Order Code RL34204
Immigration Legislation and Issues
in the 110th Congress
Updated September 4, 2008
Andorra Bruno, Coordinator
Chad C. Haddal, Blas Nuñez-Neto, Alison Siskin,
and Ruth Ellen Wasem
Domestic Social Policy Division
Michael John Garcia, Yule Kim, and Margaret Mikyung Lee
American Law Division

---

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the
110th Congress
Summary
Comprehensive immigration reform was the subject of much discussion at the
start of the 110th Congress. In the spring of 2007, the Senate considered several
broad immigration reform measures aimed at addressing a host of perceived
problems with the U.S. immigration system. These measures combined border
security and interior enforcement provisions with provisions on temporary workers,
permanent admissions, and unauthorized aliens. In June 2007, the Senate voted on
a motion to invoke cloture on one of these measures (S. 1639), which, if approved,
would have ultimately brought the bill to a vote. The motion failed, however, and
the bill was subsequently pulled from the Senate floor.
In October 2007, the Senate considered a proposal that has been included in
various comprehensive measures. Known as the DREAM Act, this bill (S. 2205)
would enable certain unauthorized alien students to obtain legal status. The Senate
failed to invoke cloture on S. 2205.
At the same time, the 110th Congress has enacted some immigration-related
provisions. Among them are refugee-related provisions included in P.L. 110-5, P.L.
110-28, P.L. 110-36, P.L. 110-161, P.L. 110-181, and P.L. 110-242. The 110th
Congress also has enacted provisions on border security in P.L. 110-53 and P.L. 110-
161, on the Visa Waiver Program in P.L. 110-53, on military service-based
immigration benefits in P.L. 110-251, and on alien inadmissibility in P.L. 110-257
and P.L. 110-293.
It is unlikely that the 110th Congress will again tackle comprehensive
immigration reform. It may, however, consider legislation on selected immigration
reform issues, such as foreign workers. Among the other immigration-related issues
that the 110th Congress may still address are employment eligibility verification and
worksite enforcement, victims of trafficking, supplemental security income (SSI)
benefits for refugees and asylees, and religious workers.
This report discusses these and other immigration-related issues that have seen
legislative action or are of significant congressional interest. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations are addressed in CRS Report RL34004,
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations, and CRS Report RL34482,
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Request for Appropriations, and for the
most part, are not covered here. This report will be updated as legislative
developments occur.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Foreign Workers and Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Foreign Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Agricultural Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Temporary Nonagricultural Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Temporary Workers in Specialty Occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Temporary Admission of Professional Athletes and Entertainers . . . . . 7
Temporary Admission of Fashion Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Permanent Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
“STEM” Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Unauthorized Alien Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Document Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Visa Waiver Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Border Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Resources at the Border . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Resources at POE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Resources Between POE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Barriers at the Border . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
State and Local Enforcement of Immigration Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Employment Eligibility Verification and Worksite Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
U.S. Refugee Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Resettlement Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Iraqi Refugees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Other Issues and Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Victims of Trafficking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Alien Smuggling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
SSI Extension for Refugees and Asylees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Unaccompanied Alien Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Religious Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Immigrant Investor Pilot Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Temporary Protected Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Grounds for Terrorist Exclusion and Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Military Service-Based Immigration Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Waivers for Foreign Medical Graduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Other Legislation Receiving Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

---

Ban on Travel by Certain Burmese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Health-Related Grounds for Exclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Gang Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Recruitment or Use of Child Soldiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Immigration Relief for September 11 Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Immigration Relief for Surviving Spouses of Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Enacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Receiving Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

---

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the
110th Congress
Introduction
Comprehensive immigration reform was the subject of much discussion at the
start of the 110th Congress.1 In the 109th Congress, both the House and the Senate
passed major immigration bills, but they were never reconciled.2 During the first
session of the 110th Congress, a bipartisan group of Senators developed broad
immigration reform legislation with the active involvement of the Bush
Administration. Aimed at addressing a host of perceived problems with the U.S.
immigration system, this legislation combined border security and interior
enforcement provisions with provisions on temporary workers, permanent
admissions, and unauthorized aliens. The Senate considered several immigration
reform measures (S. 1348, S.Amdt.1150 to S. 1348, S. 1639) in May and June of
2007. On June 28, 2007, the Senate voted on a motion to invoke cloture on S. 1639,
which, if approved, would have ultimately brought the bill to a vote. The cloture
motion failed, however, on a vote of 46 to 53, and the Senate Majority Leader pulled
the bill from the Senate floor.
It is unlikely that comprehensive immigration reform legislation will be taken
up again in the 110th Congress. Selected components of comprehensive reform,
however, have been, and may in the future, be considered separately. In October
2007, the Senate considered, as a stand-alone bill, a proposal on unauthorized alien
students, which has been included in various comprehensive reform bills. The
proposal, known as the DREAM Act, would enable certain unauthorized students to
obtain legal status. The Senate failed to invoke cloture on this bill.
At the same time, the 110th Congress has enacted some immigration-related
provisions. Among them are provisions on the Visa Waiver Program in a law
implementing recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
Upon the United States (P.L. 110-53); on border security in P.L. 110-53 and the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161); on military service-based
immigration benefits in the Kendell Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act (P.L. 110-
251); and on alien inadmissibility in a bill concerning the African National Congress
(P.L. 110-257) and the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of
1 For an overview of immigration reform issues before the 110th Congress, see CRS Report
RS22574, Immigration Reform: Brief Synthesis of Issue, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
2 See CRS Report RL33125, Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress,
coordinated by Andorra Bruno.

---

CRS-2
2008 (P.L. 110-293). Refugee-related provisions are included in the FY2007
Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 110-5); the U.S. Troop
Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-28); a measure to increase the number of Iraqi and
Afghani translators and interpreters who may be admitted to the United States as
special immigrants (P.L. 110-36); and the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181), as amended by P.L. 110-242.
This report discusses these and other immigration-related issues that have seen
legislative action or are of significant congressional interest. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations are addressed in a separate report and, for
the most part, are not covered here.3 The final section of this report lists enacted
legislation and selected bills receiving action.
Foreign Workers and Students
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)4 provides for the temporary and
permanent admission to the United States of various categories of foreign workers
and business personnel. It also provides for the temporary admission of foreign
students. Temporary visitors, including workers, business personnel, and students,
enter as nonimmigrants. As such, they are admitted for a temporary period of time
and a specific purpose. Foreign workers and others who are admitted permanently
enter as legal permanent residents (LPRs).
Foreign Workers
The main nonimmigrant category for temporary workers is the H visa, which
includes visa classifications for agricultural workers (H-2A visa), nonagricultural
workers (H-2B visa), and professional specialty workers (H-1B visa), among others.
In addition, certain temporary workers and business personnel enter under other visa
categories. For example, persons with extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts,
education, business, or athletics are admitted on O visas; internationally recognized
athletes, members of internationally recognized entertainment groups, artists, or
entertainers come on P visas.5 Issuances of temporary employment-based visas have
risen steadily over the past decade.6
With respect to permanent admissions of foreign workers and business
personnel, there are five employment-based preference categories. Most
3 See CRS Report RL34004, Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations,
coordinated by Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nuñez-Neto.
4 Act of June 27, 1952, ch. 477; 66 Stat. 163; codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. §§1101 et seq.
The INA is the basis of current immigration law.
5 For a full discussion and analysis of nonimmigrant visas, see CRS Report RL31381, U.S.
Immigration Policy on Temporary Admissions, by Chad C. Haddal and Ruth Ellen Wasem.
6 See CRS Report RL33977, Immigration of Foreign Workers: Labor Market Tests and
Protections, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.

---

CRS-3
employment-based LPRs enter under the first three categories, which, as detailed
below, encompass aliens of extraordinary ability as well as unskilled workers. These
three categories have been the focus of recent efforts to reform the permanent
employment-based immigration system. The smaller fourth and fifth preference
categories, which respectively cover special immigrants and immigrant investors, are
discussed separately in other sections of this report (Iraqi special immigrants are
discussed in the “Iraqi Refugees” section; religious workers — the largest special
immigrant subcategory — and immigrant investors are covered in the “Other Issues
and Legislation” section). The current annual limitation on employment-based LPR
admissions is 140,000 (plus any unused family preference visas from the prior year).7
Agricultural Workers. The H-2A nonimmigrant visa allows for the
temporary admission of foreign workers to the United States to perform agricultural
work of a seasonal or temporary nature, provided that U.S. workers are not available.8
Employers who want to import H-2A workers must first apply to the U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL) for a certification that there are not sufficient U.S.
workers who are qualified and available to perform the work, and that the
employment of foreign workers will not adversely affect the wages and working
conditions of U.S. workers who are similarly employed. Employers must pay their
H-2A workers and similarly employed U.S. workers the highest of the federal or
applicable state minimum wage, the prevailing wage rate, or the adverse effect wage
rate (AEWR).9 They also must provide workers with housing, transportation, and
other benefits, including workers’ compensation insurance.
Various bills have been introduced in the 110th Congress that address foreign
temporary agricultural workers.10 Some of these bills, including H.R. 371/S. 237/S.
340 (all identical and known as AgJOBS) and H.R. 1792, propose a complete
overhaul of the H-2A program. Both AgJOBS and H.R. 1792 would streamline the
process of importing H-2A workers and would make changes to existing H-2A
requirements regarding minimum benefits, wages, and working conditions. The
streamlining and other changes proposed by the measures are different, however. For
example, both AgJOBS and H.R. 1792 would make changes to existing H-2A wage
requirements. AgJOBS would freeze the AEWR at the January 2003 level for three
years after the date of enactment, while, under H.R. 1792, H-2A employers would no
longer be subject to the AEWR. S. 1639, which was considered in the Senate, and
H.R. 1645 (STRIVE Act), which was the subject of a hearing by the House Judiciary
7 For additional background information, see CRS Report RL32235, U.S. Immigration
Policy on Permanent Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem (hereafter cited as CRS Report
RL32235).
8 For further information about the H-2A program, see CRS Report RL32044, Immigration:
Policy Considerations Related to Guest Worker Programs, by Andorra Bruno (hereafter
cited as CRS Report RL32044).
9 The prevailing wage rate is the average wage paid to similarly employed workers in the
occupation in the area of intended employment. The AEWR is an hourly wage rate set by
DOL for each state or region, based upon data gathered by the Department of Agriculture
in quarterly wage surveys. See CRS Report RL32861, Farm Labor: The Adverse Effect
Wage Rate (AEWR), by William G. Whittaker.
10 For a more detailed discussion of these bills, see CRS Report RL32044.

---

CRS-4
Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law, include H-2A reform provisions like those in AgJOBS. H.R.
2954 contains H-2A reform provisions similar to those in H.R. 1792. A modified
version of the AgJOBS Act of 2007 was approved by the Senate Appropriations
Committee in May 2008 as an amendment to its version of the supplemental
appropriations bill. This language, however, was subsequently dropped from the
Senate version of the supplemental bill (H.R. 2642) and is not included in the law,
as enacted (P.L. 110-252).
Instead of reforming the H-2A program, some measures before the 110th
Congress would establish new agricultural worker programs. H.R. 2413 would direct
the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a new W seasonal agricultural worker
program. Unlike the H-2A program, which is not subject to a numerical cap, the new
program would include monthly and annual numerical limitations. S. 330 also
proposes a new W temporary worker program, but it would cover both agricultural
and nonagricultural work.
In addition to its H-2A reform provisions, AgJOBS proposes a legalization
program for agricultural workers. Under the program, the Secretary of DHS would
grant a temporary resident status (termed “blue card status”) to an alien worker who
had performed a requisite amount of agricultural employment in the United States
during the 24-month period ending on December 31, 2006, and who meets other
requirements. No more than 1.5 million blue cards could be issued during the five-
year period beginning on the date of enactment. To be eligible to adjust to LPR
status, the alien in blue card status would have to meet additional work and other
requirements. Existing numerical limits under the INA would not apply to
adjustments of status under the bill. Similar provisions are included in H.R. 1645.11
By contrast, neither H.R. 1792 nor H.R. 2413 would establish a legalization program
for unauthorized agricultural workers. For its part, S. 330 would provide for
unauthorized workers who meet specified requirements to participate in its new
temporary worker program, but would not provide a mechanism for them to obtain
LPR status.
Temporary Nonagricultural Workers. The H-2B nonimmigrant visa
allows for the temporary admission of foreign workers to the United States to
perform nonagricultural temporary work, provided that U.S. workers are not
available.12 Prospective H-2B employers must first apply to DOL for a certification
that U.S. workers capable of performing the work are not available and that the
employment of alien workers will not adversely affect the wages and working
conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. H-2B employers must pay their
workers at least the prevailing wage rate. There is a statutory annual cap of 66,000
on the number of aliens who may be issued H-2B visas or otherwise provided with
H-2B status. In recent years, various comprehensive immigration reform bills have
11 While, as noted above, S. 1639 contains H-2A provisions similar to those in AgJOBS, the
agricultural worker legalization program proposed in S. 1639 includes some notably
different provisions than AgJOBS. For further information, see discussion of S. 1639 in
CRS Report RL32044.
12 For further information about the H-2B program, see CRS Report RL32044.

