though the government has said that's -- it's not the road. the road is to bring everybody and take those, as mr. murdoch has suggested earlier today, those that are law-abiding and by that with mean they have a immigration problem but they are just as american as everyone. they need a piece of paper because in 2004, what did we read? we read about that young corporal gutierrez, the first to die illegally entering the united states and the first to die. in iraq. so i want to transition back to you, mr. murdoch. and ask you a question. because i think it's like that. what is that proverbial 900,000, 10,000-pound gorilla or elephant that's in the room. i wake up really early sometimes because it's 6:10 in chicago so

i can get down at fox news for the 30 seconds i'm there. i'm on many programs and i'm invited all the time and i don't do it because i believe that somehow i'm going to reach voters that liked him that day. the phone calls i get at my office are not positive when i'm on fox news. i want to share with you that i'm happy you're here. i thank you for everything. but i have to tell you that many times how do we find that we tell the story of corporal gutierrez on fox news more often. how do we tell these stories so that there's more of a balance or there's security and we get to talk. because i see many times -- i just share with you and i speak to you as someone who welcome back you, who embraces your effort to say to you, as your

partner in this effort -- >> the gentleman's time -- the gentleman's time has expired. we would turn now to mr. poe for his five minutes of questions. >> thank you, madam chair. for some reason i don't understand why some of the witnesses do not make the distinction between the people that are here legally from other countries and people that are here illegally from other countries. there is a difference between people that are here legally, came the right way, did the right thing. even waited and those people who just flaunted the laws and other reasons came into the united states now expect us to give them amnesty. i'll make it clear, i think amnesty is a bad idea. history has proven it hasn't worked. so what do we do? the proposal is let's do it again. maybe the results will be different. i don't think so. houston area, just a couple of

statistics. 18% of the people in county hospitals in houston, texas, are illegally in the united states. 67% of the births in the lbj county hospital in the last four years, 67% are born to mothers who are illegally in the united states. now, somebody pays for that. and who pays for it? it's citizens and it's legal immigrants. i represent southeast texas. and these are about real people. i have an individual who runs a carpet-laying business. he's a legal immigrant. he hires legal immigrants. they all got here the right way. they are all paying taxes including him. but his competition is down the

road where a person hires only illegals. undercuts the legal immigrant and what he's paying the legal immigrants that work for him and putting him out of business. now, that's the competition. it's not between americans and immigrants. in this case it's between legal immigrants and people that are here illegally. and that's because nobody is being held accountable for being here illegally. and the employers are not being held accountable for knowingly and intentionally hiring folks so he can undercut whoever his competition may be. and so i see a distinct and i think we have to resolve that issue. this is a three-part problem and i've always seen it as three parts. the first solution is we have to stop folks coming here without permission. it's called border security. we don't have border security. if you believe we have border security, i will take you to the texas/mexico border and you can watch for yourself.

of course, it's not safe down there. you won't want to go down there. but we don't have border security. we need to have it. including as i believe the national guard necessary. but the second issue is not what do we do with the illegals that are here. the second issue, we got to reform the immigration system in my opinion. it's a disaster. it takes too long to get people in here the right way. my office spends more time on immigration issues, helping people come in to the united states the right way than it does any other issue except military issues. so the model, the immigration model we operate under, in my opinion, doesn't work. we got to fix that. that's the second thing that has to be done. what do we do with the people that are here? well, many of them -- we talk about amnesty and making citizen out of them. they don't want to be citizens. they don't want to be citizens and they don't to be americans and we can't lump them all in the philosophy we need to make

citizens out of them because they've been here so long. i don't agree at all and we go after the employers and make sure they are held accountable and not being able to work in the united states unless you have permission to be here, that might solve part, not all of that problem. it's a three-part process. i think we can solve those problem on that way. mayor, i just want to ask you one question. do you make a distinction between people legally -- >> congressman, i think you laid it out better i could have possibly laid it. there are three prongs here we have to do it. what frustrates the american public and the reason you see the frustration in the polls both to throw the incumbents out, both sides of the aisle is that we can't understand why you guys complain about immigrants coming over the borders illegally and then don't do anything about it. it's a republican and democratic president you've talked about here. who have not stopped illegal immigrants. they have not put the forces at the border we need and they've not given the business community the tools to stop the demand.

