Immigration Legislation and Issues in the
113th Congress
Andorra Bruno, Coordinator
Specialist in Immigration Policy
Michael John Garcia
Legislative Attorney
William A. Kandel
Analyst in Immigration Policy
Margaret Mikyung Lee
Legislative Attorney
Marc R. Rosenblum
Specialist in Immigration Policy
Alison Siskin
Specialist in Immigration Policy
Ruth Ellen Wasem
Specialist in Immigration Policy
November 20, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43320
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

Summary
Immigration reform is squarely on the legislative agenda of the 113th Congress. The Senate has
passed the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744),
a comprehensive immigration reform bill that includes provisions on border security, interior
enforcement, employment eligibility verification and worksite enforcement, legalization of
unauthorized aliens, immigrant visas, nonimmigrant visas, and humanitarian admissions. For its
part, the House has taken a different approach to immigration reform. Rather than considering a
single comprehensive bill, the House has acted on a set of immigration bills that address border
security, interior enforcement, employment eligibility verification and worksite enforcement, and
nonimmigrant and immigrant visas. House committees have reported or ordered to be reported
the following immigration bills: Border Security Results Act of 2013 (H.R. 1417); Strengthen and
Fortify Enforcement (SAFE) Act (H.R. 2278); Legal Workforce Act (H.R. 1772); Agricultural
Guestworker (AG) Act (H.R. 1773); and Supplying Knowledge-based Immigrants and Lifting
Levels of STEM Visas (SKILLS Visa) Act (H.R. 2131). Other House bills are reportedly under
development.
In addition to their work on immigration reform legislation, the House and Senate have acted on
other immigration-related bills in the 113th Congress. Among these measures, the 113th Congress
has passed the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-4), which
includes provisions on noncitizen victims of domestic abuse or certain other crimes and on
victims of human trafficking. Another enacted measure (P.L. 113-42) extends a special immigrant
visa program for certain Iraqi nationals who have worked for or on behalf of the United States.
This report discusses these and other immigration-related issues that have received legislative
action or are of significant congressional interest in the 113th Congress. While the report covers S.
744, as passed by the Senate, a more complete treatment of that bill can be found in CRS Report
R43097, Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress: Major Provisions in Senate-
Passed S. 744, by Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem. For the most part, DHS
appropriations are not covered in this report and are addressed in CRS Report R43147,
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations, coordinated by William L. Painter.

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Border Security ................................................................................................................................ 1
Border Security Strategy and Metrics ....................................................................................... 2
Border Security Personnel, Equipment, and Infrastructure ....................................................... 3
Entry-Exit System ..................................................................................................................... 4
Access to Federal Lands and DHS Waiver Authority ................................................................ 5
Interior Enforcement ........................................................................................................................ 6
Criminal Sanctions .................................................................................................................... 6
Inadmissibility, Deportability, and Relief from Removal .......................................................... 7
Detention of Aliens .................................................................................................................... 8
Prosecutorial or Enforcement Discretion .................................................................................. 9
State and Local Involvement in Immigration Enforcement .................................................... 10
Employment Eligibility Verification and Worksite Enforcement .................................................. 11
Visa Security .................................................................................................................................. 14
Temporary Admissions .................................................................................................................. 15
High-Skilled Temporary Workers ............................................................................................ 16
H-1B Professional Specialty Workers ............................................................................... 16
L Visa Intra-Company Transferees .................................................................................... 17
Other Skilled and Professional Workers ............................................................................ 17
Lower-Skilled Temporary Workers ......................................................................................... 18
Agricultural Guest Workers ............................................................................................... 18
Nonagricultural Guest Workers ......................................................................................... 19
Other Temporary Admissions .................................................................................................. 19
Tourists .............................................................................................................................. 19
Students ............................................................................................................................. 20
Cultural Exchange Visitors ................................................................................................ 21
Permanent Admissions ................................................................................................................... 22
Family-Based Immigration ...................................................................................................... 22
Employment-Based Immigration ............................................................................................ 23
Investor Visas .................................................................................................................... 25
Diversity Visas ......................................................................................................................... 25
New Admissions Systems ........................................................................................................ 26
Merit-Based Track One ..................................................................................................... 26
Merit-Based Track Two ..................................................................................................... 27
Legalization of Unauthorized Aliens ............................................................................................. 27
Naturalization ................................................................................................................................ 28
Refugee Status and Asylum ........................................................................................................... 29
Lautenberg Amendment .......................................................................................................... 30
Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act ....................................................... 31
Human Trafficking ......................................................................................................................... 32
Other Issues and Legislation .......................................................................................................... 33
U.S. Territories ........................................................................................................................ 33
Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa Program .................................................................................... 34
Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 35

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

Introduction
Immigration reform is a key issue for the 113th Congress. The Senate has passed the Border
Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744), a comprehensive
immigration reform bill that includes provisions on border security, interior enforcement,
employment eligibility verification and worksite enforcement, legalization of unauthorized aliens,
immigrant visas, nonimmigrant visas, and humanitarian admissions.1 Taking a different approach
to immigration reform, the House has acted on a set of immigration bills that separately address
many of the same areas of immigration policy. House Committees have reported or ordered to be
reported immigration bills on border security (H.R. 1417); interior enforcement (H.R. 2278);
employment eligibility verification and worksite enforcement (H.R. 1772); and immigrant and
nonimmigrant visas (H.R. 2131, H.R. 1773).
While these immigration reform bills are the focus of much attention, the House and Senate have
also acted on other pieces of immigration-related legislation. Among these, the Violence Against
Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-4) includes provisions on noncitizen victims of
domestic abuse or certain other crimes and on victims of human trafficking. Another enacted
measure (P.L. 113-42) extends a special immigrant visa program for certain Iraqi nationals. This
report discusses these and other immigration-related issues that have received legislative action or
are of significant congressional interest in the 113th Congress. DHS appropriations are addressed
in a separate report2 and, for the most part, are not covered here.
Border Security
The Department of Homeland 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 nationâ€™s land and maritime borders
to prevent illegal entries.
At ports of entry, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Office of Field Operations
(OFO) is responsible for conducting immigration, customs, and agricultural inspections of
travelers seeking admission to the United States. Between POEs, CBPâ€™s U.S. Border Patrol
(USBP) is responsible for enforcing 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, CBP
protects 7,000 miles of U.S. international land borders with Mexico and Canada and 95,000 miles
of coastal shoreline.

1 For a summary of the major provisions of S. 744, see CRS Report R43099, Comprehensive Immigration Reform in
the 113th Congress: Short Summary of Senate-Passed S. 744, by Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem; for a
fuller discussion of the major provisions of S. 744, see CRS Report R43097, Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the
113th Congress: Major Provisions in Senate-Passed S. 744, by Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem.
2 See CRS Report R43147, Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations, coordinated by William L.
Painter.

Congressional Research Service
1

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

Border security has been an important issue for the last several Congresses. In recent years, some
Members of Congress have proposed to strengthen border security as part of a â€œcomprehensive
immigration reformâ€ bill, while others have argued that Congress should not consider other
immigration reforms until the border has been secured. With apprehensions of unauthorized
immigrants at historically low levels, Administration officials have argued that significant
progress already has been made at the border, though continued investments are needed.3 Debate
in the 113th Congress has focused primarily on border security strategy and metrics; border
personnel, equipment, and infrastructure; improvements to the entry-exit system for tracking
aliensâ€™ travel into and out of the United States; and DHSâ€™s access to federal lands and authority to
waive certain federal laws.
Border Security Strategy and Metrics
DHS, CBP, OFO, and USBP all have published high-level strategic plans, but they have not laid
out a comprehensive operational strategy for securing U.S. borders or published clear metrics for
measuring and evaluating border security.4 The absence of such a strategy and metrics arguably
has contributed to disagreements about the existing level of border security.
S. 744, as passed by the Senate, would require DHS to develop a pair of planning documents: a
Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy and a Southern Border Fencing Strategy.5 The
bill includes a detailed list of surveillance equipment and other assets to be deployed in each
Border Patrol sector along the southern border as required elements of the Comprehensive
Security Strategy. It also requires that the Fencing Strategy describe plans to deploy 700 miles of
southern border pedestrian fencing (up from about 352 miles of pedestrian fencing and 299 miles
of vehicle barriers today). In general, the submission and implementation of the two southern
border strategies are among the â€œtriggersâ€ that S. 744 would establish as preconditions for DHS to
begin processing legalization applications for certain unauthorized aliens and to begin adjusting
the status of such aliens under the bill.6
The goal of the Comprehensive Security Strategy would be to achieve and maintain â€œeffective
controlâ€ of all Border Patrol sectors along the southern border. Effective control would be defined
to include â€œpersistent surveillanceâ€ and at least a 90% â€œeffectiveness rate.â€7 The bill would
require DHS to report to Congress biannually on implementation of the Comprehensive Security
Strategy, with such reports to include sector-level effectiveness rates and information about alien
recidivism (i.e., repeat apprehensions). If the DHS Secretary cannot certify that DHS has

3 See for example, Testimony of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security, hearing, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., April
25, 2012.
4 For further discussion of border security strategies, see CRS Report R42969, Border Security: Understanding Threats
at U.S. Borders, by Marc R. Rosenblum, Jerome P. Bjelopera, and Kristin Finklea; for further discussion of border
security metrics, see CRS Report R42138, Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry, by Marc
R. Rosenblum.
5 See CRS Report R43097, Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress: Major Provisions in Senate-
Passed S. 744.
6 These triggers are described in S. 744 Â§3(c). For a fuller discussion, see Ibid.
7 S. 744 Â§3(a)(3). The â€œeffectiveness rateâ€ would be statutorily defined in a similar manner to the way the term is
currently used internally by USBP: the sum of alien apprehensions and turn-backs divided by total estimated illegal
entries. S. 744 Â§3(a)(4). Also see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Border Patrol: Key Elements of Strategic
Plan Not Yet in Place to Inform Border Security Status and Resource Needs, GAO-13-25, December 2012.
Congressional Research Service
2

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

achieved effective control of all southern border sectors for at least one fiscal year within five
years of the billâ€™s passage, S. 744 would require that additional border security recommendations
be issued by a Southern Border Security Commission to be composed of the governors or
gubernatorial appointees from each of the southern border states (and Nevada), along with
congressional and presidential appointees.
The Border Security Results Act of 2013 (H.R. 1417), as reported by the House Homeland
Security Committee, would likewise require DHS to develop a Strategy to Secure the Border.
H.R. 1417 differs from S. 744 in that H.R. 1417 does not describe specific assets or miles of
fencing to be included in its strategy. Instead, the House bill includes an extensive list of
considerations to be taken into account in the development of the strategy; and it requires that the
strategy be designed to allow DHS to gain and maintain operational control of the border within
deadlines established by the bill. Operational control is defined in the House bill to include at
least a 90% effectiveness rate with respect to illegal border crossing as well as a â€œsignificant
reduction in the movement of illegal drugs and other contraband through such areas.â€8 H.R. 1417
also describes a more comprehensive set of border metrics than those identified in S. 744,
including measures of illegal migration, recidivism, and drug seizures between ports of entry;
measures of immigration and drug enforcement as well as legal travel times at ports of entry; and
immigration and drug enforcement data for maritime borders. The bill would require DHS to
collaborate with outside partners in the development and review of these metrics; and it would
require DHS and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to submit regular reports to
Congress indicating whether operational control of the southern border has been achieved and
maintained.
Border Security Personnel, Equipment, and Infrastructure
Across a variety of indicators, the United States has substantially expanded border enforcement
resources over the last three decades. Particularly since 2001, such increases have included border
security personnel, fencing and infrastructure, and surveillance technology.9
Senate-passed S. 744 would authorize additional increases in each of these areas.10 Under the bill,
DHS would be required to more than double the number of Border Patrol agents deployed to the
southern border (to 38,405, up from 18,462 in FY2013); to increase the number of CBP officers
and CBP flight hours; and to deploy the specific surveillance equipment, fencing, and
infrastructure assets described in the billâ€™s border strategies (see â€œBorder Security Strategies and
Metricsâ€). S. 744 also would direct DHS to continuously deploy unmanned aircraft, along with
other surveillance equipment, to ensure surveillance of border areas 24 hours a day, with
necessary funding authorized for FY2014â€“FY2018. And it would support recent CBP efforts to
increase the proportion of border crossers subject to criminal prosecutions and other â€œhigh
consequenceâ€ enforcement outcomes by setting aside funding to triple the number of border
crossing prosecutions in the Border Patrolâ€™s Tucson sector, which has accounted for the largest

