U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy William A. Kandel Analyst in Immigration Policy July 11, 2013November 19, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43145 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Summary Family reunification is a key principle underlying U.S. immigration policy. It is embodied in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which specifies numerical limits for five family-based admission categories, as well as a per-country limit on total family-based admissions. The five categories include immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and four other family-based categories that vary according to individual characteristics such as the legal status of the petitioning U.S.-based relative, and the age, family relationship, and marital status of the prospective immigrant. Of the 1.03 million990,553 foreign nationals admitted to the United States in FY2012FY2013 as lawful permanent permanent residents (LPRs), 680,799649,763, or 66%, were admitted on the basis of family ties. Of these family-based familybased immigrants admitted in FY2012, 70FY2013, 68% were admitted as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Many of the 1.03 million990,553 immigrants were initially admitted on a legal temporary basis and and became immigrants by converting or “adjusting” their status to a lawful permanent resident. The The proportion of family-based immigrants who adjusted their immigration status while residing in in the United States (5354%) exceeded that of family-based immigrants who had their immigration petitions processed while living abroad (4746%), although such percentages varied considerably among the five family-based admission categories. Since FY2000, increasing numbers of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens have accounted for all of the growth in family-based admissions. Between FY2000 and FY2009, immigrants who accompanied or later followed principal (qualifying) immigrants averaged 12% of all familybased admissions annually. During that period, Mexico, the Philippines, China, India, and the Dominican Republic sent the most family-based immigrants to the United States. Each year, the number of foreign nationals petitioning for LPR status through family-sponsored preferences exceeds the supply of legal immigrant slots. As a result, a visa queue has accumulated of foreign nationals who qualify as immigrants under the INA but who must wait for a visa to immigrate to the United States. As such, the visa queue constitutes not a backlog of petitions to be processed but, rather, the number of persons approved for visas not yet available due to INAspecified numerical limits. As of November 2012, 4.3 million persons stood in the visa queue1, 2013, the visa queue included 4.2 million persons. Every month, the Department of State (DOS) produces its Visa Bulletin, which lists “cut-off dates” for each of the four numerically limited family-based admissions categories. Cut-off dates indicate when petitions that are currently being processed for a numerically limited visa were initially approved. For most countries, the cut-off dates range between 21.5 years and 12.5 years ago. For countries that send the most immigrants, the range expands to between 2.5 and 23 years ago. Current bipartisan interest in comprehensiveInterest in immigration reform has increased scrutiny of family-based immigration and revived debate over its proportion of total lawful permanent admissions. Past or current proposals for overhauling family-based admissions have been made by numerous observers, including two congressionally mandated commissions. Those who favor expanding the number of family-based admissions point to this sizable queue of prospective immigrants who have been approved for lawful permanent residence but must wait years separated from their U.S.-based family members until receiving a numerically limited immigrant visa. Their proposals generally emphasize expanding the numerical limits of familybased categories. Others question whether the United States has an obligation to reconstitute families of immigrants beyond their nuclear families. Corresponding proposals would eliminate Congressional Research Service U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy several family-based preference categories, favoring only those for the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Such proposals reiterate recommendations made by earlier congressionally mandated commissions on immigration reform. Congressional Research Service U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Contents OverviewCurrent Developments ..................................................................................................................... 1 Overview of Family-Based Immigration .................................................. 1....................................... 2 Evolution of U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy ...................................................................... 23 Current Laws Governing Overall Admissions ................................................................................. 34 Legal Admissions Limits ........................................................................................................... 34 Per-countryCountry Ceilings .................................................................................................................. 5 6 Laws Governing Individual Admission ..................................................................................... 67 Procedures for Acquiring Lawful Permanent Residence..................................................... 67 Derivative Admissions ........................................................................................................ 78 Laws Governing Child Admissions..................................................................................... 89 Conditional Resident Status ................................................................................................ 9 10 Findings from Earlier Congressionally Mandated Commissions .................................................... 9 10 Profile of Legal Immigrants ........................................................................................................... 1112 Legal Immigration Admission Trends ..................................................................................... 11 Demography of Family-Based Immigrants 12 Potential Legislative and Policy Issues .................................................................................. 13 Potential Legislative and Policy Issues ........ 14 Supply-Demand Imbalance for U.S. Lawful Permanent Residence........................................ 15 Assessing the Per-Country Ceiling .................................................. 17 Supply-Demand Imbalance for U.S. Lawful Permanent Residence.......................................... 17 Assessing the Per-country Ceiling ....... 18 Limitations on Visiting U.S. Relatives .................................................................................... 20 Limitations on Visiting U.S. Relatives18 Impetus to Violate Immigration Laws .................................................................................... 21 Impetus to Violate Immigration Laws. 19 Aging Out of Legal Status Categories ..................................................................................... 21 Aging Out of Legal Status Categories ...19 Marriage Timing of Immigrant Children .................................................................................. 22 Marriage Timing of Immigrant Children 20 Same-Sex Partners ................................................................................. 22 Same-Sex Partners .................................. 20 Unaccompanied Alien Children........................................................................................ 23....... 21 Broader Immigration Questions..................................................................................................... 2322 Family Reunification versus Family Reconstitution ............................................................... 2322 Family Reunification versus Economic Priorities ................................................................... 2423 Chain Migration....................................................................................................................... 2624 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 2726 Figures Figure 1. LPR Admissions by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2012FY2013 ......................................... 1213 Figure 2. Percent of LPRs Adjusting Status, by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2012FY2013 ............ 13 Figure 3.. 14 Figure A-1. Region of Birth by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2009 ........................................... 15 29 Tables Table 1. Numerical Limits of the Immigration and Nationality Act ................................................ 45 Table 2. Actual Family-Sponsored Admissions by Major Class in FY2012.................................... 5 Table 3. Principal & Derivative Immigrants, by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2009 ............. 14 Congressional Research Service U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Table 4. Age Distribution and Median Age of Immigrants by Class of AdmissionFY2013.................................... 6 Congressional Research Service U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Table 3. Visa Queue of Prospective Family-Preference Immigrants with Approved Applications, for Selected Countries, as of November 1, 2013 ................................. 15 Table 4. Visa Bulletin Cut-Off Dates for Family-Based Petitions, November 2014 ..................... 17 Table A-1. Principal and Derivative Immigrants, by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2009 ......................................................................................................................... 16 Table 5. Occupational Status of Immigrants by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2009 .............. 17 Table 6. Visa Queue of Prospective Family-Preference Immigrants with Approved Applications, for Selected Countries, as of November 1, 2012 ................................. 18 Table 7. Visa Bulletin Cut-Off Dates for Family-Based Petitions, July 2013 .............................. 19 Table A-28 Table A-2. Age Distribution and Median Age of Immigrants by Class of Admission, FY2000-FY2009 ......................................................................................................................... 30 Table A-3. Occupational Status of Immigrants by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2009 .......... 31 Table B-1. Annual Number of Lawful Permanent Admissions by Major Class, FY2001FY2012FY2002FY2013 ....................................................................................................................................... 2932 Table A-2. B-2. Percentages of Annual Lawful Permanent Admissions by Major Class, FY2001-FY2012 FY2002-FY2013 ................. 31 Table A........................................................................................................ 34 Table B-3. Key Proportions for Annual Lawful permanentPermanent Admissions, FY2001-FY2012 .FY2002-FY2013 ......... 3235 Appendixes Appendix. A. Demography of Family Based Immigrants ....................................................................... 28 Appendix B. Admissions Figures for FY2002-FY2013 ................................................................ 2932 Contacts Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 3336 Congressional Research Service U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy OverviewCurrent Developments On October 17, 2014, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it will implement a Haitian Family Reunification Parole (HFRP) program beginning in early 2015 to expedite family reunification for certain eligible Haitian family members of U.S. citizens and U.S. lawful permanent residents (LPRs)1 and “to promote safe, legal and orderly migration from Haiti to the United States.”2 According to the press release, the program is also intended to “discourage Haitians from undertaking life-threatening and illegal maritime journeys to the United States.” The press release notes that those individuals who do make such journeys will not qualify for the HFRP program and, if found at sea, may be returned to Haiti.3 Under the program, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will allow eligible Haitian beneficiaries of already approved family-based immigrant visa petitions to live in the United States for about two years before they become eligible to receive a visa.4 Haitians authorized to receive parole5 will be allowed to enter the United States and apply for work permits but will not receive LPR status any earlier.6 1 A lawful permanent resident is a foreign national who has been granted authorization to live and work permanently in the United States. 2 Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “DHS To Implement Haitian Family Reunification Parole Program,” press release, October 17, 2014, http://www.uscis.gov/news/dhs-implement-haitianfamily-reunification-parole-program (hereinafter “DHS to Implement Haitian Family Reunification Parole Program.”) 3 Ibid. 4 According to the USCIS press release, legal authority for the HFRP program is provided under the INA, which authorizes the DHS Secretary to parole into the United States certain individuals, on a case-by-case basis, for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. The press release notes that DHS used the same legal authority to establish the Cuban Family Reunification Parole program in 2007. 5 “Parole” is a term in immigration law that means the foreign national has been granted temporary permission to enter and be present in the United States. Parole does not constitute formal admission to the United States and parolees are required to leave when the parole expires, or if eligible to be admitted in a lawful status. 6 See “DHS to Implement Haitian Family Reunification Parole Program.” Congressional Research Service 1 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Overview of Family-Based Immigration Current U.S. immigration policy governing lawful permanent admissions emphasizes four major principles: (1) family reunification; (2) admission of persons with needed skills; (3) refugee protection; and (4) country-of-origin diversity.17 Family reunification, which has long been a key principle underlying U.S. immigration policy, is embodied in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which specifies numerical limits for five family-based2based8 admission categories. In addition, the INA also places a limit on total family-based admissions from any single country. The five categories include immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and four other family-based categories that vary according to individual characteristics such as the legal status of the petitioning U.S.-based relative, and the age, family relationship, and marital status of the prospective immigrant.39 Family-based immigration currently makes up two-thirds of all legal permanent immigration.410 Each year, the number of foreign nationals petitioning for lawful permanent resident (LPR) status exceeds the total number of legal immigrants that the United States can accept each year under the INA. Consequently, a visa queue has accumulated of roughly 4.32 million persons who qualify as family-based immigrants under the INA but who must wait for a numerically limited visa to immigrate to the United States.5 The current debate on comprehensive11 Interest in immigration reform has increased scrutiny of family-based immigration and has revived the discussion over what its proportionthe optimal number of total lawful permanent admissions should be. As a backdrop to this debate, this report admissions. This report provides an examination of familybasedfamily-based immigration policy. In doing so, it outlines a brief history of U.S. family-based immigration policies, discusses current law governing admissions, and summarizes recommendations made by previous congressionally mandated committees charged with evaluating immigration policy. It then presents descriptive figures on legal immigrants entering the United States during the past decade and reviewsdiscusses the sizable backlog of queue of approved immigrant petitioners waiting for an immigrant visa. It closes by discussing selected policy issues. 17 These principles are embodied in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) first codified in 1952. The Immigration Amendments of 1965 replaced the national origins quota system (enacted after World War I) with per-country ceilings. Congress has significantly amended the INA since 1965 with (among other laws) the Refugee Act of 1980, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, the Immigration Act of 1990, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The Immigration Act of 1990 represented the last major revision to legal permanent immigration policy. For a brief review of immigration policy history, see archived CRS Report 91-141 EPW, A brief history of U.S. immigration policy, by Joyce Vialet (hereinafter referred to as “Vialet, A brief history of U.S. immigration policy”). 28 In this report, “family-based” is synonymous with “family-sponsored.” 39 In this report, “immigrant” is synonymous with “lawful permanent resident” or “legal permanent resident (LPR).” Immigrant refers to a foreign national admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. Unless otherwise indicated, “immediate relatives” refers to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. 410 The other major categories of legal permanent immigration include employment-based immigration, diversity visa lottery immigrants, and refugees and asylees. 511 Annual Report of Immigrant Visa Applicants in the Family-sponsored and Employment-based preferences Registered at the National Visa Center as of November 1, 20122013, National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State. Congressional Research Service 12 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Evolution of U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Although U.S. immigration policy incorporated family relationships as a basis for admitting immigrants as early as the 1920s,612 the promotion of family reunification found in current law originated with the passage of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, P.L. 82-414).713 While the 1952 act largely retained the national origins quota system established in the Immigration Act of 1924,814 it also established a hierarchy of family-based preferences that continues to govern contemporary U.S. immigration policy today, including prioritizing spouses and minor children over other relatives, and relatives of U.S. citizens over those of lawful permanent residents (LPRs). The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 (P.L. 89-236), enacted during a period of broad social reform, eliminated the national origins quota system, which was widely viewed as discriminatory. It gave priority to immigrants with relatives living permanently in the United States.915 The law distinguished between immediate relatives (spouses, children under age 21, and parents) of U.S. citizens, who were admitted without numerical restriction, and other immigrant relatives of U.S. citizens and immediate and other relatives of LPRs, who faced numerical caps.1016 It also imposed a per-country limit on family-based and employment-based immigrants that limited any single country’s total for these categories to 7% of the statutory total. In 1990, Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-649) that increased total immigration under an overall permeable cap.1117 The act provided for a permanent annual flexible level of 675,000 immigrants, and increased the annual statutory limit of family-based immigrants from 290,000 to the current limit of 480,000. Provisions of the 1990 act are described below in “Current Laws Governing Overall Admissions.” Current U.S. immigration policy still retains key elements of its landmark 1952 and 1965 reformulations. However, critics consider it inadequate to address major current immigration issues, notably, the large accumulated “visa queue” of prospective family-based immigrants with approved petitions who are waiting for a visa.1218 Given the continuity in immigration policy, earlier recommendations for revising family-based immigration policy to address such issues may still have relevance. Key proposals originated from two congressionally mandated commissions established to evaluate U.S. immigration policy: the Select Commission on Immigration and 612 The principle of family reunification was initially enacted into law in 1921 as part of the Emergency Quota Law (P.L. 67-5), which exempted minor children of U.S. citizens from the first broad numerically limited immigration restrictions. 