[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                      THE U.S. IMMIGRATION SYSTEM:
                       THE NEED FOR BOLD REFORMS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               ----------                              

                      THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2021

                               ----------                              

                            Serial No. 117-3

                               ----------                              

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
46-838                      WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                    JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
                MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

ZOE LOFGREN, California              JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      DARRELL ISSA, California
    Georgia                          KEN BUCK, Colorado
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          MATT GAETZ, Florida
KAREN BASS, California               MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     TOM McCLINTOCK, California
ERIC SWALWELL, California            W. GREG STEUBE, Florida
TED LIEU, California                 TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          CHIP ROY, Texas
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DAN BISHOP, North Carolina
J. LUIS CORREA, California           MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon
LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 BURGESS OWENS, Utah
GREG STANTON, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MONDAIRE JONES, New York
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
CORI BUSH, Missouri

        PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
              CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director 
                               
                             ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

                     ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chair
                    JOE NEGUSE, Colorado, Vice-Chair

PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          TOM McCLINTOCK, California, 
J. LUIS CORREA, California               Ranking Member
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              KEN BUCK, Colorado
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas              ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       CHIP ROY, Texas
                                     VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana

                     BETSY LAWRENCE, Chief Counsel
                    ANDREA LOVING, Minority Counsel
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                      Thursday, February 11, 2021

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the Subcommittee on 
  Immigration and Citizenship from the State of California.......     1
The Honorable Tom McClintock, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee 
  on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of California....     2
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     4

                               WITNESSES

Marielena Hincapie, Executive Director, National Immigration Law 
  Center
  Oral Testimony.................................................     6
  Prepared Statement.............................................     9
Jennifer Hunt, Professor of Economics, Rutgers University
  Oral Testimony.................................................    24
  Prepared Statement.............................................    26
John Lettieri, President and CEO, Economic Innovation Group
  Oral Testimony.................................................    32
  Prepared Statement.............................................    34
Peter Kirsanow, Partner, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff 
  LLP
  Oral Testimony.................................................    43
  Prepared Statement.............................................    45

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

A briefing report entitled ``The Impact of Illegal Immigration on 
  the Wages and Employment Opportunities of Black Workers,'' 
  submitted by Peter Kirsanow, Partner, Benesch, Friedlander, 
  Coplan & Aronoff LLP...........................................    51
Statement of Wade Henderson, President & CEO, The Leadership 
  Conference on Civil and Human Rights, submitted by the 
  Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Member of the Subcommittee on 
  Immigration and Citizenship from the State of Texas for the 
  record.........................................................   120
Items submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the 
  Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of 
  California for the record
  Statement from the Alliance for Immigrant Survivors entitled 
    ``The Needs of Immigrant Survivors and Comprehensive 
    Immigration Reform''.........................................   132
  Statement from the Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC)....   137
  Statement from Boundless Immigration Inc.......................   141
  Statement from Bridges Faith Initiative (BFI)..................   143
  Statement from Church World Service (CWS)......................   150
  Statement from Cities for Action entitled ``A Vision for 
    Immigration Action''.........................................   151
  Statement from the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Los 
    Angeles, California (CHIRLA).................................   175
  Statement from First Focus Campaign for Children...............   179
  A report entitled ``Interfaith Framework for Welcoming and 
    Supporting Migrants, Immigrants, Asylum Seekers, and 
    Refugees,'' Interfaith Immigration Coalition (IIC)...........   184
  Statement from Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)..................   216
  Statement from the National Korean American Service & Education 
    Consortium (NAKASEC) Network.................................   220
  Statement from NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice.......   231
  Statement from the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and 
    Immigration..................................................   233
  Statement from Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Action Fund..   243
  Statement from the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism 
    (RAC)........................................................   251
  Statement from United We Dream.................................   254
  Statement from the Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights   262
Judiciary Committee Republican Staff Report entitled ``How the 
  Biden Administration's Immigration Proposals Risk Undoing the 
  Successes of the Trump Administration,'' submitted by the 
  Honorable Tom McClintock, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 
  Immigration and Citizenship from the State of California for 
  the record.....................................................   270
Statement of the Honorable Andy Biggs, submitted by the Honorable 
  Tom McClintock, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 
  Immigration and Citizenship from the State of California for 
  the record.....................................................   302

                                APPENDIX

Items submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the 
  Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of 
  California for the record
  Statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 
    (USCCB)......................................................   306
  A letter from Dairy Farmers of America (DFA)...................   319
  Statement from the American Federation of Labor and Congress of 
    Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)...........................   320
  A letter from the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)..   323
  A letter from the Worldwide ERC................................   325
  Statement from TechNet.........................................   327
  Statement from Community Change Action and the Fair Immigration 
    Reform Movement (FIRM) Action................................   328

                 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD

Questions for Marielena Hincapie, submitted by the Honorable 
  Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from 
  the State of New York for the record...........................   332
Response to questions from Marielena Hincapie, submitted by the 
  Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York for the record............   333

