Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy

8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy

1/52

Architecture for Immigration Reform:

Fitting the Pieces o Public Policy

University of Denver Strategic Issues Program 2009 Immigration Panel Final Report


2/52

Tale of Contents

Letter From the Chancellor .............................................................................................1

Overview From the Panel Chair .....................................................................................2

Report of the Universit of Denver Strategic Issues Panel on Immigration ..................4Gloal Migration ......................................................................................................4

A Shifting World .................................................................................................4The Rise of U.S. Immigration .............................................................................6Drivers of Migration ...........................................................................................7

A Foundation for Polic ............................................................................................ 9Purpose and Priorities ........................................................................................9Immigration Goals ............................................................................................10Federal and State Roles ...................................................................................14

Reforming the Sstem ........................................................................................... 16The Need for Change ........................................................................................16A Simplied System .........................................................................................18Immigration Management Commission ............................................................20Per-country Limitations.....................................................................................22

National Securit ...................................................................................................24Border Security .................................................................................................24The Central Role of Employers .........................................................................25Employment Identication Card .......................................................................27

Social Vitalit .........................................................................................................29

A Common Language .......................................................................................29Existing Illegal Immigrants ...............................................................................30Public Services to Illegal Immigrants ...............................................................34

Economic Advantage ..............................................................................................36Attracting Skilled Workers ................................................................................36Temporary Workers ...........................................................................................39

Famil Unication ..................................................................................................42Conclusion .............................................................................................................44

Summar of Panel Recommendations .........................................................................45

Panel Memers ............................................................................................................ 47Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................ 48


3/52

| 1

Te measure o a great university is its commitmentto the public good, and the manner in which it acts

on that commitment to achieve results that have a

real and positive impact. At the University o Denver,

we believe that one o our roles is to stimulate a rich

and inormed public discourse on critical issues in

the belie that such discourse will contribute to a just,

prosperous and sustainable uture or Colorado, our

home since 1864.

It is with that goal in mind that the University

sponsors the Strategic Issues Program. Te program

brings together concerned citizens rom across the

state, convening as a strategic issues panel, to examine

the many acets o a single complex issue. Previous

panels have examined Colorados economic uture,

water issues and Colorados need or constitutional

reorm. Te reports rom these panels have stimulatedboth urther debate and positive actions.

Te work o the 20082009 strategic issues panel

conronted one o our nations thorniest, most

complex and politically charged issuesimmigration,

both legal and illegal. Depending on ones perspective,

the issue is driven by considerations o human

rights, respect or the law, business/labor relations,

the evolution o the U.S. economy, the educational

rights o children, separation o authority between thestates and the ederal government, the undamental

nature o the relationships between the U.S. and

its neighboring countries, or the basic attributes o

citizenship itsel. Te panel was comprised o twenty

distinguished citizens whose lives, belies and political

persuasions span a very broad spectrum. Teir work

was inormed by in-depth research and ace-to-ace

interactions with a vast array o experts in all o the

areas noted above. As you read this report, you will

nd that in spite o the many dimensions o the issue

and the disparate perspectives brought to the table by

the panel members, a thoughtul, act-based approach

did indeed bring consensus.

We hope that the work o this panel and the ideas

brought orth in this report will stimulate similarly

civil, thoughtul, act-based debate among the publicat large and its representatives in government,

such that this broader conversation might lead to a

desperately needed consensus or action.

Robert D. Coombe

Chancellor, University o Denver

Letter from the Chancellor


4/52

| 2

| 2

For the United States, immigration has become aperplexing policy puzzle. As a nation, we understand

our history and heritage; we know where we have

been. We are less sure o where we wish to go.

Nevertheless, solving the dilemma o immigration

policy is a task o some urgency and considerable

gravity. Immigration aects our national security,

shapes the abric o our society and impacts our

economic uture. Few topics are more consequential

and ew have been more resistant to resolution.

Te problem is not a dearth o ideas. Indeed, policy

proposals o all stripes are oered every day, rom

every quarter. Nor is it a shortage o research. In

act, it is dicult to nd a topic that has more think

tanks, university centers and research organizations

analyzing data, producing studies and conducting

symposia. Nor is it a lack o advocacy. Few issues

have more advocates, pressing more positions, more

passionately, than immigration.

Rather, in the panels view, the diculty arises

rom a lack o architecture. What is required is an

overarching design that can guide the ormation

o a comprehensive immigration policy. Such

an architecture begins with an understanding o

the landscape, proceeds to dene purpose andpriorities, and establishes clear goals. Tese things

provide a ramework within which specic policy

recommendations may be ordered.

Creating such an architecture, and organizing policy

recommendations within that ramework, is the aim

o this report.

aken alone, ew o the panels recommendations

are completely original. Most o the proposals havepreviously been advanced, in one orm or another,

by others. Indeed, portions o some o the panels

recommendations are already law. Rather than

attempting to oer wholly new notions, the panel

has tried to glean the best ideas rom many sources

and bring them together in a meaningul way. Te

goal has been to provide a sound oundation or

policy, a comprehensive view o the issue, a balanced

perspective and a logical ordering o ideas.

In ormulating recommendations, the panel has

attempted to steer a middle course between policy

pronouncements so broad as to be platitudes

and recommendations so detailed they strain the

panels technical competence. Te result is a set o

recommendations that are intended to describe the

Overview from the Panel Chair


5/52

| 3

| 3

desired outcomes o an eective immigration policyrather than try to speciy the legislative details. In

doing so, however, the panel recognizes that the

details are always o great importance and urges

care be taken to ensure policy proposals align with

intended outcomes.

As with prior University o Denver strategic

issues panels, this years Strategic Issues Panel

on Immigration was nonpartisan in nature and

composed o accomplished citizens rom various

segments o the Colorado community. While

nonpartisan, the panel brought very diverse views to

the subject o immigration. Te panels 20 members

were appointed by the chancellor o the University

o Denver and the panels work was unded by the

University as part o its ongoing commitment to

support the public good.

Te approach taken by all University strategic

issues panels is one that begins by trying to gain a

clear understanding o the problem. o that end,

throughout the winter and spring o 2009, the

panel met on an intensive basis receiving some

30 presentations rom individuals in academia,

government, business, labor, law enorcement,

education, health care and other elds. Te panel

heard rom immigration advocates and opponents;ederal, state and local ocials; business executives

and community organizers; immigration attorneys;

consul rom Canada; and others.

Only then, aer listening to many perspectives and

reviewing an extensive list o readings, did the panel

begin its own deliberations. During the summer and

into the all, panel members weighed the research and

opinions oered and engaged in discussions based on

the inormation presented and panelists own views

and experience. Te panel sought practical solutions

rather than ideologically oriented outcomes and used

a consensus process to identiy underlying issues and

develop recommendations.

Aer much listening, learning and discussion,

the University o Denver Strategic Issues Panel

on Immigration has reached a consensus on an

architecture or immigration policy. Tat consensus is

the subject o this report.

James R. Griesemer, Chair

Strategic Issues Panel on Immigration

University o Denver


6/52

| 4

GLObAL MIGRATIONGlobal migration is shaping the world. It is a orce that may be

managed, but is not likely to be stopped. Understanding the

drivers o global migration is a starting point or developing an

eective immigration policy or the United States.

A Shifting World

Immigration is perhaps best understood in the context o

interdependent, globally linked economies and societies. In the

same way that currency fows around the world seeking higher

returns, so people move in search o greater opportunity. Driven

by a desire to escape poverty, political upheaval and natural

disasters, global migration is a orce o extraordinary power. It is

the consequence o a host o actions taken over decades, the sum

o millions o business, policy and individual decisions made in

many places throughout the world.