it's a supply and demand problem. number two, we do not give the visas we need. this country is hollowing out for doctors because we won't give green cards to doctors that we train and we need. you couldn't be more right. and number three, you have this problem of 11-odd million people here who are undocumented who broke the law to get here and incidentally so did their employers who encouraged them to come. so did congress that passed immigration reform in '86 without any teeth. of all the duplicitous things it's ever done, yes, we have a problem. let's do something about it. but anybody that thinks we're going to go and deport 11 million people, it's just literally impossible. >> reclaiming my time. excuse me, mayor, i'm reclaiming my time. can i have unanimous consent for one minute? >> the gentleman is recognized by unanimous consent for an additional minute. >> thank you, mayor. you didn't hear me say anything about deporting anybody. and it's a three-part process. just a second, mayor, i'm talking. sorry. do you think -- just go to the first one. what do you think about putting the national guard on the border?

do you support a concept like that or not? >> i support the federal government putting whatever resources they need and i don't know whether that should be the national guard or part of homeland security. that's not my job. i don't know. but they should have sources so the border but you will never be able to put enough forces there unless you end the demand and that's where companies hire undocumented and companies say that they can't tell the difference and congress has not helped them in being able to tell the difference and having a penalty if they break the law as well. if they are coming in and breaking the law, and i think you're 100% right. >> thank you, mayor. >> the gentleman -- >> i yield back. >> the time has expired. the ranking member of the full committee wanted to be recognized for unanimous consent. >> madam chair, thank you. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to put into the record a study by the nonpartisan center for media and public affairs

that found that coverage on fox news was more balanced than any other network. and also a public policy polling survey that found that half of americans trust fox 10 percentage points more than -- >> well, i'm sure -- >> one more sentence and a separate probe found that 36% of americans list fox as the most trusted source of news about politics and government by far the highest total of any network. abc, cbs, nbc and msnbc. >> that is a very long uc and i would note although i'm sure mr. murdoch is pleased by the comments the relevance to the hearing is a bit tenuous but without objection, the surveys will be made part of the record. and i would now turn to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson-lee, for her five minutes of questions. >> madam chair, i think it is appropriate to thank you for your continuing persistence.

we have been on this journey, i believe, for a long time. and in your leadership i think we can count, if you will, tens upon tens of hearings on this issue. to the gentleman who are gathered, thank you so very much for your presence here today. and i have to express, mayor bloomberg, a sense of pride having first started out my educational tenure at new york university for a brief period of time but certainly having the great affection for this city. but proudly now with the city of houston, expressing a great sense of pride in the greater houston partnership, their leadership and jeff moseley for frankly taking the lead. i will answer the question, congress should do something. lamar smith knows that we set together on this committee, myself as the ranking member. and lamar smith during that time as the chairman on the subcommittee on immigration. and frankly, we should have done something then.

it is difficult to bark and have no teeth. and congress has been barking. we've been in conflict. we opposed each other. the two distinct sides of the aisle, if you will. we've done nothing. and i would ask myself the question, how many national guard and border security can you put at a border and think anything is going to occur for people who are struggling and desperate and are coming into this country to work? so it is a chicken and egg situation and frankly you need a system of laws that allow people to enter the country fairly so that you can stop the onslaught of those who say, i'm simply coming and we know it is because during this recession, mayor, jeff and two all of you, you've seen a downsizing of sorts of those coming across the border. they want to work. so i think the question that i'd

like to build on and the series of questions is, one, i think the business community has a remarkable opportunity to be able to speak eloquently to this issue that we must do something. mayor bloomberg, you have communities in the city of new york that live alongside of each other and it's called the little this and the little that in terms of communities. they develop business and tourists come there because of the enrichment of the diversity of new york city. so my question is, to you, first of all, is how do we get past the enforcement-only concept which does not work? if we go to the border of mexico we will find bloodshed on the mexican side as it relates to drugs as much heavy equipment and enforcement that that poor government has implemented. they tell us we have to stop being consumers. they have a point.

