Order Code RL32169
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Immigration Legislation and Issues
in the 108th Congress
Updated February 10, 2004
Andorra Bruno, Coordinator,
Ruth Ellen Wasem
Alison Siskin
Domestic Social Policy Division
Margaret Mikyung Lee
Stephen R. Viña
American Law Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Immigration Legislation and Issues
in the 108th Congress
Summary
The 108th Congress has considered and is considering legislation on a wide
range of immigration issues. Chief among these are the transfer of immigration
authorities to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), expedited naturalization
through military service, and foreign temporary workers and business personnel.
Since passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) and the
creation of DHS, Congress has considered legislation to clarify the allocation of
immigration authorities between the Secretary of DHS and the Attorney General.
P.L. 108-7 amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in an apparent effort
to clarify the authority that was to remain with the Attorney General. H.R. 1416, as
passed by the House and reported by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee,
would further amend the INA to remove certain references to the Attorney General.
The 108th Congress has enacted a measure on expedited naturalization through
military service. P.L. 108-136, the FY2004 Defense Department Authorization bill,
amends military naturalization and posthumous citizenship statutes and provides
immigration benefits for immediate relatives of U.S. citizen servicemembers who die
as a result of actual combat service.
In the area of foreign temporary workers and business personnel, the 108th
Congress has enacted legislation to implement the Chile (P.L. 108-77) and Singapore
(P.L. 108-78) Free Trade Agreements. These agreements address several categories
of temporary workers and business personnel currently governed by the INA,
including professional workers. Separate legislation on H-1B professional workers
(S. 1452/H.R. 2849, H.R. 2235, H.R. 2688, and H.R. 3534) and L intracompany
transfers (H.R. 2154, H.R. 2702, and S. 1452/H.R. 2849) has likewise been
introduced. Also pending are proposals to reform existing guest worker programs (S.
1645/H.R. 3142, H.R. 3534, H.R. 3604, and S. 2010) and establish new guest worker
programs (S. 1387, S. 1461/H.R. 2899, H.R. 3651, and S. 2010).
Among the other subjects of immigration-related legislation receiving action are
adjustment of status of unauthorized alien students (S. 1545), noncitizen eligibility
for Medicaid (P.L. 108-173), consular identification cards (H.R. 1950), and
employment eligibility verification pilot programs (P.L. 108-156).
This report will be updated as legislative developments occur.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Transfer of Immigration Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Expedited Naturalization Through Military Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Temporary Workers and Business Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Professional Workers (H-1B Visas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Intracompany Transfers (L Visas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Free Trade Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Guest Worker Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Legal Permanent Residence for Unauthorized Aliens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Adjustment of Alien Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Adjustment of Alien Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Noncitizen Eligibility for Public Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Higher Education Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Consular Identification Cards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Employment Eligibility Verification Pilot Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Other Legislation and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Refugees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Resettlement Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Religious Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Victims of Trafficking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Anti-Atrocity Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Other Legislation Receiving Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Iraqi Scientists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Irish Peace Process Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Immigrant Investor Pilot Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Legislation List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

---

Immigration Legislation and Issues
in the 108th Congress
Introduction
The 108th Congress has considered and is considering legislation on a wide
range of immigration issues. Two of these issues — the transfer of immigration
authorities and expedited naturalization through military service — relate directly to
post-September 11, 2001 U.S. efforts to improve national security. In the aftermath
of the terrorist attacks, the 107th Congress established a new Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-
296). DHS was tasked with preventing terrorist attacks in the United States and
reducing the nation’s vulnerability to terrorism, among other responsibilities.
Effective March 1, 2003, P.L. 107-296 abolished the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the agency which had
administered and enforced the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),1 and
transferred most immigration-related functions to the newly created DHS. Lingering
questions remain, however, about the division of authorities between DOJ and DHS
in some areas. Pending legislation would amend the INA to explicitly transfer certain
authorities to DHS. Like the establishment of DHS, Operation Iraqi Freedom had a
goal of protecting U.S. national security. This operation prompted congressional
interest in legislation to expand the citizenship benefits of aliens serving in the
military. The 108th Congress has enacted a measure (P.L. 108-136) that amends
military naturalization and posthumous citizenship statutes and provides immigration
benefits for immediate relatives of U.S. citizen servicemembers who die as a result
of actual combat service.
Other measures before the 108th Congress — such as those on temporary
workers and business personnel, adjustment of status for unauthorized aliens, and
noncitizen eligibility for public benefits — concern more perennial immigration-
related questions. These include how to use the immigration system to meet U.S.
labor needs, how to address unauthorized immigration to the United States, and what
types of benefits to provide to noncitizens. Of course, today’s heightened security
concerns have likewise added new dimensions to these old questions. In the current
debate over consular identification cards, for example, issues of unauthorized
immigration and security have been raised. This report discusses these and other
immigration-related issues that have seen legislative action or are of significant
1 Act of June 27, 1952, ch. 477; 66 Stat. 163; 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. The INA is the basis of
current immigration law.

