Myths and Facts of CIR

					The Myths & Facts
          of
Immigration Reform
     April 14, 2010
There is little argument over whether or not the problems in the United States immigration system need to
be addressed. People from all over the world travel here to achieve the American dream – to live freely,
work hard, and support their families. But due to massive problems with the legal entrance process,
millions are forced to live in the shadows.
Much of the debate over reforming the American immigration system is muddied by commonly repeated
myths over what immigration reform would mean for native-born and naturalized citizens. Unfortunately,
opponents of reform are still relying on the same false, often hateful arguments they have used in the past.
The arguments coming from conservative members of Congress, pundits, and media personalities run the
gamut from likening immigrants to livestock, to calling the American Southwest a new Kosovo, to
referring to immigration as economic terrorism.
                                     This language is unacceptable.
In cooperation with numerous progressive groups, Media Matters Action Network has compiled the
following report disproving many of the common distortions the right tosses around in an attempt to
prevent comprehensive immigration reform.
This report is intended to be a tool for pro-reform advocates and responsible media across the country to
use as they fight the myths of immigration reform.

                      The Myths & Facts of Immigration Reform
MYTH: Immigration Is Bad For The Economy
               FACT: Immigration Is Good For The Economy
               FACT: Immigrant Labor Has Long-Term Positive Effects On The Economy
               FACT: Legalizing The Unauthorized Workforce Will Be Good For The Economy

MYTH: Immigration Kills Jobs And Drives Down American Wages
               FACT: Immigrant Labor Does Not Negatively Affect Citizen Labor
               FACT: More Workers – Immigrant Or Otherwise – Do Not Harm The Economy

MYTH: We Shouldn’t Provide A Path To Legal Status For Unauthorized Immigrants
Because Of The Recession
               FACT: Unauthorized Immigrants Are Not The Cause Of U.S. Unemployment Numbers
               FACT: Immigrant Population Does Not Negatively Affect Unemployment Rate
               FACT: Immigrant Workers Affected By The Recession Just Like Citizen Workers

MYTH: Immigration Drains Public Budgets
               FACT: Immigration Reform Legislation Will Benefit Public Budgets
           FACT: Immigrant Contributions To The Economy Outweigh The Benefits They Receive

MYTH: A Mandatory E-Verify Law Would Help Keep Illegal Immigrants Out Of The
Workforce
           FACT: E-Verify Does More Harm Than Good To The American Economy

MYTH: It Would Be Better For American Workers If Illegal Immigrants Were All
Deported
           FACT: A Mass Deportation Program Would Cost Billions And Would Harm The U.S.
           Economy

MYTH: Having A Child In The U.S. Allows Undocumented Immigrants To Easily Stay
In The Country
           FACT: Undocumented Immigrants Cannot Easily Stay In The U.S. Just Because Their
           Children Are Citizens

MYTH: Having An “Anchor Baby” Allows Undocumented Immigrants To Avoid
Deportation
           FACT: Having American-Born Children Does Not Give Undocumented Immigrants A
           Free Pass For Residency
           FACT: “Anchor Baby” Is A Derogatory Term

MYTH: Immigrants Commit More Crime Than Native-Born Citizens
           FACT: Studies Show That Immigrants Commit Less Crime And Are Incarcerated Less
           Than Native Citizens

MYTH: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Is “Amnesty”
           FACT: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Is NOT Amnesty

MYTH: Immigration Reform Proponents Want An “Open Border” Between The U.S.
And Mexico
           FACT: “Open Borders” Is Not The Goal Of Immigration Reform Advocates
           FACT: Immigration Reform Would Put Undocumented Workers Through A Stringent
           Legalization Process

The Hateful Rhetoric of Immigration Reform Opponents
Anti-Immigrant Groups, White Supremacists, & John Tanton
                                           MYTH:
                             Immigration Is Bad For The Economy
Federation for American Immigration Reform: “With the recent official unemployment rate of 10.2 percent,
American workers are now facing the worst job market in 25 years. In fact, over the past 60 years, the
unemployment rate has rarely been as high as it is today. Despite a difficult job market, President Obama and
leaders in Congress are talking about passing so-called ’comprehensive immigration reform’ legislation. This
legislation would give amnesty to 12 million or more illegal aliens, including an estimated 8.3 million illegal aliens
who hold jobs they never should have had, and could include a proposed new guest-worker provision to import
hundreds of thousands of additional foreign workers.” [November 2009]

Newt Gingrich: “Economically, in a world of vast income differences, instantaneous communications, and cheap
travel (even when illegal), we cannot continue to allow a wide-open illegal employment system. The current flood
of illegal migration if left unchecked for a period of decades will decisively undermine the economy in both
economic and legal terms.” [5/26/06]

Federation for American Immigration Reform: “Current levels of immigration are not beneficial to our
country’s economy, its fiscal well-being, or the health of our labor market. In fact, immigration is a drain on the
economy.” [4/11/10]

Ian de Silva: “We are in the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Over 15 million Americans are
out of work. You would think any sensible government would put a moratorium on all work visas until the crisis
was over. But our government thinks that foreigners have a right to come here no matter what. Why else would our
government issue over 450,000 visas to foreign workers in 2009?” [2/2/10]

                                          FACT:
                           Immigration Is Good For The Economy
Urban Institute: “Consensus” Is That “Immigration Spurs The Economy As A Whole.” According to a 2008
report by the Urban Institute:

        Because immigration rises in response to increased labor demand, it allows businesses to expand more
        quickly than they would if forced to rely only on native-born workers. For instance, between 1996 and
        2002, foreign-born workers accounted for 51 percent of labor force growth, despite making up only 14
        percent of the labor force in the latter year (Orrenius 2003). It is possible that such statistics overstate the
        importance of immigration in promoting economic growth: Borjas, Freeman, and Katz (1997) estimate that,
        in 1995, immigration increased U.S. GDP by at most a tenth of one percent. Still, consensus holds that,
        although its effects on workers at different skill levels are mixed, immigration spurs growth in the
        economy as whole. [Urban Institute, 4/1/08; emphasis added]

Bush Council Of Economic Advisers: Immigration Is Good For The Economy And American Workers. On
June 20, 2007, President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers released a report that “assesses immigration’s
economic impact based on the professional literature and concludes that immigration has a positive effect on the
American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers.” The paper further stated
that “[i]mmigrants tend to complement (not substitute for) natives, raising natives’ productivity and income,”
noting that, “in contrast to their 15% share in the total labor force, foreign-born workers accounted for much higher
proportions of workers without high school degrees and of those with Ph.D. degrees.” Based on recent estimates,
“annual wage gains from immigration are between $30 billion and $80 billion” for the United States, according to
the report. [Council of Economic Advisers, 6/20/07; emphasis added]

Cato Economist: Immigration Reform Will “Create Better Jobs And Stimulate The Economy.” Responding
to the results of the Center for American Progress immigration report, Cato economist Daniel Griswold said: “We
have two very different organizations coming to very similar conclusions, and that is that enforcement-only is a
policy that has not only failed, it poses significant costs on Americans as taxpayers and on our economy…If
Congress and the president want to create better jobs and stimulate the economy, then comprehensive immigration
reform, including a temporary worker program, should be very high on their agenda.” [Miller-McCune.com,
1/7/10]

“Comprehensive Overhaul” Can Boost Economic Benefits Of Immigration. Heidi Shierholz, an economist at
the Economic Policy Institute, has stated that “immigration has had very little to do” with “the declining quality of
jobs over the last few decades.” She added, “Nevertheless, immigration could have a much more beneficial impact
on the U.S. economy--and its impact on foreign-born workers already here could be mitigated--with a
comprehensive overhaul.” [Council on Foreign Relations, 3/8/10]

Immigration Not Cause Of Declining American Economy. In a piece discussing the effect of immigration upon
American jobs, economist Heidi Shierholz wrote, “the real culprits behind broad-based erosion of wages and job
quality” are not immigration but rather “declining unionization, the erosion of the real value of the minimum wage,
and unbalanced foreign trade.” [Council on Foreign Relations, 3/8/10]

                               FACT:
     Immigrant Labor Has Long-Term Positive Effects On The Economy
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Will Raise GDP $1.5 Trillion Over 10 Years. According to a report
issued by the Center for American Progress titled “Raising the Floor for American Workers,” R. Raul Hinojosa-
Ojeda found: “Comprehensive immigration reform generates an increase in U.S. GDP of at least 0.84 percent.
Summed over 10 years, this amounts to a cumulative $1.5 trillion in additional GDP. It also boosts wages for both
native-born and newly legalized immigrant workers.” [Center for American Progress, 1/7/10]

“Temporary Worker Program Generates…$792 Billion Of Cumulative GDP Over 10 Years.” According to a
report issued by the Center for American Progress titled “Raising the Floor for American Workers,” R. Raul
Hinojosa-Ojeda found: “The temporary worker program generates an increase in U.S. GDP of 0.44 percent. This
amounts to $792 billion of cumulative GDP over 10 years.” [Center for American Progress, 1/7/10]

Georgetown Economist Holzer: Immigration Reduces Health Care Costs For Americans. Addressing the
“Effects of immigration on the employment outcomes of black Americans” before the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, Georgetown economist Harry Holzer stated in April 2008 that: “By providing workers at different skill
levels to the health care and elder care industries, foreign-born workers tend to reduce labor shortages that might
otherwise occur, and thus help increase the supply (and reduce the cost) of health care services to Americans.2 And
by providing more students and professionals in the fields of science and engineering, they help the United States to
maintain its international ‘comparative advantage’ in these fields.” [Holzer testimony to the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights, 4/4/08]

Georgetown Economist Holzer: Immigration Extends The Solvency Of Social Security And Medicare.
Addressing the “Effects of immigration on the employment outcomes of black Americans” before the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, Georgetown economist Harry Holzer stated in April 2008 that: “As we look to the
future, these contributions in many areas may grow more important. For example, as ‘Baby Boomers’ begin retiring
in large numbers over the coming decade, the supply of immigrant labor to the health care and elder care fields will
become even more critical for averting shortages of services in these areas. By supplying more younger workers
and fewer retirees, new immigration will help reduce the nation’s fiscal imbalances over the next several decades.
And by replenishing the nation’s supply of scientists and engineers, highly educated immigrants will be critical to
the preservation of U.S. strength in technological innovation, especially as other countries (like China and India)
become more competitive in these areas (Freeman 2004).” [Holzer testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, 4/4/08]

Georgetown Economist Holzer: “Immigration Confers Some Benefits On The U.S. Consumer -- Especially
Low Income Consumers.” Addressing the “Effects of immigration on the employment outcomes of black
Americans” before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Georgetown economist Harry Holzer stated in April 2008
that: “Immigration tends to have other effects on the U.S. economy. For instance, by reducing the costs and prices
of domestically produced items, such as food, clothing, and housing, immigration confers some benefits on the U.S.
consumer -- especially low income consumers, who spend large fractions of their disposable incomes on these
items. The exact magnitudes of these effects are somewhat hard to quantify (Borjas 1995; Card 2005), though rising
numbers of immigrant workers in any sector lead to both greater competition over jobs and greater benefits to
consumers.” [Holzer testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 4/4/08]

                              FACT:
Legalizing The Unauthorized Workforce Will Be Good For The Economy
2009 Cato Study: Legalization Will Benefit The American Economy. According to a 2009 study conducted by
the Cato Institute titled “Restriction or Legalization? Measuring the Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform,”
Cato found: “legalization of low-skilled immigrant workers would yield significant income gains for American
workers and households. Legalization would eliminate smugglers’ fees and other costs faced by illegal immigrants.
It would also allow immigrants to have higher productivity and create more openings for Americans in higher
skilled occupations. The positive impact for U.S. households of legalization under an optimal visa tax would be
1.27 percent of GDP or $180 billion.” [Cato Institute, 8/13/09]

Legalization Increases Earning Power Of Immigrants. Columbia University economist Francisco L. Rivera-
Batiz wrote in a report titled “Undocumented Workers in the Labor Market: An Analysis of the Earnings of Legal
and Illegal Immigrants in the U.S.”:

        The substantial fraction of the wage gains of illegal immigrants between 1987/88 and 1992 that cannot be
        explained by changes in individual characteristics strongly suggests that the change in the legal status of
        illegal immigrants had a strong positive effect on their earnings. Legalization had a positive effect on the
        earnings of illegal immigrants, whether by eliminating the monopsonistic power that some employers exert
        over them, or by allowing immigrants greater access to the labor market. [Journal of Population
        Economics, February 1999]

Meissner: Legalization Would Stimulate Economy Through Wage And Spending Increases. During her
testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship, Migration Policy
Institute Director Doris Meissner said:

        Unauthorized immigrants earn lower wages, placing downward pressure on native wages, and are more
        likely to work off the books. These negative effects compound over time. Legalization would contribute to
        stimulating the economy by raising wages and increasing immigrant spending, both short- and long-term.
        And legalization would also increase immigrants’ payments to the tax base.