713 Also known as the McCarran-Walter Act. 814 P.L. 68-139. The national origin quota system, created by the Immigration Act of 1924, limited annual admissions from any single country to 2% of persons from that nation already living in the United States as of 1890. 915 P.L. 89-236, also known as the Hart-Celler Act. 1016 The law provided for four broad immigrant categories: family-based immigrants, immigrants with desired occupational characteristics, refugees, and non-preference immigrants. For further elaboration, see archived CRS report, A brief history of U.S. immigration policy, by Joyce Vialet. 1117 “Permeable cap” refers to an immigration limit that can be exceeded in certain circumstances. 1218 See for example, Jeb Bush, Thomas F. McLarty III, and Edward Alden, U.S. Immigration Policy, Council on Foreign Relations, Independent Task Force Report No. 63, New York, NY, 2009; Brookings-Duke Immigration Roundtable, Breaking the Immigration Stalemate: From Deep Disagreements to Constructive Proposals, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, October 2009. Congressional Research Service 23 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Refugee Policy chaired by Theodore Hesburgh13Hesburgh19 and the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform chaired by Barbara Jordan.1420 Recommendations from these prominent immigration policy assessments are discussed below in “Findings from Earlier Congressionally Mandated Commissions.” Current Laws Governing Overall Admissions Legal Admissions Limits The INA enumerates a permanent annual worldwide level of 675,000 legal admissions15admissions21 (Table 1). This limit, sometimes referred to as a “permeable cap,” is regularly exceeded because certain LPR categories are unlimited. The permanent annual worldwide immigrant level includes (1) family-sponsored immigrants, which are made up of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and family preference immigrants (480,000 plus certain unused employment-based preference numbers from the prior year); (2) employment-based preference immigrants (140,000 plus certain unused family preference numbers from the prior year); (3) diversity visa lottery immigrants16immigrants22 (55,000); and (4) refugees17 and asylees18refugees23 and asylees24 (unlimited). However, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, as well as refugees and asylees who are adjusting status, are exempt from direct numerical limits. The INA specifies five family-based immigration categories ranked according to the immigrant’s relationship with his or her U.S.-based relative. The first category, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, includes spouses, unmarried minor children, and parents of adult citizens.1925 Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens can become LPRs without numerical limitation, provided they meet standard eligibility criteria that are required for all immigrants.20 1326 19 Theodore Hesburgh had served as President of the University of Notre Dame, member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, and Chair of the Rockefeller Foundation. U.S. Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy. Final Report: U.S .Immigration Policy and the National Interest, Washington, DC, March 1, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the Hesburgh Report”). 1420 Barbara Jordan was the first southern black female elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, serving from 1973 to 1979. U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, Legal Immigration Report to Congress, Legal Immigration: Setting Priorities, Washington, DC, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Jordan Report”). 1521 INA §201. 1622 The Diversity Immigrant Visa Lottery encourages legal immigration from countries other than the major sending countries of current immigrants to the United States. See CRS Report R41747, Diversity Immigrant Visa Lottery Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 1723 A refugee is a person fleeing his or her country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based upon race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. See CRS Report RL31269, Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Policy, by Andorra Bruno. 1824 An asylee is a foreign national arriving or present in the United States who is able to demonstrate a well-founded fear that if returned home, they will be persecuted based upon race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. See CRS Report R41753, Asylum and “Credible Fear” Issues in U.S. Immigration Policy , by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 1925 Family-based immigration policy distinguishes between three categories of children: (1) Minor children which refers to unmarried children under 21 years of age; (2) Unmarried sons and daughters which refers to children age 21 and older; and (3) Married sons and daughters. 2026 Per §212(a) of the INA, these include criminal, national security, health, and indigence grounds as well as past violations of immigration law. See CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion: (continued...) Congressional Research Service 34 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Table 1. Numerical Limits of the Immigration and Nationality Act Family-Sponsored Immigrants 480,000 Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens: unlimited Family Preference Immigrants: 1st Preference: 226,000 226,000 1st Preference: Unmarried sons and daughters of citizens + unused 4th 23,400 Preference visas 2nd Preference (A): Spouses and minor children of LPRs 87,900 2nd Preference (B): Unmarried sons and daughters of LPRs 26,300 + unused 1st Preference visas 3rd Preference: Married children of citizens 23,400 + unused 1st and 2nd Preference visas 4th Preference: Siblings of adult U.S. citizens + unused 1st, 2nd, & 3rd 65,000 Preference visas Employment-Based Preference Immigrants Diversity Visa Lottery Immigrants Refugees and Asylees TOTAL 140,000 55,000 Unlimited 675,000 Source: CRS summary of INA §203(a) and §204; 8 U.S.C. §1153. Notes: Figures in italics sum to the non-italicized total of 226,000 for Family Preference Immigrants. The next four family preference categories are numerically limited. The first includes unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens. The second includes two subgroups of relatives of lawful permanent residents, each subject to its own numerical limit: the first subgroup (referred to as 2A) includes spouses and unmarried minor children of LPRs, and the second subgroup (referred to as 2B) includes unmarried adult children of LPRs. The third family preference category includes adult married children of U.S. citizens, and the fourth includes siblings of adult U.S. citizens. The annual level of family preference immigrants is determined by subtracting the number of visas issued to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens issued in the previous year and the number of aliens paroled21paroled into the United States for at least a year from 480,000 (the total family-sponsored level) and adding—when available—employment preference immigrant numbers unused during the previous year.2227 Unused visa numbers in any given category roll down to the next preference category (Table 1). Under the INA, the annual level of family preference immigrants may not fall below 226,000. If the number of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens admitted in the previous year happens to fall below 254,000 (the difference between 480,000 for all family-based admissions and 226,000 for family preference admissions), then family preference admissions may exceed 226,000 by that (...continued) Policy and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 21 “Parole” is a term in immigration law which means that the foreign national has been granted temporary permission to enter and be present in the United States. Parole does not constitute formal admission to the United States and parolees are required to leave when the parole expires, or if eligible, to be admitted in a lawful status. 22difference. Nevertheless, annual immediate relative admissions have exceeded 254,000 each year (...continued) Policy and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 27 INA §201(c). Congressional Research Service 45 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy difference. Nevertheless, annual immediate relative admissions have exceeded 254,000 each year since FY1996, ranging from a low of 258,584 admissions in FY1999 to a high of 580,348 admissions in FY2006 (see Table A-1, Table 2, and Table A-3 in the AppendixB-1 and Table B-2 in Appendix B for admission data from FY2001-FY2012 FY2002-FY2013). As such, the annual limit of family preference admissions has remained at 226,000. Reflecting the INA’s numerical limits, actual legal immigration to the United States is dominated by family-based admissions. In FY2012FY2013, a total of 680,799649,763 family-based immigrants made up almost two-thirds (66%) of all 1,031,631990,553 LPR admissions (Table A-32). This proportion has remained remained relatively stable for the past decade. The 478,780439,460 immediate relatives23relatives of U.S. citizens in FY2012 in FY2013 represented two-thirds of all family-based admissions and close to half of all legal admissions. The proportion of all family-based admissions comprised of immediate relatives, at roughly two-thirdstwothirds, has not changed since FY2001FY2002 (Table AB-3). Table 2. Actual Family-Sponsored Admissions by Major Class in FY2012FY2013 Number Percent Total Family-Sponsored Immigrants 680,799649,763 100% Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens 478,780 70% 273,429 40% 81,121 12% 124,230 18% 202,019 30439,460 68% 248,332 38% 71,382 11% 119,746 18% 210,303 32% (A) Spouses (B) Minor children (C) Parents Family-preference immigrants 1st Preference: Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens 20,660 324,358 4% 2nd Preference: Spouses and children of LPRs 99,709115 15% (A) Spouses 27,927 439,854 6% (A) Minor children 59,687 946,391 7% (B) Unmarried sons and daughters 12,095870 2% 3rd Preference: Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens 21,752294 3% 4th Preference: Siblings of U.S. citizens 59,898 965,536 10% Source: CRS presentation of data from 20122013 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, Tables 6 and 7. Note: Figures in italics sum up to figures in roman type immediately above them. Percentages may not sum completely due to rounding. Differences between the actual number of family preference admissions shown above and the statutorily determined number shown in Table 1 result from category “roll-downs” (unused visas in one category rolling down to the next) and fiscal year timing differences in when visa petitions were approved versus when the immigrant appeared in the United States. For more information, see Randall Monger and James Yangkay, U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 20122013, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, March 2013. Per-countryMay 2014. Per-Country Ceilings In addition to annual numerical limits on family preference admissions, the INA limits LPR admissions from any single country to 7% of the total number of family-based and employment23 Unless otherwise indicated, “immediate relatives” refers to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens.employment- Congressional Research Service 56 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy base admissions for that year.2428 The per-country limit does not indicate that a country is entitled to the maximum number of visas each year, but only that it cannot receive more than that number. Two exemptions from this rule include all immediate relatives of U.S. citizens; and 75% of all visas allocated to second (2A) family preference admissions (spouses and children of LPRs).2529 Because the number of foreign nationals potentially eligible for a visa exceeds the annual supply of visas under current law, waiting times for available family-based visas can extend for years, particularly for persons from countries with many petitioners, such as India, China, Mexico, and the Philippines (Table 7). For further discussion, see “Supply-Demand Imbalance for U.S. Lawful Lawful Permanent Residence” and “Assessing the Per-countryCountry Ceiling,” below. Laws Governing Individual Admission Procedures for Acquiring Lawful Permanent Residence Becoming an LPR on the basis of a family relationship first requires that the sponsoring U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident in the United States establish his or her relationship with the prospective LPR by filing Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative with DHS’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).2630 Upon approval of the Form I-130, the prospective LPR must file a Form I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. In some cases, both petitions may be filed concurrently.2731 If the prospective LPR already resides legally in the United States, USCIS handles the entire adjustment of status process whereby the alien adjusts from a nonimmigrant28nonimmigrant32 category (which had initially permitted him or her to enter the United States legally) to LPR status.2933 If the prospective LPR does not reside in the United States, USCIS must review and approve the petition before forwarding it to the Department of State’s (DOS’s) Bureau of Consular Affairs in the prospective immigrant’s home country. 2428 INA §202(a)(2). Total admissions in this instance include only the numerically limited family preference and employment-based preference immigrants (Table 1). The 7% computation is applied to admissions for the sum of all of these family-based and employment-based admissions, not to admissions for individual categories, nor to admissions for just family-based or just employment-based admissions. For further discussion of the employment preference categories, see CRS Report R42048, Numerical Limits on Employment-Based Immigration: Analysis of the PerCountry Ceilings, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 2529 INA §202(a)(4). Other exceptions to the per-country ceilings affect dependent foreign states (limited to 2% of annual admissions) and employment preference immigrants for oversubscribed countries if visas are available within the world-wide limit for employment preferences (P.L. 106-313). 2630 I-130 forms are first sent to a USCIS lockbox facility which does not adjudicate petitions but only determines if they meet the acceptance criteria. Petitions are then either forwarded to the appropriate field office or service center where they are assigned to immigration service officers for initial review and adjudication, or they are rejected. The adjudication of visa petitions is an administrative proceeding. As such, the petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish eligibility for the benefit sought, Matter of Brantigan, 11 I & N Dec. 45 (BIA 1966). U.S. Citizens must be at least 21 years of age when filing for a parent or siblings, INA §201 (b)(2)(A)(i). 2731 Immediate relatives and others who have a visa immediately available may be able to file concurrently, but most categories require that the prospective immigrant establish eligibility for the immigrant category first with the I-130. 2832 Nonimmigrants are admitted for a designated period of time and a specific purpose. They include a wide range of visitors, including tourists, foreign students, diplomats, and temporary workers. See CRS Report RL31381, U.S. Immigration Policy on Temporary Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 29 In FY201233 In FY2013, approximately 5354% of all LPRs adjusted their status from within the United States. See 20122013: Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, Table 6. Congressional Research Service 67 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy The DOS Consular Affairs officer, when the alien lives abroad, or USCIS adjudicator, when the alien is adjusting status within the United States, must be satisfied that the alien is entitled to LPR status. Such reviews ensure that potential immigrants are not ineligible for visas or admission under the inadmissibility grounds in the INA.3034 In both cases, if the petition is approved, DOS determines whether a visa is available for the foreign national’s admission category. Available visas are issued by “priority date,” the filing date of their permanent residence petition. For more information, see “Supply-Demand Imbalance for U.S. Lawful Permanent Residence” below. While the INA contains multiple grounds for inadmissibility, the public charge ground (i.e., the individual cannot support him or herself financially and must rely upon the state) is particularly relevant for family-sponsored immigration. All such admissions require that U.S.-based citizens and LPRs petitioning on behalf of (or sponsoring) their alien relatives submit a legally enforceable affidavit of support31support35 along with evidence they can support both their own family and that of the sponsored alien at an annual income no less than 125% of the federal poverty level.3236 Alternatively, sponsors may share this responsibility with one or more joint sponsors, each of whom must independently meet the income requirement. Current law also directs the federal government to include “appropriate information” regarding affidavits of support in the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system.3337 This level of support is legally mandated for at least 10 years or until the sponsored alien becomes a U.S. citizen.3438 Derivative Admissions Spouses and children who accompany or later follow qualifying or principal immigrants are referred to as derivative immigrants. Under current law, derivative immigrants are entitled to the same status and same order of consideration as principal immigrants they accompany or followto-join,3539 assuming they are not entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under another section of the INA.3640 Derivative immigrants count equally under category 3034 These include criminal, national security, health, and indigence grounds as well as past violations of immigration law. INA §212(a). See also CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion: Policy and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 3135 An affidavit of support is a document an individual signs to accept financial responsibility for another person, usually a relative, who is coming to the United States to live permanently. The person who signs the affidavit of support becomes the sponsor of the relative (or other individual) coming to live in the United States. 