Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act--Continued--
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I believe hope and fairness lie at the core of what makes our country great. Fifty years ago, President Kennedy called on the country to embrace civil rights legislation that would end the unfair treatment of millions of people as second-class citizens. Congress responded, and the country is better for it. This week, we in the Senate are debating comprehensive immigration reform legislation that gives hope to the millions of undocumented people who live in this country that they will be able to emerge from the shadows and live full lives. It is our time to act. We should pass this important legislation.
I thank the Gang of 8, and their staff, for their hard work negotiating the bill and getting it through committee and onto the floor. They have set an example of bipartisanship on a tough issue that is all too rare these days.
I also thank Senator Leahy, and his staff, for his able leadership during the markup. It was a remarkably open and fair process, full of principled debate. That is how the Senate should work.
Their hard work, and that of others, has produced the bill that is before us.
Many senators have already spoken about what is in the bill: the billions of dollars for border security, the tough employment eligibility verification requirements, the pro-tourism policies, and the path to citizenship.
Rather than cover that ground again, I want to talk about two problems with the bill that I hope can be fixed: first, the system designed for future immigration is unfair to women; and second, the pathway to citizenship is unfair to immigrant taxpayers.
The new merit-based point system for allocating visas to future immigrants is the first problem. Simply put, the point system inadvertently makes it harder for women than for men to come to this country.
The new point system is based on an attractive economic idea, but unfortunately one that clearly disadvantages women. The idea is if we want a stronger economy, then we should give immigration preferences to people who hold advanced degrees or work in high-skill jobs.
This idea ignores the discrimination women endure in other countries. Women in too many other countries do not have the same education or career advancement opportunities available to men in those countries. In practice, the bill's new point system takes that discriminatory treatment abroad and cements it into our immigration laws, making it harder for women to come to our country than for men.
While unintentional in this case, the idea that we want to attract the most educated and skilled people but they just happen to be mostly men is the same argument used for generations to protect gender discrimination in our work places. We all want a stronger economy, but we should not sacrifice the hard-won victories of the women's equality movement to get it.
By contrast, the current family immigration system treats men and women equally. The current system is based on keeping families together. That system reflects our shared values about the social importance of family. My family and millions of others also know the family system makes good economic sense.
Anyone, whether an immigrant or natural-born citizen, has a better chance of being successful if they are surrounded by a strong family that can pool its resources to help start a business or to help one another during tough times. In many families aunts and uncles, parents and grandparents, even brothers and sisters, use part of their paychecks every week to help a young man or a young woman in their family pay for college and take one step closer to that American dream. That is how it worked in my family.
My mother brought my brothers and me to this country to escape an abusive marriage at the hands of my father. My mother raised me and my brothers as a single parent, and times were tough for us. But with the help of my grandparents, who later joined us, I was able to learn English and succeed in school. The amazing thing about this country is millions of families have stories like mine.
If I had not been able to come to this country, who knows where I would be today. But I know I would never have had the kind of opportunities given to me by this great country of ours. I want other women to have those chances too.
The biggest losers in this bill's new point system will be unmarried sisters of U.S. citizens. Why? Because the new system not only makes it harder for women to immigrate here, but it eliminates visas for siblings of U.S. citizens while allowing new immigrants to bring their spouses. What this means is a woman who aspires to live with her family and work in the greatest country in the world should not have to get married to do that.
The future immigration system in the bill needs to be modified to give unmarried women more opportunities to come here. There is more than one way to fix this problem. One solution could be to restore the sibling category. I will file an amendment to do that. Another solution could be to modify the point system in the bill. I am working with other Senators on an amendment to do that, which I hope will be ready soon.
The second problem in this bill that needs to be fixed is how it treats immigrant taxpayers. Make no mistake, immigrants pay taxes. A study released in May by researchers at Harvard and the City University of New York found that immigrants contributed $115.2 billion more to Medicare than they took out between 2002 and 2009.
Even undocumented immigrants pay taxes. A 2006 survey by UC-San Diego showed that 75 percent of undocumented immigrants had taxes withheld from their paychecks, filed tax returns, or both. The Social Security Administration estimates undocumented immigrants have contributed between $120 and $240 billion to the Social Security trust fund.
I have a fact sheet with citations of several studies about immigrant taxpayers, and I ask unanimous consent that this fact sheet be printed in the Record following my remarks.
The bill makes clear that immigrants on the pathway to citizenship have to continue working, paying taxes and other penalties, and meeting other requirements. In fact, they have to do all of this before they can even start on the path to citizenship.