---

CRS-2
congressional interest.2 The final section of the report lists enacted legislation and
selected bills receiving action.
Transfer of Immigration Authorities
For decades, the administrative authority to interpret, implement, enforce, and
adjudicate immigration law within the United States lay almost exclusively with one
officer: the Attorney General. The most general statement of this power was found
in §103(a)(1) of the INA, the fundamental statute regulating the entry and stay of
aliens. With some exceptions, immigration functions were delegated to INS, which
was headed by a Commissioner who reported to the Attorney General.
On March 1, 2003, primary responsibility for securing our borders and
managing the immigration process shifted to DHS. This transfer was effectuated
through general language in the Homeland Security Act (HSA; P.L. 107-296):
Congress did not amend every affected section of the INA to change all references
to the Attorney General that were effectively superceded by the general transfer of
authority. However, Congress did amend the language of §103(a) of the INA, first
in §1102 of the HSA and later in Division L, §105, of the Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution of 2003 (P.L. 108-7). This section now states:
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall be charged with the administration and
enforcement of [the INA] and all other laws relating to the immigration and
naturalization of aliens, except insofar as this chapter or such laws relate to the
powers, functions, and duties conferred upon the President, Attorney General,
the Secretary of State .... Provided, however, That determination and ruling by
the Attorney General with respect to all questions of law shall be controlling.
The revised language reflects the transfer of general authority, but may leave
certain issues unresolved. First, exactly what immigration powers and functions are
to be retained by the Attorney General? Laws to date make clear that the Attorney
General is to remain responsible for administrative adjudications by immigration
judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals, and that determinations and rulings
by the Attorney General on questions of law are to be controlling. However, the
intended extent of these and possible other retained powers may not be altogether
clear at the operational level. Second, to the degree that authority over immigration
is now fragmented or overlapping, how are the respective authorities of DHS and the
Attorney General to be coordinated and reconciled?
It has been argued that only a section-by-section revision of the INA, replacing
references to the Attorney General with references to the Secretary of Homeland
Security where appropriate, will truly clarify the allocation of authorities between the
two departments.3 A bill to replace certain INA references to the Attorney General
2 For a basic introduction to immigration, see CRS Report RS20916, Immigration and
Naturalization Fundamentals, by Ruth Wasem.
3 David A. Martin, “Immigration Policy and the Homeland Security Act Reorganization: An
(continued...)

---

CRS-3
with references to the Secretary of Homeland Security (H.R. 1416) was adopted by
the House on June 24, 2003, and reported by the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee on November 25, 2003. As passed by the House and reported by the
Senate Committee, this bill, the “Homeland Security Technical Corrections Act of
2003,” would remove specified references to the Attorney General, INS, and the INS
Commissioner in INA §103 (leaving intact the controlling nature of the Attorney
General’s determinations of law) and in INA §287(g), which concerns acceptance of
state services to carry out immigration enforcement. According to the House Select
Committee on Homeland Security report on H.R. 1416 (H.Rept. 108-104), the bill
“improves the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and honors the original intentions of
the drafters by making grammatical and technical corrections.” Nonetheless,
questions may remain as to how far this provision would fully clarify and resolve
outstanding issues of authority.4
Expedited Naturalization Through Military Service
Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003 there has been
considerable interest in legislation to expand the citizenship benefits of aliens serving
in the military. The reported deaths in action of noncitizen soldiers have drawn
attention to provisions of the INA that grant posthumous citizenship to those who die
as a result of active-duty service during a period of hostilities. The INA also provides
for expedited naturalization for noncitizens serving in the United States military.
During peacetime, noncitizens in the military may petition to naturalize after 3 years
aggregate military service rather than the requisite 5 years of legal permanent
residence. During periods of military hostilities, noncitizens serving in the armed
forces can naturalize immediately.
In the wake of September 11, 2001, and the war against terrorism, President
George W. Bush officially designated the period beginning on September 11, 2001,
as a “period of hostilities,” which triggered immediate naturalization eligibility for
active-duty U.S. military servicemembers. At the time of the designation (July 3,
2002), the Department of Defense and the former INS announced that they would
work together to ensure that military naturalization applications were processed
expeditiously. As of February 2003, there were 37,000 noncitizens serving in active
duty in the U.S. armed forces, almost 12,000 noncitizens serving in the selected
reserves, and another 8,000 serving in the inactive national guard and ready reserves.
Of the many pending bills containing provisions concerning expedited or
posthumous citizenship as the result of military service, H.R. 1588, the “National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004,” became P.L. 108-136 on
November 24, 2003. Title XVII of H.R. 1588, entitled “Naturalization and Other
Immigration Benefits for Military Personnel and Families,” amends existing military
3 (...continued)
Early Agenda for Practical Improvements,” Interpreter Releases, vol. 80, Apr. 28, 2003.
pp. 601, 613 (note 66).
4 See CRS Report RL31997, Authority to Enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
in the Wake of the Homeland Security Act: Legal Issues, by Stephen R. Viña.

