Archive for the ‘Immigration Reform’ Category

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 – Ballotpedia

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was passed by Congress in 1986 and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan (R) on November 6, 1986. The law made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire individuals unauthorized to work in the United States and established a system for verifying the legal status of employees. The Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Border Patrol were provided increased funding for the purpose of enforcing immigration law. IRCA also created new, separate visa categories for temporary agricultural work (H-2A) and temporary nonagricultural work (H-2B).

IRCA granted legal status to individuals residing in the United States without legal permission who met certain conditions; this provision of the law applied only to individuals who had entered the country before January 1, 1982. Ultimately, 2.7 million individuals were granted legal status under the law.[1]

In 1978, Congress passed a bill establishing the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy (also known as the Hesburgh Commission) to study federal immigration policy and make recommendations for changes to the system. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the commission's recommendations led to the introduction of the Immigration Reform and Control Act:[2]

Soon after, President Reagan announced that he would back an immigration compromise modeled on the Hesburgh Commission recommendations. In March 1982, Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) and Representative Romano Mazzoli (D-KY), who had both been Commission members, introduced the first versions of IRCA (also known as the "Simpson-Mazzoli Act") in Congress.[3]

The bill failed to pass in both the 97th Congress and the 98th Congress.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was introduced as S 1200 in the United States Senate by Senator Alan Simpson (R-Wy.) on May 23, 1985. Its stated purpose was to "revise and reform the immigration laws, and for other purposes." The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 69-30 on September 19, 1985. The House passed an amended version of the bill via a voice vote on October 9, 1986. The Senate disagreed to the House amendments by a voice vote. S 1200 was then moved to conference committee; the House agreed to the conference report 238-173 on October 15, 1986, and the Senate agreed 63-24 two days later. President Ronald Reagan (R) signed the legislation into law on November 6, 1986.[4]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act made it unlawful for any employer to knowingly hire or recruit any individual unauthorized to work in the United States. It also made it illegal for an individual to use fraudulent entry or work documents. Employers were required to verify whether new hires were authorized to work in the country and made it illegal to continue to employ a person once aware of his or her unauthorized work status. Under the law, employers could use the act of having made an attempt to verify an individual's work status as an affirmative defense against allegations of violations of this provision.[4]

The verification system established by the law was as follows:[4]

The law permitted individuals and entities to submit complaints of potential hiring violations and authorized the Immigration and Naturalization Service to investigate such complaints. For noncompliant employers, the law established a system of increasing civil penalties for repeat violations:[4]

For patterns of violations, the law established criminal penalties of a fine of up to $3,000 for each unauthorized person employed and/or up to six months in prison.[4]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act granted temporary legal status to individuals residing in the United States without legal permission who had entered the country before January 1, 1982, had resided continuously in the country since that time, and were otherwise admissible under the law. Individuals who had entered the country legally but whose legal status had since expired were also eligible. Eligible individuals had to apply for such status within 18 months of the effective date of the act.[4]

Individuals who had been convicted of a felony or at least three misdemeanors or had taken part in political, religious, or racial persecution were ineligible to apply for the temporary legal status.[4]

Following the receipt of temporary legal status, such individuals could apply for permanent residency and a Green Card if they had continued to reside in the United States since the grant of legal status, had not been convicted of a felony or at least three misdemeanors, had a minimum understanding of the English language and U.S. civics, and were otherwise admissible. The law also waived most grounds for exclusion, excepting criminal, security, or drug-related grounds, for the purpose of maintaining family unity when possible.[4]

The Washington Post reported that about 2.7 million individuals were ultimately granted legal status under IRCA.[1]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act created new, separate visa categories for temporary agricultural work (H-2A) and temporary nonagricultural work (H-2B). Employers who submitted petitions for H-2A visa applicants were required to attest that there were not enough U.S. citizen workers available for the job and that the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. citizens would not be adversely affected. Under the law, such petitions would be denied if the job was open due to a strike, the employer violated temporary worker admissions terms, the employer had not provided workers' compensation to such workers, or if the employer had not made attempts to hire local workers.[4]

The law also established a program for adjusting the legal status of certain temporary agricultural workers. Individuals would be eligible for permanent residency if they had performed at least three months of seasonal work during the year preceding May 1, 1986, and were otherwise admissible. Eligible individuals were required to apply within 18 months of the effective date of the act.[4]

IRCA established a pilot version of the Visa Waiver Program. The pilot program allowed residents from up to eight countries to enter the United States without a visa.[4]

IRCA also increased funding for both INS and the U.S. Border Patrol for the purpose of enforcing immigration law.[4]

See the article here:
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 - Ballotpedia

Immigration in the United States: New Economic, Social, Political …

Immigration has shaped the United States as a nation since the first newcomers arrived over 400 years ago. Beyond being a powerful demographic force responsible for how the country and its population became what they are today, immigration has contributed deeply to many of the economic, social, and political processes that are foundational to the United States as a nation.

Although immigration has occurred throughout American history, large-scale immigration has occurred during just four peak periods: the peopling of the original colonies, westward expansion during the middle of the 19th century, and the rise of cities at the turn of the 20th century. The fourth peak period began in the 1970s and continues today.