8 Border Security Results Act of 2013 (H.R. 1417) Â§3(o)(8).
9 See CRS Report R42138, Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry.
10 For a fuller discussion see CRS Report R43097, Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress: Major
Provisions in Senate-Passed S. 744.
Congressional Research Service
3

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

number of illegal crossings in recent years. The bill would support these increases with about $45
billion in direct spending on border enforcement over a 5-10 year period.11
Entry-Exit System
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-208, Div.
C), as amended, requires DHS to maintain an automated, biometric entry-exit system that collects
a record of every alien arriving to and departing from the United States. Entry screening is
designed to prevent the admission of inadmissible aliens; and exit screening may be used to
identify visa overstays, as well as for law enforcement purposes.12 The Office of Biometric
Identity Management (OBIM), formerly known as the United States Visitor and Immigration
Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program, is responsible for collecting and storing these
data and for providing entry-exit information to other components within DHS and to other
federal agencies. The entry-exit system has been a subject of ongoing congressional attention
becauseâ€”in spite of the mandateâ€”DHS collects only biographic data (i.e., it does not collect
biometric data) from certain visitors entering the United States, and it does not collect any data
from certain visitors leaving the United States.13
Border security and immigration legislation under consideration in the 113th Congress would
reiterate the entry-exit mandate, with a particular focus on further development of the exit
tracking system. In the House, committee-reported H.R. 1417 would require DHS, within 180
days of the billâ€™s enactment, to submit a plan to Congress to implement immediately a biometric
exit system at U.S. ports of entry, or to submit alternative plans that would achieve the same level
of security within two years if DHS determines that a biometric exit system is not feasible. And
the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement (SAFE) Act (H.R. 2278), as ordered to be reported by the
House Judiciary Committee, would require that DHS establish a biometric entry-exit system
within two years of the billâ€™s enactment.
Senate-passed S. 744 would impose a new exit-tracking requirement by making air and sea
carriers responsible for collecting machine-readable passport data and other travel information
from departing passengers, and for transmitting such data to DHS. (Air and sea carriers currently
submit passenger manifest data to DHS.) DHS also would be required, within two years of
enactment, to establish a biometric exit system at the 10 U.S. airports with the greatest volume of
international travel. Following a report to Congress, DHS would be required to expand biometric
data collection to 30 airports and to develop a plan for such data collection at major land and sea
ports. S. 744 would further require that DHS ensure that â€œreasonably available enforcement
resources are employedâ€ to locate and remove visa overstayers identified by the entry-exit
system,14 and that at least 90% of people who enter the United States after the billâ€™s enactment

11 Direct spending does not require additional legislative action to go into effect, in contrast with authorizations for
discretionary spending, which require separate appropriations bills to go into effect.
12 See archived CRS Report RS22446, Nonimmigrant Overstays: Brief Synthesis of the Issue, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
13 Biometric data include fingerprints and digital photographs, and may be used to confirm an individualâ€™s identity
against previously recorded biometric data (i.e., by matching fingerprints); biographic data include names, birthdates,
and other identifying information and can be connected to an individualâ€™s case history and immigration records, but
cannot confirm the identity of arriving and departing passengers. In general, visitors traveling by air or sea are required
to provide biometric data at ports of entry, and carriers provide DHS with biographic data (based on passenger lists)
upon their exit. For further discussion of the entry-exit system, see CRS Report R42985, Issues in Homeland Security
Policy for the 113th Congress, coordinated by William L. Painter.
14 S. 744 Â§3303(c).
Congressional Research Service
4

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

and who overstay their visas by more than 180 days are placed in removal proceedings or
otherwise have their cases resolved.
Access to Federal Lands and DHS Waiver Authority
Access to Federal Lands
More than 40% of the southern border abuts federal and tribal lands overseen by the Department
of Agriculture (USDA) or the Department of the Interior (DOI), including some areas that have
been identified as â€œhigh-risk areasâ€ for marijuana smuggling and illegal migration.15 DHS is not
the lead law enforcement agency on USDA and DOI lands, but the three departments have signed
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) concerning information sharing with respect to border
security and DHS access to these lands. Some Members of Congress have argued that DHS
should have more complete access to public lands for law enforcement purposes, though Border
Patrol officials have testified that existing MOUs allow USBP to carry out its border security
mission.16
Legislation being considered in the 113th Congress would broaden DHS authority on such lands.
Senate-passed S. 744 would require USDA and DOI to provide CBP personnel with immediate
access to federal lands within Arizona for certain security activities. CBP would be required to
conduct its activities, to the maximum extent possible, in a manner that the DHS Secretary
determines will best protect natural and cultural resources when acting on federal lands and to
prepare an environmental impact statement in connection with its enforcement efforts. More
broadly, H.R. 2278, as ordered to be reported by the House Judiciary Committee, would give
DHS immediate access to USDA and DOI lands within 100 miles of international land borders;
and it would explicitly prohibit USDA or DOI from impeding or restricting CBPâ€™s border security
activities on such lands.
DHS Waiver Authority
In general, federal agencies are required to review the potential impact of proposed projects on
natural and cultural resources prior to committing resources to a project.17 These environmental
and other review requirements may delay the construction of certain border infrastructure; but
existing law grants DHS broad authority to waive legal requirements that might delay
construction of border barriers.18

15 See CRS Report R42346, Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data, by Carol Hardy Vincent, Laura A. Hanson,
and Marc R. Rosenblum; also see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Border Security: Additional Actions Needed
to Better Ensure a Coordinated Federal Response to Illegal Activity on Federal Lands, GAO-11-177, November 2010,
p. 15.
16 See for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests,
and Public Lands, The Border: Are Environmental Laws and Regulation Impeding Security and Harming the
Environment?, 112th Cong., 1st sess., April 15, 2011.
17 See, among other laws, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. Â§Â§4321 et seq.), the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Â§Â§1531 et seq.), and the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. Â§Â§470 et seq.).
18 See archived CRS Report RL33659, Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border, by Marc R.
Rosenblum and Michael John Garcia.
Congressional Research Service
5

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

Senate-passed S. 744 would grant the DHS Secretary authority to waive any law, as the secretary
deems necessary, to ensure expeditious construction of barriers, roads, and other infrastructure to
secure the southern border. This provision potentially applies to a broader range of border
infrastructure projects than the waiver authority in current law, but only applies to projects along
the southern border.19 The waiver authority would terminate upon certification by DHS that the
billâ€™s border fencing and border security strategies have been substantially implemented (see
â€œBorder Security Strategies and Metricsâ€). H.R. 2278, as ordered to be reported by the House
Judiciary Committee, would also exempt application of specific laws (previously waived by the
Secretary of DHS in 2008 with respect to certain border construction projects) to CBP border
construction projects on all federal lands under DOI and USDA jurisdiction within 100 miles of
U.S. international land borders.20
Interior Enforcement
In addition to establishing a comprehensive set of rules governing the admission, continued
presence, and departure of foreign nationals, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 21
establishes an enforcement regime to deter violations of federal immigration law. Some violations
are subject to civil monetary penalties; other violations may be subject to criminal fines and
imprisonment; and still others, if committed by an alien, may be grounds for denying the alien
admission into the country, removing the alien from the United States, or making the alien
ineligible for certain immigration benefits or relief from removal.
Legislative proposals in the 113th Congress, including H.R. 2278, as ordered to be reported by the
House Judiciary Committee, and Senate-passed S. 744, would modify the INAâ€™s enforcement
provisions applicable to persons found within the United States (â€œinterior enforcementâ€
provisions). Both bills would heighten criminal penalties associated with violations of federal
immigration law and establish new grounds for inadmissibility and deportability. The bills differ
in several important ways, however, with H.R. 2278 generally imposing more significant
penalties for immigration-related violations and more stringent requirements relating to the
detention and removal of aliens than S. 744. H.R. 2278 also contains provisions encouraging
states and localities to play a more active role in immigration enforcement.
Criminal Sanctions
S. 744 and H.R. 2278 would make numerous changes to existing immigration-related criminal
offenses. Among other things,22 both bills would amend existing criminal statutes concerning
passport and immigration-related document fraud, along with the criminal prohibitions on the

19 See CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG536, Proposed Waiver Authority for Border Construction Is Not New, But Is It
Improved? by Michael John Garcia.
20 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, â€œDetermination Pursuant to Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as Amended,â€ 73 Federal Register 19077-19078, April 8, 2008.
21 Act of June 27, 1952, ch. 477; 66 Stat. 163; codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. Â§1101 et seq. The INA is the basis of
current immigration law.
22 For more extensive discussion of modifications made by the bills, including changes not discussed here, see CRS
Report R43097, Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress: Major Provisions in Senate-Passed S.
744, and CRS Report R43192, Immigration Enforcement: Major Provisions in H.R. 2278, the Strengthen and Fortify
Enforcement Act (SAFE Act), by Michael John Garcia and Kate M. Manuel.
Congressional Research Service
6

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

smuggling and harboring of unauthorized aliens. In each case, the modifications would generally
involve widening the scope of proscribed conduct and heightening the available criminal
penalties,23 at least when certain aggravating circumstances exist.
Both bills would revise the criminal statutes addressing unlawful entry by an alien24 and unlawful
reentry of an alien in violation of an outstanding order of removal,25 including by increasing
available penalties in certain circumstances. H.R. 2278 would expand the scope of the unlawful
entry and reentry statutes to expressly cover illegal border crossings, regardless of whether a
crossing occurred while the alien was under surveillance by immigration authorities. S. 744
would establish a new criminal offense for hindering or obstructing the apprehension of aliens
unlawfully entering the United States. S. 744 would also eliminate current criminal penalties
associated with attempting to unlawfully enter the country. In addition, the Senate bill would
provide an affirmative defense to an alien criminally charged with unlawful reentry into the
country in violation of an outstanding removal order, if the alien had been removed from the
country while a minor, and would exempt from criminal liability certain reentry offenses that
involve the provision of emergency humanitarian assistance.
H.R. 2278 would make unlawful alien presence a criminal offense. Specifically, the bill would
make it a crime for an alien to either (1) knowingly violate the terms of his admission or parole or
(2) otherwise knowingly be unlawfully present in the country for any period of time. Criminal
liability would not attach to periods of unlawful presence as a minor or generally to unauthorized
aliens with bona fide pending asylum applications, battered women or children, or victims of
severe forms of trafficking.
Inadmissibility, Deportability, and Relief from Removal
The INA provides that aliens who engage in specified activities, including various forms of
criminal conduct and activities posing a threat to U.S. security (e.g., terrorism), are generally
barred from admission and subject to removal.26 Some forms of conduct may also make an alien
ineligible for many forms of relief from removal (e.g., asylum). The most significant immigration
consequences typically attach to aliens convicted of any offense defined as an â€œaggravated
felonyâ€ by the INA.27
Both S. 744 and H.R. 2278 would add new grounds for alien inadmissibility and/or
deportability.28 For example, both bills include provisions making aliens who commit certain

