< Back to Current Version

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

Changes from February 17, 2016 to February 9, 2018

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.


U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

Updated February 17, 20169, 2018 (R43145)
Jump to Main Text of Report

Contents

Summary

Family reunification is2018

  • Table A-1. Annual Number of Lawful Permanent Residents by Major Class, FY2006-FY2016
  • Table A-2. Annual Number of Lawful Permanent Residents by Major Class, FY1996-FY2005
  • Table A-3. Percentages of Annual Lawful Permanent Residents by Major Class, FY2006-FY2016
  • Table A-4. Percentages of Annual Lawful Permanent Residents by Major Class, FY1996-FY2005
  • Table A-5. Key Proportions for Annual Lawful Permanent Residents, FY2006-FY2016
  • Table A-6. Key Proportions for Annual Lawful Permanent Residents, FY1996-FY2005
  • Summary

    Family reunification has historically been 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 admissionimmigration categories, as well as a per-country limit on total family-based admissionsimmigration. The five categories include immediate relatives (spouses, minor unmarried children, and parents) 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 990,5531,183,505 foreign nationals admitted to the United States in FY2013FY2016 as lawful permanent residents (LPRs), 649,763, or 66804,793, or 68%, were admitted on the basis of family ties. Of thesethe family-based immigrants admitted in FY2013, 68FY2016, 70% were admitted as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Many of the 990,5531,183,505 immigrants were initially admitted on a temporary basisnonimmigrant (temporary) visa and became immigrants by converting or "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%) exceeded34%) was substantially less than that of family-based immigrants who had their immigration petitions processed while living abroad (4666%), although such percentages varied considerably among the five family-based admissionimmigration 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,immigration. In FY2016, related (derivative) immigrants who accompanied or later followed principal (qualifying) immigrants averaged 12accounted for 9% of all family-based admissions annually. During that periodimmigration. In recent years, Mexico, the Philippines, China, India, and the Dominican Republic have sent the most family-based immigrants to the United States.

    Each year, the number of foreign nationals petitioning for LPR status through family-sponsored preferencespreference categories exceeds the supplynumerical limits of legal immigrant slotsvisas. 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, theThe visa queue constitutes not a backlog of petitions to be processedis not a processing backlog but, rather, the number of persons approved for visas not yet available due to INA-specified numerical limits. As of November 1, 20152017, the visa queue included 4.5numbered 3.95 million persons.

    Every month, the Department of State (DOS) producesissues its Visa Bulletin, which lists "cut-off dates" for each of the four numerically limited family-based admissions categoriesimmigration category. 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 1223 months and 13.5 years ago. For countries that send the most immigrants, the range expands to between 2 and 23 years ago.

    Long-standing debates over the number of legal immigrants to admit each yearlevel of annual permanent immigration regularly place scrutiny on family-based immigration and revive debate over its debates over whether its current proportion of total lawful permanent admissions. Proposals for overhauling family-based admissions have been made by numerous observers, including two congressionally mandated commissions.

    Those who have 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. They support expanding the numerical limits of family-based categoriesimmigration is appropriate. Proposals to overhaul family-based immigration were made by two congressionally mandated commissions in 1980 and 1995-1997. More recent legislative proposals to revise family-based immigration include S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act in the 113th Congress and S. 1720, the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act in the 115th Congress. Those who favor expanding family-based immigration by increasing the annual numeric limits point to the visa queue of approved prospective immigrants who must wait years separated from their U.S.-based family members until they receive a visa. Others question whether the United States has an obligation to reconstitute families of immigrants beyond their nuclear families. They favor eliminating several and favor reducing permanent immigration by eliminating certain family-based preference categories and favoring only those for the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Such arguments reiterate. Arguments favoring restricting certain categories of family-based immigration reiterate earlier recommendations made by earlier congressionally mandated commissions on immigration reform commissions. .


    U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

    Overview of Family-Based Immigration

    The United States has long distinguished settlement or permanent immigration from temporary immigration. Current U.S. immigration policy governing lawful permanent admissionsimmigration emphasizes four major principles: (1) family reunification; (2) admissionimmigration of persons with needed skills; (3) refugee protection; and (4) country-of-origin diversity.1 Family reunification, which has long been a key principle underlying U.S. immigration policy, is embodied in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended1 (INA), which specifies numerical limits for five family-based2 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 thatfive categories of family-based2 immigrants. These include the numerically unlimited category of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (spouses, minor children, and parents) and four numerically limited family preference categories. The latter vary according to individual characteristics such as the legalcitizenship status of the petitioning U.S.-based relative, and the age, family relationship, and marital status of the prospective immigrant.3

    In addition, the INA limits family preference immigration from any single country to 7% of each category's total.

    Family-based immigration currently makes up two-thirds of all legal permanent immigration.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 yearannually under the INA. Consequently, a visa queue has accumulated ofwith roughly 4.5 million persons who qualify as family-based immigrants under the INA but who must wait for a numerically limited visa to immigrate to the United States.5

    Interest in immigration reform and concerns over "chain migration"—a term that some use to characterize the process by which family-based immigration allows foreign nationals who obtain LPR status and citizenship to then sponsor other relatives under the family-based immigration provisions—has increased scrutiny of family-based immigration and has revived discussion over the optimal number of total lawful permanent admissions. This report provides an examination ofabout the appropriate number of annual permanent immigrants.6 This report reviews family-based immigration policy. It outlines a brief history of U.S. family-based immigration policies, discusses current law governing admissionsfamily-based immigration, and summarizes recommendations made by previous congressionally mandated committeescommissions charged with evaluating immigration policy. It then presents descriptive figuresdata 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 and legislative proposals.

    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,67 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).7INA in 1952.8 While the 1952 act largely retained the national origins quota system established in the Immigration Act of 1924,89 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, as well as relatives of U.S. citizens over those of lawful permanent residents (LPRs)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.10 It gave priority to immigrants with relatives living permanently in the United States.9 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.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 11 Twenty-five years later, Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-649) that, which increased total immigration under an overall what some have called a "permeable cap.11"12 The act provided for a permanent annual flexible levelcap 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 Admissionslater in this report in the section titled "Current Laws on Family-based Immigration."

    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 accumulatedGiven that continuity in immigration policy, earlier recommendations for revising family-based immigration policy to address certain perennial issues—in particular, the large "visa queue" of prospective family-based immigrants awaiting a numerically limited visa, and the high proportion of immigrants who enter based upon family ties—still have relevance.13 Key reform proposals originated from two congressionally mandated commissions established to evaluate U.S. immigration policy. Recommendations from these commissions are discussed in the section of this report titled "visa queue" of prospective family-based immigrants with approved petitions who are waiting for a numerically 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 Refugee Policy chaired by Theodore Hesburgh13 and the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform chaired by Barbara Jordan.14 Recommendations from these prominent immigration policy assessments are below discussed in "Findings from Earlier Congressionally Mandated Commissions."

    Current Laws Governing Overall Admissions

    on Family-based Immigration

    Legal AdmissionsImmigration Limits

    The INA enumerates a permanent annual worldwide level of 675,000 legal admissions15immigrants14 (Table 1). This limit, sometimes referred to as a "permeable cap," is regularly exceeded because immigration for certain LPR categories areis unlimited.15 The permanent annual worldwide immigrant level includes (1) family-sponsored immigrants, which are made up of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and family preference immigrants 1. family-sponsored immigrants (480,000 plus certain unused employment-based preference numbers from the prior year); (2) 2. employment-based preference immigrants (140,000 plus certain unused family preference numbers from the prior year); (3)and 3. diversity visa lottery immigrants16 (55,000); and (4) refugees17 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 relationship with his or her U.S.-based relative. The first category, immigrants16 (55,000).17Family-sponsored immigrants include five categories (Table 1). The first, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, includes spouses, unmarried minor children, and parents of adult U.S. citizens.1918 Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens can become LPRs without numerical limitation, provided they meet standard eligibility criteria that are required forof all immigrants.20

    19

    The next four family preference categoriescategories, family preference immigrants, 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 Immigrantsfamily 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, plus 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.2120 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 admissionsimmigrants and 226,000 for family preference admissionsimmigrants), then family preference admissionsimmigrants may exceed 226,000 by that difference. Neverthelessamount. However, since FY1996, annual immediate relative admissionsimmigrants have exceeded 254,000 each year since FY1996, ranging from a low of 258,584 admissionsimmigrants in FY1999 to a high of 580,348 admissionsimmigrants in FY2006.21 in FY2006 (see Table A-1 and Table A-2 in Appendix for admission data from FY2002-FY2013). As such, the annual limit of family preference admissionsimmigrants effectively has remained at 226,000 for the past two decades.22 Table 2. Actual Family-Sponsored Immigration by Major Class in FY2016 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 two-thirds, has not changed since FY2002 (Table A-3).