what is your input about enforcement-only? >> congresswoman, i thought congressman poe laid it here. there's three issues unless you address all three issues at the same time, you cannot solve the problem. it will just be another photo-op and another chance to pander for congress. congress has got to stand up and do something and the american public -- if there's any message coming out of what looks like it's going to happen in november, it is that the public is tired of congress talking about things and not doing anything. ... you have to do something about 11 million people who broke the law to get here. we will be here talking about this again and again unless you take care of the three problems at once. >> it cannot be only

enforcement. i do believe that we are not going to get away from looking at enforcement as the only issue. i will go on fox news if mr. lamar has indicated that you are fair. i think the story needs to be told that you have to be convincing to your viewers. i don't know how convincing you have been to your viewers. you have your story to tell of immigration success. do you have one thing that you think congress should really address is a question i was asked. where did you talk about business investment? are you familiar with the employment base? that is a tool that has been in and confusion. tell us how houston has benefited from that?

what should be the first approach that we need to have the american dream for immigrants? >> the gentle lady's time has expired. >> i'm sorry. >> you have indicated that the american dream is part of your life. what should congress do? who should we impact as it relates to fixing the immigration system? there are undocumented in this country. you want to find a pathway to citizenship for them? do you want visas for professionals? >> all of the above. the enforcement has to be done at the same time whether it be at the border or with employers

hiring illegal people. but we all are in an urgent need in this country. the education system is failing. 35% of high-school children are dropping out. there are committed to the underclass for life. it is a national scandal. there's so much to do in this country if you want to restore the american dream. >> but not deportation of the 11 million? >> i am not for deporting 11 million. >> may i yield 30 seconds? >> yes. >> congresswoman, madame chair, houston is putting in place 85

application to homeland security, that is a tool that we are very pleased the u.s. government has fine-tuned to allow foreign investors to strategically invest in places with high unemployment. this model has worked very well for chinese capital that was leaving hong kong a decade ago. that money when to canada and australia because our laws were not as flexible as they are now. we are proud that we will allow all foreign investors to invest in the american economy and grow jobs. >> we will recognize the gentle lady from california, ms. sanchez, 5 minutes. >> thank you, madam share. i want to thank our panelists for talking about this issue. let me begin with mayor bloomberg. there has been debate in

congress over what the best solution is. people fight over what the best solution is and the status quo continues. the status quo is not acceptable any long-term. i want to know if you think that it is a but i did to fix the immigration system through a series of stand-alone bills or whether you favor a comprehensive approach that would get all the parts at once? >> it depends whether you want it to work or not. if you don't want it to work, to separate ones and we will be right back in years from now. you have to do it all together to fix the problem. probably the only way is to get through congress and through the white house is one comprehensive bill where everybody gets something, not everybody gets everything they want. >> mr. murdoch, kai am interested in knowing how you

feel about some of the anti- immigrant positions that are promoted by your network on the w.cent immigration lockha >> we are happy to welcome democrats on fox news. >> i said anti-immigrant. >> i would not agree with that. >> do you favor the arizona approach to immigration? >> my position on immigration is what i stated earlier. i am pro-immigrant. >> i appreciate the answer. , one of the things done about to buy my republican colleagues in congress is that illegal immigrants should do things legally or.

the right way. do you think our current immigration system is efficient? does it allow businesses to plan for future labor needs effectively? is it timely and well-tailored to fit the needs of businesses? >> i'd think it is terrible. we are missing a big opportunity. asia and europe could be contributing to the human capital of this country and therefore the financial capital of everybody. >> we feel the law is entirely broken. it is helter-skelter. it is an important time to really thoroughly take a look at the law. it is outdated.

it needs to be made contemporary. the challenges are real but the opportunities are tremendous. something that has not been discussed is that the american workforce is getting to an age where there will be massive retirement. the question becomes who shall do the jobs. japan has been the oldest nations in the world geographically, which is a closed community. they have to export jobs because they are not importing the laforce. we will come to appoint where we realize the workforce provides tremendous opportunities to those of us looking toward retirement and the realities are dramatic. we hear this regularly particularly in the engineering community where the engineers are starting to retire and there's a big needed to find workers. otherwise we have to export jobs. >> i appreciate you talking

about that. i want to drill little deeper. maya understanding is the birth rates in this country are not at the replacement rate and yet we have a large number of the workforce getting ready to retire in the not distant future. we are not replacing ourselves by having children. there's going to be a big labor gap. the question becomes where to get folks from. maya understanding is many of the students that we are teaching and which to learn at our universities in many professions often are here on student visas. after they have been here and obtained their degrees and they want to stay, then the immigration system takes them out of the country and says go back to where you came from. does that make sense to make that investment in the workforce and then sends them of the country? >> we think that in there should be legislation enacted quickly. we have had store is in the

