Broadcast Transcript

KEST-AM, San Francisco (Chinese-language)

January 31, 1996
Topic: immigration, especially welfare usage

Following is a transcript is of a Chinese-language, call-in radio talk show in San Francisco, hosted by Ida Choi and David Pang. The guest was Professor Norman Matloff, University of California at Davis.

Before the show, Ms. Choi had warned Prof. Matloff to expect a lot of hostile calls, from people who would disagree with him. She was very surprised to see the results to the contrary.

The transcript here was translated from Chinese (Cantonese) by Prof. Matloff.

Ida Choi: [Introduces the guest.] This program has been urging listeners to write to Congress to oppose current proposals on immigration reform, saying that the proposals are bad for us Chinese. You have a different opinion. Please tell us your background, and what your view is.

Norman Matloff: I teach computer science at UC Davis [etc.].

Why am I here? I want to explain why immigration reform is good for the Chinese community. Recently we've had too many immigrants. No one is saying that immigrants are bad. My wife and my father are immigrants. But the current high levels of immigration are hurting the Chinese community.

Ida Choi: Please explain why.

Norman Matloff: For example, Po Wong, executive director of the Chinese Newcomers Service Center in San Francisco, explained it well. He said we have too many immigrants. He really supports immigration, and helping immigrants is his job. But he said, ``There is more immigration each year than the community can absorb.'' In all aspects--jobs, education, housing, health, social services, etc.--the Chinese community can't cope with such a high rate of influx of immigrants each year.

Why is the rate so high? In 1990, Congress passed a bill increasing the yearly immigration levels by 40%. Even before that time, the levels were too high, but after 1990 it has been even worse. We should reduce those yearly quotas.

The first ones to feel the adverse impacts of the heavy influx are the earlier-arriving immigrants, who are negatively impacted by the later-arriving ones.

For example, look at the sewing factories in Chinatown. The wages are way down! They were low to begin with, but even lower now. Why? Because too many new immigrants are looking for this kind of work. So of course the employers can pay lower wages.

There are many examples like this. So people in the Chinese community should think about the pros and cons of having such a high yearly influx. There are many cons. There are good reasons for reducing the quotas.

Ida Choi: But why should the reduction include canceling the eligibility of siblings of naturalized citizens to immigrate?

Norman Matloff: This is a very important point.

Look at the 1965 Immigration Act, which set up this idea of family reunification-based immigration. What does ``family reunification'' really mean? Say a hypothetical Ms. Chan is here in the U.S., a naturalized U.S. citizen, and she has a sister in Hong Kong. Congress' idea was that Ms. Chan's sister might really miss Ms. Chan, and want to be with her, so Congress gave the sister the chance to immigrate.

But we all know that it doesn't work that way. Our Ms. Chan's sister isn't coming to the U.S. because she misses Ms. Chan--her motive is economics. She's not coming for family reasons.

So since Congress' goal for family reunification is not being met, why should Ms. Chan's sister be able to immigrate, whereas other Hong Kong people without U.S. siblings cannot?

My point is that the reality of family reunification is not consistent with what Congress had in mind when it set up this law. So there is no reason to continue having family reunification-based immigration.

David Pang: But what about the backlog of already-processed applications, people now on the waiting list? Those people have been counting on coming here, making plans. Cancelling family reunification would be a blow to them.

Norman Matloff: Yes, I sympathize with them. They've waited for so long. But suppose I'm a businessman, and I rely on a certain tax break. Say Congress suddenly cancels that tax break. Of course I'll be hard hit if my business depends so much on it. But Congress has to make policy based on what is good for the American people as a whole, not just me.

We have so many immigration-related problems. I mentioned that the workers in the Chinatown sewing factories are really hurt by today's high levels of immigration. Congress has to consider the well-being of those who are already here. There are lots of examples of this nature.

Look at education. Our schools in California are getting poorer and poorer. California ranks 43rd out of 50 states in per-pupil spending! What's the problem? The problem is that we have too many kids, and that problem in turn is mainly due to immigration.

Look at welfare. In 1994 there were nearly 7 times as many elderly immigrants on welfare as in 1982. A 7-fold increase in the short timespan of 12 years! One analyst has calculated that each American family will have to pay $3,000 in taxes in the next 10 years just to cover the welfare used by elderly immigrants. This is coming out of your pocket, out of my pocket. Meanwhile we are not doing enough for our native poor.

