Immigration Legislation and Issues in the
112th Congress
Andorra Bruno, Coordinator
Specialist in Immigration Policy
Karma Ester
Information Research Specialist
Margaret Mikyung Lee
Legislative Attorney
Kate M. Manuel
Legislative Attorney
Marc R. Rosenblum
Specialist in Immigration Policy
Ruth Ellen Wasem
Specialist in Immigration Policy
September 30, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42036
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
Summary
Despite President Obama’s calls for a national conversation on immigration reform, immigration
has not been a front-burner issue for the 112th Congress. The 112th Congress, however, has taken
legislative action on some measures containing provisions on a range of immigration-related
topics. The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-
10) includes a provision terminating a special refugee provision known as the Lautenberg
amendment. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations Act, 2012 (H.R.
2017), as passed by the House and reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, contains
border security-related provisions on staffing at ports of entry and enforcement activities between
ports of entry. The House has passed legislation to reauthorize the H-1C temporary worker
category for nurses coming to work in medically underserved areas in the United States (H.R.
1933). It also has passed legislation concerning military service-based immigration benefits (H.R.
398).
In other legislative action, the House Judiciary Committee has reported or ordered reported bills
on electronic employment eligibility verification (H.R. 2885), immigrant detention (H.R. 1932),
visa security (H.R. 1741), and the diversity visa (H.R. 704). House and Senate committees and
subcommittees have held hearings on these and other immigration-related issues.
This report discusses these and other immigration-related issues that have received legislative
action or are of significant congressional interest in the 112th Congress. DHS appropriations are
addressed in CRS Report R41982, Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations, and,
for the most part, are not covered here.
Congressional Research Service
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Border Security................................................................................................................................ 1
At Ports of Entry........................................................................................................................ 2
Between Ports of Entry.............................................................................................................. 3
Border Patrol Staffing ......................................................................................................... 3
Border Surveillance and Technology .................................................................................. 3
Tactical Infrastructure and Border Fencing......................................................................... 4
Activities on Federal Lands and Waivers of Environmental Laws ..................................... 4
Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification .............................................................................. 5
Preemption of State and Local Employment-Verification Measures......................................... 7
Immigrant Detention........................................................................................................................ 7
Visa Security.................................................................................................................................... 8
Diversity Visas............................................................................................................................... 10
Foreign Temporary Nurses ............................................................................................................ 10
U.S. Refugee Program ................................................................................................................... 11
Other Issues and Legislation.......................................................................................................... 12
Secure Communities and the Criminal Alien Program............................................................ 12
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program ......................................................................... 13
State and Local Immigration Measures ................................................................................... 13
Limits on Executive Branch Discretion................................................................................... 14
Victims of Trafficking ............................................................................................................. 14
Immigrant Investors................................................................................................................. 15
Foreign Temporary Agricultural Workers................................................................................ 16
Unauthorized Students............................................................................................................. 17
Birthright Citizenship .............................................................................................................. 17
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands ................................................................... 18
Professional Foreign Temporary Employees........................................................................... 19
Other Legislation Receiving Action ........................................................................................ 19
Military Service-Based Immigration Benefits .................................................................. 19
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 20
Congressional Research Service
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
Introduction
Despite President Obama’s calls for a national conversation on immigration reform and stated
commitment to pursue such reform, immigration has not been a front-burner issue for the 112th
Congress. Unlike in some past years, there has been little discussion in this Congress of
comprehensive immigration reform legislation, which typically has encompassed border security,
employment eligibility verification, temporary worker programs, permanent admissions, and
unauthorized aliens, among other issues.
The 112th Congress has, however, taken legislative action on some immigration-related measures.
For example, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011
(P.L. 112-10) includes a provision terminating a special refugee provision known as the
Lautenberg amendment. The Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2012 (S. 1601), as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, would
re-enact the Lautenberg amendment for FY2012. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Appropriations Act, 2012 (H.R. 2017), as passed by the House and reported by the Senate
Appropriations Committee, contains border security-related provisions on staffing at ports of
entry and enforcement activities between ports of entry. Among the other subjects of
immigration-related legislation before the 112th Congress are employment eligibility verification
(H.R. 2885), immigrant detention (H.R. 1932), visa security (H.R. 1741), diversity visas (H.R.
704), and foreign temporary nurses (H.R. 1933).
This report discusses these and other immigration-related issues that have received legislative
action or are of significant congressional interest in the 112th Congress. DHS appropriations are
addressed in a separate report1 and, for the most part, are not covered here.
Border Security
DHS is charged with protecting U.S. borders from weapons of mass destruction, terrorists,
smugglers, and unauthorized aliens. Border security involves securing the many means by which
people and things can enter the country. Operationally, this means controlling the official ports of
entry (POE) through which legitimate travelers and commerce enter the country, and patrolling
the nation’s land and maritime borders to safeguard against and interdict illegal entries.
At ports of entry, U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Office of Field Operations is
responsible for conducting immigration, customs, and agricultural inspections of travelers seeking
admission to the United States. Between ports of entry, CBP’s border patrol is responsible for
enforcing U.S. immigration law and other federal laws along the border and for preventing
unlawful entries into the United States. In the course of discharging its duties, the border patrol
patrols 8,500 miles of U.S. international borders with Mexico and Canada and the coastal waters
around Florida and Puerto Rico.
Border security has been an important issue for the last several Congresses, with much of the
debate focused on whether DHS has sufficient resources to fulfill its border security mission.
1 CRS Report R41982, Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations, coordinated by William L. Painter
and Jennifer E. Lake.
Congressional Research Service
1
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
Some Members of Congress have argued that Congress should not consider other reforms to the
immigration system, including proposed legalization provisions or changes to the family- or
employment-based visas systems, until DHS is better able to secure the border. With
apprehensions of unauthorized immigrants at a 40-year low, administration officials have argued
that significant progress has been made at the border, though continued investments are needed.2
The following discussion focuses on key border-related provisions that have been, and may in the
future be, considered by the 112th Congress with respect to staffing at ports of entry and
enforcement activities between ports of entry, including on federal lands.
At Ports of Entry
Many of the questions about CBP screening at ports of entry concern appropriations for CBP
agents, infrastructure, and technology. The House passed its FY2012 DHS appropriations bill in
June 2011 (H.R. 2017), supporting the Administration’s request to fund 300 additional CBP
officers at new and expanded ports of entry, increase funding for canine units at ports of entry,
expand the Immigration Advisory Program from 9 to 13 overseas airports,3 and add 45 CBP
officers and 20 analysts to the National Targeting Center.4 The Senate Appropriations Committee
reported its DHS appropriations bill in September 2011 and also supported Administration
requests to fund these programs.5 On September 26, 2011, the Senate used H.R. 2017 as a vehicle
to pass an FY2012 continuing resolution to fund DHS through November 18, 2011. The Senate-
passed version of H.R. 2017 would not appropriate funds for DHS beyond November 18 and does
not affect the Senate Appropriations Committee report. Additional bills have been proposed to
add up to 5,000 additional CBP officers at POEs, along with support staff, and to make additional
investments in port infrastructure.6
The House and Senate Appropriations Committee reports on the FY2012 DHS appropriations bill
specified how to allocate resources for CBP. For example, while both committees supported the
Administration’s request for additional CBP agents at new and expanded ports, the House also
directed the Administration to consider ways to reduce CBP staffing requirements through greater
automation, segmentation of high- and low-risk travelers and trade, and technology investments.7
The committees also recommended that CBP devote additional resources to Automated Targeting
Systems and the National Targeting Center to enhance passenger and cargo targeting efforts.8
2 See, for example, Testimony of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Securing the Border: Progress at the Federal Level,
hearing, 112th Cong., 1st sess., May 4, 2011.
