is not even relevant to this debate for two reasons. First, immigration’s effect on 

the labor market, especially illegal immigration, is mainly on lesseducated, young Americans, wherein unemployment is much higher 

19

than 4 or 5 percent. Second, unemployment figures do not include 

those who have left the workforce entirely and given up looking for 

work. 

The share of adults without a high school education in the labor 

market—that is have a job or are looking for a job—fell from 59 

to 56 percent between 2000 and 2006, and for those with only a 

high school degree—and these are adults again—it fell from 78 to 

75 percent. Thus, these individuals, however, who are not in the 

labor market do not even show up in unemployment statistics. 

There is a huge supply of potential, less-educated natives in this 

country. There are 23 million adult natives, 18 to 64, with no education beyond high school who are either unemployed or not in the 

labor market. There are another 10 million teenagers, 15 to 17, 

who are unemployed or not in the labor market. There are 4 million college students unemployed or not in the labor market. And 

in each of these cases, the share of those individuals working has 

been declining, even after the economy turned up in 2003. 

Wages and benefits have generally stagnated or declined for the 

less-educated. Hourly wages for men with less than a high school 

education grew just 1 percent between 2000 and 2005. Hourly 

wages for men with only a high school degree grew by .5 percent 

for that whole 5-year period. If there really was a labor shortage, 

wages and benefits and labor force participation should all be going 

up. It is not. 

Now there is a good deal of research showing that immigration 

has contributed to this problem. In a study published in 2003 by 

The Quarterly Journal of Economics, which is like the top journal 

in the field, the authors concluded that immigration reduced the 

average annual earnings of native-born men without a high school 

degree by over 7 percent. 

In another recent paper published by the National Bureau of 

Economic Research, the authors concluded that immigration was 

responsible for 40 percent of the decline in Black employment—

among men—between 1980 and 2000. Their findings are supported 

by other research done by Andrew Sum and Paul Harrington at 

Northeastern University looking at the post-2000 period. 

Now it is true that some researchers have found no significant 

negative effect from immigration, but they have mostly done that 

by comparing differences across local labor markets. Economists 

now think that the effect of immigration is national in scope, and 

the effect is mostly on young and less-educated workers, particularly minorities. 

When we focus on such workers and treat the economy as one 

big integrated whole, the economists do find significant negative effects from immigration. Now, of course, other factors adversely impact wages and employment for such workers, such as technology 

and globalization, but labor-saving devices and access to imports 

makes allowing in less-educated workers all the more unnecessary 

from an economic point of view. And immigration levels, unlike 

globalization or the pace of technological innovation, is something 

we can change. 

Now it is also important to understand that all research indicates that less-educated immigrants who create the job competition 

for less-educated natives consume much more in public services 

20

than they pay in taxes. The National Research Council found this. 

Often, the greatest strain is on services used by America’s poor. 

Now some still argue for immigration on the grounds that it will 

stop the aging of America as a society. We are short of workers, 

and the idea is we are just growing old so fast. But no serious demographer actually makes this argument. Census Bureau projections indicate that if immigration were 200,000 a year, the working-age share of the population, 15 to 64 years of age, would be 59 

percent in 2060. If it was a million a year, 5 times higher, the 

working-age percentage would be 60 percent. 

So you could have a huge difference in immigration with a tiny 

difference in the working-age share. It does make, however, the 

population a lot larger. Those who wish to keep immigration levels 

at their current level or perhaps increase them further must at 

least understand that the policies that they favor come at the expense of the poorest and least educated Americans. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Camarota follows:]

21

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN A. CAMAROTA


SAC0001.eps
22


SAC0002.eps
23


SAC0003.eps
24


SAC0004.eps
25


SAC0005.eps
26


SAC0006.eps
27


SAC0007.eps
28


SAC0008.eps
29


SAC0009.eps
30


SAC0010.eps
31


SAC0011.eps
32


SAC0012.eps
33


SAC0013.eps
34

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Dr. Camarota. 

Because this is the minority’s day of hearings, I will call first on 

the Ranking Member, Mr. King, for his 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. KING. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I appreciate 

that. 

I think with all the testimony that is here—and I appreciate it 

all—the part that is the least discussed is the recruitment channels 

for employees. 

And I think about how things work when I went down to go to 

work on a pipeline when I was 19 years old. People showed up, and 

some slept in campers. If you stayed there long enough, pretty 

soon, they would become trailer houses. Then they would begin to 

put foundations in and build homes, and towns start. 

The recruitment lines went back by familial lines. Anyway that 

the communications could go, from Haiti, from Iowa to Kansas, 

wherever it might be, that network has been how we recruited a 

group of employees. 

And, Mr. Beck, you spoke on that, and I would ask if you would 

expand on that thought for this Committee, please. 

Mr. BECK. Interesting you would bring up, you know, local personal experience. I grew up in the Missouri Ozarks in the 1960’s, 

and many of my friends—I was busy working in a steel plant 

there—were recruited to dig for pipelines through Nebraska and 

Kansas. This was grueling work, 60-hour-a-week work, but they offered good pay, and they had to do it because, at that point, they 

did not have these foreign labor channels to do it. 

I was watching a PBS special on the building of the Alaska pipeline, and I do not know if you have seen this recently, but it is 

amazing, you know, how incredibly awful the working conditions 

were, and yet they had people standing in line. They did not have 

enough jobs—they were terrible jobs—because they paid enough 

money. 

I have no doubt that the Colorado Tourism Ministry that I spoke 

to recently and said, you know, we would go out of business without foreign laborers, they used to have recruitment channels into 

places like St. Louis and Chicago and Dallas and Kansas City. 

They do not have those anymore. 

So, I mean, I think all of us can who are of a certain age can 

remember when those recruitment channels existed. One of the 

things that happens among young people is that if they do not see 

people their age or just above their age doing a job, they cannot 

necessarily imagine doing that job. So it is not going to be particularly easy. 

It is going to take a little bit of time for businesses to have to 

actually motivate. Recruitment means not just offering a job. It 

means motivating people to take this job. It means, in some cases, 

getting whole pure networks to come at the same time. But I do 

not think we are talking about people moving across the entire 

country either. In most places, you have plenty of labor within 100, 

200 miles. 

Mr. KING. Could I summarize that by suggesting that employers 

will do what is necessary and most efficient in order to recruit the 

labor that they need to do the job? 