23 For background on existing criminal offenses, see CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG563, An Overview of Immigration-
Related Crimes, by Michael John Garcia.
24 INA Â§275
25 INA Â§276
26 See CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion: Policy and Trends, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem, and CRS Report RL32480, Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity, by Michael John Garcia.
27 INA Â§101(a)(43) provides a list of crimes deemed to be aggravated felonies for immigration purposes, a list that
Congress has repeatedly expanded over the years to cover additional crimes. The definition is not limited to offenses
punishable as felonies (i.e., punishable by at least a year and a day imprisonment); certain misdemeanors are also
defined as aggravated felonies for INA purposes. See generally CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG454, Will Immigration
Reform Legislation Revisit the Definition of â€œAggravated Felonyâ€? by Michael John Garcia; and CRS Report
RL32480, Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity, by Michael John Garcia.
28 The grounds of inadmissibility generally apply to aliens who have not been lawfully admitted into the United States,
including (1) aliens outside the United States who seek to obtain a visa or admission at a port of entry; (2) aliens within
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

fraud-related offenses or who are involved with criminal street gangs inadmissible or deportable;
and modify the grounds of inadmissibility to cover crimes of domestic violence, child abuse,
stalking, and violation of protection orders (all of which are already grounds for deportability).
Both bills contain provisions concerning the removability of aliens convicted of multiple driving
under the influence (DUI) offenses. S. 744 would add or expand existing grounds of
inadmissibility relating to the withholding of information for biometric screening and severe
human rights violations. H.R. 2278 would amend the grounds of inadmissibility to expressly
cover aggravated felony convictions (already a ground for deportability) and additional firearms
offenses. Both H.R. 2278 and S. 744 would authorize immigration authorities, in certain
circumstances, to consider evidence that is extrinsic to the conviction record when determining
whether an alien engaged in conduct making him or her removable under specified grounds.
Both bills would also make changes to the INAâ€™s definition of aggravated felony, with H.R. 2278
making the more substantial modifications. Among other things, the House bill would designate
as aggravated felonies, criminal convictions for unlawful entry, presence, or reentry, so long as
the length of imprisonment for the offense is at least a year. Both H.R. 2278 and S. 744 would
also designate DUI convictions as aggravated felonies in certain circumstances.
S. 744 would increase immigration authoritiesâ€™ discretion to waive certain grounds of
inadmissibility. Among other things, it would give immigration judges discretion to not order
certain aliens in removal proceedings to be removed, deported, or excluded if the judge
determines that such actions would be against the public interest, would create a hardship to the
alienâ€™s U.S. citizen or permanent resident immediate relatives, or if the alien appears eligible for
naturalization. This waiver would not be available to individuals who are inadmissible or
deportable based on certain criminal and national security grounds. The Secretary of DHS would
have similar discretion to waive grounds of inadmissibility.
H.R. 2278 would modify the immigration consequences for some types of criminal activity. For
example, it would prohibit refugees and asylees who have committed aggravated felonies from
obtaining legal permanent residence. It would make aliens who are removable due to involvement
with criminal street gangs or who are described in the terrorism-related grounds for
inadmissibility or removal, ineligible for many forms of relief from removal. H.R. 2278 also
would make streamlined removal proceedings potentially applicable to a broader category of
criminal aliens.
Detention of Aliens
Under the INA, individual aliens placed in removal proceedings are potentially subject to
detention, but could also be released on parole or bond.29 Certain categories of aliens, however,
are subject to mandatory detention during removal proceedings.30 The INA also contains

(...continued)
the United States who seek to adjust their status to that of an LPR; and (3) aliens who entered the United States
unlawfully. The grounds for deportability, in contrast, apply to aliens who were lawfully admitted into the United
States.
29 For discussion of detention policy and practices, see CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention, by
Alison Siskin.
30 Several courts have interpreted provisions of the INA requiring the mandatory detention of certain categories of
aliens as having implicit temporal limitations, in order to avoid resolving constitutional questions that would be raised
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

provisions concerning the detention of aliens ordered removed until such time as their removal
may be effectuated.
S. 744 contains provisions that appear intended to reduce the number of aliens held in DHS
custody throughout removal proceedings. For example, under S. 744, except in the cases of
certain terrorists and criminal aliens, detention would be required only if the Secretary of DHS
demonstrates that no conditions, including the use of alternatives to detention that maintain
custody over the alien, would reasonably assure the appearance of the alien at immigration
proceedings and the safety of any other person. The bill would also generally require periodic
determinations by immigration judges as to whether an alienâ€™s continued detention is warranted.
For aliens not eligible for bail or to be released on recognizance, another provision of S. 744
would require DHS to establish a secure alternatives program offering a â€œcontinuum of
supervision mechanisms and options.â€31 Most aliens, including many who are subject to
mandatory detention, would potentially be eligible for the secure alternatives program.
H.R. 2278, in contrast, would seek to augment immigration authoritiesâ€™ ability to detain aliens
identified for removal until their removal may be effectuated. Some provisions seek to ensure that
certain categories of aliensâ€”particularly those involved in criminal activity or deemed to pose a
threat to the communityâ€”remain detained throughout the removal process and until removed.
Other provisions of the bill would make unlawfully present aliens convicted of one or more DUI
offenses and aliens removable on account of involvement with criminal street gangs subject to
mandatory detention during removal. Other provisions would establish detention requirements
that are more generally applicable to any alien placed in removal proceedings or ordered
removed.
Prosecutorial or Enforcement Discretion
The Obama Administration has issued several documents that provide guidance regarding the
exercise of prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement activities. In so doing, it has
emphasized that the exercise of discretion in individual cases is appropriate to â€œensure that
agency resources are focused on our enforcement priorities, including individuals who pose a
threat to public safety, are recent border crossers, or repeatedly violate our immigration laws.â€32
The Administration has also claimed that the exercise of such discretion can promote
humanitarian interests. Others, however, have suggested that the Administrationâ€™s prosecutorial
discretion policies are tantamount to â€œamnesty,â€ and that the Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA) initiative,33 in particular, contravenes certain provisions of the INA.34

(...continued)
if the INA were construed to permit the prolonged or indefinite detention of aliens. See CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG524,
How â€œMandatoryâ€ Is the Mandatory Detention of Certain Aliens in Removal Proceedings? by Michael John Garcia.
31 S. 744 Â§3715.
32 Gary Mead, Executive Associate Director, ICE, et al., Applicability of Prosecutorial Discretion Memoranda to
Certain Family Relationships, Oct. 5, 2012, reproduced in 89 Interpreter Releases 1966-67 (Oct. 15, 2012).
33 Under the DACA initiative, certain individuals who were brought to the United States as children and meet other
criteria can be considered for temporary administrative relief from removal for two years, subject to renewal. See CRS
Report RL33863, Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and â€œDREAM Actâ€ Legislation, by Andorra Bruno.
34 For further discussion of prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement, see CRS Report R42924,
Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Enforcement: Legal Issues, by Kate M. Manuel and Todd Garvey.
Congressional Research Service
9

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

H.R. 2278 contains provisions that would respond to the Obama Administrationâ€™s initiatives,
apparently with the intent of foreclosing certain exercises of prosecutorial discretion and
promoting more vigorous enforcement of federal immigration law. The bill would require annual
reports on exercises of prosecutorial discretion. It would also bar DHS from finalizing,
implementing, administering, or enforcing recent guidance regarding prosecutorial discretion,
including DACA. A similar restriction is contained in the House-passed version of H.R. 2217, the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014.
As previously discussed, S. 744 would provide statutory authorization to DHS and immigration
judges to exercise discretion in a broader range of cases involving removable aliens (see
â€œGrounds of Inadmissibility and Deportability and Relief from Removalâ€).
State and Local Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
The role that states and localities play in enforcing federal immigration law has been a topic of
significant interest in recent years.35 Some states and localities, concerned about what they
perceive as inadequate federal enforcement of immigration law, have sought to independently
enforce federal law, as well as to penalize conduct that may facilitate the presence of
unauthorized aliens within their jurisdiction. Other states and localities, in contrast, have
proscribed activities (e.g., sharing information, honoring federal requests to hold aliens) that
could assist in federal immigration enforcement because they maintain that the federal
government has been too aggressive in removing aliens who are not criminals and have ties to the
community.
At least until 2012, there had been considerable debate regarding the ability of states and local
officers to independently act to enforce federal immigration law, or to impose criminal sanctions
upon activities that facilitate unauthorized immigration, separate and apart from any sanctions
imposed under federal law. In its decision in the case of Arizona v. United States, however, the
Supreme Court found that existing federal law contemplates states and localities having a limited
role in immigration enforcement.36 The Court indicated that statesâ€™ ability to criminally sanction
immigration-related activities is limited, even when these sanctions mirror those of the federal
government. The Court also ruled that states generally cannot arrest aliens on the basis of
suspected removability except with express federal statutory authorization or pursuant to the
request, approval, or instruction of federal immigration authorities.
H.R. 2278 includes several provisions which seem intended to override aspects of the Supreme
Courtâ€™s ruling in Arizona and provide states and localities with express statutory authorization to
engage in immigration enforcement activities. Among other things, H.R. 2278 would authorize
states and localities to arrest and transfer removable aliens to federal immigration authoritiesâ€™
custody and permit states and localities to impose their own criminal penalties for conduct
constituting a criminal offense under federal immigration law. Other provisions would require
greater information sharing by federal, state, and local authorities for immigration purposes;

35 See, generally, CRS Report R41423, Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law, by
Michael John Garcia and Kate M. Manuel; CRS Report R41991, State and Local Restrictions on Employing
Unauthorized Aliens, by Kate M. Manuel; and CRS Report R42719, Arizona v. United States: A Limited Role for States
in Immigration Enforcement, by Kate M. Manuel and Michael John Garcia.
36 Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, __ U.S. __ (2012). For further discussion, see CRS Report R42719,
Arizona v. United States: A Limited Role for States in Immigration Enforcement.
Congressional Research Service
10

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

encourage the continuation and expansion of cooperative arrangements with states or localities on
immigration enforcement matters, including through written agreements under INA Â§287(g);37
and require that DHS consider assuming custody of removable aliens in state or local custody if
requested to do so. The bill would also condition certain federal funding for states and localities
upon their cooperation in enforcing federal immigration law.
Employment Eligibility Verification and Worksite
Enforcement
Employment eligibility verification and worksite enforcement (one component of interior
enforcement) are widely viewed as essential elements of a strategy to reduce unauthorized
immigration. Under Â§274A of the INA, 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, termed â€œworksite enforcement,â€ is the responsibility of DHSâ€™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.38 E-Verify is administered by DHSâ€™s
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Participants in E-Verify electronically verify
new hiresâ€™ employment authorization through Social Security Administration (SSA) and, if
necessary, DHS databases.39 E-Verify is a temporary program, currently authorized through
September 30, 2015.
Several bills on electronic employment eligibility verification have been introduced in the 113th
Congress.40 Two measures have seen legislative action. The House Judiciary Committee has
ordered to be reported the Legal Workforce Act (H.R. 1772).41 S. 744, as passed by the Senate,
includes provisions on employment eligibility verification and worksite enforcement in Title III.
Both bills would amend the INA to permanently authorize a new electronic verification system
modeled on E-Verify. Under both bills, an employer, after reviewing employee documents
evidencing identity and employment authorization and completing a verification form with the
employee, would seek confirmation of the employee-provided information through the electronic
verification system.

