U.S. Immigration Policy on
Permanent Admissions

Ruth Ellen Wasem
Specialist in Immigration Policy
July 20, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32235
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

Summary
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 FY2008, a total of 1.1 million aliens became LPRs in the United States. Of this total,
64.7% entered on the basis of family ties. Other major categories in FY2008 were employment-
based LPRs (including spouses and children) at 15.0%, and refugees/asylees adjusting to LPR
status at 15.0%. Over 17% of all LPRs come from Mexico, which sent 189,989 LPRs in FY2008.
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. Other possible options are to admit LPRs on the
basis of a point system comprised of education and needed skills or to establish a independent
agency or commission that would set the levels and types of employment-based immigrants.
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. Possible options include treating the
immediate relatives of LPRs as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens are treated under the INA,
i.e., not held to numerical limits or per-country ceilings.
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.

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

Contents
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, 1900-2008 .......................................................................................... 5
FY2008 Admissions.............................................................................................................. 8
Backlogs and Waiting Times ..................................................................................................... 11
Visa Processing Dates ......................................................................................................... 11
Family-Based Visa Priority Dates.................................................................................. 11
Employment-Based Visa Retrogression ......................................................................... 12
Petition Processing Backlogs............................................................................................... 13
Issues and Options in the 111th Congress ................................................................................... 14
Effects of the Current Recession on Legal Immigration ....................................................... 14
Family-Based Preferences ................................................................................................... 15
Permanent Partners ............................................................................................................. 15
Point System....................................................................................................................... 17
Immigration Commission.................................................................................................... 17
Interaction with Legalization Options.................................................................................. 18
Lifting Per-Country Ceilings ............................................................................................... 18

Figures
Figure 1. Annual LPR Admissions and Status Adjustments, 1900-2008 ....................................... 6
Figure 2. Legal Permanent Residents, New Arrivals and Adjustments of Status, FY1997-
FY2008.................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3. Top Sending Countries (Comprising At least Half of All LPRs): Selected
Periods..................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 4. Legal Permanent Residents by Major Category, FY2008 .............................................. 9
Figure 5. Top Ten LPR-Sending Countries, FY2008.................................................................. 10
Figure D-1. Projected Flow of LPRs under S. 2611, FY2007-FY2009 ....................................... 29

Tables
Table 1. Legal Immigration Preference System............................................................................ 3
Table 2. Other Major Legal Immigration Categories .................................................................... 5
Table 3. FY2008 Immigrants, by Category .................................................................................. 9
Table 4. Priority Dates for Family Preference Visas ................................................................... 11
Table 5. Priority Dates for Employment Preference Visas .......................................................... 12
Congressional Research Service

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions


Appendixes
Appendix A. Top 50 Sending Countries in FY2008, by Category of LPR................................... 20
Appendix B. Processing Dates for Immigrant Petitions.............................................................. 22
Appendix C. FY2001-FY2007 Immigrants, by Preference Category.......................................... 23
Appendix D. Recent Legislative History.................................................................................... 25

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 36
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 36

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

Overview
Four major principles currently underlie U.S. policy on legal permanent immigration: the
reunification of families, the admission of immigrants with needed skills, the protection of
refugees, and the diversity of admissions by country of origin. These principles are embodied in
federal law, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) first codified in 1952. The Immigration
Amendments of 1965 replaced the national origins quota system (enacted after World War I) with
per-country ceilings, and the statutory provisions regulating permanent immigration to the United
States were last revised significantly by the Immigration Act of 1990.1
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, 58.0% of all LPRs adjusted to LPR
status in the United States rather than abroad in FY2008.

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...)
Congressional Research Service
1

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

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
Current Law and Policy
Worldwide Immigration Levels
The INA provides for a permanent annual worldwide level of 675,000 legal permanent residents
(LPRs), but this level is flexible and certain categories of LPRs are permitted to exceed the limits,
as described below.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...)
Congressional Research Service
2

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

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.
Note: 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" are to be reduced by up to 5,000 annual y for as long as necessary to offset
adjustments under NACARA.
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

(...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.
Congressional Research Service
3

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

the particular job as well as the preference category. If DOL determines that a labor shortage
exists in the occupation for which the petition is filed, labor certification will be issued. If there is
not a labor shortage in the given occupation, the employer must submit evidence of extensive
recruitment efforts in order to obtain certification.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
Per-Country Ceilings
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.
Other Permanent Immigration Categories
There are several other major categories of legal permanent immigration in addition to the family-
sponsored and employment-based preference categories. These classes of LPRs cover a variety of
cases, ranging from aliens who win the Diversity Visa Lottery to aliens in removal (i.e.,
deportation) proceedings granted LPR status by an immigration judge because of exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship. Table 2 summarizes these major classes and identifies whether they
are numerically limited.