    Table 2. Actual Family-Sponsored Admissions by Major Class in FY2013

     

    Number

    Percentage

    Total Family-Sponsored Immigrants

    649,763

    804,793

    100%

    100%

    Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens

    439,460

    566,706

    6870.4%

    (A) Spouses

    248,332

    304,358

    3837.8%

    (B) Minor children

    71,382

    88,494

    11.0%

    (C) Parents

    119,746

    173,854

    1821.6%

    Family-preference immigrants

    210,303

    238,087

    3229.6%

    1st Preference: Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens

    24,358

    22,072

    42.7%

    2nd Preference: Spouses and children of LPRs

    99,115

    121,267

    15.1%

    (A) Spouses

    39,854

    42,089

    65.2%

    (A) Minor children

    46,391

    62,652

    7.8%

    (B) Unmarried sons and daughters

    12,870

    16,526

    2.1%

    3rd Preference: Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens

    21,294

    27,392

    3.4%

    4th Preference: Siblings of U.S. citizens

    65,536

    67,356

    108.4%

    Source: CRS presentation of data from 20132016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration StatisticsTables 6 and 7, Department of Homeland Security, Tables 6 and 7Office of Immigration Statistics.

    Note: Figures in italics sum up to figures in roman typeto the non-italicized figure immediate above them. Indented figures sum up to figures immediately above them. Percentages may not sum completely due to rounding. Differences between the actual number of family preference admissionsimmigrants 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 inbetween when visa petitions were approved versus when the immigrant appeared inimmigrants were admitted to the United States. For more information, see Randall Monger and James YangkayRyan Baugh, U.S. LegalLawful Permanent Residents: 20132016, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, May 2014.

    December 2017. Reflecting the INA's numerical limits, actual legal immigration to the United States is dominated by family-based immigration. In FY2016, a total of 804,793 family-based immigrants made up just over two-thirds (68%) of all 1,183,505 new LPRs.23 This proportion has remained stable for the past decade (see Table A-1, Table A-3, and Table A-5). The 566,706 immediate relatives in FY2016 represented over two thirds (70%) of all family-based immigration and almost half (48%) of all legal permanent immigration (Table 2). Per-Country Ceilings

    In addition to annual numerical limits on family preference admissionsimmigrants, the INA limits LPR admissionsLPRs from any single country to 7% of the total numberannual limit of family-based preference and employment-base admissions for that year.23based preference immigrants.24 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 admissionsimmigrants (spouses and children of LPRs).2425 Because the number of foreign nationals potentially eligible for a visa exceeds the annual supply of visasvisa limit 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 the sections later in this report titled, "Supply-Demand Imbalance for U.S. Lawful Permanent Residence" and "Assessing the Per-Country Ceiling," below.

    ."

    Laws Governing Individual Admission

    the Immigration Process

    Procedures for Acquiring Lawful Permanent Residence

    Becoming an LPR on the basis of a family relationship first requires that the petitioning or sponsoring U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident in the United States establish his or her relationship with the prospective LPR by filing. To do so, the sponsor must first file Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative with DHS's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).2526 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.26Immediate relatives, unlike family-preference immigrants, can file both petitions concurrently.

    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 nonimmigrant27 category (which had initially permitted him or her to enter the United States legally) to LPR status.28 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.

    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.29 In both cases, if the petition is approved, DOS determines whether a visa is available for the foreign national's admissionimmigrant category. Available visas are issued by "priority date," the filing date of their permanent residence petition. For more information, see the section on "Supply-Demand Imbalance for U.S. Lawful Permanent Residence" belowin this report.

    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 All family-based immigration requires that U.S.-based citizens and LPRs petitioning on behalf of (or sponsoring) their alien relatives submit a legally enforceable affidavit of support30support along with evidence that 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.31 29 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.3230 This level of support is legally mandated for at least 10 years or until the sponsored alien becomes a U.S. citizen.33

    Derivative Admissions

    31

    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, the INA treats such individuals as 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.32

    Derivative Immigrants

    Spouses and children who accompany or later follow qualifying or principal immigrants are referred to as derivative immigrants. Under current law, derivative immigrants are entitled to the same status and same order of consideration as the principal immigrants they accompany or follow-to-join,3433 assuming they are not entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under another section of the INA.35 Derivative34 As such, derivative immigrants count equally under category limits. For instance, the 65,536 immigrants admitted in FY2013 as principal immigrants within the numerical limits of each immigration category. For instance, the 67,356 immigrants admitted under the 4th family preference category (siblings of U.S. citizens) shown in in FY2016 (Table 2) include 23,815 qualifying immigrants or actual siblings of U.S. citizens as well as 16,468 spouses of qualifying immigrants and 27,073 children of qualifying immigrants 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's petition and requires no separate petition.36 In FY201335 In contrast, children classified as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens are not treated by the INA as derivatives and must each have a separate petition filed on their behalf. In FY2016, derivative immigrants represented about 109% of all family-based admissions and 22% of all LPR admissions.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 overimmigration, 43% of all other immigrant categories, and 20% of total immigration.36 Table 3. Principal and Derivative Immigrants, by LPR Category, FY2016

    Immigrant Type

    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 Residents

    Total Lawful Permanent Residents

    Numbers of Immigrants

    Principal

    566,703

    13,901

    121,247

    8,088

    23,815

    215,344

    949,098

    Derivative

    8,041

    19,292

    43,541

    163,343

    234,217

    Total

    566,703

    21,942

    121,247

    27,380

    67,356

    378,687

    1,183,315

    Percent of Total

    Principal

    100%

    63%

    100%

    30%

    35%

    57%

    80%

    Derivative

    0%

    37%

    0%

    70%

    65%

    43%

    20%

    Total

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    Source: CRS presentation of data from 2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Table 7, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics.

    Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. All Other Lawful Permanent Residents refer to employment-based immigrants, Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants, refugees and asylees.

    Table 3 distinguishes principal from derivative immigrants for FY2016. Absolute numbers of principal qualifying immigrants made up 76% of total LPRs and 91% (not shown) of all family-based LPRs in that year. Differences appear by category with 3rd and 4th preference immigrants comprised of greater numbers of derivative than principal immigrants. Those categories contrast sharply with immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, and 1st and 2nd family preference category immigrants, where principal immigrants outnumber derivative immigrants. In comparison, all other (non-family) immigrants are more evenly divided between the two immigrant types.37 Child Immigrants How the INA governs child immigrants depends on the child's age and marital status, as well as the citizenship 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 above, 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.38 For children sponsored under the 2nd family preference category, age is determined based on when an immigrant visa number becomes available, reduced by the amount of time (converted into years) that it took USCIS to process and approve the petition.39

    Additionally, under current law, only adult U.S. citizen childrencitizens may sponsor their foreign-born parents as immediate relatives and their foreign-born siblings as 4th family preference immigrants.40 Foreign-born children under age 18 automatically become naturalized U.S. citizens automatically upon admission to the United States if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization.41 Orphans adopted abroad by U.S. citizens or prospective LPRs must have been soadopted by age 16 (with exceptions) to acquire automatic citizenship upon arrival inadmission to 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 permanent residence status.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.44 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.

    44

    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.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" 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 requirementrequirements; (3) if the conditional residentalien spouse entered into the marriage in good faith but he or she or his or her child 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 that was subsequently deemed illegitimate because the U.S. citizen or LPR spouse subsequently diedengaged in bigamy.46 In all cases, USCIS reviews the legitimacy of the marriage prior to removing or waiving the condition.

    Findings from Earlier Congressionally Mandated Commissions

    On February 5, 2013, Dr. Michael Teitelbaum, commissioner and vice chair of the former U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (Jordan Commission), testified at a hearing on the American immigration system before the House Judiciary Committee.47 Six weeks later, on March 18, 2013, Dr. Susan Martin, former executive director of the Jordan Commission, testified at a hearing on comprehensive immigration reform before the Senate Judiciary Committee.48 During their presentations, Teitelbaum and Martin both reiterated recommendations from the Jordan Commission's 1995 and 1997 reports. Their testimony, occurring 15 years after the commission completed its assessment of U.S. immigration policy, underscores the continued relevance of past congressional debates on current issues surrounding family-based immigration. The Jordan Commission had relied on findings of its predecessor, the Select Committee on Immigration and Refugee Policy chaired by Theodore Hesburgh (the Hesburgh Commission), which issued its report in 1981, over three decades ago.49

    The Hesburgh Commission acknowledged that certain large-scale and relatively predictable demographic trends—fertility and mortality rates, for instance—could allow policymakers to formulate immigration policies around pre-determined optimal population sizes.50 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.51

    Family reunification was cited by both the Hesburgh and the Jordon Commissions as the primary goal of U.S. immigration policy.52 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.53 Nonetheless, the Hesburgh Commission, noting the imbalance between the demand for lawful permanent U.S. residence and visa supply, asserted that "raising false hopes among millions with no prospect of immigration" would foster unauthorized immigration and "widespread dissatisfaction with U.S. immigration laws."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 4th family preference category, siblings of U.S. citizens.55 The Jordan Commission went farther, recommending the elimination of what are currently the 1st, 3rd, and 4th family preference categories, thereby allowing only spouses and minor children and parents of U.S. citizens (immediate relatives), and spouses and minor children of LPRs (2A preference category).56 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 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.58 Third, other family-related categories saw nominal declines in admissions. Partly as a result of these mixed trends, and also as the result of increases in all other lawful permanent admissions, the proportion of family-based admissions to total lawful permanent admissions remained the same over this period (66%) with minor fluctuations (Table A-2).