---

CRS-4
naturalization statutes by: reducing the period of service required for naturalization
based on peacetime service from 3 years to 1 year; waiving fees for naturalization
based on military service during peacetime or wartime; permitting discretionary
revocation of naturalization granted on or after the date of enactment through
peacetime or wartime service if the citizen were discharged from military service
under other than honorable conditions before serving honorably for an aggregate
period of 5 years; permitting naturalization processing overseas in U.S. embassies,
consulates, and military bases; providing for priority consideration for military leave
and transport to finalize naturalization; and extending naturalization based on
wartime service to members of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve.
Additionally, the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary’s designee within the DHS
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services is authorized to request posthumous
citizenship immediately upon obtaining permission from the next-of-kin.
P.L. 108-136 expands immigration benefits available to the immediate relatives
(spouses, children, and parents) of citizens, including posthumous citizens, who die
from injuries or illnesses resulting from or aggravated by serving in combat. Such
relatives would remain classified as immediate relatives of a U.S. citizen for
immigration purposes, notwithstanding the death of the servicemember, and could
self-petition for immigrant status. Certain adjustment requirements and the public
charge ground of inadmissibility would be waived. In addition, children and parents,
as well as spouses, of U.S. citizens who die during honorable active-duty service
would be eligible to naturalize without prior residence or a specified period of
physical presence in the United States. This includes survivors of posthumous
citizens who died on or after September 11, 2001.
P.L. 108-136 also amends the relevant sections of the INA to change references
to the Attorney General to references to the Secretary of Homeland Security. The
effective date of the provisions in P.L. 108-136 would be retroactive to September
11, 2001, except for the fee waivers and provision for naturalization proceedings
abroad, which shall take effect on October 1, 2004.5
Temporary Workers and Business Personnel
The INA provides for the temporary admission of various categories of foreign
workers and business personnel. Foreign nationals admitted to the United States on
a temporary basis are known as nonimmigrants. The major nonimmigrant category
for temporary workers is the H visa. The H visa category includes the H-1B visa for
professional specialty workers, the H-2A visa for agricultural workers, and the H-2B
visa for nonagricultural workers, among other visa classifications. Foreign nationals
also may be temporarily admitted to the United States for work- or business-related
purposes under other nonimmigrant categories, including the B-1 visa for business
5 For further information, see CRS Report RL31884, Expedited Citizenship Through
Military Service: Policy and Issues, by Margaret Mikyung Lee and Ruth Ellen Wasem.

---

CRS-5
visitors, the E visa for treaty traders and investors, and the L-1 visa for intracompany
transfers.6
Professional Workers (H-1B Visas)
The economic prosperity of the 1990s fueled a drive to increase the levels of
employment-based immigration. Both Congress and the Federal Reserve Board
expressed concern at that time that a scarcity of labor could curtail the pace of
economic growth. A primary response was to increase the supply of foreign
temporary professional (H-1B) workers through FY2003. The 108th Congress now
weighs whether to extend these increased H-1B visa ceilings or let the levels revert
to the statutory limit of 65,000. Certain labor market protections aimed at firms
whose workforce is more than 15% H-1B workers (known as H-1B dependent
employers) also sunset at the end of FY2003.
The 106th Congress enacted the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first
Century Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-313) with bipartisan support in October 2000. That
law raised the number of H-1B visas by 297,500 over 3 years. It also made changes
in the use of H-1B fees for the education and training of U.S. residents, notably
earmarking a portion of training funds for skills that are in information technology
shortage areas and adding a math, science, and technology education grant program.
Separate legislation (P.L. 106-311) increased the H-1B fee, authorized through
FY2003, from $500 to $1,000. The 107th Congress enacted provisions that allow H-
1B workers to remain beyond the 6-year statutory limit if their employers have
petitioned for them to become legal permanent residents.
Those opposing any extension of the increased H-1B visa ceilings or an easing
of admissions requirements assert that there is no compelling evidence of a labor
shortage in these professional areas that cannot be met by newly graduating students
and the retraining of the existing U.S. work force. They argue further that the
education of U.S. students and training of U.S. workers should be given priority over
fostering a reliance on foreign workers.
Proponents of maintaining current H-1B levels assert that the education of
students and the retraining of the current workforce are long-term responses to
potential labor shortages, and that H-1B workers are essential if the United States is
to remain globally competitive. Some proponents argue that employers should be
free to hire the best people for the jobs, maintaining that market forces should
regulate H-1B visas, not an arbitrary ceiling.
On July 24, 2003, Senator Christopher Dodd and Representative Nancy Johnson
introduced the “USA Jobs Protection Act of 2003" (S. 1452/H.R. 2849), which
would make several changes to current law on H-1B visas. Among these changes,
it would broaden the lay-off protection provisions pertaining to H-1B dependent
employers to cover all H-1B employers, and would give the Department of Labor the
authority to initiate investigations of H-1B employers if there is reasonable cause.
6 For an overview of nonimmigrant admissions, see CRS Report RL31381, U.S. Immigration
Policy on Temporary Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.

---

CRS-6
Two other bills (H.R. 2235 and H.R. 2688) would suspend or eliminate H-1B visas.
H.R. 3534 would amend the H visa category more generally. It would eliminate the
current subcategories, including the H-1B visa, and replace them with a single
category covering aliens coming temporarily to the United States to perform skilled
or unskilled work.7
Intracompany Transfers (L Visas)
Concerns have been voiced that the L visa category, which allows executives
and managers of multinational corporations to work temporarily in the United States,
is being misused. This visa category permits multinational firms to transfer top-level
personnel to their locations in the United States for 5 to 7 years. Intracompany
transfers enter on L-1 visas, and their spouses and children enter on L-2 visas.
Although the number of L visas (L-1s and L-2s combined) issued has tripled in the
past 20 years, the number of L visas that the Department of State issued in FY2002
(112,624) is down from a high of 120,538 in FY2001.
Some are now charging that firms are using the L visa to transfer “rank and file”
professional employees rather than limiting these transfers to top-level personnel,
thus circumventing immigration laws aimed at protecting U.S. employees from the
potential adverse employment effects associated with an increase in the number of
foreign workers. Proponents of current law maintain that any restrictions on L visas
would prompt many multinational firms to leave the United States, as well as
undermine reciprocal agreements that currently permit U.S. corporations to transfer
their employees abroad.
Legislation that would amend the L-1 visa has been introduced (H.R. 2154, H.R.
2702, S. 1452/H.R. 2849, and S. 1635). All of these bills have provisions aimed at
restricting the outsourcing of U.S. jobs to L-1 visa holders (that is, the importing of
L-1 workers to perform U.S. jobs). S. 1635, introduced by Senator Saxby Chambliss,
chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and
Citizenship, would amend the INA to prohibit entry of an alien with specialized
knowledge who will be stationed primarily at the worksite of an employer other than
the petitioning employer if: (1) the alien will be controlled and supervised
principally by such unaffiliated employer; or (2) the alien’s placement at the
unaffiliated employer’s worksite is part of an arrangement to provide labor for that
employer, rather than a product or service for which specialized knowledge specific
to the petitioning employer is necessary. S. 1635 also would eliminate the 6-month
requirement of prior continuous overseas employment for blanket petitions (thus
subjecting all L-1 aliens to a 1-year requirement), and would direct DHS to maintain
L-1 statistics. Several of the bills (H.R. 2702 and S. 1452/H.R. 2849) include labor
attestation requirements designed to protect U.S. workers from displacement or other
potentially adverse effects on the labor market brought on by importing L-1 visa
holders.8
7 See CRS Report RL30498, Immigration: Legislative Issues on Nonimmigrant Professional
Specialty (H-1B) Workers, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
8 See CRS Report RL32030, Immigration Policy for Intracompany Transfers (L Visa):
Issues and Legislation, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.