houston area where the children have no choice to come to this country as infants and are educated with public taxpayer dollars of lathrop university and cannot find jobs because they are not legally documented. this is a tremendous resource force. laforour work >> mr. lundrigan, five minutes. >> i have been informed that you have referred several times to the fact that the bill did not have any teeth. we voted on that and it had teeth but was never enforced. that being the case, is there not a context in which we have to consider any legislation with respect to immigration? that context is affected by the failure of congress in other

administrations to enforce that simpson bill. when i deliver the republican votes to pass that bill cala of the big arguments was that if we had a valid bill. we had the largest legalization in the history of the u.s. and we had enforcement. doesn't it set a context in which to the world's it has been the united states will have these legalization programs every generation and therefore if we have a similar legalization now, putting people on a pathway to citizenship, will that not send a message that even though they promised to enforce this in the future, but history has been that they have legalization every 20 years, so isn't there an incentive for people to violate the law to come to the united

states with the expectation there will be legalization in the future? mr. murdoch? >> it is a problem of reputation i guess. you have to start somewhere. you cannot just say we have not done this in the past so why should people trust us? you have to start somewhere and make sure there is constant enforcement. >> another question. are the american people so out of 00 are the american people so disconnected with the reality that you and mr. bloomberg have expressed that that is the reason that they are rejecting the notion of a legalization program that would allow people who have come illegally to get

in front of a line of those who have waited to or live legally in the system? >> you keep talking about congress not doing anything and you are asking us. we have had republicans and democratic congresses and presidents and you do not do anything. then you said people in the you are not going to do anything. so do something. but that was not my question. my point is are the american people so disconnected with the facts that you presented, that is that it appears that the positive aspects of immigration whether it is legal or legal, that benefits of our economy, that raises our gdp, that is the reason they believe there is a distinction between legal and illegal immigration and its impact on their standard of living and the economy and

society in general? >> this is about leadership. we need immigrants. that is the future of this country. whether the public understands that or not, it is the job of congress to explain to them why we will become a second-rate power in this "unless we fix the public education system. >> in the stands that. that was not my question. my question was are the american people misguided if in terms of their view of the fact of un- vonage the benefits of immigration, irrespective of whether it is legal or illegal, or is there a valid position taken by the majority of americans that there's a distinction between legal and illegal immigration without and deciding what we should do? >> there's no question i. people do understand the difference. i want congress to solve both problems. more legal immigrants.

stop the illegal immigrants from coming. and do something about the ones already here. congress woman jackson lee and congressman poe describes it very well. >> you said americans were against illegal immigrants. no one has suggested that. polls cancel any results if you know how to ask the question. >> my point is when you talk about pathway to citizenship as it has been articulated in programs presented by the congress by the previous administration, it resulted in people violating the law getting in front de vere's pubwho did not been getting in front of those who did not violate the

law. it takes 10 years if you get in line for mexico, 10 years before you have the opportunity to come to the united states. 18 years from the philippines. if we have a program that says you have been in the united states illegally certain amount of time, you will be able to go on the path to citizenship, that results in people getting in line first. i want to see us work out a situation and solution. the problem is the details often will determine whether or not you have the reality of getting in the front of the line or not and whether the american people will be with us. we have to be the leaders, what the american people to be with us so that we have a successful law to take care of the problem. >> i will turn to the gentleman

from new york city, mr. wiener. >> i think the gentleman are seeing how the demagoguery really stops this issue. ?ris it pronounced houston >> . -- i am pretty sure. if he talks about the idea of creating social networks where people from around the world want to be with other people who have the same level of creativity and energy and that's why cities like new york and houston are made. can you about the idea that some of this debate that goes on creates an environment where people say i am a brilliant programmer in hydrobod so i will

stay in that field. kuala i am the creative writer and medamulana to go to the 90 states because there is intolerance. the division between legal and illegal, documented and undocumented becomes a general sense that we have become a country in the national dialogue that sounds we don't want anyone coming. you spoke recently at a town hall meeting about a common- sense idea that if you plot to create jobs, then we want you here. can you tell about whether that is for attracting people to a business like bloomberg or news corp. or a city like houston, how this environment that is not welcoming. people will stay in other countries and help them be successful. >> there's a great danger that we will lose the reputation as the land of the free and the home of the braves.