37 INA Â§287(g) authorizes the Secretary of DHS to enter written agreements which enable specially trained state or
local officers to perform specific functions relative to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens, during a
predetermined time frame and under federal supervision. For further discussion, see CRS Report R42057, Interior
Immigration Enforcement: Programs Targeting Criminal Aliens, by Marc R. Rosenblum and William A. Kandel.
38 While E-Verify is primarily a voluntary program, there are some mandatory participants. See CRS Report R40446,
Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification, by Andorra Bruno.
39 For additional information on E-Verify, see Ibid.
40 See, for example, S. 202, H.R. 478, and H.R. 502, as introduced in the 113th Congress.
41 This bill also has been referred to House Committees on Ways and Means, and Education and the Workforce.
Congressional Research Service
11

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

The new electronic verification system proposed in H.R. 1772 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 (those with 10,000 or
more employees) required to participate six months after the date of enactment and the smallest
employers (those with less than 20 employees) 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 also would provide for mandatory reverification of workers with
temporary work authorization, which would be phased in on the same schedule as the verification
requirements for hiring. Special provisions would apply to agriculture; the hiring, recruitment and
referral, and reverification provisions would not apply to agricultural workers until two years
after the date of enactment. Prior to these phase-in dates, existing requirements to use E-Verify
would remain in effect.
H.R. 1772 would require or permit electronic verification in ways not currently allowed under E-
Verify. 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. Verification
of previously hired individuals would be mandatory in some cases (such as, federal, state, and
local government employees). DHS could authorize or direct a critical infrastructure employer to
use the system to the extent DHS determines is necessary for critical infrastructure protection. In
addition, employers could verify current employees on a voluntary basis.
H.R. 1772 would significantly increase existing civil and criminal penalties for violations of the
revised INA Â§274A prohibitions on unauthorized employment and for violations of requirements
to conduct verification. It would establish as violations of the prohibition on unauthorized
employment, the failure to seek electronic verification as required or the knowing provision of
false information to the electronic system. H.R. 1772 would provide for the blocking of social
security numbers from use in the verification system in cases of misuse and in other specified
circumstances. It also would enable individuals to limit use of their social security numbers or
other information for verification purposes.
In addition, H.R. 1772 includes language to expressly preempt any state or local law that relates
to the hiring, employment, or verification of the employment eligibility of unauthorized aliens. At
the same time, a state or locality could exercise its authority over business licensing and similar
laws as a penalty for failure to use the verification system and a state, at its own expense, could
enforce the revised INA Â§274A provisions, under specified terms. The bill also would require
DHS to establish an office to receive complaints from state and local agencies about potential
violations.
Among its other provisions, H.R. 1772 would direct DHS to establish an Identity Authentication
Employment Eligibility Pilot Program, which would â€œprovide for identity authentication and
employment eligibility verification with respect to enrolled new employees.â€42 The Senate bill, as
discussed below, would mandate the use of an identity authentication mechanism.
Like H.R. 1772, Senate-passed S. 744 would amend the INA to authorize a new Electronic
Verification System (EVS) modeled on E-Verify, through which employers would seek
confirmation of employee-provided information. Employers also would be required to use a new
identity authentication mechanism to be developed by DHS to verify the identity of each

42 H.R. 1772 Â§12.
Congressional Research Service
12

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

individual an employer seeks to hire. For certain documents, the mechanism would consist of a
â€œphoto toolâ€ to enable an employer to compare the photograph on a document provided by an
individual to the original image on that same document.43
Under S. 744, the EVS would be mandatory for all employers in cases of hiring, recruitment, and
referral for a fee. Employers also would have to reverify the employment authorized status of
individuals with temporary work authorization. As under H.R. 1772, the verification requirements
would be phased in, but on a different timetable. All federal agencies would be required to
participate in the EVS on the earlier of the date of enactment, to the extent each agency is
required to participate in E-Verify and as already implemented, or 90 days after the date of
enactment. Federal contractors would be required to participate in the EVS in accordance with
current regulatory requirements to participate in E-Verify. Beginning one year after implementing
regulations are published,44 DHS could direct any employer involved in critical infrastructure to
participate in the EVS to the extent the Secretary determines such participation would assist in
critical infrastructure protection; these employers could be required to participate in the EVS with
respect to newly hired employees as well as current workers.
The phase-in of the EVS participation requirements for other employers with respect to newly
hired employees and employees with expiring employment authorization documents would begin
no later than two years after the publication of implementing regulations (for employers with
more than 5,000 employees) and would end no later than five years after the publication of
implementing regulations (for the last group, tribal government employers). Agricultural
employers would be required to participate in the EVS no later than four years after regulations
are published.45
DHS would be directed to develop procedures to provide individuals with direct access to their
case histories in the EVS, and to notify them of queries and EVS responses. S. 744 would
establish processes for an individual to seek administrative review and judicial review of a final
nonconfirmation. The bill would enable individuals to limit the use of their social security
numbers or other information for verification purposes. In addition, S. 744 would provide for
regular privacy and accuracy audits and civil rights assessments of the EVS.
With respect to enforcement, S. 744 would direct DHS to establish procedures for the filing and
investigation of unlawful employment-related complaints by individuals and entities. Like H.R.
1772, the Senate bill would significantly increase existing civil and criminal penalties for
violations of the revised INA Â§274A prohibitions on unauthorized employment and for violations
of requirements to conduct verification. An employer who hires a worker without using the
electronic system when required to do so would be presumed to have violated the Â§274A
prohibitions on unauthorized employment. Among the new penalties S. 744 would create, DHS
would be authorized to establish an â€œenhanced civil penaltyâ€ in cases in which an employer both
fails to use the EVS and violates a federal, state, or local law on the payment of wages, work
hours, or workplace health and safety.

43 USCIS currently makes such a photo tool available through the E-Verify system for certain identity documents.
Under S. 744, DHS would be required to develop another mechanism for documents not covered by the photo tool.
44 These regulations would have to be published not later than one year after the date of enactment.
45 DHS could require an employer that is found to have engaged in a pattern or practice of violations of U.S.
immigration laws to verify its current employees through the EVS.
Congressional Research Service
13

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

Like H.R. 1772, S. 744 includes language to expressly preempt any state or local law that relates
to the hiring, employment, or verification of the employment eligibility of unauthorized aliens,
though a state may exercise its authority over business licensing or similar laws to impose
penalties for failure to use the federal employment verification system. Unlike H.R. 1772,
however, it does not make provision for state enforcement of the INA Â§274A provisions on
unauthorized employment.46
Visa Security
The Department of State (DOS) and DHS both play key roles in administering the law and
policies on the admission of aliens to the United States. All foreign nationals seeking visas (see
â€œTemporary Admissions,â€ â€œPermanent Admissionsâ€) must undergo admissibility reviews
performed by DOS consular officers abroad. These reviews are intended to ensure that applicants
are not ineligible for admission to the United States under the grounds for inadmissibility spelled
out in INA Â§212. These criteria include health-related grounds, criminal history, security and
terrorist concerns, public charge (e.g., indigence), and previous immigration offenses.47
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.
Although DOSâ€™s Consular Affairs is responsible for issuing visas, DHS agencies perform related
functions.48 There was discussion of assigning all visa issuance responsibilities to DHS when the
department was being created, but the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA, P.L. 107-296) drew
on compromise language stating that DHS would issue regulations regarding visa issuances, and
that DOS would continue to issue visas. Which agency should take the lead in visa issuances
continues to be debated.
Along these lines, Title IV of H.R. 2278, as ordered to be reported by the House Committee on
the Judiciary, would give the Secretary of Homeland Security â€œexclusive authority to issue
regulations, establish policy, and administer and enforce the provisions of the [INA] 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.â€ The bill would broaden the exception to the
confidentiality requirement relating to the sharing of information with foreign governments,
including by allowing such sharing for purposes of â€œdetermining a personâ€™s deportability or
eligibility for a visa, admission, or other immigration benefit,â€™â€™ or any other instance when â€œthe
Secretary of State determines that it is in the national interest.â€49 H.R. 2278 would narrow DOSâ€™s

46 For further discussion of the compliance and penalty provisions in S. 744, see CRS Report R43097, Comprehensive
Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress: Major Provisions in Senate-Passed S. 744.
47 See CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion: Policy and Trends, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem.
48 For example, 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.
49 H.R. 2278 Â§Â§405, 402. H.R. 2278 would also eliminate language in INA Â§222(f) providing that the sharing of visa or
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

authority to waive personal interviews for visa applicants and would add national security and
â€œhigh risk of degradation of visa program integrityâ€ as reasons for requiring a personal
interview.50 The legislation would also give consular officers the authority not to interview visa
applicants deemed to be ineligible for the visa they are seeking. In addition, H.R. 2278 would
give DHS the authority to refuse or revoke any visa to any alien or class of aliens if the Secretary
determines that such refusal or revocation is necessary or advisable in the security interests of the
United States.51
Some in Congress have been 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. 52 GAO, however, 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.53
H.R. 2278 would seek to expand the VSP by requiring DHS to conduct an on-site review of all
visa applications and supporting documentation before adjudication, at the top thirty visa-issuing
posts designated jointly by the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security as high-risk posts. It
further would call for expedited clearance and placement of DHS personnel at overseas embassies
and consular posts.
Temporary Admissions
Nonimmigrantsâ€”such as tourists, foreign students, diplomats, temporary workers, cultural
exchange participants, or intracompany business personnelâ€”are admitted to the United States 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 are â€œdual intent,â€
meaning that they may maintain nonimmigrant status while, at the same time, seeking to adjust to
legal permanent resident (LPR) status54 if they otherwise qualify. Current law describes 24 major

(...continued)
permit-related information with foreign governments shall be â€œon the basis of reciprocity.â€
50 H.R. 2278 Â§403.
51 This new authority for DHS would supplement INA Â§221(i), which provides that after a visa has been issued, the
consular officer and the Secretary of State have discretion to revoke the visa at any time. For further discussion, see
CRS Report R43192, Immigration Enforcement: Major Provisions in H.R. 2278, the Strengthen and Fortify
Enforcement Act (SAFE Act).
52 For additional information, see CRS Report R41093, Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and
Homeland Security, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
53 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Border Security: DHSâ€™s Visa Security Program Needs to Improve
Performance Evaluation and Better Address Visa Risk Worldwide, GAO-11-315, March 31, 2011.
54 Legal permanent residents, also known as immigrants and green card holders, are noncitizens who are legally
authorized to reside permanently in the United States.
Congressional Research Service
15

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

nonimmigrant visa categories, and over 70 specific types of nonimmigrant visas, which are often
referred to by the letter that denotes their section in the statute, such as H-2A agricultural workers,
F-1 foreign students, or J-1 cultural exchange visitors.55
High-Skilled Temporary Workers
The 113th Congress is considering legislation that would make extensive revisions to
nonimmigrant categories for professional specialty workers (H-1B visas), intra-company
transferees (L visas), and other skilled temporary workers. S. 744, as passed by the Senate, and
the Supplying Knowledge-based Immigrants and Lifting Levels of STEM Visas Act (SKILLS
Visa Act; H.R. 2131), as ordered to be reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary, would
substantially revise these visa categories.
H-1B Professional Specialty Workers
Current law makes H-1B visas available for professional specialty workers. H-1B visas are good
for three years, renewable once; and they are â€œdual intent,â€ meaning aliens on H-1B visas may
seek LPR status while maintaining H-1B status in the United States. Current law generally limits
annual H-1B admissions to 65,000, but most H-1B workers are admitted outside the cap because
they are returning workers and are, therefore, exempt from the cap or they work for universities
and nonprofit research facilities that are exempt from the cap.
Employers seeking to hire an H-1B worker must attest: that the employer will pay the
nonimmigrant the greater of the actual wages paid to other employees in the same job or the
prevailing wages for that occupation; that working conditions for the nonimmigrant will not
adversely affect U.S. workers; and that there is no applicable strike or lockout. The employer
must provide a copy of the labor attestation to representatives of the bargaining unit where
applicable, or must post the labor attestation in conspicuous locations at the work site.
Prospective H-1B nonimmigrants must demonstrate to USCIS that they have the requisite
education and work experience for the posted positions.56
Both S. 744 and H.R. 2131 would seek to address perceived H-1B shortages by increasing the
annual numerical limits. S. 744 would replace the 65,000 per year cap on new H-1B admissions
with a flexible cap that would range from a floor of 115,000 to a ceiling of 180,000 annually, with
a â€œmarket-basedâ€ mechanism to increase or decrease the cap based on demand during the
previous year (i.e., whether and how quickly the previous yearâ€™s limit was reached). Under S.
744, up to 25,000 visas would be exempted from the cap for foreign nationals with graduate
degrees in a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) field. H.R. 2131 would
raise the cap to 155,000 and would include an additional 40,000 H-1B visas for STEM graduates
with masterâ€™s or doctoral degrees. Both bills would permit spouses of H-1B workers to work.
S. 744 would seek to protect U.S. workers by modifying H-1B application requirements and
procedures for investigating H-1B complaints. The bill would amend the H-1B labor certification
process to revise wage requirements based on Department of Labor (DOL) surveys, and would

55 See CRS Report CRS Report RL31381, U.S. Immigration Policy on Temporary Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
56 For a fuller discussion of H-1B visas, see CRS Report R42530, Immigration of Foreign Nationals with Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Degrees, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
Congressional Research Service
16

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

require employers to advertise for U.S. workers on a DOL website. S. 744 also would broaden
DOLâ€™s authority to investigate alleged employer violations, would require DOL to conduct annual
compliance audits of certain employers, and would increase DOL reporting requirements and
information sharing between DOL and USCIS. Both S. 744 and H.R. 2131 would revise the
prevailing wage schedules. H.R. 2131 would give DOL subpoena powers in an attempt to assure
employer compliance with the H-1B rules.
L Visa Intra-Company Transferees
Current law permits certain workers to enter the United States on nonimmigrant L visas as
intracompany transferees. The L visa is designed for executives, managers, and employees with
specialized knowledge of a firmâ€™s products. It permits multinational firms to transfer top-level
personnel to their locations in the United States for up to five to seven years.57 Some Members of
Congress have raised concerns that the L visa may result in displacement of U.S. workers
employed in those positions. L workers are often comparable in skills and occupations to H-1B
workers, but the L visa is not subject to the labor market attestation requirements the law sets for
hiring H-1B workers. These concerns have been raised, in particular, with respect to certain
outsourcing and information technology firms that employ L workers as subcontractors within the
United States.
S. 744 would add prohibitions on the outsourcing and outplacement of L employees. Employers
seeking to bring an L visa worker to the United States to open a new office would face special
application requirements. DHS would be required to work with DOS to verify the existence of
multinational companies petitioning for the L workers. With respect to compliance, DHS would
be authorized to investigate and adjudicate alleged employer violations of L visa program
requirements for up to 24 months after the alleged violation; and DOL would be required to
conduct annual compliance audits of certain employers.
H.R. 2131 would add new labor market conditions to the INA pertaining to L petitions. The bill
would require employers of certain L workers who will be working a cumulative period of six
months over a three year period to pay either the actual wage paid to similarly employed workers
or the prevailing wage, whichever is higher. Under H.R. 2131, the employer would have to
provide working conditions that will not adversely affect working conditions of workers similarly
employed.
Other Skilled and Professional Workers
Current law includes two nonimmigrant visa categories similar to H-1B visas for temporary
professional workers from specific countries: North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
TN visas for Canadian and Mexican temporary professional workers, and E-3 treaty professional
visas for Australians. Among the related provisions in legislation that has received action in the
113th Congress, S. 744 would create a new category for specialty workers from countries with
whom the United States has signed a free trade agreement. H.R. 2131 would extend the required
$500 fee for H-1B visa and L visa fraud detection and prevention programs to employers of TN,
E-3, and certain H-1B workers.

