Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation

November 6, 2019 – June 30, 2020 R45995

Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and
June 30, 2020
Related Legislation
Andorra Bruno
On June 4, 2019, the House passed the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 (H.R. 6) on a
Specialist in Immigration
vote of 237 to 187. Title I of the bill, the Dream Act of 2019, would establish a process for
Policy
certain unauthorized immigrants who entered the United States as children (known as

unauthorized childhood arrivals) to obtain lawful permanent immigration status. This vote on
H.R. 6 was the latest in a line of House and Senate floor votes on legislation to grant some type

of immigration relief to unauthorized childhood arrivals.
As commonly used, the term “unauthorized childhood arrivals” encompasses both individuals who entered the United States
unlawfully, and individuals who entered legally but then lost legal status by violating the terms of a temporary stay. There is
no single set of requirements that defines an unauthorized childhood arrival. Individual bills include their own criteria.
Legislation on unauthorized childhood arrivals dates to 2001. The earliest bills, which received Senate committee action in
the 107th and 108th Congresses, only addressed unauthorized childhood arrivals. More recent proposals receiving legislative
action have combined provisions on unauthorized childhood arrivals with other immigration provisions—in some cases,
these have been major bills to reform the immigration system, such as Senate-passed S. 744 in the 113th Congress. None of
these bills have been enacted into law.
Most measures on unauthorized childhood arrivals that have seen legislative action have proposed mechanisms for eligible
individuals to become lawful permanent residents (LPRs), typically through a two-stage process. Criteria to obtain a
conditional or temporary status (stage 1) commonly include continuous presence in the United States for a minimum number
of years prior to the date of the bill’s enactment, initial entry into the United States as a minor, and satisfaction of specified
educational requirements. Criteria to become a full-fledged LPR (stage 2) typically include satisfaction of additional
educational requirements or service in the Armed Forces, or, in some cases, employment. Proposals to grant legal
immigration status to unauthorized childhood arrivals also require applicants to clear criminal and security-related
ineligibility criteria.
In June 2012, following unsuccessful efforts in the 111th Congress to enact legislation to grant LPR status to unauthorized
childhood arrivals, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
(DACA) initiative. Under this initiative, eligible unauthorized childhood arrivals could receive renewable two-year protection
from removal and work authorization. The eligibility criteria for an initial grant of DACA were broadly similar to those in
earlier bills on unauthorized childhood arrivals and included continuous residence in the United States since June 2007, initial
U.S. entry before age 16, and satisfaction of educational requirements or service in the Armed Forces.
In September 2017, DHS issued a memorandum rescinding DACA, which prompted legal challenges. The U.S. Supreme
Court heard arguments on the DACA rescission in November 2019 and issued its ruling on June 18, 2020. As stated in the
majority opinion: “The dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The
dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so.” The Court decided that in rescinding
DACA, DHS had not provided adequate reasons or followed proper procedures, wh ich led it to conclude that “the rescission
must be vacated.” The Court’s decision does not bar DHS from terminating DACA in the future, although the department
would have to comply with procedural requirements in doing so.
According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) data, there were approximately 649,070 active DACA
recipients as of December 31, 2019, and the total number of individuals who had ever been granted DACA was 822,063 as of
July 31, 2019. These DACA recipient numbers can be compared to estimates of the DACA-eligible population. The
Migration Policy Institute has estimated that as of 2018, 1,302,000 individuals met the original DACA eligibility
requirements and an additional 356,000 met the age, residence, and immigration status criteria but not the educational
requirements.
Congressional Research Service

Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation

Introduction
On June 4, 2019, the House passed the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 (H.R. 6) on a
vote of 237 to 187. Title I of the bil , the Dream Act of 2019, would establish a process for certain
unauthorized immigrants who entered the United States as children (known as unauthorized
childhood arrivals) to obtain lawful permanent immigration status. This vote on H.R. 6 was one
of several House and Senate floor votes since 2018—and the only successful one—on legislation
to grant some type of immigration relief to unauthorized childhood arrivals.
As commonly used, the term “unauthorized childhood arrivals” encompasses both individuals
who entered the United States unlawfully and individuals who entered legal y but then lost legal
status, by, for example, overstaying an authorized temporary period of stay. There is no single set
of requirements that defines an unauthorized childhood arrival. Individual bil s include their own
criteria.
This report considers House and Senate measures on unauthorized childhood arrivals that have
seen legislative action since 2001, focusing in particular on legislation considered in the 115th and
116th Congresses. It also discusses the related Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
initiative and DACA-related data. For the most part, the material is presented chronological y to
trace the development of legislative proposals on unauthorized childhood arrivals and highlight
the interplay between legislative action on these measures and developments related to the DACA
initiative.
Original Dream Acts in the 107th and 108th
Congresses
Legislation on unauthorized childhood arrivals dates to 2001. That year, the Development, Relief,
and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act (S. 1291) was introduced in the 107th Congress to
provide a pathway to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status for eligible individuals. LPRs can
live and work in the United States permanently and can become U.S. citizens through the
naturalization provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).1 In most cases, LPRs
must reside in the United States for five years before they can naturalize.
S. 1291 sought to provide immigration relief to unauthorized childhood arrivals who, like the
larger unauthorized population, were typical y unable to work legal y and were subject to removal
from the United States. Many policymakers viewed this subset of the unauthorized population
more sympathetical y than unauthorized immigrants on the whole because unauthorized
childhood arrivals had arrived in the United States as children and were thus not general y seen as
being responsible for their unlawful status.
Although not al subsequent bil s to grant LPR status to unauthorized childhood arrivals were
entitled the “DREAM Act” and no subsequent bil included exactly the same provisions as S.
1291, such legislation came to be known general y as the “Dream Act” and its intended
beneficiaries as “Dreamers.”2

1 Act of June 27, 1952, ch. 477, codified, as amended, at 8 U.S.C. §§11 01 et seq. T he naturalization provisions are INA
§§310 et seq., 8 U.S.C. §§1421 et seq.
2 “Dream Act” is used here rather than “DREAM Act” because that is how the legislation is more commonly referred to
today. In addition, some bills use “Dream” in their names but do not treat the word as an acronym.
Congressional Research Service
1

Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation

In general, the potential beneficiaries of such bil s did not have an avenue under the INA to
become LPRs. The most common way for a foreign national to adjust status (become an LPR
while in the United States) is through INA provisions that require the individual to be eligible for
an immigrant visa and to have such a visa immediately available to him or her through the
permanent immigration system.3 Individuals are most often eligible for immigrant visas based on
a qualifying family relationship (to a U.S. citizen or LPR) or an employment tie. Among the other
criteria to adjust status under these provisions, the individual must have been “inspected and
admitted or paroled into the United States”; thus, individuals who entered the United States
unlawfully are not eligible.4 In addition, with limited exceptions, an individual is not eligible for
adjustment of status if he or she fal s in a disqualified category, such as someone who engaged in
unauthorized employment or “who has failed (other than through no fault of his own or for
technical reasons) to maintain continuously a lawful status since entry into the United States.”5
S. 1291 in the 107th Congress and a subsequent DREAM Act bil (S. 1545) introduced in the 108th
Congress were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Neither bil saw further action.6
Framework for Subsequent Proposals
S. 1545, as reported in the 108th Congress, contained the basic features of many later proposals to
provide LPR status to unauthorized childhood arrivals. It applied to foreign nationals who were
“inadmissible or deportable from the United States”—this is how the bil described its target
unauthorized population. The grounds of inadmissibility in the INA are the grounds on which a
foreign national can be denied admission to the United States. The grounds of deportability are
the grounds on which a foreign national can be removed from the United States.7
S. 1545, as reported, proposed a two-stage process for eligible individuals to become LPRs.
Criteria to obtain conditional status (stage 1) included continuous presence in the United States
for five years prior to the date of the bil ’s enactment, initial entry into the United States before
age 16, and satisfaction of specified educational requirements. Criteria to become a full-fledged
LPR (stage 2) included completion of at least two years in a bachelor’s or higher degree program
or in the Armed Forces,8 subject to a hardship exception. At either stage, an applicant could have
been disqualified if he or she was inadmissible to or deportable from the United States under
specified grounds in the INA.

3 INA §245 (8 U.S.C. §1255). For information about the visa queue, see CRS Report R42866, Permanent Legal
Im m igration to the United States: Policy Overview.
4 INA §245(a) (8 U.S.C. §1255(a)). T here is an exception for battered immigrants to the requirement for
inspection/admission or parole.
5 INA §245(c) (8 U.S.C. §1255(c)). Another provision (INA §245(i)), which was first enacted in 1994 as a temporary
provision and then extended, made adjustment of status available to individuals in the United States who had the
requisite family or employment relationships and satisfied other requirements but had entered the country without
inspection or fell within a disqualified category. Last extended by the 106 th Congress, INA §245(i) is limited to
individuals who are beneficiaries of immigrant visa petitions or labor certification applications filed by April 30, 2001.
For further information, see archived CRS Report RL31373, Im m igration: Adjustm ent to Perm anent Resident Status
Under Section 245(i).
6 For further discussion of bills introduced in these Congresses, see archived CRS Report RL31365, Unauthorized
Alien Students: Legislation in the 107th and 108th Congresses.
7 T he INA grounds of inadmissibility are in INA §212(a) (8 U.S.C. §1182(a)), and the grounds of deportability are in
INA §237(a) (8 U.S.C. §1227(a)).
8 T he term “Armed Forces,” as defined in 10 U.S.C. §101(a)(4), means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps,
Space Force, and Coast Guard.
Congressional Research Service
2

Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation

S. 1545 would have granted qualifying childhood arrivals conditional LPR status. Describing that
status, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations state, “Unless otherwise specified,
the rights, privileges, responsibilities and duties which apply to al other lawful permanent
residents apply equal y to conditional permanent residents, including but not limited to the right
to apply for naturalization (if otherwise eligible).”9 Regarding naturalization, S. 1545 provided
that the time spent in conditional LPR status would have counted toward the LPR residence
requirement for naturalization. At the same time, it stated that an individual could only apply to
naturalize once the conditional basis of his or her status were removed (and he or she was a full-
fledged LPR).
Other provisions in S. 1545 addressed eligibility for higher education benefits. The bil provided
that individuals obtaining LPR status under its terms would only be eligible for certain forms of
federal student aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965,10 namely federal student
loans, federal Work-Study programs, and services.11 Unlike LPRs general y, they would
seemingly not have been eligible for grant aid (e.g., federal Pel Grants). At the same time, S.
1545 proposed to eliminate a provision enacted in 1996 as part of the Il egal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA)12 that restricts the ability of states to provide higher
education benefits to certain unauthorized immigrants. Section 505 of IIRIRA reads:
an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis
of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education
benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no
less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is
such a resident.13
Legislative Activity in the 109th through the
111th Congresses
Beginning in the 109th Congress, proposals on unauthorized childhood arrivals—which had
received action in earlier Congresses as stand-alone bil s—were incorporated into larger
measures. In the 109th through the 111th Congresses, several measures to grant LPR status to
unauthorized childhood arrivals were considered on the Senate and the House floors.14

9 8 C.F.R. §216.1.
10 T he HEA is P.L. 89-329, as amended, 20 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. Section 484(a)(5) sets forth immigration-related
eligibility requirements for federal student aid, and §484(g) requires the U.S. Department of Education to verify the
immigration status of applicants for federal student aid.
11 T he term “services” is not defined in the bill. Services may include participation in T itle IV programs that primarily
provide support services to help students prepare for and complete postsecondary education. Many such programs also
provide direct student support.
12 IIRIRA is Division C of P.L. 104-208.
13 IIRIRA §505 is codified at 8 U.S.C. §1623. T he discussion surrounding this provision has focused mainly on the
granting of “in-state” residency status for tuition purposes.
14 For a discussion of bills introduced in the 109th and 110th Congresses, see CRS Report R43335, Unauthorized Alien
Students: Legislation in the 109th and 110th Congresses. For a discussion of bills introduced in the 111th Congress, see
Appendix of CRS Report RL33863, Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation .
Congressional Research Service
3

Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation

109th Congress
In the 109th Congress, the Senate passed a major immigration reform bil , the Comprehensive
Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611), with a DREAM Act subtitle. The Senate vote was 62
to 36. The House did not consider the bil .
The DREAM Act provisions in Senate-passed S. 2611 were similar to those in stand-alone S.
1545, as reported in the 108th Congress. Like the earlier bil , S. 2611 would have established a
mechanism for an eligible unauthorized childhood arrival to become a conditional LPR and then,
after meeting additional requirements, have the conditional basis of his or her status removed and
become a full-fledged LPR. Applicants also would have had to clear inadmissibility and
deportability criteria similar to those under S. 1545. These DREAM Act provisions were separate
from other legalization provisions in S. 2611, and applicants under the DREAM Act provisions
would not have been subject to the same requirements as applicants under the general legalization
provisions.15 This more generous treatment of unauthorized childhood arrivals reflected a widely
held belief that they were different and less responsible for their unlawful status than were other
unauthorized immigrants.
Although the DREAM Act provisions in Senate-passed S. 2611 and S. 1545, as reported, were
similar, there were some differences. For example, under S. 1545, as noted, the noneducational
route through which a conditional LPR could become a full-fledged LPR required service in the
Armed Forces. The comparable route under Senate-passed S. 2611 encompassed service in the
broader uniformed services.16
110th Congress
In the 110th Congress, there was an unsuccessful vote in the Senate to invoke cloture on a bil to
provide for comprehensive immigration reform (S. 1639) that included a DREAM Act subtitle
among other legalization provisions. The vote was 46 to 53.
S. 1639 differed from earlier bil s on unauthorized childhood arrivals in notable ways. For
example, unlike S. 2611, the immigration reform bil passed by the Senate in the 109th Congress,
S. 1639’s DREAM Act provisions were tied to other legalization provisions in the bil . Under S.
1639, the first step to LPR status for an unauthorized childhood arrival was the same as for any
unauthorized immigrant: to obtain temporary legal status under a new “Z” nonimmigrant
category.17 Among the eligibility requirements for Z status were continuous presence in the
United States since a specified date and clearance of inadmissibility and ineligibility criteria that
were stricter than under S. 2611. Other requirements for obtaining Z status under S. 1639
included submission of biometric data for security and law enforcement background checks and
satisfaction of any applicable federal tax liabilities.

