Order Code RL32235
U.S. Immigration Policy on
Permanent Admissions
Updated September 12, 2007
Ruth Ellen Wasem
Specialist in Immigration Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division

---

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. Thus far in the 110th
Congress, a variety of bills (H.R. 75, H.R. 938, H.R. 1645, S. 1038/H.R. 1930, S.
1348, and S. 1639) would revise categories for permanent admissions. A bipartisan
compromise proposal for comprehensive immigration reform was introduced in the
Senate on May 21, 2007, as S.Amdt. 1150 to S. 1348, the Comprehensive
Immigration Reform Act of 2007. A modified version of that compromise (S. 1639)
stalled on the Senate floor at the end of June 2007. Hearings have been held in the
House on H.R. 1645, the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant
Economy Act of 2007, or STRIVE.
During the 109th Congress, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S.
2611) would have substantially increased legal immigration and would have
restructured the allocation of these visas. S. 2611 would have doubled the number of
family-based and employment-based immigrants admitted over the next decade, as
well as expanded the categories of immigrants who may come without numerical
limits. The Senate passed S. 2611 on May 25, 2006. The major House-passed
immigration bill (H.R. 4437) did not revise family-based and employment-based
immigration. Proposals to alter permanent admissions were included in several other
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 permanently in the United States.
During FY2005, a total of 1,122,373 aliens became LPRs in the United States.
Of this total, 57.8% entered on the basis of family ties. Additional major immigrant
groups in FY2005 were employment-based preference immigrants (including spouses
and children) at 22.0%, and refugees and asylees adjusting to immigrant status at
12.7%. Mexico led all countries with 161,445 aliens who became LPRs in FY2005.
India followed at a distant second with 84,681 LPRs. China came in third with
69,967. These three countries comprise 30% of all LPRs in FY2005.
Significant backlogs are due to the sheer volume of aliens eligible to immigrate
to the United States. Citizens and LPRs first file petitions for their relatives. After
the petitions are processed, these relatives then wait for a visa to become available
through the numerically limited categories. The siblings of U.S. citizens are waiting
11 years. 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, 1900-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
FY2005 Admissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Backlogs and Waiting Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Visa Processing Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Family-Based Visa Priority Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Employment-Based Visa Retrogression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Petition Processing Backlogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Legislation in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Key Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Balancing the Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Broader Issues of Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Preference System versus Point System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Oversight and Backlog Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
S. 1639 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
SKIL (S. 1038/H.R. 1930) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
STRIVE (H.R. 1645) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Nuclear Family Priority Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix A. Top 50 Sending Countries in FY2005, by Category of LPR . . . . . 22
Appendix B. Processing Dates for Immigrant Petitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix C. FY2005 Immigrants, by Preference Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix D. Recent Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Issues in the 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Legislation Passed in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Recaptured Visa Numbers for Nurses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Recaptured Employment-Based Visa Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Major Issues in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
President Bush’s Immigration Reform Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Securing America’s Borders Act (S. 2454)/Chairman’s Mark . . . . . . 29
Comprehensive Immigration Reform (S. 2611) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (S. 1033/H.R. 2330) . . 33

---

Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act
of 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Immigration Accountability Act of 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Enforcement First Immigration Reform Act of 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Additional Immigration Reduction Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Permanent Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
List of Figures
Figure 1. Annual Immigration Admissions and Status Adjustments,
1990-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 2. Legal Permanent Residents: New Arrivals and Adjustments of
Status, FY1995-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 3. Top Sending Countries (Comprising More Than Half of
All LPRs): Selected Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 4. Legal Immigrants by Major Category, FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 5. Top Twelve Immigrant-Sending Countries, FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 6. Projected Flow of LPRs under S. 2611, FY2007-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . 31
List of Tables
Table 1. Legal Immigration Preference System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. Other Major Legal Immigration Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3. FY2005 Immigrants by Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 4. Priority Dates for Family Preference Visas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 5. Priority Dates for Employment Preference Visas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

---

U.S. Immigration Policy on
Permanent Admissions
Latest Legislative Developments
Legal immigration reform has stalled in the 110th Congress.1 A bipartisan
compromise proposal for comprehensive immigration reform negotiated with the
Bush Administration was introduced in the Senate on May 21, 2007, as S.Amdt.
1150 to S. 1348. A modified version of that compromise (S. 1639) came to the
Senate floor the week of June 26, 2007, but a key cloture vote did not pass. The
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law held multiple hearings weekly in April, May, and
June of 2007 on various aspects of comprehensive immigration reform. On
September 6, 2007, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law held a hearing on H.R. 1645, the
Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy (STRIVE) Act
of 2007.
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
(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 1990.2
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
1 CRS Report RS22574, Immigration Reform: Brief Synthesis of Issue, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem.
2 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.

---

CRS-2
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.3
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.4
Many LPRs are adjusting status from within the United States rather than
receiving visas issued abroad by Consular Affairs.5 As discussed more fully below,
65.8% of all LPRs adjusted to LPR status in the United States while only 34.2%
arrived from abroad in FY2005.
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.6
3 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 and Chad C. Haddal.
4 These include criminal, national security, health, and indigence grounds as well as past
violations of immigration law. § 212(a) of INA.
5 For background and analysis of visa issuance and admissions policy, see CRS Report
RL31512, Visa Issuances: Policy, Issues, and Legislation, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
6 Immigrants are aliens who are admitted as LPRs or who adjust to LPR status within the
(continued...)

---

CRS-3
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.7 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).8 Immediate relatives9 of U.S. citizens as well as refugees and asylees who
are adjusting status are exempt from direct numerical limits.10
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 paroled11 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.
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.12
6 (...continued)
United States.
7 § 201 of INA; 8 U.S.C. § 1151.
8 For more information, see CRS Report RS21342, Immigration: Diversity Visa Lottery, by
Ruth Ellen Wasem and Karma Ester.
9 “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.
10 CRS Report RL31269, Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Policy, by Andorra Bruno.
11 “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.
12 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
(continued...)