        […]
        Legalization of unauthorized immigrants would result in wage increases to reduce or eliminate the existing
        unauthorized wage penalty. Wages increased by 11 to 20 percent for legalized workers in the years after
        IRCA. A new legalization program could be expected to produce wage gains of at least this magnitude,
        because the wage penalty is higher today than it was prior to IRCA, and because legalization likely would
        be combined with an expanded and improved electronic eligibility verification system, minimizing
        defensive hiring. [Meissner Testimony, U.S. Senate, 4/30/09]

Reuters: Analysts Say Legalization Won’t Make Or Break Economic Recovery. Reuters reported: “Compared
to multibillion-dollar financial bailouts and a nearly trillion-dollar economic stimulus package signed by Obama in
February amid the ongoing recession, analysts say the economic costs or gains from legalization are relatively
small.” Reuters quoted Mark Rosenblum of the Migration Policy Institute stating, “Immigrants are still a small
proportion of the U.S. economy, and it’s not going to make or break the U.S. economic recovery or the recession,
whether or not we do legalization.” [Reuters, 4/27/09]

“A Larger Pool Of Workers – Whether Legal Or Illegal – Boosts Gross Domestic Product.” In a 2006 piece
on the economic impact of immigration in the San Francisco Chronicle, Carolyn Said wrote, “There’s no dispute
that a larger pool of workers -- whether legal or illegal -- boosts gross domestic product. More workers means more
output. More people means more consumers spending money on food, rent and a range of necessities and luxuries.
A better question is: How do immigrants affect the size of the economy per U.S.-born citizen? ‘GDP per domestic
person goes up,’ said James Smith, a senior economist at the Rand think tank in Santa Monica and lead author of
the National Research Council’s study ‘The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of
Immigration.’“ [San Francisco Chronicle, 5/21/06]

Dan Siciliano: Legalization Makes Undocumented Workers Better Contributors To Economic Growth.
Deserert News reported in April 2009 that “Dan Siciliano, executive director of the Program in Law, Economics
and Business at Stanford Law School, said legalization would bring members of the immigrant community into the
same economic realm as legal residents and make them better contributors to growth. ‘We want to remove as much
uncertainty as possible,’ Siciliano said. ‘Consumers who are a part of the ‘above-ground’ economy are better
consumers … spending more and growing our economy.’”[Deserert News, 4/13/09]

Fitzgerald: Legalization “Would Yield A Slight Net Fiscal Benefit And Slightly Higher Economic Growth.”
David Scott Fitzgerald of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies wrote that a legalization program would
create a “larger tax base” and would lead to “slightly higher economic growth”:

        How would a mass legalization program affect the U.S. economy? Legalized immigrants would be more
        likely to enter the formal economy, earn higher wages, and pay federal income tax and payroll taxes. On
        the other hand, newly legalized immigrants would become eligible for social welfare programs like
        unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Medicare. The larger tax base achieved by bringing this
        population into the formal economy and consequently increasing the economic mobility of both immigrants
        and their U.S.-born children would yield a slight net fiscal benefit and slightly higher economic growth.
        [Council on Foreign Relations, 3/8/10]
                                    MYTH:
            Immigration Kills Jobs And Drives Down American Wages
Virgil Goode: “The first priority of our government needs to be the interests of American citizens -- both native
born and naturalized -- not ‘legal immigrant workers.’ And the 25 million American citizens out of work are not
only pushed out by illegal aliens, but also by certain legal immigrants.” [12/14/09]

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX): “If the immigration laws we have on the books were enforced, we could cut
unemployment in half.” [2/19/10]

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX): “The fact is that illegal immigrants take jobs from American workers, particularly
poor and disadvantaged citizens and legal immigrants. The best outcome for low-skilled citizen and legal
immigrant workers is the removal of the illegal immigrant population. The very jobs that illegal immigrants occupy
rightfully belong to out of work citizens and legal immigrants.” [1/26/10]

Federation for American Immigration Reform: “At a time when some 25 million Americans are either
unemployed or involuntarily working part-time, amnesty legislation would legally entitle the estimated 7.5 million
illegal aliens in our workforce to keep their current jobs, and compete with distressed American workers for any
new jobs that are created. Proposed legislation, billed as ‘comprehensive immigration reform,’ would also increase
the flow of legal immigrants who would compete for jobs in the U.S., while offering no concrete initiative for
stemming the tide of new illegal immigration.” [3/24/10]

                                  FACT:
           Immigrant Labor Does Not Negatively Affect Citizen Labor
Princeton Economist: “Best Evidence Does Not Support The View” That Immigrants Have Hurt Americans’
Opportunities. In an April 4, 2006, memo, Alan B. Krueger, an economist at Princeton University, wrote: “The
best available evidence does not support the view that large waves of immigrants in the past have had a detrimental
effect on the labor market opportunities of natives, including the less skilled and minorities.” Krueger further stated
that “studies that predict the largest adverse impacts of immigration” make the mistake of assuming that “the size of
the capital stock remains unchanged.” [Center for American Progress, 4/4/06]

Unauthorized Workers’ Labor “Is Generally Complementary To Native-Born Labor.” David Scott
Fitzgerald of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies wrote, “only 8 percent of the total hours worked in
the U.S. in 2007 were performed by people with less than a high school education. In fact, unauthorized immigrant
labor is generally complementary to native-born labor. Unemployed auto workers in Michigan are not migrating to
California to pick fruit.” [Council on Foreign Relations, 3/8/10]

Economist David Card: “Overall, Evidence That Immigrants Have Harmed The Opportunities Of Less
Educated Natives Is Scant.” In a 2005 paper, UC Berkeley economist David Card reviewed “the recent evidence”
on the question: “Does immigration reduce the labor market opportunities of less-skilled natives?” Card concluded
that: “Overall, evidence that immigrants have harmed the opportunities of less educated natives is scant.” From the
paper:

        New evidence from the 2000 Census re-confirms the main lesson of earlier studies: Although immigration
        has a strong effect on relative supplies of different skill groups, local labor market outcomes of low skilled
        natives are not much affected by these relative supply shocks.
        [...]

        The leading alternative to a local labor market approach is a time series analysis of aggregate relative
        wages. Surprisingly, such an analysis shows that the wages of native dropouts (people with less than a high
        school diploma) relative to native high school graduates have remained nearly constant since 1980, despite
        pressures from immigrant inflows that have increased the relative supply of dropout labor, and despite the
        rise in the wage gap between other education groups in the U.S. economy.

        […]

        As in most of the previous work looking at local labor market impact of immigration, there is a surprisingly
        weak relationship between immigration and less-skilled native wages. [UC Berkeley, Is the New
        Immigration Really So Bad?, October 2005]

Princeton Economist: “Stricter Immigration Policy” Is “Unlikely To Materially Affect The Earnings Or Job
Prospects Off Less Skilled Workers.” In an April 4, 2006, memo, Alan B. Krueger, an economist at Princeton
University, wrote: “There are many policies that would be helpful for less skilled workers that deserve
consideration, such as an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, an increase in the child tax credit, a boost in
the minimum wage, and increased job training. Stricter immigration policy, however, is unlikely to materially affect
the earnings or job prospects of less skilled workers. [Center for American Progress, 4/4/06]

Bush CEA: “Immigration Is Not A Central Cause” Of Difficulties Faced By Low-Skilled Workers. A June
2007 report by President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers stated that “[s]tudies often find small
negative effects of immigration on the wages of low-skilled natives.” The paper added: “The difficulties faced by
high school dropouts are a serious policy concern, but it is safe to conclude that immigration is not a central cause
of those difficulties, nor is reducing immigration a well-targeted way to help these low-wage natives.” [Council of
Economic Advisers, 6/20/07]

Native-born and naturalized citizens benefit from the immigrant workforce.

Bush CEA: “Natives Benefit From Immigration Because The Complementarities Associated With
Immigrants Outweigh Any Losses.” According to a June 2007 report by President George W. Bush’s Council of
Economic Advisers, “natives benefit from immigration because the complementarities associated with
immigrants outweigh any losses from added labor market competition.” Providing an example, the Council wrote,
“the presence of unskilled foreign-born construction laborers allows skilled US craftsmen and contractors to build
more homes at lower cost than otherwise – therefore the US natives’ productivity and income rise.” [Council of
Economic Advisers, 6/20/07; emphasis added]

CBO: “The Ultimate Impact On Wages Is Likely To Be Modest.” On May 3, 2007, Peter Orszag, then-director
of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, stated that the arrival of many immigrants with little education
“probably slows the growth of the wages of native-born high school dropouts, at least initially, but the ultimate
impact on wages is likely to be modest.” He added, “A flexible labor market will adjust over time to the presence of
more foreign-born workers. An increased supply of labor should raise the return to investment in the United
States, and increased investment, in turn, will tend to raise workers’ productivity and earnings.”[Orszag
Testimony to Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, 5/3/07, emphasis added]

Georgetown Economist Holzer: Employment Impact Is “Modest.” In November 2005 testimony for the House
Committee on Education and the Workforce, Georgetown economist Harry Holzer stated that “a consensus view
among labor economists would probably suggest that immigration has reduced the earnings of less educated native-
born Americans by a modest amount, and perhaps somewhat more among high school dropouts.” Holzer said: “The
modest impact of immigration is probably due to the following factors”:

    •   Immigrants are consumers as well as workers. They raise the demand for goods and services where they
        reside, as well as the supply of labor.

    •   Immigrants remain quite heavily concentrated in a small number of states and in a small number of
        occupations and industries within those states. Many, though not all, of the least-educated immigrants work
        in low-wage jobs to which the supply of native-born labor is limited, while those who are more heavily
        educated work in fields (such as science and engineering) where employment growth remains very strong.

    •   Native-born workers tend to offset the effects of immigration by moving elsewhere, thereby further reducing
        the amount of direct competition for jobs between the two groups. [Holzer Testimony to the House
        Committee on Education and the Workforce, 11/16/05]

Ottaviano and Peri: Immigration Has “Small Positive Effects” On Wages In The Long Run. In a July 2008
paper, Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Giovanni Peri of the National
Bureau of Economic Research stated: “Using our estimates and Census data we find that immigration (1990-2006)
had small negative effects in the short run on native workers with no high school degree (-0.7%) and on average
wages (-0.4%) while it had small positive effects on nativeworkers with no high school degree (+0.3%) and on
average native wages (+0.6%) in the long run.” [NBER, July 2008; italics original]

                             FACT:
 More Workers – Immigrant Or Otherwise – Do Not Harm The Economy
EPI: More Workers – Foreign Or Domestic – Simply Add To The Economy. A report by the Economic Policy
Institute found that “more people, including more foreigners, do not mean lower wages or higher unemployment. If
they did, every time a baby was born or a new graduate entered the labor force, they would hurt existing workers.
But new workers do not just have supply-side impacts, they also affect demand. Those new graduates buy food and
cars and pay rent. In other words, while new workers add to the supply of labor, they also consume goods and
services, creating more jobs. An economy with more people does not mean lower wages and higher
unemployment, it is simply a bigger economy. Just because New York is bigger than Los Angeles does not in and
of itself mean workers in New York are worse off than workers in Los Angeles.” [Economic Policy Institute,
February 2010]

“Employment Is Not A Zero-Sum Game.” According to the Immigration Policy Center: “Employment is not a
zero-sum game in which workers compete for some set number of jobs. Policies which lift the wages of workers,
regardless of where they were born, benefit the entire U.S. economy. Workers who earn higher wages also buy
more goods and services from U.S. businesses, and pay more in taxes to federal and state governments, both of
which create jobs. Conversely, attempting to remove unauthorized workers from the United States would not only
be an expensive and socially destructive undertaking, but would also shrink the consumer base of the U.S. economy
and reduce the total number of available jobs. In other words, comprehensive immigration reform would sustain
new jobs at a time when the economy desperately needs them.” [Immigration Policy Center, 2/24/10]

Furthermore, immigrant labor does not have a negative affect upon the American minority workforce.

Georgetown Economist Holzer: “Other Factors Are More Responsible For Negative Trends In Employment
Of Black Men.” Addressing the “Effects of immigration on the employment outcomes of black Americans” before
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Georgetown economist Harry Holzer stated in April 2008 that “[t]he modest
effects of immigration suggest that other factors are more responsible for the negative trends in the employment of
black men and their rising incarceration rates” and therefore “changes in immigration law will probably not
improve employment opportunities and outcomes for young blacks.” Holzer also stated that the benefits of
immigration “include lower prices for important consumer commodities, like food and housing, that are heavily
used by lower-income families; these lower prices help raise their real incomes and offset the lower wages that
competition with immigrants might generate. The provision of health care and elder care, which frequently suffer
from worker shortages, is likely enhanced by immigration as well.” [Holzer testimony to the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights, 4/4/08]

                                 MYTH:
       We Shouldn’t Provide A Path To Legal Status For Unauthorized
                  Immigrants Because Of The Recession
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX): “How can the administration justify giving millions of jobs to illegal immigrants
when the economy is struggling with a 10 percent unemployment rate?” [12/11/09]

Federation for American Immigration Reform: “At a time when some 25 million Americans are either
unemployed or involuntarily working part-time, amnesty legislation would legally entitle the estimated 7.5 million
illegal aliens in our workforce to keep their current jobs, and compete with distressed American workers for any
new jobs that are created. Proposed legislation, billed as “comprehensive immigration reform,” would also increase
the flow of legal immigrants who would compete for jobs in the U.S., while offering no concrete initiative for
stemming the tide of new illegal immigration.” [freerepublic.com, 3/24/10]

                                     FACT:
                   Unauthorized Immigrants Are Not The Cause Of
                           U.S. Unemployment Numbers
IPC: “Neither Legal Nor Unauthorized Immigration Is The Cause Of High Unemployment.” In a report titled
“Immigration Reform and Job Growth,” the Immigration Policy Center noted:

        With the U.S. unemployment rate hovering at 10%, some have questioned whether or not now is really the
        right time for comprehensive immigration reform that includes the creation of a pathway to legal status for
        unauthorized immigrants already living in the United States. Underlying this uncertainty is the fear that
        native-born Americans will lose out on scarce jobs if currently unauthorized immigrants acquire legal
        status—despite the obvious fact that unauthorized immigrants are already here and in the labor force.
        However, the best available evidence suggests that neither legal nor unauthorized immigration is the cause
        of high unemployment, and that the higher wages and purchasing power which formerly unauthorized
        immigrants would enjoy were they to receive legal status would sustain new jobs. [Immigration Policy
        Center, 2/24/10]

IPC: “There Is Little Apparent Relationship Between Recent Immigration And Unemployment Rates.” In a
report titled “Immigration Reform and Job Growth,” the Immigration Policy Center asserted:

        If immigrants really “took” jobs away from large numbers of native-born workers, especially during
        economic hard times, then one would expect to find high unemployment rates in those parts of the country
        with the largest numbers of immigrants—especially immigrants who have come to the United States
        recently (many of whom are unauthorized) and, presumably, are more willing to work for lower wages and
        under worse conditions than either long-term immigrants or native-born workers. Yet a series of reports in
        2009 by Rob Paral & Associates for the Immigration Policy Center found that there is little apparent
        relationship between recent immigration and unemployment rates at the regional, state, or county level.
        [Immigration Policy Center, 2/24/10]

