[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ROLE OF FAMILY-BASED IMMIGRATION IN THE U.S. IMMIGRATION SYSTEM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY,
AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 8, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-26
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
-------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-242 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RIC KELLER, Florida
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DARRELL ISSA, California
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia STEVE KING, Iowa
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York JIM JORDAN, Ohio
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Joseph Gibson, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,
Border Security, and International Law
ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois STEVE KING, Iowa
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California ELTON GALLEGLY, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel
George Fishman, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
MAY 8, 2007
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law.............................................. 1
The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.. 3
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 6
WITNESSES
The Honorable Phil Gingrey, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia
Oral Testimony................................................. 9
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
Ms. Harriet Duleep, Ph.D., Research Professor of Public Policy,
Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy, The College of
William and Mary
Oral Testimony................................................. 12
Prepared Statement............................................. 15
Mr. Bill Ong Hing, Professor of Law and Asian American Studies,
University of California-Davis
Oral Testimony................................................. 23
Prepared Statement............................................. 24
Mr. Stuart Anderson, Executive Director, National Foundation for
American Policy
Oral Testimony................................................. 35
Prepared Statement............................................. 37
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law................................ 2
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve King, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Iowa, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law................................ 5
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary........................... 7
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
``Chain Migration Under Current U.S. Law: The Potential Impact of
a Single Employment-Based Immigrant'' Chart produced by
NumbersUSA, submitted to the record by the Honorable Phil
Gingrey, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia 72
``Review and Outlook: Immigration Spring,'' an editorial in the
Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2007............................... 76
Prepared Statement of Members of American Families United and
United Families, on Family Immigration......................... 78
Prepared Statement on Interfaith Family Immigration by American
Friends Service Committee, et al............................... 111
Prepared Statement of Leslye Orloff, Director and Associate Vice
President of the Immigrant Women Program at Legal Momentum,
also representing the National Network to End Violence Against
Immigrant Women................................................ 113
Letter from the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service to the
Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.. 118
Prepared Statement of Karen K. Narasaki, President & Executive
Director, Asian American Justice Center on ``The Importance of
Family-Based Immigration to American Society and the Economy''. 120
``Admissions of Lawful Permanent Residents (all categories) 2001-
2005'' compiled by the Congressional Research Service,
submitted to the record by the Honorable Steve King, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,
Border Security, and International Law......................... 129
``Family-Based Admissions 2006,'' published by the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, submitted to the record by the
Honorable Steve King, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law.............................................. 131
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Phil
Gingrey, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia 132
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from Harriet Duleep, Ph.D.,
Research Professor of Public Policy, Thomas Jefferson Program
in Public Policy, The College of William and Mary.............. 135
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from Bill Ong Hing, Professor
of Law and Asian American Studies, University of California-
Davis.......................................................... 137
Response to Post-Hearing Question from Stuart Anderson, Executive
Director, National Foundation for American Policy.............. 138
ROLE OF FAMILY-BASED IMMIGRATION IN THE U.S. IMMIGRATION SYSTEM
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,
Border Security, and International Law
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe
Lofgren (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Lofgren, Gutierrez, Berman,
Jackson Lee, Waters, Delahunt, Sanchez, Conyers, King,
Gallegly, Goodlatte, Lungren, and Gohmert.
Staff present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Majority Chief Counsel;
J. Traci Hong, Majority Counsel; George Fishman, Minority
Counsel; and Benjamin Staub, Professional Staff Member.
Ms. Lofgren. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law will come to order.
I would like to welcome the Immigration Subcommittee
Members, our witnesses, and members of the public who are here
today for the Subcommittee's eighth hearing on comprehensive
immigration reform.
At our hearings on comprehensive immigration reform, many
of our witnesses, both majority and minority, have stated that
our immigration system should serve the interests of the
Nation, and we agree with that.
Some, including the Bush administration, have suggested
that family-based immigration, as it is currently codified in
the immigration law, does not benefit the Nation.
They assume that family immigrants do not serve the Nation
because such immigrants come to the United States because of
their family ties rather than a demonstrated capacity to
contribute economically to our country.
They argue that we should eliminate most forms of family-
based immigration and replace it with an immigration system
that focuses solely on the economic needs of our Nation, either
through an enhanced employment-based preference system or a
point system.
Under our current immigration system, 39 percent of
immigrants become legal permanent residents based on their
status as unmarried minor children, spouses, or parents of U.S.
citizens.
Another 19 percent become legal permanent residents based
upon their status as adult sons and daughters or siblings of
U.S. citizens, or spouses and unmarried children of legal
permanent residents.
To help us determine whether family-based immigration has,
in fact, served the interest of our Nation, today we will
examine the role that family-based immigrants have played in
our economy and society, particularly since the 1965
Immigration Act, which emphasized the importance of family
reunification as a bedrock principle of our immigration system.
A review of scholarly research by labor economists and
sociologists shows that family immigrants make important and
unique contributions to the U.S. economy and society.
The research shows that family-based immigrants provide the
United States with flexible workers who are willing and able to
learn new skills to meet the needs of the U.S. labor market.
In addition, research indicates that family-based
immigrants contribute to the development of small and large
businesses that would not have been created without their
presence in the United States.
Our witnesses today will also help us to understand the
role that families play in fueling the economic prosperity of
the U.S. citizen and legal permanent resident family members
who sponsor their immigrant petitions.
Not only is it an American value and a pro-family value to
keep U.S. citizen and legal permanent resident families
together, it is in the economic interest of the United States.
Thank you again to our distinguished witnesses for being
here today to help us sort through a complex and very important
issue for the American economy and our society.
I would now recognize our distinguished Ranking Member,
minority Member, Steve King, for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International
Law
I would like to welcome the Immigration Subcommittee Members, our
witnesses, and members of the public to the Subcommittee's eighth
hearing on comprehensive immigration reform.
At our hearings on comprehensive immigration reform, many of our
witnesses, both majority and minority, have rightly stated that our
immigration system should serve the interests of the nation.
Some, including the Bush Administration, have suggested that
family-based immigration, as it is currently codified in the
immigration law, does not benefit the nation. They assume that family
immigrants do not serve the nation because such immigrants come to the
United States because of their family ties, rather than a demonstrated
capacity to contribute economically to our country. They argue that we
should eliminate most forms of family-based immigration and replace it
with an immigration system that focuses solely upon the economic needs
of our nation, either through an enhanced employment-based preference
system or a points system.
Under our current immigration system, 39% of immigrants become
legal permanent residents based upon their status as unmarried minor
children, spouses, or parents of U.S. citizens. Another 19% become
legal permanent residents based upon their status as adult sons and
daughters or siblings of U.S. citizens, or spouses and unmarried
children of legal permanent residents.
To help us determine whether family-based immigration has in fact
served the interests of our nation, today we will examine the role that
family-based immigrants have played in our economy and society,
particularly since the 1965 Immigration Act which emphasized the
importance of family reunification as a bedrock principle of our
immigration system.
A review of scholarly research by labor economists and sociologists
shows that family immigrants make important and unique contributions to
the U.S. economy and society. The research shows that family-based
immigrants provide the United States with flexible workers who are
willing and able to learn new skills to meet the needs of the U.S.
labor market. In addition, research indicates that family-based
immigrants contribute to the development of small and large businesses
that would not have been created without their presence in the U.S.
Our witnesses today will also help us to understand the role that
families play in fueling the economic prosperity of the U.S. citizen
and legal permanent resident family members who sponsor their
immigration petitions.
Not only is it an American value and a pro-family value to keep
U.S. citizen and legal permanent resident families together, it is in
the economic interest of the United States.
Thank you again to our distinguished witnesses for being here today
to help us sort through a complex and very important issue for the
American economy and our society.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair, and also Chairman
Conyers, and I appreciate you holding this hearing.
And I thank all the witnesses for being willing to be here
and, you know, present yourselves before this process that we
have.
As we address our expansive family-based policy, I am
mindful of the fact that many of us in this room are the
descendants of immigrants who came to these shores with little
or nothing besides their skills and enthusiasm.
With much hard work and perseverance, they contributed
greatly to the building of this country. We are their success
stories.
I also point out that all nations are nations of
immigrants, and the same stories exist in many of the other
countries, although we have a certain spirit here that is
exclusive, I believe, to the experience of the rest of the
world.
But because we cannot admit all who desire to make America
their home, we must make difficult choices. Last year, the
United States granted permanent residence to 1,122,000 aliens,
the highest level since 1907.
And if you will remember, 1907, just last month was the
centennial anniversary of the highest day at Ellis Island,
where 11,747 immigrants were processed through there on that
day last month on the 17th of April.
The vast majority of the American people have consistently
said that they don't want higher immigration levels.
In 1965, legislation was passed with the laudable goal of
eliminating national origin discrimination from our immigration
policy. The 1965 act made family reunification the cornerstone
of our immigration policy. It remains so to this day.
In addition to promoting the unity of the nuclear family,
the 1965 act also extended immigration benefits to other
categories of family members, including the sons and daughters
of United States citizens who, either because of age or
marriage, are no longer dependents.
The adult siblings of the United States citizens and the
unmarried adult sons and daughters of unlawful permanent
residents were also included.
In testimony before the Senate Immigration Subcommittee on
February 10th, 1965, Myra C. Hacker from the New Jersey
Coalition urged that, ``the hidden mathematics of the bill
should be made clear to the public so that they may tell their
Congressmen how they feel about providing jobs, schools, homes,
security against want, citizen education, et cetera for an
indeterminately enormous number of aliens.'' That was 1965.
But at the same hearing, Senator Kennedy reassured the
Committee that immigration levels after the 1965 bill would
remain substantially the same.
There isn't any basis to defend that statement of Senator
Kennedy's today, but he is advocating strongly to do the same
thing again in 2007 that he was part of in 1965, same
rationale, and I will predict the same result if he gets his
way.
What happened was that an exponentially increasing wave of
chain migration was set in motion. Through the 1970's and
1980's, the prior average of 230,000 new immigrants per year
more than doubled, to in excess of 500,000.
Now, in the 21st century, we are admitting more than a
million new immigrants a year--as I said, 1,122,000 last year--
and that is legal.
During these decades, immigration contributed a majority of
total U.S. population growth, and more than half of the
infrastructure and schools that were built were built to
accommodate immigrants.
After extensive study of our family-based immigration
scheme, the Barbara Jordan-led U.S. Commission on Immigration
Reform concluded in 1995 that it was time to shift our
priorities, and they recommended that they focus on uniting the
nuclear families and attracting skilled workers.
The commission advised unless there is a compelling
national interest to do otherwise, immigrants should be chosen
on the basis of the skills they contribute to the U.S. economy.
I agree with Barbara Jordan that reuniting a nuclear family
with a sponsor who played by the rules and came here the right
way is such a compelling national interest, and I agree that
bringing in their adult children and siblings is not.
In fact, of the entire pie chart of our immigration, we
have testimony in prior hearings that demonstrates that as much
as 89 percent and perhaps as much as 93 percent of our legal
immigration is based on humanitarian reasons, and as little as
7 percent to 11 percent is based upon skills or merit.
NumbersUSA estimates that the admission of a single lawful
permanent resident under our current law can hypothetically
lead to the eventual immigration of hundreds of relatives. This
lengthy chain of migration cannot be justified.
While nuclear families should be united, we need to
eliminate other family preference categories and refocus our
priorities on those who possess the education and skills we
need to be competitive in a global economy.
We should not reserve so many of our immigrant visas for
aliens whose only attribute is that they happen to be related
to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
Last year, 46,923 non-dependent sons and daughters were
admitted along with 63,255 siblings. Another 120,000 slots were
given to the parents of United States citizens. This means that
232,619 of the 803,000 family-based immigrants in 2006 were not
spouses or minor children.
I also submit that if the sibling and adult children
categories are eliminated, then justification for an unlimited
parent category also diminishes.
I recognize that we have good witnesses before this panel,
and I also recognize that the Honorable Dr. Congressman Gingrey
is here to talk about the family reunification that has been
part of the history and make a recommendation on what he sees
would be best in the future.
So I will ask unanimous consent to introduce the rest of my
testimony into the record so that we may be able to get forward
with the testimony of the witnesses.
And I would yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve King, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International
Law
Madame Chairwoman, as we address our expansive family-based policy,
I am mindful of the fact that many of us in this room are the
descendants of immigrants who came to these shores with little or
nothing besides their skills and enthusiasm. With much hard work and
perseverance they contributed greatly to the building of this country.
We are their success stories.
However, because we cannot admit all who desire to make America
their home, we must make difficult choices. Last year, we granted
permanent residence to close to 1.3 million aliens, the highest level
since 1907. The vast majority of the American people have consistently
said that they don't want higher immigration levels.
In 1965, legislation was passed with the laudable goal of
eliminating national origin discrimination from our immigration policy.
The 1965 Act made family unification the cornerstone of our immigration
policy. It remains so to this day.
In addition to promoting the unity of the nuclear family, the 1965
Act also extended immigration benefits to other categories of family
members, including the sons and daughters of United States citizens who
(either because of age or marriage) are no longer dependents, the adult
siblings of United States citizens, and the unmarried adult sons and
daughters of lawful permanent residents.
In testimony before the Senate immigration subcommittee on February
10, 1965, Myra C. Hacker from the New Jersey Coalition, urged that the
``hidden mathematics of the bill should be made clear to the public so
that they may tell their Congressman how they feel about providing
jobs, schools, homes, security against want, citizen education . . .
for an indeterminately enormous number of aliens.''
At the same hearing, Senator Kennedy reassured the committee that
immigration levels after the 1965 bill would remain substantially the
same.
What happened was that an exponentially increasing wave of chain
migration was set in motion. Through the 70s and 80s, the prior average
of 230,000 new immigrants per year more than doubled to in excess of
500,000. Now, in the 21st Century, we are admitting more than a million
new immigrants a year. During these decades, immigration contributed a
majority of total U.S. population growth, and more than half of the
infrastructure and schools that were built were built to accommodate
immigrants.
After extensive study of our family-based immigration scheme, the
Barbara Jordan-led U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform concluded in
1995 that it was time to shift our priorities, and recommended that
they focus on uniting the nuclear families and attracting skilled
workers. The Commission advised: ``unless there is a compelling
national interest to do otherwise, immigrants should be chosen on the
basis of the skills they contribute to the U.S. economy.'' I agree with
Barbara Jordan that reuniting a nuclear family member with a sponsor
who played by the rules and came here the right way is such a
compelling national interest-and I agree that bringing in their adult
children and siblings is not.
Numbers USA estimates that the admission of a single lawful
permanent resident under our current law can hypothetically lead to the
eventual immigration of hundreds of relatives.
This lengthy chain of migration cannot be justified. While nuclear
families should be united, we need to eliminate other family preference
categories and refocus our priorities on those who possess the
education and skills we need to be competitive in a global economy. We
should not reserve so many of our immigrant visas for aliens whose only
attribute is that they happen to be related to a U.S. citizen or
permanent resident.
Last year, 46,923 non-dependent sons and daughters were admitted,
along with 63,255 siblings. Another 120,441 slots were given to the
parents of United States citizens. This means that 232,619 of the
803,335 family-based immigrants in 2006 were not spouses or minor
children. I also submit that if the sibling and adult children
categories are eliminated, then justification for an unlimited parent
category also diminishes, as it becomes less likely that an aging
parent who remains in the home country will be without a son, daughter,
or adult grandchild there to care for him or her.
Access to, and improvements in, telecommunications and travel have
changed the way people from all economic sectors remain close to their
families. The world is smaller. Many of us in this hearing room have
made our own difficult choices about education, work, or other life
opportunities that require us to live far from our parents, adult
children, and siblings; yet we maintain a close relationship with them
through e-mail, phone calls, and visits. It is not unreasonable to
expect aliens who are not part of the nuclear family of a citizen or a
lawful permanent resident, and who do not qualify for a skills-based
visa, to do the same. In today's world, keeping in touch with a sibling
who lives on the other coast of the USA is little different than
keeping in touch with a sibling in England or Malaysia.
There is a backlog of over three million aliens who have been
approved for family-preference visas, almost half of whom are the
brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens. This backlog will only grow in
the future, with individuals sometimes waiting decades for green cards.