These peak immigration periods have coincided with fundamental transformations of the American economy. The first saw the dawn of European settlement in the Americas. The second allowed the young United States to transition from a colonial to an agricultural economy. The industrial revolution gave rise to a manufacturing economy during the third peak period, propelling America's rise to become the leading power in the world. Today's large-scale immigration has coincided with globalization and the last stages of transformation from a manufacturing to a 21st century knowledge-based economy. As before, immigration has been prompted by economic transformation, just as it is helping the United States adapt to new economic realities.

For a nation of immigrants and immigration, the United States adjusts its immigration policies only rarely, largely because the politics surrounding immigration can be deeply divisive. As a result, immigration policy has often been increasingly disconnected from the economic and social forces that drive immigration. When changes have been made, they have generally taken years to legislate.

Today, the United States may be on the threshold of major new reforms that would address longstanding problems of illegal immigration, as well as those in the legal immigration system, which has not been updated since 1990. The impetus for comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) has returned to the congressional stage, with bipartisan groups in the House and Senate engaged in significant negotiations to craft legislation that would increase enforcement at the nation's borders and interiors, legalize the nations estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants, and provide legal avenues for employers in the United States to access future workers they need. CIR, in one form or another, has been under consideration since at least 2001, with major debates in the Senate in 2006 and 2007. After the failure of CIR legislation in the Senate in 2007, the effort to reform the nation's immigration laws was sidelined. The results and voting patterns of the 2012 presidential election gave both political parties new reasons to revisit an immigration reform agenda.

This country profile examines key legislative events that form the history of the U.S. immigration system, the size and attributes of the immigrant population in the country, the characteristics of legal and illegal immigration streams, U.S. policies for refugees and asylum seekers, immigrant integration efforts, postrecession immigration trends, immigration enforcement, immigration policies during President Obama's administration, and prospects for reform legislation.

Early History

In the decades prior to 1880, immigration to the United States was primarily European, driven by forces such as industrialization in Western Europe and the Irish potato famine. The expanding frontiers of the American West and the United States' industrial revolution drew immigrants to U.S. shores. Chinese immigrants began to arrive in large numbers for the first time in the 1850s after gold was discovered in California in 1848.

Federal oversight of immigration began in 1882, when Congress passed the Immigration Act. It established the collection of a fee from each noncitizen arriving at a U.S. port to be used by the Treasury Department to regulate immigration. Arriving immigrants were screened for the first time under this act, and entry by anyone deemed a "convict, lunatic, idiot, or person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge" was prohibited.

As the mining boom in the West began to subside, animosity toward the large populations of Chinese laborers and other foreigners surged, and so began a series of legislative measures to restrict immigration of certain racial groups, beginning with nationals of China. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first such law. It halted immigration of Chinese laborers for ten years, barred Chinese naturalization, and provided for the deportation of Chinese in the country illegally. In a follow-on bill, Congress passed the 1888 Scott Act and banned the return of Chinese nationals with lawful status in the United States if they departed the country. In 1892, the Geary Act extended the ten-year bar on Chinese labor immigration, and established restrictive policies toward Chinese immigrants with and without legal status.

Between 1880 and 1930, over 27 million new immigrants arrived, mainly from Italy, Germany, Eastern Europe, Russia, Britain, Canada, Ireland, and Sweden. This peak immigration periodthe last large-scale immigration wave prior to the current periodalso led to new restrictions.

In an expansion of racial exclusion, and by overriding a presidential veto, Congress passed the 1917 Immigration Act which prohibited immigration from a newly drawn "Asiatic barred zone" covering British India, most of Southeast Asia, and nearly all of the Middle East. It also expanded inadmissibility grounds to include anarchists, persons previously deported within the past year, and illiterate individuals over the age of 16.

Nativist and restrictionist sentiment continued through the 1920s, prompting the United States to introduce numerical limitations on immigration for the first time. The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1924 established the national-origins quota system, which set a ceiling on the number of immigrants that could be admitted to the United States from each country. It strongly favored northern and western European immigration. The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act continued the national-origins quota system but for the first time allocated an immigration quota for Asian countries.

The Post-1965 Era

Although the discriminatory nature of the national-origins quota system had become increasingly discredited, it took until the Kennedy era and the ripple effects of the nation's civil-rights movement for a new philosophy guiding immigration to take hold. The resulting Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 repealed the national-origins quota system and replaced it with a seven-category preference system based primarily on family unification. Overall, the legislation set in motion powerful forces that are still shaping the United States today.

The 1965 act increased numerical limits on immigration from 154,000 to 290,000. A ceiling on immigration from the Americas (120,000) was imposed for the first time, and a per-country limit of 20,000 was set for Eastern Europe. The new caps did not include "immediate family members" of U.S. citizens (spouses, minor children, and parents). In 1976, the 20,000 per county limit was applied to the Western Hemisphere.

The year before the 1965 Act, Congress terminated the Bracero program, which it had authorized during World War II to recruit agricultural workers from Mexico to fill farm-labor shortages in the United States. In the wake of these and other sweeping changes in the global economy, immigration flows that had been European-dominated for most of the nation's history gave way to predominantly Latin American and Asian immigration.

