Though the Senate Judiciary Committee's marathon immigration hearing took place some time back, it's worth another look as a reminder of why public opinion of Congress is so low. Many people think that congressional hearings are meant to be an opportunity for open discourse and deliberation where experts are called to testify and inform our leadership about the various impacts of legislation. Unfortunately, hearings are often nothing more than political theater and the experts often nothing more than special interests and props. The main characters in the play — the senators and their staff — often fail to show up, and those who do are often engaged in their own conversations, paying no attention to those testifying. The videos and photos below illustrate this fact. Hearings held by the House later this year will provide an opportunity for greater insight about the impact of high levels of immigration and amnesty.
Out of 23 panelists invited by the Senate (spread over four panels on one day), only seven were there to testify about the problems in the amnesty bill. The pro-amnesty, pro-mass-immigration panelists included Microsoft, the United Farm Workers (UFW), and lobbying groups seeking cheap farmhands, cheap construction labor, and cheap nurses — all of whom argued that they just can't find Americans to fill jobs despite massive unemployment. Also testifying for mass immigration were, not surprisingly, the National Council of La Raza and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). An illegal alien was also invited to testify — the third such invite that I am aware of in recent months. Even though the high-immigration groups and the illegal alien are clearly special interests looking out for their bottom line, at one point Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) referred to the seven pro-enforcement-oriented experts as "special interests". That would include experts from our organization, the Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit that operates on a shoestring budget compared to the others testifying; whether the amnesty passes or fails is likely to have no impact on our budget. Microsoft, La Raza, the UFW, AILA, and most of the other groups certainly cannot say the same, and not just because they would receive more cheap labor and constituents for their agenda; the bill itself contains a $150 million slush fund for pro-amnesty groups. And the illegal immigrant testifying certainly has a personal interest in seeing the amnesty become law.
Attendance was apparently difficult for many of the senators on the Judiciary Committee. The body is made up of 18 senators, but for most of the hearings not more than five or six senators were present. One would think that a hearing on an amnesty bill written to fundamentally transform the United States might be a high priority for all senators, but alas that was not the case. I called the office of Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and asked why she was not present during either of the panels that I attended. Her staffer promptly informed me that the senator was "fully committed to immigration reform". The staffer didn't realize that I am with an organization trying to persuade the senator that perhaps she should not be so committed, nor did he realize he was providing more evidence that these hearings are not useful in educating our elected leaders; like other senators, her mind was made up.
In the photo above, only two Democrat senators are present while Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and Kris Kobach, Kansas secretary of state testify. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) is at the center of the photo, while Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is off-screen at the center of the dais. At some point Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) returned, but only to thank illegal immigrant Gaby Pacheco for testifying in favor of amnesty.
In the video below left, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) are chatting with big smiles on their face while Kris Kobach was responding to a question about the impact of the amnesty bill. They were talking and not paying attention to Mr. Kobach for a good minute before this footage started.
The video above right, starts directly after Chairman Leahy leaves during Kris Kobach's response to a question from a Republican senator. Replacing him was Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who sat down and chatted with his staff, cracking smiles, and turning his back on Mr. Kobach. It was painfully obvious that Sen. Schumer was not paying attention, because when Kobach finished his response and the Republican senator's time for questions expired, Schumer continued chatting with his staffers, failing to meet his responsibilities as chairman and resulting in a good 10 seconds of dead air. The Republican senator had to prompt Schumer by saying, "Thank you, Mr. Chairman." Only then did Schumer realize that he had to call on the next senator to ask questions. Schumer turned to his staff to figure out which senator was next, and had a big smile on his face as he called on a Democrat senator.
It should be noted that some of the senators took the hearing seriously and that not all of the seats were empty during all the panels; senators came and went throughout the day. There was never a point where all senators on the committee were present, however. The lowest attendance I observed was three senators while DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano testified the following day.
