Order Code RL32235
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
U.S. Immigration Policy on
Permanent Admissions
Updated May 12, 2006
Ruth Ellen Wasem
Specialist in Immigration Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions
Summary
When President George W. Bush announced his principles for immigration
reform in January 2004, he included an increase in permanent immigration as a key
component. President Bush has stated that immigration reform is a top priority of his
second term and has prompted a lively debate on the issue. Bills to revise permanent
admissions are being introduced, but only one has had legislative action thus far in
the 109th Congress. A provision in P.L. 109-13 (H.R. 1268, the emergency FY2005
supplemental appropriation) makes up to 50,000 employment-based visas available
for foreign nationals coming to work as medical professionals.
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S. 2611/S. 2612) would
substantially increase legal immigration and would restructure the allocation of these
visas. Title V of S. 2611/S. 2612 would potentially double the number of family-
based and employment-based immigrants admitted over the next decade, as well as
expand the categories of immigrants who may come without numerical limits. Title
IV of S. 2454, which Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist introduced, as well as Title
V in the Senate Judiciary Committee mark had similar provisions, but lower levels
of employment-based immigration. Proposals to alter permanent admissions are
included in several other comprehensive immigration proposals (S. 1033/H.R. 2330,
S. 1438, H.R. 3700, H.R. 3938, S. 1919).
Four major principles underlie current U.S. policy on permanent immigration:
the reunification of families, the admission of immigrants with needed skills, the
protection of refugees, and the diversity of admissions by country of origin. These
principles are embodied in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA
specifies a complex set of numerical limits and preference categories that give
priorities for permanent immigration reflecting these principles. Legal permanent
residents (LPRs) refer to foreign nationals who live lawfully and permanently in the
United States.
During FY2004, a total of 946,142 aliens became LPRs in the United States.
Of this total, 65.6% entered on the basis of family ties. Additional major immigrant
groups in FY2004 were employment-based preference immigrants (including spouses
and children) at 16.4%, and refugees and asylees adjusting to LPR status at 7.5%.
Mexico led all countries with 175,364 aliens who became LPRs in the United States.
India followed at a distant second with 70,116 LPRs. The Philippines was third with
57,827. These three countries comprised almost one-third of all LPRs in FY2004.
Significant backlogs are due to the sheer volume of aliens eligible to immigrate
to the United States. Citizens and LPRs often wait several years for the relatives’
petitions to be processed. After USCIS processes the petitions, the relatives of U.S.
citizens and LPRs then wait for a visa to become available through the numerically
limited categories. The siblings of U.S. citizens are waiting 12 years. Unmarried
adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens who filed petitions five years ago are now
eligible for visas. Prospective LPRs from the Philippines have the most substantial
waiting times; consular officers are now considering the petitions of the brothers and
sisters of U.S. citizens from the Philippines who filed more than 22 years ago.

---

Contents
Latest Legislative Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Current Law and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Worldwide Immigration Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Per-Country Ceilings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Other Permanent Immigration Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Admissions Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Immigration Patterns, 1900-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
FY2004 Admissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Backlogs and Waiting Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Visa Processing Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Petition Processing Backlogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Legislation in 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Issues in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
President Bush’s Immigration Reform Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Provisions Receiving Action in First Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Recaptured Visa Numbers for Nurses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Recaptured Employment-Based Visa Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Pending Senate Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Key Issues of Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Securing America’s Borders Act (S. 2454)/Chairman’s Mark . . . . . . 18
Comprehensive Immigration Reform (S. 2611/S. 2612) . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Other Comprehensive Reform Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (S. 1033/H.R. 2330) . . 22
Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005 . 22
Immigration Accountability Act of 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Immigration Control and Reform Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Enforcement First Immigration Reform Act of 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Additional Immigration Reduction Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Permanent Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Petition Processing and Adjudication Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
List of Figures
Figure 1. Annual Immigration Admissions and Status Adjustments,
1900-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 2. Legal Permanent Residents: New Arrivals and Adjustments
of Status, FY1995-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

---

Figure 3. Top Sending Countries (Comprising More Than Half of All LPRs):
Selected Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 4. Legal Immigrants by Major Category, FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 5. Top Twelve Immigrant-Sending Countries, FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 6. Projections of Employment-based and Family-based LPRs under
S. 2611/S. 2612 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
List of Tables
Table 1. Legal Immigration Preference System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. Other Major Legal Immigration Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3. FY2004 Immigrants by Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 4. Priority Dates for Family Preference Visas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 5. Priority Dates for Employment Preference Visas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Top Fifty Sending Countries in FY2004 by Category of LPR . . . 27
Appendix B. Processing Dates for Immigrant Petitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

---

U.S. Immigration Policy on
Permanent Admissions
Latest Legislative Developments
The Senate is expected to consider major immigration legislation before the
Memorial Day recess.1 The Senate debated immigration reform from late March
through early April 2006, but efforts to invoke cloture failed. At that time, the
leading proposals included S. 2454, the Securing America’s Borders Act, which
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist introduced on March 16, 2006, and S.Amdt. 3192
to S. 2454, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, which Judiciary Chairman
Arlen Specter offered on March 30, 2006.2 Title IV of S. 2454 and Title V of
S.Amdt. 3192, which are essentially equivalent, would substantially increase legal
permanent immigration and would restructure the allocation of the family-sponsored
and employment-based visas.
The legislative proposal reportedly coming to the Senate floor as early as next
week is based on a compromise that Senators Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez shaped
and introduced April 7, 2006, along with co-sponsors Sam Brownback, Lindsey
Graham, Ted Kennedy, John McCain and Arlen Specter. The identical language has
been introduced by Senator Specter (S. 2611) and Senator Hagel (S. 2612). Much
like S. 2454 and S.Amdt. 3192, S. 2611/S. 2612 would substantially increase legal
permanent immigration and would restructure the allocation of the family-sponsored
and employment-based visas.
None of the provisions in Title IV of S. 2454, Title V of S.Amdt. 3192, or Title
V of S. 2611/S. 2612 is in H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and
Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, as passed by the House on December 16,
2005.
Overview
Four major principles currently underlie U.S. policy on legal permanent
immigration: the reunification of families, the admission of immigrants with needed
skills, the protection of refugees, and the diversity of admissions by country of origin.
These principles are embodied in federal law, the Immigration and Nationality Act
1 For background and legislative tracking, see CRS Report RL33125, Immigration
Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress, coordinated by Andorra Bruno.
2 S.Amdt. 3192 is based on the legislative language that the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary approved on March 27, 2006.

---

CRS-2
(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,
and the statutory provisions regulating permanent immigration to the United States
were last revised significantly by the Immigration Act of 1990.3
The two basic types of legal aliens are immigrants and nonimmigrants. As
defined in the INA, immigrants are synonymous with legal permanent residents
(LPRs) and refer to foreign nationals who come to live lawfully and permanently in
the United States. The other major class of legal aliens are nonimmigrants — such
as tourists, foreign students, diplomats, temporary agricultural workers, exchange
visitors, or intracompany business personnel — who are admitted for a specific
purpose and a temporary period of time. Nonimmigrants are required to leave the
country when their visas expire, though certain classes of nonimmigrants may adjust
to LPR status if they otherwise qualify.4
The conditions for the admission of immigrants are much more stringent than
nonimmigrants, and many fewer immigrants than nonimmigrants are admitted. Once
admitted, however, immigrants are subject to few restrictions; for example, they may
accept and change employment, and may apply for U.S. citizenship through the
naturalization process, generally after five years.
Petitions for immigrant (i.e., LPR) status are first filed with U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) by
the sponsoring relative or employer in the United States. If the prospective
immigrant is already residing in the United States, the USCIS handles the entire
process, which is called “adjustment of status” because the alien is moving from a
temporary category to LPR status. If the prospective LPR does not have legal
residence in the United States, the petition is forwarded to the Department of State’s
(DOS) Bureau of Consular Affairs in their home country after USCIS has reviewed
it. The Consular Affairs officer (when the alien is coming from abroad) and USCIS
adjudicator (when the alien is adjusting status in the United States) must be satisfied
that the alien is entitled to the immigrant status. These reviews are intended to ensure
that they are not ineligible for visas or admission under the grounds for
inadmissibility spelled out in INA.5
3 Congress has significantly amended the INA numerous times since 1952. Other major
laws amending the INA are the Refugee Act of 1980, the Immigration Reform and Control
Act of 1986, and Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
8 U.S.C. §1101 et seq.
4 Nonimmigrants are often referred to by the letter that denotes their specific provision in
the statute, such as H-2A agricultural workers, F-1 foreign students, or J-1 cultural exchange
visitors. CRS Report RL31381, U.S. Immigration Policy on Temporary Admissions, by
Ruth Ellen Wasem.
5 These include criminal, national security, health, and indigence grounds as well as past
violations of immigration law. § 212(a) of INA.

