The following posts have been selected by the editors. These posts include articles about Hoover scholars but not written by them. Others are about the Hoover Institution or this site.
Hoover Research Fellow Clint Bolick argues in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, as it offers the best chance for revamping the existing inefficient system. Bolick believes the opportunity to reorient the nation’s immigration laws toward employment-based preferences should not be missed. Bringing in young workers and preventing future illegal immigration are within reach, says Bolick.
Click here for Bolick’s essay on valuing immigrants.
Immigration reform is making its way through the Senate, which Majority Leader Harry Reid hopes will be voted on by July 4th weekend. The first hurdle was achieved Monday, June 10th, when the Senate voted 84-15 for cloture, allowing debate to continue on the bill.
Meanwhile, the immigration group in the House of Representatives announced last week that it had reached an agreement, although it lost a member in the process. Representative Labrador (R-ID) backed out after disagreements over the provision of emergency health care services to newly legalized immigrants.
The Senate spent the week discussing various amendments to the bill, some more successful than others. Senator Schumer (D-NY) lobbied against changes to the bill’s proposed security checkmarks that would have to be met before formerly illegal aliens could acquire permanent resident status. Senator Rubio (R-FL), crucial to the Gang of Eight’s GOP members, would require stronger English skills to those seeking to achieve permanent status.
One sticking point appears to be the provision of benefits to same-sex partners who achieve permanent status, included in an amendment by Senator Leahy (D-VT). It is something Senator Rubio considers an acid test for supporting the bill, making it a crucial part to be decided.
House Speaker Boehner (R-OH) provided a timeline for the immigration bill’s passage, sometime before the end of the year – as long the bill doesn’t get stuck in the Senate or the House. The Hill reports three paths for the bill in the House once it gets past the Senate. To increase the bill’s chances, some senators are looking ahead to the difficulty of passing reform through the House, and as a result, they’re revisiting border security measures with the purpose of gaining bipartisan support in both chambers.
With the help of three Republican Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Gang of 8’s comprehensive immigration reform bill passed its first hurdle (13-5 vote) and advances to the Senate floor for debate in June with assurance from Senate Minority Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), that Republican leadership will not block a floor vote.
A vast majority of Americans continue to support comprehensive immigration reform—a recent Pew poll shows about three-fourths of Americans say the immigration system requires major changes or needs to be completely rebuilt.
The House of Representatives has yet to produce a bill of its own and has continued to signal hesitation to get behind the Senate’s plan. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) was quick to note that the Senate immigration bill “falls far short” and remains unconvinced the bill does enough to produce a secure border. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has made it clear he won’t follow the Senate’s lead on immigration reform; instead, preferring the House pass its own version.
While the political math for passage of a House version remains unclear, one stumbling block appears to have been removed. Amid talk of House bipartisan negotiations breaking down over whether those on a pathway to citizenship could receive healthcare under the Affordable Care Act, House Democrats capitulated ensuring taxpayers won’t pay for provisional citizens’ healthcare.
Yet, pushing aside one barrier still leaves many more ahead. Another such roadblock yet to be resolved (and unlikely to in the near future) is the issue of cost. Recently, Charles Blahous attempted to determine whether immigration reform would be a net benefit or net cost for Social Security. His answer—to the chagrin of both sides: yes and no; it all depends on the specifics of the reform. To the benefit of proponents, however, Keith Hennessey in an early May analysis (and a recent follow-up piece) took issue with the Heritage Foundation’s highly publicized $6.3 trillion price tag of the citizenship pathway provision.
The Gang of 8’s strategy of sticking together worked well in the Judiciary Committee to avoid poison pill amendments, but questions linger about whether there are the necessary 60 votes in the Senate for a clear passage. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), a member of the Senate Gang of 8, has signaled that 60 votes are not there yet. However, Senate Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), insists getting the 60 votes will be easy.
While it appears momentum is behind the Senate Gang of 8, the lack of a House alternative and the hesitance of many Senators to publicly state their position on the reform bill means comprehensive immigration reform continues to remain in an uncertain place.
Immigration may have fallen from the national spotlight in the last week, but the Senate is wading back in to committee meetings in order to finish considering nearly 300 amendments. Among others accepted in Monday’s session, amendments were agreed to that facilitated law enforcement’s ability to identify and prosecute visa overstays, and allowed immigrants who were victims of human trafficking or domestic abuse to work while seeking visas.
The Senate had previously agreed to 48 amendments in the first round of committee meetings, and although the Senate Gang of Eight is holding together, not all amendments were moving in the same direction. Senator Hatch (R-UT) is advocating for lower restrictions on companies who want to hire high-skilled H-1B workers, specifically eliminating the restriction that they hire U.S. workers first. On the other end, amendments were introduced to increase job-posting requirements by companies who want to hire foreign labor. An amendment was also passed that increased fees levied on STEM immigrants looking to acquire permanent residency. It remains to be seen whether high-skilled immigrants will have an easier time acquiring visas if immigration reform passes.
Meanwhile the union that represents staffers at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services believes it was left out of the Senate Gang of Eight’s deliberations, and is opposing S.744 because it believes too many illegal immigrants will be legalized. That’s the second large union of federal workers to oppose the Senate immigration bill.
