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

21–024 PDF 2005

NEW JOBS IN RECESSION AND RECOVERY:

WHO ARE GETTING THEM AND WHO ARE NOT?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 4, 2005

Serial No. 109–39

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana, Chairman

STEVE KING, Iowa 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

ART ARTHUR, Counsel 

LUKE BELLOCCHI, Full Committee Counsel 

CINDY BLACKSTON, Professional Staff 

NOLAN RAPPAPORT, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 4, 2005

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

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

State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border 

Security, and Claims ............................................................................................ 1

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims ..................................................................................... 2

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

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 5

The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas ................................................................................................................. 6

The Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California ................................................................................................ 6

WITNESSES 

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

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10

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

Northeastern University 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 28

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 30

Mr. Matthew J. Reindl, Stylecraft Interiors 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 63

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

Dr. Harry J. Holzer, Professor and Associate Dean of Public Policy, Georgetown University 

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

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 76

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims ................................................... 113

(1)

NEW JOBS IN RECESSION AND RECOVERY: 

WHO ARE GETTING THEM AND WHO ARE 

NOT? 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,

BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in 

Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John 

Hostettler (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Good morning. 

Whether accurate or not, our present economic recovery has been 

pegged a ‘‘jobless recovery.’’ There is a sense among many Americans that the job opportunities they and parents once enjoyed are 

no longer available to them and their children. For those on the 

lower rungs of the economic ladder, the very availability of the 

American dream seems to be in question. Today we will examine 

the impact immigration is having on these issues. 

Specifically, we will hear from the authors of two studies that 

have both concluded that all of the increase in employment in the 

United States over the last few years has been attributable to large 

increases in the number of employed immigrants, while the number of employed natives has actually declined. 

The first study was conducted by Steven Camarota of the Center 

for Immigration Studies. Mr. Camarota analyzed Census Bureau 

data and concluded that between March, 2000, and March, 2004, 

the number of Native born adults with jobs decreased by 482,000, 

while at the same time the number of foreign-born adults with jobs 

increased by 2,279,000. Thus, all of the 1.8 million net increase of 

adults with jobs went to foreign-born workers. 

The second study, also relying on Census Bureau data, was conducted by Professors Andrew Sum and Paul Harrington and other 

researchers at the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. They found that total civilian employment increased by 2,346,000 over the period from 2001 through 2004 and 

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

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

Thus, the number of employed Native born and older immigrant 

workers decreased by between 158,000 and 228,000 over the four 

year period. 

2

The authors concluded that ‘‘[for] the first time in the post-WWII 

era, new immigrants accounted for all the growth in employment 

over a four year period. At no time in the past 60 years has the 

country ever failed to generate any new jobs for Native born workers over a four year period . . . 

Both these studies yield astounding results: Native born Americans have not seen any increase in employment in recent years. In 

fact, the number of jobs they hold has decreased. At the same time, 

the number of employed immigrants has risen substantially. 

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

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

them in summary. Mr. Camarota concludes that ‘‘[b]y significantly 

increasing the supply of unskilled workers during the recession, 

immigration may be making it more difficult for [similar American] 

workers to improve their situation.’’ He also finds that ‘‘[t]he fact 

that immigration has remained [consistently] high suggests that 

immigration levels do not simply reflect demand for labor in this 

country. Immigration is clearly not a self-regulating phenomenon 

that will rise and fall with the state of the economy.’’ Mr. Harrington’s study concludes that ‘‘[g]iven large job losses 

among the Nation’s teens, 20–24 year olds with no four year degree, Black males, and poorly-educated Native born men, it is clear 

that Native born workers have been displaced in recent years.’’ Reading these two studies, I reached the troubling conclusion 

that our Nation’s immigration policy has not operated in the best 

interest of American workers, at least over the last few years. It 

appears that the flow of immigrants, both legal and illegal, seems 

to pursue its own independent course, oblivious to whether we are 

experiencing good times or bad. For struggling American workers, 

current immigration levels can prove challenging during good 

times. In bad times, they can be devastating. 

Given this disconcerting picture of the prospects for work for 

many of our fellow citizens, I couldn’t agree more with the conclusion reached by Professors Sum and Harrington when they admonish us that ‘‘[n]ow is an opportune time for the U.S. Congress to 

reflect on the shortcomings of our existing immigration policies.’’

At this time, I turn to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, 

the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Two weeks ago, it was reported that African-Americans had the 

highest unemployment of any group in the United States, some 10 

percent. We know that the economy is not percolating, not even 

simmering, it is probably frying. The question of economy and jobs, 

however, must be fairly and distinctly separated away from the 

idea of immigration equates to a bad economy. 

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I believe that our economy is frying, not 

percolating, not spiraling upwards but spiraling downwards; and I 

make the argument that with real economic policies that confronted the question of job creation for all Americans, we would be 

a better country. 

We will be hearing testimony today about two articles on the effect that immigrants have had on American workers. One of them 

was written by Steven A. Camarota. It is entitled, ‘‘A Jobless Recovery? Immigrant Gains and Native Losses.’’ Among other things, 

3

this article observes that between March of 2000 and March of 

2004, the number of adult immigrants holding a job increased by 

more than 2 million, but the number of adult Natives holding a job 

was nearly half a million. The article concludes that immigration 

may have adversely affected the job prospects of Native born Americans. 

Particularly, I think what may be missing from this article is the 

clear analysis of what kind of jobs, where the jobs are located, and 

the interest and availability of Americans for those jobs. 

The other article reaches a very similar conclusion. It was written by the Center for Labor Market Studies. It is entitled, ‘‘New 

Foreign Immigrants in the Labor Markets in the U.S.: The Unprecedented Effects of New Immigration and Growth of the Nation’s 

Labor Force in Its Employed Population, 2000 to 2004.’’ It is important to understand that these articles are using a 

broad definition of the term ‘‘immigrant.’’ they include undocumented aliens, aliens who are lawful, permanent residents and naturalized citizens. In fact, the article written by the Center for 

Labor Market Studies goes even further. In that article a definition 

of an immigrant is an individual who is born outside of the 50 

States and the District of Columbia. Persons born in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Guam are counted as being part of the 

immigrant population. 

Our witness today, Professor Harry J. Holzer, will explain why 

we should question the conclusion of these articles. Dr. Holzer 

thinks that immigration has modest negative effects on less-educated workers in the U.S., but it also has positive effects on the 

economy. He expects the positive effects to grow much stronger 

after baby boomers retire. Also, according to Dr. Holzer, the employment outcomes of Native born Americans mostly reflect the underlying weakness of the U.S. labor market, rather than large displacements of new immigrants. 

Particularly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to note the obvious, I 

am an African American, and in my lifetime I have experienced 

discrimination. Sadly to say, America still discriminates—in the 

board room, in leadership roles in corporate America, in education, 

in opportunities for undergraduate education, opportunities for 

graduate education, focusing African Americans on disciplines that 

will help and create opportunities for them, equally so of the minorities that have been discriminated or stigmatized, therefore lowering, sometimes, their opportunities to succeed. 

Isn’t it interesting to talk about job loss for Americans, and we 

can find a number of groups—Hispanic Americans, African Americans, Muslim Americans—who still face discrimination in America. 

Maybe if we fix those discriminatory practices, we would find a 

fuller job market for all to participate in. 

I agree with Dr. Holzer that immigrants have a positive effect on 

the economy. Likewise, I would say I want to increase the job market for the constituents that I represent in the 18th Congressional 

District, many inner-city youth, many African Americans, many 

poor Anglos, poor Hispanics looking for work that does not exist. 

In fact, I recently participated in a conference at the Offshore 

Technology Conference; and one of the issues was creating jobs, 

creating a workforce for the energy industry in the 21st century. 

4

They are lacking in job applicants between the ages of 25 and 35. 

One of the reasons is because our educational system has failed to 

educate those who would be qualified to take these jobs. 

Immigrants create new jobs by establishing new businesses, 

spending their incomes on American goods and services, paying 

taxes, and raising the productivity of United States businesses. 

What I would hope is that, as we listen to these particular panelists, that we will find not accusations but solutions. 

For example, I raise the question of asking Americans at this 

stage of their lives to be bilingual on jobs that they have previously 

not had the training, that provides a great deal of consternation 

and divisiveness in our community. We should be able to assume 

a job whether we are bilingual or not, and that means that those 

who are able to perform the job should be able to do the job and 

to be able to be hired for the job. However, to castigate immigrants 

as a cause for a bad economy I believe is the wrong direction to 

go. 

I hope this same hearing is being held in Financial Services, 

Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce, as well as Education 

and Labor so that we can focus our attention on the real key issue, 

creating new, exciting, dynamic jobs for Americans and those who 

live within our boundaries and, as well, fixing the economy. 

The American economy does not have a fixed number of jobs. 

Economists describe the notion that the number of jobs is fixed as 

the ‘‘lump of labor’’ fraught policy. 

Job opportunities expand with the rising population. Since immigrants are both workers and consumers, their spending on food, 

clothing, housing and other items creates new job opportunities. 

Immigrants tend to fill jobs that Americans cannot or will not take 

in sufficient numbers to meet demand, mostly the high and low 

ends of the skill spectrum. Occupations with the large growth in 

absolute numbers tend to be the ones that only require short-term, 

on-the-job training. This includes such occupations as waiters and 

waitresses, retail salespersons, cashiers, nursing aides, orderlies 

and attendants, janitors, home health aides, manual laborers, landscaping workers and manual packers. The supply of American 

workers suitable for such work is falling on account of an aging 

workforce and rising education levels. 

Now I do not suggest that no American will take the jobs of 

being a waiter, a retail salesperson, a cashier, a nursing aide, a 

janitor, home health aide. I would not be so arrogant to suggest 

that. But by creating a bustling economy, all those jobs will expand. They are basically service jobs. Where is the manufacturing 

arm of the United States? Where is the intellectual job creation of 

the United States? Where is the high-tech market of the United 

States? This is what a nation that is capitalistic and democratic accepts as a good quality of life. 

Immigrants came in the early 1900’s. They did work. They 

moved up the ladder. They are now the corporate barons of America. That is what is happening to America now. Immigrants of color 

come to the United States, matched with African Americans who 

first came here as slaves, and all of a sudden they are all circling 

around the same pool of lack of opportunity. America should wake 

up, create opportunity, eliminate discrimination, expand its marVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:35 Aug 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\050405\21024.000 HJUD1 PsN: 21024
5

ket, invest in its economy, create new jobs. That is the answer, not 

pointing out or isolating immigrants. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, some people are concerned that undocumented workers lower wages for American workers. This is a legitimate but probably exaggerated concern. It is not the mere presence 

of undocumented workers that has led to low wages. The problem 

is the lack of bargaining power that these workers have against 

their employers. No worker chooses to be paid low wages or to 

work under poor conditions, nor do we force employers to give low 

wages. I would argue that if you have earned access to legalization, 

allow immigrants to access legalization, create a good job market, 

we will create a workplace for all to work in. 

The way suppression is attributable to the ability of employers 

to exploit its foreign workforce, underpaying foreign workers is only 

one of the methods used by employers to cut labor costs. Temporary and part-time workers are employed without worker benefits, and the labor laws are violated routinely, and these happen to 

be Americans. The solution to this and many other immigration-related problems in our country is comprehensive immigration reform. 

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to note that our Full Committee 

Ranking Member is present, and I would like to be able to ask 

unanimous consent to yield to him at this time. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The lady’s time has expired, but I will recognize the gentleman from Michigan, the Ranking Member from the 

full Committee, for an opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. I want to associate myself with the remarks of our 

Ranking Member, Sheila Jackson Lee. 

What I am interested in is the importance of us not confusing the 

problem of illegal immigrants with all immigrants, and somehow I 

am getting the feeling that this is all being put together in one big 

cauldron and that we are going from there. 

The second point that I would like to make is that if there are 

any reservations about the contributions of naturalized citizens, I 

will be listening carefully to discuss this with our witnesses and 

with my distinguished colleagues on the Committee. Because our 

governor from Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, is a naturalized citizen, coming from Canada at probably the age of two. I also throw 

in the names of Dr. Kissinger and Governor Schwarzenegger as 

others. The point is that naturalized citizens should certainly be 

separated from the issues surrounding the undocumented immigrants, those who are here living outside of the immigration requirements. 

Now my concern about elevating naturalized citizens is so strong 

that I have introduced for the second term a proposal that naturalized citizens, after 20 years in this country, would be able to do the 

only thing that they can’t do right now and that is run for President of the United States. It seems to me the reason that this was 

done several hundred years ago is pretty clear, but whether that 

is a concern at this time, I don’t think so. 

Now it is true that many employers take advantage of undocumented workers and that creates some friction in the job market 

area. We are having traditional exploitation of foreign workers who 

we bring in here. I have heard, for example, in the agricultural inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:35 Aug 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\050405\21024.000 HJUD1 PsN: 21024
6

dustry it has been stated that we couldn’t do much farming if we 

didn’t bring in people to pick the fruit and do all of the stoop labor 

that is involved in that area. So I think that there are some huge 

issues that should be studied as well, as referenced by the 

gentlelady from Texas, by other Committees for their complete impact. 

Now we are going through a period of employment stagnation. 

Under this Administration, we have never had so many people recently out of work; and the figure 5.2 percent unemployment is 

very disingenuous because a lot of people stop looking for work 

after they can’t find it. And Michigan is very aware of that because 

we are hit by an even larger unemployment consideration. 

Two more examples. We have an incredible outsourcing problem. 

We are paying corporations to leave this country, and they get tax 

credits for it. And then we have two foreign trade policies—that I 

hope the witnesses will feel free to touch on—three really, NAFTA, 

CAFTA, and China’s Most Favored Nation policy, in which our textile industry is on the rocks right now. 

So I look forward to these hearings, and I thank the Chairman 

for allowing me to present a few thoughts before the witnesses 

begin. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Gohmert, for purposes of an opening statement. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Very briefly. I appreciate the witnesses being here. I am looking 

forward to your testimony. 

My perspective comes from having a great-grandfather that immigrated to this country in the late 1800’s, and before the turn of 

the century. When he came, he didn’t speak English and had less than $20. Within 25 years, before the turn of the century, he built 

the nicest home in Cuero, Texas, and did extremely well for himself. 

I think America is still the land of opportunity. We need immigration, it needs to be legal, and we don’t need to hurt the country. 

I am very encouraged by some of what I see from the Hispanic 

immigration in that they—most come with very strong family values and moral values, and I think they are good for the country. 

What we need to know about is, from you gentlemen’s perspective, 

is the effect of immigration and how it can be made better. We do 

know that 19 people can knock down the biggest buildings we have, 

so I am strong on knowing exactly who is coming in. That is my 

perspective, and I am looking forward to hearing yours. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Does anyone else wish to make an opening 

statement? 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Sa ́nchez. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Jackson Lee, for convening another Subcommittee hearing to hear 

an important issue that is related to immigration. 

Today we are looking at the issue of how immigrants impact 

American workers and Americans looking for jobs; and this hearing 

is an intersection of two issues that I care very much about, immiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:35 Aug 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\050405\21024.000 HJUD1 PsN: 21024
7

gration and labor. I honestly believe that hardworking, law-abiding 

people who emigrate to this country should have every opportunity 

to work so that they can provide for their families and, if they 

choose to, make America their new home. I also feel that undocumented immigrants that have been in this country for years, contributing to American businesses and our economy, should have a 

chance to earn legal status and a stake in this country so that they 

can continue to contribute to the United States on a permanent 

basis. We should never forget—at all costs, we should never forget 

that immigrant labor is what helped build this country and what 

continues to help this country’s economy. 

Obviously, American workers helped to build and sustain this 

country as well. You will not find a stronger advocate for American 

workers than myself. I am a proud member of IBEW Local 441, 

and I am a founding Chair and a current co-Chair of the Congressional Labor and Working Families Caucus. 

I fully support American workers and want to make sure that 

their jobs and their families are protected, and I am confident that 

if we think real hard and we think thoughtfully about these issues 

we can create policies that make sure that American jobs are secure and also that law-abiding immigrants work toward earned legalization in this country. 

As this Subcommittee and this Congress work on immigration reform this year, we have to take the rights and the needs of both 

immigrant workers and American workers into consideration. We 

have to balance those interests. 

I am looking forward to hearing from the witnesses today, and 

I want to thank them for taking their time to testify and to answer 

questions from the Subcommittee. I hope that they will help us formulate realistic and workable policies that benefit—that take into 

account the benefits of immigration and also protect American 

workers. 

With that, I will yield back to the Chair. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. 

The Chair will now introduce the members of our panel. 

Steven Camarota is Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies here in Washington. He has testified numerous 

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

Quarterly, The Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune and National 

Review. Dr. Camarota writes regularly for the Center for Immigration Studies on a broad range of immigration issues, including his 

recent reports on labor, Social Security, immigration trends, and 

border and national security. He holds a Ph.D. from the University 

of Virginia in public policy analysis and a Masters Degree in political science from the University of Pennsylvania. 