---

CRS-3
Many LPRs are adjusting status from within the United States rather than
receiving visas issued abroad by Consular Affairs.6 In FY2004, a total of 679,305
aliens (64%) adjusted to LPR status in the United States while only 384,427 arrived
as LPRs from abroad. More than three-fourths (77%) of the employment-based
immigrants, two-thirds (63%) of the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, and only
one-third (34%) of the other family-preference immigrants adjusted to LPR status
within the United States.
The INA specifies that each year countries are held to a numerical limit of 7%
of the worldwide level of U.S. immigrant admissions, known as per-country limits.
The actual number of immigrants that may be approved from a given country,
however, is not a simple percentage calculation. Immigrant admissions and
adjustments to LPR status are subject to a complex set of numerical limits and
preference categories that give priority for admission on the basis of family
relationships, needed skills, and geographic diversity, as discussed below.7
Current Law and Policy
Worldwide Immigration Levels
The INA provides for a permanent annual worldwide level of 675,000 legal
permanent residents (LPRs), but this level is flexible and certain categories of LPRs
are permitted to exceed the limits, as described below.8 The permanent worldwide
immigrant level consists of the following components: family-sponsored immigrants,
including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and family-sponsored preference
immigrants (480,000 plus certain unused employment-based preference numbers
from the prior year); employment-based preference immigrants (140,000 plus certain
unused family preference numbers from the prior year); and diversity immigrants
(55,000).9 Immediate relatives10 of U.S. citizens as well as refugees and asylees who
are adjusting status are exempt from direct numerical limits.11
6 For background and analysis of visa issuance and admissions policy, see CRS Report
RL31512, Visa Issuances: Policy, Issues, and Legislation, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
7 Immigrants are aliens who are admitted as LPRs or who adjust to LPR status within the
United States.
8 § 201 of INA; 8 U.S.C. § 1151.
9 For more information, see CRS Report RS21342, Immigration: Diversity Visa Lottery, by
Ruth Ellen Wasem and Karma Ester.
10 “Immediate relatives” are defined by the INA to include the spouses and unmarried minor
children of U.S. citizens, and the parents of adult U.S. citizens.
11 CRS Report RL31269, Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Policy, by Andorra Bruno.

---

CRS-4
Table 1. Legal Immigration Preference System
Category
Numerical limit
Total Family-Sponsored Immigrants
480,000
Immediate
Aliens who are the spouses and unmarried
Unlimited
relatives
minor children of U.S. citizens and the
parents of adult U.S. citizens
Family-sponsored Preference Immigrants
Worldwide Level 226,000
1st preference
Unmarried sons and daughters of citizens
23,400 plus visas not required for
4th preference
2nd preference
(A) Spouses and children of LPRs
114,200 plus visas not required for
(B) Unmarried sons and daughters of LPRs
1st preference
3rd preference
Married sons and daughters of citizens
23,400 plus visas not required for
1st or 2nd preference
4th preference
Siblings of citizens age 21 and over
65,000 plus visas not required for
1st, 2nd, or 3rd preference
Employment-Based Preference Immigrants
Worldwide Level 140,000
1st preference
Priority workers: persons of extraordinary
28.6% of worldwide limit plus
ability in the arts, science, education,
unused 4th and 5th preference
business, or athletics; outstanding
professors and researchers; and certain
multi-national executives and managers
2nd preference
Members of the professions
holding
28.6% of worldwide limit plus
advanced degrees or persons of exceptional
unused 1st preference
abilities in the sciences, art, or business
3rd preference —
Skilled shortage workers with at least two
28.6% of worldwide limit plus
skilled
years training or experience, professionals
unused 1st or 2nd preference
with baccalaureate degrees
3rd preference —
Unskilled shortage workers
10,000 (taken from
the
total
“other”
available for 3rd preference)
4th preference
“Special immigrants,” including ministers
7.1% of worldwide limit; religious
of religion, religious workers other than
workers limited to 5,000
ministers, certain employees of the U.S.
government abroad, and others
5th preference
Employment creation investors who invest
7.1% of worldwide limit; 3,000
at least $1 million (amount may vary in
minimum reserved for investors in
rural areas or areas of high unemployment)
rural or high unemployment areas
which will create at least 10 new jobs
Source: CRS summary of §§ 203(a), 203(b), and 204 of INA; 8 U.S.C. § 1153.
The annual level of family-sponsored preference immigrants is determined by
subtracting the number of immediate relative visas issued in the previous year and
the number of aliens paroled12 into the United States for at least a year from 480,000
(the total family-sponsored level) and — when available — adding employment
preference immigrant numbers unused during the previous year. By law, the family-
sponsored preference level may not fall below 226,000. In recent years, the 480,000
level has been exceeded to maintain the 226,000 floor on family-sponsored
preference visas after subtraction of the immediate relative visas.
12 “Parole” is a term in immigration law which means that the alien has been granted
temporary permission to be present in the United States. Parole does not constitute formal
admission to the United States and parolees are required to leave when the terms of their
parole expire, or if otherwise eligible, to be admitted in a lawful status.

---

CRS-5
Within each family and employment preference, the INA further allocates the
number of LPRs issued visas each year. As Table 1 summarizes the legal
immigration preference system, the complexity of the allocations becomes apparent.
Note that in most instances unused visa numbers are allowed to roll down to the next
preference category.13
Employers who seek to hire prospective employment-based immigrants through
the second and third preference categories also must petition the U.S. Department of
Labor (DOL) on behalf of the alien. The prospective immigrant must demonstrate
that he or she meets the qualifications for the particular job as well as the preference
category. If DOL determines that a labor shortage exists in the occupation for which
the petition is filed, labor certification will be issued. If there is not a labor shortage
in the given occupation, the employer must submit evidence of extensive recruitment
efforts in order to obtain certification.14
Per-Country Ceilings
As stated earlier, the INA establishes per-country levels at 7% of the worldwide
level.15 For a dependent foreign state, the per-country ceiling is 2%. The per-country
level is not a “quota” set aside for individual countries, as each country in the world,
of course, could not receive 7% of the overall limit. As the State Department
describes, the per-country level “is not an entitlement but a barrier against
monopolization.”
Two important exceptions to the per-country ceilings have been enacted in the
past decade. Foremost is an exception for certain family-sponsored immigrants.
More specifically, the INA states that 75% of the visas allocated to spouses and
children of LPRs (2ndA family preference) are not subject to the per-country ceiling.16
Prior to FY2001, employment-based preference immigrants were also held to per-
country ceilings. The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act
of 2000 (P.L. 106-313) enabled the per-country ceilings for employment-based
immigrants to be surpassed for individual countries that are oversubscribed as long
as visas are available within the worldwide limit for employment-based preferences.
The impact of these revisions to the per-country ceilings is discussed later in this
report.
13 Employment-based allocations are further affected by § 203(e) of the Nicaraguan and
Central American Relief Act (NACARA), as amended by § 1(e) of P.L. 105-139. This
provision states that when the employment 3rd preference “other worker” (OW) cut-off date
reached the priority date of the latest OW petition approved prior to November 19, 1997, the
10,000 OW numbers available for a fiscal year are to be reduced by up to 5,000 annually
beginning in the following fiscal year. This reduction is to be made for as long as necessary
to offset adjustments under NACARA. Since the OW cut-off date reached Nov. 19, 1997
during FY2001, the reduction in the OW limit to 5,000 began in FY2002.
14 See CRS Report RS21520, Labor Certification for Permanent Immigrant Admissions, by
Ruth Ellen Wasem.
15 § 202(a)(2) of the INA; 8 U.S.C. § 1151.
16 § 202(a)(4) of the INA; 8 U.S.C. § 1151.