Unless we are going to drastically increase legal immigration, this is
an untenable situation. It creates a sense of entitlement and only
encourages illegal immigration.
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection.
I would now be pleased to recognize the Chairman of the
full Committee, Congressman Conyers, Chairman Conyers, for his
opening statement.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren and this dynamic
Subcommittee that is working so hard.
I join in welcoming Dr. Gingrey, with whom I have the
pleasure of working on a number of issues and seeing him
regularly, and the witnesses, too, the other witnesses.
This is an important part of forming a new immigration
reform. What do we do with the family-based immigration system?
We have three options.
One, we can abandon our system. It would ignore the
realities of people's lives and the values of the country.
Two, we could maintain it without change. But the problem
there is that there are tremendous backlogs that have split
families apart under the current system. And I think we owe a
responsibility to deal with it.
Or three, we could improve the family-based immigration
system, using comprehensive reform to remove those impediments
to immigration so that people could come to the United States
and join their families through a wide variety of programs.
Now, we all know that. We are a Nation of immigrants. So
this isn't some new theory that is being developed. We want to
build on and improve where we are.
Now, while an employment-based system might respond to
short-term economic needs, it really undermines the core
humanitarian value of family unification.
A family-based immigration system isn't just feel good, or
doing the right thing or being nice. It has long been a central
tenet of our Nation's immigration policy, recognizing
immigrants are first and foremost people who are not just
motivated because of economic concerns but also by a desire to
take care of their families. And by harnessing that motivation,
we can harness all that is good about immigration.
And as my friend, the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee,
Steve King, has frequently asserted, the family is the backbone
of this Nation. Couldn't agree with you more, Mr. Ranking
Member. Immigrant families have strengthened the country
immeasurably, and we should support them.
The 1965 immigration law, now, rejected previous quota
systems that had long discriminated against people of color and
persons from the developing world. It was a dismal part of our
policy. And so instead, we have moved to a system that supports
family unification.
Now, what do families provide? Stability and values. The
benefit of an immigrant who is in the United States with his
wife and children is a stable, contributing member of the
community.
The parents who have their children living with them can
better inculcate them with American values in a supportive
environment. And they provide the entrepreneurial spirit needed
to stimulate economic growth in our communities.
And as we will undoubtedly hear from this excellent panel
today, family-based immigration promotes, among other positive
developments, it stimulates the establishment of small
businesses. These immigrants often find niches in American
economic systems that have not been filled or could not be
filled because of lack of skills, language, or lack of access
to capital.
Now, these small businesses revitalize our urban and rural
communities, and my hometown is an example of this, where, in
southeastern Michigan, we went from 383 small Hispanic
businesses in 2002 to 955. It is just one example of some of
the benefits of family-based immigration.
And I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative
in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary
Over the course of the National debate on immigration reform, some
have suggested that we should abandon our traditional reliance on a
family-based immigration system and replace it with one that is solely
based on the needs of employers.
We seem to have three options. We could abandon our system, but we
would then ignore the realities of people's lives and the values of our
country. We could maintain it without change, but there are tremendous
backlogs that split families apart under the current system. Or we
could improve it, using comprehensive reform to remove impediments to
immigration so that people could come to the United States and join
their families through a wide variety of programs.
While an employment-based system may respond to short-term economic
needs, it could undermine the core humanitarian value of family
unification. A family-based immigration system is not just a ``feel-
good'' policy. It has long been the central tenant of our Nation's
immigration policy recognizing that immigrants are first and foremost
people who are motivated not only because of economic concerns, but by
a desire to take care of their families.
By harnessing that motivation, we can harness all that is good
about immigration. As my colleague, the Ranking Member of this
Subcommittee, has himself stated, the family is the ``backbone of this
nation.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Press Release, ``King Hosts Conference on Civic Involvement for
Iowa Faith Community,''
August 17, 2006 http://www.house.gov/list/press/ia05_king/
PRFaithandFreedomConference 081706.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Mr. King wholeheartedly. Immigrant families have
strengthened this country immeasurably, and we should support them. The
1965 Immigration Law rejected previous quota systems that discriminated
against people of color and persons from the developing world. Instead,
we moved to a system that supports family unification instead.
What do families provide? Stability and values. Let me mention just
a few.
An immigrant who is in the United States with his wife and
children is a stable, contributing member of the community.
The parents, who have their children living with them, can
better inculcate them with American values in a supportive
environment.
And, they provide the entrepreneurial spirit needed to
stimulate economic growth in our communities.
As we will undoubtedly hear from our witnesses today, family-based
immigration promotes, among other positive developments, stimulates the
establishment of small businesses. These immigrants often find niches
that American businesses have not filled or could not fill because of
lack of skills, language, or lack of access to capital. These small
businesses, in turn, revitalize our urban and rural communities by
providing jobs and encouraging development of other resources.
My hometown is an example of this. Every five years, the Census
Bureau releases in-depth economic studies. For example, Southeastern
Michigan in 2002 experienced an increase from 383 to 955 Hispanic-owned
businesses in the City of Detroit alone. While many of these businesses
were single-proprietor or family-run with no paid employees, 146 of
these small businesses accounted for 1,268 jobs in Detroit.
This is just one example of the kind of economic engine that
family-based immigration can be. As people put down roots and become
part of the American fabric, all of us benefit. Families win; America
wins.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Chairman Conyers.
In the interest of proceeding to our witnesses, and mindful
of our schedules, I would ask that other Members submit their
statements for the record within 5 legislative days. And,
without objection, all opening statements will be placed in the
record.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the hearing at any time.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses here today to
help us consider the important issues before us.
I am pleased, first, to introduce Dr. Harriet Duleep, a
Research Professor of Public Policy for the Thomas Jefferson
Program in Public Policy at the College of William and Mary.
Dr. Duleep additionally serves as a Research Fellow at the
Institute for the Study of Labor in Bonn, Germany and the
Deputy Editor for the publication Demography. Prior to joining
the faculty of William and Mary, Dr. Duleep worked as an
Economist at the Social Security Administration and, between
1985 and 1992, served as a Senior Economist and Acting Director
of the Research Office of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
She holds her bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan
and her Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
We are also joined today by Bill Ong Hing, a professor of
Law and Asian American studies at the University of California-
Davis. Professor Hing teaches an array of subjects at Davis;
among them, courses in immigration policy and judicial
processes. And he directs the law school's clinical program. A
renowned author, Professor Hing additionally volunteers as a
general counsel for the Immigration Legal Resource Center in
San Francisco. He sits on the board of directors for the Asian
Law Caucus, the Migration Policy Institute, and the National
Advisory Council of the Asian-American Justice Center.
Professor Hing served as co-counsel in the precedent-setting
1987 Supreme Court asylum case, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca. He
earned his bachelor's degree from the University of California-
Berkeley and his law degree from the University of San
Francisco.
Next, I am pleased to welcome Stuart Anderson, the
executive director of the National Foundation for American
Policy. From 2001 to 2003, Mr. Anderson served as the Executive
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning and additionally
as Counselor to the Commissioner at the U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service. Mr. Anderson is no stranger to the
halls of Congress. He spent nearly 5 years on Capitol Hill
working for the Senate's Immigration Subcommittee, first under
Senator Spencer Abraham and then as Staff Director under
Senator Sam Brownback. He also worked as the Director of Trade
and Immigration Studies at the Cato Institute here in
Washington. He graduated with a bachelor's degree from Drew
University and a master's from Georgetown University.
And finally, I would like to extend a warm welcome to a
familiar face, Congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia's 11th
Congressional District. Dr. Gingrey was elected to the House in
2002 after 4 years in the Georgia State Senate. He holds his
bachelor's degree from Georgia Tech and his medical degree from
the Medical College of Georgia. Dr. Gingrey practiced medicine
for 26 years as an OB-GYN and delivered more than 5,200 babies.
He and his wife, Billie, have four children and five
grandchildren.
As Congressman Gingrey knows, each of the written
statements will be made part of the record in its entirety. And
I would ask that the witnesses summarize their testimony in 5
minutes or less.
These little machines turn yellow when you have 1 minute to
go. And when your time is up, they turn red. And we would ask
at that point that you summarize and cease so the next witness
can begin.
We will now proceed to question our witnesses and to hear
from our witnesses. And at the request of the minority and in
deference to our colleague, we would ask that Congressman
Gingrey begin the testimony.
Congressman?
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE PHIL GINGREY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Gingrey. Madam Chairwoman, thank you so much. And I
appreciate the deference in allowing me to go first.
Ranking Member King, Committee Chairman Mr. Conyers, and
other Subcommittee Members, friends all, I thank you for the
opportunity to testify today about the role of the family in
the immigration process.
And as Chairwoman Lofgren stated, my full comments will be
submitted for the record, and I will just summarize.
The Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers, was just
talking about how important family unification is, how
important families are to our society. And I agree with him
completely on that, no question about it.
People do come here not only to support themselves but to
support their families. And I think we can do that, and I think
the bill that I have introduced in this 110th Congress, H.R.
938, the Nuclear Family Priority Act, does just that.
But I think that the problem that we have gotten into--and
I really believe that this started in 1965, and the 1965 act
that put an emphasis on family reunification--in the first 200
years of our country, we averaged about 250,000 immigrants per
year into the United States.
And as Ranking Member King pointed out in his opening
remarks, in the last number, I guess in 2006, that had
ballooned to over a million, 1,100,000-plus. And that is, I
think, in large part because of this emphasis after 1965 that
maybe overemphasized or maybe even over-interpreted the real
definition of family reunification.
And under the current policy, a single person that comes
into this country legally, either by virtue of an asylum, or a
refugee, or a legal permanent resident with a green card who
comes in because they have been in the queue for a long time--
they have a particular job skill. Not only can they help
themselves, but they can also help our great country.
But when they come, then when they achieve citizenship,
they are allowed to bring family members, but it is not just
the nuclear family. It is not just their spouse and their
dependent children from their home country.
It is not just their parents and maybe their spouse's
parents, but it includes adult brothers and sisters, siblings.
It includes aunts and uncles and cousins, and whatever the
legal term, Mr. Chairman, is--per stirpes--I think that is used
a lot. I don't know how far out that goes.
But I do know that as a result of that, one person, one
person who is in this country legally, who deserves that
opportunity to be here in one of these three categories that I
mentioned, over a period of as short as 15 years, they can
literally bring in an additional 273 people, and all these
aunts and uncles and cousins and thirds and whatever--273
people, Madam Chairwoman, who may have great job skills, but
they may not.
And statistics, I think, pretty much bear this out, that
many, many don't. In fact, many have very little education and
become high school dropouts when they come into this country
and are not productive and don't have any particular job
skills.
So when you think about the fact that we have a huge
problem in this country, and that is called 12 million--
``undocumented'' is a euphemism. ``Illegal'' is the actual
fact.
I know Mr. Gutierrez is working very hard trying to solve
that problem along with our colleague Jeff Flake in their
STRIVE Act, and a lot of people in both chambers are working
very hard to try to deal with that.
But I think that we can achieve the goal and really the
spirit of the law as the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr.
Conyers, said in regard to the value of families with going
back and doing what, really, we intended to do way back when
this country welcomed our immigrant population and to say that,
yes, bring your families, but let's restrict it to the nuclear
family.
And instead of 273 people that one individual can bring in
over the course of 15 years, we reduce that down to 37 in the
extreme, and this would, in the extreme, mean that each one of
those that were eligible to come, wanted to come, were still
alive, and they came.
I see that magic red light went off quicker than I thought
it would, but that has got something to do with this Southern
drawl and slow way of talking. And I will yield back. I have no
further time, but I really look forward your questions, Madam
Chairwoman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gingrey follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Phil Gingrey, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Georgia
Madame Chairwoman, Ranking Member King, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the
role of family in the immigration process, specifically the problem of
chain migration. I introduced legislation last year after learning
about some of the severe problems of our current system of legal
immigration that frankly put more emphasis on genealogy than skill,
English proficiency, and overall contribution to the United States.
While our borders still need security, our border patrol agents
still need support, and, dare I say, we still need to find a solution
to the 12 million illegal aliens currently residing in the United
States, an often overlooked problem is our flawed system of legal
immigration and how it may contribute to illegal immigration, drive
population growth--especially our poor population--and add to our
assimilation problems. Furthermore, this flawed system adds to our
nation's financial problems considering that Family-based immigrants
tend to be the most impoverished and on average have the lowest skill
levels and earning potential.
What is even more distressing is that most of these legal
immigrants are admitted entirely because of their familial relation to
other legal immigrants. This problem is called Chain Migration and it
is one of the fundamental reasons why our businesses have problems
sponsoring legal immigrants, why our federal caseworkers have problems
with paperwork backlogs, and why our system has become so frustrating
that individuals outside the United States would rather risk
immigrating here illegally than wait forever in line. For example, one
immigrant may qualify for an immediate visa as an adult brother or
sister of a naturalized U.S. citizen, yet depending on the country of
application it could be 10 to 40 years or more before that visa is
available under regular skill-based circumstances. As a result, a third
of current legal immigrants told a ``new immigrant'' survey that they
first came here as illegal aliens until their visa came up and they
then went home to process the paperwork.
From 1776 to 1976 our immigration tradition allowed an average of
250,000 foreign workers and dependants every year. However, the 1965
immigration preference system, and subsequent modifications, including
the 1990 Immigration Act, expanded immigration levels far beyond
traditional levels, mostly by prioritizing extended family members. Our
immigration system is obviously out of kilter when one immigrant can
yield upwards of 273 other legal immigrants in as short as 15 years,
assuming the average birthrate of the developing world. It is hard to
believe one immigrant of skill or humanitarian need could yield so many
dependants under our laws of family reunification, yet the only limits
on our current ``chain'' system are age and death. Assuming everyone in
an immigrant's family wants to immigrate to the United States and they
are all alive, this 273 number is a real possibly. It may not be the
norm, but even a fraction of that is a real problem.
The chain migration categories actually encourage more illegal
immigration by creating a sense of entitlement to come to the United
States. Once an extended family member applies for an immigrant visa
and then is put in the visa waiting list because the categories are
oversubscribed, the applicant is more likely to decide to come here
illegally to await the visa. Receipt of the immigrant visa becomes a
technicality, rather than a prerequisite to entering the United States.
Furthermore, these numbers do not account for children who become
citizens through birthright interpretation of our 14th Amendment, which
can further complicate the problem. In this case, don't just do the
math, but do the multiplication. For example, in the City of
Gainesville in Hall County, Georgia, growth in the foreign-born
population is actually surpassing the natural increase. This is an
extraordinary rate of immigration. The average level of legal
immigration into the U.S. since 1990 is over 1,000,000 a year. This is
equivalent to importing the entire population of Dallas, Texas--or
Atlanta, Augusta, and Savannah, Georgia combined. This translates into
backlogs, an overwhelming immigration bureaucracy, and immigration
employees incentivized to cut corners and put volume over scrutiny.
Instead, we need to restore our traditional system and levels of
immigration with emphasis on skill, English proficiency, and the
nuclear family.
The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, a bipartisan body
chaired by the late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, recognized and
documented the harms caused by chain migration in the 1990s. The
commission found that America's national interests would be best served
by the elimination of extended family-based immigration categories as
well as the visa lottery; and it urged that nuclear family members--
spouses and minor children--become the sole family-based priority. In
other words, one of the top priorities for immigration reform is to
restore emphasis on nuclear families and away from the adult children,
uncles, aunts, cousins, and distant relatives of the original immigrant
without regard to job skills or the needs of our country.
To quote the commission report: A properly regulated system of
legal immigration is in the national interest of the United States.
Such a system enhances the benefits of immigration while protecting
against potential harms. Unless there is a compelling national interest
to do otherwise, immigrants should be chosen on the basis of the skills
they contribute to the U.S. economy. The Commission believes that
admission of nuclear family members and refugees provide such a
compelling national interest. Reunification of adult children and
siblings of adult citizens solely because of their family relationship
is not as compelling.