Paul Harrington is Associate Director of the Center for Labor 

Market Studies, or CLMS, and professor of economics and education at Northeastern University in Boston. At the CLMS, Dr. 

Harrington conducts labor market research at the national, State 

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

higher education performance, workforce development, and youth 

and families. 

8

Dr. Harrington and CLMS were the first to estimate the sharp 

increase in the number of undocumented immigrants during the 

1990’s. Paul Harrington earned his Doctor of Education degree at 

the University of Massachusetts, Boston; and he also holds Master’s and Bachelor’s degrees from Northeastern University. 

Matthew Reindl is the proprietor of Stylecraft Interiors, an architectural woodworking factory in New York. His family has owned 

this factory for over 50 years. His grandfather founded the company in 1951, after immigrating to America in 1930. Mr. Reindl is 

the third generation of his family to run the business. 

Over the past several decades, Stylecraft Interiors has employed 

American citizens and legal immigrants from around the globe, including countries in Europe, the Caribbean and Central America. 

In addition to his work at the company, Mr. Reindl is the graduate 

of the New York Institute of Technology in electromechanical computer technology. 

Dr. Harry Holzer is Professor and Associate Dean of Public Policy at Georgetown University and a Visiting Fellow at the Urban 

Institute in Washington, D.C. His research has primarily focused 

on the labor market problems of low-wage workers and other disadvantaged groups, and he has published multiple books on his 

findings. 

Formerly, he was the Chief Economist for the U.S. Department 

of Labor, and a professor of economics at Michigan State University. Dr. Holzer received both his Bachelor of Arts and Doctorate 

in Economics from Harvard University. 

We thank the witnesses for being here. You will notice that there 

is a series of lights. Without objection, your full written statements 

will be made a part of the record, and if you could stay as close 

to the 5-minute time limit, we would appreciate it. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Camarota for 5 

minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF STEVEN CAMAROTA, DIRECTOR OF 

RESEARCH, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on the impact of immigration on the U.S. labor market during the recent economic 

slowdown. My name is Steven Camarota, and I am Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonpartisan think 

tank here in Washington. 

Now, prior to the slowdown that began in 2000, my own research 

and general set of assumptions had been that the primary effect of 

immigration would have been to reduce wages and perhaps benefits 

for Native born Americans primarily because it is increasing the 

supply of labor but not necessarily affecting unemployment or overall employment. 

An important study—just to give you one example—published in 

2003 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics found that overall immigration reduced the wages of American workers by about 4 percent and those with less than a high school education by about 7 

percent; and the effect exists regardless of legal status. You are 

just adding more workers and exerting downward pressure on 

wages. 

9

However, a more careful analysis of recent data has made me 

rethink that the only effect is on wages and possibly benefits. In 

a study that we published at the end of last year, we found that 

between March of 2000 and March of 2004 the number of adult natives who were unemployed increased by 2.3 million, but at the 

same time the number of employed immigrants increased by 2.3 

million—by adults, I mean—18 years in age and over. About half 

of the growth in immigrant workers since 1970 was from illegal 

aliens. We have added about 1.2 million new adult illegal alien 

workers in the United States in the last 4 years. 

Overall, the level of new immigration, legal and illegal, does not 

seem to have slowed very much since 2000. By remaining so high 

when the economy was not creating many new jobs, immigration 

almost certainly has reduced job opportunities for some natives and 

immigrants already here. 

Now of course it would be a mistake to assume that every job 

taken by an immigrant is a job lost by a native, but the statistics 

are striking, and they should give serious pause to those who want 

to legalize illegal aliens instead of enforcing the law and reducing 

the supply of labor. Not only did native unemployment increase by 

2.3 million, but perhaps most troubling of all we found that the 

number of natives between the ages of 18 and 64 not in the workforce increased by 4 million over this time. And detailed analysis 

shows that this increase in non-work among Americans was not 

due to some rise in early retirement or increased college enrollment 

or even new moms staying home to spend time with their new babies. 

Now our analysis also shows little evidence that immigrants only 

take jobs Americans don’t want. For one thing, immigrant job gains 

have been throughout the labor market, with more than two-thirds 

of their employment gains in jobs that require at least a high 

school education. However, it is true that immigration has its biggest impact at the bottom end of the labor market in jobs done by 

less-educated workers. In job categories such as construction labor, 

building maintenance, and food preparation, immigration added 1.1 

million adult workers in the last 4 years, but there was nearly 2 

million unemployed adult natives in those very same occupations 

in 2004. 

Those arguing for high levels of immigration on the grounds that 

it helps alleviate pressure of a tight labor market are ignoring the 

very high unemployment rate among Americans in those very same 

occupations, averaging about 10 percent in 2004. 

Not only is native unemployment highest in occupations which 

saw the largest growth in immigrants, the available evidence also 

shows that the employment picture for natives generally looks 

worse in those parts of the country that saw the largest increase 

in immigrants. It is exactly the kind of pattern you would expect 

if immigrants are displacing natives. For example, in States where 

immigrants increase their share of the workforce by 5 percentage 

points, the number of natives working actually fell by 3 percent on 

average. But in States where the share of immigrant workers increased by less than 1 percent, the number of natives holding a job 

actually went up by about 1.4 percent. 

10

1 ‘‘The Labor Demand Curve Is Downward Sloping: Reexamining the Impact of Immigration 

on the Labor Market,’’ by George J. Borjas. November 2003. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2The report ‘‘A Jobless Recovery: Immigrant Gains and Native Losses’’ can be found at the 

Center’s web site www.cis.org/articles/2004/back1104.html 

Now, of course, businesses will continue to say ‘‘[i]mmigrants 

only take jobs Americans don’t want.’’ But what they really mean 

is that, given what those businesses would like to pay and how 

they would like to treat their workers, they cannot find enough 

Americans. Therefore, employers want the United States to continually increase the supply of labor by non-enforcement of immigration laws. 

In conclusion, I would argue forcefully that probably one of the 

best things we can do for less-educated natives and legal immigrants already here is to strictly enforce our immigration laws and 

reduce the number of illegal aliens in the country. We should also 

consider reducing unskilled legal immigration as well. This would 

greatly enhance worker bargaining power vis-a-vis their employers 

and allow their wages, benefits and working conditions and employment opportunities to improve. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Dr. Camarota. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Camarota follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN A. CAMAROTA

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for inviting me to 

testify on the impact of immigration on the labor market during the recent economic 

slow down. My name is Steven Camarota, and I am Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies, a non-partisan think tank here in Washington. 

Prior to the economic slowdown that began in 2000, I had generally assumed that 

the primary impact of immigration would have been to reduce wages and perhaps 

benefits for native-born workers but not overall employment. An important study 

published in 2003 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics showed that immigration 

reduces wages by 4 percent for all workers and 7 percent for those without a high 

school education. 1 A significant effect to be sure. 

However, after a careful examination of recent employment data, I have become 

increasingly concerned that immigration may also be reducing employment as well 

as wages for American workers. A study by the Center for immigration Studies published last year shows that between March 2000 and March 2004 the number of unemployed adult natives increased by 2.3 million, but at the same time the number 

of employed immigrants increased by 2.3 million. 2 By adults I mean persons 18 and 

older. About half the growth in immigrant employment was from illegal immigration. And overall the level of new immigration, legal and illegal, does not seem to 

have slowed appreciably since 2000. By remaining so high at a time when the economy was not creating as many new jobs, immigration almost certainly has reduced 

job opportunities for natives and immigrants already here. 

Of course, it would be a mistake to assume that every job taken by an immigrant 

is a job lost by a native, but the statistics are striking. And they should give serious 

pause to those who want to legalize illegal aliens instead of enforcing the law and 

reducing the supply of workers. Not only did native unemployment increase by 2.3 

million, but we also found that the number of working-age natives who said they 

are not even looking for work increased by 4 million. Detailed analysis shows that 

the increase was not due to early retirement, increased college enrollment, or new 

moms staying home with their babies. 

Our analysis also shows little evidence that immigrants only take jobs Americans 

don’t want. For one thing, immigrant job gains have been throughout the labor market, with more than two-thirds of their employment gains in jobs that require at 

least a high school degree. However, it is true that immigration has its biggest impact at the bottom end of the labor market in relatively low paying jobs typically 

occupied by less-educated workers. But such jobs still employ millions of native-born 

workers. 

11

In job categories such as construction labor, building maintenance, and food preparation, immigration added 1.1 million adult workers in the last 4 years, but there 

were nearly 2 million unemployed adult natives in these very same occupations in 

2004. About two-thirds of the new immigrant workers in these occupations are illegal aliens. Those arguing for high levels of immigration on the grounds that it helps 

to alleviate the pressure of tight labor markets in low- wage, less-skilled jobs are 

ignoring the very high rate of native unemployment in these job categorizes, averaging 10 percent in 2004. 

Not only is native unemployment highest in occupations which saw the largest 

immigrant influx, the available evidence also shows that the employment picture for 

natives looks worst in those parts of the country that saw the largest increase in 

immigrants. For example, in states were immigrants increased their share of workers by 5 percentage points or more, the number of native workers actually fell by 

about 3 percent on average. But in states where the immigrant share of workers 

increased by less than one percentage point, the number of natives holding a job 

actually went up by 1.4 percent. This is exactly the kind of pattern we would expect 

to see if immigration was adversely impacting native employment. 

Of course, businesses will continue to say that, ‘‘immigrants only take jobs Americans don’t want.’’ But what they really mean is that given what they would like to 

pay, and how they would like to treat their workers, they cannot find enough Americans. Therefore, employers want the government to continually increase the supply 

of labor by non-enforcement of immigration laws. 

I would argue forcefully that one of the best things we can do for less-educated 

natives, and legal immigrants already here is strictly enforce our immigration laws 

and reduce the number of illegal aliens in the country. We should also consider reducing unskilled legal immigration. 

This would greatly enhance worker bargaining power vis-a`-vis their employers 

and would result in lower unemployment rates and increased wages and better 

working conditions for American workers, immigrant and native alike.

12

ATTACHMENT


Cam0001.eps
13


Cam0002.eps
14


Cam0003.eps
15


Cam0004.eps
16


Cam0005.eps
17


Cam0006.eps
18


Cam0007.eps
19


Cam0008.eps
20


Cam0009.eps
21


Cam0010.eps
22


Cam0011.eps
23


Cam0012.eps
24


Cam0013.eps
25


Cam0014.eps
26


Cam0015.eps
27


Cam0016.eps
28

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Dr. Harrington. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL HARRINGTON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR LABOR MARKET STUDIES, NORTHEASTERN 

UNIVERSITY 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Thank you. 

I will begin by talking about the contributions of civilian employment—of foreign immigration to civilian employment growth in the 

U.S. over the past 3 decades to give some historical context to this. 

During the decade of the 1970’s, the proportion of foreign-born 

immigrants that became employed in the United States was about 

12 percent. About 12 percent of the overall employment rise was 

among foreign-born new immigrants. Between 1980 and 1990, new 

immigrants accounted for about a quarter of the total rise of employment growth in the country. 1990 to 2000, that share actually 

rose to 44 percent during this period of time. Particularly it is important to understand during the 1990’s it was a period of very 

strong economic growth, with sharp declines in overall unemployment rates in the Nation. 

Between 2000 and 2004, though, all of the employment change 

that we had in the United States, all the job growth that we had 

in the United States was concentrated among foreign-born individuals. Minimally 110 percent of the net rise of employment in the 

U.S. was among foreign born. So the impact of new immigration on 

the growth of the employed population of the Nation in the last 4 

years has been historically unprecedented. 

The annual average number of employed new immigrants over 

the 1990’s increased by about 600,000 a year. Between 2000 and 

2004, that growth averaged between 600,000 and 750,000 new immigrants per year, exceeding the annual inflows that we had during the 1990 boom years. This large influx of new employed immigrants occurred despite the recession of 2001, the terrorist events 

of 9/11, and the jobless recovery of 2001 to 2003. So there seems 

to be little connection between this flow of newly employed immigrants and overall levels of economic activity in the American economy. 

All the net increase in the number of employed civilian workers 

between 2002 and 2004 took place among new immigrants, while 

the number of Native born and established immigrant workers declined somewhere between 150 and 250,000, we estimate. 

During the same four year period of time, the relative size of job 

losses among teens and young adults with no postsecondary schooling, black males and blue collar workers were quite substantial. 

These job losses were above expectations based on overall job performance in the Nation. Those Native born who were most in direct 

competition with new immigrants lost jobs at the highest rates. 

Who were these immigrants? An above-average fraction were 

males, about two-thirds were males. A high share were under the 

age of 30. Half of all new employed immigrants were under the age 

of 30 and a very high share were under the age of 35. Seventy percent of all the new employed immigrants were age 35 or under. A 

very large proportion lacked a high school diploma. In fact, 35 percent of newly employed immigrants between 2000 and 2004 had no 

high school diploma at all, although an additional 27 percent had 

29

a college degree. So it was a bit of a bimodal distribution in the 

educational characteristics of that population. 

About 60 percent were from Mexico, Central America, South 

America; another one-fifth came from Asia, fewer than 10 percent 

were from Europe or Canada; and about one-half of these individuals appear to be undocumented immigrants. 

While these immigrants were employed in every industry and occupational group, they were overrepresented in agriculture, construction, food processing, leisure and hospitality industries, and 

low-level service industries including personal care, entertainment 

and janitorial services. Many were employed in industries where 

unemployment and job vacancy ratios were quite high. 

The ratio of unemployed workers to job vacancies in the construction industry in 2004 ran eight to nine to one. In other words, 

there were close to nine workers for every one job vacancy in the 

construction industry. In the manufacturing sector, there were 

about five experienced unemployed workers for every one job vacancy in that industry. In the leisure and hospitality industry, that 

ratio ran at three to one. Many others worked in industries where 

the absence of real wage growth indicates no labor shortage at all. 

The vast majority of jobs obtained by new immigrants were in industries and occupations where there were no demonstrated labor 

shortages at all. 

Teenagers in 2004 had the lowest employment population ratio. 

In other words, the fraction employed in the U.S. economy was the 

lowest it has ever been since we began measuring it in 1948. Between 2000 and 2004, the employment rate of teenagers fell from 

about 46 percent—about 46 out of 100 teens had a job on average 

in 2000—fell down to about 36 to 37 percent by about 2004. It was 

the largest absolute rise of any group in the American economy. 

The 16 to 24 population had the second largest reduction in the 

size of their employment rates over that period of time. Other 

groups that expanded relatively large job losses were black males, 

blue collar workers and manufacturing construction industries, and 

the latter of that group were—much of the employment in that 

group was characterized by off-the-books sort of work activities. 

Overall—and I will end on this—in this labor environment characterized by little new job growth, labor surplusses in most industries and occupations, high levels of immigration, particularly 

among young, unskilled and low-educated workers leads to job displacement among Native born. There is little empirical evidence to 

support the notion that new immigrants are taking large numbers 

of jobs that Americans do not want to do. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Dr. Harrington. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Harrington follows:]

30

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL HARRINGTON


Har0001.eps
31


Har1A.eps
32


Har1B.eps
33


Har0002.eps
34


Har0003.eps
35


Har0004.eps
36


Har0005.eps
37


Har0006.eps
38


Har0007.eps
39


Har0008.eps
40


Har0009.eps
41


Har0010.eps
42


Har0011.eps
43


Har0012.eps
44


Har0013.eps
45


Har0014.eps
46


Har0015.eps
47


Har0016.eps
48


Har0017.eps
49


Har0018.eps
50


Har0019.eps
51


Har0020.eps
52


Har0021.eps
53


Har0022.eps
54


Har0023.eps
55


Har0024.eps
56


Har0025.eps
57


Har0026.eps
58


Har0027.eps
59


Har0028.eps
60


Har0029.eps
61


Har0030.eps
62


Har0031.eps
63

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Reindl. 

TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW J. REINDL, STYLECRAFT INTERIORS 

Mr. REINDL. Chairman Hostettler and Members of the Committee, thank you for the privilege to testify at today’s hearing. 

I operate a small family-owned woodworking factory established 

by my grandfather in 1951, an immigrant to this country in 1930, 

when one person’s salary was enough to support a family, buy a 

house, start a business and achieve the American dream. My 

grandfather was a man that always obeyed the law and taught his 

family to respect the rules and laws of the country. He took great 

pride in becoming an American citizen. 

Unfortunately, I see the American dream collapsing before my 

eyes. The American working class is being squeezed from all ends. 

Our cost of living is going up drastically, while at the same time 

salaries are being suppressed. Today, many married couples find it 

difficult to live on one salary. High-paying computer and technical 

jobs are being outsourced to foreign countries. Many of our manufacturing jobs are leaving the country to foreign countries, where 

the salaries range from 20 cents to $3.50 an hour. This huge wage 

imbalance is one factor that will keep American job and wages suppressed and is a little difficult for the Government to control. 

