Immigration Legislation and Status Adjustment Legislation

Immigration Legislation and Status Adjustment Legislation

Order Code RL30780
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Immigration Legalization
and Status Adjustment Legislation
Updated April 15, 2002
Ruth Ellen Wasem
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Immigration Legalization and
Status Adjustment Legislation
Summary
Although President George W. Bush has said he opposes broad legalization for
unauthorized migrants, there were reports in the summer of 2001 that the President
would recommend legislation to legalize an estimated 3 million Mexicans working in
the United States without legal authorization. President Bush and Mexican President
Vicente Fox have established a Cabinet-level working group to develop “an orderly
framework for migration that ensures humane treatment [and] legal security, and
dignifies labor conditions.” Initial speculation that the President would unveil a
legalization proposal in early September was tempered by subsequent reports that he
would recommend a more gradual series of proposals. Talks with Mexico continued
after the September 11 terrorist attacks, and now the issue is re-emerging.
On August 2, Congressional Democrats announced a set of principles that will
guide broad immigration legislation they intend to propose, and among those
principles is a plan for “earned legalization.” Their proposal would not be limited to
nationals of any one country and would focus on “longtime, hard-working residents
of good moral character, with no criminal problems ... who are otherwise eligible to
become U.S. citizens.”
While supporters characterize legalization provisions as fair treatment of aliens
who have been living and working here for years as good neighbors and dedicated
employees, opponents describe such proposals as an unfair reward to illegal aliens
who violated the law to get into the United States.
During the 106th Congress, Democratic Members, with support from the Clinton
Administration, unsuccessfully tried to enact a set of immigration legalization and
status adjustment provisions known as the “Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act” (S.
3095). Congress ultimately enacted a set of provisions (P.L. 106-553 and P.L. 106-
554) known as the “Legal Immigration Family Equity Act” (LIFE). LIFE creates a
new nonimmigrant “V” visa for certain immediate relatives of legal permanent
residents (LPRs), expands the use of the “K” nonimmigrant visa to include immediate
relatives of citizens, allows aliens in the “late amnesty” class action court cases to
adjust to LPR status, and temporarily reinstated §245(i) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA), enabling unauthorized aliens to become LPRs if they are
otherwise eligible for visas.
President Bush expressed support for an extension of §245(i), which expired
April 30, 2001, and reached a compromise with congressional leaders (H.Res. 365)
that passed the House March 12, 2002. Previously, a §245(i) extension bill
introduced by House Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee Chairman George Gekas
(H.R. 1885) had passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2001. The Senate
passed their version of H.R. 1885 on September 6, 2001.
Recent estimates of unauthorized aliens based upon the 2000 census range from
7.5 to 9 million, with some suggesting that unauthorized aliens in the United States
may be more than twice the 5.1 million total INS estimated previously.

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Legalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Adjustment of Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Estimates of Unauthorized Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Issues of Debate in the 106th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
“Late Amnesty” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Legalization Through Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Reunification of LPR Relatives with Pending Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
“NACARA Parity” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Adjustment of Status for Liberians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Adjustment of Status Under §245(i) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Legislation in 106th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
LIFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
LIFE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
“Late Amnesty” and Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
“NACARA Parity” and Liberian Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Reinstating §245(i) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Temporary Agricultural Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Issues and Legislation in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Legalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
§245(i) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
NACARA Parity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Liberian Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Andean Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Temporary Agricultural Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Leading Proposals to Legalize or Adjust
Certain Unauthorized Immigrants in the 106th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Immigration Legalization and
Status Adjustment Legislation
Background
Legalization. The issue of whether aliens residing in the United States without
legal authorization may be permitted to become legal permanent residents (LPRs) has
been debated periodically, and at various times Congress has enacted legalization
programs. In 1929, for example, Congress enacted a law that some consider a
precursor to legalization because it permitted certain aliens arriving prior to 1921 “in
whose case there is no record of admission for permanent residence” to register with
INS’s predecessor agency so that they could become LPRs. In 1952, Congress
included a registry provision when it codified the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA) and this provision evolved into an avenue for unauthorized aliens to legalize
their status.1 When Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act
(IRCA) of 1986, it included provisions that enabled several million aliens illegally
residing in the United States to become LPRs. Generally, legislation such as IRCA
is referred to as an “amnesty” or a legalization program because it provides LPR
status to aliens who are otherwise residing illegally in the United States.2 Although
legalization is considered distinct from adjustment of status, most legalization
provisions are codified under the adjustment or change of status chapter of INA.
