POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
With the exception of those of us who are of Native American heritage, all of us have ancestors who at some point in our nation’s history chose to immigrate in search of economic opportunity and/or political and religious freedom. People for Effective Government (PEG) believes that encouraging sustainable levels of legal immigration is not only the right thing to do from the standpoint of ethics and social justice, but moreover fundamentally strengthens our economy, our culture, and our nation. Any effective immigration policy must be consistent and fair, and take into consideration concerns about the health and safety of our communities, our ability to help new immigrants integrate into those communities, and the costs, in both social and financial terms, of welcoming people from different cultures and countries to our nation. PEG believes that it is possible to have an immigration system that is both sound and fair while ensuring national security and the safety and well-being of existing citizens.
In order to more effectively achieve these goals, PEG recommends that:
1. Subject to appropriate immigration levels, policy should allow the potential entry of any individual from any country provided they follow the established immigration procedure and successfully meet all immigration criteria, including background checks.
2. Our nation’s immigration policies should not unduly compromise public health and safety, national security, or the social and financial well being of current U.S. citizens.
3. Enhanced border security needs to play an ongoing role in managing immigration, though this does not at this time warrant the construction of a continuous wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
4. Internal immigration enforcement efforts focus on employer accountability through the increased usage of a worker eligibility database such as E-Verify.
5. There should be a pathway to legal residency for many of the undocumented workers currently residing and working in the U.S.
6. Congress should immediately pass legislation providing a pathway to legal residency for those eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
7. Family-based immigration should continue to be an important component of policy, but that stricter limitations be placed on which types of relatives are allowed to apply for such visas.
8. A merit-based system should be developed for issuing visas to individuals who will contribute to the economic development of the nation.
9. Immigration policy should more strongly link merit-based visas to evolving economic conditions and employer needs.
10. There should be some level of federally funded support to promote the integration and acculturation of immigrants.
11. The Diversity Visa program should be continued.
12. The appropriate level of legal immigration should address the dual concerns of worker shortages and an aging population.
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
What has U.S. immigration policy traditionally looked like?
Until approximately the Civil War, the U.S. actively encouraged extensive immigration. In the years that followed, the country recognized the need to exercise greater control over immigration, and in 1882 the first U.S. immigration legislation created a more selective process, excluding the immigration of individual who were deemed less socially or economically desirable. After World War I, legislation was designed to further reduce the overall level of immigration, and to link immigration to the ethnic-national composition of the existing population through the use of a quota system based on nationality. Under this policy, the quotas were determined by the proportions of each nationality as represented in existing U.S. census data. Accordingly, this immigration policy resulted in immigration patterns that reinforced the national and ethnic distribution that had been established in the previous century, with the greatest number of visas being offered to immigrants from European countries.
In 1965, legislation shifted the focus from nationality quotas to a system that emphasized uniting immigrant families and attracting skilled workers. Under this legislation, the number of immigration visas available each year was still quite limited, but the pattern of immigration shifted significantly, with fewer immigrants coming from European nations, and more coming from Asia and Latin America. In 1986, in response to concerns about the extent of illegal immigration, legislation was passed that offered amnesty to some immigrants and increased enforcement through employer sanctions. In 1990, legislation significantly increased the total level of immigration visas available, maintaining the family reunification as the major entry path, doubling the level of allowable employment-related immigration, and creating the diversity visa program, which is the visa lottery system designed to support immigration from countries with low rates of immigration to the U.S. This legislation, and subsequent legislation in 1996, enhanced enforcement efforts through increased funding for border control, greater employer sanctions, and expanded deportation policies. There has been no comprehensive immigration legislation since the mid-1990s, although in 2012, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was implemented by executive (presidential) order.
What kind of immigration actually results from current U.S. policy?
Since 1989 immigration levels have remained fairly stable, with an average of just over 1 million permanent residency visas (“green cards”) issued each year. Under current U.S. law, almost all visas are issued under one of four primary pathways; these are listed below, along with the approximate percentage of visas that were granted to each pathway during the most recent 3-year period for which there are data (2014-2016).
