U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
February 17, 2016
(R43145)
Jump to Main Text of Report
Summary
U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
William A. Kandel
Analyst in Immigration Policy
November 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 990,553 foreign nationals admitted to the United States in FY2013 as lawful permanent
residents (LPRs), 649,763, or 66%, were admitted on the basis of family ties. Of these
familybasedfamily-based immigrants admitted in FY2013, 68% were admitted as immediate relatives of U.S.
citizens. Many of the 990,553 immigrants were initially admitted on a temporary basis and
became immigrants by converting or
“adjusting”"adjusting" their status to a lawful permanent resident. The
proportion of family-based immigrants who adjusted their immigration status while residing in
the United States (54%) exceeded that of family-based immigrants who had their immigration
petitions processed while living abroad (46%), 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
familybasedfamily-based 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
INAspecifiedINA-specified numerical limits. As of November 1,
20132015, the visa queue included 4.
25 million persons.
Every month, the Department of State (DOS) produces its Visa Bulletin, which lists
“"cut-off
dates” 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, cut-off dates range between 1.5 years and 12.5 years ago.
For countries that send the most immigrants, the range expands to between 2 and 23 years ago.
Interest in immigration reform has increased scrutiny of
Long-standing debates over the number of legal immigrants to admit each year regularly place scrutiny on family-based immigration and
revived
revive debate over its proportion of total lawful permanent admissions.
Past or current proposals for
Proposals for overhauling family-based admissions have been made by numerous observers, including two
congressionally mandated commissions.
Those who
favorhave favored 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 emphasizeThey support expanding the numerical limits of
familybasedfamily-based 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
They favor eliminating several family-based preference categories
, and favoring only those for the immediate relatives of
U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Such
proposalsarguments reiterate recommendations made by
earlier congressionally mandated commissions on immigration reform.
Congressional Research Service
U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
Contents
Current Developments ..................................................................................................................... 1
Overview of Family-Based Immigration ......................................................................................... 2
Evolution of U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy ...................................................................... 3
Current Laws Governing Overall Admissions ................................................................................. 4
Legal Admissions Limits ........................................................................................................... 4
Per-Country Ceilings ................................................................................................................. 6
Laws Governing Individual Admission ..................................................................................... 7
Procedures for Acquiring Lawful Permanent Residence..................................................... 7
Derivative Admissions ........................................................................................................ 8
Laws Governing Child Admissions..................................................................................... 9
Conditional Resident Status .............................................................................................. 10
Findings from Earlier Congressionally Mandated Commissions .................................................. 10
Profile of Legal Immigrants ........................................................................................................... 12
Legal Immigration Admission Trends ..................................................................................... 12
Potential Legislative and Policy Issues .......................................................................................... 14
Supply-Demand Imbalance for U.S. Lawful Permanent Residence........................................ 15
Assessing the Per-Country Ceiling .......................................................................................... 18
Limitations on Visiting U.S. Relatives .................................................................................... 18
Impetus to Violate Immigration Laws ..................................................................................... 19
Aging Out of Legal Status Categories ..................................................................................... 19
Marriage Timing of Immigrant Children ................................................................................. 20
Same-Sex Partners ................................................................................................................... 20
Unaccompanied Alien Children............................................................................................... 21
Broader Immigration Questions..................................................................................................... 22
Family Reunification versus Family Reconstitution ............................................................... 22
Family Reunification versus Economic Priorities ................................................................... 23
Chain Migration....................................................................................................................... 24
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 26
Figures
Figure 1. LPR Admissions by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2013 ......................................... 13
Figure 2. Percent of LPRs Adjusting Status, by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2013 .............. 14
Figure A-1. Region of Birth by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2009 ....................................... 29
Tables
Table 1. Numerical Limits of the Immigration and Nationality Act ................................................ 5
Table 2. Actual Family-Sponsored Admissions by Major Class in FY2013.................................... 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 ......................................................................................................................... 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, FY2002FY2013 ....................................................................................................................................... 32
Table B-2. Percentages of Annual Lawful Permanent Admissions by Major Class,
FY2002-FY2013 ......................................................................................................................... 34
Table B-3. Key Proportions for Annual Lawful Permanent Admissions, FY2002-FY2013 ......... 35
Appendixes
Appendix A. Demography of Family Based Immigrants .............................................................. 28
Appendix B. Admissions Figures for FY2002-FY2013 ................................................................ 32
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 36
Congressional Research Service
U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
Current 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
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.
71 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-
based8based2 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.
9
3
Family-based immigration currently makes up two-thirds of all legal permanent immigration.
10
4 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.
25 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.
