Paradigm PF Dec13

PARADIGM
Research
PUBLIC FORUM
Position Paper
DECEMBER
2013-2014
IMMIGRATION REFORM SHOULD INCLUDE A PATH TO

CITIZENSHIP FOR UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS
CURRENTLY LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES.
If you enjoyed this fine book from PARADIGM RESEARCH,

you'll be glad to know that we offer a complete menu
of affirmatives, disadvantages, counterplans, kritiks,
LD & Public Forum research, and much more.
Shop our online store anytime - www.oneparadigm.com

Call us for a free catalog toll-free - 800-837-9973
The Paradigm NFL Public Forum Position Paper

December 2013
by Dr. David Cram Helwich
Copyright 2013 by Paradigm Research, Inc. All rights reserved.
First Edition Printed In The United States Of America
For information on Paradigm Debate Products:
PARADIGM RESEARCH
P.O. Box 2095
Denton, Texas 76202
Toll-Free 800-837-9973
Fax 940-380-1129
Web /www.oneparadigm.com/
E-mail service@oneparadigm.com
All rights are reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced by any means - graphic, electronic, or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information storage and retrieval systems - without the written
permission of the publisher. Making copies of this book, or any portion, is a violation of United States and international
copyright laws.
Paradigm Research 2013-14
PF DecemberPathway to Citizenship
Pathway to Citizenship: Table of Contents

Pathway to Citizenship: Overview ..................................................................................... 4
Status Quo
Status Quo: Many Undocumented Immigrants Now .......................................................... 6
Status Quo: Undocumented Immigration Decreasing ........................................................ 8
Pathway to Citizenship Desirable

Pathway Desirable: Topshelf............................................................................................ 10
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureTopshelf ..................................................................... 11
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureEconomy Concerns .................................................... 13
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureFood Outsourcing Concerns ....................................... 15
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureImmigrants Key .......................................................... 17
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureTrade Concerns .......................................................... 20
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureWorker Shortages Now .............................................. 21
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureAnswers to Domestic Workers ............................... 23
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureAnswers to Job / Wage Concerns ........................... 25
Pathway Desirable: Alternative InferiorEnforcement / Self-Deportation ..................... 26
Pathway Desirable: Border Security ................................................................................ 28
Pathway Desirable: EconomyGeneral .......................................................................... 30
Pathway Desirable: EconomyCompetitiveness ............................................................ 33
Pathway Desirable: EconomyEntrepreneurship ........................................................... 34
Pathway Desirable: EconomyImmigrant Human Capital ............................................. 36
Pathway Desirable: EconomyJob Growth .................................................................... 38
Pathway Desirable: EconomyLabor Gaps .................................................................... 40
Pathway Desirable: EconomyNationwide .................................................................... 43
Pathway Desirable: EconomyProductivity ................................................................... 44
Pathway Desirable: Fiscal BurdenGeneral ................................................................... 45
Pathway Desirable: Fiscal BurdenImmigrant Earnings ................................................ 47
Pathway Desirable: Fiscal BurdenLow Utilization Rates ............................................. 51
Pathway Desirable: Fiscal BurdenSocial Security........................................................ 53
Pathway Desirable: Fiscal BurdenSocial Security (Baby Boomers) ............................ 55
Pathway Desirable: Fiscal BurdenAnswers to Should Deny Services ...................... 57
Pathway Desirable: Key to Effective Immigration Reform .............................................. 60
Pathway Desirable: Mexico-U.S. RelationsGeneral ..................................................... 61
Pathway Desirable: Mexico-U.S. RelationsImmigration Key ...................................... 63
Pathway Desirable: Social Cohesion ................................................................................ 64
Pathway Desirable: WorkersMinorities........................................................................ 65
Pathway Desirable: WorkersRights / Exploitation ....................................................... 66
Pathway Desirable: WorkersWages ............................................................................. 68
Pathway Desirable: WorkersAnswers to Domestic Displacement ............................ 71
Pathway Desirable: WorkersAnswers to Low-Skill Citizens .................................... 72
Pathway Desirable: Answers to Assimilation Concerns ............................................... 75
Pathway Desirable: Answers to Crime ......................................................................... 76
Pathway Desirable: Answers to IRCA / 1986 Disproves .............................................. 77
Pathway Desirable: Answers to Rule of Law / Rewards Lawbreaking ......................... 80
Pathway Desirable: Answers to Underclass Creation ................................................... 81
Pathway to Citizenship Undesirable

Pathway Undesirable: Topshelf........................................................................................ 82
Pathway Undesirable: AgricultureMechanization Superior ......................................... 84
Pathway Undesirable: AgricultureAnswers to Food Cost Concerns ......................... 88
Pathway Undesirable: AgricultureAnswers to Worker Shortage .............................. 89
Pathway Undesirable: Alternatives SuperiorGeneral ................................................... 92
Pathway Undesirable: Alternatives SuperiorBorder Security ....................................... 93
Pathway Undesirable: Alternatives SuperiorEnforcement ........................................... 94
Pathway Undesirable: Alternatives SuperiorGuest Workers ........................................ 95
Pathway Undesirable: Alternatives SuperiorHigh-Skill Immigration .......................... 96
Pathway Undesirable: Alternatives SuperiorLegalization Only ................................... 97
Pathway Undesirable: Border Security / Chain Migration ............................................... 98
Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenTopshelf.............................................................. 99
Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenGeneral ............................................................. 102

Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenMedicare / Health Care ..................................... 106
Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenSocial Security.................................................. 107
Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenWelfare / Direct Benefits .................................. 109
Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenAnswers to Aging Crisis ............................... 110
Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenAnswers to Higher Immigrant Income .......... 111
Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenAnswers to Immigrant Children Solve .......... 113
Pathway Undesirable: Overpopulation ........................................................................... 114
Pathway Undesirable: Poverty / Economy ..................................................................... 116
Pathway Undesirable: Rule of Law ................................................................................ 117
Pathway Undesirable: Rule of LawAnswers to Broken No Laws........................... 119
Pathway Undesirable: Social Cohesion .......................................................................... 120
Pathway Undesirable: Undocumented Immigration ....................................................... 121
Pathway Undesirable: WorkersGeneral...................................................................... 122
Pathway Undesirable: WorkersLow-Skill Citizens / Displacement ........................... 123
Pathway Undesirable: WorkersWages ....................................................................... 126
Pathway Undesirable: WorkersWorking Conditions .................................................. 128
Pathway Undesirable: Answers to Americans Wont Take the Jobs ......................... 129
Pathway Undesirable: Answers to Center for American Progress Study .................... 130
Pathway Undesirable: Answers to Comprehensive Reform Key ................................ 131
Pathway Undesirable: Answers to Enforcement Solves Any Problems ...................... 133
Pathway Undesirable: Answers to Labor Shortage ..................................................... 134
Pathway to Citizenship: Overview

Resolved: Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently living in
the United States.
The December 2013 Public Forum topic addresses a critical aspect of immigration reform, asking debaters to assess whether
changes to U.S. immigration policy should include a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the United
States. This is the one of the most important and controversial elements of most so-called comprehensive immigration
reform initiatives. This is both a timely and highly important topic, since immigration policy has profound effects on all of
our lives and President Obama and the leadership in the U.S. House and Senate are currently working to hammer out their
differences over competing immigration reform measures, with the question of citizenship pathways at the very heart of these
disputes.
According to the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service, the federal agency responsible for processing visa applications, the
current pathway to citizenship is constituted by the naturalization process available to adult immigrants. Citizenship entails
a lengthy application process, residency requirements, demonstration of good moral character and an attachment to the
principles and ideals of the constitution, English competency and civic knowledge requirements, all concluding in taking an
oath of allegiance to the United States. Any politically feasible pathway to citizenship for undocumented persons currently
residing in the United States would almost certainly include all of these requirements, plus a series of other obligations. For
example, the immigration reform bill that passed the U.S. Senate this past summer included significantly extended residency
requirements and waiting periods and the payment of back taxes, fines, and processing fees. Many advocates and political
leaders supportive of immigration reform support even larger eligibility restrictions. The lack of political consensus about the
exact provisions of any potential pathway, or even whether a pathway should be offered at all, is perhaps the biggest obstacle
to meaningful federal immigration reform
As Congress wrestles with immigration legislation, a central question is whether the 11 million immigrants already
in the United States illegally should get a path to citizenship. The answer from a small but growing number of House
Republicans is "yes," just as long as it's not the "special" path advocated by Democrats and passed by the Senate.
"There should be a pathway to citizenship not a special pathway and not no pathway," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, RUtah, told ABC 4 Utah after speaking at a recent town hall meeting in his district. "But there has to be a legal, lawful
way to go through this process that works, and right now it doesn't." Many House Republicans say people who
illegally crossed the border or overstayed their visas should not be rewarded with a special, tailor-made solution that
awards them a prize of American citizenship, especially when millions are waiting in line to attempt the process
through current legal channels. It's far from clear, however, what a path to citizenship that's not a special path to
citizenship might look like, or how many people it might help. The phrase means different things to different people,
and a large number of House Republicans oppose any approach that results in citizenship for people now are in the
country illegally. Some lawmakers say such immigrants should be permitted to attain legal worker status, but stop
there and never progress to citizenship. That's a solution Democrats reject. Nonetheless, advocates searching for a
way ahead on one of President Barack Obama's second-term priorities see in the "no special path to citizenship"
formulation the potential for compromise. "I think there's a lot of space there," said Clarissa Martinez, director of
civic engagement and immigration at the National Council of La Raza. "And that's why I'm optimistic that once they
start grappling more with details, that's when things start getting more real." [Erica Werner, Path to Citizenship
Remains Central to Question in Immigration Bill Debate, ASSOCIATED PRESS, 9113,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/01/path-to-citizenship_n_3852156.html, accessed 11-3-13]
One issue that is likely to be very controversial in many debates on this topic is the exact nature of the particular pathway to
citizenship that the pro team is required to defend. How this question is resolved in both individual rounds and in the
development of community norms on particular circuits could have a profound impact on the argument choices in contest
rounds. Depending on their perspective on the relative desirability of maximalist (naturalize as many undocumented
persons as possible) and minimalist (naturalize only a small segment of the population of undocumented persons)
approaches, pro cases will want to defend either rather permissive or highly restrictive pathways, which in turn will
significantly influence con argument options. The con teams argument preferences may dictate advancing an interpretation
off the resolution that tries to corner the pro side into a particular type of citizenship pathway.
The resolution asks the pro team to defend a normative statement, namely that any prospective immigration reform proposal
include some form of pathway to citizenship for undocumented persons, which are generally considered to be individuals
residing in the U.S. without any legal status (such as those afford by citizenship or the possession of work/travel visas and so-
Pathway to Citizenship: Overview [contd]

called green cards). Notably, the resolution limits the availability of a citizenship pathway (often labeled amnesty by its
critics) to persons already in the U.S.
The pro side has a large number of strong arguments to offer in defense of the resolution. First, many business and labor
analysts contend that the United States is facing critical worker shortage in the near future. Most folks have likely seen news
reports about the claimed shortage of STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) workers seen in many
industries, a problem that is predicted to only get worse in the coming years. A pathway to citizenship is unlikely to directly
address this problem in the short-run, although there is good reason to argue that the increased educational and training
opportunities afforded to new citizens and their offspring offers the potential for a larger STEM workforce in the future.
Contrary to the conventional wisdom, there are also a number of analysts who contend that the U.S. faces an imminent
shortage of low-skill workers, driven by both a long-term decline in the U.S.s birth rate and the knockoff effects of enhanced
enforcement efforts against undocumented persons, which combine to restrict the current and future labor pool. Many
pathway advocates argue that this problem is particularly acute in the agriculture sector, with many portions of the country
facing an acute worker shortage that will only get worse as state and federal enforcement efforts construct the pool of
undocumented agricultural workers. Second, there are a pretty persuasive set of arguments about the benefits of a citizenship
pathway for the overall economy. A number of studies support the claim that a legalization program offering eventual
citizenship would increase immigrant income, bolster overall productivity throughout the economy, enhance U.S.
competitiveness, and foster a stronger sense of entrepreneurship, since immigrants are far more likely to start new businesses
and acquire additional education and skills if they have firm legal status, particularly the prospects of eventual citizenship.
Third, pathway proponents contend that providing legal status to undocumented persons will result in both a short- and longterm increase in government revenues, which in turn will help bolster the long-term solvency of the Social Security system
and other parts of the social safety net. Citizenship pathways would not only increase the number of workers paying into a
social safety network facing significant future stress from the looming retirement of the over-large generation of baby
boomers. Fourth, enhanced citizenship and subsequent economic opportunities for undocumented immigrants will remove a
major irritant in the bilateral relationship between the United States, Mexico, and other key states throughout Latin America,
opening the door to broader cooperation on a wide range of issues. Finally, there is a strong set of arguments claiming that
legal status and citizenship opportunities will improve the working conditions of both currently undocumented persons and
U.S. citizen workers, many of whom are subjected to unsafe working conditions and criminally low wages because
undocumented workers are highly unlikely to report such conditions.
Con arguments are equally good, and largely mirror those of the pro-side. First, not only do many observers reject the notion
that the U.S. is facing a significant labor shortage, not only in the agricultural sector, but also in other parts of the U.S.
economy that typically experience a high demand for relatively low-skilled labor. Many immigration and amnesty opponents
contend that the United States has too many people with relatively low levels of educational attainment and/or a lack of
marketable job skills. There is also a line of argument that contends that shortages of inexpensive labor encourages
mechanization and innovation, which in turns boosts productivity and the performance of the overall economy. Second, there
are many advocates who support the notion that the federal government should reform its immigration reform policies, but
argue that we should stop short of the granting of citizenship rights. Alternative such as expanding the number of guest
workers or expanding the number of visas supplied for highly skilled immigrants are often proposed as solutions to the labor
crisis, while enhanced border security and internal enforcement measures are defended as a means of dealing with the
claimed problems of undocumented immigration. There is also some solid evidence arguing that simply providing some legal
status to undocumented workers, such as temporary or permanent resident status, is sufficient to capture most of the benefits
of offering a pathway to citizenship. Third, there is excellent, recent evidence arguing that immigration is a net fiscal negative
both for the overall budget and the network of Social Security programs. Although a pathway to citizenship increases the
payroll taxes paid by workers into the Social Security system, such gains would be relatively small because many
undocumented workers already pay such taxes and because prospective earnings gains for newly legalized immigrants are
often overstated. Meanwhile, immigrants will eventually become eligible for public service and direct benefits, and many
will receive substantial retirement benefits, resulting in a net government deficit at both the federal and state levels. Fourth,
many critics argue that amnesty will only encourage additional unlawful immigration (largely from persons hoping to obtain
citizenship in a future amnesty) and be seen as a reward for breaking immigration and employment laws, decreasing our
respect for the law in other spheres. Finally, many economics argue that amnesty will hurt citizen workers, both by
decreasing job opportunities and wages as additional workers shift into an already flooded labor market. These negative
effects will be felt the most by low-skill American workers.
This is a solid topic with a great literature base. Best of luck!
5
Status Quo: Many Undocumented Immigrants Now

1. There are currently 11.5 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., according to government
figures
Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow and Dr. Jason Richwine, The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the
U.S. Taxpayer, SPECIAL REPORT n. 133, Heritage Foundation, 5613,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty%20to-the-us-taxpayer,
accessed 11-4-13.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates that there were 11.5 million undocumented, or unlawful, foreignborn persons in the U.S. in January 2011. These estimates are based on the fact that the number of foreign-born persons
appearing in U.S. Census surveys is considerably greater than the actual number of foreign-born persons who are permitted to
reside lawfully in the U.S. according to immigration records. For example, in January 2011, some 31.95 million foreign-born
persons (who arrived in the country after 1980) appeared in the annual Census survey, but the corresponding number of lawful
foreign-born residents in that year (according to government administrative records) was only 21.6 million. DHS estimates that
the differencesome 10.35 million foreign-born persons appearing in the Census American Community Survey (ACS)was
comprised of unauthorized or unlawful residents. DHS further estimates that an additional 1.15 million unlawful immigrants
resided in the U.S. but did not appear in the Census survey, for a total of 11.5 million unlawful residents.
2. Undocumented immigration remains an issue despite declines during the Great Recession
Roberto Suro, Professor, Public Policy, University of Sothern California and Jorge Castaneda, Professor, Politics and Latin
American and Caribbean Studies, New York University "Who Can Fix America's Immigration Mess? Mexico,"
WASHINGTON POST, 4--12--13, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-12/opinions/38485352_1_unauthorizedpopulation-illegal-immigration-mexico, accessed 11-9-13.
About 12 million people born in Mexico live in the United States. They account for 30 percent of the foreign-born population.
They are not going away. Rather, their numbers will grow. Despite a predictable downturn during the Great Recession, the U.S.
labor market has not lost its appetite for Mexican workers. Even with a tepid economy, we can expect a net flow averaging
260,000 people, both legal and illegal, every year through 2017, according to a recent study by the Wilson Center and the
Migration Policy Institute. That is almost back to the pre-recession level of 280,000 migrants a year. And the study concluded
that if the U.S. economy lights up, particularly in the construction sector, the estimated net flow could reach 330,000 a year
before the end of the decade. Moreover, the unauthorized population has proved remarkably resilient. Since Obama took office
in 2009, more than 1.2 million people have been removed from the country, but new arrivals have taken their place. Despite the
deportations and record numbers of Border Patrol agents, the Department of Homeland Security estimates that the number of
illegal immigrants living in the United States has remained the same about 11.5 million for at least three years now.
About 60 percent are from Mexico.
3. The number of undocumented immigrants is very large

Emma Aguila et al., analysts, Rand Corporation, UNITED STATES AND MEXICO: TIES THAT BIND, ISSUES THAT
DIVIDE, 2012, p. 10-11.
Nonetheless, there are a variety of estimates indicating that the number of illegal immigrants grew rapidly in the 1990s and first
few years of the 2000s. In 1990, there were an estimated 3.5 million to 4.7 million illegal immigrants, of whom 1 million to 2
million were Mexican. By 2000, the total was estimated at between 7 million and 10.9 million, of whom 3.9 million to 4.8
million were Mexican (Hanson, 2006). Passel and Cohn (2009) estimate that, in 2008, 59 percent of illegal immigrants living in
the United States came from Mexico. Although the common perception is that illegal immigration has increased constantly
since the 1990s, estimates from the late 2000s indicate that the number of unauthorized immigrants has stabilized or even
declined (Passel and Cohn, 2008b, 2010; Hoefer, Rytina, and Baker, 2009).
Status Quo: Many Undocumented Immigrants Now [contd]

4. There are over 11 million undocumented persons in the U.S.
U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, "Immigration, Workforce Mobility and the Economic Impact," ISSUE PAPER n. 2, 8-11, http://www.usmcoc.org/papers-current/2-Immigration-Workforce-Mobility-and-the-Economic-Impact.pdf, accessed 11-913.
In 2010 the number of undocumented immigrants living in the United States was roughly 11.2 million or 4% of the total U.S.
population, a number virtually unchanged from 2009. That year, the level of undocumented immigration declined for the first
time in two decades, dropping 8% from 2007, as a sour economy and stepped-up border enforcement made it harder or less
desirable for undocumented workers to enter from Mexico. Mexicans make up the majority of the undocumented immigrant
population at 58%, or 6.5 million, followed by people from other Latin American countries at 23%, or 2.6 million; Asia at 11%
or 1.3 million; Europe and Canada at 4% or 500,000; African countries and other nations with 3%, or 400,000. The number of
undocumented immigrants in the U.S. labor force was also unchanged in 2010 from the previous year, staying steady at 8
million. These immigrants represent about 5% of workers in the U.S., which is slightly lower than it was during its peak of 8.4
million in 2007.
Status Quo: Undocumented Immigration Decreasing

1. The growth of undocumented immigration has slowed
Ann Garcia, Policy Analyst, Immigration Policy Team, The Facts on Immigration Today, Center for American Progress, 4
313, www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/04/03/59040/the-facts-on-immigration-today-3/, accessed
11-5-13.
The growth of the undocumented immigrant population has slowed in recent years. In 2000 there were an estimated 8.4 million
undocumented persons residing in the United States. This population peaked in 2007 at 12 million, but decreased to 11.1
million by 200918 and remains stable at 11.1 million in 2011. People from Mexico account for a large part of the
undocumented population living in the United States. 6.8 million people, or 59 percent of the undocumented population, are
from Mexico. Another 6 percent of the undocumented population is from El Salvador; 5 percent is from Guatemala; 3 percent
is from Honduras; and 2 percent is from China and the Philippines.
2. Undocumented immigration from Mexico is in decline

Michael Barone, Shrinking Problem: Illegal Immigration from Mexico, WASHINGTON EXAMINER, 42512,
http://aei.org/article/society-and-culture/immigration/shrinking-problem-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/
The illegal immigration problem is going away. That's the conclusion I draw from the latest report of the Pew Hispanic Center
on Mexican immigration to the United States. Pew's demographers have carefully combed through statistics compiled by the
U.S. Census Bureau, the Department of Homeland Security and the Mexican government, and have come up with estimates of
the flow of migrants from and back to Mexico. Their work seems to be as close to definitive as possible. They conclude that
from 2005 to 2010, some 1.39 million people came from Mexico to the United States and 1.37 million went from the U.S. to
Mexico. "The largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States," they write, "has come to a
standstill." The turning point seems to have come with the collapse of housing prices and the onset of recession in 2007.
Annual immigration from Mexico dropped from peaks of 770,000 in 2000 and 670,000 in 2004 to 140,000 in 2010. As a result,
the Mexican-born population in the United States decreased from 12.6 million in 2007 to 12.0 million in 2010. That decrease
consisted entirely of Mexican-born illegal immigrants, whose numbers decreased from 7.0 million in 2007 to 6.1 million in
2010.
3. Immigration from Mexico will slowmultiple reasons

Michael Barone, Shrinking Problem: Illegal Immigration from Mexico, WASHINGTON EXAMINER, 42512,
http://aei.org/article/society-and-culture/immigration/shrinking-problem-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/
The Pew analysts hesitate to say so, but their numbers make a strong case that we will never again see the flow of Mexicans
into this country that we saw between 1970, when there were fewer than 1 million Mexican-born people in the U.S., and 2007,
when there were 12.7 million. One reason is that Mexico's population growth has slowed way down. Its fertility rate fell from
7.3 children per woman in 1970 to 2.4 in 2009, which is just above replacement level. Meanwhile Mexico's economy has
grown. Despite sharp currency devaluations in 1982 and 1994, its per capita gross domestic product rose 22 percent from 1980
to 2010. Mexico, like the United States, experienced a recession from 2007 to 2009. But since then Mexico's GDP has grown
far faster than ours: 5.5 percent in 2010 and 3.9 percent in 2011. Mexico seemed yoked to the U.S. growth rate after passage of
the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993. But since the recession it seems yoked to the more robust growth rate of
the state with the biggest cross-border trade, Texas. An end to the huge flow of immigrants from Mexico has huge implications
for U.S. immigration policy.
4. Immigration is declining--multiple reasons

Inter-American Dialogue, REMAKING THE RELATIONSHIP: THE UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA, 4--12, p.
9.
In the last several years, there have been signs of an important shift in patterns of migration to the United States. Immigration
from Mexico has leveled off, in part the result of a relatively weak job market in the United States, coupled with Mexicos
improving economic performance. The most germane trend may be demographic: Mexicos birth rates have stabilized at low
levels, which means population growth is quickly tapering off and pressures for migration are declining. These developments
should lead US policy officials to revise their views. The United States should feel less threatened by and more welcoming of
Mexican migrants, who make up roughly 30 percent of all immigrants entering the United States.
Status Quo: Undocumented Immigration Decreasing [contd]

5. Net migration out of Mexico will end regardlessdemographic, economic changes
Luis Rubio, MEXICO MATTERS: CHANGE IN MEXICO AND ITS IMPACT UPON THE UNITED STATES, Mexico
Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2012, p. 13-15.
Interestingly enough, Mexicos demographics will soon end the immigration story. The population bubble of the 1980s is
coming to an end and within a very few years there will be no more surplus labor to export. A combination of better standards
of living (in fact, a rapidly growing middle class), effective population-control campaigns, and more women in the labor force
have radically altered the demographic picture. Mexicos population is growing barely at replacement level. Americans soon
will have to adjust their vision of Mexico as well as their rhetoric on this subject.
6. Immigration from Mexico is decliningwill only continue to decrease

Luis Rubio, MEXICO MATTERS: CHANGE IN MEXICO AND ITS IMPACT UPON THE UNITED STATES, Mexico
Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2012, p. 14.
Beyond the ideological and political disputes that are inherent to illegal immigration, the reality is that facts on the ground are
changing fast. After years of growing rapidly, illegal immigration from Mexico is down. in fact, the so-called undocumented
Mexican population in the U.S. is shrinking. All sorts of explanations have been provided for this phenomenon, the major two
being that (a) as the American economy has shrunk, so has demand for the kind of labor that the undocumented typically
provide, and (b) wage differentials between Mexico and the U.S. have made the trip to the north less attractive. while both
explanations are based on relevant data, there is a third explanation that, in the long run, trumps all others: Mexican
demographics. After growing at about 4.5 percent per year for decades in the first half of the 20th century, Mexicos population
experienced a temporary increase in its rate of population growth during the 1970s, a fact that, in the long run, created a de
facto surplus population of about 15 million people. surplus because no structural changes in the economy were undertaken
to match the growth of the population, thus creating a potential unemployment bomb. it is not surprising that that this figure
matches nearly to the decimal point the number of Mexican migrants to the U.S. in the following decades. what did change in
Mexico during the 1980s and afterwards were the countrys population policies, all geared to rapidly lowering the rate of
population growth, to the degree that during the last few years the population has been growing barely at replacement level (1.8
percent). though the absolute population will continue growing, the surplus phenomenon is over. Mexico is beginning to age,
just as have most other nations. with or without a U.S. economic slowdown, Mexican migration would have plunged very
quickly.
7. Immigration from Mexico is starting to decline

Christopher E. Wilson, Eric L. Olson, Miguel R. Salazar, Andrew Selee and Duncan Wood, NEW IDEAS FOR A NEW ERA:
POLICY OPTIONS FOR THE NEXT STAGE IN U.S.-MEXICO RELATIONS, Mexico Institute, Woodrow Wilson Center,
513, p. 2.
On the question of migration, there has been a shift in internal politics in the U.S. that permits a more open debate on
immigration than at any time in recent memory, with a bipartisan willingness to consider meaningful reform of immigration
laws. This happens at the same time as we have seen a significant drop in migration flows from Mexico, high levels of reverse
migration and a more robust economy in Mexico beginning to create more jobs south of the border.
Pathway Desirable: Topshelf

1. Legalization will provide a substantial boost to the economyincreased productivity and earnings, and
has a strong multiplier effect
Robert G. Lynch, Professor, Economics, Washington College and Patrick Oakford, Research Assistant, Center for American
Progress, The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented Immigrants, Center for
American Progress, 32013, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/03/20/57351/the-economiceffects-of-granting-legal-status-and-citizenship-to-undocumented-immigrants/, accessed 11-5-13.
But legal status and citizenship are also about the economic health of the nation as a whole. As our study demonstrates, legal
status and a road map to citizenship for the unauthorized will bring about significant economic gains in terms of growth,
earnings, tax revenues, and jobsall of which will not occur in the absence of immigration reform or with reform that creates a
permanent sub-citizen class of residents. We also show that the timing of reform matters: The sooner we provide legal status
and citizenship, the greater the economic benefits are for the nation. The logic behind these economic gains is straightforward.
As discussed below, legal status and citizenship enable undocumented immigrants to produce and earn significantly more than
they do when they are on the economic sidelines. The resulting productivity and wage gains ripple through the economy
because immigrants are not just workersthey are also consumers and taxpayers. They will spend their increased earnings on
the purchase of food, clothing, housing, cars, and computers. That spending, in turn, will stimulate demand in the economy for
more products and services, which creates jobs and expands the economy.
2. Pathway will transform the lives of the undocumented

Rebecca Kaplan, Walking the Path to Citizenship, NATIONAL JOURNAL DAILY, 9213,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/walking-the-path-to-citizenship-20130902, accessed 11-4-13.
As the year goes on, the prospects of Congress passing an immigration bill that includes a pathway to citizenship have grown
dimmer. The Senate backed a bill in late June that outlines a roughly 13-year process. That's likely to be even more arduous in
the Houseif the House approves anything at all. (So far, committees have passed five immigration bills, but none deals with a
path to citizenship.) While Congress addresses many vital issuesfrom food stamps to declarations of warfew have the type
of direct impact that a pathway to citizenship would have on the 11 million people living illegally in the United States. For
them, the ability to become U.S. citizens could change everything, from whether they can drive legally and buy a home to
where they can work and whether their children can afford college.
3. We are not defending automatic citizenshipany likely pathway will include a number of critical
requirements
Rebecca Kaplan, Walking the Path to Citizenship, NATIONAL JOURNAL DAILY, 9213,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/walking-the-path-to-citizenship-20130902, accessed 11-4-13.
Any pathway to citizenship passed by Congress will not be easy. Under the Senate bill, people like Crespo would have to spend
10 years as a registered provisional immigrant and be subject to a host of requirements. If they are continuously employed;
speak or are learning English; study U.S. history; pay a processing fee, a fine, and back taxes; and pass a background check,
they can apply for a green cardprovided the backlog has been cleared. After three years of lawful permanent resident status,
people may apply to naturalize as citizens. Yet Crespo, like many others, says that the even a long, complicated, and expensive
pathway to citizenship is worthwhile. He's more comfortable communicating in Spanish, and he doesn't think he could pass an
English test right now. But if a reform bill makes it all the way to the president's desk, Crespo said he'll be ready. That won't be
the case for everyone. Even if a law is passed that offers illegal immigrants the chance to gain legal status and citizenship,
history shows that many will not take advantage of the opportunity. A study conducted by the Homeland Security Department
found that of the 2.7 million people who were given legal permanent resident status under the 1986 Immigration Reform and
Control Act, only 41 percent chose to naturalize by 2009. Even now, immigrants who are granted legal permanent residency
don't always become citizens. According to a study by the Pew Hispanic Center released earlier this year, the number of
eligible immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean who had not yet naturalized by 2011 exceeded those who did seek
citizenship. Rates of naturalization are particularly low among Mexican immigrants, the largest population that stands to
benefit from legislation that includes a pathway to citizenship. More than nine in 10 Latino legal permanent residents express a
desire to naturalize, but 45 percent have cited personal or administrative barriers to applying, such as insufficient English (26
percent). Nearly all of those who cite administrative barriers (18 percent) say the $680 cost of a citizenship application is
prohibitiveand undocumented immigrants being offered provisional status would have to pay additional fines before even
getting the chance to naturalize.
10
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureTopshelf

1. Current and coming state enforcement measures risk an agricultural workers crisis
Alfonso Serrano, "Bitter Harvest: U.S. Farmers Blame Billion-Dollar Losses on Immigration Laws," TIME, 9--21--12,
http://business.time.com/2012/09/21/bitter-harvest-u-s-farmers-blame-billion-dollar-losses-on-immigration-laws/, accessed 119-13.
The Broetjes and an increasing number of farmers across the country say that a complex web of local and state antiimmigration laws account for acute labor shortages. With the harvest season in full bloom, stringent immigration laws have
forced waves of undocumented immigrants to flee certain states for more-hospitable areas. In their wake, thousands of acres of
crops have been left to rot in the fields, as farmers have struggled to compensate for labor shortages with domestic help. The
enforcement of immigration policy has devastated the skilled-labor source that weve depended on for 20 or 30 years, said
Ralph Broetje during a recent teleconference organized by the National Immigration Forum, adding that last year Washington
farmers part of an $8 billion agriculture industry were forced to leave 10% of their crops rotting on vines and trees. Its
getting worse each year, says Broetje, and its going to end up putting some growers out of business if Congress doesnt step
up and do immigration reform. Roughly 70% of the 1.2 million people employed by the agriculture industry are
undocumented. No U.S. industry is more dependent on undocumented immigrants. But acute labor shortages brought on by
anti-immigration measures threaten to heap record losses on an industry emerging from years of stiff foreign competition.
Nationwide, labor shortages will result in losses of up to $9 billion, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.
2. Labor shortages are causing agricultural outsourcingthreatens widespread problems

Stacy McCland, "Immigration Reform and Agriculture: What We Really Want, What We Really need, and What Will Happen
if They Leave?" BARRY LAW REVIEW v. 10, Spring 2008, p. 74-75.
The ignorance of the importance of agriculture to Americans has been explained by their being "insulated by the apparent
abundance of food . . . [leading to] humanity's fundamental dependence on agriculture being overlooked." While food may
appear to be abundant in America, less and less of it is coming from American soil. In 2005, the industry produced a net export
value of zero for the country when compared to imports for the first time in almost a half of a century. This is a drastic change
from just ten years ago when the net export value was approximately $ 27 billion. This shift makes the American population
very dependent on outside countries for food. Many of these imports of agricultural products into America are coming from
Mexico. Proponents of guest worker and amnesty programs argue that American farms are moving to Mexico because of the
difficulty in finding employees locally, and that they will continue to do so in the absence of significant immigration reform.
There are countless reasons why America should not depend on other countries for their agricultural food supply. Jared
Diamond discusses the dependency of societies on their neighbors at length in his book Collapse, which describes in detail how
past societies have failed for this specific reason. Diamond discusses the failures of the following populations as a result of
their dependence on their neighbors for important necessities: the Anasazi of the Southwest United States, the inhabitants of the
Pitcarin and Henderson Islands in Southeast Polynesia, the Mayans of Mexico, and the Vikings in Norse Greenland. There are
complex theories as to why this dependence is alarming. In simple terms, once your neighbor becomes weakened for one
reason or another, your neighbor is no longer able to help you, and you must either become independent very quickly or suffer
the consequences. The larger and more complex the society, the harder it is to recover quickly enough. It seems hard to imagine
that America could suffer a massive food shortage from a simple lack of forethought, but history often repeats itself. Americans
may not appreciate agriculture now, but they will come to appreciate it in the unfortunate event of a substantial crisis, such as
outrageous food prices, or even unprecedented shortages of food leading to mass starvation.
3. Small decreases in supply risk price spikes--tight supplies

Matthew Lynn, "Food Prices May Be Catalyst for 2013 Revolutions," MARKETWATCH, 1--16--13,
www.marketwatch.com/story/food-prices-may-be-catalyst-for-2013-revolutions-2013-01-16, accessed 1-22-13.
That comes against the backdrop of an increasing long-term shortage of food. A surge in global population and the increasing
wealth of many developing nations richer people eat more, and they eat more meat as well, which increases demand for
animal feed means the long term trend in food is upwards. Against that backdrop, it doesnt take much tightening of supply
to send prices rocketing. So if you figure that rising food prices create revolts, and prices will rocket this year, then where
might we see political turmoil? It is a question that matters to investors, because a revolution means a collapse in stockmarkets. Just take a look at Egypt in 2011 the Cairo index plunged from 7,200 to 3,600 as the regime fell. If the revolt is big
enough, markets may tumble globally.
11
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureTopshelf [contd]

4. We need to bring in more agricultural workers--risk crops rotting the fields otherwise, will boost U.S.
economy and decrease global hunger
Matthew Yglesias, "How to Make U.S. Agriculture Even Stronger," SLATE, 6--8--12,
www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2012/06/agriculture_industry_needs_more_farmland_and_better_imm
igration_laws_.html, accessed 11-10-13.
The other input where were most clearly falling short is people. Land and transportation infrastructure alone wouldnt have
turned America into a farm powerhouse if people hadnt moved here from Europe to till the soil. The same situation applies
today, when immigrants and especially temporary seasonal workers are a key element in the agricultural labor force. In recent
years, unfortunately, the countrys political mood has wrought a crackdown on unauthorized immigrationa move that
fantasists insist will mechanically push up wages for American workers. In reality, the lowest wages Americans will accept will
in many cases be too high to be profitable, leaving crops rotting in the fields rather than picked by visitors from Latin America.
This merely wastes resources and reduces overall incomes throughout the country. Whats needed isnt tolerance of illegal
border crossing, but expanded temporary-worker programs ideally purged of the requirement that migrants work exclusively
for one employer, which too often open workers to abusive treatment. The days when the United States was a nation of farmers
are long gone, but were still the Earths greatest agricultural producer. The world, meanwhile, is a big and increasingly hungry
place. With a few smarter policies to bring more land into cultivation and an adequate supply of workers to till it, this strong
point of the American economy could get even stronger.
12
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureEconomy Concerns

1. Agriculture sector is key to the U.S. economy--need to reform the immigration system
Tom Nassif, President, Western Growers, Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration
Policy and Enforcement, 2--26--13, http://www.wga.com/sites/default/files/2-2613%20Nassif%20Western%20Growers%20Judiciary%20Statement%20FINAL.pdf, accessed 11-9-13.
Agriculture is Critical to the Health of the U.S. Economy With 81,500 farms and ranches, California agriculture is a $43.5
billion dollar industry that generates at least $100 billion in related economic activity. Agriculture contributes $10.3 billion to
Arizonas economy. The United States fruit, vegetable and floral industry contributes over a half-trillion dollars annually to the
nations economy. Not only is agricultures role in maintaining a safe and secure food supply vital to our economic recovery, it
is critical to the strength of rural America. Congress failure to pass immigration reform, combined with a diminishing labor
supply, threats due to I-9 audits by ICE, and mandatory E-Verify legislation emerging at the state and the federal levels, it is
clear that U.S. agriculture will be decimated without a workable mechanism to hire and continue to employ the labor we need.
The current debate regarding immigration reform provides the best opportunity in years to finally get the solution right for
agriculture.
2. GDP figures grossly understate the importance of agriculture to our economy

if They Leave?" BARRY LAW REVIEW v. 10, Spring 2008, p. 74.
The agricultural industry directly provided $ 128.8 billion to the United States Gross Domestic Product (hereinafter, "GDP") in
2005, and while that may sound high, it only consists of about one percent of the total GDP. However, this relatively low dollar
figure does not accurately state the true value of agriculture in America, as it is only a reflection of "the core of the food and
fiber system." The entire system itself constitutes one of the largest sectors of the American economy. A report by the USDA
released in 1998 examined at length all of the industries supported by agriculture in America. The report conclusively shows
the importance of agriculture to almost every other sector of the American economy and the importance of agriculture to every
American home. The food and fiber system, which at its heart is agriculture, provides the food we eat, the clothes we wear, and
the wood used to build our homes, among other countless uses. As essential as agriculture is to our society, it is not reflected in
how Americans prioritize their spending. In 1949, American families spent 22.3 percent of their disposable income on food, but
in 2005 they only spent 11.5 percent. These figures reflect a continuing, consistent decline over the last fifty-five years. The
ignorance of the importance of agriculture to Americans has been explained by their being "insulated by the apparent
abundance of food . . . [leading to] humanity's fundamental dependence on agriculture being overlooked."
3. Agriculture is vital to the economy--strong jobs multiplier

Suzanne E. Cevasco, "National of Immigrants, Nation of Laws: Agriculture as the Achilles Heel of Enforcement-Only
Immigration Legislation," SETON HALL LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL v. 37, 2012, p. 188.
The dependence of the United States on unauthorized immigration is fueled in part by the fact that the nation has an "unstable
agricultural labor market that requires constant replenishment with new workers from abroad." Instability results from the
inherent hardship of making a living from farm work and, accordingly, the fact that only laborers without other options remain
in the agricultural industry. This is not a new problem: in 1986, the Committee on Agricultural Workers determined that the
goal of controlling illegal immigration would be best served by the development of a more structured and stable domestic
agricultural labor market with increasingly productive workers...such a system would ... address the needs of seasonal
farmworkers through higher earnings, and the needs of agricultural employers through increased productivity and decreased
uncertainty over labor supply. Although the industry comprises only 1 percent of the nation's gross domestic product,
agriculture plays a key role in the national economy. Every agricultural job affects three or four others, "from people who make
and sell fertilizer and farm machinery to those who work in trucking, food processing, grocery stores, and restaurants."
13
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureEconomy Concerns [contd]

4. Agriculture jobs have a 3 to 1 multiplier effect
John Conyers, U.S. Representative, "Agricultural Labor: From H-2A to a Workable Agricultural Guestworkers Program,"
Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives,
113th Congress, Serial No. 113-3, 2--26--13, p. 3.
We also know that there are Americans and immigrants with work authorizations who perform this work, and there are not
nearly enough of them to get the job done. This is important to Members of Congress from districts that produce the handpicked produce that we all enjoy. Their local economies are built upon a, frankly, untenable situation. They depend on the labor
of undocumented immigrants, which means they depend on our willingness to tolerate that unacceptable situation. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture reports that every on-the- farm job supports 3.1 upstream and downstream jobs in processing,
trucking, distribution. These jobs are generally held by American workers, so the destruction of agriculture and the offshoring
of all these farm jobs means the loss of millions of other jobs in communities across the country.
14
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureFood Outsourcing Concerns

1. Strong food supply is vital to our national security interests
Chalmers R. Carr III, President, Titan Farms LLC, Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on
Immigration Policy and Enforcement, 2--26--13, http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/02262013/carr%2002262013.pdf,
accessed 11-9-13.
An even more significant component to food safety is food security and its direct link to national security. History illustrates
that development of a secure food source has led developed nations to political independence, stability and international
influence. In a recent speech by Vice President Joe Biden noted an intrinsic link between access to an adequate food supply and
prosperity and stability. Former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman alluded to soaring food prices and supply shortages as
major contributors to the 2011 political uprising and governmental upheaval in Egypt. Wealthy Arab countries that watched
what happened in Egypt and surrounding regions have begun actively purchasing agricultural land all over the world to ensure
their citizens have a dedicated food supply. This is known as the great land grab. One look at China and you recognize the
fine line between political stability and an adequate food source. Currently China houses the largest population on the planet
and they have also become the largest purchaser of land. China is dedicating their resources to ensure an adequate food supply
in the years to come. A country having an abundant supply of food has many problems, however a country that cannot feed
itself only has ONE problem! I trust you can conclude the availability of an abundant legal labor supply for agriculture is
paramount to our countrys prosperity, food safety and national security.
2. Failure to act will ensure a surge in food imports--undermines our food security, safety
Lynne Finnerty, "Commentary: Import Labor or Import Food--Who Will Decide?" AG ALERT, 8--13--08,
http://www.agalert.com/story/?id=1115, accessed 11-10-13.
Real leaders don't run from the responsibility of making tough choices. They make those decisions based on the best
information available and a genuine desire to do what's right. America has before it such a choice when it comes to the future
of American agriculture. Global markets, the loss of domestic agricultural labor, the shrinking of the farm family, economic
factors driving farm consolidationall these are working together to change how we grow our crops, manage our orchards,
harvest our fruits and vegetables and maintain our dairies. The fact is, either more workers will come to our country to help us
with these tasks or we will have to import the food we will no longer be able to grow. Unfortunately, many in Congress
influenced by voices like cable commentator Lou Dobbshave neglected the responsibility to lead on the issue of immigration
and farm labor reform. As a result, America is left with a choice by default: As our labor shortage worsens, we will depend on
other countries for more of our food while our own agricultural economy shrinks by billions of dollars a year. This is not a
good choice in terms of food security or safety. Agricultural methods in the United States are among the best in the world.
Pesticide and food safety rules guarantee Americans the highest-quality food available. Our ability to produce food in the U.S.
ensures that we don't have to depend on others. Are we willing to give that up? Unless Congress acts, we may have no choice.
If American farmers cannot hire enough workers to plant, tend and harvest their crops, many will shutter their operations or
move them south of the border. It's already happening.
3. We need to address agricultural worker shortages--the alternative is to increase food imports