---

CRS-6
The actual per-country ceiling varies from year to year according to the prior
year’s immediate relative and parolee admissions and unused visas that roll over. In
FY2003, the per-country ceiling was set at 27,827 and in FY2002 was 25,804.
According to the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, the ceiling for
FY2004 was expected to be about 30,000. Processing backlogs, discussed later in
this report, also inadvertently reduced the number of LPRs in FY2003. Only
705,827 people became LPRs in FY2003. USCIS was only able to process 161,579
of the potential 226,000 family-sponsored LPRs in FY2003, and thus 64,421 LPR
visas rolled over to the FY2004 employment-based categories.17
Other Permanent Immigration Categories
There are several other major categories of legal permanent immigration in
addition to the family-sponsored and employment-based preference categories.
These classes of LPRs cover a variety of cases, ranging from aliens who win the
Diversity Visa Lottery to aliens in removal (i.e., deportation) proceedings granted
LPR status by an immigration judge because of exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship. Table 2 summarizes these major classes and identifies whether they are
numerically limited.
Table 2. Other Major Legal Immigration Categories
Nonpreference Immigrants
Numerical Limit
Asylees
Aliens in the United States who have been
No limits on
granted asylum due to persecution or a
receiving asylum.
well-founded fear of persecution and who
must wait one year before petitioning for
LPR status
Cancellation of
Aliens in removal proceedings granted
4,000 (with certain
Removal
LPR status by an immigration judge
exceptions)
because of exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship
Diversity Lottery
Aliens from foreign nations with low
55,000
admission levels; must have high school
education or equivalent or minimum two
years work experience in a profession
requiring two years training or experience
Refugees
Aliens abroad who have been granted
Presidential
refugee status due to persecution or a
Determination for
well-founded fear of persecution and who
refugee status, no
must wait one year before petitioning for
limits on LPR
LPR status
adjustments
Other
Various classes of immigrants, such as
Dependent on
Amerasians, parolees, and certain Central
specific adjustment
Americans, Cubans, and Haitians who are
authority
adjusting to LPR status
Source: CRS summary of §§ 203(a), 203(b), 204, 207, 208, and 240A of INA; 8 U.S.C. § 1153.
17 Telephone conversation with DOS Bureau of Consular Affairs, Feb. 13, 2004.

---

CRS-7
Admissions Trends
Immigration Patterns, 1900-2004
Immigration to the United States is not totally determined by shifts in flow that
occur as a result of lawmakers revising the allocations. Immigration to the United
States plummeted in the middle of the 20th Century largely as a result of factors
brought on by the Great Depression and World War II. There are a variety of “push-
pull” factors that drive immigration. Push factors from the immigrant-sending
countries include such circumstances as civil wars and political unrest, economic
deprivation and limited job opportunities, and catastrophic natural disasters. Pull
factors in the United States include such features as strong employment conditions,
reunion with family, and quality of life considerations. A corollary factor is the
extent that aliens may be able to migrate to other “desirable” countries that offer
circumstances and opportunities comparable to the United States.
The annual number of LPRs admitted or adjusted in the United States rose
gradually after World War II, as Figure 1 illustrates. However, the annual
admissions have not reached the peaks of the early 20th century. The DHS Office of
Immigration Statistics (OIS) data present those admitted as LPRs or those adjusting
to LPR status. The growth in immigration after 1980 is partly attributable to the total
number of admissions under the basic system, consisting of immigrants entering
through a preference system as well as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, that was
augmented considerably by legalized aliens.18 The Immigration Act of 1990
increased the ceiling on employment-based preference immigration, with the
provision that unused employment visas would be made available the following year
for family preference immigration. In addition, the number of refugees admitted
increased from 718,000 in the period 1966-1980 to 1.6 million during the period
1981-1995, after the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980.
18 The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 legalized several million aliens residing
in the United States without authorization.

---

CRS-8
Figure 1. Annual Immigration Admissions and Status Adjustments,
1900-2004
1,400
1,200
1,000
Legalized Aliens
800
600
400
200
0
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990 1995 20002004
Source: Statistical Yearbook of Immigration,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Office of Immigration Statistics, multiple fiscal years.
Aliens legalizing through the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 are depicted by year of arrival.
Many LPRs are adjusting status from within the United States rather than
receiving visas issued abroad by Consular Affairs before they arrive in the United
States. In the past decade, the number of LPRs arriving from abroad has remained
somewhat steady, hovering between a high of 421,405 in FY1996 and a low of
358,411 in FY2003. Adjustments to LPR status in the United States has fluctuated
over the same period, from a low of 244,793 in FY1999 to a high of 679,305 in
FY2002. As Figure 2 shows, most of the variation in total number of aliens granted
LPR status over the past decade is due to the number of adjustments processed in the
United States. In FY2004, 61.7% (583,921) of all LPRs were adjusting status within
the United States.

---

CRS-9
Figure 2. Legal Permanent Residents: New Arrivals and Adjustments of
Status, FY1995-FY2004
Thousands
1200
Arrivals
Adjustments
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Source: Statistical Yearbook of Immigration,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Office of Immigration Statistics, (multiple years)
.
In any given period of United States history, a handful of countries have
dominated the flow of immigrants, but the dominant countries have varied over time.
Figure 3 presents trends in the top immigrant-sending countries (together comprising
at least 50% of the immigrants admitted) for selected decades and illustrates that
immigration at the close of the 20th century is not as dominated by a few countries as
it was earlier in the century. This finding suggests that the per-country ceilings
established in 1965 had some effect. As Figure 3 illustrates, immigrants from only
three or four countries made up more then half of all LPRs prior to 1960. By the last
two decades of the 20th century, immigrants from seven to eight countries comprised
about half of all LPRs and this patterns has continued into the 21st century.

---

CRS-10
Figure 3. Top Sending Countries
(Comprising More Than Half of All LPRs): Selected Periods
Although Europe was home to the countries sending the most immigrants during
the early 20th century, Mexico has been a top sending country for most of the 20th
century. Other top sending countries from the Western Hemisphere are the
Dominican Republic and most recently — El Salvador and Cuba. In addition, Asian
countries — notably the Philippines, India, China, Korea, and Vietnam — have
emerged as top sending countries today.
FY2004 Admissions
During FY2004, a total of 946,142 aliens became LPRs in the United States.
The largest number of immigrants are admitted because of a family relationship with
a U.S. citizen or resident immigrant, as Figure 4 illustrates. Of the total LPRs in
FY2004, 65.6% entered on the basis of family ties. Immediate relatives of U.S.
citizens made up the single largest group of immigrants, as Table 3 indicates.
Family preference immigrants — the spouses and children of immigrants, the adult
children of U.S. citizens, and the siblings of adult U.S. citizens — were the second
largest group. Additional major immigrant groups in FY2004 were employment-
based preference immigrants (including spouses and children) at 16.4%, and refugees
and asylees adjusting to immigrant status at 7.5%.19
19 The largest group in the “other category” are aliens who adjusted to LPR status through
cancellation of removal and through §202 and §203 of the Nicaraguan and Central American
(continued...)

---

CRS-11
Table 3. FY2004 Immigrants by Category
Total
946,142
Immediate relatives of citizens
406,074
Family preference
419,791
Employment preference
155,330
Refugee and asylee adjustments
71,230
Diversity
50,084
Other
49,069
Source: Statistical Yearbook of Immigration, FY2004, DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, June
2005.
Figure 4. Legal Immigrants by Major Category, FY2004
Family
65.6%
Cancellation
of Removal
& Other
5.2%
Diversity
5.3%
Refugees
7.5%
Employment
& Asylees
16.4%
0.95 million
Source: CRS presentation of FY2004 data from the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics.
As Figure 5 presents, Mexico led all countries with 175,364 aliens who became
LPRs in FY2004. India followed at a distant second with 70,116 LPRs. The
Philippines came in third with 57,827. These three countries comprise almost one-
third of all LPRs in FY2004, and two exceeded the per-country ceiling for preference
immigrants because they benefitted from special exceptions to the per-country
19 (...continued)
Relief Act of 1997.