15 For example, applicants under the DREAM Act provisions would not have been subject to general legalization
program requirements concerning employment, payment of fines, satisfaction of any applicable federal tax liabilities,
and demonstration of English language proficiency and knowledge of civics.
16 As defined in 10 U.S.C. §101(a)(5), the term “uniformed services” means the Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Air
Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, and Coast Guard), the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.
17 Nonimmigrants are admitted to the United States for a temporary period of time and specific purpose. Nonimmigrant
visa categories are identified by letters and numbers, based on the sections of th e INA that authorize them. See CRS
Report R45040, Im m igration: Nonimm igrant (Tem porary) Adm issions to the United States.
Congressional Research Service
4

Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation

Z nonimmigrant status would have been granted for an initial period of four years and could have
been extended in four-year increments. Applicants for extensions would have had to satisfy,
among other criteria, escalating requirements concerning knowledge of the English language and
U.S. civics, unless they qualified for an exception. These requirements were based on the English
and civics requirements for naturalization.18
S. 1639 would have established different pathways to LPR status for Z nonimmigrants. A
DREAM Act pathway to LPR status, which would have been quicker than the standard pathway
provided in the bil , would have been available to Z nonimmigrants who met an additional set of
requirements. These included being under age 30 on the date of enactment, being under age 16 at
the time of initial U.S. entry, and having completed at least two years in either a bachelor’s or
higher degree program or the uniformed services. The “under age 30” requirement was new;
earlier bil s receiving action did not include maximum age provisions. S. 1639 would have
deemed individuals obtaining LPR status under its DREAM Act pathway to meet the LPR
residence requirement for naturalization eight years after the date of enactment.
S. 1639 also addressed eligibility for higher education benefits. As under the earlier bil s
discussed above, individuals obtaining LPR status under S. 1639’s DREAM Act pathway would
have been eligible for federal student loans, federal Work-Study programs, and services, but
seemingly not grant aid. Unlike these other bil s, S. 1639 would not have fully repealed the
IIRIRA Section 505 restriction on state provision of post-secondary educational benefits, but
would have rendered it ineffective for Z nonimmigrants.
Other legislation on unauthorized childhood arrivals considered in the 110th Congress included
another major immigration reform bil (S. 1348). The Senate voted against invoking cloture on
both S. 1348 and a substitute amendment to the bil . These votes occurred prior to the
introduction of S. 1639.
After the unsuccessful cloture vote on S. 1639, the Senate considered a stand-alone DREAM Act
bil (S. 2205). It did not invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bil , by a vote of 52 to 44.
This vote on S. 2205 brought to the fore competing views among supporters of providing LPR
status to unauthorized childhood arrivals about the relationship between that issue and other
components of immigration reform. Some supporters pressed for passage of the stand-alone bil
arguing that the situation of unauthorized childhood arrivals was urgent. Another view held,
however, that enacting a pathway to LPR status for unauthorized childhood arrivals in a narrow
bil would hurt the prospects of achieving broader reform (including more controversial proposals
for the legalization of other unauthorized immigrants).19
111th Congress
In the 111th Congress, the House approved a DREAM Act amendment to an unrelated bil , the
Removal Clarification Act of 2010 (H.R. 5281)20 on a vote of 216 to 198. The Senate rejected a
motion to invoke cloture on a motion to agree to the House-passed DREAM Act amendment to
H.R. 5281, by a vote of 55 to 41.

18 T hese naturalization requirements are in INA §312(a) (8 U.S.C. §1423(a)).
19 Jill Zuckman, “Divide on immigration issue dooms Dream Act in Senate,” Chicago Tribune, October 25, 2007, p.
C5; Julia Preston, “Bill for Immigrant Students Fails T est Vote in Senate,” New York Times, October 25, 2007, p. A16.
20 T he text of the amendment and House debate on it is available in Representative Conyers et al., “Development,
Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2010,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
156 (December 8, 2010), pp. H8222- H8243. T he amendment included the same text as H.R. 6497, as introduced in the
111th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
5

Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation

This House-passed version of the DREAM Act would have established a three-stage process for
individuals who were inadmissible or deportable from the United States to obtain LPR status. In
stage 1, as in many previous bil s, a successful applicant would have been granted conditional
status. This proposal, however, would have granted conditional status in the form of conditional
nonimmigrant status, which is not an existing status under immigration law. An individual would
have applied in stage 2 to have his or her conditional nonimmigrant status extended, and in stage
3 to be granted LPR status. Under this DREAM Act amendment, an individual who became an
LPR could naturalize after three years in LPR status.
The DREAM Act amendment to H.R. 5281 included eligibility requirements concerning
continuous presence, age at entry, and educational attainment, as wel as inadmissibility and
ineligibility criteria. It also included some of the same types of requirements as S. 1639 in the
110th Congress—pertaining to maximum age, submission of biometric data, satisfaction of any
applicable federal tax liability, and knowledge of English and U.S. civics—although the specific
requirements were not necessarily the same, and did not necessarily apply at the same stage of the
legalization process, in the two measures. Unlike earlier bil s receiving action, the House-passed
amendment would have established “surcharges” on applications for conditional status. While S.
1639 would have imposed penalty fees on applications for Z status, that bil would have made
these fees inapplicable or refundable in the case of applicants who met its DREAM Act criteria.
Like the DREAM Act provisions in S. 1639 and earlier bil s receiving action, the House-passed
DREAM Act amendment would have made individuals who obtained conditional nonimmigrant
or LPR status under its terms eligible for federal student aid in the form of federal student loans,
federal Work-Study programs, and services, but seemingly not grant aid. Unlike earlier bil s
receiving action, the House-passed measure contained no IIRIRA Section 505 repeal language.
Establishment of DACA
On June 15, 2012, DHS issued a memorandum announcing the DACA initiative.21 The
memorandum stated that certain individuals who were brought to the United States as children
and met other criteria would be considered for deferred action for two years, subject to renewal.
DHS has described deferred action as “a use of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action
against an individual for a certain period of time.”
In remarks delivered that same day, President Barack Obama cal ed on Congress to pass DREAM
Act legislation, citing in particular the House-passed bil in the 111th Congress. He indicated that
“in the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system,”
his Administration had tried “to focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places.”
He portrayed the DACA initiative as an extension of those efforts, stating that “[e]ffective
immediately, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift the shadow of
deportation from these young people.” President Obama made clear that DACA relief was not a
permanent solution. Instead, he characterized it as “a temporary stopgap measure.”22 The