We have to set priorities. So, though anyone can sympathize with those on the waiting list, we have to look at the impact on those who are already here.

Ida Choi: [Outlines provisions in the Simpson bill.] Please call in and give us your thoughts.

[commercial break]

Ida Choi: We're back. Professor Matloff, can you tell us a bit about your background? How come you speak such good Chinese?

Norman Matloff: Well, a long time ago I learned Chinese, and I married a woman from Hong Kong. We speak Chinese at home. Our daughter, who is 4, is bilingual in Chinese and English.

I was born and raised in Los Angeles. I worked in the Silicon Valley computer industry before I became a computer science professor.

Recently I've been active in immigration issues. I've testified before Congress, etc.

I've long had an interest in helping improve conditions for minorities. I am a former chair of our affirmative action committee at UC Davis, for example. My activities in immigration now tie in to my efforts on behalf of minorities.

Ida Choi: Yes, yes. You have very close ties to the Chinese immigrant community, and concern for it. So you feel that there is a major problem with welfare?

Norman Matloff: Yes, there is. Actually, you were correct earlier when you suggested that reforms in immigration and welfare policies are related. Last year when the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform recommended cutting back on family reunification, they specifically mentioned immigrant use of welfare, especially by elderly immigrants.

Concerning Chinese, I don't know how to say this in a nice way, but elderly Chinese immigrants have become especially heavy users of welfare, relative to other nationalities. By ``Chinese'' I mean people from China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. Among all elderly Chinese immigrants who immigrated to California between 1980 and 1987, 55%--more than half--were on welfare in 1990. That Chinese rate is nearly triple the Mexican rate of 21%.

Ida Choi: So there are lots of cracks in the welfare system. Sure, there are a lot of elderly Chinese who get welfare, so there must be at least some who abuse it. The welfare agencies are being too lax. So shouldn't the reform be focused on this, so that welfare only goes to those who really need it?

Norman Matloff: First, I must correct you. It is not just ``some'' of the recipients who abuse it. It's virtually all of them.

Ida Choi: What do you base that statement on?

Norman Matloff: Say a daughter in the U.S. applies for her elderly mother to immigrate. The daughter must certify to the INS that she has sufficient income and financial assets to support her mother. So the daughter herself has certified that her mother doesn't need welfare. Since all the immigrants have to pass this screening, you can see that the vast majority of the recipients don't need the money; their children themselves have certified that the seniors don't need the money.

The problem is that the children have no intention of supporting their parents. Even though they sign the form, they already have made plans for their parents to go on welfare as soon as the three-year waiting period ends. The parents have the same plan.

Even the Chinese community activists admit this. For example, Yvonne Lee, head of the Coalition of Asian Pacific Americans, has said that if welfare were not available to immigrant seniors, their children would not sponsor their parents to immigrate. So it's very clear that they plan from the outset for the seniors to go on welfare; the seniors are coming here for that purpose.

Ida Choi: Yes.

Norman Matloff: This is really awful.

Ida Choi: Yes.

Norman Matloff: Again, you shouldn't say that only ``some'' recipients don't need the money. Their own children certified just the opposite.

Also, most of the elderly recipients come from middle-class families of above-average income. 75% of the children of the recipients have household incomes above the California average.

David Pang: OK, Ms. Ng from Lafayette [an upscale city in suburban Contra Costa County] has called to voice her opinion.

caller: I have two points to make. I immigrated here in 1980. We have to take care of those who came here at that time, so we really should cut down on the number of new immigrants we accept now.

Second, medical care is really expensive. Some children put their parents on welfare so that the seniors can get Medi-Cal.

I really agree with the professor. We really shouldn't be allowing so many immigrants to come in each year.

Norman Matloff: First, I'd like to point out to the caller that one can apply for Medi-Cal separately, without taking welfare.

Second, though I sympathize, the caller mentioned the key point. American medical care is expensive. Given that, the U.S. should not be allowing so many seniors to immigrate. The elderly have heavy needs for medical care. So, it's best for them to stay back in China or Taiwan, where medical care is much cheaper than here. So it makes sense to cut down on the number of elderly immigrants.

The U.S. government is in bad shape financially. Look at this radio show--almost every day Ida and David discuss the budget deficit crisis. So of course the U.S. should cut down on the immigrants who are financial burdens to the U.S.

