Place-Based Visas: Overview and Issues for Congress
July 17, 2024
Place-Based Visas: Overview and Issues for Congress
The U.S. immigration system operates largely at the federal
Place-Based Visas in Other Countries
level, with decisions about how many individuals are
Place-based visa programs currently supplement federal
admitted to the United States and under what criteria made
immigration systems in Canada and Australia. Canada’s
for the entire nation. Foreign nationals coming to live and
Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) allows provinces and
work in the United States—whether on permanent
territories to set criteria and nominate qualified foreign
immigrant visas or temporary nonimmigrant visas—tend to
nationals who are then admitted to settle permanently in
concentrate in major metropolitan areas
that province or territory. Between 2010 and 2015, the PNP
Some Members of Congress have proposed place-based
accounted for a quarter of Canada’s employment-based
visas that would supplement the current admission process
admissions and has dispersed economic immigrants beyond
and decentralize it for a portion of foreign-born workers to
their historic concentrations in Ontario, British Columbia,
state and local entities. The goal of such visa programs is to
and Quebec. Similarly, Australia began regional migration
facilitate immigration to more parts of the country in order
measures, which included place-based visas, in 1995 to
to fill jobs in sub-national labor markets and support
encourage immigrants to settle outside of Sydney,
regional economic development. Some proposals prioritize
Melbourne, and Brisbane. In 2015, state-based visas made
areas experiencing economic distress.
up 19% of skilled immigration to Australia.
Designing Place-Based Visa Programs
Existing Location-Based U.S. Programs
Place-based visa programs would allow for the admission
While the United States does not currently operate place-
of foreign nationals to live and work in specified locations
based visa programs, there are two immigration programs
such as a state, metropolitan area, or county. With the
that limit participation to defined geographic areas: (1) the
federal government maintaining its vetting and enforcement
EB-5 Regional Center Program, which provides lawful
roles, these programs would allow states or municipalities
permanent resident (LPR) status to foreign nationals who
to petition for an additional number of foreign workers
invest in job-creating projects (with incentives for targeted
based on criteria established by the state or municipality.
areas), and (2) J-1 waivers that allow foreign physicians
who receive U.S. medical training to remain in the United
Like the current employment-based visa system, place-
States if they work in areas with a shortage of health care
based visa programs are intended to be demand driven.
professionals.
However, instead of employers, state or local governments
would petition for foreign workers based on the
EB-5 Visa Regional Center Program
occupational and industrial needs of their jurisdictions.
Unlike other employment-based visa categories, the EB-5
Placed-based visa programs could admit foreign workers
visa does not require an employer sponsor. Rather, it
permanently or provide temporary admission convertible to
provides LPR status to applicants who invest a minimum
permanent status if applicants met certain residence,
capital amount in a project that will create jobs in the area.
investment, or employment criteria.
Investment requirements are $1,050,000, or $800,000 if the
Some Members of Congress have previously introduced
investment is in a targeted employment area (TEA)—a rural
legislation to create place-based visa programs. For
or high-unemployment area—or in an infrastructure project.
example, S. 1040 in the 115th Congress and the identical
One pathway to the EB-5 visa involves a pooled investment
H.R. 5174 in the 116th Congress would have created a new
whereby participants invest in a project in a defined
nonimmigrant visa category to admit foreign nationals to a
geographic area. Various studies have reported on the
state “to perform services, provide capital investment,
economic impact of the EB-5 program, including total
direct the operations of an enterprise, or otherwise
investment spending and job creation. Congress reformed
contribute to the economic development agenda of the state
the program in 2022 (P.L. 117-103, Division BB) to raise
in a manner determined by the State.” Under this plan,
the investment threshold and address concerns over fraud,
states would have needed to opt in to the system by creating
instability, and investor protections. For additional
a place-based visa program—approved by their state
information, see CRS Report R44475, EB-5 Immigrant
legislatures and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Investor Program.
(DHS)—to allow participants to live and work in their
states. The bills would have allowed participants to change
J-1 Physician Waivers
employers or residence within the state or (under an
Foreign medical graduates (FMGs) may enter the United
interstate compact) within a group of states. Congress did
States on J-1 nonimmigrant visas in order to receive
not take action on these bills.
graduate medical education. FMGs must return to their
home countries for at least two years after completing their
education before they can apply for a status that would
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Place-Based Visas: Overview and Issues for Congress
allow them to work as physicians in the United States. J-1
Policy Considerations
physicians can receive a waiver of this requirement if they
For almost a century, federal policies have authorized a
agree to work for three years in a federally designated
variety of place-based economic development programs to
medical shortage area, such as health professional shortage
attract private investment, create jobs, and improve quality
areas (HPSAs) or medically underserved areas. Waiver
of life in economically disadvantaged places. These federal
requests on behalf of J-1 physicians may be submitted by a
programs are designed to support infrastructure, workforce,
state department of public health through the Conrad 30
innovation, entrepreneurship, and related activities. For
Waiver Program or by an interested federal government
example, the Tech Hubs grant program was designed to
agency (IGA), through the IGA Program.
support technology development, job creation, and the
Conrad 30 State Program
“geographic diversity of innovation.” Grantees may use
funding for workforce training to prepare regions for jobs in
Established in 1994 as a temporary program, the Conrad 30
technology and innovation sectors, and other activities.