 
                      THE U.S. IMMIGRATION SYSTEM:
                       THE NEED FOR BOLD REFORMS

                              ----------                              


                      Thursday, February 11, 2021

                        House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:53 p.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Zoe Lofgren 
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Lofgren, Nadler, Jayapal, Correa, 
Garcia, Escobar, Jackson Lee, Scanlon, McClintock, Biggs, 
Tiffany, and Spartz.
    Staff Present: Madeline Strasser, Chief Clerk; Cierra 
Fontenot, Staff Assistant; John Williams, Parliamentarian; 
Betsy Lawrence, Chief Counsel; Anthony Valdez, Professional 
Staff Member; Andrea Loving, Minority Chief Counsel for 
Immigration; Kyle Smithwick, Minority Counsel; and Kiley 
Bidelman, Minority Clerk.
    Ms. Lofgren. The Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Citizenship will come to order, a quorum being present. Without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the 
Subcommittee at any time.
    We welcome everyone to this hearing, ``The U.S. Immigration 
System: The Need for Bold Reforms.''
    As with our prior actual meeting, I'd like to remind the 
Members that we've established an email address and 
distribution list dedicated to circulating exhibits, motions, 
or other written material that Members may want to offer as 
part of our hearing today. If the Members would like to submit 
materials, please send them to the email address that has 
previously been distributed to your office and we will 
circulate the materials to Members and staff as quickly as we 
can.
    As mentioned earlier, we have mask guidance, but since 
every Member is participating in this hearing virtually, I will 
not read the mask guidance.
    Finally, I'd ask all Members to mute their microphones when 
they're not speaking. That will help us avoid unfortunate 
feedback.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    I'd like to welcome our Witnesses and Members of the 
Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee to today's hearing on 
the need for bold reforms to the U.S. immigration system.
    I'd like to start today's hearing by looking back. One of 
the first hearings I Chaired on behalf of the Immigration 
Subcommittee took place in March of 2007. The topic was the 
role of immigration in American society, and we convened that 
hearing on Ellis Island, a location that could not be more 
fitting or poignant. That day, we examined America's rich 
history by reflecting on personal stories of immigrants who 
were admitted to the United States through the island's great 
hall, many fleeing religious persecution and many others 
seeking the American Dream. I shared the story of my 
grandfather, who more than 100 years ago boarded a ship from 
Sweden and landed in Boston. He had no money and he spoke no 
English, but he had fearless optimism and big dreams.
    While fearlessness, optimism, and the audacity to dream 
continues to drive people to our shores today, so too does 
their persecution. In that respect, little has changed from the 
Ellis Island era. Today, when it comes to immigration reform, 
we remain confronted with many of the same challenges and 
questions that we faced in 2007.
    With an estimated of 11 million undocumented immigrants 
currently living in the United States and a legal immigration 
system that has not been meaningfully updated in over 30 years, 
and I would add, really maintains the same framework that we 
devised in 1965, our immigration laws are in need of reform. So 
far, Congress has been unable to rise to the moment. I remain 
hopeful that this Congress we'll finally get something done.
    In 2019, the House passed two significant immigration 
reforms on a bipartisan basis: The American Dream and Promise 
Act and the Farm Workforce Modernization Act. We intend to once 
again take up and pass these and other important bills.
    This Congress, we also have a President who's made it clear 
that immigration reform is a top priority for his 
Administration. On his first day, President Biden announced an 
overview of his bold vision for immigration reform, the U.S. 
Citizenship Act. Although actual text has not yet been 
unveiled, U.S. Citizenship Act would, among other things, 
provide an opportunity for undocumented individuals to apply 
for lawful status, modernize the immigration system by 
prioritizing family unity and economic growth, manage the 
border with smart investments, and borrowing heavily from 
legislation I authored last Congress to address the root causes 
of migration in our hemisphere, ensure that the United States 
remains a refuge for those fleeing persecution.
    Our immigration laws are complex and far reaching. With 
that in mind, there will certainly be issues that are not 
covered in the bill, but the framework alone serves as an 
important starting point for today's discussion. It is my hope 
that this hearing will create momentum for building a rational, 
reasonable, and workable 21st century immigration system that 
meets our Nation's needs and prepares us for the future. I look 
forward to our discussion today and to hearing from all our 
Witnesses.
    It's now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee, the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock, 
for any opening statement that he may wish to provide.
    Mr. McClintock.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Before we took a wrecking ball to our economy last year, we 
were enjoying one of the greatest expansions of economic 
opportunity in our lifetimes. Unemployment was at its lowest 
level in 50 years, the poverty rate was at its lowest rate in 
60 years, wage growth was the strongest in 40 years. The wage 
gap was narrowing for the first time in many decades as blue-
collar wages began to increase dramatically. The unemployment 
rate for women was the lowest in 70 years for African 
Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, veterans, and 
disabled Americans. Those without a high school diploma, 
unemployment was the lowest ever recorded.
    The labor participation rate began to increase after years 
of decline as workers who'd given up hope of finding work began 
seizing opportunities. The participation rate for men between 
the ages of 25 and 34 grew for the first time since 1962. Big 
business and big agriculture hated this because it required 
them to pay higher wages. In the growing economy that it 
produced, many more people were prospering than in many 
decades.
    Tax and regulatory relief obviously explain much of the 
success, but the extraordinary improvement of wages for 
unskilled and low-skilled workers begs for greater insight. 
Could it be that the Trump Administration's success in 
restoring control of our borders stemmed the flood of low-wage 
labor into the job market that had been suppressing wages for 
American workers for decades? We'll soon find out the answer to 
that question.
    President Biden has signed several Executive Orders in the 
last few weeks that together are already producing a new 
migrant crisis on the southern border. Customs and Border 
Protection agents report that the daily flow on the southern 
border has nearly doubled, from 2,000 last month to 3,500 this 
month. The number of illegal immigrants encountered on the 
southern border during the first 4 months of fiscal year 2020 
is roughly 165,000. That number has nearly doubled for the 
first 4 months of fiscal 2021 to 297,000.
    The effect of these executive orders includes abandoning 
the border wall, questioning the long-standing promise that 
immigrants should be able to support themselves, releasing 
illegal immigrants with minors into the interior, ending the 
remaining Mexico policy for those claiming asylum in the United 
States after they traveled through other countries where they 
could have sought it, granting what amounts to sanctuary status 
for a wide variety of criminal offenses, including drunk 
driving and sex offenses, and ordering ICE not to enforce 
immigration laws for 100 days to have been stayed by the 
Federal courts.
    Now, apparently, this isn't bold enough for the open 
borders left in seeking even bolder actions. I'm sure we'll get 
a glimpse of that today. Every American needs to fully 
understand the implications of these policies to their own 
futures. We're not going to enforce our immigration laws if our 
borders mean nothing. If our borders mean nothing, we're no 
longer a country; we're just a vast international territory 
between Canada and Mexico, both of which, by the way, have 
immigration laws that they actually enforce.
    I hope my Democratic colleagues will take the time to 
answer some basic questions that the American people have a 
right to know. How are American workers helped by flooding the 
labor market with another wave of illegal immigration? How are 
our children, who've been robbed of an entire year of 
education, helped by filling their classrooms with non-English 
speaking classmates? How are our streets made safer by allowing 
aliens who drive drunk to remain on our roads rather than be 
arrested and placed in removal proceedings? How is our Nation 
made safer by reopening virtually unrestricted travel with 
hotbeds in international terrorism? How are our communities 
made safer by making it harder to deport criminal illegal 
aliens and gang Members? How are our hospitals made more 
accessible by overwhelming emergency rooms with illegal 
immigrants demanding care? If you're going to advocate for 
these policies, you have an obligation to answer these 
questions.
    I want to conclude on a hopeful note. If the majority wants 
to make progress this session, there's not only room for 
compromise, but there's also a necessity for it. We do need to 
provide legal status to children brought here illegally who 
have grown up here and have no memory of their home country, 
and we need to reform our temporary agricultural worker 
program. We cannot address these issues until we secure our 
borders and enforce our immigration laws. Otherwise, we just 
invite a new wave of illegal immigration, just like we're 
seeing right now. If you want to make progress, the minority's 
anxious to start down this road.
    I thank you very much. I yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair of the Full Committee, Mr. Nadler, is recognized 
if he would like to offer and opening statement.
    Chair Nadler. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
    Although we have many legislative priorities this Congress, 
immigration reform is one of the most pressing and complex. The 
damage inflicted on our immigration system over the last 4 
years has generated a renewed sense of urgency around the need 
to enact protections for the undocumented and other critical 
measures.
    Not only must we get immigration reform done soon, but we 
must also get it right. Our approach to immigration will shape 
our future in defining who we are as a society. When we thank 
the honest, hardworking people who have served our Nation as 
essential workers during the COVID pandemic by providing them 
with the opportunity to obtain lawful status, will we ease 
restrictions from the 1996 laws and allow families to be 
reunited and remain together lawfully? Will we choose an 
approach that welcomes talented STEM professionals, academics, 
and others from around the world to strengthen our economy and 
increase our global competitiveness? Will we finally allow 
young people who have grown up in this country without lawful 
status a full opportunity to pursue the American Dream?
    Fortunately, we now have a President who believes the 
answers to these questions should be yes. I applaud President 
Biden for his bold vision for immigration reform and for making 
it a top priority for his Administration.
    The benefits of immigration are clear. Immigrants are our 
friends and neighbors. They enrich our society, our culture, 
and our economy. Just like U.S. citizens, they pay taxes, work, 
and support local businesses. It is estimated that the $11 
million undocumented immigrants in the United States pay nearly 
$12 billion annually in State and local taxes. This number 
would only grow if they were provided with the chance to obtain 
legal status.
    The important role that immigrants play in keeping our 
country running has also been laid bare by the COVID-19 
pandemic. It is estimated that three in four undocumented 
workers are engaged in work that is deemed essential by the 
Department of Homeland Security. Further, as more and more baby 
boomers leave the workforce, immigration will play a key role 
in sustaining our current workforce levels. To maintain and 
strengthen our position as a leader among developed countries, 
immigration reform must be part of our overall strategy for 
economic growth.
    Last Congress, the House passed several significant pieces 
of immigration reform legislation. These include the American 
Dream and Promise Act and the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, 
which collectively would provide legal status to an estimated 
3.5-4 million undocumented immigrants. We also passed other 
bills that are smaller in size but significant in impact.
    For example, we passed the NO BAN Act, which prohibits 
discrimination based on religion in our immigration system and 
prevents executive overreaching suspending the admission of 
immigrants. We also passed the Access to Counsel Act, which 
would provide important protections at ports of entry to 
individuals seeking admission by ensuring they have the ability 
to consult with counsel or other interested parties if they are 
subjected to prolonged inspection.
    It is incumbent upon us to pass these and other measures as 
soon as possible and to build upon these successes to improve 
our immigration system to the benefit of our country.
    I want to thank the Chair, Ms. Lofgren, for holding this 
valuable hearing. I thank all of today's Witnesses, especially 
my constituent, Professor Hunt, for participating in this 
important discussion.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
    I do not believe that Mr. Jordan is yet with us. If he is 
able to come later, he will of course be recognized if he 
wishes to provide an opening statement.
    With that, all other opening statements, by unanimous 
consent, will be made part of the record. It is now my pleasure 
to introduce the Witnesses that we have here today.
    First, we have Marielena Hincapie. I probably mispronounced 
her name. She is the Executive Director of the National 
Immigration Law Center and the National Immigration Law Center 
Immigration Justice Fund. She began her tenure at NILC in 2000 
as a staff attorney leading the organization's labor and 
employment rights program. During that time, she successfully 
litigated law reform in impact litigation cases dealing with 
the intersection of immigration and employment law. She then 
served as the NILC's director of programs from 2004-2008, after 
which she became Executive Director.
    She immigrated to the United States from Colombia as a 
child. She earned her juris doctor degree from Northeastern 
University School of Law.
    Next, we have Jennifer Hunt, who is a Professor of 
Economics at Rutgers University. From 2013-2015, while on leave 
from Rutgers, she served as the Chief Economist for the U.S. 
Department of Labor and later as Deputy Assistant Director for 
Microeconomic Analysis at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. 
She is a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic 
Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a Research Fellow at 
the Center for Economic Policy Research in London. Her current 
research focuses on immigration and wage inequality.
    She received her Ph.D. in economics from Harvard and her 
bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    Next, we have John Lettieri. He is President and CEO of the 
Economic Innovation Group, EIG. Prior to this, he was Vice 
President of Public Policy and Government Affairs for the 
Organization for International Investment. He has also 
previously served as the foreign policy aide to U.S. Senator 
Chuck Hagel, who was then a Senior Member of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee. His commentary and research have been 
cited in dozens of publications, including the Associated 
Press, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post.
    Mr. Lettieri is a graduate of Wake Forest University, where 
he studied political science and global commerce.
    Finally, but not least, Peter N. Kirsanow is a Member of 
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. He was first appointed to 
the Commission in 2001 and was reappointed in 2007-2013, and 
2019. He is a partner at the Cleveland, Ohio, law firm of 
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, LLP, in the labor and 
employment practice group. Mr. Kirsanow is also a former member 
of the National Labor Relations Board.
    He received his bachelor's in 1976 from Cornell and his 
J.D. with honors in 1979 from Cleveland State University.
    We welcome all our distinguished Witnesses and thank them 
for participating in today's hearing. I'll begin by swearing in 
all our Witnesses, all of whom are testifying remotely. I would 
ask that each of you turn on your audio and make sure we can 
see your face and your raised right hand while I administer the 
oath.
    All right. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury 
that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to 
the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help 
you God?
    Let the record reflect that the Witnesses have answered in 
the affirmative.
    First, let me note that your written statements will be 
entered into the record in their entirety. Accordingly, I'll 
ask that you summarize your testimony in about 5 minutes. To 
help stay within that time limit, there's a timer on your 
screen, or there should be, to help you keep track of the time.
    So, we'll begin with Ms. Hincapie. You will mention your 
name so I can pronounce it properly in the future. You are 
recognized for 5 minutes.

           TESTIMONY OF MARIELENA HINCAPIE

    Ms. Hincapie. Thank you. Thank you, Committee Chair Nadler, 
Subcommittee Chair Lofgren, Ranking Member McClintock, and 
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today.
    I am here today because my parents, Arturo and Teresa, 
moved from Colombia to work in Rhode Island's textile factories 
to give their ten children better opportunities. Today my 
family includes educators, health professionals, entrepreneurs, 
emerging leaders in finance, climate, engineering fields, and 
students.
    I'm a naturalized citizen, a lawyer, and the Executive 
Director of the National Immigration Law Center. We believe 
that all of us, regardless of where we were born, how much 
money we have, or the color of our skin should have the freedom 
to thrive.
    We are at a pivotal moment in this Nation. A historic 
number of voters ranging from Black women to naturalized 
citizens voted for a President who would unify our Nation and 
reclaim the United States' position as a beacon of hope. They 
voted for an economy that gives everyone, including immigrants, 
a fair shot, and they voted with increasing recognition that 
immigrants are keeping our country running through the pandemic 
and doing their part to keep our loved ones healthy, and cared 
for.
    We are at the beginning of a new era. Together with the 
combined efforts of the Biden Administration and congressional 
leadership, we must deliver on the promise that our Nation has 
held for previous generations; we must recognize immigrants are 
essential. The Biden Administration and Congress should know 
that including immigrants in building a better future is not 
only morally and economically sound but also carries strong 
bipartisan support from voters across the political spectrum.
    Today we will focus on the need for bold reforms. First, 
I'll share a few stories of the people whose lives and humanity 
make them essential to our country. Take Dr. Abudu, from Ghana 
who works as an emergency room physician in California. He came 
to the U.S. as a teenager and is saving lives every day. He 
says that working in healthcare during the pandemic is hell and 
it is heartbreaking. Last month, one of his coworkers, also a 
physician, died of COVID. Yet, Dr. Abudu shows up for work 
risking his own life to save
others.
    Catherine `Ofa Mann from Tonga, is educating Pacific 
Islander communities about COVID and working to reduce 
transmission rates while encouraging those who need it to seek 
care despite their fear. In her words, ``They take care of 
their own because they heard that people go to the hospital and 
die.''
    Then there is Saul Sanchez from Mexico, who lived in 
Colorado and proudly worked at a meat processing plant for 
years to provide for his family. Mr. Sanchez was hospitalized 
in the very hospital his daughter works as a nurse, where he 
died from COVID. His family was unable to tell him that they 
loved him before he took his final breath.
    Like them, there are millions more who you will impact 
through your actions. The status quo is simply not acceptable. 
We are in the third decade of the 21st century, yet we're still 
stuck in a 1980s immigration system. We must find a new way 
forward. We need a 21st century immigration system and policies 
that begin to address the root causes so that people have the 
freedom to remain in their home country. We must create legal 
channels so people can move to the U.S. to be reunited with 
loved ones, pursue an education or employment opportunities.
    Our immigration system must advance racial, economic, and 
gender justice equity and inclusion. It's time to end the 
dynamic of having immigration status function as the gatekeeper 
to accessing basic necessities and rights for all.
    We applaud President Biden's visions set forth in the U.S. 
Citizenship Act. We call on congressional leadership and 
Members of the Subcommittee to support the swift passage of 
bold, inclusive bills that will provide a pathway to 
citizenship without punitive provisions.
    Congress must also recognize the essential workers who are 
critical to our recovery and place them on a fast track to 
citizenship. The urgency is clear. Each day without legislative 
solutions causes suffering, not only for immigrants but also 
for their U.S. citizen loved ones, employers, schools, local 
communities, and to our country.
    Today's immigrants are simply seeking the same 
opportunities that generations of immigrants, like my parents 
and many of your families and ancestors, have had before them 
the chance to build a better future. This is a time for moral 
imagination and leadership as we work to safeguard and 
strengthen our democracy, heal from racial inequalities and 
injustices, and recover from this global pandemic that has 
reminded us how interdependent we all are.
    The time is now. Immigrants are essential for the soul of 
America, and so we must Act boldly together to make good on the 
promise of America. Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Hincapie follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you so much. The gentlelady's time has 
expired. Now we'll hear from Professor Hunt for about 5 
minutes. You're recognized.