---

CRS-4
Table 1. Legal Immigration Preference System
Category
Numerical limit
Total Family-Sponsored Immigrants
480,000
Immediate relatives
Aliens who are the spouses
and
Unlimited
unmarried 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 23,400 plus visas not required for
citizens
4th preference
2nd preference
(A) Spouses and children of LPRs
114,200 plus visas not required
(B) Unmarried sons and daughters of for 1st preference
LPRs
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 wo rkers: persons
of 28.6% of worldwide limit plus
extraordinary ability in the arts, science, unused 4th and 5th preference
education, 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 unused 1st preference
exceptional abilities in the sciences, art,
or business
3rd preference —
Skilled shortage workers with at least 28.6% of worldwide limit plus
skilled
two years training or experience, unused 1st or 2nd preference
professionals with baccalaureate degrees
3rd preference —
Unskilled shortage workers
10,000 (taken from the total
“other”
available for 3rd preference)
4th preference
“Special immigrants,”
including 7.1% of worldwide limit;
ministers of religion, religious workers religious workers limited to 5,000
other than ministers, certain employees
of the U.S. government abroad, and
others
5th preference
Employment creation investors who 7.1% of worldwide limit; 3,000
invest at least $1 million (amount may minimum reserved for investors
vary in rural areas or areas of high in rural or high unemployment
unemployment) which will create at areas
least 10 new jobs
Source: CRS summary of §§ 203(a), 203(b), and 204 of INA; 8 U.S.C. § 1153.
12 (...continued)
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 November 19,
1997 during FY2001, the reduction in the OW limit to 5,000 began in FY2002.

---

CRS-5
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.13
As part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress added a fifth preference
category for foreign investors to become LPRs. The INA allocates up to10,000
admissions annually and generally requires a minimum $1 million investment and
employment of at least 10 U.S. workers. Less capital is required for aliens who
participate in the immigrant investor pilot program, in which they invest in targeted
regions and existing enterprises that are financially troubled.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.
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
13 See CRS Report RS21520, Labor Certification for Permanent Immigrant Admissions, by
Ruth Ellen Wasem.
14 CRS Report RL33844, Foreign Investor Visas: Policies and Issues, by Chad C. Haddal.
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
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 LPR
granted asylum due to persecution or a
adjustments as of
well-founded fear of persecution and who
FY2005.
must wait one year before petitioning for
(Previously limited
LPR status
to 10,000)
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, February 13, 2004.

---

CRS-7
Admissions Trends
Immigration Patterns, 1900-2005
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.
Figure 1. Annual Immigration Admissions and Status
Adjustments, 1990-2005
Source Statistical Yearbook of Immigration. Department of Homeland Security, Office of
Immigration Statistics, multiple fiscal year liens legalizing through the Immigration Reform and
Control Act of 1986 are depicted by year of arrival.
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

---

CRS-8
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.
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 738,302 in
FY2005. 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 rather than visas issued abroad.
In FY2005, 65.8% of all LPRs were adjusting status within the United States.
Most (89%) of the employment-based immigrants adjusted to LPR status within the
United States. Many (61%) of the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens also did so.
Only 33% of the other family-preference immigrants adjusted to LPR status within
the United States.
Figure 2. Legal Permanent Residents: New Arrivals and
Adjustments of Status, FY1995-FY2005
Source Statistical Yearbook of Immigration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of
Immigration Statistics, (multiple years).
18 The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 legalized several million aliens residing
in the United States without authorization.

---

CRS-9
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. These data suggest 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.
Figure 3. Top Sending Countries
(Comprising More Than Half of All LPRs): Selected Periods
Source: CRS analysis of Table 2, Statistical Yearbook of Immigration, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, FY2004 (June 2005).
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.
FY2005 Admissions
During FY2005, a total of 1,122,373 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
FY2005, 57.8% entered on the basis of family ties. Immediate relatives of U.S.

---

CRS-10
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 FY2005 were employment-
based preference immigrants (including spouses and children) at 22.0%, and refugees
and asylees adjusting to immigrant status at 12.7%.19
Table 3. FY2005 Immigrants by Category
Total
Immediate relatives of citizens
436,231
Family preference
212,970
Employment preference
246,878
Refugee and asylee adjustments
142,962
Diversity
46,234
Other
37,098
Source: Statistical Yearbook of Immigration, FY2005, DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, Dec.
2006. For a more detailed summary of FY2005 immigration by category, see Appendix C.
Figure 4. Legal Immigrants by Major Category, FY2005
Family
57.8%
Cancellation
of Removal
& Other
3.3%
Diversity
4.1%
Refugees & Asylees
12.7%
Employment
22.0%
1.12 million
Source: CRS presentation of FY2005 data from the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics.
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
Relief Act of 1997.