Adjustment of Status. In addition to laws such as IRCA that have permitted
aliens residing illegally in the United States to legalize their status, Congress has
enacted statutes that enable certain aliens in the United States on a recognized — but
non-permanent — basis to adjust their status to legal permanent residence when they
are not otherwise eligible for an immigrant visa. Since the codification of the INA in
1952, there have been at least 16 Acts of Congress that enable aliens in the United
States in some type of temporary legal status to adjust to LPR status. Most of these
adjustment of status laws focused on humanitarian cases, e.g., parolees or aliens from
specific countries given blanket relief from removal such as temporary protected
1For background and analysis, see CRS Report RL30578, Immigration: Registry as Means
of Obtaining Lawful Permanent Residence, by Andorra Bruno.
2Some consider the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) of
1997 a legalization program because the primary beneficiaries were Nicaraguans and Cubans
who had come to the United States by December 1, 1995, but who had not been given any
recognized legal status typically afforded to humanitarian migrants such as Temporary
Protected Status, Extended Voluntary Departure, or Deferred Enforced Departure. Others
view the Nicaraguans as having a quasi-legal status because the creation of the Nicaraguan
Review Program in 1987 by then-Attorney General Edwin Meese gave special attention to the
Nicaraguans who had been denied asylum.

CRS-2
status (TPS), deferred enforced departure (DED), or extended voluntary departure
(EVD).3
Estimates of Unauthorized Residents. While the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) had estimated there were approximately 5.1 million
unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States as of January 1997, recent
estimates of unauthorized aliens based upon the 2000 census range from 7.5 to 9
million. Using their 5.1 million estimate, the INS calculates that about 16.4% have
been living in the United States for more than 10 years. About 18% of the 5.1 million
unauthorized residents are estimated to have filed applications with INS that might
result in receipt of legal permanent resident status (i.e., 445,600 have applications for
asylum pending and 474,000 have applications for immigrant visas pending). The INS
study does not estimate how many of the 5.1 million unauthorized residents have a
temporary legal status, e.g., TPS.4
As the 2000 Census of the U.S. Population is being released, preliminary data
analyses offer competing population totals that, in turn, imply that illegal migration
soared in the late 1990s and that estimates of unauthorized residents of the United
States have been understated. Demographer Robert Warren of the INS now
estimates that there are about 7.5 million unauthorized aliens living in the United
States. In testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims, Jeffrey Passel, a demographic researcher at the Urban
Institute, offered an estimate of 8 to 9 million unauthorized residents. Economists at
Northeastern University drew on employment data reported by business
establishments as well as 2000 census totals to infer that unauthorized migration may
range around 11 million.5
Issues of Debate in the 106th Congress
“Late Amnesty”. “Late amnesty” is shorthand for aliens involved in litigation
resulting from the sweeping legalization program enacted in 1986 by IRCA. That
time-limited legalization program, codified at §245A of the INA, enabled certain
illegal aliens who entered the United States before January 1, 1982, to become LPRs.
Several class action lawsuits challenged various regulations adopted by INS to
implement the legalization program as being improperly restrictive. As part of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996,
Congress placed jurisdictional limitations on challenges to the legalization program6
3For background on blanket forms of relief and the nationals who have received it, see CRS
Report RS20844, Temporary Protected Status: Current Immigration Policy and Issues, by
Ruth Ellen Wasem and Shirin Kaleel.
4Warren, Robert. Annual Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in
the United States and Components of Change: 1987 to 1997. Office of Policy and Planning,
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, September 2000.
5U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims. Hearing on the U.S. Population and Immigration, August 2, 2001.
6IIRIRA is Division C of P.L. 104-208, September 30, 1996; 110 Stat. 3009. The IIRIRA
(continued...)