                 TESTIMONY OF DR. JENNIFER HUNT

    Dr. Hunt. Thank you, Chair Nadler. Thank you, Chair Lofgren 
and Ranking Member McClintock. My name is Jennifer Hunt. I'm a 
Professor of Economics at Rutgers University where I study the 
economics of immigration.
    There's a remarkable amount of agreement among economists 
as to the impact of immigration on the economy, and this is 
reflected in a 2017 consensus report written by a panel 
convened by the National Academy of Sciences. I was a member of 
that committee, and in my testimony today I'm mostly going to 
summarize the main results of that report and while also 
pointing out an area which lacked consensus.
    So, let me begin with the impact of immigration on the 
economy as a whole. When immigrants arrive in the United States 
they increase the labor force, thus causing more goods and 
services to be produced, which is the same thing as saying that 
gross domestic product, or GDP, rises. More subtly, immigration 
also increases GDP per capita and GDP per native-born American.
    One reason for this is that immigration allows greater 
specialization. So, immigrants come with slightly different 
skills from native-born workers, and this allows those native-
born workers to specialize more in the things that they're best 
at, which raises their productivity. Now, this increased 
specialization comes about whether the immigrants differ from 
the native born by having higher skills or by having lower 
skills than native-born workers.
    Another impact of immigration on the economy as a whole is 
the increased growth in GDP per capita, and this comes about 
because immigrants innovate more than native-born Americans.
    Turning to the labor market, the report found that 
immigration has no effect on the employment rate of native-born 
Americans and no effect on average wages of native-born 
workers. However, immigration does have an effect on 
distribution of wages. Immigration tends to increase the wages 
of native-born workers who collaborate with immigrants in tasks 
at work and tends to reduce the wages of those native-born 
workers whose skills are very similar to those of immigrants, 
in particular, native-born high school dropouts.
    Now, let me consider the fiscal impact of immigration. The 
report found that both native-born Americans and immigrants are 
net beneficiaries of the government because the government runs 
a budget deficit, and by government here I mean collectively 
State, local, and Federal governments. It is the case that 
immigrants are greater net beneficiaries of the government than 
native-born Americans.
    The main reason for this is that immigrants have more 
children and therefore use more public schooling services, and 
the report noted that this could be considered an investment 
rather than a cost. Immigrants are net contributors to the 
Federal Government while being net beneficiaries of State and 
local governments, in part because of their greater use of 
public schooling, as I mentioned, and in part because State 
governments have tax schedules that are less progressive than 
those of the Federal Government.
    Now, consensus was lacking on the degree to which 
immigration reduces the wages of native-born high school 
dropouts. My own assessment of the literature is that the 
effect is small, but even a small effect is a cause for concern 
because the biggest problem of the U.S. labor market over the 
last decades has been a lack of wage growth for native workers. 
So, policies to raise low wages must be a priority, but 
immigration should not be one of the tools used for this end 
due to its great benefits to the economy overall.
    Thank you very much.
    [The statement of Dr. Hunt follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Lettieri, you're recognized for 5 minutes.

                   TESTIMONY OF JOHN LETTIERI

    Mr. Lettieri. Thank you. Chair Lofgren, Ranking Member 
McClintock, and the Members of the Subcommittee, thanks for the 
opportunity to testify today.
    My name is John Lettieri, and I'm the President and CEO of 
the Economic Innovation Group. EIG is a bipartisan research and 
policy organization devoted to building a more dynamic and 
inclusive American economy.
    The United States is a magnet for skilled and 
entrepreneurial people the world over. In dozens of fields 
immigrants have fueled American dynamism and helped keep our 
country young, innovative, and aspirational. Current skilled 
immigration policy fails on multiple fronts. It welcomes far 
too few workers, it fails to prioritize entrepreneurs, and it 
primarily serves to strengthen already successful and fast-
growing areas of the country.
    My testimony today will focus on two ways an immigration 
reform could deliver meaningful benefits to a broader share of 
workers and communities. First, by supporting the development 
of economically and demographically stagnant places, and 
second, by bolstering American entrepreneurship and innovation.
    I'll start by talking about how to better serve struggling 
communities. For most of its history, the United States enjoyed 
the advantages of a young and quickly growing population. 
However, the picture has changed dramatically in the past 
decade leaving us with a slowly growing, rapidly aging society. 
The latest Census estimates revealed that the U.S. has reached 
an unprecedented level of demographic stagnation, some of the 
lowest growth rates recorded in the country's history.
    The effects of this seismic shift were felt unevenly across 
regions and communities. Today, fully 81 percent of counties 
have seen their prime working age populations shrink over the 
past decade, hitting rural areas and legacy cities the hardest. 
The consequences of such steep demographic decline are only 
just beginning to take shape throughout the economy.
    So, what can be done in response? Alongside policies that 
make it easier to start and support a family, immigration 
policy is one of the few and most obvious ways to counter 
demographic decline. Immigrants, skilled immigrants in 
particular, bring an array of benefits to struggling 
communities. They fill empty housing stock and bring new life 
to neighborhoods.
    Where there's a shrinking tax base, they bring fiscal 
stability for schools and first responders. Where there is a 
dwindling local workforce, immigrants enable employers to 
expand. Where there's shuttered storefronts, immigrants start 
new businesses and add vibrancy to local commerce.
    Unfortunately, current policy does little to connect 
skilled immigrants with the kind of legacy cities, small towns, 
and rural areas that could benefit most from their presence. To 
fix this, EIG has called for a geographically targeted visa 
program, a ``Heartland Visa,'' aimed at helping struggling 
areas break the cycle of economic and demographic decline. Such 
a program would open a new door for skilled workers who meet a 
range of needs helping to grow a local robotics hub or fill a 
small-town physician shortage, for example.
    Instead of relying on employer sponsorship, the heartland 
visas would be tied to communities, ones that qualify based on 
local workforce and other criteria. To participate, eligible 
communities would be required to opt in and commit resources 
matched by Federal dollars to supporting new arrivals.
    Welcoming communities would rally to attract new arrivals 
much as they do for a new corporate headquarters, by showcasing 
their local amenities, quality of life, job opportunities, and 
growth potential.
    Visa holders in turn would commit to settle in eligible 
communities for a set period--say, 3 years--in exchange for 
being fast tracked for a green card and permanent status. They 
would have a wide array of choices for where to settle and full 
job mobility within their chosen labor markets. Such a policy 
would reject the false choice between compassion and self-
interest by aligning the needs of struggling areas with the 
aspirations of those looking to build a better life in our 
country.
    The second area of focus for my testimony deals with how 
immigration reform can support American entrepreneurship. New 
businesses are major drivers of job creation accounting for the 
majority of net new jobs each year. They're a vital source of 
competition and increase demand for American workers.
    Immigrants bolster entrepreneurship in two important ways: 
First, as noted earlier, they help to counter population loss, 
which is shown to hamper business formation; and second, 
immigrants themselves are disproportionately likely to become 
entrepreneurs. Roughly one in four U.S. entrepreneurs is an 
immigrant, and research finds that immigrants are nearly twice 
as likely to start a business as native-born Americans.
    The overwhelming evidence suggests that we should be doing 
much more to boost inflows of skilled immigrants in general and 
skilled immigrant entrepreneurs in particular. The U.S. should 
establish a new program to provide visas for immigrant 
entrepreneurs much in the same way that other advanced 
economies have already done. In fact, more than two dozen other 
countries have some form of a startup visa to welcome the kind 
of talent the U.S. routinely turns away.
    Based on everything we know about the impact of skilled 
immigration, there is little doubt that a robust startup visa 
program would lead to a wealth of job creation and strengthen 
the innovation intensive sectors of our economy. It's to our 
great advantage that people around the world see the United 
States as a beacon of opportunity, but we have simply failed to 
apply this advantage to solving many of our most deep-seated 
economic challenges.
    So, as this Committee considers ways to reform and improve 
immigration policy, I urge you to prioritize establishing new 
programs that support the economic needs of struggling 
communities and bolster American entrepreneurship.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Mr. Lettieri follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you so very much. Now, we will hear from 
our final Witness, Mr. Peter Kirsanow.