Another factor that is making it more difficult for both legal immigrants and Native born Americans to live the American dream 

is the massive influx of millions of illegal aliens into our country. 

This is something our Government can control. In fact, it is the 

constitutional responsibility of the United States Government to 

patrol our borders and stop invasions. 

I am here speaking for the numbers—for the shrinking numbers 

of middle-class Americans whose wages are being depressed due to 

an onslaught of illegal aliens and the unwillingness of our Government to enforce existing laws. 

As my competitors break the law and hire illegal aliens, my product price cannot be raised. My health care, material, insurance and 

tax costs have all gone up. In order to stay in business, I cannot 

give my legal employees the raises they deserve. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, Federal law prohibits anyone from hiring, aiding or abetting illegal aliens, yet Federal agencies, local governments, private and church organizations 

are setting up so-called hiring sites so that legal and illegal immigrants can work off the books and disregard Federal and State 

laws. 

In Freeport, Long Island, a hiring site was set up with a grant 

that was given to the village from the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development. This is a flier circulating throughout the village by its organizers. Note it says, day labor site authorized by the 

village. Day laborer—meaning some legal immigrants but too many 

undocumented workers, also known as illegal aliens—why are my 

tax dollars supporting this? Why is my Government supporting illegal activity? Why do I have to compete against employers blatantly 

breaking immigration, tax, Social Security and insurance laws? 

In a 2002 Barron’s article, a contractor who does multimillion 

dollar construction jobs blatantly brags about hiring day laborers 

64

and not paying workers compensation because he says it is very expensive. 

What frustrates me the most is that everywhere I look the Government law enforcement agencies refuse to enforce any laws pertaining to illegal aliens. We have millions of aliens illegally employed in our country, and the Government only fined 13 employers 

in 2002, 1 year after 9/11. I guess INS or ICE does not read Barron’s. I think everyone will agree it is a pathetic record. 

To my knowledge, not one employer in the last few years has 

been jailed for hiring an illegal alien. This whole problem can be 

fixed immediately with no new laws, no new legislation, just enforce existing laws. All the laws and fines are on the books, and 

they all exist. What does not exist is our Government’s will to enforce our laws. 

Without employment or the hope of employment, illegal aliens 

will not be tempted to enter our country in violation of our immigration laws. Employers need to be prosecuted for hiring illegal 

workers, and legal immigrant workers need to believe that all employers respect our laws. 

The Federal Government can’t allow a criminal minority of employers to profit from illegal labor practices because it undermines 

the founding principles of our Nation. 

That concludes my testimony, and I look forward to any questions. Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Reindl. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reindl follows:]

65

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MATTHEW JAMES REINDL


Reindl1.eps
66


Reindl2.eps
67


Reindl3.eps
68


Reindl4.eps
69


Reindl5.eps
70


Reindl6.eps
71


Reindl7.eps
72


Reindl8.eps
73


Reindl9.eps
74


Reindl10.eps
75

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Dr. Holzer. 

TESTIMONY OF HARRY J. HOLZER, PROFESSOR AND ASSOCIATE DEAN OF PUBLIC POLICY, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 

Mr. HOLZER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is my view that the employment difficulties of Native born 

Americans in the last 4 years mostly reflect underlying weaknesses 

of the U.S. labor market in that time, rather than large displacements by new immigrants, and I would like to make five points to 

that effect. 

My first point is, very simply, net immigration has really remained very constant in the period between the 1990’s and the post 

2000 period. Instead, what has changed is the rate at which we 

create new jobs in the United States. 

If you go back to the 1990’s, especially the late 1990’s, we were 

creating three million new payroll jobs on average per year. In the 

more recent period, starting in early 2003 through 2004, I think it 

is accurate to describe the American economy as having had a 

short recession and a jobless recovery for 3 years. In that period, 

from March, 2001, to 2004, the total number of nonforeign payroll 

jobs in the U.S. declined by 1.7 million, and that cannot be attributable to the arrival of immigrants. At the same time, the U.S. 

population was growing by 8 million, mostly reflecting Native born 

Americans. So what really changed in this time period is the rate 

of job creation, not the rate of immigration, which is very constant. 

My second point is that, contrary to some of the other interpretations you have heard this morning, immigration cannot account for 

many other employment-related difficulties in the labor market. If 

you look beneath the aggregate level of numbers, you see all kinds 

of patterns and shifts across sectors that really are quite totally 

unrelated to immigration. 

Consider what is happening in the manufacturing sector. We 

have lost roughly 3 million jobs between March of 2000 and March 

of 2004. Now, it is true that new immigrant employment rose in 

the manufacturing sector by about 300,000, but that means new 

immigrants only account for roughly one-tenth of the total job loss 

in manufacturing. Therefore, the vast majority of it reflects other 

factors. 

We saw job increases in other places like the public sector, almost a million new jobs created in the public sector, virtually none 

of those going to immigrants. If you look across many other sectors 

in the economy, increases in employment in health care, decreases 

in employment in retail trade, those patterns are almost completely 

unrelated to the flow of new immigrants in the economy. And that 

reflects a broader point that every year, in fact, every quarter, 

many, many millions of jobs are created and destroyed in the 

American economy. That is how our economy and our labor market 

works. The flow of about a half a million new immigrants into the 

labor force every year is a very small part of that overall churning 

in the labor market. 

Similarly, the earnings growth of over 100 million nonsupervisory workers in the United States—which have not risen at 

all in the last 2 years—cannot possibly be driven by the 2 million 

76

immigrants that have newly arrived in the labor force during that 

time period. 

My third point is that it is important to keep our eye on the ball 

over the longer term. Most economists expect this labor market to 

recover. We can’t say exactly when. The dominant fact of the labor 

market over the next 20 years will be the retirement of the baby 

boomers in very large numbers; and during that time period, when 

that begins to happen, projections show that immigrants will account for all of the growth in the labor force. So it is very important for that growth in the labor force to occur during that period. 

We need workers to pay the taxes, to pay for the health and retirement benefits that the rest of us are expecting, especially in 

certain key sectors of the labor market, science and engineering, 

health care. We will need immigrant workers to help fill the jobs 

that contribute importantly to the services and the growth of the 

economy that we want to see here. 

Fourthly, most studies show that over the long run immigrants 

have a modest negative effect on the employment earnings of lesseducated workers, and they generate other important benefits for 

the economy. 

Mr. Camarota has already cited one study showing a 3 to 4 percent decline in wages for less-educated workers. That study is at 

the high end of the numbers generated by economists on earnings 

losses. Some other studies equally credible find much smaller negative effects. But virtually all economists believe that immigrants 

also provide important benefits for the economy. They are consumers as well as producers. They do contribute important labor in 

areas where sometimes shortages occur, certainly in terms of 

health care, engineering, et cetera. They help reduce costs in housing, food and elsewhere that are important for these workers. 

My last point simply is, what does this all mean for policy? I 

think if we want to generate more jobs in the United States there 

are a sensible set of fiscal policies that can help to do that, and I 

can talk about them more during the question and answer period. 

Over the long term, we really need to keep our eye focused on 

the real issues in the American labor force: the education and skills 

of the workforce, the ability of the American workers to get health 

care, child care and other important supports. I think we might 

make some changes in the immigration law, but, again, we need 

to keep our eye on the long-term ball, not on the short 3- to four 

year period that is very unusual and that is subject to different interpretations. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Dr. Holzer. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Holzer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HARRY J. HOLZER

Two recent papers, by Steven Camarota (2004) and by Andrew Sum et. al. (2004), 

present data showing that the employment of new immigrants in the U.S. rose during the period 2000–2004, while that of native-born Americans (and even earlier immigrants) declined. 

A superficial reading of the data in these papers might suggest that rising immigration in the past four years has been a key factor in accounting for the poor labor 

market performance of native-born Americans during this period. But such a reading would be highly inaccurate. The employment outcomes of native-born Americans 

77

1The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) calculates employment rates of individuals from its 

monthly Current Population Survey of households, while numbers of payroll jobs are drawn 

from its survey of establishments. The latter is based on much larger samples and is widely 

considered more accurate in the short term. But the former captures self-employment and casual employment that may not appear in official business payrolls. 2 Between March 2004 and 2005, both employment and payroll jobs rose by over 2 million. 

But the percentage of the population employed in March 2005 remained at 62.4 percent—well 

below the peak of 64.7 achieved in the year 2000. 3With a population of over 225 million, it would require about 5.2 million more jobs to generate the peak employment rate of 64.7 achieved in the year 2000. 4These numbers are calculated from various tables available at the BLS website 

(www.bls.gov). 

mostly reflect the underlying weakness of the U.S. labor market, rather than large 

displacements by new immigrants.

• Net immigration has remained fairly constant between the 1990’s and the post2000 period; instead, what has changed is the rate of job growth in the U.S. economy.

During the 1990’s, 13 million immigrants arrived in the U.S., for an average of 

about 1.3 million per year (Capps et. al., 2004). Since the year 2000, that rate of 

immigration has remained largely unchanged (Sum et. al., Table 1). The total share 

of immigrants in the population has risen only from 11 to 12 percent during the 

past four years. 

In contrast, the rate of net job growth in the U.S. has collapsed between the late 

1990’s and the period since 2001. Between March 1995 and March 2000, our economy generated nearly 15 million new nonfarm payroll jobs and increased employment by about 13 million.1 But, after a period of modest job growth between March 

2000 and 2001 (with payroll and employment increases of about 1 million each), the 

economy went through a short recession followed by a relatively ‘‘jobless’’ recovery 

for 3 years. Between March 2001 and 2004, total employment grew by just over onehalf million, while the number of nonfarm payroll jobs declined by about 1.7 million. 

At the same time, the US population grew by about 8 million. In the past year, job 

growth has picked up somewhat, though the labor market remains quite weak.2

• Contrary to the interpretations suggested by Camarota and Sum et. al., immigration cannot possibly account for many of the labor market developments that have 

occurred since 2000.

In the 1990’s, strong immigration coexisted with very low unemployment rates 

and record high percentages of the population employed. Indeed, immigration 

helped to relieve the pressure of very tight labor markets on employers, who had 

difficulty finding enough native-born workers able and willing to fill the jobs they 

were offering. Yet the same rate of immigration today coexists with a sluggish labor 

market, in which an additional 5 million jobs would be needed to recreate the employment rates of the late 1990’s and 2000.3

The papers by Camarota and Sum et. al. clearly show that, in the aggregate, employment among new immigrants has increased while that of native-born Americans 

has declined since 2000. But a look at some more disaggregated data suggests a far 

more complex story. While new immigrant employment has been relatively concentrated in a small number of sectors (such as building/grounds maintenance, food 

preparation and construction), the shifts in jobs across other sectors of the U.S. 

economy have been much greater. 

For example, the number of payroll jobs in manufacturing declined by about 3 

million between March 2000 and March 2004; new immigrant employment rose, but 

only by 335,000 (Sum et. al), in this sector. The number of payroll jobs in the public 

sector rose in this time period by 850,000; almost none of these jobs went to new 

immigrants. Strong job growth has occurred in diverse services such as health care 

and professional services, while employment growth has slowed or declined elsewhere (such as in retail trade), in patterns almost completely unrelated to immigration.4

Indeed, the U.S. labor market is one in which many millions of jobs are newly 

created and newly destroyed every year. Millions of workers are constantly reallocated across firms and sectors of the economy (Davis et. al., 1996). When the overall 

rates of new job creation in the economy exceed those of job destruction, net job 

growth is positive; when overall job creation lags behind (or is comparable to) job 

destruction, then net job growth is weak. Either way, the new employment of a few 

million immigrants over a 3- or 4-year period has a major effect only on the small 

number of sectors, especially in specific geographic regions, where they are heavily 

78

5 Between March 2003 and 2005, average weekly earnings of nonsupervisory workers rose by 

just 3.6 percent—well below increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and other measures 

of inflation in the same period. Yet worker productivity grew by about 7 percent in the same 

period.

concentrated; otherwise they play a fairly minor role in the overall churning of the 

labor market. 

Does the labor force participation behavior of native-born workers and immigrants 

respond differently to a strong or weak economy? In a strong job market, American 

workers respond by entering the labor force in great numbers—as they did in the 

1990’s. But, in a weaker job market, some Americans withdraw from the labor force 

in favor of other pursuits—such as enrollment in higher education. Since immigration rates to the U.S. and immigrant participation in the labor force are much less 

sensitive to these changes in our economy, their net share of labor force activity and 

employment will temporarily bump upwards when this occurs—as they have since 

2000. But none of this implies that immigrants are directly displacing U.S. workers 

in large numbers. 

One other area in which a weak overall labor market affects American workers 

is in their real earnings—i.e., their rates of pay adjusted for inflation. In the past 

four years, increases in earnings have been fairly modest, despite the dramatic 

growth of productivity in the U.S. workforce. In fact, the average real earnings of 

over 100 million nonsupervisory workers have failed to rise at all in the past two 

years.5 This development is another sign of a weak overall labor market, and cannot 

possibly be attributed to the 2 million or so new immigrants who have gained employment in the U.S. since 2000. 

• Over the next few decades, tight labor markets are likely to return as Baby 

Boomers retire in large numbers.

Will the current weakness of the U.S. labor market last indefinitely? Most economists expect the labor market to strengthen over the next several years, although 

the exact pace at which this will occur remains uncertain. 

Over the longer term, the labor market will be hugely affected by Baby Boomer 

retirements. Roughly 60 million workers, now aged 41–59, were born in the period 

1946–64. They will soon begin retiring in large numbers, and will likely generate 

a period of labor market tightness that will persist over 20–30 years. Indeed, all net 

growth in the labor force over the next two decades will be generated by immigrants 

(Aspen Institute, 2002). 

There are many ways in which the labor market will adapt to these changes. Retirements will be delayed; labor will be replaced by new technologies and foreign 

outsourcing; and wages in some sectors will need to rise. But immigration should 

also play a key role in this adjustment process (Ellwood, 2001). Indeed, foreign-born 

students and workers will be a major source of new scientists and engineers in the 

U.S. over the next few decades, and will be critical to continuing productivity 

growth here (Freeman, 2004). The role of immigrants in other sectors of the economy where extremely tight labor markets are expected—such as nursing and longterm care for the aging population—will be critical as well.

• Most studies show that, over the longer term, immigrants have very modest negative effects on the employment of less-educated workers in the U.S., but generate 

other benefits for the U.S. economy.

Professors George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard University have recently 

calculated that immigration in the period 1980–2000 might have reduced the earnings of native-born U.S. workers by 3–4 percent, with larger negative impacts 

among high school dropouts but smaller among all other education groups (Borjas 

and Katz, 2005). Their estimates are at the high end of those generated by labor 

economists; others, including Professor David Card of the University of California 

at Berkeley, have found smaller negative effects (Card, 2001). 

Virtually all economists agree that immigrants also provide some important benefits to the U.S. economy. Beyond providing labor in sectors and areas where tight 

markets and even shortages might otherwise occur, immigrant labor helps reduce 

the prices of some products—such as housing and certain foods. These lower prices 

imply higher real incomes to most Americans, including the disadvantaged.

• Native-born American workers, especially those who are less-educated, would be 

best served by policies designed to stimulate more employment in the short term 

while improving their skills and supporting their incomes in the longer term.

Since native-born workers have been hurt not by rising immigration but by declining job growth in the past four years, policies that encourage greater job growth 

79

6The New Jobs Tax Credit of the late 1970’s, and the Investment Tax Credit of various time 

periods, could serve as models for any new such credits now. 

might be considered in the short term. For instance, tax cuts and public spending 

could be much better targeted to those who generate more spending and therefore 

more employment—i.e., lower-to-middle income Americans—rather than the 

wealthy. Temporary tax credits for new job creation and business investments might 

be considered as well.6

Over the longer term, Americans need to improve their skills to maintain and increase their earnings growth. For the disadvantaged, this can be encouraged by a 

wide range of efforts, such as expanding higher-quality pre-school programs, reforms 

in K-12 education, more public support for occupational training and internships/

apprenticeships, and greater funding for Pell grants and other supports for higher 

education. Expanding access to work supports like health care and child care, along 

with higher minimum wages and expansions of the Earned Income and Child Tax 

Credits, would help as well. 

Immigration reforms that adjust the skill mix of those entering the U.S. over time 

might also be considered. But these should be based on a careful reading of our skill 

and labor market needs over the next several decades, rather than a misreading of 

our very recent experience. 

Conclusion 

Recent papers by Sum et. al. and by Camarota show that employment of immigrants rose while that of native-born Americans declined between 2000 and 2004. 