David Pang: Mr. Mui from Oakland is calling.

caller: I completely agree with the professor. I disagree with the last caller, who said we should support those earlier immigrants who are already here. Those old folks' children should support them. The children signed support forms. Where does all that SSI welfare money come from? It comes from the Social Security fund, which longtime immigrants like me worked hard to contribute to. That money shouldn't be going to immigrants who haven't worked in the U.S. And the budget deficit is going to harm all of our grandchildren.

Norman Matloff: Yes. A lot of Chinese immigrants who have worked here for 30 years really resent the new immigrants coming in and getting welfare, coming here for the express purpose of getting welfare, without having worked one day in the U.S. They really resent it.

David Pang: No, it's not true. Chinese people hate welfare. The Chinese community organizations conducted surveys showing that Chinese are extremely embarrassed to take welfare. The organizations had to buy newspaper ads to get people to apply for welfare, and even then they still didn't apply. So you're only talking about a small number of people.

Now we have a call from Ms. Wong in Berkeley.

caller: I really agree with Professor Matloff. He's really saying exactly what is in my heart. I immigrated here nine years ago. The situation nine years ago was totally different from now. It was easy to find work then. Now it's very hard to find work.

So we really need to reduce immigration. We really need to set lower limits than what we have now.

I have a friend who immigrated to the U.S. 10 years ago, by herself, not bringing her family. But through family reunification laws, she has now [directly and indirectly] brought in over 100 people. Imagine, one person pulls in 100!

Ida Choi: Yes, yes.

caller: If we continue like this, bringing in so many people, life is going to continue to get harder and harder for us.

Ida Choi: Yes. So you support reductions in immigration quotas, because the heavy influx makes it hard for people who are already here to find work.

caller: I do have a job, but it is low-paying, and I can't find anything else. I haven't gotten a raise in years, because the boss knows that if I quit, there are tons of people ready to take my place.

Norman Matloff: I would first like to comment about what David said, before Ms. Wong called.

I know many officials in the Chinese activist organizations. They are very nice people, good people. They help a lot of immigrants.

But we have to remember that those Chinese organization officials are fundamentally politicians. Their jobs are fundamentally political in nature. So whatever they say is political in nature too. So one shouldn't automatically believe what they say.

For example, David said that statistics given by the Chinese organizations show that very few Chinese are willing to use welfare. Disraeli's famous comment applies: ``There are three kinds of lies--lies, damned lies, and statistics.'' One can easily use statistics to fool people.

David said that Chinese are ashamed to take welfare. Actually, it's exactly the opposite. I've interviewed many Chinese social workers on this very point. I remember one social worker in particular. When I asked her whether the seniors are embarrassed to take welfare, she laughed out loud. She thought it was really funny. The notion that they would consider welfare to be a stigma was a joke to her. They aren't ashamed at all. It's not a stigma to them.

Ida Choi: They feel that welfare is their right.

Norman Matloff: Yes. But the Mexican seniors are just the opposite. Social workers who work with Mexican immigrants say that it is a big stigma to them. So no wonder the Chinese SSI rate is nearly triple the Mexican rate.

Also, one can apply for SSI after three years in the U.S. The data show that most Chinese immigrant recipients apply immediately after the three-year period ends, whereas the Mexican recipients only do so after 10 years.

Now, back to what the caller said about her difficulty in finding work.

Ida Choi: Yes, she said she hasn't gotten a raise in years, since so many people could take her place.

Norman Matloff: Look at my computer science students. More than half of them are Chinese-Americans, U.S. citizens. But computer companies hire foreign students instead. Foreign students are willing to work for low salaries, because the employer sponsors them for a green card. So my Chinese-American students--again, they are U.S. citizens--either can't find jobs or find less-desirable jobs [say selling computers instead of designing them].

David Pang: OK, Ms. Chan from San Francisco has a question.

caller: I agree with the large majority of what the professor is saying. But I want to say that on the welfare issue, the law is just too lax. Welfare is easy to get, so they take it.

Norman Matloff: Right. Actually, I blame those Chinese organizations. For example, Professor Bill Ong Hing from Stanford [and head of the Immigrant Legal Resources Center in San Francisco]. He's really radical. Whatever Congress proposes, he opposes. Those Chinese community organizations don't represent the opinions of most Chinese.