---

CRS-11
As Figure 5 presents, Mexico led all countries with 161,445 aliens who became
LPRs in FY2005. India followed at a distant second with 84,681 LPRs. China came
in third with 69,967. These three countries comprise 30% of all LPRs in FY2005 and
exceeded the per-country ceiling for preference immigrants because they benefitted
from special exceptions to the per-country 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 and China 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 half
of all LPRs in FY2005. The top 50 immigrant-sending countries contributed 87% of
all LPRs in FY2005. 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, FY2005
Source: CRS presentation of FY2005 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

---

CRS-12
system allocations (detailed in Table 1) for the oversubscribed foreign state or
dependent area. These provisions apply at present to the following countries
oversubscribed in the family-sponsored categories: China, Mexico, the Philippines,
and India.
Table 4. Priority Dates for Family Preference Visas20
Category
Worldwide
China
India
Mexico
Philippines
Unmarried sons
and daughters of
citizens
Aug. 8, 2001 Aug. 8, 2001
Aug. 8, 2001
Jan. 1, 1991
May 1, 1992
Spouses and
children of LPRs
July 22, 2002 July 22, 2002 July 22, 2002 Nov. 1, 2001 July 22, 2002
Unmarried sons
and daughters of
LPRs
April 8, 1998 April 8, 1998 April 8, 1998 Mar. 8, 1992 Oct. 22, 1996
Married sons and
daughters of
citizens
Oct. 1, 1999
Oct. 1, 1999
Oct. 1, 1999
Feb. 8, 1988
Jan. 1, 1985
Siblings of citizens
age 21 and over
Nov. 1, 1996
Jul. 22, 1996
Mar, 1, 1996 Feb. 1, 1994 May 1, 1985
Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin for August 2007.
Family-Based Visa Priority Dates. 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 about 11 years. “Priority date”
means that unmarried adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens who filed petitions
on August 8, 2001, are now being processed for visas. Married adult sons and
daughters of U.S. citizens who filed petitions eight years ago (October 1, 1999) 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.
Employment-Based Visa Retrogression. After P.L. 106-313’s easing of
the employment-based per-country limits, few countries and categories were
oversubscribed in the employment-based preferences. For the past several years,
however, “accounting problems” have arisen between USCIS’s processing of LPR
adjustments of status with the United States and Consular Affairs’ processing of LPR
visas abroad. As most (89% in 2005) of employment-based LPRs are adjusting from
within the United States, Consular Affairs is dependent on USCIS for current
processing data on which to base the employment-based visa priority dates. The Visa
Bulletin for September 2005 offered this explanation: “The backlog reduction efforts
of both Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Department of Labor continue
20 Table prepared by LaVonne Mangan, CRS Knowledge Service’s Group.

---

CRS-13
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 be far in excess
of the annual limits, and once established, cut-off date movements are likely to be
slow.”21 The visa waiting times eased somewhat in FY2006 and in early FY2007.
“Visa retrogression” occurred most dramatically in July 2007. The Visa Bulletin
for July 2007 listed the visa priority dates as current for the employment-based
preferences (except for the unskilled other worker category).22 On July 2, 2007,
however, the State Department issued an Update to July Visa Availability that
retrogressed the dates to the point of being “unavailable.” The State Department
offered the following explanation: “The sudden backlog reduction efforts by
Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices during the past month have resulted
in the use of almost 60,000 Employment numbers.... Effective Monday July 2, 2007
there will be no further authorizations in response to requests for Employment-based
preference cases.”23 As Table 5 presents, the employment-based visa categories
remain unavailable until the FY2008 numerical ceilings open.
Table 5. Priority Dates for Employment Preference Visas24
Category
Worldwide
China
India
Mexico
Philippines
Priority workers
unavailable
unavailable
unavailable
unavailable
unavailable
Advanced degrees/
exceptional ability
unavailable
unavailable
unavailable
unavailable
unavailable
Skilled and
professional
unavailable unavailable unavailable
unavailable unavailable

Unskilled
unavailable
unavailable unavailable unavailable unavailable
Schedule Aa
unavailable
unavailable unavailable unavailable unavailable
Special
immigrants
unavailable unavailable unavailable unavailable unavailable
Investors
unavailable unavailable unavailable unavailable unavailable
Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin for August 2007.
a. 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.
21 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 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin, No. 107, is available
at [http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3258.html], last accessed September 11,
2007.
23 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin, No. 108, is available
at [http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3266.html], last accessed September 11,
2007.
24 Table prepared by LaVonne Mangan, CRS Knowledge Service’s Group.

---

CRS-14
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. In December 2003, USCIS reported 5.3 million
immigrant petitions pending.25 USCIS decreased the number of immigrant petitions
pending by 24% by the end of FY2004, but still had 4.1 million petitions pending.
As FY2005 drew to a close there were over 3.1 million immigration petitions
pending.26 USCIS has altered its definition of what constitutes a backlog, and as a
result, comparable data on the current backlogs are not available.27 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.
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.28
25 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, February 12, 2004.
26 DHS Office of Immigration Statistics. For USCIS workload statistics, see
[http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/index.shtm#6], accessed September 11,
2007. The FY2006 data are not available.
27 For a full analysis of this issue, see Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman,
2007 Annual Report to Congress, June 11, 2007, available online at [http://www.dhs.gov/
xabout/structure/gc_1188255274471.shtm] accessed September 11, 2007.
28 §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.

