DOCSLIB.ORG

U. S. Lawful Permanent Residents: 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U. S. Lawful Permanent Residents: 2013 U.S. Lawful Permanent Residents: 2013 RANDALL MONGER AND JAMES YANKAY A lawful permanent resident (LPR) or “green card” recipient is defined by immigration law as a person who has been granted lawful permanent residence in the United States. Permanent resident status confers certain rights and responsibilities. For example, LPRs may live and work permanently anywhere in the United States, own property, and attend public schools, colleges, and universities. They may also join certain branches of the Armed Forces and apply to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain eligibility requirements. This Office of Immigration Statistics Annual Flow Report presents information obtained from applications for LPR status on the number and characteristics of persons who became LPRs in the United States during 2013.1 In 2013, a total of 990,553 persons became LPRs of the U.S. citizens aged 21 years and older and their spouses United States (see Table 1 and Figure 1). The majority of and children. The annual limit for family-sponsored these new LPRs (54 percent) already lived in the United preferences ranges from 226,000 to 480,000 (See States when they were granted lawful permanent resi- APPENDIX for more details on the limit calculations). dence. Sixty-six percent of new LPRs were granted per- Employment-based preferences consist of five categories of manent resident status based on a family relationship workers (and their spouses and children): priority with a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident of the workers; professionals with advanced degrees or aliens United States. The leading countries of birth of new LPRs were Mexico (14 percent), China (7.2 percent), and India (6.9 percent). THE LAWFUL IMMIGRATION PROCESS Admission Priorities The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and its amendments are the basis of most immigration laws in effect today. U.S. law gives priority for LPR status to for- eign nationals who have a close family relationship with a U.S. citizen or LPR, needed job skills, refugee or asylee status, or who are from countries with relatively low levels of immigration to the United States. Preference Immigration and Diversity Limits The term preference is used in immigration law to designate priority categories for LPR status. As specified by the Immigration Act of 1990, an annual limit of between 416,000 and 675,000 currently exists for the combined total of family-sponsored preference, employment-based preference, and diversity immigrants. Family-sponsored preferences consist of four categories: unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens and their children; spouses, children, and unmarried sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents and their chil- dren; married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens and their spouses and children; and brothers and sisters of 1 In this report, years refer to fiscal years (October 1 to September 30). Office of Immigration Statistics POLICY DIRECTORATE of exceptional ability; skilled workers, pro- Table 1. fessionals (without advanced degrees), and Lawful Permanent Resident Flow: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2013 needed unskilled workers; certain special 2013 2012 2011 immigrants (e.g., ministers, religious work- Category of admission Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent ers, and employees of the U.S. government Total .............. 990,553 100.0 1,031,631 100.0 1,062,040 100.0 abroad); and employment creation immi- New arrivals .......... 459,751 46.4 484,072 46.9 481,948 45.4 grants or “investors.” The employment-based Adjustments of status .. 530,802 53.6 547,559 53.1 580,092 54.6 preference limit is equal to 140,000 plus any Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Computer Linked Application Information System (CLAIMS), Legal Immigrant Data, unused visas in the family-sponsored prefer- Fiscal Years 2011 to 2013, and Electronic Immigration System (ELIS), Legal Immigrant Data, Fiscal Year 2013. ences from the previous year. In 2013, the limit on preference immigration was 384,466 which Other Admission Categories included 226,000 in the family-sponsored preferences and The remaining admission categories have accounted for less than 158,466 in the employment-based preferences (see APPENDIX). 2 percent of the annual LPR flow since 2007. These categories In addition, there are per-country limits equal to 7 percent of the tend to be limited to certain foreign nationals admitted under spe- total number of family-sponsored and employment preferences. cial legislation. Dependent areas are limited to 2 percent. In 2013, the per-country Paths to LPR Status limit was 26,913 and the dependent area limit was 7,689. There are two paths to LPR status depending on whether the appli- Diversity immigrants are nationals of countries with low rates of law- cant is living in the United States or another country at the time of ful immigration to the United States. The Diversity Immigrant Visa application. Eligible foreign nationals living abroad apply for an Program is available to nationals of countries with fewer than immigrant visa at a consular office of the Department of State. 