---

CRS-7
Free Trade Agreements
The U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the U.S.-Singapore FTA
create separate categories of entry for citizens of each country to engage in a wide
range of business and investment activities as nonimmigrants. Chapter 14 of the
U.S.-Chile FTA and Chapter 11 of the U.S.-Singapore FTA address four specific
categories of nonimmigrant admissions currently governed by U.S. immigration law:
business visitors (parallel to the INA’s B-1 visa category); treaty traders and investors
(parallel to the E visa category); intracompany transfers (parallel to the L visa
category); and professional workers (parallel to the H-1B visa category).
Legislation to implement the Chile and Singapore FTAs was introduced on July
15, 2003, as S. 1416/H.R. 2738 and S. 1417/H.R. 2739, respectively. The House
passed H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739 on July 24, 2003, and the Senate passed them on
July 31,2003. The Chile FTA implementing law is P.L. 108-77, and the Singapore
FTA implementing law is P.L. 108-78. These laws amend several sections of the
INA. Foremost, the laws amend INA §101(a)(15)(H) to carve out a portion of the H-
1B visas — designated as the H-1B-1 visa — for professional workers entering
through the FTAs. In many ways the FTA professional worker visa requirements
parallel the H-1B visa requirements, notably having similar educational requirements.
The H-1B visa, however, specifies that the occupation require highly specialized
knowledge, while the FTA professional worker visa specifies that the occupation
require only specialized knowledge.
P.L. 108-77 contains a numerical limit of 1,400 new entries under the FTA
professional worker visa from Chile, and P.L. 108-78 contains a limit of 5,400 for
Singapore. Under the laws, the FTA professional visa is initially issued for 1 year,
but can be renewed without limit; by comparison, an H-1B worker is limited to a
total stay of 6 years. The laws count an FTA professional worker against the H-1B
cap the first year he or she enters and again after the fifth year he or she seeks
renewal. Although the FTA professional worker would remain a temporary resident
and would only be permitted to work for an employer who had met the applicable
labor attestation requirements, he or she could legally remain in the United States
indefinitely.
These FTA provisions on the temporary entry of business personnel and
professional workers are raising concerns among many in the field of immigration
because immigration law traditionally is spelled out by Congress, not the executive
branch. Some assert that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) negotiated these
immigration provisions without any authority or direction from Congress. This
assertion implies that the USTR did not honor its obligations of the “fast track
authority,” found in the Trade Promotion Authority objectives of the Trade Act of
2002 (P.L. 107-210), to regularly and formally consult with Congress during the FTA
negotiations in return for expedited legislative procedures, which among other things
bar amendments to the FTA enabling legislation. More generally, some point out
that these provisions would constrain current and future Congresses when they
consider revising immigration law on business personnel, treaty investors and traders,
intracompany transfers, and professional workers because the United States would
run the risk of violating the FTAs.

---

CRS-8
The USTR maintains that the temporary entry of professionals falls within Trade
Promotion Authority objectives regarding the opening of foreign country markets for
U.S. services and investment, and that ensuring cross-border mobility of
professionals and other business persons is critical for U.S. companies in developing
new markets and business opportunities abroad. The USTR further argues that the
temporary business personnel provisions in the FTAs are not immigration policy
because they only affect temporary entry. The USTR points out that it issued a notice
of intent to negotiate provisions to facilitate the temporary entry of business persons
in October 2001 and that it briefed congressional staff on the FTA provisions on
numerous occasions.9
Guest Worker Programs
Currently, the United States has two main programs for temporarily importing
low-skilled workers, sometimes referred to as guest workers. Agricultural workers
enter through the H-2A program and nonagricultural workers enter through the H-2B
program. Pending bills (S. 1645/H.R. 3142 and H.R. 3604) propose to overhaul the
H-2A program. Among other provisions, these bills would streamline the process of
importing H-2A workers and make changes to existing H-2A requirements regarding
minimum benefits, wages, and working conditions. With respect to agricultural guest
worker proposals, the House Agriculture Committee held a hearing in January 2004
to review the potential impact of such proposals on the agricultural sector. S. 2010
would reform the H-2B program. Among other changes, it would allow the
importing of H-2B workers to perform short-term labor or services; current law limits
H-2B workers to the performance of temporary work. H.R. 3534 proposes to amend
the H visa category more generally. It would eliminate the current subcategories,
including the H-2A and H-2B visas, and replace them with a single category covering
aliens coming temporarily to the United States to perform skilled or unskilled work.
Also before the 108th Congress are proposals to create new temporary worker
programs (S. 1387, S. 1461/H.R. 2899, H.R. 3651, and S. 2010). These bills would
amend the INA to establish new nonimmigrant categories. S. 1387 would establish
two new categories, one for seasonal workers and one for nonseasonal workers. S.
1461/H.R. 2899 would likewise establish two new nonimmigrant categories. One
would cover aliens coming to the United States to perform temporary work, and the
other would cover unauthorized alien workers. The new category proposed in H.R.
3651 would cover unauthorized aliens. In addition to reforming the H-2B category,
S. 2010 would establish a new category for temporary workers in occupation
classifications not covered by the H-1B, H-2A, H-2B, or other specified high-skilled
nonimmigrant visa categories.10 Provisions in some of the above bills to enable
certain aliens to obtain legal permanent residence are discussed in the next section.
9 See CRS Electronic Briefing Book, Trade, page on “Immigration Issues in the Free Trade
Agreements,” available at [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebtra135.html].
10 See CRS Report RL32044, Immigration: Policy Considerations Related to Guest Worker
Programs, by Andorra Bruno.