35

Mr. BECK. They are not going to go out of business just because 

the Congress does not provide them easy foreign labor. 

Mr. KING. And like electricity, follow the path of least resistance. 

I go to Dr. Camarota. You made the statement that the unemployment rates are not even relevant in this discussion, and it is 

interesting. I have not heard that statement made before this panel 

at any time. I am in my fifth year here. I might have missed it. 

But I would ask you to expand upon that a little bit. 

I went back to the U.S. Department of Labor, and I thought, 

well, if you are a company and you wanted to evaluate if you are 

going to establish, you know, in a locale, you would go in and do 

a survey and find out what is the available labor supply. The U.S. 

Department of Labor will get you those numbers if you break those 

statistics down. You have done that, and if you could speak to that 

issue, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Sure. Look, I mean, the national unemployment 

rate includes everyone, and it includes only those who say they are 

actively looking for a job at the time the Government asks. 

If we break that down and look at, say, workers with less than 

a high school education, their unemployment rate is usually two 

and often three times the national average. If we look at young 

workers who have only a high school degree but are under the age 

of 30, their unemployment rate is typically double the national average. 

Then there is the issue of all the people who are not even in the 

labor market, some 20 million people who have no education beyond high school, they are not in school, and they are not in the 

labor market right now. Now, obviously, not every one of those individuals wants to work. 

But to put some of this in perspective, if there are 23 million 

less-educated natives, either unemployed or not in the labor market, 10 million teens, 4 million college students in the same situation, there are about 7 million illegal aliens. If you are asking me, 

‘‘Does it seem that we have easily the potential pool of workers to 

replace the 7 million illegal aliens?’’ provided we pay well enough, 

yes. 

Mr. KING. All right. Thank you, Dr. Camarota. 

Mr. Fair, Dr. Camarota made the statement that 40 percent of 

the decline in Black employment over the years 1980 to 2000 was 

indexed to an increase in immigration—illegal immigration would 

be part of that—would you speak to that issue, please? 

Mr. FAIR. Well, absolutely. There is no doubt about, as we look, 

for example, in Miami, that as the numbers rise in terms of legal 

and illegal immigration, then prosperity drops in our community. 

As we look at how they are recruited—you alluded to that earlier—

it becomes quite clear that there is a system of informality that allows those, because of their numbers, to impact adversely on my 

community. 

If we go to Fort Lauderdale International Airport, nine out of 10 

of the workers there happen to be Haitian, and you would, therefore, conclude that Black people who live in Liberty City do not 

want to work at the airport. That is not true. There is no official 

advertisement of the jobs into my community that Black folks are 

aware of. As a result of that, then it impacts adversely on our numVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:32 Sep 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\050907\35244.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35244
36

bers because the jobs are there, folks take the jobs, and therefore 

the 40 percent keeps getting larger and larger. 

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

Mr. KING. That is the recruitment channel that Mr. Beck addressed. 

I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Ellison for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentations. I appreciate it. 

I also thank the Chair and the Ranking Member for the hearing. 

It is a very important subject. 

I wonder, Mr. Fair, if you could talk about some of the efforts 

that have taken place from a governmental standpoint or it may 

be even a business-community standpoint in Liberty City or even 

Florida to do active recruitment efforts, training efforts, educational efforts to get the young Black men that you and I care so 

much about in a position to take the jobs that you are mentioning. 

So could you talk about what is going on without regard to immigration, but just things that we are doing to train and recruit and 

educate young African-American men to be ready for the job market? What is going on now? 

Mr. FAIR. Through our South Florida workforce program, which 

is the primary Government-funded program whose purpose is to 

address that issue, there is a lot going on. The issue is not what 

is going on, but the issue is the magnitude of that which is going 

on. 

If you have a federally designed program to train and prepare 

300 persons who are unemployed to participate in the job market, 

but the real population of need is 3,000 people, then you make no 

significant impact on the pattern then. So what is needed is a reallocation of significant resources to resolve the problem today, not 

tomorrow. 

Mr. ELLISON. You know, Mr. Fair, I will agree with you wholeheartedly. I think you are dead on the mark. 

The thing that concerns me about the whole discussion we are 

having today is that, you know, for years and years—and, you 

know, I am a 43-year-old African-American man—I well remember 

looking for a job, having trouble getting one. In the programs available, the things to help me get employed were not easy to find, and 

yet in 2007, we are being told that it is the immigrants’ fault. And 

I just do not buy that. 

I think that there has been a consistent neglect of young AfricanAmerican men participating in the labor force for quite a long time, 

and now, all of a sudden, for political reasons, some people say, 

‘‘Oh, it is the immigrants,’’ and I just have problems believing that. 

If I could ask you a question, Mr. Camarota, I thought your presentation was very interesting, and I think that you have an excellent command of the statistics in your presentation and I just want 

to ask you this question. You have made a good case, I think, that 

America does not have a labor shortage. There are more than 

enough native American workers to fill the particularly low-wage 

jobs out there. 

37

But that does not necessarily lead me to the conclusion that it 

is somehow foreign workers that are doing the displacing. I mean, 

that might be a reasonable conclusion to draw, but I wonder if you 

could help me draw the line a little bit tighter for me. For example, 

if you say there is a worker surplus for low-wage sector employment, can we then necessarily draw the conclusion that it is somehow the agency of low-wage foreign workers or their acts that are 

causing the displacement of the native workers? 

It seems to me that there is a real good chance that is the native 

corporate structure that is trying to get low-wage workers that are 

easy to manipulate, not likely to form a union, and are subject to 

being intimidated through Government acts and through ICI that 

sort of makes them really want to seek out these foreign workers, 

which is really the real causative factor. 

I wonder if you would comment, if you understand what I am 

saying. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Well, let me answer it this way. Maybe this is 

helpful. If the question is, is immigration the only problem that 

less-educated workers face or African-American men face, clearly, 

it is not. You have other structural problems in the U.S. economy. 

But take that NBER paper for example. It did say that 40 percent of the problem seems to be related to immigration, and it is 

a 40 percent we could change. We could set a different immigration 

level and dramatically reduce it. It is very hard to instruct the Japanese to stop setting up factories in Malaysia or to slow the pace 

of technological innovation which generally disadvantages less-educated people. So this is something we have control over, we can actually do something about. 