Today's large-scale immigration began in the 1970s, and has been made up of both legal and illegal flows. Prior periods of large-scale immigration occurred before visas were subject to numerical ceilings, so the phenomenon of "illegal immigration" is a relatively recent element of immigration policy history and debates.

The largest source country of legal admissions, Mexico, has also accounted for the largest share of illegal immigrants who cross the southwest land border with the United States to seek the comparatively higher wages available from U.S. jobs.

By the mid-1980s, an estimated 3 to 5 million noncitizens were living unlawfully in the country. To address illegal immigration, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), which was intended to act as a "three-legged stool." IRCA included the following:

Ultimately, IRCA failed for several reasons. First, the legalization program excluded a significant slice of the unauthorized population that had arrived after the five-year cutoff date but stayed in the United States and became the core of a new unauthorized population. Second, improvements in border enforcement did not begin in earnest until the 1990s. And the heart of the lawemployer sanctionshad weak enforcement provisions that proved ineffective at checking hiring practices of sizable numbers of unauthorized immigrants.

Four years later, Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1990 to revamp the legal immigration system and admit a greater share of highly-skilled and educated immigrants. It raised legal immigration caps, modified the temporary nonimmigrant visa system, and revised the grounds of inadmissibility and deportation. The law also established Temporary Protected Status (TPS), creating a statutory footing for permission to live and work in the United States to nationals of countries deemed unsafe for return because of armed conflict or natural disaster.

Overall, IRCA and its enforcement mechanisms were no match for the powerful forces that drive illegal migration. Both IRCA and the 1990 Act failed to adequately foresee and incorporate measures to provide and manage continued flows of temporary and permanent immigrants to meet the country's labor market needs, especially during the economic boom years of the 1990s.

As a result, illegal immigration grew dramatically and began to be experienced not only in the six traditional immigration destination states of New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Illinois, and California, but also in many other areas across the southeast, midwest, and mountain states that had not had experience with large-scale immigration for up to a century. Although immigration served as a source of economic productivity and younger workers in areas where the population and workforces were aging, a large share of the immigration was comprised of illegal immigration flows. Thus, the challenge to deeply-held rule-of-law principles and the social change represented by this immigration generated progressively negative public sentiment about immigration that prompted Congress to pass a set of strict new laws in 1996, as follows:

Subsequently, Congress returned to shoring up legal immigration measures in 2000 by enacting the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act to meet demand for skilled immigrantsespecially in science, math, and engineering specialtiesand enable employers to fill technology jobs that are a critical dimension of the post-industrial, information age economy. The act raised the annual number of H-1B visas given to high-skilled workers in specialty occupations to 115,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2000, then to 195,000 for FY 2001, 2002, and 2003. At present, 65,000 H-1B visas per year are available, with an additional 20,000 H-1B visas (due to a law passed in late 2004) for foreign-born individuals with advanced U.S. degrees.

The 1990s saw the longest period of sustained economic and job growth the United States had experienced since at least World War II. Immigrationat both high and low ends of the labor market, both legal and illegalwas an important element in achieving the productivity and prosperity of the decade. Immigration also contributed to the economic transformation required for the United States to compete in a global economy. With more than 14 million newcomers (legal and illegal), the 1990s reached numerical levels that out-numbered the previous all-time high set during the first decade of the 20th century. The trend has continued into the 2000s with more than 16 million newcomers from 2000-10.

The Lasting Impact of 9/11 on Immigration Policy

No recent event has influenced the thinking and actions of the American public and its leaders as much as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In the almost-12 years since 9/11, many aspects of the U.S. immigration enforcement system have become dramatically more robust. The national security threat posed by international terrorism led to the largest reorganization of the federal government since World War II. The overhaul brought about the merger of 22 federal agencies to create the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003.

Because the 9/11 hijackers obtained valid visas to travel to the United States, despite some being known by U.S. intelligence and having been encountered by law enforcement agencies, the immigration system came under particular scrutiny. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which had been part of the Department of Justice since 1941, was dissolved and its functions were transferred to three newly created agencies within DHS, as follows:

An additional new post-9/11 immigration entity has been US-VISIT, which is housed in the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) of DHS. It manages the IDENT biometric fingerprint information system used by all immigration agenciesincluding consulates abroad in visa screeningto confirm the identity of noncitizens entering the country.

9/11 also led to the passage of a series of new national security laws with far-reaching implications for noncitizens seeking to travel to or living in the United States. The most well-known is the USA Patriot Act. With regard to immigration, the act expanded the authority of law enforcement agencies to search, monitor, detain, and remove suspected terrorists, and allowed for the detention of foreign nationals for up to seven days before the government files criminal or immigration charges. It also strengthened border enforcement, especially along the northern border with Canada.

Laws that followed include the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (EBSVERA), which tightened visa screening, border inspections, and tracking of foreign-born persons, including foreign students, particularly through broad use of biometric fingerprint records. It also served as an impetus to create the US-VISIT program, as the bill mandated information-sharing systems that made national security data available to immigration officers responsible for issuing visas, making removal or admissions decisions, and for investigations and identification of noncitizens.

