Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections [1 ed.] 9781629481173, 9781629481166

Citation preview

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

IMMIGRATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY: POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES

IMMIGRATION REFORM

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PROPOSALS AND PROJECTIONS

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

IMMIGRATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY: POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES Additional books in this series can be found on Nova‘s website under the Series tab.

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Additional e-books in this series can be found on Nova‘s website under the e-book tab.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

IMMIGRATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY: POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES

IMMIGRATION REFORM

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PROPOSALS AND PROJECTIONS

MOLLOY C. ROSS EDITOR

New York

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. For permission to use material from this book please contact us: Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175 Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com

NOTICE TO THE READER

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers‘ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works. Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data ISBN:  (eBook)

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

CONTENTS Preface Chapter 1

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

vii Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress: Major Legislative Proposals Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System National Economic Council, The Domestic Policy Council, The President’s Council of Economic Advisers and the Office of Management and Budget The Economic Impact of S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act Benjamin Page and Felix Reichling

Index

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

1

75

113 137

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PREFACE For several years, some Members of Congress have favored ―comprehensive immigration reform‖ (CIR), a label that commonly refers to omnibus legislation that includes increased border security and immigration enforcement, expanded employment eligibility verification, revision of nonimmigrant visas and legal permanent immigration, and legalization for some unauthorized aliens residing in the country. This book provides a detailed discussion of major legislation related to each of these issues and provides estimates of the economic impact. Chapter 1 – Leaders in both chambers have identified immigration as a legislative priority in the 113th Congress. While Members of the House reportedly have considered several different approaches to immigration reform during the spring of 2013, debate in the Senate has focused mainly on a single CIR bill: the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744). This book summarizes major provisions of S. 744, as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It also discusses H.R. 1417, as reported by the House Homeland Security Committee, a bill that focuses more narrowly on border security strategies and metrics. Chapter 2 – Report by the Executive Office of the President on The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System, dated July 2013. Chapter 3 – The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744) would revise laws governing immigration and the enforcement of those laws, allowing for a significant increase in the number of noncitizens who could lawfully enter the United States permanently or temporarily. The bill also would create a process for many currently unauthorized residents to gain legal status, subject to their

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

viii

Molloy C. Ross

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

meeting conditions specified in the bill. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have prepared an estimate of the cost of that legislation to the federal government, including projections of the bill‘s effects on both federal spending and federal revenues. That cost estimate reflects some, but not all, of the effects that S. 744 would have on the economy. This supplemental report provides estimates of the overall economic impact of the legislation and of the incremental federal budgetary effects of changes in the economy that the cost estimate does not reflect. Ascertaining the effects of immigration policies on the economy and the federal budget is complicated and highly uncertain, even in the short run, and that task is even more difficult for longer periods; for that reason, this report addresses the next 20 years but does not attempt to look over a longer horizon.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

In: Immigration Reform Editor: Molloy C. Ross

ISBN: 978-1-62948-116-6 © 2013 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 1

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM IN THE 113TH CONGRESS: MAJOR LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS* Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

SUMMARY For several years, some Members of Congress have favored ―comprehensive immigration reform‖ (CIR), a label that commonly refers to omnibus legislation that includes increased border security and immigration enforcement, expanded employment eligibility verification, revision of nonimmigrant visas and legal permanent immigration, and legalization for some unauthorized aliens residing in the country. Leaders in both chambers have identified immigration as a legislative priority in the 113th Congress. While Members of the House reportedly have considered several different approaches to immigration reform during the spring of 2013, debate in the Senate has focused mainly on a single CIR bill: the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744). This report summarizes major provisions of S. 744, as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It also discusses H.R. 1417, as reported by the House Homeland Security Committee, a bill that focuses more narrowly on border security strategies and metrics. *

This is an edited, reformatted and augmented version of Congressional Research Service, Publication No. R43097, dated June 6, 2013.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

2

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem CRS‘s analysis focuses on eight major policy areas that encompass the U.S. immigration debate: comprehensive reform ―triggers‖ and funding; border security; interior enforcement; employment eligibility verification and worksite enforcement; legalization of unauthorized aliens; immigrant visas; nonimmigrant visas; and humanitarian provisions. This report provides a detailed discussion of major legislation related to each of these issues.

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION For several years, some Members of Congress have favored ―comprehensive immigration reform‖ (CIR), a label that commonly refers to omnibus legislation that includes increased border security and immigration enforcement, expanded employment eligibility verification, revision of nonimmigrant visas and legal permanent immigration, and legalization for some unauthorized aliens residing in the country.1 Other Members of Congress may favor addressing these issues sequentially (e.g., by implementing enforcement provisions prior to legalization), and/or may disagree with the legalization and increased legal immigration provisions that have been features of major CIR bills. Still others may be interested in legislating on some elements of CIR but not others.2 Leaders in both chambers have identified immigration as a legislative priority in the 113th Congress. While Members of the House reportedly have considered several different approaches to immigration reform during the spring of 2013, debate in the Senate has focused mainly on a single CIR bill: the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744). As introduced on April 16, 2013, S. 744 was the product of months of negotiations among four Democratic and four Republican Senators—the bill‘s original co-sponsors—a group widely described as the ―Gang of 8.‖3 The Senate Judiciary Committee held three days of hearings on S. 744 in April 2013 and then marked up the bill over five days in May, favorably reporting the bill by a vote of 13-5 on May 21, 2013. The House Homeland Security Committee also reported favorably on the Border Security Results Act of 2013 (H.R. 1417) on May 20, 2013; H.R. 1417 focuses exclusively on border security strategies and metrics. In addition, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on a pair of immigration bills related to employment verification (H.R. 1772) and temporary agricultural worker visas (H.R. 1773).

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

3

This report summarizes major provisions of S. 744, as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It also discusses H.R. 1417, as reported (H. Rept. 11387) by the House Homeland Security Committee. CRS‘s analysis focuses on eight major policy areas that encompass the U.S. immigration debate: comprehensive reform ―triggers‖ and funding; border security; interior enforcement; employment eligibility verification and worksite enforcement; legalization of unauthorized aliens; immigrant visas; nonimmigrant visas; and humanitarian provisions.

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

COMPREHENSIVE REFORM “TRIGGERS” AND FUNDING4 Some Members of Congress have raised concerns about proposals for comprehensive immigration reform on the grounds that the ―bargain‖ some people see at the heart of such reform—tougher enforcement on the one hand and legalization5 plus visa reforms on the other— may be difficult to enforce. Some argue, for example, that while supporters of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)6 promised that a one-time legalization, increased border enforcement, and a prohibition against employing unauthorized workers would solve the problem of illegal migration, some of IRCA‘s immigration enforcement provisions were incompletely implemented.7 Partly to allay these concerns, the first sections of S. 744 would make implementation of certain enforcement provisions pre-conditions for the bill‘s legalization provisions;8 and S. 744 would directly appropriate funding for certain enforcement measures.

Triggers for Legalization and Adjustment to LPR Status Section 3 of S. 744 establishes two sets of triggers for the bill‘s legalization and adjustment of status9 provisions.10 •

First, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may only commence processing applications for registered provisional immigrant (RPI) status (see ―Registered Provisional Immigrants (RPIs)‖) after DHS notifies Congress that the department has begun to implement a new Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy (Comprehensive Security Strategy) and Southern Border Fencing Strategy (Fencing Strategy) mandated by Section 5 of S. 744 (see

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

4

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

―Border Security Strategies and Metrics in ‖).11 DHS would be required to begin implementing the Comprehensive Security Strategy within 180 days after the bill‘s enactment.12 Based on the interplay between the triggers in Section 3 and other provisions of the bill,13 it appears that aliens likely could begin applying for RPI status within a year of the bill‘s enactment. Second, Section 3 generally provides that DHS may not begin adjusting the status of persons from RPI to legal permanent resident (LPR)14 until certain ―triggers‖ are met. Specifically, the DHS Secretary must certify that four benchmarks have been reached: (1) the Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy has been submitted and is ―substantially deployed and substantially operational‖; (2) the Southern Border Fencing Strategy has been submitted and implemented and is ―substantially completed‖; (3) DHS has implemented a mandatory employment verification system to be used by all employers (see ―Interior Enforcement‖); and (4) an electronic exit system to collect machine readable data is being used at air and sea ports of entry (see ―Entry-Exit System‖).15

The bill also describes an exception to these trigger provisions. If 10 years have elapsed since the bill‘s enactment and these benchmarks have not been met due to litigation, a Supreme Court ruling that implementation is unconstitutional, or a ―force majeure,‖16 the Secretary shall permit RPIs to apply for LPR status.17 It is not clear, however, whether allowing such applications under this condition means that DHS would be permitted to adjust applicants to LPR status, or whether the previous sub-paragraph would prevent DHS from completing such adjustments until the benchmarks are met.18 These triggers would not apply to adjustment of status for certain aliens who entered the United States as children (i.e., DREAMers) under Section 2103 of the bill or for aliens granted agricultural ―blue card‖ status under Section 2201 of the bill. The timeline for these groups to adjust status is described in those two sections (see ―DREAM Act‖ and ―Agricultural Worker Legalization‖).

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Funds Section 6 of S. 744 would establish a Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust Fund and a Comprehensive Immigration Reform Startup Account. The

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

5

Trust Fund would include $8.3 billion in initial funds transferred from Treasury‘s general fund,19 and subsequently would receive ongoing funding from several immigration-related fees and penalties.20 The Startup Account would include $3 billion in initial appropriations.21 Initial transfers and appropriations from the general fund would be repaid from immigration fees and penalties added by the bill, with money that is deposited back in the general fund to be used for federal budget deficit reduction.22 From the initial $8.3 billion appropriated to the Trust Fund, the bill would authorize the following spending:23 • • •

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

• •

$3 billion over a five-year period for DHS to carry out the Comprehensive Security Strategy; $2 billion over a 10-year period for DHS to enact recommendations of the Southern Border Security Commission; $1.5 billion over a five-year period for DHS to procure and deploy fencing, infrastructure, and technology pursuant to the Fencing Strategy, with not less than $1 billion being used to deploy, repair, or replace fencing; $750 million over a six-year period for DHS to expand and implement the mandatory employment eligibility verification system in INA Section 274A as amended by Section 3101 of the bill (see ―Employment Eligibility Verification and Worksite Enforcement‖); $900 million over an eight-year period for the Department of State to pay for one-time and startup costs to implement the bill; and $150 million over a two-year period to be transferred to the Departments of Labor, Agriculture, and Justice for their initial costs of implementing the bill.

After the Treasury has been repaid out of ongoing Trust Fund revenues for the initial $8.3 billion transfer, $500 million of ongoing funding would be available over five years to pay for increased border-crossing prosecutions in the Tucson sector and to fund Operation Stonegarden (see ―ImmigrationRelated Crimes‖).24 Additional ongoing collections would be used, subject to appropriations, to provide such sums as may be necessary to carry out the authorization included in S. 744, including operations and maintenance of border security and immigration enforcement investments.25 The Startup Account would be used to pay for one-time and startup costs related to the act.26 Expenditure plans relating to these funds and accounts would be required.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

6

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

BORDER SECURITY27 S. 744 includes a number of sections apparently designed to strengthen border security, including mandates for new border security strategies (which also would be required by H.R. 1417); increased border security personnel, equipment, and infrastructure; DHS waiver authority and access to certain federal lands; provisions related to immigration-related crimes and prosecutions; and efforts to strengthen the entry-exit system. The bill also includes a number of provisions to strengthen oversight of border security activities.

Border Security Strategies and Metrics

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Both S. 744 as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee and H.R. 1417 as reported by the House Homeland Security Committee would direct DHS to develop new metrics and strategies to measure and achieve control of the southwest border. H.R. 1417 focuses exclusively on these strategies and metrics, and the bill only is discussed in this section of this report.

Border Security Strategies and Metrics in S. 744 In the case of S. 744, DHS would be required to submit to Congress a ―Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy‖ (Comprehensive Security Strategy) and to establish a ―Southern Border Fencing Strategy‖ (Fencing Strategy), both within 180 days of enactment.28 The Comprehensive Security Strategy would describe plans to achieve and maintain ―effective control‖ of all sectors along the Southern border. ―Effective control‖ is defined in Section 3 to include ―persistent surveillance‖ and at least a 90% ―effectiveness rate‖; and the effectiveness rate is defined as the sum of alien apprehensions and turn backs divided by total illegal entries.29 DHS would be required to implement the Comprehensive Security strategy beginning immediately after its submission, and to report on it semiannually. The Fencing Strategy would identify locations along the Southern border, including ports of entry, where fencing, infrastructure, and technology should be deployed. DHS would be required to notify Congress upon commencing implementation of the Fencing Strategy. Implementation of these strategies would be a ―trigger‖ for legalization provisions in S. 744 (see ―Triggers for Legalization and Adjustment to LPR Status‖).

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

7

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

In addition, if DHS certifies that it has not achieved effective control of all Southern border sectors during any fiscal year within five years of the bill‘s enactment, Section 4 of S. 744 would establish a Southern Border Security Commission (Commission).30 The Commission would be composed of the governor of each Southern border state or her appointee, as well as members appointed by each house of Congress and the President. The Commission would be required to issue a report making recommendations on how to achieve and maintain border security goals, and would terminate after the issuance of the report. As noted elsewhere (see ―Comprehensive Immigration Reform Funds‖), initial appropriations to the Trust Fund would be dedicated to implementing DHS‘s two border strategies as well as the recommendations of the Commission.

Border Security Strategies and Metrics in H.R. 1417 The Border Security Results Act of 2013 (H.R. 1417), as reported by the House Homeland Security Committee on May 20, 2013, also would direct DHS to submit to Congress within 180 days a comprehensive strategy and implementation plan for gaining and maintaining control of the border. The strategy under the House bill would aim to achieve ―operational control,‖ defined as in the Senate bill to include a 90% effectiveness rate. The strategy in H.R. 1417 initially would focus on ―high traffic areas,‖ defined to mean Border Patrol sectors with ―the most illicit cross-border activity‖; and would aim to achieve operational control of the entire Southwest border within five years. In contrast with S. 744, H.R. 1417 also would require DHS to develop new border security metrics for securing the border between ports of entry, at ports of entry, and in the maritime environment; and border metrics in H.R. 1417 would incorporate information about a wide range of border-related threats and issues, including illicit drug flows, alien recidivism rates, and border crossing wait times, among other issues. The bill also would require DHS and the Government Accountability Office to report on the new strategy and on whether or not DHS has achieved and maintained operational control within the deadlines established by H.R. 1417.31

Border Security Personnel, Equipment, and Infrastructure Sections 1102-1109 of Title I of S. 744 would expand certain border enforcement programs and authorize border security funding. These sections would supplement previous related investments by DHS and the legacy

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

8

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).32 The bill would require U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to add 3,500 trained CBP officers by the end of FY2017.33 It would authorize the National Guard, operating under Title 32 authority (i.e., remaining under the authority of state governors while receiving federal pay and benefits), to assist border security efforts, including through the construction of fencing and other infrastructure, the deployment of surveillance aircraft, and by assisting CBP operations in rural, high-trafficked areas.34 Section 1104 would authorize funding for additional border patrol forward operating bases and other infrastructure, and would establish a grant program for the construction and improvement of infrastructure to facilitate border crossings. DHS would be directed to deploy manned and unmanned aircraft and other surveillance equipment to ensure ―continuous surveillance‖ of border areas, with necessary funding authorized for FY2014-FY2018.35 A grant program would be established and funding authorized to improve 9-1-1 service in rural areas; and funding also would be authorized to improve radio communication among border-area law enforcement agencies.36 Section 1109 would direct the Department of Defense (DOD) and DHS officials to identify DOD equipment and technology that could be used by CBP at the border.

DHS Waiver Authority and Access to Federal Lands In general, federal agencies are required to review the potential impact of proposed projects on national and/or cultural resources prior to committing resources to a project.37 These environmental and other review requirements may delay the construction of certain border barriers and other infrastructure; but existing law grants DHS broad authority to waive legal requirements that might delay construction of border barriers.38 S. 744 would grant the DHS Secretary authority to waive any law she determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of barriers, roads, and other infrastructure to secure the Southern border.39 This provision is similar to existing waiver authority, but only applies to projects along the Southern border, and potentially applies to a broader range of border infrastructure projects than the waiver authority in current law. The Secretary must identify and justify each law being waived; and the waiver would terminate upon certification that the Comprehensive Security and Fencing Strategy requirements for RPIs to adjust to LPR status have been satisfied (see ―Triggers for Legalization and Adjustment to LPR Status‖). Judicial review of action taken pursuant to this authority is limited.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

9

The Southwest border includes extensive federal lands; and some have been identified as ―high-risk areas for ... marijuana smuggling and illegal migration.‖40 DHS has entered into Memoranda of Understanding with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior governing CBP access to federal lands, among other topics.41 Some Members of Congress have argued that DHS should have more complete access to such lands for enforcement purposes.42 Under Section 1105 of S. 744, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior would be required to provide CBP with immediate access to federal lands within 100 miles of the southern Arizona border for certain border security activities. These activities would be conducted ―to the maximum extent practicable‖ to protect natural and cultural resources. Environmental impact statements would be issued in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,43 but the impact statements would not restrict or delay DHS actions on federal lands.

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Immigration-Related Crimes Certain aliens apprehended at the border and others involved in facilitating illegal migration may face immigration-related criminal charges under current law (also see ―Interior Enforcement‖). Several sections in Title III of S. 744 would modify these laws. The bill would rewrite INA Section 275 (unlawful entry) to increase civil and misdemeanor penalties for first-time offenses, impose felony penalties when aggravating circumstances exist (e.g., re-entry following a voluntary departure order), and also to eliminate criminal liability for attempted unlawful entry.44 The bill would amend INA Section 276 (unlawful reentry) to increase criminal penalties, provide affirmative defenses to certain aliens who had been removed as minors, and exempt certain offenses involving emergency humanitarian assistance.45 Additionally, S. 744 would create new felony offenses relating to the commercial smuggling of five or more people, impose criminal penalties for hindering or obstructing alien apprehensions, and impose enhanced penalties for use of a firearm in an alien smuggling offense.46 With respect to these border-related crimes, S. 744 would require guidelines to delay prosecutions against aliens seeking humanitarian relief from removal or immigration status until such adjudications are completed.47 S. 744 also would increase civil penalties for aircraft or vessel operators who fail to detain or transport out of the country unauthorized aliens that were transported by the operator into the country.48

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

10

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

Title III of S. 744 also would rewrite chapter 75 of the U.S. Criminal Code (passport and immigration-related document fraud), expanding its scope and increasing penalties for certain offenses.49 The U.S. Sentencing Commission would be required to reexamine minimum sentencing guidelines for fraudrelated offenses.50 DHS would be required to establish rules to deter fraud in the preparation of immigration documents.51 And S. 744 would impose new criminal penalties for drug cultivation on federal lands.52 Historically, most aliens apprehended at the border have been repatriated to their country of origin without facing criminal charges, but DHS has worked with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to charge a higher proportion of people apprehended at the border.53 Title I of S. 744 includes several provisions to support this goal. Section 1104 would provide funding from the Trust Fund to support increased prosecutions in the Tucson sector, including through the appointment of attorneys, staff, and federal district court and magistrate judges.54 Trust Fund funding also would reimburse sub-federal and tribal jurisdictions for detention costs relating to those prosecutions; and would fund competitive grants to sub-federal and tribal border-area law enforcement agencies through Operation Stonegarden,55 with the proviso that at least 90% of such grants would reimburse immigration enforcement and drug smuggling expenses.56 In addition, the Attorney General would be required to reimburse sub-federal governments for costs related to the prosecution, detention, and other associated costs of federally initiated criminal cases that are declined by U.S. Attorneys, as long as the underlying apprehensions were lawfully conducted, with appropriations authorized for FY2014-FY2018.57 And Section 1110 would modify and reauthorize through FY2015 the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), which reimburses state prisons and local jails for the cost of detaining certain criminal aliens.

Oversight of Border Security Activities Other provisions in Title I of S. 744 concern oversight of border security activities. DHS would be required to work with DOJ to issue new rules governing the use of force by DHS personnel, as well as procedures to review the use of force, investigate complaints, and discipline those who violate such rules.58 Section 1112 would require DHS to provide border personnel specialized training to identify fraudulent documents, respect individual rights, and comply with use of force rules; and DHS would be required to provide specialized training for border community liaison officers and to establish

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

11

standards for the humane treatment of children in CBP custody (also see ―Protection of Children during Immigration Enforcement‖). An independent task force consisting of Northern and Southern border-area stakeholders would be established to review border enforcement and make recommendations.59 A new Ombudsman for Immigration Related Concerns would be charged with monitoring immigration and enforcement policies of CBP, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); recommending policy changes; and assisting victims of crime or violence committed by aliens along the border, among other responsibilities.60 DHS also would be required to establish procedures to ensure that apprehended families of arriving aliens remain united, when feasible,61 and that aliens deported or removed to Mexico are repatriated during daylight hours under most circumstances.62 Several new DHS reports would be required to help Congress monitor these and other border-related issues.63

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Entry-Exit System Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, P.L. 104-208, Div. C) required development of an automated entry-exit system that collects records of alien arrivals and departures and that analyzes such records to identify nonimmigrants who overstay their visas. Subsequent legislation has revised and expanded this entry-exit requirement on several occasions, but the system has never been fully implemented.64 The existing system collects and stores biographic data (i.e., names, birthdates, and other identifying information) and biometric data (i.e., fingerprints and digital photographs) about aliens traveling to and from the United States. The system has been operational at almost all U.S. ports of entry since December 2006, and it has collected biometric data since January 2009 from non-citizens entering through air and seaports and from noncitizens subject to secondary inspection at land ports.65 Most aliens entering at land ports only provide biographic information, however. And although DHS has tested pilot programs to capture biometric exit data at air and land ports, the current exit system is limited to biographic data, and also is limited to airports and seaports.66 Under an agreement with Canada, the United States is scheduled to collect biographic data from third country nationals exiting via northern border lands beginning in June 2013.67

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

12

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

S. 744 includes several provisions apparently intended to create a more robust exit tracking system. The bill would require DHS, by December 31, 2015, to establish a biographic exit system that collects machine-readable passport and other travel information (i.e., biographic data) for all aliens exiting from air and sea ports.68 As noted elsewhere, the implementation of this system would be a pre-condition for the implementation of the adjustment of status provisions for RPIs in S. 744 (see ―Triggers for Legalization and Adjustment to LPR Status‖).69 Air and sea carriers would be responsible for collecting passenger exit data in a secure manner and for transmitting the information to DHS; and $500 million would be appropriated to reimburse carriers for such data collection.70 In addition, DHS would be required, within two years of enactment, to establish a biometric exit system at the 10 U.S. airports with the greatest volume of international air travel.71 The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) would be required to review the program, and DHS would be required within six years to expand biometric exit data collection to 30 airports, and to develop a plan to expand the system to major land and sea ports.72 Exit data would be fully integrated and interoperable with other DHS immigration databases, DOJ immigration enforcement databases, and Department of State (DOS) Consular Affairs databases. Section 3303(c) of S. 744 also would require DHS to ensure that information about overstays is shared across DHS and other federal law enforcement agencies, and that ―reasonably available enforcement resources are employed‖ to locate and commence removal proceedings against visa overstayers identified by the entry-exit system. In addition, Section 3711(b) would make the withholding of information for biometric screening a basis for inadmissibility.

INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT73 The immigration rules established by the INA are supplemented by an enforcement regime to deter and punish violations of those rules. Violations may be subject to criminal penalties (see ―Immigration-Related Crimes‖), civil fines, and/or may be grounds for an alien to be removed from the country. With respect to the latter, the INA identifies two overarching reasons aliens may be ordered removed: grounds for inadmissibility and grounds for deportability.74 The standard removal process, described in INA Section 240, is a civil administrative proceeding before an immigration judge from the DOJ Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). In some cases, immigration

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

13

judges may grant certain forms of relief during the removal process, though their discretion is limited with respect to certain grounds for removal. Provisions in S. 744 would amend the INA‘s interior enforcement provisions in several ways. Subtitle E of Title III would provide additional resources to immigration courts (see ―Immigration Courts‖). The bill would create additional grounds of inadmissibility and deportability, while also broadening judges‘ discretion to waive certain such grounds (see ―Grounds of Inadmissibility, Deportability, and Relief from Removal‖). S. 744 also would encourage alternatives to detention and strengthen DHS detention standards as well as congressional oversight of immigrant detention (see ―Immigrant Detention‖). Subtitle H of Title III of S. 744 establishes special procedures to protect children who are affected by immigration enforcement (see ―Protection of Children during Immigration Enforcement‖). And other provisions in Title III address several additional aspects of immigration enforcement within the United States (see ―Additional Interior Enforcement Provisions‖).

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Immigration Courts75 With increased immigration removals in recent years, many immigration courts have seen growth in their hearing dockets, and aliens in removal proceedings may face wait times of months or even years in certain jurisdictions.76 Some Members of Congress have expressed concerns about long removal wait times for some non-detained aliens placed in removal proceedings before EOIR.77 Some also have expressed concern that, because removal is a civil proceeding, aliens are not guaranteed legal counsel (though aliens do have a right to counsel at no expense of the government), and some aliens may not be competent to represent themselves.78 S. 744 apparently seeks to address these concerns, and generally to ensure that aliens in removal proceedings have adequate opportunities to seek relief. The bill would increase the number of immigration judges by 75 per year for FY2014 through FY2016, and would also increase the number of immigration staff attorneys, paralegals, and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) staff attorneys.79 S. 744 would also provide statutory authority for the BIA (currently established through regulations);80 codify certain standards for immigration judge and BIA decisions;81 require EOIR to review and improve training programs for immigration judges, BIA members, and their staffs;82 and require EOIR to ensure adequate resources and services during

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

14

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

immigration proceedings.83 Funding would be appropriated from the CIR Trust Fund to support the new personnel increases, training, and technology.84 Funding also would be appropriated for a pair of programs to enhance aliens‘ representation during removal proceedings. The Attorney General (AG) would be authorized to provide counsel to aliens in such proceedings at the AG‘s sole and unreviewable discretion. And the AG would be required to provide counsel, at government expense if necessary, for unaccompanied alien children, persons determined to be legally incompetent due to a serious mental disability, and certain other vulnerable persons.85 The AG also would be required to maintain an Office of Legal Access Programs within EOIR. The Office would develop legal orientation programs to educate alien detainees and other aliens in removal and asylum proceedings about their rights and to improve access to counsel, including in some cases at government expense.86 The AG also would assume responsibility, pursuant to the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-457), for providing access to legal representation and appointing independent child advocates to child trafficking victims. Unexpended funds and contract authority to support such services would be transferred from the Secretary of Health and Human Services to DOJ.87 In addition, DHS would be required, at the beginning of removal proceedings, to provide an alien with complete copies of all relevant documents that DHS possesses (so-called ―A-files‖), including documents DHS has obtained from other agencies, with the exception of privileged or law enforcement sensitive documents.88 Removal proceedings could not proceed until an alien has received the required documents or waived the right to do so.89 S. 744 would also require EOIR to maintain records and report to Congress information on aliens in removal proceedings, including how the hearings are conducted (e.g., in person, by teleconference) and the outcomes of any hearings.90

Grounds of Inadmissibility, Deportability, and Relief from Removal S. 744 would amend the grounds of inadmissibility and deportability in the INA in several ways.91 The bill would add language to these provisions regarding conduct related to criminal street gangs, with the inadmissibility grounds related to such activity being somewhat broader in scope. Such conduct also would make aliens ineligible for adjustment to RPI status, though

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

15

limited waivers would apply in this case and with respect to inadmissibility.92 The bill also would make three or more convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) a ground for deportability and inadmissibility.93 A third such conviction would be made an aggravated felony for immigration purposes,94 and therefore such an alien would be subject to more limited relief from removal. Certain types of immigration-related fraud also would be made grounds for deportability and inadmissibility.95 And S. 744 would make crimes involving domestic violence, stalking, and child abuse, along with violations of protection orders, grounds for inadmissibility (though these new grounds generally would be more narrow than corresponding grounds of deportability found in current law).96 As noted elsewhere, withholding information for biometric screening also would be made a ground for inadmissibility (see ―Entry-Exit System‖).97 The bill also would expand the grounds for inadmissibility related to torture and extrajudicial killings, and would add war crimes and widespread human rights violations as inadmissibility grounds, though these added grounds would not apply when the acts were committed under duress. The President would be authorized to release the names of persons deemed inadmissible on these grounds.98 Moreover, the bill would amend the Torture Victims Protection Act to reference some of these added grounds in defining the scope of conduct for which covered entities be held civilly liable. The bill would clarify that sexual abuse of a minor is an aggravated felony for immigration purposes regardless of whether the victim‘s age is established by extrinsic evidence to the record of conviction.99 S. 744 also would increase discretion to waive certain grounds of inadmissibility. It would strike ―extreme‖ from the hardship waiver for the 3 and 10 year bars for aliens who have been illegally present in the United States if they are parents of U.S. citizens or LPRs.100 And it would give immigration judges discretion to not order certain aliens in proceedings to be removed, deported, or excluded if the judge determined that such actions were against the public interest, would create a hardship to the alien‘s U.S. citizen or permanent resident immediate relatives, or if the alien appeared eligible for naturalization.101 This waiver would not be available to individuals subject to removal or inadmissibility based on certain criminal and national security grounds. DHS would have similar discretion to waive grounds of inadmissibility. In addition, an exception to the reinstatement of removal orders would be created for aliens who reentered prior to age 18, or where reinstatement would not be in the public interest or create hardship for the alien‘s U.S. citizen or LPR parent, spouse, or child.102

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

16

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Immigrant Detention The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides broad authority to detain aliens while awaiting a determination of whether they should be removed from the United States and mandates that certain categories of aliens are subject to mandatory detention (i.e., the aliens must be detained) by DHS.103 Aliens placed in removal proceedings who are not subject to mandatory detention may, depending on the circumstances, be detained or released either on conditional parole (including on the alien‘s own recognizance) or on bond.104 S. 744 would establish new statutory requirements for bond hearing procedures and the filing of notices to appear for aliens. All aliens would have the opportunity to appear before an immigration judge after DHS‘s custody determination. Other than in the cases of certain terrorists and criminal aliens, detention would be required only if the Secretary demonstrates that no conditions, including the use of alternatives to detention that maintain custody over the alien, will reasonably assure the appearance of the alien and the safety of any other person. Except for certain criminal aliens and terrorist aliens, immigration judges would be required to review custody determinations (even in the case of mandatory detainees); and the bill would also provide for additional review by an immigration judge every 90 days as to whether the custody of a detained alien is warranted.105 For aliens not eligible for bail or to be released on recognizance, S. 744 would require DHS to establish a secure alternative program offering a ―continuum of supervision mechanisms and options‖ within each ICE field office.106 All aliens, including those subject to mandatory detention (other than suspected terrorists and security threats held under INA §236A) would potentially be eligible for the secure alternative program.107 DHS would also be authorized to contract with non-governmental organizations to implement secure alternatives.108 For aliens in detention, ICE has adopted national detention standards specifying detention conditions for immigration detainees; but existing standards do not themselves have the force of law, and detainees may have more limited recourse to violations of these standards than violations of applicable statutes and regulations.109 S. 744 would require DHS to adopt such standards and would provide oversight and compliance mechanisms. These mechanisms would include regular inspections (at least annually) of all DHS detention facilities, financial penalties and/or the termination of contracts for non-compliant facilities, and annual reports to Congress.110 The bill also would

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

17

limit the use of solitary confinement of detained aliens, and set procedures that would have to be followed if an alien was placed in solitary confinement.111 Furthermore, S. 744 would require DHS to maintain records and report to Congress on the detention of aliens, including information regarding the length of an alien‘s detention, the charges that serve as the basis for removal proceedings against him, and the status of such proceedings.112

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Protection of Children during Immigration Enforcement S. 744 include provisions intended to ensure that an alien‘s detention and/or removal does not result in the termination of a parent or caregiver‘s parental rights.113 The bill would require state child welfare agencies to offer certain protections and services to children in foster care who are separated from their parents due to immigration enforcement, and generally would make the fact that a child‘s parent had been detained or removed because of an immigration proceeding a compelling reason for a state child welfare agency not to seek termination of parental rights (TPR) to a child in foster care. Further, before the agency could file for TPR, S. 744 would require the agency to make reasonable efforts to locate a parent who has been removed from the country, notify that parent of the TPR proceedings, or reunite the child with the parents. The bill would stipulate that a state‘s child protection standards cannot disqualify a parent or other relative as a placement option solely based on the immigration status of the adult and would require state child welfare agencies to ensure certain services and protections are offered to children in foster care whose parents are deported or detained under immigration law. Such services would include providing a case manager or native language interpreter, documenting in the child‘s written case plan the location of the parent or relative from whom the child was removed, and working with DHS to ensure parents who want their children to leave the country with them have enough time and access to necessary documents, among other requirements. The bill would also require DHS to determine within 2 hours if an individual apprehended during an immigration enforcement action is a parent or other primary caregiver of a child in the United States. DHS would be required to provide such parents or caregivers at least two telephone calls to arrange for the child‘s care, to notify relevant child welfare agencies if the parent or caregiver is unable to make arrangements for the child or if the child is at

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

18

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

imminent risk of harm, and to ensure that the best interest of the child is considered on any decisions related to detention.114 In addition, S. 744 would require that detention facilities provide mechanisms for detained parents/caregivers to maintain contact and custody of their children including by permitting regular calls and contact with the children and allowing detainees to participate in family court proceedings, ensuring that the detainee is able to fully comply with all family court or child welfare agency orders impacting custody of their children, and providing access to applications to request travel documents for their children.115 The bill would mandate that the Secretary of DHS, in consultation with the AG, Secretary of HHS, and child welfare and family law experts, develop training on the new requirements under the bill.116

