DOCSLIB.ORG

UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Los Angeles International Students And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Los Angeles International Students And UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles International Students and the Race for Foreign Talent in the United States and Canada A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology by Calvin Nhi Ho 2018 © Copyright by Calvin Nhi Ho 2018 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION International Students and the Race for Foreign Talent in the United States and Canada by Calvin Nhi Ho Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology University of California, Los Angeles, 2018 Professor Roger Waldinger, Chair Since the end of the Cold War, developed countries have tried to increase their intake of highly educated immigrants. Simultaneously, there has been exponential growth in the number of foreign students who come to developed countries for university degrees. Many countries have linked these two phenomena through “talent retention strategies,” which are policies that allow international students to apply for permanent immigration status. Though employers and universities in the United States have actively lobbied for such policies in the last two decades, they have consistently failed to come to fruition. Canada, on the other hand, is often regarded as a world leader in talent retention and a model for other countries to follow. Why did talent retention strategies succeed in Canada but fail in the United States? Using comparative- historical methods, I examine the development of immigration preferences for international students in the two countries. I find that they treated immigrants similarly in the 1800s and early 1900s. In the 1960s, they faced international and domestic pressures to remove racial ii discrimination from the immigration system, but came up with very different reforms in response. Canada prioritized highly educated migrants, used guestworker programs to address demand for low-skilled labor, and gave the federal executive branch and provincial governments leeway to experiment with immigrant selection. The United States prioritized family migrants, left low- skilled migration unaddressed, and centralized all immigration rule-making in the fractious federal legislature. These differences shaped the political opportunity structure in later decades. While conditions in Canada facilitated the introduction of talent retention strategies there in the 2000s, circumstances in the United States stymied similar proposals. This study contributes to the immigration policymaking literature by showing how historically-specific constellations of interests and institutions can obstruct the passage of immigration provisions that are broadly popular among key constituencies. This dissertation also challenges the reader to consider how immigrant selection policies may impact other policy areas, including higher education, science and innovation, and foreign relations. iii The dissertation of Calvin Nhi Ho is approved. Rubén Hernández-León Lauren M. Duquette Hiroshi Motomura Roger Waldinger, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2018 iv To my parents. v Contents List of tables and figures ................................................................................................................ vii Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... viii Vita ...................................................................................................................................................x Chapter 1 – Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 2 - Literature review ........................................................................................................ 19 Chapter 3 - Inclusion and exclusion: immigration policy exceptions for wealthy non-whites, 1865-1939 ..................................................................................................................................... 47 Chapter 4 - Science, economics, and the immigration reforms of the 1960s .............................. 79 Chapter 5 - Putting talent retention on the agenda, 1965-2002 ................................................ 113 Chapter 6 - Making talent retention happen, 2001 to 2017 ....................................................... 149 Chapter 7 - Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 185 Appendix 1 - Tables .................................................................................................................... 203 Appendix 2 - Figures ................................................................................................................... 241 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 245 vi List of tables and figures Appendix 1: Tables Table 1. Talent retention legislation in the United States in the 106th Congress (1999-2000) to the 114th Congress (2015-2016)................................................................................................ 203 Table 2. Visa allocation order in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act) ..................................................................................................................................................... 239 Table 3. Lobbying clients with the most mentions of “immigration” in lobbying records held by the US Senate Office of Public Records, 2016 to October 21, 2017 ......................................... 240 Appendix 2: Figures Figure 1. Party of primary sponsor of talent retention legislation in the United States from the 106th Congress (1999-2000) to the 114th Congress (2015-2016)............................................ 241 Figure 2. Percentage of internationally mobile higher education students in 2017 .................. 242 Figure 3. Top source countries of international higher education students in 2017 ................. 243 Figure 4. Flowchart of typical pathway from student visa to permanent residency and citizenship in the United States and Canada................................................................................................ 