---

CRS-15
Legislation in the 110th Congress
Key Issues
Balancing the Priorities. The challenge inherent in reforming legal
immigration is balancing employers’ hopes to increase the supply of legally present
foreign workers, families’ longing to re-unite and live together, and a widely-shared
wish among the various stakeholders to improve the policies governing legal
immigration into the country. President Bush emphasized the importance he places
on comprehensive immigration reform in his recent tour of Latin American
countries,29 and there is a commonly-held expectation that the 110th Congress will
consider immigration reform.
Broader Issues of Debate. As Congress debates immigration control (i.e.,
border security and interior enforcement) and legal reform (i.e., temporary and
permanent admissions), the proposals that remain contentious include expanding the
number of guest worker and other temporary foreign worker visas available each year
and a concurrent easing of opportunities for these temporary workers to ultimately
adjust to LPR status.30 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 affect the
future flow of LPRs. Whether the legislation also contains the controversial
provisions that would permit 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.31 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.
29 For examples of news coverage, see Houston Chronicle, “Immigration tops agenda as
Bush meets with Calderon,” March 14, 2007; New York Times, “From Mexico Also, the
Message to Bush Is Immigration,” March 14, 2007; Washington Times, “Calderon condemns
border fence,” March 14, 2007.
30 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.
31 An estimated 60% of the 11 to 12 million unauthorized aliens residing in the United States
have been here for at least five 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-16
Preference System versus Point System.32 Replacing or supplementing
the current preference system (discussed earlier in this report) with a point system is
garnering considerable interest for the first time in over a decade. Briefly, point
systems such as those of Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and New Zealand assign
prospective immigrants with credits if they have specified attributes, most often
based upon educational attainment, shortage occupations, extent of work experience,
language proficiency, and desirable age range.
Proponents of point systems maintain that such merit-based approaches are
clearly defined and based upon the nation’s economic needs and labor market
objectives. A point system, supporters argue, would be more acceptable to the public
because the government (rather than employers or families) would be selecting new
immigrants and this selection would be based upon national economic priorities.
Opponents of point systems state that the judgement of individual employers are the
best indicator of labor market needs and an immigrant’s success.
Opponents warn that the number of people who wish to immigrate to the United
States would overwhelm a point system comparable to Australia, Canada, Great
Britain, and New Zealand. In turn, this predicted high volume of prospective
immigrants, some say, would likely lead to selection criteria so rigorous that it would
be indistinguishable from what is now the first preference category of employment-
based admissions (persons of extraordinary ability in the arts, science, education,
business, or athletics; outstanding professors and researchers; and certain multi-
national executives and managers) and ultimately would not result in meaningful
reform.
Oversight and Backlog 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.33 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
the development of mechanisms to interact with customers in a more
forward-reaching manner.34
32 A point system approach is also being offered for the adjustment of status of unauthorized
aliens in the United States. For example, see the Immigrant Accountability Act of 2007 (S.
1225).
33 For example, see §§ 451-461 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296).
34 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.

---

CRS-17
Pending caseloads and processing backlogs continue to plague USCIS. The
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded in 2005 that it was
unlikely that USCIS would completely eliminate the backlog of pending
adjudications by the 2006 deadline.35 Despite progress in cutting the backlog of
pending cases from 3.8 million in January 2004 to 1.2 million in June 2005, GAO
speculated that USCIS may have difficulty eliminating its backlog for the more
complex application types that constitute nearly three-quarters of the backlog.36
The agency’s redefinition of what constitutes a backlog has emerged as an issue.
The June 2006 report of the USCIS Ombudsman stated “...in July 2004, USCIS
reported 1.5 million backlogged cases, which was an apparent reduction from the 3.5
million backlogged cases in March 2003. However, the agency also reclassified 1.1
million of the 2 million cases eliminated....” The Ombudsman went on to disclose
that USCIS had again redefined the backlog in April 2006: “After the redefinition,
the backlog supposedly declined from 1.08 million cases to 914,864 cases at the end
of FY 05. Yet, individuals whose cases were factored out of the backlog still awaited
adjudication of their applications and petitions.”37 This reclassification of pending
cases arose at a recent oversight hearing of the House Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law.38
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.”39 GAO expanded on the
35 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.
36 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Immigration Benefits: Improvements Needed
to Address Backlogs and Ensure Quality of Adjudications, GAO-06-20, November 2005.
37 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, 2006 Annual Report to Congress,
June 2006; and 2007 Annual Report to Congress, June 11, 2007, available at
[http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1188255274471.shtm], accessed September 11,
2007.
38 U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Hearing on Proposal to Adjust the
Immigration Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule, February 14, 2007.
39 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, November 2005,
p. 2.

---

CRS-18
concerns of the DHS Inspector General detailed in their report on USCIS.40 The
USCIS Ombudsman further concluded “FBI name checks, one of the security
screening tools used by USCIS, significantly delay adjudication of immigration
benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reductions efforts, and may not achieve
their intended national security objectives.”41
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced S. 1348, the Comprehensive
Immigration Reform Act of 2007, and floor debate on S. 1348 began the week of
May 21, 2007. As introduced, S. 1348 is virtually identical to S. 2611, which the
Senate passed in the 109th Congress.42 The Senate bipartisan compromise proposal
for comprehensive immigration reform, which is backed by the Bush Administration,
was announced on May 17, 2007, and formally introduced on May 21, as S.Amdt.
1150. This substitute language differs from S. 1348 (and it predecessor S. 2611) in
several key areas of legal immigration. The Senate Majority Leader and Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell publicly affirmed their commitment to debate on
comprehensive immigration reform in June.43
S. 1639. Senators Ted Kennedy and Arlen Specter introduced the bipartisan
compromise proposal for comprehensive immigration reform on May 21, 2007, as
S.Amdt. 1150. Among those publically associated with negotiating the compromise
legislation are Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce
Secretary Carlos Guteirrez. On June 18, 2007, Senators Kennedy and Specter
introduced S. 1639, which is similar but not identical to S.Amdt. 1150. Title V of
S. 1639 would substantially revise legal permanent admissions. S. 1639 stalled in
the Senate on June 28, 2007, when the key cloture vote failed.
In terms of family-based immigration, S. 1639 would narrow the types of family
relationships that would make an alien eligible for a visa. Foremost, it would
eliminate the existing family-sponsored preference categories for the adult children
and siblings of U.S. citizens (i.e., first, third, and fourth preferences). It would also
eliminate the existing category for the adult children of LPRs. The elimination of
these categories would be effective for cases filed after January 1, 2007. When visas
become available for cases pending in the family-sponsored preference categories as
40 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,
March 2006, p. 5.
41 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, 2006 Annual Report to Congress,
June 2006. Available at [http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0890.shtm], last
accessed March 14, 2007.
42 CQ Today, “Senate Immigration Vote Turns Into a Gamble for Reid and His Caucus,” by
Michael Sandler, May 10, 2007.
43 CQ Today, “Senators Seek 60-Vote Test for Most Contentious Immigration
Amendments,” by Michael Sandler, May 24, 2007. For earlier accounts, see CQ Today,
“Senate Immigration Vote Turns Into a Gamble for Reid and His Caucus,” by Michael
Sandler, May 10, 2007.