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.
Congressional Research Service
4

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

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
Cancel ation 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 wel -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.
Admissions Trends
Immigration Patterns, 1900-2008
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.
Congressional Research Service
5

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

Figure 1. Annual LPR Admissions and Status Adjustments, 1900-2008
1,400
1,200
1,000
Legalized Aliens
800
600
400
200
0
2008
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.
Congressional Research Service
6

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

Figure 2. Legal Permanent Residents, New Arrivals and Adjustments of Status,
FY1997-FY2008
Thousands
1400
Arrivals
Adjustments
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

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 FY2008, USCIS adjusted 640,568 aliens to LPR status.
In FY2008, 58.0% of all LPRs were adjusting status within the United States (Figure 2). Most
(89.8%) of the employment-based immigrants adjusted to LPR status within the United States in
FY2008. Many (51.4%) of the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens also did so that year. Only
25.0% of the other family-preference immigrants adjusted to LPR status within the United States
in FY2008.
In any given period of United States history, a handful of countries have dominated the flow of
immigrants, but the dominant countries have varied over time. Figure 3 presents trends in the top
immigrant-sending countries (together comprising at least 50% of the immigrants admitted) for
selected decades and illustrates that immigration at the close of the 20th century is not as
dominated by a few countries as it was earlier in the century. These data suggest that the per-
Congressional Research Service
7

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

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 nine countries comprised about half of all
LPRs and this patterns has continued into the 21st century.
Figure 3. Top Sending Countries (Comprising At least Half of All LPRs):
Selected Periods
Percent of All Immigrants
100
80
60
Italy
Mexico
El Salvador
Mexico
Korea
Colombia
India
Cuba
India
El Salvador
40
Domin.Rep.
Domin.Rep.
Italy
Vietnam
Vietnam
India
Canada
Russia
China
China
Domin.Rep.
Vietnam
Philippines
Philippines
China
20
Canada
Philippines
Germany
Mexico
Austria-
Mexico
Hungary
Mexico
Germany
England
0
1901-1910
1921-1930
1951-1960
1981-1990
1991-2000
2001-2008

Source: CRS analysis of Table 2, Statistical Yearbook of Immigration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Office of Immigration Statistics, FY2008.
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 FY2001 through FY2008 are the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Colombia and Cuba
(Western Hemisphere) and the Philippines, India, China, and Vietnam (Asia).
FY2008 Admissions
During FY2008, a total of 1,107,126 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 FY2008, 64.7% entered on the basis
of family ties. Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens made up the single largest group of
immigrants—488,483 as Figure 4 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
Congressional Research Service
8

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

the second largest group. Additional major immigrant groups in FY2008 were employment-based
preference immigrants (including spouses and children) and refugees and asylees adjusting to
LPR status – both at 15.0%.
Figure 4. Legal Permanent Residents by Major Category, FY2008
1.1 million LPRs
0.7 million LPRs
Employment
15.0%
Immediate
Relatives 488,483
Diversity
Family
3.8%
64.7%
Fourth 68,859
Refugees
Third 29,273
15.0%
Second 103,456
First 26,173
Other
1.5%

Source: CRS presentation of FY2008 data from the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics.

Table 3. FY2008 Immigrants, by Category
Total
Immediate relatives of citizens
488,483
Family preference
227,176
Employment preference
166,511
Refugee and asylee adjustments
166,392
Diversity
41,761
Other
16,803
Source: Statistical Yearbook of Immigration, FY2008, DHS Office of Immigration Statistics.
Note: For a more detailed summary of FY2008 immigration by category, see Appendix C.
Congressional Research Service
9

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

As Figure 5 presents, Mexico led all countries with 189,989 foreign nationals who became LPRs
in FY2008. The People Republic of China followed at a distant second with 80,271 LPRs. India
followed with 63,352 LPRs. The Philippines came in fourth with 54,030 LPRs. Three of 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, FY2008
Mexico
China, People's Republic
India
Philippines
Immediate Relatives
Cuba
Other Family
Employment
Dominican Republic
Refugees/Asylees
All Other
Vietnam
Columbia
Korea
Haiti
0
50
100
150
200
Thousands

Source: CRS presentation of FY2008 data from the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics.
The top 10 immigrant-sending countries depicted in Figure 5 accounted for over half of all LPRs
in FY2008. The top 50 immigrant-sending countries contributed 87% of all LPRs in FY2008.
Appendix A provides detailed data on the top 50 immigrant-sending countries by major category
of legal immigration.
Congressional Research Service
10