50,000 persons granted LPR status during the preceding five years Once issued a visa, a foreign national may seek admission to the in the employment-based and family-sponsored preferences and United States and become an LPR when admitted at a port of entry. immediate relative classes of admission. The annual diversity visa These LPRs are referred to as new arrivals in this report. limit has been 50,000 since 1999. The Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) calculates diversity limits for six broad world Persons who qualify for lawful permanent resident status who are regions using a formula based on immigrant admissions during living in the United States, including refugees, asylees, and certain the preceding five years and the population total of the region. The temporary workers, foreign students, family members of U.S. citi- per-country limit of diversity visas was 3,500 in 2013. zens or alien residents, and undocumented immigrants, file an application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). At the Some LPR admission categories are not subject to numeric limits. time they apply for adjustment of status, they may also apply for The largest category numerically is immediate relatives (spouses permission to work. Adjustment of status applicants are granted and children, including orphans adopted abroad, of U.S. citizens lawful permanent residence at the time their applications are and parents of adult U.S. citizens aged 21 and over). Immediate approved. These LPRs are referred to as adjustments of status in relatives of U.S. citizens typically account for more than 40 percent this report. of the annual LPR flow. New LPRs in the immediate relatives and Eligibility for Naturalization family-sponsored preference categories of admission are collec- tively referred to as family-sponsored immigrants. Most lawful permanent residents who are at least 18 years of age are eligible to apply for citizenship after meeting certain require- Refugee and Asylee Adjustments of Status ments. These requirements generally include 5 years of lawful per- The number of persons who may be admitted to the United States manent residence in the United States or 3 years for those married as refugees each year, as defined by the Refugee Act of 1980, is to a United States citizen and successful completion of English lan- established by the President in consultation with Congress. The guage, civics, and history tests. Lawful immigrant children under ceiling on refugee admissions was set at 70,000 from 2003 to 18 years of age may automatically acquire citizenship when a par- 2007, 80,000 from 2008 to 2011, and 76,000 for 2012. In 2013, ent naturalizes. the ceiling was 70,000. There is no numerical limit on the num- ber of persons who can be granted asylum status in a year. DATA Refugees are required to apply for adjustment to lawful permanent The data presented in this report were obtained from the resident status after one year of residence in the United States. Computer Linked Application Information Management System Asylees are eligible to apply one year after they are granted asy- (CLAIMS) and the Electronic Immigration System (ELIS) of USCIS. lum. Refugee and asylee adjustments of status are not subject to CLAIMS maintains information from applications for lawful per- numerical limits. Until 2005, an annual limit of 10,000 existed on manent resident status: the DS-230 Application for Immigrant Visa and the number of persons authorized to adjust status as asylees. The Alien Registration or the DS-260 Electronic Application for Immigrant Visa and REAL ID Act removed that cap. Alien Registration of the Department of State (used by applicants liv- ing abroad) and the I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status of USCIS (used by applicants living in the United 2 Table 2. in 2013 than in 2012 due Lawful Permanent Resident Flow by Major Category of Admission: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2013 largely to a higher limit in 2013 2012 2011 2013. However, the increase Category of admission Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent was offset by reduced counts of Total ................................... 990,553 100.0 1,031,631 100.0 1,062,040 100.0 immediate relatives of U.S. citi- Family-sponsored immigrants .................. 649,763 65.6 680,799 66.0 688,089 64.8 zens and refugee adjustments. Family-sponsored preferences ................ 210,303 21.2 202,019 19.6 234,931 22.1 There were fewer LPRs admit- Unmarried sons/daughters of U.S. citizens ...... 24,358 2.5 20,660 2.0 27,299 2.6 ted from abroad as immediate Spouses and children of alien residents .......