---

CRS-19
of May 1, 2005, the worldwide level for family preferences would be reduced to
127,000. The worldwide ceiling would be set at 440,000 annually until these
pending cases clear.
Immediate relatives exempt from numerical limits would be redefined to include
only spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens. The parents of adult U.S. citizens
would no longer be treated as immediate relatives; instead, parents of citizens would
be capped at 40,000 annually. The spouses and minor children of LPRs would
remain capped at a level comparable to current levels — 87,000 annually.
In terms of employment-based immigration, the first three preference
categories44 would be eliminated and replaced with a point system. This proposed
point system would establish a tier for “merit-based” immigrants. The point system
for merit-based immigrants would be based on a total of 100 points divided between
four factors: employment, education, English and civics, and family relationships.45
The fourth and fifth employment-based preference categories would remain. (See
Table 1.)
S. 1639 would also enable certain eligible aliens who are currently unauthorized
to adjust to LPR status by means of a point system after they have worked in the
United States on a newly proposed Z visa.46 These Z-to-LPR adjustments would be
scored on the merit-based point system, plus four additional factors: recent
agricultural work experience, U.S. employment experience, home ownership, and
medical insurance.
S. 1639 would establish three different worldwide ceiling levels for the “merit-
based” point system. For the first five fiscal years post-enactment, the worldwide
ceiling would be set at the level made available during FY2005 — a total of
246,878.47 Of this number, 10,000 would be set aside for exceptional Y visa holders
to become LPRs, and 90,000 would be allocated for reduction of the
employment-based backlog existing on the date of enactment.
44 The employment-based preference categories proposed for elimination are: persons of
extraordinary ability in the arts, science, education, business, or athletics; outstanding
professors and researchers; and certain multi-national executives and managers; members
of the professions holding advanced degrees or persons of exceptional abilities in the
sciences, art, or business; and professional workers and skilled and unskilled shortage
workers.
45 S.Amdt. 1150, §502(b)(1)(A). The point system would include a maximum of 47 points,
based upon occupation, employer endorsement, experience at a U.S. firm, age, and national
interest criteria (all within the “employment” factor). Additionally, the proposal would
emphasize education and skills, especially in the fields of science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM). It also would credit points for language proficiency and for
having family in the United States.
46 CRS Report RL32044, Immigration: Policy Considerations Related to Guest Worker
Programs, by Andorra Bruno.
47 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, 2005 Yearbook
of Immigration Statistics, table 6, 2006.

---

CRS-20
In the sixth year after enactment, the worldwide level for the merit point system
LPRs would drop to 140,000, provided that priority dates on cases pending has
reached May 1, 2005. Of this number, 10,000 would again be set aside for
exceptional Y visa holders, and up to 90,000 would be set aside for reduction of
employment-based backlog existing on the date of enactment.
When the visa processing of the pending family-based and employment-based
petitions reach those with May 1, 2005, priority dates, it would trigger the provisions
in S. 1639 that would enable the Z-to-LPR adjustments to go into effect (discussed
below). At this time, the merit point system worldwide level would become 380,000.
The Z-to-LPR adjustments, however, would occur outside of this worldwide level.
The proposal nonetheless would continue to set aside 10,000 for exceptional Y visa
holders to become LPRs.
SKIL (S. 1038/H.R. 1930). S. 1038/H.R. 1930, the SKIL Act of 2007, would
expand employment-based LPRs by exempting the following aliens from worldwide
numerical limits: (1) those who have a master’s or higher degree from an accredited
U.S. university; (2) those who have been awarded medical specialty certification
based on postdoctoral training and experience in the United States; (3) those who will
work in shortage occupations; (4) those who have a master’s degree or higher in
science, technology, engineering, or math and have been working in a related field
in the United States during the preceding three-year period; (5) those who have an
extraordinary ability or who have received a national interest waiver. Moreover, S.
1038/H.R. 1930 would no longer count the derivative family members of
employment-based LPRs as part of the numerical ceiling.
STRIVE (H.R. 1645). Congressmen Luis Gutierrez and Jeff Flake have
introduced a bipartisan immigration reform bill, H.R. 1645, know as the Security
Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007 or STRIVE.
This legislation is similar, but not identical, to S. 2611 of the 109th Congress.
Specifically, H.R. 1645 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). Family-sponsored immigrants
would be reallocated as follows: up to 10% to unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens; up to 50% to spouses and unmarried sons and daughters of LPRs, (of which
77% would be allocated to spouses and minor children of LPRs); up to 10% to the
married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens; and, up to 30% to the brothers and
sisters of U.S. citizens.
STRIVE would increase the annual number of employment-based LPRs from
140,000 to 290,000 and would no longer count the derivative family members of
employment-based LPRs as part of the numerical ceiling. It would, however, cap the
total employment-based LPRs and their derivatives at 800,000 annually. It would
reallocate 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.