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

Backlogs and Waiting Times
Visa Processing Dates
According to the INA, family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas are issued to
eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition has been filed. Spouses and children of
prospective LPRs are entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration as the
person qualifying as principal LPR, if accompanying or following to join (referred to as
derivative status). When visa demand exceeds the per-country limit, visas are prorated according
to the preference system allocations (detailed in Table 1) for the oversubscribed foreign state or
dependent area. These provisions apply at present to the following countries 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
January 8, 2003
January 8, 2003
January 8, 2003
January 1, 1991
Sept.15, 1993
sons and
daughters
of citizens
Spouses
January 15, 2005
January 15, 2005
January 15, 2005
Sept. 22, 2002
January 15, 2005
and
children of
LPRs
Unmarried
May 1, 2001
May 1, 2001
May 1, 2001
May 8, 1992
May 1, 1998
sons and
daughters
of LPRs
Married
November 1, 2000
November 1, 2000
November 1, 2000
July 1, 1991
August 8, 1991
sons and
daughters
of citizens
Siblings of
Dec. 22, 1998
Dec. 22, 1998
Dec. 22, 1998
August 1, 1995
Sept. 8, 1986
citizens
age 21 and
over
Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bul etin for August 2009.
Family-Based Visa Priority Dates
As Table 4 evidences, relatives of U.S. citizens and LPRs are waiting in backlogs for a visa to
become available, with the brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens now waiting about 11 years, with
even longer waits for siblings from Mexico and the Philippines. “Priority date” means that
unmarried adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens who filed petitions on January 8, 2003, are
now being processed for visas (with older priority dates for certain countries as noted in Table 4).
Married adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens who filed petitions almost nine years ago
(November 1, 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
Congressional Research Service
11

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

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 23 years ago.
Employment-Based Visa Retrogression
After P.L. 106-313‘s easing of the employment-based per-country limits, few countries and
categories were oversubscribed in the employment-based preferences. For the past several years,
however, “accounting problems” have arisen between USCIS’s processing of LPR adjustments of
status with the United States and Consular Affairs’ processing of LPR visas abroad. As most
(89.8% in 2008) 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.”16
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).17 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.”18 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, except for China and India, which has about a six-year wait. Visas for professional,
skilled, and unskilled workers are unavailable, as Table 5 presents.
Table 5. Priority Dates for Employment Preference Visas
Category Worldwide
China
India
Mexico
Philippines
Priority workers
current
current
current
current
current
Advanced degrees/
current
Oct. 1. 2003
Oct. 1, 2003
current
current
exceptional ability
Skilled and professional unavailable
unavailable
unavailable
unavailable
unavailable
Unskilled unavailable
unavailable
unavailable
unavailable
unavailable

16 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin, is available at http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/
bulletin/bulletin_1360.html.
17 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.
18 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.
Congressional Research Service
12

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

Category Worldwide
China
India
Mexico
Philippines
Special immigrants
current
current
current
current
current
Investors current
current
current
current
current
Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bul etin for August 2009.
Petition Processing Backlogs
Distinct from the visa priority dates that result from the various numerical limits in the law, there
have been 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 2008.19
The 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.20 In
December 2003, USCIS reported 5.3 million immigrant petitions pending.21 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.22 USCIS has altered its definition of what constitutes a backlog, and as a result,
comparable data on the current backlogs are not available.23 The latest processing dates for
immediate relative, family preference, and employment-based LPR petitions are presented in
Appendix B for each of the four USCIS Regional Service Centers, 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.

19 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.
20 Telephone conversation with DOS Bureau of Consular Affairs, February 13, 2004.
21 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.
22 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.
23 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.
Congressional Research Service
13

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

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.24
Issues and Options in the 111th Congress
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.25
Effects of the Current Recession on Legal Immigration
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
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

24 §214(b) of INA. Only the H-1 workers, L intracompany transfers, and V family members are exempted from the
requirement that they prove that they are not coming to live permanently.
25 CRS Report R40501, Immigration Reform Issues in the 111th Congress, by Ruth Ellen Wasem
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
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.
Congressional Research Service
14

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

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.
Family-Based Preferences
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.
Some proponents of immigration reform argue that the immediate relatives of LPRs should be
treated as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens are treated under the INA. In other words, the
spouses and minor children of LPRs -- currently entering as second preference – would no longer
be numerically limited to 114,200 of the worldwide level, nor would they count toward the 7%
per country ceiling. Those supporting this revision of the INA cite the 5-year wait that the spouses
and minor children of LPRs currently face before they can join their family in the United States
and argue that it undermines family values and erodes the institution of the family.
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.
Permanent Partners
The issue of whether gay and lesbian citizens should be able to sponsor the foreign national who
is their permanent partner for LPR status is garnering attention. While the INA does not define
the terms “spouse,” “wife,” or “husband,” the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) declares
that the terms “marriage” and “spouse,” as used in federal enactments, exclude same-sex
marriage.29 Specifically, DOMA states that:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or
interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the
word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and
wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a
wife.30
In addition to DOMA’s definitional limits, the INA law states that spouse, wife, or husband does
not include a spouse, wife, or husband by reason of any marriage ceremony where the contracting