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Additional Interior Enforcement Provisions S. 744 includes several additional provisions related to the enforcement of immigration laws within the United States and related issues (also see ―Immigration-Related Crimes‖). The bill would narrow immigration officers‘ authority to engage in enforcement actions in ―sensitive locations‖ such as schools and hospitals without prior approval or exigent circumstances. It would also require DHS to report annually to Congress on any such enforcement actions117 The bill would provide that stipulated removal pursuant to INA Section 240(d) may only be granted following an in-person hearing that finds that the concession of removability is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.118 S. 744 also would appear to give the State Department discretion to discontinue granting only certain types of visas upon notification that a country is refusing repatriation of its nationals, rather than discontinuing all immigrant or nonimmigrant visas (or both) as may occur under current law.119 In addition, S. 744 would eliminate the INA provision that currently allows a U.S. citizen to renounce citizenship during a time of war if the Attorney General approves the renunciation as not contrary to the interest of national defense.120 And it would broaden the criminal investigatory authority of State Department and Foreign Service Special Agents.121

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

19

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION 122 AND WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT Under current law, it is illegal for an employer to knowingly hire, recruit or refer for a fee, or continue to employ an alien who is not authorized to be so employed.123 Employers are required to review documents to verify the identity and work eligibility of new employees; and employers and employees must sign a form attesting that they have reviewed such documents (in the case of the employer) and are authorized to work in the United States (in the case of the worker).124 The law also gives immigration officers and administrative law judges (ALJs) authority to investigate alleged violations of these provisions, and establishes civil monetary penalties for substantive and paperwork violations, as well as criminal penalties for a pattern or practice of violations.125 Certain employers also use E-Verify, an Internet-based system that checks information provided by workers during the verification process against federal databases.126 Section 3101 of S. 744 would strike and re-write the employment verification and worksite enforcement provisions of the INA, imposing a new requirement to be phased in over time that all employers use an electronic eligibility verification system (EVS) similar to E-Verify, and strengthening the law‘s compliance provisions, among other changes. In general, civil and criminal penalties for hiring unauthorized workers would roughly double relative to their current levels. The law also would provide for several types of enhanced penalties, including special compliance plans, property liens, and potential debarment from federal contracts. At the same time, the bill would impose a tougher standard of proof for liability, and pre-penalty notices that only could be issued if there is reasonable cause to believe a civil violation has occurred in the past three years. Other sections of S. 744 include a number of provisions apparently designed to limit the burden on employers that would result from these changes to INA Section 274A (see ―Employer Protections‖), and to prevent discrimination and otherwise protect lawful workers against potential adverse effects of the new system (see ―Worker Protections‖). As noted elsewhere (see ―Comprehensive Immigration Reform Funds‖), Section 6 of S. 744 would appropriate $750 million over a six-year period for DHS to expand and implement the EVS.127 In addition, Section 3301 would establish an Interior Enforcement Account, and authorize $1 billion to support actions by DHS, the Commissioner of Social Security, the Attorney General, and the Department of State to carry out provisions described in Title III.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

20

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

Included within this authorization, DHS would be authorized, within five years, to increase to 5,000 the number of USCIS and ICE personnel assigned to administer and enforce the laws discussed in this section. The Secretary of DHS and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) would be required to enter into a reimbursable agreement to cover the full costs of SSA‘s responsibilities under the EVS. DHS would be required to issue regulations to implement Section 3101 no later than one year after the bill‘s enactment.128

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Document Verification Requirements and Document Integrity The document verification requirements under Section 3101 of S. 744 would be similar to the existing system, with employers and new employees, respectively, required to attest to having reviewed workers‘ documents evidencing identity and work authorization and to being authorized to work in the United States. The bill would add ―enhanced‖ driver‘s licenses or identification cards to the list of documents workers may present to establish both identity and employment eligibility.129 In addition, Section 3101 would include two new tools to combat the use of fraudulent documents by unauthorized workers. USCIS would be required to publish pictures of acceptable documents on its website. And employers would be required to use a new identity authentication mechanism to be developed by DHS. For certain documents, the mechanism would consist of a ―photo tool‖ to detect documents that have been altered by photo substitution by allowing employers to check photographs on certain identity documents presented by workers against original images from the same documents stored in a USCIS database.130 DHS would develop another mechanism for documents whose images are not included in the USCIS database. Section 3101 would authorize $250 million for a DHS grant program for states to provide DHS with access to driver‘s license information to support the photo tool. The bill also would address document integrity by requiring the Commissioner of Social Security, within five years of enactment of S. 744, to issue only ―fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant, wear-resistant, and identity theftresistant‖ Social Security cards.131 New criminal penalties would be created for fraudulent use of or traffic in a Social Security card or number.132 And DHS would be required to study the possible addition of biometric data to employment authorization documents.133

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

21

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Electronic Eligibility Verification System Section 3101 of S. 744 would establish and make permanent an electronic eligibility verification system (EVS) modeled on the current E-Verify system, and eventually would require that all employers use the system. Under EVerify, employers submit information from workers‘ identity and work eligibility documents to USCIS to be checked against Social Security and (in some cases) DHS databases to confirm that the information matches federal records. In this way, E-Verify is designed to detect certain types of fraudulent documents.134 Current law makes E-Verify a primarily voluntary system;135 but S. 744 would require certain employers to begin using the EVS immediately, and would require all employers to use the system within six years of the bill‘s date of enactment.136 Participating employers would be required to register and to comply with EVS procedures. Eventually, all employers would have to use the system to verify newly hired workers during the first three days of employment, and to re-verify all workers with expiring employment authorization documents. An employer who hires a worker without using the EVS after the date on which the employer is required to use the system would be presumed to have knowingly hired an unauthorized worker.137 Section 3101 would also authorize DHS to require that certain employers verify current workers who were not previously confirmed through the EVS.138 Similar to E-Verify, the EVS would be designed to immediately (or within three days) provide either a confirmation of work eligibility, or a ―further action notice‖ indicating that the worker‘s eligibility initially could not be confirmed. Employers would be required to notify workers in receipt of a further action notice, to allow workers to correct potential database or user errors; and workers would have 10 days to contest the notice.139 In cases in which a worker fails to contest a further action notice or nonconfirmation, or exhausts his or her opportunities to contest or appeal a finding by the system that the worker is unauthorized, an employer would be required to terminate the worker‘s employment. Failure to do so would create a rebuttable presumption that the employer knowingly hired and continued to employ an unauthorized worker. USCIS also would be required to provide ICE with information about workers nonconfirmed by the system.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

22

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Employer Protections Some Members of Congress have raised concerns about how changes to strengthen employment eligibility verification and worksite enforcement may affect certain U.S. employers.140 Some Members also have raised concerns about the costs to certain businesses of using the EVS.141 And with several states and localities passing laws to combat the employment of unauthorized workers, business groups have pushed for uniform national standards for employment verification.142 S. 744 includes several provisions apparently designed to address these concerns. With respect to uniform standards, the bill would expressly preempt state and local measures that include fines or ―penalty structures‖ related to the hiring, continued employment, or status verification for employment eligibility purposes of unauthorized aliens.143 Section 3101 describes conditions under which the DHS Secretary or an administrative law judge may mitigate certain penalties, and includes more detailed provisions than in current law for challenging penalty claims. The section also would broaden existing language describing an employer‘s good-faith compliance defense against prosecution for violations of these provisions, and would protect employers from liability for actions taken in good faith based on the EVS. Under S. 744, DHS would be required to make arrangements to enable employers or employees who are not otherwise able to access the EVS to use electronic and telephonic formats, federal or public facilities, or other locations to utilize the system. Section 3101 of S. 744 also would require reports by DHS and GAO on unique challenges of implementing the EVS in the agricultural industry,144 on adverse impacts on employers associated with EVS implementation,145 and on the effects of new documentary requirements on different categories of work-authorized workers and employers.146 In addition, a new Office of the Small Business and Employee Advocate would be created.147 The office would be charged with assisting small businesses and individuals to comply with the law, and also to abate certain penalties.

Worker Protections Along with adding employer sanctions provisions, the 1986 IRCA included provisions to prohibit employment discrimination (other than against unauthorized workers) based on national origin or citizenship status.148 The DOJ Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

23

Practices was created to respond to the concern that some employers would discriminate against foreign-looking or foreign-sounding individuals to avoid possibly being penalized under INA Section 274A. E-Verify was intended, in part, to combat such discrimination, but evaluations of E-Verify have produced ambiguous findings about its effects.149 Section 3101 of S. 744 would require that the DHS Secretary design the EVS to allow for auditing to detect possible cases of this type of employment discrimination and other adverse actions, and to allow workers to check their own verification case histories, to verify their own eligibility through the system, and to temporarily lock their own or their children‘s Social Security numbers. DHS would develop procedures to notify workers directly when their records are queried and when they receive a further action notice, nonconfirmation, or confirmation. DHS also would conduct regular civil rights and civil liberties assessments of the EVS; and the DHS Inspector General would conduct annual audits of EVS accuracy rates. Section 3101 also outlines detailed provisions for administrative and judicial review of final nonconfirmations of a worker‘s eligibility, and would allow an ALJ, as part of the administrative review process, to uphold or reverse an EVS determination and to order lost wages and other appropriate remedies in cases of erroneous nonconfirmations.150 In addition to the worker protections in the EVS, S. 744 includes additional provisions apparently designed to prevent discrimination or other adverse outcomes during the verification process. In cases of labor disputes, all rights and remedies provided under federal, state, or local law relating to workplace rights, including back pay, would be available to an employee despite the employee‘s status as an unauthorized alien.151 And reinstatement would be available to individuals who lose employment authorized status due to unlawful acts of an employer.152 The bill also would make certain prohibited uses of the EVS unfair immigration-related employment practices, and therefore subject to civil penalties through the DOJ Office of Special Counsel (OSC).153 And it would expand the OSC‘s jurisdiction to cover certain small employers now exempt from the section. Section 3105 also would require the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to refer all allegations of immigration-related unfair employment practices to the DOJ Special Counsel, and would more than double the monetary penalties for violations of worker rights under these provisions. The section also would authorize $120 million in FY2014- FY2016 to publicize these worker protections.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

24

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

As noted elsewhere, Section 3107 would create a new Office of the Small Business and Employee Advocate (see ―Employer Protections‖). The office would be charged with assisting individuals and small businesses with complying with employment verification requirements, including by helping individuals correct erroneous further action notices and nonconfirmations.154 S. 744 includes additional provisions to protect certain foreign workers. Section 3201 would expand eligibility for the U visa to cover a wider class of alien crime victims than under current law, as well as aliens who have been or may be helpful in a wider range of criminal investigations. The visa also would be expanded to include as new ―covered violations‖ serious workplace abuse, exploitation, retaliation, or violations of whistleblower protections. DHS would be required to stay the removal of certain aliens arrested or detained in the course of worksite enforcement activities, and to notify appropriate law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over the violations. The section also amends other provisions of the INA to protect victims of ―serious violations‖ of labor and employment law. Certain penalties collected from employers who hire or employ unauthorized workers would be deposited in the CIR Trust Fund and made available to DHS and DOJ to educate employers and workers about the EVS.155 The bill also would direct the U.S. Sentencing Commission to provide enhanced sentencing guidelines for persons convicted of certain employment-related offenses,156 and would generally preclude the disclosure of information provided by aliens who are victims of certain crimes.157

LEGALIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS158 How to address the unauthorized alien population in the United States is a key and controversial issue in comprehensive immigration reform. There is a fundamental split between those who want to grant legal status to unauthorized aliens in the United States and those who want unauthorized aliens to leave the country. Among those who support legalization for at least some portion of the unauthorized population, there also may be disagreement about how to treat different segments of the unauthorized population as part of a legalization process.159 S. 744 proposes to establish a general legalization program for unauthorized aliens in the United States (see ―Registered Provisional Immigrants (RPIs)‖), with special pathways for aliens who entered the country as children (see ―DREAM Act‖) and for agricultural workers (see ―Agricultural Worker Legalization‖). As noted elsewhere, the

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

25

implementation of certain enforcement provisions under Section 3 of the bill serves as a pre-condition for the bill‘s legalization provision (see ―Triggers for Legalization and Adjustment to LPR Status‖). Interim final regulations to implement all of the legalization provisions discussed in this section would have to be issued no later than one year after the enactment of S. 744 and would take effect immediately upon publication.160

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Registered Provisional Immigrants (RPIs) Under current law, there are limited avenues for unauthorized aliens in the United States to become lawful permanent residents.161 Sections 2101, 2102, and 2103 of S. 744 would establish a new multi-step, multi-year process that would enable eligible unauthorized aliens to transition into a provisional legal status and ultimately to lawful permanent residence. Interim final regulations to implement these provisions would have to be issued no later than one year after the enactment of S. 744 and would take effect immediately upon publication.162 S. 744 Section 2101 would add a new section (245B) to the INA, allowing adjustment to a newly created ―registered provisional immigrant (RPI)‖ status. The Secretary of DHS would be authorized to grant RPI status to a foreign national who meets the specified eligibility requirements, submits an application in the specified period, and pays a fee and a penalty, if applicable. The RPI eligibility requirements state that the alien must be physically present in the United States on the date of submitting the RPI application, must have been physically present in the United States on or before December 31, 2011, and must have maintained continuous physical presence in the United States from December 31, 2011, until the date the alien is granted RPI status. Dependent spouses and children could be classified as RPI dependents if they were physically present in the United States on or before December 31, 2012, have maintained continuous physical presence in the United States from that date until the date the principal alien is granted RPI status, and meet the other RPI eligibility requirements. Under S. 744, a foreign national would be ineligible for RPI status if he or she has a conviction for specified criminal offenses or for unlawful voting; if the Secretary of DHS knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the alien has engaged, or is likely to engage, in terrorist activity; or if the alien is inadmissible under certain provisions of the INA. Aliens with LPR, refugee, asylum, or (with specified exceptions) legal nonimmigrant status on the date S.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

26

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

744 was introduced also would be ineligible. Section 2101 of S. 744 would further require that aliens satisfy any applicable federal tax liability163 prior to filing an RPI application, and that aliens submit biometric and biographic data and clear national security and law enforcement background checks as part of the application process. An RPI applicant also may be subject to additional security screening at the discretion of the DHS Secretary.164 The RPI application period would run for one year beginning on the date a final rule is published; the Secretary could extend the application period for an additional 18 months. Aliens seeking RPI status under S. 744 would be required to pay both a processing fee and a penalty. Aliens age 16 and older would be charged a processing fee in an amount set by the DHS Secretary that is sufficient to cover the full costs of processing applications. Aliens 21 and older (who are not covered by DREAM Act provisions; see ―DREAM Act‖) would be required to pay a penalty of $1,000, which could be paid in installments. The processing fees would be deposited into the existing Immigration Examinations Fee Account and the penalties would be deposited into the new CIR Trust Fund (see ―Comprehensive Immigration Reform Funds‖). Under S. 744, an alien who is apprehended before or during the RPI application period and appears to be eligible for RPI status would be given an opportunity to file an application and could not be removed until a final determination on the application is made. Similarly, in the case of an alien in removal proceedings during the same time frame who appears to be eligible for RPI status, S. 744 would provide for suspension of the removal proceedings to give the alien a reasonable opportunity to apply for RPI status. Aliens outside the United States who departed the country while subject to an order of exclusion, deportation, removal, or voluntary departure, and such aliens who reentered illegally after December 31, 2011, generally would not be eligible to file an application for RPI status under S. 744. The Secretary could waive this provision if the alien is the spouse or child of a U.S. citizen or LPR or the parent of a U.S. citizen or LPR child, or if the alien meets certain requirements under the DREAM Act provisions. While an alien‘s RPI application is pending, the alien could receive advance parole165 in urgent circumstances, could not be detained or removed unless the Secretary of DHS determines the alien is no longer eligible for RPI status, would not be considered unlawfully present, and would not be considered to be an unauthorized alien for employment purposes. In general, an employer who knows that an alien is or will be an applicant for RPI status

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

27

would be permitted to employ the alien pending adjudication of the alien‘s RPI application. A foreign national granted RPI status generally would be considered to have been admitted and lawfully present in the United States as of the application filing date, and would be permitted to travel in and out of the United States. The DHS Secretary would issue RPIs a machine-readable and tamper-resistant identity document with a digitized photo. The Commissioner of Social Security, in coordination with the DHS Secretary, would be required to implement a system to assign Social Security numbers and cards to each RPI. RPIs would be ineligible for federal means-tested public benefits (see ―Access to Federal Public Benefits‖). Under S. 744, the initial period of RPI status would be six years. This initial period could be extended for one or more additional periods of six years if the alien remains eligible for RPI status and meets specified requirements, including a continuous employment requirement. In general, to satisfy this employment requirement, an alien either must establish that he or she was regularly employed (allowing for periods of unemployment of up to 60 days) and is not likely to become a public charge, or must demonstrate average income or resources above a specified level throughout the RPI admission period. An alien also could satisfy the employment requirement by full-time attendance at certain educational institutions or programs. The employment requirement would not apply to RPI dependents and would be subject to other exceptions and waivers.

RPI Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Residence To enable RPIs to eventually become LPRs, S. 744 Section 2102 would add a new section (245C) to the INA on RPI adjustment of status.166 Under INA Section 245C, RPIs would not be permitted to adjust to LPR status until the Secretary of State certifies that immigrant visas have become available for all approved petitions that were filed under applicable sections of the INA before the enactment of S. 744.167 Interim final regulations to implement these provisions and the bill‘s other adjustment of status provisions would have to be issued no later than one year after the enactment of S. 744 and would take effect immediately upon publication.168 For RPIs seeking to adjust to LPR status, the waivers of inadmissibility for aliens initially seeking RPI status would continue to apply. In addition, to adjust to LPR status in accordance with INA Section 245C, an alien would have to have remained eligible for RPI status, including by satisfying the employment requirement, and would have to have been continuously

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

28

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

physically present in the United States during the period of admission as an RPI, as specified. RPIs adjusting status in accordance with INA Section 245C also would be required to satisfy any applicable federal tax liability169 and to register under the Military Selective Service Act if applicable, and would be subject to renewed national security and law enforcement checks prior to adjustment. Applicants 16 and older would be required to meet, or to be pursuing a course of study to meet, the INA English language and civics requirements for naturalization, subject to exceptions and waivers. INA Section 245C would impose a second set of processing and penalty fees on RPIs who apply to adjust to LPR status under its terms. Applicants would have to pay a penalty of $1,000, which could be paid in installments. Processing fees would be deposited into the existing Immigration Examinations Fee Account and penalties would be deposited into the CIR Trust Fund (see ―Comprehensive Immigration Reform Funds‖). RPIs who satisfy these requirements under INA Section 245C could adjust to LPR status under the Merit-Based Track Two visa provisions pursuant to S. 744 Section 2302. These visas would become available beginning in FY2024, as discussed elsewhere (see ―Merit-Based Track Two‖). Those RPIs who also meet additional eligibility criteria set forth in the DREAM Act provisions (in S. 744 §2103) may have the option of adjusting status more quickly under a new INA Section 245D (see next section, ―DREAM Act‖). RPIs only could adjust status under the Merit-Based Track Two provisions or the DREAM Act provisions. S. 744 Section 2102 also would amend current law to provide for naturalization170 of certain LPRs who were lawfully present in the United States and eligible for work authorization for at least 10 years prior to becoming an LPR—language apparently covering RPIs following their adjustment to LPR status under the Merit-Based Track Two provisions (see ―Merit-Based Track Two‖). These aliens would be able to apply for naturalization after three years in LPR status, rather than five years as is usually the case for LPRs currently seeking to naturalize.

DREAM Act S. 744 would add a new section (245D) to the INA on adjustment of status for certain RPIs who entered the United States as children and satisfy a set of requirements. Such aliens previously have been the subject of similar standalone legislation known as the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

29

Minors (DREAM) Act.171 Under S. 744, the DHS Secretary could adjust the status of an RPI to that of an LPR if the alien demonstrates that he or she: • • •

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

has been an RPI for at least five years; was under age 16 at the time of initial entry into the United States; has earned a high school diploma, general education development (GED) certificate, or the equivalent in the United States; and has earned a degree from an institution of higher education or has completed at least two years in good standing in a bachelor‘s or higher degree program in the United States, or has served in the uniformed services for at least four years.172

Such aliens would be required to provide DHS with a list of secondary schools attended in the United States; and they would be subject to English language and civics requirements and national security and law enforcement screening. Aliens adjusting under INA Section 245D would be exempt from the $1,000 penalty charged to RPIs adjusting status under INA Section 245C, and would face a somewhat different set of application requirements than other RPIs. For purposes of naturalization, an alien granted LPR status under INA Section 245D would be considered to have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence and to have been in the United States as an LPR (and therefore accumulating time toward the residency requirement for naturalization)173 during the period the alien was an RPI. With some exceptions, however, an alien could not apply for naturalization while in RPI status. S. 744 would amend the INA to exempt aliens who adjust to LPR status under INA Section 245C (for RPIs) or INA Section 245D (the DREAM Act) from the worldwide numerical limits on permanent admissions.174 In addition, S. 744 would repeal Section 505 of Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which places certain restrictions on state provision of postsecondary educational benefits to unauthorized aliens.175 The bill would further specify that RPIs who initially entered the United States before age 16 and aliens granted blue card status (see ―Agricultural Worker Legalization‖) would only be eligible for certain types of federal student financial assistance under Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965.176 These aliens would be eligible for student loans, federal workstudy programs, and services.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

30

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

Agricultural Worker Legalization S. 744 would establish a new legal temporary status, termed ―blue card‖ status, for agricultural workers who satisfy specified work and other requirements.177 Broadly similar provisions have been included in measures introduced regularly in recent Congresses, including in bills known as the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act (AgJOBS Act). S. 744 provides that the Secretary of DHS could grant blue card status to an alien who •

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

either performed not fewer than 575 hours or 100 work days of agricultural employment in the United States during the two-year period ending on December 31, 2012, or is the spouse or child of such an alien, was physically present in the United States on or before December 31, 2012, and has maintained continuous presence in the United States from that date until the date on which the alien is granted blue card status.178

The application period for blue card status would run for one year beginning on the date a final rule is published, and the DHS Secretary could extend the period for an additional 18 months. The Secretary of DHS, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, would have to issue final regulations to implement these provisions no later than one year after the enactment of S. 744.179 No alien would be permitted to remain in blue card status after the date that is eight years after regulations are published.180 The Secretary could only accept applications from aliens within the United States, except for aliens who have participated in the H-2A visa program,181 who could apply from abroad. Apart from their work experience, blue card applicants generally would be subject to similar eligibility restrictions and waivers of inadmissibility as RPIs (see ―Registered Provisional Immigrants (RPIs)‖), except that legal nonimmigrants in H-2A status would be eligible for blue cards. Blue card applicants also would be subject to national security and law enforcement background checks. They would enjoy similar protections as RPIs from being removed during the application period, and would similarly receive an identity document, work authorization, and permission to travel into and out of the United States. Applicants for blue card status also would be subject to processing and penalty fees, though penalties, at $100, would be lower than for RPI applicants. Processing fees would be deposited into the Immigration

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

31

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Examinations Fee Account, and the penalties would be deposited into the CIR Trust Fund. Each employer of an alien with blue card status would be required to annually provide a record of the alien‘s employment to the alien and the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary of DHS would be allowed to adjust an alien with blue card status to RPI status if the alien is unable to fulfill the agricultural work requirement for adjustment from blue card status to LPR status, as specified.

Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Residence S. 744 would add a new section (245F) to the INA to provide for the adjustment of status of aliens with blue card status to LPR status. The DHS Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, would be required to issue final regulations implementing these provisions within one year of the enactment of S. 744.182 Under this new INA section, the DHS Secretary, not earlier than five years after the enactment of S. 744, would be required to adjust the status of certain aliens with blue card status if the alien has performed either: not less than 100 work days of agricultural employment annually for five years in the eight-year period beginning on the date of enactment, or not less than 150 work days of agricultural employment annually for three years in the five-year period beginning on the date of enactment.183 The Secretary of DHS could not adjust the status of an alien with blue card status if the alien is no longer eligible for blue card status or has failed to meet the agricultural work requirement. As with RPIs, grounds of inadmissibility waived during the initial application period would continue to apply for purposes of adjustment of status; and aliens adjusting from blue card status would be required to satisfy any applicable federal tax liability,184 and to pay a processing fee and a $400 penalty. S. 744 also would establish a criminal penalty for false statements in applications for blue card status or in applications for adjustment from blue card status to LPR status.185 The Secretary of DHS would grant LPR status to the spouse or child of an alien whose status was adjusted from blue card status to LPR status if the spouse or child applies for such status, the principal alien includes the spouse or child in an adjustment of status application, and the spouse or child is not ineligible for LPR status under the ineligibility provisions for obtaining RPI status (see ―Registered Provisional Immigrants (RPIs)‖). An alien granted blue card status would only be permitted to adjust to LPR status under this section, the RPI adjustment of status provisions,186 or the merit-based track two

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

32

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

permanent admissions provisions (see ―Merit-Based Track Two‖). S. 744 further provides that worldwide and per-country immigration limits would not apply to adjustments of status from blue card status to LPR status.187

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Access to Federal Public Benefits188 Noncitizens‘ eligibility for major federal benefits largely depends on their immigration status and how long they have lived and worked in the United States. Eligibility rules differ for federal public benefits, including federal means-tested benefits. Under Section 403 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA, P.L. 104-193), federal means-tested benefits have been defined by regulation to include Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, and the Children‘s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). LPRs, asylees, refugees, and other humanitarian migrants189 are generally eligible for federal public benefits. While humanitarian migrants are eligible for federal means-tested programs for at least five to seven years after entry, however, LPRs generally must have a substantial work history or military connection, or must meet additional requirements to be eligible for such programs, including in some cases a five year legal residency requirement.190 An additional factor affecting eligibility for benefits is that not all households or all aliens fall squarely into one category. ―Mixed status‖191 families and ―quasi-legal‖192 aliens pose ambiguities in the context of federal benefit programs, and how they are treated varies considerably across programs.193 S. 744 would not amend federal laws on public benefits, but it would expressly bar aliens who legalize under the bill from receiving federal meanstested benefits and certain other ―benefits.‖ Specifically, S. 744 states that aliens with RPI status (see ―Registered Provisional Immigrants (RPIs)‖), blue card status (see ―Agricultural Worker Legalization‖), and W visa status (see ―New Nonimmigrant Visas for Lower-Skilled Workers‖) would not be eligible for any federal means-tested public benefit, as defined and implemented by Section 403 of PRWORA. The bill also would limit the access of aliens who legalize under the bill to certain benefits of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).194 Aliens with RPI status and blue card status would be considered lawfully present for all purposes under S. 744, except that they would not be not entitled to the premium assistance tax credits195 or cost sharing subsidies established by the ACA,196 and they would be exempt from

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

33

the individual mandate to have health insurance.197 Such aliens would be eligible, however, to purchase insurance through an exchange without any credits or subsidies.198

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

IMMIGRANT VISAS199 Immigrants are persons admitted as legal permanent residents (LPRs) of the United States. Under current law, permanent admissions are subject to a complex set of numerical limits and preference categories that give priority for admission on the basis of family relationships, an offer or employment in the United States, and geographic diversity of sending countries. These limits include an annual flexible worldwide cap of 675,000 immigrants, plus refugees and asylees. The INA specifies that each year, countries are held to a numerical limit of 7% of the worldwide level of U.S. immigrant admissions, known as per-country limits. The pool of people who are eligible to immigrate to the United States as LPRs each year typically exceeds the worldwide level set by U.S. immigration law, and as a consequence millions of prospective LPRs with approved petitions are waiting to receive a numerically limited visa (commonly referred to as the ―backlog‖ or ―queue‖). The immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (i.e., their spouses and unmarried minor children, and the parents of adult U.S. citizens) are admitted outside of the numerical limits and are the flexible component of the worldwide cap. S. 744 would revise the numerical limits on legal permanent immigration and would alter the system that allocates the visas. It would repeal the Diversity Visa Program200 beginning in FY2015, but enable those who received diversity visas for FY2013 and FY2014 to be eligible to obtain LPR status. Two new ―merit-based‖ categories would be created (see ―Merit-Based Track One‖ and ―Merit-Based Track Two‖), one of which would be designed, in part, to replace the diversity visa. The basic worldwide limits on family- and employment-based preference (i.e., numerically capped) visas would be unchanged at 480,000 and 140,000, respectively; but the bill would allow the allocation of unused roll-over and recaptured visas from previous years,201 would eliminate the per-country ceiling for employment-based preferences, and would increase the per-country ceiling for family-based preferences from 7% to 15%,202 in addition to other changes to these systems (see ―FamilyBased Immigration‖ and ―Employment-Based Immigration‖). S. 744 also would modify rules for investor visas (see ―Investor Visas‖), and include provisions to promote immigrant integration (see ―Immigrant Integration‖).

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

34

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

In addition, S. 744 would make numerous other revisions to LPR immigration, including new procedures for how DHS and DOS manage visa backlogs, new provisions for fiancés and fiancées of LPRs, changes to the petition process when the sponsoring relative dies, and changes to certain country-specific and other special immigrant visas.203

Point Merit-Based Systems

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

S. 744 would include two different ―merit-based‖ systems: one designed as a point system to admit aliens based on their employment skills, and the other designed to expedite the admission of certain people in the existing visa backlog.

Merit-Based Track One The proposed Merit-Based Track One visa would replace the diversity visa and would admit 120,000 to 250,000 LPRs annually, with the annual flow based upon a sliding formula that would depend on demand for the visa in the previous year. If the average annual unemployment rate in the previous fiscal year was greater than 8.5%, the level would not be increased. Unused visas from past years would be recaptured.204 For the first four years after enactment, Track One visas would be made available to foreign nationals who meet existing criteria for the thirdpreference professional, skilled shortage, and unskilled shortage workers. For the fifth and subsequent years, visas would be allocated as follows: •

•

50% would be allocated to Tier 1 based upon education (college plus), employment experience, high-demand occupation, entrepreneurship, younger workers, English language, familial relationship to a U.S. citizen, country of origin diversity, and civic engagement. 50% would be allocated to Tier 2 based upon employment in highdemand occupations that require little to medium preparation (high school diploma or GED) and caregivers, younger workers, English language, familial relationship to a U.S. citizen, country of origin diversity, and civic engagement.

Foreign nationals who have pending LPR petitions or who acquire RPI status would not be eligible for Track One visas. GAO would be required to

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

35

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

evaluate how this point system functions and report to Congress not later than seven years after enactment.

Merit-Based Track Two S. 744 would create a second Merit System (Track Two) that has four components.205 The first would consist of employment preference petitioners who filed before enactment of S. 744 and whose petitions were pending (i.e., were in the visa queue backlog) for at least five years. The second would consist of family preference petitioners who filed before enactment and whose petitions were pending (i.e., were in the visa queue backlog) for at least five years. The third would consist of persons filing current third- or fourthpreference family petitioners during the first 18 months after the date of enactment (i.e., before the bill‘s final changes to the family preference categories become effective; see ―Family-Based Immigration‖) and whose visas are not issued during the first five years after the bill‘s date of enactment. The fourth would consist of long-term workers (other than W visa holders) who worked 10 years in a legally present status with employment authorization, a category apparently designed to describe RPIs. Under S. 744, the first two components of the Track Two merit system would function as current backlog reduction, as visas would be issued to oneseventh of the petitioners in these two categories, ordered by filing date, during each year from FY2015 through FY2021, regardless of country of origin or other numerical limits. During FY2022-FY2023, visas would be issued to the current family third- and fourth-preference petitioners filing after the date of enactment, with one half of such filers receiving visas in each of these years (ordered by filing date). These visas would thus accommodate certain family petitioners who no longer would be eligible following the implementation of reforms to the family preference system in S. 744 (see ―Family-Based Immigration‖). Ten years after enactment of S. 744 (i.e., beginning in FY2024), the Track Two merit system would become a pathway for RPIs adjusting to LPR status. Beginning in FY2029, aliens would be required to have been lawfully present in an ―employment authorized status‖ for 20 years prior to filing for Track Two merit adjustment.206

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

36

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Family-Based Immigration Under current law, to qualify as a family-based LPR, a foreign national must be a spouse or minor child of a U.S. citizen; a parent, adult child, or sibling of an adult U.S. citizen; or a spouse or unmarried child of a lawful permanent resident. At least 226,000 and no more than 480,000 family preference LPRs are admitted each year within four different preference categories. Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens may be eligible for nonpreference (i.e., uncapped) visas. Section 2305 of S. 744 would revise the family-based system in two main ways. First, it would reclassify spouses and minor unmarried children of LPRs as immediate relatives, making them exempt from family preference numerical limits. Second, S. 744 would reallocate family preference visas in two stages. For the first 18 months after enactment, family preference visas would be allocated as follows: (1) adult unmarried children of U.S. citizens would be capped at 20% of the worldwide limit for family-preference immigrants; (2) adult unmarried children of LPRs would be capped at 20% of the worldwide limit for family-preference immigrants plus unused visas from the first category; (3) adult married children of U.S. citizens would be capped at 20% of the worldwide limit for family-preference immigrants, plus unused visas from the first two categories; and (4) siblings of U.S. citizens would be capped at 40% of the worldwide limit for family-preference immigrants, plus unused visas from the first three categories. Beginning 18 months after enactment, S. 744 would eliminate the current family fourth-preference category for adult siblings of U.S. citizens,207 and allocate the family preference visas as follows: U.S. citizens‘ unmarried sons or daughters would not exceed 35% of worldwide level; U.S. citizens‘ married sons or daughters 31 years of age or younger (at the time of filing) would not exceed 25% of the worldwide level;208 and LPRs‘ unmarried sons and daughters would not exceed 40% of the worldwide level.209 In addition, S. 744 would make nonimmigrant V visas available to all persons with approved petitions pending within a family preference category. Thus, U.S. citizens‘ unmarried sons and daughters and LPRs‘ unmarried sons and daughters, as well as persons who are U.S. citizens‘ married sons and daughters under age 31, could reside in the United States until their visa date becomes current. They would also be granted work authorization during that period. U.S. citizens‘ siblings and adult sons and daughters age 31 or older with pending family preference visas could reside in the United States for 60 days per year, but would not be authorized to work.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

37

Employment-Based Immigration The current employment-based LPR visa system consists of five numerically limited preference categories. To qualify within one of these categories, a foreign national must be an employee whom a U.S. employer has received approval from the Department of Labor to hire; a person of extraordinary or exceptional ability in specified areas; an investor who will start a business that creates at least 10 new jobs; or someone who meets the narrow definition of the ―special immigrant‖ category.210 The INA currently allocates 140,000 admissions annually for employment-preference immigrants. S. 744 would make substantial changes to the employment-based system. Foremost, the bill would exempt from the numerical limits on employmentbased LPRs the following: • •

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

•

derivatives (i.e., accompanying immediate family members) of employment-based LPRs; persons of extraordinary ability in the arts, sciences, education, business, or athletics; outstanding professors and researchers; and certain multinational executives and managers, who are currently first-preference employment-based; persons who earned a doctorate degree from an institution of higher education in the United States or the foreign equivalent; persons who earned a graduate degree in STEM fields from a U.S. institution within the five-year period before the petition filing date and have a U.S. offer of employment in the related field; and foreign national physicians who have completed foreign residence requirements under INA Section 212(e).211

The bill would make the first-preference employment-based category exempt from numerical limits, and amend that category to include aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees who have a U.S. job offer (subject to a ―national interest‖ waiver), including alien physicians accepted to a U.S. residency or fellowship program, or prospective employees of national security facilities. The second-preference category would consist of advanced degree holders and generally would be allocated 40% of 140,000; but aliens with advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM) fields would be exempted from numerical limits if they have a job offer and meet other requirements. Employers petitioning for such aliens also

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

38

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

would be exempted from labor certification required under INA Section 212(a)(5).212 S. 744 also would change certain procedures for admitting secondpreference employment-based immigrants to facilitate physician immigration (also see ―Conrad State 30 Program‖). Under the bill, certain nonimmigrant alien physicians would be exempt from numerical limits if they adjust to LPR status as EB-2 immigrants.213 And EB-2 labor certification requirements would be waived for certain alien physicians.214 S. 744 also would amend the third-preference employment-based category (i.e., skilled workers with at least two years training, professionals with baccalaureate degrees, and unskilled workers in occupations in which U.S. workers are in short supply) from 28.6% to 40% of the worldwide level and would repeal the cap of 10,000 on unskilled workers within that 40%. It would also amend the INA to increase visa allocation to fourth-preference employment-based special immigrants and fifth-preference employment-based employment creation/investors from 7.1% each to 10% each. The bill would also facilitate the admission and naturalization of aliens who are current or potential employees of certain federal national security facilities.215

Investor Visas There are currently one category of immigrant investor visas (admitted as conditional LPRs) and two categories of nonimmigrant investor visas.216 These investor visas are intended to benefit the U.S. economy by providing an influx of foreign capital and stimulating job creation. S. 744 would make changes to these existing visas and also create new immigrant and nonimmigrant investor categories (with respect to the latter, see ―New Nonimmigrant Investor Visas‖).