Load more

Recommended publications
  • New York State DREAM Act Application
    Step-by-Step User Guide to completing the New York State DREAM Act Application This user guide breaks down the New York State DREAM Act eligibility application and clarifies why certain questions are asked, how to answer each question accurately, and what documentation must be provided to verify your eligibility. Table of Contents Overview of Applications ........................................................................................................................... 3 The New York State DREAM Act Eligibility Requirements .............................................................. 3 NYS DREAM Act Application ................................................................................................................... 5 Student High School Education Details .............................................................................................. 5 High School Status ............................................................................................................................. 5 High School Completion .................................................................................................................... 7 Student Citizenship and Immigration Status ...................................................................................... 8 Social Security Number (SSN) or Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN): .............................. 10 Student Information .............................................................................................................................. 10 Student
    [Show full text]
  • US Immigration
    BUSHELL (DO NOT DELETE) 5/29/2013 2:45 PM “Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Masses”—Just as Long as They Fit the Heteronormative Ideal: U.S. Immigration Law’s Exclusionary & Inequitable Treatment of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Queer Migrants Logan Bushell* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 674 II. IMMIGRATION & SEXUALITY: AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF REGULATING SEXUALITY AT THE BORDER .......................................... 677 A. 1875-1917: Establishing a Foundational Blueprint for Exclusion of LGBTQ Migrants .................................................... 678 B. 1917-1990: Adherence to the Blueprint for Exclusion of LGBTQ Migrants ......................................................................... 680 III. REFUGE IN THE COURTHOUSE? THE JUDICIARY’S APPROACH TO EXCLUSIONARY IMMIGRATION LAWS & POLICIES .............................. 683 A. Boutilier v. INS: Not Welcome—The Judiciary’s Sanctioning of Exclusionary Immigration Laws & Policies ............................ 683 B. Hill v. INS: An Inclusionary Olive Branch from the Judiciary ... 685 IV. TWO STEPS FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK: PROGRESSIVE MEASURES PROVE MERELY PRETEXTUAL ........................................... 687 A. No Longer Categorically Excluded, but Certainly Not Included: Dismissing LGBTQ Persons from Family Unification ................................................................................... 687 B. Defense of Marriage Act: Deciding Exactly Who
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Law and the Myth of Comprehensive Registration
    Immigration Law and the Myth of Comprehensive Registration Nancy Morawetz†* and Natasha Fernández-Silber** This Article identifies an insidious misconception in immigration law and policy: the myth of comprehensive registration. According to this myth — proponents of which include members of the Supreme Court, federal and state officials, and commentators on both sides of the immigration federalism debate — there exists a comprehensive federal alien registration system; this scheme obligates all non-citizens in the United States to register and carry registration cards at all times, or else face criminal sanction. In truth, no such system exists today, nor has one ever existed in American history. Yet, federal agencies like U.S. Border Patrol refer to such a system to justify arrests and increase enforcement statistics; the Department of Justice points to the same mythic system to argue statutory preemption of state immigration laws (rather than confront the discriminatory purpose and effect of those laws); and, states trot it out in an attempt to turn civil immigration offenses into criminal infractions. Although this legal fiction is convenient for a variety of disparate political institutions, it is far from convenient for those who face wrongful arrest and detention based on nothing more than failure to carry proof of status. Individuals in states with aggressive “show me your papers” immigration laws or under the presence of U.S. Border Patrol are particularly at risk. In an effort to dispel this dangerous misconception, this Article reviews the history of America’s experimentation with registration laws and the † Copyright © 2014 Nancy Morawetz and Natasha Fernández-Silber.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Wins and Who Loses Under the Immigration Act of 1990? Brian Adler
    University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Inter-American Law Review 7-1-1992 Capital v. Labor: Who Wins and Who Loses Under the Immigration Act of 1990? Brian Adler Beth Jarrett Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umialr Part of the Immigration Law Commons, and the International Trade Commons Recommended Citation Brian Adler and Beth Jarrett, Capital v. Labor: Who Wins and Who Loses Under the Immigration Act of 1990?, 23 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. 789 (1992) Available at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umialr/vol23/iss3/10 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Inter- American Law Review by an authorized administrator of Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENT CAPITAL v. LABOR: WHO WINS AND WHO LOSES UNDER THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1990? I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 790 II. THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (NAFTA) ............... 793 A. History and Background of NAFTA .............................. 793 B. The Pros and Cons of NAFTA ................................... 795 C. Labor M obility and NAFTA ..................................... 797 IIl. CHANGES IN IMMIGRATION LAW UNDER THE IA90 AND CONGRESS'S UNDERLYING GOALS IN IMPLEMENTING THE ACT ...................................... 799 A . Passage of the IA90 ............................................. 799 B. Congress's Goals - Diversifying the Immigrant Pool and Increasing Skilled Labor Im m igration ...................... ......... ...... 801 IV. DOCTRINAL ANALYSIS OF THE IA90'S THIRD EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCE AND DISCUSSION OF ITS CONSEQUENCES .................................. 803 A. Third Employment-Based Preference - Skilled Workers, Profession- als, and "O thers" .