Franco Ordonez, "Importing Workers or Crops?" MERCED SUN-TAR, 5--21--13,
www.mercedsunstar.com/2013/05/21/3023468/importing-workers-or-crops.html, accessed 11-10-13.
Walk the aisles of any neighborhood grocery store today and you're as likely to find tomatoes picked in Sinaloa, Mexico, as
Central California or oranges from So Paulo, Brazil, as Bradenton, Fla. Farmers across the country warn that shoppers will
find even more imported food on their store shelves if Congress fails to pass immigration legislation that would guarantee them
enough workers to milk their cows and harvest their fruits and vegetables. "The bottom line is people need to decide whether
they'd rather import their labor or import their food," said Randall Patterson, a China Grove, N.C., farmer who grows
strawberries, cucumbers and watermelons among his crops. The 52-year-old third-generation farmer employs about 140
foreign-born workers on his 1,200-acre farm legally through a federal system similar to the one a bipartisan team of senators
want to overhaul and streamline. But crops are being left to rot in fields from Florida to California and Washington state
because farmers can't find enough workers willing to pick their crops. And many of their former workers no longer show up
because they fear being stopped by police on their way to the fields and deported. Many already have been. Of an estimated 2
million agriculture workers, according to United Farm Workers of America, some 70 percent are thought by union and
agriculture officials to be working here illegally.
15
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureFood Outsourcing Concerns [contd]

4. Ag labor shortages are causing outsourcing--need to fix the H-2A system
WALL STREET JOURNAL, "The Farm Worker Shortage," 6--5--13, p. A16.
Although there's currently no cap on agriculture visas, only 5% of the country's two million farm workers are employed under
the current and very onerous H-2A visa program. One reason is because H-2A visas are only good for a year and don't allow
workers to change jobs. The fast-twitch bureaucrats at the Labor Department also must certify that U.S. workers aren't
available to do the job, so workers arrive late if they arrive at all. In 2010, farmers reported more than $320 million in losses
because they didn't get the workers they needed. Illegal workers fill most of the gap, but increasingly the bigger companies are
moving production to Latin America. Growers estimate that 80,000 acres of fruit and vegetable production have moved out of
California alone because of the labor shortage.
5. The alternative to the plan is an increased dependence on food imports

PORK NETWORK, "Import Workers or Food, U.S. Farm Bloc Says of Immigration Debate," 4--22--13,
www.porknetwork.com/pork-news/Import-workers-or-food-US-farm-bloc-says-of-immigration-debate-204153931.html,
accessed 11-10-13.
The United States will become more reliant than ever on imported food if it does not pass immigration reforms to assure there
are enough workers to harvest fruit and vegetable crops and milk cows, a farm coalition told senators on Monday. The
Agriculture Workforce Coalition pointed to estimates that thousands of U.S. farms could go out of business, slashing farm
income by as much as $9 billion a year without an adequate labor supply. Some 60 to 70 percent of the estimated 2 million
hired workers on U.S. farms are undocumented laborers. Growers say they are unable to hire enough American workers or
guest workers from overseas to perform what is often back-breaking work. "Production will move offshore," Charles Conner,
co-chair of the workforce coalition, said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on border security. "We do have crops going
unharvested." Conner said California has lost about 80,000 acres of land formerly devoted to fruit and vegetable production
because of labor shortages. Those goods are now imported. Fruit and vegetable imports are forecast by the Agriculture
Department at $24.6 billion this fiscal year, compared with exports of $14 billion. Farms with immigrant workers produced
about 60 percent of the U.S. milk supply, Conner added.
6. Domestic worker shortages decreases food safety--import substitution

accessed 11-9-13.
Food safety is another area that must considered in our countrys need for a guestworker program. As domestic production has
slowed or moved abroad due to labor shortages, imports of fruits and vegetables have increased annually over the last ten years.
It is a staggering statistic that 50% of the fruits and 20% of the vegetables consumed in the United States are now grown
outside of our borders. The FDA estimates that 15% of our average daily diet consists of products grown or processed outside
the country. Furthermore another FDA report shows that of all the vegetables imported into the US, less than 1% is actually
inspected. The results of those inspections are quite alarming. Imported vegetables are three times more likely to be
contaminated with food borne pathogens and four times more likely to have been treated with pesticides exceeding the
standards of domestically grown produce. It is evident that our food supply is going to be harvested by foreign workers,
whether in this country or abroad. I would rather see this country admit foreign workers and be able to grow, harvest, and pack
our food supply on our fertile American soils under our regulations than to import our food supply from abroad.
16
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureImmigrants Key

1. Immigrants make up 70% of total agriculture workers
if They Leave?" BARRY LAW REVIEW v. 10, Spring 2008, p. 71-72.
One of the problems with accumulating data on undocumented workers is the illegal nature of the act. It seems unlikely that
employers would be willing to openly discuss their need for an illegal workforce, as that would be implicating themselves.
Despite the risk, in the wake of potential crises, some employers and associations have been forthcoming. While a majority of
immigrants do not work in agriculture, a majority of agricultural workers are immigrants, specifically Mexican immigrants. It
is estimated that between 1 and 1.4 million illegal immigrants work in agriculture, making up seventy percent of total farm
workers. Craig Regelbrugge of the American Nursery and Landscape Association said that an enforcement-only bill, such as
the Border Protection Act of 2005, "would be absolute reckless endangerment of our economy." For example, a California
vegetable grower stated that she lost $ 2.5 million in just forty-five days following September 11, 2001, when the government
began checking farm workers in her local area for legal status. As of 2000, reports show that California, which has the largest
agricultural industry in the country, had a seasonal farming workforce of over 95 percent foreign-born peoples, and almost 100
percent of newcomers to this workforce were illegal immigrants.
2. Two-thirds of U.S. agricultural workers are undocumented--cannot replace with citizens

There are about 1.8 million people who perform hired farm work in the United States. Approximately 1.2 million or more of
these people are not authorized to work here. Studies demonstrate that for a variety of reasons including the seasonal nature of
the work, the difficulty of the work, and the unique skill set required for many agricultural jobs, unemployed Americans are
unwilling to work in the labor intensive agriculture sectors produce, dairy, nursery, livestock. The labor force in each of
these sectors is overwhelmingly made up of foreign born employees. In the late 1990s, a multi-county welfare-to-farm work
program was launched in Californias Central Valley. Regional unemployment ran 9 to 12 percent; in some localities,
unemployment exceeded 20%. State and county agencies and grower associations collaborated to identify cropping patterns,
labor needs, training, transportation, and other factors impacting employment levels. Out of over 100,000 prospective welfare
to work placements, three individuals were successfully placed. In the aftermath of the program, several employment agencies
stated in writing that they would no longer seek to place the unemployed in seasonal agricultural work because it suffered
from such a low success rate, and that seasonal agriculture was not a fit for these individuals.
3. U.S. agriculture industry depends on undocumented workers--not enough Americans to get the job
done
John Conyers, U.S. Representative, "Agricultural Labor: From H-2A to a Workable Agricultural Guestworkers Program,"
We talk about how our agriculture industry depends on the migrant labor. Right now, half or more of the 2 million farmworkers
picking our crops and harvesting our fruits and vegetables, I am sorry to say, are undocumented immigrants. I think this is
unsustainable, and I think that the entire Committee is motivated to try to do something about this. I feel that we all have the
common goal of solving this problem, and I believe the discussion with the witnesses before us can help bring us closer to the
solution. I want to begin by talking about what we mean when we talk about our agricultural labor needs. We know that these
are hard jobs. We know it is back-breaking work. In many ways, it is also skilled work. Maybe you dont need a Ph.D. in
engineering, but I doubt most engineers would be very good at cutting lettuce in exactly the right way to bring it to market. We
also know that there are Americans and immigrants with work authorizations who perform this work, and there are not nearly
enough of them to get the job done.
17
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureImmigrants Key [contd]

4. Immigrant workers are vital to the ag sector--U.S. workers do not want the jobs
Shaina A. Case, "Thank You for 'Taking Our Jobs': The Importance of Integrating the Migrant Farmworker into the United
States," WYOMING LAW REVIEW v. 13, 2013, p. 365-367.
Domestic Workers Refuse Farm Work. It is evident that agriculture in the United States unequivocally depends on an
immigrant workforce. Domestic workers do not have much interest in farm labor, and it is not difficult to understand why. It is
one of the more hazardous occupations in this country, in which workers face continuous exposure to pesticides and regularly
suffer from heat exhaustion. As of October 2012, the country's unemployment rate stood at 7.9%. High unemployment coupled
with the millions of undocumented people in the work force lead many citizens to believe the two are somehow related. Yet,
missing from this argument is a candid recognition that non-citizens simply do not "take jobs" that citizens do not want or
refuse to perform. In 2010, the United Farm Workers of America (UFWA) initiated a "Take Our Jobs Campaign." The central
notion around the campaign was to connect unemployed citizens and permanent residents across the nation to farm jobs.
However, out of the more than three million people who visited the campaign's website, and out of the 8600 people who
expressed an interest in seeking employment as farmworkers, only seven people actually accepted a job in agriculture. The
migrant farmworkers already laboring in the fields were ready to welcome those citizens and permanent residents who
criticized them for "taking their jobs." However, the unemployed citizens and permanent residents chose not to join them.
UFWA President Arturo Rodriguez stated most citizens and permanent residents balked at the difficult working conditions.
President Rodriguez commented, "[citizens] really don't have any idea what it is to work in agriculture today." In 2006, the
Washington state apple industry launched a campaign to recruit domestic field workers. State and county agencies set up
advertising, recruitment, and training programs for 1700 job vacancies. Yet, only forty workers were placed. Executive director
of the Washington Growers League, Mike Gempler, stated the barrier to recruitment was simply the nature of farm work. Lucy
Ruelas, manager of the California Employment Development Departments Agricultural Services Unit, stated that despite
disseminating information about the job to the public, once "an applicant sees the reality of the job, they might change their
mind." One California employer stated he had worked with the H-2A program for over ten years on his farm and that while the
program is not perfect, it is workable. However, the California grower continued, given the highest unemployment the country
has seen in decades, he "was still not able to hire one qualified [domestic] worker from the employment office referrals," only
proving there is not a sufficient domestic labor supply. An anonymous farmer stated that while he has tried to hire domestic
workers, he could not find enough people able and willing to actually complete the work. As United States Representative
Elton Gallegly (CA24) stated in his opening remarks as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration Policy in an
April 2011 meeting, "[t]here are simply not enough Americans willing . . . to take the jobs of migrant farm workers." It appears
there are more politicians and finger-pointers interested in blaming undocumented farmworkers for the current unemployment
crisis than there are unemployed citizens and permanent residents willing to harvest and cultivate this country's produce.
5. Half of all current ag workers are undocumented

Trey Gowdy, U.S. Representative, "Agricultural Labor: From H-2A to a Workable Agricultural Guestworkers Program,"
113th Congress, Serial No. 113-3, 2--26--13, p. 1-2.
For those crops that are labor-intensive, especially at harvest time, hard labor is critical. One grower might need only one or
two hired workers to help plant, tend and harvest several hundred acres of wheat. However, another might need hundreds of
seasonal workers to harvest hundreds of acres of fruits or vegetables, and a dairy or a food processor might need hundreds of
workers year round. It is universally agreed that at least half of our seasonal agricultural labor supply is made up of workers
without legal residency status. This figure is probably much more than half, and could comprise upwards of 1 million
unauthorized workers. As Congress considers yet again immigration reform, we must decide whether and under what
circumstances and conditions growers can continue to rely on these workers. reformed
18
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureImmigrants Key [contd]

6. Half of agricultural workers are currently undocumented
accessed 11-9-13.
The current American workforce is comprised of a percentage of undocumented workers. Surveys conclude there are
11,000,000+ undocumented foreign nationals living in our country today. Eight million of them are actively working making
up 5% of the total US workforce. However, it is commonly accepted that 50% of the 1.2 million workers in agriculture are
undocumented. The National Milk Producers Federation reports over 50% of their workers are immigrant laborers producing
62% of the nation's milk supply. The agricultural industry has been left in a vulnerable position because of its reliance on
workers possessing documents showing legal presence in the US, but who, in reality may be unauthorized to work. Because of
this large percentage of undocumented immigrants, states have felt abandoned by the federal government and have begun to
pass their own immigration and employment verification laws. As a result of such legislation, many farms all over the US are
having more and more trouble finding needed labor.
19
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureTrade Concerns

1. Agriculture is key to US. export competitiveness
Zoe Lofgren, U.S. Representative, "Agricultural Labor: From H-2A to a Workable Agricultural Guestworkers Program,"
Lets quickly look at the facts. As we know from past hearings, mechanized crops like corn, wheat and soy are not the issue
here. The challenge is with seasonal, labor-intensive fruit and vegetable production, as well as year-round dairy and livestock.
These areas require a migrant, flexible, and experienced workforce. While farmers do their best to plan harvests, unexpected
changes in humidity or temperature can suddenly move a harvest up, giving growers just days to pick valuable crops. Failure to
find experienced workers or any workers at all can lead to significant losses. These losses can ripple through our economy.
Agriculture continues to be a major sector of our economy and a primary U.S. export. In fact, we export so many agricultural
products, many more than we import, that this sector is regularly the largest in which we see a trade surplus. Yet, Congress has
long ignored the labor needs of this sector.
2. U.S. agricultural export volume is enormous

Matthew Yglesias, "How to Make U.S. Agriculture Even Stronger," SLATE, 6--8--12,
www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2012/06/agriculture_industry_needs_more_farmland_and_better_imm
igration_laws_.html, accessed 11-10-13.
One tangible sign of Americas sustained agricultural productivity is that we are a large net exporter of agricultural goods.
Farming, in other words, stands alongside software, media, financial services, tourism, airplanes, and military equipment as one
of the main things we sell to the world in exchange for our imports of oil and consumer goods. The lions share of our
exportsabout $50 billion worth last yearwere basic staples: soybeans, corn, wheat, and cotton. The big destinations for
American farm goods are our neighbors in Canada and Mexico, plus the hungry mouths of land-scarce AsiaChina, Japan,
South Korea, and Taiwan. And rising living standards in the Pacific Rim promise even more agricultural bounty ahead. As
people get richer, they start to want to eat more meat. America exports meat ($12.5 million worth of pork, beef, and chicken in
2011), but, more to the point, our staple grains feed animals. A cow is essentially a low-efficiency, high-status method of
transforming grain into food for humans, so steady growth in world demand for meat implies enormous growth in demand for
feed crops.
20
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureWorker Shortages Now

1. Worker shortages are becoming acute--employment crackdown
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) mandates procedures for employers to verify the employment eligibility of
their workforce. Failure to comply with IRCA can lead to substantial civil penalties and, in some cases, criminal charges.
However, employers are prohibited from questioning the documents the employee presents if they appear to be valid. When
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducts workplace audits, the employees work authorization is
scrutinized and run through DHS databases, often times with severe consequences for agricultural employers. The Obama
Administration has made worksite enforcement a priority, substantially increasing the number of ICE audits and investigations
of employers work authorization practices. In fiscal year 2011, the federal government initiated 2,496 audits of employers I-9
records, up dramatically from past years, and 383 of them received final fine notices totaling more than $10 million. Also,
criminal charges were brought against 221 owners, managers, and supervisors. In fiscal year 2012, ICE initiated over 3,000
audits for the first time ever. With offices in all 50 states and more than 20,000 employees, there is no indication that ICE will
be backing off workplace enforcement any time soon. Although egregious actors are most often said to be the intended target
of these enforcement actions, innocent employers who unknowingly hire unauthorized workers are also the subject of
immigration enforcement activities which are costly and disruptive. Agriculture and food processing are among a select group
of industries that are receiving the most attention. For example, in March of 2011, 85 percent of a California wholesale
nurserys year round workforce had to be terminated at the peak of their Mothers Day floral season when DHS determined
their work documents were false. The status quo is not working.
2. Enforcement measures risk an ag worker crisis

Alicia A. Caldwell, "Agriculture Industry Fears Disaster if Illegal Immigration Enforcement Program E-Verify Is
Implemented," HUFFINGTON POST, 6--4--11, www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/04/agriculture-industry-e-verify-illegalimmigration_n_871391.html, accessed 11-10-13.
"We are headed toward a train wreck," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat whose district includes agriculture-rich
areas. "The stepped up (workplace) enforcement has brought this to a head." Lofgren said farmers are worried that their work
force is about to disappear. They say they want to hire legal workers and U.S. citizens, but that it's nearly impossible, given the
relatively low wages and back-breaking work. Wages can range from minimum wage to more than $20 an hour. But workers
often are paid by the piece; the faster they work, they more they make. A steady income lasts only as long as the planting and
harvesting seasons, which can be measured in weeks. "Few citizens express interest, in large part because this is hard, tough
work," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsak said this past week. "Our broken immigration system offers little hope for producers
to do the right thing."
3. The current restriction approach risks crippling ag labor shortages

Suzanne E. Cevasco, "National of Immigrants, Nation of Laws: Agriculture as the Achilles Heel of Enforcement-Only
Immigration Legislation," SETON HALL LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL v. 37, 2012, p. 205-206.
Anti-immigrant legislation that seeks to push undocumented immigrants across state and national borders threatens to create a
labor shortage that could cripple the nation's agricultural industry. "Restrictive immigration policies threaten the viability of
agricultural subsectors that remain heavily dependent on farm labor, especially fruit, tree nuts, vegetables, and horticulture."
The mere threat of such legislation was enough to intimidate laborers from showing up at cotton ginning time in Oklahoma; in
Georgia, even before the IIREA was signed into law, workers concerned about coming to the state went elsewhere and were
absent at harvest time. Experience has shown that United States citizens and work-authorized immigrants are unwilling to take
agricultural jobs, that complete mechanization of the agricultural industry is untenable, and that the current guest worker
program is ill suited to provide a sufficient number of laborers. Accordingly, at present, there is no alternative source of
agricultural labor to replace the undocumented immigrants who work the nation's fields and no alternative method for
continuing agricultural production in the absence of such individuals. Restrictionist immigration laws that seek to compel selfdeportation, characterized by rhetoric eerily reminiscent of the "nativist agitation" that propelled U.S. immigration policy in the
early twentieth century, are a troubling method of resolving the conflict between our immigration law and the reality of largescale migration outside the law. Such legislation fails to recognize the fact that, at present, the undocumented workers who
work the nation's fields are the only available source of willing, skilled agricultural labor. The rapid, wholesale removal of such
individuals without provision for their replacement will trigger a domino effect of economic consequences, thereby threatening
the future of agriculture in the United States. State-based immigration legislation is not the future of U.S. immigration policy rather, such efforts should be seen as a plea for the federal government's attention to the complex reality of immigration policy
and the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform on the national level.
21
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureWorker Shortages Now [contd]

4. E-Verify risks an ag worker shortage
Andorra Bruno, Specialist in Immigration Policy, Congressional Research Service, "Immigration of Temporary Lower-Skilled
Workers: Current Policy and Related Issues," CRS REPORT FOR CONGRESS, 12--13--12, p. 17.
Employers may also participate in the E-Verify electronic verification system administered by USCIS. E-Verify is primarily a
voluntary program, although there are some mandatory participants There are ongoing legislative efforts to make E-Verify or a
similar system mandatory for all employers. Some are concerned that such a mandatory electronic employment eligibility
verification system would result in labor shortages in industries with large numbers of unauthorized workers, such as
agriculture.
22
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureAnswers to Domestic Workers

1. U.S. citizens simply are not interested in agricultural work
Andrew Wainer, "Farm Workers and Immigration Policy," BRIEFING PAPER n. 12, Bread for the World Institute, 12--11, p.
5.
Today there is, in fact, ample evidence that U.S.-born citizens will not replace foreign-born farm laborers. There have been a
number of efforts to recruit non-migrant workers and it has been very difficult to recruit and retain [them], says Nancy
Foster, president of the U.S. Apple Association. Native workers do not show up for these jobs. In 2006, the Washington State
apple industry launched a campaign to recruit U.S.-born field workers. State and county agencies set up advertising,
recruitment, and training programs for 1,700 job vacancies. In the end, only 40 workers were placed. Mike Gempler, executive
director of the Washington Growers League, who helped run the recruitment program, said that the barriers to recruitment were
simply part of the nature of farm work. The domestic workforcefound work that was inside, less physical, out of the sun.
And [work] that wasnt seasonal so they didnt have to look for another job when the apples were off the tree [with] seasonal
work you are always hustling to find the next jobthats a stressor. Following the 1996 Welfare Reform legislation, which
required work as a condition of the new Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, Sen. Dianne Feinstein
(D-CA) secured the passage of a program to place Californias welfare recipients in farm jobs in the Central Valley. State and
county workforce agencies and growers associations collaborated to identify agricultural zones where welfare recipients could
be channeled. but only a handful of potential participants were successfully recruited for farm labor. Manuel Cunha of the Nisei
Growers League in California was involved in this recruitment drive. He explained, There was a huge training program with
the universities and the junior colleges to train these people [welfare recipients] in agriculture. Of 137,000 eligible workers,
503 applied and three actually went to work. Cunha echoed Gemplers comments on the barriers to recruiting citizens for farm
work: We are not going to train people in agriculture because its seasonal and because its too hard. In short, there is no
evidence that removing immigrants from farm labor would create job vacancies that unemployed citizens would fill. If
immigrant farm workers were no longer available, growers would likely try to mechanize their crops or abandon laborintensive agriculture, leaving the United States to fill the food gap with additional agricultural imports.
2. We simply cannot recruit enough domestic workers--H2A system is also failing us

Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau, Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on
Immigration Policy and Enforcement, 2--26--13,
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/02262013/Stallman%2002262013.pdf, accessed 11-9-13.
Agriculture has long experienced difficulty in obtaining workers who are willing and able to work on farms and in fields. Jobs
in agriculture are physically demanding, conducted in all seasons and are often transitory. To most U.S. residents seeking
employment, these conditions are not attractive. A number of studies document this fact, and farm worker representatives also
acknowledged this in recent congressional testimony. Yet, for many prospective workers from other countries, these jobs
present real economic opportunities. Farmers have done their best in the last two decades to work within a broken system. A
few have been able to navigate the difficulties and expense of the H-2A program; for many others, they have relied upon work
authorization documents that, in too many instances, are fraudulent. But federal law has strictly barred them from questioning
those documents, and as a result we now have a labor force that is far too reliant on workers who lack proper work
authorization. Due to faulty administration of the H-2A program, demographic shifts, an aging workforce, and the likelihood of
heightened enforcement, this system is near collapse. It is not sustainable. Agriculture seeks a solution that provides our
farmers and ranchers access to a stable, legal, reliable solution.
3. There are simply not enough citizens willing to do the work

accessed 11-9-13.
There is an enormous misconception that our country has an abundant supply of Americans willing to work in the agricultural
industry. Even with the recent recession, employment of domestic workers did not increase at the farm level. From 2010 thru
the end of 2012 my farm advertised for 2000 job opportunities (see Figure 1.1). Four hundred eighty-three US referrals applied
for these jobs and were hired accounting for less than 25% of my workforce need. One hundred nine of the referrals that were
hired never showed up to work and 321 of them quit - the vast majority in the first two days! Those who quit and those who
never reported to work account for 89% of the workers who accepted the job! Of the 321 who reported to work, only 31
worked the entire season. There is no way I could have produced my peach and vegetable crops with a domestic workforce!
23
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureAnswers to Domestic Workers [contd]

4. High unemployment rates do nothing to increase the number of Americans willing to take farm jobs
Michael A. Clemens, INTERNATIONAL HARVEST: A CASE STUDY OF HOW FOREIGN WORKERS HELP
AMERICAN FARMS GROW CROPS--AND THE ECONOMY, Partnership for a New American Economy and Center for
Global Development, 5--13, p. 2.
No matter how bad the economy becomes, native workers do not take farm jobs: Increasing unemployment has no impact at all
on the number of native workers who complete the growing season with the NCGA, although it does correspond with a slight
increase in the number who apply for farm jobs. The study shows that if unemployment rose from 2 percent to 14 percent,
which would put hundreds of thousands of new people out of work, only about 100 more US workers would apply for NCGA
jobs each year just a sliver of the roughly 6,5007,000 placements needed in recent years. Still, this spike in unemployment
rate would not make US workers any more likely to finish a growing season at all.
5. U.S. workers won't stick to the job

Native workers were also very unlikely to complete the growing season in NCGA placements. About half the US workers who
showed up for work on the first day were no longer on the job after a month. After two months, only around a quarter of US
workers who started remained. By the end of the season, the numbers are even lower in 2008, only 11 of the 170 native
workers referred to the NCGA completed the season the highest in all years surveyed. Between 1998 and 2001, no workers
completed the growing season. When comparing the number of native workers who completed a growing season with the
number of unemployed people in North Carolina, the gulf is staggering: in 2010, even with unemployment near 11 percent and
with over 500,000 North Carolinians looking for jobs, only 10 people completed a growing season in an NCGA placement, or
just under two thousandths of 1 percent.
6. High unemployment rates don't increase native born employment in agriculture--North Carolina
proves
Even though the Great Recession forced a 6.2 percentage-point spike in unemployment in North Carolina between 2007 and
2010 and put hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians out of work, local supply of farm laborers in North Carolina was still
essentially zero. (For more information on the collection of unemployment data used in this report, please refer to Appendix C.)
A regression analysis showed an extremely small positive association between local unemployment and referrals to the North
Carolina Growers Association (NCGA). (Figure 2.1) In addition, there was a statistically significant, though even smaller,
positive association between unemployment and the number of people who show up for their first day of work at NCGA job
sites. (Figure 2.2) However, when it came to completing an NCGA job, there was no detectable relationship between increased
unemployment and the number of US workers who actually finished a growing season. (Figure 2.3) (For more information on
the regression analysis, please refer to Appendix E.)
7. Natives won't take jobs--even if wages were higher

The analysis here also helps explain that even a large increase in wages for farmers would not make natives any more likely to
take seasonal farm jobs. The increase in unemployment mirrors a loss of wages generally in the economy decreased
availability of jobs everywhere else in the economy should be reflected in an increased interest in the NCGA farm jobs because
peoples ability to earn income across the broader economy is more limited, making these jobs more valuable in comparison.
Though this may be reflected in the very modest increase in the number of people who asked for referrals to the NCGA when
unemployment rose during the Great Recession in the late 2000s, because the recession had no impact at all on natives
likelihood of finishing of a growing season, it can be inferred that even substantially increasing the value of the job including
paying native workers more would also not make natives any more likely to finish the growing season.
24
Pathway Desirable: AgricultureAnswers to Job / Wage Concerns

1. No jobs are taken--farmers are forced to hire undocumented workers
Growers Opt to Hire an Unauthorized Workforce. Unquestionably, growers would prefer a stable, legal workforce. Without a
stable, legal workforce, growers face a variety of problems. For example: looming labor shortages, labor disruptions due to
worksite raids, immigration audits and investigations, rotting crops, and dealing with Social Security Administration "NoMatch" letters for employers who use E-Verify. At an October 2007 hearing before the House Committee on Agriculture,
American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman commented: Without a stable, legal supply of labor to replace the
presence of currently unauthorized workers, the fresh fruit and vegetable sector could see U.S. production decline by up to $ 9
billion a year. Similarly, an abrupt loss of our labor supply would cause net farm income to drop by up to $ 5 billion annually.
Yet, despite the current high unemployment rate, citizens and permanent residents refuse to do the work of a migrant
farmworker. To obtain the needed workforce, growers rely on foreign, unauthorized labor to plant, weed, grow, and pick the
fresh fruits and vegetables on our nation's tables. Critics argue there is a way for workers to come legally to the United States-through H-2A visas. However, farmers describe the guestworker program as a "bureaucratic nightmare." For example, one
grower noted Every farmer I know would gladly use the [H-2A] program and be legal . . . . Every Hispanic would love to be
legal. But the program is so onerous, it's so hard to use, and so expensive . . . . And you don't necessarily get your people. [If]
the crop is ready, [and] the people are not here, boom, it's a loss. Most growers will not take that chance.
2. Wages are irrelevant--U.S. workers don't want ag jobs

In 2010, the United Farm Workers Union launched the Take Our Jobs campaign, and a media blitz which included national
coverage. As of mid October, which generally marked the end of the growing season and the campaign, 10,021 people had
inquired about jobs in the fields, yet only nine people had taken jobs in the fields. Most of them quit after a few days. Some
might be tempted to consider wage rates as an additional factor that might discourage unemployed American workers from
seeking agricultural jobs, but the facts do not bear this out. According to a November 2012 USDA farm labor analysis, wages
for field workers averaged $10.71 per hour. Piece rate wages in certain commodities can be significantly greater. Yet, for a
variety of other factors, American workers do not seek nor stay in farm jobs, even today with unemployment hovering at 7.8
percent. The fact is the majority of farm jobs in this country must be filled by foreign workers.
25
Pathway Desirable: Alternative InferiorEnforcement / Self-Deportation

1. Forcing undocumented people to leave would cost our economy trillions of dollars
11-5-13.
Maintaining the status quo is not cost neutral. Every day that Congress fails to pass immigration reform that enables the
undocumented population to earn legal status and citizenship is a lost economic opportunity and a cost to all Americans. With
only one-third of unauthorized immigrants working in the formal economy and contributing about $12 billion in payroll taxes
each year, the United States loses around $20 billion in payroll tax revenue each year. This lost revenue would go a long way
toward funding the retirement of Americans across the country. The current immigration system has kept millions of people
from fully participating in their local communities and economies. This is perhaps most evident in the context of the housing
market, where immigrants desires to purchase homes and contribute to our economy is stifled. While 66 percent of naturalized
citizens are homeowners, just 35 percent of unauthorized immigrant households own their own homes. A self-deportation
regime would cost our economy trillions of dollars. If all undocumented immigrants in the country were deported or were to
self-deportmeaning they choose to leave the country because life is too difficultthe United States cumulative GDP
would suffer a hit of $2.6 trillion over 10 years.
2. Enforcement strategies are hypocritical and highly ineffective

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), UNITED STATES - MEXICO: WALLS, ABUSES, AND DEATHS AT
THE BORDERS, n. 488/2, 3--08, p. 48.
Before this massive migration, the domestic migration policies of the United States and Mexico are still inconsistent and
constitute an affront to human rights. The United States has implemented a deterrence policy that has involved a strong
militarization of the border and the construction of a wall. Such policy, very costly in economic and human terms (increase in
the number of migrants dying while crossing the border in the most inhospitable deserts of the South), has proved to be
inefficient, since, despite this strategy, the number of immigrants crossing the border has more than doubled since 1993.
Besides that, the presence of about 11 to 12 million officially unauthorized immigrant workers in the United States territory
is an obvious illustration of the incoherence and hypocrisy of policies that intend to forbid illegal immigration without
offering alternatives to a legal immigration, consistent with the needs of economy, and that allow companies to easily benefit
from the exploitation of undocumented men and women. Pressures by the United States on Mexico have caused tougher
immigration policies in this country.
3. Our policy is focused on enforcement--it does not work

Andrew Wainer, immigration policy analyst, "Development and Migration in Rural Mexico," BRIEFING PAPER n. 11, Bread
for the World Institute, 1--11, p. 1.
The immigration debate, while focused on domestic issues, largely overlooks some of the principal causes of unauthorized
migration to the United States: poverty and inequality in Latin America. The U.S. government identifies Latin America as the
primary source (80 percent) of unauthorized immigration, but its responses internally, at the border, and through its foreign
assistance to migrants ending countries is focused on enforcement. Border enforcement fails to impact the causes of
unauthorized migration in Latin America and U.S. foreign assistance to Latin America typically doesnt take into account its
impact on migration pressures. U.S. policy toward migrant-sending countries in Latin America mirrors its enforcement-focused
domestic policy. Assistance to Mexico is dominated by the Mrida Initiative, which emphasizes aid to Mexicos security
agencies.
4. Border enforcement does not decrease immigration--any declines are related to economic problems
Andrew Wainer, immigration policy analyst, "Development and Migration in Rural Mexico," BRIEFING PAPER n. 11, Bread
for the World Institute, 1--11, p. 2.
As the source of 60 percent of all unauthorized immigration to the United States, Mexico is unrivaled as in its importance to
U.S. immigration policy (see Figure 1). Recognizing this, the U.S. governments primary response has been reinforcing the
countrys 1,969-mile border with its southern neighbor. While this is popular with the public, it hasnt stopped unauthorized
immigration. Although unauthorized immigration has decreased in recent years, most experts attribute that primarily to the loss
of available jobs in the United States rather than increased spending on border enforcement.
26
Pathway Desirable: Alternative InferiorEnforcement / Self-Deportation [contd]

5. Border enforcement alone failsdoes not deter undocumented migrants
Katie E. Chachere, Keeping America Competitive: A Multilateral Approach to Illegal Immigration Reform, SOUTH TEXAS
LAW REVIEW v. 49, Spring 2008, p. 683-684.
Although the American consensus is that the United States needs tighter borders, approaching the illegal immigration problems
through an enforcement-only strategy will likely backfire. For example, when the California-Mexico border became more
heavily patrolled in the mid-1990s, illegal immigrants re-routed through New Mexico and Arizona. The construction of a fence
along the San Diego border also resulted in the use of more dangerous alternate routes and more extreme measures of entering
the United States such as through smuggling and false documentation. Strengthening U.S.-Mexico border enforcement has not
deterred or prevented illegal immigrants from reaching U.S. soil. Previous migration patterns of returning to source countries
are no longer occurring; most illegal immigrants now remain in the United States permanently for fear of being unable to recross the border successfully.
27
Pathway Desirable: Border Security

1. Legalization is the best way to address the border security / terror threat
Despite increased security measures, national security remains a strong concern since more people cross the border each day.
By focusing solely on enforcement issues, illegal immigrants become forced underground. Truly securing the United States
requires bringing illegal immigrants out of hiding so we know who is within our borders. Without a comprehensive
regularization of migration, the United States will remain vulnerable to terrorist attacks. The issue has been compared to the
war on drugs: as long as the demand remains, enforcement alone will never eradicate the problem. And despite the recent
increase in U.S. Border Patrol, help from the National Guard, and implementation of unmanned vehicles, sensors, and other
devices, immigrants have found a way into the United States - through the hiring of smugglers. Smugglers typically do not
receive payment unless the journey across the border is successful, so many illegal immigrants attempt to cross numerous times
since the Border Patrol merely drops unsuccessful immigrants off in Mexico. Even though the "catch and release" policy for
non-Mexican illegal immigrants has ended, the potential for large profits has led some U.S. officials to succumb to bribery in
return for releasing smugglers and illegal immigrants. Many illegal immigrants eventually reach the United States successfully,
but the dangers inherent in these operations can result in violence or death. Those desperate enough to reach the United States
will attempt the journey despite obstacles. "Build a 50-foot fence, and they'll build a 51-foot ladder. Hire Halliburton with a nobid contract to build the fence, and it will hire illegal workers to do it." Where there is a will, there is a way, and illegal
immigrants are likely to find a way into the land of opportunities.
2. Our border is insecure now--the terror threat is large and growing

Deroy Murdock, media fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, "The Southern Border: Our Welcome Mat for
Terrorists," NATIONAL REVIEW, 4--25--13, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/346591/southern-border-our-welcomemat-terrorists, accessed 11-10-13.
There are at least 7,518 reasons to get the U.S./Mexican border under control. That equals the number of aliens apprehended in
fiscal year 2011 from the four nations the U.S. government labels state sponsors of terrorism and ten additional countries of
interest. Since January 2010, those flying into America via these 14 nations face enhanced screening; as the Transportation
Security Administration announced, Effective aviation security must begin beyond our borders. U.S. national security merits
at least that much vigilance on our borders. The roaring immigration-reform debate this year largely addresses Hispanic aliens
who illegally cross the border. Far more worrisome, however, are the thousands who break into America from countries where
we have concerns, particularly about al-Qaeda affiliates, a top State Department official told CNN. These include Cubans,
Iranians, Sudanese, and Syrians whose governments are federally designated state sponsors of terrorism. As indicated by the
latest information in Table 34 of Customs and Border Protections Immigration Yearbook 2011, 198 Sudanese were nabbed
while penetrating the USA. Between FY 2002 and 2011, there were 1,207 such arrests. (These figures cover all U.S. borders,
although, as Table 35 confirms, 96.3 percent of the overall detainee population intruded from Mexico.) Like other immigrants,
most Sudanese seek better lives here. But some may be vectors for the same militant Islam that literally tore Sudan in two. In
FY 2011, 108 Syrians were stopped at our borders; over ten years, the number is 1,353. Syria is a key supporter of Hezbollah,
and Bashar Assads unstable regime reportedly has attacked its domestic opponents with chemical weapons. As for Iranians,
276 were caught in FY 2011, while 2,310 were captured over the previous ten years. Iran also backs Hezbollah, hates the
Great Satan, and craves atomic weapons. The other ten countries of interest are Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Yemen, and:
Afghanistan: The Talibans stronghold and current theater of Americas longest war. Afghans halted in FY 2011: 106. Prior ten
fiscal years: 681. Nigeria: The land of underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab suffers under sharia law in its northern
provinces. Respective data: 591, 4,525. Pakistan: Hideaway of the Pakistani Taliban and the late Osama bin Laden. 525,
10,682. Saudi Arabia: Generous benefactor of radical imams and militant mosques worldwide; birthplace of 15 of the 19
September 11 hijackers. 123, 986. Somalia: Home of Indian Ocean pirates and al-Qaedas al-Shabaab franchise. In October
1993, Islamic terrorists there shot down two Black Hawk helicopters, killed 18 U.S. soldiers, and dragged several of their
bodies through Mogadishus streets. 323, 1,524. (For further details, please peruse the spreadsheet attached here.) At a Capitol
Hill hearing last July, Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano conceded that terrorists enter the U.S. via the
U.S./Mexican border from time to time. The House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight last November published
A Line in the Sand: Countering Crime, Violence, and Terror at the Southwest Border. As this study explained: The
Congressional Research Service reports that between September 2001 and September 2012, there have been 59 homegrown
violent jihadist plots within the United States. Of growing concern and potentially a more violent threat to American citizens is
the enhanced ability of Middle East terrorist organizations, aided by their relationships and growing presence in the Western
Hemisphere, to exploit the Southwest border to enter the United States undetected. A Line in the Sand offers chilling portraits
of some who treat the southern border as Americas welcome mat.
28
Pathway Desirable: Border Security [contd]

3. Dealing with illegal border crossings via reform is the best way to increase border security
Matthew Yglesias, "To Secure the Border, Let in More Immigrants," SLATE, 4--20--13,
www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/04/border_security_immigration_reform_and_the_tsarnaevs_a_bigger_guest
_worker.html, accessed 11-10-13.
But while security checks should be done and should be done properly, by far the best way to keep dangerous foreigners out of
the country is to make it easier for nondangerous ones to enter. Border security is a wonderful thing. But in the absence of
adequate legal channels for immigration, a large human smuggling industry will spring into existence to serve the needs of
economic migrants and leave the country more vulnerable to real security risks. Start with the key question: Why do people
violate Americas immigration laws? For the overwhelming majority, its not to blow things upits to work. People come
here from Mexico because they can earn higher wages. Americans are, on average, much richer than Mexicans, so we can
afford to pay more for our maids and our gardeners. The United States also has more and better capital equipment than Mexico,
so people who work here are more productive and can earn more. Crossing the border to work is lucrative, in other words, so
people do it. Its lucrative, but in most cases, its also illegal. Making something thats lucrative illegal has rarely stopped it
from happening. Marijuana is illegal, but there are still plenty of people around who are happy to sell you some. What
prohibition does first and foremost is alter prices. If marijuana were legal, it would be much cheaper. By the same token,
making it illegal to cross the border makes it more expensive to crossnot impossible to cross.
4. Increased legal immigration will improve border security--free up resources

Todd Staples, Texas Agriculture Commissioner, "U.S. Needs Strong Guest Worker Program," SAN ANTONIO EXPRESSNEWS, 3--8--13, www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/U-S-needs-strong-guest-worker-program-4340209.php,
accessed 11-10-13.
Without fail, it seems, discussion of border security takes a turn toward costly pursuit and criminal punishment. That's all fine
and good with me if the bad guys are drug-running narco-terrorists with deathly violent abilities and intentions. But what about
the millions of immigrants who cross the border without documentation in response to the U.S. job market? Isn't there a more
cost-effective and certain way to separate the workers from the dangerous drug runners? Yes, there is. Let's use pencil and
paper to solve our immigration problem, rather than badges and bullets. This will enable our law enforcement to better focus on
drug-running terrorists, with the net result being a more secure border and a better knowledge of who is really in our country.
The real problem and solution when it comes to border security is more about policy than criminal prosecution. It's about
our broken immigration system that fails to provide a win-win for U.S. taxpayers and guest workers. Our nation needs to find a
safe and legal way to welcome those willing to fill the jobs the domestic labor market has not filled. Let's be honest: No
Americans are relocating to the Rio Grande Valley to pick grapefruit. In California, strawberries are going unpicked. In
Washington last year, apples were dropping to the ground. Why? Because we have too few workers to pick them. Meanwhile,
law enforcement is placed in the unworkable situation of having to treat all undocumented individuals hiding in the brush as
though they are deadly threats. And while our federal, state and local law enforcement personnel are capable of defending our
communities from the drug cartels, they are grossly outnumbered by the combined population of cartels and undocumented
workers. With a viable mechanism in place to welcome guest workers, law enforcement officials could reasonably suspect that
anyone still trying to enter our country in a covert manner is either seeking to do harm or at the very least blatantly
willing to flout our laws. Either way, that individual should be subjected to custody and the letter of the law, not bureaucratic
guesswork and the loopholes of red tape.
5. Increasing pathways for legal immigration is vital to border security

Daniel Griswold, "To 'Control the Border,' First Reform Immigration Law," CATO AT LIBERTY, Cato Institute, 4--29--10,
www.cato.org/blog/control-border-first-reform-immigration-law, accessed 11-10-13.
Illegal immigration is the Prohibition debate of our day. By essentially barring the legal entry of low-skilled immigrant
workers, our own government has created the conditions for an underground labor market, complete with smuggling and daylabor operations. As long as the government maintains this prohibition, illegal immigration will be widespread, and the cost of
reducing it, in tax dollars and compromised civil liberties, will be enormous. We know from experience that expanding
opportunities for legal immigration can dramatically reduce incentives for illegal immigration. In the 1950s, the federal
government faced widespread illegal immigration across the Mexican border. In response, the government simultaneously
beefed up enforcement while greatly expanding the number of workers allowed in the country through the Bracero guestworker program. The result: Apprehensions at the border dropped by 95 percent. (For documentation, see this excellent 2003
paper by Stuart Anderson, a Cato adjunct scholar and executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy.) If
we want to get control of our border with Mexico, the smartest thing we could do would be to allow more workers to enter
the United States legally under the umbrella of comprehensive immigration reform. Then we could focus our enforcement
resources on a much smaller number of people who for whatever reason are still operating outside the law.
29
Pathway Desirable: EconomyGeneral

1. A pathway to citizenship will boost the economy
Amanda Peterson Beadle, Top 10 Reasons Why the U.S. Needs Comprehensive Immigration Reform, THINKPROGRESS,
121012, http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/10/1307561/top-10-reasons-why-the-us-needs-comprehensiveimmigration-reform-that-includes-a-path-to-citizenship/, accessed 3-7-13.
The nation needs a comprehensive immigration plan, and it is clear from a recent poll that most Americans support reforming
the U.S.s immigration system. In a new poll, nearly two-thirds of people surveyed are in favor of a measure that allows
undocumented immigrants to earn citizenship over several years, while only 35 percent oppose such a plan. And President
Obama is expected to begin an all-out drive for comprehensive immigration reform, including seeking a path to citizenship in
January. Several top Republicans have softened their views on immigration reform following Novembers election, but in the
first push for reform, House Republicans advanced a bill last month that would add visas for highly skilled workers while
reducing legal immigration overall. Providing a road map to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants living in
the U.S. would have sweeping benefits for the nation, especially the economy.
2. Legalization will boost the economy by hundreds of billions of dollars and substantially increase
employment
Robert Lynch, Professor, Economics, Washington College and Patrick Oakford, Research Assistant, Center for American
Progress, National and State-by-State Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform, Center for American Progress, 51713,
www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/05/17/63295/national-and-state-by-state-economic-benefits-ofimmigration-reform/, accessed 11-5-13.
If the 11.1 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States were provided legal status, then the 10-year
cumulative increase in the gross domestic product, or GDP, of the United States would be $832 billion. Similarly, the
cumulative increase in the personal income of all Americans over 10 years would be $470 billion. On average over 10 years,
immigration reform would create 121,000 new jobs each year. Undocumented immigrants would also benefit and contribute
more to the U.S. economy. Over the 10-year period they would earn $392 billion more and pay an additional $109 billion in
taxes$69 billion to the federal government and $40 billion to state and local governments. After 10 years, when the
undocumented immigrants start earning citizenship, they will experience additional increases in their income on the order of 10
percent, which will in turn further boost our economy.
3. Legalization will increase earnings, bolstering the U.S. economy