                                 FACT:
    Immigrant Population Does Not Negatively Affect Unemployment Rate
Highest Unemployment Rates Found In Areas With Low Recent Immigration Numbers. According to the
Immigration Policy Center: “The highest unemployment rates are found in counties located in manufacturing
centers and rural areas—which tend to have relatively few recent immigrants. Recent immigrants usually go where
the jobs are: metropolitan and non-manufacturing counties where unemployment rates are lower.” [Immigration
Policy Center, 2/24/10]

•   Fewer Recent Immigrants Are Found In Areas Of Highest Unemployment. According to the Immigration
    Policy Center: “On average, recent immigrants comprise 3.1% of the population in counties with the highest
    unemployment rates (over 13.4%). But recent immigrants account for a higher share of the population (4.6%)
    in counties with the lowest unemployment rates (below 4.8%).” [Immigration Policy Center, 2/24/10]

More Unemployed Native Workers Have College Degrees Than Recent Immigrants, Putting The Groups In
Separate Job Markets. According to the Immigration Policy Center: “Over one-quarter (27.4%) of all
unemployed natives had some college short of a bachelor’s degree in 2008 and were unlikely to be in the same job
markets as employed recent immigrants, of whom only 14.4% had some college short of a bachelor’s degree.”
[Immigration Policy Center, 2/24/10]

“Unemployed Native Workers And Employed Recent Immigrants” Do Not Compete For Same Jobs.
According to the Immigration Policy Center: “Even among workers without a high-school diploma, unemployed
natives and employed recent immigrants differ in location, occupation, and work experience.” [Immigration Policy
Center, 2/24/10]

                              FACT:
Immigrant Workers Affected By The Recession Just Like Citizen Workers
Immigrants Endure Large Portion Of Recession Consequences. During her testimony before the Senate
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship, Migration Policy Institute Director Doris
Meissner said: “Immigrants are also highly overrepresented in many of the most vulnerable industries -- including
construction, many sectors in low value-added manufacturing, leisure and hospitality, and support and personal
services -- and in many of the most vulnerable jobs within those industries. Immigrants from Mexico and Central
America are even more concentrated in many of these industries, and as a result, bear a disproportionate share of
the downturn’s consequences.” [Meissner Testimony, U.S. Senate, 4/30/09]

Immigrants Tend To Adapt To Changing Work Environment Rapidly. During her testimony before the Senate
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship, Migration Policy Institute Director Doris
Meissner said: “immigrants (and especially recent immigrants) are generally able to adjust more quickly to
changing labor market conditions than native-born workers because they are more amenable to changing jobs and
their places of residence for work-related reasons.” [Meissner Testimony, U.S. Senate, 4/30/09]

Immigrant Workers Open To Taking Dangerous Or Informal Jobs To Fulfill Obligations. During her
testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship, Migration Policy
Institute Director Doris Meissner said: “Deeply felt family obligations (including the need to send remittances to
relatives in the country of origin) and lack of access to the federal social safety net often lead immigrant workers to
go to extraordinary lengths to remain employed or find new employment quickly. While such flexibility and
determination are laudable at the individual level, they may have negative broader consequences, such as pushing
immigrant workers into dangerous working conditions or informal work.” [Meissner Testimony, U.S. Senate,
4/30/09]

                                           MYTH:
                               Immigration Drains Public Budgets
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX): “There are other reasons to oppose amnesty too: It will put a greater strain on our
schools, hospitals and government services, and it will increase taxes.” [LA Times, 3/25/10]

Heritage Foundation: “The Heritage Foundation, however, has found that illegal immigrants take in $32,138 in
immediate benefits and services for every $9,686 in taxes they pay out. This scenario is likely to worsen as these
individuals become eligible for government benefits only permitted to legal residents of the United States.”
[1/12/10]

                                   FACT:
           Immigration Reform Legislation Will Benefit Public Budgets
Graham-Schumer Plan Would Require Immigrants To Pay Fine, Back Taxes. Sens. Lindsey Graham and
Chuck Schumer wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that their immigration reform plan would require immigrants to
pay fines and back taxes before becoming eligible for legal status:

       For the 11 million immigrants already in this country illegally, we would provide a tough but fair path
       forward. They would be required to admit they broke the law and to pay their debt to society by performing
       community service and paying fines and back taxes. These people would be required to pass background
       checks and be proficient in English before going to the back of the line of prospective immigrants to earn the
       opportunity to work toward lawful permanent residence. [Washington Post, 3/19/10]

Cato: The Children Of Immigrants “Have A Positive $76,000 Fiscal Impact.” David Griswold of the
libertarian Cato Institute wrote in a report titled, “The Fiscal Impact of Immigration Reform: The Real Story”:

        What is less often considered is that the [National Research Council] study also measured the fiscal impact
        of the descendants of immigrants. That gives a much more accurate picture of the fiscal impact of low-
        skilled immigrants. It would be misleading, for example, to count the costs of educating the children of an
        immigrant without considering the future taxes paid by the educated children once they have grown and
        entered the workforce. The children of immigrants typically outperform their parents in terms of
        educational achievement and income. As a result, the NRC calculated that the descendants of a typical
        lowskilled immigrant have a positive $76,000 fiscal impact, reducing the net present value of the fiscal
        impact of a lowskilled immigrant and descendants to $13,000. [Cato Institute, 5/21/07]

Bush CEA: “The Long-Run Impact Of Immigration On Public Budgets Is Likely To Be Positive.” A June
2007 report by Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers stated that “[t]he long-run impact of immigration on public
budgets is likely to be positive. Projections of future taxes and government spending are subject to uncertainty, but
a careful study published by the National Research Council estimated that immigrants and their descendants would
contribute about $80,000 more in taxes (in 1996 dollars) than they would receive in public services.” The report
also noted:
        The long-term fiscal approach imparts four main lessons: 1) although subject to uncertainty, it appears that
        immigration has a slightly positive long-run fiscal impact; 2) skilled immigrants have a more positive
        impact than others; 3) the positive fiscal impact tends to accrue at the federal level, but net costs tend to be
        concentrated at the state and local level; and 4) the overall fiscal effect of immigration is not large relative
        to the volume of total tax revenues – immigration is unlikely to cure or cause significant fiscal imbalances.
        [Council of Economic Advisers, 6/20/07]

Ewing: “A Legalization Program Would Increase The Tax Contributions And Purchasing Power” Of
Undocumented Immigrants. Immigration Policy Center senior researcher Walter Ewing wrote in the Sacramento
Bee:

        When it comes to undocumented immigration, there is another crucial economic question: What would cost
        more, deporting 12 million undocumented immigrants, or offering them a pathway to legal status? The
        “deport them all” option would cost hundreds of billions of dollars and remove workers, taxpayers, and
        consumers from the economy during a recession. A legalization program would increase the tax
        contributions and purchasing power of formerly undocumented workers and consumers, while avoiding the
        economic and human costs of large-scale deportations. Which of these alternatives makes the most
        economic sense? [Sacramento Bee, 6/28/09]

IPC: With Legalization Program, Immigrants Would “Pay Regularly Into The Social Security And Tax
Systems.” Economist Sherrie Kossoujdi wrote in a November 2009 Immigration Policy Center report that “a new
legalization program would automatically transform more than one-in-twenty workers into recognized employees
openly subject to labor laws. They would earn higher wages, spend more money in the United States, and pay
regularly into the Social Security and tax systems.” The report also stated, “The Congressional Budget Office
(CBO), considering the cost and benefits of a 2006 bill that included legalization, estimated $65 billion in new
income and payroll tax collections over ten years. The CBO also estimated that there would be higher aggregate
wages, more reporting of employment income, and lower income taxes for corporations and business people.”
[Immigration Policy Center, “Back to the Future: The Impact of Legalization Then and Now,” November 2009]

USC Study: Lack Of Legal Status For Undocumented Means Loss Of Tax Revenue. A January 2010 study by
USC’s Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration found that the wage penalty for Latino immigrants in
California lacking legal status “represents a loss in income and sales taxes that local, state, and federal governments
are unable to capture – including $310 million in income taxes for the state and $1.4 billion for the federal
government last year.” The report also stated, “Granted legal status, California’s unauthorized immigrants could
strengthen our national social safety net by bolstering Social Security and Medicare taxes by an additional $2.2
billion annually.” [Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, “The Economic Benefits of Immigrant
Authorization in California,” January 2010]

CBO: The 2007 Immigration Reform Bill Would Increase Revenues By $48 Billion Over 10 Years. The
Congressional Budget Office stated in its June 4, 2007, cost estimate of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Act of 2007 that the bill, which would have legalized many undocumented immigrants in the United States, would
increase federal revenues “by $48 billion over the 2008-2017 period.” CBO said “[t]hat increase would stem largely
from greater receipts of Social Security payroll taxes.” CBO estimated that the bill would have increased direct
spending by $23 billion over 10 years and would have led to an increase in discretionary spending for law
enforcement, detention, employment eligibility verification and additional federal employees of $43 billion. Under
the bill, most unauthorized immigrants applying to legal status would not be eligible for Medicaid or Food Stamps
until after 2017 and would have to pay fees that would raise $8 billion. [CBO.gov, 5/4/07]
                              FACT:
 Immigrant Contributions To The Economy Outweigh The Benefits They
                              Receive
Cato: Low-Skilled, Hispanic Workers Contribute More To The Economy Than They Cost The Government.
David Griswold of the libertarian Cato Institute wrote in a report titled, “The Fiscal Impact of Immigration Reform:
The Real Story”:

        Several state-level studies have found that the increased economic activity created by lower-skilled, mostly
        Hispanic immigrants far exceeds the costs to state and local governments. A 2006 study by the Kenan
        Institute of Private Enterprise at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill found that the rapidly
        growing population of Hispanics in the state, many of them undocumented immigrants, had indeed
        imposed a net cost on the state government of $61 million, but the study also found that those same
        residents had increased the state’s economy by $9 billion. [Cato Institute, 5/21/07]

Ewing: Studies Claiming “Immigrants Are A Net ‘Cost’” Rely On Incomplete Data. Walter Ewing, senior
researcher at the Immigration Policy Center, wrote in a June 2009 column appearing in the Sacramento Bee: “most
of the studies that claim to demonstrate that immigrants are a net ‘cost’ to the economy usually rely on one-year
‘snapshots’ of the immigrant population that fail to account for the incomes and tax contributions of immigrants
over time. Most such studies count the education and care of the U.S.-born children of immigrants as ‘costs’
incurred by immigrant households, even though these same children are classified as ‘natives’ when they are
taxpaying adults. And few of these studies consider economic contributions such as consumer purchasing power
and the formation of businesses, which create new jobs and generate additional tax revenue.” [Sacramento Bee,
6/28/09]

IPC Report: Census Data “Disputes The Claims That Newly Legalized Immigrants Will Cling To Public
Assistance.” A November 2009 Immigration Policy Center report written by Rob Paral and Associates said that
Census data on Mexican immigrants who arrived in the U.S. between 1975-1981 indicates that those who gained
legal status through the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act generally “did not depend upon public
assistance.” The report stated, “Between 1990 and 2006, use of public assistance declined slightly among IRCA
immigrants who were 25-34 years old in 1990, and remained roughly the same among those who were 35-44 years
old in 1990.” These two age groups “became less likely than natives to receive public assistance during the 1990-
2006 period.” However, the report said “use of public assistance rose slightly among IRCA immigrants who were
16-24 years old in 1990.” [Immigration Policy Center, November 2009]

In Most States, Less Than 5% Of State Budget Spent On Undocumented Immigrant Costs. According to a
2007 report from the CBO titled “The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local
Governments”: “In most of the estimates that CBO examined, however, spending for unauthorized immigrants
accounted for less than 5 percent of total state and local spending for those services. Spending for unauthorized
immigrants in certain jurisdictions in California was higher but still represented less than 10 percent of total
spending for those services.” [CBO, December 2007]

50% Of Undocumented Immigrants Pay Income And Payroll Taxes. According to a 2007 report from the CBO
titled “The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments”: “Several of the
states whose estimates CBO reviewed used a model developed by the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy
(ITEP) to determine state and local taxes paid by unauthorized immigrants. ITEP assumes a 50 percent compliance
rate for income and payroll taxes.” [CBO, December 2007]

75% Of Undocumented Immigrants Have Taxes Withheld From Paychecks. According to a 2007 report from
the CBO titled “The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments”: “As
part of a larger study on migration, the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California
at San Diego conducted a survey of unauthorized immigrants and found that, in 2006, 75 percent had taxes
withheld from their paychecks, filed tax returns, or both.” [CBO, December 2007]

                             MYTH:
 A Mandatory E-Verify Law Would Help Keep Illegal Immigrants Out Of
                          The Workforce
Meg Whitman: “We need to build an ‘economic fence’ with a strong e-verification system that holds employers
accountable for only hiring documented workers. The lure of well-paying jobs is the ultimate magnet attracting
illegal immigrants to our state. To remove it, we have to give employers the tools they need to do the right thing,
and then we must strictly enforce the law.” [3/27/10]

Bay Buchanan: “E-verify has literally given the American people the upper hand in the battle against illegal
immigration. They have been able to prevail even when the money, power and the press has been against them.
[....] E-Verify is a powerful instrument in the battle against illegal immigration. If Congress were the slightest bit
interested in representing the American people, there would no discussion as to its future. They would simply pass
the bills introduced by Chuck Grassley in the Senate (S. 3093) and Ken Calvert in the House (H.R. 5596) to expand
and make permanent the E-Verify system.” [6/18/08]

Dan Stein: “Reauthorizing E-Verify - a proven program that protects American jobs - should be the Senate’s first
order of business when they return to work in September.” [8/4/08]

Craig Nelsen, V-Dare: “E-Verify is accurate and unobtrusive. Nearly one hundred percent (99.5%) of new hires
who are not illegal aliens are verified instantly. E-Verify is fair. A new hire whose employment eligibility cannot be
instantly verified is given ample opportunity to demonstrate eligibility. E-Verify is effective. Among those new
hires receiving a tentative non-confirmation, only half of those who even bother to contest that result are ultimately
found to be authorized to work in the United States. In other words, E-Verify is a success.” [9/23/08]

Phyllis Schlafly: “E-Verify can determine with great accuracy the authenticity of the personal information and
credentials offered by employees and new hires. In most cases, verification occurs almost instantly. [....] E-Verify
has been proven to successfully verify employees queried through the system within five seconds. Opponents of
this program, to date, have been unable to find a single instance in which legal U.S. citizens have lost their jobs due
to an E-Verify error.” [3/10/09]

                                FACT:
      E-Verify Does More Harm Than Good To The American Economy
CBO: An E-Verify System Would Cost $3 Billion To Implement Over Four Years. In 2007, the Congressional
Budget Office analyzed the cost for that year’s immigration reform legislation that included an e-verify program.
The CBO found that “that the system would cost about $3.0 billion over the 2008-2012 period, including amounts
needed by federal agencies to use the system to verify eligibility for federal employment.” [CBO.gov, 6/4/07]

CBO: An E-Verify System Would Reduce Federal Revenues By $17.3 Billion Over 10 Years. According to a
letter from the Congressional Budget Office: “CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that
enacting the legislation would: Decrease federal revenues by $17.3 billion over the 2009-2018 period. The decrease
largely reflects the judgment that mandatory verification of employment eligibility through the E-Verify system
would result in an increase in the number of undocumented workers being paid outside the tax system…”
[CBO.gov, 4/4/08]

“E-Verify Is Costly For Employers.” The Immigration Policy Center reported that “E-Verify is costly for
employers”:

    •   “The real costs of enrolling and participating in E-Verify can run several thousand dollars per employer.”

