[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE U.S. IMMIGRATION SYSTEM:
THE NEED FOR BOLD REFORMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2021
----------
Serial No. 117-3
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-838 WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair
ZOE LOFGREN, California JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., DARRELL ISSA, California
Georgia KEN BUCK, Colorado
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida MATT GAETZ, Florida
KAREN BASS, California MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island TOM McCLINTOCK, California
ERIC SWALWELL, California W. GREG STEUBE, Florida
TED LIEU, California TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington CHIP ROY, Texas
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida DAN BISHOP, North Carolina
J. LUIS CORREA, California MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon
LUCY McBATH, Georgia BURGESS OWENS, Utah
GREG STANTON, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MONDAIRE JONES, New York
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
CORI BUSH, Missouri
PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chair
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado, Vice-Chair
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington TOM McCLINTOCK, California,
J. LUIS CORREA, California Ranking Member
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas KEN BUCK, Colorado
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania CHIP ROY, Texas
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
BETSY LAWRENCE, Chief Counsel
ANDREA LOVING, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, February 11, 2021
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Citizenship from the State of California....... 1
The Honorable Tom McClintock, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee
on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of California.... 2
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of New York........................... 4
WITNESSES
Marielena Hincapie, Executive Director, National Immigration Law
Center
Oral Testimony................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
Jennifer Hunt, Professor of Economics, Rutgers University
Oral Testimony................................................. 24
Prepared Statement............................................. 26
John Lettieri, President and CEO, Economic Innovation Group
Oral Testimony................................................. 32
Prepared Statement............................................. 34
Peter Kirsanow, Partner, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff
LLP
Oral Testimony................................................. 43
Prepared Statement............................................. 45
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
A briefing report entitled ``The Impact of Illegal Immigration on
the Wages and Employment Opportunities of Black Workers,''
submitted by Peter Kirsanow, Partner, Benesch, Friedlander,
Coplan & Aronoff LLP........................................... 51
Statement of Wade Henderson, President & CEO, The Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights, submitted by the
Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Member of the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Citizenship from the State of Texas for the
record......................................................... 120
Items submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the
Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of
California for the record
Statement from the Alliance for Immigrant Survivors entitled
``The Needs of Immigrant Survivors and Comprehensive
Immigration Reform''......................................... 132
Statement from the Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC).... 137
Statement from Boundless Immigration Inc....................... 141
Statement from Bridges Faith Initiative (BFI).................. 143
Statement from Church World Service (CWS)...................... 150
Statement from Cities for Action entitled ``A Vision for
Immigration Action''......................................... 151
Statement from the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Los
Angeles, California (CHIRLA)................................. 175
Statement from First Focus Campaign for Children............... 179
A report entitled ``Interfaith Framework for Welcoming and
Supporting Migrants, Immigrants, Asylum Seekers, and
Refugees,'' Interfaith Immigration Coalition (IIC)........... 184
Statement from Kids in Need of Defense (KIND).................. 216
Statement from the National Korean American Service & Education
Consortium (NAKASEC) Network................................. 220
Statement from NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice....... 231
Statement from the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and
Immigration.................................................. 233
Statement from Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Action Fund.. 243
Statement from the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
(RAC)........................................................ 251
Statement from United We Dream................................. 254
Statement from the Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights 262
Judiciary Committee Republican Staff Report entitled ``How the
Biden Administration's Immigration Proposals Risk Undoing the
Successes of the Trump Administration,'' submitted by the
Honorable Tom McClintock, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Citizenship from the State of California for
the record..................................................... 270
Statement of the Honorable Andy Biggs, submitted by the Honorable
Tom McClintock, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Citizenship from the State of California for
the record..................................................... 302
APPENDIX
Items submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the
Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of
California for the record
Statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
(USCCB)...................................................... 306
A letter from Dairy Farmers of America (DFA)................... 319
Statement from the American Federation of Labor and Congress of
Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)........................... 320
A letter from the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).. 323
A letter from the Worldwide ERC................................ 325
Statement from TechNet......................................... 327
Statement from Community Change Action and the Fair Immigration
Reform Movement (FIRM) Action................................ 328
QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD
Questions for Marielena Hincapie, submitted by the Honorable
Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from
the State of New York for the record........................... 332
Response to questions from Marielena Hincapie, submitted by the
Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of New York for the record............ 333
THE U.S. IMMIGRATION SYSTEM:
THE NEED FOR BOLD REFORMS
----------
Thursday, February 11, 2021
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:53 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Zoe Lofgren
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lofgren, Nadler, Jayapal, Correa,
Garcia, Escobar, Jackson Lee, Scanlon, McClintock, Biggs,
Tiffany, and Spartz.
Staff Present: Madeline Strasser, Chief Clerk; Cierra
Fontenot, Staff Assistant; John Williams, Parliamentarian;
Betsy Lawrence, Chief Counsel; Anthony Valdez, Professional
Staff Member; Andrea Loving, Minority Chief Counsel for
Immigration; Kyle Smithwick, Minority Counsel; and Kiley
Bidelman, Minority Clerk.
Ms. Lofgren. The Subcommittee on Immigration and
Citizenship will come to order, a quorum being present. Without
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the
Subcommittee at any time.
We welcome everyone to this hearing, ``The U.S. Immigration
System: The Need for Bold Reforms.''
As with our prior actual meeting, I'd like to remind the
Members that we've established an email address and
distribution list dedicated to circulating exhibits, motions,
or other written material that Members may want to offer as
part of our hearing today. If the Members would like to submit
materials, please send them to the email address that has
previously been distributed to your office and we will
circulate the materials to Members and staff as quickly as we
can.
As mentioned earlier, we have mask guidance, but since
every Member is participating in this hearing virtually, I will
not read the mask guidance.
Finally, I'd ask all Members to mute their microphones when
they're not speaking. That will help us avoid unfortunate
feedback.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
I'd like to welcome our Witnesses and Members of the
Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee to today's hearing on
the need for bold reforms to the U.S. immigration system.
I'd like to start today's hearing by looking back. One of
the first hearings I Chaired on behalf of the Immigration
Subcommittee took place in March of 2007. The topic was the
role of immigration in American society, and we convened that
hearing on Ellis Island, a location that could not be more
fitting or poignant. That day, we examined America's rich
history by reflecting on personal stories of immigrants who
were admitted to the United States through the island's great
hall, many fleeing religious persecution and many others
seeking the American Dream. I shared the story of my
grandfather, who more than 100 years ago boarded a ship from
Sweden and landed in Boston. He had no money and he spoke no
English, but he had fearless optimism and big dreams.
While fearlessness, optimism, and the audacity to dream
continues to drive people to our shores today, so too does
their persecution. In that respect, little has changed from the
Ellis Island era. Today, when it comes to immigration reform,
we remain confronted with many of the same challenges and
questions that we faced in 2007.
With an estimated of 11 million undocumented immigrants
currently living in the United States and a legal immigration
system that has not been meaningfully updated in over 30 years,
and I would add, really maintains the same framework that we
devised in 1965, our immigration laws are in need of reform. So
far, Congress has been unable to rise to the moment. I remain
hopeful that this Congress we'll finally get something done.
In 2019, the House passed two significant immigration
reforms on a bipartisan basis: The American Dream and Promise
Act and the Farm Workforce Modernization Act. We intend to once
again take up and pass these and other important bills.
This Congress, we also have a President who's made it clear
that immigration reform is a top priority for his
Administration. On his first day, President Biden announced an
overview of his bold vision for immigration reform, the U.S.
Citizenship Act. Although actual text has not yet been
unveiled, U.S. Citizenship Act would, among other things,
provide an opportunity for undocumented individuals to apply
for lawful status, modernize the immigration system by
prioritizing family unity and economic growth, manage the
border with smart investments, and borrowing heavily from
legislation I authored last Congress to address the root causes
of migration in our hemisphere, ensure that the United States
remains a refuge for those fleeing persecution.
Our immigration laws are complex and far reaching. With
that in mind, there will certainly be issues that are not
covered in the bill, but the framework alone serves as an
important starting point for today's discussion. It is my hope
that this hearing will create momentum for building a rational,
reasonable, and workable 21st century immigration system that
meets our Nation's needs and prepares us for the future. I look
forward to our discussion today and to hearing from all our
Witnesses.
It's now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock,
for any opening statement that he may wish to provide.
Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Before we took a wrecking ball to our economy last year, we
were enjoying one of the greatest expansions of economic
opportunity in our lifetimes. Unemployment was at its lowest
level in 50 years, the poverty rate was at its lowest rate in
60 years, wage growth was the strongest in 40 years. The wage
gap was narrowing for the first time in many decades as blue-
collar wages began to increase dramatically. The unemployment
rate for women was the lowest in 70 years for African
Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, veterans, and
disabled Americans. Those without a high school diploma,
unemployment was the lowest ever recorded.
The labor participation rate began to increase after years
of decline as workers who'd given up hope of finding work began
seizing opportunities. The participation rate for men between
the ages of 25 and 34 grew for the first time since 1962. Big
business and big agriculture hated this because it required
them to pay higher wages. In the growing economy that it
produced, many more people were prospering than in many
decades.
Tax and regulatory relief obviously explain much of the
success, but the extraordinary improvement of wages for
unskilled and low-skilled workers begs for greater insight.
Could it be that the Trump Administration's success in
restoring control of our borders stemmed the flood of low-wage
labor into the job market that had been suppressing wages for
American workers for decades? We'll soon find out the answer to
that question.
President Biden has signed several Executive Orders in the
last few weeks that together are already producing a new
migrant crisis on the southern border. Customs and Border
Protection agents report that the daily flow on the southern
border has nearly doubled, from 2,000 last month to 3,500 this
month. The number of illegal immigrants encountered on the
southern border during the first 4 months of fiscal year 2020
is roughly 165,000. That number has nearly doubled for the
first 4 months of fiscal 2021 to 297,000.
The effect of these executive orders includes abandoning
the border wall, questioning the long-standing promise that
immigrants should be able to support themselves, releasing
illegal immigrants with minors into the interior, ending the
remaining Mexico policy for those claiming asylum in the United
States after they traveled through other countries where they
could have sought it, granting what amounts to sanctuary status
for a wide variety of criminal offenses, including drunk
driving and sex offenses, and ordering ICE not to enforce
immigration laws for 100 days to have been stayed by the
Federal courts.
Now, apparently, this isn't bold enough for the open
borders left in seeking even bolder actions. I'm sure we'll get
a glimpse of that today. Every American needs to fully
understand the implications of these policies to their own
futures. We're not going to enforce our immigration laws if our
borders mean nothing. If our borders mean nothing, we're no
longer a country; we're just a vast international territory
between Canada and Mexico, both of which, by the way, have
immigration laws that they actually enforce.