---

CRS-9
Legal Permanent Residence for
Unauthorized Aliens
According to estimates by the former INS, the unauthorized (illegally present)
alien population in the United States in January 2000 totaled about 7.0 million. More
than two-thirds (69%) of these illegal residents were believed to be Mexican
nationals. Several bills before the 108th Congress, some of which are discussed
below, would enable certain unauthorized aliens to adjust to legal permanent resident
(LPR) status. Adjustment refers to the process under immigration law by which an
individual present in the United States is granted legal permanent residence.
Adjustment of Alien Workers
Some pending guest worker bills (see above) would establish special
mechanisms for alien workers in the United States to become LPRs. S. 1645/H.R.
3142 would establish a two-stage legalization program for agricultural workers;
aliens could first apply for temporary resident status and then, after meeting
additional requirements, could apply to adjust to LPR status. Under S. 1461/H.R.
2899 and S. 2010, certain alien workers could apply directly for LPR status. By
contrast, S. 1387, H.R. 3534, H.R. 3604, and H.R. 3651 do not propose special
mechanisms for guest workers to obtain LPR status.11
Adjustment of Alien Students
A bill that would enable certain unauthorized alien students to become LPRs (S.
1545) has been reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Known as the
“DREAM Act,” S. 1545 would establish a two-stage process through which eligible
aliens would first be granted conditional LPR status and then after meeting additional
requirements, could become full-fledged LPRs. To be eligible for conditional LPR
status under the bill, an alien must have been under age 16 at the time of initial entry
into the United States, have resided continuously here for at least 5 years preceding
enactment, and have a high school diploma (or equivalent credential) or have gained
admission to an institution of higher education, among other requirements. Related
bills have been introduced in the House (H.R. 84, H.R. 1684, and H.R. 3271).12
Provisions in the bills related to eligibility for higher education benefits are discussed
separately below.
11 Ibid.
12 See CRS Report RL31365, Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and Legislation, by
Andorra Bruno and Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.

---

CRS-10
Noncitizen Eligibility for Public Benefits
Prior to 1996, LPRs were eligible for federal public benefits, such as Medicaid,
under terms comparable to citizens, and states were not permitted to restrict access
to federal programs on the basis of immigration status. The 1996 welfare reform law
(P.L. 104-193) made most newly entering LPRs ineligible for federal public benefits
for 5 years; after 5 years, it allowed states to continue barring LPRs from federal
public benefits, including Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance
Program (SCHIP). Nonetheless, all noncitizens, regardless of status, who otherwise
meet the eligibility requirements for Medicaid, are eligible for emergency Medicaid.
On December 8, 2003, President Bush signed the Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-173). It includes a provision
to reimburse healthcare providers for uncompensated treatment given to unauthorized
aliens, aliens paroled13 into the United States for the purpose of receiving eligible
services, and Mexican citizens permitted to enter the United States with border
crossing cards (also referred to as “laser visas”). Specifically, P.L. 108-173 instructs
the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to pay local governments,
hospitals, or other providers such amounts as they can demonstrate were used to
provide uncompensated emergency health services to unauthorized aliens, aliens
paroled into the United States, and Mexican citizens entering with border crossing
cards. Funding is allocated to states based on a formula, and the state allotment is
available to reimburse health care providers in that state. For each of fiscal years
2005 through 2008, the provision appropriates $250 million, of which:
! $167 million is designated to states based on the percentage of
unauthorized aliens residing in the state compared to the total
number of unauthorized aliens in the United States; and
! $83 million is designated to the 6 states with the highest percentage
of unauthorized alien apprehensions for the fiscal year.
P.L. 108-173 also requires the Secretary of HHS to establish a process, including
measures to protect against fraud and abuse, for hospitals and other health care
providers to apply for reimbursement.
Higher Education Benefits
Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act (IIRIRA; Division C of P.L. 104-208) made unauthorized aliens ineligible for
postsecondary education benefits based on state residence unless equal benefits were
made available to all U.S. citizens regardless of state of residence. Bills before the
108th Congress (including S. 1545, as reported) would repeal IIRIRA §505 and, as
discussed above, would enable certain unauthorized alien students to become LPRs.
Pending House bills (H.R. 84 and H.R. 1684) also would make alien students who
13 “Parole” is a term in immigration law which means that the alien has been granted
temporary permission to enter and be present in the United States. Parole does not
constitute formal admission to the United States, and parolees are required to leave when
the parole expires or, if eligible, to be admitted in a lawful status.

