Public testimony by Prof. Briggs given before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, June 29, 1995

Briggs, Vernon M., Jr.

English

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Briggs Public Testimonies Vernon M. Briggs Jr. Collection 
June 1995 
Testimony on H.R. 1915 
Vernon M. Briggs Jr. 
Cornell University, vmb2@cornell.edu 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briggstestimonies 
Thank you for downloading an article from DigitalCommons@ILR. 
Support this valuable resource today! 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Vernon M. Briggs Jr. Collection at 
DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Briggs Public Testimonies by an authorized 
administrator of DigitalCommons@ILR. For more information, please contact catherwood-dig@cornell.edu. 
If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an 
alternate format, contact web-accessibility@cornell.edu for assistance. 
Testimony on H.R. 1915 
Abstract 
Public testimony by Prof. Briggs given before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, June 29, 1995. 
Keywords 
testimony, immigration, legal, policy, labor, market 
Comments 
Suggested Citation: 
Briggs, V. (1996). Testimony on H. R. 1915. In Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995: Hearing 
Before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of 
Representatives, pp. 89-91, (see also pp. 87-88 for oral comments). Washington, DC: U.S. Government 
Printing Office. 
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briggstestimonies/18 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briggstestimonies/18 
(/,?\
'-, ,..., j
Subcommittee on Immigration
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
June 29, 1995
Testimony on H.R. 1915 by Vernon M. Briggs, Jr.
Professor of Labor Economics
Cornell University
It is past time for significant reforms in the nation's existing immigration policy to be
initiated. Characterized in 1981 by the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee
Policy as being "out of control," little has changed in the interim despite several previous
legislative efforts to do so. In fact, conditions have deteriorated. Immigration levels (from
all sources) have soared far beyond the needs of the economy; the composition of the
immigrant inflow, with respect to its human capital characteristics, are at significant variance
with the emerging employment needs of the labor market; and the goals of existing
immigration and refugee systems have been undermined by the continuation of mass abuse of
their provision by illegal immigration. These are the manifestations of the problem. The
causes for the existing incongruence believes the national interest and the nation's extant
immigration policy rest with its key features. These are: it is inflexible; it is nepotistic; it is
mechanistic; it is legalistic; and it is largely unenforceable. I wish to appraise H.R. 1915 as
it relates to each of these concerns.
Inflexibility. The existing legislation writes into stone an immigration level (675,000
immigrants a year since 1995). There is no provision for altering this level should
unexpected conditions arise (as they always do). The annual level imposed by the
Immigration Act of 1990 was too high when it was enacted and it remains too high today. It
took effect in 1991 just as the nation's economy slipped into deep recession. Unemployment
today remains very high for what is supposed to be a period of prosperity but immigration
levels remain at or near record annual levels (the decade of the 1990s should see the largest
immigration inflow in all of U.S. history). Given the fact the labor force is growing due to
the demographic positioning of the "baby boom generation" and the continuing growth in
labor force participation of women, the nation is not sustaining a shortage of labor ~ g.
H.R. 1915 provides for a significant reduction in immigration levels to 535,000 immigrants a
year and it calls for re-evaluation of this number every five years by Congress. Both of
these are steps in the right direction. Personally, I would prefer that the level be set
administratively rather than legislatively so that the annual flow could be more closely
modulated to changes in the domestic economic environment. I see no magic in any specific
number -- especially with regard to the employment-based immigrants. I would prefer to see
Congress set a ceiling of, say the 135,000 employment-based immigrants specified in the
bill, but give the Secretary of Labor the right to lower the level for any particular year if it is
deemed necessary. H.R. 1915 is a step in the right direction by requiring a 5 year review
but that interval may be too long, given the dynamics of the current labor market conditions,
and one cannot be sure that economic considerations, rather than political factors will shape,
the review future processes.
2N~potism. The current system is highly discriminatory in its admission provisions.
Family reunification account for 480,000 of the available visas each year. As a
consequence, the vast proportion (71 %) of the legal immigrants entering each year are
admitted on the basis of family ties rather than any human capital characteristics they may
possess. H.R. 1915, to its credit, eliminates the existing categories of the admission of adult
brothers and sisters and adult unmarried and adult married children of immigrants. Nothing
stops these relatives from seeking to be admitted on their own merits but their privileged
entry status is removed. If an adult voluntarily seeks to leave his or her homeland to
immigrate into the United States, it is he or she who is making the personal decision with
respect to breaking ties to their families. There is certainly no reason why U.S. policy