With this in mind and in response to our growing immigration
problem, both legal and illegal, I have introduced H.R. 938, the
Nuclear Family Priority Act. With passage of my legislation, we can
reduce a chain of 273--or more--to a chain of 37. That's an 87 %
decrease in our current system of immigration. The formula is simple:
the original legal immigrant can only bring his or her spouse,
dependant children, and parents. Our system of family reunification
will still remain generous and open, but with enough restraint to keep
the system fair and balanced for everyone.
I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you and I would be
happy to take any questions from the Committee.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Congressman. Perhaps we should give
additional time to witnesses from the South, but we haven't
taken up that rule yet. [Laughter.]
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Lofgren. Dr. Duleep?
TESTIMONY OF HARRIET DULEEP, Ph.D., RESEARCH PROFESSOR OF
PUBLIC POLICY, THOMAS JEFFERSON PROGRAM IN PUBLIC POLICY, THE
COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY
Ms. Duleep. As has already been stated by our Chairwoman
and also indicated by Representative King, a widely shared
perspective is that desirable immigrants are those who rapidly
adjust to the U.S. labor market.
From this perspective, employment-based immigrants are the
clear winners. Employment-based immigrants enter the U.S. to
fill specific jobs as expressed by an employer's willingness to
participate in the labor certification process.
By the very nature of their admission, these immigrants
have specific skills that are immediately valued in the U.S.
labor market.
Upon their entry, their earnings are similar to those of
U.S. natives of similar schooling and experience, and their
earnings growth profiles also resemble those of U.S. natives.
If, however, our goal was to devise a policy to attract
immigrants who had a high propensity to invest in human
capital--that is, who are willing to engage in a lot of
training and schooling--then family-based immigration might be
a better bet.
A key characteristic of recent predominantly family-based
immigrants is a high propensity to invest in human capital.
This can be seen in their earnings profiles. Earnings growth is
a sign that human capital investment is taking place.
Family immigrants have very low initial earnings, but they
also have extremely high earnings growth. In fact, their
earnings growth exceeds that of employment-based immigrants and
of U.S. natives.
So it is the case that they start low, but they also have
very high earnings growth.
We also find that immigrant earnings patterns that are
characterized by low initial earnings and high earnings growth
are associated with high rates of schooling, high rates of
training, and high rates of occupational change.
Now, one reason the high earnings growth is important is
that it attenuates concerns about the economic assimilation of
these immigrants. Yes, they start low, but watch what happens
over time.
However, a high propensity to invest in human capital
yields benefits to the U.S. economy beyond immigrants' own
earnings growth.
When demand shifts require new skills to be learned,
immigrants who initially lack specific skills will be more
likely to pursue the new opportunities than will natives or
immigrants with highly transferable skills.
Employment-based immigrants are already earning what we
would expect them to earn on the basis of their schooling and
education, so they would be unlikely to take a huge pay cut in
order to pursue another line of training or another type of
career.
Yet policies that bring in immigrants lacking immediately
transferable skills, such as family-based admission policies,
may promote new business formation and new directions in
existing businesses by providing a labor supply that is both
willing and able to invest in new skills.
Thus, family-based admission policies, which bring in
immigrant lacking immediately transferable skills, increase the
supply of flexible human capital.
A labor supply that is willing and able to invest in new
skills facilitates innovation and accompanying
entrepreneurship. Tailoring immigration to labor shortages is
theoretically appealing, but it is extremely difficult to
practice.
Yet precisely because they lack specific skills that are
immediately valued by the U.S. labor market, family-based
immigrants meet labor market needs in an ongoing flexible
fashion that contributes to a vibrant economy, which has been
characteristic of the U.S.
Family-based policies, as opposed to policies to fill
short-run skill needs, also nurture immigrant entrepreneurship.
Empirically, my co-author Mark Regets and I find a high
correlation between sibling admissions and immigrant
entrepreneurship.
Moreover, there is evidence that immigrant communities that
are fostered by kinship admissions lead to the development of
businesses that would not otherwise exist.
Because of their high propensity to invest in human capital
and their effect on immigrant entrepreneurship, family-based
immigrants pursue or foster employment opportunities that are
distinct from the employment opportunities of U.S. natives.
This suggests that family-based immigrants may compete less
with U.S. workers than employment-based immigrants. And there
is some empirical evidence on this.
In a study that was done by Elaine Sorensen of the Urban
Institute, she finds that immigrants admitted on the basis of
occupational skills have a small negative effect on the
earnings of White native males.
In contrast, family preference immigrants have a positive
effect on native White earnings and employment and a positive
effect on native Black earnings.
Family admissions also fosters permanence. Permanence
promotes human capital investment. Why invest in human capital
investment if you are not going to stay here?
So another way that permanence is productive is that
historically groups that were permanently attached to the U.S.
showed greater intergenerational educational progress than
groups that were less detached.
From the perspective of increasing intergenerational
educational growth, policies that encourage permanent
immigration, such as kinship admissions, should be encouraged.
To conclude, beyond the obvious humanitarian benefits of
reuniting families, there may be potential economic advantages
to family-based immigration.
Family-based immigrants and, more generally, immigrants
that do not have skills that are immediately valued by the U.S.
labor market may benefit the U.S. economy by providing a
flexible source of human capital, by developing new areas of
businesses----
Ms. Lofgren. We need to wrap up, Dr. Duleep.
Ms. Duleep. Yes--and by promoting permanence, and finally
by tempering immigrant-native employment competition.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Duleep follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harriet Duleep
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
Professor Hing?
TESTIMONY OF BILL ONG HING, PROFESSOR OF LAW AND ASIAN AMERICAN
STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-DAVIS
Mr. Hing. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The history of preferring relatives or kinship categories
actually goes way beyond before 1965. In fact, part of the
national origins quota system, the preference was for families.
In 1921, siblings, parents, wives, children were all part of
the preferences in 1921.
So when the 1965 act eliminated the national origins quota
system, it really continued the family preference in our
immigration laws. So I do want to emphasize that in the
historical context.
And I also want to address the allegation of chain
migration today and some of the racial implications behind the
proposals to eliminate family categories and some of the
benefits.
So after 1965, Asians, for example, were not expected to
benefit from the 1965 immigration act because, in fact, family
would favor people who are here in large numbers, and there
were not a large number of Asian-Americans in the United States
in 1965.
So slowly, the employment categories and eventually, yes,
the family categories were used over time.
So today, as we know, 90 percent of the immigrants that
come into the United States are family-oriented. And it is
rather curious that the attack on families began at a time in
the 1980's when Latinos and Asians benefit the most from these
categories.
So the complaint of being nepotistic, of being vertical as
opposed to horizontal, are not new. And I was privileged in
1979 and 1980 to be part of the staff advisory group of the
Federal Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy
when, in fact, the family issue was raised again.
And one of the members of the select commission, Arizona
Democratic Senator Dennis DeConcini, responded in this manner:
``Proposals have been offered to eliminate these family
preferences. It is felt by some to be too generous as it refers
to horizontal rather than vertical. But to deny that brothers
and sisters are an integral part of the family is to impose
upon many ethnic groups a narrow concept of family and one that
especially discriminates against Italian-Americans. We also
should stress the rights of U.S. citizens by allowing them to
bring their families to America. This view should precede the
technical notion that we need certain types of specialists and
skilled workers.''
The select commission itself concluded the reunification of
families should remain one of the foremost goals of
immigration, not only because it is a humane policy, but
because bringing families back together contributes to the
economic and social welfare of the U.S.
Benefits from the unification of immediate relatives are
especially true because family unity promotes stability, health
and productivity of family members.
We need not place family reunification in opposition to
economic and employment visas. There is not an inherent
tension, as some have claimed. There is only a tension if we
place them in opposition to each other.
If instead we view the two systems as complementary ways of
achieving and reflecting our goals and values as a society,
then we don't have a problem.
In other words, if for the sake of argument we use
immigration to help our economy to promote the social welfare
of the country and to promote social family values, then family
and employment categories together can meet those goals.
One of the things that I do want to emphasize is the
allegation of chain migration. And if chain migration were as
hysterical as some claim, then we would see hundreds and
hundreds of people flowing in from one category.
But in fact, if you look at the history of how family
immigration was used, there are times in different nations' and
nationalities' histories where family reunification is
completed.
That is why when it came shortly after the 1965 act that
European immigration began to ebb. Those decisions are made,
even today, in Asian immigration categories.
If you look at the facts, Korean immigration numbers have
declined. Chinese immigration numbers have declined. The
demand, believe it or not, for Filipino immigration has
declined.
Those hard decisions of when families remain, and which
ones stay, and which ones go back are made over a period of
time, and the chain migration that is alleged ends, because
families make those choices.
So finally, I would say that this is a Nation of
immigrants, but this is a Nation that loves to debate
immigration policy, as we know, but when it comes to families,
there shouldn't be a debate, because this is about family
values that we all believe in. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hing follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bill Ong Hing
introduction
The current family-based immigration system should be retained, its
numbers should be expanded, and a re-orientation of the manner of
family visas should be instituted so that backlogs are reduced. Why?
Family reunification promotes strong family values
for our nation.
Family immigration has been the backbone of economic
contributions made by immigrants in the last century.
Reunification with family members gives new Americans
a sense of completeness and peace of mind, contributing not
only to the economic but also the social welfare of the United
States. Society benefits from the reunification of immediate
families, especially because family unity promotes the
stability, health and productivity of family members.
Family immigrants generally are working age who
immediately become productive taxpayers who immediately begin
supporting institutions like the Social Security system.
Immigrant families often pool their resource to start
small businesses that provide new jobs for native workers.
We risk sending a strong anti-family message if we
reduce rather than expand family immigration opportunities.
The attack on family immigration categories sends a
wrong message to communities of color--Asian and Latinos--who
rely on the family categories to complete family reunification
and stabilize their families.
Our families make us whole. Our families define us
and human beings. Our families are at the center of our most
treasured values. Our families make the nation strong.
Promoting family reunification has been a major feature of
immigration policy for decades. Prior to 1965, permitting spouses of
U.S. citizens, relatives of lawful permanent residents, and even
siblings of U.S. citizens to immigrate were important aspects of the
immigration selection system. After the elimination of the racist
national origins quota system in the 1965 reforms, family reunification
became the cornerstone of the immigration admission system.
Like his predecessors, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower,
President John Kennedy assailed the national origins quota system for
its exclusionary impact on prospective immigrants from southern and
eastern Europe and Asia. Although President Kennedy's reform goals
(ultimately pushed through by President Lyndon Johnson after Kennedy's
assassination) initially envisioned a first-come, first-served
egalitarian system, the reform effort evolved into a category-oriented
proposal that was enacted. The 1965 immigration amendments allowed
twenty thousand immigrant visas for every country not in the Western
Hemisphere. Of the 170,000 immigrant visas set aside for Eastern
Hemisphere immigrants, about 80 percent were specified for
``preference'' relatives of citizens and lawful permanent residents,
and an unlimited number was available to immediate relatives of U.S.
citizens. The unlimited immediate relative category included spouses,
parents of adult citizens, and minor, unmarried children of citizens.
The family preference categories were established for adult, unmarried
sons and daughters of citizens (first preference), spouses and
unmarried children of lawful permanent resident aliens (second
preference), married children of citizens, and siblings of citizens
(fifth preference). Third and sixth preferences were established for
employment-based immigration.
As Asian and Latin immigrants began to dominate the family-based
immigration system, somehow the emphasis on family reunification made
less sense to some policy makers. Since the early 1980s, attacking
family reunification categories--especially the sibling category--has
become a popular sport played every few years. Often the complaint is
based on arguments like, ``shouldn't we be bringing in skilled
immigrants,'' or ``wouldn't a point system'' be better, or a system
based on family relationships is ``nepotistic,'' or in the case of the
sibling category, brothers and sisters ``aren't part of the nuclear
family'' or the category represents ``vertical as opposed to horizontal
immigration.''
By 1976, a worldwide preference system (which included Western
Hemisphere) quota of 270,000 was in place that continued to reserve 80
percent for kinship provisions, and the category of immediate relatives
of the United States citizens remained numerically unlimited. The
effects of this priority were demonstrated vividly in the subsequent
flow of Asian immigration, even though nations such as those in Africa
and Asia, with low rates of immigration prior to 1965, were
handicapped. In other words, the nations with large numbers of
descendents in the United States were expected to benefit from a
kinship-based system, and in 1965, less than a million Asian Americans
resided in the country. Although the kinship priority meant that Asians
were beginning on an unequal footing, at least Asians were on par
numerically, in terms of the per country quotas. Gradually, by using
the family categories to the extent they could be used and the labor
employment route, Asians built a family base from which to use the
kinship categories more and more. By the late 1980s, virtually 90
percent of all immigration to the United States--including Asian
immigration--was through the kinship categories. And by the 1990s, the
vast majority of these immigrants were from Asia and Latin America.
attacking families
Once Asian and Latin immigrants began to dominate the family
immigration categories, the kinship system was assailed. Consider the
following attack in 1986:
Nowhere else in public policy do we say not ``who are you and
what are your characteristics?'' but ask rather, as we do in
immigration, ``who are you related to?'' Current policy says:
``if you have the right relatives, we will give you a visa; if
you don't have the right relatives, well, it is just too bad.''
\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Testimony of Barry R. Chiswick before the Joint Economic
Committee, Congress of the United States, S. Hrg. 99-1070, May 22,
1986, p. 236. Of course this statement was factually incorrect; even
under the system at the time, prospective immigrants with skills needed
by an employer could qualify for a labor employment category.
Arguing that the system was nepotistic or that the country would be
better off with a skills-based system became popular. The following
like-minded statement also from the mid-1980s about undocumented
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
migration reveals the racial nature of the complaint:
If the immigration status quo persists, the United States will
develop a more unequal society with troublesome separations.
For example, some projections indicate that the California work
force will be mostly immigrants or their descendants by 2010.
These working immigrants, mostly nonwhite will be supporting
mostly white pensioners with their payroll contributions. Is
American society resilient enough to handle the resulting
tensions.
. . .
The American economy will have more jobs and businesses if
illegal alien workers are allowed to enter freely and work in
the United States. But the number of jobs and businesses alone
is not an accurate measure of the soundness of economic
development or quality of life. Tolerating heavy illegal
immigration introduces distortions into the economy that are
difficult to remedy, while imposing environmental and social
costs that must be borne by the society as a whole.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Martin, Philip, Illegal Immigration and the Colonization of the
American Labor Market, Center for Immigration Studies, 1986, at 45.
(emphasis added)
Apparently, this perception of a good ``quality of life'' without
``environmental and social costs'' is one with minimal tension from the
presence of ``nonwhite'' ``immigrants or their descendants.'' As an
observer at the time recognized, ``It may be fair to conclude that the
problem masquerading as illegal immigration is simply today's version
of a continuing American--in fact, human--condition, namely
xenophobia.'' \3\ As in the Asian exclusionary era, the complaints were
not simply about the economy; they were about keeping people out who
did not fit the right image.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Annelise Anderson, Illegal Aliens and Employer Sanctions:
Solving the Wrong Problem, Hoover Essays in Public Policy, The Hoover
Institution, Stanford, Ca., 1986, at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the early 1980s to 1996, the leading voice attacking family
immigration, especially the sibling category, was Republican Senator
Alan Simpson of Wyoming. Simpson had been a member of the Select
Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy that issued a report in
1981 calling for major changes in the immigration laws. After IRCA was
enacted in 1986 to address issue of undocumented migration through
employer sanctions and legalization, Simpson turned his attention to
legal immigration categories. At the time, although 20 percent of
preference categories were available to labor employment immigrants
(54,000), when the unrestricted immediate relative immigration
categories were added to the total number of immigrants each year, less
than 10 percent of immigrants who were entering each year were doing so
on the basis of job skills.