---

CRS-12
ceilings. Mexico did so as a result of the provision in INA that allows 75% of family
second preference (i.e., spouses and children of LPRs) to exceed the per-country
ceiling, while India exceeded the ceiling through the exception to the employment-
based per-country limits.
The top 12 immigrant-sending countries depicted in Figure 5 accounted for
57% of all LPRs in FY2004. The top 50 immigrant-sending countries contributed
88% of all LPRs in FY2004. Appendix A provides detailed data on the top 50
immigrant-sending countries by major category of legal immigration.
Figure 5. Top Twelve Immigrant-Sending Countries, FY2004
Mexico
India
Philippines
China
Vietnam
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Cuba
Korea
Colombia
Guatemala
Canada
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
Thousands
Family
Employment
Refugee/Asylee
Diversity
Other
Source: CRS presentation of FY2004 data from the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics.
Backlogs and Waiting Times
Visa Processing Dates
According to the INA, family-sponsored and employment-based preference
visas are issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition has been filed.
Spouses and children of prospective LPRs are entitled to the same status, and the
same order of consideration as the person qualifying as principal LPR, if
accompanying or following to join (referred to as derivative status). When visa
demand exceeds the per-country limit, visas are prorated according to the preference
system allocations (detailed in Table 1) for the oversubscribed foreign state or
dependent area. These provisions apply at present to the following countries

---

CRS-13
oversubscribed in the family-sponsored categories: China, Mexico, the Philippines,
and India.
Table 4. Priority Dates for Family Preference Visas
Category
Worldwide
China
India
Mexico
Philippines
Unmarried sons
and daughters of
Apr. 22, 2001 Apr. 22, 2001 Apr. 22, 2001
Aug. 8, 1994 Aug. 22, 1991
citizens
Spouses and
Mar. 1, 2002
Mar. 1, 2002
Mar. 1, 2002
June 15, 1999
Mar. 1, 2002
children of LPRs
Unmarried sons
and daughters of
July 15, 1996 July 15, 1996 July 15, 1996 Feb. 15, 1991
July 8, 1996
LPRs
Married sons and
daughters of
July 22, 1998 July 22, 1998 July 22, 1998
Jan. 1, 1995
Feb. 8, 1991
citizens
Siblings of citizens Nov. 8, 1994 Nov. 8, 1994 April 1, 1994 Aug. 15, 1993 Oct. 8, 1983
age 21 and over
Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin for April 2006.
As Table 4 evidences, relatives of U.S. citizens and LPRs are waiting in
backlogs for a visa to become available, with the brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
now waiting almost 12 years. “Priority date” means that unmarried adult sons and
daughters of U.S. citizens who filed petitions on April 22, 2001, are now being
processed for visas. Married adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens who filed
petitions seven years ago (July 22, 1998) are now being processed for visas.
Prospective family-sponsored immigrants from the Philippines have the most
substantial waiting times before a visa is scheduled to become available to them;
consular officers are now considering the petitions of the brothers and sisters of U.S.
citizens from the Philippines who filed more than 22 years ago.
Because of P.L. 106-313's easing of the employment-based per-country limits,
few countries and categories are currently oversubscribed in the employment-based
preferences. As Table 5 presents, however, some employment-based visa categories
are once again unavailable. The Department of State’s Visa Bulletin for July 2005,
offered the following explanation: “The Employment Third and Third Other Worker
categories have reached their annual limits and no further FY2005 allocations are
possible for the period July through September. With the start of the new fiscal year
in October, numbers will once again become available in these categories.”20 The
Visa Bulletin for September 2005 offered further information: “The backlog
reduction efforts of both Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Department
of Labor continue to result in very heavy demand for Employment-based numbers.
It is anticipated that the amount of such cases will be sufficient to use all available
numbers in many categories...demand in the Employment categories is expected to
20 The archived copies of the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa
Bulletin, is available at [http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html].

---

CRS-14
be far in excess of the annual limits, and once established, cut-off date movements
are likely to be slow.”21
When the Visa Bulletin for October 2005 became available, it was evident that
third preference visas (professional, skilled and unskilled) were oversubscribed on
a worldwide level. The countries that are particularly effected by the oversubscription
of the employment-based preference categories are China and India. The visa waiting
times have eased somewhat, as indicated by the data from the Visa Bulletin for April
2006, which is presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Priority Dates for Employment Preference Visas
Category
Worldwide
China
India
Mexico
Philippines
Priority workers
current
Jan. 1, 2004
Jan. 1, 2005
current
current
Advanced degrees/
current
Jan. 1, 2003
July 1, 2002
current
current
exceptional ability
Skilled and
May 1, 2001
May 1, 2001
Feb 1, 2001
April 8, 2001
May 1, 2001
professional
Unskilled
Oct. 1, 2001
Oct. 1, 2001
Oct. 1, 2001
Oct. 1, 2001
Oct. 1, 2001
Schedule A*
current
current
current
current
current
Special
current
current
current
current
current
immigrants
Investors
current
current
current
current
current
Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin for April 2006.
* Schedule A refers to §502 of Division B, Title V of P.L. 109-13, which makes up to 50,000
permanent employment-based visas available for foreign nationals coming to work as nurses.
Petition Processing Backlogs
Distinct from the visa priority dates that result from the various numerical limits
in the law, there are significant backlogs due to the sheer volume of aliens eligible
to immigrate to the United States. As of December 31, 2003, USCIS reported 5.3
million immigrant petitions pending.22 USCIS decreased the number of immigrant
petitions pending by 24% by the end of FY2004, but still had 4.1 million petitions
pending.23 The latest processing dates for immediate relative, family preference, and
employment-based LPR petitions are presented in Appendix B for each of the four
USCIS Regional Service Centers.
21 The U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin, is available at
[http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html].
22 According to USCIS, other immigration-related petitions, such as applications for work
authorizations or change of nonimmigrant status, filed bring the total cases pending to over
6 million. Telephone conversation with USCIS Congressional Affairs, Feb. 12, 2004.
23 DHS Office of Immigration Statistics. For USCIS workload statistics, see
[http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/Workload.htm].

---

CRS-15
Even though there are no numerical limits on the admission of aliens who are
immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, such citizens petitioning for their relatives are
waiting at least a year and in some parts of the country, more than two years for the
paperwork to be processed. Citizens and LPRs petitioning for relatives under the
family preferences are often waiting several years for the petitions to be processed.
Appendix B is illustrative, but not comprehensive because some immigration
petitions may be filed at USCIS District offices and at the National Benefits Center.
Aliens with LPR petitions cannot visit the United States. Since the INA
presumes that all aliens seeking admission to the United States are coming to live
permanently, nonimmigrants must demonstrate that they are coming for a temporary
period or they will be denied a visa. Aliens with LPR petitions pending are clearly
intending to live in the United States permanently and thus are denied nonimmigrant
visas to come temporarily.24
Legislation in 108th Congress
Legislation reforming permanent immigration came from a variety of divergent
perspectives in the 108th Congress. The sheer complexity of the current set of
provisions makes revising the law on permanent immigration a daunting task. This
discussion focuses only on those bills that would have revised the permanent
immigration categories and the numerical limits as defined in §201-§203 of the
INA.25
On January 21, 2004, Senators Chuck Hagel and Thomas Daschle introduced
legislation (S. 2010) that would, if enacted, potentially yield significant increases in
legal permanent admissions. The Immigration Reform Act of 2004 (S. 2010), would
have among other provisions: no longer deduct immediate relatives from the overall
family-sponsored numerical limits; treat spouses and minor children of LPRs the
same as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (exempt from numerical limits); and
reallocate the 226,000 family preference numbers to the remaining family preference
categories. In addition, many aliens who would have benefited from S. 2010's
proposed temporary worker provisions would be able to adjust to LPR status outside
the numerical limits of the per country ceiling and the worldwide levels.
Several bills that would offer more targeted revisions to permanent immigration
were offered in the House. Representative Robert Andrews introduced H.R. 539,
which would have exempted spouses of LPRs from the family preference limits and
thus treated them similar to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Representative
Richard Gephardt likewise included a provision that would have treated spouses of
24 §214(b) of INA. Only the H-1 workers, L intracompany transfers, and V family members
are exempted from the requirement that they prove that they are not coming to live
permanently.
25 For discussion of other major immigration legislation, see CRS Report RL32169,
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 108th Congress, coordinated by Andorra Bruno.
Other CRS reports on the reform of other immigration provisions are available at
[http://www.crs.gov/products/browse/is-immigration.shtml].