Tere are currently some 214 million international migrants.

Collectively, they represent more than 3 percent o the entire

world population. Between 1990 and 2005, global migrants

grew by nearly 40 million and the tide o migration appears to

be swelling. Not only are the numbers growing, but the rate o

growth is rapidly increasing as well, rom 1.3 percent during

19901995 to 1.8 percent or 20052010. Te United Nations

denition o global migrant is broad, encompassing many types

o legal migration as well as illegal or undocumented migrants.

It does not, however, include reugees who currently number

about 16 million persons. Combining the populations o

migrants and reugees, migrants represent 93 percent o the total

global migrant population and reugees about 7 percent. Te

growth o global migration is shown in Figure 1.

Report of the Strategic Issues Panel on Immigration

Figure 1 Growth of Gloal Migration(Source: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs)

Global Migration 1990-2010

G

lobalMigration(inmillions)

205

195

185

175

165

155

2000 20101990


7/52| 5

The question before the United States is less aout halting the ow ofgloal migration and more about managing it to our advantage.

Number of Migrants by Type of Nation 1990-2010

NumberofM

igrants(millions)

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

more developednations

less developednations

least developednations

2000 20101990 1995 2005

Number of Migrants in USA andMajor World Regions 1990-2010

N

umberofMigrants(millions)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2000 20101990 1995 2005

Europe

Asia

N. America including USAUSA only

Africa

Oceania

Latin America

Figure 2 Migrants Tpe of Nation(Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Aff airs, Population Division)

Figure 3 Numer of Migrants Location(Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Aff airs, Population Division)

O all global migrants, roughly 60 percent currently live in

industrialized nations. But this percentage greatly understates

the situation. In recent years more than 90 percent o all

migrants have moved to developed countries where economic

opportunities are more readily available. Figure 2 graphically

illustrates this trend. It shows the total number o migrants in

various types o countries, categorized as more, less and least

developed. Te fow o immigrants to developed nations that

oer economic opportunities, and sometimes greater political

reedom, is clear.

In terms o regions, North America and Europe experienced

the largest percentage increases o global migrants, while other

regions remained relatively stable or experienced a reduction

o migrants as a percent o population. In absolute numbers,

the regions o Europe, Asia and North America have the

greatest number o migrants. Figure 3 depicts the number

o migrants in the eight major regions o the world and also

shows the United States individually. As the chart shows, theUnited States is on the leading edge o global population shis

with an estimated 42 million migrants in 2009, a number

greater than any other nation, representing about 20 percent o

all global migrants.

Pete Coors

2009 ImmigrationPanel member


8/52| 6

Figure 4 Immigrants in the U.S.(Sources: United Nations and Migration Policy Insti tute)

Global migration, like the new, intertwined global economy,

is a act o 21st century lie that must be recognized. It cannot

be wished away. Te panel believes that an appreciation or the

orces o global economics in general, and global migration

in particular, is an appropriate starting point or considering

U.S. immigration policy. Te question beore the United

States is less about halting the fow o global migration and

more about managing it to our advantage. o that end, the

panel recommends that global migration be recognized as an

opportunity to be capitalized upon to our national benet,

rather than a reality to be ignored.

The Rise of U.S. Immigration

Over a relatively brie period o time, the rising tide o global

migration has resulted in remarkable changes to the U.S.

immigration picture. In little more than 35 years, the number

o oreign born in the United States rose rom an estimated 4.7

percent o the population in 1970, to 13.5 percent o the current

U.S. population, not ar rom the all-time high o 14.8 percent

reached in 1890. As Figure 4 shows, the fow o immigration

into the United States has shied signicantly, alling rom a

high in 1890 to a low in 1970, and then rising sharply once

again to present levels. Given these changes it is no surprise that

immigration has re-emerged as a key issue in the United States.

Te debate over immigration has resurrected a long-running

American dilemma. On one hand, the history, accomplishmentsand prosperity o the United States are the result o a great

national experiment in meritocracy. Imperect, to be sure, but

extraordinary in terms o aggregate achievement, it has been an

experiment built largely on immigration. Te achievements o

the United States are a result o the innovation, inventiveness

Immigrants in the United States

PercentofU.S.

Population

MillionsofImmigrants

16%

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

14.8%

4.7%

13.5%

50

40

30

20

10

0

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Percent of U.S. Population

The history, accomplishments and prosperity of the United States

are the result of a great national experiment in meritocrac...an experiment built largely on immigration.

Poll baca



9/52| 7

and hard work o a populace, the vast majority o whom had

their ancestry in other lands. Te irony o immigration lies in

our present inability to engage or the uture an issue that has so

prooundly shaped our past.

Even as we recognize the important role o immigration in our

national success, we remain conficted about the best uture

course. Te question o immigration policy remains one o our

most intractable issues. It has become a Gordian knot that even

bipartisan attempts o recent years have ailed to untie. It is a

knot pulled ever tighter on one end by immigration advocates

and on the other by immigration opponents.

Yet it is important to consider the choices. Te nature o

American society in the 21st century and its economic strength,

security, and global competitiveness will be infuenced by

immigration policy. One way or another, either by action or

inaction, a course will be set. I we cannot as a nation nd a

common ramework through which to engage the issue oimmigration, we will likely be engaged by it without our consent,

as the orces o global migration bear upon the United States.

Drivers of Migration

Given the impact o global migration, understanding the actors

that drive migration is a necessary rst step in developing an

eective immigration policy. Migration decisions made by

individuals are complex and based on a combination o actors.

It is not easy to decide to leave ones amily and homeland. Te

individual is pushed and pulled by many actors.

Lack o opportunity, unemployment, hunger, disease, natural

disasters, armed confict, political repression, previous

immigration to a particular country by amily and riends, and

other actors push the migrant to leave his or her native land. At

the same time, economic opportunity, the chance to reunite with

amily or riends abroad, and greater political reedom pull the

individual toward one country or another. Figure 5 illustrates

just some o the many actors aecting migration decisions. Te

harsh realities that make up push actors exist in many places

while attractive pull actors tend to be stronger in developed

countries. With the diculties that exist in many countries, it

is not surprising that individuals are migrating to developed

nations, especially the United States, in great numbers.

While perspectives dier concerning the exact mix o actors,

conditions and circumstances that surround migration

decisions, there is widespread agreement that the quest or

economic opportunity is one o, and most likely the primary

Ellis Island 1918(Source Library of Congress)

The iron of immigration lies in our present inability to engagefor the future an issue that has so profoundly shaped our past.


10/52| 8| 8

Figure 5 Migration Forces

driver o migration. What constitutes economic opportunity

or a migrant turns out to be a complex calculus that includes

economic conditions in both the source and receiving countries.

In the end, however, many migrants tend to go where they

perceive economic opportunity to be the greatest.

wo other important drivers o migration include the desire or

amily unication and reugee resettlement. Family unication,

while producing large numbers o migrants, is better thought

o as a consequence o a migration decision made by an initial

amily member which later results in an understandable desire

to reunite the amily in a new homeland. Reugee events are

also a signicant driver o migration as armed confict, political

repression and environmental disasters orce reugees rom their

homes. Tese orces, creating reugees and those seeking asylum,

are very real although they can be dicult to predict and oen

impossible to control.