CRS-3
in an effort, according to the conference report on the IIRIRA bill, “to put an end to
litigation seeking to extend the amnesty provisions of [IRCA].”7 A Senate Judiciary
Committee press release dated October 21, 2000, estimates that 400,000 aliens were
involved in this litigation.
Legalization Through Registry. Registry is a provision of immigration law
(§249) that enables certain unauthorized aliens in the United States to acquire lawful
permanent resident status. It grants the Attorney General the discretionary authority
to create a record of lawful admission for permanent residence for an alien who lacks
such a record, has continuously resided in the United States since before January 1,
1972, and meets other specified requirements. The INS estimates that 500,000 aliens
would be eligible to legalize to LPR status if the registry date would be advanced to
1986.8 Supporters of advancing it argue it is once again time to move up the date
since it was set at 1972 in 1986, and now the registry date should be advanced to
1986. Opponents to advancing the registry date argue that it is not meant to be a
“rolling date” and that such a legalization program would serve as a magnet for
further illegal migration.
Reunification of LPR Relatives with Pending Cases. The spouses and
minor children of LPRs (who do not accompany them when they initially immigrate
to the United States) are eligible to become LPRs through the second preference
category that governs admission of immigrants. Due to the numerical limits on the
admission of immigrants — both country and worldwide ceilings — as well as the
percentage allocation of immigrant visas across preference categories, more than one
million people are waiting for a second preference visa. The estimated wait for some
of these immediate relatives of LPRs may be as long as 6 years. INA makes these
aliens ineligible for visitors’ visas because they have petitions for legal permanent
residence pending. Some maintain that special provisions should be made to reunite
these family members because the separation poses an undue hardship on the families.
Others point out that millions of other people are also waiting for immigrant visas,
including relatives of U.S. citizens, and that long wait lists are a regrettable, but
inherent, element of the contemporary immigration experience.
“NACARA Parity”. Hundreds of thousands of Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, and
Guatemalans fled civil conflicts in their native countries throughout the 1980s. Many
of these Central Americans entered without proper documents; most were denied
asylum and placed in deportation proceedings. Yet, policy decisions — notably the
creation of the Nicaraguan Review Office in 1987, legislation giving TPS to
Salvadorans in 1990, and an out-of-court settlement for Salvadorans and Guatemalans
6(...continued)
provision limiting litigation (§377) is at 110 Stat. 3009-649.
7U.S. Congress. Conference Committees. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996, conference report to accompany H.R. 2202. H.Rept. 104-828,
104th Cong., 2nd Sess. p. 230.
8For background and analysis, see CRS Report RL30578, Immigration: Registry as Means
of Obtaining Lawful Permanent Residence, by Andorra Bruno.

CRS-4
of the American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh case in 1990 — permitted these
aliens to remain in the United States with employment authorizations.
The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), part
of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1998 (P.L. 105-100), enabled
Nicaraguans and Cubans who had come to the United States by December 1, 1995,
to become LPRs. NACARA also allows Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and unsuccessful
asylum seekers from former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries9 to seek legal
permanent residency under the more generous standards of hardship relief in place
prior to the tightening of immigration laws in 1996. Subsequently, Congress enacted
the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (HRIFA) of 1998, which allows certain
specified Haitians to adjust to LPR status, as part of the FY1999 omnibus
appropriations act (P.L. 105-277). Many, including former President Clinton, have
been critical of the differential treatment afforded the Nicaraguans and Cubans in
contrast to the Salvadorans, Guatemalans and Eastern Europeans. Some are now
arguing for the Hondurans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Haitians not covered by
HRIFA, and Eastern Europeans to be eligible for the same benefits as the Nicaraguans
and Cubans, i.e., “NACARA parity.” Others are criticizing NACARA and any effort
to broaden it as a legalization program that backslides from the reforms made by the
1996 immigration act.10 The INS estimates that about 680,000 Central Americans
and Haitians (excluding derivative family members) would be eligible to adjust under
“NACARA parity.”11
Adjustment of Status for Liberians. Approximately 10,000 Liberians in
the United States were given DED after their TPS expired September 28, 1999.