But these findings do not prove that the former development caused the latter to 

occur. Indeed, immigration has occurred at a fairly constant rate in the U.S. since 

the 1990’s—while employment and earnings growth of American workers have fluctuated dramatically. Over the long term, immigration has modest negative effects 

on less-educated workers in the U.S. but other positive effects on the economy—and 

the latter will grow much stronger after Baby Boomers retire. American workers are 

thus best served by policies designed to stimulate job growth in the short-term, and 

their own skills and incomes over the long-term, rather than by policies to drastically curb immigration. 

REFERENCES

Aspen Institute. Growing Together or Growing Apart. Aspen, Colorado. 2002. 

Borjas, George and Lawrence Katz. ‘‘The Evolution of the Mexican-Born Workforce 

in the United States.’’ Paper presented at the conference on Mexican Immigration 

and the U.S. economy, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge MA, 

February 2005. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics website. www.bls.gov. Various tables. 

Camarota, Steven. ‘‘A Jobless Recovery? Immigrant Gains and Native Losses,’’ Center for Immigration Studies, Washington D.C., October 2004; 

Capps, Randolph et. al. The New Neighbors: A User’s Guide to Data on Immigrants 

in U.S. Communities. The Urban Institute, Washington DC, 2004. 

Card, David. ‘‘Immigrant Inflows, Native Outflows, and the Local Labor Market Impacts of Higher Immigration.’’ Journal of Labor Economics, January 2001. 

Davis, Steve; John Haltiwanger and Scott Schuh. Job Creation and Destruction.

Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1996. 

Ellwood, David. ‘‘The Sputtering Labor Force of the 21st Century: Can Social Policy 

Help?’’ In A. Krueger and R. Solow eds. The Roaring Nineties. New York: Russell 

Sage Foundation, 2001. 

Freeman, Richard. ‘‘Doubling the Global Workforce: The Challenge of Integrating 

China, India and the Former Soviet Union into the World Economy.’’ Presentation 

at the Institute for International Economics, Washington DC, November 2004. 

Sum, Andrew et. al., ‘‘Foreign Immigration and the Labor Force of the U.S.: The 

Contributions of New Foreign Immigration to the Growth of the Nation’s Labor 

Force and its Employed Population, 2000 to 2004,’’ Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University, Boston MA, July 2004.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. We will now turn to questions from the Members of the Subcommittee. 

First of all, Dr. Camarota, you conclude that over a recent four 

year period, the number of Native born Americans with jobs 

dropped by almost 500,000, while the number of immigrants with 

jobs increased by over 2 million. Do you believe that there is any 

relationship between the two numbers? 

80

Mr. CAMAROTA. Yes. I think if we look deeper into the data we 

do see that the areas where natives often do the worst are those 

sectors of the economy such as building, cleaning and maintenance, 

construction labor, food processing and preparation. In those sectors, unemployment averages about 10 percent for natives, and 

have seen some of the biggest hits. And it is precisely in those sectors where we have added the most immigrants. In just those sectors we have added over a million new immigrants in just those 

low-income job categories in the last 4 years. Two-thirds of those 

are probably illegal aliens, based on the data. 

At the same time, there were 2 million Native born adult Americans in those very same occupations who said that they were unemployed and looking for work. So if you look at the States, too, 

geographically you do seem to find evidence that places with lots 

of immigrants also had the worst job performance for natives. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I appreciate that. 

You have also done work on Social Security, the impact on Social 

Security. In these portions of the labor market that you are talking 

about, do individuals who contribute to Social Security in those 

portions of the labor market, do they wind up receiving more in 

benefits in Social Security or less in benefits than they paid into 

the system? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Right. One of the reasons immigration is a problem for the Social Security system is the Social Security system is 

redistributive in nature. And because such a large share of immigrants have very little education, they make very little money— even legal immigrants paid on the books and that sort of thing. As 

a consequence, they don’t pay that much in Social Security taxes 

because in the modern American economy, people with relatively 

little education don’t pay that much. However, when it comes time 

to retire, we generally pay them a more generous benefit. So immigration creates problems for the Social Security system because of 

it’s redistributive nature. And there are other factors as well. 

Just very briefly, we have something called the earned income 

tax credit. A very large share of legal, unskilled immigrants qualify 

for that, and that is designed to give you back basically all or most 

of your Social Security tax. So, overall, immigration is problematic 

for the Social Security system. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Harrington, do you agree with Dr. Camarota that large numbers of new immigrant workers are directly competing with Native 

born workers for jobs and that these are jobs that Americans will, 

in fact, do? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Yes, I do. I think the evidence is that we have 

got about—a little bit over a third of all newly employed immigrants are high school dropouts. They also found that about 70 percent of them are under the age of 35. When you look at the structure of employment rates, in other words, the probability that 

somebody has a job by age and by educational attainment, you see 

that the employment rate declines are the highest among high 

school dropouts over the last 4 years among Native born, and you 

also see that the decline in employment rates are the largest 

among teens. In fact, when you look at the other end of the labor 

market where there are few immigrants, that is, adults 55 and 

81

over, only 3 percent of the total rise in immigrant employment is 

among that population.That is the only group of Native born workers where the employment rates have risen. 

So I think the evidence is very clear that there is this competition between immigrants and Native born. I think the evidence 

that particularly teenagers and young adults just refuse to take 

jobs that immigrants take is just absolutely wrong. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Reindl, you have a unique perspective on the impact of immigration, especially illegal immigration, on employment and the 

economy, especially with regard to companies such as your own, 

which make it a matter of resolve to follow the immigration laws. 

In the Intelligence Reform bill passed last year by Congress and 

signed into law by the President, we called for a significant increase in Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, in fact, in 

the House. We wish to have at least half of those new agents dedicated to employer sanctions. 

As an employer in an industry of employers, what impact do you 

think it would have on the employment of illegal aliens if employers realized in New York, for example, that a large number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, ICE agents, were 

dedicated to enforcing the employer sanctions law. 

Mr. REINDL. If they actually made headlines and locked up some 

of these unscrupulous employers, and employers see that you are 

going to get caught, it will have a great impact. That is the whole 

key. You have to enforce the law. We are just not doing it. It is 

at every level of Government. It is not just ICE doing it. What 

about Social Security fraud? What about income tax? What about 

IRS? I mean, these laws are being blatantly broken in our faces, 

and no Government agency will enforce it. 

I have complained to worker’s comp, New York State, the Department of Labor, to go after these hiring sites. No investigations. 

None. Every level of Government, no enforcement. That is what I 

see, if we can start getting all the different agencies together and 

cracking down, especially where it is being thrown in our face, that 

is the first thing you have to do. Thanks. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. My time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, if I might ask unanimous consent to call on the Ranking Member of the Full Committee at this 

time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think what we have 

been hearing is that American workers are being negatively impacted in our economy by foreign workers, mostly illegals. 

And Professor Holzer, I think that may be an oversimplification 

because we have had a decline of job growth. We have had a stagnant economy, more or less. So I think it is too easy to just raise 

up the immigrants who are kind of easy targets to make this kind 

of accusation. If we move forward on that premise legislatively, I 

think we may be going in the wrong direction. What say you? 

Mr. HOLZER. I largely agree with those comments. Again, if you 

look over a longer time period the rate of immigration in the last 

4 years is no different than it was in the roaring 1990’s when the 

82

same level of immigration was consistent with very low unemployment rates, very high percentages of the population employed. 

How could the same level, the same rate of immigration now 

have generated all these problems, not only for the millions of 

Americans who aren’t working, but again for well over 100 million 

workers who are actually experiencing negative wage growth? That 

cannot possibly be attributed to this influx of immigrants, which is 

no different now than it has been over the previous many years. 

Again, when you look at many different sectors of the economy, 

except for those few where the immigrants are concentrating—look 

what is happening in manufacturing, health care, many other sectors—one cannot possibly attribute the large increases or decreases 

in employment to the flow of immigrants. We need to look at the 

economy broadly, not just those few sectors where immigrants are 

concentrated. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, here is the problem. Illegal immigrants, yes. 

We have got to go after them. We have got to prevent them from 

coming over or coming into the country. But there are a number 

of areas in our economy where we need immigrant labor, and I 

don’t know if that point has been made here, but I think Mr. 

Reindl was moving in that direction when he was saying if you are 

not prosecuting employers who are exploiting foreign labor then 

you are not going to get any resolution to the problem. If IRS isn’t 

prosecuting vigorously, that adds to it. 

Do you think that we have, Mr. Reindl, a problem in which we 

can say we have got to get to this immigrant problem but at the 

same time we don’t say—and, also, we need immigrant labor because a lot of things wouldn’t happen without them because we 

have jobs that many Americans won’t take no matter what their 

condition is? 

Mr. REINDL. Well, there is no job an American won’t take. It is 

just that the pay levels have been depressed so much that they are 

seeking jobs elsewhere. At least in my field that is how it is. 

As far as enforcement goes, you hit it on the right head. There 

is no enforcement. 

But one thing—it is not just, like this day laborer sign that I was 

holding up before. There are legal and illegal immigrants getting 

jobs at this site, working off the books. They are not paying into 

Social Security. They are not paying into worker’s comp, and there 

is just no enforcement at any level. But it is both legal and illegal, 

and it drives me nuts that our Government allows this. 

Mr. CONYERS. What about, Mr. Holzer, these huge trade agreements, NAFTA, CAFTA, China Most Favored Nation, promoting 

U.S. corporations to go overseas? We have a great deal of 

outsourcing in labor going on, our outsourcing that creates unemployment here. The automobile industry is now becoming an example of that in Michigan. 

Mr. HOLZER. I would favor the elimination of tax subsidies and 

credits that encourage outsourcing that work. 

More broadly, though, I believe that international trade, exports 

and imports do create benefits for the American consumer as well 

as some losses for the American worker. I think we need to balance, carefully balance those benefits and costs in a strong robust 

labor market. If we also invested in the retraining and reeducation 

83

of many of those workers as well as a better set of unemployment 

insurance and other supports, the damage done to those workers 

losing those jobs would be considerably reduced. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, on the next round I want to talk about how 

we get to a full employment economy. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Iowa, Mr. King, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Yes. I thank the Chairman, and I appreciate the testimony of the witnesses. This subject is interesting to look at the 

economy from the perspective of yourself, Mr. Reindl, and versus 

the broader perspective as proposed by Mr. Holzer. I would direct 

my first question to Mr. Holzer. That is, is there such a thing as 

too much immigration, be it either legal or illegal? 

Mr. HOLZER. I wouldn’t say that any total number of immigration is too much. I think it really depends on the nature of the immigrants and how they get here and what their characteristics are. 

Like all of the witnesses today, I am concerned about undocumented and illegal immigrants. I believe in enforcing the laws we 

have to the best of our ability. I also believe that no matter what 

we do on the enforcement side that some of those, many of those 

workers will still be here, especially the ones who have been here. 

Mr. KING. With regard to whether there is such a thing as too 

much immigration, you would qualify, then, the type of immigrants 

and the characteristics they bring with them, the work skills. What 

about cultural background? Would they be things that you would 

consider? 

Mr. HOLZER. I would be very reluctant to look at cultural backgrounds. I think that is very easy to misinterpret, and we don’t 

know how those translate into the labor markets. Again, some 

kinds of immigrants are probably more desirable from a strictly 

economic point of view than others. But I think at all skill levels, 

immigrants do contribute to lower costs, lower prices. 

Mr. KING. Let us go to my question. How much would be too 

much immigration, provided that, say, we have talked about lowskilled, unskilled, illiterate people coming in and taking these jobs 

that allegedly Americans won’t take. I happen to agree with Mr. 

Reindl. I believe that Americans will do any job and that you have 

to pay them for it and provide the benefits for that. 

Unskilled, illiterate labor, either legal or illegal, how much would 

be too much for a nation that has a population of roughly 282 million people? 

Mr. HOLZER. I don’t know the answer to that. I am not sure anyone has a fixed number they can say. 

Mr. KING. Isn’t that, Mr. Holzer, the central question here, that 

as we open the doors up and we get greater and greater groups of 

immigrants coming in, if we don’t address that question and have 

a national debate on how much immigration is too much, we can’t 

begin to deal with the other questions that are underneath that 

great umbrella question? 

Mr. HOLZER. No. I would argue that the central question—given 

the level of immigration that we are realistically talking about, 

which has been fairly constant over time, we are not bumping into 

these theoretical hypothetical limits. 

Mr. KING. Let me——

84

Mr. HOLZER. If I could finish, the question is what to do with the 

immigrants to have a level playing field. 

Mr. KING. I asked the question how much is too much. We 

stopped our immigration and gave a time for assimilation back in 

the 1920’s. We didn’t have an acceleration immigration policy during that period of time all the way up until we adjusted policy in 

the early 1960’s and adjusted the policy in the 1980’s. So maybe 

the legal numbers coming in the 1990’s aren’t a lot different than 

the legal numbers coming in this decade. 

But I would submit to you this question, how would we know 

how many came in? Are we 8 million, 10 million, 12 or 14 million 

illegals, or is that number larger or smaller? 

Mr. HOLZER. As I said, I believe the rate of incoming immigration has remained constant over the time. It is well below the peak 

levels at the turn of the 20th century——

Mr. KING. Yes. Is that percentage of population or in total numbers? 

Mr. HOLZER. As a percentage of our population. 

Mr. KING. I would agree with that. Thank you. 

I would turn to Mr. Reindl to make a statement here. I have certain empathy with you. I spent my life building a construction company and sold that company to my oldest son a couple of years ago. 

He finds himself in a condition today where he is competing 

against his competitors that hire illegal labor. He pays benefits, 

provides year-round jobs, retirement benefits, health insurance 

benefits and guarantees them 12 months of work. 

He has just finished a job where they have to wait for the carpenters to come in from Mexico in order to begin, because they 

don’t come as early because it is cold in that part of the country 

until about the 1st of May or so, and they leave earlier than the 

end of the year. 

I tell him, you must hire legals, not illegals, no matter what the 

temptation is, no matter how hard you have got to work to survive. 

I would just ask you to address that subject matter. Can you continue facing that kind of competition? 

Mr. REINDL. Believe me, it is getting harder. It is getting harder 

every day. My competitors are hiring either illegals or they are not 

paying their full share of benefits. It is now kind of unheard of in 

my industry to pay for full health benefits for my employee and 

their families. I am one of the rare shops that is doing it now. I 

don’t know if I can continue because my product price can’t be 

raised. 

Mr. KING. Then I don’t know if anyone has spoken on this panel 

to the effect on the middle class. What is happening in your opinion 

to the middle class that we have had in America? 

Mr. REINDL. I think it is shrinking, obviously. I mean, so many 

friends my age are moving out of New York and fleeing to other 

States where the housing is less because they just can’t make ends 

meet in New York. So it is getting tough on us. 

Mr. KING. I thank you. 

Then quickly to Mr. Camarota. With the statement made by Mr. 

Holzer with regard to our immigration numbers are not greater 

than they have been at the peak period of times in the early part 

of the 20th century, could you speak to that, Mr. Camarota? 

85

Mr. CAMAROTA. Yes. Well, in terms of absolute number, obviously, the number coming in. In terms of percentages, we did hit 

an all-time high in 1910 of about 14.7 percent. But we will probably be at that all-time high and then beyond that at the current 

rate within about a decade or so. So we are on track to pass what 

was a very unusual time in American history anyway. 

Mr. KING. Even as a percentage of the overall population? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. In terms of numbers we have triple the number 

of people. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Camarota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I now yield back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from 

Texas for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Sa ́nchez, do 

you want to go at this time? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Yes. If you will yield, I would. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I will go after you. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would ask unanimous consent to allow Ms. 

Sa ́nchez to go, and I will follow her. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. I am interested, Mr. Camarota, in your 

testimony. You stated that between March 2000 and March 2004 

the number of unemployed adult natives increased by 2.3 million, 

but at the same time the number of employed immigrants increased by 2.3 million. 

Looking superficially at those numbers, it sounds like a very 

compelling argument. Now, I am not a statistician, but wouldn’t 

you agree that the two events could have occurred independently 

from one another or have been completely mutually exclusive? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. As I said, it would be wrong to think that somehow every job taken by an immigrant is a job lost by a native. But 

if we look at those parts where native unemployment went up, in 

some of the biggest rates by education or by age or by occupational 

category, they do tend to be precisely those parts of the economy 

where there was the largest influx of immigrants. And if we——

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. But the question is, though, if you just look superficially at that, could those two things have happened independently or mutually exclusively of one another? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. I don’t think they did but they could have, sure. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. This is for all the panel. 

I am just going to throw some things out there and I am going 

to be peppering you all with different questions. 

But you know it is interesting, some of you on the panel have 

said that there are no jobs that Americans won’t take. Well, we 

have had previous hearings where we have had folks in the dairy 

industry out West talk about jobs that pay $12 and $14 an hour 

that they have advertised for and cannot get any American workers 

who are willing to do that work. 