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 For further discussion, see CRS Report RL31994, Same-Sex Marriages: Legal Issues, by Alison M. Smith.
30 1 U.S.C. § 7.
Congressional Research Service
15

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

parties thereto are not physically in the presence of each other, unless the marriage is
consummated.31 This definitional subsection of the INA was added to address concerns over
marriage fraud and mail order brides.
In 1982, the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of a same-sex marriage petition for immediate
relative status in the case of Adams v. Howerton.32 The Ninth Circuit held that to determine if a
marriage is valid for immigration purposes two steps are required: to determine if the marriage is
valid under state law and to determine if the marriage qualifies under the INA. The court held
that words should take their ordinary meaning, and the term marriage ordinarily contemplated a
relationship between a man and a woman:
Congress has not indicated an intent to enlarge the ordinary meaning of those words. In the
absence of such a congressional directive, it would be inappropriate for us to expand the
meaning of the term “spouse” for immigration purposes.33
The regulations provide further guidance on the determination of a bona fide marriage. Among
other criteria, the regulations state that the LPR must establish by clear and convincing evidence
that the marriage was not entered into for the purposes of evading the immigration laws.
Documentation of the marriage is made by evidence such as joint ownership of property, a lease
showing joint tenancy of a common residence, and commingling of financial resources.34
In advocating for the revision of the INA to include same-sex permanent partners, the American
Bar Association concluded, "The current failure to recognize same-sex permanent partnerships
for immigration purposes is cruel and unnecessary, and such critical protections should be
available to help same-sex partners maintain their commitment to one another on an equal basis
with different-sex spouses."35 Supporters of current law, however, have expressed concern that if
immigration law were to recognize same-sex partnerships for purposes of immigration benefits,
opportunities for fraud would increase because such relationships are not legally recognized in
many jurisdictions.36 Others supporting current law oppose same-sex partnerships generally and
argue that there is no reason to provide an exception for purposes under immigration law.


31 INA §101(a)(35).
32 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982).
33 673 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1982).
34 8 CFR §204.2 (a).
35 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, The Uniting American Families Act: Addressing Inequality in
Federal Immigration Law
, Statement of Christopher Nugent on behalf of the American Bar Association, 111th Cong.,
1st sess., June 3, 2009.
36 36 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, The Uniting American Families Act: Addressing Inequality in
Federal Immigration Law
, Statement of Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies, 111th Cong., 1st sess.,
June 3, 2009.

Congressional Research Service
16

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

Point System37
Replacing or supplementing the current preference system (discussed earlier in this report) with a
point system is garnering considerable interest for the first time in over a decade. Briefly, point
systems such as those of Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and New Zealand assign prospective
immigrants with credits if they have specified attributes, most often based upon educational
attainment, shortage occupations, extent of work experience, language proficiency, and desirable
age range.
Proponents of point systems maintain that such merit-based approaches are clearly defined and
based upon the nation’s economic needs and labor market objectives. A point system, supporters
argue, would be more acceptable to the public because the government (rather than employers or
families) would be selecting new immigrants and this selection would be based upon national
economic priorities. Opponents of point systems state that the judgement of individual employers
are the best indicator of labor market needs and an immigrant’s success.
Opponents warn that the number of people who wish to immigrate to the United States would
overwhelm a point system comparable to Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and New Zealand. In
turn, this predicted high volume of prospective immigrants, some say, would likely lead to
selection criteria so rigorous that it would be indistinguishable from what is now the first
preference category of employment-based admissions (persons of extraordinary ability in the arts,
science, education, business, or athletics; outstanding professors and researchers; and certain
multi-national executives and managers) and ultimately would not result in meaningful reform.
Immigration Commission
In 2006, the Independent Task Force convened by the Migration Policy Institute proposed a
Standing Commission on Immigration and Labor Markets that would make regular
recommendations for adjusting levels of labor market immigration to the President and Congress.
As part of this process, this commission would be tasked with providing timely, evidence-based
and impartial analysis.38 More recently, former Labor Secretary Ray Marshall lead an effort
sponsored by the Economic Policy Institute that recommends the creation of an independent
commission to measure labor shortages and to recommend the future numbers and characteristics
of employment-based temporary and permanent immigrants to fill those shortages. This
independent commission, as envisioned by its advocates, would develop measures of labor
market shortages, assess methodologies, and devise processes to adjust foreign labor flows to
employers’ needs while protecting domestic and foreign labor standards.39
Skeptics of an independent immigration commission point out that the current preference system
for selecting employment-based LPRs to the United States is largely based upon the rigors of the
local job markets and the hiring decisions of employers. The commission option might take the