Waiver Program (also known as the Conrad 30 State
Program) allows each state to obtain up to 30 waivers per
In the United States, some proponents of place-based
year on behalf of FMGs who have completed their required
approaches—including place-based visa programs—tout
training. States have discretion in how they administer their
them as a means of re-invigorating places experiencing
programs, and some set additional rules beyond those
population loss and economic distress. A recent place-based
required by federal statute. States participating in the
visa proposal, for example, from a self-identified bipartisan
Conrad 30 Waiver Program have sponsored 23,000
public policy organization—dubbed the Heartland Visa—
physician waivers since the program’s inception. State
focuses on the parts of the United States undergoing above-
officials who administer the program report that it is an
average population aging and/or prime working-age
important part of rural physician supply, as some states
population loss.
require that J-1 physicians be placed in rural HPSAs. While
Whether or not a place-based visa program in the United
not all states track the retention of J-1 placements, states
States would achieve its goals is open to debate. Supporters
that do have found that most recruited physicians intended
of place-based visas contend that potential immigrants
to remain in the communities in which they were placed,
would agree to live in certain locations in exchange for the
though not necessarily at their same employer. In addition,
opportunity to work in the United States, and that the
states that did track their J-1 retention found that 40% of
presence of foreign nationals in such places would help
recruited physicians were employed at the same locations
spread the benefits of immigration beyond traditional urban
five years after their commitments ended.
destinations. Some supporters link strategies to attract
Interested Government Agency Program
immigrants with economic development policies designed
to spread entrepreneurship, job creation, innovation, and
IGAs may also request waivers for J-1 physicians. Unlike
economic growth in areas beyond the more populous areas
the Conrad 30 State Program, there is no numerical limit on
of the country. They point to research that suggests that
IGA waivers. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
immigrants start new businesses and contribute to growth in
and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
innovation and employment.
regularly sponsor IGA waivers for J-1 physicians.
Opponents of place-based visa approaches argue that
In addition, eight federal regional commissions and
admitting more foreign workers could depress wages for
authorities (regional commissions) are authorized to address
U.S. workers, and that places struggling with population
economic distress in certain defined socioeconomic regions.
loss and economic decline should focus on raising wages,
These regional commissions may operate as IGAs for the J-
improving employee benefits, and increasing training to
1 program. The Appalachian Regional Commission was the
keep or attract workers. Opponents also argue that a place-
first to start a J-1 program, in the 1980s. Three other
based approach would be susceptible to corruption, citing
regional commissions have since launched similar programs
past scandals associated with the EB-5 investor visa. Some
and a fourth plans to develop a program. The regional
argue that place-based approaches increase the risk for
commissions’ programs are needs-based, meaning that the
abuse of foreign workers, particularly if some type of
regional commissions generally require evidence that the
indemnity agreement (e.g., a bond) is involved, essentially
physician(s) is needed and U.S. workers are not available to
making the workers “indentured servants.” Opponents also
provide care in the area.
question whether and how states could enforce the
The J-1 programs administered by the regional
requirement for visa recipients to remain in specific
commissions vary. The regional commissions have
locations, particularly since the U.S. immigration system
discretion in how they structure the program and some
has not historically placed geographic constraints on
apply additional requirements based on state partners’
newcomers’ residence. If place-based visa recipients moved
priorities or preferences. Outcome data are not available for
to more economically vibrant parts of the country, the
all regional commission programs. However, the Delta
purported benefits of such programs would diminish.
Regional Authority (DRA), for example, self-reported that
each physician in its J-1 program, on average, “is estimated
Jill H. Wilson, Analyst in Immigration Policy
to create five full-time jobs within their clinics and offices
Julie M. Lawhorn, Analyst in Economic Development
and an additional 3.4 full- and part-time jobs within the
Policy
communities where they work.” The DRA further noted
IF12712
that “most [physicians] choose to stay far longer [than the
three-year requirement] once they develop a patient base.”
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Place-Based Visas: Overview and Issues for Congress
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF12712 · VERSION 1 · NEW