In fact, soon after the Select Commission report, Senator Simpson
proposed the elimination of the sibling immigration category. At the
core of what became a long crusade, Simpson's complaint was that
brothers and sisters are not important relatives for immigration
purposes; that in U.S. culture, the sibling relationship is simply not
close enough to justify providing an immigration preference. He ignored
the many experts who testified in hearings before the Select Commission
stressing the importance of family reunification over employment-based
visas, including the sibling category. Demographer Charles Keely
testified that:
We, as a nation, cannot only accept, but are enriched in
countless ways, by traditions which honor the family and stress
close ties not only within the nuclear family of spouses and
children but also among generations and among brothers and
sisters. Attacks on family reunification beyond the immediate
family as a form of nepotism are empty posturing.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ SCIRP 1981d:48.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the League
of United Latin American Citizens, the U.S.-Asia Institute, and others
testified in favor of retaining the category. One organization opposing
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simpson's proposal, The American Committee on Italian Migration, noted:
For Italians and for many other ethnic groups, brothers and
sisters, whether or not they are married, are an integral part
of the family reunion concept. Elimination of this preference
category would violate a sacrosanct human right of an American
citizen to live with his family according to his own
traditional life style.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 19a: 19, 170.
Arizona Democratic Senator Dennis DeConcini, also a member of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Select Commission, added his voice to the debate:
Proposals have been offered to eliminate the [sibling]
preference. It is felt by some to be too generous, as it refers
to horizontal rather than a vertical family concept. . . . But
to deny that brothers and sisters are an integral part of the
family is to impose upon many ethnic groups a narrow concept of
family and one that especially discriminated against the
Italian-Americans. We also should stress the rights of U.S.
citizens by allowing them to bring their families to America.
This view should precede the technical notion that we need
certain types of specialist and skilled workers.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Address in 1978 to the American Committee on Italian Migration,
reported in Immigration Update National Symposium, New York, 1980.
In fact, the Select Commission overwhelmingly endorsed the policy
of keeping brothers and sisters as a preference category.\7\ Proposals
to eliminate family categories created by the 1965 amendments were to
be rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ SCIRP 1981a: 119.
The reunification of families should remain one of the foremost
goals of immigration not only because it is a humane policy,
but because bringing families back together contributes to the
economic and social welfare of the United States. Society
benefits from the reunification of immediate families,
especially because family unity promotes the stability, health
and productivity of family members.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy Report
(SCIRP): 1981b: 357.
Simpson did not relent and in the late 1980s at a time when legal
immigration continued to be dominated by Asians and Latinos even after
``diversity programs'' were being implemented to aid non-Asian and non-
Mexican immigrants, he wanted the family immigration numbers reduced or
at least managed. S. 358 was approved by the Senate in July 1989, which
would establish a ceiling of 630,000 legal immigrants for three years.
Of the total, 480,000 would be reserved for all types of family
immigration and 150,000 would be set aside for immigrants without
family connections but with skills or job related assets. Yet after
numerous markups and hearings, the House of Representative passed
Congressman Bruce Morrison's H.R. 4300, a rather different bill, on
Oct. 3, 1990. The bill actually would reduce family immigration more
dramatically--thereby reducing the number of Asian and Latino family
immigrants, providing 185,000 family-based visas and 95,000 employment-
based visas annually.
The bill was attacked for its wholesale elimination of temporary
work visas for professionals. The concern was that the spigot actually
might be closed on foreign workers. Also, the possible elimination of
H-1 nonimmigrant status for certain professions outraged immigration
lawyers, who called it a ``must-kill'' provision. Another one of
Morrison's more controversial suggestions was to tax employers who use
alien employees. One early proposal required businesses to pay 15
percent of an alien's salary into a federal trust fund used to train
U.S. workers. As introduced, the bill would impose a flat user fee
dependent on the size of the company. After furious negotiations,
especially with fellow Democratic Congressman Howard Berman from Los
Angeles, Morrison agreed to drop proposals that would have reduced the
number of family based visas, persuaded by Berman who argued: ``To cut
back on the ability of new Americans to be with their family members
betrays the core American value and tradition of emphasizing the
integrity of the family.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Stewart Kwoh, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 14, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As passed, H.R. 4300 would increase the number of legal immigrants
to 775,000 a year from the prior 540,000. It would also speed the
process of uniting families, attract more skilled workers and create a
new diversity category for immigrants from countries whose nationals
have largely been excluded in the past. After passing the bill, the
House changed the bill number to S. 358 to enable it to go to a joint
House-Senate conference. However, many were opposed to the more liberal
House bill and negotiated to cap legal immigration and place new
measures to control illegal immigration, including tougher provisions
against criminal aliens. The House conferees insisted on a sunset cap
in the bill and wanted extra visas to go to relatives rather than to
skilled workers. But Senator Simpson refused to agree.
Enacted on Oct. 26, 1990, the compromise bill would allow 700,000
immigrants from 1992-94 and 675,000 annually in subsequent years.\10\
For the time being, proposals to cut back on family immigration were
defeated, and the Immigration Act of 1990 had responded to lobbying
efforts by American businesses. The Act was a significant, and to some
a revolutionary, revision of the focus of U.S. immigration law. After
passage of the Act, although the main thrust of immigration law
continued to be family immigration, highly-skilled immigrations would
be deliberately encouraged to resettle in the United States more than
ever before. In the long run, the number of employment based visas
would nearly triple from 54,000 to 140,000 per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The compromise included portions of S. 3055 sponsored by
Simpson, which would speed deportations of criminal aliens. Section 501
expanded the definition of ``aggravated felony'' to include illicit
trafficking in any controlled substance, money laundering, and any
crime of violence with a 5 year imprisonment imposed. The bill also
included both federal and state crimes. Aliens convicted of aggravated
felonies would have expedited deportation hearings and would not be
released from custody while in deportation proceedings. 67 IR. 1229-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Asian- and Latino-dominated family categories were not
reduced in 1990, an overall numerical cap was installed. Furthermore,
in the words of Senator Simpson, through the new employment categories
and expanded diversity programs, ``we [now] open the front door wider
to skilled workers of a more diverse range of nationalities.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 136 Cong. Rec. S17,109 (daily ed. Oct. 26, 1990) (statement of
Sen. Simpson).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to his retirement in 1996, Senator Simpson fought to eliminate
the sibling category. On the eve of the 1996 Presidential election,
Congress reached a compromise on immigration reform relating to
deportation, asylum, and procedural issues. Until the late spring of
1996, however, the chance that the immigration legislation would
include revisions to legal immigration categories was real. Senator
Simpson again took aim at the siblings-of-U.S.-citizens category and
the category available to unmarried, adult sons and daughters of lawful
resident aliens (category ``2B''). The efforts ultimately were not
successful, and the 1996 legislation did not reduce family immigration.
the false choice between family and employment visas
As comprehensive immigration reform is debated today, some
commentators once again seek to place the family immigration categories
on the negotiating table. This attack on family immigration is a
variation on the wouldn't-it-better-to-chose-immigrants-based-on-skills
theme, by positioning family visas in opposition to employment-based
visas:
There is an inherent tension in the immigration system between
job and family-based admissions. In allocating visas between
family and employment criteria, the goal of family
reunification cannot be entirely reconciled with the problem of
visas as a scare resource. The answers here are either to
accept persistent family migration backlogs or limit the scope
of family migration to nuclear, instead of extended, family
relationships.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Memorandum from Doris Meissner, Nov. 30, 2005 (emphasis
added).
Inherent tension? Of course there is only an ``inherent tension''
between employment and family-based visas if we choose to accept the
premise that visas are a ``scarce resource,'' or if we insist on
pitting the two types of visas as oppositional. If instead we view the
two systems as complementary ways of achieving and reflecting our goals
and values as a society, then we don't have a problem of ``tension.''
In other words, if, for the sake of argument, we use immigration to
help our economy, to promote the social welfare of the country, and to
promote family values, then family and employment categories together
can meet those goals.
The Labor Force Picture
Another problem with placing employment visas in opposition to
family visas is the implication that family immigration represents the
soft side of immigration while employment immigration is more about
being tough and strategic. The wrongheadedness of that suggestion is
that family immigration has served our country well even from a purely
economic perspective. The country needs workers with all levels of
skill, and family immigration provides many of the needed workers.
A concern that the current system raises for some policymakers is
related to the belief that the vast majority of immigrants who enter in
kinship categories are working class or low-skilled. They wonder
whether this is good for the country. Interestingly enough, immigrants
who enter in the sibling category actually are generally high skilled.
But beyond that oversight by the complainants, what we know about the
country and its general need for workers in the short and long terms is
instructive.
The truth is that we need immigrant workers of all skill levels
today, and we will need them in the future. As of 2004, 21 million
immigrants were in the U.S. labor force, representing 14.5 percent of
the total labor force. A majority of the immigrant workforce is Mexican
or from other Latin countries; foreign-born Asians are one-quarter of
the immigrant workforce. Roughly 6.3 million (30 percent of all
foreign-born workers) are undocumented workers. This represents about
4.3 percent of the total U.S. labor force.
In the last few years, the employment of immigrants actually grew
while that of native workers was stagnant. This trend is expected to
continue because without immigrants, demographers project that the
number of workers between the ages of 25 and 54 over the next few
decades will decline. This suggests a strong demand for immigrants in a
broad variety of industries. Immigrants represent 20 to 22 percent of
farm and non-farm laborers. Mexican-born workers are much more likely
than native workers to be found in food preparation, building and
grounds maintenance, construction, and production jobs. The 2001-2003
recessionary period also represented a restructuring period; immigrants
were favored in the declining manufacturing industry, as well as in the
leisure/hospitality and construction areas. Professional business
services also hired a large number of immigrants, likely due to
increased global competition.
Most projections of future immigration suggest that foreign-born
workers will play a significant role in the growth and skill
composition of the U.S. labor force. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) projects that the labor force will grow 12 percent (17.4 million)
between 2002 and 2012, reaching a total of 162.3 million.
Given projections of slow growth of the native workforce, the
levels of immigration used in BLS and other projections imply that
immigrants will remain significant drivers of labor force growth. The
BLS' most recent projections assume that total immigration, both legal
and unauthorized, will continue to bring between 900,000 and 1.3
million people to the country each year until 2012. Barring truly
restrictionist policy, it is likely that immigrants will continue to
comprise a significant supply of workers under any legislation that is
passed. In fact, immigrants have been an important source of labor
source growth in the recent past, making up 48.6 percent of the total
labor force increase between 1996 and 2000, and as much as 60 percent
of the increase from 2000 to 2004.
These projections imply that an immigrant workforce of 19 million
is projected to grow to 25 million by 2010, 29 million by 2020, and to
31 million by 2030. Likewise the share of immigrants in the total labor
force is predicted to climb from 13 percent in 2000 to 18 percent by
2030, and then remain little changed through 2050. After 2030, the
projections indicate little further growth of the immigrant workforce,
while much of the ongoing growth of the native workforce is implicitly
being driven by the children of immigrants or the second generation.
Calculations by the Urban Institute suggest that if no immigrants
entered the country after 2000, the labor force would be nearly 10
million workers smaller by 2015 than if immigration follows current
projections. By 2050, the difference between the size of the labor
force with immigration and without would be 45 million.
The skill levels demanded by occupations projected to grow over the
next several years parallel the educational profile of the labor force,
suggesting ongoing demand along the skill spectrum. Every two years,
the BLS publishes projections about the future size and shape of the
U.S. labor force, and the number of net jobs that will be created or
lost in each occupation. The latest projections are for the years 2002
to 2012, and they forecast a slowing in the rate at which the total
labor force is growing. However, there is substantial variation in the
fortunes of various occupational workforces.
Tomorrow's economy will generate demand for jobs that are different
from today's and the skills that workers need will likewise change. The
BLS separates out 15 occupations that are projected to have the largest
numerical growth and another 15 that are projected to experience the
fastest rate of growth. Immigrants make up a significant share of the
labor force in many large and fast-growth occupations. Important, the
BLS further classifies occupations by the degree of skill required for
the job, showing that there will be a demand for both low and high-
skilled immigrant workers.
For the forecast large-growth occupations, 11 out of the 15 require
only short- or moderate-term on-the-job training, suggesting lower-
skilled immigrants could contribute to meeting the demand for these
types of jobs. According to the 2000 Census data, immigrants were
overrepresented in 4 of these occupations. Immigrants made up 20
percent of janitors and building cleaners, 17 percent of nursing,
psychiatric, and home health aides, 13 percent of waiters and
waitresses, and 13 percent of cashiers. On the high skill end, 3 large
growth occupations--general and operations managers, other teachers and
instructors, and postsecondary teachers--require a bachelor's degree or
higher and immigrants are especially well poised to contribute to
these.
Immigrants are also found in jobs that are expected to be important
in serving tomorrow's aging population. Seniors are expected to
increasingly generate demand for medical, home care, and other
services, many of which require workers with only on-the-job training.
According to analysis of BLS data, 8 of 15 occupations projected to
grow most rapidly and several of the occupations projected to have
largest absolute growth are medical support occupations including
medical records technicians, nursing and home health aides, registered
nurses, occupational therapist assistants and aides, personal and home
care aides, and the like.
In summary, forecasts of occupational growth suggest that there is
likely to be continued strong growth in occupations requiring better
educated workers. There will also be a substantial growth of jobs
requiring little training and in which immigrants are already well
represented. Educational forecasts suggest that throughout the next
decade, immigrants are likely to play an important role in
restructuring the U.S. labor force.
The aging of the baby boomer generation will slow labor force
growth, increase the burden of older, retired persons on younger
workers, and create a potential drag on productivity growth. Between
2002 and 2012, persons aged 55 and older are estimated to grow an
average of 4.9 percent per year, or nearly quadruple the growth rate of
the overall labor force. The number of workers aged 25-54, in contrast,
will grow by only 5.1 million workers, or at a rate of 0.5 percent per
year. These demographic trends slow the rate of growth of the total
prime-age labor force.
The aging of the population will change the dependency ratio--the
number of non-working dependents compared to economically active
workers. That ratio is expected to rise as the baby boomer generation
enters retirement and as U.S. fertility rates remain low, leaving a
greater number of elderly to be supported by each worker. The
decreasing number of taxpaying workers supporting each retiree will
strain public assistance programs for the elderly including Social
Security and Medicare. An infusion of young taxpaying immigrants can
help address future shortfalls in these programs.
While the evidence suggests that greater immigration could aid
elderly assistance programs, it should not be expected to solve the
problem. Increased immigration can temporarily lessen the Social
Security and Medicare burden on native workers, but in the longer-run,
permanent immigrants will also age into retirement. Further, immigrants
are only 12 percent of the U.S. population and current rates of
immigration add about 1 million immigrants yearly to an existing base
of about 34 million.
Immigration also may boost productivity, because immigrant workers
tend to be younger and therefore generally more productive than older
workers, but it is unclear how greatly immigration would need to be
expanded to significantly enhance productivity. A National Academy of
Sciences report in 1997 concluded that immigrants generate a small but
positive boost to the gross national product by generating increased
returns to capital that are greater than their adverse wage impacts.
Some evidence suggests that innovation thrives when human capital is
agglomerated in areas with many specialists and skilled migrants. The
booming economy of the late 1990s was fueled by historic productivity
gains, one-third of which came from information technology (IT), and
foreign workers fueled one-quarter of the IT labor force growth. Also,
immigrants started about one-third of Silicon Valley's high-tech start
ups.
Potential problems created by the aging of the U.S. labor force
cannot simply and entirely be solved by more immigration, but budget
and productivity shortfalls at least will generate demand for generous
numbers of skilled immigrant workers.
Some might argue that strategies other than immigration could be
used to meet the country's coming economic needs. For example, the need
for high-skilled labor could be met in ways other than increasing the
numbers of high-skilled immigrants allowed into the country. High
technology jobs could be outsourced to rising centers of technological
expertise such as Bangalore or other growing hot spots around the
world. Or the United States could devote greater resources to raising
the skill level of residents, retraining workers from sunset industries
and improving the teaching of skills most relevant to the future
economy of the country's youth.
Given the dynamic nature of the economy, the uncertainty of any
attempts to predict the needs of tomorrow's economy, and the limited
control any government can exert over demographic changes, it is
difficult to say with any certainty how immigration can or should be
used to meet the needs of the country's coming labor markets. However,
it is quite clear that immigration has been an important source of
labor force growth in the past, and that the skills required of the
occupations important to the future, in both technology and healthcare
industries, will likely match reasonably well with the skill profiles
of immigrants today and the projected skill profiles of future
immigrants. Immigrants currently play a large role in several of the
occupations expected to have most growth both in terms of the rate of
growth or growth in numbers of workers, and can therefore be expected
to contribute to meeting the future demand of these industries.