37 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).
38 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security,
Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2009,, Testimony of Doris Meissner of the Migration Policy Institute, 111th
Cong., 1st sess., April 30, 2009.
39 Ray Marshall, Immigration for Shared Prosperity — A Framework for Comprehensive Reform (Washington, DC:
Economic Policy Institute, 2009).
Congressional Research Service
17

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

selection process away from the judgments of individual employers and needs of particular labor
markets and base it on standardized sets of criteria based on national priorities. They warn that
the commission option, as well as the point system option, may lead to a pool over very talented
and qualified LPRs who do not have jobs if the individual employers are not part of the selection
process.
Interaction with Legalization Options
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.40 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
population. For an analysis of this interaction in the recent comprehensive immigration reform
efforts, see Appendix D.
Lifting Per-Country Ceilings
Many advocates for immigration reform state that family reunification should be placed as a
higher priority over per-country ceilings, and cite the multi-year backlogs faced by prospective
family-based LPRs from India, China, Mexico or Philippines. They assert that the per-country
ceilings are arbitrary and must be raised to a level that enables families from all countries to
reunite.41
Others propose not applying per-country ceilings to employment-based preference categories, and
they also point out that the employment-based LPRs from India, China, Mexico or Philippines
face backlogs due to the 7% per-country ceiling. They maintain that employability has nothing to
do with country of birth and that U.S. employers are not allowed to discriminate based on
nationality or country of origin. They argue that it is discriminatory to have laws that limit the
number of employment-based LPRs according to country of origin.42

40 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.
41 National Immigration Forum, "Immigration Backlogs are Separating American Families," Backgrounder, January
2007, http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/FamilyBacklogBackgrounder.pdf.
42 Immigration Voice, "The Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards that Exacerbates the Delays," press release,
undated, http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=47.
Congressional Research Service
18

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

Proponents of per-country ceilings maintain that the statutory ceilings restrain the dominance of
high-demand countries and preserve the diversity of the immigrant flows. Since the Immigration
Amendments of 1965 ended the country-of-origin quota system that overwhelmingly favored
European immigrants and subsequent amendments placed immigrants from Western Hemisphere
countries under the worldwide and per-country limits, U.S. immigration policy has arguably been
more equitable and less discriminatory in terms of country of origin. Supporters of current law
also note that the INA does provide exceptions to the per-country ceilings from which Mexico,
India and China are benefiting.

Congressional Research Service
19

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

Appendix A. Top 50 Sending Countries in FY2008,
by Category of LPR

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 189,989
66,693 8,767
111,703 11
416 2,399
China,
People’s
Republic 80,271 16,403
15,329
26,515
25
21,891 108
India 63,352
15,042 25,577 19,116 65 3,423
129
Philippines 54,030 13,799
9,193
30,662
8
304
64
Cuba 49,500
2,562 12
3,183 224 43,455
64
Dominican
Republic 31,879 9,956
370
21,421
D
D
36
Vietnam 31,497 16,016
420
12,330
3
2,404 324
Columbia 30,213 3,633
3,208
15,074
9
8,194
95
Korea 26,666
2,042
16,165
8,423 7
8
21
Haiti 26,007
9,675 117
8,958 - 5,620
1,637
Pakistan 19,719 6,667
4,224
7,771
5
999
53
El Salvador
19,659
6,802
1,038
6,428
-
590
4,801
Jamaica 18,477
5,790
697
11,937 4
15
34
Guatemala 16,182 2,799
758
8,287
34
951
3,353
Peru 15,184
2,803 1,481
9,832 192 812 64
Canada
15,109
736 6,998 7,044
60
51
220
United
Kingdom
14,348
723 6,630 6,781
106
33
75
Iran 13,852
3,090 2,017 4,491 762 3,465
27
Ethiopia 12,917 614
147
5,123
2,926 4,086 21
Nigeria 12,475
1,236
798
6,927
3,219 253 42
Brazil
12195
328 3,493 8,037
50
229
58
Bangladesh 11753 3,210
1,304
3,883
2,930
385
41
Russia
11,695
235 4,045 4,023
200
3,114
78
Ecuador 11,663 2,977
1,602
6,758
94
170
62
Ukraine
10,813
312 1,334 3,659
2,445
2,690
373
Somalia 10,745
46
18
514
22
10,141 4
Venezuela
10,514
502 2,882 4,463
134
2,497
36
Taiwan 9,073 2,751
3,281
2,762
263 6
10
Egypt 8,712
794
991
2,562 3,344 992 29
Congressional Research Service
20