3 The Immigration Advisory Program deploys CBP officers to overseas airports to prevent terrorists and improperly
documented passengers from boarding U.S.-bound aircraft.
4 The National Targeting Center provides advanced targeting, research, and coordination among numerous law
enforcement and intelligence agencies in support of CBP’s anti-terrorism mission with respect to passenger and cargo
screening. See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department
of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2012, Report to Accompany H.R. 2017, 112th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 112-
91, May 26, 2011, p. 24 (hereafter cited as House Committee on Appropriations Report on H.R. 2017).
5 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Bill, 2012, Report to Accompany H.R. 2017, 112th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 112-74, September
7, 2011, p. 30 (hereafter cited as Senate Committee on Appropriations Report on H.R. 2017).
6 See, for example, Putting Our Resources Toward Security (PORTS) Act (H.R. 1561).
7 House Committee on Appropriations Report on H.R. 2017, pp. 27-28.
8 Ibid., p. 25; Senate Committee on Appropriations Report on H.R. 2017, p. 42.
Congressional Research Service
2
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
Between Ports of Entry
Between ports of entry, congressional attention in recent years has focused on border patrol
staffing, surveillance technology, and fencing and other physical barriers. The House-passed
version of the FY2012 DHS appropriations bill and the House and Senate Appropriations
Committee reports included related provisions, and each of these topics may receive additional
attention in the 112th Congress, as discussed below. Congress may also consider proposals to
broaden DHS authority to conduct enforcement activities on federal lands and to waive
environmental and other regulations.
Border Patrol Staffing
With ongoing support from Congress, DHS has substantially increased border patrol staffing
along the southwest and northern borders over the last decade, with total border patrol staffing
increasing from 9,821 in FY2001 to 21,370 projected for FY2012.9 Congress is likely to continue
supporting border patrol staffing; H.R. 2017, as passed by the House and reported by the Senate,
includes funds for 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents added by the FY2010 Border Security
Supplemental (P.L. 111-230). A number of bills have been proposed in the 112th Congress to
authorize further growth in the border patrol and/or to direct the Department of Defense (DOD) to
deploy National Guard troops to the southwest border.10 Nonetheless, given Congress’s interest in
fiscal austerity, questions may arise about the cost effectiveness of CBP’s enforcement efforts
based on statistics that go beyond DHS’s traditional measure of enforcement outcomes (i.e.,
apprehensions) to include “better quantification of the denominators—the number of illegal
crossers and volume of contraband coming across the border.”11
Border Surveillance and Technology
For several years, Congress has supported a series of DHS programs aimed at achieving “border
situational awareness.” Through these programs, CBP agents track movement in border areas,
identity and classify (i.e., prioritize) illegal entries, correlate entries with the positions of nearby
agents, and use this information to make tactical interdiction decisions. DHS’s primary effort to
provide such an integrated surveillance system between 2006 and 2011 was known as SBInet. But
cost overruns, technical problems, and scheduling delays led the agency to terminate the SBInet
contract in January 2011 in favor of a new Arizona Border Technology Plan that relies on a
broader mix of off-the-shelf surveillance technology and continued investment in SBInet-style
integrated surveillance towers.12 In congressional reports on H.R. 2017, House and Senate
appropriators expressed frustration with delayed implementation of border technology programs.
The House-passed version of the FY2012 DHS appropriations bill and the House and Senate
Appropriations Committee reports would cut border technology funding relative to FY2011 and
9 U.S. Border Patrol, Border Patrol Agent Staffing by Fiscal Year, http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/
border_security/border_patrol/usbp_statistics/staffing_92_10.ctt/staffing_92_10.pdf; U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2012, p. CBP S&E – 66.
10 See, for example, National Guard Border Enforcement Act (H.R. 152) and Secure America Through Verification and
Enforcement (SAVE) Act of 2011 (H.R. 2000).
11 House Committee on Appropriations Report on H.R. 2017, p. 33.
12 Testimony of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Assistant Commissioner Mark S. Borkowski, U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, Strengthening the Border:
Finding the Right Mix of Personnel, Infrastructure and Technology, hearing, 112th Cong., 1st sess., March 15, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
3
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
the Administration’s FY2012 budget estimate.13 Recent Congresses have also supported DHS’s
use of surveillance aircraft, including unmanned aerial systems (UASs), and several bills in the
current Congress would authorize additional collaboration between DHS and DOD on aerial
surveillance.14
Tactical Infrastructure and Border Fencing
In the five years since Congress passed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-367), DHS has
installed over 400 miles of pedestrian fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border. As
of March 2011, DHS reports a total of 299 miles of vehicle fencing and 350 miles of pedestrian
fencing in place along the southwest border. This represents 99.5% of the 652 miles of fencing
that CBP reportedly plans to install,15 and 92.7% of the 700 miles of fencing specified by
Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161). CBP also has ongoing
expenses associated with maintaining border infrastructure, including the repair of breaches in the
fence. Several pieces of legislation introduced in the 112th Congress would authorize or require
additional fencing and barriers.16
Activities on Federal Lands and Waivers of Environmental Laws
Over 800 miles of the southwest border and over 1,000 miles of the northern border consist of
national forests and parks and other federal lands. The 112th Congress has held hearings on
challenges associated with immigration enforcement on federal lands.17 Historically, these
challenges have included jurisdictional conflicts between the border patrol and agencies within
the Departments of the Interior (DOI) and Agriculture (USDA) that are responsible for law
enforcement on federal borderlands,18 and lawsuits filed under environmental laws and
regulations that have blocked or delayed fence construction.
Administration officials report that recent memoranda of agreement among DHS, DOI, and
USDA have led to greater cooperation with respect to immigration enforcement on federal
lands,19 and legislation passed between 1996 and 2006 gave DHS broad authority to waive
13 The House Committee recommended $500 million for Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology—
$74 million below the FY2011 level and $28 million below the Administration’s request; see House Committee on
Appropriations Report on H.R. 2017, pp. 41-43. H.R. 2017, as passed by the House, would provide $500 million for
these purposes. The Senate Committee recommended $400 million for Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and
Technology; see Senate Committee on Appropriations Report on H.R. 2017, pp. 43-44.
14 See, for example, Border Security Enforcement Act of 2011 (H.R. 1507/S. 803), SAVE Act (H.R. 2000).
15 Testimony of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher, U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, hearing,
112th Cong., 1st sess., March 16, 2011.
16 See, for example, Unlawful Border Entry Prevention Act of 2011 (H.R. 1091) and Border Security Enforcement Act
(H.R. 1507/S. 803).
17 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
and House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense,
and Foreign Operations, The Border: Are Environmental Laws and Regulation Impeding Security and Harming the
Environment?, hearing, 112th Cong., 1st sess., April 15, 2011.
18 See, for example, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to
Better Ensure a Coordinated Federal Response to Illegal Activity on Federal Lands, GAO-11-177, November 2010,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11177.pdf.