These Liberians have had protections for the longest period, of those who currently
have TPS or other forms of blanket relief from deportation, having received TPS in
March 1991. The Attorney General had indicated that she did not wish to keep
extending TPS or DED for Liberians. Some assert that it is now safe for the Liberians
to return home and that they should do so. Others maintain that those Liberians who
have lived in the United States for almost a decade have firm roots in the community
and should be permitted to adjust to LPR status.
Adjustment of Status Under §245(i). Section 245 of the INA permits an
alien who is legally but temporarily in the United States to adjust to permanent
resident status if the alien becomes eligible on the basis of a family relationship or job
skills, without having to go abroad to obtain an immigrant visa. Section 245 was
limited to aliens who were here legally until 1994, when Congress enacted a 3-year
trial provision (§245(i)) allowing aliens here illegally to adjust status once they
became eligible for permanent residence, provided they paid a large fee. This
9The language specifies nationals of the Soviet Union, Russia, any republic of the former
Soviet Union, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary,
Bulgaria, Albania, East Germany, Yugoslavia, or any state of the former Yugoslavia.
10See CRS Report 98-270, Immigration: Haitian Relief Issues and Legislation, and CRS
Report 97-810, Central American Asylum Seekers: Impact of 1996 Immigration Law, both
by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
11This estimate of 680,000 includes many aliens who would also be able to adjust if the
registry date would be advanced to 1986, so the two estimates are not cumulative.

CRS-5
provision was effectively repealed by the FY1998 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 105-
119), which provided that only aliens who were beneficiaries of an immigration
petition or a labor certification application filed on or before January 14, 1998, would
be eligible for adjustment under §245(i).12 Supporters point out that the beneficiaries
of §245(i) are aliens eligible for immigrant visas even if they currently lack legal
status, while opponents observe that it flies in the face of other immigration provisions
designed to stymie illegal immigration.
Legislation in 106th Congress
A variety of legalization and status adjustment proposals were put forward in the
106th Congress.13 These proposals covered a range of immigration issues, such as
“NACARA parity,” advancing the registry date to 1986, “late amnesty,” and creating
a V nonimmigrant visa for certain immediate relatives of LPRs. A table that
summarizes the main features of the two competing proposals — H.R. 4942, the
“Legal Immigration Family Equity Act” (LIFE), and S. 3095, the “Latino and
Immigrant Fairness Act” (LIFA) — as well as the compromise language amending
LIFE in H.R. 4577, follows. President Clinton signed P.L. 106-553 (H.R. 4942) and
P.L. 106-554 (H.R. 4577), the legislation containing LIFE and amendments to it, on
December 21, 2000.
LIFA. “NACARA parity,” Liberian adjustment, advancement of the registry
date, and reinstatement of §245(i) were included in the “Latino and Immigrant
Fairness Act” (LIFA) that was introduced as S. 3095. Estimates of aliens and their
derivative relatives who would have benefitted from this bill were as high as 2 million.
This bill was comparable to language that the Senate Democrats tried unsuccessfully
to bring up as an amendment during the floor consideration of S. 2045 (the H-1B
legislation) on September 27. The sponsors of LIFA did not include provisions for
“late amnesty” because those individuals would have been able to legalize through the
advancement of the registry date, a main feature of S. 3095. In an October 26 letter
to congressional leaders, President Clinton led his list of reasons he would veto the
CJS appropriations bill with failure to include LIFA.
LIFE. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Orrin Hatch, along with Congressmen
Henry Bonilla and Lamar Smith, offered an alternative proposal called the “Legal
Immigration Family Equity Act” (LIFE) that focused on the “late amnesty” cases and
the immediate relatives of legal permanent residents (LPRs) who have second
preference petitions pending. Those aliens who are part of the “late amnesty”
litigation are permitted to legalize under the terms of §245A originally established by
IRCA. According to the sponsors, about 600,000 aliens would benefit from a new
temporary “V” visa for spouses and children of LPRs. This language was added to
the CJS appropriations bill (H.R. 4690) that, in turn, was folded into the District of
Columbia appropriations conference agreement (H.R. 4942, H.Rept. 106-1005),
which became P.L. 106-553. After intense negotiations, amendments to LIFE were
12See CRS Report 97-946, Immigration: Adjustment to Permanent Residence Status under
Section 245(i), by Larry Eig and William Krouse.