    •   “We don’t know how E-Verify will impact small employers who may lack the resources and technology to
        implement it. While 73% of businesses in the U.S. have less than 10 employees, only 12% of E-Verify
        users are small businesses.”

    •   “MCL Enterprises testified before Congress that implementing E-Verify was “extremely costly and
        disruptive” to their operations resulting in lost productivity.” [Immigration Policy Center, 3/2/10]

E-Verify Errors Cause Problems For Both Employers And Legal Workers. The Immigration Policy Center
found that “When an employer receives a tentative nonconfirmation (TNC) from E-Verify, it means that DHS
cannot immediately confirm the work authorization of the worker and the worker must work out the error with SSA
or DHS. Employers in Arizona [where E-Verify is mandatory] have complained about the number of TNCs
received for work-authorized immigrants or U.S. citizens.” [Immigration Policy Center, 3/2/10]

IPC: E-Verify Doesn’t Prevent Businesses From Hiring “Off The Books.” According to the Immigration
Policy Center, “E-Verify will not stop employers from hiring workers off the books, and may encourage them to do
so.” [Immigration Policy Center, 3/2/10]

                                         MYTH:
                       It Would Be Better For American Workers If
                           Illegal Immigrants Were All Deported
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX): “Allowing millions of illegal immigrants to stay and take jobs away from citizens is
like giving a burglar a key to the house. Illegal immigrants should return home and play by the rules like millions of
legal immigrants.” [3/18/10]

Fmr. Rep. Virgil Goode: “The first priority of our government needs to be the interests of American citizens --
both native born and naturalized -- not ‘legal immigrant workers.’ And the 25 million American citizens out of
work are not only pushed out by illegal aliens, but also by certain legal immigrants.” [12/14/09]

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX): “If the immigration laws we have on the books were enforced, we could cut
unemployment in half.” [2/19/10]

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX): “The fact is that illegal immigrants take jobs from American workers, particularly
poor and disadvantaged citizens and legal immigrants. The best outcome for low-skilled citizen and legal
immigrant workers is the removal of the illegal immigrant population. The very jobs that illegal immigrants occupy
rightfully belong to out of work citizens and legal immigrants.” [1/26/10]
                             FACT:
A Mass Deportation Program Would Cost Billions And Would Harm The
                          U.S. Economy
Deporting undocumented workers would cause further job losses among all workers.

Mass Deportation Causes Economy To “Lose Large Numbers Of Jobs.” A January 2010 study conducted by
Dr. Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda of UCLA and sponsored by the Center for American Progress and the Immigration Policy
Center estimated that expelling “all unauthorized immigrants from the United States and effectively seal[ing] the
U.S.-Mexico border to future immigration” would reduce “U.S. GDP by 1.46 percent,” or $2.6 trillion in ten years.
The study stated that “wages do rise for less-skilled native-born workers under this scenario, but they fall for
higher-skilled natives and the U.S. economy loses large numbers of jobs.” [Center for American Progress, 1/7/10]

Removing Undocumented Workers From The Workforce Causes Job Losses. In an April 2008 study prepared
for Americans for Immigration Reform, the Perryman Group, “an economic research an analysis firm,” concluded
that if undocumented workers “were removed from the workforce, the effects would ripple through many industries
and the ultimate job losses would be even higher.” The study also found that “several states lose a notable
percentage of business activity if the undocumented workforce is removed.” [Americans for Immigration Reform,
April 2008]

Immigration Policy Center: “Employment Is Not A ‘Zero Sum’ Game.” According to a 2009 report by the
Immigration Policy Center, “Although it might seem that subtracting 8.3 million unauthorized immigrant workers
from the labor force would automatically improve job prospects for the 15.7 million Americans who are now
unemployed, the fact is that employment is not a ‘zero sum’ game.” The report further noted that native and
immigrant workers are not perfectly “interchangeable” and “[t]here is no direct correlation between the presence of
recent immigrants and unemployment levels at the regional, state, or county level.” [Immigration Policy Center,
11/19/09]

Removing Undocumented Workers From Economy Would Cost Both Money And Permanent Jobs.
According to a report titled “Impact of the Undocumented Workforce” commissioned by Americans for
Immigration Reform, “removing undocumented workers from the US economy” in 2008 would cost $551 billion in
total expenditures, $245 billion in lost GDP, and 2.8 million lost permanent jobs. [Americans for Immigration
Reform, April 2008]

“Eliminating The Undocumented Workforce” Would Cost Money And Jobs. Considering both static
(immediate) and dynamic (changing over time), the Perryman Group found that: “For the US as a whole, the
immediate negative effect of eliminating the undocumented workforce would include an estimated
    • $1.757 trillion in annual lost spending,
    • $651.511 billion in annual lost output, and
    • 8.1 million lost jobs” [Americans for Immigration Reform, April 2008, emphasis original]

Mass Deportation Would Cost More Than $200 Billion. A study conducted by the Center for American
Progress found that “the costs of a mass deportation effort would likely be at least $206 billion over five years, and
could be as high as $230 billion or more.”
• Assuming 20% of immigrants leave voluntarily, estimated cost is $206,241,000,000
• Assuming 10% of immigrants leave voluntarily, estimated cost is $230,187,000,000
    [Center for American Progress, July 2005, emphasis original]
Reducing the number of immigrants would have a negative impact on the economy.

Mass Deportations Reduce Would Reduce GDP $2.6 Trillion Over 10 Years. According to a report issued by
the Center for American Progress titled “Raising the Floor for American Workers,” R. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda found:
“Mass deportation reduces U.S. GDP by 1.46 percent. This amounts to $2.6 trillion in cumulative lost GDP over 10
years, not including the actual cost of deportation. Wages would rise for less-skilled native-born workers, but would
diminish for higher-skilled natives, and would lead to widespread job loss.” [Center for American Progress, 1/7/10]


Cato: “Increased Enforcement” And Reducing Immigration Would Cause Economic Losses. According to a
2009 study by the Cato Institute:

        [I]ncreased enforcement and reduced low-skilled immigration have a significant negative impact on
        the income of U.S. households. Modest savings in public expenditures would be more than offset by
        losses in economic output and job opportunities for more skilled American workers. A policy that
        reduces the number of low-skilled immigrant workers by 28.6 percent compared to projected levels would
        reduce U.S. household welfare by about 0.5 percent, or $80 billion.

        In contrast, legalization of low-skilled immigrant workers would yield significant income gains for
        American workers and households. Legalization would eliminate smugglers’ fees and other costs faced
        by illegal immigrants. It would also allow immigrants to have higher productivity and create more openings
        for Americans in higher skilled occupations. The positive impact for U.S. households of legalization under
        an optimal visa tax would be 1.27 percent of GDP or $180 billion. [Cato Institute, 8/13/2009; emphasis
        added]

2009 Cato Study: Reducing Number Of Immigrant Workers Will Reduce U.S. Household Welfare.
According to a 2009 study conducted by the Cato Institute titled “Restriction or Legalization? Measuring the
Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform,” Cato found: “This study finds that increased enforcement and reduced
low-skilled immigration have a significant negative impact on the income of U.S. households. Modest savings in
public expenditures would be more than offset by losses in economic output and job opportunities for more skilled
American workers. A policy that reduces the number of low-skilled immigrant workers by 28.6 percent compared
to projected levels would reduce U.S. household welfare by about 0.5 percent, or $80 billion.” [Cato Institute,
8/13/09]

A mass deportation program would cost billions of taxpayer dollars.

Deportations Would Require More Resources Than Are Available. According to a study conducted by the
Center for American Progress, there are “approximately 10,700 border agents and 2,200 interior enforcement
agents” available to manage the “more than 10 million” undocumented persons in the United States. [Center for
American Progress, July 2005]

Previous Deportation Exercises Cost $70,000 And Resulted In Just 45 Arrests. The Center for American
Progress’ immigration report included a cost breakdown of an apprehension project: “even though the investigation
involved more than 1,000 law enforcement officials over nine months, they resulted in only 45 arrests and the
detention of 150 immigrants. Although detailed costs are not available, even with very conservative economic
assumptions, the average apprehension cost is more than $70,000.” [Center for American Progress, July 2005]

“The Average Per Immigrant Cost Of Detention Comes To $3,825.” According to the Center for American
Progress’ report, once undocumented immigrants are apprehended:
        Each immigrant spends an average of 42.5 days in detention before he or she is deported, meaning that
        each bed turns over more than 8 immigrants per year. Therefore, 166,647 additional beds would need to be
        constructed before mass deportations could begin. New prison beds cost a minimum of $14,000 per bed
        (and are likely substantially more expensive), resulting in a total one-time cost of $2.33 billion to create
        sufficient bed space. (Detaining 9,000,000 immigrants would require building 189,902 additional beds at a
        one-time cost of $2.66 billion.) These costs do not include the expenses of maintaining the beds after the
        completion of the five-year deportation program.

        Once the detention facilities are constructed, the average cost of detaining an immigrant must be calculated.
        Each bed costs the government $90 per day to maintain. Given the average of 42.5 days in detention, the
        average per immigrant cost of detention comes to $3,825. With 8,000,000 undocumented persons to deport,
        the total cost of detention is $30.6 billion over five years. (Using the same average detention figure,
        detaining 9,000,000 immigrants would cost $34.4 billion over five years.) [Center for American Progress,
        July 2005]

Transportation Costs To Remove Immigrants Exceeds $8 Billion Over Five Years. The Center for American
Progress reported that once undocumented immigrants are apprehended, detained, process, and ready for export to
their home country, transportation costs are required. “Given the costs of both airfare to foreign nations and ground
transportation within the United States and across the border, we have estimated an average cost of $1,000 per
person for transportation, resulting in a total of $8 billion over five years. (Using the same average cost figure,
processing 9,000,000 immigrants would cost $9 billion over five years.)” [Center for American Progress, July
2005, parentheses original]

The Obama White House has followed the law regarding undocumented immigrants.

More Deportations Occurring Under Obama Than Under Bush. Agence France Presse reported: “A total of
387,790 people were deported from the United States in 2009, up from 264,503 under the administration of
President George W. Bush, according to government figures cited by the Fair Immigration Reform Movement, a
coalition of several organizations.” [AFP via Google, 3/9/10]

Obama Administration Dedicated To Pursuing Violent Undocumented Immigrants. According to the
Washington Post: “The Obama administration has announced that its priority is to remove those guilty of violent or
serious crimes. (Being in the country illegally is a civil violation, not a criminal offense.)” To that end, “Fairfax
County’s Adult Detention Center [VA] has quietly helped pilot a far-reaching program designed to identify
criminal illegal immigrants and assist the federal government in removing them from the United States.”
[Washington Post, 2/22/10]

                                  MYTH:
      Having A Child In The U.S. Allows Undocumented Immigrants To
                        Easily Stay In The Country
Rep. Bilbray (R-CA): “In many California ‘Anchor Baby’ cases, the parents apply for benefits (welfare) and
receive them for 18 years on behalf of the child.’ This extreme abuse is why we need to get back to the Founding
Fathers meaning of immigration,’ Bilbray explains. ‘Why are we providing services for Tijuana and not La Paz?’
The 2010 ballet initiative is a great opportunity for Californians to take back their state and reform immigration.
Bilbray also points out that this Anchor Baby portion is a basic rule. ‘Congressman Deal of Georgia added a
birthright component to Georgia’s immigration bill. A parent has to be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident or you
don’t get ‘Anchor Baby’ citizenship.’” [Examiner, 7/7/09]
RightMarch.com: “We have a chance today to ‘plug up’ one of the biggest holes in American national security --
a hole that has led to millions of illegal immigrants being granted the ‘right’ to stay in this country, even though
they broke the law to get here. That ‘hole’ is called ‘birthright citizenship’ for so-called ‘anchor babies’ (children
born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrant parents)… These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve
as an ‘anchor’ for their parents to remain in the country.” The 14th Amendment “has been misused for decades to
allow literally millions of illegal alien ‘anchor babies’ -- and their illegal parents and families -- to remain in this
country.” [RightMarch.com accessed 4/8/10]

                                   FACT:
            Undocumented Immigrants Cannot Easily Stay In The U.S.
                   Just Because Their Children Are Citizens
Process To Petition For Parents’ Citizenship Is Arduous. According to a research document on “The Anchor
Baby Myth” produced by the Scott Immigration Law Firm:

        Once the child turns 21, he can file a visa petition for the parent. The Restrictionists present this
        information as though it then becomes a simple matter of filing paperwork. What they don’t tell you is that
        if the parent entered without inspection, the parent is not able to apply for a green card from within the US.
        She would have to apply for a visa at the consulate. But because she was previously unlawfully present for
        more than a year, she will be banned from entering the US for ten years. As the child is not a qualifying
        relative for a waiver of this ground of inadmissibility, she would not be able to return to the US legally for
        ten years despite have a US citizen child over age 21.