19 Testimony of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Deputy Chief Ronald Vitiello, U.S. Congress, House Committee
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
environmental statutes and other requirements that might otherwise delay construction.20
Nonetheless, a recent GAO report recommended that additional steps be taken to improve
information sharing and interagency communication.21 And legislation has been introduced in the
112th Congress that would waive application of certain environmental laws to border enforcement
activities on lands within 100 miles of the border and would allow DHS to conduct certain
security activities on federal lands without permission from DOI or USDA, including routine
motorized patrols and deployment of temporary tactical infrastructure.22
Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification
Employment eligibility verification is receiving attention in the 112th Congress. Several related
bills have been introduced, including the Legal Workforce Act (H.R. 2885), which was ordered
reported by the House Judiciary Committee in September 2011. An earlier version of this bill
(H.R. 2164) was the subject of a hearing by the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on
Immigration Policy and Enforcement in June 2011. Employment eligibility verification and the
related issue of worksite enforcement are widely viewed as essential components of a strategy to
reduce unauthorized immigration.
Under § 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),23 it is unlawful for an employer to
knowingly hire, recruit or refer for a fee, or continue to employ an alien who is not authorized to
be so employed. Employers are further required to participate in a paper-based (I-9) employment
eligibility verification system in which they examine documents presented by new hires to verify
identity and work eligibility, and to complete and retain I-9 verification forms. Employers
violating prohibitions on unlawful employment may be subject to civil and/or criminal penalties.
Enforcement of these provisions is termed “worksite enforcement” and is the responsibility of
DHS’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). While all employers must meet the I-9
requirements, they may also elect to participate in the E-Verify electronic employment eligibility
verification system.24 E-Verify is administered by DHS’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS). Participants in E-Verify electronically verify new hires’ employment
authorization through Social Security Administration (SSA) and, if necessary, DHS databases.25
E-Verify is a temporary program and is currently authorized until September 30, 2012. Several
bills introduced in the 112th Congress would variously make E-Verify permanent, require its use
(...continued)
on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, The Border: Are Environmental
Laws and Regulation Impeding Security and Harming the Environment, hearing, 112th Cong., 1st sess., April 15, 2011.
20 § 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 (P.L. 104-208, Div.
C); § 102 of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, Div. B).
21 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Ensure a
Coordinated Federal Response to Illegal Activity on Federal Lands, GAO-11-177, November 2010,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11177.pdf.
22 See, for example, National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act (H.R. 1505).
23 Act of June 27, 1952, ch. 477; 66 Stat. 163; codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. The INA is the basis of
current immigration law.
24 While E-Verify is primarily a voluntary program, there are some mandatory participants. See CRS Report R40446,
Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification, by Andorra Bruno.
25 For additional information on E-Verify, see Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
5
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
for verification of new hires, and permit or require its use for verification of previously hired
workers.26 Other bills would authorize a new electronic employment eligibility verification
system to replace E-Verify.27 Discussion of proposals to expand electronic employment eligibility
verification requirements—whether though E-Verify or another system—have raised some
concerns about labor shortages in sectors of the economy that are known to employ large
numbers of unauthorized aliens, such as agriculture. (Legislative proposals on foreign agricultural
workers are discussed in a subsequent section.)
Among the bills that would authorize a new electronic verification system is H.R. 2885, which
has been ordered reported by the House Judiciary Committee. The new system would be modeled
on E-Verify and the authorizing language would be added to INA § 274A. Under H.R. 2885, as
ordered reported, the new verification system would be mandatory for all employers in cases of
hiring, recruitment, and referral. The verification requirements with respect to hiring would be
phased in by employer size, with the largest employers required to participate six months after the
date of enactment and the smallest employers required to participate two years after the date of
enactment. The requirements with respect to recruitment and referral would apply one year after
the date of enactment. The bill would also provide for mandatory reverification of workers with
limited work authorization. These reverification requirements would be phased in on the same
schedule as the hiring requirements. Special provisions would apply to agriculture; the hiring,
recruitment and referral, and reverification provisions would not apply to agricultural workers
until three years after the date of enactment. As introduced, the bill also provided that seasonal
agricultural workers returning to work for a previous employer would not be treated as new hires
for verification purposes, but an amendment to strike this language was agreed to at the markup.
H.R. 2885, as ordered reported, would require or permit electronic verification in ways not
currently allowed under E-Verify. Verification of previously hired individuals would be
mandatory in some cases (such as federal, state, and local government employees), while
employers could verify current employees on a voluntary basis beginning 30 days after
enactment. Under H.R. 2885, employers could conduct electronic verification after making an
offer of employment but before hiring, and could condition a job offer on final verification under
the system.
H.R. 2885, as ordered reported by the House Judiciary Committee, would increase existing civil
and criminal penalties for violations of INA § 274A provisions on unauthorized employment. It
would also establish new penalties, including for individuals who knowingly provide social
security numbers or DHS identification numbers that belong to others and for employers who
submit such numbers for verification knowing that they belong to someone other that the subject
of the query. Lastly, the bill would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with
the Social Security Commissioner and the Director of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, to establish a biometric employment eligibility verification pilot program that would
be voluntary for employers.
26 See, for example, Jobs Recovery by Ensuring a Legal American Workforce Act of 2011 (H.R. 800) and
Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act (S. 1196).
27 See, for example, Illegal Immigration Enforcement and Social Security Protection Act of 2011 (H.R. 98), Electronic
Employment Eligibility Verification and Illegal Immigration Control Act (H.R. 483), and Legal Workforce Act (H.R.
2885).
Congressional Research Service
6
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
Preemption of State and Local Employment-Verification Measures
Some states and localities have sought to deter unauthorized aliens from entering or remaining
within their jurisdiction by requiring employers to use E-Verify and/or imposing sanctions on
employers found to have hired unauthorized aliens.28 The Supreme Court recently upheld one
such measure, the Legal Arizona Workers Act, finding that it was not preempted by federal
immigration law.29 Some lower courts had previously found that similar measures were
preempted, in part, because of the burdens that employers operating in multiple states would bear
in complying with different state laws.30 Some business groups have responded to the Supreme
Court’s decision in the Arizona case by lobbying for a single national electronic verification
regime.31 H.R. 2885, as ordered reported by the House Judiciary Committee, would establish such
a regime, expressly preempting state and local E-Verify measures, along with other measures
“relat[ing] to the hiring, continued employment, or status verification for employment eligibility
purposes, of unauthorized aliens.” However, H.R. 2885 would allow states and localities to
revoke the business or other licenses of employers who fail to electronically verify the
employment eligibility of their workers.
Other bills introduced in the 112th Congress would expressly preempt state and local measures
prohibiting employers from verifying new hires or current employees through E-Verify. 32 Illinois
once had such a measure, but it was found to be preempted by federal immigration law.33
Immigrant Detention
Certain removable aliens cannot be removed from the United States because they do not have
travel documents permitting them to return to their country of origin or because the aliens are
more likely than not to be subject to torture if returned to the country of origin.34 The U.S.
Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001)35 that such aliens could only be detained
following an order of removal for so long as is “reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s
removal from the United States,” but that the INA “does not permit indefinite detention.” The
Court found that the presumptively reasonable limit for the post-removal-period detention is six
months, but indicated that continued detention may be warranted when the policy is limited to
specially dangerous individuals, such as terrorists or those in other special circumstances, and
strong procedural protections are in place.
28 See CRS Report R41991, State and Local Restrictions on Employing Unauthorized Aliens, by Kate M. Manuel.
29 Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting, – U.S.—, 131 S. Ct. 1968 (2011).