In June 2002, the U.S. Attorney General began the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), a program that placed extra travel screening requirements on nationals from a list of 25 countries associated with an Al Qaeda presence (and North Korea). Additionally, males over the age of 16 who were nationals of designated NSEERS countries and already living in the United States were required to register with the federal government and appear for "special registration" interviews with immigration officials. The program was discontinued in 2011.

In 2005, the REAL ID Act prohibited states from issuing driver's licenses to unauthorized individuals, and expanded terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility, removal, and ineligibility for asylum. One year later, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 authorized the completion of 700 miles of fencing along the southwest border with Mexico.

Heightened security and data-sharing measures adopted after the attacks has enabled the government to meet a post-9/11 goal of "pushing the border out." By screening individuals seeking to enter the United States more times and against more databases than ever before, those who pose a threat to the country can be prevented from ever reaching U.S. soil, often times before they even board a plane. This objective is being bolstered by increased collaboration with foreign governments in law enforcement matters and through international agreements that allow bilateral sharing of information such as Passenger Name Records (PNRs).

One immediate result of tightened screening procedures was a dramatic drop in the number of visas the government issued to individuals wishing to visit, work, and live in the United States. Between 2001 and 2002, the number of nonimmigrant visas fell by 24 percent. Present visa issuances have returned to pre-9/11 levels, but it has taken ten years to rebound.

A Profile of Today's Immigrant Population

The U.S. foreign-born population (legal and illegal) is 40.4 million, or 13 percent of the total U.S. population of 311.6 million, according to 2011 American Community Survey estimates. Although this is a numerical high historically, the foreign born make up a smaller percentage of the population today than in 1890 and 1910 when the immigrant share of the population peaked at 15 percent. The foreign-born share fell to a low of 5 percent (9.6 million) in 1970. About 20 percent of all international migrants reside in the United States, which, as a country, accounts for less than 5 percent of the world's population.

The foreign-born population is comprised of approximately 42 percent naturalized citizens, 31 percent permanent residents (green card holders), and 27 percent unauthorized immigrants. Roughly 11.7 million, or 29 percent of the immigrant population is from Mexico, the largest immigration source country. Chinese and Indian immigrants make up the second and third largest immigrant groups, with 1.9 million or 5 percent of the foreign-born population each. In 2010, India replaced the Philippines as the third largest source country (see Table 1). The top three regions of origin of the foreign-born population are Latin America, Asia, and Europe (see Figure 1).

Table 1. Immigrant Population by Country of Birth Residing in the United States, 1960 to 2011

Figure 1. Foreign Born Population by Region of Origin, 2011

Note: Latin America includes: South America, Mexico, and the Caribbean; Northern America includes Canada, Bermuda, Greenland, and St. Pierre and Miquelon

The foreign-born population is geographically concentrated, with 65 percent residing in the six states that have long been the country's main immigrant destinationsabout 25 percent in California alone (in 2011). The other immigrant-heavy states are New York (11 percent of all foreign born), Texas (10 percent), Florida (9 percent), Illinois (4 percent), and New Jersey (5 percent). The proximity of several of these states to Mexico and longstanding, continuous immigration to traditional metropolitan destinations in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois created strong networks that have grown over time.

While these states continue to draw and represent the bulk of the foreign-born population, newcomersparticularly unauthorized immigrants from Mexicobegan to settle in many additional destinations during the 1990s. Employment opportunitiesparticularly in agriculture, food manufacturing and constructionmainly fueled the new settlement patterns. They combined with lower costs of living and "hollowing out", i.e. depopulation of certain areas of the country due to aging and internal migration. As a result, states like Georgia, Nevada, and many others have become known as the "new growth" or "new destination" immigration states.

Ten states, mostly in the south and west, have experienced over 270 percent immigrant population growth since 1990. They are North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Nevada, South Carolina, Kentucky, Nebraska, Utah, and Alabama. These changes and patterns help to explain why immigration has become an issue of national political concern and debate.

How the Immigration System Works

The guiding principles, and different ways to immigrate to the United States were largely established by the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act and take place through three primary immigration streams. They are family (re)unification for U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs or "green card" holders) with close family members; meeting legitimate labor market needs; and refuge for those in need of humanitarian protection (see next section). The most common ways to immigrate are through the family-based or employment-based channels.

Family-based immigration rests on the principle of family unity. Immediate family members of U.S. citizensdefined as their spouses, minor children, and parentscan join their U.S. families without numerical limitations. U.S. citizens can also (re)unify with their adult married and unmarried children, as well as with their siblings, but the waiting times for such (re)unifications are lengthy, as is the case with family reunification for most LPRs. Family-based immigrants must be sponsored by a qualifying relative under any of six categories of relatives. Family-sponsored immigration has accounted for about two-thirds of all permanent immigration to the United States over the last decade.