These immigration reform scenarios illustrate that unauthorized immigrants are currently earning far less than their potential,
paying much less in taxes, and contributing significantly less to the U.S. economy than they potentially could. They also make
clear that Americans stand to gain more from an immigration reform policy of legalization and citizenship than they do from
one of legalization aloneor from no reform at all. Finally, the magnitude of potential economic gains depends significantly
on how quickly reforms are implemented. The sooner that legal status and citizenship are granted to the unauthorized, the
greater the gains will be for the U.S. economy.
30
Pathway Desirable: EconomyGeneral [contd]

4. Legalization is responsible for most of the economic gains predicted for immigration reform
Robert Lynch, Professor, Economics, Washington College and Patrick Oakford, The 6 Key Takeaways from the CBO Cost
Estimate of S.744, Center for American Progress, 62113,
www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/06/21/67514/the-6-key-takeaways-from-the-cbo-cost-estimate-of-s744/, accessed 11-5-13.
It is clear from the CBO score that comprehensive immigration reform will bring about significant economic gains for all
Americans and the country as a whole. Equally clear is the fact that legalizing undocumented immigrants and putting them on a
pathway to earned citizenship is the main reason the United States stands to reap such large net economic benefits. The CBO
identifies that the $460 billion increase in tax revenues that will occur in the first 10 years of immigration reform is due in large
part to undocumented immigrants coming out of the shadows, working on the books, and paying taxes. But while they are
responsible for a large share of the revenue gains under S. 744, the CBO estimates that the newly legalized will account for less
than 10 percent of the additional costs associated with S. 744. The CBOs findings therefore indicate that the net economic
gains from immigration reform are greatest when the largest number of people can travel the path to earned citizenship.
5. Legalization would boost the economy by $1.5 trillion

1. Legalizing the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States would boost the nations economy. It would add a
cumulative $1.5 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic productthe largest measure of economic growthover 10 years. Thats
because immigration reform that puts all workers on a level playing field would create a virtuous cycle in which legal status
and labor rights exert upward pressure on the wages of both American and immigrant workers. Higher wages and even better
jobs would translate into increased consumer purchasing power, which would benefit the U.S. economy as a whole.
6. On balance, immigration boosts the U.S. economy

Brookings Institution, RETHINKING U.S.-LATIN AMERICAN RELATIONS: A HEMISPHERIC PARTNERSHIP FOR A
TURBULENT WORLD, Report of the Partnership for the Americas Commission, Ernesto Zedillo and Thomas R. Pickering,
Co-Chairs, 11--08, p. 16.
On balance, the impact of immigration on the U.S. economy has been significant and positive. Estimates of the net benefits to
the U.S. economy put immigrants net contribution at $50 billion per year. Immigrants boost economic output by increasing the
size of the U.S. workforce and the productivity of American firms. In the 1990s, half the growth in the U.S. labor force came
from new immigrants. Fifteen percent of the U.S. civilian labor force is foreign born, with about 40 percent of it coming from a
LAC country. On balance, immigrants pay enough or more in federal, state, and local taxes to offset what they consume in
public services. Low-skilled immigrants (a category that includes most immigrants from the LAC countries) contribute to the
economy by complementing an increasingly educated native-born workforce.
7. Legalization of temporary workers would generate a $260B return for the economy
Stuart Anderson, Executive Director, National Foundation for American Policy, Answering the Critics of Comprehensive
Immigration Reform, TRADE BRIEF PAPER n. 32, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, 5911, p. 3.
Replacing the current flow of illegal immigrants with legal temporary visa holders would also be a gain for taxpayers. A 2009
study for the Cato Institute by Peter Dixon and Maureen Rimmer, both with the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University
in Australia, compared various scenarios and concluded that U.S. households would gain approximately $260 billion a year
with a new law that permitted widespread use of legal temporary visas as compared to increased border enforcement.
31
Pathway Desirable: EconomyGeneral [contd]

8. Legalization significantly benefits U.S. households--$260B in economic gains
Dixon and Rimmer likely underestimated the benefits of adding more temporary visas, since they assumed certain public costs
from temporary visa holders that are unlikely to materialize. Responding to follow-up questions, Peter Dixon acknowledged
that the benefits of increased temporary visas may be even greater than original estimates since most temporary visa holders
would be primarily able-bodied men in their 20s or 30s who pay taxes on their earnings, utilize few public resources, and in
many cases only stay in the United States for 3 to 6 years. Dixon and Rimmer conclude, Getting the policy right on illegal
immigration is important for the welfare of U.S. households. Our simulations show that the difference between the long-run
welfare effects for U.S. households of the worst and best policies that we consideredthat is, the welfare gap between the
tighter-border-enforcement policy in Simulation 1 and the liberalized policy with an optimal visa charge in Simulation 7is
about $260 billion a year. (See Table 1.)
9. Legalization would substantially boost the economy--$1.5T increase in GDP over 10 years
The CATO Institute estimates that currently around 8.3 million workers in the United States are undocumented. Deporting this
productive source of labor would have a yearly cost of around $57 billion, while the long terms costs to the economy would be
even greater. According to a study by the Center for American Progress, mass deportation would cost the economy $2.6 trillion
over 10 years. Conversely, this same study estimated that a path to legal status for all undocumented workers in the country
would add around $1.5 trillion dollars to the GDP over ten years. Legalization would eliminate smugglers' fees and other costs
faced by illegal immigrants and it would also allow immigrants to have higher productivity and create more openings for
Americans in higher skilled occupations.
10. We should provide a path to legalization--important to our economic foundation

AgJOBS is the most important piece of legislation proposed in decades that will benefit farmworkers and growers. Providing a
legalization pathway for undocumented farmworkers is key to encouraging and enabling these individuals to come out of the
shadows, allowing the government to review their legal status. Also, it is in the interest of national security to know who is
working in food production and to have an effective means of monitoring these essential workers. This legislation would
provide that security. With the enactment of AgJOBS, agricultural workers would emerge from the underground economy and
be screened by our government as they begin the process toward legal status. Additionally, AgJOBS allows farmworker
families to stay together and fully participate in the society they help feed. Earned legalization could further motivate migrant
farmworkers to speak up about abuse and to advocate for better working and living conditions. Congress should provide
farmworkers the ability to legalize so they can work without the fear of deportation and so farmers may have stable access to
the workers they require. Providing earned legalization would also enable current undocumented migrant farmworkers and H2A workers to contribute to costs such as healthcare and education through the payment of employment taxes. Undocumented
immigrants already contribute to the economy through consumption and the payment of sales tax; thus, further investing in the
integration of immigrants today will create the workers and taxpayers this country will need in the future.
32
Pathway Desirable: EconomyCompetitiveness

1. Immigration boosts the U.S. economyincreases competitiveness, drives small business
Miguel R. Salazar, Public Affairs Specialist and Andrew Selee, Vice President for Programs, NEW IDEAS FOR A NEW ERA:
513, p. 30.
Migrants also offer the U.S. a competitive pool of talented innovators and entrepreneurs with the potential to generate
economic growth. According to a Fiscal Policy Institute report, migrants make up about 18 percent of, or roughly one in six,
small business owners even though they account for 13 percent of the population. Mexicans account for the largest group of
small business owners according to the report. Immigrants are currently recovering faster from the great recession than U.S.born individuals, with rates of employment having increased 5.2 percent compared to 1.8 percent among U.S.-born individuals
between 2009 and 2011. The Hispanic community will likely play an increasing role in contributing to the United States
economic growth and demographic prosperity. In 2010, Hispanics made up the second largest group of immigrants (430,000
Asian immigrants vs. 370,000 Hispanic immigrants Mexicans made up 140,000 of those migrants).
2. Immigration is the only thing we can do to stop outsourcingis vital to U.S. economic competitiveness
The United States cannot wait to take action until even more jobs are outsourced to China and India. More than half of the
illegal immigrants in the United States come from Mexico, and they are enticed by employment that pays ten times more than
jobs in Mexico. However, with the high cost of American wages, pension plans, and healthcare plans, many United States
factories are put out of business due to the inability to compete with cheap labor costs in China. Competition is the lifeblood of
the U.S. economy. Without cost-effective immigrant workers, many corporations are forced to outsource to other countries
with cheaper labor. Outsourcing, in turn, reduces the number of jobs within the United States, decreases consumer spending,
and ultimately harms the U.S. economy. Corporations are not merely trying to increase profits at the expense of U.S. citizens;
they are also trying to stay afloat in the competitive global market. American companies cannot compete with India and China
unless costs are cut. However, outsourcing to developing economies may not always reduce the number of jobs in the United
States. Many people fear that emerging economies threaten U.S. job stability because goods that were once produced in the
United States are now being imported. Even so, the revenue from exports allows emerging economies to purchase imports from
developed nations, assuming the cost of production in the United States is cheaper than that of other countries. Consequently,
output from developed nations, such as the United States, can actually increase.
33
Pathway Desirable: EconomyEntrepreneurship

1. Immigration creates jobsstart-up businesses
Adriana Kugler, Professor, Public Policy Georgetown University and Patrick Oakford, Immigration Helps American Workers
Wages and Job Opportunities, Center for American Progress, 82913,
www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/08/29/73203/immigration-helps-american-workers-wages-and-jobopportunities/, accessed 11-5-13.
Research on how immigration impacts U.S. workers often focuses on how immigration affects the wages of native-born
workers. Equally important, however, is how immigration affects employment opportunities for the native born. Research
shows that increased immigration does not displace U.S. workers for many of the same reasons that there are not negative wage
effects. Another reason that immigrants do not displace U.S. workers from their jobs is that many immigrants create their jobs
by starting their own business. In fact, according to the 2011 Current Population Survey, 7.5 percent of the foreign-born
population is self-employed. Thus, we can expect that under S. 744, between 600,000 and 840,000 of the newly legalized
immigrants would be self-employed. Not only are immigrants unlikely to take jobs away from the native born, but they can
also create new jobs for American workers. According to the 2010 American Community Survey, there were 900,000 smallbusiness owners among current immigrantsclose to 18 percent of all incorporated business owners. Yet in the same year,
immigrants accounted for just 16 percent of the workforce. The entrepreneurial nature of immigrants, however, is not being
fully realized, given that there are 8 million undocumented workers. To be sure, some of these undocumented workers
currently run their own business, but these businesses likely exist in the underground economy. Thus, legalizing these
undocumented entrepreneurs will formalize their businesses and bring their employees above ground, leading to better job
opportunities.
2. Legalization encourages entrepreneurship among immigrantsboosts the economy

Legal status and citizenship facilitate noncitizen-immigrant entrepreneurship by providing access to licenses, permits,
insurance, and credit to start businesses and create jobs. Despite the legal obstacles to entrepreneurship that noncitizens
currently face, the U.S. economy benefits significantly from immigrant innovators. Immigrantsboth legal and
unauthorizedare more likely to own a business and start a new business than are nonimmigrants. Immigration reform that
untethers the creative potential of immigrant entrepreneurs therefore promotes economic growth, higher incomes, and more job
opportunities.
3. Immigration boosts the economy--drives innovation

The benefits of immigration to the United States as a whole and specifically to our economy are unchallengeable. From Albert
Einstein to Sergey Brin (founder of Google), immigrants have been at the forefront of Americas growth and innovation. Even
though immigrants have made up only 10.5% of the American population on average since 1850, there are 90 immigrantfounded Fortune 500 companies, accounting for 18% of the list. When you include the additional 114 companies founded by
the children of immigrants, the share of the Fortune 500 list grows to over 40%. These companies employ more than 3.6
million people, and have a combined revenue of $4.2 trillion. $1.7 trillion of which comes just from those companies founded
by those who themselves immigrated to this country. A study of international patents by U.S. companies showed that foreignborn inventors were behind 72 percent of Qualcomms patents, 65 percent of Mercks patents, and 64 percent of General
Electrics patents. Remarkably, even the federal government relied heavily on immigrant workers, with 41 percent of the
patents filed by the U.S. government having foreign-born inventors or co-inventors.
34
Pathway Desirable: EconomyEntrepreneurship [contd]

4. Legalization will boost entrepreneurshipempirically true
6. In 2011, immigrant entrepreneurs were responsible for more than one in four new U.S. businesses. Additionally, immigrant
businesses employ one in every 10 people working for private companies. Immigrants and their children founded 40 percent of
Fortune 500 companies, which collectively generated $4.2 trillion in revenue in 2010more than the GDP of every country in
the world except the United States, China, and Japan. Reforms that enhance legal immigration channels for high-skilled
immigrants and entrepreneurs while protecting American workers and placing all high-skilled workers on a level playing field
will promote economic growth, innovation, and workforce stability in the United States.
5. Legalization will substantially increase the number of entrepreneurs in the economy

The legalization provisions under S. 744 could potentially bring between 336,000 and 470,000 entrepreneurs into the formal
economy.* Given that the average immigrant-owned business hires 11 employees, these businesses would account for between
3.7 million and 5.2 million jobs in the formal economy, which is equivalent to 45 percent of those who are currently
unemployed in the United States. Some of these 3.7 million to 5.2 million jobs may be new jobs as a result of immigrants
starting businesses and hiring workers for the first time. Others, however, may simply be jobs that are formalized for the first
time. Nonetheless, whether they are new jobs or recently formalized jobs, the U.S. labor market and economy will be better off,
as formal jobs often have higher pay and generate greater tax revenues.
35
Pathway Desirable: EconomyImmigrant Human Capital

1. Citizenship has a positive effect on immigrant incomes, bolstering the overall economysupported by
other studies
In our analysis, we estimate that the income premium of citizenship for all immigrantsboth documented and
undocumentedby comparing the earnings of naturalized and noncitizen immigrant populations while statistically controlling
for observable differences other than citizenship that may affect income-level differences between the two groups. We control
for education level; work experience; age; year of arrival in the United States; race/ethnicity; gender differences; country of
origin; state of residency; rural versus urban residence; and marital status of naturalized and noncitizen immigrant populations
to estimate the effect that citizenship has on earnings. We do so because these factors are likely to be responsible for
differences in the earnings of naturalized immigrants and noncitizen immigrantsdifferences that would remain even if all
noncitizens acquired citizenship. We know, for example, that noncitizen immigrants are younger, less educated, and less
advanced in their careers than naturalized citizensdifferences that would continue to affect the relative earnings of both
groups after acquisition of citizenship. We find that citizenship is associated with a statistically significant boost in the incomes
of immigrantsan average of 16 percent (17.1 percent for women and 14.5 percent for men) in 2011. Of course, there is no
policy being contemplated today whereby all noncitizens would become citizens. And since our regression analysis mixes
already-documented legal noncitizens with undocumented noncitizens, it does not measure the effect of a policy change aimed
only at the undocumented. But it does give a good indication of the impact over time of moving people from being
unauthorized to legal noncitizens to naturalized citizensthe details of which we disaggregate in the next section of this paper.
Our finding that the income effect of citizenship is positive and significant is consistent with the results of other studies.
2. Legalization would substantially boost GDP

The positive economic impacts on the nation and on undocumented immigrants of granting them legal status and a road map to
citizenship are likely to be very large. The nation as a whole would benefit from a sizable increase in GDP and income and a
modest increase in jobs. The earnings of unauthorized immigrants would rise significantly, and the taxes they would pay would
increase dramatically. Given that the full benefits would phase in over a number of years, the sooner we grant legal status and
provide a road map to citizenship to unauthorized immigrants, the sooner Americans will be able to reap these benefits. It is
also clear that legalization and a road map to citizenship bestow greater gains on the American people and the U.S. economy
than legalization alone.
3. Legalization increases labor mobilityenhances the value-added of immigrant labor

Legalization, investment in education and training, and access to better jobs leads to greater returns on the labor skills and
education of undocumented immigrants. The undocumented also experience increasing returns from the improved labor-market
mobility that follows legalization. Prior to legalization, unauthorized immigrants are subject to deportation if they are
apprehended and, thereforeregardless of their skillsthey tend to pursue employment in low-paying occupations, such as
farming, child care, and cleaning services, where their legal status is less likely to be discovered. Thus, unauthorized workers
do not receive the same market returns on their skills that comparable but legal workers receive. Prior to legalization, a high
school diploma does not result in a statistically significant wage premium over those without this education. After legalization,
however, having a high school diploma or education beyond high school results in an 11 percent wage premium. In other
words, the returns on the labor skills of the legalized improve in part because workers move to sectors where their skills and
education are both valued and relevant to the work being conducted. Hence, legalization and citizenship improve the efficiency
of the labor market by ensuring that people are working in fields where their skillsets and training are being used to the fullest
extent.
36
Pathway Desirable: EconomyImmigrant Human Capital [contd]

4. Legalization is linked to increased education attainment/skills acquisition among currently
undocumented workers
However, some of the improvement in the lot of previously illegal workers came from the willingness of such workers to
invest in their human capital or U.S. labor market skills (education, training, and English language) after the assurance they
could stay permanently in the United States. That is an additional factor arguing in favor of the positive fiscal and economic
impact of legalization. The greater educational attainment and English proficiency of workers after legalization may have not
been achieved if the workers had remained illegally in the U.S. instead of applying for legalization, noted Rivera-Batiz.
37
Pathway Desirable: EconomyJob Growth

1. Legalization will improve wages for domestic workers and add jobs
This coming Monday, millions of Americans will celebrate Labor Daya day to recognize the contributions that American
workers have made to our economy and society. It is equally important, however, to recognize the contributions of immigrant
workers and the positive impacts they have on native-born workers. For decades, immigrants and their families have played a
vital role in the U.S. labor force and economy at large. Today, however, our broken immigration system stifles the
contributions of immigrants and in turn withholds significant benefits from American workers. Comprehensive immigration
reformsuch as S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, which passed in the
Senate in June with a bipartisan supermajority of 68 to 32would go a long way to improve our immigration system. This
common-sense reform would provide legal status and citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United
States and create a flexible system to admit future immigrants into our country. But as detailed below, immigration reform
would also benefit all American workers by improving the earnings of native-born workers and generating new jobs.
2. Legalization increases GDP by $1.4 trillion and adds large numbers of jobs
This paper analyzes the 10-year economic impact of immigration reform under three scenarios. The first scenario assumes that
legal status and citizenship are both accorded to the undocumented in 2013. The second scenario assumes that the unauthorized
are provided legal status in 2013 and are able to earn citizenship five years thereafter. The third scenario assumes that the
unauthorized are granted legal status starting in 2013 but that they are not provided a means to earn citizenshipat least within
the 10-year timeframe of our analysis. Under the first scenarioin which undocumented immigrants are granted legal status
and citizenship in 2013U.S. gross domestic product, or GDP, would grow by an additional $1.4 trillion cumulatively over the
10 years between 2013 and 2022. Whats more, Americans would earn an additional $791 billion in personal income over the
same time periodand the economy would create, on average, an additional 203,000 jobs per year. Within five years of the
reform, unauthorized immigrants would be earning 25.1 percent more than they currently do and $659 billion more from 2013
to 2022. This means that they would also be contributing significantly more in federal, state, and local taxes. Over 10 years,
that additional tax revenue would sum to $184 billion$116 billion to the federal government and $68 billion to state and local
governments.
3. Immigration increases employmentexpands workforce productivity

Immigration Reform, TRADE BRIEF PAPER n. 32, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, 5911, p. 9-10.
Critics of immigration assume a zero-sum game, whereby every illegal immigrant deported from the country opens up one of a
fixed number of jobs, which would then be filled by a U.S.-born worker. Thats not how things work. Dixon and Rimmer (and
other economists) point out that low-skilled workers can help make the U.S. workforce more productive. Under policies that
increase the number of low-skilled immigrants, the occupational creases their overall productivity. In contrast, reducing the
supply of low-skilled immigrants draws Americans into less productive, lower-paying jobs than they would have occupied
otherwise. In addition, changes in the U.S. labor supply affect the amount of capital invested in the economy.
38
Pathway Desirable: EconomyJob Growth [contd]

4. Immigration boosts employmentincreased productivity and specialization
What about the impact of immigrants at the national level? In separate research, Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway found
no statistically reliable correlation between the percentage of the population that was foreignborn and the national
unemployment rate over the period 19001989, or for just the postwar era (19471989). Economist Giovanni Peri has found
in several studies that immigrants are economically beneficial to the United States. An analysis Peri performed for the Federal
Reserve Bank of San Francisco concluded: Statistical analysis of state-level data shows that immigrants expand the
economys productive capacity by stimulating investment and promoting specialization. This produces efficiency gains and
boosts income per worker. At the same time, evidence is scant that immigrants diminish the employment opportunities of U.S.born workers . . . There is no evidence that immigrants crowd out U.S.-born workers in either the short or long run.
5. Jobs are not zero-sumstate-level data prove that immigration increases employment
Mark J. Perry, a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the University of Michigan, Flint, dispels
the myth of a fixed number of jobs: There is no fixed pie or fixed number of jobs, so there is no way for immigrants to take
away jobs from Americans. Immigrants expand the economic pie. Economists Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway, and
Stephen Moore explain the ways in which immigrants create jobs and do not just fill jobs: First, immigrants may expand the
demand for goods and services through their consumption. Second, immigrants may contribute to output through the
investment of savings they bring with them. Third, immigrants have high rates of entrepreneurship, which may lead to the
creation of new jobs for U.S. workers. Fourth, immigrants may fill vital niches in the low and high skilled ends of the labor
market, thus creating subsidiary job opportunities for Americans. Fifth, immigrants may contribute to economies of scale in
production and the growth of markets. According to research on the 10 states with the highest and lowest concentration of
immigrants for the period 1960 to 1990, Vedder, Gallaway, and Moore, found, In the 10 high immigrant states, the median
unemployment rate in the 196091 period was about 5.9%, compared with 6.6% in the 10 low-immigrant states. They also
concluded that between 1980 and 1990, the median proportion of the population that was foreign-born was 1.56% in the highunemployment states, compared with 3.84% in the low-unemployment states. More immigrants, lower unemployment.
6. Legalization will increase employmentexpanded human capital

Would an increase in temporary visas lead to more unemployment for American workers? In their 2009 report for the Cato
Institute, Peter Dixon and Maureen Rimmer found that would not be the case: Among other key findings is that additional
low-skilled immigration would not increase the unemployment rates of low-skilled U.S. workers. Dixon and Rimmer show
that the U.S. economy is dynamic, not static as many critics of immigration either assume or at least appear to argue. While
our modeling suggests that there would be reductions in the number of jobs for U.S. workers in low-skilled occupations, this
does not mean that unemployment rates for these U.S. workers would rise, according to Dixon and Rimmer. With increases
in low-skilled immigration, the U.S. economy would expand, creating more jobs in higher-skilled areas. Over time, some U.S.
workers now in low-paying jobs would move up the occupational ladder, actually reducing the wage pressure on low-skilled
U.S. workers who remain in low-skilled jobs. An important reason why immigration is beneficial is that it encourages a more
productive use of human capital in the U.S. economy. If you have high-skilled natives doing low-productivity jobs, its a
fundamental misallocation of labor and a big inefficiency, according to Pia Orrenius of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
And it makes people nativesworse off. As Dixon and Rimmer note, pointing to the benefits of an increased use of
temporary visas, The presence of more guest workers in lower-skilled, lower-paying occupations encourages Americans to
seek employment in occupations where they can be more productive.
39
Pathway Desirable: EconomyLabor Gaps

1. Immigration is necessary to meet our future labor force needs
Angeline Vuong, Project Manager, Our Future Labor Force: Will Our Supply Meet Our Demand? Center for American
Progress, 10413, www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/10/04/73645/our-future-labor-force-will-oursupply-meet-our-demand/, accessed 11-5-13.
The largest generation of Americansthe Baby Boomer generationis reaching retirement age, and this demographic wave
will create a large number of job vacancies in various industries. But these demographic changes mean that by 2030, there will
be more native-born people leaving the workforce than entering it. How, then, will our supply of workers meet the demand for
them? In the future, as in the past, our nation will rely on immigrants and their children to fulfill our workforce needs and
sustain a growing economy. A recent Center for American Progress report by Dowell Myers, Stephen Levy, and John Pitkin
indicates that between 2010 and 2030, 58.6 million workers will have left the workforce. The report also projects, however,
that only 51.3 million workers who are native born and not of immigrant parents are likely to enter the workforce in this period.
Thus, if our country relied solely on native-born peoplethird generation or higherit would be 7.3 million people short of
the total number of people needed to replace those who are leaving the workforce. Luckily, however, based on current trends,
immigrants and their childrenthe first generation and the second generation, respectivelywill help meet our future
workforce needs. In the 2020s, if current immigration trends continue, the number of immigrants entering the workforce will
increase by about 12 percent, and the number of children of immigrants joining the workforce will increase by 46 percent.
2. Immigrants are necessary to fill gaps in the labor market as baby boomers retire
11-5-13.
As Baby Boomers retire en masse over the next 20 years, immigrants will be crucial to fill job openings and promote growth in
the labor market. More than two-thirds of new entrants into the labor market will replace retiring workers. But while we will
need 58.6 million new workers to fill these retirements, only 51.3 million native-born people are projected to enter the
workforce, meaning that immigrants and their children will be crucial in filling the additional 7.3 million openings while also
furthering growth in the labor market.
3. We need immigrants to meet labor needsretirement of baby boomers, general economic growth
Angeline Vuong, Project Manager, Our Future Labor Force: Will Our Supply Meet Our Demand? Center for American
Progress, 10413, www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/10/04/73645/our-future-labor-force-will-oursupply-meet-our-demand/, accessed 11-5-13.
The growing number of immigrants and their children entering the workforce is important to our economy for two reasons.
First, in order to maintain our economys current level of production, the number of people entering the workforce needs to
keep pace with the number of people leaving it. As explained earlier, without immigrants and their children, our economy
would not be able to maintain the present size of our workforce over the next 20 years. Immigrants and their children are
therefore responsible for ensuring that, at the very least, our economy can continue to function at its current level of production.
Second, and more importantly, as our nation continues to recover from the Great Recession and as our economy grows, we will
need a larger workforce. The need for a larger workforce in the coming years is already evident. The CAP report projects that
between 2010 and 2030, there will be about 90 million job openings. Two-thirds of these openings will be due to the mass
exodus of Baby Boomers from the workforce, but about one-third, or 30 million jobs, will be the result of job growth. This
projected job growth, though, can only be fully realized if there is corresponding workforce growth; the 31.5 million
immigrants and their children projected to enter the workforce by 2030 will drive this workforce growth. In fact, 85 percent of
the net workforce growth over the next two decades will come from immigrants and their children.
4. Continued immigration is important to long-term economic growth

Sergio Bitar, non-resident fellow, Inter-America Dialogue, LATIN AMERICA AND THE UNITED STATES: LOOKING
TOWARDS 2020, 9--11, p. 8.
Immigration will continue to be necessary for the United States to sustain its growth. Negative aspects of immigration tend to
grab the spotlight, but the fact remains that Latin American immigrants make a major contribution to the US economy. A
recent report projects that the US population will increase from 310 million in 2010 to 370 million in 2030, half of it as a result
of immigration. This would make the United States the only industrialized country to have population growth through 2030.
40
Pathway Desirable: EconomyLabor Gaps [contd]

5. Legalization is justified--necessary to meet our labor needs
The fact that undocumented immigrant workers contribute significantly to this country's agricultural labor force serves as a
primary foundation for why they should have the opportunity to obtain earned legalization. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) projected the number of people in the labor force aged twenty-five to thirty-four would increase by only three million
between the years 2002 and 2012, while those aged fifty-five and older would increase by eighteen million. The BLS further
estimated that in 2012, those aged forty-five and older would have the fastest growth rate and would be a little more than fiftypercent of the labor force. According to the United Nations: [T]he fertility rate in the United States is projected to fall below
"replacement" level by 2015 to 2020, declining to 1.91 children per woman (lower than the 2.1 children per woman rate needed
to replace the population). By 2010, 77 million baby boomers will retire and, by 2030, one in every five Americans is projected
to be a senior citizen. In addition, the number of low-skilled jobs, which partially includes agricultural work, is expected to
grow by more than 700,000 a year. However, there is a shrinking pool of domestic labor to fill those jobs. A legislative process
providing a documented, stable, and legal workforce should be the foundation for this nation's agricultural industry. Thus, a
legal population of immigrants, rather than a continuous stream of undocumented workers, should provide the source of labor
to fill the growing gap between labor demand and worker supply. Movement to meaningful immigration reform is gaining
momentum. During the 2012 election year politicians from both sides enjoyed discussing the issue of immigration reform
because it allowed them to further "harangue their opponents and mobilize their base of support." However, the year 2013
could bring new hope as President Obama "will push for comprehensive reform." Phone calls, letters, and emails to state
senators can and do matter as legislators will often track and tally citizen communications to gauge their constituent's
viewpoints. Becoming informed by talking with local bankers, merchants, friends, and neighbors about the need for reform and
explaining the need for a legal, documented immigrant workforce is important. Farmers need a predictable farming workforce.
A guestworker program that actually works in a reasonable and rational manner is critical if this nation intends to secure the
future viability of the farms that feed us.
6. Immigration is vital to the economy--fills gaps in the workforce

Immigrants do not only help the United States economy from the top down, but also from the bottom up. While some do send
much of their earnings back to their home countries as remittances, all of them are consumers in the U.S. market, buying
everything from food and clothes, to houses and cars. For instance, a study by the University of Nebraska, Omaha, estimated
that spending by immigrants generated roughly 12,000 jobs for the state of Nebraska in 2006, including more than 8,000 jobs
in the Omaha and Lincoln metropolitan areas. Immigrants are also filling in the gap that is being left by the retiring native born
Baby Boomers. Their retirement will generate 34.3 million job openings between 2008 and 2018, compared to the 15.3 million
jobs that will be created by economic growth. Similarly, as the native-born American population becomes more educated, there
will be a shortage of workers for jobs that require minimal, on the job training, which will constitute around 38% of all job
openings in the next ten years.
7. Immigration is key to the U.S. economy--labor demand

Brookings Institution, RETHINKING U.S.-LATIN AMERICAN RELATIONS: A HEMISPHERIC PARTNERSHIP FOR A
TURBULENT WORLD, Report of the Partnership for the Americas Commission, Ernesto Zedillo and Thomas R. Pickering,
Co-Chairs, 11--08, p. 16.
In the decades ahead, the U.S. economy will continue to demand immigrant labor. Because of historically low U.S. birthrates
and the aging of the baby boom generation, the total number of native-born workers will grow very little between 2000 and
2020. Those workers will be, on average, better educated every year and therefore less likely to accept unskilled jobs.
Immigrants and their offspring will be crucial for filling those jobs, keeping the U.S. labor force young and dynamic, and for
keeping the pension system in balance.
41
Pathway Desirable: EconomyLabor Gaps [contd]

8. Immigration is important to economyaddresses key labor shortages
LAW REVIEW v. 49, Spring 2008, p. 665.
Despite the recent economic downturn, the long term need for immigrant workers remains. "Immigrants ... help fill an
employment gap. People are having fewer kids, baby boomers are retiring and these immigrants are doing the work that helps
the economy grow. Take this young, able workforce away and the economy stagnates." Moreover, predicted labor shortages in
the United States over the next ten years could cause even more disruption to the U.S. economy unless immigrant workers help
fill the void. Without these immigrant workers in the U.S. labor force, the U.S. economy would become inefficient. By
restricting the labor force to U.S. workers, the cost of production would increase, the price of goods would rise, and the
ultimate result would be an inefficient market.
9. Immigration is important to the U.S. in facing future demographic challenges

Miguel R. Salazar, Public Affairs Specialist and Andrew Selee, Vice President for Programs, NEW IDEAS FOR A NEW ERA:
513, p. 30.
Changing Demographic Statistics: The U.S. has a long history of attracting immigrants in search of opportunity, family
reunification, and protection from oppression abroad. The country is currently facing an era of changing demographics as
population growth rates have begun to decline and society continues to age. Migrants can serve a strategic interest for the U.S.,
helping keep population numbers level, supplying workforce needs, and ensuring the solvency of entitlement programs. Census
figures from 2010 show that the population 65 years and older grew at a rate of 15.1 percent between 2000 and 2010, outpacing
total population growth rates for the same period. A recent Pew Research report states that U.S. birth rates are at their lowest
since 1920. Even among foreign born women, birth rates dropped 14 percent between 2007 and 2010, while there was a 23
percent decrease among Mexican immigrant women.
10. Immigration is necessary to prevent a U.S. demographic crisis

David R. Ayon, Senior Advisor, Mexico Institute, LINKING DEVELOPMENT & MIGRATION: A BINATIONAL U.S.MEXICO DIALOGUE, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 512, p. 9.
Raul Hinojosa of UCLA addressed three areas in relation to the binational integration of labor markets: demographic trends,
U.S. immigration policy, and immigrant remittances. He struck a different note on population trends, pointing out that the
populations of both countries are rapidly aging. If it were not for immigration, he argued, the U.S. would be facing a severe
demographic crisis. Areas in Mexico, meanwhile, are facing significant depopulation due to migration.
42
Pathway Desirable: EconomyNationwide

1. Legalization will benefit each one of the fifty states
Both the acquisition of legal status and citizenship enable undocumented immigrants to produce and earn significantly more.
These resulting productivity and wage gains ripple through the economy because immigrants are not just workersthey are
also taxpayers and consumers. They pay taxes on their higher wages and they spend their increased earnings on the purchase of
goods and services including food, clothing, and homes. This increased consumption boosts business sales, expands the
economy, generates new jobs, and increases the earnings of all Americans. Each state will experience significant economic
growth as well. In this follow-up to the Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented
Immigrants, we begin by recapping the national gains. We then provide estimates of the economic benefits for 24 states if
their undocumented populations were legalized. Specifically, we estimate the increases over 10 years in gross state product, or
GSP, as well as earnings, taxes, and jobs for these states if the Senate Gang of 8s bill is enacted in 2013. We also explain why
immigration reform is responsible for these specific economic benefits. The methodology for this brief relies upon estimates of
the undocumented population in each state and replicates the methodology used in our previous report.
2. Legalization benefits the states with the largest immigrant populationsincreased earnings
The economic benefits of legalization have been calculated for 24 states where 88 percent of the 11 million undocumented
immigrants reside. Across all of these states, the economic gains are significant. In Arizona, for example, the 10-year
cumulative increase in GSP will be $23.1 billion, the increase in the earnings of state residents will be $15.3 billion, and
immigration reform will create an average of an additional 3,400 jobs annually. In addition to these significant gains,
undocumented immigrants themselves will experience significant increases in their income and pay more taxes to their states.
In Arizona, for example, over the 10-year period they will earn $12.7 billion more and pay an additional $1.5 billion in state
and local taxes on these increased earnings. In each of these states, when the undocumented immigrants eventually gain
citizenship, their earnings will increase an additional 10 percent, further improving the economy and prosperity of all residents
in their state. But since the attainment of citizenship will occur outside of the 10-year window of analysis of this study, we do
not include any of the economic benefits from the acquisition of citizenship. In addition, we do not include the $69 billion in
additional federal taxes that the undocumented would pay on their increased earnings.
43
Pathway Desirable: EconomyProductivity

1. Small negative effects on workers are offset by price gains
Daniel Griswold, Cato Institute, Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship,
5--26--05, www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/securing-our-borders-under-temporary-guest-worker-program,
accessed 11-10-13.
The impact of immigration on the small segment of the U.S. workforce that competes directly with immigrants is more than
offset by the lower prices and wider range of goods and services that all workers enjoy because of immigration. Americans also
benefit from higher returns on investment, and from the opportunities created for more skilled native-born workers in those
industries that depend on immigrant workers to meet the needs of their customers. The comprehensive study by National
Research Council in 1997 concluded that immigration delivers a significant positive gain of $1 billion to $10 billion a year to
native-born Americans. 2 And those gains from immigration recur year after year.
2. Immigration increases economic efficiency--ensures appropriate labor force size

accessed 11-10-13.
Immigrants play an important part in the success of Americas free-enterprise economy. Immigrant workers willingly fill
important niches in the labor market. They gravitate to occupations where the supply of workers falls short of demand,
typically among the higher-skilled and lower-skilled occupations. That hourglass shape of the immigration labor pool
complements the native-born workforce, where most workers fall in the middle range in terms of skills and education. As a
result, immigrants do not compete directly with the vast majority of American workers. Immigration provides needed
flexibility to the U.S. economy, allowing the supply of workers to increase relatively quickly to meet rising demand. When
demand falls, would-be immigrants can decide not to enter, and those already here can decide to return home. The result is a
more efficient economy that can achieve a higher rate of sustainable growth without encountering bottlenecks or stoking
inflation. Immigration not only increases the supply of labor but also the demand for the labor of others-to provide food,
housing, transportation, services and consumer goods. Immigration helps to maintain a steady, healthy growth rate in the U.S.
labor force. Because of immigration, the U.S. workforce and economy will continue to grow well into the 21st century, while
Japan, Germany, and other advanced economies will be forced to adjust to an unprecedented decline in their workforces.
3. Low-skill immigration boosts the economy--lowers prices

DIVIDE, 2012, p. 31.
In addition, immigration of low-skilled workers might also benefit natives by lowering the prices of labor-intensive goods and
services. For example, Cortes (2008) finds that a 10-percent increase in the share of low-skilled immigrants in the labor force
decreases the price of immigrant-intensive services by 2 percent, due to the reduction in wages. Palivos (2009) also argues that
illegal immigration has positive effects on the receiving country because illegal immigrants are paid less than the value of what
they produce, leading domestic households to increase their holdings of capital.
44
Pathway Desirable: Fiscal BurdenGeneral

1. Increased tax revenue will offset any losses from government coffers
11-5-13.
State tax revenue will get a boost from immigration reform. The CBOs estimated increase in payroll taxes indicates that state
tax revenue would increase by about $748 billion by 2033 under S. 744. While state spending on things such as education and
Medicare will also rise, the $748 billion in additional revenues will more than cover any rising costs. Taxes paid by legalized
immigrants more than offset any use of social programs. The CBO found that increases in costs to social programs are modest
and will be more than paid for by the tax contributions of immigrants. The increase in spending in Social Security and
Medicare from 2024 through 2033, for example, will be $65 billionjust 4.4 percent of the total increase in tax revenues.
2. Legalization will boost the economy and government tax revenue

11-5-13.
Immigration reform will decrease the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office,
or CBO, found that S. 744the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, as passed by the
Senatewill reduce the budget deficit by $158 billion in the first decade after the bills passage and by an additional $685
billion in the second decade. Permitting undocumented immigrants to gain legal status will significantly expand economic
growth. If the 11 million undocumented immigrants in our nation are granted legal status in 2013, the 10-year cumulative
increase in U.S. gross domestic product, or GDP, will be $832 billion. Granting legal status to undocumented immigrants will
create jobs and increase tax revenues. If undocumented immigrants acquire legal immigration status in 2013, the economy will
add an average of 121,000 new jobs per year, and formerly unauthorized workers will pay an additional $109 billion in federal,
state, and local taxes over a 10-year period. Immigration reform will increase the earnings of all Americans. Immigration
reform that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, such as S. 744, will increase the earnings of all
American workers by $470 billion over the next decade.
3. Reform will strengthen the entire social safety net

Many opponents of immigration reform have claimed that providing an earned pathway to citizenship and fixing our broken
immigration system would greatly increase the cost of social programs and burden federal and state budgets. The CBO score,
however, indicates that just the opposite would occur. On the whole, the added costs of all government programs will be just 56
percent of the increase in taxes, meaning that the taxes paid by immigrants would more than cover all the additional
expenditures for all social programs combined. The Social Security system, for example, would receive an additional $214
billion in taxes by 2023, and $700 billion more by 2033, far exceeding the additional outlays for the program due to
immigration reform. Similarly, the increased costs of the Affordable Care Act will comprise just 18 percent of the additional
tax revenues raised by immigration reform.
45
Pathway Desirable: Fiscal BurdenGeneral [contd]

4. Immigration reform will substantially reduce the deficitCongressional Budget Office study proves
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, released a cost estimate on Tuesday of S. 744, the bipartisan
immigration bill that is currently before the Senate. The CBO findings are clear: Comprehensive immigration reform will be a
boon to our economy, and the tax contributions of immigrants will more than pay for any additional costs that arise from this
reform. Immigration reform will decrease the U.S. deficit by $175 billion over the next 10 years and by an additional $700
billion over the following 10 years. Simply put, immigration reform pays for itself. The CBO found that comprehensive
immigration reform will significantly reduce future federal budget deficits. Although immigration reform will generate some
additional costs in government programs such as Social Security, the CBO found that the increases in tax revenues, primarily
paid by immigrants, will vastly outpace these costs, leading to big net gains for the U.S. budget. In fact, for every $1 in
spending that results from immigration reform, nearly $2 will be paid in taxes. Because of these soaring tax revenues and
modest cost increases, the U.S. federal budget balance will experience a net improvement of $175 billion over the next 10
years. Whats more, these significant gains only grow over timeover the following 10 years, immigration reform will shrink
the budget deficit by an additional $700 billion, so that by 2033 the U.S. federal budget will shrink by a cumulative nearly $900
billion.
5. Immigration is vital to ensuring the sustainability of social safety net programs

Finally, with over 77 million Baby Boomers reaching retirement age, the Social Security and Medicare systems will be
stretched thin. The labor force will fall, and a smaller number of workers and taxpayers will support a growing number of
retirees. Therefore, immigrants will play a critical role in replenishing both the labor force and the tax base. In fact, the Institute
for Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that households headed by undocumented immigrants paid $11.2 billion in state
and local taxes in 2010. That included $1.2 billion in personal income taxes, $1.6 billion in property taxes, and $8.4 billion in
sales taxes.
6. Immigrants do not drain social service systems

Alvaro Vargas Llosa, Addressing the Discrediting 7 Major Myths about Immigration, FORBES, 52913,
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=4627, accessed 11-3-13.
Myth 7: Immigrants dont pay taxes and cost more than they contribute. Immigrants pay many local and state levies, including
real estate and sales taxes, and about $7 billion in Social Security taxes. Between the 1970s and the 1990s they represented $25
billion more in government revenue than what they cost. They would contribute much more if they were documented. Most
immigrant children have at least one parent who is a citizen, so counting all of them as part of the cost of immigration is
deceptive. The welfare state was never a pull factor: until after World War II immigrants were not entitled to relief programs.
Immigrants did not cause government spending to grow by a factor of 50 in one century.
7. Legalization will boost state and federal tax revenue

2. Tax revenues would increase. The federal government would accrue $4.5 billion to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue
over just three years if the 11 million undocumented immigrants were legalized. And states would benefit. Texas, for example,
would see a $4.1 billion gain in tax revenue and the creation of 193,000 new jobs if its approximately 1.6 million
undocumented immigrants were legalized.
46
Pathway Desirable: Fiscal BurdenImmigrant Earnings

