ȱ
ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱ
ȱȱ
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱşǰȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱȱȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
ǯǯȱ
řŘŘřśȱ
ȱȱȱ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
¢ȱ
Four major principles underlie current U.S. policy on permanent immigration: the reunification of
families, the admission of immigrants with needed skills, the protection of refugees, and the
diversity of admissions by country of origin. These principles are embodied in the Immigration
and Nationality Act (INA). The INA specifies a complex set of numerical limits and preference
categories that give priorities for permanent immigration reflecting these principles. Legal
permanent residents (LPRs) refer to foreign nationals who live permanently in the United States.
During FY2007, a total of 1.1 million aliens became LPRs in the United States. Of this total,
65.5% entered on the basis of family ties. Other major categories in FY2007 were employment-
based LPRs (including spouses and children) at 15.4%, and refugees/asylees adjusting to LPR
status at 12.9%. Over 10% of all LPRs come from Mexico, which sent 148,640 LPRs in FY2007.
Substantial efforts to reform legal immigration have failed in the recent past, prompting some to
characterize the issue as a “zero-sum game” or a “third rail.” The challenge inherent in reforming
legal immigration is balancing employers’ hopes to increase the supply of legally present foreign
workers, families’ longing to re-unite and live together, and a widely shared wish among the
various stakeholders to improve the policies governing legal immigration into the country.
Whether the Congress will act to alter immigration policies—either in the form of comprehensive
immigration reform or in the form of incremental revisions aimed at strategic changes—is at the
crux of the debate. Addressing these contentious policy reforms against the backdrop of economic
crisis sharpens the social and business cleavages and may narrow the range of options.
Even as U.S. unemployment levels rise, employers assert that they continue to need the “best and
the brightest” workers, regardless of their country of birth, to remain competitive in a worldwide
market and to keep their firms in the United States. While support for the option of increasing
employment based immigration may be dampened by the economic recession, proponents argue
it is an essential ingredient for economic growth.
Proponents of family-based migration alternatively point to the significant backlogs in family
based immigration due to the sheer volume of aliens eligible to immigrate to the United States
and maintain that any proposal to increase immigration levels should also include the option of
family-based backlog reduction. Citizens and LPRs often wait years for their relatives’ petitions
to be processed and visa numbers to become available.
Against these competing priorities for increased immigration are those who offer options to scale
back immigration levels, with options ranging from limiting family-based LPRs to the immediate
relatives of U.S. citizens to confining employment-based LPRs exceptional, extraordinary, or
outstanding individuals.
This report will be updated to reflect major legislative action.

ȱȱȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Current Law and Policy................................................................................................................... 2
Worldwide Immigration Levels ................................................................................................ 2
Per-Country Ceilings................................................................................................................. 4
Other Permanent Immigration Categories................................................................................. 4
Admissions Trends .......................................................................................................................... 5
Immigration Patterns, 1900-2007.............................................................................................. 5
FY2007 Admissions .................................................................................................................. 9
Backlogs and Waiting Times ..........................................................................................................11
Visa Processing Dates ..............................................................................................................11
Family-Based Visa Priority Dates......................................................................................11
Employment-Based Visa Retrogression............................................................................ 12
Petition Processing Backlogs .................................................................................................. 13
Legislative Issues in the 111th Congress ........................................................................................ 14
Effects of the Current Recession on Legal Immigration ......................................................... 14
Family-Based Issues of Debate ............................................................................................... 15
Preference System versus Point System.................................................................................. 15
Interaction with Legalization Options..................................................................................... 16
Oversight and Backlog Issues ................................................................................................. 16

ȱ
Figure 1. Annual LPR Admissions and Status Adjustments, 1900-2007 ........................................ 6
Figure 2. Legal Permanent Residents, New Arrivals and Adjustments of Status, FY1997-
FY2007......................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3. Top Sending Countries (Comprising More Than Half of All LPRs): Selected
Periods.......................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 4. Legal Permanent Residents by Major Category, FY2007................................................ 9
Figure 5. Top Ten LPR-Sending Countries, FY2007 .................................................................... 10
Figure D-1. Projected Flow of LPRs under S. 2611, FY2007-FY2009 ........................................ 28

ȱ
Table 1. Legal Immigration Preference System .............................................................................. 3
Table 2. Other Major Legal Immigration Categories ...................................................................... 5
Table 3. FY2007 Immigrants, by Category ................................................................................... 10
Table 4. Priority Dates for Family Preference Visas ......................................................................11
Table 5. Priority Dates for Employment Preference Visas ............................................................ 13

ȱȱȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
¡ȱ
Appendix A. Top 50 Sending Countries in FY2007, by Category of LPR.................................... 19
Appendix B. Processing Dates for Immigrant Petitions................................................................ 21
Appendix C. FY2001-FY2007 Immigrants, by Preference Category ........................................... 22
Appendix D. Recent Legislative History....................................................................................... 24

ȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 35
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 35

ȱȱȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Four major principles currently underlie U.S. policy on legal permanent immigration: the
reunification of families, the admission of immigrants with needed skills, the protection of
refugees, and the diversity of admissions by country of origin. These principles are embodied in
federal law, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) first codified in 1952. The Immigration
Amendments of 1965 replaced the national origins quota system (enacted after World War I) with
per-country ceilings, and the statutory provisions regulating permanent immigration to the United
States were last revised significantly by the Immigration Act of 1990.1
The two basic types of legal aliens are immigrants and nonimmigrants. As defined in the INA,
immigrants are synonymous with legal permanent residents (LPRs) and refer to foreign nationals
who come to live lawfully and permanently in the United States. The other major class of legal
aliens are nonimmigrants—such as tourists, foreign students, diplomats, temporary agricultural
workers, exchange visitors, or intracompany business personnel—who are admitted for a specific
purpose and a temporary period of time. Nonimmigrants are required to leave the country when
their visas expire, though certain classes of nonimmigrants may adjust to LPR status if they
otherwise qualify.2
The conditions for the admission of immigrants are much more stringent than nonimmigrants, and
many fewer immigrants than nonimmigrants are admitted. Once admitted, however, immigrants
are subject to few restrictions; for example, they may accept and change employment, and may
apply for U.S. citizenship through the naturalization process, generally after five years.
Petitions for immigrant (i.e., LPR) status are first filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) by the sponsoring relative or
employer in the United States. If the prospective immigrant is already residing in the United
States, the USCIS handles the entire process, which is called “adjustment of status” because the
alien is moving from a temporary category to LPR status. If the prospective LPR does not have
legal residence in the United States, the petition is forwarded to the Department of State’s (DOS)
Bureau of Consular Affairs in their home country after USCIS has reviewed it. The Consular
Affairs officer (when the alien is coming from abroad) and USCIS adjudicator (when the alien is
adjusting status in the United States) must be satisfied that the alien is entitled to the immigrant
status. These reviews are intended to ensure that they are not ineligible for visas or admission
under the grounds for inadmissibility spelled out in INA.3
Many LPRs are adjusting status from within the United States rather than receiving visas issued
abroad by Consular Affairs.4 As discussed more fully below, 59.0% of all LPRs adjusted to LPR
status in the United States rather than abroad in FY2007.

1 Congress has significantly amended the INA numerous times since 1952. Other major laws amending the INA are the
Refugee Act of 1980, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. 8 U.S.C. §1101 et seq.
2 Nonimmigrants are often referred to by the letter that denotes their specific provision in the statute, such as H-2A
agricultural workers, F-1 foreign students, or J-1 cultural exchange visitors. CRS Report RL31381, U.S. Immigration
Policy on Temporary Admissions, by Chad C. Haddal and Ruth Ellen Wasem.
3 These include criminal, national security, health, and indigence grounds as well as past violations of immigration law.
§ 212(a) of INA.
4 For background and analysis of visa issuance and admissions policy, see CRS Report RL31512, Visa Issuances:
(continued...)
ȱȱȱ
ŗȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
The INA specifies that each year countries are held to a numerical limit of 7% of the worldwide
level of U.S. immigrant admissions, known as per-country limits. The actual number of
immigrants that may be approved from a given country, however, is not a simple percentage
calculation. Immigrant admissions and adjustments to LPR status are subject to a complex set of
numerical limits and preference categories that give priority for admission on the basis of family
relationships, needed skills, and geographic diversity, as discussed below.5
ȱ ȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱȱȱ
The INA provides for a permanent annual worldwide level of 675,000 legal permanent residents
(LPRs), but this level is flexible and certain categories of LPRs are permitted to exceed the limits,
as described below.6 The permanent worldwide immigrant level consists of the following
components: family-sponsored immigrants, including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and
family-sponsored preference immigrants (480,000 plus certain unused employment-based
preference numbers from the prior year); employment-based preference immigrants (140,000 plus
certain unused family preference numbers from the prior year); and diversity immigrants
(55,000). Immediate relatives7 of U.S. citizens as well as refugees and asylees who are adjusting
status are exempt from direct numerical limits.8
The annual level of family-sponsored preference immigrants is determined by subtracting the
number of immediate relative visas issued in the previous year and the number of aliens paroled9
into the United States for at least a year from 480,000 (the total family-sponsored level) and—
when available—adding employment preference immigrant numbers unused during the previous
year. By law, the family-sponsored preference level may not fall below 226,000. In recent years,
the 480,000 level has been exceeded to maintain the 226,000 floor on family-sponsored
preference visas after subtraction of the immediate relative visas.
Within each family and employment preference, the INA further allocates the number of LPRs
issued visas each year. As Table 1 summarizes the legal immigration preference system, the
complexity of the allocations becomes apparent. Note that in most instances unused visa numbers
are allowed to roll down to the next preference category.10