Employment-based visas for permanent immigration are dedicated to the nation's economic and labor market needs. Employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas per year, and has accounted for between 12 percent (in 2003) and 22 percent (in 2005) of legal immigration in the last decade. In FY2011, it was 13 percent. Employment-based green cards are available for five categories of workers, the majority of whom must be sponsored by their employer.

Table 2. Family and Employment-Based Immigration Channels and Numerical Limits

* At least 77 percent of the total visas available to the 2nd Family Preference (2A and 2B) must be allocated within the 2A category.** Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 203(b), the statutory caps for the employment-based categories are listed as percentages of the worldwide level of employment-based visas. Table 1 calculates the actual number of visas allocated in each category in accordance with the current 140,000 annual floor of employment-based visas.++ The Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), Pub. L. 105-100 (November 19, 1997), further limited the number of visas that may be issued in the 3rd preference other category, by allowing a reduction of up to 5,000 of the 10,000 visas allocated to this category to offset visas issued to NACARA beneficiaries.Source: Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 201, 203, 204.

Additionally, each year, approximately 50,000 individuals are granted permanent residency through the diversity visa lottery. Under the Immigration Act of 1990, 55,000 applicants from countries that are underrepresented in U.S. immigration streams are granted immigrant visas each year (5,000 are reserved for applicants under the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act [NACARA] of 1997).

Noncitizens must qualify for a family-based or employment-based visa, be a refugee or asylee, or be selected in the diversity visa lottery in order to become LPRs, i.e. immigrants. LPRs can permanently live and work in the United States, are eligible to naturalize after a certain number of years, and are subject to removal if they commit a serious crime.

With the exception of spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens, the number of individuals who can become permanent residents each year is limited in statute by numerical ceilings and per-country limits. However, the demand to immigrate greatly exceeds the number of visas Congress authorizes the government to grant. Additionally, no more than 7 percent of immigrant visas can be issued to nationals of a single country. The result has been delays in granting applications for eligible green card petitioners that frequently span many years, especially for immediate family members from Mexico or the Philippines, for example, which are among the top five source countries for legal immigration but face severe delays in getting a green card.

Over the past 150 years, the levels of legal immigration have varied, from over 1 million people per year during the early 20th century to a trickle during the Great Depression and World War II (see Figure 2). Immigrants legalized under IRCA caused the number of authorized immigrants to peak in the late 1980s. The 1990s and 2000s, until the recession, have registered historic highs in overall immigration levels.

Figure 2. Legal Immigration to the United States, FY 1820 to 2011

Refugee and Asylum Admissions

The United States has long been the world's leading country of refuge, providing protection to victims of political, ethnic, religious and other forms of persecution through asylum and refugee resettlement. Humanitarian protection has been an abiding, albeit sometimes controversial, tenet of U.S. immigration policy.

The statutory determination to qualify as a refugee or asylee is the same. However, the terminology differs: refugees are granted humanitarian relief in a foreign country and travel to the United States for resettlement, while asylees apply for humanitarian status having already reached or are living in the country.

Refugee policy includes a flexible ceiling on admissions that the president and Congress set each year. Slots are allotted regionally to refugees from East Asia, Near East/South Asia, Africa, Europe/Central Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean. Admissions may also be made from an "unallocated reserve."

The United States admitted large numbers of refugees after World War II, in response to migration waves that occurred in the war's aftermath and in accord with international refugee protocols adopted by the United Nations. In 1980, Congress passed the Refugee Act, a measure that adopted the definition of a refugee in U.S. refugee law with international standards. It established, for the first time, a permanent and systematic procedure for admitting refugees, created a formal refugee resettlement process, and provided a statutory base for asylum for the first time.

Beginning that same year and throughout the 1980s, U.S. refugee and asylum laws became the subject of considerable controversy, when massive numbers of Central Americans from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua began to flee civil war and repression in their home countries and apply for political asylum in the United States. Offering protection to these refugees, however, was at odds with the Reagan administration's cold war strategy of providing support to Central American governments being challenged by left-wing rebels. As a result, Salvadoran and Guatemalan asylum claims were approved at extremely low rates, while between 1981 and 1990, almost one million Salvadorans and Guatemalans are estimated to have entered the United States unlawfully.

During the same period as the Cold War ended, large resettlement programs for refugees from Southeast Asia and the former Soviet Union have been replaced with admissions from a more diverse set of countries. One exception is Cuba, a communist country from which hundreds of thousands have fled since its 1959 revolution. This massive emigration led to a 1994 agreement intended to prevent Cubans from trying to reach the United States by boat under life-threatening conditions. In FY 2011, there were 36,452 new immigrants from Cuba, the vast majority entering as refugees.

In the 1970s and 1980s, refugee and humanitarian emergencies led to annual admissions of more than 200,000 during some years. During the last decade and half, and especially since 9/11, both the size of the refugee program and annual asylum grants have decreased (see Figure 3). FY 2011 saw 56,384 refugee arrivals, down from 73,293 in FY 2010. Burma (16,972) Iraq (9,388) Bhutan (14,999), Somalia (3,161), and Cuba (2,920) were the top five refugee-sending countries of FY 2011. That year, 24,988 individuals were granted asylum (defensive and affirmative), a slight uptick from FY 2010 after about ten years of steady decline. There is no cap on asylum approvals.