should be obligated to admit extended family members or other adult children who the
immigrant alone has decided to leave behind. This change is long overdue.
It is true that the proportion of total annual immigration will still be dominated by
family reunification under H.R. 1915 (62 percent) but no one can object to legal immigrants
bringing their spouses and minor children with them. But with reduced numbers of family
immigrants, it is less likely that immigration levels as a whole will continue to be so far out
of step with labor market needs. Nepotism is at least reduced.
By the same token, employment-based immigration is more emphasized by H.R. 1915
than is presently the case. Under existing legislation, employment-based immigration
accounts for 20 percent of all admissions; under H.R. 1915, the percentage rises to 25
percent. In the process, immigration of unskilled immigrants is ended and, in general the
qualifications for the remaining entries under this category are raised over what currently
exists. I support both of these changes. There is absolutely no shortage of unskilled
workers in the United States and there is no prospect of one on the horizon. Whether there
are shortages of skilled workers, in light of massive layoffs in defense industries and
downsizing of middle management across corporate America, is also a debatable point. This
is why I would prefer more flexibility on these admissions but H.R. 1915 certainly moves in
the right direction in this area of admission priorities.
The only employment-based category that I disagree with pertains to the retention of
the investor immigrants at a level of 10,000 a year. I have never supported this category and
I still do not. I think it is wrong to make wealth itself a category for priority entry for
immigrants. The only group that can benefit from this category is the immigration bar which
has been its greatest supporter. I also believe that this category is very difficult to administer
in terms of preventing fraud or monitoring actual job-creation promises. I would delete it.
I am also glad to see that the category of "diversity immigrants" is eliminated from
the admission system under H.R. 1915. This category does not assure any congruence with
human capital needs of the nation with the immigrants it admits and it also resurrects the
specter of national origin from out of the nation's past immigration experiences. It is past
time to end this experiment in social engineering. I am also opposed to its reliance on a
lottery system to select immigrants. It cheapens the admissions process.
3Mechanistic. While under H.R. 1915 the U.S. immigration system remains highly
mechanistic, there are at least fewer admission categories and there is at least some provision
for a 5 year review of immigration levels. This is an improvement over the existing system.
Le2alistic. While the immigration system will still be highly legalistic in its terms
and operations, there are at least some overtures to reduce appeal levels for asylum
applicants, to reduce the number of documents required to prove eligibility to work, and to
expedite removals for stowaways, false refugee claimants, and alien terrorists among
numerous other features that seem, at least on their face to anon-lawyer, to be positive steps
to reduce the costly and protracted procedures associated with efforts to enforce the nation's
immigration policies.
Enhanced Enforcement. H.R. 1915 is also of merit for its efforts to address the
massive abuse that currently makes a mockery of the nation's efforts to have an immigration
system that is worthy of public support. Stronger border management in terms of funds for
more border patrol officers and support personnel; for improved physical barriers; and for
the acquisition of advanced technology are long overdue. The expenditure of funds is the
real test of the commitment of Congress to make whatever immigration policy it adopts have
true meaning. I applaud the provision of imposing civil fmes on illegal immigrants found in
the United States although I doubt it will be possible to enforce except where illegal
immigrants are found to be employed and salaries could possibly be garnisheed. I have
never understood why this has not been done already. I also enthusiastically support the
recognition of the need to increase the number of workplace officials of government
empowered to enforce both employer sanctions against the hiring illegal immigrants and fair
labor standards with respect to wage and hour laws and child labor laws. The growth of
"sweatshops," fueled by the hiring of illegal immigrants, is an on-going blemish to
contemporary American life. I only hope these proposals are for "real" increases in numbers
of enforcement officials and are not simply replacing people who have lost their jobs due to
arbitrary budget cutbacks that are now so much in vogue here in Washington.
Concluding Observations
H.R. 1915 identifies the critical areas that must be addressed if immigration policy is
to be restored to its rightful position as representing a positive and unique feature of
American life. Currently, immigration policy is at odds with the national interest. This bill
can significantly change that situation.


Testimony on H.R. 1915

Public testimony by Prof. Briggs given before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, June 29, 1995.NewTestimonyonHR1915no18.pdf: 135 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020.0-ImmigrationonintheNationalInterestAct13.pdf: 61 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Briggs, Vernon M. Jr.

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&amp;context=briggstestimonies

Testimony on H.R. 1915

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@ILR

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)