- ATR RSS Feed

Norquist Statement on Passage of the Senate Immigration Bill

Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:31:00 -0400

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) President Grover Norquist issued the following statement on the passage of of S.744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act:

“As Winston Churchill said, ‘This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.’ The Senate moved the immigration reform debate in the right direction today, passing a bill that begins the task of modernizing our broken immigration system. Now it is up to the House of Representatives to improve and strengthen the bill, and deliver immigration reform that creates a workable legal immigration system which deters illegal immigration by facilitating a robust future flow of legal immigrants to strengthen the American economy.

“I applaud the Senate for their leadership on this issue, and look forward to constructive improvements from the Republican House.”

Some amendments defeated in the Senate that should be taken up by the House include:

Cruz 1325: Increases high-skilled (H-1B) visa caps five-fold, to 325,000.
Lee 1217 and Toomey 1599: Increases the initial cap on low-skilled (W) visas to 200,000, and the fully-phased in cap to 400,000.
Hatch-Rubio 1248: Applies a five-year waiting period for green card holders to accept Obamacare benefits. This waiting period currently exists for all other public benefit programs. This amendment also specifically prevents temporary workers from accessing Obamcare subsidies and tax credits.

Other suggested improvements to the bill:

Fix the formula for increasing the visa cap. The formula relies on national unemployment statistics, which do not take into account the needs of different industries or localities. It also empowers Washington bureaucrats to help determine the number of visas available. In reality, this formula should be primarily driven by the needs of employers who are unable to find Americans to fill open jobs. The House should limit the power of any new bureau to politicize the visa system.
Eliminate excessive wage premiums. The Senate bill includes a laudable “safety valve” for certain employers who are unable to fill jobs, even when visa caps have been met or the unemployment rate is high. Unfortunately, use of the safety valve requires paying immigrant workers a wage premium of up to 70 percent. Furthermore, use of the safety valve counts against the following year’s visa cap. This is bad for small businesses and the economy as a whole, and should be dealt with in the House.
Don’t discriminate against the construction industry. The Senate bill imposes an unworkable cap of 15,000 visas per year for construction workers, and exempts construction companies from participating in the safety valve. The House should remove this “cap within a cap” and give the construction industry access to the safety valve.

The Economic Benefits of Immigration

Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:35:00 -0400

Norquist Statement on CBO Immigration Score

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:46:50 -0400

Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist issued the following statement on the Congressional Budget Office’s score of S.744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act:

“Today’s CBO score is more evidence that immigration is key to economic growth. Immigration reform will jumpstart America’s economy and reduce our national debt. And because CBO employed the type of dynamic analysis conservatives have long clamored for, we have a full accounting of both the costs and benefits of reform. I urge Congress to fix our broken immigration system for the sake of the American economy.”

ATR Supports Motion to Proceed to S.744

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:20:00 -0400

Immigration Analysis Should Include Costs and Benefits

Mon, 06 May 2013 14:16:00 -0400

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) pushed back today on a Heritage Foundation study that found a net fiscal cost of $6.3 trillion associated with S.744, the immigration reform bill pending in the United States Senate. The primary flaw in this analysis is that it considers only costs and ignores benefits. But even the cost estimate itself is vastly overblown.

Among the study’s flaws:

This is a static fiscal score, not a dynamic analysis. Conservatives believe that policy changes should be evaluated in a way that takes both costs and benefits into account. Unfortunately, the authors of this study do not attempt to measure indirect fiscal effects, and their impact on GDP growth and federal revenues. After listing possible aspects of immigration reform that could be scored dynamically, the authors write, “Because figures are imprecise, none of the indirect fiscal effects discussed in this section is included in the fiscal analysis in this paper.” But measuring these economic effects is imperative to a thorough analysis of the bill. A Cato Institute analysis using a dynamic model to evaluate proposed changes similar to those in S.744 projected a net GDP increase of $1.5 trillion in the decade immediately after passage.
It lumps native-born Americans into the overall cost of immigration by calculating costs by household, rather than by individual. Many undocumented immigrants are married to U.S. citizens or have citizen children. To the extent that low-income American family members receive government benefits, they are treated as immigrant-related costs in this study – massively inflating the overall cost estimate. The study ignores that many Americans receiving public benefits would do so regardless of immigration.
America has entitlement, welfare, and education crises, not an immigration crisis. While the overall cost specific to immigration is inflated, the authors are correct to point out our spiraling entitlement and welfare costs must be addressed. Thankfully, Republicans in the House and Senate are committed to tackling this problem. It must be resolved regardless of immigration levels. Rather than conceding the growth of the welfare state, the authors should acknowledge that a growing workforce, supplemented with foreign workers, is imperative to economic growth while focusing on restricting the runaway growth of government.

ATR’s Josh Culling issued the following statement:

“The Heritage Foundation is a treasured ally in the conservative movement and a pillar of the conservative policy community. However, this study is every bit as flawed as its 2007 iteration.

“This static analysis takes into account none of the universally-accepted economic benefits of immigration, choosing only to focus on costs. But the costs estimates are unfairly inflated. The authors count overall household costs, which often includes benefits paid to native-born, low-income American spouses and children of immigrants. Those costs would exist regardless of the immigration status of one’s partner; this is an indictment of our current welfare state, not proposed immigration reforms.

“ATR has worked tirelessly to reform our unsustainable entitlements, and will continue to do so. We should not put a pro-growth reform of our broken immigration system on hold while we do so. In fact, America should welcome more legal immigrants to pay into the system without receiving benefits and boost the economy while we work toward sustainable reform.

“Lawmakers and the American public should rely on an accurate accounting of immigration reform’s costs and benefits. Unfortunately, this study inaccurately reflects only one side of the ledger. Even the establishment Congressional Budget Office, which Heritage, ATR, and others have excoriated for employing only static models, will take economic growth into account when it scores the bill. I had hoped the same of the conservative movement’s happy warrior for dynamic scoring, the Heritage Foundation.”

Norquist Testifies to Senate Judiciary Committee on Immigration Reform

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:31:55 -0400

Norquist Statement on Senate Immigration Reform Plan

Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:23:00 -0400