                  TESTIMONY OF PETER KIRSANOW

    Mr. Kirsanow. Thank you, Madam Chair Lofgren, Ranking 
Member McClintock, the Members of the Committee. I am Peter 
Kirsanow, a Member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and a 
Member of the Labor Employment Practice Group of Benesch 
Friedlander. I'm here in my personal capacity.
    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was established pursuant to 
the 1957 Civil Rights Act to, among other things, examine 
matters related to discrimination and denials of equal 
protection. Because immigration and national origin implicate 
issues related to race discrimination, the commission has 
conducted several hearings over the years related to various 
aspects of immigration, particularly illegal immigration.
    Among the recent hearings were two that address the effect 
of illegal immigration on the wages and employment 
opportunities of Black Americans. The evidence adduced by the 
commission shows that illegal immigration has a 
disproportionately negative effect on the wages and employment 
opportunities of Blacks, particularly Black males.
    It's important to note that the Witnesses at this hearing 
span the ideological spectrum, and while they may have differed 
with respect to certain opinions, each and every Witness agreed 
that illegal immigration has a demonstrably negative effect on 
Black employment rates.
    The evidence adduced at the commission shows that the 
reason illegal immigration hurts Blacks is pretty basic: 
Blacks, particularly Black men, are disproportionately 
concentrated in the low-skill labor market and are 
disproportionately likely to have no more than a high school 
diploma. Likewise, illegal immigrants are disproportionately 
low skilled and also disproportionately likely to have minimal 
educational levels.
    Both of these groups compete against one another in the 
low-skilled labor market, and the competition is often most 
fierce in those very industries in which Blacks have 
traditionally been highly concentrated, such as construction, 
hospitality, and service. Blacks frequently lose out in that 
competition out by illegal immigrants who are preferred by some 
employers for a variety of reasons.
    One of the Witnesses in our hearings said, Professor Vernon 
Briggs of Cornell's Industrial and Labor Relations School, this 
isn't because low-skilled Americans, regardless of race, are 
unwilling to work; it's that they're less willing to work for 
the cut-rate wages and sometimes substandard conditions that 
are often proffered to illegal immigrants, which is a code for 
highly unlikely to complain to the EEOC, OSHA, or the Wage and 
Hour Division of the Department of Labor.
    The competition is often most pronounced in major 
metropolitan areas, New York, Chicago, and L.A., but also more 
increasingly in southeastern States such as Virginia, North 
Carolina, and Georgia. The impact of illegal immigration on the 
wage and employment laws of low-skilled workers is especially 
severe in today's pandemic.
    At the time of the commission's hearings, on average the 
unemployment rate for Blacks without a high school diploma was 
around 12 percent. However, before the pandemic, Black 
unemployment dropped to a record low 5.5 percent. Today that 
rate has nearly doubled. Obviously, the supply of low-skilled 
workers far exceeds the demand. This bodes ill for all such 
workers but particularly Black males.
    As President Biden noted in the last few days, quote, ``we 
saw the jobs report. Only 6,000 private sector jobs will be 
created, and at that rate it's going to take years before we 
get to full employment,'' end quote. Research shows that 40 
percent of the 18-point decline in labor participation rates 
among Blacks over the last several decades is attributable to 
immigration. That's hundreds of thousands of Blacks without 
jobs.
    The evidence adduced at the commission also shows that 
illegal immigration depresses wage rates for the available 
jobs. As the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta estimated, as the 
result of the growth in undocumented workers over the last 
couple of decades, the annual earnings of average documented 
worker in Georgia in 2007 were $960 lower than they were in 
2000.
    The leisure and hospitality industries, they were $1,520 
lower. Tecent history shows that lax border enforcement results 
in the further influx of illegal immigrants, will further crowd 
out Blacks and other low-skilled Americans from the workforce. 
This inextricably increases the number of Blacks dependent on 
the government for subsistence, and it swells the ranks of 
unemployed Blacks while reducing the wages of Blacks that do 
have jobs.
    It's respectfully submitted that before the Federal 
Government decides to relax immigration enforcement or grant 
legal status to illegal immigrants, serious deliberation be 
given to the effects such grants will have on the wage and 
employment levels of low-skilled Americans generally, Blacks 
specifically.
    The evidence adduced at the hearings of the Civil Rights 
Commission showed that granting such legal status is not 
without profound and substantial costs to American workers.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    [The statement of Mr. Kirsanow follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, sir. Thanks to all the Witnesses 
for their testimony today.
    Now, is the time when the Members of the Subcommittee can 
ask questions under the 5-minute rule. I'd like to recognize 
first the Ranking Member, Mr. McClintock, for any questions 
that he may have.
    Mr. McClintock.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Kirsanow, from your testimony, it seems that where is 
the distinction between macro- and microeconomics. From a 
macroeconomic standpoint, the economy as a whole, the biggest 
driver of economic growth is population; but from a 
microeconomic standpoint, how it affects an individual in that 
economy, is entirely different.
    If we flood the market with unskilled or low-skilled labor, 
the overall economy will grow. The rich will get richer as 
wages are suppressed, but they'll do that at the expense of 
unskilled or low-skilled laborers whose wages are being 
suppressed. Could you elaborate on that?
    Mr. Kirsanow. Sure. What we have here, it's important to 
disaggregate the various components of the labor market. As you 
indicated, there's certain parts of the labor market that 
benefit from--and it's mainly legal immigration, but there's a 
devastating effect at the lower strata among people who are 
earning minimum-wage jobs or just above minimum-wage jobs from 
especially illegal immigration, for the reasons I just 
mentioned.
    This is especially true right now. This couldn't be--the 
vortex of improbabilities in terms of trying to pass some type 
of immigration that relaxes immigration laws at least among 
low-skilled labor, this couldn't be the worst time because of 
the pandemic.
    Off in the horizon is the prospect of a $15 minimum wage 
that does two things:
    (1) It's a magnet for even a greater influx of illegal 
immigrants, because we've seen that every time the minimum wage 
goes up there's a greater influx of illegal immigrants.
    (2) It's going to cause a greater amount of competition 
between the two cohorts of illegal immigrants and low-skilled 
Americans. Again, as I said before, it's not just Black 
Americans, it's all Americans, but it happens to be that Black 
Americans are particularly concentrated in a certain area.
    There's been a study done with respect to EEOC charges over 
the years. If you take a look at some of these EEOC charges 
they're quite alarming, where a number of American companies or 
employers specifically discriminate in overt ways against 
Americans but particularly Black Americans in favor of illegal 
immigrants, such as tendering only job applicant information in 
Spanish.
    On one occasion they said, ``You, Blacks, get out here and 
goodbye,'' and then brought in illegal immigrants. Those 
specific words were said. So, this is not something that's 
speculative. It happens and it's going to happen at a much 
greater level in this present atmosphere of pandemic, 
unemployment, and prospects that everyone's aware of across the 
world that the minimum wage is going to go up.
    Mr. McClintock. All right--you requested the U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights relating to the displacement of--
    Ms. Lofgren. Tom, you have frozen. Okay. Your Wi-Fi froze 
for a minute. You're back.
    Mr. McClintock. Okay. Very good.
    Mr. Kirsanow, I was asking about a specific question on 
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights relating to the displacement of 
jobs of Black workers, particularly Black males caused by 
illegal immigration to that study. How many fewer jobs for 
Black Americans came as a result of the competition from 
illegal immigrants?
    Mr. Kirsanow. I don't recall specifically. I'd have to 
refer to the study itself, but we are talking about, over a 
course of a 30-year period, about 1.8 million jobs, I believe. 
Every year it fluctuates because of the vagaries of the 
economy, whether it be minimum wage, whether it be the GDP, a 
host of issues. It is a substantial number.
    In my day job--for the last 42 years I've been a labor and 
employment lawyer--I see this visually every day dealing with 
minority contractors who can't bid on a job successfully 
because they're employing legal workers that they have to pay 
minimum wage or above to, and their competition is employing 
illegal immigrants and they underbid them. So, this is a 
discrete and powerful problem here in the Black community.
    Mr. McClintock. Now, you mentioned that Black employment 
declined alarmingly in the three decades prior to the Trump 
Administration, 18 points, I think, and you mentioned estimates 
of 40 percent that declined--competition from illegal 
immigrants. You mentioned that the evidence shows that illegal 
immigration depressed wage levels by between $960 and $1,500 
annually. Mr. Kirsanow, is this discrepancy because low-skilled 
Americans are unwilling to work?
    Mr. Kirsanow. No, not at all. As I indicated in my 
testimony, we've had Witnesses, including, as I said, Professor 
Briggs, who said there is a lot of reasons why some employers 
prefer illegal immigrants:
    (1) A lot of illegal immigrants are phenomenally good 
workers; and
    (2) they can pay them less, they don't have to abide by 
many of the regulations in the statutes governing employment, 
they are less likely to join unions, there's a whole host of 
issues.
    As I stated in my statement, there are--it's not very 
common that you find illegal immigrants filing charges with the 
Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. They're not 
going to do that. They're not going to be filing charges with 
any other alphabet agency, and that's an attractive feature for 
some employers.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
    Ms. Lofgren. Does the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. McClintock. I believe I'm over time.
    Ms. Lofgren. All right.
    Mr. McClintock. Whatever my deficit is.
    Ms. Lofgren. Okay. I now would recognize the Ranking Member 
of the Full Committee, Mr. Nadler, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Professor Hunt, I want to thank you again for taking the 
time to testify at our hearing today and lending your expertise 
to the discussion. As a professor of economics, you have 
extensively studied the impact of immigration on the economy 
and have concluded that it has a net-positive effect.
    In addition, you testified that despite the common 
perception that immigration has a negative impact on native-
born employment and wages, your research concluded otherwise. 
Can you elaborate on your findings, and specifically can you 
provide some specific examples of how so-called low-skilled 
immigrants benefit the economy?
    Ms. Hunt. Indeed. Thank you very much. On this matter, I 
can again report on the consensus views of the National Academy 
Report. So, one might expect that if that immigration would 
either lower employment rates or would lower wages. It could be 
one or the other. So, if there is no evidence of lower 
employment rates, it may seem as a surprise--come as a surprise 
to many that the consensus is no effect on average wages.
    There are various mechanisms that can lead to this outcome, 
and one I mentioned, it's the ability of native-born workers to 
specialize more than before when immigrants arrived. So, the 
evidence shows that native-born workers tend to move to jobs 
that use communications and English language more intensively.
    Now, another factor is that firms can choose which 
technology to use in their production, and they choose it as a 
function of the composition of the workforce. So, for example, 
if there is an arrival of a large number of unskilled 
immigrants then what the employers do is adopt a more labor-
intensive technology which can then absorb those additional 
lower-skilled workers without the negative effects on the 
incumbent workers.
    Another factor is, as I mentioned, that there are 
offsetting effects of the arrival of immigrants in general. So, 
while they expect them to lower the wages of native-born 
workers who have extremely similar skills, they're likely to 
raise the wages of other workers with whom they have 
complementary tasks.
    Now, more specifics on the contributions of the less-
skilled immigrants, in addition to this specialization that I 
mentioned, they perform services that benefit native-born 
workers. So, one that has been well documented, for example, is 
that they lower the cost of child care which has led to 
increased labor force participation on the part of native-born 
women.
    I'll use another example. If we think about agriculture, 
immigrants with lower skills also contribute a lot to this 
sector. In this sector the choice really is between employing 
less-skilled immigrants or having increased mechanization of 
agriculture. There really is no displacement here of native-
born workers, so it simply benefits consumers of agricultural 
products.
    Mr. Nadler. Well--
    Ms. Hunt. --all of these, yes.
    Mr. Nadler. Well, I want to ask some other questions, so if 
you can wrap up.
    Ms. Hunt. Actually, I'm finished.
    Mr. Nadler. Well, thank you.
    Ms. Hincapie, let me turn to you. It's clear that if the 11 
million undocumented individuals in the United States were 
given a chance to obtain legal status and apply for 
citizenship, their lives would change immeasurably. You've 
spent more than two decades defending and advancing the rights 
of immigrants. In your view, what are the most significant 
impacts on an individual level that would result from legal 
status?
    Ms. Hincapie. Thank you, Chair Nadler. Yes, I think there 
are a couple of things. One is, we've seen this, for example, 
with the DACA program and the success over the last 8 years of 
young immigrants being able to get legal status. It increased 
wages. They were able to purchase homes. They were able to 
purchase cars. They were able to take care of their families 
and, most importantly, to pursue their dreams--higher 
education, many of them started businesses, and many of them 
are working as essential workers, including in the healthcare 
industry. So, we see that immediate benefit, not just to them 
and their families but also to their employers and their local 
communities.
    Chair Nadler, I would take this moment to also talk about 
the conversation that just took place with respect to wages, 
particularly in the low-wage context, which is the fact that 
low-wage workers are immigrants. First, there is a recognition 
that among the immigrants, many of them are Black immigrants, 
and they are experiencing record levels of racial 
discrimination in the workplace as well, and in the diversity 
of communities that we have.
    Second is that the solution to the points that Mr. Kirsanow 
was raising, which I completely agree with in terms of the fact 
that many undocumented workers aren't coming forward to 
complain about wages, etc., the solution lies actually in 
making sure that we have robust labor and employment law 
enforcement. Pitting groups of low-wage workers against one 
another seems like a vehicle really that is used by forces that 
are intent on keeping wages low and workers divided amongst 
themselves.
    The fact is that undocumented workers are not the ones who 
are depressing wages or working conditions; it's the employers 
that are knowingly hiring them and knowing that they can do so 
with impunity, or at least they think that they can do so.
    So, for making sure that the answer: First, is 
legalization, making sure that undocumented workers are finally 
put on a path to citizenship; second, that we reallocate 
resources from detentions and deportation to robust labor and 
employment law enforcement so that those abusive employers 
cannot have an unfair economic advantage against the employers 
that are actually playing by the rules. Then typically--
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
    Ms. Hincapie. Thank you.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
    We turn now to Mr. Buck, who is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Buck. I thank the Chair, and I just want to make sure 
that I mention how proud I was to work with the Chair for the 
last 2 years as the Ranking Member, and really felt like this 
was one of the Subcommittees that really seeks common ground in 
a very difficult area.
    I thank you, and I look forward to working with Mr. 
McClintock and you in that common ground. There are obviously 
going to be areas in immigration where we disagree, and we have 
strong feelings, but hopefully we continue to find that common 
ground.
    I want to just mention one thing that happened in my 
hometown, and then I want to give Mr. McClintock the rest of my 
time, and really address this to Mr. Kirsanow. The question, 
one of the employers in my hometown in the 1990s transitioned 
from American workers to undocumented, unauthorized, or 
illegal, choose your term.
    I would suggest that Mr. Nadler turn off his video before 
he undresses. Great.
    The effect on the town of probably 70,000, 200,000 people 
was that the wages at this particular plant went from $18 $14 
an hour. The school district had 35 percent monolingual Spanish 
K-5 students. The hospital emergency room--the plant actually 
told their employees, gave them a statement in Spanish, tell 
your employees that the emergency room was their primary care 
physician. The effect on the judicial system. There are all 
kinds of effects from this form of immigration.
    I just want to ask, Mr. Kirsanow, if you could try to talk 
about that a little bit, and then I want to yield to Mr. 
McClintock.
    Mr. Kirsanow. Thank you. Yeah, my comments were generally 
directed toward employment because we had done some studies of 
that, the Civil Rights Commission, but there are a host of 
adverse effects to having a broad population of illegal 
immigrants, one of which is the crime rates. I know there's a 
dispute as to this, but we took a look at some numbers, we did 
some studies with respect to crime rates.
    We're talking--I'm not talking about all immigrants. We're 
talking about the cohort of illegal immigrants and especially 
male illegal immigrants. When you take a look at--I think it 