57 For a fuller discussion, see CRS Report RL33977, Immigration of Foreign Workers: Labor Market Tests and
Protections, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
Congressional Research Service
17

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

Several other employment-based nonimmigrant visas are intended to attract outstanding
individuals, entrepreneurs, professionals, and high-skilled workers. Among these visas is the O
visa for persons with outstanding and extraordinary ability. S. 744 and H.R. 2131 would add visa
portability for foreign nationals on O-1 visas, enabling them to change employers, and would add
flexibility to the requirements for being admitted on an O-1 visa based on achievement in motion
picture or television production.
S. 744 would significantly amend the E-1 and E-2 visa categories for treaty traders and treaty
investors from countries with whom the United States has signed a treaty of commerce and
navigation.58 Although more than 70 countries are eligible for these visas, the United States no
longer enters into treaties of commerce and navigation. Among other changes, S. 744 would
allow E visas to be issued to citizens of countries where there is a bilateral investment treaty or a
free trade agreement.59 In addition, the Senate bill would create a new nonimmigrant X visa for
qualified entrepreneurs whose U.S. business entities meet certain requirements regarding
attracting investment, or generating revenues and creating jobs. None of the House bills that have
seen committee action contain similar provisions, but H.R. 2131 would create a pathway for E-2s
to become LPRs (see â€œInvestor Visasâ€).60
Lower-Skilled Temporary Workers
Under current law, lower-skilled temporary workers (sometimes referred to as guest workers) can
enter the United States on H-2A agricultural worker visas and H-2B nonagricultural worker visas
to perform temporary or seasonal work. The process of bringing in an H-2A or H-2B worker is a
multi-agency, multi-step process. Among the required steps, employers must apply to the
Department of Labor for a certification that there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are
qualified and available to perform the work; and that the employment of foreign workers will not
adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers who are similarly employed.
Before filing a labor certification application, prospective H-2A and H-2B employers must
attempt to recruit U.S. workers. As part of the labor certification process, employers must offer
and provide required wages and benefits to guest workers and similarly employed U.S. workers.61
Senate and House bills that have received action in the 113th Congress variously contain
provisions on lower-skilled temporary workers.
Agricultural Guest Workers
S. 744, as passed by the Senate, and the Agricultural Guest Worker Act, or the AG Act (H.R.
1773), as ordered to be reported by the House Judiciary Committee, would establish new
temporary agricultural worker visas. S. 744 would establish new W-3 and W-4 nonimmigrant
visas for agricultural workers, and H.R. 1773 would create a new H-2C nonimmigrant
agricultural worker visa.

58 E-1 visas are for treaty traders and the E-2 are for treaty investors. For more on the E category, see CRS Report
RL33844, Foreign Investor Visas: Policies and Issues, by Alison Siskin.
59 Free trade agreements are not considered treaties of commerce and navigation.
60 For further discussion of proposed changes in S. 744 to these and other nonimmigrant categories, see CRS Report
R43097, Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress: Major Provisions in Senate-Passed S. 744.
61 See CRS Report R42434, Immigration of Temporary Lower-Skilled Workers: Current Policy and Related Issues, by
Andorra Bruno.
Congressional Research Service
18

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

While the new agricultural worker visas proposed in the Senate and the House measures differ,
they share some similarities that distinguish them from the existing H-2A visa. Both the Senate
and the House bills would sunset the H-2A visa program. Among the new features of the Senate-
proposed and the House-proposed replacement agricultural worker visa programs, these visas,
unlike the H-2A visa, would not be limited to temporary or seasonal agricultural work and would
not require prospective employers to apply for DOL labor certification or to meet all existing
certification requirements. Both new programs also would provide for at-will employment by
agricultural workers. In addition, both the Senate and the House agricultural worker proposals
include provisions to enable certain unauthorized aliens to obtain legal temporary or permanent
immigration status.62
Nonagricultural Guest Workers
S. 744, as passed by the Senate, would make changes to the H-2B visa. Current law permits the
admission of H-2B visa holders to perform temporary, non-agricultural work when sufficient
qualified U.S. workers are not available. H-2B visas are subject to a statutory cap of 66,000 visas
per year. S. 744 would provide for the admission of additional H-2B workers outside the statutory
cap, while also imposing additional requirements on H-2B employers. Among these provisions, S.
744 would renew an H-2B returning worker exemption from the annual cap that was in effect in
FY2005-FY2007 and provide that H-2B nonimmigrants counted toward the H-2B cap for
FY2013 would not be counted again for FY2014 through FY2018.
In addition to revising the H-2B visa, S. 744 would create a new W-1 visa for nonagricultural
temporary workers and a new W-2 visa for the spouses and children of such workers. Unlike the
H-2B visa, the W-1 visa would not be limited to temporary or seasonal work and would not
require prospective employers to apply for DOL labor certification. More generally, the W-1 visa
would be subject to a different set of requirements than the H-2B visa. W-1 nonimmigrants would
be admitted to work in registered positions, which would be limited to lower-skilled occupations
and generally to metropolitan areas where the unemployment rate is 8.5% or less. The number of
positions would range from 20,000 to 200,000 per year, to be determined as specified in S. 744.
Additional positions could be created for shortage occupations and as special allocations for
certain employers who meet specified recruitment requirements. W-2 nonimmigrants also would
be authorized to work in the United States.63
Other Temporary Admissions
Among the other temporary visa categories that would be changed by S. 744 are categories for
foreign visitors to the United States and foreign students.
Tourists
There has been longstanding interest in Congress in promoting international tourism to the United
States. S. 744 would allow Canadians over age 55 entering on B tourist visas who own or have
rented property in the United States to be admitted for a period not to exceed 240 days. Currently,

62 See CRS Report R43161, Agricultural Guest Workers: Legislative Activity in the 113th Congress, by Andorra Bruno.
63 See CRS Report R43097, Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress: Major Provisions in Senate-
Passed S. 744.
Congressional Research Service
19

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

the maximum admission time on a B visa is 180 days.64 S. 744 would also create a new
nonimmigrant visa category (Y) for those over 55 years of age who own property in the United
States.65 Similar provisions are contained in the Jobs Originated through Launching Travel
(JOLT) Act of 2013 (H.R. 1354).
Visa Waiver Program
The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) allows nationals from certain countries to enter the United
States as temporary visitors for business or pleasure without first obtaining a visa from a U.S.
consulate abroad.66 To qualify for the VWP, the INA specifies that a country must: offer
reciprocal privileges to U.S. citizens; have had a nonimmigrant refusal rate67 of less than 3% for
the previous year; issue their nationals machine-readable passports that incorporate biometric
identifiers (see â€œEntry-Exit Systemâ€); certify that it is developing a program to issue tamper-
resident, machine-readable visa documents that incorporate biometric identifiers which are
verifiable at the countryâ€™s port of entry; and not compromise the law enforcement or security
interests of the United States by its inclusion in the program.
S. 744 would make several changes to the VWP, including authorizing the Secretary of DHS, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, to designate a country as a VWP country if the countryâ€™s
nonimmigrant refusal rate and/or nonimmigrant overstay rate68 was less than 3% in the previous
fiscal year.69 As indicated above, only the refusal rate is currently used in deciding whether a
country should be in the VWP. S. 744 would also allow the Secretary of DHS to waive the refusal
rate requirement if certain conditions are met.70 In addition, the bill would revise the current
probationary period and procedures for terminating a countryâ€™s participation in the VWP if that
country fails to comply with any of the programâ€™s requirements.71
Students
The most common nonimmigrant visa for foreign students is the F visa. It is for international
students pursuing an education at an â€œestablished college, university, seminary, conservatory,
academic high school, elementary school, or other academic institution or in an accredited
language training program.â€72 Both S. 744, as passed by the Senate, and H.R. 2131, as ordered to

64 The length of stay may be extended for an additional 180 days.
65 For more on this category, see CRS Report R43097, Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress:
Major Provisions in Senate-Passed S. 744.
66 As of September 2013, there are 37 countries that are eligible to participate in the VWP. For more on the VWP, see
CRS Report RL32221, Visa Waiver Program, by Alison Siskin.
67 The nonimmigrant refusal rate is the number of people from the country who were refused a B tourist visa in the
previous year and who could not overcome the denial, divided by the total number of people from the country who
applied for a B visa in the previous year.
68 The nonimmigrant overstay rate is the number of people from the country on B visas who did not leave the United
States when their term of admittance ended during the previous year, divided by the total number of people from that
country who were admitted on B visas and were supposed to leave the United States during the previous year.
69 For more details on the provisions in S. 744 regarding the VWP, see CRS Report R43097, Comprehensive
Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress: Major Provisions in Senate-Passed S. 744.
70 For additional information, see Ibid. and CRS Report RL32221, Visa Waiver Program.
71 The VWP provisions in S. 744 are almost identical to those in H.R. 1354.
72 INA Â§101(a)(15)(F).
Congressional Research Service
20

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

be reported by the House Judiciary Committee, would make changes to the F visa category. S.
744 would allow aliens on F visas who are seeking bachelorâ€™s or graduate degrees to have dual
intent; thus, they could seek LPR status while maintaining F status. H.R. 2131 would allow dual
intent only for aliens on F visas who are seeking bachelorâ€™s or graduate degrees in STEM fields.
S. 744 also would increase the accreditation requirements for schools accepting F students, and
would remove the 12 month time limit for foreign students on F visas who are attending public
secondary schools.
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS)
Congress first mandated a foreign student and exchange visitor tracking system in 1996, and
Congress expanded the systemâ€™s requirements for an electronic tracking system after the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.73 This monitoring system, known as the Student and
Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), became operational in 2003, and is administered
by ICEâ€™s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). ICE is developing a new system,
known as SEVIS II, in an effort to address limitations in the current SEVIS system. In addition,
SEVP certifies schools as being eligible to accept foreign students.
S. 744, as passed by the Senate, and H.R. 2278, as ordered to be reported by the House Judiciary
Committee, both contain several provisions related to SEVP and SEVIS.74 Among other
provisions, both S. 744 and H.R. 2278 would change accreditation requirements for academic
institutions and flight schools accepting foreign students, and require periodic background checks
for those accessing SEVIS. Both bills would make changes to the law to try to accelerate the
process of withdrawing a schoolâ€™s certification to prevent problematic institutions from accepting
foreign students. Both bills would also increase penalties for fraud related to visa documents
committed by the owner or certain employees of SEVP-certified schools, and prohibit individuals
convicted of such fraud from holding a position of authority at any school that accepts foreign
students. In addition, S. 744 would require DHS to implement a real-time transmission of data
from SEVIS to CBP databases. This interoperability would have to be completed within 120 days
of enactment or the DHS Secretary would be required to suspend the issuance of foreign student
(F and M) visas.
Cultural Exchange Visitors
The J-1 visa is for individuals participating in cultural exchange programs and encompasses a
variety of different, often work-related, programs, the largest of which is the summer work/travel
program.75 S. 744 would impose a fee on program sponsors (employers) for each nonimmigrant
entering as part of a summer work/travel exchange. In addition, S. 744 would make aliens who
are coming to the United States to perform specialized work that requires proficiency in