I hope my Democratic colleagues will take the time to
answer some basic questions that the American people have a
right to know. How are American workers helped by flooding the
labor market with another wave of illegal immigration? How are
our children, who've been robbed of an entire year of
education, helped by filling their classrooms with non-English
speaking classmates? How are our streets made safer by allowing
aliens who drive drunk to remain on our roads rather than be
arrested and placed in removal proceedings? How is our Nation
made safer by reopening virtually unrestricted travel with
hotbeds in international terrorism? How are our communities
made safer by making it harder to deport criminal illegal
aliens and gang Members? How are our hospitals made more
accessible by overwhelming emergency rooms with illegal
immigrants demanding care? If you're going to advocate for
these policies, you have an obligation to answer these
questions.
I want to conclude on a hopeful note. If the majority wants
to make progress this session, there's not only room for
compromise, but there's also a necessity for it. We do need to
provide legal status to children brought here illegally who
have grown up here and have no memory of their home country,
and we need to reform our temporary agricultural worker
program. We cannot address these issues until we secure our
borders and enforce our immigration laws. Otherwise, we just
invite a new wave of illegal immigration, just like we're
seeing right now. If you want to make progress, the minority's
anxious to start down this road.
I thank you very much. I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair of the Full Committee, Mr. Nadler, is recognized
if he would like to offer and opening statement.
Chair Nadler. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
Although we have many legislative priorities this Congress,
immigration reform is one of the most pressing and complex. The
damage inflicted on our immigration system over the last 4
years has generated a renewed sense of urgency around the need
to enact protections for the undocumented and other critical
measures.
Not only must we get immigration reform done soon, but we
must also get it right. Our approach to immigration will shape
our future in defining who we are as a society. When we thank
the honest, hardworking people who have served our Nation as
essential workers during the COVID pandemic by providing them
with the opportunity to obtain lawful status, will we ease
restrictions from the 1996 laws and allow families to be
reunited and remain together lawfully? Will we choose an
approach that welcomes talented STEM professionals, academics,
and others from around the world to strengthen our economy and
increase our global competitiveness? Will we finally allow
young people who have grown up in this country without lawful
status a full opportunity to pursue the American Dream?
Fortunately, we now have a President who believes the
answers to these questions should be yes. I applaud President
Biden for his bold vision for immigration reform and for making
it a top priority for his Administration.
The benefits of immigration are clear. Immigrants are our
friends and neighbors. They enrich our society, our culture,
and our economy. Just like U.S. citizens, they pay taxes, work,
and support local businesses. It is estimated that the $11
million undocumented immigrants in the United States pay nearly
$12 billion annually in State and local taxes. This number
would only grow if they were provided with the chance to obtain
legal status.
The important role that immigrants play in keeping our
country running has also been laid bare by the COVID-19
pandemic. It is estimated that three in four undocumented
workers are engaged in work that is deemed essential by the
Department of Homeland Security. Further, as more and more baby
boomers leave the workforce, immigration will play a key role
in sustaining our current workforce levels. To maintain and
strengthen our position as a leader among developed countries,
immigration reform must be part of our overall strategy for
economic growth.
Last Congress, the House passed several significant pieces
of immigration reform legislation. These include the American
Dream and Promise Act and the Farm Workforce Modernization Act,
which collectively would provide legal status to an estimated
3.5-4 million undocumented immigrants. We also passed other
bills that are smaller in size but significant in impact.
For example, we passed the NO BAN Act, which prohibits
discrimination based on religion in our immigration system and
prevents executive overreaching suspending the admission of
immigrants. We also passed the Access to Counsel Act, which
would provide important protections at ports of entry to
individuals seeking admission by ensuring they have the ability
to consult with counsel or other interested parties if they are
subjected to prolonged inspection.
It is incumbent upon us to pass these and other measures as
soon as possible and to build upon these successes to improve
our immigration system to the benefit of our country.
I want to thank the Chair, Ms. Lofgren, for holding this
valuable hearing. I thank all of today's Witnesses, especially
my constituent, Professor Hunt, for participating in this
important discussion.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
I do not believe that Mr. Jordan is yet with us. If he is
able to come later, he will of course be recognized if he
wishes to provide an opening statement.
With that, all other opening statements, by unanimous
consent, will be made part of the record. It is now my pleasure
to introduce the Witnesses that we have here today.
First, we have Marielena Hincapie. I probably mispronounced
her name. She is the Executive Director of the National
Immigration Law Center and the National Immigration Law Center
Immigration Justice Fund. She began her tenure at NILC in 2000
as a staff attorney leading the organization's labor and
employment rights program. During that time, she successfully
litigated law reform in impact litigation cases dealing with
the intersection of immigration and employment law. She then
served as the NILC's director of programs from 2004-2008, after
which she became Executive Director.
She immigrated to the United States from Colombia as a
child. She earned her juris doctor degree from Northeastern
University School of Law.
Next, we have Jennifer Hunt, who is a Professor of
Economics at Rutgers University. From 2013-2015, while on leave
from Rutgers, she served as the Chief Economist for the U.S.
Department of Labor and later as Deputy Assistant Director for
Microeconomic Analysis at the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
She is a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic
Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a Research Fellow at
the Center for Economic Policy Research in London. Her current
research focuses on immigration and wage inequality.
She received her Ph.D. in economics from Harvard and her
bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Next, we have John Lettieri. He is President and CEO of the
Economic Innovation Group, EIG. Prior to this, he was Vice
President of Public Policy and Government Affairs for the
Organization for International Investment. He has also
previously served as the foreign policy aide to U.S. Senator
Chuck Hagel, who was then a Senior Member of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. His commentary and research have been
cited in dozens of publications, including the Associated
Press, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post.
Mr. Lettieri is a graduate of Wake Forest University, where
he studied political science and global commerce.
Finally, but not least, Peter N. Kirsanow is a Member of
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. He was first appointed to
the Commission in 2001 and was reappointed in 2007-2013, and
2019. He is a partner at the Cleveland, Ohio, law firm of
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, LLP, in the labor and
employment practice group. Mr. Kirsanow is also a former member
of the National Labor Relations Board.
He received his bachelor's in 1976 from Cornell and his
J.D. with honors in 1979 from Cleveland State University.
We welcome all our distinguished Witnesses and thank them
for participating in today's hearing. I'll begin by swearing in
all our Witnesses, all of whom are testifying remotely. I would
ask that each of you turn on your audio and make sure we can
see your face and your raised right hand while I administer the
oath.
All right. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury
that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to
the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help
you God?
Let the record reflect that the Witnesses have answered in
the affirmative.
First, let me note that your written statements will be
entered into the record in their entirety. Accordingly, I'll
ask that you summarize your testimony in about 5 minutes. To
help stay within that time limit, there's a timer on your
screen, or there should be, to help you keep track of the time.
So, we'll begin with Ms. Hincapie. You will mention your
name so I can pronounce it properly in the future. You are
recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MARIELENA HINCAPIE
Ms. Hincapie. Thank you. Thank you, Committee Chair Nadler,
Subcommittee Chair Lofgren, Ranking Member McClintock, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today.
I am here today because my parents, Arturo and Teresa,
moved from Colombia to work in Rhode Island's textile factories
to give their ten children better opportunities. Today my
family includes educators, health professionals, entrepreneurs,
emerging leaders in finance, climate, engineering fields, and
students.
I'm a naturalized citizen, a lawyer, and the Executive
Director of the National Immigration Law Center. We believe
that all of us, regardless of where we were born, how much
money we have, or the color of our skin should have the freedom
to thrive.
We are at a pivotal moment in this Nation. A historic
number of voters ranging from Black women to naturalized
citizens voted for a President who would unify our Nation and
reclaim the United States' position as a beacon of hope. They
voted for an economy that gives everyone, including immigrants,
a fair shot, and they voted with increasing recognition that
immigrants are keeping our country running through the pandemic
and doing their part to keep our loved ones healthy, and cared
for.
We are at the beginning of a new era. Together with the
combined efforts of the Biden Administration and congressional
leadership, we must deliver on the promise that our Nation has
held for previous generations; we must recognize immigrants are
essential. The Biden Administration and Congress should know
that including immigrants in building a better future is not
only morally and economically sound but also carries strong
bipartisan support from voters across the political spectrum.
Today we will focus on the need for bold reforms. First,
I'll share a few stories of the people whose lives and humanity
make them essential to our country. Take Dr. Abudu, from Ghana
who works as an emergency room physician in California. He came
to the U.S. as a teenager and is saving lives every day. He
says that working in healthcare during the pandemic is hell and
it is heartbreaking. Last month, one of his coworkers, also a
physician, died of COVID. Yet, Dr. Abudu shows up for work
risking his own life to save
others.
Catherine `Ofa Mann from Tonga, is educating Pacific
Islander communities about COVID and working to reduce
transmission rates while encouraging those who need it to seek
care despite their fear. In her words, ``They take care of
their own because they heard that people go to the hospital and
die.''
Then there is Saul Sanchez from Mexico, who lived in
Colorado and proudly worked at a meat processing plant for
years to provide for his family. Mr. Sanchez was hospitalized
in the very hospital his daughter works as a nurse, where he
died from COVID. His family was unable to tell him that they
loved him before he took his final breath.
Like them, there are millions more who you will impact
through your actions. The status quo is simply not acceptable.
We are in the third decade of the 21st century, yet we're still
stuck in a 1980s immigration system. We must find a new way
forward. We need a 21st century immigration system and policies
that begin to address the root causes so that people have the
freedom to remain in their home country. We must create legal
channels so people can move to the U.S. to be reunited with
loved ones, pursue an education or employment opportunities.
Our immigration system must advance racial, economic, and
gender justice equity and inclusion. It's time to end the
dynamic of having immigration status function as the gatekeeper
to accessing basic necessities and rights for all.
We applaud President Biden's visions set forth in the U.S.
Citizenship Act. We call on congressional leadership and
Members of the Subcommittee to support the swift passage of
bold, inclusive bills that will provide a pathway to
citizenship without punitive provisions.
Congress must also recognize the essential workers who are
critical to our recovery and place them on a fast track to
citizenship. The urgency is clear. Each day without legislative
solutions causes suffering, not only for immigrants but also
for their U.S. citizen loved ones, employers, schools, local
communities, and to our country.
Today's immigrants are simply seeking the same
opportunities that generations of immigrants, like my parents
and many of your families and ancestors, have had before them
the chance to build a better future. This is a time for moral
imagination and leadership as we work to safeguard and
strengthen our democracy, heal from racial inequalities and
injustices, and recover from this global pandemic that has
reminded us how interdependent we all are.