11
5
Interest in immigration reform has increased scrutiny of family-based immigration and has
revived
the discussion over the optimal number of total lawful permanent admissions. This report
provides an examination of family-based immigration policy.
In doing so, itIt 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 discusses the sizable queue of
approved immigrant petitioners waiting for an immigrant visa. It closes by discussing selected
policy issues.
7
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”).
8
In this report, “family-based” is synonymous with “family-sponsored.”
9
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.
10
The other major categories of legal permanent immigration include employment-based immigration, diversity visa
lottery immigrants, and refugees and asylees.
11
Annual Report of Immigrant Visa Applicants in the Family-sponsored and Employment-based preferences Registered
at the National Visa Center as of November 1, 2013, National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State.
Congressional Research Service
2
U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
approved immigrant petitioners waiting for an immigrant visa. It closes by discussing selected policy issues.
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,
126 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).
13
7 While the 1952 act largely retained the national origins quota system established in the
Immigration Act of 1924,
148 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.
159 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.
16
10 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.
1711 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.18numerically limited visa.12 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
12
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.
13
Also known as the McCarran-Walter Act.
14
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.
15
P.L. 89-236, also known as the Hart-Celler Act.
16
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.
17
“Permeable cap” refers to an immigration limit that can be exceeded in certain circumstances.
18
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
3
U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
established to evaluate U.S. immigration policy: the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy chaired by Theodore
Hesburgh19Hesburgh13 and the U.S. Commission on Immigration
Reform chaired by Barbara Jordan.
2014 Recommendations from these prominent immigration policy
assessments are
below discussed
below in “in "Findings from Earlier Congressionally Mandated
Commissions.”
Commissions."
Current Laws Governing Overall Admissions
Legal Admissions Limits
The INA enumerates a permanent annual worldwide level of 675,000 legal
admissions21 (Table
1admissions15 (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 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)
diversitydiversity visa lottery
immigrants22
immigrants16 (55,000); and (4)
refugees23 and asylees24refugees17 and asylees18 (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
'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.
2519 Immediate
relatives of U.S. citizens can become LPRs without numerical limitation, provided they meet
standard eligibility criteria that are required for all immigrants.26
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”).
20
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”).
21
INA §201.
22
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.
23
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.
24
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.
25
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.
26
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
4
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:
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 paroled 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.27 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
difference. 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
5
U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
since FY1996, ranging from a low of 258,584 admissions in FY1999 to a high of 580,348
standard eligibility criteria that are required for all immigrants.20
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.
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:
|
226,000
|
1st Preference:
|
Unmarried sons and daughters of citizens
|
23,400
|
+ unused 4th 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
|
65,000
|
+ unused 1st, 2nd, & 3rd Preference visas
|
Employment-Based Preference Immigrants
|
140,000
|
Diversity Visa Lottery Immigrants
|
55,000
|
Refugees and Asylees
|
Unlimited
|
TOTAL
|
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 annual level of family preference immigrants is determined by subtracting the number of visas issued to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens in the previous year and the number of aliens paroled 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.21 Unused visas in each 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 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
B-1A-1 and Table
B-2 in Appendix B A-2 in Appendix for admission data from
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 FY2013, a total of 649,763 family-based immigrants made up
almost two-thirds (66%) of all 990,553 LPR admissions (Table 2
).22 ). This proportion has remained
relatively stable for the past decade.
The 439,460 immediate relatives of U.S. citizens 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
twothirdstwo-thirds, has not changed since FY2002 (Table
B-3).
Table 2. Actual Family-Sponsored Admissions by Major Class in FY2013
Number
Percent
Total Family-Sponsored Immigrants
649,763
100%
Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens
439,460
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
24,358
4%
2nd
Preference: Spouses and children of LPRs
99,115
15%
(A) Spouses
39,854
6%
(A) Minor children
46,391
7%
(B) Unmarried sons and daughters
12,870
2%
3rd Preference: Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens
21,294
3%
4th Preference: Siblings of U.S. citizens
65,536
10%
Source: A-3).
Table 2. Actual Family-Sponsored Admissions by Major Class in FY2013
Number
|
Percentage
|
Total Family-Sponsored Immigrants
|
649,763
|
100%
|
Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens
|
439,460
|
68%
|
(A) Spouses
|
248,332
|
38%
|
(B) Minor children
|
71,382
|
11%
|
(C) Parents
|
119,746
|
18%
|
Family-preference immigrants
|
210,303
|
32%
|
1st Preference: Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens
|
24,358
|
4%
|
2nd Preference: Spouses and children of LPRs
|
99,115
|
15%
|
(A) Spouses
|
39,854
|
6%
|
(A) Minor children
|
46,391
|
7%
|
(B) Unmarried sons and daughters
|
12,870
|
2%
|
3rd Preference: Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens
|
21,294
|
3%
|
4th Preference: Siblings of U.S. citizens
|
65,536
|
10%
|
Source: CRS presentation of data from 2013 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics,
Department of Homeland Security, Tables 6 and 7.