3236 INA §212(a)(4). Sponsors of the affidavit of support must be at least 18 years old and reside in the United States. The income requirement for sponsors who are members of the Armed Forces is 100% of the federal poverty level. 3337 The Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system provides government agencies access to data on immigration status needed to determine noncitizen eligibility for public benefits. SAVE’s statutory authority dates to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, P.L. 99-603. 3438 For additional information, see CRS Report CRS Report RL33809, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 35Alison Siskin. 39 A derivative immigrant accompanies if they receive LPR status at the same time as the principal immigrant, either by being in the personal company of the principal immigrant upon LPR admission into the United States or if they are admitted separately for LPR status within six months of the principal’s entry or status adjustment. A derivative immigrant follows-to-join if he or she derives immigrant status and a priority date from a principal applicant after six months, as defined by the statute. There is no time limit for a follow-to-join beneficiary to seek a visa and admission. Any foreign national classified as an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen must be the direct beneficiary of an approved petition for that classification. Therefore the minor unmarried child of an foreign national approved for classification as the spouse of an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen is not eligible for derivative classification and must have a separate petition filed on his or her behalf. 22 C.F.R. 40.1. 3640 INA §203(d). Congressional Research Service 78 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy limits. For instance, the 59,89865,536 immigrants admitted in FY2012FY2013 under the 4th family preference category (siblings of U.S. citizens) shown in Table 2 include 14,685891 spouses of qualifying immigrants, 23,863623 children of qualifying immigrants, and 21,35027,022 qualifying immigrants or actual siblings of U.S. citizens. Derivative immigrant status attaches to approval of the principal immigrant’s petition and requires no separate petition.37 In FY201241 In FY2013, derivative immigrants represented about 1310% of all family-based admissions and 2422% of all LPR admissions.3842 Laws Governing Child Admissions How the INA governs child admissions depends on the child’s age and marital status, as well as the legal status of the sponsoring U.S. relatives. The five family-sponsored categories described above distinguish between “minor children” under age 21, and adult “sons and daughters” age 21 and over, as well as between unmarried and married children. Within the five categories, the INA prioritizes minor over adult children, unmarried over married children, and children of U.S. citizens over children of LPRs. In the two cases (immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and LPRs) where it is necessary to determine if the child is a minor, age varies by sponsorship category. For children sponsored as immediate relatives, age is determined based on when the I-130 petition was filed.3943 For children sponsored under the 2nd family preference category, age is determined based on when an immigrant visa number becomes available, reduced by the amount of time (converted into years) that it took USCIS to process and approve the petition.4044 Additionally, under current law, only adult U.S. citizen children may sponsor their foreign-born parents as immediate relatives and their foreign-born siblings as 4th family preference immigrants.4145 Foreign-born children under age 18 automatically become naturalized U.S. citizens if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization.4246 Orphans adopted abroad by U.S. citizens or prospective LPRs must have been so by age 16 (with exceptions) to acquire automatic citizenship upon arrival in the United States.43 3747 41 8 C.F.R. 204.2(d)(4). Children of foreign nationals who are classified as immediate relatives are not eligible for immediate relative status in the same way as derivative immigrants, and must instead have separate petitions approved on their behalves. 3842 CRS analysis of data from the 20122013 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, Table 7. 3943 INA §201(f). For a family-based second preference beneficiary whose LPR parent naturalize and whose petition is converted to immediate relative classification, the child’s age at the parent’s naturalization determines the child’s age. 4044 INA §203(h). Note that the Child Status Protection Act of 2000 (CSPA) only credits the amount of processing time for USCIS to approve the petition. It does not credit the amount of time that a child with an approved petition must then wait in order for a visa to become available. This processing time “credit” applies only if the child has sought to acquire LPR status within one year that a visa becomes available. Suppose, for example, that an LPR sponsors her 19 year old unmarried daughter for LPR status under the 2nd (A) family preference category, and USCIS processes and approves her visa after two years. She would receive a “credit” of two years. If a visa becomes available six years after USCIS approves her petition, her biological age of 27 (19+2+6) would be reduced by the two year USCIS processing time, and her “immigration age” becomes 25. Despite the credit, however, she must be now processed under the 2nd (B) family preference category. The CSPA does allow children in these circumstances to retain their parent’s priority date under the original USCIS petition so they do not start “at the end of the line” of a new preference category. 4145 INA §201(b)(2)(A) and §203(a)(4), respectively. 4246 INA §320. 4347 INA §101(b)(1)(E). Congressional Research Service 89 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Conditional Resident Status Foreign national spouses of U.S. citizens and LPRs who acquire legal status through family-based provisions of the INA must have a two-year evaluation period for marriages of short duration (under two years at the time of sponsorship). Such foreign nationals receive conditional permanent residence status.4448 This nonrenewable legal immigrant status, granted on the day the foreign national is admitted to the United States, is intended to help USCIS determine if such marriages are bona fide.4549 During the two-year conditional period, USCIS may terminate the foreign national’s conditional status if it determines that the marriage was entered into to evade U.S. immigration laws or was terminated other than through the death of the spouse. Within 90 days before the end of the two-year conditional period, the foreign national and his or her U.S.-based spouse must jointly petition to have the conditional status removed. If the petitioner and beneficiary fail to file the joint petition within the 90-day period, a waiver must be obtained to avoid loss of legal status. Assuming conditions in the law have been met and an interview with an appropriate immigration official uncovers no indication of marriage fraud, conditional permanent resident status converts to lawful permanent resident status.4650 USCIS may waive the requirements noted above and remove an alien’s conditional status in the following situations: (1) if the noncitizen spouse can show that he or she would suffer “extreme hardship” if deported from the United States; (2) if the conditional resident establishes that he or she entered into the marriage “in good faith,” that the marriage was legally terminated, and that the noncitizen was “not at fault” in failing to meet the joint petition requirement; (3) if the conditional resident entered into the marriage in good faith but was battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by the citizen or resident spouse; or (4) if the noncitizen entered into the marriage in good faith, but the U.S. citizen or LPR spouse subsequently died.4751 In all cases, USCIS reviews the legitimacy of the marriage prior to removing or waiving the condition. Findings from Earlier Congressionally Mandated Commissions On February 5, 2013, Dr. Michael Teitelbaum, commissioner and vice chair of the former U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (Jordan Commission), testified at a hearing on the American immigration system before the House Judiciary Committee.4852 Six weeks later, on March 18, 2013, Dr. Susan Martin, former executive director of the Jordan Commission, testified at a hearing on 4448 INA §204. Conditional permanent residence status grants the same rights and responsibilities as that of LPR status, including legal status to live and work in the United States. 4650 Conditional status was not part of the original 1952 INA which granted LPR status to aliens who married U.S. citizens and LPRs. In 1986, in response to growing concerns about fraudulent marriages entered into for the sole purpose of obtaining immigration benefits, Congress established the two-year conditional permanent status requirement for foreign national spouses with the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments (IMFA). INA §216. 4751 8 U.S.C. §1186a (c)(4). 4852 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, America’s Immigration System: Opportunities for Legal Immigration and Enforcement of Laws against Illegal Immigration, testimony of Michael Teitelbaum, 113th Cong., 1st sess., February 5, 2013. 4549 Congressional Research Service 910 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy comprehensive immigration reform before the Senate Judiciary Committee.4953 During their presentations, Teitelbaum and Martin both reiterated recommendations from the Jordan Commission’s 1995 and 1997 reports. Their testimony, occurring 15 years after the commission completed its assessment of U.S. immigration policy, underscores the continued relevance of past congressional debates on current issues surrounding family-based immigration. The Jordan Commission had relied on findings of its predecessor, the Select Committee on Immigration and Refugee Policy chaired by Theodore Hesburgh (the Hesburgh Commission), which issued its report in 1981, over three decades ago.5054 The Hesburgh Commission acknowledged that certain large-scale and relatively predictable demographic trends—fertility and mortality rates, for instance—could allow policy makers to formulate immigration policies around pre-determined optimal population sizes.5155 Although the United States has never had a population policy specifying an appropriate population size for the nation, the Hesburgh Commission was aware of arguments for either increasing or decreasing immigration levels because of fiscal, cultural, environmental, and economic pressures, as well as for foreign policy objectives, and national security. More recent legislativeLegislative proposals have suggested both increasing and decreasing the numbers of immigrants.5256 Family reunification was cited by both the Hesburgh and the Jordon Commissions as the primary goal of U.S. immigration policy.5357 The Jordan Commission rejected formulaic procedures for determining admissions criteria, supporting instead the existing framework that allows U.S.-based relatives to decide whom to sponsor for immigration to the United States.5458 Nonetheless, the Hesburgh Commission, noting the imbalance between the demand for lawful permanent U.S. residence and visa supply, asserted that “raising false hopes among millions with no prospect of immigration” would foster unauthorized immigration and “widespread dissatisfaction with U.S. immigration laws.”5559 Both commissions considered options for reconfiguring family-based categories, typically favoring spouses and minor children over other relatives, and the relatives of U.S. citizens over those of LPRs. 49 53 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs of Women and Families, testimony of Susan F. Martin, 113th Cong., 1st sess., March 18, 2013. 50 More recently, prominent policy54 Policy organizations examining U.S. immigration policy have offered recommendations for revising U.S. immigration policy. See for example, Jeb Bush, Thomas F. McLarty III, and Edward Alden, U.S. Immigration Policy, Council on Foreign Relations, Independent Task Force Report No. 63, New York, NY, 2009; Brookings-Duke Immigration Roundtable, Breaking the Immigration Stalemate: From Deep Disagreements to Constructive Proposals, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, October 2009; and Pia Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny, Beside the Golden Door: U.S. Immigration Reform in a New Era of Globalization (Washington, DC: AEI Press, 2010). 5155 Nevertheless, the Commission projected a total U.S. population of 274 million by 2050, a figure surpassed by the 2000 Census which enumerated 281 million persons. 52 For example, the 2007 McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform bill contained provisions increasing the limit for family-sponsored immigration from 226,000 to 480,000. 5356 For example, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744) in the 113th Congress would reclassify spouses and minor unmarried children of LPRs as immediate relatives, thus exempting them from family preference numerical limits. It also would reallocate family preference visas and eliminated the 4th family preference category for adult siblings of U.S. citizens. See archived CRS Report R43097, Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress: Major Provisions in Senate-Passed S. 744, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 57 The Hesburgh Commission, for instance, concluded that family reunification should be the primary goal of immigration policy, citing its humanitarian character, benefits received by the United States through the stability, health, and productivity of individual family members reunited with their immediate family members, and its facilitation of newcomer adaptation and assimilation. Others have argued for prioritizing employment and skill-based admissions. See Brookings-Duke Immigration Roundtable, Breaking the Immigration Stalemate, and Pia Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny, Beside the Golden Door. 5458 U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, p.5. 5559 U.S. Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, p. 378. Congressional Research Service 1011 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy categories, typically favoring spouses and minor children over other relatives, and the relatives of U.S. citizens over those of LPRs. The Hesburgh Commission recommended eliminating the current 4th family preference category, siblings of U.S. citizens.5660 The Jordan Commission went farther, recommending the elimination of what are currently the 1st, 3rd, and 4th family preference categories, thereby allowing only spouses and minor children and parents of U.S. citizens (immediate relatives), and spouses and minor children of LPRs (2A preference category).5761 Justifications for these revisions included reunifying U.S. citizens and LPRs with their closest and most dependent relations; reducing unreasonably long wait times for visas; and improving the credibility of the immigration system while eliminating false expectations of easy permanent U.S. residence for more distant relatives of U.S. citizens and LPRs. The Hesburgh Commission recommended more flexible family-based immigration numerical limits. For instance, it suggested establishing two numerical targets, one annual, and another for a longer term, such as five years. This would allow annual admissions to vary, possibly within an established range, accommodating unpredictable situations such as domestic concerns or international conditions while maintaining a long-term ceiling. Another option suggested by the Hesburgh Commission would permit borrowing between ceilings for subcategories (family, employment, refugee) to accommodate such situations. Profile of Legal Immigrants Legal Immigration Admission Trends Immigration statistics for FY2000 through FY2012FY2013 reveal several trends for lawful permanent admission categories (Figure 1). First, admissions of total lawful permanent residents increased 2318% over this period (with substantial fluctuations) from 841,002 persons in FY2000 to 1,031,631 990,553 persons in FY2012FY2013. Second, the number of immediate relatives increased from 346,350 to 478,780 to 439,460 over this period, the largest increase of all family-based categories. As such, they accounted for almost the entire increase in total family-based admissions over this period.5862 Third, other family-related categories saw nominal declines in admissions. Partly as a result of these mixed trends, and also as the result of increases in all other lawful permanent admissions, the proportion of family-based admissions to total lawful permanent admissions remained the same over this period (66%) with minor fluctuations (Table A-3B-2). 5660 Ibid, p. 380. U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, p. 61. 5862 Major fluctuations in FY2001 and FY2006 occurred across all categories of legal immigrant admissions, caused primarily by a decline and subsequent rebound in immigration volume after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 5761 Congressional Research Service 1112 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Figure 1. LPR Admissions by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2012FY2013 Source: CRS presentation of data from 2009 and 20122013 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Table 6, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions refer to employment-based immigrants, Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants, refugees and asylees, and other immigrants. As noted in “Laws Governing Individual Admission,” nonimmigrants can become LPRs either by adjusting to LPR status if they currently reside in the United States, or by petitioning for LPR status from abroad if they reside overseas. Figure 2 presents the percentage of LPRs who adjusted status by legal admission category. As such it represents the proportion of LPRs in each class class category that was already residing in the United States at the time LPR status was granted. About About half of all family-based immediate relatives of U.S. citizens adjusted their status from within the United States over this period, while most family-based preference immigrants, particularly in recent years, were admitted from abroad.5963 In contrast, most non-family-based immigrants immigrants adjusted their status from within the United States.60 5964 63 CRS was unable to locate or conduct an analysis to explain the recent decline in the proportion of family preference admissions adjusting their status from within the United States. 