So they find that there is a need for immigrant labor. So I am 

just going to throw that out to you, that you know this absolute—

there are no jobs that no Americans, that some Americans won’t 

take—It actually does occur, in fact. It is not a rare phenomenon. 

86

Coming from a great agricultural State of California, there are 

a lot of jobs, trust me, in California, that there are Americans who 

aren’t willing to do that work despite repeated attempts. 

I want to ask Mr. Harrington and Mr. Camarota. You talk about 

enforcement of immigration, and you talk also about depressed 

wages and lack of benefits. Don’t you think we could achieve the 

objective of trying to raise wages and raise working conditions if 

we enforced labor protections and workplace enforcement of working conditions? Isn’t that one side of the equation? Because I 

haven’t heard you all speak too much about that. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I think that is a very important side of the 

equation. One of the things Mr. Reindl talked about was the creation of new labor market institutions. When I drove in this morning I came from Annandale, Virginia and on Little River Turnpike 

out there is a shape-up. It is a group of guys that are standing at 

7–11 about 6 in the morning. These are guys going to get picked 

up and engage in a wide variety of under-the-table economic activities, largely cash payments. Whether they get paid or not I don’t 

know. It is certainly not going to contribute to the State’s unemployment insurance system, Social Security system and the like. 

But there has been a—— Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I am talking about the employers. Let us talk 

about the employers, whether they are paying minumum wages— Mr. HARRINGTON. That is what I am talking about. There are 

employers stopping at the shape-up picking these guys up on construction jobs, on landscaping jobs, on brick laying jobs, on a variety of activities, all of which disappears, it’s all under the table. 

That is replicated thousands of time throughout the country. You 

will find it in D.C., you will find it in Philadelphia, you will find 

it in Los Angeles. We have created over the last 4 or 5 years a 

whole set of illegal labor market institutions that we have not seen 

since the Great Depression. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. So enforcement would help on that? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Absolutely. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. My time is very limited so I am going to skip really quickly to Mr. Reindl. I really feel for you because I used to do 

labor compliance work. I used to do go out to job sites construction 

job sites and make sure that the contractors that were on those 

jobs were paying their employees. Davis-Bacon wages are in California little Davis-Bacon wages. Oftentimes they were cheating and 

not paying for wages that they were supposed to be. They weren’t 

paying full worker’s compensation. 

So I am very sympathetic to you, but I am going to make several 

suggestions to you: Number one, that tax breaks and tax incentives 

that give benefits to companies that reincorporate overseas or ship 

jobs overseas is probably one of the problems, because folks locally 

are finding it hard to compete with companies that do that to depress labor markets. 

And the free trade agreements that we sign into with other countries which don’t include workforce protections or any labor rights 

also means that those labor markets have much depressed wages 

and so companies flee the United States in order to compete, because we are essentially giving them no other option. But we are 

incentivizing them from leaving this country. So it makes it very 

87

difficult to keep honest employers that are willing to pay benefits 

and willing to pay decent wages in business in the United States. 

I would just make this one last suggestion. You know, the minimum wage has not been raised in this country in the longest period of time since its inception in the 1930’s. There are a number 

of us who have been trying to raise that minimum wage to get 

those wages up so there will be more competition for those jobs. 

Unfortunately, that is something that Congress has been unwilling 

to pass. 

With that, I will yield back as my time has expired. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Texas for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a few questions. Let me ask, Dr. Harrington, you had given us a number of 

statistics. I am curious, do you have any idea what percent of the 

immigrants being employed, the foreign born immigrants, speak 

English? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I don’t know the answer to that, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. This can be to any of you. Is there any evidence 

that there are jobs taken by foreign born immigrants which have 

actually been refused by Americans first? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Sir, I can just speak to this. One of the ways 

economists judge what is going on in the labor market is something 

called the employment rate. When you look at the employment 

rate, particularly in our cities, you see the employment rates of 

young adults have plunged. 

In the City of Los Angeles, the employment rate for 16 to 19-

year-olds already low during the year of 2000 at 31 percent, fell to 

21 percent just 4 years later. The State of California fell from 38 

to 30, from the U.S. went from about 46 to 36 percent. These are 

historically unprecedented declines in teens. 

Mr. GOHMERT. We have seen increases in obesity, indicating perhaps laziness among teenagers. Do you have statistics that show 

that those 16-year-olds actually went in and applied for jobs? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. No, sir, I don’t. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. I could just point out one thing. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank you. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. The current population surveys asks people are 

you currently looking for work, and what was your last job. When 

we look at that, we find millions of people who said, hey, I am really looking for work, and my last job was in hotel and restaurant, 

my last job was in food processing and preparation. Now maybe 

they are being deceptive or maybe they are not really looking, but 

the available evidence suggests that there are millions of people 

who say that very thing when asked. 

Mr. HOLZER. If I could have a different reading of those same 

numbers. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Sure. 

Mr. HOLZER. The large joblessness or lack of employment that 

you see in inner city areas reflects a range of factors. One of the 

issues is the fact that a lot of young people become discouraged 

very early on and never even enter the labor force, because they 

see a very limited set of opportunities facing them in terms of jobs 

and wages. Early in life they make another set of choices that I 

88

think is very unfortunate, that they often regret later on. It is very 

important to improve those opportunities to help draw those workers in. 

However, there are workers looking for jobs, and the CPS does 

indicate that there are some number of million. That doesn’t mean 

that they apply for every available job. I would dispute this notion 

that millions of unemployed workers have looked in these small 

number of sectors where immigrants are mostly concentrated. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Are there any statistics regarding the number of 

unemployed foreign born immigrants, whether legal or illegal? 

Does anybody know? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Yes. There are statistics on that. Unemployment 

rates among immigrants vary quite a bit by education and so forth. 

Let us see if I can find you a rate here. The overall rate he says 

is a little bit higher. Immigrants are a little bit more likely to be 

unemployed. It is about 7 to 8 percent. It is a little bit lower for 

natives. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Let me talk about the IRS not pursuing 

employers. Are there any estimates on how many employers or employees do not pay FICA or withholding to the IRS? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. I can speak to the issue of immigration. Most sociological research indicates that between 50 and 60 percent of illegal aliens are paid on the books. In my work I have usually estimated 55 percent. Now what they usually—the evidence often—— Mr. GOHMERT. Paid on the books means—— Mr. CAMAROTA. Their employers pay Social Security, but what 

they usually do is get a lot of withholding so they don’t pay any 

income tax. In other words, they usually claim a lot of exemptions. 

That way they don’t have to file at the end of the year. That is usually—at least for Federal income tax, that is what they do. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Anyone else? I thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 

California for 5 minutes, Ms. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Members. I am trying to digest some of this data and information that 

is being presented to us. I think we should all look carefully at it, 

because I think it is important for us not to handle this as a political issue where people are fanning the flames of fear and division 

in an effort to make people think they are protecting them in some 

special way and approach this from a very strong public policy approach to deal with what is a problem. 

I do think we have a problem. I am not in denial about that. I 

do think there is some job competition. I don’t know the extent of 

it. I am going to take a look at all of this information, and I think 

we should not be in denial about that. 

At the same time, I think we must recognize that for some of the 

people who are yelling the loudest, they are not yelling at this Administration and the President about protection of the border. 

As you know, the President put funds for 200 border patrol. 

Some of us have signed on both sides of the aisle a letter to the 

President saying that you promised 2,000 and that is not enough, 

but we want you to live up to your commitment to protect the border and to stop the flood of illegal immigration. 

89

One of the reasons it is so important for us to handle this with 

integrity is we do not want to confuse legal immigration with illegal immigration. We do not want to create hatred and division in 

the way that we handle this issue. So I think there are a number 

of things that must be done. 

In addition to securing the border, how many folks are willing to 

say that we are going to not just fine employers because that becomes a cost of doing business? How many people are going to 

make it a crime for employers to hire illegal immigrants? How 

many people are willing to do that? 

For those of you on the other side of the aisle, I thank you for 

being here. If my friends who are wanting cheap labor for certain 

sectors of our society and who will come up with kind of phony 

guest worker programs, are not willing to talk about making it a 

crime to hire illegal aliens, immigrants, I don’t want to hear from 

them, because they are not serious about this. 

Again, we have talked about minimum wage. Some of the same 

folks refuse to support an increase in minimum wage. That will go 

a long way toward encouraging more natives to go after some of 

these jobs. 

Yes, it is not an either/or. There are some jobs that natives will 

not take. You are not going to find people in any of our districts 

flooding to the agricultural areas to pick grapes or lettuce or anything else. You know it. Everybody knows that, and we must recognize that. 

While I don’t like these phony guest worker programs that would 

exploit immigrants in ways that will not recognize, in some way, 

the amount of time and the number of years they may put into this 

so that they can be looked at as those who would be supported for 

some kind of permanent status, I believe that we can work in ways 

that we can get tough on illegal immigration, recognize that some 

things have already happened in the system that must be taken 

care of. 

I am not for illegal immigrants not being able to be themselves. 

I know what happens when you don’t have any money, when you 

don’t have any food, your children are hungry. I know what happens, it is an increase in crime. So we can’t have it all ways, we 

can’t have it both ways. 

We can’t have Members talking out of both sides of their mouth 

about this issue. If we are going to stem the tide of illegal immigrants that, yes, are causing competition in jobs, and, yes, they are 

taking jobs that some people would take, and recognize that there 

are jobs that natives will not take and recognize that we need an 

increase in minimum wage and we need to make it a crime for employers who hire illegal immigrants and the Federal Government—

you know, Lou Dobbs has gone just wild on this subject. But the 

most interesting thing was they found that there were illegal immigrants who were working on a Federal Government project, who 

are working to construct a courthouse someplace. 

So, you know, we all have to see what role we can play in making sense out of this, and not simply talking about it in a way that 

will just not recognize the way this whole thing has evolved. We 

must also remember that most of this focus is just on certain illegal 

immigrants. 

90

Now, if you are from Cuba you can come as long as the boats can 

get you out of Cuba, and they have the wet foot/dry foot policy. You 

get one foot on land, then you can stay, and that is no, no ceiling 

on that. 

Now, if you are from Haiti, you can’t come at all. So we have got 

a lot of work to do, and we have got to figure out how to do it with 

integrity, and we have got to make sense out of how not to just disregard the fact that we have allowed this problem to evolve over 

a period of time. 

You have families involved. People talk about deportation where 

you would split families. I am not for that either. Don’t forget, you 

know, I come from African heritage where people who were brought 

to this country, families were split and sold off and went in one direction and the other direction. 

So that is why I say it is very complicated. We have to really approach it in a manner that will recognize all of these complications 

and not simply that there are illegal aliens, immigrants here who 

must be deported, or somehow we can have them here when we 

want them to do certain kind of work but when we don’t need them 

we close down the border to them. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chairman and the witnesses. 

Mr. Camarota, what is your or your organization’s estimate as to 

the number of illegals currently in the workforce here in the U.S.? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Yes. It looks like about 6 million total immigrants account for roughly, a little less than 3.5 percent of all 

workers and about 1.5 percent of economic output. 

Mr. FLAKE. So just over 6 million. Those are—those who are in 

the workforce being paid not under the table but as——

Mr. CAMAROTA. Oh, no, about 3 million of them are being paid 

under the table. That is a rough estimate, 3 million off the books. 

Mr. FLAKE. So there are as many being paid under the table according to your estimates? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Yes, a 50/50 split about. 

Mr. FLAKE. If we have—if we enforce the current law, the current law says that anybody who is here illegally, obviously, goes 

home. I have heard talk of some generational attrition or some 

other terms to deal with those who are here illegally now that are 

in the workforce. 

What is your recommendation for those who are here illegally 

now in the workforce? Is it to immediately enforce a law, send 

them home immediately? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Well, obviously we take quite a lot of time and 

effort to begin to enforce the law, so the process would be relatively 

slow. 

Mr. FLAKE. What is a lot of time? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Oh, I think it would take a couple of years to 

hire the agents necessary to really take a bite out of it. Nonetheless, I think if we started right now we would see an immediate 

effect on the number of illegal aliens in the United States. 

91

The way I usually articulate it is what we can have is attrition 

through enforcement. About 4- to 500,000 illegal aliens either go 

home on their own, get deported or get green cards actually each 

year. So if we can increase that number to maybe 6- or 700,000 and 

dramatically reduce the number of people coming in, the problem 

would take care of itself over time. 

Now there might be some long-term residents who have been 

here a long time. We might want to look at some kind of amnesty 

after we get a handle on enforcement. 

Mr. FLAKE. So amnesty you are in favor of? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Well, I said we might want to consider it, after 

we show that we are enforcing the law, the immigration law is 

back in business, the border is being policed properly and so forth, 

we can certainly consider that, yes, as a way of clearing the decks, 

tying up loose ends. But you certainly don’t start with an amnesty 

when you haven’t taken even the most elemental steps. 

Mr. FLAKE. I am puzzled as to why you believe it would take so 

long to start enforcing it. We have the technology now where any 

employer could know if a Social Security number issued is valid or 

not. We could do that tomorrow. I have had this software demonstrated in my office. We could do that tomorrow. 

We could have—your estimate is some 3 million that are working 

that have taxes withheld on their behalf. I would submit that number is far, far, far higher than that, given the amount of money 

that is collected that is in the Social Security system. We are told 

that it is 10 percent of the surplus we are running is money paid 

into dead accounts or fraudulent Social Security numbers. 

That says to me it is a lot more than 3 million. I think the number is a few hundred, 150 billion or so over a decade or a decade 

and a half that has been paid into dead accounts. 

So we have the technology, we just don’t have the will right now 

to enforce it at the employer level. I am just wondering if we did 

enforce it and send them home, enforcing the law right now, an 

employer would have a $10,000 fine per occurrence if you hire 

somebody now knowingly that has a fraudulent Social Security 

number, what would you then recommend? Those who are unemployed here now be forced to take those jobs that they currently 

have, or do we have a 5-year plan like the Soviets used to where 

you move employees, like they have in Cuba today, where you 

move the unemployed to those systems? If you are an unemployed 

school teacher in Maine, there is a job for you in Yuma picking lettuce. What do you envision there? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. The way the labor market works if there was a 

reduction in supply through labor enforcement through the law 

then employers would have two choices, they could either pay more 

and treat their workers better and offer more benefits if they 

couldn’t attract workers at their current pay rate, or they can 

mechanize and invest in labor-saving devices and techniques. 

To give you an example, the sugar farm, sugar farming in Florida was once done mostly by immigrant labor, but more recently 

they simply got rid of all of that labor and they mechanized it. 

There are machines, and they are used in other countries, like Australia and Europe, to pick a lot of fruits and vegetables. But we 

don’t have them here because the Government gives——

92

Mr. FLAKE. If you look at the statistics from the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics over a 10-year period from 2002 to 2012, they see percentage increases, for example, registered nurses, 27 percent increase; post-secondary teachers, 38 percent; retails salespersons, 

15; nurses aides, orderlies and attendants, 25 percent increase. We 

simply don’t have the demographics to support over the next 10 

years that kind of job growth. 

It is—I mean, you can argue if the demographics are this, but 

we simply don’t. But you are arguing for fewer legal low-skilled 

workers to come in. You make that argument in your testimony. 

How do you reconcile it? We just have to mechanize and change 

or what? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Pay unskilled workers better. I think one of the 

most serious problems we face in this country is all the unskilled 

workers who make so little. I would like to see enhanced increase 

in the minimum wage. I would like to see fair labor laws enforced 

more vigorously. But it seems to me you can’t constantly add to the 

supply of labor at the bottom of the labor market and then bemoan 

the fact that people are discouraged workers, that work doesn’t 

pay. That policy, current immigration policy is directly contrary to 

the idea that we want the poor in the United States and the working poor to do better. 

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 

Texas for 5 minutes, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Camarota, I think that we can—I see it in my visioning that 

we have an opportunity for common ground and collaboration, because, frankly, it would be remiss of me, it would be certainly dishonest not to suggest that I am an enthusiastic supporter of increasing the minimum wage. In fact, I would like to welcome you 

in a meeting with the leadership of this House to sit down and talk 

about putting the minimum wage legislation on the Floor of the 

House almost immediately. It is valuable. 

I think this hearing is important. I thank the Chairman very 

much for this hearing, because I have listened to the questions of 

my colleagues on both sides of the aisles. The good news is, Mr. 

Chairman, that the questioning is valid, and, if you will, issues are 

being raised on both sides of the aisles about who is actually the 

necessary scapegoat for a job recession and the need for recovery. 

I think this hearing may suggest, as I did in my opening remarks, that this needs to be a topic to be discussed by a number 

of oversight Committees throughout this Congress, both the House 

and the Senate, because we have lagged behind in job creation. 

That is the crux of an immigration hearing today, that we have 

lagged behind in job creation. 