Immigration is not the only answer to the country's future economic
needs, but it could, and likely will, play an important part in a more
comprehensive solution.
The Competition Charge
Immigrant workers have long contributed to the power behind the
motor of the U.S. economy. However, concerns that immigrants compete
with native workers to the latter's detriment still abound in the
public mind. A review of the literature about immigration's impact on
native wages and job displacement is a starting place to resolve this
question. But before doing so, any serious observer has to acknowledge
that immigrants affect the economy in ways that are not reflected by
wage and job displacement studies. Immigrant entrepreneurship may
create jobs; immigrants are increasingly associated with further
openings to trade and other forms of exchange; high-skilled immigrants
innovate in key sectors of the economy; immigrants make tax
contributions and receive public services; the presence of significant
numbers of immigrants in a sector helps make that sector's products and
services cheaper--and thus more affordable by all consumers; and
immigrant workers both produce and, in turn, consume goods and
services--thus having much wider ripple economic effects, including
creating jobs.
Most economic competition discussions generally focus on the short-
and medium-term impacts of immigration. When immigrant workers enter a
labor market, there may be initial pains to accommodate them, and in
response to those difficulties, the labor market may adjust, perhaps by
creating more jobs that immigrants and/or natives could fill, or
inducing natives to move. However, in the long-term, the impact of an
immigrant cohort depends on the degree to which immigrants assimilate
into U.S. society (i.e., become like native workers in terms of the
skills they have). If they, or perhaps more importantly their children,
assimilate economically, a given immigrant cohort will tend to make the
economy larger without putting downward pressure on natives' wages.
Also, keep in mind the possibility that immigrant employment often
complements that of native workers.
Immigrants are an important and growing part of the U.S. labor
force. Estimates indicate that one of every two new workers in the
1990s was foreign-born. As a result of these flows, from 1990 to 2002,
the immigrant share of the workforce rose from 9.4 to 14 percent.
Immigrants are also disproportionately low-wage workers, comprising 20
percent of the low-wage population, though they also make up much
higher proportions in several high-skill occupations and sectors.
In 1997, the National Research Council concluded that immigration
had a small effect on the wages of native workers. Evidence showed that
immigration reduced the wages of competing natives by only 1 or 2
percent. Effects were also weak for native black workers, a group often
assumed to be in competition with immigrant workers. Earlier immigrant
cohorts were more significantly affected: they could expect 2 to 4 or
more percent wage decline for every 10 percent increase in the number
of immigrant workers. The report also noted that immigration, as a
whole, resulted in a net benefit to the economy of between $1 and $10
billion annually, a small but still significant positive impact.
Certain groups within the economy, such as those with capital or high-
level skills or those consuming immigrants' goods or services,
benefited from immigration, even if low-skilled natives stood to lose
in the process.
While there is still general agreement that some native groups,
particularly the high-skilled or those with capital, benefit from
overall immigration flows, since 1997, the assertion that immigrants do
not significantly affect natives' wages is now more broadly contested.
Many studies continue to find no effect or only weak negative effects
of immigration on low-skilled workers or workers in general. Others
suggest that newly arriving immigrants do not have a statistically
significant impact, but the degree to which immigrants substitute for
natives increases with time spent in the United States. Still others
contend that the negative wage effects are larger, perhaps on the order
of a 3 or 4 percent wage decline for competing workers for every 10
percent increase in immigrants with similar skills. Other the other
hand, some research found that immigration actually had a slightly
positive and statistically significant effect on all natives' self-
employment earnings.
Findings now are contested regarding immigrants' wage effects for
highly-skilled native workers. Some researchers estimate that
immigration during the last two decades depressed wages by 4.9 percent
for native college graduates. In contrast, others have found that high-
skilled immigrants actually raise native wages, for example that a 10
percent increase in high-skilled immigrants raised native skilled
workers' earnings by 2.6 percent.
In essence, the literature indicates that the impact of immigration
on native workers is an issue that is still up for debate, perhaps now
more than ever. Some researchers have found divergent, large negative,
small negative to non-existent, and positive impacts from immigration
on native relative wages, even among the most vulnerable populations.
Furthermore, most research has found some job displacement or native
exclusion within given sectors or cities as a result of immigration,
but the criticism that many of these studies have looked where they
would expect to find impacts is a valid one to keep in mind when
viewing this literature convergence. Certainly, immigration's impact on
the most vulnerable native workers is increasingly contested ground,
which makes predicting future impacts doubly difficult.
In the end, whether or not immigrants actually depress wages or
displace some workers may be only one consideration within a larger
policymaking context. Whether the effects are slightly negative,
somewhat positive, or tend toward zero, they may be far outweighed by
other effects that immigrants have on the United States. Over and over
again, we hear the claim that immigrants definitely take jobs away from
native workers or that native wages are severely depressed by immigrant
workers. But the empirical data supplies no smoking gun for those
claims, and in fact, the opposite may be true.
Without an empirical foundation for attacking the entry of
immigrants with low job skills, some critics of the current system
simply argue that there is a better way of doing things. They are not
satisfied that immigration fills needed job shortages and aids economic
growth as a result of the entry of ambitious, hard-working family
immigrants and their children, many of whom are professionals as well
as unskilled workers with a propensity for saving and investment.
the benefits of family immigration
The economic data on today's kinship immigrants are favorable for
the country. The entry of even low-skilled immigrants leads to faster
economic growth by increasing the size of the market, thereby boosting
productivity, investment, and technological practice. Technological
advances are made by immigrants who are neither well-educated nor well-
paid as well as by white collar immigrants. Moreover, many kinship-
based immigrants open new businesses that employ natives as well as
other immigrants; this is important since small businesses are now the
most important source of new jobs in the country. The current system
results in designers, business leaders, investors, and Silicon Valley-
type engineers. And much of the flexibility available to American
entrepreneurs in experimenting with risky labor-intensive business
ventures is afforded by the presence of low-wage immigrant workers. In
short, kinship immigrants contribute greatly to this country's vitality
and growth. They are the ``moms, pops, sons and daughters who open
groceries and restaurants, who rebuild desolate neighborhoods and
inspire America with their work ethic and commitment to one another.''
\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Family Values, Betrayed, NY Times, Editorial, May 4, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond the obvious economic benefits of the current system, a
thorough consideration of the benefits of the family-based immigration
system must include the psychic values of such a system. The psychic
value of family reunification is generally overlooked by empiricists
perhaps due to difficulty in making exact calculations. Yet the
inability to make such a calculation is no reason to facilely cast
aside the concept or ignore the possibilities.
Perhaps as a first step in getting a sense of the unquantifiable
psychic values of family reunification, we could begin by thinking of
our own families and what each one of our loved ones means to us. How
less productive would we be without one or more of them? How less
productive would we be, having to constantly be concerned about their
sustenance, safety, or general well being? How more productive are we
when we know that we can come home at the end of the day and enjoy
their company or share our days' events with them?
Ask Ming Liu, a design engineer for a U.S. telephone and
electronics equipment company from China. Liu was doing fine, better
than his boss expected, and always had his nose to the grindstone. But
he became an even better worker after his wife and child rejoined him
following a two-year immigration process. Liu's productivity
skyrocketed. His boss observed Liu's personality opening up after his
family arrived, and Liu came up with a completely new, innovative
concept that helped the company change direction and increase sales. In
Liu's words, after his family immigrated, he could ``breathe again.''
Or ask Osvaldo Fernandez, a former pitcher for the San Francisco
Giants. He had defected from the Cuban national baseball team, leaving
his wife and child back in Cuba. After a mediocre first half of the
1996 season, his wife and child were allowed to leave Cuba and join
Fernandez in the United States. Overnight, his pitching performance
radically improved. He attributed this turnaround to reunification with
his wife and child.
Consider the Ayalde sisters. Corazon became a U.S. citizen several
years after she immigrated to the United States as a registered nurse
to work in a public hospital devoted to caring for senior citizens.
When her sister Cerissa, who had remained in the citizen, became
widowed without children, they longed to be reunited--especially after
Cerissa became ill. Corazon filed a sibling petition, and after years
of waiting, Cerissa's visa was granted. Corazon felt her ``heart being
lifted to heaven'' as the sisters reunited to live their lives together
once again. I think of the Ayalde sisters often in the context of my
own mother's inability to successfully petition for her sister's
immigration out of mainland China to be reunited. First there was the
paperwork for the application, complicated by the difficulty in
obtaining documents from China. Then there were the backlogs in the
sibling category, and finally the hurdles of getting travel documents
out of China in the 1970s. When my mother received word that her sister
had passed away, the tears she shed were only a fraction of the pain
she had endured being separated from her sister for decades.
The truth is that the family promotes productivity after
resettlement in the United States through the promotion of labor force
activity and job mobility that is certainly as important--perhaps more
important--than the particular skills with which individuals arrive.
Family and household structures are primary factors in promoting high
economic achievement, for example, in the formation of immigrant
businesses that have revitalized many urban neighborhoods and economic
sectors.
Those who would eliminate family categories contend that family
separation is a fact of life (sometimes harsh) that we can get over or
live with. Yes, most of us live without someone whom we love dearly
either because of that person's death, or because the person lives
across the country. Yes, we can get over this separation and perhaps
become as productive as ever. Yet to take this ability to recover and
place it in the context of immigration and say to someone who wants to
reunify with a brother, sister, son, or daughter, ``No, your relative
cannot join you; you cannot reunify with this person on a permanent
basis,'' is cruel. It visits the burden and challenge of recovery on
the person unnecessarily. It prevents voluntary choice by adults who
are capable of making life-affecting decisions relating to very private
family matters. As such it can affect life-long circumstances that the
individuals involved should have controlled.
conclusion
I once had a friendly debate over lunch with a retired federal
immigration judge about the sibling category. He could not understand
the need for the category because, after all, he loves his sister just
as much even though she lives in New York rather than next door in San
Francisco. On further discussion, he acknowledged that he might feel
differently if she was living in a different country where visa
requirements made simple visits complicated. Family separation across
national boundaries must be viewed differently from separation within
the same country.
The opponents of the current system that favors many family
categories contend that unending chain migration has resulted from this
system. They present a picture of a single immigrant who enters, who
then brings in a spouse, then each spouse brings in siblings who bring
in their spouses and children, and each adult brings in parents who can
petition for their siblings or other children, and the cycle goes on
and on. Certainly for a period of time, family categories result in the
arrival of certain relatives. However, the purveyors of the image of
limitless relatives forget that throughout the course of immigration
history to the United States, these so-called family chains are
invariably broken. Thus, although virtually limitless numbers of
western Europeans have been permitted to immigrate to the United States
throughout the past two hundred years, at a given point, decisions are
made--some slowly--by families about who is willing or wants to come to
the new country and who does not. As a result, immigration numbers from
western European countries have dramatically fallen off. For example,
hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the United Kingdom, Germany,
and Ireland immigrated to the United States in each decade of the first
part of the twentieth century. The figures continued to be substantial
for Germans and British nationals through 1970, but then the figures
diminished significantly after that.
In reality, the proponents of the chain migration image are simply
engaging in scare tactics that have serious racial overtones. Their
proposal to cut off family categories comes at a time when three in
four immigrants are Latino or Asian. Perhaps most reprehensible is the
fallacy upon which these attacks are being made. In fact, the picture
of ever-expanding immigration fueled by chain migration is a
fabrication. Consider individual countries: the number of Koreans who
entered in 1988 was 34,000, but by 1993, the figure was reduced by
half, and in 2004 fewer than 20,000 Koreans immigrated. The number of
Filipinos who immigrated in 1990 was over 71,000, but by 1993 the
figure was about 63,000, and around 50,000 by 2004.
In further twisted reasoning, supporters of family category
reductions argue that since the categories are backlogged many years
(especially the sibling category), they should be eliminated because
they are useless and do not achieve any family values. However, they
categories certainly are not useless for those who have waited their
turn and who are now immigrating. And if there is real sympathy for
those on the waiting list, then providing extra visa numbers for awhile
to clear the backlog is in order. In fact, that was the recommendation
of the bi-partisan Select Commission more than a quarter century ago.
Clearing the backlogs is not novel; in 1962, for example, extra visas
were made available to clear backlogs for Italian and Greek immigrants.
Reducing backlogs are more consistent with the broad goals of
immigration policy and democratic values of best practices in
governance. Immigration policy helps define the United States in the
eyes of the world, and relative openness sends a positive message about
American values and also creates important linkages and opportunities
for exchange.
Easing the worldwide backlogs by providing favored treatment for
Mexican immigrants is also worthy of consideration. Expanded legal
access for Mexican immigrants has a great capacity to reduce
unauthorized flows to the United States by addressing the greatest
source of migration demand. Expanding the number of legal immigrant
visas to Mexicans or taking Mexican migration out of the worldwide
quota would increase the number of available worldwide visas to other
countries, thereby reducing backlogs per se. At a time in world history
when we need to continue thinking regionally, such a gesture of
goodwill and understanding to our contiguous neighbor and ally is
important, giving the need for greater economic and security
cooperation between historically-linked societies.
As to the attack on the sibling category in particular, for many
citizens and residents of the United States, including those of Asian
or Latin descent, the argument that brothers and sisters are a family
relationship of limited importance is puzzling. The backlog in the
sibling category is evidence itself that brothers and sisters are
important to many families. Many U.S. citizens have filed immigration
petitions for siblings rather than for their own parents. Parents, the
older generation, are often deeply entrenched in the country of birth,
more comfortable in their native surroundings, and reluctant to
emigrate and face adjustments to a new society as seniors. On the other
hand, contemporary siblings are more adventurous and eager to emigrate.
Being of the same generation as the citizen sibling, they, more than
the parent, often have a closer relationship because they tend to share
the same goals, interests, and values. Siblings are among the easiest
immigrants to resettle, and generally become immediate contributors to
the economy.
The importance of the sibling category has been long recognized in
U.S. immigration laws. Section 2(d) of the first quota act of 1921
stipulated that ``preference shall be given as far as possible to
wives, parents, brothers, sisters, and children under eighteen years''
of U.S. citizens. Preference for brothers and sisters was included
after World War II because siblings were in many cases the only
surviving members of families. Thus, this preference for siblings was
continued in the basic nationality act of 1952. Brothers and sisters of
U.S. citizens were placed in the same category of importance as sons
and daughters of citizens. And, of course, in the 1965 amendments,
Congress signed the sibling preference the highest percentage of
visas--24 percent.
The Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy defended
the family reunification system in its 1981 report:
The reunification of families serves the national interest not
only through the humaneness of the policy itself, but also
through the promotion of the public order and well-being of the
nation. Psychologically and socially, the reunion of family
members with their close relatives promotes the health and
welfare of the United States.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Final Report of Select Commission at 112.
After all, the system resulted in the entry of ``ambitious, hard-
working immigrants and their children'' who provided a disproportionate
number of skilled workers with a propensity for saving and
investment.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Final Report of Select Commission at 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an era of promoting family values, proposals to eliminate family
immigration categories seem odd. What values do such proposals impart?
What's the message? That brothers and sisters are not important? Or (in
the case of the proposal to limit children of lawful permanent
residents) that once children reach a certain age, the parent-child
bond needs not remain strong? Eliminating such categories
institutionalizes concepts that are antithetical to the nurturing of
family ties, that ignore the strong family bonds in most families, and
that should be promoted among all families. Indeed, the proposals send
a strong anti-family message.
There is a reason that the preamble to the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights highlights the unity of the family as the ``foundation of
freedom, justice and peace in the world.'' Our families make us whole.
Our families define us and human beings. Our families are at the center
of our most treasured values. Our families make the nation strong.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
Mr. Anderson?
TESTIMONY OF STUART ANDERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
FOUNDATION FOR AMERICAN POLICY
Mr. Anderson. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
The Bush administration has circulated a document that
proposes ending the ability of U.S. citizens to sponsor their
children for immigration if those sons or daughters have
reached the age of 21.
