Senate Judiciary Hearing on Immigration
Senate Judiciary Hearing on Immigration
Date: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 7:26 PM
JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER
May 02, 2006 No. 1469
Last week the Senate Judiciary held a hearing where they pondered the
economic impacts of immigration. Every guest they invited were immigration
shills. The conclusion of this hearing was determined before the first
speaker.
The testimony centered on two classes of immigrants: high-skilled and
low-skilled. In their simplified vision of the world all high-skilled
immigrants use legal visas such as H-1B/L-1 or Green Cards. Low-skilled
workers are mostly illegal aliens. They never discussed the possibility
that a high-skilled worker could be an illegal alien, and yet the DHS has
arrested many of them that had jobs in places such as nuclear facilities
and aircraft maintenance. Illegal aliens also include out-of-status H-1Bs,
as well as illegals that take highly skilled craft jobs in various
industries but of course these "experts" never discussed these real-world
aspects of immigration.
If that wasn't bad enough, an article was published in the San Francisco
Chronicle by Carolyn Lockhead that was just as biased as the Senate
hearing. Lockhead (should be spelled Blockhead) didn't seem to think it was
necessary to present opposing views and she never questioned the validity
of having the hearing stacked with shills. Lockhead committed a major faux
pas by failing to mention that Dan Siciliano is a research fellow at the
supreme church of shillism - American Immigration Law Foundation (AILA).
She identified Siciliano as a Stanford Law School Professor without
mentioning who his real boss is.
The sections below contain are excerpts from some of the most egregious
testimonials. Since this newsletter deals primarily with work based visas
for high-skilled workers, I am purposely leaving out the discussions
concerning illegal immigration of low skilled workers. Analysis of the
testimony is followed by that dreadful SF Chronicle article.
For the sake of shortness, H-1B is used as an all inclusive term for work
based visas such as L-1, O, OPT, F-1, and Green Cards that are used by
foreigners who seek white collar jobs in the USA that are considered to be
mostly highly skilled.
To get to the home page of the hearing use this link:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=1851
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1851&wit_id=5259
Testimony of
Professor Richard B. Freeman
Program Director of Labor Studies
National Bureau of Economic Research
* Immigration is part of globalization. It is intimately connected to
increased trade, free mobility of capital, and transmission of knowledge
across national lines.
COMMENT: Freeman admits that immigration and globalization is one and the
same thing. He is almost quoting Mode 4 of GATS which mandates that
employers must have the right to move "natural persons" across national
boundaries without restrictions.
* Multinational firms today source highly skilled labor globally. They seek
the best workers they can get regardless of country of origin.
COMMENT: Freeman doesn't define what best is, but we all know that he means
"cheapest". He thinks global labor arbitrage is good.
* At the other end of the skill distribution, the US relies extensively on
highly skilled immigrants to maintain our comparative advantage in science
and technology. The United States imports science and engineering
specialists, who help the country maintain its position at the
technological frontier. Without this flow of immigrants, US labs, including
government labs such as those of NIH, would have to cut their workload in
half. Highly skilled immigrants add to the ability of our economy to
maintain predominance in high-tech industries with good jobs and growth
potential.
COMMENT: This is the argument shills have made even before H-1B became law.
They claim that without H-1B the U.S. will lose its technological edge.
Nevermind the fact that we lost our technological edge while at the same
time record numbers of H-1Bs came to the U.S. It's very important to note
that he is implying the U.S. has a shortage of scientists. Read the last
bullet to understand the significance of his shortage shouting in the
Senate.
* But having a huge flow of highly skilled immigrants invariably reduces
the incentives for American students to go on in science and engineering.
This does not however mean that the US must limit foreign flows to attract
more Americans into these fields.
COMMENT: I cut out some of the text in the middle so that Freeman's message
is loud and clear. He is saying that job destruction caused by H-1B and
student visas are the reason American students aren't majoring in
engineering - but then he turns right around and says we shouldn't limit
H-1Bs!
* As the number of university graduates is increasing throughout the world,
the competition facing educated American workers has risen. Is it better
for native born and resident Americans to compete with educated foreigners
from developing countries who come as immigrants in the US, where wages and
working conditions are reasonably high, or to compete with them when they
are working overseas, where wages and working conditions are generally
lower? Is it better to have US firms offshore jobs or bring in more
immigrants? While there is no definitive analysis of these questions, my
guess is that it is better to have the top foreign talent in the US; and to
do what we can to get them to become citizens and remain here than to have
them compete with US workers from lower wage settings overseas.