And another issue is that there also is a kind of a crowding out 

for public services as well. So you do not just have labor market 

impact. You can also have impact, say, on health care and education for low-income populations. But immigration is not the only 

problem. Absolutely. 

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

The Ranking Member, Mr. Smith, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Fair, let me address my first question to you, but preface it 

by saying that, 2 weeks ago, I attended church in the Black community of San Antonio, and after church was over, I had breakfast 

with about 12 new friends in a room next to the church itself. 

The number-one issue they were concerned about was illegal immigration. That was from their heart. They have seen the evidence 

of it in their community, and they knew what they were talking 

about. 

It seems to me that unless we think we can somehow repeal the 

law of supply and demand when, as you said, when you get into 

the magnitude of the number of people coming in, the mass illegal 

immigration or mass legalization of illegal immigrants, that is inevitably going to have an adverse impact on lots of communities, 

but probably disproportionately the Black community. 

Why do you think that there are organizations, particularly even 

civil rights organizations, that deny that immigration has an impact? As Mr. Camarota just said, we know there are lots of reasons, 

38

but it would be dangerous denial to say that immigration is not one 

of the substantive reasons. Do you have any thoughts on that? 

Mr. FAIR. I most certainly do, and it takes more than 5 minutes, 

but it is called the complicity of race. And that means that for so 

long, we have been denied the right to be right about things that 

are important to us, that when we publicly are right, we get condemned. So the most important thing is for us to be liked by those 

even though they do not like us. 

It is amazing that if you look at the history of Black leadership 

on this issue, from A. Philip Randolph to Frederick Douglass, W.B. 

DuBois, they all were against immigration, but a strange thing 

happened on the way to the press conference. Their supporters initially were people who were immigrants and, therefore, suggested 

to them that you cannot be against us if you are not for us, and 

they had to withdraw their positions publicly. The only one that 

kept his position was A. Philip Randolph. He started out as a restrictionist. He ended up being a restrictionist. 

The leadership today is the same. They want to make sure that 

they are liked, but they cannot deny the reality, and if you talk to 

people, as you talked to those persons at the church, you will find 

that what they are saying nationally is not what we are feeling on 

the street. 

Mr. SMITH. That is a profound statement. I thank you for that. 

Mr. Beck and Mr. Camarota, let me ask a question of you all. 

First of all, Mr. Beck, congratulations on the recent 10th anniversary of NumbersUSA and for all the good work that you have 

been doing. 

You mentioned Barbara Jordan. I served with Barbara. Or did 

I serve with Barbara Jordan? She was certainly a personal friend 

of mine, and I know we had to testify before the Immigration Subcommittee that I chaired years ago. I admire her work, and it is 

interesting that we are now disregarding her work. 

She, of course, is a former Congresswoman from Texas, AfricanAmerican herself, and she saw clearly the dangers of illegal immigration to the American labor market, and since both of you all 

have testified about the labor market, that is really my question. 

Both of you have said that there is no labor shortage, that, in one 

case, wages are less than inflation for the low-skilled for the last 

several years. Clearly, immigration has an impact on that, although a lot of people tend to gloss over that. 

Do you all have any statistics to give us today as to how many 

legal immigrants there are in the so-called categories of jobs where 

illegal immigrants supposedly predominate? My figures are along 

the lines of, for instance, even in the service sector, even in the 

food industry, even in the construction industry, the vast majority 

of individuals are actually legal workers, and yet that is where the 

highest unemployment is among American workers because of the 

oftentimes low-skilled foreign workers who are coming in and displacing American workers. 

Mr. Beck and Mr. Camarota? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Yes. I mean, roughly speaking, in occupations 

like construction, building, cleaning and maintenance, or food preparation and service, about half of the immigrants in those occupations are illegal, about half are legal, but in most cases, about 70 

39

to 80 percent of the people in those occupations are U.S. born. So 

illegals generally make up anywhere from 10 to 20 percent of the 

workers in those occupational categories. 

If I had time, I could go through and give you some more precise 

estimates, but roughly speaking, in most of those occupations, 80 

percent of the people are legal and, in most cases, it is more than 

80 percent. In fact, if you looked at all 370-plus occupations as defined by the Department of Commerce, you can basically not find 

any that are majority foreign born, let alone majority illegal. 

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

We will now recognize Mr. Davis for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Let me welcome the panel. 

Mr. Fair, let me begin with a statement. I recognize I am not a 

witness today, but given my friend from Texas’s comments and 

given your comments, I do want to put one thing in perspective. I 

do not know that generalizations help us a whole lot today. 

Mr. Fair, I noticed the title of your opening statement is a provocative one. It is ‘‘Mass Immigration Versus Black America,’’ 

which implies that there is a monolith of effect and a monolith of 

opinion within the Black community. 

You and I do not think alike on this issue. You and Mr. Ellison 

do not think alike on it. There is no monolith of opinion in the 

Black community. Some Black people would be supportive of one 

approach on immigration. Some, such as you, would take another. 

But I assume and hope you would agree with me there is no Black 

position on this. 

Let me move from that to another set of observations. I want to 

pick up on Mr. Ellison’s points. Mr. Ellison was—and this is how 

I took Mr. Ellison’s questions. I think trying to get you to focus on 

cause-effect. You lay out in your opening statement, your testimony 

today, a lot of effects. 

You worry, for example, about the fact that illegal aliens could 

be costing taxpayers $10 billion more in services than they pay in 

taxes, and then you make the statement that is $10 billion that is 

not being spent on disadvantaged Americans. You mention social 

services. 

If I understand your testimony, your argument, the context, you 

have said that the money that we are spending on illegal aliens, 

in your opinion, takes dollars away from the safety net in this 

country. Is that a fair characterization? 

Mr. FAIR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let’s focus on $10 billion. Do you happen to support 

the Warner Act? 

Mr. FAIR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. You do. Do you happen to know how much it has 

cost? 

Mr. FAIR. No, I do not. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you have any idea? 

Mr. FAIR. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you think it is in excess of $10 billion? 

Mr. FAIR. Should be. 

Mr. DAVIS. It is actually, as I understand it, $8.4 billion a month. 

That is money that could be spent on social services, too, isn’t it? 

40

Mr. FAIR. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Are you testifying before any Committee about the 

war on Iraq draining resources from social services? 

Mr. FAIR. I have not been invited. 