One way to look at this is at the personal level. I think
most Members of Congress would agree they would have a
difficult time barring the door to their 22-year-old daughter
while welcoming the immigration of their 19-year-old son.
Under the draft proposal Americans would also be prohibited
from sponsoring a brother or sister for immigration, and it
also would place restrictions on the admission of parents of
U.S. citizens.
In essence, as part of a deal to appeal to critics who say
we should not reward illegal immigrants, we would prohibit
Americans from sponsoring their own children or other close
family members for legal immigration.
This should be rejected as a policy option. Some argue that
family wait times are too long. This is true. However, the fact
that there are long wait times simply means that Congress
hasn't raised the limits in a very long time.
The answer is not to eliminate categories and guarantee
that Americans never have a chance to reunite with certain
loved ones. The appropriate solution is to raise the quotas, as
the Senate did last year in their bill.
It is alleged that eliminating family categories would
reduce ``chain migration.'' However, chain migration is a
relatively meaningless term because it merely describes what
has happened throughout the country's history. Some family
members have come, they have succeeded, and then they sponsored
other family members.
Let's suppose one immigrant arrives and takes 6 years to
become a citizen. They sponsor a sibling, with an 11-year to
20-year wait. Then that sibling sponsors an adult child with a
6-year to 14-year wait.
The time between the arrival of the first immigrant and the
third immigrant would be between 29 years and 46 years,
depending on the country, not the continuous onslaught that
critics allege.
And all the immigrants would immigrate under legal quotas
that have been established already by Congress.
While approximately 58 percent of U.S. legal immigration in
2005 was family-based, more than half of family immigration was
the spouses and children of U.S. citizens, which almost no one
has proposed eliminating.
Of total U.S. legal immigration in 2005, married and
unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens accounted for only 2
percent each, and siblings of U.S. citizens accounted for only
6 percent.
In place of certain family categories, the Administration
and others have discussed instituting a Canadian-style point
system, which would only admit immigrants who receive enough
points based on education and other criteria.
Some say a rationale for a point system is to improve the
skill level of immigrants. In reality, according to the New
Immigrant Survey and the Pew Hispanic Center, the typical legal
immigrant already has a higher education level than the typical
native. So the rationale for eliminating the family category
simply isn't there.
Family members immigrating to support their U.S. relatives
and caring for children and running family-owned businesses are
more likely to benefit the United States economically than
unattached individuals who achieve a certain number of points
based on criteria designed by Government bureaucrats.
John Tu, president and CEO of California-based Kingston
Technology, immigrated to America from Taiwan after being
sponsored by his sister. When he sold his company, he gave $100
million to his employees, about $100,000 to $300,000 each,
using the philosophy to treat employees and customers based on
Asian family values of trust and loyalty.
Jerry Yang, co-founder of Yahoo, one of America's top
companies, came to the country at the age of 10. He says Yahoo
would not be an American company today if the United States had
not welcomed him and his family 30 years ago.
U.S. employers want to recruit and hire specific skilled
individuals, not skilled people in general. The most effective
policy to promote skilled immigration is to exempt from the
current quotas employer-sponsored immigrants with a master's
degree or higher.
In addition, Congress can raise the quotas for H-1B
temporary visas and green cards and eliminate per-country
limits for employment-based immigration.
This is the package of reforms the Senate approved last
year when it passed Senator John Cornyn's skill bill as part of
the larger immigration bill, and Congress can simply return to
those key reforms made in that bill rather than engage in
wholesale reform of the immigration system.
Denying U.S. citizens the ability to sponsor adult
children, parents or siblings is both unnecessary and
politically divisive. The bill the Senate passed last year
raised quotas for both family and employment-based immigration,
and Congress can do so again this year.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stuart Anderson
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
Thanks to all of you for your testimony.
We will begin our questioning now, and I will start off on
that point.
I would like to ask you, Mr. Anderson, if you could
comment. Congressman Gingrey has described a situation where
aunts and cousins immigrate, ending up with 273 people per
employment immigrant. Can you comment on that?
Mr. Anderson. Yes. I think the example that I gave is more
typical of what would happen even under sort of a tight
situation, in which it would take 29 years to perhaps 50 years,
depending on the country, for even getting from the first to
the third immigrant.
So again, I am sure Dr. Gingrey, put the numbers out there
in good faith. I am just not sure how you would get numbers of
that magnitude.
And also, any numbers you would have would have to come in
under the quotas that Congress has already legislated.
So I think that the whole idea of chain immigration, not
specifically the example the Congressman gave, is meant to
conjure up these hordes of people, you know, coming into the
country one after another, when what you are really talking
about is many, many years from going from one to the second to
even the third family member.
If, as Mr. Hing talked about, even if there is a decision
made to----
Ms. Lofgren. So that couldn't--well, I mean, it could
happen over time, but Congress currently is controlling that
through controlling the numbers per category per year.
Mr. Anderson. Right. There are some particular categories.
And again, I just think the term, you know, gets to be a little
misleading.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Hing, you have testified about the history
of this whole situation. The Department of Labor has actually
told us, and we have received testimony today, that immigrants
have a much higher rate of entrepreneurship than native-born
Americans, and that a large majority, they say, of immigrant-
owned businesses in the U.S. are individual proprietorships and
family proprietorships.
I am wondering whether, if we were to accept the
immigration proposal to dramatically reduce the impact or
permission of family-based immigration, would this have an
impact on the small-business development in the United States,
in your professional judgment?
Mr. Hing. Absolutely, Madam Chair. The people that would be
prevented from coming in are those that are starting small
businesses. And as all of you know, most of the employment
creation in the United States is done at the hands of small-
business owners.
And so, those that we would be preventing from coming in
are the moms and pops, and sons and daughters, and brothers and
sisters who actually represent the spirit of entrepreneurship,
who go into dilapidated neighborhoods and demonstrate the work
ethic that all of us are very proud of.
Ms. Lofgren. Congressman Gingrey, we do appreciate your
willingness to spend time with us. I know all of us have very
busy schedules, and it is a great gift to us that you would
take time out of your schedule to be here.
In looking at your testimony, I see that it would basically
eliminate the ability of United States citizens to petition for
their adult children and siblings.
And I guess all of us bring to our legislative task our own
personal history. I have a 22-year-old son in addition to a 25-
year-old daughter. I am wondering how eliminating my ability as
a U.S. citizen to bring my 22-year-old son here is consistent
with our sense of family values in America.
Mr. Gingrey. Madam Chair, in regard to limiting your
ability to do that, certainly your adult, 21-, 22-, 35-year-old
brother or sister, who may be from your native country and
still there--an opportunity to be in the queue to come into
this country as a legal permanent resident--and they have that
opportunity. And they still have that opportunity.
I want to respond to the gentleman, Mr. Anderson. He talked
about these hordes of people that Congressman Gingrey referred
to, and I want to, for the record, just--and I will be glad to
give Mr. Anderson a copy of this.
This is the hordes of people, Mr. Anderson, under the chain
migration policy that now exists and how the 273 in the
extreme, over a 15-year period, get here. Many of them may have
great skills, but a lot of them have very little skills.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, if you will give that to Mr. Anderson, I
am sure he would appreciate looking at it. Somebody may ask him
about that.
And I see my time has expired. I would just say that, in my
judgment, turning 21 is not a valid criteria for separating
parents from their children. But that is just my opinion.
The Ranking Member is now recognized for his 5 minutes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, I would reflect with Congressman Gingrey, 5,200
babies, that would be a baby a week for a century, so you must
have been busy some of those weeks. And that is quite an impact
on society, and I compliment you for that.
I would ask you if you could make some more expansive
comments on the 273. It is my understanding that that actually
could be significantly larger, but the spreadsheet just didn't
accommodate going beyond this to other generations.
And also, the cultural question of--I mean, I look across
at my family, at many of the families that I know, my
relation--we are scattered all over the country and other
places in the world. And we stay in contact through e-mail and
a lot of other ways, and we travel and have family reunions to
get together. That is the American family. The American family
is dispersed.
And so, isn't it reasonable to expect that people that
arrive here as immigrants, who would assimilate into this
culture, might adopt those same kind of dispersed family
values, that we cherish our families, but we also take on our
responsibilities and make career decisions accordingly?
Mr. Gingrey. Well, of course, many of the people that come
into this country are Asian immigrants, are immigrants from
south of the border, are Latino immigrants, have great family
values, there is no question about that. They also tend to have
large families.
And again, my feeling, my bill that I have introduced, H.R.
938, the Nuclear Family Priority Act, honors that philosophy.
And I don't disagree with my co-panelists on that.
But again, I mean, if you look at these numbers in the
extreme, and the fact that we already have 12 million illegal
here, and if each one of them could, by this family
reunification policy since 1965, in the extreme, bring in an
additional 273--and it does, in fact--Mr. Anderson mentioned
that it counts against the quota system.
Absolutely, so that people waiting in line to come here,
skill-based applicants, are pushed further and further behind
in the queue and may never get to this country to bring their
skills here.
Mr. King. Thank you, Dr. Gingrey.
I would then turn to Mr. Hing, and you made a statement
that there are racial implications behind getting rid of some
of the family reunification.
And if we would look across the history of immigration in
this country, there have always been, of course, racial
implications, because people come--and I think we really mean
not so much racial implications as we do national origin
implications or perhaps ethnic implications.
But as people come from different places, obviously, they
bring with them a certain label that their geographic source
has established with and for them and on them.
But would it be possible to discuss the kind of policies
that are being advocated here--the reduction in the amount of
family reunification, for example--could one do that without
having racial implications? And how do I do that?
Mr. Hing. Well, the way you do it is by indicating that you
are not going to eliminate categories that have the substantial
effect on particular racial groups.
Mr. King. But won't that allegation always be made? If we
change categories, adjust categories or eliminate them, aren't
there always implications that the allegation can be made by
persons such as yourself continually throughout this debate? Or
could you help us find a way not to?
Mr. Hing. Sure. I will be happy to. The way you do it is by
having a first-come, first-served system. And if you are
willing to go that way, then I think the----
Mr. King. Okay, but I am interested in putting it on merit
so that we can have young, skilled, trained people that are
going to contribute to this economy for a long time. Now, can
we do that without racial implications?
Mr. Hing. Sure, we can. We can look at it in two different
systems, the way we have now--with all due respect to Dr.
Gingrey, when he stated that labor immigrants are put at the
back of the line because family--it is two different systems.
The 140,000 visas for the labor and economics are a completely
different system. They are handled autonomously.
So yes, you can handle the labor issue and the employment
issue separately, as it already is structured, and handle the
family system separately, as it is handled today.
Mr. King. Can I ask you to just present a document to this
Committee that would outline those thoughts on that? I think
that is going to be really instructive for us, because there is
friction there.
And if there is good, clear policy we can do with avoiding
that friction, I think that would be very constructive.
Mr. Hing. Yes. There is no reason to put those two issues
in opposition.
Mr. King. Okay. Thank you. I am watching the yellow light
here.
Another question I wanted to ask you is that pretty much
the statement has been made here by yourself and a number of
others about all who come here--I will say this: All who work
in this economy contribute to the GDP. Would you concede that
statement?
Mr. Hing. Sure.
Mr. King. And then the follow-up to that is--because every
time someone pays a dollar it gets added. And I agree with
that. But is there such a thing as nonessential work in this
economy?
Does it get to the point where some people work so cheaply
that people who would otherwise not have someone weed their
garden or mow their lawn or trim their trees or wash their
windows, things that they would do themselves, how large a
sector might that be? How large is the nonessential sector of
this economy?
Mr. Hing. I think that everyone who is paid a minimum wage
contributes to the GDP. There is no debating that.
Mr. King. Would you concede there is a nonessential sector?
Mr. Hing. It depends on how you define it.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Hing.
Madam Chair, I would yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
I turn now to our colleague, Mr. Luis Gutierrez, for his 5
minutes.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
I guess we are going to have to have at least somewhat of a
discussion of the concept of family and how people view family.
And I would just like to ask Congressman Gingrey, I have a
relative expectation that I live in Chicago, and that my
parents are in Chicago, and that my children are going to be
around, and so I decide to live there. This is a decision that
I make. And I think I am pretty reflective of a lot of
immigrant communities that tend to live together and tend to
think of even their jobs and where they are going to go.
Do you see anything fundamentally wrong with that?
Mr. Gingrey. I don't think there is anything fundamentally
wrong with it. I would say that taken to the extreme that it
hurts our assimilation into our society, and I think it has the
potential for hurting that community and that family.
Mr. Gutierrez. I don't understand how it would hurt our
assimilation. My parents only spoke Spanish. I only spoke
English. The fact that I was their child actually helped them
assimilate.
I am actually different than they are, and my children are
different than I am. We share some commonalities, but we are
actually different, in that I had to send my daughter to a
special school so she would learn Spanish, given that neither
my wife nor I speak Spanish in our household, yet both of her
parents spoke Spanish and both of mine did.
But we have continued to live together. Actually, we have a
very rich bilingual tradition.
And I checked with my daughter, and she told me it was
rather expensive at the university to take Spanish classes and
that all her friends who come from non-Hispanic families are
taking Spanish classes because they say it is the great thing
for the globalization of our economy and our hemispheric
traditions in terms of our economy here.
Because Mr. King said that it was bad, that it would stifle
our economy. I really haven't seen it stifle our economy.
In Chicago, the second-largest tax stream of city tax
dollars after Michigan Avenue, the Magnificent Mile, is 26th
Street in the immigrant community, only followed by the Koreans
on Lawrence Avenue.
So if anything, there are large streams of monies coming to
the city of Chicago from those immigrant communities. And part
of the basis is they live there because their family is there.
They have a great tradition of families.
And so I don't quite grasp this thing, this notion, almost
as though it is good that people scatter across America. A lot
of times, people don't want to scatter across America. A lot of
times, people think it is important that they live together.
I mean, we don't live in the same neighborhood, but we live
in the same city, and the proximity of one to another really
gives us a great deal of stability, gives us a lot of
stability, because we have obviously a community that we all
live in.
And I would just like to follow up on Chairwoman Lofgren's
point about her children, and I think that in America, Mr.
Gingrey, as we look at America, more and more, we find that our
children are coming back to live--not me, but children are
coming--it is just happening across America.
And it is not just anecdotal evidence that my friends still
have 27-year-olds and 28-year-olds and 29-year-olds coming back
to live with them. The fact is the concept of family even in
America is changing.
When I left home at 19, I left home. It was a different
time. My 19-year-old isn't me when I was 19 years old, nor do I
want her to be. It is a different time.
I expect that my kids are going to be around a lot longer
than I was with my parents, and that, indeed, I was with them
longer than they were with theirs. It is progress, in many
senses, that they stick around longer.
So even if we look at America--that is, those of us like
you and I that were born here in this country and are native-
born citizens, we find that our children stay with us well
beyond 21 years of age.
And there isn't some kind of--how would I say it?--
automatic, or--I am trying to think of the word, Congressman
Gingrey, but some kind of automatic cutoff when they are 21
years of age. They continue to be our children.
I have looked at your chart, and I have to tell you that in
my practice as being a Member of Congress and having a huge
immigrant community, it take 100 years before you got to the
end of that chart. I am serious.
It just would take--people come here. They become permanent
residents. It takes 5 years as a permanent resident before they
can become a citizen.
The backlogs are between a year to 2 years, so your
expectation, even if you did it, would probably be about 7
years. And then you have to stay there. And then it takes 5
years to become a citizen of the United States.
I mean, it takes a while. Do you know what the waiting
period is on your chart for an American citizen sibling in the
Philippines, for my brother, a brother or a sister? It is 24
years. For Mexico, for a brother or sister, it is about 14
years, 15 years.
So even if you carried this thing out, given the caps that
we currently have--and I practiced this a lot in the office,
because I was sharing with Mr. Berman, people came up to me
when I first got elected to Congress and they said, ``Well, I
would like to apply for my brother.'' And I said, ``Well, do it
now. In 13 years, their visa will be available for them.''
I see them now, and they regret the fact they didn't apply
for their brother. I mean, it is so long--I am sorry, my time--
it is so long, Mr. Gingrey, I assure you that people don't
apply for their siblings under this chart because they have no
realistic expectation that it is going to happen in the scheme
of things in a prudent amount of time.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert?
