JUNE 30 (legislative day, JUNE 8), 1982.—Ordered to be printed Mr. SIMPSON, from the Committee on the Judiciary REPORT together with ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS [To accompany S. 2222] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 2222) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with amendments, and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY The Committee bill is intended to increase control over both illegal and legal immigration. In order to reduce the primary incentive for illegal immigration, the availability of U.S. employment, the bill makes unlawful the knowing employment, or the recruitment or referral for a fee, of illegal aliens; provides for a system to verify work eligibility; and establishes appropriate civil and criminal penalties for violations. In addition, the bill establishes new crimes for certain activities involving fraudulent documents and for bringing illegal aliens to the U.S.; states the sense of Congress that resources for conventional enforcement should be increased; requires the imposition of fees for use of Immigration and Naturalization Service border and other facilities; provides for more efficient adjudication of exclusion, deportation, and asylum cases; and prohibits adjustments of status by visa abusers. S. 2222 also reforms legal immigration so that it will better serve the national interest. The current system of numerical limitations is revised in order to reduce the growth in the number of immigrants to the U.S., to reserve limited family reunification visas for the closest family members, to increase the immigration opportunity of aliens who have no close relatives in the U.S. but who have needed skills, and to preserve diversity in immigration flows. The labor certification requirement is amended to permit certification based on general labor market information, rather than only on an analysis of the impact of specific aliens in specific jobs, and to require a reasonable training effort by employers. Special immigration benefits are provided for certain children of employees of international organizations, surviving spouses of deceased such employees, and retired such employees, who have been in the U.S. many years. The bill also amends certain provisions of the law relating to nonimmigrants. The H-2 temporary worker program is revised in order to assist agricultural employers in adjusting to the reduced availability of illegal foreign workers. Foreign students are prohibited from adjusting their status to permanent resident and from obtaining an immigrant visa or certain work-related nonimmigrant visas until they have returned home for 2 years. A pilot visa waiver program is authorized for five countries with low rates of visa denial and exclusion. In addition the bill provides for legal permanent resident status for certain illegal aliens who entered prior to January 1, 1978 and for legal temporary resident status for illegal aliens who entered prior to January 1, 1982, with an opportunity to adjust to permanent status after 2 years under certain conditions, including evidence of a minimum English language competence or of enrollment in a program to acquire such competence. Finally, the bill requires certain reports from the President to Congress with respect to the employer sanctions provisions, legal immigration, the legalization program, the H-2 program, and the visa waiver program. II. GENERAL STATEMENT A. INTRODUCTION No other country in the world attracts potential migrants as strongly as the United States of America. No other country approaches the United States in the number of legal immigrants accepted or refugees permanently resettled. The Committee believes that most Americans are proud of both the reputation and the history of this country as a land of opportunity and refuge. We believe that this reputation and history have generally had a positive effect on America. However, current U.S. immigration policy is no longer adequate to deal with modern conditions, including the growing immigration pressure on the United States. Immigration to the U.S. is "out of control" and it is perceived that way at all levels of government and by the American people-indeed by people all over the world. The Committee believes that reform is imperative. This does not mean the U.S. must isolate itself from the rest of the world. Immigration can continue to serve the national interest, if the law is reasonably amended to be appropriate for contemporary conditions-and if the law can be enforced. This will in no way be inconsistent with American tradition. Immigration to the United States has been limited in various ways for more than a century and has been subject to forms of numerical limitation for over sixty years. The moving words on the Statue of Liberty are cited in nearly all discussions of U.S. immigration policy and are certainly consistent with the traditional hospitality and charity of the American people. It is imperative, however, that Americans perceive that this great country is no longer one of vast, undeveloped space and resources, with a relatively small population. In an earlier time, the nation could welcome millions of newcomers, many of whom brought few skills, but did bring a willingness to work hard. In a smaller America with a simpler, labor intensive economy and a labor shortage, that was often quite enough—that, plus their intense drive to become Americans. Immigrants can still greatly benefit America, but only if they are limited to an appropriate number and selected within that number on the basis of immediate family reunification and skills which would truly serve the interest of a highly developed nation. B. THE NATIONAL INTEREST The Committee believes that the paramount obligation of any nation's government, indeed the very reason for its existence and the justification for its power, is to promote the national interest-the long-term welfare of the majority of its citizens and their descendants. Consequently, we believe that the formulation of U.S. immigration policy must involve a judgment of what would promote the interests of American citizens as they are at the present time and as they and their descendants are likely to be in the foreseeable future. An immigration policy which would be detrimental to the long-term well-being of the American people should not be adopted. We certainly do not mean to suggest that charity and compassion should not play a role in U.S. immigration policy. Even if a particular charitable policy would not promote the national interest, as long as it would not be harmful to that interest and was supported by a majority of the American people, then it should of course be adopted. Because the well-being of individuals is affected by both economic and noneconomic circumstances, an immigration policy which serves the national interest must be based on an analysis of both the economic and noneconomic impacts of immigration. Economic variables include unemployment, wages, working conditions, productivity and per capita Gross National Product (GNP). Noneconomic matters include population size, other demographic phenomena, and such cultural elements as values, customs, institutions, and degree of unity or of tension between subcultures. There is an additional component of the national interest which a realistic analysis must not ignore. This is related to the ability of human