Note
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: 2013, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, May 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 employment-
Congressional Research Service
6
U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
base admissions for that year.
2823 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).
29
24 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. For further discussion, see
“"Supply-Demand Imbalance for U.S. Lawful
Permanent Residence
”" and
“"Assessing the Per-Country Ceiling
,” below.
," 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).
3025 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.
31
26
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
nonimmigrant32nonimmigrant27 category (which
had initially permitted him or her to enter the United States legally) to LPR status.
3328 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.
28
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.
29
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).
30
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).
31
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.
32
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.
33
In FY2013, approximately 54% of all LPRs adjusted their status from within the United States. See 2013: Yearbook
of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, Table 6.
Congressional Research Service
7
U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
's home country.
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.
3429 In both cases, if the petition is approved, DOS
determines whether a visa is available for the foreign national
’'s admission category.
Available
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
support35support30 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.
36
31 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.
3732 This level of support is legally mandated for
at least 10 years or until the sponsored alien becomes a U.S. citizen.
38
Derivative Admissions
33
Derivative Admissions
Spouses and children who accompany or later follow
qualifying or principalqualifying or principal immigrants are
referred to as
derivativederivative 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,39accompany or follow-to-join,34 assuming they are not entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a
visa under another section of the INA.
40 Derivative immigrants count equally under category
34
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.
35
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.
36
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.
37
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.
38
For additional information, see CRS Report CRS Report RL33809, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public
Assistance: Policy Overview and Trends, by Alison 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.
40
INA §203(d).
Congressional Research Service
8
U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
35 Derivative immigrants count equally under category limits. For instance, the 65,536 immigrants admitted in FY2013 under the
4th4th family preference
category (siblings of U.S. citizens) shown in Table 2 include 14,891 spouses of qualifying
immigrants, 23,623 children of qualifying immigrants, and 27,022 qualifying immigrants or
actual siblings of U.S. citizens. Derivative immigrant status attaches to approval of the principal
immigrant’ immigrant's petition and requires no separate petition.
4136 In FY2013, derivative immigrants
represented about 10% of all family-based admissions and 22% of all LPR admissions.
42
37
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.
4338 For children
sponsored under the
2nd2nd 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.
44
39
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
4th4th family preference
immigrants.
4540 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.
4641 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.47
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.
42
CRS analysis of data from the 2013 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department
of Homeland Security, Table 7.
43
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.
44
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.
45
INA §201(b)(2)(A) and §203(a)(4), respectively.
46
INA §320.
47
INA §101(b)(1)(E).
Congressional Research Service
9
U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
citizenship upon arrival in the United States.42
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
conditional permanent residence status
.48.43 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.
4944 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.
50
45
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”"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.
5146 In all cases, USCIS reviews
the legitimacy of the marriage prior to removing or waiving the condition.
Findings from Earlier Congressionally Mandated
Commissions
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.
5247 Six weeks later, on March 18, 2013,
Dr. Susan Martin, former executive director of the Jordan Commission, testified at a hearing on
48
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.
50
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.
51
8 U.S.C. §1186a (c)(4).
52
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.
49
Congressional Research Service
10
U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
Dr. Susan Martin, former executive director of the Jordan Commission, testified at a hearing on comprehensive immigration reform before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
5348 During their
presentations, Teitelbaum and Martin both reiterated recommendations from the Jordan
Commission’ 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.
54
49
The Hesburgh Commission acknowledged that certain large-scale and relatively predictable
demographic trends—fertility and mortality rates, for instance—could allow
policy makers to
policymakers to formulate immigration policies around pre-determined optimal population sizes.
5550 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.
Legislative proposals have suggested both
increasing and decreasing the numbers of immigrants.
56
51
Family reunification was cited by both the Hesburgh and the Jordon Commissions as the primary
goal of U.S. immigration policy.
5752 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.
5853 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” immigration" would foster unauthorized immigration and
“"widespread dissatisfaction with U.S.
immigration laws.
”59 Both commissions considered options for reconfiguring family-based
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.
54
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).
55
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.
56
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.
58
U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, p.5.
59
U.S. Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, p. 378.
Congressional Research Service
11
U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
"54 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.
The Hesburgh Commission recommended eliminating the current
4th4th family preference category,
siblings of U.S. citizens.