---

CRS-21
Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act. Congresswoman
Sheila Jackson-Lee has introduced H.R. 750, the Save America Comprehensive
Immigration Act of 2007. Among its array of immigration provisions are those that
would double the number of family-sponsored LPRs from 480,000 to 960,000
annually and would double the number of diversity visas from 55,000 to 110,000
annually.
Nuclear Family Priority Act. H.R. 938, the Nuclear Family Priority Act
would amend the INA to limit family sponsored LPRs the immediate relatives of
U.S. citizens and LPRs. More specifically, it would eliminate the existing
family-sponsored preference categories for the adult children and siblings of U.S.
citizens and replace them with a single preference allocation for spouses and children
of LPRs.

---

CRS-22
Appendix A. Top 50 Sending Countries in FY2005,
by Category of LPR
Immediate
Family-
Employment- Relatives of
Refugees Cancellation
Region and
Sponsored
Based
U.S.
and
of Removal
Country of Birth
Total
Preferences
Preferences
Citizens
Diversity
Asylees
and Other
Mexico
161,445
65,369
16,347
72,435
11
240
7,043
India
84,681
15,256
47,705
19,108
60
2,331
221
China, People’s
Republic
69,967
17,082
20,626
26,852
32
5,335
40
Philippines
60,748
14,975
18,332
27,157
6
85
193
Cuba
36,261
1,478
18
1,759
371
32,555
80
Vietnam
32,784
12,220
304
11,379
5
5,818
3,058
Dominican Republic
27,504
15,813
444
11,134
6
49
58
Korea
26,562
1,997
15,929
8,598
8
7
23
Colombia
25,571
2,725
5,976
15,413
12
1,270
175
Ukraine
22,761
198
1,235
4,346
2,745
12,421
1,816
Canada
21,878
761
12,296
8,483
72
28
238
El Salvador
21,359
3,847
1,243
6,234
D
D
9,476
United Kingdom
19,800
594
10,753
8,237
113
33
70
Jamaica
18,346
5,032
1,214
12,049
D
D
45
Russia
18,083
172
2,574
8,767
613
5,335
622
Guatemala
16,825
1,949
1,071
7,518
D
D
5,586
Brazil
16,664
335
8,866
7,105
170
99
89
Peru
15,676
2,264
2,301
8,911
1,128
900
172
Poland
15,352
2,953
3,241
5,768
3,259
60
71
Pakistan
14,926
3,203
4,798
5,789
12
967
157
Haiti
14,529
4,363
192
6,032
4
1,118
2,820
Bosnia-Herzegovina
14,074
D
71
650
44
13,298
D
Iran
13,887
1,986
1,024
3,922
407
6,480
68
Ecuador
11,608
2,547
2,323
6,366
193
77
102
Bangladesh
11,487
3,118
1,520
4,625
1,753
405
66
Venezuela
10,645
454
4,929
4,573
133
520
36
Nigeria
10,598
900
1,383
5,383
2,379
502
51
Ethiopia
10,573
378
182
2,771
3,427
3,802
13
Guyana
9,318
5,360
279
3,655
5
4
15
Germany
9,264
167
3,516
4,473
602
464
42
Taiwan
9,196
2,749
3,001
3,101
326
6
13
Japan
8,768
135
3,451
4,885
271
11
15
Egypt
7,905
897
995
2,548
2,478
938
49
Romania
7,103
295
1,714
3,322
1,585
163
24
Argentina
7,081
195
3,382
3,129
69
279
27
Honduras
7,012
1,889
589
4,174
7
158
195
Trinidad and Tobago
6,568
1,413
955
4,119
D
D
53
Ghana
6,491
534
487
4,100
1,049
289
32
Albania
5,947
125
207
2,036
2,438
1,137
4
Somalia
5,829
D
29
260
46
5,478
D
Israel
5,755
262
2,437
2,805
192
31
28
Bulgaria
5,635
80
792
1,713
2,854
163
33
Thailand
5,505
337
1,084
3,370
60
414
240
Kenya
5,348
147
967
1,963
1,536
718
17
Sudan
5,231
28
59
269
248
4,619
8
Serbia and
Montenegro
5,202
120
353
1,400
208
3,078
43

---

CRS-23
Immediate
Family-
Employment- Relatives of
Refugees Cancellation
Region and
Sponsored
Based
U.S.
and
of Removal
Country of Birth
Total
Preferences
Preferences
Citizens
Diversity
Asylees
and Other
Liberia
4,880
178
55
712
373
3,548
14
Afghanistan
4,749
143
16
517
16
4,049
8
Turkey
4,614
167
1,439
1,869
1,043
89
7
South Africa
4,536
78
3,017
1,291
128
18
4
Morocco
4,411
137
373
1,922
1,958
4
17
Totals
970,942
197,405
216,094
368,997
34,455
119,393
33,277
Source: CRS analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FY2005 Statistical Yearbook of
Immigration, 2006.
Note: “D” means that data disclosure standards are not met; “ — “ represents zero.

---

CRS-24
Appendix B. Processing Dates for
Immigrant Petitions
Regional Service Centers
Immigrant
Category
California
Nebraska
Texas
Vermont
Immediate
relatives
Feb. 12, 2007
N/A
N/A
Jan. 31, 2007
Unmarried sons
and daughters of
citizens
Jan. 17, 2003
N/A
N/A
July 2, 2006
Spouses and
children of LPRs
Jan. 1, 2005
N/A
N/A
Jan. 8, 2006
Unmarried sons
and daughters of
LPRs
Feb. 7, 2005
N/A
N/A
June 4, 2006
Married sons and
daughters of
citizens
April 30, 2001
N/A
N/A
June 4, 2006
Siblings of
citizens age 21
and over
April 30, 2001
N/A
N/A
Feb. 5, 2001
Priority workers
— extraordinary
N/A
October 15, 2006
Feb. 13, 2007
April 1, 2006
Priority workers
— outstanding
N/A
January 5, 2007
Feb. 13, 2007
April 1, 2006
Priority workers
— executives
N/A
Sept. 10, 2006
Feb. 13, 2007
April 1, 2006
Persons with
advanced degrees
or exceptional
abilities
N/A October 1, 2006
Feb. 13, 2007
April 1, 2006
Skilled workers
(at least two years
experience) or
professionals
(B.A.)
N/A
October 17, 2006
Feb. 13, 2007
April 1, 2006
Unskilled
shortage workers
N/A
October 20, 2006
Feb. 13, 2007
April 1, 2006
Source: CRS presentation of USCIS information dated August 16, 2007; available at
[https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/ptimes.jsp?]. Table prepared by LaVonne Mangan, CRS Knowledge
Service’s Group.