The time is now. Immigrants are essential for the soul of
America, and so we must Act boldly together to make good on the
promise of America. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Hincapie follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you so much. The gentlelady's time has
expired. Now we'll hear from Professor Hunt for about 5
minutes. You're recognized.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JENNIFER HUNT
Dr. Hunt. Thank you, Chair Nadler. Thank you, Chair Lofgren
and Ranking Member McClintock. My name is Jennifer Hunt. I'm a
Professor of Economics at Rutgers University where I study the
economics of immigration.
There's a remarkable amount of agreement among economists
as to the impact of immigration on the economy, and this is
reflected in a 2017 consensus report written by a panel
convened by the National Academy of Sciences. I was a member of
that committee, and in my testimony today I'm mostly going to
summarize the main results of that report and while also
pointing out an area which lacked consensus.
So, let me begin with the impact of immigration on the
economy as a whole. When immigrants arrive in the United States
they increase the labor force, thus causing more goods and
services to be produced, which is the same thing as saying that
gross domestic product, or GDP, rises. More subtly, immigration
also increases GDP per capita and GDP per native-born American.
One reason for this is that immigration allows greater
specialization. So, immigrants come with slightly different
skills from native-born workers, and this allows those native-
born workers to specialize more in the things that they're best
at, which raises their productivity. Now, this increased
specialization comes about whether the immigrants differ from
the native born by having higher skills or by having lower
skills than native-born workers.
Another impact of immigration on the economy as a whole is
the increased growth in GDP per capita, and this comes about
because immigrants innovate more than native-born Americans.
Turning to the labor market, the report found that
immigration has no effect on the employment rate of native-born
Americans and no effect on average wages of native-born
workers. However, immigration does have an effect on
distribution of wages. Immigration tends to increase the wages
of native-born workers who collaborate with immigrants in tasks
at work and tends to reduce the wages of those native-born
workers whose skills are very similar to those of immigrants,
in particular, native-born high school dropouts.
Now, let me consider the fiscal impact of immigration. The
report found that both native-born Americans and immigrants are
net beneficiaries of the government because the government runs
a budget deficit, and by government here I mean collectively
State, local, and Federal governments. It is the case that
immigrants are greater net beneficiaries of the government than
native-born Americans.
The main reason for this is that immigrants have more
children and therefore use more public schooling services, and
the report noted that this could be considered an investment
rather than a cost. Immigrants are net contributors to the
Federal Government while being net beneficiaries of State and
local governments, in part because of their greater use of
public schooling, as I mentioned, and in part because State
governments have tax schedules that are less progressive than
those of the Federal Government.
Now, consensus was lacking on the degree to which
immigration reduces the wages of native-born high school
dropouts. My own assessment of the literature is that the
effect is small, but even a small effect is a cause for concern
because the biggest problem of the U.S. labor market over the
last decades has been a lack of wage growth for native workers.
So, policies to raise low wages must be a priority, but
immigration should not be one of the tools used for this end
due to its great benefits to the economy overall.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Dr. Hunt follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Lettieri, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN LETTIERI
Mr. Lettieri. Thank you. Chair Lofgren, Ranking Member
McClintock, and the Members of the Subcommittee, thanks for the
opportunity to testify today.
My name is John Lettieri, and I'm the President and CEO of
the Economic Innovation Group. EIG is a bipartisan research and
policy organization devoted to building a more dynamic and
inclusive American economy.
The United States is a magnet for skilled and
entrepreneurial people the world over. In dozens of fields
immigrants have fueled American dynamism and helped keep our
country young, innovative, and aspirational. Current skilled
immigration policy fails on multiple fronts. It welcomes far
too few workers, it fails to prioritize entrepreneurs, and it
primarily serves to strengthen already successful and fast-
growing areas of the country.
My testimony today will focus on two ways an immigration
reform could deliver meaningful benefits to a broader share of
workers and communities. First, by supporting the development
of economically and demographically stagnant places, and
second, by bolstering American entrepreneurship and innovation.
I'll start by talking about how to better serve struggling
communities. For most of its history, the United States enjoyed
the advantages of a young and quickly growing population.
However, the picture has changed dramatically in the past
decade leaving us with a slowly growing, rapidly aging society.
The latest Census estimates revealed that the U.S. has reached
an unprecedented level of demographic stagnation, some of the
lowest growth rates recorded in the country's history.
The effects of this seismic shift were felt unevenly across
regions and communities. Today, fully 81 percent of counties
have seen their prime working age populations shrink over the
past decade, hitting rural areas and legacy cities the hardest.
The consequences of such steep demographic decline are only
just beginning to take shape throughout the economy.
So, what can be done in response? Alongside policies that
make it easier to start and support a family, immigration
policy is one of the few and most obvious ways to counter
demographic decline. Immigrants, skilled immigrants in
particular, bring an array of benefits to struggling
communities. They fill empty housing stock and bring new life
to neighborhoods.
Where there's a shrinking tax base, they bring fiscal
stability for schools and first responders. Where there is a
dwindling local workforce, immigrants enable employers to
expand. Where there's shuttered storefronts, immigrants start
new businesses and add vibrancy to local commerce.
Unfortunately, current policy does little to connect
skilled immigrants with the kind of legacy cities, small towns,
and rural areas that could benefit most from their presence. To
fix this, EIG has called for a geographically targeted visa
program, a ``Heartland Visa,'' aimed at helping struggling
areas break the cycle of economic and demographic decline. Such
a program would open a new door for skilled workers who meet a
range of needs helping to grow a local robotics hub or fill a
small-town physician shortage, for example.
Instead of relying on employer sponsorship, the heartland
visas would be tied to communities, ones that qualify based on
local workforce and other criteria. To participate, eligible
communities would be required to opt in and commit resources
matched by Federal dollars to supporting new arrivals.
Welcoming communities would rally to attract new arrivals
much as they do for a new corporate headquarters, by showcasing
their local amenities, quality of life, job opportunities, and
growth potential.
Visa holders in turn would commit to settle in eligible
communities for a set period--say, 3 years--in exchange for
being fast tracked for a green card and permanent status. They
would have a wide array of choices for where to settle and full
job mobility within their chosen labor markets. Such a policy
would reject the false choice between compassion and self-
interest by aligning the needs of struggling areas with the
aspirations of those looking to build a better life in our
country.
The second area of focus for my testimony deals with how
immigration reform can support American entrepreneurship. New
businesses are major drivers of job creation accounting for the
majority of net new jobs each year. They're a vital source of
competition and increase demand for American workers.
Immigrants bolster entrepreneurship in two important ways:
First, as noted earlier, they help to counter population loss,
which is shown to hamper business formation; and second,
immigrants themselves are disproportionately likely to become
entrepreneurs. Roughly one in four U.S. entrepreneurs is an
immigrant, and research finds that immigrants are nearly twice
as likely to start a business as native-born Americans.
The overwhelming evidence suggests that we should be doing
much more to boost inflows of skilled immigrants in general and
skilled immigrant entrepreneurs in particular. The U.S. should
establish a new program to provide visas for immigrant
entrepreneurs much in the same way that other advanced
economies have already done. In fact, more than two dozen other
countries have some form of a startup visa to welcome the kind
of talent the U.S. routinely turns away.
Based on everything we know about the impact of skilled
immigration, there is little doubt that a robust startup visa
program would lead to a wealth of job creation and strengthen
the innovation intensive sectors of our economy. It's to our
great advantage that people around the world see the United
States as a beacon of opportunity, but we have simply failed to
apply this advantage to solving many of our most deep-seated
economic challenges.
So, as this Committee considers ways to reform and improve
immigration policy, I urge you to prioritize establishing new
programs that support the economic needs of struggling
communities and bolster American entrepreneurship.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Lettieri follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you so very much. Now, we will hear from
our final Witness, Mr. Peter Kirsanow.
TESTIMONY OF PETER KIRSANOW
Mr. Kirsanow. Thank you, Madam Chair Lofgren, Ranking
Member McClintock, the Members of the Committee. I am Peter
Kirsanow, a Member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and a
Member of the Labor Employment Practice Group of Benesch
Friedlander. I'm here in my personal capacity.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was established pursuant to
the 1957 Civil Rights Act to, among other things, examine
matters related to discrimination and denials of equal
protection. Because immigration and national origin implicate
issues related to race discrimination, the commission has
conducted several hearings over the years related to various
aspects of immigration, particularly illegal immigration.
Among the recent hearings were two that address the effect
of illegal immigration on the wages and employment
opportunities of Black Americans. The evidence adduced by the
commission shows that illegal immigration has a
disproportionately negative effect on the wages and employment
opportunities of Blacks, particularly Black males.
It's important to note that the Witnesses at this hearing
span the ideological spectrum, and while they may have differed
with respect to certain opinions, each and every Witness agreed
that illegal immigration has a demonstrably negative effect on
Black employment rates.
The evidence adduced at the commission shows that the
reason illegal immigration hurts Blacks is pretty basic:
Blacks, particularly Black men, are disproportionately
concentrated in the low-skill labor market and are
disproportionately likely to have no more than a high school
diploma. Likewise, illegal immigrants are disproportionately
low skilled and also disproportionately likely to have minimal
educational levels.
Both of these groups compete against one another in the
low-skilled labor market, and the competition is often most
fierce in those very industries in which Blacks have
traditionally been highly concentrated, such as construction,
hospitality, and service. Blacks frequently lose out in that
competition out by illegal immigrants who are preferred by some
employers for a variety of reasons.
One of the Witnesses in our hearings said, Professor Vernon
Briggs of Cornell's Industrial and Labor Relations School, this
isn't because low-skilled Americans, regardless of race, are
unwilling to work; it's that they're less willing to work for
the cut-rate wages and sometimes substandard conditions that
are often proffered to illegal immigrants, which is a code for
highly unlikely to complain to the EEOC, OSHA, or the Wage and
Hour Division of the Department of Labor.
The competition is often most pronounced in major
metropolitan areas, New York, Chicago, and L.A., but also more
increasingly in southeastern States such as Virginia, North
Carolina, and Georgia. The impact of illegal immigration on the
wage and employment laws of low-skilled workers is especially
severe in today's pandemic.
At the time of the commission's hearings, on average the
unemployment rate for Blacks without a high school diploma was
around 12 percent. However, before the pandemic, Black
unemployment dropped to a record low 5.5 percent. Today that
rate has nearly doubled. Obviously, the supply of low-skilled
workers far exceeds the demand. This bodes ill for all such
workers but particularly Black males.