Mr. DAVIS. Would you agree to testify to any Committee that the 

war on Iraq is costing too much money in social services? Is that 

a cause you have taken up, sir? 

Mr. FAIR. No, I have not. 

Mr. DAVIS. You mention, for example, and you talk in your next 

paragraph about the fact that you think the presence of immigrants—legal and illegal, I am assuming—results in school overcrowding. Is that also an assertion of yours, that it has created 

overcrowded schools? 

Mr. FAIR. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. You say it has diverted resources that could have 

been devoted to at-risk students. You are familiar with No Child 

Left Behind, are you not? 

Mr. FAIR. Got my pin on. 

Mr. DAVIS. Are you aware that over the last 4 years that there 

has been a $17 billion gap between the authorizing levels of No 

Child Left Behind and the amount of money that Congress has put 

on the table? 

Mr. FAIR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. Does that concern you? 

Mr. FAIR. Yes, it does. 

Mr. DAVIS. Are you taking any newspaper ads out complaining 

about No Child Left Behind being underfunded? 

Mr. FAIR. Not at this point, but if I get the opportunity——

Mr. DAVIS. Well, it is your money and your opportunity. Have 

you purchased any newspaper ads regarding No Child Left Behind 

being underfunded? 

Mr. FAIR. No, I have not. 

Mr. DAVIS. You ask in your opening statement, ‘‘What is more 

likely to persuade a teenager in the inner city to reject the lure of 

gang life and instead stick with honest employment?’’ And then you 

ask, ‘‘Amnesty and more immigration or enforcement and less immigration?’’

I absolutely agree with you that gang life is a problem in many 

communities, including yours in Miami. I assume that part of the 

problem that there is a gang life is that there is a strong drug culture. Is that correct? 

Mr. FAIR. Okay. 

Mr. DAVIS. I assume that part of the problem is gang life, is 

there is an absence of opportunities for young people when they 

leave school at 3. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. FAIR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. Have you taken out any ads complaining about an absence of dollars for after-school programs, Mr. Fair? 

Mr. FAIR. No, I have not. 

Mr. DAVIS. The point that I am making to you—and my time is 

limited, but I think you get and everyone in this room gets the 

point that I am making—there are a lot of things contributing to 

the absence of social services. There are a lot of things contributing 

to the desperate plight of young Black men. There are a lot of 

41

things contributing to the desperate plight of urban communities. 

And you have chosen to pick the one for your focus that is the most 

divisive, that is, frankly, the most corrosive. 

If you, frankly, would spend the same kind of energy criticizing 

budget priorities that shortchange those communities, if you spent 

the same kind of energy criticizing social neglect of those communities, you would be quite an eloquent voice in the debate. I have 

no doubt of that. 

But my disappointment is with the effort to generalize and to 

suggest that all Black folks think the same about this, and to suggest that this issue has the causal effect it does, I disagree with 

you about that. 

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

The gentleman——

Mr. KING. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent the gentleman be allowed to respond to the 5 minutes of allegations. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for an 

additional 1 minute. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I am happy to let you respond. Those were not allegations, Mr. 

Fair. I am simply stating my assertions. You are free to state 

yours. 

But I will end with this point. Yes, we need to do something 

about the illegal immigration that we have in this country. We all 

agree on that. We need to secure our border because things more 

dangerous than people can come over our border. 

I absolutely agree with you that if employers go out and hire 

illegals, they ought to be punished. I was a prosecutor. I sent people to jail for hiring illegals. 

But my concern is when you plunge in this issue and you get into 

this us-against-them rhetoric. I would submit—my final point, 

Madam Chairwoman—us-against-them politics, Mr. Fair, is not in 

the interest of racial minorities. 

Thank you, Madam. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Fair? 

Mr. FAIR. Thank you very much. 

First of all, let me congratulate you for reading my testimony. 

Secondly, let me also say that if you would state what you read 

correctly, I did acknowledge that all of those other circumstances 

exist that impact adversely on my community. 

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

Mr. KING. Madam Chair, I would ask unanimous consent that 

the witness be allowed an additional minute to be able to respond 

to the question. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I object because we have already been here an 

hour, and I am sure that Mr. Gallegly will invite the witness to respond further. 

Mr. Gallegly is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Parliamentary inquiry. Did the Chairwoman indicate that she was giving the gentleman from Alabama an additional minute to allow the witness to respond? 

Ms. LOFGREN. There was a unanimous consent request. Time is 

not granted to witnesses. Time is granted Members of the Committee to yield, and the gentleman——

42

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, the record should note that he took all the 

time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, not all of the time, but I am sure Mr. 

Gallegly will correct that. 

Mr. Gallegly is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Not only are you a good Chairwoman, you are a 

very astute Chairwoman, and with that, I thank the gentlelady for 

the time. 

And I would very much like to have the opportunity to hear Mr. 

Fair respond to Mr. Davis’s statement. 

Mr. FAIR. Thank you very much, sir. 

As I pointed out, if you read my testimony, I did acknowledge 

and give credit to all of the other conditions that creates the problems that we are concerned about as it relates to the predicament 

of Black America. 

I also said in that statement that mass immigration is part of 

those issues that create the problem that we do not talk about, and 

since this was about immigration, it was appropriate for me, I 

thought, to point out my concerns about the impact of mass immigration, not the impact of drug culture, not the impact of 

‘‘dysfunctioning’’ families, not the impact of anything called poverty 

or racism. But this was the context about the impact of mass immigration. 

I tried to do that, and I think I did that correctly, and I am in 

agreement with your observations that I should be equally as concerned about those other issues, and I think that my record speaks 

to the fact that I am more than equally concerned about those 

other issues. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Fair, as the chairman of Florida’s Board of 

Education, can you describe in your words the impact that the high 

number of children that speak no English or limited English? Has 

it or has it not or to what degree has it strained the schools in your 

State, especially those that have the greatest needs in the economically challenged areas? 

Mr. FAIR. The impact, once again, is about resources and resource allocation. Clearly, we understand that in many instances 

when we have rules that allow both legal and illegal immigrants 

to come into our community, the burden of preparing those persons 

or taking care of those persons has always stayed with the local 

and State government. In two instances do we get enough money 

from the Federal Government in order to do those things that are 

related to the newfound citizens of the community. 

