Amnesty: Setting The Numbers Straight (Robert Rector Debunks White House Low Ball Estimate Alert)

Frontpagemag ^ | 05/30/06 | Robert Rector

[goldstategop]

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611), which recently passed the Senate, provides amnesty to illegal immigrants and creates a massive “guest worker” for life program. Earlier this month, The Heritage Foundation released an analysis calculating that the bill, if enacted, likely would result in 103 million immigrants obtaining legal status or entering in the U.S. legally over the next twenty years. [1] All of these individuals would have the right to permanent residence and could become citizens and vote in U.S. elections.

On May 18th, the White House Office of Media Affairs issued a press release challenging the Heritage study.[2] The White House defended the Senate bill, charging that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the bill would add only 8 million new legal immigrants, “a fraction of the Heritage report’s claims." [3]

The Heritage estimate that 103 million immigrants would gain legal status under S.2611 explicitly included: legal immigrants who would enter the country under current law; illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S. who would receive amnesty; and the increase in new legal immigration that likely would result from the bill.

The CBO figure of eight million immigrants promoted by the White House differed from the Heritage estimate because the figure:

was limited to 10 years rather than 20 years; excluded immigration allowed under current law; and excluded illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S. who would receive legal permanent residence due to S.2611.

CBO’s Clarification

In a subsequent memo provided to Senator Jeff Sessions (R –AL) on May 24th, CBO clarified the number promoted by the White House. [4] This CBO memo shows the White House figure was less than half of the actual CBO estimate of persons who would receive permanent status under S.2611.

The CBO memo indicated that, over the next ten years, S.2611 would result in 11 million current illegal immigrants receiving legal permanent residence and 7.8 million new legal immigrants entering the country. Combined with 9.5 million immigrants who will enter under current law, the result would be 28.3 million persons becoming legal residents over ten years. This is almost three times the level permitted by current law.

Differences in CBO and Heritage Estimates

The CBO number of 28 million is still considerably lower than the original Heritage estimate of 49 million over ten years. The difference is caused by four factors.

Amnesty Rates: CBO estimated that most current illegal immigrants would receive legal permanent residence and the right to citizenship but assumed that many would not qualify for direct amnesty; instead, they would achieve permanent residence through participation in employment-based visa programs. This would, in turn, reduce the number of foreign residents entering the U.S. with employment visas during the first ten years. This factor accounts for a difference of roughly five to six million between the Heritage and CBO estimates.

The CBO estimate assumed that only 50 to 66 percent of individuals eligible for amnesty under S.2611 would receive it, claiming that this ratio is based on experience from the 1986 amnesty.[5] The Heritage Foundation assumed, given the very lenient standards of evidence in S.2611, that almost all of those deemed potentially eligible for amnesty would receive it; this estimate also assumes that current count of 12 million current illegal immigrants in the U.S. may be low and that there may be a large number of fraudulent amnesty claims filed.

Dependents: Under the bill, immigrants placed on a track to amnesty or in the guest worker program may bring into the U.S. spouses and dependent children from abroad. The number of spouses and dependent children that may be given legal permanent residence status through this provision is not limited by S.2611.

Historically, foreign workers receiving employment-based visas have brought 1.2 dependents with them. On the other hand, many illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S. already have families with them, and therefore the Heritage analysis assumed that only 0.6 dependents would be brought into the U.S. for each current illegal immigrant receiving permanent residence. By contrast, CBO estimated that current illegal immigrants obtaining legal permanent residence will bring very few dependents from abroad—roughly one dependent for every seven illegal immigrants gaining permanent residence. CBO also seems to assume a lower ratio of dependents to workers in the guest worker program in general. The CBO numbers appear to be well below historic norms in immigrant programs. This factor accounts for a five to six million-person difference between the estimates.

Guest Workers and Green Cards: CBO assumed that the permanent guest workers in Section 408 of the bill would be subject to the green card caps granting legal permanent residence under Section 501. Because there was no language in the bill stating that the permanent guest workers would be subject to this cap, the Heritage analysis assumed the green card cap would not apply. This resulted in a difference of eleven to twelve million persons between the estimates. (After the publication of both the Heritage and the CBO estimate Senator Jeff Sessions successfully introduced an amendment, with concurrence from Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL), a chief sponsor of S.2611, stipulating that the Section 501 caps would apply to guest workers.)

Emigration The White House also claimed that The Heritage Foundation study was flawed because it failed to take into account that many immigrants, given the right to become permanent U.S. citizens, would instead choose to leave. The White House states that “emigration rates may be 25 to 30 percent.”[6]There seems to be little basis for this claim. The Census Bureau finds that the less developed a nation is, the less likely immigrants from that nation are to leave the U.S. and return home.[7] Its data show that the return rate for Hispanic immigrants is around 7 percent per decade.[8] If enacted, CIRA would probably reduce return rates even further by greatly increasing incentives for immigrants to stay in the U.S.[9]

The CBO estimates include a fairly significant emigration factor; the assumed rate of emigration and the basis for determining that rate are undisclosed.