1. Legalization will increase immigrant wages
11-5-13.
Legalization and naturalization of undocumented immigrants will bolster their wages. The annual income of unauthorized
immigrants will be 15.1 percent higher within five years if they are granted legal status starting in 2013. In addition, if
undocumented immigrants earn their citizenship, their wages will be an additional 10 percent higher. Undocumented
immigrants pay billions of dollars in taxes annually. Households headed by unauthorized immigrants paid $10.6 billion in state
and local taxes in 2010. This includes $1.2 billion in personal income taxes, $1.2 billion in property taxes, and more than $8
billion paid in sales and excise taxes. Immigrantseven legal immigrantsare barred from most social services, meaning that
they pay to support benefits they cannot even receive.
2. Legalization will increase payments into social securitywill bring millions into the legal workforce
and will increase immigrant wages
Adriana Kugler, Professor, Public Policy, Georgetown University and Robert Lynch, Professor, Economics, Washington
College and Patrick Oakford, Improving Lives, Strengthening Finances: The Benefits of Immigration Reform to Social
Security, Center for American Progress, 61413,
www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/06/14/66543/improving-lives-strengthening-finances-the-benefitsof-immigration-reform-to-social-security/, accessed 11-5-13.
Undocumented immigrants have already made significant contributions to the Social Security system and in doing so have
improved its solvency. But with only 3 million of the 8 million unauthorized workers paying Social Security taxes,
undocumented immigrants collectively are contributing far below their potential. Immigration reform would lead to greater
contributions to the Social Security system for two primary reasons. First, providing legal status and an earned pathway to
citizenship would bring workers out of the underground economy and allow them to work legally and contribute to the Social
Security system. Currently, only 37 percent of undocumented workers pay Social Security payroll taxes. This means that the
United States stands to see millions of additional workers going on the books and contributing to the system through payroll
taxes if undocumented immigrants are able to work legally. Second, undocumented workers wages increase after legalization,
and so too will the taxes paid on their earnings. Research by the Department of Labor concluded that providing legal status to
undocumented immigrants increased their earnings by 15 percent. Further research has found that becoming a citizen brings an
additional 10 percent increase in earnings.
3. Legalization increases wages for immigrationsmultiple studies prove

Numerous studies and government data sets have shown that positive economic outcomes are highly correlated with legal
status and citizenship. Large and detailed government datasetssuch as the U.S. Census Bureaus American Community
Survey and Current Population Surveyhave documented, for example, that U.S. citizens have average incomes that are 40
percent greater or more than the average incomes of noncitizen immigrants, both those here legally and the unauthorized.
Within the immigrant community, economic outcomes also vary by legal status. A study done by George Borjas and Marta
Tienda found that prior to 1986 Mexican immigrant men legally in the United States earned 6 percent more than unauthorized
Mexican male immigrants. Research suggests that undocumented immigrants are further underground today than they were
in 1986and that they experience an even wider wage gap. Katherine Donato and Blake Sisk, for example, found that between
2003 and 2009, the average hourly wage of Mexican immigrants legally in the United States was 28.3 percent greater than it
was for undocumented Mexican immigrants. In addition, a U.S. Department of Labor studybased on a carefully constructed
and large longitudinal survey of the nearly 3 million unauthorized immigrants who were granted legal status and given a road
map to citizenship under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986found that these previously undocumented
immigrants experienced a 15.1 percent increase in their average inflation-adjusted wages within five years of gaining legal
status. Studies have also reported that citizenship provides an added economic boost above and beyond the gains from
legalization. Manuel Pastor and Justin Scoggins, for instance, found that even when controlling for a range of factors such as
educational attainment and national origin, naturalized immigrants earned 11 percent more than legal noncitizens.
47
Pathway Desirable: Fiscal BurdenImmigrant Earnings [contd]

4. Legalization increases immigrant wagesincreased legal protections, improvements in human capital,
more entrepreneurial options
There are several reasons why legalization and citizenship both raise the incomes of immigrants and improve economic
outcomes. Providing a road map to citizenship to undocumented immigrants gives them legal protections that raise their wages.
It also promotes investment in the education and training of immigrants that eventually pays off in the form of higher wages
and output; grants access to a broader range of higher-paying jobs; encourages labor mobility which increases the returns on
the labor skills of immigrants by improving the efficiency of the labor market such that the skillsets of immigrants more closely
match the jobs that they perform; and makes it more possible for immigrants to start businesses and create jobs. Each of these
reasons is explained in more detail below.
5. Legalization will increase the wages of native-born workers, further solidifying the Social Security
system
Increased contributions by all American workers. It is not only the undocumented that would contribute more to the system as a
result of comprehensive immigration reform; native-born Americans would also contribute more. Previous research has shown
that the earnings of native-born workers will increase if undocumented immigrants are provided legal status and citizenship.
Nationally, the cumulative increase in all Americans earnings would increase by $470 billion over the next 10 years.
Similarly, economists have found that the wages of native-born workers increase by 0.6 percent as new immigrants enter the
country. Immigration reform would therefore also increase all Americans contributions to Social Security due to increased
earnings. (While we have not added the increased contributions from native-born workers to our calculations of the net
contributions of legalized immigrants, it is important to note that our estimates would be even higher if these figures were
added.)
6. No welfare problemsworkforce participation rates are higher among immigrants

One of the contradictions in the immigration debate is how some argue that immigrants are taking jobs from Americans,
while also asserting immigrants are receiving a great deal of public benefits. The labor force participation rate for immigrant
men, ages 18 to 64, is very high, in fact higher than that for native-born Americans. For legal immigrant males in that age
group, 86 percent were working, compared to 83 percent for native-born males, according to 2004 census data analyzed by the
Pew Hispanic Center. The labor force participation rate is even higher for illegal immigrant males (92 percent). In the second
quarter of 2010, among the working-age population age 16 and older, the foreign-born had a higher labor force participation
rate than the native-born. In sum, the data indicate that immigrants are not overwhelming users of welfare programs, and it is
unlikely that legalizing some portion of immigrants now in the country illegally will create a great fiscal burden for taxpayers.
This is particularly true in light of the data presented by Dixon and Rimmer and past experience, which indicates that legal (or
legalized) workers will earn higher wages than illegal immigrants. To the extent that the fiscal issue remains a concern,
whether or not supported by data, Congress retains the option of enacting additional restrictions on benefit eligibility for
anyone who receives legal status as part of immigration reform.
48

7. Legalization increases earningsenhanced legal protections
Legalization allows the newly authorized to invoke the numerous employment rights that they previously could not benefit
frombut were in most cases entitled todue to their constant fear of being deported. Providing unauthorized workers with
legal status increases their bargaining power relative to their employers, which in turn lowers the likelihood of worker
exploitation and suppressed wages. This means that newly legal immigrants will be better equipped to contest an unlawful
termination of employment, to negotiate for fair compensation or a promotion, and to file a complaint if they believe they are
being mistreated or abused. Citizenship provides even greater protections than legalization. Citizens, for example, cannot be
deported, while immigrants who are legal residents are still subject to deportation under certain circumstances.
8. Immigration is a net positive for public coffers--comprehensive research proves

DIVIDE, 2012, p. 32-33.
Another issue debated about migrants effects on their receiving countries is the balance between taxes they pay and the cost of
government services they receive. Although conceptually this is a simple calculation (whether immigrants pay more in taxes
than they receive in government benefits), it is difficult to estimate in practice. One important study on the total fiscal impact of
immigrants is Smith and Edmonston (1997). They estimate the fiscal impact of all immigrantslegal and illegalon federal
and state budgets. They find positive fiscal benefits across all levels of government for the average immigrant. Using data from
Smith and Edmonston (1997), the Council of Economic Advisers (2007, p. 645), concludes, Although subject to the
uncertainties inherent to long-run projections, careful forward looking estimates of immigrations fiscal effects, accounting for
all levels of government spending and tax revenue, suggest a modest positive influence on average.
9. Legalization increases earningsencourages investment in education and training

Legal status and a road map to citizenship both provide a guarantee of long-term membership in American society and cause
noncitizen immigrants to invest in their English language skills and in other forms of education and training that raise their
productivity. Research shows that legal status and a road map to citizenship both create the opportunity and incentive for
workers to invest in their labor-market skills at a greater rate than they otherwise would: Nearly 45 percent of the wage
increases experienced by newly legalized immigrants is due to upgrades in their human capital. Similarly, a Department of
Labor study of newly legalized immigrants found that they had significantly improved their English language skills and
educational attainment within five years of gaining legal status and a road map to citizenship.
10. Legalization increases earningsaffords access to better jobs

Undocumented immigrants are not legally living in the country, nor are they legally permitted to work here. Expensive federaland state-level employer sanctions on the hiring of undocumented workers further restrict their access to fairly compensated
and legal work opportunities because employers are reluctant to hire immigrants. If they do hire immigrants, they may use the
threat of these sanctions to justify paying immigrants lower wages than they are due. Legal noncitizen immigrants also suffer
from restricted job access due to lack of citizenship. Many jobsincluding many public-sector jobs, as well as high-paying
private-sector jobsare either available only to citizens or require security clearances that noncitizens cannot obtain. In
addition, employers often prefer citizens to noncitizensa form of discrimination that is sometimes permissible under U.S.
labor laws. Even where it is unlawful to discriminate, some employers may hire citizens over noncitizens for a variety of
reasons, including: To ensure that they are not violating the law by mistakenly hiring undocumented immigrants Because they
may believe that citizens are better employees than noncitizens Because they would prefer to hire a co-national rather than a
noncitizen.
49

11. Immigrants are a net-positive for public cofferspay taxes while receiving little in terms of benefits
What critics fail to realize is that, overall, immigrants have a positive impact on the U.S. economy and on source country
economies. Studies of the costs that immigrants impose on taxpayers have produced varied results, ranging from a net gain of $
1,400 per immigrant to a net loss of $ 1,600. Most illegal immigrants, through the use of false Social Security numbers or
Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITIN's), pay Social Security, Medicare, and income taxes, but often receive no
benefits in return. As of 2002, illegal immigrants had paid $ 463 billion in Social Security taxes but had taken out virtually
nothing. Illegal immigrant workers are often prohibited from taking advantage of the benefits and services that they have paid
for in taxes. The Welfare Reform Bill of 1996 prevents illegal immigrants from receiving almost all forms of federal needbased public assistance except emergency medical care and public education. Even illegal immigrants who avoid paying
income and Social Security taxes are still required to pay sales taxes, property taxes via rent payments, and consumption taxes
on things such as gas, alcohol, and utilities. The federal government walks away with an average of $ 80,000 over a lifetime per
illegal immigrant family when the taxes paid by children of illegal immigrant families are factored into the equation. Without
these immigrant workers, even more U.S. jobs would be outsourced to foreign countries and the U.S. economy would languish.
From Mexico alone, illegal immigrants contribute more than $ 220 billion to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) each
year. Immigrants come to the Unites States looking for jobs, not looking for handouts. They understand how to work hard and
merely seek better opportunities for themselves and their families.
50
Pathway Desirable: Fiscal BurdenLow Utilization Rates

1. Immigrants are less likely to take advantage of public benefits than are native-born citizens
Leighton Ku, Professor, Public Health, George Washington University and Brian Bruen, Lecturer, Department of Health
Policy, George Washington University, The Use of Public Assistance by Citizens and Non-Citizen Immigrants in the United
States, CATO WORKING PAPER, 21913, http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/workingpaper-13_1.pdf,
accessed 11-8-13.
Claims are sometimes made that immigrants use public benefits, such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, or the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families programs, more often than those who are born in the United States.
This report provides analyses, using the most recent data from the Census Bureau, that counter these claims. In reality, lowincome non-citizen immigrants, including adults and children, are generally less likely to receive public benefits than those
who are native-born. Moreover, when non-citizen immigrants receive benefits, the value of benefits they receive is usually
lower than the value of benefits received by those born in the United States. The combination of lower average utilization and
smaller average benefits indicates that the overall cost of public benefits is substantially less for low-income non-citizen
immigrants than for comparable native-born adults and children. The report also explains that the lower use of public benefits
by non-citizen immigrants is not surprising, since federal rules restrict immigrants eligibility for these public benefit programs.
2. Immigrants have low utilization rates

accessed 11-8-13.
native-born adults or citizen children whose parents are also citizens. Non-citizen immigrants (both adults and children)
utilization of Medicaid, SNAP, and SSI are lower. Adult receipt of cash assistance is uncommon (2% to 3%), regardless of
citizenship status. Non-citizen children are less likely to use cash assistance than citizen children with citizen parents.
Moreover, when low-income non-citizens receive public benefits, the average value of benefits per recipient is almost always
lower than for those who are native-born. This held true for both adults and children in Medicaid and SNAP, and for noncitizen children in households receiving cash assistance and SSI benefits. The average per recipient benefit levels were similar
for adults receiving cash assistance or SSI.
3. The cost of public benefits for immigrants is lower than it is for native-born citizens
accessed 11-8-13.
The combined effect of lower utilization rates and lower average benefits means that the overall financial cost of providing
public benefits to non-citizen immigrants is lower than for native-born people. Consider, for example, the results for Medicaid.
If there are 100 native-born adults, the annual cost of benefits would be 25.6% use times $3,845 per native-born recipient times
100 persons, or about $984,000. For 100 non-citizen adults, the approximate cost would be 19.7% use times $2,904 the average
value of benefits times 100 persons for a total cost of $572,000. This is 42% below the cost of the native-born adults. A
comparable calculation for 100 non-citizen children and 100 citizen children with citizen parents yields $227,000 for the noncitizen children and $671,000 for the citizen children, so the non-citizen children are about 66% less expensive in total. Since
about 83% to 84% of adults and children with low incomes are either native-born citizens or citizen children in citizen families,
the overall cost of public benefits for those in native-born families outweighs those of non-citizen immigrants by many times.
4. Welfare claims are overstatedmost immigrations receive no benefits

Welfare use among immigrants declined significantly after Congress changed the eligibility rules in 1996. The Urban Institute
reported substantial declines between 1994 and 1999 in the use of major benefit programs by legal immigrants: Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or, prior to 1996, its predecessor, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) (60 percent); food stamps (-48 percent); SSI (-32 percent); and Medicaid (-15 percent). The House Ways and Means Committee
analyzed census data and concluded that the percentage of natives, noncitizens, and naturalized citizens who use AFDC/TANF,
Medicaid, and food stamps is similar for the three groups. In addition, the vast majority of immigrants do not receive public
benefits. Less than 1 percent of naturalized citizens and noncitizens in 2006 received benefits under TANF
51
Pathway Desirable: Fiscal BurdenLow Utilization Rates [contd]

5. No public benefits soaklower cost, utilization rates
accessed 11-8-13.
The analyses of the most recent Census data (and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey) confirm that low-income non-citizen
immigrants are less likely to receive public benefits than low-income native-born citizens and that the value of benefits
received per recipient is less for the immigrant groups. Together, this means that the average cost of benefits for non-citizen
immigrants is well below that of similar native-born citizens. Non-citizen immigrants receive less government benefits, even
when they are at comparable levels of economic need for assistance.
52
Pathway Desirable: Fiscal BurdenSocial Security

1. Legalization and citizenship will provide a substantial boost to Social Security
In this issue brief, we analyze the impact on the Social Security system of legalizing the undocumented population. Despite the
wide body of research that details the economic gains that come with immigration reform, some lawmakers still question the
long-term impact of earned legalization on social programs such as Social Security. Bringing undocumented immigrants out of
the shadows and allowing them to participate fully in our economy and society will further strengthen many of our countrys
social services, both in the immediate future and in the long run. The findings from this brief are clear: If undocumented
immigrants acquire legal status and citizenship, they will contribute far more to the Social Security system than they will take
out and will strengthen the solvency of Social Security over the next 36 years. (see Figure 1). The analysis below estimates the
net contribution to Social Securitytaxes paid into the system minus benefits receivedof formerly undocumented
immigrants after legalization. This year the first of the Baby Boomers will turn 67 years old and be eligible to receive full
Social Security benefits. Over the next 36 years, these Boomers will present a financial challenge to the Social Security system,
which can be alleviated in part by the contributions of the relatively young undocumented immigrant population, whose adult
mean age is only 36. We examine the net contributions over this 36-year time period, when Social Security will be the most
affected by Boomers retirements. While legalized immigrants will ultimately be eligible for Social Security upon retirement,
the vast majority of them will not receive any benefits until the Baby Boomer generationand the major strain on the
systemhas passed.
2. Immigrants will help keep the Social Security system solvent

11-5-13.
Immigrants will pay substantially more into Social Security than they will take out, and their contributions will be essential in
supporting retiring Baby Boomers. Assuming that 85 percent of undocumented immigrants gain legal status and citizenship,
immigrants will provide a net $606.4 billion contribution to Social Security over the next 36 yearsthe very same time period
when retiring Baby Boomers will place the greatest strain on the system.
3. Legalization will bolster the short- and long-term solvency of the Social Security system
We estimate the net contributions of legalized immigrants under three scenarios. The first scenario assumes that 85 percent of
the undocumented population will be eligible to apply for legal status and citizenship; the second assumes 70 percent will be
eligible to apply; and the third assumes only 60 percent will be eligible to apply. We conduct this analysis across three different
scenarios to illustrate how the net contribution to the Social Security system would be substantially reduced if the number of
people eligible for legal status and citizenship were curtailed. The evidence is clear that the newly legalized will have a positive
effect on the solvency of the Social Security system. As these three scenarios illustrate, as fewer undocumented immigrants are
eligible to apply for legalization and citizenship, the gains to Social Security solvency decline dramatically. On top of the many
other positive impacts of bringing the undocumented out of the shadows, these results indicate that providing legal status and a
pathway to citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in this country would have a sizeable impact on
the ability to provide full pensions to the Baby Boomers in the years to come.
53
Pathway Desirable: Fiscal BurdenSocial Security [contd]

4. Legalization will provide substantial benefits to the stability of the entire Social Security system
As the immigration debate moves forward, policymakers should keep in mind the economic benefits of providing an earned
pathway toward legal status and citizenship for undocumented immigrants. If undocumented immigrants acquire this status,
they will pay hundreds of billions of dollars more in Social Security taxes than they will receive in benefits over the next 36
years. These large net contributions will fund the retirement benefits of millions of Americans and a sizeable share of retirees,
decades before the majority of undocumented immigrants ever collect a penny in benefits. Moreover, these reforms would
improve the financial stability of the Social Security system during the very period in which it is expected to be the most
strained. Our analysis also finds that limiting the number of undocumented immigrants able to acquire legal status and
citizenship would significantly reduce their contribution to the solvency of the Social Security system and to the well-being of
all Americans.
5. Undocumented workers make enormous contributions to the Social Security fund

Apart from paying sales taxes on all their expenses, close to 75 percent of undocumented workers provide their employers with
a counterfeit identity document, meaning they are paying federal income taxes, Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes, even
though most of them will not reap the benefit. According to the Social Security Administrations Chief Actuary, undocumented
immigrants have contributed an estimated net of $120 billion to $240 billion to the Social Security fund, which they are
ineligible to ever receive. In fact, he estimated, the fund would become insolvent six years sooner if it were not for
contributions from illegal immigrants.
54
Pathway Desirable: Fiscal BurdenSocial Security (Baby Boomers)

1. Baby boomers will strain the systemwe need to increase the size of the supporting labor force during
their retirement
Social Security is a vital system in which all Americans have a vested interest. Across the country, more than 37 million retired
workers currently receive and rely upon Social Security benefits to sustain their financial security. These benefits account for
34 percent of the income for the U.S. population ages 65 and older. Currently, the Social Security Administrations income (tax
revenues and interest on investments) is more than able to cover the costs of benefits paid out. But the Social Security trustees
expect that the system will face financial challenges over the next few decades, as the U.S. population ages and as the largest
generation in Americas history, the Baby Boomers, retires and starts drawing benefits. This year the first of the Baby
Boomersthose who were born between 1946 and 1964will turn 67 and be eligible to receive full Social Security retirement
benefits. The last of the Baby Boomers will not turn 67 until 2031, meaning that the Boomers will be collecting benefits for
roughly the next 36 years, from 2013 through 2049 (assuming that, on average, people receive benefits for 18 years). The
retirement of Baby Boomers over the next few decades explains why the number of workers paying Social Security taxes per
beneficiary will fall from a ratio of 2.8 workers to beneficiary in 2013 to 2.1 workers by 2050. Although the Social Security
system will face mounting financial strains over the coming decades, the financial problems will largely cease growing as Baby
Boomers exit the system and stop collecting benefits. In other words, just as demographic changes are creating financial
instability for the system, demographic changes too will be a large part of the solution: As Baby Boomers die, the system will
begin to stabilize. To be sure, there are policies that could relieve the financial burden brought on by the retirement of
Boomersrevenues could be increased and/or benefit levels could be lowered. But our country does not need to wait until
Boomers exit the system to see relief, and there are ways to alleviate some of the financial pressure without altering the system.
Right now there are millions of undocumented workers in our country who are contributing far less into the system than they
otherwise could.
2. Most immigrants will not collect benefits until the baby boomers are no longer straining the system
Providing legal status and citizenship to the undocumented population will no doubt allow these aspiring Americans to collect
benefits upon retirementsimilar to any other American who works and pays into the system for 10 years. But this does not
necessarily mean that undocumented immigrants will be a drain on the system. Policymakers should focus less on whether this
population will eventually collect benefits and instead place their attention on when these individuals will retire. According to
the Pew Research Center, the average age of adult undocumented immigrants is 36 years old, and for the whole population it is
even younger. This means that most undocumented immigrants will be working and paying into the system for more than 30
years before they can receive full retirement benefits. To be sure, there are some undocumented immigrants who will reach the
age of retirement before all of the Baby Boomers have passed through the system. But this is only a small percentage of the
total population. The vast majority will be paying into the system, rather than taking from it, during the period of greatest
strain.
55
Pathway Desirable: Fiscal BurdenSocial Security (Baby Boomers) [contd]

3. Legalization will increase revenues going into the Social Security system for at least the next 36 years
Across all three scenarios, we determined that over the next 36 years, undocumented immigrants would contribute far more
into the system than they would take out. But the net contribution declines as fewer immigrants are able to earn legal status and
citizenship. These findings suggest that undocumented immigrants have the greatest positive impact on Social Security when
the largest share possible of the undocumented population is able to come forward. Under the first scenario, $1.2 trillion in
Social Security taxes would be paid on the earnings of undocumented workers, while only $580.9 billion would be received in
benefits. This leads to a net positive contribution of $606.4 billion over 36 years. Under the second scenario, $1 trillion in
Social Security taxes would be paid on the earnings of undocumented workers, while only $478.4 billion would be received in
benefits. This leads to a net positive contribution of $534.3 billion. Under the third scenario, $896.3 billion in Social Security
taxes would be paid on undocumented workers earnings, while only $410.1 billion would be received in benefits, leading to a
net positive contribution of $486.2 billion. If the more than $1 trillion already contributed to the Earnings Suspense File is
added to the total contribution of the undocumented to the Social Security system, under the first scenario, the net contribution
would be closer to between $1.6 trillion and $1.7 trillion.
4. Legalization will address many of the short-term problems faced by Social Security
Our analysis shows that undocumented immigrants would provide a significant net positive contribution to Social Security over
the next 36 years, but legalization and citizenship would also alleviate much of the systems fiscal burdens in the short term as
well. Our analysis estimates, for example, that the undocumented would contribute $22.2 billion in 2014 alone, reducing the
projected gap between benefits paid and taxes received by more than 37 percent. And over the next 10 years, the net
contributions would reduce this difference by 30 percent. But these 10-year gains are not the peak of the undocumented
immigrants contribution. As undocumented immigrants acquire citizenship and younger immigrants come of age and join the
workforce, the net contributions made by the undocumented population will increase and continue to fund the retirement
benefits of millions of Americans. Currently, native-born beneficiaries who are ages 67 and older on average receive $13,994
in benefits each year. The $606.4 billion net contribution made by undocumented workers under the first scenario would fund a
lifetime of Social Security benefits for 2.4 million native-born Americans. This is more than 6.5 percent of the 37 million
Americans drawing Social Security retirement benefits. Under the second scenario, the net contribution would fund 2.1 million
native-born Americans, or 5.7 percent of retired beneficiaries. And under the third scenario, the net contribution would fund the
lifetime Social Security benefits for 1.9 million native-born Americans, or 5.1 percent of the 37 million Americans drawing
retirement benefits.
56
Pathway Desirable: Fiscal BurdenAnswers to Should Deny Services

1. Legal status will provide enormous gainsthese are compromised by denial of public benefits
Sarah Baron, Special Assistant for Poverty and Half in Ten and Philip E. Wolgin, Senior Policy Analyst for Immigration,
Denying Key Social Services to Immigrants on the Road to Citizenship Hurts Our Entire Nation, Center for American
Progress, 61413, www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/06/14/66490/denying-key-social-services-toimmigrants-on-the-road-to-citizenship-hurts-our-entire-nation/, accessed 11-5-13.
Whats more, legal status for the 11 million undocumented immigrants will lead to economic gains for the country in terms of
growth, earnings, tax revenues, and jobs, resulting in a $832 billion cumulative increase in U.S. gross domestic product in 10
years. But if fewer undocumented immigrants acquire citizenship, the potential economic gains for our nation will be far less
than they otherwise could be. Curbing access to supports such as supplemental nutrition assistance and the earned income and
child tax credits therefore not only undermines economic security for millions of undocumented immigrants, but also denies
potential economic gains to millions of Americans.
2. Including access to services is the only way that a pathway to citizenship can be effective
Immigration reform and a road map to citizenship must include access to effective services and tax credits that promote family
economic security. Denying this access would betray the nations commitment to its people and would be detrimental to the
well-being of future generations. By removing supports such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the earned
income tax credit, and the child tax credit, the nation would be placing additional and unnecessary obstacles on the long road to
citizenship and hurting our nations future economy as a result. We must seize the economic and moral opportunities that come
with reform. It is crucial that our focus remains on the big picture and that we prioritize investments in potential, rather than
jeopardizing economic security by removing the first few rungs on the ladder to economic prosperity and the American Dream.
3. Denying benefits will make it impossible for many immigrants to follow the pathway to citizenship
This week the Senate began debate on an immigration-reform plan that includes a road map to citizenship for the 11 million
undocumented immigrants striving for a formal place in American society. The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and
Immigration Modernization Reform Act of 2013, or S. 744, proposed by a bipartisan coalition of senators, outlines an arduous
13-year pathway to citizenship through which undocumented immigrants may gain legal status and citizenship. Opponents of
reform have already proposed amendments that would undermine the basic economic security of people on the road to
citizenship. In particular, senators have proposed limiting the eligibility of immigrants in Registered Provisional Immigrant, or
RPI, statusa temporary legal status that is the first step on the pathto receive the earned income tax credit and the child tax
credit. In addition, senators have proposed amendments that would bar even legalized immigrants who adjust to legal
permanent resident status from receiving supplemental nutrition assistance (formerly known as food stamps) and have in the
past attempted to bar anyone from receiving supplemental nutrition assistance unless every member of their family is a citizen
or permanent resident (green-card holder). But traveling the road to citizenship will already be a financial challenge for most
families. Under S. 744 an undocumented immigrant will have to pay a total of $2,000 in fines$4,000 for a couplejust to
obtain a green card, in addition to hefty application fees. These fines and fees also come on top of a stringent requirement that
immigrants, in order to adjust to permanent resident status, must either prove that they have worked throughout their entire
time in RPI status or have resources totaling at least 125 percent of the federal poverty line. Denying these aspiring Americans
access to critical tax credits and vital nutrition assistance would severely undermine their financial security and would make the
path to citizenship impossible for some.
57
Pathway Desirable: Fiscal BurdenAnswers to Should Deny Services [contd]

4. We have an ethical obligation to provide food assistance to people on the pathway to citizenship
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, provides nutrition assistance to 47 million low-income people in a
typical month, helping fight hunger and keep millions of families and children out of poverty. But SNAP is also a net gain for
American communities and businesses: Every $5 in federal SNAP spending generates $9 in economic activity, while every $1
billion in SNAP benefits creates 3,000 new farm jobs alone. These benefits arise as people spend their money at supermarkets,
local food and retail stores, and farmers markets, creating jobs for those who grow, process, ship, and sell food. In turn, these
jobs lead to increased taxes paid by workers, and increased spending by workers, which further stimulates the economy. No
family, whether composed of current citizens or those on the road to citizenship, should be left to go hungry, for both moral
and economic reasons. Hunger has detrimental effects on childrens long-term development, from performance in school to
future work preparedness and performance, which threatens the economic success and output overall of the nation. Currently,
most immigrants are eligible for SNAP benefits after they have been a lawful permanent resident for at least five years, though
all U.S. citizen children, even of undocumented parents, are eligible. One amendment from Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) would bar
even legalized immigrants who adjust to lawful permanent resident status from SNAP benefits. Moreover, previously proposed
amendments, such as those proposed on the 2012 Farm Bill, attempted to limit the ability for anyoneeven a U.S. citizen
childto receive supplemental nutrition assistance unless everyone in their family is a citizen or a legal permanent resident.
Making such a change would mean that even native-born citizen children of Registered Provisional Immigrants would be
ineligible to receive SNAP benefits. Allowing access to supplemental nutrition assistance and other forms of food assistance is
necessary to promote family economic security and the economic health of the nation. We should not be playing political
football with hungry children.
5. Tax benefits are justifiedhelp address child poverty

The earned income tax credit and the child tax credit keep families from slipping into poverty by helping working families
make ends meet, as well as encouraging and supporting work. In 2011 the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit
lifted nearly 9.5 million people, including nearly 5 million children out of poverty. Most taxpayers who claim the earned
income tax credit do so for no longer than two consecutive years and end up paying hundreds of billions of dollars more in net
federal income taxes than they receive from the credit over time. Both credits boost the economy, as low-income families use
their refund checks to purchase groceries and school supplies, child care, housing, and more, supporting local businesses. In
fact, for every earned income tax credit dollar received, $1.50 to $2 is generated in the local economy. Both credits also enable
and encourage families to save and build their assets in order to lay the foundation for future economic security. It is extremely
troubling that legislators seek to deny these credits to newly legalized working immigrants throughout the at least 10 years they
must spend in RPI status, since these credits increase access to basic needs and improve the financial well-being of low- and
middle-income families and children, the majority of which are native-born U.S. citizens. The benefits of the earned income tax
credit also extend to future generations, as children of families who claim the credit are more likely to attend college and earn
more as adults, and are less likely to succumb to disabilities or illnessesconsequences disproportionately associated with
child poverty.
58
Pathway Desirable: Fiscal BurdenAnswers to Should Deny Services [contd]

6. Denial of tax credits will only turn people into second-class citizens
Currently, all legal workers in the United States are eligible to receive the earned income tax credit when they meet the incomeeligibility requirementsand note that the word earned in the title means that this credit is only given to people earning
income and filing their taxes. Failing to extend the credit to immigrants on the long road to citizenship would create two tiers of
legal workers in the tax code, and more importantly, would create an incentive for people to continue working in the
underground economy, knowing that without the credits, working in the legal economy could end up costing them more in
taxes. Denying legal workers this credit would in effect make them second-class residents who will have to pay higher taxes
then their native-born counterparts. Failing to extend these credits to legalized workersconsidering how difficult the path to
citizenship already is, as well as the high penalties, fees, and work requirements the bill already containsmay constitute too
high a burden for these immigrants, ultimately knocking them off of the path to citizenship and back into unauthorized status.
Denying tax credits in an attempt to save money may therefore in practice do nothing more than undermine the broader goals
of immigration reform. Instead we should work to ensure that the greatest number of people can become full and equal
members of our society.
59
Pathway Desirable: Key to Effective Immigration Reform

1. Legalization must be the cornerstone of addressing the migration issues between Mexico and the U.S.
U.S.-Mexico Migration Panel, MEXICO-U.S. MIGRATION: A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY, Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace & Instituto Technologico Autonomo de Mexico, 2001, p. 2.
The basis for transforming the U.S.-Mexico migration relationship is to make legality the prevailing norm. To achieve this, the
United States should, over time, make legal status available to unauthorized Mexicans who are established and working (as
well as other immigrants who meet the agreed upon criteria), and channel future flows of migrants through legal streams.
Moving on one front and not the other will simply perpetuate the unacceptable status quo.
2. We need a legalization pathway

On the immigration side, a path to legalization for the undocumented workers who are already in the country is essential. Not
only is seizing and deporting these 12 million individuals almost impossible, but it would also cost our country and our
economy greatly. Instead, the United States should concentrate on creating and improving programs that prevent future
undocumented migrations, such temporary or guest worker programs. These programs however must be less bureaucratic and
more in tune with the needs of the business community for them to work.
3. Lack of a legal pathway creates unnecessary barriers--highly unethical

Providing the potential for foreign agricultural workers to earn legalization further addresses the labor stability needs of
employers while providing workers with appropriate integration into the United States. For a nation proclaiming to be one
founded by immigrants, H-2A and migrant farmworkers cannot ever hope to become members of our society under the current
H-2A program. By treating these individuals as a temporary fix for the economy's labor needs, the H-2A visa encourages the
treatment of migrant farmworkers as a means to an end rather than as permanent members of society. Professor of Law and
Asian American Studies at the University of California, Davis, Bill Ong Hing, stressed the importance of legalization when he
commented: Establishing a guestworker program without a path to legalization automatically erects boundaries between the
enfranchised and the disenfranchised, and institutionalizes a division within our society. That scenario suggests a sub-human
existence, reminiscent of the bracero days and even slavery. . . . Only through that path can these individuals attain a sense of
enfranchisement and freedom from political subjugation and servitude . . . . Our moral, economic, social, and national-security
interests demand that we grant legalization.
60
Pathway Desirable: Mexico-U.S. RelationsGeneral

1. Pathway to citizenship will substantially improve relations
Andres Rozental, senior fellow, Brookings Institution, "Have Prospects for U.S.-Mexican Relations Improved?" LATIN
AMERICA ADVISOR, 2--1--13, www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3222, accessed 5-11-13.
There are two issues on the bilateral agenda, however, that portend significant changes if President Obama is able to fulfill his
latest commitments: gun control and immigration reform. The latter seems to be headed toward a bipartisan agreement that
might fundamentally change the situation for the thousands of Mexicans who are in the United States without proper
documents. If Congress passes a comprehensive reform that allows them to normalize their situation and have a path to legal
residency and eventual citizenship, it would have a huge positive impact on the relationship.
2. Cooperation with Mexico is critical to fostering policy coherence across the continent
Mexico Working Group, TRANSCENDING THE RIO GRANDE: U.S.-MEXICO RELATIONS NEED TO REACH
BEYOND THE BORDER, Center for American Progress, 4--09, p. 4.
Despite these deep levels of healthy and unhealthy interconnectedness, U.S. policy toward Mexico has remained, at best,
largely static over the past decade. U.S. policymakers have simply failed to treat the U.S.-Mexico relationship with the
seriousness and strategic vision it requires. This must come to an end. The United States must understand its relationship with
Mexico in strategic terms and act accordingly to advance core U.S. interests. Doing so will not only strengthen and deepen our
bilateral relationship, but it will also pave the way to fortify the North American relationship in an evolving spirit of
cooperation, and would represent an important first step to improving U.S. relations with and standing in the Americas.
3. Strong cooperation between the U.S. and the rest of the hemisphere is necessary to address a wide
array of problems
3-4.
There are compelling reasons for the United States and Latin America to pursue more robust ties . Every country in the
Americas would benefit from strengthened and expanded economic relations, with improved access to each others markets,
investment capital, and energy resources . Even with its current economic problems, the United States $16-trillion economy is
a vital market and source of capital (including remittances) and technology for Latin America, and it could contribute more to
the regions economic performance . For its part, Latin Americas rising economies will inevitably become more and more
crucial to the United States economic future . The United States and many nations of Latin America and the Caribbean would
also gain a great deal by more cooperation on such global matters as climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and democracy
and human rights . With a rapidly expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 million, the cultural and demographic
integration of the United States and Latin America is proceeding at an accelerating pace, setting a firmer basis for hemispheric
partnership. Despite the multiple opportunities and potential benefits, relations between the United States and Latin America
remain disappointing . If new opportunities are not seized, relations will likely continue to drift apart . The longer the current
situation persists, the harder it will be to reverse course and rebuild vigorous cooperation . Hemispheric affairs require urgent
attentionboth from the United States and from Latin America and the Caribbean.
4. We should create a legal labor market--will boost relations with Mexico

DIVIDE, 2012, p. 50-51.
Pursue a Legal Labor Market Driven by the Supply of U.S. Jobs Building a strictly legal labor market will be key to enhancing
the U.S.- Mexican relationship in the coming years. Mexico has a strong base of human capital, which frequently seeks out a
broader base of economic activity through employment in the United States. Unfortunately, many immigrants enter illegally
and are hired illegally, forming a kind of underground labor market in the United States. Reform thus should start with those
sectors in which illegal immigrants are hired, and the system of issuing visas should be restructured and streamlined to better
meet the needs of legal industries in need of importing labor.
61
Pathway Desirable: Mexico-U.S. RelationsGeneral [contd]

5. Improved immigration policy is the single best thing we can do to bolster relations
Peter Hakim, President Emeritus and Senior Fellow, Inter-American Dialogue, "Have Prospects for U.S.-Mexican Relations
Improved?" LATIN AMERICA ADVISOR, 2--1--13, www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3222, accessed 511-13.
"Last year's concurrent elections in Mexico and the United States produced new opportunities for upgrading the two countries'
already robust economic partnership and resolving longstanding bilateral tensions. The decisive impact of the Latino vote on
Obama's re-election dramatically increased the prospects for an immigration reform that would make U.S. laws more humane
and boost the U.S. and Mexican economies. No policy change would do more to increase goodwill between the two nations.
62
Pathway Desirable: Mexico-U.S. RelationsImmigration Key

1. Immigration is the defining issue in the relationship--Mexico and the U.S. experience significant policy
divergence now
Mexico Working Group, TRANSCENDING THE RIO GRANDE: U.S.-MEXICO RELATIONS NEED TO REACH
BEYOND THE BORDER, Center for American Progress, 4--09, p. 15.
No other issue defining the U.S.-Mexico relationship is as widely commented upon than immigration. Hispanics in the United
States form the fastest growing minority while people of Mexican descent make up the largest portion of Latinos in the United
States. Immigration profoundly affects both Mexican and U.S. society, yet the issue is not always understood in similar terms
on both sides of the border. In the United States, immigration is often discussed in a national security or economic framework,
while in Mexico the debate centers on economic and moral imperatives. Understanding the difference in how immigration is
framed in the United States and Mexico is crucial to formulating a vision of a renewed U.S.-Mexico relationship that both
societies can appreciate and accept.
2. Immigration reform boosts relations

Wilson Center, A Stronger Future: Policy Recommendations for U.S.-Mexico Relations, The Annenberg Retreat at
Sunnylands, 2012, p. 13.
Political spaces may be opening for each nation to tackle what are in political terms primarily domestic issues, despite their
significant regional implications. The major decline in illegal immigration and corresponding improvement in border security
in the United States presents a new starting point for discussions of comprehensive immigration reform. Along similar lines, a
burgeoning pragmatism toward the development of petroleum resources in Mexico could change the parameters of the debate
on energy reform. Progress in either Mexico or the United States on these seemingly intractable issues could breathe new
energy into the bilateral relationship, and each side should seek to capitalize on any potential developments.
3. Immigration reform will substantially improve U.S. relations throughout Latin America
Antonia Hernandez and Solomon Trujillo, Task Force Co-=Chairs, SHARING SPACE WITH OUR HEMISPHERIC
PARTNERS: A LATINO PERSPECTIVEON U.S. POLICY TOWARD LATIN AMERICA, Final Report of the Latino
Leadership Task Force, Wilson Center & Pacific Council on Economic Policy, 1012, p. 22.
Finding a better way to manage Latin American migration to the United States would help advance U.S. interests in the region.
It promises to eliminate what has become a constant source of friction between the United States and Latin America the
perception that the United States treats Latin American citizens pursuing job opportunities abroad unfairly. The United States
rarely thinks of immigration as a foreign policy concern, but its multinational effects and implications can be as profound as its
domestic consequences.
4. Immigration reform is vital to reinvigorating hemispheric cooperation

2-3.
In the main, hemispheric relations are amicable . Open conflict is rare and, happily, the sharp antagonisms that marred relations
in the past have subsided . But the US-Latin America relationship would profit from more vitality and direction . Shared
interests are not pursued as vigorously as they should be, and opportunities for more fruitful engagement are being missed .
Well-developed ideas for reversing these disappointing trends are scarce. Some enduring problems stand squarely in the way of
partnership and effective cooperation . The inability of Washington to reform its broken immigration system is a constant
source of friction between the United States and nearly every other country in the Americas . Yet US officials rarely refer to
immigration as a foreign policy issue . Domestic policy debates on this issue disregard the United States hemispheric agenda
as well as the interests of other nations.
5. We need to deal with immigration to revitalize hemispheric relations

7.
An end to the current distancing and distraction in US-Latin American relations will require Washington and other
governments in the hemisphere to refocus and deal more effectively with an array of difficult issues . Three long unresolved
problems that cause strain and frustration in inter-American affairsimmigration, drugs, and Cubademand especially urgent
attention . Three other issueseconomics and energy, democratic governance, and global and regional cooperationstand out
as opportunities for broader coordination among all nations of the hemisphere . To be sure, the nature and relevance of these
challenges vary from country to country . In an increasingly differentiated hemisphere, it is risky to refer in general terms to
relations between the United States and Latin America.
63
Pathway Desirable: Social Cohesion

1. Legal status is important to integrating immigrants into our society
The movement toward comprehensive immigration reform has accelerated significantly in recent months. A bipartisan Gang
of 8 in the Senatea group of four Democratic senators and four Republican senatorsreleased a framework for immigration
reform on January 28, and the next day President Barack Obama gave a speech launching White House efforts to push for
immigration reform. Both proposals contained strong language regarding the need to provide legal status for the 11 million
undocumented immigrants living in the country, as well as a road map to full citizenship. Some lawmakers, however, do not
want to extend legal statuslet alone citizenshipto the unauthorized. Others have expressed interest in stopping just short of
providing full citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants, instead calling for a so-called middle-ground option
to leave undocumented immigrants in a permanent subcitizen status. To be sure, the debate over immigration reform has
important legal, moral, social, and political dimensions. Providing or denying legal status or citizenship to the undocumented
has implications for getting immigrants in compliance with the law, affects whether or not immigrant families can stay in their
country of choice, and determines whether they have the opportunity to become full and equal members of American society.
2. Most undocumented immigrants are well-settled in the U.S.