---

CRS-5
proposed to overhaul the H-2B program and/or establish new guest worker programs
for H-2B-like workers. For example, S. 1639, which the Senate considered in June
2007, would establish a new guest worker program to replace the H-2B program.
In the aftermath of the Senate’s unsuccessful cloture vote on S. 1639, attention
has been focused on an expired INA provision exempting certain returning H-2B
workers from the 66,000 cap. This provision, which was in effect from FY2005
through FY2007, exempted from the H-2B cap, returning H-2B workers who had
been counted against the cap in any one of the three prior fiscal years. Bills that
would re-enact an H-2B returning worker exemption have been introduced in the
House and Senate. H.R. 5495 and H.R. 5849 would exempt from the FY2008 cap
returning H-2B workers who were counted against the cap in FY2005, FY2006, or
FY2007. H.R. 5233 would exempt from the FY2008 and FY2009 caps returning
workers who were counted against the H-2B cap in any one of the three fiscal years
preceding the year at issue. S. 2839 includes a provision (§2) that would exempt
from the FY2008, FY2009, and FY2010 H-2B caps returning workers who were
counted against the cap in FY2005, FY2006, FY2007, or FY2008.
Other bills propose to revise the expired H-2B returning worker exemption to
cover workers who were present in the United States as H-2B nonimmigrants in any
one of the prior three fiscal years, but who were not necessarily counted against the
cap in any of those years. S. 988 would exempt from the H-2B cap for each fiscal
year through FY2012 workers who were present in the United States in H-2B status
in any one of the three years preceding the year at issue. H.R. 1843 would similarly
revise the exemption and would make it a permanent INA provision. A returning H-
2B worker exemption was included in the FY2008 Commerce, Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 3093), as passed by the Senate. For
FY2008, §540 of the Senate-passed version of H.R. 3093 would have exempted from
the H-2B cap, aliens who had been present in the United States as H-2B
nonimmigrants in any one of the past three years. This provision was not included
in the House-passed version of H.R. 3093, and it is not included in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161). Another returning H-2B worker provision
of this type was approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee in May 2008 as
an amendment to its version of the supplemental appropriations bill. During
consideration of the bill (H.R. 2642) on the Senate floor, however, this provision was
dropped. For FY2008 through FY2010, it would have exempted from the H-2B cap
aliens who were present in the United States as H-2B workers during any one of the
preceding three fiscal years.
Temporary Workers in Specialty Occupations. The largest
classification of H visas is the H-1B visa for workers in specialty occupations.13 An
employer wishing to bring in an H-1B nonimmigrant must attest in a labor
certification application (LCA) to DOL that the employer will pay the nonimmigrant
the greater of the actual wages paid to other employees in the same job or the
prevailing wages for that occupation; the employer will provide working conditions
13 For additional information on the H-1B visa, see CRS Report RL30498, Immigration:
Legislative Issues on Nonimmigrant Professional Specialty (H-1B) Workers, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem.

---

CRS-6
for the nonimmigrant that do not cause the working conditions of the other
employees to be adversely affected; and there is no strike or lockout. The employer
also must post at the workplace the application to hire nonimmigrants. Firms
categorized as H-1B dependent (generally if at least 15% of the employees are H-1B
workers) must also attest that they have attempted to recruit U.S. workers and that
they have not laid off U.S. workers 90 days prior to or after hiring any H-1B
nonimmigrants.
Although most employment-based nonimmigrant visas are not numerically
limited, the H-1B visa is subject to an annual cap of 65,000. For the past few years,
the H-1B visa limit has been reached before the beginning of the fiscal year. DHS’s
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that the FY2009 H-
1B cap was reached within the first few days it accepted petitions. At the same time,
current law exempts some H-1B workers from the annual cap. For example, up to
20,000 aliens holding a master’s or higher degree are exempt from the H-1B cap each
year. This 20,000 limit is quickly met.
Multiple bills on the H-1B visa have been introduced in the 110th Congress. A
variety of constituencies are advocating substantial increases in H-1B admissions.
Among the bills to increase admissions, S. 1038/H.R. 1930 would amend the INA
to exempt from the annual H-1B visa cap an alien who has earned a master’s or
higher degree from an accredited U.S. university; or has been awarded a medical
specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience in the United
States. S. 1038/H.R. 1930 further would increase the annual H-1B cap, with an
escalator clause that would provide a 20% increase for the following year if the
previous year’s ceiling is reached. S. 1092 would amend the INA to increase the
annual H-1B cap to 115,000 in FY2007 and 195,000 in FY2008. It also would
eliminate the 20,000 annual cap on aliens with masters’ or higher degrees who can
enter the United States without being subject to H-1B visa limits. H.R. 1758 would
amend the INA to provide an additional 65,000 H-1B visas in each fiscal year from
FY2008 through FY2012 for persons who have a master’s or Ph.D. degree and meet
the requirements for such status. Under this bill, the employers of these workers
would be required to make scholarship payments to institutions of higher education.
Taking yet a different approach, H.R. 5642 would set the ceiling on total H-1B
admissions at 195,000 for FY2008 and FY2009.
A second set of bills, including S. 1035, S. 31, and H.R. 2538, focuses on
strengthening H-1B requirements and expanding enforcement. S. 1035 aims to
enhance labor market protections pertaining to H-1B visas. Specifically, this bill
would require that employers seeking to hire an H-1B visa holder pledge that they
have made a good-faith effort to hire U.S. workers first and that the H-1B visa holder
will not displace a U.S. worker. S. 1035 also would prohibit employers from hiring
H-1B employees who are then outsourced to other companies, and would prohibit
companies from hiring H-1B employees if they employ more than 50 people and
more than 50% of their employees are H-1B visa holders. Another bill — S. 31 —
would increase penalties on employers for violating the LCA, provide H-1B aliens
with whistle-blower protections, and require USCIS to submit to Congress a fraud
risk assessment of the H-1B visa program. H.R. 2538 would alter the LCA process
by requiring H-1B employers to use whichever of its three proposed wage
determination methods results in the highest wages. It also would prohibit employers

---

CRS-7
from outsourcing or otherwise contracting for the placement of an H-1B
nonimmigrant with another employer. In addition, H.R. 2538 would eliminate the
exemption from the H-1B cap for certain aliens with a U.S. master’s or higher
degree.
A third set of bills includes provisions to both increase admissions and expand
enforcement. Among the bills of this type, S. 1351 would increase the H-1B cap to
150,000 in FY2008 with an escalator clause for subsequent years. It also would
strengthen labor market protections for U.S. workers competing with potential H-1B
workers and would expand the investigative and enforcement authority of DOL. S.
1397 and H.R. 5630 would exempt from the H-1B ceilings any alien who has: earned
a master’s or higher degree in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics from
an institution of higher education in the United States; or been awarded a medical
specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience in the United
States. Up to 20,000 aliens who have earned a master’s or higher degree in science,
technology, engineering, or mathematics from an institution of higher education
outside the United States would also be exempted under S. 1397 and H.R. 5630. S.
1397 would raise the annual H-1B limit to 115,000 for FY2007 and rely on a
market-based calculation to potentially escalate the limit above 115,000 for each
subsequent fiscal year. S. 1397 also includes enforcement provisions on application
fraud and misrepresentation, employer penalties, and DOL investigations. H.R. 5630
would raise the annual H-1B limit to 130,000 for FY2008 with an escalator clause
for subsequent years. H.R. 5630 also would strengthen labor market protections for
U.S. workers competing with potential H-1B workers. S. 1639 includes a variety of
revisions to the H-1B provisions in the INA. Among other things, it would raise the
FY2008 cap to 115,000 and provide that in subsequent years DHS may issue
additional H-1B visas up to a 180,000 cap. It also would require the submission of
Internal Revenue Service W-2 forms as part of the H-1B renewal petition. S. 1639
draws on the labor market protections proposed in S. 1035.
As originally passed by the Senate, §532 of the FY2008 Labor, Health and
Human Services, Education and Related Agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 3043)
would have required employers to pay a supplemental fee of $3,500 for each H-1B
hired, with a reduced amount ($1,750) paid by small businesses with 25 or fewer
employees. Public hospitals would have been exempt from the supplemental fee.
The fees would have been allocated largely to programs for gifted and talented
students and for education in science, technology, engineering, and math. The final
version of the bill, which was enacted as part of P.L. 110-161, does not include these
Senate provisions.
Temporary Admission of Professional Athletes and Entertainers.
In 1990, when Congress replaced the former H-1B visa category for aliens of
distinguished merit and ability with the current H-1B professional specialty worker
visa category (discussed above), it also established the O and P visa categories.14
Generally, the O visa is reserved for the highest level of accomplishment and covers
a fairly broad set of occupations and endeavors, including artists, athletes,
entertainers, and scientists. Those holding an O visa may stay up to three years, with
14 Immigration Act of 1990, P.L. 101-649.

---

CRS-8
a one-year renewal option. The P visa has a somewhat lower standard of
achievement than the O visa and is restricted to a narrower band of occupations and
endeavors. The P visa is used by an alien who performs as an artist, athlete, or
entertainer (individually or as part of a group or team) and who seeks to enter the
United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of performing in that capacity.
P-1 visas are for athletes and members of entertainment groups at an internationally
recognized level of performance. Individual athletes on P visas may stay in intervals
of up to 5 years at a time, up to 10 years in total; other P visa holders may stay up to
one year. H.R. 5060, which has been reported by the House Judiciary Committee,
would amend the law to enable P visas for individual athletes to be renewed in
five-year increments, apparently without limit. In addition, the House has passed
H.R. 1312, which would provide for expedited adjudication of O or P visa petitions
that are not processed within 30 days of filing, if the petitioner is a nonprofit arts
organization or is filing on behalf of such an organization.
Temporary Admission of Fashion Models. Under current law, fashion
models are admitted under the H-1B visa category (see above). H.R. 4080, as
reported by the House Judiciary Committee, would remove fashion models from the
H-1B category and create a new subcategory for fashion models under the P visa
category (described in the preceding section). Under H.R. 4080, models would have
the same authorized period of stay as individual athletes on P visas, which is
currently an initial period of up to 5 years and up to 10 years in total. There would
be a cap of 1,000 on the number of P visas that could be issued to models annually.
Permanent Employment. As mentioned above, most employment-based
LPRs enter under one of the first three preference categories. These categories are
(1) priority workers (that is, persons of extraordinary ability in the arts, sciences,
education, business, or athletics; outstanding professors and researchers; and certain
multinational executives and managers); (2) members of the professions holding
advanced degrees or persons of exceptional ability; and (3) skilled workers with at
least two years of training, professionals with baccalaureate degrees, and unskilled
workers.15
LPR admissions under these categories have exceeded the ceilings in recent
years, fueling pressure to revise admissions levels in the law upward.16 Replacing or
supplementing the current employment-based preference system with a “merit-based”
point system is also garnering considerable interest for the first time in over a
decade.17 Another recurring option is to no longer count the derivative family
members (i.e., spouses and minor children) of employment-based LPRs as part of the
numerical ceiling.
The effort to increase levels of employment-based immigration is complicated
by the backlogs in family-based immigration due to the sheer volume of aliens
15 For additional information on permanent admissions, see CRS Report RL32235.
16 For an explanation of these trends, see CRS Report RL32235.
17 See CRS Report RL34030, Point Systems for Immigrant Selection: Options and Issues,
by Ruth Ellen Wasem and Chad C. Haddal.

---

CRS-9
eligible to immigrate to the United States. Citizens and LPRs often wait years for
their relatives’ petitions to be processed and visa numbers to become available,
raising questions about the advisability of increasing employment-based immigration
before resolving the family-based backlogs. Meanwhile, others question whether the
United States can accommodate higher levels of immigration and frequently cite the
costs borne by local communities faced with increases in educational expenses,
medical care, human services, and infrastructure expansion, which are sparked by
population growth.
Title V of S. 1639, the immigration bill considered in the Senate in June 2007,
would substantially revise legal permanent admissions. In terms of employment-
based immigration, the first three preference categories, as described above, would
be eliminated and replaced with a point system. This proposed point system would
be multi-tiered, with a tier for “merit-based” immigrants. The merit point tier would
be based on a total of 100 points divided between four factors: employment,
education, English and civics, and family relationships.18
Among the other pending bills on employment-based LPRs is H.R. 1645. It
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. At the same time, it would cap the total
number of employment-based LPRs and their derivatives at 800,000 annually.19
S. 1038/H.R. 1930, the SKIL Act of 2007, would expand employment-based
immigration by exempting aliens with advanced degrees and specialized occupations
from the worldwide numerical limits. Moreover, S. 1038/H.R. 1930 would no longer
count the derivative family members of employment-based LPRs as part of the
numerical ceiling. S. 1397 would likewise no longer count the derivative family
members of employment-based LPRs as part of the numerical ceiling, and also would
exempt from the ceiling certain aliens who have earned advanced degrees in science,
technology, engineering, or math and have been working in these fields in the United
States for three years.
Visa Recapture. There is ongoing interest in the legislative option to
“recapture” LPR visas that were not issued in prior years (when the statutory ceilings
on visas were not met). The Senate-passed version of H.R. 3043 included language
(§533) to re-capture an estimated 61,000 employment-based visas that were not used
in 1996 and 1997, and to re-allocate these visas to LPRs in shortage occupations, as
designated by the Secretary of Labor (currently, nurses and physical therapists).
Employers petitioning for these re-captured visas would have been required to pay
a $1,500 fee, which would have been used for nursing education in the United States.
P.L. 110-161 does not include these Senate provisions.
In May 2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved permanent
employment-based immigration provisions as amendments to its version of the
supplemental appropriations bill. These provisions would have exempted aliens in
18 For further discussion of the point system proposed in S. 1639, see Ibid.
19 See CRS Report RL32235.