congressman sanchez, let me say something. you spoke about. the birth about you are going in the right direction, but slightly the wrong number. look at the rate of kids going through the public school system that have the skills. whether we have the bodies is not the issue. we need ones with skills. that is the other parts. congressman is right that we are not as attractive to a lot of people. they are afraid to come here. they are afraid that if they are illegal, someone will look at the color of their skin or the language they speak and go after them just because they are different. america is a land that people have given up their language, adopted english, adopted american customs. . we it takes a generation to do it. we are desperate in this country as employers to get highly educated people but also those

people at the other end of the spectrum willing to take jobs that nobody else will. the issue as to whether that exists, take a look at 11 million undocumented generally have the low-skilled jobs and they are here because there is demand and that demand is not being filled by people already in this country. >> mr. murdoch, what to add anything? >> . i agree. >> we seem to have a dynamic that because we are looking at solely enforcement or the notion of trying to figure out a late round of the undocumented, we are creating immigration laws to keep people in rather than keeping them from coming. a lot of people in our economy would not mind coming to the united states, taking temporary and seasonal jobs and then returning to their countries. a lot of people would not mind

having that type of relationship. in many cases they cannot do that right now because of the way we have structured the immigration laws. >> many instances in silicon valley particularly with indian people who make a great contributions to an of 15 years and then go to greater opportunities in india. >> we saw also that a lot of people come here for college and take advantage of our education system and then because of the rhetoric and general sense that the legal immigration system is in disrepair that they say i don't want the aggravation, i will take less money to be in my own country. if you think of the dna of a person who says i will leave mine country and pack my bags and is my family good-bye, take

my skills to the united states, go to houston or new york or take a job with news corp. and you put all the people with a similar type of energy and desire to make things better off, you have a population of people that are going to do much better. i think, what you have seen in a microcosm from my colleagues on the other side is why this debate is in a stalemate. it is so easy to demagogue this issue. it's easy to get applause in a town hall meeting in this country and say the tablecloths and a half ago and the conversation stops. we will restore lawmaking. that involves all of us saying there are some things that mr. smith wants on his side that i find troublesome and things that i want that he may find troublesome. i believe that the american

people realize there's a lot of. of agreement on this issue. -- a lot of areas cover agreement. thank you. >> thank you. the gentleman from texas, mr. gonzalez is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. is a doctor camarota? >> yes. stand forseem to the propositio that the illegal people are taking jobs from americans and are depressing wages. the mayor recognizes that we are pretty much on the same page on securing the borders, doing something to give reliable verification to employers, but the issue remains that we have by some estimates 12 million

illegal workers and their families in the united states. it seems you are saying it is those particular workers that are depressing wages and costing the jobs and such. the only way -- i am only assuming -- to remedy the situation is to get rid of the 12 million workers and their families or whatever we have followed the air. is that accurate? does that represent your position? what do we do with the the individuals that are here. bloomberg this is what all going to do with the people we already have? we have to work on the others. my republican colleagues believe we will not do anything. we will do what we did in 1986 by not enforcing the employer sanctions part. i don't believe that. is that what you are proposing? we need to do something about the top of million that are here already? what do we do?

that is my question. what are you proposing? >> are you asking in economics question? >> no. >> it translates to money one way or another at the end of the day. >> what do you do with the people that don't enjoy? legal enjoy >> you have to take several years and put in place and enforcement regime is in ththatt just about the border. you have to go after employers. >> i know that. should we put the employer is in jail? are you proposing to do something about this work force that you say has a detrimental effect on the economy of the united states? what is your solution? our resolution, an earned pathway to citizenship.

you don't get in the front of the line. there's a big political equation. i will tell you where this is going. it is all about where you are politically that you feel what the future might hold for your party. that's what this is about. let's talk about the best interest of the american people. what do you want to do with the 12 million undocumented residents and their families? >> if the concern is taxpayers and people, encouraging as many of the illegal aliens to go home, a primary concern is the illegals, then letting them stay is the best idea. >> you say that this is going to be an election nothing for people and one they say i have been here 12 years and i have children that our citizens and i have a job and such because i have been kept employed by a willing and able american employer that violates the law,

you say the answer is these 12 million folks could voluntarily go back where they came from? >> i suggested we of course the law -- that we enforce the law. >> id will not be voluntary -- it will not. that is not going to be a voluntary situation. you are sitting the deportation is the only thing? >> i am not. they cannot access public benefits. if you penalize people for stepping over their visa and law enforcement. >> why not to grant them some sort of legal status that allows them to have legal rights and then maybe they would not be pressed for wages.