Although the desire or amily unication produces largenumbers o immigrants, and reugee-producing events are

powerul motivators o migration, the quest or economic

improvement is, on balance, the most important driver o

immigration rom a policy-development viewpoint. It is

signicant not only in the sheer numbers o migrants infuenced

by economic opportunity, but also because, unlike amily

unication, it is a primary driver o immigration rather than a

secondary consequence. Moreover, unlike the actors producing

reugees, the quest or economic improvement is a reasonably

predictable orce that is at least partially within the control o the

receiving country. Tus, rom the panels perspective, ocusing

on economic improvement provides a key point o leverage

or both managing immigration and maximizing its potential

benets.

Migration Forces

Push FactorsLack of Work

Poverty

Political Persecution

Armed Conflict

Hunger & DiseaseNatural Disasters

Friends & Family Leaving

Pull FactorsEmployment Opportunity

Personal Security

Political Freedom

Rejoining Family

Educational OpportunityHealth & Environment

Entrepreneurial Freedom


11/52| 9| 9

A FOUNDATION FOR POLICyCreating an eective policy begins with a consensus about

the broad aims to be achieved. Te panel believes that U.S.

immigration policy should be grounded in creating economic

and social benets to the nation as a whole while maintaining

national security. Tis premise suggests the broad purpose to

be served by immigration policy and provides a oundation or

establishing priorities and organizing goals.

Purpose and Priorities

Unclear or conficting goals are the nemesis o good public

policy. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in our own nations

immigration policy, which is a tangled web o statutory and

administrative approaches that have been patched together over

many years. In truth, it is dicult to speak o an immigration

policy as i it were a coherent set o actions leading to dened

goals. Rather, todays immigration policy is the result o a series

o decisions based upon goals and priorities that seem to shiover time.

In most policy areas there exists a consensus on broad aims to

be achieved, even though there may be disagreement on the

best means o realizing those goals. In national deense, or

example, while there may be disagreement on specic programs

or spending levels, all parties agree on the importance o an

eective U.S. deense capability. In public health, everyone

shares the goal o keeping the public sae rom disease, although

there are oen legitimate dierences on the best way o doing so.

In these examples, and in many other issue areas, there is general

agreement about the broad goals to be achieved.

Not so with immigration, where no shared consensus on

undamental goals yet exists. Without agreement on basic goals,

there is the risk that the gridlocked status quo will dene our

uture rather than dening or ourselves the role immigration

should play. Tere is an urgent need to be clear about the ends

we seek. With that in mind, the panel recommends that the basic

purpose o U.S. immigration policy be the creation o economic,

social and other benets to the nation as a whole.

Focusing on economic improvementprovides a key point of leverage forboth managing immigration and maximizing its potential benets.Don Ament



12/52| 10| 10

Although this recommendation may seem obvious, it carries

with it signicant implications. Te recommendation suggests

that immigration policy should be grounded on enlightened

sel-interest rather than altruism. It means that all immigration-

related proposals must clearly demonstrate how they benet the

nation as a whole. Te panels perspective asserts immigration as

a means o creating a stronger nation, not simply an end in itsel.

I the creation o benet to the nation as a whole is the

overarching purpose o U.S. immigration policy, the rst task is

to establish goals and the criteria around which policy aims and

priorities will be organized. It is important that any such criteria

not be sub-rosa, but be clearly articulated. o that end, the

panel recommends that the criterion or ordering immigration

priorities and goals be the relative degree o benet to the United

States as a whole compared with the benet to prospective

immigrants. Using this criterion, goals providing greater benet

to the U.S. receive a higher priority, while the goals providing a

greater degree o benet to the individual immigrant receive a

lower priority. Tis relationship is depicted in Figure 6.

Immigration Goals

In the course o its meetings, the panel received presentations

rom a large number o immigration experts, advocates and

public ocials, many o whom suggested goals to be achieved

through U.S. immigration policy. Tese included such policy

Figure 6 basis for Immigration Priorities

Immigration Priorities

Higher Priority

To United States

Lower Priority

To ImmigrantsMutualDegree of Benefit

Marguerite Salazar

2009 ImmigrationPanel member Immigration policy should be grounded on enlightened self-interestrather than altruism.


13/52| 11| 11

aims as meeting employer needs or workers; creating a

younger, more vital society; protecting the jobs o U.S. citizens;

eliminating abuse o immigrant workers; reuniting amilies;

providing or reugees; maintaining national security; improving

border security; protecting the current quality o lie in the U.S.;

attracting the best and brightest to our country; reducing human

tracking; etc.

While the suggested policy goals did not all array themselves

into neat categories, most ell into one o ve areas: national

security, social vitality, economic enhancement, amily

unication and reugee concerns. aken together, these

areas embrace many o the principal issues and sub-issues o

immigration and orm a basis on which to establish goals. Each

o these ve areas is important in its own right. Yet, in a world

o limited resources, where not every objective can be equally

served, priorities must be established i a coherent and eective

policy is to be created. As noted earlier, the criterion used by

the panel or establishing priorities among goals is the degree

to which a goal provides benets to the United States as a whole

compared with benets provided to prospective immigrants.

Tis criterion provides a basis to organize ve key goals.

1. National securityincludes maintaining the security o the

United States, protecting citizens and guarding national borders.

Te benets derived rom protecting national security fow

Figure 7 Immigration Polic Goals

Immigration Policy Goals

To United States

National

Security

Social

Vitality

Economic

Advantage

Family

Unification

Refugee

Relief

To ImmigrantsMutualDegree of Benefit


14/52| 12| 12

overwhelmingly to the United States as a whole compared to

prospective immigrants. For this reason, national security must

be the rst priority.

2. Social vitalityrelates to strengthening the social cohesion o

the nation while recognizing the benets o a diverse society.

It is about interweaving a wide range o cultures, mores and

perspectives into a social abric that is stronger, more vibrant

and more resilient than the sum o its strands. Enhancing social

vitality and cohesion is o direct benet to the U.S. as a whole

while providing indirect benets to prospective immigrants.

Social vitality is the second goal.

3. Economic advantage ocuses on strengthening the economic

viability and global competitiveness o the United States. Te

panel believes that creating economic advantage or the United

States should be a key purpose o immigration policy. Properly

structured, immigration policy in this area can create both

economic enhancement or the U.S. and economic opportunity

or qualied immigrants.

4. Family unication centers on bringing amilies together aer

one or more members initially migrate to the United States.

Aer creating economic advantage, amily unication should be

the next priority or U.S. immigration policy. Te benets here

accrue directly to immigrants and their amilies; however, the

nation as a whole benets rom the employment productivity

and social strength derived rom stable amily lie.

5. Refugee concerns are an important humanitarian matter

oering momentous benet to the individual reugee, while

benet to the United States may be uneven or indirect. Tat

notwithstanding, relative to other nations the U.S. has had a

generous reugee policy. According to OECD (the Organization

or Economic Cooperation and Development), since 1994 the

U.S. has accepted more reugees than all other 30 OECD nations

combined. Even though the number o reugees as a percent o

international migrants has declined rom 12 percent in 1990

to about 7.6 percent today, the conditions endured by many

reugees continue to be extremely dicult, even lie-threatening.Although reugee policy was not within the panels scope o

These policy goals and the basis on which they areprioritized represent a framework for immigration polic.


15/52| 13| 13

study, and is thus not an area in which recommendations are

oered, it remains an important part o the immigration policy

ramework and a priority to be addressed.

Consistent with the criterion or policy priorities described in

the preceding section, the panel recommends that the goals or

United States immigration policy be: national security, social

vitality, economic advantage, amily unication and reugee

relie, in that order. Tese policy goals and the basis on which

they are prioritized represent a ramework or immigration

policy. Goals and the relationship between them are depicted in

Figure 7.