13For further discussion of immigration legislation, see CRS Report RS20836, Immigration
Legislation in the 106th Congress, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.

CRS-6
included in the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education FY2001 appropriations
conference agreement (H.R. 4577, H.Rept. 106-1033), which became P.L. 106-554.
The amendments to LIFE include a temporary reinstatement of §245(i) through April
30, 2001 and a modification of the “late amnesty” provisions to cover those aliens
who unsuccessfully sought to legalize through IRCA and were part of the Zambrano
v. INS class action suit.
“Late Amnesty” and Registry. Prior to LIFE and LIFA, a variety of bills
addressed “late amnesty and the registry. H.R. 2125 would have amended the INA
to repeal the judicial review limitation on denial of adjustment for certain applicants
for legalization IRCA. S. 1552, H.R. 3149, and H.R. 4966 had the same “late
amnesty” provisions and also would have extended the admission registry date for
permanent residence. Other bills proposing to change the registry date included H.R.
4172 (introduced on behalf of the Clinton Administration), S. 2407, S. 2668, and S.
2912. These four bills and H.R. 4966 would have moved the registry date to January
1, 1986. In addition, S. 2407 and S. 2668 contained “rolling registry date” provisions
to advance the registry date 1 year annually, 2002-2006.
“NACARA Parity” and Liberian Adjustment. On behalf of the Clinton
Administration, a bipartisan group of Members originally introduced a “NACARA
parity” bill (H.R. 2722) and a comparable bill (S. 1592) in the Senate. Similar
provisions were included in H.R. 4200, S. 2912, S. 2668, and H.R. 4966. Separate
bills before Congress (H.R. 919, S. 656) would have provided for the adjustment of
status of certain Liberians in the United States to lawful permanent resident status.
Liberian adjustment provisions also were included in S. 2668 and H.R. 4966.
Reinstating §245(i). A stand-alone bill (H.R. 1841) to restore §245(i) to its
pre-1997 status was introduced, and similar provisions also were included in S. 2668,
H.R. 4966, and S. 2912. In addition, the Senate-reported version of the FY2001 CJS
appropriations act (H.R. 4690) also included such a provision, but it was dropped
from the District of Columbia conference agreement (H.R. 4942) that included the
CJS bill. It was folded back into the LIFE amendments in H.R. 4577, but only
temporarily reinstated through April 30, 2001.
Temporary Agricultural Workers. Legislation to modify or supplement the
H-2A temporary agricultural program was before Congress. S. 1814/H.R. 4056
would have established a time-limited amnesty program for aliens who have worked
here illegally in seasonal agriculture and who continued to do so for a specified time.
Although media reports indicated that a new temporary agricultural worker program
with a legalization provision would also be included in the LIFE amendments, it was
not in the final agreement.14
14For analysis and discussion of the temporary agricultural worker proposals, see CRS Report
RL30852, Immigration of Agricultural Guest Workers: Policy, Trends, and Legislative
Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem and Geoffrey K. Collver.

CRS-7
Table 1. Comparison of Leading Proposals to Legalize or
Adjust Certain Unauthorized Immigrants in the 106th Congress
Legal Immigrant
Major
Family Equity Act
Amendments to LIFE
Latino and Immigrant
features
(P.L. 106-553)
(P.L. 106-554)
Fairness Act (S. 3095)
“Late
makes IRCA §245A
adds aliens from the
[presumed to be
amnesty”
provisions applicable to
“Zambrano v. INS”
covered by advancing
those in “late amnesty”
class action case
the registry date]
class action cases,
enabling them to
legalize
Registry date
—
—
would amend INA to
advance it to 1986 and
create mechanism for a
rolling registry date up
to 1991.