    Figure 1. LPR Admissions by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2013

    Source: CRS presentation of data from 2009 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 "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 Same-Sex Partners

    The INA does not affirmatively define the terms "spouse,"47 "wife," or "husband." Previously, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) declared that the terms "marriage" and "spouse," as used in federal enactments,48 excluded same-sex marriage.49 However, the Supreme Court's June 26, 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor struck down DOMA's provision defining "marriage" and "spouse" for federal purposes.50 DHS subsequently approved the first immigrant visa for the same-sex spouse of a U.S. citizen, and then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano directed USCIS to "review immigration visa petitions filed on behalf of a same-sex spouse in the same manner as those filed on behalf of an opposite-sex spouse."51 That policy remains in effect.

    Profile of Legal Immigrants Legal Immigration Trends Immigration statistics for FY1996 through FY2016 reveal several trends among immigrants by category (Figure 1). First, total lawful permanent residents increased 29% over this period (with substantial fluctuations) from 915,900 in FY1996 to 1,183,505 in FY2016.52

    Figure 1. Immigration by Broad Category, FY1996-FY2016

    Source: CRS presentation of data from the 2005, 2009, 2013, and 2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Table 6, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics.

    Notes: All Other Lawful Permanent Residents refer to employment-based immigrants, diversity immigrants, refugees and asylees, and other immigrants.

    Second, the number of immediate relatives increased by 89% over this period, from 300,430 to 566,706, the largest increase of all family-based categories. Because annual family-sponsored preference immigrants are effectively capped at 226,000, immediate relatives—which are not numerically limited—accounted for the entire increase in total family-based immigration over this period.53 Increasing numbers of immigrants in other LPR categories explain why the proportion of family-based immigration to total immigration has remained constant at about two thirds over these two decades (66%). (For more data, see Table A-1, Table A-2, Table A-3, Table A-4, Table A-5, and Table A-6.) As noted in the section of this report titled, "Laws Governing the Immigration Process," individuals can become LPRs either by adjusting to LPR status if they currently reside in the United States, or by applying for LPR status from abroad. Figure 2 presents the percentage of LPRs who adjusted status by immigration 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 immediate relatives of U.S. citizens
    adjusted their status from within the United States over this period, while most family-based preference category immigrants, particularly in recent years, were admitted from abroad.5954 In contrast, all other non-family-based immigrants mostly adjusted their status from within the United States.60

    Figure 2. Percent of LPRs AdjustingWho Adjusted Status, by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2013

    FY1996-FY2016

    Source: CRS presentation of data from the 2009 and 20132005, 2009, 2013, and 2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of
    Immigration StatisticsTable 6, Department of Homeland Security.

    Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. , Office of Immigration Statistics. Notes: All Other Lawful Permanent AdmissionsResidents refer to employment-based
    immigrants, Diversity Visa Lotterydiversity immigrants, refugees and asylees, and other immigrants.

    Other characteristics of family-based immigrants that merit attention for policymakers 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.

    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.ceilings, limitations on foreign nationals who wish to visit U.S.-based 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.

    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.

    The most recent data available indicate that the visa queue of numerically limited family-preference immigrant petitions as of November 1, 2017, stood at 3.95 million applications (Table 4), a 7% decrease over the prior year's queue of 4.26 million.55 Within this population, queue size generally correlates inversely with preference category. For example, petitions filed under the (highest) 1st preference category (288,826) represent just 7% of the total queue while those filed under the (lowest) 4th preference category (2,344,993) make up 59% of the queue.

    Waiting periods vary significantly depending on preference category and comprise both a statutory and a processing waiting period.56 Statutory limits to the number of visas given by category create waiting times that 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 immigration under the four family-sponsored preference categories to 226,000. The number of immigrants 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.

    Table 4.

    Table 3. Visa Queue of Prospective Family-Preference Immigrants with Approved Applications, for Selected Countries, as of November 1, 2015

    2017

    9,227

    59%

    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

    1,257,801

    107,584

    106,532

    92,404

    69,418

    180,490

    143,707

    203,947

    205,005

    758,415

    733,139

    Philippines

    388,214

    333,564

    22,048

    19,339

    13,454

    8,849

    59,679

    51,980

    145,101

    128,108

    147,932

    125,288

    India

    313,927

    282,207

    n.sa.

    n.sa.

    n.sa.

    61,047

    51,259

    241,900

    223,476

    Vietnam

    282,031

    249,821

    7,495

    5,412

    n.s.

    6,336

    12,906

    10,125

    57,607

    45,493

    195,881

    182,455

    China

    238,151

    202,503

    n.sa.

    n.s.

    6,937

    13,560

    8,142

    29,046

    23,416

    181,849

    161,093

    Dominican Republic

    207,354

    175,109

    26,957

    23,868

    37,742

    28,256

    59,661

    45,827

    18,128

    16,863

    64,866

    60,295

    Bangladesh

    183,093

    175,007

    n.sa.

    n.sa.

    n.sa.

    n.sa.

    170,971

    164,793

    Pakistan

    131,008

    121,752

    n.sa.

    n.sa.

    n.sa.

    16,708

    15,037

    107,201

    101,387

    Haiti

    119,685

    104,085

    18,317

    15,674

    10,855

    7,275

    23,266

    16,194

    15,613

    15,863

    51,634

    49,079

    Cuba

    115,206

    El Salvador

    71,707

    10,211

    8,478

    10,739

    13,815

    11,615

    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

    29,915

    Jamaica

    n.a.

    14,268

    n.a.

    4,886

    n.a.

    n.a.

    Colombia

    n.a.

    5,617

    n.a.

    n.a.

    n.a.

    n.a.

    Guyana

    n.a.

    5,206

    n.a.

    n.a.

    n.a.

    n.a.

    Honduras

    n.a.

    5,117

    3,866

    n.a.

    n.a.

    n.a.

    Cuba

    n.a.

    n.a.

    11,757

    9,012

    14,502

    n.a.

    Guatemala

    n.a.

    n.a.

    5,238

    4,706

    n.a.

    n.a.

    All Others

    974,301

    77,582

    56,571

    59,035

    208,794

    514,073

    Worldwide Total

    3,947,857

    288,826

    213,730

    364,353

    735,955

    2,344,993

    Percent of Total

    100%

    7%

    5%

    9%

    19%

    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, 7, U.S. Department of State, National Visa Center.

    Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen, and LPR refers to lawful permanent resident. Figures include both principal applicants and any spouses and children entitled to derivative status. derivative spouse and child applicants. 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 admissionsimmigrant category may not appear as a top country in another. In such cases, n.s.n.a. indicates the figure was not shown separatelypresented in the NVC report for the country and preference category. 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.

    The most recent data available indicate that the visa queue of numerically limited family-preference immigration petitions as of November 1, 2015, stood at 4.5 million applications (Table 3), a 5% increase over the prior year's queue of 4.3 million.61 Within this population, queue size correlates inversely with preference category. For example, pending petitions filed under the (highest) 1st preference category (322,788) represent just 7% of the total queue while those filed under the (lowest) 4th preference category (2,549,718) 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.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 45).6357 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.6458 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 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 July 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 November 1, 2003, were being processed on February 1, 2016, more than 12 years later.

    Table 4. Visa Bulletin Table 5. Cut-Off Dates for Family-Based Petitions, February 2016

    2018

    (LPR petition filing dates for which immigration visas are available as of February 1, 20162018)

    Family Preference Category

    China

    India

    Mexico

    Philippines

    All Other Nations

    1st: Unmarried adult children of USCs

    7/8/2008

    3/15/2011

    7/8/2008

    3/15/2011

    1/1/1995

    7/1/1996

    11/1/2003

    8/1/2005

    7/8/2008

    3/15/2011

    2nd (A): Spouses and children of LPRs

    9/1/2014

    3/1/2016

    9/1/2014

    3/1/2016

    6/8/2014

    2/1/2016

    9/1/2014

    3/1/2016

    9/1/2014

    3/1/2016

    2nd (B): Unmarried adult children of LPRs

    51/15/2009

    2011

    51/15/2009

    2011

    9/8/1995

    1996

    2/1/2005

    7/22/2006

    51/15/2009

    2011

    3rd: Married adult children of USCs

    10/1/2004

    11/15/2005

    10/1/2004

    11/15/2005

    9/8/1994

    6/22/1995

    11/22/1993

    3/15/1995

    10/1/2004

    11/15/2005

    4th: Siblings of USCs

    6/8/2003

    7/22/2004

    6/8/2003

    1/8/2004

    4/111/8/1997

    8/8/1992

    10/1/1994

    6/8/2003

    7/22/2004

    Source: Visa Bulletin for February 2018, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin for February 2016.

    Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen and LPR refers to lawful permanent resident. China refers to mainland-born. All family-preference category visas were oversubscribed as of February 1, 2018. Table 5 indicates, for example, that LPR petitions filed under the 1st family preference category (unmarried children of U.S. citizens) on or before March 15, 2011, were being processed close to 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 August 1, 2005, were being processed on February 1, 2018, more than 12 years later. . 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.6559 As each fiscal year closes (on September 30th), priority datadate progression or retrogression may occur to keep visa issuances within annual numerical limitations.6660 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.6761 Hence, while many interpret the cut-off dates as a rough estimate of waiting times to receive a visa, this interpretation may not always be accurate in certain situations for some categories.

    While the visa queue reflects excess demand to immigrate permanently to the United States over the statutorily determined supply of slots, many criticize it for keeping families separated for what they 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 the section of this report, "Impetus to Violate Immigration Laws" below).).62 Earlier debates over the visa queue are discussed below inin the section of this report titled, "Findings from Earlier Congressionally Mandated Commissions."

    Assessing the Per-Country Ceiling

    As stated earliernoted, the INA establishes a per-country ceiling limiting total legal immigration from any single country for family-preference and employment-sponsored preference admissionsimmigrants to 7% of the worldwide immigration level to the United States. Exceptions to this rule include the admission of all immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and 75% of all visas allocated to 2nd (A) preference category of spouses and children of LPRs.

    The per-country ceiling especially restrains immigrant admissionsimmigrants from countries with large numbers of LPR petitioners, such as Mexico, the Philippines, India, and China. Petitioners from these countries experience relatively longer average waiting times to receive a visa than petitioners from other countries (Table 5(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-of-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 per-country ceilings—immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and 75% of 2nd (A) preference immigrants—that benefit oversubscribed countries such as Mexico, India, and China.68

    63

    Immigration reform advocates argue that family reunification should be prioritized over per-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.69

    64

    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.7065 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.7166 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.72 67 As an example, an adult unmarried adult FilipinaMexican 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 PhilippinesMexico to prevent her from staying in the United States. If denied a tourist visa, and having no occupational options available through employment-based admissionsimmigration, her only other alternative would be to apply for LPR status under the 1st family sponsored preference category, which, based on the cut-off dates shown in the latest Visa Bulletin (Table 4), would take, at a minimum, over 105), could take roughly 21 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. As such, some have characterized current U.S. family-based immigration policy as promising what cannot be fulfilled within a reasonable period of time.68 Given the corresponding family separation that such wait times cause, some aliens who might otherwise abide by U.S. immigration laws may choose to eithereither to violate the terms of their temporary visas by "overstaying" in the United States or to enter the United States without inspection (i.e., illegally).7369 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.7470 It is also not known how many unauthorized aliens have petitions pending and are therefore part of the 4.23.95 million family-based visa queue.75

    71

    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 ageas they get older. It typically applies to children. In the case of family-based admissionsimmigration, 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.76

    That protection means that for immigration purposes, age is recorded as of the date an immigration petition was filed and remains in effect (or "freezes") regardless of the length of time needed to obtain lawful permanent residence.

    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 admissionimmigration under the 2(B) category.77 This occurs because children of LPRs 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 45) 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 18at least five years.7872 (See also "Laws Governing Child AdmissionsChild Immigrants" above.)

    Marriage Timing of Immigrant Children

    Differential treatment for unmarried children under the 1st family preference category and married children under 3rd family preference categories may motivate potential LPR petitioners to delay marriage in order to receive more favorable immigration treatment under the INA. The INA prioritizes the former family preference category over the latter, a ranking that translates into a difference in visa cut-off dates of between one and four years, depending on the country of emigration (Table 45). This difference resultsin cut-off dates occurs because unmarried children of U.S. citizens do not retain a durable marital status when they apply for LPR status under the 1st family preference category. Hence, the needdesire to remain in the 1st family preference category may motivate such petitioners to postpone marriage until their visas become available.

    Same-Sex Partners

    The question of whether gay and lesbian U.S. citizens should be able to sponsor foreign-born permanent partners for LPR status has garnered increased attention. While the INA does not affirmatively define the terms "spouse,"79 "wife," or "husband," the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) declares that the terms "marriage" and "spouse," as used in federal enactments,80 exclude same-sex marriage.81 Advocates of revising the INA to include same-sex permanent partners contended that current policies were "cruel and unequal."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.83 Others supporting current restrictions opposed same-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" for federal purposes. DHS subsequently approved the first immigrant visa for the same-sex spouse of a U.S. citizen, and then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano directed USCIS to "review immigration visa petitions filed on behalf of a same-sex spouse in the same manner as those filed on behalf of an opposite-sex spouse."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.8573 In FY2014, total UAC apprehensions reached a peak of over 68,000500 (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. They have since fluctuated, and in the first three months of FY2018, they exceeded 11,000.74 Since FY2009, children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (Central America's "northern triangle") accountNorthern Triangle") have accounted for almost all of this increasethe increased UAC apprehensions.

    While policies addressing the surge in unaccompanied minors generally lie outside the scope of family-based immigration policy, the issue highlights the importance of family reunification as a key motivating factor for migrating to the United States.8675 U.N. survey data indicate that sizable percentages of children residing in northern triangleNorthern Triangle countries have at least one parent living in the United States.8776

    Family reunification is a salientkey 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 PatrolProtection (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 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) while they await their removal hearing. ORR is required to place these childrenby statute to ensure that UACs "be promptly placed in the least restrictive setting possible that accounts for the child's best interests.88 In an estimated 90% of these cases, children are placed with parents, siblings, and extended relatives who currently reside in the United States.89that is in the best interest of the child."77 In FY2017, an estimated 84% of children were placed with parents, legal guardians, and close relatives who resided in the United States.78

    The desire for family reunification is also driven by the perception by potential migrants that children who are not 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.90

    79

    Complicating this situation is the fact that sizable proportions of these family members are estimated to be unauthorized aliens.91 According to DHS, the estimated unauthorized populations in 201480 According to the Pew Research Center, the estimated percent unauthorized of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans living in the United States was 631,000, 499,000, and 349,000, respectively, representing 48%, 55%, and 59% of all foreign-born residents from those three countries living in the United States.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.

    Supportersin 2015 was 51%, 56%, and 60%.81 Broader Immigration Questions

    Long-standing debates over the level of annual permanent immigration have regularly placed scrutiny on family-based immigration and revived debates over whether its current proportion of total lawful permanent immigration is appropriate. The following section discusses a set of broad immigration policy questions that have been raised by two congressionally mandated commissions as well as other observers.

    Findings from Earlier Congressionally Mandated Commissions

    Key reform proposals on a broad range of immigration policy challenges were made by two congressionally mandated commissions established to evaluate U.S. immigration policy: the 1981 Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy chaired by Theodore Hesburgh82 (the Hesburgh Commission) and the 1995 U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform chaired by Barbara Jordan83 (the Jordan Commission).

    The Jordan Commission relied on findings of its predecessor.84 The Hesburgh Commission acknowledged that certain large-scale and relatively predictable demographic trends—fertility and mortality rates, for instance—could allow policymakers to formulate immigration policies around predetermined optimal population sizes.85 Although the United States has never had a 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.

    Family reunification was cited by both the Hesburgh and the Jordon Commissions as the primary goal of U.S. immigration policy.86 The Jordan Commission rejected formulaic procedures for determining immigrant criteria, such as point systems, supporting instead the existing framework that allows U.S.-based relatives to decide whom to sponsor for immigration to the United States.87 The Hesburgh Commission, noting the imbalance between the demand for lawful permanent U.S. residence and visa supply, asserted that "raising false hopes among millions with no prospect of immigration" would foster unauthorized immigration and "widespread dissatisfaction with U.S. immigration laws."88 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 4th family preference category, siblings of U.S. citizens.89 The Jordan Commission went farther, recommending the elimination of what are currently the 1st, 3rd, and 4th family preference categories, thereby allowing only spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens (immediate relatives), and spouses and minor children of LPRs (2A preference category) as family-sponsored preference immigrants.90 Justifications for these revisions included reunifying U.S. citizens and LPRs with their closest and most dependent relations, reducing unreasonably long visa wait times, and improving the credibility of the immigration system while eliminating false expectations of prompt U.S. permanent resident status 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 immigration 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.