It is important to note that these goals are not congruent with

current U.S. immigration policy goals, nor do they share the

same priorities. Current U.S. policy goals are amily unication,

Figure 8 Recommended and Present Immigration Goals

National Security

Social Vitality

Economic AdvantageFamily Unification

Refugee Relief

RecommendedImmigration Goals

Family Unification

Obtaining Needed Skills

Refugee ReliefDiversity of Admissions

Present U.S.Immigration Goals

Steve Halstedt



16/52| 14

admission o immigrants with needed skills, reugee relie and

diversity o admissions by country o origin. Tis variation in

goals and priorities underlies some o the dierences between

the recommendations in this report and current U.S. policies

and practice. Te variation in goals is shown in Figure 8.

Federal and State Roles

Identiying a shared purpose, ordering priorities and

establishing clear goals are essential prerequisites to successul

policy. But policy is not perormance and rhetoric is not results.

o achieve real results, both policy and implementation must be

harmonized among three levels o government: ederal, state and

local. For immigration policy this is, at the moment, not always

the case. At the policy level, there is too little coordination and

consistency among ederal, state and local legislation. As to

enorcement, multijurisdictional cooperation, while improving,

still remains disjointed and subject to serious unding concerns.

Without eective coordination among all levels o government,

creating and implementing a successul immigration policy islikely to remain an elusive goal.

Te ederal government has plenary power when it comes to

establishing immigration policy. Tis does not mean, however,

that states cannot legislate in the area so long as their statutes

are consistent with ederal law. And legislate they have, or

better or worse. In recent years states have become very active,

adopting more than 550 immigration-related statutes since 2005.

Legislative activism extends to the local level where an estimated

100 cities have enacted or are considering their own legislation

relating to immigration. Te result is a legislative potpourri

dealing with a wide spectrum o immigration and immigrantissues including education, employment, health, human

tracking, law enorcement, legal services, public benets,

voting and other topics.

In the panels view, legislative inconsistency and policy conficts

are due to the absence o clear ederal statutes delineating

appropriate governmental roles. As a result, state and local

policies, while sometimes supporting ederal law, are just as

likely to weaken or confict with ederal policy. Te ailure o theederal government to dene its own sphere o exclusive action

and designate appropriate domains or state and local legislation

Colorado Governor bill

Ritter addresses the 2009Immigration Panel


17/52| 15

Without effective coordination among all levels of government, creating andimplementing a successful immigration policy is likely to remain an elusive goal.

exacerbates the ineectiveness o U.S. immigration policy and

implementation. While there may be legitimate debate as to

the extent to which it is desirable or the ederal government to

preempt state and local authority, there can be little question

about the importance o clear roles and responsibilities among

the various levels o government. For that reason, the panel

recommends that the ederal government dene by statute

appropriate spheres o legislative activity or itsel and or the

states. States, in turn, can take similar action with respect to local

governments within their jurisdictions.

In the same way that legislative boundaries between levels o

government are unclear, coordination in the implementation

and enorcement o immigration policy remains an area

ripe or improvement. For example, the idea o sharing law

enorcement personnel seems to make a great deal o sense since

ederal ocers represent only about 13 percent o all civilian

law enorcement personnel in the U.S. while state and local

ocers account or the remaining 87 percent. But progress has,rankly, been painully slow. A variety o issues, including a lack

o unding to reimburse state and local governments or their

costs, have hampered eorts at cooperation. For example, by

October 2009, just over 1075 state and local ocers had received

training and been certied by the U.S. Immigration and Customs

Enorcement (ICE) to assist with immigration enorcement. Tis

group represented barely one-tenth o 1 percent o all state and

local law enorcement ocers.

In the course o its meetings, the panel received presentations

rom ocials at ederal, state and local levels. Presenters

consistently identied the need or more eective coordination

between ederal and state ocials in terms o implementation

and enorcement o immigration policy. Whatever immigration

policies eventually emerge, it is essential that implementation

be coordinated among various levels o government. For that

reason, the panel recommends that Congress establish a shared

process o implementation that allocates responsibilities or

implementing and enorcing immigration policy among ederal,

state and local government; balances revenues and costs; and

prohibits ununded ederal or state mandates.


18/52| 16

REFORMING THE SySTEMIn order to consider specic recommendations related to

national security, social vitality, economic advantage and amily

unication, it is necessary to look at the structure and operation

o the current U.S. immigration system. For the vast majority

o U.S. citizens, employers and immigrants, the immigration

system oen seems well-nigh incomprehensible. Almost every

thoughtul observer, regardless o party aliation or perspective,

believes the American immigration system is broken and inneed o undamental reorm. Yet changing the system has

proven to be no easy matter, in large part due to its complexity.

As the Congressional Research Service noted, Te sheer

complexity o the current set o provisions makes revising the

law on permanent immigration a daunting task.

The Need for Change

Te present U.S. immigration system is built on the oundation

o the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), initially codiedin 1952 and since amended many times. Conceptually, the INA

establishes two broad categories o legal aliens: immigrants and

non-immigrants. Non-immigrants include tourists, students,

diplomats, temporary agricultural workers and others here or a

specic purpose and a limited period o time. Immigrants, also

called legal permanent residents (LPRs), are oreign nationals

who come to live permanently in the United States. What

begins as a neat theoretical categorization or immigration gains

astounding complexity in practice.

Structurally, the immigration system may be thought o as a

layered arrangement o visa categories and subcategories with

legislatively determined allocations, urther limited by country

o origin, overlaid with a system o preerences related to amily

members, employees, diversity, reugees, asylees and several

other special preerence categories. Depending upon how one

counts, the result is a complicated labyrinth o over 40 principal

visa categories and more than 195 subcategories or both

immigrant and non-immigrant purposes. In most cases, the

numeric limits or each category, and oen the procedures or

calculating those limits, are established by Congress via ederal

statute.

Tis structure is urther complicated by the act that certain

categories are permitted to exceed their limits, other categories

are permitted to use otherwise unused allocations rom dierent

categories, and unused visa numbers are allowed to roll down to


19/52

| 17| 17

the next preerence categoryin most, but not all, cases. All o

this must occur within the per-country limits except where there

are statutorily established exceptions to the limits, such as or

amily-sponsored immigrants. In actual practice, o course, the

system is much more complex than this brie overview depicts.

Te mechanics o managing allocations within various

categories, all constrained by national origin limits, would be

complex enough i the fow was predictable and the system

fexible. But neither condition exists. Te decision to apply

rests with the applicant, not with the U.S. Citizenship and

Immigration Services (USCIS). Tus, the applicant fow is

variable and essentially uncontrollable. Tis is compounded by

the infexibility o the system, since only Congress can change

the total number o visas allowed. Each year, bills are introduced

to change the numbers or tweak allocations between or within

categories and subcategories. Tose bills that pass simply

become another patch on a system that is already hopelessly

complex.

Te result is a U.S. immigration system that is unpredictable,

opaque, and that produces results that are sometimes exactly

the reverse o those intended. One stunning example is ound

in the non-immigrant category o visas that were not intended

to result in permanent immigrants; that was the purpose o

the immigrant category. In act, about 80 90 percent o all

employment-based green cards are now issued to persons

rom non-immigrant categories. Te original, neat distinction

between immigrant and non-immigrant categories is now

largely irrelevant. Te system creates rustrating uncertainty

or everyone involvedemployers, applicants and amily

memberswith processing backlogs that almost deyimagination. Depending upon ones preerence category, waiting

times or visas might range rom a ew months to 22 years.