(...continued)
Policy, Issues, and Legislation, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
5 Immigrants are aliens who are admitted as LPRs or who adjust to LPR status within the United States.
6 § 201 of INA; 8 U.S.C. § 1151.
7 “Immediate relatives” are defined by the INA to include the spouses and unmarried minor children of U.S. citizens,
and the parents of adult U.S. citizens.
8 CRS Report RL31269, Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Policy, by Andorra Bruno.
9 “Parole” is a term in immigration law which means that the alien has been granted temporary permission to be present
in the United States. Parole does not constitute formal admission to the United States and parolees are required to leave
when the terms of their parole expire, or if otherwise eligible, to be admitted in a lawful status.
10 Employment-based allocations are further affected by § 203(e) of the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act
(NACARA), as amended by § 1(e) of P.L. 105-139. This provision states that when the employment 3rd preference
“other worker” (OW) cut-off date reached the priority date of the latest OW petition approved prior to November 19,
(continued...)
ȱȱȱ
Řȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Table 1. Legal Immigration Preference System
Category Numerical
limit
Total Family-Sponsored Immigrants
480,000
Immediate relatives Aliens who are the spouses and unmarried minor children Unlimited
of U.S. citizens and the parents of adult U.S. citizens
Family-sponsored Preference Immigrants
Worldwide Level 226,000
1st preference
Unmarried sons and daughters of citizens
23,400 plus visas not required for
4th preference
2nd preference
(A) Spouses and children of LPRs
114,200 plus visas not required for
(B) Unmarried sons and daughters of LPRs
1st preference
3rd preference
Married sons and daughters of citizens
23,400 plus visas not required for
1st or 2nd preference
4th preference
Siblings of citizens age 21 and over
65,000 plus visas not required for
1st, 2nd, or 3rd preference
Employment-Based Preference Immigrants
Worldwide Level 140,000
1st preference
Priority workers: persons of extraordinary ability in the
28.6% of worldwide limit plus
arts, science, education, business, or athletics; outstanding unused 4th and 5th preference
professors and researchers; and certain multi-national
executives and managers
2nd preference
Members of the professions holding advanced degrees or 28.6% of worldwide limit plus
persons of exceptional abilities in the sciences, art, or
unused 1st preference
business
3rd preference—
Skilled shortage workers with at least two years training
28.6% of worldwide limit plus
skilled
or experience, professionals with baccalaureate degrees
unused 1st or 2nd preference
3rd preference—
Unskilled shortage workers
10,000 (taken from the total
“other”
available for 3rd preference)
4th preference
“Special immigrants,” including ministers of religion,
7.1% of worldwide limit; religious
religious workers other than ministers, certain employees workers limited to 5,000
of the U.S. government abroad, and others
5th preference
Employment creation investors who invest at least $1
7.1% of worldwide limit; 3,000
million (amount may vary in rural areas or areas of high
minimum reserved for investors in
unemployment) which will create at least 10 new jobs
rural or high unemployment areas
Source: CRS summary of §§ 203(a), 203(b), and 204 of INA; 8 U.S.C. § 1153.
Employers who seek to hire prospective employment-based immigrants through the second and
third preference categories also must petition the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on behalf of
the alien. The prospective immigrant must demonstrate that he or she meets the qualifications for
the particular job as well as the preference category. If DOL determines that a labor shortage
exists in the occupation for which the petition is filed, labor certification will be issued. If there is

(...continued)
1997, the 10,000 OW numbers available for a fiscal year are to be reduced by up to 5,000 annually beginning in the
following fiscal year. This reduction is to be made for as long as necessary to offset adjustments under NACARA.
Since the OW cut-off date reached November 19, 1997 during FY2001, the reduction in the OW limit to 5,000 began in
FY2002.
ȱȱȱ
řȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
not a labor shortage in the given occupation, the employer must submit evidence of extensive
recruitment efforts in order to obtain certification.11
As part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress added a fifth preference category for foreign
investors to become LPRs. The INA allocates up to10,000 admissions annually and generally
requires a minimum $1 million investment and employment of at least 10 U.S. workers. Less
capital is required for aliens who participate in the immigrant investor pilot program, in which
they invest in targeted regions and existing enterprises that are financially troubled.12
Ȭ¢ȱȱ
As stated earlier, the INA establishes per-country levels at 7% of the worldwide level.13 For a
dependent foreign state, the per-country ceiling is 2%. The per-country level is not a “quota” set
aside for individual countries, as each country in the world, of course, could not receive 7% of the
overall limit. As the State Department describes, the per-country level “is not an entitlement but a
barrier against monopolization.”
Two important exceptions to the per-country ceilings have been enacted in the past decade.
Foremost is an exception for certain family-sponsored immigrants. More specifically, the INA
states that 75% of the visas allocated to spouses and children of LPRs (2ndA family preference)
are not subject to the per-country ceiling.14 Prior to FY2001, employment-based preference
immigrants were also held to per-country ceilings. The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-
First Century Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-313) enabled the per-country ceilings for employment-based
immigrants to be surpassed for individual countries that are oversubscribed as long as visas are
available within the worldwide limit for employment-based preferences. The impact of these
revisions to the per-country ceilings is discussed later in this report. The actual per-country
ceiling varies from year to year according to the prior year’s immediate relative and parolee
admissions and unused visas that roll over.
ȱȱȱȱ
There are several other major categories of legal permanent immigration in addition to the family-
sponsored and employment-based preference categories. These classes of LPRs cover a variety of
cases, ranging from aliens who win the Diversity Visa Lottery to aliens in removal (i.e.,
deportation) proceedings granted LPR status by an immigration judge because of exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship. Table 2 summarizes these major classes and identifies whether they
are numerically limited.

11 See CRS Report RL33977, Immigration of Foreign Workers: Labor Market Tests and Protections, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem.
12 CRS Report RL33844, Foreign Investor Visas: Policies and Issues, by Chad C. Haddal.
13 § 202(a)(2) of the INA; 8 U.S.C. § 1151.
14 § 202(a)(4) of the INA; 8 U.S.C. § 1151.
ȱȱȱ
Śȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Table 2. Other Major Legal Immigration Categories
Nonpreference Immigrants
Numerical Limit
Asylees
Aliens in the United States who have been
No limits on LPR adjustments as of
granted asylum due to persecution or a well-
FY2005. (Previously limited to
founded fear of persecution and who must wait
10,000)
one year before petitioning for LPR status
Cancellation of
Aliens in removal proceedings granted LPR
4,000 (with certain exceptions)
Removal
status by an immigration judge because of
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship
Diversity Lottery
Aliens from foreign nations with low admission
55,000
levels; must have high school education or
equivalent or minimum two years work
experience in a profession requiring two years
training or experience
Refugees
Aliens abroad who have been granted refugee
Presidential Determination for
status due to persecution or a well-founded fear
refugee status, no limits on LPR
of persecution and who must wait one year
adjustments
before petitioning for LPR status
Other
Various classes of immigrants, such as
Dependent on specific adjustment
Amerasians, parolees, and certain Central
authority
Americans, Cubans, and Haitians who are
adjusting to LPR status
Source: CRS summary of §§ 203(a), 203(b), 204, 207, 208, and 240A of INA; 8 U.S.C. § 1153.
ȱȱ
ȱǰȱŗşŖŖȬŘŖŖŝȱ
Immigration to the United States is not totally determined by shifts in flow that occur as a result
of lawmakers revising the allocations. Immigration to the United States plummeted in the middle
of the 20th Century largely as a result of factors brought on by the Great Depression and World
War II. There are a variety of “push-pull” factors that drive immigration. Push factors from the
immigrant-sending countries include such circumstances as civil wars and political unrest,
economic deprivation and limited job opportunities, and catastrophic natural disasters. Pull
factors in the United States include such features as strong employment conditions, reunion with
family, and quality of life considerations. A corollary factor is the extent that aliens may be able
to migrate to other “desirable” countries that offer circumstances and opportunities comparable to
the United States.
ȱȱȱ
śȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Figure 1. Annual LPR Admissions and Status Adjustments, 1900-2007
1,400
1,200
1,000
Legalized Aliens
800
600
400
200
0
2007
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990 1995 2000 2005

Source: Statistical Yearbook of Immigration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration
Statistics, multiple fiscal years. Aliens legalizing through the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 are
depicted by year of arrival rather than year of adjustment.
The annual number of LPRs admitted or adjusted in the United States rose gradually after World
War II, as Figure 1 illustrates. However, the annual admissions have not reached the peaks of the
early 20th century. The DHS Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) data present those admitted as
LPRs or those adjusting to LPR status. The growth in immigration after 1980 is partly attributable
to the total number of admissions under the basic system, consisting of immigrants entering
through a preference system as well as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, that was augmented
considerably by legalized aliens.15 The Immigration Act of 1990 increased the ceiling on
employment-based preference immigration, with the provision that unused employment visas
would be made available the following year for family preference immigration. In addition, the
number of refugees admitted increased from 718,000 in the period 1966-1980 to 1.6 million
during the period 1981-1995, after the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980.

15 The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 legalized several million aliens residing in the United States
without authorization.
ȱȱȱ
Ŝȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Figure 2. Legal Permanent Residents, New Arrivals and Adjustments of Status,
FY1997-FY2007
Thousands
1400
Arrivals
Adjustments
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