6055 The Jordan Commission went farther, recommending the elimination
of what are currently the
1st, 3rd, and 4th1st, 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).
6156 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 FY2013 reveal several trends for lawful permanent
admission categories (Figure 1). First, admissions of total lawful permanent residents increased
18% over this period (with substantial fluctuations) from 841,002 persons in FY2000 to 990,553
persons in FY2013.
57 Second, the number of immediate relatives increased from 346,350
to
439,460 persons to 439,460 persons 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.
6258 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
B-2).
60
Ibid, p. 380.
U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, p. 61.
62
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.
61
Congressional Research Service
12
U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
A-2).
Figure 1. LPR Admissions by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2013
Source: CRS presentation of data from
20092009 and 2013 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 “
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 admission category.
As such it represents the proportion of LPRs in each class
category that was already residing in the United States at the time LPR status was granted. 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
preferencepreference category immigrants, particularly in
recent years, were admitted from abroad.
6359 In contrast,
most non-family-based immigrants
adjusted their status from within the United States.64
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.
64
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
13
U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
all other non-family-based immigrants mostly adjusted their status from within the United States.60
Figure 2. Percent of LPRs Adjusting Status, by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2013
Source: CRS presentation of data from the 2009 and 2013 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.
Other characteristics of family-based immigrants that merit attention for
policy makerspolicymakers 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
Potential Legislative and Policy Issues
Issues that are regularly raised in debates on family-based immigration policy include 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.
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.
Table 3.
Table 3. Visa Queue of Prospective Family-Preference Immigrants with
Approved Approved Applications,
for Selected Countries, as of November 1,
2013
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
1,308,761
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, 2013, National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State.
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
2015
Country
|
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
|
Mexico
|
1,342,840
|
107,584
|
92,404
|
180,490
|
203,947
|
758,415
|
Philippines
|
388,214
|
22,048
|
13,454
|
59,679
|
145,101
|
147,932
|
India
|
313,927
|
n.s.
|
n.s.
|
n.s.
|
61,047
|
241,900
|
Vietnam
|
282,031
|
7,495
|
n.s.
|
12,906
|
57,607
|
195,881
|
China
|
238,151
|
n.s.
|
n.s.
|
13,560
|
29,046
|
181,849
|
Dominican Republic
|
207,354
|
26,957
|
37,742
|
59,661
|
18,128
|
64,866
|
Bangladesh
|
183,093
|
n.s.
|
n.s.
|
n.s.
|
n.s.
|
170,971
|
Pakistan
|
131,008
|
n.s.
|
n.s.
|
n.s.
|
16,708
|
107,201
|
Haiti
|
119,685
|
18,317
|
10,855
|
23,266
|
15,613
|
51,634
|
Cuba
|
115,206
|
8,478
|
13,815
|
20,349
|
26,742
|
45,822
|
El Salvador
|
n.s.
|
11,196
|
n.s.
|
14,549
|
n.s.
|
n.s.
|
Jamaica
|
n.s.
|
17,499
|
n.s.
|
6,936
|
13,415
|
n.s.
|
All Others
|
1,133,765
|
103,214
|
107,752
|
89,359
|
238,637
|
583,247
|
Worldwide Totals
|
4,455,274
|
322,788
|
276,022
|
480,755
|
825,991
|
2,549,718
|
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, 2015, National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State.
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 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
familypreferencefamily-preference immigration petitions as of November 1,
20132015, stood at 4.
25 million applications
( (Table 3
), a 5% increase), a 2% decline over the prior year
’'s queue of 4.3 million.
65 61 Within this population,
queue size correlates inversely with preference category. For example, pending petitions filed
under the (highest)
1st1st preference category (
279,693322,788) represent just 7% of the total queue while
those filed under the (lowest)
4th4th preference category (2,
420,977549,718) make up 57% of the queue.
Waiting periods vary significantly depending on preference category priority and comprise both a
statutory and a processing waiting period.
66 62 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 4
).63).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.
6864 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
November 1, 2014. Table 4
February 1, 2016. Table 4 indicates, for example, that LPR petitions filed under the 1st family preference category
(unmarried children of U.S. citizens) on
June 8, 2007July 8, 2008, were being processed 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 above-average waiting times. For
instance, LPR petitions 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.
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. children that had been filed on or before November 1, 2003, were being processed on February 1, 2016, more than 12 years later.