Te United States immigration system requires undamental

rethinking. Te U.S. needs a new immigration system that is

supportive o national goals, responsive to rapidly changing

economic conditions and that produces predictable outcomes.

In addition, the system must be comprehensible, transparent

and as straightorward as possible. As the U.S. Commission onImmigration Reorm noted in its 1995 report: Immigration

policy should not be overly complex, and the mechanisms

used should be ecient and comprehensible. Te panel

Caroln Daniels

2009 ImmigrationPanel memberFor the vast majority of U.S. citizens, employers and immigrants, theimmigration system often seems well-nigh incomprehensile.


20/52

| 18

agrees with the commission. Tereore the panel recommends

that Congress reorm the U.S. immigration system in a

comprehensive way so that it is supportive o national goals,

responsive to rapidly changing economic conditions, produces

predictable results and is as simple, comprehensible and

transparent as possible.

A Simplied Sstem

Te United States immigration system must be reormed and

simplied. In approaching this task it is essential that any reorm

be done holistically, not via more legislative patches on an

already badly listing ship. Tere are a number o ways the U.S.

immigration system might be improved and many suggestions

have been oered over the years. Without discounting the value

o other approaches, the panel suggests that reorm must begin

with a dramatic simplication o the visa system. Te panel

recommends that the visa system be simplied into eight broad

visa categories: visitor, student, temporary, convertible, amily,

provisional, representative and reugee, and that immigrant/non-immigrant distinctions be eliminated. Qualication or all

visas would include a level o security screening appropriate to

the type and duration o the visa and visas would be revoked i

the individual were convicted o a serious crime.

Visitor visas would be or those entering the country or a

period not exceeding nine months. Visitors, businesspersons,

trainees and others desiring short-term stays are among those

included in this category. Tere would be no limit on the

number o visitor visas that could be issued. Persons holding

visitor visas could not bring amily members unless those

individuals secured their own visas. Visitor visa holders could

leave the country and return again within the visa period, but

could not renew the visa rom within the United States. Persons

holding visitor visas would not be eligible to adjust to legal

permanent resident (green card) status.

Student visas are intended or students in ormal educational

programs leading to a degree rom an accredited university or

other recognized educational institution. Student visas would

be valid or a period o ve years, but terminate immediately

i the student ceased his or her education prior to graduation.

Spouse and minor children could receive amily visas while the

principals visa remained valid. Student visa holders could leave

the country and return again during the visa period. Students

Ka Norton

2009 ImmigrationPanel member Almost every thoughtful observer, regardless of party afliation or perspective,believes theAmerican immigration sstem is roken and in need of fundamental reform.


21/52

| 19

could renew the visa rom within the United States only once,

and only i they became a qualied graduate student. Persons

holding student visas and their amily members would not

be eligible to adjust to permanent resident status. Students

graduating rom accredited U.S. universities with masters and

doctoral degrees would, however, be eligible or a special one-

year extended student visa that would allow graduates time to

seek employment and then be eligible or a convertible visa.

In this connection, it is useul to recognize the relationship

between student visas and the ability to attract outstanding

Figure 9 Summar of Recommended Visa Categories

Visitor

Student

Temporary

Convertible

Provisional

Family

Representative

Refugee

9 months

5 years

1 year

4 years

5 years

Limited Term

Appointment

Yes/Only outside U.S.

1 time/Graduate work only

Yes/Only outside U.S.

2 times/Within U.S.

1 time/Within U.S.

Same term as principals visa

Runs with term of appointment only

Not addressed in this report

No

Yes

No

Yes

Conditional

n/a

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes, with conditions

Convertible visa only

No

Type of Visa

(Major Categories)

Duration of VisasRenewability of Visa/

Conditions for Renewal

Family

Allowed

Adjust to LegalPermanent

Resident


22/52

| 20

workers in science, engineering and other important elds. By

educating students here, the U.S. gains an inherent advantage

in the global competition or highly skilled workers. For many

years, the United States was the unquestioned leader in higher

education and enjoyed the luxury o having the brightest and

most motivated students fock to our doorstep. For example, the

National Academy o Sciences indicates that, since 1990, more

than hal the U.S. Nobel laureates in the sciences were oreign

born.

While still the leader in higher education, U.S. domination is

diminishing. In 1989, American universities awarded twice the

number o PhDs as those granted by major Asian countries. Just

12 years later Asian universities had closed the gap. A similar

story exists in Europe. Te United States is paying a heavy

price or an immigration system that presents students with a

conusing, ad hoc mixture o temporary visas and no convenient

way to search or a job in the U.S. aer graduation.

Representative visas are or persons representing oreign

governments and trade organizations, the media, certain treaty

workers and others in similar capacities. Tese visas would be

or the duration o the representation only. Spouse and minor

children could receive amily visas while the principals visa

remained valid. Visa holders could leave the country and return

again during the visa period. Persons holding representative

visas and their amily members would not be eligible to adjust to

either a convertible visa or to permanent resident status.

Refugee visas would be used or reugees approved or

immigration, asylum seekers, certain employees o the U.S.

government serving abroad and similar persons. Conditions

and numerical limits or reugee visas would be established by

Congress. Reugee policy was not within the panels scope o

study, and thus recommendations are not oered on reugee

visas.

emporary and convertible employment, amily and provisional

visa categories are discussed in ollowing sections o this

report. Figure 9 provides a brie summary o the panels

recommendations or simplied visa categories.

Immigration Management CommissionPresently, Congress determines the number o visas allowed

or each category and subcategory in a highly detailed way. As

might be imagined, the process o establishing or changing

the visa limits is slow, cumbersome and subject to political

The U.S. needs a new immigration system that is supportive of national goals, responsiveto rapidly changing economic conditions and that produces predictale outcomes.


23/52

| 21

compromise. Congressional deliberation is appropriate or

craing broad legislation and or establishing the total number

o visas allowable annually under each major category such

as those shown in Figure 9. It is ar less eective as a means o

establishing detailed subcategory-by-subcategory immigration

limits that more closely resemble policy implementation than

policy ormulation. Te dierence is signicant. Imagine i

Congress were to set the ederal unds rate on the basis o

whatever political compromises could be achieved and whenever

a majority could be ound. Or, visualize a Congressional debateon the ecacy o a new drug and releasing it or public use, or

not, based on the political climate at the time.

Tese are not the best approaches and Congress has, in its

wisdom, created institutions such as the Federal Reserve

and the Food and Drug Administration to execute its broad

policy objectives. Te same approach should be taken with

respect to immigration visas. Tis is especially true in the area

o employment-related visas where the system must refectthe needs o employers i it is to improve the strength and

competitiveness o the U.S. economy. For these reasons, the

panel recommends that Congress establish only a maximum

numeric limit or each major category o visa and that the

allocation o visas within each major category be handled by

an independent Immigration Management Commission to be

created by Congress.

Te Immigration Management Commission (IMC) would

have a limited, but vital role. As noted above, Congress would

establish an overall numeric limit or major visa categories or

could allow a category to be unlimited, such as in the case o

visitor, student or amily visas. Within those overall limits, the

IMC could annually determine the specic number o visas to be

allocated within each category (but not between categories) and

the priorities related to such allocations. Te existence o such

a commission would allow the immigration system to respond

rapidly to changes in economic conditions. Congress would

no longer be called upon to try to manage the details o the

immigration system through the legislative process.