30 See, for example, Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170, 213 (3d Cir. 2010), vacated and remanded by 180 L.
Ed. 2d 243, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4259 (U.S. 2011).
31 See, fro example, Uptick in State Immigration Laws May Force Congress to Act, Speakers Say, 5 Workplace
Immigration Report 381 (July 25, 2011).
32 See, for example, Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act (S. 1196).
33 United States v. Illinois, No. 07-3261, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19533 (C.D. Ill., March 12, 2009).
34 For a discussion of the Convention Against Torture, see CRS Report RL32276, The U.N. Convention Against
Torture: Overview of U.S. Implementation Policy Concerning the Removal of Aliens, by Michael John Garcia.
35 533 U.S. 678, 121 S. Ct. 2491, 150 L. Ed. 2d 653 (2001).
Congressional Research Service
7
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
Following the Court’s ruling in Zadvydas, new regulations were issued to comply with the
Court’s holding.36 ICE generally can only detain an alien beyond the initial 90-day removal
period if ICE determines that the alien is likely to abscond if released or that the alien poses a
danger to the public, or if ICE is likely to obtain travel documents for the alien in the near
future.37 Under regulation, ICE may not detain an alien for more than six months unless the
alien’s removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, except in special circumstances,
including aliens who are detained on account of (1) having a highly contagious disease that is a
threat to public safety, (2) serious adverse foreign policy consequences of release, (3) security or
terrorism concerns, or (4) being considered specially dangerous due to having committed one or
more crimes of violence and having a mental condition making it likely that the alien will commit
acts of violence in the future.38
On July 14, 2011, the House Judiciary Committee approved the Keep Our Communities Safe Act
of 2011 (H.R. 1932). 39 Among other provisions, the bill would allow DHS to detain indefinitely,
subject to six-month reviews, an alien under orders of removal who cannot be removed if (1)
there is a significant likelihood that the alien will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable
future; (2) the alien would have been removed but for the alien’s refusal to cooperate with the
DHS Secretary’s identification and removal efforts; (3) the alien has a highly contagious disease
that poses a public safety threat; (4) release would have serious adverse foreign policy
consequences; (5) release would threaten national security; (6) release would threaten the safety
of the community, and the alien has either been convicted of one or more aggravated felonies or
other designated crimes or been convicted of one or more crimes of violence and due to a mental
condition or personality disorder is likely to engage in future acts of violence; or (7) release
would threaten the safety of the community, and the alien has been convicted of at least one
aggravated felony. The bill would limit habeas corpus reviews40 of such detention and related
actions or decisions to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Also, the bill would
permit unlimited detention of certain aliens during pending removal proceedings.
Visa Security
The Department of State (DOS) and DHS each plays a key role in administering the law and
policies on the admission of aliens to the United States. Although, DOS’s Consular Affairs is
responsible for issuing visas, USCIS in DHS approves immigrant petitions, ICE in DHS operates
the Visa Security Program in selected U.S. embassies abroad, and CBP in DHS inspects all people
who enter the United States.
All foreign nationals seeking visas must undergo admissibility reviews performed by DOS
consular officers abroad. These reviews are intended to ensure that applicants are not ineligible
36 See 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13-14 and discussion at 66 Federal Register 56967 (November 14, 2001) of procedures for
determining whether there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future and for
determining whether an alien is subject to special circumstances justifying continued detention.
37 8 C.F.R. § 241.4.
38 Ibid.
39 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Full Committee Markup of H.R. 1932, the “Keep Our
Communities Safe Act of 2011,” 112th Cong., 1st sess., July 14, 2011, http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/
7%2014%2011%20HR%201932%20HR%202480%20HR%201002.pdf.
40 Habeas corpus review is a legal action through which a person’s detention is reviewed for legality.
Congressional Research Service
8
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
for admission to the United States under the grounds for inadmissibility spelled out in INA § 212.
These criteria include health-related grounds, criminal history, security and terrorist concerns,
public charge (e.g., indigence), and previous immigration offenses.41
Consular officers use the Consular Consolidated Database (CCD) to screen visa applicants.
Records of all visa applications are now automated in the CCD, with some records dating back to
the mid-1990s. Since February 2001, the CCD has stored photographs of all visa applicants in
electronic form, and the CCD has stored 10-finger scans since 2007. In addition to indicating the
outcome of any prior visa application and comments by consular officers, the system links to
other security databases to flag problems that may have an impact on the issuance of the visa.
Congress is particularly interested in the Visa Security Program (VSP), which the ICE Office of
International Affairs (OIA) operates in certain high-risk consular posts. As described by DHS, the
VSP sends ICE special agents with expertise in immigration law and counterterrorism to foreign
consulates, where they perform visa security activities that complement the DOS visa screening
process. According to DHS, the VSP provides law enforcement resources not available to
consular officers. One of the major tasks for VSP agents is to screen visa applicants to determine
their risk profiles.
GAO recently released an evaluation of the VSP that identified several shortcomings. In addition
to noting that tensions exist between consular officials and VSP agents, GAO was especially
concerned about the lack of standard operating procedures for VSP agents across the various
posts. Most importantly, perhaps, GAO stated that ICE has not expanded VSP to key high-risk
posts despite well-publicized plans to do so.42
Despite the VSP’s implementation problems, some observers maintain that DHS should play a
larger role in visa security. In their view, DOS retains too much power over visa issuances, and
consular officers are too concerned about facilitating tourism and trade to thoroughly scrutinize
visa applicants. From this perspective, greater responsibility should be given to the VSP, which
does not have competing priorities of diplomatic relations and reciprocity with foreign
governments, and may subject visa applications to greater scrutiny.43
Along these lines, the House Committee on the Judiciary has ordered reported the Secure Visas
Act (H.R. 1741) that would give the Secretary of Homeland Security “exclusive authority to issue
regulations, establish policy, and administer and enforce the provisions of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) and all other immigration or nationality laws relating to
the functions of consular officers of the United States in connection with the granting and refusal
of a visa.”
41 CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion: Policy and Trends, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem.
42 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Border Security: DHS’s Visa Security Program Needs to Improve
Performance Evaluation and Better Address Visa Risk Worldwide, GAO-11-315, March 31, 2011, http://www.gao.gov/
products/GAO-11-315.
43 For additional information, see CRS Report R41093, Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and
Homeland Security, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
Congressional Research Service
9
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
Diversity Visas
The purpose of the diversity immigrant visa lottery is, as the name suggests, to encourage legal
immigration from countries other than the major sending countries of current immigrants to the
United States. Current law weights the allocation of immigrant visas heavily toward aliens with
close family in the United States and, to a lesser extent, toward aliens who meet particular
employment needs. The diversity immigrant category was added to the INA by the Immigration
Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-649) to stimulate “new seed” immigration (i.e., to foster new, more varied
migration from other parts of the world).
To be eligible for a diversity visa, the INA requires that the foreign national must have a high
school education or the equivalent, or two years of experience in an occupation that requires at
least two years of training or experience. The foreign national or the foreign national’s spouse
must be a native of one of the countries listed as a foreign state qualified for the diversity visa
lottery. Diversity lottery winners, like all other aliens wishing to come to the United States, must
undergo reviews performed by Department of State consular officers abroad and Department of
Homeland Security immigration officers upon entry to the United States. These reviews are
intended to ensure that the aliens are not ineligible for visas or admission under the grounds for
inadmissibility spelled out in the INA.