COMMENT: Freeman's false choices ignore the fact that by allowing foreign
students to take our best jobs we will be facilitating offshoring. He
didn't explicitly support F-4 visas but he sure made the case for them.
(F-4 visas would allow foreign students to stay in the U.S. for two years
after graduation to find a job, and then they would get green cards).
It's necessary to read what Freeman said to Science Wave in 2004 to
understand exactly why he thinks there are shortages of highly-skilled
workers.
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/3010/stimulating_careers_in_science_and_engineering/
* There is no shortage of scientists and engineers in the U.S. Between 1990
and 2003 the number of scientists and engineers increased more rapidly than
the rest of the workforce while earnings and career opportunities in these
fields fell short of those in other education-intensive fields. Unable to
gain independent research grants, young scientists spend years as low-paid
postdocs before gaining ?real jobs? in academe, industry, or government.
Many bright young Americans choose to invest in other occupations. Do you
want to be a 35-year-old postdoc earning $40,000 in someone else's lab, or
an MBA earning $150,000 working in a major business directing others?
* There is no shortage because the country has attracted large numbers of
the best and brightest students, researchers, and science and engineering
workers from foreign countries.
* Until this year the flow of students from overseas seemed unending. Were
it not for the flow of foreign-born researchers, U.S. science and
engineering would be in crisis.
COMMENT: Freeman's argument for H-1B is a convoluted exercise in circular
logic. First he claims there are no shortages but only because we import so
many foreign scientists. He then goes on to say that because we import so
many foreign scientists, Americans can't get jobs, which is why they don't
want to get scientific or engineering educations, which is why we have a
shortage, and why we need to import more scientists. Understand that
sentence and you will on course to be a college professor like Freeman!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1851&wit_id=5257
Barry R. Chiswick
UIC Distinguished Professor
Department of Economics
University of Illinois at Chicago
* The result of high-skilled immigration tends to be an increase in the
wages of all low-skilled workers (and reduce their use of public income
transfers) and a decrease in the wages of high-skilled natives. This
reduces income inequality, which we generally view as a good development.
COMMENT: Let's think just for a second what this bozo is saying: He says
that if a programmer or engineer on an H-1B visa comes to the U.S. to
displace an American the wages of landscapers will go up. Huh??? Sadly this
guy actually teaches economics. His leftist statement that the goal of H-1B
is to transfer wealth from Americans to the rest of the world is very
telling.
* High-skilled immigrants are also more likely to bring with them the
scientific, technical and innovative skills that expand the production
capabilities of the economy. As a result, the population as a whole tends
to benefit from high-skilled immigration, although with some benefiting
more than others.
COMMENT: Since he didn't say who benefits and who doesn't, allow me to fill
in the blanks. H-1B benefits employers who want to replace U.S. workers
with cheap labor, and it benefits H-1Bs who would rather work in the U.S.
instead of working in cesspools like India or China. Chiswick ignores the
fact that American workers are the ones that lose because he probably
doesn't care.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1851&wit_id=5258
Dan Siciliano
Executive Director, Program in Law, Economics, and Business
Stanford Law School
Research Fellow, Immigration Policy Center
American Immigration Law Foundation, Washington, DC
* Despite the critical role that immigration plays in preventing labor
shortages that might impede economic growth, many critics of immigration
argue that foreign-born workers reduce the wages of native-born workers
with whom they compete for jobs. However, this argument relies on an overly
simplistic understanding of labor supply and demand that fails to capture
the true value that immigrants bring to the economy.
COMMENT: This AILA shill that masquerades as an economist tries to make the
case that the law of "supply and demand" is too simplistic when it comes to
the labor market.
* Despite the seeming simplicity of this logic (more workers competing for
jobs results in lower wages for workers and higher profits for businesses),
the assumptions underlying the static model bear little resemblance to
economic reality.
COMMENT: If you want to torture yourself, go to his testimony to read his
flim-flam about a dynamic model that explains why immigration is good for
U.S. workers.