may be in some of my material.
    If you take a look at the some of the largest States in the 
United States--by the way, this is difficult to ascertain 
because the Federal Government doesn't keep specific stats on 
the type of crimes, or the number of crimes committed by 
illegal immigrants. You've got to look to State data and then 
cross tab it with some Federal data and prison data.
    On average, it appears in some States, for example, 
California, we were taking a look at homicide rates that 
illegal immigrants are up to three times more likely to commit 
murder than lawful residents. When you're talking about sex 
offenses, I think the level is three times as great also; 
kidnapping is four times as great. There's a whole host of 
categories where the amount of crime attributable to illegal 
aliens far exceeds that of lawfully present Americans. So, 
that's one aspect of it.
    The effect on the public fisc is also significant. There's 
at least one study--and, again, there are competing studies on 
this--that the significance of this is there are competing 
studies and at least this is something that needs to be studied 
even more directly. The effect with respect to the placement of 
charges upon the public fisc with respect to medical care, 
emergency room care, the school districts, and a whole host of 
public services is greater the greater amount of illegal 
immigrants in that particular area.
    Labor policies--
    Mr. Buck. Thank you. Now, I yield time to Mr. McClintock if 
I can.
    Thank you very much for your response. I appreciate that.
    Mr. McClintock, I yield to you the remainder of my time. 
Maybe not. Is he muted?
    Ms. Lofgren. You only have 36 seconds left.
    Mr. McClintock. There we go.
    Mr. Kirsanow, you mentioned the fact of illegal immigration 
on the prosperity of African Americans, but doesn't that have 
the same effect of every race of the unskilled and low-skilled 
workers in every race including legal immigrants who are trying 
to get into the job market?
    Mr. Kirsanow. It does. It has an adverse effect on lawfully 
present Hispanics, Asians, Whites, and Blacks. It doesn't 
discriminate based on race. What it does do though is have a 
more pronounced effect on Black Americans only because that 
cohort is far more likely to have the same type of skill sets 
or lack of skill sets in educational levels or lack thereof as 
illegal immigrants.
    So, this is something that's--it's a panopticon. It affects 
everyone but Blacks more readily, and then I think--I'd have to 
take a look at my data again, but I think the second most 
effect of lawfully present Hispanic workers because they are 
second most likely to be--
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time is expired. We appreciate 
that.
    I'd now like to recognize the gentlelady from Washington 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair. It occurs to me as I 
listen to this discussion that what we should really do is pass 
a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, level the 
playing field, and how about we invest in education for all our 
American citizens, Black, Latina, Latino, every Asian American, 
and White, and then it seems like we would be in a much better 
place.
    Madam Chair, I am a proud immigrant of this country sent 
here by my parents by myself when I was 16 years old and 
naturalized after 17 long years. I believe strongly that 
immigrants are a crucial part of our Nation working on the 
front lines of COVID-19, contributing their skills and talents 
to their communities every single day.
    The fact that nearly a quarter of the immigrant population 
in the United States is undocumented is a failure of our 
system, and frankly of Congress, to provide legal avenues for 
essential parts of our communities.
    I want to focus today on the fact that immigration law 
today provides only one consequence for a violation, and that 
is deportation. A parent who steals baby formula because she or 
he can't afford it may be deportable with no judicial 
discretion. There is no chance for people to rectify their 
situation or alternative options that meet the scale of the 
infraction.
    So, Ms. Hincapie, thank you for your work. I want to route 
my questions--and I have several of them for you--in the story 
of, Many Uch, a Cambodian refugee from my State who escaped 
with his mother from the Khmer Rouge and made it to the United 
States at the age of eight. Many grew up in a low-income 
neighborhood with few resources or support, and like many teens 
in his situation, got involved with drugs and gangs as a 
teenager.
    At 18 he was caught driving the getaway car during a 
robbery and spent 3 years in prison. What would be the 
consequences for a refugee or any kind of immigrant who was 
charged with a crime like Mr. Uch?
    Ms. Hincapie. Thank you for your leadership, Representative 
Jayapal. Our immigration system generally takes a one-size-
fits-all approach to punishment. There's no proportionality, as 
you mentioned, no matter what the crime is. So, someone in 
Many's situation would almost certainly be subject to detention 
without a bond, and in some cases prolonged detention and 
eventually deportation. They most likely would never get a 
chance to present their case before an immigration judge.
    Ms. Jayapal. Now, Mr. Uch was actually not deported at the 
time, thanks to tremendous community outpouring of support for 
him and a Republican district attorney that helped. Once he was 
released back into his community he married, became a father to 
U.S. citizen children, started a little league team, and opened 
a youth center to help kids like him stay out of trouble.
    Ms. Hincapie, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk 
about the importance of second chances, and clearly Mr. Uch 
sees that second chance and made the best of it. Would any of 
this, ties to the community, community impact change his 
deportability? Would a judge be able to look at how he turned 
his life around and use discretion like they can for other 
people?
    Ms. Hincapie. Unfortunately, not. I'm happy to hear from 
Many and his loved ones if he was able to do so, but for most 
people, the fact that they've turned their life around, etc., 
that does not matter. The judges do not have that discretion.
    Ms. Jayapal. Now, I'm incredibly happy to say that just a 
few weeks ago Many became a U.S. citizen because he received a 
pardon from Washington State Governor Jay Inslee. How common 
are stories like Mr. Uch's, and how would a U.S. citizen in Mr. 
Uch's same situation be treated?
    Ms. Hincapie. Yes. So, unfortunately, they're not common at 
all; they're rare. I think it's wonderful that there are people 
on both sides of the aisle to see that. Deportation is a one-
size-fits-all punishment that is unnecessarily cruel and costly 
both economically and on a human level. So, again, his 
situation is common but not the result that he was able to have 
eventually.
    Ms. Jayapal. So, we're talking about reforms to the 
immigration system today. How would a fair system with 
scaleable consequences treat a case like Many's?
    Ms. Hincapie. This is one of the most complex areas. A 
scaleable system would allow us to redefine penalties in 
immigration enforcement and ensure that they're proportional 
where one could be alternatives to detention, fines, community 
service, treatment, programs, and a probationary period, which 
really depending on what the underlying action and activity 
was.
    So, we need a system that provides judges and immigration 
authorities with the discretion to take the totality of the 
circumstances into account. As you mentioned, this is a time 
when our country is engaged in long, overdue bipartisan 
discussions about the necessary changes to our criminal legal 
system. We should be doing the same with our immigration 
system.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. There's really no other area of 
U.S. law that just has one consequence, and I think that this 
is a critically important area for us to focus on to establish 
scaleable consequences that are fair, encourage compliance, 
allow for second chances. I have included that in my roadmap to 
freedom resolution as a core principle as we look to reform the 
system.
    Thank you, Ms. Hincapie, for your work, and I yield back, 
Madam Chair.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    I understand that Mr. Biggs has had to leave. If he comes 
back, we will recognize him. Mr. Tiffany is now recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just wondering 
if we can do anything about this unauthorized polar vortex that 
has hit northern Wisconsin with minus 25 tonight. Can we do 
anything about that?
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, we can pass a law and make it warm. How 
about that?
    Mr. Tiffany. Well, thank you for your--thank you for your 
time. I'm going to have a question here for Mr. Kirsanow in 
just a minute in regard to the Flores decision.
    I think when you look back at the last 4 years, we don't 
need to go into any theoretical or academic exercise here to 
see what changes are necessary. The things that have been done 
over the last few years have been very beneficial to those that 
live in this country.
    When you look at 2019, the highest wage increases for 
people, including in the lower-income strata that we've seen in 
decades, and that was because of getting control of the flow 
across the border, reducing the number of people coming across 
illegally from 10,000--1,000 a month last summer, so really 
that is a bold reform that truly has worked.
    I would say to you that the Biden Administration has made 
two very significant mistakes for working-class Americans in 
his first couple weeks in office. First, killing the Keystone 
Pipeline. Two of the largest pipeline operators in the country 
are right here in Wisconsin, and we're going to have hundreds 
of people that make very good living that are going to lose 
their jobs.
    More importantly, down on the border, we have a looming 
border crisis that has just come about over the last couple 
weeks. In fact, I'm anxious to see if one of my colleagues, who 
a couple of years ago went down to the border and showed 
herself openly weeping at the cages down there, if she's going 
to protest what's going on as a result of the Biden 
Administration's activities, when you hear of the caravan 
saying, Joe Biden is now President. We can come across the 
border whenever we want to.
    There is a looming crisis that is happening down at the 
border, and I look forward to my colleague, in particular from 
New York, going down there and making a big hullabaloo about it 
like she did a few years ago.
    My question to Mr. Kirsanow is, in regard to the Flores 
decision, as someone who is relatively new on this Committee or 
new on the Committee, relatively new to the Judiciary Committee 
as a whole, could you give us some background on the Flores 
decision and why that it is so important to fix that decision?
    Mr. Kirsanow. You know what, I'm probably the last person 
to answer that question. You'd have to refresh my recollection. 
I dealt with it about 2 years ago but not since that time.
    Mr. Tiffany. That is no problem.
    Then I would like to address the question to--I'm sorry, 
the gentleman, his last name starts with a T, and I do not 
remember his name and it does not appear on my screen. I wanted 
to ask him about the tech giants claim to need high-skilled 
employees, but I've heard from some constituents that they've 
actually been squeezed out of their jobs that worked in the 
computer and tech fields as a result of too much immigration. 
Can you comment on that?
    Ms. Lofgren. I think it's Mr. Lettieri he's directing that 
to. Is that correct?
    Mr. Tiffany. Madam Chair, thank you very much. That is 
correct. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Lettieri. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I fully understood 
the question. The question is about skilled immigration and 
what happens to American workers with skilled immigration?
    Mr. Tiffany. Yeah. There's been talk by some of tech 
companies. They've always advocated for more immigration into 
this country, and they said we need these high-skilled people. 
You see publications like the Wall Street Journal that have 
very much advocated for that over the last few decades.
    I'm beginning to hear from some constituents who have 
worked in the tech field that have worked on computer systems, 
those type of things, they say they're now being squeezed out. 
Have you heard any stories like that, and how do we ensure that 
we don't squeeze out our tech workers also?
    Mr. Lettieri. Well, the empirical work on high-skilled 
immigration is pretty conclusive when it comes to the benefits 
that skilled immigrants bring to our economy. So, setting aside 
any kind of anecdotal situations, which I'm not sure I'm 
familiar with what you're referring to, the benefits of 
immigration are strongest and most clear when it comes to 
skilled immigrants.
    Now, there's a good debate worth having about the method 
for how we welcome skilled immigrants into our economy. My 
testimony dealt with two additive areas where I think we've 
really fallen short of taking advantage of what is an 
incredible national advantage. The fact that skilled and 
entrepreneurial people want to be here from around the world is 
an advantage that no other country enjoys the way the United 
States, does but for that reason no other country squanders in 
the way that we do as well.
    So, in the same way that we would love to have more 
entrepreneurs in our country, we'd love to have more 
entrepreneurs, more college graduates, this is a way of really 
bolstering our economy on a broad basis and improving life for 
a broad array of American workers and communities. There's 
clearly ways that we can improve the way that we've welcomed 
skilled immigrants to our country.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired. We thank 
you.
    We'll now turn to Mr. Correa, the gentleman from 
California, for just 5 minutes.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you hear me?
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you very much, Chair Lofgren. Thank you 
for holding this important hearing. We know our economy is 
better off because of hardworking immigrants, and this COVID-19 
pandemic has shown that it is more apparent than ever. It's 
been undocumented, unauthorized immigrants that have continued 
to work in the fields harvesting our crops, processing our 
food, farm workers, sanitation workers, teachers, and childcare 
workers that have really kept us alive, so to speak and fed.
    So, Mr. Lettieri, I wanted to ask you a question if I can. 
About a year ago, before the pandemic, I got a phone call from 
a lobbyist from the food processing industry, Mississippi, I 
believe is the State. He called me, and I said, ``what are you 
doing calling me? I represent California not the south.'' He 
said, ``look, you sit on the Immigration Subcommittee,'' and he 
said, ``we just had 400 workers deported from our food 
processing plant.'' He said, ``the whole town, the whole 
region, the economy is shut down completely,'' and he said, 
well, ``it's not about wages because all those workers are 
Members of the Food and Commercial Workers Union.'' He said. 
``the only people that take those jobs are immigrants, not even 
the children want to take those nasty jobs.'' Those are the 
people we need to import to keep our food processing business 
going.
    I heard testimony today those immigrants compete with local 
American citizens with residents for these jobs. This is not 
anecdotal. This advocate for the food processing industry was 
pleading for us for help for additional immigrants. Do you say 
that's the case? Is it competition or is it just, again, a 
structural issue? We don't have those workers in these 
industries that take those jobs that Americans just don't want.
    Mr. Lettieri. Well, thank you for the question, 
Congressman. I'll refer to Professor Hunt's testimony where she 
talked about the various ways that immigrants complement or 
compete with native-born Americans. It and tends to be, from my 
understanding of the literature, it tends to be where a 
competition is the strongest, it's where the similarities are 
the strongest between the skill set of an immigrant and the 
skill set of the native-born worker.
    Where there's strong agreement is that the distortive 
effects are clearest where there is a subset of the workforce 
that is not in the light, so to speak. It's not transparent and 
operating the labor market in the way that native-born 
Americans do and that creates this as we've heard in this 
hearing, there's widespread agreement that we can do more about 
it, but the economic demand is what is bringing people to this 
country looking for work, and there clearly is demand. So, I 
think it's a question of--
    Mr. Correa. If I may, in my short time.
    Mr. Lettieri. Sure.
    Mr. Correa. Would you say, as an issue of subwages, just 
give them a green card and then they will essentially work for 
the legal wages and they wouldn't be cutting or undercutting 
American citizens.
    Mr. Lettieri. I would say, without a doubt, the first step 
is bringing transparency into the labor market and operating on 
a level playing field, so without a doubt.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you very much.
    The other issue that I have, and this is a question for Ms. 
Hincapie, is the tissue of deported veterans and judicial 
discretion. Right now, in this country we have green card 
holders that go and fight in Afghanistan, other parts of the 
world. They are honorably discharged. Then they come back to 
the U.S., and they're convicted of a certain enumerated crime, 
and they're essentially deported.
    The only time these deported veterans that have fought for 
our country can come back to our country is when they die, 
because then they have a right to be buried in a veteran 
cemetery in the United States. How can we address that issue of 
repatriating these legal immigrants that should be Americans 
who are deported because of our archaic immigration laws? What 
do we do?
    Ms. Hincapie. Thank you, Representative Correa. This is a 
similar question that Representative Jayapal asked about. It is 
shameful that we allow people to go fight for our country, yet 
if they make a mistake, oftentimes that mistake, that crime 
that they may have committed was probably because of PTSD and 
the psychological impact of the war that they were fighting.
    So, this is why we need to reform our system and give 
individuals a second chance and a chance at redemption. For 
those individuals who fought for our country and were deported, 
we should absolutely allow them to return to the United States, 
reunite them with their family, and put them on a path to 
citizenship.
    Mr. Correa. So, finally, we need judicial discretion in 
advocating, deciding some of these cases in our immigration 
system. Correct?
    Ms. Hincapie. That is correct. Judicial discretion is 
needed throughout the entire system. Again, this level of a 
one-size-fits-all for all immigration cases just makes 
absolutely no sense.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, ma'am.
    Ms. Lofgren. I understand Mr. Roy had to step out for a 
minute. We'll recognize him if he's able to return. So, now I 