Source: Statistical Yearbook of Immigration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration
Statistics, (multiple years).
Many LPRs are adjusting status from within the United States rather than receiving visas issued
abroad by Consular Affairs before they arrive in the United States. In the past decade, the number
of LPRs arriving from abroad has remained somewhat steady, hovering between a high of
421,405 in FY1996 and a low of 358,411 in FY2003. Adjustments to LPR status in the United
States has fluctuated over the same period, from a low of 244,793 in FY1999 to a high of 819,
248 in FY2006. As Figure 2 shows, most of the variation in total number of aliens granted LPR
status over the past decade is due to the number of adjustments processed in the United States
rather than visas issued abroad. In FY2007, USCIS adjusted 621,047 foreign nationals to LPR
status.
In FY2007, 59.0% of all LPRs were adjusting status within the United States (Figure 2). Most
(82.1%) of the employment-based immigrants adjusted to LPR status within the United States in
FY2007. Many (56.0%) of the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens also did so that year. Only
26.7% of the other family-preference immigrants adjusted to LPR status within the United States
in FY2007.
In any given period of United States history, a handful of countries have dominated the flow of
immigrants, but the dominant countries have varied over time. Figure 3 presents trends in the top
immigrant-sending countries (together comprising at least 50% of the immigrants admitted) for
selected decades and illustrates that immigration at the close of the 20th century is not as
ȱȱȱ
ŝȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
dominated by a few countries as it was earlier in the century. These data suggest that the per-
country ceilings established in 1965 had some effect. As Figure 3 illustrates, immigrants from
only three or four countries made up more then half of all LPRs prior to 1960. By the last two
decades of the 20th century, immigrants from seven to eight countries comprised about half of all
LPRs and this patterns has continued into the 21st century.
Figure 3. Top Sending Countries (Comprising More Than Half of All LPRs):
Selected Periods
100
us
at
St
75
g LPR
in
U.K.
in
Portugal
a
U.K.
U.K.
Korea
Italy
Obt
s
Italy
Jamaica
50
U.K.
U.K.
Dom. Rep.
Cuba
Italy
Italy
Vietnam
Colombia
Hong Kong
Korea
El Salvador
Italy
Greece
Russia
igrant
Jamaica
Dom. Rep.
m
Cuba
Vietnam
Germany
Canada
Philippines
Germany
Germany
m
Dom. Rep.
Russia
l I
Russia
Canada
India
Vietnam
Cuba
Dom. Rep.
China
Philippines
al
Vietnam Philippines
of
25
India
Canada
Philippines
Canada
India
China
Canada
China
India
Austria-
Mexico
Percent
Hungary
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
0
1900 to
1920 to
1950 to
1960 to
1970 to
1980 to
1990 to
2000 to
1909
1929
1959
1969
1979
1989
1999
2007
Fiscal Years

Source: CRS analysis of Table 2, Statistical Yearbook of Immigration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Office of Immigration Statistics, FY2007.
Although Europe was home to the countries sending the most immigrants during the early 20th
century (e.g., Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, and the United Kingdom), Mexico has been a top
sending country for most of the 20th century and into the 21st Century. Other top sending countries
from FY2000 through FY2007 are the Dominican Republic El Salvador, Colombia and Cuba
(Western Hemisphere) and the Philippines, India, China, Korea, and Vietnam (Asia) Russia is the
only European country that has emerged as top sending country today.
ȱȱȱ
Şȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ŘŖŖŝȱȱ
During FY2007, a total of 1,052,415 foreign nationals became LPRs in the United States. The
largest number of immigrants were admitted because of a family relationship with a U.S. citizen
or legal resident, as Figure 4 illustrates. Of the total LPRs in FY2007, 65.5% entered on the basis
of family ties. Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens made up the single largest group of
immigrants—494,920 as Table 3 indicates. Family preference immigrants—the spouses and
children of LPRs, the adult children of U.S. citizens, and the siblings of adult U.S. citizens—were
the second largest group. Additional major immigrant groups in FY2007 were employment-based
preference immigrants (including spouses and children) at 15.4%, and refugees and asylees
adjusting to LPR status at 12.9%.16
Figure 4. Legal Permanent Residents by Major Category, FY2007
1.1 million
Employment, 15.4%
Diversity, 4.0%
Family, 65.5%
Refugees/Asylees,
12.9%
Cancellation of
Removal & Other,
2.1%

Source: CRS presentation of FY2007 data from the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics.

16 The largest group in the “other category” are aliens who adjusted to LPR status through cancellation of removal and
through §202 and §203 of the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act of 1997.
ȱȱȱ
şȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Table 3. FY2007 Immigrants, by Category

Total
Immediate relatives of citizens
494,920
Family preference
194,900
Employment preference
162,176
Refugee and asylee adjustments
136,125
Diversity
42,127
Other
22,167
Source: Statistical Yearbook of Immigration, FY2007, DHS Office of Immigration Statistics.
Note: For a more detailed summary of FY2007 immigration by category, see Appendix C.
As Figure 5 presents, Mexico led all countries with 148,640 foreign nationals who became LPRs
in FY2007. The People Republic of China followed at a distant second with 76,655 LPRs. The
Philippines came in third with 72,596 LPRs. India followed with 65,353 LPRs. These top
countries exceeded the per-country ceiling for preference immigrants because they benefitted
from special exceptions to the per-country ceilings. Mexico did so as a result of the provision in
INA that allows 75% of family second preference (i.e., spouses and children of LPRs) to exceed
the per-country ceiling, while India and China exceeded the ceiling through the exception to the
employment-based per-country limits.
Figure 5. Top Ten LPR-Sending Countries, FY2007
Thousands of People
0
50
100
150
200
Mexico
China
Philippines
India
Colombia
Haiti
Cuba
Family
Employment
Humanitarian
Other
Vietnam
Dominican Republic
Korea

Source: CRS presentation of FY2007 data from the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŖȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
The top 10 immigrant-sending countries depicted in Figure 5 accounted for one-half (51%) of all
LPRs in FY2007. The top 50 immigrant-sending countries contributed 80% of all LPRs in
FY2007. Appendix A provides detailed data on the top 50 immigrant-sending countries by major
category of legal immigration.
ȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱ
According to the INA, family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas are issued to
eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition has been filed. Spouses and children of
prospective LPRs are entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration as the
person qualifying as principal LPR, if accompanying or following to join (referred to as
derivative status). When visa demand exceeds the per-country limit, visas are prorated according
to the preference system allocations (detailed in Table 1) for the oversubscribed foreign state or
dependent area. These provisions apply at present to the following countries oversubscribed in the
family-sponsored categories: China, Mexico, the Philippines, and India.
Table 4. Priority Dates for Family Preference Visas
Category Worldwide
China
India
Mexico
Philippines
Unmarried
July 22, 2002
July 22, 2002
July 22, 2002
October 8, 1992
July 15, 1993
sons and
daughters
of citizens
Spouses
July 1, 2004
July 1, 2004
July 1, 2004
October 15, 2001
July 1, 2004
and
children of
LPRs
Unmarried
June 22, 2000
June 22, 2000
June 22, 2000
May 1, 1992
Dec. 1, 1997
sons and
daughters
of LPRs
Married
August 8, 2000
August 8, 2000
August 8, 2000
October 15, 1992
June 8, 1991
sons and
daughters
of citizens
Siblings of
March 1, 1998
Nov. 15, 1997
March 1, 1998
April 8, 1995
May 15, 1986
citizens
age 21 and
over
Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin for March 2009.
¢Ȭȱȱ¢ȱȱ
As Table 4 evidences, relatives of U.S. citizens and LPRs are waiting in backlogs for a visa to
become available, with the brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens now waiting about 11 years.
“Priority date” means that unmarried adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens who filed petitions
ȱȱȱ
ŗŗȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
on July 22, 2002, are now being processed for visas. Married adult sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens who filed petitions eight years ago (August 8, 2000) are now being processed for visas.
Prospective family-sponsored immigrants from the Philippines have the most substantial waiting
times before a visa is scheduled to become available to them; consular officers are now
considering the petitions of the brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens from the Philippines who filed
more than 22 years ago.
¢Ȭȱȱȱ
After P.L. 106-313‘s easing of the employment-based per-country limits, few countries and
categories were oversubscribed in the employment-based preferences. For the past several years,
however, “accounting problems” have arisen between USCIS’s processing of LPR adjustments of
status with the United States and Consular Affairs’ processing of LPR visas abroad. As most
(89% in 2005) of employment-based LPRs are adjusting from within the United States, Consular
Affairs is dependent on USCIS for current processing data on which to base the employment-
based visa priority dates. The Visa Bulletin for September 2005 offered this explanation: “The
backlog reduction efforts of both Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Department of
Labor continue to result in very heavy demand for Employment-based numbers. It is anticipated
that the amount of such cases will be sufficient to use all available numbers in many categories ...
demand in the Employment categories is expected to be far in excess of the annual limits, and
once established, cut-off date movements are likely to be slow.”17 The visa waiting times eased
somewhat in FY2006 and in early FY2007.
“Visa retrogression” occurred most dramatically in July 2007. The Visa Bulletin for July 2007
listed the visa priority dates as current for the employment-based preferences (except for the
unskilled other worker category).18 On July 2, 2007, however, the State Department issued an
Update to July Visa Availability that retrogressed the dates to the point of being “unavailable.”
The State Department offered the following explanation: “The sudden backlog reduction efforts
by Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices during the past month have resulted in the use
of almost 60,000 Employment numbers.... Effective Monday July 2, 2007 there will be no further
authorizations in response to requests for Employment-based preference cases.”19 The
employment-based visa categories remained unavailable until the FY2008 numerical ceilings
opened.
Now, priority workers (i.e., extraordinary ability) and advanced degree categories are current.
Visas for professional, skilled, and unskilled workers are available for petitions filed from 2001
through 2005, depending on the category and country, as Table 5 presents.

17 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin, is available at http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/
bulletin/bulletin_1360.html.
18 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin, No. 107, is available at http://travel.state.gov/
visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3258.html.
19 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin, No. 108, is available at http://travel.state.gov/
visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3266.html.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŘȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Table 5. Priority Dates for Employment Preference Visas
Category Worldwide
China
India
Mexico
Philippines
Priority workers
current
current
current
current
current
Advanced degrees/
current
Feb. 15. 2005
Feb. 15, 2004 current
current
exceptional ability
Skilled and professional May 1, 2005
Oct. 22, 2002
Oct. 15, 2001 August 15, 2003 May 1, 2005
March 15, 2003 Oct. 22, 2002
Oct. 15, 2001 March 15, 2003 March 15,
Unskilled
2003
Schedule Aa
Nov. 1, 2002
Nov. 15, 2001
May 8, 2001
Apr. 22, 2001
Nov. 1, 2002
Special immigrants
current
current
current
current
current
Investors current
current
current
current
current
Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin for March 2009.
a. Schedule A refers to §502 of Division B, Title V of P.L. 109-13, which makes up to 50,000 permanent
employment-based visas available for foreign nationals coming to work as nurses.
ȱȱȱ
Distinct from the visa priority dates that result from the various numerical limits in the law, there
are significant backlogs due to the sheer volume of aliens eligible to immigrate to the United
States. Over 3 million immigration and naturalization petitions were filed with the USCIS during
the three-month period of June, July, and August 2007. The USCIS acknowledged the agency was
overwhelmed by the volume of petitions and were unable to record the receipt of all of these
petitions upon arrival. In October 2007, the agency secured many of the I-130 petitions for alien
relatives in a “lockbox” and indicated that they hoped to record all of those “lockbox” petitions
by the end of February 2008.20
The latest spike in immigrant petitions has occurred amidst controversies over processing
backlogs dating back to the establishment of USCIS in March 2003. Processing backlogs also
inadvertently reduced the number of LPRs in FY2003. Only 705,827 people became LPRs in
FY2003. USCIS was only able to process 161,579 of the potential 226,000 family-sponsored
LPRs in FY2003, and thus 64,421 LPR visas rolled over to the FY2004 employment-based
categories.21 In December 2003, USCIS reported 5.3 million immigrant petitions pending.22
USCIS decreased the number of immigrant petitions pending by 24% by the end of FY2004, but
still had 4.1 million petitions pending. As FY2005 drew to a close there were over 3.1 million
immigration petitions pending.23 USCIS has altered its definition of what constitutes a backlog,