The diversity lottery currently makes 50,000 visas available annually to natives of countries that
accounted for fewer than 50,000 immigrant admissions in total over the preceding five years. The
formula for allocating visas is based upon the statutory specifications; visas are divided among
six global geographic regions according to the relative populations of the regions.
Some argue that the diversity lottery should be eliminated and its visas used for backlog reduction
in other visa categories. Supporters of the diversity visa, however, argue that the diversity visa
provides “new seed” immigrants for an immigration system weighted disproportionately toward
family-based immigrants from a handful of countries. Critics of the diversity lottery warn that it is
vulnerable to fraud and misuse, and potentially an avenue for terrorists, citing the difficulties of
performing background checks in many of the countries eligible for the diversity lottery.
Supporters respond that background checks for criminal and national security matters are
performed on all prospective immigrants seeking to come to the United States, including those
winning diversity visas. On July 21, 2011, the House Committee on the Judiciary ordered
reported H.R. 704, the Security and Fairness Enhancement for America Act of 2011 (SAFE for
America Act), which would amend the INA to eliminate the diversity visa lottery.44
Foreign Temporary Nurses
The H-1C nonimmigrant category for nurses was established by a 1999 law (P.L. 106-95) and
reauthorized in 2006 (P.L. 109-423) as a short-term solution for nursing shortages in a limited
number of medically underserved areas. Facilities have to be approved to employ H-1C nurses.45
The authority to issue H-1C visas expired on December 20, 2009. Previously, the law allowed for
the issuance of 500 nonimmigrant visas to nurses each year, with the proviso that the number of
44 For additional information, see CRS Report R41747, Diversity Immigrant Visa Lottery Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
45 There are 14 hospitals approved to hire H-1C nurses.
Congressional Research Service
10
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
visas issued annually for employment in smaller states could not exceed 25 and the number
issued for employment in larger states could not exceed 50. The law limited an H-1C nurse’s stay
to three years.
H.R. 1933, as passed by the House, would reauthorize the H-1C category for three years. It also
would amend the law to allow for the issuance of 300 nonimmigrant visas to nurses each year,
and to limit an H-1C nurse’s initial stay to three years with the opportunity to renew the visa for
another three years (i.e., a total stay of six years). The bill would provide H-1C nurses with
portability by allowing an H-1C nurse to begin employment at another hospital approved to
employ aliens in this visa category while the petition filed by the new employer is being
adjudicated. Employment at the new facility would end if the petition is denied.
U.S. Refugee Program
The admission of refugees to the United States is a perennial immigration issue. Refugee
admission and resettlement are authorized by the INA.46 Under the INA, a refugee is a person
who is outside his or her country and who is unable or unwilling to return because of persecution
or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion. Refugees are processed and admitted to the United
States from abroad. The Department of State handles overseas processing of refugees, and
DHS/USCIS makes final determinations about eligibility for admission.47 After one year in
refugee status in the United States, refugees are required to apply to adjust to legal permanent
resident (LPR) status.
Several bills have been introduced in the 112th Congress that would make various changes to the
U.S. refugee program. Some of these measures propose to reform the refugee admissions process,
such as by authorizing the President to designate groups of aliens of humanitarian concern that,
absent countervailing factors, would be considered refugees for purposes of admission and by
changing existing INA provisions regarding the admission of refugee spouses and children.48
Other proposals focus more directly on the resettlement assistance program for refugees and other
designated groups administered by the Department of Heath and Human Services’ Office of
Refugee Resettlement (HHS/ORR).49
Special legislative provisions facilitate relief for certain refugee groups. The “Lautenberg
amendment,” first enacted in 1989, required the Attorney General (now the Secretary of DHS) to
designate categories of former Soviet and Indochinese nationals for whom less evidence is
needed to prove refugee status, and provided for adjustment to LPR status for certain former
Soviet and Indochinese nationals denied refugee status. P.L. 108-199 amended the Lautenberg
amendment to add a new provision, known as the “Specter amendment,” to direct the Attorney
General to establish categories of Iranian religious minorities who may qualify for refugee status
under the Lautenberg amendment’s reduced evidentiary standard. The Lautenberg amendment
46 The Refugee Act (P.L. 96-212, March 17, 1980) amended the INA to establish procedures for the admission of
refugees to the United States.
47 For additional information on the U.S. refugee program, see CRS Report RL31269, Refugee Admissions and
Resettlement Policy, by Andorra Bruno.
48 See, for example, Refugee Protection Act of 2011 (H.R. 2185/S. 1202).
49 See, for example, Domestic Refugee Resettlement Reform and Modernization Act of 2011 (H.R. 1475).
Congressional Research Service
11
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
was regularly extended through FY2010. For FY2011, Congress extended the amendment only
until June 1, 2011, in P.L. 112-10 (Division B, Title XI, § 2121(m)). The Lautenberg amendment
terminated on June 1, 2011. The Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2012 (S. 1601), as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, would
re-enact the Lautenberg amendment for FY2012.
Other Issues and Legislation
Secure Communities and the Criminal Alien Program
With longstanding support from Congress, ICE makes it a priority to identify, detain, and remove
aliens who have been convicted of crimes in the United States, with a particular focus on aliens
who have been convicted of aggravated felonies as defined in § 101(a)(43) of the INA and on
aliens who have been convicted of two or more crimes each punishable by more than one year in
jail (i.e., two or more felonies).50 Beginning in FY2008, Congress roughly doubled ICE’s funding
for the Criminal Alien Program, an umbrella program to identify aliens in federal, state, and local
jails and initiate removal proceedings against removable aliens prior to the conclusion of their
sentences. It also provided additional line-item funding for the Comprehensive Identification and
Removal of Criminal Aliens, a program subsequently known as Secure Communities.51 Under
Secure Communities, when participating law enforcement agencies submit the fingerprints of
arrestees to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for criminal background checks, the
fingerprints are also checked against DHS databases. When an arrestee appears to be subject to
removal, ICE’s Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) notifies the ICE Enforcement and
Removal field office in the arresting jurisdiction.
ICE views Secure Communities, in particular, as an efficient way to carry out the agency’s
mandate to identify criminal aliens and to make the removal of criminal aliens an enforcement
priority. The Obama Administration plans to expand the program to every law enforcement
jurisdiction in the country by the end of 2013.52 The program has generated controversy, however.
This is due, in part, to reports that some aliens identified and removed through Secure
Communities have not been convicted of “serious” crimes or any criminal offense, as well as
concerns that state and local involvement in enforcing federal immigration law could lead to
racial profiling or strain police-community relations.53 In addition, characterization of the
program by ICE and DHS appears to have changed over time, prompting questions about whether
states and localities may determine whether to participate in it and how, if at all, they may “opt
out.”54
50 John Morton, Memorandum on Civil Immigration Enforcement: Priorities for the Apprehension, Detention, and
Removal of Aliens, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Washington, DC, March 2, 2011, http://www.ice.gov/
doclib/news/releases/2011/110302washingtondc.pdf; also see CRS Report RL32480, Immigration Consequences of
Criminal Activity, by Michael John Garcia.
51 See CRS Report R41189, Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations, coordinated by Jennifer E. Lake
and William L. Painter.
52 For the Administration’s views of Secure Communities, see U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Secure
Communities, March 2011, http://www.ice.gov/secure_communities/.
53 See U.S. Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council, “Task Force on Secure Communities Findings and
Recommendations,” September 2011.
