Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US HOUSE COMMITTEE DISCUSSES IMMIGRATION

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • US HOUSE COMMITTEE DISCUSSES IMMIGRATION

    Committee discusses immigration

    By DANIEL GILBERT
    dgilbert@potomacnews.com
    Thursday, November 17, 2005

    Give your opinion on this story

    The House Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing Wednesday to discuss the impact of recent trends in immigration on the American economy, as it prepares to advise Congress on pending immigration reforms.

    With one of every seven people working in the United States born abroad, the percentage of America's foreign-born population -- 12 percent of the total population, according to 2004 Census figures -- is higher than it has been in 70 years.

    This increase has revealed stark insufficiencies in the government's current immigration policy, both in terms of limiting and keeping track of immigrant workers. Apart from such concerns, panelists Wednesday viewed recent immigration trends as a net positive force for growth and development.

    Even with an estimated 1.3 million foreign workers pouring across the border each year, the economic impact on wages is murky. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director of the budget office, reported the agency's survey on wages did not reveal a clear impact by the tide of foreign workers, who are often willing to work for low pay. He emphasized the flexibility of the labor market in absorbing foreign workers.

    "What may happen is that native-born workers, facing competition from uneducated foreign workers, may choose to get more education. It is hard to find a direct impact on wage," Holtz-Eakin said.

    In contrast, Harry Holzer, a professor of public policy at Georgetown, presented "a consensus view" among labor economists, suggesting that immigration has at least modestly reduced the earnings of less-educated, U.S.-born workers. However, he centered his testimony on how consumers as well as producers benefit from immigrant labor. Immigrants who work for less have the effect of reducing the costs and prices of domestic products like food, clothing and housing -- all items on which low-income consumers spend much of their disposable income.

    Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, cited a 1997 study by the National Research Council that estimated that immigration reduced the wages of workers without a high school diploma by about five percent.

    This reduction, however, caused marginal gains for 90 percent of the total labor force.

    The reasoning, according to Camarota, is that when immigration reduces wages for less educated workers, the wages do not "vanish into thin air." Instead, employers may pay higher wages to attract more highly educated workers.

    The fourth panelist, Dan Siciliano of Stanford Law School, also rejected the hypothesis that immigrants have caused a significant decline in wages of U.S.-born workers. In his written testimony, he emphasized that immigrant and U.S.-born workers are not "perfectly interchangeable," observing that the different levels of education between foreign and native-born workers "indicate that they often fill different niches in the labor market."

    On the subject of illegal immigration, Holtz-Eakin identified a basic economic incentive, driving those in poorer countries to seek work in the U.S. which better absorbs the labor supply. Holzer suggested that by providing means for undocumented immigrants to become legal, the U.S. could "level the playing field" -- in terms of wages between immigrants and native-born workers.

    Rep. Howard McKeon, R-California, raised a concern about the relative ease of obtaining a false Social Security card, and asked what happened to the money that should be funneled into Social Security. Holtz-Eakin said that the Social Security Administration has a fund of payroll taxes that cannot properly be matched, and it is considered to reflect earnings of illegal workers. The fund has $400 billion.

    Holzer, however, saw another side to the Social Security dilemma: a potential labor shortage as "baby boomers" begin retiring in large numbers.

    "The supply of immigrant labor to the health care and elder care fields will become even more critical for averting shortages of services in these areas," he said.

    All the panelists agreed that a mass deportation of illegal immigrants would significantly disrupt the U.S. economy.

    "The most recent demographic analysis ... reveals that most immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, do not compete directly with native-born workers for jobs," Siciliano concluded. "Instead, these immigrants provide a critical element of our nation's economic success and continued resiliency."

    SOURCE:
    http://www.potomacnews.com/servlet/S...?pagename=WPN/
    MGArticle/WPN_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128768200426&path=

  • #2
    Committee discusses immigration

    By DANIEL GILBERT
    dgilbert@potomacnews.com
    Thursday, November 17, 2005

    Give your opinion on this story

    The House Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing Wednesday to discuss the impact of recent trends in immigration on the American economy, as it prepares to advise Congress on pending immigration reforms.

    With one of every seven people working in the United States born abroad, the percentage of America's foreign-born population -- 12 percent of the total population, according to 2004 Census figures -- is higher than it has been in 70 years.

    This increase has revealed stark insufficiencies in the government's current immigration policy, both in terms of limiting and keeping track of immigrant workers. Apart from such concerns, panelists Wednesday viewed recent immigration trends as a net positive force for growth and development.

    Even with an estimated 1.3 million foreign workers pouring across the border each year, the economic impact on wages is murky. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director of the budget office, reported the agency's survey on wages did not reveal a clear impact by the tide of foreign workers, who are often willing to work for low pay. He emphasized the flexibility of the labor market in absorbing foreign workers.

    "What may happen is that native-born workers, facing competition from uneducated foreign workers, may choose to get more education. It is hard to find a direct impact on wage," Holtz-Eakin said.