Panel 1
The first panel included Arturo Rodriguez, president of the United Farm Workers, who claimed that mass amnesty was necessary in order to "secure the nation's food supply". He called the lack of amnesty a "crisis". Also on the panel was Charles Conner, president & CEO of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, who repeated the myth of "crops rotting in the field" and argued for an ongoing, endless supply of foreign farm labor. The final person on the first panel was Alyson Eastman, president of Book-Ends Associates, a company that makes money by assisting businesses with the H-2A (foreign farm labor) process. She argued for amnesty and more immigration and asserted that foreign workers do not take jobs from Americans, repeatedly claiming that there's such a thing as jobs Americans won't do — a claim that is not true. When the senators had an opportunity to ask questions, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) argued that immigration policy should reflect the national interests and rejected the claim that there are jobs Americans won't do. He explained:
I worked construction in Alabama sun, hauling lumber and stuff, I know Americans do that every single day. Tough work, it's done every day. Where I was raised … we were told to respect people who did hard work and not to say it's a job an American won't do. Any honorable labor is good.
After Sen. Sessions finished, it was Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) turn to ask questions. He started with an opening statement and claimed "widespread support and praise" for the amnesty from the various groups that stood behind the "Gang of Eight" as they formally introduced the bill the week before. Schumer explained these groups are "not just a few narrow special interests". Of course, the group was made up of business organization who want cheap labor, immigration attorneys who want more clients, and illegal aliens who want amnesty for their lawlessness, so it's difficult to see how these interests are anything but special interests.
But Schumer wasn't done. He wanted to voice his contempt for the few witnesses who dared to speak up for the rule of law so he spat out the following:
And on the other hand, the only witnesses who are willing to testify against the bill today are: three individuals from the so-called Center for Immigration Studies, an organization whose stated goal is to reduce immigration to the United States and who invented the concept of self-deportation; the author of the S.B.1070, the controversial Arizona law that was so far to the extreme that it was stricken down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; and the head of the ICE Union who has been an outspoken critic of immigration. So to call all the groups for it, as my good friend from Alabama does, "special interests", and then to have these three witnesses who are far narrower, far more special interest, and, in fact, have opposed any immigration reform for a very long period of time isn't right. These three are not mainstream witnesses. The American people are overwhelmingly in favor of immigration reform. That's what every poll says.
At this point Sen. Sessions tried to interject: "Will the senator yield?"
SCHUMER: "No I will not."
SESSIONS: "Will the senator yield?"
SCHUMER: "Nope, nope. And they will not be satisfied with calls for delays and impediments toward the bill. I would say to my colleagues, and I understand their views are heartfelt, the chairman has a very open process. So if you've ways to improve the bill, offer an amendment when we start markup in May and let's vote on it. I say that particularly to those who were pointing to what happened, the terrible tragedy in Boston as a, I would say, excuse for not doing a bill or delaying it many months or years — "
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) interrupted, offended that Schumer seemed to be referencing him as one of the people pointing out that the Boston attack has a clear connection to immigration: "I never said that!"
SCHUMER: I didn't say you did.
GRASSLEY: I never said that!
SCHUMER: I didn't say you did, Sir. … I don't mean you, Mr. Grassley.
Sen. Sessions jumped in at this point: "Mr. Chairman, I don't appreciate the senator demeaning the witnesses that are coming here."
Chairman Leahy slammed his gavel a few times, and didn't seem to mind that Schumer was demeaning the Center for Immigration Studies and the other witnesses. After some comments from Leahy about the legislative process, the hearing continued.
SCHUMER: "I wasn't intending, those remarks were not aimed at anyone on this committee or the three witnesses. There are people out there — you've read it in the newspapers — who have said it. And what I'm saying is, if there are things that come up as a result of what happened in Boston, that … require improvement, let's add them to the bill. Because certainly our bill, tightens up things in a way that would make a Boston less likely."
Put another way, Schumer believes that it is only legitimate to reference the Boston attack if it is in furtherance of amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens.
Schumer also admitted that he has received "lots of calls from people out in the country saying 'delay it.'" Of course, if the anti-amnesty witnesses are not "mainstream" and don't represent the viewpoints of Americans, then one would think that the senator would not be receiving "lots of calls" from people voicing their opposition to amnesty.
Schumer also illustrated his lack of understanding of immigration law, noting that under his bill illegal aliens "would finally have to register with the government" and an exit-tracking system for foreign visitors would be created. He claimed "The status quo has none of these things." But under existing law — the "status quo" — all aliens are required to register with the government or face a fine of $1,000 and up to six months in jail. And existing law also requires the creation of an Exit system to track whether temporary aliens go home; in fact, Congress has demanded the creation of such a program for 17 years in six different bills. And the amnesty bill would actually weaken existing Exit requirements by exempting land borders. The fact that neither the Exit nor the registration laws are being enforced illustrates why Americans are not keen on supporting a massive amnesty bill that promises future enforcement.