6064 Laws for adjusting status vary depending on how the foreign national entered the United States. If a foreign national entered the United States legally, overstayed his or her visa, and then married a U.S. citizen, he or she can adjust status under INA §245(a), assuming other requirements for admissibility are met. However, if a foreign national under the same circumstances married an LPR instead of a U.S. citizen, they cannot adjust status under INA §245(a). If they wish to adjust status, they are treated by the INA like unauthorized aliens who entered illegally: they must leave the country, and are barred from re-entering for either 3 years or 10 years, depending on whether they resided in the United States illegally for 6-12 months or for more than 12 months, respectively. Persons who entered the country illegally and then petitioned for LPR status or applied for labor certification before April 2001 may be eligible to adjust status through INA §245(i). Given that this deadline is now a dozen years old, the number of unauthorized aliens for which this section currently applies is relatively small. However, beginning March 4, 2013, some immediate relatives of U.S. citizens can apply for provisional unlawful presence waivers before they leave the United States. The provisional (continued...) Congressional Research Service 1213 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Figure 2. Percent of LPRs Adjusting Status, by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2012FY2013 Source: CRS presentation of data from the 2009 and 20122013 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions refer to employment-based immigrants, Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants, refugees and asylees, and other immigrants. Demography of Family-Based Immigrants This section examines family-based admissions by sex, principal versus derivative status, age, region of origin, and occupation. For ease of presentation and to represent what occurred over the past decade in its entirety, data were aggregated over the entire FY2000-FY2009 period.61 Table 3 distinguishes principal from derivative immigrant admissions for the entire FY2000FY2009 period. Absolute numbers of principal qualifying immigrants made up 76% of total LPR admissions and 88% (not shown) of all family-based admissions. However, differences appear by categories with 3rd and 4th preference admissions comprising greater numbers of derivative than principal admissions over this period. They contrast sharply with admissions of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, and 1st and 2nd family preference categories, where principal admissionsOther characteristics of family-based immigrants that merit attention for policy makers include the number of principal and derivative immigrants by admission category, from what regions and countries family-based immigrants originate, their age composition, and their occupational status. These attributes are discussed further in Appendix A. Potential Legislative and Policy Issues Current policy may want to address a number of potential issues, including the supply-demand imbalance for U.S. lawful permanent residence, the per-country ceiling for family-based admissions, limitations on visiting U.S. relatives, the impetus to violate U.S. immigration laws, aging out of certain legal status categories, the marriage timing of immigrant children, how immigration law treats same-sex partnerships, and policies toward unaccompanied alien children. (...continued) unlawful presence waiver process allows individuals, who only need a waiver of inadmissibility for unlawful presence, to apply for it while they are living in the United States rather than from abroad. They can then leave the United States and apply for an immigrant visa to become lawful permanent resident. When they have their immigrant visa interview at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad in order to return to the United States, they will already have the provisional unlawful presence waiver. The new process is expected to shorten the time U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives while those family members are obtaining immigrant visas to become LPRs. See CRS Report R42958, Unauthorized Aliens: Policy Options for Providing Targeted Immigration Relief, by Andorra Bruno. 61 Figures in this section of the report come from unpublished DHS data that extend to only FY2009. Congressional Research Service 13 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy outnumber derivative admissions. In comparison, all other (non-family) lawful permanent admissions are more evenly divided between the two immigrant types.62 Table 3. Principal & Derivative Immigrants, by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2009 (Figures represent admissions for the entire decade; proportions shown in parentheses) Admissions Type Principal Derivative Total Principal Derivative Total Immediate Relatives of USCs 1st Preference: Unmarried Sons & Daughters of USCs 2nd Preference: Spouses & Unmarried Children of LPRs 3rd Preference: Married Sons & Daughters of USCs 4th Preference: Siblings of USCs All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions Total Lawful Permanent Admissions 4,550,962 180,523 819,456 74,744 229,271 1,969,025 7,823,981 3,090 68,621 156,148 170,159 404,660 1,671,195 2,473,873 4,554,052 249,144 975,604 244,903 633,931 3,640,220 10,297,854 99.9% 72.5% 84.0% 30.5% 36.2% 54.1% 76.0% 0.1% 27.5% 16.0% 69.5% 63.8% 45.9% 24.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: CRS presentation of unpublished data for FY2000-FY2009, Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS), Department of Homeland Security. Because of subsequent minor adjustments, these data may differ slightly from published data found in the OIS Immigration Statistics Yearbook. Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions refer to employment-based immigrants, Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants, refugees and asylees. Following the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965, immigrant country-oforigin composition shifted gradually from Europe to Asia and Latin America.63 European immigration, which accounted for 56% of total admissions during the 1950s, made up just 13% during the 2000s. In contrast, the proportion for Asian immigration increased from 5% during the 1950s, to 34% during the 2000s. For Latin American immigration (from Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean), it increased from 23% to 41%, respectively.64 62 Although not presented above, male and female admissions are roughly equal for many legal permanent admission categories, both for principal and derivative immigrants. Females make up a higher percentage of both immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (61%) and family 2nd preference immigrants (59%). Those proportions reflect a similar gender mix among the larger principal immigrant populations in those two groups. All other legal permanent immigrants, by contrast, included principal immigrants who were more likely to be male (63%) and derivative immigrants who were more likely to be female (61%). 63 See The U.S. Foreign-Born Population, Table 1 and Figure 2. The largest share of Latin American immigrants to the United States originates from Mexico and the Dominican Republic; the largest share of Asian immigrants originates from China, India, and the Philippines. 64 Computed by CRS with data from the 2012 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Table 2. Congressional Research Service 14 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Figure 3. Region of Birth by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2009 Source: CRS presentation of unpublished data for FY2000-FY2009, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions refer to employment-based immigrants, Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants, refugees and asylees, and other immigrants. Latin America includes Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean and South America. Oceana refers to Australia and New Zealand. Figure 3 presents admissions by birth region for all family-based category and all other LPR admissions from FY2000 to FY2009. Although dominated by Latin America and Asia, a greater proportion of immigrants admitted as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens during this period originated from other regions in the world compared to immigrants admitted under other familybased categories. Immigrants admitted under the 1st and 2nd family preference categories originated mainly from Latin America, while those admitted under the 3rd and 4th preference category originated primarily from Asia. All other LPR admissions were distributed more evenly across geographic regions than immigrants admitted under any of the family-based categories. Immigrant age composition is a demographic measure that has potential fiscal impacts.65 Table 4 displays the age distribution for immigrants admitted under each family-based admission category and for all other LPRs, from FY2000 to FY2009. Adults in the prime 25-44 working-age group dominate the 1st family-sponsored preference category as well as the all other lawful permanent admissions category. Immigrants age 65 and above make up a greater proportion among immediate relatives of U.S. citizens than among all other LPR categories, because that 65 For example, children tend to be net recipients of major publicly funded services such as public education, while those of prime working age contribute taxes across the span of their working careers. For more examples and discussion on how age affects the use of publicly funded services and tax contributions over immigrants’ lifetimes, see archived CRS Report R42053, Fiscal Impacts of the Foreign-Born Population, by William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service 15 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy admission category is the only one that permits sponsorship of parents for LPR status. The 4th preference category, siblings of U.S. citizens, has a relatively greater share of the next-to-oldest, 45-64 age group and the highest median age, due in part to the extensive waiting times required for such persons to immigrate. In contrast, immigrants in the 2nd preference category (spouses and unmarried children of LPRs), which includes minors, have the largest proportion of children under age 18 and the lowest median age. Table 4. Age Distribution and Median Age of Immigrants by Class of Admission, FY2000-FY2009 Age Range Immediate Relatives of USCs 1st Preference: Unmarried Sons & Daughters of USCs 2nd Preference: Spouses & Unmarried Children of LPRs 3rd Preference: Married Sons & Daughters of USCs 4th Preference: Siblings of USCs All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions Total Lawful Permanent Admissions 0-17 16% 22% 37% 32% 26% 20% 26% 18-24 14% 14% 17% 11% 13% 11% 13% 25-44 43% 56% 38% 37% 22% 53% 41% 45-64 17% 8% 8% 19% 37% 14% 17% 9% 0% 0% 0% 3% 2% 2% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Median Age 31 28 21 30 39 32 31 65+ Source: CRS presentation of unpublished data for FY2000-FY2009, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions refer to employment-based immigrants, Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants, refugees and asylees, and other immigrants. Admissions from all categories include varying numbers of derivative immigrants, made up largely of children. The subject of immigrant skills arises frequently in discussions of U.S. immigration policy. While DHS collects occupational information from newly admitted immigrants, many do not report an occupation, limiting comparisons of skills across admission categories. Table 5, which displays the broad occupational status of immigrants admitted between FY2000 and FY2009, indicates that 31% of all lawful permanent admissions during this period (10.3 million) did not report their occupation.66 Despite this shortcoming, these data suggest that a relatively smaller proportion of spouses and children of U.S. citizens are employed; that all immigrant categories include large proportions of children enrolled in school and college; and that the United States admits few retirees. 66 CRS analyzed the 31% of the cases in the unpublished Office of Immigration Statistics dataset that had missing occupation data by examining frequency distributions of the following variables: country of birth, age, gender, class of admission, year of LPR status, marital status, and occupation reported at time of naturalization. No systematic biases for unreported occupation were evident from such distributions. Congressional Research Service 16 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Table 5. Occupational Status of Immigrants by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2009 Percent of all admissions between FY2000 and FY2009 Employment Status Immediate Relatives of USCs 1st Preference: Unmarried Sons & Daughters of USCs 2nd Preference: Spouses & Unmarried Children of LPRs 3rd Preference: Married Sons & Daughters of USCs 4th Preference: Siblings of USCs All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions Total Lawful Permanent Admissions Employed 16% 31% 17% 32% 33% 34% 24% Unemployed 10% 6% 4% 4% 5% 3% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Homemaker 17% 4% 14% 12% 15% 7% 13% Student 20% 32% 42% 40% 36% 26% 26% Retiree 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Unreported 37% 27% 24% 13% 11% 30% 31% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Military Source: CRS presentation of unpublished data for FY2000-FY2009, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions refer to employment-based admissions, Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants, refugees and asylees, and other immigrants. Occupational status is based on occupation data collected by DHS during the LPR petition process. For admissions of immigrants who are newly arriving (excluding employment-based principal immigrants), occupation refers to the most recent occupation before entering the United States. For admissions of immigrants who are adjusting status (excluding employment-based principal immigrants), occupation refers to the most recent occupation in the United States. (Note that most nonimmigrants, except temporary workers, are ineligible to work in the United States prior to LPR approval. See CRS Report RL31381, U.S. Immigration Policy on Temporary Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.) Potential Legislative and Policy Issues Current policy may want to address a number of potential issues, including the supply-demand imbalance for U.S. lawful permanent residence, the per-country ceiling for family-based admissions, limitations on visiting U.S. relatives, the impetus to violate U.S. immigration laws, aging out of certain legal status categories, the marriage timing of immigrant children, and how immigration law treats same-sex partnerships. Congressional Research Service 14 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Supply-Demand Imbalance for U.S. Lawful Permanent Residence Each year, the number of foreign nationals petitioning for LPR status through family-sponsored preferences exceeds the number of immigrants that can be admitted to the United States according to current law (see Table 1). Consequently, a “visa queue” or waiting list has accumulated of persons who qualify as immigrants under the INA but who must wait for a visa to receive lawful permanent status. As such, the visa queue constitutes not a backlog of petitions to be processed but, rather, the number of persons approved for visas that are not yet available due to the numerical limits enumerated in the INA. Congressional Research Service 17 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Table 63. Visa Queue of Prospective Family-Preference Immigrants with Approved Applications, for Selected Countries, as of November 1, 20122013 Total Family Preference Prospective Immigrants 1st Preference: Unmarried Sons & Daughters of USCs 2nd (A) Preference: Spouses and Minor Children of LPRs 2nd (B) Preference: Unmarried Sons and Daughters of LPRs 3rd Preference: Married Sons & Daughters of USCs 4th Preference: Siblings of USCs 1,311,960 93,431 88,054 201,225 183,113 746,137 Philippines 423,449 23,723 9,615 50,099 151,491 188,521 India 306,789 2,2621 2,9461 5,6481 65,134 230,799 Vietnam 267,067 7,140 n.s. 8,765 72,227 174,841 China 226,921 3,3031 4,1481 15,701 32,712 171,057 Dominican Republic 169,359 21,670 25,053 56,223 16,016 50,397 Bangladesh 161,731 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 150,747 Pakistan n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 16,752 91,286 Haiti n.s. 16,119 11,715 22,845 n.s. 44,433 Cuba n.s. 7,677 13,801 15,715 22,606 n.s. El Salvador n.s. 8,307 n.s. 15,563 n.s. n.s. Jamaica n.s. 18,689 n.s. 7,153 14,564 n.s. 4,299,635 288,705 220,313 486,597 830,906 2,473,114 Country Mexico Worldwide Totals 308,761 95,317 93,553 195,354 184,224 740,313 Philippines 401,880 21,369 12,491 50,298 146,325 171,397 India 295,167 n.s. n.s. n.s. 61,689 223,608 Vietnam 255,202 6,453 n.s. 8,749 63,970 169,883 China 224,598 n.s. n.s. 14,627 31,278 167,835 Dominican Republic 175,227 21,989 31,554 53,023 15,923 52,738 Bangladesh 162,527 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 151,606 Pakistan 110,968 n.s. n.s. n.s. 15,762 88,913 Haiti 109,471 17,446 8,781 22,433 n.s. 47,944 Cuba 105,744 8,511 12,084 17,486 26,834 40,829 El Salvador n.s. 7,663 n.s. 13,836 n.s. n.s. Jamaica n.s. 16,158 n.s. n.s. 13,633 n.s. All Others 1,061,426 71,908 79,954 78,991 231,543 565,911 Worldwide Totals 4,210,971 279,693 238,417 467,642 804,242 2,420,977 Country Mexico Source: Annual Report of Immigrant Visa Applicants in the Family-sponsored and Employment-based preferences Registered at the National Visa Center as of November 1, 20122013, National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State, except for figures annotated with “1” which are unpublished figures provided by the National Visa Center. Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. Figures include both principal applicants and any spouses and children entitled to derivative status. China refers to mainland-born. Because the National Visa Center (NVC) Annual Report lists the top countries for each category, some countries that appear as a top country in the visa queue for one admissions category may not appear as a top country in another. In such cases, n.s. indicates the figure was not shown separately in the NVC report for the country and preference category in question. The n.s. figures were also not included in the category “All Others.” Because these Because these numbers are missing, figures in columns and rows containing n.s. designations will not sum to the totals shown. Congressional Research Service 15 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy The most recent data available indicate that the visa queue of numerically limited familypreference immigration petitions as of November 1, 20122013, stood at 4.32 million applications (Table 63), a 42% decline over the prior year’s queue of 4.53 million.6765 Within this population, queue size correlates inversely with preference category. For example, pending petitions filed under the (highest) 1st preference category (288,705279,693) represent just 7% of the total queue while those filed under the (lowest) 4th preference category (2,473,114420,977) make up 58% of the queue. 