As President Biden noted in the last few days, quote, ``we
saw the jobs report. Only 6,000 private sector jobs will be
created, and at that rate it's going to take years before we
get to full employment,'' end quote. Research shows that 40
percent of the 18-point decline in labor participation rates
among Blacks over the last several decades is attributable to
immigration. That's hundreds of thousands of Blacks without
jobs.
The evidence adduced at the commission also shows that
illegal immigration depresses wage rates for the available
jobs. As the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta estimated, as the
result of the growth in undocumented workers over the last
couple of decades, the annual earnings of average documented
worker in Georgia in 2007 were $960 lower than they were in
2000.
The leisure and hospitality industries, they were $1,520
lower. Tecent history shows that lax border enforcement results
in the further influx of illegal immigrants, will further crowd
out Blacks and other low-skilled Americans from the workforce.
This inextricably increases the number of Blacks dependent on
the government for subsistence, and it swells the ranks of
unemployed Blacks while reducing the wages of Blacks that do
have jobs.
It's respectfully submitted that before the Federal
Government decides to relax immigration enforcement or grant
legal status to illegal immigrants, serious deliberation be
given to the effects such grants will have on the wage and
employment levels of low-skilled Americans generally, Blacks
specifically.
The evidence adduced at the hearings of the Civil Rights
Commission showed that granting such legal status is not
without profound and substantial costs to American workers.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The statement of Mr. Kirsanow follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, sir. Thanks to all the Witnesses
for their testimony today.
Now, is the time when the Members of the Subcommittee can
ask questions under the 5-minute rule. I'd like to recognize
first the Ranking Member, Mr. McClintock, for any questions
that he may have.
Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Kirsanow, from your testimony, it seems that where is
the distinction between macro- and microeconomics. From a
macroeconomic standpoint, the economy as a whole, the biggest
driver of economic growth is population; but from a
microeconomic standpoint, how it affects an individual in that
economy, is entirely different.
If we flood the market with unskilled or low-skilled labor,
the overall economy will grow. The rich will get richer as
wages are suppressed, but they'll do that at the expense of
unskilled or low-skilled laborers whose wages are being
suppressed. Could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Kirsanow. Sure. What we have here, it's important to
disaggregate the various components of the labor market. As you
indicated, there's certain parts of the labor market that
benefit from--and it's mainly legal immigration, but there's a
devastating effect at the lower strata among people who are
earning minimum-wage jobs or just above minimum-wage jobs from
especially illegal immigration, for the reasons I just
mentioned.
This is especially true right now. This couldn't be--the
vortex of improbabilities in terms of trying to pass some type
of immigration that relaxes immigration laws at least among
low-skilled labor, this couldn't be the worst time because of
the pandemic.
Off in the horizon is the prospect of a $15 minimum wage
that does two things:
(1) It's a magnet for even a greater influx of illegal
immigrants, because we've seen that every time the minimum wage
goes up there's a greater influx of illegal immigrants.
(2) It's going to cause a greater amount of competition
between the two cohorts of illegal immigrants and low-skilled
Americans. Again, as I said before, it's not just Black
Americans, it's all Americans, but it happens to be that Black
Americans are particularly concentrated in a certain area.
There's been a study done with respect to EEOC charges over
the years. If you take a look at some of these EEOC charges
they're quite alarming, where a number of American companies or
employers specifically discriminate in overt ways against
Americans but particularly Black Americans in favor of illegal
immigrants, such as tendering only job applicant information in
Spanish.
On one occasion they said, ``You, Blacks, get out here and
goodbye,'' and then brought in illegal immigrants. Those
specific words were said. So, this is not something that's
speculative. It happens and it's going to happen at a much
greater level in this present atmosphere of pandemic,
unemployment, and prospects that everyone's aware of across the
world that the minimum wage is going to go up.
Mr. McClintock. All right--you requested the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights relating to the displacement of--
Ms. Lofgren. Tom, you have frozen. Okay. Your Wi-Fi froze
for a minute. You're back.
Mr. McClintock. Okay. Very good.
Mr. Kirsanow, I was asking about a specific question on
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights relating to the displacement of
jobs of Black workers, particularly Black males caused by
illegal immigration to that study. How many fewer jobs for
Black Americans came as a result of the competition from
illegal immigrants?
Mr. Kirsanow. I don't recall specifically. I'd have to
refer to the study itself, but we are talking about, over a
course of a 30-year period, about 1.8 million jobs, I believe.
Every year it fluctuates because of the vagaries of the
economy, whether it be minimum wage, whether it be the GDP, a
host of issues. It is a substantial number.
In my day job--for the last 42 years I've been a labor and
employment lawyer--I see this visually every day dealing with
minority contractors who can't bid on a job successfully
because they're employing legal workers that they have to pay
minimum wage or above to, and their competition is employing
illegal immigrants and they underbid them. So, this is a
discrete and powerful problem here in the Black community.
Mr. McClintock. Now, you mentioned that Black employment
declined alarmingly in the three decades prior to the Trump
Administration, 18 points, I think, and you mentioned estimates
of 40 percent that declined--competition from illegal
immigrants. You mentioned that the evidence shows that illegal
immigration depressed wage levels by between $960 and $1,500
annually. Mr. Kirsanow, is this discrepancy because low-skilled
Americans are unwilling to work?
Mr. Kirsanow. No, not at all. As I indicated in my
testimony, we've had Witnesses, including, as I said, Professor
Briggs, who said there is a lot of reasons why some employers
prefer illegal immigrants:
(1) A lot of illegal immigrants are phenomenally good
workers; and
(2) they can pay them less, they don't have to abide by
many of the regulations in the statutes governing employment,
they are less likely to join unions, there's a whole host of
issues.
As I stated in my statement, there are--it's not very
common that you find illegal immigrants filing charges with the
Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. They're not
going to do that. They're not going to be filing charges with
any other alphabet agency, and that's an attractive feature for
some employers.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. Does the gentleman yield back?
Mr. McClintock. I believe I'm over time.
Ms. Lofgren. All right.
Mr. McClintock. Whatever my deficit is.
Ms. Lofgren. Okay. I now would recognize the Ranking Member
of the Full Committee, Mr. Nadler, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Professor Hunt, I want to thank you again for taking the
time to testify at our hearing today and lending your expertise
to the discussion. As a professor of economics, you have
extensively studied the impact of immigration on the economy
and have concluded that it has a net-positive effect.
In addition, you testified that despite the common
perception that immigration has a negative impact on native-
born employment and wages, your research concluded otherwise.
Can you elaborate on your findings, and specifically can you
provide some specific examples of how so-called low-skilled
immigrants benefit the economy?
Ms. Hunt. Indeed. Thank you very much. On this matter, I
can again report on the consensus views of the National Academy
Report. So, one might expect that if that immigration would
either lower employment rates or would lower wages. It could be
one or the other. So, if there is no evidence of lower
employment rates, it may seem as a surprise--come as a surprise
to many that the consensus is no effect on average wages.
There are various mechanisms that can lead to this outcome,
and one I mentioned, it's the ability of native-born workers to
specialize more than before when immigrants arrived. So, the
evidence shows that native-born workers tend to move to jobs
that use communications and English language more intensively.
Now, another factor is that firms can choose which
technology to use in their production, and they choose it as a
function of the composition of the workforce. So, for example,
if there is an arrival of a large number of unskilled
immigrants then what the employers do is adopt a more labor-
intensive technology which can then absorb those additional
lower-skilled workers without the negative effects on the
incumbent workers.
Another factor is, as I mentioned, that there are
offsetting effects of the arrival of immigrants in general. So,
while they expect them to lower the wages of native-born
workers who have extremely similar skills, they're likely to
raise the wages of other workers with whom they have
complementary tasks.
Now, more specifics on the contributions of the less-
skilled immigrants, in addition to this specialization that I
mentioned, they perform services that benefit native-born
workers. So, one that has been well documented, for example, is
that they lower the cost of child care which has led to
increased labor force participation on the part of native-born
women.
I'll use another example. If we think about agriculture,
immigrants with lower skills also contribute a lot to this
sector. In this sector the choice really is between employing
less-skilled immigrants or having increased mechanization of
agriculture. There really is no displacement here of native-
born workers, so it simply benefits consumers of agricultural
products.
Mr. Nadler. Well--
Ms. Hunt. --all of these, yes.
Mr. Nadler. Well, I want to ask some other questions, so if
you can wrap up.
Ms. Hunt. Actually, I'm finished.
Mr. Nadler. Well, thank you.
Ms. Hincapie, let me turn to you. It's clear that if the 11
million undocumented individuals in the United States were
given a chance to obtain legal status and apply for
citizenship, their lives would change immeasurably. You've
spent more than two decades defending and advancing the rights
of immigrants. In your view, what are the most significant
impacts on an individual level that would result from legal
status?
Ms. Hincapie. Thank you, Chair Nadler. Yes, I think there
are a couple of things. One is, we've seen this, for example,
with the DACA program and the success over the last 8 years of
young immigrants being able to get legal status. It increased
wages. They were able to purchase homes. They were able to
purchase cars. They were able to take care of their families
and, most importantly, to pursue their dreams--higher
education, many of them started businesses, and many of them
are working as essential workers, including in the healthcare
industry. So, we see that immediate benefit, not just to them
and their families but also to their employers and their local
communities.
Chair Nadler, I would take this moment to also talk about
the conversation that just took place with respect to wages,
particularly in the low-wage context, which is the fact that
low-wage workers are immigrants. First, there is a recognition
that among the immigrants, many of them are Black immigrants,
and they are experiencing record levels of racial
discrimination in the workplace as well, and in the diversity
of communities that we have.
Second is that the solution to the points that Mr. Kirsanow
was raising, which I completely agree with in terms of the fact
that many undocumented workers aren't coming forward to
complain about wages, etc., the solution lies actually in
making sure that we have robust labor and employment law
enforcement. Pitting groups of low-wage workers against one
another seems like a vehicle really that is used by forces that
are intent on keeping wages low and workers divided amongst
themselves.
The fact is that undocumented workers are not the ones who
are depressing wages or working conditions; it's the employers
that are knowingly hiring them and knowing that they can do so
with impunity, or at least they think that they can do so.
So, for making sure that the answer: First, is
legalization, making sure that undocumented workers are finally
put on a path to citizenship; second, that we reallocate
resources from detentions and deportation to robust labor and
employment law enforcement so that those abusive employers
cannot have an unfair economic advantage against the employers
that are actually playing by the rules. Then typically--
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Ms. Hincapie. Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
We turn now to Mr. Buck, who is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Buck. I thank the Chair, and I just want to make sure
that I mention how proud I was to work with the Chair for the
last 2 years as the Ranking Member, and really felt like this
was one of the Subcommittees that really seeks common ground in
a very difficult area.