If you want to watch, Sen. Schumer's nonsense begins at 1:12:50. It was certainly the most explosive part of the day's hearings. Unfortunately, when Mark Krikorian testified later in the day, his response to Schumer was missed by the senator, as Schumer was absent.
Panel 2
The second panel included eight panelists, only two of whom expressed concern about the amnesty bill's impact on American workers. First was Megan Smith of the Vermont Dept. of Tourism and Marketing who argued for an expansion of the visa waiver program and more H-2B workers, which she explained were needed by ski resorts and beach resorts because they "not only prove to be excellent employees, but bring a cultural experience to states that do not necessarily enjoy a great deal of diversity." The next panelist was former congressman Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) who, citing his Panamanian husband, promoted a provision that would require immigration law to recognize gay marriage. The next panelist was lobbyist Tamar Jacoby, president of Immigration Works USA, a group that supports amnesty and an endless supply of low-skilled labor from overseas. She claimed that there are not enough low-skilled Americans and that the United States needs more "in years ahead" and that low-skilled workers do not compete with Americans for jobs. She complained that the expanded visa program in the Senate bill "may not be large enough" and called for hundreds of thousands of additional visas. Next up was Rick Judson, chairman of the National Association of Home Builders who claimed there are not enough American workers in construction and supported more immigration. Next was Brad Smith, Microsoft's vice president of Legal and Corporate Affairs, who called for more green cards, more immigration. None of these panelists seem to understand that there's no such thing as a job American's won't do.
Next on the panel was Professor Ron Hira, associate professor of at Rochester Institute of Technology. He started his remarks calling the H-1B program "deeply flawed", noting that "the majority of the H-1B program is being used to hire cheap, indentured workers." Hira noted that "the bulk of demand for H-1B visas is being driven by the desire for lower cost workers, not a race for specialized talent or a shortage of American talent." He noted that H-1B workers are cheaper than their American counterparts and that often Americans are replaced by H-1B workers, explaining that "there's no shortage necessary before hiring an H-1B worker." He explained that Congress has set the wage requirement too low, noting that H-1B workers can be paid 20 to 25 percent less than an American worker. Hira noted that the Senate's immigration bill would not protect American workers but would allow this displacement to continue. His testimony is worth listening to in full and it begins at 2:40:30. Ron Hira's full testimony is available online.
Next on the panel was Neeraj Gupta, CEO of Systems In Motion, a high-tech company. He echoed many of Professor Hira's concerns, noting that H-1B was being used to cut costs, not as a means to bring in experts or specialists. He argued that Americans could be hired if there was not an incentive to higher cheaper workers via the H-1B program. Mr. Gupta proposed that if employers claiming to need foreign labor were challenged to offer 125 percent of the top American wage to the H-1B workers, "you will notice that a lot of the visa requests will go down." His testimony is also worth listening to in full and it begins at 2:45:35. Neeraj Gupta's full testimony is available online.
The final panelist was Fred Benjamin, COO of Medicalodges, Inc., a company that runs nursing homes in Kansas. He claimed there is a "daily struggle to find enough dedicated caregivers", a "staffing crisis", and called for legalizing illegal aliens.
Panel 3
The third panel included two substantive panelists, Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. The panel also included illegal alien Gaby Pacheco, President of La Raza Janet Murguía, Pastor David Fleming of the Champion Forest Baptist Church, and Laura Lichter, President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
First up was illegal immigrant Gaby Pacheco who referred to herself and illegal immigrants, generally, as "undocumented Americans". She argued that "it's time to set fear aside" and pass amnesty. She asked Congress to give her and 11 million illegal immigrants "an opportunity to fully integrate", apparently not understanding that the United States already offers many routes to citizenship.
Next up was La Raza's Janet Murguia. She argued that the amnesty bill's minimal requirements and process for acquiring amnesty are "too long and too costly". She called for more expansive immigration than what the bill would allow. She also warned that Latinos would be watching the amnesty debate closely. After her remarks, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) praised Murguia, saying, "Thank you for the important role the National Council of La Raza has played in this discussion, and will continue to play." He is correct that La Raza will continue to play a role if the amnesty passes; the bill that La Raza helped write includes at least $150 million in grants for groups like La Raza to help carry out the amnesty. The money can be used however the recipients so choose, and there is no oversight.