54 See, for example, Tara Bahrampour, “Immigration Authority Terminates Secure Communities Agreements,” The
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
In line with efforts to expand Secure Communities, several bills in the 112th Congress would deny
funding for various Department of Justice programs, including the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program, to jurisdictions that do not participate fully in Secure Communities and/or in
other aspects of ICE’s Criminal Alien Program.55 Other proposed legislation would respond to
concerns about whether state and local participation in Secure Communities leads to racial
profiling or interferes with police-community relations.56
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) provides reimbursement to state and local
governments for the direct costs associated with incarcerating unauthorized criminal aliens.
Authorization for SCAAP expires on September 30, 2011. Legislation has been introduced to
reauthorize the program and make changes to the grant formula.57
The President’s FY2012 budget request for SCAAP includes a new requirement to only provide
reimbursement for costs associated with DHS-verified unauthorized criminal aliens. In order to
prepare for this change, SCAAP jurisdictions have been encouraged to work with DHS to
increase inmate alien status verifications through the Secure Communities, 287(g), and the Law
Enforcement Support Center (LESC) programs.58
State and Local Immigration Measures
In recent years, several states and localities have sought to deter the presence of unauthorized
aliens within their jurisdictions through a variety of enforcement measures, with Arizona’s S.B.
1070 being perhaps the most notable example.59 Many of these measures have been challenged in
federal court, with litigation generally focusing on whether these enactments are consistent with
federal immigration law. The Supreme Court recently held that states are not precluded from
requiring employers to use the federal government’s E-Verify system to determine the work
eligibility of employees, or requiring the suspension or revocation of the business licenses of
entities that knowingly employ unauthorized aliens.60 Several other state and local measures
intended to deter the presence of unlawfully present aliens—including measures that sanction
conduct that may facilitate unauthorized immigration, authorize state and local police to
investigate and arrest persons suspected of violating federal immigration law, or limit
(...continued)
Washington Post, August 7, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration-authority-terminates-secure-
communities-agreements/2011/08/05/gIQAlwx80I_story.html; Letter from John Morton, Director, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, to Gerald Brown, Governor of California, August 5, 2011.
55 See, for example, Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act (H.R. 1134), Strengthening Our Commitment to Legal
Immigration and America’s Security Act (S. 332), and H.R. 1764/S. 169.
56 See, for example, Traffic Stops Along the Border Statistics Study Act of 2011 (H.R. 228).
57 See, for example, CLEAR Act of 2011 (H.R. 100), SCAAP Reimbursement Protection Act of 2011 (S. 638), and
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2011 (S. 1258).
58 Further information about these programs is available on the ICE website, http://www.ice.gov.
59 See, generally, CRS Report R41221, State Efforts to Deter Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Analysis of Arizona’s S.B.
1070, by Kate M. Manuel, Michael John Garcia, and Larry M. Eig.
60 Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting, – U.S.—, 131 S. Ct. 1968 (2011); CRS Report RL34345,
State and Local Restrictions on Employing, Renting Property to, or Providing Services for Unauthorized Aliens: Legal
Issues and Recent Judicial Developments, by Kate M. Manuel, Jody Feder, and Alison M. Smith.
Congressional Research Service
13
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
unauthorized aliens’ access to housing or public resources—are the subject of ongoing litigation
and, in many cases, conflicting judicial rulings.61 Given the unsettled state of the law in this area,
Members have introduced legislation that would purport to recognize that state and local officers
have “inherent authority” to enforce federal immigration law,62 or conversely, would establish that
state and local officers may only enforce federal immigration law pursuant to a written agreement
authorized under Section 287(g) of the INA.63
Limits on Executive Branch Discretion
The Obama Administration has observed that ICE does not have the funding or capacity to deport
every potentially removable alien identified by DHS, especially with the advent of Secure
Communities. On June 17, 2011, ICE published updated agency guidance governing the use of
prosecutorial discretion during immigration enforcement to ensure that removal resources go to
high-priority cases.64 Partly in response to the new agency guidance,65 the Hinder the
Administration’s Legalization Temptation (HALT) Act (H.R. 2497) would suspend for the
remainder of President Obama’s term in office (i.e., through January 21, 2013) the executive
branch’s authority to grant several types of discretionary relief, including (1) waivers of the three-
and 10-year bars to admissibility for certain unauthorized immigrants (INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(v));
(2) “parole,” or temporary permission to enter and be present in the United States (INA §
212(d)(5)(A)); (3) cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for certain lawful permanent
residents (INA § 240A(b)(1)); (4) temporary protected status (INA § 244(b)); and (5) deferred
action and extended voluntary departure. At a July 2011 hearing of the House Judiciary
Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement, supporters of the HALT Act
described it as a tool to prevent an “administrative amnesty,” while opponents argued that
prosecutorial discretion is a critical tool to prevent the misallocation of agency resources.
Other bills introduced in the 112th Congress also address issues of executive branch discretion and
judicial review. Some, along similar lines as the HALT Act, would tighten the standards for parole
and deferred action. Other proposed legislation, by contrast, could expand judicial relief from
removal by allowing immigration judges to consider factors not currently considered when
determining whether to grant cancellation of removal.66
Victims of Trafficking
It is an international and a domestic crime to engage in trafficking in persons (TIP) for the
purposes of exploitation. TIP involves violations of labor, public health, and human rights
61 See, generally, CRS Report R41423, Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law, by
Michael John Garcia and Kate M. Manuel.
62 See, for example, CLEAR Act (H.R. 100).
63 See, for example, Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S. 1258).
64 John Morton, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of
the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Washington, DC, June 17, 2011, http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-
communities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretion-memo.pdf.
65 Press releases announcing the introduction of the Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation (HALT) Act
explicitly mention the June 17, 2011, ICE memorandum on prosecutorial discretion.
66 See, for example, H.R. 250.
Congressional Research Service
14
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
standards. Congress passed the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (TVPA, P.L.
106-386) in 2000 and has reauthorized the TVPA several times since, most recently in the 110th
Congress (P.L. 110-457). The current program authorizations expire at the end of FY2011.
Domestically, TVPA and its subsequent reauthorizations67 created two visa categories: one for
victims of severe forms of trafficking (T visa) and the other for victims of certain specified crimes
(U visa).68 The 2000 act and the reauthorizations also created several grant programs to aid
trafficking victims and to train law enforcement to combat TIP.
A Senate reauthorization bill, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011 (S.
1301), was the subject of a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2011.69 It
would extend current authorizations in the TVPA and its reauthorizations through FY2015 and
would increase authorization levels by $2 million each for the two main victim service grant
programs. The bill would also make changes to the T and U visa provisions in the INA. With
respect to the T visa for trafficking victims, for example, S. 1301 would amend the requirements
for T status so that a person who had fled the United States within the previous five years to
escape a serious threat would be eligible for a T visa. The bill would also state that an alien
applying for T status could be exempted from the current requirement to cooperate with law
enforcement if the alien has a reasonable fear of retaliation by the trafficker or his/her associates.
Under existing statute, aliens are exempt from the requirement if they are unable to cooperate due
to physical or psychological trauma. Among its other provisions, S. 1301 would create a new
grant program to provide services to child victims of sex trafficking. In addition, it would make
several changes to the INA provisions related to the custody and care of unaccompanied alien
children and would require the Secretary of HHS to create a pilot program in three states to
provide independent child advocates for child trafficking victims and other vulnerable
unaccompanied alien children.