So part of what has been the challenge for the State of Florida, 

once again, is to always figure out how can it come up with additional resources that are necessary to meet those needs without 

any real resources coming from the Federal Government. It is a 

strain. It is a budgetary one. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Fair, would you say it is a reasonable assessment to say that illegal immigration affects those most that can 

least afford to be, that have the greatest needs? 

Mr. FAIR. Everything that I have been able to read and understand, whether it is a CIS report or a NumbersUSA report or a 

FAIR report or a scholarly report from Harvard or from Northeastern University, all support the fact that in spite of what we 

43

think, the reality is that it does impact adversely on those who can 

least afford it. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Fair. 

Mr. Camarota, you know, we have heard lots of numbers, and, 

unfortunately, there is no real way to clearly define what the real 

accurate number is. We hear 12 million. We hear 20 million. But 

by the most conservative estimates today, we very seldom hear less 

than 12 million. So let’s say that we are going to accept the most 

conservative number being 12 million. 

We have also heard that most experts agree that a single immigrant may be responsible for at least 10 that they would subsequently sponsor once they got amnesty or some form of status. 

Let’s say that we take only a percentage of that, two, which would 

be a conservative number. That would translate into an additional 

24 million that would be entering the country over the next 10 

years. 

Could you just give me a brief response whether you would agree 

with those numbers as being conservative, and what kind of an impact would that have, particularly on low-skilled native workers? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Okay. Very briefly, if we legalize those here, obviously, it could stimulate a lot more legal immigration. The last 

amnesty most certainly did. Legal immigration is double what it 

was prior to the amnesty. So, yes, certainly, if we legalize 10 million or 12 million people, we could stimulate a lot, and, again, because the people legalized have very little education——

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

Mr. CAMAROTA [continuing]. It would tend to stimulate legal immigration of people with very little education as well. 

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

The gentlelady form Texas is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

And thank you to all the witnesses. 

Mr. Fair, welcome. 

Mr. FAIR. Thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I have had the opportunity to question the organizations represented by Mr. Beck and Dr. Camarota. In fact, I 

think, Dr. Camarota—hello—you have seen me in years past—and 

so forgive me if I focus on Mr. Fair. 

Let me make a personal statement and thank Chairwoman 

Lofgren. It should be very clear how unique, how different, how far 

reaching the approach on this comprehensive immigration reform 

has now taken under her chairwomanship. I served for 6 years as 

the Ranking Member in hearings that then the minority desired to 

have could never be heard. We could never be heard. And so I 

think it is a tribute to the new attitude of this Congress to want 

to make sure that all voices are taken into consideration as we 

move toward this very, very important step. 

I say that to Mr. Beck and Dr. Camarota because your information is important. We will be utilizing that data. It is important. 

Mr. Fair, it is important to note, as I acknowledge the importance of statistics, that the overall perspective, I might disagree 

with you on—and let me just be very clear—but I welcome the discussion. Why? I am a former board member of the Houston Area 

44

Urban League. I champion the leadership over the years that the 

Urban League has fostered on issues of economics, job training. 

I know you know from whence you speak, and I appreciate that 

you have given us the opportunity to carry this discussion even if 

in the backdrop of a position that I question, but I certainly welcome because I believe if we are going to get comprehensive immigration reform, your interests, your needs have to be considered. 

So let me welcome you and pose a number of questions for you 

in light of that. 

First of all, I think it is important to note that there are many 

different constituencies that will be addressing this question. I 

have lived with the comprehensive question, and so I find it crucial, wearing several hats, that whether it is humane, whether it 

is through homeland security, whether it is because we are a mosaic nation, that we find a road map to document those who are 

undocumented. I think we need to find a way to address the question of the need of temporary workers. I also believe that we have 

to find a way to ensure that populations that you speak about are 

stakeholders in the process. 

Now I heard someone on the radio say, ‘‘I am so mad because’’ 

my son or daughter ‘‘cannot get a job at Burger King.’’ I do not 

want to denigrate Burger King. Of course, this was an AfricanAmerican person. I do not want to denigrate Burger King, but I 

want their son or daughter to maybe pass by Burger King and 

work at Microsoft or be a refined educator or whatever as we move 

up the economic ladder. I do not want to fight over Burger King, 

and I am not denigrating it. 

But I will say to you there is a vast need of diverse workforce. 

Some of those happen to be people who are now undocumented. 

But how do we get to where you want to go? Here is what I want 

to ask. 

I also want to make note so that the record can be clear. The 

Congressional Black Caucus and the Asian Pacific Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus are working together. No voice is going to be left out, 

and we are hearing your voice. That is what I think is important. 

I do not want you to think that you are up here with the lights 

out and the shades down. The Chairwoman has been very, very 

open to hearing different viewpoints. 

But the question has to be: How do we get to where you want 

to be? Race matters, does it not, Mr. Fair? 

Mr. FAIR. Yes, it does. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It is still a question. 

And I notice in this book, we have a number of issues, the state 

of civil rights, the unequalness as it relates, but my question is if 

we can get an immigration bill that partnerships job training, job 

retention, I do not want to say protectiveness, but hire American 

first, alongside of recognizing that we have to secure America, can 

you work along those lines where language would be to tie the 

growth of immigration to retaining jobs, training, going in to underserved areas and providing real training dollars, not the kind 

that you cannot find? 

I yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. FAIR. Thank you very much, and I think you are absolutely 

correct. The issue becomes, as we pursue a comprehensive reform, 

45

that we also take into consideration the impact that that reform is 

going to have on American citizens. We also understand that it is 

much more palatable when we begin to look for solutions, when we 

articulate to the masses that we also are concerned about your current condition. 

It is not about making excuses. It is about understanding that 

no matter what you do, you have to make sure that what you do 

impacts on everybody. Part of that solution, for example, is going 

back to Whitney M. Young’s Marshall Plan. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. 

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, my sentence, as it expires, is I 

recocommend that you read the Save America Comprehensive Immigration Reform, the parts of that that talk about job training 

and tying it to comprehensive immigration reform. 

I thank the gentleman, and I yield back. 

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

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

minutes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

I would just have to take issue with one of the statements made 

that somehow allowing minority day and minority views is a new 

day in this Committee. 