---

CRS-25
Appendix C. FY2005 Immigrants, by Preference Category
Type and Class of Admission
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Family-sponsored preferences
231,699
186,880
158,796
214,355
212,970
First
Unmarried sons/daughters of U.S. citizens and their children
27,003
23,517
21,471
26,380
24,729
Second
Spouses, children, and unmarried sons/daughters of alien residents
112,015
84,785
53,195
93,609
100,139
Third
Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizens and their spouses and children
24,830
21,041
27,287
28,695
22,953
Fourth
Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizens (at least 21 years of age) and their spouses and children
67,851
57,537
56,843
65,671
65,149
Employment-based preferences
178,702
173,814
81,727
155,330
246,878
First
Priority workers and their spouses and children
41,672
34,168
14,453
31,291
64,731
Second
Professionals with advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability and their spouses and
42,550
44,316
15,406
32,534
42,597
children
Third
Skilled workers, professionals, and unskilled workers and their spouses and children
85,847
88,002
46,415
85,969
129,070
Fourth
Special immigrants and their spouses and children
8,442
7,186
5,389
5,407
10,134
Fifth
Employment creation (investors)and their spouses and children
191
142
64
129
346
Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens
439,972
483,676
331,286
417,815
436,231
Spouses
268,294
293,219
183,796
252,193
259,144
Children
91,275
96,941
77,948
88,088
94,974
Parents
80,403
93,516
69,542
77,534
82,113
Refugees
96,870
115,601
34,362
61,013
112,676
Asylees
11,111
10,197
10,402
10,217
30,286

---

CRS-26
Type and Class of Admission
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Diversity
41,989
42,820
46,335
50,084
46,234
Cancellation of removal
22,188
23,642
28,990
32,702
20,785
Parolees
5,349
6,018
4,196
7,121
7,715
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA)
18,663
9,307
2,498
2,292
1,155
Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (HRIFA)
10,064
5,345
1,406
2,451
2,820
Other
2,295
2,056
3,544
4,503
4,623
Total
1,058,902
1,059,356
703,542
957,883
1,122,373
Source: CRS analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FY2005 Statistical Yearbook of Immigration, 2006.

---

CRS-27
Appendix D. Recent Legislative History
Issues in the 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.48
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
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.
48 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-28
Legislation Passed in the 109th Congress
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, among
other things, would have recaptured 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 have been 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, however, 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 have recaptured 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.
Major 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.”49 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,
49 The White House, Fact Sheet: Fair and Secure Immigration Reform, January 7, 2004,
available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040107-1.html].

---

CRS-29
and assimilation — should be welcome in America, like generations of
immigrants before them.50
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
proposal constitutes an “amnesty” for aliens living in the United States without legal
authorization.
President Bush continues to state 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.51

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 have substantially increased legal immigration and would have
restructured the allocation of these visas. The particular provisions in S. 2454 and the
Chairman’s mark were essentially equivalent.
Foremost, Title IV of S. 2454 and Title V of the Chairman’s mark would have
no longer deducted immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from the overall family-
sponsored numerical limit of 480,000. This change would have likely added at least
226,000 more family-based admissions annually (based upon the current floor of
226,000 family-sponsored visas). The bills would have increased the annual number
of employment-based LPRs from 140,000 to 290,000. They also would have no
longer counted 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 have been admitted. The bills would have “recaptured” 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 have raised 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 have
50 President George W. Bush, “Remarks by the President on Immigration Policy,” January
7, 2004, available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040107-3.html].
51 Washington Times, January 12, 2005.

---

CRS-30
been 480,000 for family-based and 290,000 for employment-based under this bill).
Coupled with the proposed increases in the worldwide ceilings, these provisions
would have eased 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.
Title IV of S. 2454 and Title V of the Chairman’s mark would have further
reallocated family-sponsored immigrants and employment-based visas. The
numerical limits on immediate relatives of LPRs would have increased from 114,200
(plus visas not used by first preference) to 240,000 annually. They would have shifted
the allocation of visas from persons of “extraordinary” and “exceptional” abilities
and persons having advanced professional degrees (i.e., first and second preferences),
and increased 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 have no
longer been numerically limited.52
Comprehensive Immigration Reform (S. 2611). As the Senate was
locked in debate on S. 2454 and the Judiciary Chairman’s mark during the two-week
period of 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 was introduced by
Senator Hagel (S. 2612). Much like S. 2454 and S.Amdt. 3192, S. 2611 would have
substantially increased legal permanent immigration and would have restructured the
allocation of the family-sponsored and employment-based visas. After several days
of debate and a series of amendments, the Senate passed S. 2611 as amended by a
vote of 62-36 on May 25, 2006.
In its handling of family-based legal immigration, Title V of S. 2611 mirrored
Title IV of S. 2454 and Title V of the Chairman’s mark. It would have no longer
deducted immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from the overall family-sponsored
numerical limit of 480,000. This change would have likely added 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
have increased 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
continued at the same upward rate, the projected number of immediate relatives
would have been approximately 470,000 in 2008. Assuming that the demand for the
numerically limited family preferences continued at the same level, the full 480,000
would have been allocated. If these assumptions held, the United States would have
52 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, March 28, 2006.