beings to experience change without discomfort and it exists regardless of whether any objectively adverse impacts occur. Although the desire of immigrants from other lands to change their lives totally by coming to the United States is obviously greater than their reluctance to leave their homes, the ability of the American people to welcome aliens into their day-to-day life experiences has limits. These limits depend in part on the degree and kind of change which will be caused in their lives. We see the evidence that if the newcomers to a community do not excessively disrupt or change the attributes of the community which make it familiar to its residents and uniquely their "home" (as compared with foreign areas, which they may respect highly but which are not "home" to them), then the newcomers may well be welcome, especially if they make positive contributions to the community's economic and general well-being. On the other hand, it is seen that if the newcomers remain "foreign," they may not be welcome, especially if they seek to carve out separate enclaves to embrace only their own language and culture and if their numbers and the areas of the community which they directly affect are great. This should not be so in the "ideal" world, but it is real. C. CURRENT PROBLEMS In the last five years total legal permanent admissions to the U.S. increased from a little over 450,000 in 1976 to 800,000 in 1980 (if the 135,000 Cubans and Haitians entering that year are counted). As recently as 1965 the total was under 300,000. During the same five-year period, the category of "immediate relatives" of U.S. citizens grew 40 percent-from 114,000 to 152,000. Under present law there are no numerical limits on this type of family reunification. In this same period, refugee admissions have ranged from 5,000 in 1977 to over 200,000 in 1980, four times the 50,000 level specified as the "normal" flow in the Refugee Act of 1980. The U.S. today is taking in more legal immigrants and refugees for permanent resettlement than the rest of the world combined. It is because of these two categories, "immediate relatives" and refugees, which are not subject to firm annual numerical limits, that immigration to the U.S. has reached so high a level. Under current law the "normal" level of legal immigration is probably between 525,000 and 625,000 (if the number of refugees and asylees continues to be in the range of 100,000 to 200,000) plus the growth in the number of "immediate relatives." The level of refugee admissions is set by the President after consultation with this Committee and with the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. As a result of the maturing of the consultation process which has occurred in the period since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, the Committee now believes that the process provides an appropriate degree of control over refugee admissions. In addition, hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants now enter the U.S. every year. Some estimate the net annual inflow at over 500,000. The present inflow is probably substantially higher than it was 10 years ago. At least some indication of this can be found in the dramatically increased number of apprehensions. In 1967 the number was 162,000. In 10 years it had increased to over one million. Just four years ago applicants for asylum numbered less than 5,000. Today the backlog is over 105,000. We are informed that a significant portion of these persons may be "economic migrants" and thus not legally qualified for asylum. The number of illegal aliens already in the country is unknown. Tho Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy used the figure of 3.5 to 6 million as the best guess for 1978. Whatever the number 4 years ago, there are surely many more now. Immigration-legal plus illegal-now appears to be accounting for 30 to 50 percent of our annual population growth of about 2 million. At the present time, net immigration-legal plus illegal-probably exceeds 750,000 per year. A net annual immigration of 750,000 would lead to a U.S. population in a hundred years of 300 million, if it is assumed that the fertility rate of the existing population remains at its present low level-which seems unlikely-and the fertility rate of the new immigrants immediately declines to that of the present population as a whole-which is even less likely, given the high fertility rates of the less developed countries from which most of the immigrants come. One-third of this 300 million would consist of immigrants arriving after 1980 and their descendants. Indeed, these figures actually underestimate the impact of immigration. Since it is concentrated in only a few regions of the country, the impact on these regions is of much greater significance than the overall figure suggests. For example, under the same assumptions and assuming continuance of existing settlement patterns, the population of California would double by 2080. Over one half of that state's population would consist of post-1980 immigrants and their descendants. The problems which may be caused by excessive population growth are well known and we shall not discuss them here. Not only is there a very large number of legal and illegal immigrants, but only a small fraction of them are individually selected on the basis of labor market skills which have been determined to benefit the nation as a whole rather than primarily the interests of the immigrants themselves or their U.S. relatives. As a result of this and of the fact that the present labor certification process may be of limited effectiveness, we believe there have been generally adverse job impacts, especially on low income, low-skilled Americans, who are the most likely to face direct competition, even though we also perceive a degree of economic growth from the use of "cheap" labor. Such adverse impacts include both unemployment and less favorable wages and working conditions. Not only does this cause econnomic harm to the directly affected Americans and their families, and in many cases a burden on the taxpayers, but it may also affect society as a whole in the form of social problems associated with unemployment and poverty. Opponents of more comprehensive enforcement of the immigration laws have claimed that Americans will not take certain "menial" jobs. The Committee believes that this claim has been overdone. First, many illegal aliens are working in nonmenial jobs which unemploved, underemployed, or less well-paid Americans would clearly take. This will be increasingly true if Federal and State support for various public assistance programs continues to be reduced. Second, many other jobs which are not now attractive to a sufficient number of qualified Americans, could be made so if employers were to offer higher wages, better working conditions, or a reasonable training program. If a job cannot be filled by Americans at an affordable cost, then if possible it should be mechanized through additional capital investment and more advanced technology. Alternatively, a business might relocate some labor-intensive production overseas or the product or service might be imported from a foreign firm or simply forgone. The Committee believes that bringing in foreign labor should be a very last resort. Even if no direct displacement of Americans occurs, such action will frequently reduce this country's average productivity |