In response to the caller, my point is that as soon as Congress makes any proposal to tighten up on immigrant eligibility for welfare, the Chinese organizations immediately rise up in loud protest. A week ago they organized a rally in San Francisco's Chinatown, where they were saying the same thing. Henry Der of Chinese for Affirmative Action said that he would be meeting with Senator Feinstein, telling her not to tighten up on immigrant eligibility for welfare.

I'm sorry to be so frank--

Ida Choi: That's OK.

Norman Matloff: --but I find this to be very irritating. Those Chinese organizations claim to represent Chinese people, but actually they don't. They don't care that the heavy influx of immigrants has driven down the wages in the sewing factories lower and lower, etc. They don't care about these things at all. They just care about themselves.

caller: A lot of people get welfare and/or unemployment even though they're working, and getting paid under the table, in cash. A lot!

Ida Choi: Right. As I said, those government welfare bureaus are too lax.

David Pang: We have a call from Mr. Yuen in San Francisco.

caller: I immigrated here 30 years ago. I'm 82 now. My Social Security check is $487, $390 after taxes. I worked 30 years for that Social Security. I never even applied for unemployment insurance. My wife is 62. I've got to buy health insurance for her, $225 per month, and for my 21-year-old daughter, $104 per month. My whole Social Security check goes to insurance!

But those new immigrants get $500, $600 per person per month in welfare! My friend, all four in his family get welfare. He goes to Hong Kong, to China, has a good life. Look at those seniors in Chinatown--90% get welfare.

David Pang: We have Mrs. Ng in San Francisco, go ahead.

caller: I think the government should reform immigrant use of welfare. A lot of people get welfare but secretly work for cash. They put the money in someone else's name, use the money to start businesses, buy houses. Everyone knows it. They do a lot of traveling.

Ida Choi: So you agree with the previous caller, that these immigrants get welfare and enjoy life, buying land in China, traveling.

caller: They buy businesses under someone else's name. They buy nice cars.

David Pang: Mrs. Yu in San Francisco's North Beach district, go ahead, you're on the air.

caller: I agree with what those callers have been saying. This welfare is really terrible. A lot of Chinese people are doing this.

Why am I so angry? [Goes into son's and husband's circumstances.] My husband's retirement check is only $500, even though he worked 20 years. Those Chinese senior immigrants are applying for welfare after three years.

My friend worked during those three years, but quit immediately when the three years were up, to get welfare. Then she applied for her two sons and daughter to immigrate. Then all three children went back to China to find a spouse. After they got married, they brought over all the in-laws as immigrants. They're all getting welfare. Her son works in remodeling houses, getting paid in cash. The daughter works in a sewing factory, but the wages are so low, she gets welfare too. It's awful. She's getting $700 per month in welfare, whereas my husband's retirement check, which he worked for, is only $500.

[Goes on a great length. The welfare family has nicer clothes than her family, lots of pairs of nice shoes, etc.]

David Pang: Ms. So from Oakland, please speak.

caller: The welfare rules are too lax. I know Hong Kong immigrants who work in remodeling too. They get paid in cash, get a business loan in someone else's name--and yet still they get welfare.

On the Medi-Cal issue, I think the U.S. should make available a special insurance plan for purchase by immigrant seniors. A lot of immigrants have diabetes, heart disease and so on, and private companies won't take them.

Norman Matloff: Look at the earlier caller, Mr. Yuen, who worked in the U.S. for 30 years. He has to pay for health insurance, but the immigrants on welfare get it for free. And their cash welfare checks are larger than Mr. Yuen's Social Security check. This is really unfair.

Back to the Medi-Cal question, I feel that if the Chinese organizations were genuinely concerned about medical coverage, they would approach the private insurance companies and try to get them to develop an affordable ``group plan'' for the seniors. But they haven't done so.

Also, Mr. Yuen and Ms. Lee mentioned that the seniors on welfare are living the good life, traveling, etc. It's true. Last year Self Help for the Elderly [a politically powerful Chinese organization in San Francisco] announced in the Chinese newspaper that they would hold a public hearing on welfare-reform legislation pending in Congress. Several hundred elderly Chinese people showed up. The Self Help officials gave speeches about how ``mean-spirited'' Congress was to consider such legislation, etc. But in the question-and-answer period which followed, the most common question from the audience was ``I want to go on vacation to China or Taiwan or Canada. Will that jeopardize my welfare checks?'' This is ridiculous. Welfare recipients are supposed to be poor, not taking international vacations. The genuine poor don't go on international vacations; many have never even been on an airplane.