21 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Memorandum to David V. Aguilar, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, Alejandro Mayorkas, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, John Morton,
Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, from Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security,
Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Cam e to the United States as Children, June 15,
2012, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-
children.pdf.
22 T he White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Remarks by the President on Immigration,” June 15, 2012,
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/15/remarks-president -immigration.
Congressional Research Service
6

Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation

eligibility criteria for an initial two-year grant of DACA were broadly similar to those in earlier
DREAM Act bil s.
DHS’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which administers DACA, published
the eligibility criteria for an initial DACA grant and a renewal on its website. The criteria for an
initial DACA grant were (1) under age 31 on June 15, 2012; (2) under age 16 at time of entry into
the United States; (3) continuously resident in the United States since June 15, 2007; (4)
physical y present in United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of requesting DACA; (5) not
in lawful status on June 15, 2012; (6) in school, graduated from high school or obtained general
education development certificate, or honorably discharged from the Armed Forces;23 and (7) not
convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors, and not
otherwise a threat to national security or public safety. In addition, with specified exceptions, an
individual had to be at least age 15 to request DACA.24
To be eligible for a two-year renewal, a DACA recipient had to satisfy the following criteria: (1)
did not depart from the United States on or after August 15, 2012, without first obtaining
permission to travel, (2) has continuously resided in the United States since submitting his or her
latest approved DACA request, and (3) has not been convicted of a felony, a significant
misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors, and is not a threat to national security or public
safety.25
Individuals granted deferred action could receive employment authorization. According to
USCIS, “Under existing regulations, an individual whose case has been deferred is eligible to
receive employment authorization for the period of deferred action, provided he or she can
demonstrate ‘an economic necessity for employment’.”26 To request an initial grant or renewal of
DACA from USCIS, an applicant had to submit Form I-821D, “Consideration of Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals”; an application for employment authorization (Form I-765) and a related
worksheet (Form I-765WS); and required fees.27
Legislative Activity in the 113th Congresses
The next significant legislative developments related to unauthorized childhood arrivals occurred
in the 113th Congress when the Senate approved a major immigration reform bil with DREAM
Act provisions.28 The bil , the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration
Modernization Act (S. 744), was passed on a 68-32 vote. The House did not consider S. 744.29

23 T his DACA eligibility requirement lists honorable discharge from, but not service in, the Armed Forces.
24 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Consideration of Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)” (archived content).
25 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Renew Your DACA” (archived
content).
26 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Frequently Asked Questions,
DHS DACA FAQs,” response to question 1, March 8, 2018 (archived content), https://www.uscis.gov/archive/
frequently-asked-questions#education.
27 See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “I -821D, Consideration of
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” https://www.uscis.gov/i-821d. As of the date of this report, required fees total
$495.
28 Legislative activity on unauthorized childhood arrivals in the 112th and 114th Congresses was limited. For a
discussion of bills introduced in the 112th and 113th Congresses, see CRS Report RL33863, Unauthorized Alien
Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation.
29 For further discussion of S. 744, see ibid.
Congressional Research Service
7

Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation

S. 744 proposed to establish a general legalization program for individuals in the United States
who were not in nonimmigrant status or other specified lawful status and a special DREAM Act
pathway to LPR status for certain aliens who had entered the country as children. Under S. 744,
unauthorized childhood arrivals, like other unauthorized immigrants, would first have applied for
a newly created status—registered provisional immigrant (RPI) status. The requirements for RPI
status included continuous presence in the United States since a specified date, satisfaction of any
applicable federal tax liability, and submission of biometric and biographic data for national
security and law enforcement clearances. RPI status would have been granted for an initial period
of six years and could have been extended in six-year increments. Applicants for RPI status
would have been subject to specified inadmissibility and ineligibility criteria.
Under S. 744, DHS could have adopted streamlined RPI procedures for DACA recipients. It
could have granted RPI status to a DACA recipient upon completion of renewed national security
and law enforcement clearances unless the agency determined that the individual had engaged in
conduct making him or her ineligible for RPI status.
S. 744 would have established a special DREAM Act pathway to LPR status for RPIs who had
been in RPI status for at least five years, had initial y entered the United States when they were
under age 16, and, subject to a hardship exception, had completed either two years of higher
education or four years of service in the uniformed services. Such individuals also would have
had to submit biometric and biographic data for national security and law enforcement
background checks and would have had to meet the English language and civics requirements for
naturalization, unless exempted. S. 744 would have authorized DHS to adopt streamlined
procedures for DACA recipients to obtain LPR status.
With respect to naturalization, an alien granted LPR status under the DREAM Act provisions in
S. 744 would have been considered to be an LPR (and therefore accumulating time toward the
residency requirement for naturalization) during the period in RPI status. In most cases, however,
an alien could not have applied for naturalization while in RPI status.
S. 744 would have placed restrictions on federal student aid under Title IV of the Higher
Education Act for RPIs who had entered the United States before age 16. This group would only
have been eligible for federal student loans, federal Work-Study programs, and services. In
addition, the bil would have repealed Section 505 of IIRIRA, which, as discussed, restricts the
provision of postsecondary educational benefits for aliens who are not lawfully present.
DACA Since 2017
On September 5, 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that DACA was being
terminated. A related memorandum released by DHS the same day rescinded the 2012
memorandum that established the initiative.30 As part of the rescission, DHS had planned to
“execute a wind-down” of DACA, under which no new initial DACA requests would have been
accepted after September 5, 2017, and no new renewal requests would have been accepted after

30 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Memorandum to James W. McCament, Acting Director, U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services, T homas D. Homan, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Kevin K.
McAleenan, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Joseph B. Maher, Acting General Counsel,
Ambassador James D. Nealon, Assistant Secretary, International Engagement, Julie M. Kirchner, Citizenship and
Immigration Services Ombudsman, from Elaine C. Duke, Actin g Secretary, Rescission of the June 15, 2012
Memorandum Entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United
States as Children”, September 5, 2017, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/09/05/memorandum-rescission-daca.
Congressional Research Service
8

Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation

October 5, 2017. This wind-down did not proceed as planned, however, because DACA recipients
and others filed federal lawsuits chal enging the legality of the rescission.
Under federal court rulings that followed, individuals who had never been granted DACA could
not submit initial requests.31 Individuals who had been granted DACA in the past, however,
continued to be able to submit DACA requests, even if their prior DACA grants had expired or
been terminated. Under USCIS’ “late renewal policy,” which was in effect until January 2018
(and was reinstated as of August 1, 2019), an individual whose previous DACA grant had expired
more than one year ago or whose previous DACA grant had been terminated had to submit an
initial DACA request rather than a renewal request.32
According to USCIS data on the DACA population, there were approximately 689,000 active
DACA recipients as of September 4, 2017.33 In notes accompanying these data, USCIS indicated
that as of September 4, 2017, the total number of individuals who had ever been granted DACA
was approximately 800,000. This number excluded individuals whose initial grants of DACA
were later terminated. Of those 800,000 individuals, USCIS reported that about 40,000 had
become LPRs and about 70,000 had either failed to apply to renew their DACA grants or had
their renewal applications denied.34
These data on DACA recipients can be compared with estimates of the DACA-eligible
population. According to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI),35 an estimated
1,307,000 unauthorized individuals were immediately eligible for DACA in 2016 based on the
eligibility requirements for an initial DACA grant that MPI was able to model.36 In addition, an
estimated 398,000 met the age, residence, and immigration status criteria but not the educational
requirements.37

31 See CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10216, DACA: Litigation Status Update.
32 See “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals: Response to January 2018 Preliminary Injunction,” July 17, 2019,
update, https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-response-january-2018-preliminary-
injunction. According to USCIS, this late renewal policy has been in effect throughout the life of DACA, except for the
period between January 10, 2018, and July 31, 2019; during this period, “individuals whose most recent period of
DACA expired on or after September 5, 2016, could still file their request as a renewal request.” USCIS email to CRS,
August 29, 2019. T hus, with the exception of filings during the specified early 2018 to mid-2019 period, DACA
requests from certain previous DACA recipients are recorded as initial requests in USCIS data tables on DACA
applications. DACA application data through the first quarter of FY2020 are available at https://www.uscis.gov/sites/
default/files/USCIS/Resources/ Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/All%20Form%20T ypes/
DACA/DACA_performancedata_fy2020_qtr1.pdf.
33 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Approximate Active DACA
Recipients,” https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCI S/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/
Immigration%20Forms%20Data/All%20Form%20Types/DACA/daca_population_data.pdf.
34 Ibid. T he 40,000 and 70,000 figures (110,000 in total) account for the approximate difference between USCIS’s
800,000 ever-granted-DACA estimate and its 689,000 active DACA recipient estimate for September 4, 2017.
35 Faye Hipsman, Bárbara Gómez-Aguiñaga, and Randy Capps, DACA at Four: Participation in the Deferred Action
Program and Im pacts on Recipients, Migration Policy Institute, August 2016. MPI uses American Community Survey
(ACS) data in its analysis.
36 MPI’s model does not factor in the requirement for continuous U.S. residence (although its estimates are based on
reported U.S. residence) or the requirement concerning criminal convictions and n ational security and public safety
threats. As a result, MPI states that its “ DACA-eligible populations might be slightly overestimated.” Ibid. p. 14
(endnote 26).
37 According to MPI, this group “could qualify for DACA if they enrolled in an adult educatio n program that leads to a
high school diploma, General Education Diploma (GED), or equivalent. (It is difficult to determine how many DACA
participants have taken advantage of these alternate routes because the ACS data do not report enrollment in adult
education programs.).” Ibid. pp. 2-3.
Congressional Research Service
9

Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation

USCIS data on the DACA population since September 2017 show a high of approximately
702,250 active DACA recipients in May 2018,38 followed by a steady decrease in the size of this
population. The approximate number of active DACA recipients was 688,860 in November
2018,39 660,880 in June 2019,40 and 649,070 in the most recent data (December 2019).41 Of the
December 2019 DACA recipients, about 80% were born in Mexico, 53% were female, and the
median age was 25.42
As of July 31, 2019, according to USCIS data, the total number of individuals who had ever been
granted DACA was 822,063; this represented an increase from the September 2017 total of
800,000 cited above. Like the 2017 number, the July 2019 total excluded individuals whose initial
grants of DACA were later terminated. Of the 822,063 individuals ever granted DACA, 73,043
had become LPRs and 4,448 had become citizens.43
MPI updated its estimates of the DACA-eligible population as of 2018 based on the original
DACA eligibility requirements and subject to the same model limitations as the 2016 estimates.44
It estimated that, as of 2018, 1,302,000 individuals met the DACA eligibility requirements and an
additional 356,000 met the age, residence, and immigration status criteria but not the educational
requirements.45
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on the DACA rescission in November 2019 and issued
its ruling on June 18, 2020. As stated in the majority opinion: “The dispute before the Court is not
whether DHS may rescind DACA. Al parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily
about the procedure the agency followed in doing so.” The Court decided that in rescinding
DACA, DHS had not provided adequate reasons or followed proper procedures, which led it to
conclude that “the rescission must be vacated.”46 The Court’s decision does not bar DHS from
terminating DACA in the future, although the department would have to comply with procedural
requirements in doing so.47

38 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Approximate Active DACA
Recipients,” https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCI S/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/
Immigration%20Forms%20Data/All%20Form%20Types/DACA/DACA_Expiration_Data_May_31_2018.pdf.
39 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Approximate Active DACA
Recipients,” https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCI S/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/
Immigration%20Forms%20Data/All%20Form%20Types/DACA/DACA_Population_Data_Nov_30_2018.pdf.
40 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Approximate Active DACA
Recipients,” https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCI S/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/
Immigration%20Forms%20Data/Static_files/DACA_Population_Receipts_since_Injunction_Jun_30_2019.pdf .
41 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Approximate Active DACA
Recipients,” https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCI S/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/
Immigration%20Forms%20Data/All%20Form%20Types/DACA/
DACA_Population_Receipts_since_Injunction_Dec_31_2019.pdf .
42 Ibid.
43 Data provided by USCIS to CRS by email, August 29, 2019.
44 See Migration Policy Institute, National and State Estimates of Immigrant Populations Eligible for the Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program, 2018, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/datahub/
State%20and%20County%20Estimates%20of%20DACA-Eligible%20Population_2018.xlsx. Like the 2016 estimates,
the 2018 estimates do not factor in the requirement for continuous U.S. residence or the requirement concerning
criminal convictions and national security and public safety threats.
45 See Ibid.
46 U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.,—S. Ct.—, 2020 WL 3271746, at *3 (2020),
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf.
47 See CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10497, Supreme Court: DACA Rescission Violated the APA.
Congressional Research Service
10

Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation

Legislative Activity in the 115th and 116th Congresses
In the fal of 2017, following the DACA rescission announcement, President Donald Trump and
several Members of Congress discussed a possible deal on unauthorized childhood arrivals.
Initial y, these talks focused on a package combining provisions to “enshrine the protections of
DACA into law” with border security provisions.48 Other immigration issues were subsequently
introduced into the discussion, and in January 2018, the White House released its “Framework on
Immigration Reform & Border Security.” 49 This proposal cal ed for legal status for DACA-
eligible individuals as wel as enhancements to border security and interior immigration
enforcement and changes to the permanent immigration system. In the 115th and 116th
Congresses, the Senate and the House have considered measures containing provisions to grant
legal status to DACA recipients and unauthorized childhood arrivals along with other
immigration provisions.
115th Congress
In 2018, both the Senate and the House considered immigration legislation that contained
language on unauthorized childhood arrivals. A greater number of proposals to provide
immigration relief to this population received floor consideration in the 115th Congress than in
any prior Congress. Neither chamber passed any of these measures.
Senate Amendments to H.R. 2579
In February 2018, the Senate considered three immigration proposals with language on
unauthorized childhood arrivals as floor amendments to an unrelated bil , the Broader Options for
Americans Act (H.R. 2579). The Senate rejected motions to invoke cloture on al three
amendments.50
S.Amdt. 1955
The Senate considered provisions on unauthorized childhood arrivals as Subtitle A of S.Amdt.
1955, the Uniting and Securing America (USA) Act of 2018. Subtitle A was substantively
identical to Title I of two bil s with the same USA Act name, as introduced in the 115th
Congress—S. 2367 and H.R. 4796.
S.Amdt. 1955 would have established a mechanism for certain childhood arrivals who were
inadmissible to or deportable from the United States or were in temporary protected status
(TPS)51 to become LPRs—in most cases through a two-stage process. Applicants would have
been considered for conditional LPR status in stage 1. To receive such status, an applicant would
have had to meet requirements including continuous presence in the United States since
December 31, 2013; initial U.S. entry before age 18; no inadmissibility under specified grounds
in the INA and no other specified ineligibilities; and either college admission, acquisition of a
high school diploma or comparable credential, or enrollment in secondary school or a comparable

48 See, for example, Russell Berman, “T rump Reverses His Stand on DACA,” Atlantic, September 14, 2017.
49 T he White House, “White House Framework on Immigration Reform & Border Security,” fact sheet, January 25,
2018, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/white-house-framework-immigration-reform-border-security/.
50 For a discussion of these and other measures on unauthorized childhood arrivals introduced in the 115th Congress,
see archived CRS Report R45139, Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals: Legislative Activity in the 115th Congress.
51 T PS, like DACA, provides temporary protection from removal from the United States. See CRS Report RS20844,
Tem porary Protected Status: Overview and Current Issues.
Congressional Research Service
11

Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation

educational program. S.Amdt. 1955 would have directed DHS to grant conditional LPR status to
a DACA recipient unless the individual had subsequently engaged in conduct that would make
him or her ineligible for DACA. Applicants also would have had to submit biometric and
biographic data for security and law enforcement background checks. Conditional LPR status
would have been valid for eight years.
In stage 2, a conditional LPR would have had to meet a second set of requirements to have the
conditional basis of his or her status removed and become a full-fledged LPR. Among these
requirements were achievement of one of the following, subject to a hardship exception: (1)
attainment of a college degree, completion of at least two years in a bachelor’s or higher degree
program, or completion of at least two years in a postsecondary vocational program, (2) service in
the uniformed services for the obligatory period, or (3) employment for at least three years and at
least 80% of the time the alien had valid employment authorization. The other stage 2
requirements included submission of biometric and biographic data for security and law
enforcement background checks, continued clearance of the inadmissibility and ineligibility
criteria for conditional LPR status, and, unless subject to an exception due to a disability,
satisfaction of the English language and U.S. civics requirements for naturalization.
Under S.Amdt. 1955, a conditional LPR could have applied to have the condition on his or her
status removed at any time after meeting the stage 2 requirements. The time spent in conditional
status would have counted as time in LPR status for purposes of naturalization, but the individual
could not have applied for naturalization while in conditional status. In addition, the bil would
have provided that an applicant meeting al the stage 1 and stage 2 requirements at the time of
submitting his or her initial application would have been granted full-fledged LPR status directly
(without first being granted conditional status). Earlier bil s receiving floor action did not include
such a provision.
Regarding postsecondary education, S.Amdt. 1955 would have repealed Section 505 of IIRIRA.
The measure did not include any language concerning federal student aid.
On February 15, 2018, the Senate voted (52 to 47) not to invoke cloture on S.Amdt. 1955.
S.Amdt. 1958
S.Amdt. 1958, the Immigration Security and Opportunity Act, would have established a two-stage
pathway to LPR status for certain childhood arrivals who were inadmissible to or deportable from
the United States.52 It incorporated some eligibility requirements for applicants at both stages that
were not included in S.Amdt. 1955. Under S.Amdt. 1958, to obtain conditional LPR status in
stage 1 an individual would have had to either be a DACA recipient or meet a set of requirements.
For a DACA recipient to qualify, he or she could not have engaged in any conduct since being
granted DACA that would have made the individual ineligible for DACA protection.
Requirements applicable to a non-DACA recipient included continuous presence in the United
States since June 15, 2012; initial U.S. entry before age 18; no inadmissibility under specified
grounds in the INA and no other specified ineligibilities; and either satisfaction of educational
requirements like those under S.Amdt. 1955, or enlistment or service in the Armed Forces. In
addition, a non-DACA recipient would have had to meet a maximum age requirement—having a
birthdate after June 15, 1974—and to have satisfied any applicable federal tax liability.