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

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
Poland 8,354 1,993
1,782
4,453 21 33
72
Ghana 8,195
656
403
5,665 1,142 309 20
Liberia 7,193 221
40
1,211 468 5,240 13
Germany
7,091
188 2,340 3,680
753
101
29
Kenya 6,998
235
486
2,185 1,476 2,610 6
Guyana 6,823 3,758
199
2,797
13
43
13
Japan
6,821
124 2,566 3,824
266
24
17
Thailand 6,637 343
591
3,531
36
2,122 14
Honduras 6,540 2,078
445
3,676
15
182
144
Uzbekistan 6,375
67
189
679
1,980
3,416
44
Trinidad
and Tobago 5,937
1,385
444
4,019
55
5
29
Israel
5,851
241 2,674 2,760
108
48
20
Albania 5,754 132
72
2,041
2,037 1,465 7
Argentina
5,353
181 1,944 2,783
64
362
19
Soviet
Union
(former)
5,270 55
467
4,172
16
382
178
Romania
4,930
272 1,174 2,532
793
147
12
France
4,872
119 2,559 1,851
273
50
20
Iraq
4,795
759 1,361 1,153
71
1,420
31
Morocco 4,425 234
262
2,267
1,626 20
16
Lebanon 4,254 1,250
754
2,047
51
143
9
Turkey
4,210
130 1,290 1,868
814
89
19
Totals 965,167
212,657 144,938 427,861 29,220
135,405
14,990
Source: CRS analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FY2008 Statistical Yearbook of
Immigration Statistics, 2008.
Notes: “D” means that data disclosure standards are not met; “—” represents zero. Table prepared by
LaVonne Mangan, CRS Knowledge Services Group.
Congressional Research Service
21

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

Appendix B. Processing Dates for Immigrant
Petitions

Regional Service Centers
Immigrant Category
California
Nebraska
Texas
Vermont
Immediate relatives
Nov. 15, 2003
N/A
N/A
July 2, 2006
Unmarried sons and daughters of
Oct. 22, 2001
N/A
N/A
June 4, 2006
citizens
Spouses and children of LPRs
April 15, 2002
N/A
N/A
June 4, 2006
Unmarried sons and daughters of LPRs
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Married sons and daughters of citizens
Oct. 22, 1999
N/A
N/A
March 19, 2001
Siblings of citizens age 21 and over
Dec. 22, 2005
N/A
N/A
Jan. 18, 2006
Priority workers—extraordinary
N/A
4 Months
Oct. 1, 2008
N/A
Priority workers—outstanding
N/A
4 Months
Oct. 1, 2008
N/A
Priority workers—executives
N/A
4 Months
Jan. 4, 2008
N/A
Persons with advanced degrees or
N/A
July 1, 2008
Sept. 2, 2008
N/A
exceptional abilities
Skilled workers (at least two years
N/A
4 Months
Jan. 4, 2008
N/A
experience) or professionals (B.A.)
Unskilled shortage workers
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Source: CRS presentation of USCIS information posted July 15, 2009; available at
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/processTimesDisplay.do
Note: Table prepared by LaVonne Mangan, CRS Knowledge Services Group

Congressional Research Service
22

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

Appendix C. FY2001-FY2007 Immigrants, by Preference Category
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)
CRS-23

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

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)
Cancel ation
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.
CRS-24

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

Appendix D. Recent Legislative History
Issues in the 108th Congress
Legislation reforming permanent immigration came from a variety of divergent perspectives in
the 108th Congress. The sheer complexity of the current set of provisions makes revising the law
on permanent immigration a daunting task. This discussion focuses only on those bills that would
have revised the permanent immigration categories and the numerical limits as defined in §201-
§203 of the INA.43
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.