        Even if the parent had entered the US lawfully and/or were not subject to the ten-year ban, the adult child
        would still need to prove that he has enough income to support the parent(s) and himself at no less than
        125% of the poverty level. Under the 2009 poverty guidelines, a person wanting to sponsor both parents
        would have to show he makes at least $22,8876, an income level many 21-year-olds have trouble
        achieving. The child may seek a co-sponsor to help meet the income requirement, but even so, it’s clear
        that legalizing one’s parents takes more than the mere filing of papers. Every year many US citizens
        petition for their parents, but there is no indication that US-born children of illegal immigrants are filing a
        majority of parental petitions. [“The Anchor Baby Myth,” Scott Immigration Law Firm, 4/28/09]

U.S.-Born Children Of Undocumented Parents Must Be 21 Before Petitioning To Bring Relatives To U.S.
Legally. Under federal law, a U.S. citizen must be twenty-one years old to petition to bring alien parents or other
relatives into the United States as legal immigrants. [U.S. Code § 1151, accessed 4/12/10]

Restriction Intended To Prevent “Wholesale Circumvention Of The Immigration Laws.” The Congressional
Research Service has reported on the age requirement for entry application: “Federal courts have found that this
requirement is meant ‘to prevent wholesale circumvention of the immigration laws by persons who enter the
country illegally and promptly have children to avoid deportation,’ and does not violate equal protection by
distinguishing between U.S.-citizen children who are minors and those who have attained majority.”
[Congressional Research Service report, U.S. Citizenship of Persons Born in the United States to Alien Parents,
9/13/05]
                              Myth:
 Having An “Anchor Baby” Allows Undocumented Immigrants To Avoid
                           Deportation
Glenn Beck: “You know the anchor baby thing has already really hacked me off. You know the anchor baby, you
know what that is. That’s when somebody – a child that is born here – becomes a citizen. And they help the illegal
parents here become citizens. Remember empathy, oh empathy – no one wants to separate that family. Oh that baby
is a child – it’s an anchor – it’s an anchor to stay here. Why do we have automatic citizenship upon birth, do you
know?” [6/10/09]


RightMarch.com: “These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve as an ‘anchor’ for their parents to
remain in the country. Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break up families by deporting
parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious
cultural and economic dilemma for our nation.” [RightMarch.com accessed 4/8/10]

                                 FACT:
        Having American-Born Children Does Not Give Undocumented
                  Immigrants A Free Pass For Residency
Federal Courts Do Not Allow Stay Of Immigrant Deportations “Merely On The Grounds That They Have
U.S.-Citizen” Children. According to a 2005 Congressional Research Service report titled U.S. Citizenship of
Persons Born in the United States to Alien Parents:

        Federal appellate courts have upheld the refusal by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (I.N.S.) to
        stay the deportation of illegal aliens merely on the grounds that they have U.S.-citizen, minor children,
        because to do so would be unfairly to grant an advantage to aliens who successfully flouted U.S.
        immigration laws long enough to have a child born in the United States over those aliens who followed the
        law, and would turn the immigration statute on its head. [Congressional Research Service report, 9/13/05]

 Annually, “Tens Of Thousands Of Children” Reportedly “Lose A Parent To Deportation.” The New York
 Times reported that “immigration experts say there are tens of thousands of children every year who lose a parent
 to deportation”:
        No one keeps track of exactly how many American children were left behind by the record 186,000
        noncitizens expelled from the United States last year, or the 887,000 others required to make a “voluntary
        departure.”
        [...]
        Officials at the Department of Homeland Security say they are simply enforcing laws adopted in 1996,
        which all but eliminated the discretion of immigration officers to consider family ties before enforcing an
        old order of removal.
        “There are millions of people who are illegally in the United States, and it’s unfortunate, when they’re
        caught, seeing a family split up,” said William Strassberger, a spokesman for federal immigration
        services. “But the person has to be answerable for their actions.” [New York Times, 11/24/04]
“Standard Procedure” Is To Allow Deported Parents To Take U.S.-Citizen Children With Them. The
Houston Chronicle reported:

        Carl Rusnok, a spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said children are rarely left
        behind, although he has no statistics. “Normally, the parent takes the kids with them,” he said.
        He explained the agency’s standard procedure:

        “If ICE knows that a single parent is being deported, they give the parent the option of having the children
        deported with them, at ICE’s expense. [Houston Chronicle, 12/7/06]

                                         FACT:
                            “Anchor Baby” Is A Derogatory Term
Rocky Mountain News: Term “Anchor Baby” Is “Considered By Many To Be Derogatory, Even Racist.” The
Rocky Mountain News article reported of children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants:
“Opponents of illegal immigration call them ‘anchor babies’ - a term considered by many to be derogatory, even
racist, because it implies that Hispanics are having children as a way to stay in the U.S.” [Rocky Mountain News,
8/29/06]

San Diego Union-Tribune: “Anchor Baby” Term Is “Pejorative.” The San Diego Union-Tribune article stated
that an anti-immigration activist “dismissed teens marching in Los Angeles as ‘probably part of the anchor baby-
boom of the late 1980s and 1990s,’ using a pejorative term for the U.S.-born children of undocumented
immigrants.” [San Diego Union-Tribune, 4/3/06]

Reno Gazette-Journal: “Anchor Baby” Term Is “Pejorative.” The Reno Gazette-Journal reported that “[s]ome
opponents of illegal immigration call such children ’anchor babies,’ a pejorative term that implies the child will
serve as an ‘anchor’ for his or her illegal immigrant parents, preventing the parents’ deportations and acting as a
pathway to citizenship for the whole family.” [Reno Gazette-Journal, 10/19/08, via Nexis]

Chicago Tribune’s Zorn: “Anchor Baby” Term Is “Loaded Language.” Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn
wrote that after receiving complaints for his prior use of the term “anchor baby”:

        I defended myself -- the term has appeared regularly in news stories since 1997, usually softened by
        quotations as in my column, and refers to the practice/hopes of illegal immigrants that if their children are
        born in the U.S. they will serve as an anchor that will help allow their parents to say here. And Doug
        Rivlin, spokesman for the National Immigration Forum, a leading immigrants’-rights group, said he does
        not consider the term particularly offensive.

        However, Rivlin said, it’s a “politically charged term” originated and favored by those who are opposed to
        liberalized immigration laws. And a quick check through various sources confirms this.

        “They use it to spark resentment against immigrants,” Rivlin said of his ideological foes. “They use it to
        make these children sound non-human.”

        To me, that’s good enough reason to regret having used it and to decide not to use it in the future.

        Sound arguments don’t need loaded language. [Zorn’s Chicago Tribune “Change of Subject” blog,
        8/18/06]
                               MYTH:
        Immigrants Commit More Crime Than Native-Born Americans
Rep. Steve King (R-IA): “[T]he crimes that are committed by those who enter this country illegally are in
significantly greater numbers than the crimes that are committed by American citizens.” [5/3/06]

Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily: “[T]he carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of
the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.”
[11/28/06]

                              FACT:
Studies Show That Immigrants Commit Less Crime And Are Incarcerated
                     Less Than Native Citizens

Studies Find Immigrants Are Less Likely To Be Incarcerated Than Native U.S. Citizens

PPIC: “U.S.-Born Men Have An Institutionalization Rate That Is 10 Times Higher Than That Of Foreign-
Born Men.” PPIC found in its February 2008 study “Crime, Corrections, and California”:

        The difference only grows when we expand our investigation. When we consider all institutionalization
        (not only prisons but also jails, halfway houses, and the like) and focus on the population that is most likely
        to be in institutions because of criminal activity (men ages 18–40), we find that, in California, U.S.-born
        men have an institutionalization rate that is 10 times higher than that of foreign-born men (4.2% vs.
        0.42%). And when we compare foreign-born men to U.S.-born men with similar age and education levels,
        these differences become even greater. [PPIC, “Crime, Corrections, and California,” February 2008]

Public Policy Institute Of California: “Immigrants Are Underrepresented In California Prisons.” In a
February 2008 study, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) found that “the foreign-born, who make up
about 35 percent of the adult population in California, constitute only about 17 percent of the adult prison.”
According to PPIC:

        [I]mmigrants are underrepresented in California prisons compared to their representation in the overall
        population. In fact, U.S.- born adult men are incarcerated at a rate over two-and-a-half times greater than
        that of foreign-born men. [PPIC, “Crime, Corrections, and California,” February 2008]

Immigration Policy Center: “Incarceration Rates Among Young Men Are Lowest For Immigrants.”
According to a 2007 Immigration Policy Center (IPC) report, “data from the census and other sources show that for
every ethnic group without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those
who are the least educated”:

        In fact, data from the census and other sources show that for every ethnic group without exception,
        incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated.
        This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the
        undocumented population. What is more, these patterns have been observed consistently over the last three
        decennial censuses, a period that spans the current era of mass immigration, and recall similar national-
        level findings reported by three major government commissions during the first three decades of the 20th
        century. The problem of crime in the United States is not “caused” or even aggravated by immigrants,
       regardless of their legal status.

       [...]

       Among men age 18-39 (who comprise the vast majority of the prison population), the 3.5 percent
       incarceration rate of the native-born in 2000 was 5 times higher than the 0.7 percent incarceration rate of
       the foreign-born. [IPC, “The Myth of Immigrant Criminality and the Paradox of Assimilation,” Spring
       2007]


Even “Low-Immigration” Think Tank Acknowledge Data Doesn’t Support Claim That Undocumented
Immigrants Have High Crime Rates

CIS Acknowledges Claims Of High Immigrant Criminality Rates Are Not “Well Supported.” From the
November 2009 CIS report:

       Some opinion surveys show that the public thinks immigrants overall or illegal aliens in particular have
       high rates of crime. On the other hand, a number of academic researchers and journalists have argued that
       immigrants have low rates of crime. In our view, poor data quality and conflicting evidence mean that
       neither of these views is well supported. Given the limitations of the data available, it is simply not
       possible to draw a clear conclusion about immigrants and crime. [CIS, “Immigration and Crime: Assessing
       a Conflicted Issue,” November 2009]

CIS: “No Clear Evidence That Immigrants Commit Crimes At Higher Or Lower Rates Than Others.” The
November 2009 CIS report stated:

       In conclusion, we find that it would be a mistake to assume that immigrants as a group are more prone to
       crime than other groups, or that they should be viewed with more suspicion than others. Even though
       immigrant incarceration rates are high in some populations, there is no clear evidence that immigrants
       commit crimes at higher or lower rates than others. Nevertheless, it also would be a mistake to conclude
       that immigrant crime is insignificant or that offenders’ immigration status is irrelevant in local policing.
       The newer information available as a result of better screening of the incarcerated population suggests that,
       in many parts of the country, immigrants are responsible for a significant share of crime. This indicates that
       there are legitimate public safety reasons for local law enforcement agencies to determine the immigration
       status of offenders and to work with federal immigration authorities. [CIS, “Immigration and Crime:
       Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” November 2009]

                                   MYTH:
                 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Is “Amnesty”
2006 MYTH: Senate Immigration Reform Bill Is An Amnesty Bill
       Pat Buchanan: “Well, the bill, as I see it, Joe, is a total amnesty bill for the illegal aliens.” [3/27/06,
       MSNBC via Nexis]

       Lou Dobbs: “The Senate Judiciary committee passed the most sweeping immigration reform in a
       generation, and the senate took up the debate on reform that includes a guest worker amnesty program and
       all but ignores border security.” [4/2/06]
        Tom Tancredo: “His package is an amnesty plan, pure and simple. It is the -- terrible policy.” [5/1/06]

2007 MYTH: Immigration Reform Is Amnesty In Disguise
        Pat Buchanan: “This is amnesty, and the whole country knows that and -- and so I think that really is not
        the argument.” [6/11/07]

        Pat Buchanan: “Twelve million people in the country is more than all the Irish, Jewish, and English folks
        who ever came. And more than that, every 20 months, we add a new Mexico in the Third World. You’re
        going to add 30 new Mexicos by 2050, and they all know the door is open. If you grant amnesty -- and
        there’s nothing in this bill that stops the invasion -- I think you lose the American Southwest.” [6/25/07]

2010 MYTH: Schumer-Graham Bill Is Just Another Amnesty Bill
        Rep. Rohrabacher (R-CA): From the Orange County Register: “Rep. Dana Rohrabacher called the
        outline ‘a fraud. It’s the same old stuff from a guy (Graham) who tried to ram amnesty down our throats
        several times before. They’re hoping it will go down with a spoon full of sugar but they won’t succeed.’”
        [3/18/10]

        Rep. Royce (R-CA): “With 2.2 million Americans unemployed in California it is egregious to begin
        working on legislation that would create a blanket amnesty […] Amnesty legislation, like that proposed by
        Senators Graham and Schumer, will only compound the problem, draw more illegal immigrants to this
        country, and encourage those breaking our laws to continue to disrespect them. We need to focus on
        enforcing our current immigration laws.” [3/19/10]

        James R. Edwards Jr., Human Events: “Pro-amnesty lawmakers have a new outline for immigration
        legislation. In actuality, the plan Senators Charles Schumer (D.-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R.-S.C.) rolled
        out amounts to a retread of the Bush-McCain amnesty plan of 2006 and 2007. Its main elements include
        mass amnesty for virtually all illegal aliens, even more legal immigration and meaningless ‘enforcement.’”
        [3/26/10]

                                    FACT:
                Comprehensive Immigration Reform Is NOT Amnesty

2006 FACT: Senate Immigration Reform Bill Is Not Amnesty
“Amnesty” Is A Loaded Word Used To Delegitimize Reform. The Los Angeles Daily News reported in 2005:
“Opponents say giving legal status to those who came illegally amount to that most provoking buzzword of all:
‘amnesty.’ George Lakoff, a Democratic political consultant and linguist at the University of California at
Berkeley, said anti-immigration groups so far appear to be winning the language war, and the word ‘amnesty’ is
their most powerful rhetorical weapon. ‘Amnesty’ assumes that there’s been a serious crime. I mean, you don’t
have amnesty for shoplifters,’ Lakoff said. ‘It’s seen as an attack on the country.’” [Daily News, 11/21/05, from
Nexis]

McCain On ‘06 Senate Bill: “That’s Not Amnesty.” When asked if the immigration-reform bill passed by the
Senate Judiciary Committee “effectively” constituted “amnesty,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said, “[T]hat’s just
absolutely false. It allows them to earn citizenship. What it does, it takes a $2,000 fine, it requires a background
check, it requires learning of English, it requires six years of working and then eligibility for a green card, and five
years after that. That doesn’t fit any dictionary definition of amnesty. In fact, it’s very, very tough, and that’s, that’s
a major provision of it. That’s not amnesty.” [ABC’s Good Morning America, 3/28/06, via Nexis]

Bush On ‘06 Immigration Legislation: “That’s Not Amnesty.” In a 2006 speech, President Bush said of
immigration legislation proposed at the time, “[P]eople have been here legally, somebody who pays their dues, pays
their taxes, pays a fine, proven to be a good citizen, they get at the end of the line. Someone said, well, that’s
amnesty -- that’s not amnesty.” [Bush White House website, 5/18/06]

2007 FACT: Calling Reform Amnesty Is Misleading
FactCheck.org; “Amnesty” Label Is “Misleading And A Classic Case Of Mislabeling.” In 2007,
FactCheck.org wrote:

        [O]pponents of the immigration legislation also describe the bill as granting “amnesty.” We find that label
        to be misleading and a classic case of mislabeling. Several dictionaries define “amnesty” as a pardon of
        past offenses, or clemency. But while the legislation would allow millions of persons who are in the
        country illegally to remain, it does not overlook violation of U.S. law. It would require illegal immigrants
        to pay a $1,000 penalty for having entered the country illegally, plus $2,000 in fees, and meet several other
        requirements before they could qualify for a temporary visa.