73 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, P.L. 104-208), USA Patriot Act of
2001 (P.L. 107-56), and Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-173). For more on the
history of SEVIS, see archived CRS Report RL32188, Monitoring Foreign Students in the United States: The Student
and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), by Alison Siskin.
74 For more on these provisions, see CRS Report R43097, Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress:
Major Provisions in Senate-Passed S. 744.
75 The J visa category includes professors and research scholars, students, foreign medical graduates, teachers, interns,
summer workers, camp counselors, and au pairs who are participating in an approved exchange visitor program.
Congressional Research Service
21

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

languages spoken in countries with less than 5,000 permanent admissions in the previous year,
eligible for a J visa.
Permanent Admissions
Immigrants are persons admitted as legal permanent residents of the United States. Under current
law, permanent admissions are subject to a complex set of numerical limits and preference
categories that give priority for admission on the basis of family relationships, employment, and
geographic diversity of sending countries. These limits include an annual flexible worldwide cap
of 675,000 immigrants, plus certain humanitarian 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 pool of people who are eligible to immigrate to the
United States as LPRs each year typically exceeds the worldwide level set by U.S. immigration
law, and as a consequence millions of prospective LPRs with approved petitions must wait to
receive a numerically limited visa (commonly referred to as the â€œbacklogâ€ or â€œqueueâ€). The
immediate relatives of U.S. citizens are admitted outside of the numerical limits and are the
flexible component of the worldwide cap.76
S. 744, as passed by the Senate, and the Supplying Knowledge-based Immigrants and Lifting
Levels of STEM Visas (SKILLS Visa Act; H.R. 2131), as ordered to be reported by the House
Committee on the Judiciary, would revise the numerical limits on legal permanent immigration
and would alter the system that allocates the visas. Both bills would eliminate the per-country
ceiling for employment-based preferences, and would increase the per-country ceiling for family-
based preferences from 7% to 15%. Both bills would also make substantial changes to the
allocation of visas to family-based and employment-based LPRs and would modify rules for
investor visas.
Family-Based Immigration
To qualify as a family-based LPR under current law, a foreign national must be the spouse or
minor child of a U.S. citizen; the parent, adult child, or sibling of an adult U.S. citizen; or the
spouse or unmarried child of a lawful permanent resident. At least 226,000, and no more than
480,000, family preference LPRs are admitted each year within four different preference
categories: (1) adult unmarried children of U.S. citizens; (2) spouses, minor children, and adult
unmarried children of LPRs; (3) adult married children of U.S. citizens; and (4) siblings of adult
U.S. citizens. Foreign nationals who are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (spouses, minor
children, or parents) are not subject to numerical caps and may be admitted in unlimited
numbers.77
S. 744, as passed by the Senate, includes three sets of provisions that would substantially affect
family-based admissions.78 First, the bill would introduce two â€œMerit-Basedâ€ systems for

76 See CRS Report R42866, Permanent Legal Immigration to the United States: Policy Overview, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem.
77 For information on the current family-based preference categories and visa allocations, see CRS Report R43145, U.S.
Family-Based Immigration Policy, by William A. Kandel.
78 See CRS Report R43097, Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress: Major Provisions in Senate-
Passed S. 744.
Congressional Research Service
22

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

allocating visas, the second of which would reduce and possibly eliminate the current family-
based visa queue of persons with approved immigration petitions, currently estimated at 4.3
million. As discussed more fully below, the Merit-Based Track Two system would allocate LPR
visas to family-preference petitioners in the visa queue who had filed before the date of
enactment. The allocation would occur at a rate of 1/7 of all such pending petitioners per year
over the seven years from FY2015 through FY2021. During FY2022-FY2023, visas would be
issued to family-preference petitioners filing for up to 18 months after the date of enactment, with
half of such petitioners receiving visas in each year (see â€œMerit-Based Track Twoâ€).
In a second set of provisions, S. 744 would alter the number of family-based categories and the
applicable numerical limits. It would reclassify spouses and minor unmarried children of LPRs as
immediate relatives, making them exempt from family-preference numerical limits. The bill
would then reallocate family-preference visas in two stages. In the first stage, during the first 18
months after enactment, family-preference visas would be allocated as follows: (1) adult
unmarried children of U.S. citizens would be capped at 20% of the worldwide limit for family-
preference immigrants; (2) adult unmarried children of LPRs would be capped at 20% of the
worldwide limit, plus unused visas from the first category; (3) adult married children of U.S.
citizens would be capped at 20% of the worldwide limit, plus unused visas from the first two
categories; and (4) siblings of U.S. citizens would be capped at 40% of the worldwide limit, plus
unused visas from the first three categories.
In the second stage, beginning 18 months after enactment, S. 744 would eliminate the fourth
preference category for adult siblings of U.S. citizens and would change the third preference
category for adult married children. Under the revised system, family-preference visas would be
allocated, as follows: (1) adult unmarried children of U.S. citizens could not exceed 35% of the
worldwide level; (2) adult unmarried children of LPRs could not exceed 40% of the worldwide
level; and (3) adult married children (31 years of age or younger) of U.S. citizens could not
exceed 25% of the worldwide level.
A third set of provisions in S. 744 would make nonimmigrant V visas available to all persons with
approved petitions pending within a family preference category. Such visas would allow the adult
unmarried children of U.S. citizens and LPRs, as well as U.S. citizensâ€™ adult married children
who are age 31 or younger, to reside in the United States until their visa becomes available. They
would also be granted work authorization during that period.
Employment-Based Immigration
The current employment-based LPR visa system consists of five numerically limited preference
categories.79 To qualify within one of these categories, a foreign national must be: a person of
extraordinary or exceptional ability in a specified area; an employee whom a U.S. employer has
received approval from the Department of Labor to hire; an investor who will start a business that
creates at least 10 new jobs; or someone who meets the narrow definition of the â€œspecial
immigrantâ€ category.80 The INA currently allocates 140,000 admissions annually for
employment-preference immigrants.

79 For a list of current preference categories, see CRS Report R42866, Permanent Legal Immigration to the United
States: Policy Overview.
80 Special immigrants include ministers of religion, religious workers, and certain employees of the U.S. government
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
23

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

S. 744, as passed by the Senate, would make substantial changes to the employment-based
system.81 Foremost, the bill would exempt from the numerical limits on employment-based LPRs
the following:
â€¢ derivatives (i.e., accompanying immediate family members) of employment-
based LPRs;
â€¢ persons of extraordinary ability in the arts, sciences, education, business, or
athletics; outstanding professors and researchers; and certain multinational
executives and managers (the current first preference employment-based
category);
â€¢ persons who earned a doctorate degree from an institution of higher education in
the United States or an equivalent foreign institution; or persons who earned a
graduate degree in a science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM) field
from a U.S. institution within the five-year period before the petition filing date
and who have a U.S. offer of employment in the related field; and
â€¢ foreign national physicians who have completed foreign residence requirements.
In addition to establishing exemptions from numerical limits, the Senate bill would amend
existing employment-based preference categories and would change certain procedures for
admitting employment-based immigrants. For example, S. 744 would amend the first preference
category (described above) to include aliens who are members of the professions holding
advanced degrees who have a U.S. job offer (subject to certain requirements), including alien
physicians accepted to a U.S. residency or fellowship program, or prospective employees of
national security facilities. The second preference category would consist of advanced degree
holders and generally would be allocated 40% of the 140,000 employment-based visa total. S.
744 also would amend the third preference employment-based category (i.e., skilled workers with
at least two years training, professionals with baccalaureate degrees, and unskilled workers in
occupations in which U.S. workers are in short supply) from 28.6 % to 40% of the worldwide
level and would repeal the existing cap of 10,000 on unskilled workers within that 40%.
Rather than shift certain visa categories outside of numerical limits as in S. 744, H.R. 2131, as
ordered to be reported, would eliminate the family-based fourth preference category for siblings
of U.S. citizens (see â€œFamily-Based Immigrationâ€) and the diversity visa lottery (see â€œDiversity
Visasâ€), and would reallocate these visas to increase the total number of employment-based LPR
visas to 235,000 per year. The bill would provide up to 55,000 visas for foreign STEM graduates
of U.S. universities. Foreign graduates who have a medical, dental or veterinary degree, or who
have completed their medical, dental or veterinary residency at a U.S. university, would also be
eligible. H.R. 2131 would require the STEM graduates to have completed 85% of their education
while being physically present in the United States. Any LPR visas not used by STEM doctorates
would be available for those with masterâ€™s degrees in STEM fields from a U.S. university. In
addition, H.R. 2131 would increase to 55,040 each, the number of visas available for immigrants
in professions with advanced degrees and persons of exceptional ability, and the number of visas

(...continued)
abroad.
81 For a more detailed discussion of these changes, see CRS Report R43097, Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the
113th Congress: Major Provisions in Senate-Passed S. 744.
Congressional Research Service
24

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

available for skilled workers and professionals with bachelorâ€™s degrees. It would not alter the
existing cap of 10,000 on unskilled workers.
Investor Visas
The fifth preference category under the current employment-based admissions system is for
foreign investors (LPR investors). The basic purpose of the LPR investor visa, commonly
referred to as the EB-5 visa, is to benefit the U.S. economy, primarily through employment
creation and an influx of foreign capital into the United States. EB-5 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 investor must invest $1 million
into the enterprise. The investor receives conditional LPR status, and after two years if USCIS
determines that the investor has invested the money, created ten jobs, and the business is still
operational, the conditional status is removed. In 1992, the Regional Center Pilot Program was
authorized under the EB-5 visa category to provide a coordinated focus for foreign investment
toward specific geographic regions. The majority of EB-5 immigrant investors come through the
pilot program.
S. 744, as passed by the Senate, and H.R. 2131, as ordered to be reported by the House Judiciary
Committee, would make changes to the existing EB-5 program. Both bills would adjust the
required amount of capital by the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI-U),82 and
provide procedures for allowing the Secretary of DHS to extend the alienâ€™s conditional LPR
status if the alien is close to meeting the requirements to have the conditional status removed.
Both S. 744 and H.R. 2131 would make the regional center pilot program permanent, and would
generally make persons found liable of certain civil, or convicted of certain criminal, offenses
ineligible to be involved as an owner, or in management or promotion of, a regional center. Both
bills also include procedures for terminating a regional center designation as well as requirements
related to ensuring that regional centers comply with securities laws.
In addition to making changes to the existing EB-5 visa category, H.R. 2131 and S. 744 would
create new employment-based preference categories for investors, allowing foreign nationals
under certain circumstances to receive investment money from qualified investors. Each bill
would make a total of about 10,000 new visas available per year under the new categories. The
bills contain similar but not identical requirements regarding the amount of money that must be
invested and raised, and the number of jobs that must be created within the first three years after
investment to have the conditional status removed. S. 744 also includes separate requirements for
those who have degrees in a STEM field from a U.S. college or university. In addition, H.R. 2131
would allow E-2 treaty investor visa holders (see â€œOther Skilled and Professional Workersâ€) to
adjust to LPR status under one of the new categories if they meet certain conditions.
Diversity Visas
The purpose of the diversity immigrant visa lottery, as the name suggests, is to encourage legal
immigration from countries other than the major sending countries of current immigrants to the
United States. The diversity lottery currently makes 50,000 visas available annually to natives of

82 The CPI-U is a measure that examines the weighted average of prices of selected consumer goods and services, such
as transportation, food, and medical care.
Congressional Research Service
25