· Family-based visas (66%)
· Employment-based visas (13%)
· Diversity visas (5%)
· Refugee or asylum status (14%)
(Note: approximately 2% of visas were issued through other pathways.)
Clearly, family-based immigration is by far the biggest pathway to lawful permanent residence. Recently, such immigration has been labelled as “chain migration” by those critical of the current levels of immigration, and as “family reunification” by those more supportive of those current levels. Of course, family-sponsored/immediate relative immigration can be accurately described as both chain migration and family reunification. “Chain migration” is properly a technical term, first widely used in the 1960s, that simply describes an objective fact: people are far more likely to move to an area if they have social ties with others already living in that area. “Family reunification” is also a term which simply describes an objective fact: family-based immigration does result in family reunification. Because both terms are highly politicized at this time, it is perhaps most helpful to refer to this type of immigration as ”family-based” immigration.
Family-based immigration has been the primary form of immigration to the U.S. since 1965, representing approximately 66% of all residency visas issued. It allows U.S. citizens and current permanent residents, under different guidelines, to sponsor certain relatives for a residency visa. For the “immediate relatives” of citizens and current permanent residents, there is no cap on the number of sponsored visas that can be issued. For family based immigration of non-immediate relatives, the annual cap is by law 226,000 per year. In general, the number of visas issued to immediate relatives significantly outnumbers the number issued to non-immediate relatives, primarily because of the aforementioned numerical cap. For example, in 2016 there were a total of 804,793 family-sponsored visas issued, and of these approximately 70% were immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Because of the cap on non-immediate relatives, the number of annual applications is far greater than the annual quota, resulting in a significant backlog of applicants and extended wait times (in some cases years, or even decades) for many of those applications to be reviewed.
As noted above, employment-based visas have recently represented approximately 13% of all permanent residency visas issued, with an average of just over 144,000 visas issued annually. There are a number of different types of employment-based residency visas, but the vast majority are issued to immigrants with strong work history and marketable employment skills, including professors/researchers, multinational executives and managers, professionals (especially those holding advanced degrees), skilled workers, and individuals of “exceptional” or “extraordinary” ability. Only a limited number (5,000 maximum) of employment-based visas are available for unskilled workers.
The Diversity Visa program (the “green card lottery”) accounts for approximately 5% of the permanent residency visas, with roughly 50,000 visas being issued each year. These visas are potentially available to anyone born in a territory that has sent fewer than 50,000 immigrants (through the family-based or employment-based visa programs) to the U.S. in the previous 5 years. A vast majority of countries are such “low-admittance” countries; currently there are only 18 countries from which individuals are not eligible to participate (including, e.g., Philippines, Mexico, China, and India).
Refugees and asylees have recently made up approximately 14% of the permanent residency visas issued. There is no limit to the number of asylum visas that can be issued in any given year, though for refugees the executive branch does set an annual limit known as the “refugee ceiling”. In 2016 there were 120,216 visas issued to refugees, and 37,209 visas issued to asylees. Refugees and asylees share the same criterion for receiving a permanent residency visa: demonstration of a well-founded fear of persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. The distinction between refugees and asylees is that the former are outside of U.S. territory and not firmly settled, while the later are already in the U.S. Both refugees and asylees must wait one year to apply for permanent residency after admission to the U.S. as a refugee or after being granted asylum.
While the criteria for permanent residency visas are different for each of the visa categories discussed above, every visa recipient must successfully pass an extensive background check. Additionally, visa recipients in the family-based, employment-based, and diversity visa program categories must either demonstrate the ability to support themselves financially while in the U.S. or have an “affidavit of support” from a permanent resident. This requirement is intended to ensure that no visa recipient (other than potential refugees, asylees and certain other very specific and numerically small groups) becomes a “public charge” of the government.
In addition to the permanent residency visa categories, there are also many varieties of temporary visas (e.g. for tourism, business/work, visiting family, education, etc.).
How does current policy deal with border security and internal immigration enforcement?