43 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.
Congressional Research Service
25

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

Legislation Passed in the 109th Congress
Recaptured Visa Numbers for Nurses
Section 502 of Division B, Title V of P.L. 109-13 (H.R. 1268, the emergency FY2005
supplemental appropriation) 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.
Recaptured Employment-Based Visa Numbers
On October 20, 2005, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary approved compromise language
that, among other things, would have recaptured up to 90,000 employment-based visas that had
not been issued in prior years (when the statutory ceiling of 140,000 visas was not met). An
additional fee of $500 would have been charged to obtain these recaptured visas. This language
was forwarded to the Senate Budget Committee for inclusion in the budget reconciliation
legislation. On November 18, 2005, the Senate passed S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Omnibus
Reconciliation Act of 2005, with these provisions as Title VIII. These provisions, however, were
not included in the House-passed Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (H.R. 4241).
The conference report (H.Rept. 109-362) on the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (S. 1932) was
reported during the legislative day of December 18, 2005. It did not include the Senate provisions
that would have recaptured employment-based visas unused in prior years. On December 19, the
House agreed to the conference report by a vote of 212-206. On December 21, the Senate
removed extraneous matter from the legislation pursuant to a point of order raised under the
“Byrd rule” and then, by a vote of 51-50 (with Vice President Cheney breaking a tie vote),
returned the amended measure to the House for further action.
Major Issues in the 109th Congress
President Bush’s Immigration Reform Proposal
When President George W. Bush announced his principles for immigration reform in January
2004, he included an increase in permanent legal immigration as a key component. The fact sheet
that accompanied his remarks referred to a “reasonable increase in the annual limit of legal
immigrants.”44 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

44 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.
Congressional Research Service
26

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

path of work, and patience, and assimilation—should be welcome in America, like
generations of immigrants before them.45
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.46
Securing America’s Borders Act (S. 2454)/Chairman’s Mark
Title IV of S. 2454, the Securing America’s Borders Act, which Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
introduced on March 16, 2006, as well as Title V in the draft of Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen
Specter’s mark circulated March 6, 2006 (Chairman’s mark) would have substantially increased
legal immigration and would have restructured the allocation of these visas. The particular
provisions in S. 2454 and the Chairman’s mark were essentially equivalent.
Foremost, Title IV of S. 2454 and Title V of the Chairman’s mark would have no longer deducted
immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from the overall family-sponsored numerical limit of
480,000. This change would have likely added at least 226,000 more family-based admissions
annually (based upon the current floor of 226,000 family-sponsored visas). The bills would have
increased the annual number of employment-based LPRs from 140,000 to 290,000. They also
would have no longer counted the derivative family members of employment-based LPRs as part
of the numerical ceiling. If each employment-based LPR would be accompanied by 1.2 family
members (as is currently the ratio), then an estimated 348,000 additional LPRs might have been
admitted. The bills would have “recaptured” visa numbers from FY2001 through FY2005 in
those cases when the family-based and employment-based ceilings were not reached.
Title IV of S. 2454 and Title V of the Chairman’s mark would have raised the current per-country
limit on LPR visas from an allocation of 7% of the total preference allocation to 10% of the total
preference allocation (which would have 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.

45 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.
46 Washington Times, January 12, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
27

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

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.47
Comprehensive Immigration Reform (S. 2611)
As the Senate was locked in debate on S. 2454 and the Judiciary Chairman’s mark during the
two-week period of March 28-April 7, 2006, an alternative was offered by Senators Chuck Hagel
and Mel Martinez. Chairman Specter, along with Senators Hagel, Martinez, Graham, Brownback,
Kennedy, and McCain introduced this compromise as S. 2611 on April 7, 2006, just prior to the
recess. The identical language was introduced by Senator Hagel (S. 2612). Much like S. 2454 and
S.Amdt. 3192, S. 2611 would have substantially increased legal permanent immigration and
would have restructured the allocation of the family-sponsored and employment-based visas.
After several days of debate and a series of amendments, the Senate passed S. 2611 as amended
by a vote of 62-36 on May 25, 2006.
In its handling of family-based legal immigration, Title V of S. 2611 mirrored Title IV of S. 2454
and Title V of the Chairman’s mark. It would have no longer deducted immediate relatives of
U.S. citizens from the overall family-sponsored numerical limit of 480,000. This change would
have likely added at least 226,000 more family-based admissions annually (based upon the
current floor of 226,000 family-sponsored visas). The numerical limits on immediate relatives of
LPRs would have increased from 114,200 (plus visas not used by first preference) to 240,000
annually.
Assuming that the trend in the number of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens continued at the
same upward rate, the projected number of immediate relatives would have been approximately
470,000 in 2008. Assuming that the demand for the numerically limited family preferences
continued at the same level, the full 480,000 would have been allocated. If these assumptions
held, the United States would have likely admitted or adjusted an estimated 950,000 family-
sponsored LPRs by 2009, as Figure D-1 projects.48

47 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.
48 20 CFR §656.
Congressional Research Service
28

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

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
Congressional Research Service
29

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

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.49
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.50 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.51
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).52
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

49 20 CFR §656.
50 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.
51 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.
52 The per-country ceiling for dependent states are raised from 2% to 7%.
Congressional Research Service
30