    In a 2013 hearing on the American immigration system, Dr. Michael Teitelbaum, commissioner and vice chair of the former U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (Jordan Commission), testified before the House Judiciary Committee.91 Six weeks later, Dr. Susan Martin, former executive director of the Jordan Commission, testified at a hearing on comprehensive immigration reform before the Senate Judiciary Committee.92 During their presentations, Teitelbaum and Martin both reiterated recommendations from the Jordan Commission's 1995 and 1997 reports. Their testimony, occurring 15 years after the commission completed its assessment of U.S. immigration policy, underscored the continued relevance of past congressional debates on current issues surrounding family-based immigration.

    Family Reunification versus Family Reconstitution

    As noted, 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, grandchildren, cousins, aunts, and uncles.

    Some supporters of current law argue that parents and children should be considered immediate family members regardless of their age or marital status.93 They contend that siblings are considered immediate relatives in many cultures.94 A central argument for expanding family-based immigration is to reduce the current visa queue of 4.5roughly 4 million persons with approved immigration petitions who must wait years to receive a visa to immigrate. As highlighted by Visa Bulletin priority datescut-off dates (Table 5), family separation can last for years or even decades, which some contend keeps thousands of families and individual lives and careers suspended and causes considerable emotional and psychological distress.95

    However, advocates of fewer immigrant admissionsAdvocates of lower immigration levels take issue with the extent of broadening family reunification.96 TheyWhile they accept that family reunification is an important goal, they argue that the United States has neither the responsibility nor obligation to effectively reconstitute immigrants' families beyond immediate relatives.97 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.98 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 admissionsimmigration 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 membersthe Jordan Commission recommended this limitation in 1995.99

    Family Reunification versus Economic Priorities

    Some observers fault U.S. immigration policy for operating largely irrespective of current economic and labor market conditions.100 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.101 Critics of family-based immigration also contend that current policies foster relatively greater demand for taxpayer-funded social services102 by admitting relatively less-educated persons who frequently work in lower-paid occupations or who have higher unemployment rates.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 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 matchesmatch those required of the future workforce more accurately than some suggest.105 For example, between 2000 and 2010, theThe 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 born also work in certain occupations, such as health care with above-average expected growth.107 106 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.

    Apart from skill levels, demographically, the foreign-born population in recent decades has contributed almost all the growth in the working age population.107

    Proponents of family-based immigration also argue that family reunification in the United States helps U.S. 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 ais a term some have used to characterize the process by which family-based immigration createscan create 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 admissionsimmigrants sponsored 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.111 Theodore 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 sizeablesuch large impacts, empirical studies of actual "immigrant multipliers"113 estimate more modest effects.114 Carr and Tienda have produced several empirically rigorous analyses estimating multipliers for recent cohorts of immigrants. In one, they examined persons who acquired LPR status from 1980 to 2000, deriving a separate multiplier for each of the four five-year intervals across the two decades.115 That analysis yielded an immigration multiplier of 3.46 for the period from 1996 to 2000, meaning that, on average, every 100 initial immigrants who acquired LPR status during that period subsequently sponsored 346 new immigrants. Because this multiplier covers the most recent 5-year period of the four computed across a 20-year analysis, it is considered more relevant for current analyses of chain migration and has been widely cited by other policy analysts in discussions of chain migration.116 In a subsequent analysis, Tienda estimated separate multipliers for immigrants from China (6.24), India (5.11), the Philippines (6.38), and Mexico (5.07) for the same five-year period.117 Several factors maySeveral factors limit the impact of chain migration. First, with the exception of the 2nd family preference category, family-sponsored admissions requireimmigration requires that sponsoring immigrants possess U.S. citizenship. However, recentRecent studies indicate that many LPRs who are eligible to become U.S. citizens choose not to do so.115118 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-level 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.119 Finally, as discussed above, long wait times for visas pose an impediment for many immigrants sponsoring relatives under the family-preference categories.116

    120 Selected Legislative Activity

    Legislative options to address selected stand-alone policy issues surrounding family-based immigration—the supply-demand imbalance for U.S. lawful permanent residence, the per-country ceilings, limitations on foreign nationals who wish to visit U.S.-based relatives, the impetus to violate U.S. immigration laws, aging out of certain legal status categories, the marriage timing of immigrant children, and policies toward unaccompanied alien children—have been debated by scholars and policymakers as well as addressed in a range of legislative proposals.

    A broader policy question, in the context of current immigration debates, may be whether and how to address overall levels of legal immigration. Options at this level can generally 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.

    Examples of recent legislative proposals that focus on altering the level of permanent immigration include S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act introduced in the 113th Congress121 and S. 1720, the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act introduced in the 115th Congress.122

    S. 744, which passed the Senate in the 113th Congress, would have, among other things, reclassified spouses and minor unmarried children of LPRs as immediate relatives, thus exempting them from family preference numerical limits. It would have reallocated family preference visas and eliminated the 4th family preference category for adult siblings of U.S. citizens. The bill would have also provided additional visas to allow pending immigrants in the immigrant visa queue to all receive LPR status within seven years.123 In contrast, the RAISE Act would reduce the number of immediate relative and family preference category immigrants within family-sponsored immigration and eliminate the immigrant visa queue by invalidating most pending immigrant petitions.124

    These two proposals are not the only approaches being considered to address levels of permanent immigration but they illustrate alternative perspectives on the goals of U.S. immigration policy from which these proposals arise.

    Appendix. Immigration Figures for FY1996-FY2016 Table A-1. Annual Number of Lawful Permanent Residents by Major Class, FY2006-FY2016

    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

    173,854

    Spouses & unmarried children of LPRs

    Total, all immigrants

     

    FY2002

    FY2003

    FY2004

    FY2005

     

    FY2006

    FY2007

    FY2008

    FY2009

    FY2010

    FY2011

    FY2012

    FY2013

    Immediate relatives of USCs

    FY2014

    483,676

    FY2015

    331,286

    417,815

    436,115

    FY2016

    Immediate relatives

    580,348

    494,920

    488,483

    535,554

    476,414

    453,158

    478,780

    439,460

    Spouses

    416,456

    293,219

    465,068

    183,796

    252,193

    259,144

    566,706

    Spouses

    339,843

    274,358

    265,671

    317,129

    271,909

    258,320

    273,429

    248,332

    Children

    238,852

    96,941

    265,367

    77,948

    88,088

    94,858

    304,358

    Children

    120,064

    103,828

    101,342

    98,270

    98,270

    88,297

    88,297

    80,311

    80,311

    81,121

    71,382

    Parents

    61,217

    93,516

    66,740

    69,542

    77,534

    82,113

    88,494

    Parents

    120,441

    116,734

    121,470

    120,155

    116,208

    114,527

    124,230

    119,746

    Family-preference immigrants

    116,387

    186,880

    132,961

    158,796

    214,355

    212,970Family-preference

    222,229

    194,900

    227,761

    211,859

    214,589

    234,931

    202,019

    210,303

    Unmarried child, USCs sons/daughters of USCs

    229,104

    23,517

    213,910

    21,471

    26,380

    24,729

    238,087

    Unmarried adult children of USCs

    25,432

    25,432

    22,858

    22,858

    26,173

    26,173

    23,965

    23,965

    26,998

    26,998

    27,299

    27,299

    20,660

    24,358

    Spouses & unmarried children of LPRs

    84,785

    53,195

    93,609

    100,139

    25,686

    24,533

    22,072

    112,051

    86,151

    86,151

    103,456

    98,567

    98,567

    92,088

    92,088

    108,618

    99,709

    99,115

    Married sons/daughters of USCs

    105,641

    21,041

    104,892

    27,287

    28,695

    22,953

    121,267

    Married adult children of USCs

    21,491

    21,491

    20,611

    20,611

    29,273

    29,273

    25,930

    25,930

    32,817

    32,817

    27,704

    27,704

    21,752

    21,294

    Siblings of USCs

    25,830

    57,537

    24,271

    56,843

    65,671

    65,149

    27,392

    Siblings of USCs

    63,255

    63,255

    65,280

    65,280

    68,859

    68,859

    63,397

    63,397

    62,686

    62,686

    71,310

    71,310

    59,898

    65,536

    Non-family-based immigrants

    71,947

    388,800

    60,214

    213,460

    325,713

    473,17267,356 Non-family-based

    463,552

    362,595

    390,882

    383,405

    351,622

    373,951

    350,832

    340,790

    Employment-based immigrants

    370,958

    173,814

    372,053

    81,727

    155,330

    246,877

    378,712

    Employment-based immigrants

    159,081

    162,176

    166,511

    144,034

    148,343

    139,339

    143,998

    161,110

    Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants

    151,596

    42,820

    144,047

    46,335

    50,084

    46,234

    137,893

    Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants

    44,471

    44,471

    42,127

    42,127

    41,761

    41,761

    47,879

    47,879

    49,763

    49,763

    50,103

    50,103

    40,320

    45,618

    Refugees, asylees, and parolees

    53,490

    131,816

    47,934

    48,960

    78,351

    150,677

    49,865

    Refugees, asylees, and parolees

    221,023

    138,124

    167,564

    179,753

    137,883

    169,607

    151,372

    120,186

    All other immigrants

    134,337

    40,350

    152,018

    36,438

    41,948

    29,384

    157,440

    All other immigrants

    38,977

    38,977

    20,168

    20,168

    15,046

    15,046

    11,739

    11,739

    15,633

    15,633

    14,902

    14,902

    15,142

    13,876

    Total, all immigrants

    1,059,356

    703,542

    957,883

    1,122,257

    31,535

    28,054

    33,514

    1,266,129

    1,052,415

    1,107,126

    1,130,818

    1,042,625

    1,062,040

    1,031,631

    990,553

    1,016,518

    1,051,031

    1,183,505

    Source: CRS presentation of data from 20022005 through 20132016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security.