Figure 3. Refugee Arrivals by Region of Origin, 1990 to 2011

Source: DHS, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, 1990-2011

Temporary Visitors

Noncitizens who enter the United States for tourism, work, or study reasons are admitted with a temporary nonimmigrant status. There are over 70 categories of visas for nonimmigrants, including tourists, business visitors, foreign students, H-1B workers, religious workers, intracompany transferees, diplomats, and representatives of international organizations. Nonimmigrant visas typically have strict terms and conditions, and allow for periods of stay ranging from a few weeks or months to six or more years. A small number of nonimmigrant visas allow for eventual permanent residency.

In 2011, 7.5 million nonimmigrant visas were granted. Temporary tourism and business visitors represent the vast majority of nonimmigrant visa holders. Nonimmigrant visas issued to foreign students have increased significantly during the last decade. The 447,410 student visas issued in 2011 is more than 50 percent greater than the number issued in 2001. Much of this growth has been driven by the exponential rise in students from China, who now represent 35 percent of all foreign students. South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and India also send students to the United States in high numbers.

Acquiring U.S. Citizenship

Under the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution, persons born on U.S. soil are American citizens. Citizenship can also be acquired through naturalization. U.S. citizens are entitled to rights and privileges not extended to noncitizens, such as the right to vote, protection from deportation, ability to apply for immigration of family members, and eligibility for federal assistance programs.

Permanent residents are eligible for U.S. citizenship once they are have lived continuously in the country for five years (three years if they are married to a U.S. citizen), are at least 18 years old, have not committed any serious crimes, have good moral character, and have knowledge of the English language and U.S. civics, demonstrated by passing a citizenship test. The current exam emphasizes U.S. history and government, and was introduced in 2008 after years of design, evaluation, and testing.

The average annual number of naturalizations increased from less than 120,000 during the 1950s and 1960s to 210,000 during the 1980s, up to 500,000 during the 1990s, and again to 680,000 between 2000 and 2009. In 2012, there were 757,434 naturalizations, up from 694,193 in 2011 and 619,913 in 2010. As of FY 2011, 8.5 million LPRs were eligible to naturalize but had not applied. A combination of reasons, including inadequate language skills needed to pass the citizenship exam, fear of the exam, an expensive filing fee of $680, and lack of knowledge about the naturalization process, can all discourage potential applicants.

Since the 1990s, a series of new laws and policies have affected naturalization trends. IRCA brought about historically high naturalizations in the mid-1990s as the 2.7 million unauthorized immigrants who obtained LPR status under the law's legalization program became eligible for naturalization. The growing eligibility pool further grew with passage of the 1996 laws described above. They reduced noncitizens' access to federal benefits and legal protections, thus incentivizing naturalization. Between 1994 and 1997, the number of naturalization petitions filed nearly tripled, from 543,353 to 1,412,712.

Naturalization spiked again in 2008 as a result of citizenship outreach campaigns ahead of the 2008 presidential election, coupled with a scheduled increase in the naturalization application fee that many eligible applicants attempted to beat.

In 2012, Mexico accounted for the highest share of naturalizations (13.7 percent), followed by the Philippines (5.9 percent), India (5.7 percent), the Dominican Republic (4.4 percent), and China (4.2 percent). The largest number of new citizens lived in California (21 percent), Florida (13.3 percent), and New York (12.4 percent), according to DHS statistics.

Unauthorized Immigrants

Unauthorized immigrants enter the United States by crossing the land border clandestinely between formal ports of entry, using documents fraudulently for admission at a port of entry, or overstaying a valid temporary visa.

Illegal immigration began to build and reach relatively high levels in the early 1970s. Immigration policymaking in the United States has been preoccupied with the issues it represents for much of the four decades since. The numbers of unauthorized immigrants who were not eligible for IRCA's legalization but remained in the United States, in addition to immigration spurred by rapid job creation in the 1990s and early 2000s, combined with powerful push factors in Mexico, have caused the unauthorized population to grow by 300,000 to 500,000 per year between 1990 and 2006. After reaching an estimated peak of 12 million in 2007, the unauthorized population has declined in recent years, to 11.1 million in 2011, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

Illegal immigration is a bellwether of economic conditions, growing substantially in a strong economy with high demand for low-skilled labor (the 1990s and early 2000s), and tapering off with economic contraction (since 2008) (see Figure 4). The arrival of unauthorized immigrants in large numbers has revitalized certain communities and contributes to local economic growth. At the same time, rapid and unchecked social change and pressure on public services brought about by individuals here illegally has sparked anger and resentment, making immigration a hotly contested issue of national concern.

DHS estimates that 59 percent of unauthorized residents are Mexican born; with El Salvador accounting for 6 percent, Guatemala 5 percent, Honduras 3 percent, and China 2 percent. The ten leading countries of origin also include the Philippines, India, Korea, Ecuador, and Vietnam, which represented 85 percent of the unauthorized immigrant population in 2011.

