Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress: Major Provisions in Senate-Passed S. 744

Marc R. Rosenblum
Specialist in Immigration Policy

Ruth Ellen Wasem
Specialist in Immigration Policy

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. The omnibus legislative approach contrasts with incremental revisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that would address some but not all of these elements, and with sequential reforms that would tackle border security and interior enforcement provisions prior to revising legal immigration or enacting legalization pathways.

Leaders in both chambers have identified immigration as a legislative priority in the 113th Congress. While the House Committee on the Judiciary has ordered reported several distinct pieces of legislation that aim to reform immigration law thus far in the 113th Congress, the debate in the Senate has focused on a single CIR bill: the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744). This report summarizes major provisions of S. 744, which the Senate amended and passed by a yea-nay vote of 68-32 on June 27, 2013.

CRS’s analysis of S. 744 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.

Among the border and enforcement-related provisions in Senate-passed S. 744 are a number of provisions aimed at strengthening border security, including increased border security personnel, equipment, and infrastructure. The bill would mandate new border security strategies and the development of new border metrics that would be designed to achieve “effective control” of the Southern border. Most notably, S. 744 would authorize $44.5 billion in spending for additional border patrol agents, border fencing, and an electronic exit system to collect machine readable data at air and sea ports of entry.

The legislation would also authorize $750 million for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to implement a mandatory electronic employment verification system to be used by all employers. Furthermore, S. 744 would amend the INA to create additional grounds of inadmissibility and deportability, while broadening judges’ discretion to waive some of these grounds. For certain immigration offenses, the bill would increase civil and misdemeanor penalties for first-time offenses and impose felony penalties when aggravating circumstances exist. The bill would amend INA provisions on unlawful reentry to increase criminal penalties. S. 744 would provide additional resources to immigration courts and would encourage alternatives to detention and strengthen detention standards and congressional oversight of immigrant detention. Special provisions would be included to protect children who are affected by immigration enforcement.

In turn, S. 744 would amend the INA to provide pathways for unauthorized aliens to adjust their immigration status to one of the proposed new statuses—“registered provisional immigrant” (RPI) status and “blue card” status—and ultimately legal permanent resident (LPR) status after specified border security and interior enforcement criteria are met. In addition to these legalization provisions, S. 744 would also accelerate the admission of an estimated 4 to 7 million foreign nationals who have pending petitions to become LPRs. S. 744 would substantially revise
the categories for the admission of LPRs, eliminating the category for siblings of U.S. citizens, shifting the allocation of the other family-based categories, permitting more categories of LPRs to enter without numerical limits, and increasing the number of employment-based LPRs. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the changes to the legal immigration system would result in an increase of 9.6 million LPRs in the first decade after enactment.

Senate-passed S. 744 would revise and expand nonimmigrant (i.e., temporary immigration) programs for high- and low-skilled workers, as well as for tourists, students, and other nonimmigrants. The bill would increase the cap on professional specialty workers (H-1B workers), while also imposing new requirements on businesses that employ H-1B workers, as well as those that employ intra-company transferees (L visas). Reforms would be made to the existing H-2B visa for lower-skilled non-agricultural workers in temporary or seasonal employment, while the H-2A visa for agricultural workers would be phased out. New nonimmigrant visas (the proposed W visas) would be established for lower-skilled agricultural and non-agricultural workers that would be more flexible for employers, while also expanding certain rights for workers. Additional nonimmigrant visa changes would facilitate temporary immigration by doctors, investors, and aliens from certain countries with U.S. trade agreements; encourage tourism within the United States; and strengthen oversight of foreign students and summer-work study exchanges, among other changes.

An accompanying report, CRS Report R43099, Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress: Short Summary of Major Legislative Proposals, offers an overview of S. 744 as well.


Date of Report: July 9, 2013
Number of Pages: 64
Order Number: R43097
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R43097.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

William A. Kandel
Analyst in Immigration Policy

Family reunification is a key principle underlying U.S. immigration policy. It is embodied in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which specifies numerical limits for five family-based admission categories, as well as a per-country limit on total family-based admissions. The five categories include immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and four other family-based categories that vary according to individual characteristics such as the legal status of the petitioning U.S.-based relative, and the age, family relationship, and marital status of the prospective immigrant.

Of the 1.03 million foreign nationals admitted to the United States in FY2012 as lawful permanent residents (LPRs), 680,799, or 66%, were admitted on the basis of family ties. Of these family-based immigrants admitted in FY2012, 70% were admitted as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Many of the 1.03 million immigrants were initially admitted on a legal temporary basis and became immigrants by converting or “adjusting” their status to a lawful permanent resident. The proportion of family-based immigrants who adjusted their immigration status while residing in the United States (53%) exceeded that of family-based immigrants who had their immigration petitions processed while living abroad (47%), although such percentages varied considerably among the five family-based admission categories.

Since FY2000, increasing numbers of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens have accounted for all of the growth in family-based admissions. Between FY2000 and FY2009, immigrants who accompanied or later followed principal (qualifying) immigrants averaged 12% of all familybased admissions annually. During that period, Mexico, the Philippines, China, India, and the Dominican Republic sent the most family-based immigrants to the United States.

Each year, the number of foreign nationals petitioning for LPR status through family-sponsored preferences exceeds the supply of legal immigrant slots. As a result, a visa queue has accumulated of foreign nationals who qualify as immigrants under the INA but who must wait for a visa to immigrate to the United States. As such, the visa queue constitutes not a backlog of petitions to be processed but, rather, the number of persons approved for visas not yet available due to INAspecified numerical limits. As of November 2012, 4.3 million persons stood in the visa queue.