244 vii Acknowledgments This material is based upon work supported by two grants from the National Science Foundation: the Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-1144087, and the Science of Science and Innovation Policy Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant under Grant No. 1632908. Additional support was received from the Norwegian Research Council (Project No. 239682/F11), the UCLA Canadian Studies Graduate Student Award, and the UCLA Graduate Division (Eugene V. Cota-Robles Fellowship, Chancellor’s Prize, and Research Travel Grant). I am especially grateful for the financial and programmatic support provided by the Social Science Research Council’s Mellon Mays Graduate Initiatives Program. Their grants (Graduate Studies Enhancement Grant and Predoctoral Research Development Grant) and programming (Graduate Student Summer Conference, Proposal Writing and Dissertation Development Seminar, and Dissertation Writing Retreat) have supported me through my entire time in graduate school. This dissertation would not have been possible without the intellectual and institutional support of my committee members. I have known Roger Waldinger since I was a college junior, cold emailing all of UCLA’s sociologists of migration to see if any of them would take me under their wing for a summer research program. He has been supportive throughout my time in academia, including when I decided that I needed to step away from the field. The topic of this dissertation was inspired by both his earlier work on immigrants in the workforce and his current research on how and why migrants’ maintain ties across borders. Rubén Hernández-León’s incredibly sharp questions and constructive feedback helped shape the study design. Lauren Duquette-Rury guided me through the literature review with her deep knowledge of the political sociology literature. Hiroshi Motomura’s grounded perspective on how the law shapes lived experiences reminded me that the subject matter of this dissertation is not an academic abstraction. viii I am deeply indebted to my friends and family, whose supported me in ways large and small throughout my journey in graduate school. The academic life was all Greek to my parents, but they were always there to ensure that I had everything that I needed and that I never forgot where I came from. Tyler Stoff ensured that I did not burn out while juggling writing with a full- time job, and accommodated my odd writing habits with the patience of a saint. I looked forward to my weekly check-ins with Phi Hong Su, who always reminded me that my ideas were worth putting out there. Cally Waite, Deborah Cheng, and Rafael Zapata assured me that I would always have a home in the academy, even if I left. My colleagues at the Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance made the organization a fantastic place to work, giving me the energy to finish this dissertation. Emily Yen, Jeffrey Yamashita, Cecilia Caballero, Ester Trujillo, and Christopher Muñiz were the best writing-and-kvetching group one could ask for. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the Library of Congress and Montgomery County Public Libraries (Silver Spring branch) and their staff for accommodating my requests for many of the obscure academic monographs cited in this project. Writing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Instructions for the 2021 Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (Dv-2021)
    UNCLASSIFIED INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE 2021 DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT VISA PROGRAM (DV-2021) Program Overview The Department of State annually administers the statutorily-mandated Diversity Immigrant Visa Program. Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides for a class of immigrants known as “diversity immigrants” from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States. For Fiscal Year 2021, 55,000 Diversity Visas (DVs) will be available. There is no cost to register for the DV program. Applicants who are selected in the program (selectees) must meet simple but strict eligibility requirements to qualify for a diversity visa. The Department of State determines selectees through a randomized computer drawing. The Department of State distributes diversity visas among six geographic regions, and no single country may receive more than seven percent of the available DVs in any one year. For DV-2021, natives of the following countries are not eligible to apply, because more than 50,000 natives of these countries immigrated to the United States in the previous five years: Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam. Persons born in Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR, and Taiwan are eligible. Eligibility Requirement #1: Individuals born in countries whose natives qualify may be eligible to enter. If you were not born in an eligible country, there are two other ways you might be able to qualify. Was your spouse born in a country whose natives are eligible? If yes, you can claim your spouse’s country of birth – provided that both you and your spouse are named on the selected entry, are found eligible and issued diversity visas, and enter the United States simultaneously.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Compliance Alert
    VEDDERPRICE ® November 2009 Immigration Compliance Alert ICE Increases I-9 Audit Actions foreign nationals in H-1B (Specialty Occupation) and L-1 (Intracompany Transferee) immigration status. The USCIS Fraud In July 2009, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Detection and National Security unit (FDNS) has initiated these (ICE) notiS ed 652 businesses that they had been targeted visits as part of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) for in-person inspections of their I-9 Employment Eligibility efforts to expand worksite enforcement. USCIS has hired a Veri cation Forms. This recent enforcement initiative is part of large number of private contractors to conduct thousands of the government’s efforts to hold employers accountable for their site visits and verify information from the I-129 petitions led hiring practices and ensure a legal workforce across the country. with the agency. John Morton, Assistant Secretary for ICE, has stated, “ICE is As part of these site visits, the FDNS assessors may visit committed to establishing a meaningful inspection program to the workplace unannounced or with very short notice. Typically, promote compliance with the law.” He added that the nationwide they will ask questions of nonimmigrant workers, administrative effort was a rst step in ICE’s long-term strategy to address personnel and supervisors. Most questions will directly relate and deter illegal employment by focusing on employers rather to the information submitted with the I-129 petitions in order to than on undocumented workers. In all of scal year 2008, ICE con rm accuracy. FDNS assessors may ask to review issued only 503 similar notices to employers.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity Visa “Green Card” Lottery to Open Soon