Roughly 46 percent of unauthorized adult immigrants are parents of young children. As of 2010, there were 5.5 million minors with at least one unauthorized parent. While 1 million of these minors are also unauthorized, the vast majority4.5 millionare U.S.-born, and are, therefore, American citizens.

Figure 4. Estimated Unauthorized Population, 1990 to 2011 (millions)

Source: Pew Hispanic Center, Bob Warren

Immigrant Integration

While the public debate tends to focus disproportionately on questions of who, how many, and what kind of noncitizens should be admitted to the United States, many see immigrant integration as the true test of a successful immigration system. Unlike other traditional immigration countries, such as Canada and Australia, for example, the United States does not have a federally-driven immigrant integration policies or an agency responsible for making sure immigrants effectively become part of U.S. society. Instead, integration policies are limited, underfunded, largely ad hoc, and often target narrow immigrant groups, such as refugees or migrant workers.

Historically, schools, churches, employers, and community-based groups have taken the lead at the local level to spearhead immigrant integration efforts that include English classes, job training, and health care clinics. In recent years, several states and cities have launched integration initiatives aimed at improving opportunities and services available to immigrants.

Federal policies that affect immigrant integration outcomes include the No Child Left Behind Act passed in 2001 that required schools and funding for states to ensure that limited English proficient (LEP) children become proficient in English. In 2009, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was expanded to cover authorized immigrant children. Additionally, the federal Adult Education program funds English education and GED preparation.

Read more from the original source:
Immigration in the United States: New Economic, Social, Political ...

Talking turkey on immigration reform in the lame-duck session – The Boston Globe

  1. Talking turkey on immigration reform in the lame-duck session  The Boston Globe
  2. Democrats confront bleak odds for immigration deal before 2023  POLITICO
  3. Senate Democrats restart talks to try to help DACA recipients during lame-duck session  CNN
  4. Editorial: Ten years of limbo. DACA recipients need permanent relief now  Los Angeles Times
  5. Congress makes last-ditch amnesty push  The Highland County Press
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read the rest here:
Talking turkey on immigration reform in the lame-duck session - The Boston Globe

Construction pros call for immigration reform to fill surge of open jobs – Construction Dive

Researchers and other experts expect millions of new construction jobsin coming months due to the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.

That's in addition to the 407,000 unfilled jobs in the construction industry now.

But where will those workers come from?

Immigrants have played a critical role in the U.S. construction industry for generations, from the creation of the Transcontinental Railroad in the West to the skyscrapers that define New York City in the East.But unlike in these past generations, workers tasked to improve Americas infrastructure this time around likely won't hail from outside the country, unless there's a dramatic change to current immigration policy, industry officials said.

"Construction is one of many industries that historically relied much more than they've been able to in the last three years on foreign-born workers," said Ken Simonson, chief economist at the Associated General Contractors of America, during a recent webinar on finding more workers to help build America's infrastructure. "There have been a number of immigration programs that have been allowed to lapse."

The Biden administration recently temporarily extended the window for expired work permits by another 18 months, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The move had been in the works for months as officials looked for ways to combat the risk of workforce shortages, Politico reported.

USCIS is also seeking ways to address a backlog of roughly 1.5 million work permit applications. House and Senate Democrats have proposed bills to reduce the employment-based backlogs, but there does not seem to be enough Republican support to bring them across the finish line, said John Dorer, president of Immigration Office Solutions and CEO of eb3.work, a New York-based platform that connects employers with foreign nationals seeking to work legally in the U.S.

Things are stalled for the moment, this is typical in a pre-election environment, said Dorer. This may change after the midterm elections.

In some areas, the push for foreign-born workers is seen as a political hot button. For example, in Florida, migrant workers are leading clean-up efforts to repair the damage from Hurricane Ian, according to Time magazine, despite Governor Ron DeSantis' efforts to deport illegal migrants from the South to Northern states.

Industry sources told Construction Dive that immigration reform could help alleviate endemic labor shortages in the industry, but that lawmakers thus far have lacked the political gumption to put such measures in place.

While the ideas on how to fix our nations immigration system are not lacking, there is a lack of will to do the work required to find a compromise, said Kristen Swearingen, Associated Builders and Contractors vice president of legislative and political affairs. Immigration reform will likely go largely unaddressed while the arguments over partisan proposals get louder and employers continue to struggle under the current system.

For most contractors on the front lines, the need for immigration reform to help rebuild America is obvious.

"When you talk about immigration, it's my opinion that any type of reform would be better for the country, as well as the construction industry, compared to what we've had the last 25 years," said Stephen Sines, vice president of operations at the Danbury, Connecticut-based construction management firm Morganti Group, during the AGC webinar. "There has to be a starting point somewhere."

On the other side of the country, of all the challenges facing construction, one California construction pro pointed to immigration reform as the single most impactful issue for contractors.

"Our growth is going to be hampered without new labor sources," said Chris Bailey, senior vice president of integrated solutions at San Francisco Bay Area-based general contractor XL Construction. "Theyve got to come from somewhere."

And Frank Ciminelli, president and CEO of construction management firm Arc Building Partners, recently told Construction Dive the labor shortage remains the biggest challenge in the construction industry today.