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And I appreciate the witnesses here today.
One comment that was made earlier about, you know, the
United States separating the family--and just in fairness, it
would seem that whoever it is that decides to leave a family in
another country and come to this country would be the one that
make the decision to consciously separate the family.
I know in this day and time it is good to apparently
politically beat up on the United States, but I would think
that, to be fair, whoever decides to leave the family and the
home makes that first decision.
Now, one of the things the Chairwoman had started was a
hearing on the immigration service, and I think it is doing an
atrocious job of getting applications through their service.
And that is something I hope we continue to have hearings
on, because that is so grossly unfair. Any Member of Congress
that assists people with visas and opportunities to come into
this country knows we are talking years.
And my friend, Mr. Gutierrez, makes a good point. I mean,
we are talking years from so many places.
But, Dr. Gingrey, you--and I apologize for being late. You
had mentioned, or someone had referred to your mentioning 273
as a chain migration, and knowing you, I know you don't just
toss out information lightly.
Could you give a basis for getting to that number?
Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Gohmert, yes, I would be happy to,
Representative Gohmert. These numbers come from Dr. Robert
Rector and NumbersUSA.
Dr. Rector is a fellow at The Heritage Foundation and has
published a white paper, and I think soon in book form, on the
fiscal cost of low-skilled households to the United States
taxpayer. That is where these numbers come from.
I don't have any reason to believe that the hordes of
people that Mr. Anderson say do not exist indeed do exist.
And I will be glad to share this with all the Members of
the Committee and with my colleagues----
Mr. Gohmert. Is that part of the record?
Mr. Gingrey. That is part of the record. It is.
Mr. Gohmert. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Gingrey. And I also want to say, in regard to Dr.
Duleep--I am sorry, I probably mispronounced--Dr. Duleep, I am
sorry--in regard to that--but talking about the fact that the
immigrant families are the ones that are the small-business men
and women that create the businesses, and that, in fact, family
reunification policy of bringing people in this country is
probably better economically for this country than to bring in
skilled workers, who are waiting in the queue and sometimes
never get here because of all the others that come before them
in the queue by virtue of family reunification based not at all
on their skill level--the statistics that Dr. Rector has
presented shows that so many of these--probably not the family
of Representative Gutierrez, but so many of these that come
under family reunification are either already high school
dropouts or will become high school dropouts.
And even if they are working in this country and at a
decent wage, and paying all of their taxes, which many are,
they are probably on average, particularly the high school
dropout category, paying about $10,000, $11,000 worth of State,
local and Federal taxes and receiving about $30,000 worth of
benefits.
So when we start talking about GDP and contribution to this
economy, those are the numbers that you have to----
Mr. Gohmert. Well, my time is about out, and I appreciate
that.
I would just like to point out--and I know it is not good
to generalize with respect to national origin or races, but my
experience with Hispanics in Texas, in east Texas, has been
that they give me new hope.
I have seen over the last 40 years a tremendous breakdown
in the family, in people's belief in the God that was cited by
our founders, and I find extremely hard-working ethic, intense
loyalty to families and intense loyalty to God, and I think
those are three things that have made America great. So I am
hopeful that that will be the strengthening of America by that
kind of influx.
But I am very concerned that we are encouraging a small
element to come in, have children in our hospital, and then
start a chain migration of those who are not the most hard-
working people. And any facts that anyone has to support what
we can do to help our neighbors to the south to promote a good,
strong middle class I think would be the thing to do.
But I appreciate you all's testimony.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Berman, the gentleman from California?
Mr. Berman. Dr. Gingrey, an illegal immigrant arrives here
on May 8, 2007. Can you tell me the year that the 273rd member
of his family gets here?
Mr. Gingrey. Representative Berman, if these statistics are
accurate, and I feel that they are, then that year would be
2023.
Mr. Berman. That is nonsense. I mean, it is impossible.
There is nothing I have read in what you have passed out that
would lead me to that conclusion. But let's leave it at that.
I do want to repeat one point, because you said it several
times now, notwithstanding Professor Hing's point. The people
coming here under labor petitions do not--we authorize a
certain number of those visas every year. They are not
dependent on what the backlog is or what the petitions are for
family-based immigration. They are in a separate line. The
country quotas may have impacts, but the line is a separate
line from the family-based immigration.
But I would like to ask--I appreciate very much the
testimony. Several of you have had a chance--I don't know about
chain migration, but certainly there has been a chain of
immigration reform proposals, and at least two of you on the
panel I have worked with for a very long time on these issues.
But I would like you to think a little bit outside the box.
Accepting what you say about the benefits, the values, the
economic studies regarding legal immigrants--I think we have
had some mixup here between profiles of people who came here
illegally and legal immigrants in some earlier comments.
But what is going on right now is that we are being told
there is a tradeoff here, for those of us who think the present
situation with illegal immigration is really a national crisis,
and we have to deal with it.
And part of dealing with it is finding a way to change the
status that the only realistic and the only sensible policy is
to deal with status adjustment for the 12 million or however
many it--that we are going to have to deal with this whole
issue of the existing legal immigration system, the ``problem
of chain migration.''
Can you, off the top of your heads, or given the thought
you have already given to this, create a system of points that
deals with skills and education and family relationships in
such a fashion that still maintains many of the strengths of
the family-based system of immigration, but turns it into a
context of a point system that might give us something to work
with as we are faced with a choice of either thinking about
revising legal immigration or walking away one more time with
the problem of dealing with, in a sensible, comprehensive
fashion, the issue of comprehensive immigration reform?
Do any of you have any thoughts of fundamental adjustments
that could be made in the present legal structure of
immigration and a conversion to a point system that could be
less devastating to the strengths of the current system? And
would you share them with us?
Ms. Duleep. One idea would be to follow part of the path of
Canada, which is they have essentially done away with these
occupational skills categories where you are filling specific
gaps, and to reward education per se.
I feel a little bit uncomfortable with what is more
valuable to the U.S., a highly educated or a poorly educated
person. Do we need another highly educated doctor or is it
useful to the economy to have somebody who helps take care of
my children so that I can work?
But given the concern about education levels, that would be
an alternative path.
And actually, with Canada, if you compare the Canadian
system with the U.S. system, before they made this change, they
had a system that was heavily based on occupational skills, and
we could find no effect on education levels between comparing
the U.S. and Canada.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired, so if each
Member could very quickly answer. We are making up for cell
phone time here.
Mr. Hing. Well, we actually sort of have a point system
right now. That is one way of looking at it, is that we
actually give extra points to certain relatives and extra
points to people with certain job skills.
So if you are going to define it as a point system, then I
would retain a very similar structure in terms of how much
credit you get for certain kinds of relatives.
Mr. Anderson. Right. I would say, again, yes, you would
have to give a lot of points for the family. Ironically, then
you would actually have this competition between family and
employment.
What I would say is that businesses, you know, U.S. high-
tech companies and others, are not clamoring in any way, are
not asking to have this type of point system. I mean, they want
to be able to hire specific skilled people. I mean, so it is
really not clear to me that it is economically beneficial,
really, in any way to just have a lot of moderately or above-
average-skilled people who are individually coming into the
country seeking jobs.
Companies want to hire specific skilled people. So if
anyone is in favor of helping on this, and they are concerned
about skilled immigrants, they should be in favor of what
Senator Cornyn and others have talked about in terms of, you
know, increasing the employment-based quotas on their own.
Ms. Lofgren. Congressman Gingrey?
Mr. Gingrey. Well, just to try to answer it quickly, I want
to refer back to the comments Mr. Berman made in regard to
counting against a quota system. In the family reunification,
spouses and dependent children do not count.
But when we get into--and I agree, Mr. Berman, this is the
extreme situation. And you say it would never happen. But in
1986, when we had 4 million amnesty program, we never thought
that 25 years later we would have 12 million that came in
illegally, and that is what can happen in the extreme as well.
Mr. Berman. But chain migration is a criticism of the legal
immigration system. It is not about the issue of illegal
immigrants. Comprehensive immigration reform is trying to fix
that.
I have more than exceeded my time.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. I am sorry. I just walked in, and I will
defer to the next in line.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much.
I don't think this is an easy issue or an easy question or
series of questions to answer, frankly. And I started working
on this issue back in 1979, shortly after we went to the new
vision of our overall immigration policy.
But let me just ask this. I happen to be one who has
supported family unification as a major element of immigration
policy. But I don't think, really, that is the question. The
question here is, how far do you extend family preference?
And I am sorry I was not here to hear all of your
testimony, but I would just like to ask each of you this. What
is inconsistent with believing in family reunification in terms
of nuclear family but making a decision that family preference
immigration, as we see it, I would say other than spouses,
ought not to be limited?
I mean, it seems to me when I hear from people, they seem
to sense that, yes, it makes sense to have immediate family,
but as they see it, extended family in terms of family
preference is going out too far.
And I would just like the four of you to respond to that,
please, because that is what I hear from people, and that is
the sense I have.
And when I look at what has been suggested of the
negotiations with the Senate, what the Administration is
talking about, they are talking about making changes in the
area of family preference as opposed to immediate relatives.
Ms. Duleep. Well, I would remind everybody of the point
that Dr. Hing made, that, in a sense, when we look
historically, there were not restrictions. And why are these
restrictions being brought up now? That is one thing to keep in
mind.
Mr. Lungren. Can I just respond to that? I mean, look, we
have millions of people who want to come to the United States.
So when we make one judgment here that is positive for
somebody, that is necessarily a negative judgment for somebody
else in terms of who all gets in.
So I suppose one of the questions is should the family
preference beyond immediate relatives be the overriding
principle behind our immigration policy when we have got to
realize yes, those folks are getting in, but that presumably
means other folks are further down the line.
Ms. Duleep. Well, two things. One, siblings, for instance,
do have an economic advantage. The effect of siblings on
immigrant self-employment is larger than any other variable,
including education.
Secondly, as we have been trying to state, there doesn't
need to be a conflict between these two, but there can be
unintended consequences. One of the interesting findings we
found from our research is that people come in on the basis of
occupational skills and people who come in as siblings have a
positive effect on education.
And what is happening is that people come in on
occupational skills and bring in their siblings. If you make
the U.S. unattractive in terms of that people cannot have their
families here, you may have an inadvertent effect that was
unanticipated.
Mr. Lungren. I didn't say can't have their families here.
We are talking about extended families.
Ms. Duleep. No, but you mean siblings, for instance.
Mr. Hing. Yes. I think, Congressman, this is partially a
debate over what the nuclear family is, and, you know, I and
many other people include it to define children that are above
the age of 21 and brothers and sisters.
I had a debate with an immigration judge that you may know
in San Francisco that retired a few years ago, Monroe Kroll,
over this very issue. And after our conversation, he realized,
``You know what? I see what you are talking about, because I
like my sister. She lives in New York. But if she lived across
an international boundary, I would feel differently.''
And so that is partly what the debate is. And I think that
we ought to resolve it in favor of, not an expansion, but
recognizing nuclear family to include siblings and adult sons
and daughters.
Mr. Lungren. Well, in the work done by Dr. Duleep, you
found that Canadian immigrants are younger and more language
proficient than their U.S. counterparts. Then you go on to say
these advantages do not translate into superior earnings power.
What about language proficiency? Is that irrelevant to
overall impact of immigration?
Ms. Duleep. It appeared to be irrelevant comparing Canada
with the U.S. We also found that English language proficiency--
over time the earnings profiles are very high. So somebody will
have an initial disadvantage, but that disadvantage disappears
over time.
Mr. Anderson. I would say that--what Mr. Hing has talked
about. There is a little bit of a cultural issue here, where I
think a lot of ethnic families do consider their brothers and
sisters and certainly children over 21 a real integral part of
their families, as well as their parents.
I also say the numbers really aren't that large. When you
are looking at the married and unmarried adult children of U.S.
citizens, you are only talking about 2 percent each of the
whole U.S. legal immigration system. And for siblings, it is
only 6 percent.
And again, it is not really mutually exclusive to increase
employment-based immigration. In fact, I hope everyone who has
been criticizing family immigration will come out strongly in
favor of employment-based immigration, since that seems to be
the implicit argument.
And again, companies are interested in hiring specific
skilled people. I am actually a little concerned. I don't
really understand why the Administration has decided to come
out, or at least in theory may be coming out, favoring, really,
a much more bureaucratic approach rather than something that is
more family-based or employment centered.
Ms. Lofgren. We don't want to cut off Congressman Gingrey
for a quick response.
Mr. Gingrey. Madam Chair, thank you so much. I really
appreciate that.
I just want to point out that my youngest child, my adult
child, lives in New York. She could just as easily live in
France or in Mexico. I would see her just as often. She is just
as much an integral part of my family. She doesn't have to live
in this country necessarily to be there.
The doctor at the beginning said, why did we bring up these
restrictions now? What is the big problem? Well, I will tell
you. The fact is that we had 250,000 immigrants in 1976. We
have 1,100,000 in 2006. That is the problem.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
And I would note that sometimes I feel the same way about
my 22-year-old and how often I see him.
But I would recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms.
Jackson Lee, for her 5 minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairwoman very much, and we
are building blocks in terms of the hearings that we are
having, and I am appreciative of this one as we pursue this
question of family reunification.
And I do want to acknowledge the work of the Honorable
Barbara Jordan, one of the predecessors of my particular
district, the 18th Congressional District of Texas. And I got
to know Congresswoman Jordan, and I know that this report that
she did in a series of reports with the U.S. Commission on
Immigration Reform was certainly one that she exhibited a great
deal of commitment and a great deal of passion and a great deal
of hard work. And I think it is important as we quote from her
and utilize some of her works.
There is some points of this I agree with and some I do
not. But I do think it is important that she started out by
making it known that we are a Nation of immigrants committed to
the rule of law and, as well, that the commission that she
chaired believed that legal immigration has strengthened the
country and that it continues to do so.
We here today are trying to find a way to construct an
effective legal immigration system to work with those who have
come to this Nation for a variety of reasons. Some of them
include economic, but also come for reasons of fleeing
persecution and also fleeing from the devastation of countries
that they have come from.
As I read her report, the commission was sympathetic to
that. They had a variety of proposals that included concerns
about visa overstaying, concerns about how you do employer
verification. But at the same time, I think it is important to
note there was a sense of compassion.
This commission rejected the concept of amnesty, and I am
very glad to say that no matter how our opponents try to
construct the majority's position--and when I say the majority,
the majority on both sides of the aisle that form the majority
who want comprehensive immigration reform--it is not amnesty.
So we build upon that to say that if we are to put a legal
construct in place, then are we to penalize the legal system
against those who would engage in that system to be able to
reunite with their families?
That is the real question before us. And I do want to put
before us a New York Times editorial, May 4, 2007, that had a
quote from the President when he was running for office, George
W. Bush running for President, and he would always give an
answer--or here is a particular quote that was given: ``Family
values do not stop at the Rio Grande.''
And I realize that as my good friend Congressman Gingrey,
Dr. Gingrey, has indicated, all of us could get on airplanes
and visit relatives, wherever they might be.
But the points have been made that family reunification is
not easy. It has not been a pathway of celebration and blooms,
and file one today and you are in tomorrow. It is a tedious,
long effort.
I remember going to Chicago with Chairman Hyde at a point
where we had literally collapsed in terms of the overworking of
the immigration system. People who were attempting to achieve
status legally were surrounding immigration offices, around and
around and around and around. It got to a point where the
Chairman of the full Judiciary Committee at that time did a
hearing to confront the crisis that we were facing.
So I guess, Dr. Duleep, you mentioned the word
``historical,'' that we did not have a history of denying
family. Could you just very quickly recount that history for
us, very quickly?
Ms. Duleep. Well, we did have a history of denying families
from particular regions, starting in the early 1920's. The
national origins act was one where people who could come in was
based on the percentage distribution of the population by
various demographic groups, so----
Ms. Jackson Lee. So when did we change?
Ms. Duleep. Well, then we got rid of that in 1965. We got
rid of that to go to more of a family admissions----
Ms. Jackson Lee. And you believe the basis of moving or
changing was that we found that that harsh process was not
effective or was not humane? Or what was the basis of changing
it?