---

CRS-31
likely admitted or adjusted an estimated 950,000 family-sponsored LPRs by 2009,
as Figure 6 projects.53
Figure 6. Projected Flow of LPRs under S. 2611, FY2007-
FY2009
Note: Future Employment-based 4th preference special immigrants and 5th preference in have too many
unknown factors to estimate.
Source: CRS analysis of data from the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics and the former INS.
In terms of employment-based immigration, S. 2611 would have increased 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
have no longer counted the derivative family members of employment-based LPRs
as part of the numerical ceiling. As in S. 2454, S. 2611 would have reallocated
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 have no longer
been numerically limited. S. 2611 also would have no longer counted 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 have been
admitted. However, the Senate passed an amendment on the floor that placed an
53 20 CFR §656.

---

CRS-32
overall limit of 650,000 on employment-based LPRs and their accompanying family
annually FY2007-FY2016, as Figure 6 projects.54
In addition, special exemptions from numerical limits would have also been
made for aliens who have worked in the United States for three years and who have
earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math. Certain
widows and orphan who meet specified risk factors would have also been exempted
from numerical limits. The bills would have further increased 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
preference category in one fiscal year roll over to the other preference category the
following year.
S. 2611 would have significantly expanded the number of guest worker and
other temporary foreign worker visas available each year and would have coupled
these increases with eased opportunities for these temporary workers to ultimately
adjust to LPR status.55 Whether the LPR adjustments of guest workers and other
temporary foreign workers were channeled through the numerically limited,
employment-based preferences or were exempt from numerical limits (as were the
proposed F-4 foreign student fourth preference adjustments) obviously would have
affected the projections and the future flows.56
S. 2611 included a provision that would have exempted 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 would have raised 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
54 20 CFR §656.
55 For an analysis of guest worker and other temporary foreign worker visas legislation, 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.
56 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].

---

CRS-33
450,000/290,000 for employment-based under this bill).57 Coupled with the proposed
increases in the worldwide ceilings, these provisions would have eased 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 bill
would have also eliminated the exceptions to the per-country ceilings for certain
family-based and employment-based LPRs, which are discussed above.58
Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (S. 1033/H.R. 2330).
On May 12, 2005, a bipartisan group of Senators and Congressmen59 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 have made
significant revisions to the permanent legal admissions sections of INA.60
Specifically Title VI of the legislation would have
! removed 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;
! lowered the income requirements for sponsoring a family member
for LPR status from 125% of the federal poverty guidelines to 100%;
! recaptured 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
! raised 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, had provisions
that would have restructured the allocation of employment-based visas for LPRs.
Among the various proposals, Title X of this legislation would have made the
following specific changes to the INA provisions on permanent admissions:
57 The per-country ceiling for dependent states are raised from 2% to 7%.
58 For analysis of immigration trends and projections under S. 2611/, see CRS Congressional
Distribution Memorandum, “Legal Immigration: Modeling the Principle Components of
Permanent Admissions, Part 2,” by Ruth Ellen Wasem, May 10, 2006.
59 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.
60 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-34
! reduced the allocation of visas to persons of “extraordinary” and
“exceptional” abilities and persons having advanced professional
degrees (i.e., first and second preferences);
! increased 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);
! eliminated the category of diversity visas; and
! recaptured for future allocations those employment-based visa
numbers that were unused from FY2001 through FY2005.
Immigration Accountability Act of 2005. As part of a package of four
immigration reform bills, Senator Chuck Hagel introduced the Immigration
Accountability Act of 2005 (S. 1919), which would have provided for “earned
adjustment of status” for certain unauthorized aliens who met specified conditions
and would have expanded legal immigration. In terms of permanent legal
admissions, S. 1919 would have among other provisions:
! no longer deducted immediate relatives from the overall family-
sponsored numerical limits of 480,000;
! treated spouses and minor children of LPRs the same as immediate
relatives of U.S. citizens (i.e., exempt from numerical limits); and
! reallocated the 226,000 family preference numbers to the remaining
family preference categories.
The Hagel immigration reform proposal also included legislation revising the
temporary worker programs, border security efforts, and employment verification.
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, focused on revising permanent admissions. H.R.
3938 would have increased employment-based admissions and decreased family-
based admissions. More specifically, it would have
! increased the worldwide ceiling for employment-based admissions
by 120,000 to 260,000 annually;
! within the employment-based third preference category, doubled
unskilled admission from 10,000 to 20,000;
! eliminated the family-based fourth preference category (i.e., adult
sibling of U.S. citizens); and
! eliminated the diversity visa category.
H.R. 3938 also had two provisions aimed at legal immigration from Mexico: §604
would have placed a three-year moratorium on permanent family-preference (not
counting immediate relatives of U.S. citizens) and employment-based admissions
from Mexico; and §605 would have amended the INA to limit family-based
immigration from Mexico to 50,000 annually.

---

CRS-35
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 have substantially overhauled permanent admissions to the
United States. Among other provisions, H.R. 3700 would have
! reduced the worldwide level of employment-based immigrants from
140,000 to 5,200 annually;
! limited 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);
! eliminated the family preference visa categories; and
! eliminated the category of diversity visas.
Additional Immigration Reduction Legislation. Representative J.
Gresham Barrett introduced an extensive revision of immigration law (H.R. 1912)
that also included a significant scaling back of permanent immigration. This
legislation was comparable to legislation he introduced in the 108th Congress.
Permanent Partners. Representative Jerrold Nadler introduced legislation
(H.R. 3006) 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. This bill was comparable to legislation
he introduced previously.

---