Changes to the EB-5 Category Under current law, the visa category used for immigrant investors is the fifth-preference employment-based (EB-5) visa category, which allows for up to 10,000 admissions annually and generally requires a minimum $1 million investment.217 The minimum is reduced to $500,000 for aliens who invest in certain targeted investment programs (known as regional centers) through the Regional Center Pilot Program.218 The pilot program is set to expire at the end of FY2015.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

39

S. 744 would exempt spouses and children (derivatives) of EB-5 petitioners from the numerical limits. It would also redefine ―Target Employment Area‖ to include areas with high poverty, as with other employment-based categories. Section 2308 would include communities adversely affected by a recommendation by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission as targeted employment areas for purposes of satisfying requirements for fifth-preference employment creation/investors. In addition, beginning on January 1, 2016, the bill would begin automatically adjusting the required investment amount by the Consumer Price Index (CPIU) every five years.219 S. 744 also would specify the criteria for removing or terminating an alien‘s conditional LPR status and would permit the Secretary of DHS to delegate this authority to the Secretary of Commerce.220 S. 744 would permanently authorize the Regional Center Pilot program and would make numerous changes to the program. Currently, almost all the requirements related to the Regional Center program are in regulation, not in statute. The bill would establish statutory requirements for those applying for a regional center designation, and specify the type of information that should be contained in a regional center proposal. It would also create a mechanism for a commercial enterprise affiliated with a regional center to be preapproved. The Secretary of DHS would also be authorized to establish a premium processing option for aliens investing in preapproved commercial enterprises. The bill would also create a series of sanctions for regional centers that violate newly created financial reporting requirements.221

New EB-6 Investor Visas Subtitle H of Title IV of S. 744 would create a new EB-6 immigrant visa category designed to permit the entry of up to 10,000 immigrant entrepreneurs per year. (The bill also would create a new nonimmigrant entrepreneur visa; see ―New Nonimmigrant Investor Visas‖ ―New Nonimmigrant Investor Visas‖). To qualify for an EB-6 visa, the alien would have to be a qualified entrepreneur;222 to have maintained a valid nonimmigrant status during the past two years; and to have had significant ownership in a business that created at least 5 jobs and either raised $500,000 from qualified investors or generated not less than $750,000 in annual revenue. Broadly similar requirements would apply for qualified entrepreneurs with advanced STEM degrees seeking to become EB-6 LPRs.223 The DHS Secretary would be required to promulgate regulations covering EB-6 (and nonimmigrant investor visas) within 16 months, and to ensure that the visas are implemented in a manner that protects national security and

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

40

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

promotes economic growth, job creation, and competitiveness. The minimum investments and other dollar amounts for EB-6 eligibility would be adjusted every five years based on the CPI-U, in a manner similar to the EB-5 category.224

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Immigrant Integration S. 744 would define immigrant integration and rename the USCIS‘s Office of Citizenship as the Office of Citizenship and New Americans (OCNA). OCNA‘s functions would include promoting institutions and providing training and educational materials on aliens‘ citizenship responsibilities and leading such activities across federal agencies and with state and local entities. The OCNA would also work with the Task Force on New Americans (TFNA), to be established within 18 months of enactment. The Task Force would be charged with coordinating federal program and policy responses to integration issues and advising and assisting the federal government in carrying out the immigration integration policies and goals in the bill. Membership would include the Secretaries of most Cabinet-level executive branch agencies. TFNA members would liaison with their agencies to ensure agency participation in creating goals, developing indicators, facilitating state and local participation, and collecting data. Eighteen months after formation, the TFNA would provide recommendations on these issues and assist in developing legislative and policy proposals to DHS and the Domestic Policy Council.225 The OCNA, working with a new nonprofit United States Citizenship Foundation, also would administer a pair of grant programs: Initial Entry, Adjustment, and Citizenship Assistance (IEACA) grants to provide direct assistance to aliens who apply for provisional legal status, adjust to LPR status, or seek naturalization;226 and a Pilot Grant Program (PGP) to support state and local government activities fostering immigrant integration.227 The two grant programs would be authorized $100 million for the FY2014-FY2018 period and such sums as may be necessary for subsequent years.228 With the express objective of reducing ―barriers to naturalization,‖ S. 744 would waive the English and history and civics naturalization requirements for persons who, on the date of application, were unable to comply with such requirements because of physical or mental disability, or were age 65+ with five years as an LPR. It would waive the English requirement for persons

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

41

above ages 50, 55, and 60, if they had 20, 15, and 10 years, respectively, as an LPR. It would also waive the civics requirement for persons aged 60+ with 10 years as an LPR on a caseby-case basis. The bill would allow individuals to continue to use paper-based application forms to petition for LPR status or U.S. citizenship until October 1, 2020.229

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

NONIMMIGRANT VISAS Nonimmigrants—such as tourists, foreign students, diplomats, temporary workers, cultural exchange participants, or intracompany business personnel— are admitted for a specific purpose and a temporary period of time.230 Nonimmigrants are required to leave the country when their visas expire, though certain classes of nonimmigrants are ―dual intent,‖ meaning they may adjust to LPR status if they otherwise qualify. Current law describes 24 major nonimmigrant visa categories, and over 70 specific types of nonimmigrant visas, which are often referred to by the letter that denotes their section in the statute, such as H-2A agricultural workers, F-1 foreign students, or J-1 cultural exchange visitors. S. 744 would make extensive revisions to nonimmigrant categories for professional specialty workers (see ―H-1B Professional Specialty Workers‖), intra-company transferees (see ―L Visa Intra-Company Transferees‖), and other skilled workers (see ―Other Skilled and Professional Worker Visas‖). The bill also would reform existing lower-skilled visa categories (see ―Reforms to the H-2B Program‖) and establish a new ―W‖ temporary worker category (see ―New Nonimmigrant Visas for Lower-Skilled Workers‖). Additional nonimmigrant provisions in S. 744 would be designed to promote tourism (see ―Tourism-Related Provisions‖) and would make changes to student and other nonimmigrant visas (see ―Other Nonimmigrant Visa Changes‖).

High-Skilled Workers231 H-1B Professional Specialty Workers Current law makes H-1B visas available for ―professional specialty workers,‖ an employment category closely associated with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, but not limited to them.232 H-1B visas are good for three years, renewable once; and they are

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

42

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

―dual intent,‖ meaning aliens on H-1B visas may seek LPR status without leaving the United States. Current law generally limits annual H-1B admissions to 65,000, but most H-1B workers are exempted from the limits because they are returning workers or they work for universities and nonprofit research facilities that are exempt from the cap.233 Employers seeking to hire an H-1B worker must attest that the employer will pay the nonimmigrant the greater of the actual wages paid to other employees in the same job or the prevailing wages for that occupation; that working conditions for the nonimmigrant will not adversely affect other workers; and that there is no applicable strike or lockout. The employer must provide a copy of the labor attestation to representatives of the bargaining unit where applicable, or must post the labor attestation in conspicuous locations at the work site. Prospective H-1B nonimmigrants must demonstrate to USCIS that they have the requisite education and work experience for the posted positions.234

Changes to Facilitate H-1B Recruitment In recent years, the H-1B visa has been an important pathway for many foreign students seeking employment in the United States after completing their degrees, and an important avenue for many U.S. businesses seeking to recruit high-skilled foreign workers.235 Thus, despite the fact that a majority of H-1B workers are exempted from annual limits, applications for new H-1B workers have routinely exceeded such limits in recent years—in some years exceeding limits during the first week or even on the first day that applications are excepted.236 S. 744 would seek to address perceived H-1B shortages by replacing the 65,000 per year cap on new H-1B admissions with a flexible cap that would range from a floor of 115,000 to a ceiling of 180,000 annually, with a ―marketbased‖ mechanism to increase or decrease the cap based on demand during the previous year (i.e., whether and how quickly the previous year‘s limit was reached).237 Up to 25,000 STEM advanced degree graduates would be exempted from the cap.238 Spouses of H-1B workers would be permitted to work, thereby eliminating a potential barrier to H-1B recruitment and also likely further increasing the number of skilled foreign workers admitted (i.e., because many H-1B nonimmigrants have spouses who are also skilled workers).239 And the bill would ease the renewal of H-1B (and L visas; see ―L Visa Intra-Company Transferees‖) by limiting the review of such renewals to material errors, substantive changes, and newly discovered information.240 In addition, H-1B

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

43

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

workers would have a 60-day grace period after loss of a job to seek additional employment without losing their visa status.241

Changes to Protect U.S. Workers In addition to these concerns about whether employers have adequate access to H-1B workers, some Members of Congress have raised questions about whether H-1B workers may have an adverse effect on U.S. workers, including possibly by placing downward pressure on wages and/or by discouraging U.S. workers from entering STEM fields.242 S. 744 would establish two new fees apparently designed to address these concerns: a $1,000 fee for Labor Certification Applications (LCAs) for EB-2 and EB-3 immigrants, with the fee designated to fund STEM grants, scholarships, and training;243 and a $1,250-$2,500 fee for H-1B and L visas, with the fee designated to provide ongoing funding for the CIR Trust Fund.244 Subtitle B of Title IV of S. 744 also would seek to protect U.S. workers by modifying H-1B application requirements and procedures for investigating H1B complaints. The bill would amend the H-1B labor certification process to revise wage requirements based on Department of Labor (DOL) surveys,245 and would require employers to advertise for U.S. workers on a DOL website.246 With some exceptions, the four-level wage structure for current H1B workers would be changed to a three-level wage structure.247 The subtitle would establish two new classes of H-1B employers: H-1B dependent employers, defined as a function of the proportion of an employer‘s workforce which consists of H-1B workers; and H-1B skilled worker dependent employers, defined as a function of the proportion of an employer‘s workforce which consists of H-1B workers in highly skilled occupations. New rules to prevent H-1B workers from being hired intentionally to displace U.S. workers would be established, with different requirements for each type of employer. Employers would be required to make good faith efforts to recruit U.S. workers prior to hiring H-1B workers, and H-1B skilled worker dependent employers would be required to offer a position to any equally or better qualified U.S. worker applying for a job otherwise to be filled by an H1B worker. Certain H-1B dependent employers would not be permitted to outsource H-1B workers, and employers who are eligible to outsource H-1Bs would pay a fee of $500 per outplaced worker.248 In addition, the subtitle would revise requirements for H-1Cs (nonimmigrant nurses), including by reducing the number of visas available for such workers from 500 to 300 per year, and by facilitating visa portability for such workers.249 Section 4213 would impose additional restrictions on how

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

44

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

employers advertise for H-1B positions, and would impose limits on the total number of H-1B and L workers certain employers can hire. The DOL would be permitted to review an H-1B LCA for evidence of fraud and to investigate and adjudicate any evidence of fraud identified.250 Subtitle B of Title IV of S. 744 also would broaden DOL‘s authority to investigate alleged employer violations, would require DOL to conduct annual compliance audits of certain employers, and would increase information sharing between DOL and USCIS as well as DOL reporting requirements.251 Employers who willfully violate the terms of their LCAs would be subject to increased fines and would be liable for the lost wages and benefits of employees harmed by such violations.252 Employers also would be prohibited from failing to offer H-1Bs insurance, pension plans, and bonuses offered to U.S. workers, and from penalizing H-1B workers for terminating employment before a previously agreed date.253 In addition, the subtitle would require DHS and DOS to provide H -1B and L workers with information regarding their rights and employer obligations.254 Certain H-1B dependent employers would be required to pay an additional $5,000-$10,000 in filing fees beginning in FY2015 (also see ―L Visa Intra-Company Transferees‖ regarding similar fees for L dependent employers).255 The bill would further authorize fees for premium processing of employment-based immigrant petitions.256 And Section 4237 would permit visa portability and streamline adjustment of status for certain aliens with long-standing employment-based petitions.

L Visa Intra-Company Transferees Current law permits certain workers to enter the United States on nonimmigrant L visas as intracompany transferees. The L visa is designed for executives, managers, and employees with specialized knowledge of the firm‘s products. It permits multinational firms to transfer top-level personnel to their locations in the United States for up to five to seven years.257 Some Members of Congress have raised concerns that the L visa may displace U.S. workers who had been employed in those positions. These employees are often comparable in skills and occupations to H-1B workers, yet lack the labor market protections the law sets for hiring H-1B workers. These concerns have been raised, in particular, with respect to certain outsourcing and information technology firms that employ L workers as subcontractors within the United States. In addition to extending certain H-1B protections described in Subtitle B of Title IV of S. 744 to L visa holders (see ―Changes to Protect U.S.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

45

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Workers‖), S. 744 includes additional L visa protections. The bill would add prohibitions on the outsourcing and outplacement of L employees, including by charging a $500 fee to be deposited in the STEM Education and Training Account.258 Employers seeking to bring an L-visa worker to the United States to open a new office would face special application requirements.259 DHS would be required to work with DOS to verify the existence of multinational companies petitioning for the L workers.260 And Section 4304 would impose caps on the total proportion of certain employers‘ workforces that may consist of L and H-1B workers, falling from an upper limit of 75% in FY2015 to an upper limit of 50% after FY2016.261 Section 4305 would also impose additional fees of $5,000-$10,000 for certain H-1B/L-dependent employers beginning in FY2014.262 With respect to compliance, DHS would be authorized to investigate and adjudicate alleged employer violations of L-visa program requirements for up to 24 months after the alleged violation; and DOL would be required to conduct annual compliance audits of certain employers.263 The subtitle also would impose civil monetary penalties and other remedies for violations, including debarment from L-worker petitions and liability for lost wages and benefits to employees harmed by violations.264 In addition, Section 4308 would add whistleblower protections for L-workers. And DHS would be required to report on the L-visa blanket petition process.265

Other Skilled and Professional Worker Visas Current law includes two nonimmigrant visa categories similar to H-1B visas for temporary professional workers from specific countries: North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) TN visas for Canadian and Mexican temporary professional workers, and E-3 treaty professional visas for Australians.266 In addition, several employment-based nonimmigrant visas are intended to attract outstanding individuals, entrepreneurs, professionals, and high-skilled workers. These nonimmigrant visa categories include persons with outstanding and extraordinary ability (O visas), cultural exchange workers (J visas), and international investors (E visas). S. 744 would add visa portability for foreign nationals on O-1 visas and would add flexibility to the requirements for being admitted on an O-1 visa based on achievement in motion picture or television production.267 The bill also would make changes to the E and J visa programs, and would establish a new nonimmigrant X visa for entrepreneurs.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

46

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

Reforms to E Treaty Visas Current law with respect to nonimmigrant investor visas includes provisions for E-1 visas for treaty traders and E-2 visas for treaty investors.268 S. 744 would amend the requirements for the E visa to allow E visas to be issued to citizens from countries where there is a bilateral investment treaty or a free trade agreement.269 S. 744 would amend the E-3 visa category so that nationals of Ireland would be eligible. The Irish national would not be required to be employed in a professional specialty, and could provide services as an employee, provided he/she has at least a high school education or, within five years, two years work experience in an occupation that requires two years of training or experience.270 There would be a limit of 10,500 E-3 visas per year for Irish nationals. The bill also would create a new E-4 visa category that would be limited to 5,000 visas per year per country; only principal aliens would be counted against the cap. Additionally, the bill would create an E-5 visa category for South Korean workers in specialty occupations that would be limited to 5,000 visas annually. Employers seeking to hire E-4 or E-5 workers would have to file a labor attestation form with DOL.271 A new E-6 nonimmigrant visa category would be established for nationals of eligible sub-Saharan African countries272 or beneficiary countries of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act273 who are coming to the United States to work, and have at least a high school education or, within the past five years, two years of work experience in an occupation that requires at least two years of training/experience. These visas would be limited to 10,500 per year.274 Conrad State 30 Program Currently, foreign medical graduates (FMGs) may enter the United States on J-1 nonimmigrant visas in order to receive graduate medical education and training. Such FMGs must return to their home countries after completing their education or training for at least two years before they can apply for certain other nonimmigrant visas or LPR status, unless they are granted a waiver of the foreign residency requirement. States are permitted to sponsor up to 30 waivers per state, per year on behalf of FMGs under a temporary program, known as the Conrad State Program or the Conrad 30 Program. The objective of the Conrad 30 Program is to encourage immigration of foreign physicians to medically underserved communities. S. 744 would make the Conrad 30 waiver program permanent, and would allow the program to grow by up to 5 waivers per year based on demand for the program, or to be reduced (though never below 30) based on falling

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

47

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

demand.275 The bill also includes a number of provisions to regulate working conditions and add flexibility to the J visa program for such physicians.276 And S. 744 would make changes to facilitate physicians holding J or H-1B visas seeking to remain in the United States, including by allowing dual intent for J1 foreign medical graduates,277 by making alien physicians who received a Conrad waiver or completed their two-year home residency requirement exempt from numerical limits if they adjust to LPR status as EB-2 immigrants (see ―Employment-Based Immigration‖ ―Employment-Based Immigration‖),278 and by making the spouses and children of J-1s no longer subject to the two-year home residency requirement.279 The bill would also allow physicians in H-1B status and completing their medical training to automatically have such status extended.280

New Nonimmigrant Investor Visas In addition to creating a new EB-6 entrepreneurship LPR visa (see ―Investor Visas‖), S. 744 would create a new nonimmigrant X visa for qualified entrepreneurs whose U.S. business entities attracted at least $100,000 in total investment from qualified investors281 during the previous three years, or whose businesses created at least three jobs and generated at least $250,000 in annual revenue during the previous two years. Nonimmigrants with X visas would be admitted for three years, and the visa would be renewable for additional three-year periods if the alien‘s business met similar criteria. In addition, the visa would be renewable twice for periods of one year (a total of two years) under criteria established by DHS in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce if the alien was making substantial progress towards meeting the visa requirements and such renewal was economically beneficial to the United States.282 There would be a $1,000 fee for each nonimmigrant admitted under an X visa that would be deposited into the CIR Trust Fund.283

Lower-Skilled Workers284 Reforms to the H-2B Program Current law permits the admission of H-2B visa holders to perform temporary, non-agricultural work when sufficient qualified U.S. workers are not available. Employers must apply to DOL to certify that such employment will not have an adverse effect on the wages or working conditions of U.S. workers.285 H-2B visas generally are limited to 66,000 new visas per year.286

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

48

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

S. 744 would increase the number of H-2B workers eligible to be admitted in a year, while also imposing additional requirements on H-2B employers. Renewing an H-2B returning worker exemption from the annual cap in effect in FY2005-FY2007, the bill would provide that H-2B nonimmigrants counted toward numerical limits for FY2013 would be exempt from numerical limits for FY2014-FY2018.287 In another change, certain ski instructors now typically admitted as H-2B nonimmigrants would be eligible for admission as P-visa athletes.288 With respect to recruitment requirements, Section 4602 would require that an employer petitioning for an H-2B worker attest that U.S. workers are not and will not be displaced, and would require such employers to pay H-2B workers‘ transportation costs and immigration fees, as well as a $500 fee for labor certification, with the fee being deposited in the CIR Trust Fund. In addition, Section 4211(a)(2) of S. 744 would revise INA Section 212(p) regarding computation of prevailing wage levels to specify that wages for H2B nonimmigrant workers shall be the greater of the actual wage paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications for the job or the prevailing wage level for the occupational classification of the job in the geographic area of the employment, based on the best information available at the time that the application was filed. The best information available could be the wage for the occupation in a collective bargaining agreement or the wage that applies to federal contracts (meaning, presumably, the Davis-Bacon Act or Service Contract Act). If such information is inapplicable, the best information could be a wage commensurate with the experience, training, and supervision required for the job based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data; or if BLS data are unavailable, a wage from a private survey.

New Nonimmigrant Visas for Lower-Skilled Workers Current law permits employers to hire certain lower-skilled foreign temporary workers, for temporary or seasonal employment; but does not provide for nonimmigrant visas for lower-skilled employment where the employer‘s need is not temporary.289 Given the high level of labor force participation among unauthorized immigrants,290 some Members of Congress have argued that increasing the number of employment-based lower-skilled nonimmigrant visas is a key element of comprehensive immigration reform. S. 744 would address this policy goal by creating a new ―W‖ nonimmigrant visa category, which would accommodate ongoing employment in lower-skilled agricultural and non-agricultural positions.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

49

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

In general, W visas would differ from the current H-2A agricultural worker and H-2B nonagricultural worker visas in that the W visas would not be limited to temporary or seasonal work. W visas would be good for three years, and could be renewed.291 In addition, rather than tying a worker‘s nonimmigrant status to a single employer, as under the current H-2 visas, W workers would be permitted to work for any employer that has registered within their respective visa programs, with some restrictions in the case of contract agricultural workers.292 Another key difference would be that prospective W employers, unlike prospective H-2 employers, would not have to apply to the Department of Labor for labor certification. W visa holders would lose their status if they are unemployed for a period of more than 60 days, though the DHS Secretary could waive this requirement in certain cases. DHS and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) would be required to establish an electronic monitoring system to monitor the presence and employment of W workers.

W-3 and W-4 Agricultural Workers Sections 2231 and 2232 of S. 744 would create new W-3 and W-4 nonimmigrant visas for agricultural workers. The W-3 visa would be for contract agricultural workers and the W-4 visa would be for at-will agricultural workers. W-3 and W-4 visas would be capped at 112,333 visas per year during the program‘s first five years, with provisions for the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, to adjust these caps and to set visa limits for subsequent years based on specified and other appropriate factors. W-3 and W-4 workers would not be allowed to bring their spouses and children with them to the United States as dependents. Beginning one year after W-3 and W-4 regulations go into effect,293 the H-2A program would be eliminated, making the W-3 and W-4 the only nonimmigrant agricultural visas available to U.S. employers.294 As set forth in S. 744, employers seeking to hire W-3 or W-4 workers would be required to pay a fee to cover the costs of the program and to register as designated agricultural employers.295 As part of the registration process, an employer would have to document that he or she is engaged in agriculture and needs specified agricultural occupations, and would have to estimate the number and timing of needed workers. A registration would be good for three years and could be renewed for another three years if the employer remains eligible. In order to import W-3 or W-4 workers, designated agricultural employers would be required to advertise jobs on a DOL job registry, to list the job for 45

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

50

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

days, and to offer employment to any equally or better qualified U.S. worker who applies during this period. Employers could not displace U.S. workers (except for good cause), as specified. A designated agricultural employer would have to submit a petition to the DHS Secretary not later than 45 days before the date of need for workers. Unless the petition is incomplete or obviously inaccurate, the Secretary would process the petition and approve or deny it within seven days of the filing date. Under S. 744, W-3 and W-4 employers would be required to offer workers certain benefits and wages.296 They would be required to guarantee employment to W-3 contract workers for at least three-quarters of the contract period, with exceptions available in cases of natural disasters. If a job is not covered by state workers‘ compensation insurance, employers would be required to provide comparable insurance at no cost. Certain W-3 and W-4 workers would be eligible for housing or a housing allowance, as well as transportation expenses. Wage rates would be defined based on one of six standard agricultural occupational classifications, with certain wages specified and others to be determined by USDA in consultation with DOL.297 In general, employers would be required to offer U.S. workers the same or better benefits and wages as W-3 and W-4 workers.298 Section 2232 of S. 744 further specifies that W-3 and W-4 workers would be covered by all applicable labor and employment laws, including the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act. DOL would establish procedures to investigate complaints and to implement penalties for non-compliance; and W-3 and W-4 workers would have whistleblower protections.

W-1 and W-2 Non-Agricultural Workers and Families Sections 4702 and 4703 of S. 744 would create the new W-1 and W-2 visas. Previous proposals to establish or expand temporary worker visas have been controversial, with business and labor groups often taking strongly opposing positions about the size and details of such programs. Partly to address the policy questions at the heart of these disagreements, S. 744 would establish a Bureau of Labor Market Research as an independent statistical agency within USCIS. The Bureau would be responsible for making recommendations about employment-based visa programs; determining methodologies for the index used to calculate numerical limits in the W-1 program; calculating annual changes to such limits, designating certain ―shortage occupations‖ to be partially exempted from such limits; conducting specialized employment surveys and reporting to Congress on employment-

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

51

based visa programs; and assisting with W visa recruitment, among other duties.299 The W-1 visa program would be capped at 20,000 positions during the program‘s first year, climbing to 75,000 during the fourth year, with subsequent years calculated based on a formula spelled out in S. 744. The total number of program positions would always range from 20,000 to 200,000 per year. Additional positions could be created for shortage occupations (as designated by the Bureau) and as special allocations for certain employers who meet specified recruitment requirements. Registered positions would be limited to lower-skilled occupations and generally to metropolitan areas where the unemployment rate is 8.5% or less, though DHS could waive this restriction under certain conditions.300 Aliens certified at a U.S. embassy or consulate as being eligible for a W-1 visa could be admitted to work in a registered position with a registered W-1 employer in an eligible location, and would be permitted to enter with dual intent (i.e., would not have to prove their intention to depart the United States at the end of the visa term). Upon admission, W-1 visa holders would have to begin working within 14 days of admission to meet the visa‘s employment requirement. Spouses and children of W-1 workers would be admissible as W2 nonimmigrants and also would be authorized to work in the United States. Employers seeking to hire W-1 workers would be required to pay a fee to cover program costs and to register as W-1 employers for three years at a time. Employers would be subject to fraud detection investigations, and could be made ineligible for the W-1 program based on program violations. Applications for being a registered employer would include the estimated number of W-1 workers to be employed, while applications for designating a job as a registered position would include descriptions of W-1 positions, and attestations about wages and recruitment efforts. Employers could only hire W-1 workers if no qualified U.S. worker is available for the position and could not hire a W-1 worker in the case of a strike or lockout. Employers would be required to advertise positions for at least 30 days on a DOL website and with state workforce agencies, and would have to meet additional recruitment requirements to be identified by DHS before a position could be designated as a registered W-1 position. W-1 wages would have to at least equal the higher rate of either the actual wages paid to other employees or the prevailing wages in the area based on information from collective bargaining agreements, federal contract wages, government surveys, or private surveys. Higher wage rates would apply for workers hired as special allocations outside of the program‘s numerical

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

52

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

limits.301 W-1 employers whose workforces consist of more than 15% W nonimmigrants could not outsource W-1 workers. And S. 744 includes a number of provisions designed to protect the terms of W-1 employment, including the applicability of relevant labor laws, whistleblower protections, a prohibition on treating W-1 workers as independent contractors, and provisions related to the investigation of complaints against W-1 employers and the imposition of civil penalties and other remedies for violations of W-1 employment conditions.