52 T his amendment was considered on the Senate floor, as modified.
Congressional Research Service
12

Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation

Al stage 1 applicants also would have had to submit biometric and biographic data for security
and law enforcement background checks. Conditional LPR status under S.Amdt. 1958 would
have been valid for seven years.
To have the conditional basis of his or her status removed and become a full-fledged LPR, a
conditional LPR would have had to meet a second set of requirements. These stage 2
requirements included satisfaction of one of the following: (1) acquisition of a college degree or
completion of at least two years in a program for a bachelor’s or higher degree, (2) service in the
uniformed services for at least two years, or (3) employment for at least three years and at least
75% of the time the alien had valid employment authorization. Other requirements included
submission of biometric and biographic data for security and law enforcement background
checks, continued clearance of the inadmissibility and ineligibility criteria for conditional LPR
status, satisfaction of the English language and civics requirements for naturalization, and
satisfaction of any applicable federal tax liability.
Under S.Amdt. 1958, the time spent in conditional status would have counted as time in LPR
status for purposes of naturalization. In general, however, beneficiaries could not have been
naturalized until 12 years after they had received conditional status. This period could have been
reduced by up to two years for DACA recipients.
S.Amdt. 1958 also would have limited the ability of the parents of its beneficiaries to obtain LPR
status in the United States. Earlier measures receiving legislative action did not include such
restrictions. S.Amdt. 1958 would have prevented a parent from obtaining LPR status based on an
immigrant petition filed by a child who had received conditional permanent resident status under
the bil if the parent had assisted in the child’s unlawful entry into the United States.53 The
amendment did not include any language on federal student aid or Section 505 of IIRIRA.
On February 15, 2018, the Senate voted (54 to 45) not to invoke cloture on S.Amdt. 1958.
S.Amdt. 1959
Provisions on unauthorized childhood arrivals comprised Title III of S.Amdt. 1959, the SECURE
and SUCCEED Act. Title III, named the SUCCEED Act, was broadly similar to a Senate bil of
the same name (S. 1852), as introduced in the 115th Congress, although there were differences
between the two measures.
S.Amdt. 1959 would have established a three-stage process for unauthorized childhood arrivals to
obtain LPR status. Applicants who met an initial set of requirements would have been granted
conditional temporary resident status (rather than conditional LPR status, as under the other two
Senate amendments). These requirements, which incorporated some of the initial criteria for
DACA, included continuous presence in the United States since June 15, 2012; initial U.S. entry
before age 16; a birthdate after June 15, 1981; not being in lawful status on June 15, 2012; no
inadmissibility or deportability under specified grounds in the INA and no other specified
ineligibilities; and educational or military requirements based on the applicant’s age on the date
of enactment. Those under age 18 would have had to be in school. Those age 18 and older would
have had to have earned a high school diploma or comparable credential, been admitted to
college, or served or enlisted in the Armed Forces.
As under one or both of the other amendments discussed, al stage 1 applicants would also have
needed to submit biometric and biographic data for security and law enforcement background
checks and to satisfy any applicable federal tax liability. In addition, S.Amdt. 1959 included some

53 For a discussion of family-based immigration, see CRS Report R43145, U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy.
Congressional Research Service
13

Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation

requirements to obtain conditional status that were not found in the other amendments. Among
them, an applicant age 18 or older would have had to acknowledge being notified that if he or she
violated a term of conditional temporary resident status, he or she would be ineligible for any
immigration relief or benefits, with limited exceptions. Conditional temporary resident status
would have been valid for an initial period of seven years or until the alien turned age 18, if
longer.
Under S.Amdt. 1959, an alien’s initial period of conditional temporary residence would have
been extended for five years if the alien met additional requirements. These included satisfying
one of the following: (1) college graduation or college attendance for at least eight semesters, (2)
service in the Armed Forces for at least three years, or (3) a combination of college attendance,
military service, and/or employment, as specified, for at least four years.
After seven years in conditional temporary resident status, an alien could have applied for LPR
status subject to another set of requirements. These requirements included continued compliance
with the requirements for conditional temporary resident status, submission of biometric and
biographic data for security and law enforcement background checks, satisfaction of the English
language and civics requirements for naturalization (unless exempt due to a disability), and
payment of any applicable federal tax liability.
Like S.Amdt. 1958, S.Amdt. 1959 would have placed limitations on the ability of its beneficiaries
to naturalize and the ability of the family members of its beneficiaries to obtain lawful
immigration status under existing law. The provisions in S.Amdt. 1959, however, were more
restrictive than those in S.Amdt. 1958. An individual would have had to wait at least seven years
after being granted LPR status to apply for naturalization. S.Amdt. 1959 would also have
provided that a parent or other family member of an alien granted conditional temporary resident
status or LPR status could not have gained any status under the immigration laws based on a
parental or other family relationship. The amendment did not include any language on federal
student aid or Section 505 of IIRIRA.
On February 15, 2018, the Senate voted (39 to 60) not to invoke cloture on S.Amdt. 1959.
House Bills
In June 2018, the House considered two major immigration reform bil s with provisions on
unauthorized childhood arrivals. Notably, unlike the Senate amendments discussed above and the
bil s considered in prior Congresses, these bil s would not have established new mechanisms for
unauthorized childhood arrivals to apply for LPR status on their own behalf. One bil (H.R.
4760), which would have applied only to DACA recipients, would have provided eligible
individuals with a renewable temporary status. The other (H.R. 6136) would have enabled
eligible individuals to adjust to LPR status in the United States if they were otherwise eligible for
immigrant visas. Neither bil passed.
H.R. 4760
The Securing America’s Future Act of 2018 (H.R. 4760) would have established a process for
certain unauthorized childhood arrivals to obtain a new temporary immigration status—
contingent nonimmigrant (CNI) status. To be eligible for CNI status, individuals would have had
to have on the bil ’s date of enactment valid work authorization that was issued pursuant to the
DACA initiative (thus, they would have needed to be current DACA recipients).
Among the other eligibility criteria for CNI status, individuals would have had to be enrolled in
and attending an educational institution full-time, or to have earned a high school diploma,
Congressional Research Service
14

Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation

General Educational Development certificate, or high school equivalency certificate. Applicants
for CNI status also would have had to submit biometric and biographic data for security and law
enforcement checks and clear specified INA inadmissibility and deportability criteria and other
specified ineligibilities. The latter ineligibilities were stricter than those under the Senate
amendments considered in the 115th Congress and earlier bil s on unauthorized childhood arrivals.
Applicants also would have had to pay a border security fee.
CNI status would have been granted for a period of three years and could have been extended in
three-year increments. Contingent nonimmigrants would have been eligible for employment
authorization and could have traveled outside the United States and been permitted to return. H.R.
4760 would not have provided a pathway to LPR status.
On June 21, 2018, the House voted (193 to 231) not to pass H.R. 4760.
H.R. 6136
Like H.R. 4760, the related Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of 2018 (H.R. 6136)
would have established a process for certain unauthorized childhood arrivals to obtain CNI status.
This bil included many of the same eligibility and ineligibility criteria for CNI status as H.R.
4760, but it would not have been as restrictive. For example, it would not have been limited to
individuals who had DACA. Among other specific differences between the criteria in the two
bil s, H.R. 4760 would have required applicants for CNI status to be under age 31 on June 15,
2012, which is a requirement for DACA, and also to be under age 31 at the time of filing the CNI
application. H.R. 6136 would have required applicants to meet the former age requirement but
not the latter.
Under H.R. 6136, CNI status would have been granted for a period of six years and could have
been extended in six-year increments. Contingent nonimmigrants would have been eligible for
employment authorization and could have traveled outside the United States and been permitted
to return.
In a key difference from H.R. 4760, H.R. 6136 would have created a means for CNIs who met
certain criteria to become LPRs through the INA adjustment of status provisions. As mentioned in
the above discussion of the original Dream Act proposals, foreign nationals in the United States
who have immigrant visas immediately available to them (based, for example, on an immigrant
visa petition filed by a qualified family member) and meet other criteria can become LPRs
without having to leave the country. However, in order to adjust to LPR status through these
provisions, individuals (except for certain battered immigrants) must have been “inspected and
admitted or paroled into the United States.” They also must be admissible to the United States for
permanent residence under the grounds enumerated in the INA. In addition, with limited
exceptions, these adjustment of status provisions are inapplicable to an individual who has
engaged in unauthorized employment or “who has failed (other than through no fault of his own
or for technical reasons) to maintain continuously a lawful status since entry into the United
States.”54
H.R. 6136 would have provided that in applying the INA adjustment provisions to a CNI who has
been in that status for five years, the CNI would have been considered to be inspected and
admitted into the United States. It also would have provided that in making determinations about
the CNI’s admissibility to the United States, specified grounds of inadmissibility, including
grounds related to unlawful presence and lack of proper documentation, would not have applied.
The bil , however, did not explicitly address other disqualifications under the adjustment of status