Table 4. Visa Bulletin Cut-Off Dates for Family-Based Petitions,
November 2014
February 2016
(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: February 1, 2016)
Family Preference Category
|
China
|
India
|
Mexico
|
Philippines
|
All Other Nations
|
1st: Unmarried adult children of USCs
|
7/8/2008
|
7/8/2008
|
1/1/1995
|
11/1/2003
|
7/8/2008
|
2nd (A): Spouses and children of LPRs
|
9/1/2014
|
9/1/2014
|
6/8/2014
|
9/1/2014
|
9/1/2014
|
2nd (B): Unmarried adult children of LPRs
|
5/15/2009
|
5/15/2009
|
9/8/1995
|
2/1/2005
|
5/15/2009
|
3rd: Married adult children of USCs
|
10/1/2004
|
10/1/2004
|
9/8/1994
|
11/22/1993
|
10/1/2004
|
4th: Siblings of USCs
|
6/8/2003
|
6/8/2003
|
4/1/1997
|
8/8/1992
|
6/8/2003
|
Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin
for February 2016.
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.
6965 As each fiscal year closes (on September 30th), priority data progression or
retrogression may occur to keep visa issuances within annual numerical limitations.
7066 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.
7167 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 ofvisa queue reflects excess demand to immigrate permanently to the
United States over the
supply of statutorily determined slots, it is criticizedstatutorily determined supply of slots, many criticize it for keeping families
separated for what
manythey 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" below). Earlier debates over 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
"Findings from Earlier Congressionally Mandated Commissions."
Assessing 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)
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 4
).
).
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-
oforiginof-origin 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
percountryper-country ceilings—immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and 75% of
2nd 2nd (A) preference
immigrants—that benefit oversubscribed countries such as Mexico, India, and China.
72
68
Immigration reform advocates argue that family reunification should be prioritized over
percountryper-country 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.
73
69
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.
7470 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.
7571 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.
7672 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
1st1st family sponsored preference category, which, based on the cut-off dates shown in the latest
Visa Bulletin
( (Table 4), would take, at a minimum,
over 10 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” "overstaying" in the United States or enter the United States without inspection (i.e., illegally).
77
73 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.
7874 It is
also not known how many unauthorized aliens have petitions pending and are therefore part of
the 4.2 million family-based visa queue.
79
75
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
familybasedfamily-based 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.
80 76
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.
81
77 This occurs because children of LPRs
do not possess the same lack the 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 4
)
indicates that reclassification of 2(A) to 2(B) petitions currently extends the visa cut-off date and
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.
79
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.
80
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.
81
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.
Congressional Research Service
19
U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
) 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.
8278 (See also
“"Laws Governing Child
Admissions” above.)
Admissions" above.)
Marriage Timing of Immigrant Children
Differential treatment for unmarried children under the
1st1st family preference category and married
children under
3rd3rd 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
1st1st family preference
category. Hence, the need to remain in the
1st1st 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,
”83 “"79 "wife,
”" or
“"husband,
”" the 1996 Defense of Marriage
Act (DOMA) declares that the terms
“marriage” and “spouse,”"marriage" and "spouse," as used in federal enactments,
84
80 exclude same-sex marriage.
8581 Advocates of revising the INA to include same-sex permanent
partners contended that current policies were
“"cruel and unequal.
”86"82 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.
8783 Others supporting current restrictions opposed
samesexsame-sex 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”"marriage" and "spouse" for federal purposes.
DHS
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
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.
84
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.
85
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.
86
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.
87
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.
Congressional Research Service
20
U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
"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.
”88"84 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
85 In FY2014, total UAC apprehensions reached over 68,000
, up from 8,000 in FY2008. Since 2012,
(up from 8,000 in FY2008) before declining to roughly 40,000 in FY2015. In the first four months of FY2016, UAC apprehensions have exceeded 20,000. Since 2012, children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (Central America
’s “'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.
9086 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
87
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.
9288 In an estimated 90% of
these cases, children are placed with parents, siblings, and extended relatives who currently reside
in the United States.
93
89
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
immediately returned to their home countries can reside with their family members for periods 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
90
Complicating this situation is the fact that sizable proportions of these family members are
estimated to be unauthorized aliens.
9591 According to DHS, the estimated unauthorized populations
in 2012 in 2014 of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans living in the United States was
690,000;
560,000; and 360,000;631,000, 499,000, and 349,000, respectively, representing
55%, 6448%, 55%, and
6759% of all foreign-born
residents from those three countries living in the United States.
96
92
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.
9793 They contend that siblings are considered
immediate relatives in many cultures.
9894 A central argument for expanding family-based
immigration is to reduce the current visa queue of 4.
25 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.99
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
psychological distress.95
However, advocates of fewer immigrant admissions take issue with the extent of broadening
family reunification.