11-5-13.
The majority of undocumented immigrants are well-settled in the United States. About 63 percent of undocumented
immigrants have been living in the United States for 10 years or longer. Undocumented immigrants are often part of the same
family as documented immigrants. 16.6 million people are in mixed-status familiesthose with at least one undocumented
immigrant. Nine million of these families have at least one U.S.-born child. Undocumented immigrants are more likely than
native-born Americans to be raising children. About 46 percent of undocumented immigrants, or about 4.7 million people, are
part of families with children. By comparison, the figure for U.S. native adults and documented immigrants who live in
families with children is 29 percent and 38 percent, respectively.
64
Pathway Desirable: WorkersMinorities

1. Immigration helps African Americansmove into higher paying jobs
Moreover, when one considers how immigration affects different groups of American workers who may be the most likely to
compete with immigrants, the positive story still holds true. Research finds that as immigrants enter the labor market, African
Americans respond to these changes in the workforce by moving up to higher-skilledand presumably higher-payingjobs.
In fact, African Americans are three times more likely to transition to higher-skilled jobs as a result of immigration than nonAfrican American workers. Recent evidence similarly shows that an increase in immigration of the magnitude implied by S.
744 would increase the earnings of more educated Hispanic women and men by 1.1 percent and 2.25 percent, respectively.
Combining the research on how new immigrants will affect the wages of American workers with the future flow of immigrants
expected under S.744 allows us to estimate the Senate bills impact on American workers wages. A recent study finds that the
rise in immigration between 1990 and 2006, which increased labor-force participation by about 12.5 million, increased the
earnings of U.S. workers by between 0.6 percent and 0.7 percent. Applying these findings to the current and expected future
flows of immigration under S. 744 means that the earnings of U.S. workers would rise between 0.4 percent and 0.7 percent as a
result of immigration.
2. Restricting immigration cuts productivity and wagesshifts the native-born labor pool towards the
lower end of the wage scale
Peter Dixon, Professor, Monash University and Maureen Rimmer, senior research fellow, Monash University, Restriction or
Legalization? Measuring the Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform, TRADE POLICY ANALYSIS n. 40, Cato Institute,
81309, p. 3.
A major finding of the study is that the program of tighter border enforcement, Simulation 1, strongly reduces the welfare of
U.S. households. A principal effect is that it raises the wage rate of the illegal immigrants who remain in the United States, in
effect transferring income from legal residents of the United States to illegal immigrants. Even more importantly, restricting the
inflow of illegal immigrants biases the occupational mix of employment for U.S. workers toward low-paying, low-skilled jobs
as those jobs become relatively more attractive and available compared with higher-paying occupations. This eventually
reduces the overall productivity of U.S. workers and consequently their average real wage rate.
65
Pathway Desirable: WorkersRights / Exploitation

1. Lack of workplace protections for the undocumented compromises the rights of all workers
Adriana Kugler, Professor, Public Policy, Georgetown University and Patrick Oakford, Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Will Benefit American Workers, Center for American Progress, 91213,
www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/09/12/74014/comprehensive-immigration-reform-will-benefitamerican-workers/, accessed 11-5-13.
The employment rights of immigrant workers are most directly undermined by our broken immigration system. But the weak
employment protections afforded to immigrants have serious implications for the effectiveness of our employment laws and all
American workers. In the United States, the enforcement of employment laws hinges on individual employees bringing formal
claims against unscrupulous employers. An investigation or lawsuit against an employer is most often triggered by an
individual employee making a formal complaint with a federal agency charged with enforcing labor and employment laws.
Thus, it is only through employees invoking their right to file claims that employers are punished for their unlawful actions and
other employers are possibly deterred from engaging in similar behavior. Given this system of enforcing labor and employment
laws, it is not enough to simply declare that all workers are covered under labor and employment laws. The workers covered by
these laws need to be able to assert their rights in order for employment laws to be effective at securing safe and fair working
conditions. Immigrants inability to invoke their rights results in weakened employment protections for all American
workersand in some instances, means that American workers are subject to violations of minimum-wage and overtime
protections, wage theft, and other forms of employment violations, such as unsafe working conditions.
2. Providing protections for the now undocumented will bolster the rights of all workers
The detrimental effect our current immigration system has on American workers is a problem that is not often talked about, but
workers all across America see it each day. Currently, our broken immigration system creates an opportunity for some
employers to use the immigration status of workers to undermine their employment protections. This has serious implications
for all workers in America. Our employment laws are strongest when all employees protected under them are able to invoke
their rights when faced with workplace violations. A broken immigration system that stifles immigrants employment rights
ultimately undermines the workplace safety of all American workers. By correcting our immigration systems negative
employment consequences, the Senate immigration billor similar reformswould help protect American workers wages
and ensure a safe and fair workplace. As the House of Representatives returns from recess, it should remember that taking up
immigration reform will help not only more than 11 million aspiring Americans, employers across America, and the millions of
families who are currently separated from their loved ones, but it will also help American workers as a whole.
3. Legalization will help end worker exploitation and help all workers
An earned pathway to legal status and citizenship would diminish exploitation by eliminating employers ability to leverage a
workers undocumented status against them. Workers subject to unlawful employment conditions will be more likely to step
forward after legalization and lodge complaints, given that they can receive the full set of remedies and will no longer be
chilled by a fear of deportation. Moreover, S. 744 utilizes a variety of tacticsfrom border security to improved employersanction provisionsto eliminate future undocumented immigration. One key component of achieving this goal is the
elimination of any incentive employers have to hire undocumented workers. As discussed earlier, the Hoffman Plastic decision
effectively inoculated some bad-faith employers from exploiting undocumented workers. The Senate bill tackles this perverse
incentive by legislatively overturning the Hoffman Plastic decision. S. 744 would extend back pay and other employment
remedies except reinstatementto undocumented workers. By requiring equal treatment under employment laws, S. 744
will not only improve working conditions for all Americans, but it will also deter future undocumented immigration by
removing an incentive for unscrupulous employers to employ unauthorized workers.
66
Pathway Desirable: WorkersRights / Exploitation [contd]

4. Undocumented workers end up getting exploited in the workplace
Bad-apple employers who knowingly use immigration-related duties to exploit workers represent the most extreme way in
which aspects of our immigration system can undermine workers employment rights. But the immigration system at large also
has negative consequences for immigrant workers. Some immigrant employees who are not directly threatened with
immigration-related retaliation by their employers, for example, are still hesitant to bring forth employment-related complaints
because of the chilling effect our immigration system has had on them. Research has found that even when undocumented
immigrants are aware of their labor and employment rights, they rarely step up and file employment complaints against their
employers, out of fear that engaging with the governmenteven in a non-immigration-related contextwill lead to their
deportation. Similarly, even immigrants with legal status may fear invoking their labor and employment rights because of how
it will affect their co-workers, family members, or friends who are undocumented. One court noted that when employers use
immigration-related duties to subvert labor- and employment-law effectiveness, even documented workers may be chilled
[they] may fear that their immigration status would be changed, or that their status would reveal the immigration problem of
their family or friends. Given how our immigration system has damaged immigrants ability to protect themselves from
employment violations, it is not surprising that undocumented immigrants are some of the most exploited workers in our
economy. A 2010 National Employment Law Project, or NELP, study of low-wage industries in major U.S. cities found that
undocumented immigrants were nearly twice as likely to experience minimum-wage violations than legal immigrant workers.
Specifically, NELP found in its study that 29 percent of undocumented male workers and 47 percent of undocumented female
workers experienced minimum-wage violations, compared to 17 percent and 18 percent of native-born male and female
workers, respectively. These findings are noteworthy because they highlight significant labor-protection gaps connected to
immigration status and gender, meaning that undocumented women are some of the most exploited workers in our labor
market.
67
Pathway Desirable: WorkersWages

1. Immigrants do not drive down wagesmake at least the minimum wage, take jobs that Americans do
not want to do, bolster key industries
Opponents argue that despite the fact that an efficient market is created when immigrant workers earn less pay than U.S.
workers, these decreased wages displace U.S. workers. The argument rests on the presumption that companies use cheap labor
to realize greater profits. These critics argue that Americans are unwilling to fill some jobs because the wages are so low that
only immigrant workers are willing to take the jobs. However, most immigrant workers earn at least minimum wage and
generally do not cause unemployment in the United States. Although some employers may try to pay immigrant workers less
than minimum wage, most companies prefer a continuous supply of reliable workers and, therefore, pay workers the federally
mandated wage. Immigrants are taking jobs that Americans are unwilling to fill, thereby keeping industries competitive and
preventing outsourcing to other countries, or even closure of many businesses. Although many people are fearful that
immigrants will displace American workers, countries who accept immigrants have higher growth rates and lower levels of
unemployment. Many factories, agricultural sectors, service industries, and construction jobs rely heavily on immigrant
workers.
2. Legalization increases wagesboth for immigrants and native-born workers

Research shows that immigration will positively affect U.S. workers wages and employment. How can that be? While overly
simplistic views of economic theory might suggest that wages will decline in the short run as the supply of labor increases, this
is not the case with immigration for two reasons. First, immigrants generally do not have a direct negative impact on the
earnings of native-born workers, as native-born workers and immigrant workers generally complement each other rather than
compete for the same job. Native-born workers and immigrants tend to have different skill sets and therefore seek different
types of jobs. Thus, immigrants are not increasing the labor market competition for native-born workers and therefore do not
negatively affect American workers earnings. To be sure, there are some instances when immigrants and the native born are
similarly skilled and substitutable for similar jobs. Recent research has found, however, that firms respond to an increase in the
supply of labor by expanding their business. Thus, an increased supply of labor as a result of immigration is easily absorbed
into the labor market as a result of increased demand for labor, without lowering the wages of native-born workers. Second,
research finds small but positive impacts on native-born workers because of the indirect effects that immigrants have on the
labor market and economy. As economists Michael Clemens and Robert Lynch explain in The New Republic, In some areas
of the economy, lesser skilled immigrants have kept entire industries alive. This not only helps native-born workers within the
industries but also native-born workers whose jobs are associated or closely connected to those industries. Research shows, for
example, that as new immigrants come into the country, the number of jobs offshored in the manufacturing sector decreases.
By ensuring that more manufacturing jobs stay in the United States, not only do native-born manufacturing workers benefit, but
the demand for services that the manufacturing industry relies uponsuch as the transportation of manufacture goods
throughout the United Statesalso remains high. Thus the upstream jobs held by native-born workers in industries
associated with manufacturing are also better off as a result of immigration.
68
Pathway Desirable: WorkersWages [contd]

3. Immigration does not decrease wagesactually helps native-born workers
Marshall Fitz, Director, Immigration Policy and Philip E. Wolgin, Senior Policy Analyst for Immigration, The Top 4 RealityDefying Arguments against Immigration Reform, Center for American Progress, 71113,
www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/07/11/69282/the-top-4-reality-defying-arguments-againstimmigration-reform/, accessed 11-5-13.
Fact: The reality is that economists have repeatedly found that immigrants do not bring down the wages of lesser-skilled
Americans and instead find that immigrants actually have small but positive effects on native workers wages and job
prospects. These positive effects arise because immigrants tend to complement, rather than compete with, native workers; are
consumers who spend money in the economy, stimulating business demand; and are entrepreneurial, starting businesses and
helping to employ American workers. Cost and Bauer also fail to take into account the fact that immigration reform itself will
improve the American economy, creating jobs and prosperity for all Americans. Studies have found that legalized workers earn
higher wages, which in turn means they pay more in taxes. These higher wages circulate through the economy: Providing legal
status to the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the country would create 121,000 jobs each year, raise the wages of all
Americans by $470 billion, and increase our gross domestic product by a cumulative $832 billion over a decade. Legalizing
immigrants would also support the solvency of the Social Security system during its period of greatest strain over the next
three-and-a-half decades, as the Baby BoomersAmericas largest generationretire and begin to claim their benefits. During
this period newly legalized immigrants would add a total of $606 billion to the system, supporting 2.4 million American
retirees. Finally, as the Congressional Budget Office points out, S. 744 would also go far in reducing the deficit, saving $158
billion over the first decade and $685 billion over the second decade.
4. Legalization will increase wages for all American workers, promote job growth
Bringing undocumented immigrants out of the shadows and creating a sensible immigration system will benefit all American
workers. The CBO analysis found that by 2033 the wages of all U.S. workers will increase by 0.5 percent due to the economic
growth induced by immigration reform. And these wage gains are just the tip of the iceberg for American workers.* In a
supplemental report, the CBO identified that when the broader macroeconomic effects of immigration reform are taken into
account, such as the rising productivity of workers, U.S. GDP would increase an additional 3.3 percent by 2023 and 5.3 percent
by 2033. Moreover, given that the CBO determined that unemployment would not rise as immigration reform increased the
labor force, this significant economic growth would create millions of new jobs all across the country.
5. The net effect on wages is overwhelmingly positive

Myth 5: Low-skilled workers take away jobs, lower salaries and hurt the economy. As producers and consumers, illegal
immigrants enlarge the economic pie by at least $36 billion a year. That number would triple if they were legalvarious
studies point to a $1 trillion impact on GDP in ten years. Low-skilled workers fulfill a need by taking jobs others do not want,
letting natives move up the scale. Without them employers would need to pay higher salaries, making those products and
services more expensive. They have a tiny negative effect on wages at the lowest end that is offset by a rise in the wages of
those who move upthe net effect is a 1.8% rise.
69
Pathway Desirable: WorkersWages [contd]

6. Legalization improves earnings for immigration workers, increasing wages for everyone
In addition to providing avenues for new immigrants to enter the U.S. labor market, S. 744s legalization provisions would
greatly improve the lives and economic potential of the currently undocumented immigrants living in the country. Allowing
these immigrants to reach their greatest economic potential will have positive economic effects on all American workers.
Research from the Center for American Progress shows that undocumented immigrants earnings will increase by 15 percent
over five years when they receive legal status and by an additional 10 percent over five years when they acquire citizenship.
This is because, with legal status and citizenship, immigrants are able to fully participate in the labor force, receive full
protection under our employment laws, and find jobs that best match their skills. In turn, immigrants will spend their increased
earnings throughout the economy on things such as homes, cars, and clothing. This increase in consumption means that
business will be better off and will lead to higher earnings for American workers. In fact, research shows that within 10 years
of providing legal status to undocumented immigrants, the cumulative increase in income of all Americans would be $470
billion.
7. Immigration does not lower wages--net effect is positive

Another misconception is that immigrants drive down the wages of U.S. workers. Immigrants and natives, however, tend to
differ in the amount of education they have and the skill sets they possess, thus complementing not substituting the native born
workers. A 2010 report from the Economic Policy Institute estimated that, from 1994 to 2007, immigration increased the wages
of native-born workers by 0.4%.
70
Pathway Desirable: WorkersAnswers to Domestic Displacement

1. Legalization will not displace native-born workers
11-5-13.
Research shows that immigrants complement, rather than compete with, native-born American workerseven less-skilled
workers and less-skilled African American workers. Research by renowned economists such as David Card, Gianmarco
Ottaviano, Giovanni Peri, and Heidi Shierholz continually shows that American workers are not harmed byand may even
benefit fromimmigration because immigrants tend to be complementary workers, helping Americans be more productive.
The unemployment rates of native-born Americans will be unaffected by immigration reform. The CBO estimates that during
the five-year period following passage of immigration reform, unemployment will increase by 0.1 percent. This small increase
falls entirely upon the undocumented and is the short-term effect of growth in the labor force and of the labor market adjusting
to undocumented workers positioning themselves to be productive for decades to come.
2. Immigrants do not take jobs from native workers--fallacious reasoning

Alex Nowrasteh, immigration policy analyst, "How to Make Guest Worker Visas Work," POLICY ANALYSIS n. 719, Cato
Institute, 1--31--13, p. 10.
Fears that immigrants take jobs from natives are based on what economists call the lump of labor fallacy, the notion that
there is a fixed amount of work to be done regardless of other factors. There is not a fixed number of jobs available for
American workers. Forcing immigrants out of a job will not automatically make it available for native-born workers, and just
because an immigrant is employed does not mean that he pushed an American out of the labor market. Changing economic
factors, not some kind of exogenous need, determine the number and types of jobs available in an economy. As a result, the
number of jobs in an economy is constantly in flux. In addition to doing valuable work, immigrants are also a source of
employment and production because they demand goods and services produced by natives and other immigrants.
3. Immigrants come to the U.S. because jobs are available

Alex Nowrasteh, immigration policy analyst, "How to Make Guest Worker Visas Work," POLICY ANALYSIS n. 719, Cato
Institute, 1--31--13, p. 4.
The second reason is that American immigration restrictions prevent most immigrants from coming to the United States. The
wages for native born Americans would not decrease much from increased lawful immigration, but the wages for people
remaining in developing nations would rise tremendously because of remittances and other transfers from migrants. Immigrants
are able to come to the United States because American employers want to hire them. The labor force of industries at both the
high and low ends of the market, from agriculture and construction to technology and engineering, would be gutted if migration
were halted. Labor-intensive agriculture, for instance, would no longer exist in the United States without a constant stream of
lower-skilled workers willing to work for wages that most Americans consider too low. Noneconomic factors, such as risk
diversification, the friends and relatives effect, linguistic and historical ties, and others also influence immigration decisions.
71
Pathway Desirable: WorkersAnswers to Low-Skill Citizens

1. Immigration does not displace low-skill U.S. workers--empirical data proves
A common misnomer is that immigration has an adverse impact on the employment prospects of the American workforce, and
in particular the low-income individuals. However, states and metropolitan areas with the highest shares of recent immigrants
in the labor force do not necessarily have the highest unemployment rates among nativeborn Blacks, Caucasians, Hispanics, or
Asians. Nor do locales with the highest rates of unemployment among nativeborn persons have the highest shares of recent
immigrants in the labor force.
2. Low-skill immigration does not increase unemployment among low-skill native born workers
81309, p. 4.
Among other key findings is that additional low-skilled immigration would not increase the unemployment rates of low-skilled
U.S. workers. While our modeling suggests that there would be reductions in the number of jobs for U.S. workers in lowskilled occupations, this does not mean that unemployment rates for these U.S. workers would rise. With increases in lowskilled immigration, the U.S. economy would expand, creating more jobs in higher-skilled areas. Over time, some U.S. workers
now in low-paying jobs would move up the occupational ladder, actually reducing the wage pressure on low-skilled U.S.
workers who remain in low-skilled jobs.
3. Low-skill immigration increases work rates among poorer Americans

Daniel Griswold, director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, FREE TRADE BULLETIN n. 38, 72109,
www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/immigrants-move-americans-move, accessed 11-8-13.
Another contribution of immigration has been that it has changed the character of the American underclass for the better. Years
of low-skilled immigration have created an underclass that is not only smaller than it was 15 years ago, but also more
functional. Members of todays more immigrant and Hispanic underclass are more likely to work and less likely to live in
poverty or commit crimes than members of the more native-born underclass of past decades. One striking fact about lowskilled immigrants in America, both legal and illegal, is their propensity to work. In 2008, the labor-force participation rate of
foreign-born Hispanics was 70.7 percent-compared to an overall rate of 65.6 percent for native-born Americans. Immigrants 25
years of age or older, without a high-school diploma, were half again more likely to be participating in the labor force than
native-born dropouts (61.1 percent vs. 38.4 percent). According to estimates by the Pew Hispanic Center, male illegal
immigrants, ages 18-64, had a labor force participation rate in 2004 of an incredible 92 percent. Illegal immigrants are typically
poor, but they are almost all working poor.
72
Pathway Desirable: WorkersAnswers to Low-Skill Citizens [contd]

4. We need more low-skill workers--demand will continue to grow
accessed 11-10-13.
Low-skilled immigrants benefit the U.S. economy by filling jobs for which the large majority of American workers are
overqualified and unwilling to fill. Large and important sectors of the U.S. economy-hotels and motels, restaurants, agriculture,
construction, light manufacturing, health care, retailing, and other services-depend on low-skilled immigrant workers to remain
competitive. Even as our economy becomes more technologically advanced, the demand for less-skilled labor will continue to
grow in the years ahead. According to the Department of Labor, the largest growth in absolute numbers of jobs during the next
decade will be in several categories that require only short-term on-the-job training of one month or less. Of the 20 job
categories with the largest expected growth in employment between 2002 and 2012, 14 of them require only short-term
training. Those occupations include retail sales, food preparation, landscaping and grounds keeping, janitors, cashiers, waiters
and waitresses, teaching assistants, and home health aides. The net employment growth in those 14 categories alone in the next
decade will total 4.9 million. (See Table 1.) Meanwhile, the pool of American workers willing and happy to fill such jobs
continues to shrink. We are getting older and better educated. Between 1982 and 2012, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the median age of workers in the U.S. labor force will increase from 34.6 years to 41.6 years, the highest level ever
recorded in U.S. history. The share of young workers between 16 and 24 will drop by a third, from 22.3 percent to 15 percent.
At the same time, workers in the U.S. labor force are more educated than ever. In the past four decades, the share of adults 25
and older who have not completed high school has plunged from more than half in 1964 to less than 15 percent in 2004. (See
Figure 1.) The share of native-born adult Americans without a high school degree has declined even further, to below 10
percent. Immigrants provide a ready and willing source of labor to fill that growing gap between demand and supply on the
lower rungs of the labor ladder.
5. Low-skill immigration helps native-born workerspushes them up the skill ladder, expands the
economy
Multiple causes lie behind the shrinking of the underclass in the past 15 years. The single biggest factor is probably economic
growth. Despite the current recession, the U.S. economy enjoyed healthy growth during most of the period, lifting median
household incomes and real compensation earned by U.S. workers, which ushered millions of families into the middle class
and beyond. Welfare reform in the 1990s, and rising levels of education, may also be contributing factors. Another factor may
be immigration itself. The arrival of low-skilled, foreign-born workers in the labor force increases the incentives for younger
native-born Americans to stay in school and for older workers to upgrade their skills. Because they compete directly with the
lowest-skilled Americans, low-skilled immigrants do exert mild downward pressure on the wages of the lowest-paid American
workers. But the addition of low-skilled immigrants also expands the size of the overall economy, creating openings in higherpaid occupations such as managers, skilled craftsmen, and accountants. The result is a greater financial reward for finishing
high school and for acquiring additional job skills. Immigration of low-skilled workers motivates Americans, who might
otherwise languish in the underclass, to acquire the education and skills necessary so they are not competing directly with
foreign-born workers.
73
Pathway Desirable: WorkersAnswers to Low-Skill Citizens [contd]

6. Cutting the number of low-skill immigrations shifts native-born workers down the professional skill
ladder, undercutting employment
81309, p. 8.
The long-run shift in occupational mix caused by tighter border enforcement does not imply that existing U.S. workers change
their occupations. For each occupation, restricting the supply of illegal workers presents U.S. workers with opportunities to
replace illegal workers. On the other hand, the economy is smaller, generating a negative effect on employment opportunities
for U.S. workers seeking opportunities in higher-skilled occupations. The positive replacement effect dominates in the lowpaying occupations that currently employ large numbers of illegal immigrants. The negative effect of a smaller economy
dominates in high-paying occupations that currently employ few illegal immigrants. Thus, there is an increase in vacancies in
low-paying occupations relative to high-paying occupations, allowing the low-paying occupations to absorb an increased
proportion of new entrants to the workforce and unemployed workers. Another way of understanding the change in the
occupation mix of U.S. workers is to recognize that the labor market involves job shortages. At any time, not everyone looking
for a job in a given occupation can find a job in that occupation. So people settle for second best. The college graduate who
wants to be an economist settles for a job as an administrative officer. The high-school graduate who wants to be a police
officer settles for a job in private enforcement. The unemployed person who wants to be a chef settles for a job as a short-order
cook, and so on. It is this shuffling process that explains how a reduction in supply of illegal immigrants reduces the skill
composition of employment of U.S. workers, thus reducing their long-term productivity and income.
7. Low-skill immigration empirically helps native-born workersexperience from the first half of the
twentieth century proves
That same win-win dynamic may have been at work a century ago during the great migration of immigrants from eastern and
southern Europe. Most of those immigrants were lower-skilled compared with Americans, and their influx also exerted
downward pressure on the wages of lower-skilled Americans. It was probably not a coincidence that during that same period
the number of Americans staying in school to earn a high-school diploma increased dramatically in what is called the highschool movement. From 1910 to 1940, the share of American 18-year-olds graduating from high school rose from less than 10
percent to 50 percent in a generation. Todays immigrants are arguably contributing to the same positive dynamic. Americas
experience with immigration contradicts the simplistic argument that the arrival of a certain number of low-skilled immigrants
increases the underclass by that very same amount. That approach ignores the dynamic and positive effects of immigration on
native-born American workers. The common calculation that every low-skilled immigrant simply adds to the underclass
betrays a static and inaccurate view of American society.
74
Pathway Desirable: Answers to Assimilation Concerns

1. Immigrants want to learn Englishchildren assimilate quickly
Looking more broadly, the story is quite positive with the children of immigrants. According to a Pew Hispanic Center survey,
91 percent of second-generation children from Latino immigrant families and 97 percent from the third generation said they
speak English very well or pretty well. (See Table 3.) Do immigrants and their children think its better for immigrants to learn
English as quickly as possible? The answer is yes. A Pew Hispanic Center report found, Latinos believe that English is
necessary for success in the United States. According to the Center: Asked whether adult Latinos need to learn English to
succeed in the United States, or can they succeed even if they only speak Spanish, 89% of Hispanics in the 2002 survey said
that they need to learn English. Slightly more Spanish-dominant Hispanics (92%) voiced this belief. Research shows that
worries that the children and grandchildren of Spanish-speaking immigrants will speak only Spanish are misplaced. The later
generations of children in America tend to lose the native language skills of their parents and grandparents and replace these
with English. Although the generational life expectancy of Spanish is greater among Mexicans in Southern California than
other groups, its demise is all but assured by the third generation, according to Frank Bean and Ruben Rumbaut of the
University of California, Irvine, and Princeton Universitys Douglas Massey The research runs counter to the fear that
immigrant parents are not encouraging their children to learn English. Based on an analysis of language loss over the
generations, the study concludes that English has never been seriously threatened as the dominant language in America, nor is
it under threat today, according to Bean, Rumbaut, and Massey.
2. Immigrants will learn Englishlegalization will only accelerate the process

The key questions regarding English language acquisition are: Do immigrants think its important to learn English? And are
immigrants and their children learning English? The available data indicate the answer to both questions is yes. A third
question can be asked as well: Will current illegal immigrants be more likely to learn English if they receive legal status? The
answer to the last question is also yes. Research that examined those who received legal status as a result of the 1986 law
showed a significant improvement in both the educational attainment and English language skills of legalized immigrants after
the legalization. There was . . . a substantial improvement in English language proficiency, according to economist Francisco
L. Rivera-Batiz. The proportion of men who could not speak English at all declined from 29.9 percent to 15.3 percent, and
among women the change was from 39.9 percent before legalization to 28 percent after. This was in a period of four to five
years.
3. Assimilation concerns have no basis

Myth 4: Present-day immigrants do not assimilate, unlike previous waves. About forty percent of newcomers speak reasonable
English anyway, but the three-generation pattern echoes that of previous immigrants: the second generation is bilingual but
speaks English better and the third generation speaks only English. By the third generation, out-marriage is strong among
immigrants. A century ago, seventeen percent of second-generation Italian immigrants married non-Italians while 20 percent of
second-generation Mexicans marry non-Hispanics today (even though, given the numbers, it is easier for them to marry another
Mexican). Second-generation immigrants do better than their parents, as in the past.
75
Pathway Desirable: Answers to Crime

1. Crime claims are wrongboth documented and undocumented immigrations are far less likely to
commit crimes
Nowhere is the contrast between the immigrant and native-born underclass more striking than in their propensity to commit
crimes. Across all ethnicities and educational levels, immigrants are less prone to commit crimes and land in prison than their
native-born counterparts. The reasons behind this phenomenon are several. Legal immigrants can be screened for criminal
records, reducing the odds that they will engage in criminal behavior once in the United States. Illegal immigrants have the
incentive to avoid committing crimes to minimize their chances of being caught and deported. Legal or illegal, immigrants
come to America to realize the opportunities of working in a more free-market, open, and prosperous economy; committing a
crime puts that opportunity in jeopardy. Strong empirical evidence points to the fact that immigrants are less likely to commit
crimes than native-born Americans. In testimony before Congress in 2007, Anne Morrison Piehl, a professor of criminal justice
at Rutgers University, addressed the question of The Connection between Immigration and Crime. Using census data from
1980, 1990, and 2000, she told the House Judiciary Committee that immigrants have much lower institutionalization rates
than the native born-on the order of one-fifth the rate of natives. More-recently arrived immigrants had the lowest relative
institutionalization rates, and the gap with natives increased from 1980 to 2000. Piehl found no evidence that the immigrant
crime rate was lower because of the deportation of illegal immigrants who might otherwise be held behind bars in the United
States. Crime rates are even lower than average among the poorly educated and Hispanic immigrants that arouse the most
concern from skeptics of immigration reform. Rubn Rumbaut of the University of California at Irvine, after examining the
2000 census data, found that incarceration rates among both legal and illegal immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador, and
Guatemala were all less than half the rate of U.S.-born whites. Immigrants without a high-school diploma had an incarceration
rate that was one-fourth that of native-born high-school graduates, and one-seventh that of native-born dropouts.
2. Undocumented immigrants are far less likely to engage in criminal behavior

The reluctance of low-skilled immigrants to commit crimes helps to explain the lack of any noticeable connection between
rising levels of illegal immigration and the overall national crime rate. As Professor Rumbaut explained in a recent essay: Since
the early 1990s, over the same time period as legal and especially illegal immigration was reaching and surpassing historic
highs, crime rates have declined, both nationally and most notably in cities and regions of high immigrant concentrations
(including cities with large numbers of undocumented immigrants, such as Los Angeles, and border cities like San Diego and
El Paso, as well as New York, Chicago, and Miami). Ironically, illegal immigrants who break U.S. immigration laws to enter
the United States appear much more likely than native-born Americans to respect our domestic criminal code once they are
inside the country. Once here, low-skilled immigrants, as a rule, get down to the business of earning money, sending home
remittances, and staying out of trouble. The wider benefit to our society is that, in comparison to 15 years ago, a member of
todays underclass, standing on a street corner, is more likely to be waiting for a job than a drug deal.
76
Pathway Desirable: Answers to IRCA / 1986 Disproves

1. The IRCA failed because it did not include adequate labor reformslegalization was not the issue
Philip E. Wolgin, Senior Policy Analyst and Abhay Aneja, The Top 5 Reasons Why Immigration Reform in 2013 Is Different
than in 1986, Center for American Progress, 61213,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/06/12/66208/the-top-5-reasons-why-immigration-reform-in2013-is-different-than-in-1986/, accessed 11-5-13.
Although the predicate facts are trueIRCA legalized 3 million undocumented immigrants, and now we have 11 million
unauthorized immigrants living in the countrythe conclusions these opponents draw are false. The central reason IRCA never
stood a chance at stopping unauthorized migration was that it failed to acknowledge and regulate the integrated North
American labor market that already existed. It did not look to the future or create new legal channels for economic migrants.
Instead, it counted on future migration to be stymied by an inadequate employment-verification requirement that practically
invited fraud and a nonexistent border-security apparatus. The problem with IRCA was not the legalization component; it was
the lack of an extant enforcement apparatus and a failure to produce a vision for future migration.
2. This is not 1986legalization will not repeat the mistakes of the IRCA
But the United States has come a long way since 1986 in terms of investments in border security and advances in electronicverification technology, and we have learned from the past. The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration
Modernization Act of 2013, or S. 744, contains a road map to citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants currently
living in the country. But it also makes significant investments in restricting both the supply of immigrants coming into the
country without statusthrough increased border security and legal-visa reformsas well as the demand for their labor
through mandatory employment verification.
3. IRCA errors will not be repeatedhave already stepped up border security

We have made significant increases in border security and technology. IRCA mandated a 50 percent increase in the number of
Border Patrol agents in both 1987 and 1988 relative to 1986 levels. But as of 2004, almost 20 years after IRCA was passed,
there were only 10,000 Border Patrol agentsjust about 2.5 times the size of the force in 1993. In the past few years, the
United States has put unprecedented resources and manpower on the Southern bordermore than doubling the number of
Border Patrol agents, deploying National Guard troops to the border, and providing a significant amount of technology and
fencing to monitor all sectors of the border. The results have been dramatic. There are currently 21,370 Border Patrol agents,
and border apprehensionswhich the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, uses as a proxy for the number of
immigrants attempting to enter the United States without statusare now at a 40-year low.
77
Pathway Desirable: Answers to IRCA / 1986 Disproves [contd]

4. Reform will include substantial new enforcement measures
2. S. 744 makes new investments in border and national security. In addition to the strides already made on border security, S.
744 includes a number of new provisions to enhance border and national security. First and foremost, it mandates a plan to
increase border fencing and reach a 100 percent rate of persistent surveillance of the entire southern border, as well as a 90
percent effectiveness rate, meaning that DHS can deter or detain 90 percent of unauthorized border crossings. The bill allots
$4.5 billion to make these goals reality, and if DHS cannot achieve them after five years, the bill would allot an additional $2
billion and would create a Border Commission to help with recommendations. S. 744 requires that DHS hire an additional
3,500 Customs and Border Protection agents by the end of 2013; increases funding to help defray the costs to local law
enforcement of combating unauthorized immigration and drug smuggling per the Operation Stonegarden program; mandates an
exit system to track visa overstays and creates a pilot program to put a biometric exit system in the busiest international airports
to track visa holders and visa overstays; and increases the technology deployed at the border to apprehend undocumented
border crossers, including the use of drones.
5. Any post-IRCA increases in undocumented immigration are because of border enforcement and a
broken visa system, not amnesty
Immigration Reform, TRADE BRIEF PAPER n. 32, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, 5911, p. 7-8.
Some observers might argue that even if the authors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta study are correct that the 1986
amnesty did not increase illegal immigration, the 1986 law failed to reduce illegal immigration. Its true the 1986 law did not
prevent future illegal immigration. However, that is not because of the legalization program but because Congress failed to
include a generous supply of legal work visas for lower-skilled jobs in the United States. Without such visas, individuals have
continued to enter America and work illegally. As noted earlier, increased border enforcement beginning in the 1990s made it
harder to enter the United States, which encouraged many more individuals to stay and live permanently (or at least for several
years) rather than risk making the perilous trek across the border multiple times. The blame for increased illegal immigration
since 1986 can be laid at the doorstep of an enforcement-only approach that has shunned the use of market mechanisms to
match employers and workers.
6. The pathway to citizenship is both fair and rigorous

5. S. 744 contains a rigorous but fair road map to citizenship. In 1986 the only requirements for legalization were that
immigrants had to have been living in the country since before January 1, 1982, leaving out a significant portion of
unauthorized immigrants who had entered after the cut-off date; immigrants had to pay application fees; and they had to
demonstrate an understanding of English and civics or be in classes on such topics to ease the adjustment to permanent
residence. The road map to citizenship in S. 744 contains numerous steps, penalties, and fees. Immigrants would first have to
pay a $500 fine plus application fees, pass a background check, and pay any assessed back taxes before they could receive a
temporary provisional legal status, called Registered Provisional Immigrant status, or RPI. This status is good for only six
years, at which time it can be renewed for an additional six years with another $500 fine and application fees and a second
background check. After 10 years, an immigrant in RPI can apply for legal permanent residency after paying a third fine of
$1,000 plus application fees, passing a third background check, and proving that they have either been employed throughout
the 12-year period or have resources putting them at a minimum of 125 percent of the federal poverty line. This is not amnesty
but instead is a tough but fair process of earned legalization.
78
Pathway Desirable: Answers to IRCA / 1986 Disproves [contd]

7. No increase in immigrationIRCA experience proves
Did the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act result in increased illegal immigration? A Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
study looked closely at Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) apprehensions data before and after 1986. The authors
concluded that the 1986 amnesty did not increase illegal immigration. It appears that amnesty programs do not encourage
illegal immigration. If anything, IRCA reduced the number of illegal immigrants in the short run, perhaps because potential
migrants thought that it would be more difficult to cross the border or get a job in the United States after the law was passed,
wrote authors Pia M. Orrenius (Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas) and Madeline Zavodny (Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta).
An amnesty program also does not appear to encourage illegal immigration in the long run in the hopes of another amnesty
program; we do not find a significant difference between apprehensions after the IRCA amnesty expired and before the
program was created.
79
Pathway Desirable: Answers to Rule of Law / Rewards Lawbreaking

1. Legalization does not reward lawbreakingthe law itself is flawed
Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato Institutes Center for Trade Policy Studies, explains: Laws should be obeyed, but laws
should also be in fundamental harmony with how most people choose to live their lives. When large numbers of otherwise
normal and law-abiding people routinely violate a law, it signals that the law itself may be flawed. Griswold provides
examples of laws shown to be unenforceable without changes. The 55-miles-per-hour speed limit was ignored at times in many
western states until Congress allowed states to set higher limits based on local driving preferences. The prohibition on
alcoholfrom 1920 to 1933is acknowledged as a costly social and economic mistake.
2. This is a different kind of crimeimmigrants are simply trying to better their lives
Recent legislation to legalize those in the country illegally also penalized individuals by fining them. Title VI of S. 2611, which
passed the U.S. Senate in 2006, included a $2,000 fine for those seeking to legalize their status under the bill. This is also
different from a typical amnesty, which normally would not place such additional obligations on individuals. A common
refrain in the immigration debate is that because its against the law to enter and work illegally that should end the debate. The
rhetorical question is asked: Whats so hard to understand about the word illegal? But its not that simple when the law does
not allow individuals to enter the United States legally and work at lower-skilled jobs. The choice for many individuals south
of the border is to live in poverty or seek out an opportunity to gain a better life for themselves and their families. Thats not the
same as a choice between robbing a bank or working a nine-to-five job.
3. Businesses and individuals are frequently given amnesty in other circumstances

Both the federal government and many states periodically permit individuals or businesses failing to pay taxes to come forward
and correct such actions without fines or penalties. Though one could argue the measures excuse illegal behavior, tax amnesties
are usually adopted without controversy
80
Pathway Desirable: Answers to Underclass Creation

1. Underclass claims are wronglow-skill immigration actually improves the lot of people on the lower
rungs of the economic ladder
Contrary to popular notions, low-skilled immigration has not contributed to a swelling of the underclass, or any increase at all,
nor has it contributed to a rise in crime or other antisocial behaviors. In fact, it would be more plausible to argue that lowskilled immigration has actually accelerated the upward mobility of Americans on the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder.
At the same time, the influx of low-skilled immigrants has helped to transform the American underclass into a demographic
group that is still poor-but more inclined to work and less prone to crime.
2. Restricting immigration results in lower income households

81309, p. 1.
For each scenario, the USAGE model weighs the impact on such factors as public revenues and expenditures, the occupational
mix and total employment of U.S. workers, the amount of capital owned by U.S. households, and price levels for imports and
exports. This study finds that increased enforcement and reduced low-skilled immigration have a significant negative impact on
the income of U.S. households. Modest savings in public expenditures would be more than offset by losses in economic output
and job opportunities for more skilled American workers. A policy that reduces the number of low-skilled immigrant workers
by 28.6 percent compared to projected levels would reduce U.S. household welfare by about 0.5 percent, or $80 billion.
3. Low-skill immigration does not create an underclassactually pushes native-born workers up the
skills ladder, is correlated with social improvements
One argument raised against expanded legal immigration has been that allowing more low-skilled foreign-born workers to
enter the United States will swell the ranks of the underclass. The critics warn that by importing poverty, immigration reform
would bring in its wake rising rates of poverty, higher government welfare expenditures, and a rise in crime. The argument
resonates with many Americans concerned about the expanding size of government and a perceived breakdown in social order.
As plausible as the argument sounds, it is not supported by the social and economic trends of the past 15 years. Even though
the number of legal and illegal immigrants in the United States has risen strongly since the early 1990s, the size of the
economic underclass has not. In fact, by several measures the number of Americans living on the bottom rungs of the economic
ladder has been in a long-term decline, even as the number of immigrants continues to climb. Other indicators associated with
the underclass, such as the crime rate, have also shown improvement. The inflow of low-skilled immigrants may even be
playing a positive role in pushing native-born Americans up the skills and income ladder.
81
Pathway Undesirable: Topshelf

1. Amnesty costs trillions, undermines the rule of law, and only encourages more unlawful immigration
Heritage Foundation, The Senates Comprehensive Immigration Bill: Top 10 Concerns, BACKGROUNDER n. 2819, 6
2113, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/06/the-senates-comprehensive-immigration-bill-top-10-concerns,
accessed 11-4-13.
Reject amnesty. Amnesty ignores the rule of law, rewarding those who broke the law with legal status and ultimately U.S.
citizenship. Amnesty is also unfair to those who followed the rules and waited or are still waiting to enter the U.S. Furthermore,
amnesty only makes the U.S. immigration problems worse by encouraging even more illegal immigration. Amnesty will also
lead to trillions in new spending and huge increases in government bureaucracy. Such costs will be borne by current taxpayers.
Instead of another costly and unfair mass amnesty, Congress should develop fair, compassionate, and practical solutions for
unlawful immigrants.
2. Amnesty and expanded undocumented immigration will impose enormous costs on the government
direct benefits, welfare, education, public services
accessed 11-4-13.
Unlawful immigration and amnesty for current unlawful immigrants can pose large fiscal costs for U.S. taxpayers. Government
provides four types of benefits and services that are relevant to this issue: Direct benefits. These include Social Security,
Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers compensation. Means-tested welfare benefits. There are over 80 of these
programs which, at a cost of nearly $900 billion per year, provide cash, food, housing, medical, and other services to roughly
100 million low-income Americans. Major programs include Medicaid, food stamps, the refundable Earned Income Tax
Credit, public housing, Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Public education. At a
cost of $12,300 per pupil per year, these services are largely free or heavily subsidized for low-income parents. Populationbased services. Police, fire, highways, parks, and similar services, as the National Academy of Sciences determined in its study
of the fiscal costs of immigration, generally have to expand as new immigrants enter a community; someone has to bear the
cost of that expansion. The cost of these governmental services is far larger than many people imagine. For example, in 2010,
the average U.S. household received $31,584 in government benefits and services in these four categories.
3. Amnesty would only reward lawbreaking companies, will not address our underlying immigration
problems
Eric A. Ruark, Director of Research and Matthew Graham, IMMIGRATION, POVERTY AND LOW-WAGE EARNERS;
THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF UNSKILLED IMMIGRANTS ON AMERICAN WORKERS, Federal for American
Immigration Reform, 511, p. 1.
Current calls for comprehensive immigration reform are nothing short of a push for a massive amnesty that would give
permanent status to millions of illegal aliens who are not needed in the workforce, and it would reward unscrupulous employers
who profited from hiring illegal workers, providing them with a legal low-wage workforce that would continue to have a
negative impact on native workers. e border is not secured and there is much opposition to the mandatory use of E-Verify and
interior enforcement. Those who argue against enforcement are not going to decide overnight to support these measures, and
politicians have long ago proven that their promise to enforce immigration laws after granting amnesty are not to be believed.
82
Pathway Undesirable: Topshelf [contd]

4. We have too many low-skilled workers nowdecreases wages and working conditions, amnesty will
only make things worse
Immigration Reform, 511, p. 16-17.
Employers have an obvious interest in claiming that they constantly need more unskilled labor, and that it must come from
immigrants this allows them to pay low wages, expand the consumer base, suppress unionization, and make larger profits,
all at the expense of taxpayer-funded social services and Americas poorest citizens. It is no coincidence that many business
interests strongly support amnesty. Rational business owners will always want greater job competition and lower labor costs,
an unscrupulous employers will resort to hiring illegal aliens if government authorities allow them to get away with it. Contrary
to the claims of employers, the U.S. economy is oversaturated with low-skilled workers, who depress wages by increasing job
competition. Moreover, these same immigrants are willing to accept lower wages than natives, even when controlling for
occupation or education, and so displace native workers from low-wage jobs. The unnecessarily large population of unskilled
workers imposes a massive drain on state and federal budgets through the use of welfare and other services. Moreover, claims
that amnesty would improve the fiscal situation ignore basic facts about taxation and the budget realities. Many immigrants
make important contributions to the U.S. and its economy, especially those whose presence fulfills an otherwise unmet need.
However, amnesty would perpetuate the existing labor market distortion by giving permanent status to unneeded workers and
increasing their access to social services and tax credits. It would also encourage more illegal immigration, bringing in another
group of unskilled workers who would repeat the demand for amnesty once settled in the U.S. Until the immigration system is
reformed to include the absolute enforcement of employment verification, the surplus of unskilled immigrants will remain a
taxpayer subsidy for corporate interests and a burden on the poor.
83
Pathway Undesirable: AgricultureMechanization Superior

1. Mechanization will solve the effects of a labor shortage
Brad Plumer Were Running Out of Farm Workers. Immigration Reform Wont Help, WASHINGTON POST, 12913,
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/the-u-s-is-running-out-of-farm-workers-immigration-reform-maynot-help/, accessed 6-24-13.
So the labor shortages will keep getting worse. And that leaves several choices. American farmers could simply stop growing
crops that need a lot of workers to harvest, such as fruits and vegetables. Given the demand for fresh produce, that seems
unlikely. Alternatively, U.S. farms could continue to invest in new labor-saving technologies, such as shake-and-catch
machines to harvest fruits and nuts. Under this option, the authors write, capital improvements in farm production would
increase the marginal product of farm labor; U.S. farms would hire fewer workers and pay higher wages. That could be a boon
to domestic workers studies have found that 23 percent of U.S. farm worker families are below the poverty line.
2. Mechanization and higher wages can address any problems

Philip Martin, Professor, Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC-Davis, Farm Labor Shortages: How Real? What
Response, Center for Immigration Studies, 1107, www.cis.org/articles/2007/back907.html, accessed 6-25-13.
Economists evaluating claims of labor shortages look not to what employers say, but to what they do to attract additional
workers. If there are fewer workers available, economists expect wages to rise, which should increase the supply of farm
workers by retaining more who would otherwise leave for nonfarm jobs and perhaps draw workers into agriculture from other
jobs or areas. Higher wages also reduce the demand for workers as, for example, farmers skip the third or fourth repicking of a
field or orchard. Many growers do not raise wages because they know that higher wages will not produce more workers.
Farm employers can also take steps that do not involve wages to attract or retain workers, including stepping up recruitment
efforts, offering additional benefits such as housing, or making work easier with conveyor belts in the field to eliminate
carrying harvested produce or hydraulic lifts to eliminate ladders. If wages are expected to continue rising, farmers may
mechanize.
3. Mechanization is key to our ag competitiveness