Next up was Pastor David Fleming who called for amnesty and recited a number of Biblical passages that he believes support allowing millions of foreigners to violate U.S. sovereignty. He repeated a number of standard talking points (i.e. "this is a nation of immigrants"). He concluded that amnesty was the "right thing, under God".
The next panelist was Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, who provided some of the most substantive testimony of the entire hearing. He started with a response to Sen. Schumer's earlier outburst; unfortunately Schumer was not present to hear it. Mr. Krikorian began: "I'll be talking about the legalization parts of the bill, but since Senator Schumer had taken my name in vain, as it were, at the beginning of the hearing I wanted to respond very briefly to the comment he had made. The Boston bombing is not an excuse for delay of considering this immigration bill, but it is an illustration of certain problems that exist with our immigration system." Mr. Krikorian raised a number of significant questions:
Why were the Tsarnaev's given visas to come to the United States to begin with? This is a question nobody seems to have answered. Why were they given asylum, since they had passports from Kyrgyzstan? And especially, why were they given asylum since the parents had moved back to Russia, the country supposedly they were fleeing and wanted asylum from? What does it say about the automated background checks that this bill would subject 11 million illegal immigrants to, that in-person interviews by FBI agents of Tamerlan Tsarnaev resulted in no action even though it was actually based on concerns about terrorism? And what does it say about our broken patriotic assimilation system that legal, relatively privileged, immigrant young people became so alienated that they engaged in this kind of mass murder against Americans?
Mr. Krikorian turned to the amnesty bill and noted that there "may actually be circumstances under which amnestying certain illegal aliens can make sense." He explained, "The question is do you do it before or after the problems that created the large illegal population have been solved." He concluded, "Unfortunately, S.744 puts the legalization of the illegal population before the completion of the necessary tools to avoid the creation of a new illegal alien population in the future."
Mr. Krikorian then explained how the "triggers" in the bill are not triggers at all due to the fact that the border plans, the Exit tracking system, and the remainder of the enforcement provisions come after legalization. The only requirement for provisional legal status is DHS submitting two plans for border security, six months after the bill becomes law. This provisional status — which includes work permits, Social Security accounts, driver's licenses, and other benefits — is the amnesty, he explained, because it "transforms the illegal immigrant into a person who is lawfully admitted into the United States." He called this "green card lite", a status that would be upgraded into full green card status later after these benchmarks were met. Mr. Krikorian noted that "unfortunately, as far as the … political and bureaucratic incentives to get those benchmarks enforced, that upgrade doesn't really create an incentive to get things done." He explained: "Once illegal immigrants are out of the shadows and no longer undocumented, the urgency on the part of amnesty supporters to push the completion of those security measures essentially evaporates."
Mr. Krikorian then turned to fraud issues, noting that 1986's IRCA resulted in significant amounts of fraud, and that it involved only three million illegal immigrants. He pointed out that the current amnesty bill does not require interviews of amnesty applicants, noting that the Deferred Action program created by President Obama has required few interviews and has resulted in 99.5 percent approval rate. Mr. Krikorian noted that the current amnesty bill allows affidavits from non-family members regarding the bill's work and education requirements, noting that IRCA affidavits created much of the fraud in that amnesty. He noted that the bill has a confidentially clause, that would give "sanctuary" to illegal aliens who apply even if problematic evidence is uncovered. He also noted that the bill does not require rejected amnesty applicants to be deported, creating a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation where the illegal immigrant can apply and know he can never be deported.
Mr. Krikorian concluded that the kinds of fraud such bills create is very serious, and that we do not have to speculate. He cited the 1993 World Trade Center bomber who fraudulently legalized through IRCA and used his new status to travel to and from Afghanistan to pick up terrorist training. More on this topic, as well as a link to a substantive report illustrating the link between immigrants and terrorism is available here. Mark Krikorian's full testimony is available online.
Next up was Laura Lichter, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. She called for more immigration and had praise for the amnesty bill's provisions that would provide immigrants more attorneys (shocking, I know).