20 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law, Hearing on Naturalization Delays: Causes, Consequences and Solutions, January 17,
2008.
21 Telephone conversation with DOS Bureau of Consular Affairs, February 13, 2004.
22 According to USCIS, other immigration-related petitions, such as applications for work authorizations or change of
nonimmigrant status, filed bring the total cases pending to over 6 million. Telephone conversation with USCIS
Congressional Affairs, February 12, 2004.
23 DHS Office of Immigration Statistics. For USCIS workload statistics, see http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/
publications/index.shtm#6. The FY2006 data are not available.
ȱȱȱ
ŗřȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
and as a result, comparable data on the current backlogs are not available.24 The latest processing
dates for immediate relative, family preference, and employment-based LPR petitions are
presented in Appendix B for each of the four USCIS Regional Service Centers, but may
retrogress as the surge in petitions from 2007 are recorded as “received.”
Even though there are no numerical limits on the admission of aliens who are immediate relatives
of U.S. citizens, such citizens petitioning for their relatives are waiting at least a year and in some
parts of the country, more than two years for the paperwork to be processed. Citizens and LPRs
petitioning for relatives under the family preferences are often waiting several years for the
petitions to be processed. Appendix B is illustrative, but not comprehensive because some
immigration petitions may be filed at USCIS District offices and at the National Benefits Center.
Aliens with LPR petitions pending cannot visit the United States. Since the INA presumes that all
aliens seeking admission to the United States are coming to live permanently, nonimmigrants
must demonstrate that they are coming for a temporary period or they will be denied a visa.
Aliens with LPR petitions pending are clearly intending to live in the United States permanently
and thus are denied nonimmigrant visas to come temporarily.25
ȱȱȱȱŗŗŗȱȱ
As has often been said, there is a broad-based consensus that the U.S. immigration system is
broken. This consensus erodes, however, as soon as the options to reform the U.S. immigration
system are debated. Substantial efforts to reform legal immigration have failed in the recent past,
prompting some to characterize the issue as a “zero-sum game” or a “third rail.” The challenge
inherent in reforming legal immigration is balancing employers’ hopes to increase the supply of
legally present foreign workers, families’ longing to re-unite and live together, and a widely
shared wish among the various stakeholders to improve the policies governing legal immigration
into the country. Whether the Congress will act to alter immigration policies—either in the form
of comprehensive immigration reform or in the form of incremental revisions aimed at strategic
changes—is at the crux of the debate. Addressing these contentious policy reforms against the
backdrop of economic crisis sharpens the social and business cleavages and may narrow the range
of options.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
That the economy is in a recession further complicates efforts to reform immigration law.
Historically, international migration ebbs during economic crises (e.g., immigration to the United
States was at its lowest levels during the Great Depression). While preliminary statistical trends
suggest a slowing of migration pressures, it remains unclear how the current economic recession
will effect immigration to the United States.26

24 For a full analysis of this issue, see Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, 2007 Annual Report to
Congress, June 11, 2007, available online at http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1188255274471.shtm.
25 §214(b) of INA. Only the H-1 workers, L intracompany transfers, and V family members are exempted from the
requirement that they prove that they are not coming to live permanently.
26 “While immigrants on average share the demographic characteristics of the workers who are most vulnerable during
recessions (including relative youth, lower levels of education and recent entry into the labor force), they also may be
(continued...)
ȱȱȱ
ŗŚȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Even as U.S. unemployment levels rise, employers assert that they continue to need the “best and
the brightest” workers, regardless of their country of birth, to remain competitive in a worldwide
market and to keep their firms in the United States. While support for the option of increasing
employment based immigration may be dampened by the economic recession, proponents argue
it is an essential ingredient for economic growth.
Those opposing increases in employment-based LPRs in particular assert that there is no
compelling evidence of labor shortages and cite the growing rate of unemployment.27 They argue
that recruiting foreign workers during an economic recession would have a deleterious effect on
salaries, compensation, and working conditions of U.S. workers.28 Some would limit
employment-based LPRs to the top two preference categories of priority workers and those who
are deemed exceptional, extraordinary or outstanding individuals.
¢Ȭȱȱȱȱ
Proponents of family-based migration alternatively point to the significant backlogs in family
based immigration due to the sheer volume of aliens eligible to immigrate to the United States
and maintain that any proposal to reform immigration levels should also include the option of
family-based backlog reduction. Citizens and LPRs often wait years for their relatives’ petitions
to be processed and visa numbers to become available.
Against these competing priorities for increased immigration are those who would shift the
family-based allocations toward the first and second preferences by eliminating categories for the
brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens and the adult children of U.S. citizens. Other options would
scale back family-based immigration levels, including the option of limiting family-based LPRs
to the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens.
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢Řşȱ
Replacing or supplementing the current preference system (discussed earlier in this report) with a
point system is garnering considerable interest for the first time in over a decade. Briefly, point
systems such as those of Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and New Zealand assign prospective
immigrants with credits if they have specified attributes, most often based upon educational
attainment, shortage occupations, extent of work experience, language proficiency, and desirable
age range.

(...continued)
able to adjust more quickly than native-born workers to fluctuating labor market conditions because they are more
amenable to moving and changing job sectors.” Demetrios Papademetriou and Aaron Terrazas, Immigrants and the
Current Economic Crisis, Migration Policy Institute, January 2009.
27 For further discussion, see CRS Report R40080, Job Loss and Infrastructure Job Creation During the Recession, by
Linda Levine.
28 For further discussion, see CRS Report RL33977, Immigration of Foreign Workers: Labor Market Tests and
Protections, by Ruth Ellen Wasem; and CRS Report 95-408, Immigration: The Effects on Low-Skilled and High-Skilled
Native-Born Workers, by Linda Levine.
29 A point system approach is also being offered for the adjustment of status of unauthorized aliens in the United States.
For example, see the Immigrant Accountability Act of 2007 (S. 1225).
ȱȱȱ
ŗśȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Proponents of point systems maintain that such merit-based approaches are clearly defined and
based upon the nation’s economic needs and labor market objectives. A point system, supporters
argue, would be more acceptable to the public because the government (rather than employers or
families) would be selecting new immigrants and this selection would be based upon national
economic priorities. Opponents of point systems state that the judgement of individual employers
are the best indicator of labor market needs and an immigrant’s success.
Opponents warn that the number of people who wish to immigrate to the United States would
overwhelm a point system comparable to Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and New Zealand. In
turn, this predicted high volume of prospective immigrants, some say, would likely lead to
selection criteria so rigorous that it would be indistinguishable from what is now the first
preference category of employment-based admissions (persons of extraordinary ability in the arts,
science, education, business, or athletics; outstanding professors and researchers; and certain
multi-national executives and managers) and ultimately would not result in meaningful reform.
ȱ ȱ£ȱȱ
Whether the LPR adjustments of guest workers and other temporary foreign workers are
channeled through the numerically limited, employment-based preferences or are exempt from
numerical limits will affect the future flow of LPRs. Whether the legislation also contains the
controversial provisions that would permit aliens currently residing in the United States without
legal status to adjust to LPR status, to acquire “earned legalization,” or to obtain a guest worker
visa also has affects on future legal permanent admissions.30 Although guest workers and other
temporary foreign workers options, as well as legalization proposals, are not topics of this report,
the issues have become inextricably linked to the debate on legal permanent admissions. Two
concerns at the crux of this issue are (1) whether a large-scale legalization program would
disadvantage persons currently waiting in the backlogs for LPR visas and (2) whether such a
legalization would prompt an increase in LPR petitions from family members of the legalized.
For an analysis of this interaction in the recent comprehensive immigration reform efforts, see
Appendix D.
ȱȱȱȱ
Many in Congress have expressed concern and frustration about the backlogs and pending
caseload, and Congress has already enacted statutory requirements for backlog elimination.31
Former USCIS Director Eduardo Aguirre acknowledged the challenges his agency faces in
testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims
in 2004.
We fully realize that the increased funding requested in the budget alone will not enable us to
realize our goals. We must fundamentally change the way we conduct our business. We are
aggressively working to modernize our systems and increase our capacity through the