10096 They argue that the United States has neither the responsibility nor
obligation to effectively reconstitute immigrants
’' families beyond immediate relatives.
10197 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.
10298 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.
103
99
Family Reunification versus Economic Priorities
Some observers fault U.S. immigration policy for operating largely irrespective of current
economic and labor market conditions.
104100 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.
105101 Critics of family-based immigration also contend that
current policies foster relatively greater demand for taxpayer-funded social
services106 by
services102 by admitting relatively less-educated persons who frequently work in lower-paid occupations or who
have higher unemployment rates.
107
103
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.
100
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.
101
Ibid.
102
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.
103
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.
104
George J. Borjas, Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy, Princeton University Press, 1999
(hereinafter cited as Borjas, “Heaven’s Door”).
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.108 A related argument posits that the skills of immigrants
entering the United States under the current immigration system matches those required of the
future workforce more accurately than some suggest.109 For example, between 2000 and 2010, the
foreign-born population contributed almost all the growth in the prime 25 to 55 working age
population.110 The foreign born also work in occupations with above-average expected growth.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.112 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.
109
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.
110
The U.S. Foreign-Born Population, p. 14.
111
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Projections Overview, Occupational Outlook Handbook,
2012-13 Edition, Washington, DC, March 29, 2012.
112
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.,
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.114 Critics of family-based immigration policy argue that such processes could
potentially generate hundreds of new immigrants from a single LPR admission.115 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.116
Although family-based immigration could hypothetically generate sizeable impacts, empirical
studies of actual “immigrant multipliers”117 estimate more modest effects.118 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”).
115
NumbersUSA, Chain Migration Under Current U.S. Law; The Potential Impact of a Single Immigrant Admission,
Arlington, VA, 2009.
116
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.
117
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”).
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.
119
DHS estimates that 8.8 million of the estimated 13.3 million LPRs living in the United States as of January 1, 2012,
were eligible to naturalize (and had not done so as of that date). Nancy Rytina, Estimates of the Legal Permanent
Resident Population in 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
1, 2013, that queue, measured by the State Department, amounted to 4.2 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 3). 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 4.2 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 1.5 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.122
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.
122
U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law, market requirements in specific industries and for specific occupations, others cite evidence of their positive impact on long-term employment needs. Studies suggest that while employment-based immigrants serve short-term labor market needs, family-based immigrants serve such needs more effectively over the long term.104 A related argument posits that the skills of immigrants entering the United States under the current immigration system matches those required of the future workforce more accurately than some suggest.105 For example, between 2000 and 2010, the foreign-born population contributed almost all the growth in the prime 25 to 55 working age population.106 The foreign born also work in occupations with above-average expected growth.107 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.108 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.109
Chain Migration
"Chain migration" refers to a process by which family-based immigration creates self-perpetuating and expanding migration flows, as foreign nationals who obtain lawful permanent 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.110 Critics of family-based immigration policy argue that such processes could potentially generate hundreds of new immigrants from a single LPR admission.111 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.112
Although family-based immigration could hypothetically generate sizeable impacts, empirical studies of actual "immigrant multipliers"113 estimate more modest effects.114 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.115 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.116
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.117 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 1, 2015, that queue, measured by the State Department, amounted to 4.5 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 3). The 3rd preference (adult married children of U.S. citizens) and 4th preference (siblings of U.S. citizens) categories accounted for 76% of the total. Both categories are dominated by persons from Latin America and 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 the visa queue of 4.5 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 1.5 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 what cannot be expected within a reasonable period of time.118
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 policymakers.
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.
Appendix. Admissions Figures for FY2002-FY2013
Table A-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
|
Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants
|
42,820
|
46,335
|
50,084
|
46,234
|
44,471
|
42,127
|
41,761
|
47,879
|
49,763
|
50,103
|
40,320
|
45,618
|
Refugees, asylees, and parolees
|
131,816
|
48,960
|
78,351
|
150,677
|
221,023
|
138,124
|
167,564
|
179,753
|
137,883
|
169,607
|
151,372
|
120,186
|
All other immigrants
|
40,350
|
36,438
|
41,948
|
29,384
|
38,977
|
20,168
|
15,046
|
11,739
|
15,633
|
14,902
|
15,142
|
13,876
|
Total, all immigrants
|
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.
Table A-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%
|
Family-based immigrants
|
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%
|
All other immigrants
|
4%
|
5%
|
4%
|
3%
|
3%
|
2%
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
Total, all immigrants
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
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.