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

countries that accounted for fewer than 50,000 immigrant admissions in total over the preceding
five years.83
Some critics of the diversity visa warn that it is vulnerable to fraud and misuse. They 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 â€œnew
seedâ€ immigrants for an immigration system weighted disproportionately toward family-based
immigrants from a handful of countries. Both S. 744, as passed by the Senate, and H.R. 2131, as
ordered to be reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary, would repeal the diversity visa
lottery; however, S. 744 would enable those who received diversity visas for FY2013 and
FY2014 to be eligible to obtain LPR status.
New Admissions Systems
S. 744, as passed by the Senate, would augment the current preference system of LPR admissions
based upon close family relationships and certified employment offers (see preceding â€œFamily-
Based Immigrationâ€ and â€œEmployment-Based Immigrationâ€) with two new pathways. Labeled in
the legislation as â€œMerit-Basedâ€ systems, these pathways would enable immigration that is not
necessarily dependent on sponsors in the United States and not allocated to achieve country of
origin diversity. One system would be designed as a point system to admit aliens based on their
employment skills, and the other would be designed to expedite the admission of certain people in
the existing visa backlog.
Merit-Based Track One
The proposed Merit-Based Track One visa would admit 120,000 to 250,000 LPRs annually, with
the annual flow based upon a sliding formula that would depend on demand for the visa in the
previous year. If the average annual unemployment rate in the previous fiscal year was greater
than 8.5%, the level would not be increased. Unused visas from past years would be recaptured.
During each of the years FY2015 through FY2017, Track One visas would be made available to
foreign nationals who meet existing criteria for the employment-based third preference category
for professional, skilled shortage, and unskilled shortage workers. In FY2018 and subsequent
years, visas would be allocated as follows:
â€¢ 50% would be allocated to Tier 1 based upon factors including education (college
plus), employment experience, high-demand occupation, entrepreneurship,
relative youth, English language ability, familial relationship to a U.S. citizen,
country of origin diversity, and civic engagement.
â€¢ 50% would be allocated to Tier 2 based upon factors including employment
experience, employment in high-demand occupations that require little to
medium preparation (high school diploma or GED), experience as primary
caregiver, relative youth, English language ability, familial relationship to a U.S.
citizen, country of origin diversity, and civic engagement.

83 See CRS Report R41747, Diversity Immigrant Visa Lottery Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
Congressional Research Service
26

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

Merit-Based Track Two
S. 744, as passed by the Senate, would create a second Merit System (Track Two) with 4
components. The first component would consist of employment preference petitioners who filed
before enactment of S. 744 and whose petitions were pending (i.e., were in the visa queue or
backlog) for at least five years on the date of enactment. The second would consist of family-
preference petitioners who filed before enactment and whose petitions were pending (i.e., were in
the visa queue or backlog) for at least five years. The third component would consist of persons
filing third or fourth preference family petitions84 during the first 18 months after the date of
enactment (i.e., before the billâ€™s final changes to the family- preference categories become
effective; see â€œFamily-Based Immigrationâ€) and whose visas are not issued during the first five
years after the billâ€™s date of enactment. The fourth would consist of individuals who have been in
a legally present status that allows for employment authorization for 10 years, a category
apparently designed to describe unauthorized aliens who would be granted a new registered
provisional immigrant (RPI) status under separate provisions of the bill (see â€œLegalization of
Unauthorized Aliensâ€).
Under S. 744, the first two components of the Merit-Based Track Two system would function as
current backlog reduction, as visas would be issued to 1/7 of the petitioners in these two
categories, ordered by filing date, during each year from FY2015 through FY2021, regardless of
country of origin or other numerical limits. During FY2022-FY2023, Merit-Based Track Two
visas would be issued to petitioners filing after the date of enactment under the current family-
based third and fourth preference categories, with one half of such filers receiving visas in each of
these years (ordered by filing date). These visas would thus accommodate certain family
petitioners who no longer would be eligible following the implementation of reforms to the
family preference system in S. 744 (see â€œFamily-Based Immigrationâ€).
Ten years after enactment of S. 744 (i.e., beginning in FY2024), the Merit-Based Track Two
system would become a pathway for individuals granted legal temporary RPI status under the bill
to adjust to LPR status. Beginning in FY2029, aliens would be required to have been lawfully
present in an â€œemployment authorized statusâ€ for 20 years prior to filing for LPR status under
Track Two. The bill expressly waives the unlawful presence ground of inadmissibility for Track
Two adjustments.
Legalization of Unauthorized Aliens
How to address the unauthorized alien population in the United States is a key and controversial
issue in comprehensive immigration reform. There is a fundamental split between those who want
to grant legal status to unauthorized aliens in the United States and those who want unauthorized
aliens to leave the country.85 S. 744, as passed by the Senate, proposes to establish legalization
programs for certain unauthorized aliens in the United States. The implementation of certain
enforcement provisions under Section 3 of S. 744 would serve as pre-conditions for the billâ€™s
legalization provisions (see â€œBorder Security Strategy and Metricsâ€).

84 The existing third preference family-based category is for adult married children of U.S. citizens; the fourth
preference family-based category is for siblings of adult U.S. citizens.
85 Among those supportive of granting legal status to unauthorized aliens, there are further splits between those who
support granting legal status to the majority of unauthorized aliens and those who favor legalizing only selected groups.
Congressional Research Service
27

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

A general legalization program would initially grant registered provisional immigrant (RPI)
status, a new legal temporary status, to unauthorized aliens who have been continuously
physically present in the United States since December 31, 2011, and meet other requirements.
Dependent spouses and children of these aliens could be classified as RPI dependents if they have
maintained continuous physical presence in the United States since December 31, 2012, and meet
the other RPI eligibility requirements. RPIs could subsequently apply to adjust to LPR status,
subject to specified requirements; there would be a special pathway to LPR status for RPIs who
entered the country as children and satisfy criteria under the DREAM Act provisions in S. 744.86
RPIs who are not eligible for the DREAM Act pathway would have to adjust to LPR status under
the new Merit-Based Track Two system of permanent admissions that S. 744 would separately
establish (see â€œMerit-Based Track Twoâ€).
A separate legalization program would grant Blue Card status, another new legal temporary
status, to eligible agricultural workers, who could subsequently apply to adjust to LPR status. The
general and agricultural legalization programs and the DREAM Act pathway would each be
subject to a different set of requirements, which would variously include employment/education,
penalty fees, and payment of federal income taxes. The time frames for eligibility for LPR status
also vary under the general and agricultural legalization programs and the DREAM Act
pathway.87
The House has not acted on any legislation to establish a general legalization program for
unauthorized aliens. A bill (H.R. 1773) that has been ordered to be reported by the House
Judiciary Committee, however, would enable certain unauthorized aliens to obtain legal
temporary status. H.R. 1773 would establish a new H-2C visa for temporary agricultural workers
(see â€œAgricultural Guest Workersâ€). The bill includes provisions to permit aliens who were
unlawfully present in the United States on April 25, 2013, the day before the billâ€™s date of
introduction, to obtain legal temporary status as H-2C agricultural workers. The bill would not
provide any special pathway to LPR status for H-2C workers.88
Naturalization
A number of bills in the 113th Congress contain provisions amending naturalization, including S.
744, as passed by the Senate, and H.R. 2278, as ordered to be reported by the House Judiciary
Committee.89 Generally, S. 744 would expedite and streamline naturalization, while H.R. 2278
would restrict naturalization. S. 744 would streamline and waive naturalization requirements for
certain categories of LPRs, including for certain elderly or physically/mentally disabled
applicants, employees of certain national security facilities, and widows of U.S. citizen spouses.
In addition, other provisions in S. 744 would: (1) treat U.S. service members who have received
combat awards as having satisfied certain naturalization requirements, including good moral
character, English/civics knowledge, and honorable service/discharge; (2) develop and expand

86 The DREAM Act, which stands for the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, refers broadly to
legislation introduced regularly in Congress to enable certain unauthorized aliens in the United States to obtain legal
permanent resident status. For information on the DREAM Act provisions in S. 744, see CRS Report R43097,
Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress: Major Provisions in Senate-Passed S. 744.
87 See Ibid.
88 See CRS Report R43161, Agricultural Guest Workers: Legislative Activity in the 113th Congress.
89 Other bills include, for example, H.R. 932, S. 296, and S. 645.
Congressional Research Service
28

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

programs for immigrant integration and naturalization education, outreach, and ceremonies; (3)
exempt certain LPRs, who were lawfully present and eligible for work authorization for at least
10 years before becoming LPRs, from the usual residence/physical presence in LPR status
required for naturalization;90 (4) treat admission and periods in registered provisional immigrant
status for Dream Act beneficiaries as satisfying admission and periods in LPR status required for
naturalization;91 and (5) amend automatic naturalization for a child born abroad to require
physical presence after a lawful admission, instead of residence as an LPR, and to include a
person who no longer has legal status nor is physically present in the United States if s/he would
have satisfied amended requirements had they been in effect when the person was originally
lawfully admitted.
H.R. 2278, among other things, would: (1) bar aliens involved in many terrorism or crime-related
activities from satisfying the naturalization requirement for good moral character; (2) clarify that
the list of conduct identified in the INA as barring a finding of good moral character is not
exhaustive, and that when considering whether an applicant possesses good moral character,
immigration authorities may consider that applicantâ€™s conduct at any time; (3) bar the
naturalization of any alien determined by the Secretary of DHS to have been at any time
described in the security-related grounds of deportability or inadmissibility; (4) bar consideration
or approval of naturalization applications while proceedings are pending that could result in the
applicantâ€™s removal, loss of LPR status, or denaturalization; (5) limit judicial review of
naturalization delays and denials; (6) purport to authorize the Attorney General to denaturalize
persons who have engaged in specified conduct involving terrorism or support for terrorism, the
receipt of military training from a terrorist organization, or activities committed with the purpose
of overthrowing or opposing the U.S. government through violence or other unlawful means; and
(7) strengthen immigration consequences for unlawful procurement of naturalization.92
Refugee Status and Asylum
The United States has long held to the general principle that it will not return a foreign national to
a country where his or her life or freedom would be threatened. This principle is embodied in
several provisions of the INA, most notably in provisions defining refugees and asylees. Refugees
are persons outside their home country who are unable or unwilling to return because of
persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; under certain conditions, refugees
may be persons within their home country who are persecuted or have a well-founded fear of
persecution on one of these grounds. Refugees are processed and admitted to the United States
from abroad.93

90 This provision would cover eligible aliens granted registered provisional immigrant status under S. 744 and would
enable them to naturalize after three years in LPR status, subject to applicable requirements. See CRS Report R43097,
Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress: Major Provisions in Senate-Passed S. 744.
91 However, such DREAM Act beneficiaries could not apply for naturalization while in RPI status unless applying for
military-service-based naturalization pursuant to INA Â§Â§328 and 329. See Ibid.
92 See CRS Report R43192, Immigration Enforcement: Major Provisions in H.R. 2278, the Strengthen and Fortify
Enforcement Act (SAFE Act).
93 See CRS Report RL31269, Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Policy, by Andorra Bruno.
Congressional Research Service
29

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

Foreign nationals may claim asylum in the United States if they demonstrate a well-founded fear
that if returned home, they will be persecuted based upon one of these same five grounds. They
may apply for asylum affirmatively with USCIS after arrival into the country, or they may seek
asylum defensively before an immigration judge during removal proceedings.94
S. 744, as passed by the Senate, would increase the flexibility of these INA asylum and refugee
provisions in several ways. For example, S. 744 would repeal a current provision that requires
asylum claims to be filed within one year of an alienâ€™s arrival in the United States, and would
provide for the reconsideration of certain asylum claims that were denied because of the failure to
file within one year. Under certain circumstances, a U.S. asylum officer would be authorized to
grant asylum to an alien found to have a credible fear of persecution based on an interview during
expedited removal rather than referring the alien to an immigration judge. The bill also would
authorize the spouse or child of a refugee or asylee who is admitted to the United States to bring
his or her own accompanying child in the same status.
S. 744 would establish requirements for overseas refugee adjudications, including the right to
legal counsel (not at government expense), a written record of the decision, and administrative
review of a denial. Other refugee-related provisions would authorize the President, based on a
recommendation by DOS, to designate certain groups of aliens on the basis of humanitarian
concerns or national interest, and thereby facilitate the admission of group members as refugees.
In addition, a new category of â€œstateless personsâ€ would be defined, and such persons would be
permitted to apply for conditional lawful status under certain conditions, and to adjust to LPR
status after one year, as special immigrants under the employment-based preference category.
At the same time, S. 744 includes provisions that would tighten refugee and asylum laws for
national security purposes. Specifically, an alien granted refugee status or asylum who returns to
his or her country of nationality or habitual residence would have that refugee or asylee status
terminated unless the DHS Secretary determines that the alien returned for good cause, or another
exception applies. S. 744 also would expand law enforcement and national security checks during
the refugee and asylum application process. (See â€œInadmissibility, Deportability, and Relief from
Removalâ€ for a related discussion.)
Lautenberg Amendment
Special legislative provisions facilitate relief for certain refugee groups. The â€œLautenberg
amendment,â€ 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 â€œSpecter amendment,â€ to direct the Attorney
General to establish categories of Iranian religious minorities who may qualify for refugee status
under the Lautenberg amendmentâ€™s reduced evidentiary standard. The Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6) extended the Lautenberg amendment through
FY2013. It has since lapsed. The FY2014 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act (S. 1372), as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee,

