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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

You forget that Mexico will still be reproducing. We are talking about a 20 year period. Currently there are almost 10 million Mexican-born residents in the US and 4 million in California, according to the 2000 census, which probably underestimates the numbers. Also, remember that only about 60% of the illegals are coming from Mexico.

Mexico has a population growth rate of 1.16% or 2.42 children born per woman [compared to our .91% or 2.09 children per woman.] What makes the Mexican population growth rate so significant is that it has a net migration rate of -4.32 migrants per 1000 [compared to our plus 3.18.] The median age in Mexico is 25.3 compared to our 36.5.

The bottom line is that Mexico won't become "an absolute ghost country." In fact, it will continue to grow faster than the US and be able to supply even more Mexican citizens per year than it does now. Ireland used to do the same thing for decades. It is not a zero sum game, i.e., Mexicans entering the US doesn't lower the overall population, it just slows the overall rate of population increase.

Mexico's population is 107 million today. That number does not include the illegals who are already here.

No it does not, acoording to this.

"Roughly 10 percent of Mexico's population of about 107 million is now living in the United States, estimates show."....Illegals are probably counted as still part of Mexico's population since they are still officially Mexican.

Obviously, you don't understand the miracle of compound interest. If Mexico maintains a 1.16% growth rate over the next 20 years

Oh I understand perfectly well, I just based it on my estimate of what I thought Mexico population was roughly, 100 vs. 107.

And remember that this growth rate includes a negative migration.

Yes and no. It includes the current levels of migration. If the flood gates were truely open as this prediction suggests, the current net migration rate would go from -4.32 per 1000 to about ten times that or about 40 per 1000. This would push their population growth from 1.16% to -2.84%, which would result in Mexico's population plumenting from 107 million to under 60 million over the next 20 years. Ain't going to happen. It's an over the top prediction that should never have been printed.

From NationalLedger.com

Commentary
Bush: ‘Read My Lips – No New Amnesty’
By Nicholas Stix
May 29, 2006

When George Herbert Walker Bush was the Republican presidential nominee for the first time, in 1988, he told the Republican National Convention, “Read my lips: No new taxes.” It became his most effective campaign slogan, and one of the keys to his electoral victory.

But Bush the Elder ultimately raised taxes. In 1992, his base responded variously by staying at home or by voting for third-party candidate Ross Perot, thus bringing brought about the election of Bill Clinton.

Immigrants are Our Future

Bush the Younger fancies himself much smarter than his father. Thus, he did not announce, during either of his presidential campaigns, his plan to grant an amnesty to what now amounts to – according to pro-illegal immigration Bear Stearns economists Robert Justich and Betty Ng – over 20 million illegal immigrants plus their parents plus their children plus their siblings plus anyone who will pay them to say they are blood relatives, much less his plan to bring in, according to an analysis by Sen. Jeff Sessions’ (R, AL) staff, another 200 million legal immigrants over the next 20 years, or to mention the tidal wave of new illegal immigration (another 100 million?) this amnesty would bring about. He knew it would cost him the election, if he did. And so, he bided his time.

Well, George W. Bush still isn’t taking any chances, and so when he finally announced his amnesty plan, he did the equivalent of saying, ‘Read my lips: No new amnesty.’ (“What I have just described is not amnesty.”) He figures that if he lies enough about his planned amnesty, people won’t figure it out until it’s too late. “Too late” means after the coming fall elections. And to sweeten the pot for his social and religious conservative base (or as Karl Rove would call it, "the suckers"), he will propose a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

This is all a word game. Bush is simply calling amnesty by other names: “temporary worker program,” “rational middle ground,” etc. He insists that he seeks amnesty, er, rational middle ground only for veteran criminals, but not for rookies.

“That middle ground recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record.”

And yet, as Bush well knows, under the Treason Plan (known variously as the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act and as S. 2611) he champions and the Senate passed, 62-36, on Thursday, we will end up with amnestied, naturalized, “temporary workers”; amnestied, naturalized, recently arrived illegals; and amnestied, naturalized, long-term illegals. But for treason and democide to prevail, the House must pass its own version. Thus, there is still hope for America.

That Burning Sensation

The man who for years portrayed himself as a straight talker, is peeing on our leg, and telling us that it’s raining.

I voted for George W. Bush in 2000, and again in 2004. As the saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

I suppose President Bush can tell himself that his proposal isn’t really an illegal immigration “amnesty,” because along with immigration law and America’s borders, he is eliminating the very concept of American citizenship. No legal citizens, no illegal immigrants.

The President says he is sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to the Mexican border, but is sending them unarmed, and in fact, not stationing them on the border at all, but in offices, where they will do “paper work.”

But that’s just a stopgap. Mr. Bush’s plan is, by the end of 2008, for the 6,000 do-nothing National Guardsmen to be replaced by 6,000 new, do-nothing Border Patrol agents. That’s over $400 million of nothing per year, courtesy of the American taxpayer.

If Citizens Didn’t Exist, We’d Have to Invent Them

And yet, the ruling elites will still need something to distinguish themselves from the rest of those whose pockets they’re busy picking. And so, there will still be illegal immigration in-between serial amnesties that will occur every few years, because the elites will demand ever cheaper baby sitters, gardeners, cooks, cleaning ladies, dog walkers, car washers, etc. The elites’ll show how morally superior they are to us paupers who can’t afford illegal servants, by periodically demanding amnesty for their servants. This will also endear them to the servants. Then, as soon as the newest mass amnesty goes through, they’ll fire their newly legalized servants, and replace them for even less with new illegals. (‘I’m sorry, Maria, but I just can’t afford you anymore.’)

Soy Un Yahoo

Neocon godfatherette William Kristol has his own word for commoners: “Yahoos.”

Echoing the Liar-in-Chief, and apparently cognizant that consistency is one of the three laws of lying; Kristol denies that the Bush amnesty plan is, in fact, an amnesty plan. Unfortunately, however, like President Bush, Bill Kristol seems unaware of the first law of lying: Plausibility.

At this rate, George W. Bush’s greatest political achievement will obtain in having rescued Bill Clinton from historical infamy. The Clintons’ reign of crime looks better with each passing day.

Taps?

On Memorial Day, in honoring our war dead from the Revolutionary War unto the War on Terror, we say “Lest we forget.” At Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln exhorted, “that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.”

In the new dispensation according to George W. Bush, however, those men did die in vain. Bush fully intends to surrender our patrimony.

If the House goes along with the Senate and the People permit it, this Memorial Day will prove to have been a time to grieve for America itself.

The new Bush plan is the ultimate in taxation without representation. It is revolutionary in its provocation and in its consequences. Perhaps we should stop calling the plan’s patron President Bush, and instead start calling him King George.

We the People survived a civil war, but can we survive George W. Bush?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

"The great mass of people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one."