Table A-3. Key Proportions for Annual Lawful Permanent Admissions, FY2002-FY2013
FY2002
|
FY2003
|
FY2004
|
FY2005
|
FY2006
|
FY2007
|
FY2008
|
FY2009
|
FY2010
|
FY2011
|
FY2012
|
FY2013
|
Percentage of total lawful permanent admissions comprised of family-based admissions
|
63%
|
70%
|
66%
|
58%
|
63%
|
66%
|
65%
|
66%
|
66%
|
65%
|
66%
|
66%
|
Percentage 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%
|
Percentage of total family-based 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.
Author Contact Information
[author name scrubbed], Analyst in Immigration Policy
([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
Footnotes
1.
|
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").
|
2.
|
In this report, "family-based" is synonymous with "family-sponsored."
|
3.
|
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.
|
4.
|
The other major categories of legal permanent immigration include employment-based immigration, diversity visa lottery immigrants, and refugees and asylees.
|
5.
|
Annual Report of Immigrant Visa Applicants in the Family-sponsored and Employment-based preferences Registered at the National Visa Center as of November 1, 2015, National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State.
|
6.
|
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.
|
7.
|
Also known as the McCarran-Walter Act.
|
8.
|
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.
|
9.
|
P.L. 89-236, also known as the Hart-Celler Act.
|
10.
|
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.
|
11.
|
"Permeable cap" refers to an immigration limit that can be exceeded in certain circumstances.
|
12.
|
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.
|
13.
|
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").
|
14.
|
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").
|
15.
|
INA §201.
|
16.
|
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 [author name scrubbed].
|
17.
|
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 [author name scrubbed].
|
18.
|
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 [author name scrubbed].
|
19.
|
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.
|
20.
|
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: Policy and Trends, by [author name scrubbed].
|
21.
|
INA §201(c).
|
22.
|
FY2013 represents the most recent year for which published data on immigrant admissions are available from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office of Immigration Statistics, as of February 2016.
|
23.
|
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 Per-Country Ceilings, by [author name scrubbed].
24.
|
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).
|
25.
|
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).
|
26.
|
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.
|
27.
|
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 [author name scrubbed].
|
28.
|
In FY2013, approximately 54% of all LPRs adjusted their status from within the United States. See 2013: Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, Table 6.
|
29.
|
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 [author name scrubbed].
|
30.
|
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.
|
31.
|
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.
|
32.
|
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.
|
33.
|
For additional information, see CRS Report CRS Report RL33809, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview and Trends, by [author name scrubbed].
|
34.
|
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 a 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.
|
35.
|
INA §203(d).
|
36.
|
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.
|
37.
|
CRS analysis of data from the 2013 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, Table 7.
|
38.
|
INA §201(f). For a family-based second preference beneficiary whose LPR parent naturalizes and whose petition is converted to immediate relative classification, the child's age at the parent's naturalization determines the child's age.
|
39.
|
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.
|
40.
|
INA §201(b)(2)(A) and §203(a)(4), respectively.
|
41.
|
INA §320.
|
42.
|
INA §101(b)(1)(E).
|
43.
|
INA §204.
|
44.
|
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.
|
45.
|
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.
|
46.
|
8 U.S.C. §1186a (c)(4).
|
47.
|
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.
|
48.
|
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.
|
49.
|
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).
|
50.
|
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.
|
51.
|
For example, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744) that was passed by the Senate during the 113th Congress would have reclassified spouses and minor unmarried children of LPRs as immediate relatives, thus exempting them from family preference numerical limits. It also would have reallocated 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 [author name scrubbed].
|
52.
|
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.
|
53.
|
U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, p.5.
|
54.
|
U.S. Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, p. 378.
|
55.
|
Ibid, p. 380.
|
56.
|
U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, p. 61.
|
57.
|
As noted above, FY2013 represents the most recent year for which published data on immigrant admissions are available from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office of Immigration Statistics, as of February 2016.
|
58.
|
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.
|
59.
|
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.
|
60.
|
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, since March 4, 2013, some immediate relatives of U.S. citizens have been able to apply for provisional unlawful presence waivers before they leave the United States. The provisional 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 [author name scrubbed].
|
61.
|
U.S. Department of State, National Visa Center, Annual Report of Immigrant Visa Applicants in the Family-sponsored and Employment-based preferences Registered at the National Visa Center as of November 1, 2015. 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
Demetrios G. Papademetriou, 113th Cong., 1st sess., March 14, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
27
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
Mr. Randall Emery and Mr. Demetrios Papademetriou, 113th Cong., 1st sess., March 14, 2013.