---

CRS-10
DOL-designated shortage occupations (currently, nurses and physical therapists)
from INA numerical limitations through FY2011, and would have recaptured unused
employment-based visas for use by skilled immigrant workers. These provisions,
however, were subsequently dropped from the Senate version of the supplemental
bill (H.R. 2642) and are not included in the law, as enacted (P.L. 110-252).
“STEM” Students
Alongside pending proposals to increase temporary and permanent immigration
of high-skilled workers are related proposals for student visa reform for foreign
students intending to pursue studies in a field related to science, technology,
engineering, or math (STEM). S. 1639 and H.R. 1645 would create a new F
nonimmigrant visa category specifically designed for students in STEM fields of
study. Students obtaining the newly created visa would not need to demonstrate an
intent to depart the United States upon completion of their studies. Students in this
category could also pursue optional practical training periods of up to 24 months after
completing their degrees. Furthermore, under these bills, foreign students on any
F-class nonimmigrant visas would be allowed to pursue off-campus work provided
that the employer attempted to first hire a similarly qualified U.S. citizen for a period
of 21 days prior to employment. Employers would be required to pay foreign
students the higher of the average or prevailing wage in the field of employment.
In addition to establishing a new F visa category for STEM students, H.R. 1645
would add a provision to INA §201(b) for foreign nationals who obtain (or have
obtained) a master’s or higher degree at a U.S. accredited university. These foreign
nationals would be exempted from the worldwide numerical limits on permanent
admissions. Another provision in the act proposes to exempt from the numerical
limits aliens who have earned a master’s or higher degree in a STEM field and have
been working in a related field in the United States in a nonimmigrant status during
the three-year period preceding their application for an employment-based immigrant
visa.20 These exemptions from the LPR numerical limits would apply not only to
current and future students, but also would apply retroactively to foreign nationals
who received degrees from U.S. universities prior to the enactment of the legislation.
S. 1639 has no similar provision.
Unauthorized Alien Students
Unauthorized alien students comprise a subpopulation of the larger unauthorized
alien population in the United States. They are distinct from foreign students.
Although they are foreign nationals, unauthorized alien students, unlike foreign
students, are not in the United States legally on nonimmigrant visas to study at U.S.
institutions. Instead, by definition, they are in the country illegally. Unauthorized
alien students are eligible for free public elementary and secondary education, but
many of them who want to attend college face various obstacles. Among these
20 From the language of H.R. 1645, CRS could not ascertain whether the provision would
require that only the employment occur in the United States, or whether the advanced degree
must also be from a U.S. higher education institution.

---

CRS-11
obstacles, a provision enacted in 1996 as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA; Division C of P.L. 104-208, §505)
discourages states and localities from granting unauthorized aliens certain
“postsecondary education benefits,” widely interpreted to refer to “in-state” residency
status for tuition purposes. Under the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as
amended, unauthorized aliens are also ineligible for federal student financial aid.
More broadly, as unauthorized aliens, they are unable to work legally and are subject
to removal from the United States.
Bills have been introduced in recent Congresses to provide relief to
unauthorized alien students by repealing the 1996 provision and enabling certain
unauthorized alien students to adjust to LPR status in the United States.21 These bills
are commonly referred to as the DREAM Act (whether or not they carry that name).
In the 110th Congress, DREAM Act legislation has been introduced both in
stand-alone bills and as part of larger comprehensive immigration reform measures.
S. 774 and H.R. 1275 are similar, but not identical, stand-alone DREAM Act bills
before the 110th Congress. They would repeal the IIRIRA provision and thereby
eliminate the restriction on state provision of postsecondary educational benefits to
unauthorized aliens. Both bills also would enable eligible unauthorized students to
adjust to LPR status in the United States through an immigration procedure known
as cancellation of removal. Cancellation of removal is a discretionary form of relief
authorized by the INA that an alien can apply for while in removal proceedings
before an immigration judge. Aliens granted cancellation of removal have their
status adjusted to LPR status.
Under S. 774 and H.R. 1275, aliens could affirmatively apply for cancellation
of removal without being placed in removal proceedings. To be eligible for
cancellation of removal/adjustment of status under these bills, the alien would have
to demonstrate that he or she met various requirements, including that he or she had
been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than
five years immediately preceding the date of enactment and had not yet reached age
16 at the time of initial entry. Both bills also would require the alien to demonstrate
that he or she had been admitted to an institution of higher education in the United
States, or had earned a high school diploma or the equivalent in the United States.
There would be no limit on the number of aliens who could be granted
cancellation of removal/adjustment of status under S. 774 and H.R. 1275. An alien
granted cancellation of removal under these bills would be adjusted initially to
conditional permanent resident status. Such conditional status would be valid for six
years and would be subject to termination. To have the condition removed and
become a full-fledged LPR, the alien would have to submit an application during a
specified period and meet additional requirements, including acquisition of a college
21 For a discussion of bills introduced in the 109th and 110th Congress, see CRS Report
RL33863, Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation, by Andorra
Bruno (hereafter cited as CRS Report RL33863). For a discussion of bills introduced in
earlier Congresses, see CRS Report RL31365, Unauthorized Alien Students: Legislation in
the 107th and 108th Congresses, by Andorra Bruno and Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.

---

CRS-12
degree (or completion at least two years in a bachelor’s or higher degree program) or
service in the uniformed services for at least two years.22
S. 2205, another stand-alone DREAM Act bill, was introduced in October 2007.
On October 24, 2007, the Senate voted on a motion to invoke cloture on S. 2205.
The motion failed on a vote of 52 to 44. S. 2205 contains legalization provisions
similar to those in S. 774 and H.R 1275. Under S. 2205, eligible unauthorized
students could adjust to LPR status through the cancellation of removal procedure.
To be eligible for cancellation of removal/adjustment of status under S. 2205, as
under S. 774 and H.R 1275, the alien would have to demonstrate, among other
requirements, that he or she had been physically present in the United States for a
continuous period of not less than five years immediately preceding the date of
enactment, had not yet reached age 16 at the time of initial entry, and had been
admitted to an institution of higher education in the United States or had earned a
high school diploma or the equivalent in the United States. In a requirement not
included in S. 774 and H.R 1275, the alien would also have to show that he or she
was under age 30 on the date of enactment.
As under S. 774 and H.R. 1275, an alien granted cancellation of removal under
S. 2205 would be adjusted initially to conditional permanent resident status. To have
the condition removed and become a full-fledged LPR, the alien would have to meet
additional requirements, including acquisition of a college degree (or completion of
at least two years in a bachelor’s or higher degree program) or service in the
uniformed services for at least two years. There would be no limit on the number of
aliens who could be granted cancellation of removal/adjustment of status. Unlike S.
774, H.R. 1275, and DREAM Act bills introduced in past Congresses, S. 2205 would
not repeal the IIRIRA provision and thereby eliminate the restriction on state
provision of postsecondary educational benefits to unauthorized aliens.
In addition to these free-standing bills, DREAM Act provisions have been
included in larger comprehensive immigration reform bills. H.R. 1645 contains a
DREAM Act subtitle in Title VI that is nearly identical to S. 774, as discussed above.
A version of the DREAM Act also was included in S. 1639, the immigration bill that
the Senate considered but failed to invoke cloture on in June 2007. The S. 1639
version of the DREAM Act, however, is substantially different than the other
DREAM Act bills in the 110th Congress. S. 1639’s DREAM Act provisions are tied
to other provisions in the bill to enable certain unauthorized aliens in the United
States to obtain legal status under a new “Z” nonimmigrant visa category. S. 1639,
like most other DREAM Act bills, would couple adjustment of status provisions for
unauthorized students with language addressing the IIRIRA provision that places
restrictions on state provision of educational benefits to unauthorized aliens. Unlike
most other DREAM Act bills, however, S. 1639 would not completely repeal the
IIRIRA provision. Instead, §616(a) of S. 1639 would make the provision
inapplicable with respect to aliens with probationary Z or Z status.23
22 For a discussion of the differences between S. 774 and H.R. 1275, see CRS Report
RL33863.
23 For further information on the version of the DREAM Act included in S. 1639, see CRS
(continued...)

---

CRS-13
Document Security
Two federal agencies issue most immigration-related identity documents. The
Department of State (DOS) is responsible for issuing visas to foreign nationals and
passports to U.S. citizens. Among other uses, these documents are used by persons
seeking admission to the United States, as all must demonstrate that they are either
foreign nationals with valid documents or U.S. citizens. DHS issues most other
immigration documents, which foreign nationals need for various purposes within
the United States. For example, the INA requires employers — when hiring citizens
and foreign nationals alike — to examine specified documents presented by the
employee, which may include immigration documents, to verify employment
eligibility and establish identity.
For well over a decade, the security of immigration documents has been an
issue. Initially, the emphasis was on issuing documents that were tamper-resistant
and difficult to counterfeit in order to impede document fraud and unauthorized
employment. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the policy priorities
have centered on preventing identity fraud, with a sharp focus on intercepting
terrorist travel and other security threats.
There is a consensus that immigration documents should include biometric
identifiers (e.g., digitized photos or finger scans), but determining what type of
biometric identifier to use poses a variety of technical issues. Congress imposed a
statutory requirement in 1996 for DOS’s Bureau of Consular Affairs to issue a
biometric border crossing card, known today as a laser visa. In 2001 and 2002,
Congress added requirements that all visas be biometric. Since October 2004, the
Bureau of Consular Affairs has been issuing machine-readable visas that use
biometric identifiers in addition to the photograph that has been collected for some
time.24 Immigration documents issued by USCIS in DHS likewise include biometric
identifiers. The permanent resident card, commonly called a “green card,” is the
document LPRs use to establish their status. According to USCIS, approximately
14.6 million biometric “green cards” were issued between FY1998 and FY2006.
Aliens who are temporarily in the United States and eligible to work file a request for
an employment authorization document (EAD). Over 8.3 million biometric EADs
were issued between FY1998 and FY2006, according to USCIS.
The United States does not require its citizens to have legal documents that
verify their citizenship and identity (i.e., national identification cards). The INA does
require all U.S. citizens to present a valid passport when entering and departing the
United States, but gives the President the authority to waive this requirement. P.L.
108-458, while not directly amending the President’s passport waiver authority,
requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, to develop and implement a plan that requires a document that denotes identity
23 (...continued)
Report RL32044.
24 §414 of the USA Patriot Act (PL. 107-56) and § 303 of the Enhanced Border Security and
Visa Reform Act (P.L. 107-173) require that visas and other travel documents contain a
biometric identifier and are tamper-resistant.

---

CRS-14
and citizenship for all entries into the United States. This statutory directive,
discussed in a separate section below, is known as the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative (WHTI).
Striking a balance among the facilitation of legitimate travel and trade, the
integrity of immigration documents, the security of personal identification
documents, the protection of personal privacy and civil liberties, and the deterrence
of foreign security threats remains a challenge for Congress. The Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53) requires DHS,
in conjunction with the Director of National Intelligence and the heads of other
relevant federal agencies, to submit a report to Congress outlining the actions the
U.S. government has taken to collaborate with international partners to increase
border security, enhance document security, and exchange information about
terrorists.
A number of bills before the 110th Congress include provisions aimed at
improving document security. Provisions that would require that immigration
documents comply with specified authentication, documentation, and machine
readable standards are included in H.R. 1645, H.R. 2954, S. 330, and S. 1348.
Provisions to expand document fraud training for DHS officers are included in H.R.
2954, S. 1348, and S. 1984. For its part, S. 276 would revise the criminal penalties
for immigration and visa fraud, including trafficking in counterfeit immigration
documents.
Visa Waiver Program
The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) allows nationals from certain countries to
enter the United States as temporary visitors (nonimmigrants) for business or
pleasure without first obtaining a visa from a U.S. consulate abroad.25 The VWP
constitutes one of the few exceptions under the INA in which foreign nationals are
admitted into the United States without a valid visa.
To qualify for the VWP, the INA specifies that a country must meet certain
requirements. For example, the country must offer reciprocal privileges to U.S.
citizens; the country must issue its nationals machine-readable passports that
incorporate biometric identifiers; and the country’s inclusion in the VWP must not
compromise the law enforcement or security interests of the United States. Among
the other requirements for VWP participation, the country must have a low
nonimmigrant refusal rate (normally less than 3%).26
P.L. 110-53 modifies the VWP by adding criteria to qualify as a VWP country.
Among other new requirements, P.L. 110-53 mandates that the Secretary of DHS, in
25 For more information on the Visa Waiver Program, see CRS Report RL32221, Visa
Waiver Program, by Alison Siskin.
26 The nonimmigrant refusal rate is the percentage of all nonimmigrant visa applications that
are denied. For purposes of the VWP, the rate does not include applications that are
originally denied, but then approved when the alien presents additional information.