I thank you, and I look forward to working with Mr.
McClintock and you in that common ground. There are obviously
going to be areas in immigration where we disagree, and we have
strong feelings, but hopefully we continue to find that common
ground.
I want to just mention one thing that happened in my
hometown, and then I want to give Mr. McClintock the rest of my
time, and really address this to Mr. Kirsanow. The question,
one of the employers in my hometown in the 1990s transitioned
from American workers to undocumented, unauthorized, or
illegal, choose your term.
I would suggest that Mr. Nadler turn off his video before
he undresses. Great.
The effect on the town of probably 70,000, 200,000 people
was that the wages at this particular plant went from $18 $14
an hour. The school district had 35 percent monolingual Spanish
K-5 students. The hospital emergency room--the plant actually
told their employees, gave them a statement in Spanish, tell
your employees that the emergency room was their primary care
physician. The effect on the judicial system. There are all
kinds of effects from this form of immigration.
I just want to ask, Mr. Kirsanow, if you could try to talk
about that a little bit, and then I want to yield to Mr.
McClintock.
Mr. Kirsanow. Thank you. Yeah, my comments were generally
directed toward employment because we had done some studies of
that, the Civil Rights Commission, but there are a host of
adverse effects to having a broad population of illegal
immigrants, one of which is the crime rates. I know there's a
dispute as to this, but we took a look at some numbers, we did
some studies with respect to crime rates.
We're talking--I'm not talking about all immigrants. We're
talking about the cohort of illegal immigrants and especially
male illegal immigrants. When you take a look at--I think it
may be in some of my material.
If you take a look at the some of the largest States in the
United States--by the way, this is difficult to ascertain
because the Federal Government doesn't keep specific stats on
the type of crimes, or the number of crimes committed by
illegal immigrants. You've got to look to State data and then
cross tab it with some Federal data and prison data.
On average, it appears in some States, for example,
California, we were taking a look at homicide rates that
illegal immigrants are up to three times more likely to commit
murder than lawful residents. When you're talking about sex
offenses, I think the level is three times as great also;
kidnapping is four times as great. There's a whole host of
categories where the amount of crime attributable to illegal
aliens far exceeds that of lawfully present Americans. So,
that's one aspect of it.
The effect on the public fisc is also significant. There's
at least one study--and, again, there are competing studies on
this--that the significance of this is there are competing
studies and at least this is something that needs to be studied
even more directly. The effect with respect to the placement of
charges upon the public fisc with respect to medical care,
emergency room care, the school districts, and a whole host of
public services is greater the greater amount of illegal
immigrants in that particular area.
Labor policies--
Mr. Buck. Thank you. Now, I yield time to Mr. McClintock if
I can.
Thank you very much for your response. I appreciate that.
Mr. McClintock, I yield to you the remainder of my time.
Maybe not. Is he muted?
Ms. Lofgren. You only have 36 seconds left.
Mr. McClintock. There we go.
Mr. Kirsanow, you mentioned the fact of illegal immigration
on the prosperity of African Americans, but doesn't that have
the same effect of every race of the unskilled and low-skilled
workers in every race including legal immigrants who are trying
to get into the job market?
Mr. Kirsanow. It does. It has an adverse effect on lawfully
present Hispanics, Asians, Whites, and Blacks. It doesn't
discriminate based on race. What it does do though is have a
more pronounced effect on Black Americans only because that
cohort is far more likely to have the same type of skill sets
or lack of skill sets in educational levels or lack thereof as
illegal immigrants.
So, this is something that's--it's a panopticon. It affects
everyone but Blacks more readily, and then I think--I'd have to
take a look at my data again, but I think the second most
effect of lawfully present Hispanic workers because they are
second most likely to be--
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time is expired. We appreciate
that.
I'd now like to recognize the gentlelady from Washington
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair. It occurs to me as I
listen to this discussion that what we should really do is pass
a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, level the
playing field, and how about we invest in education for all our
American citizens, Black, Latina, Latino, every Asian American,
and White, and then it seems like we would be in a much better
place.
Madam Chair, I am a proud immigrant of this country sent
here by my parents by myself when I was 16 years old and
naturalized after 17 long years. I believe strongly that
immigrants are a crucial part of our Nation working on the
front lines of COVID-19, contributing their skills and talents
to their communities every single day.
The fact that nearly a quarter of the immigrant population
in the United States is undocumented is a failure of our
system, and frankly of Congress, to provide legal avenues for
essential parts of our communities.
I want to focus today on the fact that immigration law
today provides only one consequence for a violation, and that
is deportation. A parent who steals baby formula because she or
he can't afford it may be deportable with no judicial
discretion. There is no chance for people to rectify their
situation or alternative options that meet the scale of the
infraction.
So, Ms. Hincapie, thank you for your work. I want to route
my questions--and I have several of them for you--in the story
of, Many Uch, a Cambodian refugee from my State who escaped
with his mother from the Khmer Rouge and made it to the United
States at the age of eight. Many grew up in a low-income
neighborhood with few resources or support, and like many teens
in his situation, got involved with drugs and gangs as a
teenager.
At 18 he was caught driving the getaway car during a
robbery and spent 3 years in prison. What would be the
consequences for a refugee or any kind of immigrant who was
charged with a crime like Mr. Uch?
Ms. Hincapie. Thank you for your leadership, Representative
Jayapal. Our immigration system generally takes a one-size-
fits-all approach to punishment. There's no proportionality, as
you mentioned, no matter what the crime is. So, someone in
Many's situation would almost certainly be subject to detention
without a bond, and in some cases prolonged detention and
eventually deportation. They most likely would never get a
chance to present their case before an immigration judge.
Ms. Jayapal. Now, Mr. Uch was actually not deported at the
time, thanks to tremendous community outpouring of support for
him and a Republican district attorney that helped. Once he was
released back into his community he married, became a father to
U.S. citizen children, started a little league team, and opened
a youth center to help kids like him stay out of trouble.
Ms. Hincapie, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk
about the importance of second chances, and clearly Mr. Uch
sees that second chance and made the best of it. Would any of
this, ties to the community, community impact change his
deportability? Would a judge be able to look at how he turned
his life around and use discretion like they can for other
people?
Ms. Hincapie. Unfortunately, not. I'm happy to hear from
Many and his loved ones if he was able to do so, but for most
people, the fact that they've turned their life around, etc.,
that does not matter. The judges do not have that discretion.
Ms. Jayapal. Now, I'm incredibly happy to say that just a
few weeks ago Many became a U.S. citizen because he received a
pardon from Washington State Governor Jay Inslee. How common
are stories like Mr. Uch's, and how would a U.S. citizen in Mr.
Uch's same situation be treated?
Ms. Hincapie. Yes. So, unfortunately, they're not common at
all; they're rare. I think it's wonderful that there are people
on both sides of the aisle to see that. Deportation is a one-
size-fits-all punishment that is unnecessarily cruel and costly
both economically and on a human level. So, again, his
situation is common but not the result that he was able to have
eventually.
Ms. Jayapal. So, we're talking about reforms to the
immigration system today. How would a fair system with
scaleable consequences treat a case like Many's?
Ms. Hincapie. This is one of the most complex areas. A
scaleable system would allow us to redefine penalties in
immigration enforcement and ensure that they're proportional
where one could be alternatives to detention, fines, community
service, treatment, programs, and a probationary period, which
really depending on what the underlying action and activity
was.
So, we need a system that provides judges and immigration
authorities with the discretion to take the totality of the
circumstances into account. As you mentioned, this is a time
when our country is engaged in long, overdue bipartisan
discussions about the necessary changes to our criminal legal
system. We should be doing the same with our immigration
system.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. There's really no other area of
U.S. law that just has one consequence, and I think that this
is a critically important area for us to focus on to establish
scaleable consequences that are fair, encourage compliance,
allow for second chances. I have included that in my roadmap to
freedom resolution as a core principle as we look to reform the
system.
Thank you, Ms. Hincapie, for your work, and I yield back,
Madam Chair.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time is expired.
I understand that Mr. Biggs has had to leave. If he comes
back, we will recognize him. Mr. Tiffany is now recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just wondering
if we can do anything about this unauthorized polar vortex that
has hit northern Wisconsin with minus 25 tonight. Can we do
anything about that?
Ms. Lofgren. Well, we can pass a law and make it warm. How
about that?
Mr. Tiffany. Well, thank you for your--thank you for your
time. I'm going to have a question here for Mr. Kirsanow in
just a minute in regard to the Flores decision.
I think when you look back at the last 4 years, we don't
need to go into any theoretical or academic exercise here to
see what changes are necessary. The things that have been done
over the last few years have been very beneficial to those that
live in this country.
When you look at 2019, the highest wage increases for
people, including in the lower-income strata that we've seen in
decades, and that was because of getting control of the flow
across the border, reducing the number of people coming across
illegally from 10,000--1,000 a month last summer, so really
that is a bold reform that truly has worked.
I would say to you that the Biden Administration has made
two very significant mistakes for working-class Americans in
his first couple weeks in office. First, killing the Keystone
Pipeline. Two of the largest pipeline operators in the country
are right here in Wisconsin, and we're going to have hundreds
of people that make very good living that are going to lose
their jobs.
More importantly, down on the border, we have a looming
border crisis that has just come about over the last couple
weeks. In fact, I'm anxious to see if one of my colleagues, who
a couple of years ago went down to the border and showed
herself openly weeping at the cages down there, if she's going
to protest what's going on as a result of the Biden
Administration's activities, when you hear of the caravan
saying, Joe Biden is now President. We can come across the
border whenever we want to.
There is a looming crisis that is happening down at the
border, and I look forward to my colleague, in particular from
New York, going down there and making a big hullabaloo about it
like she did a few years ago.
My question to Mr. Kirsanow is, in regard to the Flores
decision, as someone who is relatively new on this Committee or
new on the Committee, relatively new to the Judiciary Committee
as a whole, could you give us some background on the Flores
decision and why that it is so important to fix that decision?
Mr. Kirsanow. You know what, I'm probably the last person
to answer that question. You'd have to refresh my recollection.
I dealt with it about 2 years ago but not since that time.
Mr. Tiffany. That is no problem.
Then I would like to address the question to--I'm sorry,
the gentleman, his last name starts with a T, and I do not
remember his name and it does not appear on my screen. I wanted
to ask him about the tech giants claim to need high-skilled
employees, but I've heard from some constituents that they've
actually been squeezed out of their jobs that worked in the
computer and tech fields as a result of too much immigration.
Can you comment on that?
Ms. Lofgren. I think it's Mr. Lettieri he's directing that
to. Is that correct?