---

CRS-16
LPRs outside of the numerical limits in his “Earned Legalization and Family Unity
Act” (H.R. 3271). Representative Jerrold Nadler introduced legislation (H.R. 832)
that would have amended the INA to add “permanent partners” after “spouses” and
thus would have enabled aliens defined as permanent partners to become LPRs
through the family-based immigration categories as well as to become derivative
relatives of qualifying immigrants.
Legislation that would have reduced legal permanent immigration was
introduced early in the 108th Congress by Representative Thomas Tancredo. The
“Mass Immigration Reduction Act” (H.R. 946) would have zeroed out family
sponsored immigrants (except children and spouses of U.S. citizens), employment-
based immigrants (except certain priority workers) and diversity lottery immigrants
through FY2008. It also would have set a numerical limit of 25,000 on refugee
admissions and asylum adjustments. Representative J. Gresham Barrett introduced
an extensive revision of immigration law (H.R. 3522) that also included a significant
scaling back of permanent immigration.
Issues in the 109th Congress
President Bush’s Immigration Reform Proposal. When President
George W. Bush announced his principles for immigration reform in January 2004,
he included an increase in permanent legal immigration as a key component. The
fact sheet that accompanied his remarks referred to a “reasonable increase in the
annual limit of legal immigrants.”26 When the President spoke, he characterized his
policy recommendation as follows:
The citizenship line, however, is too long, and our current limits on legal
immigration are too low. My administration will work with the Congress to
increase the annual number of green cards that can lead to citizenship. Those
willing to take the difficult path of citizenship — the path of work, and patience,
and assimilation — should be welcome in America, like generations of
immigrants before them.27
Some commentators are speculating the President is promoting increases in the
employment-based categories of permanent immigration, but the Bush
Administration has not yet provided specific information on what categories of legal
permanent admissions it advocates should be increased. Details on the level of
increases the Administration is seeking also have not been provided.
The President featured his immigration reform proposal in the 2004 State of the
Union address, and a lively debate has ensued. Most of the attention has focused on
the new temporary worker component of his proposal and whether the overall
26 The White House, Fact Sheet: Fair and Secure Immigration Reform, Jan. 7, 2004.
Available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040107-1.html].
27 President George W. Bush, “Remarks by the President on Immigration Policy,” Jan. 7,
2004. Available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040107-3.html].

---

CRS-17
proposal constitutes an “amnesty” for aliens living in the United States without legal
authorization.
President Bush recently stated that immigration reform is a top priority. In an
interview with the Washington Times, the President responded to a question about
where immigration reform ranks in his second term agenda by saying, “I think it’s
high. I think it’s a big issue.” The President posited that the current situation is a
“bureaucratic nightmare” that must be solved.28
Provisions Receiving Action in First Session
Recaptured Visa Numbers for Nurses. Section 502 of Division B, Title
V of P.L. 109-13 (H.R. 1268, the emergency FY2005 supplemental appropriation)
amends the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (P.L.
106-313) to modify the formula for recapturing unused employment-based immigrant
visas for employment-based immigrants “whose immigrant worker petitions were
approved based on schedule A.” In other words, it makes up to 50,000 permanent
employment-based visas available for foreign nationals coming to work as nurses.
This provision was added to H.R. 1268 as an amendment in the Senate and was
accepted by the conferees.
Recaptured Employment-Based Visa Numbers. On October 20, 2005,
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary approved compromise language that would,
among other things, recapture up to 90,000 employment-based visas that had not
been issued in prior years (when the statutory ceiling of 140,000 visas was not met).
An additional fee of $500 would be charged to obtain these recaptured visas. This
language was forwarded to the Senate Budget Committee for inclusion in the budget
reconciliation legislation. On November 18, 2005, the Senate passed S. 1932, the
Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005, with these provisions as
Title VIII. These provisions were not included in the House-passed Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 (H.R. 4241).
The conference report (H.Rept. 109-362) on the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
(S. 1932) was reported during the legislative day of December 18, 2005. It did not
include the Senate provisions that would recapture employment-based visas unused
in prior years. On December 19, the House agreed to the conference report by a vote
of 212-206. On December 21, the Senate removed extraneous matter from the
legislation pursuant to a point of order raised under the “Byrd rule” and then, by a
vote of 51-50 (with Vice President Cheney breaking a tie vote), returned the amended
measure to the House for further action.
Pending Senate Legislation
Key Issues of Debate. As the 109th Congress debates immigration control
(i.e., border security and interior enforcement) and legal reform (i.e., temporary and
permanent admissions), the proposals that would significantly expand the number of
guest worker and other temporary foreign worker visas available each year and would
28 Washington Times, Jan. 12, 2005.

---

CRS-18
couple these increases with eased opportunities for these temporary workers to
ultimately adjust to LPR status are among the most contentious.29 Whether the LPR
adjustments of guest workers and other temporary foreign workers are channeled
through the numerically limited, employment-based preferences or are exempt from
numerical limits will obviously affect the future flow of LPRs. Whether the
legislation permits aliens currently residing in the United States without legal status
to adjust to LPR status, to acquire “earned legalization” or to obtain a guest worker
visa also has affects on future legal permanent admissions.30 Although guest workers
and other temporary foreign workers options as well as legalization proposals are not
topics of this report, the issues have become inextricably linked to the debate on legal
permanent admissions.

Securing America’s Borders Act (S. 2454)/Chairman’s Mark. Title
IV of S. 2454, the Securing America’s Borders Act, which Senate Majority Leader
Bill Frist introduced on March 16, 2006, as well as Title V in the draft of Senate
Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter’s mark circulated March 6, 2006 (Chairman’s
mark) would substantially increase legal immigration and would restructure the
allocation of these visas. The particular provisions in S. 2454 and the Chairman’s
mark are essentially equivalent.
Foremost, Title IV of S. 2454 and Title V of the Chairman’s mark would no
longer deduct immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from the overall family-sponsored
numerical limit of 480,000. This change would likely add at least 226,000 more
family-based admissions annually (based upon the current floor of 226,000 family-
sponsored visas). The bills would increase the annual number of employment-based
LPRs from 140,000 to 290,000. They also would no longer count the derivative
family members of employment-based LPRs as part of the numerical ceiling. If each
employment-based LPR would be accompanied by 1.2 family members (as is
currently the ratio), then an estimated 348,000 additional LPRs might be admitted.
The bills would “recapture” visa numbers from FY2001 through FY2005 in those
cases when the family-based and employment-based ceilings were not reached.
Title IV of S. 2454 and Title V of the Chairman’s mark would raise the current
per-country limit on LPR visas from an allocation of 7% of the total preference
allocation to 10% of the total preference allocation (which would be 480,000 for
family-based and 290,000 for employment-based under this bill). Coupled with the
proposed increases in the worldwide ceilings, these provision would ease the visa
wait times that oversubscribed countries (i.e., China, India, Mexico, and the
29 For an analysis of other major elements of these bills, see CRS Report RL32044,
Immigration: Policy Considerations Related to Guest Worker Programs, by Andorra
Bruno; and, CRS Report RL30498, Immigration: Legislative Issues on Nonimmigrant
Professional Specialty (H-1B) Workers, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
30 An estimated 60% of the 11 to 12 million unauthorized aliens residing in the United States
have been here for at least 5 years, according to calculations based upon analysis by
demographer Jeffrey Passel. “The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant
Population in the U.S.: Estimates Based on the March 2005 Current Population Survey,” by
Jeffrey S. Passel, Senior Research Associate, Pew Hispanic Center, available at:
[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf].