Foreign Labor Contractors302 Some Members of Congress have argued that many migrant workers and other foreign workers are vulnerable to exploitation at the hands of foreign labor contractors, smugglers, and human traffickers.303 Contractors often play a critical role in the labor migration process by matching willing workers with willing employers. Yet because many prospective migrants depend on such ―middle men‖ to help them enter the United States (legally or otherwise) and to connect them with employers, contractors may take advantage of migrant workers to extract unfair payments or other such concessions. S. 744 would establish new requirements to regulate foreign labor contractors and to combat human trafficking.304 The bill would require foreign labor contractors to provide workers with written information, in English and the worker‘s native language, about the terms and conditions of employment, with information about the worker‘s visa, and with other information.305 Employers and contractors would be prohibited from discriminating against workers on the basis of race, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability, or other similar factors;306 and could not charge workers a fee for contracting activity.307 To facilitate enforcement of these provisions, contractors would be required to register with DOL every two years, to provide annual reports on their activities, and to post a bond ensuring their ability to fulfill their responsibilities.308 The Secretary of Labor would maintain a list of registered contractors, and the Secretary of State would provide relevant information to certain nonimmigrant visa applicants.309 DOL would establish procedures to investigate complaints and impose civil fines against noncompliant contractors or employers; and individuals also could sue contractors for civil damages.310 Employers would be required to use registered contractors.311

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

53

Tourism-Related Provisions312 Several provisions in S. 744 are intended to encourage tourism to the United States. The bill would amend the INA to establish a pilot fee-based premium processing service to expedite visa interview appointments.313 It would also direct the Secretary of DOS to require overseas visa processing posts to report monthly on the availability of visa appointments during the previous two years to allow applicants to identify periods of low demand when wait times are lower.314 In addition, S. 744 would require, not later than 90 days after enactment, the Secretary of DOS to: •

• •

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

require U.S. missions to conduct nonimmigrant visa interviews expeditiously, consistent with national security and resource allocation requirements; set a goal of interviewing 80% of nonimmigrant visa applicants, worldwide, within 3 weeks of receipt of application; explore expanding visa processing capacity in China and Brazil with the goal of keeping interview wait times under 15 work days; and, report on needed resources to the appropriate congressional committees.315

It would allow DHS to expand registered traveler programs to include individuals employed by international organizations that maintain a strong working relationship with the United States. It would require that the individual traveler be sponsored by such an organization; complete security screening requirements; not be citizen of a state sponsor of terrorism; and that the individual‘s passport be from a country with a Trusted Traveler Arrangement with DHS.316 S. 744 would direct the Secretary of DOS to develop and conduct a pilot program to use secure remote video-conferencing as a method to conduct interviews for B (short-term tourist/business) visas, unless the Secretary determines that it poses an undue security risk. The Secretary of DOS would be required to submit a report on the efficacy, efficiency, and security of such a program within 90 days of its termination.317 The bill would also require the collection of a $5 fee from each nonimmigrant admitted on a B visa to be deposited in the CIR Trust Fund.318 S. 744 also would encourage Canadian tourism to the United States by authorizing the Secretary of DHS to admit into the United States (on a B visa) qualifying Canadian citizens who are at least 55 years old, and their spouses,

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

54

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

for a period not to exceed 240 days if the person maintains a Canadian residence and owns a U.S. residence or has rented a U.S. accommodation for the duration of such stay. Such visitors would not be authorized to work, and must not seek PRWORA-described assistance/benefits.319

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

New Y Visa for Retirees S. 744 would create a new Y visa for foreign nationals who are over 55 years old. To qualify, aliens would be required to use at least $500,000 in cash to buy one or more residences, maintain ownership of residential property valued at least $500,000 during the period, and reside in the United States for more than 180 days a year in a residence worth at least $250,000. The bill would allow the qualifying alien‘s children and spouse to accompany him/her. Y visa holders would be required to possess health insurance, could not be employed in the United States (except for management of the residential property owned by the alien), and could not seek PRWORA described assistance/benefits. The Y visa would be renewable every three years, indefinitely.320 Visa Waiver Program S. 744 would authorize the Secretary of DHS, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to designate a country as a Visa Waiver Program (VWP) country if the overstay rate and/or refusal rate was less than 3% in the previous fiscal year.321 The bill would allow the Secretary of DHS to waive the refusal rate requirement if certain conditions were met.322 The bill would revise the current probationary period and procedures for terminating a country‘s participation in the VWP if that country failed to comply with any of the program‘s requirements. The bill would also specify that Hong Kong could be designated a VWP country if it meets the program criteria.323

Other Nonimmigrant Visa Changes324 S. 744 would make a number of additional changes to nonimmigrant visas. It would waive the INA requirement for the State Department to personally interview certain nonimmigrants (i.e., A, E, G, H, I, L, N, O, P, R, and W visas) who are renewing their visas, allowing such visas instead to be renewed within the United States under certain conditions.325 Nonimmigrants granted work authorization under the A, E, G, H, I, J, L, O, P, Q, R, and TN visa categories whose status expired but who filed a timely petition for an

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

55

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

extension would be permitted to continue employment with the same employer during adjudication of the application/petition.326 S. 744 would make a number of additional changes affecting certain highskilled workers entering the United States for purposes other than traditional employment. S. 744 would revise INA Section 214(a) to permit certain employees of multinational companies to enter the United States for up to 90 or 180 days to observe or oversee company operations, or to participate in leadership training. Such nonimmigrants would be prohibited from receiving U.S.-sourced compensation except for incidental expenses.327 The bill would expand the conditions under which certain B visa nonimmigrant aliens would be eligible to enter the United States and receive honoraria.328 It would also add new provisions for B-visa nonimmigrants to enter the United States to participate in disaster relief operations, and would add provisions for B-visa nonimmigrant aliens to perform maintenance or repairs for common carriers (airlines, ships, railways) on equipment manufactured outside the United States.329 S. 744 would also make aliens who are providing services aboard a fishing vessel having a home port or operating base in the United States, who is landing in Hawaii and departing on the same vessel eligible for a D visa.330

Student Visas For foreign students admitted on F visas who are seeking bachelors or graduate degrees, S. 744 would permit such aliens to have dual intent.331 The bill also would change accreditation requirements for schools accepting F students and for flight schools accepting foreign students. In addition, the bill would remove the 12-month limit for students on F visas who attend public secondary schools, and charge a $100 fee on all nonimmigrants admitted on F-1 visas.332 The bill would also modify the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement‘s (ICE‘s) Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), which is responsible for administering the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS). SEVIS maintains information on schools that can accept foreign students, exchange programs, and on international students and exchange visitors in the United States on F, J, and M visas. SEVP also certifies schools to accept foreign students. S. 744 would require DHS to implement a real-time transmission of data from SEVIS to CBP databases. This interoperability would have to be completed within 120 days of enactment or the Secretary would be required to suspend the issuance of foreign student (F and M) visas.333 The bill would also require accrediting agencies or associations to notify DHS about the denial,

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

56

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

withdrawal, suspension, or termination of accreditation so that the school could be immediately withdrawn from SEVP and prohibited from accessing SEVIS and enrolling foreign students. Within 180 days of enactment, DHS would be required to implement GAO‘s recommendations regarding SEVP and SEVIS, and report to Congress on the risk assessment strategy to prevent malfeasance in the student visa issuance system. Within two years after enactment, DHS would be required to deploy both phases of the second generation SEVIS system.334 The bill would also increase the criminal penalties for fraud and misuse of visa documents if the offense was committed by an owner, official, or employee of a SEVP certified school, and would allow the Secretary of DHS to impose fines on institutions that failed to comply with reporting requirements. The bill would also allow the Secretary of DHS to immediately withdraw an institution‘s SEVP certification if there is a reasonable suspicion that the owner or school official has committed fraud relating to any aspect of the SEVP. Any person convicted of such fraud would be ineligible to hold a position of authority at any institution that accepts F or M foreign students. The bill would also prohibit individuals from serving as a designated school official335 or being granted access to SEVIS unless the individual is a U.S. national or an LPR, and has undergone a background check during the past three years.336 In addition, S. 744 would impose a $500 fee on designated program sponsors for each nonimmigrant entering on a J visa as part of a summer work/travel exchange; the fee would be deposited in the CIR Trust Fund and could not be charged to the nonimmigrant. The bill would also make aliens coming to the United States to perform specialized work that requires proficiency of languages spoken in countries with less than 5,000 LPR admissions in the previous year eligible for a J visa.337

HUMANITARIAN PROVISIONS338 Refugee and Asylum Provisions The United States has long held to the principle that it will not return a foreign national to a country where his life or freedom would be threatened. This principle is embodied in several provisions of the INA, most notably in provisions defining refugees and asylees. Refugees are aliens displaced abroad who are unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin on account of

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

57

their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; or, under certain conditions, who are in their home country and have a well-founded fear of persecution on one of these grounds.339 Refugees are processed and admitted to the United States from abroad.340 Foreign nationals also may claim asylum in the United States if they demonstrate a well-founded fear that if returned home, they will be persecuted based upon one of these same five characteristics.341 Foreign nationals arriving or present in the United States may apply for asylum affirmatively with USCIS after arrival into the country, or they may seek asylum defensively before an immigration judge during removal proceedings.342 S. 744 would increase the flexibility of these asylum and refugee provisions several ways, potentially rolling back some of the changes made by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-208). S. 744 would repeal a current provision that requires asylum claims to be filed within one year of an alien‘s arrival in the United States, and would provide for the reconsideration of certain asylum claims that were denied because of the failure to file within one year.343 The bill also would authorize the spouse or child of a refugee or asylee who is admitted to the United States to bring his or her own accompanying child, also under a refugee or asylum visa.344 With respect to aliens found to have a credible fear of persecution based on an interview with a USCIS asylum officer during expedited removal, the asylum officer would be authorized to grant asylum under certain circumstances, rather than referring the alien to an immigration judge.345 And the bill would require that DHS issue work authorization to asylum applicants after 180 days.346 A new category of ―stateless persons‖ would be defined, and such persons would be permitted to apply for conditional lawful status under certain conditions, and to adjust to LPR status after one year, as special immigrants under the employment-based preference category.347 S. 744 would increase the number of U visas available annually from 10,000 to 18,000 (also see ―Worker Protections‖), with no more than 3,000 going to aliens who are victims of covered violations.348 In addition, the President, based on a recommendation by DOS, would be authorized to designate certain high-need groups as refugees, facilitating their admission as refugees.349 S. 744 would establish requirements for overseas refugee adjudications, including the right to legal counsel (not at government expense), a written record of the decision, and administrative review of a denial.350 S. 744 also includes provisions that would tighten refugee and asylum laws and would be especially aimed at national security concerns. Pursuant to

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

58

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

Section 3411, an alien granted refugee or asylum status who returns to the alien‘s country of nationality or habitual residence would have his or her status terminated unless the DHS Secretary determines that the alien returned for good cause, or unless the alien is eligible to adjust to LPR status pursuant to the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-732). And Section 3409 would impose additional law enforcement and national security checks during the refugee and asylum application process. Section 3403 would terminate preferential treatment for certain Amerasian immigrants that was established by Section 584 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1988.351 Section 3410 would authorize 5,000 immigrant visas during the three-year period beginning on October 1, 2013, for certain qualified displaced Tibetans who have been residing in Nepal or India continuously since before the date of enactment of S. 744.

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Anti-Trafficking Provisions S. 744 also includes special provisions to protect children who are trafficking victims. DOL would be required to establish specialized training for personnel who come into contact with such children, and to ensure under most circumstances that child trafficking victims are placed under care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement within 72 hours.352 S. 744 would require that all procedures and decisions concerning unaccompanied immigrant children pursuant to the INA would make the best interests of the child a primary consideration.353 S. 744 would provide work authorization for aliens whose applications for T or U status354 is approved or pending for 180 days, whichever occurs first.355 There would also be new reporting requirements for human trafficking offenses in the Federal Bureau of Investigation‘s (FBI‘s) Uniform Crime Reports, and human trafficking would be a part 1 crime for calculating funding under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.356 S. 744 contains provisions to address the issue of protecting unaccompanied alien children from becoming victims of human trafficking. The bill would transfer from HHS to DOJ the responsibility for ensuring, to the greatest extent possible, that unaccompanied alien children in DHS custody have counsel to represent them and access to child advocates.357 It would require the Secretary of DHS, in consultation with child welfare experts, to create mandatory training for CBP personnel and other personnel

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

59

who come in contact with unaccompanied alien children. The bill would also mandate that all unaccompanied alien children who will undergo any immigration proceedings before EOIR are transferred to HHS custody within 72 hours after apprehension. In addition, the bill would direct HHS to hire child welfare professionals to provide assistance in no fewer than seven of the CBP offices or stations with the largest number of unaccompanied minors. Such professionals would have to have trauma-centered and developmentally appropriate interviewing expertise and, among other duties, would be responsible for screening unaccompanied alien children to ensure that they are not trafficking victims, and ensuring that the children are appropriately cared for while in CBP custody. S. 744 would require HHS to submit to the Secretary of DHS a final determination on family relationships, and the Secretary of DHS shall consider such adult relatives for community-based support alternatives to detention (also see ―Immigrant Detention‖). The bill would also direct the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), in conjunction with the Secretaries of DHS, DOJ, and HHS and non-governmental organizations to create a multi-year program to implement best practices to ensure the safe repatriation of unaccompanied alien children. The bill would specify that in all procedures and decisions concerning unaccompanied immigrant child the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.358

Status for Certain Battered Spouses and Children S. 744 would grant legal status to derivative spouses or children of nonimmigrants who (1) accompany or follow to join principal nonimmigrants or aliens admitted under the blue card status provisions of Section 2211 of this act and (2) were subjected to battery or extreme cruelty by such principal nonimmigrants. The status would be granted under the same provisions as the principal alien, for the longer of either three years or the same admission period of the principal alien. DHS would grant employment authorization to the abused derivative alien and could renew his or her grant or extension of status. DHS could adjust the status of the abused derivative alien to LPR status if (1) he or she either meets the admissibility criteria under INA Section 212(a) or DHS can justify his or her presence on humanitarian or public interest grounds or to ensure family unity; and (2) the status under which the principal

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

60

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

nonimmigrant was admitted to the United States would have potentially allowed for eventual adjustment of status. Termination of the relationship with the principal alien would not alter status granted under this provision if abuse was the central reason for such termination.359

End Notes 1

Previous bills include the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611 as passed by the Senate in 109th Congress), and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1639 as considered by the Senate in 110th Congress). For a fuller discussion see CRS Report R42980, Brief History of Comprehensive Immigration Reform Efforts in the 109th and 110th Congresses to Inform Policy Discussions in the 113th Congress, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 2 For example, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437 as passed by the House in 109th Congress) was an omnibus immigration enforcement bill that did not include legalization provisions or changes to the legal immigration system. See Ibid. 3 Members included Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO), Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Senator Charles Schumer (DNY). 4

CRS Legislative Attorney Michael John Garcia contributed to this section of the report. ―Legalization‖ typically refers to policies to enable unauthorized aliens to become legal permanent residents; see CRS Report R42958, Unauthorized Aliens: Policy Options for Providing Targeted Immigration Relief, by Andorra Bruno. 6 P.L. 99-603. 7 See for example, U.S. Congress, House Judiciary Committee, S. 744 and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986: Lessons Learned or Mistakes Repeated?, 113th Cong., 1st sess., May 22, 2013. 8 Certain sections prior to Title I of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744) concern border security; these provisions are discussed in the ―Border Security‖ section of this report. 9 Adjustment of status is the process of becoming a legal permanent resident (LPR) while in the United States. 10 Title II of S. 744 includes additional requirements and timelines for legalization and adjustment of status applications. 11 S. 744 §3(c)(1). 12 S. 744 §5(a)(1). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be required to prepare both the Comprehensive Security Strategy and the Fencing Strategy within 180 days of enactment of S. 744; but the bill only specifies an implementation timeline (i.e., immediately after the strategy is submitted) for the Comprehensive Security Strategy. 13 See S. 744 §2101 (amending the INA to permit certain aliens to adjust to RPI status, but only allowing DHS to accept such applications following the publication of a final rule in the Federal Register); §2110 (requiring promulgation and publication of interim final regulations to implement adjustment provisions within one year of bill‘s enactment).

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

5

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

14

61

Legal permanent residents (LPRs) are foreign nationals who come to live lawfully and permanently in the United States; see CRS Report R42958, Unauthorized Aliens: Policy Options for Providing Targeted Immigration Relief, by Andorra Bruno; and CRS Report R42866, Permanent Legal Immigration to the United States: Policy Overview, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 15 S. 744 §3(c)(2)(A). 16 S. 744 does not define force majeure, but the term generally suggests a failure to meet the objectives, despite acting in good faith, for reasons beyond the DHS Secretary‘s control. 17 S. 744 §3(c)(2)(B). 18 For further discussion of the triggers in §3, see CRS Sidebar WSLG511, How Do the Enforcement-Related ―Triggers‖ in the Senate Immigration Bill Work? Interpretations May Vary, by Michael John Garcia. 19 S. 744 §6(a)(2)(A). 20 S. 744 §6(a)(2)(B). 21 S. 744 §6(b)(2). 22 Pursuant to S. 744 §6(a)(3)(B), funds initially transferred to the Trust Fund would be repaid from immigration fees and penalties designated as ongoing funding to the Trust Fund under S. 744 §6(a)(2)(B). Pursuant to S. 744 §6(b)(3)(A), initial appropriations to the Startup account would be repaid out of one half of the processing fees collected from RPIs applying for legalization under INA §245B(c)(10)(A) as added by §2101 of the bill. 23 S. 744 §6(a)(3)(A). 24 S. 744 §§6(a)(3)(B)-(C). 25 S. 744 §6(a)(3)(D). 26 S. 744 §6(b)(4). 27 CRS Legislative Attorney Michael John Garcia contributed to this section of the report. 28 S. 744 §5. 29 For a fuller discussion of border security metrics, see CRS Report R42138, Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry, by Marc R. Rosenblum. 30 S. 744 §4. The language in §4 appears to suggest that the Commission would be established after any year during the first five years in which some border sectors are not under effective control; but some Member statements during the Senate Judiciary Committee markup of S. 744 suggest an understanding that the Commission would be established after five years if control has not been established. 31 The Border Security Results Act of 2013 (H.R. 1417). 32 For a fuller discussion of previous investments in border enforcement and the current state of border security, see CRS Report R42138, Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry. 33 S. 744 §1102. 34 S. 744 §1103. 35 S. 744 §1106. 36 S. 744 §1107. 37 See, among other laws, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq.), and the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. §§470 et seq.). 38 For a fuller discussion, see CRS Report R42138, Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry. 39 S. 744 §3(d).

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

62

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

40

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Ensure a Coordinated Federal Response to Illegal Activity on Federal Lands, GAO11-177, November 2010, p. 15. 41 For a fuller discussion of border security on public lands see CRS Report R42346, Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data, by Carol Hardy Vincent, Laura A. Hanson, and Marc R. Rosenblum. 42 See for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, The Border: Are Environmental Laws and Regulation Impeding Security and Harming the Environment? 112th Cong., 1st sess., April 15, 2011. 43 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq. 44 S. 744 §3704. 45 S. 744 §3705. 46 S. 744 §3712. 47 S. 744 §3710. 48 S. 744 §3706. The bill would include a humanitarian exemption from these penalties. 49 S. 744 §3707. 50 S. 744 §3710. 51 S. 744 §3708. 52 S. 744 §3306. 53 See CRS Report R42138, Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry. 54 Since the late 1990s, the Tucson sector has accounted for the largest share of unauthorized aliens apprehended along the Southwest border; and it is also the sector in which CBP initiated the ―Consequence Delivery System,‖ which emphasizes criminal prosecutions for immigration-related crimes as a strategy to reduce recidivism. See Ibid. As introduced, the bill would have added magistrate judges, but no district judges. As amended during markup, §1104 also would direct the President to appoint 8 new district court judges, divided among California, Texas, and Arizona. District court judges would not be funded by the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust Fund. 55 Operation Stonegarden is a grant program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) within DHS to provide funding to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies for border security activities. 56 S. 744 §1104. 57 S. 744 §1108. 58 S. 744 §1111. 59 S. 744 §1113. 60 S. 744 §1114. 61 S. 744 §1115. 62 S. 744 §1121. 63 S. 744 §§1114, 1115, 1116, 1119, 1121. 64 For a fuller discussion see CRS Report R42985, Issues in Homeland Security Policy for the 113th Congress, coordinated by William L. Painter. 65 Ibid. 66 For a fuller discussion, see Ibid.; and CRS Report R42644, Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations, coordinated by William L. Painter. 67 CRS briefing with DHS Office of Congressional Affairs, April 3, 2013. 68 S. 744 §3303(a)(1). 69 S. 744 §3(c)(2)(A)(iv).

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress 70

S. 744 §3304. S. 744 §3303(a)(2). 72 S. 744 §§3303(a)(3)-(5). 73 CRS Legislative Attorney Michael John Garcia and CRS Specialist in Immigration Policy Alison Siskin contributed to this section of the report. 74 INA §§212 and 237, respectively. Historically, the INA included separate provisions governing the ―exclusion‖ of aliens who were ineligible to enter the country (i.e., ―excludable‖ persons), and the ―deportation‖ of certain aliens within the United States (―deportable‖ persons). The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, P.L. 104-208, Div. C), created a single proceeding to cover both types of ―removable‖ aliens. Nonetheless, the INA retains two separate grounds for removal: (1) for an alien who has not been admitted to the United States and is inadmissible under INA §212, and (2) for an alien who has been admitted to the United States (i.e., enters legally) and is deportable under INA §237. 75 CRS Legislative Attorney Margaret Mikyung Lee, and CRS Specialist in Immigration Policy Alison Siskin contributed to this section of the report. 76 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Improving Efficiency and Ensuring Justice in the Immigration Court System, Testimony of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, 112th Cong., 1st sess., May 18, 2011. 77 See for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Judiciary Committee, ―Building an Immigration System Worthy of American Values,‖ March 20, 2013. 78 Ibid. 79 S. 744 §§3501(a)-(c). 80 S. 744 §3504. 81 S. 744 §3504. 82 S. 744 §3505. 83 S. 744 §3506. 84 S. 744 §§3501(d), 3502(d), 3503(e), 3505(b), and 3506(f). 85 S. 744 §3502. 86 S. 744 §3503. 87 S. 744 §3507. 88 These documents include information pertaining to all transaction during the immigration process (commonly referred to as an A-file). 89 S. 744 §3508. 90 S. 744 §3720(c). 91 INA §§212 and 237. 92 S. 744 §3701. 93 S. 744 §§3702(a)-(b). 94 S. 744 §3702(c). For a fuller discussion of the aggravated felony provisions of the INA, see CRS Report RL32480, Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity, by Michael John Garcia; and CRS Sidebar WSLG454, Will Immigration Reform Legislation Revisit the Definition of “Aggravated Felony”?, by Michael John Garcia. 95 S. 744 §3709. 96 S. 744 §3711(c). 97 S. 744 §3711(b). 98 S. 744 §3719. 99 S. 744 §3703. 100 S. 744 §2315. 71

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

63

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

64

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

101

S. 744 §23 14. S. 744 §23 14. 103 For a fuller discussion of immigrant detention, see CRS Report RL32369, ImmigrationRelated Detention, by Alison Siskin. For discussion of judicial interpretation of mandatory detention provisions, see CRS Sidebar WSLG524, How ―Mandatory‖ Is the Mandatory Detention of Certain Aliens in Removal Proceedings?, by Michael John Garcia. 104 INA §236(a). Release from immigration authorities‘ custody under ―conditional parole‖ is distinct from the parole of aliens into the United States under INA §212(d)(5), under which the Secretary of DHS may permit the temporary physical entry of aliens into the United States for urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit, without such entry constituting formal admission into the country for immigration purposes. See Matter of Luis Castillo-Padilla, 25 I & N Dec. 257 (BIA 2010). 105 S. 744 §3717. 106 S. 744 §§3715(a)-(b). An ICE pilot program established in 2004 provides such alternatives in certain locations; for a fuller discussion see CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention, by Alison Siskin. 107 S. 744 §§3715(c)-(d). 108 S. 744 §3715(b). 109 For a fuller discussion see CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention, by Alison Siskin. 110 S. 744 §3716. 111 S. 744 §3717(b). 112 S. 744 §3720. 113 S. 744 §2107(b). 114 S. 744 §3803. 115 S. 744 §3804. 116 S. 744 §3805. 117 S. 744 §3720. 118 S. 744 §3717. 119 S. 744 §3718. 120 S. 744 §3713 (striking INA §349(a)(6)). This provision could have implications for the detention or trial of a U.S. person deemed to be an enemy belligerent either in the conflict with Al Qaeda or some other future conflict. For example, in 2004, a dual U.S.-Saudi national detained by U.S. military authorities as an ―enemy combatant‖ was released from U.S. custody and permitted to return to Saudi Arabia after he agreed to renounce his U.S. citizenship. 121 S. 744 §3714. 122 CRS Specialist in Immigration Policy Andorra Bruno and CRS Legislative Attorney Kate M. Manuel contributed to this section of the report. 123 For an overview of existing employer sanctions provisions, see CRS Report R40002, Immigration-Related Worksite Enforcement: Performance Measures, by Andorra Bruno. 124 INA §274A(b) 125 INA §274A(e)-(f). 126 For an overview of the E-Verify program, see CRS Report R40446, Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification, by Andorra Bruno. 127 S. 744 §6(a)(3)(A)(iv). 128 S. 744 §3106.

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

102

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

129

65

Such licenses or cards would be those that meet the requirements of §202 of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, Div. B) and that are certified as suitable by DHS. Under current law, INA §274A(b)(1)(D) provides that driver‘s licenses may be used to establish identity, but not work eligibility. For a fuller discussion of the identification standards under the REAL ID Act, see archived CRS Report RL32754, Immigration: Analysis of the Major Provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005, by Michael John Garcia, Margaret Mikyung Lee, and Todd B. Tatelman. 130 USCIS currently makes such a photo tool available through the E-Verify system for certain identity documents. See CRS Report R40446, Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification. 131 S. 744 §3102(a). 132 S. 744 §3102(c). 133 S. 744 §3103. 134 For a fuller discussion, see CRS Report R40446, Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification. 135 See CRS Report R40446, Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification. In addition, certain state and local laws require employers to use E-Verify; see CRS Report R41991, State and Local Restrictions on Employing Unauthorized Aliens, by Kate M. Manuel. 136 Federal agencies and departments and federal contractors would be required under §3101(a) to participate in the EVS immediately or within 90 days of the date of enactment; and employers participating in E-Verify before the bill‘s date of enactment would be required under §3101(e) to participate in the new EVS to the same extent and in the same manner as in E-Verify. Other employers would be required under §3101(a) to participate in the EVS within one to five years after implementing regulations for the section are published, beginning with critical infrastructure employers, followed, in turn, by large employers, smaller employers, agricultural employers, and tribal government employers. 137 Such employers would thus be presumed to have violated INA §274A(a)(1)(A). 138 DHS could require certain employers to participate in the EVS to protect critical infrastructure, and such employers would be permitted, and could be required, to re-verify the eligibility of workers hired prior to the employer‘s use of the EVS. Employers determined to have engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful employment also could be required to use the EVS to re-verify current employees. 139 The DHS Secretary could extend the 10-day deadline for cause. 140 See for example, U.S. Congress, House committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, H.R. 1772: The “Legal Workforce Act,” 113th Cong., 1st sess., May 16, 2013. 141 Ibid. 142 Ibid. 143 States and localities still would be permitted to exercise their authority over business licensing and ―similar laws‖ as a penalty for failure to use the EVS. 144 S. 744 §3101(b); DHS would be required to consult with the Department of Agriculture on this report. 145 S. 744 §3101(c). 146 S. 744 §3101(d). The GAO report in this section also concerns the potential for discriminatory effects of the EVS on certain lawful workers; also see in this report ―Worker Protections‖. 147 S. 744 §3107. 148 INA §274B(a).

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

66

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

149

Westat, Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation, December 2009; for a fuller discussion see CRS Report R40446, Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification. 150 S. 744 §3101(a). 151 S. 744 §3101(a). 152 S. 744 §3101(a). 153 S. 744 §3105(a). Prohibited practices would include discharging individuals for whom further action notices or nonconfirmations are received prior to the completion of the appeals process, use of the system for unauthorized purposes, use of the system to re-verify the eligibility of current employees (with certain exceptions), and unauthorized selective use of the system. Such practices are prohibited under USCIS‘ E-Verify rules, but current law does not provide for penalties against employers who violate these rules. 154 S. 744 §3107. 155 S. 744 §3202. 156 S. 744 §3203. 157 S. 744 §3204. 158 CRS Specialist in Immigration Policy Andorra Bruno, CRS Legislative Attorney Margaret Mikyung Lee, and CRS Legislative Attorney Kate M. Manuel contributed to this section of the report. 159 See CRS Report R42958, Unauthorized Aliens: Policy Options for Providing Targeted Immigration Relief, by Andorra Bruno. 160 S. 744 §2110. 161 See Ibid. 162 S. 744 §2110. 163 As used here, applicable federal tax liability means all federal income taxes assessed in accordance with §6203 of the Internal Revenue Code. 164 This provision was added to §2101 during markup by the Senate Judiciary Committee and only applies to RPIs. 165 Advance parole is permission to reenter the United States after traveling abroad. It allows an otherwise inadmissible individual to physically enter the United States due to compelling circumstances, though such entry does not constitute legal admission into the country for purposes of immigration law. 166 The adjustment of status provisions for RPIs in INA §245C do not provide a complete adjustment of status process. Instead, INA §245C describes certain qualifications and procedures for RPIs to adjust to LPR status. In order to become an LPR, an RPI would have to adjust status under either the DREAM Act provisions (see in this report, ―DREAM Act‖) or the provisions on merit-based track two permanent admissions in §2302 of the bill (see in this report, ―Merit-Based Track Two‖). 167 This ―back-of-the-line‖ language seems to be unclear about the treatment of pending petitions for immigrant visas filed before the bill‘s date of enactment on behalf of aliens who subsequently become RPIs. 168 S. 744 §2110. 169 As used here, applicable federal tax liability means all federal income taxes assessed in accordance with §6203 of the Internal Revenue Code. 170 Naturalization is the process through which an LPR becomes a U.S. citizen. 171 For a discussion of DREAM Act legislation, see CRS Report RL33863, Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation, by Andorra Bruno. 172 S. 744 §2103. 173 INA §316.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress 174

S. 744 §2103. Ibid. Language to repeal this 1996 provision has been regularly included in DREAM Act bills; see CRS Report RL33863, Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation. 176 P.L. 89-329; 20 U.S.C. §§1070 et seq. 177 S. 744 §2211. 178 Ibid. 179 Ibid. 180 S. 744 §2211 does not separately specify the length of the period of blue card admission. 181 The H-2A program allows for the temporary admission of foreign workers to the United States to perform agricultural labor or services of a seasonal or temporary nature, provided that U.S. workers are not available; see CRS Report R42434, Immigration of Temporary Lower-Skilled Workers: Current Policy and Related Issues, by Andorra Bruno. 182 S. 744 §2211. 183 In certain specified circumstances, the DHS Secretary could credit an alien with up to 12 additional months of agricultural employment to meet this requirement. 184 As used here, applicable federal tax liability means all federal income taxes assessed in accordance with §6203 of the Internal Revenue Code. 185 S. 744 §2212. 186 INA §245C, as added by S. 744 §2102. 187 S. 744 §2212. Worldwide and per-country immigration limits are described in INA §§201 and 202; also see in this report ―Immigrant Visas.‖ A conforming amendment (S. 744 §2212(b)) would amend the INA to exempt from the worldwide numerical limits on permanent admissions aliens adjusted to LPR status under INA §245F. 188 CRS Legislative Attorney Kate M. Manuel and CRS Specialist in Immigration Policy Alison Siskin contributed to this section of the report. 189 For a fuller discussion of humanitarian immigration, see in this report ―Humanitarian Provisions.‖ 190 For a full discussion, see CRS Report RL33809, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem 191 Mixed status families refer to families (households) in which some members are unauthorized and some are U.S. citizens or LPRs, including for example households with unauthorized parents and U.S.-born (and therefore U.S. citizen) children. 192 In certain circumstances, DHS issues temporary employment authorization documents (EADs) to otherwise-unauthorized aliens. These ―quasi-legal‖ aliens are permitted to obtain Social Security numbers, but are ineligible for certain benefits. See CRS Report RL32004, Social Security Benefits for Noncitizens, by Dawn Nuschler and Alison Siskin. 193 CRS Report RL34500, Unauthorized Aliens’ Access to Federal Benefits: Policy and Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 194 P.L. 111-148 as amended by P.L. 111-152, known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA). 195 §36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by the ACA. 196 §1402(e) of the ACA. 197 Section 5000A(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by ACA. 198 For a fuller discussion of the ACA, see CRS Report R43048, Overview of Private Health Insurance Provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), by Annie L. Mach. 175

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

67

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

68

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

199

CRS Analyst in Immigration Policy William Kandel, CRS Legislative Attorney Margaret Mikyung Lee, and CRS Specialist in Immigration Policy Alison Siskin contributed to this section of the report. 200 The Diversity Immigrant Visa Program allocates visas to natives of countries from which immigrant admissions were lower than a total of 50,000 over the preceding five years; see CRS Report R41747, Diversity Immigrant Visa Lottery Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 201 S. 744 §2304. 202 S. 744 §2306. For a fuller discussion, see CRS Report R42866, Permanent Legal Immigration to the United States: Policy Overview, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 203 See generally, S. 744 §§2305, 2310-2322, 4804. 204 S. 744 §2301. 205 S. 744 §2302. 206 S. 744 §2302. 207 INA §203(a)(4). 208 Under INA §203(a)(3), the current family third-preference category for married sons and daughters does not include an age limit. 209 S. 744 §2307. 210 Special immigrants include ministers of religion, religious workers other than ministers, and certain employees of the U.S. government abroad. 211 S. 744 §2307. 212 S. 744 §2307. 213 S. 744 §2307(b)(1). 214 S. 744 §2402. 215 S. 744 §2307. 216 For a fuller discussion, see CRS Report RL33844, Foreign Investor Visas: Policies and Issues, by Alison Siskin. 217 Only $500,000 is required if investing in an area of high unemployment or a rural area (i.e., a ―Targeted Employment Area‖). 218 A regional center is a private enterprise/corporation or a regional governmental agency with an investment program within a defined geographic area. 219 Automatic adjustments would not occur if the amount is adjusted by the Secretary of Commerce. 220 S. 744 §§4805-4806. 221 S. 744 §4404. 222 A qualified entrepreneur would be defined as an individual with significant ownership in a business entity who is employed in a senior executive position and had a substantial role in founding or growth of such an entity. 223 S. 744 §4802. 224 S. 744 §4803. 225 S. 744 §§2511, 2521-2524. 226 S. 744 §§2531-2537. 227 S. 744 §§2538-2539. 228 S. 744 §2541. 229 S. 744 §§2551-2552. 230 For a fuller discussion of nonimmigrant visas, see CRS Report RL31381, U.S. Immigration Policy on Temporary Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 231 CRS Legislative Attorney Margaret Mikyung Lee and CRS Specialist in Immigration Policy Alison Siskin contributed to this section of the report.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

232

69

For a fuller discussion of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, see CRS Report R42642, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: A Primer, by Heather B. Gonzalez and Jeffrey J. Kuenzi. 233 For a fuller discussion of H-1B visas, see CRS Report R42530, Immigration of Foreign Nationals with Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Degrees , by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 234 Ibid. 235 See CRS Report R42530, Immigration of Foreign Nationals with Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Degrees , by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 236 Ibid. 237 S. 744 §4101(a). 238 S. 744 §4101(b). 239 S. 744 §4102. Spouses of L workers would similarly be permitted to work. 240 S. 744 §4103(a). 241 S. 744 §4103(b). 242 See CRS Report R42530, Immigration of Foreign Nationals with Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Degrees , by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 243 S. 744 §4104. 244 S. 744 §§4105 and 6(a)(2)(B)(vii). 245 S. 744 §4211(a). 246 S. 744 §4211(b) and §4231. 247 S. 744 §4211(a). 248 S. 744 §4211. 249 S. 744 §4212. Visa portability refers to the ability of a nonimmigrant worker to change employers. 250 S. 744 §4214. 251 S. 744 §§4221, 4223, 4224, and 4225. 252 S. 744 §4222. 253 S. 744 §4222. 254 S. 744 §4232. 255 S. 744 §§4233. 256 S. 744 §4234. 257 For a fuller discussion, see CRS Report RL33977, Immigration of Foreign Workers: Labor Market Tests and Protections, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 258 S. 744 §4301. 259 S. 744 §4302. 260 S. 744 §4303. 261 S. 744 §4304. 262 S. 744 §4305. 263 S. 744 §4306. 264 S. 744 §4307. 265 S. 744 §§4309 and 4311. 266 §501 of P.L. 109-13, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005. 267 S. 744 §4404. 268 There is also an E-3 category for Australian specialty workers coming to the United States under the provision of the U.S.-Australian Free Trade Agreement. The E-3 category is

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

70

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

limited to 10,500 visas a year. For more information on the E-3 category, see CRS Report RL32982, Immigration Issues in Trade Agreements, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 269 Currently, E-1 and E-2 visas can only be issued to nationals from countries that have treaties of commerce and navigation. Free trade agreements are not considered treaties of commerce and navigation. 270 S. 744 §4403. 271 For more on labor attestation, see CRS Report RL33977, Immigration of Foreign Workers: Labor Market Tests and Protections, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 272 These countries would be defined by §104 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. §3703). 273 19 U.S.C. §§2701 et seq. 274 S. 744 §4402. 275 S. 744 §2401. 276 S. 744 §2403. 277 S. 744 §2403(c). 278 S. 744 §2307(b)(1). 279 S. 744 §2405(c). 280 S. 744 §2405(b). If the petition for extending H-1B status is eventually denied, the employment authorization would expire 30 days after the denial. 281 Qualified investors include a qualified venture capitalist, a qualified super angel investor, a qualified government entity, a qualified community development financial institution, qualified startup accelerator, or such other type of entity or investors, as determined by the Secretary, or any combination of such entities or investors. 282 S. 744 §4801. 283 §4801 indicates that X-1 visa fees shall be deposited in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust Fund established under ―§6(a)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act‖; this may represent a drafting error. 284 CRS Specialist in Immigration Policy Andorra Bruno and CRS Legislative Attorney Margaret Mikyung Lee contributed to this section of the report. 285 See CRS Report R42434, Immigration of Temporary Lower-Skilled Workers: Current Policy and Related Issues, by Andorra Bruno. The requirement for H-2B labor certification is described in DHS regulations at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(6)(iii)(C). 286 INA §214(g)(1)(B). 287 S. 744 §4601. 288 Ibid. P-visas are good for five years and may be renewed for up to five years; they are not subject to numerical limits. 289 See CRS Report R42434, Immigration of Temporary Lower-Skilled Workers: Current Policy and Related Issues, by Andorra Bruno. 290 About four out of five unauthorized alien adults are estimated to be in the workforce; see archived CRS Report R41207, Unauthorized Aliens in the United States, by Andorra Bruno. 291 Under S. 744 §4703, non-agricultural W-1 visas could be renewed an unlimited number of times. Under §2232, agricultural W-3 and W-4 visas could be renewed for one additional three-year term, after which the visa holder would be required to return to a residence outside the United States for at least three months, and then would be eligible to apply for a new W visa. 292 A W-3 contract worker would be permitted to accept employment with a new registered employer after the worker completes his or her existing contract, but a W-3 alien who voluntarily abandons employment before the end of the contract period or whose

