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
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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
2009 ImmigrationPanel member
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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.
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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
2009 ImmigrationPanel member
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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.
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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.
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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
2009 ImmigrationPanel member
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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.
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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.
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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.
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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.
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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
2009 ImmigrationPanel member
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.
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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
2009 ImmigrationPanel member
The allocation of employment visas should startwith emploers, not with a government agency.
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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.
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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
2009 ImmigrationPanel member
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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
2009 ImmigrationPanel member
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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.
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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.
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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.
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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.
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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.
8/8/2019 Architecture for Immigration Reform: Fitting the Pieces of Public Policy
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