---

CRS-15
consultation with the Secretary of State, develop and implement an electronic travel
authorization system, through which each alien would electronically provide, in
advance of travel, the biographical information necessary to determine whether the
alien is eligible to travel to the United States and enter under the VWP. P.L. 110-53
also requires that the Secretary of DHS establish an exit system that records the
departure of every alien who enters under the VWP and leaves the United States by
air.
Finally, the act allows the Secretary of DHS, in consultation with the Secretary
of State, to waive the nonimmigrant refusal rate requirement for admission to the
VWP on the date on which the Secretary of DHS certifies to Congress that an air exit
system is in place that can verify the departure of not less than 97% of all foreign
nationals who exit through U.S. airports. This waiver authority is also contingent on
the Secretary of DHS certifying to Congress that the electronic travel authorization
system discussed above is operational. In addition, after June 30, 2009, the air exit
system would have to incorporate biometric identifiers and be able to match an
alien’s biometric information with relevant watch lists and manifest information.
Otherwise, the Secretary of DHS’s authority to waive the nonimmigrant refusal rate
would be suspended until the air exit system had the specified biometric capacity.
In order to participate in the VWP, a country receiving a nonimmigrant visa refusal
rate waiver could not have a refusal rate above 10% and would have to meet other
requirements.
Border Security
DHS is charged with protecting U.S. borders from weapons of mass destruction,
terrorists, smugglers, and unauthorized aliens. Border security involves securing the
many means by which people and things can enter the country. Operationally, this
means controlling the official ports of entry (POE) through which legitimate travelers
and commerce enter the country, and patrolling the nation’s land and maritime
borders to safeguard against and interdict illegal entries.
Border security has been a key immigration issue for the 110th Congress. There
has been much debate about whether DHS has sufficient resources to fulfill its border
security mission, and a number of bills have been considered that would add
resources to the border, including personnel, infrastructure, and technology. Other
bills would institute new, or modify existing, programs within the Department.
Resources at the Border
A number of bills have been introduced that would add resources for Customs
and Border Protection (CBP), the lead agency at DHS charged with securing U.S.
borders at and between official ports of entry (POE). At ports of entry, CBP officers
are responsible for conducting immigration, customs, and agricultural inspections on
entering aliens. Between ports of entry, the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), a component
of CBP, enforces U.S. immigration law and other federal laws along the border. In
the course of discharging its duties, the USBP patrols over 8,000 miles of U.S.
international borders with Mexico and Canada and the coastal waters around Florida

---

CRS-16
and Puerto Rico. The following discussion focuses on key provisions on border
resources that have been enacted by the 110th Congress and selected other provisions
that are pending.
Resources at POE. P.L. 110-53 authorizes the hiring of 200 additional CBP
officers in FY2008 to be deployed to the 20 busiest international airports. The act
also requires DHS to submit a report to Congress concerning the ongoing efforts to
secure the northern border with Canada, including an assessment of northern border
vulnerabilities and recommendations for addressing them. A number of other bills,
including S. 1639, the broad immigration bill the Senate considered last year, would
authorize the hiring of 500 additional CBP officers each year from FY2008 through
FY2012. Additionally, in an effort to contain attrition within the CBP workforce,
Division E of P.L. 110-161 extends to CBP officers the same federal retirement
program enhancements currently offered to federal law enforcement officers.27
Resources Between POE. A number of bills in the 110th Congress,
including S. 1639 and H.R. 4088, would authorize increases in the USBP agent
manpower. H.R. 4088 also would direct CBP to establish a program to recruit
former Armed Forces personnel and to offer recruitment incentives such as student
loan repayments and bonuses; allow DHS to deploy USBP agents to states whose
governors have declared states of emergency and have requested agents to be
assigned there; and give the USBP administrative control over all assets used by their
agents. Many of these bills, including H.R. 4088 and S. 1639, would also direct DHS
to acquire additional remote video surveillance cameras, sensors, radars, and
unmanned aerial vehicles in order to create a “virtual fence” along the international
borders, and to create a comprehensive national border security strategy. Division
E of P.L. 110-161 requires DHS to submit a land border security plan to Congress
every other year starting on January 31, 2008.
The Senate-passed version of the FY2008 DHS appropriations bill (H.R. 2638)
includes a $3 billion emergency supplemental appropriation to be used to, among
other things, bring the overall USBP workforce to 23,000 agents, construct 700 miles
of fencing along the southern border, and deploy 105 camera and radar towers and
four unmanned aerial vehicles to the border. Although P.L. 110-161 includes $3
billion in emergency funding for border security purposes, these specific provisions
are not included in the act.
Barriers at the Border
Congress has repeatedly shown interest in the deployment of barriers along the
U.S. international land border.28 In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which, among other things,
explicitly gave the Attorney General broad authority to construct barriers along the
27 For more information about the federal retirement system and the enhancements offered
to law enforcement officers, see CRS Report 98-810, Federal Employees’ Retirement
System: Benefits and Financing, by Patrick Purcell.
28 For additional background, see CRS Report RL33659, Border Security: Barriers Along
the U.S. International Border, by Blas Nuñez-Neto and Yule Kim.

---

CRS-17
border and specified where fencing was to be constructed. In 2006, Congress passed
the Secure Fence Act (P.L. 109-367), which, among other things, amended the
fencing language in IIRIRA to direct DHS to construct five separate stretches of
fencing along the southern border totaling 850 miles, and to impose deadlines for the
construction of fencing and the installation of an interlocking surveillance camera
system along specified border areas. These requirements have again been modified
by provisions in P.L. 110-161. The Secretary of Homeland Security is now required
to construct reinforced fencing along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border,
in locations where fencing is deemed most practical and effective. In carrying out
this requirement, the Secretary is further directed to identify either 370 miles or
“other mileage” along the southwest border where fencing would be most practical
and effective in deterring smugglers and illegal aliens, and to complete construction
of fencing in identified areas by December 31, 2008. A number of bills, including
H.R. 4088, would direct CBP to expand the current road, fencing, and vehicle barrier
infrastructure at the border.
P.L. 110-161 also imposes new consultation requirements on the Secretary of
Homeland Security when carrying out duties under the border barrier section, and
conditions appropriations under the act upon compliance with these requirements.
The act specifies that this consultation requirement does not create or negate any
right to legal action by an affected person or entity.
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative
The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) was enacted by the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458) and requires the
Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to
develop and implement a plan as expeditiously as possible to require a passport or
other document, or combination of documents, “deemed by the Secretary of
Homeland Security to be sufficient to denote identity and citizenship,” for all
travelers entering the United States. The deadline for implementation was eased by
§546 of P.L. 109-295, which required implementation not later than three months
after the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security certified that specified
requirements had been met, or June 1, 2009, whichever was earlier. Division E of
P.L. 110-161 further eases the deadline for implementation by prohibiting DHS from
implementing WHTI before the later of the following two dates: June 1, 2009, or
three months after the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security certify that a series
of implementation requirements have been met. Despite this legislation, as of
January 31, 2008, DHS has ended the practice of accepting oral declarations of U.S.
citizenship at the land border and is requiring U.S. citizens to present a passport,
some other accepted biometric document, or the combination of a driver’s license
and a birth certificate in order to re-enter the country.
The 110th Congress also has enacted P.L. 110-53, which requires DHS to enter
into a pilot program with at least one state to create an enhanced driver’s license
(EDL) that would be considered a valid entry document under the WHTI
requirements. Under P.L. 110-53, DHS’s participation in such a pilot program is

---

CRS-18
required prior to the full implementation of WHTI at the land borders.29 In addition,
P.L. 110-53 requires DHS to perform a cost-benefit analysis of the WHTI program
and to develop proposals for reducing the fees associated with the passport card
currently being developed for the program.
Other related bills before the 110th Congress include H.R. 1061. It would,
among other things, allow the current registered traveler and registered shipper
program documentation30 to be valid proof of citizenship under the WHTI
requirements; this would codify something that DHS has already begun
implementing administratively.31
State and Local Enforcement of Immigration Law
The authority for state and local law enforcement officials to enforce
immigration law has generally been construed to be limited to the criminal provisions
of the INA; the enforcement of the civil provisions, which includes apprehension and
removal of deportable aliens, has been viewed as a federal responsibility, with states
playing an incidental supporting role.32 One of the broadest grants of authority for
state and local immigration enforcement activity stems from §133 of IIRIRA, which
amended INA §287 by adding a new provision. This provision, commonly referred
to as the 287(g) program, authorizes the Attorney General (now the Secretary of
Homeland Security) to enter into written agreements with states and local
governments to allow their law enforcement officers to perform certain immigration
law enforcement functions.
Some bills in the 110th Congress would modify or expand the 287(g) program.
For example, S. 1639 would require DHS to reimburse states and local governments
for training provided to their law enforcement officers under the 287(g) program and
for the cost of any equipment required by the agreement. S. 1269 would create a
web-based curriculum that could be used to train state and local law enforcement
officers on immigration law enforcement. Other related bills, such as Senate-passed
29 DHS is currently participating in an enhanced driver’s license pilot program with the state
of Washington.
30 Current registered traveler programs include NEXUS, between the United States and
Canada, and the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers’ Rapid Inspection (SENTRI),
between the United States and Mexico. These programs expedite the entry of registered
foreigners by providing them with dedicated lanes and radio identification frequency
enabled cards. The Free and Secure Trade (FAST) program is a fully electronic expedited
cargo release program in place at the Northern and Southern borders. FAST uses electronic
data transmissions and transponder technology to expedite the processing of shipments at
land border ports of entry.
31 CRS site visit to the northern border, August 26, 2007-September 1, 2007.
32 For more information about state and local law enforcement authorities to enforce
immigration law, see CRS Report RL32270, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State
and Local Law Enforcement, by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Michael John Garcia, and Karma Ester.

---

CRS-19
H.R. 2638 and H.R. 4088, would create grant programs to reimburse states and local
communities for unauthorized immigration-related expenses that they may incur.
Lastly, some bills (including S. 1269, S. 2717, H.R. 842, and H.R. 2954) would
“reaffirm the existing inherent authority of States,” as sovereign entities (including
their law enforcement personnel), to investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, detain,
or transfer into federal custody aliens in the United States in the course of carrying
out routine duties. S. 2717 and H.R. 842 would also require DHS to designate one
detention facility within each state as a central facility for law enforcement entities
within that state to place aliens. Under S. 1269, S. 2717, and H.R. 842, DHS would
be further required to take aliens into federal custody within a specified period of
time after their apprehension by state and local law enforcement officers.
Employment Eligibility Verification
and Worksite Enforcement
Employment eligibility verification and worksite enforcement have been key
issues in the debate over comprehensive immigration reform. They are widely
viewed as essential components of a strategy to reduce unauthorized immigration.
There appears to be considerable congressional support to expand verification
requirements and bolster worksite enforcement efforts. In some cases, this support
seems to be linked to support for other proposals to establish new temporary worker
programs and to legalize the status of unauthorized aliens in the United States.
Under INA §274A, it is unlawful for an employer to knowingly hire, recruit or
refer for a fee, or continue to employ an alien who is not authorized to be so
employed. Employers also are required to participate in a paper-based employment
eligibility verification system, commonly referred to as the I-9 system, in which they
examine documents presented by new hires to verify identity and work eligibility,
and complete and retain I-9 verification forms. Employers violating prohibitions on
unlawful employment may be subject to civil and/or criminal penalties. Enforcement
of these provisions is termed worksite enforcement.33
While all employers must meet the I-9 requirements, they also may elect to
participate in an electronic employment eligibility verification pilot program that was
established under IIRIRA. Participants in the program, now known as E-Verify
(formerly, the Basic Pilot program and then the Employment Eligibility Verification
System), electronically verify new hires’ employment authorization through Social
Security Administration (SSA) and, if necessary, DHS databases. The program is
scheduled to expire in November 2008. In July 2008, the House passed a bill (H.R.
6633) to extend E-Verify for five additional years, until November 2013. H.R. 6633
also would require SSA and DHS to enter into an agreement to provide funds to SSA
to cover the full costs of its role in E-Verify.
33 For further discussion of unauthorized employment, see CRS Report RL33973,
Unauthorized Employment in the United States: Issues and Options, by Andorra Bruno.