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress

71

employment is terminated for cause may not accept employment with another employer without first departing the United States. Termination of a contract by mutual agreement would not be considered voluntary abandonment. 293 These regulations would have to be issued not later than six months after the date of the enactment of S. 744, while regulations implementing the W-3 and W-4 program would have to be issued not later than one year after the date of the enactment of S. 744. S. 744 §§2232(b), 2241(b). 294 S. 744 §2233. 295 S. 744 §2232. 296 S. 744 §2232. 297 S. 744 §2232 would establish special procedures concerning housing, pay, and application requirements for certain agricultural industries, including sheep- and goat herding, beekeeping, and open range production of livestock. 298 Employers would not have to offer U.S. workers a housing allowance, and would not have to pay or withhold from W-3 or W-4 workers Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) or Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) taxes. 299 S. 744 §§4701(b)-(f). 300 All discussion of W-1 visas in the remainder of this section is based on provisions in S. 744 §4703. 301 These employers would be required to pay W-1 workers the greater of the Level IV wage provided by the Office of Foreign Labor Certification of DOL or the average wage for the highest two-thirds of employees in the occupation in the MSA of employment. 302 CRS Legislative Attorney Jon O. Shimabukuro contributed to this section of the report. 303 See for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, The Next Ten Years in the Fight Against Human Trafficking, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., July 17, 2012. 304 Human trafficking refers to the recruitment, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons by means of the threat or use of force, along with other forms of similar coercion; see CRS Report RL34317, Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress, by Alison Siskin and Liana Sun Wyler. 305 S. 744 §3602. 306 S. 744 §3603. 307 S. 744 §3604. 308 S. 744 §§3605, 3606. 309 S. 744 §§3607-3609. 310 S. 744 §3610. 311 S. 744 §3610. 312 CRS Legislative Attorney Margaret Mikyung Lee and CRS Specialist in Immigration Policy Alison Siskin contributed to this section of the report. 313 S. 744 §4501. 314 S. 744 §4505. 315 S. 744 §4508. 316 S. 744 §4507. 317 S. 744 §4410. 318 S. 744 §4509. Section 4509 indicates that B visa fees shall be deposited in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust Fund established under §6(a)(1) ―of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act‖; this may represent a drafting error. 319 S. 744 §4503. 320 S. 744 §4504.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

72

Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

321

For more on the Visa Waiver Program, see CRS Report RL32221, Visa Waiver Program, by Alison Siskin. 322 The conditions are almost identical to current law regarding the nonimmigrant refusal rate waiver. 323 Although Hong Kong‘s refusal rate is low enough to qualify for the VWP, Hong Kong is not a country, and only countries currently can qualify to be part of the VWP. 324 CRS Legislative Attorney Margaret Mikyung Lee, and CRS Specialist in Immigration Policy Alison Siskin contributed to this section of the report. 325 S. 744 §4103. 326 S. 744 §4405. 327 S. 744 §4603. 328 S. 744 §4604. 329 S. 744 §4606.The bill would also make changes regarding the requirements for interviewing for B visas; see in this report ―Tourism-Related Provisions.‖ 330 Currently only similarly situated aliens landing in Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are eligible for D (crewman) visas. S. 744 §4414. 331 S. 744 §4401. 332 S. 744 §4406, §4409. 333 S. 744 §4401(c). This section appears to direct the DHS Secretary to suspend issuing such visas, though it is the Secretary of State that actually issues such visas; this may represent a drafting error. 334 S. 744 §§4910-4913. 335 Under the SEVP, schools must have at least one ―designated school official‖ who is responsible for maintaining the SEVIS records and reporting on the nonimmigrant foreign students at the school. 336 S. 744 §4903, §§4906-4908. 337 S. 744 §§4407, 4408. 338 CRS Legislative Attorney Margaret Mikyung Lee and CRS Specialist in Immigration Policy Alison Siskin contributed to this section of the report. 339 INA §101(a)(42). 340 INA §207; 8 U.S.C. §1157. For a fuller discussion, see CRS Report RL31269, Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Policy, by Andorra Bruno. 341 INA §208; 8 U.S.C. §1158. 342 For a fuller discussion, see CRS Report R41753, Asylum and “Credible Fear” Issues in U.S. Immigration Policy , by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 343 S. 744 §3401, striking INA §208(a)(2)(B). 344 S. 744 §3402. 345 S. 744 §3404. 346 S. 744 §3412. 347 S. 744 §3405. 348 S. 744 §3406. 349 S. 744 §3403. 350 S. 744 §3408. 351 8 U.S.C. §1101 note. 352 S. 744 §3611. 353 S. 744 §3612. 354 T status is for trafficking victims and U status is for crime victims. 355 S. 744 §3407.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress 356

73

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

S. 744 §1119. For more on the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, see CRS Report RS22416, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, by Nathan James. 357 These programs were created in P.L. 110-457, §235(c)(5)-(6). S. 744 §3507. 358 S. 744 §§3611-3613.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

In: Immigration Reform Editor: Molloy C. Ross

ISBN: 978-1-62948-116-6 © 2013 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 2

THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF FIXING OUR BROKEN IMMIGRATION SYSTEM *

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

National Economic Council, The Domestic Policy Council, The President’s Council of Economic Advisers and the Office of Management and Budget ―So if we're truly committed to strengthening our middle class and providing more ladders of opportunity to those who are willing to work hard to make it into the middle class, we've got to fix the system. We have to make sure that every business and every worker in America is playing by the same set of rules. We have to bring this shadow economy into the light so that everybody is held accountable — businesses for who they hire, and immigrants for getting on the right side of the law. That‘s common sense. And that‘s why we need comprehensive immigration reform.‖ – President Barack Obama, January 29, 2013

America has always been a nation of immigrants, and throughout the nation‘s history, immigrants from around the globe have kept our workforce vibrant, our businesses on the cutting edge, and helped to build the greatest economic engine in the world. However, America‘s immigration system is *

This report was released by the Executive Office of the President, July 2013.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

76

National Economic Council

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

broken and has not kept pace with changing times. Today, too many employers game the system by hiring undocumented workers and there are 11 million people living and working in the shadow economy. Neither is good for the economy or the country. It is time to fix our broken immigration system. The President has made clear that Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in Congress should work together to enact commonsense immigration reform that includes proposals to continue to strengthen border security, create an earned path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, hold employers accountable, and bring our legal immigration system into the 21st century. Last month, the Senate passed historic legislation that is largely consistent with the President‘s principles for commonsense immigration reform with a strong bipartisan vote. The Senate‘s Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744) represents the best chance that our country has had in years to modernize our immigration system. The President urges the House of Representatives to take action and move this bill or similar legislation forward, and stands willing to work with all parties to make sure that commonsense immigration reform becomes a reality as soon as possible. This report outlines the key benefits to the U.S. economy of passing commonsense immigration reform. Specifically, the Senate‘s bipartisan immigration reform bill: 1. Strengthens the overall economy and grows U.S. GDP: Independent studies affirm that commonsense immigration reform will increase economic growth. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that enacting the Senate immigration reform bill will increase real GDP relative to current law projections by 3.3 percent in 2023 and 5.4 percent in 2033 – an increase of roughly $700 billion in 2023 and $1.4 trillion in 2033 in today‘s dollars. A larger labor force; higher productivity and investment; and stronger technology, tourism, hospitality, agriculture, and housing industries are just some of the key ways that immigration reform strengthens the U.S. economy. 2. Fosters innovation and encourages more job creation and job growth in the U.S.: Evidence shows that immigrants are highly entrepreneurial. Immigration reform would streamline the process for highly-skilled and highly-educated workers to come to the U.S. and build businesses that create jobs for Americans. In addition, it encourages companies to locate, invest, and expand here in the U.S. Under the recently passed Senate legislation, entrepreneurial

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System

77

immigrants would be eligible for newly created temporary and permanent visas if they demonstrate that they have ideas that attract U.S. investment or revenue and establish businesses that create jobs. 3. Increases the productivity of workers and adds new protections for American workers: According to CBO and other independent studies, immigration reform will ultimately increase overall U.S. productivity, resulting in higher GDP and higher wages. Part of this gain in productivity comes from immigrants‘ creating new inventions and companies, as well as from improvements in U.S. production processes. Bringing undocumented workers out of the shadows and into the legal economy also helps put a stop to practices that undercut wages and worsen working conditions for American workers. This bill also has provisions to protect U.S. workers and ensure that new worksite enforcement and border security measures deter future illegal immigration. 4. Decreases budget deficits, balances out an aging population, and strengthens Social Security: The CBO found that the enacting Senate immigration reform bill will reduce the federal budget deficit by nearly $850 billion over the next 20 years. In addition, the independent Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration (SSA) has found that immigration reform will improve the long-term financial standing of Social Security by adding younger workers to the U.S. workforce. The SSA Actuary estimates that the Senate‘s immigration reform bill will add nearly $300 billion to the Social Security Trust Fund over the next decade and would improve Social Security‘s finances over the long run, extending Social Security solvency by two years. Reforming our broken immigration system will help to grow the economy. According to CBO, commonsense immigration reform will lead to greater economic growth because it will add more high-demand workers to the labor force, increase capital investment and overall productivity, and lead to greater numbers of entrepreneurs starting companies in the U.S. CBO estimates that enacting the bipartisan Senate immigration bill, S. 744, will boost real GDP by 3.3 percent in 2023 and by 5.4 percent in 2033 – an increase of roughly $700 billion in 2023 and $1.4 trillion in 2033 in today‘s dollars.1 This is enough to boost average annual projected GDP growth by 0.3 percentage points over the next twenty years.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

78

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

GDP

National Economic Council Costs of Maintaining the Status Quo U.S. economy does not benefit from higher growth, larger workforce, more innovators, entrepreneurs and . capital investment, and increased productivity — and domestic production is lower as a result

Labor Force Participation

Labor force participation continues to decline as the baby boom generation retires

Productivity

U.S. workers and capital do not benefit from productivity gains associated with commonsense immigration reform

Wages

Because workers do not benefit from productivity gains, average wages are lower: a cost of about $250 annually for the median household by 2033 (in today's dollars)

Protections for U.S. Workers

Federal Deficits

American workers do not benefit from new protections that help ensure immigrants complement the American workforce

Federal budget does not benefit from additional taxes paid by new and legalizing immigrants —and deficits are nearly $850 billion higher as a result

Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform Economy strengthened as U.S. benefits from a larger labor force, higher productivity, and stronger technology, tourism, hospitality, agriculture, and housing industries . In 2033, US economy is 5.4 percent larger than under status quo Higher labor force participation than without immigration reform as new working-age immigrants participate in the labor force at a higher rate Productivity of labor and capital increases by 1 percent in 2033 Largely as a result of higher productivity, real wages will rise by 0.5 percent in 2033 relative to current law—the equivalent of about an annual $250 increase today for a median household Employers must recruit U.S. workers for highskilled occupations; enhanced portability and wage protections for temporary workers; new safeguards against abuses in recruiting foreign labor Over the next twenty years, federal deficits are reduced by nearly $850 billion

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System

Federal Debt

Social Security

Entrepreneurship

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Housing

Tourism and Hospitality

Agriculture

79

Costs of Maintaining the Status Quo By 2023, federal debt as a share of the economy is 3 percentage points higher than it would be under immigration reform Social Security does not benefit from new young and healthier workers balancing out retirement of the Baby Boomer generation Talented entrepreneurs are prevented from starting the next set of Fortune 500 companies in the U.S. and patenting new technologies that fuel innovation and provide Americans with wellpaying jobs

Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Housing market does not benefit from higher housing demand, delaying the economic revitalization of communities hit hardest by the recession U.S. is unprepared to take advantage of explosive growth in tourism from emerging economies, resulting in fewer tourism and hospitality jobs

Housing market recovery is strengthened through stronger demand and higher prices for homes in neighborhoods hardest hit by the recession Provisions in the Senate bill position — including the Visa Waiver Program, new CBP officers, and permanent authorization of the Corporation for Travel Promotion—provide significant boost to these sectors U.S. agricultural output and exports grow over time— supporting a key engine of American economic growth

U.S. agriculture continues to be affected by unpredictable and unstable worker flows, resulting in deportations, employer fines and work stoppages

U.S. debt falls by 3 percentage points as a share of the economy by 2023, compared to current law Extends the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund by two years and reduces the 75-year shortfall by nearly half a trillion dollars Entrepreneurial immigrants are eligible for newly created temporary and permanent visas if they demonstrate that they have ideas that attract investment and establish businesses that create jobs

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

80

National Economic Council

I. STRENGTHENING THE U.S. ECONOMY AND GROWING U.S. GDP IMMIGRATION REFORM WILL BOOST U.S. ECONOMIC GROWTH •

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

• •

•

Commonsense immigration reform will lead to greater economic growth by adding more high- demand workers to the labor force, increasing capital investment and overall productivity, and leading to more entrepreneurs starting companies in the U.S. • The bipartisan Senate bill will boost real GDP by 3.3 percent ($700 billion) in 2023 and by 5.4 percent ($1.4 trillion) in 2033, according to CBO. • This is enough to boost average annual GDP growth by a projected 0.3 percentage points over the next twenty years. Immigration reform will improve U.S. worker and capital productivity, thereby increasing wages for U.S. workers, leading to higher real wages in the long term. • Technological advancements brought by immigrants, such as new inventions and improvements in production processes, also will boost U.S. GDP for years to come. Immigration reform provides a boost to sagging labor force participation. New immigrants of working age are projected to participate in the labor force at a higher rate than native workers, increasing labor force participation rates. The bipartisan Senate bill will increase the labor force by 3.5 percent in 2023 and 5 percent in 2033, according to CBO.

Analysis by former CBO Director and Chief Economist for President George W. Bush‘s Council of Economic Advisers Douglas Holtz-Eakin also finds that immigration reform will raise the pace of economic growth. In a 2013 American Action Forum report, Holtz-Eakin examines U.S. demographic trends and concludes that immigration reform will increase both near-term economic growth and per capita GDP.2

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System

81

CBO estimates that as a result of the Senate bill, immigrant workers would help increase the productivity of both labor and capital, leading to higher real wages in the long term. CBO also noted that technological advancements brought by immigrants, such as new inventions and improvements in production processes, will boost U.S. GDP for years to come.

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

One crucial factor in GDP growth is labor force participation, rates of which are projected to decline in the U.S. as the baby boom generation retires. Commonsense immigration reform will significantly boost the national labor force participation rate. Not only will immigration reform increase the population of working-age adults, CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation project that new immigrants of working age will participate in the labor force at a higher rate, on average, than native workers of working age. Enacting the Senate bill will increase the labor force by 6 million workers, or 3.5 percent, in 2023, and 9 million, or 5 percent, in 2033.3 According to CBO, higher labor force participation will boost capital investment, which will lead to increased productivity and higher overall average wages. The following sections explain in more detail how immigrants and the Senate bill in the Senate lead to more American jobs, better productivity and lower federal deficits.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

82

National Economic Council

II. FOSTERING INNOVATION AND ENCOURAGING MORE JOB CREATION IN THE U.S. IMMIGRATION REFORM WILL ENCOURAGE MORE JOB CREATION •

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

•

•

Immigration reform helps U.S. companies attract the most talented workers. • The bipartisan Senate bill makes meaningful improvements to the existing employment-based green card system and creates new provisions that strengthen the United States‘ ability to attract and retain highly-skilled global talent • Recent studies have shown that immigrants promote productivity and innovation, both directly and indirectly through positive spillover effects on native workers Immigration reform attracts entrepreneurs to the U.S. to start companies and create jobs. • Immigrant-owned small businesses generated a total of $776 billion in receipts and employed an estimated 4.7 million people in 2007. • Immigrants started 28 percent of all new U.S. businesses, despite accounting for only 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2011. • More than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants. These American companies represent 7 of the 10 most valuable brands globally, collectively employ more than 10 million people and generate annual revenue of $4.2 trillion. Immigration reform ensures our nations family-sponsored and employment-based immigration systems complement each other and contribute to economic growth. • In choosing a country to move to, prospective immigrants envision a better life not only for themselves but also for their families. Immigration reform attracts investments in the U.S. economy. • The bipartisan Senate bill reforms and makes permanent the EB-5 immigrant investor program that grants permanent resident status to foreigners who invest above a minimum

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System

•

83

threshold in new job-creating commercial enterprises in the United States. EB-5 investments have been responsible for the infusion of at least $6.8 billion of capital into the United States and the creation of at least 48,950 jobs for U.S. workers as of the end of fiscal year 2012.

Commonsense immigration reform would make it easier for highly-skilled and educated workers and business owners to come to and stay in the U.S. and create jobs, promote innovation, and boost productivity. The bipartisan Senate bill makes meaningful improvements to the existing employment-based green card system and creates new provisions that strengthen the United States‘ ability to attract and retain highly-skilled global talent. This includes those who earn advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields from U.S. universities, and foreign-born entrepreneurs and investors who meet certain criteria.

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Impact of Immigrants on Innovation and Worker Productivity The bipartisan Senate bill eliminates the existing backlogs for employment-based green cards by exempting certain employment-based green cards from limitations on the overall number of such green cards issued each year and by eliminating restrictions on the number of immigrants from populous nations like India and China. It also exempts STEM PhD and Master‘s graduates from the annual limitations on the amount of green cards available each year. This means, in effect, that STEM graduates with advanced degrees from U.S. colleges and universities and job offers in the U.S. will be able to attain green card status. Taken together, these employment-based green card provisions will boost overall U.S. competitiveness by attracting the world‘s best and brightest students, employees, and inventors. An expanding body of contemporary research highlights the contributions to innovation and growth made by immigrants in STEM fields, where development of world-class talent will be critical to America‘s continued global leadership.4 The 2010 National Survey of College Graduates, conducted by the National Science Foundation, found that over 60 percent foreign graduate students were enrolled in STEM fields. The study found that although immigrants represent 14 percent of all employed college graduates, they account for 50 percent of PhDs working in math and computer science

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

84

National Economic Council

occupations.5 Moreover, studies indicate that every foreign-born student with an advanced degree from a U.S. university who stays to work in a STEM field is associated with, on average, 2.6 jobs for American workers.6 As described in the 2013 Economic Report of the President, recent studies have shown that immigrants promote productivity and innovation, both directly and indirectly through positive spillover effects on native workers.7 Researchers have found that immigrants establish patents at twice the rate of U.S.-born citizens.8 While this largely reflects immigrants‘ being more heavily represented in science, engineering, and other technical occupations, immigrants in those fields patent at an above average rate even when compared to other non-immigrant scientists and engineers.9 Additionally, immigrant college graduates are more likely than non-immigrants to have published a scholarly work, and those who had published were more likely to have published six or more scholarly works (6.8 percent of published immigrants compared to 3.6 percent of published native-born graduates).10 Increases in high-skilled immigration also have spillover effects that increase the number of patent applications filed by non-immigrants. Jennifer Hunt and Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle used a 1940- 2000 state panel dataset to show an increase in patents per capita from 9 percent to 18 percent in response to a 1 percentage point increase in immigrant college graduates.11 High-skilled immigrant students and workers exert a strong, positive impact— both directly and indirectly through spillover effects—on U.S. competitiveness in the global economy. CBO conducted its own literature review to evaluate the economic impact of the bipartisan Senate bill. Its report concluded, ―empirical research broadly suggests that an influx of immigrants, particularly highly skilled immigrants, would lead to increased innovation and task specialization. And those improvements in turn would increase economic output for any given supply of labor and capital stock.‖ From this, CBO determined that the bipartisan Senate bill would boost overall productivity by 0.7 percent in 2023 and by 1 percent in 2033, which would in turn boost GDP per capita, increase wages at all skill levels, and raise the return on investment—improvements that benefit all U.S. workers.12 Steve Case, chairman and CEO of Revolution LLC and co-founder of America Online, when testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year, concluded that ―high-skilled immigrants have always been job creators, not job takers.‖ He explained, ―our success as an entrepreneurial nation is going to be driven largely by our ability to attract and retain the best and brightest talent,‖ including those in high-demand STEM fields.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System

85

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Supporting Entrepreneurship through Commonsense Immigration Reform The Senate bill also creates a new Startup or INVEST visa (―Investing in New Venture, Entrepreneurial Startups, and Technologies‖). This will allow foreign entrepreneurs who attract a threshold level of financing from U.S. investors or revenue from U.S. customers to build their businesses in the U.S. by creating both temporary visa and permanent green card options for aspiring entrepreneurs. If their companies continue to succeed and create jobs for American workers, these entrepreneurs would be eligible for permanent resident status, and eventually citizenship. Estimates of the economic impact of these provisions vary; however, up to 50,000 jobs could be created each year if all of the green cards established under the parameters of the bill are utilized.13 Commonsense immigration reform will expand the type of entrepreneurship and young growing firms that disproportionately contribute to the dynamism of the economy. Many immigrants are highly entrepreneurial, starting new businesses that fuel job creation and contribute to economic dynamism and growth. A 2010 paper by economists from the University of Maryland and the U.S. Census Bureau found that startups created almost 3.5 million net non-farm jobs in 2005: the authors concluded that startups accounted for only 3 percent of employment but almost 20 percent of gross job creation.14 A study by the Fiscal Policy Institute found that in 2007, immigrantowned small businesses generated a total of $776 billion in receipts and employed an estimated 4.7 million people.15 According to the 2012 Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity, immigrants were nearly twice as likely as U.S.-born citizens to start new businesses each month. The immigrant rate of entrepreneurship increased from 2005 to 2012, while the native-born rate has remained flat over the past 17 years. For immigrants, 490 out of 100,000 immigrants started a business each month, compared with 260 out of 100,000 people for the native-born. 16 In a 2012 report, the Partnership for a New American Economy found that in 2011, immigrants started 28 percent of all new U.S. businesses, despite accounting for only 12.9 percent of the U.S. population; by contrast, in 1996, only 15 percent of new U.S. businesses were founded by immigrants.17 In the decade from 1990 to 2000, the number of immigrant small business owners grew by 540,000, accounting for 30 percent of the total growth in the number of people who own a small business over that period.18

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

86

National Economic Council

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Source: The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.

Immigrants‘ contributions in the high-tech sector are especially striking, both in the number of businesses started and in the number of patents filed, as discussed above. In 2005, over 50 percent of new tech startups in Silicon Valley—widely known as the international hub for technological development and innovation—had at least one immigrant founder.19 One study notes that immigrants started 25 percent of all engineering and technology companies founded between 1995 and 2005.20 However, some new research suggests the U.S. is losing its competitive edge in retaining immigrant entrepreneurs. The Kauffman Foundation reports that the number of Silicon Valley startups with at least one immigrant cofounder fell by over 8 percent, from 52 percent for companies founded between 1995 and 2005, to 44 percent for companies founded between 2006 and 2012. They attribute this notable drop to a ―reverse brain drain,‖ wherein highly-skilled workers are leaving the U.S., and returning home or to other countries.21 The Senate bill‘s increase of employment-based green cards, especially for STEM PhD and Master‘s graduates, will provide highly skilled foreign students, employees, and inventors a greater opportunity to remain in the U.S. as permanent residents and eventually as U.S. citizens.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

INVESTING IN AMERICA’S YOUTH AND THE WORKFORCE OF TOMORROW The Senate immigration reform bill makes robust investments that will pay off in the future by investing in our nation‘s youth. These investments will both build the pipeline of future workers equipped with science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) skills at every stage, from kindergarten through college, and provide job and work-based training opportunities for young people in the hit hardest areas of the country. In particular, the Senate bill creates a new STEM Education and Training Fund by applying fees on some employers who hire foreign workers through our legal immigration system. The fee revenue would be used for a broad range of K-12 STEM-related educational activities, STEM capacity-building at minority-serving institutions, and activities to equip Veterans with STEM skills. Funds would also be available for eligible entities to create college savings accounts to help low-income high school students afford and plan for their college education. The Senate immigration bill also establishes a new $1.5 billion Youth Jobs Fund for low-income young Americans between the ages of 16 to 25. This program, which would be funded by adding a small surcharge on select visas, would allocate funding to States to provide summer and year-round employment opportunities for hundreds of thousands of economically disadvantaged youth. While making these significant investments to equip our nation‘s youth for the jobs of the future, the Senate bill also maintains existing investments that provide Americans currently in the labor force with support to move into more skilled and higher paying jobs. These programs, which are funded by fees on employers who hire temporary foreign workers through our legal immigration system, provide on-thejob training and many other programs that help place Americans, including the long-term unemployed, into skilled jobs in growth industries.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

87

88

National Economic Council

At the other end of the spectrum, immigrants have also created—and continue to build—many of the world‘s largest and best-known companies. More than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants. These American companies, including Google, Disney, and Procter & Gamble, to name a few, represent 7 of the 10 most valuable brands globally. They collectively employ more than 10 million people worldwide and generate annual revenue of $4.2 trillion.22

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Increasing Investment Through Commonsense Immigration Reform The bipartisan Senate bill reforms and makes permanent the EB-5 immigrant investor program that grants permanent resident status to foreigners who invest above a minimum threshold in new job-creating commercial enterprises in the United States. Since the program was created in 1990, EB-5 investments have been responsible for the infusion of at least $6.8 billion of capital into the United States and the creation of at nearly 50,000 jobs for U.S. workers as of the end of fiscal year 2012. Under current law, immigrants must invest a minimum of $1,000,000 in a new or existing U.S. business or project, or a minimum of $500,000 if the business or project is located in a Targeted Employment Area (an area which, at the time of investment, is experiencing an unemployment rate of at least 150% of the national average) or a rural area. The investment must either create or preserve a minimum of 10 full time jobs for qualifying U.S. workers within two years. The bipartisan Senate bill would increase the number of immigrant investor visas available each year through the aforementioned reforms to the employment-based immigration system, and add additional measures to encourage more investment in areas that are most in need of economic development. Overall, these reforms have the potential to support more than 140,000 jobs for American workers each year.23 In short, immigration reform will attract more foreign investment to the U.S. that will catalyze economic development and create jobs.

Family-Sponsored Immigration as Support for Critical Workers The prospect of family reunification has been a cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy throughout our nation‘s history. The Senate bill reforms

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System

89

and begins to eliminate the backlog in the family- sponsored immigration system by exempting immediate family members (spouses and unmarried children under the age of 21) of lawful permanent residents from the annual limitations on family- sponsored green cards and by increasing the limit on the number of immigrants allowed each year from individual countries, including those nations with a high rate of immigration such as China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines. The Senate bill also excludes these same immediate family members from annual limitations on employment-based green cards, and removes annual country limitations altogether from this system. Contrary to some assertions by opponents of immigration reform, our nation‘s family-sponsored and employment-based immigration systems are equally important and complement each other in many ways. In choosing their new home, prospective immigrants envision a better life not only for themselves but also for their families. Using data arranged by year of arrival and country of origin, one study found a positive correlation between the fraction of immigrants sponsored by a sibling and average education levels of the immigrants. The data seem to support the notion that highly educated immigrants who arrive based on employment and occupational preference categories then sponsor their siblings who are also highly educated.24 Family-sponsored immigration has significant economic benefits, especially for long-term economic growth. According to the National Foundation for American Policy, family-sponsored immigration supports the establishment and operation of small businesses in the United States.25 For example, Yahoo! Co-founder Jerry Yang came to the U.S. at age 10 with his family. It is also important to realize that immigrants who come through our humanitarian visa system fleeing persecution are also some of our greatest entrepreneurs. Take someone like Sergey Brin – his family fled the Soviet Union when he was a young boy. America welcomed Sergey and his family as refugees, and in return, he went onto co-found Google. The Senate bill also includes provisions that will strengthen existing humanitarian visa programs. It is clear that a robust family-sponsored immigration system and generous humanitarian visa program are both critical for providing support to family members in the workforce and unleashing entrepreneurial activities, which ultimately is in the best interest of all Americans.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

.

90

National Economic Council

III. INCREASING THE PRODUCTIVITY OF U.S. WORKERS AND STRENGTHENING PROTECTIONS FOR AMERICAN WORKERS IMMIGRATION REFORM PROTECT AMERICAN WORKERS AND ENHANCE PRODUCTIVITY

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

•

Immigrants complement the skills of native workers and enhance their productivity. • Researchers have generally found that immigrants may mostly complement rather than substitute for these workers – and that increased immigration raises average wages of U.S.- born workers and has little or no effect on wages even for lowskilled workers. • Higher immigration increases U.S. workers‘ productivity by contributing to technological advancement — leading to rising average wages over the long term. • CBO estimates that real wages will be 0.5 percent higher in 2033 – the equivalent to an additional $250 of income for the median American household. • This is largely the result of the increases in productivity of both labor and capital, which CBO estimates will increase total factor productivity by 0.7 percent in 2023 and 1 percent in 2033. • Researchers have also found that immigrants increase the productivity of U.S. workers by complementing their skills. The bipartisan Senate reform bill provides a host of protections for American workers. Specifically, the bill: • Requires that employers must first recruit American workers before hiring high-skilled temporary foreign workers. • Strengthens prohibitions against displacing American workers and requires that employers pay temporary workers fair market wages, which helps to prevent American workers from being undercut by cheaper sources of labor. • Raises the ―wage floor‖ for all workers—particularly in industries where large numbers of easily exploited, low-wage, unauthorized immigrants currently work.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System •

•

91

Increases employer accountability through the E-Verify system and a more transparent worksite, which holds employers accountable for knowingly hiring undocumented workers. Includes investments in border security that will deter future undocumented immigration.