Mr. Tiffany. Madam Chair, thank you very much. That is
correct. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lettieri. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I fully understood
the question. The question is about skilled immigration and
what happens to American workers with skilled immigration?
Mr. Tiffany. Yeah. There's been talk by some of tech
companies. They've always advocated for more immigration into
this country, and they said we need these high-skilled people.
You see publications like the Wall Street Journal that have
very much advocated for that over the last few decades.
I'm beginning to hear from some constituents who have
worked in the tech field that have worked on computer systems,
those type of things, they say they're now being squeezed out.
Have you heard any stories like that, and how do we ensure that
we don't squeeze out our tech workers also?
Mr. Lettieri. Well, the empirical work on high-skilled
immigration is pretty conclusive when it comes to the benefits
that skilled immigrants bring to our economy. So, setting aside
any kind of anecdotal situations, which I'm not sure I'm
familiar with what you're referring to, the benefits of
immigration are strongest and most clear when it comes to
skilled immigrants.
Now, there's a good debate worth having about the method
for how we welcome skilled immigrants into our economy. My
testimony dealt with two additive areas where I think we've
really fallen short of taking advantage of what is an
incredible national advantage. The fact that skilled and
entrepreneurial people want to be here from around the world is
an advantage that no other country enjoys the way the United
States, does but for that reason no other country squanders in
the way that we do as well.
So, in the same way that we would love to have more
entrepreneurs in our country, we'd love to have more
entrepreneurs, more college graduates, this is a way of really
bolstering our economy on a broad basis and improving life for
a broad array of American workers and communities. There's
clearly ways that we can improve the way that we've welcomed
skilled immigrants to our country.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired. We thank
you.
We'll now turn to Mr. Correa, the gentleman from
California, for just 5 minutes.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you hear me?
Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
Mr. Correa. Thank you very much, Chair Lofgren. Thank you
for holding this important hearing. We know our economy is
better off because of hardworking immigrants, and this COVID-19
pandemic has shown that it is more apparent than ever. It's
been undocumented, unauthorized immigrants that have continued
to work in the fields harvesting our crops, processing our
food, farm workers, sanitation workers, teachers, and childcare
workers that have really kept us alive, so to speak and fed.
So, Mr. Lettieri, I wanted to ask you a question if I can.
About a year ago, before the pandemic, I got a phone call from
a lobbyist from the food processing industry, Mississippi, I
believe is the State. He called me, and I said, ``what are you
doing calling me? I represent California not the south.'' He
said, ``look, you sit on the Immigration Subcommittee,'' and he
said, ``we just had 400 workers deported from our food
processing plant.'' He said, ``the whole town, the whole
region, the economy is shut down completely,'' and he said,
well, ``it's not about wages because all those workers are
Members of the Food and Commercial Workers Union.'' He said.
``the only people that take those jobs are immigrants, not even
the children want to take those nasty jobs.'' Those are the
people we need to import to keep our food processing business
going.
I heard testimony today those immigrants compete with local
American citizens with residents for these jobs. This is not
anecdotal. This advocate for the food processing industry was
pleading for us for help for additional immigrants. Do you say
that's the case? Is it competition or is it just, again, a
structural issue? We don't have those workers in these
industries that take those jobs that Americans just don't want.
Mr. Lettieri. Well, thank you for the question,
Congressman. I'll refer to Professor Hunt's testimony where she
talked about the various ways that immigrants complement or
compete with native-born Americans. It and tends to be, from my
understanding of the literature, it tends to be where a
competition is the strongest, it's where the similarities are
the strongest between the skill set of an immigrant and the
skill set of the native-born worker.
Where there's strong agreement is that the distortive
effects are clearest where there is a subset of the workforce
that is not in the light, so to speak. It's not transparent and
operating the labor market in the way that native-born
Americans do and that creates this as we've heard in this
hearing, there's widespread agreement that we can do more about
it, but the economic demand is what is bringing people to this
country looking for work, and there clearly is demand. So, I
think it's a question of--
Mr. Correa. If I may, in my short time.
Mr. Lettieri. Sure.
Mr. Correa. Would you say, as an issue of subwages, just
give them a green card and then they will essentially work for
the legal wages and they wouldn't be cutting or undercutting
American citizens.
Mr. Lettieri. I would say, without a doubt, the first step
is bringing transparency into the labor market and operating on
a level playing field, so without a doubt.
Mr. Correa. Thank you very much.
The other issue that I have, and this is a question for Ms.
Hincapie, is the tissue of deported veterans and judicial
discretion. Right now, in this country we have green card
holders that go and fight in Afghanistan, other parts of the
world. They are honorably discharged. Then they come back to
the U.S., and they're convicted of a certain enumerated crime,
and they're essentially deported.
The only time these deported veterans that have fought for
our country can come back to our country is when they die,
because then they have a right to be buried in a veteran
cemetery in the United States. How can we address that issue of
repatriating these legal immigrants that should be Americans
who are deported because of our archaic immigration laws? What
do we do?
Ms. Hincapie. Thank you, Representative Correa. This is a
similar question that Representative Jayapal asked about. It is
shameful that we allow people to go fight for our country, yet
if they make a mistake, oftentimes that mistake, that crime
that they may have committed was probably because of PTSD and
the psychological impact of the war that they were fighting.
So, this is why we need to reform our system and give
individuals a second chance and a chance at redemption. For
those individuals who fought for our country and were deported,
we should absolutely allow them to return to the United States,
reunite them with their family, and put them on a path to
citizenship.
Mr. Correa. So, finally, we need judicial discretion in
advocating, deciding some of these cases in our immigration
system. Correct?
Ms. Hincapie. That is correct. Judicial discretion is
needed throughout the entire system. Again, this level of a
one-size-fits-all for all immigration cases just makes
absolutely no sense.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Lofgren. I understand Mr. Roy had to step out for a
minute. We'll recognize him if he's able to return. So, now I
would recognize Ms. Spartz of Indiana for 5 minutes for her
questions.
Ms. Spartz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
As someone who is a big fan of Milton Friedman who said
that we cannot have open borders in a welfare state, I'd like
to have a quick discussion with you, because ultimately, I
don't see it as reforming our welfare system, which needs a lot
of reforms, but we have to look at legal immigration.
I have to agree with the gentlewoman from Washington that
we need to have a better legal immigration system. Solutions
for legal immigration is the best solution. It's the best
solution for Americans. It's the best solution for people who
cross the border illegally. So, I think we have to do it
better, and we need to see how we can better benefit our
national interest.
So, my question is to--and I apologize if I say names
wrong, but I'll try to do my best. So, Mr. Lettieri, he was
mentioning about young skilled workers, and we can address this
only if we have a legal system, otherwise we don't know who
crosses the border.
So, if you look at the legal immigration system, what
percentage would you allocate to skilled workers and young
workers and more merit-based, which most countries have--
skilled workers because there is a benefit for that, too. So,
if you look 100 percent, how would you allocate it within a
legal immigration system?
Mr. Lettieri. Well, thank you for the question,
Congresswoman. I would be reluctant to give you a percentage,
but I'll give you an answer about scale, which is that we are
nowhere close to welcoming the number of skilled immigrants to
this country that we could absorb easily and who could benefit
our country in a number of ways.
I think that's particularly true when it comes to immigrant
entrepreneurs who have enormous assets they can offer to our
country. We know the importance of entrepreneurship and its
role in innovation and the kind of industries that really keep
our economy the envy of the world.
Again, this is a unique advantage of ours that not just
skilled workers but entrepreneurial workers from around the
country want to be here. We are nowhere close to maxing out
that advantage, and so I don't know what the exact proportion
is, but it needs to be much higher.
Ms. Spartz. Okay. What about, Ms. Professor Hunt, Dr. Hunt,
you mentioned that you did a lot of research. What are your
thoughts on the same question?
Ms. Hunt. Well, this is exactly where I think subjectivity
comes up. One can't really give an objective answer to this
question, so I also am going to say that I can't give a
proportion because it depends a little bit on how you trade off
certain things and how concerned you are about high school
dropouts versus the overall growth rate. For example, the
innovative high school immigrants increase the growth in GDP
per capita, which will help everyone but perhaps with some
delay.
I will just note one thing. The share of the population of
the U.S. that's foreign born is 14 percent, one four, and that
makes it 17th in the OECD in terms of the share. Switzerland,
Australia, and New Zealand, have in the 25%-30% range of
foreign born, most of them high skilled. So, I'm just
confirming my fellow Witness in the sense that the U.S.
actually as a share has not very many foreign high-skilled
immigrants.
Ms. Spartz. Okay. Then maybe Ms. Hincapie, if I said it
right, do you believe we should have security on the border and
we should secure border regardless? How would we deal then with
people that are here? Perhaps to deal with this is a problem
right now. Do you believe we need to secure the border?
Ms. Hincapie. Thank you for your question. It's Hincapie,
but you got close to it.
We actually have quite a bit of border security. We have,
as a Nation, spent, since the Department of Homeland Security
was created, for example, $381 billion on both the border and
interior enforcement. I think one of the great things about the
Biden Administration and what is set forth in the U.S.
Citizenship Act is to take a look at making sure that there is
accountability and good order governance and management, as
well as looking at the root causes of why people are coming,
and creating legal channels so that people can come through the
ports of entry, and seek asylum. Our asylum system has been
decimated over the last 4 years, and so the ability for people
to apply for asylum through the right legal channels is really
critical.
Ms. Spartz. So, we agree we need to have border security
but maybe better enforcement.
Mr. Kirsanow, just quickly, do you believe how, if you look
at a current situation and you talk about a lot of minority
communities and really what's happening with our challenges in
this community, how would you believe to address the current
situation with people that I hear cross the border
undocumented? It means that in this case--I'm sure that I use
the right word--unauthorized to cross the border illegally,
this is terminology. So, how would you believe the need to make
sure that we still don't put a burden on the welfare system
that is right now in trouble? We have a lot of people suffering
and struggling. So, do you have some thoughts on that?
Mr. Kirsanow. Yes. Thank you for the question. I would
respectfully disagree that we have good border security. That
is belied by the fact that we've got approximately 30-40
million illegal immigrants here. We don't even know the number,
and tens of thousands are crossing every month, if not hundreds
of thousands in the near future.
I think Milton Friedman has got it exactly right, you can't
have a welfare State--you can either have a welfare State or
open borders, but not both. Until we secure the border
effectively, regardless of how much money we spend on it, until
we secure that border, we're going to have a sieve coming
across, because the United States is a magnet for a host of
reasons:
(1) It's the freest and best country in the world, and
(2) you have wages that nobody else can match.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired, but we'd
ask you to wrap up the answer to your question. I don't want to
cut you off.