    Notes: Figures in italics sum up to figures in roman typeTable 6, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. Notes: Italicized figures sum up to bold figures immediately above them. USC signifies U.S. citizenrefers to U.S. citizen; LPR refers to lawful permanent resident.

    Table A-2. Percentages of AnnualAnnual Number of Lawful Permanent AdmissionsResidents by Major Class, FY1996-FY2005  

    FY1996

    FY1997

    FY1998

    FY1999

    FY2000

    FY2001

    FY2002

    FY2003

    FY2004

    FY2005

     

    Immediate relatives

    300,430

    321,008

    283,368

    258,584

    346,350

    439,972

    483,676

    331,286

    417,815

    436,115

     

    Spouses

    169,760

    170,263

    151,172

    127,988

    196,405

    268,294

    293,219

    183,796

    252,193

    259,144

     

    Children

    63,971

    76,631

    70,472

    69,113

    82,638

    91,275

    96,941

    77,948

    88,088

    94,858

     

    Parents

    66,699

    74,114

    61,724

    61,483

    67,307

    80,403

    93,516

    69,542

    77,534

    82,113

     

    Family-preference

    294,174

    213,331

    191,480

    216,883

    235,092

    231,699

    186,880

    158,796

    214,355

    212,970

     

    Unmarried adult children of USCs

    20,909

    22,536

    17,717

    22,392

    27,635

    27,003

    23,517

    21,471

    26,380

    24,729

     

    Spouses & unmarried children of LPRs

    182,834

    113,681

    88,488

    108,007

    124,540

    112,015

    84,785

    53,195

    93,609

    100,139

     

    Married adult children of USCs

    25,452

    21,943

    22,257

    24,040

    22,804

    24,830

    21,041

    27,287

    28,695

    22,953

     

    Siblings of USCs

    64,979

    55,171

    63,018

    62,444

    60,113

    67,851

    by Major Class, FY2002-FY2013

    (Percent of total admissions)

     

    Non-family-based

                Notes: Italicized figures sum up to bold figures immediately above them. USC refers to U.S. citizen; LPR refers to lawful permanent resident. Table A-3. Percentages of Annual Lawful Permanent Residents by Major Class, FY2006-FY2016

    (Percent of total immigration)

     

    Spouses

     

    FY2002

    FY2003

    57,537

    FY2004

    FY2005

    FY2006

    56,843

    65,671

    65,149

    FY2007

    321,296

    FY2008

    264,039

    FY2009

    179,603

    FY2010

    171,101

    FY2011

    259,560

    FY2012

    387,231

    FY2013

    388,800

    213,460

    325,713

    473,172

    Immediate relatives

    Employment-based immigrants

    46%

    47%

    44%

    39%

    46%

    47%

    44%

    47%

    46%

    43%

    46%

    44%

    Spouses

    28%

    26%

    26%

    23%

    117,499

    90,607

    77,517

    56,817

    106,642

    178,702

    173,814

    81,727

    155,330

    246,877

    Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants

    58,790

    49,374

    45,499

    47,571

    50,920

    41,989

    42,820

    46,335

    50,084

    46,234

    Refugees, asylees, and parolees

    130,834

    114,022

    53,482

    44,784

    66,090

    113,330

    131,816

    48,960

    78,351

    150,677

    All other immigrants

    14,173

    10,036

    3,105

    21,929

    35,908

    53,210

    40,350

    36,438

    41,948

    29,384

    Total, all immigrants

    915,900

    798,378

    654,451

    646,568

    841,002

    1,058,902

    1,059,356

    703,542

    957,883

    1,122,257

    FY2006

    FY2007

    FY2008

    FY2009

    FY2010

    FY2011

    FY2012

    FY2013

    FY2014

    FY2015

    FY2016

    Immediate relatives

    46%

    47%

    44%

    47%

    46%

    43%

    46%

    44%

    41%

    44%

    48%

    27%

    26%

    24%

    28%

    26%

    24%

    27%

    25%

    Children

    23%

    925%

    1126%

    9%

    Children

    89%

    910%

    109%

    9%

    98%

    8%

    8%

    87%

    76%

    6%

    Parents

    7%

    9%

    Parents

    10%

    811%

    711%

    1011%

    11%

    11%

    1112%

    1112%

    11%

    1213%

    1215%

    Family-based immigrants

    preference

    18%

    2319%

    2221%

    19%

    18%

    1921%

    2122%

    1920%

    21%

    2223%

    20%

    2120%

    Unmarried child., USCs sons/daughters adult children of USCs

    2%

    32%

    32%

    2%

    23%

    23%

    2%

    2%

    3%

    3%

    2%

    2%

    Spouses & unmarried children of LPRs

    89%

    8%

    109%

    9%

    9%

    810%

    910%

    9%

    910%

    10%

    10%

    10%

    Married sons/daughtersadult children of USCs

    2%

    42%

    3%

    2%

    2%

    23%

    3%

    2%

    32%

    3%

    2%

    2%

    Siblings of USCs

    5%

    86%

    76%

    6%

    5%

    6%

    67%

    6%

    67%

    7%

    6%

    76%

    Non-family-based immigrants

    37%

    30%

    34%

    4235%

    3734%

    34%

    35%

    34%

    34%

    3536%

    3435%

    3432%

    Employment-based immigrants

    16%

    1213%

    1615%

    2215%

    13%

    1514%

    1513%

    1314%

    1416%

    1315%

    14%

    1612%

    Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants

    4%

    74%

    54%

    4%

    45%

    45%

    4%

    45%

    5%

    5%

    4%

    5%

    Refugees, asylees, and parolees

    1217%

    713%

    815%

    1316%

    1713%

    1316%

    15%

    1612%

    13%

    1614%

    15%

    1213%

    All other immigrants

    43%

    52%

    41%

    31%

    3%

    21%

    1%

    1%

    1%

    13%

    13%

    13%

    Total, all immigrants

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    Source: CRS presentation ofcomputations based on data from 20022005 through 20132016 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. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. Notes: Italicized figures sum up to bold figures immediately above them. USC refers to U.S. citizen; LPR refers to lawful permanent resident. Percentages may not sum completely due to rounding. USC signifies U.S. citizen.

    Table A-3. Key Proportions for4. Percentages of Annual Lawful Permanent Residents by Major Class, FY1996-FY2005

    (Percent of total immigration)

     

    FY1996

    FY1997

    FY1998

    FY1999

    FY2000

    FY2001

    FY2002

    FY2003

    FY2004

    FY2005

     

    Immediate relatives

    33%

    40%

    43%

    40%

    41%

    42%

    46%

    47%

    44%

    39%

     

    Spouses

    19%

    21%

    23%

    20%

    23%

    25%

    28%

    26%

    26%

    23%

     

    Children

    7%

    10%

    11%

    11%

    10%

    9%

    9%

    11%

    9%

    8%

     

    Parents

    7%

    9%

    9%

    10%

    8%

    8%

    9%

    10%

    8%

    7%

     

    Family-preference

    32%

    27%

    29%

    34%

    28%

    22%

    18%

    23%

    22%

    19%

     

    Unmarried adult children of USCs

    2%

    3%

    3%

    3%

    3%

    3%

    2%

    3%

    3%

    2%

     

    Spouses & unmarried children of LPRs

    20%

    14%

    14%

    17%

    15%

    11%

    8%

    8%

    10%

    9%

     

    Married adult children of USCs

    3%

    3%

    3%

    4%

    3%

    2%

    2%

    4%

    3%

    2%

     

    Siblings of USCs

    7%

    7%

    10%

    10%

    7%

    6%

    5%

    8%

    7%

    6%

     

    Non-family-based

    35%

    33%

    27%

    26%

    31%

    37%

    37%

    30%

    34%

    42%

     

    Employment-based immigrants

    13%

    11%

    12%

    9%

    13%

    17%

    16%

    12%

    16%

    22%

     

    Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants

    6%

    6%

    7%

    7%

    6%

    4%

    4%

    7%

    5%

    4%

     

    Refugees, asylees, and parolees

    14%

    14%

    8%

    7%

    8%

    11%

    12%

    7%

    8%

    13%

     

    All other immigrants

    2%

    1%

    0%

    3%

    4%

    5%

    4%

    5%

    4%

    3%

     

    Total, all immigrants

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

     

    Notes: Italicized figures sum up to bold figures immediately above them. USC refers to U.S. citizen; LPR refers to lawful permanent resident. Percentages may not sum completely due to rounding.