The Senate holds the spotlight on immigration reform for now, but reports that a bipartisan group in the House of Representatives have a tentative agreement on the principles for their version of comprehensive immigration reform – including a pathway to citizenship for current illegal immigrants – could mean a whole new round of amendments, committee meetings, and talking points.
Our inaugural post estimates the economic and budgetary effects of one part of the Senate Gang of Eight’s proposed immigration reform. It shows that increasing the caps on H-1B visas leads to non-trivial economic and fiscal effects, at least partially offsetting worries over the cost of immigration reform in the next ten years.
Initial estimates put the appropriations cost of the Senate Gang of Eight’s immigration bill (S. 744) at about $17 billion over ten years, leading at least a few politicians to cite cost as a potential reason to oppose its passage. But as Senator Rubio and others have pointed out, that cost does not include the economic benefits and tax revenue that would come from future immigrants. One group in particular, new H-1B visa workers, would add an estimated $456 billion to GDP and $113 billion to federal tax revenue over the next ten years. $244 billion of that increase in GDP would accrue to current US citizens and residents, with the rest going to the new H-1B workers.
Figure 1, General H-1B Visa Cap Under Current Law and Proposed Senate Bill
The Senate Gang of Eight’s immigration plan increases the general cap on H-1B visas to a minimum of 110,000 and a maximum of 180,000, and increases the master’s degree cap from 20,000 to 25,000. Assuming the first year after passage puts the general cap of initial visas at 110,000 and increases every year by increments of 10,000, then the ten year estimated effect of the law is to increase GDP by $424 billion and federal tax revenue by $107 billion.
Figure 2, Estimated Ten Year Economic and Budgetary Impact of Raising H-1B Visa Ca
H-1B visa holders are well-educated and command high wages. 58% in 2011 held advanced degrees and the mean wage of H-1B visa workers was $78,000. Mean wages were $72,000 for new H-1B recipients and $82,000 for those renewing their visas for continuing employment in 2011. The mean starting wages of new H-1B recipients in fiscal year 2015 are estimated to be over $80,000.
Figure 3, Additional H-1B Workers In Workforce Under Proposed Senate Immigration Bill
The current annual cap on H-1B visas of 65,000 plus 20,000 for advanced degree holders was oversubscribed at the beginning of April in just five days. It seems reasonable that the new cap would increase each year by the 10,000 slots allotted until it hit the 180,000 visa limit. Assuming some attrition and a six-year term, there would quickly be several hundred thousand more individuals in the workforce each year over the next decade under the proposed Senate bill. The first year of implementation would see 50,000 new H-1B workers. The fifth year there would be close to 300,000 individuals working in the United States who wouldn’t have otherwise been allowed in the country. That number would top out around half a million additional workers nine to ten years after the bill became law.
A more complete explanation of all calculations can be found in this paper (PDF) by research fellow Tom Church.
Subscribe to the Immigration Reform channel RSS feed here.
In his epic offering to the glory of Rome, Virgil set the Romans different from the “others:” Those others “could plead their cases better,” he wrote, “chart with their rods the stars, draw from the block of marble features thick with life.” The Roman arts differed, the Roman had to put his “stamp on the works and ways of peace/to spare the defeated, break the proud in war.”
The American president is not Augustus, our military is not the Roman Legions. We can let Rome be as precedent, we can settle for more proximate history: the burden and the power assumed by Pax Britannica, and the baton being passed, within the Anglo-Saxon family, as it were, to Pax Americana. Nowadays, that “imperial” idea is in retreat, and the custodians of American power are reluctant to accept the burden that comes with maintaining and defending the international order. Our colleague Charles Hill has written and brooded over this for years: he had been a public servant and a diplomat of a larger and more confident America. If this is imperial sunset, Hill can chart as precious few others can the American trajectory in recent years. The inspiration for this, our fifth Caravan expedition, comes from him.
The Caravan’s writers will be rolled out in the next two weeks. A new essay will be posted every two days. We start with Charlie Hill and Russell Berman.
– Fouad Ajami
(Photo Credit: The Oath of Horatii, 1784, by Jacques-Louis David (1748-1825), oil on canvas, 330×425 cm/ Getty Images)
Why has the current recovery from the Great Recession been so mediocre? Ed Leamer of UCLA points out that the last three recessions have all had mediocre recoveries of both output and employment. His explanation is that changes in the manufacturing sector have changed the pattern of layoffs, recalls and hiring during recessions and recoveries. The conversation concludes with a discussion of the forces driving the changes in the labor market and the implications for manufacturing.
1) Why the last three recessions all look different (1:44)
2) Employment growth for last eight recessions (4:12)
3) Why have the last three recessions been so different? (6:13)
4) The jobs cycle in manufacturing (8:52)
5) Excess capacity in construction has created a lag (10:33)
6) Manufacturing output versus manufacturing employment (11:14)
7) What’s the solution to the downturn? (12:20)
Benjamin Wittes, member of the Hoover Institution’s Task Force on National Security & Law, discusses “many-to-many” threats. He examines cyberwarfare, as well as the potential dangers arising from biotechnology and robotics, and looks at what the Obama Administration can do to address these growing national security challenges.
Kenneth Anderson discusses the imperatives of American efforts to deny territory to international terrorists and examines the limitations of drone warfare.
The Hoover Institution generates ideas defining a free society, with an objective of developing enduring solutions for the challenges that face our nation and the world. The views expressed on this site are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Hoover Institution or Stanford University.