67 U.S. Department of State, National Visa Center, Annual Report of Immigrant Visa Applicants in the Familysponsored and Employment-based preferences Registered at the National Visa Center as of November 1, 2012. Note that this figure represents only those visa applications held by the State Department. Data on visa applications in various stages of processing by USCIS prior to being given to the State Department for visa allocation are not available. However, testimony suggests a sizable quantity of petitions in addition to the visa queue shown in Table 6. See for instance U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, The Separation of Nuclear Families under U.S. Immigration Law, testimony of Mr. Randall Emery and Mr. Demetrios Papademetriou, 113th Cong., 1st sess., March 14, 2013. Congressional Research Service 18 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy 57% of the queue. Waiting periods vary significantly depending on preference category priority and comprise both a statutory and a processing waiting period.6866 Statutory waiting times typically account for most of the waiting period. As noted, while U.S. immigration policy grants unlimited admission to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, it limits annual admissions under the four family-sponsored preference categories to 226,000. The number of admissions is also subject to the 7% per-country ceiling discussed above, which, for “over-subscribed” countries with relatively large numbers of LPR status petitions such as Mexico and China, increases visa waiting times substantially. The Visa Bulletin, a monthly update published online by DOS, illustrates how the visa queue translates into waiting times for immigrants (Table 7).694).67 DOS issues the numerically limited visas for family-sponsored preference categories according to computed cut-off dates. DOS adjusts these cut-off dates each month based on several variables, such as the number of visas used to that point, the projected demand for visas, and the number of visas remaining under the annual numerical limit for that country and/or preference category.7068 Filing dates for qualified applicants are referred to as priority dates. Applicants with priority dates earlier than the cut-off dates in the Visa Bulletin are currently being processed. All family-preference category visas were oversubscribed as of July 1, 2013November 1, 2014. Table 7 4 indicates, for example, that LPR petitions filed under the 1st family preference category (unmarried children of U.S. citizens) on June 8, 2007, on June 1, 2006, were being processed seven more than seven years later for most countries. Countries that send many immigrants to the United States, such as China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines, currently have aboveaverageabove-average waiting times. For instance, LPR petitions for unmarried Filipino children of U.S. citizens (1st preference),filed under the 1st family preference category for unmarried Filipino children that had been filed on or before July 1, 2000, were being processed on July 1, 2013, exactly 13 years later. Table 7. Visa Bulletin Cut-Off Dates for Family-Based Petitions, July 2013 (LPR petition filing dates for which immigration visas are available as of July 1, 2013) Family Preference Category China India Mexico Philippines All Other Nations 1st: Unmarried adult children of USCs 6/1/2006 6/1/2006 8/22/1993 7/1/2000 6/1/2006 2nd (A): Spouses and children of LPRs 10/8/2011 10/8/2011 9/1/2011 10/8/2011 10/8/2011 2nd (B): Unmarried adult children of LPRs 11/1/2005 11/1/2005 11/1/1993 12/22/2002 11/1/2005 3rd: Married adult children of USCs 10/1/2002 10/1/2002 4/22/1993 11/22/1992 10/1/2002 4th: Siblings of USCs 5/22/2001 5/22/2001 9/22/1996 12/15/1989 5/22/2001 Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin for July 2013. Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. China refers to mainland-born. 68 For more on agency processing, see archived CRS Report RL34040, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Immigration Fees and Adjudication Costs: Proposed Adjustments and Historical Context, by William A. Kandel. 69 The Visa Bulletin, updated each month, can be accessed at http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html. 70 National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State, The Operation of the Immigrant Numerical Control System, Washington, DC. Congressional Research Service 19 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy 65 U.S. Department of State, National Visa Center, Annual Report of Immigrant Visa Applicants in the Familysponsored and Employment-based preferences Registered at the National Visa Center as of November 1, 2013. Note that this figure represents only those visa applications held by the State Department. Data on visa applications in various stages of processing by USCIS prior to being given to the State Department for visa allocation are not available. However, testimony suggests a sizable quantity of petitions in addition to the visa queue shown in Table 3. See for instance U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, The Separation of Nuclear Families under U.S. Immigration Law, testimony of Mr. Randall Emery and Mr. Demetrios Papademetriou, 113th Cong., 1st sess., March 14, 2013. 66 For more on agency processing, see archived CRS Report RL34040, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Immigration Fees and Adjudication Costs: Proposed Adjustments and Historical Context, by William A. Kandel. 67 The Visa Bulletin, updated each month, can be accessed at http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html. 68 National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State, The Operation of the Immigrant Numerical Control System, Washington, DC. Congressional Research Service 16 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Table 4. Visa Bulletin Cut-Off Dates for Family-Based Petitions, November 2014 (LPR petition filing dates for which immigration visas are available as of November 1, 2014) Family Preference Category China India Mexico Philippines All Other Nations 1st: Unmarried adult children of USCs 6/8/2007 6/8/2007 7/8/1994 11/1/2004 6/8/2007 2nd (A): Spouses and children of LPRs 3/1/2013 3/1/2013 9/22/2012 3/1/2013 3/1/2013 2nd (B): Unmarried adult children of LPRs 1/1/2008 1/1/2008 9/8/1994 1/1/2004 1/1/2008 3rd: Married adult children of USCs 12/8/2003 12/8/2003 11/1/1993 6/8/1993 12/8/2003 4th: Siblings of USCs 2/8/2002 2/8/2002 2/15/1997 5/1/1991 2/8/2002 Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin for November 2014. Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. China refers to mainland-born. The Visa Bulletin does not indicate how long current petitioners must wait to receive a visa, only how long they can expect to wait if current processing conditions continue into the future. However, visa processing rates vary for a variety of reasons, and changes in processing conditions can lead to visa retrogression, where dates are pushed back and petitioners have to wait longer, or visa progression, where dates advance forward and petitions are processed sooner. Visa retrogression occurs when more people apply for a visa in a particular category or country than there are visas available for that month. In contrast, visa progression occurs when fewer people apply.7169 As each fiscal year closes (on September 30th), priority data progression or retrogression may occur to keep visa issuances within annual numerical limitations.7270 Substantial increases in the rate at which family-based LPR petitions have been filed over the past two decades have extended actual waiting times for the most recent petitioners.7371 Hence, while many interpret the cut-off dates as a rough estimate of waiting times to receive a visa, this interpretation may not be accurate for some categories. While the waiting queue for visas reflects the excess of demand to immigrate permanently to the United States over the supply of statutorily determined slots, it is criticized for keeping families separated for what many view as excessive periods of time and for prompting actual and potential petitioners to subvert U.S. immigration policy through unauthorized or illegitimate means (see “Impetus to Violate Immigration Laws” below). Several proposals addressing the visa queue and their criticisms are discussed below in “Findings from Earlier Congressionally Mandated Commissions.” 69 For instance, some persons who filed for LPR status under one provision of immigration law may obtain such status through another provision, thereby invalidating their initial petition. In other cases, petitioners may lose interest or change their plans, abandoning their petitions. Both of these situations would reduce the queue of persons waiting for visas and contribute to visa progression. 70 National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State, The Operation of the Immigrant Numerical Control System, Washington, DC. 71 For further discussion, see Stuart Anderson, Waiting and More Waiting: America’s Family and Employment-Based Immigration System, National Foundation for American Policy, NFAP Policy Brief, Arlington, VA, October 2011. Congressional Research Service 17 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Assessing the Per-CountryAssessing the Per-country Ceiling As stated earlier, the INA establishes a per-country ceiling limiting total legal immigration from any single country for family-preference and employment-sponsored preference admissions to 7% of the worldwide immigration level to the United States. Exceptions to this rule include the admission of all immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and 75% of all visas allocated to 2nd (A) preference category of spouses and children of LPRs. The per-country ceiling especially restrains immigrant admissions from countries with large numbers of LPR petitioners, such as Mexico, the Philippines, India, and China. Petitioners from these countries experience longer average waiting times to receive a visa (Table 74). Proponents of the per-country ceiling assert that U.S. immigration policy has been more equitable and less discriminatory in terms of country of origin following passage of the Immigration Amendments of 1965. That act and its subsequent amendments, which ended the country-oforigin quota system favoring European immigrants, imposed worldwide and per-country limits on Western Hemisphere immigrants. Proponents also note the two major INA exceptions to the per- 71 For instance, some persons who filed for LPR status under one provision of immigration law may obtain such status through another provision, thereby invalidating their initial petition. In other cases, petitioners may lose interest or change their plans, abandoning their petitions. Both of these situations would reduce the queue of persons waiting for visas and contribute to visa progression. 72 National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State, The Operation of the Immigrant Numerical Control System, Washington, DC. 73 For further discussion, see Stuart Anderson, Waiting and More Waiting: America’s Family and Employment-Based Immigration System, National Foundation for American Policy, NFAP Policy Brief, Arlington, VA, October 2011. Congressional Research Service 20 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy countrypercountry ceilings—immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and 75% of 2nd (A) preference immigrants—that benefit oversubscribed countries such as Mexico, India, and China.7472 Immigration reform advocates argue that family reunification should be prioritized over percountry ceilings, and cite the visa queue faced by prospective family-based LPRs from India, China, Mexico, and the Philippines. They assert that the current per-country ceilings are arbitrary and should be increased to enable families from all countries to reunite.7573 Limitations on Visiting U.S. Relatives Because U.S. immigration law presumes that all aliens seeking temporary admission to the United States wish to live here permanently, tourists and other temporary visitors must demonstrate their intent to return to their home countries.7674 Consequently, aliens with pending LPR petitions (who intend to live permanently in the United States) as well as foreign nationals with U.S. citizen and LPR relatives, who wish to either tour the United States or visit their U.S.based relatives, are often denied nonimmigrant visas to visit.7775 The presumption of intention to immigrate is stated explicitly in Section 214(b) of the INA, and is the most common basis for rejecting nonimmigrant visa applicants.7876 As an example, an unmarried adult Filipina daughter of U.S. citizen parents wishing to visit them on a tourist visa would likely face challenges to demonstrate that she possessed sufficient ties to the Philippines to prevent her from staying in the 72 See also CRS Report R42048, Numerical Limits on Employment-Based Immigration: Analysis of the Per-Country Ceilings, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 73 National Immigration Forum, Immigration Backlogs are Separating American Families, Backgrounder, Washington, DC, August 2012. 74 INA §214(b). Exceptions to this requirement include H-1 visa workers, L visa intra-company transfers, and V visa family members. See CRS Report RL31381, U.S. Immigration Policy on Temporary Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 75 CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion: Policy and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem, p. 7. 76 See CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion: Policy and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. Congressional Research Service 18 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy United States. If denied a tourist visa, and having no occupational options available through employment-based admissions, her only other alternative would be to apply for LPR status under the 1st family sponsored preference category, which, based on the cut-off dates shown in the latest Visa Bulletin (Table 4), would take, at a minimum, 1410 years. During this period, she would be unable to visit her parents in the United States. Impetus to Violate Immigration Laws As noted, many foreign nationals with approved petitions to reside legally and permanently in the United States face extensive waiting times for obtaining a visa. Given the corresponding family separation that such wait times cause, some aliens who might otherwise abide by U.S. immigration laws may choose to either violate the terms of their temporary visas by “overstaying” in the United States or enter the United States without inspection (i.e., illegally).79 However, the number of unauthorized aliens who reside in the United States specifically because 74 See also CRS Report R42048, Numerical Limits on Employment-Based Immigration: Analysis of the Per-Country Ceilings, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 75 National Immigration Forum, Immigration Backlogs are Separating American Families, Backgrounder, Washington, DC, August 2012. 76 INA §214(b). Exceptions to this requirement include H-1 visa workers, L visa intra-company transfers, and V visa family members. See CRS Report RL31381, U.S. Immigration Policy on Temporary Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 77 CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion: Policy and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem, p. 7. 78 See CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion: Policy and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 79 See CRS Report RS22446, Nonimmigrant Overstays: Brief Synthesis of the Issue, by Ruth Ellen Wasem; and Philip L. Martin and Elizabeth Midgely, Immigration: Shaping and Reshaping America, Population Reference Bureau, 2006. Congressional Research Service 21 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy 77 However, the number of unauthorized aliens who reside in the United States specifically because their attempts to acquire LPR status within a reasonable period did not succeed is unknown.8078 It is also not known how many unauthorized aliens have petitions pending and are therefore part of the 4.32 million family-based visa queue.8179 Aging Out of Legal Status Categories “Aging out” refers to the change in eligibility for a foreign national to receive an immigration benefit because of changes in their age. It typically applies to children. In the case of familybased admissions, it is particularly noticeable because of the different treatment of minor children of U.S. citizens versus minor children of LPRs. Minor children of U.S. citizens are protected from aging out by the Child Status Protection Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-208), which provided them with durable status protection.8280 In contrast, if minor children of LPRs who are sponsored under the 2(A) family preference category (see Table 1) turn 21 after a petition for lawful permanent residence has been filed on their behalf (but before they receive LPR status), they automatically “age out” of the 2(A) category and must be sponsored for admission under the 2(B) category.8381 This occurs because children of LPRs do not possess the same durable status protection of immediate relative children of U.S. citizens. The net result of this 2(A) to 2(B) shift upon aging out is a substantially longer waiting time to obtain LPR status. The Visa Bulletin (Table 74) indicates that reclassification of 2(A) to 2(B) petitions currently extends the visa cut-off date and any attendant family separation by roughly 6 to 18 years.84 (See also “Laws Governing Child Admissions” above.) Marriage Timing of Immigrant Children Differential treatment for unmarried children under the 1st family preference category and married children under 3rd family preference categories may motivate potential LPR petitioners to delay marriage in order to receive more favorable immigration treatment under the INA. The INA prioritizes the former family preference category over the latter, a ranking that translates into a difference in visa cut-off dates of between one and four years, depending on the country of emigration (Table 7). This difference results because unmarried children of U.S. citizens do not retain a durable marital status when they apply for LPR status under the 1st family preference category. Hence, the need to remain in the 1st family preference category may motivate such petitioners to postpone marriage until their visas become available. 80 77 See CRS Report RS22446, Nonimmigrant Overstays: Brief Synthesis of the Issue, by Ruth Ellen Wasem; and Philip L. Martin and Elizabeth Midgely, Immigration: Shaping and Reshaping America, Population Reference Bureau, 2006. 78 Estimates do exist of the relationship between authorized entry and unauthorized residence. For instance, the Pew Hispanic Center estimated in 2006 that 45% of the total unauthorized population initially entered the United States legally. Pew Hispanic Center, Modes of Entry of the Unauthorized Migrant Population, Fact Sheet, May 22, 2006. The 45% figure is comparable to previous estimates noted in the Pew Fact Sheet. 8179 Claire Bergeron, Going to the Back of the Line: A Primer on Lines, Visa Categories, and Wait Times, Migration Policy Institute, Issue Brief No. 1, Washington, DC, March 2013, p. 7. 8280 Durable status protection applies to minor children of U.S. citizens. It means that, for immigration purposes, age is recorded as of the date an immigration petition was filed. This age then remains in effect (or “freezes”) regardless of the length of time needed to obtain lawful permanent residence. 8381 The Child Status Protection Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-208) addressed this circumstance for minor children of U.S. citizens but not for minor children of lawful permanent residents. 