The final panelist was Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state. He began by explaining that the immigration bill is not a balance between amnesty and enforcement, noting that his written testimony contained nine reasons for this conclusion. He went on to explain six of them: three problems with the amnesty provisions, and three problems with the enforcement provisions. The first problem he pointed out involved background checks, noting that the bill has no requirement that applicants provide a government-issued ID and that fictitious identities will allow aliens to acquire legal status. He also noted that even if aliens use their real name, the background checks may be insufficient, and not just because they do not include face-to-face interviews. Mr. Kobach pointed out that at least one of the Boston bombers had two background checks and a face-to-face interview, but the FBI was still unable to conclude that he was a threat. He noted that this is far more intensive of a background check than what amnesty applicants would undergo, an issue I explored here.
The second problem noted by Mr. Kobach is the fact that the immigration bill would allow deported illegal immigrants to return to the United States and receive citizenship. He noted that this also extended to illegal aliens who had been ordered deported but never left the country and became absconders. He asked, "What kind of perverse incentive will that be going forward? Our immigration courts will basically be sending a meaningless message: 'We're ordering you to be removed from the United States, but if you hang out, you can remain a fugitive until the next amnesty, you'll be able to stay in the United States.'"
The third problem pointed out by Mr. Kobach is that the amnesty bill legalizes dangerous aliens who were legalized under the Obama administration's Deferred Action program. He noted that the program violates federal law, which requires that certain aliens must be placed in removal proceedings. Kobach noted that at a hearing on April 8 — a lawsuit filed by ICE agents who are arguing that the Deferred Action program is lawless and requiring them to violate federal law — it was learned that multiple dangerous aliens who have been arrested but not yet convicted of serious crimes have been released back onto the streets. The group included one alien arrested for an assault on a federal officer, one for sexual assault on a minor, and one for trafficking in cocaine — all of whom will be eligible for legal status under the immigration bill, explained Kobach.
Mr. Kobach then turned to the three problems with the enforcement provisions. First, he argued that the 90 percent "effectiveness rate" the bill requires along the border is not serious because it is based on the 90 percent of those who attempt to come into the country illegally and we have no measurement of how many people actually make it past the Border Patrol. He also noted that this effectiveness rate is not serious because the bill only requires it at "high risk" areas, where apprehensions are over 30,000. He pointed out that it is well-known that when DHS begins to focus on one area of the border, smugglers simply move to a different crossing area. DHS may think it has achieved 90 percent effectiveness rate, but that the problem has simply shifted to a different location. Mr. Kobach also noted that it was revealed in the same April 8 hearing that DHS has been "cooking the books" as far as removal numbers go. He explained that DHS has been reporting record removals at 410,000 in 2012 but that the number is inflated by 86,000. He asks, "If they are not fairly calculating their numbers now, why should we expect them to fairly calculate the 90 percent figure?"
The second problem with the enforcement measures, explained Kobach, is that it "hobbles" state enforcement efforts by preempting workplace enforcement efforts run by the states. He noted that the state efforts have been the only efforts at workplace enforcement in some jurisdictions. Kobach cited the Legal Arizona Workers Act which he explained resulted in a 36 percent reduction in the illegal alien population in Arizona, which contrasted with only a 1 percent drop nationwide during the same period. These state efforts, he notes, would be gutted.
The third enforcement problem noted by Mr. Kobach is that the amnesty bill scraps E-Verify despite the fact that it is being used by over 400,000 employers and is required by many states. He notes that E-Verify would be replaced by some other electronic program despite the fact that it gets over a 98 percent approval rating from employers who use it. He concluded that the only reason the bill would be tossing out E-Verify for a new system is to intentionally delay implementation, noting that it would take at least nine years for it to be up and running. Mr. Kobach's testimony is available in full, here.
Panel 4
Former Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, currently with Troutman Sanders LLP, opened his testimony explaining that he is "a student and author of history" and pointed out that the first two things the Founders wanted to do "were to establish justice, which was obviously all about equal access, equal opportunity, equal treatment under the law. And to ensure domestic tranquility". He stated that he believes this is what the proposed amnesty bill would do. Though it is unclear how allowing millions of foreigners to violate the sovereignty of a nation creates "domestic tranquility", no senator questioned him on this point. He argued that it is a "moral imperative" to give all illegal aliens U.S. citizenship. He then said that the state-level enforcement efforts in Arizona and elsewhere are a "terrible negative" that led Utah to pass the "Utah Compact" which seeks to create a state-level guestworker program. I suspect that when Utah experiences the same amount of illegal immigration as Arizona he might be singing a different tune. He then gave some lip service about going after "the worst of the worst" criminal aliens, but it appears he is happy to give a pass to crimes like ID theft despite the fact that such identity crimes create real victims.