30 An estimated 60% of the 11 to 12 million unauthorized aliens residing in the United States have been here for at least
five years, according to calculations based upon analysis by demographer Jeffrey Passel. “The Size and Characteristics
of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S.: Estimates Based on the March 2005 Current Population Survey,”
by Jeffrey S. Passel, Senior Research Associate, Pew Hispanic Center, available at http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/
61.pdf.
31 For example, see §§ 451-461 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296).
ȱȱȱ
ŗŜȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
reengineering of processes, the development and implementation of new information
technology systems, and the development of mechanisms to interact with customers in a
more forward-reaching manner.32
Pending caseloads and processing backlogs continue to plague USCIS. The U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) concluded in 2005 that it was unlikely that USCIS would
completely eliminate the backlog of pending adjudications by the 2006 deadline.33 Despite
progress in cutting the backlog of pending cases from 3.8 million in January 2004 to 1.2 million
in June 2005, GAO speculated that USCIS may have difficulty eliminating its backlog for the
more complex application types that constitute nearly three-quarters of the backlog.34
The agency’s redefinition of what constitutes a backlog has emerged as an issue. The June 2006
report of the USCIS Ombudsman stated “ ... in July 2004, USCIS reported 1.5 million
backlogged cases, which was an apparent reduction from the 3.5 million backlogged cases in
March 2003. However, the agency also reclassified 1.1 million of the 2 million cases
eliminated.... ” The Ombudsman went on to disclose that USCIS had again redefined the backlog
in April 2006: “After the redefinition, the backlog supposedly declined from 1.08 million cases to
914,864 cases at the end of FY 05. Yet, individuals whose cases were factored out of the backlog
still awaited adjudication of their applications and petitions.”35 This reclassification of pending
cases arose at a recent oversight hearing of the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee
on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.36
The DHS Inspector General found problems in the background checks for which USCIS is now
responsible. Among other findings, the report concluded that USCIS’ security checks are overly
reliant on the integrity of names and documents that applicants submit and that “USCIS has not
developed a measurable, risk-based plan to define how USCIS will improve the scope of security
checks.” It further stated that “USCIS’ management controls are not comprehensive enough to
provide assurance that background checks are correctly completed.”37 GAO expanded on the
concerns of the DHS Inspector General detailed in their report on USCIS.38 The USCIS
Ombudsman further concluded “FBI name checks, one of the security screening tools used by

32 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims,
Hearing on Backlog Reduction Plan for Immigration Applications, June 17, 2004.
33 The Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000 (§ 205(a) of P.L. 106-313, 8 U.S.C. §
1574(a)) defines backlog as the period of time in excess of 180 days that an immigration benefit application has been
pending before the agency. USCIS defines backlog as the number of pending applications (i.e., the number of
applications awaiting adjudication) in excess of the number of applications received in the most recent six months.
34 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Immigration Benefits: Improvements Needed to Address Backlogs and
Ensure Quality of Adjudications, GAO-06-20, November 2005.
35 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, 2006 Annual Report to Congress, June 2006; and 2007
Annual Report to Congress, June 11, 2007, available at http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1188255274471.shtm.
36 U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law, Hearing on Proposal to Adjust the Immigration Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule,
February 14, 2007.
37 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, A Review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services’ Alien Security Checks, OIG 06-06, November 2005, p. 2.
38 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Immigration Benefits: Additional Controls and a Sanctions Strategy Could
Enhance DHS’s Ability to Control Benefit Fraud, GAO-06-259, March 2006, p. 5.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŝȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
USCIS, significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder
backlog reductions efforts, and may not achieve their intended national security objectives.”39

39 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, 2006 Annual Report to Congress, June 2006. Available at
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0890.shtm.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŞȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
¡ȱǯ ȱśŖȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŝǰȱ
¢ȱ¢ȱȱȱ
Region
Immediate
and
Family- Employment- Relatives of
Refugees Cancellation
Country
Sponsored
Based
U.S.
and
of Removal
of Birth
Total Preferences Preferences
Citizens Diversity Asylees and Other
Mexico 148,640
45,422 11,900
87,466 10 396 3,446
China,
People’s
Republic 76,655 15,261 13,886
27,115 22
20,352 19
Philippines
72,596
13,535 17,182 41,416
4 372
87
India 65,353
15,551 28,703 18,205 57 2,680 157
Colombia 33,187 3,177
2,641
17,174
11
10,091 93
Haiti 30,405
8,028 102
13,569 - 6,261 2,445
Cuba 29,104
1,794 14
2,737 229 24,261
69
Vietnam 28,691 12,430 D
13,974 D
1,768 317
Dominican
Republic 28,024 13,250 308
14,360 D
D
44
Korea
22,405
2,222 11,308 8,848 D D 15
El Salvador 21,127
6,145
1,276
6,240
-
493
6,973
Jamaica
19,375
4,988 732 13,602 D D 41
Guatemala 17,908 2,641
801
8,972
7
1,061 4,426
Peru 17,699
2,676 1,688 10,841 1,482
919 93
Canada 15,495 602
6,674
7,891 56 42 230
United
Kingdom 14,545 647
5,821
7,913
96
22
46
Brazil 14,295
372 4,142 9,255 255 220 51
Pakistan 13,492 3,209
3,257
5,868 3
1,087 68
Ethiopia 12,786 442
120
4,940 3,419 3,851 14
Nigeria 12,448 963
916
7,462 2,726 345 36
Ecuador 12,248 2,657
2,429
6,848
107 128 79
Bangladesh 12,074 3,015
1,165
4,108
3,254 475
57
Ukraine 11,001 197
753
4,101 2,798 2,322 830
Venezuela 10,692 618
2,352
5,469
167
2,056 30
Iran 10,460
2,260 720
4,257 639 2,570
14
Poland 10,355
2,345 2,095
5,545 280 34 56
Russia 9,426 135
1,466
4,502 182 3,065 76
Egypt 9,267
778 731
2,648 3,826 1,245 39
Taiwan 8,990 3,052 2,598
3,065 258 8
9
ȱȱȱ
ŗşȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Region
Immediate
and
Family- Employment- Relatives of
Refugees Cancellation
Country
Sponsored
Based
U.S.
and
of Removal
of Birth
Total Preferences Preferences
Citizens Diversity Asylees and Other
Thailand 8,751 356
639
4,066
38
3,631 21
Honduras 7,646 2,303
599
4,308
11
219
206
Ghana 7,610 771
365
5,227 1,135 93 19
Germany 7,582 218
2,288
4,370
580 99
27
Kenya 7,030 212
501
2,330 1,787 2,187 13
Trinidad
and Tobago 6,829
1,477
590
4,659
57
17
29
Japan 6,748
137 2,285 4,088 201 15 22
Somalia 6,251 27
14
467
21 5,721 1
Romania 5,802 296
1,234
3,115
962 175 20
Albania 5,737 150
78
2,078 1,174 2,255 2
Guyana 5,726 2,868
241
2,577 5
32 3
Argentina 5,645 222
1,837
3,208
54
305
19
Soviet
Union
(former) 5,090 65
134
4,151
17
476 247
Uzbekistan 4,665 39
112
688
964
2,792
70
Morocco 4,513 229
212
2,160
1,869 35
8
Israel 4,496
188 1,256 2,885 100 50 17
Turkey 4,425 248
1,383
1,907 724 153 10
Armenia 4,351 113
153
820
593 2,637 35
Lebanon 4,267 929
642
2,492
43
154 7
Cambodia 4,246 471
53
3,324
56
281
61
Liberia 4,102 288
47
1,259 550 1,949 9
Totals 910,255
180,019 140,443 428,570 30,829 109,400
20,706
Source: CRS analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FY2006 Statistical Yearbook of
Immigration, 2006.
Notes: “D” means that data disclosure standards are not met; “—” represents zero. Table prepared by
LaVonne Mangan, CRS Knowledge Services Group.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŖȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
¡ȱǯ ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Regional Service Centers
Immigrant Category
California
Nebraska
Texas
Vermont
Immediate relatives
6 Months
N/A
N/A
6 Months
Unmarried sons and daughters of
July 8, 2003
N/A
N/A
July 2, 2006
citizens
Spouses and children of LPRs
June 1, 2005
N/A
N/A
Jan. 18, 2006
Unmarried sons and daughters of LPRs
May 8, 2001
N/A
N/A
June 4, 2006
Married sons and daughters of citizens
August 1, 2001
N/A
N/A
June 4, 2006
Siblings of citizens age 21 and over
Feb. 15, 1999
N/A
N/A
Feb. 25, 2001
Priority workers—extraordinary
N/A
March 1, 2008
March 10, 2008
N/A
Priority workers—outstanding
N/A
March 1, 2008
March 10, 2008
N/A
Priority workers—executives
N/A
July 1, 2008
March 10, 2008
N/A
Persons with advanced degrees or
N/A
June 1, 2008
March 10, 2008
N/A
exceptional abilities
Skilled workers (at least two years
N/A
August 27, 2007
March 10, 2008
N/A
experience) or professionals (B.A.)
Unskilled shortage workers
N/A
4 Months
March 10, 2008
N/A
Source: CRS presentation of USCIS information dated February 25, 2009; available at
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/processTimesDisplay.do
ȱȱȱ
Řŗȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
¡ȱǯ ŘŖŖŗȬŘŖŖŝȱǰȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱ
Type and Class of Admission
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens
439,972
483,676
331,286
417,815
436,115
580,348
494,920

Spouses
268,294 293,219 183,796 252,193 259,144 339,843 274,358
Children

91,275 96,941 77,948 88,088 94,858 120,064 103,828

Parents
80,403 93,516 69,542 77,534 82,113 120,441 116,734

Percent
of
total
41.5% 45.7% 47.1% 43.6% 38.9% 45.8% 47.0%

Family-sponsored
preferences
231,699 186,880 158,796 214,355 212,970 222,229 194,900
First
Unmarried sons/daughters of U.S. citizens and
27,003 23,517 21,471 26,380 24,729 25,432 22,858
their children
Second
Spouses, children, and unmarried sons/daughters
112,015 84,785 53,195 93,609 100,139 112,051 86,151
of alien residents
Third
Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizens and their
24,830 21,041 27,287 28,695 22,953 21,491 20,611
spouses and children
Fourth
Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizens (at least 21
67,851 57,537 56,843 65,671 65,149 63,255 65,280
years of age) and their spouses and children

Percent
of
total
21.9% 17.6% 22.6% 22.4% 19.0% 17.6% 18.5%

Employment-based
preferences
178,702 173,814 81,727 155,330 246,877 159,081 162,176
First
Priority workers and their spouses and children
41,672
34,168
14,453
31,291
64,731
36,960
26,697
Second
Professionals with advanced degrees or aliens of
42,550 44,316 15,406 32,534 42,597 21,911 44,162
exceptional ability and their spouses and
children
Third
Skilled workers, professionals, and unskilled
85,847 88,002 46,415 85,969 129,070 89,922 85,030
workers and their spouses and children
Fourth
Special immigrants and their spouses and
8,442 7,186 5,389 5,407 10,133 9,539 5,481
children
Fifth
Employment creation (investors and their
191 142 64 129 346 749 806
spouses and children)
ȬŘŘȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Type and Class of Admission
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Percent
of
total
16.9% 16.4% 11.6% 16.2% 22.0% 12.6% 15.4%