---

CRS-20
P.L. 110-161 includes provisions related to E-Verify that build on current law
regarding entities required to participate in an employment eligibility verification
pilot program. Under IIRIRA §402(e)(1), as amended, “each Department of the
Federal Government shall elect to participate in a [employment eligibility
verification] pilot program,” and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall help
ensure that “a significant portion of the total hiring within each Department ... is
covered under such a program.” Each Member of Congress, each officer of
Congress, and the head of each legislative branch agency likewise “shall elect to
participate in a pilot program.” Employers found to have violated the prohibitions
on unlawful employment or to have engaged in unfair immigration-related
employment practices also may be required to participate in a pilot program.34 A
provision in Division B of P.L. 110-161 on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies appropriations (§541) directs that none of the funds made available may be
used in contravention of IIRIRA §402(e)(1). A provision in Division E on DHS
appropriations (§557) states that none of the funds made available to the Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management may be used for any new hires that are not
verified through E-Verify. Several FY2008 appropriations bills (H.R. 3043, H.R.
3074, H.R. 3093, and H.R. 316135), as passed by the House, contained identical
language to prohibit any funds made available in the acts to be used to enter into
contracts with entities that do not participate in E-Verify,36 but these provisions are
not included in P.L. 110-161.
A variety of other bills introduced in the 110th Congress would require all
employers to conduct electronic employment eligibility verification and would make
other changes to current law related to employment eligibility verification and
worksite enforcement. Title III of S. 1639 would amend INA §274A to establish a
new employment eligibility verification system (EEVS; modeled on the current
largely voluntary electronic system). Under S. 1639, it would be unlawful for an
employer or other entity to hire, or recruit or refer for a fee, an individual for
employment in the United States without verifying identity and employment
eligibility, as specified. Over time, participation in the new electronic EEVS would
become mandatory. As of the date of enactment, the Secretary of DHS would be
authorized to require any employer or industry that is a federal contractor, part of the
critical infrastructure, or directly related to U.S. national or homeland security to
participate in the new EEVS. This requirement could be applied to both newly hired
and current employees. No later than 18 months after the date of enactment, all
employers would be required to participate in the new EEVS with respect to newly
34 8 U.S.C. 1324a note. Three employment eligibility verification pilot programs were
originally authorized by IIRIRA. E-Verify is the only one currently in operation.
35 These are FY2008 appropriations bills for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies (H.R. 3043); Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies (H.R. 3074); Commerce, Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies (H.R. 3093); and Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies (H.R. 3161).
36 In a related development, the Bush Administration announced in August 2007 that it
would commence a rule-making process to require all federal contractors and vendors to use
E-Verify. See White House (G.W. Bush), “Fact Sheet: Improving Border Security and
Immigration Within Existing Law,” August 10, 2007.

---

CRS-21
hired employees and certain current employees. No later than three years after
enactment, all employers would be required to participate with respect to new
employees and all employees not previously verified through the EEVS.
Under S. 1639, individuals who receive final notices that the system cannot
confirm their employment eligibility (known under the bill, as under E-Verify, as
final nonconfirmation notices) could seek administrative and judicial review, as
specified. The current I-9 system would remain in place with some modifications.
Changes would also be made to existing monetary penalties for employer
violations.37 Among its other employment eligibility verification and worksite
enforcement -related provisions, S. 1639 would provide for the disclosure of certain
taxpayer identity information by SSA to DHS (§304); require SSA to issue more
secure Social Security cards (§305); and establish a voluntary program through which
participating employers could submit employees’ fingerprints to verify identity and
employment eligibility (§307).
Title III of H.R. 1645 would likewise amend INA §274A to establish a new
electronic employment verification system. Under this bill, it would be unlawful for
an employer or other entity to hire an individual for employment in the United States
without verifying identity and employment eligibility, as specified. Unlike under S.
1639, these verification requirements, for the most part, would not apply in cases of
recruitment or referral for a fee. Requirements to participate in the new electronic
system with respect to new hires would be phased-in. “Critical employers”38 would
have to participate no later than one year after enactment. Large, mid-sized, and
small employers, as defined in the bill, would be required to participate in the system
no later than two, three, and four years after enactment, respectively. This schedule
for participation, however, would be contingent on the Comptroller General of the
United States submitting annual certifications that the system’s databases are updated
in a timely fashion; there are low error rates in verification; the system has not and
will not result in increased discrimination; workers’ private information is protected;
and staffing and funding are adequate. In the absence of such certifications,
employer participation requirements would be waived or delayed. In addition to the
participation requirements with respect to new hires, H.R. 1645 includes a separate
requirement that critical employers complete a one-time reverification of all
individuals currently employed at these facilities.
Under H.R. 1645, individuals who are terminated from employment as a result
of a final nonconfirmation could seek administrative and judicial review. The current
I-9 system would remain in place with some modifications. In addition, H.R. 1645
would increase monetary penalties for employer violations of INA prohibitions on
unlawful employment. Like S. 1639, H.R. 1645 contains provisions on the
disclosure of taxpayer identity information by SSA to DHS (§306(b)), and on
enhancing the security of Social Security cards. The provisions in the two bills
37 These changes, however, are somewhat unclear.
38 Critical employers under the bill are U.S. agencies and departments (including the Armed
Forces), state governments, and other employers who employ individuals working at a
federal, state, or local government building, military base, nuclear energy site, weapon site,
or airport.

---

CRS-22
differ, however. With respect to Social Security cards, H.R. 1645 includes language
like that in H.R. 98 and H.R. 2954 (discussed below) to require the issuance of Social
Security cards with a machine-readable electronic identification strip unique to the
bearer and a digitized photograph. Furthermore, H.R. 1645 would amend INA
§274B on unfair immigration-related employment practices to, among other changes,
add new antidiscrimination requirements related to the electronic verification system
(§303).
H.R. 4088/S. 2366/S. 2368 would make the existing E-Verify system permanent
and phase in a requirement that all employers conduct employment authorization
verification through it. Initially this requirement would apply only to new hires. Not
later than four years after enactment, however, employers would have to verify that
all their employees are authorized to work. These bills also would require SSA to
share information with DHS in certain circumstances.
S. 3093, like H.R. 4088/S. 2366/S. 2368, would make E-Verify permanent.
Unlike these bills, however, it would not make participation mandatory for all
employers. Instead, it would require federal contractors to participate. In addition,
under S. 3093, employers participating in E-Verify could elect to verify the
employment eligibility of their existing employees. The Secretary of Homeland
Security also could require any employer or class of employers to use E-Verify to
verify the employment eligibility of its current workforce if the Secretary has
reasonable cause to believe that the employer has committed material violations of
the INA prohibitions on unlawful employment.
H.R. 98 and H.R. 2954 would require Social Security cards to include an
encrypted machine-readable electronic identification strip unique to the bearer and
a digitized photograph. Under the bills, a new hire would have to present a Social
Security card of this type to his or her employers, who would use it to verify the
worker’s identity and work authorization. Employment eligibility verification would
be conducted by accessing a database to be established by DHS that would contain
DHS and SSA data. These verification requirements would take effect two years
after the date of enactment and would apply to any employment commencing on or
after that effective date. H.R. 98 and H.R. 2954 would increase penalties on
employers who violate prohibitions on unlawful employment, but would do so
differently. H.R. 2954 also would require SSA to share data with DHS in certain
circumstances.
Sections 102 and 103 of H.R. 5515 would replace the DHS-administered E-
Verify system with two new verification systems to be established by SSA: the
Electronic Employment Verification System (EEVS) and the Secure Employment
Eligibility Verification System (SEEVS). Under H.R. 5515, employers and other
entities would be required to verify identity and employment eligibility in cases of
hiring and in certain cases of referral or recruitment for a fee. Not later than three
years after enactment, employers would be required to participate in either the EEVS
or the SEEVS. The EEVS would be modeled broadly on E-Verify, although it would
differ from the current system in key ways. For example, the EEVS would use
information from a government database, the National Directory of New Hires, that

---

CRS-23
is not currently part of E-Verify.39 Like H.R. 1645, H.R. 5515 would enable
individuals who are terminated from employment as a result of a disapproval notice
(akin to a final nonconfirmation under E-Verify) to seek administrative and judicial
review. The SEEVS, which H.R. 5515 would direct SSA to establish by regulation,
would provide for identity authentication and employment eligibility verification.
It would use the services of private sector entities to enroll new employees by means
of identity authentication, to protect authenticated information through biometric
technology, and to verify employment eligibility. Employees would be afforded the
same rights and protections in connection with responses to inquiries under the
SEEVS as under the EEVS.
H.R. 5515 also would increase monetary penalties for employer violations of
INA §274A prohibitions on unlawful employment (§104) and would amend INA
§274B on unfair immigration-related employment practices to add new
antidiscrimination requirements related to the EEVS and the SEEVS (§103). In
addition, the bill would provide for the disclosure of certain information in the
National Directory of New Hires by the Department of Health and Human Services
to DHS (§106).
U.S. Refugee Program
The admission of refugees to the United States and their resettlement here are
authorized by the INA.40 The U.S. worldwide refugee ceiling for FY2008 is 80,000,
with 72,000 of these numbers allocated among the regions of the world and the
remaining 8,000 comprising an “unallocated reserve” to be used if, and where,
additional refugee slots are needed. As of August 31, 2008, FY2008 refugee
admissions stood at 50,238. FY2007 refugee admissions totaled 48,281. Refugee
numbers that are unused in a fiscal year are lost; they do not carry over into the
following year.
DOS handles overseas processing of refugees, which is conducted through a
system of three priorities for admission. Priority One (P-1) covers compelling
protection cases and individuals for whom no durable solution exists, who are
referred to the U.S. refugee program by UNHCR, a U.S. embassy, or a designated
nongovernmental organization (NGO). All nationalities are eligible for P-1
processing. Priority Two (P-2) covers groups of special humanitarian concern to the
United States. It includes specific groups within certain nationalities, clans, or ethnic
groups, such as Iranian religious minorities. Priority Three (P-3) comprises family
reunification cases involving spouses, unmarried children under age 21, and parents
39 Established under the Social Security Act, the National Directory of New Hires is an
automated directory that is part of the Department of Health and Human Service’s Federal
Parent Locator Service. It contains employer-provided information on new hires. Act of
August 14, 1935, ch. 531, as amended, §§453(i), 453A.
40 The Refugee Act (P.L. 96-212, March 17, 1980) amended the INA to establish procedures
for the admission of refugees to the United States. For additional information on the U.S.
refugee program, see CRS Report RL31269, Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Policy,
by Andorra Bruno (hereafter cited as CRS Report RL31269).

---

CRS-24
of persons who were admitted to the United States as refugees or granted asylum.
Seventeen nationalities are eligible for P-3 processing in FY2008.41 In most cases,
to be considered for refugee resettlement in the United States, an individual must be
outside his or her country of nationality.
The “Lautenberg amendment,” first enacted in 1989, requires the Attorney
General (now the Secretary of DHS) to designate categories of former Soviet and
Indochinese nationals for whom less evidence is needed to prove refugee status, and
provides for adjustment to LPR status for certain former Soviet and Indochinese
nationals denied refugee status. P.L. 108-199 amended the Lautenberg amendment
to add a new provision, known as the “Specter amendment,” that directs the Attorney
General to establish categories of Iranian religious minorities who may qualify for
refugee status under the Lautenberg amendment’s reduced evidentiary standard. P.L.
110-5 extends the Lautenberg amendment through FY2007, and P.L. 110-161
(Division J, §634(k)) extends the amendment through FY2008.
The “McCain amendment,” first enacted in 1996, made the adult children of
certain Vietnamese refugees eligible for U.S. refugee resettlement. P.L. 107-185
revised the amendment for FY2002 and FY2003. Among its provisions, this law
enabled adult children previously denied resettlement to have their cases
reconsidered. Subsequent laws extended the amendment, as revised, through
FY2007. P.L. 110-161 (Division J, §634(f)) extends the amendment through
FY2009. H.R. 3096, as passed by the House, would state that it is U.S. policy to
offer refugee resettlement to nationals of Vietnam who were eligible for a U.S.
refugee program, but who were deemed ineligible because of an administrative error
or who, for reasons beyond their control, did not apply by the relevant deadlines.
Resettlement Funding. The Department of Health and Human Services’
Office of Refugee Resettlement (HHS/ORR), within the Administration for Children
and Families, administers an initial transitional assistance program for temporarily
dependent refugees and Cuban/Haitian entrants. P.L. 110-5 provides $587.8 million
for refugee assistance for FY2007, and P.L. 110-161, Division G provides $667.3
million for such assistance for FY2008, subject to a recision of 1.747%. For
FY2009, the President has requested $628.0 million for refugee assistance. The
FY2009 Labor, HHS, Education appropriations bill reported by the Senate
Appropriations Committee (S. 3230) would provide $635.0 for ORR programs.
Needy refugees are also eligible for federal public assistance programs.42
Iraqi Refugees
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR),
more than 2 million Iraqis have left their homes for neighboring states, mainly Syria
41 For further information, see U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Proposed Refugee
Admissions for Fiscal Year 2008: Report to the Congress.
42 For further information on assistance available to refugees, see CRS Report RL31269.