Te Immigration Management Commission would be a

small organization that might be housed within an existing

department or eciency, but would be independent in its

decision making. It would have a small sta to conduct analyses

and interact with ederal and state ocials and others with an

interest in the process. Te commission would not, however,

replace the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as the

administrator o the immigration system. Rather, the IMCs role

David Trickett


The Immigration Management Commission would have a limited,

but vital role...such a commission would allow the immigrationsystem to respond rapidly to changes in economic conditions.


24/52

| 22

would be to allocate visas tactically, based on current conditions,

and to establish visa issuance priorities to be ollowed by the

USCIS in implementing immigration policy. For example, when

economic conditions contracted, the IMC could respond in a

timely way, through reductions in allocations o employment-

related visas. Conversely, when the demand or workers

expanded, the commission could respond accordingly. In a

similar ashion, i there was a severe shortage o scientists and

engineers with expertise in nanotechnology, the commission

could increase employment-related visas and encourage studentvisas in that eld as well.

In recommending such an approach, the panel is particularly

concerned that the Immigration Management Commission

not preside over a centralized, top-down process. What is

required, especially with respect to employment-related visa

limits, is an employer-driven process. Te panel eels strongly

that the allocation o employment visas should start with

employers, not with a government agency. Te process wouldbegin with employers in each state meeting with a designated

state agency to identiy annual needs or temporary and

longer-term positions, giving careul consideration to the

availability o U.S. workers willing to ll such jobs. State-level

analysis would be ollowed by ormal, ace-to-ace discussions

between state ocials and commission members. Te goal is a

bottom-up, collaborative process that engages employers, states

and the ederal government and is responsive to economic

and other conditions. o this end, the panel recommends

that the allocation o employment-based visas be based on

a collaborative process in which each state presents detailed

recommendations to the Immigration Management Commission

based upon surveys and ace-to-ace discussions with employersthroughout the state.

Per-countr Limitations

In addition to simpliying the visa structure and the way in

which numeric limits are allocated, it is important to consider

the matter o per-country immigration limitations. Initially

created in 1965 to encourage diversity, per-country limitations

require that no country exceed 7 percent o the worldwide

level o U.S. immigrant admissions. Per-country limits are notan entitlement; rather they are intended as a barrier against

monopolization o the immigration process. Te diversity

limit is, in eect, overlaid on the many visa categories and

Jerr Williams


The allocation of employment visas should startwith emploers, not with a government agency.


25/52

| 23

subcategories and is administered through its own set o complex

rules. In spite o several attempts at legislative workarounds,

diversity limits continue to be problematic.

Diversity caps can inhibit the goal o using immigration policy

to strengthen U.S. economic viability. In 2007, Mexico, China,

Philippines and India were among the top countries sending

immigrants to the U.S. Tus, a highly educated applicant rom

India or China, an experienced engineer rom Mexico or a skilled

worker rom any other country that had reached its diversity

limit might wait years or a visa. Preventing overwhelming

numbers o immigrants to come rom just one or two countries

is an idea the panel supports, however the current limit has the

potential to impede realization o other important goals.

Te United States is a highly diverse nation and there is every

indication that the country will continue to attract immigrants

rom throughout the world. Te panel does not wish U.S.

immigration to be dominated by a single country, but the current

limits can thwart immigration policy goals, particularly in the

area o employment. Tereore, the panel recommends that

per-country diversity limits be increased rom 7 percent to 10

percent o the worldwide level o U.S. immigrant admissions

and that waivers not be granted to any country to exceed 10

percent. aking this step would not increase the total number o

immigrants, since the maximum limit or each major category

would continue to be established by Congress.

Te desire to achieve diversity has also led to the creation o an

annual diversity lottery through which 50,000 visas are granted

each year. Te only requirements are that the applicant be rom

an eligible country and have either a high school education

or equivalent, or two years o experience in a proession that

requires at least two years o training. Te 50,000 diversity visas

represent about one-third o all the visas available annually or

skilled workers seeking to immigrate to the United States. Te

demand or skilled worker visas has dramatically outstripped

the supply during most o the past decade. Te panel believes

that special measures are no longer required to oster diversity.

Tereore, the panel recommends that the annual diversity

lottery be eliminated and its visa allocation be transerred to the

convertible visa category.


26/52

| 24| 24

NATIONAL SECURITy

Maintaining the security o the United States and the saety o its

citizens is a undamental requirement. Near the top o national

security concerns is the matter o border security.

border Securit

Te rise in illegal immigration and a heightened concern about

drug smuggling, crime and terrorism have combined to increase

the ocus on U.S. border security. Te responsibility or border

enorcement rests with the U.S. Bureau o Customs and Border

Protection (CBP). Over the past decade, the U.S. Border Patrol

has seen its budget more than triple and its number o personnel

nearly double. Te addition o personnel and equipment,

creating the most extensive air and marine resources o any law

enorcement agency in the world, is improving border security.

Te growth o appropriations or the border patrol is shown in

Figure 10.

In addition to signicant increases in unding, personnel and

equipment, the CBP has expanded the construction o physical

barriers along the Mexican border as part o its Secure Borders

Initiative. Construction o border barriers goes back to 1990, but

in recent years the border inrastructure construction program

has greatly accelerated. Enhancements to border security go well

beyond encing and walls and now include sensors, light towers,

mobile night vision scopes, remote video surveillance systems,

directional listening devices, and unmanned aerial vehicles.

It is dicult to determine with precision just how successul

these increases in border security have been. For example, a 14

mile ence built nearly a decade ago near San Diego seems to

have proven eective in terms o reducing the number o illegalFigure 10 Growth of U.S. border Patrol Appropriations(Source: Congressional Research Service)

U.S. Border Patrol Appropriations

MillionsofDollars

$4,000

$3500

$3000

$2500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$0

2002 20052000 2001 2004 2007 20092006 2008

$1,055

$1,146

$1,271

$1,339

$1,538

$1,778

$2,278

$3,075

$3,501


27/52

| 25| 25

border crossings in that sector. Tat said, there is evidence that

the fow o illegal immigration has adapted to the San Diego

ence by shiing to the more remote areas o the Arizona

desert. Nevertheless, as increased border security is extended to

encompass some 700 miles along the southwest U.S. border, it is

very likely that illegal border crossings will become increasingly

dicult and expensive.

In addition to illegal immigration concerns, there is an urgent

need to deal with violence, drug smuggling, human tracking

and potential terrorist activity in border areas. Indeed, CBPs

top priority is now to keep terrorists and their weapons rom

entering the United States. Given the undamental importance

o border security or controlling illegal immigration, criminal

and terrorist activities, the panel recommends that the United

States continue eorts to strengthen the security o the U.S.

border and that Congress und the Bureau o Customs and

Border Protection at levels required to maintain eective border

enorcement. Te panel views these steps, along with continuedcollaboration with Canada and Mexico in border enorcement

eorts, as essential to the maintenance o U.S. border security.

The Central Role of Emploers

Eorts by the Bureau o Customs and Border Protection

to secure U.S. borders against illegal immigration through

enorcement, ences, video surveillance and other techniques are

essential, but not absolute. A key challenge is the length o the

United States border. According to the U.S. Geological Survey,

the U.S. border with Mexico is just under 2,000 miles long and

the border with Canada is about 4,000 miles not including

Alaska, which adds an additional 1,500 miles. Te U.S. seacoast

is much longer, with the most conservative estimate putting the

length at 12,500 miles. Given this vast expanse o land borders

and seacoasts, it seems highly unlikely that immigration will becontrolled by border security alone.