---

CRS-11
apply for relief under their terms eligible for federal postsecondary education
benefits, such as student financial aid, while their applications are pending. S. 1545,
as reported, does not contain such provisions.14
Consular Identification Cards
The current debate about consular identification cards in the United States has
centered around the matrícula consular, the consular card issued by the Mexican
government to its citizens in the United States when they register with a consulate.
In recent years, and especially since the September 11, 2001 attacks, Mexican
consulates in the United States and other interested parties have worked to gain
acceptance of the matrícula consular as identification for a variety of purposes, with
considerable success.
The matrícula consular raises a number of questions for domestic and foreign
policy. With respect to domestic policy, there is much debate about the costs and
benefits of the cards in the areas of immigration, public safety and law enforcement,
and homeland security. Relevant foreign policy issues include the U.S.-Mexico
bilateral relationship, reciprocity of treatment of citizens abroad, and consular
notification in law enforcement situations.
Legislation related to consular identification cards is before the 108th Congress.
The House-passed Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY2004-FY2005 (H.R.
1950) contains provisions to restrict the issuance of such cards by foreign missions.
Other pending measures concern acceptance of consular identification cards by U.S.
federal entities (H.R. 502, H.R. 687, and H.R. 3534), and acceptance of the cards for
banking purposes (H.R. 773 and H.J.Res. 58).15
Employment Eligibility Verification Pilot Programs
IIRIRA (in Title IV, Subtitle A) directed the Attorney General to conduct three
pilot programs for employment eligibility confirmation, i.e., to confirm that new hires
are legally eligible to work. It further directed the Attorney General to establish an
employment eligibility confirmation system to be used by employers participating in
the pilot programs. Each program was authorized initially for 4 years. P.L. 107-128
extended the life of each program from 4 years to 6 years.
14 See CRS Report RL31365, Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and Legislation, by
Andorra Bruno and Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
15 See CRS Report RL32094, Consular Identification Cards: Domestic and Foreign Policy
Implications, the Mexican Case, and Related Legislation, by Andorra Bruno and K. Larry
Storrs; and CRS Report RS21627, Implications of the Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations upon the Regulation of Consular Identification Cards, by Jennifer K. Elsea and
Michael John Garcia.

---

CRS-12
The first program to be implemented, known as the “basic pilot program,” began
in November 1997. Under IIRIRA, the basic pilot is to operate in at least five of the
seven states with the largest estimated unauthorized alien populations. Currently, it
is operating in six states (California, Florida, Illinois, Nebraska, New York, and
Texas). Although some employers are required to participate in a pilot program,
participation in the programs is, for the most part, voluntary.
S. 1685, as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, would amend IIRIRA’s
pilot program provisions. It would extend each program for an additional 5 years,
thereby authorizing the basic pilot program until 2008. S. 1685 also would provide
for the operation of the basic pilot program in all states by December 1, 2004. It
would not change the IIRIRA provisions concerning voluntary or mandatory
participation.
During Senate floor consideration, S. 1685 was amended to add unrelated
provisions concerning the immigrant investor regional center pilot program. These
provisions, which were previously passed by the Senate in another bill (S. 1642), are
discussed below in the “Other Legislation Receiving Action” section. S. 1685, as
amended, was passed by the Senate and House. On December 3, 2003, the President
signed the bill into law (P.L. 108-156).
Earlier in the session, a related bill (H.R. 2359) had been considered in the
House. As reported by the House Judiciary Committee, H.R. 2359, like S. 1685,
would have extended each pilot program for an additional 5 years and would have
provided for the operation of the basic pilot program in all states. Additionally, H.R.
2359 would have allowed the pilot program confirmation system to be used for
government inquiries about an individual’s immigration status. A separate provision
of IIRIRA (§642(c)) directed the former INS to respond to inquiries by federal, state,
or local government agencies seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or
immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agencies for any
purpose authorized by law. H.R. 2359 would have provided that such inquiries may
be submitted and responded to using the employment eligibility confirmation system.
A modified version of H.R. 2359, which contained all the above provisions, was
considered on the House floor on October 28, 2003. A motion to suspend the rules
and pass the bill, as amended, failed. The 231 to 170 vote on the motion fell short
of the required two-thirds vote.