Next up was Bill Vidal, former Mayor of Denver who is the current president and CEO of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Metro Denver. He started off pointing out that he is the first foreign-born mayor of Denver. He provided his immigration history, noting that he came here through Operation Peter Pan in which 14,000 Cuban children were brought to the United States. He then followed this with clichéd talking points like, "immigrants built America." He then argued that a lack of amnesty has created a dysfunctional immigration system, claiming that respect of immigrants has been replaced with "fear and ignorance that dehumanized these individuals." He concluded with more clichéd talking points. He also showed a lot of concern for illegal aliens who "must live in fear of being deported"; the reality is these individuals chose to break the law and there's no one forcing them to "live in fear". But Mr. Vidal nevertheless concluded that Americans must allow foreigners to violate our laws and stay here so that the law-breakers no longer have to worry about being held accountable for their lawlessness.
The next panelist, Janice Kephart, former counsel of the September 11 Commission and now CIS's National Security Fellow, finally provided some substance to the discussion. Her testimony is worth watching in full, and it starts at 6:03:45. She pointed out that the 1986 amnesty benefitted terrorists and noted that the current amnesty proposal would not be much different. She provided a number of examples that illustrate that the system just does not have the capacity to adequately vet immigrants. She then turned to the border issues noting a huge surge in border crossings, explaining that there is "no way that illegal entrants who have never encountered our immigration or criminal system can be vetted as to who they say they are. And with 10,000 to 20,000 foreign-born terrorists that federal law enforcement know reside in the United States, that creates a serious concern for more terrorists, using the compassion that we have for the Dreamers, to embed here illegally using the legalization in this bill." Ms. Kephart then explained why the border triggers in the bill are ineffective for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it applies only to three of nine border sectors which is "an open invitation for smugglers to realign with the new metric" and use one of the other six sectors. She then pointed out that the E-Verify provision holds no consequences for aliens who fail the program, and that the bill provides three new opportunities to contest a non-confirmation, culminating "in an alien receiving four opportunities to get authorized", complicating the hiring process for an employer. She then turned to the Exit system requirement in the amnesty bill, noting that the version contained in the bill fails because it does not include tracking at land borders. Janice Kephart's full testimony is available online.
The next panelist, Chris Crane, president of the ICE Union, also provided excellent testimony. It is worth watching in full as well. It starts at 6:09:00. At the outset Mr. Crane offered a scathing review of the amnesty bill, pointing out that it "only guarantees legal status for illegal aliens". He continued, "It contains no promise of solving our nation's immigration problems, no guaranty of stronger enforcement on our nation's interior or its borders. It ignores the problems that have doomed our current immigration system to failure." He noted that the amnesty bill was "crafted behind closed doors with big business, big unions, and groups representing illegal aliens – groups with their own interests, groups that stand to make millions from this legislation. Anyone with a significantly different opinion on immigration reform was prohibited by the Gang of Eight from having input. Lawmaking in our nation has indeed taken a strange twist as senators invite illegal aliens to testify before congress and groups representing the interests of illegal aliens are brought into the development of our nation's laws, but American citizens working as law enforcement officers within our nation's broken immigration system are purposely excluded from the process and prohibited from providing input." Mr. Crane then noted that the prior week a number of sheriffs, immigration agents, and other law enforcement officials came to Washington, D.C., with the hope of being heard. They held to meetings on two days, but not one member of the Gang of Eight attended. He also pointed out that he was kicked out of a press conference held by the Gang of Eight the previous week after attempting to ask a question. He explained, "I was escorted out by police and Senate staff. I was spoken to with anger and disrespect. Never before have I seen such contempt for law enforcement officers as what I've seen from the Gang of Eight." Mr. Crane then turned to President Obama's refusal to enforce existing immigration laws, arguing that the United States will never have an effective immigration system if the president and White House staff refuse to enforce existing laws. He then pointed out number of reasons why the amnesty bill fails to provide any serious security.