    RESPONSIVE SOLUTIONS Diversity Visa “Green Card” Lottery to Open Soon Countries with high rates of immigration are NOT qualified. These Failure to obtain a visa to the US between October 1 and September typically include Brazil, China, the Dominican Republic, 30 of the government year following selection will result in El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Poland, and disqualification from the program, so selected applicants will need the UK among others. By contrast, most African and European to act on their visa applications quickly. Although it’s possible to countries are typically eligible. Nationality is determined by the apply for the lottery from the US, those who are unlawfully present country of birth of the applicant, his or her spouse, or parents in the US will rarely be eligible to receive a green card. (provided certain requirements are met). FRAUD WARNING Last year, the government received over 14 million entries for the Every year, fraudulent websites pose as the official U.S. government 50,000 available visas. Counties with the highest number of winners site and charge applicants money to “register”. Be wary of anyone included Nigeria, Ukraine and Ethiopia. seeking to collect a registration or filing fee for assistance in HOW TO APPLY submitting an application. The government does not charge a fee for submitting the application. Only Internet sites that end with To enter the lottery, the foreign national must submit an electronic the .gov domain are official U.S. government websites. Others application through the official U.S. Department of State website should not be trusted, and in no case should you send any personal (http://travel.state.gov) during a specified time each year.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Law 101
    Immigration Law 101 April 7, 2020 Immigration Law 101 April 7, 2020 Agenda 3:30pm – 4:30pm Intro and Understanding the Immigration System Immigration Laws and Policies INS v. DHS Immigration Agencies and their roles Mary Armistead, Esq. Determining Immigration Status Citizenship Immigration status: Immigrant, Nonimmigrant, Undocumented Immigrant: family, employment, diversity, humanitarian Nonimmigrant: employment, student, visitor, and others Michelle Lee, Esq. Jon Lemelin The Immigration Process Admission Inadmissibility and Deportability Mary Armistead, Esq. 4:30pm – 5:30pm Understanding Immigration Enforcement Who can enforce immigration laws Where and how does immigration enforcement occur Removal Proceeding basics Mary Armistead, Esq. Michelle Lee, Esq. Obtaining Lawful status Family-based Humanitarian-based Isabelle Thacker, Esq. Immigration Related Developments and Policy Executive orders Regulatory changes Prof. Ava Ayers IMMIGRATION LAW 101 April 7, 2020 SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES MARY ARMISTEAD, ESQ., works at The Legal Project as an Equal Justice Works Crime Victims Justice Corps Fellow providing direct representation to and building community capacity regarding victims of human trafficking. Mary also teaches Immigration Law as an Adjunct Professor of Law at her alma mater, Albany Law School, where she graduated summa cum laude. Mary clerked at the New York State Court of Appeals for one year before working as the Staff Attorney of the Immigration Law Clinic at Albany Law School, both supervising students and maintaining a personal docket representing clients eligible for humanitarian immigration relief. In her positions at Albany Law School and The Legal Project, she developed the Special Immigrant Juvenile Pro Bono Attorney panel, wherein she connects clients to and supervises attorneys in providing pro bono representation to vulnerable immigrant children.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:20-Cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 101
    Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 101 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01419 VICENTA S., FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT NAZIF ALAM c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 NANCY ABARCA c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 FATMA BUSHATI c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 IWUNDU ÉPOUSE KOUADIO IJEOMA GOLDEN c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNIGUET JIMÉNEZ c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 JODI LYNN KARPES c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20) Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 2 of 101 SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 FARANGIS KURBONOVA c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 AYA NAKAMURA c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 LOIDA PHELPS c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Instructions for the 2022 Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (Dv-2022)
    UNCLASSIFIED INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE 2022 DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT VISA PROGRAM (DV-2022) Program Overview The Department of State annually administers the statutorily-created Diversity Immigrant Visa Program. Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides for a class of immigrants known as “diversity immigrants” from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States. For Fiscal Year 2022, up to 55,000 Diversity Visas (DVs) will be available. There is no cost to register for the DV program. Applicants who are selected in the program (selectees) must meet simple but strict eligibility requirements to qualify for a diversity visa. The Department of State determines selectees through a randomized computer drawing. The Department of State distributes diversity visas among six geographic regions, and no single country may receive more than seven percent of the available DVs in any one year. For DV-2022, persons born in the following countries are not eligible to apply, because more than 50,000 natives of these countries immigrated to the United States in the previous five years: Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (including Hong Kong SAR), Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam. Persons born in Macau SAR and Taiwan are eligible. Eligibility Requirement #1: Natives of countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States may be eligible to enter. If you are not a native of a country with historically low rates of immigration to the United States, there are two other ways you might be able to qualify.