At the same time that prospectively, if there was a sort of engine 

into the economy, we need to look for a workforce or have a viable 

workforce here. With the demographics presently in the United 

States who happened to be maybe nonimmigrant and nonundocumented, we don’t have the employee base if, for example, an economic engine was to immediately start up and look for people of 

varying types of skills. 

93

I made the point that I was just recently at the offshore technology conference, one of the largest energy conferences in the 

world, held in the energy capital of the world, we like to say, Houston, Texas. 

The bemoaning there, Mr. Camarota, was that we did not have 

that core group of educated, trained chemists and other scientists 

and geologists—an unfortunate statement to know that geology has 

been taken out of high schools—we are not preparing the workforce 

of the 21st century. 

If for example that industry was to grow and develop as I hope 

that it does fairly and balanced and with environmental protections 

and they look for a whole new level of workers, which could come 

from the trained workforce that we hope that we are producing out 

of America’s secondary schools and colleges, they would not be 

there. 

In fact, I would say to you, even though this is not the Education 

and Workforce Committee, shame on us because we are actually 

not preparing Americans for the jobs in the 21st century. 

Let me just say to Mr. Holzer, you were taking an enormous 

number of notes, but let me pose a question for you, because I 

think your information is particularly important. 

The Ranking Member of the Full Committee asked the question 

that we talk about, naturalizing immigrants, are we talking about 

those who have legal permanent residency status right at this 

point? Are we talking about undocumented? So we need to clarify 

what we are talking about. I would like you to make that point 

first, because certainly there are immigrants in this country who 

are first-generation who happen to be citizens because they have 

gone through the process. 

The other thing is, speak to this issue of job creation and the 

plight that America faces with a diminishing base of potential 

workers and the devastation that would occur to America potentially if we did not have an increasing wave of workers. You might 

want to use as a backdrop countries like Germany, who had the 

closed door policy to immigration. If you have any backdrop information on that. 

You didn’t mention it in your testimony, but I heard you say 

something about youth who took other opportunities, unfortunately 

which they didn’t. But you are an American. Try to comment on 

this question of discrimination and the fact that there are populations in the United States that have been sort of thwarted of 

their opportunities, and they happen to be American, because of 

discrimination. 

So I would appreciate your making an assessment on those 

points and the points you think you may have left off the table. 

Mr. HOLZER. Thank you. Let me try to address the issues you 

have raised. First of all, the issue is that there are very, very different groups of immigrants, some legal, some illegal. The niches 

they fill in the economy are really very different. To lump them all 

together is an enormous mistake, by the numbers that Mr. Harrington cited. 

Over one-fourth of the newly-arrived immigrants in the last 4 

years are college graduates and they are often filling jobs in science 

and engineering, in some parts of health care like nursing, where 

94

right now employers really are having difficulty finding workers at 

the low end, both among legal and illegal immigrants. There are 

jobs not only in agriculture. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. We shouldn’t be happy with that though. 

Mr. HOLZER. I agree with that. That is an important problem. I 

acknowledge what you and I agree is that the solution to that problem is not to cut off immigrants. It is changes in our immigration 

policies that open those doors and allow more Native born Americans to gain those skills so we would be less dependent on that immigrant flow. 

Similarly, even at the bottom end of the economy, not just in agriculture but in some parts of health care, we have great difficulty 

finding people to be home health aides, nurse’s aides, et cetera. 

Again, we depend on the immigrants there, sometimes illegal, frequently legal, to come in. So, again, to lump all those different categories together I think is very problematic. 

The second issue you raised, I believe, was about education policies and how do we open more of those opportunities to workers, 

and especially in the context of a retirement issue, of baby boomers 

retiring in very large numbers. There, again, I think there is a 

wide range of ways in which our labor market will adjust to the 

retirement of baby boomers. Some of the earlier panelists have alluded to that. There will be increasing of wages in some sectors to 

draw more workers into those sectors, there will be increasing uses 

of technology, et cetera. 

But I think to close to door on immigrants in a time period when 

we are facing these potential labor shortages would be an enormous mistake. I don’t think the labor market on its own, especially 

in areas like health care, where there are cost pressures containing 

and constraining the ability of providers to raise wages to the level 

that would draw in a lot of Native born workers. 

We will be quite dependent on foreign workers and certainly at 

the high end, not only in nursing but in science and engineering. 

Those will be very, very important sectors in which the flow of immigrants, once the baby boomers retire, I think will be very critical 

to the overall health and economy. So I think shutting those 

doors——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You add the European model where immigration has been slowed or limited or blocked. Do you have any understanding of that? 

Mr. HOLZER. I haven’t looked closely at that model, but I think 

it is correct that part of the inability of some of those sectors in 

some of those countries to attract workers may be related to their 

restrictive immigration policy. 

Finally, I want to speak to this issue of the real problems faced 

by Native born minorities, low-income folks of all racial and ethnic 

groups who want and lack opportunities in this country. In fact, I 

spent my entire career doing research on those issues and worrying 

about those problems. 

I think, overwhelmingly, the economic literature suggests that if 

there is an adverse impact of immigration on those groups, that it 

is small potatoes compared to the wide range of barriers these 

groups face. Many changes in the economy in the last 20 years that 

have contributed to their disadvantage—everything involving all 

95

kinds of new technologies, new trade patterns, the shrinkage of the 

institutions that traditionally have protected those workers like 

minimum wages and collective bargaining. 

I do think that many of these young folks do lack educational opportunities. They lack opportunities to get quality preschool. They 

lack opportunities to get quality K-12 education. In many cases, 

they either don’t develop the skills necessary for higher education 

or they lack the financing. We haven’t allowed Pell Grants to grow 

at a rate at which the full number of people who could benefit from 

higher education would be allowed to afford it. 

As you indicated, discrimination does remain a problem. Study 

after study does document the continuing presence of discrimination in housing markets in our neighborhoods as well as in labor 

markets. 

So when you look at that full range of issues, there are things 

that could be done on each of those to open up opportunities, to 

draw more of those workers into the workforce, to improve their 

skills and their ability to compete. To focus so intensely on immigration is simply to be barking up the wrong tree or a very limited 

tree in a forest of many other causes. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman. The gentlelady’s time 

has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Just to clarify for the Subcommittee, that is 

the only tree we bark up in this Subcommittee is immigration. 

While those other issues are important, they happen to be the jurisdiction of other Committees. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I came to Congress in 1979 and volunteered to serve on the Immigration Subcommittee because I was from southern California. I 

saw the impact of rampant illegal immigration but didn’t have all 

the answers. I knew there were problems out there and attempted 

to try to bring some leadership to the Congress. 

I was the Republican floor manager for Simpson-Mazzoli, was 

one of the authors of the employer sanctions portion of that as well 

as the other half of that. 

I am as disappointed as anybody that employer sanctions haven’t 

worked, haven’t been enforced by Democrat or Republican Administrations. My sense is there is a failure of the will of the American 

people to support it or there has been thus far, in part because 

there is a feeling among the American people that we can’t get all 

our jobs filled with Americans. 

So I would just like to ask the panel this—Look, I came here in 

1979. We had illegal immigration at the time. We had a flow across 

our southern border. I investigated and discovered we had a flow 

across our southern border at least for a hundred years. It has 

been legal or illegal, depending on whether we had a program for 

it or not. 

In the number of years since I first came here, I have seen the 

impact of immigrants, both legal and illegal. But a large number 

of illegal immigrants are now in areas they weren’t before, the construction industry, and areas of the country they weren’t in before. 

96

When I was here before I said this is the impact in southern 

California, in the Southwest, you may see it later in the country. 

A lot of people didn’t want to be concerned about it, because they 

never thought it would happen anywhere else. I defy anybody to go 

to any place on a construction site in most major metropolitan 

areas and not realize what language is being spoken, to go to landscaping crews, to go to hotels, to go to restaurants, et cetera. 

I mean the fact of the matter is, in my judgment, we rely a great 

deal on this immigrant labor. 

My point is—my question to the panel is this, number one, do 

you think it is reasonable that we could cut off the major flow of 

illegal immigration in this country, that being our southern border, 

without any adverse economic consequences to this country? 

Number two, do you really believe that all the jobs that are currently taken by those who are here illegally would readily be taken 

by American citizens? 

Thirdly, if you do believe that they would readily be taken by 

American citizens, at what economic enticement would that come? 

Dr. Camarota. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Yes, I most certainly believe we could enforce the 

law at a reasonable cost over time. I think that the economy would 

benefit, low-wage workers would benefit, the rule of law would benefit. American taxpayers would benefit. One of the things 

about——

Mr. LUNGREN. Could I ask you a question? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Sure. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Where would you get the people to work in agriculture? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. I think that you would get—what would happen 

is that you would see significant gains in productivity. They would 

move to like dry-it-on-the-vine agriculture like they use in Australia. They would buy the machines to pick the lettuce. 

Mr. LUNGREN. So mechanization rather than workers? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Well, I think that you attract workers to that by 

paying more, employing them year around, giving them benefits, 

treating them decently. So with those two things, gains in productivity as well as improvement in wages and benefits and working 

conditions, and the beauty of it is we have no fear that it will spike 

inflation because unskilled labor is such a tiny fraction of total economic output in the United States that even if wages for people at 

the bottom went up a lot it wouldn’t mean anything even in the 

area of agriculture. The price of a head of lettuce, only about 15 

percent of it is based on the price of the guy who actually picks it. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Where would we find the folks who would be out 

working in the fields? Where would they come from? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. As I indicated, you could attract Americans and 

legal immigrants in the United States by paying them better and 

treating them better. 

Mr. LUNGREN. But realistically, tell me where they are going to 

come from. In the 1930’s and 1940’s we had breaks at schools so 

school kids would go out and work in the fields. The college kids 

would do that. The folks from the city would go out and do that. 

We had a lot more people working there. 

97

I am trying to figure this out realistically because I am frustrated by this. I hear academics coming up here and telling me it 

will not have any impact if we cut it off. I see a Congress that refuses to come up with a guest worker program. I see a refusal of 

the Government to enforce employer sanctions. 

Frankly, at the end of this period of time things are worse than 

they were before. I hear people saying all we have to do is raise 

wages and we will have people flooding to the fields to work there. 

I would like to see that, but I really have skepticism about that 

happening. Where are they going to come from? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Well, there are hundreds of thousands—whether 

you might not realize it—of Native born Americans who work in 

agriculture. There are also legal immigrants who work there, 

though it is true that a very large share of people who work there 

are illegal aliens. 

Nonetheless, there are huge productivity gains. Let me just give 

you an example. When they ended the Bracero program, which was 

our old guest worker program, the tomato farmers actually testified 

before Congress, if you end this program we are out of business, 

there is no way. 

What happened when they ended that program? They mechanized and productivity increased manyfold. Their profits went up. 

Even during the Depression there were farmers saying we can’t 

find anybody to do this labor. 

What they have difficulty finding is people who will do very hard 

jobs when they don’t want to pay anything. Consider coal mining 

is a perfect example. The job pays well, has benefits, and it is all 

done by natives but it is a miserable job and also increased our 

productivity. 

Mr. LUNGREN. But very—much less in numbers of people working in the coal mines than we had before because of mechanization? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. That is exactly right. Good analogy, I like it. 

Mr. LUNGREN. So we will not have jobs taken by Americans; 

what you will do is eliminate those jobs? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. There will be fewer jobs. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Right. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Pay better, have more benefits and the rest 

would be taken care of by productivity. I like your analogy. That 

is exactly what happened to coal mining. 

Mr. LUNGREN. That is one reason why people wonder why their 

tomatoes don’t taste as good as they used to. It’s because we developed tomatoes that have a tougher skin on them that could be 

mechanized—picked by mechanization instead of by individuals. 

My point is, though, if we are talking about jobs, what you are 

really saying to me is that we are going to eliminate a good number of those jobs so we won’t have the need for this immigrant 

labor, but they are not going to be replaced in like number by 

American jobs. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. But there will be fewer people competing for 

those jobs because immigration would be reduced. So the jobs that 

would remain would pay better, be here year round, have benefits, 

and be the civilized kind of work that would attract Native born 

Americans or legal immigrants as well. 

98

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LUNGREN. I wish I had time to yield. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentleman’s time has expired. But if the 

witnesses are willing, I would like to turn to a second round of 

questioning, if there are no conflicts with schedules on the part of 

the witnesses. We appreciate that. 

We will now turn to a second round of questions. I will start with 

5 minutes. 

Dr. Holzer, your response to an earlier round of questions was 

very enlightening to me and it actually answered a question that 

I had even before I had to ask it. But I am a registered professional 

engineer in the State of Indiana. My wife is a registered nurse in 

the State of Indiana. 

You have mentioned that as a result of cost containment that, 

well, I will have to get the record to see exactly what you said, but 

I think, in essence, that as a result of cost containment measures, 

it may be in fact that future—especially in the health care industry—that it may be in fact immigrants that take a preponderance 

of those jobs in the future. 

In fact, we understand now that we are going to be considering 

a provision in the supplemental bill that will add 50,000 new legal 

permanent residents, potential permanent residents for the nursing 

field, new visas that will be handed out. The reason being—while 

economics was not my strong suit—my understanding of economics 

to a great extent has to do with cost containment overall, in that 

an individual or an entity will pay only so much for a given good 

or service. 

So the point that you made, and it was made earlier with regard 

to the fact that the current trends in immigration with regard to 

the type of jobs that they take, and therefore, the magnitude of the 

wages that they earn and the amount of money that they pay in 

to Social Security, you mentioned in your testimony that in order 

to—you didn’t say this, but I am extrapolating—in order to offset 

that, that in fact there is going to have to be an influx of much 

larger immigration numbers in the higher wage level categories. 

You mentioned, actually, science and engineering and health care 

once again. 

So given that the trend of your testimony is that we will have 

to allow for immigration purposes—and not necessarily illegal immigration purposes, as is the case with the bill that is going to be 

considered in the House tomorrow—but we are going to have to significantly increase the number of immigrants, visas available for 

immigrants, to take jobs such as in science and technology and 

health care that Americans won’t do because of cost containment 

measures. 

I assume that what you are saying with cost containment measures is that we will not be able to pay health care workers and scientists and engineers wages sufficient for native Americans to go 

into those fields. 

Given the fact that there is discussion of a guest worker program 

that some of the Administration has said, we are going to match 

every willing employer with every willing employee, meaning in the 

world. Every willing employee in the world. That if we are talking 

about moving from melon pickers and apple pickers and roofers 

99

and the like to registered nurses, scientists, engineers and everything else, theoretically speaking, of a guest worker program and 

the trend of your testimony, aren’t we saying that Americans will 

compete for wages, cost containments, however you want to put it, 

for wages with the rest of the world? That is my first question. 

Will we not be competing with—will our children and others be 

competing with every other engineer, engineering graduate, scientist, nursing graduate in the world, and, secondly, is the fact 

that a significant portion of the rest of the world has a lower standard of living than us, making it likely—and your testimony alludes 

to it somewhat—isn’t it likely that those other people are going to 

be willing to take much less in wages and salaries to meet the requirements of the employer in the United States? 

Mr. HOLZER. Mr. Chairman, there are several different strands 

to your question. I will try to disentangle them. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. There are actually two questions. First of all, 

isn’t the United States worker in the future, with the guest worker 

program that says—and then this is theoretical—every willing employer with every willing employee, is that not going to be the case 

with American workers, native workers competing with every other 

worker in the world? That is the first question. Not just my strand. 

Is there going to be someone else to compete with? 

Secondly, given the fact that 90 to 95 percent of the rest of the 

world has a lower standard of living than the United States, isn’t 

that going to depress wages for those scientists, engineers, nurses, 

thoracic surgeons, cardiologists, whoever, in the health care industry in the future? 

Mr. HOLZER. I think there are different issues that play out differently in different sectors. The amount of competition, coming 

from either guest workers or from foreign workers varies a lot from 

field to field. 

In health care, the demand for work to be done here in the 

United States is so strong that I think, again, it varies. In some 

parts of health care, such as nursing, the issue really is skills and 

whether or not domestically born students are going into those 

fields and developing those skills. The other areas—the bottom end 

of health care doesn’t require a lot of skills, but their wages and 

benefits are what attract workers and keep them in that area. 

I don’t believe that—. The rise in wages that would be necessary 

to balance that market, I think, would be quite large. I think guest 

workers, immigrant workers will help to meet that demand, which 

will be very strong. If you look at projections when baby boomers 

retire, the increase in demand for health care would be very dramatic. It would take large increases either in the supply of workers 

or in their wages to meet those demands. So I am not worried in 

that sector about Americans being crowded out or their wages 

being competed down because I think the demands are so strong. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Excuse me, Dr. Holzer, I don’t mean to interrupt. But you said in a previous question that cost containment 

measures are going to turn to the need for immigrant workers over 

Native born workers. I mean, that is in essence what you said, and 

now you are saying that won’t be the case? 