As noted earlier, the opportunity or economic improvement

is a primary driver o migration. Hence, a key step in reducing

illegal immigration is to remove the economic incentive to

migrate. In this respect, U.S. employers have a central role to

play in managing immigration. Although sometimes cast in

the role o villains, in act, employers are central to creating an

eective immigration policy or one principal reasontheycontrol the jobs. Migrants seeking economic opportunity are

unlikely to move to a country where employment is unavailable.

As a result, the panel recommends that employers be recognized

as key allies in implementing immigration policy and that

Employers are central to creating an effective immigrationpolicy for one principal reasonthe control the josRichard ballantine



28/52

| 26| 26

they be given the tools and protections necessary to support

immigration policy.

For more than 20 years, ederal law has required all employers

to examine documents presented by new hires to veriy

identity and work authorization, and to complete and retain

employment eligibility verication orms (I-9). Tere is general

agreement that the I-9 process has been undermined by raud,

both document raud, where prospective employees present

countereit or invalid documents, and identity raud, where

prospective employees present valid documents issued to

other individuals. Even i employers are willing and motivated

to comply with the law, as the great majority seem to be, the

inability to positively and reliably veriy immigration status is a

major stumbling block to managing illegal immigration through

employers.

In addition to being subject to raud by job applicants, the I-9

process is complex or employers to administer, especially those

who do not use immigrant labor on a regular basis. Currently

there are more than 20 documents that employees can present to

employers to establish their identity and employment eligibility.

For many employers, especially small businesses and those who

use the process only occasionally, understanding the procedures

can be dicult. In addition, record-keeping requirements give

rise to errors and omissions, putting the employer in potential

legal jeopardy or non-compliance.

o improve the identication process, in 1997 Congress

established a pilot program or electronic verication o

employment status. Tis Web-based program, now called

E-Veriy, allows the employer to send required I-9 data (name,

date o birth, Social Security number, immigration/citizenship

status, etc.) to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

via the Internet where the inormation is veried against the

Social Security and other databases. Plagued by problems and

inaccuracies in its early years, the accuracy o the E-Veriy

system is now much improved.

All ederal contractors and many state contractors are already

required to use the system. In addition, as o May 2009 more

than 122,000 employers o all types were enrolled in E-Veriy,

with an average o 1,000 employers joining the program each

week. In spite o its recent impressive growth, less than 15

percent o non-agricultural employers are currently using the

system. In 2008, E-Veriy was used in ewer than 13 percent

o all non-arm hires. Although there is much to commend

the E-Veriy system in terms o simplicity o use, speed and

Without a means of positive identication, it makes ver little difference whatimmigration policies are adopted because they cant be effectively enforced.Ved Nanda



29/52

| 27| 27

a high level o accuracy, its potential to signicantly reduce

illegal immigration will not be reached until it is used, and

can be relied upon, by all employers. For this reason the panel

recommends that E-Veriy, or a similar program, be made

permanent; that employers be required to use the system with

secure identication cards to veriy employment eligibility o all

employees; that employers using the system in good aith be held

harmless rom enorcement actions; and that employers ailing

to use the system be subject to signicant sanctions.

Universal use o E-Veriy or a successor system is an essential

rst step in controlling illegal immigration but it will not,

by itsel, solve the problem o illegal immigration. E-Veriy

has only limited ability to detect countereit documents and

even lower probability o detecting identity raud when an

individual presents valid documents that were actually issued

to another person. Te current system places the responsibility

to identiy countereit documents primarily upon the employer,

inappropriately in the panels view. In order to control theemployment o illegal migrants successully, another step is

required.

Emploment Identication Card

Preventing the employment o illegal aliens requires three

things: a secure, reliable means o identiying individuals, a

way to veriy their status and a system that is actually used by

employers. E-Veriy or a similar system can handle verication,

i the means o identication is accurate. Te problem is, and

has been, that the U.S. does not yet have a secure, reliable and

universal means o identication.

Te idea o a national card or identiying citizens and non-

citizens has become the third rail o immigration politics. But

in truth, without a means o positive identication, it makes

very little dierence what immigration policies are adopted

because they cant be eectively enorced. A means o positive

identication is essential to prevent the employment o illegal

immigrants.

I a source o identication exists that is extremely dicult or

impossible to countereit, a system like E-Veriy can be highly

eective. Using a secure identication card, the employer would

simply scan the prospective employees card into a scanner

and await conrmation. Te cost to the employer o acquiring

a scanner is likely to be small and, in any event, ar less than

the time and expense o processing multiple documents and

retaining records as employers must do today. Aer completing

the process o ID card verication, the employer should be held

A secure identication card would e required for emploment,just as a passport is required for international travel.


30/52

| 28| 28

harmless rom enorcement actions or that hire, thus creating

a positive incentive or employer compliance. Such a system

would help realize the potential o employers as powerul allies

in the eort to control illegal immigration.

o be eective, the identication card must be issued by the U.S.

government and be as tamper-proo as possible. Tis, o course,

raises understandable privacy concerns. However, aer listening

to experts and advocates on all sides, the panel has concluded

that the benets o a careully designed identication card

or employment outweigh potential privacy issues. For years,

would-be architects o immigration policy have gone through

contortions trying to avoid the use o a universal employment

identication card. But, in the end, immigration policy must be

implemented, not just discussed. And implementation requires

positive identication via a card that is government-issued,

technologically advanced and extremely dicult to countereit.

Tat is, a secure identication card.

Tere are many potential approaches to creating a secure

identication card. Te card could permit visual identication

through a photo, ngerprint and physical description. It could

also contain machine-readable data and biometric inormation

that could be scanned and sent to the E-Veriy database or

conrmation. In addition, or U.S. citizens and permanent

residents, the card might also include the individuals Social

Security number, thus creating at little additional cost a secure

Social Security card, an idea which has long been discussed in

Congress. In the case o immigrants, in addition to identication

inormation, the card could include a taxpayer ID number to

help assure that required taxes were paid.

A secure identication card is the cornerstone o an

eective immigration management program. Whatever its

exact characteristics, a secure identication card would be

required or employment, just as a passport is required or

international travel. Tereore, aer careul consideration,

the panel recommends that the United States establish a

secure identication card to be used by all employers, along

with E-Veriy, to ascertain the employment eligibility o all

prospective and current employees.


31/52

| 29| 29

SOCIAL VITALITy

United States immigration policy must support the social vitality

and cohesion o the nation. Social vitality embraces diversity,

not or its own sake, but or the fow o new ideas, varying

perspectives, innovation and entrepreneurship that it brings to

American society. Te goal o strengthening social vitality is

o direct benet to the U.S. as a whole while providing indirect

benets to the prospective immigrant.

A Common LanguageNothing is more important to the strength and viability o a

society than a common language. In the panels view, there is no

contradiction between appreciating the benets o a national

community built upon a panorama o cultures, while at the same

time recognizing the inestimable value o English as the binding

thread o our social abric. Anyone seeking to join American

society as a permanent resident or citizen needs to be procient

in English.In addition to serving as the basic orce o social cohesion,

English is the path to economic advancement. In the United

States some 1.3 million college educated immigrants, nearly

20 percent o all highly skilled immigrants in the country, are

unemployed or working in unskilled jobs because o inadequate

English language prociency. Conversely, immigrants who speak

English occupy more skilled positions and earn much higher

salaries than non-English speakers or those with only limited

English language ability. It is not surprising thereore that, in

overwhelming numbers, persons o all backgrounds, income

levels, language abilities and political party aliations believe

that teaching English to the children o immigrant amilies inthe U.S. is very important.

English prociency is a basic orce o social cohesion and a

prerequisite to ull participation in American society. For those

reasons, the panel recommends that English language training

classes be unded by the ederal government and made widely

available to participants at an aordable cost, and that no

person be granted permanent resident or citizen status without

demonstrating a level o prociency in the English language asdened by Congress.