I chaired a hearing on behalf of Mr. Coble last year dealing, I 

believe, with one of the issues surrounding the Patriot Act and 

Habeus Corpus and so forth. We held that. We were not the only 

Subcommittee that did it. I chaired it. I allowed two rounds. I allowed extra time for everybody. And to suggest that somehow we 

did not allow minority——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LUNGREN. No. I do not have the time to yield because we are 

being kept to a very——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, I hope I will be able to explain it on my 

time. Thank you. 

Mr. LUNGREN. We are being kept to a very short 5 minutes here, 

and I just want to say that fairness is fairness, and I appreciate 

the fact that——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Not immigration. It was not fair. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Could we have order, please? 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman controls the time. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, it is tough to control the time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am trying. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I come here from a different perspective, I think, 

than some people on this panel. I was here not when Barbara Jordan was here with her commission, but I go back to the commission 

that was co-chaired by Father Hesburgh who made the statement 

that we must close the back door of illegal immigration so that we 

can keep the front door, legal immigration, open. 

So I am not one of those who believe that we ought not to have 

immigration. I believe that we ought to have a controlled immigration system, and that requires us to stop illegal immigration. 

But I also must say that when we were dealing with the issue 

in the late 1970’s that our unemployment rate was over 6 percent, 

sometimes 7.5 percent or higher than that. Most economists beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:32 Sep 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\050907\35244.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35244
46

lieved that full employment would always leave you with at least 

6 percent unemployment. We are now running at about 4.4, 4.5 

percent. We have to understand that we have different economic 

circumstances now that are actually better. 

However, the real problem remains that we have large pockets 

of unemployment, particularly among minority communities, and 

that is something that all of us, I think, on a bipartisan basis, 

ought to be concerned about. 

I do not have a study, but anecdotally—I used to work in construction—frankly, the face of construction has changed in the last 

20 years, and in some cases, unless you know Spanish, you cannot 

get a job in construction, and I see a paucity of African-American 

young men working in construction. 

Now I wish the gentleman that made assertions—I think that 

was the word—was still here because I think that we have to deal 

with that. And so, that is my perspective. 

And here is what I would like to ask Mr. Beck and Dr. 

Camarota. I happen to be one of those who do not believe that we 

can take 12 million people out and somehow round them up and 

send them home. I think we have to do something. It cannot be 

amnesty from my standpoint as I define it. 

But my question is this: If we were to have a program, such as 

has been talked about being negotiated or at least talked about in 

the Senate, of a legal status for those who have been here illegally, 

have not broken the law, speak English, can take care of themselves and so forth, they would have to do it every 3 years, they 

have to pay a penalty, they do not have the right to bring in other 

family members, that time is not a new time to count toward citizenship—so they are here, but they are here under legal circumstances—wouldn’t that be preferable? 

And then we would have real enforcement—real enforcement—

I mean employer sanctions and some real means of identification, 

a tamper-proof Social Security card and a worker card, whatever 

you want to call it, wouldn’t that be a better situation than what 

we have today? 

Mr. BECK. It would be marginally better, yes, but the key factor 

with illegal immigrants—the Jordan Commission found this—was 

not that they are illegal, but that they are here, and that is the 

reason why the level of legal immigration is too high as well. That 

is——

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, do you want to cut off all immigration? 

Mr. BECK. No, but immigration should be reduced back, as the 

Jordan Commission said, to a level that actually serves the national interests. We have all of these——

Mr. LUNGREN. So you are talking about immigration—it does not 

matter, legal or illegal? 

Mr. BECK. The Jordan Commission recommended deep cuts in 

our legal——

Mr. LUNGREN. I understand that. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Well, I mean, the research does not suggest that 

illegals work for dramatically less, though clearly that happens. 

Rather, it is just their presence here. If you are concerned about 

low-skilled workers, then do not import so many and try to make 

as many of them go home. Legalizing does not solve that problem. 

47

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

The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank, Madam Chairman. 

I would like to come back to Mr. Fair, and I really appreciated 

your responses to the assertions from the gentleman from Alabama. I wish he had been here to hear all of your response to his 

assertions. You made some good points. 

All of you have made some good points. I know it takes time out 

of your schedule, and you do not get paid for being a witness here, 

so we greatly appreciate all three of your input into the process. 

I think it is better when you do not get lectured the whole time 

when you come here to testify. 

But, Mr. Fair, you brought up Miami as a good example, and you 

basically raised a question about what happened to the AfricanAmerican workers that you had seen in the hotels and other places 

working that you say now are being held by immigrants, regardless 

legal or illegal. 

It raises a question—and I am curious—do you know what has 

happened to those African-American workers that you used to see? 

Are there any surveys or studies that have shown? Are these part 

of the ones that have just become disenfranchised and not even 

seeking work? Do you know where they are now? 

Mr. FAIR. I think it is probably a combination of all of the above. 

One of the things that we cannot get in Miami is a discussion 

around this issue. If you have a discussion around this issue, then 

someone assumes that you are having a discussion because you are 

anti-someone being present. Therefore, we can never have the discussion. I am hoping that Steve and CIS, for example, would do a 

study. It would be interesting to know where Black America in 

Miami would be today, for example, had not the Cubans come. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I am curious where they are today. 

Mr. FAIR. Well, some of us say that they are dead, they are incarcerated, they are part of that 80 percent between 18 and 40 that 

are unemployed. They are part of the new illegal culture in the 

community. I do not know, but some of these academicians, like 

Steve and CIS and Roy Beck from NumbersUSA, ought to really 

document that so you and I would have that answer. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. But you do not know of a current study 

that gives us that information? 

Mr. FAIR. No. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But you are right. It would be very helpful. 

Do you other two know of any studies of that nature? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Well, basically, there is a very long literature 

showing that less-educated Black men have left the labor force in 

large numbers in cities like Miami. 

In answer to the question, clearly, Blacks have upscaled, so there 

would be less working in those jobs, and there was some attrition 

out, and so, basically, some got better employment, some retained 

the job and a whole lot seems to have just left the labor market 

entirely and do not even show up in unemployment statistics, and 

a lot of others are now intermittently employed, so they are unemployed, employed, unemployed. So that is sort of the answer. 

It is a mixed bag. Some were crowded out and went elsewhere 

and did okay, and some seem to have done quite poorly. 

48

Mr. BECK. I would just like to comment about the history, and 

I happen to be the author of a couple of books, lots of research particularly focused on the relationship between mass immigration 

and Black Americans beginning in the 1820’s. 