would recognize Ms. Spartz of Indiana for 5 minutes for her 
questions.
    Ms. Spartz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    As someone who is a big fan of Milton Friedman who said 
that we cannot have open borders in a welfare state, I'd like 
to have a quick discussion with you, because ultimately, I 
don't see it as reforming our welfare system, which needs a lot 
of reforms, but we have to look at legal immigration.
    I have to agree with the gentlewoman from Washington that 
we need to have a better legal immigration system. Solutions 
for legal immigration is the best solution. It's the best 
solution for Americans. It's the best solution for people who 
cross the border illegally. So, I think we have to do it 
better, and we need to see how we can better benefit our 
national interest.
    So, my question is to--and I apologize if I say names 
wrong, but I'll try to do my best. So, Mr. Lettieri, he was 
mentioning about young skilled workers, and we can address this 
only if we have a legal system, otherwise we don't know who 
crosses the border.
    So, if you look at the legal immigration system, what 
percentage would you allocate to skilled workers and young 
workers and more merit-based, which most countries have--
skilled workers because there is a benefit for that, too. So, 
if you look 100 percent, how would you allocate it within a 
legal immigration system?
    Mr. Lettieri. Well, thank you for the question, 
Congresswoman. I would be reluctant to give you a percentage, 
but I'll give you an answer about scale, which is that we are 
nowhere close to welcoming the number of skilled immigrants to 
this country that we could absorb easily and who could benefit 
our country in a number of ways.
    I think that's particularly true when it comes to immigrant 
entrepreneurs who have enormous assets they can offer to our 
country. We know the importance of entrepreneurship and its 
role in innovation and the kind of industries that really keep 
our economy the envy of the world.
    Again, this is a unique advantage of ours that not just 
skilled workers but entrepreneurial workers from around the 
country want to be here. We are nowhere close to maxing out 
that advantage, and so I don't know what the exact proportion 
is, but it needs to be much higher.
    Ms. Spartz. Okay. What about, Ms. Professor Hunt, Dr. Hunt, 
you mentioned that you did a lot of research. What are your 
thoughts on the same question?
    Ms. Hunt. Well, this is exactly where I think subjectivity 
comes up. One can't really give an objective answer to this 
question, so I also am going to say that I can't give a 
proportion because it depends a little bit on how you trade off 
certain things and how concerned you are about high school 
dropouts versus the overall growth rate. For example, the 
innovative high school immigrants increase the growth in GDP 
per capita, which will help everyone but perhaps with some 
delay.
    I will just note one thing. The share of the population of 
the U.S. that's foreign born is 14 percent, one four, and that 
makes it 17th in the OECD in terms of the share. Switzerland, 
Australia, and New Zealand, have in the 25%-30% range of 
foreign born, most of them high skilled. So, I'm just 
confirming my fellow Witness in the sense that the U.S. 
actually as a share has not very many foreign high-skilled 
immigrants.
    Ms. Spartz. Okay. Then maybe Ms. Hincapie, if I said it 
right, do you believe we should have security on the border and 
we should secure border regardless? How would we deal then with 
people that are here? Perhaps to deal with this is a problem 
right now. Do you believe we need to secure the border?
    Ms. Hincapie. Thank you for your question. It's Hincapie, 
but you got close to it.
    We actually have quite a bit of border security. We have, 
as a Nation, spent, since the Department of Homeland Security 
was created, for example, $381 billion on both the border and 
interior enforcement. I think one of the great things about the 
Biden Administration and what is set forth in the U.S. 
Citizenship Act is to take a look at making sure that there is 
accountability and good order governance and management, as 
well as looking at the root causes of why people are coming, 
and creating legal channels so that people can come through the 
ports of entry, and seek asylum. Our asylum system has been 
decimated over the last 4 years, and so the ability for people 
to apply for asylum through the right legal channels is really 
critical.
    Ms. Spartz. So, we agree we need to have border security 
but maybe better enforcement.
    Mr. Kirsanow, just quickly, do you believe how, if you look 
at a current situation and you talk about a lot of minority 
communities and really what's happening with our challenges in 
this community, how would you believe to address the current 
situation with people that I hear cross the border 
undocumented? It means that in this case--I'm sure that I use 
the right word--unauthorized to cross the border illegally, 
this is terminology. So, how would you believe the need to make 
sure that we still don't put a burden on the welfare system 
that is right now in trouble? We have a lot of people suffering 
and struggling. So, do you have some thoughts on that?
    Mr. Kirsanow. Yes. Thank you for the question. I would 
respectfully disagree that we have good border security. That 
is belied by the fact that we've got approximately 30-40 
million illegal immigrants here. We don't even know the number, 
and tens of thousands are crossing every month, if not hundreds 
of thousands in the near future.
    I think Milton Friedman has got it exactly right, you can't 
have a welfare State--you can either have a welfare State or 
open borders, but not both. Until we secure the border 
effectively, regardless of how much money we spend on it, until 
we secure that border, we're going to have a sieve coming 
across, because the United States is a magnet for a host of 
reasons:
        (1) It's the freest and best country in the world, and
        (2) you have wages that nobody else can match.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired, but we'd 
ask you to wrap up the answer to your question. I don't want to 
cut you off.
    Mr. Kirsanow. I'm sorry. I went off a little bit about a 
tangent. The bottom line here is you have to have better border 
security than we have now. Otherwise, even if you regularize 
those who are here, it's still going to be a magnet for people 
to come in and continue to work illegally.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    I'd now like to recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. 
Garcia, for 5 minutes.
    You need to unmute.
    Ms. Garcia. I am working on it. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this very critical 
hearing. While our country has Witnessed and endured a 
tremendous amount of pain and struggle over the past 4 years, 
I'm committed to working with you and this Committee and the 
Congress to work tirelessly to improve the lives of our most 
vulnerable communities and all hardworking Americans.
    As we prepare to reform our immigration system to 
accommodate our Nation's most pressing needs, we must assure 
that our immigration policies are rooted in our values of 
compassion, fairness, opportunity, and keeping families 
together. Therefore, I applaud the Biden-Harris Administration 
who on day one in office shared their immigration vision and 
signed Executive Orders prioritizing immigration reform and 
national healing.
    I think that what matters most to many of us, particularly 
those of us who have been working on this issue for many, many 
years, is that we do have to have immigration policy that keeps 
our families together. It must be a system that keeps our 
families together. That's why I want to start my questions 
today with Ms. Hincapie, because I noted that she said that she 
was one of 10 children, as I am. I know that she shares with me 
the value of family and faith and working together to ensure 
that we all get a good education and achieve our American 
Dream.
    So, ma'am, I wanted to start with you because you're with 
the National Law Center. Last week, I was working with a 
constituent here in my office who was detained by ICE, in fact, 
it happened to be the very day of the Corpus Christi court 
hearing where a Federal District Court judge in Corpus Christi 
held the ICE deportation pause that the Administration had put 
in place through Executive Order as unlawful.
    What is NILC doing to address this issue? How can we see 
some opportunities to continue to work together on this issue?
    Ms. Hincapie. Yes, thank you, Representative Garcia. So, 
yes, the family reunification must be at the core and center of 
all our immigration policies. It's one of our tenets, and I 
believe that there's actually bipartisan support for family 
values and making sure that our families not only are not 
separated by our immigration policies--like we saw with the 
Muslim ban, we saw with the termination of DACA and temporary 
protected status but actually that we are reunifying families, 
as the Biden Administration has already started to begin the 
process of doing so with the creation of the task force, for 
example, for family reunification. Second, making sure that as 
we create legal channels, as we provide people on a path to 
citizenship, again, that people are able to stay together as a 
family, as well as in detention.
    I think finally I would say, with respect to the Texas 
decision last week, which was just a temporary injunction--it 
did not say that the moratorium was unlawful--it basically said 
that one small part of that moratorium needed to be put on hold 
while the legal proceedings continued.
    The moratorium that the Biden Administration has announced 
is critical. As a new Administration, they should be able to 
say, and have the legal authority to do so, to say we're going 
to hit the pause button while we decide what are the priorities 
under this new Administration and make sure that anyone who was 
in the Trump deportation pipeline does not get deported under 
the Biden Administration.
    Ms. Garcia. All right. It's my understanding, though, that 
it was extended 2 more weeks.
    Ms. Hincapie. That's correct.
    Ms. Garcia. Right. So, are you all fighting it in court? Or 
what are the advocates doing in response to that?
    Ms. Hincapie. Yes. So, there is a group of organizations 
that did intervene in that lawsuit. We are not part of that 
lawsuit. So, as interveners, they will get a chance to provide 
the perspective of immigrant families. Separately, the 
Department of Justice, under the Biden Administration, is also 
defending the moratorium.
    Ms. Garcia. Okay. Now, I want to move on to some of the ICE 
detention centers. Of course, we visited several codels, have 
been to several of them. I've been to many of them as a State 
Senator, not only here in Texas, but in other places. I'm 
mostly concerned with the lack of counsel, if you will, for a 
lot of these folks that are in detention and even through the 
legal process itself once they leave the detention centers.
    So, I wanted to discuss the whole issue of, do you think 
that we need to make sure that we provide counsel at every 
stage of every proceeding, or at what point does your center 
recommend that we look at providing counsel for anyone that is 
detained by ICE?
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired, but we'll 
ask the Witness to answer promptly.
    Ms. Hincapie. Absolutely. At the National Immigration Law 
Center, we work with local communities across the Nation to 
provide funding to provide universal legal representation. The 
statistics all show that when someone has a lawyer, they comply 
and show up for their legal proceedings, and then get to be 
able to go through the legal proceedings. Immigration law is 
considered one of the most complicated legal labyrinths, 
separate from tax law. So, again, having legal counsel is 
absolutely necessary.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. The other gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Escobar, 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Thank you for 
this very important hearing. I want to thank all our panelists 
for their great information.
    I would like to address some things that I have heard 
through this hearing. I heard from one of our colleagues talk 
about successes over the last 4 years when it comes to 
immigration. I've heard from another colleague that we have to, 
quote, ``secure the border before we attempt to address 
immigration reform,'' unquote. I've also heard from one of our 
panelists that our economy is some sort of zero-sum gain, a 
race to the bottom to preserve low-wage jobs for Americans, 
especially Americans of color. I find, also, of course, always 
we hear the talking point of open borders. So, I want to just 
take a few quick minutes to address that.
    I represent the U.S.-Mexico border. I'm the only Member of 
this Subcommittee and I believe the only Member of the 
Judiciary Committee that lives, works, represents an actual 
border community. So, I can tell you, I can assure my 
colleagues, that we have, as a country, spent hundreds of 
billions of dollars securing and militarizing the border. The 
border communities have long been among the safest in the 
Nation and that we are very proud to recognize ourselves as the 
new Ellis Island.
    I also want to mention that the last 4 years were not a 
success if you are a humanitarian. The last 4 years, my 
community bore witness to some of the cruelest anti-immigrant 
public policy that we will have ever witnessed in our 
generation. My district was a testing ground for family 
separation, separation that to this day we have not remedied, 
but that many of us are committed to remedying. We have seen 
force feeding in ICE facilities. We have seen inhumane holding 
conditions and a complete obliteration of asylum law, among 
many other horrific practices, that, by the way, never 
addressed root cases, as Ms. Hincapie mentioned, and that never 
actually stopped migration.
    I would also like to point out that migration has continued 
and that it will continue until we work collaboratively, which 
this current Administration has chosen to do with our Western 
Hemisphere partners.
    I want to use a little bit of my time--I wanted to just say 
I needed to get that out so that I could help share with my 
colleagues the view from the border, the perspective from the 
border. I would also like to say, in 2019, I hosted about 20 
percent of Congress in codels to the border. Once COVID--we're 
past COVID, I invite my colleagues to join me on a visit. I 
would be delighted to show you the border through my eyes.
    Mr. Lettieri, I want to ask you about the economic 
argument, because there's so much that is advantageous about 
immigration. With the declining population, we need young 
people. As we've seen, really there is no impact on wages, 
study after study has shown, unless, again, we're in a race to 
the bottom. As you know, and as you mentioned, immigrants are 
much more likely to start businesses than American-born 
citizens. They are more entrepreneurial. Can you discuss how 
entrepreneurship helps stimulate economic growth?
    Mr. Lettieri. Sure. Thank you for the question, 
Congressperson. It does so in a number of ways. 
Entrepreneurship is critical to our economy because it's a 
driver of productivity gains, it's a driver of job creation. 
Every year, the bulk of net new jobs created come from young 
and fast-growing companies. So, the engine of job creation 
really begins with new business formation.
    I pointed out in my written testimony this is actually an 
area that should be a concern to policymakers today because we 
still have not recovered the startup rates and entrepreneurial 
activity that we had prior to the Great Recession. In spite of 
a very long economic expansion that followed, about a decade's 
worth of economic expansion, we still haven't seen startup 
rates go back up to where they were prior to the Great 
Recession.
    So, again, as we think about immigration policy, my plea to 
the Committee is to think about its economic potential, 
particularly in this space of entrepreneurial dynamism and 
innovation. These are things that are just absolutely critical 
to our economy and where we know, study after study, the wide 
body of empirical work that's been done on this demonstrates 
that immigrants are very good for American entrepreneurship. If 
you look at the Fortune 500 and you see that over 40 percent of 
Fortune 500 companies are founded by immigrants or the children 
of immigrants, anecdotally and empirically, there is really no 
argument to be made here that immigration is good for American 
entrepreneurship. Again, being more intentional about how we 
encourage that would be one of the key features of immigration 
reform.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you. I'm out of time.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady yields back.
    We have three Members from Texas. I now recognize the third 
gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 5 minutes.
    Sheila?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
    Let me acknowledge the Chair and the Ranking Member for 
this Committee. Let me be honest, and the virtual meetings pose 
some difficulties at times in muting and unmuting, but I'm 
always here and I'm always here at these Committee hearings 
where I'm called upon to be. So, forgive me for the unmute and 
mute process on these devices.
    I'm delighted that the hearing is a concept that is partly 
a remedy or a cure, if you will, for the 4 years of devastation 
and demeaning of immigrants across America. Frankly, leaving 
the world questioning what our values really are. So, it is 
important that we start anew almost, having been on this 
Committee for a number years, to really go bold.
    As I do so, let me also indicate that over the years I've 
served as a Ranking Member of this Committee, we have seen the 
opportunities taken to use African Americans as a wedge issue, 
and there are those who are probably listening at this point 
who happen to be African American, who may feel challenged by 
the increasing diversity of this Nation, inasmuch as their 
voices have always been for justice for all. I see that in my 
community and the collaboration that we have here in Texas, 
where there is much collaboration between immigrant groups and 
the African-American community, we do want to make sure that, 
in fact, all communities, as one of my colleagues said, have 
justice and access to economic opportunities, the kinds of 
wages, which include the minimum wage being raised to $15 an 
hour, and really just the opportunity for education, business 
access, and healthcare access. That should be our objective, 
this is not the Ways and Means Committee or the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, but this is a Committee that can, in fact, 
provide an economic engine to this Nation and provide a pathway 
for citizenship but also for opportunity.
    So, first, I'd like to submit into the record a document by 
Wade Henderson, a friend of ours, of the Leadership Conference 
on Civil and Human Rights, who's testified numerous times 
before this Committee.
    Mr. Henderson points out--I ask unanimous consent to submit 
this for the record.
    Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
  