84 Petitioners must also incur additional costs to file a new I-130 Petition for Alien Relative (currently $420). As noted above, visa cut-off dates from the State Department’s monthly Visa Bulletin do not indicate expected waiting times, but rather, the filing dates of petitions that are currently being processed for a visa. Congressional Research Service 22 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Congressional Research Service 19 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy any attendant family separation by roughly 6 to 18 years.82 (See also “Laws Governing Child Admissions” above.) Marriage Timing of Immigrant Children Differential treatment for unmarried children under the 1st family preference category and married children under 3rd family preference categories may motivate potential LPR petitioners to delay marriage in order to receive more favorable immigration treatment under the INA. The INA prioritizes the former family preference category over the latter, a ranking that translates into a difference in visa cut-off dates of between one and four years, depending on the country of emigration (Table 4). This difference results because unmarried children of U.S. citizens do not retain a durable marital status when they apply for LPR status under the 1st family preference category. Hence, the need to remain in the 1st family preference category may motivate such petitioners to postpone marriage until their visas become available. Same-Sex Partners The question of whether gay and lesbian U.S. citizens should be able to sponsor foreign-born permanent partners for LPR status has garnered increased attention. While the INA does not affirmatively define the terms “spouse,”8583 “wife,” or “husband,” the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) declares that the terms “marriage” and “spouse,” as used in federal enactments,8684 exclude same-sex marriage.8785 Advocates of revising the INA to include same-sex permanent partners contended that current policies were “cruel and unequal.”8886 Supporters of the restrictions countered that expanding immigration law to recognize same-sex partnerships for purposes of immigration benefits would increase opportunities for fraud because such relationships are not legally recognized in many jurisdictions.8987 Others supporting current restrictions opposed samesex partnerships generally and argue against exemptions under immigration law. However, the issue shifted with the June 26, 2013, Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, which struck down DOMA’s provision defining “marriage” and “spouse” for federal purposes. DHS subsequently approved the first immigrant visa for the same-sex spouse of a U.S. citizen, and then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano directed USCIS to “review immigration visa petitions filed on behalf of a same-sex spouse in the same manner as those filed on behalf of an opposite-sex spouse.”90 Broader Immigration Questions The following section discusses a set of broad immigration policy questions that have been raised by both of the congressionally mandated commissions and other observers. Family Reunification versus Family Reconstitution As noted above, the INA allows LPRs and U.S. citizens to sponsor spouses and unmarried children. U.S. citizens, in addition, may sponsor parents, married adult children, and siblings. 85 82 Petitioners must also incur additional costs to file a new I-130 Petition for Alien Relative (currently $420). As noted above, visa cut-off dates from the State Department’s monthly Visa Bulletin do not indicate expected waiting times, but rather, the filing dates of petitions that are currently being processed for a visa. 83 INA §101(a)(35) provides that for immigration purposes, a person who was married through a ceremony where one or both parties were not present is not considered a “spouse” until such time as the marriage has been consummated. 8684 Federal enactments refer to “any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States.” P.L. 104-199, §3. 8785 P.L. 104-199. For further discussion, see CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG543, Updated: Treatment of Same-Sex Spouses under Federal Immigration Law, by Kate M. Manuel and Michael John Garcia. 8886 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, The Uniting American Families Act: Addressing Inequality in Federal Immigration Law, Statement of Christopher Nugent on behalf of the American Bar Association, 111th Cong., 1st sess., June 3, 2009. 8987 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, The Uniting American Families Act: Addressing Inequality in Federal Immigration Law, Statement of Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies, 111th Cong., 1st sess., June 3, 2009. 90 Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Statement on Implementation of the Supreme Court Ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act, July 2, 2013. See also Julia Preston, Gay Married Man in Florida Is Approved for Green Card, N.Y. Times, June 30, 2013; and D'Vera Cohn, Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage will likely impact immigration, too, Pew Research Center, June 26, 2013. DHS is accepting petitions from same-sex couples regardless of whether the state in which they reside recognizes same-sex marriage. See http://www.dhs.gov/topic/implementationsupreme-court-ruling-defense-marriage-act. This is arguably in keeping with prior practices by DHS and the former INS, which have historically looked to the law of the place where the marriage occurred, and not where the couple currently resides, in determining whether marriages are valid for immigration purposes. Congressional Research Service 23 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy The INA, however, does not permit either U.S. citizens or LPRs to sponsor other relatives such as grandparents, cousins, aunts, and uncles. Supporters of current law argue that parents and children should be considered immediate family members regardless of their age or marital status.91 They contend that siblings are considered immediate relatives in many cultures.92 A central argument for expanding family-based immigration is to reduce the current visa queue of 4.3 Congressional Research Service 20 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy visa petitions filed on behalf of a same-sex spouse in the same manner as those filed on behalf of an opposite-sex spouse.”88 That policy remains in effect currently. Unaccompanied Alien Children The number of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras seeking to enter the United States has increased substantially in recent years.89 In FY2014, total UAC apprehensions reached over 68,000, up from 8,000 in FY2008. Since 2012, children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (Central America’s “northern triangle”) account for almost all of this increase. While policies addressing the surge in unaccompanied minors generally lie outside the scope of family-based immigration policy (e.g., border enforcement, asylum policy), the issue highlights the importance of family reunification as a key motivating factor for migrating to the United States. 90 U.N. survey data indicate that sizable percentages of children residing in northern triangle countries have at least one parent living in the United States.91 Family reunification is a salient feature of UAC processing in the United States. Upon apprehension, unaccompanied children are immediately put into removal proceedings. Yet, by law, persons apprehended by Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and whom CBP determines to be unaccompanied children from countries other than Mexico and Canada must be turned over to the care and custody of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) while they await their removal hearing. ORR is required to place these children in the least restrictive setting possible that accounts for the child’s best interests.92 In an estimated 90% of these cases, children are placed with parents, siblings, and extended relatives who currently reside in the United States.93 The desire for family reunification is also driven by the perception that children who are not immediately returned to their home countries can reside with their family members for periods 88 Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Statement on Implementation of the Supreme Court Ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act, July 2, 2013. See also Julia Preston, Gay Married Man in Florida Is Approved for Green Card, N.Y. Times, June 30, 2013; and D'Vera Cohn, Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage will likely impact immigration, too, Pew Research Center, June 26, 2013. DHS is accepting petitions from same-sex couples regardless of whether the state in which they reside recognizes same-sex marriage. See http://www.dhs.gov/topic/implementationsupreme-court-ruling-defense-marriage-act. This is arguably in keeping with prior practices by DHS and the former INS, which have historically looked to the law of the place where the marriage occurred, and not where the couple currently resides, in determining whether marriages are valid for immigration purposes. 89 See CRS Report R43628, Unaccompanied Alien Children: Potential Factors Contributing to Recent Immigration, coordinated by William A. Kandel; and CRS Report R43599, Unaccompanied Alien Children: An Overview, by Lisa Seghetti, Alison Siskin, and Ruth Ellen Wasem. 90 U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Children on the Run: Unaccompanied Children Leaving Central America and Mexico and the Need for International Protection, March 12, 2014, http://www.unhcrwashington.org/ sites/default/files/1_UAC_Children%20on%20the%20Run_Full%20Report.pdf. 91 The figure is 49% in El Salvador, 27% in Guatemala, and 47% in Honduras. By comparison, the figure for Mexico is 22%. Ibid. 92 8 U.S.C. §1232(b)(2). See also “What is the “best interest of the child” standard, and how does it apply to immigration detention and removal decisions?” in CRS Report R43623, Unaccompanied Alien Children—Legal Issues: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, by Kate M. Manuel and Michael John Garcia. 93 Administration for Children and Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Unaccompanied Alien Children Program, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, fact sheet, May 2014. Congressional Research Service 21 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy extending several years. Many contend that the considerable length of time unaccompanied minors can expect to wait until their removal hearing contributes to incentivizing the migration.94 Complicating this situation is the fact that sizable proportions of these family members are estimated to be unauthorized aliens.95 According to DHS, the estimated unauthorized populations in 2012 of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans living in the United States was 690,000; 560,000; and 360,000; respectively, representing 55%, 64%, and 67% of all foreign-born residents from those three countries living in the United States.96 Broader Immigration Questions The following section discusses a set of broad immigration policy questions that have been raised by both of the congressionally mandated commissions and other observers. Family Reunification versus Family Reconstitution As noted above, the INA allows LPRs and U.S. citizens to sponsor spouses and unmarried children. U.S. citizens, in addition, may sponsor parents, married adult children, and siblings. The INA, however, does not permit either U.S. citizens or LPRs to sponsor other relatives such as grandparents, cousins, aunts, and uncles. Supporters of current law argue that parents and children should be considered immediate family members regardless of their age or marital status.97 They contend that siblings are considered immediate relatives in many cultures.98 A central argument for expanding family-based immigration is to reduce the current visa queue of 4.2 million persons with approved immigration petitions who must wait years to receive a visa to immigrate. As highlighted by Visa Bulletin priority dates, family separation can last for years or even decades, which some contend keeps thousands of families and individual lives and careers suspended and causes emotional and psychological distress.93 However, advocates of fewer immigrant admissions take issue with the extent of broadening family reunification.94 They argue that the United States has neither the responsibility nor obligation to effectively reconstitute immigrants’ families beyond immediate relatives.9599 94 As of March 2014, the average wait time nationwide for all immigration proceedings was 566 days, or about 19 months. This figure is based upon an analysis by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) of data obtained from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) for all immigration cases, not just those involving unaccompanied children. However, the 19 month figure is an average for all immigration courts, and comprises a range of periods, some of which extend far beyond 19 months. The length of time until a final judgment occurs varies widely depending on appeals and individual circumstances. See TRAC Immigration data, http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog, accessed June 2014. 95 As a policy, ORR does not record the legal status of family members with whom the unaccompanied child is placed. 96 Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytina, Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2012, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, March 2013. For comparison, the unauthorized proportion of the total foreign-born population for Mexico is 58%. These figures do not account for considerable numbers of U.S.-born children whose parents were born in these countries. For more on the demographics of legal status among the foreign-born, see CRS Report R41592, The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics, by William A. Kandel. 97 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Hearing on the Role of Family-Based Immigration in the U.S. Immigration System, Testimony of Bill Ong Hing, 110th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2007, pp. 23-35. 98 Ibid. 99 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border (continued...) Congressional Research Service 22 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy However, advocates of fewer immigrant admissions take issue with the extent of broadening family reunification.100 They argue that the United States has neither the responsibility nor obligation to effectively reconstitute immigrants’ families beyond immediate relatives.101 They assert that U.S. immigration policy is currently among the most generous in the world and would continue to be so even if legal immigration were substantially curtailed.96102 While they accept that family reunification is an important goal, they argue that the United States has neither the responsibility nor obligation to accept immigrants’ relatives beyond the nuclear family. Those favoring limiting family-based preference admissions to just immediate family members (i.e., spouses and minor unmarried children) note that such a limitation was recommended by the Jordan Commission. They contend current polices have resulted in an extensive visa queue that in many cases places more distant relatives ahead of nuclear family members.97103 Family Reunification versus Economic Priorities Some observers fault U.S. immigration policy for operating largely irrespective of current economic and labor market conditions.98 Because current family-based immigration provisions do 91 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Hearing on the Role of Family-Based Immigration in the U.S. Immigration System, Testimony of Bill Ong Hing, 110th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2007, pp. 23-35. 92 Ibid. 93 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border104 Because current family-based immigration provisions do not require minimum education or skill requirements, they arguably do not yield optimal labor market benefits for the United States.105 Critics of family-based immigration also contend that current policies foster relatively greater demand for taxpayer-funded social services106 by admitting relatively less-educated persons who frequently work in lower-paid occupations or who have higher unemployment rates.107 Although critics argue that family-based immigration policies do not adjust for changing labor market requirements in specific industries and for specific occupations, others cite evidence of (...continued) Security, and International Law, The Separation of Nuclear Families under U.S. Immigration Law, testimony of Mr. Randall Emery, 113th Cong., 1st sess., March 14, 2013; Daniel Huang, A Devastating Wait: Family Unity and the Immigration Backlogs, Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California, 2008; and Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc, The Impact of Our Immigration Laws and Policies on U.S. Families, 1999. 94100 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Role of Family-based Immigration in the U.S. Immigration System, testimony of Representative Steve King, 110th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2007. See also William Buchanan, Myths of Family Reunification, The Social Contract Press, Fall 1996. 95101 Ibid. 96102 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, America’s Immigration System: Opportunities for Legal Immigration and Enforcement of Laws against Illegal Immigration, testimony of Representatives Robert Goodlatte and Lamar Smith, 113th Cong., 1st sess., February 5, 2013. 97103 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Hearing on the Role of Family-Based Immigration in the U.S. Immigration System, Responses to post-hearing questions from Representative Phil Gingrey, 110th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2007, p. 133. 98104 George J. Borjas, Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy, Princeton University Press, 1999 (hereinafter cited as Borjas, “Heaven’s Door”). Congressional Research Service 24 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy not require minimum education or skill requirements, they arguably do not yield optimal labor market benefits for the United States.99 Critics of family-based immigration also contend that current policies foster relatively greater demand for taxpayer-funded social services100 by admitting relatively less-educated persons who frequently work in lower-paid occupations or who have higher unemployment rates.101 Although critics argue that family-based immigration policies do not adjust for changing labor market requirements in specific industries and for specific occupations, others cite evidence of 105 Ibid. Persons without a high school diploma currently make up almost one-third of all foreign born ages 25 and older, compared to 11% for the native-born of the same age bracket, which critics of current policies cite as evidence of labor market competition with the least advantaged native workers. See The U.S. Foreign-Born Population, by William A. Kandel. 106 Borjas, Heaven’s Door, Ch.6. For a review of recent research, see archived CRS Report R42053, Fiscal Impacts of the Foreign-Born Population, by William A. Kandel. 107 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Foreign-born Workers: Labor Force Characteristics—2011,” press release, May 24, 2012. Congressional Research Service 23 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy their positive impact on long-term employment needs. Studies suggest that while employmentbased immigrants serve short-term labor market needs, family-based immigrants serve such needs more effectively over the long term.102108 A related argument posits that the skill mixskills of immigrants entering the United States under the current immigration system matches the skill distribution those required of the future workforce more accurately than some suggest.103109 For example, between 2000 and 2010, the foreign-born population contributed almost all the growth in the prime 25 to 55 working age population.104110 The foreign born also work in occupations with above-average expected growth.105 111 Some cite these trends to argue that current immigration policies admit people whose occupational and sectoral employment profiles match projected demands of the U.S. economy. Proponents of family-based immigration also argue that family reunification in the United States helps immigrants contribute more to their communities and the U.S. economy through improved productivity, health, and emotional support.106 Similarly, proponents of the 4th family preference 99 Ibid. Persons without a high school diploma currently make up almost one-third of all foreign born ages 25 and older, compared to 11% for the native-born of the same age bracket, which critics of current policies cite as evidence of labor market competition with the least advantaged native workers. See The U.S. Foreign-Born Population, by William A. Kandel. 