What history shows is that every time we have spikes of mass 

immigration, Black Americans’ employment opportunities go down. 

Wage depression hits all American workers, but especially Black 

Americans, and that is a function of race and culture. 

Right now, Mr. Fair, listening to his testimony, I am hearing 

sometimes it is not race, it is culture. There is a preference of Haitian workers over the descendants of American slaves, and I think 

that is tied very much into culture of guilt and almost like White 

majority society’s guilt about slavery and, therefore, they take it 

out on the people that just their presence make them feel guilty. 

But the literature is very clear that throughout American history, high immigration means a step backwards for Black progress. 

It has happened over and over again. It is happening right now. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, as my time is getting closer to expiring, 

maybe a study like that would be helpful. 

I would like to comment. Yes, I would like for all Americans to 

be able at some point to drive past Burger King and have other 

employment, but I think the far greater tragedy is those who have 

come disenfranchised and are not even trying. There is the real 

tragedy because some of us started out having some of the worst 

jobs—cleaning toilets, for example, that nearly made me throw 

up—but that gave me opportunities to keep moving on, and crawling under houses for a job that you had to dig your way in and dig 

your out, hauling hay 18 hours a day. Those jobs may be menial 

and some think less respectable, but I would submit they give you 

a chance to move on to better education. 

Thank you all very much. 

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

The Chair recognizes herself for 5 minutes. I just wanted to 

make a couple of comments. 

First, in our hearing last week, we had very interesting testimony, and one of the pieces of testimony was about a study done 

by Professor David Card of Princeton University. Rather than do 

the analysis that economists do, they took an actual event and 

studied it, and what they did was they studied the Mariel boat lift 

into Cuba to see what happened when 125,000 individuals, primarily low-skilled, all of a sudden in a very short period of time 

jumped into Miami. 

It increased the population of Miami, according to the study, by 

7 percent, and what they found was, surprisingly or not, there was 

no adverse impact on the employment at any level, not among Cubans, a very tiny, slight effect on Cubans, no adverse impact on African-American workers. They did controlled studies in Atlanta, 

Houston and Los Angeles, and without objection, I am going to 

make the underlying economic report a part of the record—and I 

will also provide it to you, Mr. Fair—along with the updated study 

from 2005 which I will also make part of the record, without objection. 

Also, the Ranking Member mentioned that there are these studies, and they are absolutely correct because they have not been 

49

countered, and I think certainly they have been countered by witness after witness. I just want to mention a critique, which, without objection, I will make part of the record, of The Heritage Foundation which is often cited. 

This report from the Immigration Policy Center describes The 

Heritage Foundation as ‘‘deeply flawed’’ and that it relies on ‘‘inflated statistics and dubious assumptions to arrive at its flawed 

conclusions.’’ It goes on to say that the report contributes to ‘‘lowincome households the cost of political decisions over which they 

have no control. For instance, the Heritage report’s accounting lowincome households are responsible for a share of the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq.’’

And they also allocate to immigrants ‘‘the payment on the national debt stemming from the enactment of tax cuts’’ that have 

created a huge hole in the budget, and they also go on to say that 

the report does not accurately gauge the impact of any group on 

the U.S. economy as a whole. 

I would like to just read a section on page 6 of the report. ‘‘To 

the extent that the Heritage report mentions immigration at all, it 

is to raise the specter of immigration reform unleashing a flood of 

low-wage immigrants into the U.S. labor market and dramatically 

increasing the fiscal burden on U.S. taxpayers. The authors support this grim scenario by citing another Heritage report from May 

of 2006 which presented inflated estimates of the increase in legal 

immigration that allegedly would result’’ from the bill in the Senate last year. 

‘‘The 2006 report claimed that the bill would allow anywhere 

from 66 million to 217 million new immigrants into the United 

States over the next 20 years. The outlandishness of these projections is evident in the fact that the estimate of 217 million is 70 

million more than the combined populations of Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama. The 2006 report arrived at these estimates largely through 

statistical slight of hand in which many categories of immigrants 

were double counted.’’

And, without objection, this report is a part of our record. 

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

Ms. LOFGREN. I just think it is important that we have the facts 

before us. We are all entitled to our opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. 

At this point, I would like to recognize the gentlelady from Texas 

for a unanimous consent request. Ms. Jackson Lee, did you have 

a unanimous consent request? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I certainly did. Let me thank the Chairwoman. I would like to put into the record the chapter from ‘‘The 

State of Black America 2007,’’ the section, Mr. Fair, on status of 

civil rights by Ted Shaw. And I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit that into the record. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection. 

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

Mr. KING. Madam Chair? Madam Chair, I have a unanimous 

consent request. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am sorry? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am sorry. I did not——

50

Ms. LOFGREN. All right. Without objection, Mr. King, you have 

a unanimous——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I did not finish mine. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Oh, I am sorry. I did not mean to cut you off of 

your unanimous consent request. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

And I would like to also put into the record section 703 of H.R. 

750, the ‘‘Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007,’’ 

Mr. Fair, that talks about the issue of recruitment of American 

workers. 

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would clarify the fact that, as the Ranking 

Member on this Committee on Immigration, we never were able to 

hear the then-minority view, which was the view of Democrats at 

that time. And I thank the gentlelady. 

Ms. LOFGREN. My time has expired. 

I recognize the Ranking Member for a unanimous consent request. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I ask unanimous consent that the Rector study be introduced 

into the record. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection. 

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

Mr. KING. And I might also, if the Chair would submit, do a very 

short colloquy. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We have been here for an hour and 35 minutes. 

So the Member is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. KING. Okay. And I would ask the Chair if she would consider 

holding a hearing and allow the author of the study from the Immigration Policy Center to testify before this Committee alongside the 

author of the Rector study so we would have an opportunity to 

evaluate the perspectives of those two experts. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We will certainly consider any requests by the minority. We are mindful that we have a very aggressive schedule of 

hearings and very few days to do it. And so, if the request would 

be proposed to us in writing, we will consider it, understanding 

that we are in conflict with other Subcommittees, and finding dates 

when we can actually meet has proven to be quite a challenge. But 

we will do our very best. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. At this point——

Mr. GOHMERT. Parliamentary inquiry. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes? 

Mr. GOHMERT. A comment was made that the minority position 

was never allowed to be heard in the last term. Was there ever a 

minority request made in the last——

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry. 