---

CRS-19
Philippines) currently have by substantially increasing their share of the overall
ceiling.
Title IV of S. 2454 and Title V of the Chairman’s mark would further reallocate
family-sponsored immigrants and employment-based visas. The numerical limits on
immediate relatives of LPRs would increase from 114,200 (plus visas not used by
first preference) to 240,000 annually. They would shift the allocation of visas from
persons of “extraordinary” and “exceptional” abilities and persons having advanced
professional degrees (i.e., first and second preferences), and increase the number of
visas to unskilled workers 10,000 to 87,000 — plus any unused visas that would roll
down from the other employment-based preference categories. Employment-based
visas for certain special immigrants would no longer be numerically limited.31
Comprehensive Immigration Reform (S. 2611/S. 2612). As the Senate
was locked in debate on S. 2454 and the Judiciary Chairman’s mark during the two-
week period March 28-April 7, 2006, an alternative was offered by Senators Chuck
Hagel and Mel Martinez. Chairman Specter, along with Senators Hagel, Martinez,
Graham, Brownback, Kennedy, and McCain introduced this compromise as S. 2611
on April 7, 2006, just prior to the recess. The identical language has been introduced
by Senator Hagel (S. 2612). Much like S. 2454 and S.Amdt. 3192, S. 2611/S. 2612
would substantially increase legal permanent immigration and would restructure the
allocation of the family-sponsored and employment-based visas.
In its handling of family-based legal immigration, Title V S. 2611/S. 2612
mirrors Title IV of S. 2454 and Title V of the Chairman’s mark. It would no longer
deduct immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from the overall family-sponsored
numerical limit of 480,000. This change would likely add at least 226,000 more
family-based admissions annually (based upon the current floor of 226,000 family-
sponsored visas). The numerical limits on immediate relatives of LPRs would
increase from 114,200 (plus visas not used by first preference) to 240,000 annually.
Assuming that the trend in the number of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens
continues at the same upward rate, the projected number of immediate relatives
would be approximately 470,000 in 2008. Assuming that the demand for the
numerically limited family preferences continues at the same level, the full 480,000
would be allocated. If these assumptions hold, the United States would likely be
admitting or adjusting an estimated 950,000 family-sponsored LPRs by 2009, as
Figure 6 projects.32
In terms of employment-based immigration, S. 2611/S. 2612 would increase the
annual number of employment-based LPRs from 140,000 to 450,000 from FY2007
through FY2016, and set the limit at 290,000 thereafter. S. 2611/S. 2612 also would
no longer count the derivative family members of employment-based LPRs as part
of the numerical ceiling. As in S. 2454, S. 2611/S. 2612 would reallocate
31 For analysis of immigration trends and projections under S. 2454, see CRS Congressional
Distribution Memorandum, “Legal Immigration: Modeling the Principle Components of
Permanent Admissions,” by Ruth Ellen Wasem, Mar. 28, 2006.
32 20 CFR §656.

---

CRS-20
employment-based visas as follows: up to 15% to “priority workers”; up to 15% to
professionals holding advanced degrees and certain persons of exceptional ability;
up to 35% to skilled shortage workers with two years training or experience and
certain professionals; up to 5% to employment creation investors; and up to 30%
(135,000) to unskilled shortage workers.
Employment-based visas for certain special immigrants would no longer be
numerically limited. S. 26111/S. 2612 also would no longer count the derivative
family members of employment-based LPRs as part of the numerical ceiling. If each
employment-based LPR would be accompanied by 1.2 family members (as is
currently the ratio), then an estimated 540,000 additional LPRs might be admitted.
These estimates yield almost a million (990,000) employment-based LPRs and their
accompanying family annually FY2007-FY2016, as Figure 6 projects.33
Figure 6. Projections of Employment-based and Family-based LPRs
under S. 2611/S. 2612
Assuming "Demand" for Visas and Immediate Relatives Continue at Current Rates
and Excluding Estimates of Temporary Worker Adjustments Exempt from
Preference Allocations
Thousands
2000
Immediate Relatives
Family-Preferences
1500
Skilled and Unskilled
Extraordinary
FY2004
Advanced degrees
946,142
1000
Employment Derivative Family
500
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2007 2008 2009
Projections
Note: Future Employment-based 4th preference special immigrants and 5th preference investers
have too many unknown factors to estimate.
Source: CRS analysis of data from the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics and the former INS.
In addition, special exemptions from numerical limits would also be made for
widows and orphan who meet specified risk factors and aliens who have worked in
the United States for three years and who have earned an advanced degree in science,
technology, engineering, or math. The bills would further increase overall levels of
immigration by reclaiming family and employment-based LPR visas when the annual
ceilings were not met, FY2001-FY2005. As noted earlier, unused visas from one
33 20 CFR §656.

---

CRS-21
preference category in one fiscal year roll over to the other preference category the
following year.
S. 2611/2612 are among those bills that would significantly expand the number
of guest worker and other temporary foreign worker visas available each year and
would couple these increases with eased opportunities for these temporary workers
to ultimately adjust to LPR status.34 Whether the LPR adjustments of guest workers
and other temporary foreign workers are channeled through the numerically limited,
employment-based preferences or are exempt from numerical limits (as are the
proposed F-4 foreign student fourth preference adjustments) will obviously affect the
projections and the future flows.35
S. 2611/2612 includes a provision that would exempt from direct numerical
limits those LPRs who are being admitted for employment in occupations that the
Secretary of Labor has deemed there are insufficient U.S. workers “able, willing and
qualified”to work. Such occupations are commonly referred to as Schedule A
because of the subsection of the code where the Secretary’s authority derives.
Currently, nurses and physical therapists are listed on Schedule A, as are certain
aliens deemed of exceptional ability in the sciences or arts (excluding those in the
performing arts).
Title V of S. 2611/S. 2612 would raise the current per-country limit on LPR
visas from an allocation of 7% of the total preference allocation to 10% of the total
preference allocation (which would be 480,000 for family-based and
450,000/290,000 for employment-based under this bill).36 Coupled with the proposed
increases in the worldwide ceilings, these provisions would ease the visa wait times
that oversubscribed countries (i.e., China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines)
currently have by substantially increasing their share of the overall ceiling. The bills
also would eliminate the exceptions to the per-country ceilings for certain family-
based and employment-based LPRs, which are discussed above.37
34 For an analysis of other major elements of these bills, see CRS Report RL32044,
Immigration: Policy Considerations Related to Guest Worker Programs, by Andorra
Bruno; and, CRS Report RL30498, Immigration: Legislative Issues on Nonimmigrant
Professional Specialty (H-1B) Workers, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
35 In S. 2611/S. 2612, unauthorized aliens who have been residing in the United States prior
to April 5, 2001, and meet specified requirements would be eligible to adjust to LPR status
outside of the numerical limits of INA. An estimated 60% of the 11 to 12 million
unauthorized aliens residing in the United States may be eligible to adjust through this
provision, according to calculations based upon analysis by demographer Jeffrey Passel.
“The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S.: Estimates
Based on the March 2005 Current Population Survey,” by Jeffrey S. Passel, Senior Research
Associate, Pew Hispanic Center, available at: [http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf].
36 The per-country ceiling for dependent states are raised from 2% to 7%.
37 For analysis of immigration trends and projections under S. 2611/S. 2612, see CRS
Congressional Distribution Memorandum, “Legal Immigration: Modeling the Principle
Components of Permanent Admissions, Part 2, “ by Ruth Ellen Wasem, May 10, 2006.

---

CRS-22
Other Comprehensive Reform Legislation
Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (S. 1033/H.R. 2330).
On May 12, 2005, a bipartisan group of Senators and Congressmen38 introduced an
expansive immigration bill known as the Secure America and Orderly Immigration
Act (S. 1033/H.R. 2330). Among other things, these bills would make significant
revisions to the permanent legal admissions sections of INA.39 Specifically Title VI
of the legislation would
! remove immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from the calculation of
the 480,000 annual cap on family-based visas for LPR status,
thereby providing additional visas to the family preference
categories;
! lower the income requirements for sponsoring a family member for
LPR status from 125% of the federal poverty guidelines to 100%;
! recapture for future allocations those LPR visas that were unused
due to processing delays from FY2001 through FY2005;
! increase the annual limit on employment-based LPR visa categories
from 140,000 to 290,000 visas; and
! raise the current per-country limit on LPR visas from an allocation
of 7% of the total preference allocation to 10% of the total
preference allocation (which would be 480,000 for family-based and
290,000 for employment-based under this bill).
Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005.
The Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005 (S. 1438),
introduced by Senators John Cornyn and Jon Kyl on July 20, 2005, has provisions
that would restructure the allocation of employment-based visas for LPRs. Among
the various proposals, Title X of this legislation would make the following specific
changes to the INA provisions on permanent admissions:
! reduce the allocation of visas to persons of “extraordinary” and
“exceptional” abilities and persons having advanced professional
degrees (i.e., first and second preferences);
! increase the number of visas to unskilled workers from a statutory
cap of 10,000 annually to a level of 36% of the 140,000 ceiling for
employment-based admissions (plus any other unused employment-
based visas);
! eliminate the category of diversity visas; and
! recapture for future allocations those employment-based visa
numbers that were unused from FY2001 through FY2005.
38 In the Senate, the co-sponsors are Senators John McCain, Ted Kennedy, Sam Brownback,
Ken Salazar, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman. In the House, the co-sponsors are lead
by Representatives Jim Kolbe, Jeff Flake and Luis Gutierrez.
39 For an analysis of other major elements of these bills, see CRS Report RL32044,
Immigration: Policy Considerations Related to Guest Worker Programs, by Andorra
Bruno.