---

CRS-25
and Jordan.43 The plight of Iraqi refugees is of congressional interest, and multiple
bills have been introduced in the 110th Congress to facilitate the resettlement of Iraqi
refugees in the United States.
Iraqi refugees are eligible for resettlement in the United States through the U.S.
refugee program. As of August 31, 2008, FY2008 admissions of Iraqi refugees
totaled 10,998. Like all nationalities, Iraqis are eligible for refugee processing under
Priority One of the priority system outlined in the preceding section. With respect
to Priority Two, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L.
110-181) specifies certain groups of Iraqis that are to be processed under this
processing priority. These new Priority Two groups include Iraqis who are or were
employed by the U.S. government in Iraq; Iraqis who are or were employed in Iraq
by a media or non-governmental organization headquartered in the United States, or
by an entity closely associated with the U.S. mission in Iraq that has received U.S.
government funding; and Iraqis who are members of a persecuted religious or
minority group and have close family members in the United States. Iraqis are also
among the 17 nationalities eligible for Priority Three processing in FY2008. In most
cases, as mentioned above, an individual must be outside his or her country of
nationality to be considered for refugee resettlement in the United States. P.L. 110-
181 requires the Secretary of State to establish an in-country refugee processing
program for Iraqis. Iraqi refugee provisions similar to those in P.L. 110-181 are
included in S. 1651 and the Senate-passed version of H.R. 1585.
Beyond the formal refugee program, other immigration mechanisms have been
established to facilitate the admission to the United States of Iraqis who have worked
for or been closely associated with the U.S. government, including the U.S. military.
Provisions enacted in 2006 authorize DHS to grant LPR status as special immigrants
to certain nationals of Iraq or Afghanistan who worked directly with the U.S. Armed
Forces as translators for at least one year, and their spouses and children. This
program was initially capped at 50 aliens (excluding spouses and children)
annually.44 P.L. 110-28 and P.L. 110-36 expand this program to authorize DHS to
grant special immigrant status to nationals of Iraq or Afghanistan who have worked
directly with the U.S. Armed Forces, or under Chief of Mission authority, as
translators or interpreters. These laws also increase the annual cap on this program
to 500 for FY2007 and FY2008.45 P.L. 110-36 further establishes that an individual’s
absence from the United States due to his or her work with the Chief of Mission or
U.S. Armed Forces as a translator or interpreter, some of which work was done in
Iraq or Afghanistan, will not be considered a break in U.S. continuous residence for
purposes of naturalization under the INA.
P.L. 110-181, in addition to making changes to the refugee program discussed
above, broadens DHS’s authority to provide special immigrant status to certain
43 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “The Iraq Situation,” at
[http://www.unhcr.org/iraq.html], visited September 4, 2008. Also see CRS Report
RL33936, Iraqi Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons: A Deepening Humanitarian
Crisis?, coordinated by Rhoda Margesson (hereafter cited as CRS Report RL33936).
44 P.L. 109-163, §1059.
45 The cap reverts to 50 for FY2009 and subsequent years.

---

CRS-26
nationals of Iraq. It also grants the Secretary of State the authority to provide such
status in consultation with DHS. Under this law, Iraqi nationals are eligible for
special immigrant status if they were employed by or on behalf of the U.S.
government in Iraqi on or after March 20, 2003, for not less than one year; provided
documented valuable service to the U.S. government; and have experienced “an
ongoing serious threat as a consequence of the alien’s employment by the United
States government.” This special immigrant program is capped at 5,000 principal
aliens (excluding spouses and children) for each of the five fiscal years after the date
of enactment. P.L. 110-242 amends P.L. 110-181 to change the reference to “each
of the five fiscal years after the date of enactment” to “fiscal years 2008 through
2012.” P.L. 110-242 also grants the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary
of State the authority to convert an approved petition for special immigrant status
under the special immigrant program for Afghani or Iraqi translators or interpreters
described above to an approved petition for special immigrant status under the
special immigrant program established by P.L. 110-181, if a visa for the former
program is not immediately available and the original petition was filed before
October 1, 2008. Such a converted petition would not subject to the eligibility
requirements of the P.L. 110-181 program but would be subject to that program’s
5,000 annual cap.
As mentioned above, aliens admitted to the United States as refugees are
eligible for resettlement assistance and for federal public assistance, provided that
they meet the relevant requirements. While special immigrants as a whole are not
eligible for such assistance, P.L. 110-161 includes a provision making Iraqis and
Afghans who are admitted as special immigrants eligible for the same resettlement
assistance, entitlement programs, and other benefits as refugees for up to six months.
P.L. 110-181 extends this period of eligibility to up to eight months for Iraqi special
immigrants only.
H.R. 6328, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
would establish the position of a White House Coordinator for Iraqi refugees and
Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs).46 The related Senate bill is S. 3177.
Other Issues and Legislation
Victims of Trafficking
The most recent U.S. government reports on human trafficking estimate that
there are between 14,500 and 17,500 victims trafficked into the United States each
year.47 In 2000, Congress passed the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection
Act of 2000 (VTVPA; P.L. 106-386), which created a new nonimmigrant category
46 For information on Iraqi IDPs, see CRS Report RL33936.
47 See, for example, U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Annual Report to
Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal Year
2005, June 2006, p. 3.

---

CRS-27
for trafficking victims (T visa),48 established avenues for relief from removal for
trafficking victims, and created several programs to help trafficking victims in the
United States. Congress reauthorized VTVPA in 2003 and 2005,49 providing new
authorizations for existing grant programs, creating new grant programs, and
amending the T visa. Authorizations for current anti-trafficking grant programs
expired at the end of FY2007.
The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act
of 2007 (H.R. 3887) was reported by the House Foreign Affairs Committee in
November 2007.50 S. 3061, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2008, was ordered reported by the Senate Judiciary
Committee on July 31, 2008.51 H.R. 3887 and S. 3061 include many identical
provisions, and most of the differences between the two bills stem from provisions
that exist in only one of the bills rather than substantial differences between similar
provisions in both bills.52
H.R. 3887 and S. 3061 would reauthorize the grant programs under the VTVPA,
as amended; create new grant programs for U.S. citizen victims of severe forms of
trafficking; and establish a system to monitor and evaluate all assistance under the
act. Furthermore, H.R. 3887 and S. 3061 would require DOS consular officers to
provide certain aliens interviewing for nonimmigrant visas with information
concerning U.S. laws against trafficking in persons (TIP) and assistance for TIP
victims in the United States. The bills would direct the Secretary of State to deny
certain temporary employment visas to aliens who would be working at a diplomatic
mission or international institution where an alien had been subject to trafficking or
exploitation. H.R. 3887 and S. 3061 also would amend the requirements for the T
visa and would broaden access to relief from removal for trafficking victims.
Among the differences between the bills, H.R. 3887, but not S. 3061, would set
disclosure requirements for foreign labor contractors hiring aliens, expand eligibility
for compensation under the Victims of Crime Act, and make it a federal offense for
48 P.L. 106-386 amended the INA to add §101(a)(15)(T). Although T nonimmigrant status
is often referred to as the T visa, it is not technically a visa if it is given to aliens present in
the United States.
49 P.L. 108-193 and P.L. 109-162.
50 Among other provisions, H.R. 3887 contains most of the provisions in The Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 270).
51 The version of the bill, as ordered reported, has not been published. According to
Congressional Quarterly (CQ), it is the same as S. 3061, as introduced, with one amendment
that would restrict the passport eligibility of individuals convicted of sex tourism and set
guidelines for the removal of unauthorized aliens convicted of sex offenses. CQ Committee
Coverage, Panel Approves Juvenile Justice, Anti-Human Trafficking Bills,, July 31, 2008,
available at CQ.Com, visited August 27, 2008.
52 For further information on these bills, see CRS Report RL34317, Trafficking in Persons:
U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress, by Clare Ribando Seelke and Alison Siskin; and CRS
Congressional Distribution Memorandum, Select Differences Between S. 3061 as Reported,
and H.R. 3887 as Passed by the House, by Alison Siskin and Clare Ribando Seelke,
available from the authors.

---

CRS-28
a person to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice any individual to engage in
prostitution. Only S. 3061 would require the Defense Contract Audit Agency of the
Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct an audit of all DOD contractors and
subcontractors implementing contracts abroad where there is substantial evidence to
suggest trafficking in persons.
H.R. 3887 and S. 1703, another trafficking bill that was ordered reported by the
Senate Judiciary Committee last year, would amend the federal criminal code to grant
U.S. courts jurisdiction over cases involving peonage, slavery, and trafficking in
persons (even if the offense occurred outside the United States), in which the alleged
offender is brought into, or found in, the United States not more than 10 years after
such offense.
Alien Smuggling
Many contend that the smuggling of aliens into the United States constitutes a
significant risk to national security and public safety. Because smugglers facilitate
the illegal entry of persons into the United States, some maintain that terrorists may
use existing smuggling routes and organizations to enter undetected. In addition to
generating billions of dollars in revenue for criminal enterprises, alien smuggling can
lead to collateral crimes such as homicide, rape, robbery, and the manufacturing and
distribution of fraudulent documents. The main alien smuggling statute (INA §274)
delineates the criminal penalties, asset seizure rules, and prima facie evidentiary
requirements for smuggling offenses.
Division B of H.R. 2830, as passed by the House, would amend the alien
smuggling provisions of both the INA and Title 18 of the U.S. Code. House-passed
H.R. 2399 and its companion bill (S. 2463) and H.R. 4088/S. 2366/S. 2368 (SAVE
Act) all contain similar language. These bills would essentially expand the scope of
activity prohibited under INA §274. They would, for example, add a provision to
INA §274 that would affirmatively assert extraterritorial jurisdiction for acts of alien
smuggling that occur outside the United States. These proposals would also heighten
the criminal penalties for various smuggling offenses and would narrow and modify
the scope of the religious denomination exemption, which offers a limited defense
to alien smuggling for religious groups sponsoring aliens to work as missionaries
within the United States. Furthermore, these bills would alter Section 2237 of Title
18 of the U.S. Code by increasing the penalties for individuals piloting a maritime
vessel who fail to heed the orders of a federal law enforcement officer if the offense
is done in the course of violating INA §274 or certain other provisions related to
human trafficking.
SSI Extension for Refugees and Asylees
Refugees, asylees, and a few other specified humanitarian categories are eligible
for supplemental security income (SSI) benefits for seven years after arrival in the
United States. (The original presumption was that they would become naturalized
citizens within seven years.) Other LPRs must have a substantial work history —
generally 10 years (40 quarters) of work documented by Social Security or other
employment records — or a military connection to become eligible for SSI. H.R.