    [Show full text]
  • Lived Experiences of Diversity Visa Lottery Immigrants in the United States
    The Qualitative Report 2012 Volume 17, Article 102, 1-17 http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR17/hailu.pdf Lived Experiences of Diversity Visa Lottery Immigrants in the United States Tekleab Elos Hailu, Bernadette M. Mendoza, and Maria K. E. Lahman University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado, USA Veronica M. Richard Indiana University Northwest, Gary, Indiana, USA Every year approximately 50,000 people immigrate to the United States through the avenue referred to as the Diversity Visa (DV) Lottery. In this article, the authors present a literature review of immigration to the U.S. through the DV Lottery, reflect on their own immigration histories, and utilize phenomenology to investigate and describe participant feelings, expectations, and experiences as DV Lottery immigrants. Participants experienced mixed feelings, including high expectations prior to and difficulties after immigrating to the U.S. Findings presented include (a) life experienced in the U.S.; (b) access to learning and training opportunities; and (c) recommended support future DV Lottery immigrants. Keywords: Diversity Visa Lottery, Immigration, Phenomenology When a certain country or a region within a country cannot meet the economic needs of its people, particularly in terms of employment and income, people may emigrate in search of sustainability. At the same time, if better opportunities for employment and income in other countries or regions exist, then these opportunities attract people looking to increase their individual potential for financial and emotional security (Bookman, 2002). In addition to the need for a better life, other reasons that force people to migrate are wars and political, religious, ethnic and gender persecutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity Immigrant Visa Lottery Issues
    Diversity Immigrant Visa Lottery Issues Ruth Ellen Wasem Specialist in Immigration Policy April 1, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41747 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Diversity Immigrant Visa Lottery Issues Summary The purpose of the diversity immigrant visa lottery is, as the name suggests, to encourage legal immigration from countries other than the major sending countries of current immigrants to the United States. Current law weights the allocation of immigrant visas heavily toward aliens with close family in the United States and, to a lesser extent, toward aliens who meet particular employment needs. The diversity immigrant category was added to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by the Immigration Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-649) to stimulate “new seed” immigration (i.e., to foster new, more varied migration from other parts of the world). To be eligible for a diversity visa, the INA requires that the foreign national must have a high school education or the equivalent, or two years experience in an occupation that requires at least two years of training or experience. The foreign national or the foreign national’s spouse must be a native of one of the countries listed as a foreign state qualified for the diversity visa lottery. Diversity lottery winners, like all other aliens wishing to come to the United States, must undergo reviews performed by Department of State consular officers abroad and Department of Homeland Security immigration officers upon entry to the United States. These reviews are intended to ensure that the aliens are not ineligible for visas or admission under the grounds for inadmissibility spelled out in the INA.
    [Show full text]
  • 07-5630-Cv to Be Argued By: LISA E
    07-5630-cv To Be Argued By: LISA E. PERKINS ========================================= FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Docket No. 07-5630-cv MORSHEDA AMIN, NASHRAT SHAH AZAD, AND LAMESA NASHRAT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, -vs- MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND DONALD NEUFELD, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, JOHN DOE, UNKNOWN NAMED AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES & UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendants-Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ======================================== BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEES ======================================== NORA R. DANNEHY Acting United States Attorney District of Connecticut LISA E. PERKINS WILLIAM J. NARDINI Assistant United States Attorneys TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities............................i v Statement of Jurisdiction. x i Statement of Issues Presented for Review.. xii Preliminary Statement.......................... 2 Statement of the Case........................... 3 Statement of Facts and Proceedings Relevant to this Appeal. 4 A. Plaintiffs’ allegations. 4 B. District court litigation. 5 Summary of Argument.......................... 7 Argument.................................... 8 I. The district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ amended complaint as moot, where the time for issuance of a Diversity Visa had expired and the court lacked jurisdiction to order the requested relief............................. 8 A. Governing law and standard of review. 8 1. Diversity Visa Program. 8 2. Mootness........................... 1 1 3. Standard of review. 1 1 B. Discussion 1. The district court correctly ruled that Plaintiffs’ claims are moot, because even if a diversity visa number is still available for fiscal year 2005, Defendants lack authority to grant a visa after expiration of the fiscal year and thus, the district court lacked authority to impose a remedy for Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.