    Table A-5. Key Proportions for Annual Lawful Permanent Residents, FY2006-FY2016  

    FY2006

    FY2007

    FY2008

    FY2009

    FY2010

    FY2011

    FY2012

    FY2013

    FY2014

    FY2015

    FY2016

    Percent of Total Permanent Immigration that is Family-based

    63%

    66%

    65%

    66%

    66%

    65%

    66%

    66%

    64%

    65%

    68%

    Percent of Total Permanent Immigration made up of Immediate Relatives

    46%

    47%

    44%

    47%

    46%

    43%

    46%

    44%

    41%

    44%

    48%

    Percent of Family-based Immigration made up of Immediate Relatives

    Annual Lawful Permanent Admissions, FY2002-FY2013

    70%

     

    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%

    65%

    68%

    Source: CRS presentation ofcomputations based on data from 20022005 through 20132016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland SecurityDepartment of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. Table A-6. Key Proportions for Annual Lawful Permanent Residents, FY1996-FY2005  

    FY1996

    FY1997

    FY1998

    FY1999

    FY2000

    FY2001

    FY2002

    FY2003

    FY2004

    FY2005

     

    Percent of Total Permanent Immigration that is Family-based

    65%

    67%

    73%

    74%

    69%

    63%

    63%

    70%

    66%

    58%

     

    Percent of Total Permanent Immigration made up of Immediate Relatives

    33%

    40%

    43%

    40%

    41%

    42%

    46%

    47%

    44%

    39%

     

    Percent of Family-based Immigration made up of Immediate Relatives

    51%

    60%

    60%

    54%

    60%

    66%

    72%

    68%

    66%

    67%

      .

    Author Contact Information

    [author name scrubbed]William A. Kandel, Analyst in Immigration Policy ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])

    Footnotes

    Family reunification provisions were firstThe 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.

    Refugees and asylees who receive LPR status are not included in the INA's annual worldwide level. 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. 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. For background information, see archived CRS Report R41753, Asylum and "Credible Fear" Issues in U.S. Immigration Policy. 18 25. 33. Although not presented in Table 3, male and female immigrants are roughly equal for many immigrant 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%). 45. 55. 64. Ibid.

    For background information, 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, 20162016, May 22, 2017.

    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. 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. Jeffrey Passel and D'Vera Cohn, "Immigration projected to drive growth in U.S. working-age population through at least 2035," Pew Research Center, March 8, 2017, March 29, 2012.

    DHS estimates that 8.9 million of the estimated 13.2 million LPRs living in the United States as of January 1, 2014, were eligible to naturalize (and had not done so as of that date). James Lee and Bryan Baker, Estimates of the Legal Permanent Resident Population in 2014, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Population Estimates, Washington, DC, August 2015. 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. For more information on all the provisions of the RAISE Act and a comparison of related provisions of S. 744, see Congressional Distribution memorandum, The RAISE Act of the 115th Congress: Comparison with Current Law and with Provisions of S. 744of the 113th Congress, with Appendix, available to congressional clients upon request.

    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" (available to congressional clients upon request).

    2.

    In this report, the terms "family-based" is synonymous with "family-sponsored."

    and "family-sponsored" are synonymous.
    3.

    In this report, "immigrant" is synonymous with "lawful permanent resident" or (LPR)," "legal permanent resident (LPR)." Immigrant," and "green card holder," and refers to a foreign national lawfully and permanently 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 immigrationpersons acquiring LPR status each year include employment-based immigrationimmigrants, 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, 20157, National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State.

    6.

    "Chain migration" refers to the process of family-based immigration as it occurs under the INA. This process allows foreign nationals who acquire LPR status and U.S. citizenship, in turn, to then sponsor certain relatives for U.S. immigration. The ability of immigrants to sponsor family members has been part of U.S. immigration policy since 1921. See the section titled "Evolution of U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy" in this report. The term "chain migration" has been used by some scholars in the context of estimating "immigration multipliers" that indicate how many additional immigrants that an average initial U.S. immigrant sponsors over the course of their lifetime. See the section titled "Chain Migration" in this report.

    7.
    78.

    AlsoP.L. 82-414, also known as the McCarran-Walter Act.

    89.

    P.L. 68-139. The national origin quota system, created by the Immigration Act of 1924, limited annual admissionsimmigration from any single country to 2% of persons from that nationcountry already living in the United States as of 1890.

    910.

    P.L. 89-236, also known as the Hart-Celler Act.

    1011.

    The law provided for four broad immigrantpermanent resident 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. For an overview of U.S. immigration policy, see CRS Report R45020, A Primer on U.S. Immigration Policy.

    1112.

    "Permeable cap" refers to an immigration limit that can be exceeded in certain circumstances.

    1213.

    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.

    1314.

    INA §201.

    15.

    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 currentthat send relatively few immigrants to the United States. See CRS Report R41747, Diversity Immigrant Visa Lottery Issues, by [author name scrubbed].

    .
    17.

    The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (NACARA, P.L. 105-100), has, since FY1999, decreased the 55,000 annual ceiling by 5,000 annually to offset immigrant numbers made available to certain unsuccessful asylum seekers from El Salvador, Guatemala, and formerly communist countries in Europe who were granted immigrant status under special rules established by NACARA. The 5,000 offset is temporary, but it is not clear how many years it will be in effect to handle these adjustments of status.

    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 unmarried children age 21 and older; and (3) Married sons and daughters.

    2019.

    Per §212(a) of the INA, these include criminal, national security, health, and indigence grounds as well as past violations of immigration law. SeeFor background information, see archived CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion: Policy and Trends, by [author name scrubbed].

    2120.

    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].

    2421.

    See Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, multiple years.

    22.

    In this report, CRS presents trend data from FY1996 to FY2016, permitting a review of the last two decades of immigration trends.

    23.

    FY2016 represents the most recent year for which published data on immigration are available from the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, as of January 2018.

    24.

    INA §202(a)(2). The 7% computation is applied to the sum of all of these family-based and employment-based immigrants, not to the limits for individual categories, nor to the limits for just family-based or just employment-based immigrants.

    INA §202(a)(4). Other exceptions to the per-country ceilings affect dependent foreign states (limited to 2% of annual admissionsimmigration) and employment preference immigrants for oversubscribed countries if visas are available within the world-wide limit for employment preferences (P.L. 106-313).

    2526.

    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 either assigned to immigration service officers for initial review and adjudication, or they are or 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]R45040, Nonimmigrant (Temporary) Admissions to the United States: Policy and Trends.

    28.

    In FY2013FY2016, approximately 5434% of all LPRs adjusted their status from within the United States. See 20132016: 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.

    INA §212(a)(4). An affidavit of support is a document an individual – the sponsor – 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 supportSponsors must be at least 18 years old and reside in the United States. The income requirement for sponsors who are members of the Armed ForcesU.S. military is 100% of the federal poverty level.

    3230.

    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.

    3331.

    For additionalbackground information, see CRS Reportarchived CRS Report RL33809, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview and Trends, by [author name scrubbed].

    34.
    32.

    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 the age of this deadline, few currently unauthorized aliens can utilize this provision. 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. On August 29, 2016, the provisional unlawful presence waiver process was expanded to all individuals statutorily eligible for an immigrant visa and a waiver of inadmissibility for unlawful presence in 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 an LPR. 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 and LPRs are separated from their relatives while the latter are obtaining immigrant visas to become LPRs. For background information, see archived CRS Report R42958, Unauthorized Aliens: Policy Options for Providing Targeted Immigration Relief.

    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 areby being 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.

    35is ineligible for derivative classification and must have a separate petition filed on his or her behalf. 22 C.F.R. 40.1. Note that only children who are immediate family members of sponsoring immigrants may immigrate to the United States (as derivative immigrants). Sponsoring relatives may not sponsor their grandchildren under the family-based provisions of the INA. 34.

    INA §203(d).

    3635.

    8 C.F.R. 204.2(d)(4).

    36.

    CRS analysis of data from the 2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, Table 7.

    37.

    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 ageis established when the parent naturalizes.

    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 allowallows 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.

    44.

    Conditional permanent residence status may be removed in cases where the U.S. citizen spouse dies before the two-year conditional period is over if the foreign national spouse can demonstrate that the marriage was bona fide.

    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].

    61INA §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.
    48.

    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, Section 3.

    49.

    P.L. 104-199.

    50.

    United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No. 12-307).

    51.

    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 January 18, 2018). This is arguably in keeping with prior practices by DHS and the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (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.

    52.

    As noted above, FY2016 represents the most recent year for which published data on permanent immigration are available from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office of Immigration Statistics, as of January 2018.