Diversity
41,989 42,820 46,335 50,084 46,234 44,471 42,127

Refugees
96,870 115,601 34,362 61,013 112,676 99,609 54,942

Percent
of
total
22.0% 23.9% 10.4% 14.6% 25.8% 17.2% 11.1%

Asylees

11,111 10,197 10,402 10,217 30,286 116,845 81,183
Percent of total
2.5%
2.1%
3.1%
2.4%
6.9%
20.1%
16.4%

Parolees
5,349 6,018 4,196 7,121 7,715 4,569 1,999
Children born abroad to alien residents
899
783
743
707
571
623
597
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act
18,663 9,307 2,498 2,292 1,155 661 340
(NACARA)
Cancellation
of
removal
22,188 23,642 28,990 32,702 20,785 29,516 14,927
Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (HRIFA)
10,064
5,345
1,406
2,451
2,820
3,375
2,448
Other
1,396 1,273 2,801 3,796 4,053 4,802 1,856
Total

1,058,902 1,059,356 703,542 957,883 1,122,257 1,266,129 1,052,415

Source: CRS presentation of data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FY2007 Statistical Yearbook of Immigration, September 2008, Table 6.
Source: CRS analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FY2006 Statistical Yearbook of Immigration, 2007.
ȬŘřȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
¡ȱǯ ȱȱ ¢ȱ
ȱȱȱŗŖŞȱȱ
Legislation reforming permanent immigration came from a variety of divergent perspectives in
the 108th Congress. The sheer complexity of the current set of provisions makes revising the law
on permanent immigration a daunting task. This discussion focuses only on those bills that would
have revised the permanent immigration categories and the numerical limits as defined in §201-
§203 of the INA.40
On January 21, 2004, Senators Chuck Hagel and Thomas Daschle introduced legislation (S.
2010) that would, if enacted, potentially yield significant increases in legal permanent
admissions. The Immigration Reform Act of 2004 (S. 2010), would have among other provisions:
no longer deduct immediate relatives from the overall family-sponsored numerical limits; treat
spouses and minor children of LPRs the same as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (exempt
from numerical limits); and reallocate the 226,000 family preference numbers to the remaining
family preference categories. In addition, many aliens who would have benefited from S. 2010‘s
proposed temporary worker provisions would be able to adjust to LPR status outside the
numerical limits of the per country ceiling and the worldwide levels.
Several bills that would offer more targeted revisions to permanent immigration were offered in
the House. Representative Robert Andrews introduced H.R. 539, which would have exempted
spouses of LPRs from the family preference limits and thus treated them similar to immediate
relatives of U.S. citizens. Representative Richard Gephardt likewise included a provision that
would have treated spouses of LPRs outside of the numerical limits in his “Earned Legalization
and Family Unity Act” (H.R. 3271). Representative Jerrold Nadler introduced legislation (H.R.
832) that would have amended the INA to add “permanent partners” after “spouses” and thus
would have enabled aliens defined as permanent partners to become LPRs through the family-
based immigration categories as well as to become derivative relatives of qualifying immigrants.
Legislation that would have reduced legal permanent immigration was introduced early in the
108th Congress by Representative Thomas Tancredo. The “Mass Immigration Reduction Act”
(H.R. 946) would have zeroed out family sponsored immigrants (except children and spouses of
U.S. citizens), employment-based immigrants (except certain priority workers) and diversity
lottery immigrants through FY2008. It also would have set a numerical limit of 25,000 on refugee
admissions and asylum adjustments. Representative J. Gresham Barrett introduced an extensive
revision of immigration law (H.R. 3522) that also included a significant scaling back of
permanent immigration.

40 For discussion of other major immigration legislation, see CRS Report RL32169, Immigration Legislation and Issues
in the 108th Congress, by Andorra Bruno et al. Other CRS reports on the reform of other immigration provisions are
available at http://apps.crs.gov/cli/cli.aspx?PRDS_CLI_ITEM_ID=676&from=3&fromId=20.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŚȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱŗŖşȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱ
Section 502 of Division B, Title V of P.L. 109-13 (H.R. 1268, the emergency FY2005
supplemental appropriation) amended the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century
Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-313) to modify the formula for recapturing unused employment-based
immigrant visas for employment-based immigrants “whose immigrant worker petitions were
approved based on schedule A.” In other words, it makes up to 50,000 permanent employment-
based visas available for foreign nationals coming to work as nurses. This provision was added to
H.R. 1268 as an amendment in the Senate and was accepted by the conferees.
ȱ¢Ȭȱȱȱ
On October 20, 2005, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary approved compromise language
that, among other things, would have recaptured up to 90,000 employment-based visas that had
not been issued in prior years (when the statutory ceiling of 140,000 visas was not met). An
additional fee of $500 would have been charged to obtain these recaptured visas. This language
was forwarded to the Senate Budget Committee for inclusion in the budget reconciliation
legislation. On November 18, 2005, the Senate passed S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Omnibus
Reconciliation Act of 2005, with these provisions as Title VIII. These provisions, however, were
not included in the House-passed Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (H.R. 4241).
The conference report (H.Rept. 109-362) on the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (S. 1932) was
reported during the legislative day of December 18, 2005. It did not include the Senate provisions
that would have recaptured employment-based visas unused in prior years. On December 19, the
House agreed to the conference report by a vote of 212-206. On December 21, the Senate
removed extraneous matter from the legislation pursuant to a point of order raised under the
“Byrd rule” and then, by a vote of 51-50 (with Vice President Cheney breaking a tie vote),
returned the amended measure to the House for further action.
ȱȱȱȱŗŖşȱȱ
ȱȂȱȱȱȱ
When President George W. Bush announced his principles for immigration reform in January
2004, he included an increase in permanent legal immigration as a key component. The fact sheet
that accompanied his remarks referred to a “reasonable increase in the annual limit of legal
immigrants.”41 When President Bush spoke, he characterized his policy recommendation as
follows:
The citizenship line, however, is too long, and our current limits on legal immigration are too
low. My administration will work with the Congress to increase the annual number of green
cards that can lead to citizenship. Those willing to take the difficult path of citizenship—the

41 The White House, Fact Sheet: Fair and Secure Immigration Reform, January 7, 2004, available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040107-1.html.
ȱȱȱ
Řśȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
path of work, and patience, and assimilation—should be welcome in America, like
generations of immigrants before them.42
Some commentators speculated that the President was promoting increases in the employment-
based categories of permanent immigration, but the Bush Administration did not provide specific
information on what categories of legal permanent admissions it advocated should be increased.
The President featured his immigration reform proposal in the 2004 State of the Union address,
and a lively debate has ensued. Most of the attention has focused on the new temporary worker
component of his proposal and whether the overall proposal constitutes an “amnesty” for aliens
living in the United States without legal authorization.
President Bush continued to state that immigration reform was a top priority. In an interview with
the Washington Times, the President responded to a question about where immigration reform
ranks in his second term agenda by saying, “I think it’s high. I think it’s a big issue.” The
President posited that the situation was a “bureaucratic nightmare” that must be solved.43
ȱȂȱȱȱǻǯȱŘŚśŚǼȦȂȱȱ
Title IV of S. 2454, the Securing America’s Borders Act, which Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
introduced on March 16, 2006, as well as Title V in the draft of Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen
Specter’s mark circulated March 6, 2006 (Chairman’s mark) would have substantially increased
legal immigration and would have restructured the allocation of these visas. The particular
provisions in S. 2454 and the Chairman’s mark were essentially equivalent.
Foremost, Title IV of S. 2454 and Title V of the Chairman’s mark would have no longer deducted
immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from the overall family-sponsored numerical limit of
480,000. This change would have likely added at least 226,000 more family-based admissions
annually (based upon the current floor of 226,000 family-sponsored visas). The bills would have
increased the annual number of employment-based LPRs from 140,000 to 290,000. They also
would have no longer counted the derivative family members of employment-based LPRs as part
of the numerical ceiling. If each employment-based LPR would be accompanied by 1.2 family
members (as is currently the ratio), then an estimated 348,000 additional LPRs might have been
admitted. The bills would have “recaptured” visa numbers from FY2001 through FY2005 in
those cases when the family-based and employment-based ceilings were not reached.
Title IV of S. 2454 and Title V of the Chairman’s mark would have raised the current per-country
limit on LPR visas from an allocation of 7% of the total preference allocation to 10% of the total
preference allocation (which would have been 480,000 for family-based and 290,000 for
employment-based under this bill). Coupled with the proposed increases in the worldwide
ceilings, these provisions would have eased the visa wait times that oversubscribed countries (i.e.,
China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines) currently have by substantially increasing their share
of the overall ceiling.