* Roughly three-fifths of the native-born labor force in 2004 had either a
high-school diploma or some college education short of a four-year degree,
whereas three-fifths of the foreign-born labor force either did not have a
high-school diploma or had at least a four-year college degree. Given their
different educational backgrounds, most native-born workers are therefore
not competing directly with foreign-born workers for the same types of
jobs.
COMMENT: Siciliano says that immigrants either don't have a high-school
diploma or they have a college degree. Given that, he said that these
foreigners don't compete with U.S. citizens because most citizens have
high-school diplomas or college educations. Huh? Ignoring the fact that
most white collar workers have college educations, does he know how many
U.S. citizens drop out of high-school? This convoluted logic could only
come from a PhD in economics!
* Employers searching for younger workers in less-skilled positions
therefore often find that a large portion of prospective hires are
foreign-born.
COMMENT: He admits that employers use immigrants in order to discriminate
against older and more expensive U.S. citizens. Of course he doesn't see
anything wrong with the practice.
* Studies that purport to demonstrate a negative impact on native-born
wages and employment levels rely on an overly simplistic economic model of
immigration and the economy. [b.s. snipped] Indeed, this makes clear that
the implication of the governments own BLS data cannot be ignored.
COMMENT: This is the one thing out of all the testimony that I agree with.
Siciliano is right - we should not ignore BLS data. Dr. Norman Matloff
computed the average starting salaries for new Master's graduates in Fall
2005, compared to Fall 2001 taking inflation into account. As you can see
they are going down. The year 2000 is the year that H-1B cap was increased
to 195,000 so the laws of supply and demand are working exactly as they
should. Matloff used BLS data to calculate these salaries. These figures
are probably too "simplistic" for Stanford Law School professors to
understand.
field % change, 2001 to 2005
Computer Science -6.6
Computer Engineering -13.7
Electrical Engineering -9.4
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1851&wit_id=5256
Testimony of
Professor Harry J. Holzer
Professor of Public Policy
Georgetown University
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1851&wit_id=5256
* There seems little doubt, then, that any negative effects of immigration
on earnings are modest in magnitude and mostly short-term in nature.
COMMENT: He is right about one thing, there is little doubt in the Senate.
That's the whole problem!
* There is virtually no doubt that immigration reduces the prices paid by
consumers on many goods and services. There remains much uncertainty about
the magnitudes of these effects, and on exactly who benefits the most. For
instance, higher-income Americans might benefit the most from child care
and other private household services, gardening, and food preparation
services in restaurants.
COMMENT: Many of you have lost jobs or have suffered salary depression due
to H-1B. NOT TO WORRY THOUGH - at least you can get cheap junk food, and
cheap maids!
* For example, the scientists and engineers needed to keep our nation
competitive in scientific innovation and new product development will
depend to a growing extent on foreign graduate students who choose to
remain here after finishing their schooling (Freeman, 2005), even though
their presence might reduce the incentives of some native-born students
from entering these fields.
COMMENT: It's the same old argument, except now the jobs Americans won't do
is scientific innovation.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/04/26/MNGB1IF7UA1.DTL
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Washington -- Senators heard leading economists examine Tuesday one of the
most highly charged issues in the emotional debate over immigration: Are
immigrants cheap labor for business, or do they fill jobs like lettuce
picking and chicken packing that native workers no longer want?
The economists testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the large
recent influx of low-skilled and largely Hispanic migrants may undermine
wages of low-skilled U.S. workers, though they differed on how much. But
the economists strongly endorsed the entry of high-skilled foreigners,
despite complaints from U.S.-born engineers in Silicon Valley that Indians
and Chinese are taking their jobs and undercutting their salaries.
The economists also largely agreed that immigrants -- including an
estimated 12 million now in the United States illegally -- have boosted
economic growth by reducing the price of labor, increasing output and
raising living standards for middle-class Americans, who benefit from
cheaper prices for everything from new homes to restaurant meals.
The Senate committee produced an immigration reform measure that included
tougher border security measures, a guest worker program that would
increase the number of temporary visas for those with jobs and a plan to
allow illegal immigrants to gain permanent residence. The legislation,
however, stalled on the Senate floor, and the committee is trying to craft
a new version that can win at least 60 votes to block a filibuster.