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Impact of Immigrants on Productivity and Wages As discussed above, higher immigration increases U.S. workers‘ productivity by contributing to technological advancement. These increases in worker productivity mean higher wages, on average. Researchers have also found that immigrants increase the productivity of U.S. workers by complementing their skills. The recent CBO analysis is clear that, in the long run, the Senate bill raises wages for all groups of workers by boosting productivity. Specifically, CBO estimates that real wages will be 0.5 percent higher in 2033 than projected under current law. In today‘s terms, that would be equivalent to an additional $250 of income for the median American household. This is largely the result of the increases in productivity of both labor and capital: CBO estimates the Senate bill will increase total factor productivity by 0.7 percent in 2023 and 1 percent in 2033. A number of careful studies have attempted to isolate the wage impact of immigration among native workers. In particular, economists have used a number of natural experiments – including Cuban immigration to Miami, immigration flows to California in the 1990s and 2000s, and immigration of Russian Jews to Israel in the 1990s – to study the effects of immigration on labor markets. They have generally found that increased immigration raises average wages of U.S.-born workers and has little or no effect on wages even for low-skilled workers, and may have positive effects. The logic behind the empirical finding that immigration has little impact on wages for U.S.- born workers is that immigrants may mostly complement rather than substitute for these workers. One of the most famous and well-regarded studies in this area is by David Card at the University of California-Berkeley. Using a natural experiment – the experience of the Miami labor market following the arrival of 125,000 Cuban immigrants between May and September 1980, which increased the labor force by 7 percent – Card evaluates the effect of unskilled immigration on the labor market opportunities of native workers.26 Specifically, he

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

92

National Economic Council

compared the trends in Miami wages to similar cities across the country where this influx did not occur. He finds that a 7 percent increase in the Miami labor market of low-skilled immigrants had virtually no effect on the wage rates or unemployment rate of low-skilled non-Cuban workers. His data analysis suggests a remarkably rapid absorption of the new immigrants into the Miami labor force with negligible effects on other groups. Average wages for natives rose by 0.6 percent and there was essentially no effect or even a small positive effect on wages of the least-educated workers. Economists Rachel Friedberg from Brown University and Jennifer Hunt from Rutgers have conducted similar studies and reached similar results to Card.27 Other recent studies also have found that immigration can indeed have positive effects on native wages. For example, Giovanni Peri studies immigration to California over the 1990 to 2004 period. Although he finds negative effects on the wages of other recent immigrants, he finds positive wage effects for native workers.28 Peri‘s most conservative estimate finds immigration yields a net wage benefit to natives of 2.2 percent on average; his study‘s median estimate finds that immigrants spurred wage growth of native U.S. workers by approximately 4 percent. One reason that immigrants would not reduce the wages of native workers, and may even increase wages, is that they are not perfect substitutes for American workers. The most commonly cited study that supports the view that immigrants reduce wages is by George Borjas29, whose research method assumes that immigrants and natives are substitutes for one another. He looks at inflows of immigrants across different schooling levels over time and compares those changes in inflows to changes in the wages of similarly educated natives. However, if immigrants and natives of similar schooling levels are not substitutable, as much of the research suggests, then Borjas‘ research overstates the negative impact on wages. Additionally, if other factors are also acting to decrease wages for low-skilled native workers, such as technological changes and the decrease of unionized workplaces, then the negative effects may also be overstated. As previously mentioned, there is a growing body of recent research that suggests that the skills and talents that immigrants and natives bring to the labor market may not be good substitutes for each other, and that low-skilled immigrants may instead enhance the productivity of even low- skilled natives. As Cato Institute scholar Daniel Griswold noted in 2011 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, ―[I]mmigrants tend to bring a different set of skills and differing preferences for the kind of work they perform compared to native-born workers, which means immigrants are less easily substituted for

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System

93

their native-born counterparts.‖30 In particular, rather than replacing U.S. workers or reducing U.S. workers‘ wages, increases in the number of new immigrants lead U.S. workers to specialize in tasks requiring stronger English language and other skills, raising their earnings.31 One recent Immigration Policy Center study on the impact of recent immigrants in the U.S. labor force evaluated U.S. Census data and found that ―there is little apparent relationship between recent immigration and unemployment rates among African Americans, or any other native-born racial/ethnic group, at the state or metropolitan level.‖32 In its economic analysis of the bipartisan Senate bill, CBO found that in the short-run, wages for some groups of workers will increase modestly while wages for other groups could fall modestly under the Senate bill, and predicted a small and temporary negative adjustment in the overall average wage. But as CBO explains, its analysis does not separately consider the effects on U.S. and foreign-born workers – meaning that this ―do[es] not necessarily imply that current U.S. residents would be worse off.‖ In fact, as CBO notes, the temporary reduction in average wages is at least partly attributable to an increase in lower-wage immigrants: because new immigrants would, on average, earn lower wages than the current workforce, their entry into the labor force would reduce the overall average wage to a small degree. Additionally, as noted above, CBO finds that over the long run – once productivity gains and higher capital levels materialize – all skill groups would see higher wages as a result of enacting the Senate bill, with real wages rising by the equivalent of $250 annually for the median household, in today‘s dollars. Commonsense immigration reform will also increase wages and productivity for immigrants themselves. One reason that people seek to immigrate to the United States is that they can earn higher wages working in the U.S. than in their home countries. They also have greater opportunities to start businesses and pursue an education. Moreover, by providing a path to earned citizenship, the Senate bill will also give undocumented immigrants the security they need to invest in their own skills and education and to change employers or jobs in pursuit of higher - paying employment, or to stand up for their legal rights if they are paid substandard wages. Studies of the 1986 immigration reform law found that legalizing immigrants saw wage gains in the range of 10 percent as a result of obtaining legal status. Part of this increase reflected increases in workers‘ productivity, which benefits the economy as a whole.33

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

94

National Economic Council

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Protections for American Workers The Senate‘s immigration bill includes additional protections for American workers that help ensure immigrants will complement the American workforce and make our economy more productive and competitive. One critical protection is the requirement that employers first recruit American workers before hiring high-skilled temporary foreign workers. At the same time, the bill strengthens prohibitions against displacing American workers and requires that employers pay fair market wages to temporary workers, which helps to prevent American workers from being undercut by cheaper labor. The Department of Labor would also receive new tools and abilities to crack down on employers who fail to comply with the law. These new safeguards advance the effort to ensure that highly-skilled temporary immigrant workers do not take jobs from equally qualified U.S. workers. Instead, temporary workers would be able to help fill critical skills gaps in the U.S. economy, making American businesses more productive and competitive at home and abroad. The Senate bill also introduces additional measures in temporary worker programs to provide immigrant workers with increased mobility and key labor protections so that they are not taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers. A 2010 Center for American Progress study found that ―the wages of nativeborn workers also increase under the comprehensive immigration reform scenario because the ‗wage floor‘ rises for all workers—particularly in industries where large numbers of easily exploited, low-wage, unauthorized immigrants currently work.‖34 Creating a pathway to earned citizenship — in and of itself — will raise the workplace standards for all workers. When immigrants enjoy the same workplace protections and economic mobility as others, they will be less subject to exploitation at the hands of employers whose practices undermine the wages and working conditions of all other workers. The bipartisan Senate bill protects vulnerable immigrant workers from exploitation through strong new prohibitions against labor recruiting and trafficking abuses. And the bill also ensures that all workers have access to the same labor and employment protections regardless of immigration status, so some employers cannot seek out undocumented workers for the purposes of paying lower wages and benefits. For example, under the bill, if an employer hires an undocumented worker and commits a labor violation, not only is that employer subject to higher penalties, but the worker can temporarily stay in the country if he or she agrees to work with the government to investigate the employer. These

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System

95

provisions will protect American workers by removing incentives to seek out and hire undocumented workers. Immigration reform also makes it easier for employers to comply with the law and deters future undocumented immigration. Commonsense measures, such as mandating that every employer in the country use E-Verify, an electronic employment verification system to ensure that the workers they hire are in the U.S. legally and authorized to work, both establish a more transparent worksite and help to hold employers accountable for knowingly hiring undocumented workers. This will protect businesses that play by the rules and invest in American workers. Additionally, increased investments in border security, on top of the historic investments already made by the Administration over the past four years, will also deter future undocumented immigration. Combined, these efforts will allow more Americans and legal immigrants to secure well paying, middle class jobs, and ensure that U.S. companies continue to the have access to the most talented workforce in the world.

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Unleashing Immigrants’ Full Economic Potential Commonsense immigration reform would improve productivity and boost economic growth by increasing various types of investment, including investments not currently made by undocumented workers. Investment takes place when one expends resources today, whether in the form of time or money, in the expectation of a greater return in the future. Education is a form of investment. Of course, students do not typically earn much while in school, but they pursue higher education expecting that, in the future, they will earn a higher return, or a better living, as a result. Putting time or money into starting a business is another form of investment. New businesses rarely earn significant revenue in their first year or two, but their owners press on, expecting the enterprise to grow and generate profits over time. As with entrepreneurship, it is this type of investment and risk-taking that has made the American economy as strong as it is today. When individuals are insecure and uncertain about their position in the economy — whether they are living in the shadows, afraid to enforce basic rights, or unsure if they will be able to stay in the U.S.— their incentives and ability to make such investments is undermined. Individuals may be less inclined to save or invest money today, or to spend on education now, if they

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

96

National Economic Council

doubt that they will be able to enjoy the benefits of such investments in the future. This is another reason why immigration reform is so important for the economy. When workers avoid investing due to uncertainty about their future, it decreases capital available for all Americans. When immigrants feel they can‘t invest in their own education or in the education of their children, it hurts the quality of our workforce. On a related note, research tells us that children whose parents obtain legal status do better in school are more likely to stay in school than children whose parents are undocumented.35 An estimated 80 percent of children with one or more undocumented parents are already US citizens, and the vast majority of these children will be in the US for the rest of their lives.36 Enacting bipartisan immigration reform and providing the chance for their parents to come out of the shadows could mean significantly better outcomes for our children, strengthening our future workforce and contributing more to economic growth. The bipartisan Senate bill would offer a tough but fair pathway for earned citizenship to the 11 million undocumented workers living and working in our communities—a pathway that requires passing background checks, learning English, paying taxes and a penalty, and then going to the back of the line behind everyone who‘s playing by the rules and trying to come here legally. It also provides farmworkers, who help harvest our nation‘s fruits and vegetables, with a unique pathway to earned citizenship, if they continue to contribute to the agriculture industry. Finally, the Senate bill would provide an expedited path to permanent status for young people known as DREAMers those who were brought to the U.S. as children and grew up pledging allegiance to our flag and are either attending college or have served honorably in the U.S. military.

IV. DECREASING BUDGET DEFICITS, BALANCING OUT AN AGING POPULATION, AND STRENGTHENING SOCIAL SECURITY IMMIGRATION WILL CUT THE DEFICIT AND STRENGTHEN SOCIAL SECURITY •

Immigration reform improves the short- and long-term federal budget outlook

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System

97

•

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

The additional taxes paid by new and legalizing immigrants would not only offset any new spending, but would be substantial enough to reduce the deficit over the 20-year window. • Over the twenty years between 2014 and 2033, the Senate bill would reduce federal deficits by nearly $850 billion. Immigration reform helps balance out an aging population and shore up U.S. social insurance programs • Because most immigrants are young, additional immigration helps balance out the increase in retirees-per-worker that will occur as the Baby Boomer generation retires, and thus provide essential financial support for U.S. social insurance programs. • Enacting the Senate immigration reform bill will add nearly $300 billion to the Social Security Trust Fund over the next decade—reducing the Social Security shortfall by nearly half a trillion dollars over the next 75 years (0.21 percent of taxable payroll), and extending the life of the Trust Fund by two years. • Immigrants contribute more to the Medicare Trust Fund then they collect in benefits, according to one study.

Impact of Commonsense Immigration Reform on Budget Deficits and Debt Along with growing our economy through increases in productivity and more entrepreneurship and innovation, commonsense immigration reform will reduce federal deficits and strengthen Social Security by balancing out an aging population. On net, the Senate-passed bill would reduce federal budget deficits by $158 billion and increase real U.S. GDP by 3.3 percent by 2023. By 2033, CBO estimates that immigration reform will lead to even bigger reductions in federal deficits: in the second decade after enactment, from 2024-2033, the Senate bill would achieve about $700 billion in net deficit reduction. Therefore, over the twenty years between 2014 and 2033, the Senate bill would reduce federal deficits by nearly $850 billion. The CBO analysis made clear that the additional taxes paid by new and legalizing immigrants would not only offset any new spending, but would be substantial enough to reduce the deficit over the 20-year window. As CBO

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

98

National Economic Council

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

explains, a significant portion of the new taxes would be paid by previously undocumented immigrants who could earn legal status over time. While many of these workers already pay federal taxes, millions more will pay payroll taxes once they are able to obtain legal status and work above board.37 The resulting deficit reduction will also help to reduce our debt as a share of the economy. Economists and budget experts agree that our fiscal goals should include putting our debt on a declining path as a share of our economy. The bipartisan Senate bill helps us toward our goal of fiscal sustainability: looking at CBO‘s official estimate of the deficit reduction resulting from the Senate immigration reform bill together with CBO‘s analysis of the impact of the Senate bill on GDP growth, the Senate bill would reduce the federal debt as a share of the economy by three percentage points in 2023, relative to current law. And based on further analysis of the CBO estimates, by 2033, enacting the Senate bill would reduce federal debt by seven percentage points, as a share of the economy compared to current law.

The CBO score reflects the direct impact of immigration reform on the U.S. population, employment, and taxable compensation, and CBO also notes that immigration reform will significantly impact the economy in ways beyond direct changes in the workforce.38 Immigration reform is expected to bolster the U.S. economy by increasing productivity, driving up overall wages, and boosting the return on investment. Although indirect feedback effects are (appropriately) not incorporated in CBO‘s official budget estimates, CBO noted that these estimated changes in productivity, wages, and investment from the Senate bill would likely reduce the deficit by an additional $300

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System

99

billion between 2024 and 2033, on top of the approximately $850 billion in deficit reduction included in the official CBO score.

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Impact of Commonsense Immigration Reform on Social Security Immigration reform will also help secure the financial future of Social Security by increasing immigrants‘ contributions to the Social Security Trust Fund through payroll taxes. The independent Office of the Chief Actuary at the Social Security Administration (SSA) reported that enacting the bipartisan Senate immigration reform bill will strengthen Social Security over the long term and extend the life of the Trust Fund by two years, from 2033 to 2035.39 According to the SSA Actuary, commonsense immigration reform would add nearly $300 billion to the Social Security Trust Fund over the next decade and reduce the Social Security shortfall by nearly half a trillion dollars over the next 75 years in present value terms (equivalent to 0.21 percent of taxable payroll). The reduction in the shortfall is enough of an improvement to nearly reverse the deterioration in Social Security‘s finances due to the economic downturn.40 The bipartisan Senate bill would provide the opportunity for undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows, obtain documents that will permit them to work above board, and pay taxes like everyone else. As documented workers, these undocumented immigrants would pay significantly more in federal taxes as a result – on top of the billions of dollars in federal, state, and local taxes that they already currently pay. The Senate bill also modifies legal immigration limits and classifications to increase the U.S. population by 15 million by 2033. Compared to current U.S. citizens, immigrants are on average younger, healthier and have higher than average labor force participation rates. These new immigrants will join the American workforce and pay U.S. payroll and other taxes. Because most immigrants are young, additional immigration will increase the ratio of workers to retirees. The infusion of young, healthy workers into the formal U.S. economy will help to balance out the otherwise aging U.S. population and provide essential financial support for U.S. social insurance programs. The retirement of the Baby Boomer generation makes this especially timely and important. The large number of Baby Boomer retirees that will enroll in Social Security and Medicare over the next two decades will create a significant financial strain on these essential programs. The new additions to the formal U.S. workforce will help counteract this trend.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

100

National Economic Council

Similarly, Harvard Medical School researchers found that immigrants contribute more to the Medicare Trust Fund then they collect in benefits.41 Their study, recently published in Health Affairs, concluded that: ―Encouraging a steady flow of young immigrants would help offset the aging of the U.S. population and the health care financing challenge that it presents.‖ The evidence shows that immigration reform will reduce U.S. federal budget deficits, raise labor force participation, and provide financial support for U.S. social insurance programs just as the economy and the budget are coming come under increased strain from the retirement of the Baby Boomer generation. Adding younger and healthier immigrants with high workforce participation rates is critical to U.S. fiscal health in the long-term.

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

V. IMMIGRATION REFORM BENEFITS THE ECONOMY ACROSS SECTORS In addition to the benefits described above – increasing total economic growth, boosting worker productivity, increasing innovation, and strengthening our fiscal health – the bipartisan Senate bill would bring specific benefits to a range of economic sectors, including agriculture, tourism and hospitality, and housing.

Strengthening America’s Housing Recovery Immigrants are a crucial factor in the United States‘ housing recovery. A recent study from the Americas Society/Council for the Americas and Partnership for a New American Economy found that the 40 million immigrants currently in the U.S. have created $3.7 trillion in housing wealth. Moreover, immigrants help boost property values by increasing the demand for housing, as well as for other locally produced goods and services. Albert Saiz has found that an immigrant inflow equal to 1 percent of a city‘s population is associated with a 1 percent increase in home prices in that city.42 Immigrants stabilize and revitalize communities facing declining home values, encouraging other middle- and working-class Americans to move to and settle in these communities. Immigrants revitalize less desirable peripheral neighborhoods in costly metropolitan areas by moving into these harder hit neighborhoods, driving demand through their own purchasing power, and then

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System 101 drawing U.S.-born individuals to these areas. Research has shown, for example, that immigration has stemmed the decline of Rust Belt cities and rural areas. For example, the average home in Gary, Indiana, saw an estimated $1,500 increase in value due to the approximately 13,000 immigrants that have settled there since 1990. Moreover, the largest impacts of immigration on the housing market have been seen in areas hardest hit by the recession. In many Sunbelt cities, the direct and indirect effects of immigration over the last 10 years have contributed over $10,000 to the value of the typical home, mitigating the recession‘s impact on hardest hit states like Arizona and New Mexico. Immigration reform will further improve the housing market by: enabling more immigrants to achieve homeownership by building credit and other documentation needed for mortgage; boosting immigrant incomes, which will in turn drive housing demand through immigrants‘ growing purchasing power; and increasing the number of US residents by 10.4 million by 2023, according to the CBO estimate, in part by facilitating family reunification and household formation.

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Promoting American Agriculture The agriculture industry – a key engine of American economic growth – is especially reliant on immigrant workers. Currently, the agriculture industry is hampered by a broken immigration system that fails to produce predictable and stable worker flows. Today, roughly half of all farmworkers are estimated to be unauthorized43, which means deportations, employer fines, and work stoppages are a constant fear. Moreover, there continue to be insufficient U.S. workers to fill labor needs: of those crop workers surveyed between 2007 and 2009, 71 percent were foreign born.44 Often, farmers and ranchers have difficulty securing laborers for critical tasks. For example, due to our broken immigration system, the state of Georgia experienced a shortage of more than 11,000 agricultural workers in the spring 2011. A recent survey of fruit and vegetable producers in that state identified an economic loss of $181 million and 1,500 fewer jobs in agriculture and related industries due to labor-related production losses. That survey represented a little less than half of total Georgia production acreage; the study noted that if its results were representative of all acreage, the total yearly impact would be about $390 million and the job loss would be about 3,250 on a statewide basis.45

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

102

National Economic Council

In New York, analysis by the Farm Credit Associations found that over 800 farms would be at risk of closure if immigrant labor severely contracted.46 Without immigrant labor, agricultural operations across the country – including apple farmers in Washington, citrus processors in Florida, and strawberry, raisin, asparagus, and lettuce growers in California – would be forced to cut jobs, raise prices, or succumb to foreign competition.47 If agriculture‘s access to migrant labor were cut off, short-term production losses would measure between $5 billion and $9 billion per year.48 To bring rationality and predictability to this broken system, the bipartisan Senate bill would replace the H-2A visa with two new guest worker visas: one for agricultural workers with a written contract for employment (W-3) and one for agricultural workers with an offer of employment (W-4). These new visas would be valid for three years and could be renewed once for an additional three years. Current unauthorized agricultural workers would also be eligible for ―blue cards,‖ providing temporary legal status and the ability to apply for permanent resident status after five years, and eventually citizenship, if they continue to work in agriculture. According to a USDA simulation of a similar policy, an expanded agriculture temporary-worker program49 would increase long-run agricultural output by between 0.2 percent and 2.0 percent, depending on the crop, and would increase agricultural exports by between 0.2 percent and 3.2 percent.50 All of these benefits are reasons that the American Farm Bureau praised the passage of the bipartisan Senate bill, which President Bob Stallman described as ―the first step in reforming our broken immigration system and ensuring agriculture has access to a stable and legal workforce.‖51

Boosting Tourism and Hospitality Another boost to the economy offered by the Senate immigration bill is increased international travel and tourism. Provisions in the bill will facilitate travel while simultaneously strengthening national security through reforming the Visa Waiver Program, expanding trusted traveler programs, increasing the number of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers at ports of entry, and permanently authorizing the Corporation for Travel Promotion, among other initiatives. New U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers would strengthen the U.S. economy and promote travel and tourism by reducing growing waittimes for travelers and cargo entering the U.S., which in turn creates more jobs and increases GDP; the addition of 3,500 CBPOs is expected to add over

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System 103 115,000 new jobs annually and increase GDP by $7 billion. For every 1,000 additional CBPOs added, GDP is expected to grow by $2 billion with over 33,000 new jobs added annually.52 Travel and tourism comprise the largest service-export industry in the U.S., setting a record $165.6 billion in exports in 2012 and supporting 7.8 million jobs in 2012.53 The U.S. Department of Commerce projects international travel to the United States will continue to grow strongly through 2018. Building on a record year in 2012, the volume of international visitors is expected to increase by 4.0 percent in 2013.54 National parks and recreation sites are among the most popular destinations for international travelers. In 2010, 20 percent of all international travelers visited a national park, and from 2002 to 2011, one-tenth of all surveyed national parks visitors were of international origin.55 As wages rise and middle class populations grow in emerging economies, tourists from China, Brazil, and India are expected to increase by 229 percent, 66 percent, and 43 percent, respectively.56 Improving ease of travel, without compromising our security, will ensure that the U.S. reaps the benefit of this growth in tourism in the near future. The broader leisure and hospitality industry – one of the fastest-growing sectors of the United States economy57 – also stands to benefit significantly from commonsense immigration reform. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the leisure and hospitality industry has consistently added jobs over the past 3 years. 58 These sectors remain a source for robust economic activity and continue to exceed expectations.59 The nation‘s accommodation and food service industries rely heavily upon seasonal and temporary workers. And like agriculture, a portion of their current workforce is undocumented. Leaders of these industries have been longtime proponents of legislation that would legalize workers in the U.S. and facilitate the lawful employment of future foreign-born workers. The head of the American Hotel and Lodging Association this year applauded the Senate on behalf of the lodging industry for its bipartisan commitment to immigration reform that ―creates jobs, boosts travel and tourism, preserves hoteliers‘ access to a strong seasonal workforce, and stimulates economic growth.‖60 From California to Wisconsin to Tennessee, many state hospitality and tourism entities have vocalized their support of immigration reform which, in the words of the U.S. Travel Association, ―will boost America's recovery by delivering jobs and economic growth to communities and businesses nationwide.‖61, 62

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

104

National Economic Council

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

VI. STAKEHOLDERS AND GROUPS ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM AGREE THAT IMMIGRATION REFORM IS AN ECONOMIC WIN John Arensmeyer, Small Business Majority: ―Small business owners understand that fixing our country‘s immigration system will help them foster better workforces, which will bolster their bottom lines and our economy as a whole. Increasing the number of pathways for immigrants to come to this country, stay legally and pay taxes will strengthen our economy and encourage a robust and diversified business sector. ... Everyone benefits when we encourage hard-working immigrants to bring their skillsets to the U.S. and let previously undocumented immigrants legally join our workforce, pay taxes and contribute in a meaningful way to our economy.‖ Douglas Holtz-Eakin, American Action Forum: ―Immigration reform can raise population growth, labor force growth, and thus growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In addition, immigrants have displayed entrepreneurial rates above that of the native born population. New entrepreneurial vigor embodied in new capital and consumer goods can raise the standard of living.‖ U.S. Chamber of Commerce: ―Immigration reform is one of the compelling challenges of our time. The Chamber will continue to utilize its resources and promote support among our members for broad immigration reform because America cannot compete and win in a global economy without the world‘s best talent, hardest workers, or biggest dreamers.‖ Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and CEO of News Corporation: ―I believe that all Americans should have a vital interest in fixing our broken immigration system so we can continue to compete in the 21st Century global economy. ... [A]merica's future prosperity and security depends on getting our immigration policy right—and doing it quickly.‖ Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform: ―Immigration reform will jumpstart America‘s economy and reduce our national debt.‖ Center for American Progress: ―Providing legal status and citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in our country would trigger a significant boost to the U.S. economy over the next 10 years: Immigrants would earn more, consumer more, and consequently the economy as a whole would grow.‖

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System 105 Chad Stone, Chief Economist at Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: ―Immigration reform will be good for the budget and good for the economy.‖ Information Technology Industry Council: “Immigration reform is central to America‘s long-term ability to create new jobs and remain the world‘s innovation leader. The strong, bipartisan support in the Senate for balanced immigration legislation is a significant step away from old, misguided stereotypes and toward a stronger future for American workers and American communities.‖ Steve Case, Chairman and CEO of Revolution: ―The Senate's bill will attract the world's best entrepreneurs and innovators and be a key ingredient to sustaining America's long-term competitive edge.‖ Gary Shapiro, President and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association: ―The bill embraces immigration reforms that are much needed to welcome foreign-born entrepreneurs, workers and U.S.-educated immigrants to build American businesses and create domestic jobs.‖ Association of Public and Land-grant Universities: ―[The passage of the Senate bill] marks a major milestone in the effort to comprehensively fix a broken immigration system that has failed many who wish to study at U.S. higher education institutions and those who wish to remain here after they graduate and contribute to our economic growth.‖ Business Roundtable: ―BRT supports comprehensive immigration reform that addresses the status of the more than 10 million foreign individuals living in the United States illegally, provides for more efficient and accurate verification of worker eligibility, and improves legal channels that would allow immigrants to help meet the demand for labor across many economic sectors – including the hospitality, construction, agriculture and high-tech industries. We look forward to working with the President and Congress on sensible solutions to make America more competitive in the world economy.‖ Partnership for a New American Economy: ―There is broad support to modernize our immigration system in a way that helps grow our economy and attract the world‘s most talented and hardest - working. It's time to move from politics to policy by passing a bipartisan bill that brings an immigration system formed in the 1960s into a 21st century global economy.‖ Madeline Zavodny, Adjunct Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute: ―Targeted changes to immigration policy geared toward admitting more highly educated immigrants and more temporary workers for specific sectors of the economy would help generate the growth, economic opportunity, and new jobs that America needs.‖

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

106

National Economic Council

National Council of La Raza: ―Our economy will grow, the deficit will shrink, jobs will be created and our taxpaying labor force will expand so that we have more workers contributing to our tax system. All of these positives should demonstrate to lawmakers working on reform that we shouldn‘t delay passage of an immigration bill which will provide our nation with additional economic benefits.‖ Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO: ―The United States Senate today moved our country a big step closer to building a common sense immigration system that will allow millions of aspiring Americans to become citizens. ... There is much that works for working people in the Senate bill. Most of all, it allows people who are American in every way except on paper to come out of the shadows, lift themselves out of poverty and be recognized as contributors to our communities and our country.‖ SEIU: ―Passing commonsense, accountable immigration reform is also about a shared commitment to strengthening our economy. Lifting 11 million undocumented workers out of the underground economy would lift wages for every American while generating billions in additional tax revenue.‖ U.S. Travel Association: ―The Senate's passage today of historic immigration reform legislation is a significant step toward strengthening U.S. national security and encouraging more travel to and within the United States. Through a number of travel-friendly provisions, the bill will boost America's recovery by delivering jobs and economic growth to communities and businesses nationwide.‖ American Council on Education: ―As both educators and employers, we appreciate this effort at comprehensive immigration reform and believe it represents an important step toward creating an immigration system with bipartisan support that serves the needs of our country.‖ Center for American Progress: ―This bill will also reap economic benefits whose ripple effects will help improve the economic standing of millions of Americans. It‘s been a long journey to today‘s victory, and we have plenty of work ahead in the House, but today‘s Senate vote solidifies the momentum behind real reform and a brighter future for America. The House of Representatives should act swiftly and deliver similar smart and forwardthinking legislation in the weeks ahead.‖ American Farm Bureau: ―The Senate‘s passage today of a balanced immigration reform bill that includes a fair and workable farm labor provision is welcomed by America‘s farmers and ranchers...A comprehensive agricultural labor plan that works for all sectors of agriculture and across all regions of our nation is long overdue. We commend the Senate for addressing

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System 107 this very important issue, which will help ensure the continued success of agriculture in our nation.‖ National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare: ―We agree with both the Congressional Budget Office and the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration (SSA) that comprehensive immigration reform is good for all Americans. The new members of the national family brought in by this bill will contribute to the growth of the economy and at the same time will help strengthen Social Security.‖ National Restaurant Association: ―America‘s restaurants support common-sense immigration reform that meets three key priorities: a clear path to legalization, national implementation of the E-Verify employee verification system that preempts inconsistent state mandates, and increased border security that won‘t harm legal travel and tourism.‖

End Notes

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1

The Congressional Budget Office. ―The Economic Impact of S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.‖ June 18, 2013. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44346. 2 Holtz-Eakin, Douglas. ―Immigration Reform, Economic Growth and the Fiscal Challenge.‖ April 2013. http://americanactionforum.org/sites/default/files/Immigration%20and%20the %20Economy%20and%20Budget.pdf. 3 Congressional Budget Office (June 18, 2013). 4 Economic Report of the President. March 2013, p. 156. http://www.whitehouse.gov /sites/default/files/docs/erp2013/full 2013 economic report of the president.pdf. 5 National Science Foundation. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). ―Science and Engineering Indicators 2012.‖ January 2012. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics 6 Zavodny, Madeline. American Enterprise Institute and the Partnership for a New American Economy. ―Immigration and American Jobs.‖ December 2011. http://www.aei.org/article /society american-jobs. 7 Economic Report of the President (March 2013). 8 Hunt, Jennifer, and Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle. ―How Much Does Immigration Boost Innovation?‖ Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). January 2009. http://ftp.iza.org/dp3921.pdf. 9 Hunt and Gauthier-Loiselle (2009). 10 Hunt, Jennifer. "Which Immigrants Are Most Innovative and Entrepreneurial? Distinctions by Entry Visa." Journal of Labor Economics. July 2011. http://www.nber.org/papers /w14920.pdf. 11 Hunt and Gauthier-Loiselle (2009). 12 The Congressional Budget Office. (June 18, 2013). 13 Based on the parameters of Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. S. 744. 113th Congress.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

108

National Economic Council

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

14

Haltiwanger, John C., Ron S. Jarmin, and Javier Miranda. ―Who Creates Jobs? Small vs. Large vs. Young.‖ NBER Working Paper No. 16300. February, 2012. http://www.nber.org /papers/w16300.pdf?new window=1. 15 Kallick, David D. ―Immigrant Small Business Owners: A Significant and Growing Part of the Economy.‖ Fiscal Policy Institute. 2012. http://fiscalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06 /immigrant-small-business-owners-FPI- 20120614.pdf. 16 Fairlie, Robert. ―Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity: 1996–2012.‖ The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. April, 2013. http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/KIEA 2013 report.pdf. 17 Partnership for a New American Economy (2012). 18 Kallick, David D. ―Immigrant Small Business Owners: A Significant and Growing Part of the Economy.‖ Fiscal Policy Institute. 2012. http://fiscalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06 /immigrant-small-business-owners-FPI- 20120614.pdf. 19 Wadhwa, Vivek, AnnaLee Saxenian, Ben Rissing, and Gary Gereffi. ―America‘s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs.‖ report by the Duke School of Engineering and the UC Berkeley School of Information. January 4, 2007. http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~anno/Papers /Americas new immigrant entrepreneurs I.pdf. 20 Wadhwa, Saxenian, Rissing, and Gereffi (2007). 21 Wadhwa, Saxenian, Rissing, and Gereffi (2007). 22 Partnership for a New American Economy, ―The New American Fortune 500,‖ June 2011, http://www.renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/pnae/img/new-american-fortune-500june-2011.pdf. 23 The exemptions for spouses and dependents on the worldwide cap will result in approximately 14,000 green cards being available each year for individual immigrant investors. Since the Senate bill maintains current law requirements that a minimum of 10 jobs must be created or preserved for each EB-5 investment, these reforms could support more than 140,000 jobs for American workers each year. 24 Duleep, Harriet O., and Mark C. Regets. 1996. ―Family Unification, Siblings, and Skills.‖ In Immigrants and Immigration Policy: Individual Skills, Family Ties, and Group Identities, edited by Harriet Duleep and Phanindra Wunnava, pp. 219–44. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 25 Anderson, Stuart. ―Family Immigration: The Long Wait to Immigrate.‖ National Foundation for American Policy, Policy Brief. May 2010: 7. http://www.nfap.com/pdf/0505brieffamily-immigration 26 Card, David. ―The Impact of the Mariel Boatlift on the Miami Labor Market.‖ Industrial and Labor Relations Review. January 1990. http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/marielimpact.pdf. 27 Friedberg, Rachel. ―The Impact of Mass Migration on the Israeli Labor Market.‖ Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2001. http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/116/4/1373.full.pdf+html; Hunt, Jennifer. ―The Impact of the 1962 Repatriates from Algeria on the French Labor Market.‖ Industrial & Labor Relations Review. April 1992. http://www.jstor.org/stable /2524278. 28 Peri, Giovanni. ―Immigrants Complementarities and Native Wages: Evidence from California.‖ NBER Working Paper 12956. March 2007. http://www.nber.org/papers /w12956. 29 Borjas, George. ―The Labor Demand Curve is Downward Sloping: Reexamining the Impact of Immigration on the Labor Market.‖ The Quarterly Journal of Economics. November 2003. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/journal/QJE2003.pdf.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System 109

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

30

Griswold, Daniel. ―ICE Worksite Enforcement – Up to the Job?‖ Testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement. January 26, 2011. http://judiciary 31 Peri, Giovanni, and Chad Sparber. ―Task Specialization, Immigration, and Wages.‖ American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. 2009. 32 Immigration Policy Center. “Immigration and Native-Born Unemployment across Racial/Ethnic Groups: Untying the Knot, Part II of II.‖ May 2009. www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Part%202%20%20Unemployment%20Race%20Disconnect%2005-19-09.pdf. 33 See for example, Sherrie A. Kossoudji and Deborah Cobb-Clark. ―Coming Out of the Shadows: Learning about Legal Status and Wages from the Legalized Population.‖ Journal of Labor Economics. July 2002. 34 The Center for American Progress. ―Raising the Floor for American Workers: The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.‖ January 2010. http://www.american progress.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/09/immigrationeconreport3.pdf. 35 See Frank D. Bean, Mark A. Leach, Susan K. Brown, and James Bachmeier. ―Mexican Immigrant Legalization and Naturalization and Children‘s Economic Well-Being.‖ In: Helping Young Refugees and Immigrants Succeed (eds. Gerhard Sonnert and Gerald Holton), Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2010; and Ying Pan. ―Gains from Legality: Parents Immigration Status and Children‘s Scholastic Achievement.‖ Working Paper No. 2011–05, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University, 2011, http://bus.lsu.edu/McMillin/Working Papers/pap11 05.pdf 36 Passell, Jeffrey S. and D‘Vera Cohen. 2010. Unauthorized Immigrant Population: National and State Trends, 2010. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center, February. http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdf 37 The Congressional Budget Office (June 18, 2013) and ―S. 744, Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act: As Passed by the Senate on June 27, 2013.‖ July 2013, http://cbo.gov/publication/44397. 38 The Congressional Budget Office (June 18, 2013). 39 Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security Administration. ―Response to The Honorable Marco Rubio‘s request for estimates of the financial effects on Social Security of S. 744, the ‗Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.‘‖ June 28, 2013. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/MRubio 20130627.pdf. 40 Based on the Social Security Trustees Reports for 2009-2011. Between 2008 and 2011, revisions in the projected actuarial balance due to the economic downturn totaled approximately 0.25 percent of taxable payroll, compared to the 0.21 percentage point improvement that would result from enactment of the Senate immigration reform bill. See table IV.B9. and related text in each Trustees Report for more detail. 41 Zallman, Leah, Steffie Woolhandler, David Himmelstein, David Bor, and Danny McCormick. ―Immigrants Contributed An Estimated $115.2 Billion More To The Medicare Trust Fund Than They Took Out in 2002-2009.‖ Health Affairs. May 2013. 42 Saiz, Albert. ―Immigration and Housing Rents in American Cities.‖ Journal of Urban Economics. 2007. realestate.wharton.upenn.edu/research/papers/full/433.pdf. 43 United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. ―Immigration and the Rural Workforce.‖ May 2013. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/in-the-news/immigration 44 United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (2013). 45 McKissick, J.C., and S. P. Kane. ―An Evaluation of Direct and Indirect Economic Losses Incurred by Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Producers in Spring 2011 – A Preliminary Data

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

110

46

47

48

49

50

51

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

National Economic Council

Analysis and Summary Working Paper.‖ The University of Georgia Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development. Spring 2011. http://gfvga.org/wp- content/uploads/2011/10 /Georgia-Fruit-and-Vegetable-Survey-Analysis-Preliminary-Report-10-6-2011.pdf. Farm Credit Associations of New York, Background Analysis. ―Farm Labor and Immigration Reform: Economic Impact to New York State Agriculture.‖ https://www.farmcrediteast. com/resources policy/imedia/files/news/immigrationfarmlaboranalysisny.ashx. Calvin, L., and P. Martin. ―The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy.‖ United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report Number 106. November 2010. http://www.ers.usda.gov /media American Farm Bureau Federation – Economic Analysis Team. ―Impact of Migrant Labor Restrictions on the Agricultural Sector.‖ February 2006. http://www.fb.org/newsroom/nr /nr2006/02-07-06/labor%20study-feb06.pdf. The policy simulation assumes an H-2A expansion that increases foreign-born U.S. farmworkers by about 30,000 in year one; 83,000 in year two; and roughly 90,000 in years three and four. Similarly, S.744 would place an annual cap on new agricultural workers (W3 and W-4 visa holders) at 112,333. S. Zahniser, T. Hertz, P. Dixon, and M. Rimmer (2012) ―The Potential Impact of Changes in Immigration Policy on U.S. Agriculture and the Market for Hired Farm Labor: A Simulation Analysis,‖ United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report No. 135 (May); available at http://www.ers.usda.gov /media 1 .pdf. Statement by Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau Federation, Regarding Senate Passage of Immigration Reform Legislation. June 27, 2013.http://www.fb.org/index.php? action=newsroom.news&year=2013&file=nr0627.html Estimates based on underlying analysis in Roberts, Bryan, et al. ―The Impact on the U.S. Economy of Changes in Wait Times at Ports of Entry.‖ National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events, University of Southern California. April 2013. create.usc.edu/CBP ―Fast Facts: United States Travel and Tourism Industry 2012.‖ International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/outreachpages /download data table/Fast Facts 2012.pdf. ―U.S. Commerce Department Forecasts Continued Strong Growth for International Travel to the United States – 203-2018,‖ International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. June 10, 2013. http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2000-99-001/forecast/Forecast Summary.pdf. ―National Travel & Tourism Strategy Task Force on Travel & Competitiveness,‖ 2012. http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/pdf/national-travel-and-tourism ―U.S. Commerce Department Forecasts Continued Strong Growth for International Travel to the United States – 203-2018,‖ International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. June 10, 2013. http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2000-99-001/forecast/Forecast Summary.pdf. ―Travel and Tourism Spending Outpaced Growth in the Overall Economy in the First Quarter of 2013.‖ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. June 24, 2013. http://bea.gov/newsreleases/industry Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National). http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES7000000001

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System 111 59

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

―Summary of Commentary on Current Economic Conditions by Federal Reserve District.‖ The Federal Reserve Beige Book. April 17, 2013. http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetary policy 60 American Hotel & Lodging Association. ―AH&LA Applauds Committee Passage of Immigration Reform Bill.‖ Press release. June 26, 2013. http://www.ahla.com/pressrelease. aspx?id=35524 61 ―Hospitality, agriculture leaders push for immigration reform.‖ WACH Fox News Center. June 13, 2013. http://www.midlandsconnect.com/news/story.aspx?id=909448#.UdIX4PmyCJM; Lump, Ed. ―Time for comprehensive immigration reform.‖ June 3, 2013. http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/time-for-comprehensive-immigration-reformb9925312z1-210009901.html; Salinas, Claudia Meléndez. ―Local ag, hospitality leaders call for immigration reform.‖ May 14, 2013. http://www.montereyherald.com/news/ci 23220001/local-ag-hospitality-leaders-call- immigration-reform. 62 U.S. Travel Association. ―U.S. Travel Commends Senate Passage of Immigration Bill.‖ Press release. June 27, 2013. http://www.ustravel.org/news/press-releases/us-travel-commendssenate-passage-immigration

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

In: Immigration Reform Editor: Molloy C. Ross

ISBN: 978-1-62948-116-6 © 2013 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 3

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF S. 744, THE BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION ACT

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Benjamin Page and Felix Reichling SUMMARY The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744) would revise laws governing immigration and the enforcement of those laws, allowing for a significant increase in the number of noncitizens who could lawfully enter the United States permanently or temporarily.1 The bill also would create a process for many currently unauthorized residents to gain legal status, subject to their meeting conditions specified in the bill. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have prepared an estimate of the cost of that legislation to the federal government, including projections of the bill‘s effects on both federal spending and federal revenues.2 That cost estimate reflects some, but not all, of the effects that S. 744 would have on the economy. This supplemental report provides estimates of the overall economic impact of the legislation and of the incremental 

Benjamin Page and Felix Reichling wrote this report which was released by the Congressional Budget Office, dated June 2013.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

114

Benjamin Page and Felix Reichling federal budgetary effects of changes in the economy that the cost estimate does not reflect. Ascertaining the effects of immigration policies on the economy and the federal budget is complicated and highly uncertain, even in the short run, and that task is even more difficult for longer periods; for that reason, this report addresses the next 20 years but does not attempt to look over a longer horizon.