42 President George W. Bush, “Remarks by the President on Immigration Policy,” January 7, 2004, available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040107-3.html.
43 Washington Times, January 12, 2005.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŜȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Title IV of S. 2454 and Title V of the Chairman’s mark would have further reallocated family-
sponsored immigrants and employment-based visas. The numerical limits on immediate relatives
of LPRs would have increased from 114,200 (plus visas not used by first preference) to 240,000
annually. They would have shifted the allocation of visas from persons of “extraordinary” and
“exceptional” abilities and persons having advanced professional degrees (i.e., first and second
preferences), and increased the number of visas to unskilled workers 10,000 to 87,000—plus any
unused visas that would roll down from the other employment-based preference categories.
Employment-based visas for certain special immigrants would have no longer been numerically
limited.44
ȱȱȱǻǯȱŘŜŗŗǼȱ
As the Senate was locked in debate on S. 2454 and the Judiciary Chairman’s mark during the
two-week period of March 28-April 7, 2006, an alternative was offered by Senators Chuck Hagel
and Mel Martinez. Chairman Specter, along with Senators Hagel, Martinez, Graham, Brownback,
Kennedy, and McCain introduced this compromise as S. 2611 on April 7, 2006, just prior to the
recess. The identical language was introduced by Senator Hagel (S. 2612). Much like S. 2454 and
S.Amdt. 3192, S. 2611 would have substantially increased legal permanent immigration and
would have restructured the allocation of the family-sponsored and employment-based visas.
After several days of debate and a series of amendments, the Senate passed S. 2611 as amended
by a vote of 62-36 on May 25, 2006.
In its handling of family-based legal immigration, Title V of S. 2611 mirrored Title IV of S. 2454
and Title V of the Chairman’s mark. It would have no longer deducted immediate relatives of
U.S. citizens from the overall family-sponsored numerical limit of 480,000. This change would
have likely added at least 226,000 more family-based admissions annually (based upon the
current floor of 226,000 family-sponsored visas). The numerical limits on immediate relatives of
LPRs would have increased from 114,200 (plus visas not used by first preference) to 240,000
annually.
Assuming that the trend in the number of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens continued at the
same upward rate, the projected number of immediate relatives would have been approximately
470,000 in 2008. Assuming that the demand for the numerically limited family preferences
continued at the same level, the full 480,000 would have been allocated. If these assumptions
held, the United States would have likely admitted or adjusted an estimated 950,000 family-
sponsored LPRs by 2009, as Figure D-1 projects.45

44 For analysis of immigration trends and projections under S. 2454, see CRS Congressional Distribution
Memorandum, “Legal Immigration: Modeling the Principle Components of Permanent Admissions,” by Ruth Ellen
Wasem, March 28, 2006.
45 20 CFR §656.
ȱȱȱ
Řŝȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Figure D-1. Projected Flow of LPRs under S. 2611, FY2007-FY2009
Assuming "Demand" for Visas and Immediate Relatives Continue at Current Rates
and Excluding Estimates of Temporary Worker Adjustments and Other LPRs
Exempt from Preference Allocations
Thousands
2000
Immediate Relatives
Family-Preferences
Skilled and Unskilled
1500
Extraordinary
Advanced degrees
FY2004
Employment Derivative Family
946,142
1000
500
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2007 2008 2009
Projections

Source: CRS analysis of data from the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics and the former INS.
Note: Future Employment-based 4th preference special immigrants and 5th preference in have too many
unknown factors to estimate.
In terms of employment-based immigration, S. 2611 would have increased the annual number of
employment-based LPRs from 140,000 to 450,000 from FY2007 through FY2016, and set the
limit at 290,000 thereafter. S. 2611/S. 2612 also would have no longer counted the derivative
family members of employment-based LPRs as part of the numerical ceiling. As in S. 2454, S.
2611 would have reallocated employment-based visas as follows: up to 15% to “priority
workers”; up to 15% to professionals holding advanced degrees and certain persons of
exceptional ability; up to 35% to skilled shortage workers with two years training or experience
and certain professionals; up to 5% to employment creation investors; and up to 30% (135,000) to
unskilled shortage workers.
Employment-based visas for certain special immigrants would have no longer been numerically
limited. S. 2611 also would have no longer counted the derivative family members of
employment-based LPRs as part of the numerical ceiling. If each employment-based LPR would
be accompanied by 1.2 family members (as is currently the ratio), then an estimated 540,000
additional LPRs might have been admitted. However, the Senate passed an amendment on the
ȱȱȱ
ŘŞȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
floor that placed an overall limit of 650,000 on employment-based LPRs and their accompanying
family annually FY2007-FY2016, as Figure D-1 projects.46
In addition, special exemptions from numerical limits would have also been made for aliens who
have worked in the United States for three years and who have earned an advanced degree in
science, technology, engineering, or math. Certain widows and orphan who meet specified risk
factors would have also been exempted from numerical limits. The bills would have further
increased overall levels of immigration by reclaiming family and employment-based LPR visas
when the annual ceilings were not met, FY2001-FY2005. As noted earlier, unused visas from one
preference category in one fiscal year roll over to the other preference category the following
year.
S. 2611 would have significantly expanded the number of guest worker and other temporary
foreign worker visas available each year and would have coupled these increases with eased
opportunities for these temporary workers to ultimately adjust to LPR status.47 Whether the LPR
adjustments of guest workers and other temporary foreign workers were channeled through the
numerically limited, employment-based preferences or were exempt from numerical limits (as
were the proposed F-4 foreign student fourth preference adjustments) obviously would have
affected the projections and the future flows.48
S. 2611 included a provision that would have exempted from direct numerical limits those LPRs
who are being admitted for employment in occupations that the Secretary of Labor has deemed
there are insufficient U.S. workers “able, willing and qualified” to work. Such occupations are
commonly referred to as Schedule A because of the subsection of the code where the Secretary’s
authority derives. Currently, nurses and physical therapists are listed on Schedule A, as are certain
aliens deemed of exceptional ability in the sciences or arts (excluding those in the performing
arts).
Title V of S. 2611 would have raised the current per-country limit on LPR visas from an
allocation of 7% of the total preference allocation to 10% of the total preference allocation (which
would be 480,000 for family-based and 450,000/290,000 for employment-based under this bill).49
Coupled with the proposed increases in the worldwide ceilings, these provisions would have
eased the visa wait times that oversubscribed countries (i.e., China, India, Mexico, and the
Philippines) currently have by substantially increasing their share of the overall ceiling. The bill

46 20 CFR §656.
47 For an analysis of guest worker and other temporary foreign worker visas legislation, see CRS Report RL32044,
Immigration: Policy Considerations Related to Guest Worker Programs, by Andorra Bruno; and, CRS Report
RL30498, Immigration: Legislative Issues on Nonimmigrant Professional Specialty (H-1B) Workers, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem.
48 In S. 2611/S. 2612, unauthorized aliens who have been residing in the United States prior to April 5, 2001, and meet
specified requirements would be eligible to adjust to LPR status outside of the numerical limits of INA. An estimated
60% of the 11 to 12 million unauthorized aliens residing in the United States may be eligible to adjust through this
provision, according to calculations based upon analysis by demographer Jeffrey Passel. “The Size and Characteristics
of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S.: Estimates Based on the March 2005 Current Population Survey,”
by Jeffrey S. Passel, Senior Research Associate, Pew Hispanic Center, available at http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/
61.pdf.
49 The per-country ceiling for dependent states are raised from 2% to 7%.
ȱȱȱ
Řşȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
would have also eliminated the exceptions to the per-country ceilings for certain family-based and
employment-based LPRs, which are discussed above.50
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱǻǯȱŗŖřřȦ ǯǯȱŘřřŖǼȱ
On May 12, 2005, a bipartisan group of Senators and Congressmen51 introduced an expansive
immigration bill known as the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (S. 1033/H.R. 2330).
Among other things, these bills would have made significant revisions to the permanent legal
admissions sections of INA.52 Specifically Title VI of the legislation would have
• removed immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from the calculation of the 480,000
annual cap on family-based visas for LPR status, thereby providing additional
visas to the family preference categories;
• lowered the income requirements for sponsoring a family member for LPR status
from 125% of the federal poverty guidelines to 100%;
• recaptured for future allocations those LPR visas that were unused due to
processing delays from FY2001 through FY2005;
• increased the annual limit on employment-based LPR visa categories from
140,000 to 290,000 visas; and
• raised the current per-country limit on LPR visas from an allocation of 7% of the
total preference allocation to 10% of the total preference allocation (which would
be 480,000 for family-based and 290,000 for employment-based under this bill).
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖśȱ
The Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005 (S. 1438), introduced by
Senators John Cornyn and Jon Kyl on July 20, 2005, had provisions that would have restructured
the allocation of employment-based visas for LPRs. Among the various proposals, Title X of this
legislation would have made the following specific changes to the INA provisions on permanent
admissions:
• reduced the allocation of visas to persons of “extraordinary” and “exceptional”
abilities and persons having advanced professional degrees (i.e., first and second
preferences);
• increased the number of visas to unskilled workers from a statutory cap of 10,000
annually to a level of 36% of the 140,000 ceiling for employment-based
admissions (plus any other unused employment-based visas);

50 For analysis of immigration trends and projections under S. 2611/, see CRS Congressional Distribution
Memorandum, “Legal Immigration: Modeling the Principle Components of Permanent Admissions, Part 2,” by Ruth
Ellen Wasem, May 10, 2006.
51 In the Senate, the co-sponsors are Senators John McCain, Ted Kennedy, Sam Brownback, Ken Salazar, Lindsey
Graham and Joe Lieberman. In the House, the co-sponsors are lead by Representatives Jim Kolbe, Jeff Flake, and Luis
Gutierrez.
52 For an analysis of other major elements of these bills, see CRS Report RL32044, Immigration: Policy
Considerations Related to Guest Worker Programs, by Andorra Bruno.
ȱȱȱ
řŖȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
• eliminated the category of diversity visas; and
• recaptured for future allocations those employment-based visa numbers that were
unused from FY2001 through FY2005.
ȱ¢ȱȱȱŘŖŖśȱ
As part of a package of four immigration reform bills, Senator Chuck Hagel introduced the
Immigration Accountability Act of 2005 (S. 1919), which would have provided for “earned
adjustment of status” for certain unauthorized aliens who met specified conditions and would
have expanded legal immigration. In terms of permanent legal admissions, S. 1919 would have
among other provisions:
• no longer deducted immediate relatives from the overall family-sponsored
numerical limits of 480,000;
• treated spouses and minor children of LPRs the same as immediate relatives of
U.S. citizens (i.e., exempt from numerical limits); and
• reallocated the 226,000 family preference numbers to the remaining family
preference categories.
The Hagel immigration reform proposal also included legislation that would have revised the
temporary worker programs, border security efforts, and employment verification.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖśȱ
Title VI of the Enforcement First Immigration Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 3938), introduced by
Representative J.D. Hayworth, focused on revising permanent admissions. H.R. 3938 would have
increased employment-based admissions and decreased family-based admissions. More
specifically, it would have
• increased the worldwide ceiling for employment-based admissions by 120,000 to
260,000 annually;
• within the employment-based third preference category, doubled unskilled
admission from 10,000 to 20,000;
• eliminated the family-based fourth preference category (i.e., adult sibling of U.S.
citizens); and
• eliminated the diversity visa category.
H.R. 3938 also had two provisions aimed at legal immigration from Mexico: §604 would have
placed a three-year moratorium on permanent family-preference (not counting immediate
relatives of U.S. citizens) and employment-based admissions from Mexico; and §605 would have
amended the INA to limit family-based immigration from Mexico to 50,000 annually.
ȱȱȱȱ ¢ȱ ¢ȱȱǻ ǼȱȱȱŘŖŖś
On September 8, 2005, Representative Thomas Tancredo introduced the “Reducing Immigration
to a Genuinely Healthy Total (RIGHT) Act of 2005” (H.R. 3700), which would have substantially
ȱȱȱ
řŗȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
overhauled permanent admissions to the United States. Among other provisions, H.R. 3700 would
have
• reduced the worldwide level of employment-based immigrants from 140,000 to
5,200 annually;
• limited the 5,200 employment-based visas to persons of “extraordinary” and
“exceptional” abilities and persons having advanced professional degrees (i.e.,
first and second preferences);
• eliminated the family preference visa categories; and
• eliminated the category of diversity visas.
ȱȱȱȱ
Representative J. Gresham Barrett introduced an extensive revision of immigration law (H.R.
1912) that also included a significant scaling back of permanent immigration. This legislation was
comparable to legislation he introduced in the 108th Congress.
ȱȱ
Representative Jerrold Nadler introduced legislation (H.R. 3006) that would have amended the
INA to add “permanent partners” after “spouses” and thus would have enabled aliens defined as
permanent partners to become LPRs through the family-based immigration categories as well as
to become derivative relatives of qualifying immigrants. This bill was comparable to legislation
he introduced previously.
ȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced S. 1348, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Act of 2007, and floor debate on S. 1348 began the week of May 21, 2007. As introduced, S.
1348 was virtually identical to S. 2611, which the Senate passed in the 109th Congress.53 The
Senate bipartisan compromise proposal for comprehensive immigration reform, which was
backed by the Bush Administration, was announced on May 17, 2007, and formally introduced on
May 21, as S.Amdt. 1150. This substitute language differed from S. 1348 (and it predecessor S.
2611) in several key areas of legal immigration. The Senate Majority Leader and Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell publicly affirmed their commitment to debate comprehensive immigration
reform in June 2007. The Senate continued debate on the legislation as promised, but it did not
pass cloture.54