English prociency is a asic force of social cohesion and aprerequisite to full participation in American society.Linda Childears2009 ImmigrationPanel member


32/52

| 30| 30

Existing Illegal Immigrants

It is estimated that between 10 million and 12 million

individuals live in the U.S. illegally, o which more than 8

million work in the labor orce. Employment opportunity is a

primary driver or illegal migrants whose movement tends to be

responsive to economic conditions. Some entered the country as

unauthorized aliens while others initially entered the U.S. legally,

on visas that have since expired. Currently, about 4 percent o

the entire population o the United States resides here illegally.

Whatever the means o entry, there is little doubt that illegal

immigration continues. Without in any way excusing illegal

activity, many o those making presentations to the panel

noted that the existing immigration system, with its convoluted

processes and lack o responsiveness to the labor market

realities, might encourage such behavior. Whether one chooses

to call this group undocumented persons or illegal aliens,

the act remains that a great many individuals are living outside

the boundaries o established American society, an inherentlyunhealthy situation. For social, economic, security and amilial

reasons it is an issue that must be addressed.

Te panel sees compelling reasons to bring illegal immigrants

into a legal status. From a security perspective, these include the

ability to identiy persons who may pose security, criminal or

medical risks to society. Economically, legalization presents an

opportunity to expand the productivity and realize the potential

o workers whose opportunities are limited by their illegal status.

Te chance to become a part o the community while acquiring

English language skills and civics education strengthens society

by creating shared values as immigrants are brought into the

mainstream o American lie. Finally, creating a pathway to legal

status or those who qualiy strengthens amilies by removing

the threat o amily breakup through selective deportation.

While the benets o bringing illegal immigrants into some

type o legal status may be signicant, the problem involves a

great many individuals, and it is structurally complex. Illegal

immigrants are not a homogeneous group, but are composed o

single men and women as well as amilies with children, some

o whom may be U.S. citizens. Te situation becomes especially

complex in mixed-status amilies, dened as those with at least

Del Hock2009 ImmigrationPanel member

The panel sees compelling reasons to ring illegal immigrants into a legal status.


33/52

| 31| 31

one unauthorized immigrant parent and one U.S.-born child.

Figure 11 shows the estimated makeup o such amilies by agegroup and immigration status.

Given the nature o the problem, the idea o rounding up and

deporting some 10 million to 12 million individuals and their

amily members makes interesting talk-show chatter but strains

credibility in terms o easibility and logistics, whatever ones

moral perspective on the issue. Similarly, broad-stroke plans

that would grant amnesty with ew requirements seem equallyar-etched. Te panel believes that neither legalistic retribution

theories nor unbridled humanitarianism provide a sound

oundation or dealing with illegal immigrants.

Many citizens have suggested that it is not appropriate to

consider allowing illegal immigrants to legalize their status

until U.S. borders are secure. Te concern is, quite logically,

that creating a route to citizenship or existing undocumented

immigrants simply encourages more individuals to enter

the country illegally. Te panel shares this concern and also

recognizes the signicant strides made in border security in

recent years. Tese advances in border security, coupled with

the recommended employment identication card and the

mandatory use o E-Veriy by employers, set the stage or a

policy to address existing illegal immigrants.

Te strategy proposed by the panel is based upon three premises.

First, improved security is making illegal border crossing

increasingly dicult and expensive. Second, denying illegal

immigrants jobs, through the use o a secure identication card

Figure 11 Makeup of Mixed-Status Families(Source: PEW Hispanic Center)

Mixed-status Unauthorized Immigrant Familiesby Age Group and Status 2008

Unauthorizedimmigrant children

500,000U.S. born children

4,000,000

Unauthorizedimmigrant adults

3,800,000

Other adults400,000

The panel believes that neitherlegalistic retriution theories nor unridledhumanitarianism provide a sound foundation for dealing with illegal immigrants.


34/52

| 32| 32

and a database conrmation system such as E-Veriy, removes

the primary incentive or illegal immigration: employment.Tird, existing regulations limiting public services available to

undocumented immigrants provide a limitation on benets or

those who choose to remain in an illegal status. Oering illegal

immigrants a one-time opportunity to gain provisional legal

status, with possible permanent legal residency thereaer, is a

clear incentive to bring millions o persons out o the shadows

and into ull participation in society.

Creating a Provisional Legal Status (PLS) program or illegal

immigrants raises legitimate concerns that such a program,

whatever its merits, will simply serve to attract more

undocumented migrants. For this reason, the sequencing o

several recommendations in this report is important. Te panel

believes that legislation establishing a secure identication card,

mandating the use o E-Veriy or a similar system by employers,

and the creation o a Provisional Legal Status program all

be enacted together, but implemented in phases as part o acomprehensive immigration reorm package.

Beore oering provisional legal status it is important that

the primary incentive or immigrationemploymentnotbe available to undocumented immigrants. Tus, a secure

identication card and use o a verication database or

all hires need to be in operation beore a provisional visa

plan or illegal immigrants is implemented. Specically,

implementation o the PLS program would begin aer E-Veriy

was mandated and issuance o secure identication cards had

been initiated, although not necessarily completed. Tese

measures, coupled with the improvements in border security,will make it both physically dicult to enter the country

illegally and economically unattractive to remain. Conversely,

creating a pathway to legal permanent residence without the

recommended staging has the potential to worsen, not lessen,

the problem o illegal immigration. Tis sequence o activities is

shown in Figure 12.

As illegal border crossings become more dicult, dangerous and

expensive, and as it becomes extremely dicult or impossibleto get a job without verication o a secure identication card,

illegal immigrants will ace the dilemma o either remaining

Implementation of the Provisional Legal Status program would begin after E-Verifywas mandated and issuance of secure identication cards had been initiated.


35/52

| 33| 33

in the U.S., unemployed and with ew benets, or returning

to their own country. Te panel believes these conditions willprovide a strong incentive or undocumented persons to present

themselves or participation in a Provisional Legal Status

program. For the reasons described above, the panel recommends

that, contemporaneous with the creation o a secure identication

card and mandatory use o an employment verication system,

Congress create a time-limited Provisional Legal Status (PLS)

program or persons illegally in the U.S. and that the PLS

program be implemented afer employment verication has beenrequired o all employers and issuance o secure identication

cards has begun.

Te Provisional Legal Status program would permit illegal

immigrants who were physically present in the United States as o

a specic date and who met other eligibility standards to register

or a provisional visa. Standards or eligibility could require

the individual to: pass criminal, national security and medical

background examinations; be employed, in school or involvedin unpaid community service; speak basic English; participate

in civics classes; register or selective service, i appropriate; and

barara bauer2009 ImmigrationPanel member

Figure 12 Provisional Visa Process for Illegal Immigrants

Legislation Adopted

Provisional Legal Status (PLS) Program Implementation

Employment Legislation Implementation

General Requirements for Provisional Legal Status

Provisional Visa Term and Requirements for LPR Status

If Legal Permanent Resident Status is Achieved

Secure IdentificationCard Established

5 Year TermRenewable Once

Eligible for LPRafter 5 years

Standards could include: English Proficiency, Civics,No Serious Crimes, Background Checks, etc.

EligibilityDate

Background &Medical Checks

Employment,School or Service

Basic English, SelectiveService Registration

Public Service orFine and Taxes

Verification DatabaseRequired for Employers

Secure Identification CardImplementation Initiated

Use of Verificat

Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy

Documents