if they have a legal remedy, they will not be exploited. you have to come to texas. some of my fellow texans, including the ranking member, we come from the same city. we have expressed our positions and you would not believe we are from the same city. that is america today. the truth is what you are proposing is not realistic and not workable. what we are proposing will address some of the serious concerns about depress wages. it addresses the concerns of the immediate labour force. >> you are missing the basic economics. if you add workers to the bottom of the u.s. labor market, you are pushing down wages. legal or illegal. >> you still have people in this country today that are not going to voluntarily go, because you have americans giving them the

jobs. we need to do something about those individuals. what you are saying is not based on reality. >> we are turning now to the gentle lady from california, ms. chu. >> , mr. > you have been an outspoken advocate for fair immigration reform policies, policies that would take care of the challenges that we face today and to make sure we face tomorrow's challenges. there's a wall street journal article that you authored in 2004 that allowed ali describes the contributions immigrants and children of immigrants if make our society every day. i would like to enter that into the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. why have you chosen to direct so much energy to this issue with so much else on your plate?

>> i am a concerned citizen. a number of public issues that i care about and this is one of them. >> in your written testimony you have stated it is nonsense to talk of expelling 12 million people and citing a study by the center for american progress you know it would cost $285 billion in five years -- over five years to of forcibly removed the entire and demented-- undocumented population and continue border control efforts. what would it mean to our country's economy of 12 million employers and employees, all of whom are consumers, disappeared from our society over the next five years? what would happen if these 12 million employers and employees disappeared from our society over the next five years?

>> it would be a disaster. i don't know what article that is, but it has been three years i did not have "the wall street journal". i don't know what it says. >> let me take this wonderful op-ed that you did before you or the owner of the wall street journal. it talks. -- about how your family were immigrants. >> sure. >> it talks about the less tangible ways in which immigrants benefit our society. you speak about an ethnic chinese marine board after his family fled burma.

we watched him shimmy up the statue of saddam hussein, which they tore down. you spoke about another immigrant from the middle east who wanted to put his arabic- language skills into the services for our country and came from syria and hoped to be deployed to iraq. you spoke about a corporal from guatemala who came to america illegally as a young boy. one of the first marines killed in action in iraq. as his family told reporters, he enlisted with the marine corps because he wanted to give back to america. yet he was one of the first marines killed in action in iraq. you described the unterberg noel

spirit and ingenuity of many immigrants who want to give to the economy and to other ways to america -- the entrepreneurial spirit. >> i think people come here for economic reasons basically and for a lot more, they believe in the freedom and the american dream, they believe that their children will have an opportunity to do a lot better than they have done. the there's any question about the motivation -- i don't think there's any question about the motivation. i would add, there has been demagoguery about this and there is danger outside the world, that people believe the american

dream is waiting for them. it has gone that far yet, but there's a danger of that. >> paul how do we have a level of discussion about immigration? -- how do we? >> we have had a reasonably levelheaded discuss in this morning with different points of view. we clearly have to get together. we are trying to start something. in the end it has to come from the white house and draw the two parties together and find some good compromise system that we can all get behind. this is a matter of major national policy and it cannot be done without the president being involved and the senate and the congress and business leaders

and union leaders, everybody. >> thank you. >> the gentle lady time has expired. i would like to ask a couple of closing questions. i want to give wantto mr. lundgren for the work that he puts in in 1986 on the last bill. i was not in the congress at that time. there's been criticism of what happened since then, oftentimes the criticism has focused on the enforcement efforts. i have always thought one of the issues really is that there was no provision to meet the economic needs of the united states in the bill. mr. moseley, in your testimony, your written testimony, you pointed out that there is just 5000 permanent resident visas per year for skilled individuals with a college degree. we have a population in the u.s.