Mr. HOLZER. I think the demand will be so strong in that sector 

that—yes, I think cost containment is important because I think—

100

when economists talk about the market equilibrating and wages 

rising to close these shortages, the increases in cost that would be 

necessary to meet that entire demand will be very large when you 

look to the future when the baby boomers are retiring. So I think 

it will not be possible to do that strictly through domestic workers 

because the cost increases, the wage increases necessary would be 

enormous. So there I think there will be a need for immigration 

and other sources of labor to help out, meet those needs. 

In other areas, you talked about Americans competing with 

workers around the world who earn lower wages, and that competition can occur in a lot of ways. It can occur through exports or imports of goods and services. It can occur through outsourcing. And 

I think, in some sectors, for instance, wherever it is possible to 

digitize the work that is done, potentially that work can be done 

overseas, and those workers in those sectors will face this competition. The estimates I have seen so far suggest that could be 10 to 

15 percent of jobs in the United States, potentially, on the high end 

could face competition from engineers and computer programmers 

and others in India and China and other parts of the world. But 

in many, many other sectors there is a strong home bias. The work 

has to be done here; construction, health care, education, most of 

our domestic retail trade and entertainment services are all done 

here. So the amount of competition that will come from foreign 

workers who remain abroad in those sectors will be much less. So 

there is this potential competition, but I think it does vary greatly 

from one field to the next. And this fear that it will depress American wages overall I think is not probably well founded. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Excuse me, just one more thing. They will be 

done here, but they won’t necessarily need to be done by a Native 

born worker. 

Mr. HOLZER. If the work remains here, that is right. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Camarota, could you clarify, did you include naturalized citizens in your study? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Unless I otherwise—and there are places where 

I talk about illegals separately—I include all of the foreign born, 

and that includes legal permanent residents, illegal aliens, guest 

workers and naturalized U.S. Citizens. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Out of the discussion that we have been having here today, would you care to alter that potential analysis? Let 

me try to understand. 

You don’t take away from the very underpinnings of the founding 

of this country, which—besides unwilling slave labor that spent 

400 years unpaid and building this Nation from its agricultural to 

its industrial to a certain extent—mostly it is agricultural, but certainly it is hard labor building buildings, et cetera. We just recently 

discovered that this Capitol, U.S. Capitol where we debate, was 

built on slave labor. But looking at the immigration of the late 

1800’s into the early 1900’s, you are not suggesting that that was 

not a good phenomenon for America where these immigrants came 

in and helped build the population and ceded themselves into the 

101

American fabric of society; is that what you are suggesting out of 

this study? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Well, my study is trying to look at what is the 

impact on employment patterns for natives from immigration. So 

the reason one does that is hopefully to provide some elucidation 

about—an insight into what a policy might be based on what has 

happened so far. So that is all this study does. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You are taking a historical perspective of looking at the immigrants, the Irish, the Italians and others who came, 

late 1800’s into the 1900’s; do you take that as a backdrop? Because, in essence they came—not undocumented, but they were not 

citizens as they came. They eventually became citizens, but they 

went into the workforce. Was that a negative impact? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. This study isn’t focused on that. But my reading 

of the historical record is that that immigration, including when 

my family came to America, absolutely did adversely affect American workers at that time. Specifically what happens, if you look 

at the history, is that it is only with the cessation of the European 

immigration from World War I, 1914, and then also the restrictive 

legislations of the 1920’s, that then you get the great migration of 

African-Americans out of the south and they begin to take industrial jobs, and that has enormous implications for the social mobility of that group. 

So I would say that that immigration—including when my family 

came—came at the expense of unskilled workers in the United 

States, especially African-Americans, absolutely. That was an inevitable consequence of dramatically altering the supply of labor 

then, and I think we are seeing some very similar patterns today. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, I might concede that there were jobs 

being created in the north, but I would say that that migration was 

complimented—or that may be too nice a word—was motivated by 

the increase of Jim Crowism and Klanism in the south to move 

people—out of survival, to leave the south to be able to survive. 

But I do want to ask you to clear up one other point as well. You 

called—in the course of the English language sometimes—you cited 

work as being uncivilized, and I just wanted to make sure that you 

got a chance to—you said they would be able to go into civilized 

kinds of work. Are you trying to suggest that the agricultural industry creates uncivilized kinds of work? And would you comment 

on the fact that the agricultural industry’s utilization of certain 

types of population also generates into the food costs that we experience here in the United States, which most Americans have become accustomed to? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. What I meant to say, so that you will understand, is that jobs in agriculture often are constructed in such a 

way that the worker has to work very long hours in very difficult 

conditions. You know, the living conditions are poor; there is one 

toilet for 30 people. It is not supposed to be that way, but that happens, partly because you have added so many workers to the supply of labor that it makes it easier for employers to get away with 

that. 

Now, in terms of price, this actually has been studied quite a bit, 

and the fact is that the price of labor in agriculture has very little 

to do with the price of produce——

102

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. Thank you for clearing 

that up. 

Let me go to Mr. Holzer. 

Mr. Holzer, does that equate, and particularly on the issue of the 

agricultural question of poor job conditions, which in this Committee we have tried to work on in a bipartisan manner—I offered 

legislation that deals with institutionalizing housing and health 

benefits. Certainly, that is a challenge, but how do you respond to 

Mr. Camarota, that in fact it is uncivilized or it is not good working 

conditions, so that is why we throw that population over there, and 

if you gave housing or health care, you would see throngs of Americans running over into the fields to provide assistance to the agriculture industry? 

Mr. HOLZER. I think that is unlikely, that the supply of labor——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You are not critiquing him by suggesting that 

we shouldn’t make better work conditions in the farm area. 

Mr. HOLZER. I completely support legislation to improve working 

conditions, simply out of issues of fairness for those who work in 

that area. 

Part of the reason that wages have declined for less educated 

Americans has to do with the fact that we have weakened the institutions that traditionally protect those workers, everything from 

minimum wage laws to collective bargaining and other institutions 

as well, and I believe those institutions should be strengthened. 

Nevertheless, having said that, I don’t think that the supply of domestically born labor to that industry would be very responsive. It 

would take very, very large wage increases over a long period of 

time to start changing those patterns; I simply don’t see that happening any time in the short term. If you were to cut off the supply 

of immigrant labor to that industry, there would be impact on costs 

certainly in the short run and on the ability of those firms to compete; it would not be very positive. And I don’t think it would be 

a very attainable solution. 

So, yes, I think, out of fairness, those conditions should be raised, 

but that should be done separately from cutting off the supply of 

available labor; I don’t think Americans will want to take them. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Just for a moment, Mr. Chairman. 

Do you know of any data where the agricultural industry has 

reached out to American workers? I mean, you are saying you don’t 

think they would come. Do you think it is because we have not 

tried to recruit them, or do you have any kind of data or recent 

studies that you have looked at that says that they are just not 

moving in that direction, they just don’t get the youngsters—

whether they live in rural or suburbia America—to say, I think I 

want to go out to California and work in the farm industry? 

Mr. HOLZER. I personally haven’t seen any formal study of the 

supply of labor to that sector. It just runs counter to my sense of 

these broad trends in labor markets where workers, and especially 

young people, look for future opportunities, and they look toward 

the sectors that are more dynamic, most parts of the service sector, 

the higher end of manufacturing, construction, et cetera. And I 

think the image of agriculture in the eyes of the vast majority of 

Americans is of a sector that was important in the past, not in the 

103

future. And I don’t think very many young people today are looking 

there for their future employment opportunities. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman 

from Iowa, Mr. King, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a pile full of notes here from the conversation that has 

been very interesting. And many of them I would like to comment 

on, but first, I would like to direct a quick question to Mr. 

Camarota, and that would be, have you taken a position on if there 

is such a thing as too much immigration, and if so, how much? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Obviously, there are a lot of things to consider. 

But from the context of this discussion, I think that we should look 

very hard at what its impact is on the poorest Americans. And 

right now, I think, what the available evidence suggests, common 

sense and economic data suggests that it is adversely impacting 

low-income Americans. And therefore, if for no other reason, we 

might argue questions of assimilation, do you want to be a nation 

of 600 million people? All of these questions matter. But it appears 

to me from the context of this that the impact on the poor is critical, and the available evidence suggests that, right now, it is too 

much. 

Mr. KING. And so would you settle on a number? Because we are 

going to have to set some policy in this Congress, policy that produces actually a number, which predicts a number. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. I kind of come down in terms of—enforcement in 

terms of illegal immigration and on legal immigration in terms of 

green cards, more or less where the Jordan Commission came 

down, eliminate the more extraneous categories. The late Barbara 

Jordan, who chaired the commission in the 1990’s—— Mr. KING. About 450,000? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Yes, something like that. 

Mr. KING. You have taken a position, and I think it is important 

that all of us who have discussed this issue take a position on 

whether there is such a thing as too much immigration, and if so, 

how much. 

But as I listened to this conversation across here, a number of 

times, I have heard Members make the statement, and also witnesses continually before this Subcommittee, that there are jobs 

that Americans won’t do, jobs that Americans won’t take. And of 

course, there was disagreement on this subject matter. 

But I would like to illustrate it this way, and that is, I may not 

be able to hire Bill Gates to mow my lawn every week; I would not 

have enough money to do that. And I don’t have enough money to 

hire Bill Clinton to mow my lawn every week, but someone does. 

He would mow it every week if you put enough money out there 

on the table for him. He would cut your grass, and it would be good 

press for him, and you would have a nice-looking lawn. And so I 

think, within that context, you can understand that Americans will 

do this work; it is a matter of whether the wages and benefits are 

there. Because people all around this world are rational individuals, and they know—employers know and employees know—that 

labor is a commodity, like corn and beans and oil and gold, and it 

is in the marketplace. And the value of that is established by supVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:35 Aug 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\050405\21024.000 HJUD1 PsN: 21024
104

ply and demand. And one of those examples would be, I read a 

study some years ago about Milwaukee, where, as it was referenced, the immigration—I think you referenced it, Mr. 

Camarota—African-Americans moving up from the South to the 

North. And there was an area of Milwaukee that was 6 blocks by 

6 blocks, 36 square blocks, without a single adult male that was 

employed. This was about 7 or 8 years ago that I read the study. 

But they had migrated up from the South to take the good brewery 

jobs in Milwaukee. And as the breweries got automated, then those 

jobs disappeared. Those families stayed there. Now, it was a rational decision because the benefits to stay there weren’t as great as 

the benefits to migrate and learn a new skill; that is rational people living in a place. 

But another thing is, labor is portable, and it was portable as 

demonstrated by that example, in the 1930’s, when they moved forward. And where the jobs are and where the wages are and where 

the benefits are, the people will follow. They will make rational decisions. 

I would submit this, is that we have a huge jobs magnet in the 

United States, and it is rational for employers to seek to hire 

illegals for all the reasons that we know, low wages, no benefits, 

no litigation risks, no unemployment claims. And if you can hire 

them cheaper, then why wouldn’t you do that if there isn’t going 

to be employer sanctions, which at one time, it did work in this 

country, and today there is no will on the part of the Administration to enforce them. 

So I have looked at that from this perspective. And I am going 

to direct my question to Mr. Reindl because he is really the subject 

of this, the person I am trying to help; and that is, I would like 

to shut down the current on this electromagnet, the jobs magnet 

that we have, not dramatically, not at once, not export 12 million 

people overnight, but change the economic decision in a rational 

way so we can incrementally address this situation that we have. 

So I have drafted a piece of legislation, and I have it here with 

me today, and it is called the Real IDEA Bill, the Illegal Deduction 

Elimination Act. And what it does is it removes the Federal 

deductibilty for wages and benefits that are paid to illegals. We 

have the Instant Check program, as was addressed by Mr. Flake 

a little earlier. That means that an employer would be—there is 

not an excuse any longer for an employer to, knowingly at least, 

hire an illegal, at least as far as their information in front of them 

is concerned. So we give them a safe harbor, if they use the Instant 

Check program, but then a 6-year statute of limitation, so the IRS 

can come in, do the audit, and if they paid say $10 million out to 

illegals, those that are on the books, then the IRS can levy penalty, 

interest and then the back tax liability that would come to, on that 

$10 million, roughly $5 million to $6 million dollars out of the $10 

million. 

Mr. Reindl, would you speak to whether that would help your 

business? 

Mr. REINDL. I think it would, as long as there is enforcement. If 

you pass another piece of legislation through and the law-abiding 

businesses are going to be forced to do another extra burden on 

them, you are not going to stop the guys hiring illegal aliens beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:35 Aug 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\050405\21024.000 HJUD1 PsN: 21024
105

cause they don’t want to do any paperwork. So I think there should 

be a piece of legislation that goes after these guys that are just 

breaking every law. If they are going to hire an illegal alien, they 

are not going to do any paperwork. So really, that is my point. 

And you know, they are saying Americans don’t want to do the 

jobs. I mean, pay me $50 an hour and I will go and pick apples 

all day long, I don’t have a problem with that. 

One of the reasons why I have been able to stay in business was 

because we are one of the most high-tech shops on Long Island. We 

have implemented machines. As Mr. Camarota was saying before, 

that is important. That is the only way I survived in the last 10, 

15 years. That is really the key. Yet you have to increase technology. It is supply and demand. If there’s a limited number of people, you have to pay them more. When I am real busy, when the 

shop is real busy, I will hire someone for a while. I will pay them 

anything they want just to get the work out. That is the way it is. 

So I think that the main problem is the enforcement of the law, 

and there is just none. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Reindl. 

I yield back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair will now recognize the gentlelady 

from California, Ms. Waters, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Gentlemen, there has been very little discussion about job training in America, which I think is extremely important to helping natives be prepared for jobs and to get jobs. I am particularly focused 

on two things. I would like to ask if any of you have ever heard 

about a project where inmates were doing reservations for an airline a few years ago, have any of you ever heard about that, where 

inmates were doing—I think it was airline reservations? Have any 

of you heard about any of the jobs that were being done by inmates 

with new technology? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Customer service jobs, yes, I have heard of that, 

sure. 

Ms. WATERS. Do you know that the same inmates who perform 

some of these jobs while they are incarcerated cannot get those jobs 

when they get out of prison? Are you aware of that? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Excuse me, ma’am. If you would like, I recently spent some time out at the Youth Opportunity Movement 

program out in Los Angeles, and one of the major problems they 

have for particularly young men coming out of the camps, who go 

through some training programs, is access to employment after 

completing the training is very limited because they have felony 

records, and employers are very unlikely to hire them in many industries, including construction and manufacturing. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, that is part of it. And I suppose what I am 

trying to bring to everybody’s attention is—and I wish I had an 

exact description of the reservations project that was being handled 

by inmates—to point out that if they can do the job while they are 

incarcerated, they can certainly do it when they get out. And I 

think we have to find a way by which to open up job opportunities 

for people who serve their time. I think there are ways to do that. 

And I think that when we look at whether or not Americans are 

available for certain jobs, this is one area that must be looked at. 

106

The other is job training. Nursing, I think it is absolutely unconscionable that we think that the only way that we can get nurses 

is to import them from other places. First of all, we have not given 

enough support to the training and development of RNs or LPNs 

in this society. We have RN programs in community colleges with 

little support for people who are trying to be trained. Many of these 

jobs could be accessed by single-parent families, but they need child 

care support. They need transportation support. There are some 

programs, such as one in San Antonio, that is giving a lot of support to train RNs, and they have been successful at it. 

I am very much interested in job training for Americans, for natives, for all these young people that you are talking about. I don’t 

mind competition, and I don’t mind the young people competing 

with legal immigrants, but I do mind those industries, such as 

Wal-Mart and some of the others, who hire undocumented—to hire 

them where they are denying opportunities for natives to have 

those jobs. And I think we have to just own up to this stuff. I 

mean, basically, without even any empirical data, we basically understand and know what is going on, and I think there are honorable ways by which to address all of these problems. And so I 

would like to see some information about job training for natives 

factored into this discussion. 

Have you given any thought to this, Mr.—I can’t see your name 

from here. 

Mr. HOLZER. Yes, I have. And I would agree with you that it is 

not an either/or proposition—— Ms. WATERS. That is right. 

Mr. HOLZER. And in fact, certainly during the late 1990’s when 

I was at the Labor Department, we were using the moneys generated by H-1(b) visas. We were taking that money directly and 

using it to finance education and training opportunities for Native 

born workers in many of the same areas in which shortages occur 

which to me seemed a much more sensible way to address this 

issue than to simply cut off immigration and pretend—we are talking about leveling the playing field and allowing American workers 

both the skills and the incentives to compete with those foreign 

workers. And I think we can do vastly more of that. 

There are many job training programs that are cost-effective, 

that have positive impacts, the Job Corps, the Career Academies. 