The immigration legislation of 1986, 1990, and 1996 attempted, among other goals, to enhance border security and internal enforcement. The results of these legislative efforts have been uneven. The level of funding for both border security and internal enforcement have grown dramatically over the past 30 years, and this in part has resulted since 2000 in a strongly decreasing trend of the level of illegal entry apprehensions (a proxy for the level of illegal entry immigration), which are now at a level comparable to the early 1970s. It is also true that the total estimate for undocumented immigrants in the U.S. has decreased slightly since its highest point in 2007. Nonetheless, the fact remains that there are an estimated 11-12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., and this number is over 3 times the estimate of such immigrants in 1990.
Border security is the mission of the U.S. Border Patrol, which by FY 2012 had over 21,000 agents. Though illegal immigration happens across all of the U.S. land and maritime borders, historically the most significant border of illegal entry is the approximately 2,000-mile land border separating the U.S. and Mexico. Security efforts along this border include physical barriers (border walls and fencing) and both electronic and human surveillance. Currently there are approximately 700 miles of physical barrier along the border, of which approximately half is a barrier to vehicles (e.g. concrete posts in the ground) but not pedestrians. Expenditures for staffing, technology, and infrastructure at the Border Patrol are at historic highs, and as previously mentioned this has in part resulted in a significant decrease in the number of illegal entry apprehensions.
However, as a result of these enhanced border security efforts and the corresponding decrease in illegal entry immigration, the population of undocumented workers is increasingly comprised of those who have arrived on a temporary visa but then fail to leave the country once their visa has expired. Currently, over half of the new undocumented workers each year arrive in this way. For this reason, border security efforts are supplemented with internal enforcement provisions.
Current internal enforcement efforts include a number of strategies, among which the four most prominent are: inter-agency coordination and information exchange, workplace enforcement (especially through an expanding E-Verify program), prosecution of illegal immigration entries by the criminal justice system, and detention/deportation.
Which elements of current immigration policy work well, and which do not?
As noted above, all applicants for a residency visa are required to complete a background check process. While this process has generally proven to be effective (i.e. the number of cases of immigrants intending to do harm to our national security is incredibly small compared to the number of visas issued), and while research shows that immigrants are actually less likely to engage in criminal activity than are naturalized citizens, there is certainly still value in ensuring that the background check process remains as effective as possible.
Results of border security and internal enforcement efforts appear to be mixed. The estimated overall level of undocumented workers has remained fairly stable over the prior decade suggesting that security and enforcement strategies may be working reasonably well. The enhanced funding for border security, increased inter-agency cooperation, and more robust workplace enforcement are steps in the right direction. On the other hand, that overall estimated level remains quite high, at 11-12 million individuals, and has not significantly decreased in the past decade, which suggests that security and enforcement efforts could certainly be more effective. Furthermore, this level of undocumented workers represents approximately 3.5% of the total U.S. population, and current immigration policy does not attempt in any significant way to address this significant challenge.
With regard to the provisions of immigration policy that determine who is able to apply for permanent residency visas, many parts seem to be working well. As described above, family-based immigration comprises the great majority of current U.S. immigration, and PEG believes that family based immigration should continue to play a significant, though reduced, role in immigration policy. Family reunification should be promoted, as it encourages integration and leads to more stable, more “rooted”, permanent residents who have a greater stake in their adopted home. Those critical of family-based immigration argue that as a form of chain migration it leads to excessive, even potentially exponential, growth in immigration. However, this argument is clearly unsupported by the facts. There were actually fewer (if only slightly) permanent residency visas issued in 2015 than in 2007. So family-based immigration policy has clearly not led to excessive growth in U.S. immigration in recent years, in part because some family-based immigration is subject to numerical caps that limit the number of visas that can be issued.
Current employment-based visa policy works reasonably well for highly educated and/or highly skilled individuals, but has failed to meet the demand that U.S. businesses have for unskilled labor. Part of the challenge in controlling illegal immigration is that many U.S. business cannot find enough legal residents to work in lower paying, low skill jobs.