Sara R. Halle, "Proposing a Long-Term Solution to a Three-Part American Mess: U.S. Agriculture, Illegal Labor, and Harvest
Mechanization," DRAKE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL LAW v. 12, Summer 2007, p. 380.
Despite the availability of feasible mechanical harvesting technology, the scope of U.S. crops not yet mechanized is quite
extensive. Whereas nearly 100 percent of nut crops are currently mechanized, there remain about twenty vegetable crops and
twenty-five fruit crops still not utilizing feasible mechanical harvesting technology. These vegetable crops total over 1.4
million acres, comprising twenty to twenty-five percent of total U.S. vegetable acreage, while the fruit crops total over 2.2
million acres, or about forty to forty-five percent of total U.S. fruit acreage. Failure to mechanize these crops will result in
adverse consequences beyond just the loss of productivity. If United States agriculture continues on its current path, its
dependency on illegal foreign labor will likely increase. In the meantime, the American agricultural sector continues to
compete with the agricultural production of: (1) Third World countries, with whose low wages a First World country could not
dream to compete, and (2) European countries, which are utilizing technology and mechanization to advance their agricultural
production. The research and development of robotic systems, the most advanced and promising technology for mechanization,
is today much further along and closer to market in the European Union than in the United States.
84
Pathway Undesirable: AgricultureMechanization Superior [contd]

4. High availability of labor makes mechanization less attractive for growers
Firms are developing machines to harvest fruits and vegetables, but their refinement and diffusion has been slowed by the
ready availability of farm workers at stable wages. Commodities that are processed, such as oranges used to make juice, are
easiest to mechanize, since machine-caused damage is less of a concern. Oxbo International has developed a machine to
harvest Floridas Valencia oranges that are processed into juice. Each of the $1 million machines can harvest 1.2 million boxes
of oranges a season, replacing 100 to 200 hand harvesters, at a cost of $1 per 90-pound box, compared to $1.50 to $2 for handharvested fruit. The machines can automatically adjust the shaking force and depth of the fingers that dislodge the fruit, and
have yield monitors that allow growers to determine yields precisely. Given this cost advantage, why arent most of Floridas
775,000 acres of oranges harvested by machine? The answers include the ready availability of hand harvesters and the fact that
there are relatively few new plantings of Valencia oranges in Florida because of development, hurricanes, and disease. The
machine is being used primarily in the new plantings in the southwestern part of the state, where orange production is moving
to take advantage of cheaper land and fewer freezes. New plantings can be designed for mechanical harvesting, with evenly
spaced and carefully pruned trees. Owners of older orange groves in the center of the state are reluctant to make the
investments needed to mechanize because they know that Brazil can produce Valencia oranges more cheaply. A free-trade
agreement that reduced the tariff on Brazilian orange juice could make investments in pruning trees for machine harvesting and
buying machines unprofitable. California produces most of the fresh oranges consumed in the United States. A mechanical
harvester developed by Vision Robotics has eight arms and can pick as fast as 10 workers, but its real advantage is that it can
work around the clock, while most hand harvesters work six or seven hours a day. If wages rise as the cost of computing power
falls, harvesting machines could spread rapidly. Up to half of the nations head lettuce is now sold in bags, which prompted
Salinas-based Ramsey Highlander to develop a machine that cuts heads of lettuce and eliminates the wrapper leaves. It moves
through fields harvesting an acre an hour and eliminating 75 percent of the workers who now harvest lettuce by hand. The story
is similar in the mechanization of many other commodities. Machines are available to harvest olives, raisin grapes, and other
commodities, but adopting a machine that replaces hand pickers can be complex. In most cases, machines must be fine-tuned as
they are sent into fields and orchards, and the packers and processors of commodities must adjust their standards to accept
machine-picked fruit during this refinement process. It is hard for one grower alone to mechanize, since most packers and
processors are set up to deal with wither hand-picked or machine-picked commodities, but not both.
5. We will fall behind if we fail to mechanize

Sara R. Halle, "Proposing a Long-Term Solution to a Three-Part American Mess: U.S. Agriculture, Illegal Labor, and Harvest
Mechanization," DRAKE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL LAW v. 12, Summer 2007, p. 381-382.
Without the development and implementation of agricultural mechanization, the United States will fall behind other developed
countries that are utilizing this technology to increase their agricultural production. Failure to mechanize is "a prescription for
increasing the industry's vulnerability to foreign producers." This puts the United States in great jeopardy of losing its
competitive edge in the international community. Of further concern is the likelihood that the future will bring an increased
demand in U.S. and World food needs. Fruits and vegetables are an important source of nutrition necessary in the human diet,
and agricultural production will need to produce more product to meet ever growing demands. The ultimate goal of any farm is
to harvest its crop in the most efficient manner possible, which necessarily entails considerations of time, money, and quality of
produce. Mechanization technology lies at the heart of agricultural efficiency; it is the future of agriculture. Agricultural
mechanization has not been researched, developed, and implemented in the United States at the same rate as in foreign
countries because American farmers have had little incentive to put money into mechanization. The abundance of cheap
foreign labor and government subsidies, as well as the lack of enforcement of labor laws by the INS, all allow American
farmers to continue production just as they did nearly a century ago. The little push there was for research and development of
agricultural mechanization in the 1970s was quashed in 1979 when the then Secretary of Agriculture, Bob Bergland, insisted
that he would not put federal money into anything that would reduce the need for farm labor. Casually referred to by some as
"the Bergland policy," this attitude toward farm labor slowly ended public funding for research and development of
mechanization aimed at increasing productivity and decreasing costs.
85

6. Increased farm labor wages will spur mechanization
If farm wages rose, would apples and oranges become luxuries or would the processing tomato experience be repeated, with
mechanization leading to more production and lower costs? There are machines available to harvest most of the fresh fruits and
vegetables produced in the United States, but with people better than machines at picking apples and oranges, mechanization is
spreading slowly. Many engineers predict that, if farm worker earnings were to rise from about half the average for
manufacturing workers to the $17 average, there would be widespread mechanization.
7. Cheap ag labor guts our competitivenessdiscourages innovation

Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Guestworker Programs: A Threat to American Agriculture, BACKGROUNDER,
Center for Immigration Studies, 601, www.cis.org/GuestworkerPrograms-AmericanAgriculture, accessed 6-25-13.
But whether the agricultural workforce is inflated through affirmative means by a formal guestworker program, as is now
being considered or tacitly, through toleration of illegal immigration, the result for American agriculture is the same: an
artificially low price of labor, resulting in slowed mechanization and stagnating harvest productivity. This sows the seeds of a
competitive meltdown in the future, as it becomes increasingly untenable for American fruit and vegetable farmers to compete
on the basis of labor costs with low-wage countries. Such competitive difficulties are sure to be followed by successful
demands that Congress enact direct subsidies for farmers grown accustomed to relying on cheap labor. This would seem
contrary to Congress's recent moves to phase out many other agricultural subsidies.
8. Cheap foreign labor discourages mechanization

But the basic truth still holds foreign farm labor keeps wages low and serves as a disincentive to mechanization. In fact, the
wages of farmworkers have been decreasing over the past decade. A March 2000 report from the Labor Department found that
the real wages of farmworkers have fallen from $6.89 per hour in 1989 to $6.18 per hour in 1998. A new guestworker program,
or continued official encouragement of illegal immigration, is likely to continue this downward trend in farmworker wages.
This may seem superficially appealing to farmers, but from a competitive point of view, vying with low-wage countries on the
basis of labor costs is a dead end no modern society, will ever be willing to reduce farmworkers' wages enough to match
those paid in third world countries.
9. Cheap foreign labor undermines productivity growth in agriculture

The importation of foreign farmworkers also leads to very inefficient use of labor, further hampering productivity growth. The
same March 2000 Labor Department report found widespread under-employment the average number of weeks a
farmworker works in agriculture has dropped from 26 weeks in 1990-92 to 24 weeks in 1996-98. The average farmworker
spent only about 47 percent of his time in U.S. farm work, compared with 19 percent of his time unemployed in the U.S., 8
percent of his time in U.S. non-farm employment, and 24 percent of his time living abroad. This inefficient utilization of farm
labor is also reflected in the fact that the unemployment rate for farmworkers between 1994 and 1998 was routinely more than
double the rate for all occupations, according to a December 1999 report from the Congressional Research Service. Ironically,
the artificial expansion of the agricultural labor market not only dissuades our farmers from exploiting America's comparative
advantage in technology and capital, but using cheap foreign labor to produce fruit and vegetables for export actually
subsidizes foreign consumers, since about one-fifth of our country's fruit, vegetable, and horticultural production is exported.
Subsidies for Americans are problematic enough, but subsidies for foreigners are difficult to justify in any conception of the
national interest.
86

10. Shortages spur mechanizationsugar experience proves
Ted Hesson, 4 Reasons Guest Worker Programs Have Failed in the Past, ABC NEWS, 22513,
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/guest-worker-programs-failed-past/story?id=18591194, accessed 6-25-13.
One of the main reasons employers in manual labor sectors say they need immigrant workers is because they can't find U.S.born workers to do the jobs. In many cases, like agriculture, that's evident. But whether those sectors should receive a special
labor pool -- one that comes with artificially low wages and limited worker protections -- is another question. Take the case of
sugar cane workers in South Florida. Cutting sugar cane is grueling work, and since the 1940s, the industry has looked to
foreign-labor to take up the task. But temporary workers, who came largely from Jamaica and the Bahamas on H-2A visas, had
little bargaining power over their wages and work conditions, and could be easily returned to their home countries if they didn't
meet quotas. In 1986, 350 workers who refused to go into the fields one day were simply sent back to Jamaica -- without a
chance to even collect their belongings. The workers could be replaced quickly. In Louisiana, where U.S.-born blacks worked
in the cane fields, the industry had been mechanized since the 1960s. But Florida was behind the trend, UC Davis Professor
Philip Martin wrote in his book Importing Poverty: Immigration and the Changing Face of Rural America. Businesses said they
couldn't mechanize because the machinery would get bogged down in the moist soil of the Everglades. But when guest workers
threatened industry leaders with a class-action lawsuit in the 1990s that could have raised operating costs by 40 percent, the
industry rapidly moved to a mechanized model. "One lesson from the sugar experience is skepticism about grower claims that
there are no alternatives to imported farm workers," Martin wrote in a 2010 report. "The speedy mechanization of the harvest
when faced with sharply higher wages belies the assertions that were no alternatives to hand harvesters." The sugar industry
serves as an example of how industry innovation can potentially lag behind if businesses are provided an artificially
inexpensive pool of labor.
87
Pathway Undesirable: AgricultureAnswers to Food Cost Concerns

1. Labor costs are relatively unimportant to agriculture, problem can be addressed via mechanization
For several years stories in the media have reported a farm labor shortage. This study examines this question and finds little
evidence to support this conclusion. First, fruit and vegetable production is actually rising. Second, wages for farm workers
have not risen dramatically. Third, household expenditure on fresh fruits and vegetables has remained relatively constant,
averaging about $1 a day for the past decade. Among the findings: Production of fruits and vegetables has been increasing. In
particular, plantings of very-labor intensive crops such as cherries and strawberries have grown by more than 20 percent in just
five years. The average farm worker makes $9.06 an hour, compared to $16.75 for non-farm production workers. Real wages
for farm workers increased one-half of one percent (.5 percent) a year on average between 2000 and 2006. If there were a
shortage, wages would be rising much more rapidly. Farm worker earnings have risen more slowly in California and Florida
(the states with the most fruit and vegetable production) than in the United States as a whole. The average household spends
only about $1 a day on fresh fruits and vegetables. Labor costs comprise only 6 percent of the price consumers pay for fresh
produce. Thus, if farm wages were allowed to rise 40 percent, and if all the costs were passed on to consumers, the cost to the
average household would be only about $8 a year. Mechanization could offset higher labor costs. After the Bracero Mexican
guestworker program ended in the mid-1960s, farm worker wages rose 40 percent, but consumer prices rose relatively little
because the mechanization of some crops dramatically increased productivity.
2. Farm worker wages play a minimal role in food prices

Americans spend an average 13 percent of their disposable incomes on food, one of the lowest ratios in the world. If farm
worker earnings rose, would fresh fruits and vegetables become luxuries, as predicted as the Bracero program was ending in
the 1960s? The answer is no, and for three major reasons. First, most Americans do not spend much on fresh fruits and
vegetables the average household spends more on alcoholic beverages each year than on fresh produce. Second, farmers get a
relatively small share of retail spending on fresh produce less than 20 cents of each retail dollar spent on apples or lettuce.
Third, farm workers receive only a fraction of what the farmers get, since labor costs are typically less than a third of farm
production costs. As a result, farm worker wages are about six cents for a $1 head of lettuce or pound of apples. Three sources
of data demonstrate the negligible role of farm wages in retail food prices. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
Consumer Expenditure Survey reports how much households spend on food, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reports the
farm share of retail food prices, and land-grant universities prepare cost-of-production budgets that show labors cost of
producing various commodities.
3. Labor costs for fresh fruit/veggies are minimal

The most expensive foods eaten at home do not include significant farm labor costs. The largest food-at-home expenditures
were for meat and poultry, $765; nonalcoholic beverages, $610; and milk and cream, $145. Expenditures on fresh fruits ($182)
and fresh vegetables ($175) totaled $357, an average $6.85 a week. The average household spent more on alcoholic beverages
in 2005, $426, than on fresh fruits and vegetables, $357. Even though strawberries are picked directly into the plastic
clamshells in which they are sold, and iceberg lettuce gets its film wrapper in the field, farmers received only 16 percent of the
retail price of fresh fruits and 19 percent of the retail price of fresh vegetables. This means that farmers, taken together, receive
$62 a year from an average American household for the fresh fruits and vegetables consumed at home. Most farmer revenue
covers the cost of land, seeds, fertilizer, and other non-labor costs of production; labor costs are usually less than a third of
farmers costs. If wages average a third of farmers costs, the average households spending on fresh fruits and vegetables was
$21 in 2005.
88
Pathway Undesirable: AgricultureAnswers to Worker Shortage

1. If shortages are real they are inevitableimmigration from Mexico is set to dry up
But looser immigration laws may not be able to keep our food cheap forever. A recent study suggests that U.S. farms could
well face a shortage of low-cost labor in the years ahead no matter what Congress does on immigration. Thats because Mexico
is getting richer and can no longer supply as many rural farm workers to the United States. And it wont be nearly as easy to
import low-wage agricultural workers from elsewhere. For decades, farms in the United States have relied heavily on low-wage
foreign workers mainly from Mexico to work their fields. In 2006, 77 percent of all agricultural workers in the United
States were foreign-born. (And half of those foreign workers were undocumented immigrants.) All that cheap labor has helped
keep down U.S. food prices, particularly for labor-intensive fruits and vegetables. But that labor pool is now drying up. In
recent years, weve seen a spate of headlines like this from CNBC: California Farm Labor Shortage Worst Its Been, Ever.
Typically, these stories blame drug-related violence on the Mexican border or tougher border enforcement for the decline.
Hence the call for new guest-worker programs.
2. No farmworker shortagewage data proves

John Carney, senior editor, What the Invisible Farm Labor Shortage Is Really About, CNBC, 112912,
http://www.cnbc.com/id/50016592, accessed 6-24-13.
The fact is that there is no data whatsoever to support the alleged farm labor crisis. The latest data, issued from the Department
of Agriculture on November 27, shows that labor expenses on farms have increased just 0.7 percent over the past year. Costs
for hired labor, those who work on the farm long-term, are up just 0.5 percent. Costs for contract labor, the harvest-time
pickers, are up just 1.5 percent. In other words, labor costs are well-below the level of general price inflation. In fact, farm
labor costs are still below where they were in 2008 on a nominal basis. In real terms, labor costs are falling for farmers.
3. No shortagelack of wage inflation

John Carney, senior editor, What the Invisible Farm Labor Shortage Is Really About, CNBC, 112912,
http://www.cnbc.com/id/50016592, accessed 6-24-13.
If there were a labor shortage, we'd see the price of farm labor rising rapidly. We just don't see thatindicating that there is no
shortage at all. There is, instead, a consist cry from the farm lobby for policy makers to adopt policies aimed at lowering labor
costs. Gannet reports, for example, that "the American Farm Bureau and other farm groups are working on a plan to present to
the new Congress that would allow more migrant laborers to work legally on U.S. farms." That's what all this noise is really
about: enacting policies to crush already low farm wages by allowing farmers to import more foreign workers.
4. Wage stagnation shows that there is no ag worker shortage

Data from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), which interviews workers rather than employers, suggest lower
farm worker earnings and a slower rate of increase. Between 1990-91 and 2000-01, NAWS reported that the average hourly
earnings of crop workers rose from $5.40 to $7.05, an increase of 30 percent, while the average hourly earnings of privatesector production workers rose from $10.34 to $14.26 or 38 percent. These employment and earnings data reported do not
suggest severe farm labor shortages, especially not in the major fruit- and vegetable-producing states of California and Florida.
There are undoubtedly farmers who would like more workers, and would like workers today rather than tomorrow, but their
desires have not translated into significant statewide wage and earnings increases.
89
Pathway Undesirable: AgricultureAnswers to Worker Shortage [contd]

5. No labor shortageincreased plantings prove
If farmers feared that labor shortages would leave their crops unpicked, they might plant fewer acres of fruits and vegetables.
However, fruit and vegetable production has been increasing. The production of noncitrus fruits rose from about 17 million
tons a year in 2001-02 to almost 19 million tons in 2006, while the annual production of fresh vegetables has been stable at
about 465 million hundredweights since 2001-02. The increased production of strawberries and cherries is especially striking.
Both are very labor-intensive, and require significant investments that will not yield returns for several years, yet their
production jumped more than 20 percent in just five years. With demand increasing, the acreage of these labor-intensive fruits
rose, suggesting that fears of labor shortages do not deter additional plantings. The story for vegetable production is similar.
Fresh vegetable production has been stable since 2000, with production of some vegetables rising and others falling. The
production of head lettuce declined by five percent over the past decade, but the production of Romaine lettuce more than
doubled, while the production of leaf lettuce almost doubled, reflecting changing consumer tastes. The production of fresh
broccoli rose over 25 percent, and the production of fresh tomatoes 10 percent. Production data suggest that fears of labor
shortages have not prevented farmers from planting more fruits and vegetables. Instead, as the demand for strawberries,
cherries, and Romaine lettuce increased, so did production.
6. No labor shortagesproduction levels prove

Some farmers are complaining of farm labor shortages. There is no official government definition of labor shortage, but media
reports suggest that farmers define labor shortages as wanting more workers than they currently employ, or wanting workers
sooner than they show up. In a market economy, the usual responses to shortages are price or wage adjustments, as when a
smaller crop leads to higher prices. The earnings data reported by farmers to the USDA do not suggest significant farm labor
shortages, especially in California and Florida, where farm worker earnings have been rising more slowly than in the United
States as a whole. The production of labor-intensive fruits and vegetables has expanded, suggesting that fears of labor shortages
have not acted as a brake on farmers plans for production.
7. Availability of farm laborers from Mexico is set to decline

But a new paper from U.C. Davis offers up a simpler explanation for the labor shortage. Mexico is getting richer. And, when a
country gets richer, its pool of rural agricultural labor shrinks. Not only are Mexican workers shifting into other sectors like
construction, but Mexicos own farms are increasing wages. That means U.S. farms will have to pay higher and higher wages
to attract a dwindling pool of available Mexican farm workers. Its a simple story, says Edward Taylor, an agricultural
economist at U.C. Davis and one of the studys authors. By the mid-twentieth century, Americans stopped doing farm work.
And we were only able to avoid a farm-labor crisis by bringing in workers from a nearby country that was at an earlier stage of
development. Now that era is coming to an end. Taylor and his co-authors argue that the United States could face a sharp
adjustment period as a result. Americans appear unwilling to do the sort of low-wage farm work that we have long relied on
immigrants to do. And, the paper notes, it may be difficult to find an abundance of cheap farm labor anywhere else potential
targets such as Guatemala and El Salvador are either too small or are urbanizing too rapidly.
90
Pathway Undesirable: AgricultureAnswers to Worker Shortage [contd]

8. Immigration reform won't solve the ag labor crisis--not enough workers in Mexico
Brad Plumer, "We're Running out of Farm Workers. Immigration Reform Won't Help," WASHINGTON POST, Wonkblog, 1-29--13, www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/the-u-s-is-running-out-of-farm-workers-immigrationreform-may-not-help/, accessed 11-10-13.
For years, one of the groups pushing hardest for immigration reform has been the U.S. food industry. Farmers have long
grumbled about a shortage of labor, and theyve asked for policies that make it easier to hire foreign workers from places like
Mexico. Getting harder and harder to find. (John Moore Getty Images) But looser immigration laws may not be able to keep
our food cheap forever. A recent study suggests that U.S. farms could well face a shortage of low-cost labor in the years ahead
no matter what Congress does on immigration. Thats because Mexico is getting richer and can no longer supply as many rural
farm workers to the United States. And it wont be nearly as easy to import low-wage agricultural workers from elsewhere. For
decades, farms in the United States have relied heavily on low-wage foreign workers mainly from Mexico to work their
fields. In 2006, 77 percent of all agricultural workers in the United States were foreign-born. (And half of those foreign
workers were undocumented immigrants.) All that cheap labor has helped keep down U.S. food prices, particularly for laborintensive fruits and vegetables.
91
Pathway Undesirable: Alternatives SuperiorGeneral

1. Reform should include more lawful immigration and enforcementnot amnesty
David S. Addington, Senior Vice President, Encouraging Lawful Immigration and Discouraging Unlawful Immigration,
BACKGROUNDER n. 2786, Heritage Foundation, 32713,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/encouraging-lawful-immigration-and-discouraging-unlawful-immigration,
accessed 11-4-13.
Conclusion: Congress Should Encourage Lawful Immigration and Prevent Unlawful Immigration. For more than two centuries,
America has encouraged and benefitted from lawful immigration. Congress should continue to search for appropriate ways to
encourage lawful immigration, reducing the burdens of the immigration process on both the government and lawful
immigrants, and making it easier for both America and the lawful immigrants to enjoy the economic and cultural benefits that
result from lawful immigration. Congress also should continue to search for appropriate ways to prevent unlawful immigration
and secure Americas borders. As Congress moves forward, it should not adopt failed policies of the past, such as amnesty,
which discourages respect for the law, treats law-breakers better than law-followers, and encourages future unlawful
immigration. When Congress implements step-by-step the proper policies, America will benefit greatly from the arrival on
Americas shores of lawful immigrants who, as Ronald Reagan said, will find a new and better life for themselves and their
children in this land of liberty and opportunity.
2. We can deal with the shadow population with measures short of amnesty
Immigration and Border Security Reform Task Force, Advancing the Immigration Nation: Heritages Positive Path to
Immigration and Border Security Reform, BACKGROUNDER n. 2813, Heritage Foundation, 61413,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/06/advancing-the-immigration-nation-heritages-positive-path-to-immigrationand-border-security-reform, accessed 11-4-13.
The existence of a large shadow population in America is injurious to the rule of law, an excessive burden on many local
communities, and harmful to civil society. Addressing this issue is an important component of reform. But it is wrong to make
it the linchpin of immigration and border security. As a first principle, reform efforts to address this issue should make the
problem better not worse. For that reason, amnesty as a core requirement of immigration is a disastrous policy. Amnesty would
undermine all other efforts to fix the system and could well leave future generations in the same predicament as millions find
themselves in today. In addition, amnesty would incur trillions of dollars of federal outlays in the form of long-term benefits to
low-skilled workers. The key to addressing the shadow population is to develop appropriate fair, practical, and compassionate
solutions on which everyone can agreemeasures that do not require amnesty. The Obama Administration abused its
prosecutorial discretion when it stopped enforcing parts of the immigration laws and implemented by regulation what several
previous Congresses chose not to legislate. The Administration should defer to Congress to determine long-term solutions that
are appropriately tailored and clearly targeted toward the cases to be addressed.
3. We need a market-based system that protects the interests of U.S. workers

The U.S. has a responsibility to protect the economic interests of all of its citizens, yet the immigration system, which adds
hundreds of thousands to the labor force each year, is bringing in workers faster than jobs are being created. Moreover, only a
small portion of admissions are based on skills or educational criteria, creating an enormous glut of low-skilled workers who
struggle to rise above poverty. In 1995, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform recommended curtailing family-based
immigration and replacing the failed and expensive regulatory system [for skill-based immigration] with one that is marketdriven. Along these lines, the Commission recommended that, it is not in the national interest to admit unskilled workers
because the U.S. economy is showing difficulty in absorbing disadvantaged workers. Fifteen years later, U.S. politicians
continue to ignore these recommendations, bowing to corporate demands for unskilled labor rather than taking a realistic look
at immigrations effect on poverty and the American worker.
92
Pathway Undesirable: Alternatives SuperiorBorder Security

1. Border security needs to be a real priority
accessed 11-4-13.
Enhance border security. The U.S. has dramatically increased the number of border agents over the past decade, but more
needs to be done. Rather than using border security as a political football and promoting hollow metrics, meaningful steps
should be taken. Through the use of technologies like unmanned aerial vehicles and cameras and sensors, the Border Patrol will
be better able to monitor the border, detect and halt illegal border crossings, and better protect U.S. sovereignty. Congress
should provide the U.S. Coast Guard with additional resources and funding so that it can provide adequate maritime security.
To truly enhance border security, the U.S. must also seek more cooperation with Mexico. Specifically, U.S. and Mexican law
enforcement should make greater use of Border Enforcement Security Task Forces and the Merida Initiative to cooperate on a
variety of border security and law enforcement issues.
2. We need to enforce our employment laws to address migration flows

All sides on the immigration debate concede that workplace and immigration laws must be enforced if the United States hopes
to have a long-term sustainable management of migration flows that maintains sovereignty, respects the rule of law, fosters a
healthy competitive economy, and brings the hidden population out of the shadows. Heritage has long held that by and large,
the federal government does not need new legislative authorities or congressional mandates. What is required is an effective
federal implementation strategy that will achieve results at reasonable costs without undermining civil liberties or disrupting
the economy. The right strategy is often called the broken windows approach to law enforcement. Focusing on gangs, drug
dealers, and violent criminals, as the Administration prefers to do, is importantbut not enough. Social scientists James Q.
Wilson and George Kelling introduced the broken windows theory nearly three decades ago. Its premise was simple: By
enforcing laws for petty crimes, police can help create a well ordered environment that discourages more serious crime.
The same approach must be taken to enforce immigration and workplace laws. Anything less is just enforcement theater.
93
Pathway Undesirable: Alternatives SuperiorEnforcement

1. We need to step up workplace enforcement to deter the hiring of undocumented workers
Workplace Enforcement. The ability to target employees and employers who intentionally flout workplace laws is important to
establishing the seriousness of enforcement efforts. In particular, the ability to deal with a no match, in which an employer is
notified that the personally identifying information of an employee does match the records of the Social Security
Administration (SSA) is important. Congress should call for the Department of Homeland Security to reverse its previous
decision to abandon the 2007 amended no-match letter rule. It is the responsibility of Homeland Security to enforce the law in a
manner that is both reasonable and effective. The Department of Homeland Security needs to be able to target employers that
willfully hire unlawfully present labor. The SSA should thus be encouraged to routinely share no-match data (personally
identifying information removed) directly with Homeland Security. Congress should craft legislation that specifically
authorizes such sharing. Allowing this sharing and giving Homeland Security the resources and authority to target large-scale
employers in the sectors of the economy where undocumented workers are most present (such as agriculture, services
industries, and construction) would provide incentives and enforcement measures to wean employers from the shadow
workforce. E-Verify provides an electronic means for employers to check the immigration status of new hires and whether they
meet existing employment requirements. The Administration and Congress can, and should, build on the existing program.
2. We need to focus on stronger workplace enforcement measures

Reforms to deter illegal immigration and to establish congruence in legal immigration between admission policy and the need
for foreign workers are long overdue. A legal foreign worker admission policy in the national interest must take into
consideration the flow of illegal aliens as well as guestworkers and immigrant workers. It obviously would be unfair to
continue to allow illegal aliens to supplant access of employers to legal foreign workers, so stemming the flow of illegal
workers must be the first priority. Remove the job magnate that attracts illegal aliens by denying them job opportunities.
Making EVerify mandatory for all employers is key to ensuring a legal U.S. workforce and to providing employment
opportunities for native-born, low-skill workers. e current firewall that prevents SSA from sharing data with DHS and IRS
must also be removed so E-Verify can be more effective in detecting identity fraud.
94
Pathway Undesirable: Alternatives SuperiorGuest Workers

1. Temporary worker programs are the best way to address our labor problems
accessed 11-4-13.
Make immigration more responsive to the economy. In addition to an improved legal immigration system, the U.S. should seek
to foster a focused temporary worker program tied to market and workforce needs that would provide a rotating, temporary
workforce. Such a program would not only help ensure that employers labor needs are met; it would also help to discourage
additional illegal immigration by creating another avenue for legal entry and employment. Critically, a temporary program
must be truly temporary or it will simply become a new path to unlawful entry, not a solution that fixes it.
2. Temporary programs can meet labor demandsshould not allow to become a pathway to permanent
residency
Temporary Worker Programs. Effective temporary worker programs are part of a modern, dynamic economy. Temporary
worker programs can be a helpful tool for improving the legal means by which foreigners can come to the United States to
work. Previously proposed temporary worker programs have been problematic due to excessive regulations and inflexibility.
Any new temporary worker programs must help, not hinder, immigration reform and border security efforts. Temporary worker
programs should be designed not as a substitute for amnesty, but to fill important niches in the national workforce, allowing
employers the employees they need to help grow the economy and create more jobs. Instead of federal micromanagement of
employers hiring decisions, Congress should create a system of employer sponsorship for guest workers and allow employers
to bid on purchase permits to hire guest workers. This would preserve the flexibility that keeps the U.S. labor market vibrant,
ensure that guest workers have skills that are truly needed, and prevent guest workers from undercutting the wages of American
workers. Guest worker programs should not be a gateway to citizenship or legal residence, especially for low-wage workers.
Guest worker programs should never impose short- or long-term fiscal costs on U.S. taxpayers. It is important that there be a
clear mechanism to ensure that guest workers actually return to their country of origin at the end of their work period rather
than remaining in the U.S. as illegal immigrants.
3. Guest worker program will not increase overall immigration levels

Daniel Griswold, Director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Finally
Getting It Right, FREE TRADE BULLETIN n. 38, 5--16--07, www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659, accessed 1-1313.
Fears that the United States will be overwhelmed by a "flood" of immigrants if the temporary visa numbers are not tightly
capped are unfounded. First, legalization does not necessarily mean more immigrants entering the United States. The most
likely consequence of a temporary worker program, as with expansion of the Bracero program in the 1950s, would be the
transformation of an illegal flow into a legal flow. The number of workers entering the country illegally has already been
effectively "capped" by the demand in the U.S. labor market. If there are not jobs available, the workers will not come.
95
Pathway Undesirable: Alternatives SuperiorHigh-Skill Immigration

-
We need to focus on high-skill immigrationwill help boost our economy, and we should avoid taking
in low-skill immigrants
Human capital has long been Americas greatest natural resource. For all of its history and long into the futuremuch of these
resources have and will continue to be imported. The issue of whom America should import misses the point that this is not a
decision that should primarily be determined by Washington. America is a free-market society and labor is part of that market.
The market should decide. The governments job is to facilitate the movement of labor in a manner that keeps America free,
safe, and prosperous. Equally as important, for the free-market exchange of labor to work, the United States must become and
remain an opportunity society, rather than a magnet for trapping low-skilled labor in a cycle of poverty and impoverishment
without the opportunity for social mobility or patriotic assimilation. All of these initiatives can be taken without implementing
comprehensive immigration reform, providing the United States with all of the economic benefits of immigration with none of
the crippling costs. Placing a Premium on High-Skilled Labor. Ultimately, as the U.S. economy continues to recover from the
recession, demand for high-skilled foreign workers will only continue to grow. The U.S. can either implement the reforms
needed to ensure that America welcomes the best and the brightest to its shores, or America can continue leaving it all to
chance and bureaucrats in Washington. Raising the cap on H-1B visas for skilled workers and making non-immigrant visa
processing responsive to the needs of the economy would allow American businesses to expand operations here in the United
States, creating more jobs and higher wages for American workers. Increasing the H-1B cap would also raise significant tax
revenue from highly skilled and highly paid workers.
96
Pathway Undesirable: Alternatives SuperiorLegalization Only

-
Many undocumented immigrants will be satisfied with legalization alone

Erica Werner, Path to Citizenship Remains Central to Question in Immigration Bill Debate, ASSOCIATED PRESS, 91
13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/01/path-to-citizenship_n_3852156.html, accessed 11-3-13.
It imposes certain restrictions, seeks payment of fees, fines and taxes, and requires that prospective immigrants attempting the
process legally are dealt with first. Once those criteria are met, most people here illegally could get permanent resident green
cards in 10 years, and citizenship in three more. Agriculture workers and immigrants brought to this country as children would
have a quicker path. That approach is rejected by most House Republicans as a "special" path to citizenship. "It's not a bill I can
support," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said at a Verona, Va., town hall meeting recently. "We
think a legal status in the United States, but not a special pathway to citizenship, might be appropriate." Goodlatte has said that
after attaining legal status, immigrants could potentially use the existing avenues toward naturalization, such as family or
employment ties. He and others also argue that many immigrants would be satisfied with legalization alone, without getting
citizenship. That's something many advocates dispute, though studies show that a significant number of immigrants who are
eligible for citizenship haven't taken that step about 40 percent in a Pew Hispanic Center study in February.
97
Pathway Undesirable: Border Security / Chain Migration

1. Amnesty undermines the capacity of ICE to protect the border
David Inserra, U.S. Immigration Officers Give Frightening Warning, THE FOUNDRY, Heritage Foundation, 11113,
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/11/01/u-s-immigration-officers-give-frightening-warning/#.UoRP0PlnF8E
In fact, the situation is even scarier. As the ICE letter points out, President Obama continues to order ICE officers to ignore
ever-growing sections of immigration law and undertake actions that create a risk to public safety. The Senate has passed a
gargantuan immigration bill that includes mass amnesty, tons of handouts to special interests, and enough waivers and
exemptions to make Obamacare officials jealous. Notably, the Senate bill does little to actually support the hard-working men
and women of ICE and other immigration enforcement agencies. Even worse, amnesty would make the work of ICE even more
difficult by encouraging more illegal immigration and adding new classes of provisional immigrants who have special rules
that apply to them. It is sad that it has come to this: ICE officers are pleading with [Congress] tostand with American
citizens and the immigration officers who put their own personal safety at risk each day to provide for public safety. U.S. law
enforcement officers should not have to beg Congress just to enforce existing laws. Congress should reject amnesty, which
would only further harm our immigration officers effort, and instead use the budget process to give ICE and other immigration
agencies the resources they need to do their jobs effectively. Then Congress should demand that President Obama uphold
immigration law, not selectively enforce it
2. Post-amnesty chain migration would substantially increase the net fiscal burden
accessed 11-4-13.
An additional consequence of legalization is that when amnesty recipients become citizens, they would have the unconditional
right to bring their parents to the U.S. On arrival, the parents would become legal permanent residents with the right to obtain
citizenship in five years. They would probably be eligible for Obamacare immediately; after five years, they would become
eligible for Supplemental Security Income (at $8,500 per year) and other means-tested benefits. The right to bring parents to
the U.S. to become citizens is automatic and unlimited. As many as 15 million to 20 million parents would become eligible for
legal permanent residence under an amnesty law. Not all of these individuals would come to the U.S. Historically, one parent
has been brought to the U.S. for every seven non-elderly adult immigrants. Following this ratio, 10 million adult amnesty
recipients would be likely to bring 1.5 million parents to the country as lawful residents. For the most part, these parents would
be poor and heavily dependent on taxpayers. Typical costs would probably be around $20,000 per parent per year for welfare
and medical care. The parents would be elderly on arrival and might receive benefits for five to 10 years. In that case, the total
cost to taxpayers would be about $260 billion.
98
Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenTopshelf

1. Amnesty would cost American taxpayers trillions of dollars
accessed 11-4-13.
In addition to concerns of rule of law and fairness, amnesty will cost taxpayers trillions of dollars. This is because some
taxpayers contribute more in taxes than they receive in government benefits, while others consume more than they contribute.
Most unlawful immigrants fall into this second category of net tax consumers. Even now unlawful immigrant households
consume $14,387 more in benefits than they pay in taxes on average. Current unlawful immigrants receive public education for
their children and services at the state and local levels, such as policing, fire protection, road use, and sewer maintenance.
Illegal immigrants on average do not pay enough in taxes to cover the cost of these services. In addition, roughly half of illegal
immigrants have minor children who were born in the U.S. These children are eligible for nearly all federal means-tested
welfare programs including food stamps, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and the Childrens Health
Insurance Program (CHIP). The total cost of means-tested welfare to these children comes to around $17 billion per year.
Under current law, illegal immigrant households receive about $2.40 in government benefits for every $1.00 paid in taxes. The
overall cost to taxpayers (total benefits minus total taxes) is $54 billion per year. S. 744 would provide millions of these
immigrants with amnesty, eventually entitling them to extensive new benefits. Indeed, a recent Heritage study indicates that the
net cost of amnesty for all unlawful immigrants would be at least $6.3 trillion. These costs must be paid by current taxpayers,
either by increased taxes or reduced benefits. While S. 744 does not grant every unlawful immigrant amnesty, it would grant it
to the vast majority, leading to trillions in new costs.
2. Amnesty would impose increased government costs of $6.3 trillion

accessed 11-4-13.
The typical unlawful immigrant is 34 years old. After amnesty, this individual will receive government benefits, on average, for
50 years. Restricting access to benefits for the first 13 years after amnesty therefore has only a marginal impact on long-term
costs. If amnesty is enacted, the average adult unlawful immigrant would receive $592,000 more in government benefits over
the course of his remaining lifetime than he would pay in taxes. Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together
would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime
fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be
considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs because it undercounts the number of unlawful
immigrants and dependents who will actually receive amnesty and underestimates significantly the future growth in welfare
and medical benefits.
99
Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenTopshelf [contd]

3. The net fiscal burden of amnesty is $6.3 trillion dollars
accessed 11-4-13.
Most discussions of the fiscal consequences of unlawful immigration and amnesty focus on the next five to 10 years, but
amnesty, by definition, entitles each unlawful immigrant with lifetime eligibility for the full array of government benefits. The
average adult unlawful immigrant is currently 34 years old and has a life expectancy of 50 more years. Under amnesty, that
means 50 years of government benefits funded by U.S. taxpayers. If amnesty is enacted, some 3.74 million unlawful immigrant
households will be given eventual access to welfare and other entitlements. Of course, amnesty recipients will not live forever.
Given standard mortality statistics, it is possible to estimate the decline in the number of adult unlawful immigrants/amnesty
recipients and corresponding households year by year in the future. Table 7 gave the estimated fiscal deficit per household
during the interim period and during full implementation of amnesty. By combining these per-household deficit figures with
the expected number of surviving households headed by amnesty recipients, it is possible to estimate the total lifetime fiscal
costs of current unlawful households after amnesty but prior to retirement age. Table 10 gave the estimated per-person fiscal
cost of amnesty recipients after retirement. Combining this per-person deficit figure with the expected number of surviving
individuals in each year after retirement yields an estimated total fiscal cost for amnesty recipients after retirement. If the total
fiscal costs in the interim, full amnesty, and retirement periods are summed, the result is the estimated lifetime fiscal costs for
unlawful immigrants after amnesty. Table 11 shows the lifetime costs. During the interim phase, the former unlawful
immigrant households would generate a net fiscal cost (benefits received minus tax paid) of $550 billion. During the full phase
of amnesty (but prior to retirement), the net fiscal deficit would be $1.99 trillion. After retirement, amnesty recipients would
run a fiscal deficit of $3.45 trillion. Parents brought into the U.S. by amnesty recipients would generate another $260 billion in
net fiscal costs. If amnesty were enacted tomorrow, current unlawful immigrants (along with their minor children and
dependent parents) would subsequently receive around $9.4 trillion in government benefits over the span of a lifetime.[46] The
lifetime taxes paid by the amnesty recipients would come to $3.1 trillion. The total fiscal deficit (total benefits received minus
taxes paid) would equal $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) Put another way, if amnesty were enacted, the
average adult unlawful immigrant would subsequently receive $898,000 in government benefits over the course of a lifetime
and pay $306,000 in taxes over the same period. The average lifetime fiscal deficit (benefit received minus taxes paid) would
be around $592,000 for each adult amnesty recipient. These costs would be spread over the lifetime of the amnesty recipients.
More than 90 percent of the fiscal costs would occur during a 50-year period after amnesty. The policy of barring amnesty
recipients from receiving welfare and Obamacare during a short period after amnesty is usually trumpeted as a means of
eliminating the potential costs of amnesty. In reality, postponing access to government benefits has only a marginal impact on
fiscal costs. If amnesty recipients are barred from receiving welfare aid and health benefits from Obamacare for 13 years after
initial amnesty, the total fiscal deficit falls by 12 percent from $7.1 trillion to $6.3 trillion.
4. Amnesty should be avoidedwill create enormous costs

accessed 11-4-13.
The United States offers enormous economic opportunities and societal benefits. Countless more people would immigrate to
the U.S. if they had the opportunity. Given this context, the U.S. must be selective in its immigration policy. Policymakers
must ensure that the interaction of welfare and other financial transfer programs with immigration does not expand the fiscally
dependent population, thereby imposing large costs on American society. Current immigration policies with respect to both
lawful and unlawful immigration encourage the entry of a disproportionate number of poorly educated immigrants into the U.S.
As these low-skill immigrants (both lawful and unlawful) take up residence, they impose a substantial tax burden on U.S.
taxpayers. The benefits received by unlawful and low-skill immigrant households exceed taxes paid at each age level; at no
point do these households pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Current immigration practices, both lawful and
unlawful, operate like a system of transnational welfare outreach, bringing millions of fiscally dependent individuals into the
U.S. This policy needs to be changed. U.S. immigration policy should encourage high-skill immigration and strictly limit lowskill immigration. In general, government policy should limit immigration to those who will be net fiscal contributors, avoiding
those who will increase poverty and impose new costs on overburdened U.S. taxpayers.
100
Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenTopshelf [contd]

5. Amnesty would overstrain our budgetmultiple measures prove
accessed 11-4-13.
In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying
some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387
per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over
80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would
soar. If enacted, amnesty would be implemented in phases. During the first or interim phase (which is likely to last 13 years),
unlawful immigrants would be given lawful status but would be denied access to means-tested welfare and Obamacare. Most
analysts assume that roughly half of unlawful immigrants work off the books and therefore do not pay income or FICA taxes.
During the interim phase, these off the books workers would have a strong incentive to move to on the books employment.
In addition, their wages would likely go up as they sought jobs in a more open environment. As a result, during the interim
period, tax payments would rise and the average fiscal deficit among former unlawful immigrant households would fall. After
13 years, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and Obamacare. At that point or shortly
thereafter, former unlawful immigrant households would likely begin to receive government benefits at the same rate as lawful
immigrant households of the same education level. As a result, government spending and fiscal deficits would increase
dramatically. The final phase of amnesty is retirement. Unlawful immigrants are not currently eligible for Social Security and
Medicare, but under amnesty they would become so. The cost of this change would be very large indeed. As noted, at the
current time (before amnesty), the average unlawful immigrant household has a net deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid)
of $14,387 per household. During the interim phase immediately after amnesty, tax payments would increase more than
government benefits, and the average fiscal deficit for former unlawful immigrant households would fall to $11,455. At the end
of the interim period, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and medical subsidies under
Obamacare. Average benefits would rise to $43,900 per household; tax payments would remain around $16,000; the average
fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) would be about $28,000 per household. Amnesty would also raise retirement costs by
making unlawful immigrants eligible for Social Security and Medicare, resulting in a net fiscal deficit of around $22,700 per
retired amnesty recipient per year. In terms of public policy and government deficits, an important figure is the aggregate
annual deficit for all unlawful immigrant households. This equals the total benefits and services received by all unlawful
immigrant households minus the total taxes paid by those households. Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households
together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion. In the interim phase (roughly the first 13 years after
amnesty), the aggregate annual deficit would fall to $43.4 billion. At the end of the interim phase, former unlawful immigrant
households would become fully eligible for means-tested welfare and health care benefits under the Affordable Care Act. The
aggregate annual deficit would soar to around $106 billion. In the retirement phase, the annual aggregate deficit would be
around $160 billion. It would slowly decline as former unlawful immigrants gradually expire. These costs would have to be
borne by already overburdened U.S. taxpayers. (All figures are in 2010 dollars.)
101
Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenGeneral

1. Amnesty would legalize a large number of lower-income households
accessed 11-4-13.
The governmental system is highly redistributive. Well-educated households tend to be net tax contributors: The taxes they pay
exceed the direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services they receive. For example, in 2010, in
the whole U.S. population, households with college-educated heads, on average, received $24,839 in government benefits
while paying $54,089 in taxes. The average college-educated household thus generated a fiscal surplus of $29,250 that
government used to finance benefits for other households. Other households are net tax consumers: The benefits they receive
exceed the taxes they pay. These households generate a fiscal deficit that must be financed by taxes from other households or
by government borrowing. For example, in 2010, in the U.S. population as a whole, households headed by persons without a
high school degree, on average, received $46,582 in government benefits while paying only $11,469 in taxes. This generated
an average fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $35,113. The high deficits of poorly educated households are
important in the amnesty debate because the typical unlawful immigrant has only a 10th-grade education. Half of unlawful
immigrant households are headed by an individual with less than a high school degree, and another 25 percent of household
heads have only a high school degree. Some argue that the deficit figures for poorly educated households in the general
population are not relevant for immigrants. Many believe, for example, that lawful immigrants use little welfare. In reality,
lawful immigrant households receive significantly more welfare, on average, than U.S.-born households. Overall, the fiscal
deficits or surpluses for lawful immigrant households are the same as or higher than those for U.S.-born households with the
same education level. Poorly educated households, whether immigrant or U.S.-born, receive far more in government benefits
than they pay in taxes.
2. Low-income immigrant households increase government debt in the long-term

accessed 11-4-13.
To assess the fiscal impact of unlawful immigrants, therefore, the present report follows the procedures used by the National
Research Council in The New Americans: That is, it ignores the costs of interest on the debt and similar financial obligations
when calculating the net tax burden imposed by lawful and unlawful immigrant households. On the other hand, while unlawful
immigrant households do not increase government debt immediately, such households will, on average, increase government
debt significantly over the long term. For example, if an unlawful immigrant household generated a net fiscal deficit (benefits
received minus taxes paid) of $20,000 per year and roughly 20 percent of that amount was financed each year by government
borrowing, then the immigrant household would be responsible for adding roughly $4,000 to government debt each year. After
50 years, the familys contribution to growth in government debt would be around $200,000. While these potential costs are
significant, they are outside the scope of the current paper and are not included in the calculations presented here.
102
Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenGeneral [contd]

3. Unlawful immigrant households receive far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes
accessed 11-4-13.
Taxes and Revenues Paid by Unlawful Immigrant Households. Appendix Table 9 details the estimated taxes and revenues paid
by unlawful immigrant households in 34 categories. The results are summarized in Chart 4. Total federal, state, and local taxes
paid by unlawful immigrant households averaged $10,334 per household in 2010. Federal and state individual income taxes
comprised less than a fifth of total taxes paid. Instead, taxes on consumption and employment (FICA) produced nearly half of
the tax revenue for unlawful immigrant households. (The analysis assumes that workers pay both the employer and employee
share of FICA tax.) Property taxes (shifted to renters) and corporate profit taxes (shifted to workers) also form a significant part
of the tax burden. It is worth noting that FICA and income taxes reported in Chart 4 have been reduced because the analysis
assumes that 45 percent of unlawful immigrant earners work off the books. If all unlawful immigrant workers were employed
on the books, these tax payments would increase significantly. Balance of Taxes and Benefits. On average, unlawful immigrant
households received $24,721 per household in government benefits and services in FY 2010. This figure includes direct
benefits, means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services received by the household but excludes the cost of
public goods, interest on the government debt, and other payments for prior government functions. By contrast, unlawful
immigrant households on average paid only $10,334 in taxes. Thus, unlawful immigrant households received $2.40 in benefits
and services for each dollar paid in taxes. Many politicians believe that households that maintain steady employment are
invariably net tax contributors, paying more in taxes than they receive in government benefits. Chart 5 shows why this is not
the case. As Table 2 shows, unlawful immigrant households have high levels of employment, with 1.6 earners per household
and average annual earnings of around $39,000 for all workers in the household. But with average government benefits at
$24,721, unlawful immigrant households actually receive 63 cents in government benefits for every dollar of earnings. To
achieve fiscal balance, with taxes equal to benefits, the average unlawful immigrant household would have to pay nearly twothirds of its income in taxes. Given this simple fact, it is obvious that unlawful immigrant households can never pay enough
taxes to cover the cost of their current government benefits and services.
4. Current unlawful immigration imposes a $55B net fiscal deficit on our governments
accessed 11-4-13.
Aggregate Annual Net Fiscal Costs. In 2010, 3.44 million unlawful immigrant households appeared in the Current Population
Survey. The average net fiscal deficit per household was $14,387. Most experts believe that at least 350,000 more unlawful
immigrant households resided in the U.S. but were not reported in the CPS. Assuming that the fiscal deficit for these
unreported households was the same as the fiscal deficit for the unlawful immigrant households in the CPS, the total annual
fiscal deficit (total benefits received minus total taxes paid) for all 3.79 million unlawful immigrant households together
equaled $54.5 billion (the deficit of $14,387 per household times 3.79 million households). This sum includes direct and
means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services.
103

5. Amnesty will result in massive increases in outlays for public benefits
accessed 11-4-13.
Federal and state governments currently spend over $830 billion per year on more than 80 different means-tested aid programs.
U.S.-born children of unlawful immigrants are currently eligible for aid through most of these programs, but foreign-born
children who are in the country unlawfully and adult unlawful immigrants are generally not eligible for aid. At present, all
amnesty proposals would make adult unlawful immigrants and their foreign-born children fully eligible for these programs at
the end of the waiting period. As a result, welfare benefits in former unlawful households would likely rise to the level of those
received by current lawful immigrant families with similar socioeconomic characteristics. This would mean a sharp increase in
benefits from programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid, public
housing, and food stamps. Overall, annual welfare costs would rise to around $13,700 per household among former unlawful
households. Amnesty would increase overall welfare costs to $51 billion per year for this group. Starting in 2014, the
Affordable Care Act will begin to provide various forms of aid, including expanded Medicaid, premium subsidies, and costsharing subsidies, to lower-income individuals who lack health insurance. Unlawful immigrants are currently ineligible for this
aid. Under amnesty or earned citizenship, unlawful immigrants would obtain full eligibility for these benefits, although
access to aid would probably be delayed until the end of the interim period. The estimated cost of benefits from Obamacare to
former unlawful immigrant households would be $24 billion per year.
6. Each immigrant household creates an enormous drain on public coffers

Stephen A. Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies, "Immigration's Impact on Public Coffers in the United States," THE
EFFECTS OF MASS IMMIGRATION ON CANADIAN LIVING STANDARDS AND SOCIETY, ed. H. Grubel, 2009, p.
36-37.
A 2007 study by the Heritage Foundation focused on immigrant households (legal and illegal) headed by a person without a
high-school diploma (Rector, 2007). It concluded that in 2005, on average, low-skilled immigrant households in the United
States created $30,160 in costs each year and paid only $10,573 in taxes for a net fiscal drain of $19,587. The study also
concluded that the lifetime net fiscal drain of each unskilled immigrant household would be $1.2 million. Of course, nonimmigrant low-skilled households incur costs similar to those of immigrant low-skilled households. The focus on the costs
caused by the immigrant households is that they are avoidable by the use of government policies that prevent them from
settling in the country.
7. Importing unskilled workers overstretches our public services

The expansion of welfare programs is another cost of importing an excess of low-skill workers. It is difficult to justify the
additional burden on limited public resources caused by immigrant-headed households whose admission contributes to the
unskilled labor surplus. In 2004, the average unskilled immigrant household used $19,588 more in government services than it
paid in taxes (an $8,836 gap at the federal level and $10,753 from state and local budgets). Illegal aliens impose a fiscal burden
to state, local, and federal governments of an estimated $113 billion per year, but are the source of just $13 billion in tax
revenue.
104

8. Low-income immigrants pay less in taxes than they receive in services
29.
Immigrations impact on public coffers has long been at the center of the immigration debate in the United States and other
developed countries such as Canada. Until recently, however, we actually had very little reliable data on the subject. While
there is still much that is not known, we now have some reasonably good information about immigrations impact in the United
States. There is a pretty clear consensus that the fiscal impact of immigration depends on the education levels of the
immigrants. While other factors also matter, the human capital of immigrants, as economists like to refer to it, is clearly very
important. There is no single better predictor of ones income, tax payments, or use of public services in modern America than
ones education level. Less-educated immigrants have lower incomes and pay less on average in taxes while at the same time
they tend to make heavy demands on social services. Because such a large share of immigrants to the United States have low
educational attainment, the few studies that have tried to estimate the total fiscal impact of immigrants have concluded that they
pay less in taxes than they use in services.
9. Each immigrant household creates an enormous drain on public coffers

36-37.
A 2007 study by the Heritage Foundation focused on immigrant households (legal and illegal) headed by a person without a
high-school diploma (Rector, 2007). It concluded that in 2005, on average, low-skilled immigrant households in the United
States created $30,160 in costs each year and paid only $10,573 in taxes for a net fiscal drain of $19,587. The study also
concluded that the lifetime net fiscal drain of each unskilled immigrant household would be $1.2 million. Of course, nonimmigrant low-skilled households incur costs similar to those of immigrant low-skilled households. The focus on the costs
caused by the immigrant households is that they are avoidable by the use of government policies that prevent them from
settling in the country.
105
Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenMedicare / Health Care

1. Adding more workers will only put a further strain on Medicare
Rachel Greszler, Senior Policy Analyst, Social Security Analysis of Immigration Bill Opaque and too Narrow, ISSUE
BRIEF n. 3957, Heritage Foundation, 6413, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/06/impact-of-the-immigrationbill-on-social-security, accessed 11-4-13.
Social insurance for the elderly consists primarily of Social Security and Medicare. While both programs are highly insolvent,
Medicare is a much larger liability for the federal government. The average worker who retires today will receive more than
three dollars in Medicare benefits for every one dollar of Medicare taxes paid. By 2030, this ratio will approach four dollars in
benefits per dollar of taxes paid. Unlike Social Security, in which benefits are based in part on tax contributions, Medicare
benefits are the same regardless of workers payroll tax contributions, and Medicare taxes support only a small portion of
Medicare benefits. Consequently, adding millions of workers with below-average wages (and thus below-average payroll tax
contributions) would place an especially large drain on Medicares already frightful long-run financesas well as the federal
budget as a whole.
2. Amnesty will result in a $100B increase in annual government outlaysexacerbated by Obamacare

benefits
accessed 11-4-13.
When the interim phase ends, amnesty recipients would become eligible for means-tested welfare and health care benefits
under the Affordable Care Act. At that point, annual government benefits would rise to around $43,900 for the average former
unlawful immigrant household.[37] Tax payments would remain at around $16,000 per household, yielding an annual fiscal
deficit (benefits minus taxes paid) of around $28,000 per household. Table 8 and Chart 11 show the aggregate fiscal balance for
all unlawful immigrant households in the three stages. All of the figures in Table 8 and Charts 10 and 11 are adjusted for future
inflation and presented in 2010 constant dollars. Before amnesty, all unlawful immigrant households together received $93.7
billion per year in government benefits and services and paid $39.2 billion, yielding an aggregate annual deficit of $54.5
billion. In the interim phase after amnesty, aggregate government benefits and services would rise to $103.4 billion per year,
but tax revenue would rise to around $60 billion; as a consequence, the aggregate annual deficit would fall slightly to $43.4
billion. (These figures include all post-recession adjustments.) At the end of the interim phase, former unlawful immigrant
households would become fully eligible for means-tested welfare and health care benefits under the Affordable Care Act. Total
annual government benefits and services would soar to $166.5 billion; tax revenue would remain at around $60.5 billion,
yielding an aggregate annual fiscal deficit of $106 billion. (These figures include all post-recession adjustments.)
3. Immigrants are more likely to be on welfare, lack health insurance

34.
Table 1 also shows that immigrants use welfare more, are more subject to poverty, and more often lack of health insurance
coverage than the native-born, though these differences are smaller, the higher the education of both groups. Canadians may
find it surprising to learn that one third of those without health insurance in the United States are immigrants or the young
children of immigrants. Moreover, immigrants who have arrived since 1990 and their US-born children account for three
fourths of the growth in the population lacking insurance in the United States. To a very significant extent, Americas health
insurance crisis is being driven by its immigration policies.
4. Immigrants are more likely to be on welfare, lack health insurance

34.
Table 1 also shows that immigrants use welfare more, are more subject to poverty, and more often lack of health insurance
coverage than the native-born, though these differences are smaller, the higher the education of both groups. Canadians may
find it surprising to learn that one third of those without health insurance in the United States are immigrants or the young
children of immigrants. Moreover, immigrants who have arrived since 1990 and their US-born children account for three
fourths of the growth in the population lacking insurance in the United States. To a very significant extent, Americas health
insurance crisis is being driven by its immigration policies.
106
Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenSocial Security

1. Social security-boosting claims are falsedo not account for benefit payments to the new immigrants
Proponents of the Senate immigration bill have been touting a recent analysis by the Social Security Chief Actuary which
alleges a $4.6 trillion immigration boon for Social Securitys 75-year financial outlook. Despite a total lack of transparency in
the actuarial analysis, a number of problems are quite clearthe largest being a failure to account for all future costs. The
Analysis Focuses on Specific Time Horizons The Social Security System operates on a pay-as-you-go basis, meaning
individuals pay taxes into the system decades before they receive anything in return. So regardless of how much they receive in
comparison to what they pay in, the addition of any new group of taxpaying workers benefits Social Securitys solvency in the
short run. Adding the impact of those workers children can extend the positive benefit indefinitely. However, the Social
Security actuaries fail to account for all of the additional benefits that new immigrants and their offspring will eventually draw
from the system. This is like acquiring new credit cards and adding the newly available credit as assets but not subtracting the
money spent on those cards as future liabilities. Rather than considering the effects of immigration on Social Security over a
certain time horizon, the Social Security actuaries should provide a closed-group analysis of immigrants effects on Social
Security. Such an analysis would fully incorporate both the added taxes paid and benefits received by immigrants under the
proposed bill.
2. Benefits are overstatedmany undocumented workers are already contributing to Social Security
The Net Drag of Incorporating Many Undocumented Workers. While many undocumented workers operate off the books and
do not pay taxes, a Heritage Foundation study estimates that 55 percent of undocumented workers are already contributing to
Social Security. These undocumented workers are currently not entitled to any benefits based on the taxes they pay, but if they
become legal through amnesty, they will be eligible for future benefits. Thus, a majority of the undocumented workers who
would be made legal through the proposed bill would be pure liabilities to the Social Security system; they would pay little, if
anything, more in taxes than they otherwise would, but they would be eligible for full Social Security benefits. Congress
Should Demand a Realistic Analysis To understand the proposed immigration bills true effects on U.S. entitlement programs,
lawmakers should request a revised, closed-group analysis of the proposed immigration bills effects on both Social Security
and Medicare, including the details of the actuarial assumptions.
3. Amnesty will do nothing to improve the solvency of Social Security

accessed 11-4-13.
Many policymakers believe that after amnesty, unlawful immigrants will help make Social Security solvent. It is true that
unlawful immigrants currently pay FICA taxes and would pay more after amnesty, but with average earnings of $24,800 per
year, the typical unlawful immigrant will pay only about $3,700 per year in FICA taxes. After retirement, that individual is
likely to draw more than $3.00 in Social Security and Medicare (adjusted for inflation) for every dollar in FICA taxes he has
paid. Moreover, taxes and benefits must be viewed holistically. It is a mistake to look at the Social Security trust fund in
isolation. If an individual pays $3,700 per year into the Social Security trust fund but simultaneously draws a net $25,000 per
year (benefits minus taxes) out of general government revenue, the solvency of government has not improved.
107
Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenSocial Security [contd]

4. Amnesty will not increase the long-term fiscal solvency of Social Security
accessed 11-4-13.
It is often argued that unlawful immigrants have a positive impact on U.S. taxpayers because they pay taxes into the Social
Security trust fund. Unlawful immigrant workers do pay Social Security or FICA taxes; the median unlawful immigrant worker
currently pays about $2,070 per year in FICA taxes. If amnesty encouraged all former unlawful immigrant workers to work on
the books, that number would rise to around $3,770. A worker who paid this amount into Social Security for 35 years would
contribute $132,000. Upon retiring, this individual would receive $14,650 per year in Social Security benefits and $10,074 per
year in Medicare benefits. Over an average span of 18 years of retirement, the total Social Security and Medicare benefits
received by this individual would come to $445,000. Thus, the retirement benefits received would be more than three times the
taxes paid into the system. Moreover, taxes and benefits must be viewed holistically. It is a mistake to look at the Social
Security trust fund in isolation. Unlawful immigrants draw benefits from many other government programs besides Social
Security. If an individual pays $3,700 per year into the Social Security trust fund but simultaneously draws a net $25,000 per
year (benefits minus taxes) out of general government revenue, the solvency of government has not improved. In reality, other
taxpayers, including many Social Security recipients, will face higher taxes in order to subsidize unlawful immigrant
households.
5. Amnesty will drain Social Securityrecipients will draw far more out of the Social Security system
than they pay in
accessed 11-4-13.
One major fiscal consequence of amnesty is that nearly all current unlawful immigrants would become eligible for Social
Security and Medicare and would receive benefits from those programs when they reach retirement age. In most cases, the few
who did not obtain eligibility for Social Security and Medicare would receive support from Supplemental Security Income and
Medicaid. As they aged, former unlawful immigrants would also be eligible for nursing home care funded by Medicaid. The
cost of these benefits would be quite large. One way to estimate the future retirement costs of unlawful immigrants under
amnesty is to examine the average benefits currently received by lawful immigrants over age 65 whose education levels match
those of unlawful immigrants. The figures for lawful immigrants over age 65 are shown in Table 9. (Once individuals move
into retirement years, it is more accurate to analyze persons rather than households. Thus, in contrast to the previous tables in
this paper, Table 9 presents benefits and taxes per immigrant rather than per household.) Table 9 reports the actual benefits
received and taxes paid per person in 2010 by lawful immigrants over age 65. For example, the average elderly lawful
immigrant who lacked a high school degree received $31,574 in annual government benefits and services and paid $3,921 in
taxes, yielding an annual fiscal deficit of $27,653. Table 10 shows the estimated fiscal balances of adult amnesty recipients
over age 65 if amnesty were enacted. (Again, the estimated benefits received and taxes paid are modeled on the actual current
figures for elderly lawful immigrants.) Given amnesty, the average former unlawful immigrant age 65 or older would receive
around $30,500 per year in benefits. Social Security benefits would come to around $10,000 per year; Medicare would add
another $9,000. Retirees would receive some $7,600 in means-tested welfare, primarily in Medicaid nursing home benefits,
general Medicaid, and SSI. Population-based benefits would add another $3,100 in costs. The average amnesty recipient would
pay around $7,800 in taxes, resulting in an average annual fiscal deficit of roughly $22,700 per retiree.[42] (All figures include
post-recession adjustments.) Retiring at age 67, amnesty recipients could be expected to receive benefits for 18 to 19 years on
average. This would produce a long-term fiscal deficit cost of $420,000 per person during retirement.
108
Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenWelfare / Direct Benefits

1. Unlawful immigrant households have higher welfare utilization rates, even with 5- and 10-year
moratoria in place
accessed 11-4-13.
Table 6 shows the fiscal balance for non-immigrant, lawful immigrant, and unlawful immigrant households. Unlawful
immigrant households have the largest annual fiscal deficits at $14,387 per household. Lawful immigrant households have an
average annual fiscal deficit of $4,344, and non-immigrant households have a deficit of $310, meaning that taxes paid roughly
equal benefits received. Lawful immigrant households have higher fiscal deficits than non-immigrants for two reasons. The
first is lower education levels; 20 percent of lawful immigrant households are headed by individuals without a high school
diploma, compared to 10 percent among non-immigrant households. The second reason is high levels of welfare use. There is a
popular misconception that immigrants use little welfare. The opposite is true. In fact, lawful immigrants receive the highest
level of welfare benefits. At $9,040, lawful immigrants annual welfare benefits are a third higher than non-immigrants
benefits. This seems paradoxical because lawful immigrants are barred from receiving nearly all means-tested welfare during
their first five years in the U.S. As Table 6 shows, this temporary ban has virtually no impact on the overall use of welfare
because (a) the ban does not apply to children born inside the U.S. and (b) receipt of welfare occurs continually throughout a
lifetime and therefore is little affected by a five- or 10-year moratorium on receipt of aid. The lack of effectiveness of the fiveyear ban on welfare receipt in controlling total welfare costs has a direct bearing on the debate about amnesty legislation. It is
noteworthy that the highest level of welfare use shown in Table 6 is $19,762 per household per year among lawful immigrant
households headed by individuals without a high school diploma. This figure is important because similar levels of welfare use
can be expected among unlawful immigrant households receiving amnesty. Another important point is that the level of welfare
benefits received by unlawful immigrant households is significant, despite the fact that unlawful immigrants themselves are
ineligible for nearly all welfare aid. The welfare benefits received by unlawful immigrant households go to U.S.-born children
within these homes. If undocumented adults within these households are given access to means-tested welfare programs, perhousehold benefits will reach very high levels.
2. Unlawful immigrant households already receive substantial levels of direct government benefits
accessed 11-4-13.
As noted, in 2010, some 3.44 million unlawful immigrant households appeared in Census surveys. Appendix Table 8 shows the
estimated costs of government benefits and services received by these households in 73 separate expenditure categories. The
results are summarized in Chart 3. Overall, households headed by an unlawful immigrant received an average of $24,721 per
household in direct benefits, means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services in FY 2010. Education spending
on behalf of these households averaged $13,627, and means-tested aid (going mainly to the U.S.-born children in the family)
averaged $4,497. Spending on police, fire, and public safety came to $3,656 per household. Transportation added another $662,
and administrative support services cost $958. Direct benefits came to $44. Miscellaneous population-based services added a
final $1,277.
109
Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenAnswers to Aging Crisis

1. Age levels of unlawful immigrant households are irrelevantstill impose a net fiscal burden, will not
help our society address its aging crisis
accessed 11-4-13.
Age Distribution of Benefits and Taxes Among Unlawful Immigrant Households. Many political decision makers believe that
because unlawful immigrant workers are comparatively young, they can help to relieve the fiscal strains of an aging society.
Charts 7 and 8 show why this is not the case. These charts separate the 3.44 million unlawful immigrant households into five
categories based on the age of the head of household. The benefits levels in Chart 7 again include direct benefits, means-tested
benefits, public education, and population-based services. These benefits start at $24,726 for households headed by immigrants
under 25 years of age and rise to $28,000 to $29,000 per year as the heads of household reach their 30s and 40s. The increase is
driven by a rise in the number of children in each home. As the age of the head of household reaches the late 50s, the number
of children in the home falls, and benefits dip to around $21,000 per year. Annual tax payments vary little by the age of the
householder, averaging around $12,000 per year in each age bracket. The critical fact shown in Chart 7 and Chart 8 is that, for
each age category, the benefits received by unlawful immigrant households exceed the taxes paid. At no point in the life cycle
does the average unlawful immigrant household pay more in taxes than it takes out in benefits. In each age category, unlawful
immigrant households receive roughly $2.00 in government benefits for each dollar paid in taxes. Between ages 45 and 54
(generally considered prime earning years), unlawful immigrants actually receive nearly $3.00 in benefits for each dollar paid
in taxes. These figures belie the notion that government can relieve financial strains in Social Security and other programs
simply by importing younger unlawful immigrant workers. The fiscal impact of an immigrant worker is determined far more
by education and skill level than by age. Low-skill immigrant workers (whether lawful or unlawful) impose a net drain on
government finance as soon as they enter the country and add significantly to those costs every year they remain. Chart 8
shows the net fiscal deficits (benefits minus taxes) for each age category. The fiscal deficits reach a peak of over $19,000 per
year for households with heads between 45 and 54 years old. The average deficit then falls to around $10,000 per year for
households with heads between 55 and 64 years old. The number of unlawful immigrant households declines sharply with age.
There are very few unlawful immigrant households with heads over age 65.
2. Immigration will have little impact on aging problems--demographic research proves

Stephen A. Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies, Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, 111909, www.cis.org/node/1582, accessed
11-8-13.
Some observers think that without large-scale immigration, there will not be enough people of working age to support the
economy or pay for government. It is certainly true that immigration has increased the number of workers in the United States.
It is also true that immigrants tend to arrive relatively young, and that they tend to have more children than native born
Americans. Demographers, the people who study human populations, have done a good deal of research on the actual impact of
immigration on the age structure. There is widespread agreement that immigration has very little impact on the aging of
American society. Immigrants age just like everyone else; moreover, the differences with natives are not large enough to
significantly alter the nations age structure. This simple fact can be seen clearly in the 2000 census, which showed that the
average age of an immigrants was 39, compared to 35 for natives.
110
Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenAnswers to Higher Immigrant Income

1. Any positive wage effects from amnesty would be relatively minor
accessed 11-4-13.
As noted earlier, nearly all experts believe that much employment of unlawful immigrants occurs off the books. Since taxes
are not paid on this hidden employment, the result is less government revenue. After amnesty, former unlawful immigrants
would have a strong incentive to shift to on the books employment because a consistent record of official employment would
probably be necessary for these individuals to remain in the U.S. and to progress toward LPR status. The present analysis
assumes that at the current time, some 55 percent of unlawful immigrant workers work on the books and 45 percent work off
the books. The analysis assumes that if amnesty were enacted, 95 percent of future employment of the former unlawful
immigrants would occur on the books. This would increase payments of federal and state income taxes, FICA taxes, and other
labor taxes (such unemployment and work compensation fees) by nearly $14 billion per year. After amnesty, former unlawful
immigrants would be able to seek employment more openly and compete for a wider range of positions. Research from the
amnesty in 1986 shows that this led to significant wage gains among amnesty recipients, but amnesty also made individuals
eligible for unemployment insurance and other programs that support individuals when they are not working, and this led to a
decline in employment among workers receiving amnesty. These two effects offset each other, yielding a net overall gain of 5
percent in wages. This 5 percent wage boost is included in the analysis and leads to an increase in income, FICA, and
consumption tax payments of around $3 billion per year.
2. Undocumented immigrants tend to have lower levels of educational attainment than does the general
citizen population
accessed 11-4-13.
The low wage level of unlawful immigrant workers is a direct result of their low education levels. As Table 3 shows, half of
unlawful immigrant households are headed by persons without a high school degree; more than 75 percent are headed by
individuals with a high school degree or less. Only 10 percent of unlawful immigrant households are headed by college
graduates. By contrast, among non-immigrant households, 9.6 percent are headed by persons without a high school degree,
around 40 percent are headed by persons with a high school degree or less, and nearly one-third are headed by college
graduates. The current unlawful immigrant population thus contains a disproportionate share of poorly educated individuals.
These individuals will tend to have low wages and pay comparatively little in taxes.
3. Unlawful immigrants generate fiscal deficits throughout their lives

accessed 11-4-13.
Many policymakers also believe that because unlawful immigrants are comparatively young, they will help relieve the fiscal
strains of an aging society. Regrettably, this is not true. At every stage of the life cycle, unlawful immigrants, on average,
generate fiscal deficits (benefits exceed taxes). Unlawful immigrants, on average, are always tax consumers; they never once
generate a fiscal surplus that can be used to pay for government benefits elsewhere in society. This situation obviously will
get much worse after amnesty.
111
Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenAnswers to Higher Immigrant Income [contd]

4. Poverty rates are much higher among undocumented households
accessed 11-4-13.
The heads of unlawful immigrant households are younger, with a median age of 34 compared to 50 among non-immigrant
householders. Partly because they are younger, unlawful immigrant households have more children, with an average of 1.6
children per household compared to 0.6 among non-immigrant households. The higher number of children tends to raise
governmental costs among unlawful immigrant households. (Both lawful and unlawful children in unlawful immigrant
households are eligible for public education, and the large number of children who were born in the U.S. are also eligible for
means-tested welfare benefits such as food stamps, Medicaid, and Childrens Health Insurance Program benefits.) By contrast,
there are very few elderly persons in unlawful immigrant households. Only 1.1 percent of persons in those households are over
65 years of age compared to 13.7 percent of persons in non-immigrant households. The absence of elderly persons in unlawful
immigrant households significantly reduces current government costs; however, if unlawful immigrants remain in the U.S.
permanently, the number who are elderly will obviously increase significantly. Unlawful immigrant households are far more
likely to be poor. Over one-third of unlawful immigrant households have incomes below the federal poverty level compared to
18.8 percent of lawful immigrant households and 13.6 percent of non-immigrant households.
5. Low-income immigrants pay less in taxes than they receive in services

29.
Immigrations impact on public coffers has long been at the center of the immigration debate in the United States and other
developed countries such as Canada. Until recently, however, we actually had very little reliable data on the subject. While
there is still much that is not known, we now have some reasonably good information about immigrations impact in the United
States. There is a pretty clear consensus that the fiscal impact of immigration depends on the education levels of the
immigrants. While other factors also matter, the human capital of immigrants, as economists like to refer to it, is clearly very
important. There is no single better predictor of ones income, tax payments, or use of public services in modern America than
ones education level. Less-educated immigrants have lower incomes and pay less on average in taxes while at the same time
they tend to make heavy demands on social services. Because such a large share of immigrants to the United States have low
educational attainment, the few studies that have tried to estimate the total fiscal impact of immigrants have concluded that they
pay less in taxes than they use in services.
112
Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenAnswers to Immigrant Children Solve

1. The children of amnestied immigrants will not be able to decrease the net fiscal burden
accessed 11-4-13.
It is often argued that the fiscal burdens produced by unlawful immigrants are irrelevant because their children will become
vigorous net tax contributors, producing fiscal surpluses that will more than pay for any costs their parents have generated. This
is not true. As this paper has shown, the degree to which the children of unlawful immigrants become net fiscal contributors
(rather than tax consumers) will depend largely on their educational attainment. Moreover, even if all of the children of
unlawful immigrants became college graduates, they would be very hard-pressed to pay back $6.3 trillion in net costs even
over the course of their entire lives. Of course, not all of these children will graduate from college; many will have substantially
lower educational achievements. The National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS) reports the intergenerational
educational attainment of U.S. children based on the educational attainment of their parents. Table 12 uses data from the NELS
survey to predict the educational attainment of the children of unlawful immigrants based on ethnicity and their parents
education level. Although these children will clearly do better than their parents, 18 percent are still likely to leave school
without a high school degree, and only 13 percent are likely to graduate from college. Based on this level of educational
attainment, the children of unlawful immigrants, on average, will become net tax consumers rather than net taxpayers: The
government benefits they receive will exceed the taxes they pay. If the children of unlawful immigrants were adults today and
had the levels of education predicted in Table 12, they would have an average fiscal deficit of around $7,900 per household.
The odds that the children of unlawful immigrants, on average, will become strong net taxpayers are minimal. Indeed, for these
children even to become fiscally neutral (taxes paid equal to benefits received), the percent that graduate from college would
need to rise to 30 percent, and the percent without a high school diploma would need to fall to 10 percent. In reality, unlawful
immigrants will be net tax consumers, placing a fiscal burden on other taxpayers not only in the first generation, but in the
second generation as well.
2. The children of unlawful immigrants will be unable to make up the fiscal costs of amnesty
accessed 11-4-13.
Finally, some argue that it does not matter whether unlawful immigrants create a fiscal deficit of $6.3 trillion because their
children will make up for these costs. This is not true. Even if all the children of unlawful immigrants graduated from college,
they would be hard-pressed to pay back $6.3 trillion in costs over their lifetimes. Of course, not all the children of unlawful
immigrants will graduate from college. Data on intergenerational social mobility show that, although the children of unlawful
immigrants will have substantially better educational outcomes than their parents, these achievements will have limits. Only 13
percent are likely to graduate from college, for example. Because of this, the children, on average, are not likely to become net
tax contributors. The children of unlawful immigrants are likely to remain a net fiscal burden on U.S. taxpayers, although a far
smaller burden than their parents.
113
Pathway Undesirable: Overpopulation

1. We need to check immigration to decrease population growth and protect the environment
Philip Cafaro, Associate Professor, Philosophy, Colorado State University and William Staples III, wildlife biologist, "The
Environmental Argument for Reducing Immigration to the United States," BACKGROUNDER, Center for Immigration
Studies, 609, www.cis.org/EnvironmentalArgument, accessed 11-8-13.
The environmental argument for reducing immigration to the United States is relatively straightforward and is based on the
following five premises: 1. Immigration levels are at a historic high and immigration is now the main driver of U.S. population
growth. 2. Population growth contributes significantly to a host of environmental problems within our borders. 3. A growing
population increases Americas large environmental footprint beyond our borders and our disproportionate role in stressing
global environmental systems. 4. In order to seriously address environmental problems at home and become good global
environmental citizens, we must stop U.S. population growth. 5. We are morally obligated to address our environmental
problems and become good global environmental citizens. Therefore, we should limit immigration to the United States to the
extent needed to stop U.S. population growth. This conclusion rests on a straightforward commitment to mainstream
environmentalism, easily confirmed empirical premises, and logic. Despite this, it is not the consensus position among
American environmentalists.
2. Population growth causes sprawl, habitat loss, and species loss

Population growth contributes significantly to a host of environmental problems within our borders. For example in the past
two decades sprawl, defined as new development on the fringes of existing urban and suburban areas, has come to be
recognized as an important environmental problem in the United States. Between 1982 and 2001, the United States converted
34 million acres of forest, cropland, and pasture to developed uses, an area the size of Illinois. The average annual rate of land
conversion increased from 1.4 million acres to 2.2 million acres over this time, and continues on an upward trend. Sprawl is an
environmental problem for lots of reasons, including increased energy consumption, water consumption, air pollution, and
habitat loss for wildlife. Habitat loss is by far the number one cause of species endangerment in the United States;
unsurprisingly, some of the worst sprawl centers (such as southern Florida and the Los Angeles basin) also contain large
numbers of endangered species.
3. Cannot achieve sustainability without decreasing immigration

Given the many issues that environmentalists must deal with and the contentious nature of immigration debates, it is
understandable that many of us would prefer to avoid them. But the reality is that across the country, environmentalists are
losing the battle to create a sustainable society and protect wild nature. Sprawl development destroys 2.2 million acres of wild
lands and agricultural lands each year; over 1300 plant and animal species remain on the endangered species list, with more
added each year; water shortages in the west and southeast are being used to justify new river-killing dams and reservoirs; and
U.S. carbon emissions continue to rise. Obviously, we havent figured out how to create a sustainable society with 300 million
inhabitants. Its not plausible to think we will be able to do so with two or three times as many people.
114
Pathway Undesirable: Overpopulation [contd]

4. Immigration is the key factor driving population growth
Stephen Camarota, Director of Research, Center for Immigration Studies, "Immigration, Population, and the Environment:
Experts to Debate Impact of Current Policies," FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, 8009,
www.cis.org/Transcript/EnvironmentalPanel, accessed 11-8-13.
But thats not what were really here to discuss. Instead, we are here to discuss the larger macro issue of immigration and
population growth and its larger impact on the country and, potentially, the world. Now, the impact of immigration on U.S.
population growth is not really in dispute. In recent years, net immigration thats the difference between people coming and
going has been 1.25 million a year, though that may have fallen off in the last 18 months with more people going and fewer
coming. But that 1.25 figure was certainly true through 2007. And also, immigrant women give birth to about 900,000 children
a year in the United States. Now, all demographers agree that immigration is the key factor driving U.S. population growth, and
that the current level of 1.25 million net a year would add about 100 million people to the U.S. population in about 50 years.
But the question were here to discuss is not whether immigration will add 100 million because thats generally agreed upon.
You could say it might do it in 48 years versus 52 years, but the general agreement is about 100 million over 50 years. But the
question we are here to discuss is whether adding all those folks to the U.S. population, creating that many Americans, does
that matter for the U.S. environment or the world environment?
5. We need to cut immigration to check population growth and protect the environment
Philip Cafaro, Associate Professor, Colorado State University, "Immigration, Population, and the Environment: Experts to
Debate Impact of Current Policies," FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, 809, www.cis.org/Transcript/EnvironmentalPanel,
accessed 11-8-13.
We academics tend to run a little long. The environmental argument for reducing immigration into the United States is
relatively straightforward. Immigration levels are at a historic high, and immigration is now the main driver of U.S. population
growth. Population growth contributes significantly to many environmental problems within our borders, and also, a growing
population increases Americas large environmental footprint beyond our borders, and our disproportionate role in stressing
global ecosystems. Continued U.S. population growth doesnt appear to be compatible with ecological sustainability either
nationally or globally. So environmentalists should support reducing current high levels of immigration into the United States.
This conclusions rests on a straightforward commitment to mainstream environmentalism, easily confirmed empirical premises
and logic. Despite this, its not the consensus position among American environmentalists.
115
Pathway Undesirable: Poverty / Economy

1. Undocumented immigration functionally imports poverty
Immigration policys effect on the labor force should be carefully considered, but the vast majority of immigrants are not
admitted based on education or skill level. In 2009, the U.S. admitted over 1.1 million legal immigrants, just 5.8 percent of
whom possessed employment skills in demand in the United States. By contrast, 66.1 percent were based on family
preferences, or 73 percent if the relatives of immigrants arriving on employment visas are included. 16.7 percent of admissions
were divided among refugees, asylum seekers and other humanitarian categories, while 4.2 percent of admissions were based
on the diversity lottery (which only requires that winners have completed high school). Some family-based immigrants may be
highly educated or skilled, but the vast majority of admissions are made without regard for those criteria. e immigrant
population reflects the systems lack of emphasis on skill. Nearly 31 percent of foreign-born residents over the age of 25 are
without a high school diploma, compared to just 10 percent of native-born citizens. Immigrants trail natives in rates of college
attendance, associates degrees, and bachelors degrees, but earn advanced degrees at a slightly higher rate (10.9 percent,
compared to 10.4 percent for natives). Illegal immigrants are the least-educated group, with nearly 75 percent having at most a
high school education. Overall, 55 percent of the foreign-born population has no education past high school, compared to 42
percent of natives. The median immigrant worker has an income of $30,000 per year, trailing native workers by about 18
percent. At $22,500 per year, illegal aliens make even less than their legal counterparts. Though U.S.-born children of legal
immigrants are no more likely to be in poverty than those in native households, the children of illegal aliens and foreign-born
children of legal immigrants are nearly twice as likely to live in poverty
2. We already have millions of low-skill citizens who are looking for jobs
Overall, there is a massive pool of unskilled natives that needs work. In May 2010, 7.1 million natives with a high school
diploma or less were unemployed, another 3.1 million were not considered part of the labor force but reported wanting a job,
and 2.7 million more were working part-time for an economic reason. It would make no sense to grant permanent legal status
and full job market access to millions of unskilled illegal alien workers at the expense of these 12.9 million natives, not to
mention the millions more whose wages have been undercut by low-skill immigration. Politicians should not succumb to
corporate Americas addiction to ever-growing quantities of unskilled immigrant labor.
3. Legalization won't stimulate the economy--imposes enormous costs

Jena Baker McNeill, Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation, "Amnesty as an Economic Stimulus: Not the Answer to the Illegal
Immigration Problem," WEBMEMO, 51809, www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/05/Amnesty-as-an-EconomicStimulus-Not-the-Answer-to-the-Illegal-Immigration-Problem, accessed 11-8-13.
It Is Not an Economic Stimulus. Despite the claims that legalization would be an economic stimulus, the reality is that such a
decision would be very costly to the United States. While it is true that immigrants generally add to the economy, there has
been a flood of low-skill, low-educated migrants, most of whom have come to the country illegally and many of whom bring
with them similarly educated and skilled family members. These migrants use public services, health care facilities, and
schools while paying few of the taxes that support these public sector activities--at a very high price tag. Overall, households
headed by immigrants without a high school diploma (or low-skill immigrant households) received an average of $30,160 per
household in direct benefits, means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services in FY 2004. This cost would far
exceed the economic benefits of legalization.
116
Pathway Undesirable: Rule of Law

1. Amnesty actions compromise the rule of law
accessed 11-4-13.
To allow an amnesty would teach precisely the wrong lesson to Americas lawful immigrants and the culture at large. The
message of amnesty is: When a group of people who have violated the law grows too big to prosecute, the U.S. will simply
change the law to accommodate them. Even more, the U.S. will allow them to stay in the country until, ultimately, they become
permanent residents or even citizens. A massive pardon of intentional violation of law also undermines the rule of law,
particularly since it would be the second blanket amnesty in about a quarter century. Amnesty is also deeply unfair to all those
who waded through the United States complex and convoluted immigration system to come and remain here legally. The same
is true for the approximately 4.4 million individuals who at this very moment are waiting in line to come to the United States,
some of whom have been waiting for more than two decades.
2. All forms of amnesty are harmful to the rule of law and encourage unlawful immigration
accessed 11-4-13.
Amnesty Is Not the Answer to Unlawful Immigration. On occasion, proposals arise that would grant amnesty to aliens who
have entered the country unlawfully, or who entered lawfully but whose authorization to remain has expired. The term
amnesty is often used loosely with reference to aliens unlawfully in the United States. Sometimes it refers to converting the
status of an alien from unlawful to lawful, either without conditions or on a condition such as a payment of a fee to the
government. Sometimes it refers to granting lawful authority for an alien unlawfully in the U.S. to remain in the U.S., become a
lawful permanent resident, or even acquire citizenship by naturalization, either without conditions or on a condition such as
payment of a fee to the government or performance of particular types of work for specified periods. Amnesty comes in many
forms, but in all its variations, it discourages respect for the law, treats law-breaking aliens better than law-following aliens,
and encourages future unlawful immigration into the United States.
3. Amnesty rewards lawbreakingwe need to protect our citizens by enforcing our laws
Jon Freere, Legal Policy Analyst, The Myth of the Otherwise Law-Abiding Illegal Alien, BACKGROUNDER, Center for
Immigration Studies, 1013, http://cis.org/myth-law-abiding-illegal-alien, accessed 11-6-13.
The myth of the otherwise law-abiding illegal alien is powerful, but it is not grounded in truth. A large share of the illegal alien
population has violated numerous laws, oftentimes creating real victims. Enforcement of laws is necessary for the protection of
the interests of legal residents. Of course, even if laws listed above are enforced and the alien is punished through
imprisonment and/or a fine and later deported to his homeland, the porous nature of our borders may result in the alien
returning to the United States. A firm commitment to the rule of law is critical in a modern society. Yet immigration and
criminal laws are routinely violated and too many politicians spend time looking for ways to avoid holding the violators
accountable for their actions. This unwillingness to support the rule of law simply encourages more illegal activity and more
illegal immigration.
4. Amnesty only encourages law breaking and unlawful immigration

accessed 11-4-13.
America recognizes the importance of lawful immigration. Such immigration provides economic and cultural benefits both to
the United States and to the immigrants. In contrast, unlawful immigration challenges Americas ability to protect its borders
and preserve its sovereignty. Congress should search for appropriate ways to encourage lawful immigration and prevent
unlawful immigration, through careful step-by-step actions to address the wide variety of immigration issues, rather than
through one-size-fits-all comprehensive legislation. Congress should not adopt failed policies of the past, such as an amnesty,
which discourages respect for the law, treats law-breakers better than law-followers, and encourages future unlawful
immigration. When Congress implements step-by-step the proper policies, American will benefit greatly from the resulting
lawful immigration.
117
Pathway Undesirable: Rule of Law [contd]