We know the Pell grants are a successful way of opening the doors 

to higher education to many of the same fields you mentioned, like 

nursing, LPNs, RNs, et cetera. Funding for Pell grants has not 

kept up anywhere near the potential demand for those among people who could use them. So I support your notion, and certainly, 

we should be investing a lot more than we are investing——

Ms. WATERS. What do you think about tax credits for some of the 

industries that are job intensive, tax credits that really work for 

them? Because I really do believe that, to the degree that you are 

able to train, particularly unskilled workers, in the workplace, in 

the situation where they would be working, that you are able to get 

more people who are trained for real jobs. What would you think 

about tax credits for job training in order to get more people into 

the work force who are competing or would like to compete for jobs 

that are being given to undocumenteds? 

107

Mr. HOLZER. I support tax credits for training of entry-level 

workers. We want to be careful not to create enormous and expensive windfalls. We don’t want to be subsidizing the training that is 

already occurring, but we can certainly identify entry-level workers 

who get very little of the total training that is right now done in 

the private sector, and I think there are many creative ways in 

which we could give tax credits as we do for R&D spending. We 

could have tax credits to subsidize new training in those sectors 

that would likely be of limited expense and cost-effective as well. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would ask that the gentlelady have an additional 30 seconds because I would ask her to yield to me for just 

a few minutes, and then I am going to yield back. 

Ms. WATERS. Yes, unanimous consent for 30 seconds, and I yield 

to the gentlelady from Texas. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. No objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman. I thank the gentlelady 

from California. I wanted to just build on her comment. 

I think you need to write immigration legislation, which we have 

just written, that utilizes dollars for job training and make it work, 

and speak to the gentlelady’s point about creating opportunities for 

jobs, whether it is Wal-Mart or elsewhere, which we failed to do. 

I know the Chairman says this is an Immigration Committee, and 

it is, but part of the issue is, what do we do about Americans not 

having jobs, and how do immigrants affect the economy? 

Mr. Chairman, I think this has been an excellent hearing because we have heard perspectives on both sides of the aisle that 

happen to agree with each other, that immigration may not be the 

sole issue of why we have a receding economy and not a growing 

economy. It may be trade. It may be minimum wage. It may be 

work conditions, but particularly, we need to find ways to provide 

access to legalization, Mr. Chairman, and as well, we need to find 

ways to employ Americans, to help Mr. Reindl, to enforce employer 

sanctions, but to not stigmatize the new force of the workforce of 

the 21st century. It can work, I think, harmoniously with working 

Americans, including those in the minority population and the 

youth population. 

Ms. WATERS. Will the gentlelady yield back so that I can get the 

question in to the gentleman from California? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I will yield to the gentlelady. I thank the 

Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Yes, the time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California for 5 

minutes for questions. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Reindl, your statement is an eloquent statement of frustration. Are you aware of specific direct competitors you have that 

knowingly hire illegal aliens and thereby have a competitive advantage over you? 

Mr. REINDL. Well, I would say—when I put a help wanted ad in 

the paper, I would say 90 percent of the people applying are immigrants. Half of them turn out to be illegal aliens. In my interview 

process, though, I ask, well, what other factories have you worked 

108

in, and a lot of them have worked in factories around my location. 

And they admit to being illegal aliens. So they are working in other 

factories. 

Mr. LUNGREN. You obviously have conversations with some of 

your competitors, don’t you? I mean, not collusive conversations, 

but conversations about what is going on? 

Mr. REINDL. Once in a while, if I run into them, not too often. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Do you ever talk about difficulty in hiring employees? 

Mr. REINDL. It is a problem. 

Mr. LUNGREN. No, no. Do you ever talk to them about it? 

Mr. REINDL. Yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. What do they say? Why do they hire who they 

hire? 

Mr. REINDL. Well, no one has admitted to hiring—they always 

say it is hard to find people to work. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Right. 

Mr. REINDL. And I believe that the problem is our product price 

has been depressed so much that we can’t pay the salaries, and 

that is the problem. 

Mr. LUNGREN. You are talking about the employment base that 

you see now when you interview people. A large number—90 percent—you say appear to be foreign born. A huge percentage of that 

is illegal. Is that different than what you saw 5 years ago, 10 years 

ago? 

Mr. REINDL. Yes, 10, 15 years ago, I would say 50 percent were 

immigrants, and the rest were Native born Americans. 

Mr. LUNGREN. So it is an accelerated situation, as you see it? 

Mr. REINDL. Yes, and by the way, my wage increase has not increased that much in those 10 to 15 years. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Dr. Camarota, you have talked about the impact 

of immigration and illegal immigration here. Would you support an 

effort to enforce the law that would include expelling people from 

this country who are here illegally in large numbers? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. As I indicated, the way I think we should think 

about this is attrition through enforcement. If we began making 

sure that it was much more difficult for illegal aliens to get jobs, 

get drivers licenses, open bank accounts, access public benefits, if 

it is more difficult to cross the border, if it is more difficult for people to overstay a temporary visa, I think what we would naturally 

see is a significant increase in outmigration of illegal aliens. As I 

indicated, about a half a million people leave the illegal alien population each year, 400,000 to 500,000. They either go home on their 

own, get deported or get green cards. We could significantly increase that number with enforcement, and if we reduce the number 

coming in, then the problem takes care of itself over time. But we 

would obviously need to deport more people than we are doing now. 

Mr. LUNGREN. What numbers are you talking about? What numbers would you be talking about, that you could foresee that we 

would be deporting? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. I think the key thing would be that, when we 

come across someone who is illegal in the normal course of law enforcement and other activities, then when that person comes to the 

attention of authorities, then that person is made to leave, and that 

109

would convey the sense that the immigration law—I would imagine 

that—I would certainly, maybe double or 50 percent more than we 

are deporting now, but our main focus would be on denying all the 

benefits and accessing all the things that illegals can easily do now. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Would it make any difference whether someone 

has been here 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. In terms of—you can look at that two ways. The 

person who just got here hasn’t been breaking the law that long, 

whereas the person who has been here 10 years is quite the accomplished law breaker; he has been here longer, so you might want 

to think about whether you want to reward him. 

I guess my position on this is simply, you want to begin by enforcing the law. If, at some point after you get a handle on the situation, you want to legalize the illegal aliens, I can think about that, 

some percentage who are still here, but it seems to me you have 

got to start with the unequivocal enforcement of the law. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Dr. Harrington, what would you say about an effort by the Federal Government to actually enforce the law, not 

only with employer sanctions, but also expelling large numbers of 

people who are here illegally? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I think employer sanctions are a very important component of law enforcement, not unlike what Congresswoman Waters suggested, that we are allowing a deterioration in 

American labor market institutions, I think it is quite undesirable. 

And by enforcing a variety of Federal, State and local employer/employee relationship laws, including the Social Security Act, Fair 

Labor Standards Act, occupational safety and health laws, I think 

that would diminish some of the incentives for some of the foreign 

immigration undocumented workers entering the United States 

and working under the circumstances which they have, I think that 

alone could go a long way toward adjusting—— Mr. LUNGREN. What do we do with those that are here? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Well, sir, I think, number one, the first thing 

you do is enforce the laws on the books. That is, if someone is 

working illegally in a manufacturing plant, that the law be enforced against that employer. 

Mr. LUNGREN. But what do you do with respect to the employees? See, it is very easy for us to talk about what we are going to 

do generally, but when you get down to saying we are going to 

expel these individual people who have been here, who live down 

the street from you, go to church with you, you may see, I think, 

that you might get a little different reaction. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. There is absolutely a fairness issue. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I am frustrated because I hear a lot of people talking about what they want to do, but I want to know what we are 

going to do. So my question to you is, would you support—would 

you foresee us expelling large numbers of illegal aliens who have 

been working in this country and been here for some period of 

time? That is the only question. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I guess part of my answer to that is that, as 

we enforce the wage and hour laws in the country, that the ability 

of the individuals—because, remember, a lot of the illegal immigration we have is labor-market development—so as a consequence, 

what that means is that your ability to go ahead and engage in 

110

that kind of work activity just diminishes as we straighten out the 

bottom of the labor market. 

The second part of this is that I would expect people to leave the 

country voluntarily and, in some, deportation. The magnitude of 

that I don’t know, and I am not expert enough to say. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Holzer? 

Mr. HOLZER. I also believe in strongly enforcing existing wage 

and hour laws, but I would be reluctant to directly answer your 

question. I would be reluctant to deport large numbers of immigrants who have been—they have families in many cases, children 

who have gone to school. And the disruption that would be caused 

by deporting large numbers I would have some trouble with. And 

in many industries where those workers have worked for many 

years, have generated some good work experience and some good 

work qualifications and performance, I would be reluctant to punish them as well by deporting them in large numbers. 

Mr. LUNGREN. See, I appreciate your answers because I am trying to focus us and force us to actually look at what we would be 

able to do—what we as a generous country would be willing to do. 

Because if I am here 20 years from now having the same conversation and we have an accelerated problem, I am not going to be very 

happy about it. And I just hear a lot of talk about the problem and 

a lot of talk in general terms about what we should do. We have 

got to come down to the nitty-gritty of what we can do, will do and 

what the American people will support, as well as what we think 

is fair within our concept of being humane. And I don’t mean to 

get away from the fact that people broke the law, but I am talking 

about what we can actually do as a country, as opposed to what 

we can talk about but never come together in a consensus to in creating legislation and enforceable programs. 

I thought we created something with employer sanctions in 1987, 

I really did. And it has been my lament ever since that we never 

enforced it. The question now is, how do we pick up from where 

we are now and have a rational program that does what America 

needs to do—that is what we ought to look to first—but treats people as fairly as we can in the process. Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman. 

Without objection, the gentlelady from California has one question to ask, and then we will conclude with that. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I think that there have been some good suggestions about what 

to do about employers and what to do about securing the border, 

but I have real problems with gross deportation because I do not 

think you can split up families. And I think that my colleague on 

the opposite side of the aisle has been trying to get to that. What 

do you do with a father who is illegal, a wife who is legal and two 

children who are legal? You get that father; he is apprehended. Are 

you going to deport him and leave the mother and children without 

the wage earner? Those are real problems. And I have problems 

with that. 

I am supportive of all the other stuff that we have talked about 

that I think makes good sense in terms of how you begin to stem 

the tide, but what do you do with this deportation? I am for deportation of criminals, that I am for, you commit a crime, you get 

111

kicked out of here, but I am not for wage factories where wage 

earners who are illegal are deported and split from their families. 

How do you handle that? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Would you like me to—well, there are actually 

a lot of illegal aliens with U.S.-born children. And if we began to 

enforce the law, obviously, a lot of those people would go home. 

Now the children would continue to enjoy U.S. Citizenship under 

current law, so if those children choose, they can come back to the 

United States; that would be their choice as American citizens 

when they reach adulthood. But the fact that there are children 

doesn’t mean that you can’t enforce the law. We incarcerate parents all the time in the United States, and that is a hardship on 

those children—— Ms. WATERS. What about the legal wife? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Well, in general, because U.S. Citizens can always sponsor their spouse, not subject to any per-country limit, 

there are relatively few illegal aliens married to—well, there are 

virtually no illegal aliens married to citizens, but there are some 

illegal aliens married to LPRs who haven’t yet become citizens. 

Now that is a more difficult circumstance. But most of the demographic analysis shows that the bigger problem—and the thing I 

think you are most concerned about—is that you have U.S. Citizen 

children; that is a very common circumstance. The circumstance 

where you have an illegal alien married to an LPR is a small fraction of illegal aliens——

Ms. WATERS. What do you do about the children who are now in 

high school, two kids, ready to graduate? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. And the children are U.S. Citizens, or they are 

illegal aliens? 

Ms. WATERS. They are U.S. Citizens. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Well, that would mean that the illegal alien had 

been here for roughly 18 years, and the demographic analysis 

shows, again, that there are—because if the illegal alien parent 

came and then had a child subsequent to that, and then that child 

reached all the way to 18 years of age, then the person—we have 

relatively few people like that. But what we do have a lot of is people who came as children as illegal aliens themselves and have 

really been here for, say, 8, 9 years and have socialized in the 

United States; that now that is a much more common circumstance. 

Most analyses suggest that maybe 15 percent of the illegal alien 

population, or 10 percent or less, have been here for more than 20 

years. Actually, most people think it is more like 7 to 8 percent 

have been here for that long. So there are very few people who 

have children who have gone all the way to adulthood, but there 

are millions with children, and they do represent a challenge in 

terms of enforcement, but I would submit, living in a foreign country is not necessarily a hardship, and those children——

Ms. WATERS. So you would deport them, you would deport that 

family? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Well, as I said, if you begin to enforce the law, 

lots of people would go home on their own, so it wouldn’t necessarily involve any formal deportation. Let me give you a substantive example. In the case of Pakistan, we think that the numVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:35 Aug 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\050405\21024.000 HJUD1 PsN: 21024
112

ber of illegal aliens from Pakistan after September 11 fell by half, 

and there was practically no significant increase in enforcement. 

What there was, was an unambiguous conveyance to illegal aliens 

from that country that the immigration law was back in business. 

Now, unfortunately, that was selected enforcement—— Ms. WATERS. Bad example. Bad example. Bad example. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. And I have real problems with selective enforcement, but if they were across the board, we would see a similar 

kind of situation. 

Ms. WATERS. I am sorry, that does not satisfy me, but thank you 

very much. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

I want to thank the panel of witnesses for your testimony today, 

for your appearance here; you have been very helpful in this process. All Members will have five legislative days to add to the record 

if they have questions of the witnesses. We ask that the witnesses 

answer within three weeks. 

The Subcommittee business being completed, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:39 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(113)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

We will be hearing testimony today about two articles on the effect that immigrants have had on American workers. One of them was written by Steven A. 

Camarota. It is entitled, ‘‘A Jobless Recovery? Immigrant Gains and Native Losses.’’ Among other things, this article observes that between March of 2000 and March 

of 2004, the number of adult immigrants holding a job increased by more than two 

million, but the number of adult natives holding a job was nearly half a million 

fewer. The article concludes that immigration may have adversely affected the job 

prospects of native-born Americans. The other article reaches very similar conclusions. It was written by the Center for Labor Market Studies. It is entitled, ‘‘New 

Foreign Immigrants and the Labor Market in the U.S.: The Unprecedented Effects 

of New Immigration on the Growth of the Nation’s Labor Force and its Employed 

Population, 2000 to 2004.’’ It is important to understand that these articles are using a broad definition of 

the term ‘‘immigrant.’’ They include undocumented aliens, aliens who are lawfully 

employed on a temporary basis, aliens who are lawful permanent residents, and 

naturalized citizens. In fact, the article written by the Center for Labor Market 

Studies goes even further. In that article, the definition of an ‘‘immigrant’’ is an individual who was born outside of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Persons born in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam are counted as being 

part of the immigrant population. 

Our witness today, Professor Harry J. Holzer, will explain why we should question the conclusions in these articles. Dr. Holzer thinks that immigration has modest negative effects on less-educated workers in the U.S., but it also has positive 

effects on the economy. He expects the positive effects to grow much stronger after 

Baby Boomers retire. Also, according to Dr. Holzer, the employment outcomes of native-born Americans mostly reflect the underlying weakness of the U.S. labor market, rather than large displacements by new immigrants. 

I agree with Dr. Holzer that immigrants have a positive effect on the American 

economy. They create new jobs by establishing new businesses, spending their incomes on American goods and services, paying taxes, and raising the productivity 

of United States businesses. 

The American economy does not have a fixed number of jobs. Economists describe 

the notion that the number of jobs is fixed as the ‘‘lump of labor’’ fallacy. Job opportunities expand with a rising population. Since immigrants are both workers and 

consumers, their spending on food, clothing, housing, and other items creates new 

job opportunities. 

Immigrants tend to fill jobs that Americans cannot or will not take in sufficient 

numbers to meet demand, mostly at the high and low ends of the skill spectrum. 

Occupations with the largest growth in absolute numbers tend to be the ones that 

only require short-term, on- the-job training. This includes such occupations as waiters and waitresses; retail salespersons; cashiers; nursing aides, orderlies and attendants; janitors; home health aides; manual laborers; landscaping workers; and manual packers. 

The supply of American workers suitable for such work is falling on account of 

an aging workforce and rising education levels. The median age of American workers continues to increase as the Baby Boomers near retirement age. 

Some people are concerned that undocumented workers lower wages for American 

workers. This is a legitimate, though probably exaggerated concern, but it is not the 

mere presence of undocumented workers that has led to low wages. The problem 

114

is the lack of bargaining power that these workers have against their employers. 

No worker chooses to be paid low wages or to work under poor conditions. The wage 

depression is attributable to the ability of employers to exploit this foreign workforce. Underpaying foreign workers is only one of the methods used by employers 

to cut labor costs. Temporary and part-time workers are employed without worker 

benefits and the labor laws are violated routinely. The solution to this and many 

other immigration-related problems in our country is comprehensive immigration reform. Thank you.

Æ