Harvard economist Richard Freeman, head of the labor studies program at the
National Bureau of Economic Research, said the biggest benefit goes to
immigrants themselves, a key point for policymakers grappling with the
largest wave of immigration in nearly a century.
A Haitian who moves to Boston vastly improves his life, and "if you're a
poor Mexican, your income in the U.S. will be six to eight times what it is
in Mexico," Freeman said.
Poor migrants "can change their entire lives," he said. "They are going to
be trying to come under almost any possible circumstance."
Freeman called immigration a part of globalization and said the United
States lives on highly skilled, educated immigrants who fuel the technology
industry. More than half of professionals with doctorate degrees in science
and engineering under age 45 are now foreign-born, he said.
According to the 2000 census, about half of the foreign-born, legal and
illegal, come from Latin America, and about a quarter are from Mexico.
Mexican migrants have much lower education levels than migrants from other
regions, the census found, with just over a third having completed high
school versus 80 percent or more from other areas.
Harry Holzer, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University, said
wage effects depend in part on whether immigrants compete with or
complement U.S. workers. Few Americans want jobs as farm laborers or food
processors, Holzer said, but many more want jobs in construction. He said
there might be "some modest negative effect" on wages of native-born high
school dropouts.
Dan Siciliano, executive director of Stanford University's program in law,
economics and business, warned the country faces a "mismatch" between its
aging and increasingly skilled workforce and the impending demands of Baby
Boom retirees for services, particularly in health care. He said immigrants
can help the United States "weather the storm of globalization" by keeping
the country competitive.
But Barry Chiswick, a University of Illinois economist, said the United
States admits too many unskilled workers, when it needs skilled ones to
compete internationally. Low-skilled migrants have contributed to the
widening income gap between low- and high-wage U.S. workers, he said.
He also dismissed calls by President Bush and Senate backers of a
wide-ranging immigration overhaul for a guest worker program.
"The best guest worker program is no guest worker program," Chiswick said.
"The maxim in immigration research is that there is no such thing as a
temporary worker."
But Freeman countered, "An illegal guest worker program is the worst sort,
which is what we are running today."
Harvard economist George Borjas, who produced the widely cited estimate
that unskilled immigrants have reduced wages of native unskilled workers by
8 percent, was invited to testify, committee aides said, but was
unavailable.
But Stephen Haber, director of the Stanford University Social Science
History Institute, said in an interview that Borjas' estimate is
reasonable.
Haber said the oft-repeated claim that native-born workers won't take the
jobs that immigrants do depends on the wages offered. "They're not going to
do it at the wage rate that Mexicans will take," he said, noting that the
meatpacking industry was dominated by native-born workers but now has heavy
concentrations of immigrants.
As for arguments that jobs would be sent offshore if higher wages make
those industries uncompetitive, Haber said many service jobs can't be sent
abroad, such as construction and food service.
"In that part of the labor market, the entrance of Mexican labor clearly
creates a downward pressure on wages. ... I happen to be sympathetic to
immigrants, but to pretend that it doesn't have this effect on wages and on
distribution is to stick our heads in the sand and argue from ideology
rather than argue from the facts," he said in an interview with The
Chronicle.
Economists largely agree, however, that highly skilled immigrants benefit
the economy, despite the argument that they reduce the incentive for
American children to enter fields such as engineering.
Siciliano said these workers should be invited to stay, and the United
States should invest in educating native-born youth, so that "the
5-year-olds right now do end up getting the double Ph.D in electrical
engineering and applied physics and go on to win the Nobel Prize. You're
talking about 5-year-olds, not the 25-year-olds. We need the 25-year-olds
to get an H1B (visa), have their own governments pay them to go to Stanford
University, and then go on to work at Google. That's a good deal for us."
The $2,000 fee for the H1B visa is spent on science and math education and
training. A survey by the National Foundation for American Policy, a
nonprofit research group, found that employers have paid more than $1
billion in H1B visa fees since 1999. The fees have funded more than 40,000
scholarships and grants for U.S. students in science and math, and science
programs for 75,000 middle and high school students, and provided training
for 55,000 U.S. workers and teachers, the study found.
www.ZaZona.com
Support this Newsletter and ZaZona.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm
To Subscribe, Unsubscribe or to view the Archive go to:
http://www.zazona.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm
Back to archives