    53.

    Major fluctuations in FY2001 and FY2006 occurred across all categories of legal immigrants, caused primarily by a decline and subsequent rebound in immigration volume after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

    54.

    CRS was unable to locate or conduct an analysis to explain the recent decline in the proportion of family preference immigrants adjusting their status from within the United States.

    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, 20157. Note that this figure represents only those visa applications held by the State DepartmentDepartment of State (DOS). Data on visa applications in various stages of processing by USCIS prior to being given to the State DepartmentDOS for visa allocation are not available. However, testimony suggestssome have suggested that a sizable quantity of petitions exists in addition to the visa queue shown in Table 34. 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.

    Note that the last congressional hearings focusing specifically on family-based immigration policy occurred in 2013.
    6256.

    For more on agency processing, see CRS Report R44038, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Functions and Funding, by [author name scrubbed].

    6357.

    The Visa Bulletin, updated each month, can be accessed at httphttps://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_1360content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-bulletin.html.

    6458.

    National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State, The Operation of the Immigrant Numerical Control System, Washington, DC.

    6559.

    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.

    6660.

    National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State, The Operation of the Immigrant Numerical Control System, Washington, DC.

    6761.

    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].

    6962.

    Two visas exist to ameliorate family separation in certain cases. The K visa allows a foreign national spouse of a U.S. citizen and his or her children to come to the United States relatively quickly to live with the U.S. citizen spouse until the visa processing is completed to allow the foreign national spouse and his or her children to adjust to LPR status (K-3 visa, K-4 for accompanying minor unmarried children). Likewise, the K visa allows a foreign national fiancé of a U.S. citizen to come to the United States relatively quickly provided that he or she marry their U.S. citizen fiancé within 90 days (K-1 visa, K-2 visa for accompanying minor unmarried children). (For more information, see the section titled "Conditional Resident Status".) The V (nonimmigrant) visa allows certain spouses and children of LPRs to reside in the United States with their LPR spouses and parents while waiting for the processing of numerically limited immigrant visas. Created by the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (LIFE Act, P.L. 106-553) in December 2000, V visas have not been issued in recent years because U.S. LPR spouses and/or parents must have filed their I-130 petitions with USCIS on behalf of their spouses and children before December 22, 2000. Legislative proposals have been introduced but not enacted in past Congresses to allow the V visa to apply to applications filed later.

    63.

    For background information, see archived CRS Report R42048, Numerical Limits on Permanent Employment-Based Immigration: Analysis of the Per-country Ceilings.

    National Immigration Forum, Immigration Backlogs are Separating American Families, Backgrounder, Washington, DC, August 2012.

    7065.

    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]R45040, Nonimmigrant (Temporary) Admissions to the United States: Policy and Trends.

    7166.

    SeeFor background information, see archived CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion: Policy and Trends, by [author name scrubbed], p. 7.

    67.
    7268.

    See archived CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion: Policy and Trends, by [author name scrubbed].

    73.

    SeeU.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.

    69.
    7470.

    Estimates do exist of the relationship between authorized entry and unauthorized residence. For instance, the Pew Hispanic Center estimated in 2006 that 45Warren and Kerwin estimate that 42% 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 and that two thirds of all new entrants to the unauthorized population do so by entering the United States with inspection (legally) and overstaying visas. See Robert Warren and Donald Kerwin, "The 2,000 Mile Wall in Search of a Purpose: Since 2007 Visa Overstays have outnumbered Undocumented Border Crossers by a Half Million," Journal on Migration and Human Security, vol. 5 (2017), pp. 124-136. 71.

    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.

    7872.

    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.

    7973.

    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.

    81For background information on causes of this influx, see archived CRS Report R43628, Unaccompanied Alien Children: Potential Factors Contributing to Recent Immigration. For apprehension statistics and information on U.S. policy toward and processing of unaccompanied children, see CRS Report R43599, Unaccompanied Alien Children: An Overview.
    74.

    In FY2015, FY2016, and FY2017, UAC apprehensions totaled 40,000, 59,700, and 41,400, respectively.

    75.

    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].

    8276.

    Ibid. The figure is 49% in El Salvador, 27% in Guatemala, and 47% in Honduras. By comparison, the figure for Mexico is 22%.

    77.

    §§235(a)-235(d) of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), 8 U.S.C. §1232(b)(2).

    78.

    Administration for Children and Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Unaccompanied Alien Children Program, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, data provided to CRS on January 23, 2018.

    79.

    As of December 2017, the average wait time nationwide for all immigration proceedings was 708 days, or about 23 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. The 23 month figure is an average for all immigration courts, and comprises a range of periods, some of which extend far beyond 23 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 8, 2018.

    80.

    As a policy, ORR does not record the legal status of family members with whom the unaccompanied child is placed.

    81.

    D'Vera Cohn, Jeffrey S. Passel, and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, "Recent trends in Northern Triangle immigration," in Rise in U.S. Immigrants from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras Outpaces Growth from Elsewhere, Pew Research Center, December 7, 2017. For comparison, the unauthorized proportion of the total foreign-born population for other Central American countries (of which Mexico dominates is 27%. These figures do not account for sizable numbers of U.S.-born children whose parents originate from these countries. They also don't account for the fact that as many as 10% of this unauthorized alien population has Temporary Protected Status (TPS), a quasi-legal status, which would reduce the size of the unauthorized population in the United States from these countries. For more information on TPS, see CRS Report RS20844, Temporary Protected Status: Overview and Current Issues.

    82.

    Theodore Hesburgh 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").

    83.

    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").

    84.

    Policy organizations examining U.S. immigration policy have offered a broad range of 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, Brookings Institution, October 2009; Pia Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny, Beside the Golden Door: U.S. Immigration Reform in a New Era of Globalization (Washington, DC: AEI Press, 2010); National Foundation for American Policy, Reforming America's Legal Immigration System, September 2015; and, David Inserra, Legal Immigration and the U.S. Economy: How Congress should Reform the System, The Heritage Foundation, January 30, 2018.

    85.

    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.

    86.

    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 immigrants. See Brookings-Duke Immigration Roundtable, Breaking the Immigration Stalemate, and Pia Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny, Beside the Golden Door.

    87.

    The Jordan Report, p. 5.

    88.

    The Hesburgh Report, p. 378.

    89.

    Ibid, p. 380.

    90.

    U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, p. 61.

    91.

    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.

    92.

    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-thirdmade up 26% of all foreign born ages 25 and older, compared to 118% 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]U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic News Release, "Labor Force Characteristics of Foreign-Born Workers," Table 3, May 18, 2017, accessible at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/forbrn.toc.htm.

    102.

    Borjas, Heaven's Door, Ch.6. For a recent review of recentrelated research, see archived CRS Report R42053, Fiscal Impacts of the Foreign-Born Population, by [author name scrubbed]National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration, The National Academies Press, 2017, accessible at https://doi.org/10.17226/23550.

    103.

    U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Foreign-born Workers: Labor Force Characteristics—2011," press release, May 24, 2012Economic News Release, "Labor Force Characteristics of Foreign-Born Workers," May 18, 2017, accessible at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/forbrn.toc.htm.

    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. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Projections Overview, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2012-13 Edition, Washington, DC, March 29, 2012.

    107.
    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, whose analysis is considered a pioneering work in this area, 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), 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

    115.

    Stacie Carr and Marta Tienda, "Family Sponsorship and Late-Age Immigration in Aging America: Revised and Expanded Estimates of Chained Migration," Population Research and Policy Review, vol. 32 (2013), pp. 825-849.

    116.

    See for example, Jessica Vaughan, Immigration Multipliers, Trends in Chain Migration, Center for Immigration Studies, September 2017, https://cis.org/Press-Release/Immigration-Multipliers-Trends-Chain-Migration; Julia Gelatt and Randy Capps, "Legalization for DREAMers: A Realistic Appraisal of Potential Chain Migration," Commentary, Migration Policy Institute, November 2017 (hereinafter "Gelatt and Capps"); and Hans von Spakovsky, "DACA Is Not What the Democrats Say It Is. Here Are the Facts," The Daily Signal, December 4, 2017, http://dailysignal.com/2017/12/04/daca-not-democrats-say-facts/.

    117.

    Marta Tienda, "Multiplying Diversity: Family Unification and the Regional Origins of Late-Age US Immigrants," International Migration Review, vol. 51 (2017), pp. 727-756.

    118.
    116119.

    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.

    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 Yu, 2008, "Introduction." 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.

    117121.

    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, 2013S. 744 passed the Senate in June 2013 by a vote of 68-32 but was not taken up by the House.

    122.

    S. 1720 was introduced by Senator Tom Cotton. An earlier version of this bill, S. 354, which had fewer provisions, was also introduced by Senator Cotton.

    123.

    For more information on S. 744, see archived CRS Report R43097, Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress: Major Provisions in Senate-Passed S. 744.

    124.