Immigration Under the Amended Bill

S.2611 has been amended by Senator Bingaman (D-NM) to reduce the largely unlimited potential inflow under the guest worker program. The bill has also been amended by Senator Sessions to include guest workers under the employment green card caps in the bill. These amendments reduce the vast flow of 103 million immigrants projected under the original bill. The amended bill would still grant permanent residence (and the opportunity for citizenship) to some 60 million persons by over the next twenty years. Finally, it should be noted that our estimates assume zero future illegal immigration. In reality, S.2611 is likely to increase future illegal immigration.

ENDNOTES:

[1] Robert Rector, “Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1076, May 15, 2006.

[2] The White House Office of Media Affairs, “Setting the Record Straight: Heritage Foundation Report Overestimates Legal Immigration Increase Under Senate Immigration Bill,” May 18, 2006.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Memo from Donald B. Marron, Acting Director, Congressional Budget Office, to the Honorable Jeff Sessions, May 24, 2006.

[5] Congressional Budget Office, “Cost Estimate: S.2611, Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006,” May 16, 2006, p. 22.

[6] The White House, op. cit.

[7] Bashir Ahmed and J. Gregory Robinson, “Estimates of Emigration of the Foreign-born Population: 1980-1990,” Population Division Working Paper, No. 9, December 1994, p.9.

[8] Ibid.

[9] The original Heritage Foundation analysis did not incorporate an emigration rate for immigrants. The emigration rate, at any level, would not have affected the estimate of 103 million persons since that figure represents a count of all those receiving legal status and not a count of persons remaining in the country at the end of 20 years. The very low likely emigration rate of the immigrant stock would affect modestly the estimate of the percent of the population that is foreign born in 2027. On the other hand, the original estimates assumed a zero rate of future illegal immigration. An assumption of a modest rate of continuing illegal migration would have affected the number as much or more.

[goldstategop]

The White House low-balled the Senate amnesty bill's numbers to make it appear the impact of the demographic, political, economic and legal changes it would produce in overall immigration numbers are not as sweeping as projected when the bill's various provisions are taken to their ultimate conclusion. The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector here disputes this and takes the opportunity to set the record straight. Amnesty is going to change our society profoundly and its a shame the Senate never spent time debating the size of the impact cumulative increased (both legal and illegal) immigration would have upon this country's character and future.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[traviskicks]

I think these numbers being debate are sort of a secondary concern. I'd be interested in what people thought about: Amensty From Government

[AmeriBrit]

likely would result in 103 million immigrants obtaining legal status or entering in the U.S. legally over the next twenty years.

---

In my opinion this 103 million figure is grossly exaggerated. There's no way over 5 million would be allowed to enter legally each year. For one they wouldn't have the man-power to handle all the paperwork.

[goldstategop]

Its not just the numbers; its the services government is going to provide for all these people. We are already suffering from overcrowded schools, a broken public health care system, deteriorating roads and a short supply of new homes. So the question is: where are we going to get the money to correct these problems and provide for 100 million new people over the next century? I'm waiting to hear the Open Border Lobby folks' answers to these issues cause regardless of the fate of the Senate amnesty bill, what we've facing can't just be swept under the rug by changing what the law says.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[garbageseeker]

Ping

[goldstategop]

The system doesn't have the manpower to handle current applications much less than new ones. And the Senate wants to blithely open the floodgates to new immigration with no concern for its effects on the bureaucracy's ability to manage it or for the absorptive capacity of the country.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[Caipirabob]

Heh! Think anyone will catch the part about the "formal surrender to Mexico?" Nice touch there, Bill...

[AmeriBrit]

I can't imagine where your getting 'a short supply of new homes' from. From my front door I can see 7 new homes in the progress of being built (and none are tract homes either) New homes are popping up all over the place out here.

[backhoe]

Crosslinked:

For "Thunder on the Border," click the picture:

[goldstategop]

Here in immigration-heavy California the median price of a home is $540,000. And with all the restrictions on the building of new homes, its a wonder housing prices aren't even higher. My point is, if immigration is increased, demand is sure to outstrip supply, especially for homes in desirable areas.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[backhoe]

In my opinion this 103 million figure is grossly exaggerated. There's no way over 5 million would be allowed to enter legally each year. For one they wouldn't have the man-power to handle all the paperwork.

Depends on where you look for the numbers:

---

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005259.htm

THE MOST IMPORTANT DEBATE OF THE YEAR

By Michelle Malkin   ·   May 25, 2006 11:32 AM

An extraordinary exchange just took place on the Senate floor over the last 40 minutes. It's the most important debate of the year, in my opinion.