of 310 million people. there are 5000 skilled visas per year for everything. agriculture and everything. how realistic is that figure, that 5000 figure per year to meet the economic needs of the united states for the skilled immigrants? with that even read the needs of houston? >> it is not realistic ended may not have been realistic when it was adopted back in the day. 140,000 unskilled workers are allowed to bring spouses and children nationwide. the law does not reflect the need for the work force to take care of the economy of the united states. we have a doctor who went to the question that has been axed across the different venues

today. what would happen if 12 million workers were not a part of the american workforce? the doctor concluded theyou would have an immediate loss of 8.1 million jobs. 12 million are producing 8.1 million jobs. of those 8.1 million, and eventually those could be -- you still have 2.1 million jobs lost if those were deported. the impact of the economy would be 1.76 trillion dollars. >> thank you. mayor bloomberg, we appreciate -- we know how difficult it is. many of us have served in local governments. if being the mayor of a big city is a tough job. we appreciate your time this morning to be with us and the time you are spending with this partnership to advance this issue. some people suggest that because the economy is terrible right now, that it is the wrong time

to discuss immigration. your testimony was that immigration actually saved new york with stimulation of the economy. can you describe how that works? >> madam chairman, i cannot speak with authority on anything outside of the five boroughs, new york city. we have roughly 500,000 undocumented. they have a very low crime rate because they don't want to go near the imf. if 75% of them pay taxes. there is withholding and there's no place to send a refund. the social security administration chief actuary estimated that social security will go bankrupt six years earlier if we did not have the undocumented people in this country. the undocumented people pay social security but don't get benefits. in new york city undocumented people are young people

typically that don't bring their children so they don't use the public school system. they are young people working. people that work are not using the hospitals. most of us use hospitals in the last few years of our life. these are people of working age coming year. every study that we've done say they take jobs that nobody else will take. that is not totally untrue. we do find exceptions. generally speaking, the undocumented are critical to the economy. the new york city economy doing better than the rest of the country. arkansas unemployment rate is lower than the rest of the unemploymentur employee rate is lower than the rest of the country and we have created many private-sector jobs. we are doing something right in new york. we have attracted not just from overseas but from the rest of the country the immigrants

wanted the chance to participate in the great american dream. that is the great strength of new york city. i don't understand why other people don't look at it and say maybe they should try it. it might not be right for the rest of the country. >> i appreciate that very much. mr. wiener mentioned earlier. the traits of americans that we value the most, optimism, risk- taking, entrepreneurs ship, commitment to family, those are really the traits of immigrants that really define our country. to turn our backs on our rich immigrant tradition is deadly for the future of our country. to be afraid of that is really to lack faith in the strength of

our country. >> it is national suicide. >> i agree. * from silicon valley. half the businesses in the valley were started with an american-born someplace else. i agree that we need those people creating jobs to lead us out of this bad economy. i am hopeful that -- you have seen today that there is not unanimity on this committee and certainly in the congress and really even in the country on this subject, but i do believe that your presence and others who have been here -- we had growers and unions last year and we had faith-based individuals, we can get together with your help and create a reform that will serve this country, which

is what we have all pledged to do when we become members of congress. i like to notes for the record -- >> personal privilege for 30 seconds. madame chair. >> i thank the chair woman very much. i want to make this point to the four witnesses and particularly mr. moseley. if viewers were looking at this hearing, some would have consternation by saying all they are talking about is immigrants and i need a job. if the point i was trying to make is when we have investments such as an eb5, we create american jobs and as well americans fare well. do americans do well when jobs are created when we have an immigration system contrary to the arizona law that scares

people and sends tourism ole? >> yes. >> i would just like to close by noting that we have had a great number of hearings. although we appreciate mr. camarota testimony, a like to draw the attention of the public to the other testimony received. it is quite contrary to his testimony, specifically in may of 2007 where a number of economists reached a very different conclusions than he has. all the testimony we have ever received is on our website. i like to thank every member of this panel today. many people do not realize that the witnesses who come before congress are volunteers. there are helping us do a better job for our country. i am hopeful that in the coming

months we will have an opportunity to come together, to have a comprehensive immigration plan that solve the problems that have been outlined that are good for america, that create a better economy and lots of jobs. thank you very much. the record will be open five days if there are additional questions. we would ask that you answer them. thank you again. this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> in a fro -- few moments, and look at the headlines and your calls. we will be live just after 11:00 a.m. eastern with president obama's official announcement that his cheese -- chief of staff is resigning. and the financial stability oversight council holds its first meeting today. live coverage at 2:30 p.m. eastern. >> in about 45 minutes, author jamie court on his book