The final panelist to provide substantive testimony was CIS's Steven Camarota. It is also worth watching in full at 6:15:00. Mr. Camarota started with a basic fact: "In the modern American economy, those with relatively little education, immigrant or native, earn modest wages, on average, and by design pay modest taxes. Their lower income also means they often benefit from welfare and other means-tested programs. As a result, the less-educated in general, immigrant or native, use more in services than they pay in taxes." He explained that the relationship between educational attainment and net fiscal impact is the key to understanding the fiscal impact this amnesty bill would have. Mr. Camarota then noted research by the National Research Council in 1996 which found that an immigrant who arrives in the United States without a high school education will use $89,000 more in services than he pays in taxes during his lifetime (which would be larger, adjusted for inflation). For an immigrant who comes with only a high school education, the study found that the net fiscal drain is $31,00. Mr. Camarota explained, "In the case of illegal immigrants the vast majority has modest levels of education, averaging only about 10 years of schooling. This fact is the primary reason illegal immigrants are a fiscal drain, not their legal status." He continued, "My own research indicates that if we were to legalize illegal immigrants and they began to use services and pay taxes like legal immigrants with the same level of education, the net fiscal cost at the federal level would roughly triple because they remain unskilled." Mr. Camarota then referred to his chart, below:
Mr. Camarota explained the chart and noted that "Since roughly 75 percent of illegal immigrants either have no high school education or no education, the chart illustrates what's so problematic about illegal immigration from a fiscal point of view." He provided a number of other statistics and countered the arguments of high-immigration advocates before being interrupted by Sen. Leahy who apparently felt that too many facts were making their way into the Senate chambers. Mr. Camarota asked if he could have a concluding sentence and Leahy responded, "One sentence." Mr. Camarota finished, "In conclusion if we decide to go ahead with this, we have to be honest with the American people and make it clear it comes with very large fiscal costs." Steven Camarota's full testimony is available online.
Before Mr. Camarota could even finish his final word, Sen. Leahy called on the next witness, amnesty advocate Grover Norquist, a man who claims to be a small-government, low-taxation conservative with Americans for Tax Reform. Interestingly, it was the Democrats who invited him, not the Republicans (I was told it was Sen. Leahy). Mr. Norquist used the opportunity to argue that increasing the number of low-income people in the country via immigration — people who, under our tax system pay little in taxes — will somehow significantly increase tax revenue. He also invoked the race card — at least twice —shouting about how those who "don't like immigrants" — read: oppose amnesty — are people who "didn't like the Irish, and didn't like the Jews, and didn't like the Asians, and didn't like all the previous groups." In other words, Mr. Conservative has embraced the language of the far left and is arguing that support for the rule of law and U.S. sovereignty is racist. Mr. Norquist's other refrain was that "more immigration makes us a richer country, not a poorer country." He seems to believe that all immigration is identical and that the United States shouldn't pick and choose who we admit into the country. Such a sweeping statement suggests that Mr. Norquist believes that bringing one million doctors into the United States has the same impact as bringing in one million people without high school degrees. Obviously, there are fundamentally different impacts — as CIS's Steven Camarota pointed out — yet Norquist and his friends simplistically believe that "more immigration" is always better. Unfortunately he fails to differentiate between the size of an economy and per-capita wealth. A larger country is not necessarily a wealthier country.
Conclusion
These four panels barely scratched the surface of the now 1,200-page immigration bill. Lobbyists and special interests that helped write this massive bill inserted many convoluted provisions that create handouts and loopholes that are still being uncovered. If the Senate was interested in providing the best outcome and examining how their proposals would impact the United States, it would approach the immigration issue one step at a time, with multiple pieces of legislation. It would allow for a better vetting of the proposals and would allow Americans to see how even a small, one-page provision could have a significant impact for decades to come. But the Senate has offered very little discussion of the appropriate role of immigration in the United States. How much immigration do we need? What factors should be considered when increasing immigration numbers? Is there any upward numerical limit? How will assimilation be affected by mass immigration? Questions like these deserve significant consideration, yet Congress appears uninterested. Sadly it appears that the immigration debate is driven by special interests, and not the interests of the American citizen.