---

CRS-23
Immigration Accountability Act of 2005. As part of a package of four
immigration reform bills, Senator Chuck Hagel has introduced the Immigration
Accountability Act of 2005 (S. 1919), which would provide for “earned adjustment
of status” for certain unauthorized aliens who meet specified conditions and would
expand legal immigration. In terms of permanent legal admissions, S. 1919 would
among other provisions:
! no longer deduct immediate relatives from the overall family-
sponsored numerical limits of 480,000;
! treat spouses and minor children of LPRs the same as immediate
relatives of U.S. citizens (i.e., exempt from numerical limits); and
! reallocate the 226,000 family preference numbers to the remaining
family preference categories.
The Hagel immigration reform proposal also includes legislation revising the
temporary worker programs, border security efforts, and employment verification.

Immigration Control and Reform Legislation
Enforcement First Immigration Reform Act of 2005. Title VI of the
Enforcement First Immigration Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 3938), introduced by
Representative J.D. Hayworth, focuses on revising permanent admissions. H.R. 3938
would increase employment-based admissions and decrease family-based admissions.
More specifically, it would
! increased the worldwide ceiling for employment-based admissions
by 120,000 to 260,000 annually;
! within the employment-based third preference category, double
unskilled admission from 10,000 to 20,000;
! eliminate the family-based fourth preference category (i.e., adult
sibling of U.S. citizens); and
! eliminate the diversity visa category.
H.R. 3938 also has two provisions aimed at legal immigration from Mexico: §604
would place a 3-year moratorium on permanent family-preference (not counting
immediate relatives of U.S. citizens) and employment-based admissions from
Mexico; and §605 would amend the INA to limit family-based immigration from
Mexico to 50,000 annually.
Reducing Immigration to a Genuinely Healthy Total (RIGHT) Act of
2005. On September 8, 2005, Representative Thomas Tancredo introduced the
“Reducing Immigration to a Genuinely Healthy Total (RIGHT) Act of 2005" (H.R.
3700), which would substantially overhaul permanent admissions to the United
States. Among other provisions, H.R. 3700 would
! reduce the worldwide level of employment-based immigrants from
140,000 to 5,200 annually;
! limit the 5,200 employment-based visas to persons of
“extraordinary” and “exceptional” abilities and persons having
advanced professional degrees (i.e., first and second preferences);

---

CRS-24
! eliminate the family preference visa categories; and
! eliminate the category of diversity visas.
Additional Immigration Reduction Legislation. Representative J.
Gresham Barrett has introduced an extensive revision of immigration law (H.R.
1912) that also includes a significant scaling back of permanent immigration. This
legislation is comparable to legislation he introduced in the 108th Congress.
Permanent Partners. Representative Jerrold Nadler has introduced
legislation (H.R. 3006) that would amend the INA to add “permanent partners” after
“spouses” and thus would enable aliens defined as permanent partners to become
LPRs through the family-based immigration categories as well as to become
derivative relatives of qualifying immigrants. This bill is comparable to legislation
he introduced previously.
Petition Processing and Adjudication Funding
USCIS funds the processing and adjudication of immigrant, nonimmigrant,
refugee, asylum, and citizenship benefits largely through monies generated by the
Examinations Fee Account.40 The Administration increased the fees charged to U.S.
citizens and legal permanent residents petitioning to bring family or employees into
the United States and to foreign nationals in the United States seeking immigration
benefits.41 In FY2004, 86% of USCIS funding came from the Examinations Fee
Account. In FY2005, USCIS has budget authority for $1.571 billion from the
Examinations Fee Account.42 Congress provided a direct appropriation of $60
million in FY2005 to reduce the backlog of applications and to strive for a six-month
processing standard for all applications by FY2006.43
FY2006. The Administration sought $1.81 billion for USCIS for FY2006.
This figure would have been an additional $79 million for FY2006, a 5% increase
over FY2005. For direct appropriations, the Administration requested $80 million
— a cut of $80 million from FY2005 and a cut of $155 million from the $235
million Congress appropriated in FY2004. A decrease of 26% in backlog reduction
and customer service activities was proposed for FY2006. The House-passed bill
making FY2006 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (H.R.
2360) would have provided an increase of $40 million above the President’s request
for a total of $120 million, which would have been $40 million less than FY2005.
40 § 286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1356.
41 For example, the I-130 petition for family members went from $130 to $185, the I-140
petition for LPR workers went from $135 to $190, the I-485 petition to adjust statuswent
from $255 to $315, and the N-400 petition to naturalize as a citizen went from $260 to $320.
Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 22, Feb. 3, 2004, pp. 5088-5093.
42 P.L. 108-334, conference report to accompany H.R. 4567, H.Rept. 108-774.
43 The President’s Budget request for FY2002 proposed a five-year, $500 million initiative
to reduce the processing time for all petitions to six months. Congress provided $100 in
budget authority ($80 direct appropriations and $20 million from fees) for backlog reduction
in FY2002. P.L. 107-77, conference report to accompany H.R. 2500, H.Rept. 107-278.

---

CRS-25
The Senate-reported version of H.R. 2360 would have provided $80 million for
USCIS in direct appropriations, recommending $40 million less than provided in
H.R. 2360 as passed by the House, and $80 million less than enacted in FY2005.
On September 29, 2005, the conference committee approved and filed the
conference report (H.Rept. 109-241) to H.R. 2360. The conferees recommend a total
of $1,889 million for USCIS, of which 94% comes from fees. The remaining 6% is
a direct appropriation of $115 million, which includes $80 million for backlog
reduction initiatives as well as $35 million to support the information technology
transformation effort and to convert immigration records into digital format. The
FY2006 appropriations amount is a decrease of 28% from the $160 million
appropriated in FY2005. As a result of a 10% increase in revenue budgeted from
fees, the FY2006 total is 6% greater than the FY2005 total. The President signed H.R
2360 as P.L. 109-90 on October 18, 2005.
FY2007. In terms of direct appropriations, the Administration is requesting
$182 million — an increase of $68 million from FY2006. The Administration is
requesting a total of $1,986 million for USCIS (an increase of 5% over the enacted
FY2006 level of $1,888 million), the bulk of the funding coming from fees paid by
individuals and businesses filing petitions. For FY2007, USCIS expects to receive
a total of $1,804 million from the various fee accounts, most of which ($1,760
million) would be coming from the Examinations Fee Account. According to the
USCIS Congressional Justification documents, funds from the Examinations Fee
Account alone comprise 91% of the total USCIS FY2007 budget request. The
FY2007 Budget also includes $13 million from the H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner
Account44 and $31 million from the H-1B and L Fraud Prevention and Detection
Account.45 The Administration proposes to use the $31 million generated from the
fee on H-1B and L petitions to expand its Fraud Detection and National Security
Office.46
Issues. Many in Congress have expressed concern and frustration about the
backlogs and pending caseload, and Congress has already enacted statutory
requirements for backlog elimination.47 Former USCIS Director Eduardo Aguirre
acknowledged the challenges his agency faces in testimony before the House
Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims in 2004.
We fully realize that the increased funding requested in the budget alone will not
enable us to realize our goals. We must fundamentally change the way we
conduct our business. We are aggressively working to modernize our systems
and increase our capacity through the reengineering of processes, the
development and implementation of new information technology systems, and
44 §286(s) of INA; 8 U.S.C. §1356(s).
45 §286(v) of INA; 8 U.S.C. §1356(v).
46 USCIS added a Fraud Detection and National Security Office to handle duties formerly
done by the INS’s enforcement arm, which is now part of DHS’s ICE Bureau. CRS Report
RL33319, Toward More Effective Immigration Policies: Selected Organizational Issues, by
Ruth Ellen Wasem.
47 For example, see §§ 451-461 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296).