100 Borjas, Heaven’s Door, Ch.6. For a review of recent research, see archived CRS Report R42053, Fiscal Impacts of the Foreign-Born Population, by William A. Kandel. 101 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Foreign-born Workers: Labor Force Characteristics—2011,” press release, May 24, 2012. 102112 Similarly, proponents of the 4th family preference siblings category, which the Jordan Commission recommended eliminating, argue that immigrant siblings are often involved with entrepreneurial enterprises and family businesses, a traditional immigrant pathway to economic mobility and a source for economic revitalization in disadvantaged urban and rural areas.113 Chain Migration “Chain migration” refers to a process by which family-based immigration creates selfperpetuating and expanding migration flows, as foreign nationals who obtain lawful permanent 108 These analyses suggest that while employment-based immigrants experience similar earnings and earnings growth as native workers, they are relatively less likely to obtain substantial additional training and education, given that they received visas for skills already acquired. By contrast, family-based immigrants, who are more likely to accommodate new opportunities by acquiring education and changing occupations, experience greater earnings growth from an initially lower level. See U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Hearing on the Role of Family-Based Immigration in the U.S. Immigration System, Testimony of Harriet Duleep, 110th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2007, pp. 12-22; and Guillermina Jasso and Mark R. Rosenzweig, “Do Immigrants Screened for Skills Do Better than Family Reunification Immigrants?,” International Migration Review, vol. 29, no. 1 (Spring 1995), pp. 85-111; Harriet Orcutt Duleep and Daniel J. Dowhan, “Insights from Longitudinal Data on the Earnings Growth of U.S. Foreign-born Men,” Demography, vol. 39, no. 3 (August 2002), pp. 485-506. 103109 See U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Hearing on the Role of Family-Based Immigration in the U.S. Immigration System, Testimony of Bill Ong Hing, 110th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2007, pp. 28-32; and B. Lindsay Lowell, Julia Gelatt, and Jeanne Batalova, Immigrants and Labor Force Trends: The Future, Past, and Present, Migration Policy Institute, Washington, DC, July 2006. 104110 The U.S. Foreign-Born Population, p. 14. 105111 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Projections Overview, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2012-13 Edition, Washington, DC, March 29, 2012. 106112 U.S. Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, p.357; U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Hearing on the Role of Family-Based Immigration in the U.S. Immigration System, Testimony of Representative John Conyers Jr., (continued...) Congressional Research Service 25 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy siblings category, which the Jordan Commission recommended eliminating, argue that immigrant siblings are often involved with entrepreneurial enterprises and family businesses, a traditional immigrant pathway to economic mobility and a source for economic revitalization in disadvantaged urban and rural areas.107 Chain Migration “Chain migration” refers to a process by which family-based immigration creates selfperpetuating and expanding migration flows, as foreign nationals who obtain lawful permanent 110th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2007, p.6-7. For mostly qualitative assessments of the costs and benefits to immigrants of family separation and family reunification, see Daniel Huang, A Devastating Wait: Family Unity and the Immigration Backlogs, Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California, 2008 and Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc, The Impact of Our Immigration Laws and Policies on U.S. Families, 1999. 113 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Hearing on the Role of Family-Based Immigration in the U.S. Immigration System, Testimony of Stuart Anderson, National Foundation for American Policy, 110th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2007. Congressional Research Service 24 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy resident status and citizenship then sponsor other relatives under the same family-based immigration provisions under which they themselves were sponsored. As noted, while admissions under the four family preference categories face numerical limits as well as a per-country ceiling, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens are admitted without numerical restriction of either type. Some have likened the potential for immigrant population growth under current policy to a genealogical table, where a new “link” of an immigrant chain is formed each time an admitted immigrant sponsors a new family-related immigrant who then may do the same for another new immigrant.108114 Critics of family-based immigration policy argue that such processes could potentially generate hundreds of new immigrants from a single LPR admission.109115 Reverend Hesburgh, chair of the U.S. Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, offered the following illustration in 1981: Assume one foreign-born married couple, both naturalized, each with two siblings who are also married and each new nuclear family having three children. The foreign-born married couple may petition for the admission of their siblings. Each has a spouse and three children who come with their parents. Each spouse is a potential source for more immigration, and so it goes. It is possible that no less than 84 persons would become eligible for visas in a relatively short period of time.110116 Although family-based immigration could hypothetically generate sizeable impacts, empirical studies of actual “immigrant multipliers”111117 estimate more modest effects.112 Several factors limit (...continued) 110th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2007, p.6-7. For mostly qualitative assessments of the costs and benefits to immigrants of family separation and family reunification, see Daniel Huang, A Devastating Wait: Family Unity and the Immigration Backlogs, Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California, 2008 and Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc, The Impact of Our Immigration Laws and Policies on U.S. Families, 1999. 107 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Hearing on the Role of Family-Based Immigration in the U.S. Immigration System, Testimony of Stuart Anderson, National Foundation for American Policy, 110th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2007. 108118 Several factors limit the impact of chain migration. First, with the exception of the 2nd family preference category, family-sponsored admissions require that sponsoring immigrants possess U.S. citizenship. However, recent studies indicate that many LPRs who are eligible to become U.S. citizens choose not to do so.119 Second, not all persons eligible to immigrate to the United States wish to do so. 114 Guillermina Jasso and Mark R. Rosenzweig, “Family Reunification and the Immigration Multiplier: U.S. Immigration Law, Origin-Country Conditions, and the Reproduction of Immigrants,” Demography, vol. 23, no. 3 (August 1986), pp. 291-311 (hereinafter cited as “Jasso and Rosenzweig, 1986”). 109115 NumbersUSA, Chain Migration Under Current U.S. Law; The Potential Impact of a Single Immigrant Admission, Arlington, VA, 2009. 110116 Theodore M. Hesburgh, Supplemental statement, Final Report: U.S. Immigration Policy and the National Interest, U.S. Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, Washington, DC, 1981, pp. 335-341. 111117 Jasso and Rosenzweig, 1986, define the immigration multiplier as “the number of future immigrants who come to the United States as the result of the admission of one current immigrant,” who “is not him or herself sponsored for a family reunification visa by a previous immigrant.” See also Bin Yu, Chain Migration Explained: The Power of the Immigration Multiplier (New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2008), p. 7 (hereinafter referred to as “Yu, 2008”). 112 Jasso and Rosenzweig, 1986, whose analysis is considered a pioneering theoretical calculation, estimated an (continued...) Congressional Research Service 26 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy the impact of chain migration. First, with the exception of the 2nd family preference category, family-sponsored admissions require that sponsoring immigrants possess U.S. citizenship. However, recent studies indicate that many LPRs who are eligible to become U.S. citizens choose not to do so.113 Second, not all persons eligible to immigrate to the United States wish to do so. Both decisions—to naturalize for U.S.-based LPRs and to emigrate for relatives overseas—are affected by an array of individual characteristics and macro-level conditions in both the United States and the origin country. Consequently, estimates of multipliers are likely to vary substantially by country and period considered. Finally, as discussed above, long wait times for visas pose an impediment for many immigrants sponsoring relatives under the family-preference categories.114 Conclusion Family reunification is a fundamental principal underlying U.S. immigration policy. The nation’s immigration policies are unique in the world with respect to the sheer quantity of persons admitted for lawful permanent residence, their subsequent eligibility for U.S. citizenship, and the ability of U.S. citizens to sponsor other family members for lawful permanent residence.115 Family-sponsored immigration currently accounts for two-thirds of all lawful permanent resident admissions each year. Two-thirds of family-sponsored admissions are made up of the unlimited category of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. (...continued) 118 Jasso and Rosenzweig, 1986, whose analysis is considered a pioneering theoretical calculation, estimated an immigration multiplier ranging between 1.16 and 1.4. See Yu (2008). Others have produced more recent estimates ranging from 0.5 to 18. See Fred Arnold, Benjamin V. Carino, and James T. Fawcett, et al., “Estimating the Immigration Multiplier: An Analysis of Recent Korean and Filipino Immigration to the United States,” International Migration Review, vol. 23, no. 4 (Winter 1989), pp. 813-838; D. M. Reimers, Still the Golden Door: The Third World Comes to America (2nd ed.) (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992); and Yu, 2008, p. 223. Recent work by Carr and Tienda estimate multipliers ranging from 0.96 to 5.31 across all cohorts of immigrants. See Stacie Carr and Marta Tienda, “Multiplying Diversity: Family Unification Migration and the Reginal Origins of Late Age Migration, 19812009 ,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, New Orleans, LA, April 11, 2013. One example estimated that four decades would transpire between the time a U.S. citizen petitioned for their married adult Mexican daughter, the daughter successfully emigrated to the United States and naturalized, and the daughter’s husband’s brother successfully immigrated to the United States. See Stuart Anderson, “The Myth of Chain Migration,” Forbes, October 16, 2011. 113119 DHS estimates that 8.58 million of the estimated 13.13 million LPRs living in the United States as of January 1, 2011, were 2012, were eligible to naturalize (and had not done so as of that date). Nancy Rytina, Estimates of the Legal Permanent Resident Resident Population in 2011, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Population Estimates, Washington, DC, July 2012. For a discussion of naturalization among the Hispanic population, see Paul Taylor, Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, and Jeffrey S. Passel, et al., An Awakened Giant: The Hispanic Electorate Is Likely to Double by 2030, Pew Research Hispanic Center, Washington, DC, November 14, 2012, p. 10. Naturalization rates are affected disproportionately by relatively low rates among Mexican immigrants. See Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, Mark Hugo Lopez, and Jeffrey Passel, et al., The Path Not Taken, Pew Research Hispanic Center, Washington, DC, February 4, 2013. 114 Analysts who estimate immigrant multipliers face an array of methodological challenges including how to define “immigration multiplier.” See J. M. Goering, “The Explosiveness of Chain Migration - Research and Policy Issues: Introduction and Overview,” International Migration Review, vol. 23, no. 4 (1989), pp. 797-812 and Bin Yu, Chain Migration Explained: The Power of the Immigration Multiplier (New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2008), Introduction. For a cautionary note, see Michael S. Teitelbaum, “Skeptical Noises About the Immigration Multiplier,” International Migration Review, vol. 23, no. 4 (Winter 1989), pp. 893-899. 115 Jeb Bush, Thomas F. McLarty III, and Edward Alden, U.S. Immigration Policy, Council on Foreign Relations, Independent Task Force Report No. 63, New York, NY, 2009, pp.1-12. Congressional Research Service 27 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy 2012, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Population (continued...) Congressional Research Service 25 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Both decisions—to naturalize for U.S.-based LPRs and to emigrate for relatives overseas—are affected by an array of individual characteristics and macro-level conditions in both the United States and the origin country. Consequently, estimates of multipliers are likely to vary substantially by country and period considered. Finally, as discussed above, long wait times for visas pose an impediment for many immigrants sponsoring relatives under the family-preference categories.120 Conclusion Family reunification is a fundamental principal underlying U.S. immigration policy. The nation’s immigration policies are unique in the world with respect to the sheer quantity of persons admitted for lawful permanent residence, their subsequent eligibility for U.S. citizenship, and the ability of U.S. citizens to sponsor other family members for lawful permanent residence.121 Family-sponsored immigration currently accounts for two-thirds of all lawful permanent resident admissions each year. Two-thirds of family-sponsored admissions are made up of the unlimited category of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. The increase in lawful permanent admissions since 1980 has produced a sizeable queue of prospective immigrants sponsored by their U.S.-based citizen and LPR relatives. As of November 20121, 2013, that queue, measured by the State Department, amounted to 4.32 million persons with approved petitions to immigrate under the numerically limited family preference categories who were waiting for a visa to become available. Most are waiting overseas separated from their U.S.based relatives and unable to visit the United States. The shift in immigrant country-of-origin composition since the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 is reflected in the visa queue. The five countries with the greatest numbers of persons in the queue—Mexico, the Philippines, India, Vietnam, and China—accounted for almost 60% of the total (Table 63). The 3rd preference (adult married children of U.S. citizens) and 4th preference (siblings of U.S. citizens) categories accounted for 77% of the total. The former is dominated by persons from Latin America, while the latter is dominated by persons from Asia. The extensive queue and associated lengthy wait times to receive a visa and the related family separation remain among the most prominent and contentious issues within family-based immigration policy. The monthly Visa Bulletin, produced by the State Department, illustrates how (...continued) Estimates, Washington, DC, July 2013, Table 1. For a discussion of naturalization among the Hispanic population, see Paul Taylor, Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, and Jeffrey S. Passel, et al., An Awakened Giant: The Hispanic Electorate Is Likely to Double by 2030, Pew Research Hispanic Center, Washington, DC, November 14, 2012, p. 10. Naturalization rates are affected disproportionately by relatively low rates among Mexican immigrants. See Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, Mark Hugo Lopez, and Jeffrey Passel, et al., The Path Not Taken, Pew Research Hispanic Center, Washington, DC, February 4, 2013. 120 Analysts who estimate immigrant multipliers face an array of methodological challenges including how to define “immigration multiplier.” See J. M. Goering, “The Explosiveness of Chain Migration - Research and Policy Issues: Introduction and Overview,” International Migration Review, vol. 23, no. 4 (1989), pp. 797-812 and Bin Yu, Chain Migration Explained: The Power of the Immigration Multiplier (New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2008), Introduction. For a cautionary note, see Michael S. Teitelbaum, “Skeptical Noises About the Immigration Multiplier,” International Migration Review, vol. 23, no. 4 (Winter 1989), pp. 893-899. 121 Jeb Bush, Thomas F. McLarty III, and Edward Alden, U.S. Immigration Policy, Council on Foreign Relations, Independent Task Force Report No. 63, New York, NY, 2009, pp.1-12. Congressional Research Service 26 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy the visa queue of 4.2the visa queue of 4.3 million persons translates into waiting times for immigrants. Each month, the State Department calculates cut-off dates for different family-sponsored categories. These dates signify that persons who filed their petitions before those dates are currently being processed for a visa. Cut-off dates range from 21.5 years for spouses and minor children of LPRs to over two decades for other family preference category applicants from oversubscribed countries. As such current U.S. family-based immigration policy has produced a set of circumstances that some have characterized as promising more than can be expected in a reasonable period of time.116122 Legislative options to address selected stand-alone policy issues—children of LPRs who “age out” of status, treatment of same-sex partners, inability of foreign nationals to visit the United States if they have U.S.-based relatives or pending immigration petitions, and family separation resulting from long visa waits—have been debated by scholars and policy makers. The broader policy question, in the context of the current immigration reform discussion, may be whether and how to address overall levels of legal immigration. Options at this level can be characterized as expanding, contracting, or revising family-based immigration. Such options revolve around classifying family categories as numerically limited or unlimited; decreasing or increasing current numerical limits; expanding or reducing the number of family preference categories; revising priorities among the different family-based categories; and using different selection procedures and criteria for admitting lawful permanent residents. 