                     MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    First, Mr. Henderson points out that there is no consensus 
among economists on the role immigration plays in longstanding 
Black unemployment rates. Second, there are a lot of reforms to 
anti-discrimination labor laws and job training that would far 
more directly address Black unemployment. Third, African 
Americans still overwhelmingly support immigration reform that 
provides a path to citizenship. They really are not eager, 
these are his words, to appreciate--are not eager and may not 
appreciate and do not appreciate scapegoating or using them as 
a wedge.
    I will say that there are probably voices that want to have 
more work, there are voices who want to be in college, there 
are voices who want to have access to business and access to 
capital, but we want to do it collectively. I want to say 
openly, let's do it collectively. I believe if we move this 
Nation to what H.R. 40, the Commission to Study and Develop 
Reparation Proposals, we will look globally at the treatment of 
African Americans and in this country and begin to go boldly.
    Let me quickly ask two questions. I can't see the clock, so 
forgive me, but let me quickly ask a question to Ms. Hincapie 
on the issue of the importance of moving forward on the legal 
status of DACA recipients.
    Ms. Lofgren. You have a minute.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me quickly ask Mr. Lettieri on my 
question of economics and how economics can empower new 
immigrants, individuals who may get access to citizenship mixed 
in with African Americans and Black immigrants, which have 
traditionally been second class as relates to the immigration 
structure.
    So, Ms. Hincapie. Please forgive me, my voice is cracked.
    Ms. Hincapie. No worries. Thank you, Representative Jackson 
Lee. Yes, so we at the National Immigration Law Center have had 
the great honor of representing courageous DACA recipients all 
the way up to the Supreme Court, and we have a temporary 
victory and represent 1.1 million class members who are DACA 
recipients or applicants for DACA. DACA is a temporary reprieve 
from deportation, and here is where we need you and your 
leadership; we need Congress to pass an improved version of the 
Dream and Promise Act swiftly so that they can become citizens 
ASAP.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired. Let's ask 
Mr. Lettieri to very quickly answer her question, if he could.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chair for indulging. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Lettieri, thank you.
    Mr. Lettieri. Thank you for the question. I think as I said 
in my testimony, one of the best ways to boost the benefits 
economically of immigration is to ensure that legacy city 
communities, which are often very diverse and have large 
communities of color from all different backgrounds, that they 
are exposed to the benefits of immigration the same way that 
large, booming coastal metro areas are. We currently have no 
intentional policy in that regard, and so those are areas that 
tend to miss out on the benefits, skilled immigration in 
particular, could bring to those communities and arrest the 
decline we see over many decades into the local economies.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
    We now have--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Ms. Lofgren. I'd now like to recognize--Mr. Neguse is not 
here--Ms. Scanlon, the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Chair Lofgren. Thank you to our 
Witnesses for being here for this hearing. I'm glad we're 
having this conversation about all the ways in which 
immigration can make our country a better and more prosperous 
place.
    I do want to take a minute to address a nuance that we 
should always keep in mind. I mean, the empirical evidence has 
been clear for decades that a fair and robust immigration 
system is critical to our country's economic health, but the 
value of our immigrant neighbors is not simply a question of 
dollars and cents. Our immigrant communities bring with them 
innovation, culture, and resilience. We're lucky to have people 
from all over the world seek a brighter future in our borders.
    In my district, 1-10 of my constituents are foreign born. 
Our immigrant neighbors drive innovation in business, 
educational excellence at our universities, and make 
immeasurable cultural contributions. My district's home to some 
of the largest immigrant populations from Ireland, Liberia, and 
Cambodia, in the U.S. In the schools in Upper Darby Township, 
which a township of 80,000 people, they speak more than 80 
languages and dialects. We have folks who are Bengali, Sikh, 
Central American, Greek, and Korean. People from southeast 
Asia, Venezuela, Eritrea, Armenia, Bhutan, and a host of 
African countries call my district home. One of the leading 
drivers of our regional economy is research and technology, 
which is reliant upon talented foreign workers. So, all of 
which is to say that this is a huge and very important issue 
for my district.
    Mr. Lettieri, you testified about entrepreneurial energy 
that immigrants bring to our community, and I certainly see 
that in my district. To paraphrase Lin-Manuel Miranda, 
immigrants get the job done.
    So, we heard the research about immigrants being almost 
twice as likely to start businesses, and your report concludes 
that maybe we need a heartland visa. Can you just discuss a 
little bit more about how that would work and how it could 
revitalize some of the areas where we have population decline?
    Mr. Lettieri. Sure. Thank you for the question. So, what I 
called for in my testimony is really a two-prong approach to 
expanding the ways and opening new doors for skilled immigrants 
to connect with American communities. One is through a 
heartland visa, which would be targeted to places that are 
struggling economically and demographically. The second would 
be through a Startup Visa. Now, that would specifically open a 
door for immigrant entrepreneurs, much like more than a dozen 
other countries already do for the exact same type of talent 
that we turn away.
    Both of those would have enormous job-creating, wealth-
creating, economic growth-creating effects because simply what 
we know about the way that skilled immigrants interact with our 
economy. We see this in study after study. We see this in local 
communities as well.
    Many of the communities that would be eligible for a 
heartland visa, the only reason that their economies have 
started to turn around recently, the only reason that they are 
seeing positive population growth is because they've been very 
intentionally more welcoming to immigrants. So, the economic 
potential there is very clear.
    It's important to think about what happens if we don't take 
an approach like this. When you lose population, you're seeing 
a shrinking tax base, demand for local businesses, and 
degradation of local services, which encourage more people to 
leave, and you get into this downward spiral that's very hard 
to reverse. That need not be so, but this is just one of those 
areas where we have failed to connect the dots that immigration 
can be such a powerful economic development tool where we align 
the interests of communities with the aspirations of would-be 
immigrants.
    Ms. Scanlon. In some of the areas in my district where 
there've been kind of a downgrading of the economy, ect., I'm 
thinking specifically of the African area of southwest 
Philadelphia, which is experiencing a revitalization as a 
result.
    I wanted to get to a question for Professor Hunt. We've 
heard some discussion about the impactability of illegal 
immigrants on wages for low-income Americans. What we're 
talking about here is providing status for undocumented 
workers, bringing them out of the shadows, which I would think 
would make it harder for unscrupulous employers to pay 
substandard wages, or impose unsafe or illegal conditions with 
impunity. Can you talk about that a little bit?
    Ms. Hunt. I agree with you. When workers have legal status, 
they have greater bargaining power that will increase their 
wages, and as an earlier witness said, they'll be more able to 
report poor workplace practices without fear of reprisal.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Making the workplace safer for everyone.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    I think Mr. Buck and Mr. Roy were unable to return. So, I 
will now recognize myself.
    First, I'd ask unanimous consent to put into the record 
statements from 17 organizations on this subject.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]