94 See CRS Report R41753, Asylum and â€œCredible Fearâ€ Issues in U.S. Immigration Policy, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
Congressional Research Service
30

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

would re-enact the Lautenberg amendment for FY2014. The House-reported counterpart (H.R.
2855) does not include such an extension.
Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against
Women Act
Foreign national spouses of U.S. citizens and LPRs can acquire legal status through the family-
based immigration provisions of the INA. In general, they must be sponsored by their U.S. citizen
or LPR spouses and meet the requirements for LPR status.95 The INA also includes provisions to
assist foreign national victims of domestic abuse and allow them to self-petition for LPR status
independently of their U.S. citizen or LPR relatives.96 These provisions, which were initially
enacted in the Immigration Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-649) and the Violence Against Women Act
(VAWA) of 1994 (P.L. 103-322, Title IV), have been periodically reauthorized. The 2000
reauthorization (VAWA 2000), part of the larger Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection
Act (TVPA, P.L. 106-386), created the nonimmigrant U visa for foreign national victims of
certain crimesâ€”including domestic abuseâ€”who assist law enforcement to investigate and
prosecute such crimes. Successful petitioners for such a visa are classified as U nonimmigrants
for up to four years. Program authorizations in VAWA expired in 2011. Efforts to reauthorize the
VAWA programs in the 113th Congress culminated in the enactment of Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-4).
Among its immigration-related provisions, P.L. 113-4 includes â€œstalkingâ€ in the definition of
criminal activity covered under the U visa. It extends VAWA coverage to â€œderivativeâ€ children
who are included in their parentsâ€™ petitions and whose parents die during the petition process. It
exempts VAWA self-petitioners, U visa petitioners, and battered foreign nationals from being
classified as inadmissible for LPR status if their financial circumstances raise concerns over them
becoming potential public charges. It protects U visa petitioners under age 21 and derivative
children of adult U visa petitioners from aging out of eligibility if they reach age 21 after filing a
U visa petition. The law also includes a provision that allows DHS to share VAWA petition
information with other government agencies for national security purposes.
P.L. 113-4 includes additional protections for foreign nationals who intend to marry U.S. citizens
and LPRs. These provisions require increased disclosure about U.S. citizen and LPR sponsors and
more stringent restrictions for international marriage brokers. The law requires DHS to provide
foreign nationals with information about inconsistent self-disclosures by sponsors regarding past
domestic abuse and to conduct more extensive background checks on each U.S. citizen who
petitions on behalf of an alien fiancÃ© or fiancÃ©e to provide the latter with additional information
about potentially abusive relationships. It prohibits international marriage brokers from marketing
information about foreign nationals under age 18 and requires more extensive record-keeping of
age-related documentation. It expands federal criminal penalties for specified marriage broker
and other VAWA violations.

95 INA Â§204.
96 For more information, see CRS Report R42477, Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act
(VAWA), by William A. Kandel.
Congressional Research Service
31

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

S. 744, as passed by the Senate, also includes several VAWA-related provisions. It would expand
the number of U visas from 10,000 to 18,000 annually. It would grant aging-out protection,
deferred status eligibility (to allow spouses and children of nonimmigrant visa holders to receive
independent immigration status), and work authorization eligibility to any derivative child on a
VAWA petition. It would provide financial relief to VAWA petitioners by requiring that DHS grant
them work authorization no later than six months following the petition filing date. It would allow
VAWA applicants to adjust to LPR status without being subject to the family-based immigration
numerical limits. Finally, S. 744 would permit battered immigrants access to public housing.
Human Trafficking
It is a crime to engage in trafficking in persons (TIP) for the purposes of commercial exploitation.
TIP involves violations of labor, public health, and human rights 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. Domestically, TVPA created a new visa category for
victims of severe forms of trafficking (T visa).97 The 2000 act and the reauthorizations also
created several grant programs to aid trafficking victims and to train law enforcement to combat
TIP. P.L. 113-4 modifies some of the grant programs under the TVPA,98 expands reporting
requirements, creates new criminal penalties for trafficking offenses, and reauthorizes
appropriations for FY2014 through FY2017. 99
P.L. 113-4 makes it a criminal offense to knowingly destroy, or for a period of more than 48
hours, conceal, remove, confiscate, or possess another personâ€™s passport, or immigration or
personal identification documents in the course of committing or attempting to commit the
offense of fraud in foreign labor contracting or alien smuggling, and allows for civil remedies for
personal injuries caused during the commission of most criminal trafficking offenses.
P.L. 113-4 makes the adult or minor children of a beneficiary of derivative T status eligible for T
status if it is determined that such a person faces a present danger of retaliation as a result of the
trafficking victimâ€™s cooperation with law enforcement. In addition, P.L. 113-4 amends the grant
program for state and local law enforcementâ€™s anti-trafficking programs that focus on U.S. citizen
victims,100 so that the grants can be used for anti-trafficking programs for noncitizen victims.
Furthermore, P.L. 113-4 contains provisions dealing with the treatment of unaccompanied
minors101 in DHS or Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) custody. The act specifies
that the DHS Secretary should release or place in the least restrictive setting any unaccompanied
alien child who turns 18 while in custody. The act also requires the DHS Secretary to create a
pilot program in three states to provide independent child advocates at immigration detention
sites for child trafficking victims and other vulnerable unaccompanied alien children. In addition,
P.L. 113-4 specifies that children who receive U status and are in the custody of HHS are eligible

97 To be eligible for T status, with certain exceptions regarding the age and the mental health of the victim, the victim is
required to cooperate with law enforcement.
98 These include grant programs for victimsâ€™ services and law enforcement anti-trafficking activities.
99 For background information and a full discussion of the trafficking-related provisions in P.L. 113-4, see CRS Report
RL34317, Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress, by Alison Siskin and Liana Sun Wyler.
100 This grant program was created in P.L. 109-164, Â§204 (42 U.S.C. 14044c(d)).
101 Unaccompanied minors are aliens who are in the United States without a parent or guardian.
Congressional Research Service
32

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

for programs and services to the same extent as refugees, and that the federal government will
reimburse states for foster care provided to these children.
Other Issues and Legislation
U.S. Territories
Most inhabited U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern
Marianas, are defined by the INA as included in the definition of â€œUnited Statesâ€ for the purpose
of federal immigration laws. The notable exception is American Samoa (including Swainâ€™s
Island), which has its own sui generis immigration system and whose native residents are non-
citizen U.S. nationals under the INA. American Samoans who move to the United States, as this
term is defined in the INA, are eligible for expedited naturalization. In the 113th Congress, several
bills would establish specific accommodations for the circumstances and immigration needs of
certain territories.
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 Covenant102 that sets forth the relationship between the CNMI and the United
States, 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. It also provided for a CNMI-only investor visa for persons who previously had
investor permits under the territorial system. Aliens who were not eligible for the transitional
foreign worker or investor visas or other visas under federal immigration laws were able to
remain in the CNMI on entry permits issued under the former territorial immigration laws until
the earlier of the original permit expiration date or November 28, 2011.103
S. 744, as passed by the Senate, would resolve the status of certain long-term foreign residents of
the CNMI who were unable to otherwise acquire LPR status under the federal system.104 It 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

102 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. Â§1801 note.
103 In the fall of 2011, USCIS announced that certain groups of permit holders would be eligible for parole beyond the
final permit expiration date, including (1) long-term foreign residents of the CNMI, namely immediate relatives of U.S.
citizens and certain persons born in the CNMI who did not receive U.S. citizenship (also their spouses and unmarried
children under 21 years old); (2) caregivers of U.S. citizens or LPRs with critical medical or special needs; (3)
transitional workersâ€™ dependents turning 18 within one year; and (4) beneficiaries of certain pending nonimmigrant
worker petitions. Parole would be granted on a case-by-case, discretionary basis and would permit recipients to stay
lawfully in the CNMI. Parole is a form of immigration relief that does not constitute formal admission into the United
States but permits an alien to come to and/or stay in the United States temporarily for humanitarian or public interest
reasons. USCIS guidelines for parole benefitting these groups are available at http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/
menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=4d3314dd2b635210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&
vgnextchannel=4d3314dd2b635210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD.
104 For background information on these residents, see archived CRS Report R42036, Immigration Legislation and
Issues in the 112th Congress, coordinated by Andorra Bruno.
Congressional Research Service
33

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

adjust later to regular LPR status. Other legislation introduced in the 113th Congress on the U.S.
territories would extend the initial transition period for CNMI-only investors and workers until
December 31, 2019, with the possibility of further extensions.105
Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa Program
P.L. 113-42, signed into law on October 3, 2013, re-enacts a special immigrant visa program for
certain Iraqis that expired on September 30, 2013.106 The program, established by Section 1244 of
P.L. 110-181 and subsequently amended by P.L. 110-242, makes Iraqi nationals eligible for
special immigrant status if they: were employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government in Iraq
between March 20, 2003 and September 30, 2013, for not less than one year; provided
documented valuable service to the U.S. government; and have experienced â€œan ongoing serious
threat as a consequence of the alienâ€™s employment by the United States government.â€ This
program had been capped at 5,000 principal aliens (excluding spouses and children) for each of
fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and allowed for unused visa numbers to be carried forward from
one year to the next through FY2013. P.L. 113-42 amends the numerical limitations provisions to
extend the special immigrant visa program and provide additional visas. It sets the total number
of principal aliens who may be provided special immigrant status under the program for the first
three months of FY2014 at the sum of the number of aliens with pending applications on
September 30, 2013, plus 2,000. Initial applications for new cases (subject to the 2,000 limit)
must be submitted to the DOS Chief of Mission in Iraq by December 31, 2013.

105 See S. 1237 and H.R. 2200 in the 113th Congress. These measures also would require the Secretary of the Interior to
direct the American Samoa Election Office to hold a referendum on U.S. citizenship at birth in American Samoa.
106 The expiration date applied to principal applicants, but not to derivative spouses and children. USCIS, â€œSpecial
Immigrant Visa Program for Iraqi Nationals Who Worked For or On Behalf Of the U.S. Government Extended,â€
bulletin, October 10, 2013, http://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/USDHSCIS-8f1668. An analogous special
immigrant visa program for Afghans, initially established by P.L. 111-8 and amended by P.L. 111-118, was not
amended by P.L. 113-42 and is currently scheduled to expire at the end of FY2014.
Congressional Research Service
34

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

Author Contact Information

Andorra Bruno, Coordinator
Marc R. Rosenblum
Specialist in Immigration Policy
Specialist in Immigration Policy
abruno@crs.loc.gov, 7-7865
mrosenblum@crs.loc.gov, 7-7360
Michael John Garcia
Alison Siskin
Legislative Attorney
Specialist in Immigration Policy
mgarcia@crs.loc.gov, 7-3873
asiskin@crs.loc.gov, 7-0260
William A. Kandel
Ruth Ellen Wasem
Analyst in Immigration Policy
Specialist in Immigration Policy
wkandel@crs.loc.gov, 7-4703
rwasem@crs.loc.gov, 7-7342
Margaret Mikyung Lee

Legislative Attorney
mmlee@crs.loc.gov, 7-2579

Congressional Research Service
35