---

CRS-13
Other Legislation and Issues
Refugees
The refugee ceiling for FY2003 was 70,000, with 50,000 of these numbers
allocated among the regions of the world and the remaining 20,000 comprising an
“unallocated reserve” to be used if, and where, the need for additional refugee slots
arose. Actual FY2003 refugee admissions totaled about 28,400. The Presidential
Determination for FY2004, signed on October 21, 2003, again sets the refugee
ceiling at 70,000 and includes 20,000 unallocated refugee numbers. Refugee
numbers that are unused in a fiscal year are lost; they do not carry over into the
following year.
The “Lautenberg amendment” requires the Attorney General to designate
categories of former Soviet and Indochinese nationals for whom less evidence is
needed to prove refugee status, and provides for adjustment to LPR status for certain
former Soviet and Indochinese nationals denied refugee status. P.L. 108-7 extended
the Lautenberg amendment through FY2003. The Consolidated Appropriations Act
for FY2004 (P.L. 108-199) extends the amendment through FY2004. In addition, it
amends the Lautenberg amendment to also require the designation of categories of
Iranian nationals, specifically religious minorities, for whom less evidence is needed
to prove refugee status.
Another provision in P.L. 108-199 instructs the Secretary of State to utilize
private voluntary organizations with refugee-related expertise in the identification,
referral, and processing of refugees overseas. Currently, the identification and
referral of refugees for the U.S. refugee program is done primarily by the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
The “McCain amendment,” first enacted in 1996, made the adult children of
certain Vietnamese refugees eligible for U.S. refugee resettlement. P.L. 107-185
revised and re-enacted the amendment for FY2002 and FY2003. Among its
provisions, this law enabled adult children previously denied resettlement to have
their cases reconsidered. H.R. 2792 would extend the amendment, as revised by P.L.
107-185, through FY2005.
Resettlement Funding. For FY2003, Congress provided $478.0 million for
HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). This total included $34.2 million
transferred to ORR from the former INS for the unaccompanied alien minors
program, pursuant to P.L. 107-296. For FY2004, P.L. 108-199 provides $450.3
million for ORR programs. The Bush Administration’s request for ORR for FY2005
is $473 million.16
16 See CRS Report RL31269, Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Policy, by Andorra
Bruno and Katherine Bush.

---

CRS-14
Religious Workers
P.L. 108-99 extends a provision in immigration law that allows for the
admission of immigrants to perform religious work. These religious workers enter
under the fourth preference category of employment-based immigration, known as
“special immigrants,” and are subject to an annual cap of 5,000. P.L. 108-99 extends
this religious worker provision for 5 additional years, through September 30, 2008.
Ministers of religion are treated separately from religious workers; the special
immigrant provision covering them is permanent.
Prior to the Immigration Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-649), ministers of religion were
admitted to the United States without numerical limits, and there was no separate
provision for religious workers. Religious workers immigrated through one of the
more general categories of numerically-limited, employment-based immigration that
were in effect at that time. The Immigration Act of 1990 amended the INA to
redefine the special immigrant category (which is subject to an overall cap) to include
ministers of religion as well as religious workers, and created a new nonimmigrant
(i.e., temporary) visa for religious workers, commonly referred to as the R visa. The
1990 Act also contained a “sunset”of the special immigrant provision for religious
workers on September 30, 1994. The provision was subsequently extended through
September 30, 1997, and then again through September 30, 2003.17
Victims of Trafficking
P.L. 106-386 created a new nonimmigrant category, known as the T visa or T
status, for aliens who are victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons. To
qualify for the T category, in addition to being a victim of a severe form of trafficking
in persons, the alien must:
! be physically present in the United States, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or a U.S. port of
entry because of such trafficking;
! have complied with any reasonable request for assistance to law
enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking,
or be under age 15; and
! be likely to suffer extreme hardship involving unusual and severe
harm upon removal.
To receive T status, the alien must also be admissible to the United States or obtain
a waiver of inadmissibility. The act also makes aliens who have a bona fide
application for T status eligible to receive certain public benefits to the same extent
as refugees. Additionally, the spouse, children, and, in some cases, parents of an
alien granted T status may be given derivative T status in order to avoid extreme
hardship.
17 See RS21630, Immigration of Religious Workers: Background and Legislation, by Ruth
Ellen Wasem.

---

CRS-15
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-193)
changes eligibility for T status by: (1) raising the age of the exemption for complying
with reasonable requests for assistance in the investigation and prosecution of
traffickers from age 15 to age 18; (2) making unmarried aliens under age 18, who are
the siblings of trafficking victims who are under age 21, eligible for derivative T
status; (3) preventing the aging-out of children who were under age 21 when their
parents filed applications for T status; and (4) removing public charge as a ground
for inadmissibility to T status. P.L. 108-193 also authorizes $15 million in each of
fiscal years 2004 and 2005 for the Secretary of HHS to provide services to victims
of trafficking.
Anti-Atrocity Legislation
S. 710, as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, would make aliens who
commit acts of torture, extrajudicial killings, or severe violations of religious
freedom abroad inadmissible to, and removable from, the United States. Aliens who
committed acts of torture or extrajudicial killings also would be ineligible for asylum,
refugee status, or withholding of removal. In addition, S. 710 would expand the
authority of the Office of Special Investigations, within DOJ’s Criminal Division, to
detect, investigate, and take legal action to denaturalize aliens who participated in
torture, extrajudicial killings, or genocide abroad. The bill would authorize such
sums as necessary to ensure that the Office of Special Investigations can carry out its
new obligations while continuing its original duties regarding Nazi War criminals.
H.R. 1440, the companion bill to S. 710, as introduced, has not received any action.
Other Legislation Receiving Action
Iraqi Scientists. S. 205, as passed by the Senate, would amend the INA to
provide for the nonimmigrant admission of certain scientists and others with
information about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program, and their families.
S. 205 would place a numerical limit of 500 on this category. The bill also would
grant the Attorney General discretion to adjust these nonimmigrants to LPR status.
Irish Peace Process Program. H.R. 2655, as passed by the House, would
amend and extend through FY2008 a visa program that enables young adults residing
in Northern Ireland or certain counties within the Republic of Ireland to work
temporarily in the United States.
Immigrant Investor Pilot Program. S. 1642, as passed by the Senate,
would extend the immigrant investor regional center pilot program for 5 additional
years. It also would authorize DHS to give priority in processing immigrant investor
visa petitions to aliens seeking admission under the pilot program. The text of S.
1642 was added as an amendment to an unrelated bill to extend and expand the
employment eligibility verification pilot programs (S. 1685, discussed above) during
consideration of that bill on the Senate floor. S. 1685, as amended to include the text
of S. 1642, was passed by the Senate and House, and signed into law by the
President as P.L. 108-156.