116122 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, The Separation of Nuclear Families under U.S. Immigration Law, testimony of Demetrios G. Papademetriou, 113th Cong., 1st sess., March 14, 2013. Congressional Research Service 28 Appendix. Table A-1. Annual Number of Lawful Permanent Admissions by Major Class, FY2001-FY2012 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 Immediate relatives 439,972 483,676 331,286 417,815 436,115 580,348 494,920 488,483 535,554 476,414 453,158 478,780 Spouses 268,294 293,219 183,796 252,193 259,144 339,843 274,358 265,671 317,129 271,909 258,320 273,429 Children 91,275 96,941 77,948 88,088 94,858 120,064 103,828 101,342 98,270 88,297 80,311 81,121 Parents 80,403 93,516 69,542 77,534 82,113 120,441 116,734 121,470 120,155 116,208 114,527 124,230 231,699 186,880 158,796 214,355 212,970 222,229 194,900 227,761 211,859 214,589 234,931 202,019 27,003 23,517 21,471 26,380 24,729 25,432 22,858 26,173 23,965 26,998 27,299 20,660 112,015 84,785 53,195 93,609 100,139 112,051 86,151 103,456 98,567 92,088 108,618 99,709 Married sons/daughters of USCs 24,830 21,041 27,287 28,695 22,953 21,491 20,611 29,273 25,930 32,817 27,704 21,752 Siblings of USCs 67,851 57,537 56,843 65,671 65,149 63,255 65,280 68,859 63,397 62,686 71,310 59,898 Non-family-based immigrants 387,231 388,800 213,460 325,713 473,172 463,552 362,595 390,882 383,405 351,622 373,951 350,832 Employment-based immigrants 178,702 173,814 81,727 155,330 246,877 159,081 162,176 166,511 144,034 148,343 139,339 143,998 41,989 42,820 46,335 50,084 46,234 44,471 42,127 41,761 47,879 49,763 50,103 40,320 Family-based immigrants Unmarried child., USCs sons/daughters of USCs Spouses & unmarried children of LPRs Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants CRS-29 Refugees, asylees, and parolees All other immigrants Total, all immigrants FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 113,330 131,816 48,960 78,351 150,677 221,023 138,124 167,564 179,753 137,883 169,607 151,372 53,210 40,350 36,438 41,948 29,384 38,977 20,168 15,046 11,739 15,633 14,902 15,142 1,058,902 1,059,356 703,542 957,883 1,122,257 1,266,129 1,052,415 1,107,126 1,130,818 1,042,625 1,062,040 1,031,631 Source: CRS presentation of data from 2001 through 2012 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. Notes: Figures in italics sum up to figures in roman type immediately above them. USC signifies U.S. citizen. CRS-30 Table A-2. Annual Lawful Permanent Admissions by Major Class, FY2001-FY2012 (Percent of total admissions) FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 Immediate relatives 42% 46% 47% 44% 39% 46% 47% 44% 47% 46% 43% 46% Spouses 25% 28% 26% 26% 23% 27% 26% 24% 28% 26% 24% 27% Children 9% 9% 11% 9% 8% 9% 10% 9% 9% 8% 8% 8% Parents 8% 9% 10% 8% 7% 10% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 12% 22% 18% 23% 22% 19% 18% 19% 21% 19% 21% 22% 20% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 11% 8% 8% 10% 9% 9% 8% 9% 9% 9% 10% 10% Married sons/daughters of USCs 2% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% Siblings of USCs 6% 5% 8% 7% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 6% Non-family-based immigrants 37% 37% 30% 34% 42% 37% 34% 35% 34% 34% 35% 34% Employment-based immigrants 17% 16% 12% 16% 22% 13% 15% 15% 13% 14% 13% 14% Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants 4% 4% 7% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% Refugees, asylees, and parolees 11% 12% 7% 8% 13% 17% 13% 15% 16% 13% 16% 15% 5% 4% 5% 4% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Family-based immigrants Unmarried child., USCs sons/daughters of USCs Spouses & unmarried children of LPRs All other immigrants Total, all immigrants Source: CRS presentation of data from 2001 through 2012 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. Notes: Figures in italics sum up to figures in bold immediately above them. Percentages may not sum completely due to rounding. USC signifies U.S. citizen. CRS-31 Table A-3. Key Proportions for Annual Lawful permanent Admissions, FY2001-FY2012 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 Percent of total lawful permanent admissions comprised of familybased admissions 63% 63% 70% 66% 58% 63% 66% 65% 66% 66% 65% 66% Percent of total lawful permanent admissions comprised of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens 42% 46% 47% 44% 39% 46% 47% 44% 47% 46% 43% 46% Percent of total familybased admissions comprised of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens 66% 72% 68% 66% 67% 72% 72% 68% 72% 69% 66% 70% Source: CRS presentation of data from 2001 through 2012 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. CRS-32 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Author Contact Information William A. Kandel Analyst in Immigration Policy wkandel@crs.loc.gov, 7-4703 Congressional Research Service 3327 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Appendix A. Demography of Family Based Immigrants This section examines family-based admissions by sex, principal versus derivative status, age, region of origin, and occupation. For ease of presentation and to represent what occurred over the past decade in its entirety, data were aggregated over the entire FY2000-FY2009 period.123 Table A-1 distinguishes principal from derivative immigrant admissions for the entire FY2000FY2009 period. Absolute numbers of principal qualifying immigrants made up 76% of total LPR admissions and 88% (not shown) of all family-based admissions. However, differences appear by categories with 3rd and 4th preference admissions comprising greater numbers of derivative than principal admissions over this period. They contrast sharply with admissions of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, and 1st and 2nd family preference categories, where principal admissions outnumber derivative admissions. In comparison, all other (non-family) lawful permanent admissions are more evenly divided between the two immigrant types.124 Table A-1. Principal and Derivative Immigrants, by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2009 (Figures represent admissions for the entire decade; proportions shown in parentheses) Admissions Type Principal Derivative Total Principal Derivative Total Immediate Relatives of USCs 1st Preference: Unmarried Sons & Daughters of USCs 2nd Preference: Spouses & Unmarried Children of LPRs 3rd Preference: Married Sons & Daughters of USCs 4th Preference: Siblings of USCs All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions Total Lawful Permanent Admissions 4,550,962 180,523 819,456 74,744 229,271 1,969,025 7,823,981 3,090 68,621 156,148 170,159 404,660 1,671,195 2,473,873 4,554,052 249,144 975,604 244,903 633,931 3,640,220 10,297,854 99.9% 72.5% 84.0% 30.5% 36.2% 54.1% 76.0% 0.1% 27.5% 16.0% 69.5% 63.8% 45.9% 24.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: CRS presentation of unpublished data for FY2000-FY2009, Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS), Department of Homeland Security. Because of subsequent minor adjustments, these data may differ slightly from published data found in the OIS Immigration Statistics Yearbook. Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions refer to employment-based immigrants, Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants, refugees and asylees. 123 Figures in this section of the report come from unpublished individual level DHS data that extend to only FY2009. Although not presented above, male and female admissions are roughly equal for many legal permanent admission categories, both for principal and derivative immigrants. Females make up a higher percentage of both immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (61%) and family 2nd preference immigrants (59%). Those proportions reflect a similar gender mix among the larger principal immigrant populations in those two groups. All other legal permanent immigrants, by contrast, included principal immigrants who were more likely to be male (63%) and derivative immigrants who were more likely to be female (61%). 124 Congressional Research Service 28 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Following the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965, immigrant country-oforigin composition shifted gradually from Europe to Asia and Latin America.125 European immigration, which accounted for 56% of total admissions during the 1950s, made up just 13% during the 2000s. In contrast, the proportion for Asian immigration increased from 5% during the 1950s to 34% during the 2000s. For Latin American immigration (from Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean), it increased from 23% to 41%, respectively.126 Figure A-1. Region of Birth by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2009 Source: CRS presentation of unpublished data for FY2000-FY2009, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions refer to employment-based immigrants, Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants, refugees and asylees, and other immigrants. Latin America includes Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, and South America. Oceana refers to Australia and New Zealand. Figure A-1 presents admissions by birth region for all family-based category and all other LPR admissions from FY2000 to FY2009. Although dominated by Latin America and Asia, a greater proportion of immigrants admitted as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens during this period originated from other regions in the world compared to immigrants admitted under other familybased categories. Immigrants admitted under the 1st and 2nd family preference categories 125 See The U.S. Foreign-Born Population, Table 1 and Figure 2. The largest share of Latin American immigrants to the United States originates from Mexico and the Dominican Republic; the largest share of Asian immigrants originates from China, India, and the Philippines. 126 Computed by CRS with data from the 2012 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Table 2. Congressional Research Service 29 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy originated mainly from Latin America, while those admitted under the 3rd and 4th preference category originated primarily from Asia. All other LPR admissions were distributed more evenly across geographic regions than immigrants admitted under any of the family-based categories. Immigrant age composition is a demographic measure that has potential fiscal impacts.127 Table A-2 displays the age distribution for immigrants admitted under each family-based admission category and for all other LPRs, from FY2000 to FY2009. Adults in the prime 25-44 working-age group dominate the 1st family-sponsored preference category as well as the all other lawful permanent admissions category. Immigrants age 65 and above make up a greater proportion among immediate relatives of U.S. citizens than among all other LPR categories, because that admission category is the only one that permits sponsorship of parents for LPR status. The 4th preference category, siblings of U.S. citizens, has a relatively greater share of the next-to-oldest, 45-64 age group and the highest median age, due in part to the extensive waiting times required for such persons to immigrate. In contrast, immigrants in the 2nd preference category (spouses and unmarried children of LPRs), which includes minors, have the largest proportion of children under age 18 and the lowest median age. Table A-2. Age Distribution and Median Age of Immigrants by Class of Admission, FY2000-FY2009 Age Range Immediate Relatives of USCs 1st Preference: Unmarried Sons & Daughters of USCs 2nd Preference: Spouses & Unmarried Children of LPRs 3rd Preference: Married Sons & Daughters of USCs 4th Preference: Siblings of USCs All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions Total Lawful Permanent Admissions 0-17 16% 22% 37% 32% 26% 20% 26% 18-24 14% 14% 17% 11% 13% 11% 13% 25-44 43% 56% 38% 37% 22% 53% 41% 45-64 17% 8% 8% 19% 37% 14% 17% 9% 0% 0% 0% 3% 2% 2% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Median Age 31 28 21 30 39 32 31 65+ Source: CRS presentation of unpublished data for FY2000-FY2009, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions refer to employment-based immigrants, Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants, refugees and asylees, and other immigrants. Admissions from all categories include varying numbers of derivative immigrants, made up largely of children. The subject of immigrant skills arises frequently in discussions of U.S. immigration policy. While DHS collects occupational information from newly admitted immigrants, many do not 127 For example, children tend to be net recipients of major publicly funded services such as public education, while those of prime working age contribute taxes across the span of their working careers. For more examples and discussion on how age affects the use of publicly funded services and tax contributions over immigrants’ lifetimes, see archived CRS Report R42053, Fiscal Impacts of the Foreign-Born Population, by William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service 30 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy report an occupation, limiting comparisons of skills across admission categories. Table A-3, which displays the broad occupational status of immigrants admitted between FY2000 and FY2009, indicates that 31% of all lawful permanent admissions during this period (10.3 million) did not report their occupation.128 Despite this shortcoming, these data suggest that a relatively smaller proportion of spouses and children of U.S. citizens are employed, that all immigrant categories include large proportions of children enrolled in school and college, and that the United States admits few retirees. Table A-3. Occupational Status of Immigrants by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2009 Percent of all admissions between FY2000 and FY2009 Employment Status Immediate Relatives of USCs 1st Preference: Unmarried Sons & Daughters of USCs 2nd Preference: Spouses & Unmarried Children of LPRs 3rd Preference: Married Sons & Daughters of USCs 4th Preference: Siblings of USCs All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions Total Lawful Permanent Admissions Employed 16% 31% 17% 32% 33% 34% 24% Unemployed 10% 6% 4% 4% 5% 3% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Homemaker 17% 4% 14% 12% 15% 7% 13% Student 20% 32% 42% 40% 36% 26% 26% Retiree 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 37% 27% 24% 13% 11% 30% 31% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Military Unreported Total Source: CRS presentation of unpublished data for FY2000-FY2009, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions refer to employment-based admissions, Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants, refugees and asylees, and other immigrants. Occupational status is based on occupation data collected by DHS during the LPR petition process. For admissions of immigrants who are newly arriving (excluding employment-based principal immigrants), occupation refers to the most recent occupation before entering the United States. For admissions of immigrants who are adjusting status (excluding employment-based principal immigrants), occupation refers to the most recent occupation in the United States. (Note that most nonimmigrants, except temporary workers, are ineligible to work in the United States prior to LPR approval. See CRS Report RL31381, U.S. Immigration Policy on Temporary Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.) 128 CRS analyzed the 31% of cases in the unpublished Office of Immigration Statistics dataset that had missing occupation data by examining frequency distributions of the following variables: country of birth, age, gender, class of admission, year of LPR status, marital status, and occupation reported at time of naturalization. No systematic biases for unreported occupation were evident from such distributions. Congressional Research Service 31 Appendix B. Admissions Figures for FY2002-FY2013 Table B-1. Annual Number of Lawful Permanent Admissions by Major Class, FY2002-FY2013 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 Immediate relatives of USCs 483,676 331,286 417,815 436,115 580,348 494,920 488,483 535,554 476,414 453,158 478,780 439,460 Spouses 293,219 183,796 252,193 259,144 339,843 274,358 265,671 317,129 271,909 258,320 273,429 248,332 Children 96,941 77,948 88,088 94,858 120,064 103,828 101,342 98,270 88,297 80,311 81,121 71,382 Parents 93,516 69,542 77,534 82,113 120,441 116,734 121,470 120,155 116,208 114,527 124,230 119,746 Family-preference immigrants 186,880 158,796 214,355 212,970 222,229 194,900 227,761 211,859 214,589 234,931 202,019 210,303 Unmarried child., USCs sons/daughters of USCs 23,517 21,471 26,380 24,729 25,432 22,858 26,173 23,965 26,998 27,299 20,660 24,358 Spouses & unmarried children of LPRs 84,785 53,195 93,609 100,139 112,051 86,151 103,456 98,567 92,088 108,618 99,709 99,115 Married sons/daughters of USCs 21,041 27,287 28,695 22,953 21,491 20,611 29,273 25,930 32,817 27,704 21,752 21,294 Siblings of USCs 57,537 56,843 65,671 65,149 63,255 65,280 68,859 63,397 62,686 71,310 59,898 65,536 Non-family-based immigrants 388,800 213,460 325,713 473,172 463,552 362,595 390,882 383,405 351,622 373,951 350,832 340,790 Employment-based immigrants 173,814 81,727 155,330 246,877 159,081 162,176 166,511 144,034 148,343 139,339 143,998 161,110 42,820 46,335 50,084 46,234 44,471 42,127 41,761 47,879 49,763 50,103 40,320 45,618 Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants CRS-32 Refugees, asylees, and parolees All other immigrants Total, all immigrants FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 131,816 48,960 78,351 150,677 221,023 138,124 167,564 179,753 137,883 169,607 151,372 120,186 40,350 36,438 41,948 29,384 38,977 20,168 15,046 11,739 15,633 14,902 15,142 13,876 1,059,356 703,542 957,883 1,122,257 1,266,129 1,052,415 1,107,126 1,130,818 1,042,625 1,062,040 1,031,631 990,553 Source: CRS presentation of data from 2002 through 2013 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. Notes: Figures in italics sum up to figures in roman type immediately above them. USC signifies U.S. citizen. CRS-33 Table B-2. Percentages of Annual Lawful Permanent Admissions by Major Class, FY2002-FY2013 (Percent of total admissions) FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 Immediate relatives 46% 47% 44% 39% 46% 47% 44% 47% 46% 43% 46% 44% Spouses 28% 26% 26% 23% 27% 26% 24% 28% 26% 24% 27% 25% Children 9% 11% 9% 8% 9% 10% 9% 9% 8% 8% 8% 7% Parents 9% 10% 8% 7% 10% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 12% 12% 18% 23% 22% 19% 18% 19% 21% 19% 21% 22% 20% 21% Unmarried child., USCs sons/daughters of USCs 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% Spouses & unmarried children of LPRs 8% 8% 10% 9% 9% 8% 9% 9% 9% 10% 10% 10% Married sons/daughters of USCs 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% Siblings of USCs 5% 8% 7% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 6% 7% Non-family-based immigrants 37% 30% 34% 42% 37% 34% 35% 34% 34% 35% 34% 34% Employment-based immigrants 16% 12% 16% 22% 13% 15% 15% 13% 14% 13% 14% 16% Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants 4% 7% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% 5% Refugees, asylees, and parolees 12% 7% 8% 13% 17% 13% 15% 16% 13% 16% 15% 12% 4% 5% 4% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Family-based immigrants All other immigrants Total, all immigrants Source: CRS presentation of data from 2002 through 2013 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. Notes: Figures in italics sum up to figures in bold immediately above them. Percentages may not sum completely due to rounding. USC signifies U.S. citizen. CRS-34 Table B-3. Key Proportions for Annual Lawful Permanent Admissions, FY2002-FY2013 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 Percent of total lawful permanent admissions comprised of familybased admissions 63% 70% 66% 58% 63% 66% 65% 66% 66% 65% 66% 66% Percent of total lawful permanent admissions comprised of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens 46% 47% 44% 39% 46% 47% 44% 47% 46% 43% 46% 44% Percent of total familybased admissions comprised of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens 72% 68% 66% 67% 72% 72% 68% 72% 69% 66% 70% 68% Source: CRS presentation of data from 2002 through 2013 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. CRS-35 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Author Contact Information William A. Kandel Analyst in Immigration Policy wkandel@crs.loc.gov, 7-4703 Congressional Research Service 36