Immigrant Investors
There is currently one immigrant visa category specifically for foreign investors (LPR investors)
coming to the United States. LPR investors comprise the fifth preference category under the
employment-based immigration system in the INA, and this immigrant visa is commonly referred
to as the EB-5 visa.70 The basic purpose of the LPR investor visa is to benefit the U.S. economy,
primarily through employment creation and an influx of foreign capital into the United States.
Employment-based LPR investor visas are designated for individuals wishing to develop a new
commercial enterprise in the United States. The INA stipulates that for the investor to qualify for
the EB-5 visa, the enterprise must employ at least 10 people, the investor must invest $1 million
into the enterprise, and the business and jobs created must be maintained for a minimum of
two years.71
67 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-457), Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-164), and Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization
Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-193).
68 For more information on these visa categories, see CRS Report RL34317, Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and
Issues for Congress, by Alison Siskin and Liana Sun Wyler
69 A related bill of the same name has been introduced in the House (H.R. 2830).
70 For a discussion of employment-based immigration and the preference categories, see CRS Report RL32235, U.S.
Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
71 INA § 203(b)(5), § 216A.
Congressional Research Service
15
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
In 1992, a pilot program was authorized under the EB-5 visa category to achieve the economic
activity and job creation goals of that category by encouraging investment in economic units
known as Regional Centers.72 The Regional Center Pilot Program is intended to provide a
coordinated focus for foreign investment toward specific geographic regions. The majority of EB-
5 immigrant investors come through the pilot program. The Regional Center Pilot Program is
authorized through September 30, 2012.73 There are bills in the 112th Congress that would
permanently authorize the program,74 and others that would create a new, sixth employment-
based preference (EB-6) for sponsored alien entrepreneurs.75
Foreign Temporary Agricultural Workers
Under current law, there is one program that provides for the admission of foreign temporary
agricultural workers to the United States: the H-2A nonimmigrant visa program. This program
allows for the temporary admission of foreign workers to the United States to perform
agricultural labor or services of a seasonal or temporary nature, provided that U.S. workers are
not available. An approved H-2A visa petition is generally valid for an initial period of up to one
year. An employer can apply to extend an H-2A worker’s stay in increments of up to one year, but
an alien’s total period of stay as an H-2A worker may not exceed three consecutive years. The H-
2A program, which is not subject to a numerical cap, is administered by the Employment and
Training Administration (ETA) of the Department of Labor (DOL) and USCIS of DHS. The
Obama Administration issued new final rules on the H-2A program in 2010.76
An employer who wants to import H-2A workers must first apply to DOL for a certification that
(1) there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are qualified and available to perform the work; and
(2) the employment of foreign workers will not adversely affect the wages and working
conditions of U.S. workers who are similarly employed. Prospective H-2A employers must
attempt to recruit U.S. workers and must cooperate with DOL-funded state workforce agencies
(SWAs) in local, intrastate, and interstate recruitment efforts. In addition, under the “50 percent
rule,” H-2A employers are required to hire any qualified U.S. worker who applies for a position
until 50% of the work contract under which the H-2A workers are employed has elapsed. H-2A
employers must pay their H-2A workers and similarly employed U.S. workers the highest of
several wage rates (including the adverse effect wage rate) and must provide workers with
housing, transportation, and other benefits.77
The American Specialty Agriculture Act (H.R. 2847), which was the subject of a hearing by the
House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement in
September 2011, would establish a new H-2C visa for temporary agricultural workers as an
alternative to the H-2A visa. Unlike the H-2A visa, the H-2C visa would not be limited to
72 P.L. 102-395, Title VI, § 610, October 6, 1992. A Regional Center is defined as any economic unit, public or private,
engaged in the promotion of economic growth, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic
capital investment.
73 P.L. 108-156 extended the program through FY2008, and § 548 of P.L. 111-83 extended the authorization through
September 30, 2012.
74 See, for example, Creating American Jobs Through Foreign Capital Investment Act (S. 642).
75 See, for example, StartUp Visa Act of 2011 (H.R. 1114/S. 565).
76 For a discussion of these DOL and DHS rules, see CRS Report RL32044, Immigration: Policy Considerations
Related to Guest Worker Programs, by Andorra Bruno.
77 See Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
16
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
agricultural labor of a temporary or seasonal nature and could be used to bring in workers to
perform non-seasonal agricultural work. An H-2C worker’s continuous period of stay would be
limited to 10 months, and the program would be capped at 500,000 annually. The new program
would be administered by the USDA and would not be subject to the same labor certification
process as the H-2A visa. Instead, prospective H-2C employers would attest in their applications
that they had satisfied applicable recruitment, wage, and benefit requirements, which would differ
from those under the H-2A visa. With respect to wages, the H-2C visa would not be subject to the
adverse effect wage rate; H-2C employers would be required to pay the higher of the prevailing
wage rate or the applicable minimum wage rate. Among other differences between the H-2A
program and the proposed H-2C program, the H-2C program would be subject to more-limited
U.S. worker recruitment requirements; the H-2C program would not have a “50 percent rule;” and
H-2C employers could provide housing vouchers instead of housing. Other bills would establish
different new foreign agriculture worker programs or would amend the existing H-2A program.78
Unauthorized Students
Unauthorized alien students are a subpopulation of the larger unauthorized alien population in the
United States.79 They are able to receive free public education through high school despite their
illegal status, but face various obstacles in the pursuit of higher education. More broadly, as
unauthorized aliens they are unable to work legally and are subject to removal from the
United States.
Legislation commonly referred to as the “DREAM Act” (whether or not a particular bill carries
that name) has been introduced in the past several Congresses to provide unauthorized alien
students with access to both educational opportunities and immigration status. Typically, DREAM
Act bills propose to enable eligible individuals to obtain LPR status in the United States through a
two-stage process. In the first stage, aliens meeting specified criteria could go through an
immigration procedure known as “cancellation of removal” to obtain a conditional legal status. In
the second stage, aliens, after meeting additional requirements, could apply to become full-
fledged LPRs. DREAM Act bills also often contain a repeal of a provision of current law (§ 505
of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act) that restricts the ability of
states to provide postsecondary educational benefits to unauthorized aliens.80
Attempts to enact a DREAM Act bill in the 110th and 111th Congresses were unsuccessful.81
DREAM Act bills have once again been introduced in the current Congress, both as stand-alone
measures and as parts of larger bills.82
Birthright Citizenship
Over the past decade or so, concern about illegal immigration has led some legislators to
reexamine the long-established tenet of U.S. citizenship that a person who is born in the United
78 See, for example, Legal Agricultural Workforce Act (H.R. 2895) and HARVEST Act of 2011 (S. 1384).
79 For information and analysis of the unauthorized alien population generally, see CRS Report R41207, Unauthorized
Aliens in the United States, by Andorra Bruno.
80 For analyses of these bills, see Ibid.
81 See CRS Report RL33863, Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation, by Andorra Bruno.
82 See, for example, H.R. 1842, S. 952, and S. 1258 (Title I, Subtitle A, Part IV).
Congressional Research Service
17
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
States, and subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen of the United States regardless of the race,
ethnicity, or alienage of the parents. This concept of birthright citizenship is codified in the
Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and § 301(a) of the
INA. The war on terror and the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S.-Saudi dual national captured in
Afghanistan fighting with Taliban forces, further heightened attention to and interest in restricting
automatic birthright citizenship. Although Hamdi’s parents were Saudi nationals in the United
States on nonimmigrant work visas, Hamdi was a U.S. citizen by right of his birth in Louisiana
and arguably entitled to rights not available to foreign enemy combatants.