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

HOW WOULD THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE LEGISLATION AFFECT FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICITS? Cost estimates produced by CBO and JCT typically reflect the convention that macroeconomic variables such as gross domestic product (GDP) and employment remain fixed at the values they are projected to reach under current law. That is a long-standing convention—one that has been followed in the Congressional budget process since it was established in 1974. However, because S. 744 would significantly increase the size of the U.S. labor force, assuming that total employment was unchanged would imply that any employment of the additional immigrants would be offset one-for-one by lower employment elsewhere in the population. Because that outcome would be highly implausible, CBO and JCT relaxed the assumption of fixed GDP and employment and incorporated into the cost estimate their projections of the legislation‘s direct effects on the U.S. population, employment, and taxable compensation. Nevertheless, to remain as consistent as possible with the estimating rules CBO and JCT follow for almost all other legislation, the cost estimate for S. 744 does not incorporate the budgetary impact of every economic consequence of the bill. The analysis here provides an estimate of the incremental budgetary effects that would arise from the economic outcomes that are not reflected in the cost estimate. Specifically, it includes some additional budgetary effects stemming from changes in the productivity of labor and capital, the income earned by capital, the rate of return on capital (and therefore the interest rates on government debt), and the differences in wages for workers with different skills. CBO estimates that an increase in productivity and capital income would reduce the bill‘s federal budgetary cost but that an increase in the interest rates on government debt—and thus an increase in interest payments— would raise the budgetary cost, as would changes in the relative wages of people at various points in the skill distribution, although only modestly.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Economic Impact of S. 744, the Border Security …

115

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

On balance, the economic impacts not included in the cost estimate would have no significant net effect on federal budget deficits during the coming decade and would reduce deficits during the following decade. Taking into account a limited set of economic effects, the cost estimate shows that changes in direct spending and revenues under the legislation would decrease federal budget deficits by $197 billion over the 2014–2023 period and by roughly $700 billion over the 2024–2033 period. The cost estimate also shows that implementing the legislation would result in net discretionary costs of $22 billion over the 2014–2023 period and $20 billion to $25 billion over the 2024–2033 period, assuming appropriation of the amounts authorized or otherwise needed to implement the legislation.3 According to CBO‘s central estimates (within a range that reflects the uncertainty about two key economic relationships in CBO‘s analysis), the economic impacts not included in the cost estimate would have no further net effect on budget deficits over the 2014–2023 period and would further reduce deficits (relative to the effects reported in the cost estimate) by about $300 billion over the 2024–2033 period.4

HOW WOULD THE LEGISLATION AFFECT THE ECONOMY? S. 744 would boost economic output. Taking account of all economic effects (including those reflected in the cost estimate), the bill would increase real (inflation-adjusted) GDP relative to the amount CBO projects under current law by 3.3 percent in 2023 and by 5.4 percent in 2033, according to CBO‘s central estimates.5 Compared with GDP, gross national product (GNP) per capita accounts for the effect on incomes of international capital flows and adjusts for the number of people in the country.6 Relative to what would occur under current law, S. 744 would lower per capita GNP by 0.7 percent in 2023 and raise it by 0.2 percent in 2033, according to CBO‘s central estimates. Per capita GNP would be less than 1 percent lower than under current law through 2031 because the increase in the population would be greater, proportionately, than the increase in output; after 2031, however, the opposite would be true. CBO‘s central estimates also show that average wages for the entire labor force would be 0.1 percent lower in 2023 and 0.5 percent higher in 2033 under the legislation than under current law. Average wages would be slightly lower than under current law through 2024, primarily because the amount of capital

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

116

Benjamin Page and Felix Reichling

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

available to workers would not increase as rapidly as the number of workers and because the new workers would be less skilled and have lower wages, on average, than the labor force under current law. However, the rate of return on capital would be higher under the legislation than under current law throughout the next two decades. The estimated reductions in average wages and per capita GNP for much of the next two decades do not necessarily imply that current U.S. residents would be worse off, on average, under the legislation than they would be under current law. Both of those figures represent differences between the averages for all U.S. residents under the legislation—including both the people who would be residents under current law and the additional people who would come to the country under the legislation—and the averages under current law for people who would be residents in the absence of the legislation. As noted, the additional people who would become residents under the legislation would earn lower wages, on average, than other residents, which would pull down the average wage and per capita GNP; at the same time, the income earned by capital would increase. CBO has not analyzed the full economic effects of the legislation separately for the incomes of people who would be U.S. residents under current law. In sum, relative to current law, enacting S. 744 would:      

Increase the size of the labor force and employment, Increase average wages in 2025 and later years (but decrease them before that), Slightly raise the unemployment rate through 2020, Boost the amount of capital investment, Raise the productivity of labor and of capital, and Result in higher interest rates.

Employment and Wages The supply of labor in the economy would increase primarily because the legislation would loosen or eliminate annual limits on various categories of permanent and temporary immigration.7 Enacting the bill would, in CBO‘s view, increase the U.S. population by about 10 million people (about 3 percent) in 2023 and by about 16 million people (about 4 percent) in 2033.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The Economic Impact of S. 744, the Border Security …

117

CBO and JCT expect that new immigrants of working age would participate in the labor force at a higher rate, on average, than other people in that age range in the United States. Relative to CBO‘s projections under current law, enacting the bill would increase the size of the labor force by about 6 million (about 31/2 percent) in 2023 and by about 9 million (about 5 percent) in 2033, CBO and JCT estimate. Employment would increase as the labor force expanded, because the additional population would add to demand for goods and services and, in turn, to the demand for labor. However, temporary imbalances in the skills and occupations demanded and supplied in the labor market, as well as other factors, would cause the unemployment rate to be slightly higher for several years than projected under current law. The increase in average wages for the entire labor force in 2025 and later years relative to average wages under current law would occur primarily because the bill would boost the productivity of labor and capital (as discussed below). However, not all workers would experience those effects equally. The legislation would particularly increase the number of workers with lower or higher skills but would have less effect on the number of workers with average skills. As a result, the wages of lower- and higher-skilled workers would tend to be pushed downward slightly (by less than 1/2 percent) relative to the wages of workers with average skills. The increase in the average wage would not occur for a dozen years. As the labor supply initially increased under the legislation, less capital would be available for each worker to produce output, and thus workers‘ output, on average, would be lower for a time. That decline would reduce average wages relative to those under current law. Over time, as capital investment increased and the amount of capital per worker returned approximately to what it would have been under current law—and productivity improved as well—average wages would be higher than under current law.

Investment and Interest Rates Capital investment would rise primarily because the return that investors would earn on a given amount of investment would be higher under the legislation than under current law, for two reasons: First, the larger labor force would render the existing stock of capital relatively scarce (compared with the supply of labor). Second, even apart from capital‘s relative scarcity, each unit of capital, such as a single computer, would be more productive (as discussed

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

118

Benjamin Page and Felix Reichling

below). Relative to that projected under current law, the nation‘s capital stock would be about 2 percent greater in 2023 and about 5 percent greater in 2033, according to CBO‘s central estimates. The increase in the rate of return on investment would moderate over time as the stock of capital grew. For roughly the first decade, the increase in the size of the labor force would make capital relatively scarce. By the second decade, changes to the labor force would become proportionately smaller and the capital stock would grow sufficiently for its rate of return to move down toward, although not quite reaching, the rate that would prevail under current law. With that greater rate of earnings on investment, the federal government would face higher interest rates than under current law because it would be competing with the private sector for investors‘ money.

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Productivity In CBO‘s view, enactment of S. 744 would lead to slightly higher productivity of both labor and capital because the increase in immigration— particularly of highly skilled immigrants—would tend to generate additional technological advancements, such as new inventions and improvements in production processes. CBO estimates that total factor productivity (TFP, the average real output per unit of combined labor and capital services) would be higher by roughly 0.7 percent in 2023 and by roughly 1.0 percent in 2033, compared with what would occur under current law. The increase in TFP would make workers and capital alike more productive, leading to higher GDP, higher wages, and higher interest rates.

EFFECTS ON EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES Enacting S. 744 would cause changes in at least four aspects of the labor market:    

The size of the labor force, Average wages, Relative wages for workers with different skills, and Employment and unemployment.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Economic Impact of S. 744, the Border Security …

119

The Size of the Labor Force

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

If S. 744 was enacted, CBO estimates, the U.S. population would be larger by about 10 million people in 2023 and by about 16 million people in 2033 than projected under current law. Slightly more than two-thirds of those additional residents would be adults. CBO and JCT expect that the new adults would participate in the labor force at a higher rate, on average, than do adults in the current population. Many additional adults entering the country under the bill would, as required in the legislation, enter the country with employment. Most other adults who entered would participate in the labor force at a rate similar to that of the existing foreign-born population, CBO and JCT project.8 However, some of the additional adult entrants under S. 744 would tend to have lower labor force participation—such as those age 65 or older, and, from among the people whose visa applications are part of the existing backlog, those who would join family members already working in this country. Altogether, CBO and JCT estimate that, under S. 744, the labor force would be about 6 million (roughly 31/2 percent) larger in 2023 and about 9 million (roughly 5 percent) larger in 2033 than it would be under current law.

AVERAGE WAGES If S. 744 was enacted, average wages would be lower by about 0.1 percent in 2023 and higher by about 0.5 percent in 2033 than projected under current law, according to CBO‘s central estimates. Wages would be lower than under current law through 2024. That small initial reduction in average wages would occur primarily because the amount of capital available to workers would not increase as rapidly as the number of workers and because the new workers would be less skilled and have lower wages, on average, than the workers under current law. In later years, however, the expanding capital stock would return the ratio of capital to labor to near its level under current law (as discussed later in this report). Moreover, total factor productivity would be higher. S. 744 would allow significantly more workers with low skills and with high skills to enter the United States—through, for example, new programs for temporary workers and an increase in the number of workers eligible for H-1B visas—and would allow somewhat greater numbers of workers with skills in the middle of the distribution to enter as well.9 Taking into account all of those

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

120

Benjamin Page and Felix Reichling

flows of new immigrants, CBO and JCT expect that a greater number of immigrants with lower skills than with higher skills would be added to the workforce, slightly pushing down the average wage for the labor force as a whole, other things being equal.10 However, CBO and JCT expect that currently unauthorized workers who would obtain legal status under S. 744 would see an increase in their average wages. The bill‘s effect on revenues as reported in the cost estimate incorporates an increase in average wages of 12 percent for unauthorized workers who attain legal residency. Their wages would rise both because such workers would have a stronger bargaining position with their employers and because they would be able to find jobs that better fit their skills and education and thus become more productive.11 (The portion of the increase in average wages attributable to higher labor productivity is reflected in an increase in GDP; that attributable to an improved bargaining position is reflected in a decrease in profits.) Because the bill would increase the rate of growth of the labor force, average wages would be held down in the first decade after enactment by a reduction in the ratio of capital to labor, which would make workers less productive—and therefore lower their wages, on average, relative to what would occur under current law.12 Although investment and thus the capital stock would begin to increase quickly, the capital-to-labor ratio would be lower for roughly the first decade. The rate of additional investment—and thus the speed at which the capital stock grew—would help determine how quickly average wages would rebound to the level that would prevail under current law. CBO‘s and JCT‘s cost estimate for S. 744 includes the budgetary effects of changes in average wages from the gradual response of the size of the capital stock to the increase in the labor force (but not from the increase in total factor productivity or the additional growth in the capital stock resulting from the increase in TFP, which is discussed below).

RELATIVE WAGES In addition to its impact on average overall wages in the economy, S. 744 would have varying effects on relative wages of people at different levels of skill.13 If S. 744 was enacted, CBO expects, the larger increase in the number of workers with lower or higher skills relative to the number of people with average skills would slightly reduce the relative wages of workers with lower

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The Economic Impact of S. 744, the Border Security …

121

and higher skills; that is, the average wage paid to workers with lower or higher skills would fall relative to the average wage of the labor force as a whole. Specifically, CBO estimates that, by 2033, S. 744 would lead to a decline of 0.3 percent in the relative wages for workers in the lowest quintile (the bottom fifth) of the skill distribution—typically, workers who did not finish high school and some portion of high school graduates—and for workers in the highest quintile—typically, college graduates and workers with postgraduate degrees. In contrast, CBO estimates that average wages for workers in the middle three quintiles (typically, a portion of high school and college graduates and workers with some postsecondary education) would increase by 0.5 percent relative to overall average wages. It bears emphasizing that those figures are estimated effects on the distribution of wages and not on the overall level of wages. As discussed above, CBO estimates that average wages would be affected by other factors, including changes in the capital-tolabor ratio and total factor productivity, which would have roughly the same impact on wages for people of various skill levels. By 2033, when CBO estimates that average wages in the labor force would be about 0.5 percent higher under S. 744 than under current law, average wages would be higher under the bill than under current law for workers in all quintiles of the skill distribution, even after allowing for the estimated distributional effects. The estimates of the bill‘s effects on relative wages are based on CBO‘s estimates of the changes in the supply of workers with different amounts of skill and on a review of empirical research on the historical relationship between immigration and the wage distribution. An appendix to this report briefly summarizes that review and its application to this analysis of S. 744.

EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT CBO estimates that S. 744 would cause the unemployment rate to increase slightly between 2014 and 2020, relative to the rate projected under current law, but to have no effect on the unemployment rate after 2020. The slight increase over the next several years, the impact of which is incorporated into the cost estimate, would arise from three different sources: 

CBO expects that the arrival of new immigrants would cause a shortterm imbalance between the types of workers needed to produce the goods and services demanded in the economy and the skills and

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

122

Benjamin Page and Felix Reichling



Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.



occupations of available workers. Some movement of workers to new jobs would be required to restore equilibrium, but such a process causes short-term unemployment as workers search for new jobs that best match their skills and interests. Although the average wage would be lower than under current law over the first dozen years, the minimum wage would keep the wages of some less-skilled workers from falling, dampening businesses‘ demand for those workers.14 While the economy adjusted to the increased inflow of immigrants, the increase in demand for labor could lag behind the increase in demand for goods and services.

Those effects would prevent employment from rising by the full increase in the labor force during a period of transition. As a result, enacting S. 744 would raise the unemployment rate over the next five years by up to roughly 0.1 percentage point relative to projections under current law; the rate would remain slightly elevated through 2020, CBO estimates.15 The unemployment rate also might be affected during the next few years if the legislation boosted overall demand for goods and services by more or less than their potential supply, but CBO expects the effects on demand and potential supply to roughly balance. Spending by new immigrants, in part financed by the resources those immigrants would bring with them, would increase demand for goods and services in the United States. Because only some of those new immigrants would participate in the labor force, the proportionate increase in demand could be larger than the increase in labor supply. By contrast, if a substantial share of the earnings of new immigrants was sent abroad as remittances or if new immigrants had high saving rates, the additional supply of labor by immigrants could be proportionally larger than the boost in the need for labor stemming from greater demand for goods and services. CBO expects those factors to be roughly offsetting. The current slack in the economy would not notably influence the economic effects of S. 744, including its effects on employment and unemployment, in part because only a small part of the bill‘s total effect on immigration is expected to occur over the next two years, when the slack is projected to be especially large. That slack does imply, however, that over the next few years, new immigrants would have a higher unemployment rate than their natural rate—the rate of unemployment arising from all sources except fluctuations in aggregate demand—just as is true for the existing population under CBO‘s current-law projections.16

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Economic Impact of S. 744, the Border Security …

123

In the long run, the actual unemployment rate in the economy tends to be close to its natural rate. The natural rate of unemployment of the additional immigrants would be comparable, on average, to that of the current population, CBO expects, so there would be little effect on the unemployment rate in the long run. Thus, in the long run, the number of employed people would increase by the same percentage as the growth in the labor force—by about 31/2 percent in 2023 and by about 5 percent in 2033, CBO estimates. Particular provisions of S. 744 would affect employment in various sectors of the economy differently. For example, provisions that would allow an increase in the number of highly skilled workers would boost the number of such workers who were employed by a greater percentage than the overall increase in employment. In addition, the increase in wages projected beginning in 2025 would encourage greater labor force participation and hours of work, relative to what would prevail under current law.

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

EFFECTS ON CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND INTEREST RATES If S. 744 was enacted, the capital stock would be larger than under current law—by about 2 percent in 2023 and by about 5 percent in 2033, according to CBO‘s central estimates. The increase in investment that would generate that larger capital stock would be primarily financed by greater private saving than would occur under current law. CBO‘s analysis also takes account of changes in public saving; private and public saving together represent the main influences on the sources of funds for domestic investment in productive resources such as equipment and structures.17 Enacting S. 744 would lead to an increase in private saving for two reasons in particular. First, output and incomes would increase, primarily because of the larger workforce and the boost to total factor productivity, but also because of the increased earnings of currently unauthorized workers who attain legal status. Workers would save some of their additional income, thus increasing the amount of money available for investment. Second, the rate of return on capital would rise because the increase in the supply of labor relative to the stock of capital, along with the increase in TFP, would boost the productivity of capital. The higher rate of return would encourage people to save a larger share of their income, further increasing the amount of money available for investment. The legislation also would affect public saving through its impact on the federal budget deficit. Higher deficits subtract from the funds available for

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

124

Benjamin Page and Felix Reichling

private-sector investment because more of those funds are used instead to purchase government bonds; smaller deficits have the opposite effect. CBO‘s economic analysis incorporates the decrease in the deficit from the effects of S. 744 on direct spending and revenue (as reported in the cost estimate); it also incorporates the decrease in the deficit from the incremental budgetary effects of changes in the economy that the cost estimate does not reflect. Public saving also could change because the influx of new immigrants would cause state and local governments to experience both greater demand for services and an increase in revenues, potentially affecting their budget balances. However, CBO has not analyzed the full effects of S. 744 on the budgets of state and local governments, and in any case, the direct effects of the legislation might be offset by other policy changes that would result from requirements in many states to maintain balanced budgets. Therefore, CBO‘s analysis in this report does not incorporate any change in the projected budget balances of state or local governments. The capital stock would increase slowly over time, relative to current law, if S. 744 was enacted because new investments would be small relative to the total stock of capital in the U.S. economy. That slow adjustment of the capital stock relative to the labor force would keep capital relatively scarce. That effect, along with an increase in TFP that would boost the productivity of capital, would lead to an increase in the rate of return on investment in capital. According to CBO‘s estimates, those rates of return would remain above current-law projections throughout the next two decades. With that higher return on investment, the federal government would face higher interest rates than under current law because it would be competing with the private sector for investors‘ money.

EFFECTS ON PRODUCTIVITY Total factor productivity measures the efficiency with which labor and capital combine to produce goods and services, and its growth over time can be thought of as a measure of the rate of technological advancement. TFP rises, for example, with invention and with improvements in production processes. CBO projects that the additional immigration resulting from S. 744 would raise TFP by roughly 0.7 percent in 2023 and by roughly 1.0 percent in 2033, relative to the agency‘s projections under current law. Although the determinants of TFP are poorly understood, empirical research broadly suggests that an influx of immigrants, particularly highly skilled immigrants,

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The Economic Impact of S. 744, the Border Security …

125

would lead to increased innovation and task specialization. And those improvements in turn would increase economic output for any given supply of labor and capital stock. A substantial body of research documents certain effects of highly skilled immigrants on the U.S. economy. For example, although immigrants constituted just 12 percent of the population in 2000, they accounted for 26 percent of U.S.-based Nobel Prize winners between 1990 and 2000, and they made up 25 percent of the founders of public-venture–backed companies started between 1990 and 2005. Moreover, immigrants receive patents at twice the rate of the native-born U.S. population.18 Logic suggests that such accomplishments should boost TFP, but quantifications of that connection are few. In one example, however, researchers demonstrated a strong correlation between the research and development undertaken by scientists and engineers and the rate of growth in TFP, implying a boost to TFP from an increase in the number of people working in fields that are related to technological innovation, such as science, technology, engineering, or mathematics.19 CBO‘s estimate of the effect of S. 744 on TFP reflects the estimates reported in a small body of research that quantifies the effects of increases in immigration on the economic output of existing labor and capital. Those estimates fall broadly into three areas. One area is exemplified by a finding that a rise in the immigration of college-educated workers leads to a greater number of patents issued—including to workers in the native-born population—suggesting positive spillover effects on the existing population‘s ability to innovate.20 Another area of study is exemplified by a report indicating that an increase in the number of immigrant workers, regardless of skill, leads to higher total factor productivity because of an increase in task specialization and other improvements.21 A third area of study examines occupation-specific immigration, attempting to identify evidence that an increase in immigration creates a positive spillover for workers in a specific occupation. Several studies examining that question have found no effect of immigration on TFP.22 In undertaking the analysis of S. 744, CBO combined the results of those three areas of study, drawing more heavily on the literature demonstrating a connection between greater immigration of certain skilled workers and increased TFP. The increase in TFP that CBO projects would accrue if S. 744 was enacted would lead to increases in GDP, average wages, and capital income. However, CBO projects that TFP would rise slowly relative to current law as the effects of the bill on the labor force occurred gradually.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

126

Benjamin Page and Felix Reichling

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

RANGES OF ESTIMATED ECONOMIC EFFECTS To estimate the overall economic effects of S. 744, CBO employed an enhanced version of a widely used model developed by Robert Solow. In that model, output depends on the quantity and quality of the labor force, the size and composition of the capital stock, and the nation‘s technological progress. CBO produced a range of estimates by applying alternative assumptions about the degree to which economic variables influence households‘ decisions about how much to work and save— specifically, about how people would adjust the number of hours they worked in response to changes in average wage rates and how each dollar of change in the federal deficit as a result of S. 744 would affect domestic investment.23 The ranges of estimates are intended to cover, on a judgmental basis, about two-thirds of the possible outcomes for those economic relationships. Still, the effects of S. 744 on the economy and the federal budget would be complicated and highly uncertain, even in the short run, and as a result the actual effects could be well outside CBO‘s ranges of estimates. In particular, two major sources of uncertainty not reflected in the range of estimates would be the bill‘s effects on the labor force and productivity over the next two decades. Real GDP would be greater by 3.3 percent in 2023 and by 5.4 percent in 2033 if the bill was enacted, according to CBO‘s central estimates of the overall economic impact of the legislation (see Figure 1). Under the full range of the two key economic relationships in CBO‘s analysis, CBO estimates that the bill could boost GDP by an amount between 5.1 percent to 5.7 percent in 2033. The effects of the legislation on real GNP would be slightly smaller because increases in the rate of return on capital and in interest rates would imply greater flows of profits and interest to foreigners. According to CBO‘s central estimates, real GNP would be greater by 2.4 percent in 2023 and by 4.5 percent in 2033. Under the full range of estimates, the bill could boost GNP by an amount between 4.1 percent and 4.8 percent in 2033. Because the population would expand considerably, per capita GNP would rise by much less than would total GNP. According to CBO‘s central estimates, S. 744 would reduce per capita GNP by 0.7 percent in 2023 and raise it by 0.2 percent in 2033 (see Figure 2). Under the full range of estimates, the bill could lower per capita GNP in 2033 by as much as 0.2 percent or raise it by as much as 0.6 percent.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The Economic Impact of S. 744, the Border Security …

127

Source: Congressional Budget Office. Notes: The central estimate incorporates CBO‘s central assumptions about the effect of deficits on investment and the effect of wage rates on the labor supply. Current-law projections are made under the assumption that current laws and policies generally remain in place. Projections are annual and are plotted through 2033. S. 744 = the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act; real GDP = inflation-adjusted gross domestic product. Figure 1. Estimated Effects of S. 744 on Real GDP.

Because of both the slow adjustment of the capital stock to the additional growth of the labor force and the increase in TFP, CBO expects that the return on investment would remain above current-law projections throughout the next two decades. With that higher return on investment, the federal government would face higher interest rates than under current law.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

128

Benjamin Page and Felix Reichling

Source: Congressional Budget Office. Notes: Central estimates incorporate CBO‘s central assumptions about the effect of deficits on investment and the effect of wage rates on the labor supply. Current-law projections are made under the assumption that current laws and policies generally remain in place. Projections are annual and are plotted through 2033. GNP is a measure of output that differs from gross domestic product primarily by including the capital income that residents earn from investments abroad and excluding the capital income that nonresidents earn from domestic investment. Changes in GNP are therefore a better measure of the effects of policies on U.S. residents‘ income than are changes in gross domestic product. S. 744 = the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act; GNP = gross national product. Figure 2.Estimated Effects of S. 744 on Per Capita Real GNP and on Average Wages.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Economic Impact of S. 744, the Border Security …

129

According to the agency‘s central estimates, enacting the bill would increase interest rates by 0.4 percentage points in 2023 and by 0.3 percentage points in 2033. Under the full range of estimates, interest rates would increase by 0.3 percentage points to 0.4 percentage points in 2033. Average wages would be lower by 0.1 percent in 2023 and higher by 0.5 percent in 2033 compared with average wages under current law, according to CBO‘s central estimates. Under the full range of estimates, average wages would increase by 0.3 percent to 0.8 percent in 2033.

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

FEDERAL BUDGETARY CONSEQUENCES OF THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE COST ESTIMATE S. 744 would directly affect the federal budget and significantly affect the economy as well; those economic changes would in turn affect the federal budget. CBO and JCT‘s cost estimate reflects all of the direct federal budgetary effects and some, but not all, of the feedback effects on the budget that would result from the bill‘s impact on the economy. In particular, CBO‘s and JCT‘s cost estimate includes the increase in federal revenues that would stem directly from taxing the earnings of new immigrants and from taxing the additional taxable earnings that would arise from the change in status of currently unauthorized residents. It does not, however, include any budgetary effects attributable to changes in the productivity of labor and capital, the income earned by capital, the rate of return on capital (and therefore on the interest rate on government debt), or the differences in wages for workers with different skills. CBO estimated those additional budgetary impacts using a simplified analysis that accounts for changes in taxable income and in interest rates, among other things, but that does not incorporate the sort of detailed programby-program analysis that the agency uses for official cost estimates. The additional budgetary impacts in CBO‘s estimates arise from two factors: 

Changes in output that would affect revenues by altering the amount of workers‘ taxable income (CBO and JCT‘s cost estimate includes some but not all of that effect because it incorporates only a portion of the total estimated effect on output); and

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

130

Benjamin Page and Felix Reichling 

Changes in interest rates that would raise the federal government‘s borrowing costs.24

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

CBO‘s estimates of the additional budgetary impacts of S. 744 also account for other effects, such as how changes in the mix of labor income and capital income would affect revenues and how the estimated changes in workers‘ relative wages would lead to slightly higher government transfer payments to low-income households (in the form of food assistance and medical benefits, for example) and slightly lower income tax revenues.25 According to CBO‘s central estimates, the economic effects of the legislation that are not incorporated in the cost estimate would increase federal budget deficits by about $30 billion over the 2014–2018 period and decrease deficits by about $30 billion from 2019 through 2023, leaving the deficit roughly unchanged for the 2014–2023 period. For the next decade, 2024 through 2033, the economic effects of the legislation that are not incorporated in the cost estimate would reduce federal budget deficits by about $300 billion. (By way of comparison, CBO estimates that, under current law, total GDP during the 2024–2033 period would be roughly $330 trillion.)