---

CRS-29
2608, as passed by the House, would extend to nine years (during FY2008 through
FY2010) the period of eligibility of certain refugees, asylees, and aliens in other
specified humanitarian categories for SSI benefits. In addition, House-passed H.R.
2608 would make LPRs with pending applications for naturalization, who were
formerly refugees or asylees or fell under specified humanitarian categories, eligible
for SSI benefits during fiscal years 2008 through 2010. While broadly similar, the
Senate-passed version of H.R. 2608 differs from the House-passed version in various
respects. The Senate-passed bill would extend to nine years (during FY2009 through
FY2011) the period of eligibility of certain refugees, asylees, and aliens in other
specified humanitarian categories for SSI benefits, provided that the alien makes a
declaration that he or she has made a good faith effort to pursue U.S. citizenship.
The Senate bill would explicitly include victims of trafficking among the eligible
population. In order to be eligible for the SSI extension under the Senate version, an
alien would additionally have to fit within one of several categories, which include
being an LPR for less than six years, applying for LPR status within four years of
beginning to receive SSI, being at least age 70, or being under age 18 (those under
18 would not be subject to the declaration requirement). Senate-passed H.R. 2608
also would extend SSI eligibility during fiscal years 2009 through FY2011 to LPRs
with pending naturalization applications who were formerly refugees, asylees, or
trafficking victims or who fell under specified humanitarian categories.
Unaccompanied Alien Children
The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act (S. 844), which addresses
several of the issues and charges that advocates have raised surrounding
unaccompanied alien children (UAC), has again been introduced in the 110th
Congress. In the 109th Congress, a similar bill (S. 119) was passed in the Senate. S.
844 would provide for several changes to the INA. Among them, it would establish
in statute the right of UAC to consult with a consular officer prior to repatriation,
criteria for treatment and detention of UAC, and the preference order of child
placement. The legislation additionally would grant the Office of Refugee
Resettlement, which is tasked with managing the federal government’s UAC
program, access to children in DHS’s custody to determine the child’s age. Notably,
the legislation also would provide for the appointment of child advocates for UAC,
including counsel for all children in the custody of DHS who are not being
repatriated to a contiguous country. These advocates would largely serve on a pro
bono basis. This same legislation was offered as a floor amendment (S.Amdt. 1146)
to S.Amdt. 1150 to S. 1348 and passed the Senate by a voice vote. Provisions
addressing UAC issues and establishing stricter reporting requirements for the
agencies with UAC jurisdiction have been included in §236 of H.R. 3887, as
reported by the House Foreign Affairs Committee (discussed above, in the “Victims
of Trafficking” section).
Religious Workers
The fourth category of the employment-based preference system (see discussion
of permanent employment-based immigration in the “Foreign Workers” section
above) is known as “special immigrants,” and the largest number of special
immigrants are ministers of religion and religious workers. Religious work is

---

CRS-30
currently defined as habitual employment in an occupation that is primarily related
to a traditional religious function and that is recognized as a religious occupation
within the denomination. Although the INA provision authorizing the admission of
ministers of religion is a permanent provision, the provision authorizing the
admission of religious workers has always had a “sunset” date. Congress has
extended the sunset date several times, and the provision is currently set to expire at
the end of FY2008. On April 15, 2008, the House passed H.R. 5570, which would
amend the INA to extend the sunset date to January 1, 2010.
Immigrant Investor Pilot Program
There is currently one immigrant visa set aside specifically for foreign investors
(immigrant investors) coming to the United States. Immigrant investors comprise the
fifth employment-based preference category (see discussion of permanent
employment-based immigration in the “Foreign Workers” section above), and the
visa is commonly referred to as the EB-5 visa. In 1992, a pilot program was
authorized under the EB-5 visa category to achieve the economic activity and job
creation goals of that category by encouraging investment in economic units known
as Regional Centers.53 These Regional Centers were designed to more easily
facilitate investment, as well as target investment toward specific geographic areas.
P.L. 108-156 extended the pilot program through FY2008. H.R. 5569, as passed by
the House, would extend the EB-5 Regional Center pilot program for five years
through FY2013. Language to extend the pilot program through FY2013 was also
included in the version of the supplemental appropriations bill approved by the
Senate Appropriations Committee in May 2008. This language, however, was
subsequently dropped from the Senate version of the supplemental bill (H.R. 2642)
and is not included in P.L. 110-252.
Temporary Protected Status
When civil unrest, violence, or natural disasters erupt in spots around the world,
concerns arise over whether nationals from these troubled places who are in the
United States will be safe if they are required to return home at the end of their
authorized period of stay. Provisions exist in the INA to offer temporary protected
status (TPS) or other forms of relief from removal, under specified circumstances.
TPS is blanket relief that may be granted under the following conditions: There is
ongoing armed conflict posing serious threat to personal safety; a foreign state
requests TPS because it temporarily cannot handle the return of nationals due to
environmental disaster; or there are extraordinary and temporary conditions in a
foreign state that prevent aliens from returning, provided that granting TPS is
consistent with U.S. national interests.
53 §610 of P.L. 102-395. A Regional Center is defined as any economic unit, public or
private, engaged in the promotion of economic growth, improved regional productivity, job
creation, and increased domestic capital investment. For more information on Regional
Centers for immigrant investors, see CRS Report RL33844, Foreign Investor Visas: Policies
and Issues, by Chad C. Haddal.

---

CRS-31
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State,
can issue TPS for periods of 6 to 18 months and can extend these periods if
conditions do not change in the designated country. The United States currently
provides TPS to nationals from seven countries: Burundi, El Salvador, Honduras,
Liberia, Nicaragua, Somalia, and Sudan. In September 2006, the Bush
Administration announced that Liberian TPS would expire on October 1, 2007,
stating that country conditions caused by the civil war had improved. In July 2007,
the House passed under suspension H.R. 3123, which would extend Liberia’s TPS
designation until September 30, 2008, and would extend work authorization for
Liberian nationals with TPS until April 1, 2008. On September 12, 2007, President
George W. Bush directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to defer the enforced
departure of Liberians with TPS until March 31, 2009.
Grounds for Terrorist Exclusion and Removal
Certain terrorism-related activities — including membership in a terrorist
organization and providing material support to a terrorist entity — are grounds for
the exclusion and removal of aliens from the United States under the INA. These
activities also make aliens ineligible for various forms of relief from removal (e.g.,
asylum).54 While bills introduced early in the 110th Congress propose to expand the
scope of terrorism-related activity having immigration consequences,55 legislation
that has been considered and enacted more recently narrows the application of the
INA’s terrorism-related provisions and provides immigration authorities with greater
discretion to waive the terrorism-related grounds for the removal and exclusion of
aliens.
P.L. 110-161 exempts 10 groups from being considered as terrorist
organizations for INA purposes, and expands immigration officials’ ability to waive
the application of specific terrorism-related INA provisions. In addition, the act
expressly designates the Taliban as a terrorist organization.
P.L. 110-257, enacted in July 2008, expressly excludes the African National
Congress from being considered a terrorist organization, and provides immigration
authorities with the ability to deem most terrorism-related and criminal grounds for
inadmissibility as not applying to aliens with respect to activities undertaken in
opposition to apartheid rule in South Africa.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
Title VII of P.L. 110-229 makes the INA applicable to the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), a U.S. territory in the Pacific that has not been
subject to U.S. immigration law. The law establishes a transition period for
54 For additional background information, see CRS Report RL32564, Immigration: Terrorist
Grounds for Exclusion and Removal of Aliens, by Michael John Garcia and Ruth Ellen
Wasem.
55 See, for example, S. 1348 (as introduced), which would make aliens described in the INA
terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and deportability ineligible for various
immigration benefits and types of relief from removal.

---

CRS-32
implementing the INA in the CNMI. It aims, in particular, to provide federal
regulation and oversight of the admission of foreign workers to the CNMI. It also
authorizes DHS, the Attorney General, and DOL to establish operations in the CNMI.
Nearly identical provisions are included in H.R. 3079, as passed by the House last
year and reported without amendment by the Senate Energy and Resources
Committee. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources also ordered
reported a related bill (S. 1634) on January 30, 2008.
Military Service-Based Immigration Benefits
Congress continues to consider expanding immigration benefits for military
service members and their families. Sections 673 and 674 of P.L. 110-181,
respectively, ensure reentry into the United States by LPRs who are spouses or
children accompanying military service members abroad — whose presence abroad
might otherwise be deemed as abandonment of LPR status — and provide for
overseas naturalization for such LPRs.
P.L. 110-251, the Kendell Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act, provides for
expedited background checks and naturalization adjudication in connection with
military-service naturalization applications, particularly with regard to the use of
fingerprints and other biometric data. It permits the use of fingerprints taken by
DOD at the time of enlistment, rather than requiring service members to obtain and
submit separate fingerprints in accordance with DHS naturalization requirements,
provided that the naturalization application is filed within 24 months after enlistment.
S. 2840, as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee in August 2008, would
expedite certain military service-related applications by establishing a Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) liaison office in USCIS to monitor the completion of FBI
background checks and setting a deadline for processing such naturalization
applications. These requirements would apply to naturalization applications filed by
or on behalf of: current and former service members based on military service, the
spouses of current service members posted abroad, surviving spouses and children
of service members who died on active-duty service, and deceased service members
eligible for posthumous citizenship. The amendments to current law proposed by S.
2840 would sunset five years after the date of enactment.
The Immigration Needs of America’s Fighting Men and Women was the subject
of a May 2008 hearing by the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, and is the focus of H.R. 6020, a
bill to further facilitate and expand immigration benefits for military service members
and their families. H.R. 6020, which was approved by the House Immigration
subcommittee in July 2008, would expand the scope of military naturalizations by
providing that persons serving honorably in the Armed Forces in support of
contingency operations would be eligible for naturalization based on INA §329 as if
they had served during a designated period of hostilities. The bill also would
facilitate the acquisition of full-fledged LPR status by certain current or former
members of the Armed Forces; it would remove the conditional basis of lawful
permanent residence for alien members or veterans of the Armed Forces who are
currently conditional LPRs by virtue of being spouses of U.S. citizens for less than
two years or the sons or daughters of such spouses.

---

CRS-33
Under H.R. 6020, removal proceedings could not be initiated against an alien
who has served or is serving honorably in the Armed Forces without the approval of
USCIS or ICE after consideration of certain factors. In addition, with limited
exceptions, certain inadmissibility or deportation grounds in the INA would not
apply, and others could be waived at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland
Security or the Attorney General for aliens who have served or are serving honorably
in the Armed Forces or who are the spouse, child, son, daughter, parent, or minor
sibling of a member of the Armed Forces. Other provisions in H.R. 6020 would
likewise benefit family members. Spouses and children of LPRs serving in the
Armed Forces would not be subject to the relevant INA numerical limits on visas.
H.R. 6020 would further facilitate the adjustment to LPR status of an alien spouse,
child, son, daughter, parent, or minor sibling of an eligible member of the Armed
Forces.
Waivers for Foreign Medical Graduates
Foreign medical graduates (FMGs) may enter the United States on J-1
nonimmigrant visas in order to receive graduate medical education and training.
Such FMGs must return to their home countries after completing their education or
training for at least two years before they can apply for certain other nonimmigrant
visas or LPR status, unless they are granted a waiver of the foreign residency
requirement. States are able to request waivers on behalf of FMGs under a temporary
program, known as the Conrad State Program. Established by a 1994 law, this
program initially applied to aliens who acquired J status before June 1, 1996. The
program has been extended several times, most recently by P.L. 109-177, which
amended the 1994 law to cover aliens acquiring J status before June 1, 2008. H.R.
5571, as passed by the House, would further extend the Conrad State Program to
cover aliens acquiring J status before June 1, 2013.
Other Legislation Receiving Action
Ban on Travel by Certain Burmese. P.L. 110-286 expands the ban on
travel to the United States of the leadership of the Myanmar junta, known as the
Burmese State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), and the Union Solidarity
Development Association (USDA), a movement reportedly formed and supported by
the SPDC. P.L. 110-286 bans the issuance of visas to persons identified by the
President who are former or present leaders of the SPDC, the USDA, or the Burmese
military; officials of these organizations involved in repression of peaceful political
activity or in other gross violations of human rights in Burma or in other human
rights abuses; or other Burmese supporters of the SPDC, the USDA, or the Burmese
military. Immediate family members of these persons would likewise be subject to
the visa ban. The President could waive the visa ban for a person only if the
President certifies to Congress that such a waiver is in the national interests of the
United States.56
56 For background information, see CRS Report RL33479, Burma-U.S. Relations, by Larry
A. Niksch.

---

CRS-34
Health-Related Grounds for Exclusion. The health-related grounds of
inadmissibility in the INA bar the admission of any alien “who is determined (in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services) to have a communicable disease of public health significance, which shall
include infection with the etiologic agent for acquired immune deficiency syndrome.”
Certain prospective immigrants who are determined to have a communicable disease
of public health significance (including an alien who is HIV-positive) can obtain a
waiver, which is discretionary. Section 305 of P.L. 110-293 amends the INA to
strike the reference to HIV/AIDS (i.e., “which shall include infection with the
etiologic agent for acquired immune deficiency syndrome”) from the health-related
grounds for exclusion. A related bill (S. 2731) was also separately reported by the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Gang Activity. S. 456, as passed by the Senate, would revise and extend
criminal penalties relating to criminal street gang activity. Certain immigration-
related offenses, including the unlawful smuggling or harboring of unauthorized
aliens, would be designated as gang crimes and would be subject to additional
criminal penalties when committed to further activities of a criminal street gang.
Gang-related offenses also would be subject to heightened sentencing guidelines
when the defendant had unlawfully entered the United States.
Recruitment or Use of Child Soldiers. S. 2135, as passed by the Senate,
would make aliens who have participated in the recruitment or use of child soldiers
inadmissible, deportable, and ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal.
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Amendments. The State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) provides reimbursement to state and
local governments for the direct costs associated with incarcerating undocumented
criminal aliens. H.R. 1512, as passed by the House, would amend SCAAP to
reimburse states for costs associated with the incarceration of unauthorized aliens
charged with a felony or two or more misdemeanors. Currently, the states are
reimbursed only for costs associated with incarcerating unauthorized aliens convicted
of a felony or two or more misdemeanors.57
Immigration Relief for September 11 Families. H.R. 1071, which has
been ordered reported by the House Judiciary Committee, would provide
immigration relief to surviving family members (i.e., spouse, child, or dependent son
or daughter) of aliens who died during the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. An
eligible family member would become an LPR so long as that individual and any of
his or her family members are not inadmissible or deportable under the criminal or
security grounds of the INA.
Immigration Relief for Surviving Spouses of Citizens. Under the INA,
the spouse of a deceased U.S. citizen can apply for LPR status (for the spouse and his
or her children) on the basis of that marital relationship if the spouse and citizen had
57 For more information on the SCAAP program, see CRS Report, CRS Report RL33431,
Immigration: Frequently Asked Questions on the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
(SCAAP), by Karma Ester.