The Social Security Administration estimates the tax requirements in this bill will raise more than $300 billion in payroll taxes alone. The general fund will also receive more in tax revenues. Although we have not yet seen CBO's official score, in all likelihood the Treasury Department will collect billions more in revenue for the general fund from these immigrants.
In his written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 22, 2013, Grover Norquist pointed out that once immigrants have lawful status and work authorization, they will be able to get better jobs and contribute even more to the funding of Federal programs. He wrote that after the 1986 immigration law was enacted, ``their incomes rose by an average of 15 percent just by gaining legal status. Those immigrants today are making much more than they did then and, as a result, paying more in taxes.''
My point is immigrant taxpayers contribute to the funding of not only Medicare and Social Security, but of all Federal programs. No one disputes that it should be this way. Immigrants on the pathway must pay taxes, just like everyone else. The strict tax requirements in the bill are the right policy.
What is wrong are the policies in the bill that prohibit immigrant taxpayers who are on the pathway from being able to use Federal safety net programs for at least 13 years. Their taxes pay for these programs, but they cannot use these programs; that is profoundly unfair. Imagine a person buys homeowner's insurance, but the policy won't cover their house if it catches fire until 13 years after they started paying their premiums. That is obviously not fair, but that is exactly the situation in which we are putting immigrants who are on the pathway to citizenship.
Yesterday, the senior Senator from Utah spoke on the floor about several amendments he filed to further restrict immigrant taxpayers' access to the programs their tax dollars pay for. He said:
I don't want to punish these immigrants. I simply want to make sure they are treated no better or no worse than U.S. citizens and resident aliens with respect to federal benefits and taxes.
I have the greatest respect for the senior Senator from Utah. I agree with him that these immigrants should be treated no worse than U.S. citizens and resident aliens, but they are not being treated that way. They are being treated worse because of the restrictions in this bill.
Under current law, immigrant taxpayers who are resident aliens cannot use the Federal safety net programs they pay into for 5 years. Their taxes are paid into the system for 5 years, but they get no help during that time if their kids get sick or if they lose their jobs. That is already unfair, but the bill treats immigrants on provisional status even worse. They have to pay taxes for 13 years before they can use the programs they are paying for.
The 13-year-long pathway to citizenship will be hard enough. If they lose their job, they risk losing their legal status and being deported, work hard to save up money, not just for the kids' school supplies but to pay the penalties under this bill. The restrictions on Federal safety net programs make their pathway even more treacherous.
We are saying to these immigrants: Pay your taxes, but if your kids get sick, don't come to us for help. We are saying: Pay your taxes, but if you have to work part time because of a recession, don't come to us if you need some help putting food on the table. We are saying: Pay your taxes, but we are not going to help you. That is not fair.
I want to be clear: I am talking only about immigrants who will be lawfully present. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for these programs at all and no one is proposing to change that, but the pathway provides a way for certain people to earn lawful status. Let's treat lawfully present taxpayers fairly, including those on the pathway. Let's do as the Senator from Utah suggests and at the very least make sure they are treated no worse than U.S. citizens or resident aliens.
Finally, not only are the prohibitions in the bill unfair to immigrant taxpayers, they are also bad economics. Both Republican and Democratic Senators say they want immigrants to be successful, start businesses, and continue contributing to the economy. We all do. But few people would use their life savings to start a business if they think their children will go hungry or go without health care if their business fails. The safety net programs exist so people can take risks to improve their economic circumstances.
Immigrants come to this country to work. They don't come to get handouts. They come here to work. Two papers from the Cato Institute show that immigrants are more likely to be working or looking for work than natural-born citizens. Immigrants are less likely to use Federal safety net programs.
The title of one Cato article sums it up nicely: ``Evidence Shows Immigrants Come to Work, Not to Collect Welfare.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these two papers be printed in the Record following my remarks.
Both political parties should be able to support the idea that taxpayers who are lawfully present, working, and paying taxes should be able to use the programs their taxes are paying for. That is only fair. I will file an amendment that says precisely that.
In closing, during the debates on immigration reform, I hope we remember who undocumented immigrants are. Like other immigrants, they had the courage and aspiration to leave their hometowns and all they knew to find work elsewhere in order to give their kids better lives than they could dream for themselves.
The undocumented should pay penalties for the laws they broke by coming here, but we should remember that our Founding Fathers were willing to break up an empire to achieve their dreams.
We are a Nation of immigrants. Let's treat immigrants how we would have wanted our immigrant ancestors to be treated--with dignity and forgiveness.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HIRONO. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source