    [Show full text]
  • Kim V. Schiltgen
    Find Result - 2002 WL 31016560 06/15/2007 08:28 PM FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY 2002 WL 31016560 (U.S.) For opinion see 123 S.Ct. 1708, 122 S.Ct. 2696 Briefs and Other Related Documents United States Supreme Court Petitioner's Brief. Charles DEMORE, District Director, San Francisco District of Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al., Petitioners, v. Hyung Joon KIM. No. 01-1491. August 29, 2002. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS Theodore B. Olson Solicitor General Counsel of Record Robert D. McCallum, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Edwin S. Kneedler Deputy Solicitor General Austin C. Schlick Assistant to the Solicitor General Donald E. Keener Mark C. Walters Hugh G. Mullane Michelle Gorden Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 (202) 514-2217 *I QUESTION PRESENTED Section 1226(c)(1) of Title 8 of the United States Code requires the Attorney General to take into custody aliens who are inadmissible to or deportable from the United States because they have committed a specified offense, including an aggravated felony. Section 1226(c)(2) of Title 8 prohibits release of those aliens during administrative proceedings to remove them from the United States, except in very http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?bhcp=1&cite=2002+WL+31016560&FN=%5Ftop&rs=LAWS2%2E0&strRecreate=no&sv=Split&vr=1%2E0 Page 1 of 43 Find Result - 2002 WL 31016560 06/15/2007 08:28 PM limited circumstances not present here. The question presented in this case is: Whether respondent's mandatory detention under Section 1226(c) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, where respondent concedes that his criminal convictions after admission into the United States put him within the class of removable aliens who are subject to detention.
    [Show full text]
  • Calendar No. 80
    Calendar No. 80 113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! 1st Session SENATE 113–40 BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION ACT JUNE 7, 2013.—Ordered to be printed Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS [To accompany S. 744] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 744), to provide for comprehensive immigration reform, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with an amendment, and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. CONTENTS Page I. Background and Purpose of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act ........................................................ 1 II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration ....................................... 22 III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill ...................................................... 75 IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 161 V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation ...................................................................... 161 VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 161 VII. Additional and Minority Views ..................................................................... 163 VIII. Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 186 I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Judicial Review of Immigration Matters
    An Overview of Judicial Review of Immigration Matters Margaret Mikyung Lee Legislative Attorney September 11, 2013 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43226 An Overview of Judicial Review of Immigration Matters Summary Congress has plenary or sovereign power over the conditions for admitting aliens into the United States and permitting them to remain. This power is so completely entrusted to the political branch to legislate and implement as to be largely free from judicial review. However, this power is still subject to constitutional limitations, including substantive and procedural due process protections. In immigration cases, due process may be a flexible concept and the particular procedures that may be constitutionally required depend on the relative interests involved. Historically, immigration policy has sought to encourage and enable the admission and integration of desirable immigrants (workers, family, refugees/asylees), while discouraging and preventing the entry of undesirable aliens (national security risks/terrorists, criminals, public charges). Accordingly, in deciding what degree of judicial review is appropriate in immigration matters, Congress has sought a balance between a system that is fair to desired immigrants, yet facilitates the removal of undesired aliens. Initially, a habeas corpus proceeding provided the primary avenue of judicial review of various immigration determinations. In the wake of Supreme Court decisions construing the Administrative Procedure Act as applying to and providing an avenue for judicial review of immigration adjudications, Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 by adding a judicial review provision in 1961 that provided for review by federal courts of appeal for deportation orders, but only for habeas corpus review of exclusion orders by federal district courts.