    In contrast, Harry Holzer, a professor of public policy at Georgetown, presented "a consensus view" among labor economists, suggesting that immigration has at least modestly reduced the earnings of less-educated, U.S.-born workers. However, he centered his testimony on how consumers as well as producers benefit from immigrant labor. Immigrants who work for less have the effect of reducing the costs and prices of domestic products like food, clothing and housing -- all items on which low-income consumers spend much of their disposable income.

    Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, cited a 1997 study by the National Research Council that estimated that immigration reduced the wages of workers without a high school diploma by about five percent.

    This reduction, however, caused marginal gains for 90 percent of the total labor force.

    The reasoning, according to Camarota, is that when immigration reduces wages for less educated workers, the wages do not "vanish into thin air." Instead, employers may pay higher wages to attract more highly educated workers.

    The fourth panelist, Dan Siciliano of Stanford Law School, also rejected the hypothesis that immigrants have caused a significant decline in wages of U.S.-born workers. In his written testimony, he emphasized that immigrant and U.S.-born workers are not "perfectly interchangeable," observing that the different levels of education between foreign and native-born workers "indicate that they often fill different niches in the labor market."

    On the subject of illegal immigration, Holtz-Eakin identified a basic economic incentive, driving those in poorer countries to seek work in the U.S. which better absorbs the labor supply. Holzer suggested that by providing means for undocumented immigrants to become legal, the U.S. could "level the playing field" -- in terms of wages between immigrants and native-born workers.

    Rep. Howard McKeon, R-California, raised a concern about the relative ease of obtaining a false Social Security card, and asked what happened to the money that should be funneled into Social Security. Holtz-Eakin said that the Social Security Administration has a fund of payroll taxes that cannot properly be matched, and it is considered to reflect earnings of illegal workers. The fund has $400 billion.

    Holzer, however, saw another side to the Social Security dilemma: a potential labor shortage as "baby boomers" begin retiring in large numbers.

    "The supply of immigrant labor to the health care and elder care fields will become even more critical for averting shortages of services in these areas," he said.

    All the panelists agreed that a mass deportation of illegal immigrants would significantly disrupt the U.S. economy.

    "The most recent demographic analysis ... reveals that most immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, do not compete directly with native-born workers for jobs," Siciliano concluded. "Instead, these immigrants provide a critical element of our nation's economic success and continued resiliency."

    SOURCE:
    http://www.potomacnews.com/servlet/S...?pagename=WPN/
    MGArticle/WPN_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128768200426&path=

    Comment


    • #3
      I beleive that reccomendation of the Commitee will have little effect on whether a common-sense immigration reform will be passed in near future.
      Because EXTREME ANTI-IMMIGRATIONISTS out there, despite being in minority, are too active and have too much fanaticism to be persuaded by common-sense arguments and facts. They can also, at present time,stall any common-sense solution to the problem.

      Therefore I think it is most advisable and wise, in current circumstances, to let the ANTI-IMMIGRATIONIST EXTREMISTS do as they wish.

      Just as in AIKIDO.. let them do mistakes, let those mistakes be obvious, let the media and press reflect the most horrific and most inhuman consequences of ANTI-IMMIGRATIONISTS policies on the lives of innocent immigrants, whose only guilt is that they don't want to starve to death in Mexico or other similar countries; or whose guilt is that they don't want to abandon their USC children and LPR spouses, who don't want to cowardly and immorally run away because LAW WILL NOT ALLOW THEM TO STAY WITH THEIR OWN LPR SPOUSES AND USC CHILDREN!

      The CYCLE in Politics lasts few decades, and, looking from Historical perspective, time is not far when the tide will take a 180 degree turn.
      And because many innocent Immigrants unjustly suffer today, their children and grand-children will enjoy great deal of Liberties and Rights in future!

      Immigrants, Remember Mahatma Gandhi!

      Remember the Irish, Italians, Jews, Blacks, Russians, Poles and many others who earlier suffered from the similar kind of injustice, suffered greatly before their rights were restored to them!

      Immigrants, Posterity is on YOUR side,
      Forget it NOT!



      God bless America,
      God bless you ALL!

      Comment


      • #4
        Interesting, isn't it, that these same studies don't report a clear benefit to U.S. workers or consumers from immigration, either. In fact, I had a look at the CBO's report and it doesn't discuss Borjas' work which contradicts one of the reports the CBO does cite, or work by labor economists at Cornell and Northeastern University, or any reports which do find that immigration harms wages, indicating a distinct bias in a supposedly neutral CBO report. At a guess, as well, at least one of the authors of the CBO report is an immigrant. In fact, I wonder if any were H1-Bs? I wonder if that was disclosed as relevant?

        Wages are stagnant, household incomes decreasing, and income distribution becoming more unequal as more people slip out of the middle class into poverty, but, hey, importing low wage workers has nothing at all to do with that. The relationship between importing H1-Bs and having unemployment among IT workers rise above the national average is also our imagination. Or, between importing nurses and their stagnating wages during the 1990s. Or, behind agricultural wages actually decreasing during the 1990s. Or the decrease in real wages in meat packing and drywalling as immigrants, often illegal aliens, took these jobs.

        The CBO appears to be following the Bush administration philosophy--when reality doesn't fit the theory, ignore the reality. But hey, it worked for WMD's. Why not immigration?