62.
|
For more on agency processing, see CRS Report R44038, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Functions and Funding, by [author name scrubbed].
|
63.
|
The Visa Bulletin, updated each month, can be accessed at http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html.
|
64.
|
National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State, The Operation of the Immigrant Numerical Control System, Washington, DC.
|
65.
|
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.
|
66.
|
National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State, The Operation of the Immigrant Numerical Control System, Washington, DC.
|
67.
|
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.
|
68.
|
See also archived CRS Report R42048, Numerical Limits on Employment-Based Immigration: Analysis of the Per-Country Ceilings, by [author name scrubbed].
|
69.
|
National Immigration Forum, Immigration Backlogs are Separating American Families, Backgrounder, Washington, DC, August 2012.
|
70.
|
INA §214(b). Exceptions to this requirement include H-1 visa workers, L visa intra-company transfers, and V visa family members. See archived CRS Report RL31381, U.S. Immigration Policy on Temporary Admissions, by [author name scrubbed].
|
71.
|
See archived CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion: Policy and Trends, by [author name scrubbed], p. 7.
|
72.
|
See archived CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion: Policy and Trends, by [author name scrubbed].
|
73.
|
See archived CRS Report RS22446, Nonimmigrant Overstays: Brief Synthesis of the Issue, by [author name scrubbed]; and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Entry/Exit Overstay Report, Fiscal Year 2015, January 19, 2016.
|
74.
|
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.
|
75.
|
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.
|
76.
|
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.
|
77.
|
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.
|
78.
|
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.
|
79.
|
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.
|
80.
|
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.
|
81.
|
P.L. 104-199. For further discussion, see archived CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG543, Updated: Treatment of Same-Sex Spouses under Federal Immigration Law, by [author name scrubbed].
|
82.
|
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.
|
83.
|
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.
|
84.
|
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 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/implementation-supreme-court-ruling-defense-marriage-act, last updated on July 21, 2015, as of February 4, 2016. 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.
|
85.
|
See CRS Report R43628, Unaccompanied Alien Children: Potential Factors Contributing to Recent Immigration, coordinated by [author name scrubbed]; and CRS Report R43599, Unaccompanied Alien Children: An Overview, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
|
86.
|
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.
|
87.
|
The figure is 49% in El Salvador, 27% in Guatemala, and 47% in Honduras. By comparison, the figure for Mexico is 22%. Ibid.
|
88.
|
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 [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
|
89.
|
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, accessed by CRS on February 4, 2016.
|
90.
|
As of December 2015, the average wait time nationwide for all immigration proceedings was 659 days, or about 22 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 22 month figure is an average for all immigration courts, and comprises a range of periods, some of which extend far beyond 22 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 by CRS on February 4, 2016.
|
91.
|
As a policy, ORR does not record the legal status of family members with whom the unaccompanied child is placed.
|
92.
|
Robert Warren, "US Undocumented Population Drops Below 11 Million in 2014, with Continued Declines in the Mexican Undocumented Population," Journal on Migration and Human Security, vol. 4 (2016), Table 5; and 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, accessed on the U.S. Census Bureau's American Factfinder website by CRS on February 4, 2016. For comparison, the unauthorized proportion of the total foreign-born population for Mexico is 51%. 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 archived CRS Report R41592, The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics, by [author name scrubbed].
|
93.
|
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.
|
94.
|
Ibid.
|
95.
|
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, 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.
|
96.
|
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.
|
97.
|
Ibid.
|
98.
|
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.
|
99.
|
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.
|
100.
|
George J. Borjas, Heaven's Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy, Princeton University Press, 1999 (hereinafter cited as Borjas, "Heaven's Door").
|
101.
|
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 [author name scrubbed].
|
102.
|
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 [author name scrubbed].
|
103.
|
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Foreign-born Workers: Labor Force Characteristics—2011," press release, May 24, 2012.
|
104.
|
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.
|
105.
|
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.
|
106.
|
The U.S. Foreign-Born Population, p. 14.
|
107.
|
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Projections Overview, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2012-13 Edition, Washington, DC, March 29, 2012.
|
108.
|
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., 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.
|
109.
|
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.
|
110.
|
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").
|
111.
|
NumbersUSA, Chain Migration Under Current U.S. Law; The Potential Impact of a Single Immigrant Admission, Arlington, VA, 2009.
|
112.
|
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.
|
113.
|
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").
|
114.
|
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, 1981-2009 ," 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.
|
115.
|
DHS estimates that 8.8 million of the estimated 13.1 million LPRs living in the United States as of January 1, 2013, were eligible to naturalize (and had not done so as of that date). Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytina, Estimates of the Legal Permanent Resident Population in 2013, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Population Estimates, Washington, DC, September 2014, 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.
|
116.
|
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.
|
117.
|
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.
|
118.
|
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.
|