                      MS. LOFGREN FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Lofgren. I'll just say thank you to all the Members who 
were able to participate today in this hearing. We have a lot 
of work ahead of us on this Subcommittee, and in the Full 
Committee as well, when it comes to the issue of immigration. 
There are some themes of disagreement that have emerged here 
today, but I think there are also some elements of consensus 
that we can work on.
    When I listen to questions about immigration security and 
enforcement, I don't think there's a single person in the 
Congress who is against enforcing the laws of the United 
States. What we're saying is the laws need to serve the best 
interest of the United States. When I think about farmworkers--
and I authored a bill for the farmworker segment of the economy 
that was agreed to both by the United Farm Workers union and 
the growers and farmers of the United States. When you talk 
about unlawful entry or unauthorized entry, 80 percent of the 
farmworkers or better are undocumented and a majority of them 
came more than 10 years ago. So, we're talking about border 
enforcement in 2005. We have to take a comprehensive, fact-
based view of what's going on, and then the screen is what's 
best for the United States of America.
    I'm interested in all the testimony which has been very 
interesting and helpful. Mr. Lettieri, I was interested in your 
heartland visa. I'm just about ready to introduce a startup 
visa that I've been working on for many months, with the help 
of the academic community and venture capitals and the like. 
The heartland visa is an interesting idea.
    Right now, we have mayors who sometimes step forward and 
say send us refugees, because they need that workforce, but we 
don't have a capacity to say send us entrepreneurs or somebody 
who's going to establish a center of excellence that's going to 
grow the economy in a different way. Be more specific, if you 
would, on how the heartland visa would work.
    Mr. Lettieri. Thank you, Chair Lofgren. I'd love to.
    (1) So, what we propose in our heartland visa is that, 
given the fact that 80% of the country's counties are seeing a 
shrinking of their prime working age population, which is a 
startling fact, many places would love to have a specific type 
of visa program by which they could welcome, they could opt in.
    (2) In our concept, a county or an eligible area has to opt 
in and say we want to be a part of this program. You have to 
commit resources to implementing it so that new immigrants can 
be a success.
    (3) The would-be visa holder has to opt in to settling into 
that particular place. So, it's a dual opt-in type of match 
that ensures that there's going to be a lot of information 
transparency on both sides and they are going to have a good 
fit between the immigrant and the local community.
    The idea is that communities that are struggling with this 
demographic and economic decline that's affecting so much of 
the country, would have its own class of high-skilled visas 
that it would be eligible for so that the benefits of high-
skilled immigration will be more broadly felt around the 
country than it is today.
    There's a reason that this idea has gotten the broad 
bipartisan support of, say, the U.S. Conference of Mayors. You 
mentioned mayors in your question. They have almost unanimously 
endorsed this. Many individual mayors from legacy cities, such 
as Akron and Dayton, have publicly endorsed this as well for 
the very reason that they know the role that immigration is 
playing in their economy today. The big challenge that they 
have is U.S. Federal policy doesn't support their local 
efforts. So, they can do everything that's possible that they 
can do in their toolkit as a mayor, but still they're running 
up against the barriers presented by Federal
policy.
    So, the idea here is let's open the door that supports the 
local work on the ground and opens up a new channel for skilled 
immigrants to connect with communities that would love to have 
them.
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you very much. As I said, I'm just 
about ready to introduce my startup visa, but I think I'm going 
to put that on a temporary hold and do a chapter two to have it 
include also a heartland visa.
    Mr. Lettieri. We will work with you on that.
    Ms. Lofgren. I live in San Jose, California, where about 
half of the people who live here were born in another country. 
They're Americans by choice. We had, before the pandemic, 
probably the biggest GDP growth of any area in the United 
States, and it was fueled by the tech sector and fueled by 
people who came to get their Ph.D.s and then started companies 
here, which then ended up hiring many, many, many Americans.
    The anti-immigrant policies that flowed at times during the 
last Administration discouraged people from coming as students. 
We had a decline in the number of people coming as foreign 
students. That really was a tremendous adverse impact on the 
pipeline of people going in to start companies. What we saw was 
that recruiters from other parts of the world, and especially 
Canada, came down to Silicon Valley and started recruiting 
people away because they would provide for legalization and we 
would not. For a while, I think it's all been upended by COVID, 
but it will change once the virus is in the rear-view mirror, 
hopefully soon.
    The tech economy in Toronto was actually growing faster 
than the tech economy in Silicon Valley, and it was almost 
entirely because of their immigration policies. We can change 
that. We can make the United States more prosperous if we use 
good sense in crafting our immigration policies.
    So, I want to thank every one of our Witnesses for their 
testimony.
    Mr. McClintock. Madam Chair?
    Ms. Lofgren. I'm sorry?
    Mr. McClintock. McClintock here. A couple of quick things. 
I'd like to ask unanimous consent that the Republican Staff 
Report on Trump immigration successes be entered into the 
record.
    Ms. Lofgren. Without objection.
    Mr. McClintock. I'd also like to ask unanimous consent--I 
believe Mr. Biggs had a statement and I have that to included.
    Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, that will be included.
    Mr. McClintock. Okay. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]

                     MR. McCLINTOCK FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Lofgren. With that, we are about to adjourn this 
hearing. Once again, all Members have 5 legislative days to 
submit additional written questions for the Witnesses or 
additional materials for the record.
    As we conclude this hearing, I want to thank all the 
Members and all the Witnesses for their participation and their 
willingness to work together in the future so that our policies 
serve our country well.
    With that, this hearing is adjourned.
   [Whereupon, at 4:46 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
   

                                APPENDIX

=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   
                 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]