54 INA §245 (8 U.S.C. §1255).
Congressional Research Service
15

Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation

provisions, such as for unauthorized employment. The limited permanent immigration relief
offered by H.R. 6136 can be seen as occupying a middle ground between H.R. 4760’s renewable
temporary status and the special pathways to permanent resident status proposed under the Senate
amendments.
On June 27, 2018, the House voted (121 to 301) not to pass H.R. 6136.
116th Congress
As of the date of this report, legislative activity in the 116th Congress related to the immigration
status of unauthorized childhood arrivals has been limited to House action in connection with the
American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 (H.R. 6). Other measures to provide immigration
relief to DACA recipients or unauthorized childhood arrivals have been introduced but have not
seen action. These include bil s that, like H.R. 6, would establish a pathway to LPR status (e.g., S.
874) as wel as bil s that would provide statutory DACA-like temporary protection from removal
and work authorization (e.g., S. 166).
H.R. 6
This bil contains a Title I (Dream Act) on unauthorized childhood arrivals and a Title II
(American Promise Act) on nationals of certain countries designated for TPS or deferred enforced
departure (DED).55 Unlike other bil s on unauthorized childhood arrivals that have seen floor
action in recent Congresses H.R. 6 does not address an array of other immigration issues. The
House passed H.R. 6 on June 4, 2019, by a vote of 237 to 187.56 It is the first bil that would
establish a pathway to LPR status for unauthorized childhood arrivals to pass one chamber since
2013.
The Dream Act title of H.R. 6 would establish a mechanism for certain childhood arrivals who are
inadmissible or deportable from the United States or who have TPS or are covered by a grant of
DED57 to become LPRs—in most cases through a two-stage process.
To obtain conditional LPR status in stage 1, an individual would need to meet a set of
requirements, including continuous presence in the United States since the date that is four years
before the date of enactment, initial U.S. entry before age 18, no inadmissibility under specified
grounds in the INA and no other specified ineligibilities, and satisfaction of educational
requirements. These educational requirements could be satisfied in various ways, including, as in
some earlier bil s, by attainment of a high school diploma or comparable credential or by
enrollment in secondary school or a program to obtain a high school diploma or comparable
credential. They also could be satisfied by obtaining a credential from a career and technical
education school that provides education at the secondary level. DACA recipients who meet the
requirements for a DACA renewal, as in effect in January 2017, would be subject to streamlined
application procedures to be established by DHS. Al applicants would need to submit biometric

55 For information on T PS and DED, see CRS Report RS20844, Temporary Protected Status: Overview and Current
Issues.
56 H.R. 6 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Instead of marking up H.R. 6, the committee marked up
separate bills covering T itle I (H.R. 2820) and T itle II (H.R. 2821) of H.R. 6. T he committee-reported versions of H.R.
2820 and H.R. 2821 were then recombined into an amended version of H.R. 6, which was considered on the House
floor on June 4, 2019.
57 T he American Promise Act title establishes a separate pathway to LPR status for individuals who have T PS or are
under a grant of DED. T he Dream Act title would only offer relief to individuals covered by T PS/DED who arrived in
the United States as children and meet the other specified criteria in this title.
Congressional Research Service
16

Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation

and biographic data for security and law enforcement background checks. Conditional LPR status
would be valid for 10 years.
In stage 2, a conditional LPR would have to meet a second set of requirements to have the
conditional basis of his or her status removed and become a full-fledged LPR. Among these
requirements are achievement of one of the following, subject to a hardship exception: (1)
attainment of a college degree, completion of at least two years in a program for a bachelor’s or
higher degree, or acquisition of a recognized postsecondary credential from an area career and
technical education school; (2) service in the uniformed services for at least two years; or (3)
earned income for at least three years and at least 75% of the time the alien had valid employment
authorization. The other stage 2 requirements include submission of biometric and biographic
data for security and law enforcement background checks, continued clearance of the
inadmissibility and ineligibility criteria for conditional LPR status, and satisfaction of the English
language and U.S. civics requirements for naturalization, subject to an exception due to disability.
Under H.R. 6, a conditional LPR could apply to have the condition on his or her status removed
at any time after meeting the stage 2 requirements. The time spent in conditional status would
count as time in LPR status for purposes of naturalization, but the individual could not apply for
naturalization while in conditional status. In addition, like S.Amdt. 1955 in the 115th Congress,
the bil would provide that an applicant meeting al the stage 1 and stage 2 requirements at the
time of submitting his or her initial application would be granted full-fledged LPR status directly
(without first being granted conditional status).
Regarding postsecondary education, H.R. 6 would not place any restrictions on its beneficiaries’
eligibility for federal student aid and would not repeal Section 505 of IIRIRA.
Conclusion
The Trump Administration’s efforts to end the DACA program have focused renewed attention
on the issue of unauthorized childhood arrivals. Passage of H.R. 6 in the House in 2019 can be
seen as a result of this renewed attention. There had been speculation that a ruling by the Supreme
Court that led to the immediate end of DACA could have spurred congressional action this
session. With DACA remaining in place, at least for the time being, it remains to be seen whether
the 116th Congress wil enact legislation on DACA or unauthorized childhood arrivals.

Author Information

Andorra Bruno

Specialist in Immigration Policy

Congressional Research Service
17

Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation

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 n ot 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.

Congressional Research Service
R45995 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED
18

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Jun. 30, 2020

HTML · PDF

17% changed

Nov. 6, 2019

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Immigration Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com

Raw Metadata: JSON