Every month, the Department of State (DOS) produces its Visa Bulletin, which lists “cut-off dates” for each of the four numerically limited family-based admissions categories. Cut-off dates indicate when petitions that are currently being processed for a numerically limited visa were initially approved. For most countries, the cut-off dates range between 2.5 years and 12 years ago. For countries that send the most immigrants, the range expands to between 2.5 and 23 years ago.

Current bipartisan interest in comprehensive immigration reform has increased scrutiny of family-based immigration and revived debate over its proportion of total lawful permanent admissions. Past or current proposals for overhauling family-based admissions have been made by numerous observers, including two congressionally mandated commissions.

Those who favor expanding the number of family-based admissions point to this sizable queue of prospective immigrants who have been approved for lawful permanent residence but must wait years separated from their U.S.-based family members until receiving a numerically limited immigrant visa. Their proposals generally emphasize expanding the numerical limits of familybased categories. Others question whether the United States has an obligation to reconstitute families of immigrants beyond their nuclear families. Corresponding proposals would eliminate several family-based preference categories, favoring only those for the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Such proposals reiterate recommendations made by earlier congressionally mandated commissions on immigration reform.


Date of Report: July 11, 2013
Number of Pages: 38
Order Number: R43145
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R43145.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry

Marc R. Rosenblum
Specialist in Immigration Policy

Border enforcement is a core element of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) effort to control unauthorized migration, with the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) within the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as the lead agency along most of the border. Border enforcement has been an ongoing subject of congressional interest since the 1970s, when illegal immigration to the United States first registered as a serious national problem; and border security has received additional attention in the years since the terrorist attacks of 2001.

Since the 1990s, migration control at the border has been guided by a strategy of “prevention through deterrence”—the idea that the concentration of personnel, infrastructure, and surveillance technology along heavily trafficked regions of the border will discourage unauthorized aliens from attempting to enter the United States. Since 2005, CBP has attempted to discourage repeat entries and disrupt migrant smuggling networks by imposing tougher penalties against certain unauthorized aliens, a set of policies eventually described as “enforcement with consequences.” Most people apprehended at the Southwest border are now subject to “high consequence” enforcement outcomes.

Across a variety of indicators, the United States has substantially expanded border enforcement resources over the last three decades. Particularly since 2001, such increases include border security appropriations, personnel, fencing and infrastructure, and surveillance technology. The Border Patrol collects data on several different border enforcement outcomes; and this report describes trends in border apprehensions, recidivism, and estimated got aways and turn backs. Yet none of these existing data are designed to measure illegal border flows or the degree to which the border is secured. Thus, the report also describes methods for estimating illegal border flows based on enforcement data and migrant surveys.

Drawing on multiple data sources, the report suggests conclusions about the state of border security. Robust investments at the border were not associated with reduced illegal inflows during the 1980s and 1990s, but a range of evidence suggests a substantial drop in illegal inflows in 2007-2011, followed by a slight rise in 2012. Enforcement, along with the economic downturn in the United States, likely contributed to the drop in unauthorized migration, though the precise share of the decline attributable to enforcement is unknown.

Enhanced border enforcement also may have contributed to a number of secondary costs and benefits. To the extent that border enforcement successfully deters illegal entries, such enforcement may reduce border-area violence and migrant deaths, protect fragile border ecosystems, and improve the quality of life in border communities. But to the extent that aliens are not deterred, the concentration of enforcement resources on the border may increase border area violence and migrant deaths, encourage unauthorized migrants to find new ways to enter illegally and to remain in the United States for longer periods of time, damage border ecosystems, harm border-area businesses and the quality of life in border communities, and strain U.S. relations with Mexico and Canada.


Date of Report: May 3, 2013
Number of Pages: 47
Order Number: R42138
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42138.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification

Andorra Bruno
Specialist in Immigration Policy

The 113th Congress is expected to take up comprehensive immigration reform. Some of the most difficult immigration policy questions on the table concern unauthorized immigration and unauthorized employment. Today’s discussions about these issues build on the work of prior Congresses. In 1986, following many years of debate about unauthorized immigration to the United States, Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). This law sought to address unauthorized immigration, in part, by requiring all employers to examine documents presented by new hires to verify identity and work authorization and to complete and retain employment eligibility verification (I-9) forms. Ten years later, in the face of a growing illegal alien population, Congress attempted to strengthen the employment verification process by establishing pilot programs for electronic verification, as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA).

The Basic Pilot program (known now as E-Verify), the first of the three IIRIRA employment verification pilots to be implemented and the only one still in operation, began in November 1997. Originally scheduled to terminate in November 2001, it has been extended several times. It is currently authorized until September 30, 2015, in accordance with P.L. 112-176.

E-Verify is administered by the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (DHS/USCIS). The program has been growing in recent years. On February 16, 2013, there were 432,256 employers enrolled in E-Verify, representing more than 1,300,000 hiring sites. E-Verify is a primarily voluntary program, but there are some mandatory participation requirements. Among them is a rule, which became effective on September 8, 2009, requiring certain federal contracts to contain a new clause committing contractors to use E-Verify.

Under E-Verify, participating employers submit information about their new hires (name, date of birth, Social Security number, immigration/citizenship status, and alien number, if applicable) from the I-9 form. This information is automatically compared with information in Social Security Administration and, if necessary, DHS databases to verify identity and employment eligibility.

Legislation on electronic employment eligibility verification may be considered in the 113th Congress as part of a comprehensive immigration reform bill or as separate, stand-alone legislation. In weighing proposals on electronic employment verification, Congress may find it useful to evaluate them in terms of their potential impact on a set of related issues: unauthorized employment; verification system accuracy, efficiency, and capacity; discrimination; employer compliance; privacy; and verification system usability and employer burden.


Date of Report: March 19, 2013
Number of Pages: 23
Order Number: R40446
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R40446.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.