---

CRS-16
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). SCAAP provides
reimbursement to state and local governments for the direct costs associated with
incarcerating unauthorized aliens. S. 460, as passed by the Senate, would authorize
appropriations for SCAAP, as follows: such sums as necessary for FY2003; $750
million for FY2004; $850 million for FY2005; and $950 million each year for
FY2006-FY2010 P.L. 108-199 provides $300 million for SCAAP for FY2004.
Legislation List
P.L. 108-7 (H.J.Res. 2)
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003. Includes provisions related to
transfer of immigration authorities to DHS and refugee-related provisions. Passed
House on January 8, 2003. Passed Senate, as amended, on January 23, 2003. House
and Senate agreed to conference report (H.Rept. 108-10) on February 13, 2003.
Signed on February 20, 2003.
P.L. 108-77 (H.R. 2738)
United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. Reported by
Ways and Means Committee (H.Rept. 108-224, Part I) on July 21, 2003. Reported
by Judiciary Committee (H.Rept. 108-224, Part II) on July 22, 2003. Passed House
on July 24, 2003. Passed Senate on July 31, 2003. Signed on September 3, 2003.
P.L. 108-78 (H.R. 2739)
United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. Reported
by Ways and Means Committee (H.Rept. 108-225, Part I) on July 21, 2003.
Reported by Judiciary Committee (H.Rept. 108-225, Part II) on July 22, 2003.
Passed House on July 24, 2003. Passed Senate on July 31, 2003. Signed on
September 3, 2003.
P.L. 108-99 (H.R. 2152)
Amends INA to extend special immigrant religious worker program for 5
additional years. Reported by Judiciary Committee (H.Rept. 108-271) on September
16, 2003. Passed House on September 17, 2003. Passed Senate on October 3, 2003.
Signed on October 15, 2003.
P.L. 108-136 (H.R. 1588)
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. Reported by Armed
Services Committee (H.Rept. 108-106) on May 16, 2003; supplemental report
(H.Rept. 108-106, Part II) filed on May 21, 2003. Passed House on May 22, 2003.
Passed Senate, as amended, on June 4, 2003. Signed on November 24, 2003.
P.L. 108-156 (S. 1685)
Basic Pilot Program Extension and Expansion Act of 2003. Reported by
Judiciary Committee (without written report) on November 6, 2003. Passed Senate,
as amended, on November 12, 2003. Passed House on November 19, 2003. Signed
on December 3, 2003.

---

CRS-17
P.L. 108-173 (H.R. 1)
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.
Passed House on June 27, 2003. Passed Senate, as amended, on July 7, 2003. House
agreed to conference report (H.Rept. 108-391) on November 22, 2003; Senate agreed
on November 25, 2003. Signed on December 8, 2003.
P.L. 108-193 (H.R. 2620)
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003. Reported by
International Relations Committee (H.Rept. 108-264, Part I) on September 5, 2003.
Reported by Judiciary Committee (H.Rept. 108-264, Part II) on September 29, 2003.
Passed House, as amended, on November 5, 2003. Passed Senate on December 9,
2003. Signed on December 19, 2003.
P.L. 108-199 (H.R. 2673)
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004. Originally introduced as the FY2004
Agriculture Appropriations bill. Includes refugee-related provisions. Reported by
Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 108-193) on July 9, 2003. Passed House on July
14, 2003. Passed Senate, as amended, on November 6, 2003. House agreed to
conference report (H.Rept. 108-401) on December 8, 2003; Senate agreed on January
22, 2004. Signed on January 23, 2004.
H.R. 1416 (Cox)
Homeland Security Technical Corrections Act of 2003. Reported by Select
Committee on Homeland Security (H.Rept. 108-104) on May 15, 2003. Passed
House, as amended, on June 24, 2003. Reported by the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee (S.Rept. 108-214) on November 25, 2003.
H.R. 1950 (Hyde)
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005. Reported by
International Relations Committee (H.Rept. 108-105, Part I) on May 16, 2003;
supplemental report (H.Rept. 108-105, Part II) filed on June 12, 2003. Reported by
Armed Services Committee (H.Rept. 108-105, Part III) on June 30, 2003. Reported
by Energy and Commerce Committee (H.Rept. 108-105, Part IV) on July 11, 2003.
Passed House on July 16, 2003.
H.R. 2655 (Walsh)
Amends and extends the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program Act
of 1998. Reported by Judiciary Committee (H.Rept. 108-260, Part I) on September
4, 2003. Passed House, as amended, on October 7, 2003.
S. 205 (Biden)
Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act of 2003. Reported by Judiciary Committee
(without written report) on January 30, 2003. Passed Senate on March 20, 2003.
S. 460 (Feinstein)
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Reauthorization Act of 2003. Passed
Senate on November 25, 2003.

---

CRS-18
S. 710 (Leahy)
Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act of 2003. Reported by Judiciary Committee
on November 6, 2003; H-Rept. 108-209 filed on November 24, 2003.
S. 1545 (Hatch)
Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2003. Reported
by Judiciary Committee (without written report) on November 25, 2003.
S. 1642 (Leahy)
Extends the immigrant investor regional center pilot program for 5 additional
years and authorizes giving immigrant investor visa priority to aliens seeking
admission under the program. Passed Senate, as amended, on October 3, 2003.
Provisions incorporated into S. 1685 (P.L. 108-156).

---