Mr. Kirsanow. I'm sorry. I went off a little bit about a
tangent. The bottom line here is you have to have better border
security than we have now. Otherwise, even if you regularize
those who are here, it's still going to be a magnet for people
to come in and continue to work illegally.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I'd now like to recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms.
Garcia, for 5 minutes.
You need to unmute.
Ms. Garcia. I am working on it. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this very critical
hearing. While our country has Witnessed and endured a
tremendous amount of pain and struggle over the past 4 years,
I'm committed to working with you and this Committee and the
Congress to work tirelessly to improve the lives of our most
vulnerable communities and all hardworking Americans.
As we prepare to reform our immigration system to
accommodate our Nation's most pressing needs, we must assure
that our immigration policies are rooted in our values of
compassion, fairness, opportunity, and keeping families
together. Therefore, I applaud the Biden-Harris Administration
who on day one in office shared their immigration vision and
signed Executive Orders prioritizing immigration reform and
national healing.
I think that what matters most to many of us, particularly
those of us who have been working on this issue for many, many
years, is that we do have to have immigration policy that keeps
our families together. It must be a system that keeps our
families together. That's why I want to start my questions
today with Ms. Hincapie, because I noted that she said that she
was one of 10 children, as I am. I know that she shares with me
the value of family and faith and working together to ensure
that we all get a good education and achieve our American
Dream.
So, ma'am, I wanted to start with you because you're with
the National Law Center. Last week, I was working with a
constituent here in my office who was detained by ICE, in fact,
it happened to be the very day of the Corpus Christi court
hearing where a Federal District Court judge in Corpus Christi
held the ICE deportation pause that the Administration had put
in place through Executive Order as unlawful.
What is NILC doing to address this issue? How can we see
some opportunities to continue to work together on this issue?
Ms. Hincapie. Yes, thank you, Representative Garcia. So,
yes, the family reunification must be at the core and center of
all our immigration policies. It's one of our tenets, and I
believe that there's actually bipartisan support for family
values and making sure that our families not only are not
separated by our immigration policies--like we saw with the
Muslim ban, we saw with the termination of DACA and temporary
protected status but actually that we are reunifying families,
as the Biden Administration has already started to begin the
process of doing so with the creation of the task force, for
example, for family reunification. Second, making sure that as
we create legal channels, as we provide people on a path to
citizenship, again, that people are able to stay together as a
family, as well as in detention.
I think finally I would say, with respect to the Texas
decision last week, which was just a temporary injunction--it
did not say that the moratorium was unlawful--it basically said
that one small part of that moratorium needed to be put on hold
while the legal proceedings continued.
The moratorium that the Biden Administration has announced
is critical. As a new Administration, they should be able to
say, and have the legal authority to do so, to say we're going
to hit the pause button while we decide what are the priorities
under this new Administration and make sure that anyone who was
in the Trump deportation pipeline does not get deported under
the Biden Administration.
Ms. Garcia. All right. It's my understanding, though, that
it was extended 2 more weeks.
Ms. Hincapie. That's correct.
Ms. Garcia. Right. So, are you all fighting it in court? Or
what are the advocates doing in response to that?
Ms. Hincapie. Yes. So, there is a group of organizations
that did intervene in that lawsuit. We are not part of that
lawsuit. So, as interveners, they will get a chance to provide
the perspective of immigrant families. Separately, the
Department of Justice, under the Biden Administration, is also
defending the moratorium.
Ms. Garcia. Okay. Now, I want to move on to some of the ICE
detention centers. Of course, we visited several codels, have
been to several of them. I've been to many of them as a State
Senator, not only here in Texas, but in other places. I'm
mostly concerned with the lack of counsel, if you will, for a
lot of these folks that are in detention and even through the
legal process itself once they leave the detention centers.
So, I wanted to discuss the whole issue of, do you think
that we need to make sure that we provide counsel at every
stage of every proceeding, or at what point does your center
recommend that we look at providing counsel for anyone that is
detained by ICE?
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired, but we'll
ask the Witness to answer promptly.
Ms. Hincapie. Absolutely. At the National Immigration Law
Center, we work with local communities across the Nation to
provide funding to provide universal legal representation. The
statistics all show that when someone has a lawyer, they comply
and show up for their legal proceedings, and then get to be
able to go through the legal proceedings. Immigration law is
considered one of the most complicated legal labyrinths,
separate from tax law. So, again, having legal counsel is
absolutely necessary.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. The other gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Escobar,
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Thank you for
this very important hearing. I want to thank all our panelists
for their great information.
I would like to address some things that I have heard
through this hearing. I heard from one of our colleagues talk
about successes over the last 4 years when it comes to
immigration. I've heard from another colleague that we have to,
quote, ``secure the border before we attempt to address
immigration reform,'' unquote. I've also heard from one of our
panelists that our economy is some sort of zero-sum gain, a
race to the bottom to preserve low-wage jobs for Americans,
especially Americans of color. I find, also, of course, always
we hear the talking point of open borders. So, I want to just
take a few quick minutes to address that.
I represent the U.S.-Mexico border. I'm the only Member of
this Subcommittee and I believe the only Member of the
Judiciary Committee that lives, works, represents an actual
border community. So, I can tell you, I can assure my
colleagues, that we have, as a country, spent hundreds of
billions of dollars securing and militarizing the border. The
border communities have long been among the safest in the
Nation and that we are very proud to recognize ourselves as the
new Ellis Island.
I also want to mention that the last 4 years were not a
success if you are a humanitarian. The last 4 years, my
community bore witness to some of the cruelest anti-immigrant
public policy that we will have ever witnessed in our
generation. My district was a testing ground for family
separation, separation that to this day we have not remedied,
but that many of us are committed to remedying. We have seen
force feeding in ICE facilities. We have seen inhumane holding
conditions and a complete obliteration of asylum law, among
many other horrific practices, that, by the way, never
addressed root cases, as Ms. Hincapie mentioned, and that never
actually stopped migration.
I would also like to point out that migration has continued
and that it will continue until we work collaboratively, which
this current Administration has chosen to do with our Western
Hemisphere partners.
I want to use a little bit of my time--I wanted to just say
I needed to get that out so that I could help share with my
colleagues the view from the border, the perspective from the
border. I would also like to say, in 2019, I hosted about 20
percent of Congress in codels to the border. Once COVID--we're
past COVID, I invite my colleagues to join me on a visit. I
would be delighted to show you the border through my eyes.
Mr. Lettieri, I want to ask you about the economic
argument, because there's so much that is advantageous about
immigration. With the declining population, we need young
people. As we've seen, really there is no impact on wages,
study after study has shown, unless, again, we're in a race to
the bottom. As you know, and as you mentioned, immigrants are
much more likely to start businesses than American-born
citizens. They are more entrepreneurial. Can you discuss how
entrepreneurship helps stimulate economic growth?
Mr. Lettieri. Sure. Thank you for the question,
Congressperson. It does so in a number of ways.
Entrepreneurship is critical to our economy because it's a
driver of productivity gains, it's a driver of job creation.
Every year, the bulk of net new jobs created come from young
and fast-growing companies. So, the engine of job creation
really begins with new business formation.
I pointed out in my written testimony this is actually an
area that should be a concern to policymakers today because we
still have not recovered the startup rates and entrepreneurial
activity that we had prior to the Great Recession. In spite of
a very long economic expansion that followed, about a decade's
worth of economic expansion, we still haven't seen startup
rates go back up to where they were prior to the Great
Recession.
So, again, as we think about immigration policy, my plea to
the Committee is to think about its economic potential,
particularly in this space of entrepreneurial dynamism and
innovation. These are things that are just absolutely critical
to our economy and where we know, study after study, the wide
body of empirical work that's been done on this demonstrates
that immigrants are very good for American entrepreneurship. If
you look at the Fortune 500 and you see that over 40 percent of
Fortune 500 companies are founded by immigrants or the children
of immigrants, anecdotally and empirically, there is really no
argument to be made here that immigration is good for American
entrepreneurship. Again, being more intentional about how we
encourage that would be one of the key features of immigration
reform.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you. I'm out of time.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady yields back.
We have three Members from Texas. I now recognize the third
gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 5 minutes.
Sheila?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
Let me acknowledge the Chair and the Ranking Member for
this Committee. Let me be honest, and the virtual meetings pose
some difficulties at times in muting and unmuting, but I'm
always here and I'm always here at these Committee hearings
where I'm called upon to be. So, forgive me for the unmute and
mute process on these devices.
I'm delighted that the hearing is a concept that is partly
a remedy or a cure, if you will, for the 4 years of devastation
and demeaning of immigrants across America. Frankly, leaving
the world questioning what our values really are. So, it is
important that we start anew almost, having been on this
Committee for a number years, to really go bold.
As I do so, let me also indicate that over the years I've
served as a Ranking Member of this Committee, we have seen the
opportunities taken to use African Americans as a wedge issue,
and there are those who are probably listening at this point
who happen to be African American, who may feel challenged by
the increasing diversity of this Nation, inasmuch as their
voices have always been for justice for all. I see that in my
community and the collaboration that we have here in Texas,
where there is much collaboration between immigrant groups and
the African-American community, we do want to make sure that,
in fact, all communities, as one of my colleagues said, have
justice and access to economic opportunities, the kinds of
wages, which include the minimum wage being raised to $15 an
hour, and really just the opportunity for education, business
access, and healthcare access. That should be our objective,
this is not the Ways and Means Committee or the Energy and
Commerce Committee, but this is a Committee that can, in fact,
provide an economic engine to this Nation and provide a pathway
for citizenship but also for opportunity.
So, first, I'd like to submit into the record a document by
Wade Henderson, a friend of ours, of the Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights, who's testified numerous times
before this Committee.
Mr. Henderson points out--I ask unanimous consent to submit
this for the record.
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
First, Mr. Henderson points out that there is no consensus
among economists on the role immigration plays in longstanding
Black unemployment rates. Second, there are a lot of reforms to
anti-discrimination labor laws and job training that would far
more directly address Black unemployment. Third, African
Americans still overwhelmingly support immigration reform that
provides a path to citizenship. They really are not eager,
these are his words, to appreciate--are not eager and may not
appreciate and do not appreciate scapegoating or using them as
a wedge.
I will say that there are probably voices that want to have
more work, there are voices who want to be in college, there
are voices who want to have access to business and access to
capital, but we want to do it collectively. I want to say
openly, let's do it collectively. I believe if we move this
Nation to what H.R. 40, the Commission to Study and Develop
Reparation Proposals, we will look globally at the treatment of
African Americans and in this country and begin to go boldly.