The questions are these: Who do we let into this country and how many?  Under the Senate bill.... There would be, in effect, no limits.  If the current legal immigration level (950,000 a year for 20 years or 18.9 million over 20 years) is excluded from the total, according to Sessions, the Senate bill could be described as increasing legal immigration by 59 million to 198.2 million over 20 years.

You've got to watch the exchange for yourselves. We'll have video at Hot Air shortly. (1213pm EDT: Video of first exchange between McCain and Bingaman is up here.) In the meantime, re-read Sen. Sessions' analysis:

Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 Million by 2020 (updated numbers)

How Many Illegal Aliens are in the US?--Here is the most careful estimate of the number of illegal aliens in the country that I have seen. The current estimate is about 29 million and is updated daily.--The Tucson sector Border Patrol union local 2544 on the number of illegal aliens in our nation: "There are currently 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country by many estimates, but the real numbers could be much higher and the numbers increase every day because our borders are not secure (no matter what the politicians tell you - don't believe them for a second)". (Visit the local's website).

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014100.php

Reconquista, Here We Come!

The Heritage Foundation and Senator Jeff Sessions try to blow the whistle on the Senate's compromise immigration "reform" bill, via the Washington Times:The Senate immigration reform bill would allow for up to 193 million new legal immigrants -- a number greater than 60 percent of the current U.S. population -- in the next 20 years, according to a study released yesterday.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican who conducted a separate analysis that reached similar results, said Congress is "blissfully ignorant of the scope and impact" of the bill...

Take a look at the numbers:

Take a look at the numbers:

[goldstategop]

My view is it will probably fall somewhere in the middle of the range. Even at that level, its a immigration wave of a sort we have never seen before in the history of this country. We're going to lose America as we now know it. And to get back to Ronald Reagan's observation that no nation can long survive that does not have control over its borders. If we're going to give that up, let's just abolish the United States. When all is said and done, that really what the Open Borders Lobby advocates want even as they realize its too impolitic a goal to advance openly among the public at large.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[Hardastarboard]

OK, let's get real here. Implementing this new "program" (that's what it is) will require the government to put new software, systems, personnel and procedures in place. You're looking at a window of two to four years before that can even begin to be functional (and let's face it folks, the government is anything but functional). In the meantime, another 2 million illegals will have come here, at current rates.

And you know damn good and well that this "virtual fence" thing is bu!!$h!t. They'll have that figured out within two months of its completion, and be coming on past it. By the time everyone figures out that this whole boondoggle succeeded as well as everything else the government has ever done, it will be another 10 or 20 years down the road, and we'll have even MORE illegals here, and even MORE gutless weasel politicians facing an even bigger problem that they can't and won't solve.

Build the wall. Build it tall, deep, wide, and strong. Put real sanctions on employers, and enforce them, and your're done. Otherwise, kiss America as we know it goodbye.

[backhoe]

My view is it will probably fall somewhere in the middle of the range. Even at that level, its a immigration wave of a sort we have never seen before in the history of this country. We're going to lose America as we now know it. And to get back to Ronald Reagan's observation that no nation can long survive that does not have control over its borders. If we're going to give that up, let's just abolish the United States. When all is said and done, that really what the Open Borders Lobby advocates want even as they realize its too impolitic a goal to advance openly among the public at large.

Your view and mine are similar.

Whatever the real numbers are ( only the passage of time will reveal this and by then, it will be too late ) we are looking at a transformation of America into the Third World.

Here's anecdotal evidence for you:

---

On the night the Senate passed that abomination of a bill, and in the middle of what I call "President Fox's Victory Tour" my formerly quiet neighborhood turned into an all-night, Hispanic block party.

Smokin' & drinkin' & drivin' in circles & hootin' & hollerin'...

Music ( Spanish, or course ) all night long...

Midnight? Still raising Cain...

4 AM? Still partyin' hardy...

8 in the morning?

Finally left... to do those jobs Americans won't...

---

It was a Victory Celebration, plainly and simply.

[Jackknife]

Mexican invasion ping.

[NavVet]

With regard to the White House's numbers. "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."

[Always Right]

If we had 100 million new immigrants, Mexico would be an absolute ghost country. Sometimes people check their logic at the door when they play with numbers.

[sgtbono2002]

It wouldbe a lot easier just to make Mexico a state.

Thats what the politicians want anyway.

[TomGuy]

The White House low-balled the Senate amnesty bill's numbers

This WH has a reputation of doing that kind of thing.

Remember with the Prescription Drug Bill the same thing happened. Initially, the estimated costs were in the range of $350 million. Right after (within days) of its passage, that figure was revised upward to around $550 million. A few months later, a new figure emerged that placed the cost at around $750 million.

Remember that the Iraqi oil was supposed to pay for the Iraqi War and rebuilding. Too, the original US cost figure was in the range of $80 billion (IIRC). Yet each year more and more billions of dollars are funded by Congress, far surpassing that original $80 billion amount.