Also, 42% of the elderly immigrant welfare recipients live with their children. They can't accumulate more than $2,000 in the bank, yet in California they get $600 a month. Where is that money going? They have nothing to spend it on. The money winds up going into the children's pockets.

David Pang: Ms. Lui in Castro Valley [a middle-class community between Oakland and San Jose], you can speak now.

caller: [Talks in some detail about seeing immigrants in Oakland Chinatown, buying luxury, non-food items using food stamps.]

David Pang: Ms. Chan in Alameda [a city adjacent to Oakland, mainly middle-class].

caller: People sponsor their aged parents to immigrate, and put them on welfare. The welfare is supposed to enable the seniors to live by themselves. But then these people have their parents living with them anyway, so they can put the parents to work baby sitting the grandchildren! And the parents are getting welfare! And the children live in upscale neighborhoods!

Congress should really change the law so that when the seniors apply to immigrate, the U.S. government looks at the children's incomes. And the government should look at the children's incomes when the seniors apply for welfare.

Norman Matloff: The government already does this. That is current law. But after three years, the children's responsibility for their parents ends completely, under the law. The seniors can apply for welfare no matter how rich the children are.

Say a son applies for his mother to immigrate. He has to fill out form I-134. The form says that his own responsibility ends after three years. But the form also says the goal of the form is that his mother will never go on welfare, even after the three years. But the son will sign the form, even though he's already planning for his mother to go on welfare.

David Pang: Mr. Yu in the San Francisco Sunset District.

caller: My opinion's a little different. The government shouldn't treat immigration and welfare jointly. The welfare recipients apply for it legally. Every racial group has its good and bad points. Look at the U.S. natives having illegitimate kids.

Yes, some immigrants abuse welfare. But to combine the immigration and welfare issues would cause bad feelings toward immigrants.

Yes, we need reform, but most Chinese immigrants are good for the U.S. Look at Mr. Yuen, the previous caller, who worked hard. Lots of immigrants work hard. We shouldn't combine the two issues.

Norman Matloff: First, there is a real relation. When elderly immigrant use of welfare jumps seven-fold in 12 years, it does become an immigration issue, not just a welfare issue.

Second, you say they are applying for welfare legally. That's true in some senses, not true in others. When they apply for welfare, they are doing so legally. But the sense in which it is illegal is that when they applied to immigrate, they were asked, ``Are you likely to become a public charge?'' Their children were asked that too. Say a man applies to immigrate who is over 65 and has no real money of his own. Of course he is going to go on welfare! In fact, he and his children plan that from the outset. Yet they sign these forms under penalty of perjury, saying he won't go on welfare. That's illegal.

Now again I must emphasize that we are not talking about just ``some'' seniors. Again, 55% of the Chinese seniors who immigrated during the 1980s were on welfare as of 1990. Every indication, including from statements of organizations like Self Help, is that the percentage is even higher today, in 1996.

As to the caller's concern that reform along these lines might have racial implications, I want to assure you that I know a number of people in Congress, and they have very high respect for Chinese.

The caller also said that immigration is good for the economy. That is not really true. Look at what the earlier caller said about there being an oversupply of labor, that it is hard to find good jobs. Think about it. Which line of work has a labor shortage today? None! It's just the opposite--parents today are very worried that their children won't find good jobs when they grow up, that they won't be able to buy a house, etc.

Yes, I agree that many immigrants work very hard, etc. But we already have enough workers; we don't need more.

Ida Choi: A lot of callers are waiting to get on. Please be patient, everyone. We want to hear your opinions, and we'll take as many calls as we can.

David Pang: Ms. Leung, go ahead.

caller: I agree with the previous caller. Look at all the natives on welfare, kids having kids, taking drugs, drinking, generation after generation, etc. [Elaborates for some time.]

David Pang: OK, with have a Ms. Ng calling.

caller: My friends had two babies three or four years after they immigrated here. They're on welfare. The husband is working as a dentist, but he doesn't have a license. He gets paid in cash, and he doesn't pay taxes. And he gets welfare!

Ida Choi: Where are they from?

caller: Guangdong Province [China]. He always goes back to Hong Kong and China to buy his dental equipment. He travels a lot. And he's on welfare. This is really an unfair world.

David Pang: Now a caller from San Francisco's Chinatown.

caller: I agree with the callers. I see this abuse too. But why focus on them?