More recently, some Members have supported introducing legislation that would revise or
reinterpret the Citizenship Clause to address concerns that (1) children born to unauthorized
aliens become an avenue to legal status for their parents and siblings when they turn 21 years old,
and (2) affluent pregnant foreigners come to the United States on tourist visas to give birth to
their children and thus provide them with U.S. citizenship.83 Furthermore, some state legislators
have voiced support for state legislation that would define state citizenship as excluding persons
born to undocumented aliens and for a state compact under which states would issue a different
type of birth certificate to such persons. State legislators from Arizona and 13 other states
unveiled model legislation in January 2011, intending to set the stage for a U.S. Supreme Court
review of the Citizenship Clause.84 Such legislation has been introduced in some states but has
not been enacted.85
In the 112th Congress, several bills have been introduced to amend the Constitution and/or the
INA to exclude persons born in the United States from citizenship at birth if their parents were
unlawfully present in the United States or were nonimmigrant aliens.86 In order for a child to be a
citizen at birth under these proposals, at least one parent would have to be a U.S. national, a LPR
who resides in the United States, or an alien serving on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
Title VII of P.L. 110-229 made the INA applicable to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (CNMI), a U.S. territory in the Pacific. Previously, in accordance with an agreement
known as the Covenant87 that sets forth the relationship between the CNMI and the United States,
83 See, for example, Daniel González, “Births by U.S. visitors: A real issue? Data indicate ‘birth tourism’ is not a
widespread practice,” The Arizona Republic, August 17, 2011, http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/08/17/
20110817births-by-us-visitors-smaller-issue.html.
84 State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, State Legislators for Legal Immigration, “State Lawmakers Convened in D.C. to Deliver
Historic, Nationwide Correction of 14th Amendment Misapplication,” January 5, 2011,
http://www.statelegislatorsforlegalimmigration.com/NewsItem.aspx?NewsID=10195; Associated Press, “Lawmakers in
14 States Craft Bill to Deny Citizenship to ‘Anchor Babies’,” October 19, 2010, listed the 13 other states as Alabama,
Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Texas, and Utah, at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/19/lawmakers-states-craft-deny-citizenship-anchor-
babies/?test=latestnews. Some legal scholars think it is unlikely the Supreme Court will hear such a case. Valeria
Fernández, “Birthright Citizenship’s Unlikely Road to Supreme Court,” New America Media, December 22, 2010,
http://newamericamedia.org/2010/12/birthright-citizenships-unlikely-road-to-supreme-court.php.
85 For example, Arizona S.B. 1308, 50th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess., failed to pass State Senate on March 17, 2011.
86 See, for example, H.R. 140, § 301 of H.R. 1196, S. 723, and S.J.Res. 2. For further information, see CRS Report
RL33079, Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born in the United States to Alien Parents, by
Margaret Mikyung Lee.
87 The Covenant To Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands In Political Union with the United
States of America codified at 48 U.S.C. § 1801 note.
Congressional Research Service
18
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
the CNMI had not been subject to U.S. immigration law. Among other provisions, P.L. 110-229
established a transition period for implementing the INA in the CNMI that began on November
28, 2009. It aimed, in particular, to provide federal regulation and oversight of the admission of
foreign workers to the CNMI, including by establishing a CNMI-only transitional worker visa.
Aliens who were not eligible for the transitional foreign worker visas could remain in the CNMI
on CNMI entry permits issued under the former territorial immigration laws until the earlier of
the original permit expiration date or November 28, 2011.88
Consequently, H.R. 1466 was introduced in the 112th Congress to resolve the status of certain
long-term foreign residents of the CNMI who otherwise may not be able to remain in the CNMI
after November 28, 2011. Some of these long-term residents have U.S. citizen spouses and
children who, for various reasons, are unable to sponsor them for U.S. immigrant status. For
example, some have U.S. citizen spouses and adult sons or daughters who are eligible to file a
family-based immigrant petition on their behalf; however, due to the economic conditions in the
CNMI, many citizens apparently are unable to satisfy the requisite household income level for
sponsoring a relative as an immigrant under U.S. law. Other long-term foreign residents were
granted permanent resident status in the CNMI under former territorial immigration laws, but this
status will no longer be valid under federal immigration law after November 28, 2011. Still other
persons who were born in the CNMI were not eligible for U.S. citizenship under the terms of the
Covenant. H.R. 1466 would authorize admission of these various long-term foreign residents,
subject to certain requirements, as immigrants to the CNMI only, and provide a path for most of
these CNMI-only residents to adjust later to regular LPR status.
Professional Foreign Temporary Employees
The 112th Congress is taking renewed interest in foreign temporary workers engaged in
professional occupations. One issue focuses on whether Congress should revise the immigration
law to expand temporary visas for professional specialty occupations, particularly for graduates
with degrees in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) fields.89 Another issue
is whether other temporary visa categories, such as those designated for foreign study, cultural
exchange, and intracompany transfers, are being misused by employers unable to obtain
numerically limited professional workers visas. A corollary to these two issues is whether the
wages and working conditions of U.S. workers are adversely affected by the recruitment of
temporary foreign workers.90
Other Legislation Receiving Action
Military Service-Based Immigration Benefits
Since 2003, Congress has enacted a range of measures to facilitate naturalization and
maintenance of LPR status for military service members and their families, particularly when
88 The CNMI had issued so-called “umbrella permits,” valid through November 28, 2011, to most persons who had a
valid permit expiring earlier.
89 See, for example, H.R. 399 and H.R. 2161.
90 For related information, see CRS Report CRS Report RL33977, Immigration of Foreign Workers: Labor Market
Tests and Protections, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
Congressional Research Service
19
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress
such persons are posted abroad. In the 112th Congress, several bills have been introduced to
address additional issues that have resulted from military service and H.R. 398 has been passed
by the House. H.R. 398 would extend the time to qualify for non-conditional LPR status to
account for military service.
Under the INA, an alien who obtains LPR status through a marriage to a U.S. citizen or LPR that
was entered into less than two years earlier is initially granted LPR status on a conditional basis.
In order to have the condition removed, both spouses must jointly satisfy certain requirements
during specified periods, including appearing together at a personal interview with DHS. H.R.
398 would toll the time for meeting such requirements during any period in which either spouse is
a member of the U.S. Armed Forces and serving abroad in active-duty status. Although DHS has
discretion to waive the requirements in certain circumstances, the bill would obviate the need for
discretionary waivers by tolling the time periods.
Author Contact Information
Andorra Bruno, Coordinator
Kate M. Manuel
Specialist in Immigration Policy
Legislative Attorney
abruno@crs.loc.gov, 7-7865
kmanuel@crs.loc.gov, 7-4477
Karma Ester
Marc R. Rosenblum
Information Research Specialist
Specialist in Immigration Policy
kester@crs.loc.gov, 7-3036
mrosenblum@crs.loc.gov, 7-7360
Margaret Mikyung Lee
Ruth Ellen Wasem
Legislative Attorney
Specialist in Immigration Policy
mmlee@crs.loc.gov, 7-2579
rwasem@crs.loc.gov, 7-7342
Congressional Research Service
20