---

CRS-35
been married for at least two years at the time of the citizen’s death. Other
requirements also apply. H.R. 6034, as ordered reported by the House Judiciary
Committee, would amend current law to enable a spouse who had been married for
less than two years at the time of the citizen’s death to apply for LPR status (for the
spouse and his or her children) if the spouse proves that the marriage was entered into
in good faith.
Legislation
The following are immigration bills or bills with significant immigration
provisions that have received legislative action in the 110th Congress beyond
hearings. All of these measures are discussed earlier in the report.
Enacted
P.L. 110-5 (H.J.Res. 20). Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution,
2007. Contains refugee-related provisions. Passed House on January 31, 2007.
Passed Senate on February 14, 2007. Signed on February 15, 2007.
P.L. 110-28 (H.R. 2206). U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina
Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Contains refugee-
related provisions. Passed House on May 10, 2007. Passed Senate on May 17, 2007.
Signed on May 25, 2007.
P.L. 110-36 (S. 1104). A bill to increase the number of Iraqi and Afghani
translators and interpreters who may be admitted to the United States as special
immigrants. Passed Senate on April 12, 2007. Reported by House Judiciary
(H.Rept. 110-158) on May 21, 2007. Passed House, as amended, on May 22, 2007.
Senate agreed to House amendments on May 24, 2007. Signed on June 15, 2007.
P.L. 110-53 (H.R. 1). Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007. Passed House on January 9, 2007. Passed Senate, as
amended, on July 9, 2007. Senate agreed to conference report (H.Rept. 110-259) on
July 26, 2007; House agreed on July 27, 2007. Signed on August 3, 2007.
P.L. 110-161 (H.R. 2764). Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. (Originally
introduced as Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2008.) Reported by House Appropriations Committee (H.Rept.
110-197) on June 18, 2007. Passed House on June 22, 2007. Reported by Senate
Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 110-128) on July 10, 2007. Passed Senate, as
amended, on September 6, 2007. House agreed to Senate amendment, with
amendments, on December 17, 2007. Senate agreed to House amendments, with
amendment, on December 18, 2007. House agreed to Senate amendment on
December 19, 2007. Signed on December 26, 2007.
P.L. 110-181 (H.R. 4986). National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2008. Contains refugee-related provisions. Passed House on January 16, 2008.
Passed Senate on January 22, 2008. Signed on January 28, 2008.

---

CRS-36
P.L. 110-229 (S. 2739). Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008. Contains
provisions on the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Passed Senate
on April 10, 2008. Passed House on April 29, 2008. Signed on May 8, 2008.
P.L. 110-242 (S. 2829). A bill to make technical corrections to section 1244 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which provides special
immigrant status for certain Iraqis, and for other purposes. Passed Senate on April
28, 2008. Passed House on May 21, 2008. Signed on June 3, 2008.
P.L. 110-251 (S. 2516). Kendell Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act. Passed
Senate, as amended, on March 11, 2008. Passed House on June 9, 2008. Signed on
June 26, 2008.
P.L. 110-252 (H.R. 2642). Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008. (Originally
introduced as Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2008.)
Reported by House Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 110-186) on June 11, 2007.
Passed House on June 15, 2007. Passed Senate, as amended, on September 6, 2007.
House agreed to Senate amendments, with amendments, on May 15, 2008. Senate
agreed to House amendments, with amendments, on May 22, 2008. House agreed
to Senate amendments, with amendment, on June 19, 2008. Senate agreed to House
amendment on June 26, 2008. Signed on June 30, 2008.
P.L. 110-257 (H.R. 5690). A bill to exempt the African National Congress
from treatment as a terrorist organization for certain acts or events, provide relief for
certain members of the African National Congress regarding admissibility, and for
other purposes. Reported by House Judiciary Committee (H.Rept. 110-620, Part I)
on May 5, 2008. Passed House, as amended, on May 8, 2008. Reported by Senate
Judiciary Committee (without written report) on June 26, 2008. Passed Senate, as
amended, on June 26, 2008. House agreed to Senate amendment on June 26, 2008.
Signed on July 1, 2008.
P.L. 110-286 (H.R. 3890). Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta’s
Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008. Reported by House Foreign Affairs
Committee (H.Rept. 110-418, Part I) on October 31, 2007. Passed House, as
amended, on December 11, 2007. Passed Senate, as amended, on December 19,
2007. House agreed to Senate amendments with amendments on July 15, 2008;
Senate agreed to House amendments on July 22, 2008. Signed on July 29, 2008.
P.L. 110-293 (H.R. 5501). Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States
Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization
Act of 2008. Reported by House Foreign Affairs Committee (H.Rept. 110-546, Part
I) on March 10, 2008; supplemental report filed by Foreign Affairs Committee
(H.Rept. 110-546, Part II) on March 11, 2008. Passed House on April 2, 2008.
Passed Senate, as amended, on July 16, 2008. House agreed to Senate amendment
on July 24, 2008. Signed on July 30, 2008.
Receiving Action
H.R. 1071 (Maloney). September 11 Family Humanitarian Relief and
Patriotism Act. Ordered reported by House Judiciary Committee on August 2, 2007.

---

CRS-37
H.R. 1312 (Berman). Arts Require Timely Service (ARTS) Act. Reported by
House Judiciary Committee (H.Rept. 110-540) on March 6, 2008. Passed House, as
amended, on April 1, 2008.
H.R. 1512 (Linda Sanchez). A bill to amend the INA to provide for
compensation to states incarcerating undocumented aliens charged with a felony or
two or more misdemeanors. Reported by House Judiciary Committee (H.Rept. 110-
618) on May 5, 2008. Passed House on May 8, 2008.
H.R. 1585 (Skelton). National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2008. Contains refugee-related provisions. Reported by House Armed Services
Committee on May 11, 2007. Passed House on May 17, 2007. Passed Senate, as
amended, on October 1, 2007. House agreed to conference report (H.Rept. 110-477)
on December 12, 2007; Senate agreed on December 14, 2007. Vetoed on December
28, 2007. (See P.L. 110-181.)
H.R. 2399 (Hill). Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.
Passed House, as amended, on May 22, 2007. Passed Senate, as amended, on August
12, 2008. (See H.R. 2830.)
H.R. 2608 (McDermott). SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees
Act. Passed House on July 11, 2007. Passed Senate, as amended, on August 1,
2008.
H.R. 2638 (D. Price). Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
2008. Reported by House Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 110-181) on June 8,
2007. Passed House on June 15, 2007. Passed Senate, as amended, on July 26,
2007. (See P.L. 110-161.)
H.R. 2830 (Oberstar). Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2007. Contains
provisions on alien smuggling. Reported by House Transportation Committee
(H.Rept. 110-338, Part I) on September 20, 2007, Homeland Security Committee
(H.Rept. 110-338, Part II.) on October 1, 2007, and Judiciary Committee (H.Rept.
110-338, Part III) on October 30, 2007; supplemental report filed by Judiciary
Committee (H.Rept. 110-338, Part IV) on April 23, 2008. Passed House on April 24,
2008.
H.R. 2884 (Cummings). Kendell Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act.
Reported by the House Judiciary Committee (H.Rept. 110-429) on November 6,
2007. Passed House, as amended, on November 6, 2007. (See P.L. 110-251.)
H.R. 3043 (Obey). Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008. Contains provisions
related to refugee assistance and employment eligibility verification. Reported by
House Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 110-321) on July 13, 2007. Passed
House on July 19, 2007. Passed Senate, as amended, on October 23, 2007. House
agreed to conference report (H.Rept. 110-424) on November 5, 2007; Senate defeated
conference report on November 7, 2007. Senate agreed to amendment to bill on
November 7, 2007; House agreed to Senate amendment on November 8, 2007.
Vetoed on November 13, 2007. (See P.L. 110-161.)

---

CRS-38
H.R. 3074 (Olver). Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008. Contains provision related to
employment eligibility verification. Reported by House Appropriations Committee
(H.Rept. 110-238) on July 18, 2007. Passed House on July 24, 2007. Passed Senate,
as amended, on September 12, 2007. House agreed to conference report (H.Rept.
110-446) on November 14, 2007. (See P.L. 110-161.)
H.R. 3079 (Christian-Christensen). A bill to amend the joint resolution
approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and for other purposes. Reported by House Natural Resources Committee
(H.Rept. 110-469, Part I) on December 4, 2007. Passed House, as amended, on
December 11, 2007. Reported by Senate Energy and Resources Committee (S.Rept.
110-324) on April 10, 2008. (See P.L. 110-229)
H.R. 3093 (Mollohan). Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2008. Contains provisions related to H-2B temporary workers
and employment eligibility verification. Reported by House Appropriations
Committee (H.Rept. 110-240) on July 19, 2007; supplemental report filed by
Committee (H.Rept. 110-240, Part II) on July 25, 2007. Passed House on July 26
2007. Passed Senate, as amended, on October 16, 2007. (See P.L. 110-161.)
H.R. 3096 (C. Smith). Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2007. Passed House, as
amended, on September 18, 2007.
H.R. 3123 (Kennedy). A bill to extend the designation of Liberia under section
244 of the INA so that Liberians can continue to be eligible for temporary protected
status. Passed House on July 30, 2007.
H.R. 3161 (DeLauro). Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008. Contains provision
related to employment eligibility verification. Reported by House Appropriations
Committee (H.Rept. 110-258) on July 24, 2007. Passed House on August 2, 2007.
(See P.L. 110-161.)
H.R. 3887 (Lantos). William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2007. Reported by House Foreign Affairs Committee
(H.Rept. 110-430, Part I) on November 6, 2007. Passed House, as amended, on
December 4, 2007.
H.R. 4080 (Weiner). A bill to amend the INA to establish a separate
nonimmigrant classification for fashion models. Reported by House Judiciary
Committee (H.Rept. 110-699) on June 5, 2008.
H.R. 5060 (Linda Sanchez). A bill to amend the INA to allow athletes
admitted as nonimmigrants described in section 101(a)(15)(P) of such Act to renew
their period of authorized admission in five-year increments. Reported by House
Judiciary Committee (H.Rept. 110-697) on June 5, 2008.

---

CRS-39
H.R. 5569 (Lofgren). A bill to extend for five years the EB-5 regional center
pilot program. Reported by House Judiciary Committee on June 5, 2008. Passed
House, as amended, on June 9, 2008.

H.R. 5570 (Lofgren). Religious Worker Visa Extension Act of 2008. Reported
by House Judiciary Committee (H.Rept. 110-589) on April 14, 2008. Passed House,
as amended, on April 15, 2008.
H.R. 5571 (Lofgren). A bill to extend for five years the program relating to
waiver of the foreign country residence requirement with respect to international
medical graduates. Reported by House Judiciary Committee (H.Rept. 110-646) on
May 15, 2008. Passed House, as amended, on May 21, 2008.
H.R. 6034 (McGovern). A bill to amend the INA to provide for relief to
surviving spouses and children. Ordered reported by the House Judiciary Committee
on July 16, 2008.

H.R. 6328 (Berman). A bill to develop a policy to address the critical needs
of Iraqi refugees. Ordered reported by House Foreign Affairs Committee on July 16,
2008.
H.R. 6633 (Giffords). Employee Verification Amendment Act of 2008.
Passed House on July 31, 1008.
S. 456 (Feinstein). Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007. Reported by
Senate Judiciary Committee (without written report) on July 30, 2007. Passed
Senate, as amended, on September 21, 2007.
S. 1634 (Akaka). Northern Mariana Islands Covenant Implementation Act.
Ordered reported by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on January 30,
2008. (See P.L. 110-229.)
S. 1703 (Durbin). Trafficking in Persons Accountability Act of 2007.
Reported by Senate Judiciary Committee (without written report) on July 28, 2008.
S. 2135 (Durbin). Child Soldiers Accountability Act of 2007. Reported by
Senate Judiciary Committee (without written report) on December 11, 2007. Passed
Senate, as amended, on December 19, 2007.
S. 2731 (Biden). Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of
2008. Reported by Senate Foreign Relations Committee (S.Rept. 110-325) on April
15, 2008. (See P.L. 110-293.)
S. 2840 (Schumer). Military Personnel Citizenship Processing Act. Reported
by Senate Judiciary Committee (S.Rept. 110-440) on August 1, 2008.
S. 3061 (Biden). William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2008. Ordered reported by Senate Judiciary Committee on
July 31, 2008.

---

CRS-40
S. 3230 (Harkin). Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009. Reported by Senate
Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 110-410) on July 8, 2008.

---