David Pang: So you are saying, how come the government doesn't do something about native welfare users? Why single out the immigrants?

Norman Matloff: Immigrants are not being singled out at all. Look at the welfare reform bill. It's a thick book, hundreds of pages! The part on immigrants is just a few pages. The vast majority of the bill is about natives. No one is saying that the only welfare problems come from immigrants.

Now, about the native recipients, the U.S. definitely has a lot of social problems. My point is that we already have problems, and immigration is adding to that burden. Because of the high levels of immigration, our social problems become even harder to solve.

I mentioned that education is underfunded in California, due to having too many kids, in turn due to immigration. Clearly any solutions to our social problems rely heavily on education. But immigration is adding to our education problems.

Let me repeat. Only part of the welfare reform bill is on immigration, and only part of the immigration bill is on welfare. There is a relation, but there's much more to each of them.

There are lots of immigration problems which are not related to welfare. I mentioned that my computer science students have difficulty finding good computer jobs. I mentioned that wages in Chinatown sewing factories are way down.

Water is a problem. A few years ago we had a drought in California. We were able to cope, but the California government forecasts that due to California's population growth, we are headed for really severe water shortages in about 10 years. That population growth is due mainly to immigration.

So we have lots of problems stemming from the high levels of immigration. Welfare is only one of many problems. There are lots of reasons why we should reduce the yearly immigration quotas.

David Pang: Mr. Chu in Oakland.

caller: I very much agree with the professor. We definitely should reduce the yearly legal immigration quotas. But I'm worried that if we reduce legal immigration, then that will increase illegal immigration, causing crime, school problems, etc.

Norman Matloff: I disagree. Look at your immigrant friends. At the time they immigrated, if they couldn't have come legally, would they have come illegally? I think you'll agree that they wouldn't have.

caller: OK, thanks.

Ida Choi: We're almost out of time. Let's have him summarize. It seems that the main view being expressed by the callers is that the earlier immigrants were upstanding citizens, but the more recent ones aren't.

Norman Matloff: Well, ``upstanding'' may just be an appearance in many cases. Look at an engineer from Taiwan in the Silicon Valley, and he seems ``upstanding.'' But what you don't see is that he has put his parents on welfare.

You asked me to summarize. I merely want to point out that the Chinese-language media has been heavily campaigning for Chinese to call Congress to oppose the immigration-reform bills. The Chinese media is saying that those bills are bad for the Chinese community.

I'm saying that cutting immigration is good for the Chinese community, good for those workers in the Chinatown sewing factories, good for my Chinese-American computer science students, good for us taxpayers. This is good for the Chinese community.

No bill is saying, ``Shut the door.'' Just cut back, that's all. The 1990 Act increased immigration by 40%. The bill wouldn't even roll back that much; we'd still have higher yearly quotas than in 1989.

David Pang: Professor Matloff is right about a lot of things. With a weak economy, allowing a large influx of immigrants just makes it harder for everyone to find work.

But immigration is not the only reason why it's hard to find work these days. There's NAFTA, for instance. So we shouldn't put the whole blame on immigrants.

Second, U.S. policy is not welcoming enough toward rich potential investment immigrants, who would be good for the economy.

Third, you point out that the computer companies are hiring foreign students instead of your citizen students. But on the other hand, those companies say that they need to hire those foreign students, who are really talented, in order to maintain their competitive edge.

Norman Matloff: Not true! Just the opposite. Just the opposite. I teach computer science, I used to work in the computer industry, my wife works in the computer industry. If you look at the computer industry awards for technological advances, you'll find that virtually all of them have been U.S. natives. The companies want to hire foreign nationals because they are willing to work for low salaries. Even Sun Microsystems, one of the companies now lobbying against the Simpson bill as you mentioned, has publicly admitted that it hired low-salary foreign nationals.

On the economic problems, no one is saying that immigrants are the sole cause. Those of us who advocate reform say that because of those economic problems, we shouldn't make things worse by accepting so many newcomers.

Ida Choi: Well, we're out of time. I hope that Congress at least allows a grace period on immigration [for the backlog] and isn't too harsh on welfare.

Professor Matloff, we really thank you.

Norman Matloff: Thank you very much too.

Ida Choi, David Pang: Bye, bye.

Norm Matloff
Wed Feb 14 23:01:01 PST 1996