Family
amends INA to provide
clarifies that spouses
—
reunification
nonimmigrant “V” visa
and minor children of
for certain immediate
beneficiaries are
relatives of LPRs with
eligible for the “family
cases pending for 3
unity” provisions of the
years or more; would
Immigration Act of
also modify the K
1990
nonimmigrant visa to
include spouses of U.S.
citizens who marry
abroad and the spouses’
minor children.
“NACARA
—
makes technical
would enable aliens
parity”
corrections to NACRA
from El Salvador,
and HRIFA that waives
Guatemala, Haiti,
certain grounds of
Honduras, the former
inadmissibility
Soviet Union, and
Eastern Bloc countries
who meet certain
conditions to become
LPRs
Liberians
—
—
would adjust status to
LPR
§245(i)
[conferees dropped
reinstates through
would amend INA to
from CJS bill]
April 30, 2001
reinstate it
Issues and Legislation in the 107th Congress
The resolution of the “late amnesty” cases, the enactment of the “V” visa for the
immediate relatives of LPRs who have second preference petitions pending, and the
temporary reinstatement of §245(i) addressed some, but not all of the immigration
issues pertaining to legalization and status adjustment of aliens.

CRS-8
Legalization. Although President George Bush has said he opposes broad
legalization for unauthorized migrants, there have been reports that the President will
recommend legislation to legalize an estimated 3 million Mexicans living in the United
States without legal authorization. President Bush and Mexican President Vicente
Fox have established a Cabinet-level working group to develop “an orderly
framework for migration that ensures humane treatment [and] legal security, and
dignifies labor conditions.” U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, Mexican Foreign
Minister Jorge Castaneda, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, and Mexican Interior
Secretary Santiago Creelto are leading the bi-national group.
President Vincente Fox of Mexico is encouraging the United States to
“regularize” the immigration status of Mexicans living and working in the United
States without authorization. The term “regularize” is not an immigration term, but
its current usage in this debate implies a legalization of status that may be only
temporary and not necessarily a pathway to permanent residence. Initial speculation
that President Bush would unveil a major immigration proposal in early September
that includes a legalization program has been tempered by more recent reports that
he will recommend a more gradual set of proposals.
On August 2, Congressional Democrats announced a set of principles that will
guide broad immigration legislation they intend to propose, and among those
principles is a plan for “earned legalization.” Their proposal would not be limited to
nationals of any one country and would focus on “longtime, hard-working residents
of good moral character, with no criminal problems ... who are otherwise eligible to
become U.S. citizens.” The Democrats’ stated principles also included a family
reunification element and an “enhanced” temporary worker program.
The September 11 terrorist attacks shifted the focus of the immigration debate
toward border security and visa entry reform, but legalization proposals are
resurfacing with new perspectives growing out of September 11. Talks with Mexico
continued after the September 11 terrorist attacks, and now the issues are re-
emerging.
Proponents of legalization are awaiting the introduction of broad legislation,
characterizing legalization provisions as fair treatment of aliens who have been living
and working here for years as good neighbors and dedicated employees. They argue
that the unauthorized aliens are already residing here, benefitting the United States.
Supporters assert it is not feasible or humane to round up millions of people and
deport them.
Opponents, on the other hand, describe legalization as an unfair reward to illegal
aliens who violated the law to get into the United States. They state that such
migrants jumped the line ahead of millions of family members of U.S. residents and
potential employees of U.S. businesses who wait their turn to enter the United States
legally. They maintain that — rather than solving the problem of illegal migration —
amnesty provisions fuel further illegal migration, pointing to the rise in unauthorized
migration over the decade following the implementation of IRCA.
§245(i). President Bush announced that he would support legislation to extend
§245(i) and reached a compromise with congressional leadership for a limited

CRS-9
extension. This compromise — contained in H.Res. 365 — passed the House on
March 12, 2002. Earlier efforts to include an extension of §245(i) when the House
passed H.R. 3525 (the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of
2001) on December 20, 2001 failed. The most recent House-passed §245(i) language
would extend the filing deadline to the earlier of November 30, 2002, or the date that
is 120 days after the Attorney General issues final regulations. The provision would
amend §245(i) to require the prospective immigrant to demonstrate that the family
relationship existed prior to August 15, 2001 in the cases of family-based petitions or
that the labor certification had been filed prior to August 15, 2001 in the cases of
employment-based petitions.