---

CRS-26
the development of mechanisms to interact with customers in a more
forward-reaching manner.48
Pending caseloads and processing backlogs continue to plague USCIS. The
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that it is unlikely that
USCIS will completely eliminate the backlog of pending adjudications by the 2006
deadline.49 Despite progress in cutting the backlog of pending cases from 3.8 million
in January 2004 to 1.2 million in June 2005, GAO speculates that USCIS may have
difficulty eliminating its backlog for the more complex application types that
constitute nearly three-quarters of the backlog.50
The DHS Inspector General found problems in the background checks for which
USCIS is now responsible. Among other findings, the report concluded that USCIS’
security checks are overly reliant on the integrity of names and documents that
applicants submit and that “USCIS has not developed a measurable, risk-based plan
to define how USCIS will improve the scope of security checks.” It further stated that
“USCIS’ management controls are not comprehensive enough to provide assurance
that background checks are correctly completed.”51 Most recently, GAO expanded
on the concerns of the DHS Inspector General detailed in their report on USCIS.52

The 109th Congress is expected to closely oversee progress in backlog reduction
and improvements in background checks.
48 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border
Security and Claims, Hearing on Backlog Reduction Plan for Immigration Applications,
June 17, 2004.
49 The Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000 (§ 205(a) of P.L.
106-313, 8 U.S.C. § 1574(a)) defines backlog as the period of time in excess of 180 days
that an immigration benefit application has been pending before the agency. USCIS defines
backlog as the number of pending applications (i.e., the number of applications awaiting
adjudication) in excess of the number of applications received in the most recent six months.
50 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Immigration Benefits: Improvements Needed
to Address Backlogs and Ensure Quality of Adjudications, GAO-06-20, Nov. 2005.
51 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, A Review of U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Alien Security Checks, OIG 06-06, Nov. 2005, p .2.
52 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Immigration Benefits: Additional Controls and
a Sanctions Strategy Could Enhance DHS’s Ability to Control Benefit Fraud, GAO-06-259,
Mar. 2006, p. 5.

---

CRS-27
Appendix A. Top Fifty Sending Countries in FY2004 by Category of LPR
Family
Employment-
Sponsored
Based
Immediate
Refugee and
Diversity
Cancel of
Country of Birth
Total
Preferences
Preferences
Relatives
Asylee
Programs
Removal
Other
Mexico
175,364
62,463
7,225
99,718
D
D
3,357
2,467
India
70,116
13,307
38,443
16,942
1,181
90
21
132
Philippines
57,827
17,406
15,497
24,708
35
11
71
99
China, People’s Republic
51,156
13,658
15,583
20,947
876
76
3
13
Vietnam
31,514
14,890
D
10,338
2,831
D
D
3,246
Dominican Republic
30,492
18,099
212
12,087
32
8
14
40
El Salvador
29,795
3,744
996
4,874
263
—
19,791
127
Cuba
20,488
2,340
34
976
16,678
298
5
157
Korea
19,766
2,474
8,662
8,602
D
12
D
12
Colombia
18,678
3,011
2,166
12,945
375
9
63
109
Guatemala
17,999
2,317
585
6,169
D
D
8,410
126
Canada
15,567
742
6,694
7,785
17
56
D
271
United Kingdom
14,915
679
6,437
7,566
D
152
D
75
Jamaica
14,414
5,211
662
8,496
D
D
14
25
Poland
14,250
3,746
2,187
5,350
31
2,850
30
56
Haiti
13,998
5,400
122
5,520
536
—
12
2,408
Ukraine
13,655
200
767
3,061
4,980
2,975
8
1,664
Russia
13,358
175
1,994
6,710
2,571
1,097
15
796
Pakistan
12,086
3,629
2,591
5,330
419
9
32
76
Peru
11,781
2,355
1,119
7,062
323
795
48
79
Bosnia-Herzegovina
10,552
15
38
401
10,060
35
—
3
Brazil
10,504
308
3,605
6,362
26
129
24
50
Iran
10,434
2,062
745
3,275
3,966
349
8
29
Nigeria
9,374
925
685
4,549
188
2,959
22
46
Taiwan
8,961
3,163
2,295
2,865
D
613
D
19
Ecuador
8,611
1,928
1,153
5,057
33
328
55
57
Ethiopia
8,237
347
D
1,760
1,522
4,517
D
5
Bangladesh
8,061
2,099
963
2,981
198
1,756
28
36
Japan
7,694
144
2,176
4,834
5
513
—
22
Germany
7,099
150
1,931
3,951
568
464
5
30

---

CRS-28
Family
Employment-
Sponsored
Based
Immediate
Refugee and
Diversity
Cancel of
Country of Birth
Total
Preferences
Preferences
Relatives
Asylee
Programs
Removal
Other
Guyana
6,329
3,957
203
2,146
D
9
D
6
Venezuela
6,220
431
1,498
3,917
214
127
12
21
Egypt
5,522
886
556
2,099
313
1,643
7
18
Honduras
5,505
1,662
424
3,068
93
10
207
41
Trinidad and Tobago
5,384
1,689
589
3,034
D
31
D
34
Ghana
5,328
553
222
3,216
D
1,152
D
35
Kenya
5,323
154
362
1,651
406
2,730
5
15
Argentina
4,805
232
1,402
2,906
120
121
5
19
Romania
4,557
295
780
2,216
79
1,145
32
10
Thailand
4,314
418
565
2,957
246
D
D
41
Bulgaria
4,194
110
475
1,172
65
2,342
19
11
Israel
4,160
264
1,322
2,293
13
249
4
15
Morocco
4,128
110
222
1,530
3
2,251
—
12
Nicaragua
4,000
453
56
1,289
137
10
17
2,038
Hong Kong
3,951
2,386
744
710
22
78
—
11
Somalia
3,929
21
D
191
3,640
69
D
1
Turkey
3,833
158
719
1,836
25
1,084
5
6
Lebanon
3,811
1,230
527
1,875
134
25
7
13
France
3,595
132
1,387
1,890
D
160
D
14
Cambodia
3,534
864
D
2,262
91
65
D
212
Top fifty total
829,168
202,992
137,620
353,479
53,315
33,402
32,356
14,848
Source: CRS analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FY2004 Statistical Yearbook of Immigration, 2005.
Note: “D” means that data disclosure standards are not met; “ — “ represents zero.

---

CRS-29
Appendix B. Processing Dates for Immigrant Petitions
Regional Service Centers
Immigrant
Category
California
Nebraska
Texas
Vermont
Immediate
Sept. 16, 2005
N/A
Sept. 16, 2005
Dec. 3, 2005
relatives
Unmarried sons
Jan. 17, 2003
Jan. 17, 2003
May 7, 2001
Jan. 15, 2006
and daughters of
citizens
Spouses and
Jan. 1, 2005
Jan. 1, 2005
Mar. 1, 2001
Oct. 22, 2005
children of LPRs
Unmarried sons
Feb. 7, 2005
Feb. 7, 2005
Jan. 4, 1999
Dec. 17, 2005
and daughters of
LPRs
Married sons and
Apr. 30, 2001
Apr. 30, 2001
May 7, 2001
Nov. 26, 2005
daughters of
citizens
Siblings of
Apr. 30, 2001
Apr. 30, 2001
Sept. 1, 1999
Sept. 23, 2000
citizens age 21
and over
Priority workers
Oct. 6, 2005
Oct. 1, 2005
Jan. 4, 2006
Aug. 20, 2005
— extraordinary
Priority workers
Oct. 6, 2005
Nov. 12, 2005
Jan 4, 2006
Oct. 1, 2005
— outstanding
Priority workers
Sept. 30, 2005
Dec. 17, 2005
Jan. 4, 2006
Aug. 13, 2005
— executives
Persons with
Oct. 31, 2005
Dec. 10, 2005
Jan. 4, 2006
Sept. 30, 2005
advanced degrees
or exceptional
abilities
Skilled workers
Oct. 12, 2005
Oct. 16. 2005
Jan. 4, 2006
Nov. 19, 2005
(at least two years
experience) or
professionals
(B.A.)
Unskilled
Oct. 7, 2005
Jan. 15, 2005
Jan. 4, 2006
Nov. 19, 2005
shortage workers
Source: CRS presentation of USCIS information dated March 20, 2006; available online at
[https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/index.jsp].

---