Meanwhile, immigration reform is "far and away" the top national policy concern of business advocates at the state level, according to a report from law firm Littler.

Current efforts

The Biden administration is currently considering whether changes to immigration policy should be one of its major pushes following the November midterm election, especially as migrant workers are generally a turnkey solution for labor shortage issues.

But specifics on what those changes might entail remain vague. Biden did propose the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 on his first day in office, but there have been no updates on that bill after nearly two years. That bill provided pathways to citzenship for undocumented workers, reinforcements to border control, increased assistance to Central American countries and improvements to immigration court processes, according to a White House release.

Brain Turmail, vice president of public affairs and strategic initiatives at the Associated General Contractors of America, said immigration reform could help shorten the gap between labor demand and labor supply.

The short answer would be yes, said Turmail. Allowing more people with construction skills to lawfully enter the country to meet workforce shortages would be a good short-term solution while we rebuild the domestic pipeline for preparing American workers.

However, other Biden administration policies could render any immigration reform plan unworkable for the construction industry, Turmail said.

The Inflation Reduction Act includes, for the first time ever, minimum apprenticeship quotas for projects receiving the higher level of tax credits available from the act, said Turmail. This will severely limit the pool of workers from which firms can draw on to hire for these projects, and all but eliminate lawful immigration as a short-term option.

Apprenticeship quotas could limit the number of immigrants working on these projects because those coming into the country legally would presumably already have the construction skills necessary to qualify for a temporary worker visa. In other words, they would have the experience and knowledge needed for those jobs, but not the apprenticeship pedigree that's stipulated in the act.

Straightforward immigration reform could solve that problem, Turmail said.

It could be something as relatively simple as putting in place a temporary work visa program specifically for construction, said Turmail. Or it could be broader, and include a path to legal status for undocumented workers, tighter border security and a construction-specific temporary visa program.

Nevertheless, Congress is not expected to tackle this issue anytime soon.

Legislation such as the Essential Workers for Economic Advancement Act, a bill that establishes a new nonimmigrant visa for temporary nonagricultural workers to fill jobs that have remained open for a certain amount of time and are located in areas where the unemployment rate sits below 7.9%, is not currently being debated, according to ABC.

We have been pushing for any and all immigration reform possible, said Turmail. Unfortunately, it remains an issue most politicians like to talk about, but too few are willing to act on.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program earlier this month. That decision blocks new applications but allows current DACA enrollees to renew their status.ABC recently called to move forward on DACA and other immigration reform legislation.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanens ruling on DACA comes after nine states filed a lawsuit last year claiming they are harmed financially due to healthcare, education and other costs when immigrants are allowed to remain in the country illegally.

Some construction companies advocate for the Office of Foreign Labor Certification to start charging fees for Foreign Labor Certification applications. This would allow the OFLC to improve current slow processing times by having the ability to increase staffing, said Dorer. The department currently relies on funding from Congress.

Any immigration reform will likely have to wait until after the midterm elections, said Turmail.

There is some talk of attaching some amount of immigration reform to the end-of-year funding bill, he said. Besides that, a lot of talk.

Read the original here:
Construction pros call for immigration reform to fill surge of open jobs - Construction Dive

U.S. Bishops’ Migration Chairman Calls for Immigration Reform that Recognizes the ‘Inviolable Dignity’ of All Newcomers – USCCB

WASHINGTON - Observing how recent responses to migrants demonstrate the troubling convergence of our broken immigration system and the political divisions of our time, Bishop Mario E. Dorsonville, auxiliary bishop of Washington and chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Committee on Migration, issued a reflection on the Catholic Churchs enduring commitment to comprehensive immigration reform and welcoming the stranger as part of its unwavering defense of human life in all its forms. This coincides with the ongoing celebration of Respect Life Month, during which the Catholic Church in the United States invites the faithful to consider more deeply why every human life is valuable and to reflect on how to build a culture that protects life from conception to natural death.

We simply cannot allow partisan division to continue to impede the needed interventions of government, Bishop Dorsonville stated. And while there are no easy solutions to the challenges we face, there is a just path forward that is waiting to be paved by those who are committed to the future of our country, he added, alluding to this years theme for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees, Building the Future with Migrants and Refugees.

Bishop Dorsonville expressed the need for a just immigration reform that provides for the full integration of long-time residents, promotes family unity, honors due process, respects the rule of law, expands legal pathways, preserves and strengthens humanitarian protections, prioritizes dignified alternatives to detention, recognizes the contributions of foreign-born workers, protects the vulnerable, and addresses the root causes of migration.

Before concluding his reflection, the bishop affirmed: Whether Afghan, Ukrainian, or Venezuelan, Dreamer or undocumented farmworker, asylum seeker, migrant, or refugee, all are imbued by God with an inviolable dignity.

Bishop Dorsonvilles full reflection, Migration and the Judgement of the Nations, is available here.

###

Media Contact:Chieko Noguchi202-541-3200

Go here to read the rest:
U.S. Bishops' Migration Chairman Calls for Immigration Reform that Recognizes the 'Inviolable Dignity' of All Newcomers - USCCB