Let me quickly ask two questions. I can't see the clock, so
forgive me, but let me quickly ask a question to Ms. Hincapie
on the issue of the importance of moving forward on the legal
status of DACA recipients.
Ms. Lofgren. You have a minute.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me quickly ask Mr. Lettieri on my
question of economics and how economics can empower new
immigrants, individuals who may get access to citizenship mixed
in with African Americans and Black immigrants, which have
traditionally been second class as relates to the immigration
structure.
So, Ms. Hincapie. Please forgive me, my voice is cracked.
Ms. Hincapie. No worries. Thank you, Representative Jackson
Lee. Yes, so we at the National Immigration Law Center have had
the great honor of representing courageous DACA recipients all
the way up to the Supreme Court, and we have a temporary
victory and represent 1.1 million class members who are DACA
recipients or applicants for DACA. DACA is a temporary reprieve
from deportation, and here is where we need you and your
leadership; we need Congress to pass an improved version of the
Dream and Promise Act swiftly so that they can become citizens
ASAP.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired. Let's ask
Mr. Lettieri to very quickly answer her question, if he could.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chair for indulging. Thank
you.
Mr. Lettieri, thank you.
Mr. Lettieri. Thank you for the question. I think as I said
in my testimony, one of the best ways to boost the benefits
economically of immigration is to ensure that legacy city
communities, which are often very diverse and have large
communities of color from all different backgrounds, that they
are exposed to the benefits of immigration the same way that
large, booming coastal metro areas are. We currently have no
intentional policy in that regard, and so those are areas that
tend to miss out on the benefits, skilled immigration in
particular, could bring to those communities and arrest the
decline we see over many decades into the local economies.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
We now have--
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. I'd now like to recognize--Mr. Neguse is not
here--Ms. Scanlon, the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Chair Lofgren. Thank you to our
Witnesses for being here for this hearing. I'm glad we're
having this conversation about all the ways in which
immigration can make our country a better and more prosperous
place.
I do want to take a minute to address a nuance that we
should always keep in mind. I mean, the empirical evidence has
been clear for decades that a fair and robust immigration
system is critical to our country's economic health, but the
value of our immigrant neighbors is not simply a question of
dollars and cents. Our immigrant communities bring with them
innovation, culture, and resilience. We're lucky to have people
from all over the world seek a brighter future in our borders.
In my district, 1-10 of my constituents are foreign born.
Our immigrant neighbors drive innovation in business,
educational excellence at our universities, and make
immeasurable cultural contributions. My district's home to some
of the largest immigrant populations from Ireland, Liberia, and
Cambodia, in the U.S. In the schools in Upper Darby Township,
which a township of 80,000 people, they speak more than 80
languages and dialects. We have folks who are Bengali, Sikh,
Central American, Greek, and Korean. People from southeast
Asia, Venezuela, Eritrea, Armenia, Bhutan, and a host of
African countries call my district home. One of the leading
drivers of our regional economy is research and technology,
which is reliant upon talented foreign workers. So, all of
which is to say that this is a huge and very important issue
for my district.
Mr. Lettieri, you testified about entrepreneurial energy
that immigrants bring to our community, and I certainly see
that in my district. To paraphrase Lin-Manuel Miranda,
immigrants get the job done.
So, we heard the research about immigrants being almost
twice as likely to start businesses, and your report concludes
that maybe we need a heartland visa. Can you just discuss a
little bit more about how that would work and how it could
revitalize some of the areas where we have population decline?
Mr. Lettieri. Sure. Thank you for the question. So, what I
called for in my testimony is really a two-prong approach to
expanding the ways and opening new doors for skilled immigrants
to connect with American communities. One is through a
heartland visa, which would be targeted to places that are
struggling economically and demographically. The second would
be through a Startup Visa. Now, that would specifically open a
door for immigrant entrepreneurs, much like more than a dozen
other countries already do for the exact same type of talent
that we turn away.
Both of those would have enormous job-creating, wealth-
creating, economic growth-creating effects because simply what
we know about the way that skilled immigrants interact with our
economy. We see this in study after study. We see this in local
communities as well.
Many of the communities that would be eligible for a
heartland visa, the only reason that their economies have
started to turn around recently, the only reason that they are
seeing positive population growth is because they've been very
intentionally more welcoming to immigrants. So, the economic
potential there is very clear.
It's important to think about what happens if we don't take
an approach like this. When you lose population, you're seeing
a shrinking tax base, demand for local businesses, and
degradation of local services, which encourage more people to
leave, and you get into this downward spiral that's very hard
to reverse. That need not be so, but this is just one of those
areas where we have failed to connect the dots that immigration
can be such a powerful economic development tool where we align
the interests of communities with the aspirations of would-be
immigrants.
Ms. Scanlon. In some of the areas in my district where
there've been kind of a downgrading of the economy, ect., I'm
thinking specifically of the African area of southwest
Philadelphia, which is experiencing a revitalization as a
result.
I wanted to get to a question for Professor Hunt. We've
heard some discussion about the impactability of illegal
immigrants on wages for low-income Americans. What we're
talking about here is providing status for undocumented
workers, bringing them out of the shadows, which I would think
would make it harder for unscrupulous employers to pay
substandard wages, or impose unsafe or illegal conditions with
impunity. Can you talk about that a little bit?
Ms. Hunt. I agree with you. When workers have legal status,
they have greater bargaining power that will increase their
wages, and as an earlier witness said, they'll be more able to
report poor workplace practices without fear of reprisal.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Making the workplace safer for everyone.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I think Mr. Buck and Mr. Roy were unable to return. So, I
will now recognize myself.
First, I'd ask unanimous consent to put into the record
statements from 17 organizations on this subject.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
MS. LOFGREN FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. I'll just say thank you to all the Members who
were able to participate today in this hearing. We have a lot
of work ahead of us on this Subcommittee, and in the Full
Committee as well, when it comes to the issue of immigration.
There are some themes of disagreement that have emerged here
today, but I think there are also some elements of consensus
that we can work on.
When I listen to questions about immigration security and
enforcement, I don't think there's a single person in the
Congress who is against enforcing the laws of the United
States. What we're saying is the laws need to serve the best
interest of the United States. When I think about farmworkers--
and I authored a bill for the farmworker segment of the economy
that was agreed to both by the United Farm Workers union and
the growers and farmers of the United States. When you talk
about unlawful entry or unauthorized entry, 80 percent of the
farmworkers or better are undocumented and a majority of them
came more than 10 years ago. So, we're talking about border
enforcement in 2005. We have to take a comprehensive, fact-
based view of what's going on, and then the screen is what's
best for the United States of America.
I'm interested in all the testimony which has been very
interesting and helpful. Mr. Lettieri, I was interested in your
heartland visa. I'm just about ready to introduce a startup
visa that I've been working on for many months, with the help
of the academic community and venture capitals and the like.
The heartland visa is an interesting idea.
Right now, we have mayors who sometimes step forward and
say send us refugees, because they need that workforce, but we
don't have a capacity to say send us entrepreneurs or somebody
who's going to establish a center of excellence that's going to
grow the economy in a different way. Be more specific, if you
would, on how the heartland visa would work.
Mr. Lettieri. Thank you, Chair Lofgren. I'd love to.
(1) So, what we propose in our heartland visa is that,
given the fact that 80% of the country's counties are seeing a
shrinking of their prime working age population, which is a
startling fact, many places would love to have a specific type
of visa program by which they could welcome, they could opt in.
(2) In our concept, a county or an eligible area has to opt
in and say we want to be a part of this program. You have to
commit resources to implementing it so that new immigrants can
be a success.
(3) The would-be visa holder has to opt in to settling into
that particular place. So, it's a dual opt-in type of match
that ensures that there's going to be a lot of information
transparency on both sides and they are going to have a good
fit between the immigrant and the local community.
The idea is that communities that are struggling with this
demographic and economic decline that's affecting so much of
the country, would have its own class of high-skilled visas
that it would be eligible for so that the benefits of high-
skilled immigration will be more broadly felt around the
country than it is today.
There's a reason that this idea has gotten the broad
bipartisan support of, say, the U.S. Conference of Mayors. You
mentioned mayors in your question. They have almost unanimously
endorsed this. Many individual mayors from legacy cities, such
as Akron and Dayton, have publicly endorsed this as well for
the very reason that they know the role that immigration is
playing in their economy today. The big challenge that they
have is U.S. Federal policy doesn't support their local
efforts. So, they can do everything that's possible that they
can do in their toolkit as a mayor, but still they're running
up against the barriers presented by Federal
policy.
So, the idea here is let's open the door that supports the
local work on the ground and opens up a new channel for skilled
immigrants to connect with communities that would love to have
them.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you very much. As I said, I'm just
about ready to introduce my startup visa, but I think I'm going
to put that on a temporary hold and do a chapter two to have it
include also a heartland visa.
Mr. Lettieri. We will work with you on that.
Ms. Lofgren. I live in San Jose, California, where about
half of the people who live here were born in another country.
They're Americans by choice. We had, before the pandemic,
probably the biggest GDP growth of any area in the United
States, and it was fueled by the tech sector and fueled by
people who came to get their Ph.D.s and then started companies
here, which then ended up hiring many, many, many Americans.
The anti-immigrant policies that flowed at times during the
last Administration discouraged people from coming as students.
We had a decline in the number of people coming as foreign
students. That really was a tremendous adverse impact on the
pipeline of people going in to start companies. What we saw was
that recruiters from other parts of the world, and especially
Canada, came down to Silicon Valley and started recruiting
people away because they would provide for legalization and we
would not. For a while, I think it's all been upended by COVID,
but it will change once the virus is in the rear-view mirror,
hopefully soon.
The tech economy in Toronto was actually growing faster
than the tech economy in Silicon Valley, and it was almost
entirely because of their immigration policies. We can change
that. We can make the United States more prosperous if we use
good sense in crafting our immigration policies.
So, I want to thank every one of our Witnesses for their
testimony.
Mr. McClintock. Madam Chair?
Ms. Lofgren. I'm sorry?
Mr. McClintock. McClintock here. A couple of quick things.
I'd like to ask unanimous consent that the Republican Staff
Report on Trump immigration successes be entered into the
record.
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection.
Mr. McClintock. I'd also like to ask unanimous consent--I
believe Mr. Biggs had a statement and I have that to included.
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, that will be included.
Mr. McClintock. Okay. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
MR. McCLINTOCK FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. With that, we are about to adjourn this
hearing. Once again, all Members have 5 legislative days to
submit additional written questions for the Witnesses or
additional materials for the record.
As we conclude this hearing, I want to thank all the
Members and all the Witnesses for their participation and their
willingness to work together in the future so that our policies
serve our country well.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:46 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]