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

would have also eliminated the exceptions to the per-country ceilings for certain family-based and
employment-based LPRs, which are discussed above.53
Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (S. 1033/H.R. 2330)
On May 12, 2005, a bipartisan group of Senators and Congressmen54 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.55 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).
Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005
The Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005 (S. 1438), introduced by
Senators John Cornyn and Jon Kyl on July 20, 2005, had provisions that would have restructured
the allocation of employment-based visas for LPRs. Among the various proposals, Title X of this
legislation would have made the following specific changes to the INA provisions on permanent
admissions:
• 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);

53 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.
54 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.
55 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.
Congressional Research Service
31

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

• eliminated the category of diversity visas; and
• recaptured for future allocations those employment-based visa numbers that were
unused from FY2001 through FY2005.
Immigration Accountability Act of 2005
As part of a package of four immigration reform bills, Senator Chuck Hagel introduced the
Immigration Accountability Act of 2005 (S. 1919), which would have provided for “earned
adjustment of status” for certain unauthorized aliens who met specified conditions and would
have expanded legal immigration. In terms of permanent legal admissions, S. 1919 would have
among other provisions:
• no longer deducted immediate relatives from the overall family-sponsored numerical
limits of 480,000;
• treated spouses and minor children of LPRs the same as immediate relatives of U.S.
citizens (i.e., exempt from numerical limits); and
• reallocated the 226,000 family preference numbers to the remaining family
preference categories.
The Hagel immigration reform proposal also included legislation that would have revised the
temporary worker programs, border security efforts, and employment verification.
Enforcement First Immigration Reform Act of 2005
Title VI of the Enforcement First Immigration Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 3938), introduced by
Representative J.D. Hayworth, focused on revising permanent admissions. H.R. 3938 would have
increased employment-based admissions and decreased family-based admissions. More
specifically, it would have
• increased the worldwide ceiling for employment-based admissions by 120,000 to
260,000 annually;
• within the employment-based third preference category, doubled unskilled admission
from 10,000 to 20,000;
• eliminated the family-based fourth preference category (i.e., adult sibling of U.S.
citizens); and
• eliminated the diversity visa category.
H.R. 3938 also had two provisions aimed at legal immigration from Mexico: §604 would have
placed a three-year moratorium on permanent family-preference (not counting immediate
relatives of U.S. citizens) and employment-based admissions from Mexico; and §605 would have
amended the INA to limit family-based immigration from Mexico to 50,000 annually.
Reducing Immigration to a Genuinely Healthy Total (RIGHT) Act of 2005
On September 8, 2005, Representative Thomas Tancredo introduced the “Reducing Immigration
to a Genuinely Healthy Total (RIGHT) Act of 2005” (H.R. 3700), which would have substantially
Congressional Research Service
32

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

overhauled permanent admissions to the United States. Among other provisions, H.R. 3700 would
have
• reduced the worldwide level of employment-based immigrants from 140,000 to 5,200
annually;
• limited the 5,200 employment-based visas to persons of “extraordinary” and
“exceptional” abilities and persons having advanced professional degrees (i.e., first and
second preferences);
• eliminated the family preference visa categories; and
• eliminated the category of diversity visas.
Additional Immigration Reduction Legislation
Representative J. Gresham Barrett introduced an extensive revision of immigration law (H.R.
1912) that also included a significant scaling back of permanent immigration. This legislation was
comparable to legislation he introduced in the 108th Congress.
Permanent Partners
Representative Jerrold Nadler introduced legislation (H.R. 3006) that would have amended the
INA to add “permanent partners” after “spouses” and thus would have enabled aliens defined as
permanent partners to become LPRs through the family-based immigration categories as well as
to become derivative relatives of qualifying immigrants. This bill was comparable to legislation
he introduced previously.
Major Legislation in the 110th Congress
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.56 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.57

56 CQ Today, “Senate Immigration Vote Turns Into a Gamble for Reid and His Caucus,” by Michael Sandler, May 10,
2007.
57 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.
Congressional Research Service
33

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

S. 1639, Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007
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 categories58 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.59 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.60 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.

58 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.
59 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.
60 CRS Report RL32044, Immigration: Policy Considerations Related to Guest Worker Programs, by Andorra Bruno.
Congressional Research Service
34

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

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 246,878.61 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.
SKIL (S. 1038/H.R. 1930)
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.
STRIVE (H.R. 1645)
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

61 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, 2005 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics,
table 6, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
35

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

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.
Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act
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.
Nuclear Family Priority Act
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.

Author Contact Information

Ruth Ellen Wasem

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


Acknowledgments
LaVonne Mangan, CRS Knowledge Services Group




Congressional Research Service
36