    [Show full text]
  • Primer on U.S. Immigration Policy
    Primer on U.S. Immigration Policy Updated July 1, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45020 SUMMARY R45020 Primer on U.S. Immigration Policy July 1, 2021 U.S. immigration policy is governed largely by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which was first codified in 1952 and has been amended significantly several times since. U.S. William A. Kandel immigration policy contains two major aspects. One facilitates migration flows into the United Analyst in Immigration States according to principles of admission that are based upon national interest. These broad Policy principles currently include family reunification, U.S. labor market contribution, origin-country diversity, and humanitarian assistance. The United States has long distinguished permanent from temporary immigration. Permanent immigration occurs through family and employer-sponsored categories, the diversity immigrant visa lottery, and refugee and asylee admissions. Temporary immigration occurs through the admission of foreign nationals for specific purposes and limited periods of time, and encompasses two dozen categories that include foreign tourists, students, temporary workers, and diplomats. The other major aspect of U.S. immigration policy involves restricting entry to and removing persons from the United States who lack authorization to be in the country, are identified as criminal aliens, or whose presence in the United States is determined to not serve the national interest. Such immigration enforcement is broadly divided between border enforcement—at and between U.S. land, air, and sea ports of entry—and other enforcement tasks including interior enforcement, detention, removal, worksite enforcement, and combatting immigration fraud. The dual role of U.S. immigration policy—admissions and enforcement—creates challenges for balancing major policy priorities, such as ensuring national security, facilitating trade and commerce, protecting public safety, and fostering international cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
    U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy William A. Kandel Analyst in Immigration Policy February 9, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43145 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Summary Family reunification has historically been a key principle underlying U.S. immigration policy. It is embodied in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which specifies numerical limits for five family-based immigration categories, as well as a per-country limit on total family-based immigration. The five categories include immediate relatives (spouses, minor unmarried children, and parents) of U.S. citizens and four other family-based categories that vary according to individual characteristics such as the legal status of the petitioning U.S.-based relative, and the age, family relationship, and marital status of the prospective immigrant. Of the 1,183,505 foreign nationals admitted to the United States in FY2016 as lawful permanent residents (LPRs), 804,793, or 68%, were admitted on the basis of family ties. Of the family-based immigrants admitted in FY2016, 70% were admitted as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Many of the 1,183,505 immigrants were initially admitted on a nonimmigrant (temporary) visa and became immigrants by converting or “adjusting” their status to a lawful permanent resident. The proportion of family-based immigrants who adjusted their immigration status while residing in the United States (34%) was substantially less than that of family-based immigrants who had their immigration petitions processed while living abroad (66%), although such percentages varied considerably among the five family-based immigration categories. Since FY2000, increasing numbers of immediate relatives of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
    U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy William A. Kandel Analyst in Immigration Policy November 19, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43145 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Summary Family reunification is a key principle underlying U.S. immigration policy. It is embodied in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which specifies numerical limits for five family-based admission categories, as well as a per-country limit on total family-based admissions. The five categories include immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and four other family-based categories that vary according to individual characteristics such as the legal status of the petitioning U.S.-based relative, and the age, family relationship, and marital status of the prospective immigrant. Of the 990,553 foreign nationals admitted to the United States in FY2013 as lawful permanent residents (LPRs), 649,763, or 66%, were admitted on the basis of family ties. Of these family- based immigrants admitted in FY2013, 68% were admitted as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Many of the 990,553 immigrants were initially admitted on a temporary basis and became immigrants by converting or “adjusting” their status to a lawful permanent resident. The proportion of family-based immigrants who adjusted their immigration status while residing in the United States (54%) exceeded that of family-based immigrants who had their immigration petitions processed while living abroad (46%), although such percentages varied considerably among the five family-based admission categories. Since FY2000, increasing numbers of immediate relatives of U.S.
    [Show full text]