        [...]

        The American Heritage Dictionary defines “amnesty” as “a general pardon granted by a government,
        especially for political offenses,” and several other dictionaries give similar definitions. For example, the
        Oxford English Dictionary defines “amnesty” as “a general overlooking or pardon of past offences, by the
        ruling authority.” But the Senate bill doesn’t grant a general pardon. Instead, it would allow aliens who are
        in the country illegally to remain in the country on a probationary visa, called a “Z visa,” after paying a fine
        and fees amounting to thousands of dollars.

        Each alien would have to pay a $1,000 “penalty” and $2,000 in fees for the temporary Z visa, pass a
        background check, and submit proof of employment and fingerprints. The American Immigration Lawyers
        Association calculates that for a family of four the total in fees and penalties for Z visas could reach $9,000,
        including fees for “derivative” applicants such as spouses and children. And after an initial four-year
        period, the bill requires additional processing fees for renewal, which the AILA figures could amount to
        $6,000 more. [FactCheck.org, 6/27/07]

Bush White House On ‘07 Legislation: “MYTH: This Is Amnesty.” From the Bush White House website:

    •   FACT: Amnesty is the forgiveness of an offense without penalty. This proposal is not amnesty because
        illegal workers must acknowledge that they broke the law, pay a $1,000 fine, and undergo criminal
        background checks to obtain a Z visa granting temporary legal status

    •   FACT: To apply for a green card at a date years into the future, Z visa workers must wait in line behind
        those who applied lawfully, pay an additional $4,000 fine, complete accelerated English requirements,
        leave the U.S. and file their application in their home country, and demonstrate merit based on the skills
        and attributes they will bring to the United States.

    •   FACT: Workers approved for Z visas will be given a temporary legal status, but they will not enjoy the full
        privileges of citizens or Legal Permanent Residents, such as welfare benefits and the ability to sponsor
        relatives abroad as immigrants. [Bush White House website, 6/8/07]
2010 FACT: Graham-Schumer Legislation Similar To Other Proposals That
Weren’t Amnesty Bills Either
Outline Of Current Schumer-Graham Proposal Also Includes Penalties, Waiting Period. In a Washington
Post op-ed previewing their current proposal, Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) wrote:
“For the 11 million immigrants already in this country illegally, we would provide a tough but fair path forward.
They would be required to admit they broke the law and to pay their debt to society by performing community
service and paying fines and back taxes. These people would be required to pass background checks and be
proficient in English before going to the back of the line of prospective immigrants to earn the opportunity to work
toward lawful permanent residence.” [Washington Post, 4/19/10]

                             MYTH:
 Immigration Reform Proponents Want An “Open Border” Between The
                         U.S. And Mexico
Jerome Corsi: “President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively
erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada…What the Bush administration truly wants is the free,
unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.” [Human Events, 5/19/06]

Roy Beck, NumbersUSA: “As much as some tea party leaders may appreciate some of what Armey has done for
the movement, his performance today at the Press Club should serve notice to most of the grassroots that they have
to distance themselves as quickly as possible from Armey’s strong inclinations toward Chamber of Commerce
open-borders politics.” [NumbersUSA.com, 3/15/10]

                                FACT:
    “Open Borders” Is Not The Goal Of Immigration Reform Advocates
NYT: “Open-Borders Amnesty” Is “A False Label Stuck On By Those Who Want Enforcement And Nothing
Else.” In a November 2007 editorial, the New York Times stated:

        These are the ingredients of a realistic approach to a complicated problem. It’s called comprehensive
        reform, and it rests on the idea that having an undocumented underclass does the country more harm than
        good. This is not “open-borders amnesty,” a false label stuck on by those who want enforcement and
        nothing else. It’s tough on the border and on those who sneaked across it. It’s tough but fair to employers
        who need immigrant workers. It recognizes that American citizens should not have to compete for jobs
        with a desperate population frightened into accepting rock-bottom wages and working conditions. It makes
        a serious effort to fix legal immigration by creating an orderly future flow of legal workers. [New York
        Times, 11/23/07]

Comprehensive Reform Advocates Have Rejected The Idea Of “Open Borders.” In a letter to Congress, the
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) wrote:

        Of course, the radical anti-immigrant forces will say that our objective is to open borders – this is
        simply false. As proud and patriotic Americans, we value national security and we stand for strong borders
        that protect our families, our homes and our way of life. We also believe that as part of their earned
        legalization process, undocumented immigrants should learn English to be successful and productive
       members of society; pay any back taxes they may have accrued while undocumented; and hold no criminal
       record in the U.S. Undocumented immigrants should be subject to these requirements just like any other
       American or pay the consequences if they fail to do so. We are not asking for special privileges or
       hand-outs, just fair and humane treatment for people who have contributed so much to America. [LULAC,
       1/8/07, emphasis added]

                                FACT:
    Immigration Reform Would Put Undocumented Workers Through A
                     Stringent Legalization Process
2010 Bipartisan Reform Plan Includes Border Security, Employment Verification. In a March 19 Washington
Post op-ed, Sens. Lindsay Graham and Charles Schumer outlined their immigration reform plan, which includes
“requiring biometric Social Security cards to ensure that illegal workers cannot get jobs” and “fulfilling and
strengthening our commitments on border security and interior enforcement.” There is no evidence that their plan
would eliminate the caps on legal immigration. They further wrote that their plan would increase “the Border
Patrol’s staffing and funding” and expand “domestic enforcement”:

       We propose a zero-tolerance policy for gang members, smugglers, terrorists and those who commit
       other felonies after coming here illegally. We would bolster recent efforts to secure our borders by
       increasing the Border Patrol’s staffing and funding for infrastructure and technology. More personnel
       would be deployed to the border immediately to fill gaps in apprehension capabilities.

       Other steps include expanding domestic enforcement to better apprehend and deport those who commit
       crimes and completing an entry-exit system that tracks people who enter the United States on legal visas
       and reports those who overstay their visas to law enforcement databases. [Washington Post, 3/19/10;
       emphasis added]

LULAC: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Will Bring Immigrants Through A Legal Process. In
response to the question, “Are proponents of comprehensive reform advocating open borders?” LULAC – as part of
its OneMillionVoicesUnited campaign – replied:

       No. The options aren’t for open borders or closed borders -- neither is realistic nor desirable.
       Comprehensive reform would bring the overwhelming majority of well-intentioned immigrants through our
       legal system so that we can screen them and admit them if they would contribute to our nation, or bar them
       if they intend to harm us. The system we advocate has enforceable quotas and limits, in contrast to our
       current chaotic system in which unauthorized entry is a daily occurrence and enforcement resources do not
       distinguish between those who might try to harm us and those coming to work. By writing realistic
       immigration laws and enforcing them to the letter, we will finally achieve border control that is good for
       national security, our families, and our economy. We must replace random and ineffective enforcement
       with targeted and efficient enforcement. [LULAC, OneMillionVoicesUnited, via Media Matters for
       America, 1/8/08]
             The Hateful Rhetoric Of Immigration Reform Opponents
In 2010 as in 2006, many of the opponents of immigration reform use thinly veiled, if not blatant, hateful rhetoric to
fight the successful development of reform.

                                         Members of Congress
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) Suggested Building Electrified Border Fence: “We Do That With Livestock All The
Time.” On the House floor, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) used a model to demonstrate the construction of a wall on the
Mexican border and said, “[T]his’d be an example, then, of how that wall would look. Now you could also
deconstruct it the same way. You could take it back down. If somehow they got their economy working and got
their laws working in Mexico we could pull this back out just as easy as we could put it in...I also say we need to do
a few other things on top of that wall, and one of them being to put a little bit of wire on top here to provide a
disincentive for people to climb over the top or put a ladder there. We could also electrify this wire with the kind
of current that would not kill somebody, but it would simply be a discouragement for them to be fooling around
with it. We do that with livestock all the time.” [Think Progress, 7/11/06, emphasis added]

Rep. Goode Railed Against “The Anchor Baby Situation.” As Think Progress noted, Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA)
repeatedly used the term “anchor babies” while talking about the issue of immigration during a September 2008
debate.

        GOODE: There’s not going to be a consensus in Congress to fix the anchor baby situation until you get
        more persons like me who are willing to say, No to the anchor baby and no to the Nancy Pelosi’s of this
        Congress, who depends on the Hispanic Caucus. … But you don’t have blanket anchor babies occurring
        day in and day out in the United States of America and having the taxpayers continue to foot the bill.
        They come in from Mexico, Guatemala, Salvador, and have ‘em in this country. [ThinkProgress.com,
        9/5/08]

Rep. Broun: U.S. Will See “An Influx Of Illegal Aliens Just To Come And Have Those Anchor Babies To
Get On Medicaid.” Speaking on the House floor, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) called birthright citizenship an
“improper” and “unconstitutional” ruling on the 14th Amendment, saying that “giving birthright citizenship to these
children who are born to illegal aliens in this country and they’re going to go on the Medicaid system” is “a magnet
to draw more illegal aliens in this country.” Broun, who also referred to undocumented immigrants as “criminals,”
went on to say: “We’re going to have an influx of illegal aliens just to come and have those anchor babies to get on
Medicaid.” [Rep. Broun House Floor Statement via Media Matters Action Network, 3/19/10]

                                          Conservative Pundits
Malkin: “Militant Racism From Another Protected Minority Group Was On Full Display” From “Latino
Supremacists.” In her syndicated column, Michelle Malkin wrote of immigration rallies, “Well, this weekend,
militant racism from another protected minority group was on full display. But you wouldn’t know it from press
accounts that whitewashed or buried the protesters’ virulent anti-American hatred.” Malkin also wrote: “Apologists
are quick to argue that Latino supremacists are just a small fringe faction of the pro-illegal immigration movement
(never mind that their ranks include former and current Hispanic politicians from L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
to former California Democratic gubernatorial candidate Cruz Bustamante).” [Creators Syndicate column, 3/29/06]
Buchanan: Illegal Immigration Is “An Invasion Of The United States Of America” And “The Whole World
Is Coming.” On MSNBC’s Hardball, Buchanan claimed that the influx of undocumented immigrants into the
United States is “not immigration” but “an invasion of the United States of America” that is “coming not only from
Mexico,” but “from the whole world.” He reiterated: “The whole world is coming.” [MSNBC’s Hardball with
Chris Matthews via Media Matters for America, 5/15/06]

Buchanan: “You’re Going To Have A Giant Kosovo In The Southwest, Which De Facto Is Going To
Secede.” On Scarborough Country, Pat Buchanan said: “[Y]ou cannot absorb 40 to 60 million more people. You’re
going to have a giant Kosovo in the Southwest, which de facto is going to secede from this country.” [Scarborough
Country, 6/5/06]

Buchanan Blames VA Tech Murders On Immigration. In a column about the April 2007 shootings at Virginia
Tech, Pat Buchanan wrote: “What happened in Blacksburg cannot be divorced from what’s been happening to
America since the immigration act brought tens of millions of strangers to these shores. ... Many immigrants do not
assimilate. Many do not wish to. They seek community in their separate subdivisions of our multicultural,
multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual mammoth mall of a nation. And in numbers higher than our native born, some
are going berserk here.” [Creators.com, 5/1/07]

Buchanan: “America [Is] Committing Suicide” While “Asian, African, And Latin American Children Come
To Inherit The Estate.” In his November 2007 book Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, And Greed Are
Tearing America Apart, Pat Buchanan wrote, “How is America committing suicide? Every way a nation can. The
American majority is not reproducing itself. Its birthrate has been below replacement level for decades. Forty-five
million of its young have been destroyed in the womb since Roe v. Wade, as Asian, African, and Latin American
children come to inherit the estate the lost generation of American children never got to see.” [Day of Reckoning,
Pages 7-8, via Media Matters for America]

                                          Conservative Media
Print/Online
NRO’s Derbyshire On Percentages Of Latino Students In Iowa Town: “Truly An Invasion. Why On Earth
Are We Letting This Happen?” In a post on the National Review Online blog The Corner titled “Aztlan North,”
John Derbyshire wrote about traveling to Storm Lake, IA and hearing that “the student body in the schools is half
Hispanic.” He continued:

        I found it hard to believe, surrounded as I was by Lundqvists and Muellers. In an idle moment, however, I
        looked up the stats on GreatSchools.net. Sure enough, the “Student Stats” on GreatSchools for Storm Lake
        show percentages Hispanic as:

            •   High school: 32
            •   Middle School: 43
            •   Elementary schools: 53, 66, 63, 53.