The Diversity Visa program has been contentious for over a decade, with multiple attempts during that time to pass legislation to eliminate the program. The primary concerns of critics of the program relate to the arbitrary nature of the lottery process and to concerns about the potential for fraud and abuse, though some have also claimed that it provides a method of legal entry for those seeking to harm our nation or citizens. Though there have undoubtedly been some instances of abuse, technological changes in the administration of the program have resulted in a program that has seen little or no such abuse since 2000. And the concern about national security is unwarranted in that every immigration pathway requires the applicant to submit to the same background check process. And on the other hand, the Diversity Visa program has aspects that are significantly and strongly positive. Both practically and symbolically, our nation is strengthened by the cultural diversity that that is a result of the program. It embodies the values of our melting pot/salad bowl culture, serves as a reminder to the world of the opportunities and freedoms of our nation, and is an effective U.S. projection of “soft power” throughout the world.
What can be done to improve immigration policy?
It is imperative that resources for border security and internal enforcement are adequate to manage immigration, for though we should welcome immigration, we need to minimize immigration that is not legal. PEG does not believe that building a continuous wall along the U.S.-Mexico border is an effective way of enhancing border security, but we do believe that the ongoing evaluation of border control technologies and strategies is critical, and in places this may include extending or erecting segments of physical barriers. PEG objects to any attempt to politicize this issue, and would strongly recommend that the government officials listen carefully to best practices promoted by informed experts. In any case, border security needs to address not only the U.S.-Mexico land border, but all U.S. borders. Efforts to strengthen internal enforcement need to continue, by increasing employer participation in the E-Verify program, and focusing the primary enforcement actions on the employers who hire undocumented workers (which can have a real impact) rather than targeting the workers themselves (who are quickly replaced by other undocumented workers).
The process of conducting background checks on residency visa applicants needs to be one that inspires confidence in our officials and our citizenry. In cases where there is reasonable doubt about the integrity and intentions of an applicant, the visa should be denied.
We need to find a legal path to residency for many of the millions of undocumented immigrants who have been living in the U.S. for many years. While the desire not to “reward” those who have entered the U.S. illegally with a path to residency is entirely understandable, the fact is that most of these immigrants are fully law-abiding individuals whose work contributes significantly to our economy and our tax base. Because these individuals are undocumented they are not able to obtain a Social Security number; however, many of these individuals have obtained an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) from the IRS so that they can pay taxes. And of the $9 billion in payroll taxes that is paid annually by those filing an IRS return with an ITIN, it is estimated that undocumented immigrants pay the great majority. Furthermore, deporting all undocumented immigrants is simply not a realistic solution, as it would significantly damage our economy through a significant shortage of labor and tie up our criminal justice system for years.
Similarly, we need to immediately implement a legislative solution to provide permanent legal residency for those individuals enrolled in or eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA was implemented in 2012 by presidential order, and was intended to address the immigration challenge presented by the hundreds of thousands of children who were brought illegally to the US by family members entering the country without appropriate documentation. These children have grown up in the US, and most of them know no other country as home. The DACA program as it currently exists does not provide its enrollees with legal residency, but it does protect them from deportation and provide them with a work authorization for renewable two-year periods. But because Congress has not yet passed any legislation supporting the DACA program, the permanent status of these immigrants remains unclear and the continuation of the DACA program uncertain. This is not effective policy, and makes no sense given that many of these individuals have spent most of their lives in the U.S.
Regarding the types of permanent residency visas that should be issued, PEG believes that family-based immigration should remain an integral component of U.S. policy, though it should play a reduced role in overall immigration. Family reunification is generally good policy, but there is no compelling reason to extend this beyond the most immediate family, which should include only spouses and unmarried, minor children. It is, of course, understandable that parents, siblings, and adult and/or married children might desire to join an immigrant who has been issued a permanent residency visa in the U.S., but eliminating the family-based pathway for these relatives is not unreasonable in the way that preventing an individual from reuniting with a spouse or unmarried, minor children would be.
Employment-based immigration policy should be reformed in two ways. First, it should be more broadly considered as economic development-based, and include not only direct employment visas but also other visas that will stimulate economic development, such as visas for those have earned advanced degrees from American universities in technological fields who want to develop their careers in the U.S. Second, it should be merit-based, with a system for ranking visa applicants who meet the economic needs of the nation as provided by an annually revised desired occupations/professionals list. The ranking system should be based on variety of relevant characteristics which might include, e.g., existing offers of employment, work skills, work experience, qualifications, entrepreneurial ability, education, financial resources, investment capacity, English ability, cultural adaptability, and age. Though the details of any such ranking system can easily become complex, there are already a number of nations around the world (including, e.g., Canada, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom) using such a system, and developing a system to meet U.S. economic needs is entirely feasible.