        In the meantime, the hearing is apparently not discussing the COSTS of immigration, both in dollars and culturally.

        In the absence of a clear benefit, and evidence of real costs, I think we "nativists" are the rational ones. First do no harm. Continuing to tolerate and reward illegal immigration, and to have record high levels of legal immigration is a bell that cannot be unrung. Restricting and reducing immigration can be.

        Comment


        • #5
          You blame the law for not letting illegal aliens stay with their LPR or US citizen spouses and kids. Actually, that's not true, as you well know. The hitch is, they can't stay with them in the U.S. legally, but they can always take them back to their own country and apply for a waiver there.

          The one at fault here is the illegal alien. He knew his status, and went ahead and married or had kids anyway--sometimes in the hope it would get him a green card or stop deportation.

          Comment


          • #6
            With all due respect, but this is misleading information!

            LPR who lives out of US for more than a year loses his/her Legal Residence/GC - DIDN'T YOU YOURSELF WRITE ABOUT IT ON ANOTHER THREAD?!

            Comment


            • #7
              The one at fault here is the illegal alien. He knew his status, and went ahead and married or had kids anyway--sometimes in the hope it would get him a green card or stop deportation.
              Since when do we have a GETAPO here, to tell people "Don't marry this, marry that"?

              Since when do we have an INQUISITION and WITCH HUNTERS who pretend to know better what the intentions of those who married were, without any regards to individual circumstances, Court Ruling and facts?

              Since when do we live in a NAZI regime where desicion about consumation of GOOD FAITH MARRIAGE and HAVING CHILDREN depends on anyone but individuals themselves ??

              No, never was nor will America be a country where ANYONE can tell ANYONE whom to marry and whom not to!

              Never, ever!
              Period!

              Comment


              • #8
                They don't automatically lose it. In fact, some friends of mine (Indians) lived out of the U.S. for several years and managed to maintain their green cards by regular trips to the US AND showing that they did not intend to give up their permanent residency (housing, bank accounts, etc. to show intent to remain a US resident).

                What I said previously was, that it was at the discretion of the Immigration Officer to question whether the LPR had given up his residency, and to ask for proof that he hadn't. But this site has had many postings from people who've spent considerable time overseas and never had to justify it--the catch is, how lucky do you feel in dealing with Immigration? The particular case was where the poster had said he was making short trips to the US, but "living" in Germany. No mention of ties here other than the trips.

                Comment


                • #9
                  You yourself posted a section of US immigration law which stated that the law presumes that someone who marries while under deportation proceedings is presumed to have done so with the intent of avoiding deportation. It's up to the applicants to prove otherwise.

                  I have no means of knowing why an illegal alien marries, anymore than I know why others marry. I don't have to know. It's up to Immigration to decide that, on a case by case basis. Apparently, there've been enough instances that illegal aliens have married or had kids to avoid deportation that it was believed important enough to codify.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    And what family/ties will have a "traveling" back-and-forth LPR whose immediate family - CHILDREN AND SPOUSE are abroad?

                    And the house, the job..
                    How are you going to keep a job in America if you live abroad half of each year and more?
                    How are you going to afford a mortgage/rent for the house/place where you live only part of the year??
                    How much would it cost? Who could afford it?
                    Where is the logic?

                    According to your "scenario", Aliba, LPR would have to either give up the LPR status or separate from his/her spouse, and at least one spouse would also have to separate from children.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      You yourself posted a section of US immigration law which stated that the law presumes that someone who marries while under deportation proceedings is presumed to have done so with the intent of avoiding deportation. It's up to the applicants to prove otherwise.

                      I have no means of knowing why an illegal alien marries, anymore than I know why others marry. I don't have to know. It's up to Immigration to decide that, on a case by case basis. Apparently, there've been enough instances that illegal aliens have married or had kids to avoid deportation that it was believed important enough to codify.

                      Again, you bring irrelevant subject.
                      I am not talking about those who enter into marriage during proceedings!
                      Great many of those who have to be separated from LPR spouses and children, and wait abroad
                      are those who entered into marriage or had kids without EVER being placed into proceedings, so the law about marriage during proceedings you refer to wouldn't even apply to them!
                      But they STILL have to separate, from kids and spouses and wait YEARS before family can live together.

                      Yet, those who would WILFULLY CONNSUMATE marriage with USC, those who would abandon their USC children from LPR spouses,and abandon their LPR spouses for the sake of GC, well, THOSE illegals can easily get their status adjusted, be amnestied and have all they want.

                      Again, where is logic?!

                      Don't fantasize,Aliba, plz.
                      I know what I am talking about!

                      Comment

                      Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                      Home Page

                      Immigration Daily

                      Archives

                      Processing times

                      Immigration forms

                      Discussion board

                      Resources

                      Blogs

                      Twitter feed

                      Immigrant Nation

                      Attorney2Attorney

                      CLE Workshops

                      Immigration books

                      Advertise on ILW

                      EB-5

                      移民日报

                      About ILW.COM

                      Connect to us

                      Questions/Comments

                      SUBSCRIBE

                      Immigration Daily



                      Working...
                      X