Ms. Duleep. I think that it was not humane and that----
Ms. Jackson Lee. So we made a considered decision based
upon past history.
Ms. Duleep. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Dr. Gingrey, I notice that your--is this
your bill, the nuclear family bill?
Mr. Gingrey. Yes, it is.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And it limits to the immediate family, and
I guess my question to you would be would this be forever and
ever, or would it be until the time that we get a construct in
place that we have a legal immigration process?
Because I think to deny and put the structure of a nuclear
family, which many of us don't come from, would be a serious
concern. So are you putting a sunset on this, or is this
forever and ever and ever?
Mr. Gingrey. Congresswoman Jackson Lee, there is no sunset
on this, in response to your question.
But let me just say--and this is quoting from your
predecessor, the late and great Congresswoman Barbara Jordan,
and she says it is urged that nuclear family members, spouses
and minor children, become the sole family-based priority.
Those are the words of Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. And I
could go on and quote the commission. But no, there is no
sunset.
Ms. Jackson Lee. My time is up.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's----
Ms. Jackson Lee. If I may just finish--one sentence, Madam
Chair. As I started out, let me say that there are many things
that the Honorable Barbara Jordan has mentioned. Many of them I
agree with.
Others, I believe, in time have changed, and we are now
looking to answer her concerns, which is a legal construct that
is humane and is legal for the immigrants that are here in this
country.
I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Before calling on my colleague from California, I will note
that there are currently limitations on unmarried sons or
daughters to 23,400 visas a year. So that is the number a year.
And I was just telling Mr. King that if you have an
unmarried son or daughter, to visit a U.S. citizen, 99 times
out of 100 they will not get a visitor's visa as an unmarried
child because of the intent to reside burden.
But I would call on Ms. Waters for her 5 minutes.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I first
want to thank you for the intensive work that you are doing to
help us get to immigration reform. And I appreciate all of the
hearings that you are holding.
I was particularly interested in this one, not so much from
the examination of the White House proposal. I am still focused
on those undocumented elderly mothers, fathers, grandmothers
and grandfathers that are in the United States now who are
increasingly feeling at risk.
And I am worried about the separation of these parents and
grandparents from their children and grandchildren with the
emphasis on deportation that we see all around the country. And
we will get to that.
I don't have a lot to say about this White House proposal
except that I just disagree with it. I am from a huge family. I
have 12 brothers and sisters. And I have strong family values.
We don't run around politicizing them and using them as a
way to get elected to office. We are just people who have
strong family values. And we don't consider unmarried 21-year-
olds so adult that somehow they don't need us and that they are
on their own.
And no, our family values have not changed because of
technology. No, many of our family members would not be able to
pick up and run to another country to see our so-called adult
children.
And so I just think that the Bush administration proposal
certainly undermines family values, and it is harsh.
In addition to the elimination of so-called unmarried adult
children of both the USCs and the LPRs, this business of
requiring new applicants from all of those currently waiting in
the backlog with an additional fee of $500 per person--some of
these people have been waiting in line for years.
Why would we do that to them? That is so unkind. And to
nullify the applications of those who applied after 2004, 2007,
people who have been waiting in line even for just 3 years or 2
years, knowing how long it takes, as it has been described here
today, where people have been waiting 10 years, 12 years, 13
years, 14 years, 15 years, this is the most unkind, non-family-
valued proposal that could ever be produced.
And I am hoping that it will be soundly rejected by this
Congress, because I don't think that anybody who holds family
values dear could support something like this.
Now, having said that, I look forward to some protections
for the longtime residents who happen to be undocumented.
And to my colleague from Texas who said that the folks who
left are the ones who should be accused of not having the
strong family values, I would just say that you know----
Mr. Gohmert. Would the gentlelady yield? That is not what I
said.
Ms. Waters. Well, okay, I am sorry. Maybe I
mischaracterized what you said. You said don't blame it on the
United States, blame it on those who separated from their
families and came here. Is that correctly stated?
Mr. Gohmert. I said that is who separated from the family.
Ms. Waters. Okay. They separated. Don't blame it on----
Mr. Gohmert. But I certainly didn't say that----
Ms. Waters. Okay.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady controls the time.
Ms. Waters. Yes. I am modifying, because I want to be sure
that I understood what you said. You said don't blame it on the
United States, they are the ones who separated from their
families.
And of course, we don't have to rehash the fact that people
do seek a better way of life, that poverty will do that, that
hunger will do that. People who are watching their babies die
from lack of medicine, lack of food, et cetera, yes, they will
seek a better way of life.
And unfortunately, many of them did that, and many of them
have been here now for 35 years and 40 years, 50 years. They
have children who were born here. And I am worried about the
deportation and the separation of families.
And why, again, do I worry about this so much? Aside from
having strong family vales, I am an African-American woman who
comes from slaves, where families were separated for economic
reasons, where children were sold off, where relatives were
sent to different parts of the world. And so I feel very
strongly about this.
And I want to thank the Chairlady for her sensitivity and
her focus on this.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Dr. Duleep, when we grant an alien the privilege of
immigrating to this country, do you believe that there is an
inherent obligation to eventually allow their entire family,
extended family, to immigrate?
Ms. Duleep. No, I think a country can decide immigration
policy. And I think that is what is being debated here today.
Mr. Gallegly. No, I just want to get your assessment. Do
you think that that, granting that privilege, we, as a Nation,
in your opinion, have an obligation to allow eventually the
entire family to immigrate?
Ms. Duleep. I don't have a problem with that.
Mr. Gallegly. So you would support that thesis.
Ms. Duleep. Yes.
Mr. Gallegly. Okay.
Dr. Gingrey, you know, we heard a lot of numbers bounce
around, as we always do, and there is that hypothetical 273
number. Let's forget about the 273 number just for a minute.
And there is a lot of talk about amnesty. There is a lot of
talk about comprehensive immigration reform, another code word
for amnesty.
Whatever we call it, if we allow 12 million to 20 million,
depending on what the real numbers are--and none of us really
know. But let's say that we accept the fact that somewhere
between 12 million and 20 million people have no legal right to
be in this country.
And we are not going to do a blanket amnesty, but we are
going to find a way to allow them all to stay and find some
form of legal status, eventually.
Let's say we forget about the 273 number. But
hypothetically, I think it would be very realistic that once
they get that status that they would have probably, in the most
conservative way, a minimum of probably two per individual that
have gained status that would have a family member that would
qualify for reunification or sponsorship or whatever. Is that
fair?
Mr. Gingrey. Yes, that is fair. And really, as I pointed
out earlier in talking to Mr. Berman, yes, this is the extreme.
This is the extreme situation. But this is Murphy's Law. And we
all know Murphy's Law. The extreme can happen.
Mr. Gallegly. But the 273 is extreme. I think that two,
which would be one-one-hundredth that, would be very
conservative. Is that a fair assessment?
Mr. Gingrey. It is.
Mr. Gallegly. Now, if we take the most conservative number
of 12 million that are here now, and not even talk about the 20
million, instead of 12 million coming in under a new form of
immigration reform status, comprehensive, amnesty, whatever
word you want to use, that 12 million translates to a
conservative minimum of 36 million.
How do we deal with that? How do we reconcile that?
Mr. Gingrey. Well, without question, Mr. Gallegly, amnesty
plus family reunification as we now interpret it would, as you
point out, lead to a minimum of an increase of 12 million to
30-something million. And I think your math is accurate.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I would yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Gallegly.
I had a lingering question for Mr. Anderson. And it had to
do with a statement that I heard in your testimony about
immigrants being slightly better educated than native-born
Americans. And I think that has been historically true for over
a century.
But I would ask you, if we provided amnesty or legalized
the 12 million to 20 million that are here, if you would still
be able to make that statement, just speaking about that group
of immigrants--would you then take the position that the
illegals that are here are slightly better educated than the
native-born American?
Mr. Anderson. No. That is not the case. I mean, I do think
that what Dr. Duleep talked about, that once people--and I
think there has been studies on this, that once people gain
legal status, they tend to have a much greater incentive to
invest in their own skills, because they are going to be here
for the long term.
So I think you would see----
Mr. King. Let me ask you, then----
Mr. Anderson [continuing]. You would see some of those
skill levels increase.
Mr. King. With that point in mind, have you studied the
Rector study that studies the households that are headed up by
high school dropouts?
And I know there is a distinction now between legal and
illegal and a slightly different impact, but Mr. Gingrey
referenced that.
Have you studied that----
Mr. Anderson. I have looked at it. I haven't studied it, so
I don't want to comment on whether it is right or wrong.
Mr. King. Has anyone else on the panel taken a look at that
study?
Ms. Duleep. I have read it.
Mr. King. And do you have any rebuttal you would like to
offer the panel?
Ms. Duleep. Well, I think the problem of poorly educated
immigrants can be a problem, but I think that is particularly a
problem where you have groups where they don't have permanence
here, where there is a lot of going back and forth.
So I think to address that issue that people who come here
legally or illegally--that permanent communities should be
encouraged.
Mr. King. Thank you, Dr. Duleep.
I would yield back to----
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Delahunt. I thank the Chair for the time.
As I listen and hear the various perspectives here, you
know, the definition of a nuclear family and the kind of change
that is being proposed by Dr. Gingrey--it could conceivably
have an impact on highly skilled immigrants.
I would, you know, put forth to all of you--and you, too,
Phil--that determinations to come to this country, particularly
if you are a highly skilled worker, could very well be impacted
by denying an individual the capacity to bring his or her adult
children to this country.
I mean, am I making it up? Should we be concerned about
that? I mean, you know, time after time this Committee has made
decisions based on H-1Bs, high-tech, where American
corporations have been aggressively and actively soliciting
specialized skills.
I think I, for one, if I had restrictions on who could come
with me and who could resettle in this country, I would very
well consider opting for employment elsewhere that is
available.
Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Delahunt, if I could respond to that, the
commission, the Jordan commission--and I quote from that
report: ``A properly regulated system of legal immigration is
in the national interest of the United States. Such a system
enhances the benefits of immigration while protecting against
potential harm.''
Unless there is a compelling national interest to do
otherwise, immigrants should be chosen on the basis of the
skills that they contribute to the United States economy.
The commission believes that admission of nuclear family
members--spouses, dependent children--and refugees provide such
a compelling national interest. Reunification of adult children
and siblings of adult citizens solely because of their family
relationship is not as compelling.
In response to your question, I would say, Mr. Delahunt,
that you are much more likely to get a skilled worker, who you
know their skills when they apply, than just take a potluck
from a family reunification, some of whom may be skilled but
many of whom may not be skilled at all.
Mr. Delahunt. With all due respect to my friend and
colleague from Georgia, I know that if I had any skills at all,
and I was living elsewhere, and I had a family where the
children were of a majority age, and because in the bill that
you put forth you denied me the opportunity to bring my family,
I would say, ``Forget it.'' I think we put ourselves in a
position where we lose something.
Would any of the other panelists wish to comment?
Mr. Anderson. Yes. I am not sure we want to set our
immigration system up to encourage the immigration of somewhat
skilled people who don't care about their families. I mean,
that is kind of what we are getting at here.
I mean, what we really want to--I mean, I just go back to
this again, that all this talk about skilled immigration--the
business community, employers, are not in favor of establishing
some new sort of point system or anything like that. They want
to have an expansion of the current system. They don't want to
have a divisive fight over family immigration.
And they also believe that, you know, when executives come
here, if their children are over 21, they aren't going to get
them here, and you are not going to get some of the foreign
investment that might take place if people know that their
children aren't going to be able to----
Mr. Delahunt. Reclaiming my time and going back to my
friend from Georgia, you indicated 250,000, I think it was in
1975, and a million now. But these are all legal immigrants, is
that correct?
Mr. Gingrey. Correct.
Mr. Delahunt. So your problem is you think the numbers
coming into this country in terms of legal immigrants are of an
order of magnitude that, you know, we don't need in this
country.
Mr. Gingrey. Well, correct. And I think the policy of this
family reunification is basically a come one, come all.
My friend Mr. Anderson just said that the employers are not
for us restricting this to skilled workers. Maybe not. Maybe a
few of the miscreant employers would love to see more and more
unskilled workers come so they could pay them low wages.
Mr. Delahunt. Well, again, reclaiming my time, I just
wonder where our economy would be if we had stayed at that
250,000 figure as opposed a million legal workers or legal
immigrants coming into this country now and adding to the GDP.
Professor Hing? I mean, I think that is the debate we are
having.
Mr. Hing. Well, Congressman, you hit the nail right on the
head, because people would make those decisions to not come,
and they wouldn't contribute.
There is a reason why the preamble to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights highlights the unity of family as
the foundation of freedom, justice and peace of the world. It
is because our families make us whole and our families define
us as human beings.
Mr. Delahunt. No, but with all due respect, though, I am
talking about the economic impact. If over the last 25 years or
30 years, we did not have the numbers of legal--not illegal or
undocumented, the legal--immigrants coming into this country to
provide an adequate workforce, what would have happened? Can
you speculate in terms of our national economy?
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired. We will ask
Mr. Hing to briefly respond.
Mr. Hing. Right. The number of jobs that have been created,
top to bottom, construction workers to high-tech, would have
been decreased and the amount of investment would have been
decreased in the United States.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
And all time is expired. I would like to thank all the
witnesses for their testimony today.
And, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative
days to submit any additional written questions for you, which
we will forward and ask that you answer as promptly as you can
to be made part of the record.
And, without objection, the record will remain open for 5
legislative days for the submission of any other additional
materials.
Our hearing today has helped to illuminate numerous issues
concerning family and immigration reform. This discussion will
be very helpful to us as we move forward on comprehensive
immigration reform this year.
We have learned in this hearing that family immigrants are
part of the entrepreneurial picture of the United States and
that the current immigration system actually tracks family as
separate from employment-based immigration.
We know that as we move forward there may be a discussion
on whether to merge those two lists in a point system so that
family immigration and employment immigration would instead be
in competition with each other for visas, and that is something
that this Committee and the Congress must consider very
carefully.
I would like to note also that this, as our eighth hearing,
has shed much light. And I am actually very optimistic that the
information that we have learned here will head us to a
bipartisan comprehensive approach to the issues that face us,
that make sure that our country continues to prosper
economically and culturally and socially.
I would like to extend an invitation to everyone here to
attend our next hearings on immigration reform. The minority at
our last hearing requested under the rules an additional
hearing, which will be held tomorrow in this room at 9 a.m.
We will have two hearings next week, Tuesday, May 15th, at
9:30 in the morning and again at 2 in the afternoon. We will
explore the future of undocumented students and additionally
the integration of immigrants into American communities.
And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
``Chain Migration Under Current U.S. Law: The Potential Impact of a
Single Employment-Based Immigrant'' Chart produced by NumbersUSA,
submitted to the record by the Honorable Phil Gingrey, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Georgia
``Review and Outlook: Immigration Spring,'' an editorial in the
Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2007
Prepared Statement of Members of American Families United and
UniteFamilies, on Family Immigration
Prepared Statement on Interfaith Family Immigration by
American Friends Service Committee, et al.
Prepared Statement of Leslye Orloff, Director and Associate Vice
President of the Immigrant Women Program at Legal Momentum, also
representing the National Network to End Violence Against Immigrant
Women
Letter from the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service to the
Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law
Prepared Statement of Karen K. Narasaki, President & Executive
Director, Asian American Justice Center on ``The Importance of Family-
Based Immigration to American Society and the Economy''
``Admissions of Lawful Permanent Residents (all categories) 2001-2005''
compiled by the Congressional Research Service, submitted to the record
by the Honorable Steve King, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International
Law
``Family-Based Admissions 2006,'' published by the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, submitted to the record by the Honorable Steve King,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,
Border Security, and International Law
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Phil Gingrey,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from Harriet Duleep, Ph.D.,
Research Professor of Public Policy, Thomas Jefferson Program in Public
Policy, The College of William and Mary
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from Bill Ong Hing, Professor of
Law and Asian American Studies, University of California-Davis
Response to Post-Hearing Question from Stuart Anderson, Executive
Director, National Foundation for American Policy