53 CQ Today, “Senate Immigration Vote Turns Into a Gamble for Reid and His Caucus,” by Michael Sandler, May 10,
2007.
54 CQ Today, “Senators Seek 60-Vote Test for Most Contentious Immigration Amendments,” by Michael Sandler, May
24, 2007. For earlier accounts, see CQ Today, “Senate Immigration Vote Turns Into a Gamble for Reid and His
Caucus,” by Michael Sandler, May 10, 2007.
ȱȱȱ
řŘȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ǯȱŗŜřşǰȱȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŝȱ
Senators Ted Kennedy and Arlen Specter introduced the bipartisan compromise proposal for
comprehensive immigration reform on May 21, 2007, as S.Amdt. 1150. Among those publically
associated with negotiating the compromise legislation were Homeland Security Secretary
Michael Chertoff and USCIS Director Guteirrez. On June 18, 2007, Senators Kennedy and
Specter introduced S. 1639, which was similar but not identical to S.Amdt. 1150. Title V of S.
1639 would have substantially revised legal permanent admissions. S. 1639 stalled in the Senate
on June 28, 2007, when the key cloture vote failed.
In terms of family-based immigration, S. 1639 would have narrowed the types of family
relationships that would make an alien eligible for a visa. Foremost, it would have eliminated the
existing family-sponsored preference categories for the adult children and siblings of U.S.
citizens (i.e., first, third, and fourth preferences). It would have also eliminated the existing
category for the adult children of LPRs. The elimination of these categories would have been
effective for cases filed after January 1, 2007. When visas became available for cases pending in
the family-sponsored preference categories as of May 1, 2005, the worldwide level for family
preferences would have been reduced to 127,000. The worldwide ceiling would have been set at
440,000 annually until these pending cases cleared.
Immediate relatives exempt from numerical limits would have been redefined to include only
spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens. The parents of adult U.S. citizens would have no
longer been treated as immediate relatives; instead, parents of citizens would have been capped at
40,000 annually. The spouses and minor children of LPRs would have remained capped at a level
comparable to current levels—87,000 annually.
In terms of employment-based immigration, the first three preference categories55 would have
been eliminated and replaced with a point system. This proposed point system would have
established a tier for “merit-based” immigrants. The point system for merit-based immigrants
would have been based on a total of 100 points divided between four factors: employment,
education, English and civics, and family relationships.56 The fourth and fifth employment-based
preference categories would have remained. (See Table 1.)
S. 1639 would also have enabled certain eligible aliens who were unauthorized to adjust to LPR
status by means of a point system after they have worked in the United States on a newly
proposed Z visa.57 These Z-to-LPR adjustments would have been scored on the merit-based point
system, plus four additional factors: recent agricultural work experience, U.S. employment
experience, home ownership, and medical insurance.

55 The employment-based preference categories proposed for elimination are: persons of extraordinary ability in the
arts, science, education, business, or athletics; outstanding professors and researchers; and certain multi-national
executives and managers; members of the professions holding advanced degrees or persons of exceptional abilities in
the sciences, art, or business; and professional workers and skilled and unskilled shortage workers.
56 S.Amdt. 1150, §502(b)(1)(A). The point system would include a maximum of 47 points, based upon occupation,
employer endorsement, experience at a U.S. firm, age, and national interest criteria (all within the “employment”
factor). Additionally, the proposal would emphasize education and skills, especially in the fields of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM). It also would credit points for language proficiency and for having family in
the United States.
57 CRS Report RL32044, Immigration: Policy Considerations Related to Guest Worker Programs, by Andorra Bruno.
ȱȱȱ
řřȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
S. 1639 would have established three different worldwide ceiling levels for the “merit-based”
point system. For the first five fiscal years post-enactment, the worldwide ceiling would have
been set at the level made available during FY2005—a total of 246,878.58 Of this number, 10,000
would have been set aside for exceptional Y visa holders to become LPRs, and 90,000 would
have been allocated for reduction of the employment-based backlog existing on the date of
enactment.
In the sixth year after enactment, the worldwide level for the merit point system LPRs would
have dropped to 140,000, provided that priority dates on cases pending reached May 1, 2005. Of
this number, 10,000 would have again been set aside for exceptional Y visa holders, and up to
90,000 would have been set aside for reduction of employment-based backlog existing on the
date of enactment.
When the visa processing of the pending family-based and employment-based petitions would
have reached those with May 1, 2005, priority dates, it would have triggered the provisions in S.
1639 that would have enabled the Z-to-LPR adjustments to go into effect (discussed below). At
this time, the merit point system worldwide level would have become 380,000. The Z-to-LPR
adjustments, however, would have occurred outside of this worldwide level. The proposal
nonetheless would have continued to set aside 10,000 for exceptional Y visa holders to become
LPRs.
ȱǻǯȱŗŖřŞȦ ǯǯȱŗşřŖǼȱ
S. 1038/H.R. 1930, the SKIL Act of 2007, would have expanded employment-based LPRs by
exempting the following aliens from worldwide numerical limits: (1) those who have a master’s
or higher degree from an accredited U.S. university; (2) those who have been awarded medical
specialty certification based on postdoctoral training and experience in the United States; (3)
those who will work in shortage occupations; (4) those who have a master’s degree or higher in
science, technology, engineering, or math and have been working in a related field in the United
States during the preceding three-year period; (5) those who have an extraordinary ability or who
have received a national interest waiver. Moreover, S. 1038/H.R. 1930 would have no longer
counted the derivative family members of employment-based LPRs as part of the numerical
ceiling.
ȱǻ ǯǯȱŗŜŚśǼȱ
Congressmen Luis Gutierrez and Jeff Flake introduced a bipartisan immigration reform bill, H.R.
1645, know as the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of
2007 or STRIVE. This legislation was similar, but not identical, to S. 2611 of the 109th Congress.
Specifically, H.R. 1645 would have no longer deducted immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from
the overall family-sponsored numerical limit of 480,000. This change would have likely added at
least 226,000 more family-based admissions annually (based upon the current floor of 226,000
family-sponsored visas). Family-sponsored immigrants would have been reallocated as follows:
up to 10% to unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens; up to 50% to spouses and unmarried
sons and daughters of LPRs, (of which 77% would be allocated to spouses and minor children of

58 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, 2005 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics,
table 6, 2006.
ȱȱȱ
řŚȱ

ǯǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
LPRs); up to 10% to the married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens; and, up to 30% to the
brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens.
STRIVE would have increased the annual number of employment-based LPRs from 140,000 to
290,000 and would have no longer counted the derivative family members of employment-based
LPRs as part of the numerical ceiling. It would, however, have capped the total employment-
based LPRs and their derivatives at 800,000 annually. It would have reallocated employment-
based visas as follows: up to 15% to “priority workers”; up to 15% to professionals holding
advanced degrees and certain persons of exceptional ability; up to 35% to skilled shortage
workers with two years training or experience and certain professionals; up to 5% to employment
creation investors; and up to 30% (135,000) to unskilled shortage workers.
ȱȱȱȱȱ
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee introduced H.R. 750, the Save America Comprehensive
Immigration Act of 2007. Among its array of immigration provisions were those that would have
doubled the number of family-sponsored LPRs from 480,000 to 960,000 annually and would
have doubled the number of diversity visas from 55,000 to 110,000 annually.
ȱ¢ȱ¢ȱȱ
H.R. 938, the Nuclear Family Priority Act would have amended the INA to limit family
sponsored LPRs the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and LPRs. More specifically, it would
have eliminated the existing family-sponsored preference categories for the adult children and
siblings of U.S. citizens and replaced them with a single preference allocation for spouses and
children of LPRs.

ȱȱȱ

Ruth Ellen Wasem

Specialist in Immigration Policy
rwasem@crs.loc.gov, 7-7342

ȱ
LaVonne Mangan, CRS Knowledge Services Group
Marie Quinto, CRS Office of the Counselor to the Director

ȱȱȱ
řśȱ