        Say what you like, that is truly an invasion. Why on earth are we letting this happen? [The Corner, National
        Review, 10/18/07]

Washington Times Headline Refers To “Illegals.” The Washington Times continued its long practice of using the
term “illegals” despite changes to its stylebook that called for abolishing the term, using the headline, “Liberals
seek health-care access for illegals,” on an article discussing whether the health care bill should extend some
benefits to undocumented immigrants. The headline was later updated to read: “House urged to let illegals buy own
coverage.” [The Washington Times via Media Matters for America, 9/28/09]

Examiner.com Headline: “The Children Of Illegal Aliens (Anchor Babies) Have Bankrupted The State Of
California.” In an Examiner.com article headlined, “The children of illegal aliens (anchor babies) have bankrupted
the state of California,” Dave Gibson repeatedly used the term “illegal alien” to refer to undocumented immigrants,
and wrote that, “In 2009, San Bernardino County spent $64 million providing welfare benefits to U.S.-born
children of illegal aliens,” adding that “it is but a drop in the bucket, when you consider what the entire state of
California is paying-out to ‘anchor babies’ and their illegal alien parents.” [Examiner.com, 1/20/10]

Radio
Savage: “Brown Supremacists” Are Provoking “The Takeover Of The United States.” On his nationally
syndicated radio show, Michael Savage said: “So, it seems to me that there’s a certain group of immigrants that’s
not very happy and they’re all Hispanic. I don’t see any other racial group out there in the streets, do you? Now,
that’s very interesting. I’m not allowed to raise the issue or the specter of brown supremacists behind these protests.
Don’t tell me this is all about compassion for immigrants, because it is not at all only about compassion for
immigrants. They are trying to provoke the takeover of the United States of America.” [Talk Radio Network’s
The Savage Nation via Media Matters for America, 4/11/06; emphasis added]

Savage: “Burn The Mexican Flag!” On his radio show, Savage urged his listeners to “burn the Mexican flag” in
opposition to undocumented immigrants, telling them to “[b]urn a Mexican flag for America, burn a Mexican flag
for those who died that you should have a nationality and a sovereignty, go out in the street and show you’re a man,
burn 10 Mexican flags, if I could recommend it. Put one in the window upside down and tell them to go back where
they came from! And if that’s a little to xenophobic for you, ask yourself why the xenophobes from Mexico wave
their flag in your country.” [The Savage Nation via Media Matters for America, 3/27/06]

Savage: Undocumented Immigrants At Protests Are “Vermin.” On his radio show, Michael Savage warned
political leaders against “tak[ing] to the streets,” saying “to the politicians”: “I warn you personally. You will not be
re-elected. If you take to the streets with the vermin who are trying to dictate to us how we should run America,
even though they’re not even entitled to vote or be here, you’re going to be thrown out of office. The people will
throw you out of office. There are not enough of them to re-elect you. You will be out of a job. You will not have a
living. You will be hunting for a job. Maybe, you’ll be picking the vegetables.” [The Savage Nation via Media
Matters for America, 4/10/06]

Beck: Undocumented Immigrants Are Either “Terrorists,” Outlaws, Or People Who “Can’t Make A Living
In Their Own Dirtbag Country.” On his radio show, Glenn Beck claimed that there are three reasons that an
undocumented immigrant “comes across the border in the middle of the night”: “One, they’re terrorists; two,
they’re escaping the law; or three, they’re hungry. They can’t make a living in their own dirtbag country.” [The
Glenn Beck Program via Media Matters for America, 4/27/06]

Boortz: “Where Do We Store 11 Million Hispanics Just Waiting To Ship ‘Em Back To Nicaragua, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Mexico? ... The Superdome!” Nationally syndicated radio host Neal Boortz said that undocumented
immigrants “are not going to be shipped back. I mean ... think about -- Mexico doesn’t want ‘em back, first of all.
Think what happens if we round -- first of all, where do we store 11 million Hispanics just waiting to ship ‘em back
to Nicaragua, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico? Where do we store ‘em? ... The Superdome! Exactly. And the
Astrodome in Houston. That’s where we’ll put ‘em. We’ve got practice.” [The Neal Boortz Show via Media Matters
for America, 3/27/06]

O’Reilly Claimed To Have Exposed The “Hidden Agenda” Behind The Immigrant Rights Movement: “The
Browning Of America.” On his radio show, Bill O’Reilly claimed that guest Charles Barron, a New York City
councilman, had revealed the “hidden agenda” behind the current immigration debate. O’Reilly told his listeners:
“[T]he bottom line is Charles Barron said last night is there is a movement in this country to wipe out ‘white
privilege’ and to have the browning of America.” But in the interview, Barron at no point claimed that he and other
advocates for immigrant rights are motivated by a desire to force white Americans into the minority -- despite
O’Reilly’s repeated efforts to provoke such an acknowledgment. [The Radio Factor with Bill O’Reilly via Media
Matters for America, 4/12/06]

O’Reilly: “You’re On A Nice Block ... And Then The House Next To You Is Turned Into An Illegal Alien
Club Med.” On his radio show, Bill O’Reilly said:

        You’ve got the folks who don’t have emotion invested in it, other than the farmers down and the ranchers
        down on the border are going -- as the lady just called up, [caller] -- say, look, I got garbage in my -- on my
        ranch every day. I mean, I’m under siege. They have emotion invested in it. But those of us up here don’t.

        Unless you live in a town, like Farmingville, Long Island -- we went over this before -- where you bought a
        house, you spent a couple of hundred thousand dollars, you’re on a nice block, your kids are happy, and
        then the house next to you is turned into an illegal alien Club Med. And this happens all over the country.
        [The Radio Factor with Bill O’Reilly via Media Matters for America, 3/27/06]

O’Reilly Wondered Whether Children Of Mexican Immigrants In U.S. “Have Any Kind Of Traditional
Value System” Or Are “Setting Up Acapulco North.” On his radio show, Bill O’Reilly wondered whether
children of legal and undocumented immigrants from Mexico who are attending school in the United States “have
any kind of traditional value system at all, vis-à-vis what America used to be,” or whether they are “taking their
Mexican values, because most of them are Mexicans, and, you know, basically setting up Acapulco North.” [The
Radio Factor with Bill O’Reilly via Media Matters for America, 8/15/06]

O’Reilly: Immigration Controversy Is “Becoming A Race War.” On his radio show, Bill O’Reilly stated that
“you just cannot keep assimilating millions of people in here at the rate they’re coming without unintended
consequences. And you’ve got them all day long. So now, it’s becoming a race war. That’s what it’s becoming -- a
race war. You see half a million people show up in L.A. and they were waving Mexican flags. And they’re saying,
‘Hey, we have a right to be here.’ No, you don’t. If you’re illegal, you don’t have a right to be here. But they don’t
see it that way.” [The Radio Factor with Bill O’Reilly via Media Matters for America, 3/29/06]

Savage: NCLR Is “The Ku Klux Klan Of The Hispanic People.” On his radio show, Michael Savage said of the
National Council of La Raza: “This is the most stone racist group I’ve ever seen in this country. They’re the Ku
Klux Klan of the Hispanic people...In my opinion, La Raza is the equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan for the Hispanic
people. It’s true they haven’t hung anybody, but they certainly stand only for one race.” [The Savage Nation via
Media Matters for America, 5/18/07]

Boortz: “I Don’t Care If Mexicans Pile Up Against That Fence. ... Just Run A Couple Of Taco Trucks Up
And Down The Line.” On his radio show, Neal Boortz said, “There is no intent to shut the border down. None. If
there was, [Congress] would do what the American people want them to do: pass a law, appropriate the money, and
fund it -- to build a double fence along the Mexican border, and stop the damn invasion. I don’t care if Mexicans
pile up against that fence like tumbleweeds in the Santa Ana winds in Southern California. Let ‘em. You know,
then just run a couple of taco trucks up and down the line, and somebody’s gonna be a millionaire out of that.” [The
Neal Boortz Show via Media Matters for America, 6/18/07]

Boortz On Illegal Immigrants: “Give ‘Em All A Little Nuclear Waste And Let ‘Em Take It On Down There
To Mexico.” On his radio show, Neal Boortz said he had received an email that said, “[W]hen we defeat this illegal
alien amnesty bill and when we yank out the welcome mat and they all start going back to Mexico, as a going-away
gift let’s all give them a box of nuclear waste. Give ‘em all a little nuclear waste and let ‘em take it on down there
to Mexico. Tell ‘em it can -- it’ll heat tortillas.” He later said of this solution, “I love it. I love it.” [The Neal Boortz
Show via Media Matters for America, 6/22/07]

Savage On Immigrant Students’ Hunger Strike: “Let Them Fast Until They Starve To Death. ... Go Make A
Bomb Where You Came From.” On his radio show, Michael Savage said of five students in California who were
conducting a hunger strike in support of the DREAM Act, “I would say, let them fast until they starve to death, then
that solves the problem. Because then we won’t have a problem about giving them green cards because they’re
illegal aliens; they don’t belong here to begin with.” He later said of the students, “We don’t need you as engineers.
Go back to where you came from. Go back to where you came from and be an engineer. That’s all. Go give your
talents to your home country. Go be an engineer there. You stole the education from us; now give it back to your
home country. Go make a bomb where you came from.” [The Savage Nation via Media Matters for America,
7/5/07]

Boortz: Non-English-Speaking Latinos Are “The Ones With Sombreros” And “Bandoliers Full Of Bullets
Across Their Chest.” On his radio show, Neal Boortz said that Latino parents who couldn’t speak English at a
parent-teacher meeting could be distinguished because they were “[t]he ones with sombreros.” He reiterated, “I said
you can look at the parents and tell, because the ones with sombreros can’t speak English. The ones with the
bandoliers full of bullets across their chest.” [The Neal Boortz Show via Media Matters for America, 8/10/07]

Savage: “We’re Getting Refugees Now Who Have Never Used A Telephone, A Toothbrush, Or Toilet Paper.
... They Never Assimilate. And Then Their Children Become Gang-Bangers.” On his radio show, Michael
Savage said, “We’re getting refugees now who have never used a telephone, a toothbrush, or toilet paper. You’re
telling me they’re going to assimilate? They will never assimilate. They come here and they bring their destitute
ways to this country, and they never assimilate. And then their children become gang-bangers. It is a disaster.” [The
Savage Nation via Media Matters for America, 6/23/08]

Savage: “Illegal Aliens” Have “Raped And Disheveled” The Statue Of Liberty. On his radio show, Michael
Savage said, “You turn on the cable news, they’re covering again a missing child. Not a missing country but a
missing child, every day about a missing child but not a missing country, every day about a missing child but no
missing country. Every -- about the rape of a woman, but not about the rape of the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of
Liberty is crying, she’s been raped and disheveled -- raped and disheveled by illegal aliens, and our politicians do
nothing except give themselves big fat checks and big fat jobs. The Statue of Liberty is disheveled and raped and
she’s crying, and she needs to be helped...How about missing country and the rape of a nation? Why don’t they
cover the real story?” [The Savage Nation via Media Matters for America, 8/4/08]

Savage: “Throw Out The Anchor Babies” Or “Minorities In America Will Become The Majority.” On his
radio show, Michael Savage stated that “minorities in America are becoming the majority” and “[t]he only way to
stop this is to throw out all the politicians, immediately, and then throw out the anchor babies.” He added: “You
know, this thing about the anchor babies is why minorities in America will become the majority. Most people will
be afraid to discuss this for fear that the radical scum on the left will call them a racist.” [The Savage Nation via
Media Matters for America, 8/14/08]

Boortz: You Can Fit 27 “Illegal Aliens” Into A Ford Excursion, “Roll” It, “And Only Kill 10 Of Them.” On
his radio show, Neal Boortz said, “By the way, how many illegal aliens can you get into a Ford Excursion?
Apparently about 27. Looks like a Mexican clown car. And you can actually roll that Ford Excursion on a back
road in Arizona and only kill 10 of them.” [The Neal Boortz Show via Media Matters for America, 5/8/09]

Boortz, Savage, Arpaio Tie Swine Flu To Immigrants. On their respective radio shows, Neal Boortz said of
swine flu, “What better way to sneak a virus into this country than to give it to Mexicans?” while Michael Savage
said that Mexicans were the “perfect mules for bringing this virus into America.” Similarly, Joe Arpaio, sheriff of
Maricopa County, Arizona, expressed concern about “hundreds and thousands that sneak into our country that
could be diseased.” [The Neal Boortz Show, 4/25/09; The Savage Nation, 4/26/09; Your World with Neil Cavuto,
4/30/09; all via Media Matters for America]

Television
Fox’s Asman Wondered Whether Marches Are A Perfect Chance To “Round Up These Lawbreakers And
Ship Them Out.” While guest-hosting Fox News’ Your World with Neil Cavuto, David Asman discussed
nationwide protests of immigration reform and wondered: “With so many illegals hitting the streets, is this the
perfect time to round up these lawbreakers and ship them out?” As Asman spoke, the on-screen text read: “Round
‘Em Up?” Later, the text read: “Perfect Chance to Arrest Illegal Immigrants?” [Your World with Neil Cavuto via
Media Matters for America, 4/10/06]

Cavuto: Are Immigration Protests “Economic Terrorism?” On Your World, Neil Cavuto addressed the “Day
Without Immigrants” protests, asking, “So is it freedom of expression, or economic terrorism?” At various points
throughout the program, the on-screen text echoed Cavuto’s question, asking: “ ‘A Day Without Immigrants’;
Economic Terrorism?” [Your World with Neil Cavuto via Media Matters for America, 5/1/06]