    [Show full text]
  • Temporary Migration to the United States
    TEMPORARY MIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES NONIMMIGRANT ADMISSIONS UNDER U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW Temporary Migration to the United States: Nonimmigrant Admissions Under U.S. Immigration Law U.S. Immigration Report Series, Volume 2 About this Edition This document discusses nonimmigrants and the laws and regulations concerning their admission to the United States. The purpose of this report is to describe the various nonimmigrant categories and discuss the policy concerns surrounding these categories. Topics covered include: adjustment of status, temporary workers, work authorization, and visa overstays. The United States welcomes visitors to our country for a variety of purposes, such as tourism, education, cultural exchange, and temporary work. Admittance to the United States as a nonimmigrant is intended to be for temporary visits only. However, some nonimmigrants are permitted to change to a different nonimmigrant status or, in some cases, to permanent resident status. This report provides an overview of the reasons for visiting the United States on a temporary basis and the nexus between temporary visitor and permanent resident. Nonimmigrants – v. 06.a TEMPORARY MIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES: NONIMMIGRANT ADMISSIONS UNDER U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW Research and Evaluation Division U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office of Policy and Strategy January 2006 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared by staff in the Research and Evaluation Division of the Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, under the direction of David R. Howell, Deputy Chief, and Lisa S. Roney, Director of Evaluation and Research. The report was written by Rebecca S. Kraus. The following staff made significant contributions in the research for and review of this report: Lisa S.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Encyclopedia of American Immigration Table of Contents A Abolition movement Accent discrimination Acquired immune deficiency syndrome Adoption Affirmative action African Americans and European immigrants African immigrants Afroyim v. Rusk Alabama Alaska Albright, Madeleine Alien and Sedition Acts Alien land laws Alvarez, Julia Amerasian children Amerasian Homecoming Act American Colonization Society American Jewish Committee American Protectivist Association Americanization programs Angel Island immigration station Angell's Treaty Anglo-conformity Anti-Catholicism Anti-Chinese movement Anti-Defamation League Anti-Filipino violence Anti-Japanese movement Anti-Semitism Antimiscegenation laws Antin, Mary Arab immigrants Argentine immigrants Arizona Arkansas Art Asakura v. City of Seattle Asian American Legal Defense Fund Asian American literature Asian immigrants Asian Indian immigrants Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance Asiatic Barred Zone Asiatic Exclusion League Assimilation theories Association of Indians in America Astor, John Jacob Au pairs Australian and New Zealander immigrants Austrian immigrants Aviation and Transportation Security Act B Bayard-Zhang Treaty Belgian immigrants Bell, Alexander Graham Bellingham incident Berger v. Bishop Berlin, Irving Bilingual education Bilingual Education Act of 1968 Birth control movement Border fence Border Patrol Born in East L.A. Boston Boutilier v. Immigration and Naturalization Service Bracero program "Brain drain" Brazilian immigrants British immigrants Bureau of Immigration Burlingame Treaty Burmese immigrants C Cable Act California California gold rush Cambodian immigrants Canada vs. the U.S. as immigrant destinations Canadian immigrants Canals Capitation taxes Captive Thai workers Censuses, U.S. Center for Immigration Studies Chae Chan Ping v. United States Chain migration Chang Chan v. Nagle Cheung Sum Shee v. Nagle Chicago Chicano movement Child immigrants Chilean immigrants Chin Bak Kan v.
    [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]
  • Author Version for Repository
    Citation for publisher version: Ho, Calvin N. “Talent Selection and the Reshaping of Asian North America.” AAPI Nexus 15(1 & 2): 57-84. Resource Paper Talent Selection and the Reshaping of Asian North America Calvin N. Ho Abstract Policies that admit immigrants based on their education have dramatically reshaped the demographics of the United States and Canada. In the mid-1960s, facing pressures to open their borders to non-Europeans, both countries replaced previous policies of racial and nationality discrimination with new systems of socioeconomic discrimination. These policies explain the growth of Asian immigration from the 1970s onward, as well as the high levels of education among Asian immigrants and their descendants. Refugees and family migrants, however, added socioeconomic diversity. Recent developments in skilled immigrant selection programs will continue to shape Asian American and Asian Canadian demographics in the future. 1 Introduction In the United States and Canada today, the popular image of Asian immigrants and their descendants is a middle- to upper-class image. “Asian American whiz kids” dominating Ivy League universities, immigrant engineers quietly powering technology firms, and multimillionaires scooping up Vancouver real estate are some of the tropes that consistently appear in media about Asians in North America. The predominant stereotype is that Asians are wealthy, educated, “desirable” minorities, while other minority groups like blacks, indigenous North Americans, Latin Americans, and Middle Easterners are “undesirable”—poor, uneducated, and even dangerous. How did we get here, given that, for example, East Asians were considered the “yellow peril” in the mid-nineteenth century, South Asians were ruled as ineligible for U.S.
    [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]