Last year, the House Committee on the Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee
Chairman George Gekas, introduced H.R. 1885, which passed the House May 21,
2001. H.R. 1885 would reinstate §245(i) for 120 days after enactment, with the
stipulations that the applicants were physically present by December 21, 2000 [when
the LIFE Act was signed] and that the familial or employment relationships qualifying
the applicant for the visa existed prior to April 30, 2001 (when the §245(i) provision
of LIFE expired). Representatives Charles Rangel (H.R. 1195) and Sheila Jackson-
Lee (H.R. 1615) and Senator Chuck Hagel (S. 778) all have introduced legislation to
extend INA §245(i) for 1 year. These bills would expand the number of aliens eligible
to become LPRs if their immigrant petitions and labor certifications are filed by April
30, 2002. Representative Peter King’s bill (H.R. 1242) would extend the §245(i)
through October 31, 2001.
The Senate passed their version of H.R. 1885 on September 6, 2001. It
incorporates elements of the legislation the Senate Judiciary Committee reported with
amendments (S. 778) on July 26. As passed by the Senate, H.R. 1885 would require
that the familial or employment relationships qualifying the applicant for the visa
existed on or before August 15, 2001, and would extend §245(i) through April 30,
2002 (or 120 days after regulations are promulgated). S. 778 as reported would
require the that familial or employment relationships qualifying the applicant for the
visa existed on or before the date of enactment. The Senate Appropriations
Committee had included a permanent reinstatement of §245(i) in its version of the
2002 Commerce-Justice-State (CJS) appropriations act (S. 1214) that was reported
July 20.
NACARA Parity. Two bills have been introduced in the House that would
expand to other Central American nationals the immigration relief provided by
NACARA to Nicaraguans and Cubans. Both H.R. 348 (Representative Luis
Gutierrez) and H.R. 707 (Representative Chris Smith) would allow certain
Guatemalans, Haitians, Hondurans and Salvadorans to adjust to LPR status under
terms comparable to the 1997 NACARA law.
Liberian Adjustment. Legislation has been introduced to adjust to LPR
status Liberians who had been given blanket relief from removal from the United
States. Representative Patrick Kennedy is sponsoring the House bill (H.R. 357), and
Senator Jack Reed is sponsoring the Senate bill (S. 656).

CRS-10
Andean Adjustment. Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart has introduced
legislation (H.R. 945) to enable Peruvians and Colombians in the United States by
December 1995 to adjust to LPR status under specified conditions.
Registry. Among other provisions, H.R. 500 (Representative Luis Gutierrez)
would advance the registry date from January 1, 1972, to February 6, 1996, and
would establish a “rolling registry date” that would advance the registry date annually
until it reaches February 6, 2001, in 2007. Upon enactment, unauthorized migrants
living in the United States as of February 6, 1996, would be eligible to adjust to LPR
status if they met the conditions of INA §249. In 2003, those residing here as of
February 6, 1997, would be eligible to adjust, and accordingly each year through 2007
when those residing here as of February 6, 2001, would be eligible to adjust.
Temporary Agricultural Workers. Several H-2A reform bills that include
provisions for status adjustment have been introduced thus far in the 107th Congress.
Senator Ted Kennedy, chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, and Representative Howard Berman have introduced
the “H-2A Reform and Agricultural Worker Adjustment Act of 2001” (S. 1313/H.R.
2736), which includes provisions that would allow unauthorized foreign agricultural
workers to become legal temporary residents if they have worked in agriculture for
at least 90 days in the 18-month period prior to July 2001 and are otherwise
admissible as an immigrant. S. 1313/H.R. 2736 would enable these temporary
residents subsequently to adjust to LPR status after certain other requirements are
met. The “Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security (AgJOBS) Act of
2001,” (S. 1161), introduced by Senator Larry Craig, includes provisions that would
allow H-2A workers to apply for LPR status if they worked 150 days in any
consecutive 12-month period during the 18 months prior to July 2001.