Dobbs: Illegal Immigrants Are Bringing Leprosy To The United States. During an episode of his show, Lou
Dobbs said: “It’s remarkable that this -- whatever confusion, or confoundment over 7,000 cases, they actually keep
a registry of cases of leprosy. And the fact that it rose was because -- one assumes -- because we don’t know for
sure -- but two basic influences -- unscreened illegal immigrants coming into this country primarily from South
Asia, and secondly, far better reporting…And, you know, in talking with a number of people, it’s also very clear,
no one knows but nearly everyone suspects there are far more cases of that. It’s also, I think, interesting, and I think
important to say, one of the reasons we screen people coming into this country is to deal with communicable
diseases like leprosy, tuberculosis. The fact is, if we would just screen successfully, all of those diseases can be
treated effectively, efficiently and relatively quickly.” [CNN.com, 5/7/07]

Beck Decries “The Anchor Baby Thing,” Asks: “Why Do We Have Automatic Citizenship Upon Birth?”
Talking about immigration, Glenn Beck said: “You know, the anchor baby thing has always really hacked me off.
You know, the anchor baby -- you know what that is: When somebody -- a child that is born here becomes a citizen
and they help the illegal parents become citizens, right?” Beck continued: “Remember, empathy; oh, empathy -- no
one wants to separate that family. That baby is a child; it’s an anchor. It’s an anchor to stay here. Why do we have
automatic citizenship upon birth, do you know?” [Glenn Beck via Media Matters for America, 6/10/09]

Quinn: Mexicans Will Use Subsidized Viagra To “Father The Next Generation Of Illegals” In Effort To
“Reconquer The Southwest.” While discussing a reported plan by Mexico City’s government to distribute free
impotence drugs, War Room co-host Jim Quinn said: “Viva Viagra. Well -- after all, who’s gonna father the next
generation of illegals to come swarming across the border in their effort to reconquer the Southwest?” [The War
Room with Quinn & Rose via Media Matters for America, 11/18/09]

Hannity Falsely Claimed NCLR “Has Called For Mexico To Annex Southwestern States.” On his Fox show,
Sean Hannity said, “[I]n the omnibus spending bill ... $473,000 for La Raza, which by the way, has called for
Mexico to annex Southwestern states.” [Hannity via Media Matters for America, 2/26/09]

Dobbs: U.S. Hispanic Chamber Of Commerce “Is Effectively ... Interested In” The “Mexico’s Export Of
Drugs And Illegal Aliens To The United States.” On his CNN show, Lou Dobbs said, “I don’t know what’s
happened to this White House, but the wheels appear to have come completely off here over the last several days.
Making a decision to talk about a national initiative on education from the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,
which is effectively an organization that is interested in the export of American capital and production to Mexico,
and Mexico’s export of drugs and illegal aliens to the United States. This is crazy stuff.” (Dobbs later apologized.)
[Lou Dobbs Tonight, 3/10/09]

Special Report Referred To “Illegals Trying To Sneak Into The United States.” Reporting on patrols near the
Southwest border, Fox News reporter Adam Housley stated that border agents “mostly ride at night, when the
darkness provides cover for drug smugglers and illegals trying to sneak into the United States.” During a November
2009 edition of Special Report, host Bret Baier stated: “Some agents have been required to pursue suspected
illegals on horseback or even on foot in order to avoid disturbing protected lands.” [Special Report with Bret Baier
via Media Matters for America, 11/16/09 & 2/26/10]

Fox’s Wallace Repeatedly Used Term “Illegals” In Segment Discussing Immigration. Discussing the issue of
immigration with Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (D) and Marco Rubio, a Republican candidate for a Florida U.S.
Senate seat, Fox News host Chris Wallace said to Crist, “Gov. Crist, you say that you want all Floridians counted in
the census, including illegals.” Wallace later repeated the term, stating: “Mr. Rubio, you say that you’re against
amnesty for illegals, but critics point out that, as Speaker, you didn’t bring to the floor several bills that would have
cracked down on illegals and on employers who hire them and you voted for a bill that would have allowed the
children of illegals to pay the same tuition as in-state residents.” [Fox News Sunday, 3/29/10, via Politics Daily]

Fox’s Kelly On The Immigration Reform Bill: “Amnesty To Illegals.” Referring to a bipartisan immigration
proposal that the White House is now backing, Fox News’ Megyn Kelly stated that the bill would “grant amnesty to
illegals.” A few days earlier, Fox News Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy had also used the term while
discussing immigration reform, saying a new bipartisan proposal was trying to “effectively give all the illegals in
this country a path to citizenship.” [America Live via Media Matters for America, 3/19/10]

          Anti-Immigrant Groups, White Supremacists, & John Tanton
                                     John Tanton:
         Immigrants are “defecating and creating garbage and looking for jobs.”
John Tanton Has Founded Several Anti-Immigration Groups. Called “the heart of the most influential anti-
immigrant network in the country” by the Center for New Community, John Tanton “founded the Federation for
American Immigration Reform 30 years ago and shortly thereafter U.S. Inc. These two groups jointly fund and
support most of today’s national anti-immigrant groups. Groups like the Center for Immigration Studies, also
founded by Tanton, which serves as a quasi-think tank to the anti-immigrant movement. Or the Coalition for the
Future American Worker which pretends to be the voice of American workers. Progressives for Immigration
Reform, NumbersUSA, Immigration Reform Law Institute, United to Secure America Coalition are a few more of
the innocuous sounding groups.” [Imagine2050.NewComm.org, 7/7/09, emphasis added]

Tanton: Immigration Brings Millions Of Extra People “Defecating And Creating Garbage And Looking For
Jobs.” The Detroit Free Press reported, “If immigration continues at current levels, the Census Bureau projects
that U.S. population will approach 400 million by mid-century -- with millions of extra people ‘defecating and
creating garbage and looking for jobs,’ as Tanton put it.” [Detroit Free Press via LexisNexis and the Anti-
Defamation League, 3/14/97]

Tanton Attempted To Reroute Sierra Club To Anti-Immigration Effort; Ousted From Group For Racist
Comments. According to the Anti-Defamation League: “In the late 1990s, Tanton attempted to inject anti-
immigrant leadership into the Board of the Sierra Club with the creation of ‘Sierrans for U.S. Population
Stabilization,’ a group created to support a transformation of the Sierra Club into an anti-immigrant group. His
attempt failed in the Sierra Club board elections in 2004, and one of his most vocal activists in that effort was
ousted from the Sierra Club in the aftermath of her comments that the Hmong community represent ‘drug-addicted
polygamists.’” [ADL.org, accessed 4/13/10]

                                           Tanton & Eugenics
John Tanton Has Close Ties To White Supremacists And Promoters Of Eugenics. The Rocky Mountain News
reported: “...the closest ties between Tanton and the white nationalist and segregationist movements is in his own
office complex in Petoskey. Wayne Lutton is editor of Social Contract Press [Tanton’s publication]. A widely
published author and intellectual on matters of immigration and culture, Lutton co-authored with Tanton in 1994 a
widely read book on the issue titled The Immigration Invasion. In a display of the strange brew of interests attracted
to the book’s point of view, the foreword was written by the late liberal senator from Minnesota, Eugene McCarthy,
and the book was favorably reviewed on the Web site of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke...Another source
of left-wing criticism of Tanton is that his original organization, FAIR, accepted about $1.2 million in funding
between 1985 and 1994 from the New York-based Pioneer Fund. The purpose of the fund is to ‘advance the
scientific study of heredity and human differences.’ Critics such as the Southern Poverty Law Center call it a hate
group because it has funded some activities of white nationalists.” [Rocky Mountain News, 7/15/06]

Tanton Accepted Start Up Money From Eugenics Group. According to the Center for New Community, “the
Pioneer Fund, a foundation committed to eugenics and ‘scientific racism’ … provided John Tanton with the early
funding he needed to build a multi-million dollar operation.” [Imagine2050.NewComm.org, 7/7/09]

Tanton Has Ties To Known White Supremacists. The Center for New Community reported that John Tanton
and his myriad groups have “ties to white supremacists associated with the Council of Conservative Citizens and to
the VDARE Foundation.” [Imagine2050.NewComm.org, 7/7/09]

Tanton Wrote A Letter Promoting Use Of Eugenics. According to the Center for New Community, John Tanton
“decided to develop a platform to educate the public on eugenics without using the term ‘eugenics.’ …To hide his
promotion of eugenics, Tanton decided to use the word ‘genetics’ instead of ‘eugenics,’ and to focus on plant life as
a gateway topic to promote his belief in inherent biological IQ differences. These racialized arguments are still
popular in many of today’s white nationalist and neo-Nazi organizations. In a letter to Dr. Robert K. Graham of the
Foundation for the Advancement of Man, Tanton said the project would emphasize:

        ‘mankind’s use of eugenic principles on plants and the lower animals as a way to condition the public to the
        idea of genetic manipulation, and raise the question of its application to the human race. In fact, we report
        on ways it is currently being done, but under the term genetics rather than eugenics.’”
        [Imagine2050.NewComm.org, 3/26/10]

Tanton: “The Less Intelligent” Should “Logically” Have Fewer Children. Tanton’s letter to Dr. Robert K.
Graham included the following:

        First, do we leave it to individuals to decide that they are the intelligent ones who should have more kids?
        And more troublesome, what about the less intelligent, who logically should have less? Who is going to
        break the bad news to them, and how will it be implemented? Without this step, the more intelligent are
        simply in a breeding race with those less well endowed, and we can guess how that will turn out! This
        qualitative shift has to be worked out within the context of the quantitativie [sic] aspect of the population
        problem, and should not worsen it. The less intelligent, of course, won’t understand the need for the
        limitation on their own. [Tanton Letter via Center for New Community, 9/18/96]
                                    The John Tanton Network
The Tanton Network Included Several Established Organizations. As discovered by the Center for New
Community, the John Tanton Network includes:

       US, Inc.                                                      Coalition for the Future American Worker
       Federation for American Immigration                           (CFAW)
       Reform (FAIR)                                                 Social Contract Press
       NumbersUSA                                                    U.S. English
       Center for Immigration Studies                                Pro-English
       Immigration Reform Law Institute

       [NewComm.org, 2009]

NumbersUSA Run By Close Tanton Associate Roy Beck. From the Center for New Community:

       “NumbersUSA serves as the grassroots mobilization arm of the John Tanton Network. Founded in 1997
       under the financial and administrative umbrella of Tanton’s U.S., Inc., NumbersUSA eschews overt white
       nationalist rhetoric strategically focusing instead on emphasizing the alleged negative economic and
       environmental impacts of immigrants…Roy Beck’s ties to Tanton and Tanton-founded anti-immigration
       groups go back at least to 1991. Tanton hired Beck as a consultant ‘because of his unique background in
       environmental reporting, and his understanding of the immigration issue,’ Tanton wrote in a 1997 memo.
       At least through the summer 2000 issue, Beck served as editor of John Tanton’s The Social Contract.”
       [NewComm.org, accessed 4/13/10]

Center For Immigration Studies Founded To Raise Money FAIR Could Not Access. According to the Center
for New Community:

       “Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) was founded in 1985 as a project directly under the control of the
       Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)… Tanton himself described the objective of CIS as
       an attempt ‘(t)o expand our fund-raising machine...We need to get CIS fully-funded and entrenched as a
       major Washington think-tank, one that can venture into issues which FAIR is not yet ready to raise.’”
       [NewComm.org, accessed 4/13/10]

FAIR’s Goal Is To Blame Immigration For “Economic, Population And Environmental Problems.” From
the Center for New Community:

       “The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) - while claiming to represent the ‘mainstream’
       of the American anti-immigrant movement - is a carefully crafted entity whose mission is to achieve the
       goal of zero immigration to the U.S. by blaming immigrants as the cause of economic, population and
       environmental problems…John Tanton’s tentacles reach deep into white supremacist and anti-Semitic
       organizations. The founder of FAIR has financially supported platforms to debate pseudo-scientific
       research (racial eugenics) purporting to show that African Americans and Latinos are mentally inferior to
       whites because of their genetic makeup. Tanton’s activism with regard to racial eugenics is based on the
       disturbing belief that those identified as the most productive ‘gene pool of the human stock’ should be the
       ones with access to and control over scarce resources.” [NewComm.org, accessed 4/13/10]

CFAW Is A Coalition Of Several Anti-Immigration Groups. The Coalition for the Future American Worker is
comprised of Californians for Population Stabilization, Federation for American Immigration Reform,
NumbersUSA Education & Research Foundation, American Immigration Control Foundation, American
Engineering Association, The Programmer’s Guild, American Council on Immigration Reform, American Jobs
Coalition, ZaZona.com, and The Communications Workers of America, Local 4250. [AmericanWorker.org,
accessed 3/15/10]

    •   Several CFAW Groups Are Connected With The John Tanton Network. According to a report by
        America’s Voice, Federation for American Immigration Reform, American Immigration Control
        Foundation, NumbersUSA Education & Research Foundation, Californians for Population Stabilization,
        and American Council on Immigration Reform are all connected to John Tanton. [America’s Voice,
        12/10/09]

    •   At Least Three Members Of CFAW Are Listed As “Anti-Immigration.” The Southern Poverty Law
        Center lists Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, and American Immigration
        Control Foundation as “anti-immigration” groups. [SPLCenter.org, accessed 3/15/10]

Tanton Formed “Leadership Team” Of Anti-Immigration Groups. According to the Anti-Defamation League,
in 2008 the “Leadership Team for Long Range Population-Immigration-Resource Planning (‘Leadership Team’)”
was formed. “John Tanton, often considered the father of the anti-immigrant movement, has connections to the
founding and funding of the organizations that comprise the Leadership Team. Tanton has been an anti-immigrant
activist and writer for over 20 years and is at the center of a network of anti-immigrant groups located across the
country. Tanton has helped to found and fund these groups through U.S. Inc., a non-profit that he created.” This
“Leadership Team” is comprised of

        Federation for American Immigration Reform
        American Immigration Control Foundation (AICF)
        Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS)
        NumbersUSA
        Social Contract Press
        [ADL.org, accessed 4/13/10]

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:142
posted:4/14/2010
language:English
pages:39