5. Legalization undermines the rule of law, threatens immigrant safety
Jena Baker McNeill, Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation, "Amnesty as an Economic Stimulus: Not the Answer to the Illegal
Immigration Problem," WEBMEMO, 51809, www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/05/Amnesty-as-an-EconomicStimulus-Not-the-Answer-to-the-Illegal-Immigration-Problem, accessed 11-8-13.
It Erodes Rule of Law. Rewarding those who came into the U.S. illegally would encourage others to engage in same behavior.
It Threatens Immigrant Safety. Amnesty would encourage more people to cross the border illegally in hopes of staying in the
United States without repercussion. Crossing the southern border, however, is highly dangerous--there are many hazards,
including border smugglers who often rape and murder those they pretend to help. The U.S. should not provide an incentive for
more people to take this dangerous journey.
118
Pathway Undesirable: Rule of LawAnswers to Broken No Laws

1. Undocumented immigrants are in violation of many statutes
But the average illegal alien violates numerous statutes, often creating real victims. This Backgrounder details the many
statutes the average illegal alien who is simply "here to work" may be violating. The violations include laws involving the
entry, presence, and travel of illegal aliens as well as laws related to employment such as perjury and identity theft. Examples
of oft-violated but under-enforced laws include: False Personation of a U.S. Citizen (18 U.S.C. 911). Illegal aliens often
present themselves as U.S. citizens, an act punishable by up to five years in jail, a felony. This law is often cited in immigration
prosecutions and may involve, for example, an alien claiming U.S. citizenship to his employer. Fraud and False Statements (18
U.S.C. 1001). It is common for illegal aliens to make false statements to the government or on official documents. An illegal
alien violates this law when claiming to be a U.S. citizen on an I-9 Employment Eligibility form and faces a fine and up to five
years imprisonment. Social Security Fraud (42 U.S.C. 408). This statute has been invoked where an illegal alien provided a
false Social Security number for the purpose of acquiring a job, where an illegal alien used a fraudulent Social Security number
for the purpose of acquiring a driver's license, and when an illegal alien used a Social Security card belonging to a citizen in
order to obtain Section 8 housing, for example. Violation of this statute can result in a fine and/or imprisonment up to five
years. The court can also require violators to provide restitution to the victims. This Backgrounder does not address crimes of
violence, property crimes like vandalism, or other acts like gang activity and drunk driving. The focus is on statutes that come
into play when a person enters the country illegally or overstays a visa and becomes employed.
2. Amnesty would excuse undocumented immigrants for multiple crimes committed in the U.S.
If Congress were to pass an amnesty it would immediately give illegal aliens a pass for their violations of immigration law,
ranging from illegal entry to overstaying a visa. Many illegal aliens who might benefit from an amnesty have been ordered to
leave the country, and they have 90 days to do so from the final removal order. It is incorrect to refer to an alien in the United
States 90 days after a removal order as "law-abiding". The alien faces a fine and imprisonment for the violation. Any amnesty
or administrative pass for an alien's lawlessness would not be a pass for just the illegal entry or overstay of a visa, it would also
be a pass for the alien's decision to ignore the order of removal. It would be a literal get-out-of-jail-free card since the alien
would not have to pay a fine or face imprisonment as current law requires. But an amnesty would also likely give illegal aliens
a pass for the other crimes listed in this report. As written, violation of any of the dozens of laws listed below, such as those
involving identity theft, could result in an illegal alien being deported after paying a fine or serving time in jail for the violation.
However, proposed amnesties have been written so as to not render an applicant ineligible even if he has violated certain
statutes and committed some misdemeanors. And due to political priorities in the Obama administration, many of the laws
listed below are not being enforced anyway. Taken together, these policy prescriptions make the concept of conducting
background checks on illegal aliens applying for amnesty somewhat absurd. Nevertheless, some of these crimes currently being
committed by illegal aliens can amount to aggravated felonies and would prevent an alien from being deemed to have "good
moral character", permanently barring them from naturalization under existing immigration law. Millions of illegal aliens have
engaged in identity fraud, a crime that creates real victims. Yet it is unlikely that the White House would require aliens
applying for amnesty to declare the names and Social Security numbers they have used in the past. The original application for
the DACA amnesty did require applicants to list the Social Security numbers they had previously used; after amnesty advocates
complained, the Obama administration removed the requirement, leaving the American victims the true owners of the
numbers completely in the dark as to the crimes committed against them. Real victims have been created yet amnesty gives
these violations a pass, putting the interests of the illegal alien before the interests of the U.S. citizen. This is a fact rarely
addressed by amnesty advocates or journalists who perpetuate the myth of the otherwise law-abiding illegal alien. It is
important to remember that, ultimately, an amnesty is a free pass not only for the basic immigration violations, but also a free
pass for many other crimes committed during the alien's stay in the United States.
119
Pathway Undesirable: Social Cohesion

-
Amnesty provisions threaten the very cohesion of American society

accessed 11-4-13.
More than any other nation in history, the United States has welcomed immigrants in search of a better life. Over the past
several decades, however, immigration policy has become confused, unfocused, and dysfunctional. Millions of people who
entered the U.S. illegally belie the core principle of the rule of law and belittle the legal naturalization process, while continued
large-scale immigration without effective assimilation threatens social cohesion and Americas civic culture and common
identity. This is especially true when immigrants are assimilated into the welfare state rather than into a society of opportunity.
American citizens, as well as current and future immigrants, deserve better. In April 2013, the Senate introduced the Border
Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. But, instead of offering meaningful reform, the act fails
to address the intricacies of Americas immigration challenges by trying to solve everything in one colossal bill; it also imposes
exorbitant costs and is filled with political trade-offs and misguided policies.
120
Pathway Undesirable: Undocumented Immigration

1. Amnesty only encourages unlawful immigration
accessed 11-4-13.
Grants of amnesty, regardless of the form of the reward they give to aliens who knowingly entered or remain the U.S.,
discourage respect for the law, treat law-breaking aliens better than law-following aliens, and encourage future unlawful
immigration into the United States. If America suddenly awards legal status to aliens unlawfully in the United States, it will
treat them better than aliens abroad who follow Americas immigration procedures and patiently await their opportunity to get
a visa authorizing them to come to the United States. And, of course, if America suddenly awards legal status to aliens
unlawfully in the U.S., it will, as the IRCA amnesty proved, spur more aliens to enter or remain unlawfully in the United
States, in the confident expectation that Congress will continue enacting future amnesties that provide aliens unlawfully in the
U.S. a shortcut to legal status. The government should pursue a measured set of approaches to a wide variety of immigration
issues, but in all events exclude amnesty for aliens unlawfully in the United States.
2. Amnesty undermines the rule of law and only encourages more unlawful immigration
accessed 11-4-13.
According to the most recent numbers published by the Department of Homeland Security, there were an estimated 11.5
million illegal immigrants in the United States in January 2011. While the majority are believed to have crossed the U.S. border
illegally, approximately 40 percent of illegal immigrants overstayed the terms of their legal visa. Regardless, S. 744 would
create a framework for providing amnesty to the majority of these individuals. Amnesty comes in many forms, but in all of its
variations it discourages respect for the law, treats law-breaking aliens better than law-following aliens, and encourages future
unlawful immigration into the United States. The U.S. saw these facts ring true back in the 1980s when the United States last
granted a mass amnesty.
3. Amnesty/path to citizenship only facilitates more undocumented immigration--history proves

Vernon Briggs, Emeritus Professor, Labor and Human Resource Economics, Cornell University, "Illegal Immigration and
Immigration Reform: Protecting the Employment Rights of the American Labor Force (Native-Born and Foreign-Born) Who
Are Eligible to Be Employed," MEMORANDUM, Center for Immigration Studies, 410, www.cis.org/employment-rights,
accessed 11-8-13.
The Commission made no mention of any need to adopt any amnesty or pathway to citizenship for those illegal immigrants
already in the country, since the nations experiences in the past with such programs has demonstrated that they only serve to
foster more illegal immigration. There is no ambiguity in the existing laws, which clearly state that non-citizens who are
ineligible to be employed and who violate the nations immigration laws by seeking to work, as well as the employers who are
willing to hire them, have no right to do so. Given the adverse impacts on wages, employment, and working conditions that the
presence of illegal immigrants imposes on the nations large low-skilled work force (both citizens and non-citizens) who are
legitimately eligible to work, the policy necessity is to remove illegal immigrants from the workplace; not to legalize and
perpetuate their presence.
4. Legalization will only spur additional undocumented immigration

Matt A. Mayer, Visiting Fellow, Heritage Foundation, "Time to Stop the Rush on "Amnesty" Immigration Reform,"
BACKGROUNDER, 31810, www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/03/time-to-stop-the-rush-for-amnesty-immigrationreform, accessed 11-8-13.
With construction payrolls declining by more than 20 percent since the beginning of the recession and similar declines in other
trades heavily popu-lated by illegal immigrant workers, the slowing flow of illegal immigrants into the United States should
come as no surprise. However, the Obama Admin-istrations declaration by omission that the border is secure is a bit
premature.[6] One of the worst moves the U.S. could make would be to grant amnesty to the 10.8 million illegal immigrants
already in the U.S. illegally because this would spur further illegal immigration just like the 1986 amnesty helped to triple the
number of illegal immigrants from 1986 to 2006. Once the U.S. economy improves, the U.S. will have a more accu-rate picture
of whether the border is actually secure.
121
Pathway Undesirable: WorkersGeneral

1. Amnesty will decrease employment rates for native workers
accessed 11-4-13.
Another potential impact of unlawful immigration is a reduction in employment rates for native workers. This may be of
particular importance for youth and black male workers. Heavy competition for jobs can discourage less-skilled workers,
leading them to leave the labor force. As immigrants become the majority of workers in certain occupations, networking and
word-of-mouth regarding job openings may increasingly exclude natives. Finally, the abundance of unlawful immigrant labor
helps employers to avoid expending effort on recruiting potential U.S.-born workers from underemployed areas, such as
Appalachia or Midwestern industrial towns. Even if just one out of five unlawful immigrant workers displaced a legal resident
from a job, wage losses could amount to $14 billion annually. The tax loss and added welfare costs from this could reach $10
billion per year. The lifetime fiscal loss to government due to wage and job loss among U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants
might be around $790 billion. In addition, the decline in jobs and wages for lower-skill males may contribute to the long-term
decline in marriage in low-income communities; the social and fiscal consequences of this decline are enormous. Because
figures are imprecise, none of the indirect fiscal effects discussed in this section is included in the fiscal analysis in this paper.
2. Immigration decreases employment opportunities for minorities

11-8-13.
Impact on Employment. While more research has been focused on the wage effects of immigration, some work has also found
an impact on employment. A 2006 study by Borjas, et al., found that a 10 percent immigrant-induced increase in the supply of
a particular skill group lowered the employment rate of black men by 3.5 percentage points and increased the incarceration rate
of blacks by almost a full percentage point. Andrew Sum and his colleagues at Northeastern University have also published
several reports showing that all or almost all job growth from 2000 to 2004 went to immigrants. In a paper published for the
Center for Immigration Studies, Sum and his colleagues found that the arrival of new immigrants (legal and illegal) in a state
results in a decline in employment among young native-born workers in that state. Their findings indicate that young nativeborn workers are being displaced in the labor market by the arrival of new immigrants. A 1995 study by Augustine J. Kposowa
found that a 1 percent increase in the immigrant composition of a metropolitan area increased unemployment among minorities
by 0.13 percent. She concludes, Non whites appear to lose jobs to immigrants and their earnings are depressed by
immigrants. A 1997 report published by the Rand Corporation, entitled Immigration in a Changing Economy: Californias
Experience, authored by Kevin McCarthy and Georges Vernez (1997), estimated that in California between 128,200 and
194,000 people were unemployed or withdrawn from the workforce because of immigration. Almost all of these individuals
either are high school dropouts or have only a high school degree. Additionally, most are either women or minorities.
122
Pathway Undesirable: WorkersLow-Skill Citizens / Displacement

1. Undocumented immigration hurts the employment prospects for low-education citizens
Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research, Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants and the Employment Picture for Less-Educated
Americans, BACKGROUNDER, Center for Immigration Studies, 213, http://cis.org/amnesty-for-illegal-immigrants-andthe-employment-picture-for-less-educated-americans, accessed 11-6-13.
All of the available evidence indicates that the employment picture for those with relatively little education remains dismal.
The situation is particularly dire for those under age 30 who have no more than a high school education. Prior research
indicates that illegal immigrant workers are overwhelmingly those with relatively little education. While it would be a mistake
to think that every job taken by an illegal immigrant is a job lost by a native, it would also be a mistake to imagine that
allowing illegal immigrants to stay permanently in their jobs has no impact on labor market outcomes for U.S.-born workers.
The findings in this analysis make clear that Americans with relatively little education have been hit hard by the current
downturn. However, figures from the 2007, which are also included, show that the employment picture was not particularly
good for young and less-educated workers even when the recession started.
2. The undocumented compete with low-skill Americans for jobs

Of the estimated 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, seven to eight million are thought to be holding a job.
Rather than enforce immigration laws and encourage them to return home, President Obama and eight U.S. Senators have
proposed legislation that would provide work authorization and legal status to illegal immigrants. It would also increase legal
immigration further. Most research indicates that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants have no more than a high
school education. President Obama, and the so called "gang of eight", seems to believe that the kinds of jobs done by such
workers are plentiful. However, data from the fourth quarter of 2012 show that the employment picture is bleak for lesseducated native-born Americans, who are the most likely to compete with illegal immigrants for jobs.
3. Unlawful immigration drives our lowest income citizens out of the workforceproves that amnesty is a
terrible idea
accessed 11-4-13.
A final problem is that unlawful immigration appears to depress the wages of low-skill U.S.-born and lawful immigrant
workers by 10 percent, or $2,300, per year. Unlawful immigration also probably drives many of our most vulnerable U.S.-born
workers out of the labor force entirely. Unlawful immigration thus makes it harder for the least advantaged U.S. citizens to
share in the American dream. This is wrong; public policy should support the interests of those who have a right to be here, not
those who have broken our laws.
4. Undocumented workers directly take jobs from U.S. citizens

Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Illegal Aliens Taking U.S. Jobs, 313,
http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-aliens-taking-u-s-jobs, accessed 11-3-13.
Illegal aliens come to the United States to take jobs that offer them greater opportunity, and they are often welcomed by U.S.
employers who are able to hire them for wages lower than they would have to pay to hire U.S. workers. This employment is
illegal under a law enacted in 1986, but some employers ignore the law and hire illegal workers in the underground economy.
Others simply accept fake employment documents and hire the illegal workers as if they were legal. Because there is no
requirement to verify documents presented by workers, employers can easily evade compliance. The illegal alien workers are
mostly persons who sneaked into the country nearly all Mexicans or Central Americans who enter from Mexico. There is
also, however, illegal entry across the border with Canada, with apprehensions by the Border Patrol of more than 6,000 aliens
in 2010. There is also a significant portion of the illegal alien population that arrives with visas and stays illegally. These
overstayers' are estimated variously to between one- third and 40 percent of the illegal alien population. The defenders of
illegal aliens ethnic advocacy groups, employer groups, and church-based groups often assert that illegal aliens only take
jobs unwanted by U.S. workers. This is patently false because they are working in jobs in which U.S. workers are also
employed whether in construction, agricultural harvesting or service professions.
123
Pathway Undesirable: WorkersLow-Skill Citizens / Displacement [contd]

5. Undocumented workers displace 8.5 million citizens
Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Illegal Aliens Taking U.S. Jobs, 313,
http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-aliens-taking-u-s-jobs, accessed 11-3-13.
Just as the size of the illegal alien population can only be estimated, the number of illegal aliens working in the United States is
also subject to estimation. A large share of the illegal alien population is generally accepted as being in the workforce because
that is what motivates most illegal immigration. However, there are some family members, especially children of illegal aliens
not in the labor force, while others may be in prison. One recent estimate by researchers at the Pew Hispanic Center puts the
number of illegal aliens in the workforce at 8 million out of an overall population of 11.2 million illegal aliens, i.e., 71.4
percent. That estimate is generally accepted as reasonable. FAIR's estimate of the illegal alien population in 2010 is slightly
higher than that of the Pew estimate, i.e., 11.9 million. FAIR's estimate of the number of illegal aliens in the workforce
using the share estimate of the Pew study is similarly slightly higher, i.e., about 8.5 million jobs encumbered by illegal alien
workers.
6. Undocumented immigrants directly compete with citizen-workers

A common argument adopted by defenders of illegal immigration is that illegal aliens only take jobs that natives are unwilling
or unable to do. In reality, immigrants and natives compete in the same industries, and no job is inherently an immigrant job.
Less than 1 percent of the Census Bureaus 465 civilian job categories have a majority immigrant workforce, meaning that
most employees in stereotypically immigrant occupations like housekeeping, construction, grounds keeping, janitorial
service, and taxi service are actually natives.
7. Low-skill immigration concentrates its negative effects of low-income Americans

Regardless of their views about the overall economic effect of immigration, almost all economists agree that poor native
workers bear the brunt of its negative consequences. Foreign-born workers compete with natives on all skill levels, but because
immigrants to the U.S. are disproportionately unskilled, they are especially likely to undercut the wages of low-skill natives.
An analysis of Americas 25 largest metropolitan areas showed that in high-skill industry groups like health professionals,
technicians, administrative workers, and educators, immigrant earnings were usually within 10 percent of native wages;
however, in unskilled groups like construction, machine operators, drivers, and farming, foreign-born workers consistently
earned at least 10 percent less than their peers. Immigrant-native competition is an important concern in high-skill jobs, but is
much more acute in low-skill industries. Illegal aliens are the least skilled subset of the immigrant population, and therefore the
most likely to undercut the wages and working conditions of low-skilled natives. Among seventeen industry categories named
by the Pew Research Center as having the highest proportions of illegal aliens, data from the Current Population Survey reveal
that noncitizens earned lower wages than natives in all but one of them. Data for noncitizens, which includes legal and illegal
immigrants as well as temporary laborers, differ from data on illegal aliens because the latter tend to have lower wages and
fewer skills. However, data on noncitizens are a much better fit for illegal aliens than using the foreign born population as a
whole. In construction, noncitizens earned less than two-thirds of natives wage salaries, and in the two agricultural categories,
they earned less than half. Wage and salary differences demonstrate how illegal and unskilled immigrants place downward
pressure on wages by providing an incentive for employers to choose them over natives. e opportunity to exploit workers is
the reason big business clamors for more immigrant labor.
124
Pathway Undesirable: WorkersLow-Skill Citizens / Displacement [contd]

8. Low-skill immigration decreases domestic employment
A strong link exists between low-skill immigrant labor and native unemployment. Steve Camarota of the Center for
Immigration Studies found a correlation of 0.9 between low-skill immigrants share of an occupation and the native
unemployment rate in that occupation; the correlation between the illegal immigrant share of an occupation and native
unemployment was also high at 0.91 (the highest possible correlation is 1). Translated from statistical terminology, these
numbers show that illegal and low-skill immigration go hand-in-hand with a rise in native unemployment. e share of illegal
and low-skill immigrants in a job category explains about 80 percent of the variance in native unemployment between different
occupations. Any large-scale immigration reform must address the impact of both legal and illegal immigration on the
unskilled labor surplus. Congress could easily mandate cost effective employer-based measures such as E-Verify that would
deter illegal immigration and encourage voluntary emigration due to decreasing employment opportunities for illegal workers.
Illegal aliens are rational people. Most come seeking a job and generally will leave when they cannot find one. Border security
and deportation are key elements of immigration enforcement, but effectively denying employment opportunities is the most
efficient and effective way to keep illegal immigrants out of the country.
125
Pathway Undesirable: WorkersWages

1. Amnesty will decrease wages
accessed 11-4-13.
Conversely, there may be other indirect effects that substantially increase the fiscal drain created by unlawful immigrants. An
additional indirect fiscal effect would occur if the presence of immigrant workers in the U.S. reduced the wages or employment
of competing non-immigrant workers. For example, Harvard professor George Borjas has estimated that the very large influx
of immigrant workers between 1980 and 2000 lowered the wages of the average non-immigrant worker by 3.2 percent. In
particular, the disproportionate influx of low-skill immigrants was estimated to reduce the wages of low-skill native workers by
8.9 percent. The National Research Council has estimated that a 10 percent increase in the labor supply lowers the wage for
similarly skilled workers by 3 percent. In 2010, unlawful immigrants constituted about 25 percent of employed adults with less
than a high school degree. This means that unlawful immigrants have increased the labor supply of individuals without a high
school degree by one-third. Applying the NRC ratio, the wages of legal residents without a high school diploma have been
reduced by about 10 percent due to unlawful immigration. This amounts to $23.1 billion in lost income, or about $2,300 per
worker. A wage loss of $23 billion would result in around $8 billion in lost tax revenue (income, FICA, and consumption
taxes) and perhaps $6 billion in added welfare costs. The overall indirect fiscal loss to government would be around $14 billion
per year.
2. Employment/wage effects of immigration are felt nationally--interstate trade ensures

11-8-13.
Impact of Immigration Is Probably National, Not Local. The interconnected nature of the nations economy makes comparisons
of this kind very difficult for several reasons. Research by University of Michigan demographer William Frey and others
indicates that native-born workers, especially those natives with few years of schooling, tend to migrate out of high-immigrant
areas. The migration of natives out of high-immigrant areas spreads the labor market effects of immigration from these areas to
the rest of the country. There is also evidence that as the level of immigration increases to a city, the in-migration of natives is
reduced. In addition to internal migration patterns, the huge volume of goods and services exchanged between cities across the
country creates pressure toward equalization in the price of labor. For example, newly arrived immigrants who take jobs in
manufacturing in a high-immigrant city such as Los Angeles come into direct and immediate competition with natives doing
the same work in a low-immigrant city like Pittsburgh. The movement of capital seeking to take advantage of any immigrantinduced change in the local price of labor should also play a role in preserving wage equilibrium between cities. In addition to
the response of native workers and firms, immigrants themselves tend to migrate to those cities with higher wages and lower
unemployment. In short, the mobility of labor, goods, and capital as well as choices made by immigrants may diffuse the effect
of immigration, making it very difficult to determine the impact of immigration by comparing cities.
3. Immigration reduces wages by 10% in many sectors

11-8-13.
My Research on Wages. My own research suggests that the effect of immigration may be even greater than the estimates in the
NRC report. I compared differences across occupations nationally and found that the concentration of immigrants in an
occupation does adversely affect the wages of natives in the same occupation. My results show that immigrants have a
significant negative effect on the wages of natives employed in occupations that require relatively few years of schooling,
accounting for about one-fifth of the labor force. In these occupations, a 1 percent increase in the immigrant composition
reduces the wages of natives by 0.8 percent. Since these occupations are now on average 19 percent immigrant, my findings
suggest that immigration may reduce the wages of workers in these occupations by more than 10 percent. It should also be
added that native-born blacks and Hispanics are much more likely than whites to be employed in the adversely impacted
occupations.
126
Pathway Undesirable: WorkersWages [contd]

4. Immigration decreases employment and wages for less-educated American workers
11-8-13.
The last four decades have witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of immigrants (legal and illegal) arriving. The overall
immigrant or foreign-born population has increased from 9.6 million in 1970 (4.8 percent of the population) to 38 million (12.5
percent the population) in 2008. This massive immigration has sparked an intense debate over its costs and benefits. One of the
central issues in the immigration debate is its impact on American workers, particularly less-educated Americans who work at
the bottom end of the labor force, where immigrants are concentrated. There is some disagreement among economist about the
size of the impact on American workers. However, almost all economists agree that less-educated workers have done very
poorly in the labor market over the last four decades as immigration has increased. This testimony examines trends in wages
and employment and finds no evidence of a shortage of less-educated workers. Moreover, there is significant research showing
that immigration has reduced employment and wages for less-educated natives.
127
Pathway Undesirable: WorkersWorking Conditions

1. The influx of low-skill undocumented workers hurts working conditions for U.S. citizens
Todays immigration system is dysfunctional because it is not responsive to the socioeconomic conditions of the country. Only
a small share of legally admitted immigrants is sponsored by employers while the bulk are admitted because of family ties to
earlier immigrants who may be living in poverty or near poverty. As a result, immigration contributes to an already-existing
surplus of low-skilled workers, increasing job competition and driving down wages and conditions to the detriment of
American workers. e presence of a large illegal workforce perpetuates a vicious cycle as degraded work conditions
discourage Americans from seeking these jobs and make employers more dependent on an illegal foreign workforce.
Americas massive low-skill labor force and illegal alien population allow employers to offer low pay and deplorable
conditions.
2. Increasing the number of unskilled laborers decreases wages and working conditions
Immigration policy and enforcement are two of the most important determinants of Americas labor supply, and the U.S.
immigration system continues to contribute to the unskilled labor surplus, while the federal government has consistently failed
to enforce the laws prohibiting the employment of illegal workers. Between 2000 and 2007, immigration increased the supply
of high school dropouts in the labor force by 14.4 percent, compared to just a 2 to 4 percent increase for groups with higher
educational attainment. A large share of the increase in unskilled labor was caused by illegal entry over the same period, an
estimated four million illegal immigrants took up residence in the U.S., about two million of whom had no diploma and another
million of whom had no education past high school. The large influx of unskilled, sometimes desperate workers has allowed
employers to offer low wages and deplorable conditions. Special interests have successfully promoted the myth that Americans
refuse to do some jobs, but in truth, immigrants and natives work alongside one another in all low-skill occupations. Reducing
low-skill immigration, especially illegal immigration, would tighten the labor market and force employers to increase wages
and improve working conditions.
128
Pathway Undesirable: Answers to Americans Wont Take the Jobs

1. There are plenty of unemployed U.S. citizens to replace the undocumented labor force
It is difficult to overstate the size of the pool of potential workers that now exists in the United States. If through enforcement a
significant fraction of illegal immigrants returned to their home countries rather than being allowed to stay with legal status,
there would seem to be an ample supply of idle workers to replace them, particularly workers who have relatively little
education. Of course, employers might have to pay more and offer better benefits and working conditions in order to attract
American citizens. But improving the living standards and bargaining power of the least-educated and poorest American
workers can be seen as a desirable social outcome. The contention that there is a general labor shortage that has to be satisfied
by giving work authorization and/or citizenship to illegal immigrants rather than encouraging them to return to their home
countries is entirely inconsistent with the available evidence. Further both the President and the "gang of eight" have proposed
increasing legal immigration, including for jobs that require relatively little formal education. Again the data do not support the
contention that there is a general labor shortage in the United States or a shortage of less-educated workers.
2. New immigrants compete with citizens for jobsthere are no jobs that Americans just wont do
Related to the claim that there are not enough native workers is the assertion that Americans are unwilling to do certain types of
work. In fact, the overabundance of unskilled labor is what allows employers to offer the poor conditions and low wages that
make those jobs unattractive. In recent studies, some economists have advanced the idea that immigrants and natives cannot
substitute for one another in other words, that they take separate jobs in separate sectors and do not compete with one
another. Unfortunately, the studies that advance the myth of jobs Americans wont do are rife with methodological errors. A
careful examination of existing research and economic data demonstrates that natives and immigrants compete for the same
jobs, and that immigrants reduce native wages. The question of whether natives and immigrants can replace one another in the
labor force is one of the most important factors in determining the effect of immigration on native wages and the labor market.
Unfortunately, some economists have promoted the idea that immigrants only take jobs that natives are unwilling to do. Based
on the critical assumption that immigrants and natives rarely compete with one another, Gianmarco Ottaviano and Giovanni
Peris oft-cited 2006 model found a 19.6 percent decline in earlier immigrants wages due to immigration, compared to a 1.8
percent rise in native wages. The importance of the substitution question is difficult to overstate economists that incorrectly
assume a lack of substitutibility between immigrants and natives conclude that immigration increases the value of native labor
rather than creating competition. is helps create the illusion that immigration is a free lunch.
129
Pathway Undesirable: Answers to Center for American Progress Study

1. The Center for American Progress is wrongmisrepresents wage gains, ignores other factors
Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Analysis of Claims of an Economic Benefit from Amnesty, 513,
http://www.fairus.org/issue/analysis-of-claims-of-an-economic-benefit-from-amnesty, accessed 11-3-13.
Center for American Progress (CAP) claimed benefit of amnesty: CAP claims that amnesty "...will bring about significant
economic gains in terms of growth, earnings, tax revenues and jobs..." FAIR response: The fallacy with the CAP claim is that it
is based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the findings of a survey of recipients of amnesty in 1986. The authors
assume that increased earnings for amnesty recipients was across the board which it was not and that average wage gains
provided relatively greater economic benefit to the legalized population than to others who already were legal workers
which it did not. The average wage increase of 15 percent over the five-year period for illegal aliens gaining legal status (19871992) was the same as the increase for all non-supervisory workers, and it coincided with a rise of 26.9 percent in the federal
minimum wage.
2. Will not boost the economyIRCA proves, their evidence misrepresents the gains
Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Analysis of Claims of an Economic Benefit from Amnesty, 513,
http://www.fairus.org/issue/analysis-of-claims-of-an-economic-benefit-from-amnesty, accessed 11-3-13.
Center for American Progress (CAP) claim: Amnesty would be a boost to the U.S. economy. FAIR response: The studies that
CAP relied on to claim that amnesty would be a benefit misunderstand or misrepresent the results of survey data obtained from
beneficiaries of the 1986 amnesty. The survey data clearly establish that five years after gaining legal status, economic progress
had been achieved by only a minority of the amnesty beneficiaries those who were visa overstayers - and the majority of
beneficiaries had lost ground economically compared to other workers.
130
Pathway Undesirable: Answers to Comprehensive Reform Key

1. Immigration reform should focus on areas of agreement, and avoid divisive issues like amnesty
Dr. Matthew Spalding, Vice President of American Studies, Jessica, Zuckerman, Research Associate, and Dr. James Jay
Carafano, Vice President for Foreign and Defense Studies, Immigration Reform Needs Problem-solving Approach, not
Comprehensive Legislation, ISSUE BRIEF n. 3833, Heritage Foundation, 11713,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/immigration-reform-needs-problem-solving-approach-not-comprehensivelegislation, accessed 11-14-13.
Instead of a comprehensive bill, a problem-solving approach that treats each of the many issues in our immigration system in
its own lane can offer a better solution. In this manner, reforms can move forward in multiple areas at the same time and
advance toward meaningful and effective solutions. In so doing, lawmakers should: Reform the legal immigration system. Such
reforms would ensure that those who wish to come here legally can do so in a fair and efficient manner. These should include
reforms at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the streamlining of current visa programs, and enhanced
avenues for the entry of skilled workers, particularly those educated in the U.S. For those who stay, we must have a deliberate
and self-confident policy of immigrant assimilation. Make immigration more responsive to the needs of the economy. Such
efforts should include a targeted temporary worker program tied to market and workforce demands that would supply a
rotating, temporary workforce. Not only would a temporary worker program help to ensure employers labor needs are met, but
it would also help to disincentivize illegal immigration by supplying another avenue for legal entry and employment.
Reinvigorate interior enforcement measures. Measures and programs such as Social Security No Match, random workplace
inspections, checks of I-9 forms, and E-Verify help to discourage the use of illegal labor and send the message that the country
takes enforcement of immigration laws seriously. Enhance border security efforts. Through the use of technologies like
unmanned aerial vehicles and cameras/sensors, the Border Patrol can enhance monitoring and detection along the border in
order to better protect U.S. sovereignty and halt illegal border crossings. Cooperation between Mexican and U.S. law
enforcement through Border Enforcement Security Task Forces and the Merida Initiative, as well as ensuring that the U.S.
Coast Guard has the resources they need, also remain essential. Recognize state and local authorities as responsible partners.
Through programs like 287(g), which allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement to train state and local police to enforce
federal immigration laws, state and local authorities can enhance enforcement efforts and work with the federal government to
play a significant role in immigration policy. By beginning with the issues we agree on rather than those that divide us, we can
make progress in immigration reform and rebuild an immigration process in harmony with our highest principles and best
traditions.
2. Piecemeal approaches that build around points of consensus is the best way to fix our immigration
systemshould reject calls for comprehensive reform
Fixing Americas broken southern border and deeply flawed immigration system is often framed as a stark choice between
doing nothing or accepting a massive, sweeping, complicated bill that works at cross-purposes to its stated goals. Those are
tragic options for the future of freedom, fiscal responsibility, and responsible governance. Americans should demand better.
Today, Washington defaults to turning every big issue into Obamacaresolutions that are labeled politically too big to fail,
but in practice not only fail to address root problems, but make those problems worse. Repeating this practice will be a disaster
for immigration and border security. Worse, if Americans acquiesce to a comprehensive immigration bill they will send
Washington yet another signal that they are satisfied with a government that just does something rather than demanding
governance that actually solves problems. There are practical, effective, fair, and compassionate alternatives. Washington has
simply never tried them. For many years, The Heritage Foundation has laid out a problem-solving road map for addressing the
obstacles to immigration and border security reform. The principles behind these proposals have always been about fostering
the freedom, security, and prosperity of all Americans in equal measure. In addition, the Foundations approach recognizes that
Washington has a responsibility to help resolve the conditions that the federal government helped create, with porous borders,
burgeoning transnational crime, and millions living in the shadows. Immigration reform can move forward, focusing on
common sense initiatives that begin to address the practical challenges of immigration and border security. The key is to begin
by working on the solutions on which everyone can agree rather than insisting on a comprehensive approach that divides
Americans. Also, Washington must implement the mandates already on the books, follow through on existing initiatives, and
employ the authorities that Congress has already granted before taking on new obligations. What is needed next is a piece-bypiece legislative agenda, implemented step by step that allows transparency, careful deliberation, and thoughtful
implementation within responsible federal budgets.
131
Pathway Undesirable: Answers to Comprehensive Reform Key [contd]

3. A piecemeal approach is far superiorshould tackle issues one-at-a-time and give them the treatment
they deserve
accessed 11-4-13.
Take a piece-by-piece approach. Each aspect of immigration reform requires close attention to detail to make sure that any
policies are well crafted and actually solve the problems they were designed to tackle. Trying to fix immigration with one
comprehensive bill will only encourage special-interest handouts and ambiguous, poorly thought-out policies. Legal
immigration, temporary worker programs, interior enforcement, border security, state and local cooperation, and many other
important issues all deserve close inspection and rigorous debate. Tackling each of these critical policies one at a time will give
each the attention it deserves, and foster meaningful reform.
4. We should not fixate on comprehensive reforma piecemeal solution will work

In his upcoming State of the Union Address, President Obama will very likely address our nations broken immigration system.
Unfortunately, the President is expected to call for comprehensive immigration reform legislation. This very same approach
has failed to garner support in Congress time and time again, and is likely only to foster greater division. We invite the
President to instead take a problem-solving approach and welcome a discussion about finding real solutions to fixing our
dysfunctional immigration system and advancing real immigration reforms. Immigration reform can move forward on many
fronts at the same time, focusing on some commonsense initiatives that begin to address the practical challenges of our
immigration system. The key is that just as the many aspects and elements of immigration are not all the same and immigrants
in this country are not a monolithic block, there is not one comprehensive policy that will deal with all matters all at once. In
fact, comprehensive legislation, likely to be written behind closed doors and loaded with measures for special interests, will
make the problems it seeks to solve worse. A varied problem, instead, requires varied solutions which address each of our
immigration systems challenges on its own track. America needs a comprehensive approachnot comprehensive legislation.
5. Comprehensive bills end up including so many compromises that they are wholly ineffective and
create more problems
The President is expected to push for a comprehensive immigration bill in his State of the Union Address on February 12.
This approach has been tried and failed. Indeed, since the U.S. last passed such comprehensive legislation in 1986, the
estimated illegal immigration population in the U.S. has quadrupled. And the very same approach has failed to garner support
on either side of the aisle since President George W. Bush last proposed comprehensive immigration legislation in 2007. That
is because messy, compromised political deals will not solve problems. In fact, bills designed to solve everything, often loaded
with payoffs for special interests and often introducing measures that contradict each other, frequently wind up creating as
many and perhaps more problems than they intended to solve. But perhaps in the view of some, failure is the preferred option,
one in which they can demagogue the issue and blame their opponents for failure.
132
Pathway Undesirable: Answers to Enforcement Solves Any Problems

-
The 1986 IRCA shows that enforcement provisions promised with amnesty do not take hold
Jagdish Bhagwati, adjunct scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Treat Illegal Immigrants Decently, FINANCIAL TIMES,
72407, http://aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/elections/treat-illegal-immigrants-decently/, accessed 11-3-13.
The main problem, however, was that the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act had tried similar reforms to reduce the
number of illegals in the US under President Ronald Reagan but had failed. Many who opposed the proposed reforms knew
this and would not go along with them, convinced that history would repeat itself. As John Kenneth Galbraith once said about
his foe Milton Friedman: "Milton's problem is that his policies have been tried." The IRCA had a two-pronged strategy. The
amnesty would take care of the stock of illegals, estimated at 6 million. Only half took advantage of it, leaving an equal number
in illegal status (just as the new amnesty, burdened by even more onerous preconditions, surely would). The flows of illegals
were to be taken care of through enforcement at three levels: enhanced border enforcement, employer sanctions and raids
against illegals who were already in the US. None of these worked. Borders could not be controlled unless you were willing to
be rough. But you could not be, because illegal immigrants are human beings and could not be treated as if they were
contraband, in the manner of Elliott Ness shooting at the trucks bringing Canadian whisky to Al Capone in Chicago. Again,
those caught were not incarcerated but simply sent across the border and came back again and again till they got through. The
huge expansion of border enforcement under President Bill Clinton post-IRCA was therefore ineffective, at best redirecting,
instead of reducing, the inflow of illegals. As for employer sanctions, hardly any legal actions against employers were
undertaken. But even if there had been, few judges would have used draconian punishment against those giving employment to
the "huddled masses" seeking work. Equally, few Americans could contemplate with equanimity a manifold increase in
disruptive raids against illegals that many considered inhumane. So, the IRCA predictably did not eliminate the problem. By
the time the new reforms were being proposed, the stock of illegals had in fact doubled to an estimated 12 million and seizures
by the border patrol of illegal immigrants were running as high as 1 million annually, with a yearly absorption of 300,000
illegal workers in the labour force.
133
Pathway Undesirable: Answers to Labor Shortage

1. No worker shortage--unemployment levels prove
11-8-13.
Employment Trends. Employment data look as bad or even worse than wage data. This was true even before the current
recession, which began toward the end of 2007. In the third quarter of 2007 the share of high school dropouts (18 to 64)
holding job had been 48 percent. The remaining 52 percent were either unemployed or were not even looking for work. The
figure for 2007 was a significant deterioration from the third quarter of 2000, when 54 percent of native-born dropouts were
working. Not surprisingly, things have gotten much worse since 2007. By the third quarter of 2009, the share of natives (18 to
65) who had not completed high school holding a job had dropped all the way down to 43 percent. For adults (18 to 65) with a
high school education, but no additional schooling, the share holding a job dropped from 73 percent to 70 percent between the
third quarter of 2000 and the third quarter of 2007. By the third quarter of 2009 it was down to 65 percent. This is actually the
opposite of the trend we would expect if there was a tight labor market and workers were in short supply. But even before the
recession, there was a significant deterioration in the share of less-educated natives holding a job. Again, this is strong prima
facie that there is no shortage of less-educated workers in the United States.
2. We already have far too much unskilled laborthere is no need to import more
The U.S. economy is oversaturated with unskilled labor. In May 2010, the unemployment rate for high school dropouts reached
15 percent, compared to just 4.7 percent among those with a bachelors degree. 12 If one included workers who are employed
part-time for economic reasons or want a job but have given up looking, many more millions of unemployed or underemployed
workers are added to that total. Based on this measure, economists Andrew Sum and Ishwar Khatiwada used Current
Population Survey data to peg the underutilization rate of high school dropouts at 35 percent, compared to 21 percent for high
school graduates, 10 percent for bachelors recipients, and just 7 percent among advanced degree-earners. Wage data and
occupational patterns also indicate an unskilled labor surplus. e lowest rates of underutilization were found to be in
professional and managerial jobs like legal, computer, and math-related occupations. Low-skill jobs had by far the highest
underutilization rates, with food preparation and service at 24.7 percent, building and grounds cleaning at 24.6 percent, and
construction at 32.7 percent. Even before the current economic downturn, indicators revealed a surplus of unskilled labor, as
real hourly wages declined by 22 percent among male high school dropouts between 1979 and 2007. For male high school
graduates, the drop was 10 percent. Over the same period, real wages for college graduates rose by 23 percent.
3. There is no worker shortage--wage data prove

11-8-13.
Wage Trends. Hourly wages for men with less than a high school education grew just 1.9 percent in real terms between 2000
and 2007. This is far less than half a percent a year on average and not the kind of growth we would expect if such workers
were scarce. The long-term trend is much worse. Real hourly wages for men without a high school education are 22 percent
lower today than in 1979. If we look at male workers with only a high school degree, their real wages have actually declined
0.2 percent since 2000. Since 1979, men with only a high school degree have seen their hourly wages decline 10 percent. The
share of employers providing health insurance has also declined. No doubt there are employers who pay less-educated workers
much more than they used to, but the overall trend in wages and benefits, which has to be the basis of a public policy such as
immigration, does not support the argument that there is a shortage of less-educated workers. If there was a shortage, wages
should be rising.
134

Paradigm PF Dec13

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Paradigm PF Dec13

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

PARADIGM

IMMIGRATION REFORM SHOULD INCLUDE A PATH TO

If you enjoyed this fine book from PARADIGM RESEARCH,

Shop our online store anytime - www.oneparadigm.com

The Paradigm NFL Public Forum Position Paper

Copyright 2013 by Paradigm Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

First Edition Printed In The United States Of America

For information on Paradigm Debate Products:

Paradigm Research 2013-14

Pathway to Citizenship: Table of Contents

Pathway to Citizenship Desirable

Pathway to Citizenship Undesirable

Paradigm Research 2013-14

Pathway Undesirable: Fiscal BurdenGeneral ............................................................. 102

Paradigm Research 2013-14

Pathway to Citizenship: Overview

Paradigm Research 2013-14

Pathway to Citizenship: Overview [contd]

Paradigm Research 2013-14

Status Quo: Many Undocumented Immigrants Now

3. The number of undocumented immigrants is very large

Paradigm Research 2013-14

Status Quo: Many Undocumented Immigrants Now [contd]

Paradigm Research 2013-14

Status Quo: Undocumented Immigration Decreasing

2. Undocumented immigration from Mexico is in decline

3. Immigration from Mexico will slowmultiple reasons

4. Immigration is declining--multiple reasons

Paradigm Research 2013-14

Status Quo: Undocumented Immigration Decreasing [contd]

6. Immigration from Mexico is decliningwill only continue to decrease

7. Immigration from Mexico is starting to decline

Paradigm Research 2013-14

Pathway Desirable: Topshelf

2. Pathway will transform the lives of the undocumented

Paradigm Research 2013-14

Pathway Desirable: AgricultureTopshelf

2. Labor shortages are causing agricultural outsourcingthreatens widespread problems

3. Small decreases in supply risk price spikes--tight supplies

Paradigm Research 2013-14

Pathway Desirable: AgricultureTopshelf [contd]

Paradigm Research 2013-14

Pathway Desirable: AgricultureEconomy Concerns

2. GDP figures grossly understate the importance of agriculture to our economy

3. Agriculture is vital to the economy--strong jobs multiplier

Paradigm Research 2013-14

Pathway Desirable: AgricultureEconomy Concerns [contd]

Paradigm Research 2013-14

Pathway Desirable: AgricultureFood Outsourcing Concerns

3. We need to address agricultural worker shortages--the alternative is to increase food imports

Paradigm Research 2013-14

Pathway Desirable: AgricultureFood Outsourcing Concerns [contd]

5. The alternative to the plan is an increased dependence on food imports

6. Domestic worker shortages decreases food safety--import substitution

Paradigm Research 2013-14

Pathway Desirable: AgricultureImmigrants Key

2. Two-thirds of U.S. agricultural workers are undocumented--cannot replace with citizens

Paradigm Research 2013-14

Pathway Desirable: AgricultureImmigrants Key [contd]

5. Half of all current ag workers are undocumented

Paradigm Research 2013-14

Pathway Desirable: AgricultureImmigrants Key [contd]

Paradigm Research 2013-14

Pathway Desirable: AgricultureTrade Concerns