Without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit any additional written questions to you witnesses, which we 

will forward and ask that you answer as promptly as you can, to 

be made part of the record. 

Without objection, the record will remain open for 5 legislative 

days——

51

Mr. GOHMERT. Parliamentary inquiry. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. For the submission of any other additional materials. 

I would like to extend an invitation to everyone here to attend 

our next two hearings on comprehensive immigration reform. On 

Tuesday, May 15, at 9:30 a.m., we explore issues relating to how 

immigrants assimilate into American communities. 

And, with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(53)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

‘‘THE IMPACT OF THE MARIEL BOATLIFT ON THE MIAMI LABOR MARKET’’ BY DAVID

CARD, AUGUST 1989, SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN


5-1.eps
54


5-2.eps
55


5-3.eps
56


5-4.eps
57


5-5.eps
58


5-6.eps
59


5-7.eps
60


5-8.eps
61


5-9.eps
62


5-10.eps
63


5-11.eps
64


5-12.eps
65


5-13.eps
66


5-14.eps
67


5-15.eps
68


5-16.eps
69


5-17.eps
70


5-18.eps
71


5-19.eps
72


5-20.eps
73


5-21.eps
74


5-22.eps
75


5-23.eps
76


5-24.eps
77


5-25.eps
78


5-26.eps
79


5-27.eps
80


5-28.eps
81


5-29.eps
82


5-30.eps
83


5-31.eps
84


5-32.eps
85


5-33.eps
86


5-34.eps
87


5-35.eps
88


5-36.eps
89


5-37.eps
90


5-38.eps
91


5-39.eps
92


5-40.eps
93

‘‘IS THE NEW IMMIGRATION REALLY SO BAD?’’ BY DAVID CARD, JANUARY 2005, 

SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN


6-1.eps
94


6-2.eps
95


6-3.eps
96


6-4.eps
97


6-5.eps
98


6-6.eps
99


6-7.eps
100


6-8.eps
101


6-9.eps
102


6-10.eps
103


6-11.eps
104


6-12.eps
105


6-13.eps
106


6-14.eps
107


6-15.eps
108


6-16.eps
109


6-17.eps
110


6-18.eps
111


6-19.eps
112


6-20.eps
113


6-21.eps
114


6-22.eps
115


6-23.eps
116


6-24.eps
117


6-25.eps
118


6-26.eps
119


6-27.eps
120


6-28.eps
121


6-29.eps
122


6-30.eps
123


6-31.eps
124


6-32.eps
125


6-33.eps
126


6-34.eps
127


6-35.eps
128


6-36.eps
129


6-37.eps
130


6-38.eps
131


6-39.eps
132


6-40.eps
133


6-41.eps
134


6-42.eps
135


6-43.eps
136

‘‘DOLLARS WITHOUT SENSE: UNDERESTIMATING THE VALUE OF LESS-EDUCATED

WORKERS’’ BY WALTER A. EWING, PH.D. AND BENJAMIN JOHNSON OF THE IMMIGRATION POLICY CENTER, MAY 2007, SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN


7-1.eps
137


7-2.eps
138


7-3.eps
139


7-4.eps
140


7-5.eps
141


7-6.eps
142


7-7.eps
143


7-8.eps
144

‘‘THE STATE OF CIVIL RIGHTS’’ BY THEODORE M. SHAW FROM THE STATE OF BLACK

AMERICA 2007, PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE, SUBMITTED BY THE

HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE


8-1.eps
145


8-2.eps
146


8-3.eps
147


8-4.eps
148


8-5.eps
149


8-6.eps
150


8-7.eps
151


8-8.eps
152


8-9.eps
153


8-10.eps
154

SECTION 703 OF HR 750, ‘‘RECRUITMENT OF AMERICAN WORKERS IN THE SAVE AMERICA COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 2007’’ SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE

SHEILA JACKSON LEE


9-1.eps
155


9-2.eps
156


9-3.eps
157

‘‘THE IMPACT OF NEW IMMIGRANTS ON YOUNG NATIVE-BORN WORKERS, 2000-2005’’ 

BY ANDREW SUM, PAUL HARRINGTON, AND ISHWAR KHATIWADA OF THE CENTER

FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES, SEPTEMBER 2006, SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE

ELTON GALLEGLY


10-1.eps
158


10-2.eps
159


10-3.eps
160


10-4.eps
161


10-5.eps
162


10-6.eps
163


10-7.eps
164


10-8.eps
165


10-9.eps
166


10-10.eps
167


10-11.eps
168


10-12.eps
169

‘‘THE FISCAL COSTS OF LOW-SKILL HOUSEHOLDS TO THE U.S. TAXPAYER’’ BY ROBERT

RECTOR, CHRISTINE KIM, AND SHANEA WILKINS, PH.D. OF THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE STEVE KING


HSR-1.eps
170


HSR-2.eps
171


HSR-3.eps
172


HSR-4.eps
173


HSR-5.eps
174


HSR-6.eps
175


HSR-7.eps
176


HSR-8.eps
177


HSR-9.eps
178


HSR-10.eps
179


HSR-11.eps
180


HSR-12.eps
181


HSR-13.eps
182


HSR-14.eps
183


HSR-15.eps
184


HSR-16.eps
185


HSR-17.eps
186


HSR-18.eps
187


HSR-19.eps
188


HSR-20.eps
189


HSR-21.eps
190


HSR-22.eps
191


HSR-23.eps
192


HSR-24.eps
193


HSR-25.eps
194


HSR-26.eps
195


HSR-27.eps
196


HSR-28.eps
197


HSR-29.eps
198


HSR-30.eps
199


HSR-31.eps
200


HSR-32.eps
201


HSR-33.eps
202


HSR-34.eps
203


HSR-35.eps
204


HSR-36.eps
205


HSR-37.eps
206


HSR-38.eps
207


HSR-39.eps
208


HSR-40.eps
209


HSR-41.eps
210


HSR-42.eps
211


HSR-43.eps
212


HSR-44.eps
213


HSR-45.eps
214


HSR-46.eps
215


HSR-47.eps
216


HSR-48.eps
217


HSR-49.eps
218


HSR-50.eps
219


HSR-51.eps
220


HSR-52.eps
221


HSR-53.eps
222


HSR-54.eps
223


HSR-55.eps
224

Æ


HSR-56.eps