Senator SIMPSON. No, you did not do that. And I recommend that those interested read your supplemental remarks as filed with the Select Commission report, which is, too, a powerful statement as this one was. Now, Mr. Huerta, the associate counsel of the Los Angeles Office of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, MALDEF, please proceed. STATEMENT OF JOHN HUERTA, ASSOCIATE COUNSEL, LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND (MALDEF) Mr. HUERTA. Thank you, Senator Simpson, for the opportunity to address this committee hearing. I would like to thank you also for the leadership that you have provided to this very vital issue that is before the American public today. I think that the concern that you have brought to this issue and the level of involvement you have brought to it is tremendous, and it will pay off in dividends in a significant new immigration policy for this country. I am hopeful that MALDEF can work with you in developing that. Your office has been very sensitive to the needs of minorities, and we are appreciative to be here to be able to voice our concerns about this policy today. I think the administration ought to be thanked also for their coming out with an immigration policy. While we have some concerns with several aspects of their program, they have tried to put together a comprehensive package to address the situation. I would like to address my concerns to the employer sanctions proposals that are on the table today. MALDEF's chief objection to employer sanctions is predicated upon the fact that the Hispanic community would suffer increased discrimination not only in the workplace but in all other aspects of our daily life. Our specific objections to the administration's employer sanctions proposals are based on the following grounds: The proposed provisions will not stem the flow of undocumented migrants. Employer sanctions will result in adverse economic impacts. The fiscal and operational costs of implementing the proposed provisions would be overwhelming. And given the lack of emphasis and meager resources the administration would commit to their enforcement, the proposed employer sanctions would be ineffective. In our view, employer sanctions will be entirely ineffective as a means of preventing illegal immigration into the United States. Moreover, we believe that their introduction would be likely to exacerbate existing problems associated with the undocumented population. Assuming that an employer sanctions program could be effective-and we have concerns that the analysis must involve not only the push factors taking place in terms of the lack of economic opportunity in sending countries, but also additional pull factors such as the need for family reunification-assuming that an employer sanctions program could be effective in deterring the hiring of undocumented immigrants, the likely immediate outcome would be an increase in domestic unemployment and higher inflation. I have a long quote in my statement from Mr. Roger Waldinger, an MIT economist who has written a paper called "The Case Against Employer Sanctions. I only have one copy of that, but I would like to submit his entire article for the record. And I will give a short summary. Basically, his point is that in cases of low-wage manufacturing, many of the entrepreneurs in this area are in a very vulnerable situation in terms of international competition. If you think of the garment industry, it may be a good example in which in southern California, it's a $3.8-billion industry. It employs many undocumented. It has been estimated between 65 and 70 percent. It has also been stated that it is not likely that many of these could afford to pay high wages and that many of their companies may go bankrupt or either go overseas and withdraw, thereby causing domestic unemployment to the other 35 or 40 percent domestic citizen employees that they have in the industry. Also, that will tend to increase inflation. Besides contributing to an increase of unemployment and inflation, there are other costs associated with an employer sanctions program. What are the costs to the private sector in implementing and enforcing a federal employers sanction provision? The Social Security Administration statistics for 1977 indicate that over 40 million persons took new jobs or entered or reentered the labor market that year. Assuming that it would take 15 minutes per hire-and I think OMB came up with a figure of 30 minutes per hire for an employer to check the proper documentation and make the necessary certification, it would cost the private sector 10 million hours per year to comply with the law. At a conservative estimate of $10 per hour, that amounts to $100 million per year in nonproductive work, not counting inventory and time allotted for inspection. The cost to the public sector will depend on how serious the Government is about enforcing the proposed statute. Estimates range from $40 million for an affidavit system to $850 million per year for a national ID card system. Ms. Meissner in her testimony indicated that might be $2 billion for a startup and over a period of years to implement that_card system. Will the Government be serious about enforcing employer sanctions? The high costs in terms of unemployment, inflation, and nonproductive public and private sector participation lead one to believe that a new Federal employer sanction law will not be consistently enforced by this or any other administration. The Federal Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act, which provides for the suspension or revocation of federally licensed farm labor contractors who hire undocumented workers is not adequately enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor. According to the research of the General Accounting Office, 11 States have adopted legislation penalizing employers for hiring undocumented aliens. Their investigation reviewed that only one employer in all of the 11 States was fined $250 for hiring an undocumented worker. Our community is somewhat cynical about the lack of enforcement of immigration laws, of civil rights laws, of labor laws, and we are fearful that employer sanctions laws which will create the potential for discrimination in our community will not be adequately enforced and, therefore, we will be running the risk of being denied jobs in certain sectors of the economy but in other ones, the hiring of undocumented will continue. So that lack of adequate enforcement is one of the real problems that we have with this. Because of lack of time, I will save the remainder of my comments for my testimony on Friday. Senator SIMPSON. Fine. We will have time for questions. [The prepared statement of John Huerta follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN HUERTA My name is John Huerta, and I am the Associate Counsel for the Los Angeles office of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. MALDEF is a national civil rights organization dedicated to the preservation and vindication of the civil and constitutional rights of close to 15 million Americans of Hisapnic descent. Currently, we have offices in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, Chicago, San Antonio On July 30, 1981, the Reagan Administration proposed a set of immigration reforms aimed at solving this country's immigration problems. The proposals include provisions for increased enforcement of existing immigration laws, sanctions against employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers, a temporary worker program for Mexican nationals and the creation of a "renewable term temporary resident" status for undocumented immigrants who were present in the U.S. prior to January 1, 1980. MALDEF Commends the President for his efforts to address this complex and emotionally laden issue. On their face, the Administration's immigration proposals appear to be reasonably humane attempts to deal with the so called "illegal alien" problem. Upon close scrutiny, however, the Administration's package falls far short of its professed goals. MALDEF has serious reservations about many of the proposals. But, we will limit our comments today to our concerns regarding the Administration's employer sanctions proposal. The concept of punishing an employer who hires undocumented immigrants is not novel. As those who have worked in immigration reform well know, employer sanctions provisions have been introduced in one form or another for over a decade. They have been rejected repeatedly on the grounds that they are unworkable, unmanageable, costly, and discriminatory. Nothing has changed which would lead us to believe that these objections do not apply to this new proposal. As in the past, MALDEF's chief objection to employer sanctions is predicated on the fact that the Hispanic community would suffer increased discrimination not only in the work place but in all other aspects of our daily life. Vilma Martinez, our President and General Counsel, has already expressed our general views during her testimony on May 6, 1981 before the Joint Senate/House Immigration hearings. Other specific objections to the Administration's employer sanctions proposals are based on the following grounds: (1) the proposed provisions will not stem the flow of undocumented migrants; (2) employer sanctions will result in adverse economic impacts, (3) the fiscal and operational costs of implementing the proposed provisions would be overwhelming, (4) given the lack of emphasis and meager resources the Administration would commit to their enforcement, the proposed employer sanctions would be ineffective, and (5) the potential for discrimination is significant. In our view employer sanctions will be entirely ineffective as a means of preventing illegal immigration to the United States. Moreover, we believe that their introduction would be likely to exacerbate existing problems associated with the undocumented population. Underlying employer sanction proposals are the false assumptions that undocumented immigrants are lured here solely by job opportunities, and that penalizing employers who hire them will deter the flow. This, however, is a dangerously oversimplified analysis of the situation. It totally ignores the "push" factors which exist in the countries that supply many of our undocumented population. Studies have demonstrated that the |