APPENDIX: EFFECTS OF THE LEGISLATION ON RELATIVE WAGES Research concerning the effects of immigration on relative wages generally examines how wages are affected by the possibility of substituting workers with different skills. If two types of workers are perfect substitutes, then increasing the supply of one type of worker reduces the relative wages of the other, holding everything else in the economy unchanged; if two types of workers are instead complements, then increasing the supply of one type will increase the relative wages of the other. Those effects can differ by the amount of skill workers have, and they can depend on the distribution of skills among new immigrant workers and those in the existing labor force. One body of research asserts that although workers with and without high school diplomas are imperfect substitutes, native and immigrant workers are perfect substitutes. One example of that research finds that, over the period from 1980 to 2000, an increase of 1 percent in the labor supply attributable to immigration was correlated with a 0.5 percent decline in relative wages for

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The Economic Impact of S. 744, the Border Security …

131

workers without a high school education, a 0.2 percent decline in wages for college graduates, and an increase of 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent in the relative wages of high school graduates and workers with some college education.1 Another body of research indicates that workers with and without a high school diploma are perfect substitutes and that native-born and immigrant workers are imperfect substitutes. One example of that research reports that between 1990 and 2006, a 1 percent increase in the labor supply attributable to immigration was correlated with an increase in relative wages of about 0.1 percent for native-born workers without a high school diploma, with virtually no change in relative wages for college graduates, and with a slight increase in relative wages for native-born workers with a high school diploma or some college education.2 That research also shows that the relative wages of past immigrants declined the most in response to increases in immigration because the groups of past and new immigrants are more easily substituted for one another than are other groups of workers.3 Historically, immigration has been greatest among the least and most skilled workers. As a result, a broad range of research suggests that the relative wages of workers with higher and lower skills tend to fall in response to immigration. Based on CBO‘s reading of that research, a 1 percent increase in the labor force attributable to immigration has tended to lower the relative wages for all workers with less than a high school diploma by roughly 0.3 percent, to leave the relative wages for high school graduates roughly unchanged, to raise the relative wages for workers with some college education by roughly 0.1 percent, and to lower the relative wages for workers with at least a college degree by roughly 0.1 percent.4 CBO estimated the effect of S. 744 on relative wages by applying those estimates to the estimated effects of the bill on the labor force. The legislation would particularly increase the supply of workers in the top and the bottom quintiles of the skill distribution: The top quintile would be expected to include highly trained immigrants, such as those who would be eligible for H1B visas, and the bottom quintile would be expected to include largely untrained workers, including those who would seek temporary employment. Immigrants in the middle three quintiles of the skill distribution would make up a relatively small share of those joining the U.S. labor force as a result of S. 744. Based on the findings in the literature, CBO estimates that relative wages would decrease modestly for workers in the top and bottom quintiles of the skill distribution and that they would rise modestly for the middle quintiles.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

132

Benjamin Page and Felix Reichling

End Notes

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1

This analysis addresses the version of the bill that was reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on May 28, 2013, including the amendments made in the star print of June 6, 2013. 2 See Congressional Budget Office, cost estimate for S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (June 18, 2013), www.cbo.gov /publication/ 44225. That estimate includes an analysis of the mandates that the bill would impose on state, local, and tribal governments (as mandates are defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act), but like CBO‘s other cost estimates, it does not assess all of the effects that the bill would have on the budgets of such governments. 3 Those additional appropriations would depend on future actions by lawmakers, and because the total amount of discretionary funding is currently capped through 2021 by the Budget Control Act of 2011, extra funding for the purposes of this legislation might lead to lower funding for other purposes rather than larger deficits. 4 The total estimated cost of S. 744 to the federal budget is represented by the sum of the costs reported in the cost estimate and the effects on deficits arising from the economic impacts not included in the cost estimate that are reported here. Following long-standing conventions of the Congressional budget process, CBO reports those figures separately. 5 For CBO‘s baseline (current-law) economic projections, see Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023 (February 2013), www.cbo.gov/ publication/43907. Those projections extend to 2023. For the purposes of drawing comparisons in this analysis, CBO extended its economic projections beyond 2023 by projecting GDP to grow at the same rate as it did in the economic benchmark in CBO‘s latest long-term projections. See Congressional Budget Office, The 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook (June 2012), www.cbo.gov/publication/43288. Economic estimates in this report are given on a calendar-year basis. 6 Unlike the more commonly cited GDP, GNP primarily excludes foreigners‘ earnings on investments in the U.S. economy but includes U.S. residents‘ earnings overseas; changes in GNP are therefore a better measure of the effects of policies on U.S. residents‘ income than are changes in GDP. 7 Throughout this report, the term ―immigration‖ is used to refer to people who come to the country on either a permanent basis or a temporary basis. In addition, the phrase ―new immigrants‖ refers to net new immigrants under S. 744—that is, the additional people who would immigrate under the legislation less the people who would immigrate under current law but not under the legislation. For further discussion of the terminology of immigration law and the net flows of people under S. 744, see CBO‘s cost estimate for the legislation. 8 Among current immigrants in the United States, men age 16 or older are more likely than are native-born men to be working or looking for work (that is, to be in the labor force), whereas women in the same age group are less likely than native-born women to be in the labor force. Specifically, in 2012, 79 percent of foreign-born men age 16 or older were in the labor force, compared with 69 percent of native-born men, and 55 percent of foreignborn women age 16 or older were in the labor force, compared with 58 percent of nativeborn women. For additional information on the labor force participation of the current immigrant population, see Congressional Budget Office, letter to the Honorable Paul Ryan concerning a description of the immigrant population—2013 update (May 8, 2013), www.cbo.gov/publication/44134.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Economic Impact of S. 744, the Border Security …

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

9

133

For more information on the changes in immigration rules under S. 744, see CBO‘s cost estimate for the legislation. 10 Differences in earnings among immigrants and native-born workers tend to diminish over time as immigrants acquire skills, such as fluency in the English language, that are important to success in the U.S. labor market. CBO did not incorporate such changes in wages over time into its analysis. See George J. Borjas, The Slowdown in the Economic Assimilation of Immigrants: Aging and Cohort Effects Revisited Again, Working Paper 19116 (National Bureau of Economic Research, June 2013), www.nber.org/papers/w19116. 11 According to a study of the effects on the wages of workers who gained legal status as a result of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, ―the postlegalization changes in wage determinants for legalized workers are consistent with labor market mobility, which provides workers with an opportunity to move into jobs that reward existing human capital.‖ See Sherrie A. Kossoudji and Deborah A. Cobb-Clark, ―Coming Out of the Shadows: Learning About Legal Status and Wages From the Legalized Population,‖ Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 20, no. 3 (July 2002), p. 618, http://tinyurl.com/kaqesty. 12 The current analysis discusses two kinds of productivity: Labor productivity, which measures the amount of goods and services that can be produced per hour of labor (and reflects the skill of workers, the amount of capital each worker uses, and total factor productivity) and total factor productivity, which reflects the efficiency with which labor and capital combine to produce goods and services (and can increase because of inventions, new processes, and new organizational structures, for example). CBO estimates that S. 744 would affect both kinds of productivity. 13 The relative wage of workers in a skill group is the ratio of the average wage for that skill group divided by the average wage in the economy as a whole. An increase in the relative wage of a group means the group‘s average wage rose more (or fell less) than the average wage of all workers; a decline in a group‘s relative wage means the opposite. For example, if the overall average wage rises by 1.0 percent but the average wage of less-skilled workers rises by only 0.7 percent, the relative wage of the less-skilled would have fallen by 0.3 percent. 14 . 14 Under both current law and S. 744, the minimum wage would affect fewer workers over time as rising productivity and inflation tend to push up the wages of lower-skilled workers relative to the minimum wage. 15 For research on the effects of immigration on employment and unemployment, see Giovanni Peri, ―The Effect of Immigration on Productivity: Evidence from U.S. States,‖ Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 94, no. 1 (February 2012), pp. 348–358, http://tinyurl.com/pbqfava; Madeline Zavodny, Immigration and American Jobs (American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and Partnership for a New American Economy, 2011), www.renewoureconomy.org/aeireport; George J. Borjas, Jeffrey Grogger, and Gordon H. Hanson, ―Immigration and the Economic Status of African-American Men,‖ Economica, vol. 77, no. 306 (April 2010), pp. 255–282, http://tinyurl.com/q2t7sem; David Card, ―Is the New Immigration Really So Bad?‖ Economic Journal, vol. 115, no. 507 (November 2005), pp. F300–F323, http://tinyurl.com/pcva26a; and David Card ―Immigrant Inflows, Native Outflows, and the Local Labor Market Impacts of Higher Immigration,‖ Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 19, no. 1 (January 2001), pp. 22–64, http://tinyurl.com/o3y5zwd. 16 When projecting the bill‘s effect on immigration, CBO considered the strength of the economy, particularly in light of the recent slowdown in immigration that is attributable to the weakness in the economy.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

134

Benjamin Page and Felix Reichling

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

17

Private saving is saving by households and businesses; public saving is the net amount of surpluses or deficits of state and local governments and the federal government. 18 See Jennifer Hunt and Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle, ―How Much Does Immigration Boost Innovation?‖ American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 2, no. 2 (April 2010), pp. 31–56, http://tinyurl.com/lclzghn; Stuart Anderson and Michaela Platzer, American Made: The Impact of Immigrant Entrepreneurs and Professionals on U.S. Competitiveness (National Venture Capital Association, 2006), http://tinyurl.com/k7h7d8o; and Paula E. Stephan and Sharon G. Levin, ―Exceptional Contributions to U.S. Science by the ForeignBorn and Foreign-Educated,‖ Population Research and Policy Review, vol. 20, no. 1–2 (April 2001): pp. 59–79, http://tinyurl.com/luz5k2w. Related additional research includes that by Jennifer Hunt, ―Which Immigrants Are Most Innovative and Entrepreneurial? Distinctions by Entry Visa,‖ Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 29, no. 3 (July 2011), pp. 417–457, http://tinyurl.com/m3dpjpl; and George J. Borjas, ―The Labor-Market Impact of High-Skill Immigration,‖ American Economic Review, vol. 95, no. 2 (May 2005): pp. 56– 60, http://tinyurl.com/n2zz6k9. 19 Charles I. Jones, ―Sources of U.S. Economic Growth in a World of Ideas,‖ American Economic Review, vol. 92, no. 1 (March 2002), http://tinyurl.com/k24ne3u. 20 Jennifer Hunt and Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle, ―How Much Does Immigration Boost Innovation?‖ American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 2, no. 2 (April 2010), pp. 31–56, http://tinyurl.com/lclzghn. 21 Giovanni Peri, ―The Effect of Immigration on Productivity: Evidence from U.S. States,‖ Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 94, no. 1 (February 23012), pp. 348–358 http://tinyurl.com/pbqfava. 22 George J. Borjas and Kirk B. Doran, ―The Collapse of the Soviet Union and the Productivity of American Mathematicians,‖ Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 127, no. 3 (August 2012), pp. 1143–1203, http://tinyurl.com/kybqfsr; Fabian Waldinger, ―Peer Effects in Science: Evidence From the Dismissal of Scientists in Nazi Germany,‖ Review of Economic Studies, vol. 79, no. 2 (April 2012), pp. 838–861, http://tinyurl.com/mjjaqgg; and William R. Kerr and William F. Lincoln, ―The Supply Side of Innovation: H-1B Visa Reforms and U.S. Ethnic Invention,‖ Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 28, no. 3 (July 2010), pp. 473– 508, http://tinyurl.com/kl4bt65. 23 . For a more detailed discussion of CBO‘s approach to modeling the long-term economic effects of changes in federal policies, see Congressional Budget Office, The Economic Impact of the President’s 2013 Budget (April 2012), Appendix, www.cbo.gov/ publication/42972; and How the Supply of Labor Responds to Fiscal Policy (October 2012), www.cbo.gov/publication/43674. For labor supply, the earnings-weighted substitution elasticity ranges from 0.16 to 0.32, and the income elasticity ranges from -0.10 to zero. Each additional dollar of deficit leads to a decline in domestic investment that ranges from $0.15 to $0.50. The range of macroeconomic effects was calculated as the minimum and maximum of four estimates—corresponding to low and high labor supply elasticities and to low and high effects of deficits on investment, respectively. 24 . Cost estimates for legislation show the changes in the costs of programs and revenues that would result from enacting the legislation but not the interest costs or savings for any changes in borrowing by the government. To be consistent with that approach, the estimated effects on federal interest payments in this analysis reflect only the impact of changes in interest rates and exclude the effects of changes in the amount of debt that would be attributable to the enactment of S. 744.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Economic Impact of S. 744, the Border Security … 25

135

. The estimated budgetary impact of changes in relative wages would increase deficits by less than $5 billion over the 2014–2023 period and by roughly $10 billion over the 2024–2033 period.

End Notes for Appendix 1

2

3

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

4

George J. Borjas, ―The Labor Demand Curve Is Downward Sloping: Reexamining the Impact of Immigration on the Labor Market,‖ Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 118, no. 4 (November 2003), pp. 1335–1374, http://tinyurl.com/mqgxox8. For a discussion of relative wage effects of similar magnitude for the 1900–2000 period for immigrants from Mexico, see George J. Borjas and Lawrence F. Katz, ―The Evolution of the Mexican-Born Workforce in the United States,‖ in George J. Borjas, ed., Mexican Immigration to the United States (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2007), pp. 13–56, http://papers. nber.org/books/borj06-1. Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano and Giovanni Peri, ―Rethinking the Effect of Immigration on Wages,‖ Journal of the European Economic Association, vol. 10, no. 1 (January 2012), pp. 152–197, http://tinyurl.com/nvthkw8. For another example of research that shows a larger effect on the relative wages of prior immigrants, see Heidi Shierholz, Immigration and Wages: Methodological Advancements Confirm Modest Gains for Native Workers, Briefing Paper 255 (Economic Policy Institute, February 2010), www.epi.org/publication/bp255/. In addition to the publications already mentioned, see Christian Dustmann, Tommaso Frattini, and Ian P. Preston, ―The Effect of Immigration Along the Distribution of Wages,‖ Review of Economic Studies, vol. 80, no. 1 (January 2013), pp. 145–173, http://tinyurl.com/ lv8ms2g; George Borjas and others, ―Comment: On Estimating Elasticities of Substitution,‖ Journal of the European Economic Association, vol. 10, no. 1 (January 2012), pp. 198–210, http://tinyurl.com/ oc53sl3; and Giovanni Peri and Chad Sparber, ―Task Specialization, Immigration, and Wages,‖ American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, vol. 1, no. 3 (July 2009), pp. 135–169, http://tinyurl.com/lre8c95.

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

INDEX # 21st century, 76, 106

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

A abuse, 24, 60 accelerator, 70 access, 6, 9, 14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 32, 43, 56, 58, 95, 102, 103, 104 accommodation, 54, 103 accountability, 90 accounting, 82, 86 accreditation, 55, 56 adjustment, 3, 4, 12, 14, 25, 27, 28, 31, 35, 44, 60, 66, 93, 124, 127 adults, 70, 81, 119 advancements, 80 adverse effects, 19 African Americans, 93 African Growth and Opportunity Act, 70 African-American, 133 age, 15, 26, 29, 36, 40, 52, 68, 78, 80, 81, 89, 117, 119, 132 agencies, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 24, 40, 51, 55, 62, 65 aggregate demand, 122 aging population, 77, 97, 98 agricultural exports, 102

agriculture, 49, 76, 78, 80, 96, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 111 airports, 11, 12 Al Qaeda, 64 Algeria, 109 alien smuggling, 9 America Online, 85 appointments, 53 appropriations, 5, 7, 10, 61, 132 Appropriations Act, 58, 69 asparagus, 102 asylum, 14, 25, 57 athletes, 48 Attorney General, 10, 14, 18, 19 audit(s), 23, 44, 45 authentication, 20 authority(ies), 6, 8, 14, 16, 18, 19, 39, 44, 56, 64, 65

B Baby Boomer generation, 79, 97, 100 bail, 16 balanced budget, 124 bargaining, 42, 120 barriers, 8, 40 base, 55 benchmarks, 4

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

138

Index

benefits, 8, 27, 29, 32, 44, 45, 50, 54, 67, 76, 78, 89, 94, 95, 96, 97, 100, 102, 104, 106, 107, 130 BIA, 13, 64 bipartisan commitment, 104 bonds, 124 bonuses, 44 border crossing, 7, 8 Border Patrol, 7 border security, vii, viii, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 60, 61, 62, 76, 77, 90, 95, 107 brain, 87 brain drain, 87 Brazil, 53, 103 budget deficit, 5, 77, 98, 100, 115, 123, 130 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 103 Business Roundtable, 105 businesses, 22, 42, 47, 75, 76, 79, 82, 85, 86, 93, 94, 95, 104, 105, 106, 122, 134

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

C Cabinet, 40 capital flows, 115 capital productivity, 80 caregivers, 17, 18, 34 Caribbean, 46 cash, 54 category a, 35 category d, 39 CBP, 8, 9, 11, 55, 58, 62, 79, 110 Census, 85, 93 certificate, 29 certification, 8, 38, 43, 48, 49, 56, 70 Chad, 105, 109, 135 challenges, 22, 104 Chamber of Commerce, 104 child abuse, 15 child protection, 17 children, 4, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 28, 33, 36, 39, 47, 49, 51, 54, 58, 59, 67, 82, 88, 89, 96 China, 53, 83, 89, 103 CIR bill, vii, viii, 1, 2 cities, 92, 101

citizens, 11, 15, 33, 36, 46, 53, 67, 85 citizenship, 18, 22, 40, 41, 64, 76, 85, 93, 94, 96, 102, 105 civil liberties, 23 civil rights, 23 classes, 41, 43 classification, 48 closure, 102 coercion, 71 collective bargaining, 48, 51 colleges, 83 commerce, 70 commercial, 9, 39, 82, 88 common carriers, 55 common sense, 75, 106 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 72 communication, 8 community(ies), 10, 39, 46, 59, 70, 79, 96, 101, 104, 105, 106 compensation, 50, 55, 98, 114 competition, 102 competitiveness, 40, 83, 84 complement, 78, 82, 89, 90, 91, 94 compliance, 16, 19, 22, 44, 45, 50 composition, 126 computation, 48 computer, 84, 117 confinement, 17 conflict, 64 Congress, v, vii, viii, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 22, 35, 43, 44, 48, 50, 52, 56, 60, 62, 63, 65, 71, 76, 106, 108 Congressional Budget Office, viii, 76, 81, 107, 108, 109, 110, 113, 127, 128, 132, 134 construction, 8, 106 consumer goods, 104 Consumer Price Index, 39 controversial, 24, 50 convention, 114 conviction, 15, 25 coordination, 27 correlation, 125

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Index cost, viii, 10, 32, 50, 78, 113, 114, 115, 120, 121, 124, 129, 130, 132, 133 counsel, 13, 14, 57, 58 country of origin, 10, 34, 35, 56, 89 covering, 28, 39 CPI, 39, 40 crimes, 6, 9, 15, 24, 62 criminal investigations, 24 critical infrastructure, 65 crop, 102 cultivation, 10 customers, 85 Customs and Border Protection, 8, 103

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

D damages, 52 data analysis, 92 data collection, 12 database, 20, 21 deficit, 97, 98, 106, 124, 126, 130, 134 denial, 55, 57, 70 Department of Agriculture, 49, 65, 110 Department of Defense, 8 Department of Homeland Security, 3, 60, 62 Department of Justice, 10 Department of Labor, 37, 43, 49, 94 Department of the Interior, 9 derivatives, 37, 39 detainees, 14, 16, 18 detection, 51 detention, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 59, 64 disability, 14, 40, 52 disadvantaged youth, 87 disaster, 55 disaster relief, 55 disclosure, 24 discrimination, 19, 22, 23 distribution, 114, 119, 121, 130, 131 district judges, 62 diversity, 33, 34 DOJ, 10, 12, 14, 22, 23, 24, 58, 59 DOL, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 58, 71 domestic investment, 123, 126, 128, 134

139

Domestic Policy Council, v, 40, 75 domestic violence, 15 drawing, 101, 125, 132 drug flow, 7 drug smuggling, 10 dynamism, 85

E earnings, 93, 118, 122, 123, 129, 132, 133, 134 economic activity, 103 economic change, 129 economic development, 88 economic downturn, 99, 110 economic growth, 40, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 89, 95, 96, 100, 101, 104, 105, 106 economic relations, 115, 126 Economic Research Service, 110 education, 34, 37, 42, 46, 87, 89, 93, 96, 120, 121, 131 educational institutions, 27 educational materials, 40 educators, 107 eligibility criteria, 28 embassy, 51 emergency, 9 employees, 19, 20, 22, 37, 38, 42, 44, 45, 48, 51, 55, 65, 66, 68, 71, 83, 87 employers, 4, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 65, 66, 69, 71, 76, 87, 90, 93, 94, 95, 107, 120 employment opportunities, 87 enforcement, vii, viii, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 52, 60, 61, 77, 113 engineering, 37, 41, 69, 83, 84, 86, 87, 125 entrepreneurs, 39, 45, 47, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 87, 89, 105, 108 entrepreneurship, 34, 47, 85, 96, 97 environment, 7 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 23 equilibrium, 122 equipment, 6, 8, 55, 123

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

140

Index

evidence, 15, 44, 100, 125 exclusion, 26, 63 executive branch, 40 exercise, 65 expertise, 59 exploitation, 24, 52, 94 exports, 80, 103

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

F faith, 22, 43, 61 families, 11, 32, 67, 82, 89 family members, 37, 89, 90, 119 family relationships, 33, 59 farmers, 102, 107 farms, 102 fear, 57, 102 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 58 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 62 federal government, viii, 10, 40, 113, 118, 124, 127, 130, 134 federal law, 12, 32 Federal Register, 60 Federal Reserve, 111 FEMA, 62 fencing, 5, 6, 8 financial, 16, 29, 39, 70, 77, 97, 99, 100, 110 financial support, 97, 100 fingerprints, 11 fishing, 55 flexibility, 45, 47, 57 flight, 55 fluctuations, 122 food, 103, 130 force, 4, 10, 16, 61, 71, 78, 81, 92, 116, 117, 118, 119, 126, 131, 132 foreign investment, 89 foreign nationals, 34, 45, 54, 61 foreign-born population, 119 formation, 40, 101 formula, 34, 51 fraud, 10, 15, 20, 44, 51, 56 free trade, 46

freedom, 56 fruits, 96 funding, vii, viii, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 43, 58, 61, 62, 87, 132 funds, 5, 14, 61, 123

G gangs, 14 GAO, 12, 22, 34, 56, 62, 65 GDP, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 84, 98, 103, 104, 114, 115, 118, 120, 125, 126, 127, 130, 132 GDP per capita, 84 general education, 29 Georgia, 102, 110 global economy, 84, 105, 106 global leaders, 84 GNP, 115, 126, 128, 132 goods and services, 101, 117, 121, 122, 124, 133 governments, 124, 132 governor, 7 graduate students, 84 grant programs, 40 grants, 8, 10, 40, 43, 82, 88 gross domestic product, 104, 114, 127, 128 gross national product, 115, 128 growth, 13, 68, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 85, 86, 87, 92, 98, 103, 104, 106, 107, 120, 123, 124, 125, 127 guidelines, 9, 10, 24

H Hawaii, 55 health, 33, 54, 100 Health and Human Services, 14 health care, 100 health insurance, 33, 54 HHS, 18, 58, 59 high school, 29, 34, 46, 87, 121, 130, 131 high school diploma, 29, 34, 130, 131 higher education, 29, 37, 95, 105

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Index hiring, 19, 22, 43, 44, 76, 90, 94, 95 history, 32, 40, 75, 89 home value, 101 homes, 79 Hong Kong, 54, 72 hospitality, 76, 78, 79, 100, 103, 104, 106, 111 host, 90 House, vii, viii, 1, 2, 6, 7, 60, 62, 65, 76, 93, 107, 109 House Homeland Security Committee, vii, viii, 1, 2, 6, 7 House of Representatives, 76, 107 housing, 50, 71, 76, 78, 79, 100, 101 hub, 86 human, 15, 52, 58, 133 human capital, 133 human right(s), 15

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

I identification, 20, 65 identity, 19, 20, 21, 27, 30, 65 images, 20 imbalances, 117 Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE), 11, 16, 20, 21, 55, 64, 109 Immigration and Nationality Act, 16 immigration policies, viii, 114 improvements, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 118, 124, 125 inadmissible, 15, 25, 63, 66 income, 27, 66, 67, 87, 90, 91, 114, 116, 123, 125, 128, 129, 130, 132, 134 income tax, 66, 67, 130 India, 58, 83, 89, 103 indirect effect, 101 individual rights, 10 individuals, 15, 22, 23, 24, 41, 45, 52, 53, 56, 66, 96, 101, 105 industry(ies), 22, 71, 76, 78, 87, 90, 94, 96, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 111 inflation, 115, 127, 133 information sharing, 44

141

information technology, 44 infrastructure, 5, 6, 8 INS, 8 inspections, 16 institutions, 40, 56, 87, 105 integration, 33, 40 integrity, 20 interest rates, 114, 116, 118, 124, 126, 127, 129, 130, 135 interoperability, 55 inventions, 77, 80, 81, 118, 133 inventors, 83, 87 investment(s), 5, 7, 38, 39, 40, 46, 47, 61, 68, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 87, 88, 90, 95, 96, 98, 108, 116, 117, 118, 120, 123, 124, 127, 128, 132, 134 investors, 38, 39, 45, 46, 70, 83, 85, 108, 117, 118, 124 Ireland, 46 Israel, 91 issues, vii, viii, 2, 7, 11, 18, 40, 67, 72

J Jews, 91 job creation, 38, 40, 76, 85 judicial interpretation, 64 judiciary, 109 Judiciary Committee, vii, viii, 1, 2, 6, 60, 61, 63, 66, 85, 93 jurisdiction, 23, 24

K kindergarten, 87

L labor force, 48, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 87, 92, 93, 100, 104, 106, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 130, 131, 132 labor force participation, 48, 78, 80, 81, 100, 119, 123, 132

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

142

Index

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

labor market(s), 44, 91, 92, 93, 117, 118, 133 languages, 56 law enforcement, 8, 10, 14, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 58, 62 laws, viii, 9, 18, 20, 22, 50, 52, 57, 61, 65, 113, 127, 128 lead, 77, 80, 81, 82, 84, 93, 98, 118, 121, 123, 124, 125, 130, 132 leadership, 55, 84 learning, 96 legislation, vii, viii, 1, 2, 11, 28, 66, 76, 104, 105, 106, 107, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 122, 123, 124, 126, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134 leisure, 103 light, 75, 134 litigation, 4 livestock, 71 loans, 29 local government, 40, 124, 134 Louisiana, 109

M magnitude, 135 majority, 42, 96 malfeasance, 56 management, 54 marijuana, 9 Maryland, 85 mathematics, 41, 69, 125 media, 110 median, 78, 90, 91, 92, 93 Medicaid, 32 medical, 46, 47, 130 Medicare, 97, 100, 107, 110 membership, 57 metropolitan areas, 51, 101 Mexico, 11, 89, 101, 135 Miami, 91, 92, 109 middle class, 75, 95, 103 migrants, 32, 52 migration, 3, 9, 52 military, 32, 64, 96

minimum wage, 122, 133 minors, 9, 59 missions, 53 misuse, 56 momentum, 107 monetary policy, 111 multinational companies, 45, 55 multinational firms, 44

N NAFTA, 45 national debt, 105 National Economic Council, v, 75 national origin, 22, 52 national parks, 103 national security, 15, 26, 28, 29, 30, 37, 38, 39, 53, 57, 103, 106 National Survey, 84 nationality, 57, 58 natural disaster(s), 50 natural rate of unemployment, 123 Nazi Germany, 134 negative effects, 92 Nepal, 58 Nobel Prize, 125 noncitizens, viii, 11, 113 North America, 45 North American Free Trade Agreement, 45 nurses, 43

O Obama, 75 Office of Management and Budget, v, 75 officials, 8 on-the-job training, 87 operations, 5, 8, 55, 102 opportunities, 13, 21, 87, 92, 93 OSC, 23 outsourcing, 44, 45 oversight, 6, 10, 13, 16 ownership, 39, 54, 68

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Index

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

P parents, 15, 17, 18, 33, 67, 96 parole, 16, 64, 66 participants, 41 patents, 84, 86, 125 pathways, 24, 104 payroll, 97, 98, 99, 100, 110 penalties, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 30, 45, 50, 52, 56, 61, 62, 66, 95 pension plans, 44 per capita GNP, 115, 116, 126 permission, 30, 66 permit, 4, 39, 44, 55, 60, 64, 99 Philippines, 89 photographs, 11, 20 physicians, 37, 38, 46, 47 pipeline, 87 playing, 75, 96 policy, vii, viii, 2, 3, 11, 40, 48, 50, 89, 102, 105, 106, 110, 124 policy responses, 40 politics, 106 population, 24, 81, 82, 86, 98, 100, 101, 104, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 122, 123, 125, 126, 132 population growth, 104 portability, 43, 44, 45, 69, 78 positive correlation, 89 poverty, 39, 106 predictability, 102 preferential treatment, 58 preparation, 10, 34 present value, 99 President, v, viii, 7, 15, 57, 62, 75, 76, 81, 84, 102, 105, 106, 108, 110, 134 principles, 76 prisons, 10 private sector, 118, 124 producers, 102 professionals, 38, 45, 59 project, 8, 81, 88, 119 promote innovation, 83 prosperity, 105 protection, 15, 94

143

public interest, 15, 59 purchasing power, 101

Q qualifications, 48, 66

R race, 52, 57 radio, 8 rate of return, 114, 116, 118, 123, 124, 126, 129 rationality, 102 reading, 131 real wage, 78, 80, 81, 90, 91, 93 reality, 76 recession, 79, 101 recidivism, 7, 62 recidivism rate, 7 recommendations, 5, 7, 11, 40, 50, 56 recovery, 79, 101, 104, 106 recreation, 103 recruiting, 78, 94 reform(s), vii, viii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, 19, 24, 26, 28, 29, 35, 41, 48, 57, 60, 62, 63, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 132, 133 refugees, 32, 33, 56, 57, 89 regulations, 13, 16, 20, 25, 27, 30, 31, 39, 49, 60, 65, 70, 71 reimburse, 10, 12 relatives, 15, 33, 36, 59 relief, 9, 13, 15 religion, 52, 57, 68 remittances, 122 repair, 5 requirements, 8, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 65, 71, 72, 108, 124 research facilities, 42

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

144

Index

researchers, 37, 100, 125 resource allocation, 53 resources, 8, 9, 12, 13, 27, 53, 95, 104, 110, 122, 123 response, 84, 120, 126, 131 restaurants, 107 restrictions, 29, 30, 43, 49, 83 retaliation, 24 retirement, 79, 100 revenue, 39, 47, 77, 82, 85, 87, 88, 95, 106, 124 rights, 14, 17, 23, 44, 94, 96 risk, 9, 18, 53, 56, 96, 102 risk assessment, 56 rules, 10, 12, 32, 33, 43, 66, 75, 95, 96, 114, 133 rural areas, 8, 101

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

S safety, 16 sanctions, 22, 39, 64 Saudi Arabia, 64 savings, 87, 134 savings account, 87 scarcity, 117 school, 18, 55, 56, 72, 95, 96, 121, 131 schooling, 92 science, 37, 41, 69, 83, 84, 87, 125 scope, 10, 14, 15 second generation, 56 secondary schools, 29, 55 Secretary of Agriculture, 30, 31, 49 Secretary of Commerce, 39, 47, 68 security, vii, 6, 8, 16, 26, 53, 58, 93, 103, 105 security threats, 16 Senate, vii, viii, 1, 2, 6, 7, 60, 61, 63, 66, 71, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 132 Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 63, 132 sentencing, 10, 24 service industries, 104

services, 13, 14, 17, 29, 46, 55, 67, 118, 122, 124, 133 sex, 52 sexual abuse, 15 shadow economy, 75, 76 sheep, 71 short supply, 38 shortage, 34, 50, 51, 102 shortfall, 79, 97, 99 siblings, 36, 89 Silicon Valley, 86, 87 simulation, 102, 110 skilled workers, 38, 41, 42, 45, 55, 87, 90, 91, 117, 122, 123, 125, 131, 133 small businesses, 22, 24, 82, 85, 89 smuggling, 9 social group, 57 Social Security, 19, 20, 21, 23, 27, 67, 77, 79, 97, 99, 100, 107, 110 Social Security Administration, 20, 77, 99, 107, 110 society, 108 South Korea, 46 Soviet Union, 89, 134 specialization, 84, 125 spending, viii, 5, 97, 98, 113, 115, 124 spillover effects, 82, 84, 125 Spring, 110 SSA, 20, 77, 99, 107 SSI, 32 stakeholders, 11 standard of living, 104 state(s), 7, 8, 10, 17, 20, 22, 23, 25, 29, 32, 40, 46, 50, 51, 53, 61, 62, 65, 84, 93, 100, 101, 102, 104, 107, 124, 132, 134 statistics, 108 statutes, 16 statutory authority, 13 stereotypes, 105 stock, 117, 118, 119, 120, 123, 124, 127 structure, 43 sub-Saharan Africa, 46 substitutes, 92, 93, 130, 131 substitution, 20, 134 Sun, 71

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Index supervision, 16, 48 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), 32 Supreme Court, 4 surveillance, 6, 8 sustainability, 98

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

T talent, 82, 83, 85, 105 Task Force, 40, 111 tax system, 106 taxes, 71, 79, 96, 97, 98, 99, 104 technological advancement, 81, 90, 91, 118, 124 technological change, 92 technological progress, 126 technology(ies), 5, 6, 8, 14, 37, 41, 69, 76, 78, 79, 83, 86, 87, 125 telephone, 17 terrorism, 53 terrorists, 16 theft, 20 threats, 7 threshold level, 85 Tibetans, 58 time frame, 26 Title I, 7, 9, 10, 13, 19, 29, 39, 43, 44, 60 Title II, 9, 10, 13, 19, 60 Title IV, 29, 39, 43, 44 torture, 15 total factor productivity, 90, 91, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 125, 133 tourism, 41, 53, 76, 78, 79, 100, 103, 104, 107, 111 trade, 70 trade agreement, 70 trafficking, 14, 52, 58, 71, 72, 94 training, 10, 13, 18, 38, 40, 43, 46, 47, 48, 55, 58, 87 training programs, 13 transfer payments, 130 transmission, 55 transport, 9 transportation, 48, 50

145

trauma, 59 Treasury, 5 treaties, 70 treatment, 11, 66 trial, 64 triggers, vii, viii, 2, 3, 4, 61 Trust Fund, 4, 5, 7, 10, 14, 24, 26, 28, 31, 43, 47, 48, 53, 56, 61, 62, 70, 71, 77, 79, 97, 99, 100, 110

U U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 48 U.S. Department of Agriculture, 9, 49 U.S. Department of Commerce, 103, 111 U.S. economy, 38, 76, 78, 82, 94, 98, 100, 103, 105, 124, 125, 132 U.S. immigration law, 33 U.S. labor market, 133 unauthorized aliens, vii, viii, 1, 2, 3, 9, 22, 24, 25, 29, 60, 62, 67 unauthorized residents, viii, 113, 129 unemployment rate, 34, 51, 88, 92, 93, 116, 117, 121, 122, 123 universities, 42, 83 USDA, 50, 102

V variables, 114, 126 vegetables, 96 venture capital, 70 victims, 11, 14, 24, 57, 58, 72 violence, 11 visa system, 37, 89 Visa Waiver Program, 54, 72, 79, 103 vote, 2, 76, 107 voting, 25

W wage level, 48 wage rate, 51, 92, 126, 127, 128 wage structure, 43

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

146

workforce, 43, 51, 70, 75, 77, 78, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 100, 103, 104, 120, 123 working conditions, 42, 47, 77, 94 workplace, 23, 24, 94 worldwide, 29, 32, 33, 36, 38, 53, 67, 88, 108

Y young people, 87, 96

Copyright © 2013. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

wait-time, 103 waiver, 6, 8, 15, 37, 46, 72 war, 15, 18 war crimes, 15 War on Terror, 69 Washington, 102, 109 weakness, 134 wealth, 101 welfare, 17, 18, 58 Wisconsin, 104 withdrawal, 56 worker rights, 23

Index

Immigration Reform : Proposals and Projections, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,