A key part of this reform of immigration policy for economic development is to ensure that it is more responsive to the needs of U.S. employers, concerning the need for both higher and lower skilled workers. Currently, a significant percentage of the U.S. workforce in industries such as agriculture, construction the service sector are undocumented workers. Given the apparent shortage of such workers among permanent residents and citizens with the legal right to work, immigration policy should be developed to help meet this demand, and the failure to do so merely harms U.S. business and limits our economy. Currently, many lower skilled workers arrive in the U.S. on a temporary work visas, but often these visas limit or prevent the worker from changing jobs or employers, and this creates significant inefficiencies in the labor market. As many of these workers would like to live and work in the U.S on a permanent basis, it would make better sense to have policy that allows these workers to do so, thus meeting the needs of employers. An effective merit-based employment visa policy must allow such lower skilled immigrants a legal method for entering our nation.
One element that is almost entirely absent from federal immigration policy is any concerted effort to assist new immigrants in adjusting to life in the U.S. There is certainly a level of federal support for those in the refugee and asylee category, and there is some state and local support for other legal immigrants, but for most immigrants there is generally little to no federal support for this type cultural integration. Immigration can, and does, bring significant economic benefits to our nation, and yet also brings a risk of cultural conflict and dislocation. Investing a reasonable amount of resources in minimizing that potential conflict is certainly worthwhile.
Quite a number of these, and other effective, provisions were made in a proposed piece of 2013 Senate legislation (S.744) that was passed overwhelmingly but never enacted by the full Congress. The “Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013” was developed by a group of eight bipartisan senators, and can serve as a very useful starting point for considering effective immigration reform. In particular, the act had useful legislation:
· Providing a pathway to legal residency for many undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. including those eligible for the DACA program.
· Enhancing border security through increased funding, border personnel, surveillance technologies, and infrastructure.
· Enhancing internal enforcement through technology and the increased usage of the E-Verify work eligibility database.
· Creating stricter limits on the types of family members who qualify for family-based immigration.
· Establishing a merit-based pathway for employment immigration, supporting residency for both higher and lower skilled workers.
· Increasing the number of visas allotted for foreign students receiving a graduate degree from an American university in science, technology, engineering or mathematics.
· Enhancing the visa options for foreign investors and entrepreneurs.
· The creation of a simple and flexible (non-immigrant) visa category for unskilled non-agricultural workers that meets employers’ needs.
· Creating the ability to adjust future levels of worker visas based on economic conditions.
· Promoting and funding initiatives for immigrant integration into U.S. culture and communities by focusing on language acquisition, civic engagement, financial self-sufficiency, and upward economic mobility.
· Providing adequate funding for the immigration courts, to ensure a timely and just handling (including legal counsel for vulnerable individuals) of detention and deportation proceedings.
It is true that this Senate bill also recommended eliminating the Diversity Visa program, which PEG believes, for the reasons given above, should be continued.
What is the appropriate level of legal immigration for the U.S.?
As noted earlier, annual legal immigration has stayed fairly consistent since 1989 with an average of approximately 1 million permanent residency visas issued each year. Some have suggested that current levels of immigration are creating societal stresses that are unsustainable, though those making these claims rarely clarify if they are speaking about levels of legal immigration. PEG believes strongly that an effective immigration policy that promotes the arrival of an appropriate number of legal immigrants not only underscores the foundational values of our nation, but is also in fact essential to our economic well being. The appropriate level of legal immigration is, of course, a complex question, but policy should be developed to assist our nation in addressing the dual challenges of labor shortages and our aging population. PEG does not have a specific recommendation about what that appropriate level is, but strongly urges our elected officials to rely on the recommendations of policy experts in this area.
Source: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security “2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics”.
Policy adoption date: 7/15/2018